About the Russian metropolis at the end of the 9th century

The beginning of the Russian Metropolis is usually traced back to the time of the Greek Emperor, Leo the Philosopher, (886–912), on the grounds that his name is found in the census of dioceses subordinate to the Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople, attributed to this Emperor. Is this foundation solid? – To solve this question, you need to enter into a study of the reliability of this act. First, we must touch upon the history of the formation of the district subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople. When the throne of Constantinople was elevated to the level of Patriarchate by the second Ecumenical Council, the district of the Patriarch of Constantinople was made up of three vast regions (διοίκησις): Pontic, Asian and Thracian. So blessed Theodoret, describing the exploits and works of St. John Chrysostom says: “not only did he have care for this reigning city (Constantinople), but also for all of Thrace, which is divided into six provinces, and for the whole of Asia, governed by eleven rulers; He also improved the Pontic region with his laws, which has as many rulers as Asia.” Since in the distribution of dioceses it was customary to adhere to the civil division of regions and provinces, the number of civil rulers in each district at the beginning had to correspond to the number of leading bishops in each region, or metropolitans. The Fourth Ecumenical Council, having confirmed the dependence of the appointment of metropolitans in the three above-mentioned regions from the Patriarch of Constantinople, added to it the right to appoint bishops from “foreigners,” or alien peoples who invaded the Empire and became settled in the three designated regions, or adjacent to them. The oldest calculation of dioceses, on the basis of this rule, dependent on the Patriarch of Constantinople, with an indication of their degrees, we have in the census placed with the book of Constantine Porphyrogenitus “on the rites of the Court of Constantinople.” Here, first, metropolitans subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople are awarded, then archbishops who were not dependent on local metropolitans, either by special respect, or as bishops of “foreigners”, directly subordinate to the Patriarch - finally, bishops subordinate to each metropolitan. There are 33 metropolitans shown here, and all of them belonged only to the three mentioned regions: Pontic, Asian and Thracian; at the beginning stood the first metropolitan of the Pontic region - Caesarea; in second place is the first metropolitan of the Asian region - Ephesus; on the third suit is the first metropolitan of the Thracian region - Pracleian, etc. There are 34 counted archbishops. Among the counted metropolises, archbishops and bishops there is no name of the Russian diocese. Over time, various changes took place in the dioceses. Some bishoprics rose to the level of archbishoprics and even metropolises; metropolises were portable from one city to another. Some dioceses, due to the devastation caused by the invasion of the Empire by various peoples from the east and north, completely fell; some arose again among peoples who were previously in paganism. But the most important addition for the district of the Patriarch of Constantinople was the annexation of eastern Nllyrica, Calabria and Sicily. This happened in the 8th century, at the will of the emperors of Constantinople. The reason for such an order was that the Pope, who had hitherto been in charge of the Churches of the mentioned regions, was himself surrounded by barbarian peoples. All these circumstances were supposed to produce a significant change in the mutual relations of the dioceses, and required new government orders regarding their degrees. Such a government order can be seen in the census of dioceses that has come down to us with this name: a decree of Emperor Leo the Wise on the order of church thrones subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople. It is found in many Greek manuscripts, in Western libraries, and from various copies, more or less correct, published, among other things, in the famous canonical collection of Leunclave: Ius Graecoromanum, in the additions of Goar to the edition of Codin, in the “Sacred Geography” of Karoli and S. Pavlo (i). Although not in full form, this decree is also known in the ancient Slavic translation, and published by Schletser in his “Nestor”. In the list from which this decree was printed in the “Sacred Geography”, in accordance with some Greek manuscripts, it is said: “this presentation followed in 6391, under the Emperor Leo the Wise and Patriarch Photius.” The testimony is not entirely reliable, firstly because in 6391 (883) Leo was not yet an independent Emperor, but his father Emperor Vasily was alive; secondly, because the order on dioceses is attributed together to Imp. Leo and Patriarch Photius - while Photius, with Leo’s accession to the throne, was removed from his throne. Without recognizing the inscription completely reliably, we nevertheless have no doubt that the decree itself must belong to the time of Patriarch Photius and Emperor Leo. When the acquisition of Illyricum and other regions, despite the objections of the Popes, was established by the throne of Constantinople, and this disagreement to cede Illyricum to the Pope of Rome was clearly expressed at the Councils in the case of Patriarch Photius: then it was necessary to establish the correct relations of the newly annexed Churches to those previously dependent on the Patriarch of Constantinople. Resolution of the Imp. Leo fully satisfied this need. It lists all the metropolises identified in the census previously compiled, and in the same order in which they stood before; but between them a place is given to many newly acquired metropolitanates. Thus, the Thessalonite metropolis was placed in 16th place, Corino and Athens in 27 and 28, Crete in 30, Calabras in 32, Patras in 33, Larisa and Naviakt in 35 and 36, Flinii in 40: - all these metropolises joined the district of the Patriarch of Constantinople, as a result of separation from the region Popes. Then, starting from the 43rd, there follows a series of metropolises, again elevated to this degree from all four districts: Pontic, Asian, Thracian and Illyrian, so that the number of all metropolises in the decree of the Imp. Leo, as it is now known, extends to eighty-one, and between them in 61 places stands the Russian Metropolis. Following the metropolises, just as in the ancient census discussed above, archbishoprics are counted, some former, some newly raised to this degree, a total of 39. Finally, also following the example of that census, it is shown how many and which dioceses depend on the above-mentioned metropolises. If a metropolitanate was only honorary and did not have any other diocese under its control, then this is definitely shown in its place. The order in which the names of the subordinate dioceses are listed is completely consistent with the established order of the metropolises, so this shows the unity of the plan and edition of this list; but such a designation does not extend beyond the 57th metropolitanate (Colois). It was noted about the last 57 metropolitanate that it did not have any subordinate dioceses under it (the same remark was made about some other metropolises placed above it): but about the subsequent metropolises from the 58th to the 81st, including the Russian one, nothing is said, whether they were only honorary, or whether they had well-known dioceses in their department - although about some of these Metropolitans from other sources we know beyond doubt that they ruled the bishoprics. The lack of notes on metropolises from 58 to 81 that we noticed gives rise to the question: were these twenty-three metropolises added to the list of Emperor Leo later? Otherwise, why wouldn’t the imperial decree, which was to guide certain matters, show which bishoprics depend on one or another metropolitanate? Or which diocese bears only one title of metropolis? Further, considering the list of names of bishops under the jurisdiction of different metropolises, we find, in the name of some dioceses, remarks (on the side) about who elevated them to the degree of metropolis, sometimes with a specific indication of the time or name of the Emperor and Patriarch under which this happened, sometimes without indication. Thus, when calculating the dioceses subordinate to the Metropolitan of Ancyra, it was noted about the bishoprics of Asion and Verinopolis that they were included in the metropolises; the same is said about the bishopric of Philadelphia, which formerly depended on the Metropolitan of Sardis; about the diocese of Melitopol, which belonged to the metropolis of Kizicheskaya, it is mentioned that it was elevated to the degree of archbishopric. When all these changes followed is not shown. There are also more definite remarks: both dioceses of Kivistra, which belonged to the district of the Tian Metropolitan, are directly stated that they were elevated to metropolitan see under Patriarch Constantine; the dioceses of Argos, formerly subordinate to the Metropolitan of Corino, and Inenes, from the jurisdiction of Ephesus, were considered metropolises by Emperor Isaac Angelos (1185–1195). All of these newly created metropolises are not included, however, in the list of metropolises counted in the decree of Emperor Leo. But here are several dioceses that are considered among the bishops subordinate to their metropolises, and yet are shown in the list under consideration among the metropolises. These are the metropolises: 66th (according to the list of Emperor Leo) Kerasuit, 69th Madit, 73rd Nazian, 75th Avidos, 80th Naxian, 81st Attalia, 81st Attalsh. - All of them are listed in the list of bishops; the first in the region of the Neocaesarea metropolitanate, the second in Irakli, the third in Mokiy, the fourth in Kizicheskoy, the fifth in Patras, the sixth in Rhodes, the seventh in Silea. With the names of the bishoprics of Kerasunta, Madita and Avidos, it is noted in the list that they are included in the metropolises; and when the bishops are named: Lacedaemonian, Iaxian and Attalian, the years in which they were elevated to the degree of metropolis are also shown, namely: the first in 6590, the second in 6591, the third in 6592, i.e. in 1082–1084. From here it is clearly revealed that the list of metropolises bearing the name Imp. Leo, indeed replenished subsequently. How far does this addition extend, which metropolises are assigned after the published Imp. Leo’s establishment of dioceses, we cannot say definitely and decisively. – But if we take into account the above remark that starting from the 58th metropolitanate, the census does not show whether this or that metropolitanate has any dioceses in its department or not: then we have some reason to conclude that the other 15 metropolises, except for the seven named, and therefore the Russian one, which is in 61st place, were included in This list is after its initial edition. What is the calculation of metropolises in the resolution of the Imp. Leo was later supplemented, this can be seen from a comparison with the census of the dioceses subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople, delivered by Nile Doxopatra to the Sicilian King Roger in 1143. Referring repeatedly to the records kept at the department of the Patriarchate (τακτικά του νομοκανόνος), it shows only 65 metropolises. In calculating them, he completely agrees with the order defined in the charter, Imp. Leo - up to the 42nd metropolis, i.e. where the series of ancient metropolises ends with the inclusion of newly annexed ones from the Illyrian region. But in the calculation of dioceses newly elevated to the level of metropolises, his list differs greatly from the resolution of the Imp. Leo, both in number and in order, is not here in the name of the Russian Metropolis, although Nile mentions that a Metropolitan is being sent to Russia from Constantinople. This may show that the ancient list of Nile actually included Russia in the number of metropolises of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and that the decree of the Imp. Leo in its original composition differed a lot from the form in which we have it now. From here it is obvious that the mention of the Russian Metropolis in the resolution of the Imp. Leo, as it is now known to us, cannot serve as evidence of its existence at that time: since many metropolises were added to this list much later than the time of Imp. Leo. In addition, there are other doubts about the existence of the Russian Metropolis at the end of the 9th century. Usually the name of metropolitanate was adopted by the cathedral, the main city of the province, and was combined with the actual power of the metropolitan over other bishops of the same province. Subsequently, they began to adopt this name as an honorary one to other departments, but respect for their longevity, the holiness of the shepherds who were there, or for other circumstances of the diocese. - At the end of the 9th century there was and could not be a metropolis in Russia in the first and proper meaning of this word: because Christianity had not yet spread throughout the cities, and therefore there were no bishops who should be subordinated to the eldest. Is there any reason to assume that we have a metropolis, at least in the honorary sense of this name? The only basis is the large number and strength of the Russian people: but this reason could then be valid if this people at that time belonged to the number of Christian peoples, or if the significant successes of Christianity in the Russian country required it. But among the Russian people, only not many have yet begun to become acquainted with Christianity. Moreover, if the Emperor and Patriarch of the Greeks had found it necessary, at the first conversion of the Russians, to establish a metropolitanate among them, is it likely that this institution would have fallen, having firm grounds to believe that we had a metropolitanate under St. Vladimir, we see no traces of its existence before St. Vladimir neither in domestic nor in Greek monuments, crowns in the census discussed above, supplemented in later times. Here we cannot ignore the testimony of the Greek chronicles about the sending of the archbishop to the Russians, who, during their invasion of Constantinople, suffered a strong defeat from a storm (when Patriarch Photius, with prayers and cut, immersed the robe of the Most Holy Theotokos into the sea), and through this shock they were taught to believe in the power of the Christian God. For almost a century, Greek chroniclers, writing about the times of Michael III and Basil the Macedonian, mention this event, although not all in the same completeness. Some speak only about the invasion of the Russians and their defeat by a miraculously raised storm on the waters of Constantinople: Simeon the master, George the monk, Leo the grammarian; others add news of the baptism of these Russians. An unknown successor of Theophanes, who wrote at the command and direction of Them. Constantine the Porphyrogenitus, and after him George Kedrin, mention this briefly, without citing any circumstances of the Baptism: but Constantine himself, as is known from his learned works, knew well the affairs of the Russian people, and received St. Olga, describes this memorable event in detail. He says that Emperor Vasily, “having concluded a peace treaty with the Russians, inclined them to saving baptism, and disposed them to accept the archbishop (Ἀρχιεπίσκοπον δέξασθαι).” Then he recounts in detail how this archbishop encountered a reluctance in some Russians to be baptized, and overcame their unbelief by a miracle: the Holy Gospel, at the request of the pagans, thrown into the fire, was preserved unharmed by the power of God in the fire. “The barbarians, amazed at such a miracle,” adds Konstantin, “putting doubt aside, began to be baptized.” Following Konstantin, they repeat the story of the baptism of the Russians by the bishop, with the assistance of a miracle, Zonar and Mikhail Glick. We find confirmation of Konstantinov’s testimony in the famous district message of Patriarch Photius, where for the first time it is said that the Russians received the Bishop and Shepherd (Ἐπίσκοπον καἰ ποιμένα δέξασθαι). Our most ancient chronicler, in agreement with George the monk and Simenon the master, when talking about the Russian invasion of Constantinople, under the leadership of Askold and Dir, did not say anything, neither about their desire to be baptized, nor about the sending of a bishop or archbishop to them. It is true to its sources; and the folk legend, apparently, could not serve to complement the short narrative. So, neither the Greek nor the Russian chronicles mention the establishment of a metropolitanate in our country, and this is the only case that could favor its establishment in the 9th century. Patriarch Photius, and the Greek chroniclers only say that the Russians received a bishop, or archbishop. Whether the Greeks took advantage of this opportunity to establish in our country, let’s not say, a metropolis, or at least a permanent bishopric, is not yet visible from here. Perhaps subsequent circumstances were not entirely favorable to this. Patriarch Photius, soon after the bishop sent to the Russians, who expressed a desire to be baptized, was removed from the throne (867). After 11 years (878), he was again elevated to the patriarchal throne: but Askold and Dir were soon killed by Oleg, who had no disposition towards Christianity. Even with St. We don’t see a bishop for Olga in Kiev: she only had a presbyter with her, who buried her according to Christian rites. You might be interested in: