Глава III. Управление

I. Introduction of management. – Metropolis and metropolitans. When they talk about our original church government, they usually take it for granted and naturally assumed that the Russian Church was administratively subordinate to the Greek Church. Why, passing in silence the very fact of this subordination, as not requiring explanation, they directly turn to speech about what and how it was expressed. In fact, this subordination does not at all constitute such a thing, which is self-evident. And the first speech, which should be in this chapter about our church government in the pre-Mongol period, is precisely a speech about the fact that the Russian Church at its founding did not receive independence and was administratively subordinated to the Greek Church. Questions about benefit and about right must be distinguished from one another. It may very well be that submission was useful for the Russian Church, but this is a different matter, and first we are talking about the right, taken separately and in itself. This speech is all the more not superfluous, since not all of us have a clear idea of ​​how law applies in this case. Church governance is composed, so to speak, of two elements - from what is divinely established in it, and from what is ordinary, human in it. It is God-established in church government that each individual Christian society, large or small, should have its own hierarchy, consisting of a bishop, presbyters and deacons. Everything else in it, which makes up the system of so-called administrative centralization, is of as much human origin as everything generally human, like all the orders of ordinary human or civil societies. Initially, each individual church community, no matter how small it was and even if it was located in one village or in one village, if it had its own bishop, was a completely independent church and not dependent on anyone. For it was a completely complete separate church 497). According to this divinely established order, which does not presuppose anything more than a separate, large or small, community with a bishop at its head, the universal church was a collection of the same countless number of independent and independent, united and united only by the bonds of brotherly love and nothing more, separate churches, as there were communities in it. But since people, by their nature imperfect, are not able to realize divine ideals and cannot maintain peace and good order in their midst with the spirit of love alone, then what was established by God in the church soon needed to be supplemented with human ones, namely, in the likeness of civil societies, to introduce into it a system of subordination and administrative centralization. This system of centralization, being in its origin not at all divine, but ordinary human, has in the church exactly the same meaning and authority that in ordinary civil societies or, in other words, the church is completely equated with these latter. Everything human, whether in the state or in the church, acts and can act only within the limits of ordinary human rights. Consequently, church government in the entire scope of its administrative centralization, which is not divine in it, but is simply human, is completely equivalent and unambiguous with state government and is limited to the same scope of rights as this second, no more, no less. In the state sphere, in relation to the international issue between people that concerns us, it is firmly recognized and generally accepted - firstly, that one state has no right to encroach on the subordination of another, and secondly, that each state at home has the full right to manage its affairs completely independently and independently of anyone. These two general provisions have exactly the same meaning both in the purely state area and in the church area, since the latter (in the full scope of its administrative centralization) is not a strictly ecclesiastical area, but a church-state area. Just as no state has the right to encroach on the subordination of another, and just as each state has the right to manage its internal affairs completely independently, so, literally, one might say, a parallel to this, no single church has the right to encroach on the subordination of another, and each individual church has the right to arrange its internal affairs completely independently of anyone. The scope and essence of rights in the latter case are absolutely the same as in the first, for in the church in this case it is not divine law, which does not extend here at all, but ordinary human law. Thus, the separate Greek church had exactly the same right to subjugate the separate Russian church as the Greek state had the right to subjugate the Russian state, i.e., it did not have the slightest and no right at all 498. And yet, this subordination not only took place, but, as must be assumed, was presented on the part of the Greeks as a completely natural and natural matter - as a matter that should have been so. How could this happen? In the realm of the church, as well as in the realm of the state, people retain a tendency to abuse their rights, exaggerating their meaning and reinterpreting them at will. In the Greco-Roman Church, not on the basis of any divine instructions, but simply by human will, a system of administrative centralization was established, which at its highest level consisted of five patriarchates. These administrative five patriarchates, which had all their significance for the Greco-Roman Church, for which and for which they were established, had as much significance for other churches as the fact that the Greco-Roman Empire was divided into such, and not another, number of governor-generals (dioceses) was significant for other states. That is, decisively and absolutely nothing. But the Greeks, who for some time represented almost the entire universal church, for the Christian universe for some time was entirely contained within the Greco-Roman empire, had the claim to look at these patriarchates, which concerned them and no one else, as an administrative system that had to embrace the entire universal church. And at the same time, since the ecumenical councils speak about patriarchates, their establishment should be carried out not from one’s own will, but from the Divine will acting through these latter. “The ecumenical councils established five patriarchates for the entire universal church,” that is, in other words, the ecumenical councils allegedly determined that all churches in the universe should be under the jurisdiction of the Greco-Roman Church - such were the views, claims and assurances of the later Greeks 499. These claims were completely equivalent to the Greeks saying that ecumenical councils subordinated all the states in the world to their Greek state. But since, in inventing claims, they exclusively acquired for themselves the right and judgment regarding their fidelity, then people new to Christianity and who did not know their rights had no choice but to agree with them. “I tell you that you are obliged to pay me money; you should not doubt your duty, for I am telling you this, and I know your duties,” - it was in this somewhat original form that the matter 500 took place. Thus, the Greek Church had absolutely no right to subjugate the Russian Church, and the latter had absolutely no obligation to recognize the power of the Greek Church over itself. But this is not enough. Explaining all the rights that the Russians had in this case - which, perhaps, is not directly related to our subject, but which is not superfluous for the sake of completeness - we must say much more. The rights of individual churches in organizing their internal administration, as we said above, are exactly the same as the rights in this regard of individual states, for in both cases they are exactly the same. Just as the structure of the administration of each state belongs exclusively to itself and no one else, so to the same extent the structure of the internal administration of each individual church belongs exclusively to itself and no one else. Consequently, the Russian Church not only had the right to be completely independent and independent, but also to arrange its internal administration the way it wanted and seemed best, solely of its own free will. By saying this last, we think to say not only that the Russians, not daring to surpass the Greeks or even equal them, could only imitate them to some extent, but that they certainly had the unlimited right to do as they themselves wanted. In the Greco-Roman Empire, the system of church administration consisted of dividing the entire area of ​​the church into five patriarchates with subordinate metropolitanates. The Russians had every right to establish not only the same five patriarchates, but even more and generally as many as they themselves wished 501. Instead of the system of patriarchates with metropolises, they had the right to introduce some other system 502; in a word, they had the right to organize their church administration completely independently of the Greeks and their example, solely by their own reason and at their own discretion. This is how the question of pure law arises. We have already said above and here again (for some readers) we repeat that right and benefit are completely different things and completely separate from one another. When deciding the question of law, we mean one pure right and nothing more. As for whether the dependence of the Russian Church on the Greek Church was good for the first or evil, then we will answer this special question in itself. The first establishment of church government in our country, about which, unfortunately, our initial chronicle says nothing at all, is still covered in the darkness of complete uncertainty, that the Greeks proposed to Vladimir and together demanded from him that the Russian Church be subordinated to the Greek Church as its metropolis - this must be assumed. That Vladimir could not answer or object to them from canon law, which he did not know at all, this is also assumed by itself. From all this it should be concluded that the Russian Church became the metropolis of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, by which we only know it, from the very first introduction of church government in our country. But there is reason to think that initially this was not the case, namely, that the Russian Church initially received independence or independence with the title of its highest primate, archbishop, which title, according to its later use among the Greeks, was borne by the primates of private churches, independent of their five patriarchs 503. Two of our ancient writers are the monk Jacob, about whom we spoke above, and St. Nestor of Pechersk, speaking about our ancient metropolitans, gives them, along with the title of metropolitan, the title of archbishop. Namely, the first of them, in his Tale of the Passion of the holy martyrs Boris and Gleb, calls either metropolitan or archbishop Metropolitan John, who was the second highest primate of our church. And the latter in his Life calls the same martyrs by one or another name, Metropolitans John and George 504. From the first supreme leader of our church, Leon or Leo, we have one essay in Greek. In the inscription of most currently known copies of the work it reads: Λέοντος μητροπολίτου. But in the inscription of one list, instead of μητροπολίτου there is άρχιεπισκόπου 505. And since the later transformation of αρχιεπισκόπου into μητροπολίτου - we know the work in the later lists - will be completely understandable for us, and the reverse transformation from μητροπολίτου into ἀρχιεπίσκοπου will remain far from entirely clear: then the second should be considered the most likely initial reading. But monk Jacob and Rev. Nestor could not assign the title of archbishop to our metropolitans, and Metropolitan Lev could not assign this title to himself for no reason at all, because the titles: archbishop and metropolitan were not at all unambiguous or identical titles. How to explain this? It can be explained by two assumptions: either that the Greeks gave the Russians, when establishing their church, an ordinary metropolitan, subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople, but they only honored and distinguished the metropolitan from other metropolitans with the title of archbishop without the rights associated with it, i.e. they gave only a titular archbishop, so to speak. Or that they gave them a real, truly autocephalous, archbishop, i.e. At the first establishment of the Russian Church, it was recognized that it was independent from the Patriarch of Constantinople or independent. But it does not seem probable to us to assume the former. On the one hand, because the Greeks did not have such titular archbishops, and on the other hand, and most importantly, because it will remain completely incomprehensible to us why the primates of the Russian Church did not retain the honorary title of archbishop, as their ordinary title. That is, why didn’t they begin to be called archbishops instead of metropolitans? To assume the latter is not particularly improbable. We said above that against the demands of the Greeks that the Russian Church be subordinated to the Greek Church as its metropolis, Vladimir could not object to anything from pure canon law, since he did not know it at all. But he could seek and demand independence for the Russian Church, relying not on the law that he did not know, but on the example that he saw. In front of him was the Bulgarian Church, which was exactly the same as the Russian Church, i.e. as much new and recent. Since this latter had an autocephalous archbishop, it was natural for Vladimir to demand that the Russian Church be given the same thing that was given to it. We know that the Greeks were forced to give autocephaly to the Bulgarian metropolitans by political necessity 506. But in a similar way, Vladimir negotiated with them about his church government from the city taken from them and while the emperors of Constantinople were in great need of his military help. In the first case, the need was joined by voluntary favor on the part of the emperor due to the fact that the marriage of the Bulgarian sovereign with the Greek princess took place. But the same thing happened in the second case 507. Thus, we repeat, there is reason to think that at the first establishment of the Russian Church, the Greeks recognized its independence and independence, giving it an autocephalous archbishop. But if you agree to accept this, then from the same monk Jacob and St. Nestor will follow that the period of independent existence of the Russian Church was extremely short. That it was only a fleeting episode, which was limited to just a few years, and ended either soon after the death of Saint Vladimir or even during his lifetime. We said that John, who was the second highest primate of the Russian Church after Leon or Leo, is called by James and Nestor either an archbishop or a metropolitan: In relation to his predecessor, on the basis of this we must conclude that he was a real archbishop, because otherwise it would remain inexplicable to us where he (John) got the title of archbishop. But in relation to him himself, it follows that he was no longer a real archbishop, but, being so titled in an improper sense and only as if by inheritance, was already a metropolitan. For to assign the title of metropolitan to a real archbishop would mean to humiliate and belittle his dignity. To allow such a fleeting episode of the independent existence of the Russian Church is apparently very strange and very incredible; in fact, there will be nothing strange or incredible in this. The later Greeks recognized autocephaly or independence for the churches of the peoples who accepted Christianity from them, only with the greatest reluctance, when they were forced or prompted to do so by special circumstances (the example of the Bulgarians and Serbs, about which see in our mentioned book “Brief Essay”): To Vladimir, at the moment of borrowing the hierarchy from them, for the circumstances we have indicated, they were forced to give autocephaly of his Russian Church, but soon they could decide to take this gift back. Russia was a country, the church power over which should have seemed extremely important to the Greeks for both ecclesiastical and political reasons: in the first case, the patriarchs of Constantinople could count on, in case of need, collecting through the metropolitans in a vast country a rich voitia (βοήθεια) or making monetary collections in it; in the second case, they could count on the Russians as their allies and assistants in their constant struggle against numerous enemies surrounding them on all sides. For these reasons, it was very possible that, having been forced to give the Russian Church autocephaly at its very establishment, they immediately then began to try to subjugate it to themselves. They could have achieved this autocratically, forcing the Russians to recognize their ecclesiastical authority; They could have achieved this in such a way as to persuade the Russians to recognize their power voluntarily. As for the possibility of the first case, all further behavior of the Russians towards the Greeks, not only during the pre-Mongol period, but also after, confirms to us that they would not have offered decisive resistance to the Greeks (as the Bulgarians did in our case). As for the second case, the Greeks could convince the Russians to voluntarily recognize their power by depicting its usefulness and necessity for them, as for a new people in Christianity. If we assume the first case, then we will have to think that it took place after the death of St. Vladimir, because it is incredible to allow the Greeks to decide to forcibly encroach on the independence of the Russian Church even under him. If we assume our case, the time of the Greek encroachment on the independence of the Russian Church would have to be considered the first years of the reign of Yaroslav, when he was not yet the great Yaroslav that he later became 508. If we assume the second case, then it is very possible that it took place even under Vladimir himself, and that at the same time his wife, the sister of the emperors, helped the Greeks quite a lot. Our assumption of an episode of autocephaly is not particularly firm and we do not insist on it in a strong way (although without it we are not able to satisfactorily explain to ourselves where the title of archbishop came from for our metropolitans). But, in any case, we repeat that the episode should not be mistaken for something impossible and incredible 509. Leaving this brief episode of autocephaly, if only it took place, and turning to what became after it or was established in reality from the very beginning, we find that the Russian Church did not form itself in relation to the government of an independent private church, but was annexed to the Greek Church, as an administrative part of the latter, namely, that out of its entirety one metropolitanate was made and that as such it was subordinated to the Patriarch of Constantinople along with all others its Greek metropolises proper. The Russian Church was a completely exceptional metropolis of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. For, on the one hand, there was precisely a whole private church, embracing an entire independent state, and on the other hand, in its vastness it not only surpassed the entire Patriarchate of Constantinople with all its metropolises, but was also completely equal, or perhaps only slightly not equal to the entire Greek Church with all its four patriarchates. Therefore, it was natural that the Russian Church, as a metropolis of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, should be distinguished from other, actually Greek, metropolises of the patriarchate by some special advantages. Turning to reality, we find that, on the one hand, this was actually the case, and on the other hand, that it was completely not so; in general, we find a sharp contradiction and some decisive contrast, which we are not able to explain. The famous George Kodin tells us that the patriarchs of Constantinople sent letters to all their metropolitans with wax seals (κηρόβουλλα) and only to one Russian metropolitan with a lead seal (μολιβδόβουλλον) 510: this this means, as can be seen from the same Kodin, that in our case the Russian metropolitan was equated with autocephalous archbishops. At the same time, one should expect that the Russian Metropolitan was given the highest place among all the metropolitans, that he was placed even outside the ranks of the Greek metropolitans, in a special place between them and the Patriarch. But none of this happened at all; in the senior lists or catalogs of metropolitans of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Russian metropolitans occupied a very low place among other metropolitans: in the oldest known catalog they are in 61st place 511, and then they were demoted by as many as nine places 512. To this we also have separate evidence that when the Russian metropolitans visited Constantinople and were present at the patriarchal councils, they did not at all occupy the first place among other metropolitans 513. So, the Russian Church, having not received administrative independence, but having been subordinated to the Greek Church (becoming administratively part of another private church), received a supreme leader in the person of the Patriarch of Constantinople. The rights of this latter in relation to the Russian Church were the same as to other, properly Greek, metropolitanates, for, as an administrative metropolitanate, it was completely equated with these latter. These rights were as follows: 1) The Patriarch supplied metropolitans - a point that requires special speech, and which we will talk about in more detail below; 2) the patriarch was the head of the metropolitans, and precisely in such a way that he did not have the right to interfere with their internal activities, as long as this latter did not represent anything illegal and incorrect 514, but he had the right and at the same time was obliged to stop them, call them to trial and subject them to punishment if they committed actions that were incorrect and illegal; 3) gathered metropolitans to regional councils to discuss church affairs and the needs of their region 515; 4) as the highest court, accepted an appeal to the metropolitan court, and finally, 5) not on the basis of direct canonical rules, but on the basis of custom, which appeared in addition to the rules and thought to rely on them indirectly, he had the right of so-called stauropegy, namely, the right to take over all the limits of his district under his direct jurisdiction, freeing from the power of local metropolitans and bishops, individual monasteries and churches 516. We said above that the right of the patriarch to appoint metropolitans requires a special speech. In the 10th century, when we adopted Christianity, and in subsequent times, the Patriarchs of Constantinople did not use this right quite as it was established by the canonical rules, and from this disagreement of later practice with the rules in relation to us, the Russians, a completely significant difference emerged. The canonical rules give patriarchs only the right to consecrate metropolitans after they have been elected and presented to them; the very election according to them must be carried out by the diocesan councils of bishops of each metropolis 517. On the contrary, in the 10th century. and after that the patriarchs not only consecrated metropolitans, but also elected them, namely, with the council of bishops who were with them. It is clear that there is a significant difference between practice and rules as applied to us. According to the rules, the Russian metropolitan should be elected by a council of Russian bishops; therefore, he would be elected from among the natural Russians. But the practice was that the Russian metropolitan was elected by the patriarch with the council of bishops who were with him, and the consequence of this was that our metropolitans were Greeks sent from Constantinople. Thus, it turns out that they, the Greeks, not only subjugated the Russian Church without any right, but, strictly speaking, violated actual rights even in the case when they forced us to have metropolitans from among them, and not from natural Russians. To what extent, however, was all this evil for us, we will answer this question below. The main and most important among the morals now indicated, obviously, was the non-canonical right of patriarchs to elect Russian metropolitans. As for the patriarch’s own superior relations to the Russian Church, they should have been, as can be seen from the above, very limited: the patriarch had no right to interfere in the internal affairs of the Russian Church and could exercise his power in relation to it only in those cases when its affairs and the actions of its metropolitans represented something illegal and incorrect. It is clear that this could not happen often, and at the same time it is clear that this could not be such interference on the part of the patriarchs in the affairs of the Russian Church, which should have been considered painful for it. The patriarchs used and certainly wanted to use the right to elect Russian metropolitans, as a result of which during the entire pre-Mongol period our metropolitans were not from natural Russians, but from Greeks, with the exception of two cases when our bishops, at the insistence of the civil government, took away his right from the patriarch. We do not know how diligently the patriarchs wanted to interfere in the internal affairs of the Russian Church when they were given legitimate reasons for doing so; but, in any case, very little is known about their intervention. Regarding the travel of our metropolitans to patriarchal councils, the demand of which on the part of the patriarchs was their right, we have no information. Moreover, we have no information about how often these councils were convened by the patriarchs during our pre-Mongol period 518. What exactly is known about the manifestations of the power of the Patriarchs of Constantinople in relation to the Russian Church during the pre-Mongol period, with the exception of the election and installation of metropolitans, we will talk about this below, and now let’s turn to these latter. In the system of Greek church government, the metropolitan corresponded to the civil governor, and the bishops subordinate to him corresponded to the district secular commanders. Each district city had its own bishop, whose power covered the city and the district belonging to it; each provincial city had its own metropolitan, whose power extended to all the bishoprics that were part of the civil province 519. The power of the metropolitans in relation to the bishops who composed their metropolises or church provinces was the same as the power of the patriarchs in relation to the metropolitans, differing from this latter only in the matter of electing bishops. The election of metropolitans belonged, that is, should have belonged, not to the patriarchs with the council of bishops who were with them, but to the councils of bishops of the metropolises themselves. On the contrary, the election of bishops did not belong to the councils of presbyters of each bishopric, but to the same councils of bishops of each metropolis 520. Without interfering in the internal affairs of his bishops, in which the bishops had the same independence as the metropolitans, 521 and in respect of which only one exception was made, the metropolitan had supreme supervision over the bishops, having the right and obligation to subject them to trial and punishment in the event of one or another of their faults, and, of course, to depose them in the case of their grave guilt and complete worthlessness. In both cases, the court had to be carried out not by the metropolitan alone, but not otherwise than with the participation of the council of bishops of his metropolis 522. Just as the patriarchs had the right of appeal to the court of the metropolitans, so in turn the metropolitans had the right of appeal to the court of the bishops subordinate to them. All matters of this latter kind, just as they should judge the bishops themselves, must be discussed only in a conciliar manner, that is, with the council of other bishops of their region. Direct intervention in the affairs of subordinate bishops, which we spoke about, was allowed and prescribed to metropolitans regarding the economic economy of the bishops. The Seventh Ecumenical Council, confirming the canonical definition of the previous time, that each church (i.e., each bishopric) should have its own special steward for economic affairs, prescribes that if any bishop does not want to appoint one himself, then the district metropolitan must appoint him with his own authority (pr. 11). The conciliar definition of Patriarch Alexei in 1028 is also known behind this, however, it probably had the meaning of only a temporary measure caused by circumstances that allowed and ordered metropolitans to actively and directly intervene in the economic affairs of the bishoprics under their jurisdiction 523 . Since, according to canonical decrees, bishops could not do anything important without the will and consent of the metropolitans, and these latter, on the contrary, as we have just said, could not do anything without the knowledge and consent of the council of bishops subordinate to them: as a result of this, the need arose for diocesan or provincial (metropolitan) church councils to meet as often as possible. Until the end of the 7th century. It was the rule that these councils met twice a year 524; The sixth ecumenical council, for various reasons, found it forced to appoint 525 once instead of twice, which remained the rule for the future. The original all-Russian or Kiev chronicle, according to the oldest edition that has come down to us, the Laurentian-Ipatian one, says nothing about the establishment of a metropolitanate in our country and about our first metropolitan; going through in complete silence the history of our receiving the church hierarchy, she mentions the metropolitan for the first time randomly only in 1039 526. Then, we have two conflicting news about our first metropolitan: the chronicle of the Novgorod rulers (bishops - archbishops) 527, later editions of the original chronicle found in the Sophia Chronicle (Sofia Vremennik) and Voskresenskaya and part of the lists of the so-called Vladimirov charter say that our first metropolitan was Leon, who, according to us editions of the original chronicle, was sent to Vladimir from Constantinople in 991. The so-called Degree Book, a later edition of the original Kyiv chronicle, found in the Nikonov chronicle and another part of the lists of Vladimirov’s charter say that our first metropolitan was Michael, who, according to the first two, was brought by Vladimir himself from Korsun in 988 and had Leon, who was the second according to them, as his successor. In both cases, there is actually one piece of evidence: in the first group the chronicle of the Novgorod rulers is repeated, in the second - the Degree Book. Regarding the first group, we do not need to prove this, but as for the second, the Nikon Chronicle in this case reproduces the Degree Book almost literally. And the charter of Vladimirs, which in fact did not belong to Vladimir (as discussed below), indicates its source by the fact that it has Michael only in the later (after the Degree Book appeared) lists. Whereas in the most ancient ones - Leona. The question is: which of the two evidence should be given preference? In our opinion, there is no doubt that the chronicles of the Novgorod rulers. The keeping of this chronicle, which speaks about the first metropolitan regarding the installation of the first bishop in Novgorod, was started either by a contemporary of the latter’s disciples or directly by a student of his disciple 528, that is, in general, a person so close to the time of the first metropolitan who could not possibly have known his name. On the contrary, the Degree Book was compiled in the 16th century. and at the same time it is known for its historically extreme poor quality 529. What basis and what justification will we have for preferring evidence that is new and coming from a completely dubious source to evidence that is very ancient and almost modern? That is, wouldn’t this be decisively contrary to all rules and all requirements of historical criticism? The news of the Degree Book about Metropolitan Mikhail is striking at first glance in its strangeness: Metropolitan Mikhail, according to it, brought six bishops with him from Greece. However, having brought bishops with him, he did not establish episcopal sees - this is done according to it, as well as according to the editions of the original chronicle, which are called the first metropolitan of Leon, only this last one. A metropolitan who does not do what he should have done does not suggest that he arose and was placed ahead of the actual first metropolitan due to some misunderstanding? When we go looking for this misunderstanding, we actually find it. A misunderstanding is dependent on another misunderstanding. In all our chronicles and monuments without exception, speaking about our first metropolitan, that is, both one and the other group, it is stated that he was sent to us or received by us from Patriarch Photius, who died a whole century before Vladimir (891) 530. The Reverend Philaret explains this inconsistency by the fact that the name Photius is used by the chroniclers not in the sense of a living person, but, following the example of Bulgaria, in the figurative sense of a representative of Greek Orthodoxy as opposed to Latin heterodoxy 531. But, firstly, the ancients were not at all in the habit of using such allegories. Secondly, we had absolutely nothing to oppose Greek Orthodoxy and absolutely nothing is known about the example of Bulgaria itself. In general, recognizing the explanation of Eminence Philaret as strained and untenable, it is necessary to explain the matter much more simply. It is necessary to think that our ancestors had in their hands in the Slavic translation the district message of Patriarch Photius (Ἐγκύκλιοσ ἐπιστολή) 532. In this message, Photius, among other things, reports information about the baptism of Russians contemporary to him, definitely unknown to us, who, after the unsuccessful siege of Constantinople, decided to accept Christianity, i.e. those Russians about whom we spoke above in the chapter about Askold and Dir. It is he who writes: “not only the Bulgarians exchanged their former wickedness for faith in Christ, but even those many times glorified by many and leaving behind them in cruelty and nasty murder of everyone, the so-called Russians, who, having enslaved those around them and hence thinking highly of themselves, raised their hands against the Roman state, - at the present time even these have exchanged the Hellenic and wicked teaching that they previously contained, for pure and genuine Christian faith, lovingly placing yourself in the rank of subjects and friends (ours), instead of robbing us and the great insolence against us that they had not long ago; and the desire and zeal of faith flared up in them to such an extent that they accepted the bishop and the shepherd and kiss the beliefs of Christians with great zeal and diligence.” It is necessary to think that our chroniclers, through misunderstanding and ignorance, took these speeches of Patriarch Photius about the Russians of his time as speeches about our Kievan Russians with Vladimir at the head, and that in these speeches they saw evidence that the metropolitan was sent to Vladimir by Patriarch Photius. Thus, in the chronicle of the Novgorod rulers, which spoke about our first metropolitan, but did not say from which patriarch he was sent, it was added that he was sent from Patriarch Photius 533. We don’t know when the addition was made, but no later than the 13th century, for in the list of Vladimirov’s charter from the second half of this century it is already read: “I received holy baptism from the Greek king and from Photius the Patriarch of Constantinople, took the first metropolitan Leon of Kyiv.”... The compiler of the Book of Degrees read in the Novgorod Chronicle (which he himself repeats - I, 134 fin. and 145), that the first metropolitan was received by us from Patriarch Photius. But, at the same time, in his other sources he found that the metropolitan given by Photius the Russian was called not Leon, but Michael. Greek chroniclers in their currently known lists do not name the bishop sent by Patriarch Photius to his contemporary Russians by name, but in our Slavic legends, referring to Zonara and Kuropalatus or Skylitzes, we do not know on what basis he is called Metropolitan Michael: “in the summer of 886,” we read in the Gustine Chronicle, “Metropolitan Michael came to Rus', sent from Basil the Macedon, King of Greece and Patriarch Photius, who assured Rus' that the gospel would be cast into fire and not burnt out, and by this miracle, the horrors of Rus' and many crosses” (Collected Chronicles II, 239). The same is repeated in all articles about the so-called five baptisms of the Russians or Slavic-Russians (under the Apostle Andrew, under Cyril and Melody, under Photius, under Olga and under Vladimir). Precisely - in the same Gustin Chronicle, ibid. p. 253, in the preface to the printed Patericon of Pechersk, in the Synopsis, in the Palinodia of Zecharia Kopystensky 534, from it in the Book of Faith (chapter 3), and from this last one in Nikon’s Helmsman. The aforementioned legends clearly state that Metropolitan Michael was sent by the Russians from Patriarch Photius not under Vladimir, but much earlier. But the compiler of the Degree Book preferred to believe the Novgorod Chronicle, chronicles and monuments repeating it (the charter of Vladimir, which, as we said, he himself repeats) 535. Thus, he had two certificates about our first metropolitan, received from Patriarch Photius, and he had to decide which certificate was more correct. He decided that the most correct testimony is the one that calls him Michael. At the same time, the motives that could force him to lean in favor of such a decision are also clear: In the later editions of the original chronicle, which call Leon the first metropolitan, it is said that he was received by Vladimir in 991. Meanwhile, according to these editions, as well as the oldest, Vladimir himself was baptized in Korsun in 988. Consequently, according to these editions from the baptism of Vladimirov before Leon's arrival there was a period of time without a metropolitan. Finding in his news another metropolitan besides Leon, i.e. Michael, the compiler naturally suspected that there was a gap in our editions of the original chronicle and that the empty interval should be filled with precisely the other metropolitan whom he found in the legends 536 . So, our first metropolitan was Leon or Lev, sent to Vladimir from Constantinople in 991. Consequently, - from Patriarch Nicholas Chrysovergus, who occupied the see from 983 to 996. Why could it happen that the Greeks sent Vladimir the metropolitan not to Korsun immediately after he entered into relations with them, but three whole years after the campaign against Korsun. That is, as if incomprehensibly delaying the establishment of church government in Russia, we have already said above: Not just one metropolitan was sent, but also the entire required number of bishops, and with each of the latter a larger or smaller, if possible sufficient, staff of priests. It obviously took quite a lot of time to find and recruit all the necessary people, so even three whole years should not present anything particularly strange. Leon's first task upon arriving in Rus' was the establishment of church administration, the opening of dioceses and the installation of bishops - we will talk about this below. Then, it is necessary to think, although we do not have positive news, that he may have actively assisted Vladimir in the baptism of Rus'. Finally, he is known as a writer who left behind one polemical work against the Latins, which we will also talk about below, and which, with its scientific and literary merits, shows that he was not a man who came across by chance, but was actually chosen in a deliberate way and with special diligence. He died unknown when after 1004 and before 1008 537. The original all-Russian chronicle, according to the oldest edition that has reached us, does not speak about our first metropolitan, whom we learn about from the local Novgorod chronicle (the chronicle of the Novgorod rulers). She does not speak about metropolitans, as we said, and then until 1039. Then, in it itself and in its continuations, covering the pre-Mongol period, according to the same ancient editions of the latter, the matter is as follows: the chronicles do not at all keep a deliberate list of metropolitans, with a mark of their continuous change; Some metropolitans have the years of arrival or installation and the years of death marked in them, other metropolitans have just one year marked, either the first or the second, and finally, third ones are mentioned only at random. The original chronicle in its news about the metropolitans, both for the time before 1039 and subsequent, is somewhat supplemented partly from later editions and partly from some ancient lives. The news that we find in the continuations of the original chronicle according to their oldest editions remains our only news, not being supplemented from anywhere else. Based on ancient chronicles with the indicated additions, a catalog of metropolitans of the pre-Mongol period is compiled, consisting of 21 persons. For the space of time embraced by the pre-Mongol period, this catalog is, of course, not short. But for it to be completely complete, as some assume, this is not at all a decided matter, for the chronicles, as we said, do not contain a deliberate continuous list of metropolitans and some of them are mentioned only randomly. And indeed we find some later sources that assure us that the catalog should be further supplemented by at least three persons. Zecharia Kopystensky, governor and then archimandrite of Pechersk († 1626), placed in his Palinodia 538 a catalog of metropolitans, in the compilation of which he used not only chronicles, but also the “Kyiv Capital Commemoration Book”. That is a memorial or diptych of metropolitans kept at their cathedral Kiev-Sophia Church, and from this memorial he tells us the names of three metropolitans unknown to us from the chronicles 539. If the commemoration book that was in Kopystensky’s hands was not the original, but, as is most likely, a later correspondence, then, of course, metropolitans who never existed could have been included in it, entered arbitrarily and erroneously by copyists. However, for the actual existence of all three of his metropolitans, superfluous against the chronicles, very much or, at least, quite a lot is said by the fact that we find all of them in the later Moscow lists of 540 metropolitans, compiled, in all likelihood, with the help of memorials of some bishops (in which, as one must think, the names of metropolitans were written along with the names of local bishops) - these lists are known to us: under Nikon chronicles, - Complete Collection of Chronicles, vol. IX, p. XIII, and according to the old separate edition, vol. I adj. p. 3, with the Resurrection Chronicle, – Complete Collection vol. VII, p. 239, in the Novgorod 1st Chronicle according to the Academic List, - Continuations of Bethliofika, part II, p. 316, printed from one Novgorod manuscript in the 3rd issue of the Chronicle of the Archaeographic Commission, Dept. III, p. 41, found in the manuscript of the Moscow Theological Academy from Volokolamsk No. 529, l. 659. While not recognizing the existence of extra metropolitans of Kopystensky and the lists as completely undoubted, on the other hand, we do not find it at all possible or reasonable to treat them with complete disbelief. We will include them in our catalog below, leaving the issue of them (of course, not particularly important) to be finally decided by the future tense 541. There are, as we said, 21 known metropolitans who are not in doubt, and with three who are not in doubt there will be 24. Their series after Leon is as follows: 2. John 1, according to evidence that is not entirely reliable, took the see no later than 1008. 542, and according to completely reliable evidence, he occupied it in the first years of the reign of Yaroslav 543 (who was 1019–1054). 3. Theopemptus, mentioned under 1039. 544. 4. Cyril 1, not mentioned in the chronicles, but listed in the Kiev-Sophia commemoration book, which was used by Kopystensky, and in the Moscow lists of metropolitans of the Nikon Chronicle, printed in the Chronicles of the Archaeographic Commission and read in the Volokolamsk manuscript No. 529. 5. Hilarion, installed in 1051. 6. Ephraim, mentioned under 1055. 545. 7. George, mentioned under 1072 and 1073. 546. 8. John the 2nd, who arrived, according to some later sources, before 1077. or no later than this year 547 and died in 1089. 548. 9 . John 3, successor of the previous one, arrived in 1089. or 1090g. 549 and died after a year's reign. 10. Nicholas, mentioned under 1097. and 1101 550. 11. Nikephoros 1, arrived on December 6, 1104. and died in April 1121. (Lavrentievskaya and Ipatskaya) 551. 12. Niketas, successor of Nikephoros, arrived in 1122. (Lavrentievskaya and Ipatskaya) and died on March 9, 1126. (Lavrentievskaya, along Ipatskaya - in 1127) 552. 13. Michael, according to the Hypatan Chronicle, arrived in 1131, but it is more likely that at least no later than 1129. 553, who left the department and retired to Constantinople in 1145. (Lavrentyevskaya). 14. Klim or Clement, Michael's successor, installed in 1147, after repeated removal from the department, finally leaving it in 1155. and mentioned as living under 1164. (see below) 554 . 15. Constantine 1, successor of Clement, who came in 1156. after the month of April (Laurentian and Ipatian, cfr Novgorod 1st Chronicle) 555, retired from the department in 1158. and died in 1159. (Lavrentyevskaya and Novgorodskaya 1). 16. Theodore, successor of Constantine, who came in August 1161. (Ipatskaya), who sat at the pulpit for either a year and 10 months or just 10 months and died in 1162. or 1163 556. 17. John 4, successor of Theodore, who came in 1164. (Ipatskaya), and died in 1166. (Novgorodskaya 1; according to Tatishchev, taken from nowhere, III, 146, – May 12). 18. Constantine 2, successor of John, who came in 1167. (Novgorod) and later mentioned in connection with one event, which the Laurentian Chronicle dates back to 1169, and the Ipatskaya Chronicle to 1172. 19. Nikephoros 2, mentioned from 1182 to 1197. (Final years in Ipatskaya). In one of the Greek manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library, the resolution of the Patriarchal Council of Constantinople, which took place under Patriarch Michael Anchial on March 24, 1171, is read, and among the other metropolitans present at the conciliar meeting, Michael the Russian is named (Μιχαήλ Ῥ ωσίας ) 557 . Since it is absolutely incredible to believe that this was the previous Michael, who was still alive and present at the council as a former Russian metropolitan, it is necessary to take him for Michael 2, the successor of Konstantinov and the predecessor of Nikiforov. But we do not dare yet put him directly under the number due to the complete absence of his name in any of our monuments, since it remains possible to assume that he was installed in Constantinople as a Russian metropolitan, but did not come to Russia because of his imminent death or for some other reason. Neither one nor the other is mentioned in the chronicles, but both of them, according to Kopystensky, are in the Kiev-Sophia memorial, and are equally found in all the Moscow lists we mentioned above. The second of them, Dionysius, is mentioned by one of the chronicles, precisely the so-called Typographical 558, but only puts him under the year in which, according to the Laurentian Chronicle, there was another metropolitan (under 1210, in which, according to the Laurentian Chronicle, Matthew is next) 559. 22. Matthew, mentioned for the first time in 1210. (Lavrentievskaya) and died on August 22, 1220. (Lavrentyevskaya) 560. 23. Cyril 2, delivered in January 1224. (Lavrentyevskaya), who died in 1233 (Novgorodskaya 1) 561. 24. Joseph, who arrived in 1237 (Novgorodskaya 1) and then no longer mentioned. The usual way of installing Russian metropolitans during the pre-Mongol period was that they were not only consecrated, but also elected by the patriarchs of Constantinople. Therefore, they all had to be Greeks. But there could be exceptions, of which we know two from the chronicles, and which consisted in the fact that the Russians themselves elected their metropolitans and installed them at home as their bishops without relations with the patriarchs. Whether or not there were other exceptions, except for the two well-known ones, we cannot say in a positive way, for the information that we have about the metropolitans is very incomplete and very insufficient. There could be other cases similar to these; There could also be cases where candidates for metropolitans were elected in Russia and from among the Russians and were only consecrated by the patriarch. It is usually assumed that there were neither the first cases, except for the two known ones, nor the second. To assume this is indeed the most probable. However, we must not forget that this is only probable and that in view of the extreme, so to speak, negligence of the chronicles regarding news about metropolitans and in view of the omission of such an extremely important event as the coming to us from Greece of the first metropolitan, the probability cannot be considered paramount. There is every reason and every right to accept that the metropolitans, whose accession to the see is noted in the chronicles and whose accession is spoken of as a parish: “the metropolitan will come”..., were all Greeks (although metropolitans elected in Russia and from the Russians and only consecrated by the patriarch would also come). There are 9 such metropolitans, namely: John 3, Nikephoros 1562, Nikita, Michael, Constantine 1, Theodore, John 4, Constantine 2, and Joseph 563. Of the remaining 9, with the exception of the first Leon, two Russians installed in Russia (Hilarion and Clement) and three of the Kiev-Sophia commemorator Kopystensky (Cyril 1, Gabriel and Dionysius), one, namely Cyril 2, is said to be “ordained”, and nothing is said about the remaining 8, because their accessions to the department are not noted at all in the annals. About Cyril, whose introduction is indicated by the word “installed,” it is directly said that he was a Greek, and thus the chronicles in this way do not determine for us the nationalities of the 8 metropolitans about whom they speak. Of these 8 metropolitans, about two, namely Johns 1 and 2, it is positively known that they were Greeks 564, and about the third, George, this can be positively affirmed on the basis of evidence, although not direct, but completely sufficient 565, and finally, about the third, Nikephoros 2, some indirect indications suggest this to be suspected 566. Consequently, we do not have any data to determine the nationality of the 7 metropolitans - the four mentioned in the chronicles (Theopempt, Ephraim, Nicholas and Matthew) and the three of the Kiev-Sophia commemoration. If it must be accepted as most probable that in the pre-Mongol period we had no other cases of the installation of metropolitans in Rus' itself, except for two well-known ones; then at the same time, regarding the nationality of the 7 now indicated metropolitans, it is most likely that they were all Greeks; only with regard to probability the same thing must be repeated as said above. To what extreme extent we have scanty information about our metropolitans of the pre-Mongol period and about their affairs, we have made it clear more than once above. The number of metropolitans is not very short; but we are completely spared the trouble of expounding and surveying the activities of not only all of them, many or some of them, but at least one of them all. In the chronicles we find a small number of general comments about metropolitans; partly from chronicles, partly from other sources, we know, and in the worst possible way, two or three, or rather one or two, cases from their government activities - and that’s all. We read five general reviews about metropolitans in the chronicles, three about the Greeks and two about the two Russians. Of the three reviews about the Greeks, two are laudatory and one is reproachful. The chronicle speaks of Metropolitan John 2 († 1089) with the greatest praise, as of an exceptional man: “he was a cunning man of books and teaching, merciful (to) the poor and widows, affectionate to everyone - the rich and the needy, humble and meek, silent, speechful 567, comforting the sad with holy books, and everyone (this) has not happened before in Rus', nor will it happen like this” 568. Metropolitan Kirill II, the penultimate one in the pre-Mongol period (†1223), was, according to the chronicle, “very learned and cunning in the teaching of divine books” 569. The chronicle makes a reproachful review about Metropolitan John 3, the successor of John 2, who according to it was a man weak in spirit and, due to the presence of a crowd, extremely sickly in body (and also, probably, strange in appearance - beardless) 570 and who occupied the metropolitan throne for a very short time, like a strange shadow: in the year of the death of John 2, the chronicle says, “Yanka, the daughter, went Vsevolodova, to Greece (to her relatives), and brought with her Metropolitan John the eunuch; when they saw him, all the people said: “Yes, it’s a dead man who has come”; he died after spending (at the department) from one year to a year (i.e. exactly one year). He was an unlettered husband, but his mind was simple and spacious” 571. The chronicles speak about two Russians - about Hilarion: “(he was) a good man, a learned man and a faster” 572, about Clement: “he was a scribe and a philosopher so (such), as if in the Russian land one should not talk” 573. These general reviews of the chronicles about the metropolitans, in which almost exclusively attention is paid to bookishness and teaching, are supplemented for us in the same respect by the writings of the metropolitans that have survived to this day. Based on these, the latter should be counted among the teachers from among the Greeks, except for John and Cyril: the first Metropolitan Leon (as we mentioned above) and then George and Nicephorus 1 (about which see below, in the chapter on Enlightenment). The surviving works of John 2 fully confirm the chronicle’s review of his bookishness and teaching ability, and one surviving work of Metropolitan Hilarion makes it possible to see in him not just a bookish person, but a completely outstanding one. From the government activities of metropolitans of the pre-Mongol period, as we said, one or two cases are known. To be absolutely precise, there are two known. These cases do not relate to constructive activity (if I may say so), but to current, ordinary activity, i.e. they do not represent cases of any new events for the benefit of the church, but cases of manifestation of the usual power of metropolitans, namely, cases of trial of bishops by metropolitans. We have already stated above that they are known very poorly. First case: in 1055 Novgorod Bishop Luka Zhidyata was slandered before Metropolitan Ephraim by one of his slaves. Summoned by the Metropolitan to Kyiv, he was convicted by him and served in prison for three years, after which he managed to justify himself and returned to his table again, and the slanderer suffered a cruel execution 574. How the trial was carried out - that it would be the main thing for us to know, that is, according to the canonical rules in council with the bishops or contrary to these rules individually, this, unfortunately, is not hinted at at all. In any case, what is remarkable for us here is that the bishop is subjected to the execution of imprisonment, which, if we are not mistaken, is a non-canonical execution. And that the slanderer is subjected to spiritual bloody civil punishment by the spiritual authority - cutting off the nose and both hands (however, perhaps, he was punished not by the spiritual authority, but by the civil one, according to the proposal of the former and according to his own court). Second case: in 1156 Andrei Bogolyubsky, wanting to remove Bishop Nestor from his Rostov see, sent him to Kyiv for trial before Metropolitan Constantine 1 with some accusations against him. This time, the trial, which ended in the acquittal of the bishop, as reported by the source speaking about it, but in the testimony about the trial process is not particularly reliable 575, it was carried out conciliarly, and the case was subjected to a long and thorough study, in other words, the trial was carried out in accordance with the canonical decrees about it 576. So, for two hundred and fifty years, for an entire period of time, we have absolutely no information about the church and government activities of our metropolitans. This, of course, is extremely regrettable; however, it is necessary to look at the subject properly and not rush to conclusions which would be unfair to draw. Some, looking with prejudice at the dominance of the Greeks among us, from this decisive absence in the chronicles of news about the activities of the metropolitans, hasten to conclude to the decisive absence of any remarkable deeds accomplished by them, and then hasten to conclude that their Greek metropolitans are extremely, or at least undoubtedly, of poor quality. We will have a special discussion about this below, but here for now we will limit ourselves to one simple remark that such a conclusion is far from solid. We said above that, according to the canonical rules, the metropolitans were obliged to annually gather to their council the bishops subordinate to them to discuss the needs of the church and to resolve cases filed on appeal to their - metropolitan court from the court of bishops. To our greatest regret, we must think that our Russian Church, from ancient times, has been subject to reproach for non-compliance with this very important requirement of the canonical rules on metropolitan annual councils. It is necessary to think that in the pre-Mongol period, bishops gathered to the metropolitan in Kyiv much more often than as was the case later, and that cathedrals, which were not regular and optional every year, were organized by metropolitans relatively often. In all likelihood, it should be assumed that during this period in the relations of the metropolitans to the bishops there was much more simplicity and a spirit of brotherhood, much less the spirit of high authorities on the one hand and the spirit of bureaucratic subordination on the other, than as it later became in Moscow. Given this assumed simplicity of relations relative to that time, it should be assumed that without further distance and without any formalities, the bishops turned to the metropolitan and personally appeared in Kyiv whenever they found it necessary for some reason. But behind all this it is necessary to think that we did not introduce and did not exist in the pre-Mongol period the custom of annually and regularly gathering the metropolitan councils prescribed by the canonical rules, or otherwise the entire Russian Church, which represented the metropolis. For we find absolutely no indication of the existence of the custom of such annual councils either in the chronicles or in any monuments of the pre-Mongol period. The metropolitans alone cannot be blamed for this; in all likelihood, they were even least to blame. We know that in Greece too, bishops were very reluctant to appear at these councils, which too limited their power 577. Moreover, this should have happened in our country, where, in the distance of the bishops from the metropolis, there was, to some extent, a solid excuse for avoiding these councils. And where, as Metropolitan John 2 positively testifies to us in the so-called Rule to the Monk Jacob, the bishops shied away from councils that were not annual or urgent, but convened by the metropolitans at the request of needs 578 . These latter are guilty only in that they did not insist, at all costs, on the exact fulfillment of the canonical requirements regarding the aforementioned councils. This omission, no matter what happened, is very regrettable, not so much in relation to the pre-Mongol period itself, but in relation to the subsequent time. In the pre-Mongol period, the Greek metropolitans, following the good customs of their homeland, there is no doubt, and in the absence of these regular councils, sufficiently supported the spirit of collegiality and brotherhood between bishops and the spirit of deliberation in church-wide government. But after the transfer of the metropolitan see to Moscow, in other people and under other influences, that spirit of disunity and disunity began, which only the aforementioned councils could have prevented. If Moscow had inherited from Kiev the custom of annually conferring on the affairs of the church, then it would probably come up with a lot of good things for the benefit of this latter... During the Moscow period, our metropolitans had the custom of occasionally addressing the clergy and laity of the metropolis with their educational district messages. Although not a single such message is known from the metropolitans of our period, we have reason to believe that the custom originates from them (we will indicate the reasons in volume 2). As for the travels of our metropolitans to Constantinople, to the patriarch, we know of several, very few, particular cases of metropolitans being in Constantinople; but exactly how often they traveled remains completely unknown to us 579. Among the metropolitans of the pre-Mongol period, as we said, two were not Greeks, but natural Russians, elected and installed in Russia itself. Since the usual order was that metropolitans were elected and consecrated in Constantinople, it goes without saying that these two cases were exceptional events. The first case took place under our second Christian sovereign, under Yaroslav the Great. The chronicle says that in 1051. Yaroslav, having gathered bishops, installed in St. Sofia, Metropolitan Hilarion, who was before that priest at the church of the grand-ducal village of Berestov 580 located near Kiev, who was distinguished by a very strict, ascetic life 581 and who was an unusually intelligent man, probably well-educated for his time and brilliantly, out of the ordinary, eloquent, which we will talk about below. The chronicle does not say a single word what forced Yaroslav to install Hilarion, that is, to install the metropolitan at home and with his bishops, without any communication with the Greeks 582, and therefore, one can only make guesses. One of the later chronicles, namely Nikonovskaya, and after it some of the new researchers, suggest that the cause was Yaroslav’s war with the Greeks. But this assumption cannot be considered valid: Yaroslav had a war with the Greeks in 1043; Three years later, therefore, in 1046, peace was concluded and a whole five years passed from it to the installation of Hilarion. Therefore, it remains to assume, as most new researchers assume, that Yaroslav was dissatisfied with the existing procedure for the election and installation of metropolitans, according to which we were supposed to receive Greeks who came from Constantinople, and that he wanted to introduce a new procedure for their election and installation - from natural Russians and in Russia itself. The assumption itself seems very natural and probable. If we remember what we said above about the autocephaly we first received, then it will seem even more probable, namely, then it will be possible to explain the matter in such a way that Yaroslav wanted to return this autocephaly given to us and immediately taken away. However, although it seems unlikely to assume all this, we, for our part, very, very doubt that this should actually be assumed. That Yaroslav could become dissatisfied with the existing order, that he could have the idea and desire to introduce a new order, and even more so to return the original order (autocephaly), this, we repeat, is in itself very possible. But there are absolutely no positive signs to think that this is actually the case. Yaroslav was a father whose memory was sacredly honored by his children. If he had the aforementioned thought, he, of course, would bequeath it to these latter; and if this were so, then it would be necessary to expect that his sons would insist on the new order he introduced and would try to defend it. However, we don’t see any traces of anything like that at all. It is true that the chronicle news that we have for that time is extremely scarce and incomplete. But if not for deliberate speeches, then, at least, with some slip of the tongue and some random remark, the chronicle would have made it known that after Yaroslav there was a struggle for the new order he introduced. But no such random hints are known at all. The next year after the death of Yaroslav we find Greek Ephraim 583 at the metropolitan see. If it were known that he came while he was still there, then this would positively and directly mean that Yaroslav, when installing Hilarion, did not think of introducing any new orders. But suppose that Ephraim did not come with him, but after his death. The next year after the death of their father, the children receive Metropolitan Greek: the most likely conclusion from this, of course, is that the father did not bequeath to the children not to receive the Greeks. We believe that Yaroslav’s act is much more likely to be understood simply as a separate act, in which nothing in common and nothing further was meant, and also nothing previous. Yaroslav really liked Hilarion, who, as far as we know about him, truly deserved the most complete love. Wanting to see him as a metropolitan, he ordered the bishops to install him - not because he had in mind to start a series of metropolitans from natural Russians, but only because he wanted to see him as a metropolitan. Yaroslav knew Hilarion, who quite possibly was his confessor, as a man of strictly ascetic life, brilliantly talented and highly educated, and it might have seemed offensive to Russian honor to send for the metropolitan to Greece, bypassing such a luminary. Because of one person, apparently, it was not worth deciding to get into a quarrel with the Greeks. But Yaroslav was such a sovereign who was not at all embarrassed by the Greeks - he wanted and did it, not paying any attention to them 584. That Yaroslav’s act should be understood exactly as we understand it, some circumstances positively known to us also speak in favor of this. If Yaroslav, making Hilarion a metropolitan, wanted to start a new order with him, then this would mean the rupture of the church union with the Greeks, and with this the latter his general enmity towards them. On the other hand, the Greeks, if things had really worked out that way, would have flared up with the same enmity towards Yaroslav. Meanwhile, either before or after the installation of Hilarion, Yaroslav married his beloved son Vsevolod to a Greek princess 585. If the marriage took place before the installation, then it testifies that Yaroslav had no enmity with the Greeks; if after the installation, then he testifies that there was no such enmity among the Greeks towards him. Now this circumstance leads us to think that the installation of Hilarion did not result in even a short-term misunderstanding and displeasure with the Greeks, that, having installed him because he wanted to install him, Yaroslav immediately then entered into relations and explanations with the latter. Having presented and explained to them that the ordination that had occurred should be understood as a separate and exceptional case, which should not have any further consequences, he completely satisfied them with this, forcing them to recognize the accomplished fact, and thus the peace of the church was not violated regarding the ordination. We consider it necessary to add to this something else that we take from the realm of only the probable. In 1055, as we said above, the trial of Metropolitan Ephraim over the Novgorod Bishop Luka Zhidyata took place. The Novgorod chronicles do not indicate the reasons for the trial, but the Nikonov chronicle states that the bishop was slandered before the metropolitan “in inappropriate speeches.” Having agreed to recognize this additional message from the Nikon Chronicle, and then agreed to think that the dissimilar speeches referred to the metropolitan himself, it will very likely be understood in such a way that Luka Zhidyata, a natural Russian, expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that after the metropolitan from the Russians (Hilarion), a Greek again appeared at the see. But if we agree to all this, then we will immediately have proof that the princes did not at all share the bishop’s indignation: not at all protected by the latter, Luke was tried and condemned by the metropolitan, and stayed in Kyiv (in more or less imprisonment) until he managed to justify himself in one way or another for three years. The second incident took place a hundred years after Yaroslav, in the half of the 12th century. In 1145, during the reign of Grand Duke Vsevolod Olegovich (from the family of princes of Chernigov, grandson of Svyatoslav Yaroslavich), Metropolitan Michael, who occupied the see for 16–14 years (see above), left Kyiv and retired to Constantinople to the patriarch. In 1147, Vsevolod's successor († 1146), Grand Duke Izyaslav Mstislavich (from the Monomakhovich tribe, ancestor of the line of Volyn princes, grandson of Vladimir Monomakh) installed a successor to Michael, Metropolitan Klim or Clement, from natural Russians and in Russia itself without relations with the patriarch. Unfortunately, the chronicles add absolutely no comments to this brief news regarding the questions: why and what. It goes without saying, of course, that Michael left Kyiv and retired to Constantinople due to some displeasure; one can understand here, as is usually understood, displeasure at the civil strife of the princes, who were especially strong during the reign of Vsevolod, since he, for his personal purposes, deliberately aroused and supported them 586; but it is more likely to mean some personal, unknown to us, displeasure with the Grand Duke, for in the pre-Mongol period, civil strife between princes was so common that if the metropolitans wanted to leave the throne because of them, not one of them would have remained on it until death. For one reason or another, Michael retired, but then it seems most likely to think that Izyaslav decided to install a successor for him in Rus' itself not in anger at his act, but in anger at the behavior of the Patriarch of Constantinople after his act, namely, at the latter’s delay in giving the Russians a metropolitan. Mikhail retired not with him, but with his predecessor, with whom he had nothing in common and towards whom, for his behavior towards himself, he could not nurture and maintain any feelings other than the feeling of enmity (Vsevolod removed Izyaslav from the grand-ducal throne, wanting to transfer it to his brother Igor Olegovich); therefore, it is very doubtful that he could inherit from the first anger at the action of the metropolitan, one or another was the reason for the latter. As for the patriarch, this, as a result of Michael’s complaints about the Russians, could delay the appointment of a new metropolitan in order to express his displeasure and punish them, which could arouse the anger of Izyaslav, who, so to speak, got a hangover at someone else’s feast, i.e. had to bear punishment for the guilt of others 587. The chronicle reports 588 that Michael, leaving Kyiv, left a handwriting for the bishops stating that “they are not worthy to serve in St. Sophia (i.e., the Kyiv Metropolitan) without a metropolitan.” So this should have been canonical according to the rules 589; Moreover, the deliberate confirmation of the rules by the Metropolitan should have made their violation seem like a crime. Mikhail left his manuscript, no doubt, with the goal of punishing Vsevolod Olegovich by depriving him of his episcopal service in the main church of his capital. But after the death of Vsevolod, due to the delay of the patriarch to appoint a new metropolitan, Izyaslav had to bear the punishment. Deprivation of the episcopal service in itself was not a circumstance of primary importance, but it must have greatly offended the pride and sensitivity of the Grand Duke, for through this, to humiliation in front of other princes, he seemed to be under penance and under prohibition. Meanwhile, Izyaslav Mstislavich, one of the princes of the pre-Mongol period, outstanding in character, was not at all one of those people who tend to patiently endure insults to their pride. For one reason or another, Izyaslav decided to elect and install a successor to Mikhail in Russia itself, without turning to the patriarch, but the main question here is what did he mean by this? Did he want to appoint a metropolitan in this way only for this one time, or did he want to establish a new method for electing metropolitans in general for the future? It is known that the second is considered to have positive evidence in its favor. However, this positive evidence does not apply to Clement’s performance itself, but to what follows. And, as we will see below, it has no meaning or meaning. The Laurentian and Ipatian chronicles speak about the installation of Clement. The first is very brief, the second is quite detailed, and both speak in such a way that they bypass our question in complete silence, namely, one briefly informs, and the other talks in some detail about it, as an event that happened in such and such a year, and does not touch a single word on how to understand it. The entire speech of the Laurentian Chronicle is as follows: “In the summer of 6655 (1147) Izyaslav installed Metropolitan Klim, Kaluga Rusin, an individual with six bishops, in the month of July at 27, in memory of St. Panteleimon.” “In the same (1147) summer,” writes the Ipata Chronicle, “Izyaslav installed Klim Smolyatich as metropolitan, bringing him out of Zarub,” then he talks about the circumstances of the installation, about the protest of some bishops against him, and nothing more. If we had before us the speeches of people who are in the habit of speaking definitely and in detail, then it would be undeniable for us how to understand this complete silence about the meaning of the event: what is usually kept silent is what is automatically implied and which, for this reason, it does not occur to the speaker to deliberately notice. Consequently, then it would be undeniable for us that the case, which is told to us without any comment or explanation of how to understand it, should be understood as an isolated case. For with such a way of narration, this is implied by itself, and nothing else can in any way be implied, or, to put it another way, only this is implied, and not anything else. But our chroniclers in relation to church affairs, as we have already made clear many times above, cannot at all be recognized as people who have an inclination to speak definitely and in detail. And, consequently, the usual way of understanding human speech cannot be applied to their specified speeches. (Because in relation to their speeches about church affairs, it will never be indubitable for us that what is unsaid is something that should be implied by itself, and not something that, according to their custom, they simply do not say). When it is impossible to interpret people with certainty, then the probable interpretation remains. This last, of course, is something that in another case, that is, when applied to other people, would be undoubted. Thus, the speeches of the chroniclers about the installation of Clement by Izyaslav seem most likely to be understood in such a way that the latter wanted to install a metropolitan in Russia at one given time and did not have the intention of forever introducing a new procedure for electing metropolitans. Izyaslav’s own behavior also forces us to consider the first rather than the second most likely. Having installed Clement as metropolitan, he did not enter into relations with the patriarch in order to ask him for recognition of the metropolitan's legitimacy. We know this positively 590. Consequently, if we assume that Izyaslav, when appointing Clement, had the intention of introducing a new procedure for appointing metropolitans, then it will be necessary to understand his behavior in such a way that he wanted to do this arbitrarily, without seeking the consent of the patriarch. But to do this meant to create a schism and a split between the Russian Church and the Greek: for Izyaslav Mstislavich, or indeed any Russian prince of the 12th century, to decide on the latter, this seems to us very doubtful. A single act is another matter: the prince, angry with the patriarch, could take revenge on the first by once snatching away from him his right to appoint metropolitans and causing a temporary schism. For the personal insult that Izyaslav found in the patriarch’s behavior towards himself, he could have the desire and, in anger, the determination to take revenge with the same personal insult. But to go further, to bring constant confusion to the church - this, in view of the always prudent moderation of our princes, who never had the spirit of extreme radicalism, seems very unlikely. But if we, contrary to what seems most likely based on the chronicles and on the basis of the history of the matter itself, as we know it, still wanted to imagine it in such a way that Izyaslav not only wanted to install a metropolitan in Russia itself at one given time, but generally introduce a new procedure for the installation of metropolitans, then in this case, the usual ideas that such was the desire of all of Rus', which was supposedly greatly offended and burdened by the power of the Greek metropolitans, would be far away are incorrect. The Laurentian Chronicle says that Izyaslav made Clement a metropolitan “individually with six bishops.” This “individual” means that Izyaslav appointed Clement not by advice and agreement with other princes, but without them and in spite of them, alone. And, consequently, he had these or those thoughts when Clement was appointed, the other princes did not share them and did not sympathize with them. To what extent among the other princes there were few opponents of the power of the Greek metropolitans, if only Izyaslav himself was one at all, can be seen from the fact that Izyaslav’s own brother, who was in the best fraternal relations with him, did not belong to them - Rostislav of Smolensk (as we will see below). In this case, the only thing that would remain true is that the majority of Russian bishops were against the power of the Greek metropolitans, or at least not for it. In 1147 in Russia there were 10 or 11 episcopal departments 591, of which one was idle 592; therefore, there were 9 or 10 all bishops. Of these 9 or 10 bishops, six came to Izyaslav at the council in Kyiv for the election and installation of a metropolitan in Russia itself, according to the Laurentian Chronicle. And according to the testimony of the Hypatan Chronicle, it seems, in this case, more correct, five 593. Of the remaining bishops, two did not appear at the council because they were against the installation of a metropolitan in Russia. And nothing is known about the thoughts of others. And it may very well be that they evaded the council not of their own will and intentions, but for reasons beyond their control. That is, because their appanage princes did not want their participation in the council 594. Of the two bishops who directly declared their disagreement with the installation of Clement and protested against him, one was Greek. Consequently, of all the Russian bishops who were born Russian, only one protested 595. Conveying part or even the essence of the cathedral's reasoning, the Ipat chronicler writes that the Bishop of Chernigov, or senior at the table among those present, or more authoritative personally than others, said: “I know that bishops, having formed a cathedral, have the right to appoint a metropolitan 596. I know that we have the right to deliver. In addition, we have the head of St. Clement: Just as the Greeks install (patriarchs) by the hand of St. John, (so we will install a metropolitan." 597. “So they decided,” says the chronicler, and on July 27, 1147, the candidate chosen by the Grand Duke, Klim or Clement, monk and schema-monk, i.e., monk of the great, was installed as metropolitan by the head of St. Clement image, according to the review of the same chronicler, which we cited above, “a scribe and a philosopher, as if (you) wouldn’t write in the Russian land” 598 . Two bishops who directly protested against the installation of a metropolitan in Russia were Niphon of Novgorod and Manuel of Smolensk. Manuel was a Greek by birth, and this, in addition to everything else, explains his protest 599. But Nifont, in all likelihood, was a natural Russian 600. Assuming that when Clement was installed it was intended to forever establish the procedure for electing and installing metropolitans in Russia itself, they find it strange that a Russian could protest against this. And they explain Nifont’s behavior by the special interests of the Novgorod department, for which it was more profitable for the metropolitans to be from the Greeks and installed in Greece. But, firstly, it is far from clear to us how the latter could have been more beneficial for the bishops of Novgorod: after Izyaslav, the old order of appointing metropolitans remained, and we know that the bishops of Novgorod did not derive any benefits from it for their interests. If they mean the right of appeal to the patriarch (under the assumption that the metropolitans appointed to Russia would remain subordinate to the latter), then, on the contrary, the new order would be more beneficial for the bishops of Novgorod than the old one. For it was possible to compete in Constantinople with a metropolitan from the Russians with the hope of success, while competing with a metropolitan from the Greeks was a hopeless matter. Secondly, when they talk about the interests of the Novgorod department, they forget that Nifont was not yet a natural Novgorodian, like all his predecessors, a newcomer. And that in his time the interests of the Novgorod see were not at all what they were later - Nifont was still, in relation to his flock, not the subsequent ruler of Novgorod, without whom Novgorod did not take a step in its civil affairs (how, however, to really look at the great political significance of the subsequent rulers of Novgorod, more on this below), but simply a bishop, like all bishops. If there is no reason to assume personal interests, then one can only assume sincere conviction and special views. Out of sincere conviction, Nifont found the deed done by Izyaslav illegal. Assuming that it consisted in introducing a new procedure for electing metropolitans and, therefore, admitting that the question here was not only about the legality of the matter (as in an isolated case), but also about its benefit and desirability, we will have to understand Nifont’s behavior in such a way that he found the matter not only illegal, but also unhelpful and undesirable. Those who think about this subject contrary to this, believe and are confident that it was precisely in accordance with them that everyone thought in ancient times. But, as we said and pointed out above, they are very mistaken: none of the princes sympathized with Izyaslav’s intention to install Clement and, therefore, none of them sympathized with Izyaslav’s idea of ​​​​introducing a new procedure for installing metropolitans, if only he had such a thought. If none of the secular, the laity, sympathized with Izyaslav’s indicated thought, then it is not surprising that there was also a bishop who was against it, and we, for our part, should not be surprised at this, but take note of it: such a competent judge of the best and the worst, like Nifont, was resolutely for the old order. The conclusion follows from this that this order was not as bad as others think to imagine. But, as we said above, it is more than likely that during the installation of Clement it was not about a new method of electing metropolitans, but only about one case of installation (i.e., him - Clement). Consequently, Nifont did not rebel against what is considered Russian interests, but only against one act of the Russians, or more precisely, the act of Izyaslav with half of the Russian bishops. The Chronicles of Ipata and 1 Novgorod, according to 601 of Nifont’s protests, assure that he did not rebel against the election of a candidate for metropolitan from among the Russians themselves and by the Russian bishops themselves. But, firstly, against his unauthorized consecration by the latter without the blessing of the patriarch, and secondly, against the fact that the ordained metropolitan did not seek to enter into communion with the patriarch and remained outside the union and in schism with him. If this is true, then Niphon, showing himself to be a person who knows the rules of the church, as he is known to us, was absolutely right. The Patriarchs of Constantinople arrogated to themselves the right to elect metropolitans (including the Russian one) against the canonical rules; but the right to consecrate metropolitans belonged to them on the basis of these rules. A metropolitan who was out of communion with his patriarch was, of course, a metropolitan who caused a schism and was in schism with him. Clement tried to reconcile the protesting bishops with himself and tried to persuade them to recognize his legitimacy and power. Regarding Manuel of Smolensk, who did not have any special authority either in the department or personally (as one should think), and whose protest, due to his Greek origin, should have seemed biased, even if it was not such, and therefore lose its significance, the Metropolitan probably did not worry particularly much. But Nifont was a completely different matter. A bishop of one of the main and prominent cathedras, a very authoritative person personally and, moreover, authoritative precisely from the knowledge of the canons of the church, in which all the power lay here 602, he, with his non-recognition of the metropolitan, presented to everyone such an objection to his legality, without eliminating which the latter could not at all be considered indisputable. Therefore, he made every effort to force Niphon to admit himself. However, everything was in vain, and Nifont remained adamant. After two years of futile efforts, or as the Hypatian Chronicle puts it 603, “torment” with Niphon, the Metropolitan finally decided to resort to force. With the assistance of the Grand Duke, the Bishop of Novgorod was brought to Kyiv and imprisoned in the Pechersky Monastery, where, however, he remained for a very short time. In the same year, 1149, in which he was imprisoned, Yuri Dolgoruky drove the Grand Duke Izyaslav from the throne, and with the latter Clement also left Kiev 604. The Metropolitan wanted to use the same force with Manuel and, probably, much earlier than with Niphon. But the Greek, not inclined to the glory of a sufferer for the truth, saved himself from the hands of the Metropolitan by running from him and hiding 605. Not recognizing the legitimacy and authority of the metropolitan, Nifont put himself under the direct authority of the patriarch 606. And the patriarch really hastened to accept him into his direct power. From September 1148, a document has been preserved to this day in which Niphon calls himself an archbishop 607: the name archbishop was not at that time an honorary title (as we have now), but designated (as we have already said) a bishop who, not being subordinate to his district metropolitan, depended directly on the patriarch. Thus, this name used by Niphon undoubtedly shows that he was formally accepted by the patriarch under his direct jurisdiction. Clement's order had one meaning or another, and whether the patriarch knew well what meaning it had, but, in any case, as an isolated act, it should have been hateful to him, because it represented a dangerous precedent. Therefore, he strongly encouraged Niphon to fight Clement, and, according to the Hypatan Chronicle 608, “sent letters to him, blessing (him) and lamenting among the saints” 609. Clement was installed as metropolitan by Izyaslav in July 1147. In the third year after his installation, in the month of August 1149, Izyaslav was expelled from the grand-ducal throne, as we said above, by his uncle Yuri Dolgoruky. Together with the prince, the metropolitan had to leave Kyiv, which means: firstly, that, being Izyaslav’s personal creation, he, whether he wanted or not, had to be the enemy of his enemies. Secondly and most importantly, Yuri did not recognize the legality of his order 610. During the next 1150, Izyaslav drove Yuri from the throne twice and the metropolitan returned with him to Kyiv the same number of times. Returning for the second time, he remained at the department for five years until 1155, when Yuri, after the death of Izyaslav († November 13, 1154), finally took over the great reign. His removal from the department in 1155, with Yuri’s final occupation of the grand-ducal throne, was also his last removal from it. Clement occupied the metropolitan see with short interruptions for nine years (1147–1155). Since he did not recognize the authority of the patriarch, and the patriarch did not recognize his legitimacy, it means that during his reign the Russian Church was in schism and schism with the Greek Church. Consequently, during the pre-Mongol period we have a nine-year episode of schism between the Russian and Greek churches. Here, in fact, the story of Clement should have ended, which could have had one meaning or another according to Izyaslav’s intentions and which, in fact, in any case, had the meaning of a single act. But the venerable V.N. Tatishchev, who constituted, so to speak, the evil fate of the new researchers, intervened in the story, and it continues much further. Yuri, as we said, having briefly occupied the throne of the Grand Duke twice during Izyaslav’s life, finally took it after his death. The first two times, he sat on the throne so little that he could not have time to take care of a new metropolitan to replace Clement, who was not recognized by him. But, having got rid of his rival, he finally sat down firmly on him and now worries about the metropolitan were one of his first things to do. Without at all thinking of installing another Russian from his own supporters as metropolitan, which he should have done if, when installing Clement, as they think, it was decided to start a series of metropolitans from natural Russians, Yuri sent for the metropolitan to the patriarch. In Constantinople, where - quite possibly - they understood the matter of installing Clement in the worst and most dangerous form, i.e., as an attempt to begin installing metropolitans in Russia itself, they hastened to install and send the required metropolitan to Rus' 611. Arriving in Kyiv in 1156 or the next year after the occupation of the throne of the Grand Duke Yuri, this Metropolitan, Constantine 1, began by banning all the priests appointed by Clement and condemned the deceased Izyaslav Mstislavich to a curse, we do not know - in what form pronounced and perfect - the priests, however, were soon allowed, giving the Metropolitan a handwritten note against Clement. However, Konstantin did not sit for long in his pulpit. Yuri Dolgoruky, who called him, died in 1157. (May 15) 612, that is, the next year after his arrival, and the sons of the late Izyaslav took possession of the throne of the Grand Duke in order to transfer it to their uncle Rostislav Mstislavich of Smolensk. When the Izyaslavichs first entered Kyiv (in the spring of 1158), Constantine, guilty before them of the curse of their father, had to flee 613. The Izyaslavichs wanted to return Clement, appointed by their father, to the department. But Rostislav decidedly did not want him, who considered his installation illegal. And when his nephews sent to call him to Kyiv, he, first of all, hastened to tell them his reluctance to have Clement as metropolitan: “I show you,” he told them through his ambassador, “I don’t want to see Klim at the metropolis, I haven’t taken the blessing from St. Sophia and the patriarch” 614. Since the sons of Izyaslav did not want Constantine under any circumstances, because he cursed their father, a stubborn debate arose between their uncle and nephews, which was finally settled by not taking either Clement or Constantine, but asking for a new metropolitan from Greece. This new metropolitan, named Theodore, who arrived in 1161, lived very briefly, and died in 1162 or 1163 (see above, in the catalog of metropolitans). Meanwhile, at this time, Clement managed to somehow gain the favor of Rostislav (probably with the assistance of the latter’s nephews, the aforementioned Izyaslavichs), and when Theodore died, he sent an embassy to Constantinople with a request that Clement be recognized there as the legitimate metropolitan. But his ambassador met on the road and returned back with the new metropolitan, who was already on his way from Greece, that is, the patriarch, in all likelihood, having learned about Rostislav’s change of thoughts, may have hastened in installing and sending the metropolitan in order to prevent Clement from taking the throne, whom he, of course, did not want. Knowing about Rostislav's change of thoughts and expecting his resistance to accept the new metropolitan, a special imperial ambassador and rich gifts were sent from Constantinople with this latter. When the Metropolitan arrived, Rostislav indeed at first resisted accepting him, but then... then, before the new Metropolitan was accepted, there was something else, but what exactly remains unknown, because in all the copies of the Kyiv Chronicle, which speaks of the Metropolitan’s arrival, there is a gap in this place. Tatishchev assures that Rostislav agreed to receive the metropolitan, but as if he said the following famous thing, which is the whole essence of the second half of the story about Clement and because of which we are finishing this second half: “I will now accept this metropolitan for honor and for royal love, but in the future if the patriarch, without our knowledge and determination, is contrary to the rules of the holy apostle (!), he installs a metropolitan in Rus', not I will not only accept it, but we will also make an eternal law to be chosen and decreed by the Russian bishops at the command of the Grand Duke” 615. That in the chronicles in our place there is a deliberate omission is not incredible; therefore, it is possible to assume that Rostislav really said something so bad to the emperor’s ambassador that subsequent zealous censors considered it necessary to erase. But did he say exactly what Tatishchev makes him say? In Rus', after the installation of Clement, they already received two metropolitans sent from Greece (Constantine and Theodore), and they accepted them not only without any resistance, but they themselves deliberately sent them to ask. It was Rostislav himself who sent for the second of the metropolitans, Theodore, who resolutely did not want Clement, “he had not previously taken the blessing from St. Sophia and from the patriarch.” After two metropolitans were deliberately asked, after decisive insistence in one case from Rostislav himself that the metropolitan be taken from the patriarch, the latter sends a third - and suddenly Rostislav allegedly says what Tatishchev makes him say. What meaning will his words have, that is, what impossible nonsense do they represent? Rostislav could very well be angry that in Constantinople, with deliberate haste, they took away from him the opportunity to install Clement as metropolitan; he could break his heart with some bad or even very bad words concerning the honor of the emperor and the patriarch; but for him to say what he says in Tatishchev is absolutely incredible. The point here was solely about Clement alone and nothing else, i.e. Rostislav wanted to install him only as a metropolitan and did not at all think about installing all the metropolitans after him from the Russians. They interfere with him in this, and suddenly he says: “Well, for this we will not take metropolitans from you at all.” An irritable child whose toy has been taken away can, of course, give such an answer; but from an adult, with all the eccentricity that we might assume in him, it is impossible. Rostislav could be very resistant, could be very angry; but to resist not to the Greeks giving us metropolitans in general, but only to accepting a metropolitan from them in this case. He is not angry that in general the Russian Church was dependent on the Greek Church, but only that in this case this dependence prevented his desire from being fulfilled. It is very strange how the defenders of Tatishchev’s quoted words do not see that they are decisively refuted by Rostislav’s behavior at this very moment. He wants to imprison or return Clement to the metropolis, but he wants to do this only by asking him for recognition and blessing from the patriarch, for which he sent an ambassador to Constantinople: could a person who did this say at the same time the words that Tatishchev forces him to say? Why on earth does this latter put the above words into Rostislav’s mouth? This can be explained very simply. Because he generally wrote Russian history not as it was, but as he wanted to present it himself, and that, to the great regret and great misfortune of later historians, he did not at all hesitate to present his own as what he had gleaned from sources 616. So, in the pre-Mongol period there were two cases of the appointment of metropolitans of Kyiv from natural Russians and in Russia itself - the first under Yaroslav, the second a hundred years later under Izyaslav. It is very likely, or even more than likely, that neither case had the significance of an attempt to introduce a new procedure for the installation of metropolitans, and that both represent isolated cases of the patriarchs admiring their right to install our metropolitans. But let us assume the generally accepted opinion that they had the significance of these attempts. The attempts, they say, mean that the Russians were dissatisfied with the power of the Greek metropolitans, and from this it follows that they had a bad opinion about the good quality of this power. However, firstly, there were only two attempts for the whole period: of course, it cannot be said that the statement of discontent was too decisive and urgent. Secondly, the first attempt took place so early that the power of the Greek metropolitans could not yet reveal its quality at all, and, therefore, the protest here was not against this latter (but assuming that there really was a protest - independently of it against the subordination of the Russian Church to the power of the Greek Church). In the middle of the 12th century, to which the second case relates, the Russians, of course, already had the opportunity to judge and form an understanding of the quality of power of the Greek metropolitans. But in this second case, we see that not everyone was against the Greek metropolitans: most of the bishops were for the Russian metropolitan, or at least not against him, yet the princes, with the exception of the culprit of the attempt (assuming that the case had the meaning of an attempt), were for the Greek metropolitans. We have no data at all to say positively on whose side the majority opinion was. But, firstly, if regarding bishops, people interested, it can be suspected that they wanted to see a natural Russian metropolitan at their head for extraneous reasons that had nothing to do with the good of the church, then nothing of the kind can be assumed about princes. Secondly, the chronicle, and it is the Kiev chronicle, and not the Novgorod chronicle, not only does not reproach Bishop Niphon of Novgorod, who stood on the side of the princes, but also calls him a champion of the entire Russian land and jealous of the divine 617. If we are not mistaken, the generally accepted opinion that the Russians of the pre-Mongol period were dissatisfied with the power of the Greek metropolitans is largely based on the fact that our pre-Mongol ancestors had very little sympathy for the national character of the Greeks as a people, that for some traits of their national character they despised them just as much as the ancient Romans of the classical Hellenes 618 . But if so, then this is an unfair generalization: the national character traits of the Greeks, for which the Russians despised them, did not in the least prevent the Greek metropolitans from being good rulers, and this contempt that the Russians had for certain traits of the Greek character, in itself, would be completely unfair to take as evidence of dissatisfaction with the poor quality of the power of the Greek metropolitans. Thus, this generally accepted opinion that the Russians were dissatisfied with the power of the Greek metropolitans because of its poor quality, which is pointed out as evidence of its actual poor quality, becomes very, very doubtful. Assuming that the cases of the installation of metropolitans in Russia meant attempts to introduce a new procedure for their installation (not only the election, but also the installation), one can also understand the matter in such a way that the Russians wanted this new order not out of dislike for the power of the Greek metropolitans due to its poor quality, but out of a desire to free the Russian Church from the dependence of the Greek Church, which was offensive to national pride. We see no need or purpose to answer the question: how likely is this 619? But, in any case, the only legal path here for the Russians was something that, during the pre-Mongol period, without questioning the Greek teaching about the five patriarchates for the entire universal church, they undoubtedly did not think about. That is, to seek and demand the independence of the Russian Church. While the Russian Church remained and recognized itself as the metropolis of the Patriarch of Constantinople, until then the right to appoint metropolitans belonged to him legally and indisputably. Before turning to our own speech about how to look at the domination of our Greek metropolitans during the pre-Mongol period - as good or as evil, we consider it necessary to point out one more circumstance that relates to the history of the installation of our metropolitans. The Laurentian Chronicle expresses itself in a strange and question-raising way about the appearance on the see of our penultimate metropolitan in the pre-Mongol period - Cyril 2. It says: “in the summer of 1224, Blessed Cyril Grechin was appointed metropolitan in St. Sophia (in) Kyiv, in the month of January 6, on the feast of the Epiphany.” The fact is that about all the other Greek metropolitans, the chronicles use the expression not “installed,” but “came,” and that the arrival of not one of them is recorded with such, so to speak, thoroughness. Both of these circumstances make it easy for the chronicler to understand that Cyril was initiated in Russia itself. If this were so, then we would have another case of the installation of a metropolitan in Kyiv, and, moreover, a remarkable case - the installation of not a Russian, but a Greek. And if the latter were so, then questions would arise: how and why did this happen - with or without the permission of the patriarch, and whether there is a whole story hidden here. Considering it in vain to guess anything while the very circumstance that calls for fortune-telling only forces one to assume itself, we consider it necessary to note it for information, in the hope of the possibility of one or another clarification in the future 620. We turn to the above-mentioned speech about how we ourselves should look at the dominance of the Greek metropolitans in our country during the pre-Mongol period. We have already spoken about rights above, namely, we have already said that the Greeks did not have the slightest real right to subjugate the Russian Church. But setting aside the right that has been decided upon, how to look at the fact itself? Was this circumstance that during the two and a half centuries before the Mongol period our metropolitans were Greeks good or bad for the Russian Church? Not only liberals, who eo ipso are obliged to have the worst opinion about the matter, but even conservatives, who would very much not want to speak too badly about the Greeks, find themselves forced to admit that their dominance among us cannot be recognized as good for us. Contrary to both, and at the risk of being considered too much of an original, we are of the opinion that the domination of the Greeks was not a great and decisive evil for us in any respect, and that, on the contrary, in some respects it was positive and the greatest good. Starting with those who care little about the quality of power of the Greek metropolitans and who are only very dissatisfied with the traces that seem to remain in Russian life from the long domination of us and over us by the Greeks, we must say that these Greeks serve as a scapegoat for us in our history. Comparing ourselves with Western European people, we find something in ourselves that is not entirely good; pride does not allow us to blame ourselves for our shortcomings; Under the hands of the Greeks is Byzantium, glorified by Western Europe, and we hasten to lay the blame on them, resolving everything in one word: Byzantine. Our people understand faith too externally, believing it mainly in placing crosses on their chests as tightly as possible and hitting their foreheads on the floor as hard as possible: Byzantineism. Our priest tremblingly enters the hallway of his bishop and stretches out at his feet: Byzantine. Our deacons with their famous bass voices, instead of separate and reasonable human speech, give us the pleasure of meaningless yelling and droning: Byzantineism. There is an ugly type in our painting: Byzantine. In a word, everything we have, over which a decent Russian person himself should shrug his shoulders, is Byzantine. And yet, all this is completely and decisively unfair. When Western Europe contemptuously calls the medieval Greeks Byzantium, it means their well-known shortcomings, but this does not mean at all that it understands the very shortcomings that we find in ourselves, and that this gives us the right, christening the shortcomings with the name of Byzantium, to rush to blame them on the Greeks. The medieval Greeks had their shortcomings, which are collectively called Byzantineism, but not those that we find in ourselves and for which we want to blame them. The sixteenth century is considered by everyone to be the time when the crops of Byzantium blossomed in all their splendor in our country: and, however, the famous famous Maxim the Greek, having arrived in Moscow, recognized his Byzantium in our Rus' to such an extent that he found himself in the former as a man from a completely different world. But if the Greeks are not to blame for our shortcomings, then who is to blame for them? This most naive question can be heard from people who are not at all naive. The answer, however, is simple: if no one else is to blame for your shortcomings, then, obviously, you are to blame for them. In addition to Byzantineism, there is also our Muscoviteism, which we do not owe to anyone except ourselves (and, of course, circumstances). It is this latter that we unfairly confuse with the former. Below we will have to return more than once to talk about this supposed guilt of the Greeks in our so-called Byzantium, and we will also return to it in a deliberate manner. And here we will limit ourselves to a brief indication of how unfair it is to blame the Greeks for it. Western Europe began its cultural life with a reserve from the past no greater than that which we could borrow from Byzantium. If sowing seeds of the same quality there brought some fruits, but here we have completely different ones, then it is clear that it is not the seeds that are to blame, but the soil and something else. Metropolitans born in Greece, say people who have a bad opinion about the quality of their power, could not care as diligently about the affairs of the Russian Church as metropolitans from natural Russians would care about them as diligently. This is an absolute truth, which no one will deny, just as no one will dispute the general proposition that a native-born person or a person of his own nationality is always and everywhere better than a foreigner (it is understood that he is completely equal in quality with him). From this, it undoubtedly follows that the Greek metropolitans did not constitute an unconditional benefit for the Russian Church, against which no objections could be made at all. But the question is: could the evil that resulted from this be so great that it should be considered a positive and great evil? The superiority of a person of his own nationality over a foreigner lies in the fact that the former has patriotism, which is the disposition to sacrifice himself for the fatherland, while the latter does not have it. Patriotism cannot be breathed into a foreigner, because it is an innate quality. And since there are cases where patriotism is absolutely necessary, it follows that there are cases when a foreigner cannot in any way replace a person of his own nationality. But eliminate this patriotic necessity of self-sacrifice, in which case a person of his own nationality cannot be replaced by a foreigner, and the difference between the first and the second will not be at all as great as one might suppose. A person is serving in a foreign country. To expect him to want to sacrifice himself for a foreign country would be vain and unreasonable. But if he is an honest man, he will perform his duties diligently and conscientiously, and, therefore, where patriotic sacrifices are not required, he will completely replace a person of his own nationality. Our metropolitans, originally Greek, were precisely officials who served in a foreign country. Of course, we would have asked them in vain for patriotism, the desire to sacrifice themselves for our fatherland, and when the few occasions presented themselves, they really didn’t have it; but then nothing prevented them from being completely conscientious and possibly zealous officials or performers of their duties. We do not deny that even in ordinary situations an official of his own nationality is still better than a foreign official, for every matter, even the most empty, requires spiritual participation, of which one of one’s own will always have more than that of a foreigner, but we repeat that the difference is not so great that there can be talk of great evil. The period of the Greek metropolitans, they say, was marked by such a paucity of deeds for the benefit of the church that the chronicles say absolutely nothing about them. The latter is absolutely true, but from this, as we have already made clear above, the former does not at all follow as a necessary conclusion. Let us assume that the Greek metropolitans did absolutely nothing; What is certain, however, is that each of them came and each of them died. But the chronicles do not speak about these parishes and these deaths of all metropolitans: does this mean that other metropolitans appeared to us without coming, and that other metropolitans disappeared without dying? The chronicles, indeed, say nothing about the activities of the metropolitans, and this deserves the greatest regret. But this does not necessarily mean that there is no activity itself. But it can only mean that the chronicles, for one reason or another, did not consider them their duty and task and generally had no inclination or desire to talk about the activities of the metropolitans, just as, together with the Greek metropolitans, they do not say a word about the activities of the two natural Russian metropolitans. Those who conclude from silence about activity to its absence believe that the chronicles say a lot about the activities of the metropolitans of subsequent times. They are completely mistaken: the chronicles say just as little about the activities of the metropolitans of subsequent times, and if you like, even less. If, despite this, we know more about subsequent metropolitans, it is because acts and charters have come down to us from them. No acts or charters have reached us from the metropolitans of the pre-Mongol period. But we are not talking about the absolute possibility of the assumption that acts and letters have not yet been discovered and may be discovered later - who knows to what extent the written monuments of the pre-Mongol period have been destroyed, will he find it impossible to assume that the acts and letters we require could have been irretrievably lost 621? Consequently, this absence of acts and letters, being a very sad fact, will not give room for absolutely any positive conclusions. Finally, those who assume the meager activity of the Greek metropolitans boldly believe that if natural Russians had been in their place, they would have done God knows what. Their courage, however, is not based on anything and only testifies to their naivety. Remarkable deeds do not at all amount to such trifles with which every page of history should teem, and people who do something unusual and special do not appear so often that after two there should be a third. The subsequent history of the Russian Church proves to us that we would be unfair, certainly demanding wonderful deeds and wonderful people from the pre-Mongol period. This is how remarkable things happened in subsequent times: in 1274, the Vladimir Cathedral of Metropolitan Kirill 3; in 1503, that is, through a space of time slightly unequal to the pre-Mongol period, there were cathedrals in Moscow under Metropolitan Simon, and in the interval there was absolutely nothing remarkable. As for remarkable people, the Moscow period lasted almost four hundred years and, however, throughout its entire space we know among the metropolitans and patriarchs only two of the most outstanding church figures - Metropolitan Macarius and Patriarch Nikon, and at the same time accepting the latter as such only with the greatest reservations. Consequently, even if we agree to admit that in the pre-Mongol period there were no remarkable deeds or remarkable figures at all, then even from this the conclusion about its special inferiority will not follow. They also object to the Greek metropolitans of the pre-Mongol period. But we have no desire to refute objections based on their complete inconsistency. So, the Greek metropolitans of the pre-Mongol period in no way constitute a positive, much less a great evil. But, as we said above, in some respects they constitute the greatest good - to such an extent the greatest that we must not only reconcile ourselves with the completely unfounded claim of the Greeks to subjugate other Orthodox peoples in ecclesiastical terms, but also thank God that they had such a claim. Let us imagine that, having in the pre-Mongol period had metropolitans not from the Greeks, but from natural Russians, we would have had in them not angels, but the same people with passions and weaknesses as all people, and then we turn to the then political circumstances of Rus'. The then system of succession to the grand-ducal throne, which did not consist of the father inheriting the eldest son, but in a completely different, well-known, order, partly in itself, partly as a result of the abuses that it caused and allowed, had the consequence that, if not always, then for the most part, enemy replaced enemy on the grand-ducal throne. But this replacement of enemies by enemies on the grand-ducal throne, what consequences could it have for the metropolis if our metropolitans were installed at home? It would necessarily have the consequence that the same confusion and scandals that occurred in the grand duchy would occur in the metropolis. That the greatest and most tempting chaos would occur in the affairs of the church. That the dignity of the metropolitan could be completely destroyed, and that in general our church would come to such a state that it would present the most sad spectacle. Imagine that three or four princes, enemies of each other, succeeded to the grand-ducal throne in a not particularly long period of time, as has happened. The first prince leaves his metropolitan; the second drives him away and installs his own; the third drives this one away and also puts in his own; the fourth finally drives this one out and also installs his own, so that there will be four metropolitans at a time. Each of the exiled metropolitans, of course, does not consider himself legally deprived of the throne and again strives to receive it or place it again somewhere outside of Kyiv; The Russian bishops are divided between the four metropolitans into four parties, and the struggle of four enemies begins, representing not two, but precisely four camps... Any reader with a little imagination will imagine what the greatest evil would come from this, and what an unimaginable temptation would arise from this. Perhaps the reader naively imagines that natural Russian metropolitans would not want to bring matters to the point of temptation and would behave like saints. Alas, from subsequent times we know of one case when Russian bishops had the opportunity to show themselves - this was after the death of St. Metropolitan Alexy: and they showed themselves to be people not in the least better than other people... But what we said above is not all. Pre-Mongol Rus' consisted of many appanage principalities. The great princes, replacing each other, would also replace the metropolitans, but, in addition, with the election of each metropolitan, in the camp of each great prince, from the appanage princes who belonged to his side, separate parties would be formed, between which, due to the election of metropolitans, their own internal discord and unrest would occur. Anyone who has an understanding of the affairs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople after the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, who knows a little about the worst times of this period, will form an understanding of the affairs of the Russian pre-Mongol Church. What would they be like if metropolitans were elected from natural Russians, if we say that they would represent the same thing as these affairs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in its aforementioned worst times. At the very beginning of this section, we said that in the 10th century, when we adopted Christianity, and in subsequent times, the patriarchs of Constantinople appointed metropolitans not entirely in accordance with the rules of the church - that the patriarchs actually only had their consecration, but not the election, which was supposed to be carried out by the councils of bishops of each metropolis. If the Russians knew the church rules well and resolutely insisted that they act in full accordance with these rules, then, apparently, then things could work out in the best possible way. On the one hand, the Russians would have their own metropolitans from natural Russians, and on the other hand, since their consecration would be carried out not at home, but in Constantinople, the danger of the appearance of many metropolitans and those unrest in the metropolitan see, about which we have now spoken above, would be prevented. We, for our part, hold to the decisive conviction that this ignorance of the Russian church rules was happiness for the Russian Church. The fact is that even during the consecration of metropolitans in Constantinople, if they had been elected at home, the danger of unrest and temptations in the metropolis would not have been eliminated in the least. The enemy of the enemy replaces the grand prince on the throne. Together with his rival, he expels the metropolitan, who was his supporter. Then he elects his supporter and sends him to Constantinople with grave accusations against his predecessor, as a person completely unworthy of the chair: what should the patriarch do? Let us assume that he would judge, and judge in the most impartial manner. But what kind of temptation would these courts produce in the Russian Church, in which both parties - both the accusing and the accused - would not hesitate to make any mutual slander? But since the Patriarchs of Constantinople and everyone who had influence on their affairs were also not angels, they would not have judged, but the outcome would have been completely different, even much worse than during the consecration of metropolitans in Russia itself. The Patriarchs would appoint metropolitans to the Russians in as many numbers as they required, and at the same time the place would be opened up for bribery of the widest dimensions - that highly seductive bribery, an example of which we see in the time we mentioned after the death of St. Metropolitan Alexy. It may very well be that the replacement of the see of the Russian Metropolis by the Greeks was not carried out in Constantinople without sin. The Russian metropolis, completely exceptional among other metropolises of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, as an extremely tasty morsel, no doubt, strongly attracted everyone; It is therefore very likely that during her replacement there were intrigues, bribery, and all sorts of unseemly means. But at least the Russians didn’t know any of this... So, here is our opinion about the fact that during the pre-Mongol period, our metropolitans were not natural Russians, but Greeks from Constantinople. This domination of the Greek metropolitans was not and cannot be recognized as an unconditional blessing, since the domination of foreigners cannot be such at all. But it was not at all positive, much less a great evil; in some respects it was positive and the greatest good. In the pre-Mongol period, due to the then political circumstances of Rus', the Greeks should have been our metropolitans. Being foreigners, they did not completely replace and could not replace natural Russians; but on the other hand, they did not bring all the good that natural Russians would have brought. They protected the Russian Church from the danger of such great evils that the latter most certainly outweighs the former. After all that has been said, we still have some talk about the Greek metropolitans. [Cm. “Additions and amendments."] Until now we have answered the question: how to look at the fact that our metropolitans in the pre-Mongol period were Greeks, and not natural Russians. But behind this, what should we think about our Greek metropolitans of the pre-Mongol period, regardless of this: were they good or bad in themselves, not being able to completely replace natural Russians and remaining foreigners, i.e. That is, were they bad or good as foreigners? There is absolutely no positive data to answer the question, and we can only make assumptions. If we do not have positive data, then all justice and all the consciousness of the duty to be impartial require that we stick to the assumptions of the golden mean. But, at the same time, we will not have any right or basis to assert the opposite - that they represent some exceptional selection of people of little ability and little merit, like John 3. Our Greek metropolitans were people like people, not exclusively good, but not exclusively bad - this is the fairest thing to think about them. We said above that our ancestors did not have the slightest respect for the national character of the Greeks - that they represented them as the personification of flattery. Let's assume that our ancestors were absolutely right; It would, however, be extremely unfair and wrong to believe that this national character trait of the Greeks, antipathetic both to our ancestors and to anyone else, made them people unfit for anything. Every nation has its own special national shortcomings. These shortcomings are more or less imprinted on all his activities and more or less give them their character. But under the limiting condition of these shortcomings, every people is more or less capable of everything good. And as for the Greeks specifically, we know that they were a people capable of this last thing more than any other people. Thus, from what has been said, it only follows that the activities of our Greek metropolitans, having shortcomings, should have impressed on them and expressed in them a more or less national Greek character; but then nothing prevented her from having all the good qualities. Having no right and grounds, as we said above, to assume an exceptional excess of these qualities, we at the same time do not have the right and grounds to assume their exceptional deficiency or their exceptional scarcity. That is, in other words, we have before us the most likely thing that we have an average and ordinary good opinion about the Greek metropolitans. But these metropolitans ruled the Russian Church for two hundred and a half years, and at the same time they ruled at a time when it was growing and established itself, that is, at a time when relatively great activity was still required. Consequently, the final moral lesson will be that these metropolitans, in all fairness, should be remembered in our history with some kind words. We will return to them below. Having absolutely no positive information about their church-governmental activities, we have some information about their state activities. In this latter, as we will see below, they showed themselves in the most worthy way (there we will see how little benefit, if not much evil, would have been for the state if our metropolitans had been natural Russians, and not Greeks). We saw above that during the installation of Clement, half of the Russian bishops were for the Russian metropolitan, and the decisive majority of them, at least, were not against him. After what has just been said, it is permissible to think that the desire of the bishops to see in the metropolitan see a person from natural Russians was not caused by concerns for the good of the church, but by something else, external. One might think that the reason was the same as why the officials of any of our official places cannot like having a German as their chairman all the time. The German demands from the Russians German accuracy and perseverance and, in general, everything German, and does not want to know that much that for the German is nonsense, trifles, completely in Russian nature and in Russian blood... Similar, that is, dissimilarity in national characters could be the reason that the Russian bishops did not like their Greek metropolitans (the Greek is a subtle man and a diplomat, and the Russian is a simple man and somewhat clumsy: naturally, it was difficult and not at all comfortable for one to get along with the other...). There is also a special view of the matter that we must say in conclusion. Some people think that Greek metropolitans were absolutely necessary for the Russian Church in the pre-Mongol period, that without them it could not have existed. We also cannot completely agree with this opinion, which represents the opposite extreme to the one we discussed above. At the very first time, of course, the Greeks were needed. But it would be strange to think that we were so mediocre that we could not do without them for hundreds of years. Let us assume that the example of Hilarion, who, being only our third metropolitan, was one of the best metropolitans in the entire pre-Mongol period, is an exception. But there is no doubt that if not all Hilarions in a row, then in general there would be people capable and worthy of occupying the metropolitan see in sufficient numbers. Initially, for about 50 years, our metropolitans had their see not in Kyiv, but in Pereyaslavl. Precisely - in that Pereyaslavl, according to the ancient - Russian or Kiev, which is currently Poltava, and which is located on our or the left side of the Dnieper, 94 ½ versts down from Kyiv, lying not on the Dnieper itself, but 8 ½ versts from it, at the confluence of the Alta and Trubezh rivers. (Or when the first one flows into the last one). This fact of the initial existence or location of the metropolitan see not in Kyiv, but in Pereyaslavl, is beyond doubt. From our first metropolitan Leon or Leo, a Greek work has survived to this day, which is inscribed Λέοντος μητροπολίτου (ἀρχιεπισκόπου) τῆς ἐν Ρωσία Πρεσθλάβας. Our ancient chronicler from 1089. testifies that “there were no metropolises in Pereyaslavl before,” and speaking about Yaroslav’s construction of St. Sophia, lets us know that in Kyiv the metropolitan see appeared only at this church, built 50 years after the establishment of our metropolitanate. But what could be the reason that the metropolitan see was initially established not in Kyiv, the capital of the state, but in Pereyaslavl? Recently it was suggested that probably in Kyiv from the very beginning there was no convenient premises for the metropolitan [See. “Additions and amendments"], but in Pereyaslavl this was found, and that is probably why they were settled there, for a time before the preparation of premises in Kyiv. With this assumption, which, obviously, cannot be considered valid in itself, one cannot agree because the metropolitan see remained in Pereyaslavl for a whole 50 years. If the metropolitan was initially placed in Pereyaslavl for lack of a home for him in Kyiv (let’s assume this strange assumption), then he would have been transferred to the latter in two or three years, in any case, by the time the Tithe Church was built, for if he was intended to actually live in Kyiv, then it is obvious that this church should have served as his cathedral church. Having built this church, Vladimir did not, however, transfer the metropolitan to it: it is clear that in his thoughts Pereyaslavl was forever designated to be the seat of the latter’s department. Not finding it possible to answer our question with anything satisfactory, we are forced for now to be content with only an indirect answer. Namely, that Vladimir’s intention to place the metropolitan not in the capital of the state, but separately, in a special residence, does not represent an example of the only one of its kind - that this was the case with many others 622. The metropolitans were transferred from Pereyaslavl to Kyiv by Yaroslav, who established their see at the church of St. Sofia. The bishops who replaced the metropolitans in Pereyaslavl continued to be called metropolitans for some time, representing titular metropolitans (which the Greeks also had, see below). As for the relations of the metropolitans to Kiev, while they were staying in Pereyaslavl: it must be thought that it was he who was recognized and was their throne city in the proper and strict sense of the word (while Pereyaslavl was only their residence) 623. The question is the own diocesan region of our metropolitans. We will talk about this below when we talk about dioceses of bishops. In the pre-Mongol period, we made one attempt to establish in Russia another metropolis other than Kyiv, namely, in the half of the 12th century, by Andrei Bogolyubsky. Andrei Bogolyubsky, the second appanage prince of Suzdal, who succeeded his father Yuri Dolgoruky in appanage, managed and managed to create such a power for himself in his North that he decisively rose above the fallen princes of Kyiv and opened a number of great princes in a new place. In order to finally make his Vladimir Klyazemsky the capital of the great reign, Bogolyubsky naturally had a desire to see him as a metropolitan. Since in his time Vladimir was not yet the single capital of the great reign, moved from Kyiv, but was a new and different capital next to the latter, and the capital was only de facto, but not de jure, he could not act in such a way as to transfer the former metropolitan from Kyiv to Vladimir, and had to seek the establishment of a second or new metropolis. In 1162 624, after preparing a department for the future metropolitan in the magnificent Church of the Dormition of the Mother of God and having a ready-made candidate in a certain Theodore or Fedorets, about whom we will talk below, on the advice of his boyars, he sent an embassy with a request for the separation of the Suzdal region from the Rostov diocese and the establishment of a metropolis in Vladimir to the Patriarch of Constantinople Luke Chrysovergus. But his wish was not destined to come true. The Patriarch convened a council, discussed the request at it, and in his letter 625 sent a response, which contained a decisive refusal. Separating questions about benefit and right from one another, we do not know what to answer to the first - it may very well be that the establishment of a second metropolis would not serve the state benefit of Russia; It may even be that it would not serve the benefit of the church. But as for the second question, the patriarch, strictly speaking, had no right to refuse Bogolyubsky’s request. The Patriarch motivates his refusal by the fact that the canons of the church prohibit violating the established limits of metropolises and bishoprics, and that therefore he cannot separate the Suzdal region from the Rostov diocese and establish two in Russia instead of one metropolitanate. But the patriarch here sophistically applies to the Russian Church the canons that apply to the Greek metropolises. These latter embraced the civil Greek provinces, and the canons indeed prohibit dividing one civil province into two church metropolises or into several metropolises through the elevation of bishops of district cities to metropolitans (real, not titular only) (4th Ecumenical Council, Rule 12). As for the Russian Church, other canons were relevant to it, namely, that “the distribution of church parishes (district) should follow the civil order” (4th Ecumenical Council, canon 17 and 6th Ecumenical Council, canon 38), according to which each provincial city in Greece had to have its own metropolitan. If in Greece every civil province was eo ipso a metropolis, then Bogolyubsky (as well as every other appanage prince of ours) had the right to demand that his appanage be made a metropolis, for our appanages, of course, were already equal to the Greek provinces. Like Vladimir, he did not know his rights, otherwise he would have established a metropolis himself, without asking the patriarch, for this was his right as a sovereign, and according to contemporary Greek views (see Rally and P. II, 262, and VI, 275 - although, however, there is a question here as to who is considered the highest state power in relation to the Russian Church, which is discussed below). We will talk about the true reason for the refusal later, when we finish telling the story of Bogolyubsky’s attempt to achieve church independence from the Kyiv Metropolitan for his destiny, which did not end with our quest to get a metropolitan for ourselves. (See in this chapter, in addition to the section “The space of the ecclesiastical court and ecclesiastical laws”). II. Episcopal sees, bishops and diocesan administration. We move from metropolitans to bishops. Episcopal sees were established with us immediately upon the arrival of our first metropolitan, which establishment was his first task upon arrival. This establishment of departments, according to the chronicles 626, took place in the same year as the very arrival, namely 991, which would be the third year after Vladimirov’s campaign against Korsun and the second after the start of the general baptism of the people. We have already repeatedly made it known above how small the bishoprics were among the Greeks. Initially, each individual church community, both urban and rural, or each parish (moreover, each city, large or small, always constituted one community or one parish) had its own bishop. Subsequently, they destroyed the rural bishops and left only the urban ones, but they left all of these latter, so that in Greece, without fail and eo ipso, each city had its own bishop 627. This question about this or that number of dioceses is not just a question of simple church statistics, but a very important question about the very spirit of church government. For the greater number of rulers have themselves this way, and the smaller number quite differently, for in one case the spirit of simplicity predominates, and in the other the spirit of power; in one case the possibility of greater closeness of bishops to their flocks, in the other - less. Our Russia, by its conditions, by its overwhelming space from ancient to the present time, could not at all be divided into dioceses in the same sense and in the same way as it was in Greece. The then own Rus' was on the other side of the Dnieper, which currently constitutes Western Russia, beyond the Dnieper; in comparison with our boundless Russia, located on this side of the Dnieper, it seems to us very small. But even in the space of what was then Russia, if the task was to make bishops as close in every sense to their flocks as was the case in Greece, it would be necessary to establish no less than one hundred and two bishops. But this was impossible, because over a vast area we had an extremely sparse population and very many of the bishops, as close to their flocks as was the case in Greece, would have to have two or three villages under their authority, no more. If we had established dioceses in all cities, as was the case in Greece, then although we had an insignificant number of cities in comparison with the latter, in relative terms we would still have quite a significant number of dioceses. But the bishops had to be supported, and the majority of the cities of the then non-industrial Rus' were the same poor villages and bore the name of cities only in the sense of more or less fortified places 628. As a result of all this, enormous Russia, of necessity, had to be divided into such a small number of dioceses that each of our diocese was equal to two or three dozen Greek dioceses, and some of them (Novgorod, Rostov) were equal to hundreds of the latter 629. This is a completely different division of Russia into dioceses than in Greece, being a matter of simple necessity, at the same time, as we said, it was supposed to introduce into our diocesan administration a significantly different spirit than what was in Greece. The few bishops of vast territories were to appear with a completely different character from the very many bishops of very small regions. How many dioceses Vladimir established for the first time remains positively unknown, for from the chronicles speaking about this establishment, the Novgorodians directly name only their own bishop, and then add: “and according to another city (establish a metropolitan) bishops.” The Nikon Chronicle directly names four cities besides Novgorod and then adds: “and in many other cities you installed bishops (metropolitan)” 630. The four cities directly called the last chronicle are: Chernigov, Rostov, Vladimir Volynsky 631 and Belgorod. Going to look for other dioceses opened under Vladimir, besides the five indicated, we find that of all the dioceses that existed in the subsequent period of the pre-Mongol period, only three are positively unknown that they were opened after Vladimir, while about the rest it is positively known that they were opened precisely after him. Consequently, we can only talk about these three dioceses. These three dioceses are: Turov, Polotsk and Tmutarakan. If we give faith to the words of the Nikon Chronicle, that in addition to the cities directly named by it, dioceses were opened in other cities, then of the three just named, we, in any case, will have to assimilate the discovery of one to Vladimir. Since there is every reason to give faith to her words, for it would be too few to consider only five directly named dioceses to be the first discovered, and there would be only three dioceses in Trans-Dnieper or Rus'’s own; since Turov and Polotsk belonged to such cities in which the opening of dioceses is likely to be learned by Vladimir, and Tmutarakan, on the contrary, was a city in which there is no probability of the opening of a diocese being learned by anyone after him: then we take it as most likely that all three named dioceses were opened under Vladimir. Polotsk, currently insignificant and not so much Russian as a Jewish town, in ancient times was the main city of a special tribe of Polotsk or Polotsk Krivichi; during the reign of Svyatoslav or Olga after Igor, the Varangian Rogvold, who arrived from overseas, founded a special Varangian-Russian principality, which was destroyed by Vladimir, defeating and killing Rogvold; that Vladimir considered it among the most important cities of his time is evident from the fact that he gave it as an inheritance to his eldest son from Rogneda and the second eldest among all his sons (after Svyatopolk) Izyaslav: according to all this, there is every likelihood that the discovery of the diocese of Polotsk will be learned by Vladimir. This probability is strengthened even more by the fact that otherwise we would have to admit that the whole region, undoubtedly baptized under Vladimir (Polotsk region), was left without its own bishop and was entrusted to one or another distant bishop. Turov, currently not even a city, but a town 632, was the main city of the Dryagovich tribe. And although after Vladimir during the period of appanages he did not play a significant role, under him, undoubtedly. Although, it is not entirely clear, he occupied one of the very first places between the cities, which is evident from the fact that Vladimir gave it as an inheritance to his eldest son Svyatopolk. (As well as after him Yaroslav to his eldest son Izyaslav). Consequently, it is just as likely for Vladimir to assimilate the founding of the diocese there, as in Polotsk. As for Tmutarakan, this remote and mysterious Russian colony, located on the present-day Taman peninsula, during its short-lived existence after Vladimir, its real appanage prince - which princes after Vladimir took care of the further opening of dioceses - was only one - his son Mstislav. So the discovery of the diocese of Tmutarakan can only be understood by either him or this Mstislav. It seems to us more likely to assimilate her discovery to him than to Mstislav. This latter, as his behavior shows, did not at all look at Tmutarakan as a place in which he would like to stay forever 633, and therefore he could not have the desire to care about opening a diocese in it 634. Thus, in addition to the five dioceses, the discovery of which by Vladimir the chronicle speaks positively of, in all likelihood he should assimilate the discovery of three more dioceses. Three dioceses, of course, do not make up many of the dioceses that the Nikon Chronicle speaks of, apart from the five directly named by it. Here one of two things - either soon after Vladimir some of the dioceses opened by him were closed, or the expression of the Nikon Chronicle “in many other cities” is simply an exaggeration; since the first is almost completely incredible, we should think the latter 635. Eight dioceses, and, not counting Tmutarakan, seven dioceses throughout Rus' - this, of course, is very little. But since Vladimir’s zeal for Christianity and the church cannot be doubted, one should think that the opening of a large number of dioceses was not possible and convenient 636. Comparing the church division of Russia into dioceses with its civil division under Vladimir, we find that six dioceses were opened in cities that were appanage under Vladimir. One - in a city that for some reason was not appanage under him, but which was the oldest after Kyiv, and one - in a city that had no civil significance and the establishment of a department in which should be explained by church-administrative reasons and also, so to speak, personal. The cities that were appanage under Vladimir are: Vladimir Volynsky, Turov, Polotsk, Novgorod, Rostov and Tmutarakan, a city that was not appanage under him, but the oldest after Kyiv is Chernigov. A city that had no civil significance is Belgorod. Of the cities that were appanage under Vladimir, dioceses were not opened: in the unknown by name main city of the Drevlyanskaya region and in Murom. Ancient Belgorod currently has the town of Belgorodka, located 23 versts southwest of Kyiv and constituting the first station on the post road to Zhitomir. Either he himself composed it or it contained one of Vladimir’s main estates. For before the adoption of Christianity, according to the chronicler, a significant part of his supposedly numerous concubines were placed here (300 out of 800). In the third year after the campaign against Korsun (991), probably at the same time as installing a bishop, Vladimir founded a real city or fortress in Belgorod and significantly increased its population by withdrawing from other places, “bebo,” says the chronicler, “loving the city.” Subsequently, however, it is called a “small city” 637. In this city, which had absolutely no civil significance, Vladimir established an episcopal see. One should think, firstly, that, having appointed Pereyaslavl, rather than Kyiv, as the metropolitan’s throne city, he wanted to have in the Bishop of Belgorod a bishop who could perform bishop’s services in Kyiv in times of need. And in general, for him, the Grand Duke, he was a bishop, so to speak, a courtier, episcopus curialis, such as other sovereigns had. Secondly, in order to give the Metropolitan a kind of vicar and assistant in him. In the unknown main city of the Drevlyanskaya region, Vladimir did not establish an episcopal see, as one must think, because this small region was close to other dioceses and, in particular, as one might assume, because it was assigned to the Bishop of Belgorod in the diocese. [Refers here from page 358]Having established a diocese in non-Rostov, Vladimir did not establish it in non-Russian Murom, probably because in the first and its region there was a more or less significant colony of real Russians and that the non-Russians themselves already showed a greater or lesser inclination towards Russification. And Murom, on the contrary, still represented a completely deaf and completely foreign Ukraine, in which the establishment of an episcopal see would be completely useless and would turn out to be completely inconvenient. After Vladimir, before the invasion of the Mongols, exactly the same number of dioceses were opened in Russia as were opened by him, that is, eight, namely: Pereyaslav and Yuryev under Yaroslav, Smolensk in 1137, Galich until 1165, Ryazan until 1207, Vladimir-Klyazem in 1214, Peremyshl in 1220 or before this year and Ugrovskaya shortly before the Mongol invasion. All dioceses before the invasion of the latter should thus have been 16. But since one of them - Tmutarakan, along with its principality itself, ceased to exist either at the end of the 11th or at the beginning of the 12th century, there were 15 of them. It goes without saying that new dioceses after Vladimir were opened in the most significant cities, as it was under him and as it should have been by the very essence of the matter. The most significant cities in the pre-Mongol period were our capital cities of appanage principalities, which were divided into two categories, so to speak - primary and secondary, namely: all of Russia was divided into a certain number of appanages, which, in turn representing new special wholes, were divided into private and lateral appanages, or, so to speak, half- appanages. After Vladimir, episcopal sees were established in all capital cities of the main appanages and only in very few capital cities of private appanages, namely in only one - Przemysl, which was a separate appanage of Galich 638. Of the dioceses opened by Vladimir, one was an exception against civil order (Belgorod). Of the dioceses opened after Vladimir, two were such an exception - Yuryevskaya and Ugrovskaya. As for all the dioceses of the pre-Mongol period in general, in relation to the dioceses opened under Vladimir, some change occurred in the civil order after him, namely: Chernigov, which was not an appanage under him, became one with Yaroslav, and vice versa - Rostov, which was an appanage under him, after him ceased to be such for a long time. Thus, the attitude of all dioceses of the pre-Mongol period to the civil or state order will be: 10 episcopal sees existed in the capital cities of the main or primary appanages, namely: Chernigov, Pereyaslav, Vladimir-Volyn, Turov, Polotsk, Novgorod. Smolensk, Galich, Ryazan and Vladimir-Klyazemskaya. One department existed in the capital city of a separate appanage - Peremyshl, one - in the former appanage city - Rostov, and three were an exception to the civil order: Belgorod, Yuryevsk and Ugrovskaya. The diocese of Pereyaslavl and the last two now named require special speeches. The episcopal see in Pereyaslavl was opened or was left in place of the metropolitan see, which after 1037 was transferred by Yaroslav to Kyiv to the St. Sofia 639. In remembrance of the fact that the Pereyaslavl bishopric succeeded the metropolis, the first Pereyaslavl bishops, or at least some of them, bore the title of metropolitans 640. The Bishopric of Yuryev was established by Yaroslav in the city of Yuryev, which he built, which is currently the town of Belaya Tserkov, located on the river. Rosi 81 versts southwest of Kyiv. In this city or town, built in the great reign, where under Yaroslav there were two bishops (the metropolitan himself and the bishop of Belgorod), and to which Yaroslav did not attach any political significance, the episcopal see, no doubt, was established by him for one of the reasons for which the Belgorod see was established by Vladimir. Namely, in order to give the Metropolitan a second vicar or assistant, and separately, we think, it is necessary to understand that by giving the Metropolitan a second vicar, Yaroslav wanted to give him the opportunity to consecrate bishops without calling on other bishops. The city of Ugrovsk or Ugrovesk was located in ancient northeastern Galicia, in the current Lublin province of our former kingdom of Poland, at the confluence of the river or small river Uher, from which it received its name, into the Western Bug (opposite the town or town of Opalina, currently the village of Ugrusk). From a village to a city, Ugrovsk was built by the Grand Duke of Galich Daniil Romanovich, who wanted to live in it instead of his capital city of Galich, so famous for the sedition of its boyars, but who soon chose after him the Hill, built by him and located very close to here. In Ugrovsk, the episcopal see was established by Daniil, as it must be thought, for that personal reason, which for Vladimir was one of the reasons for the establishment of the see in Belgorod. Precisely - in order to have a courtier bishop as his bishop. (Having existed briefly in Ugrovsk, the department was transferred by Daniil after the Mongol invasion to Kholm, to which, as we said, he himself moved from Ugrovsk). Fifteen dioceses throughout and throughout Rus'. Compared to Greece, this was extremely small. If we had the concept of a city, which among the Greeks necessarily and naturally presupposed a bishop, was applied at least to all capital appanage cities without exception, that is, both primary and secondary appanages, then the dioceses would have to be open at least twice as much. In addition, after Vladimir, undoubtedly, non-appanage cities appeared in which episcopal sees could exist. Thus, in general, we could have open dioceses, if not approximately as many as there were in Greece, then much more than how many were actually opened. But Vladimir, who opened a very small number of very extensive dioceses out of necessity, laid down, so to speak, the principle of the small number and vastness of dioceses. It is very likely that the princes did not have any particular desire to establish dioceses, because these institutions had to be accompanied by very sensitive expenses for them - for the construction of decent cathedrals, for providing the departments with lands, etc. But there is no doubt that it was the former bishops who mainly and persistently opposed the opening of new dioceses. For for these latter, the reduction of their existing dioceses was nothing more than a proportional reduction of their income (of which below). That the main obstacle was precisely the bishops, and not the princes, and that the former looked at the opening of new dioceses with the greatest displeasure, we have positive evidence of this. Prince of Smolensk Rostislav Mstislavich, in 1137. who opened the diocese of Smolensk through separation from Pereyaslavl, in his established charter of the bishopric, drawn up with the first bishop Manuel (the same one discussed above), writes together with the latter: “(if) a bishop who begins to be insatiable, although he goes to Pereyaslavl and applies this bishop to Pereyaslavl, let him be sworn to” 641. A little higher, we saw that the Patriarch of Constantinople, Luke Chrysoverg, sophistically referred to Andrei Bogolyubsky to the canons prohibiting violating the established limits of metropolises and bishoprics. There is no doubt that these canons were in like manner greatly referred to by our bishops. How we were in no hurry, for one reason or another, to establish bishoprics even in the capital cities of the primary fiefs, is evident from the fact that the Galich bishopric was established 60 years after the emergence of the fief, and the Ryazan and Vladimir-Klyazem bishoprics a whole century later 642 . Thus, too small a number and too large an expanse of dioceses became forever a distinctive characteristic feature of the administration of the Russian Church, introducing into our diocesan administration a spirit significantly different from that in Greece. The largest part of the dioceses fully embraced those regions or those appanages in whose capital cities there were episcopal sees. But the three dioceses were located (combined) in the same area; these dioceses were the metropolitan himself and the bishops of Belgorod and Yuryev. The metropolitan diocese, at its first establishment, was formed not from one region of the great reign, to which the subsequent principality of Pereyaslavl belonged under Vladimir, but also from the region of Drevlyanskaya, annexed to the great reign under Yaroslav, and at the same time, from the region of the great reign, a part was taken from it to form the diocese of Belgorod. Then, after the transfer of the metropolitans from Pereyaslavl to Kyiv, a special bishop was appointed to the Pereyaslavl part of the metropolis, and when the department was established in Yuryev, a part was taken from it to form the Yuryev diocese. The dioceses of Belgorod and Yuryev, located in the same region of the great reign as the metropolis, in all likelihood embraced only very insignificant parts of this region. We don’t know whether the first diocese had other cities besides Belgorod, but to the second, besides Yuryev itself, Kanev also belonged 643. In Greece, in later times, at least from the emperor Leo the Wise († 911, see Balsamon in Ralli and P. III, 516), the departments of metropolitans had their own certain degrees of seniority and juniority, along with which the metropolitans themselves had certain places of proximity. We cannot say whether the bishops who were under the metropolitans had these degrees or not. In the same way, we cannot say whether our bishops had or did not have them in the pre-Mongol period. As it seems, no. Firstly, if there were these degrees, then the chronicles, in cases where they have to list many bishops, would always put them in the same order, but we do not find this in them - in different cases the order is different. Secondly, if there were degrees, then the senior bishops would have to be: Novgorod, as the bishop of the main city after Kyiv, Chernigov, as the bishop of the eldest city after Kyiv in southern Rus', and Pereyaslavl, as the bishop who succeeded the metropolitans. The Bishop of Novgorod is not found in the lists along with other bishops, but the bishops of Chernigov and Pereyaslavl are not senior in them 644. Having no degrees, our bishops were probably neighbors, on the basis of ancient custom and rule 645, according to the seniority of consecration. In 1165 the bishop of Novgorod received from the metropolitan the title of archbishop (as discussed below), and at the same time, undoubtedly, acquired seniority among the bishops (unless he already had it before). Our very first bishops, as one must think, were all, or almost all, Greeks 646. We ourselves may have had people suitable for election as bishops among the priests of those Christians who existed in Kyiv before Vladimir, but, of course, there were few such people 647, and, in any case, there was no shortage of candidates for bishops from the Greeks. What must be assumed is that they would hardly want to appoint many bishops from them for the first exceptional time. With the second change of bishops, their installation together with the Greeks and from natural Russians was to begin. Simultaneously with the establishment of departments, special councils of presbyters were formed under our bishops to govern the dioceses, which were called kliros, and whose members were called clergy or kliroshan (we will talk about them in more detail below). It is necessary to think that under our very first bishops these councils of presbyters were composed not only of Greeks, but also of natural Russians; but among the members of these councils from among the natural Russians, to whom, as we can probably assume in itself and to which we have direct indications, the first bishops treated as their deliberate disciples and from among whom they prepared their successors 648, and there should have been people capable of being elected bishops. In a more or less short time after this, in these diocesan presbyteral-kliroshan councils, natural Russians had such a decisive majority in comparison with the Greeks that, given the extreme small number of our first dioceses, people capable and worthy of being bishops could undoubtedly be found among them alone, so that in a not particularly long time from the beginning of Christianity in us and from the establishment of cathedras in our country, bishops could be installed in our country from only natural Russians. This last one, however, did not happen. What happened, as we positively know, was that after the appearance of a sufficient number of candidates for bishops among the Russians themselves, the latter began to be appointed primarily from among them, but that along with them, throughout the entire pre-Mongol period until its very end, Greeks were also appointed in one or another certain number. The reason for this was that throughout the entire period our metropolitans were Greeks. Their own presbyterian-kliroshan councils, as such, had to constantly consist of a predominant or non-predominant number of Greeks, whom they brought with them from Constantinople: but they constantly had the desire to appoint their Greek kliroshans as bishops. Presbyterian-Kliroshansky councils were to consist of white or lay priests; but while we accepted Christianity from the Greeks, it seems that they consisted not only of white priests, but partly also of monks. If this is really so, then it could have been with us even before the advent of monasteries, which time we are talking about, and precisely - it could have been that other persons who were elected to the presbyters - cliroshans, could express a desire to take monastic tonsure in order to monk without monasticism and in the positions of parish priests, which was the presbyters-kliroshans (like the current members of consistories). Among the cliroshans there could be white priests without priests or single ones, for the Greeks always had such priests. As for the obstacle to the election as bishops of those white married priests who had living wives: it should be said about it that in reality it was not as great as it should have been according to the 48th rule of the Council of Trulla, namely, that at that time the wives of priests elected to bishops, as can be seen from one of the short stories of Emperor Isaac Angelus (1185–1195), did not necessarily enter into distant relationships bishops' monasteries, but remained to live in the world 649. There can be no doubt that, given the extremely small number of our dioceses, and in the presbytery-cliroshan councils alone, there were a sufficient number of capable and worthy candidates for bishops. There may, however, be expected exceptional cases of the election of ordinary parish bishops and priests, to which there were no obstacles, as well as of the laity, which the Greeks had not yet fully developed, for between both of them exceptional people could happen, forcing them to be preferred to ordinary candidates. The episcopal clergy or clergy, from whom our bishops were to be elected for the first time, represented among the Greeks one class of candidates for bishops; Their other class then consisted of monks. In our country, this other class of candidates for bishops appeared 50 years after Vladimirov’s baptism. When the availability of candidates for us became the same as it was for the Greeks, in the future it would be expected that the electability of candidates of one and another class with us would be approximately the same as it was with the Greeks. That is, that from one and another class of candidates we will have bishops elected in approximately the same number as they had. But in reality, it seems much more probable to accept that since the appearance of monks among us, the matter of electing bishops among us has not developed in such a way as to be a more or less close repetition of what happened among the Greeks, but that, on the contrary, in this case we have diverged from them or deviated from them. The two classes of candidates for bishops were related to one another in such a way that the clergy were the original candidates and had their rights, so to speak, eo ipso, and the monks were the candidates who appeared later and gradually acquired rights by increasing custom. We do not know what happened in our time with the mutual relations of candidates in Egypt-Syro-Palestinian Greece, in the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch; but as for Greece of Asia Minor-Thracia, to the Patriarchate of Constantinople: we can judge by the example of the replacement of the see itself by the patriarch and on the basis of the evidence known to us, and the monks, having become the main candidates for bishops together with the clergy, in order to replace the laity as such, have not yet gained a decisive advantage over the former. So the bishops were elected mainly from some and from others, but not more from monks than from clergy. Moreover, the rights of clergy were recognized by everyone, but no one directly exposed the rights of monks 650. As for us, from the existing data it should be concluded that after we had monasteries and monks in them who were capable and worthy of being bishops, these latter became the decisively predominant candidates for bishops among us. It is true that the existing data cannot be considered completely sufficient: we do not have complete catalogs of our bishops of the pre-Mongol period, and for those individual bishops that we know, not all of them, we know from whom they were elected. But, nevertheless, it is hardly possible to consider the data insufficient to draw from them the indicated conclusion: Simon of Vladimir testifies in his letter to Polycarp that from the monks of one Pechersk monastery, up to 50 people were appointed bishops during the pre-Mongol period. Then, the positive information about individual bishops, from whom they were appointed, as far as we have this information, comes down to the fact that we know about all of them as having been appointed from monks. And only about four or five, with one or another case being completely exceptional, do we know about, as being not appointed monks. But if we accept the conclusion, then the question arises: why in the pre-Mongol period, after the appearance of monks among us, did the election of bishops become significantly different from what it was during that time among the Greeks? And precisely why did we have this decisive predominance of monks over the clergy or choir members who were originally our only candidates for bishops? In answer to the question, it will be necessary to assume that we have a different situation than the Greeks with the replacement of the colleges of episcopal clergy or clergy, namely, that they began to be replaced in our country by people of the wrong social class or the wrong secular class from which the brother bishops could be. As the highest church rulers or administrators, bishops are spiritual boyars and spiritual dignitaries. And for this reason, from very ancient times, they began to be chosen from the Greeks primarily from people of the worldly class of boyars and gardeners. For this to happen or for this custom to be established, as anyone can easily understand, was completely natural and necessary: ​​Given the absolutely equal possibility of electing our spiritual boyars and dignitaries from all worldly classes - and this was exactly the case, why on earth, i.e. for what purposes and for what reasons would they want to choose them from the lower classes, and not from the boyar class, in other words, why on earth would they want to create artificial but essentially monstrous boyars from the peasants, bypassing the natural boyars? To do the first with the same opportunity to do the second, obviously, could only occur to people if some socialist theories prevail among them. The establishment of our custom, so that bishops are elected primarily from people of the highest worldly origin, in addition to the complete naturalness and necessity of the matter in itself, should be facilitated by two more deliberate circumstances. Firstly, bishops are rulers from whom, by the nature of their office, it is required that they be as well educated as possible; and such people were precisely in the upper class, and not in the lower ones. Secondly, from a very ancient time, no later than the first half of the 5th century, the custom was introduced in the Greek Church for those consecrated as bishops to pay their consecrators with their officials, under the name καθεδρατικὸν ’a and ἐνθρονιαστικὸν ’a, very large duties, extending with all the costs of consecration, depending on the profitability of the dioceses, to a very significant amount - up to five thousand of our rubles, and it may very well be almost up to all ten. But for most people from the lower classes these, of course, were unaffordable duties 651. If, in addition to the direct occupation of episcopal places, people from the boyar-gardener class did not at all go to the clergy, then, subject to the election of bishops from among them, the custom of electing bishops primarily from the laity would have to be established. But the colleges of clergy or clergy under the bishops were colleges of diocesan officials, and these colleges, if not under all the bishops that every city had in Greece, then under the metropolitans and patriarchs, were composed mainly of persons of the same boyar origin. And thus, mainly people belonging to the boyar class were appointed bishops, being elected partly from the laity, partly from the clergy or clergy. When the monks appeared, and when it became customary to elect bishops from among them, the latter also began to be elected mainly from monks of worldly boyar origin 652. In the Patriarchate of Constantinople, as far as can be judged by the example of the patriarchal see itself, with these three classes of candidates for bishops, who in their worldly origin belonged mainly to the boyar class, as we said, it was such that until the half of the 10th century clergy and laity were elected, and then clerics and monks began to be elected, and during our pre-Mongol period the latter were not yet They took a decisive advantage over the latter, and it also happened between them that one and the other were elected half-and-half. If, during the pre-Mongol period, after the monks appeared among us, we do not see the same thing that happened in Greece, i.e. actually in the Patriarchate of Constantinople; if in our country, as we should think, concluding from the existing data, monks have become the decisively predominant candidates for bishops, and examples of the election of clergy or clergymen to bishops, of whom none are positively known to us, should be assumed as exceptional cases: then the reason for this should be considered the following: With us, just like with the Greeks, after the passing of the first exceptional times, mainly people of worldly boyar origin began to be elected to bishops, - what to assume, in any case, it is necessary. But we did not have people of boyar origin among the clergy or klirosans, and they were only among the monks, in other words, it was not customary for us to have people from the upper class become clergy or kliroshans, but it was only customary for them to become monks. There may also be a reason why it is not customary for us to have people from the upper or boyar class become clergy or clergy. The reason for this may be that our metropolitans were Greeks, and not natural Russians. It is necessary to think that their cliroshans, if not during the entire pre-Mongol period, then at least for the first quite long time, were mainly Greeks, whom they brought with them from Constantinople. But with the boyars having no access to the metropolitan’s own clergy college, they might have become reluctant to enter the clergy only under the bishops (to whom, probably in Greece itself, only boyars of the lowest rank entered the clergy, and perhaps no boyars entered the clergy at all). So, existing data forces us to accept that during the pre-Mongol period, after we had monasteries and in them monks capable and worthy of being bishops, these latter became the decisively predominant candidates for bishops. And that appointments to bishops from other candidates were only more or less a few exceptions, of which we actually know four or five exceptions. This is about natural Russians. Then, as we have already said, we positively know that throughout the entire period until its very end, in one or another certain number Greeks were installed as bishops, in whom we should see clergymen or clergy metropolitans themselves belonging to the white or black clergy. That we installed bishops from monks, not of any kind of worldly origin, but mainly of aristocratic origin, who belonged to the boyar class in the world, this must be assumed based on what we have just said above. If it really was the case with us that since the appearance of monasteries, monks have become the decisively predominant candidates for bishops: then such a disagreement between us and modern Greece, - in fact, with the Patriarchate of Constantinople, can be explained only by what we indicated above. That is, the assumption that people of aristocratic origin, from whom in our country, as in Greece, bishops were mainly elected, became monks with us and did not become episcopal clergy or clergy. But, in any case, it is necessary to assume this in itself. In the same way, with regard to us, it is impossible to allow that unnatural thing, as there was no such thing in Greece, that with the same opportunity to elect spiritual dignitaries, such as bishops, monks of worldly high or low origin, we began to elect not the former, but the latter. And with us, just like with the Greeks, it was required of bishops that they be as educated people as possible (in our sense of the word). And we had such people and could have existed mainly among monks from the higher class, and not from the lower classes, and with us education (in our sense of the word) should have depended on class even more than among the Greeks (see below, in the chapter on enlightenment). And the custom passed down to us from the Greeks was for initiates to pay their initiates the same high fees that existed among them. Finally, we positively know that in post-Mongol times it really was the same for us as in pre-Mongol times we consider it necessary to imagine in a conjectural manner. Initially, people of the highest worldly origin became monks with us, of course, without any thought of being a bishop, and they began to be elected to our bishops because they were people of the highest origin. But then, as is very possible and probable, they began to cut their hair with the direct thought of being a bishop (as nowadays people who have received an academic education are cutting their hair as monks with this direct thought). In our previous speeches, when we say that people of the highest worldly origin were elected to bishops, we constantly add: “in the main, predominantly.” That is, we very much allow for the possibility of exceptions, if where this possibility of exceptions is acceptable, then, of course, in our case, because if where they could and should have given preference to the personal outstanding dignity of people over their origin, then when electing to episcopal positions. But since the bad always and everywhere goes hand in hand with the good, then along with examples of the election to bishops of people of low origin who were distinguished by their merits, there should be examples of the election of people of low origin and endowed with special dexterity. As for the duties that poor people had to pay for their supply, when asked about them, it can be assumed - either that those princes who chose poor people paid them for those supplied, or that they were paid from the sums of the subject departments, if the latter had such amounts, or, finally, that those supplied themselves made loans in order to later pay them out of their incomes. The first monastery that appeared in our country was the St. George Monastery, built by Yaroslav in 1037. or immediately after this year as a court monastery of the Grand Duke. After Yaroslav, private people began to build monasteries and his children and grandchildren continued to build them. As for these latter, on the one hand, they built family monasteries in their common capital Kyiv, and on the other hand, court or even princely monasteries in their very fiefs. It was natural for boyars to become monks in princely monasteries, and for princes it was natural to elect monks from their monasteries as bishops. Therefore, it is likely to think that candidates for bishops were mainly elected from the monks of the princely monasteries. However, there was one monastery, not built by princes, which, representing a decisive exception, partly directly, partly through the mediation of princely monasteries, gave during the pre-Mongol period such a number of bishops that it compensated, so to speak, for the entire group of private monasteries. This, as we have already let you know, is the famous Pechersk Monastery of St. Anthony and St. Theodosius. According to the testimony of Simon of Vladimir in his letter to Polycarp, partly directly from the monks of this monastery, partly from the abbots of the princely monasteries, who were taken as abbots from the monks of Pechersk, at least 50 people were appointed bishops during the pre-Mongol period. It must be assumed that in the famous Pechersk monastery, together with the princely monasteries, most people of boyar origin were tonsured into monasticism. And that the monks of this monastery, who by their origin belonged to the boyar class, were distinguished by a particularly strict life and a special desire for bookishness, which constituted our enlightenment at that time, which put them forward as candidates for episcopal positions. Or it could be that the monks of the Pechersk Monastery, who came from the boyar class, were given the privilege of candidacy for bishops simply because it was an exceptionally famous monastery. After monasteries appeared among us and monks became the decisively predominant candidates for bishops, these latter, in addition to monks, could be appointed in our country as exceptions from white priests who belonged to the episcopal choir, or from parish priests and from the laity. We cannot say how numerous the exceptions were, but we directly know of only four or five cases. These cases, in which in all cases white priests are the exception, are: the installation of Hilarion as metropolitan in 1051, as discussed above; installation as bishop-archbishop of Novgorod: John in 1110, or in 1164. and Gabriel, brother and successor of Iliin, in 1186. 653, and also, perhaps, the installation of John as bishop of Rostov in 1190. 654. Of these five or four priests, we know positively about one, namely Hilarion, that he was not one of the priests who belonged to the episcopal clergy or choir members. And about the rest, it remains unknown to us whether they belonged to these clergy or were from ordinary parish priests 655. Not daring to say how numerous were the exceptional cases of the appointment of bishops not from among the monks, we, however, think that they were not limited to only the four or five directly known to us. In the pre-Mongol period, the priests of so many princely cities, and among these priests especially those who belonged to the episcopal choirs, were in much closer communication with the princes, who could thus know them well; and for this reason, without denying the possibility that among our priests there could happen, even occasionally, people of outstanding merit, one can think that exceptional cases of their election took place not only in Novgorod. One piece of evidence known to us suggests the same. In 1229 The Novgorodians were left without an archbishop, and their then prince Mikhailo Vsevolodovich of Chernigov told them: “Behold, you don’t have a ruler, and it is absurd for this city to be without a ruler, look for (look for) such a husband in the priests, in the abbesses, or in the cherentsikhs” 656. If the cases of electing bishops from white priests were so extremely rare that they would be limited to only four or five known to us, and minus the very exceptional case of the election of Hilarion to metropolitan, three or four: then the prince would hardly have said: “Go to hell.” But, on the other hand, one cannot assume that exceptional cases will be more or less numerous. Monks were considered ordinary candidates for bishops, and therefore the former could be elected not from among them, but from white priests, obviously only when among the latter there were people too outstanding in their merits. (Or, at least, endowed with quite extraordinary dexterity). But such people are generally not very common. As for the election of bishops from the laity in our time, in all likelihood and more than likely, there were no cases of such election at all, because in Greece at the time we are talking about, the custom of electing laity had already completely abandoned 657. In relation to the installation of white priests and laity as bishops, there is the question of their preliminary tonsure as monks. To tonsure a white priest or layman as a monk before being ordained a bishop and consider this tonsure necessary for this installation 658 is something that is very difficult to understand. Strictly and strictly speaking, a bishop is not a monk, but rather a bishop, only taken from the class of monks and ceasing to be a monk from the moment of his ordination, since episcopacy and monasticism, as two opposites, are incompatible with each other 659. Thus, if a bishop, appointed from among the monks themselves, ceases to be a monk after his installation, then to tonsure a white priest before his installation as a bishop means to tonsure him so that he will immediately relinquish his monasticism. And to consider it necessary to be tonsured as a monk in order to become a bishop would mean nothing more than to make the effectiveness of a divinely instituted sacrament, such as the priesthood, dependent on something that is of simply human origin, such as monasticism. But in later times it became the custom among the Greeks to require that white priests and laymen promoted to bishops first be tonsured as monks. How and for what reasons the custom arose remains unclear to us, but we think the following regarding this: A monk who is appointed to the rank of bishop ceases to be a monk. But at the same time, only those monastic vows are removed from him that are incompatible with being a bishop, such as vows of obedience and discipleship, non-existent stay in monasteries with non-interference in either church or everyday affairs. (4 Ecumenical Council rule 4). But those monastic vows that are compatible with being a bishop are not removed, such as the vows of asceticism in life, chastity and non-covetousness. And since austerity of life, chastity and non-covetousness are highly desirable from every bishop, then, in order to more decisively oblige all of them to comply with these requirements, they came up with the idea of achieving the goal in relation to those of them who were not appointed as monks, through preliminary tonsure as monks: A white priest and a layman, tonsured as a monk immediately before becoming a bishop, cease to be monks from the moment of their appointment as a bishop, but at the same time, the vows they deliberately and solemnly made in relation to the now specified requirements remain in full force. Be that as it may, we positively know that not only throughout our entire pre-Mongol period, but also much further, at least until the first half of the 15th century, the Greeks did not yet have an indispensable and obligatory requirement that all non-monks elected to the bishops take monastic tonsure before being appointed 660. As for our four or five white priests who were appointed bishops during the pre-Mongol period: Hilarion took monastic tonsure before his installation, 661, regarding John of Novgorod we have no direct information, Elijah and Gabriel did not take tonsure 662, and regarding John of Rostov, believing that he was appointed from among the white priests, we should think the same thing that we positively know about the last two. We said that the Greeks, having been elected, as it is necessary to think, from the clergy or officials who served under the metropolitans, were installed as bishops with us along with natural Russians throughout the entire pre-Mongol period until its very end. There can hardly be any doubt that the metropolitan Greeks, which they all were, with the exception of two, had a great inclination to appoint their Greek clergy as bishops, whether they were from rich or poor people. Moreover, they could initiate the latter on loan, under the condition that the initiation fees were paid after the initiation from the income of the dioceses. However, one cannot think that in the pre-Mongol period we had too many Greek bishops appointed from these metropolitan clergy. The Greeks enjoyed too unenviable a reputation among us, and it is difficult to admit that our princes, who had a decisive influence on the replacement of cathedras (which is discussed below), felt a special desire to see Greek bishops among themselves. There was one diocese, which, due to its special circumstances, the Greeks were able to replace especially often, so that they considered it as if they were their diocese and which, if the news is to be believed, they to some extent made it a semi-Greek diocese. This is the Rostov diocese. In Rostov after St. Boris did not have his own appanage prince until the beginning of the 13th century, and until the end of the 11th century he belonged, together with Suzdal, to the Pereyaslavl appanage, and after that to the Suzdal appanage. The princes of Pereyaslavl, having the bishops of Rostov far from them, and the princes of Suzdal, having them still not with them, as one might think, for this reason gave their consent to the metropolitans so that the see of Rostov would be replaced by the Greeks 663. According to canonical rules, the election of a bishop must be carried out by a council of bishops of the metropolitan area, chaired by the metropolitan 664), without any participation of civil authorities, the intervention of which is positively prohibited and recognized as anti-canonical 665. As was the case in this regard in Russia, we have positive information only for the second half of the pre-Mongol period. And precisely - information consisting in the fact that in our country, contrary to the canons, candidates for bishops were elected not by metropolitans with a council of bishops, but by the princes of the subject appanages. Whether this was customary among us from the very beginning or whether it became a custom only over time and not suddenly remains unknown, but there is reason to consider the latter most likely. In Novgorod, the bishops were not elected by the Novgorodians themselves, but sent from Kyiv, until the first half of the 12th century. The chronicles do not directly say from whom they were sent - from the Grand Duke or from the Metropolitan; but since the Novgorodians, long before the half of the 12th century, stopped accepting appanages from the great princes and their own princes (choosing them themselves), it seems most likely to think that from the latter, and not from the former. But if in other places the custom of electing bishops themselves had long been established, then it would be completely incomprehensible how and why they hesitated for a long time to follow this custom of others in Novgorod, where there were every reason for it to appear on its own and earlier than others. The first direct news of the election of a bishop as an appanage prince is found in the chronicle under the year 1126 666; then they go continuously until the end of the period, and, however, it does not hurt to notice in them the one-sidedness that only the first indicated refers to southern Rus', while all the others belong to northern or Vladimir Rus'. On one occasion we find a general view of the matter expressed in the chronicles, namely that the right to elect a bishop belongs not to the metropolitan, but to the prince and citizens. In 1185, Metropolitan Nicephorus 2 appointed a certain Nicholas the Greek as bishop of Rostov without communicating with the Grand Duke Vsevolod Yuryevich, but the Grand Duke did not accept the latter and forced the Metropolitan to appoint his own candidate. In this regard, the author of one chronicle 667 notes on his own that only the one “whom the prince and the people delight in” is worthy to ascend to the rank of hierarch, and another chronicler 668 forces the Grand Duke to say to the metropolitan: “the people of our land did not choose this.” However, this violation by us of the canons of the church regarding the election of bishops should not be presented as our own doing, but only as a repetition or reproduction by us of what was done before us in Greece: After Justinian’s civil laws, which diverged in their prescriptions regarding the election of bishops from the canonical rules, although they did not have in mind the interest of state power 669, at the beginning of the second half of the 10th century, Emperor Nicephorus Phocas appropriated to himself the right to appoint bishops, which remained the case for subsequent times. 670. The history of violation of the canons in Russia was probably such that at first the great princes acquired the right to indicate to the metropolitans candidates for bishops 671 and that then the appanage princes, not wanting to be dependent on the great princes in our respect, acquired the right to elect bishops for themselves. Above, we made it known that of the testimonies about the election of bishops by the princes themselves, only one refers to southern Rus', while the rest refer to northern Russia. It is very possible to assume that in southern Rus' until the very end of the period it was one way or the other, i.e. that bishops were elected either by the princes themselves or by the metropolitans, and that only northern Rus', which was a representative of the principle of sensitive power, having once appropriated the right to itself, only then jealously and unswervingly guarded it. Some examples from the later pre-Mongol period show that the princes found out in advance about people worthy of being bishops and designated them in advance. A bishop dies in the region and the prince immediately sends for a candidate to take his place somewhere far away: it is obvious that this candidate had already been chosen in the prince’s mind. From the period closest to the pre-Mongol period, we know examples that bishops were actually pre-elected (contrary to the 23rd rule of the Council of Antioch). In 1261, in Rostov, during the life of Bishop Kirill, who had reached a ripe old age, with the blessing of the then Metropolitan Kirill 3 and the bishop himself, “he heard the Archimandrite of the Holy Epiphany Ignatius (electing him as the future successor to Kirill), and became the cleric of the Holy Mother of God in Rostov” 672. That is, the pre-elected successor to the bishop was marked in advance at the cathedral, taking him from his actual place. It is very likely that this happened in the pre-Mongol period 673. It was not our princes who were to blame for the fact that they violated the canons regarding the election of bishops. But one can hardly doubt that this attack was not at all beneficial to the cause itself. When electing bishops as metropolitans, the princes could always have vigilant supervision to ensure that the metropolitans did not allow abuses; and meanwhile, when electing bishops themselves, there was complete opportunity for the influence of all outside influences 674. It would seem that the princes should have known worthy people better than the metropolitans; but the latter had to make elections not individually, but with a council of bishops, and worthy people could be known to bishops no less than to princes. We have already made it clear above that the vast space of our dioceses must have had a very significant influence on the spirit and character of our bishops. This influence, unfortunately, was inevitable, but it was and could have been not for the better, but for the worse. The bishop, in his idea, is not only an administrative-judicial official over the clergy of a larger or smaller district, who has nothing to do with the lay population of this district. But there is absolutely the same shepherd of this latter, just as every parish priest is the shepherd of his parishioners. The only difference is that he is not only a shepherd, but also an archpastor, that is, not only a shepherd himself, but also a leader over other shepherds. According to this very idea, initially each individual church community, small and large, or each individual parish certainly had its own bishop. The destruction of rural bishops and leaving only urban ones, with the formation of episcopal districts or parishes 675 so that they embraced cities and counties, was actually an encroachment on the bishopric as a pastorate. But since in Greece they stopped at this and did not go further, the encroachment, not carried out too far, did not have such a consequence as to completely destroy the bishopric as a shepherd. A bishop, instead of one parish, who became the shepherd of an entire district of parishes, of course, could no longer be for everyone what he was for one. But in Greece the districts were very small, so that the dioceses in their new volume, after the destruction of the rural bishoprics, became approximately equal to no more than our deaneries. The bishop of such a small district still largely retained the opportunity to remain the true shepherd of his flock. The bishops had every opportunity to tour their relatively small dioceses every year. While going around them, they had every opportunity to stop in each village for a more or less long time. So, as one imperial decree positively obliges them to do, they could visit one by one the houses of all their flocks, not excluding the huts of the poor, in order to talk with each one pastorally about everything and instruct each one on the path of piety 676 . Being located not hundreds of miles away from their bishop, but many, many miles 15–20, all Christians of his diocese had every opportunity to turn to him with all their affairs and needs, requiring his pastoral blessing and guidance. Thus, for the laity of their dioceses, the bishops in Greece, until later times, remained to a greater or lesser extent true shepherds and did not, in their minds, turn into something that was planted behind twelve glasses in the provincial city, which “is inaccessible to us and has nothing to do with us” and that exists solely at the mercy of the priests 677... In relation to priests or presbyters, bishops, strictly speaking, are not at all high commanders and formidable judges, whom the latter are only obliged to tremble. The presbyters are actually the spiritual co-leaders of the bishops over their spiritual subordinates, who are the laity. In the primal church, as we said, there were no parishes in which there were only elders, but each parish had a bishop and with him a cathedral and a college of elders. One together with others, but not one without others, constituted the spiritual leadership of the community; the bishop was the president of this cathedral or this college, the presbyters were members and advisers 678. When rural bishops were destroyed and rural church communities or parishes were subordinated to the jurisdiction of urban bishops; when in the cities themselves, each of which initially, whether large or small, represented only one parish, for in them, as in the villages, bishops and presbyters each formed one undivided college, parishes appeared in the present sense. That is special churches appeared, to which from the council of presbyters, consisting of bishops, special leaders and abbots began to be appointed and appointed 679: then presbyters appeared, not serving with the bishops, but living separately from them. This departure of some presbyters from the council of presbyters, which was under the bishop, did not at all mean in essence the demotion of these presbyters and their descent into the ranks of simple subordinates. In one large community (bishopric), several private communities (parishes in the current sense) appeared, and these latter began to be managed by individuals from the college of leaders that stood at the head of the large community; it is clear that these are not actually subordinates, but individual representatives and authorized representatives of the central authorities. But at the same time, these elders, who were located in private areas (parishes), by their very position, were in danger of being reduced to the level of simple subordinates. The central authorities, of which they were private representatives, naturally had to have supervision over them. Supervision over their comrades, as presbyters in individual parishes did in relation to the bishop with the council of presbyters under him, could easily turn, as time went on, into supervision over subordinates, and thus these presbyters turned out to be nothing more than their simple subordinates in relation to the bishops. This transformation of parish priests from companions and co-leaders into subordinates also happened in Greece; but here, thanks to precisely the same smallness of the dioceses, the matter again stopped halfway and did not reach its extreme. The parish priests became subordinates, but given the smallness of the dioceses, they were all so close to the bishop, they all saw and treated him so often both in the bishopric to which they came to him, and in their own parishes to which he came to them, that in the mutual relations of one to the other a very significant amount of simplicity and closeness should have forever survived and remained, in which there could not be a mention of the boss ascending to the inaccessible height, and the subordinate fell into immeasurable depth, so that one became the personification of formidable power, and the other - slavish humiliation and slavish awe. In Greece, parish priests became subordinate to the bishops, but subordination was established in the best possible form of this latter, avoiding, if possible, everything that is bad and extreme in it. This is not what should have happened with the relations of bishops to their flocks and to their clergy here in Russia due to the vastness of our dioceses. Our dioceses were so vast that for most of their flocks our bishops did not have the physical opportunity to be shepherds, for they did not have the opportunity to see those who were supposed to shepherd. The means for pastoral communication between bishops and their flocks were diocesan tours. But, given the vastness of the latter, the bishops could only carry them out in such a way as to be not in all the villages, but only in the most central points, and stop in each place not for a more or less long time, but only for such a short period of time as to see the milling crowd of flocks and nothing more. Given the smallness of dioceses, bishops, without any inconvenience for the current affairs of government and without any inconvenience for people who had an urgent need to see them, could be absent from their usual places of residence or from their cathedral cities for a more or less long time. For it was not difficult for them to have continuous active communication with the departments, and everyone who had an urgent need for them could easily find them. On the contrary, given the vastness of the dioceses, the bishops had to take urgent care to be away from their departments and places of usual residence for as short a time as possible. Thus, in general, given the vastness of our dioceses, the bishops’ detours could only be very quick passages through central points and nothing more. While compiling the work, the detours did not achieve their goal at all, and therefore they were abandoned by our bishops 680. Consequently, our bishops could and had the opportunity to be true shepherds only for insignificant parts of their dioceses closest to them. But a person is designed in such a way that if everything is impossible for him, then he descends (“slides” - if only this trivial expression is permissible in this case) to nothing. Man, due to his weakness, is more inclined towards nothing than towards something, and he only needs an excuse and an excuse in order for him to hasten to follow his inclination. In the circumstance that everything is impossible for him, he finds such an excuse and excuse and, grasping at them, quickly comes to this nothingness, to which his nature attracts him. Our bishops were exactly the same people as all people, and the law we mentioned of inclination towards nothing more than towards something should have had all its power over them. The impossibility of being shepherds for everyone left the matter to their own will - the measure and degree of their own zeal. But left to their own devices and finding excuses to justify their unremarkable zeal, they, according to the law of human nature indicated by us, ended up slower or faster reducing a possible something to a more convenient nothingness. Not being able to be real shepherds for everyone, our bishops cared less and less about being such shepherds for some and ended up completely ceasing to be such shepherds, becoming as if non-existent for their flocks and remaining only the highest church officials, district commanders of the parish clergy. The vastness of our dioceses should also have had a far from positive influence on the nature of the relationship between bishops and the parish clergy subordinate to them. It is quite natural that the wider the area, the more the boss recognizes himself as a big boss. But our dioceses were not those tiny regions, representing nothing more than volosts or camps, as the dioceses were in Greece; they were so extensive that they not only embraced entire appanage princedoms, but even several of them. It was completely natural and excusable, therefore, for our bishops to have a much greater spirit of power than was the case in Greece. The more famous the category of bosses, the less aware they are of their power and their importance and, conversely, the fewer of them, the higher they are and the greater the bosses they are. In the Greek Empire, which was only slightly larger in terms of space than our then Russia, the number of bishops rose to many hundreds 681; in our country, in a slightly smaller, and maybe even no smaller, space, there were only 8 bishops, and by the Mongol invasion 15. Naturally, our bishops should have developed a completely different consciousness of their power than the first. The vastness of the dioceses, on the other hand, and the subordinate clergy should have led to the fact that they themselves and voluntarily assimilated more and more power to their bishops. A subordinate feels freer and more at ease with his boss, the more often he sees him and the more he treats him; on the contrary, he appears before him with fear and trembling if he has to see him too rarely. Given the vastness of our dioceses, our priests could see their bishops only very rarely, although, as we will see below, more often than the present one. Naturally, they themselves, not forced by anyone, appeared before the bishops with anything other than the most extreme humility and humiliation. And this, especially since, on the one hand, the overwhelming majority of them, as we will see below, were not only without any education, which awakens the consciousness of their dignity, but barely literate, and on the other hand, that all of them were from the lowest class by origin. Thus, the vastness of our dioceses should have led to the fact that, on the one hand, our bishops succumbed to the spirit of authority or high power, and on the other hand, to the clergy subordinate to them to be filled with a spirit of special humility and slavery. The consequence of both was that the bishop, as the head of the priests, became too high and inaccessible in relation to them - that the priests, as subordinates of the bishop, became too low and humiliated in relation to him. So, shepherds of their flocks, more in name than in reality, too high leaders of their subordinates - such are our bishops. The reason for this sad fact should be considered, however, not solely the vastness of our dioceses, but also something else, more significant and more, so to speak, organic. Namely, that in moving to new soil, the bishops themselves had to suffer a significant change for the worse, that on the new soil it, so to speak, had to degenerate somewhat. In Greece, where Christianity first appeared, the spirit of tradition in the bishopric continued continuously from apostolic times. As time passed, even there the bishops did not ascend to greater and greater perfection, but moved further and further away from the original perfection. But there the aforementioned spirit of continuous tradition, although diminished and weakened over time, nevertheless remained in the bishopric in order to act beneficially in it and to represent opposition to the decisive invasion of another spirit. Having been transferred to us, the bishopric has become completely new to us, for the institutions are transferred, but the spirit is not transferred. Thus, our bishops had to completely re-create for themselves their own spirit and character, or completely re-form themselves into a moral type. Without any backing of good tradition, people were left to their own devices. But a man, left to himself, always and everywhere turns out to be a man - always in this case he is inclined to arrange things in such a way that he takes on as few responsibilities as possible, and, on the contrary, assigns as much power as possible. The vastness of our dioceses offered an excuse to our bishops in the first case and involuntarily attracted them to excess in the second. People turned out to be people. And thus, one thing in combination with the other—excusing and favoring circumstances, together with a natural, unrestrained inclination to take advantage of them—caused our bishops to develop into a moral type significantly different from the Greek type. That in relation to the lay populations of their dioceses, our bishops became shepherds more in an abstract and spiritual sense than in a real one. That in relation to the subordinate clergy they became too high-ranking and too powerful bosses, far more formidable and terrible than they should be. Nothing happens suddenly. And our bishops, of course, did not immediately appear as we see them later. But there is no doubt that they began to become like this from the very beginning or even during the Kiev period and that our later bishopric is not anything new against the ancient bishopric, but that its continuous history goes back to the very beginning. Subsequently, more circumstances appeared in Moscow that should have acted on our bishops in the same direction, but these circumstances only added to the matter and cannot be considered the first reasons from which the character of our bishops should be explained. Our above speeches do not at all tend towards blaming our bishops, but towards clarifying the facts. The example of Western bishops can serve as a justification for our bishops. Educated people are asked to do more than uneducated people. Our bishops were not educated, while the Western ones were educated people. But these latter also became (placed themselves) in the same relationship to the flock and subordinate clergy as ours. Currently, we are transferring bishops from department to department in the form of promotion or generally for administrative reasons. This custom, which is based on the view of bishops as officials and eliminating the view of them as shepherds, began in our country, if we are not mistaken, no earlier than the second half of the 16th century 682. The canonical rules very strictly prohibit the unreasonable movement of bishops from department to department 683 and allow this only for blessed faults, when a special benefit for the population of the diocese can come from this 684. In ancient Russia, following the example of ancient Greece, and in old Russia, until the time indicated now, contrary to the example of later Greece, there was no custom at all to move bishops from department to department 685. Above we did not talk about the level of enlightenment or the degree of enlightenment of our bishops of the pre-Mongol period. We will talk about this below, when we generally talk about our enlightenment during the present period, where it will be more convenient to talk about this. From the bishops themselves we turn to the bodies or officials of their diocesan administration. Initially, when each church community at the head of the presbyteral council had its own bishop, there was and could not be diocesan authority over the clergy itself, for all of them, being under the bishop, represented one corporation of spiritual or ecclesiastical authorities, with the laity of dioceses or communities as spiritual subordinates. When parishes in the proper sense appeared, on the one hand, through the destruction of rural bishoprics, and on the other, through the establishment of such in the cities themselves, and when, thus, in the person of the elders of these latter, subordinates from the clergy themselves appeared in the dioceses: then the diocesan authorities began or remained to be constituted by the bishop with a council of elders who were under him or at his cathedra. A bishop with his cathedral or cathedral of presbyters - in this form the diocesan authorities existed for quite a long time 686. Since in Greece the dioceses, even after their expansion, which occurred from the destruction of rural bishoprics, were still small, there was no need for district spiritual authorities corresponding to our spiritual boards or deans. For there each bishop remained fully able to oversee the entire diocese himself directly 687. Under the bishops with the councils of presbyters, who constituted the government and judicial power of the church, from a very early time various executive officials began to appear, who were partly from among the presbyters themselves 688, and predominantly, and in later times, it seems, exclusively from deacons 689. These executive officials, initially assistants to the bishops with councils of presbyters, acquired more and more importance over time, and finally ended up completely replacing the presbyters, themselves taking the place of these latter and turning from executive officials into dignitaries 690. After such a change took place, the diocesan authorities began to be represented by the bishop and his staff of various names of spiritual officials or dignitaries. The total number of chief among these officials, who were in charge of individual parts of the diocesan administration and had with them more or less numerous offices 691, according to the rule and custom of the Church of Constantinople, should have been six. Namely: 1) the great steward, in charge of all the estates and the entire economy of the bishopric; 2) the great sacellarium 692 - the head of male and female monasteries, who oversaw their morals and households; 3) the great skeuphylax - the keeper and head of the cathedral sacristy, the steward of the church regarding its cleanliness, decoration, lighting, etc., in the event of the absence of 693 priests in the parish churches, who had under his protection the sacristy and all the property of these latter; 4) the great chartophylax 694, the most important official (called the mouth and right hand of the bishop - Balsamon and Codin), who was the episcopal chancellor and at the same time a legal adviser, who prepared and sealed with his signature all official papers issued on behalf of the bishop and who was obliged to take care of the protection of episcopal rights. Partly in charge of the affairs of the diocesan administration, such as the production of ecclesiastical degrees, permission and prohibition of marriages, and finally, the diocesan judge of the clergy and monks in all matters, both spiritual and civil-criminal; 5) sacellium or sacellarium (without the addition: great, but sometimes with the addition: small, second, μικρός, δεύτερος), similar to the great sacellarium, the head of the parish churches with their estates and the episcopal prison for punished priests 695; 6) protekdic - the official defender (lawyer, intercessor) on the part of the church of all who had the right to its protection and sought the latter. In particular, slaves who were looking for freedom, and free people who were in danger of enslavement, then, to put it today, the episcopal investigator and bailiff. Partly, as it were, a police episcopal official who had some supervision over the clergy and, finally, an episcopal judge of the laity, insofar as they were subject to the court of the church and could be brought to it 696. When it happened in Greece that the officials we have indicated have now replaced the council of cathedral presbyters in the diocesan administration remains precisely unknown. At the beginning of the 13th century, this was already an “ancient tradition” 697, and at the end of the 11th, beginning of the 12th century under Alexei Komnenos (1081–1108) - it happened over many years (πρὸ μακροῦ χρόνου) 698; but, as can most likely be concluded from the instructions of Constantine Porphyrogenitus in his book “On the Ceremonies of the Byzantine Court (Ἔ κθεσις τῆς βασιλείου τάξεως), this did not yet happen in the half of the 10th century 699. In our Russian Church, the colleges of diocesan officials of the bishops are the choirs or choirs that are attached to them. What is meant by these choirs - whether a staff of officials with special titles and positions, as it became in Greece in later times, or an indifferent council of elders, as it was in ancient times, remains unknown. But it is much more likely that the latter, and not the first, for they constantly talk about choirs without distinguishing special officials in them at all, and none of the above-mentioned Greek names for these special officials, either in the chronicles or in our monuments in general, appears at all. We find a fair number of references in monuments to choirs or wings attached to bishops or cathedral episcopal cathedrals. The Monk Nestor, in the life of Theodosius and Pechersky, speaks of the choir of the Kyiv St. Sofia 700; in the deed of gift of Prince Rostislav Mstislavich of the Smolensk bishopric in 1150. it is said that the prince gives the means of maintenance to the bishop and his choir 701. In the Novgorod 1st Chronicle under 1156. talks about the choir of St. Novgorod. Sofia. The Laurentian Chronicle says under 1230. about the choir of Bishop Vladimir-Klyazemsky. Under the same 1230 and under 1231 about the choir of the Rostov Cathedral or Cathedral Episcopal Church, under 1257. in general about cathedral episcopal choir churches 702. In the Ipat Chronicle under 1223 and 1288 - about the choir of the Vladimir-Volyn bishopric. In the acts of the Vladimir Cathedral of 1274 about the cathedral episcopal choir. That these choirs under the bishops were not only the staff of their cathedral priests, but together were under them the staff of their diocesan officials, this cannot be doubted. First of all, this shows their name, which came to us from the Greeks. Kliros or clergy (κλῆρος) among the Greeks actually means the clergy in general 703, but in the most private and so to speak technical sense, they called precisely the bishop’s officials clergy 704: it is clear that among us the name kliros, adopted for use not in the general sense of the clergy, but in the particular sense of the cathedral bishop’s clergy, can mean in the application to this latter clergy, only the peculiarity that it was not just clergy, but together represented under the bishop and his diocesan officials - was his canonicality in the same sense in which in the West cathedral canons of bishops are both priests and diocesan officials. The chronicle, speaking about the choir, clearly distinguishes it from ordinary priests, as a separate corporation, and uses such expressions when applied to it - epithets that leave no doubt that it should mean a corporation of very special priests - priests elevated above others and having power: “abbess and priest and saints of the church choir,” she says in one place; “The abbess and the priest and the monks and the blessed choir are assembled in the church of the Holy Mother of God,” she says in another place 705. In the life of St. Avramiya of the Smolensk archpriest of the cathedral bishop's cathedral choir is called the first from the oldest 706. If the archpriest of the cathedral choir is the first of the elders, then it is clear that all cathedral priests - choir members - are the elders; if they are elders, then it is obvious that they are a corporation of diocesan officials and superiors. In the message of the unknown-named Bishop of Vladimir to the unknown-named Grand Duke, son of Alexander Nevsky († 1263), about the inviolability of church courts, it is said that these courts were given to the clergy for their needs 707: by courts we mean court fees; but if they go to the kliroshan, it is clear because the latter are the judges. About Metropolitan Maxim it is said in the chronicles that, transferring the metropolitan see from Kyiv to Vladimir, he came from the first to the latter with his entire choir 708. If his choir members were simply priests, then he would not have needed to take them with him, for he would have found such in Vladimir; if he took them, then it is clear that they were not just priests, but also diocesan officials. Undoubtedly, clear evidence of cathedral choirs as staff of diocesan officials, to our happiness, was preserved for us by later monuments of the Western Russian Church, in which these choirs were not pushed aside, as happened in Moscow, by secular bishops' officials, the so-called bishop's boyars. In the edition of the Patericon of Pechersk, the so-called Akakievskaya, compiled in the Pechersk Monastery in the middle of the 15th century, a later postscript puts into the mouth of the dying Venerable Theodosius the words addressed to the Grand Duke Svyatoslav: “and behold, I entrust to your piety the holy of this monastery... but neither the archbishop nor anyone else from the clergy of Sophia possesses it.” 709: it is clear that here the cleric is an official, for why on earth should one be afraid of possession from a simple priest 710? Vilna Cathedral 1509 decrees that if a priest reaches great atrocities, then “we (bishops) together, with our krylos - from the sacred monks and priests, do not order such a disorderly person to hold the priesthood" 711. In 1539 The Lviv bishopric was established, in place of the long-closed Galich bishopric, and the first bishop of Lviv, Macarius, was established in the same 1539. convened the priests of Lvov and, after consulting with them, established a choir and gave it the power to hold it, like other bishops 712. In the message of Archimandrite Isaiah Boloban of Unevsk, who was to be installed as bishop of Lvov in the place of his uncle Gideon Boloban, addressed to the future flock dated February 3, 1607. we read: “having come to Lvov diligently in the love of Christ, the sacred brotherhood of presbyters and canons, that is, the correct priests, who preside over the judgment seat with the bishop in the sacred church.”... and another promise: “to establish the canons (for us) and to designate the order of the clergy for us to divide the courts, on which it is appropriate to be a spiritual husband” 713. Indeed, Eustathius Tisarovsky, who was put in the place of Gideon, in his letter to the same flock dated January 22, 1608. makes a firm promise to respect the rights and privileges of the choir members of his department 714. We must add one caveat to what has just been said. We are talking about clergy or kliroshans who made up administrative-judicial boards or councils under bishops, as priests of their cathedral churches. This is how they are spoken about everywhere and this is how their monuments are presented everywhere. But, as it seems and even very likely, this needs to be understood in a special way, namely, that the choir members were cathedral priests and at the same time had their own parishes. That is, that in the cathedrals they were the main priests, having under them other priests who did not belong to the choir, and were more numbered than they were actual priests. A 16th-century monument represents the matter in this form, the record of the above-mentioned Bishop of Lvov Macarius 715. This strange fact, inexplicable in the 16th century, will become clear to us if we allow ourselves to assume that this was also the case in the pre-Mongol period. Among the Greeks, it was indeed the case that the above-mentioned episcopal officials, on the one hand, were attached to bishops and their councils, and on the other hand, they were rectors of parishes. This also happened because when special parishes began to appear in cities, the main or senior priests were removed from the episcopal departments to manage them 716. We will have a chance to return to talking about this later. How the diocesan choirs participated in our diocesan administration of bishops, we do not yet have any positive information. Assuming in all likelihood that our choirs corresponded not to the later Greek officials with special names and with a special circle of activity for each, but to the most ancient councils of presbyters; in other words - assuming with all probability that while we borrowed diocesan administration from the Greeks, they still had it in its most ancient, and not later, form, one should think that our choirs represented not the second, but the first form of Greek diocesan administration. That is, that they were not states of special officials, between whom, under the supreme supervision of the bishop, diocesan administration and court were divided, but undivided councils of presbyters, who, with their entire corporations, constituted permanent councils of bishops in the matter of administration and court. If this is so, then one should think that each member of the cathedral choir, without having anything separate and definitely assigned to his leadership, had significance only as a member participating in everything together with others. And that if it was necessary to divide affairs between members or if it was necessary to entrust any affairs to individual members, this was done not according to a certain, once and forever appointed rule, but each time at the special discretion of the bishop with the rest of the choir. How great was the importance of cathedral choirs under bishops or how great was their power in diocesan administration together with the power of these latter, we also still know absolutely nothing. But if initially, which is very likely, the choir constituted a real power, joint with the power of the bishop, then, in any case, in the circumstance that none of the members of the choir had anything definite in their administration and each of them had significance only as a member of the whole, was the reason for the choir to lose more and more of its significance over time. And, finally, they lost it completely, descending to the level of simple cathedral clergy or, if we assume what we have now assumed, collapsing in such a way that each member of it descended to the level of a simple rector of his church. To take away from a person the rights that definitely belong to him will mean precisely - to take away or commit an offense, but gradually alienate, and, finally, completely alienate the corporation of advisers from oneself; this should have happened little by little and imperceptibly and even without the intention or guilt of the alienator. The same thing should have happened to our choirs as happened in Greece to the councils of presbyters, i.e., that over time, filling officials took their place. In addition to the cathedral choirs, which were presbyteral councils or councils under bishops, our diocesan administration also consisted of: vicars, and precisely two clans - some who were under the bishops themselves, and others who lived in the districts, in charge of certain parts of the diocese, and who, in turn, also had their own choirs or councils of presbyters - from tiuns and, in all likelihood, from tithes. If we assume that the position of governor was not first established among us, but was borrowed by us as ready-made from the Greek Church, then it will not be easy to indicate which position in the Greek Church it corresponded to. The title of the position does not seem to be a literal translation of any of the positions known in the Greek Church and, in all likelihood, is our own, occupied from the civil field 717. The closest thing to the word governor is the Greek τοποτηρητής - locum tenens. But among the Greeks, topotirites or locum tenens were not called permanent diocesan officials, but temporary ambassadors somewhere, who had to represent the person of the sender where they were sent. For example, ambassadors to councils, envoys to petition kings for something, etc. (cfr Balsamon in Ralli and P. III, 357). After locum tenens, the office of vicar, which consisted of more or less replacing or representing the person of the bishop in diocesan administration and court, among the offices that existed in the Greek Church, can only be compared with two - either chartophylax or syncellus. Since regarding the position of the first, in all likelihood one should think that while we borrowed church government from the Greeks, it did not yet exist or that it was still only a lower, executive position, then one can only think that our governors corresponded to the Greek syncells. Syncelli, which appeared in the Greek Church very early, initially simply meant presbyters or monks who lived with bishops or in the same cells with them, and whom the custom of bishops required to have as cohabitants, one or another, for the sake of not being reproached - propter testimonium ecclesiasticum. That is, to testify to the purity of life and to prevent unfavorable rumors. But over time, from simple cohabitants with bishops, the syncelli turned into real officials and, moreover, very important officials, as can be seen from the fact that the syncelli of the patriarchs took a place above the metropolitans 718. What exactly the position of the Syncells was is absolutely unknown; but one should think that they were, as it were, the second “selves” of the bishops, i.e. perhaps their authorized vicars or perhaps full representatives and substitutes for themselves in the entire field of diocesan affairs. Thus, the rapprochement of our vicars with the Greek syncelli, if this rapprochement were to be recognized as correct, should lead to seeing in them vicars and representatives of bishops or their vicars in the sense of a complete replacement, as this word is usually understood. The very few positive news that we have about our governors, and not from the pre-Mongol period, but from subsequent times, do not contradict the probability of the indicated assumption. The Greek syncelli all lived under the bishops, on the contrary, our governors - one lived under the bishop, and others were sent to the districts to independently govern individual parts of the bishoprics. This difference, if our rapprochement between governors and syncelli is generally correct, should have depended on the fact that among the Greeks the bishoprics were so small that there was no need to divide them into governorships, but with us, on the contrary, they were so large that such a division turned out to be necessary 719. However, it does not seem incredible to think that the position of governor was first or independently established in our country and that it was created in the likeness of the position of lay or princely governors (moreover, the title governor, which is rarely used in relation to princely officials, may have been taken precisely to distinguish them from the latter). We positively know that we independently established another church position, tiuna (as well as the position of tithe); and therefore the same independent establishment and position of governor 720 can be assumed. How many governors each bishop had and was supposed to have, and whether anything was prescribed in this regard remains completely unknown. But certain well-known examples of some bishops make it clear that there were very few of them and that the areas of district governors (who did not live under the bishops themselves) almost coincided with the areas of princely governors (mayors). That is, because and where in the reigns there were the latter, there were also the former in the dioceses. Simon, Bishop of Vladimir, in a letter to Polycarp, makes it known that he had two governors in the diocese of Vladimir - one under himself in Vladimir, and the other in Suzdal; he writes to Polycarp: “if you were worthy, I would not have let you go from me, but with my own hands I would have appointed you as vicar to both bishoprics of Volodymyr and Suzdal,” that is, allowing himself to exaggerate or hyperbole, he wants to say: if you were worthy, then I would have installed you as vicar not only for one of my two viceroys, but also for both. Simon divides his diocese into two parts according to the two large civil regions of which it consisted; there is every possibility of thinking that in general there were governors in the dioceses for the large civil regions of which they consisted. The vicar, who was with the bishop himself, was an episcopal or diocesan judge, as we know from a sufficient amount of evidence 721. Then, it is very likely that he more or less replaced and represented the bishop in the affairs of government; but to what extent and to what extent exactly remains unknown. It is necessary to think that the court was carried out by our governor not individually, but collegially, with the participation of either the entire council of choir monasteries or a certain number of its members, for even at a very late time it was very firmly recognized that the bishop’s court should be a conciliar one (Stoglav). We still have absolutely no information about the governors who were not under the bishops themselves, but in individual governorships. From later times, when secular persons began to be appointed to individual governorships and when they more or less lost their significance compared to ancient times and lost their original character, only the Kiev governorship of the Moscow metropolitans can be compared with these governorships of the pre-Mongol period, while the metropolitans owned Kiev. The governors of Kyiv, and in later times were always appointed not from secular, but from clergy, had the most extensive powers, fully representing the face of the metropolitans in the entire matter of church administration and court, with the exception of appointment to church degrees. What they could not do due to lack of episcopal rank and what neighboring bishops were supposed to do according to their charters 722. But whether the governors of the pre-Mongol period had such powers remains unknown. The too extensive power of the governor of Kyiv can be explained by the exceptional circumstance that Kyiv was too far from Moscow and, moreover, in another state, so that the metropolitans, of necessity, had to dismiss the local clergy from any appeals to them, for whatever reason. Whether this was the case when these exceptional circumstances did not exist, that is, whether this was the case with the district governors of the pre-Mongol period, is still a question. Be that as it may, in any case, it seems most likely to us to think that these governors, to a greater or lesser extent, represented and replaced the person of the bishops. If they replaced them completely, having the authority to decide matters with their own authority, then in this case it is necessary to assume that the clergy of the viceroyalities were given the right of appeal from them to the bishops themselves. Under the district governors, as well as under the bishops themselves, there were their own choirs or their own administrative-judicial councils of presbyters. It would be necessary to assume this in itself: if the bishops themselves did not rule and judge individually, then all the more, or at least nevertheless, it would seem strange to think that sole and unlimited power was granted to the governors. But, in any case, we have positive evidence regarding this, although it does not belong to the pre-Mongol period, but to a later time 723. The appearance of tiuns under bishops dates back to a later time; but there is no doubt that they belong to the number of episcopal officials who appeared from the very first time. We have positive evidence of their existence at the beginning of the second half of the 12th century 724. Princely and boyar tiuns, being assistants to those with whom they were, were mainly assistants to judges. (At the same time, they represented themselves as people who specifically and deliberately knew the court and laws, which knowledge their principals could not always possess). It must be thought that the episcopal tiuns were the same assistant judges, namely, that they served as judicial assistants under the episcopal governors, obliged, perhaps, to judge the laity, insofar as these latter were subject to ecclesiastical court. Then, information relating to later times (to the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th century, to the reign of Patriarch Job) presents us with them as episcopal police overseers over the clergy, namely, overseers in the most cathedral cities and over the clergy, both local and newcomers or temporarily residing in them. It is very likely to think that from the most ancient times, as in later times, the tiuns were from secular people, not spiritual ones - from secular service people under bishops or the so-called boyar children under them. The introduction of a secular element into church administration and court in the person of the tiuns found its justification in the example of the Greek Church. (Unless it was a direct reproduction of it). Our tiunis were to some extent the same as the Greek ecdics; but the ecdics of the Greeks in later times, according to the testimony of Balsamon, were always from the laity, and not from the spiritual 725. (In later times, in all our cities there are cathedrals with archpriests at the head. We don’t know when these cathedrals began to appear. But if from ancient times, which is more likely and what is lower, then one should not think that their archpriests from the very first appearance represented the second instance of county government under governors. Initially, they were only the first priests in the cathedrals (as they are now), and they became officials in Western Rus' and Moscow in later times (in In Western Rus', not only were city archpriests made chiefs, but also district and district archpriests were established, like our current deaneries, which was taken from the model of Roman Catholic deaneries). the administrative significance of the chorebishops was completely destroyed (παντελῶς ἠ πράκτησεν), therefore, did not pass on to the archpriests (ibid. III, 47, and IV, 277), and Aristin makes it known that they are superior only in their villages, i.e. that they are only the initial priests (senior priests or rectors in multi-clergy parishes, - ibid. III, 140. Πρωτοπαπαδίκιον in Greece, ibid, II, 148 beginning, did not mean the administrative district of the diocese, but a small town or large village belonging to the bishop). So, our bodies of diocesan administration in the pre-Mongolian period were: Firstly, cathedral choirs, which constituted presbyteral councils or councils under bishops, and, secondly, the governors of these latter with their assistants - tiuns, of which (vicars) one, who was at the cathedral itself, was a vicar and assistant to the bishop at his very location, and others, who lived in districts in separate governorships, having greater or lesser powers and also having their own choirs, were special district diocesan leaders. To these two categories of officials, in all likelihood, a third should be included, which becomes reliably known only in subsequent times, but whose beginning there is every reason to attribute to this first period. These are low-level district officials and, as one must think, not from the clergy or clergy, but, like tiuns, from the laity. [Cm. “Additions and amendments”]: “In Greece, as evidence suggests, the archdeacons of bishops laid claim to this...”] In Greece, as we said, there were no permanent district officials in the diocesan administration, because given the very small space of the dioceses, there was no need for them. On the contrary, with our dioceses being too large, we had an urgent and inevitable need for such officials. We do not know exactly which of the Greek officials our governors corresponded to; in any case, those of them who did not live under the bishops themselves, but were in special governorships, representing an innovation against the Greek Church, were district officials. But since there were very few of these governors, either because of their great powers and high position or for something else, in the dioceses, for more effective supervision over the clergy, even lower district officials were required under them. In post-Mongol times, we find such lower district officials in the so-called tithes, and we think that these tithes appeared as district diocesan officials even in pre-Mongol times. According to their original origin, tithes are actually collectors of tithes in favor of bishops from the populations of dioceses. Our bishops, on the part of the state power, were provided with means of maintenance by the fact that the princes gave them a tithe or a tenth of the taxes, or quitrents that they collected from the population, and from some other items of their income. They were also allowed to collect tithes from all private owners, which we will discuss in more detail below. At the same time, as for the tithe or tenth part of state taxes or quitrents, the princes did not act in such a way that they collected it themselves along with their nine-tenths parts and then gave it to the bishops in droves according to calculation, but in such a way that, having excluded it from their incomes, they left it to the bishops themselves to collect it from the payers themselves, as a separate tax. Thus, the own purpose of the tithes, as we said, was to collect from the populations of the dioceses this tithe of princely taxes, separated in favor of the bishops. In the post-Mongol period, these tithes are not only collectors of tithes or taxes, but also lower diocesan officials supervising the clergy. When their transformation from simple collectors into diocesan officials took place remains completely unknown, but, as we said above, it is most likely to be thought that the transformation took place even in pre-Mongol times. Whenever this transformation occurs, in any case, it must be explained by need. Our dioceses were too extensive, and yet no district officials who could supervise the clergy, with the exception of governors, whose supervision extended over too large private districts, were not established due to the lack of such officials in the Greek Church. The tithes, living for their collections in the districts in plots or tithes, were ready-made people who could be used with complete convenience for the purposes of supervision. That is They were ready-made people, to whose duty to make collections with complete convenience could be added the duty of supervising the clergy of their districts or tithes. Since it was convenient, it was done. But if now it is necessary to explain in this way the transformation of tithes from simple tax collectors into administrative diocesan officials, then the last event must also be dated back to pre-Mongol times. The need that forced the transformation of tithes from simple collectors into administrative officials existed just as long in pre-Mongol times and was absolutely as urgent as after. During the pre-Mongol time, we cannot indicate any obstacles that would have prevented this transformation from taking place even then. To assume that then they had not yet had time to guess to do what they did later is obviously not at all plausible, because it was too easy to guess, since the case itself involuntarily suggested a guess, and in order to do it, the pre-Mongol period provided too much time. We said that the tithes, in all likelihood, were not from the clergy or clergy themselves, but from secular persons. In subsequent times, they were always and certainly from the secular, and not from the spiritual. And the question is only about ancient times or actually this: were they secular from the very beginning or did they turn into spiritual ones only later, in the post-Mongol or Moscow period? We do not have any positive data to answer the question. Since we know that during the Moscow period there was a replacement of clergy with secular persons (the so-called bishop's boyars) in the central diocesan administration, it would seem to think that the same replacement took place that happened in the same Moscow period in our case. But regarding the first substitution, we know how it is explained; in explaining our second replacement, we are not able to come up with anything solid, and on the contrary, the assumption that tithes were from secular people from the very beginning is necessary for a completely satisfactory explanation of the first replacement 726. Thus, it seems most likely to think that our tithes did not become secular only during the Moscow period, but were such from the very beginning. But if this is so, then in this case we have retreated from the example of the Greeks, as well as from the example of the Bulgarians and Serbs. Among the Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbs, bishops also collected taxes from the lay populations of the dioceses and also collected them through their own officials; but for all three, these officials were clergy, the so-called exarchs, who, being sent to collect taxes, also had to visit or inspect the dioceses 727. How to explain this deviation from the example of the Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbs, we cannot say in a positive way. It is true that among the Greeks in our pre-Mongol period, secular persons had already begun to be accepted among the ranks of episcopal officials. Namely, among the lower officials after the above-mentioned higher ones (and with the long-standing exception of the ekdiks between these latter, which we talked about 728; but since the exarchs mainly learned the meaning that, bypassing the dioceses, they notice and correct in them everything spiritual that requires correction (see above, [text “Fifteen dioceses for all and the whole of Rus'..."]): they were hardly already sent to then the laymen became exarchs of them. How it happened in our country that the laity became tithes for the bishops, this in itself can be explained very simply: when the dioceses were established, the bishops were supplied from the civil government for their needs, as patrimonies and in general as people who were big boyars, with secular service people, in order not to support these service people through salaries, the bishops assigned tithes to feed them. The question, however, is how it happened that this simple, which was not at all a commendable innovation in the field of church administration, was done in our country contrary to the example of the Greeks. Since our tithe was exactly the same as the Western tithe, and was, in all likelihood, taken from the example of this latter, which we will discuss below: we suspect that secular persons became tithes in our country precisely following the Western example 730 . Be that as it may, this innovation of ours against the Greek Church should in all likelihood be recognized as a misfortune for our lower clergy: secular tithes, having become administrative officials, were such robbers of this clergy as spiritual tithes would hardly have been (more on this in volume 2). So, with the inclusion of tithes, the general composition of diocesan officials in the pre-Mongol period will be: a) central officials or those who were under the bishop himself: 1) his deputy, who was his assistant and, as it were, his vicar, with his assistant - tiun; 2) the cathedral choir or staff of cathedral priests, which constituted the government collegium under the bishop; 1) regional governors with their same assistants, tiuns, and who also had their own choirs with them - more or less authorized commanders of individual districts into which dioceses were divided; 2) tithes - lower overseers of the clergy. III. Space of the diocesan court. Church laws. Addition about bishops (archbishops). From representatives or bodies of episcopal authority we now turn to its space in our country. The bishop is the spiritual superior of his flock and its spiritual judge. This power belongs to him by divine right; no one can expand or diminish this power from him, and in this respect the bishop is always and everywhere the same. But the power of bishops, inextensible and irreducible in itself, can be more or less expanded at the expense of civil power, which can and usually does cede to bishops more or less of its rights. Since this latter is a completely free matter, depending in each country on the good will of the civil government, the power of the bishops of private churches can be wider or narrower, depending on how much in which country the civil government cedes its own rights to the bishops. Consequently, the question of the scope of power of bishops in our Russian Church is the question of how much of its rights our civil government has ceded to them. There is one more limitation behind this. Power is twofold - governmental or administrative and judicial; the first is power that continuously operates and is tied to a certain type of business (a government or administrative official continuously performs certain duties). The second is a power that acts intermittently and can extend to cases of various kinds (the judge examines cases successively one after another and can examine cases of different categories or classes one after another). Since two powers, continuously operating and tied to a certain kind of affairs, cannot be united by the same person without prejudice to one or the other power, and since bishops are already spiritual rulers (administrators), then on this basis civil governments cannot yield to them, and they cannot accept from governments any part of governmental (administrative) power. In the church itself, which protects the spiritual government power from any weakening through the application of temporal government power to it, from the most ancient times there was a canonical and firm decree that bishops, presbyters and deacons should not accept any worldly care, otherwise they would be defrocked 731. Thus, when it comes to the cession of a greater or lesser share of their rights by civil governments to bishops, judicial rights should always be understood, but not governmental (administrative) ones. And, therefore, in particular in our Russian Church, only the first, and not the last, power of bishops could receive one or another expansion, which in our country, just as everywhere else, was neither wider nor narrower than what it should be in its essence. First of all, in our country, as in Greece, the judicial power of bishops was expanded by the fact that they were given jurisdiction over priests not only as spiritual officials, but also as citizens, that is, jurisdiction not only for crimes against their office, but for everything in general, with the exception of the most serious criminal crimes. We will talk about this below when we talk about the parish clergy. Another and most important expansion of the judicial power of bishops in our country was that which happened directly regarding the laity, through the provision of civil court to the bishops over these latter. We will now talk about this second expansion. Since we borrowed the faith and the church and the bishops from the Greeks, it would be natural to expect that in the now indicated respect, the bishops would be placed in exactly the same position with us as they were in Greece. But our circumstances and conditions were different, and therefore things turned out significantly differently. In Greece, where legal concepts were at a different level of development than ours, the state court was a purely state matter. A judge hired or in any way appointed by the government conducted the trial, pronounced the verdict, and that was the end of his relationship with the defendants - from them he did not receive any remuneration for his work 732 . On the contrary, in Russia, things were still in such a situation that the judges were supported by the litigants themselves, namely, from each court case a certain certain fine or fee went in favor of the former. In Greece, the intervention of someone outside the state court did not cause the slightest personal harm to the judges and could only provide them with relief by reducing the number of cases to be tried; on the contrary, in our case, any such interference was an encroachment on the income of judges, on their maintenance. As a result of this completely different attitude of judges to the court in Greece and in our country, obviously, the area of ​​jurisdiction of bishops could not be a perfect snapshot of the same in Greece. Since in Greece it was completely indifferent to the judges whether they judged the court themselves or whether it was left to someone else. Since there the government, allowing the participation of outsiders in the court, did not cause the slightest damage to the personal interests of the actual judges, then there, due to the high concept of the moral goodness of the bishops and in sanctification of the custom that had developed at a time when the church was under the pagan state, the bishops were given a very broad right to intervene in the affairs of the state court. While the state was pagan, Christians established the custom, in case of litigation and quarrels, to turn not to the court of state pagan judges, but to the court of their own voluntarily elected judges, and especially to the court of the primates of the communities-bishops. Since in the very essence of the court there was no obstacle to Christian emperors allowing this pre-Christian custom; since, on the other hand, the high concept of the moral qualities of bishops obliged them to do this, preserving and confirming for them the advantage that they had until then enjoyed with such impeccable dignity: the Christian emperors hastened to do this, granting the bishops first an unlimited, and then somewhat limited right of arbitration judges. That is, the right that bishops, if the litigants, by mutual agreement, did not want to go to ordinary judges, but wanted to turn to them, accepted them for trial. And so that their judgment has exactly the same force as if it had been carried out by ordinary judges. This right was granted to bishops by the first Christian emperor Constantine the Great, about which Sozomen writes: “he allowed litigants to turn to the court of bishops if they did not want to go to civil courts. The sentences of bishops not only had all the force, but even more than other judges, as if they had been decreed by the emperor himself, and the rectors of the provinces with their officials were obliged to carry out the judicial decisions of the bishops” 733. This legalization of Constantine was repeated several times by subsequent emperors and remained in force until later times. Only soon after Constantine was the restriction made that bishops would accept civil, but not criminal, cases for their arbitration 734 . With us, as we said, it was so that from each court case a certain fee went in favor of the judges. To grant anyone the right to arbitration or the right to litigants to evade the trial of ordinary judges in our country meant to deprive these latter of their income. Thus, for this reason, we and the bishops could not at all be granted the right acquired by them in Greece. On the contrary, from the fact that our court was an income, the indispensable provision naturally followed that the court granted to one should be inviolable for every other, as the property of the first, and therefore, in relation to bishops, the provision also followed that the court granted to civil judges should be inviolable for them. However, it was also the case with us that the state honored the bishops by significantly ceding their rights to them; only with us it was completely different than in Greece, and the concession had a different meaning and meaning than there. By not allowing interference by bishops in the area of ​​civil court, assuming this intervention to be as impossible as any encroachment on someone else’s property is generally impossible, the state or princes have done in our country by expanding their own permanent area of ​​​​bishops’ court to include civil court. That is, that, without giving the bishops the right to constantly interfere in all matters of the civil court, they left them under constant control of certain matters that were actually subject to this last court. In Greece, by granting bishops the right to arbitrate, respect for their high moral character was demonstrated. In our case, by ceding certain subjects of civil court to the bishops, we made them a monetary gift and provided them with several extra items of income. Regarding the history of the expansion of the church court into the civil court, unfortunately, we have very little positive and reliable information. There are so-called church statutes of Vladimir and Yaroslav, or their supposedly deeds of gift to the church, which precisely do what they expand the church court into the account of the civil court, giving the first one one, the other another number of civil cases. But if any of these statutes, which mutually exclude themselves, were genuine, then in any case it would remain undoubted that not a single currently known list of both represents them in their original form. And everything is presented in more or less later alteration. And that, thus, we are deprived of the opportunity to know what is genuine in both statutes. One way or another, more or less, our church court was expanded at the expense of the civil court at the very beginning, but it must be accepted that subsequently it did not happen to it that its space was temporarily reduced, but that it gradually expanded more and more. Meanwhile, from the half of the 12th century we have documentary evidence about the scope of our church court, from which it turns out that even at that time it still had different and narrower limits than according to any of the lists of one or another charter. Such documentary evidence consists of a letter of grant from the Smolensk prince Rostislav Mstislavich, given by him to the newly discovered Smolensk bishopric in 1150. (more about her below). Then, contrary to the current ardent and not ardent defenders of the authenticity of the charters, we must return with absolute decisiveness to Karamzin’s opinion that they are not genuine charters or charters, but later counterfeit works. The Charter of Vladimir, which has come down to us in several editions 735 and many lists, begins with a brief introduction about Vladimir’s acceptance of Christianity from the Greeks and about his taking the first metropolitan from them, and then contains a record of the donations of the Grand Duke, which are: the grant of tithes to the Kyiv Church of St. Mother of God; granting jurisdiction to bishops - firstly, all laity in certain civil matters, secondly, certain classes of laity and clergy in all civil matters; entrusting the bishops with the management of charitable institutions and their supervision of trade measures and weights. “Behold, Prince Vasily, called Volodimer, son of Svyatoslavl, grandson of Igor (and) the blessed princess Olga, received holy baptism from the King of Greece and from Photius, Patriarch of Tsaregorod (and) took the first metropolitan Leon of Kyiv, who baptized the entire Russian land with holy baptism. Then, many years ago, I created the Church of the Holy Mother of God Tithes, and gave her tithes throughout the entire land of Rustei from the reign to the assembly church, from the entire prince’s court,... from the trade,... from houses for every summer from every flock and from every life... Then the Greek Nomocanon was opened and found in it, it is not appropriate for these courts and the prince to judge either his boyars or judges... but these church courts: dissolution, mercy, outpost... (civil cases are listed, for which all laymen should be brought before the court of bishops). This is what has been established from time immemorial and entrusted to the holy scribes (bishops) with all sorts of city and commercial measures and weights and weights... And these are church people: abbot, priest, deacon... (the list of people given jurisdiction to bishops in all civil matters), monasteries, hospitals "... (charitable institutions). Everything that is in the charter not only for all known editions, but also for all numerous lists of all editions without exception, of course, is genuine and original in it, belonging to its author himself. Defenders of the authenticity of the charter completely agree with this. So, firstly, according to all the lists, the charter first speaks of Vladimir donating tithes to the Kyiv Church of the Mother of God, and then about granting a certain part of the civil court, etc., to all Russian bishops. If the reader remembers that the tithe was given not only to the Kyiv Church of the Mother of God and not to just one metropolis, but to all bishoprics, then he will understand the incongruity of how things are dealt with in the statute. The Charter speaks of the space of the court granted to all Russian bishops; but the tithe was also given to all of them: it is clear that he should have spoken about the provision of the latter not only to the Kyiv Church of the Mother of God, but to all bishops. This complete and impossible incongruity in the original Vladimir charter, obviously, should be explained in such a way that the later compilers of the charter did not know about Vladimir’s granting of tithes to all bishops - that, having read in the chronicle about the tithe of only the Kiev church of Belgorod, they grant the latter only to it alone and put a private order about it at the head of those general laws that they compose themselves. Secondly, according to all the lists of the charter, Vladimir gives tithes to the Kyiv Church of Belgorod “in all the Russian land.” But this is impossible and completely absurd; Vladimir gave and could give tithes to the Kiev Church of the Mother of God only in the area of ​​the great reign, while tithes from other areas or appanages should have been given and were given to their own bishoprics 736. Thirdly, according to all the lists of the charter, Vladimir says that he provides the court of bishops with a certain number of civil cases on the basis of the Greek Nomocanon. But this is not true, and, therefore, Vladimir himself could not say this. Fourthly, according to all the lists of the charter, Vladimir provides the court of bishops with “military” or litigation over marriage contracts (in-line letters) and litigation over “ass” or inheritance (“children are suing over their ass”). But regarding inheritance litigation, we have positive evidence that under Yaroslav they were subject to the court of the prince 737, and then - we do not find either one or the other litigation subject to the court of bishops even in the middle of the 12th century (letter of Rostislav of Smolensk). Fifthly, according to all the lists of the charter, hospitals, hotels, hospices, with the trial of pilgrims, patients and supporters are provided in it to the bishops. But there is no doubt that under Vladimir, as after, we did not have the aforementioned charitable institutions at all (cfr 2 half volumes p. 749 from 1st edition). Most of the lists of the charter in the introduction say that Vladimir, after baptism, took the first metropolitan of Kyiv from the patriarch, so this place (about the taking of the metropolitan from the patriarch) in all likelihood should be attributed to places belonging to the original. But in all those lists that, speaking about this, call the patriarch by name - and there is a decisive majority of such lists in their category - he is Photius, who died a hundred years before Vladimir 738. Just as the presence of something in all the lists of the charter indicates that something belongs to the author himself, so, on the contrary, the absence of something in all the lists of the charter must, of course, indicate the non-existence of this latter in the original itself. Among the affairs entrusted to the jurisdiction of bishops, not a single list of the statute reads: “if anyone leads two wives.” Meanwhile, it must necessarily be assumed that this crime was submitted to the court of bishops from the very beginning and by St. himself. Vladimir. Its absence in the charter makes it clear that the latter appeared at a time when the pagan custom of bigamy was completely eliminated, or, at least, became so rare and unnoticeable that it did not remind its authors of itself. If Vladimir had really given the church his written or written charter, then such a legislative monument, extremely important for the church, would, of course, have been preserved by the clergy not only of northern Rus', but also of southern Russia, and there would have been much greater grounds for expecting its preservation in southern Rus' than in northern Russia. Meanwhile, later southern Russia did not know any of Vladimirov’s charters 739. With any effort one can, perhaps, still prove the authenticity of Vladimirov’s charter; but no amount of effort can prove the authenticity of Yaroslavov’s charter, so the very attempt to do this would be original stubbornness and nothing more. This charter, which has come down to us, as well as the charter of Vladimirov, in a considerable number of lists and also not entirely in the same edition 740, is a list of crimes against the moral Christian law, which together are recognized as state criminal crimes, and according to which all laity are presented to the church court - the metropolitan and bishops, not only as for moral crimes, subject to spiritual penance, which goes without saying, but also as state criminal crimes subject to secular punishment. At the same time, the exact amounts of monetary fines that should be levied by bishops from the guilty are indicated. “Behold, the great prince Yaroslav, son of Volodymer, according to the tribute (in other lists - according to the entry) of his father, guessed I am with the Metropolitan and Larion, he put me together with the Greek Nomocanon, even though it is not appropriate for a prince and boyars to judge these burdens; I gave to the metropolitan and bishop those courts that are written in the rules in Nomocanon, throughout the city and throughout the entire region where there is a peasantry. Whoever kills a girl or rapes her is her trash... so much, so much for the bishop. “Whoever beats (beats) a boyar’s daughter or a boyar’s wife”..., she gets so much for dirtying, and the bishop gets so much, etc. According to all the lists of the charter, Yaroslav says that he compiled it according to tribute or according to his father’s record. But if Vladimir had the intention of writing the charter, then why on earth would he not have done this himself, but entrusted it orally or in writing (!) to Yaroslav (whom he did not at all intend to be his successor)? And why would Yaroslav fulfill his father’s will not at the beginning of his reign, but only at the very end of it? In general, the incomprehensible words in the original Yaroslav charter show only that the compilers did not know about the existence of the imaginary charter of Vladimirov, which is fully confirmed by the mutual calculation of their contents (And Metropolitan Hilarion, appointed at the very end of Yaroslav’s reign, of course, because the compilers did not know another metropolitan of Yaroslav’s time). According to all the lists of the charter, Yaroslav says that he provides the bishops with those courts that are written in the rules in the Nomocanon. But this is completely untrue. According to all lists of the charter, the amounts of fines for crimes differ in inconsistencies. According to all the lists of the charter, it contains speeches that do not at all go into the charter of the prince to the metropolitan and bishops and transform it from this latter into something else, into a church canonical work. Namely, firstly, it speaks of such rights of metropolitans and bishops over priests and monks and of such mutual rights of priests among themselves, which do not concern the prince at all. Secondly, it speaks not only about civil crimes, subject to civil punishment, but also about spiritual crimes, subject to spiritual punishment - penances. After these signs of falsity of the charter, which are not entirely decisive, there are in it signs of falsity that are absolutely and unconditionally decisive. Firstly, the trial of the metropolitan and bishops over the laity for criminal crimes is expanded in the charter to such an extent that we not only could not have had this and did not have it in the time of Yaroslav, but, undoubtedly, has never happened since (various types of theft). And if the author of the statute submits even arson to the court of the metropolitan and bishops, then it reaches complete absurdity. In this very important criminal offense, not only lay people were always tried in civil court, but, in all likelihood, clergy were always subject to it 741. Secondly, the statute imposes a double punishment on most crimes - a fine in favor of the bishop and execution in the strict sense on the part of the prince. Without allowing our ancient legislation to represent something contrary to human reason and something inconceivably standing out from all other legislation, of course, we cannot allow that in our ancient times crimes could be subject to double punishment 742. The unknown author of Vladimirov's charter, forcing Vladimir to present to the court the metropolitan and bishops in known civil cases and in known criminal crimes of all the laity, refers to the Greek Nomocanon: “having opened the Greek Nomocanon, found in it, it is not appropriate for these courts and the prince to judge the crime either by his boyars or by the judges.” The author of the Yaroslavov charter does the same. In the Greek Nomocanon it is not at all the case that civil cases and criminal crimes, which are provided by our statutes to the court of the metropolitan and bishops, are provided to the court of the latter 743. However, the reference of the statutes to the Greek Nomocanon turns out to be made not entirely without any basis or not entirely a simple falsehood and lie. In the Nomocanon or Helmsman's Book, after the canons of the church and after the civil laws relating to the church 744, there are also several short general guides to the latest laws, some of which are official monuments of legislation, and others the works of private lawyers; These guidelines are: an extract from the Old Testament legislation of Moses 745, a statute on punishments for an unknown private lawyer, called the “Law of Judgment” 746, the Eclogue of Leo the Isaurian 747 and the Prochiron of Basil the Macedonian 748. Now the indicated manuals to civil laws are placed in the Helmsman’s Book not at all because the civil cases and criminal crimes they speak of were presented by the emperors in Greece to the church court, but for a completely different reason. In Greece, as we said, bishops were granted the right of arbitration judges, that is, the right to accept all laymen for trial in all matters, if they did not want to sue before ordinary judges. For this reason, in Greece, ecclesiastical judges had the same need for knowledge of civil laws as civil judges. And that is why manuals for civil laws are included in the Pilot’s Book 749. But we understood this differently: the civil laws included in the Helmsman’s Book for the above reason were understood by us as laws interpreting the power of bishops. (Providing the latter with exclusive jurisdiction over the cases and crimes mentioned in them). And it is these guidelines to civil laws, placed in Kormchay and not at all thinking of giving the (exclusive) jurisdiction of the bishops to the cases and crimes they are talking about, and constitute that Greek Nomocanon, according to which it is supposedly not appropriate for the prince to judge certain civil and criminal crimes either by his boyars or by judges. This imaginary Nomocanon serves as a source for the drafters of statutes, on the basis of which they compile their lists of criminal offenses and civil cases, which they present to the court of metropolitans and bishops 750. At the same time, the compiler of Vladimirov’s charter shows moderation and prudence in using the source, compiling his list in such a way that no serious objections can be made against it. On the contrary, the compiler of the Yaroslavov charter, inspired by the desire to create a possibly solid source of income for the bishops from the church court, does not want to know any measure and prudence, making almost the entire civil court the common property of the prince and the bishop (giving the first to execute, and the second accepting the collection of monetary fines). But with complete probability, and even more than probability, one must think that the drafters of the statutes of Vladimirov and Yaroslavov, expanding our church court one way or another, do this not only on the basis we have now indicated, but also on another basis, more so to speak direct and real, although equally arbitrary. This is precisely based on the example of the Western Church. Regarding Vladimirov's statute, we see positive evidence of this in the fact that it leaves inheritance litigation to the court of bishops. Greek laws positively leave these litigations to the civil court and positively and strictly forbid spiritual judges from interfering in them 751 . According to our Yaroslav's truth, they also belong to the civil court. But in the West they were indeed subject to spiritual judgment. Then, the secular persons we mentioned above, whom the statute provides for the court of bishops and who were never subject to it in our country, in the West were actually subject to the jurisdiction of bishops. These are the so-called miserabiles personae there. As for the Yaroslavov charter, its provision of almost all civil crimes to the mixed court of the metropolitan and the prince is precisely Western, for in the West it was accepted that delicta, quae utraque lege puniuntur, canonica scilicet et civili, sunt mixti fori; there, indeed, even arson 752 was a crime of the mixed court. It should in all likelihood be thought that the statutes were composed in. Novgorod. But in Novgorod, Western church orders could first become known from Catholic priests who appeared there with overseas merchants, which happened no later than the half of the 12th century (2 halves of volumes p. 706 of 1 edition). And then from the Germans who settled in the neighboring Livonia region of Novgorod, which happened in the second half of the same 12th century, and in Dorpat, the closest to the Novgorod diocese, a Catholic diocese was opened in 1219. (ibid. p. 705 according to 1st edition 753. After the imaginary statutes of Vladimir and Yaroslav, which, as we said, in their current form would have brought us little benefit even if one or the other of them were genuine, we are left with only one reliable act from the pre-Mongol period, which speaks of the scope of our ecclesiastical court or the jurisdiction of bishops. This act is the charter of the Smolensk prince Rostislav Mstislavich mentioned above, given by him to the Smolensk bishopric shortly after the founding of this latter, in 1150. The area of ​​the court provided by this charter of the prince to the bishops of Smolensk is significantly expanded to include the civil court. The charter makes it clear that the Prince of Smolensk is not the first to make this expansion of the church court into the civil court, but that he cedes it to his bishops to the extent that in his time it belonged to all bishops 754. Thus, from the only reliable document at our disposal, we learn about the beginning of the expansion of the church court into the civil court only that this happened sometime before the half of the 12th century. It is necessary to think that the first beginning of the expansion of the church court into the civil court goes back to the time of St. Vladimir. He introduced church government in Russia and established bishoprics for the first time. Somehow he had to define the area of ​​the ecclesiastical court so that the power of the bishops would not clash with the civil power. But if he had defined the area of ​​ecclesiastical court in such a way that bishops would not interfere in anything strictly civil, then it would be very incredible to assume that this legalization of it could be canceled in favor of the bishops by any of the subsequent great princes. The court of bishops, as we will see below, was granted for the most part such civil crimes 755 that were not considered crimes in pagan Rus', and it is necessary to think that the matter began precisely with them. Since under Vladimir the representatives of the civil court, who had just turned into Christians from pagans, could not be considered reliable pursuers and punishers of these crimes, it was natural for Vladimir to hand them over to the jurisdiction and trial of the bishops. Since these crimes, not having previously been crimes, at the same time did not previously constitute items of income for civil judges, there could be no obstacle and protest against their transfer to the jurisdiction of bishops and on the other hand, that this transfer violated the rights of civil judges: By transfer, former items of income were not taken away from someone, but only new ones were created for bishops. But if the trial for those crimes that we later find within the jurisdiction of the bishops had not been granted to the latter by Vladimir himself and had been for some time under the jurisdiction of civil judges, then it is very difficult to assume that the income items created and held for some time by civil judges could then be ceded to the bishops. What exactly civil crimes were presented by Vladimir to the court of bishops or how the area of ​​the court of the latter was initially determined by him, this question, in the absence of positive news, of course, must forever remain a question. Now we said above that subsequently the bishops were subject to the jurisdiction, for the most part, of crimes that were not crimes in pagan Rus'. Since Vladimir had every incentive to leave this type of crime under the jurisdiction of the bishops, for only they could judge them with proper knowledge and prosecute them with proper zeal; since, on the other hand, Vladimir had no incentive to hand over those crimes that were already such in pagan Rus' to the bishops, and in the financial side of the matter there were also positive obstacles to this: then in general it is necessary to think that Vladimir initially provided the bishops with one or another number of cases of the first, and not the second category. Vladimir did not give written legislation that would define the area of ​​ecclesiastical court. And we think, i.e. It seems likely to us to think that initially the matter was established only in principle - what can and cannot belong to the domain of the ecclesiastical court, but that the details, the more or less defined boundaries of this court, were established only by time and custom. When the Russians adopted Christianity, many things that had not previously been considered crimes turned out to be crimes. All such crimes, first of all, were ecclesiastical or spiritual crimes, crimes against the Christian law, and only then became civil crimes, because the civil authorities, having taken a Christian point of view, had to recognize them as such. As crimes, the church bishops had to begin to persecute them from the very beginning, and without asking anyone, with their own authority. But the civil authorities, strengthening in Christian views, little by little began to recognize them as crimes from their own point of view and impose appropriate civil penalties on them. Since the civil power assimilated and borrowed its view from the church, it was completely natural that the civil court with civil punishments for the mentioned crimes, insofar as it recognized them as civil crimes, should be left to the same bishops who already dealt with and prosecuted them as church crimes. She had to do this, especially since she herself, without losing anything that belonged to her, created new items of income for the bishops. The civil court rejected only newly appeared items of income, but these new items appeared precisely due to the views of the church, and on the other hand, the civil government was concerned with providing the church with the most satisfactory possible provision. Naturally, therefore, it happened that the princes, in such concern for this provision of the church and in their zeal for this, decided to make the aforementioned sacrifice, which was not particularly great on their part. So, we repeat, it is most likely to think that initially it was established only in principle which area of ​​civil crimes could fall under the jurisdiction of the bishops, but that then in a separate way the area of ​​this jurisdiction expanded and developed gradually. There can obviously be no question of an answer to the question: in what exact gradualism and how exactly the matter proceeded, when we cannot answer anything positive to all the other questions that lie ahead. It is natural to assume that the civil authorities were more likely to recognize the most important church crimes as civil crimes, and, therefore, in general it must be assumed that in recognizing the latter first, it proceeded based on this principle of greater importance. The charter of Rostislav Mstislavich of Smolensk, which tells us information about the area of ​​the episcopal court in our country in the middle of the 12th century, unfortunately, is still known to us in a list that is not entirely correct, so that we do not yet learn from it absolutely everything that we should know in this case 756. She presents the following crimes to the court of the bishops of Smolensk not only as church crimes, subject to spiritual punishment, which is self-evident, but also civil crimes, subject to civil punishment - greater or lesser, monetary fines: 1) “dissolution” or dissolution, that is, both the court in cases of dissolution, legally committed, and the prosecution of dissolutions committed willfully and incorrectly; 2) “whoever leads two wives,” that is, if someone, not being content with one wife, as Christianity requires, allows himself to practice polygamy in pagan fashion; 3) “if anyone is caught through the law,” that is, marriages in unauthorized degrees of kinship; 4) “(heavy) Uvolochskaya, if someone drags away the girl”; about this crime it is said that the prince or posadnik judges it and only gives half the fine to the bishop: “whatever the prince takes, with the bishop on the floors, or the posadnik takes his burdens, then with the bishop on the floors”; 5) “potions and murder,” that is, all types of magic and witchcraft and any harm resulting from this; 6) “if two wives fight,” that is, if two women fight and seek trial (go to duel?). Behind this there remain two more cases or two court cases, but what they consist of cannot be understood. About the first strand it is said: “and the fifth (fifth strand) - as much as that wife, then the bishop.” About the second: “the ninth (heavy) - as many as God will lead to the church people, and there will be no harm to the church” 757. Thus, in the middle of the 12th century, bishops were subject to not only spiritual but also civil court: firstly, three types of marriage cases: polygamy, marriages in unauthorized degrees of kinship and dissolutions. Secondly, greenery and magic. Thirdly, fights between women, and finally, two types of crimes that remain unknown. Why marriage crimes and sorcery were presented to the court of bishops is clear from what we said above: in pagan Rus' these crimes were not considered crimes. That is, they were left under the full jurisdiction of the bishops so that they could be persecuted with that proper rigor and severity, which the government could not at all expect from civil judges. As for marriage matters in particular, they have some special properties that forced them to be left to the jurisdiction of bishops. To judge some of these cases, the judge must have special canonical information; when trying others, the judge must be not only a judge, but also a moral exhorter. Both of these, being impossible for civil judges, so to speak, necessarily placed these matters in the hands of bishops. And in Greece itself, the court in matrimonial cases was so revered by the most befitting bishops, and they were considered to be the most competent and most appropriate judges in these cases, that if it was not necessarily prescribed, it was strongly recommended that these cases should be tried no differently than by bishops 758 . Why fights between women are left to the court of bishops, we cannot say anything satisfactory to this question. Perhaps, those who submitted them to the court of bishops had in mind that the trial of these fights, which had a greater temptation than the fights of men, was not limited to the imposition of punishments alone, but was also accompanied by moral admonitions, or perhaps, on the other hand, they meant to save guilty women from the shame of standing and giving their testimony in court before ordinary judges. The crime of dragging or kidnapping, that is, taking away or kidnapping girls for marriage, is not submitted to the court of bishops, but they are assigned only half of the fine, which the prince or his mayor who is judged will take from the guilty. This crime, we think, was not submitted to the court of bishops because it was already a crime in pagan Rus' and that, as such, it already belonged to civil judges before Christianity. The chronicler gives us the right to assume this. He reports that the custom of kidnapping girls, which was common among many Slavs - the Drevlyans, Vyatichi, Radimichi and Severyans, did not exist among the Polyans or Kyiv Slavs, who, according to his testimony, had real marriages. Since the civil government, having established itself among these last Slavs, naturally had to assimilate their views on things, it is therefore very likely to assume that it began to look at kidnapping as a crime and began to persecute it as such even in pagan times 759. Why, without giving the kidnapping to the court of bishops, they gave them half the fine for this crime, we cannot say positively. Perhaps because the bishops, who in this case had a greater opportunity for supervision than the civil authorities, were encouraged to vigilantly supervise and not fail to point out cases of crime. We said above that in ancient Rus', from all civil judicial cases, a certain fee was paid in favor of the judges and that most criminal crimes, with the exception of the most serious ones, were punishable by a fine in favor of the same judges. As a result, the civil authorities, having ceded a certain number of civil cases to the court of bishops, donated to them, as we said, a certain number of items of their income. Exactly how great the government’s sacrifice was in presenting the civil cases we mentioned above to the bishops’ court, or, in other words, how great the monetary fines that went to the bishops from the court for these crimes were, remains unknown to us, for so far there are no known acts that would determine the size of these fines. There is only reason to generally assume that these judicial incomes of the bishops were quite significant, that they not only repaid the work of the court, but also brought such benefits that were worth cherishing and which were worth defending. This is clear from those writings that have come down to us that were written in defense of the church court from the encroachment of civil judges and which, defending the inviolability of this court, say that it was given for the use of the clergy and for the assistance of all those seeking help from the church 760. The charter of the Smolensk prince Rostislav Mstislavich, as we said above, is the only currently known, reliable act from the entire pre-Mongol period, which tells us information about the space of the region of the church court. Thus, we know about this space only for half of the 12th century, and then we are directly transferred to the Moscow period. Comparing the space of the area of ​​​​the church court, which it had in the middle of the 12th century, with its space in the later Moscow time, we find that sometime later, after half of the 12th century, this area expanded significantly. In addition to all of the above, later the following were also subject to the trial of bishops: 1) litigation regarding charters or marriage contracts; 2) cases on spiritual letters or wills, on the division of inheritances and on executors abusing their rights; 3) cases of bondage and complaints of slaves against masters and vice versa; 4) complaints from parents about their children for disobedience or any other outrages; 5) complaints of husbands against their wives and wives against their husbands in adultery and other matters; 6) cases of children marrying against the will of the parents; 7) cases of illegitimate children abandoned by their parents; 8) cases of violence against wives and children; 9) litigation over so-called luggage or giving things away for safekeeping; 10) cases of adoption and inheritance to adopted children; 11) some types of dishonor (who will call someone a whore or an adulterer or some other word; who will dare to touch secret affairs with his hand or who will fool whose wife 761. When did this expansion of the church court take place - back in the pre-Mongol period or already in the Moscow period? It seems much more likely to think that even in the pre-Mongol period with that intermediate time from the Mongol invasion to the rise of Moscow, which can be called the Vladimir period. The princes of Moscow were very pious, had great respect for bishops and the clergy in general, but at the same time they very tightly and jealously guarded their ancient rights, and to believe that they would want to give them up to the bishops is a very doubtful and unlikely matter. The same thing turns out to be most likely on other aspects of the matter: it is impossible to assume that the boundaries between civil and ecclesiastical courts still remained unsteady and uncertain until the very beginning of the 14th century, whence the Muscovite period began; it is necessary to think that the time of uncertainty has ceased, and the firm establishment of boundaries took place before the indicated time; and, therefore, it is necessary to think behind this that the expansion of the church court, as we find it in later times against the XII century, occurred sometime before Moscow. The Moscow time can be called a time of legal clarity or legal clarification: detailed accounts were summed up for everything that had gone before, everyone was left for the future with what they found themselves with, but there was immediately an end to any further expansion of anyone’s rights regarding the rights of the Grand Duke. What the princes of Moscow, upon their appearance, found from time immemorial to belong to the bishops, they left to them, without encroaching on the boundaries of their region established by time, but at the same time they did not allow them to violate their own boundaries, also established by time. This is how it seems most likely to understand the matter regarding the princes of Moscow, and, consequently, to attribute the expansion of the boundaries of the area of ​​ecclesiastical court to pre-Moscow times. How the expansion of the church court into the civil court initially took place, we explained above and it is explained quite easily. But the new or subsequent expansion that we are talking about now is a significantly different matter. Initially, the expansion occurred not due to the fact that the civil power surrendered to the church a certain number of cases and crimes that had hitherto been under its jurisdiction, but due to the fact that, under the influence of the new views of the church, new crimes were created in the civil sphere, which were granted to it - the church. But the further expansion of the scope of the ecclesiastical court, or the one we are talking about now, had to be done in a positive way at the expense of the civil court or to direct and positive damage to it, for it had to be done in such a way that cases that were previously within the jurisdiction of the civil court would move into the area of ​​the ecclesiastical court. How could it happen that the civil authorities, financially determined to be interested in not allowing the area of ​​the ecclesiastical court to expand at the expense of its own area, nevertheless allowed such an expansion to take place? If the expansion really took place, then it means that there was a possibility for it to happen and, therefore, there were reasons due to which it actually happened. The question, therefore, is only: how can the matter be explained in the most probable way? All the cases and crimes we have indicated above, which later, after half of the 12th century, entered the realm of the church court, have that special property common to all of them: for a satisfactory solution of them, a court in form is not sufficient, but a court in conscience is desirable, for which it is required that the judge be not only just a judge, but also a moral warner with the authority. For some of them are such that they can be considered satisfactorily completed only when, together with the reasoning of the litigation itself, good peace is restored between the litigants. And others are such that this very reasoning can be satisfactorily carried out only when, not content with answers in form, the judge makes an appeal to the sincere conscience of those on trial, and from this appeal draws for himself one or another conviction. Such judges were not ordinary civil judges, but could only be spiritual judges - priests, and, therefore, all these cases contained, in their properties, a natural attraction to the church. We said that in Russia, for the reason that the court was an income for judges, no one, including bishops, was and could not be granted the right of arbitration, because any deviation of the litigants from the ordinary subject judges would deprive these latter of their income. But in a court case it is easy to prescribe that no one other than the established judges should dare turn to arbitrators, but it is difficult and completely impossible to monitor the exact execution of the order if for some reason the litigants themselves find it more beneficial for themselves and generally preferable to the court of the second, rather than the first, judges. Thus, if there could be reasons for those litigants to prefer in the aforementioned court cases the court of bishops and, in general, the court of ecclesiastical judges to the court of civil judges, then they had every opportunity, despite the existing prohibition, to appeal at will to the court of the former, and not the latter. But the reasons mentioned, as we said, were: all the above-mentioned cases are of precisely this kind that those on trial should always have wanted them to be dealt with not just by judges, but by shepherds and spiritual fathers. In explanation of the last words, we must remind the reader what we said above about the ecclesiastical court of the pre-Mongol period. Subsequently, in Moscow, lay persons, the so-called secular officials of the bishops, became spiritual judges, and the spiritual court enjoyed a reputation that was no better, if not much worse, than the civil court. But in the pre-Mongol period, the judges were precisely the clergy - the priests who made up the cathedral choirs of the bishops. We have absolutely no positive evidence about their good quality, but, in any case, it is necessary to think that they were no worse than civil judges and that, in any case, they fully retained the advantage of clergy. Thus, according to the circumstances we have indicated, it was completely natural for those judges in all the above cases, bypassing the court of ordinary or civil judges, to turn to the court of bishops or ecclesiastical judges in general. But if this had to be so, then it was natural for it to happen that cases that were initially addressed to the court of bishops voluntarily, then became completely within their jurisdiction and officially or completely entered the realm of the ecclesiastical court. Any prescription, whether by use or abuse, creates a right. The long-term appeal in the above-mentioned cases to the arbitration court of bishops created for them (the bishops) the right to claim these cases as full property, and as a result of this, they should have had litigation with civil judges. Who should have remained the winner and who should have given in? For the state to be an offender to the church is a very thankless role, and every sovereign would always prefer to be known as a benefactor than an offender, unless this requires some sacrifice that exceeds the measure. The bishops, defending their claims, could say that those courts were “for the needs of the choir, feeding the poor, providing food for the orphans and the poor,” etc.; but what could the princes say like that? To cede controversial matters to the church meant to do her a favor, not to concede meant not to want to do her a favor: since it is natural for the church to live on benefits from sovereigns, and it is natural for sovereigns to provide benefits to the church, therefore it had to happen that in a dispute about the court the princes yielded to the bishops 762. When, after half of the 12th century, the state officially recognized the above-mentioned cases and crimes as subject to ecclesiastical court, and when in this way the latter received the volume that it had in later times, this remains unknown. It is likely that the matter did not happen suddenly and that the church court reached its final expansion only in the very last time of the pre-Mongol period or, which is almost more likely, in the interval between the pre-Mongol and Moscow periods. Unfortunately, we do not have accurate information about the space of the church court in the later southern or Kievan Rus. But if it was subject only to what is indicated in the so-called Yaroslav Charter of the southern Russian edition 763, then the later expansion of the church court, which we are now talking about, took place in northern Rus' alone. In this case, it will be necessary to think that it began in Novgorod and from there spread throughout the rest of northern Rus'. In Novgorod, indeed, there were special circumstances that could have contributed to the expansion of the church court into the civil court. The princes here were variable and could not enjoy special respect from the people. On the contrary, the rulers soon acquired very great authority in the eyes of the latter. And therefore, it was natural for it to happen here that the church court began to be preferred to the civil court. On the other hand, the direct desire of the local bishops to expand their court to the civil court could not meet such decisive resistance here as in other places. Speaking about the final expansion of the church court, we must return with speeches to the so-called church charter of Vladimir. Not being a genuine charter of this sovereign, the charter, nevertheless, was not just a literary monument, but had an undoubted and important practical significance. We do not know how much he helped, and whether he helped the church court in any way in its very expansion, but there is no doubt that he helped it a lot to firmly and forever establish itself within the boundaries it had acquired. Having appeared around the time when the final expansion of the church court took place or when this latter reached its greatest extent, in the second half of the 12th century, or at least not earlier, this charter soon acquired universal faith. But he assigns to the ecclesiastical court almost the same broad boundaries that the latter received at the greatest degree of its expansion. Thus, having achieved this greatest expansion, the church court came under the protection and protection of such legalization as the covenant of the first baptist of Rus'. As firmly as the general belief has become that the charter is the true and valid legalization of Vladimir, the church court has become safe from the encroachment of civil power. In this imaginary charter, the following is written on behalf of Vladimir about the courts of the church or those that are subject to the jurisdiction of bishops: “having dissolved the Greek Nomocanon, he found that it was not appropriate for these courts and heavy princes to judge, neither his boyars nor the tiun, (and) gave those courts to the churches of God - the metropolitan and all the bishops throughout (the entire) Russian land: dissolution, modesty (dowry litigation), being caught (in fornication), cheating (of brides), beating (quarrels and litigation) between husband and wife about the belly (about estate), in the tribe or in matchmaking will be understood (i.e., they will enter into marriages), witchcraft (witchcraft), perform sorcery, sorcery, greenery, reproaches (insult with words) three: whore, potions and heresy, toothache (i.e., probably a more or less strong bite of an opponent in a fight), or a son beats a father, or a mother beats a daughter, or a daughter-in-law beats a mother-in-law, or whoever is killed (i.e. will swear) with bad words and use father and mother, or sisters or children, and any tribe will sue about their asses (i.e., about inheritance), church theft, the dead are bastards (i.e., taken out of their graves to rob), they will cut a cross (roadside) or eat cod (chips) from the cross on the walls, cattle or dogs or birds without any need he will bring you into the church, or he will do something that is not like the church, or two friends will be beaten (and) one’s wife will have the other’s womb and crush him, or someone will be caught with four knives, or someone will be praying under a barn, or in the rye, or under a bush, or by the water, or a girl will throw down a child. “You are all the courts,” the charter concludes its enumeration, “given to the churches of God by the law of God, according to the rule of the holy fathers, Christian kings and princes in all Christian people.” The Charter does not fully embrace everything that in later times actually began to belong to the court of bishops 764, but it provides this court, if not in deeds, then in words, so much; and its general, if not actual, then visible result is so great that subsequently, in defense of the belonging of any case to the ecclesiastical court, it was possible to refer to it with complete confidence and without fear of encountering objections, simply in a deaf way or indiscriminately 765. With everything that has been said so far, we have not completely finished the conversation about expanding the scope of the ecclesiastical court to include the civil court. In the above-mentioned cases and crimes, all laymen without exception were subject to trial by bishops, and not by civil judges. But besides this, partly we have positive information, partly we can assume with all, or at least with high probability, that there were such categories of laymen who were presented to the court of bishops not only for the above, but in general for all cases and crimes. That is, who were given full jurisdiction to the bishops, and who were, as it were, ranked among the clergy and the ecclesiastical department. The imaginary charter of Vladimir contains quite a lot of such categories 766. For the time of Vladimir, to whom the charter does not belong, his testimony cannot have any significance. One might think that he is writing off his contemporary reality; but even this cannot be accepted in full 767. As for the news regarding this that is positive and undoubted, in the charter of Prince Rostislav of Smolensk we find that he places under the full jurisdiction of his bishop a category of people called forgivers. Unfortunately, it is not at all clear from Rostislav’s charter whether this complete jurisdiction of forgivers to bishops was universal in his time or whether he himself only granted them to his bishop; “And behold, I give to the Holy Mother of God and to the bishop,” he writes in the letter, “forgiveness with honey and with kuns and with vira and with sales, and there is no need for any person to judge them.” What kind of category and people the forgivers were, or what they were, is also a far from clear matter. In written monuments of a somewhat later, post-Mongolian period, the expressions: to be forgiven, to receive forgiveness, are used in the sense of receiving a miraculous healing from an illness with relics or from an icon; therefore, according to these monuments, the forgiven should mean people miraculously healed. But the mentioned expressions are not found in the written monuments of the pre-Mongol period. The very word forgiven, denoting people who have been forgiven and - as is very likely to be assumed - forgiven in the spiritual sense, of course, makes it very likely that it should mean the people mentioned above. But since in the pre-Mongol period, the relics were in Kyiv alone and there is no news about miraculous icons, it is quite possible that the forgivers of the pre-Mongol period were something else 768. In the legends of later times we meet more forgivers, somewhat different from those mentioned above. The famous foreigner Margeret, who wrote about our fatherland at the beginning of the 17th century, says that “in Russia there is a special order consisting of people who, sensing the approach of death, were unctioned with oil, but did not die. Such people undertake to wear a dress similar to that of a monk until their death, which is considered a very beneficial deed. Their wives have the right to marry another husband” 769. The beginning of this category of forgivers can most likely be attributed to the pre-Mongol period. Rostislav gives the pardoners to his bishop with honey, kunas, vira and sales; Vira and sales mean duties on court cases and monetary fines for crimes; By kunas or money we can mean either an annual rent or the right to inherit an estate after death. But what is meant by honey remains obscure. It is possible to assume that the pardoners left the classes to which they belonged and entered their own special category or, as it were, into their own special order during the performance of a special church prayer service, at which raven and non-raked honey was used, and perhaps in the letter it is precisely this honey with all the income from the prayer service (i.e., with everything that would have been put into the prayer service by all those present and that in the existing custom could be very significant). So, in the half of the 12th century. the so-called forgivers, or in general throughout all of Russia and all its dioceses, were under the full jurisdiction of the bishops, or at least they were placed under such jurisdiction by the bishop in the diocese of Smolensk. Whether this happened in general or in particular, in any case, it will be necessary to understand the matter in such a way that the reason here was the exceptional social position of the pardoners. That is, that it is unknown what the forgiveness consisted of, as it were, distinguishing them from among the other laity and making them, as it were, people of God, on which basis the worldly authorities handed them over to the full jurisdiction of the bishops or donated them to the church. All our positive information about persons who belonged to the full jurisdiction of the bishops is limited to these forgivers of the Smolensk diocese. Without positive information, but concluding from subsequent times, one can with high probability assume that in a similar way another category of laity was fully within the jurisdiction of the bishops, not because of their special social status, but on a different basis, namely on earth. These are precisely the beggars who lived on church lands. Regarding subsequent times, we know that beggars, for the convenience of collecting alms, had the custom of living near churches, together with the latter’s clergy, on church or churchyard lands. They lived in houses or cells, which they probably built partly themselves, renting land from the parishes, and partly, probably, were built by charitable people, or who acquired from the parishes the right to accommodate the poor for free or who gave them the right to charge fees 770. All such beggars who lived on church lands in subsequent times were completely under the jurisdiction of the bishops or constituted, as it were, church people, with those exceptions that were common to all church people in general and which we will talk about below 771. It can be plausibly assumed that this full jurisdiction of the indicated beggars to the bishops began in the pre-Mongol period. Having no positive information about this, we, however, find some indications of this. Metropolitan Kirill 3 in the acts of the Vladimir Cathedral of 1274. Among other abuses of the bishops, it is indicated that they abuse the beggars, forcing them to reap themselves or “slaughter hay or transport deeds” 772. One can, of course, mean here the beggars in general, whom the bishops forced to work for themselves because they collected alms from the churches. But it is more likely to mean those among them who lived in the very churches and over whom the bishops had valid rights, as over people under their jurisdiction 773. So, the expansion of the scope of the ecclesiastical court into the civil court took place in three ways: firstly, the priests were placed under the jurisdiction of the bishops not only as priests, but also as citizens. Secondly, in certain civil cases and crimes all laymen were brought before them. Thirdly, some orders of the laity were given full jurisdiction to them, like priests. In conclusion of our speeches about the space of our church court, let’s talk about the punishments used by our church authorities. Since ecclesiastical or spiritual authority is a power not of this world, the canons prohibit it from using worldly punishments and provide for the use of only spiritual punishments, which are: - In relation to the laity: teachings and admonitions (διδασκαλίαι καὶ νουθεσίαι), penances (consisting of deprivation Holy Communion at one time or another), excommunication, anathematization, complete expulsion from the church. In relation to the clergy: the same teachings and admonitions, a temporary ban, a complete eruption from the clergy 774. If the culprit, despite church punishments, remained disobedient and continued to disturb the peace of the church, the bishops are allowed, without using worldly punishments themselves, to hand over the culprit to the civil authorities 775. But soon worldly punishments also penetrated into the church: The bishops began to impose monetary fines on the clergy, which was allowed to them by the civil laws of Emperor Justinian 776, and to subject them to imprisonment, for which purpose special prisons appeared at the episcopal sees (see above footnote No. 695). And subject to corporal punishment in the proper sense of the word 777. In later times, Emperor Alexius Komnenos (1081–1118) formally recognized the right of bishops to subject clergy to worldly punishments in one of his novels 778. We do not know positively whether our punishments were used in relation to the laity who sinned in the Church; but we consider this more than probable, for we positively know that they were used in relation to the laity, who were subject to the court of the church authorities in civil matters 779. As it was with us in the pre-Mongol period, we have no direct information; but in later times it was so with us that both clergy and laity were subjected to secular punishments by the church authorities, and it is very likely to think that this began in the pre-Mongol period 780. In the above speeches we mean the use by bishops of temporal punishments for crimes for which the canons prohibit the imposition of these punishments, namely, in relation to clergy for ecclesiastical crimes or for spiritual sins and for crimes in office. In relation to the laity - for the first of them. But in Greece and here, clergy were submitted to the court of bishops not only as Christians in general and as church officials, but also as citizens; and in our country, in addition, a certain part of the civil crimes committed by the laity was presented to the court of bishops. From this it follows that for those ecclesiastical crimes that were recognized by the civil authorities and for civil crimes, clergy and laity, insofar as they were subject to the civil court of bishops, should have been subject to double secular punishment. We don’t know how it actually happened: with regard to clergy, the established canons probably had force in relation to them, that you cannot avenge twice for one 781; but as for the laity, it is not impossible that they were actually subjected to double punishment, for example, a fine and corporal punishment, or a double fine (and in later times this seemed to actually happen 782. In Greece, since ancient times, bishops allowed themselves to abuse one church punishment, namely excommunication, using it as a means of extorting money or as a means of personal revenge 783. In later times, this abuse was also strong among us, as in Greece; whether or not it was as strong already in the pre-Mongol period, in any case, it began with us back in this period, as evidenced by the actions of the Vladimir Council of 1274. 784. Church governance presupposes church laws, to which we will now turn in order. Since each private church is an inseparable and organic part of the universal church, and this latter has its own laws that are general and generally binding for all its parts, then, first of all, it goes without saying that each private church must have and accept these general laws or so-called canons. Then, each private church can have private or local laws, which have significance only for itself and for no one else and which, within the limits of the law, can be issued either by its own supreme authority or by the state authority under which it (the church) consists. That the Russian Church recognized and accepted general church laws or canons from its very beginning is self-evident, for without this it could not be a church, and here we can only talk about translations of these canons into the Slavic language. In the Greek Church in the 10th century, when we adopted Christianity, the so-called Photios edition of the canons was in practical use. This edition was first made by an unknown person around the middle of the 6th century. After being supplemented more than once by unknown persons and finally supplemented by Patriarch Photius in 883, it consists of two parts: The first is a systematic index to the canons, accompanied by an indication and brief transmission of civil laws relating to the church, divided according to content into 14 titles or departments, each of which is divided into more or less chapters. The second part contains the actual text of the canons, arranged in the order of the councils and the fathers who wrote them. Since we adopted Christianity long after Patriarch Photius, one would expect that we would have its final edition in the Slavic translation. In reality, however, it was not so: In the pre-Mongol period, we had in the Slavic translation the nomocanon bearing his name, not in its final edition, but in the last one, made before him and representing the collection of canons not yet in perfect and final completeness, as is his own. It is precisely in this edition, which we had in the Slavic translation, that the rules of the two councils that took place under Photius himself are missing - the so-called double or first-second 861. and formerly in the Church of Sophia in 879. 785. This strangeness must be explained by the fact that we did not take the trouble to translate the nomocanon from Greek for ourselves, but used a ready-made translation made in Bulgaria. The Bulgarians adopted Christianity before 883, when Photius published his edition, and therefore they obviously had to translate the nomocanon for themselves from an earlier edition. Thus, without taking the trouble to translate the nomocanon ourselves, we had in the pre-Mongol period in the Slavic translation not a completely complete collection of church canons, although what was missing, as we have now indicated above, was very insignificant. In addition to the collection of canons according to the nomocanon of the so-called Photius, we had in the pre-Mongol period in the Slavic translation another, but already very significantly incomplete, collection of them, made by John Scholasticus or the lawyer of Antioch, after the Patriarch of Constantinople (565–578), in the middle of the 6th century. And it is a systematic, divided by content into 50 titles, set of text of 786 apostolic canons, four ecumenical and six local councils and Basil the Great. This collection of Scholasticus (Συναγωγὴ κανόνων), which was in general use among the Greeks for a long time simultaneously with the nomocanon, which in the final edition received the name Photius, was, in all likelihood, translated into the Slavic language by Methodius, the first teacher for the Moravians 787; borrowed from them by the Bulgarians, it was later taken from the latter, simultaneously with the first or similar to the first, by us 788. Thus, pre-Mongol Rus' had church canons in the Slavic translation, although not in its entirety. But to what extent was the knowledge of these canons? It is always assumed by itself that every clergy (priests and bishops) is obliged to have complete knowledge of the canons of the church, as the fundamental laws of the church, and, however, with this knowledge the same thing always happens as with our Russian, which is obligatory for everyone to know the laws of the Russian Empire. That is, that few people have it and few people care about it. No one denies the binding force of church canons. But in practical life it is not they that act directly, but the custom established on the basis of them (and partly in addition to them and in spite of them). In practical life, knowledge and observance of this last and not the first are required, the knowledge of which seems superfluous and unnecessary and a simple learned luxury. On this basis, even at the present time we will not find a single priest who would have a decent knowledge of the canons of the church and would have any satisfactory understanding of the book called the Helmsman. (Besides the fact that it is a very thick book), and among the bishops themselves, a completely thorough knowledge of the canons of the church is not at all commonplace. If such is the knowledge of church canons even at the present time, then it goes without saying that in the pre-Mongol period it was even incomparably lower. But during this period there were also special reasons why things had to be so that the priests did not have the slightest idea about the canons, and that some knowledge of them was only the exclusive specialty of the bishops. Nowadays, when printing exists, every church can easily acquire a printed Helmsman, but in the pre-Mongol period there was handwriting and then, as we said above, it was so expensive and the skill of the craftsmen was so meager that the acquisition of each book was, if not more expensive, then almost more difficult for parishes than the construction of the churches themselves. For this reason, it is necessary to think that collections of church canons or the Helmsman’s Book, which was far from inevitably necessary, and yet, given its enormous size, had to be extremely expensive, in the pre-Mongol period the parish churches did not have them at all. (With the exception, perhaps, of parishes in the favorite estates of the princes, where the princes could attach the book) and that it was exclusively located only in bishoprics 789. It is impossible to guarantee that in these latter it will certainly be present in all of them; but if we assume this, then we need to think about its use the same way that we currently know about its use in villages, i.e. that she was compiling a book lying around and extremely little used - a book in which no one knows what is written. Our bishops of that time, like all the people of that time (which we will discuss below), had no real education and were nothing more than simple literates. But for a simple literate to begin to read the canons of the church and be able to cope with them, that is, to properly comprehend and understand them, this is very doubtful. To read the church canons, some kind of guidance is required that would help to become familiar with them in general and that would help the understanding of each of them in particular, but such a guide was not written at all until the well-known interpretations of the canons were written - Zonarino, Valsamonovo and Aristinovo, which appeared later. Uninterpreted church canons, translated literally, and as a result not particularly intelligibly, from Greek, seemed to the bishops of other Orthodox Slavs “darkened by the cloud of wisdom of the Hellenic language” 790. There is no doubt that our bishops found them this way and that as such they were highly respected, but they read and studied very little. The private or local laws of each private church, binding only for itself and for no one else, as we said, constitute legalizations or decrees - firstly, of its own supreme power, and secondly, of the state power, under which each private church is located. It is in itself quite clear what is meant by the private laws of each private church. But it’s a rather tricky question what the Russian Church should have meant by its private laws. The fact is that it was in such a special position that it did and did not constitute a private church. As a church of a very special state and as a completely separate church, it, of course, constituted a special private church. But at the same time, administratively, it did not constitute an independent private church, but was only part of another similar church - the metropolis of the Patriarch of Constantinople, exactly the same as all his other metropolises. As a special private church, it had to recognize as its local laws only the legalizations and decrees of its own metropolitans and grand dukes. (And each of its bishoprics also has its own appanage princes). But as the administrative part of the Greek Church, as the metropolis of the Patriarch of Constantinople, it had to recognize as such the legalizations and decrees of the Patriarchs of Constantinople and the Greek Emperors. That she had to recognize the former is clear, for the Patriarchs of Constantinople were the highest administrative heads of the Russian Church, and their power in this latter was exactly the same as in all other metropolises subordinate to them. It is not so clear that the Russian Church should recognize as its laws the laws and decrees of the Greek emperors relating to church affairs; but this is also true. The aforementioned laws and decrees of the emperors, obviously, were supposed to extend to the entire administrative Greek Church, for, being addressed to the patriarchs, and being obligatory for them, they at the same time, obviously, were obligatory for all metropolitans subordinate to them. And the Russian Church was part of the administrative Greek Church, was the metropolis of the Patriarch of Constantinople, through whom it was subordinate to the Greek Emperor. However, for the Russian Church to recognize all the local laws of the Greek Church and its own laws would be imperfectly convenient. Firstly, the Russians could not help but find it offensive to their national honor to recognize the decrees of the Greek emperors as binding on themselves. Secondly, not all local Greek laws could be applicable to Russia due to differences in local conditions. How the Russians of the pre-Mongol period solved this confusing and tricky issue remains unknown. As a general question, they, in all likelihood, did not pose it or solve it at all. As for practice, as far as our information is sufficient to judge the matter, they treated these laws in such a way that the answer was both “yes” and “no”, that they both recognized them and did not recognize them. They did not at all care about making these laws fully known to themselves and having them all in Slavic translation, but they borrowed translations made by others from these others, and perhaps translated some of them themselves. Then, as for the very use of laws, the Russians, neither positively denying nor positively recognizing them, on the one hand did not use them directly at all, and on the other hand, accepted from them everything that passed to them from the Greek Church through custom. In general, both in the canonical and in this non-canonical part, we accepted from the Greeks not church laws in order to organize the church ourselves according to these laws, but a ready-made example of this latter, to what extent in its unimportant details it could be accepted by us and how it (the church), according to both laws (canonical and non-canonical) was organized among the Greeks. How, having recognized the binding force of the church canons, we, however, did not correct those deviations from them that the Greeks allowed, but left the matter in the form we received from them 791; Thus, recognizing or not recognizing the binding significance of local Greek laws, we, without reflection and without criticism and without distinguishing the canonical from the non-canonical, accepted the customs based on these laws, in exactly the same way as the customs based on the canons. Adopting the model, we accepted laws simply on faith and did not at all bother to search and decide what in the customs we adopted was based on canons, what on local laws, and how much the latter had binding force for us 792. As much information as we have and as much as we can assume and conclude, the Greek Church also behaved in a strange and not entirely ordinary way in relation to the Russian Church in the matter of these local laws. Since the Russian Church was a metropolis of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, it would be expected that all newly issued legalizations of the patriarchs and emperors, or at least some of the first, would be officially reported to it for information and execution on an equal basis with all other metropolises. And, however, this did not happen at all, as one should think based on the fact that only a very small number of such legalizations are known in the Slavic language in our Russian Helmsmen 793. Thus, the Patriarchs of Constantinople themselves did not seem to recognize and recognized the Russian Church as a special private church. Undoubtedly, the private laws obligatory for the Russian Church on the part of the Greek Church were the decrees of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, which specifically concerned itself and were addressed specifically to it. Only two such decrees are known for the entire pre-Mongol period. This is precisely a letter from Patriarch Luke Chrysovergus to Andrei Bogolyubsky with a refusal to establish a metropolis in Vladimir, with a decision in the case of the Bishop of Rostov, whom the prince persecuted, and with instructions regarding fasting on holidays, which was then a subject of controversy in Russia. And the letter of Patriarch Herman 2 to Metropolitan Kirill 2 of 1228 about the non-ordination of slaves to priesthood who had not previously been released (we will return to both letters below) 794. The private laws of the Russian Church in the strict and narrow sense of the word local, as we said, were supposed to constitute legislative acts, that is, this kind of charters or decrees, of its own metropolitans and its own great princes. Since the pre-Mongol period was the time of the introduction and establishment of Christianity in Russia, in other words, a time when all sorts of perplexities and questions naturally should have arisen that required resolution and clarification through legislation, then, apparently, we need to look at it as a period of the most intense legislative activity. We don’t know how things really were, but while at the present time absolutely not a single specified type of legislative act is known from the pre-Mongol period, which could have perished irrevocably or even many acts may remain hitherto unknown, there is absolutely nothing incredible in this. Here is one completely convincing example of this: the chronicles make it clear that in the pre-Mongol period a lot of so-called crosses or letters of agreement between princes were written, and, however, at the present time absolutely not a single one of them is known. Thus, there could be legislative acts of the mentioned kind even in a whole set, although we do not know them at all 795. But on the other hand, it seems more likely to think that there were not many acts, and namely, that the Russian Church of the pre-Mongol period legislated not so much by written means, which at that time was in many ways a very difficult way, but by oral means. The bishops gathered for councils with the metropolitan, if not annually at certain dates, then still quite often. At these councils, metropolitans could legislate in the form of instructions to bishops. The parish clergy of each diocese gathered annually, if not all of them every time, then in turn, to their bishops for the so-called “assemblies”, which we will talk about below: at these assemblies the bishops, in turn, could legislate for their dioceses. This seems like the most probable way to think, but whether this was actually the case is, in the end, the question. According to the then political system of Rus', not only the entire Russian Church had its own state head in the Grand Duke, but also each bishopric had its own special head in its appanage prince. Just as the Grand Duke could legislate throughout the Russian Church, so each appanage prince could legislate in his own bishopric. Of the monuments of this particular local Russian legislation from the pre-Mongol period, two have survived to the present day, namely: the charter of the Novgorod prince Svyatoslav Olgovich, written in 1137 and containing orders regarding episcopal tithes in the Novgorod diocese 796, and the charter of the Smolensk prince Rostislav, which we spoke about many times above 797. Having no monuments of local Russian church legislation in the proper and strict sense from the pre-Mongol period, with the exception of very few now indicated, we have from him several separate works of canonical content, the unofficial purpose and task of which is to give instructions regarding certain subjects of church practice. The following works are currently known: 1) Mentioned in the monuments of the pre-Mongol period under the name of the “Belechesky Charter” (secular) and “certain commandment”, in later manuscripts, called the “Commandment of the Holy Fathers to Confessing Sons and Daughters”, the work of Metropolitan George 798. The content of the work, which aims to teach the Russians new to Christianity the instructions that are most necessary for them, is very diverse, and in terms of presentation it is not consistent. First there are regulations on bowing and food at different times of the year, then regulations regarding carnal cohabitation with wives during Lent and on communion. And then mixed - rules and instructions regarding marriage, spiritual fathers, persons appointed to the priesthood and other church degrees, about carnal marital cohabitation in general, about tonsure into monasticism, about mothers in childbirth, about penances for various sins, etc., etc. The work of Metropolitan George had a strange fate in the pre-Mongol period. As written by the metropolitan, it apparently should have received general circulation and general fame and become, to some extent, the official charter of the Russian Church. However, this did not happen at all. 50 years after the death of Metropolitan George, and maybe less, even the bishops did not know about the existence of his work and it was known only to a few 799. 2) Epistle of St. Theodosius of Pechersk to the Grand Duke Izyaslav Yaroslavich, written in response to his question and therefore called in the lists “Questioning Izyaslavl” 800. In this short message, the Monk Theodosius, firstly, answers the question of the Grand Duke - is it possible to slaughter cattle for food on Sunday; secondly, he probably says the same thing about the demand of the Grand Duke or a former conversation with him, about fasting on Wednesday and Friday. 3) “The Church Rule in Brief” by Metropolitan John 2, written to a certain monk Jacob in response to the questions he proposed to the Metropolitan 801. 4) The so-called “Question of Kirikovo”, namely, a collection of answers received by the hieromonk and domestic of the Novgorod Anthony Monastery Kirik from various persons to whom he addressed his questions, mainly from three bishops - Novgorod: Nifont (1129-1156) and Elijah (1165-1185) and the unknown diocese of Sava 802. Both works are extremely diverse in content, and completely mixed in presentation. The monk Jacob addressed Metropolitan John, and Kirik addressed several individuals with various, perplexing questions from the vast area of ​​church practice, and in both works the answers are presented completely without any systematic order, simply in a random connection. So, in the Rule of Metropolitan John: about the time of baptism of infants, whether a mother is worthy to feed a child for up to 40 days, about not eating crushed meat and beast-eating, about those serving on unleavened bread or Latins, about eating meat during the great fast, about having two wives, about sorcery, etc.. In the Question of Kirikov: about prayer to defiled vessels, about the funeral liturgy, about interest, about the tonsure of a monk into the schema, about the acceptance of Latins into Orthodoxy, whether it is worthy to slaughter cattle on Sunday, about worshipers going to Jerusalem, etc. The Rule of Metropolitan John and the Questioning of Kirikovo are important for us in that they show what issues of church practice the Russian people of the pre-Mongol period were most interested in and how much difficulties and perplexities they encountered in its field. We will return to this side of the matter later. We will not convey in detail here the contents of both works, as well as the Charter of Metropolitan George of Beleche, but we will use one and the other in parts in the appropriate places. 5) The teaching of the Novgorod bishop (archbishop) Elijah, addressed by him to the subordinate clergy shortly after occupying the department and, together with various moral admonitions, containing several canonical instructions 803. 6) Instruction to the priests of the same Archbishop Elijah, written by him together with the bishop of Belgorod, unknown by name, regarding two special cases that may occur during the celebration of the liturgy 804. Some other Theodos is also mentioned, who wrote something canonical 805. But which one and what remains unknown for now. In later collections there are many articles of canonical content, many of which are probably of Russian origin and some may be from the pre-Mongol period. But the latter, again, also cannot be separated and indicated. (On the newly discovered teaching of the Novgorod Archbishop Elijah, which he offered to the priests of his diocese on the first “collective” Sunday after he occupied the department, see below between the appendices to this chapter). Let's finish talking about the bishops of the pre-Mongol period. We said above that Andrei Bogolyubsky failed in his efforts to establish a special metropolis in Vladimir. As we also said, his candidate for future metropolitan was a certain Theodore or, as the chronicles call him abusively, Fedorets, according to some not entirely reliable news - a Russian from a noble boyar family and a tonsure of the Pechersk Monastery 806, according to other similar news - a Greek, nephew of Smolensk Bishop Manuel 807. About this Theodore or Fedorets, after the failed case on the establishment of the metropolitanate in Vladimir, chronicles 808 tell the following: Andrei Bogolyubsky decided to appoint him bishop of Rostov, but he, despite all the admonitions of the Grand Duke, did not want to go to the metropolitan in Kyiv, but went to Constantinople, where he was consecrated by the patriarch; having sat down on the pulpit, he turned out to be a frantic tyrant and a complete villain: “many people,” the chronicles say, “suffered from him, in his possession, and sat down, having lost both weapons and a horse, and the druzians and work of extraction, imprisonment and raking; not only a simpleton, but also a merciless tormentor, an abbot and a priest, cutting off the heads and beards of others, burning out the eyes of others and cutting off the tongue, and crucifying others on the wall and tormenting him unmercifully, although he would steal the property from everyone, the property would not be full, like hell”; Finally, he ended by ordering all the churches in Vladimir to be closed, including his cathedral, so that “there was no ringing or singing throughout the whole city.” After all, Andrei Bogolyubsky sent him to Kyiv to the metropolitan, by whom he was executed as a villain and a heretic. To present the matter as the chronicler presents it to us would be completely pointless. Bogolyubsky urgently exhorts Theodore to go to Kyiv. The latter, without listening to him, goes to Constantinople, and, however, when he returns, the prince accepts him. Having sat down at the pulpit, Theodore begins to furiously commit evil acts - the prince tolerates all his atrocities. Finally, he closes all the churches in Vladimir, the prince tolerates this, and only after that sends him to the metropolitan for trial. Is such patience possible from any prince, and especially from Andrei Bogolyubsky, who persecuted bishops without the slightest hesitation? How could a bishop rage not only against the clergy, but also against the laity, and, moreover, against the latter even more than the former? What will it mean and what meaning will the closing of all churches have? Finally, how is it that a completely out-of-the-ordinary villain was not executed without a further trial in Vladimir itself, but was sent for trial to the Metropolitan in Kyiv? It goes without saying that the matter presented by the chroniclers as meaningless must have some meaning. If Theodore was installed as bishop not in Kyiv, but in Constantinople, then, no doubt, with the consent of Bogolyubsky. If Bogolyubsky tolerated Theodore’s atrocities, such or not on such a scale as they are depicted in the chronicles, if he allowed him to close all the churches in Vladimir, then, obviously, there were all this reasons - that the bishop acted with the connivance and permission of the prince. What could be the matter? Theodore, with the permission of the prince, could go for consecration as a bishop not to the metropolitan in Kyiv, but to Constantinople to the patriarch, only for the reason that he wanted to acquire special rights from the patriarch, and namely, the only possible right for a bishop, autocephaly or independence from the metropolitan, with direct subordination to the patriarch himself. It is necessary to think that this right of autocephaly was the whole point. Andrei Bogolyubsky, not having managed to get a separate metropolitan for his Vladimir, wanted, at least, for his bishop of Rostov to be an autocephalous or independent bishop from the Kyiv metropolitan, and for this purpose he sent Theodore to Constantinople. The latter was consecrated by the patriarch as bishop of Rostov, but whether he received the right of autocephaly at the same time remains unknown. And, judging by what follows, it is much more likely to think “no” than “yes” 809. Be that as it may, it is necessary to think that Theodore, upon returning from Constantinople, with the consent of the prince, declared himself an autocephalous bishop, for only with this assumption can it be meaningful to explain what the chronicles further tell about Theodore’s furies. These furies must mean that a fierce struggle ensued between the Bishop of Rostov, who declared himself autocephalous, and between the Metropolitan of Kyiv, who did not want to recognize his autocephaly. That in this struggle the clergy and citizens of Vladimir were divided into two hostile parties, of which one sided with the bishop, and the other side with the metropolitan. And that the bishop and the prince instigated merciless persecution on the side that disagreed with them, although it may very well be that in depicting this mercilessness of persecution and presenting it as the causeless fury of Theodore, the chroniclers fall into greater or lesser exaggeration. It could have come to the closure of all the churches of Vladimir - this act on the part of the bishop could mean that he wanted to influence the side hostile to him through ecclesiastical excommunication. The end of the struggle was that Bogolyubsky handed over his bishop to the metropolitan. What forced the prince to do this, and, moreover, such a one, who had no desire to give up a prince like Bogolyubsky to anyone, remains unknown. But it is likely that Theodore, not having managed to obtain autocephaly in Constantinople, declared himself autocephalous self-proclaimedly, that the metropolitan managed to prove this and that in this way he managed to arm the entire public opinion of Russia against him, as against an impudent deceiver, which Bogolyubsky did not find it possible or prudent to resist 810. The Metropolitan, having received Theodore in his hands, handed him over, according to the chronicles, to the most severe execution, namely: they cut off his tongue, cut off his right hand, took out his eyes and then - if he himself did not die after all this - one way or another they completely executed him. This execution, which is not at all spiritual, goes beyond all limits in its cruelty and is unprecedented in our history, leads to involuntary amazement. But the lack of information makes it completely impossible for us to say anything about her: Probably, the enmity between the metropolitan and the bishop reached the most extreme degree. (The closure of the Vladimir churches by the bishop, as a punitive measure against the metropolitan’s supporters, allows one to think that matters came to the point of mutual curses). So the first, having received into the hands of the latter, due to his bitterness against him and consumed solely by the feeling and thirst for revenge, was unable to observe any measure in the execution 811. There is no doubt that this episode of Theodore’s struggle with the metropolitan does not belong to the best pages of Russian church history. But one cannot but regret in the extreme that our chroniclers deliberately or tendentiously convey it to the last degree unsatisfactorily: it is more than likely that in its complete and present form it would have served very much to characterize the time. In any case, on both sides we see merciless cruelty between the combatants, from which the conclusion follows that time should not be imagined as soft as others are inclined to do. Autocephalous bishops or those directly dependent on the patriarch were called archbishops by the Greeks. At the same time that the Bishop of Rostov sought to obtain the status of an autocephalous bishop, another bishop, namely Novgorod, received his title, but without its meaning, that is, the title of archbishop without the autocephaly associated with it. Only the patriarch could give a real autocephalous archbishopric, freeing the bishop from the power of the metropolitan and subordinating it directly to himself, but the bishop of Novgorod was given the archbishopric as a simple title by the Metropolitan of Kiev. In 1165, in the month of March, he was consecrated bishop of Novgorod by Metropolitan John 4 Elijah, chosen from the priests of one of the Novgorod churches. In the same year, some time or another after the dedication of Elijah, the abbot of the Yuryev Monastery Dionysius went from Novgorod to Kyiv to the Metropolitan, and “it was commanded (with this Dionysius) that the mistress of the archbishopric become metropolitan” - this is how the Novgorod Chronicles convey the matter 812. Why on earth was the Bishop of Novgorod elevated by the Metropolitan to titular archbishops, which did not exist in Greece at all, the chronicles do not explain at all, but the matter is quite clear in itself. We said above that Bishop Niphon of Novgorod, not recognizing the legitimacy of Metropolitan Clement, was taken by the patriarch into his direct power and that in this way he was made and became an autocephalous archbishop. The successor of Niphon († 1156), when after Clement legitimate metropolitans again appeared at the metropolitan see, he again became a simple bishop, for he again submitted to the metropolitan. But after the archbishop, which by name is more and more important than the bishop, the Novgorodians did not want to have a simple bishop - and so they came up with the idea of ​​giving their bishop not the meaning of archbishop (autocephaly), but his name, as an honorary title (being, with their invention, distant forerunners of the St. Petersburg period). The Metropolitan, giving the bishop the name or title of archbishop, introduced here an idea that was completely unknown to the Greek Church. But since the idea was completely innocent, for the whole point was in one simple name, and, moreover, one that could not have been brought to the attention of the patriarch, which in all likelihood the Metropolitan did 813, then, having received decent gifts from the rich Novgorodians or from their rich ruler, he could willingly agree to allow it. As for the bishops of Novgorod, the title of archbishop, without giving them any rights, added moral authority to them, as people honored with a special title, and undoubtedly elevated them above other bishops, because the name of archbishop means, if not the superior of the bishops, then, in any case, the initial bishop 814. IV. Parish clergy and parishes. We turn to the lower or parish clergy. We have already spoken above about how we should think about the very first appearance of priests among us, with whose supply Vladimir began the general baptism of the people. First of all, he had one or another certain number of them already ready as priests of those Varangian Christians who were in Kyiv before his baptism. Then, from the Korsun campaign, he brought with him Greek priests. Since one and the other could not be sufficient to begin the general baptism of the people and since the last of them, due to ignorance of the Russian language, had to be more general leaders of the work of baptism than to take upon themselves the actual shepherd of the baptized, then in all likelihood one should also think that a greater or lesser number of priests were written out and received from Bulgaria and, perhaps, also from Hungarian Rus'. One way or another, having created the necessary supply of priests, Vladimir began the general baptism of the people. But from the moment this last thing was approached, the need was no longer for a temporary larger or smaller supply of them, but to give them in the most sufficient quantity possible to the whole country. To imagine and supply that huge number of them, in which all the newly baptized, not only in name, but in fact, would end up with their pastors and in which parishes could be formed more or less in the ordinary sense of the word. How the government conducted this matter of creating the first priests for the whole country, unfortunately, we do not find news in the chronicles. She reports that Vladimir, now or shortly after returning from the campaign near Korsun, “sent to seize the children of the deliberate child and begin to give them book training.” But, as we said above, this news must be understood in such a way that the children of the deliberate children or boyars were collected and distributed to study books not with the special purpose of preparing future priests, but with the general purpose of making them enlightened people. In order to introduce education and enlightenment into the boyar class from their generation, which, as it is necessary to think, Vladimir cared about. The children of the boyars were necessary for the grand ducal service and one cannot think that the government would decide to sacrifice them to the church, especially since there was no need for this sacrifice, since for the church it was completely indifferent whether its priests would be from the children of the boyars or from anyone else. On the other hand, the boyars themselves could not have the slightest desire to let their children become priests, for this would mean the same thing as having the desire to give up their children to be demoted from boyars to proletarians. Without positive news, we can only make assumptions. The only assumption that can be made here is the following: having baptized each large region, Vladimir left everywhere a certain number of priests from the general supply of them that he had, and at the same time in each region he began to recruit candidates for priests from its newly baptized or newly converted people. If someone were to inopportunely remember that the apostle and the patristic canons after him prohibit the ordination of newly baptized priests, then the answer to this someone is that there was an inevitable need to violate the prohibition, that the reason for which it was done: lest the devil become proud, fall into judgment, had no application at all for us, and that out of necessity there were violations of the canons even in the ancient church itself, as the same canons testify 815. Now we said that the boyar children were recruited to study books not for training as priests. But in general, to think that the first candidates for the priesthood were recruited from children means to assume what is the least probable of all. To recruit children meant dooming oneself to a long wait, while there was an urgent need for priests: Why on earth would they recruit children and not adults? It may very well be that they did not strictly comply with the prescription of the church canons, which requires that people no younger than 30 years of age be appointed priests, just as this prescription was not strictly observed in our country in all subsequent times. But it is absolutely necessary to assume that it was not children who were recruited as candidates, but adults who, after the quickest and most cursory preparation possible (which we will talk about below), could immediately be appointed to the priesthood. Once a selection of candidates for priesthood had been made, the government’s worries about preparing these latter could not end. On the contrary, after the first recruitment there should have been a whole period of such government recruitments, which, one must think, ended earlier in some places, later in others. But which generally lasted no less than half of Yaroslav’s reign, and perhaps much further: Chronicles indicate that such a government set was made by order of Yaroslav in Novgorod in 1030 816. There is no doubt that the very first recruitment of candidates for priesthood in all regions was a purely and literally forced recruitment. That, in the absence of willing hunters, candidates were recruited or recruited by force. Moreover, the aforementioned example of the Novgorod recruitment of 1030 gives reason to assume that the recruitment and delivery or supply of the required number of candidates was entrusted to the elders of peasant societies 817. At first glance it would seem likely to assume that not only the first recruitment was forced, but that several or even many subsequent ones were likewise. So one would have to think that the priesthood for quite a long time was a kind of military service, which had to cause the government a lot of worries and troubles. However, this should hardly be assumed in reality. A deeply sincere and real attachment to Christianity did not appear suddenly, but prejudice against it should have passed quite quickly, and at the same time, voluntary hunters to become priests should have appeared just as quickly. It is completely natural for a person to strive to move from a worse situation to a better one. If the government finds itself in need of calling people to a new type of activity, and if it makes no difference to it who these people are, then it will always find those willing to rush to its call from among those people for whom the new situation will be a greater or lesser improvement over the previous one. It was not at all from the children of the boyars that our clergy was initially composed through government recruitment: it was not at all the children of the boyars who became our priests in subsequent times. No one will go from a better position to a worse one, and everyone will only go from a worse position to a better one - this is the general law, which, when applied to our priesthood, was supposed to operate in the same way as everywhere else, and by the force of this law it was supposed to be composed and composed of people from below. The position of our parish clergy in the pre-Mongol period, both materially and morally, was so unenviable that those who wanted to become priests could be neither from the boyars, nor from the merchants, nor from wealthy people in general, even if they were peasants, but only from the poorest people. Were they townspeople or peasants, generally from urban or rural people so poor that the priesthood would be an acquisition for them. It may very well be that in the pre-Mongol period we did not yet have any restrictions regarding the entry of lay people into the priesthood, as there was this restriction in Greece and as we later find it in our country 818. But even without a positive restriction, based only on the general social law we have indicated, that no one will go from a better position to a worse one (and also the law that no one will go from a worse situation to a barely slightly better one, but with difficulty acquired, because in order to seek the priesthood it was necessary to learn to read and write) it should have happened that among the laity, only one of their poorest class began to supply candidates for priests. - That class, which in the old days bore the general name of bobyls and Cossacks, and currently bears the general name of proletarians. But just as there is never a rule without an exception, it is quite possible to think that, as an exception, rich people sometimes entered the priesthood, had an inner disposition towards the priesthood and wanted to devote themselves to God in a slightly different way than those who took monastic vows. This should have happened all the more in the pre-Mongol period, since then the priesthood and monasticism were still, so to speak, fairly at the same price and that the latter had not yet overshadowed the former to such an extent as happened after 819. It is necessary, however, to think that the main contingent of the priesthood was not the laity, but the children of the priests themselves. Those who believe that the heredity of the clergy is a very recent thing in our country are very mistaken. In the old days, we did not have heredity legalized in the sense that the laity was completely barred from accessing the priesthood, as was the case in modern times until recently. But in the old days, heredity was not only common, but even legalized in the sense that the children of priests who wanted to follow in the footsteps of their fathers were given some important benefits. The custom that the children of priests should also become priests should have been established in a very simple and natural and absolutely necessary manner. Every person prepares his children for what he himself is by his position or by his occupation - this cannot be otherwise; It is natural that the priests prepared their children precisely for the priesthood, and not for anything else. To enter the priesthood, literacy and the ability to serve as priests were required in the sense of the ability to perform church services and correct church requirements: Who was more natural to study the first, and who was more convenient and handy to study the second, if not the children of priests, who could have their fathers as teachers of literacy, and had to study the priesthood in the aforementioned sense throughout their entire childhood? The son of a priest, who did not want to become a priest, had to be relegated to the category of taxable people; since this retirement could not make him rich, remaining a poor, non-taxable man was still preferable to becoming a tax-poor man. Thus, according to everything that has been said, the custom should have been established by itself, so that the children of priests would go primarily to the same priests. This custom was so natural and to appear and be established before it seemed natural to everyone and. It was necessary that the priest’s son, who could not read and write and therefore did not want to become a priest, was considered some kind of degenerate and freak. He was called an outcast, which meant, as it were, an ordinary class of people who had lost and, as it were, squandered the right to belong to the class to which they had hitherto belonged 820. The civil government, for its part, provided benefits to the children of priests in those laws that, firstly, the son of a priest, while he lived with his father, was not a taxable person. Secondly, that if he himself had separated from his father and voluntarily entered the ranks of the tax people, then even after that he could still, if he wanted, be made a priest 821. The meaning of the second law is clear. As for the first, the government, without involving the son of a priest, who had not yet chosen a type of life, in serving state duties, of course, wanted to give him through this the opportunity to prepare for the priesthood. The heredity of the clergy, completely natural in the essence of the matter, undoubtedly dates back to the very first time: in 1030, Yaroslav ordered in Novgorod to recruit candidates for priests “from the elders,” that is, through the elders from the peasants, and “from the priest’s children” 822. From what we said above, it follows that priests appeared in more or less sufficient numbers in a very short time after we began the general baptism of the country, and at the same time began the formation of their class. We have positive evidence that this was indeed the case. Under 1051, regarding the installation of Hilarion as metropolitan, the chronicle says that Yaroslav had a village or estate (manor, farm) Berestovoe near Kiev, in which there was a church of the Holy Apostles, and that in this village, at the now named church, he provided or supported many priests (“many priests”). If, completely without any need, and only because he “loved priests greatly,” Yaroslav supported many priests at the church located on his estate, then it is clear that there was no shortage of the latter at all. As for the entire subsequent time of the pre-Mongol period, one should generally think that we did not have a shortage of priests, but an excess that more or less exceeded the actual need. The candidates for priesthood were, as we said, firstly, the children of priests, and secondly, willing laymen. Since among the latter it is necessary to assume that those wishing to become priests were only in one of their poorest classes, it may seem at first glance that in general the candidates for priesthood were not particularly numerous. Actually this is not true. Firstly, the children of priests alone, most of whom undoubtedly preferred to strive for the priesthood rather than become taxed people - peasants, constituted such a contingent that should have fully provided for the need, for with each generation their number, naturally, should have increased more and more. Secondly, although among the laity only people from the poorest class could be willing to become priests, this class should not be imagined as small, for it is known that the class of poor people is never small in number. It is necessary to think, as we have already said, that neither materially nor morally our clergy was placed in the pre-Mongol period especially or in any way well; but for poor people, the opportunity to become priests should still have seemed like a significant acquisition, still a significant change from worse to better, and if not quite a way out of the proletarians, then at least a transition into aristocrats between these latter. For all this, it is necessary to think that for our class of laity the priesthood was the object of the most ardent desires, that it was the goal of their cherished aspirations, just as for people of all classes the goal of such aspirations is the very highest that they can achieve. And therefore, it is necessary to think that these laymen not only went to the priesthood when they were called there, but they themselves sought the priesthood with all their might, using every effort to prepare themselves for it in terms of literacy or in general the ability to perform church services with half a sin 823. But if in this way there was not only no shortage of candidates for the priesthood, but there was also an abundance of them, then at the same time, due to the circumstances of that time, priests should have appeared in almost the same abundance. In the pre-Mongol period, as well as after it until modern times, there was nothing similar to the staff of parish priests; on the contrary, parishes enjoyed completely unlimited freedom to have as many priests as they wanted. Since parishes were obliged to support priests, then, of course, there had to be some kind of norm, beyond which the parishioners themselves could not desire to have priests 824. But since, on the one hand, the maintenance of extremely undemanding priests then was not at all what it is now, and on the other hand, for the parishioners it was all the better the more of them there were, then it is necessary to think that the then norm, determined not by someone from above, but simply by the parishioners themselves, related to the current one in no way less than 10 to 1. That is, that the number of priests considered then normal was at least 10 times more current one. If there were no obstacles on the part of the parishioners for there to be many priests, then even less could they be on the part of the bishops. No matter how many priests the parishioners wanted for themselves, the bishops had no right to refuse them, for the norm of the number, as we said, could be determined only by the desire of the parishioners and nothing more. On the other hand, the circumstances of the case were such that the bishops not only should not have stopped the parishioners when they wanted too many priests for themselves, but, on the contrary, they should only willingly satisfy their desire, no matter how immoderate and unreasonable they were. For each ordination to the priesthood at that time, the bishops charged a certain, rather high fee, which they themselves raised arbitrarily and illegally. The more priests they had to appoint, the more profitable it was for them. In view of this, the bishops not only should not have appeased the parishioners when they desired too many priests for themselves, but, on the contrary, should have encouraged them in every possible way to desire them as much as possible. If we allow the very possible assumption that our people were not more perfect than in Greece, then, judging by the order there, it is not incredible to assume that with this proliferation of priests, the bishops even allowed themselves to abuse. In Greece, the bishops have turned the ordination of priests into a mere source of income to such an extent that they appoint absolutely anyone who wants to be appointed and is able to pay decently. But since, on the one hand, the canonical rules decisively require that priests be ordained only in certain parishes, 825 and, on the other hand, parishioners cannot support so many priests, no matter how many bishops instruct them, then in Greece it was invented to appoint nominal parish or assigned priests. Which are only ranked among the known parishes, but are not at all actual priests in them, and which, being essentially non-parish, are only candidates for the places that open up 826. It is not impossible that this abuse also existed here in Russia. Under 1159 in the chronicles we read that this year the Rostov and Suzdal residents drove out their bishop Leon, “he increased the number of churches, rob the priests.” In the not entirely intelligible words of the chronicles, in all likelihood, one of the types of the abuse that we were talking about now is understood, namely, that Leon multiplied the number of parishes in order to be able to appoint as many priests as possible, from whom he took a very high fee for the appointment 827. So, as for the number of parish priests in the pre-Mongol period, then, we repeat, it is necessary to present the matter in such a way that not only was there no shortage of them, but on the contrary, there was a great abundance of them - that the then norm exceeded the current one by approximately at least ten times. While the period of government recruitment continued, the responsibility for replacing parishes with priests lay with the government, which either directly handled the matter, appointing a candidate for each parish from its stock or placing this stock of candidates in droves at the disposal of the bishops. After the government withdrew from preparing candidates, the concern about replacing parishes with priests did not become the responsibility of the bishops, who did not have people at their disposal to appoint, but fell entirely and exclusively on the parishioners themselves. If a priest died or retired: the parishioners themselves were obliged to find a successor for him and bring him to the bishop; the latter only dedicated him or, if he was already dedicated, only blessed him. It may seem at first glance that this duty of finding priests was a very difficult concern for parishioners in ancient times. But from what we said above about the many who wanted to become priests at that time, it follows that this was not the case at all. Only in extremely rare cases could parishioners be forced to look for candidates. For the most part, it should have been that the candidates themselves came to them in one set or another and they only had to choose 828. It goes without saying that the richer the parish was, the greater the number of candidates should have appeared. But the poorest parishes should not have been left completely without hunters to occupy them. We said above that in our country, as in Greece, there was probably a custom of appointing only assigned priests, priests only in spe. For such priests, the worst parishes were still something; and since in ancient times there was completely complete freedom for priests to move from parish to parish, they willingly had to occupy poor parishes for a while until they found better ones, to which they could move at the first opportunity. Judging by the subsequent, post-Mongol, old time, one must think that, if not always, then sometimes parishioners entered into contracts with priests. In which, on the one hand, an obligation was given to provide decent content, and on the other hand, to fulfill duties conscientiously and strictly 829. Since priests from the parishes of the poor could leave at any time, and thus the parishioners of these parishes were in danger of suddenly finding themselves completely without a priest, for this, no doubt, reason, a period was sometimes appointed and stated in the contract for which a priest was hired at the parish 830 and before which, it is understood, he could not leave him. (And since in rich parishes the parishioners could, on the contrary, refuse the priests their places after the expiration of the agreed or contractual time, then in these parishes the parishioners were no longer dependent on the priests, but on the contrary, the priests became dependent on the parishioners, cfr in Acts of History vol. V, no. 122). Now the right of transition that we mentioned was that a priest assigned to one parish, at any time (since he was not bound by an agreement), of his own free will, could leave it and go look for another, not only within his own diocese, but also anywhere in other dioceses. To do this, it was only required that the priest obtain from the bishop a so-called letter of release, from which it would be clear that he is not an impostor, but a truly appointed priest and that he is not under prohibition. With this letter he looked for a new parish, and when he found it, he was confirmed as a bishop in the new place through a blessed letter. Since it is natural for every person to want the best, it goes without saying that the priests did not miss to use the right of transition, striving from the worst parishes to the best, and it follows from this that they were more or less wandering people, they were shepherds who tried to change their sheep as often as possible 831. With all probability, or, better said, with complete certainty, it must be assumed that in the pre-Mongol period, in the likeness of the Greeks, not only white priests, but also monks or hieromonks were appointed parish priests. In the Greek Empire, from a very ancient time, from Constantine the Great himself, a significant restriction was made regarding the admission of laity to the clergy (see above footnote No. 818), so that other bishops had to need clergy. Before the bishops were the monks, who represented the laity who had renounced the world. Who were freed from all worldly obligations (for this was the case) and who were given subordination to them - the bishops: It is clear that nothing was easier than for the latter to come to the idea of ​​taking the necessary clergy from them. This is how it happened: the councils allowed the bishops to take clergy from the monks “as necessary” 832, and the civil authorities, for their part and much earlier than the councils, directly prescribed this 833. In ancient times, as one must think, parish priests were appointed not by hieromonks, but by white priests taken from the monks, in which there is a significant difference. For the latter ceased to be monks and were freed from those monastic vows that are incompatible with shepherding. But the former do not cease to be them and are not released from any vows and as such, strictly speaking, cannot be shepherds 834. But there was no visible difference between the two. For the monks who were ordained as white priests were not released from the vow of chastity that they had given and was compatible with the pastorate, and were ordained without prior marriage, which does not at all constitute a necessary condition for the priesthood. And the invisible difference, the difference that a monk is a student and not a teacher, who obeys and not commands (Rule 2 of the Council of Sophia), in later times, with the darkening and dulling of the true view of monasticism, with the loss of a living and clear idea of ​​what constitutes its essence, ceased to be remembered and noticed. As a result of this, the hieromonks appeared to be the same or went for the same as the white priests from the monks, i.e., for real priests with full legal capacity to pastor. After this confusion of hieromonasticism with the real priesthood, in Greece they began to replace the places of parish priests with monks in such a way that they did not install white priests from monks, but appointed hieromonks to the places, which continues to this day. Necessity initially forced the taking of parish priests from monks. But later two more reasons joined the need. Firstly, many hieromonks preferred free life in parishes to life in monasteries, and as a result they tried to ensure that the matter of need was turned into an ordinary matter. Secondly, a special custom established in the Greek Church, or more precisely, created by the monks. The right of confession did not belong eo ipso to every priest in the Greek Church, but was given by the bishops only to certain priests who were more capable of performing it. The monks managed to ensure that this right was exclusively concentrated in their hands, that is, that clergy was exclusively entrusted to hieromonks (see in detail below). Since not everywhere and in all localities there were so many monasteries that the laity could go to confession in them without difficulty, the custom was introduced that parishes should be provided with hieromonks as confessors. We had no need to appoint hieromonks as parish priests, because we could never feel a shortage of lay candidates anywhere. But about the second reason mentioned above (the desire of hieromonks for parishes), concluding from the subsequent time, one must think that it was strong in our country as much as in Greece. Regarding clergy, we did not go to such extreme extremes as the Greeks, but there is every possibility of accepting that our hieromonks were preferable confessors over white priests. Thus, it is necessary to think that in our pre-Mongol period, as in contemporary Greece and as in our own country in subsequent times, parish priests were not only white priests, but also monks or hieromonks. Currently, parish priests from among the hieromonks are called abbots by the Greeks; We will see below that in later times they were called the same among us; From this follows the conclusion that they were called that way among the Greeks and among us in ancient times. When we come across news in our chronicles that something was done by “all the abbots and priests,” it is more than likely that each time we should mean not only the abbots of the monasteries, but also the hieromonks who served as abbesses at the parish churches. We Russians cannot imagine a lay or parish priest other than a married man. Meanwhile, marriage or matrimony is not at all necessary for the priesthood and a priest can be completely indifferent to both a married and a single person. In the latter case, with the restriction that he cannot marry after initiation or that, having married, he must leave the priesthood. (And not only indifferent, but in theory it would be as preferable as virginity is preferable to marriage) 835. The mandatory (and very prudent) law that priests must be married (for the idea and practice are sometimes completely different things) appeared in our country quite a long time ago: No later than from the time of St. Metropolitan Peter demanded that widowed priests become monks or leave the priesthood. But since in this case we did not follow the example of the Greeks, who allowed and still allow single priests 836, but established the law ourselves, it is necessary to think that we did not reach it right away and that thus it did not yet exist in the pre-Mongol period. Metropolitan George, repeating in his charter the 1st rule of the Neocaesarea Council: “a priest, if he marries, resign from the rank...” makes it known that there have been cases of ordaining single men as priests. However, in general it is necessary to think that the cases were very rare and represented nothing more than exceptions, for those who wanted to remain virgins had to prefer monasticism to the priesthood. In Western Rus' in the 16th century, before the introduction of the union, as is known, there were quite a few bigamist priests (which should be understood partly to mean that they were appointed from bigamists, and partly so that already, being priests, they entered into a second marriage - regarding the latter we have completely clear evidence). Since we had these priests in the XIV-XV centuries (evidence dating back to the time of Metropolitan Cyprian), and since the Greeks had them both in ancient times and in the time corresponding to our pre-Mongol period 837: then it is more than likely to think that we had them during the pre-Mongol period. In the pre-Mongol period, we had and tolerated a remarkable abuse regarding ordination to the priesthood, explained by the need of the time. For quite a long time after the adoption of Christianity, poor and generally simple people shunned church weddings in our country, finding it necessary only for boyars, while they themselves were content with worldly marriage, inherited from paganism (more in detail below). But the majority of priests were poor and simple people. There is no doubt that, due to the impossibility of finding a sufficient number of candidates for priests who were married in a Christian manner, in the pre-Mongol period it was allowed that those who were not married, but who entered into marital cohabitation through secular marriages, were promoted to priesthood, with the only condition that they were married before initiation, and if there were children, then they were married (also below). In the Charter of Metropolitan George of Beleche it is read: “if (who) has not been married, he is not worthy of priesthood, but having married his wife he will become a priest, he is worthy to be married, even if there are children” 838. In the same charter of Metropolitan George we also read the rules regarding ordination to the priesthood: “If he has committed sins in filthiness, he has dispelled murder, but after baptism he has not sinned, he will become a priest.” “If someone learns to read and write, but he has not lost his soul, but has understood his wife to be a virgin, and will not be tied up in the thieves, but will have committed another sin, let him repent of them to his (spiritual) father and keep him in penance, and there will be priest.” “If a wife is betrothed to a clerk, and dies without having intercourse with her, he deserves something better than a priest.” “Even if there is a sign on one’s face, like blood, one cannot become a priest.” In addition to priests, our church clergy in ancient times, as well as in the present, consisted of deacons, sextons and sextons. We do not have positive evidence, but by analogy with the Greek Church and by the conclusion from later times 839 we must think that in ancient times deacons were not considered a necessity for any more or less decent parish. But on the contrary, they were extremely rare - in episcopal cathedrals, in district cathedrals, and then in very few churches 840. Since deacons should have been considered necessary or, at least, desirable during festive services - on church holidays of parishes - it would probably be assumed that they were distributed among the dioceses so that each parish had the convenience of bringing them to itself at the right time. That is, somehow in larger or smaller districts; but so far we have absolutely no information regarding this. Among the Greeks in the community: and in common parlance, a deacon was and is still called by the diminutive διακός 841, where our deacon comes from. In ancient times, among us, it was called by one and another name, and then the second name was adopted by our readers and singers, which we will talk about below. The rules read in our canonical writings of the pre-Mongol period regarding the ordination of deacons: In Metropolitan George’s Charter: “If a priest appoints a repentant son as a deacon, if he commits fornication with others before marrying his wife, he is not worthy of ordaining him and will no longer receive condemnation” (The first words, in all likelihood, should be understood to mean that if a priest confessor gives his spiritual son a certificate that he is worthy to become a deacon). “If anyone, while single, commits fornication and gives birth to a child, he is not worthy to be ordained a deacon.” “He will corrupt a girl, and then marry another, he is not worthy to marry.” (If a person seeking the diaconate is guilty of theft), even if the offense is great, and they do not put her to death (they do not settle matters regarding her secretly), but they make a strong claim before the prince and before the people, then he is not worthy of being appointed a deacon, and if he steals (he is guilty of theft), otherwise they will put him away, then he is worthy.” “Even if a gentleman (servant, serf) is knitted (and) beaten by the gentlemen who steals something, it is worthy of bet.” Regarding the ordination to priests and deacons, it should be a subject of the greatest care on the part of bishops, so that people who are unworthy for some reason are not appointed. Therefore, following Greece, we demanded that the ordination take place no other way than after his confessor and the other seven (six) priests who know him testify to the dignity of the person seeking the ordination 842 . Regarding subdeacons, who occupy the middle between deacons and clerks, the Rule of Metropolitan John prescribes that they must marry before ordination, otherwise they will destroy their rank, and at the same time it is made known that previously they were allowed to marry after ordination. (Perhaps the abused practice that remained with the latter, which the Council of Ancyra established regarding deacons in canon 10, came to us from the Greeks). Deacon is a diminutive of “deacon” and, in fact, it should be deacon. In written acts of ancient times, the diminutive form deachok is not used, but always deacon (as in Little Russia and to this day: deacon). The church minister, who in our country was named after the clerk, and later began to be called the sexton, among the Greeks was and is called ἀναγνώστης - reader and ψάλτης - singer. Our Russian name for readers and singers is deacon, as they are not called by the Greeks; there is a Greek diminutive name for deacons, transferred to them from the latter. Regarding this transfer, we should think the following: since the readers and singers wear the same liturgical clothing with the deacons - the surplice, they were originally called by us by the same name as the first - deacons and deacons. Moreover, if it was necessary to distinguish real deacons from readers and singers, they added the adjective “urary” 843 (orary) to the name. But then it was customary to distinguish one from another by the fact that real deacons began to be called by their full name - deacon, and the second by their diminutive name - deacon. In ancient times, and in general in old times, deacons (deacons) were not only church clerks, but also a kind of secular officials, although church rules prohibit this. In ancient times, literate people, and especially people who knew how to write - for even now being able to read and write is not exactly the same thing, and in ancient times it was not at all the same thing (statutory letter) 844 - were the greatest rarity. Meanwhile, no community or no parish could completely do without a person literate and able to write, for otherwise it would be impossible to write any act and it would be impossible to read any written act. Church singer-readers or clerks, since they were already required by their position to be literate, along with this immediate position they were obliged to be parish clerks and readers 845 (from this second and secondary position of church clerks they received the name clerks and all clerks in general) 846. According to the 17th Apostolic Canon, a clerk cannot be a bigamist. But by civil Greek laws, as well as in practice in Greece, they were allowed bigamy, with the condition in the laws, but not always in practice, that bigamists would not be made deacons and priests 847. It is likely that in our pre-Mongol period it was the same as it was in reality among the Greeks. The age for clerks determined by Greek civil laws was 18 years old 848, but in fact they were set much earlier - as soon as the child is able to read and sing (eight years and even six and three!) 849 As it was with us in the pre-Mongol period, we have no information. The chronicle mentions clerks who have been shorn, but who have not been appointed, that is, clerks who have been ordained, but not put in place 850. What these clerks were, dedicated but without positions, is not clearly visible from the chronicle. But it is necessary to think that those who wished to enter the clergy were ordained as clerks in advance, as was very common in Greece 851, in order to be thus possibly valid candidates, as if recognized. Before finding positions, these clerks probably worked privately as clerks in the parishes to which they belonged by birth or in the houses of rich people, and in general wherever they were privately hired. In case of special needs, these clerks had to go to war with other citizens 852. Being not only church readers and singers, but also parish secretaries or clerks, clerks in ancient times, as it is necessary to think, were not like sextons today, but persons in parishes, more or less, or at least to some extent, important and influential 853. Sexton is the Greek παραμονάριος, which comes from παραμένω and means a person who is with something, guarding something. The Greek paramonaris, who usually lived near the churches themselves and were their caretakers, had the duty of keeping the churches clean, preparing them for worship and serving the priests while the latter were performing it 854. As clerics who were stationed at sacred places and handled sacred objects in the closest sense of the word, they were usually chosen from respectable people (as it seems, mainly from celibates or widows; there were examples of election from paramonars to patriarchs: Peter Knatheus of Antioch). Our ancient sextons should not be imagined as caretakers of churches, for our churches were too insignificant to need caretakers. But regarding their church duties, it must be assumed that they were one and the same with the duties of the Greek paramonaries and that they became readers and singers of the left choir only in later times 855. Not having the obligation to sing and read, they could be supplied from people who were completely illiterate, which, as it seems, was for the most part 856. But since they had to enter the altar (to mark it and generally clean it, to light candles in it, to prepare and serve censer), it was required that they be “pure,” that is, monogamous 857 . Clerks and sextons, in contrast to priests and deacons, were called by the common name of clerks 858. In an improper sense, prosphora bakers or mallow bakers (mallow, prosvireny) also belong to the church clergy, that is, special women, widows or unmarried girls at churches who prepare prosphora for them. These prosphora bakers or mallow bakers appeared among us not from the very beginning, but after the half of the 12th century and no later than the second half of the 13th century. 859. In Greece there were not, and to this day there are no, our mallow makers, and there the business with prosphora is such that ordinary bakers and bakers from whom they buy them bake them for churches. And private people who want to remember the living or the dead on prosphora (that is, bring them to church to take them out), partly buy them from the same bakers and bread makers 860, and partly bake them themselves 861. This was the case with us, at least until half of the 12th century. For in Kirikov’s questioning we read the question and answer: “prashah: is one worthy of serving with one prosfura? (Even if it’s far away, like in a village, and there’s nowhere else to get another prosphora, it’s worthy; even if there’s a market nearby, where to buy it, it’s not worthy, but even if it’s not there somewhere, it’s worthy according to need. "... But our Greek order was completely inconvenient. For not only did we not have special bakers and bakers in the villages, but in other cities they did not prepare their products every day, but only on certain days of the week. Precisely - for the weekly market days, which is why they baked prosphora only for these days (for villages) and on Sundays (for their city churches). As a result of this, even in some of our cities we did not serve liturgy on weekdays due to the impossibility of obtaining prosphora, and in the villages, bringing prosphora from the cities from the bazaars, we were forced to serve on prosphora baked God knows when, very old and stale 862 . Because of this extreme inconvenience of the Greek order, we made the innovation against the Greeks that special women were appointed at the churches to bake prosphora. (Which innovation, as we said, falls on the space of time from the half of the 12th to the second half of the 13th century). There is a high probability of thinking that the position of prosphora guardians was not created completely new in our country, but that they were created or became women who had previously been in the churches in a different position. In Greece, from ancient times to the present time, it was and is, and in our country in ancient and old times it was so that men and women stood in churches for divine services not together or mixed, but separately from each other: Where there were upper galleries or so-called platforms, men stood below, in the church itself, and women on these platforms. Where they were not, men were in the front half of the church, and women were in the back, separated from the men by a special elevation of the floor of their part and a special lattice (more details below). To look after the female halves of the churches, to light candles in them in front of the icons during services, etc., in Greece there were (and still are) special women at the churches, who, in fact, we simply don’t know what they were called, but who were honorably called deaconesses 863. There is a high probability of thinking that we also had these deaconesses or caretakers of women’s departments of churches, and that they became our prosphora guardians, combining two positions. And not only is it very likely to assume that we had these deaconesses, but it would even almost be necessary for them to acquire a special, so to speak, completely venerable meaning in ancient times. Balsamon about the contemporary deaconesses of St. Constantinople. Sophia says: “in the most holy church of the throne of Constantinople, deaconesses are ordained (προχειρίζονται, precisely - guaranteed), and do not have only one participation in the altar (in which the ancient deaconesses, whom he speaks of above, took part), but do much ecclesiastical work ( ἐκκλησιάζουσι δὲ πολλά) and are in charge of the church’s women’s department” 864. The not entirely clear “they perform a lot of ecclesiastical activities” in connection with the speech makes us suspect that here we are talking about deaconesses singing those church services that can be sung outside the altar 865. This suspicion turns into confidence when we remember other evidence that is also not entirely clear in itself. In the word on the discovery of the relics of St. Clement of Rome, which tells the story of this discovery, made by Constantine the philosopher, the first teacher of the Slavs (“The Word for the Bringing of Relics, a Historical Conversation”), says that when the relics found at sea and brought to the city (Chersonese) were placed in one church, then, by order of the archbishop, an all-night vigil was held “until midnight by the male sex, and from midnight until morning by monks and faithful wives, the custom continues with those faithful (sic) until the end.” Archbishop Anthony of Novgorod in his Pilgrim of Constantinople says that in Sophia of Constantinople, not far from the southern side altar, there is a place where “the myrrh-bearer is sung” 866. The removal of the above passages does not leave us in any doubt that in Greece, everywhere, or at least in India, completely female non-altar church services, so to speak, were performed under the leadership of our deaconesses, i.e. services performed or sung exclusively by women 867. There is some reason to believe that we had something similar in ancient times. In Stoglav we read: “Disorder (is going on) among the proskurina: God-loving people give the proskurny money for proskurina for health or for the repose, and she asks the name about health, and she herself sentences over the proskura, like the arbuis in Chud, and also asks for the dead names for the repose, and sentences over the proskura, and those proskura are given, and the priest gives to people to herself relates, but on the altar of those he does not proskur for health and repose” (Chapter 5, answer to question 11); and in the acts of the Vladimir Cathedral of 1274, in all likelihood, the same proskurnits are understood as certain non-sacred ones, about whom it is said that they “sanctify the fruits brought to the church, recycle cereals or kutya for the dead” (in Pavlov col. 98, §6). One can, of course, assume that our prosphora girls adopted their strange, as it were, priesthood without any reason; but it is more likely to assume a reason, namely, that what was now indicated was a small and distorted remnant of their ancient ritualism. In addition to parish priests, in pre-Mongolian, as well as in subsequent old Rus', there was also a special, very large class of them - namely, house priests. In Greece, since ancient times, it was granted to everyone who wanted to have their own house church, using which right the majority of noble and generally wealthy people had them, 868, and the matter regarding them should not be understood at all in the way that they were built in the houses themselves, in special rooms, as we now have, but in the way that they were built in special small buildings in the courtyards. From the Greeks the custom of having such churches passed on to us Russians. We do not have positive information to what extent the custom of having these churches was widespread and strong in our country in the pre-Mongol period, but there is every likelihood of assuming that it was as widespread as it was in Greece. Having a small house wooden church cost as little as having an extra building in the yard. And since the matter, no doubt, was set up in such a way that a house church was considered a sign of nobility, it is necessary to think that not only all truly noble people had them, but also all those who were drawn to the nobility, or, in other words, that very many had them. Thietmar of Merseburg, a contemporary of Vladimirov, says that at the time of the latter’s death there were 400 churches in Kyiv 869; The Nikon Chronicle assures that in the fire of 1017. churches burned in it “up to seven hundred” 870, and according to the Laurentian Chronicle, in the fire of 1124. “nearly six hundred” of them were burned in it. These huge figures, completely incredible and impossible for parish churches, no doubt, should be understood in such a way that in the first we must understand up to three quarters, and in the second and third - five sixths and six sevenths, unless in all three there is much more, house churches. But at every house church, as we have the right to conclude from later times, they kept special house priests. House churches, of course, were only in those large cities where noble people lived and mainly in Kyiv itself. Assuming that they, and with them house priests, were not only really noble people, but also all those who wanted to follow the nobles and be known as such, we will have to imagine that there were a very, very large number of these house priests in Kyiv and other big cities. This, however, is not enough. Data from later times suggest that there were not only a very large number of house priests, but an absolutely extremely large number. In later times, as positive evidence tells us, not only those who had house churches had house priests, but very many of those who did not have the latter. They then had priests perform all church services for them, with the exception of the liturgy, in their homes, in their prayer rooms or so-called cross rooms 871. We have no positive evidence, but we can assume with all probability that this was the case in ancient times. Since maintaining a house priest did not cost as much as maintaining one extra footman, and the only real expense for him was a one-time fee for initiation, it is necessary to think that in general, if not all those, then at least the largest part of all those who in later times began to be called by the general name of the nobility had house priests or chaplains. And, therefore, it is necessary to present the matter in such a way that in Kyiv and then in Vladimir, the centers of this latter, there were whole thousands of house priests, that they were overcrowded and, so to speak, swarming with them 872. We just said that maintaining a house priest cost as little as maintaining one extra footman. There is reason to think that in the pre-Mongol period these house priests were in fact for the most part lackeys and slaves of those for whom they were priests. The master gave his slave or servant to learn to read and write, then sent him to the bishop for initiation, and here he had a priest - his own serf. Just as the masters had various artisans, huntsmen, and musicians from their serfs, so along with them they had from the same serfs and house priests. That this was not only very common, but for the most part this was the case, this must be concluded from the letter of the Patriarch of Constantinople Herman to our Metropolitan Kirill 2, dated 1228, which has survived to this day, in which the Patriarch orders the Metropolitan to eradicate the abuse that some in the Russian land ordain slaves as priests without freeing them from slavery: “It has reached the ears of our humility,” writes the Patriarch, “ that some in the Russian country acquire by purchase slaves, even captives (i.e., non-Christians), and give them to study sacred literacy (implying that they baptized the captives in advance), and then, when they come of age, they elevate them according to the rank of priesthood, bringing them to the bishops, but do not free them from slavery in advance, so that even after the sacred installation, the priests are dishonored by slaves named 873. If rumors of such abuse reached the Patriarch of Constantinople, who was, moreover, in 1228. in Nicaea, then it is necessary to think that it was not a rare exception, but was a more or less general custom 874. Our clergy in the pre-Mongol period were not from the upper classes of society; The degree of his enlightenment was also low, just as in all subsequent times of old Rus'. Vladimir, as we said above, had the desire and intention to introduce enlightenment in Russia - not just literacy, but real enlightenment, as it was then in Greece, from which he could borrow it. But this had to be done and the unsuccessful beginning of this was made in our country not through the founding of state schools, which did not exist in Greece, but through the installation of private teachers in our country, who, as was the case in Greece, would privately conduct and support the cause of education, maintaining private schools or, as it were, boarding houses in their homes and teaching science to those who wished. This Greek method of maintaining enlightenment, even if it had been successful, in any case, would not have been for the clergy, but for the boyars, in which Vladimir tried to introduce enlightenment. For those who wanted to receive the latter would have to buy it from private teachers at their own expense, paying for the teaching themselves (we will say more in detail in the chapter on education). Not intended to be an enlightened class, our clergy was only meant to be literate. At first, while candidates for the priesthood were supplied by the government, recruited through special government recruitment, obviously the government itself had to take care of their literacy training. How exactly this was done, we have no positive and direct news; but on the one hand, there are some indications, and on the other hand, the matter is such that in itself it is clear what the most probable assumption is here. Candidates for priesthood were recruited by the government for the church and for the bishops. Their preparation should have consisted not only in learning to read and write, but also in learning to perform church services and to serve as a priest in general: for both of these reasons, who could be entrusted with their preparation besides bishops? We do not know whether there was a need to prepare candidates for priesthood in a government manner in the Greek Church of the late 10th - early 11th centuries; but such a need existed in ancient times, and they were prepared precisely by the bishops, who had special teachers among their diocesan officials for this purpose 875. Thus, it must be assumed that the candidates recruited by the government were entrusted to them by the bishops and that under the cathedras of these latter and under their supervision they were prepared for the priesthood. That is, in other words, it is necessary to assume that while the period of government recruitment continued, temporary schools for candidates to the priesthood existed at the bishops' departments. The difference from completely ordinary schools was that the students were not boys, but adults. For candidates not only of the very first, but also of all government recruitments should be presented as such. That this was indeed the case, we have, as we said, positive indications. The Novgorod chronicler writes about 1030. about the death of the first Novgorod bishop Joachim: “Archbishop (read instead of the later amendment: bishop) Akim of Novgorod and his disciple Ephraim, who were in our hands, reposed. 876 It is hardly possible to look at these words in any other way than what one of the former candidates for priesthood, who studied and prepared for the priesthood at the Novgorod episcopal see, says here. At the same time that the government recruitment of candidates for priesthood ceased, the now indicated schools at the episcopal departments should have ceased to exist. We do not know whether the government would be willing to maintain these schools at its own expense - more likely no than yes. There is no doubt that the bishops would have no desire to support these schools at their own expense, for this would mean on their part donating a significant part of their income, which at first was not at all very huge. In any case, these schools could not exist for the very simple reason that they would not have students. Children of priests could learn to read and write and learn how to perform church services from their fathers. Why on earth would their fathers begin to send them to episcopal schools and take on the completely unnecessary troubles associated with this? The laity who wanted to become priests had teachers of literacy and priesthood at home, or in the same priests, or in special teachers of literacy who appeared everywhere, who created a private craft from this teaching, and then in the visual school of their parish churches. Having every opportunity to prepare for the priesthood at home, why on earth would they have the desire to enter episcopal schools, that is, leave their peasantry, go to the episcopal city and survive there for one or another number of years? 877 Thus, after the cessation of government recruitment, throughout the subsequent period of the pre-Mongol period, as later in Old Rus', candidates for priests or generally for the clergy received preparation for their service privately and in the places of their birth and residence. The children of priests and clergy in general are from their fathers; laymen who wanted to become priests, partly from the same priests and generally clergy in their house schools, which, if not a few of them, then some, as one must think, kept, partly in the same house schools, laymen or so-called masters later, and perhaps even then. We have no positive evidence of the level of literacy among our priests of the pre-Mongol period. But, since the matter was conducted then in the same way as afterwards, namely, not being in anyone’s care, and under anyone’s supervision, and being completely left to one’s own devices; then it is necessary to think that she was, just as after, at the most extreme degree of low altitude. And that the priests of the pre-Mongol period, for the most part, were barely literate, barely, as they say, wandering. Everyone knows the reviews about the illiteracy of our priests of the 15th-16th centuries made by Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod and the Stoglavy Cathedral. “Behold, they will bring a man to me,” Gennady writes about the candidates for the priesthood, “and I command the Apostle to give him honor, - and he has not a single step, and I command him to give the psalter, - and he can barely walk along it ...; I will order you to teach them octenia, and he cannot stick to a word: you tell him this, and he says something else” 878. In the definitions of the Stoglavy Council we read: “the appointees who want to be made deacons and priests have little ability to read and write; and the saints torture them about this with a great prohibition: why they don’t know how to read and write, and they answer: “We learn from our fathers or from our masters, but there is nowhere for us to learn as much as our fathers and masters can, that’s why they teach us.” And their fathers and their masters themselves know little and do not know the power in the divine Scripture” 879. Members of the Stoglavy Cathedral believe that things were much better before, because before there were many schools 880. But they are mistaken - and before, going back to the very beginning, it was always the same. For before there were never any schools (except for the very first time, when the priesthood was created, so to speak, artificially by the government) and everyone who wanted to be ordained and become a priest also studied either from their fathers (priests) or from masters (private teachers). So, he barely wanders through the book, stuttering every two words - this is an undoubted certificate of learning for most of our priests of the pre-Mongol period, as well as the subsequent old time. Along with the majority, as we know, there is always a minority. Among our priests of the pre-Mongol period, it should supposedly be of two kinds - the highest and the lowest majority. The first minority, as most likely one should think, consisted of, if not the majority, then at least a fairly significant part of the city priests. Among these priests there could not be people educated in the current or proper sense of the word. But there is every probability to believe that quite a significant part of them were not only literate, but also educated in the then sense of the word. Our education at that time consisted, after the ability to read and write, in our own greater or lesser reading in those educational books that existed in Slavic translation from Greek. The rural priests had no opportunity to be well-read, even if some of them wanted it, because they had absolutely no reason to be well-read. Books in ancient times constituted such an incredible treasure for the present time that the libraries of rural parish churches not only did not have at all and did not even think about having books, but suffered to the last degree from the lack, and sometimes complete absence, of liturgical books. In this case, the situation was different for the city priests and, predominantly, the capital cities of the appanages. The books, how many there were, were concentrated in cities, in the libraries of rich people, to which these priests could have full access as parish priests or pastors of the latter. Being able to do something, of course, does not necessarily mean actually doing something. Although they had the opportunity to be well-read, the city priests, of course, could not take advantage of it. It is much more likely, however, to think that our ancient priesthood did not represent complete illiteracy, that the city priests really took advantage of their opportunity to be well-read or, what is the same thing, educated in the way of that time. And that, thus, one or another majority of these priests represented the class of educated people of that time. We know from the pre-Mongol period one story that serves to indirectly confirm our words, namely, a story from which it is clear that the city priests of this period greatly valued the reputation of teaching people and that they were very unfriendly towards those who encroached on their glory in this regard. In Smolensk, in the person of the Monk Abramius, a teaching monk appeared, to whom everyone who was looking for soul-saving conversations rushed, abandoning their spiritual fathers - and the priests of Smolensk flared up against this uninvited teacher with such hatred that they were ready to “devour him alive,” staged a real rebellion against him and calmed down only when his right to teach was taken away 881. The second, completely opposite to the first and very curious, minority consisted of priests who were completely illiterate. We do not yet know positive evidence from the pre-Mongol period that there were such priests then, but we have positive written evidence that they existed during the first half of the 18th century. 882, we have positive oral and written evidence from living people that they were found as exceptions (and not at all small in number in remote places) by our grandfathers 883. Therefore, it is necessary to think that they, especially, existed in the pre-Mongol period. How, however, could a person who does not know how to read and write at all be a priest who needs to perform so many services and who, apparently, cannot do without books, and, consequently, without the ability to read and write? This question, at first glance insoluble, is, however, resolved. People began to practice the art of composing long before writing was invented. Until this last one was invented, everything composed was stored in simple memory. To what incredible extent simple memory could replace writing or records, to what extent it could contain entire books when needed, we cannot even imagine without seeing examples before us. Nevertheless, however, this is beyond any doubt, and we have positive evidence for this: Everyone knows that the entire Iliad and Odyssey of Homer, before they were written down, were preserved in the memory of the rhapsodists. In addition to the testimonies of the dead, what we have said is undoubtedly confirmed by living testimonies. Serbs and Montenegrins were and are distinguished by a special passion for composing folk epic tales like Homer's. Scientists have recently begun to record them; but among unlearned people they are still stored in memory, and the memory of another jury Serbian rhapsode contains and stores so many of them that it is simply amazing. We ourselves personally know people, and not at all particularly remarkable in their kind, who know from memory such long epic stories, for a fairly quick “tale” of which it takes at least two hours, and whose entire memory reserve is so large that for continuous speech they need at least a whole week, if not more. So, here is the solution to a seemingly insoluble question: illiterate people managed to replace literacy with memory. The son of a priest or the son of a layman, who wanted to enter the priesthood, diligently went to church, diligently and intensely memorized everything that was read and sung for the priest and the sexton, and finally reached the point that he was able to become a priest, so to speak, by word of mouth, or even from the literacy teachers themselves, from the so-called masters, it happened that other students who were preparing to become priests preferred not to study reading ability, and to memorize church services 884. It goes without saying that not all church books were memorized from board to board and with the inclusion of monthly menias, which, of course, is completely impossible; but what was considered inevitably necessary was learned. It goes without saying that such priests “by heart” were far from without flaws, but still they were priests... 885. To assume that in pre-Mongol times worship in all parish churches was performed as fully as at the present time would be very naive. Nowadays, every parish church is equipped with a full range of liturgical books, but at that time this was, as we have repeatedly made clear, very far from being the case. Consequently, priests who could read and write, due to the lack of books, of necessity performed church services only in a very abbreviated manner. And, consequently, illiterate priests who served briefly for another reason did not at all represent anything too strange and unusual. The question involuntarily arises: what could be the reason that people preferred such a terrible task as memorization to such a simple matter as learning to read? In view of the certainty of the fact, it remains to be answered that the former was found easier than the latter, that acquiring the art of reading was considered a matter of the greatest labor, which many found beyond their strength 886 . We, of course, do not know at all how large the percentage of priests who were completely illiterate was in the pre-Mongol period. But there was a circumstance to which we have now hinted above and on the basis of which it is necessary to conclude that the percentage of priests who, being illiterate or literate, were forced to perform services by heart, was not very small. In the pre-Mongol period, books were such a hard-to-obtain rarity that it is not only impossible to assume that all parish churches were supplied with liturgical books in sufficient quantities, but, on the contrary, it is necessary to assume that there were extremely few such churches, with the exception of bishops, if not none at all. That most of the churches were more or less insufficiently supplied with them and that, finally, some, if not many, churches were not supplied with them in any way, that is, they did not have them at all. In churches that were very insufficiently supplied with books, and in churches that were not supplied with them at all - in the aggregate there were undoubtedly quite a lot of both - priests and literate people, of necessity, had to serve by heart - in some, most of the services, in others, absolutely everything. A church completely without books, a priest and sextons performing church services completely by heart - this, apparently, is extremely surprising. But it has long been known that not all those things are miracles that we are inclined to accept as such 887... At present, our bishops govern their dioceses, so to speak, in writing and on paper, through decrees. But in ancient times this method of management was inapplicable: it was impossible to have the current offices, because there was nowhere to get scribes. It was impossible to write decrees in hundreds and thousands of copies, because writing them on parchment would be extremely expensive, and with the then method of writing it would be necessary to have offices 10 times more numerous than the current ones. Thus, in ancient times, the oral method of government, through the oral transmission of orders, should have prevailed and dominated. Given the vastness of the dioceses, this oral method of administration presented considerable difficulties. But he was helped by the fact that, as we said above, the custom that existed in ancient Rus' was for the priests of the dioceses to gather annually with their bishops for diocesan councils or gatherings. The designated time for these gatherings was the week of Orthodoxy or the first Sunday of Lent, which received from them the name of the gathering 888. The custom was borrowed, as one must think, from the Greek Church, in which it was probably customary for bishops to celebrate the triumph of Orthodoxy together with all the priests of their dioceses 889. It is hardly possible to think that all the priests of each diocese would gather with us, for due to the same vastness of the latter, this would be impossible for us. It is more likely that they were collected in larger or smaller quantities one by one. But, in any case, through one or another number of priests who appeared, the bishops could verbally send out their orders and decrees to the dioceses. To our greatest regret, we do not yet have any detailed information about these annual gatherings of priests to bishops. It may very well be that other bishops, not content only with the fact that the priests who appeared served them at the triumph of Orthodoxy, kept them with them for a more or less long time in order to form real councils with them to discuss all kinds of current affairs and needs. And that, therefore, these fees in ancient times played a more or less important role in church administration 890. Priests are not only priests or church officials, but, like all officials, they are also citizens of the state. As a result, they are subject to dual jurisdiction - church and state. Just as in Greece the jurisdiction of bishops extended to priests and in general all clergy or clergy, not only as church officials, but also as citizens: so it was with us. Among the Greeks, at the moment we adopted Christianity from them and in the subsequent times of our pre-Mongol period, priests as citizens were subject to the trial of bishops in all criminal crimes and in all civil matters. But with the limitation in the first case that if the crime was very serious, requiring real execution, then the guilty person, upon defrocking, was handed over to civil judges for the execution prescribed by law (since it was not the business of bishops to impose executions on anyone). And with the limitation in both cases that if one of the two tried was a layman and if he was a party to the accused, then it was necessary to turn to a civil judge, in accordance with the general provision of Greco-Roman legislation, that ῳ ἐναγομένου (actor forum rei sequitur, the plaintiff appeals to the defendant’s judge) 891. We had the same thing as the Greeks 892, with the only difference regarding the second specified restriction, that in this case we had a general or mixed court, that is, both judges - ecclesiastical and princely - judged together, and the judge of the accused 893 awarded punishment and received court fines and fees. In later times, our clergy (mainly monks) tried very hard to free themselves as citizens from the court of their bishops and ask for the privilege of jurisdiction of the sovereigns themselves: perhaps this began already in the pre-Mongol period 894. In all countries and among all peoples, the clergy constitutes a more or less privileged class in relation to state taxes and duties. That’s how it was in Greece, and that’s how it was with us. In the Greek Empire, the time corresponding to our pre-Mongol period, regarding our privileges, is divided into two halves: half before the emperor Manuel Comnenus (1143-1180), and half after this emperor. Before Manuel Komnenos, the Greek clergy was free: from personal duties (προσωπιχαὶ λειτουργίαι, - city and generally zemstvo services by elections or turns), from natural duties (repairing bridges, roads, etc., which are called dirty duties, - - for the right to trade and we don’t yet know for what), from new taxes (καιναὶ συντέλειαι), it was not free: from the poll tax (κεφαλίτιων, otherwise κεφάλαιον, ἐπικεφάλαιον, κεφαλικὸς φόρος, capitatio), from land tax (ξευγολόγιον), from permanent service (δοχή), from monetary duties (fees for the navy, - ἀπόδοσις πλωίμων, and maybe for something else 895. Emperor Manuel Komnenos, with his two short stories, one of which is from 1144, and the other is of an unknown later date, freed the clergy from land taxes, from stationary and monetary duties and in general from all taxes and duties, with the exception of the poll tax 896. As was the case with us in the pre-Mongol period, we have no positive information. But in all likelihood one should think that from the very first time our clergy was freed from all state taxes and duties, so that from the very first time it became a non-state class (“whitewashed”) in the fullest sense of the word. The Mongol khans in their labels exempt our clergy from all taxes and duties; but it is hardly possible to think that the khans themselves would want to grant the clergy greater privileges than what they had before. If our clergy had not been exempted from any taxes and duties, then, of course, they would have sought to be freed from them, and monuments of this quest should have been preserved to us. Meanwhile, we do not know such monuments at all. (We have later evidence that the freedom of the clergy from permanent service was not recognized. But it was not recognized not by law, but by abuse, and not by the government, but by its individual officials. Then, in later times, starting from the 16th century, the clergy began to be involved in collecting money for public needs. But this was an innovation, which is exactly what it appears in the news). In Greece, the parish clergy was taxable towards the bishops, namely, they paid them certain annual taxes. This has become the case here in Russia as well; we will talk about this below when we talk about the means of maintaining bishops. The Ipat Chronicle in one place, precisely under the year 1187, when describing the death of the Galich prince Yaroslav Osmomysl Vladimirovich, calls the church “all gatherings” (which the prince convened for a farewell conversation) 897. What is meant by these many councils or councils? Subsequently we will see that some cities (Novgorod, Pskov and Moscow) had many cathedrals. (Novgorod and Moscow 6–7 each, Pskov – five). That each cathedral had its own cathedral priest elder (in Novgorod and Pskov) or its own archpriest (in Moscow), and that the clergy of the cities and districts belonging to them was divided between these cathedrals, forming under each of them, as it were, a special corporation or its own special whole. These later councils, by their origin, had not an administrative, but a liturgical significance, namely, the significance of churches in which daily worship should be performed by the entire composition (in turn) of the priests assigned to them (which we will discuss below). But regarding ancient gatherings or councils, it seems to us not impossible to make a different assumption. We said above that the monuments of southwestern Rus' of the 16th century represent the case of the priests who made up the bishop's choirs in such a way that, on the one hand, they belonged to the cathedral bishops' cathedrals, and on the other hand, they were rectors of parish churches. If we assume that this was the case in the pre-Mongol period, then one would think that the priests were divided into councils according to those parish churches that were in charge of the choir members. And that, forming such special cathedrals or subdivided wholes under these churches, they were under local authority and under the local supervision of their abbots, who in relation to them were their immediate superiors and, as it were, their deans. From priests we turn to parishes or parish churches. The very first parishes were established by the government. When baptizing a known place or a well-known locality, the government erected a certain number of churches and assigned priests to them. But these first parishes, it goes without saying, were extremely large, 898 and each of them, in the course of time, was to be divided into a greater or lesser number of new parishes. We do not have any positive information regarding the emergence of these so-called secondary arrivals. It goes without saying that while the baptized remained Christians only in name, they did not care at all about the organization of parishes, and that these concerns began only when they began to turn from Christians in name into real Christians. As for further time, when this last thing completely happened and when things with parishes returned to normal, so to speak, then we should think about their number in the pre-Mongol period in the same way as about the number of priests. That is that there were no more than should be few of them, but perhaps there were more than should be a lot of them, in no way a shortage, but perhaps an excess and excess. In ancient times there were no states for parishes and no formalities that would make their opening difficult. And the bishops, who had the right to allow this discovery, or who at least had the opportunity not to allow it, 899, as we said above, not only had no incentive to prevent the proliferation of parishes, but, on the contrary, had a personal interest in encouraging the latter. It didn’t cost anything to build a wooden church, as were the churches of the pre-Mongol period, and, moreover, a wooden church of any small size and equipped with accessories so that, with the exception of two or three icons, they could be made in the village and with their own resources, which we will discuss in more detail below. And finding priests was not only very easy, as can be seen from what was said above, but they themselves could even contribute to the proliferation of parishes, as will be seen from what follows. Parishes were established and churches were built by societies and separate people, and precisely by societies: in cities - by ends, settlements, streets, semi-streets and generally larger or smaller neighborhoods and neighborhoods. In villages - districts, townships and volosts of different sizes; private people: 1) landowners on their estates (including princes as private owners), 2) not owners, but for one reason or another, they wanted to build churches for communities (rural and urban) that did not have them and who expressed a desire to have them. Parish churches built by communities or constituting a “secular building”, of course, from the very first time were the same communal property as at the present time, for they could not be anything else. Communities, of course, from ancient times were in charge of them in the same way as now, that is, through elected people or church elders. In later times, elders were appointed not one at a time, but several and at least two. It is very likely that this has been the case since ancient times 900 and that the purpose of this was to establish some control over the expenditure of church money (it goes without saying that in ancient times the current income and expenditure books were not kept, although, however, there may have been some entries on “boards”, marks on tags or by means of tags 901) 902. It is quite different to think about the churches built by the communities themselves, and quite unexpected, to think about those parish churches that were built for the communities by private people. In Greece, private people who built public churches, parish or non-parish (for there were public churches and non-parish or non-parish), and whether on their estates or anywhere else, became their hereditary, so-called ktitors, or received the hereditary so-called ktitor's right to them (κτίτορες, κτιτορικὸν δίκαιον ). The same as in the West, cartridges and patronage 903. This right consisted, firstly, in the fact that the patrons, unaccountably and individually, on the rights of private property, disposed of the income of the churches. Secondly, that they supplied priests and clerks to them. (In the West jus praesentandi, in later Western Rus' - the right to “donate”, i.e. the right to indicate, appoint candidates for priests). According to the law, a person who wanted to build a public church and acquire the right of patronage for it for himself and his descendants had to ensure the maintenance of it itself and the priestly clergy attached to it with the butt of a movable or immovable estate that would provide an appropriate income 904. In fact, this was not always done 905; but if this was done, then the property, once attached to the church and becoming its property, could not be taken from it again either by the ktitor himself, or by his descendants, or by anyone at all 906. Thus, the patrons, if they supplied the churches with property, ceased to be the owners of these latter; but they and their descendants remained the full owners of the income of the churches, both from the attached estates and from everything that came to the churches besides them. That is, the patrons were the owners of the churches, as if on an eternal lease basis, having the right to income, but did not have the right to property. Regarding the appointment of priests and clerks, the ktetors were limited in their right to the fact that they had to present worthy candidates, and that the bishops were obliged to ordain only such, otherwise having the power to fill places by their own election 907. The patrons were not obliged to provide the priests with the entire income that the service at the church provided, but they had the right to enter into a private and arbitrary agreement with them regarding payment for the service. So the priests served in the ktitor churches under the private hire of ktitors, receiving from them an agreed-upon ruga (ῥ όγα) or being in their ruga, on a salary 908. If the ktitor was a rich and pious man, then, of course, he not only used all the income received by the church on it itself and on the priests serving it, but also contributed from his own funds, if required. But it was different if he was a poor man, forced, for example, to build a church on his small estate, or if the descendants of a rich man became poor. In this case, the church, which belonged to someone by right of ktitoria or constituted a ktitoria, became for its owner a kind of estate from which income was drawn. Some part of what she delivered was used for herself; some part was used to hire a priest or priests, and the rest was turned by the ktitor for his own benefit. Over time, the number of such ktitoria became more or less large. And thus, a whole class of public, parish and non-parish churches appeared, which (actually the income from which) were owned by private people as property rights. And for whom these churches constituted, as it were, estates (perpetual lease). It became a custom to transfer the patronage right not only through inheritance 909, but also through sale, so that in relation to the form of transfer, the aforementioned churches were equated to private estates. This equation of patron churches with private estates resulted in the fact that they began to be built for the direct purpose of creating estates out of them. A poor enterprising person found a part of a city or a village that did not have its own church and would like to have one, or in general a place that would promise income, collected money for a charitable cause - the construction of a church, built a church with the money raised and, thus, became the owner of a kind of estate. The laity did this, but there were no obstacles for the priests to do this. And they really did this and, as most likely one should think, preferably in front of the laity 910. If the ktitors died out or for some reason left their ktitoria, then the churches did not become the communal property of the populations of the places where they were located, but, continuing to remain ktitoria, became the property of the bishops, who were heirs after the first ktitors and successors in possession after the second. The bishops dealt with the ktitoria they received in such a way that they either sold and donated them for eternal possession or gave them for money and free of charge for temporary use 911 (for temporary free use ktitoria were given mainly to episcopal officials, for whom they were what in the old Russian language was called “feeding.” In Greek, temporary use is ἐφορία, and in later times also ἐξαρχία). From Greece, the right to practice was transferred to us in Russia. In ancient monuments we do not find (or at least we personally do not know yet) any direct indications of it. But we find it in our country in later times: not to mention southwestern Rus' of the 16th-17th centuries, in which we see it under the name of patronage and where it could be derived from the Latin Church, we find remnants of it in Moscow. All the later so-called district churches were nothing more than princely ktitoria, and received rugas from the government or from the princes as such. The sovereigns used their patronage right to supply priests to these churches back in the 16th century, which they did outside of Moscow through their local officials (butlers and clerks) 912. The Stoglavy Cathedral testifies that in his time many laymen and priests collected money to build churches and built the last 913. It is very possible that not everyone built to create ktitoria for themselves, but there is no doubt that some built precisely for this purpose 914. We find churches that were owned by priests as private property and sold as such in the middle of the 17th century. In the definitions of the Moscow Council of 1667. we read: “It is absurd for a priest to plunder and sell the holy churches, for Christ our Savior has redeemed the holy church with His most pure blood and freedom. We now advise all parishioners of every church (say the Eastern Patriarchs) to Orthodox Christians living here in the reigning city of Moscow and others, and we bless you, so that you may redeem the holy churches for sale and church places, or even their home-built churches, so that they may be free and under a single head and authority, still there is Christ. But to sell the churches of Christ and places of worship, like the fatherland, is extremely wrong and lawless” 915. It is necessary, or at least very likely, to think that in the pre-Mongol period, the boyars and landowners in general supplied their slaves as priests, as we talked about above, not only in their house churches, but also in the parish churches located on their estates (the right to supply priests to which belonged to them, just as their churches belonged to the ktitors). In Greece, church patrons made a strange claim that priests and clergy in general should not be subject to the authority of local bishops, but should know the authority of theirs alone - the patrons 916. In our chronicles we find one indication that suggests that we also claimed and had something similar in the pre-Mongol period. In 1136 The then Novgorod prince Svyatoslav Olegovich married in Novgorod. For some reason, the marriage was illegal 917 and Bishop Nifont refused to marry it (in ancient times, the marriages of princes were married by bishops), and did not allow his priests and monks to be at it. Despite this, the prince was married in his court church by the priests of this latter (Novgorod 1st Chronicle). One can, however, understand the matter here in such a way that the priests of not all the patron churches were in our country in a special, not normal, relationship with the bishops, but that it was the princely court priests who occupied an exceptional position, just as in Greece, the imperial court priests occupied such a position 918. After the parish churches, it should also be said about the chapel churches (in Greek παρεκκλήσιον, παρακλήσιον, παρακλῆσι). Currently, side altars in churches are called chapels. They were not like that in ancient and ancient times. In ancient and old times, chapels or chapel churches themselves were - firstly, small real churches or churches, built or made inside large churches. Secondly, small churches built or attached to large churches outside. In the first case, they were located in the porches or vestibules of churches, on the porches or upper galleries and in the side altar apses or compartments (diaconics). If in the side altar compartments, then not in such a way that the altar was placed in the compartment, and the actual church served as the church for it (as is the case today), but in such a way that the entire chapel or the entire side church was placed in the compartment (a tiny altar in it and then a tiny church in it). So the exit from the department into the church itself was the exit from the chapel. (From the 17th century. many such chapels have survived to this day; of the newest churches we can point to the St. Isaac's Cathedral in St. Petersburg, in which the chapels are arranged in the old manner, and only their special fencing is not blank walls, but gratings) 919. In our pre-Mongolian period, large churches, built by princes and, by their purpose, former court princes and cathedral-bishops, were surrounded on three sides (with the exception of the eastern) by blind porches in which princes and bishops were buried. (Those who were buried in churches, not in the sense that in the churches themselves, but precisely in the porches, see below in the chapter on worship) 920. With the construction of altars in these porches, we began the construction of side churches, and the thought and motivation was that the commemorated bloodless sacrifice should be offered, so to speak, over the very coffins of the dead. According to our chronicle, St. Vladimir was buried in the Church of the Tithes, and according to the testimony of Thietmar of Merseburg - in the church of St. Clement: this should be understood to mean that he was buried in the porch of the Church of the Tithes, in which the chapel of St. Clement. Yaroslav was buried in the porch of St. Sophia (according to the testimony of Nestor in the lives of Boris and Gleb), and it is necessary to think that a chapel was also built in this porch. Mentioned under 1180 chapel of St. Novgorod Sofia was also installed in the porch 921. The main goal of further construction in churches and at churches (and in churches, in the form of special extensions to them, it became customary to arrange chapels because not all churches had porches or porches), as it must have been thought, was the desire of rich people to have, as it were, their own memorial churches, i.e., rich people set up chapels in churches or at churches and assigned or hired priests, with the appointment of a known org for them, for the purpose that the priests would serve funeral liturgies for them and for their families. But sometimes, as the example of the Novgorod Church of John the Baptist on Opoki shows, chapels were also built for the purpose of allowing early masses to be celebrated in churches on Sundays. In the chapel of this church (built on its floors) it was appointed by its builder (Prince Vsevolod Mstislavich, who built the church in 1127–1130) to sing mass on weeks or Sundays 922, and since according to the Charter “not to sing the liturgy for the repose on a week” (Metropolitan George, §28), it is obvious that there were also masses the petas are not funeral ones, but ordinary early ones (the Church of John the Baptist was erected at Torg, and it is likely to think that the chapel was built in it for early Sunday lunches for the purpose of giving merchants who could not go to late mass the opportunity to defend the early one). At the Novgorod Church of St. Michael in 1219 a chapel was built in the form of an external small extension simultaneously with the construction of the church itself and by the builders of the latter. This should probably be understood to mean that the singing of funeral liturgies on weekdays was found more convenient in a small church than in a large one. (Since the rich people who made up the boyars in ancient times had their own house churches, in which they could perform family commemorations, one must think that the side chapels at the churches for the purpose of this commemoration were primarily built by merchants, who, as is likely to be thought, and in later times it should be directly thought, did not arrogate to themselves the privilege of having house churches. Then, the boyars could also set up chapels at the churches above their own coffins 923. If the service in chapel churches in ancient times was the same as in later times, then for this service, for the most part, special priests were appointed or hired. So these churches or clergy were completely special churches, although they were located at other churches or even within themselves 924 From which it became a custom, when it would be completely convenient for the priests of the most real churches. more advantageous, we cannot say positively, but we believe that the reason for this was, on the one hand, the church canon, and on the other, many priests. Canon 15 of the 7th Ecumenical Council prohibits the provision of a clergyman to two churches, and since there were a great many priests, it was possible to strictly observe the canon, and they wanted to do this 925. In cities, cathedral churches or cathedrals constituted a special class of churches. At present, city cathedrals have only the significance for us that the priests of the cities gather in them to sing royal prayers; but in ancient and old times they had a different and, as one should think, greater meaning, although, unfortunately, our information about them is insufficient. In ancient and ancient times, cathedral churches or cathedrals were those churches in cities in which not only the priests of the churches themselves, but larger or smaller communities of priests and other city churches, and in some places also county churches, held a daily service through regular services, which was not the case in other city churches. The closest answer to the question: why were such churches needed in the cities in which there would be a daily service, is that every day there can be birthday people in the cities who want to pray in the church and sing a health prayer service; Every day there may be people who, on the occasion of the memory of their parents, want to sing a memorial service for them or submit a memorial service for them. (And it is still the case in county towns that if a person has one or another specified need, and yet knows that there is no service in his parish church, he goes to the cathedral). But this answer does not resolve the question: why did not only the priests of these churches hold daily services in cathedral churches, but with larger or smaller communities of priests of other city or city and district churches together, from which they received the name cathedral churches. To answer the question, it is necessary to assume, firstly, that in ancient times there were different customs regarding health prayers and random commemorations, and secondly, that this was a matter of deliberate commemorations, the so-called magpies. And at the present time, it is still partly common among rich people of the merchant rank that health prayers for themselves and memorial services for parents on the days of their memory are sung not only in their parish churches, but they are ordered to be sung in other, many or few, churches 926; Regarding ancient times, judging by the example of the Greeks, even today, it should be thought that the singing of prayers and memorial services by many priests was considered more or less obligatory or ordinary. But in ancient times it was impossible to order prayer services or memorial services in many churches, because in other parish churches of the city, with the exception of one appointed or, if there were several cathedrals in the city, with the exception of several appointed, there were no daily services. Instead, in ancient times, it was possible to do something to call the desired number of priests to one church, in which there was a daily service, and to force the priests in it to sing one cathedral prayer or one cathedral requiem (tomorrow the person had a birthday or he had a memory of his parents; today he sent to the main cathedral priest, who was called the archpriest or cathedral elder, with an order for a cathedral prayer or cathedral funeral services of so many priests - and the archpriest or elder invited the desired number of priests to the cathedral). As for the deliberate commemorations of the magpies, then, on the one hand, it is necessary to think that the councils were needed to distribute the magpies among the priests. On the other hand, it is very likely to think that they were needed for the proper, according to the concepts of that time, singing of dirges on the deliberate commemoration days of the Forties, that is, on the 3rd, 9th and 40th days. In ancient times, it was accepted among us that a priest could not sing two or more sorokousts at a time, but each sorokoust must chant specially 927. Consequently, if there were several dead people in a parish over the course of 40 days, but for whom the magpies wanted to sing, then the second and subsequent magpies could not be given to their own priest, and to sing them it was necessary to look for foreign priests who did not have magpies. In this case, the cathedrals (representing, in the person of their archpriests or elders, like information offices) were supposed to serve as intermediaries between the customers of the forty-ones and the priests, receiving them from the former and distributing them to those of the latter who did not have them 928. According to what we have just said, the income from the singing of the magpies could not be the special income of each parish, but should have been more or less distributed among all the priests of each entire city. On this basis, it is very likely to assume that for a perfect equalization in relation to them, all the priests of each city began to see in them not the individual income of each priest, how much each had to sing, but the total income of all priests, so that the total amount was divided equally among everyone. But for such a structure and conduct of business, the heads of the latter centers were needed, which were the cathedrals. Requiem services on the deliberately commemorative days of Magpie are called among the Greeks παράστασις, which actually means a solemn reception by the king, a solemn exit of the king, and which in relation to a church service means a possibly solemn service. Our memorial services are called this by the Greeks because they are performed by as many priests as possible (if we are not mistaken, the total desired number of priests for these memorial services is considered to be 40, according to the forty-day period on which they are celebrated). It is very likely to assume that, as it was and is among the Greeks, so it was with us in ancient times: but in order to easily organize such services, intermediary places were needed, which were cathedrals 929. (Initially, one cathedral was established in each city, but then in large cities, as the number of priests increased, new cathedrals were established. If we conclude to all the places from Pskov, regarding which we have positive news: then this happened in such a way that the community of the first cathedral was formed from the priests who were present in the city. (And as for Pskov itself, there are not only city priests, but also district ones, and not only whites, but also blacks or hieromonks). And that the priests who appeared after the establishment of the cathedral with the establishment of new parishes remained outside the community, priests “incompetent”; that then, when a sufficient number of uncommitted priests were recruited, they established a new council of themselves 930. We do not know what minimum or minimum number of priests was considered necessary for the establishment of a new council; but on the basis that in Moscow the cathedrals were called (as deaneries are now called) forty, one must think that there were at least forty priests, so that the cathedral would be able to sing forty memorial dinners on one day, as above. The priests who belonged to the cathedrals held daily services in them for weeks 931; but this should not be imagined in such a way that one priest belonging to the cathedral alternated, for with some councils consisting of more than a hundred priests (the 6th cathedral in Pskov), entire half of them would not have received an annual rotation at all. And so that they held daily services in the cathedrals in one or another quantity, with one serving, while others sang in the choir, and, moreover, all could become servants at the request of the customers. In Novgorod, the priests held daily services not only each in his own cathedral, but also all in the main St. Sophia Cathedral 932: how to understand this so-called dual council of priests is not entirely clear to us. In general, in this institution of councils, regarding which Metropolitan Philip in his indicated letter seems to make it clear that in relation to it there were different customs in different places, not everything seems clear to us. We will return to it in volume 2. – As for the pre-Mongol period, during its time we know only two mentions of cathedrals in the chronicles. Of which, moreover, one is read in the chronicle only later: in 1159. Grand Duke Rostislav Mstislavich, on one occasion, “sent an ambassador to Kyiv (from which he was absent) to St. Sophia and throughout the cathedral, let them perform the all-night vigil in the churches,” - the so-called Tver Chronicle in the Collections of Chronicles XV, col. 228 fin.; in 1187 The Galich prince Yaroslav Vladimirovich Osmomysl called to him before his death for a farewell conversation and for a dying farewell “all the gatherings,” - Ipata Chronicle according to the 2nd edition p. 442). In addition to parish and house churches, there were also merchant churches. Two such churches are known in Novgorod 933 and one church that belonged to Novgorod merchants in Kiev 934. V. Means of maintaining the higher and lower clergy. We turn to the means of maintaining the higher and lower clergy. In the early days of the church, altar servers or bishops with other clergy had the only means of supporting themselves through the voluntary offerings of the believers of their communities, that is, the communities that made up bishoprics or, what is the same, parishes. Each member of the community, according to his means and diligence and, in any case, remembering the Old Testament commandment that no less than a tenth of one’s wealth should be donated to God (Leviticus 27:30; Numbers 18:21; Deuteronomy 14:22), made a contribution to the church for its ministers or every time he began the sacrament of communion, which in ancient times was every Sunday, or, according to at least once a month. These offerings, which consisted partly of money, mainly of food supplies and things necessary for life in kind, were deposited in the bishop's house (Apostolic Canon 4) or in a special church treasury (simply - a pantry, cell, store) and were divided monthly by bishops and presbyters among themselves and among other clergy 935. No later than the second half of the 3rd century, i.e. Even in pagan times, another means of maintaining clergy appeared, namely, rich people began to bequeath and deny real estate to bishops, which means of maintenance was recognized by the state from the very first Christian sovereign - Constantine the Great 936. Finally, Constantine the Great himself ensured the maintenance of the clergy in a state or government manner: in addition to one-time generous donations to needy churches, he assigned a government annual salary or a government annual rug (ἐτήσια σιτηρέσια), unknown in what size, to all churches in the empire, ordering it to be issued from the local revenues of the cities 937 - this curse, destroyed by Julian, was restored after his death by Jovian, however, not in its entire (unknown to us) volume, but in its third part 938. Initially, as we said, there were no parishes in the current sense of the word, and each parish was a bishopric or, conversely, each bishopric was one parish. When our parishes appeared, at first for some time it was so that the offerings presented by believers to the parish churches were all collected in one place - to the main or episcopal church. And that from one common treasury, both the bishops and the clergy who were with them, as well as the clergy who were sent or appointed by the bishops to manage the parish churches, received their contents. But, over time, it became a custom, and it was established that the offerings presented to the parish churches by members of the communities separated from them were not delivered to the episcopal church, but remained with the clergy who were with them 939. As a result of this, the parish churches separated in content from the bishops or from the cathedral episcopal churches (which at first they had in common with them), and thus there was a division in the means of maintaining the higher and lower clergy. After this division, the means of maintaining the bishops with their cathedral clergy became, firstly, voluntary offerings from the faithful in common with the parish priests, that is, precisely those believers who did not move away from the cathedral episcopal churches to the private parishes that formed and who, after the formation of these latter, remained their own parishioners of the former (cathedral churches). Secondly - income from real estate and thirdly - state abuse. Of these three means of maintenance, the last - the state curse - ceased to exist or ceased to be issued more or less soon after Justinian, if only not under him 940. The means of maintaining the parish clergy were voluntary offerings from believers who formed parishes. Whether the bishops gave him the corresponding or any part of the income from real estate (hitherto belonged to the cathedras) and from the state government (while it existed) remains unknown. In further and later times, these means of content appear in the following form: – lower or parish clergy: 1) voluntary offerings of believers or parishioners, 2) fees from the parishioners of the clergy themselves (our so-called glory), 3) charging for demands and private services and, finally, 4) partly income from real estate, which were donated to some parish churches as well as to bishoprics; – higher clergy or bishops with their cathedral clergy: 1) income from immovable estates, 2) all the income of the parish clergy, since cathedral churches had their own parishes, 3) collecting fees for services not only from one’s own parishioners, but also from all the laity of the dioceses, since even after the formation of parishes it remained the custom not to be content with parish priests, but to invite bishops to perform services; 4) annual dues or dues and temporary duties from the parish clergy of dioceses, 5) the same fees or dues and the same duties from all the laity of the dioceses. While we accepted Christianity from the Greeks, they dealt with the means of maintenance in the way we have now presented directly. Among all these means, after the disappearance of the state rug, there was not a single one that came from the state, and equally there was not a single one that was legalized and approved by the state (although this last happened with some of the means soon after we adopted Christianity). All of these funds either came directly from the voluntary zeal of the believers, or, like taxes and fees from the lower clergy to the higher ones, were determined by this zeal (for, not having what to take from the believers, the lower clergy would not have what to give to the bishops). These means of voluntary zeal, obviously, could not be provided to us by the clergy at first, for our ancestors at first after their forced baptism were Christians only in name and could not have any voluntary desire to support the clergy. Consequently, at first, the clergy, one way or another, had to be provided for by the government itself, and the government actually did this: When it was impossible to use the example of Greece, it partly took advantage of the example of the West, and partly acted independently. The highest clergy or bishops with their cathedral clergy of St. Vladimir provided maintenance - on the one hand, with the so-called tithe, and on the other hand, as it is very likely to think, with immovable estates; He assigned a certain salary or a certain rug to the lower or parish clergy. We have already noted much above that Vladimir was in lively and close communication with the Western sovereigns and that this living closeness of communication should be imagined as the same or almost the same as it is at the present time, after Peter the Great. In particular, according to direct evidence from our chronicle, Vladimir lived in deliberate close communication with the kings of Hungary, Czech and Poland, having peace and love with them 941; and this is not only after the adoption of Christianity, but also before the adoption, for, being a pagan, he brought one of his wife from the Czech Republic. Consequently, he could know Western church orders very well. And therefore, it is not surprising that, not being able to take advantage of the example of the Greeks regarding the provision of the clergy, he partly took advantage of the example of the Western peoples. Vladimir took advantage of this example in that one of the means of maintaining the clergy appointed a tithe (tenth) from acquisitions or profits. However, he used the example in a not entirely accurate way and not entirely fully - on the one hand, providing only the highest clergy in the Western way, and on the other hand, burdening the population with the maintenance of the clergy incomparably less than it was in the West. In the West, tithes in favor of the clergy were legalized by government from Emperor Charlemagne in 779. 942 and consisted of: firstly, that the state had to give a tenth of all its annual income, both monetary and in kind, to the church; secondly, in the fact that all private people, both noble and rich, and simple and poor, had to give the same tenth of their annual income, whether monetary or natural, to the church 943. As for the use of tithes by the clergy, it was assigned not to one person - higher or lower, but to both together. It was the state tithe that was supposed to go, and it went to the bishops. The tithe from private people was supposed to go and went in favor of the local parish clergy, minus a fourth part from it in favor of the bishops 944. Our St. Vladimir, firstly, assigned tithes for maintenance not to both classes of clergy - the highest and the lowest, but only to the first one or the bishops. Secondly, he obliged not all private people to contribute, but only patrimonial owners who owned immovable estates and received quitrents from the estates. That Vladimir assigned tithes for maintenance not to both classes of clergy, but only to the highest or bishops, we have direct and indirect evidence of this. The Smolensk prince Rostislav Mstislavich in his charter to the Smolensk bishopric prescribes that private people, as well as the government, administer tithes to the bishop 945. But if the tithe were assigned for maintenance not only to the bishops, but also to the lower clergy, then private people would have to administer it not to the bishops, but to their parish churches. Under 1037 The chronicle says that Yaroslav, after Vladimir, “established other churches according to city and place, appointing priests and giving them a lesson from his property, ordering people to teach them.” But if the city and rural priests received the tithe assigned by Vladimir for their maintenance, then Yaroslav would no longer need to give them a lesson from his estate. The most likely answer to the question: why Vladimir, having borrowed tithes from the West, assigned them to support not the entire clergy, as was the case there, but only the bishops, it seems that he did not want to burden all classes of society with tithes. If tithes were also assigned for the maintenance of parish priests, then it would be necessary to tithe everyone without excluding the laity, as was the case in the West. But Vladimir could find this burdensome for the laity, and therefore, not wanting and not finding it convenient to burden them, he limited himself to only tithing to the bishops, and from private people he attracted only one class, the wealthiest, to serve it. That Vladimir did not oblige everyone to pay tithes, without the exception of private people, this would have to be assumed based on what we have just said. If all private people without exception were obliged to pay tithes in our country, and if at the same time the entire tithe went to our bishops alone, then Vladimir would have created for us a very luxurious maintenance for the latter, which they did not have at all in the West 947. Positive evidence that not all of our laity were obliged to pay tithes is provided by the words of the chronicle we cited about Yaroslav, and then we read the same evidence in the mentioned charter of Rostislav Mstislavich. If Yaroslav gave a lesson from his estate to the priests of the churches that he built in cities and villages, then it is clear that the inhabitants of cities and villages were not obliged to pay tithes. For otherwise the latter would be a means of supporting the priests, and the prince would not have the need to give them his lesson or his curse. Rostislav Mstislavich in his charter, saying that he gives the bishop a tithe from his princely tribute, i.e. from the tribute that is paid to him - the prince by the population of the principality, he adds that a tithe must be paid to the bishop and from any other tribute, no matter whose it may be: “what should we call the Smolensk region (Smolensk region), - says the prince, - either a small or a large tribute, either a prince, or a princess, or chiya si hoti (whoever it is), to administer the tithe to the Holy Mother of God (to the cathedra of the Bishop of Smolensk), without writing off any deeds.” Thus, among private people, Rostislav Mstislavich obliges the class of them who received some kind of tribute, small or large, to pay tithes to the bishop. What kind of class of people this is is not entirely clear; but, obviously, it should mean, as we said, patrimonial owners who received tributes or rents from their estates. From St. A century and a half passed from Vladimir to Rostislav Mstislavich. And, since we know that during this time the tithe underwent changes in other respects, which we will discuss below, it would seem that regarding private people from whom it was necessary to collect tithes in favor of the bishops of St. Vladimir, Rostislavov’s letter cannot be accepted as reliable evidence. Namely, that after Vladimir to Rostislav the number of these people could have been reduced. But, combining the evidence of Rostislav’s letter with the evidence of the chronicle about Yaroslav, we come to the conclusion that in our relationship since the time of St. Vladimir before Rostislav there were no changes, or that Vladimir in our attitude legitimized exactly what we see under Rostislav: According to the chronicle about Yaroslav, the urban and rural population were not obliged by Vladimir to pay tithes to the bishops. Consequently, only that class of people who obliges Rostislav to pay tithes could be obliged to them for payment of tithes. To what extent, or from what items of princely income was assigned to St. Vladimir gave princely or state tithes to the bishops, we learn about this partly from the words of the chronicle about him, partly from later testimonies. Regarding the consecration of the Church of the Tithes, the chronicle says that Vladimir gave to this church, that is, it should mean, to the metropolitan with this church as his see, “from his property and from his city a tenth.” “From one’s own property” means from one’s private estate or household; “from their own cities” means from state-state revenues (which were collected through cities, as the centers of their regions, or in relation to which the cities served as the centers of regions). The private economy of Vladimir, like that of other princes or in general, was divided into several types or several items (agriculture, gardening, cattle breeding, gardening, fishing and, perhaps, something else). The chronicle does not say whether Vladimir appointed tithes for all types (items) of the economy, or only for some; As for the matter in itself, it is much more likely to assume the former rather than the latter, because otherwise Vladimir would have to learn the disadvantage of hoarding, which, as we know, he did not suffer from at all. Regarding government revenues, we positively know from subsequent evidence that Vladimir provided or assigned tithes to the bishops from tributes, from taxes or fines for criminal offenses and from sales or duties for civil court cases 948. But since now the above does not exhaust all government revenues, it may be that what we know does not embrace the whole reality - that Vladimir provided tithes to the bishops and from some or even all items of government revenues 949. Regarding private patrimonies, Rostislav Mstislavich prescribes in his charter that they, like the prince, pay the bishop tithes from monetary tributes, which should mean the dues they received from the peasants who lived on their lands or rented lands from them. But regarding the initial legalization of St. Vladimir, it is very likely to think that it ordered the patrimonial owners to pay tithes to the bishops not only from tribute or quitrents, but also from the natural products of their own farms. Another way after the tithe for Vladimir to provide the bishops with their maintenance, as we said, with a very high probability, was to accept immovable estates or estates. Immovable estates or votchinas consisted of two classes: the lands on which the votchinniki ran their own farms through their rural serfs (the later so-called estates with arable land and general farms, which were hamlets, farms or economies), and the lands that the votchinniki gave for rent to peasants (the later votchinas in the proper sense). Bishops, as the highest dignitaries of the church, belonged in their position to the greatest people in society. But the great worldly people of society, the highest boyars, undoubtedly all owned more or less significant estates of the first class, having more or less extensive farms. And therefore, it is completely natural and very likely to assume that Vladimir recognized it as necessary or considered himself obliged to make the bishops patrimonial in the sense we have now indicated, giving them our lands in one or another volume, and providing them with the required number of slaves to run farms on the lands. A very probable assumption is confirmed by positive data. In later times, the so-called boyar children appeared under our bishops, representing their secular service people or officials, economic and administrative ones. There is no doubt that these boyar children trace their origins back to St. Vladimir, as they themselves first gave to the bishops: in the Yaroslav charter to Novgorod “about bridges” Sophians or Sofiane 950 are mentioned, by which are meant no other people than boyar children or service people - servants in the sense of officials, St. Sofia, i.e. Archbishop of Novgorod. But Vladimir gave service people or servants to the bishops for some purpose. It is true that we see them as church administrative officials under bishops, as tithe collectors and overseers of the clergy. One must, however, think that they became church administrative officials only through abuse and that their original and proper purpose was to be economic officials of the bishops. And if so, then the existence of economic officials presupposes the existence of the farms themselves. Cities are mentioned among the immovable estates of our bishops. What is meant by cities is not entirely clear. But, in all likelihood, not cities in the proper sense of the word, but large and relatively well-fortified estates (like castles), with large settlements of slaves attached to them 951. If this is so, then the affiliation of one city with the metropolitan see can be traced back to the time of St. Vladimir; this is precisely the city of Sinelitsa, which is mentioned in the Nikon Chronicle under 1123. and which is the current town of Sencha, located in the Poltava province, in Lokhvitsky district, on the Sula River. This city, as must be concluded from its location, became the property of the metropolitan see even at a time when the latter was in Pereyaslavl. But this is the time of St. Vladimir. The bishops had no need for estates, which consisted of lands inhabited by peasant tenants, and since Vladimir had already sufficiently provided them with the above, it seems unlikely to think that he, extending his generosity to excess, would endow them with these last estates. And long after Vladimir, the newly established episcopal sees were supplied from the princes of our estates, as it seems, to a very insignificant extent. So, St. Vladimir provided the bishops with the means of maintenance, firstly, with tithes, which were to be collected from the princely incomes more or less in full and from the incomes of private people who made up the class of patrimonial owners. Secondly, as most likely it should be assumed, immovable estates that consisted of lands for running their own farms, with the addition to the lands of the required number of rural serfs, as well as the required number of service people or servants who would actually run the farms and generally manage them. But it should of course be understood that before providing the bishops with means of maintenance, Vladimir arranged for them homes or residences. Moreover, if it is not self-evident, then it should be assumed with absolute probability that he provided the bishops with a sufficient number of house servants (so that the household life of the bishops corresponded to their social status or their dignity) 952. Our bishops began to need means of support, of course, from the first minute of their arrival in Rus', which was in 991. Meanwhile, the chronicle says that Vladimir gave tithes to the Kyiv Church of the Mother of God and with it (as it should be implied) to the metropolitan in 996. at its consecration, that is, in the sixth year after the arrival of the bishops. It is quite possible that the chronicle is not mistaken and speaks the actual truth. The installation of bishops in their cathedras and their maintenance had to be preceded by the baptism of the people, if not completely universal, then at least more or less general. And this, even understanding the matter in the latter, and not the first, sense, of course, could have required at least six years. It may even be the case in 996. the tithe was given only to the metropolitan, and to the other bishops, about whose granting of tithes the chronicle says nothing, one or the other some time later. It goes without saying that the bishops, until they received tithes, were supported by Vladimir at the same expense (for otherwise they would have nothing to support). The chronicle assures that Vladimir, having given in 996. the tithe of the Kyiv Church of the Mother of God (and the Metropolitan), wrote about it and put his deliberate letter in the church for safekeeping; Unfortunately, this document, in which we would probably have found a solution to a considerable number of issues, has not survived to this day. According to the chronicle, Vladimir’s intention in donating the tithe to the bishops was that it would remain in full with them forever, for the chronicle says that in the now mentioned charter, which approved the tithe for the Kyiv Church of the Mother of God and the metropolitan, it was written: “if anyone judges this, let him be cursed.” If this is true, then Vladimir’s will did not remain unbreakable. After the Mongol invasion, all tithes disappeared, being replaced by another, much smaller, source of income. As for the pre-Mongol period itself, throughout its entire continuation tithes from princely taxes or dues from the population remained with the bishops; but then from the first half of the 12th century we have evidence that in the dioceses that were opened under Vladimir himself, the bishops received tithes from the mentioned tributes and also from vira and from sales or from judicial fines and duties 953, and in the dioceses that were newly opened, the princes provided tithes to the bishops only from tributes alone 954. After Vladimir, over time, the income of the bishops gradually increased more and more. This, of course, gave the pre-Mongol princes the basis to violate his covenant to some extent and reduce the size of the tithe. (As for the complete cessation of tithes after the Mongol invasion, the reason for this should be considered an extraordinary circumstance - this is precisely the invasion). Tithes from private princely estates or from villages, while they existed, were, in all likelihood, given in kind, that is, at the end of each agricultural year, a tenth measure of all the grain grown and a tenth head of all the arriving livestock were given out from the profits that it brought. Of the state tithes, the tithe from vir and from sales or from judicial fines and duties was not issued in such a way that upon receipt of a fine or duty from any case by the princely judges, a tenth was immediately delivered to the bishops, and also, like the previous one, at the end of each judicial year: from the total amount of income received for the year of this article, a tenth was given to the bishops at the end of the year from the princely treasuries. Since this tithe gave rise to discontent between the princes and bishops, forcing the latter to suspect the princely judges, if not the princes themselves, of concealing income, some princes bought it from the bishops. Namely, according to an unknown to us, probably average calculation of its value for one or another number of previous years, they agreed with the bishops to give them, instead of the unknown amount that was coming, a known certain amount 955. Tithes from tributes or quitrents from the population were dealt with in a special way. It was not to be issued by the princes to the bishops at the end of each tax year or as taxes were collected, but was separated into a special tax, which was left to the bishops themselves to collect from the population. That is, of the ten parts of the princely tribute from each payer, one tenth was separated into a special tax (for example, from a hryvnia ruble) and this special tax was given to the bishops as their own and independent tax, which they had to collect themselves through their own collectors. Thus, tithes from princely tributes or quitrents formed a special tribute to bishops from the populations of dioceses. That the matter was arranged in precisely this way and that our old-time tribute from the laity of the dioceses to the bishops has now the indicated origin, and not some other (although after the invasion of the Mongols it was no longer a tithe), this - firstly, is necessary to assume that the so-called tithes appeared under our bishops, whose position and duty could consist of collecting tithes for them and nothing else. Secondly, this is directly and clearly made clear by Simon, Bishop of Vladimir, who presents the collection of his tithes as a collection of a special tax and carried out by himself 956. Why it was done in this way is not directly visible and one can only guess. When collecting quitrents there could be larger or smaller shortfalls. If the princes had left the collection of tithes to themselves, then they would have had to give it to the bishops either according to the calculation of what they actually received each year or according to the calculation of what they should have received in accordance with their salaries. In the first case there would always be a reason for suspicion of a concealment and, consequently, a reason for displeasure between princes and bishops. In the second case, it would be unprofitable for the princes, who would have to pay the bishops what was not collected from their own part of the income. For this, probably, reason, the tithe from tribute or quitrents was allocated into a special tax, which was left to the bishops themselves to collect from the population: if the bishops collected it in full, it was their happiness; if they more or less didn’t get it, it was their misfortune. Two charters that have come down to us from the pre-Mongol period, 957 show that the princes were given salary lists by the princes, which indicated how much in which volost the bishops owed their tenth, and that according to these lists the bishops made collections. Through this arrangement of the tithe from tributes or taxes, it happened that it became a means of providing for our bishops, identical with one of the items of income of the Greek bishops. With this tithe the matter was arranged with us in such a way that it became a tax to the bishops from the populations of the dioceses; but in the same way in Greece, among other means of supporting bishops, there was a tax from the population of the dioceses. If things had been arranged differently with our tithes, that is, if they had not been separated into a special tax (but given to the bishops by the princes), then over time the Greek tax would have passed to us, just as all the Greek means of supporting bishops passed to us. (And the issuance of tithes to bishops by princes would probably have ceased over time, as happened with other tithes that the princes themselves gave to bishops). But then the tax would appear to us as a new tax imposed on the laity. With the indicated structure of affairs, what happened to our tithe was that it was this tithe (transformed into a tax) that replaced the indicated tax. And that through this the laity were freed from the new tax in favor of the bishops (that is, they began to pay them, as in Greece, the tax, but the tax was not newly imposed on them, but formed through the allocation of tithes from the princely tribute 958. As for the tithe from private people who made up the class of patrimonial owners, it is more than likely that from the very beginning it was indoctrinated by the bishops or was paid by them very imperfectly and that, having stopped or not stopped even before the invasion of the Mongols, for most of the time of the pre-Mongol period it existed not so much in the form of obligatory tribute from the entire specified class of people, but in the form of a voluntary offering on the part of individuals in it, especially those who were especially zealous for the bishops. (We say that the tithe was given to the bishops together with their cathedral clergy, that is, that the bishops had to give these clergy one or another part of the tithe for their maintenance. This necessarily follows from the acts and monuments that speak of the granting of tithes either to the bishop and his cathedral church (Rostislav Mstislavich in his charter: “Behold, I give tithe to the Holy Mother of God and the bishop”...) or to one cathedral church, without mention of the bishop (the chronicle of the granting of tithes to the metropolitan, which says that Vladimir gave tithes to the Church of the Mother of God, without adding that to the metropolitan 959, and Rostislav Mstislavich in other places in his charter, one can assume, not without some probability, that this or that part of the tithe was assigned, as it were, as a salary to the so-called episcopal clirochans or councils of priests who made up the church). bishops government colleges. – If not all, then some bishops had not one cathedral church, but two (as now) or even three. Whether all the cathedral clergy were supported by tithes or only the one that was attached to the cathedral church in the narrowest and proper sense of the word, we cannot say 960. Having given tithes to the Kyiv Church of the Mother of God and the Metropolitan, Vladimir appointed his special commissioner or his official, the famous Anastas Korsunyanin, to manage the tithes. (Concerning which others, without any reason, assume that he was a priest and that Vladimir appointed him archpriest of the Church of the Tithes: “and will give tithes to Nastas Korsunyanin”). We don’t know whether this happened only in one metropolis or in all bishoprics, and whether it was only for the first time or permanently. (If in all bishops and constantly, then our commissioners would correspond to Western church lawyers - advocati ecclesiarum, or elders - Kirchenvögte, see the first word in Ducange in Gloss. Latinit.) - The obligatory tithe of princes to their bishops, which we are talking about, must be distinguished from their voluntary tithe to anyone. The princes were obliged to give tithes to their bishops, and then they could give free tithes to any persons or places they especially revered. Thus, it is said about Prince Yaropolk Izyaslavich in the Laurentian and Ipatian chronicles (in the first - under 1086, in the second - under 1087), that he gave tithes to the Holy Mother of God of Kyiv from his estate throughout the summer. This means that after the obligatory tithe to his local bishop, the prince gave our church a voluntary tithe out of his special zeal for it (and does not at all mean that all princes were obliged to give tithes to the Tithe Church). Regarding the immovable estates of bishops or episcopal sees, our information for the pre-Mongol period is extremely scarce. These estates, as we said above, consisted of two classes: from estate lands with the owners’ own farms on them, which in ancient times was designated by the word “village”, from lands given for rent to cultivators and peasants 961 and representing the beginning of later, mostly so-called, estates. We find it probable to think that St. himself endowed all bishops with real estate of the first class in one or another volume. Vladimir; and then we can only say that little that is denoted by the pitiful word “something.” Bishops could acquire immovable estates of both classes in three ways - through receiving as a gift, through purchase and through their own establishment. Since in the pre-Mongol period real estate estates were not at all as numerous as they subsequently became numerous, it is necessary to think that at that time there was not at all such a desire to donate them to the church as we later see in Moscow. This assumption is also supported by positive evidence. Rostislav Mstislavich of Smolensk, founding the Smolensk bishopric, which was not at the beginning of the existence of our church, but a century and a half later in the middle of the 12th century, endowed the bishopric with estates, although there is no reason to doubt his full zeal for it, far from abundantly - he gave three villages or estates (farms), a plot of arable land, several hayfields and lakes, and nothing more. Chronicles mention 1123. about the metropolitan city, and under 1169. and about the city of the Mother of God of Tithes, and then they testify that Andrei Bogolyubsky endowed his Vladimir Golden-Domed Mother of God with freedoms or settlements purchased and villages molded. But it is very likely that the metropolis with the Church of the Tithes and the Vladimir Mother of God of Bogolyubsky were exceptions: The Grand Dukes naturally had a desire to place the metropolitans and the famous Church of the Baptist of Rus' in an exceptional position in relation to security, and by cities should not necessarily mean populated areas with tens of thousands of inhabitants, but villages protected by towns from raids Polovtsian, even with a very small number of the former. Bogolyubsky’s desire to place his church in an exceptional position (as it itself was an exception in its splendor) is beyond doubt. Given the small number of real estate estates, when everyone was just trying to start them, there could be no hunters at all to sell them. Thus, it must be assumed that by receiving as a gift and by purchasing, bishops could acquire only a very limited number of real estate estates in the pre-Mongol period. The only option left was to establish your own establishment or establish such estates. We believe that here we need to distinguish between estates or villages with their own farms and estates inhabited by peasants, and that we need to think about both completely differently. To engage in naming peasants to their lands is a matter not at all characteristic of bishops, for it had to be associated with squabbles that are in no way conducive to the episcopal rank. True, subsequently in Moscow the bishops were engaged in this matter as diligently as the secular landowners; but a person does not get used to any idle occupation suddenly, but only gradually, and on this basis we think that in the pre-Mongol period, bishops were not yet involved in this matter. As for estates or villages with their own economic establishments, we believe that they should be thought of the other way around. It was natural for every rich person to strive to start and have such estates or, what is the same, their own farms. It is very likely, therefore, that bishops, along with other rich people, strove for the same thing, and that thus each bishopric had a larger or smaller number of them. The Vladimir Council of 1274, making it clear that the bishoprics had these villages or estates with their own economic establishments, at the same time points to the abuse that the bishops allowed themselves when cultivating their lands - namely, that they drove to their corvee work the beggars who lived at the churches and were therefore, as we said above, subject to their jurisdiction. Bishops, as we said above, were in ancient times the largest part of the rich people. One can most likely think that they not only established villages for the bishops with the income of these latter, or, so to speak, with their government funds, but that they, firstly, attached to them their own villages, which they owned in the world. Secondly, that new villages were also started using their own money, brought and received in the world. If the land ownership of bishops in ancient or pre-Mongol times consisted mainly in the fact that they had estates, villages or manors for running their own farms, then everyone will understand that at that time this source of income was not at all one of those where there was simply the simple collection of money and nothing more; These were not yet the later populated estates, received as a gift, where immediately after receipt, taxes were collected from the peasants, but they were simply their own farms, where profit, not at all given for nothing, was determined by the amount of labor and capital expended 962. Running your own farms requires rural serfs, with the help of whom the farms could be run. Since our ancient princes and our ancient patrimonial lords were quite rich in serfs, one must think that they did not force the bishops to suffer in this regard and more or less diligently applied (“butt”) our serfs to the church, especially as “suffocated” people at death. In any case, bishops could always have a sufficient number of our slaves in the so-called bonded people, that is, (according to the oldest form of hiring) free people who went into temporary slavery. So, at the very establishment of the episcopal sees of St. Vladimir provided the bishops with means of maintenance, firstly, tithes, and secondly, as it is very likely to assume, immovable estates. The tithe decreased somewhat over time, but on the contrary, real estate gradually increased. But over the course of the same time, all those means of supporting bishops that were in Greece should have appeared to us. These funds, in addition to taxes from the laity of the dioceses, which we had as tithes from princely tributes, as we said, were: firstly, income from the parishes of cathedral churches, common with all parish priests, and specifically voluntary offerings from parishioners, fees from them and collection of fees from them for services. Secondly, income from fulfilling needs in addition to one’s own income. Thirdly, annual taxes and temporary duties from the lower clergy of the dioceses and (except for annual taxes) temporary duties from all the laity of the dioceses. Whether or not we had our own parishes at the cathedral episcopal churches in the pre-Mongol period, we do not have direct and positive information. But in all likelihood one should think that they were, for it is difficult to think of reasons why they would not have these parishes: In each diocesan city, the episcopal cathedral church was the first and, before the appearance of other churches, constituted the parish church for the entire population of the city. With the advent of other churches, her parish should have decreased, but it will remain unclear why it would have stopped completely (and not remained on the contrary and after that the main and large one). We cannot say that, together with the appanage princes (who were in the majority of episcopal cities), all their boyars were necessarily parishioners of the cathedral churches, so that the parishes of these latter consisted of a selection from the nobility and rich people. It is very possible and most likely that the parishes of the cathedral, as well as other churches, were determined topographically, i.e. that these parishes constituted the areas adjacent to the churches and their surroundings or, to use the old expression, neighborhoods, no matter who they were inhabited. But since, on the other hand, cathedral churches were usually erected in city centers, in noble quarters, so to speak, there is every possibility of assuming that their parishes consisted primarily of the boyars and rich people. We will talk about the income of bishops and cathedral clergy from their own parishes below, when we talk about parish priests. In Greece, as we said above, even after the formation of separate parishes, it remained the custom to invite not only parish priests, but, if possible, bishops, to perform the so-called services. The custom, as is clear, was based on the fact that even after the formation of individual parishes, bishops, having ceased to be archpastors or primary shepherds of all in the literal sense, remained such for everyone in the non-literal sense, and partly, of course, also that people have an innate vain inclination to surround their actions with the greatest possible solemnity. This custom, in addition to certain requirements, remains in full force in Greece to this day: For a dead person to be buried without a bishop not only means to be buried poorly, but also in a completely beggarly manner. So even the poorest person who cares at all about his good reputation would not allow such a funeral for his deceased. And in relation to ancient times, in all likelihood one should think that if not all the laity of the dioceses, then among the inhabitants of the cities (of which each had a bishop), this was the case not only with one burial, but with all the requirements. What happened in Greece to some extent has passed on to us. From the very first minute, our bishops, in terms of their means of support, became completely different from the majority of Greek bishops, and in their views of themselves, they are far from being like all of them. And therefore, we probably did not have even a very short period of time when bishops had the desire to go to perform services for poor people. But rich people, as one must think and as one must conclude from our later times, had the custom of inviting bishops to perform services just as much as everyone else in Greece had this custom. The lower parish clergy, in its original form, as we said above, was the same cathedral clergy, only separated or sent to manage private parishes, over time it became not only a subordinate clergy, but also a tax-paying clergy. While the first is explainable, the second is quite difficult to explain, however, it constitutes a fact. The tax of the lower parish clergy to the bishops in the most ancient written monuments is called (the same as the tax from the laity) τὸ κανονικον 963; but in later times in the hostel it was called ἐμβατοίκιον (in common parlance εμπατοίκιον) 964. Ἐμβατοίκιον means actually entrance, introductory, from ἐμβαίνω; but in use it meant and means conventionally or technically the same as the ancient ἐμφύτευσις - rent, rent, rent 965. This second name makes it clear that the bishops looked at the parishes as their property, which they gave to the priests supplied to them as if for rent 966, and that on the basis of this view the annual tax of parish priests to the bishops appeared, representing, as it were, an annual rent for the parishes of the first to the last. We don’t know when she first came to file; but it was approved by a council decision of Patriarch Alexei 967, who occupied the department from the end of 1025 to 1043. This conciliar resolution decided: firstly, to collect canonikon (or eumatikion) not from all members of the clergy, but from priests alone. Secondly, to collect one gold coin (or imperpira) from the priests annually, which would be about 5 rubles with our money. Rent is usually paid for what income is generated from. And since our priests at first did not receive any income from the parishes, being themselves, like bishops, supported by the government, then, of course, our tax could not be imposed on them from the very beginning. How soon it was imposed later, we have no information or indications; but it seems necessary to think that more or less soon and immediately after this turned out to be possible. That is, more or less soon after the parishes began to provide income to the priests. True, from the acts of the Vladimir Cathedral of 1274. as if it follows that she did not exist even at that time; but the actions of the council in relation to our subject are not entirely definite, and yet we can assume that we did not have taxes even in 1274. and for it to appear to us only after this year - this seems to us completely incredible 968. We do not have or do not know the indications in the Greek acts for the time corresponding to our pre-Mongol period, whether the bishops together with the parish priests collected taxes from the monks, who had long received from the world much more than any parish priests. Subsequently, they received it in Greece and here. In Greece, in subsequent times, this tax consisted not only in the canonikon, as from the priests, but also in the imaginary (τὸ μνημ ό συνον) or memorial, namely, a certain share of the money that was received in the monasteries for the commemoration of the dead 969. Temporary duties of bishops from the lower clergy consisted of collecting fees for installations or initiations. We saw above that the payment for installation as a bishop arrived very early. The payment for placement in the lower ecclesiastical ranks appeared just as early, if not even more early: already Basil the Great († 379) reproaches the bishops subordinate to him for charging this fee as a lawless deed (canonical canon 90). Emperor Justinian legitimized it and determined its extreme size, namely, that it should not exceed the one-year income of the supplied (short story 123, chapter 16). In the second half of the 11th century, Emperor Isaac Komnenos significantly reduced it against Justinian, assigning it specifically as follows: for ordination to the reader one perpir, for ordination to deacons three more ipperpirs, and four in total, for ordination to priests three more ipperpirs or a total of seven 970, i.e. with our money, accepting an ipperpir for 20 francs or for 5 silver rubles: for ordination to priests 35 rubles, for deacons 20, for readers 5,971. That the collection of this prostitute duty from priests could not have begun from the very first minute is clear from the fact that our first priests were recruited through forced recruitment. No one is charged for anything that is not accepted freely. Nevertheless, however, it seems quite probable to assume that, as the income of the bishops and as one of the means of their maintenance, the duty appeared precisely from the very first time. Staging was labor, which justified charging a fee; therefore, it is quite possible that at first the princes themselves considered themselves obligated to pay the bishops for this work. In any case, there can be no doubt that the duty appeared or was introduced by the bishops immediately after the voluntary seekers of the priesthood appeared, which, as we said above, should have happened not too long after the first appearance of the priesthood. We have already noted above that with this duty, both in Greece and here, the bishops allowed themselves to abuse, arbitrarily elevating it against what was legal. In our country in particular, undoubtedly, this was already the case in the pre-Mongol period 972. The temporary fee for the laity of the dioceses, regarding the existence of which in Greece in our pre-Mongol period we have information, was the fee for blessing marriages or our later crown fee, the fee for crown banners. Appearing unknown when, this duty was approved by the government of Emperor Constantine Monomakh (1042–1054), whose decree about it was later repeated by Alexei Komnenos. According to the decree of Monomakh, repeated by Komnenos 973, every man who got married had to pay his regional bishop one gold coin or ipperpir, therefore about 5 rubles, and every woman who got married had to bring a linen of 12 cubits. It is very likely that our bishops began to demand this duty at the first opportunity. But, on the other hand, it is just as likely that they really did not begin to receive it very soon. For even in later times this tax, collected through the priests, was constantly paid slowly and incorrectly, partly being poorly paid by the laity, and partly hidden by the priests. In any case, during this period it could not have been significant, because throughout the entire period, as we will say below, many Russian people shunned church weddings, contenting themselves with their conclusion in a pagan or civil manner. In addition to the two, now indicated, duties from the lower clergy and from the laity, which were a reproduction of the Greek duties, in later times we have, we don’t know for sure - former or not former, but in all likelihood, the Greeks had, and some more duties from both of them with the addition of churches and monks to them. Exactly - from the priests. The cathedral marten, which amounted to an annual, probably of a certain size, gift from priests to bishops during their visits to the latter (real or imaginary) for the so-called “taxes” 974, duties on letters of passage, vacation leave (about which above), stoles and oraries (to widowed priests and deacons, about which below). From the laity: a funeral fee for permission to bury the dead suddenly; a funeral fee is a fine for women who gave birth from fornication and adultery. From churches: duty for antimension and fee for consecration. From monks: the so-called “pososhnoye” - a fee for installation as abbot of a monastery (from the bishop handing over the staff to the person supplied). Of these duties, the epitrachalion and orary duties date back to a later time, for the very practice in relation to widowed priests and deacons, from which they originated, began after the Mongol invasion 975. The cathedral marten and the personal tax undoubtedly date back to the pre-Mongol period, for the first is spoken of in the acts of the Vladimir Council of 1274, and the second in the so-called Yaroslav charter. We can’t say anything about the remaining duties, but we consider it most likely that they all belong to the pre-Mongol period, because during this period we also know about such duties that we no longer encounter in later times 976. Finally, an item of income and one of the means of supporting bishops were court fees and fines both from the clergy for all cases and crimes not spiritual or official, since the clergy was placed under their full jurisdiction (with the exception of the most serious criminal crimes, which were punished with non-monetary fines), and from the laity in those civil cases and criminal crimes. In which they were handed over or became subject to the jurisdiction of the bishops. We talked about these duties and fines above 977. The metropolitans had extra income against the bishops: firstly, in the duties that they collected from the latter for the installation, and which we spoke about above. Secondly, in fees from the court of appeal, that is, from the court of appeals to them to the court of bishops. And thirdly, as one might think with some probability, in the collection of tribute from the clergy and laity of the entire metropolis in three years to the fourth. The fees for the installation of bishops, given the small number of bishops, although very infrequent, were undoubtedly very large (it is not at all incredible that they amounted to the annual income of each bishop or were equal to this income); and if we assume a tribute from the clergy and laity of the entire metropolis three years into the fourth: then, no matter how small we assume the unknown dimensions of the latter, in the end it would turn out that these extra incomes of the metropolitans against the bishops were very significant or, at least, not insignificant. According to the canons of the church and according to civil Greek laws, the property of bishops (whatever type it may be - κινητὸν, ἀκίνητον, αὐτοκίνητ o ν), which is acquired by them after being appointed bishop, does not constitute their private property and cannot be left by them to their own heirs, but constitutes church property and should be used for the redemption of captives, for feeding the poor and for other pious deeds, or for the benefit of the bishops’ own churches 978. Regarding how it was with us in this regard, we have separate information that, on the one hand, not all bishops looked at their income as their personal property, and on the other hand, that not all bishops looked at it as church property. From which it will follow that the general thing is that in principle the nomocanonical was recognized, but that in reality each bishop acted as he had an inclination to act. In any case, whether large or small wealth accumulated in our episcopal departments, we have no reason or indications to assume that they were used for public charity. (Although we repeated the ancient Greek, which ceased to be a reality even among the later Greeks themselves, that “church wealth is the wealth of the poor”) 979. Like bishops with their cathedral clergy, initially they could not be left to their own devices, but all the lower or parish clergy had to be provided by the government. We are so accustomed to imagining this last clergy as a bird of God, not having any specific maintenance and living solely on the alms of parishioners, that the thought of government support for it does not come to mind by itself. However, at first it had to be so. In the first time after their forced conversion to Christianity, the people, of course, did not have the slightest desire to support the shepherds assigned to them, either with voluntary offerings or payments for services that they initially did not seek, but from which they fled. Consequently, the parish priests at first either had to remain without any means of support, or had to be provided with their support by the government. But in the first case, no one would become priests, or people recruited by force would not perform their duties and would look at this priesthood as a hated corvee. And thus, government support for the lower clergy at first is assumed as something absolutely necessary and something without which the matter is unthinkable. The chronicle, without saying anything about Vladimir, says only about Yaroslav that he, building other churches to the pre-existing ones in the city and in places or villages and supplying priests to them, gave the latter “a lesson on his own behalf” 980: but what should be supposedly necessary, then, of course, should be assumed despite the silence of the chronicle. If the chronicle does not tell us that the lower clergy, when they first appeared, were provided for by the government, then, of course, there is no information in it about how they were provided for. The chronicle gives an indirect or unspoken answer to our question in the above words about Yaroslav. Yaroslav provided for the priests of the parishes he re-opened, no doubt, in the same way in which he provided for them and in which St. generally laid down or legalized to provide for them. Vladimir. Consequently, this provision consisted of lessons from the prince’s estate, in other words, in the prince’s salary or in the prince’s ruga. How great the salary was, in all likelihood - monotonous for all priests, or at least divided into no more than two categories and monotonous for rural and urban priests (with the exception, perhaps, of cathedrals in cities, which is now discussed below), we do not know. The Monk Nestor, in the life of Boris and Gleb, says about the church of these holy martyrs, built by Yaroslav in Vyshgorod, that “the lover of Christ (prince) commanded the ruler of that city (Vyshgorod) to give a tenth of the donations (of the city) to the church to the holy (martyr).” One might think on the basis of this evidence that a tenth of the local income from cities and towns was separated and assigned for the maintenance of the parish clergy (following the separation of a tenth of them in favor of the bishops, or otherwise a tenth of nine tenths, which would be 9 kopecks from the princely ruble, after ten kopecks were deducted from it in favor of the bishop - the western priestly tithe). But in Vyshgorod, before the construction of the Church of Boris and Gleb, there were already other churches, or at least one other church (St. Basil, at which the relics of Boris and Gleb were located before the construction of their own). Consequently, the share of the Church of Boris and Gleb, if a tithe of local income was determined for the maintenance of the parish clergy, would not have to account for all of it, but only this or that number of shares from it (depending on the number of clergy who were previously and assigned to it). Based on the evidence given, it can only be assumed with some probability that a tenth or tithe of the local income of the cities was allocated for the maintenance of cathedral or main churches in cities in which daily services were held, which Yaroslav appointed to be the churches of Boris and Gleb. That the ruba was generally issued from the local revenues of cities and towns, this must be assumed, because in ancient times there was no current concentration of state revenues in one state treasury and then a new distribution of them everywhere. That it was to a certain extent monetary and to a certain extent consisted of bread and food supplies in kind, this should also be thought, judging by the subsequent time. One should, however, think that the government did not provide all the parish priests without exception, but with the exception of those in between who were assigned to churches built on the lands of patrimonial lands. Regarding these last priests, it is very likely and more than likely to accept that the government from the very beginning entrusted their maintenance to the patrimonial people (and the latter, having from the very beginning introduced the custom of appointing priests from their slaves, could have done so in such a way that the maintenance of the priests would not cost them anything). Some time or another after baptism, Russians began to turn from Christians in name into real Christians. Along with this, they should have become aware of the inconvenience of too large parishes opened by the government, and the desire to open new, smaller parishes, and thus a number of parishes should have started that began to be opened by the parishioners themselves. The priests of these new, non-governmental and, so to speak, voluntary parishes were no longer given official garb, and their maintenance was provided exclusively to the parishioners themselves. This poses a question to which we have no indication of an answer: after the Russians, having turned from Christians in name into real Christians, became zealous for the faith and the church, and at the same time willing to pay the priests for their services and generally give them feasible “alms” for their maintenance, did the government stop or did not stop issuing its ruga to the original parishes that it itself opened? It seems most likely to think that it did not stop and that thus, with the advent of the second row of parishes, there became two classes or two categories: parishes that received support from the government and maintenance from parishioners, and parishes that received only one second. In Greece in later times, as we said above, the means of maintaining the parish clergy consisted of: voluntary offerings from parishioners, collections from them by the clergy themselves, collection of fees for services and private services, and partly in income from real estate. As it was in Greece, so it was meant to be and has become with us. Voluntary offerings in the primary church, which made up everything, and were so abundant that they supported not only the altar servers, but also the poor, became more and more scarce over time and, finally, turned into what we see today - the supply of prosphora at the proskomedia. (Moreover, the prosphoras themselves, which represent ancient offerings and whose name means precisely “offering” 981, are not left to the priests). While we accepted Christianity from the Greeks, these offerings, undoubtedly, were no longer what they were in ancient times 982. On the other hand, it is very likely that they were not quite what they are now: what middle they occupied, this, unfortunately, remains completely unknown. The Greek of the first quarter of the 17th century, Christopher Angel, in his description of the modern church life of his compatriots, speaks, among other things, about our offerings as the income of priests: “The Greeks have thirty-six holidays a year, twelve are called the Lord's, the remaining 24 are the Forerunners, the holy apostles and the great martyrs. On all these holidays and on every Sunday, the priest must serve the liturgy and each house (parish) gives the priest two denarii. And before the start of the liturgy, he prays separately for each of those who give him money” 983 (i.e., he remembers at the proskomedia). If Christoph's assurance is true. Angel that the Greeks even at the beginning of the 17th century. it was considered obligatory that on every Sunday and every holiday from all the houses of the parish a certain specific donation should be made to the priest for the proskomedia; then it seems possible to assume with some probability that this was the case with us, at least in ancient times. But if we assume this, then the voluntary offerings of the pre-Mongol period will not be today’s random pennies, but a definite income and relatively quite significant. However, we will have some probability of assuming this only about cities, but not about villages. The days preceding the holidays are called eves - “on the eve of such and such a holiday.” The name eve does not come from the components of the well-known song sequence of canons, which are sung at prayer services after vespers on holidays, but is precisely the Greek κανοῦν. The Greek κανοῦν, shortened from κάνεον, actually means a basket woven from reeds (κάνη) 984; and figuratively it means a gift, a gift, an offering, and precisely according to the original use - a gift of eggs, fruits and vegetables, since these gifts were brought or sent in baskets. The days preceding the holidays received our name eves from the fact that in ancient times, following Greece, we had the custom of bringing meat and vegetables as a gift to the priests at vespers on these days, along with kutya in honor of holidays or saints. If we make the same assumption regarding these offerings of meat and vegetables or food supplies in ancient times as regarding monetary donations to proskomedia, i.e., that they were considered more or less obligatory for everyone - and the existing evidence gives us the right to make such an assumption, then again we will get a real item of income in them. Although, however, again only for cities, but not for villages 985. Regarding the origin of the collections of the priests themselves from the parishioners or the so-called “glories” in our country, one must think in such a way that when the believers weakened in their zeal for voluntary offerings, the priests themselves began to collect from them. In Greece, these collections were and are still being made monthly, probably for the reason that in ancient times, as we said above, voluntary offerings had to be made monthly and distributed monthly among the clergy. Namely, on the first day of each month, a small consecration of water is performed in the church, with which the priests go around the houses of parishioners, receiving alms from them 986. It is very possible that in our cities these collections were made monthly in ancient times. But they could never be carried out monthly in our villages, because with the vastness of our rural parishes, priests in this case would have to devote all their activities to collections 987. In the villages, collections were made in ancient times, in all likelihood, the same way as now, either three times a year or four - about Easter and Christmas and then in Petrovka or in the fall, or both. About Christmas and Easter - because these are the biggest holidays of the year. In the fall, to collect new bread (fruit firstfruits), in Petrovka - to collect the firstfruits of cheeses (sour cream) and eggs, which accumulate during Petrovka Fast 988. Payment for demands is payment for labor. But since the work of the priests is that special work about which it is said: tuna eat, tuna give them, then in the first time there were no special payments for the needs, but there were general offerings for the maintenance of the priests. Over time, when the believers weakened in zeal for these offerings, payment for the demands should have appeared, turning to some extent the shepherds into piece workers and sellers of what should not be sold. After the services, the fulfillment of which is as much the duty and obligation of the priests as the performance of public worship, since they are just as necessary for each individual as the latter are for everyone, and, therefore, constitute what, together with public worship, the priests certainly take upon themselves to perform (the sacraments and funeral services for the dead), all the more should there have been payment for private services, which are a matter of personal desire and zeal. In ancient times, just like in Greece, we did not have any legal fees for paying for public services and private services 989 and its amounts were established (in different places, probably quite differently) by custom and voluntary agreement, or, so to speak, a compromise between the desire to take more and between the desire to give less. That these two desires - to take more and give less - have been with us since ancient times in the struggle between themselves in which we see them at the present time. This must be assumed: the struggle is spoken of by the countless number of proverbs about the greed of priests, which were composed by the people and which testify not only to this greed of the priests, but at the same time not to the special carelessness of the people towards them. In Kirik's Questioning, Bishop Niphon, probably in response to Kirik's question, sets the price that should be charged for funeral liturgies and which, one must think, is more or less lower than what was actually charged. If we were to assume that the price was approximately the same everywhere and if we were to infer from it the price of other requirements, it would turn out that in ancient times the payment for services was not particularly low. Exactly, - Nifont appoints six kunas for the funeral liturgy, not including the wine, incense and candles that the person ordering should have, that our money will be 2 rubles. 40k. But it is more than likely that no general conclusions should be drawn about Novgorod, which was exceptional in ancient times, just as Moscow is exceptional today. Private requirements and services, for which priests currently charge fees, are: the performance of the sacraments, with the exception of giving the sacrament to the dying, the singing of prayers and prayers - firstly, personal and house ones, secondly, public or village ones, burying the dead and commemorating the dead. This is how all this was, as one should think, in the pre-Mongol period. If not everywhere in Russia, then at least in places known to us, priests currently do not charge anything, or at least do not demand anything for giving communion to the sick, even though they have to travel to villages 20–30 miles away to do this. It must be thought that such an exception in relation to our needs comes from ancient times and that if it does not exist now, then in ancient times it was universal and, as such, came to us from Greece. The reason why this requirement was an exception was probably, firstly, that there is a deliberate and strict canonical injunction - not to demand payment from those receiving communion (Canon 23 of the Council of Trula), and secondly, that their own feelings forbade the priests to make the Body and Blood of Christ, admonishing the dying, an object of sale. The public prayer services of villages and villages consist in the fact that villages and villages have their own saints (as if their private patrons), who are celebrated with all-night vigils in chapels and religious processions around the villages. (And in some places - even prayer services at home). Moreover, priests not only receive payment for services, but also go around the houses of villages with blessed or holy water (“with a shrine”) to collect bread and money. Nowadays, these prayer services are called “prayers” (at least in places known to us), and in ancient and ancient times they were called fraternities, because villages and hamlets organized on the days of these prayers, which constituted their village and village holidays, clubhouse or fraternity public dinners and feasts. (A kind of picnics, the same as the Greeks of Xenia - about them below). The commemoration of the dead by the singing of funeral liturgies in ancient times was - in villages and hamlets, in all likelihood, as little common as it is at the present time (or at least until recently), and in cities, on the contrary, it should be thought, as much and even more common than now. That the income from commemorations did not constitute income per parish in ancient times, but was the common (as if artel) income of the priests of each city, or with the city and its region, we talked about this above. Parish churches or their clergy could own immovable estates in three forms, namely, urban and rural churches, like bishoprics or episcopal sees, as estates or villages, and as estates leased to peasants; rural churches are like lands that the clergy would cultivate themselves. It does not seem probable that parish churches in urban or rural areas would have estates or villages owned by the clergy, or else farms with their own holdings. The priests in this case were completely different from the bishops. The latter, as familyless people, combined their interests with the interests of the departments and, looking at their successors as their heirs, had incentives to take care of the aforementioned estates as their real property, although they were only in their possession. On the contrary, priests, married people, who had heirs who were not their heirs in the use of estates, did not represent people capable of being the owners of the latter. They would not support or improve them, but would strive to ensure that, turning state property into their own, they would plunder as quickly as possible what could be plundered, that is, to leave only bare land from these estates as soon as possible. [From “Additions and Amendments”: Real estate in the form of estates or villages (farms) could be donated to parish churches so that they would not be owned by priests, but would be managed by church elders chosen by the world, who would only support the priests with the income received from the estates, or would only allocate a certain part of the income received to them. This is how it was in later times in the Novgorod, and especially in the Pskov region. (And when the priests of both regions, wanting to receive estates for their use, complained that the laity were plundering the estates, which, perhaps to some extent, was fair, then it should be understood that they themselves would have plundered them much faster and more completely)]. Estates leased to peasants who would pay dues, or so-called inhabited estates, could be owned by the clergy of parish churches in urban and rural areas, receiving dues from the peasants. Regarding actual ownership, it seems necessary to think that: firstly, only very few churches owned them, and secondly, that the churches were exclusively urban. It goes without saying that these estates, like the previous ones, could be acquired by parish churches only through receiving as a gift, and not through their own establishment (for the clergy of parish churches were people capable of only using, but not establishing). But if in the pre-Mongol period, due to the small number of these estates, very few of them were given even to bishoprics, then, of course, even less could they be given to parish churches. Only patrimonial owners of the lands on which the churches were located—princes or boyars—could give them to rural parish churches. But that both would have the desire to do this, when they could provide for the clergy of churches in a simpler and more convenient way for themselves - by giving them a rug or a salary, it seems more than doubtful. The priests of rural parish churches, located on the lands of private patrimonial lands, were in ancient times, as we said above, the largest part of the serfs of the patrimonial lands - from their serfs or courtyard people. Could the patrimonial owners take care of such clergy in order to create for them estates that would put them to some extent on the same footing as themselves? Regarding the city parish churches, it is possible that some of them owned our real estate estates already in the pre-Mongol period, as they owned them after, i.e. Even during this period, some of these churches were endowed with our estates from their ktitors or from their parishioners - patrimonial estates. But, in any case, it is necessary to think that such churches were nothing more than very few exceptions. The only parish church of the pre-Mongol period, of which we have positive knowledge of our real estate during this period, is the Kiev Tithe Church of the Virgin Mary. The Lavrentievskaya and Ipatskaya chronicles (one repeating the other in this case) say that in the middle of the 12th century one city or town belonged to it and then, not expressing it quite clearly, they seem to let us know that along with the city the latter’s district volost 991 also belonged. If we even admit the latter, if we even admit that the Church of the Tithes owned more than one city and more than one volost, then no conclusion will follow from this in relation to other churches. The Tithe Church was a decisive exception from all the parish churches of ancient Rus'. Since the time of Yaroslav, having ceased to be the cathedral church of the metropolitans, it still remained the mother of Russian churches and the great church of the Baptist of Russia. As such, as a church, which represented the common great ktitoria not only of the great princes, but also of all the Russian princes, it could be endowed with immovable estates no less and even more than bishoprics 992. The clergy of rural parish churches could own land for their own cultivation, it is understood, in exactly the same way as at the present time: church land, economic establishment and cultivation - their own, like peasants. Whether or not our rural parish clergy, upon their first appearance, were endowed with arable land by the government, which, if granted, would have legitimized that each rural parish church should own a certain amount of said land, we have absolutely no positive data to answer this question. According to conclusions from later times, for a priori reasons one should think that this did not happen. If, during the initial structure of the life of the rural clergy, we had decided to provide them with a certain amount of arable land, then this law would have to remain in force for the entire subsequent time. For, given the blessed abundance of land we have, it is impossible to think of any reasons why it could be abolished. Meanwhile, in subsequent times we find that not all clergy of rural churches owned arable land 993 and we do not find such a law that all of them owned it. Allowing rural priests with land for their own cultivation presupposes a view of them as farmers, as priests and, at the same time, peasants. Currently, we have such a view of our rural priests, because we see them as such and because reality has accustomed us to such a view. But in theory, a priest and a peasant farmer have nothing in common with each other, and, therefore, our government in the early days after the introduction of Christianity could not have had the idea of ​​​​making rural priests into peasant farmers. It seems to us that we need to think about the original origin of our rural church lands, which make up the peasant-arable areas of the clergy, in this way: People from the peasant class were appointed as priests; as such, they tended to unite the priesthood with the peasantry. Therefore, they took from peasant societies or landowners-owners plots of land, which they either begged from peasant societies and private owners for free use, in the first case, so that the peasant societies themselves accepted to pay the due share of the government quitrent, or for which they paid the government quitrent and paid rent to the owners on an equal basis with other peasants 994. Over time, when peasant farming became a common custom among rural priests, they began to seek from peasant communities and landowners-owners that the plots of land that they used out of favor or for payment be provided to the churches as their property 995. This is how it was with us with the means of maintaining the higher and lower clergy. The means of supporting the higher clergy, undoubtedly and obviously, were completely sufficient (and over time, when the bishops acquired many populated estates, they became more than sufficient). On the contrary, the means of maintaining the lower clergy, except insignificant and mostly accidental, not depending on the method of provision, were poor and meager. In the cities of the capital princes, in which the boyars who formed the courts of the princes lived, in the cities not only of the capital princes, but also of trade, such as Novgorod, where there were many rich merchants, there is no doubt that there were good parishes in one or another part. If not for one part or another, then occasionally there were good parishes in general in the cities. Finally, if we accept the assumption that cathedral churches in county or non-diocesan cities were provided with tithes of local revenues from the government, and that this tithe was not taken away from them even after revenues from parishioners 996 appeared, then it will be necessary to classify all these cathedral churches as good parishes. (Which also had a special income compared to other churches - from commemorations). But behind this, the overwhelming majority of parishes must imagine that to this day they are poor and average parishes, that is, that some barely fed the priests, while others gave them the status of nothing more than wealthy or non-poor peasants. This poverty of means of maintaining our parish clergy, common to them with the same clergy among the Greeks 997 and throughout the Orthodox world, as is known, constitutes a sharp difference between our clergy and the Western clergy, which Charlemagne provided with a certain and not only completely sufficient, but even more than sufficient content, namely, by renewing the Old Testament law on the maintenance of the Levites, he assigned to the parish clergy, as well as to the bishops, tithe, which was supposed to consist in the fact that each parishioner had to pay the clergy of his parish church, in the form of an annual rent, a tenth of his annual income 998. Our princes, having provided the western maintenance of the bishops at their own expense, did not provide the western maintenance of the lower parish clergy at the expense of the population. It is very difficult to decide here the question: what were they more obliged to do - whether to provide for the clergy or to spare the population. And we also cannot answer another question at all: did they not want to provide for the clergy or did they directly find this impossible. Be that as it may, in any case, our parish clergy should not look at this insecurity, at this poverty of funds with false eyes. Namely, to go into overly tearful jeremiads about how our parish clergy were dealt with in an unjust and cruel way, that they were doomed to beggary, etc., etc. Charlemagne, while providing Western parish clergy, combined with this the desire and concern that the clergy be educated. For the priests to be those enlightened shepherds of the parishioners, as is currently desired and required of them and us, or better to say, what is the ideal regarding them that we currently have (for even so far the ideal is still very poorly and very little transfers into reality with us). Following Greece, we had nothing of the kind: our requirements from priests were that they be a little literate, be able to perform church services and perform religious services - and only 999. In this respect, there is a completely significant and extremely important difference between us and the West, which determines not only the difference between the church history of the West and ours, but also civil history. This difference in relation to us is extremely sad, because its results were the moral bad manners of the people and our ignorance (which will be discussed in more detail below). But, abstracting from the consequences and bearing in mind only what our parish clergy was obliged to be or only what was required of them, we will not at all find that they were unfairly and cruelly offended among us, that they represented a class of people without property. In terms of ability, some ability to read and write was required, in terms of performing duties - performing church services and requirements: did people, from whom so little was required, have the right to greater security than what they had with us? On the contrary, would it not be an anomaly and incongruity if our priests were provided for in a Western way? Having removed from our mind's eye the present-day educated priests (who, however, have more claims and needs of educated people than they fulfill their duties as such), let us imagine that a peasant who is barely literate is promoted to priest and that he is given a thousand rubles salary: wouldn't this be a kind of great incongruity? And if this salary is collected from his parishioners, will this not be the greatest injustice towards the latter? A barely literate person became a priest, in other words, he took on the mechanical labor of serving church services and performing demands: for fulfilling the requirements, he received a payment, which, no matter how small, was in any case not lower than mechanical labor as such; The priest served no more than fifty church services a year or even less, for there is no doubt that not all priests served mass every Sunday 1000, and for this, not to mention some direct payment in the form of contributions to the proskomedia, he made three or four collections from the parishioners - we believe that this is enough. Our priests were mainly not priests, but peasants. The priesthood was for them, so to speak, only an addition to the peasantry and an addition, undoubtedly, not unprofitable (although in the size of the peasants, not the nobility). It is quite possible that the priests complained about their fate, as all people do, but there is no doubt that there were a great many who wanted to become priests. With some justification, they could complain that next to them there were monks who were not superior to them in any respect and who (not all of them, however) were, in comparison with them, in terms of worldly prosperity, real gentlemen 1001. But the welfare of the monks was not created artificially by the government, and it is always in this world that some people arouse the envy of others... VI. The relationship of church power to the state and vice versa of state power to the church. Now we should talk about our relationship between the church and the state and vice versa - the state and the church in the pre-Mongol period. Civil power is obliged to financially support and externally protect ecclesiastical power. For its part, this latter must represent a moral principle that would have a morally beneficial effect on civil power. As far as we know, our church authorities or our highest clergy of the pre-Mongol period fully understood and recognized this duty that lay upon them and tried to fulfill it as conscientiously and diligently as possible. The pre-Mongol period, otherwise the period of appanages, is a time of incessant civil strife among the princes. The duty of the church authorities, the metropolitan and the bishops, was to, if possible, prevent and stop these civil strife, and, if possible, to maintain and restore peace between the princes. And as far as we know, our metropolitans and bishops of the pre-Mongol period, amid princely civil strife, always and constantly recognized themselves as nothing other than peacemakers, and strove to be such in practice, as far as possible. One metropolitan says to one prince: “prince, we are assigned in the Russian land by God to rescue you from bloodshed” 1002; these words of one metropolitan were the motto, if not of all our metropolitans and bishops, then, undoubtedly, of most of them. In the chronicles we find only two examples that bishops behaved in an unworthy manner, not as true peacemakers, but as intriguers 1003. It can be assumed that there were not two such intriguers, but rather several, especially from the Greeks, which was one of the two mentioned in the chronicles 1004; It is not an impossible matter that they were not only between bishops, but also between the metropolitans themselves: but behind all this, on the basis of the evidence of the chronicles, it remains beyond doubt that such people were only an exception and, moreover, a rare one, and that the own and general motto of the metropolitans and bishops was precisely “to draw back princes from bloodshed” and admonish them, as Metropolitan Nicholas admonished Vladimir Monomakh, saying to the prince: “We pray, prince, to you and your brother, you cannot destroy the Russian lands; If you soar among yourself, the trash will rejoice and disturb our land, which your fathers and grandfathers acquired with great labor and courage” 1005. For representatives of the spiritual authorities, it was not important to know whether the prince who raised the weapon was right or wrong. Their concern was only to prevent bloodshed, and therefore they equally calmed both the wrong and the right from civil strife, pointing out to the latter that they would receive much salvation from God and deliver their land from great troubles 1006. There were cases when princes considered themselves obliged to raise arms, having been bound by a kiss of the cross, to help others; then representatives of the spiritual authorities took the sin of perjury upon themselves: “bring that sin upon us,” they said to the princes who were in a similar position, “create the world” 1007. Since the metropolitan and bishops naturally enjoyed the greatest respect from everyone, the princes, having important needs and requests before other princes, usually resorted to their mediation, sending them as ambassadors. Both metropolitans and bishops, as a rule, did not refuse such embassies, but considered them as their duty 1008. At large congresses of princes, when establishing treaties of particular importance, the metropolitan with the council of bishops and abbots were considered necessary, as the highest witnesses of the inviolability of the obligations given. In 1096 Vladimir Monomakh and the Grand Duke Svyatopolk Izyaslavich say to Oleg of Chernigov: “Go to Kiev, let us put order on the land of Russia before the bishops and before the abbots and before the men of our fathers” 1009. The princes affirmed their obligations in relation to one another through treaty letters. In order to give these letters all the inviolability, those agreeing usually kissed the cross from the hands of the metropolitan or bishops, which is why the letters of the cross were called cross-kissing. We said much above that it was true happiness not only for the church, but also for the state that in the pre-Mongol period, our metropolitans were not natural Russians, but Greeks sent from Constantinople. Not bound by personal obligations and alien to personal relationships, the Greek metropolitans behaved like true shepherds, as representatives of Christian truth and the Christian world. But natural Russian metropolitans would be supporters of the princes who appointed them. Consequently, they would not stop the princes from bloodshed, but would help them in this latter. It is not difficult to imagine to what unworthy and pitiful role the church would then descend, and to what extent this, instead of possibly opposing evil, would have to promote it and increase it... Bishops, as officials of the church, cannot be at the same time officials of the state, for it is impossible for two gentlemen to work at the same time. But, without being made real government officials, bishops in Greece were called to an extremely important indirect participation in government in order to promote its good. Having high respect for the rank of bishops, the emperors wanted to have in them, as it were, a second “I” in the provinces or in each of them, as they say, their own imperial eye. They entrusted them with supreme supervision over civil rulers and judges with all matters of administration and justice and entrusted them with the right and together with the duty to provide protection and patronage to all the offended and oppressed 1010. There is no doubt that our bishops were not formally excluded from such participation in civil government, but we could not have a place for its application: we had episcopal sees in the capital princely cities; Consequently, in each episcopal city we had the prince himself and had no need for intermediate overseers over his officials and judges. It must be thought that people who suffered insults from the princes themselves turned to the intercession of bishops. (As in later times we see that disgraced boyars are looking for metropolitans to grieve before their sovereigns. And Metropolitan Nicephorus 1, writing in one exhorting and accusatory letter to Vladimir Monomakh: “they were not sad, prince, about (my) words or (not) mnishi, for whoever came to me is sad and for that sake wrote this.” 1011, gives direct reason to assume that there was a custom of resorting to bishops in this case). There is also a secular area in which bishops would not only be expected to speak about activities, but would be expected most of all - this is public charity. In the early days of the church, the poor (after a short episode when they were not in it at all, Acts 4:84) were, as it were, one with the clergy. And, being under the care of the heads of churches or bishops as much as the clergy themselves, they received for their maintenance a certain share (at least ¼ part) from the latter’s income - the voluntary offerings of believers 1012. When the zeal of the believers in the reign of the bishops' real estate made them rich, the bishops used these wealth to establish all kinds of charitable institutions: hospitals, almshouses for the old and for the poor, shelters for raising orphans, our educational homes for illegitimate children and foundlings 1013, hospices, etc. (νοσοκομεῖα, βρεφοτροφεῖα, γηροκομεῖα and πτωχοτροφεῖα, ορφανοτροφεῖα, ξενοδοχεῖα), so that the bishops, as the deliberate creators of these institutions, in Greece were entrusted with the management of all of them, no matter who built and established them 1014. Our bishops of the pre-Mongol period (as well as of all subsequent times) did not distinguish themselves in this regard with absolutely nothing. We do not know how eager they would have been to compete with the Greek bishops if the Greek bishops of their day had remained the same as the ancients. But in Greece in our pre-Mongol period, bishops were already only charitable people, and not benefactors, partly because jealousy weakened, and partly because the country became impoverished, and with it they, the bishops. To surpass the modern Greek bishops and take the example of the ancients - this was above our bishops. (Bishop Ephraim of Pereyaslavl, the only bishop of the pre-Mongol period known for the fact that he was willing to use his funds - not so much, probably, government funds from the department, but his own, for personally he was a very rich man - on public affairs. Instead of a hospital or almshouse, he built Greek baths in Pereyaslavl, i.e., instead of what would be useful, he built something that would acquaint Russian people with Greek comfort..., the Laurentian Chronicle under 1089, the Ipatsky Chronicle under 1090, and the addition of the Nikon Chronicle to the construction of bathhouse hospitals with doctors - “to all who come for free healing”, under the first of the indicated years, is nothing more than its own addition, based on the fact that its compiler either himself thought or only wanted to make others think that the bathhouses were not built by the bishop for them for ordinary purposes, but for medical purposes 1015. We spoke above about the relationship of our princes to the bishops, that on the one hand they showed complete and complete zeal in the matter of their material support, and on the other hand they did not behave with them quite properly as with the ranks of the church: The princes, as we said, contrary to the canonical rules, arrogated to themselves the right to elect candidates for bishops. Equally, their behavior towards the appointed bishops does not seem entirely canonical. A bishop can be removed from the cathedra and from office only after a legal ecclesiastical trial of him. But our princes allowed themselves to expel bishops not only without any trial, but even in spite of the church court. The examples of such self-will of princes cited in the chronicles are not particularly numerous, but it is remarkable that the chroniclers not only do not blame the princes for appropriating power that does not belong to them, but in some cases they directly approve of them: it follows from this that the then public opinion of Rus' really assimilated to the princes the right to arbitrarily treat bishops. In 1156 Andrei Bogolyubsky wanted to remove Bishop Nestor of Rostov from the see and sent him - we do not know with what accusations - to the metropolitan for trial. The last bishop was acquitted after a conciliar and thorough trial in 1016. Despite this, Bogolyubsky did not want to accept him, and put another in his place. This successor of Nestorov, named Leon, was driven away three times by the same Bogolyubsky without permission and without any trial. The first time because he “increased the number of churches, rob the priests”, the second time for no one knows why, the third time because he began to teach about fasting on Wednesday and Friday, when the Lord’s holidays occur on these days, in disagreement with what the prince wanted. In 1168 The Chernigov prince Svyatoslav arbitrarily expelled Bishop Anthony from himself because of the now mentioned teaching about fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays, namely, that the bishop “many times scolded the prince to eat meat on the Lord’s holidays.” Justifying the prince in his action, the chronicler turns to the bishop with edification: “let us take heed to ourselves and not resist God’s law.” We have one remarkable case of a trial of a bishop carried out by a council of princes. In 1229 Rostov Bishop Kirill 1 left the department due to illness, who, according to the chronicler, was “rich in kunnami and villages and all goods 1017 and books, and simply said that he was rich in everything, as not a single bishop had been in the Judgment region.” In the same 1229 there was a congress of princes in Suzdal; At this congress, the bishop who left the see was brought to trial and, by the verdict of one of the princes, who was probably assigned to act as an arbitrator, he was deprived of all his wealth. The chronicle, as is its custom, conveys the matter, unfortunately, in a very unclear way, and when asked why the bishop was tried and deprived of wealth, he answers dully: “some kind of weight.” It is very likely that the princes of Rostov accused their former bishop that he acquired wealth through covetousness, and generally in an illegal manner. Be that as it may, this trial is remarkable in that the bishop was tried and condemned by the princes as a simple layman and citizen, completely apart from and without any participation of church authorities 1018. If the great and appanage princes did not treat bishops entirely canonically, then even less could there be respect for the canons or this, so to speak, canonicity in free, republican Novgorod. It did not happen suddenly and not very quickly, however, that in place of the authority of the metropolitans, Novgorod established its own zemstvo authority in relation to its bishops. Not earlier than in the middle of the 12th century, he began to elect his own bishops and administer them himself, and until then he accepted them sent from Kyiv and, as far as is known, did not dispose of them in the same way as he later began to do with the bishops of his own election. For the first, rather long, time after baptism, the Novgorodians, who were still very bad Christians, probably looked at their bishops more or less indifferently - they saw in them unearthly officials sent from Kyiv, about whom they cared little; moreover, at this first time, their civil or state dependence on Kyiv was still so great that they could not encroach on the rights of metropolitans, protected by the grand dukes. Then, when Kyiv ceased to be a guide for them in civil matters, and they themselves had already become so Christian that they not only could not keep bishops completely removed from zemstvo affairs, but also could not do without them in these last matters, as representatives of the faith, giving or not giving their blessing and thereby assisting or hindering, they did not immediately appropriate the election and authority of bishops to themselves because this meant arrogating rights to themselves Metropolitan, and every offense is not committed suddenly. In general, the Novgorodians began to elect themselves, and at the same time to appoint their own bishops in 1156. Before that, the bishop of Novgorod was the famous Nifont, an irreconcilable opponent of Metropolitan Clement. This Nifont is sharply separated from a number of bishops who preceded him in that he took an active part in the zemstvo affairs of Novgorod, and not only Novgorod, but even all-Russian 1019. We do not know whether this was due to Nifont’s personal talents and aspirations for government, or by his time the position and authority of the bishops in Novgorod had become such that they could no longer manage zemstvo affairs without them. Be that as it may, but, no matter what it depended on, this active and decisive participation of Nifont in zemstvo affairs should have prompted the Novgorodians to, bypassing and forgetting the church canons, take the bishops into their own zemstvo hands. This is what they hastened to do after the death of Niphon, electing a successor to him by the people's council themselves and, of course, from among their own clergy. At the first attempt to introduce new orders, circumstances favored the Novgorodians: when Niphon died, there was no metropolitan in Kyiv, as a result of which they, having elected a bishop themselves, could justify themselves by the fact that there was no one else to elect the latter except themselves. It is necessary to think, however, that the matter was not without some struggle with the metropolitan and that the latter did not immediately renounce his very important rights. Soon after the Novgorodians elected a candidate to replace Niphon, a metropolitan from Constantinople arrived in Kyiv, precisely in the same year 1156; but the chosen candidate, Abbot Arkady, remained without initiation for a very long time, until 1158. This cannot mean anything other than that the Metropolitan did not want and refused to consecrate him. How the Novgorodians finally forced the Metropolitan to cede to them the right to elect their bishops remains unknown; but it is much more likely that not by persistence or any threats, but mainly by the usual argument for them - money. Since 1156, the custom of electing bishops themselves, through the people's council and from among their own clergy, has been established forever in Novgorod. Of the eight bishops of the pre-Mongol period, who made up this new series of them, six were elected unanimously or, at least, by a majority of votes, while in the election of two, party disputes were resolved by lot, namely, the lots of the proposed candidates were placed on the throne of St. Sophia and one of them was taken out. (It is quite possible, however, that not two bishops, but several were elected by lot, but that only the Novgorod chroniclers, not wanting to expose the unrest that occurred among them regarding the election of bishops, are silent about other cases, cfr in the 1st Novgorod Chronicle under 1193, a record of the election of Martyrius). There is no doubt that the bishops of Novgorod, from the time they began to be elected by the Novgorodians themselves, were in the full and complete power of their zemstvo. Not all bishops experienced the power and arbitrariness of this power over themselves, because not all brought themselves to this point, but what we know about some does not leave the slightest doubt about this. In 1211 Archbishop Mitrofan somehow aroused the wrath of the Novgorodians against himself, or, as the chronicler says, “the villain at first did not at all put the envy of the people on him,” and without any trial or long delays he was removed from the pulpit and taken out of the city. After 8 years, this Mitrofan again managed to acquire the favor of the Novgorodians and they, returning him to the department occupied by another - Anthony, in the world Dobrynya Yadreikovich, told this latter: “go where you know” (go wherever you like). After the death of Mitrofan in 1223. The monk of the Khutyn monastery, Arseny, was elected bishop, but in 1225. The Novgorodians returned Anthony, inviting Arseny to return again to where he was taken from. After Antoniev was removed from the department due to illness, in 1228. another time, Arseny was elected, but, after sitting for a very short time in the archbishop's courtyard, he was literally pushed out of it by the neck and was even saved from death only by taking refuge in St. Sofia. The Novgorod chroniclers, like all our chroniclers, when describing external events, do not have the custom and have very little intentional desire to lift the curtain behind which the internal springs are hidden. But from everything it is clear that the bishops of Novgorod or these famous rulers among other bishops of Rus' were not far from being mere toys in the hands of parties. However, since the bishops did not and could not stand outside the affairs of the zemstvo, but took and had to take part in them, this had to happen out of necessity. (The position of the Novgorod archbishops changed significantly for the better, or more precisely, it became completely different after the time when, in relation to them, Novgorod came under the control of Moscow. That is, when, in view of this latter, it became impossible for the Novgorodians to change them as before. Concluding from this later time, some mistakenly judge the most ancient time). It is remarkable to what extent the Novgorodians were inclined to make their own church government of their bishops civil. Archbishop Anthony, in 1225 elevated to the see for the second time, three years later he had to abandon it due to the disease of numbness, which completely prevented him from fulfilling the duties of a bishop; despite this, they elevated him to the see for the third time, and to manage the diocese they placed their two husbands with him, that is, in other words, they entrusted the management of the diocese to two lay people or, as it were, elders chosen from the world. VII. Life and social position of the clergy. His secular (non-liturgical) attire. In conclusion of this chapter on church government, let’s talk about the life and social position of our higher and lower clergy, and then, as an archaeological addition, about their ancient non-liturgical attire or costume. We said above that due to the too large vastness of the dioceses and for some other reasons, our bishops, unlike the Greek bishops, came to consider themselves too high-powered in relation to their subordinates. For the same reason that the dioceses are too large and their number is too small, our bishops had to come to recognize themselves as people of too high rank and nobleness, masters of the highest position. In Greece, where there were countless bishops, where every district town, even the most provincial one, like our Bui, which someone had been looking for for three years, had its own bishop, it was difficult and unnatural for the bishops, with all the respect they enjoyed in society, to become infected and arrogant with the opinion of themselves as the chosen nobility. For only that which is few is significant. But our bishoprics embraced not only entire appanage princedoms, but also several of these. In our civil ranks, the bishop was not equal to the district chief, but in the vastness of his region he was completely unmatched among civil administrators, surpassing in this vastness of the region even the appanage princes themselves. If most of the Greek bishops had the comic name used by Gregory the Theologian about some of them - micropolitan 1020 (allusion to metropolitan), then, on the contrary, the majority of Russian bishops, together with Simon of Vladimir, had the right to call their dioceses entire lands and exclaim about the great multitude of cities located in them and that - who knows them, bishops 1021. Given this state of affairs, it was completely natural for our bishops to recognize themselves as very high-ranking and noble people in society, so that they considered themselves one of the very first ranks in the state. That's how it was. Every person arranges his external life in accordance with how he perceives his social position. A noble man arranges his life in the way required by his nobility or the high social position he occupies, for nobility obliges (noblesse oblige). Consequently, it is necessary to think about the external life of our bishops that it was arranged in the same way as the life of noble secular people, that is, with the representativeness and pomp of these latter. We find one piece of evidence among the chroniclers that positively confirms what we consider necessary to assume as probable. The author of the Ipat Chronicle, telling in 1241 how the Bishop of Przemysl, involved in political unrest, wanted to escape, was caught by an official of the Galich prince, says: “managed to capture) the ruler and his servants, plundered the proud ones and their beaver tores and their wolf's and borsuk's tores." If the servants were proud, then it is clear that they recognized themselves as servants of a noble master; if they were perfectly dressed in all kinds of furs, then it is clear that this noble gentleman’s external life was put on an appropriate footing. The author of the chronicle, obviously, reports the misfortune that befell the Bishop of Przemysl with gloating and the meaning of his speech is this: you realized and behaved too noble, then here you are! The Przemysl diocese was far from being one of the most extensive, and, therefore, not one of the noblest and richest; if in the above words the Bishop of Przemysl appears before us as a noble man, then it is necessary to think the same and even more about all bishops 1022. (The words we cited above about the bishop’s servants, on the one hand and indirectly, represent evidence of the life of their masters, and on the other hand, directly speak about them themselves. From the above words it turns out that the bishop’s servants from very ancient times were the same as we know them to this day: well dressed for the priests and at the same time extremely proud and impudent with the same priests. After the above classical words about them The Ipatian chronicle recalls other classic words spoken in Peter’s Regulations: “the bishop’s servants are usually tasty beasts and where they see the power of their ruler, there with great pride and shamelessness they rush to kidnap the Tatars,” and then their living example is not perishing)... Among parish priests, one must distinguish between metropolitan priests, meaning by such priests of all specific cities, non-metropolitan urban priests and rural priests. If everyone easily guesses what should be thought about the latter, then, on the contrary, not everyone expects that one should think about the former. The priests of the capital or appanage cities occupied a very honorable social position and played a very important social role, so that they formed a very sharp contrast with the rural priests. The matter, which was not entirely expected, is explained, however, very simply and naturally. The princes with the boyars who made up their courts, on the one hand, and the priests, on the other hand, represented the educated people of that time. But the education of one and the other was not different, but was one and the same, namely, church education or reading in church teaching books. There is no doubt, or at least more than likely, that the princes and boyars were more educated than the priests. But since they were secular people, and their education was church, it is natural that they considered the priests, not themselves, to be the real masters of it. Thus, as the highest representatives of the then common education and one for all, or as the most educated people of that time, the priests should have received a place in the princely court societies. Priests and courtiers - this is apparently too strange; but so that this does not seem too strange, we need to somewhat renounce current concepts. In that ancient time of which we are talking, the priest did not at all seem in secular society, as it is now, as something completely out of place, some kind of pestle mixed up in spoons. The priests were introduced into the highest court society by the baptist of Rus', St. Vladimir, who, according to the testimony of the monk Jacob, when he hosted dinners and feasts, supplied three meals, and the first of them to the metropolitan with bishops and monks and priests 1023. Praising the virtues of subsequent princes, the chroniclers almost always name their virtue that they “excessively (more than measure) honored the chernesky rank and the priestly rank (priestly rank and the Mnish rank)." The princes expressed their respect for the Chernesky or Mnishe rank by often coming to monasteries and, on the one hand receiving spiritual instructions, on the other hand offering the monks rich institutions (we will say more in detail below when we talk about monasteries). It is necessary to think that in a similar way they expressed their respect for the priestly or priestly rank by calling priests to their princely meals. Of course, we do not find any deliberate speeches among the chroniclers about such a subject as the meals or feasts of priests with princes. But we find news of this in their speeches in unostentatious, random ways, news that makes it clear that the company of priests constituted an ordinary company of princes. The author of the Hypatan Chronicle, telling about 1150. about the sudden attack on Belgorod by enemies who almost took it, he says that at that time the Prince of Belgorod was feasting in his palace with the boyars and Belgorod priests 1024. Belonging to the court society of the princes as the highest representatives of the then education, the priests played a very important role at the princely courts, in their state affairs, and as business people. In the presence of noble people, humble businessmen are always assumed. Subsequently, under the princes, we see their clerks as such businessmen. But in the pre-Mongol period, these people, who at first were not very tall, simple scribes, had not yet managed to build a reputation for themselves and had not yet managed to take positions - in the pre-Mongol period, such businessmen under the princes were priests. Not being, of course, officially in the service of the princes, they took a very active and very large part in state affairs as private business people, or temporarily called upon, or perhaps even permanently participating only as unofficial, private figures and advisers. Having in our civil history extremely scanty information on the department of internal state life, we cannot depict this participation of priests in state affairs with sufficient completeness. But that it was and was very significant and important is beyond any doubt. We have positive information that, to use modern language, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was almost completely in their hands, that they were with our appanage princes, a kind of Richelieu and Mazarin. Between the appanage princes, due to their multitude, there were constant strife and quarrels, and, consequently, constant diplomatic relations. For such relations, priests were predominantly used in the pre-Mongol period to such an extent that in the diplomatic language of that time priest and ambassador were synonymous and that in international treaties priests were accorded the same advantages as ambassadors 1025. That priests sometimes achieved extremely great influence, that their children and grandchildren sometimes became very noble people, the greatest boyars, we have little evidence of this, but we still have it. Under 1240 The Ipat Chronicle 1026 tells about the Galich boyar Sudich, who was the grandson of a priest by birth and who, together with another boyar, ruled the entire land of Galich, being greater than the prince himself 1027. Non-metropolitan city priests, in all likelihood, were the same as they are today - solitary people, living primarily among themselves and forming, as it were, a special society in society. Without playing any prominent role in the latter, looking pleadingly into the hands of rich people and, therefore, being intensely respectful towards them, they were not at that time anything too suffering 1028. Rural priests should be represented as something specifically passive. We ourselves still remember the time when the village priest was treated by all the gentlemen and all the secular bosses, going down to and including the official, a little better than a lackey. In the Χ V ΙΙ century, from which more or less can be concluded for the whole of Moscow time, as we have evidence 1029, not only the boyars, but even the boyar people considered the rural priest to be the person with whom there is least need to stand on ceremony. It is necessary to think that in the pre-Mongol period the rural priest was still the same pitiful pariah as we know him in all subsequent times. Then there was still a special circumstance that should have led to the fact that all gentlemen of any kind treated rural priests completely like lackeys. Then there was an abuse for masters to place their slaves or serfs in their households and in their patrimonial priests, who were kept in slavery even after initiation. Treating these priests as their lackeys, for they really were such, the gentlemen naturally had to make it a habit to treat like real lackeys and all rural priests in general 1030. Let's talk about the secular or non-liturgical attire of the clergy. In Greece, no later than from one time or another until the 6th Ecumenical Council (691), it was legalized or became a custom for priests and all clerics, as special people in society, to dress in their special clothes, for in the rules of this council we read: “none of those listed in the clergy should dress in indecent clothes, neither while in the city, nor while on the road: but everyone from them let him use the clothes already determined for those in the clergy" (στολαῖς κεχρήσθω ταῖς ἤ δη ἀπονεμηθείσαις 1031. This legalization or this established custom must be understood - firstly, not in such a way that some new clothes (new uniforms) were invented for the priests or by themselves, but in such a way that from the many types of clothes that existed among the laity, they were assigned or they themselves adopted one known type, the most decent for them. Secondly, about clothes not for everyone in general, but only for weekends or public ones, implying that clothes at home, invisible under the weekend, are left to the arbitrariness of everyone. Currently, our priests have two weekend or public clothes - a cassock and a cassock. But the current cassock is very late in origin, appearing among the Greeks only in Turkish times (having been borrowed by them from the Turks), and we adopted from the Greeks only during the first half of the 17th century. And before its appearance, the priests had only one dress for their holidays - the one that now makes up the cassock, which before the current cassock was not called a cassock, which name is actually the name of one of the monastic clothes, but among the Greeks it was called imathium, and with us one-row 1032. This imatiy, our old one-row cassock and our current cassock, was the weekend or public clothing not only of priests and deacons, but also of all clergy, that is, both readers and singers 1033. Imatius, as the so-called national clothing of the Greeks since ancient times, was a sleeveless cape or cloak. But the later or Byzantine Greeks had another imatiy, which belonged to the numerous category of clothing borrowed from the East, and was otherwise called kavvadiya (καββάδιον) 1034, which was not a cape-type garment, but a put-on and sleeve one. This last imation, being sewn from black material, was used as mourning clothing 1035. It is necessary to think that the priests of the second imatiy adopted clothing as such. That is, that from the clothes used in the world, they chose mourning clothes, since it was most suitable for them, as the most modest and sedate clothes (just as our women praying men and women wear mourning clothes). And, in any case, their names had to have a mourning color - black or dark red (ὀξύς) 1036. Simeon of Thessaloniki 1037 speaks quite a lot about the immacy of priests and all clerics. But he does not describe its shape in such detail that one can say how identical it was with the shape of the current cassocks. He calls imatiy a sleeve garment (μετὰ τοῖς μανικίοις), long to the toes and wide (but not with wide sleeves, as some incorrectly interpret Simeon), from the waist with sleeves representing a cross (σταυροῦ δὲ τύπον ἐπέχει τῷ μήκει τε καὶ τοῖς μανικίοις ). Saying that the readers girded their imatii and not saying the same about the priests, moreover, speaking about the first with an explanation of why they did so: “since their position is to serve,” Simeon of Thessalonica makes it known that the priests did not have the custom of wearing belts over their imatii, as they are currently worn with cassocks (which custom of wearing should be considered borrowed from the monks at the same time as the priests together with them began to wear the current cassocks). In our Russian manuscripts decorated with miniatures or decorated with miniatures, we find an image of a priestly life, in our opinion - a single row, from the time when it did not yet have the current cassock over it and constituted the only weekend or public clothing of priests. - This is the known manuscript with the facial life of St. Sergius of Radonezh of the second half of the 16th century, located in the library of the Trinity Lavra and published by the latter in a lithographic photograph in 1853 (“The Life of our Venerable and God-Bearing Father Sergius of Radonezh and the Wonderworker of All Russia. 1853. In the lithograph of the Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius”). Depicted many times in the manuscript, the imatiy is a long toe-length and rather wide or spacious robe, with a straight waist or without a waist, with a fairly wide turn-down collar, rounded at the ends or, as they say, a shawl, with sleeves exactly like those of today's cassocks, with the ends tightly clasping the hands like handrails, fastened from the collar to the hem with a long row of buttons (fol. 15 rev., 59 rev., 332 sqq) 1038 . From the imatiy, in our old one-row cassock, in the form now indicated, our current cassock, which makes up this imatiy - single-row, differs in that it has a waist, that the collar, instead of a rather large turn-down, has a small, stand-up one, and that it is not fastened along the floors. Among the Greeks, more than among us, the cassock or imatius retained its ancient shape: their collar, like ours, is small and erect, but the waist is straight without a waist and the width is ancient. Instead of being fastened with a row of buttons all the way to the hem, it is fastened with such a (very common) row from the collar to the waist. After the appearance of the current cassocks, single-row cassocks were narrowed and began to be made with a waist. There is no doubt - in order to eliminate the inconvenience of wearing two wide clothes (i.e., the current cassock and the one-row robe in the ancient form). But among the Greeks, who did not do this, this inconvenience is eliminated by the fact that a braid is threaded under the cassock at the waist, which gathers it into folds at the back (as in our soldiers’ overcoats; our cassocks also have braid, only with a different purpose. We mean not the current soldier’s overcoats, but those that were before the current ones). The collar was converted from a large turn-down to a small standing one, obviously because the first one does not make sense and is inconvenient with other clothes on top. Buttoning along the floors has been completely abolished among us, but among the Greeks, partly - either, regardless of the current cassocks, because it constrained the step, or, if depending on them, then because these latter took upon themselves the responsibility of covering the undergarment, for which it served. Now what we have said about the form of imathium refers to later times in Greece and here. But in ancient times it had another significant feature among the Greeks, which for some time it may have been retained by us. The classical Greeks did not know our sleeveless garments with a cut front or with hems; They had clothes - either sleeveless cloaks, capes, or sleeveless shirts with closed fronts (our deacon's surplice, bishop's sakkos). This was the case among the first Byzantine Greeks, and when it became their custom to cut the fronts of sleeveless garments (or make sleeveless garments with cut fronts) remains unknown to us. Together with other sleeve garments, our priestly vestment was originally a closed, long and wide shirt among the Greeks, the same bell as the ancient liturgical chasuble, only with sleeves. And it was cut in front - it appeared as clothing with hems, only at a later time, unknown to us (from the cut the Greeks did not immediately switch to a free plow, and hence the row of buttons on which the imate, like other clothes, was fastened from top to bottom). If this happened not before we adopted Christianity, but after that, then it is quite possible that for some time he remained with us in the same type of closed clothing, worn over the head (as it remained in Greece and with us with all liturgical clothing 1039. Knowing how our current priests deal with (current) cassocks, of course, no one would think that our ancient priests always and always wore single rows. And in general, in ancient times they were the same for their special clothing as, for example, we currently have the military for their uniform. If to this day rural priests wear a cassock only for mass on Sundays and on major holidays, and in many other places only on the latter; if even to this day, in home life, only a few of them routinely and constantly use a cassock, and the majority, depending on the time of year, are either content with a shirt or wear the same caftans as the peasants: then, of course, we should think accordingly about the pre-Mongol period. In Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia, until recently, the majority of rural priests did not know at all what priestly robes were; they walked and served in the same clothes as all the villagers, and differed from the latter only in the priest’s capa or priest’s head covering. In all likelihood, one should think that it was the same with us in the old days, and even more so in ancient times (about the importance of priestly skufia in our country, indicating that priesthood was relied on in it, see below) 1040. Turning from the form of clothing of priests to its quality, we, of course, should not remind the reader that silks and English cloth should not be presented at all. Elderly people themselves still remember how most of our rural priests were dressed in such nanki and demikotons, which could only be found on the cassocks and cassocks of priests. Moving a little back from the times of our memory, we find that at the end of the 17th - first half of the 18th centuries, many rural priests wore bast shoes, introducing themselves to the bishops in them and flaunting them in the very capital of the state, Moscow 1041. And that the clothes of the majority of these priests at the same time were not only made of gray and white undyed cloth, but also vile and torn 1042. The further back, the better, of course, although it is already quite difficult to imagine the worst of what is indicated now. Few rich urban priests wore clothes made of silk in the pre-Mongol period, and they were probably not inferior in panache to today's dandy priests. For in ancient times the mentioned materials were obtained from Byzantium and the East in complete abundance and in the largest selection. Not many relatively middle-class priests wore clothes made of all kinds of fabrics, more or less cheaply made in factories. All the other priests, of whom there was a decided majority, undoubtedly wore them from homemade linen and homespun cloth. Moreover, as it is necessary to conclude from subsequent times, along with the poverty of clothing, they were not at all distinguished by their neatness, but in most of the majority of people they were more or less rubbish and shaggy 1043. In the pre-Mongol period, in our country, as in Greece, the overwhelming majority of bishops were monks; but as an exception, we, just like there, had bishops from white priests. It was customary for monastic bishops in Greece, and after it among us, to wear monastic clothes. But what clothes did the white priests wear? This is a question to which, unfortunately, we cannot answer anything positive. It is possible that, together with the majority of the bishops and in order not to be discordant with the majority, they wore the same monastic attire as them, although they were not monks in any sense. But it is equally possible that they wore their own attire, different from the monastic bishops. Since there are indications regarding the head cover of bishops from white priests that it was different from the cover of bishops from monks (see below), it seems most likely to think the latter. If this assumption is correct, it will then have to be assumed: either that the attire of the bishops from the white priests was completely identical, and completely the same with the attire of these latter, or that it had some additions and differences against it 1044. The bishops among the monks wore the attire of the manatean monks from which they were supplied (see above), namely, a cassock and a mantle. The current cassock, as we said, is not a real cassock. This last cassock, which makes up the clothing of monks of the first or lower degree, ryasophores or ryasophores (cassock wearers), is that clothing whose proper name is chiton 1045 and which is called a cassock descriptively, from quality. Greek τὸ ῥ άσον, from which our cassock, a neuter adjective with an implied noun άμφίον or ἔνδυμα - clothing, from Latin rasura, from rado - I scrape, clean off, which means worn-out, worn-out clothes, devoid of lint, generally thin clothes, and then still in use - coarse woolen clothes, clothes made from homespun or soldier's cloth 1046. Cassocks (cassock robes), ῥ άσα ἀμφια, were called, firstly, all monastic clothes 1047, because they were all supposed to be “poor” 1048. Secondly, the tunic was called a cassock because it was supposed to be made of coarse cloth 1049. The tunic, among the classical Greeks, is actually a shirt, directly put on the body (what was after and now ὐποκάμισον), among the later Greeks it was outer or outerwear from the class of sleeveless and blind (see above), which had the shape of a shirt long to the toes, and when it was cut in the front, it took the form of a robe long to the toes. A tunic or usually a cassock is what today's monks have, a cassock, which gave its second name to the clothing that appeared on top of it, that is, the current cassock. We have many images of the monastic tunic or the monastic cassock of the late 10th – early 11th centuries in the famous Menology of Emperor Basil the Bulgar-Slayer (or incorrectly the Macedonian, Menologium Graecorum jussu Basilii imperatoris et caet). According to these images, it is a long shirt reaching to the toes (not yet cut in the front), which differs from the priestly vestment in that it is not so spacious in the waist and has no collar at all (see Jan. 31). With sleeves exactly the same as those of the imatii or single-row ones in the drawings in the Life of St. Sergius. Namely, they are narrow and have arms or wrists at the ends that wrap around the hands (but in the Life of Sergius itself, the sleeves of monastic robes are different - wider and without arms at the ends, which are the same width as the entire sleeve 1050. Robes, currently worn by manatean monks only in church and, moreover, extremely rarely, in ancient (and very long old) times constituted the same indispensable clothing for their day out as the current cassocks, which did not exist. It was exactly the same with the monks and among the bishops 1051. Monastic robes of the late 10th – early 11th centuries. (Vasily’s Menologies) differed from the current ones in that, firstly, they seemed to have fewer folds at the back, and secondly, that they were much shorter. Not only did they not drag along the ground, but they also did not reach it far, about a quarter or more. It must be thought that the bishop's robes had the same uniform. As for the difference between the bishop's robes and the monastic robes, which consists in the so-called sources and tablets (in Greek ποταμοί - rivers and πόματα - apples), then, as the 7th Ecumenical Council makes clear (canon 16, end), in the form of a simple decoration generated by vanity, they began to appear quite early. And when they entered into general custom and were legitimized remains unknown 1052. (Images of bishops in robes can be found extremely rarely. For saints are usually depicted in vestments, and not in robes. In the Menology of Emperor Basil on November 13, there is an image in the robes of John Chrysostom, led into exile - a completely monastic mantle without any sign of sources and tablets. On the contrary, in the same Menology there is quite a lot (almost a large part) of the monks, who have one or two stripes along the width of their robes, slightly higher than the hem, reminiscent of the sources of bishop's robes, part 1, pp. 110, 149, 164, 203 and others, part 2, pp. 23, 67, 106, 109, 121, 125, 160, 215 and others. illustrated acts of the Florence Council, located in the Vienna Library - in Nessel, part V, pp. 39 and 40, the Patriarch of Constantinople and other bishops also in completely monastic robes without any sources and tablets, although on the other hand from the testimony of Codin (extract from Ducange in Gloss. Graecit. under the words ποταμοί ) and Simeon of Thessalonica (Expositio de divino templo, question and answer. 38, y Min t. 155, p. 712) it is positively known that during the Council of Florence, bishops already had sources and tablets on their robes. In Russia in the 16th century, bishops had three sources on each side of their robes - see the bishop's robes in the above-mentioned personal Life of St. Sergius and the testimony of Herberstein in Commentarii, according to Starchevsky's edition, p. 21, col. 2; and as for the later Greeks, there are three springs on the mantle of the Patriarch of Constantinople in the Euchology of Gohar, and on the mantle of the same patriarch in Turko-Greece Crusius there are two, and they do not run obliquely, but horizontally slightly above the hem. An interesting indication is that in later times, our priests also had stripes on their clothes similar to the episcopal tablets, see the indicated article by Nevostruev, and about such stripes among the Greeks on the dress of lay men and women, see Nessel vol. I, page 63 sqq and in the Martigny Dictionary under the word: calliculae 1053. Currently, being used by bishops only in the church 1054, their robes are sewn exclusively from thin silk material. But in ancient and ancient times, when they were their permanent or ordinary clothes, they were sewn, depending on the seasons, from silk material, from cloth (in later times, some, probably special, “manatean cloth” is mentioned) and from furs (in the latter case, of course, without any folds that are not allowed by fur) 1055. In later times, among the bishop's clothes, the bluegrass 1056 was mentioned, about which Cyril of Turov or the unknown author of “The Legend of the Black-Risk Order from the Old Law and Novago” says in this last monk: “but don’t lay the bluegrass on yourself” (in Kalaid, p. 110). [Cm. "Additions and Amendments". To footnote 1056 fin.] Since the name bluegrass is the Greek μαντήλιον 1057, which is a diminutive of μανδύας - mantle, then bluegrass should be understood as the so-called small mantle or manotka, which looks like a hood worn on a cassock, which is sometimes worn monks are like an everyday mantle (like a monastic half-uniform). But in the now mentioned Legend about the black-faced rank, about the manotka or small manotka, it is said specifically from the bluegrass (in Kalaid, pp. 112–114). If the bluegrass is not a small mantle or manotka, then we are not able to say what it was. Perhaps the matter should be understood in such a way that it was a small mantle, only a bishop’s, which had some differences from the small monastic mantle, and that is why in the Legend it is forbidden for a monk to wear it 1058. Regarding the quality of clothing, most priests, as we said, should be presented dressed - the smaller half extremely modestly, the larger half completely shabby. We need to think completely differently about our bishops in this regard. Conscious of themselves as people belonging to the highest nobility in the state, they had to be noble in everything, including clothing, or more precisely, including clothing, for most people do not consider clothing among the small things. If the servants of our bishops of the pre-Mongol period, according to the evidence given above, were dressed richly and elegantly, then, of course, even more the same should be thought about them. And the right and basis for direct conclusions about the bishops themselves in the sense now indicated are given to us by our current bishops. Our current bishops dress with exquisite luxury. This luxury does not catch our eye at all and does not seem like luxury at all, because it is accepted and common among us. But it will appear before us in its entirety if we place our bishop, dressed in precious or those Lyons silk fabrics that we don’t know what they are called (not to mention warm robes with precious furs) next to the current Greek bishop. All current Greek bishops, including the “ecumenical” one, dress no more luxuriously than our hieromonks: a black cassock made of the same material as the hieromonks, and no more luxury. Our luxury of bishops in clothing does not mean that they all wanted to show off, but that it is so customary and obligatory among us. And that a bishop who appeared somewhere in our solemn assembly not in a precious cassock, but like, for example, Greek bishops in a simple monastic robe, would create a real temptation and would be considered a person inclined to act like a fool 1059. But this luxury of ours, which has become a mandatory law, obviously indicates that it comes from ancient times. That our bishops in this case greatly deviated from what is prescribed by church laws, there is nothing to say about this; Rule 16, Rule 7 of the Ecumenical Council states: “All luxury and decoration of the body are alien to the priestly rank and condition. For this reason, bishops or clergy who adorn themselves with light and magnificent clothes should be corrected. If they remain in this, subject them to penance” (and further deliberately prohibits the wearing of clothes made of multi-colored fabrics, usually worn by our bishops, who, therefore, in the old days were called the motley clergy, motley authorities) 1060. Before talking about the head covering of the ancient priests, we must also say about their heads themselves, actually their hair. To the pleasure of today's priests, who do not particularly favor their long hair, and to the sorrow of priests, who, on the contrary, are consoled by them, we must report that in ancient times the situation with their hair was not at all the same as it is now. Firstly, the priests cut their hair into a circle in exactly the same way as our peasants currently cut their hair, only much higher, and at the same time in such a way that the hair located above the forehead was not combed to the sides, but was left to hang on this latter without a so-called parting. Secondly, they smoothly cut most of the head in a round shape, leaving two to two and a half fingers below this cut of trimmed hair. So, from this hair, a kind of hoop or crown was formed around the head (haircut), from which the haircut was called στέφανος, i.e. crown (Simeon of Thessalonica, in common parlance παπαλήθρα and in some places also γά ῤῥ αρα or γαράρα , - Ducange Gloss. Graecit., in our country there is a humentso, in common parlance a priest's baldness, - in Metropolitan Eugene in the History of the Principality of Pskov, part II, pp. 91–92, 94. Currently, our crown is cut this way, only much less than the ancient priests, some of the Old Believers, and in others localities of Russia and old Orthodox people). As for cutting hair, among the Greeks this was a common property or common feature of clergy and laity, for among the Greeks the latter did not wear long hair, as the ap. Paul: a man, if he grows hair, he is dishonored (1 Cor. 11, 14, cfr in Nikon's Helmsman, chapter 47, l. 389 about not growing hair). [From the “Addition and Amendment”: “The reference to the Nikon Helmsman’s Book was made by us by mistake, and how this happened, now we cannot explain to ourselves: the hair loss is read in the handwritten Helmsmen’s Books (see Rosenkampf’s Review of the Helmsman’s Book, p. 311 beginning, Vostokov’s Description of the manuscripts of the Rumyantsov Museum, p. 301 col. 1, Sreznevsky Review of ancient lists of the Helmsman's Book, pp. 37 fin. and 74 beginning), but this is omitted in the printed Nikon Helmsman's Book. Here is the prohibition for priests to grow hair according to his list in the Makaryevskaya Chet-Menya of the Assumption Cathedral on August 31: “About priests who grow hair and paint themselves with it.” And about your hair, didn’t God give the commandment to the prophet: do not feed the hair of your head, say, do not grow, but rather cut it off and cleanse it, so that you don’t often itch your hair and keep your hair and always smear it with stinks - don’t let them catch you or even catch them wives", l. 1378 vol.] It was not found indecent for clergy to wear cropped hair for the simple reason that, according to the views of the Greeks, cropped hair was a sign of simplicity and modesty, but on the contrary, long hair was considered by them to be very reprehensible from a Christian moral point of view, sophistication and panache 1061. As for the smooth and round-shaped cut (cut) of the top of the head or the so-called crown (στέφανος), it was the own and special feature of the clergy or clergy, it was precisely its own sign or sign of a spiritual rank - κληρικοῦ σχήμα (rule of the Trula Cathedral 21). This tonsure was performed upon initiation into the first degree of clergy or clergy - reader 1062. The fact that in ancient times bishops and priests and in general all members of the clergy or clergy wore their hair cut, as indicated above, is undoubtedly proven by the surviving monuments of ancient iconography, and not only ancient, but even later, and not only later, but even of the present time, for even today we write ancient saints with short or cropped hair 1063. The round and smooth cutting of the head among people who know something is a well-known fact 1064. We cannot yet say positively when hair cutting began, but we think with confidence that it was not in Kievan or pre-Mongol times, but in Moscow times 1065; the haircut or cutting of the top of the head (humenzo) remained, as far as we know at the present time, no less than until the beginning of the 18th century. 1066. Regarding the hair of bishops, Patriarch Photius in one letter to Pope Nicholas makes it known that in his time in Greece, bishops appointed from monks did not change the form of wearing monastic hair to the priestly uniform; therefore, they only wore their hair cut (as the monks did then, as discussed below), but did not cut the crown on their heads 1067. The head covering of priests and deacons and, it seems, all lower clergy in ancient times was double - internal, which was an accessory and sign of clergy, and external to protect the head from atmospheric influences, like all people in general. The first was skufia, the Greek σκούφια, but among the Greeks it was mainly called by a different name - σκιάδιον, which covered the cropped top, fitting it tightly, and which the priests had on their heads - firstly, always outside the church, i.e. not only on the street, but also in houses, and secondly, as it seems, in the church itself, when just were present in it, but did not perform services 1068. The outer head cover (περικεφάλαιον or ἐπι ῤῥ ιπτάριον), used only on the street and superimposed on the inner one, about which we have very little information and, moreover, only later ones, was, in all likelihood, arbitrary with the restriction assumed with all the clothes of priests that it be modest as possible. As for the few later information or actual iconographic evidence, based on them it should be concluded that the most common external head covering for priests was a hat. The same one that they wear to this day, but only with an even lower crown and even wider brim, and then - if not always, then sometimes with the peculiarity that it had a practical device with the help of which the removed head could hang on the back. Namely, that cords were threaded into the brim of the hat from the sides opposite the ears, which were held in their places (holes) by means of cufflinks or buttons sewn to their upper ends and which, having a length of two to two and a half quarters, were sewn together at the lower ends, and a rather large tassel was sewn on the common or connected end for beauty 1069. Regarding the head cover of bishops, John Cantacuzene in his chronicle, speaking about the Patriarch of Constantinople John Glick (1316–1320), makes it known that it was special among bishops from white priests and special among bishops from monks 1070. What would need to be understood is that the bishops of the white priests used the priestly hat as such as a head covering, which we have just talked about. And the bishops from the monks - the monastic head cover, which we currently do not have in its ancient form and which in this latter, preserved by our Old Believers, instead of our high hood, under the so-called crepe, had a cap or skuf, similar to a priestly one. Since in the old images of bishops known to us 1071 we do not find them in one priestly hat, but either in a monastic head cover or this cover and on top of it a priestly hat 1072, then we should think that the bishops of the white priests used a hat in conjunction with a monastic head cover and precisely, as we just said, putting it on top of this latter. And since in later times we find priestly hats among monastic bishops, it follows that these latter, if not always, then sometimes used them in conjunction with the monastic head covering. The hats of the later monastic bishops known to us are called travellers, which makes it clear that, if not exclusively, then predominantly, they were used by these bishops on the roads 1073. The difference between the hats of bishops and the hats of priests was that on the first of the wide ribbons, ribbons or fringes a cross was sewn, and precisely a large one, which had its center in the center of the crown of the hat and extended with its ends to the edges of the brim of the latter 1074. Instead of a hat, our priests had one or another of the winter hats we used for the winter head covering, and as there is reason to think - mainly the so-called triukha or malachai, which is still preserved among the priests, which is almost the very loud name of the Greek τροπαιουχία, which means the head cover of the victors. This latter, being actually a soldier’s helmet or a soldier’s helmet, if it was treated by the Greeks in the form of a simple or, as they say, civilian hat, could easily pass to them for the reason that it had the very important property for our winter of covering the ears and the back of the head (it was very similar to the helmets of our fire soldiers) 1075. Like hats, our bishops also used three hats or malachai, on which, just like on hats, crosses were sewn 1076. The special head covering of our bishops was and is a white hood, which currently serves as a distinction for metropolitans. The question of the origin of this white hood of ours still remains a question. Here is the existing news about him. In the life of St. Sergius of Radonezh, placed in the Nikon Chronicle, regarding the receipt of the rank of archbishop from the patriarch by the nephew of St. Sergius, Bishop of Rostov Theodore, it is noted: “white hoods from the beginning were all the burden in Rus' and the metropolitans and bishops and all the saints were awarded the great honors of the archbishopric Rus'’s white hoods are noshahu” - IV, 231. In the conciliar charter about the white hood of 1564. it is said that “the former Russian first empresses, metropolitans and miracle workers Peter and Alexy, and Ivan Archbishop of Novgorod, and Leonty and Ignatius and Isaiah the Rostov wonderworkers, wore white hoods” and that “the former Russian first empresses and wonderworkers, Peter and Alexy metropolitan, are written on images in white hoods, and Ivan the Archbishop of Nougorod and Leontius and Isaiah and Ignatius of Rostov miracle workers are written in white hoods,” - Acts of History vol. I No. 173, p. 332 col. 2. Novgorod 4th Chronicle under 1169. calls the famous Rostov Bishop Theodore or Fedorets “white hood” - Collection of Chronicles 1V, 12. Epiphanius' Life of St. Sergius, lithographic edition fol. 256 vol., and the Nikon Chronicle, - IV, 66, they say that Archimandrite Mikhail-Mityai, elected to the place of St. Alexy, placed on himself (before his dedication) the white metropolitan hood 1077. The Nikon Chronicle speaks of Metropolitan Pimin, who was illegally installed (after the death of Michael) in the place of St. Alexy, that the white hood was removed from him - IV, 129. According to Karamzin, in the Charatean Trinity Chronicle, now non-existent, it was said under 1406. about Anthony, Bishop of Turov, that he wore a white hood - History IV, approx. 360 fin. It is unknown when after 1406. Metropolitans and bishops abandoned the custom of wearing a white hood, and it remained the exclusive accessory and distinction of the Archbishops of Novgorod. In 1564, before the election of a successor to Metropolitan Macarius, a conciliar resolution was made so that, together with the archbishops of Novgorod, the metropolitans would again wear it (quote from the conciliar charter above). In Novgorod, a legend was composed about the white hood of the local archbishops, which says that this white hood was arranged by Constantine the Great for Pope Sylvester, - that the popes, having fallen from piety and hating the hood, first hid it, then they wanted to “exterminate” it, and, finally, they were forced to send it to Constantinople, - which, as well as from Constantinople grace of St. The spirit was to be taken away into the Hagaryan captivity and the whole saint was to be betrayed from God by the great Russians of the earth: then the Patriarch of Constantinople Philotheus, who received the hood from Rome, was commanded by revelation from above to send it to Russia, Archbishop Vasily of Novgorod (it seems that the hood of Archbishop Vasily is the same one that was arranged by Constantine). The legend is preceded by a message on behalf of the embassy interpreter Dmitry Gerasimov to Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod, which states that Dmitry, on the instructions of Gennady, found the legend in Rome, during his stay in the latter (the legend was printed in Kushelev’s Monuments - Bezborodko I, 287; exists in many lists). To the general answer to the question: where could white hoods come from in Russia, is the remark of John Cantacuzene, made by him in the story about the Patriarch of Constantinople John Glick, that the patriarchs, if they were not from the rank of monks, which Glick was, wore a head cover wrapped in white linen (white matter: τὴν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς καλύπτραν , ὀθόν ῃ λευκ ῇ περιειλημμένην , - quoted more than once above). Thus, white hoods could appear among us as a head covering for bishops who were not monks. But in the above testimonies it is shown and said that in ancient times our bishops and monks, and in general all of them, wore white hoods. To explain this latter, we cannot make any other assumption than that white hoods, having originally appeared among us as a head covering for bishops who were not monks, fell in love with our bishops, so to speak, and came into general use among us (or into such use that it was left to one’s choice to wear a black or white hood). Why after 1406? All bishops, with the exception of the Novgorod archbishops, we cannot say, left wearing a white hood. As for the Novgorod story about the hood of Archbishop Vasily, its composition is explained very simply. Kantakouzenos reports about Patriarch John Glick that he was the first of the non-monastic patriarchs to decorate his white head cover with gold, depicting on it (by embroidering or putting images) the Savior, the Mother of God and the Forerunner. Vasily did the same thing, if not the first of all Russian bishops, then, undoubtedly, of the Novgorod archbishops, in imitation of the patriarch, with his hood. (John Glicka occupied the patriarchal throne from 1315 to 1320, and Vasily, who occupied the archbishop's see from 1330 to 1352, traveled to the archbishopric in the East, so that he could see his decorated hood on Glick with his own eyes. Vasily's hood was undoubtedly magnificent for its time and, in all likelihood, made in Greece, has been preserved in a renewed form relative to decorations to the present day. Its description by Archimandrite Macarius in the Archaeological Description of Church Antiquities in Novgorod, II, 343 sqq). The previously unprecedented decoration of the hood could have given rise to legends about it. And since the Novgorodians began to look at the white hood of their archbishops as a symbol of their freedom (according to the meaning that we have acquired of the word white, legally “to whiten, white land, white people”, cfr letter of Metropolitan Philip to the named Archbishop Theophilus of Novgorod in Acts of History, I, No. 279, p. 511 col. 2 beginning), then Legends arose in a certain direction, that is, that he was of extraordinary origin. It may very well be that the existing legend about the hood really belongs to Dmitry Gerasimov. And that only the prediction about the establishment of the patriarchate in Russia is a later insertion in it. (And if in the conciliar charter of 1564. it is said that “there is no scripture for that, which for the occasion the archbishops of Novgorod wear white hoods”: this may mean that the members of the council, with the exception of the archbishop of Novgorod, did not know about the legend, and that the latter, for his part, found it inconvenient to bring it to the attention of the council). In the assurance of the author of the legend that he found it in Rome, it can be taken as fair that in Rome he was informed of the well-known forged deed of gift of Constantine the Great, on the basis of which he composed the legend (it is known that the eyes of Archbishop Gennady were very much turned to the West. Not seeing his hood among the eastern bishops, he, indeed, could have instructed Gerasimov to carry out reconnaissance about him in Rome, if only Gerasimov traveled to Rome when Gennady was at the department (The surname of the Salarev merchants, with one of whom, according to the message, Gerasimov sent a legend from Rome to Gennady, really existed - Karamzin V, note 70 and VII, note 49). But the matter could have been much simpler: Gennady had a Dominican living in Novgorod; this one could report the deed of gift as such a deed that speaks of a white hood (supposedly arranged by Constantine the Great for the Pope) - and on the basis of the deed of gift, a legend was fabricated in Novgorod itself. However, as far as we know, among the many lists of legends, the lists of the 15th-16th centuries are unknown, and all of the 17th, 18th centuries. and the newest. Patriarch Philotheus sending the hood to Vasily is an anachronism, for he assumed the department after the death of Vasily in 1354. The fabulous testament of the Venerable Lazarus of Murmansk, which says that this Lazarus was sent by the patriarch to Archbishop Vasily to tell the story of the white hood - in the History of the Hierarchy V, 116, and by Philaret in Russian Saints on March 8). The relationship of the Russian Church to the Roman Church, the attempts of the popes to subjugate us to their power and our own appeals to the popes. It was said above that some Roman Catholic writers claim that we Russians were converted from paganism to Christianity by Latin missionaries and that only after accepting Christianity we switched or were converted and lured from the pope to the side of the Greeks. The matter does not end there. Writers claim that even though we had gone over to the side of the Greeks, we still did not break ties with the Holy Father, as if we recognized his supremacy and supremacy in the church, and as if this was the case: according to some of them, this or that for some time, and according to others, even throughout the entire pre-Mongol period. The purpose of these no less unexpected and strange assurances is the same as above, that is, to create for us the obligation to return to the feet of St. father. The history of our relations with the popes during the pre-Mongol period must be divided into two halves. We adopted Christianity before the final division of the Eastern and Western churches, and this division, which occurred in 1054 1078, that is, 60 years after our baptism, should be considered the border of two halves. The quarrel between Patriarch Photius and Pope Nicholas 1 in the middle of the 9th century, a very strong quarrel and accompanied by mutual excommunications, was not, however, the beginning of a complete and formal division of churches. After the quarrel, peace was again restored, and although it was very fragile, although it was interrupted by outbreaks of hidden enmity, and although the Greeks looked at the Latins suspiciously and accused them of deviations from Orthodoxy and right-thinking: however, until 1054, when the final division took place, the latter were for the first, good or bad, Orthodox and sons of the one universal church. It goes without saying that as the Greeks looked at the Latins before the division, so we looked at them. The Pope was not a heretic for the Greeks 1079 (not being completely benign and Orthodox); Of course, before the Greeks we did not declare him a heretic either. If Catholic writers prove that the Greeks recognized the pope as the head of the church, then at the same time it will be proven that we also recognized him as such (for we also recognized him as what the Greeks recognized). But was there ever a last thing, and especially was there anything like this last thing, during the period of time from the quarrel of Patriarch Photius with Pope Nicholas to the final division to the end of which our Christianity refers? After the final division of the churches, which occurred in 1054, the pope became a heretic for the Greeks in 1080, excommunicated from the universal church. Apparently, it is completely clear that he should have become the same for us, for we remained on the side of the Greeks and under their rule, which Catholic writers do not deny. However, these writers say that - no, that even after that we recognized the power of the pope at one time or another (for some time, as some say; for a very long time, until the very end of the pre-Mongol period, as others say). Writers do not take the trouble to explain satisfactorily how it could be that we at the same time recognized two hostile and mutually exclusive powers (for, we repeat, they do not deny the fact that we remained and remained under the rule of the Greeks). But they seem to assume that in the matter of the pope, we Russians behaved independently of the Greeks. That after the Greeks declared him a heretic, for us Russians he remained Orthodox. And that, thus, without separating from them and without being separated from their immediate power, we continued to recognize at the same time, in spite of them and him, the pope, the supreme (over immediate) power. But if this is so, then, not to mention the complete originality of the idea to assimilate to us the indicated independence, that is, otherwise about its extreme and ridiculous inconsistency, not to mention the lack of proof, that is, we want to say - the complete falsity of what constitutes the essence here, namely, that in the course of the time preceding the division, the Greeks conveyed to us the doctrine of the primacy of the pope in the church - in response to what was said above, we consider it sufficient to point out only the fact that after the division the Greeks were our metropolitans: is it possible and in accordance with human sense to allow the same Greeks in Constantinople to recognize the pope as a heretic, and in Kyiv as Orthodox and the head of the universal church? But, say Catholic writers, they have a fact to prove what they claim. This fact is our Russian holiday on May 9 in honor of the transfer of the relics of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker to Bar-grad. The holiday was established in Russia in addition to Greece, which does not know it and does not recognize it. The event in memory of which it was established is not at all a subject of joy and celebration for the Greeks: it is clear that it was established by the Russians by order of the pope and, therefore, it is clear that at the moment the holiday was established, which was already after the division of churches (in the last years of the 11th century), they recognized his authority. This holiday is its own and only foundation on which all the assurances of Roman Catholic writers are based. But, alas! Fate, as if saving us from vain verbal disputes, wanted them to have special ad hoc evidence against themselves with their interpretation of the holiday. At the same time that the holiday of May 9 was established in our country, the pope turned to our metropolitan with a proposal for reunification, and the metropolitan answered him by denouncing his wrong-headedness and refusing the proposal (the relationship between Pope Clement III and our metropolitan John II): it is clear that the holiday was not established with us by order of the pope. If it had been installed in our country by order of the pope, it would have been installed throughout the entire Catholic Church, for it is impossible, of course, to say that the pope had the fantasy of installing it in the Russian Church alone; but the Catholic Church does not have this holiday, and never has had it. Therefore, it is clear that it was not established among us by order of the pope (not establishing it for our, so to speak, happiness, throughout the Catholic Church, the pope established it only as a local holiday in Bar). We know very well that to refute other Catholic writers is the same as pounding water in a mortar. But what was said was required of us by the completeness of the historical presentation 1081. Never having us under his authority, direct or only supreme, St. Father, of course, always wanted to have us under it, for in comparison with other Christian peoples, since ancient times we have been a “countless people” 1082. We said above that the pope sent an embassy to Vladimir in Korsun, when the prince, while in this city, was negotiating with the Greeks about the hierarchical structure of the future Russian Church, and that the purpose of the embassy (as one must think) was to reject Vladimir from the church union with the Greeks and subordinate him to his own power. The embassy was not successful. But the popes did not want to give up such an attractive acquisition (such an attractive booty) as our huge (comparatively) Rus' after one attempt, and two more were made during the reign of Vladimir. According to the testimony of the same Nikon Chronicle, which speaks of the pope’s embassy to Vladimir in Korsun and before Vladimir to Yaropolk, two more embassies came from Rome to the first of the princes - one in 991, the other in 1000. The chronicle also says nothing about the purpose of these second embassies, just like the first 1083. But here, as well as there, it cannot be doubted: it is necessary to think that, after an unsuccessful attempt to reject Vladimir from the church union with the Greeks, the pope sent new embassies to him to try to call him back from the Greeks to his side. Following the first - 991. The pope's ambassadors, according to the same Nikon Chronicle, came to Vladimir from the Polish and Czech kings, and the pope's second ambassadors, according to her, were directly accompanied by the ambassadors of the Czech and Hungarian kings 1084. If it is not necessary, then it is quite likely to understand this in such a way that the ambassadors of the Roman Catholic sovereigns, with whom Vladimir, according to the testimony of the original chronicle, lived in peace and love 1085, should have contributed to the efforts of the ambassadors of the pope 1086. In response to both embassies of the latter, Vladimir sent his ambassadors to Rome (according to the testimony of the same Nikon Chronicle) 1087. It necessarily follows from this that the embassies were received by the prince very favorably and friendly. But this favor and friendliness was the only result of the efforts of the popes - they did not succeed in calling Vladimir back from the Greeks to themselves. It is very possible that the first of our two embassies, i.e. the embassy of 991, was sent when the metropolitan and Greek bishops (who arrived precisely in this year 991) had not yet come to Vladimir from Constantinople. If this is so, then this time the time was still favorable: it was necessary to convince Vladimir not to send away the metropolitan and Greek bishops who had already been accepted, but to refuse to accept those who had not yet arrived. But, alas! Vladimir absolutely firmly decided to enter into a direct church union with the Greeks, and not with the pope: the pope's embassy was received by him very friendly. In response, he sent his ambassadors to Rome. Meanwhile, relations with the Greeks regarding the establishment of a hierarchy went on as usual, and the metropolitan and bishops were received from them after the pope's ambassadors left 1088. It is believed with full probability that our first Metropolitan Leon, before whom or under whom the first papal embassy came and under whom the second came, wrote his accusatory essay against the Latins precisely in relation to these embassies, with the goal of counteracting the efforts of Rome (still Orthodox at that time, but very lame in Orthodoxy, as the Metropolitan shows in his essay) to attract Vladimir to its side 1089. After the final division of the churches, which occurred in the year of Yaroslav's death, during the pre-Mongol period, the attempts of the popes to subjugate us to their power were relatively few. Pre-Mongol Rus' was not at all what Muscovite Rus' later became, namely, a very tightly locked country, which was very difficult to get into, but on the contrary, it was a completely open and accessible country, in live communication with the West. As a result of this, the popes then had no difficulties or obstacles to make their attempts as often as they would like; and therefore the small number of their attempts should be explained not by the difficulty of making the latter, but by other reasons. This reason, in all likelihood, should be considered to be the fact that during the time corresponding to our pre-Mongol period, some of the popes had too much work and worries without us, and that, on the contrary, other popes had absolutely no worries about anything. There is a not entirely clear indication that the pope tried to call us back to him at the very moment of the division of churches. When the papal ambassadors who were in 1054 in Constantinople, placing it on the altar of St. Sophia's letter of excommunication against the Greeks, withdrew from the city. Then Emperor Constantine Monomakh, not trusting the accuracy of the copy of this letter, which was given to him by Patriarch Michael Cerullarius (whose decisive behavior against the pope the emperor did not approve of due to his political views), post Nuntios Romanos directis suis exemplar excommunicationis verissimum a civitate Russorum remissum sibi accepit 1090, i.e. Following the Roman ambassadors, he sent his (officials) and received the truest copy of the letter of excommunication, which was sent to him from the city of the Russians. The most likely interpretation of this not entirely clear news is that the pope’s ambassadors were on their way back through Russia and that in it they were overtaken by officials of the emperor, who were given a copy of 1091. If so, then Russia was not at all on the direct road home for the pope’s ambassadors and, therefore, they, making a long detour, visited it on purpose. The only reason why they would do this can be assumed that they wanted to try to arm the Russians against the Greeks and tear them away from the latter. In the last quarter of the 11th century, between 1084–1089, the pope, or antipope Clement III himself, sent an embassy to us in Russia, appointed by Emperor Henry IV against Gregory VII, with whom the emperor waged a fierce struggle 1092. A characteristic feature of this embassy is that the pope did not seek subordination of the Russian Church, but proposed reunification. How to understand this is not entirely clear - whether it is that Clement, starting with a little, ultimately meant the same thing as the other popes, or that he really thought about reunification. But if the latter, then it is strange that he addressed us, and not the Greeks, for we could have left Orthodoxy for the Roman Church without the Greeks, but we could not negotiate the reunification of the churches without them. It is also not entirely clear that Clement III, who sat on the papal throne very unsteadily and had the need to devote all his concerns to himself, wanted to raise such issues as the reunification of churches or the subordination of the Russian Church to himself 1093. Be that as it may, our Metropolitan John II, under whom and to whom the pope’s ambassador came, one of his bishops, in response to the proposal, wrote to the pope a letter in which politely and in the most decent tone, but at the same time firmly, denounces the “sins” (ἁ μαρτήματα) of the Roman Church. And in which he invites the pope to turn to the Patriarch of Constantinople and the council of metropolitans located with him. “Who,” says the Metropolitan, “has a living word, like the lights that shine in the world and are possible (δυνατοί εἰσι) by God’s grace to seek and correct them with you” 1094. With the arrival of the pope's bishop, the metropolitan, as is likely to be thought, sent his own ambassador to him. In the Nikon Chronicle under 1091. it reads: “that same summer Theodore, the Greek metropolitan, came from the pope from Rome, and brought many relics of the saints” 1095: in all likelihood, this Theodore was none other than the ambassador of John, who went to Clement. According to the testimony of the now mentioned Nikon Chronicle, ambassadors from the pope came to Russia in 1169. Unfortunately, the chronicle reports absolutely no news about the ambassadors, nor does it indicate where exactly they came 1096. (One may suspect that they came to Vladimir to see Andrei Bogolyubsky, and that the motivation for the pope (who was then Alexander III) to send them was rumors that reached him about Bogolyubsky’s displeasure with the Patriarch of Constantinople, which the prince could have against the patriarch for the latter’s refusal to establish a special metropolitanate in Vladimir). In 1207 Pope Innocent III sent or intended to send an embassy to Russia. The intention is evidenced by message 1097, still preserved in the Vatican archives. But whether the intention was fulfilled, nothing can be said about this, because there is no news about the embassy in our chronicles. Pope Innocent III was an extremely zealous and at the same time extremely happy pope regarding the subordination of St. seat of the Orthodox peoples. In 1199 he entered into relations with the Bulgarians and brought them to the end that the latter recognized his power. Following the Bulgarians, the Serbs did the same. (Both of them feignedly and for a very short time 1098). Finally, in 1204, the crusaders took Constantinople and, although at the same time the Greeks did not submit to the Roman Church, they still established a Latin hierarchy. After all this, Innocent, of course, could not forget us Russians. In his letter addressed to archiepiscopis, episcopis et universis tam clericis quam laicis per Rutheniam constitutis, the Pope urgently urges us to return from the crossroads to the path of truth, from which we stubbornly deviate. The Church, he says, is one; power over this united church was entrusted to the Apostle Peter, whose successor I am, therefore... and so on; finally, he says, meaning the capture of Constantinople by the crusaders, “the Greek empire and almost the entire Greek church returned to veneration of the apostolic throne, and humbly accepts its commands.” You are part of the Greek church: “Is it not absurd that the part should be at odds with its whole, and that one member should be separated from the whole body?” The message was or was to be sent with one cardinal presbyter (G... by name, tituli S. Vitalis), to whom was assigned the duty, to bring the errant daughter to her mother, to uproot and destroy, build and plant, whatever he found requiring uprooting and destruction, building and planting 1099 . From 1227, a curious letter from Pope Honorius III to Russia in 1100 has been preserved. It is addressed to all Russian kings - ad universos reges Russiae. In it we read: “We rejoice in the Lord that your ambassadors, as rumor has reached us, sent to our venerable brother the Bishop of Modena, legate of the apostolic seat from our side (located in Livonia), humbly asked him to personally visit your countries. Because, desiring to be savedly taught in sound doctrine, you are ready to completely renounce all the errors into which, as you say, you have fallen due to the lack of preachers.” Further, the pope confirms the Russian kings in their intention, invites them, if they want the Roman legate to come to them, to send letters and faithful ambassadors to him - the pope, and convinces them to live in the meantime in firm peace with the Christians of Livonia and Estonia, threatening otherwise with their anger, which they cannot avoid. Having read the above, you ask yourself with great amazement: could it really be that the Russian princes expressed to the pope a desire to completely abandon all the errors of the Greek Church? It turns out that this is nothing more than an overly excessive use of a technique that is quite common for dads. Entering into relations with the Orthodox, in order to attract them to themselves, the popes often began by saying that it had come to our ears that you wanted to be reunited with the holy mother... In 1224. The Novgorodians made peace with the Livonian Order, for which their ambassadors came to Riga. Peace was approved on behalf of the pope by his legate, the Bishop of Modena, who was in Riga in 1101 - and so the Novgorod ambassadors turned from the pope into all the kings of the Russians. Since at the conclusion of peace the Novgorodians were the defeated side and seeking peace, it is quite possible that in a diplomatic manner they expressed to the legate their readiness to unite with the Roman Church. We don’t know whether the pope’s message reached them. If it was received, then there can be no doubt that no answer was given. In 1231 Pope Gregory IX addressed his message to the Grand Duke of Vladimir Yuri Vsevolodovich 1102. To convince the prince, he uses the same arguments as above Innocent, i.e., that a single church has a single shepherd in St. Peter, whom he, the pope, is successor. But to the dogmatic arguments of the first, he adds political arguments, namely, that in the event of joining the Roman Church, the mother of all believers, the prince, as a sovereign, will be generously rewarded with the favors and favor of him - the pope. The motivation that disposed Gregory to turn to Yuri, no doubt, was that his missionaries - the preacher brothers or Dominicans - managed to settle in Kyiv and that there they had some success with their propaganda (see below). But the message almost had the consequence that it contributed to the discovery of Kyiv intrigues, after which the missionaries were expelled from Kyiv. All of these attempts by the popes, undoubtedly, and it goes without saying, had no success. Regarding those cases when we know about them not from the news of our chronicles, but from the letters of the popes preserved in the Vatican archive, it remains unknown whether the intention was always carried out, for the letters could be written, but not sent, or sent, but did not reach their destination. There is one strange thing about these relations that is remarkable. Our sovereigns were by title great princes (magni duces). One would expect that the popes would attract them to themselves with the promise of a royal title, as they did in other cases. However, here they not only do not do this, but also directly call our grand dukes and even just princes kings. It remains unclear why on earth they assign to our princes the title of kings, which they usually recognized only for those sovereigns to whom they themselves gave it 1103. The popes made attempts to subordinate the Russian Church to their power. But, alas! The opposite was also possible, namely, for the Russian sovereigns to express their readiness to the popes to recognize their power. Medieval popes represented a great force to which everyone turned for help. It was possible to buy this help from Orthodox popes and sovereigns at the cost of expressing a sincere or feigned readiness to submit to them - and, unfortunately, Orthodox sovereigns did this. There is not a single Orthodox people whose rulers would be free from the reproach of this inclination to sacrifice absolutely everything for their personal interests. Our Russian sovereigns are not free from this reproach. Some researchers point out with particular emphasis that examples of such very sad moral ease are very few in our country. Few, that's true; but among other Orthodox peoples they are not countless, and, in any case, this should hardly be explained by our special good quality among other Orthodox peoples, and not simply by our especially happy position in relation to the popes. One similar example is known from the pre-Mongol period. In 1073, Izyaslav Yaroslavich was expelled from the Grand Duke's throne by his brothers Svyatoslav and Vsevolod. He went to seek help from the Polish king Boleslav, who provided him with similar help very shortly before 1104. But this time Boleslav took away from Izyaslav a significant part of the wealth that he brought with him, and showed him the way. Izyaslav turned to the German Emperor Henry IV, promising, according to the German chroniclers, to recognize himself as a tributary of the empire 1105; but the latter could only do something to send an embassy to Russia for him, which brought rich gifts to himself and, of course, nothing to the prince 1106. Then Izyaslav, perhaps on the advice of the Germans, decided to turn to the pope, the famous Gregory VII or Hildebrandt 1107. From the surviving documents it is not clear what Izyaslav asked the pope for. But since the latter could help him return the throne in the only way to force the Polish king to help him, there is no doubt that this is exactly what he asked the pope to do. In return for this, Izyaslav, through his son, whom he sent as ambassador to the pope, subjected his state to the feet of St. Peter, wanting to receive it from the pope as a gift from the latter, and expressed his readiness to recognize the power of St. throne. In a strange and not entirely understandable way, Gregory VII did not at all show any particular zeal to take advantage of the self-presenting opportunity to annex St. Peter our Russia, which was a dream for other popes. He wrote a letter to Izyaslav 1108, in which, accepting what he offered, he promised him his help. However, it is not at all clear that he really cared about delivering this help to Izyaslav, without which everything should have remained in simple words. Together with the letter to Izyaslav, he wrote a letter to the King of Poland in 1109. But in this last one, he only exhorts the king to return the taken wealth to Izyaslav and does not say a word about helping him in returning the throne 1110. The whole thing ended in nothing, and Izyaslav managed to return to the throne without the help of the pope (in 1077). Zealous admirer of St. Theodosius of Pechersk, alas! showed himself to be a man of not at all a high moral character... We know that Izyaslav expressed his readiness to the pope to recognize his power only from the pope’s own message to him (for in general we know about relations only from the two letters of the pope that have been preserved and mentioned by us). On this basis, some of our historians would like to suspect the reality of the unfortunate fact, believing that the pope, either by misunderstanding or by direct intention, imposes on Izyaslav such statements and proposals that he actually did not make. Vain and useless doubts! As soon as we accept as reliable that the Orthodox sovereign made a request to the pope and was listened to by him, then it is not only reliably, but also naturally assumed that he expressed to the pope a sincere or feigned readiness to recognize his power. For it was only under this condition that the pope could express his readiness to provide him with his help. APPLICATIONS. Note to note no. 678. Indisputable and universally recognized truths sometimes find themselves in such a position (let us put it this way) that they require deliberate confirmation. This is precisely the situation in which the truth is found that the presbyters are not the servants of the bishop, but are his companions and co-leaders. Therefore, fulfilling the duty to justify our higher speeches about the relationship of presbyters to bishops, we will allow ourselves to do this with some thoroughness. The church hierarchy established by God through the apostles consists not only of bishops, but also of elders and deacons. Just as there cannot be a church without a bishop (any private church, which we are talking about in this case), so it cannot exist without elders, who constitute the same necessary degree of church priesthood as the first. (Long Catechism, Part I, on the tenth article of the creed, the priesthood; see below Ignatius the God-Bearer in the letter to the Trallians). What are elders in the church hierarchy? They are not the servants of the bishop, for such are the deacons (which is what the very name of the latter means. For the Greek διάκονος in Russian means minister, servant; John 2, 5. 9. Servants at the wedding in Cana in the Greek original διάκονοι 1111. Therefore, it is clear that they cannot constitute nothing other than his assistants (since there is nothing third between servants and assistants). And, therefore, it is then clear that the apostles, by Divine authority, established in the church not a personal hierarchy, which would consist of one bishop in each private church, but a conciliar hierarchy, which would consist of a bishop and with him a council of elders, as his necessary assistants. In church services, in the celebration of the liturgy, presbyters to this day remain in relation to bishops what they were from the most ancient times and from the very times of the apostles, that is, their co-celebrants, and not servants (like deacons). But if this is so, then this represents a living and visual and, so to speak, certainly convincing proof that in the rest of the matter of church building they were the same in relation to them, that is, their assistants. Because to imagine the matter in such a way that in one (in some functions of the office) they would assume the role of assistants to the bishop, and in the other - his servants, and that they would be together with assistants and servants, of course, is completely impossible. (The church altar is not only the place where the liturgy is performed, but also in general the place of the government meeting of the bishop, his, as it were, a meeting hall. For in the first and most ancient times, bishops did and carried out all the work of church administration and court in it. But in this church meeting hall, the presbyters are neighbors to the bishop on second thrones 1112. It is clear that those neighboring the bishop are his comrades and assistants) 1113. Now what we have said is confirmed with perfect and undoubted clarity by the writings of the apostles, which represent the supreme authority that stops all mouths. In their writings, the apostles nowhere speak separately about bishops and separately about presbyters, but either about bishops alone, and they also mean presbyters 1114, or about presbyters alone, and they also mean bishops 1115, or about episcopal-presbyters, using the names bishop and presbyter, as meaning identically and one instead of the other (in in the same places, now one thing, now another) 1116. What does this mean by referring to presbyters together with bishops and vice versa, or identifying one and the other? Obviously, it cannot mean anything other than the fact that the presbyters constituted one indivisible power with the bishops. (So ​​when mentioning some, it goes without saying and it becomes unnecessary to directly mention others, and so when using one or the other name indifferently, we are talking about both). This is exactly how St. understands it. John Chrysostom. Explaining chapter 3 of 1 Timothy, where the apostle speaks about bishops and then, omitting elders, about deacons, he writes: “having finished speaking about bishops and depicting their qualities and saying what they should have and what they should abstain from, and omitting the rank of elders, (the apostle) jumped (μετεπήδησε) to deacons Why is this? Because the distance between them (presbyters) and bishops is not great, since they (presbyters) also accepted the teaching and primacy (that is, the power of teaching and primacy) of the church, and since what (the apostle) said about bishops also applies to elders. By consecration alone (the right of consecration alone) bishops are superior to presbyters and only by this alone do they seem superior to them 1117. During the apostolic times, as well as always afterwards, there was one bishop in each city. (Because in ancient times, as always afterwards, the church of each city was one private church, and each local church can only have one bishop for the reason that there can always be only one chief commander, as there is a bishop in his local church). Meanwhile, in the writings of the apostles we find: 1. Epistle to Philippisey by St. Paul writes: “to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with bishops and deacons” (epistles chapter 1, article 1). It is obvious that here, together with one actual bishop of Philippi (the city of Philip), the apostle calls bishops and presbyters, as the saints understand. John Chrysostom and Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus 1118. If in a specific case, addressing the presbyters of a certain place, the apostle calls them bishops, then, of course, he makes the bishop aware of the co-authority and co-principle of the presbyters with such clarity that nothing can be clearer. 2. Returning to Jerusalem from the third apostolic journey, St. Paul called the elders of Ephesus to Melitus and instructed them to attend to the flock, in which the Holy Spirit appointed them bishops to shepherd the church of the Lord and God (Acts 20:17.28). Here, together with one bishop of Ephesus, of course, there is also a council of presbyters. Consequently, the apostle addresses the bishop and the council of elders as a single and indivisible council of rulers. 3. In the first letter to Thessalonians, St. Paul exhorts the latter: we pray, brethren, know those who labor among you and those who are your superiors in the Lord (5:12). It is clear that under the abbots, together with one bishop of Thessalonica, we also mean the council of presbyters 1119. If after the times of the apostles we had no evidence of the co-authority of the presbyters with the bishops, then such a lack of evidence would only mean the sad fact that this co-authority ceased immediately after the times of the apostles, and nothing more. But this did not happen, and we have evidence from subsequent times. Clement of Rome († about 100), Polycarp of Smyrna († 168) and Irenaeus of Lyons († about 202) use the names bishop and presbyter exactly as we see in the apostolic writings, namely, when listing the degrees of the church hierarchy, they name only either bishops and deacons, meaning together with bishops presbyters, or presbyters and deacons, meaning bishops together with presbyters, and then use the names bishop and presbyter as synonyms, one instead of the other 1120. From this use of names follows the same conclusion as above. Ignatius the God-Bearer († 115) or, in general, a very ancient writer, known and accepted under his name, clearly and deliberately teaches that the bishop, the primate of the church, governs it with a council of assistants - presbyters. In his letter to the Ephesians, he writes: “You ought in every possible way to glorify Jesus Christ, who glorified you, so that you may be formed in one obedience, so that you, in obedience to the bishop and the council of elders (ἐπισκόπ ῳ καὶ πρεσβυτερί ῳ, – presbytery), were sanctified in everything” (p. 2). In his letter to the Magnesians, he says that he would like to have one deacon with him, “because he obeys the bishop, as the grace of God, and the council of elders (πρεσβυτερί ῳ), as the law of Jesus Christ” (p. 2). And then he exhorts the Magnesians themselves: “try to do everything in harmony with God, having the bishop presiding instead of God, and the elders taking the place of the council of the apostles” (paragraph 6). In his letter to the Trallians, he writes: “you obey the bishop, as Jesus Christ... but you must also obey the council of elders, as the apostles of Jesus Christ” (paragraph 2). And again: “honor the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the elders (honor) as the council of God and as the union of the apostles, without them there is no church” (paragraph 3). In the letter to the Smyrnae: “all of you follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ the Father, and the council of elders (πρεσβυτερί ῳ), as the apostles” (p. 8). In a letter to Polycarp of Smyrna, asking the latter to send an ambassador to Antioch “to express to the Antiochians the joy of the Smyrna church about the restoration of peace among them,” Ignatius writes regarding the election of this ambassador: “it is appropriate (for you), most blessed Polycarp, to convene the most divine council and elect someone”... (paragraph 7). That is, pointing in the above words to the practice of their time, it makes it clear that the bishops did everything only together with the councils of the elders. St. Cyprian of Carthage († 258), not in instructions addressed to others, but in his own conduct and in his statements regarding his rights and duties, is a strict executor and decisive defender of that apostolic law that a bishop should govern the church entrusted to him only with the participation of a council of elders. “From the beginning of my episcopacy,” he says in one letter to the clergy of Carthage, written while leaving the pulpit on the occasion of persecution, “I decided not to do anything in (my) personal opinion without your advice and (as was the custom in the ancient church) without the consent of my people.” And then he repeatedly declares in words and behavior that he wants and tries to adhere to this rule with all, so to speak, scrupulous conscientiousness 1121. And his abstract positive teaching on our subject is that a true Christian must obey bishops and priests (episcopis et sacerdotibus obtemperare) 1122. In the so-called Apostolic Rules the injunction is read: “presbyters and deacons do nothing without the will of the bishop; for the people of the Lord have been entrusted to him (the bishop) and he will give an answer for their souls” 1123. Defenders of the absolute power of bishops find that this prescription defines in a completely clear and completely indisputable way the power of bishops in the sense that they want to understand it, that is, as sole and absolute power. However, it is not at all clear how they find this. It is a general rule that in collegial meetings the members of the latter should not do anything without their chairmen, because otherwise these presences, instead of their superiority over the individual rulers, would turn into the greatest evil (for reasons understandable to everyone) and into something completely meaningless. If this is always and certainly so in the secular administration, then it would be strange if it were otherwise in the church administration, which is more perfect than the secular. The bishop is the chairman of the local church administration, and from this it naturally and necessarily follows that the elders cannot do anything without his will. But if this is so and completely indisputable (not only on the basis of direct instructions, but also simple common sense): then how, on the contrary, does it follow that the bishop can do everything without presbyters, so that the presbyters are completely removed from power, and it is exclusively entrusted to the bishop? In all our collegial public places, advisers and members cannot do anything without chairmen: but does this mean that chairmen can do everything without advisers and members? 1124 Thus, is it not clear that the defenders of the absolute power of bishops want to see in the prescription what it does not say at all, and want to draw from it a consequence that does not follow from it at all? To the regret of our defenders, they have the very Apostolic Rules against them. Canon 4 of these Rules prescribes that all life supplies brought to the church for the maintenance of the clergy “are distributed by the bishop and presbyters (after themselves) to the deacons and other clergy.” It is clear that the canon understands and accepts the presbyters as co-leaders with the bishop. Canon 58 of the Rules says: “a bishop or presbyter who does not care for the clergy or people and does not teach them piety, let him be excommunicated.” If the presbyters are entrusted with the duty of caring for the clergy and they are held accountable for failure to fulfill the duty, like the bishop, then, of course, it is clear that they are understood as co-leaders of the latter, as “collaborators given to the bishop” (Zonara and Balsamon in the interpretation of this canon) 1125. Thus, the Apostolic Rules do not at all say that the bishop should be the sole and unlimited head of the church (his local one), and on the contrary, it clearly states that the elders are the co-leaders (“collaborators”) of the bishop. How does our question relate to the rest of the ecumenical church canon? In the rest of the canon we do not find direct and deliberate speeches about what the essence of presbyters is in relation to bishops - their co-leaders or their servants. But instead of direct speeches, we find indirect ones in him, which, in their clarity, completely replace the first ones for us. Basil the Great says that the laity are introduced to the clergy by testing their dignity by the presbyters (personally and through the deacons) and that only after this test and “acceptance” by the presbyters do they receive ordination from the bishops (canon 89) 1126. Theophilus of Alexandria says that unworthy clergy are ejected, and unworthy laity are excommunicated as presbyters (canons 6 and 14), and regarding ordination to ecclesiastical degrees, he prescribes: “regarding those who are to be ordained, let there be a rule: the whole council of clergy will agree and elect, and then the bishop will test the chosen one and with the consent of the priesthood, let him perform the ordination among the church.”... (rule 7). If election to church degrees is carried out by bishops with the indispensable participation of elders; if with their participation the bishops carry out the ejection from the clergy and the excommunication of unworthy persons from the church, then it is clear that they are “collaborators” of the bishops. And their collaborators both as rulers and judges, that is, in other words, undoubtedly, their collaborators throughout. Without speaking directly about presbyters as collaborators with bishops in the administration of churches, the rest of the church canon after the Apostolic Rules gives us this as a necessary conclusion from what it prescribes regarding the management of church estates. The management of church estates is entrusted to the bishop (Apostolic canon 41), but not otherwise than with the participation of the elders (Council of Antioch, canon 25, Council of Carthage, canon 42, Theophilus of Alexandria, canon 10). Thus, if the canons oblige bishops to manage church estates only with the participation of presbyters, then, in the words of one Apostolic Canon (41), how much more does it follow that they consider this cooperation of presbyters to bishops necessary in the shepherding of precious human souls. Returning again to the evidence of non-canonical authority, we will not cite all of them, but will cite only the more direct and more important ones. The apostolic decrees call presbyters advisors to the bishop (σύμβουλοι τοῦ ἐπισκόπου), the senate (the supreme government board) and the council of the church (συνέδριον καὶ βουλή τῆς ἐκκλησίας, – Lib. II, c, 28), and then they detail and clearly instruct regarding the episcopal court: “let the deacons (implied as executive officials) and elders be present at the judgment seat, judging impartially, as people of God, in righteousness. When the one and the other person who has a lawsuit (both litigants) enter, then let each one stand in the middle of the judgment seat, and you (the elders), having heard them, cast your votes righteously (ὁσίως ἀνενέγκατε τὰς ψήφους) trying both (litigants) to make friends (to reconcile) before the bishop’s sentence (ἀπόφασις), so that the judgment against the sinner does not become public, because the bishop, even at the judgment seat, has Christ God as a partner and witness of the judgment” (Lib. II, p. 47). We believe there cannot be any clearer statements that the court of bishops should be a collegial court, with the presbyters, as members of the court, casting votes, and the bishop, as its chairman, pronouncing the verdict 1127. The Epistles of Ignatius the God-Bearer have reached us in two editions - a short one, which is the original or authentic one, and a widespread one, which is a later one and dates back no earlier than the 4th century. According to this second edition, in the Epistle to the Trallians we read: “What is a bishop if not a person who has the main authority and power over everything, as far as possible for a feasible imitator of Christ God? What is a council of elders (πρεσβυτέριον), if not a sacred college (σύστημα, – Corps, Corporation, Collegium, Lex. v. Passow), (what are they) if not advisers and companions (συνεδρευταί) bishop?.. So, whoever does not obey them is a completely godless and wicked person; he despises Christ and his institution” (n. 7). Blessed Jerome, who, as is known, held his own special view regarding the origin of bishops, very close to the current Protestant one, speaking about his time, firstly, literally repeats the words of Chrysostom quoted by us, namely, he asks: “what does a bishop do, with the exception of consecration, that a presbyter would not do?” 1128; secondly, he writes: “and we have in the church our own senate - the council of presbyters” (et nos habemus in ecclesia senatum nostrum. – coetum presbyterorum) 1129. There is an ancient collection of church rules, compiled by an unknown person or unknown people from local rules and local practices of various private churches, in which until recently they saw the rules of the IV Council of Carthage (from among the councils that were under Bishop Aurelius, 398) and which is inscribed in the lists: Statuta ecclesiae antiqua or Statuta ecclesiae orientalis. In this meeting, among other things, the rules are read: a) “let the bishop not hear any matter without the presence of his clergy; otherwise, let the bishop’s verdict be invalid if it is not confirmed by the clergy’s verdict” (ut episcopus nullius causam audiat absque praesentia clericorum suorum; alioquin irrita erit sententia episcopi, nisi clericorum sententia confirmetur, - canon 23); b) “a bishop sitting somewhere should not allow (non patiatur) a presbyter to stand (before him)” (canon 34) 1130; c) “at the consecration of a presbyter, when the bishop blesses him and holds his hand on his head, then all the presbyters who are present keep their hands on his head next to the bishop’s hand” (canon 3) 1131. Rule 9, 4 of the Ecumenical Council, according to the accepted text, reads: “If a clergyman has a court case with another cleric, then let him not leave his bishop and let him not resort to secular courts. Then, first, let him present his case to his local bishop or, by the permission of the same bishop, let those elected by both parties form a court.” But in the Slavic translation of the Nomocanon of John Scholasticus, this rule reads: “If a clergyman has a dispute with a clergyman, let him not leave his bishop and come to human judges. But first, let him say his thing to the bishop, and let the bishop, by his command, call upon both countries, who want to move, and with their first priests, let him arrange the priests righteously” 1132. We do not know which of the two readings is genuine. But assuming that it is the one that is accepted among us, in any case, we will have no doubt that the reading of Scholasticov’s Nomocanon, taken from practice and testifying to it, was very widespread and very authoritative. For otherwise the translator of the Nomocanon of St. Methodius, the first teacher of the Slavs and Archbishop of Moravia, of course, would not have accepted him 1133. That our reading was indeed widespread and very authoritative, we have one more proof for this: in the Genel edition of the Codex Theodosius to the law of the emperors Valens, Gratian and Valentinian from 376, which Lib. XVI, tit. II, n. 23, and which begins: Qui mos est caussarum civilium, idem in negotiis ecclesiasticis, enclosed the following interpretatiö Quotes ex qualibet re ad religionem pertinente inter clericos fuerit nata contentio, id specialiter observetur, ut convocatis ab episcopo diocesanis presbyteris, quae in contentionem venerint, judico terminentur. In Greece, as we said above, during the second half of the 10th - the first half of the 11th centuries, councils of presbyters under bishops were replaced by states of so-called clergy or officials. These states of clergy, which became new administrative-judicial councils under the bishops, remained with the Greeks until the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries, when the places of clergy under the bishops, as places that generated income, were appropriated by the laity. (Just as in our later times, the places of spiritual clirochans under bishops as administrators and judges were taken by their secular so-called boyars) 1134. As for Russia, and specifically Moscow, the cathedrals under the bishops of the now-mentioned choir - presbyters disappeared in it at the end of the 14th - beginning of the 15th century; however, at least before the half of the 16th century, it was recognized that, according to the sacred rules, the hierarchal court should be a conciliar court 1135. The so-called “Church Charter” of Vladimirov 1136. The so-called Church Charter of St. Vladimir has been preserved to this day in a very large number of lists, which we find mainly in the Helmsmen's books, where he belonged to the place, and where he was placed by the right of a church-legal monument, and partly in chronicles, placed as a historical monument, and also in collections of 1137 The oldest currently known list of the Charter can be read in the Helmsman's Book, written in the second half of the 13th century, between 1276 and 1294, for the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral and currently located in the Moscow Synodal Library (No. 132) 1138. According to this ancient list, the Charter of Vladimirov is as follows: – Preface about Vladimir’s acceptance of Christianity from the Greeks and the capture of the first metropolitan of Kiev from them; – About the construction of the Church of the Virgin Mary of the Tithes in Kyiv and the donation of tithes to it; – On presenting the metropolitan and bishops to the court in certain civil cases and in certain criminal crimes of all the laity. With the urgent admonition and admonishment of the Grand Duke to his officials and to his descendants - not to offend the church court. - On the assignment to bishops of all city trade measures and weights; – On granting them full jurisdiction (in all matters) of the lower clergy and some other persons; - On providing them with the management of charitable institutions. With a new admonition and a spell about non-offending the church court. After this oldest list of the Charter, all other currently known lists of it belong to the end of the 15th-17th centuries. The later lists relate to this ancient thing as follows: part of the lists, and precisely the most significant, represents a simple and perfect reproduction of it in general, and with some variants in particular. In another part of the lists, the statute is more or less abbreviated against it (the oldest list). Moreover, the reduction consists in the fact that the preface is omitted, admonitions and admonitions about not offending the church court are shortened or completely omitted, and the provision of weights and measures to bishops is omitted. Finally, the third part of the lists presents special editions of the statute against the most ancient list. Two of these special editions are currently known. The differences between one of the editions are that it reads its own special preface to the Charter, which talks about Vladimir sending ambassadors to test faith and about the privileges accorded to our metropolitan, as the second patriarch. And then in the Charter itself there are unnecessary speeches about the granting by the Grand Duke of the Kyiv Tithe Church of immovable estates, and by his princesses of any priceless forge, and about the purpose of church wealth 1139. Another edition does not contain deviations from the ancient list and excesses against it regarding the subjects of speech, but represents its distribution in relation to what is in it. Namely, a preface is distributed, in which there is more detail than in the oldest list about the baptism of Vladimir (in Kherson, in the Church of St. Apostle James) and about the taking from the Greeks of two metropolitans - the first Michael and the second Leontes. The list of cases and crimes presented to the court of the metropolitan and bishops has been very significantly expanded, and the list of persons given full jurisdiction to them has been somewhat expanded; finally, exhortations and spells about not offending the church court are set out in greater detail 1140. The mutual relationship of the now indicated classes into which the lists of the Charter are divided is undoubtedly and obviously the following: the oldest list with the later ones reproducing it (which, as we said, form the majority in the total number of all lists), represents the original or original of the charter, i.e. this so-called charter in the form in which it came out of the hands of its unknown author. Lists that convey the charter in a greater or lesser abbreviation against the oldest list are later abbreviations of the original; two special editions of the charter against the oldest list constitute the later editions of it (the charter). The list classes are now divided among themselves in the manner we have indicated. Separate lists of all classes have their own separate variants, and we find the situation in such a situation that there are almost no two lists that would be literally similar to each other. Constituting a remarkable feature of our monument, this shows that each of the copyists of the charter wanted to be its editor, and that each wanted to rule it according to his own understanding. Here is the oldest list of the charter, read in the mentioned Sofia-Novgorod (now Synodal-Moscow) Helmsman of the end of the 13th century 1141: “The Charter of Saint Prince Volodymyr, who baptized the Russian land, on church trials. In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Behold, Prince Vasily, called Volodimir 1142, son of Svyatoslavl 1143, grandson of Igor, blessed princess Olga 1144, received holy baptism from the Tsar of Greece 1145 and from Photius, Patriarch of Tsaregorod, taking the first Metropolitan Leon 1146 Kyiv, who baptized the entire Russian land with holy baptism. Then, many 1147 summers past, I created the Church of the Holy Mother of God Tithes and gave tithes to it throughout the entire land of Russia and from the reign to the collection church: from the entire 1148 prince's court the tenth century, and from the trade the tenth week 1149, and from the houses for every summer from every herd and from every life 1150 to the wonderful Savior 1151 and more wonderful to his Mother. Then, having opened 1152 the Greek Nomocanon, and having found 1153 in silence, it is not appropriate for these courts to judge 1154 either his boyars or judges 1155; and Iz, having told evil with his princess Anna and with his children 1156, you gave judgment to the churches, to the metropolitan and to all the bishops 1157 in the Russian land. And since there is no need to intercede, neither for my children nor for my grandchildren, nor for my entire family until eternity, nor in the people of the church, nor in all their courts, then I have given everything throughout the city 1158 and in the churchyard and in the freedoms, where 1159 and (sic, should read: neither) are Christians; and with my tiun 1160 I order that the church court should not be offended or judged without the lord of the governor 1161. And judge all the church: dissolution 1162, smilnoe 1163, outpost 1164, umychka 1165 (this word is added in the manuscript at the top), beating between husband and wife about the belly 1166, caught in a tribe or in matchmaking 1167, witchcraft, potion, do, sorcery, sorcery 1168, reproaches 1169 three: whores and potions, heresy 1170, toothache 1171, or beat a father’s son or mother or daughter 1172, or a daughter-in-law, brothers or children sue 1173 about the ass 1174, church tatba 1175, the dead are scum 1176, crosses will be cut or cut on the walls, cattle 1177 or dogs or sweats 1178 without great need to be introduced or something else that is not like the church to do 1179, or two friends have to beat (and) have one wife for the womb of the other and crush 1180, or someone to catch with with four legs 1181, or who prays under a barn or in a grove or by the water 1182, or a girl spoils a child; Those all the courts of the church 1183 were given in essence 1184, the prince and boyars and judges cannot intervene in their courts 1185, then I gave everything according to the first kingdoms 1186 order and according to the ecumenical saints of the seven great councils. If anyone violates our statute, he will be unforgiven by the law of God and will inherit woe. And I order with my tiun, do not offend the church court and from the court 1187 give 9 parts to the prince, and 10 to the holy church 1188. And whoever offends the church court, pay it with yourself, and before God answer the same in the terrible judgment before the dark angels, where no one’s deeds are hidden, good or evil, where no one can help anyone, but only the truth will save from the second death, from eternal torment, from the baptism of the unsaved, from the unquenchable fire; The Lord speaks: on the day of vengeance (sic, it is necessary: ​​revenge) repay those who hold back unrighteousness in their minds, whose fire will not be extinguished and their worm will not die, but to those who have done good things into life and joy unspeakable, and to those who have done evil things into the resurrection of judgment, to whom, he said, judgment is inexorable 1189. Behold, 1190 from time immemorial it was decreed and entrusted to the holy scribes 1191 city and trade all kinds of measures and weights and weights 1192 , set 1193 , from God it was so ordained from time immemorial, the scribe 1194 is to be guarded without dirty tricks, neither diminished nor multiplied 1195 , for all that give him a word on the day great judgment, as well as about human souls 1196. And all the church people: the abbot, the priest, the deacon, their children 1197, the priest and those in the choir, the abbess, the monk, the chernitsa, the marshmallow, the pilgrim, the healer, the forgiver, the behind person, the side 1198, the blind man, the lame man, the monastery, the hospital, the hotel 1199, the host, then the people 1200 church, almshouses, metropolitan or scribe know between them court or offense or which 1201 or enmity or ass; Even if another person has a speech with that person 1202, then the general court will 1203. Whoever transgresses these rules, just as we ruled according to the rule of the holy fathers and according to the first kingdoms 1204 management, whoever transgresses these rules or my children or great-grandchildren 1205 or in which city the governor or tiun or judge, and offend the church court, or anyone else, let there be 1206 curses in this age and in the future seven councils of the holy fathers universal" 1207 . The so-called “Church Charter” of the Yaroslavs. The so-called Church Charter of Grand Duke Yaroslav, which appeared after the Charter of Vladimirov and in general, as it seems, not very early in 1208, was much less widespread than this last one, and therefore has come to us in fewer copies, although it cannot be said at all that in a meager quantity 1209. The reason why this second charter, much more favorable for the church authorities and much more profitable for it, not only did not have greater prevalence than the Vladimirov charter, but even such as it, probably, was that the representatives of the church authorities themselves and the scribes of the Pilot's books and manuscripts in general doubted its authenticity 1210. The inconsistency that almost all crimes are subject to two punishments (a monetary fine to the bishop and execution by the prince) could not but arouse doubts among people and the most religious. The extremely high monetary fines that the statute imposes on crimes were very attractive. But it was too difficult to convince anyone that the rate set by the charter was really Yaroslav’s genuine rate... All currently known lists of Yaroslav's charter, which consists of a point-by-point listing of crimes and cases submitted by the prince to the court of the metropolitan and bishops, represent the same thing. The only difference is that some lists have more items, others less (that the presentation or editing of the text varies somewhat and that the order of items is not always strictly the same). But the lists differ from each other in the introduction to the charter, which is one thing in some lists, another in others. It is impossible to say which of the lists is the author’s original from this introduction. We will print the oldest list of the charter known to us, namely, located in the Solovetskaya Kormcha of 1493. (published in the Orthodox Interlocutor of 1861, part III, p. 93 sqq), and to it we will show differences 1211 from four lists: 1) located in the Chronicle of Pereyaslavl of Suzdal in the 16th century. (Pereyaslavsky 1212, - in book 9 of the Time Book of the Society of History and Antiquities, p. 42); 2) located in Rumyantsevskaya Kormcha of the 16th century. (Rumyantsevsky, - from Vostokov in Description No. 232, p. 295, col 1 fin., printed by the Most Reverend Macarius in the appendix to 2 volumes of History, 2nd edition, p. 377); 3) placed in the 1st Sophia Chronicle of the same 16th century. (Sofia, – Complete Collection of Chronicles vol. VI, p. 84 fin. sqq) and 4) printed by Karamzin based on unknown “best lists” of the 16th century. (to vol. II note 108, - Karamzinsky). Under the articles of the charter we will indicate the “city laws” of the Helmsman’s Book, in which the drafter of the charter saw his “Nomocanon”. “And this is the charter of Yaroslavl, the courts of the saints. 1. Behold, the great prince Yaroslav, the son of Volodymer, according to his father, said that I am with the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus' Hilarion, who composed the Greek nomocanno (as it is printed), and it is not appropriate for a prince to judge these matters, neither his boyar nor his judges; I gave the metropolitan and the bishops dissolutions throughout the city, for the tenth week I went to the church, to the metropolitan, and I did not give his people a wash anywhere, nor tamgas, and I gave osmnicia. In the Pereyaslavl list: This is the Grand Duke Yaroslav, according to the rule of the holy fathers and according to the record of his father, he thought to give sinful and spiritual things to the church, according to the word of the metropolitan from the court books; The saint gave you spiritual courts, to judge them in the same way as laymen, dispel red-handed thefts, then judge them with mine, the same and murder, and do not intervene in any other case with me 1213, lest they fall into damnation, either my children or the bolyar or our reserve; If any of my family intercede, he will be cursed. In the Rumyantsevsky, Sofia and Karamzinsky lists (main text Rumyatsevsky): So I am the Grand Duke Yaroslav, son of Volodymer, according to his father, he said that I am with Metropolitan Larion, he composed the Greek nomocanon, like (Sofia and Karamzinsky: even) it is not appropriate for a prince to judge these heavies and the boyars, I gave to the metropolitan and the bishop those courts that are written in the rules in the nomocanon (Sofia and Karamzinsky: nomocanon) throughout the city and throughout the region where the peasantry is (Sofia and Karamzinsky: there is a peasantry). And about the cleverness of the boyars’ daughters: 2. If someone kills a girl or rapes her, or if there is a boyar's daughter, she will pay 5 hryvnia in gold for litter 1214. If there are lesser boyars 1215, she will receive a hryvnia of gold, and the metropolitan will receive a hryvnia of gold. And there will be good people, 2 hryvnias of silver for her rubbish, and the metropolitan will receive 1216 rubles, and for the Umychnitsy, 60 nogat 1217 will be given to the metropolitan, and the prince will execute them. In the list of Pereyaslavl: This saint was given to the holy fathers: kidnapping, rape, if there is a boyar’s daughter, for shame she receives 5 hryvnia in gold, and for the metropolitan the same, and for lesser boyars, then a hryvnia in gold, and for good people, a hryvnia in silver, and for the metropolitan the same, and for the washhouses for the metropolitan in the same way 60 hryvnia, and the prince is executed. In the lists of Rumyantsev, Sofia and Karamzin: If (Sofia and Karamzin: azhe) who carries off a girl or rapes, or a boyar’s daughter, for litter she receives 5 hryvnias of gold, and the metropolitan (Sofia and Karamzin: bishop) 5 hryvnias of gold, and the lesser boyars 1 hryvnia of gold, and the metropolitan (Sofia and Karamzin: bishop) 5 hryvnias of gold, and the lesser boyars a hryvnia of gold, and the metropolitan (Sofia and Karamzin: bishop) Karamzinsky: to the bishop) a hryvnia of gold, for good people for rubbish she gets 5 hryvnias, and to the metropolitan (Sofia and Karamzinsky: bishop) 5 hryvnias of silver, and for the wise women a hryvnia of silver is given to the metropolitan (Sofia and Karamzinsky: bishop), and the prince is executed. For Nikon's Helmsman, see above, in the notes to Vladimirov's charter. 3. If anyone beats a boyar's daughter or a boyar's wife, for littering she gets 5 hryvnia in gold, and the same for the metropolitan, and for lesser boyars - a hryvnia in gold, and for the metropolitan - a hryvnia in gold, and for distinguished people - 2 rubles, and for a metropolitan - 2 rubles, and for a simple child - 12 hryvnia kun 1218, and for the metropolitan 12 hryvnia kun, and the prince is executed. In the lists of Rumyantsev, Sofia and Karamzin: and for distinguished people - 3 rubles, and for the metropolitan (bishop) 3 rubles, and for a simple child 15 hryvnia, and for the metropolitan (bishop) 15 hryvnia 1219. 4. If the boyar lets in his wife: the great boyars - 300 hryvnia for litter, and 5 hryvnia of gold for the metropolitan; for the lesser boyars - a hryvnia of gold, and for the metropolitan - a hryvnia of gold; conspicuous people - 2 rubles, and the metropolitan - 2 rubles; and a simple child - 2 hryvnia, a metropolitan - 2 hryvnia, and the prince executes them. In the lists of Rumyantsev, Sofia and Karamzin: if a boyar lets a great wife in without guilt, she will receive 5 hryvnia for dirty laundry... and a simple child will receive 15 hryvnia, and a metropolitan will receive 15 hryvnia... In the Pereyaslavl list: a prostyu is 12 hryvnia, and the saint is the same, and the prince is executed, and the hryvnia is fifty groschen. Nikonovskaya Helmsman, see above, in the notes to the charter of Vladimirov (dissolution). 5. If a girl becomes a whore, or gets children from her father and mother, or a widow, they denounce them and (sic) bring them to the church house. In the same way, a wife without her husband or with her husband will get a child and destroy or drown it, exposing it to the church house, and with this the family will repay. In the Pereyaslavl list: If a girl lives and gives birth to a child from her father and mother, having denounced her and let her into the house of God, so does a widow, who will redeem her family. In the Rumyantsev and Sofia lists: If a daughter gets a girl from her father and mother, having denounced her, she is taken to a church house, and so is the wife; and how will I repay my family? There are no words in Karamzinsky’s list: also zhonka. 6. If a girl gets married: great boyars - the Metropolitan - 5 hryvnia in gold, and lesser boyars - the Metropolitan - one hryvnia in gold, and ostentatious people - the Metropolitan - 2 rubles or 12 hryvnia, and a simple child - the Metropolitan - one hryvnia in silver or a ruble. In the Rumyantsev list: .... for deliberate people - 12 hryvnias of silver, and for the metropolitan 12 hryvnias, and for a simple child - a hryvnia of silver, and for the metropolitan - a hryvnia of silver. In the Pereyaslavl list: If a girl can sit down with great boys - the metropolitan receives 5 hryvnias per father or tribe, and special people - 12 hryvnias, and ordinary children - a ruble. This item is not included in the Sofia and Karamzin lists. 7. Whoever persuades a girl to come to you and give it to him for a toloka (variant of “tolek” 1220), for a bargain (read: for a bargain) to the metropolitan - a hryvnia of silver, and for a grinder 60 each, and the prince is executed. In the Rumyantsev, Sofia and Karamzin lists: for a favor to the metropolitan, 3 hryvnias of silver, and for a girl for disgrace, 3 hryvnias, and for a rubbish, a ruble each... In the Pereyaslavl list: to a saint, a hryvnia of silver, and for a girl, for disgrace, 3 hryvnia, and for a maid, 60 hryvnias each. Nikonovskaya Helmsman Ch. 45 l. 368, ch. 46 l. 374 and ch. 49 l. 491. 8) If a husband fornicates with his wife; the husband t (that) to the metropolitan in wine, and the prince to execute. If a husband marries another wife, but does not divorce himself from the old one, the husband gives wine to the Metropolitan, and takes the young woman to a church house, and he lives with the old one. Nikonovskaya Helmsman Ch. 49 l. 490 fin. and ch. 50 l. 517 fin. 9 . If a wife leaves her husband for another husband or has a wife from her husband, that wife is taken to a church house, and the newlywed is sold to the metropolitan. On the lists. Rumyantsevsky, Sofia and Karamzinsky do not have this point. 10. If the wife has a serious illness: either blindness or a long illness, then she will not be allowed in; Likewise, a wife should not let her husband in. 11. If a godfather commits fornication with his godfather, the metropolitan will receive 12 hryvnia, and the law about penance is indicated by God. In the lists of Rumyantsev, Sofia and Karamzin: if a godfather commits fornication with a godfather, the metropolitan (bishop) will receive a hryvnia of gold and drink. Nikonovskaya Helmsman Ch. 49 l. 490 rev. and ch. 50 l. 519 rev. 12. If anyone sets fire to a threshing floor or a courtyard or anything else, the metropolitan will receive 40 hryvnia, and the penance will be raised, and the prince will execute them 1221. In the Rumyantsev, Sofia and Karamzin lists: metropolitan (bishop) 100 hryvnia. Nikonovskaya Helmsman Ch. 45 l. 366 vol., ch. 46 l. 374 vol., ch. 49 l. 492 and ch. 50 l. 518. 13. If anyone commits fornication with his sister, the metropolitan will receive 40 hryvnias, and the penance is an instruction according to the law. In the Rumyantsev, Sofia and Karamzin lists: 100 hryvnia to the bishop. Nikonovskaya Helmsman Ch. 45 l. 369 rev. 14. If the neighbor's family is caught, the metropolitan will receive 30 or 40 hryvnia, and they will be separated and given drink. In the Pereyaslavl list: hryvnia for the saint, in the Rumyantsevsky list: 8 hryvnia, in the Sofia and Karamzin lists: 80 hryvnia. 15. If anyone has two wives, the metropolitan pays 20 hryvnia, and the one who came along, take her to the church house, and tremble and lead the first wife according to the law; and to have it dashingly hold and drive, execution shall execute him. In the Rumyantsev, Sofia and Karamzin lists: metropolitan (bishop) 40 hryvnia. Nikonovskaya Helmsman Ch. 46 l. 374 rev. and ch. 49 l. 491 rev. 16. If the husband divorces his wife of his own free will, and if he is crowned, then give the Metropolitan 12 hryvnia, but if he is not married, 1222, and the metropolitan is given 6 hryvnia. Not on the Pereyaslavl list: but not to be married... 17 If a Jew or a Besermen is with a Russian or a foreigner: the Metropolitan will receive 50 hryvnia for the foreigners, and the Russian will be brought into the church house. In the Rumyantsev list: to the metropolitan 8 hryvnia; This item is not in the Sofia and Karamzin lists. 18. If anyone commits fornication with a monk, the metropolitan receives 40 hryvnia and invests it in penance. In the Rumyantsev, Sofia and Karamzin lists: 100 hryvnia to the metropolitan. Nikonovskaya Helmsman Ch. 42 l. 332, i. 49 l. 490 rev. and ch. 50 l. 516 rev. 19. If anyone commits fornication with an animal (read: animal), the metropolitan receives 12 hryvnia as penance and execution according to the law. 20. If the father-in-law commits fornication with his daughter-in-law, the metropolitan will receive 40 hryvnia, and he will accept penance according to the law. 21. If anyone with two sisters falls into fornication, the Metropolitan will receive 30 hryvnia. This item is not on the Pereyaslavsky list. 22. If the brother-in-law commits fornication with his stepdaughter, the Metropolitan receives 12 hryvnia. This item is not included in the Rumyantsevsky, Sofia and Karamzinsky lists. 23. If the brother-in-law falls into fornication, the Metropolitan will receive 12 hryvnia. 24. If anyone with his stepmother falls into fornication, the Metropolitan receives 12 hryvnia. In the Rumyantsev, Sofia and Karamzin lists: 40 hryvnia to the metropolitan. 25. If two brothers have one wife, the metropolitan will receive 30 hryvnia, and the wife will be sent to a church home. In the Pereyaslavl list: 1 hryvnia to the saint; In the Sofia and Karamzin lists: 100 hryvnia to the metropolitan. 26. If the father and daughter fall, the metropolitan will receive 40 hryvnia, and he will receive opythemia according to the law. About fornication with relatives Nikonovskaya Kormchaya ch. 45 l. 369, ch. 49 l. 491 rev. and ch. 50 l. 517. 27. If the girl does not want to get married, but the father and mother give it by force, and what the girl does to herself, then the father and mother will blame the Metropolitan, and the historian will pay him; so is the youth. And behold, they are called whores (as it is printed; it should read: about the name of whores) great and lesser and from Gorodtsk and rural ones. 28. If someone calls someone else’s whore’s wife by name (directly, precisely, by name), and it will be the boyar’s wife of the great boyars, for disgrace she will receive 5 hryvnia in gold, and the metropolitan will receive 5 hryvnia in gold, and the prince will be executed. “To name” is not in other lists. 29. If there are lesser boyars, for shame 3 hryvnias of gold, and for the metropolitan 3 hryvnias of gold. 30. And if there are city people, for the rubbish she gets 3 hryvnias of silver or a ruble, and the same for the metropolitan. In the Pereyaslavl list there is 1 silver hryvnia, and the same for the bishop. 31. And for a rural wife 60 rubles 1223, and for a metropolitan 3 hryvnia. In the Pereyaslavl list: a villager 60 kunas 1224, and a saint 3 hryvnias. In the Rumyantsev, Sofia and Karamzin lists: for rubbish a hryvnia of silver, and for the metropolitan a hryvnia of silver. 32. If someone cuts someone's head or beard, the metropolitan receives 12 hryvnia, and the prince executes 1225. In the Pereyaslavl list: 3 hryvnia to the saint. And this about the various kradbs: 33. If the husband has some hemp or flax and any (sic) livestock, or a wife, the Metropolitan 3 hryvnia 1226. In the Rumyantsev, Sofia and Karamzin lists: to the Metropolitan in wine with the prince on the floors. Nikonovskaya Helmsman Ch. 44 a. 357, i. 45 l. 367 rev. and il. 50 l. 519 (generally about theft). 34. If a husband steals white ports and linens and clothes, the metropolitan will receive 3 hryvnia; so is the wife. In the Rumyantsev, Sofia and Karamzin lists: the Metropolitan in wine with the prince on the floors. 35. If anyone has a wedding or conspiracy, everything goes to the Metropolitan. And about the girl (cheese) the edge will be 1227, for the cheese hryvnia, and for her shame 3 hryvnia, and what is lost, then pay her, and the metropolitan 6 hryvnia, and execute the prince. In the Pereyaslavl list, this item is combined with the previous one and reads: If a husband or wife steals white ports, linens and portishche, the saint receives 10 hryvnia, whether it is a hedge (sic, read: arranged) and a wedding, then everything goes to the saint; If for a girl there will be cheese, but if not, they will pay 1 hryvnia for the cheese, and if they were hysterical, they will pay, and the saint 6 hryvnia, and the prince will be executed. In the Rumyantsevsky list: If you have stolen wedding and gardening (sic), battle and murder, and if murder has been committed 1228, pay the guilt to the prince and the metropolitan on the floors. Even about the girl there will be cheese... without words: and for disgrace she gets 3 hryvnia. In the Sofia and Karamzin lists: wedding and conspiracy, battle, murder and murder, even what is being done, pay the prince and the ruler to the floor. 36. If a wife steals from her husband and exposes her, the Metropolitan pays 3 hryvnia, and the husband executes her, otherwise they cannot be separated. 37. If you steal a cage, you should also steal it. 38. If a daughter-in-law steals from her father-in-law, do the same to her. This item is not included in the Pereyaslavl, Rumyantsevsky, Sofia and Karamzinsky lists. 39. If the wife is a sorceress or a scholar and a sorceress or a greengrocer, or a husband: having finished executing her, but not forfeited, the metropolitan will receive 6 hryvnia. 40. If a husband fights like a woman, it’s a pleasure to pull or bite 1229, the metropolitan receives 12 hryvnia or hryvnia (sic). In the lists of Pereyaslavl, Rumyantsev, Sofia and Karamzin: to the ruler (metropolitan ‘bishop) 3 hryvnia. 41. If the wife beats her husband, the metropolitan receives 3 hryvnia. 42. If two wives fight, the metropolitan is cut 60 or 6 hryvnia for the guilty party. In the Pereyaslavl list: 60 kun. This item is not included in the Rumyantsevsky, Sofia and Karamzinsky lists. 43. If a husband beats someone else’s wife, for disgracing her, according to the law, the Metropolitan receives 6 hryvnia. 44. If a son beats his father or mother, and executes him with the sovereign's execution, and the metropolitan is given wine, let such a youth go to the church house. In the Pereyaslavl list, between the two previous items, there is a new item: If anyone beats a priest, for disgrace 5 hryvnias of gold; and to beat a mother-in-law or a brother-in-law, 6 hryvnia to the saint (in the Law of Judgment, Nikon's Helmsman, Chapter 46, according to the list printed in Russian Dominoes, II, 188: “Whoever beats a priest with his hand, let him be beheaded with his hand; if not, let him give 12 gold”). 45. If a monk or a monk or a priest or a priest or a widow or a marshmallow or a sexton fall into fornication, the metropolitan will judge those laity, and what to condemn them for is free. In the Pereyaslavl list: if monks and monks commit fornication, the saint judges them, but the laity is not allowed in, even if they return the essence; or a priest with her, or a priest with a monk, or a marshmallow, and the quiet one judges the same way, and what to condemn is free. 46. Would a girl even want to get married, but her father and mother would not let her get married, and what they do to themselves, the father and mother will blame the Metropolitan; so is the youth. This item is not included in the Pereyaslavl and Karamzin lists. 47. If a priest or a monk or a monk gets drunk without time in fasting, the metropolitan drinks wine. In the Pereyaslavl list: if a priest or monk beats, there is always wine for the bishop. 48. If anyone eats filthy food of his own free will, either a mare or a bear or something else renounced, the Metropolitan will be guilty and punished. 49. If a priest baptizes a priest’s children in a foreign country with another priest, due to need or illness, and if he performs a baptism not in his own district, the metropolitan will be blamed. Instead of Epiphany in Rumyantsevsky it is priestly; instead of a county in the Pereyaslavl region. This article is not in Sofia and Karamzinsky. 50. And with an unbaptized person or a foreigner or from our language he will not be baptized, neither eat nor drink with him, until he is baptized; and if anyone knows who eats or drinks, let the Metropolitan be held accountable. This article is not in the Sofia and Karamzin lists. 51. If anyone eats and drinks with those who are excommunicated, he himself will be excommunicated. 52. If anyone commits fornication with a besermen woman or a Jewish woman, and does not lose 1230, he will be excommunicated from the church and from Christians, and the metropolitan will receive 12 hryvnia. This item is not included in the Sofia and Karamzin lists. 53. As soon as the monk and monk cut their hair, the metropolitan receives 40 hryvnia. In the lists of Sofia and Karamzin ... the bishop in the wine, what he will dress them in. This article is not on Rumyantsevsky’s list. And with these wines separate husband and wife: In the Pereyaslavl list: And behold, from the Namakanon of Yaroslavl from the rules: 54. A ce 1 wine. If a wife hears from other people what to think about the king or the prince, she does not tell her husband that, and then she will be convicted: for this reason, separate them. 55. And this is the fault 2. If a husband catches his wife with an adulterer or does something good to her, I will correct her: separate her. 56. And here are 3 wines. If a wife thinks against her husband with potions or other people, and (or) she knows that she wants to kill or put her husband to death, but does not tell her husband, and finally declares: separate them. 57. And here are 4 wines. If a wife, without her husband's word, has to go out with strangers, or drink, or eat, or otherwise sleep in her own home, and then the husband will ask: separate them. 58. And that's 5 wines. If you have a wife, against her husband's will, go to the games either during the day or during the night, and have a husband to marry 1231, but she will not listen: separate her. 59. And that's 6 wines. If a wife turns on her husband, order her to steal her husband’s house, or to steal it herself, or to steal goods or a church and give him frost, then separate them. The Sofia and Rumyantsev lists do not contain this article about the faults of divorce. Nikonovskaya Helmsman Ch. 46 l. 377, ch. 49 l. 427 rev. sqq (the article on divorce is taken literally from here), cfr and. 50 l. 501 rev. 60 About the helllessness of church people. And what about the monastery people and the church people and the monasteries themselves? Let the prince and the volost not intervene in that; then let the metropolitan volosts know; and they are helpless to go to the Metropolitan Volost. In the Pereyaslavl list: ...and bezatshchina is a metropolitan reserve. In the Sofia and Karamzin lists: ...and it is a shame for their bishop to go 1232. Cfr in Nikonovskaya Kormcha ch. 44 l. 359 (extract from the 10th facet, 5th chapter of Κείμενον’ and Nomocanon Fotiev). 61. And behold, Prince Yaroslav decree (indicated) on his own. If someone transgresses my charter and destroys my order, either my sons or my grandsons or my great-grandsons, or someone from my family or from the family of my Bolyar boyars, bolyars or ordinary people, and destroy my ranks and my order established by me by Prince Yaroslav and enter into the court of the metropolitan, which I have given to the metropolitan and bishops ecclesiastical courts, according to the rules of the saints, the father, having judged them according to each guilt, executed them according to the law of the criminal. And whoever has to judge, stand with me at the terrible judgment before God, and may the oath of the saints, Father 318, like those in Nikia, and all the saints, be upon him. Amen. In the Sofia and Karamzin lists this conclusion is somewhat briefer, in the Pereyaslavsky list it is much shorter, but in the Rumyantsevsky list it is not there. Charter of the Yaroslavs of the southern or Kyiv edition. The first mention, known to us, of Yaroslav’s charter of the southern or Kyiv edition is read in the letter of Mstislav Prince Yuri Semenovich Lugvenevich to the Onufriev Monastery in 1443, - Acts of Western Russia, vol. I, no. 43, p. 58, col. 1 fin. In 1499, at the suggestion of the betrothed. Kyiv Metropolitan Joseph Saltan, the charter was confirmed by the Grand Duke of Lithuania Alexander with his charter, - ibid. No. 166, p. 189. From the list of the late 15th century, the charter was printed there, No. 166, II, p. 191. Behold, Prince Yaroslav, named Georgiy Vladimerovich in holy baptism, with the advice of the Most Eminent Metropolitan Hilarion of Kyiv and all the God-loving bishops of Russia of our reign, we decided to write this Nomocanon and scroll, observing for the sake of the dangerous rules of the holy Apostles and holy God-bearing Fathers, so that they will not be trampled upon unskilled. First of all, all the bishops of our reign, which the Lord subdues to us, may they obey the Most Enlightened Metropolitan of Kyiv in everything, under defrocking and abdication from their throne, to whom the ruler, serich 1233, prince, bolyar and our judges, do not resist, but abide, under the pledge of the cathedral church Kyiv two thousand rubles, pennies. Likewise, the metropolitan and episcopal power is intact and indestructible, let the presbyters remain over all, within their existing boundaries, and no one from the worldly princes and boliars should intercede for a single presbyter in any matter from the bishop, within his boundaries of the church to have, on the security of thousands of rubles, pennies wide for the cathedral church, in which the bishop resides, and the destruction of ktytorstva. Let no one dare to judge the marriage of any rank of people, or to dissolve it below, from the worldly rulers, on the security of the cathedral episcopal church of five hundred rubles, broad pennies: this is because this court is episcopal. If someone from our most honest boys turns to a prodigal brother while living, Serich, if a husband who has a living wife understands otherwise, but the wife, seeing 1234 about his former wife as if she is alive, will go for him: this both, having given a pledge for the cathedral church of a thousand rubles, pennies, will get divorced and live in repentance; If they do not please, then they have the worldly power to judge and execute according to their own judgment, commanding them to pay a deposit on the cathedral church. If someone from ordinary people turns out to be living in a lawless marriage, the bishop, according to his court, shall execute them with bail, if possible, or with another punishment, and separate them from their common cohabitation and count them towards their first marriage, teaching them that they may live in repentance. If anyone lives in fornication from those of high rank, let him stop from fornication and give the guilt of five hundred rubles, loose pennies, to the cathedral church. If a simple person, husband or wife, turns out to be doing the same thing, let him get divorced and give two rubles of pennies as a deposit for the cathedral church. In all our reign, may all lawless marriage and fornication be eradicated: by the same token, may the blessed metropolitan and God-loving bishops send each one within his own territory to watch this; and if such iniquity is found, correct it as it was written in advance. Let this judge all the courts of the Church, and also heresy; The prince, the bolyar and the judges will not intervene in these courts, and in all others, the essence of which is written in the rules of the holy Apostles and the holy God-bearing Fathers, and in these Nomocanons of ours, under the security of five hundred rubles and pennies. This scroll of the Nomocanons was written quickly in the year from the creation of the world 6540. (The list, written at the end of the 15th century, on a piece of paper, in small and coherent cursive, without punctuation, together with the list of the grand ducal charter granted, is stored in the archives of the Greek-Unite Metropolitans, at the Holy Synod, and printed, as we indicated above, in Volume I. Acts of Western Russia, No. 166, II, p. 191). The region of the church court according to the charter of Rostislav Mstislavich of Smolensk and according to the message of the unknown Bishop of Vladimir to the unnamed son of Alexander Nevsky. The charter of Rostislav Mstislavich is an official and reliable document regarding the area of ​​ecclesiastical court in the half of the 12th century. Concerning the area of ​​the same court at the end of the 13th century, we have an unofficial, but more or less reliable document in the mentioned message. It was written after 1293, for it talks about the robbery of the Vladimir Cathedral Church, which robbery, having been committed by the Tatars brought by Nevsky’s son Andrei, happened in this year 1298, and until 1300, when the metropolitan himself sat in the place of bishop in Vladimir (hence, or Bishop Jacob, who occupied the see from 1288 to 1295, or by his successor Simeon, whom Metropolitan Maxim transferred to Rostov when he moved to Vladimir, and to Nevsky’s son Andrei, who occupied the grand-ducal throne in Vladimir from 1292 to 1304). It is impossible to think that the bishop, listing in his letter to the prince the objects and persons subject to ecclesiastical trial, was completely making up these or those. But we call the epistle a document more or less reliable because the bishop, perhaps, positively assimilates to the ecclesiastical court such objects that at that time did not yet indisputably belong to the latter, but were also the subject of a dispute between spiritual and secular authorities (the latter case makes us assume the tone of the epistle). Here we will make an extract of passages about the space of the church court from the charter of Rostislav Mstislavich and from the bishop’s message. Certificate of Rostislav Mstislavich: “But no one can judge the bishops; the bishop himself judges them. The first cord is dissolution; another heavy one - who can drive two of them; the third burden is if anyone is caught through the law; and the fourth is the dragging one, even if someone drags a girl: if the prince takes it, he takes it with the bishop, or the mayor, if he takes his burdens, then takes it with the bishop; and the fifth - as much as that wife, then to the bishop; sixth - a question, otherwise the bishop, potions and murders are the burden of the bishop; this one is already beating two wives, then the bishop is heavy; Even if a church person reaches something, he will reach his bishop; ninth - as many as God will take away the church people, and there will be no harm to the church... As much as there will be a burden or sale of the episcopate, but neither the prince nor the mayor, nor the Tivun, nor anyone else will need it, from small to large, and throughout the entire Smolensk region." - Addition to Acts of History vol. I, p. 7, col. 1 start Message from the Bishop of Vladimir: “And behold, I write to you (the prince’s son) another word (after the word that the episcopal cathedral church is robbed and empty): according to the rule, church courts are in all peasant people: abbots and abbess, priests and deacons, monks and monks; dissolution, sweetheart, kidnapping, beating, [See. “Additions and amendments” To footnote 1166] catching, between husband and wife who will talk about the belly, witchcraft, potion, reproaching whores and potions, heresy, bully, like father and mother beating son or daughter, brothers or children litigating about their asses, church tatba. “Then all church courts were given by the law of God and by the former kings and our great princes: the prince and the nobles and the judges cannot intervene in those courts, they are not forgiven by the law of God,” - Pavlov’s Monuments, No. 9, col. 117 fin. ??55About the Slavic Nomocanon or the Slavic Helmsman's Book of the pre-Mongol period. The Greek name nomocanon, - νομοκάνων or in another form νομοκάνονον ( νομοκανόνιον) is formed (composed) from the words: νόμος - law and κανών - rule and means in Russian - in the first form: zakono-rule, in the second form: zakono-pravilnik. The name nomocanon is used in two senses - broad and narrow: In the first sense, such church administrative-judicial codes (statutes) are called nomocanons, which contain not only the rules of councils and fathers (κανόνες), but also civil laws related to the church (νόμοι). In the second sense, nomocanons are such systematic sets of rules and laws in one whole, in which, under each group of rules covering one or another particular subject, laws related to the subject are also given 1235. At the moment we adopted Christianity from the Greeks, the latter had in common use two nomocanons: the incomplete one of John Scholasticus, first presbyter of Antioch, then patriarch of Constantinople (565–578) 1236, and the complete one of the famous patriarch Photius of Constantinople (857–867, 878–886, † 891). John Scholasticus, firstly, compiled a systematic set of rules or canons, dividing it according to particular subjects of content of the latter into 50 departments, which he called titles 1237; secondly, he made an extract from the short stories of Emperor Justinian relating to the laws of the church, dividing it into 87 chapters 1238. This code and extract constituted his nomocanon (using the last word in its broadest sense). The code of John Scholasticus included the rules: apostolic, the first four ecumenical councils, six local councils, namely: Ancyra, Neocaesarea, Sardicia, Gangra, Antioch and Laodicea, and Basil the Great among 68 (the first of the current 92) 1239. In terms of its presentation, the code of John Scholasticus presents the following: a figure or title number is set and its table of contents is written, i.e. what it is about. Then the rules of the councils related to the title are given one after another, indicating which council the rule is and which one: the title is such and such, about that; of such and such a council, such and such a rule (the rule is given), of such and such a council, such and such a rule (the rule is given), etc. 1240. For the most convenient search and general overview of titles, the statement of rules for them is preceded by their table of contents, that is, a list or extract of those tables of contents that are written above the titles themselves (Ὑ ποτίτλωσις τῶν ν ’ τίτλων). Patriarch Photius was not the compiler of the nomocanon, which received its name from him, but was only its last, so to speak, its final editor. This nomocanon, which is called 14-title from its appearance, consists of two parts: In the first part - a systematic index of rules or canons on subjects, consisting of 14 titles, which are divided into chapters, and in the index under each of its chapters, with a special inscription κείμενον ’ α 1241, either only an indication or an abbreviated extract of civil laws, related to the church and specifically going to this chapter 1242. The second part sets out the rules for councils and fathers. That is, the rules of each council and each father, arranged in a certain order, are set out separately and all together. The first part, for the same purpose as in John Scholasticus, preceded by a table of contents, is a nomocanon in the strictest sense of the word. (Although the canons are only indicated in it. The second part is given the name of syntagma (σύνταγμα). This 14-title nomocanon, named after its last editor - Fotiev, was compiled by an unknown person before the Council of Trulla (692) and included everything canonical older than the last council. That is, not only the rules of all the elder councils, but also of all the fathers (in relation to the councils, superfluous against Scholastic - the local council of Constantinople, which was under Patriarch Nektarios in 394. 1243, the Council of Carthage. In relation to the fathers - the rules of Basil the Great in their full current composition and all other now accepted fathers, with the exception of the later - the patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople). After the first compiler of the nomocanon, the second, also unknown, editor supplemented it with the rules of the sixth (Trulo) and seventh ecumenical councils and the message of Patriarch Tarasius (about 787). Finally, Photius gave the nomocanon, in relation to completeness, the final form that it currently has 1244. Both nomocanons, Scholasticov and Fotiev, were translated into the Slavic language even before we adopted Christianity and both were in use in our country in the pre-Mongol period. The translation of Scholasticov's nomocanon should be adopted by St. Methodius, the first teacher of the Slavs and Archbishop of Moravia. We know positively about St. Methodius from his life, which at the end of his life (†885) he translated along with the complete Bible and some of the works of the fathers “and the nomocanon, the rule according to the law.” Consequently, the translation of one of the two nomocanons existing in the Slavic language (any third nomocanon in the Slavic language is unknown) belongs to him. But if so, then in all likelihood we should consider the translation of the nomocanon by Scholasticov to be the senior or Methodian translation, for if he had translated the 14-title nomocanon, then, given the existence in the Slavic language of a more complete nomocanon, such as this last nomocanon, they would not then translate the less complete nomocanon, such as Scholasticov. In other words, the mutual relationship between the nomocanons from the point of view of completeness makes it most probable to assume that the older or Methodius translation is a translation of the nomocanon of Scholasticov 1245. To the question: why St. Methodius preferred a less complete nomocanon to a more complete nomocanon for translation; a more or less satisfactory answer can be given. While he began his translation of the nomocanon, among the Greeks both of our nomocanons were still in the same use and still enjoyed the same authority. And it may even be that the nomocanon of Scholasticov, as belonging to a well-known and hierarchically high person such as the Patriarch of Constantinople, enjoyed even greater authority than the 14-nominal nomocanon, which belonged to a completely unknown person. (For Patriarch Photius gave his name to the last nomocanon, making its final edition, only just before Methodius began the translation - in 883). Thus, under other conditions, Methodius could have given preference to the nomocanon of Scholasticov. But these other conditions existed. If he knew the 14-title nomocanon in the original edition, then his main advantage against Scholasticov’s nomocanon was the rules of the Council of Carthage. But in the Western Church, for the Slavs who belonged to which he translated the nomocanon (and to which he himself belonged as Archbishop of Moravia), the rules of the council were known in the Latin original. From which they were translated into Greek by the first compiler of the 14-title nomocanon. Consequently, translation of these rules did not seem necessary. Meanwhile, even without them, the 14-title nomocanon was much more extensive than Scholasticov’s nomocanon, which circumstance, in view of the numerous translations that Methodius had to make, could have decided his choice in favor of the latter nomocanon. If Methodius knew the 14-title nomocanon in the second edition, then its main remainder, together with the rules of the Council of Carthage, constituted the rules of the Council of Trullo. But in the Western Church the rules of this last council were not recognized, and, therefore, it did not seem convenient to translate them for Christians who belonged to the Western Church. Very few copies of the Slavic nomocanon of John Scholasticus have survived to this day. Not a single list is known from the pre-Mongol period; From subsequent times, only three lists are known: the 13th century, located in the Rumyantsev Museum, - Vostokov. Description of Museum No. 230, late Χ 5th - early 16th centuries, located in the library of the Moscow Theological Academy - fundamental library No. 54, and one list of an unknown later period, indicated by Baron Rosenkampf in the Review of the Helmsman's Book 1246. In the lists that have survived to this day, we find the nomocanon of the Scholastics not in its full form, but only in half. Namely, we find only the first part or set of canons (Συναγογὴ κανόνων 1247, but without the second part or extracts from short stories (τὰ κεφάλαια ἐκ τῶν νεαρῶν). On this basis it was possible It would be possible to assume that St. Methodius did not translate the entire Scholastic nomocanon, but only its first half. But it is much more likely to assume, as is generally assumed, that Methodius translated the entire nomocanon and that only in later manuscripts the second half of the nomocanon was not written from the first (Soon after the invasion of the Mongols, the Scholastic nomocanon almost completely went out of use among us. Moreover, its second half, having been transferred to the pre-Mongolian edition of the 14-title nomocanon, as discussed below, was also in the post-Mongolian edition of the second nomocanon, which became commonly used. And therefore, regarding the reason why the second part ceased to be written together with the first in later copies of Scholasticov’s nomocanon, one can think that due to the low usage of our nomocanon, in later times it was found unnecessary to write what anyone could find in the nomocanon in common use). If we accept, as it is accepted, that St. Methodius translated the entire nomocanon of the Scholastics, then it will be possible to indicate another probable reason why he translated this particular nomocanon, and not the 14-title one. Of the two nomocanons that Methodius had before him, the nomocanon of Scholasticov could be translated directly and in full, but on the contrary, the translation of the 14-title nomocanon would have to be supplemented from the nomocanon of Scholasticov, which is discussed below: it was natural, therefore, for him to stop at the nomocanon, the translation of which seemed most convenient. The 14-title nomocanon, which received the name Photius in the final edition, existed in our country in the pre-Mongolian period in the Slavic language not in the final edition, but in a secondary or intermediate edition between the original and Photius, so that it lacked the rules of the two councils that took place under Photius in 1248 to its complete completeness. Who and when this nomocanon was translated remains unknown. But the opinion that it was translated in Russia should be considered untenable, and on the contrary, the opinion that it was translated in Bulgaria, long before our baptism, and just like the Scholastic nomocanon, was borrowed by us from the Bulgarians ready-made should be considered untenable. If the translation had been completed here, then the original for translation, of course, would have been taken from Constantinople, from the authorities there. But for Constantinople and the authorities, a hundred years after the death of Photius, to still be using the 14-title edition of the nomocanon, not his – Photius’s, but the one that preceded him, this is absolutely incredible. As for the Bulgarians, the answer to the question: why did they translate into Slavic the edition of the 14-title nomocanon not by Photius, but by the one preceding it, is very simple: They were baptized in 864–865, and Photius made his edition of the nomocanon in 883. If they translated the nomocanon earlier than 883, then they should have translated it in the edition preceding it. The question of why the Bulgarians, not content with the nomocanon of Scholasticus, hastened to translate the 14-nominal nomocanon, does not require an answer: the nomocanon of Scholasticus did not contain the church canons in their entirety, and they, as is natural, found that they should have the canons in their entirety. And therefore they hastened to translate the 14-title nomocanon (and since it is impossible to assume that the Bulgarians could be content with an incomplete collection of church canons, it is necessary to conclude from this that the translation of the 14-title nomocanon was completed by them). The first part of the 14-title nomocanon, which is a nomocanon in the closest sense of the word, was not translated into the Slavic language in full, but only in half. Namely, the index of rules or canons was translated, but the Κείμενον, which embraces the laws, was not translated. Why Κείμενον was not translated, this (for others, as if constituting a mystery) is very simply explained by its property. We said above that in Κείμενον ’e the laws relating to the church are partly briefly conveyed, and partly they are only indicated. That is, it is only indicated where to look for them in the Justinian Code or in the novellas, see in the above extract Κείμενον ’ α to the first chapter: That is why the last property of Κείμενον could not be translated, i.e. we want to say that its translation was useless and pointless. If the Code and the short stories were translated into Slavic, then Κείμενον and, as far as it is a simple index, would have meaning and significance; but since they were not translated, it was useless and pointless to translate the index to something that did not exist and which could not be found in the index 1249. Instead of Κείμενον 'and into the 14-title nomocanon, an extract from the short stories was taken from the nomocanon of John Scholasticus, which later remained in our nomocanon (and in its post-Mongol edition) as an indispensable part of it, as if belonging to its composition by its very origin. Manuscripts of the pre-Mongolian 14-title nomocanon are currently known even less than Scholasticov’s nomocanon, namely two: one, dating back to the 12th century or to the pre-Mongolian period itself, is in the Moscow Synodal Library; the other, late Χ V - early Χ V Ι century, is in the library of the Kazan Theological Academy, among the manuscripts of the former Solovetsky Monastery 1250. Just as among the Greeks, nomocanons in the sense of manuscripts are never manuscripts that contain only the actual nomocanon (the rules of councils and fathers and the laws of emperors relating to the church), but are always collections in which the actual nomocanon is accompanied by more or less additions: so our Slavic nomocanons of the pre-Mongol period (as well as the nomocanons of subsequent times) are similar collections, Moreover, the currently known lists of one and the other nomocanon contain the same additions 1251. In the Scholastic nomocanon there are significantly more of these additions than in the 14-title nomocanon 1252, and some additions are common to both nomocanons. A complete understanding of the nomocanons of the pre-Mongol period requires that we list these additions, which we will do 1253. Additions found in the nomocanon of John Scholasticus: Preceding the set of rules itself: 1) “The image of the faith (statement of faith) of the holy fathers, bishop 300 and 18, who gathered in the first assembly at Nicaea”... “Image of the faith of the saints, father, bishop 150 of the second ecumenical gathering, which was in the city of Caesarea” (i.e., Tsesarigrad, - Constantinople) ... and then brief news about the remaining five ecumenical councils, and under the news about the fourth council there is an abbreviated confirmation of the creed of the first two councils proclaimed by this council. 2) An article about the ecumenical councils of the unknown, which begins: “There is a message for every Christian, for there are six ecumenical saints,” but which also contains information about the seventh council. The Greek original of the article, in which about the six cathedrals, is from Ralli and P. I, 370. Following are the set of rules: 3) An extract of the rules, under the name “Commandments of the Holy Apostle Peter and Paul,” from the 8th book of the Apostolic Constitutions, from chapters 32–34. Beginning “The first clerks who want to begin the mystery of good faith”..., Rumyantsev manuscript l. 44 vol., Academic manuscript l. 35 rev. (In Nikon's Helmsman, chapters 2–3, the rules of the Apostle Paul and the rules of the Apostles Peter and Paul). 4) “The law of judgment for people.” Beginning Before any truth is worthy of speaking about God's truth (in the Academic list, as in other known lists of the Law: faith besides the nomocanon), Saint Kostyantin wrote the same law, saying..., Rumyantsev manuscript f. 48, Academic manuscript l. 38. This “Law of Judgment for the People,” which means: a code of law for the laity, in the later, post-Mongol, Helmsmans, inscribed with the name of Constantine the Great (according to his initial words now given), is a brief and, like a code of law, very incomplete and very insufficient extract from the Eclogue of Leo the Isaurian and partly from some other Greek sources 1254. Compiled either by the Bulgarians or, which is not incredible, by the Moravians and by St. himself. Methodius simultaneously with the translation of the nomocanon. (Officials are called: kmetishcha, zhyupani; coin - flag (of which there are 72 in a Greek liter of gold). Sklyag (sklyag) or shlyag (see Vostokov's Dictionary under the words sklyaz, stlyaz, shtlyag) is the German Schilling (Skilling), and we think that it points more likely to Moravia than to Bulgaria 1255. 5) Basil the Great prohibition of monks (in the Academic Manuscript, instead of: about penances, it is mistaken: “about bishops”) in the number 21. Beginning. “Those who are healthy in body are lazy in prayer because of the teachings of the Psalms, not feeling the guilt of sins”..., Rumyantsev manuscript l. 53 vol., Academic manuscript l. 42 (as if this were also in the 14-title nomocanon, see below). 6) An article about the ecumenical councils, preceded by their chronology, showing the distance of time between them, with the inscription: “Reason 7 council, how many years from each (sic) died.” Beginning First in Nikiya, the father of 300 and 18, gathered together on Arius, who divided the deity into three not his own and shyuzhda (“alien”)..., Rumyantsev manuscript f. 62 rev. Academic manuscript l. 48 rev. The chronology, like the inscription, talks about seven cathedrals, but the article itself talks about six. 7) John the Faster, the so-called confessional nomocanon or canonary 1256, under the title: “John of Mnich, a child of obedience to the teachings of St. Basil, on the confession of difference and the commandment of those who confess their sins in secret and those who accept the true blasphemy to God and from God and God to consider their wretched thoughts.” Beginning As befits one who confesses a secret sin..., Rumyantsev manuscript l. 77 vol.– 102, Academic manuscript l. 58 rev – 80. 8) “Teaching from a spiritual son and daughter” (meaning a spiritual father or confessor) with the addition in the inscription: “God bless that peasant who reads this commandment with all his heart and does (sic), amen.” Beginning “The good and most good God, the prophet said: tell your sins rightly”..., Rumyantsev manuscript l. 102 vol., Academic manuscript l. 102 vol.– 106, Academic manuscript l. 80–83. 9) “Commandment of the Holy Fathers.” Beginning “Whoever commits robbery or kills from birth, let him repent for 10 years in another area”... Rumyantsev manuscript l. 106 – 109 vol., Academic manuscript 83–85 (All commandments, in fact - penances, as they are counted on the field - 51). 10) Rules about bishops and other clergy, numbering 30. Beginning. “A bishop or a priest or a deacon during fornication or when swearing or tatbe was yat”..., Rumyantsev manuscript l. 111 vol., Academic manuscript l. 87. 11) Monastic charter of St. John of Patalarea, under the title: “Our Holy Father John, prosperer, abbot of Patalarea, established his monastery, teaching all salvation from the holy books: everyone who rejected came to the rank of Chernech for the sake of salvation, unless you preserve these, even if I want to write, you cannot be saved.” Beginning “When they hit the beater, gather in the church porch, and the elders will come, climb into the church and worship the cross together and begin to sing the Lord’s Prayer”..., Rumyantsev manuscript f. 118–122, Academic manuscript l. 91 vol. – 95. Patelarea or Patalaria is a small island belonging to Italy, located between Sicily and the African coast, closer to the latter, now among the Italians Pantellaria, in ancient times among the Greeks and Romans Cossyra and Cossura. It is likely that the island, together with Sicily, belonged to the Italian so-called Magna Graecia and was partly inhabited by Greeks. In some monthly books on August 3, the memory of our venerable father and confessor John, abbot of the Patalarean monastery 1257, is recorded. It is very likely that this is our John. And if so, then the title of the confessor makes it clear that he lived in iconoclastic times 1258. (The Rule, as can be seen from the indication of the sheets, is brief and far from embracing the entire monastic life. How it got into the nomocanon is quite a mystery). 12) St. Theodore the Studite’s penance book for the monks, inscribed: “Our Venerable Father Theodore, Abbot of Studite about the remains (in the Rumyantsev manuscript erroneously: “about the camps”) church canon.” Beginning “Not being found (implied: in the church) at the beginning, Glory to God in the highest, unless illness or other similar guilt, in penance let it be”..., Rumyantsev manuscript f. 122 vol., Academic manuscript l. 95. Greek original in the Patrology of Minya t. 99.col. 1733. In the original inscription: To ῦ ὁσίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ ὁμολογητοῦ Θεοδώρου, , ἀδελφότητος ἐπὶ τῶν παραλειπόντων ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησία εἰς τὸν κανόνα (Slavic: “ο ostantsekh”, perhaps there is not an ostana in the sense of a remainder, but an ostana, an remains, in the sense of a person leaving, not doing something). [From the “Addition and Amendment”: Slavic: “about the remains”, obviously, is a translation of the Greek: ’ επὶ τῶν παραλειπ ό ντων, which means: about those who leave, on those who leave, i.e. those who neglect (to come to church in the canon, i.e. to the canon or at the legal time?).] 13) “From the canon of St. Basil” six questions and answers. Beginning Question. What causes mockery and thoughts. Answer. It happens that there is derision from the joy (sic) of the mind..., Rumyantsev manuscript l. 129, Academic manuscript l. 100. 14) Article without title. Beginning “The monk Theodore said: do not sleep with your wife,” against those who blaspheme marriage life, that is, as one must assume, against the Bulgarian Bogomils. Vostokov does not note this in the Description of the Rumyantsev Manuscript; in the Academic Manuscript l. 101 rev, – 105 rev. 15) Conciliar answers of the Patriarch of Constantinople Nicholas the Grammar (1084–1111) to the questions of the Athonite monk and the silent man John with other Athonite monks. Beginning “Is it appropriate to allow fasting on Wednesday and Friday in memory for the sake of a certain saint or apostle”..., Rumyantsev manuscript l. 139 1259 (in Nikonovskaya Kormcha, chapter 54). Additions found in the 14-title nomocanon: 1. St. Anastasius, Patriarch of Antioch, “The legend is like a great angelic and purifying property, like it is impossible to condemn a priest from a simpleton, and from a great saint, like a canon, deciding about the divine race and about the martyr.” Beginning “In the church legend of Philo the philosopher”..., Synodal manuscript l. 247 rev. (according to the description of Undolsky, l. 243 vol.). The Greek original of the article remains unpublished. 2. His “The Sacred Tale of the Father against Gregory the Dvoslovtsy and the Miracle Worker” († 604). Beginning “A certain elder told us”... Synodal manuscript f. 248 rev. (according to the description of Undolsky, l. 243 vol.). The Greek original also remains unpublished. Both articles, according to Pavlov, are intended to prove that those who died in a state of excommunication can only be resolved by those hierarchs who imposed a spiritual ban on them. 3. “Blessed Epiphanius, Bishop of Kuprskago, the Tale of the heresy of all who were soon written, according to the commandment, their own mothers and their images were named 4, from them all other things come from.” Beginning “The barbarians, who are like themselves from the days of Adam”... Synodal manuscript f. 249 (description of Undolsky l. 244). According to Undolsky and Pavlov, this is actually the work of John of Damascus πόθεν γεγόνασιν, which represents the Ἀνακεφαλαίωσις Epiphanius supplemented by Damascus (which in turn represents a brief repetition or reproduction of it - Epiphanius Panaria. The Greek original of Damascus in the Patrology of Minya t. 94 col. 677; Greek original of Epiphanius ibid., t. 42. col. 833: to the 80 heresies of Epiphanius Damascene added, starting with the Nestorian heresy, 22 more). Both Epiphanius and Damascus have different titles in the printed Greek originals than our Slavic ones. This last we can only partially explain. “The Tale Soon” means an abridged story, in abbreviation, for in ancient times the word “soon”, along with its own (present) meaning, also had this latter meaning: thus, the Greek inscription of the chronograph of Patriarch Nicephorus: χρονογραφία σύντομος was translated into Slavic: chronicler soon. “The written heresies of all” - probably: about all the heresies written above, that is, in the Panaria of Epiphanius, an abbreviated repetition of which is Ἀνακεφαλαίωσις. “Their mothers are iznikosh,” in Greek, as we find in the text of Epiphanius and Damascus: (implied: Βαρβαρισμὸς, Σκυθισμὸς, Ἑ λληνισμὸς, Ἰ ουδαϊσμὸς), ἐξ ὧ ν ἄλλαι π ᾶ σαι ἀνεφύησαν . 4. Timothy, presbyter of the great church of Constantinople, “On the distinction of those who come to our immaculate faith.” Beginning “We acquire three ranks”... In the Synodal manuscript f. 275 (according to Undolsky’s description of 270 vol. In Nikon’s Helmsman, chapter 70). Since the acceptance of heretics into the church has a connection with their teaching, this and the previous article in the Greek nomocanons are usually placed together, representing, as it were, one whole. 5. "The image of the right, immaculate faith." Solovetsky manuscript l. 312 rev. The same confession of faith belonging to Mikhail Sincellus, which, according to the story of Vladimir’s conversion to Christianity, read in the chronicle, the Greeks taught to Vladimir in Korsun after his baptism. As in the story, the article ends with brief information about the six ecumenical councils (which is not the same thing as the article on the councils of the Scholastic Nomocanon, indicated above under No. 6). 6. Athanasius of Alexandria “To Prince Antiochus about the many demands regarding (need: “in”) the unknown divine scriptures and from all Christians to ask the due question.” Solovetsky manuscript l. 316 rev. Only one first question-answer (out of a number of 137 questions-answers. Greek original of a work falsely appropriated by Athanasius of Alexandria, but not belonging to him, in the Patrology of Min, t. 28 col. 597). 7. “About the decree (probably an error instead of: installation) of the bishop and the magistrates (i.e., smaller, lower clergy; in the original, as in the later Slavic Kormcha: περὶ χειροτονίας ἐπισκόπων καὶ πρεσβυτέρων ). Solovetsky manuscript l. 321 rev. From the Prochiron of Basil the Macedonian, title 28 (Prochiron in Nikon's Helmsman, ch. 49, and title 28 - fol. 456 vol.). 8. “On the structure of the Holy See of the Kostyantin City” - an article about the advantages of the Patriarchal See of Constantinople, which sets out three rules of the Council of Chalcedon: 9, 17 and 28, and several extracts from the codex and short stories (Pavlov p. 53 without indicating the page of the manuscript). Additions found in both nomocanons or common to both: 1. "On Forbidden Marriages." Beginning “The closer (Academic manuscript: closer) name is a Christmas name, but it is divided into three: ascending and emanating and from the environment (Greek original: Ἡ συγγένεια ὄνομα ἐστι γενικόνδιαιρεῖται δὲ εἰς τρία ’ εἰς ἀνιόντας καὶ κατίοντας καὶ τούς ἐκ πλαγίου )... Cxolast. nomocanon: Rumyantsev manuscript l. 65 vol., Academic manuscript l. 50 rev; 14-tit. nomocanon: Solovetsky manuscript l. 317 rev. From the Prochiron of Basil the Macedonian, title 7 (in Nikonovskaya Kormchaya, chapter 49, sheet 416 vol.). “The chapter on forbidden marriages is from another law.” Beginning “It is forbidden, as long as they are united from holy baptism”... Scholasticism nomocanon: Rumyantsev manuscript l. 69, Academic manuscript l. 53; 14-tit. nomocanon: Solovetsky manuscript l. 320. From the Eclogue of Leo the Isaurian, 2 titles, chapter 2 (in Nikon's Helmsman, chapter 50, sheet 497 vol.). 2. "Chapter about bishops and ministers." Beginning “As soon as the bishop has the episcopacy, he can bestow and distribute as he wishes”... Scholasticism nomocanon: Rumyantsev manuscript l. 69 vol., Academic manuscript l. 53; 14-tit. nomocanon: Solovetsky manuscript l. 320 rev. From the Prochiron of Basil the Macedonian, title 24 (in Nikon's Helmsman, chapter 49, fol. 448 volume, inscription: “On the covenant of the bishop and me”). 3. Rules about monks, which in the Scholastic Nomocanon are inscribed: “O Kalugereh” and begin: “If the monk in the great image falls into fornication” ... - Rumyantsev manuscript f. 114, Academic manuscript l. 88 vol., and in the 14-title nomocanon it is inscribed: “Rules of St. Vasily was ordained to be worthy of being preserved by the monks,” - Solovetsky manuscript l. 326 (beginning in Pavlov, p. 53, not copied out). However, based on the inscription of the rules in both nomocanons, we suspect that Pavlov, taking them for the same ones, is mistaken: in the 14-title nomocanon, probably, those rules that in Scholasticov’s nomocanon are indicated by us under No. 5 (Rules of Scholasticov’s nomocanon, in number, according to the account of the late A.V. Gorsky, marked in the margin of the academic manuscript with a pencil, 55, are divided into two groups: the first group - with the inscription given above; the second group, from rule 45, Rumyantsev manuscript fol. 117, Academic manuscript l. 91. Beginning “If Kaluger went with his wife 2 priests” ..., it is written: “Nomocanon of the saints of Nicea and Chalcedon”). Regarding which nomocanon was in greater use in the pre-Mongol period, A. S. Pavlov is of the opinion that the 14-nominal nomocanon was in greater or even exclusive use, and that the nomocanon of Scholastica was in very little or even no use at all (Initial nomocanon p. 23 sqq). For our part, we hold the opinion, if not opposite, then not in agreement, namely, that in the pre-Mongol period the pre-Mongolian nomocanon was predominantly used, not the 14-nominal nomocanon, but the Scholastic nomocanon. The fact that the last nomocanon contains many additional articles of Greek and Bulgarian origin serves as proof for Pavlov that it was in great use among the Bulgarians (during the time corresponding to our pre-Mongol period). But a comparison of both nomocanons in relation to these additional articles, in turn, proves that in our country the same nomocanon of Scholasticov was in primary use: If we had a 14-nominal nomocanon in such use, then additional articles would be transferred from the first to the last. Meanwhile, in reality we do not see this. (In the pre-Mongol period, not even the “Law of Judgment by People” was transferred from the first to the last, which, as is known, in the pre-Mongol period enjoyed great authority among us). As proof that Scholasticus' nomocanon was in very little use among us, Pavlov points to the complete absence of Russian articles in it. But in the same way, in the 14-title nomocanon of the pre-Mongol period there is not a single Russian article. And against the fallacy of my opinion that in the monuments of Russian canon law of the 11th and 12th centuries. the rules are not used in the same translation as contained in the nomocanon of Scholasticus, the venerable scientist subsequently himself found and indicated evidence 1260. In the Scholastic nomocanon, as well as in the 14-title one, there is not a single Russian article. But from the side of these articles, the proof that it was in use among us is provided by the extracts from them found in it. We found at least one such extract in it. In the article entitled: “The Tale of Murder by Voluntary and Unvoluned”, together with the rules of Basil the Great and some other Greek ones, an extract is given from Kirik of Novgorod of two answers to the last Archbishop Elijah: “Archbishop of Novgorod (implied: rules): Whoever puts their children to sleep and oppresses them: if there is a piano, there is murder, if not sober, lie; and wives, making suffering, slashing, sweeping away: if not with potion, they are without guilt” - Academic manuscript l. 111; Kirik in Pavlov's Monuments col. 58, §4 and §5. If from the pre-Mongolian period one manuscript of the 14-title canon has been preserved and not a single manuscript of Scholasticov’s nomocanon has been preserved: then this, of course, does not prove anything and is a simple happy accident in relation to one nomocanon and an unfortunate one in relation to the other. From subsequent times, very few manuscripts of the nomocanon of Scholasticov have survived for the same reason that much fewer manuscripts of the 14-title canon have survived. It is precisely that soon after the invasion of the Mongols, both of them fell out of use, having been replaced by a new nomocanon (14-title, but in the final edition of Fotieva, with interpretations of the canons and with a new composition of additional articles). On the basis that in the table of contents of the Synodal list of the 14-title nomocanon, among other things, it appears: “Basily, Kostyantin and Leo the pious Caesar is the law,” A. S. Pavlov decisively thinks that the Prochiron of Basil the Macedonian and (with him) the Eclogue of Leo the Isaurian were already read in the pre-Mongol period in our Slavic nomocanons in their complete form, in which we find them in the post-Mongolian nomocanon. For our part, based on the fact that in all known lists of pre-Mongolian nomocanons only small passages from the Prochiron and Eclogue are read, we consider it much more likely to think that in the pre-Mongolian period we only had these passages. And that in the table of contents of the Synodal list (in any case, which does not mention the Eclogue) under the name of the law or Prochiron of Vasily - Leo, it is precisely our excerpts from the latter that are meant. Our researchers, who recognize the authenticity of the so-called charters of Vladimir and Yaroslav, want and find it reasonable to see that mysterious Greek nomocanon, which the princes refer to, as prohibiting the prince and his boyars from judging well-known civil courts and litigation and granting courts and litigation to the metropolitan and bishops, in the “Law of the Judgment People.” But before such a solution to the riddle and before such a way to save the authenticity of the statutes, one can only throw up one’s hands in surprise. That unknown falsifiers wanted to accept and pass off as the Greek nomocanon, which allegedly provided well-known civil courts and cases to the court of the metropolitan and bishops, such legislative monuments, in which in fact there is nothing of the kind at all, is completely understandable. But for Vladimir and Yaroslav to accept such a monument as the aforementioned nomocanon, this would mean that they allowed the clergy to deceive themselves in exactly the same way as I would deceive an illiterate village woman by showing her the price list of a tea shop and saying that this is my charter of nobility. “The law of judgment for the people,” which means precisely the law of the world, and not the spiritual, appointed for princes with their judges, and not for bishops, with such perfect clarity commands the prince or his judge to judge the crimes listed in it, that the words of Vladimir in his Charter: “having opened the Greek nomocanon and found in it, it is not proper for these courts and it is not for the prince to judge either his boyars or the judges,” assuming that the charter is genuine, would constitute his most decisive mockery of himself. It is very likely, as we said above, that the unknown authors of the statutes mean by the Greek nomocanon the manuals on civil laws contained in the nomocanon. But one must think that they understand not only the “Law of Judgment of People,” which by no means covers all civil crimes provided by the statutes for the court of the metropolitan and bishops, but also extracts from the Law of Moses, the Ecloga of Leo the Isaurian and the Prochiron of Basil the Macedonian 1261. (If we accept this latter as the most probable, and on the other hand, if we accept as the most probable that extracts from the Law of Moses and the Eclogue with the Prochiron appeared in our country in full only after the Mongol invasion, in his new 14-title Kormcha acquired from Bulgaria by Metropolitan Kirill: then it turns out that there is a certain, very short period of time for the birth of Vladimirov’s charter. The early date is the acquisition by Kirill from Bulgaria by his Kormcha, which took place in 1262 or 1270. A later date is the writing by an unknown bishop of Vladimir of his letter to the unnamed son of Alexander Nevsky, which clearly implies the charter of Vladimirov and which was written between 1293–1299). Neither one nor the other pre-Mongolian nomocanon has a title or title in any of their known manuscripts (i.e., in all known manuscripts of both nomocanons, the first article of each is directly written without a special title or title of it as a whole). Likewise, in Russian monuments of the pre-Mongol period, both those related to canon law and any others (with the exception of the imaginary charters of Vladimir and Yaroslav), the names nomocanon and Kormchaya book are not found. On this basis, it is very likely to think that the first name and after it the second appeared with us after the Mongol invasion, together with the nomocanon of Metropolitan Kirill and as the names of this latter 1262. Where did the Slavic name come from: Kormchaya kniga, originally used in the plural and in the reverse order of the current two words: Knigi kormchiye, this constitutes a question. It is believed that our name was invented or came into use because the ancient holy fathers very often likened the church to a ship. However, the Greek holy fathers liken the church to a ship. Meanwhile, the Greeks themselves did not have any name for the nomocanon that would correspond to our name Helmsman's Book (and the name of the newest Greek nomocanon Πηδάλιον, which means rudder, is usually, in all likelihood, an imitation of our name) 1263. We believe that the real explanation of the matter is different and, so to speak, much simpler: The literal Slavic translation of the Greek word νομοκάνων is a law-rule or, as it is translated in the life of St. Methodius, the law is the rule; The word rule was understood by us in the sense of right, which means rudder, in Slavic edge, stern, or the latter is taken for this. And this is where the name Helmsman’s Books came from (the nomocanon of Metropolitan Kirill existed in our country in two editions or, as is customary to say, two surname lists: Novgorod and Ryazan, which we will talk about in volume 2; the name: “Hermsman’s Books” is used only in the lists of the first edition, from which we can conclude that the Russian name was given to the nomocanon in Novgorod. The oldest known list of the Kirillova Helmsman of the Novgorod family, dating back to the end of the 13th century, is inscribed: “The books of the verb Karmichia, who ruled the law, the Greek language nomocanon.” The same list of the Ryazan surname, written in 1284, is inscribed: “Books spoken in the Greek language Nomokanun, spoken in our language to the law-rule”). (If the name nomocanon appeared among us only after the invasion of the Mongols, then this will again indicate the time of the appearance of the so-called charters of Vladimir and Yaroslav. And two probable reasons to attribute the appearance of charters to the time after the invasion of the Mongols - the third positive is that the charter of Vladimir, not to mention his later charter of Yaroslav, was known in southern or Kievan Rus). About the teaching of Novgorod Archbishop Elijah to the priests of the diocese on Sunday in 1166. This teaching was found by the late A. S. Pavlov in one of the manuscripts that also belonged to the late A. N. Popov, and now located in the Rumyantsev Museum, and was published by him - Pavlov in the October book of the Journal of the Ministry of Public Education for 1890 (under the title; “An unpublished monument of Russian church law of the 12th century”) 1264. That the teaching, which does not have the name of the author in its title according to the found list, belongs to the Novgorod Archbishop Elijah, this was proven by Mr. Pavlov in the preface to his edition. That it is a teaching offered by the archbishop to the priests of his diocese on assembly Sunday and specifically on assembly Sunday in 1166, this is clear from himself: the archbishop tells the priests that he is addressing them with his word at the onset of Lent (according to Pavlov’s edition §18), and makes it known that he is addressing them with this “collection” word for the first time after the ordination (at the beginning of the teaching), and since it is placed in. bishops on March 28, 1165, on Palm Sunday, then the first gathering Sunday was for him in 1166. We will present the beginning of the teaching in full, and for the sake of clarity we will allow ourselves some freedom with the original text. “Behold, brethren,” the archbishop begins the teaching, “I have so willed God and the Holy Mother of God and your prayer, I was weak and weak in denying you this (holy) and great dignity, which I was not worthy of. But God and His Most Holy Mother know that he did not seek it himself, but feared the judgment of God and your love, even to my badness 1265. Yes, if you naturally deigned (to choose me) and forced me to do this, then you are also worthy of listening (to me). Don’t shout like this: “We are our own, but what does he want to do to us (don’t say that he is ours, what will he do to us). But if, brethren, it happens (happens) that something bodily happens (the archbishop means by bodily or material the collection of taxes and duties by bishops from priests): then I hope in God and in the Holy Mother of God, as I do not want (in any way) to embitter you, for that is not why I came in, otherwise God knows you too. If there is some kind of spiritual guilt (on the part of some priest), otherwise (I) cannot transgress (leave it like this), nor say this: “I am one of them, but for the sake of this I will remain silent, lest I annoy my brethren.” Therefore, I do not entrust you with this (I do not promise this to you), so that not through my negligence weakness will come into you, but from you into (everything that makes up your flock) humanity, and (if) I am guilty of my entire fatherland and you perish in souls in my negligence: then I will be the one who gave birth, and you labored in vain to seek me (i.e., seeking to elect me as a bishop). Yes, about this, brethren, I pray (to you): if I want to say (to you) about my stupidity, accept it with love, for I am not speaking about myself, but the Holy Scripture forces me, if I am called a shepherd, not to remain silent. And the shepherd of the sheep, even if he is silent, is admired by the wolf from his flock and (he) pays the sheep for the master. But even more so, if I keep silent, it will be a disgrace to the flock of Christ, who you are and your spiritual children.” For this, the archbishop turns to the priests with exhortations and instructions. He exhorts them to abstain from excessive and untimely drunkenness, from usury, and threatens the guilty: “I will deprive the kun and the execution will be from me”; instructs how to treat those who come to the spirit and exhorts them to engage in book veneration; exhorts one to abstain from playing dice; instructs regarding the administration of the sacrament, regarding the imposition of penances on “orphans”, i.e. on slaves who owe hard work to their masters, and on murderers, regarding penances consisting of limiting food and drink; instructs regarding the baptism of children and regarding guidance in the behavior of mothers or nurses of children; exhorts to prepare in a dignified manner for the celebration of the liturgy, without referring to the example of previous priests, whose sins, due to the recentness of Christianity in the Russian land, are excusable, but should not serve as an example for them; admonishes not to hide before him those priests who have guilt behind them, requiring them to resign from the priesthood; gives instructions regarding the behavior of pregnant women in church, namely, so that they do not prostrate; instructs women to forbid going to the Magi. Gives instructions on how to conduct Lent; prescribes that couples of men and women living a married life or generally in a relationship without a wedding should be married in a church, and if there are children, they will also be married with these latter; says that if there is an urgent need to go to the sick for communion or to baptize a sick baby on Sunday, the service in the church can be left; instructs to admonish the laity to refrain from kissing the cross and teach them alms from righteous labors, admonishing them that alms from unrighteous labors is nothing before God. Makes an order not to bring into the altar and altar the brushes and drinks (eves) brought into the church; exhorts to take care of spiritual children, to teach them to stand properly in church, to keep them away from Yuletide reprehensible games and from fist fights, to teach children to honor their parents, to teach everyone to avoid anger and pride 1266. The invitation that the archbishop makes to priests who are aware of their guilt that deprives them of the priesthood is very remarkable. He exhorts them so that, caring for their spiritual salvation, they should not hide with them from him, the archbishop; and if, he says, such priests are afraid that, having relinquished their priesthood, they will die of hunger, then let them not be afraid of this - he is with the treasury of St. Sofia will not allow them to do this. “But I also want to say this to you, brothers,” he turns to the priests, but do not look at me, I am not condemning you, but loving you as you loved me, so that no one from you perishes in soul: but if anyone (of you), brothers, has any kind of spiritual guilt, even excommunicating you from the priesthood, sharing God and your salvation, you cannot hide from I was afraid of this great thing (i.e. for the work of the bishop) not dividing for himself, but not laughing at you; Now, if someone is to blame, don’t cry out like this: “If we remain in priesthood (we refuse priesthood), we will die in famine,” God forbid that this should happen to my brothers: Saint Sophia is not poor, but it is possible for us to eat and bring bread into the church (?) and give bread, since I have no one to save the spoils for - neither my wife, nor my children, nor anyone else. send the land (an allusion to our metropolitans of the pre-Mongol period and to bishops from the Greeks, representing positive evidence of what should be assumed). But you are my brethren, you and my children, so that it would not be unkind to your souls that I have harmed you, so that you would not labor in vain, seeking me (i.e., electing me as a bishop). Do not complain to me about anything (you cannot complain about me), asking you about this, (questioning) seeking salvation for your souls.” Asking the priests not to complain if he had to embitter any of them with a word, assuring them that as before he had them as brothers and fathers, so he would continue to have them. And that if he forbade any of them to do anything, it was not with the intention of taking anything from anyone (that is, not with the intention of forcing the priests whom he forbade to pay off his wrath by giving him gifts or bribes), but merely guarding his own souls and theirs, so that what was not done in them according to rank. The archbishop concludes his teaching: “And forgive me, brethren, if I uttered a small word out of my weakness of mind, but you are well-versed, but you yourself know that I am not some (not God knows what) scribe; If I said something discordantly, don’t look at me; I have a poor husband, an ignoramus, and I don’t know how to do it, why should I? Yes, and I would have said something else to you, but it would be better to correct this small thing (that is, what I told you about), rather than put a lot (what else I could say) into oblivion (leave it unfulfilled") 1267. Selected news about the dioceses of the pre-Mongol period. The division of Russia into dioceses has a correlation and connection with its division into appanages. Therefore, it does not hurt the reader to somewhat remind himself of this last point. For the first time, Svyatoslav divided Russia into fiefs between his three sons. But his division following the imminent death of two sons who had no heirs left no appanage lines. After Svyatoslav, another time Vladimir divided Russia into fiefs between his 12 sons. From this division there was only one specific line left - Polotsk. Vladimir gave Polotsk to his eldest son from Rogneda, Princess of Polotsk, Izyaslav, who died during his father’s lifetime in 1001. and whose descendants, through this last circumstance, were deprived of the right to seniority in the clan and to occupy the grand-ducal throne by this right (princely outcasts). The descendants of Polotsk Izyaslav were called Vseslavichs after his warlike grandson. For the third and last time, Yaroslav divided Russia into fiefs, who left behind five sons, imprisoning them at his death: Izyaslav in the great reign, Svyatoslav in Chernigov, Vsevolod in Pereyaslavl, Igor in Vladimir Volynsky and Vyacheslav in Smolensk. Of these five, three specific lines came from the first three - the Izyaslavichs, Svyatoslavichs and Vsevolodovichs, and as for the last two, the fifth, Vyacheslav, had only one son, and the fourth, Igor, had very few. In addition to his five sons, Yaroslav left his grandson Rostislav, who had not yet been endowed with an inheritance, the son of his eldest son, Vladimir of Novgorod, who died under him (1052). The children of this Rostislav, who received their inheritance under the third successor of Yaroslav on the grand-ducal throne - his son Vsevolod, formed another line of appanage princes - the Rostislavichs, outcast in relation to the grand-ducal throne, like Izyaslav of Polotsk. These five lines of appanage princes ruled Russia during the pre-Mongol period. The second Izyaslavichs, the grandchildren of Yaroslav, had as their inheritance the Turov region, in which Izyaslav reigned during the life of Yaroslav 1268 and which, no doubt, was given to him as family property for his great reign. The Svyatoslavichs, otherwise called the Olgovichi, had as their inheritance the Chernigov region, to which Murom and Ryazan, the land of the Vyatichi with the Radimichi and Tmutarakan belonged. The Vsevolodovichs, otherwise Monomakhovichs, had as their inheritance Pereyaslavl, to which Rostov, Belozerie and Suzdal belonged. In addition, their family inherited the Vladimir-Volynsky and Smolensky inheritances. The so-called Chervonnaya Rus or Galicia was given to the Rostislavichs as their inheritance, having been separated from Volyn. Thus, in the pre-Mongol period there were five specific princely lines and seven appanages. Four lines each owned one appanage, and the fifth, the Vsevolodovichs or Monomakhovichs, owned three appanages. Each appanage, representing a special whole, was subdivided into a greater or lesser number of side or separate appanages, and the Suzdal or Vladimir appanage, which separated from Pereyaslavl at the beginning of the 12th century, took a place between the main or main appanages, so that these latter along with it should be counted as eight. Here is a list of lots with lines shown: 1. Polotsk inheritance. Princely line - Izyaslavichs first: Izyaslav Vladimirovich † 1001, Bryachislav Izyaslavich † 1044, Vseslav Bryachislavich † 1101, according to which Vseslavichs, etc. 2. Turovsky inheritance. The second Izyaslavichs: Izyaslav Yaroslavich † 1078, Svyatopolk Izyaslavich † 1113, according to which Svyatopolkovichs, etc. 3. Chernigovsky inheritance. Svyatoslavichs: Svyatoslav Yaroslavich † 1076, Oleg † 1115 and Yaroslav † 1129 Svyatoslavichs, of which from the first there is the Chernigov line (with its divisions), and the entire clan is the Olgovichi, from the second line is the Murom-Ryazan line. Udelas (Vsevolodovichi or Monomakhovichi): 5. Suzdal, separated from him, Vsevolod Yaroslavich † 1093, who received the Pereyaslavsky inheritance from his father and then acquired the Smolensky inheritance (until 1078, Laurentian Chronicle under this year), Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh † 1125, from whom the entire family became the Monomakhovichs, in 1119. acquired the inheritance of Vladimir-Volynsky, Mstislav the Great † 1132 and Yuri Dolgoruky † 1157 Vladimirovich, etc. Pereyaslavl did not establish its own special line, and it was the common property of the family. Then the lines - Vladimir-Volynskaya and Smolenskaya from two sons of Mstislav the Great: the first Izyaslav, the second Rostislav; Suzdal line from Yuri Dolgoruky. 8. Galitsky inheritance. Rostislavichs: Vladimir Yaroslavich of Novgorod † 1052, Rostislav Vladimirovich † 1066, so to speak - landless (from 1064 Tmutarakansky), Rurik, Vladimir and Vasilko Rostislavich Galitsky, etc. How many dioceses were opened in our country during the first introduction of the church government of St. Vladimir, remains positively unknown, but in all likelihood we must assume there are eight of them, besides the metropolis itself; namely, undoubtedly, five dioceses were opened: Three dioceses should be considered probably open: After Vladimir until the Mongol invasion, new dioceses were gradually opened: 10. Yuryevskaya under Yaroslav, 11. Smolenskaya in 1137, 12. Galich until 1165, 13. Ryazan until 1207, 14. Vladimir-Klyazemskaya in 1214, 15. Przemysl in 1220 or before this year, 16. Ugrovskaya - shortly before the Mongol invasion. We spoke in detail about the metropolitanate itself above, and therefore we turn directly to the bishoprics. (Regarding the lists of bishops of each diocese, which we offer below, we proceed in such a way that in the text we place bishops whose records are read in chronicles and in other sources more or less reliable, and in the notes we place bishops known from later catalogs and from other later sources or directly unreliable or unreliable. We do not quote the Laurentian and Ipatian Chronicles, 1269 and what we find besides we directly indicate them in the newest chronicles. We indicate the latest catalogs according to the History of the Hierarchy, in which about all the dioceses in 1 part and which therefore we mean only pages, assuming the now named part 1270 to be implied. Chernigov, located on the Desna, 120 versts northeast of Kyiv, the main city of the Severyansky or Seversky tribe, is one of the most ancient or original cities of Rus', being between them in the south, if not the oldest in time, then the oldest in degree after Kyiv 1271. Under Vladimir, he belonged to the great reign; after his death, first the same, and then from 1026 to 1036 it was the capital of his son Mstislav of Tmutarakan, to whom Yaroslav had to cede Rus' on this side of the Dnieper; the latter, during his division of the state into appanages, gave it to his second son Svyatoslav, whose tribe he remained with. The currently known bishops of Chernigov are: 1. Neophyte, the very first, delivered by Vladimir 1272, 2. Neophyte 2, mentioned under 1072. 1273, 3. John 1274, installed unknown when before 1037, lay ill for 25 years and died on March 23, 1112, 4. Theoktist, successor of John, from the abbots of Pechersk, installed on January 11 or 12, 1113, died on August 6, 1123, 5. Panteleimon, † 1142 1275. 6. Onuphrius, the successor of the previous one, was installed in 1143, mentioned in 1146. and 1147, who was in the case of the installation of metropolitan, after the removal of Michael, at the head of the anti-Greek party, 7. Anthony, a Greek by birth, was mentioned in 1159. and presented as an intriguer 1276, removed from the department in 1168. 1277 8. Porfiry, mentioned in 1187, is almost also a Greek, who distinguished himself by the fact that in one embassy, ruled on behalf of the princes, he behaved “not like a saint, but like a swindler and a lie,” 9. Porfiry 2, mentioned from 1230; in 1239, when the Tatars took and plundered Chernigov, somehow managed to gain their greater or lesser favor and was released alive to Glukhov 1278. The diocese of Chernigov, before the opening of the diocese of Ryazan, embraced the entire appanage principality of Chernigov as a special whole, i.e. the regions of Chernigov proper, Ryazan and Murom and the land of Vyatichi and Radimichi. The Chernigov region itself embraced the current Chernigov province and at least half of the current Kursk province (including the city of Kursk); the Murom-Ryazan region consisted of the south-eastern corner of the Vladimir province, the Ryazan province and a significant part of the Tula, Voronezh and Tambov provinces; the land of the Vyatichi and Radimichi - the eastern part of the Mogilev province and most of the Kaluga and Oryol provinces 1279. The cathedral of the Chernigov bishops was the Church of the Transfiguration of the Lord or Spassky, which under Vladimir was wooden, and then stone - started by Mstislav Vladimirovich († 1030), and finished by Svyatoslav Yaroslavich († 1076). Belgorod, - currently the town of Belgorodka, located 23½ versts southwest of Kyiv, on the river. Irpen, and constituting the first station on the postal road to Zhitomir. Either he himself constituted or it housed one of the main estates of Vladimir, for before the adoption of Christianity, according to the chronicler, he had a significant part of his numerous concubines placed here (300 out of 800). In the third year after the campaign near Korsun (991), very likely - at the same time or just before installing a bishop, Vladimir founded a real city or fortress in Belgorod and significantly increased its population by withdrawing from other places, “bebo, says the chronicler, loving the city.” Subsequently, however, it was called a “small city” 1280. Belgorod actually belonged to the great reign, but in 1117. Vladimir Monomakh placed his eldest son Mstislav in it, wanting to have a reliable assistant in him, which other great princes probably did. From the second half of the 12th century, Belgorod constantly had its own special princes, but along one of the established lines, and variable ones, mostly from the Smolensk and Suzdal Monomakhovichs (all of them Rurik Rostislavich of Smolensk with his son Rostislav, 1174–1205). Since under Vladimir Belgorod did not have any significance in any respect, it is obvious that the episcopal see was established in it not for some local need, but for other reasons. For these reasons, it can be assumed, firstly, that, having appointed Pereyaslavl, rather than Kyiv, as the metropolitan’s throne city, Vladimir wanted to have in the Bishop of Belgorod a bishop who could, at the right times, perform bishop’s services in Kyiv. And in general, for him, the Grand Duke, he would have been a bishop, so to speak, a courtier, episcopus curialis, which other sovereigns also had. Secondly, to give the metropolitan a sort of vicar and assistant. Currently known bishops of Belgorod: 1. Nikita, the very first, staged by Vladimir 1281, 2. Stephen mentioned in 1072. 1282 3. Luke, mentioned under 1089, 4. Nikita 2, delivered in 1113. and mentioned under 1115, 5. Theodore, mentioned under 1147. and 1148, 6. Maximus, mentioned in 1187 and died in 1190, 7. Adrian, successor of Maxim, from the Vydubitsky abbots, installed in the same 1190. and mentioned in 1197. 1283 Under the last year, the Hypatan Chronicle, to put it somewhat incomprehensibly, calls Adrian either the bishop of Belgorod or Yuryev, which should probably be understood to mean that he was temporarily in charge of both dioceses. The last known mention of the Belgorod diocese dates back to 1231. It ceased to exist, no doubt, during the Mongol invasion. Whether the diocese of Belgorod consisted of only Belgorod with its very small district or whether something else belonged to it remains unknown to us. [From “Addition and Amendment”: On the assumption that St. Vladimir appointed the Drevlyansk region in the diocese to the Bishop of Belgorod (which embraced the eastern half of the current Volyn province along the Goryn River in the west and the southern part of the current Minsk province along the Pripyat River in the north), see above: “When the same Nikon Chronicle and Degree Book report that a number of Bulgarian and Pecheneg princes (first – I, 95 and 103 second – I, 149)..."] The Cathedral Church of the Bishops of Belgorod was in the name of the Holy Apostles. Until 1197, it was wooden, and in this last year, in place of the wooden one, Prince Rurik Rostislavich created a stone one, about which the chronicler says that it was wonderfully enriched with height and majesty and other decorations 1284. 3. Diocese of Vladimir-Volyn. Vladimir Volynsky, located on the westernmost border of the current Volyn province, on the border with ancient northern Galicia, which now makes up the Lublin province of the former kingdom of Poland (on the river or small river Luga, flowing from the right into the Western Bug). As it is necessary to conclude from the name, either St. was completely re-founded, or at least raised from a village to a city. Vladimir. During Vladimir’s life, the appanage principality of Vladimir-Volyn consisted of - firstly, its own region of Volyn without Drevlyanskaya, which had its own special prince. Secondly, the now mentioned ancient Galicia or Red Rus. After the death of Vladimir (and after him Svyatoslav Drevlyansky, killed by Svyatopolk) it was constituted until 1084–1086. the Volyn-Derevlyan region with Chervonnaya Rus, and since the mentioned year one is the first, for Chervonnaya Rus has formed a special inheritance from itself. In 1199 Volyn and Chervonnaya Rus united again, but in such a way that not the latter began to belong to the former, but vice versa (the Principality of Galicia). Vladimir gave the Volyn inheritance to his son Vsevolod, Yaroslav - to his son Igor. When the last one in 1057 was transferred to Smolensk to replace his deceased brother Vyacheslav, the Volyn inheritance fluctuated for 60 years between the family of Izyaslav Yaroslavich (son Yaropolk and grandson Mstislav Svyatopolkovich) and Igor’s son David. In 1119 Vladimir Monomakh annexed the Volynsky inheritance to the possessions of his family, and the line of his grandson Izyaslav Mstislavich was established in it. In 1199 The Volyn prince Roman Mstislavich took possession of Galicia and, moving from the table of Volyn to Galician (and leaving his brother Vasilko in Vladimir, † 1269), laid the foundation for the famous, for a very short time, however, the Galician principality and kingdom. According to the testimony of a local chronicler, at the beginning of the 13th century, Vladimir was such a beautiful city for its time that foreigners marveled at it, saying: “such a city has not been invented in any German countries” 1285. The same chronicler makes it known about the significant industry and trade of Vladimir when he says that over the deceased Prince Vladimir Vasilkovich († 1288, son of the above-mentioned) “the whole multitude of Volodymerians wept - husbands and wives and children, Nemtsi and Surozhtse and Novgorodtsi and Zhidov” 1286. Of the bishops of Vladimir-Volyn, the following are currently known: 1. Stephen 1, the very first bishop installed by Vladimir 1287, 2. Stephen 2, tonsure of the Pechersk Monastery, first a domestic or ecclesiarch in it, and then the successor of St. Theodosius as abbess, soon expelled from the latter position by the brethren for unknown reasons, was appointed bishop sometime before 1091. and died April 27, 1094; 3. Amphilochius, installed on August 27, 1105, died in 1122; 4. Simeon, successor of Amphilochius, installed in 1123, died in 1136. 1288; 5. Theodore the eunuch, successor of Simeon, installed in 1137, mentioned under 1147; bishops who were under Danil (1205–1264) and Vasilka Romanovich, called by the chronicler without indicating the years: Joasaph 1289 and Vasily - both of the tonsures of the Holy Mountain monastery located near Vladimir, Nikifor Stanilo, formerly a former servant (boyar) of Vasilka, and Kosma 1290. The Cathedral of the Bishops of Vladimir was the Church of St. Mother of God, which before Mstislav Izyaslavich was probably wooden, but the latter built a stone one in 1291. About the decoration of the new church by its builder, the Nikon Chronicle writes under 1160: “that same summer, Prince Mstislav Izyaslavich signed the holy church in Volodymyr of Volyn and decorated it wonderfully with holy and precious icons and books and things and many wonderful and sacred gold vessels and with beads and precious stones” 1292. A number of Novgorod bishops are known in sequential order, starting from the very beginning, for the Novgorodians, who kept their own chronicles, unforgettably noted the change of their rulers in these last 1293. However, one cannot vouch for the chronological accuracy of ancient times. 1. Joachim of Korsun, the first appointed under Vladimir, baptized the Novgorodians and ruled for a very long time - for 40 years, until 1030. In the cathedral churches for his pulpit, he built the wooden church of St. Sophia with 13 tops, which, having been honestly built and decorated, stood not in the place where the stone one was built later, but “the end of the episcopal street above the river above Volkhov,” where after Sotka Sytinich the Church of Boris and Gleb was built, and which burned down in 1045. In one Novgorod chronicle of 1294 it is read that Joachim appointed his disciple Ephraim as his successor, but that this Ephraim, having been in charge of the diocese for 5 years after the death of Joachim, was not awarded the certificate. 2. Luka Zhidyata or Zhiryata, considered, however, rightly, among all Russian bishops the first of the natural Russians. It was installed by Yaroslav, having been brought from Kyiv or taken from natural Novgorodians, in 1036 (-4). In 1045. together with the Novgorod prince Vladimir, son of Yaroslav, he laid a wooden St. in place of the burnt one. Sophia stone, still existing, which was completed and consecrated in 1052. In 1055, after slandering his servant Dudik in inappropriate speeches, he was called to Kyiv for trial by Metropolitan Ephraim, by whom he was convicted and kept in prison in Kyiv for three years, after which the acquitted returned to the see. Died after a 23-year reign on October 15, 1059 (-60). 3. Stefan, installed in 1061 (-60), ruled for 8 years and died in Kyiv in 1068, namely, strangled by his slaves. 4. Theodore, installed in 1069, ruled for 9 years and died in 1077: “his dog died and died as a result.” At the same time, a sorcerer appeared to Theodore in Novgorod, who attracted to his side all the inhabitants who wanted to kill him - the bishop, and from whose hands he was delivered by the courage and resourcefulness of the then Novgorod prince Gleb Svyatoslavich. 5. Herman of the Pechersk monks 1295, installed in 1078. and, after a reign of 18 years, died in 1096 (-95). 6. Nikita from the ascetics of Pechersk, installed in the same 1096. 1296, after a 13-year reign, died on January 30, 1108. (For his exploits and the temptation that happened to him in the Pechersk Monastery, see the Pechersk Patericon, Polycarp story 1). 7. John Popin, that is, from the white priests 1297, installed in 1110. (arrived in Novgorod from delivery on December 20); after a 20-year reign, he renounced the bishopric in 1129 (-30). 1298. 8. Niphon, one of the Pechersk monks, appointed in 1129, arrived at the department on January 1, 1180. In 1134 Metropolitan Mikhail came to Novgorod, probably at the request of Nifont and, probably, to calm the local unrest. Next year 1135 Nifont himself went to Rus' - to Kyiv to reconcile the Kyivans with the Chernigovites. In 1137 he did not allow his priests to officiate at the illegal, in his opinion, marriage of the Novgorod prince Svyatoslav Olgovich. In 1141 went to Kyiv with the people who were molded by the new Novgorod prince and here, having attracted the wrath of the Grand Duke on himself with the other ambassadors, he sat in prison for 9 months. In 1144 I honestly covered all the porches in St. Sofia. In 1145, he did not order singing over two drowned (probably drunk) priests. In 1147 went “sharing the world” to Suzdal to see Yuri Dolgoruky and was received from him with great honor, having completely achieved the goal of the trip. From the same 1147 took a very active part in the case of Metropolitan Clement, whom he was an opponent of in 1299. In 1149, Metropolitan Clement and Grand Duke Izyaslav Mstislavich imprisoned him in the Pechersk Monastery, where he remained, we don’t know how long, less than a year, until the seizure of Kyiv from Izyaslav by Yuri Dolgoruky (in the same 1149). In 1151 “beat St. Sophia with lead all the way, with the lime all around.” In 1154 he went to Yuri to ask his son Mstislav to become prince of Novgorod. He died after a 26-year reign on April 21, 1156 in Kyiv, where he went to meet the new metropolitan coming from Constantinople. He was buried in Kyiv in the Pechersk Monastery, where his relics are still located in the Antoniev or nearby caves. In the chronicler’s entry about the death of Nifont it reads: “In the same (indicated) spring, Archbishop (sic) Nifont reposed on April 21, going to Kyiv against (meeting) the metropolitan, and in many words, as if he had received St. Sophia (that is, having robbed her treasury) went to the Tsar-city, and I said a lot about her, and to my own sin, by this I would like to understand to each of us: which bishop decorated Saint Sophia in this way? The porches are made, the ark is built and the whole inside is decorated, and in Plskov the church of St. Savior is built in Kamyanu (Mirozhsky Monastery), another in Ladoz of St. Clement (in 1153); I remember that God, because of our sin, did not want to give us some of it for our joy, but he took away V17; Kiev and there I died.” 9 . Arkady, starting a series of Novgorod bishops from natural Novgorodians, who were elected and appointed by the citizens themselves. He was chosen by the entire population of the city gathered at the veche from among the abbots of the monastery of St. Virgin Mary (Arkazha) in the same 1156. Without ordination he was in charge of the bishop in the courtyard of St. Sofia until 1158 1300 ; dedicated in this last year, reigned for another 6 years and died on September 18, 1163. 1301. 10. Elijah, taken from the priests of the Novgorod Church of St. Vlasiya on Volosovaya Street, dedicated on March 28, 1165. and after a reign of 21 years, died on September 7, 1186. In the very year of his dedication, he received the rank of archbishop from Metropolitan John of Kyiv. In 1169 There was an invasion of Novgorod by the Suzdalians under this bishop, on the occasion of which the Feast of the Sign was established (more about it below). In the area of ​​legend, he is famous for his journey on a demon to Jerusalem. Before his death (but not before his ordination), he took monastic vows with the name John. 11. Gabriel, Elijah's brother, was elected in the same 1186, installed on March 29, 1187, ruled for 8 years and died on May 7, 1193, before his death he also became a monk with the name Gregory. 12. Martyrius. About his election, accomplished in the same year 1193 by drawing lots, the Novgorod Chronicle reads: “The people of Novgorod with Prince Yaroslav and the abbots and Sophiana and the priests of Gadash among themselves (about a successor to Gabriel) - this was the desire to appoint Mitrofan, and the other Marturia, and the friends of Grichin, and there was discord in them; and casting three lots at the holy table and sending away from the evening the blind man, whom God would give us, and bearing Marturius with God’s grace” 1302. He was brought from Rusa, where he was the abbot of the monastery he himself founded. Installed on December 16 of the same year, 1193, he was at the department for 6 years and died on August 24, 1199. 13. Mitrofan, probably the one mentioned above, was not elected by the Novgorodians themselves, but was appointed Grand Duke Vsevolod Yuryevich in the same year 1199 and after a 10-year reign, he was removed from the throne in 1211, about which the chronicle reads: “that same summer for the winter, the month of Genvar in the 22nd of St. Clement, a villain at first, not though good, people put envy on Archbishop Mitrofan and Prince Mstislav and did not allow him to rule and lead V17; to Toropets." 14. Anthony, a monk of the Khutyn Monastery, in the world Dobrynya Yadreikovich, who went to Constantinople, where he was in 1200, brought from it the “Holy Sepulcher” (a model of the Holy Sepulcher or, perhaps, the so-called shroud) and wrote the Constantinople Pilgrim. Elected in the same 1211 and, after an 8-year reign, in 1219 replaced again by Mitrofan (from Novgorod, Anthony retired to the metropolitan, from whom he received the bishopric of Przemysl). 15. Mitrofan, for the second time, within 4 years, died on July 3, 1223. 16. Arseny, the monk of Khutyn, a kind man and a great fearer of God, elected on the very day of Mitrofan’s death, but after a 2-year reign without consecration in 1225, he gave way again to Anthony (who returned from Przemysl). 17. Anthony, for the second time in the course of three years until 1228, when the sick and numb descended to Khutyn of his own free will. 18. Arseny Chernets for the second time did not last for a long time, he was driven away in the same 1228 with great dishonor and was the cause, it is not clear why, of popular civil strife. From the chronicler we read: “Then the accursed devil, from the beginning unwillingly good to the human race, moved against Arseny, a meek and humble husband, a great sedition - a simple child, and held a meeting in the Yaroslavl courtyard and went to the lord’s courtyard, saying: dividing the heat for a long time, sent Vladyka Anthony out to Khutino, and he sat down, giving a bribe to the prince, and like a villain kicked out by the collar (sic), God saved him from death - shut himself up in the Church of St. Sophia (and) go to Khutino,” then a popular riot is described, in which the houses of some city and archiepiscopal officials were looted, accused of “leading the prince to evil” (After Arseny was abbot in Khutyn and in the Yuryev Monastery). 19. Anthony, for the third time, brought from Khutyn the day after the expulsion of Arseny and ruled with the help of two husbands imprisoned with him. He did not live long, until the next 1229, after which he died in retirement in 1232, suffering from illness and numbness for six and a half years. 20. Spiridon, from the hierodeacons of the Yuryev Monastery. Like Martyrius and for the same reason, he was elected by lot in the same year 1229 (three lots were laid at the holy meal and one of them was taken out by Prince Rostislav, the son of the then Novgorod prince Mikhail of Chernigov, sent from the mistress of Gridnitsa). Consecrated archbishop in 1230 (March 4), sat on the throne for 20 years and died in 1249. The Novgorod diocese, which embraced the entire land and all the Novgorod possessions, was relatively the most extensive diocese of the pre-Mongol period and, without regard to this, an extremely extensive diocese. The state of Veliky Novgorod consisted of: firstly, the region or volost of Novgorod in the proper and narrowest sense, and secondly, external possessions or, so to speak, colonies. The Novgorod region itself embraced about two-thirds of the current Novgorod province without the northeastern third of Belozersk, then some part of the Tver province, inaccessible to Bezhetsk, Torzhok and Ostashkov, a significant part of the Pskov province (the current districts of Porkhov, Novorzhevsky and Veliko-Lutsk), the entire St. Petersburg province, part Finland at 47 longitude, and up to 64 degrees of latitude, about two-thirds of the Petrozavodsk province at approximately 55 degrees of longitude in the east and that northern part of the Arkhangelsk province to the sea, which is in the north opposite the mentioned part of the Petrozavodsk province. The external possessions or colonies of the Novgorodians were: firstly, those closest to Novgorod: Volok Lamsky (Volokolamsk), Torzhok, Bezhichi or present-day Bezhetsk and Vologda with their larger or smaller volosts; secondly, the most distant: the region of Tre or Ter, which means Kola Lapland 1303, Dvina Zavolochye from Onega to the northern Dvina and from the latter to the Mezen, Perm, which consisted of two halves - the western or land of Zyryansk (in the current Vologda province) and eastern or Perm in the closest sense of the word (the current Perm province), Pechora from Mezen to Pechora and Yugra on the other side of the Urals in Siberia. However, the extraordinary land expanse of the Novgorod diocese does not at all mean the same large number of the flock of Novgorod bishops; on the contrary, in terms of the number of Christian souls, the diocese probably belonged to the very last, among the large dioceses, for the population of the immensely vast Novgorod possessions was for the most part foreign and pagan. Pskov and its region belonged to the Novgorod diocese. The latter was very insignificant and much smaller than the current province of Pskov, namely, it was a strip on both banks of the Velikaya River, on the eastern side of the river as wide as it is currently wide to the west of the provinces of Livonia and Vitebsk (Kholmsky district belonged to the Suzdal-Vladimir region, and Toropetsky to the Smolensk region). About the Cathedral Church of the Bishops of Novgorod St. We will talk about Sophia in detail below, in the chapter on worship, in the section on church architecture. We spoke above about the establishment of the Rostov diocese and its first four bishops: Theodore, Hilarion, Leontius and Isaiah. Of the successors of Isaiah the following are known: 5. Ephraim, from the Pechersk monks, who was under Vladimir Monomakh 1304 and, in all likelihood, the immediate successor of Isaiah; 6. Nestor, mentioned in 1149. 1305, in 1156 slandered before the Metropolitan by his family and subject to prohibition in 1306, in 1157. justified before the metropolitan, but in the same year expelled from the pulpit by Andrei Bogolyubsky due to disputes about fasting on Wednesday and Friday 1307; 7. Leon or Leonty, successor of Nestor, who came to his place in 1158. 1308, next 1159 driven out by the Rostov and Suzdal residents, “he increased the number of churches, rob the priests”; It is unknown when he returned to the department, in 1162. again driven away by Bogolyubsky for unknown reasons; he was then returned to Rostov alone without Suzdal, driven out for the third time due to disputes about fasting on Wednesday and Friday; 8. Theodore or Fedorets, deprived of the throne and executed in 1170. 1309 - the one we discussed in more detail above; 9 . Leon, died in 1183. or before this year 1310 may again be the same as above 1311; 10. Nikolai the Greek, who was appointed metropolitan, but was not accepted by the Grand Duke and was first transferred to Polotsk in 1312; 11. Luke from the abbots of the Kyiv Spaso-Berestovsky Monastery, installed in 1185. (March 11) and died in 1189. (November 10), according to the chronicler, “humble in spirit and meek”; 12. John, Luke's successor, who was the confessor of Grand Duke Vsevolod Yuryevich before his appointment, installed in 1190. (January 23) and signed up for the bishopric in 1214, after which he took monastic vows in the Bogolyubov monastery 1313; 13. Pachomius, successor of Luke, from the abbot of the Rostov monastery of St. Petra; former confessor of the Rostov prince Konstantin Vsevolodovich, installed in the same 1214. and who died in 1216, highly praised by the chronicler as a true shepherd, and not a mercenary, distinguished by his lack of covetousness, caring for orphans and widows, meekness towards everyone and full of book teaching; 14. Kirill 1, from the monks of the Suzdal Monastery of St. Demetrius, installed in the same 1216, left the bishopric and then was deprived of all his, very large, estate in 1229 - we talked about him above; 15. Kirill 2, from the abbot of the Vladimir Nativity Monastery, elected in 1229, installed in 1231. and ruled the diocese for 30 years, until 1262. († May 21); is depicted by the chronicler as a famous shepherd of his time, who left nothing behind the previous Rostov bishops, very teaching, who gathered not only the inhabitants of Rostov, but also from the surrounding cities to listen to his teachings from the holy books in his cathedral church, and who decorated the said church with valuable icons, their relics cannot be said, kivots, vessels, ripids and a variety of all kinds of ornaments (we will talk about this in more detail elsewhere 1314. The Rostov diocese embraced the Rostov region proper with the Beloozersk region connected to it and the Suzdal region (the latter before the opening of the Vladimir diocese). By the name of the second region, the bishops of Rostov are sometimes called Suzdal, and by the name of the city of Vladimir, which since the time of Andrei Bogolyubsky became the capital of the great princes and in which the bishops of Rostov often visited and lived with the latter, they are also called Vladimir. The Rostov region itself embraced approximately the current Yaroslavl province, and as for Beloozerye, its limits cannot be determined with accuracy: To the north of the current Yaroslavl province it extended no less than the cities of Kargopol and Ustyug inclusive, and from west to east it stretched no less than from one city to another 1315, but with the exception of Vologda, which with its own volost, as we said now above, belonged to Novgorod. We will talk about the Suzdal region below in the Suzdal diocese. The cathedral of the bishops of Rostov was the Church of the Assumption of the Mother of God, which was built several times. It was first built from wood by the first Bishop of Rostov, Theodore. This wooden church, which the chronicler calls a wondrous and great church, as it never was or will be, stood until 1160, when it burned down. The second church, a stone one, was founded by the Rostovites in 1164. and existed for a very short time - until 1211, when in a fire it was burned and fell. The third church was founded by the Rostov prince Konstantin Vsevolodovich in 1213. Turov, currently a town in the Minsk province, Mozyr district, located on the Pripyat River, half the distance between the cities of Mozyr and Pinsk. The Principality of Turov is the region of the prehistoric Dryagovichi or Bolotniki. According to the chronicle, the city of Turov and the principality were founded by the Varyag Tura or Tur, who, during the reign of Svyatoslav or Olga after Igor, came from overseas together with another Varyag Rogvold, who founded the principality of Polotsk in 1316. Vladimir gave Turov as an inheritance to his eldest son Svyatopolk, and Yaroslav also to his eldest son Izyaslav. Turov remained in the family of the latter, but was often taken away by third-party princes (among the strangers, the Monomakhovichs owned it for a particularly long time). Currently known bishops of Turov: 4. George, mentioned in one of the stories about the miracles of Boris and Gleb, as having passed each other 1317; Of these, it is known about Joachim from the chronicle that he was installed in 1144. and was demoted forever or temporarily due to a change of princes in 1146 - this approximately determines the life time of the rest. Then, 5. St. Kirill, the famous preacher, it is unknown from when, and for what time, and 6. Lawrence of the Pechersk monks, mentioned in 1182. 1318. The Diocese of Turov embraced the Principality of Turov; but the limits of this latter cannot be determined with particular precision. To Turov belonged Pinsk, Berestie - present-day Brest-Litovsk, Slutsk Klechesk - now Kletsk, a town or village in the Minsk province near the border with Grodno to the west-northwest of Slutsk. Consequently, the Principality of Turov embraced the southern large half of the current Minsk province and the southern part of the Grodno province (and, probably, some northern part and the Volyn province: Turov “Pogorina” - the region along the Goryn River). The Turov Izyaslavichs, who played a very insignificant role among the princes, despite their seniority, do not seem to have particularly cared about the church beautification of their ancestral capital city. There is absolutely no mention in the chronicles of either the cathedral church of the bishops of Turov, or generally of any church in Turov 1319. In the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon, edited by Pechersk Archimandrite Joseph Trizna (1647–1656, see Undolsky’s article: “Joseph Trizna, editor of the Pechersk Patericon”), but in the manuscript of the Trinity Lavra Library No. 714, is placed under the title: “On the establishment of the Turov bishopric,” as if given to the bishopric of St. Vladimir charter (l. 73–74). About the time of the establishment of the bishopric, its first bishop and its boundaries, the charter says: “the third (after which the third, it is not said) erected a holy bishopric in Turov in the summer of 6513 (sic) and added to it the cities from the graveyards in obedience and sacredness and blessing to keep the Turov bishopric: Pinsk, Novgorod, Goroden, Berestye, Volkovsk, Zditov, Neblestepas, Dubrovitsa, Vysochko, Sluchesk, Kopys, Lyakhov, Gorodok, Smedyan, and we installed Thomas as the first bishop, and added villages, grapes, border lands, volosts with all appendages... to the Holy Savior and the Holy Mother of God.” The Polotsk residents or Polotsk Krivichi were, according to the chronicle, among those who called upon Rurik, who installed his husband or mayor in Polotsk. Under Svyatoslav or Olga, as we said above, Varyag Rogvold, who came from across the sea, founded a special principality in Polotsk. But Vladimir, having married in 978. on his daughter Rogneda, and by killing himself, he again annexed his possessions to the rest of Rus'. When he divided the latter into appanages, he gave Polotsk to the eldest son from Rogneda - Izyaslav. The descendants of this Izyaslav, due to the fact that he died before his father (1001), lost the right to participate in the grand-ducal throne and were, as it were, separated and dropped out of the family, and were the princes of Polotsk (after Izyaslav’s famous grandson Vseslav-Vseslavich), becoming famous mainly for their enmity towards the Yaroslav family and their restless characters. From the end of the 12th century, the neighboring Lithuanians from the west began to conquer the principality, and in the middle of the 13th century (between 1239 and 1262, cfr Solovyov vol. III, 4th edition p. 216 fin.) it completely ceased to exist, having been conquered mainly by these Lithuanians, and partly by the Sword Bearers who appeared at the mouth of the Western Dvina. Currently known bishops of Polotsk: 1. Mina, one of the Kiev-Pechersk monks, installed on December 13, 1104, died on June 20, 1116, 2. Elijah, mentioned before 1128 1320, 3. Kozma, installed in 1143, 4. Dionysius, installed before 1169. 1321 and died in 1183, 5. Nikolai the Greek, first appointed by Metropolitan Nikifor to Rostov, but not accepted there by Grand Duke Vsevolod Yuryevich and transferred by the Metropolitan to Polotsk to replace Dionysius, 6. Not named, mentioned under 1218 - in all likelihood the same Nicholas 1322, 7. Alexey, mentioned under 1231. The Principality of Polotsk embraced the present-day Vitebsk province, the northern half of the Minsk province inclusive of the city of Minsk, very likely the trans-Dnieper part of the Mogilev province and, perhaps, some small part of the Vilna province. The cathedral of the bishops of Polotsk was the Church of St. Sophia 1323, about which in the Tale of Igor’s Host it is read: “in Polotsk I rang the morning bells early at St. Sophia’s” 1324. 8. Diocese of Tmutarakan. The Principality of Tmutarakan, which is not up to us to explain the very obscure question of its beginning, was located on the Taman Peninsula, separating, together with the opposite Kerch Peninsula of Crimea, the Sea of ​​Azov from the Black Sea. Vladimir gave it as an inheritance to his son Mstislav, who in 1024. captured half of Rus' along the Dnieper and moved to Chernigov, and in 1036. died without heirs and left all his possessions to Yaroslav. With the new division of Russia into appanages by these latter, Tmutarakan was annexed to the principality of Chernigov, which went to his second son Svyatoslav, who sent his son Gleb to sit in it. Gleb in 1064 Tmutarakan was taken away by Rostislav Vladimirovich, grandson of the Yaroslavs, from his eldest son, Vladimir of Novgorod, who died before him. After the death of Rostislav (1066), the princes of Chernigov again regained Tmutarakan, taking it away from the former’s young children, and Glebov’s brother, Roman, sat down to reign there. After the death of Svyatoslav (1076), when his sons were deprived of their inheritance, his other son Oleg also took refuge here. In 1079, when Roman was killed and Oleg was imprisoned in Greece, Grand Duke Vsevolod installed his mayor in Tmutarakan. In 1081 it was taken away from the latter by the grown children of Rostislav, and in 1083. It was taken from them by the aforementioned Oleg, who returned from captivity, and reigned there for 11 years until 1094, when he managed to regain Chernigov. This is where the history of the Tmutarakan principality of 1325 ends. Above, speaking about the spread of Christianity throughout Rus', we said nothing about this remote patch of Russian possessions for the simple reason that it is impossible to say anything. If the population of the principality consisted, as is most likely to be assumed, of the remnants of those Taurian Russes that we spoke about above, then it would be necessary to think that they had Christianity even before Vladimir, remaining from the Christianity implanted under Emperor Michael III and Patriarch Photius, which we spoke about there. If this population consisted of Caucasian foreigners, having the Russians who came from Russia only as rulers and rulers, then it should be assumed that there was no rush to introduce it among them as between the same foreigners in internal Russia 1326. Regarding the beginning of the diocese of Tmutarakan, as we said above, we consider it most likely that it was not established by Vladimir or after him, but existed even before our baptism, representing the Russian bishopric that was established at Russy Tauride by Patriarch Photius and Emperor Michael. If we assimilate its discovery to our princes after our baptism, then it will most likely be attributed to Vladimir, and, in any case, the only probable ones - either to him or his son Mstislav, for there does not seem to be the slightest probability to think this about any of the subsequent princes. Our information about the Tmutarakan bishopric is still very limited; read in the Patericon of Pechersk, they are that the monk of the Pechersk Monastery Nicholas, who labored under Abbot Nikon (1078–1088), was later Bishop of Tmutarakan 1327. Mstislav, who won the victory in 1022 with the invocation of the Mother of God. at the single combat of the Kasozh prince Rededyu, he built a stone church in honor of her in the city of Tmutarakan, at which, probably, there was a see of the Tmutarakan bishops in 1328. Now the aforementioned Nikon, abbot of Pechersk, before the abbot of St. Theodosius, temporarily retired from his monastery to the island of Tmutarakan, according to the testimony of Nestor in the life of St. Theodosius, built a monastery of St. Mother of God, which was a glorious monastery and formed the butt of the Pechersk monastery. The city of Tmutarakan was not located on the actual site of the present city of Taman, but near it (in its place there was a Turkish fortress, which also bore the name Taman and now lies in ruins). The region of Tmutarakan, Greek - Tamatarkha, according to Constantine Porphyrogenitus, was separated from neighboring Zikhia (Chikhia or Circassia, see Adelung in Review of Travelers in Russia No. 24, Giorgio Interniano after 1450) by the Ukrukh River (Οὐκρούχ, De administr. imp. 42, ed. Bonn. and the Ukrukh River is the current Kuban, see Dorna Caspian, p. 330 (the Ukrukh River, according to Konstantin Porphyrogenitus, was 18 or 20 miles from the city of Tamatarkha, and he believes 18 miles between the cities of Vospor or present-day Kerch and Tamatarkha or Taman - ibidd., which according to the measurement of Prince Gleb Svyatoslavich, made in 1068, equals 14,000 fathoms or 23 versts, see I. I. Sreznevsky Ancient monuments of Russian writing and language, p. 15, col. 1, and Paleography, p. 133). After our rule over Tmutarakan ended, our Russian bishops were replaced by Greek bishops (under Emperor Andronicus the Elder, 1283–1328, or before him, the diocese of Tmutarakan was united with Zikhia, - in Ralli and P. V, 494. See also Acta Patriarchat. Constantinop. Miklosic, searching by Index under the words Μάτραχα and Ζηκχία). A story about the inhabitants of Tmutarakan (Matrika) and their half-Christianity - half-paganism of the Hungarian monk Julian 1235–37. see in Notes of the Odessa Society of History and Antiquities, book. V, pp. 999, col. 1 (“All men, says Julian, shave their heads completely, and grow their beards with some panache, except for noble people, who, as a sign of nobility, leave a little hair above their left ear, shaving their entire head.” This reminds us of the words of Deacon Lev Kaloysky about Svyatoslav that “his head was completely naked, but only on one side of it hung a lock of hair, signifying the nobility of the family” (with shaved, however, and only a large mustache) - book IX, §11). 9. Diocese of Pereyaslavl. Pereyaslavl Russian or Kiev is one of our most ancient or original cities, among which in southern Rus' it occupied third place after Kyiv and second after Chernigov 1329. It is located on the local or Moscow side of the Dnieper, at a distance of 8 ½ versts from it, at the junction of the Alta and Trubezh rivers, 94 ½ versts southeast of Kiev, and is currently a district town of the Poltava province. At St. Vladimir Pereyaslavl was under the great reign, and Yaroslav gave it as an inheritance to his third and beloved son Vsevolod, in whose clan he constantly remained. We said above that during the reign of Vladimir and under Yaroslav before the construction of St. Sophia of Kyiv, Russian metropolitans stayed in Pereyaslavl. When they were transferred to Kyiv, in their place there were bishops in Pereyaslavl, who, or at least some of them, were also called metropolitans at first and who in southern Rus', as it seems, were the first in degree after the metropolitan (see, however, above). Of the bishops of Pereyaslavl the following are known: 1. Peter, mentioned under 1072, 2. Nicholas, from the monks of Pechersk, mentioned by Simon in a letter to Polycarp before the next Ephraim, 3. This Ephraim, a kazhenik or eunuch, also one of the monks of the Pechersk, before becoming a monk, was a boyar and the chief steward of the Grand Duke Izyaslav, who came one of the first to the Monk Anthony, went for some time to Constantinople, where he lived in one of the monasteries and from there was brought to the see of Pereyaslavl, installed and died unknown when, but mentioned under 1089 and under 1091 years. This particular Ephraim is called metropolitan among the bishops of Pereyaslavl. The Venerable Nestor, in the life of Theodosius, writes: “Efrem the prisoner went to Constantine City and lived there in a single monastery, after which he was brought to this country and was appointed metropolitan in the city of Pereyaslavl.” That Ephraim was not, however, a real metropolitan, but, being the bishop of Pereyaslavl, only bore the name of metropolitan, we spoke about this above. About the activities of this Ephraim in the chronicle under 1089. It is written: “This same year the Church of St. Michael (Pereyaslavl) was consecrated by Ephraim, the Metropolitan of that church, who created a great being, having previously been metropolitan in Pereyaslavl, and built a great structure, decorating it with all beauty, with church vessels. This Ephraim was eunuch, tall in body; then many buildings would move up: having finished the church of St. Michael, build a church on the city gate in the name of the holy martyr Fyodor, and put St. Andrew at the church gate and a bathhouse building (stone), this would not have happened before in Rus'; and the city laid stones from the church of the holy martyr Fyodor (and decorated the city of Pereyaslavl with church and other buildings).” The former boyar and chief housekeeper of the Grand Duke Ephraim could have been a rich man, hence his funds for the now mentioned buildings. With his great zeal for the benefit of society, Ephraim should have earned gratitude on the one hand, and glory on the other. It may very well be that for this reason, being the successor of the metropolitans locally, he enjoyed the honorary title of metropolitan. The structure of the Efremovo bathhouse perplexes researchers and forces them to make different assumptions. But there is no doubt that by bathhouse building we must mean just a bathhouse building or public bathhouses and nothing more. In Constantinople, where Ephraim lived for some time, public baths, as is known, were an extremely important part of public life and public comfort and were very numerous. Ephraim wanted to move these Constantinople baths to Russia. They are difficult because the bishop found it convenient to engage in such a matter as the construction of baths. But for that time there was nothing unnatural or strange in this. Since people must enter churches, especially to receive the sacrament of communion, in as much bodily purity as possible, Christians from very ancient times have developed a view of baths as something complementary to the church, as something additional to them. And for this reason, from very ancient times it became a custom to build baths next to churches, in church fences. Constantine the Great built baths at the famous Constantinople Church of St. apostles 1330 (which, starting with him, served as a tomb for emperors, i.e., which was the same as our Archangel Cathedral), and Emperor Theodosius the Great, in one of his decrees, classifies the baths located at churches, in their fences, as such church buildings to which the right of asylum applies 1331. Just as the now indicated view of the baths, the very baths at the churches continued to exist in Constantinople during the time of Ephraim in the 11th century. From this it is clear that he, the bishop, who built the baths, probably at his cathedral church, did a thing for his time that was not at all strange or reprehensible, but only famous 1332. After Ephraim: 4. Simeon, who was under Vladimir Monomakh 1333, 5. Lazarus, installed November 12, 1104, died September 16, 1117, 6. Sylvester, successor of Lazarus, installed on January 1, 1118, probably one of the abbots of Kiev-Mikhailovsky and the same one who owns the famous postscript in the chronicle under 1110, died on April 12, 1123; 7. Mark or Markell (in the Nikon Chronicle - Macarius), from the abbot of the Pereyaslav St. John Monastery, installed on October 4, 1125, died on January 6, 1134, 8. Euthymius, installed in 1141. 1334, mentioned under 1149, 9. Basil, installed in 1157, 1335 10. Paul, sent by Grand Duke Vsevolod from Vladimir in 1198, 11. Simeon, killed by the Tatars during the capture of Pereyaslavl in 1239. From the time of Yaroslav until the beginning of the 12th century, the Rostov-Suzdal region with Belozerye belonged to the Pereyaslav appanage, but the power of the Pereyaslav bishops did not extend to this area, for there under Vladimir, when Rostov was a special appanage, its own bishopric was established. It is not known from what time until the forties of the 12th century the Smolensk inheritance belonged to the diocese of Pereyaslavl, which we will discuss in more detail below under the diocese of Smolensk. The Pereyaslavl principality itself was very small. It consisted of the northwestern half of the current Poltava province, between the border of the Chernigov province and the Sula River. And beyond the latter there was an uninhabited steppe - in the pre-Mongol period, the Polovechskoe field was almost constantly clattering with weapons. The Cathedral of the Bishops of Pereyaslavl was the Church of the Archangel Michael. Originally, in all likelihood, it was made of wood; in 1089 Bishop Ephraim built it in stone and was magnificent for its time, as we have given evidence of above. In 1124, i.e., 35 years later, the Efremov church fell and in its place, unknown who built a new one, which was later destroyed by the Tatars in 1336 (the Mikhailovsky church as a city cathedral exists in Pereyaslavl to this day, but its current construction is from the end of the 17th century). Yuryev of Kiev, currently defunct, located on the Rosi River, which flows into the Dnieper from the right or Kyiv side a little below Kanev, was built by Yaroslav, probably in 1032. 1337. In 1095 it was burned out by the Polovtsians and its inhabitants who fled to Kyiv were settled in a new city - Svyatopolch, which was ordered to be built by the then Grand Duke Svyatopolk Izyaslavich on Vytichev or Vitichev hill, which is 60-1338 versts on the Dnieper below Kyiv, but in 1103. Yuryev was built again. It probably ended its existence during the Mongol invasion. Who exactly established the diocese of Yuryevsk before 1072, when its bishop was first mentioned, is absolutely unknown, but the most likely is that it was the builder of the city, Yaroslav himself. The reason for its establishment must be considered one of those reasons that forced Vladimir to establish the Belgorod diocese, namely, to give the metropolitan a vicar in it and, at the same time, separately, so that, by giving the metropolitan a second vicar in it, give him the opportunity to perform episcopal consecrations without calling on other bishops. Currently known bishops of Yuryev: 1. Michael, mentioned under 1072 and 1073, 2. Anthony, mentioned under 1089. 1339, 3. Marin, one of the Pechersk monks, mentioned in 1091. and 1095 1340, 4. Daniel, installed January 6, 1114, died September 9, 1121, 5. Demyan, mentioned under 1147 and 1154 (under the latter Kanevsky), 6. unknown by name, mentioned in 1184, 7. Hadrian, installed in 1190 to the bishops of Belgorod, and under 1197. called Belgorod and Yuryevsky, i.e. probably ruled the Yuryevskaya diocese temporarily, 8. Alexey, mentioned before 1225. 1341, 9 . unknown by name, mentioned in 1231 The diocese of Yuryev, no doubt, was very small and extended not so much to the north, where the diocese of the metropolitan or bishop of Belgorod himself should have been, but to the south, into the endless partes infidelium (countries of infidels) that then began almost immediately behind Yuryev. However, from the fact that one bishop of Yuryevsky is called Kanevsky (Demyan), it follows that to the north it extended at least inclusively along the city of Kanev. The Cathedral of the Bishops of Yuryev was the Church of St. George, of course, built by Yaroslav in honor of his angel, for in the Greek catalogs the diocese of Yuryevsk is called ὁ ἅ γιος Г εώργιος εἰς τὸν Ρῶσον ποταμόν, - saint George on the Rosi River (Rally and P, V, 486). Yaroslav, during his division of Russia into appanages, gave the Smolensk region to his fourth son Vyacheslav, after whose death in 1057. it was given to his brother Igor, transferred from Vladimir Volynsky. After the death of this latter in 1060, it was first divided by the three remaining Yaroslavichs (Pogodin, Ancient History I, 417), and then (no later than 1076) went to the youngest of them, Vsevolod of Pereyaslav, in whose family, having formed a special principality, it remained for the subsequent time (line - Rostislavich). We do not know which diocese the Smolensk region belonged to before it entered the Vsevolod family, but from that time on it began to belong to the Pereyaslav diocese. However, the princes of Smolensk soon had the idea of ​​​​establishing a special bishopric for themselves, and this is exactly what the second prince Mstislav Vladimirovich had. For some reason, not having time to implement it himself, he bequeathed it to his son Rostislav, who carried it out, on the advice of Metropolitan Michael, in 1137. 1342. The first bishop of Smolensk was Manuil Skopets, a Greek by birth, a “much singer”, who came from Greece third to Rostislav’s father Mstislav and who, having ruled for a very long time, died unknown when after 1168. In one Trebnik of the 16th century, which belonged to the Smolensk See, a number of Smolensk bishops after Manuel, in all likelihood complete and correct, are listed as follows: Constantine, Simeon, Ignatius, Lazarus, Athanasius, John, Dionysius... (and so on until the Χ 5th century) 1343. Of these, Constantine is mentioned in 1180, Simeon in 1197. 1344, Ignatius under 1206, Lazarus, as he was already retired, under 1225. 1345. The cathedral church of the bishops of Smolensk was the Church of the Assumption of the Mother of God, which in 1101. Vladimir Monomakh laid the stone stone. The ancient region of Smolensk was made up of the current province of Smolensk, with the annexation to it: from the province of Pskov, the district of Toropetsky, from the province of Tverskaya, the districts of Ostashkovsky and Rzhevsky, and from the province of Moscow, the district of Mozhaisk. Separated from the diocese of Vladimir-Volyn, for some time it embraced the whole region of Galicia, which we will therefore talk about. Currently, Galicia is the name given to that part of the possessions of the Austrian Empire bordering Russia, which it inherited from the former Kingdom of Poland during the divisions of the latter and whose current borders were determined at the Congress of Vienna in 1815. This Austrian Galicia does not exactly coincide in its borders with the ancient Russian region of the same name: On the one hand, it is smaller than it, because Austria does not own all of ancient Galicia, on the other hand, it is larger than it, because the current Austrian Galicia includes some part of its own Poland (Little Poland). The ancient Russian Galicia itself embraced - firstly, about four-fifths of the current Austrian Galicia, having in the west and north-west the border first from the Carpathians, the Wisłoka River (but not the Wisłoka) halfway down to the city of Brzostek, and then a line drawn from the Wisłoka to the San at the point where the latter for some time becomes the border of Austria from Russia 1346. Secondly, the south-eastern corner of our Kingdom of Poland, namely the eastern large half of the province of Lublin (along a line drawn from north to south almost past the city of Lublin itself, but without capturing it). Galicia, which the Russian inhabitants themselves call it not Galicia, but Galicia 1347, according to Safarik’s assumptions, the original home of the Slavs in Europe, before and at the beginning of our history was inhabited by tribes: Tivertsy on the Dniester 1348, Buzhany on the western Bug 1349, Duleby to the west of Buzhany 1350 and Croats and Serbs, - remnants of those Croats and Serbs who moved across the Danube to Illyricum, to the west and southwest of Tivertsi 1351. We don’t know whether Galicia before the beginning of our state was a united whole. More likely, no, but be that as it may, being inhabited by several tribes, it did not have one common name: The Chronicler, speaking about it under the rule of Vladimir and Yaroslav, uses the name Cherven cities, which is borrowed from one of the cities - Cherven 1352, currently non-existent and located somewhere in the south of Hill 1353. Galicia received its general name long after it formed one specific reign, namely from the half of the 12th century from Galich, the land of Galich, which became its main city. Galicia first became part of the emerging Russian state under Oleg until 907. 1354. After Oleg to Vladimir, it is unknown when it was conquered by the Poles, but the latter in 981. returned to Rus' again in 1355. After the death of Vladimir in 1018. The Polish king Boleslaw the Great once again annexed it to Poland, but in 1030–31, after the death of Boleslaw the Great, Yaroslav and Mstislav returned it a second time, after which it formed part of Rus' until the half of the 14th century, when the Poles conquered it again and for a very long time. Under Vladimir and Yaroslavl, Galicia did not constitute a special inheritance, but belonged to the Vladimir-Volynsky inheritance. After Yaroslav, his son Vsevolod Galicia was given as an inheritance (until 1086, - the chronicle under this year) so to speak, to the outcast great-grandsons of Yaroslav - the Rostislavichs, the grandchildren of his father who died before him, in 1052, Vladimir of Novgorod 1356. These Rostislavichs ruled Galicia until the end of the 12th century, until 1198, when their entire family ceased in 1357. After this, the Volyn prince Roman Mstislavich took possession of Galicia in 1358, whose descendants, having created the famous Galich state and kingdom for a short time, owned it for a century and a half until the half of the 14th century 1359. After which their entire family also died out and Galicia was conquered by the Poles (King Casimir III or the Great in 1340). The eldest capital city of the region or appanage was first Przemysl, and then from 1141. not long before, Galich was founded, from which, as we said, the region began to be called the land of Galich. The entire estate was divided into separate estates, such as: Terebovlsky, Zvenigorodsky, Belzsky and others. While the Galich region belonged to the Vladimir-Volyn inheritance, until then, in church terms, it belonged to the Vladimir-Volyn diocese. Its own bishops appeared in it after it became a special inheritance under the rule of the Rostislavichs. When this happened remains unknown for certain; but if not in 1157, which refers to the installation of the Bishop of Galich, then probably more or less shortly before this year 1360. Delivered in 1157 Bishop of Galich was Cosmas in 1361, then mentioned under 1165. After this Cosmas, only one of the Galich bishops of the pre-Mongol period is still known, namely Artemy, mentioned in 1235. and 1241 1362. The diocese of the city of Galich, while it was the only one in the Galich region, of course, embraced the entire latter. The city of Galich, which received its name from the nearby Galichina Grave 1363 tract and does not belong to the number of prehistoric cities of Rus', as some think 1364, but was probably founded more or less shortly before the capital was moved to it, is located almost in the very middle of the region, on the right bank of the Dniester, at the confluence of the river or the Luka River. The cathedral church of the Galich bishops in the city of Galich was the Church of the Mother of God, in all likelihood - the Feast of the Assumption 1365. The Ryazan region was part of the Murom region, and this latter was assigned to the Chernigov inheritance. Under the sons of the first appanage prince of Chernigov, Svyatoslav Yaroslavich, Murom and Ryazan were separated into a special separate appanage, on which in 1096. Svyatoslav's youngest son Yaroslav sat down. Having outlived his older brothers, Yaroslav, by right of seniority, tried to take the eldest in his family table of Chernigov, but was not allowed to do so by his nephews 1366, as a result of which his descendants in relation to the Chernigov table were the same outcasts as the descendants of Izyaslav Vladimirovich of Polotsk and Vladimir Yaroslavich of Novgorod (Rostislavich of Galicia) in relation to the grand ducal table. The sons of Yaroslav divided their inheritance into two - Murom and Ryazan, and from the eldest of them, Svyatoslav, came the Murom princes, and from the middle Rostislav, the Ryazan princes (with a side branch of the Pronskys). In the Murom-Ryazan region, the bishop, apparently, was supposed to appear not in the younger Ryazan, but in the older Murom. But the princes of Murom, sitting in a remote, remote and insignificant outskirts of Rus', taking almost no part in its general affairs, represented among the princes, if I may say so, something completely wretched. They were not so much princes as, so to speak, landowners. They brought their capital itself into complete decline, so that from a city it became a village in 1367. And therefore, the princes of Murom could not at all take upon themselves the concerns of establishing a special bishopric for the region. The Ryazan diocese was opened unknown when, between 1187 and 1207. For under the first year the Ryazan region is directly called part of the Chernigov bishopric, and under the second year the Bishop of Ryazan Arseny 1368 is mentioned in it. After this Arseny, then mentioned under 1212, two more are known for the pre-Mongol period - Euphrosynus the Holy Mountain, mentioned under 1224. 1369, but far from certain, and unknown by name, mentioned under 1237. (who was not in Ryazan at the time of its capture by the Tatars, and thus accidentally or intentionally escaped death - Trinity Chronicle or chronicle according to the Academic List). The capital of the bishops, as well as the princes of Ryazan, in the pre-Mongol period was not the current Ryazan, which has had its real name only since the time of Catherine, since 1778, and which is actually Pereyaslavl of Ryazan. Pre-Mongol Ryazan, the capital of princes and bishops, currently there is the village of Staraya Ryazan, located on the Oka River 50 versts down from present-day Ryazan and 2 versts down from the district town of Spassk 1370. The cathedral church of the Ryazan bishops in ancient Ryazan was the church of the holy martyrs Boris and Gleb, of whom the latter is the patron of the Murom-Ryazan region. This church, which served as the tomb of the Ryazan princes, built by an unknown person and mentioned in 1195, is currently in ruins in 1371. The Ryazan diocese, separated from Chernigov, embraced the ancient Murom-Ryazan region or the ancient principalities of Ryazan and Murom. The last of the principalities is the south-eastern corner of the current Vladimir province, between Klyazma and Oka, and the first is the current Ryazan province with a significant part of the Tula, Voronezh 1372 and Tambov provinces and some part of the Moscow province, namely Kolomna with its volost (which was acquired by Moscow from Ryazan under Yuri Danilovich, Karamzin IV, 107). 14. Diocese of Vladimir-Klyazemsk or Suzdal. The Suzdal region, together with the Rostov region, until the beginning of the 12th century belonged to the Pereyaslavsky inheritance, and around 1100–1105. received, together with the same region, its own special appanage prince in the person of Monomakhov’s youngest son, Yuri Dolgoruky 1373. Yuri's son, Andrei Bogolyubsky, turned his young inheritance into a great reign (with its capital in the youngest city of the region, Vladimir Klyazemsky). After the failed attempt of Andrei Bogolyubsky to deliver to Vladimir his special metropolitan or at least an autocephalous bishop, as we discussed above, Vladimir and Suzdal remained under the bishop of Rostov for about half a century. While Rostov belonged directly to the great reign, its bishops could replace the great princes with their own bishop, for they could come to Vladimir as often and live in it for as long as and for how long it was desired by the first. But in 1207 Rostov was separated from the great reign into a special inheritance. The first five years it was so that the father was the Grand Duke, and the son was the appanage prince of Rostov, namely, the Grand Duke was Vsevolod Yuryevich, and his eldest son Konstantin Vsevolodovich was the prince of Rostov. Father and son could have the same bishop or get by with the same bishop without any particular inconvenience, for father and son could not have any bills or misunderstandings because of this, and he could serve both. But in 1212 The brother of the appanage prince of Rostov, Yuri Vsevolodovich, sat on the great reign, and his displeasure with the latter was revealed from the very beginning, and circumstances changed. In order not to be dependent on Rostov in church terms, the great princes needed to acquire their own bishop, which they hastened to do. The next year, after Yuri occupied the grand-ducal throne, Bishop John of Rostov and Suzdal resigned or renounced the bishopric in 1374; The Grand Duke did not allow his successor to continue to be installed in both bishoprics, but at the same time that the bishop of Rostov was installed, he installed a special bishop in his Suzdal region. The first bishop of Suzdal was the famous Simon, a monk of the Pechersk Monastery, who later (no later than 1206) was the abbot of the Vladimir Nativity Monastery and the confessor of his wife Vsevolodova or Yuri’s mother. It was erected in 1214. After a 12-year reign, he died on May 22, 1226. 1375. The second bishop of Suzdal and at the same time the last before the Mongol invasion was Mitrofan, appointed from the abbot of the same Nativity Monastery, 10 months after the death of Simon, on March 14, 1227. After a 10-year reign, he died the death of a martyr and a worthy patriot during the capture of Vladimir by the Tatars in 1237, being burned along with many others in his cathedral church. The Principality of Suzdal or Vladimir embraced the current province of Vladimir without the southwestern corner or the Murom region, the province of Moscow without Volokolamsk, Mozhaisk and Kolomna (which are to Novgorod, Smolensk and Ryazan), the southeastern smaller half of Tver (without Torzhok and Bezhetsk, which are to Novgorod, and without Rzhev and Ostashkov, which are to Smolensk) and then a larger or smaller part of the western half of the Kostroma province (on this side of Unzha), with a border in the north where the scythe and the ax went 1376. The cathedral of the bishops of Vladimir-Suzdal was the famous Church of the Dormition of the Mother of God in Vladimir, built by Bogolyubsky in 1158–60. (and in Suzdal there is also the Church of the Mother of God, originally built by Vladimir Monomakh with Bishop Ephraim of Rostov, and then again in 1222-24 by Grand Duke Yuri Vsevolodovich with Bishop Simon of Vladimir). 15. Diocese of Przemysl (second in the Galich region after the diocese of the city of Galich). When it is open remains unknown. In all likelihood, one should think that after Galich. And then it is mentioned for the first time in 1220, namely, in the 1st Novgorod Chronicle we read that in this year the Metropolitan “gave the bishopric in Przemyshl to the Novgorod Archbishop Anthony,” who in the previous year had to leave his see. After Anthony, who was in Przemysl until 1225, the Bishop of Przemysl, not named, is mentioned under 1241. (Ipatan Chronicle). The city of Przemysl, one of the oldest cities in the region and before Galich was the eldest in it and the capital city of the entire estate, is located in the western part of Galicia, on the right bank of the Sana River. The cathedral church of the bishops of Przemysl was the Church of John the Baptist, which, according to Dlugosz, was built by Volodar Rostislavich († 1124) and which, according to Dlugosz, was beautifully (pulcherrimo opere) built from square (hewn) stone 1377. 16. Diocese of Ugrov (also in the Galich region). The city of Ugrovesk, Ugrovsk or Ugoresk, was located in the current Lublin province, at the confluence of the river or rivulet Uher into the western Bug, from which it received its name (currently the village of Ugrusk, directly east of Lublin and northeast of Kholm, opposite the town of Opalina). From a village to a city, it was built by Danila Romanovich some number of years before the Mongol invasion of 1378. The bishopric was opened in it by Danila on the occasion just mentioned and remained there for a very short time, being soon after the Mongol invasion transferred to Kholm. The only bishop of Ugrov was Joasaph, who, after the Mongol invasion, tried to jump onto the idle table of the metropolitanate, but for this he was deprived of his own throne in 1379. The monastery of St. is mentioned in Ugrovsk. Danilya 1380, apparently built by Danila Romanovich in honor of his angel. Probably, the short-lived episcopal see of Ugrov 1381 was located in this monastery. Some Galich scientists attribute the discovery of the Sambir diocese to the pre-Mongol period - the city of Sambir, located east of Przemysl on the upper Dniester in 1382. But the letters of Prince Lev Danilovich, in which the names of the three bishops of Sambir of the 13th century 1383 are read, are undoubtedly forged. The Diocese of Sambir actually existed for an unknown amount of time at the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries, for its name appears on the lists of Russian dioceses of that time 1384. But it did not yet exist during the second half of the 14th century, from which we have several Greek official acts listing all the bishoprics of the then metropolis of Galich, but not mentioning the bishopric of Sambir 1385. The question is the time of the opening of the diocese of Lutsk - the city of Lutsk, located in the ancient region, the current province, Volyn, 80-90 versts east of Vladimir, on the river. Styri. The diocese was mentioned for the first time in 1288. 1386, but not as open then, but as already existing before. After the union of Volyn with Galicia by Roman Mstislavich, the former formed a separate appanage in the latter and after Roman’s death, for 60 years, had his youngest son Vasilko as her prince, at the same time as the eldest son Daniel sat on the Galician table. Just as the elder brother opened a new bishopric (Ugrovskaya), so the younger brother could do the same; just as the bishopric was opened to some even before the Mongol invasion, so at the same time it could have been opened to others. Consequently, in general it could very well be that the Lutsk bishopric was opened in the pre-Mongol period. But, in any case, we have no positive information, and therefore speech about the bishopric of Lutsk should be postponed until later. At first there were no parishes in the current sense of the word, that is, separate church communities with their own special churches, which would be under the supervision only of elders or priests. At first, each such separate community, which had its own special church, no matter how insignificant it was and even limited to one village, was a complete separate church - it had its own bishop with a larger or smaller council of elders. (Bishops of villages and hamlets are choir bishops, who were originally as full and full-fledged bishops as the bishops of cities). The church and its special community, strictly speaking, necessarily presuppose a bishop, for each community is a special private church in the spiritual sense, and this latter cannot exist without a bishop; and this is what Ignatius the God-Bearer, or in general the ancient writer known by his name, means when he says: “one altar, like one bishop with presbytery and deacons” (Epistle to the Philadelphians ch. 4, cfr Apostolic Canon 31, Antioch Council canon 5, Carthage Council canon 10). Let's talk about the origin of parishes in the current sense, which in relation to the bishop's cathedral church are actually branches, exhibitions, ascribed churches. That is, she had exactly the same right with which the Patriarchs of Constantinople would currently express a claim to a new subordination of the Russian Church. “We know the five patriarchates all over the world, for just as our body is governed by five senses, so the body of Christ - the Church of the faithful - is governed by five senses - five thrones,” says Patriarch Peter of Antioch (first half of the 11th century) in a letter to the Patriarch of Aquileia; “The churches (αἱ ἐνορίαι) of the four limits of the universe are divided among the five patriarchs,” says Theodore Balsamon in his interpretations of the rules - in Rally and P. II, 41 fin., and IV, 408 fin. (Balsamon literally repeats the above words several times; on this basis one can think that he takes them ready-made from the established, so to speak, catechism of Greek claims). See also Nil Doxonatra in his Τάξις ’е τῶν πατριαρχικῶν θρόνων , – in the Patrology of Min t. 132, col. 1097 (The doctrine of the five patriarchates was first expressed by the Greeks from the Council of Constantinople in 869, at which the emperor's representative, the patrician Vaanis, said: Posuit Deus Ecclesiam suam in quinque patriarchiis, et definivit in Evangeliis suis, ut nunquam aliquando penitus decidant, eo quod capita Ecclesiae sint). If the five Greco-Roman patriarchates had really been established by ecumenical councils, then absolutely nothing would have followed from this. Greek canonists forget that the ecumenical councils, along with the general affairs of the entire universal church, also dealt with the private affairs of the Greco-Roman church: their establishment of five patriarchates, if it really took place, would only mean the establishment of these patriarchates for this Greco-Roman church and nothing more. But the ecumenical councils did not at all establish patriarchates, which, together with the entire system of church-administrative centralization, appeared even before them. (1st Ecumenical Council rules 6 and 7 and 3rd Ecumenical Council rule 8). And which in their time, but not at all by their establishment, began to be called patriarchates instead of the former name of dioceses, διοίκησις, as the highest church-administrative districts were called until then, borrowing the name from the dioceses or civil governor-generals to which they corresponded, just as all church-administrative centralization in general was fully consistent with civil centralization. (The name of the patriarch, in the 4th century, by Gregory the Theologian and Nyssa, used as an honorary title of every bishop, Suiceri Thesaur. Eccl. II, 640, was first used as a distinctive name of the highest primates of the church, instead of the previous names: bishop, exarch of the diocese and archbishop, in the Acts of the 4th Ecumenical Council, Russian Kazan translation of the Acts vol. III p. 575, and in the historian Socrates, V, 8). In relation to patriarchates or church dioceses, the ecumenical councils did only what they themselves partially violated. They partially admitted and recognized the violation of their full compliance with civil dioceses. Namely, the 4th Ecumenical Council, firstly, united under the authority of one patriarch (diocesal bishop) of Constantinople (who, after the transfer of the capital of the state from Rome to Constantinople, becoming such in the diocese of Thracia instead of the Bishop of Irakli, was recognized in this dignity and together in his seniority before all diocesal bishops after the 2nd Ecumenical Council of Rome, etc. 3) three diocese - Thracian, Pontic and Asian, rule 28. Secondly, he recognized the separation from the diocese of Antioch and the elevation to special patriarchates (with a separate district from the diocese) of the bishopric of Jerusalem, which was done by Emperor Theodosius the Younger, Acts of the Councils Russian Kazan translation vol. IV p. 170, sqq. In general, the Greco-Roman patriarchates were administrative districts of a separate Greco-Roman church and nothing more: What relation could they have to the universal church, and how could they be established for its entirety? It goes without saying that no one has ever determined that there should be five patriarchates in the universal church, and no more. But equally, no one has ever determined that there should be five of them, and no more, in the Greco-Roman Church. In the dioceses of Thracia and Asia, subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople, there lived barbarian peoples or there were foreign, non-Greek populations, the regions of which, in addition to the general order of government, did not constitute metropolises with subordinate bishoprics, and each constituted only one bishopric. (In the diocese of Thracia, the region of Scythia Minor with a bishop in the city of Tom; In the diocese of Asia, the region of Isauria with a bishop in the city of Isauropol, Cod. Iustin. lib. 1, tit. III c. 36, Nomocanon Photius title 1, ch. 20). The Fourth Ecumenical Council, subordinating the aforementioned dioceses to the Patriarch of Constantinople, decrees regarding the bishops of foreign regions that they should not depend on any neighboring metropolitans, but directly on the patriarch himself and should not be appointed by any of the former, but by the latter himself: “In the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thracia, they must be appointed by the Holy See to the Most Holy Church of Constantinople only metropolitans (but not bishops, who should be appointed by their own, subordinate to the patriarch, metropolitans), and bishops of the barbarian regions in the above-mentioned dioceses should also be appointed from him (ἔτι δὲ καὶ τούς ‘e ν το i ς βαρβαρικοῖς ἐπισκόπους τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων, rule 28). This very simple definition of the ecumenical council is understood by Greek canonists (Zonara and Valsamov in their interpretations of the aforementioned rule) to mean that the council predetermined into the power of the Patriarch of Constantinople all barbarian or new peoples who had the opportunity to accept Christianity, both dependent and independent of the Greeks, including us Russians... (Rule 2 of the 2nd Ecumenical Council speaks of the same peoples in the improper sense barbarians who lived within the boundaries of the empire and the Greek Church, and not about any peoples in the proper sense, representing special states, and means that “according to the established custom of the fathers” their regions should be governed each by one bishop, and not by metropolitans with bishops). Expressed this way, we mean law as pure law, in its abstraction and in its unlimited completeness. Whether the establishment of many patriarchates would have been consistent with the situation of the Russian Church at that time is, of course, another question. That, by giving the Russians the right to establish several or as many patriarchates as they wanted, we are not preaching some kind of non-Orthodoxy, as it may seem to some readers. Let us refer to the 17th century, for which it would be excusable to even take the non-canonical for the canonical: When Simeon of Polotsk proposed his famous project to establish in Russia exactly as many patriarchates as there were in the Greco-Roman Empire, that is, five, they did not find his thoughts anti-canonical and heretical (for it was accepted by the tsar and discussed), but only inconvenient to implement. Before Polotsk, the famous elder Arseny Sukhanov proved to the Greeks that their four patriarchates were only for their kingdom and that they were established not by ecumenical councils, but “by royal permission.” (The article list or the so-called Small Proscinitary, conversation on June 6. And that in general an independent sovereign can establish a patriarchal throne for himself, see News of the beginning of the patriarchate in Russia, in the Additions to the Acts of History, vol. 2 p. 191 sub fin.: “a pious king ... even by authority (i.e., his own) he can establish the highest patriarchal throne, like a king and autocrat"…).– When, regarding the establishment of an independent church in the current kingdom of Greece, the Patriarch of Constantinople resumed his old speeches about the establishment of God as if there were five patriarchates, he had to hear a decisive rebuke from the Greeks themselves: From the Athenian side, several works were written in which this imaginary establishment of God was refuted with all the appropriate evidence. (Especially the work of Pharmacides Ὁ συνοδικὸς τόμος ἤ περὶ ἀληθείας, ἐν Ἀθήναις, 1852, in which see part 1, chapter. 3: τῆς τῆς ἐκκλήσίας. However, even in the old days, the Greeks wrote against themselves when they refuted the pope’s claims to supremacy, calling these claims, identical with those that they themselves made in relation to other peoples, a desire for tyranny in the church and for its enslavement: Leo of Achrid, Niketas Stiphatus, Nilus Cabasilas and others). This is how we currently have it and actually have it. Representing an exception from the general order of government, the later archbishops were of two classes among the Greeks - lower and higher metropolitans: Archbishops, lower metropolitans, were those bishops who, not submitting, as required by the general order, to local or district metropolitans, depended directly and directly on the patriarchs - there were a lot of such archbishops in later times, see catalogs of episcopal sees at Rally and P. V, 466 and 475; archbishops, the highest metropolitans, were metropolitans who, not subordinate to the patriarchs, enjoyed complete independence and autonomy, or who, in essence, were the same as the patriarchs themselves and differed from the latter only in name. There were few such archbishops, called autocephalous, which means self-important, i.e. independent, independent, there were few: Cyprus (retaining their rights to this day - 6th Ecumenical Council, rule 39), the first Justinian, Iveron (in Ralli and P. II, 172, and then two Iveron), Bulgarian and Serbian (about the second and the last two, see our book A Brief Essay on the History of the Orthodox Churches of Bulgarian, Serbian and Romanian). Jacob in the story of a miracle about a blind man (“Yaroslav the prince, having heard about the miracle, glorified God and the holy martyr and, calling the metropolitan, told him everything with joy; the archbishop, having heard, gave praise to God”...); Nestor in the story about the same miracle and in the story about Izyaslav’s building of the church (the first calls the metropolitan archbishop once, the second calls metropolitans archbishops many times). See the late B.P. Grigorovich Essay on a trip to European Turkey, Kazan 1848, p. 14 ( Λέοντος λόγος, etc.). Α in another list is ἐπισκόπου, which is obviously from ἀρχιεπισκόπου, - A. S. Pavlova Critical experiments on the history of the ancient Greco-Russian polemic against the Latins. St. Petersburg, 1878, p. 115 approx. See our specified book. Allowing ourselves to indulge in the realm of assumptions, we can assume that Vladimir wanted to enter into relations with the Greeks after accepting Christianity as their conqueror, not only because of what we indicated above, but also because of what has now been indicated, i.e., in order to be able to demand from them the autocephaly of his church. In our case, the time of encroachment would most likely be considered the death of Leon or Leo and his replacement by John; but when one died, and when another took the chair, remains completely unknown to us. In the first edition we conjecture that John could be a natural Russian. But in view of the positive evidence that we have overlooked that the service to Saints Boris and Gleb was written by him in Greek, we must abandon the guess. The evidence is an inscription above the holy canon, which reads: “The canon of saints, having in chapters the Greek verse: I bring a song to David (and) to Roman,” see 2 halves of the volume, p. 431. If the title of archbishop did not appear to our metropolitans in the way that we indicate, then we can only assume that our first metropolitan appropriated it to himself in an illegal manner, wishing, at least in name, to equate himself with autocephalous archbishops. Be that as it may, but, not knowing from the pre-Mongol period other examples besides those indicated, that our metropolitans were also called archbishops, we know that after the invasion of the Mongols this second name was used about them. And some used it about themselves, both by others and by themselves, obviously, in the sense of a title higher than metropolitan (the names are used: metropolitan archbishop, metropolitan archbishop) - continuously until Metropolitan Macarius, and probably until the very establishment of the patriarchate (when, in application to the patriarchs, it became their actual title). At Ralli and P. V. 509 fin.. In the catalog, adopted by Emperor Leo the Wise († 911), but actually compiled or at least given its current form, it is unknown when much later than him, - in Ralli and P. V, 474. Under Andronikos Palaiologos the Elder (1306–1328); its catalog is ibid. p. 493.– Regarding the assurance of some copies of the so-called Vladimirov Charter, that our first metropolitan was honored with a lamp (for offering) and a sac, i.e. sakkos, as the second patriarch, cfr 2 half volumes p. 225 sqq. The Russian metropolitan, who was present at the council that was under Patriarch John (probably Xyphilinus, who sat on the see from 1064 to 1075), ranked 9th among the 17 bishops present at the council, among whom the metropolitans are not listed and cannot be counted, see Bandinius in his Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum (Graecorum) Bibliothecae Mediceae Laurentianae p. 76, col. 1, §LIII. Present at one of the councils that took place under Patriarch Nicholas the Grammar (1084–1111), the Russian metropolitan occupied the last place among the five metropolitans present at the council - Ralli and P. V, 60. And the Russian metropolitan who was present at the council of 1156 occupied the last place among the fifteen metropolitans - in Angelo Mayo’s edition of Spicilegium Romanum, X, 19, and in the Patrology of Min t. 140, col. 149 beginning.. [See. "Additions and amendments"]. This is how the canonical rules regarding the relationship of metropolitans to bishops determine this - Apostolic Canon 34, Antiochus. personal pr. 9, and the relations of the patriarchs to the metropolitans should have been the same as the first to the second - Twice. personal Ave. 15. Not annually, but as needed and at your discretion. Diocesan metropolitans from the bishops subordinate to them were obliged to convene councils annually; the patriarch convened annual councils only from the archbishops directly subordinate to him and from titular metropolitans (which the Greeks had) or those who did not have bishops under them, but not from actual metropolitans. This is so that, by collecting annual councils from actual metropolitans, we do not deprive the latter of the opportunity to assemble their own councils, see Ralli and P. II, 325, and III, 536. Sometimes the patriarchs claimed the right to actual metropolitans to call them to annual councils. We will see this below in the history of our church (St. Metropolitan Alexy). Σταυροπήγιον – erection of the cross. When founding parish churches and monasteries, local bishops themselves, personally or through authorized presbyters, erected wooden crosses on the places prepared for the first and second churches (in the middle of the semicircle of future altars, with the inscriptions known on the crosses, see below in the order of founding churches), through this giving permission for their construction and, as if with a visible sign, marking and thereby asserting their authority over them. Thus, the right of stauropegy of the patriarchs actually meant their right to erect their crosses, instead of local bishops, when founding new churches and monasteries throughout their districts and through this erection of the cross to take such monasteries and churches into their direct power. But in practice, this right was extended to already existing monasteries and churches. The so-called ktitors of one and the other usually tried to place both of them under the direct authority of the patriarchs, freeing local bishops from power, or to make them stauropegial patriarchs (see about them below). For this constituted a privilege and benefit (in a similar way, in later times, a custom was introduced among us so that monasteries, in all non-spiritual matters, being freed from the authority of their bishops, were in charge of the sovereigns themselves, by order of the Great Palace). The canonical rules allow metropolitans to take clergy from the bishops under their supervision, the Council of Carthage, rule 66, and since what is certain about metropolitans is especially befitting of patriarchs, Dvukr. Council Rule 15, then the right of patriarchal stauropegy was based on this. (Matthew Blastari assimilates this right to one Patriarch of Constantinople, - Syntagma letter P, ch. 8, - in Ralli and P. VI, 429, but Balsamon assimilates it to all patriarchs, - in the interpretation of the 31st Apostolic Canon, - ibid. II, 42. Stavropegial monasteries and churches were in charge of patriarchal exarchs, - ibid. V, 110, 579). The Fourth Ecumenical Council decrees: “If a bishop or clergyman has displeasure against the metropolitan of a region, let him appeal either to the exarch of the diocese or to the throne of the reigning city and let it be judged from him” (rules 9 and 17). Some by exarchs of dioceses mean all exarchs in general, from which they draw the conclusion that the council determines the Patriarch of Constantinople the right to accept appeals to the court of metropolitans and other patriarchates in addition to local patriarchates (Aristin in Ralli and P. II, 240, and Vlastar ibid. VI, 429). But others understand by exarchs of dioceses only the exarchs of the dioceses of Thracia, Pontus and Asia, who were subordinated to the Patriarch of Constantinople by the same council, and therefore in the aforementioned order of the council they do not see any special advantage being granted to the Patriarch of Constantinople (Zonara in the interpretation of the 17th rule of the Council of Chalcedon, ibid. II, 260). [Cm. "Additions and amendments"]. 4 of the Ecumenical Council, Rule 28: “Metropolitans must be appointed by the Archbishop of Constantinople, according to a consenting, customary election and upon presentation to him.” That the custom of electing metropolitans was exactly the same as we indicated, see the canonical message of the 3rd Ecumenical Council to the Pamphylian and Sardician Councils, rule 6. That it should not have belonged to the patriarch is clear from the above rule itself. For after the exercise it had to be presented to him (see the very acts of the council, - in the Russian translation of the Acts of the Councils, vol. IV, p. 382). And if Balsamon claims that this new order was introduced precisely by the aforementioned rule 4 of the Ecumenical Council (in the interpretation of rule 6 of the Sardic Council, in Ralli and P. III, 245): then he is telling a lie. It seems that the councils of all the metropolitans were convened by the patriarchs very rarely and they were usually content with the council of the archbishops and titular metropolitans, which we mentioned above (if the actual metropolitans were in Constantinople by chance, for their own affairs, then they were usually and rightfully present at the mentioned councils). The system of Greek church government (administrative centralization), as we said above, was formed in full accordance with the system of civil government. In the latter, starting from the bottom: a district city with its district (the first - πόλις, the second - παροικία, in Russian literally - village, περιοικίς - around), a provincial city with a province embracing one or another number of districts (the first - μητρόπολις, the second – ἐπαρχία), governor-general or diocese (διοίκησις), embracing one or another number of provinces. Similarly, in the first: the bishop is the ecclesiastical leader of the district city and district (his region is not ἐπαρχία, which means province and what the metropolitan areas were called, but παροικία, from where, through the Latin paroecia and parochia, among the Poles and Little Russians parish - parish, - Apostolic Canon 34, Ankirsk. cathedral rules 13 and 18, Antioch cathedral rule 9 and others, cfr Zonaru in Ralli and P. III, 185, and about the fact that each city had its own bishop, see ibid. Bishop of a metropolis, diocese, exarch of a diocese, metropolitan - the ecclesiastical head of the bishoprics embracing the civil province; bishop of the diocese, - exarchy, exarch, archbishop, and then patriarch (with the name of the archbishop retained in the title: archbishop so-and-so and patriarch), - the ecclesiastical head of the metropolises embraced by the civil diocese or general government. This complete correspondence of the system of church government with the system of civil government remained inviolable for the following time in the first two degrees, starting from the bottom. (Having been confirmed by the canonical rules, the 4th Ecumenical Council canon 17 and the 6th Ecumenical Council canon 38). But over time, as we said above, it was violated in relation to the third degree or the highest. There were five civil dioceses in the Eastern Empire: Egyptian with the main city of Alexandria, Eastern with the main city of Antioch, Asian with the main city of Ephesus, Pontic with the main city of Caesarea Cappadocia (from that Basil the Great archbishop, not metropolitan) and Thracian with the main city of Heraclia, and then Constantinople. There were originally the same number of church dioceses, exarchates or archdioceses, and later patriarchates (cfr 2 of the Ecumenical Council, rule 2). But then three civil dioceses - Thracian, Pontic and Asian - were united into one spiritual diocese (Constantinople), and one civil diocese - Eastern - was divided into two ecclesiastical dioceses (Antioch and Jerusalem). Greek civil laws, in their regulations regarding the election of bishops, diverge somewhat from the canonical rules. We will indicate this below. Apostolic Rule 34, Antioch Council Rule 9. Apostolic canon 37, 1st Ecumenical Council canon 5, 4th Ecumenical Council canon 19, Antioch Council canon 20. “In the summer of 6547, the church of the Holy Mother of God was consecrated, having been founded by Volodymer, father of Yaroslavl, by Metropolitan Theopemptus” - this is her first news and first speech about metropolitans. By the chronicle of the Novgorod rulers we mean their chronicle, the later edition of which is placed in the appendix to the 2nd Novgorod Chronicle - Collection of Chronicles III, 179 (in the Spiritual Bulletin of 1862, March, p. 56, an older, abbreviated list was published). Speaking about the successor of the first Novgorod bishop Joachim, he writes: “And in his place was his disciple Ephraim, and blessed was Bishop Joachim, who taught us, before the Russian land was baptized again” (Collected Chronicles. III, 179), according to another reading: and he was his disciple Ephraim, who taught us.” The compiler of the Book of Degrees, in fact, was a very respectable man, who diligently collected information from all sorts of sources, like today's learned historians. But, firstly, he collected information without any criticism, treating with equally complete faith everything he found. Secondly, according to the custom of all people who do not fully properly understand history, he allowed himself to act in such a way as to pass off his simple assumptions as positive facts (later Tatishchev did this with us). And finally, thirdly, like all the people just mentioned, he mixed history with poetry and the material collected in the sources did not find it difficult to supplement e suo ventre. “Volodimer was baptized and took Leon, the first metropolitan of Kiev, from Patriarch Photius of Constantinople.”... “Volodimer sent an ambassador (from Korsun) to the Greeks to the Right Reverend Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and was taken from him by the first Metropolitan Michael of Kiev.”... History period 1, §15, ed. 3 page 50. It is very likely to think that this message of Photius was translated by the Bulgarians into the Slavic language, together with the message of the patriarch to their king Michael, in very ancient times. That it was known in our medieval writing is evident from the fact that an excerpt from it is given in the Degree Book - I, 81. But it could also be that the name of the actual patriarch in the chronicle, under whom we adopted Christianity, was mistakenly replaced by the name Photius, or even that the creator of the chronicle himself did not know the name of the actual patriarch and himself put the name Photius instead. Kopystensky, a learned man and therefore, as one might assume, himself looked at the source to which he refers, writes: “John Zanaros in volume three writes: Tsar Mobitus Basil (the Macedonian) made peace with the Russian people, celebrated, and if he, in recognition of the Christian faith, came and where they were baptized, he sent them the bishop Michael Metropolitan"... Palinodia part 3, section. 1. art. 1, – in the Russian Historical Library, volume 4. book. 1, p. 971. The emperor who sent Metropolitan Michael to the (unknown) Russes together with Patriarch Photius was, according to legend, Vasily (Macedonian). But Vladimir was also baptized under Emperor Vasily (the Bulgarian Slayer). This coincidence of names should have strengthened the compiler of the Degree Book in the opinion that the legends should be attributed specifically to Vladimir. The Degree Book and behind it the Nikon Chronicle not only give us a new metropolitan, but from the same suo ventre that we spoke about above, they also provide his characteristics with a piece of biography and some information about his activities. According to the Degree Book (and the Nikon Chronicle after it), Metropolitan Michael went with the six bishops he brought to Novgorod “and baptized many people,” then with four bishops to Rostov “and baptized countless people,” and Vladimir himself with two bishops went to the Suzdal land, where “they baptized all the people” (In Novgorod, the Degree Book does not baptize all people and not countless because, on the basis of the Novgorod Chronicle, he should then be baptized a second time). In the characterization of Met. Michael, which we do not consider necessary to cite, it is said that he was a Syrian; this is probably for some reason, which, however, at the present time we cannot indicate (We do not remember, some old Slavophile made a guess that Serbin should be read instead of Sirin). - Since in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra rest the relics of Metropolitan Michael, transferred, according to legend, from the Tithe Church at the beginning of the 12th century, it must be thought that the relics of that one were brought to Kyiv from Tauride Rus' Metropolitan (Archbishop) Michael, who was the baptist of the Tauride Russes under Patriarch Photius and who in a distant sense can be accepted, and in fact was accepted, as our first baptist. (Until 1730, the relics rested in the Anthony caves, and this year, by the Highest decree, they were transferred to the cathedral church of the Lavra - Metropolitan Eugene Description of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, edition 2 p. 115 and his Description of the Kiev Soph. Cathedral, p. 64 beginning). Under 1004 he is mentioned as alive, and in 1008. his successor, the Nikon Chronicle. The positive testimony of Tatishchev, II, 89, that Leon died in 1007, is obviously based on an arbitrary understanding of the uncertain testimony of the Degree Book (I, 166 fin). An extensive polemical work against the Uniates, written in 1621. and published in 1878. in the “Russian Historical Library” (vol. 4 book 1, and the chapter from Palinodia, which contains a catalog of metropolitans, was published in the study of the late F. A. Ternovsky “Study of Byzantine history and its tendentious presentation in ancient Russia,” issue 2, Kiev, 1876, p. 200 sqq, where see about Palinodia itself). Chapter from Palinodia, contained in the now mentioned work of Mr. Ternovsky, p. 210. By catalog we mean something that not only lists the names of metropolitans, but also provides chronological and (more or less) historical information about them (such is the Kopystensky catalog, such are other catalogs, which are discussed below); and the lists are a simple enumeration of names, without any designations. In addition to the catalog of Zechariah Kopystensky in his Palinodia, which is the first, known to us, in time, there are other catalogues: 1) Sylvester Kossov (from the prefects of the Kyiv Academy, Bishop of Mstislavsky and then Metropolitan of Kyiv, † 1657), compiled on the basis of chronicles (without the Nikon and Degree books, and therefore without John 1) and Polish historians (links to Stryjkowski), not accepting new ones against the chronicles of the metropolitans of Palinodia, which the author had in his hands (printed in the appendix to the Polish Patericon of Kossovo - Πατερικὸν: Zywoty SS. Oycow Pieczarskych, w Kiiowie, roku 1635; catalog title, p. 164: Chronologia o prawoslawnych metropolitach Ruskich et caet., from the beginning to Peter Mohyla. Metropolitan Eugene in the Description of the Kiev-Sophia Cathedral, page 81 fin., says that Kossov, according to Stryikovsky, after Metropolitan Matthew, posits a new Nikita against the chronicles. At the moment we do not have the Patericon at hand, but we saw it in your notes. this feature is not mentioned about him). 2) St. Demetrius of Rostov, supplementing the list of metropolitans known from the chronicles, the metropolitans of Palinodia (printed with an addition from Sellia and from nowhere and it seems with changes in the Moscow Curious Monthly Book for 1776 by V. Ruban, p. 54; for the original, see the dictionary of Eugene I, 132 No. 16, the usual name is the Kiev catalogue. cfr of that same Eugene Description of the Kiev-Sophia Cathedral p. 66 et seq.). 3) Unknown, forming the beginning of the general catalog of all Russian bishops' sees and having the inscription: “Catalogue or chronicle of the life of Russian bishops” and so on, regarding the list of metropolitans, repeating St. Demetrius (found in the manuscript, in many lists, of which we have two at hand - the fundamental library of M.D.A. No. 122 and the Bethany Seminary Library No. 2140; usual name: Moscow catalog of Eugene ibid. I, 131. What is meant by the name of the Moscow catalog to which St. Ruban's Demetrius remains unknown to us, but not one of the above lists, for various information is taken from him, for example, about Metropolitans Theopemptos, Ephraim, Matthew, Cyril, who are not on the lists at all). 4) Nicodemus Sellius (Danish native who converted to Orthodoxy, † 1746, about him Eugene in the Dictionary), supplementing the list of metropolitans of the chronicles and Palinodia with two more new metropolitans, taken from unknown sources (catalog in the work De Russorum Hierarchia, about which ibid.). 5) Ignatius Kulchinsky (Uniate monk, † 1741), who has no superfluous metropolitans against the chronicles (in the work Specimen Ecclesiae Ruthenicae, Pars 3, according to the new Paris edition of Martynov, p. 111 sqq). 6) The famous Michael Lequen (Le Quien), according to the list reported from St. Petersburg in 1730, and just like the Kulchinsky catalog, which does not represent superfluous metropolitans against the chronicles (Oriens Christianus I, 1261). The chronological indications of the catalogues, not only supplementing, but also correcting the chronicles or ignoring them, are nothing more than arbitrary, based on nothing, assumptions of their authors (or the Polish historians from whom they are taken) and, apart from the chronicles, have absolutely no meaning. [Cm. "Additions and amendments"]. By evidence that is not entirely reliable we mean the evidence of the Nikon Chronicle, - I, 112, and the Book of Degrees, - I, 166 fin, which say that in 1008. John built two stone churches, one in Kyiv, the other in Pereyaslavl, which construction of stone churches by the Metropolitan is absolutely incredible. Jacob and Nestor in the Tales of Boris and Gleb, in miracles. Kopystensky calls, as he says, according to the Kyiv memorial, Jonah. This means that either the scribe of the commemoration incorrectly read the abbreviated spelling I ω in his original, or Kopystensky himself incorrectly read the abbreviated spelling I ω in the commemoration (Ion moved from Kopystensky to other catalogues). In Ruban's catalog of St. Demetrius is read, we don’t know who it belongs to, the second or the first: “under this Jonah, some consider George and Nicephorus to be doubtful.” In 1036 was a metropolitan in Kyiv, for this year Luka Zhidyata was installed as Bishop of Novgorod. [Cm. "Additions and amendments"]. In the Novgorod 1st Chronicle according to the Academic List in the Continuation of Vivliofika II, 354, in the Sophia Vremennik, in the Novgorod 2nd Chronicle, in the Nikon and Tver Chronicles. Some doubt the existence of this metropolitan, but he is, according to Kopystensky, in the Kiev-Sophia memorial and in all the indicated Moscow lists. As for before his arrival around 1062, the grounds for this assumption given by the Right Reverend Macarius (II, 14, note 20) are not entirely solid. The Monk Theodosius of Pechersk, who, according to the chronicler, found the charter of the Studite Monastery from a monk who came with Metropolitan George. According to the same chronicler, who should be preferred to Nestor, as a contemporary of Theodosius, which the latter was not, he began to worry about looking for a charter not immediately after the monastery was brought out of the cave to the top of the earth, which according to Nestor was in 1062, but after one time or another. In 1061 and then in 1069 was a metropolitan in Kyiv, for in the first year Stefan of Novgorod was installed, and in the second of Novgorod Bishop Theodore. Under the metropolitan 1069 in all likelihood we should mean George. The Life of Isaiah of Rostov, according to which Isaiah was appointed bishop by Metropolitan John in 1077. (see above). In 1078 was a metropolitan in Kyiv, for this year German Bishop of Novgorod was installed. Metropolitan John in the inscription of his Rule to Jacob the Monk, about whom below, is called the prophet of Christ or the prophet of Christ: “Ιω (anna), Metropolitan of Russia, called the prophet of Christ (of Christ)... Rule... to Jacob the Monk.” This very mysterious nickname is explained to us by the nephew of our metropolitan, the Greek writer of the first half of the 12th century, Theodore Ptochoprodromus, who says: θεῖον ἔσχον Χριστὸν ὠ νομασμένον, γῆς Ῥ ωσικῆς πρόεδρον, ἀβρὸν ἐν λόγοις (in Min’s Patrology t. CXXXIII col. 1412), that is, I had the good fortune to have a grandfather who was named after the Forerunner (had the nickname of the forerunner, Prodromus), and I had an uncle who was called Christ, the primate of the Russian Church, graceful in word." From this it turns out that our Russian "name" of the metropolitan "prophet of Christ" is a translation of his Greek nickname Christoprodromus (in fact, it would be necessary: the forerunner of Christ, but they probably found it inconvenient and incongruous to translate it this way). [Cm. "Additions and amendments"]. The first year in the Laurentian Chronicle, the second in the Ipatian Chronicle. In 1096 was a metropolitan in Kyiv, for this year the Novgorod bishop of St. Nikita. As for Ephraim, whom the Nikon Chronicle (and all the catalogs behind it) places between John 3 and this Nicholas, he was not the Russian Metropolitan, but the Bishop of Pereyaslavl, and bore the name of Metropolitan only titularly (see about him below). Tatishchev, - II, 169 fin., has a fable taken from nowhere that he was elected Grand Duke from among the bishops of Polotsk and that, by order of the Grand Duke, he was installed by the Russian bishops themselves. According to Tatishchev, - II, 225, also from the Russian bishops, appointed by the Grand Duke, but went to Constantinople for installation. In November-December 1129 Novgorod Archbishop Nifont was installed and it does not seem probable that there was still a metropolitan between Nikita and Mikhail and that Mikhail would appear after him so soon. Based on the life of Grand Duke Mstislav (Theodore), Metropolitan Michael consecrated the church of St. that he built in Kyiv. Theodore (by Vostokov in the Description of the Rumyantsev Museum p. 452 col. I fin.), and the church, founded in 1128. (Laurentian Chronicle), it was hardly built for more than a year. Kopystensky testifies that in the Kiev-Sophia memorial after Michael there was the name of Constantine, and then he himself puts Clement, Constantine, etc., so that he has three Constantines. But here we must see an erroneous reconciliation of the commemoration with the chronicles. The memorial, as one must think, did not contain the name of Clement, which was erased by his successor for reasons that we will discuss below. Finding Constantine in the commemoration of Michael, and in the annals of Clement, Kopystensky thinks that Constantine of the commemoration is the predecessor of Clement - Cellius, based on unknown reasons, puts it after Michael under 1146. Kirill (by Ruban in addition to Dmitry of Rostov). And delivered no later than January of the same year (see Angelo Mayo in Spicilegium Romanum, X, 19) and Min in Patrology t. 140, col. 149 beginning (the Russian Metropolitan was present at the council, which took place on January 26 of this year). The Hypatan Chronicle says that Theodore, who came (according to it) in August 1161, died after a 10-month reign in 1163. (under this last year). There is obviously an error either in the indication of the time of reign or in the year of death. See L. S. Pavlov’s open letter to me, published in Orthodox Review. 1881, volume I, p. 352, and Archimandrite Vladimir Description of manuscripts of the synodal library, No. 336, l. 89 vol., p. 495. Chronicler containing Russian history from the summer of 6714 (1206) to the summer of 7042 (1534). Moscow, 1784, p. 2. In Tatishchev, around 1198. Metropolitan John is mentioned - III, 329. The Moscow catalog or “Chronicle of Existence” places after Matthew the previous Dionysius, and in Sellius (Addition to Demetrius of Rostov in Ruban) there is another Dionysius on him, allegedly dedicated in 1217... The Gustine Chronicle, which all catalogs follow, divides this Metropolitan Cyril into two Cyrils - the first from 1225, the second from 1230. We do not know what it is based on, but we must think that it is mistaken, for the Laurentian Chronicle, speaking about the installation of Cyril in 1224, and the Novgorod Chronicle, speaking about the death of Cyril in 1233, in the same way their expressions make it clear that they are talking about the same, remarkable and outstanding metropolitan (“blessed”). That the foundations of the Gustine Chronicle are new and arbitrary is suggested by the fact that it calls its first Cyril a Rusin, contrary to the aforementioned chronicles, which both call Cyril the Greek. Metropolitan Nikephoros 1 directly makes it possible to see the Greek in himself in his teaching for the Cheese Festival week, about which below. The Novgorod Chronicle even directly calls Joseph a Greek: “Metropolitan Grchin came from Nicaea to Kiev, named Esif.” On John 1, see above footnote No. 508; The nationality of John 2 is known from the language of his writings, which are discussed below in the chapter on enlightenment, and see also above footnote No. 548. The Monk Theodosius of Pechersk found in Kyiv the Charter of Studite from Michael the Monk of the Studite Monastery, “who came from Greece with Metropolitan George,” chronicle dated 1055. (George makes it clear that he sees himself as a Greek and through his disbelief in the holiness of the martyrs Boris and Gleb, which is discussed in Nestor’s life of the latter). The case of Bishop Nicholas of Rostov-Polotsk, about whom the Laurentian Chronicle dates back to 1185, and the Ipatskaya Chronicle dates back to 1183, and in which one can see his predilection towards the Greeks. Silent and eloquent at the same time, no doubt, it should be understood that he is silent in trivial speeches, and eloquent in teaching ones. Laurentian Chronicle under 1224. In Greece, eunuchs between monks were a very common phenomenon. Where they came from, we will say below, in the chapter on monasticism. Hypatan Chronicle under 1147. Novgorod 1st Chronicle according to the Academic list in the Continuation of Vivliofika I, 345, Novgorod 2nd Chronicle and Sophia Vremennik under 1055. They say: “(In) the same summer there was a slander against Bishop Luke from his servant Dudika, and he left Novgorod and went to Kyiv, and Metropolitan Ephraim condemned (him), and stayed there for three years.” The Nikon Chronicle and after it the Tverskaya Chronicle add: “from your servant Dudiki in inappropriate speeches” and “condemn Metropolitan Ephraim according to Dudiki’s speeches and his evil friends Demyan and Kozma for slander.” The first chronicles from 1058: “Archbishop (sic) Luke took his table in Novgorod and his volost, and Duditsa set the slave on edge - cutting off his nose and both hands and fleeing to the Germans.” Second: ... “to the Germans, and to Sitsa and his crafty advisers Kozma and Domyan, worthy retribution for their atrocity.” Epistle of the Patriarch of Constantinople Luke Chrysovergus to Andrei Bogolyubsky, - Nikon Chronicle II, 182 and by the Most Reverend Macarius, vol. 3. edition 2. p. 299. We call the message in the testimony about the trial a source not particularly reliable because the patriarch, perhaps, speaks about this trial process from the words of Nestor himself. The Laurentian Chronicle says in 1156 that “that winter Bishop Nestor went to Rus' and lost his bishopric”; but the Nikon Chronicle adds that Nestor, who was convicted by the Metropolitan in 1156, was acquitted by him after a new trial of his case in the next year in 1157. She calls his accusers or, as she says, slanderers of him “their household”; but from the patriarch’s letter to Bogolyubsky it is clear that the accuser was none other than the prince himself and that the bishop’s household were only witnesses (and, according to the Nikon Chronicle, they were punished by the metropolitan for perjury). There are also two known cases of metropolitans exercising their power over bishops, namely, Metropolitan Clement over Bishop Niphon of Novgorod and Metropolitan Constantine 2 over Bishop Theodore or Theodorets of Rostov-Suzdal. But they are cases not so much of a trial as of personal reprisals between metropolitans and bishops; We'll talk about them below. Laodicean Council rule 40, 4 Ecumenical Council rule 19, 6 Ecumenical Council rule 8 fin. (Canon 53 of the Council of Carthage according to extensive reading in Ralli and P., III, 433). Regarding the time corresponding to our pre-Mongol period, see Patriarch Alexei in Rally and P., V, 27). In Monuments of Ancient Russian Canon Law, published by A. S. Pavlov and constituting Volume VI of the Russian Historical Library, col. 18, §31: “Whoever does not listen to the bishops of their metropolitan, we call upon him to make a collection of those who (since) do evil, punish them with paternal punishment.” We do not find it reasonable to understand these words of Metropolitan John about regular annual councils, for the very image of the expression shows that this means councils that are not annual, but convened as needed. Individual known cases are limited to four in total: – Under Patriarch John Xiphilinus (1064–1075), a Russian metropolitan who was not named was present at the Patriarchal Council, see above footnote No. 513. – In 1073, Metropolitan George, according to our chronicle, was in Greece. – At one of the councils that took place under Patriarch Nicholas Grammaticus (1084–1111), a Russian metropolitan who was not named was present, see above footnote No. 513. – At the council of 1171, the Russian Metropolitan Michael was present, see above (before footnote No. 557). In the area of ​​the Pechersky Monastery. A chronicle about life under 1051. The entire speech of the chronicle about the installation of Hilarion is as follows: “in the summer of 6559, Yaroslav Larion appointed Metropolitan of Russia in St. Sophia, having gathered bishops.” That Ephraim was a Greek, we do not know for sure, but, as we said above, this is the most probable assumption. To see Hilarion himself in Ephraim under a monastic name seems to us to be completely unfounded: the chronicler calls Hilarion by the name that he bore as a metropolitan, therefore, this name is a monastic one, but what he was called in the world, the chronicler does not report this (probably because he does not know). From Hilarion himself, the confession of faith that he gave in writing before accepting the rank of metropolitan has been preserved, and under this confession he signed: “mnich and nicknamer Hilarion,” see Additions to the works of the holy fathers, part II, 1844, p. 255. Regarding later times, we know that the Greeks were in no hurry to replace the see of the Russian metropolitanate when it was abolished. If this was the case in ancient times, then we can assume that Yaroslav was angry and offended by the slowness of the Greeks and that, not wanting to wait, he installed a metropolitan in Russia itself. When the metropolitan was installed, the Greeks could apologize to him, and in this way the matter could be settled. On some close relative of the Emperor of Constantinople, Constantine Monomakh (1042–1054), but not on his daughter, for Constantine, as far as is known, did not have daughters (this is why Vsevolod’s eldest son Vladimir was nicknamed Monomakh). We don’t know what year Vsevolod was married, but his first child (the now mentioned son Vladimir Monomakh) was born in 1053. Cfr Solovyov History of Russia vol. 2, edition 4 pp. 110, 112 and 114. In 1145, the Patriarch of Constantinople was Michael Oksit or Kurkuya; in the next 1146 he was replaced by Cosma Atticus, who was deposed in February 1147 and after which the throne remained idle until the end of December 1147, when Nikolai Muzalov took it. It may very well be that this change of patriarchs and the lack of replacement of the see, and not anything else, were the reason for the delay in the installation of the Russian Metropolitan. According to which a bishop cannot do anything hierarchical, including performing services in churches, without the permission of the local bishop, see the rules. Apostolic 35, 6 Ecumenical Council 20 and Antioch Council 13 and 22, and interpretations on them (if there is no permitter, then permission cannot be given or received). From the speeches of Bishop Niphon of Novgorod to Clement, the Hypatan Chronicle under the years 1147 and 1159. Ten: Chernigov, Pereyaslav, Vladimir-Volyn, Belgorod, Yuryev, Turov, Polotsk, Novgorod, Rostov and Smolensk; eleventh - Galichskaya was opened unknown when until 1165. and it is quite possible that in 1141. (see below in the appendix to this chapter: The most honest news about the dioceses). Turovskaya, whose bishop in 1146 was removed from the department by Izyaslav for political reasons, Laurentian and Ipatian Chronicles. The Ipat chronicler, who generally reveals himself to be a person more closely acquainted with the matter of the installation of Clement, directly lists the bishops who were present at the council, namely, according to it they were: Chernigov, Pereyaslavl, Vladimir, Belgorod and Yuryev. The Hypatan Chronicle seems to present the matter in such a way that the bishops who did not agree to the installation of Clement protested at the council. But the Novgorod 1st Chronicle, which is very detailed about its Novgorod bishop Niphon, who was against Clement’s installation, says nothing about his journey to Kyiv in 1147. And the words with which the Hypatian Chronicle forces Niphon to address Clement as if at a council, could only be spoken after him (when Clement was dedicated). In itself, it is not clear why bishops who did not agree to the installation of Clement would come to the council (and even how they would be allowed to attend it). And Niphon, if he had been on it, should have been imprisoned immediately after him. (However, if in the chronicle, in this place, you change the punctuation and in the list of bishops who were present at the council, after “Fedor of Volodymyr” you put not a comma, as in the printed version, but a period, then it will not say that the bishops who disagreed were present at the council). As for the Bishop of Polotsk, he can be considered to have protested, on the basis of the Hypatian Chronicle of 1156. (2nd edition p. 333), there is no sufficient reason - he could only be a flexible person. “I know that the one who came together is worthy of installing a metropolitan as a bishop.” One can also understand the not entirely definite chronicler in such a way that the bishop said this to Izyaslav before the council, i.e. that the latter, wanting to install a metropolitan in Russia itself, first consulted with the bishop whether this could be done, and the bishop answered in the affirmative. “Like the Greeks are erected by the hand of St. Ivan.” What is meant by these words has not yet been found. But that the Greeks really had something like that must be concluded from the words of the Novgorod Archbishop Anthony, who in his Constantinople Pilgrim says that in St. Sophia of Constantinople is “Herman’s hand, with which the patriarchs are established” (according to Savvaitov’s edition, St. Petersburg, 1872, p. 56; see also note No. 8 of the learned publisher). “Establish Izyaslav as Metropolitan of Klim Smolyatich, bringing him out of Zarub.” “Smolyatich” is usually understood to mean that Clement was a Smolyanin, from the Smolensk region; but it is also quite possible that it was his family nickname. Leading out of Zaruba, i.e. leading out of the monastery that was in Zaruba. There are two known Zarubs: Kyiv, located on the other side of the Dnieper opposite the river’s confluence with it from this side. Trubezh (often mentioned in chronicles; the exact definition of its place is in the Book of the large drawing, p. 93, currently the village of Zarubintsy), and Smolensky, the exact location of which is unknown. (Addition to Acts of History 1, 6 and Hypatian Chronicle 2nd edition p. 364). It is more likely to mean the first, the existence of a monastery in which is positively known. – It is remarkable that when electing a candidate for metropolitan, they deviated from Greek customs: in Greece they did not appoint monks of the great image or schema-monks as bishops, as was Clement (see below). Bishop Theodore of Vladimir, according to the Laurentian Chronicle (under 1137), was (like Manuel, ibid.) an eunuch. On this basis, it is much more likely to consider him Greek than Russian. And if so, then it is strange and wonderful that he did not protest (being the bishop of Izyaslav’s own region, in case of protest he risked the throne and for this reason he did not protest?). Regarding the nationality of Nifont, we do not have direct information or clear indications. If he were a Greek, then the Novgorod chronicler, his immediate contemporary (and, perhaps, the priest appointed by him, Novgorod 1 Chronicle under 1144), who speaks a lot and in detail about him, it seems, should have noticed this. (He has about the installation of Niphon: “in the same summer (1130) Archbishop (sic, - according to a later amendment of the scribes) of Novgorod rejected, and installed Archbishop Niphon, a holy man and greatly fearing God, and came to Novgorod on the 1st day of the month of January, on St. Basil, at mass”). In his answers to Kirik, Niphon refers to the church customs of Constantinople and the entire Greek land and region (in Kalaid. pp. 176 and 178). But this may not mean that he was a Greek, but that he traveled to the East to worship holy places or for another reason (cfr below); And that he stayed there quite a long time (to learn the customs of the whole land). He reports on customs for information and consideration, but not for execution, as one would expect from a Greek. When in 1156 Niphon was about to go to Kyiv, then, according to the Novgorod chronicler, “there are many verbs that, having received Saint Sophia, he went to Tsaryugrad”; but this rumor could have spread about Niphon not because he was a Greek, but because of his special relationship with the patriarch (about which below). Evidence of Niphont from the story of the Paterik of Pechersk, compiled in the 15th century. (Kyuchevsky Ancient Russian Lives of Saints, p. 261), repeated in his life, compiled in the 16th century. (Monuments of ancient Russian literature by Count Kushelev-Bezborodko, IV, 1) that he was tonsured at the Pechersk Monastery has no authority; but the Hypatan Chronicle (under 1156) gives a very great right to assume this, according to which, in a vision that was Niphon, the Monk Theodosius of Pechersk called him “brother to son.” And, in any case, according to the testimony of the same chronicle (ibid.), Nifont “had no great love for the Holy Mother of God (Pecherskaya or her monastery) and for Father Theodosius.” A monk or just a zealous admirer of the Pechersk Monastery, this, of course, very decisively indicates that Nifont was not a Greek, but a natural Russian. The first under 1147 and 1156, the second under 1149. Other bishops turned to Nifont with requests (in Kirik: “Klim asked our bishop from the Bishop of Polotsk,” Kalaid. p. 181, i.e. Klim asked Nifont on behalf of the Bishop of Polotsk). Dolgoruky entered Kyiv on August 23; How early Nifont was planted is unknown. Hypatan Chronicle under 1156, 2nd edition p. 333 fin. “I cannot serve with you,” Niphon said to Clement, nor remember you in holy service, but I remember the patriarch.” Hypatan Chronicle under 1156. Antimins with the signature of the latter, see in the Archaeological description of church antiquities in Novgorod by Archimandrite Macarius, I, 254, also in the Ancient monuments of Russian writing and language by I. I. Sreznevsky, St. Petersburg, 1863, p. 30 (cfr below in the chapter on enlightenment, the work of Kirik of Novgorod: “Teaching, they also tell a person the numbers of all years,” in which he calls Niphon archbishop). One of the letters in the life of Niphon of the 16th century, which was published in Monuments of Russian Literature by Kushelev-Bezborodko, IV, 5, and separately in the Reverend Macarius, vol. 3, edition 2, p. 297. As can be seen from his subsequent behavior: after 1155. he, without installing a new metropolitan, like Izyaslav Kliment, sent for a metropolitan to Greece (Metropolitan Constantine 1). After the death of Izyaslav (and after the elimination of his rivals - Rostislav of Smolensk and Izyaslav Davidovich of Chernigov), Yuri took the throne of the Grand Duke in 1155. (Novgorod 1st Chronicle), and the new metropolitan was installed before January 26, 1156, see above footnote No. 555. According to the Hypatan Chronicle, it is erroneous on May 15, 1158. He fled to Chernigov, where in the next 1159. and died. About his death in the Laurentian Chronicle it is read: “And his death came to pass: as I was dying, he called to himself the Bishop of Chernigov Anthony (successor of Onufriev, a Greek by birth), cursed V17;, saying to the sitse: for after my death you will not bury my body, but the snake has tied it up (tied?) by my nose you will take me out of the city and, after he has died, the bishop will do everything according to his command, and the people were all amazed at his death; on the morning of the day, Prince Svyatoslav, having thought with his men and with the bishop, took up his body and buried him in the church of the Holy Savior.” Constantine canonized our saints and his memory is June 5. Hypatian Chronicle for 1159, 2nd edition p. 345. His Grace Macarius says, vol. 3, 2nd edition p. 19 that Rostislav did not want Clement, “yielding to the suggestion of his bishop Manuel the Greek,” but we do not know on what basis. That Rostislav acted not according to anyone’s suggestion, but according to his own conviction,” this is shown by his further behavior (Clement’s confession under condition). And the first reign of Rostislav after the death of Izyaslav, to which the Right Reverend Macarius refers, lasted only one week (Novgorod 1st Chronicle under 1154). About Tatishchev, a very respectable man in fact, and a historian who was not only very, but also remarkably talented, only distinguished by the indicated very bad custom, common, however, to his time, which new researchers do not want to take into account, we will talk deliberately in a special appendix. “We will make an eternal law to elect and appoint (metropolitans) to Russian bishops at the command of the Grand Duke,” Tatishchev could say so menacingly in his time, but to believe that this could be said in the 12th century would be very frivolous. Hypatan Chronicle under 1156, 2nd edition p. 333 fin.. The Greek is a cunning, deceiver, stingy and coward - this is the idea that the Russians had about the Greeks from the bad side. “In essence, the Greeks are flattering to this day,” says the chronicler, telling how they wanted to deceive Svyatoslav (it is quite possible, however, that it is not the chronicler himself who speaks, as is usually thought, but one of his readers, whose note, made in the margin, was later included in the text, and it is remarkable that in the Hypatian Chronicle instead of flattering it is written: wise). Narrating about the treacherous act of one bishop, a Greek by birth, the chronicler simply adds in his explanation: “Before I was born Grechin.” Popular proverbs talk about the deceit and cunning of the Greeks: “The Gypsy will deceive the Toropchanin, the Gypsy will be deceived by the Jew, the Jew will be deceived by the Greek, and the Greek will be deceived by the devil”; “A Greek will tell the truth once a year”; about their stinginess: “A Greek will hatch his eyes for gold”; about their cowardice and insignificance: “a cancer is not a fish, and a Greek is not a man.” Regarding Yaroslav, who can be imagined as a man who has not yet had time to come to terms with the subordination of the Russian Church, this is not incredible; Regarding Izyaslav, this is possible, but without direct indications it cannot be considered probable. It is necessary, however, to keep in mind the 1st Novgorod Chronicle, in which Cyril is reported in such a way that no confusion or questions are raised; under the year 1233 it is written: “that same summer the blessed Metropolitan of All Rus' of Kiev, named Kuril, reposed; Gritsin was born and was brought from Nicaea.” See a little lower in this same chapter. The Bulgarians during the period of the first kingdom until 1019. the capital of the state was Pereyaslavl, and the department of the metropolitan-patriarch, in all likelihood, was located in Dorostol. For the Serbs, throughout the existence of their state, the department of archbishops-patriarchs was separate from the capitals of the state. (See our book: A brief outline of the history of the Orthodox churches of Bulgarian, Serbian and Romanian). This was the case for some, if not many, in Zapala. - It can be assumed that Vladimir, settling the metropolitan in Pereyaslavl, gave him this city in full power and ownership, in order to thus make him a kind of prince, and Yaroslav transferred the metropolitanate to Kyiv - firstly, because he found it inconvenient, and secondly, then, in order to give more shine to the capital of the state. Cfr patriarchal conciliar act of 1354. on the transfer of the see of the Russian metropolitanate" (actually: the residence of the metropolitans) from Kyiv to Vladimir in the Acta Patriarchat. Constantinop. Miklosic I, 351, and in Monuments of Canon Law, Pavlov's edition, second account col. 63. (Dietmar’s testimony that the cathedral church of the metropolitans in Kyiv was the Tithe Church of Vladimir, see in the 2nd half of the volume, p. 87 (based on the 1st edition). Nestor in the life of Boris and Gleb, in the story of one of the miracles, speaks of the “katholicania klisia", i.e. about the cathedral church ( καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία) metropolitans before their resettlement from Pereyaslavl to Kyiv, but does not call her by name and does not indicate where she was). The Nikonov Chronicle, which tells about Bogolyubsky’s attempt (II, 179), dates his embassy to Constantinople to 1160. But, firstly, it was under Metropolitan Theodore, and this latter, according to the Hypatian Chronicle, came in August 1161. Secondly, other events that the Nikon Chronicle speaks of under this year 1160. (the return of Bishop Leon by Bogolyubsky and the expulsion of his brothers) The Ipata Chronicle dates back to 1162. However, it is known that the chronology of the Ipatan Chronicle is far from reliable. (If we accept, as seems likely, that Bogolyubsky began to bother about establishing a special metropolitanate in Vladimir after completing the construction of his famous Vladimir Cathedral, then the latter was consecrated in the fall of 1161, see 2 halves of the volume, p. 98, 1st edition). It is in the Nikon Chronicle, and in a more original form by the Right Reverend Macarius in volume 3, edition 2, p. 298. Those who consider the first metropolitan to be the actual first metropolitan of Leon, see them above. Nomocanon Photius title 1, ch. 20 and title 8, ch. 1, – for Rally and P. I, 57 and 143 fin. So that the reader is not surprised by fortified villages (ancient cities), let him recall the Caucasian fortified villages of recent times. In Greece itself, for two regions inhabited, to put it in Greek, by barbarian peoples and presenting the same inconvenience to the establishment of an episcopal see in each city as our Russia, an exception was made so that all the cities of one and the other of them were led by one bishop. (The regions are the so-called Lesser Scythia in Europe and Isauria in Asia Minor; in the latter, however, there are only two cities; see the quote from the second note above). The chronicle does not call Vladimir Volynsky, but simply Vladimir. But in another Vladimir - Klyazemsky, even though it was founded by Vladimir the Holy (and not Monomakh), which, however, is very doubtful, the episcopal see was established only in 1214. Minsk province, Mozyr district, on the river. Pripyat, half the distance between Mozyr and Pinsk. In 1024, after an unsuccessful attempt to take the throne of the Grand Duke, he took the Trans-Dnieper Rus' from Yaroslav and sat down in Chernigov. Actually, we think, although we put our thoughts under the line, that the Tmutarakan diocese existed even before Vladimir. Tmutarakan, as it most likely should be thought, was part of that Azov-Tauride Rus', which we talked about above, for which reason the Kievan Russians, having conquered it, retained it as a colony. Patriarch Photius gave a bishop to the Tauride Russians, and this bishop, as we have a strong inclination to believe, is our later Tmutarakan bishop. Having grasped the discovery of the diocese of Tmutarakan to Vladimir, we will have before ourselves a question to which absolutely nothing in any way satisfactory can be answered, namely, why did Vladimir open this diocese? About Metropolitan Michael, the Nikon Chronicle says that he brought with him six bishops from Patriarch Photius (1, 103). If we accept that these words should be transferred from Mikhail to Leon, then this will mean that at the very first establishment of departments, six of them were established and that the remaining two, which most likely should be attributed to the time of Vladimir, were opened under him, but not at the first establishment of departments, and subsequently time. Pichler in his Geschichte der kirchlichen Trennung, - II, 502, referring to Renaudotus, whom we do not have at hand, says that among the Egyptian Copts in the 12th century it was accepted that 10 bishops could appoint a patriarch for themselves. If one were to think that this was also accepted by the Greeks in the 10th century, then one would suspect that they themselves at first did not want to open more dioceses among us than what was open. Laurentian Chronicle under 1097: “Belgorod is a small city near Kiev, like 10 miles away” (in the Ipatian Chronicle it is mistakenly Zvenigorod). Przemysl was actually older than Galich, but in the middle of the 12th century the roles changed. Founded in this in 1037, but it is not known when it was completed. Bishop Ephraim of Pereyaslavl is called metropolitan. That this Ephraim was not the Metropolitan of Kyiv or a real Russian, as some people think, but was the Bishop of Pereyaslavl and bore the name of Metropolitan only titularly, this cannot be doubted. The chronicler, firstly, directly and clearly calls Ephraim the Metropolitan of Pereyaslavl (under 1089). Secondly, he calls him a metropolitan under the same year (the same 1089), when there was a real metropolitan in Kyiv (John 3). Thirdly, at first calling him a metropolitan, he later called him (under 1091 and 1123) simply a bishop. The Monk Nestor, in the life of the Monk Theodosius, speaks of Ephraim, who was tonsured at the Pechersk Monastery, that he was “ordained metropolitan in the city of Pereyaslavl” (metropolitans were ordained in Constantinople, and about Ephraim, who lived before being elevated to the see in this latter city, Nestor makes it clear that he was called home and then consecrated). Finally, Simon in the Patericon, without thinking of classifying Ephraim among the metropolitans of Kyiv, calls him Bishop of Pereyaslavl. For titular metropolitans in Greece, see 4 Ecumenical Council rule 12. Supplement to Acts of History vol. I No. 4, p. 7 sub. fin. From the answers of Metropolitan John 2 to Jacob the Monk (which are discussed below) it is clear that the question of too small a number and too large an extensiveness of our dioceses occupied our ancient society. Among the other answers one can read the following, unfortunately, very unclearly stated in the Slavic translation of the Greek original: “Who will serve as a bishop in that land, especially where there are many people and people and cities, about which care and care (and) we kindly imagine that we will be; fearful; but above all, let the first Russian steward and the gathering of all that country be undisciplined,” - in Russian Dostopams. I, 102, in Monuments of Canon Law, Pavlov's edition col. 19. In a very vaguely stated answer, it is clear, at least, that Metropolitan John was not at all against the opening of new bishops, and did not think of referring to canonical rules that supposedly prohibited doing this. We provide detailed information about all dioceses of the pre-Mongol period in a special appendix to this chapter. It would be strange and incredible, apparently, to assume that in ancient times there could have been a region in our country that did not belong to any diocese and which, thus, would have been, as it were, outside the church. And, meanwhile, one must think that such an original area really existed. And precisely - as such, the region should most likely represent the small region of Vyatka (the current province of the same name), which, as a small independent Russian state with republican rule, appeared in the land of the Finnish Votyaks. Having been founded at the end of the 12th century by Novgorod immigrants, who by their nature were, one must think, the same as the later Moscow immigrants from whom the Don Cossacks were formed. (According to local later chronicles, which would be very strange to assimilate complete reliability, Vyatka was founded in 1174. Retelling of local chronicles by P. Rychkov: in the Experience of the Kazan History of Ancient and Middle Times, St. Petersburg, 1767, p. 187 sqq, and in N. Rychkov in the Continuation of the journal or day notes of travel in different provinces of the Russian state... 1770. St. Petersburg, 1772, p. 29 sqq, see also Karamzin, vol. III, col. 22, and Kostomarova Northern Russian People's Rights, I, 241). The Vyatchans did not at all recognize the state power of their metropolis, Novgorod, over themselves and were completely free and “autocratic” people; but it is also necessary to think that they did not recognize the ecclesiastical authority of the Novgorod Archbishop over themselves. This last point must be thought because when in the 15th century Vyatka was conquered by the Moscow Grand Dukes, it came under the ecclesiastical authority of the Moscow metropolitans, and was not left to the archbishops of Novgorod, which would have been the case if it had previously belonged to the archbishops. (And for it to be transferred from the power of the latter to the power of the former, there is no indication of this). How the Vyatchans acquired priests for themselves while they were not under the authority of any bishop remains unknown; but in all likelihood, in this regard, they had the same thing as the schismatic priests before the advent of the Austrian priesthood: Partly they brought priests from neighboring Rus', partly from the same and from all Rus' priests came and resorted to them themselves. Lastly, we want to say that it is very likely that not only legal or non-banned priests came to them, but also priests who were banned and disbanded, and even, which is not at all impossible, priests who were impostors. To what extreme extent Christianity was bad among the Vyatchans before they came under the rule of Moscow, this can be seen from the letters of Metropolitan Jonah to Vyatka. (The region or territory of Vyatchany was called Vyatka land and Vyatka, but the city of Vyatka was called not Vyatka, but Khlynov, and has had its first name only since 1780. A person who is evading or running away from something is called a khlyn, and to gully or to flow away means to leave with haste, to run away; Thus, the name of the city of Khlynov is very likely to be translated into modern Russian: Beglyakov or Bezhetsk - which, perhaps, really means the name of another Novgorod colony - the current Tver Bezhetsk. This makes it clear what kind of Novgorod natives the colony was founded). We will return to Vyatchany after. In the Laurentian Chronicle under 1089. bishops: Belgorod, Rostov, Chernigov, Yuryev; under 1091: Pereyaslavsky, Vladimirsky, Chernigovsky, Yuryevsky. In the Ipata Chronicle under 1147: Chernigov, Belgorod, Pereyaslav, Yuryev, Vladimir. Council of Carthage rule 97 (in Greek by Ralli and P., in full, 86). As for the very installation of Greek bishops, one can think in two ways: either that they were all installed in Greece and brought to Russia ready-made, or that only two or three were installed in Greece, so that with these two or three the Metropolitan could install the rest in Russia itself. (For which purpose, however, even without appointing two or three, the local bishops could have been deliberately sent from Greece with the metropolitan). And the rest were installed in Russia itself, and not only from the persons brought by the Metropolitan, but also from those Greeks whom Vladimir had previously brought from Korsun. Usually the first is assumed, but the existing data are more in favor of the second. Joachim of Korsun was installed as bishop in Novgorod, i.e., originally from Korsun. If all the bishops were installed in Constantinople, then they would not be looked for in such distant places as Korsun; if Joachim was made a bishop, then it is most likely to assume that he was from among the priests brought by Vladimir from Korsun, and was appointed by the arriving metropolitan in Kyiv. It is not impossible to assume that they could also be found among the laity. As for the immediate installation of laymen as bishops, the order of the two-time council regarding the installation of Photius is known, so that none of the laity would be suddenly elevated to the height of bishopric (canon 17). Even if it constituted an obstacle, it could have been violated due to exceptional circumstances, but in reality it did not constitute an obstacle. The time of preliminary testing in ecclesiastical degrees for laymen elected to the bishopric was not precisely defined by the council; the unwritten custom of the Greeks limited it to only seven days for each degree. See Balsamon in the interpretation of the indicated rule of our council, - in Ralli and P., II, 703 fin. The chronicler of the Novgorod rulers reports that the first Novgorod bishop Joachim prepared a successor for himself in his disciple Ephraim. Monks began to be installed as bishops, or, more precisely, bishops began to be installed from monks as soon as monasticism appeared, and very soon this installation of them as bishops became a real custom. (The Epistle of St. Athanasius of Alexandria to Bishop Dracontius, deliberately in relation to our question, which was written in 354 or 355 and which says that before this or that year many monks had already been ordained bishops, - in Minya in Patrology t. XXV, col. 532. 3 and 6 words of St. John Chrysostom about the priesthood, which talk about the installation bishops from monks as a custom that was not only established, but also had already revealed its dark or negative sides, namely, that other bishops appointed from monks, instead of devoting themselves to all the diverse activities that were required of them, wanted to remain the same self-imprisoned ascetics in their cathedras that they were before the episcopate. See then the Code of Emperor Justinian, lib III, sar. 48 and 53, and his short stories 123 and 137). But as for the patriarchal see of Constantinople, until the half of the 10th century, clergy (from among those of the see itself) or laymen were appointed to it, and monks (not meaning those laymen who were tonsured just before being appointed patriarch) only as an exception. (The first such exception was Eutyches, installed in 552). From the middle of the 10th century, monks began to be appointed to replace the laity, but during our pre-Mongol period the ratio of those appointed from them to those appointed from clergy was half and half. That throughout our time, within the Patriarchate of Constantinople, clergy were recognized as the main candidates for bishops, and the rights of monks, as such, were not yet openly presented, see Skylitzes’ remark regarding the installation in 1075. Emperor Michael Duca to the Patriarchs of Constantinople, the Jerusalem monk Cosmas, - in Le Quien ’a I, 263 fin., and the answers of John Bishop of Kithra to Constantine, Archbishop of Dyrrachium, - in Ralli and P. V, 406, cfr from Zhishman in Die Synoden und die Episkopal – Ämter in der morgen aländischen Kirche S. 212. [See. "Additions and amendments"]. The acts of the 4th Ecumenical Council, which took place in 451, speak about the duties, making it clear that they were very significant, see Acts of the Councils in the Russian translation, vol. IV, pp. 208, 380 sqq. Emperor Justinian, wanting to stop abuses with duties, appointed certain sizes of them, namely, that, depending on the profitability of the dioceses, they were of five classes and consisted of 28, 42, 120, 300 and 400 gold coins (imperpirs), in which the value of 20 ½ of the current French francs is calculated - novella 123, ch. 3 (in Iosifovsko-Nikonovskaya Kormcha, chapter 42, §32, l. 319). But there is no doubt that the tax appointed by the emperor did not eradicate abuses at all, and that in fact the duties were always more or less significantly higher than their currently indicated amounts. (And as for other initiation costs, bows and trays to the officials of the initiators in addition to duties and ceremonial dinners for some and for others and in general for everyone who had the right to such dinners should have cost no less than whole thousands of our rubles). That in Greece from very ancient times, as it was necessary and should have been, bishops were elected mainly from people belonging to the highest secular class, this is proven by church history, as far as it is known about the origin of bishops. And this is proven by the lives of the saints, insofar as the lives indicate the origin of our class of saints; cfr of the Council of Sardica, rules 10 and 12. Gabriel is not directly called a priest, but that he was really a priest and not a layman, this is made clear in the story of his ordination (1 Novgorod Chronicle), which does not mention that before being ordained a bishop he was passed through the lower degrees of the clergy. In 1214 this John unsubscribed from the bishopric and took monastic vows at the Bogolyubov Monastery (Laurentian Chronicle). If he was tonsured a monk after being removed from the see, then, apparently, it follows that he was not appointed bishop from a monk. But before he was installed as a bishop, he was the confessor of the Grand Duke (the same chronicle from 1190) and since the confessors of the princes were mostly monks, the matter can also be understood in such a way that he was made a bishop from among the monks of the small order, and upon his removal from the department, he took monastic vows into the great image. (Although, on the other hand, the same Laurentian Chronicle speaks directly and accurately about John’s second successor, Cyril, who was appointed from the monks of the small image and, after being removed from the department, was tonsured into the great image). Elijah was elected bishop of Novgorod from the parish priests of the Novgorod Church of St. Blaise. But this does not prevent us from considering him a priest who belonged to the episcopal choir: the choir priests, as we will say below, were rectors of parish churches, like the current members of consistories. 1 Novgorod Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles. III, 45. The last Patriarch of Constantinople, elected from the laity, was Constantine Likhud, installed in 1059. That is, we mean not when a white priest or layman himself is tonsured a monk and then is ordained a bishop, but when one or the other is tonsured a monk before being ordained a bishop and precisely for this ordination. [Cm. "Additions and amendments"]. The canonical rule says: “if a bishop or anyone else of the episcopal rank desires to enter the monastic life and enter the place of repentance, let him no longer seek the use of episcopal dignity, for the vows of monastics contain the duty of obedience and discipleship, and not teaching and leadership” (Cathedral in the Church of St. Sophia, canon 2). If a bishop who has become a monk “deprives himself of his episcopal dignity” and if “monasticism ceases to be a bishop” (we use the expressions of Zonara and Balsamon in the interpretation of the above rule, in Ralli and P. II, 709 beginning and 710 beginning): then it is obvious that, on the contrary, a monk who has become a bishop ceases to be a monk, for - and † or † and -, of course, are one and the same (and “the one who presides cannot be at the same time the one who submits and the one who teaches is taught”, Zonara ibid.). Cfr John Chrysostom on the priesthood, word 6, in which the difference between the priesthood and monasticism is precisely depicted. The monastic bishops wear monastic robes and observe monastic abstinence from certain types of food (and in ancient times they wore the hair on their heads like a monk, and not like lay priests, as discussed below). We don’t know how this was introduced - whether through a direct order of the church or through voluntary custom (as if somewhere we met evidence that the former, but, unfortunately, memory does not serve us at the moment). This means that the church orders bishops, former monks or bishops from monks, to retain and observe those monastic things that are not incompatible with being a bishop. (In our country, buried bishops have a priestly funeral service, not a monastic one; therefore, our church does not look at bishops as monks. The long-standing custom of our bishops to wear colored robes - “a motley clergy” - as one must think, is based on their view of themselves as not monks). - The priesthood does not destroy monasticism in hieromonks, but the latter are priests of a special kind, priests not for shepherding, but only for performing church services in monasteries (cfr Balsamon in the same interpretation ibid. p. 710).– The editors of the Greek Pidalion, who stand for the current view of the Greek Church, that everyone appointed to the bishopric must first be tonsured a monk, notes to 1 and 51 apostolic canons, at the same time recognize that bishoprics and monasticism, ἐναντία ὄντα , ἀδύνατόν ἐστι, - interpretation of Rule 2 of the Council in the Church of St. Sophia: we don’t understand how reconciliation takes place here. Of the Patriarchs of Constantinople who were not appointed as monks, the first to receive monastic tonsure before his ordination was Nikephoros I, the Confessor (806–815), who was a lay official before his election. Living in the world, he had the intention of becoming a monk, but before he carried out his intention, he was elected patriarch. Therefore, he asked the emperor to be allowed to become a monk before his ordination. After refusing the patriarchate, he finally expressed his consent to be appointed - he μεταμεῖψαι ἀγγελοειδῆ πολ ί τειαν τὸν βασιλέα εὐθύς παρ ῃ τήσατο ? πόνοις ἐπιπονωτέραν προστιθείς τελειότητα, that is, he immediately asked the emperor for permission to change the image of a layman to an angelic state monastic image, adding zeal to zeal and to well-performed works the most difficult perfection, life in Acta SS. Bollandistov, Martha t. II, p. 294 and 704. After Nicephorus, many patriarchs were not elected from among monks; but about most of these elected we do not have positive and direct information about how they were appointed - with or without preliminary tonsure as monks. As for this positive information, they, fragmentarily reaching back to the beginning of the 14th century, say that Nikephoros's immediate successor was Theodotus Melissen or Cassiter, separated from him by half a century, Photius and elected in 1283. Gregory II, of Cyprus, were ordained from the laity with preliminary tonsure as monks. And what about 1191? George Xyphilinus from the white clergy and in 1316. John Glyka from the laity were installed without prior tonsure. (See in the Addendum to the works of the holy fathers of 1862, part XXI, article: On the rank of bishop in relation to monasticism in the Eastern Church, pp. 348 fin., 352 and 356). Simeon of Thessalonica in the first quarter of the 15th century, on the one hand, speaks of the custom of tonsuring those elected as bishops from non-monks beforehand as a decidedly dominant custom. But on the other hand, it makes it clear that appointments were also allowed without tonsure - De poenitentia sar. 266 and De sacerdotio, in Minh in Patrology 1.155, p. 358 ἐστι κεκαρμένος ἐν Χριστῷ, ἐπίσκοπος ἤ πατριάρχης οὐ γίνεται, that is, in the east, if someone is not tonsured in Christ, he does not become a bishop or patriarch (in Hergenröther’s work Photius, Patriarch von Constantinopel, t. II. p. 486), in which words the publishers of the Greek Pidalion (in a note to the apostolic canon 51) see positive evidence that in the half of the 11th century no one was installed among the Greeks without prior tonsure as a monk. But in the above words, instead of μη, we should put μεν, for the whole speech reads: εἰς ἀνατολὴν ... ἡ δε δύσις καὶ τοῦς ὄντας μοναχούς κληρικούς ποιεῖ , τοῦτο δε ἡμεῖς οὐ γνωρίζομεν, what will it mean: in the East, if someone is tonsured in Christ, he does not become a bishop or patriarch, and the West makes real (real, perfect) monks clerics - this we do not we know. Thus, the above words say and contain evidence that in the East they did not appoint monks tonsured into the great angelic image or schema as bishops. From Metropolitan Hilarion, as we mentioned above, a confession of faith has been preserved, which he gave in writing to the bishops before his installation. Under this confession he signed: “mnich and priest Hilarion.” That Elijah and Gabriel did not take monastic vows and both took monastic vows before their deaths (the first with the name of John, the second with the name of Gregory), this is clearly indicated by the available modern record, see Description of the synodal manuscripts of Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 380 f. 189 vol., Dept. III p. 269 fin., cfr Hypatan Chronicle under 1160. As for the fact that the Greeks managed to make the Rostov diocese semi-Greek to some extent, then in the life of Tsarevich Peter of the Horde, the Rostov saint, it is stated that in the middle of the 13th century, when the Rostov see had long ceased to be replaced by the Greeks, in the Rostov Cathedral Church they sang in Slavonic on the right choir, and in Greek on the left - Orthodox Interlocutor 1859, I [See. "Additions and amendments"]. 1 Ecumenical Council rule 4; 4 Ecumenical Council rule 28 sub fin.; 7 Ecumenical Council Rule 3; Council of Antioch rules 19 and 23. Apostolic canon 30, 7th ecumenical council, canon 3. [See. "Additions and amendments"]. Mark to Pereslavl by Prince Yaropolk Vladimirovich, Laurentian Chronicle Justinian in his civil laws prescribes that the clergy and the best citizens of the subject cities (κληρικοὶ καὶ πρῶτοι τῆς πόλεως) choose three candidates for bishops and that from these three the metropolitan selects and appoints one - Novellas 123 ch. I, and 137 ch. 2 (repeated in the Basilicas or Royal Books, -ibid. III, tit. I, cap. VIII). Some time or other after Nikephoros Phocas, a custom was established that the church authorities would submit three candidates to the discretion of the emperors, but the custom was established only in such an unstable form that the emperors violated it whenever they wanted - Morini de sacris ordinationibus, ed. Antverp. p. 155 sqq (Balsamon and Blastar on the right of emperors, who are not subject to laws or canons, to appoint bishops at their own discretion, in Rally and P. III, 350, and VI, 344). Luka Zhidyata was installed in 1036. as bishops of Novgorod, it seems, in exactly this way. Laurentian Chronicle “To be a cleric” means that he was numbered, numbered, among the clergy, among the cathedral staff. In another place, under 1301, the same chronicle strangely uses the word cleric about the appointed bishop: “in Novgorod the Great, Theoktist was installed as a bishop... and he became the cleric of St. Sophia of Novgorod.” [Cm. "Additions and amendments"]. We said above that our very first bishops, in all likelihood, deliberately prepared successors for themselves. But here we are talking not only about the preparation of successors, but also about their formal election and appointment. (The disciple of the first Novgorod bishop Joachim Ephraim was in charge of the diocese for five years after his death, but he was not elected bishop, nor was he later installed. In any case, the very first time, as an exceptional time, should not be taken into account). One chronicle makes it clear that bribery took place not only of the princely boyars, but even of the princes themselves. (Novgorod 1 under 1228, in the story about the election of the Khutyn monk Arseny to the archbishop of Novgorod). We do not know from the pre-Mongol period evidence of how ambitious people achieved princely episcopal positions at the courts, but what does Epiphanius the Wise say about these people in the life of St. Stephen of Perm for the 14th century, in all likelihood, should already be attributed to our time. (Singling out Stefan from among the seekers of the episcopate, Epiphanius says about him: “he did not know that he was going to be a bishop, and did not seek sovereignty, nor hovered, that is, before the prince and his boyars, nor strove, nor rushed, nor bought, nor made promises; for he did not give anything to anyone, and no one took anything from him from the appointment, neither a gift, nor promises, no bribes. – Monuments of Kushelev-Bezborodko, IV, 148). Episcopal districts, as we have already said, were not called dioceses, which meant a metropolitan district, but rather parishes - παροικία. Novella of Emperor Alexei Komnenos, in Rally and P. V, 303. “The apostles went around the world for no other reason than to teach right preaching to all people. So, the bishops who inherited their honor should each do the same in their own district, since it does not serve to humiliate the bishop, but on the contrary to the greatest honor, if he goes into the hut of a poor man, becomes thoroughly acquainted with his position and directs him on the path of piety, for such a bishop becomes an imitator of the disciples of Christ and Christ Himself, and thereby primarily fulfills the duty of the episcopal title. And the “canonicon” (κανονικόν - to give to the bishops from the laity of the diocese, about which below) was assigned to the bishops so that everyone, going around (the diocese) and teaching, would feed from him. So, let every bishop know that he is entrusted with this spiritual work, and he must fulfill it, just as those blessed fathers (ancient bishops) and the most divine apostles did this throughout their lives.” (To what extent in the time of St. John Chrysostom and the bishops took part in the affairs of the laity and to what extent they extended their care over them, this is clear from his words: ἀγοραίων περινοτεῖ τὰς οἰκίας ὁ τὴν ἑπισκοπὴν ἔχων, προσκρούμματα ἐντεύθεν ἀμύτητα , – ed. Montfauc. I, 489, that is, he who has a bishopric, does not he go around more houses every day than a peddler, receiving from here untold [incalculable] troubles?) Stefan the Novgorodian, who was in Constantinople in the middle of the 14th century, writes in his Wanderer that when he and his companions were in St. Sophia, the holy Patriarch of Constantinople Isidore (Vukhiras) saw them and talked with them, and on this occasion he exclaims: “Oh, a great miracle! How much humility was there for him, and he talked with strangers - we are sinners: it’s not our custom. (In Stephen’s opinion, seeing a bishop talking with people like wanderers is a great miracle...). The note to the words we have just said turned out to be too long for us, and therefore we are printing it at the end of the chapter, along with the appendices. For the origin of parishes in the present sense, see Bingham in Antiquitt. Eccless. vol. 3 p.m. 593 sqq (lib. IX cap. VIII, §2). To the question of the time of appearance of these parishes let us add, it seems, not indicated by Bingham: Gangr. Council Rule 6 and Abbr. Hist. Eccl. 1 VII p. 36 How often Greek bishops were obliged to visit their dioceses remains unknown to us; in all likelihood, no less than once a year. (What was prescribed in the West - Giselera KG. II, 1, §8 fin., 4 Aufl, S. 73). Emperor Alexei Komnenos in the above-mentioned novella, without assigning a specific period, orders to visit as often as possible, συνεχέστερον, - with Rally and P. V, 304. (According to our Peter’s Regulations, “it is appropriate for a bishop to inhabit and visit his diocese once every year or two”). That this or that first time your bishops toured their dioceses is evidenced by a gift from the lower clergy, which was called an entrance and which appeared as a gift or worship from the clergy when they toured their dioceses. (See also the letter of the Novgorod prince Svyatoslav to Bishop Nifont, in Russian Dominatories 85 beginning: “on the train from the whole land to the ruler”...). That more or less long before the invasion of the Mongols, our bishops stopped visiting the dioceses (although at the same time the said tax has not stopped now, for which see below), this is evidenced by Metropolitan Kirill 3 in the acts of the Council of Vladimir in 1274. [Cm. "Additions and amendments"]. Under Emperor Justinian, according to the Synecdemus of Hierocles, there were 64 provincial and 935 district cities in Greece, therefore, there were the same number of bishops. After Justinian, probably many cities, and with them bishoprics, ceased to exist due to barbarian raids. But still, the number of the latter continued to remain very large; Bishops were present at the Councils of Constantinople under Photius - 861. more than 300, 879–880 too 380. The first example that we remember is that of Patriarch Job, who was transferred from the Kolomna bishopric to the Rostov archbishopric. Of the patriarchs themselves, they are known for the movement of bishops - Filaret (Cyprian of Novgorod, Pavel of Krutitsky), and especially Nikon (see Solovyov, vol. XI, 2nd edition, p. 318). 1st Ecumenical Council, rule 15, Sarvik. collection of rules. 1 and 2. (“For the fathers,” says Aristinus, “understood from the matter itself that none of the bishops tries to be moved from a large city to a smaller one, but (everyone) strives to jump (μεταπηδ ᾷ ν) from a smaller (lower) city to a larger (higher)” - in Ralli and P. III, 231). How resolutely Constantine the Great was against the transfers, see Eusebius in De vita Const. lib. III c. LIX sqq (the desire of the Antiochians to move Eusebius himself from Caesarea). Apostolic canon 14. At the same time, some interpreters (Armenopoulos, - Ἐπιτομή τῶν κανόνων, τμήμ . ά, ἐπιγρ . δ ') and, as it seems rightly, mean displacement not forever, but for a while, for temporary management of the diocese (as Gregory the Theologian was in charge of the diocese of Constantinople). In post-Mongol Rus', excluding a deviation from this when replacing the metropolitan see itself, such a deviation could be subsumed under the indicated apostolic rule. In Greece, the transfer of bishops from department to department, not, however, in the form of our current, as it were, indispensable rule, began a long time ago, see Ralli and P. V, 116 and 391, in Pidalion notes to the Apostolic Canon 14 and the Council of Sardica 1. Since the staff of priests at the cathedral bishops' councils were in Greece, judging by the St. of Constantinople. Sophia, are very great, then one must think that the council of bishops was not made up of all these priests, but the elders among them in a certain, definite number. Otherwise, it would be inconvenient and almost entire cathedrals would have to meet for all sorts of matters. (Emperor Justinian appoints a staff of priests of St. Sophia of 60 people, - novella 3 chapter 1 sub fin., and Emperor Heraclius, † 641, of 80 people, in Rally and P. V, 231, cfr Nomocanon Photius title 1 chapter 30, - ibid. I, 69). (When our Anthony of Novgorod assures that “St. Sophia has 3000 priests” and that of them 500 are full-time priests who receive the ruba, - Pilgrim of Constantinople according to Savvaitov’s edition, p. 173, - (about the regular priests, compare the short story of Alexei Komnenos in Ralli and P. V, 295: ἔμβαθμοι κληρικοὶ καὶ περισσοὶ): then his testimony should probably be looked at in the same way as the testimony of our other pilgrims, as if St. Sophia “has 365 doors, as well as thrones,” - Stefan of Novgorod). There were, however, no district officials who permanently lived in the districts, but there were traveling officials sent from bishops or visitators - these are periodeuts (περιοδευταὶ, from περιοδεύω, actually I go around, and not actually - I heal, I correct, because in the classical In ancient times, wandering healers were called periodeuts). Being priests and not having their own parishes, the periodeuts went around the dioceses to supervise and arrange church affairs (περιοδευταὶ δὲ λέγονται, διὰ τὸ καὶ οίκείαν, - Zonara in the interpretation of the 57th rule of the Council of Laodicea, in Ralli and P. III, 223; - Balsamon ibidd). In later times, the periodeuts began to be called exarchs ( τῶν ἐπισκόπων ἔξαρχοι, Balsamon ibidd., cfr Ducanzha Graecit. Probably those juniors who were not members of the bishop's councils, see note above. Ὀφφίκια ἐκκλησιάστικα, – Trull Cathedral rule 7, cfr novella of Heraclius by Ralli and P. V, 232 and 233 (ὀφφίκια ἤ τα λεγόμενα ἐπιτάγματα). Ὀφφίκιον from lat. officium - a position in general, and in particular the position of a lower executive official under a greater official (official, cfr Ducange Gloss. Latinit.). George Kodin, writing in the middle of the 15th century, assures that our officials, who in his time were already dignitaries, as will be discussed below, were originally all presbyters - De officiis Constantinopolitanis, ch. 9, in Minya Patrology t. 157 rub. 84; but this is wrong. Seeing before him the dignitaries of the deacons, who, as such, were superior to the elders, and thinking that these dignitaries had always been dignitaries, Kodin naturally found it unusual that the deacons should become superior to the elders. Not knowing how this actually happened, he assumes that the original dignitaries were elders, and then comes up with a worthy reason for the change, which is ibidd. and which does not explain anything in essence. From ὀφφίκια – ἀρχοντίκια, – Zonara and Balsamon in the interpretation of the 7th rule of the Trull Cathedral, in Ralli and P. II, 321 and 322. Orders – σεκρέτα (lat. secretum), Balsamon in Rally and P. II, 587, and IV, 533 sub fin., cfr Ducange Constantinop. Christ, lib. II, p. XIV, p. 161 (in Russian σεκρέτον literally - taibnitsa, as it was translated in ancient times - “tsarev’s taibnitsa”). Σακελλάριος from σάκελλον, which is Lat. sacellum – bag for storing money, place for storing money, treasury; the sacellarium is actually the treasurer (that is, one must think that in ancient times his duties were different than in later times; emperors had a sacellarium and in later times - a treasurer). Which in their origin are, as it were, branches of the cathedral episcopal. Actually, he is a clerk, an archivist. Which, as a repository of people, like a repository of money, was also called σάκελλον (σακέλλη, σακέλι). Protekdicus was ranked among the first five in later times (in Ralli and P. V, 409), and since all bishops’ officials were counted by heels or pentads, then among the six they continued to be called pentad: the first pentad - πρώτη πεντάς (ibid. p. 531 sqq). This first five had a special name - ἐξωκατάκοιλοι, the explanation of which see below. John of Kitra at Ralli and P. V, 409 fin., cfr Balsamon ibid. IV 533 fin. Speaking about imperial parties or ceremonial dinners (κλητώρια), Constantine Porphyrogenitus contains a detailed list of all civil and church officials, in what order they sit at the table, i.e. a list indicating the degrees of all officials - Lib. II, sar. 52, τόμ. 3, in Min's Patrology t. 112, p. 1346 sqq. In this list regarding the main and oldest executive official of the patriarch, the steward (who is not yet called the great steward, but simply the steward), we find that his name is written twice, and precisely - firstly, very high, a little lower than the metropolitans and bishops and much higher than the presbyters of the court and the saints. Sofia; secondly - significantly low, much lower than the presbyters, immediately after the cubiculars or chamber officials of the patriarch (κουβικουλάριοι, stolniki and sleepingmen) and immediately before the court deacons and saints. Sofia. Regarding the first or high place it is noted: καθὰ τὰ νῦν ἐτιμήθη, i.e. how now (he is the housekeeper) is respected, and regarding the second or lower place it is necessary to think that it is the one he occupied before the now indicated respect or promotion. Thus, if the first of the executive officials was just promoted and placed above the presbyters, and until then he was much lower than them, then it is clear that the executive officials were lower than the presbyters (and that their elevation began precisely with this promotion of the steward, made by Constantine himself). Other executive patriarchal officials are not mentioned by name in the list; but in all likelihood they should be meant by οἱ καγκελλάριοι τῶν σεκρέτων (clerical officials, clerks, scribes of orders or offices), which are almost at the very end of the list. (Constantine Porphyrogenitus speaks more than once about ἄρχοντες τοῦ πατριάρχου or τῆς ἐκκλησίας, sometimes distinguishing them from presbyters, in Minh pp. 170, 256, 368, 1044, 1156. This, in all likelihood, should be understood in such a way that, as we noted above, not all cathedral presbyters were advisers to bishops, but only the elders among them in a certain number, the definition of which by the Patriarch of Constantinople, perhaps, should serve as the instruction of Constantine that if the patriarch dined with the emperor with the elected clergy, then there were 24 presbyters with him - in Minya r. 1381. Ἄ ρχοντες is sometimes called by the name σεκρέτον: πατριάρχης μετὰ τοῦ σεκρέτου αὐτοῦ, u Minya p. 1148. Used by Constantine παπάδες τοῦ σεκρέτου or σεκρετικοὶ παπάδες, in Min p. 1381, 1388, 1401, should be understood not in the sense of clerk or clerical priests, but in the sense of clergy, clerks. For the word παπ ᾶ ς was used by the Greeks not only in the sense of a priest, but also in general a cleric, a clerk, see in the short story of Alexei Komnenos, in Ralli and P. V, 280, λιτὸς παπ ᾶ ς ἤ τοι ἀναγνώστης . The name κουβικουλάριοι or κουβουκλείσιοι, in Min p. 1156, 1349, is used by Constantine in the sense of patriarchal officials, while later it began to be used in the sense of clerks - Balsamon in Ralli and P. II, 323 fin., i.e. after that, the clerks were probably also clerks. At the end of his life, in miracles: “I again confess that one of the choir of the holy and great church Sophia, I hurt him.”... More about the choir of the Kyiv St. Sophia is said in the praise of an unknown saint. Clement of Rome, see the Most Reverend Macarius, vol. III, edition 2 p. 217 fin. Supplement to Acts of History vol. I, no. 4, p. 5. Also see the years 1189 and 1237. And predominantly the lower clergy, outside the altar, Balsamon in Rally and P. II, 485. The proper name of bishop's officials: ἐκκλησιαστικοὶ ἄρχοντες - church dignitaries, ἐκκλ. ἀξιωματικοί – church officials; names of an aggregate or corporation of ranks: ὀφφίκια ἐκκλησιασικά (with a modified meaning of the word ὀφφίκια, see above), ἀρχοντίκια, ἀξιώματα , ἐπιτάγματα , λειτουργήματα , διακονήματα , κληρικάτα , - special works about them: Συνταγμάτιον περὶ τῶν ὀφφικίων, κληρικάτων καὶ ἀρχοντικίων .... ἐκκλησίας, Patriarch Chrysanthos of Jerusalem, 1 edition in Torgovishche, 1715, 2 in Venice, 1778, and Die Synoden und die Episkopal – Ämter in der morgen aländischen Kirche, von Jos. Zhishman, Wien, 1867; Russians: Discourse on the ranks of the Greek-Russian Church, Metropolitan. Evgenia, M. 1817, On the positions and institutions of church administration in the ancient eastern church of Hieromonk Paul, St. Petersburg, 1857, On the ranks of the Patriarchal Church of Constantinople in the Middle Ages - article in the Orthodox Interlocutor of 1868. In Greek monuments corresponding to our pre-Mongol period, we have not yet encountered the use of the name κληρικοί - clerics in the sense of bishop's officials (in all likelihood, in our sense, but not entirely clear, the name is used in the short story of John Komnenos, 1118-1143, which is in Ralli and P. V, 306). But this is evidenced by the records and monuments of the 13th-14th centuries known to us and the custom of the present time; for records see the Notes of the Odessa Society of History and Antiquities vol. V, pp. 604, 612, 615–616, monuments - in the Acta Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani, published by Miklosic, vol. I, pp. 17 beginning, 50 beginning, and 575, vol. II, pp. 571 fin., and for the present tense the publishers of Pidalion They write: ἑκκλησιασικά ἀρχυντίκια καὶ ὀφφίκια ἔχοντες , τόσον ἱερώμενοι , ὄσον καὶ λαϊκοὶ (in the note to Apostolic Canon 2); the same Byzantium, - Κωνσταντινούπ. III, 523 (Regarding the 16th and 17th centuries, Hierotheus of Monemvasia in the Chronograph and Athanasius of Ypsilanti in the History of the Greeks from the capture of Constantinople by the Turks. – Κληρικάτα ὁφφίκια, which actually meant positions, service of the lower ones, outside the altar clergy, – in Rally and P. 21, then began to mean the positions of officials, - in Chishman in the indicated work, p. 90, note 7. Just as in the East the name cleric over time from a general one became separate, instead of the clergy in general, it began to be used about church officials, so in the West the same thing happened with canonicus - canon, which originally meant a clergyman in general or completely corresponded to the name cleric in its general meaning - ὁ ἀπὸ κάνονος, κανονικὸς).– In addition to the name of persons in the two indicated senses, in Russia the word kliros, with the common eucophonic rearrangement - krylos, is also used as the name of the place where singers and readers stand in the church. We cannot say from the name in which, from the first two senses, this second synecdochic name is derived, using the name of the persons instead of the name of the place on which they stand, but more likely - from the name in the second sense. If it were derived from the lower clergy (who are predominantly understood by the word clergy in the general sense, see above) as their place of standing, then the name would have to be considered borrowed from Greece (for in our country the lower clergy was not called cleric and choir), but in Greece, as far as we know, the place of standing for singers is not called choir at all. As for the name choir in the sense of cathedral priests, it could have been transferred to the places where the singers stood because in cathedrals the priests (cathedral choirs), as is the case in some cathedrals at least to this day, sang themselves, standing outside the altar in places called krylos, cfr Vivliofika VI, 209 and 388, XI, 6. (i.e. we want to say: the name of the places where singers and readers stand is kliros from kliros or kliroshan in the sense of cathedral priests. Special fenced choirs, which currently exist in all churches, in ancient times, in all likelihood, were only in cathedrals). - In addition to cathedrals, we find choirs in monasteries - around 1175. the Bogolyubsky kliroshans, i.e., the Bogolyubsky monastery, are mentioned in the Laurentian Chronicle: this means that in the monasteries, in the improper sense, the senior monks (the later cathedral elders) were called kliroshans. Laurentian Chronicle around 1230. and 1231 “The call (Bishop of Smolensk) of one from his honest leader, the first from the elders - the archpriest named George,” Orthodox Interlocutor 1858. Part 3, page 385. Description of the Rumyantsev Museum of Orientals p. 28. The so-called Typographical Chronicle p. 58 beginning, also Degree Book I, 378. See Historical readings on language and literature of the II Division of the Academy of Sciences for the years 1856 and 1857, p. 48. And the fear of clergy as officials means that the monasteries were given to these clergy by the bishops for use, as if for rent (see below). Acts of History vol. I, 289, p. 527 col. 2. Acts of Southern and Western Russia Vol. I, No. 103, p. 106, see also No. 118, p. 124 fin. “Having called the priests of Lvov,” the bishop writes, “and having organized (sic) them, they created a choir and forced them to hold it even while they were descendants, since other bishops have it.” Acts related to the history of South-Western Rus' were published by A. S. Petrushevich, Lvov, 1868, p. 9 fin. and 13 sub fin. Galician Scientific Collection 1868 vol., issue I and II, p. 70. – As for the Muscovite Rus' of the post-Mongol period, the cliroshans are mentioned: in the inter-metropolitanate between Maxim and Peter, namely, it is said that after the death of the first, a certain abbot Gerontius went to Constantinople to seek appointment as metropolitan, who took with him the hierarch’s clothes and utensils, one icon of the Mother of God and a pastoral staff “and church dignitaries” (Book of Degrees I, 414) - these dignitaries are precisely the choir residents, and the name is a translation of the Greek ἄρχοντες, as the latter were titled; under Metropolitan Theognostus - Acts of History vol. I, p. 1 col. 1, fin.; after Alexei to Cyprian, Karamzin. V, approx. 57 and 60. Under Cyprian, Karamzin. V, approx. 254 pp. 99 beginning (and a wonderful expression is used: “with all its choir, white forming.” [See “Additions and Amendments.” To footnote 1036]. Cyprian himself, in his teaching to the clergy in 1395, Acts of History vol. I, No. 11 p. 20: “Sometimes there are assembled churches, but the essence of the priests is kriloshans with deacons”... In the life of Metropolitan Peter, written by him: the patriarch sent to judge Peter “the only one from the clergy of the church”, i.e., one of the officials of the patriarchy, Degree Book I, 417. As we must think, the choir people disappeared or began to disappear in Moscow Rus' from the time of Metropolitan Jonah. – From the acts of southwestern Rus', speaking about the episcopal choir churches, we know one letter 1366, in which the Lord of Przemysl Hilarion is named with his kryloshans, see Memoirs of the diplomatic and judicial-business language of Russian, published by J. Golovatsky, Lvov, 1867, p. 7 beginning. In later Kievan Rus, choirs are sometimes called chapters in the Western sense, - Russian Historical Library, Apxeogr publication. Comm. vol. IV, p. 64 and Galician Scientific Collection 1868, issues III and IV, p. 346). Acts of Southern and Western Russia, vol. I, No. 103. That the choir people belonged to the cathedral is evident from the fact that they had a week in it, which, it seems, should be understood not in the sense of serving during the week, but in the sense of serving on Sunday and managing (during the week) proteges. That they had parishes is evident from the fact that in the record they are called by name and each with its own parish (at the end). That officials from the presbyters had their own parishes, see Codin in De officiis (extract from Ducange in Gloss. Graecit. under the words ἐξωκατάκοιλοι). But that in exactly the same way the deacons who became officials remained rectors of parishes, we know this from the example of the famous cantonist Theodore Valsamon: Holding the position of patriarchal chartophylax, he was a deacon of the great church and at the same time πρῶτος τῶν Βλαχερνῶν, i.e. rector Blachernae Church, - at Ralli and P. 1, 31, inscription. (Similarly, in Rome, presbyteri and diaconi cardinales, members of the papal college, were rectors of parishes, by which they are still titled to this day). The mentioned Greek officials bore a special name - ἐξωκατάκοιλοι (ἐξωκατάκηλοι). The most likely explanation of the name is that ἐξωκατάκοιλοι is somewhat damaged or somewhat modified from ἐξωκατάκελοι, which would mean officials living outside the cell, i.e. outside the episcopal palace, which our officials were, as those who were rectors of parishes (κατάκελλος from κατά and κέλλη, - an official living in a cell, in the episcopal palace; ἐξωκατάκελλος - living outside a cell, outside palace). In the civil field, governors in ancient times were usually called (according to chronicles) posadniks, but cfr the so-called charter of Vladimirs according to the list of the second half of the 12th century, in Karamzin to vol. 1 approx. 506 (“in which city is the governor” - at the very end) and in the Assembly of the State Court. Gram. II, 6 sub fin., act 1284 (Artemy Governor). [Cm. "Additions and amendments"]. See Ducange in Gloss. Graecit. under the next σύγκελλος. For later times, what has been said should be understood about the protosyncellae, that is, the first or senior among the many syncellae that appeared (of which the emperor Heraclius appoints two to the patriarch, in Ralli and P. V, 232). In the 10th century, according to the testimony of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, syncellas were given to the patriarchs by the emperors (it is not clear whether all or one main one), De ceremm. Lib. II, sar. V, and at the imperial tables they occupied a place much higher than the metropolitans, between the very first dignitaries of the empire (at the common table at dinners after the truncated or imperial one, about which above p. 101, note 3, the following sit: master, rector, syncellus, ibid. Lib. II, sar. 52, τόμ. 3 beg.). However, we know some examples that the Greeks, in large dioceses like ours, had syncelli who lived in districts (and not under bishops) and were in charge of individual parts of the diocese. See the book Ἱ στορία τῆς Ἑ πτανήσου et caet., ὑπὸ Π. Χιώτου, μέρος ά, ἐν Κερκύρα, 1863, p. 241: the island of Ithaca (Teacoi), which belonged to the diocese of the Bishop of Cephallini (Kefalonia), was in charge of the latter’s special protosyncellus. It is remarkable that in the Novgorod Judgment Charter the archbishop's vicar is called once the lord's posadnik - Act. Exp. vol. I, no. 92, p. 70, col. 1 start See the so-called Charter of Vladimir, the life of St. Alexei, who was the governor under Theognostus, in Degree Book 1, 450, Charter Charter of Grand Duke Vasily Dimitrievich and Metropolitan Cyprian in Act. Exp. vol. 1 No. 9, Novgorod Judgment Charter ibid. No. 92 and the Novgorod entry about the church court ibid. No. 103. Acts relating to the legal life of ancient Russia, vol. II, no. 167, p. The choir in Pskov at the end of the 14th century, where the viceroy of the Archbishop of Novgorod was, - a charter from Metropolitan Cyprian in Acts of History vol. 1, no. 8, p. 17; cliroshans in Sambir at the beginning of the 15th century, where the bishop of Przemysl was the vicar - a charter in the Acts of Western Russia, vol. 1, no. 31, p. 45; Kryloshan in Vilna at the end of the 15th century, where the viceroy of the Kyiv Metropolitan was located - ibidd. No. 152, p. 175. – The high social position of episcopal governors in ancient times is evident from the fact that they appear with the princes along with their senior boyars at the conclusion of international treaties, Collection of State Charters II, 6 sub fin. In the 16th and 17th centuries in Galicia, governors were elected not by bishops, but by clergy members, the former only blessed or approved them, see Acts of Southern and Western Russia I, 106 and the letter of Bishop Eustathius Tisarovsky of Lvov, indicated above. As for ancient times, it seems that bishops elected them: the words of Bishop Simon of Vladimir, quoted above, and in the acts of the Vladimir Council of 1273 the remark that sometimes bishops appointed governors for a fee. One manuscript has survived, written in Novgorod under Bishop Arcadia, who occupied the see since 1156. to 1163, and the manuscript records that it ended under our bishop “and under Tiun Tupochele,” - Sreznevsky Ancient monuments of Russian writing and language, p. 33 col. 1 (then in 1366 the tiun of the Bishop of Przemysl is mentioned - Golovatsky Monuments of the diplomatic and judicial business language of Russian, p. 7). [Cm. "Additions and amendments"]. At Ralli and P. IV, 531 beginning (In ancient times, the Greeks, if not always had ecdics, then at least sometimes were spiritual ones: for example, the Patriarch of Constantinople John 5, † 674, was one of the presbyters and protekdics of the great church. However, from the protekdics according to some news, according to others - from the chartophylaxes). [See "Additions and amendments"]. The reader should look at this in Volume 2 of our History. See Balsamon in Rally and P. I, 63 sub fin., and II, 592 beginning. Regarding the Greeks, see Ducange in Gloss. Graecit. under the next ἔξαρχος, regarding the Bulgarians in Sreznevsky in Information and notes on little-known and unknown monuments, - appendix to 34 volumes. Notes of the Academy of Sciences, No. 4, p. 20, regarding the Serbs in our Brief outline of the history of the Orthodox churches of the Bulgarian, Serbian and Romanian, p. 685, §38. And among the Serbs, the bishops had an inclination to do the same, but were stopped in this case by state power, see our Brief Essay, p. 686, §38. Which persons were the tithe collectors in the West, unfortunately, we could not find out in the books at our disposal. But in Ducange’s Glossarium Latinitatis, under the words. decimarii there are extracts from which it seems that they were secular persons. Apostolic rules 6, 81 and 83, 4 Ecumenical Council rules 5 and 7, 7 Ecumenical Council rules 10, Double 11 and Carthage 19. Novellas of Justinian, chapter 17. 1 and 124 ch. 1–3, Eclogues of Leo the Isaurian, title VII, short story by Constantine Copronymus περὶ ἐκταγιατικῶν in Tsacharie in Ius Graecoromanum III, 267, Royal Books sq. VII, title IV ch. V (Armenopula Prochiron, book IV, ch. 45–46, cfr Nevolin “On the space of the church court” in the Complete Works VI, 300, sqq. The so-called sportulli - σπόρτουλλα, otherwise ἐκταγιατικά, ἐκβιβαστικὰ , ἐφόδια , συνήθειαι (duties) were collected not by judges, but by bailiffs, and represented what we had “walked” and “travelled” by the weekmen. Justinian allows the arbitrators to take. from both litigants some remuneration for the work of litigating civil cases, if the litigation is not less than one hundred gold coins - short story 82 chapter 9). Hist. Eccles. lib. I, p. 9. Cod. Justinian. lib. 1, titlo IV, legg. 7 and 8. However, in later times, as evidence suggests, minor criminal offenses were also tried - Balsamon in Rally and P. III, 495 fin (the laws of Justinian are not included in the Royal Books of Leo the Wise - Balsamon ibid. I, 171; but this, in all likelihood, should be understood not in such a way that they were positively abolished, but in such a way that the books, not speaking separately about bishops as arbitrators, understand them together with others in their general speeches about arbitrators, which are in book VII, title II. What and after the publication of the Royal Books, the bishops enjoyed the right of arbitration, and in this case the protekdic was their deliberate judge, see Ralli and P III, 495, fin). In three editions: an ancient one, which should be accepted as the original author, and two later ones. See appendix to this chapter. Of course, people will hasten to object that this is what the chronicle says about the giving of tithes. However, this is not the case; in the chronicle Vladimir says: “I give to the church of this Holy Mother of God a tenth of my property and a tenth of my cities.” The chronicle says that Vladimir “gave a tithe to that church throughout the Russian land” only in 1169. (Lavrentievskaya - Ipatskaya under 1172), when it was already poorly understood what a tithe was (and how this last could happen will be clear from the following speeches about tithes). In Yaroslavova’s Pravda: “Even the brothers will sue the prince on their ass”... then... To interpret the expression: “even they will sue” in such a way that litigants are allowed to turn to the prince’s court if they do not want to go to the bishop’s court is far-fetched and unreasonable. Due to the nature of our court, which we talked about a little higher, we could not have litigants being left to arbitrarily turn to one or another court. The word “azhe,” which in this case actually imparts some uncertainty to the speech, begins almost every paragraph or every article in Pravda. The name of Patriarch Photius is not in some lists of the charter of later times, when it was learned that he was not a contemporary of Vladimir. But together with the vast majority of later lists, it is included in the oldest list, so it must undoubtedly be taken as belonging to the original of the charter. In later southern Rus', only the charter of Yaroslav is known, completely different from the northern charter of Yaroslav, which we understand in the text itself - Acts of Western Russia, vol. I, No. 43, 82 and 166. This last charter, also forged, undoubtedly testifies to the falsity of the Vladimirov charter, for it makes it clear that in later southern Rus' the space of the church court was not what it should have been according to the charter Vladimirov. (In some later Helmsmen, copied from ancient lists of southern origin, the charter of Vladimirov is read, for example, in the list of Helmsmen of the 16th century, Rumyantsev Museum according to the description of Vostokov No. 235. This should be understood not so that the charter was read in the originals, but so that the scribes of the lists placed it on top of the last ones, or in addition to the last ones). - “To preserve the authenticity of the Vladimirov charter,” says Nevolin , - it can be assumed that for some reason the charter of Vladimirov was not known to Rostislav Mstislavich (Smolensky),” - On the space of the church court in the Complete Collection of Works, vol. VI, p. 291. But to assume this is completely impossible and would be extremely strange. Yes, even if Rostislav did not know Vladimirov’s charter, he would have known what space the church court actually had on the basis of the charter and, of course, would have provided it to the Bishop of Smolensk to the extent that he had. (Meanwhile, he does not provide it at all in the amount that is given to him by the charter). See also the appendix to this chapter. The same should be understood about murders and murders, which are presented to the court of the metropolitan and bishops by some lists of the statute. - Regarding the time of Yaroslav, compare his “Russian Truth”. To explain this incongruity, Nevolin refers to the example of Western states, in which church crimes, which were also recognized as civil crimes, were assessed with a double monetary penalty - in favor of the prince and the bishop. - On the space of the ecclesiastical court in the Complete Collection of Works VI, 302. But the reference is completely unfounded. In the West, the above-mentioned crimes were subject to a mixed trial (forum mixtum) and they were not assessed with a double fine, but one fine for them was divided into two parts between two judges. The real explanation of the matter is not this: in our Helmsmen, which we will now discuss below, there are articles relating to Greek civil law, in which corporal punishment is prescribed for various crimes. Having accepted the judgment for many of these crimes of church authorities, the compiler of the Yaroslavov charter adds to his monetary penalties in favor of the bishops these corporal punishments from the civil authorities (whereas in our country, as in the West, the civil authorities punished not with corporal punishment, but with the same penalties). - Those who prove the authenticity of the Yaroslavov charter want to force people to believe what even old Rus' did not find possible to believe: although the charter was written and rewritten by private people, but there are no direct official references to it at all, like to the Vladimirov charter. Anyone can watch Nevolin’s “On the Space of the Church Court,” p. 277. Collections of these laws made by John Scholasticus: in the Nikon printed Helmsman ch. 42, and extracts from the collection of these laws, presented by the so-called Κείμενον ’ ο m of Nonokanon Photiev: in Nikon’s Helmsman ch. 44. In Nikon's Helmsman ch. 45, inscription: “Election from the law given by God to the Israelites Moses”..., consists of 50 chapters. In Nikon's Helmsman ch. 46, inscription: “The law of judgment for the people of Tsar Constantine the Great.” In the oldest copies, the article is simply called “The Law of Judgment” (Vostokov. Description of the Rumyantsev Museum p. 275 col. 2 and our Academic Manuscript No. 54, l. 38), and in later copies it was given to Constantine the Great because at the beginning it reads: “Before any truth, it is worthy to speak about God’s truth, and so does the saint Constantine, having copied the first law, betrayed the verb “... (With scholarly notes, the article was published in 2 volumes of Russian Monuments). In Nikon's Helmsman ch. 50; appropriated to Leo the Wise is inscribed: “Leon, the wise king, and Constantine, faithful to the king, the chief of the meeting of betrothals and images and about other various wines” (On the fact that the Eclogue belongs not to Leo the Wise, but to Leo the Isaurian, see Heimbach in the Encyclopedia of Ersch and Gruber, vol. 86, S. 214). In Nikon's Helmsman ch. 49; inscription: “The laws of the city chapter are different in fourty facets” (About Prochiron in the Encyclopedia of Ersch and Gr. ibid. S. 303). The Greek Nomocanons, which have the same composition as our Slavic Book of Pilots, seem to be unknown. Therefore, it may be that the latter received the composition that it has, and not from the Greeks, but from the Bulgarians, who could combine church laws with Greek civil laws in order to have both in one place. One of the later, 17th century, readers of Vladimirov’s charter saw, like us, what should be meant by the “Greek Nomocanon” to which the charter refers, and made a note in the margin: “see the royal charter,” by which he means the articles on civil legislation placed in Kormchay. (See in Vivliofika VI, 5, where the note is already included in the very text of the charter). – In one of the articles on civil legislation placed in the Kormchay, namely, in the “Law of Judgment” (Nikonovskaya Kormchayaya ch. 46) it speaks of two punishments for crimes - civil, consisting of various executions, and church, consisting of spiritual penances. Perhaps this speech about two punishments gave the author of Yaroslavov’s charter the idea of ​​imposing two civil penalties on crimes. Nomocanon Photius title 8 ch. 13, – for Rally and P. I, 157. Although Justinian’s legalization was not included in the Royal Books, - ibid. 158 beginning, but there is no known positive law that would provide litigation on spiritual wills to the church court (cfr ibid. 159). See Nevolin On the space of the church court in the Complete Works VI, 286 sqq. Apart from Walter, we did not have at hand any other new books indicated by the author. But instead of them we have at hand an old book: Jo. Caroli Antonelli Tractatus de regimine ecclesiae episcopalis, Venet., 1723. And when Nevolin asserts that under Vladimir the church court could have the same space in our country as in the West, then we positively know that he did not have this space (and look here diligently about the only possibility of preserving the authenticity of the charter). - As for the big and small boyars of the Yaroslav charter, then we are very I think that these are Western barones majores and minores (Ducange Gloss. Latinit., words Baro, T. I, p. 1031, 1032, 1038). If the charter