Митрополиты Киевские и всея России

In the very year of the Mongol invasion of Vladimir Rus', i.e. in 1237, Metropolitan Joseph came to us from Greece to take the place of Metropolitan Cyril III, who died in 1233. After the capture of Kyiv by the Mongols in 1240, we do not find this metropolitan in Russia and what his fate was remains unknown, because our chronicles, having reported his arrival, then say nothing about him 84. It is more than likely that before Batu’s invasion of Kyiv, he retired to Greece to avoid the looming danger of death. If at the moment of Batu’s capture of Kyiv he was in the latter and was killed there by the Mongols, then the chronicles would hardly fail to mention the martyrdom of the metropolitan, which crowned his valiant behavior as a shepherd. It should not and would be unfair to be too surprised that the metropolitan, a newcomer Greek, did not have the selfless readiness to share the fate of his flock: as we know, some of our bishops, natural Russians, sought salvation from the Mongols in flight. After the invasion of the Mongols, the metropolitan was installed in Joseph’s place not from the Greeks, but from natural Russians. Why this happened—whether because the Russians stole their rights from the Greeks, or, conversely, because the Greeks gave up their rights to the Russians—remains unknown. If the first, then the Russians, for some unknown reason, wanted to take away their rights from the Greeks only in part: the metropolitan, chosen by them themselves and from natural Russians, went to the patriarch for initiation 85. But the latter is much and incomparably more likely, i.e., that the Greeks gave up their rights. Metropolitan Joseph, who fled from Russia from the Mongols, was supposed to bring terrible news to Greece about the horrors that were happening in our fatherland, and it was completely natural that this time there would be no hunters among the Greeks to occupy the see of the Russian metropolitanate, despite all its attractiveness... In Russia itself, as it goes without saying, those of its princes who were senior in it had to take care of replacing the metropolitan see. At the moment of the Mongol invasion of Russia, there was no longer the Grand Duke of Kyiv; instead of one Grand Duke, there were then two Grand Dukes, sitting on two obliquely opposite outskirts of the country - Vladimir and Galich. Of these two great princes, the Grand Duke of Galich, Daniil Romanovich, took upon himself the task of electing a metropolitan, who, just before the Mongol invasion, took possession of Kiev. However, it seems that one should not think that Daniel arrogated to himself the task of electing a metropolitan precisely because he owned the capital of the metropolitanate: having captured Kiev just before the invasion of the Mongols, Daniel, after this invasion, when the Mongols turned it into complete ruins, seemed to abandon him, so that at the moment of his election of the metropolitan, Kyiv was almost in such a position that it did not belong to anyone, and, in any case, case, it seems, did not belong to him - Daniel 86. How Daniel elected the metropolitan - by agreement with the Grand Duke of Vladimir or without this agreement - again remains unknown. If there is no agreement, which seems more likely, then one must think that the Grand Duke of Vladimir, who, for his part, was also thinking about replacing the metropolitan see or, perhaps, was expecting a metropolitan from Greece, having learned about the latter’s election by Daniel, did not decide to protest against this and remained to wait for what the chosen candidate from the patriarch would bring. Daniil Romanovich elected the metropolitan relatively soon after the Mongols conquered Kyiv and its Galich region, even before their power over Russia was formally established. We believe that this comparative haste must be explained by the circumstances that happened. The Grand Duke of Galich moved away from the Mongols to Hungary, and from Hungary to Poland. During his absence, when the Mongols, having conquered the Kyiv and Galich-Volyn regions, went to the same Hungary and Poland, the Ugrian Bishop Joasaph 87 assumed metropolitan rights over the church, which was located within the boundaries of the Grand Duchy of Galich. The city of Ugrovsk or Ugrovesk (Ugoresk), which was built by Daniel himself and in which he opened a diocese 88, served as the capital of the Grand Duke instead of Galich, since he did not want to stay in the latter. Probably, as the bishop of the actual capital of the great prince, Joasaph hastened to appropriate metropolitan rights to himself. But, very offended by his self-will, Daniil Romanovich, upon returning home, not only took away his metropolitan rights, but even completely deprived him of the episcopal throne. However, the failed self-will of Joasaph still had the consequence that the see of the metropolitanate became occupied for some time. Having removed an unauthorized candidate from the pulpit, Daniel could have found it inconvenient to leave her idle after her previous occupation, and this could have prompted him to hasten in electing a legitimate candidate. Be that as it may, Daniil elected only a legitimate candidate, a certain Kirill, even before Batyev’s return from Hungary, · therefore, no later than the first half of 1242 89 . Who this Kirill was, elected by Daniil Romanovich to Russian metropolitan, remains unknown. Since we can say with confidence that he was not one of the bishops of the Galich-Volyn region, we must assume that he was either one of the abbots of some monastery in the region or one of the simple monks 90. Daniil Romanovich did not choose a candidate for metropolitan so that he would be installed in Russia itself; For initiation, the candidate had to go to Greece to the patriarch. The elected metropolitan did not undertake the journey to the patriarch soon. Probably, Daniil Romanovich did not want to send Kirill to the post before he was completely unhappy with his relations with the Mongols, and this happened only at the end of 1245 - beginning of 1246, when he safely traveled to the Horde to Batu 91. Some time or another short time after Danilov’s Horde journey, from which the prince returned in February-March of the second indicated year, Cyril went to the patriarch in Nicaea, where he then had a stay, and returned from him to Rus' as a metropolitan no later than 1249 92. While Kirill remained only an elected metropolitan, he was in charge, as metropolitan, of those dioceses that were located within the boundaries of the Grand Duchy of Galich. But it is more than likely that his power did not extend to all the other dioceses located outside the grand duchy, so that the bishops of these other dioceses during the period of time from the flight of Joseph and until his dedication, Kirillov, which lasted about 10 years, should be presented as having no boss over them and independent or autocratic. Dedicated by the patriarch, Kirill was recognized and became metropolitan of all Rus'. It may very well be that in Suzdal Rus' the metropolitan would not immediately be recognized with full readiness; but circumstances helped him. At the same time as presenting him with his rights to Suzdal Rus', the local Grand Duke Andrei Yaroslavich 93 married the daughter of Daniil Romanovich. It is not incredible to think that the Metropolitan, for his part and in his own interests, contributed to the arrangement of this marriage. Be that as it may, it was only in the fall of 1250, more or less shortly after returning from the patriarch’s appointment, that Kirill arrived in northern Russia to reveal himself to her, and henceforth began to be her metropolitan. First of all, Metropolitan Kirill is remarkable in that he ruled the Russian Church for a longer time than any of his predecessors (as far as we know) and successors. Returning from his installation in 1248 or 1249, he lived and remained at the see until the end of 1281. Consequently, he ruled the church for more than 30 years. An outstanding feature of the reign of Metropolitan Kirill against his pre-Mongol predecessors is that he did not constantly remain in Kyiv at his see, but left his metropolitan capital for more or less long periods, if not mostly absent from it to live in other places. From the middle of the 12th century, from the time of Andrei Bogolyubsky, when the Suzdal-Vladimir great reign appeared and quickly rose, Kyiv gradually began to fall in a political sense. First, its great princes had to give way to the newly-appearing great princes, then from the level of great princes they descended to the level of simple princes, and finally, just before the invasion of the Mongols, the ancient capital of Rus' lost any princes: Captured in 1238 by the Galich Grand Duke Daniil Romanovich, Kyiv was annexed to the second, newly appeared, the great reign - as a suburb and received the grand ducal boyar as his governor. If the Mongol invasion had not happened, which completely destroyed all the significance of Kyiv and made it even an unsafe place to live, then it is very likely that the metropolitans would have become accustomed to leaving it for more or less long periods to live under the great princes. The church, of course, can exist completely separately from the state; but our ancient times were not times when this could have happened, and when our metropolitans could not have been aware of the need for close ties with the great princes as guardians of the church. The invasion of the Mongols should have decisively contributed to the fact that Metropolitan Kirill ceased to live permanently in Kyiv and began to leave it often and for a long time to stay with one or another Grand Duke. During their capture of Kyiv, the Mongols subjected its inhabitants to a terrible, complete massacre, and since it had shortly before become a princeless city or a suburb, it could not attract new residents; and therefore, instead of the most populous and best city of Rus', which it was before the invasion of the Mongols, after the invasion it became the most insignificant and extremely poor town, from which those few inhabitants who escaped from the sword of the Mongols sought to flee. Naturally, the metropolitan could not have wanted to permanently live in such a city, in which he would have to feel completely alone, resembling a rural priest of a provincial parish. At the same time, as we said, after the invasion of the Mongols, Kyiv became a place even unsafe to live in: it ceased to have its princes who would protect and guard it. Meanwhile, on the one hand, the Lithuanians 94 made constant raids on his region, and on the other hand, the Tatars, stretching their camps throughout the entire Polovtsian steppe from the Volga to the Dnieper and across the Dnieper, were in such close proximity to it as Kanev and the Pereyaslavl field 95. To the now indicated external reasons that prompted Metropolitan Kirill to leave Kyiv for more or less long periods, with a high probability should be added an internal reason that forced him to leave Kyiv in order to travel around Rus'. We have reason to believe that Metropolitan Kirill was a particularly zealous shepherd. One can therefore think that he wanted to make a new application of his jealousy against his predecessors, namely, that he wanted to travel around Rus' in order to personally teach, punish, and correct. At least, the Nikon Chronicle speaks about this reason for Metropolitan Kirill’s repeated travels around Russia, and at the same time multiple departures from Kyiv, in a positive way 96. Finally, one can still suspect that, giving an official character to his travels and making their service-useful application, Metropolitan Kirill introduced or introduced a new method of carrying out his court of appeal to the court of diocesan bishops; Namely, to conduct it in such a way as not to call the litigants to yourself, but to travel around the dioceses at certain intervals, and thus carry out the trial on the spot. That is, on the spot, at least in the broad sense of holding court in the cathedral city of each diocese. We will return to deliberate speeches about this later, in a special chapter on management. Be that as it may, we know positively that Metropolitan Kirill came to northern Rus' many times to stay with the local great princes. Regarding these travels to the North and stays here, we find the following in the chronicles. In 1250, after one or another short time after his return from the patriarch from installation, he set off from Kyiv to Suzdal Rus' and arrived in Vladimir through Chernigov and Ryazan 97. The next year, 1251, he went from Vladimir to Novgorod to see Prince Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky and together to install a bishop for the Novgorodians (Dalmata in the place of the deceased Spiridon). In 1252, he was in Vladimir and installed Alexander Yaroslavich here during the great reign. In 1255 he was again in Vladimir, and in the next 1256 he traveled with the Grand Duke to Novgorod. In 1262 we see him in Rostov, where he installed a bishop (Ignatius in the place of the deceased Cyril), and in the next 1263 - in Vladimir, where he buried Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky. It may very well be that after 1252 and 1256, the Metropolitan did not leave northern Rus' and spent the entire time in it from 1250 to 1263; but the chronicles speak vaguely, reporting only about the metropolitan’s stay in the North in the known, now indicated, years. In 1274, the Metropolitan came from Kyiv to Vladimir, bringing with him Archimandrite Serapion of Pechersk for installation as bishop of Vladimir. In 1281, the Metropolitan came from Kyiv to the Suzdal region and here in the same year he ended his life in the city of Pereyaslavl Zalessky. In place of Bishop Mitrofan of Vladimir, who was killed by the Mongols during the capture of Vladimir in 1238, Cyril appointed a new bishop only in 1274. This circumstance, if it does not give reason to think that during a very long time of his reign he had the idea of ​​transferring the metropolitan see from Kyiv to Vladimir, then gives every reason to assume that during a very long time of his reign he had the idea of ​​leaving the Vladimir diocese for the metropolitans, just as after transferring the see from Kyiv to Vladimir, the metropolitans left the Kyiv diocese for themselves. In any case, this delay in installing a bishop means that the Metropolitan wanted to leave Vladimir, so to speak, free for himself for as long as possible and, therefore, that he wanted to come to it as often as possible. As for the metropolitan’s stay or stays in Kyiv, we know from the chronicles that he was there in 1274, in which he came from it to Vladimir, then in 1276, in the winter of which he installed the bishop of Novgorod (Clement in the place of the deceased Dalmatus) 98. And finally, in 1281, in which he came from there to the Suzdal region. Cyril's repeated visits to northern Rus' would lead one to assume that he visited his homeland Galicia even more times, of which he was elected metropolitan as the Grand Duke. However, we know absolutely nothing about these visits to him. Not only do the northern chronicles not speak about them at all, but the Galich-Volyn chronicle (Ipatskaya) does not speak about them at all. This last chronicle, having spoken about the election of Kirill by Daniil Romanovich and about his journey to the patriarch for installation, then does not mention the metropolitan in a single word, as if he had ceased to exist. How to understand this silence is not easy to decide. On the one hand, it leads to suspicion that Cyril for some reason became estranged from his homeland after he became the metropolitan of all Rus', and on the other hand, the Galich-Volyn chronicle behaves towards him in such a way that its silence may not mean anything: Mentioning his election as a metropolitan grand duke, and his journey to the patriarch, both times completely randomly, it does not say even that he (Kirill) came to Daniil Romanovich immediately after the initiation, and yet this, at least, is absolutely necessary to assume. Daniil Romanovich had relations with the Pope, and one would think that they alienated the Metropolitan from the prince; but relations did not continue throughout the reign of Danilov and, as it seems, did not reach the point where the Metropolitan had reasons to sever his ties with the prince, and if they did, it was only for a short time. In addition, after the death of Daniel in 1264, Cyril remained metropolitan for 17 years under his son Leo. Not finding it possible to resolve the issue of Cyril’s relationship to Galicia and the Galich great princes in a positive way, we consider it most likely that no special conclusions should be drawn from the silence of the Galich-Volyn chronicle. It can only be taken as very probable and even more than probable that between the two parts of Rus' and his metropolis, he saw the main part of the state and church not in his homeland of Galicia, but in northern Rus', Vladimir. Metropolitan Kirill was called upon to rule the Russian church when the rule of the Mongols began over the Russian land. After the terrible devastation of Rus' during the enslavement itself, moreover, the church, represented by the clergy and in places of public worship - churches, suffered as horribly as the state. The Mongols left the Russians their faith completely inviolable and the rights of their clergy completely inviolable. In general, they left them their church without any change in the position in which it was before their, the Mongols, invasion. This recognition of the inviolability of faith and the rights of the clergy, as we said above, was declared by the Mongols not by granting our clergy some kind of charter, but in fact, or in reality (by the deed itself). Perfect religious tolerance was their general principle: in all the lands that they conquered before Rus', they left complete freedom of faith; They left the same freedom of faith to the Russians after the enslavement of their land to their power. Thus, Metropolitan Kirill, upon his accession to the throne, had no need to care and try to establish certain relations between the Mongols in the Russian Church in order to ask the Khan for benefits and advantages. Possibly favorable relations were established by themselves even before he took the throne, so all he had to do was acknowledge the joyful fact with thanksgiving to God. It may very well be that Cyril, after his consecration as a metropolitan, traveled to the Horde to introduce himself to the khan, who was then the conqueror of Rus' Batu himself; but it is more likely that it is not, because the chronicles would hardly have been silent about this journey if it had taken place. Batu, in his greatness, might not have been interested in seeing the greater Russian priest, as the Mongols called our metropolitans, and the metropolitan, for his part, could hardly have had the desire to seek the honor of being presented to the khan. Under Batyev's third successor, Khan Berke or Berkai, in 1261, Metropolitan Kirill established an episcopal see in the capital of the khan's Sarai. Unfortunately, the chronicles do not tell us the history of the establishment of the department, limiting themselves only to the fact that under this year they say: “that same summer ordain Metropolitan Bishop Mitrofan Sarai” 99. To imagine the matter in such a way that the metropolitan himself turned to the khan with a request for permission to establish a department is very unlikely, for such a request would be such a claim on the part of the metropolitan, which he could not dare to declare; It is much more likely that the khan himself demanded from the metropolitan the establishment of a department in order to have bishops, rather than ordinary priests, as representatives of the Russian clergy. One way or another, this establishment of the episcopal see in the capital of the Khan shows the degree of tolerance of the Mongols towards our faith. – The bishops of Sarai, staying constantly with the khans both during the latter’s life in the capital and during their wanderings across the steppe 100, should have received very important diplomatic significance for the Russian metropolitans and grand dukes: they could notify both of them about everything that was happening in the Horde, they could make acquaintances there between the boyars that were necessary in our interests, etc. In general, they could have the same importance there as currently have envoys stationed at other courts. However, in the event of a struggle between the princes, becoming supporters of the wrong among the latter, they could exercise their influence in a way that was very harmful to the fatherland. The bishops were in charge not only of those Russians who lived between the Mongols themselves, and of whom at least at first there should have been a lot of them among them 101 , but also of some part of their own Rus', namely, the Pereyaslavl bishopric 102 , which was adjacent to the Mongol nomads on the northwestern edge of the latter, was subordinated to them. That the bishops of Sarai were allowed by the khans to convert the Tatars to Christianity, and that such conversions, in greater or lesser numbers, actually took place, we said above (p. 41, electronic version - footnote No. 70, corr.). In 1279, shortly before his death, Metropolitan Kirill petitioned Berkayev's successor, Khan Mengu-Temir, for a label that protected the inviolability of faith and the rights of the clergy from the encroachments of Mongol officials and which, one must think, was caused by the fact that the officials more or less allowed themselves these encroachments. In the Nikon Chronicle, under the year 1279, it reads: “That same summer, Bishop Theognast of Sarai came to the third (and) from the Greek land, from Constantinople; His blessed Kiril, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus', and Tsar Mengutemir of Orda sent letters and commemorations from the blessed Kiril, Metropolitan, and letters and commemorations from Tsar Mengutemir to the Patriarch and to Tsar Michael Palaeologus of Greece” 103. This news should be understood in such a way that Khan Mengu-Temir had the need to send an embassy to Emperor Michael, probably because of Nogai, the leader of the private Mongol Horde, which had broken away from the Golden or Sarai Horde and roamed first along the Black Sea coast, and then in the lower reaches of the Danube, and that for greater success of the embassy, he invited the Metropolitan to assist him Kirill. It is not without probability that for the latter purpose he summoned the Metropolitan to his Sarai, and it was this personal stay with the Khan on his own business that the Metropolitan could take advantage of to ask him for a label 104. The use of the Bishop of Sarai as an envoy and the invitation of the Metropolitan to contribute to the success of the embassy shows that very good relations existed between Khan Mengu-Temir and our church. As for the bishop, it is very likely that he made the two previous trips to Constantinople on behalf of the khan, although on one of these trips, as we know and as discussed below, he was also involved in church affairs. We said above that we have reason to think of Metropolitan Kirill as a particularly zealous shepherd. These grounds are given to us by the monuments of his pastoral activity that have survived to this day, of which there are two monuments - the Kormchaya book with interpretations of the canons that he acquired for Russia and the act of the Vladimir Cathedral of 1274. Based on the last monument, which expresses the care and efforts of Metropolitan Kirill to free, to some extent, the Russian Church and its life from the shortcomings that existed in it, with great right one must consider him not only a particularly, but also exceptionally zealous shepherd, who should be given one of the outstanding places among other high shepherds of the Russian Church. The Russian Church had a Slavic translation of the so-called church canons that constituted the legislation of the universal church from the very first time of its existence. During the pre-Mongol period, we had in use in Slavic translation two collections or editions of church canons - a systematic collection of John Scholasticus, Patriarch of Constantinople, who lived in the second half of the 6th century (565-578), significantly incomplete, and a collection arranged in the order of councils and fathers, made by an unknown or unknown person (constituting the second part or the so-called syntagma of the 14-nominal nomocanon, which in its final edition, owned by Patriarch Photius, received the name Photius), also incomplete, but not significantly, but only very slightly 105. Metropolitan Kirill's concerns, however, were attracted not so much by this certain incompleteness of the church canons that were in our Slavic translation, but by something else. In the continuation of the 12th century preceding it, the Greeks began to interpret the church canons of Zonarino, Aristinovo and Valsamonovo 106. He wished to acquire a Slavic translation of the canons, accompanied by an interpretation, from the southern Slavs. To obtain the Slavic Kormcha, containing canons with interpretations, the Metropolitan made a request to the Bulgarian despot or the Bulgarian appanage ruler (prince) Jacob Svyatislav 107 . This latter, having asked for the desired Helmsman from his Patriarch of Tern, ordered the list to be copied for the Metropolitan and sent him the latter in an unknown year - 1262 or 1270 108 . Metropolitan Kirill's acquisition of the Slavic Kormcha, which contained interpretations of canons or canons with interpretations, was not, however, a very valuable and important acquisition, although he himself acquired a very great significance for it. Among the southern Slavs, lengthy interpretations of the canons of Zonarino and Valsamonovo were not translated, but a very brief interpretation of Aristinovo was translated, and the church canons were taken by Aristin for his interpretation not in full form, but in an abbreviated version. The helmsman's book, which contained abbreviated church canons, with a brief interpretation by Aristinov, was translated from Greek into Slavic by St. not too long before Cyril. Savva, the first archbishop of Serbia 109, and from the Serbs it was borrowed by the Bulgarians. This translation of Sava was delivered to Metropolitan Kirill by Despot Svyatislav 110. In the preface to the acts of the Vladimir Council of 1274, regarding his acquisition of the Helmsman, containing canons with interpretations, the Metropolitan writes that hitherto our church rules were “unreasonable” (unintelligible), “for the former beyakha was darkened by the cloud of wisdom of the Elin language,” but that now, after the acquisition of the Helmsman, “the were interpreted, and by the grace of God they shine clearly, driving away ignorance and enlightening everything with reasonable light and eliminating sin.” These words, which say that before him, Metropolitan Kirill, we did not have a Slavic translation of church rules, led scientists to great bewilderment. But it turns out that the Metropolitan literally took the mysterious words from the preface of St. Savva to his translation of the Helmsman. In the mouth of St. Savva’s words meant that the Serbs did not have a Slavic translation of the rules before his time, i.e., that the Serbs did not borrow from the Bulgarians their Slavic translations that existed among the latter, and that until then they made do with their Greek original. Metropolitan Kirill, who repeats the words in their original form in a not entirely successful manner, of course, wants to say that with the acquisition of interpretations, the rules have become much clearer. (From the time Metropolitan Kirill acquired his Helmsman’s book, Photius’s collection of church canons began to exist in our country in two editions: in an abridged edition with the Aristinovs’ interpretation, in which form it was in his, Kirill’s Helmsman’s book, and in the full edition, which we had before him, but with the same interpretations by the Aristinovs attributed from his Helmsman (as well as in the canons themselves with the addition of his Helmsman’s in an abbreviated version of the little that was missing). The surname of the Helmsman, containing the canons in the first edition, is called according to the oldest known list of it, written in 1283 for the Ryazan Bishop Joseph, the surname of the Ryazan or Iosifovskaya, containing the canons in the second edition (complete), is called according to the same list of it, written for the Novgorod Sofia. cathedral between 1276–1294 with the surname Sophia or Novgorodskaya, printed under Patriarchs Joseph-Nikon in 1650–53, represents the Helmsman of Ryazan). In 1274, Metropolitan Kirill came from Kyiv to Vladimir and brought with him Archimandrite Serapion of the Pechersk Monastery to be installed as bishop of Vladimir 111. The Metropolitan called four bishops to consecrate Serapion: Dalmat of Novgorod, Ignat of Rostov, Theognostus of Sarai and Simeon of Polotsk. With these bishops, he drew up a council and at the council drew up a written “Rule”, consisting of a number of instructions aimed at eradicating the abuses that existed in our church administration, errors in worship and shortcomings in the moral life of the clergy and people. The year 1274 was the 25–26th year of Cyril's tenure at the metropolitan see, counting from the time of his consecration, and 31 years from the time of his election. It is impossible to imagine things in such a way that for too many years of his reign the Metropolitan did not pay attention to the shortcomings that existed in the Russian Church, and that after a long time he suddenly and unexpectedly developed a desire to take measures to eradicate them. It is necessary to think that in general he was a very zealous shepherd - that throughout the entire period of his reign he cared about eradicating the shortcomings that existed in the church through non-written efforts and that with the written publication of his cathedral decrees or, according to his own name, his “Rule”, as the most effective and lasting measure, he wanted to complete his previous worries and efforts. In view of what has now been said, the testimony of the Nikon Chronicle receives all its credibility, although, perhaps, it constitutes nothing more than a simple assumption of the chronicler, only expressed by him in the form of positive news that Metropolitan Kirill, by the way, then often left Kyiv and undertook travels throughout Rus' in order to personally teach, punish, and correct everywhere. In the preface to his “Rule,” speaking about God’s punishment that befell our fatherland for neglecting and violating church canons and Christian commandments, he writes: “What profit did we receive by abandoning God’s rules? Has not God scattered us over the face of the whole earth? Were our cities not taken? Did not our strong princes perish at the edge of the sword? Have our children been taken captive? Have not God's holy churches become desolate? Are we not tormented by godless and unclean pagans every day? All this happened to us because we did not keep the rules of our holy and reverend fathers.” These words show that Metropolitan Kirill was one of those people on whom great national disasters act in an awakening and admonishing way, as a call for correction and moral improvement. Put in charge of the Russian Church immediately after a terrible general disaster struck the Russian land, when the latter, having just been passed by the Mongols, was a continuous heap of smoking ruins, covered with countless human corpses, like mown grass, Metropolitan Kirill, one must think, in view of this formidable expression of God's wrath, vowed to himself to be not only the ruler of the Russian Church, but also its possible corrector and renovator, and To the best of his ability, he remained faithful to his vow throughout his long reign. It is necessary, therefore, to look at the action of the Vladimir Council of 1274 not as something sudden and not as something isolated (single) in his activity, but as the final expression of those aspirations for the correction of the Russian Church, with which he was constantly animated throughout his long stay at the metropolitan see - as a dying expression in writing of those concerns that he carried within himself without writing throughout his long life. The constituent act of the Vladimir Council of 1274, the “Rule” of Metropolitan Kirill, is quite extensive in scope; in its content it is a series of instructions against the shortcomings that existed in the field of church life. But we think that it does not represent what was actually in the Metropolitan’s thoughts. The series of instructions that he makes with the council in the Rule is very short, while there is no doubt that this series could be very long. That Metropolitan Kirill could not be well ignorant of all the shortcomings of contemporary church life, when he sat in the pulpit for such a long time and when he deliberately tried to become familiar with the shortcomings, this is impossible to assume. Therefore, we strongly think that the metropolitan’s own thought was to draw the most complete picture of all the shortcomings of modern church life with the condemnation of everyone, as the Hundred Head Council did this much later, and that if he did not bring his thought to fruition, then the reason for this should be considered external, literary conditions, namely, that he and his collaborators did not have enough literary ability to produce a whole book of acts of the conciliar, similar to the acts Stoglavy Cathedral. Be that as it may, the acts of the Vladimir Council of 1274, called Rule 112 in their inscription, should be precious to us because they represent the first written acts of local councils of our Russian Church that have survived to us. The proceedings of the council begin with an introduction on behalf of Metropolitan Kirill; after entry, they consist of a number of instructions against the shortcomings of church life 113. “Our most good God,” Metropolitan Kirill begins his introduction, “who creates all kinds of providence for our salvation and who, according to His unknown destinies, through the all-creation and wisdom of His Most Holy and Most Pure Spirit, brings everything into order, grants (in abundance) to all those who have worthily accepted the priesthood the necessary strength to dangerously, with all care, observe the holy rules of the most holy apostles and those who came after them our reverend fathers, who, having a vital word, with their most pure laws protected the church of God as with some solid walls and who laid as its foundation a stone of hardness - that stone regarding which Christ swore that the church would remain indestructible from hell itself, as having hope in the words of the Savior: take heart, I have overcome the world" 114. But,” the Metropolitan continues, addressing the Russian Church, “I, Kirill, the humble Metropolitan of All Rus', partly through my own vision, partly through hearing from others, know about many disorders in churches (in the matter of performing divine services), for some hold it this way, others differently, about many disagreements and sins (arising) either from pastoral negligence, or from unreasonable custom, or from failure of bishops to visit (their dioceses), or due to the incomprehensibility of church rules. The last reason, says the Metropolitan, the incomprehensibility of the rules, has now been eliminated after the acquisition of the Helmsman with interpretations..., “so, in the future, may God save us from ignorance, and may we forgive sin (non-compliance with the rules for other reasons) (and then) may he enlighten and enlighten us regarding the holy rules, so that we do not dare to transgress the fatherly commandments and thereby inherit grief.” Next, the Metropolitan addresses his flock with the same appeals that we cited above: “What profit have we received by abandoning God’s rules? Has not God scattered us over the face of the whole earth? etc. “Now,” the metropolitan concludes his introduction, “I have thought with the holy council and with the venerable bishops to conduct a test about church things known (co-).” The instructions of the council, as we said above, are directed: against abuses and omissions in church administration, against errors and irregularities in the performance of public worship and sacraments, and against shortcomings in the moral life of the clergy and the people. 1. Against simony and love of money of bishops and about placing them in the lower ecclesiastical ranks. In Greece, from very ancient times, it became a custom for bishops to charge a fee for appointment to lower ecclesiastical ranks (as well as metropolitans for appointment to bishops, and patriarchs for appointment to metropolitans). The collection was actually illegal and represented, strictly speaking, nothing more than simony; but the custom, despite all the efforts against it by the best representatives of the church authorities, starting with Basil the Great 115, became a general custom and received the force of law on the basis that the general is not an abuse. For a very long time, the size of the fee was not determined, so there was complete freedom for the arbitrariness and claims of selfish bishops. Finally, the mode of action of this kind of bishops forced the imperial authority to assign a certain tax, beyond which it would not be charged. This was done in the second half of the 11th century by Emperor Isaac Komnenos (1057–1059), who prescribed: for ordination to the rank of reader, take one gold coin, called an yperpir (ὑπέρπυρον) and containing the value of 20 francs, for ordination to the deacon, three more gold coins, for ordination to the priesthood, three more of the same coins, or a total of seven gold coins for ordination to the priesthood. Soon after Isaac Komnenos, his decree was confirmed by his nephew Alexius Komnenos (1080–1118) 116. In Russia, as we said before, 117 the collection of this fee could not become a custom immediately after we adopted Christianity, because at first the government had to appoint priests among us, recruiting candidates through forced recruitment, and from people who were appointed priests not of their own free will, it was impossible to demand another payment for their appointment. But in all likelihood we must think that in our country the collection of fees began immediately after involuntary candidates for the priesthood were replaced by voluntary seekers for the priesthood, which happened after a more or less short period of time from our adoption of Christianity. Along with the transition to us of the custom of collecting fees, the decree of Isaac Comnenus, which determined the amount of fees, should have passed to us as a law. But just as in Greece selfish bishops allowed themselves to violate the imperial decree and take more than what it prescribed, so it was with us. Not content with illegally raising the fee for the decree, the selfish Greek bishops, and after them ours, came up with a large number of other charges from the lower clergy and allowed themselves to resort to one extremely lawless means of extorting money from the laity. Finally, following the example of the Greek bishops or on their own, our selfish bishops still allowed themselves to oppress the laity of one special class. The council makes its instructions against the illegal increase in fees for delivery and against everything now indicated. Regarding the fee for ordination, the council, after insistent speeches that any excess collection is a bribe and simony, prescribes that in the future the fee should be charged for ordination to the Laws and to the priesthood - in both degrees together, no more than seven hryvnia, i.e., in a not entirely definite and not entirely thorough manner, it confirms the legitimation of Emperor Isaac, and equates the Greek hyperpyre with the Russian hryvnia. Making an order on his own behalf, Metropolitan Kirill says in the act of the conciliar: “do not collect from them (those ordained as deacons and priests) anything other than (due): as I established in the metropolis 118, let it be in all bishops, - let the kliroshan (episcopal) collect 7 hryvnia from the priesthood and from deaconry - from both,” and the way of its expression makes it clear that in previous times, the legitimation of Emperor Isaac was violated not only by bishops, but also by the metropolitans themselves, and, consequently, that the latter themselves set the first example of violation of the law among us. Regarding all other collections made by bishops from the lower clergy, the council prescribes that they must be deferred and must not take place in the future under any circumstances. These other charges, strictly prohibited in the future by the council, were: payment for placing a priest in the church or for appointing a priest in addition to the fee for initiation, payment for appointing an abbot, called “pososhny” (for the presentation of the abbot’s staff), payment for appointing a lay priest as a confessor (“abbess”), payment for appointing a prosphora guardian, “bribe” for appointing a governor and tithe, extortion from priests and abbots of monasteries (“from the ruler of the church”) offerings or gifts during their arrival at diocesan councils, which took place on the so-called “assembly Sunday”. [In Greece, metropolitans demanded offerings or gifts from the bishops subordinate to them, when these latter appeared at the annual district (metropolitan) councils - 7 Ecumenical Council, rule 6 fin..] The council defines defrocking as a punishment for bishops who would dare to violate these instructions now. The lawless means to which some of our bishops resorted, following other Greek bishops, to extort money from the laity, was to excommunicate innocent people and then charge a fee for permission. The Council excommunicates bishops who resort to such means to satisfy their passion for money. At the same time, he forbids bishops to excommunicate “for the sake of some kind of pleasure,” that is, to please someone who wants to persecute through ecclesiastical excommunication people who are hostile to him or hated by him. The oppression of one special class of laity by the bishops consisted in the fact that they forced the poor to work for themselves on their estates or estates - to reap bread and mow hay, that they forced the latter to transport household supplies from the estates to their places of residence ("transportation of deeds") and extorted gifts from them under the name of "prefabricated". We think, as we said before, 119 that it is more likely to mean not all beggars in general, but those of them who lived near churches, on church lands, and that for this very reason the bishops laid claim to them as if they were their slaves and tax-paying peasants. (However, the bishops could have a claim on all beggars in general because they all collected alms from the churches subordinate to them, the bishops). The Council forbids bishops from committing violence against the poor in the future. Along with the prescription regarding the payment for placement in the lower ecclesiastical degrees, the council makes a prescription regarding the placement itself in these degrees. “Bishops,” he writes, “when they want to ordain a priest or deacon, they must find out the life of the appointed one, what he led before his ordination, (and for this) they must call on neighbors who know him (him), who know him from childhood... Let them find out about the appointed one in detail - whether he has retained his virginity, whether he is legally married to a girl who has retained his virginity, whether he knows how to read and write well; but even after that, it’s not long before you put him down (but find out) whether he’s a blasphemer, a predator, a drunkard, a perjurer, or a quarrelsome person. It is also necessary to test him regarding sinful things: whether he sinned with fornication in Sodom, or with cattle, or in the hand, whether he was not guilty of theft, excluding theft of a child, whether he corrupted his virginity before marriage, whether he committed fornication with many or committed fornication from his lawful wife, whether he was a false witness, whether he committed murder, voluntary or involuntary, whether he was a usurer, not a moneylender. whether he is not overworking his servants with hunger and nakedness, whether he is running away from tribute, or whether he is a sorcerer. If anyone is convicted, even of one of the wines just mentioned, he cannot be a priest, a deacon, or a cleric. And whoever, according to the testimony of his spiritual father, is free from all these wines, let him be appointed under the guarantee of seven other priests with other good witnesses. First, the bishop gives him a “eukhio” (εὐχή), that is, a prayer of ceremonies for the cutting of the head and a short phelonion, and after that let him rest and read in the cathedral church until he understands everything, and the bishop must entrust him for teaching to the “elder of the church” (one of his cathedral clergy). After this, for a more or less long time, when he is at least 25 years old, let him be made a deacon, and not earlier than 30 years old, a priest.” Recalling some rules regarding ordination to the clergy, the council confirms the message of the Patriarch Herman of Constantinople to Metropolitan Cyril II of 1228 120 about the non-ordination of slaves to the priesthood who have not previously received freedom from slavery, and regarding this prescribes: “not to appoint a slave to the priesthood, unless first his master releases him (to freedom) in front of many witnesses with a written (release) letter and will not allow him, the slave, to go wherever he wants.” 2. Against errors in performing the rite of proskomedia. The Metropolitan found that within the Novgorod region, the deacons took away the divine lamb and committed the proskomisa before the priests - that the priests came after the deacons and, in turn, committed the proskomisa. Referring to the 56th rule of the Council of Laodicea, that “a deacon before a presbyter shall not enter the holy altar, nor as a presbyter before a bishop,” and to the 18th rule of the first ecumenical council, that “deacons must take communion after the elders,” the council prescribes: “henceforth we do not command deacons to take away the lamb, but priests,” and adds: “if anyone turns out to be doing things not according to our commandment, then, if he knows our definition (i.e., the present one), let him be expelled from his place by the episcopal court, and if he does not know, let him be forgiven; if there are those who disobey and speak contrary to our definition, then let them all be cast out; if the laity begin to create unrest on this matter, then let them be cursed (excommunicated).” The Council, as can be seen from its definition, recognized the custom of the Novgorod region as a great error. In fact, this was not a mistake that somehow spontaneously appeared in Novgorod, but was an ancient church custom that remained in Greece along with the new one until later times, passed down to us from Greece along with the latter and became a general or predominant custom in the Novgorod region. 3. Against errors and irregularities in performing the sacrament of baptism. It came to the attention of the Metropolitan that in some places the priests, out of some delusion and extreme foolishness, mixed divine myrrh with wooden oil and thus anointed the person being baptized all over the body (that is, they anointed the person being baptized all over the body). The council teaches the instruction that the ointment is special, and the oil is special, that the person being baptized is anointed with wooden oil in all compositions according to the catechumen, saying: “The servant of God is anointed with the oil of joy in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and forever and ever, Amen,” which is then baptized, immersed in three immersions, “in the name of the Father, also of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” with the invitation: “Amen,” and that after this they anoint the person being baptized with myrrh according to his feelings, saying: “the seal and gift of the Holy Spirit,” and precisely - they do not anoint it on any other places, like on the forehead, on the eyes, on the ears, on the nostrils and on the lips. The council ends its speech with a passage from the Announcement of Cyril of Jerusalem, which explains what it means and why the anointing of the baptized person is done according to his feelings (known parts of the body). Further, the council prescribes that after baptism, the newly baptized should be honored with communion of the Holy Mysteries, whether it be in the city or in the village. Following this, the council instructs: “let no one be doused anymore, but let them be immersed, for, he says, dousing is not prescribed anywhere, but immersion in a vessel specially designated for that purpose.” To the instructions regarding baptism, the council adds an instruction regarding marriage, namely, it commands that no one be married without communion (meaning, on the day of the marriage): “let no one be married without communion.” [“Let them not screw anyone around without communion.” Perhaps without communion, and not on the very day of marriage, but generally before marriage.] 4. Against the performance of certain sacred actions by uninitiated persons, regarding the participation of lay persons in the performance of divine services, against the encroachment of clerks on liturgical and church rights that do not belong to them, about the church, so to speak, quality of sextons and about the treatment of the altar. We learned, says the Metropolitan, that in the Novgorod region some uninitiated persons (by which, in all likelihood, we should mean prosphora guardians) 121 sanctify the fruits brought to the church, namely, cereals or kutia offered for the dead. We command, the council orders, that from now on this shall not happen, not even deacons (but only priests) shall consecrate. Further, the council gives, under the name 15th rule of the Laodicean Council, an interpretation of this rule, which states that unconsecrated persons are forbidden to sing and read on the pulpit, and commands that henceforth in all churches unconsecrated persons should neither read the apostle, nor sing the prokeme, nor enter the altar. A clerk,” the council continues its instructions, “even if he is consecrated (and not only wears clothes and a clerk’s haircut without dedication), 122 must not touch sacred vessels and must not dare to bring the holy censer (that is, must not dare to perform the act of censing) 123, which is only appropriate for a priest and a deacon and which is forbidden even to the greatest bishop's clerk (subdeacon). Sextons for all churches must be supplied from pure ones, so that God’s holy altar (which they must enter) is not entered indiscriminately. Nothing should be brought into God’s holy altar, neither kutia nor anything else. Let the priest and deacon not enter the altar carelessly, so as not to disturb the most pure place by disorderly entry. 5. Against drunkenness of priests. We learned, says the Metropolitan, that in the Novgorod region, due to negligence, disorder is happening in the priesthood, they revel beyond measure on the holy, most pure days of fasting from Bright Palm Week to all saints, so that before all the saints there is neither a divine offering nor divine baptism, that is, the liturgy is not sung and the sacrament of baptism is not performed. The Council decides: following the divine rules, which say: a presbyter who gets drunk, let him cease, or be deposed, 124 we command the venerable bishops: if they do not repent (priests who indulge in drunkenness), then pervert them all, for better is one who serves worthy, than a thousand lawless ones; and if worldly people (parishioners) form gatherings, opposing this rule (i.e., not allowing unworthy priests to be cast out, so that churches are not left without singing), then let them be subject to a curse (excommunication). It is not entirely clear to us that the priests did not begin their drunkenness on St. Day. Easter, and from Palm Sunday: perhaps it was accepted that Lent ends on this last day. When it is said in the act of the conciliar that before all the saints the liturgy is not sung and the sacrament of baptism is not performed, in other words, that the singing of church services and the performance of services ceases, then, in all likelihood, this should be understood as some kind of exaggeration allowed by the cathedral in order to give the speech greater expressiveness. 6. Against fist fights, against the celebration of one ungodly and immoral pagan holiday on Saturday evening before Sunday and against taking brides to the water. We learned,” the council writes, “that (Russian people) still adhere to the custom of the damned Hellenes (pagans): on divine holidays they perform certain demonic disgraces, with whistling and with a cry and with a cry they call together some stingy drunkards and beat themselves with daggers (stakes) until death and take for themselves the clothes of those killed (i.e., or plunder them, stealing from the dead, or, what seems more likely, they take it apart and divide it, superstitiously assigning it some meaning in the sense of a talisman). Having said that this happens to reproach God’s holidays and to annoy God’s churches and our Savior and Intercessor himself, the council commands: if anyone turns out to be committing (such) outrage after these rules of ours, then let them be cursed in this century and in the century to come. If anyone opposes our law, then do not accept offerings from them, that is, prosphora and kutya, or candles, and when they die, let the priests not perform a funeral service for them and do not perform commemorations for them. And let them not be buried near God's church (that is, let them not be buried in the cemetery, but outside it). If any priest dares to do anything (either of the above) on them, then let him be alien to his rank. To understand the full severity of the council’s definition against fist fights, you need to remind yourself that in ancient and old times (as in other places in Russia, to some extent even now), these fights were not some kind of children’s fun, but terribly bloody battles between hundreds and thousands and even tens of thousands (sic) of adults (about this national Russian pastime, for which entire cities were divided into two halves in order to go wall to wall, and in in which entire volosts lined up wall to wall, one against the other, we will make deliberate speeches later). And this is also what we heard,” the council writes: on Saturday evening, men and women gather in one place and play and dance shamelessly and “do defilement” on the night of the Holy Resurrection, (just as) the wicked pagans celebrate the festival of Dionysus (Bacchanalia), - men and women together and how horses squeal and neigh and do defilement. And now,” the council orders, “let them cease from this; if not, then let them be damned. It is not clear in the act of the conciliar whether it means the night of every Sunday or only the bright resurrection of Easter. As it seems, the latter, and the matter should probably be understood in such a way that the bacchanalia was a pagan holiday of the Russians, which fell in the spring season and which, after the adoption of Christianity, was added to the Christian holiday of Easter, as its eve 125. And we also heard, writes the council: within Novgorod, brides are taken to the water (that is, they are taken, as should be implied, either for pagan sorcery over them, or for performing pagan religious actions). And now,” the council instructs, “we do not order them to do this, but if they do not stop, then we order them to curse 126.” [Regarding our custom of leading brides to the water, cfr in Svida in the Dictionary under the word λουτροφ ό ρος about the same Greek custom.] This ends the instructions of the council. As we said above, it seems very likely to us to think that our conciliar act, which far from encompassing in its instructions everything that required instructions, should be looked at not as complete, but only as some implementation of the actual thought of Metropolitan Kirill. We very much think that this actual thought of the Metropolitan should presuppose the possible complete conciliar condemnation of the shortcomings of Russian church life, and that if, instead of the desired complete conciliar action, only a certain, not particularly large, “something” came out, then the reason for this must be considered the external conditions we have indicated. That is, that the matter turned out to be too much for the members of the council from the literary (clerical) side - that literary presentation was such a labor for them that they were unable to overcome. And that instead of an extensive scroll of deeds, reaching the size of a whole book, they were able to inscribe only the small scroll that we find. In relation to its literary presentation (as a clerical work), the conciliar act really cannot be considered completely satisfactory. What arouses bewilderment in the council’s act is that it makes repeated references to the Novgorod region and specifically to it alone. Regarding some cases of these instructions, we can say with confidence that they go not only to Novgorod, but to all of Russia; such, for example, are speeches about the drunkenness of priests. We cannot say positively how to explain this perplexing circumstance to ourselves; but the following does not seem incredible to us: all currently known lists of the acts of the cathedral originate from the list that was written in Novgorod (and precisely written a very short time after the cathedral); the archbishop of Novgorod, who was present at the council, wishing to ensure that the act of the council would be as effective as possible for the clergy under his command and for his flock, published it in his diocese in such a form that it seemed as if at the council decisions had been made specifically and deliberately against the Novgorod clergy and against the Novgorodians; i.e. We assume that references to the Novgorod region were made for the purpose just mentioned by the Archbishop of Novgorod in the list of council acts that he published in his diocese. In addition to the acts of the Vladimir Council of 1274, another written monument from the reign of Metropolitan Kirill has survived to this day, relating to the church-governmental area and also partly testifying to the pastoral care of our Metropolitan regarding the improvement of the Russian Church. These are the questions proposed in 1276 by the Sarai bishop Theognostus to the Patriarchal Council of Constantinople, with the answers received from the council 127. It is necessary to think that the bishop proposed his questions to the council not on his own, but on behalf of the metropolitan. In particular, it is very likely to present the case about them in such a way that they were raised at the Vladimir Council - that this council recognized itself as incompetent to give answers to them and that, therefore, it was decided to address them to the Patriarchal Council, for which purpose the bishop was either deliberately sent to Constantinople, or - what is more likely - took advantage of his trip from the khan to the emperor on a diplomatic mission. Up to 33 128 of all questions with the answers received are known. In terms of their content, the questions mainly concern the performance of public worship and the special cases that may arise during this, also the performance of the sacraments, then - tonsure as a monk, fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays, the acceptance of heretics into the church and the baptism of pagans, the eating of strangled meat, the attitude of bishops to the monasteries of their dioceses, special cases with bishops and priests, women who can be prosphora guardians. The general meaning of most of the questions is that the church practice of the 13th century, and especially the practice of liturgical services, was still in such an incompletely established form that it presented a lot of bewilderment for our pastors (and this bewilderment is divided into two classes in the questions - those relating to the Russian church in general and to the Sarai diocese, which was in special conditions, in particular). But there are several questions that serve precisely as an expression of the pastoral care of Metropolitan Kirill about the improvement of the church he ruled. In the preface to the acts of the Vladimir Council, the Metropolitan writes that partly through his own vision, partly through hearing from others, he learned about much disorder and much disagreement in the churches, “sometimes shaking, sometimes otherwise.” This means that the Metropolitan turned his attention to the differences in the rites of worship that existed among us in his time. Having done something to eliminate these differences in his conciliar “Rule” (instructions regarding proskomedia), he, on the other hand, drew attention to the differences that existed between us and the Greeks regarding worship and also regarding disciplinary church life. During the time of Metropolitan Kirill, we had in use the Studian liturgical charter, and in Greece the Jerusalem charter had already been adopted. The consequence of this, by the way, was that we differed with the Greeks regarding the days of the year appointed for the singing of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts. And the Metropolitan addressed the Patriarchal Council with a question regarding this difference between us and the Greeks. After the disputes about the fast of Wednesday and Friday, which took place among us in the second half of the 12th century, we continued to diverge in this case from the Greeks. And the Metropolitan addressed the Patriarchal Council with a question about our discord with them. Without conveying these questions and answers in full here, we will present them later in the appropriate places, according to the content. Of the church-governmental activities of Metropolitan Kirill in the closest sense of this last word, despite all its exceptional duration, we know from the chronicles only one particular case. This incident, which took place at the very end of his reign, makes it possible to see in him exactly the worthy shepherd that we imagine him to be. Here is the story about him in the Nikon Chronicle). In 1281, His Eminence Kirill, Metropolitan of Kiev and all Russia, left Kyiv according to his custom and went through the cities of all Rus', teaching, punishing, correcting. He also came to the Suzdal land and heard (here) from some who told him that Ignatius, Bishop of Rostov, was doing wrong: contrary to the divine scriptures and sacred rules, he condemned his Grand Duke of Rostov Gleb Vasilkovich excessively cruelly - 9 weeks after his death (in 1278), with desecration and dishonor, he threw him out of the cathedral church at midnight and ordered him to simply bury him in the ground (and not put in a shrine, in a tomb, as the princes were buried) in the Princess Monastery (built by Glebova’s mother). For this, His Eminence Kirill, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia, excommunicated Bishop Ignatius from the sacred service, until, with great difficulty, Prince of Rostov Dimitri Borisovich, grandson of Vasilkov (and nephew of Glebov), begged the Metropolitan for him. Having forgiven and allowed the bishop, the metropolitan told him: “do not be arrogant and do not consider yourself sinless, and do not worry so much about prohibition and excommunication as about liberation and forgiveness, for in the forgiveness of the brethren we find forgiveness of our sins and the mercy of the Lord (in) the mercy of our neighbor is hidden (that is, we attract the mercy of the Lord to ourselves by our mercy towards our neighbor). Weep and repent, my son, until your death about this inappropriate and shameless insolence, for you condemned the one who had already died before the judgment of God, and when he was alive, you were ashamed of him and took gifts from him, and ate and drank with him, and kept company with him and had fun, and when it was possible to correct, you did not correct, but now you want to correct through such a cruel prohibition and excommunication. If you want to help him, then give alms to the poor and pray and perform memorial services for him.” Having thus made a lengthy rebuke to Bishop Ignatius, Metropolitan Kirill forgave him and blessed him to serve, and consoled him so that he would not fall into too much sorrow. To what extent Metropolitan Kirill took an active part in the state affairs of Rus', we have no information. His morally obligatory duty, as the highest shepherd of the Russian Church, in this case was mainly to reconcile the quarreling princes and prevent bloodshed between them. The chronicles tell us one example of a metropolitan fulfilling this moral duty. In 1270, the Novgorodians had a strong quarrel with the Grand Duke Yaroslav Yaroslavich (the appanage prince of Tver). The prince came against them with a large army, and they, in turn, opposed him with all their land. The enemies stood against each other, and bloodshed was ready to ensue; but the Metropolitan sent his letter of admonition to the Novgorodians, and they, putting aside their weapons, made peace with the prince. In his letter, the Metropolitan wrote to the Novgorodians: “God has entrusted me with an archbishopric in the Russian land, you (must) listen to God and me: do not shed blood, and Yaroslav will put aside all his anger on you - for this I guarantee you; if you kissed the cross (in order not to accept the prince, I allow you from kissing the cross) and I take penance upon myself, and answer for it before God” 129. During the reign of Metropolitan Kirill, there were relations, and perhaps a short-term church union between the Galich Grand Duke Daniil Romanovich and the Pope, as well as an attempt by the Pope to subjugate northern Russia to his power. Unfortunately, we do not know the history of relations with Daniil Romanovich’s father in a completely detailed manner. It is known that the concern to attract into the enclosure of the one and holy Roman Church all the Christians wandering outside it was the eternal concern of the popes. In the first half of the 3rd century, before the invasion of the Mongols, the popes made three attempts in this sense in relation to Russia 130. These attempts were continued by the popes after the Mongol invasion. In the southwestern corner of Russia a new great principality appeared, whose territory extended into Western Europe, and due to its close ties with Poland and Hungary, it seemed to belong to the system of Western European states. Nothing could be more natural on the part of the popes than the desire to include this Russian Grand Duchy into the spiritual and church family of Western European peoples. Before the popes, an unsuccessful attempt to annex Galicia to the Latin Church through a union was made by the Hungarian kings 131; but failures did not lead the popes into despair at all. Be that as it may, only Pope Innocent IV, who ascended the throne in 1243, had the desire to subordinate the Galich Grand Duke Daniil Romanovich to his spiritual power. At the end of 1245, the pope considered it necessary to send his envoys to the great Mongol Khan Guyuk. He entrusted these ambassadors, who had to go through Galicia, with the task of attempting to start negotiations with the Galician Grand Duke, providing them with his letters to the latter 132. The ambassadors who were in Galicia in January 1246 did not find Daniil Romanovich at home, because at that time he went to the Horde to see Batu, and Danilov’s brother Vasilko, who received the ambassadors, did not dare to give them any answer 133. Directly after this, Daniel returned from the Horde. The Grand Duke, partly, probably, carried away by the fantastic hope of overthrowing the yoke of the Tatars with the help of the pope, and the humiliation he had just experienced in the Horde before the khan 134 could have had a strong effect on him, and mainly, as one must think, wanting to decorate his head with a royal crown that would compare him in rank with his neighbors, the kings of Poland and Hungary, not only did not reject the pope’s proposals; but on the contrary, he accepted them with the greatest readiness. Immediately upon returning from the Horde, he sent his ambassador, some kind of abbot, to the pope 135. What exactly Daniel wrote to the pope with his ambassador remains unknown. But already from May of the same year 1246 we have a letter from the pope, in which he writes that, condescending to his prayers (tuis supplicationibus inclinati), he accepts him and his state under the patronage of St. Peter and his 136. At the same time, the pope sent two Dominican monks to stay with the grand duke, as it should be thought, for further negotiations and for detailed instruction of the prince in Catholicism 137 . In the following year, 1247, negotiations reached the point where Daniil Romanovich, through ambassadors specially sent to the pope, expressed to him his desire to begin an alliance with the Roman Church 138, under the only condition that his bishops and priests were allowed to preserve leavened bread in the Eucharist and the rites of the Greek Church 139, and the pope, for his part, expressed consent to the proposed condition 140. at the end of the year he entrusted the Prussian Archbishop, to whom he had previously entrusted the duty of being the legate of St. throne 141, personally go to Galicia to complete the annexation of the country into the Roman Church 142, and sent the Grand Duke a royal crown with two of his bishops 143. But Daniil Romanovich, who had begun the matter of his subordination to the pope with frivolous haste, suddenly stopped. It is likely that when he saw the royal crown in front of him, the consciousness of the importance of the step that he was ready to take awoke in him, and he found that he should not buy the crown at such a price as betrayal of Orthodoxy: the legate and bishops had to leave the Grand Duke with nothing, taking back the papal gift that had been brought; and the prince, to justify his refusal to accept the crown, told them that he still had very bad relations with the Tatars and that he would need not the royal title, but the help of the pope 144, i.e., as his words are likely to be interpreted, he said with irony that he would need not what the pope can give, but what he cannot give 145. With what has just been said, however, Daniil Romanovich’s relations with the pope did not stop. There is a letter from the latter dated the month of May 1253, addressed to all Christians of Bohemia, Moravia, Serbia and Pomerania, calling on them to organize a crusade against the Tatars 146; in this letter, the pope calls the Galich prince his new beloved son in Christ (nuper carissimus in Christo filius) and says that he received a message from him. It must be plausible to think that shortly before this, the pope again turned to Daniil Romanovich with his previous proposals and convictions and that he received from him such a polite answer that does not contain a direct and clear refusal. But if so, then this politeness had very important consequences. It is more than likely that the pope did not at all seriously hope to organize a crusade against the Tatars and that he only wanted to show Daniel that he was ready to do anything for him; be that as it may, only to his legate Opizo (abbas de Mesano), sent to organize the crusade, did the pope present the royal crown to be placed on the head of the Galich Grand Duke, which the legate actually managed to do. Opiza came with the royal crown to Poland, to which he was appointed by the pope as a special legate 147, and here he met Daniil Romanovich, who had just returned from a campaign he had undertaken together with the Polish king 148. Despite all the assurances from the legate to the Grand Duke that the paw intended to provide him with his help, and the legate, of course, referred to the fact that the pope had made an appeal to the Christian peoples about a crusade against the Tatars, Daniil Romanovich did not agree to accept the royal crown, which, perhaps, had already lost its charm in his eyes. But finally, convinced by his friend the Polish king, his boyars and his mother, who was probably a Catholic by birth, 149 he allowed himself to be made king of the Holy Roman Empire. At the end of 1253 or in 1254, the papal legate anointed him for the kingdom and placed the royal diadem 150 on its head in the city of Drogichin (located on the western Bug, down from Brest-Litovsk, - currently a provincial town in the Grodno province, Belsky district 151. This acceptance of the royal crown by Daniil Romanovich does not necessarily mean that he formally recognized the authority of the pope and the Roman Catholic Church over himself. If he was looking for the crown himself, then it would be necessary to assume this; but since the crown was forced on him, the pope could have acted in such a way as to first make him a king, and then, as a king, convince him to become his real spiritual son. We don’t know for certain what actually happened. It seems most likely to us to think that Daniel did not formally begin an alliance with the Roman Church, but only made a promise to do so if the pope arranged a union or union with the Greeks 152. If Daniel, accepting the royal crown, actually formally swore an oath of obedience to the Roman Church, as the successor of the Innocents Alexander IV assures, then, in any case, not for a very long time. Now the aforementioned successor of the Innocents, Alexander, in his letter to Daniel dated February 1257, reproaches the Grand Duke for not keeping the oath he gave to the pope 154. The above ended the relationship between Daniil Romanovich and the pope, which had the only consequence that the Grand Dukes of Galich acquired the title of royal. How Metropolitan Kirill felt about this whole matter of Daniel’s relations with the pope, we have absolutely no positive information at all. If, simultaneously with the acceptance of the royal crown, the prince swore allegiance to the pope, then it is more than likely to think that the metropolitan was not a participant in an extremely disgraceful act, and that he temporarily interrupted the alliance with him in order to remain metropolitan only of northern Rus' 155. Considering it most likely that Daniel did not formally recognize the authority of the pope, we are very inclined to assume that on both occasions he was restrained from feigning recognition of this authority by Metropolitan Kirill. The sudden break in the first relations in 1248 probably occurred at the time when Cyril had already returned from the patriarch’s appointment: the suddenness of the break seems to indicate the appearance of outside influence, and such an influence could have been precisely the influence of the returning metropolitan. The second time he did not restrain the Grand Duke from allowing himself to be crowned by the papal legate. But this could have been the willfulness of a more free-thinking prince, who wanted to look at the matter exclusively from a political point of view, which he, the Metropolitan, found forced to admit and excuse 156... Having begun relations with the Galician Grand Duke in 1246 and seeing their great success at first, Pope Innocent IV was inspired by the desire and hope to attract northern Rus' at the same time as Galicia to an alliance with the Roman Church. At the beginning of 1248, he sent his envoys to the Novgorod prince Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky, who was to become well known in Rome since his famous victory over the Swedes in 1240. For the Swedes' campaign against Novgorod, in which they suffered such a terrible defeat from Alexander, was nothing more than a crusade against Russian heretics, undertaken as a result of papal agitations 157. Innocent assures Alexander in his letter to him that his father Yaroslav, who was with the Tatars at the same time as the papal legate of Plano de Carpini, expressed to the latter his sincere readiness to enter into an alliance with the Roman Church, which he intended to do very soon if his sudden death had not befallen 158. The papal ambassadors were received politely by Alexander; he allowed the construction of a Latin church in Pskov (for the German merchants who lived there), and, perhaps, even promised his assistance. This was understood or deliberately interpreted by the pope as a sign of Alexander’s readiness to begin an alliance with the Roman Church: at the end of the same 1248, he wrote another letter to the Prince of Novgorod, filled with the most intense courtesy, and intended to send to him his legate, the Archbishop of Prussia 159. But that’s where the matter ended... In one of our chronicles the following story is read about the arrival of the pope’s ambassadors to Alexander. Once the pope from great Rome sent his ambassadors to him. The ambassadors said to the prince: this is what our dad tells you: we heard that you are an honest and wondrous prince and that your land is great, so we sent to you from our twelve cardinals two of the smartest, Gald and Gemont, so that you would listen to our teachings. But the Grand Duke Alexander, having thought with his sages, wrote to the pope: “from Adam until the flood, and from the flood until the division of the language, and from the division the language until the beginning of Abraham, and from Abraham until the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea, and from the exodus of the children of Israel until the death of David the king, and from the beginning of the kingdom of Solomon until Augustus the king, and from the beginning of Augustus until the Nativity of Christ and until His suffering and until His resurrection, and from His resurrection and ascension into heaven to the kingdom of the great Constantine and to the first council and to the seventh council - we know all this well, but we do not accept teachings from you.” (With this answer) the ambassadors returned back 160. There is no doubt that Alexander and his sages wrote to the pope not such original wisdom; but the chronicler wants, with his long, quasi very learned, chronological extract, to let you know that the prince and his theologians wrote a victoriously learned answer to the pope. Metropolitan Kirill died on December 6, 1281 161. This year he undertook a journey from Kyiv to northern Rus'; in northern Rus', in the city of Pereyaslavl Zalessky, where he was with the then Grand Duke of Vladimir, appanage prince of Pereyaslavl, Dmitry Alexandrovich, and died. It seems that he convened a church council of bishops from northern Rus' in Pereyaslavl. At least, at the moment of his death, these bishops were with him - Clement of Novgorod, Ignatius of Rostov and Theodore of Vladimir. His body was taken for burial to Kyiv and was laid here in the Cathedral of St. Sophia. Metropolitan Kirill ruled the Russian Church for an exceptionally long time - almost forty years (if you count from the day of his election). We have sufficient reason to believe that he was remarkable not only for this, but also as a very zealous shepherd, so that among the other senior shepherds of our church he should be given one of the outstanding places. It would be advisable to contemplate before oneself the living image of the metropolitan, remarkable in everything; but our chronicles do not give a single feature or a single stroke of this image. The only unique consolation is that living images no longer await us... Metropolitan Kirill's successor was Maxim, again appointed from the Greeks, as was usual in the pre-Mongol period. Forty years ago, immediately after the terrible Mongol invasion of Russia, when there was still an unresolved question of what would happen to her - whether she would die from the sword of the terrible Asian savages or remain intact, the Greeks had no desire to come to us to occupy the see of our metropolitanate. But Rus' remained intact, and it turned out that it was possible to exist under the yoke of terrible savages - that in particular they treated the church of the conquered people with complete tolerance and with their decisive patronage. Then the Greeks again found hunters to occupy the see of the Russian metropolitanate, and the patriarch again wanted to use his imaginary right to elect Russian metropolitans himself, that is, to elect them from his own clergy. We do not know the history of the installation of Metropolitan Maxim at all. Probably, after the death of Cyril, the Russians did not dare to elect his successor themselves and let them know about the release of the metropolitan see to Constantinople, and from here they were told that a metropolitan would be sent to Russia, chosen by the patriarch from his Greek clergy. But it is not impossible that even during Cyril’s lifetime the Russians were sent a warning from the patriarch so that in the event of his death they would not elect a successor to him, but would wait for the last one from Greece. Maxim was appointed Russian metropolitan and arrived to join his flock in Kyiv in 1283, the third year after the death of Cyril. Immediately after his arrival in Kyiv, in the same year 1283, the Metropolitan traveled to the Horde, to Khan Toda-Mangu (successor to Mengu-Temirov from 1281). The chronicles do not say what was the reason for the trip. Regarding the assumption of some of our researchers that the Khan of Toda-Mangu decreed that every new metropolitan who occupied the see, as the head of the clergy, should appear in the Horde to ask for an affirmative letter for his rank, we have already said above (p. 32, electronic version - footnote No. 56, corr.) that it cannot be accepted, since neither the label given to Maxim himself in his journey to the Horde, nor the labels given to his successors when they occupied the department 162. Not obliged to appear to the khan as the new metropolitan, Maxim could travel to the Horde immediately after his arrival in Rus' for any special church needs. But it is more likely to assume that he hastened to undertake a trip to the khan not for church needs, which he did not yet have time to familiarize himself with, but on behalf of his Emperor of Constantinople (Andronicus the Elder, who had just taken the place of his deceased father Michael Palaiologos), for some Greek political affairs, for the emperors, as we said and indicated above (travel to Constantinople of the Bishop of Sarai 1279 years) were then in relations with the khans. Upon his return from the Horde, the Metropolitan in the following year 1284 invited all Russian bishops to his council in Kyiv. The calling of all the bishops suggests that the reason for the council was something special and important. But our chronicles, in their truly and to the point of tears, can be expressed as a terrible custom of silence about everything related to the church, do not say a single word about the reason 163. Perhaps the metropolitan brought something important, requiring the calling of all bishops, from the khan from the Horde; maybe before the Horde he brought something similar from the patriarch...; after all, we do not have the slightest positive data to make any assumption. It is more than likely that we are being told about an important church-historical fact, but it is being communicated in such a way that it would be all the same, and even, perhaps, it would be better if it were not reported... In 1285, Metropolitan Maxim went from Kyiv to the Suzdal region or northern, Vladimir, Rus', and since the local Grand Duke, who continued to be Dimitri Alexandrovich of Pereyaslavl, was then in Novgorod, he, whether or not entering Vladimir, passed into it. From Novgorod he went to Pskov. Regarding this trip of Metropolitan Maxim, the Nikon Chronicle literally repeats about him what it says about Metropolitan Kirill, namely, that he “according to his custom, he walked throughout the entire land, ruling, teaching, punishing, ruling.” And it seems very likely to think that, if not in relation to everything, then at least in relation to what is going on, the chronicle tells the real truth - that Metropolitan Maxim, due to the inconvenience of a constant stay in Kyiv, more or less often left it in order, following the example of his predecessor Cyril, to undertake travels around Rus', which had the appearance and significance of its supreme pastoral surveys. The positive information that we have about the travels and places of stay of Metropolitan Maxim after 1285 is that during the years 1288–1289 he was in Kyiv, that in 1295 he came to Vladimir, that in 1300 he permanently moved from Kyiv to Vladimir, from which in the same year he went to Novgorod, and finally, that Sometime during his stay at the department, he visited the Galich-Volyn region 164. We have even less news about the church and government activities of Metropolitan Maxim than about the activities of his predecessor Kirill, namely, we have none at all. One written monument of his government activities has survived to us. This is his letter, containing instructions or instructions (statutes) regarding the fast of Wednesday and heel and exhortation to enter into marital cohabitation only through legal church weddings 165. We said above that our difference with the Greeks regarding the observance of fasting on Wednesday and Fridays attracted the attention of Metropolitan Kirill, and that Bishop Theognostus of Sarai asked a question about this to the Patriarchal Council of Constantinople. The answer was given to the bishop in the sense that the Russian Church must observe the orders of the Greek Church 166. Metropolitan Maximus in his letter, either as a result of a deliberate commission from the Patriarch, who learned from the question of Bishop Theognostus about our difference with the Greeks, or through his own zeal to bring us into agreement with them, or, finally, as a result of the desire declared by the Russians themselves regarding this latter, again urgently prescribes the observance of the orders of the Greek Church, setting them out with greater detail than as was done in the response of the council to the bishop. The statute of Metropolitan Maxim on the fast of Wednesday and Friday is the following fast is canceled: on the holy week of Easter, on Wednesday before sex - for those who do not want to fast, on the week of St. the Spirit according to pentecostia, although especially zealous Christians fast during this week, on the Nativity of Christ, if it happens on one or another of our days, and then from the Nativity of Christ until St. Basil’s Day, on the Epiphany of the Lord and on the week before the Meat; fasting is weakened: on the feast of the apostles Peter and Paul, on the Transfiguration of the Lord, on the Dormition of the Virgin Mary and on the feast of the Apostle Philip - on these holidays, if they happen on Wednesday or Friday, it is not allowed to eat meat, but it is allowed to eat fish. To the order about fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays, the Metropolitan adds an order about eves. The Nativity of Christ and the Epiphany and precisely says: no matter what day the eve of the Nativity of Christ happens, one should not eat meat or fish; if it happens on Saturday or Sunday, then, without violating the rules (about fasting, not fasting on Saturday and Sunday?), one must eat bread and (drink) wine according to the service of John Chrysostom about after Vespers; The same thing is observed regarding the eve of Epiphany. Since the admonition that follows the charter about fasting about entering into marital cohabitation only through a church wedding does not have any logical connection with it and represents something unexpected, it can be suspected that it does not belong to Metropolitan Maxim and was added to his charter by some illiterate scribe for some random reason. But on the other hand, it is not impossible that the Metropolitan, not caring about the logical connection, wanted to take advantage of the opportunity of promulgating the charter with the charter on fasting in order to make this admonition, which he found very necessary. Here is this admonition: “I write to you, my children, and all my children, born in the font of the nobility, keep wives from the holy cathedral and apostolic Church, who have become the wife of salvation for the sake of mankind; If you keep them in fornication, without the blessing of the church, then what help do you have? But pray to them (pray? i.e. priests) and encourage them, whether they are old or young, so that they may get married in the church.” (To be thorough, we must also say that in 1295, Metropolitan Maxim removed the Bishop of Vladimir Jacob from the see, who was installed by him in 1288. But the chronicle reporting this, the so-called Trinity or Academic, says nothing about the reason for the removal and, depriving us of the opportunity to think and say anything about the act, is limited in its message only to the words: “in the summer of 6803, Metropolitan Maxim arrived from Kiev (to Vladimir), Yakov, Vladyka of Volodymyr, was brought from the bishopric”). Regarding the participation of Metropolitan Maxim in the state affairs of Rus', we know that in 1304, when, after the death of Grand Duke Andrei Alexandrovich Gorodetsky, Mikhail Yaroslavich of Tver was to take the Grand Duke's throne by right of seniority, the Metropolitan began to look for the Grand Duke's throne under the legitimate candidate of Moscow Prince Yuri Danilovich. As for the success of this pastoral-peaceful intervention in the feuds of the princes, the Moscow prince, whose fierce struggle with Mikhail Yaroslavich then filled almost the entire reign of Maximov’s successor, St. Peter, did not listen to the urgent admonitions of the Metropolitan. Metropolitan Maxim's historical fame lies in the fact that in 1300 he moved the capital of the Russian metropolitanate from Kyiv to Vladimir. His predecessor Kirill came from Kyiv to northern, Vladimir, Rus' many times and did not live in it permanently, but only from time to time and, perhaps, even for the smallest part; Before 1300, he himself came to Vladimir Rus' at least twice and also, in all likelihood, lived in Kyiv only temporarily, in fits and starts: but, nevertheless, Kyiv continued to be the capital of the metropolitanate - there remained a household house and the courtyard of the metropolitans; their clergy members or officials remained there. Metropolitan Kirill died in northern Rus', but his body was taken for burial to Kyiv, to his cathedra. In 1300, Metropolitan Maxim formally moved the capital of the metropolis from Kyiv to Vladimir, moving from the first to the second “with all his life,” as the chronicles say, and with his cliroshans or officials. There is no doubt that Maxim, like Cyril, from the very beginning of his reign recognized it as very inconvenient for the capital of the metropolis to remain in Kyiv; but the decision to move it from the latter to Vladimir was caused in him by sudden circumstances, for back in 1295 he installed a bishop in Vladimir and, therefore, did not think about his own resettlement there. In 1299 Kyiv was so plundered by the Tatars that the entire city fled. Together with others, the metropolitan was forced to flee - and he decided to flee forever 167 ... Maxim transferred the see of his metropolitanate from Kyiv to the capital city of Vladimir Rus', and not Galich, as it goes without saying, because in the first, and not in the second Rus', in “Great Rus'”, and not “Little Russia”, as perhaps they already called it then, and, in any case, they soon began to call it The Greeks of two Russias - northern and southern, he saw as the main and most important part of his metropolis. Having transferred the metropolitan see from Kyiv to Vladimir, Maxim transferred the local bishop to Rostov, to the latter’s then idle see. As for Kiev with its own diocese, the Metropolitan did not install a bishop in it, but left it behind him, as his senior capital, so that from that time on, the metropolitans had two dioceses, and the Kiev diocese began to be under the jurisdiction of their governors 168. Metropolitan Maxim's transfer of the capital of the metropolis from Kyiv to Vladimir provided the first reason for those attempts to divide the Russian metropolis into two special metropolises, which, due to the political events that soon followed, in any case, became inevitable. Between the two Russian great principalities - Vladimir and Galich, Kyiv occupied such a, so to speak, neutral position that, as long as the capital of the metropolitans remained in its old place, they could be metropolitans of both principalities or all of Rus'. But when Maxim moved his capital from Kyiv to the capital city of the great reign of Vladimir, the great reign of Galich turned out to be, in ecclesiastical terms, no longer equal to the first part of the metropolitanate, but only, as it were, some appendage to it. It was completely natural that the Grand Dukes of Galich would not like such an ecclesiastical role for their country and that they would make efforts to acquire their own special metropolitan. They actually began these efforts immediately after Maxim moved from Kyiv to Vladimir, and since they were successful in them, the first case of dividing the Russian metropolis into two special metropolises took place under Maxim himself. In some lists of the catalog of episcopal sees compiled under Emperor Andronikos Palaiologos the Elder (1282–1327), a historical remark is read about Galicia: “Galicia, which was a bishopric of Russia, was elevated to a metropolis by the Emperor of Cyrus Andronikos Palaiologos under the Most Holy Patriarch of Cyrus Athanasius in 6811 (1808)” 169 . We do not yet know the history of this first discovery of a special Galich metropolis (as, incidentally, we do not know the subsequent discoveries at all). Later Galich evidence claims that the first special metropolitan of Galich was Nifont 170. If they are telling the truth, then this Nifont should be taken as the metropolitan installed in 1303. Within the then boundaries of the Principality of Galich there were six bishops: Galich, Przemysl, Vladimir (Vladimir-Volyn), Lutsk, Kholm (formerly Ugric) and Turov. These six bishops, moreover, the first of them became the diocese of the metropolitan himself, and formed a separate metropolis of Galich. The Grand Duke of Galich in 1303, when the opening of the metropolis took place, was Yuri Lvovich, the grandson of Daniil Romanovich, who after his father occupied the grand-ducal throne from 1301 to 1316. Metropolitan Maxim died at the end of 1305, according to some chronicles - 6, according to others - on December 16. His body was laid in the Vladimir Assumption Cathedral 171. Metropolitan Maxim's successor was St. Peter, again a natural Russian, like Metropolitan Kirill III, and precisely - again a southerner and from the same Galich-Volyn region as the latter. Source of information about the life of St. In addition to the chronicles, we have Peter in two more of his lives. Since miracles began to happen at his relics from the very moment of his burial and since there were deliberate reasons for concern for his speedy all-Russian glorification, then in a very short time after his death, which followed in 1326, his life was written. And since the original life was later found unsatisfactory, as a result another or second life was compiled. The first life in some well-known copies is attributed to Prokhor, Bishop of Rostov, who was appointed St. Peter in 1311 and who died two years after him in 1328. But the life speaks of Prokhor in the third person and calls him the venerable, which is why it should be considered the work of an unknown person 172. The second life was written by Metropolitan Cyprian after 1390 (in which he finally sat down in the metropolitan see in Moscow) 173. The life of the unknown is very short, in terms of narrative it suffers from obvious omissions, and in terms of oratory it is too sparse in words. The Life of Kiprianovo partly constitutes a literary treatment of the life of the unknown, and partly provides new information against him, filling in his narrative omissions. Unfortunately, it cannot be said at all about the lives that they represent a source of information about the life of St. Petra is quite satisfactory. First of all, they say nothing about his church and government activities, limiting themselves in this case to a few general phrases and pointing to only one feature of his activity, which in itself is very vague. Then, their other information related to the history of his life contains omissions and omissions. The time of consecration of St. Peter's was a time of fierce struggle between two princes - Tver and Moscow over the question of primacy, behind which, visible or invisible to those fighting, was the question of which principality - Tver or Moscow - would become the seed of the future great Rus'. Between two fighting St. Peter became and stood on the side of the Prince of Moscow, which contributed to the resolution of the struggle in favor of Moscow. But the authors of the lives did not belong to the number of people who would be alien to this struggle; they belonged to one of the parties, namely the same Moscow one. In Moscow they did not want the history of the involvement of the church in the struggle of the state to be known in all its detail, and that is why our lives contain omissions and omissions and represent some special cases included in the history of the ordination of St. Peter, in such a way that they are incomprehensible or even completely represent inconsistencies. However, with regard to the question of involving the church in the struggle of state life, they still constitute an extremely important source of information for us, for the cover of omissions and silences that they throw over history here can easily and with confidence be lifted. Lives tell that after the death of Metropolitan Maxim, some abbot Gerontius was found in Vladimir Rus', who, being possessed by the disease of autocracy and not seeing anyone forbidding himself, dared with the audacity to delight the rank of priesthood - took with him the metropolitan sacristy, many icons from the Vladimir Assumption or the Metropolitan Cathedral cathedral, metropolitan dignitaries, and went to Constantinople to seek appointment as Russian metropolitan. Lives tell us very important news, but only in such a form that it lacks the quality of plausibility. So that in Rus' there could be an abbot devoid of reason who would have the hope that he would come to Constantinople to the patriarch, express his desire to occupy the see of the Russian metropolitanate and be appointed metropolitan, it is obviously completely impossible. But even if such a sick abbot had been found, then, in any case, we are clearly given to know that our Gerontius was not such an abbot. He took with him the metropolitan sacristy, many icons from the Vladimir Assumption Cathedral and metropolitan dignitaries: but how could he have done all this if he had gone to Constantinople without permission? Let us assume that he would have stolen the sacristy and icons, although this is not said, and although it was not at all easy, how could he, having gone without permission, take the metropolitan dignitaries with him? Thus, it is absolutely clear that Abbot Gerontius went to Constantinople to seek appointment to the see of the Russian metropolitanate, not without permission, but after being sent. Who could have sent him is also completely clear: he could not have been sent by anyone other than the then Grand Duke of Vladimir. At the moment of the death of Metropolitan Maxim, the Grand Duke of Vladimir was the appanage prince of Tver, Mikhailo Yaroslavich, who took the grand-ducal throne not long before. (Andrei Alexandrovich Gorodetsky, whose place was taken by Mikhailo Yaroslavich, died on June 22, 1304, and Metropolitan Maxim died on December 6 or 16 of the following year, 1305). This means that he, Mikhailo Yaroslavich, sent abbot Gerontius to Constantinople to be appointed Russian metropolitan. The subsequent behavior of Mikhail Yaroslavich towards St. Petra makes us think that when he sent abbot Gerontius to Constantinople, he had in mind not only that, by making him a metropolitan, he would receive in him a metropolitan from among the natural Russians, but also his own special and personal goals. Namely, it seems necessary to think that Mikhailo Yaroslavich, wanting to install his candidate as metropolitan, wanted in the person of the metropolitan to acquire an assistant in his struggle with the Prince of Moscow, which began from the very moment he occupied the grand-ducal throne, and at the same time an assistant in the elevation of his Tver inheritance, to which elevation of their family inheritance the princes then began to strive. How far Mikhail Yaroslavich's views extended in relation to the Metropolitan, we cannot say, because he does not have the opportunity to discover his views. It does not seem likely, however, to accept that they extended to the idea of ​​transferring the metropolitan see from Vladimir to Tver, which the Prince of Moscow later did. For this idea, as we will see below, meant something different when applied to Moscow and something different when applied to Tver, and on the part of Mikhail Yaroslavich it would have been too unexpected, because it would have been too courageous and decisive on his part. If he had this thought, he would have sent not Abbot Gerontius, but his Tver bishop, to be installed as metropolitan: otherwise it would follow that he intended to remove the bishop from the see, while it is known that he was on the most friendly terms with the latter. One must think that what we have now indicated was the reason why the life of St. Peter does not want to say that Abbot Gerontius was sent to Constantinople by Mikhail Yaroslavich. The idea of ​​turning to the assistance of metropolitans in the state struggle, which Moscow took advantage of with such success, belonged to Tver itself, and Moscow may have been reluctant to have this recorded in history. Hegumen Gerontius, sent by Mikhail Yaroslavich to Constantinople, was not made a Russian metropolitan there. At the same time that he went to Constantinople, another candidate was sent there from Russia to be appointed metropolitan not of all Russia, but only of part of it. This is the candidate of the Galich Grand Duke Yuri Lvovich, sent for installation as individual metropolitans of Galich. We said above that in 1303, under Metropolitan Maximus of Galicia, a separate metropolitan was given. But it must be assumed that that metropolitan, having briefly occupied the see, died around the same time as Maxim, and that in this way it happened that the candidate elected by Mikhail Yaroslavich as metropolitan of All Russia, and the candidate elected by Yuri Lvovich as metropolitan of Galich, were sent to Constantinople for installation at the same time. The candidate for the Galich Grand Duke was Abbot St. Peter, and instead of being appointed Metropolitan of Galich, he was appointed Metropolitan of All Rus' by the Patriarch. St. Peter was born unknown where in the Galich-Volyn region and unknown - from parents of what condition; but, judging by some indications, one can think that he was from parents of sufficient wealth, belonging to the boyar or merchant class, and that his homeland was either the city of Lvov, the then capital of Galicia, or the city of Belz, located north of Lvov 174. Having learned to read and write and all, as the author of the first life says, wisdom, Peter, unknown as it was called in the world, immediately after finishing his book studies, being a 12-year-old boy, entered a monastery in order to become a monk. After a more or less long stay in the monastery, and, according to the lives, he was zealously zealous about monastic deeds and, moreover, wanting to add a piously useful activity to his deeds, he learned the art of icon painting to such an extent that he became a “wonderful icon painter.” He wished to found his own monastery, which he built not too far to the north from the capital of the principality of Lvov, on the river or small river Rata, flowing in what is now Austrian eastern Galicia and flowing on the left side into the upper western Bug 175). According to Metropolitan Cyprian, in the rank of abbot of his monastery, St. Peter became so famous for his life that he became known to the prince and nobles and generally to his entire country. This great glory of Peter, as one must think, was what made Yuri Lvovich choose him when the prince was looking for a candidate for metropolitan 176. Regarding how it happened that not the candidate of the Vladimir Grand Duke, Hegumen Geronty, was installed as Metropolitan of All Russia, but the candidate of the Galich Grand Duke, Abbot St. Peter, the authors of the Lives say that Gerontius and Peter, having undertaken a journey to Constantinople, simultaneously boarded ships to cross the Black Sea, but that, while Peter very successfully crossed the sea, Gerontius was miraculously detained by a storm. - That, having appeared before the patriarch and the council of metropolitans who was with him, Peter was recognized by them as worthy of the rank of hierarch and appointed metropolitan - that in due course Gerontius also appeared, but that the patriarch, having tested him, refused to consecrate him and proclaimed Peter metropolitan of all Russia. The meaning of the not entirely clear story seems to be that Peter, who arrived in Constantinople before Gerontius, was installed as a separate metropolitan of Galicia, that Gerontius, who arrived after Peter, was found unworthy of consecration to the rank of metropolitan, and that the patriarch, having put aside his idea of ​​dividing the Russian metropolitanate into two special metropolitanates, renamed Peter from the metropolitans of Galicia to Metropolitans of all Russia. If this is so, then such a presentation of the matter cannot be considered completely probable: not finding abbot Gerontius worthy of being appointed metropolitan and at the same time satisfying the desire of the Grand Duke of Vladimir to have a person he liked as his metropolitan, the patriarch could instead of Gerontius demand another candidate from the prince. It is much more likely that the patriarch, the same Athanasius, who in 1303 gave Galicia a special metropolitan, the first time made Peter, and not Gerontius, the metropolitan of all Russia because this time, having changed his thoughts for some reason, he did not want to give Galicia a special metropolitan. The Grand Duke of Galich Yuri Lvovich, demanding from the patriarch a special metropolitan for Galicia, both last time and the current one, of course, represented to him that metropolitans living in Vladimir, distant from Galicia, could not have proper pastoral care for his country. By denying the prince a special metropolitan and appointing the candidate sent by him, the prince, as metropolitan of all Russia, the patriarch could answer him that Peter would have proper care for his homeland from distant Vladimir. We do not have positive information, but judging by what follows, we must think that the Grand Duke of Vladimir Mikhailo Yaroslavich used all possible efforts in Constantinople to prevent Peter from being installed as metropolitan of all Russia and to defend his candidate: this is partly indicated by the fact that Peter was installed as metropolitan quite a long time after Maxim. If the efforts of the Grand Duke were not crowned with success, then it is necessary to accept that the patriarch, having decided to deny Yuri Lvovich a special metropolitan, certainly wanted to satisfy him by installing his candidate as metropolitan of all Russia 177. In the history we have now conveyed of the replacement of the metropolitan see after the death of Maxim, the remarkable thing is that Grand Duke Mikhailo Yaroslavich, contrary to the existing order of appointing our metropolitans not from natural Russians, but from Greeks, turned to Constantinople with a request to ordain a candidate chosen by him from among natural Russians as metropolitan. It is obvious that the prince came to the idea or attacked the idea of ​​his request, based on the exception just before made by the Greeks themselves, who left the Russians to elect their own candidate for metropolitan immediately after the Mongol invasion. The idea of ​​turning to Constantinople with a request to ordain candidates elected in Russia itself as metropolitans was adopted by the Russians after Mikhail Yaroslavich. And thus, the exception made by the Greeks themselves at the beginning of our period, out of fear of the Mongols, served to pave the way for a new procedure for the election of our metropolitans. St. Peter was installed as Metropolitan of All Rus' in May-June 1308, the third year after the death of Metropolitan Maxim 178. In the same year he returned from Constantinople to Russia and arrived at his oldest table in Kyiv, from which, as one must think, he went to visit his homeland Galicia and his Grand Duke Yuri Lvovich, unless he made this visit on the way from Constantinople to Kyiv. The following year, 1309, he appeared at his new and effective table in Vladimir Klyazemsky. Metropolitan Cyprian says that when St. Peter appeared in northern Rus', then “from the beginning of the human race, an enemy and a warrior created a small spona saint and forced some people who did not want that coming.” Despite the secrecy of Cyprinan’s speeches, it is completely clear who these some were who did not want Petrov’s coming, that is, it is completely clear that the reluctance to accept the coming Peter was expressed by the Grand Duke Mikhailo Yaroslavich, who expected to see his own chosen candidate at the metropolitan see and was deceived in his expectations and besides whom, in any case, no one could express his reluctance. “In time,” Cyprian continues, “(those who did not want Petrov’s coming) “seemed and accepted that saint with humility,” that is, Metropolitan Cyprian wants to say that Grand Duke Mikhailo Yaroslavich, who at first did not want to accept Peter, then reconciled with him and accepted him with a sincere heart. But this, as can be seen from what follows, is not at all true: the Grand Duke, who at first did not want to receive Peter, then found it inconvenient to do so and, having made peace with the unexpected and unwanted Metropolitan in a feigned manner, decided to petition the Patriarch for his legal removal from the cathedra. The question arises here: why Mikhailo Yaroslavich did not want to reconcile with St. Peter in a sincere way and why didn’t he try to win him over to his side, so that Peter could replace Gerontius for him? Unfortunately, we do not have any positive data to answer this question; The only probable thing is that when Peter was appointed metropolitan, Mikhailo Yaroslavich, by his opposition to him, armed him against himself to such an extent that sincere reconciliation between them was no longer possible. In a very short time after Peter occupied the metropolitan see in Vladimir, Bishop Andrei of Tver 179 sent a denunciation against him to the patriarch with some very serious accusations against him. Metropolitan Cyprian passes off Bishop Andrei’s action as his personal matter, claiming that he decided on it, “being amazed at this vanity of glory,” that is, having a desire to take the metropolitan table instead of Peter. But Cyprian forces us to accept what is impossible to accept. For Bishop Andrei, as well as any bishop, to decide to seek the overthrow of the metropolitan apart from the Grand Duke, this would be incongruous, and it is absolutely clear that Andrei did not act on his own, but as an instrument of the Grand Duke and, at the same time, his Tver appanage prince. It may very well be that it was agreed between the Grand Duke and the bishop that, in the event of the overthrow of the metropolitan, the latter would take his place; However, this could not have happened, but it could have been that the bishop only wanted to assist the Grand Duke in clearing the metropolitan position for his other candidate. The Grand Duke and Bishop Andrei, having sent their denunciation against the Metropolitan to the Patriarch, kept the matter in deep secrecy, so that no one knew; “But,” says Cyprian, “Andrew’s whispering was not hidden from the Most Reverend Saint Peter,” and this makes it clear that the latter was not one of the people who could be taken by surprise. The accusations brought against the metropolitan by the Grand Duke and Bishop were so grave that the Patriarch - the same Athanasius who appointed Peter to the Metropolitan - immediately sent his cleric or his patriarchal official to Russia for a conciliar investigation of the matter. The patriarchal cleric, having arrived in Russia, convened a council in Pereyaslavl Zalessky, which took place in 1310 or early 1311 180. The council was convened not in the capital city of the Grand Duke and Metropolitan - Vladimir, and not in the capital city of the Grand Duke Tver, but in the suburb of the Moscow appanage of Pereyaslavl. There is no doubt, because neither one nor the other capital of the Grand Duke wanted the Metropolitan to be his place: In his capitals, the Grand Duke would have had greater convenience in constituting and conducting a council in such a way that it would turn out to be biased and hostile to the Metropolitan, and this, of course, was not at all what the latter could have wanted. The convened council was not a church council in the proper sense, but a church council and at the same time a secular or zemstvo council. As for the spiritual, two bishops were present at it - the accuser of the Metropolitan Andrei of Tver and also Simeon of Rostov, the best of the abbots and monks and priests; There were quite a few secular princes and many nobles present. Grand Duke Mikhailo Yaroslavich himself was not at the council, because he was in the Horde. Instead of him, his two sons came to the cathedral - Dmitry and Alexander Mikhailovich. However, since they were still children, the first was 11, and the second was 9 years old, the Grand Duke was entrusted with supporting the accusation against the Metropolitan, of course, not by them, but by the boyars who accompanied them. We do not know how the council took place. But, firstly, it was extremely stormy: “there was a lot of rumors,” says Metropolitan Cyprian, “as if something had happened,” that is, that between the secular supporters of the Grand Duke and the Metropolitan it almost came to arms. Secondly, it ended with the perfect acquittal of the metropolitan or the perfect revelation of his innocence. What exactly was St. accused of? Peter from the Grand Duke and from his bishop before the patriarch and what he was judged on at the council, about this the life of Peter is completely silent and this constitutes a mystery. There can be no doubt that some very serious accusations were leveled: for, firstly, the patriarch, in his letter to the metropolitan, sent with the clergyman, directly tells him: “the words that came from your tongue are grave against your shrine.” Secondly, the severity of the accusations is also indicated by the patriarch’s immediate sending of his cleric for a conciliar hearing of the case. On the other hand, there can be no doubt that the Metropolitan was not at all guilty of the charges brought against him: if he had been guilty, then the Grand Duke, that is, the representatives and supporters of the latter who were present at the council, of course, would not have allowed him to justify himself. Added to this is another puzzling circumstance. Bishop Andrei brought grave accusations against the metropolitan before the patriarch, which turned out to be completely unjust; consequently, he brought a grave slander against the Metropolitan. However, after the Council of Pereyaslavl, at which the injustice of his accusations was discovered, he was not removed from the pulpit and was not subjected to the general contempt that would have followed him if he had been a serious slanderer. True, he would later leave the department, but five years after the council, and obviously not as a result of this, but as for his reputation, under the year 1321 we find in the chronicles an indication that he remained a man respected by all 181 . This tricky riddle will be explained to us in a possibly satisfactory manner if we accept that Bishop Andrei accused the Metropolitan before the Patriarch of what, some time after the council, Grand Duke Mikhailo Yaroslavich himself again accused the former before the latter on his own behalf, namely, of collecting bribes for appointment to church ranks or of simony. Explaining the actions of the Vladimir Council of 1274, we said that the custom came to us from Greece from Greece for bishops to charge a fee for installation in church degrees - that our bishops, following the Greeks, allowed themselves to abuse the payment and that this circumstance forced Metropolitan Kirill to make an order at the council that in the future bishops should not charge more than what was established in Greece imperial decrees. We have no information whether Metropolitan Kirill succeeded in achieving the goal of stopping the abuses of bishops in the future; but he achieved another goal, which he did not have in mind. His deliberate speeches about the payment for placement in church degrees attracted the attention of free-thinking people to the latter, using this word in its best meaning, and these people found that not only was the abuse of charging a fee illegal, but that the fee itself was illegal. It is more than likely that the first reason for the result unforeseen by Metropolitan Kirill, which free-thinking people came to, was he himself with his conciliar rule on collecting fees. In his rule, the Metropolitan first makes lengthy and heated speeches about the fact that one should not take bribes for installations, with extracts about this from the cathedral rules, and does not at all explain that by bribe he means not collection in general, but collection of excess, illegal, and then suddenly prescribes: “do not collect from them (those appointed to church degrees) anything other than (due): as I decreed in the metropolitanate, let it be in all bishops, - and collect 7 hryvnia from the priesthood and diaconate - from both,” and in turn does not say directly, as it was in fact, that his order was a confirmation of what was legitimized by the Greek emperors. Since the decrees of the Greek emperors that determined the amount of payment for delivery were not known to us, anyone who read Cyril’s rule could easily think that it was he himself who first introduced and legitimized payment for delivery; and since he legitimizes it after his own lengthy and insistent speeches against the collection of bribes for assignments, free-thinking people could easily come to the conclusion that the Metropolitan, despite himself, is legitimizing something completely illegal. Once carried away in criticism of the legal collection of payment for delivery and making detailed inquiries in the canons, these people could easily go further and even recognize the payment as illegal, despite its legalization by the Greek emperors. For she was really contrary to the canons (Basily the Great rule 90, letters of Patriarchs Gennady and Tarasius). We found such free-thinking people during the reign of Grand Duke Mikhail Yaroslavich, and we have direct indications that Bishop Andrei of Tver belonged to precisely such free-thinking people. If we accept this latter as a positive fact and if we at the same time imagine Bishop Andrei as such a free-thinking person who did not know that a certain amount of payment for the provision exists in Greece, as something legalized, and who originates it with us from Metropolitan Kirill, then the whole matter of his accusation of the metropolitan before the patriarch will be explained to us. When the bishop of Tver saw that the newly arrived metropolitan was charging a legal fee for the assignments, he found that the metropolitan was charging a bribe and, serving the Grand Duke, who wanted to have reasons to overthrow the metropolitan from the throne, made a denunciation against him to the Patriarch of Constantinople 182 . This latter understood the denunciation in the sense that the Metropolitan was really charging a bribe, that is, that he was not only charging a legal fee, but also allowing himself to take beyond the legal one, and hastened to send his cleric to Russia to investigate the matter. The arriving cleric found that the metropolitan was charging only the legal fee; therefore, at the same time I found that the Metropolitan was innocent of the accusation brought against him. At the same time, Bishop Andrei turned out to be not a serious slanderer, but only a person who had his own opinion regarding one subject - this legalized payment for decrees. With this presentation of the matter, the strange composition of the spiritual side of the cathedral will become clear to us. Of the bishops, only one was present at it, except for Andrei, who had to accuse the metropolitan, but on the contrary, many priests were called to it. Since the bishops represented the party taking payment, and the priests the party giving, it is completely understandable why the Grand Duke ordered that there be as few bishops and as many priests as possible at the council: the bishops were to be for the metropolitan, and the priests against him 183 . We said above that we have positive indications regarding Bishop Andrei’s belonging to those free-thinking people who looked at legal payment for deliveries as an illegal bribe. To this day, a letter from a certain Tver monk Akindinus to the Grand Duke Mikhail Yaroslavich has been preserved, in which the Grand Duke is convinced to eradicate the heresy in the Russian Church - bribery of saints, and by bribery is meant the collection of legal fees for orders 184. In support of his words about the illegality of collecting fees, Akindinus refers to the fact that he was sent by his bishop to Constantinople to the Ecumenical Patriarch Niphon, and that the patriarch with the council answered his question regarding the collection of fees, which is completely illegal for any kind of collection. Patriarch Nifont, successor Afanasyev, occupied the see from 1312 to 1315, and the sending of his monk by Bishop Andrei to him 185 obviously means that the bishop, surprised by the court of the patriarchal clergyman, who did not find the metropolitan, who collected payment for installations, guilty of collecting bribes, sent his man to Constantinople to thoroughly investigate find out how they look at pay and bribes 186. The Pereyaslav Council, as we said, took place in 1310 or at the beginning of 1311. Lives of St. Peter is not told that Grand Duke Mikhailo Yaroslavich, after the first unsuccessful attempt to remove the Metropolitan from the department, made further attempts to achieve the same. From another source we know that the Grand Duke made another similar attempt, which took place within a very short time after the Council of Pereyaslavl, or, in other words, within a very short time after the first attempt. After the death of Metropolitan Maxim, Mikhailo Yaroslavich sent his candidate, Abbot Gerontius, to Constantinople to install him as metropolitan, with the goal of acquiring in the person of the metropolitan a strong assistant in his state struggle with the prince of Moscow and in his desire to elevate his ancestral Tver inheritance. Instead of Gerontius, another was sent to him as metropolitan, whom he met with hostility and whom he immediately tried to remove from the see in order to replace him with his new candidate. It is quite natural that the other one is St. Peter, being greeted in this way by the Grand Duke, had to turn to the side hostile to him, that is, to the Prince of Moscow. If Mikhail Yaroslavich had the idea to use the Metropolitan as an assistant in his struggle with the Prince of Moscow, then it was not difficult for this latter, Yuri Danilovich, to understand the full importance of the idea, especially since he was a man who was not at all behind Mikhail Yaroslavich in his ability to understand. The Grand Duke greeted the arriving metropolitan as an enemy: it is clear that the Moscow prince had to rush to get along with him as a friend. That's how it really happened. At the Pereyaslavl Council, the newly arrived metropolitan had among the secular people present at it a large party of his supporters, who almost came to blows with the party of supporters of the Grand Duke. There is no doubt that the leader of this party was the Prince of Moscow, in whose suburb a council was convened. Thus, Mikhailo Yaroslavich, who sent abbot Gerontius to Constantinople to be appointed metropolitan and received Peter instead, achieved not to acquire in the metropolitan an assistant in the fight against the enemy, but, on the contrary, to provide the enemy with an assistant in the fight against himself. It is clear that Mikhailo Yaroslavich could not put up with this state of affairs, and that the desire to remove the metropolitan from the department should have been his most urgent desire. The letter to Mikhail Yaroslavich from Patriarch Niphon of Constantinople, which we mentioned above 187, has survived to this day. From this message we learn that the Grand Duke, shortly after the Council of Pereyaslavl, made a second attempt to overthrow the Metropolitan. The Patriarch's message is a response to the Grand Duke's message to him. It turns out that the Grand Duke, in his message to the Patriarch, blamed the Metropolitan and demanded a trial against him. Regarding the wines, it is given to know that the metropolitan was assimilated by the prince many illegal deeds; in particular, two faults are indicated: firstly, that the metropolitan allowed marriages in illegal degrees of kinship, and secondly, that he took bribes from the appointment. As for the trial, it seems that the Grand Duke, having in mind the Moscow party of the metropolitan’s defenders, asked that it be held not in Russia, but in Constantinople; the patriarch writes about this to Mikhail Yaroslavich: “we write to your reign and to your power: if (the metropolitan) wants to come here and give an answer, that’s fine; and if he does not want to (come here) of his own free will, then they sent him by force, and (with him they came those) who know his guilt and witnesses; when the metropolitan comes, then, if he is acquitted, he (may he remain a metropolitan), otherwise we will appoint someone else whom your love for God desires, a man attested by good deeds from all people.” Along with the accusations against the Metropolitan, the Grand Duke asked the Patriarch to send him “the charter and the law”; what the charter and law do not say, but probably about those points that at the moment were the subject of controversy and doubt in Russia, and mainly, as one must think, about the collection of payment for delivery. The Pereyaslavl Council, apparently, had to convince the Grand Duke that this collection of fees could not serve as a point of accusation against the Metropolitan, since, having previously been accused of the same thing, he was acquitted at the Council. But one must think that regarding the views of the Constantinople people on payment, the Grand Duke was misled. We said above that immediately after the Council of Pereyaslavl, Bishop Andrei sent a monk to Constantinople to find out how they looked at payment for performances. This monk, who went to Constantinople, assures Mikhail Yaroslavich in his message to him, the prince, that he asked the patriarchal council in Constantinople, at which, along with the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Patriarch of Jerusalem was also present and which consisted of 36 metropolitans, and that he allegedly received the answer: “even up to half a perper (iperpir - gold Byzantine coin in 5 rubles) or little else (the one who bets will take from what is bet), the village is called blood and tavern, they are equal with Judas and have no part with Christ either here or in the future.” It may very well be that such an answer was actually given to the monk in Constantinople; but if it was given, it was given, so to speak, in a sophistical manner. In Constantinople they realized that payment for supplies was illegal, because it too clearly contradicted the canons of the church; That’s why they came up with the idea of ​​calling it not payment for deliveries, but fees or costs for deliveries. To the question: is it permissible to pay for deliveries in Constantinople, they answered that it is illegal and extremely lawless, but it was understood that it was permissible and legal to collect protoreys. Based on the report of his monk, Mikhailo Yaroslavich could suspect that the clergyman of Patriarch Athanasius, who came to Russia to judge the Metropolitan, judged incorrectly, and therefore could accuse the Metropolitan before the Patriarch for the second time of the same collection of fees for orders. What further history this second attempt of the Grand Duke had remains unknown. Since Patriarch Niphon, the worst of the Patriarchs of Constantinople at this time, despite all his bad qualities, was an extremely money-loving man, for which he was expelled from the throne 188, then Mikhail Yaroslavich, apparently, was able to achieve his desire with the help of bribery. If this did not happen, then perhaps because he began his second attempt at Nifontov’s recent short-term sitting on the patriarchal see, so that the patriarch did not have time to fulfill the prince’s wishes. There is no doubt that the Grand Duke and the Metropolitan remained enemies in subsequent times, until the death of the first of them in 1318. But whether the prince made other attempts to get rid of the metropolitan remains unknown to us 189. St. Peter ruled the Russian Church for 18 years and a half, from 1308 to the end of 1326. The chronicles say absolutely nothing about his church and government activities. Lives talk about it, but in too general terms. The unknown author of the first life, having reached in his story the return of St. Peter to Russia from Constantinople from his installation, writes about him: “and he came to his metropolis and began to teach the erring peasants, the weakened need for the sake of the filthy infidels, interpreting the Gospel scriptures and the apostolic, like the Great Basil, John Chrysostom (and) Gregory, setting forth his teachings and to this end showing humility and thereby affirming the true faith in the peasants, passing through the Volyn land and the Kyiv and Suzdal lands, teaching everyone everywhere.” Having spoken about the Council of Pereyaslavl, which ended with the acquittal of St. Peter, the same author further continues: “the holy saint began to teach not only in the city, but in all (villages), all in the countries (countries?) and all the places passing by, having no labor for himself, but caring for the flock of Christ’s verbal sheep.” Having then spoken about the debate of St. Peter of one heretic, about which below, our author also adds: “the saint took up a greater feat - fasting and merciful alms, affirming the priests how to lead the flocks of Christ's sheep of the verbal flock, and the monk and the monk.” Metropolitan Cyprian, for his part, does not fully reproduce what is now given and does not add anything new of his own. In our general reviews, a positive characteristic feature of the activity is that St. Peter, like his two post-Mongol predecessors, undertook travel throughout his metropolis for his personal supervision and arrangement. One written monument to the activities of St. who has survived to this day. Peter, - his instructive letter to priests and laity 190, makes it possible to see in him the first introducer of the special law that existed in our church regarding widowed priests. Namely, so that these priests, if they want to retain the priesthood, go to monasteries, and if they want to remain in the world, then they would not sing, that is, they would resign from the priesthood. The legal provision was in no way based on the canons of the church and, in fact, contradicted them, for the canons, without insisting on the Lord and the Apostles that virginity is higher than marriage, do not necessarily require that priests have wives, but only allowed them to have them (Canon 13 of the Council of Trullo): but it must be thought to have been caused by the urgent demands of the benefit of the church. That is, it is necessary to think that the vast majority of widowed priests led shameful lives that the law regarding their removal from the world or their resigning from the priesthood was presented to St. Peter was the only way to rid the church community of the temptation that they caused. The real words of the Metropolitan’s instructions regarding widowed priests are the following: “if a priest’s wife dies, he should go to a monastery, (and then) have his own priesthood; If he is weak and loves worldly pleasures, let him not sing; If he does not listen to my words, let them not be blessed, (and also) those who commune with him.” The Metropolitan prefaces his instructions in the letter with the remark that he had already written about this to widowed priests many times, and this makes it clear - firstly, that he encountered resistance to his new law, and secondly, that he introduced it with great persistence 191. At the beginning of the epistle being analyzed (after the attack), St. Peter says: “Many times the priest and the priest wrote to you about how to abide,” and by this he makes it known that one or another significant number of teaching epistles were written to him. Currently, only three of these messages are known, and the authenticity of one of the three is still an unresolved question. The entire content of our letter, in which the instruction regarding widowed priests is read, or the first one preserved, is the following: after the attack, in which both the right faith and good works are equally necessary, a general admonition to the priests to carry out their pastoral service with dignity and diligently shepherd their spiritual sheep; private admonitions to them: to impose proper penances on the penitent and not to make leniency for the sake of “taking”, i.e. gifts, to prohibit triplets and quadrugamists who have unmarried wives, to abstain from drunkenness; an admonition to all Orthodox Christians to have the fear of God in themselves, to run to church and bring a gift to God from their property, to love and honor priests and monks, to have mercy on the poor, widows, orphans, captives and those in prison. The message is not extensive in scope and everything we have now conveyed is presented in it briefly, in the form of fragmentary instructions and instructions. Second teaching letter of St. Peter, which has the inscription: “Instruction (to my children) by the abbot and priest and deacon” 192), contains general instructions to priests so that they try to be true shepherds, and not mercenaries, and so that they take care of decorating themselves with Christian and pastoral virtues. It is also not extensive in scope 193. The third message, assimilated by St. Peter, being addressed to bishops, priests, archimandrites, abbots and deacons and to all Orthodox Christians 194, consists of two parts. In the first part there are instructions and instructions for priests regarding their own behavior 195 and regarding their pastoral duties 196, as well as partly instructions for monks 197; in the second part - admonitions to the laity regarding their Christian duties and reproofs to them regarding failure to fulfill these duties 198. Since the first part of the epistle seems identical with one epistle of Metropolitan Photius (with slight differences - partly with surpluses, partly with omissions 199), then three cases can be assumed: either that the epistle really belongs to St. Peter, and Photius borrowed his epistle from him; or that a later scribe combined the epistles of Photius and Peter into one place and gave his connection the name of the first; or, finally, that this later scribe combined the letters of Fotivo and the unknown metropolitan into one place and attributed his connection to St. Peter is completely arbitrary. As for the greater likelihood of one of the three cases, it does not seem at all likely to us that Photius borrowed his message from the letter of St. Peter, so in our opinion, we can talk about St. Peter only the second part of the letter. In this last case, we cannot say anything and must limit ourselves only to noting what does or does not belong to St. Peter this part of the message. In any case, we do not have it in its original form, but in a more or less, partly ignorant, alteration of the compiler (just like the first part that makes up the message of Photius 200. Since there are no teaching messages from previous saints. Peter the metropolitans, then one could assume that he was the first to introduce these messages to us. However, there are some reasons to think (we will give them later) that this is not so - that the custom of writing such messages already existed before, and that they have not been preserved from previous metropolitans to the present day. One more general remark must be made regarding the teaching letters of both St. Peter, as well as his predecessors and all his successors. It is not necessary to necessarily present matters in such a way that the metropolitans who issued the messages were also their authors, or that all the messages issued by the metropolitans were their own works as authors. On the contrary, it may well be assumed that the messages were written, that is, composed, not by the metropolitans themselves, but on their instructions by officials who were with them and capable of doing so. We do not have, or at least we do not know, direct indications regarding this in the history of our church, but we know that this was the case in the Greek Church, constituting not some secret matter, but a completely open and completely recognized custom. Under the Patriarchs of Constantinople there was a special official called a rhetorician, whose duty, among other things, was to write teaching words on their behalf, the patriarchs 201 . From what we have said above, some features can be obtained to characterize St. Peter as a shepherd. Firstly, there is no doubt that he was a very zealous shepherd: this is evidenced by his travels around Rus' for the purpose of teaching and correction and his many pastoral letters. Secondly, we are given to know that, despite his zeal, he had an extraordinary character, which made him capable of being an initiator and innovator in resolving the issue of improvements and corrections (the law on widowed priests). Above we gave a general review of St. Peter of his first life, that he taught peasants, like Basil the Great and John Chrysostom and Gregory the Theologian, i.e. that he was a very teaching shepherd. That this review must be understood not as a simple commonplace is clear from the words of St. himself. Peter, who in one of his surviving epistles writes: “For this reason, children, by writing and unwriting I compel you to do good deeds; therefore I must always remember and write (to you) that will benefit you soulfully and save you” 202 . In 1312 St. Peter removed the rank of Bishop of Sarai from Ishmael. Since the bishop of Sarai, who occupied a special position, could play a very important political role, directing the favor of the khan’s court in one direction or another: it could be that the bishop suffered church execution for non-ecclesiastical guilt (about the bishop specifically Izmail cfr Resurrection Chronicle under 1296). But if we accept that the bishop was defrocked for direct guilt in his office, then we will have to see in the saint. Peter the Metropolitan is very strict 203. St. Peter, during his stay at the metropolitan see, at least once had to travel to the Horde, where he received the khan's label, which has survived to this day. In 1313, Khan Tokhta or Tokhtagu died and Khan Uzbek took his place. The new khan, upon his accession to the throne, as we said before, decreed a legal order so that in the future not only princes, but also metropolitans would appear before the khans who re-assumed the throne to receive affirmative labels, and demanded that the implementation of this legalization begin with himself. As a result of this, St. Peter in 1313 and had to take a trip to the Horde. It is unknown by whom and when the preface to the label he received from the khan states that he also intended to achieve his own goals. Namely, to bring a complaint to the khan about the grievances of the church from some crafty people and to prevent any plans of the German ambassadors and the papal bishop Matthew who intended to go or were going to the khan 204 . The story of the journey of St. Peter suggests in him a person who possessed worldly gift or worldly wisdom in dealing with people and doing business: It was completely and exceptionally successful. The new khan did not call the metropolitan to see him in order to cause him any trouble; but he could receive him coldly and dishonorably. In fact, according to chronicle 205, St. Peter “was greatly honored by the king in the Horde and was quickly released from the king with much honor.” That this was indeed the case is fully confirmed by the label given by the khan. In its edition, this label differs from all other khan's labels in that it is comparatively very extensive, so that the rights of the metropolitan, its recipient, are confirmed in it with a lengthy verbosity that has the appearance of deliberate urgency. It is necessary to think that the khan's office made the label in the form that it has, on the deliberate orders of the khan, who wanted through this to express his special favor towards the saint. Petru. Then, as we indicated before, in its very content the label differs in one important feature from the label of Mengu-Temirov given to Metropolitan Kirill: it provides St. Peter to judge the people who belonged to him in everything without exception - “both in robbery and in the act of stealing and in all sorts of cases.” By the crafty people, about whose grievances the Metropolitan meant to complain to the Khan, with a very high probability we should mean none other than the Grand Duke Mikhail Yaroslavich himself. The khan’s extremely kind label lets the metropolitan know that he generally showed himself to be the latter’s patron to the fullest extent possible; and now the indicated feature of the label is more than likely to be understood as a consequence of the Metropolitan’s complaint against the Grand Duke, i.e., that the Khan, wanting to save him from any clashes with the Grand Duke, freed the people who belonged to him from any jurisdiction of the second. Since during the stay of St. Peter in the Horde, the Grand Duke was also there (to receive his label) and, no doubt, tried his best to counteract him: then, in order to explain his complete success, it seems necessary to assimilate to him that worldly gift that we spoke about above 206. As for the plans that the German ambassadors and Bishop Papa had and which St. wanted to warn. Peter, we cannot say anything positive about this, given the complete silence (as far as we know) from Western sources. It seems most likely to us that the pope, who was then engaged in promoting his Latin Christianity on the Black Sea coast of the khan’s possessions, wanted, with the help of German ambassadors, to install his bishop under the khan and in his capital as the same bishop of Sarai as our Orthodox bishop was. If this is so, then the efforts of St. Peter, who rightly should have seen this as a danger to our Orthodoxy, were crowned with success 207. We said above that Grand Duke Mikhailo Yaroslavich accused the metropolitan before the patriarch of charging for supplies, that is, of charging a fee for an existing legalization, which was accepted by the prince as illegal. This private accusation against the metropolitan, having not achieved the goals for which it was designed, then came out in the form of a public protest against our existing practice of charging for deliveries. We mentioned above that Bishop Andrei of Tver, immediately after the Council of Pereyaslavl, sent his monk to Constantinople to make inquiries about how they look at payment for deliveries there, and that the Grand Duke, misled by the monk’s report, for the second time after the Council accused the Metropolitan before the Patriarch of the same collection of fees. From this monk, named Akindina, who went to Constantinople, a message has been preserved to Mikhail Yaroslavich, in which he assures the prince that in Constantinople a numerous patriarchal council called him any collection of payment as komana and simony, and in which he convinces the prince to put an end to the existence of the illegal custom with his state power. The message addressed to the prince was sent by Akindin to the reading public as a public composition, and thus appeared among them as a public and open protest against the existing custom. In its content, Akindinovo’s message is extremely harsh. Completely equating our existing collection of payment for performances to simony and spiritual selling, he attacks him with all the mercilessness that would be appropriate in relation to these latter. “For the sake of silence, I am afraid of condemnation,” the monk writes to the prince, “seeing the heresy growing and multiplying, I wear out cold and unveiled lips, I have become accustomed to a God-hating custom from the oldest of our saints down to the least, the unsaleable grace of the Holy Spirit is introduced into the purchase and collected from the installation of the metropolitan from the bishop and from the priest and from the deacon and from the rest is the cleric, and the bishop is also the clergyman from all that exists under him, from the first to the last, and from all the priesthood: the apostolic (and God-bearing) father, the conciliar tradition of the one placed on the bribe and with the one who appointed him, will remove both of them from the rank and will by no means be involved in that being of his degree (commands) and reduces them to damnation.” Completely equating the collection of payment with simony, the monk Akindinus does not hesitate to proclaim the final conclusions that followed from here: “by placing more and collecting what was set,” he says, “he is already deposed, (and by being set) from the deposed there is no benefit from the installation and partaking of the most pure mysteries from him (the appointed), knowing that he will be condemned,” and again: “by great Athanasius, every man, having received from God, reason to reason, following the ignorant shepherd, will receive torment, according to what was said: the blind leading the blind, both will fall into a pit, falling into the abyss.” With merciless courage and considerable causticity, Akindinus denounces our bishops for charging fees for their ordination. Some of the bishops, not knowing how to respond to those who denounced them, expressed a desire to stop the mouths of the accusers through violent coercion. Akindinus says about them: “having passionately darkened the love of money, they forbid those who want to say something in truth, with malice, saying with a crooked message: we ourselves know, we do not need your confession.” Other bishops said that they were charging fees for the sake of filthy, i.e. Tatar, violence. Akindinus answers them: “the filthy one is like a robber and a thief, he makes every effort to plunder wherever he sees wealth (as this,” he implies, “is the case among you—bishops); and where the poverty of Christ’s humility does not hope to gain anything, it does not force or torment”... “Apostles,” Akindinus asks the bishops, “do I preach the words protekosh with wealth from the end to the end of the universe?” Addressing the Grand Duke with the conviction to show diligence in the correction of the bishops, Akindinus says: “This fertilizer is for the whole church fulfillment, purity of the saints and boldness towards God, if they have a right and similar life, good having the mind of the divine scriptures, able to block the mouth of a heretic and the sacred canons of leading and creating; and not to be called by the name of the saints and to be adorned with purifying vestments and to be proud of the multitude of those who are coming, to honor oneself with the following of many people and to forbid without truth, tormentingly, and not in a saintly manner, and to cover oneself with malice from those who denounce.”... St. Peter, having been sent to Constantinople by the Galich Grand Duke Yuri Lvovich for installation as individual metropolitans of Galich, was installed there as metropolitan of all Russia. Patriarch Athanasius, who had given Galicia a separate metropolitan in 1303, then for some reason changed his thoughts and after the death of this separate metropolitan, which followed simultaneously with the death of the Metropolitan of All Russia Maxim, refused Yuri Lvovich’s request to give Galicia a new separate metropolitan. But during the reign of Peter himself, under the second successor of Patriarch Athanasius John Glick, we again see next to the Metropolitan of All Russia another or separate metropolitan. This particular metropolitan, named Theophilus, is called not Galich, but Lithuanian, which means that he was demanded from the emperor and patriarch not by the Grand Duke of Galich, but by the Grand Duke of Lithuania. As for his region, opinions on this disagree: we, for our part, concluding from what we later see under Metropolitan Theognostus, recognize it as most likely to think that a separate metropolis embraced not only Lithuanian Rus', but also Galich-Volynsk or in general all of southwestern Rus'; others find it most likely to think that the metropolis embraced only Lithuanian Rus' or was Lithuanian in the exact sense of the word 208. The Lithuanians, a special people in the Indo-European family of peoples, the closest among other peoples of the family to our Slavic one, lived along the southern and eastern shores of the Baltic Sea in what is now north-eastern Prussia (starting in the west of the Vistula River) and in our provinces of Courland and part of Livonia and then inland from the sea - in our provinces of Kovno and part of Vilna, Suwalki (kingdoms Polish), Minsk and Grodno. The western half of the Lithuanians, bearing the special name Prussians, was conquered in the 13th century (from 1230 to 1283) by the German order; the eastern half (our current Russian) formed the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which extended its power over a very significant part of our Rus'. Until the forties of the 13th century, the eastern Lithuanians did not constitute one state, but were divided into small and very small possessions. Around 1238, a prince appeared to them - a land collector, who united all the small possessions into one state; this prince, “autocrat of the entire Lithuanian land” 209, was Mindaugas, who ruled until 1263. With this Mindaugas the conquest of Rus' by the Lithuanians begins. We do not know the history of Mindaugas's conquests, but at the end of his reign he owned more or less a significant part of the Principality of Polotsk 210. Under his successors Troyden (1270–1283) 211 and Viten (1283–1315), the Lithuanians completed the conquest (in the form of direct conquest or subordination to their vassal power) of the Principality of Polotsk and took possession of the Principality of Turov and part of the Principality of Volyn. Viten's successor, the famous Gediminas (1315–1341 212), by the end of his reign became the owner of all or almost all of southwestern Rus', with the exception of Galicia 213. The history of installation at St. Peter, a separate metropolitan of Lithuania, who, as in all likelihood we should think, received Galicia into his administration or was appointed metropolitan of Galicia-Lithuania, remains unknown to us in its details. In one of the lists of the catalog of episcopal sees compiled under Emperor Andronikos Palaiologos the Elder (1282–1327), one reads a historical remark that Lithuania, belonging to the metropolis of Great Russia, was made a special metropolis under the aforementioned Emperor Andronikos and under Patriarch John Glick 214; and John Glyka occupied the patriarchal throne from May 1316 to May 1320. Then, in the records of the acts of the Patriarchal Council of Constantinople of the 14th century that have survived to this day. we find that the Metropolitan of Lithuania (ὁ Λιτβάδων) was present at this council in the month of August 1317 215. From what has just been said, we obtain the historical data regarding the installation of a separate Metropolitan of Lithuania, that he was installed in 1316-1317 and that the Grand Duke of Lithuania Gediminas asked him from Emperor Andronik and Patriarch John Glyka. It was completely natural that he, owning a very significant part of Rus', would find the church dependence of his Russian subjects on the metropolitan who lived in Vladimir-Moscow Rus' inconvenient and politically unsafe: and therefore he could easily come to the idea of ​​looking for a special metropolitan for his Lithuanian Rus'. The department of a separate Lithuanian metropolitanate was established not in such a way that one of the existing Lithuanian-Russian bishops was elevated to the degree of metropolitan, but in such a way that the metropolitan was installed as a new one against the previous bishops, with a new diocese and with a new department. In the diocese, the metropolitan was assigned Lithuania itself, how many Russians were in it and how many Orthodox Christians were in it from the Lithuanians themselves; and his department was located in the city of Novogrudok (New Town), the current district city of the Minsk province. As for the region of the Metropolitan of Lithuania, whose see from 1316–1317 remained open until the death of St. Peter, then in the case of the assumption that he was a metropolitan not just of Lithuania, but of Galich-Lithuania, it would be easy to indicate this area - then it should have consisted of all southwestern Rus' with Galicia, with the exception in the narrowest sense of the Kyiv region, insofar as this latter was the diocese of the metropolitan of all Russia, i.e. it should have consisted of 6 dioceses of the Galician metropolitanate of 1303 with the addition to them of the bishopric of Polotsk and the diocese of the metropolitan himself. Assuming that the metropolitan was the only Lithuanian, it will be impossible to indicate the limits of his region with accuracy and thoroughness, for both the extent to which Lithuania controlled Russia at the time of the establishment of the see, and the gradual further expansion of its possessions remains well unknown. In this case, the only thing that will be certain is that the diocese of Polotsk belonged to the metropolis, and it is very likely that the diocese of Turov belonged to it. During the reign of St. Peter was a heretic in our Rus'. News about this heretic is read in the lives of St. Petra; but, unfortunately, they are extremely brief and completely vague. The unknown author of the first life writes: “and Seita 216 of the heretic (holy prelate) prepre, having arrived (var. arrived) to the prue and cursed and.” Metropolitan Cyprian says: “at the same time (precisely when Peter began to reach old age) Seith the heretic appeared and was alien to the Church of Christ and the Orthodox faith, philosophizing; the saint will betray him and curse him who does not repent, and he will perish” 217. This one who appeared at St. Petre the heretic takes us to the Muslim world. Seit is an Arabic word, actually seid, and means: master. According to the general use of this word in the Muslim world, it constitutes the title of the descendants of Mohammed from his daughter Fatima and son-in-law Aliyah; but among the Tatars, as our chronicles and other monuments let us know, the highest Mohammedan spiritual leaders (like Mohammedan bishops, as it were) were called seites, perhaps because they had them or should have been from the descendants of Mohammed 218. News of the Lives of St. Peter about our heretic, apparently, should be understood in such a way that he was the highest Mohammedan-Tatar spiritual, who converted to Christianity and then fell into heresy. But it seems to us much more likely to think something else, namely, that the word heretic is used in the Lives in a very improper sense, that Seit was the highest Mohammedan spiritual, who did not accept Christianity, but remained a Mohammedan, and that he entered into a debate with St. Peter in order to try to convert him to Mohammedanism or, at least, to defeat him in a theological dispute. During the reign of St. Peter, under Khan Uzbek (who ascended the throne in 1313), the Tatars adopted Mohammedanism: it is quite possible that at first among their Mohammedan spirituality there were people who dreamed of converting their Russian tributaries to Mohammedanism; our Seit could have been one of the Mohammedan spiritualists who were carried away by such a dream, that is, he could have arranged a theological debate with St. Peter, inspired by the hope of converting him, and after him his flock, to Mohammedanism, or, at least, intending to shame him before his flock, in order to thus open access to Mohammedan propaganda. In the first life of the unknown it is said that St. Peter betrayed the heretic - according to some lists: “having come to the meeting”, according to others: “coming to the meeting” 219, i.e., that either he went to the heretic for a debate or that the heretic came to him for this. In the first case, the matter must be understood in such a way that, at the request of Seit, St. Peter was summoned by the khan for a debate in the Horde; in the second case, it was so that Seit himself came to him in Vladimir, or in Moscow. In any case, these “arrived” and “arrived” do not at all go to an ordinary heretic (since neither Peter would go to him, nor he to Peter) and reinforce the likelihood of our assumption 220. Mohammedan theologians in the East and Asia had a great tendency to debate with Christian theologians. It is not incredible that they retained this tendency among the Tatars, and that if we do not know about them, it is only because of the silence of our chronicles. However, after the dispute we supposed, St. Peter with the Mohammedan theologian, we positively know about the same dispute between St. Alexia. During the reign of St. Peter, and precisely at its very beginning, there was an attempt by the pope to attract the Galich Grand Duke Yuri Lvovich to an alliance with the Roman Church. Dlugosh writes about this under 1309: “Pope Clement V, having sent ambassadors to the Russian king, exhorted and convinced him so that, in accordance with his promise given through ambassadors and through messages, he would not neglect (not delay) to begin to obey the Roman Church and to an alliance with it; the king, having sent away the apostolic ambassadors in vain (with nothing), remained unshakable in the old schism and wanted to prefer Greek errors to Catholic piety” 221. Unfortunately, we have no other information about the attempt other than what is read in Dlugosz and which we have now given; and therefore, it remains completely unknown to us when and for what reasons Grand Duke Yuri Lvovich sent his ambassadors and his messages to the pope. At the end of the reign of St. Peter, in the month of September 1324, the determination of the Patriarchal Council of Constantinople took place, which had financial significance for the Russian metropolis. The income of the department of the Patriarchs of Constantinople then became scarce to such an extent that it turned out to be insufficient for the patriarch and the clergy or his officials who were with him. As a result, the council ordered that in the future, the metropolitans and archbishops subordinate to the patriarch should provide him with assistance through an annual contribution of certain amounts corresponding to their income 222. In the conciliar verdict, which spells out the metropolises and archdioceses with the designation of the amount that each must contribute, there is no Russian metropolis, as well as all the metropolises and external archdioceses in general - those located outside the Byzantine empire. This probably means that external metropolises and archdioceses did not find it convenient to impose a mandatory contribution and relied on voluntary assistance on their part. Be that as it may, one can hardly doubt that in relation to the exclusive Russian metropolitanate, which probably had already served as an assistant to the patriarchs, if not constantly, then very often, such voluntary assistance began to be considered obligatory, which created an important expense item in the budget of our metropolitan and our bishops under the name of “Constantinople exit.” The famous case of St. Peter, who had a very important influence on the decision of the political fate of Rus', was his transfer of the metropolitan see from Vladimir to Moscow. Moscow, in which the great Russian state was created, does not belong to the number of cities of Rus', neither prehistoric nor historically famous: In the Suzdal principality, a small suburb was cut down, which later became, with the proliferation of the Suzdal princes, a small appanage, and this small suburb and small appanage almost immediately rose to the level of a city, gathering around itself the entire Russian land. Moscow is mentioned for the first time in chronicles in 1147, during the reign of the Suzdal prince Yuri Vladimirovich Dolgoruky. The legend recorded in later times for this prince also assimilates its construction. Tradition says that on the site of present-day Moscow there was the estate of the rich boyar Stefan Kuchka, which consisted of a boyar estate and the villages surrounding it - that Prince Yuri Vladimirovich, being offended by the boyar, ordered his execution, and took over his estate, and on the land of the estate, having found a convenient place for a city, he ordered the city to be cut down, which he named after the river Moscow 223. The second half of the legend, which makes Moscow a village of blood, may be unfair; but it is a historical fact that it was placed on a place called Kuchkov 224, therefore, it was really placed on the land of the boyar Kuchka: according to legend, Yuri Vladimirovich, having killed Kuchka, took his daughter Ulita for his son Andrei (Bogolyubsky); Perhaps the prince did not kill the boyar, but, having married his son to his daughter, received the estate from him as a gift or as a dowry for his daughter 225. The prince placed the city, which was intended to serve as a border fortress and guard against the principalities of Smolensk, Chernigov and Ryazan, as most cities were located, on a spit between two rivers - on a hill (Borovichsky, then Kremlevsky) between the Moscow River and the Neglinnaya River flowing into it (now flowing under the Alexander Garden). In 1213, Grand Duke Yuri Vsevolodovich sent his son Vladimir to Moscow as an inheritance. In 1238 Moscow was burned out by the Tatars. After the invasion of the Tatars, it seems that for quite a long time it remained without its appanage prince 226, and then the Grand Duke Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky (1252–1263) placed his youngest son Daniel in it, whose descendants remained in it, immediately after him, beginning to elevate it to the level of the famous Moscow. Daniil Alexandrovich's successor, his eldest son Yuri Danilovich, a bitter enemy of Grand Duke Mikhail Yaroslavich, who sat after him on the grand-ducal throne for four years, from 1318 to 1322, was a contemporary of St. Peter: he took his father’s place in Moscow in 1304, having preceded the metropolitan for four years, and died at the end of 1325, exactly a year and a month before the death of the latter 227. In the lives of St. Peter we find stories about his transfer of the metropolitan see from Vladimir to Moscow. The unknown author of the first life writes: “As you pass through the cities, you find (the holy saint) a city that is honest in meekness, called Moscow, in which you (find) a godly prince, named Ivan, the son of Danilov, the grandson of Alexandrov, merciful to the holy churches and to the poor, very rich in holy books (and) a listener of holy teachings; Having lived (the saint) in that city and speaking to the pious prince: “O son! Much is your piety, listen to me today”; the holy metropolitan made a promise to the pious prince and spoke: “Let the church of stone be built in your city, the Holy Mother of God”; the noble prince bowed and said: ““By your by prayer, holy father, let it be, "make the founded former church and tomb holy for yourself with your own hands; After a short time his death was announced by a holy angel.”... It is further said that St. Peter died in Moscow and was buried in the newly founded stone Church of the Virgin. From Metropolitan Cyprian we read: “And since the man Peter, who had passed through the cities and places of God, came to the glorious city called Moscow, even then I was small to him and a few people, and not as we now see him; In that city, the pious and great prince Ivan Danilovich, the grandson of Alexander the Blessed, was in possession, in his form the blessed Peter is radiant in Orthodoxy and adorned with all sorts of good deeds, merciful to the poor, giving honor to the holy churches of God and those ministers, curious about the divine scriptures and a listener of the holy teachings of the book: and God’s saint loved him dearly, having begun to live in that city more than any other place, he counseled good things to the prince, advising him that he would create a church built with stone in the name of our Most Pure Lady Theotokos and the Ever-Virgin Mary, prophesying to the mother: “As if I were to my son!” Having listened and erected the church of the Most Pure Mother of God in your city, and you yourself have become glorified more than other princes and your sons and grandsons (will be glorified) throughout the generations, and this city will be glorious in all Russian cities and the saints will live in it and raise up its hands against the splashes of its enemies and God will be glorified in it, and my bones will also be placed in it." The prince received these words from the teacher with joy, began with care for the church to be diligent and, having founded it, began to sing and rise from day to day. "... It is further told that before the church was finished, St. Peter died and was laid in it, in a coffin prepared by himself. Ivan Danilovich Kalita, the younger brother of Yuri Danilovich, took his place in Moscow at the end of 1325, a year and a month before the death of St. Peter (and until then he was sitting in Pereyaslavl, which went to their father Danil Alexandrovich in 1303 after his nephew Ivan Dmitrievich died without children). Thus, according to the presentation of the Lives, it would appear that St. Peter, at the very end of his life, came to Moscow with “honest meekness” - as the author of the first life aptly expresses its poverty - that he found the local prince Ivan Danilovich a very pious man and that this last circumstance aroused in him the desire to be buried in Moscow, in which he was actually buried. Even if we did not have any data for a proper understanding of the matter, then even then it could not seem probable to us at all in the form it appears in the lives. The Metropolitan found a pious prince in one small city, and suddenly he has a desire to be buried in this city: what is the internal connection here? The Metropolitan, of course, should have been very happy that there was a pious prince in his metropolis; but it is completely incomprehensible that he suddenly had a desire to be buried in the town of the pious prince: he had a see in Vladimir and he was supposed to be buried with it 228. The second of the biographers, Metropolitan Cyprian, lets slip that this was not the case: he says that St. Peter came to Moscow under Ivan Danilovich, that is, not earlier than a year before his death, and, however, then he says that the saint “started to live in that city in more places,” that is, he makes it known that the metropolitan did not come to Moscow at all a year before his death. The matter really should be presented far from the way it is presented in the lives. After the death of Metropolitan Maxim, Grand Duke Mikhailo Yaroslavich sent his abbot Gerontius to Constantinople to be installed as metropolitan, so that in a metropolitan devoted to himself he could acquire a strong assistant in his struggle with the prince of Moscow and in general in his aspirations for the elevation of his ancestral Tver. When instead of Gerontius he came to the metropolitan see of St. Peter, the Grand Duke, met the unexpected metropolitan as an enemy, and remained this enemy throughout his life, more than once trying to overthrow him from the pulpit. Met as an enemy by the Grand Duke, Peter naturally and necessarily had to seek friendship with his enemy - the Prince of Moscow, for between two enemies, having been accepted as an enemy by one, he could not become anything other than a friend of the other. At the same time, the Prince of Moscow could not do anything other than to seek with all possible haste and with all possible diligence the friendship of the Metropolitan, who had found an enemy in the Grand Duke. Mikhailo Yaroslavich, in order to fight his enemy and to elevate his Tver inheritance, wanted to acquire an assistant in the metropolitan, and he did not succeed: Naturally, the Moscow prince, taking advantage of the thoughts of his rival, immediately had to use all his efforts to achieve what Mikhail Yaroslavich failed to achieve, that is, to acquire in the metropolitan the assistant that the latter wanted to find in him. Thus, it is necessary to think that the close connection and friendship of the Metropolitan with the Prince of Moscow, not with Ivan Danilovich Kalita, but with his elder brother Yuri Danilovich, began from the very first minute of the Metropolitan’s arrival in Rus'. That this was indeed the case, we have positive evidence for this. At the Pereyaslavl Council, the newly arrived Metropolitan has a large party of secular supporters: it is clear that these supporters were created for him and that the Prince of Moscow was at the head of these supporters. Immediately or very soon after the Council of Pereyaslavl, in 1311, the son of the Grand Duke, who was probably still, as during the Council, in the Horde, Dmitry Mikhailovich came with an army against the Prince of Moscow, as it seems, forced to protect the grand-ducal rights of his father: The Metropolitan, clearly a supporter of the Prince of Moscow, used against the prince Tver such a drastic measure as church excommunication. So, meeting St. Peter and Moscow should have begun not just a year before his death, but from the very first minute of his arrival in Rus', that is, the actual arrival in Suzdal or Vladimir Rus'. Having as his enemy the Grand Duke, to whom Vladimir belonged, although he did not live there permanently, the Metropolitan, naturally, could find it inconvenient and embarrassing for himself to stay in his cathedral city, and therefore it is very likely to assume that from the very first minute of his arrival in Rus' he tried to live as little as possible in Vladimir and as much as possible in Moscow, with his ally, the Prince of Moscow. That this was really the case, we have indications of this in the chronicles. Making it known that Peter's stay or residence in Moscow began from the first time he occupied the metropolitan department, the chronicles say that he had his courtyard in Moscow in two places - first on one, and then moved to another (at first the courtyard was located at the Church of John the Baptist at the Borovitsky Gate 229, then it was moved to the place where it remained forever - to the site of the current synodal chamber 230. These the metropolitan's frequent and long stays in Moscow, which began from the first time of his arrival in Russia, did not mean his transfer of the metropolitan see from Vladimir to Moscow: they only meant the residence of the metropolitan instead of his cathedral city in one of the suburbs of his diocese, which was Moscow in relation to Vladimir in church-administrative terms. After temporary, more or less frequent and prolonged stays or residences in Moscow, St. Peter finally transferred the metropolitan see to it from Vladimir. Regarding this last action of St. Peter, in fact, it is necessary to think that he only began to think about him at the very end of his life, during the reign not of Yuri Danilovich, but indeed, as life says, only of Ivan Danilovich. This is clearly evidenced by the history of the stone church, in which St. Peter was about to be buried. If he had already expressed to Yuri Danilovich his desire, or more precisely - as we will say below - his consent to be buried in Moscow, then Yuri Danilovich would have long ago and in advance built a stone church that would serve as a tomb for him. But this church was built only under Ivan Danilovich: it is clear that the idea that Peter should be buried not in Vladimir, but in Moscow, appeared only under him. Based on the history of the construction of the church, we can even determine with perfect accuracy the time when it was decided between St. Peter and Ivan Danilovich, so that the remains of the former were laid not in Vladimir, but in Moscow. Stone churches, like all kinds of stone buildings, begin to be built in the spring; Our church began to be laid at a completely different time than usual - in the month of August 1326 (it was founded on August 4): obviously, the laying began not at ordinary times for the reason that only at this unusual time did the aforementioned agreement take place. And if they did not postpone the laying until the spring of next year, then one must think that they did not find it possible to do this due to the old age and sickness of the saint. Peter, who actually died four and a half months after the founding of the church. Lives of St. Peter is assured that he himself expressed to Ivan Danilovich a desire to be buried instead of Vladimir in his place in Moscow. But to present things this way is completely unbelievable. Circumstances forced St. Peter to live often, or perhaps most of the time, instead of Vladimir in Moscow. But Vladimir was his cathedral city, and he was to be buried at his cathedral. As Metropolitan, St. Peter could have absolutely no motives for wanting to be buried instead of Vladimir in Moscow; and to present the matter as if the piety of the Moscow prince aroused in him a desire to be buried instead of Vladimir in Moscow, as we have already said, would be very strange, because metropolitans should be buried at their sees, and not in some and not in any other places of their dioceses, where they will have to meet pious people. Had motives to wish that St. Peter was buried in Moscow and so that his successors began to live in it, Prince Ivan Danilovich, in those political forms, so that the presence of the metropolitan see in Moscow would facilitate the transfer of the grand-ducal throne from Vladimir to it. And it is necessary to accept that the initiative in this matter is about the decision of St. Peter to be buried instead of Vladimir in Moscow belonged not to himself, but to the prince - that Ivan Danilovich, having the desire that St. Peter, instead of Vladimir, was buried with him in Moscow, turned to him with urgent requests about this, and that he, yielding to the requests of the prince and entering into his political views, gave the latter his consent regarding this. Ivan Danilovich, having inherited the Moscow throne after the death of his brother, did not inherit from him the grand-ducal throne, which, after Yuriev’s short sitting on it (1318–1322), again returned to the princes of Tver 231, so that at the moment when an agreement took place between Ivan Danilovich and St. Peter about the burial of the latter instead of Vladimir in Moscow, the former was not a Grand Duke, but only an appanage prince of Moscow. It seems strange that Ivan Danilovich dreamed of moving the capital of the great reign from Vladimir to Moscow, when he did not yet own this capital. But he urgently strove to take possession of the capital, and for him it was, so to speak, a done deal. Yuri Danilovich, after a 14-year intense search for the throne of the Grand Duke under Mikhail Yaroslavich (1304–1318), finally got it, when he was soon expelled from it again (1322), it seems, he gave in to despair and gave up on him 232. But Ivan Danilovich, having taken his brother’s place on the Moscow table, began the search for the throne of the Grand Duke with the same persistence with which Yuri Danilovich searched for it in the aforementioned first 14 years. Between Tver and Moscow, the matter was set up in such a way as to be or not to be one or the other of them. Using the most precise speeches about this transfer of St. Peter of the metropolitan see from Vladimir to Moscow, we must say that, strictly speaking, St. Peter did not at all transfer the pulpit from one city to another. And that the action to which he expressed his consent in relation to Moscow and which is usually called the transfer of the department, can be called such only in a very improper and very inaccurate sense of the word. The metropolitan see could be transferred formally and truly for two reasons - either for the church reason that Vladimir would cease to exist, or for some reason it turned out to be impossible to stay, or for the state reason that Moscow would become the capital of the great reign instead. Neither one nor the other reason existed at all, and St. Peter, who had no reason at all to transfer the see from Vladimir to Moscow, really did not transfer it at all, for for quite a long time after him the metropolitan see continued to remain in Vladimir, and if the metropolitans after him began to live in Moscow, this meant that instead of living at their see, they began to live in one of the suburbs of their diocese (contrary to the 82nd rule of the Carthage cathedral). We said that if Moscow had taken the place of Vladimir as the capital of the great reign, then there would have been a legitimate reason for the transfer of the metropolitan see from one city to another. On the contrary, in this case it was necessary to ensure that the residence of the metropolitans in Moscow would contribute to the elevation of the latter to the status of the capital of the great reign (after which the metropolitan see could be transferred to it in a formal manner). Without transferring the metropolitan see from Vladimir to Moscow in a formal manner, which was impossible due to non-existence of reasons, St. Peter could only help ensure that his successors, following him, confirmed their stay in Moscow, this suburb of the metropolitan diocese, instead of their cathedral city of Vladimir. In order to achieve this goal, St. Peter did what he agreed to be buried instead of Vladimir in Moscow. The desire towards his successors, expressed by him in this consent, i.e. the desire for the successors to remain living at his grave, was not at all obligatory for these latter: It could have come true, as it actually happened, or it could not have come true. But to do something that would be obligatory for the successors, St. Peter was unable to do so because it was beyond his means. He could only take measures so that his immediate successor was like him, a man who had the desire to live in Moscow; He actually took these measures, as we will say below in speeches about Metropolitan Theognostus, who followed him. So, the history of the so-called transfer of St. Peter the metropolitan see from Vladimir to Moscow is presented in the following form. St. Peter, having been appointed metropolitan and arriving in Vladimir, found the Vladimir Grand Duke Mikhail Yaroslavich as his enemy, and his Grand Duke remained such an enemy for the entire subsequent time. Received as an enemy by the Grand Duke, St. Peter, of necessity, had to turn to the enemy of this latter - to the Moscow prince Yuri Danilovich, with whom he entered into an alliance of friendship. Due to his relationship with the Grand Duke, not finding it convenient for himself to stay in Vladimir, at his cathedra, where the Grand Duke, St., was the owner. Peter often, or perhaps even very often, lived with his ally Yuri Danilovich in his Moscow, which in church and administrative terms was one of the suburbs of the metropolitan diocese. At the end of St.'s life. Peter's successor to Yuri Danilovich on the Moscow table, his brother Ivan Danilovich, set out to keep the metropolitans in Moscow forever, in order to ensure through this the success of his political plan to move the capital of the great reign from Vladimir to Moscow. For this purpose, Ivan Danilovich turned to St. Peter with a request that he agree to be buried instead of Vladimir in Moscow, and St. Peter, satisfying the request and sympathizing with the political aspirations of the prince friendly to him, gave the latter his consent. - Why do the lives of St. Peter, written by people who deliberately cared about the interests of Moscow, present the matter as if he himself expressed to Ivan Danilovich a desire to be buried in Moscow, this is completely understandable: with such a presentation of the matter, i.e. that St. Peter himself chose Moscow as the place of his burial, the fact of his burial there received a new and special, in the sense of importance for it, church-political significance. In church and administrative terms, as we said, Moscow was a suburb of the metropolitan diocese. If it had its own bishop or belonged to another diocese, not the metropolitan one, then it could very well be and is very likely that St. Peter, not finding it convenient for himself to stay in Vladimir, would have chosen for his stay not her, but some other city that belonged to his diocese. Thus, the circumstances of Moscow, destined to be the collector of Rus', were precisely such that St. Peter could live in it, and then be buried within its walls... Moscow, which had conceived the idea of ​​becoming the capital of a hereditary great reign instead of Vladimir, was still so “humble with meekness,” in the apt expression of the first biography of St. Peter, that there was not a single stone church in it. St. Peter, of course, could have been buried in it and in one of the wooden churches. But his burial in Moscow was calculated on the fact that at the church in which he would be buried, his successors would begin to live in it, as if according to the covenant expressed by him through this. As the future de facto cathedral church of the metropolitans (next to the juridical cathedral - the Vladimir Assumption Cathedral), our church had to be made of stone. Having received the consent of St. Peter in order to be buried in Moscow, Prince Ivan Danilovich hastily began building a stone church as a tomb for the metropolitan. This church, very modest in size, 233 although, despite its outward modesty, soon became famous, was founded on August 4, 1326. In two or one and a half autumn months it could not be folded in full: meanwhile, St. Peter died that same winter - from December 20 to 21, 234. As a result, his body was buried in a church that had begun, but was not completed, which was completed and consecrated the following year, 1327. Having prepared a stone coffin for himself in advance, he placed it in a compartment of the altar or proskomedia near the outer wall 235: this is where his remains were laid. [On the death and burial of St. Peter it is read in his first life: “The saint made the foundation of the former church and a tomb for himself with his own hands. A short time later his death was announced by the holy angel. These began to perform the liturgy for the health of the blessed kings and for the blessed prince Ivan, for the princess, and for the children, and for all his people, and for the whole world, for all the departed kings and princes, and for all the departed peasants. Having finished the holy service and having called together many beggars, (and) priests and chernorisitsy and monkornizitsy, do a lot of alms, and distributing your property not only to the poor, (but) also to the priests, monkoritsy, monkornizitsy, all the churchmen and household members. And then the noble prince would not exist in the city. And calling one from the nobles, the elder of the city called it Protasey; This beggar was merciful and merciful in heart, and said to him: “O child, give peace to the noble prince and to his whole house, and peace to you.” “And give him the vagina for the establishment of the church and for the remembrance of his memory, and other houses (people?) of the church calling. The evening was over, and the saint began the evening prayer, and still kept the prayer in his mouth and spoke to the venerable Archimandrite Theodore, who was appointed to the metropolis: “Peace be with you, child, I want to honor you.” And Abiye betrays the spirit. And I sent word to the prince. The noble prince soon arrived in the city. I carried the saint to the tomb, they mnesha, as if they were carrying a dead man, but opened up to a certain non-believer about the saint, and saw the saint sitting on his bed, with both sides of his bed blessing the bed and the blessed prince and his whole family and all the peasants. He brought it to the founded church, sang a funeral hymn, and placed his holy body in the coffin, which he himself created, on the 21st day of the month of December” (by the Right Reverend Macarius in the appendices to Volume IV of History, p. 311). The Nikon Chronicles, - III, 131 fin., Resurrection, - in the Collection of Chronicles, - VII, 200 beginning and Typographical, - p. 80, report that at the burial of St. Peter, Bishop of Lutsk Theodosius was present.] With the relics of St. Peter, miracles began to happen from the very minute of his burial. In a solemn and formal manner, he was canonized just 13 years after his death under Metropolitan Theognostus, who followed him. To this day, several sacred objects and things are preserved in Moscow, which are assimilated by the tradition of St. Petru. They are the following: 1) the icon of the Dormition of the Mother of God, painted by the saint, located in the Assumption Cathedral, in the lower tier of the main iconostasis, second on the right side of the royal doors; 2) another icon of the Mother of God painted by him, deliberately known under the name of Petrovskaya, located in the same Assumption Cathedral, in the chapel of the Apostles Peter and Paul; 3) a panagia that belonged to him (gold, semi-oval, on a silver gilded chain, decorated with lalas and Kafim grains, with an onyx inserted on the front side, on which is carved an image of the prophet Daniel with a Greek inscription on the sides: ὁ προφήτης Δανιήλ, and with carved on the back side, in gold, is the image of the Mother of God Hodegetria), kept in the Synodal sacristy; 4) a sakkos that belonged to him (made of azure satin, with four-pointed crosses woven in circles), stored in the same sacristy; 5) an epitrachelion that belonged to him (made of clove damask, decorated with 6 large and several small beads, lined with small pearls), stored in the same sacristy; 6) the staff that belonged to him, restored by Patriarch Joachim, located in the Assumption Cathedral and standing at the patriarchal seat; 7) his liturgical cap, located in the same cathedral with his relics (in the spiritual wills of the great princes, in chronicles and in acts, the neck cross of the wonderworker Peter is mentioned, with which he blessed Ivan Danilovich Kalita and his entire family, and with which the great princes blessed their older children, that is, their eldest sons, currently unknown, see the Resurrection and Sophia chronicles under 1524, - in the Collection of Chronicles VI, 272, and VIII, 285, and the spiritual testament of Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible in Karamzin IX, note 849, col. 182; Fyodor Borisovich was blessed with the cross of the wonderworker Peter at his crowning. Godunov, - Collection of state charters and treaties. II, 189, Acts of the Expedition II, 86, but in the rite of the crowning of Mikhail Fedorovich there is no mention of him, - Collection of charters and treaties III, 70 sqq, and one can think that during the interregnum the sacrilegious hand of the Poles kidnapped or destroyed him, who, sitting in the Kremlin, plundered the royal treasury). St. Peter, having given Ivan Danilovich his consent to be buried instead of Vladimir in Moscow, left through this a kind of testament to his successors so that they would establish residence instead of the first in the latter. However, this kind of will had the character of only an invitation and not at all an obligation, so it could be executed by the successors, starting with the immediate or first of them, or it could not be executed at all. Meanwhile, for the Moscow prince, in his state interests, it was extremely important that it happen as he wished, because the stay of the metropolitans in his appanage capital city would represent a decisive guarantee of the success of the idea that appeared to him about elevating his inheritance to the level of a hereditary great reign. To hope that the metropolitan sent to the place of St. Peter from Greece and the Greek turned out to be exactly the kind of person who was desired, that is, who would agree to promote the new political aspirations of Ivan Danilovich, of course, it was very unreliable. And the prince with St. Peter decided on a bold deed: bypassing the Grand Duke, they elected their own man, a certain Archimandrite Theodore, as the future successor to the second of them. But this time the courage did not have the success with which it is sometimes accompanied: Archimandrite Theodore was not installed by the patriarch as metropolitan and in the place of St. Peter was sent from Constantinople by the Greek Theognostus. We do not know the story of Theodore's removal from the metropolitan see. In Constantinople, despite two recent cases of appointing metropolitans from natural Russians, they could not have the desire to do this; and since the unpleasant request did not come from the Grand Duke himself, but in addition to him from the appanage prince, then it could have been removed by the patriarch. But it is necessary to think that, in any case, the Grand Duke, the second son of Tver Mikhail Yaroslavich Alexander Mikhailovich, prevented the fulfillment of the request. The election of a candidate for metropolitan by the Moscow prince was an encroachment on his, the Grand Duke's, rights, and at the same time an encroachment that was calculated specifically against him: naturally, he had to rebel with all determination before the patriarch against the quest of the prince of Moscow. (It may very well be that Alexander Mikhailovich opposed his own candidate to the candidate Ivan Danilovich, but that the patriarch removed him too, not wanting to give preference to one between the two candidates seeking a place). Fortunately for Moscow, which was destined to become the collector of Rus', its work was not lost even with the removal of its candidate from the metropolitan see. Just before the arrival of the new metropolitan in Rus', Ivan Danilovich managed to sit on the grand ducal table instead of Alexander Mikhailovich (at the end of 1327 - at the beginning of 1328) and met the new metropolitan not as an appanage prince of Moscow, but as a grand duke of Russia. It was the will of the new metropolitan to accept or not accept the Moscow demands of Ivan Danilovich; but, without accepting the demands, he would have made the Grand Duke his enemy. On the other hand, this Grand Duke was a statesman far from being an ordinary person, therefore, as one might assume, he had the ability to persuade and attract people to himself that was not entirely ordinary. Be that as it may, the new metropolitan expressed his readiness to be an assistant to Moscow in its state aspirations and thus, replacing his predecessor, was what Moscow wanted and was looking for. “He came,” the Moscow chronicler says about Theognost, to the great table at the metropolis, to Kyiv and all of Rus', and he also came to Volodymer and to the glorious city of Moscow, to the Most Pure Mother of God of the Dormition and to the wonderworking tomb of Petrov, and in his place he sat and began to live in his courtyard, the mercy of God was with him and the Most Pure Mother of God and prayer and blessing from the great wonderworker Peter: but for many other princes it is not much sweet, even though the city of Moscow, the metropolitan’s name, lives within itself” 237. Other princes quite understood the meaning and significance of the metropolitans’ relocation to Moscow to live. Theognostus was installed as Russian metropolitan either at the end of 1327 or at the beginning of 1328, for in May of the second year he was already in Russia. Upon arrival in Rus', he did not travel directly to the north, but stopped in the south, in the Volyn land. In the month of May 1328, he installed two bishops here - Vladimir and Galician, and his participants in the installation of new bishops were the existing or former bishops: Przemysl, Kholmsky, Lutsk and Turov 238, in other words - all the existing bishops of Galician-Volyn Rus'. Considering it probable to think that the Galician-Volhynian dioceses were subordinated to the jurisdiction of the Lithuanian metropolitan, installed in 1316–1317, it will be necessary to understand the matter in such a way that Theognostus, upon his accession to the department, managed to ensure that the Lithuanian metropolitanate was closed. And that with this accession of Theognostus to the see, in all likelihood, the Lithuanian metropolitanate was closed, even if the Galician-Volyn dioceses were not part of it, follows from the fact that among the bishops who participated in the installation of new bishops, we see the bishop of Turov, whose diocese in state terms, as we said above, in all likelihood, already belonged to Lithuania. The acts of the Patriarchate of Constantinople make it known that in the month of April 1329 the Metropolitan of Lithuania was in Constantinople 239 . Considering what has just been said probable, it will have to be assumed that the Metropolitan of Lithuania, whose see was closed when Theognostus was installed as metropolitan, came to Constantinople to bother about its re-opening 240. After an unknown how long stay in southern, Volyn, Rus', Theognost in the same year 1328 arrived north in order, in accordance with the search of Grand Duke Ivan Danilovich, to follow St. Peter the Metropolitan of Moscow. Having expressed his readiness to be an assistant to Moscow in her state aspirations, he was a very zealous assistant, so that in this capacity he acquired the full right to her gratitude, like his predecessor St. Peter and like his successor St. Alexia. Moscow set itself the lofty idea, putting itself in the place of Vladimir, to become the capital of a hereditary great reign; meanwhile, until then it was a very poor city. Since an appearance appropriate to one’s position is required in the same necessary way, as from people, as from cities: then the princes of Moscow, if they seriously thought of making their capital the capital of a great reign, had to take care to make it, in relation to appearance, a city more or less corresponding to the role for which it was intended. Metropolitan Theognost prompted Ivan Danilovich to take care of this immediately upon his arrival in Moscow, and he himself took an active part in their implementation. In ancient times, both everywhere, and in particular in Rus', the decoration of cities was made up of churches or churches. In our Rus', stone churches were considered churches that beautify cities, in contrast to wooden churches, which were our ordinary churches. It was necessary to take care of decorating Moscow with stone churches in order to promote it from the ranks of poor cities and make it a magnificent city in the then sense, worthy of becoming the capital of a great reign. The construction of stone churches began in Moscow immediately upon the arrival of Metropolitan Theognost, and he himself not only became an assistant to the Grand Duke, but also took the initiative. The next year after his arrival, in 1329, he built two stone churches in Moscow - John Climacus 241 and the Apostle Peter (the worship of his honest faith 242; in the next 1330, the Grand Duke founded the third stone church - St. Savior in his home or court Spassky Monastery 243; four years after that, in 1333 year, the Grand Duke built another stone church - the Archangel Michael 244. Thus, in a very short time after Theognost’s arrival in Moscow, thanks to him and his influence, five stone churches appeared in it, counting the Church of the Assumption of the Mother of God, which was founded before the death of St. Peter's and in which he was buried. With this number of five stone churches, Moscow did not equal Vladimir; and since all the churches, not excluding the Church of the Dormition of the Mother of God, were very modest in size, it was not at all equal to it in the quality of the churches: but, without even having time to achieve this, it nevertheless immediately achieved the point of decisively moving forward from a number of other cities of Vladimir or Suzdal Rus'. Now, declaring her lofty claims, she could no longer seem ridiculous due to the discrepancy between her claims and her appearance 245. With the relics of St. Peter, miracles began to happen from the very minute of his burial. Prince Ivan Danilovich ordered the recording of miracles even before Theognost’s arrival in Rus', being prompted - on the one hand, of course, by the immediate desire to glorify the miracle worker, and on the other hand, undoubtedly, by state goals to glorify Moscow, which was honored to receive a clear sign of God’s favor in the fact that the saint who died within its walls was honored to receive the gift of miracles from God, sent records of miracles to Vladimir, so that they could be read from the pulpit in the cathedral metropolitan church and thus become known throughout Rus' 246. Miracles continued to be performed at the relics of St. Peter and after Feognostov’s arrival in Rus'. The Metropolitan, of course, could not take away the gift of miracles from the relics; but he very well could not have taken care of the solemn canonization of the miracle worker. Theognostus, prompted, on the one hand, by the desire to pay tribute to the saint of God, clearly glorified by God, and on the other hand, undoubtedly prompted by the desire to contribute to the glorification of Moscow, hastened to solemnly and formally canonize Peter. In order to give the act of this attribution or canonization the greatest possible solemnity and firmness, which also had significance in political matters, the Metropolitan did not perform it himself, as had been done heretofore and to which he had the right, but asked permission for it from the Patriarch. A letter to Theognostus from the Patriarch of Constantinople John Kalecki dated July 1339 has been preserved to this day, in which the Patriarch blesses the Metropolitan to canonize Peter 247. In his message, the patriarch writes to the metropolitan: “We have received the writings of your holiness with the notification and together with the certificate about the bishop of the same holy church who was before you, that after death he was glorified by God and revealed as a true saint of Him, so that great miracles were performed from him and all sorts of illnesses were healed. And we rejoiced at this and rejoiced in spirit and gave due praise to God. And since your Holiness sought instruction from us about what should be done with such holy relics, (then we answer) you yourself know and do not know what rite and custom the Church of God adheres to in such cases; Having received firm and undoubted confirmation regarding this (saint), let your holiness act regarding him entirely according to the same charter of the church: almost and please the saint of God with hymns and sacred praises and commit this to future times, to the praise and glory of God, who glorifies those who glorify Him.” Canonization of St. Peter had the peculiarity that his relics were not carried out of the tomb, but still remained hidden in it. There is no doubt that this canonization had extremely important political significance for Moscow. From a very long series of Russian metropolitans over the three-hundred-year existence of the Russian Church, St. Peter, who was pleased to choose Moscow as his place of residence, was the first to receive solemn church glorification: this could be seen as a clear sign of God’s special favor towards her, destining her for an exceptional lot 248 . At the same time, having within its walls the miraculous relics of the newly glorified saint, Moscow had to attract the eyes of all northern Rus'. In general, the coffin of St. Peter, after he, Peter, was canonized, became a solid cornerstone for her in her aspirations for political eminence. Arriving in Rus' and establishing his permanent residence in Moscow, Metropolitan Theognostus the next year after his arrival, in 1329, following the example of his predecessors Cyril and Maxim, and probably St. Peter, went to Novgorod to visit him. During his stay in Novgorod, he was supposed to provide a political service to Grand Duke Ivan Danilovich. The Khan's ambassador (Shevkal) arrived in Tver in 1327, who personally and through his retinue terribly oppressed the inhabitants; it came to the point of open indignation on the part of the latter, and the massacre that took place between the Tverichs and the Tatars ended with the Khan’s ambassador being killed, and all the Tatars who were with him were killed. Prince of Tver Alexander Mikhailovich, who was at the same time the Grand Duke of Vladimir, allowed this to happen (and perhaps even arranged it himself), fled from Tver and took refuge in Pskov, and the Khan (Uzbek), terribly angry at the act of the Tverichs, gave the great reign to Ivan Danilovich and demanded that the new Grand Duke introduce Alexander to him Mikhailovich. Ivan Danilovich, accompanied by other princes and Novgorodians, went to Pskov to get the Tver prince. But the Pskovites resolutely did not want to extradite Alexander Mikhailovich. Then Ivan Danilovich asked the Metropolitan to impose ecclesiastical excommunication on the Tver prince and the Pskovites. As can be seen from the chronicles, the metropolitan, who had just arrived in Rus', did not want to begin his activities with such a sad action as excommunication 249; but, in the end, he was forced to fulfill the demand of the Grand Duke. Alexander Mikhailovich, not wanting church excommunication to weigh on the Pskovites because of him, retired from them to Lithuania to Gediminas, and the Metropolitan after that lifted the excommunication from the Pskovites. Having returned from Novgorod to Moscow and having installed three new bishops (Rostov, Suzdal and Tver 250) in it, or perhaps partly in it, partly in Vladimir, during the last months of 1329 - the first months of 1330, Theognost again went to southern, Volyn, Rus' in order to be absent from Moscow for quite a long time. From the acts Patriarchate of Constantinople it is clear that in the month of April 1331 the Metropolitan of Galicia was in Constantinople 251, and from the acts relating to our church history, it is clear that in the month of August 1331 the Bishop of Galicia was under Metropolitan Theognostus, participating in the installation of one new bishop (of Chernigov-Bryansk 252. These two the news must be understood and reconciled in such a way that in April 1331 the bishop of Galich managed to achieve that the Galician metropolis was opened, but that very soon after this, by the month of August of the same year, through the efforts of Theognost, it was closed again. This opening of the Galician metropolis and these efforts to close it, no doubt, forced Theognost to take a trip to Galician-Volyn Rus' and stay there for quite a long time, from March-April 1330 to April-May 1332 253. The culprit of the present, very short-lived, separation of Galician-Volyn Rus into a special metropolitanate should be considered much more likely to be Gediminas of Lithuania than the Grand Duke of Galicia, who in 1331 was the last prince from the house of Romanov, Yuri Andreevich, for that Romanovich seems to be such a weak sovereign, so much so, so to speak, one shadow of the sovereign, that he should assimilate the quest for himself as a separate metropolitan is highly unlikely. As for Gediminas, he could act either directly or through his son Lubart, by the Christian Orthodox name Dimitri, who since 1320 sat on an inheritance in Volyn Lutsk, which he inherited after his father-in-law Lev Yuryevich, the younger brother of Grand Duke Andrei, our father Yuri II. The answer to the question: why Gediminas bothered about the restoration of the Galician metropolis, and not his own Lithuanian one, can be given without difficulty. In Constantinople, it was much easier to achieve the restoration of the Galician metropolis than the Lithuanian metropolis: as Greek acts make clear, the emperor and patriarch of Constantinople, having once opened the Lithuanian metropolis, did not want to open it again, because there were very few Christians in Lithuania itself, and that they could conveniently be headed by a neighboring Russian bishop 254. During Theognost’s stay in southern Rus', after he installed Novgorod Archbishop Vasily in Vladimir Volynsk on August 25, 1331, the Pskovites sent him an embassy with a request to appoint their own special bishop. After the Metropolitan's departure from Novgorod, Prince Alexander Mikhailovich of Tver, who had left Pskov for Lithuania, returned to Pskov again in order to reign there as Gediminov's henchman. The Pskovites, who had broken away from Novgorod in terms of state affairs, obviously desired ecclesiastical separation from it, and they, having elected a candidate for individual bishop of Pskov, a certain monk Arseny, sent him to the metropolitan with a request for installation. The request was strongly supported by Gediminas and all the Lithuanian princes. But Theognost, partly, probably, not wanting to offend the Novgorodians and their rulers, and partly, probably precisely because the fulfillment of the request would correspond to Lithuanian views, refused it to the Pskovites, and, as one must think, motivated his refusal to Gediminas with something plausible, i.e. e. gave some canonical basis for refusal. From Galician-Volhynian Rus', Theognost did not return directly to Moscow, but also made a journey from it to Constantinople. Having achieved the closure of the open Galician metropolis through his ambassadors to the emperor and patriarch, he probably found it necessary to make his own trip to them for the reason that new dangers to the restored unity of the metropolis had not been completely eliminated or new dangers had appeared. The return route from Constantinople to Russia, and specifically to Moscow, was carried out by the Metropolitan through the Horde 255. Perhaps he needed to see the khan, who was then the famous Uzbek, for some church affairs; perhaps he had instructions to the khan from Constantinople; and maybe, finally, that he walked through the Horde simply because one of the roads along which he had to return from Constantinople to Rus' lay through it, and, as it seems, one of the roads along which was most traveled. The Metropolitan arrived in Moscow in the spring of 1333 256. In 1341, a change of khans took place in the Horde: the aforementioned Uzbek died and his son Chanibek (Dzhanibek) 257 took his place. Since Uzbek, upon his accession to the throne, legalized that metropolitans should come to the new khans to receive affirmative labels, Theognost had to travel to the Horde to the new khan for the now mentioned purpose (in 1342–43). This journey of his to the Horde almost had very sad consequences for the church. When he was with the khan, some Russian people told the latter that he had a lot of countless income, gold and silver and all kinds of wealth, and that therefore it would be very fair for him to pay the khan’s annual tribute to the treasury 258 . The unknown Russian people who told the khan about the metropolitan were probably some appanage princes, because the metropolitan, who was the exclusive supporter and friend of the Grand Duke, was supposed to have enemies and ill-wishers among the former; and the reason for the slander could have been the fact that Theognostus, as we have some reason to think, was really a man who deliberately cared about increasing the metropolitan’s income and was more or less devoted to the sad passion of love of money. Heeding the slander, the khan demanded that the metropolitan undertake to pay him an annual tribute - from himself, it is understood, and from the entire clergy. But if, indeed, it is true that Theognostus brought disaster upon the Russian Church with his concern for increasing the metropolitan’s income; then he managed to prevent trouble from her. Despite any threats and efforts of the khan's officials through whom the matter was conducted, he resolutely refused the demand presented to him. The Khan of the Golden Horde, of course, was a despot; but, firstly, Chanibek Khan was one of the best despots 259; secondly, despots sometimes give in when the law is firmly fought against them. Since the time of Genghis Khan, the Mongols had an organic state law, found in the famous Yasa (as the collection of laws published by Genghis Khan was called), that the clergy of all faiths should be free from tribute. There is no doubt that, relying on this law, the Metropolitan managed to defend the inviolability of the rights of the Russian clergy. Still, however, he not only took, but had to buy himself a victory: he had to spend six hundred rubles on gifts to the khan, khansha and their officials (which, at first glance, is a small amount, in fact amounts to a considerable amount of sixty thousand or more of today's credit rubles 260. In all likelihood, a significant part of this amount went to the khan’s wife, the famous Taidula, for she, as a sign of her favor to the metropolitan, gave him her own label in addition to the khan’s label - her husband: Feognost’s acquisition of the favor of this khansha should be considered a great good, drawn from bad luck. Upon entering the department, Theognost managed to close the Lithuanian metropolis that was open; in 1331 he managed to close the newly opened metropolitanate of Galicia for the second time: but this last metropolitanate was reopened six years after 1331. In the act of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which has no date, but which should be attributed to the second half of 1337 - to the beginning of 1338 261, the Metropolitan of Galicia is listed as being in Constantinople - and to this year 1337-1338 the third opening of the Metropolis of Galician should be attributed 262. The history of this discovery is also completely unknown, like the previous two. In any case, as for the sovereign, to whom the efforts to open the metropolis should be assimilated: of the three sovereigns, between whom Galicia with Volyn and all of southwestern Rus' were divided in 1337-1338, the efforts should be assimilated to Gediminas with his son Lubart, for the third sovereign, the Mazovian prince Boleslav Troydenovich, Having received his own Galicia as Zhenin’s inheritance in 1337, he thought not about restoring the last metropolis, but about introducing Catholicism in it. This third Galician metropolitanate existed until the month of August 1347, that is, for 10 or a little over 10 years 263. In the Greek acts on the closure of the metropolitanate, official information is provided about the limits that it had, namely, it embraced Galicia, Volyn and southwestern Lithuanian Rus'. The dioceses that belonged to it are called: Vladimir, Kholmsk, Przemysl, Lutsk and Turov 264. In terms of government, the metropolitan area, as we said above, did not belong to any one ruler, but was divided between three rulers or was made up of three parts that belonged to different rulers: Galicia first had its own sovereign in the person of the aforementioned Boleslav Troydenovich, and then, in full or not, it went to the Polish king. The sovereign of Volyn was the son of Gediminas, Lubart, who received one part of it by inheritance and seized the other by force; the sovereign of the third part of Rus', which was part of the metropolis, was the Grand Duke of Lithuania 265. In the information provided by the acts regarding the metropolitan area, there is one point that is incomprehensible to us. Among the dioceses of the metropolis is the diocese of Turov; and since the Turov region, in state terms, undoubtedly belonged to Lithuania at that time, it undoubtedly follows from this that Lithuanian or Lithuanian Rus was included in the metropolitan area. Meanwhile, the other Lithuanian-Russian diocese of Polotsk is not mentioned among the dioceses of the metropolitanate. The most likely reason for the silence seems to us to be the following. It was not known in the imperial and patriarchal offices which dioceses were part of the Galician metropolis, opened in 1337–1338; but they knew which dioceses were part of the Galician metropolis, opened for the first time in 1303. Assuming that the composition of the dioceses of the metropolis, opened in 1337–1338, was the same as the metropolis, opened in 1303, the chancellery lists in the acts those dioceses that made up the metropolis of 1303. And since the diocese of Polotsk was not part of the metropolis of 1303, for this reason it is not listed among the dioceses of the metropolis of 1337–1338. The acts tell us something from the internal history of the metropolis, namely, the patriarch, in his decree on its closure, authorizes and conciliarly lifts the church ban that was pronounced against bishops and other persons who did not want to obey the metropolitan 266. Then we learn that Metropolitan Theognostus, both before the closure of the metropolis and at the closure itself, brought some, unfortunately, completely unknown, charges against the former metropolitan. That, as a result of these accusations, the emperor and the patriarch decided, upon the closure of the metropolis, to subject the former metropolitan to the latter’s conciliar court, and that the patriarch called him to his conciliar court. The emperor writes in his letter to Metropolitan Theognost: “Concerning the Galician metropolitan, my royal majesty has determined that he come here for trial on the charges brought against him, which you have brought against him before and are now bringing again,” and invites the metropolitan to present charges to the patriarchal council, either to appear in person or to send authorized representatives 267. The Patriarch, in his letter to the former Galician metropolitan, writes: “Accusations have been brought against your holiness that require a conciliar investigation, therefore we order you to appear and appear at our sacred and divine council, so that, according to the conciliar investigation of those charges, what will be recognized as canonically fair 268 takes place. We also have some information about the closure of the metropolis. In the Nikon Chronicle it reads under the year 1347: “That same summer, the Most Reverend Theognost, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia, advised something spiritual with his son Grand Duke Semyon Ivanovich, and thus sent to Constantinople to the patriarch for a blessing” 269. The blessing that the metropolitan and the prince wanted to receive from the patriarch should probably be understood as the blessing of Simeon Ivanovich’s 3rd marriage, which he entered into after sending away his second wife 270; but along with the request to the patriarch for the blessing of the marriage, the emperor and the patriarch also received a request to close the Galician metropolitanate. About this last request, the emperor in his chrisovule about the closure of the metropolis says: “The local (Russian) Christians do not tolerate a violation of their custom (which is to be under the flock of one metropolitan); and now the most noble Grand Duke of Rus', Cyrus Simeon, reports this matter to my royal majesty and, together with other princes there, asks that by my royal chrisovul (separated into a special metropolis) the bishoprics should again be subordinated to the most holy metropolis of Kyiv, as it was before” 271. The modern Greek historian Nikifor Grigora reports that Grand Duke Simeon Ivanovich, together with other Russian princes, sent Emperor John Cantacuzenus a large sum of money to rebuild the eastern apse of the Constantinople St., which had fallen in 1345. Sofia 272. Accepting that the money was sent precisely in 1347 or around 1347, it is not incredible to think of their relationship to the closure of the Galician metropolis as one of two things, namely, either that they constituted gratitude for this closure or that the closure followed partly in gratitude for them 273. Like his three post-Mongol predecessors, Theognost traveled throughout his metropolis: in addition to his visit to Novgorod in 1329 and in addition to his two trips to the Volyn land, we also know from chronicles and from surviving historical acts that in 1340 he was in Bryansk, that in 1341 he visited Novgorod for the second time, and that in 1348–1349 for the second time he traveled to the Volyn land (returned to him in 1347) and that he was once in Kostroma (belonging to his own diocese 274). But one evidence we have about the travels of Theognostus allows us to suspect that they served not so much to benefit the government as to burden the clergy. About the Metropolitan’s arrival in Novgorod in 1341, the Novgorod chronicler says: “Metropolitan Fegnost Grechin arrived in Novgorod with many people, but it was hard for the ruler and the monastery to provide food and gifts.” That is, the metropolitan demanded from the archbishop (with the white clergy) and from the monasteries too expensive food for himself and his numerous retinue, and for both himself and his retinue, too large gifts. During his stay in Kostroma, Metropolitan Theognost held a cathedral. But about this council, besides the fact that it resolved a dispute between two bishops about the boundaries of the dioceses (Ryazan and Sarai 275), we know nothing more. According to one chronicle, in 1353, shortly before the death of Theognost, there was a “sleep in Moscow to (Grand Duke) Semion (Ivanovich) and Prince Konstantin Vasilyevich (to Suzdal) about the church account" 276 But what exactly the meeting or the congress was about remains completely unknown to us. It is possible that the council and the council made some important decisions that we should have known: but, as we have said many times before and as we will have to tell us many times after, our chroniclers behave in relation to church affairs in such a way that today’s church historians can only cry... In the afterword to one manuscript, written under the Grand Duke Ivan Danilovich Kalita in 1339, it is stated that “under his rule, godless heresies ceased” 277. If the scribe of the manuscript, who reveals in his (lengthy) afterword a penchant for writing, simply does not compose heresies, or if he does not mean by heresies something in the improper sense of the word, then for now we can say absolutely nothing about the heresies that occurred under Ivan Danilovich and in the first half of the reign of Metropolitan Theognostus. We said above that during the reign of St. Peter, we began a denunciatory sermon against the custom that existed among us, following Greece, of bishops charging fees for decrees in church degrees. During the reign of Metropolitan Theognostus, preaching continued. Currently known is the collection compiled under Ivan Danilovich († 1340), which is inscribed: “The book, called Vlasfimiya, reekshe blasphemes against heretics, - chapters different from the gospel and from the canon of the saints, the fathers, in them denunciations by God of the hated evil spirit-selling heresies.” The collection, consisting of 67 chapters, brings together in one place the canonical decrees of the church and the non-canonical writings of the fathers against simony or placement on a bribe. The purpose of the collection, as is clear from its contents, is to give the opponents of charging for supplies a panoplia or full weapon for the fight against custom and against its defenders. Unfortunately, we cannot report on the collection of immediate information, because it is known to us only from a very brief description 278. During the reign of Metropolitan Theognostus, in 1348, as our chronicles report, our Russian theologians were summoned to an international dispute with Latin theologians. Our neighbor Sweden, which was extremely devoted to Catholicism, as a result of the excitement caused by Rome, decided on such attempts as the subjugation of us Russians to Latinism by force of arms. We said above that the Swedes’ campaign against Novgorod in 1240, in which they suffered a terrible defeat from Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky, was nothing more than their crusade against us, undertaken with the now stated purpose. A century and a quarter after this defeat, the Swedes decided to undertake a new crusade against Russia. [In 1351, the pope encouraged the Swedes to crusade against the Russians, see his message to the Archbishop of Uppsala from March of this year in Turgenev in Historica Russiae Monimenta, I, 115.] But this time, as our chronicles tell, before turning to arms, they challenged our theologians to a dispute with their theologians. In the Novgorod Chronicle, under the year 1348, we read: “Magnush, the king of the Svei land, sent to Novgorod, the river: send your philosopher to the congress, (and) I will send my philosopher, let me talk (so that they can talk) about faith; but I want to hear which faith will be better; and if (if) your faith is better, then I will go to your faith, or if our faith is better, you will go to our faith, and we will all be for one person, or you will not (or if you don’t go) into unity, and I want to come against you with all my strength.” Sweden had some education in the 14th century, must have had learned theologians to some extent, and there is no doubt that the Swedish king was completely confident in the victory of his philosopher over the Russian philosopher. In Novgorod, on the contrary, they must have been very well aware that our theologians would not emerge victorious from the proposed scientific battle. Having received a challenge from the king, the Novgorod authorities, with the then Bishop Vasily at their head, organized a nationwide meeting and after the meeting answered Magnus: “If you want to find out which faith is better - ours or yours, we went to Constantinople to the patriarch, since we have received the orthodox faith from Greece, and we are not arguing with you about the faith.” After the Novgorodians refused to debate about faith, the king actually went to war against them, but the war was small and had a happy end for the Novgorodians 279. At the same time as refusing to debate with Latin theologians, our theologians had their own debates at home. From the ruler of Novgorod Vasily, who in 1348 rejected the challenge of the king of Sweden and who died in 1352, a message to the bishop of Tver Theodore about earthly paradise has been preserved to this day 280. From this message we learn that in Tver there were disputes about whether the earthly paradise, in which Adam was settled by God after creation and in which he remained in a state of innocence, perished or did not perish. Bishop Theodore of Tver belonged to the side of those who claimed that this paradise had perished, that is, it no longer existed. But the Archbishop of Novgorod was of the opposite opinion. Having learned about the strife taking place in Tver and what opinion the bishop held, Vladyka Vasily wrote a letter to Foedor, in which he claims that paradise has not perished, but still exists. The archbishop proves his opinion by reference to the apocrypha, which says about some saints that some of them lived near paradise, while others were in it itself, and finally, by reference to his Novgorod merchants, who, sailing on the Black or Caspian Sea, were allegedly carried by a storm to the place of holy paradise. We will say more about this letter from Archbishop Basil to Bishop Theodore and its contents elsewhere. In 1353, just before the death of Metropolitan Theognostus, Archbishop Moses of Novgorod, who had shortly before taken the see for the second time instead of the deceased Vasily, sent ambassadors to Constantinople to the emperor and patriarch, “asking from them, according to the testimony of the Novgorod Chronicle, blessings and corrections about indecent things coming with violence from the metropolitan.” Unfortunately, it remains unknown to us exactly what the indecent things consisted of. The Nikon Chronicle makes it clear that the complaint was regarding protoris on orders and regarding church duties for saints 281. Since there could not be a complaint regarding the protories that were collected by the bishops from the lower clergy, for it is impossible to imagine that the metropolitan would lower the size of these protories: it is necessary to understand the protories that were collected by the metropolitans from the bishops themselves and to understand the matter in such a way that Theognostus took or demanded too much from Moses for the second occupation of the see by him 282. As for church hierarchal duties, they should mean those duties that were levied by the metropolitans from the lower clergy of the entire metropolis and the matter should be understood to mean that Theognostus raised these duties. The patriarch's decision on the archbishop's complaint followed under Theognostus' successor, St. Alexie. In speeches about the latter we will talk about it. Metropolitan Theognostus acquired the right to the greatest gratitude of Moscow not only because he himself was her faithful and zealous friend and did everything he could to promote her political rise, but also because he took care and managed to leave a successor on his own, who brought the alliance of the highest church power with the princes of Moscow to its end and to its indissolubility. Theognostus, like St. Petra, had Moscow as its actual capital; But this stay of the second metropolitan in Moscow did not create an indispensable obligation for the third metropolitan - his successor - to do the same: The successor of Theognostus, like the successor of St. Peter, could return again to Vladimir and there, under the influence of other princes, become from a friend of Moscow its enemy; and yet the princes of Moscow were not yet in such a position that the possibility of such a case was completely excluded. Metropolitan Theognostus left in St. Alexie is a successor in his own right, who could completely replace himself for Moscow. This service of Theognostus to Moscow is all the more valuable because, being a Greek, in this case he went against his own Greek interests, for the appointment of Russian metropolitans from natural Russians, such as St. Alexy, the patriarchal see of Constantinople was far from considered a desirable thing. The Greek historian Nikephoros Gregoras, contemporary to Theognostus, reports news about our Russian metropolitan as a theologian, namely, the news about how Theognostus reacted to the so-called Palamite disputes that arose in Constantinople in 1341 (regarding the teaching of Gregory Palamas about the uncreated Tabor divine light). But the news cannot be considered completely reliable. Being a bitter enemy of Palamas and his teaching, Grigora assures that the Russian Metropolitan also reacted to the teaching with decisive hostility. He says that the adherents of the Palamite party, wanting to drag Theognostus into the abyss of their own destruction, sent him, like all other bishops, new volumes (the volume or definition of the council of 1341, which recognized and approved the teachings of Palamas), but that he, having read (the writings sent to him) and saw (in them) the darkness of blasphemies and the despotically dominating (in them) Hellenic polytheism, immediately threw (them) to the ground and, covering his ears with great haste, jumped away from the evil hearing - that he wrote lengthy reproaches, with the proper denunciations and evidence from the Holy Scriptures, and sent them to the patriarch and bishops, calling these latter godless and polytheistic and extremely shameless retaliators and persecutors of fatherly traditions and subjecting them to the appropriate anathema 283. We said above that, according to the testimony of the same Grigora, Grand Duke Simeon Ivanovich with other Russian princes sent Emperor John Cantacuzenus a large sum of money for the restoration of the fallen eastern apse of St. Sofia. Whatever the relationship of this large sum of money to the closure of the Galician metropolitanate, in all likelihood one must think that the emperor owed it mainly to Metropolitan Theognostus and his Greek, in particular Constantinople, patriotism, for, according to Grigora, his homeland was Constantinople. Gregoras’s praises are not particularly reliable, since he was too guided by party views and since we know the complete inconsistency of some of his censures, but, in any case, he speaks of Metropolitan Theognostus with very great praise, calls him a wise and God-loving man and says that in Constantinople, which was his homeland and which he served as an adornment, while still a youth he acquired knowledge of divine canons and laws 284 . And two of our own chronicles call Theognostus a great mentor 285. We said above that to some extent he may be suspected of the passion of love of money. About the systematic papal propaganda in southwestern Rus', which began from the time of Metropolitan Theognostus and somewhat earlier than him - from the last years of the reign of St. Peter, we will say below, in a special department dedicated to this propaganda. Metropolitan Theognostus, died on March 11, 1353 286. He is buried in the church he built. Peter (which, as we said above, did not constitute an independent church, but a chapel of the Church of the Assumption of the Mother of God or the Assumption Cathedral. He was laid in his church against the wall with his predecessor St. Peter 287. The successor of Metropolitan Theognostus, as we have already made clear above, was St. Alexy. Like Cyril III and St. To Peter, he was a natural Russian and by his parents, like both of them, he was a southerner, although born in the north. Sources of information about the life of St. Alexei, just as about the life of St. Peter, should serve in addition to the chronicles of his life, of which we have not even two, but five. But these five lives provide even less information about Alexy than the two about Peter. They talk about his origins, about his tonsure as a monk and monastic life, about his appointment as a metropolitan; but they do not say a word about his activities in the rank of metropolitan, either church or state. It may very well be that in this case the lack of information is not due to reluctance to communicate it, but due to lack of it. The first biography of St. Alexia, Bishop of Perm Pitirim, whom subsequent biographers were not able to supplement on their own behalf and whose work they reproduce only in new literary editions, with small additions from written sources, composed his legend no earlier than about 70 years after the death of St. Alexia. And with such a remoteness in the life of the saint, his biographer could find it impossible to collect information, despite all the desire to communicate it 288. Lack of Russian information about St. Alexia, gleaned from chronicles and from lives, is largely supplemented by information that we find in Greek acts that have survived to this day 289. St. Alexy came from a very noble boyar family, in other words, he was a noble (noble) aristocrat by origin. His father Feodor Byakont was a Chernigov boyar; from Chernigov, which was deserted after the Mongol invasion and completely fallen, 290 he came to serve in Moscow with Prince Daniil Alexandrovich and was accepted here as one of the very first boyars 291. St. Alexy, who received the names Simeon-Elevtherius in baptism, was the eldest son of Theodore Byakont and was born to him after his arrival in Moscow between 1293-1298 292. The godfather of the first son of the newly arrived boyar was the son of Prince Daniil Alexandrovich himself, Ivan Danilovich (later known as Kalita). Bishop Pitirim assures that Simeon-Elevtherius received an excellent education in the sense of that time; he says about him: “even as a child, he studied all the literacy and knowledge of all the books,” i.e., that after studying literacy or the art of reading, in his youth he acquired perhaps good book knowledge 293. At the age of 20-21, Simeon-Elevtherius decided to devote himself to monastic life and became a monk with the name Alexy in one of the monasteries located in Moscow itself, namely Epiphany, which exists to this day 294. Alexy spent in the monastery, “good, according to Pitirim, he strived for virtue and corrected all the monastic life,” 22 years - 27,295 years. But then his godfather, Grand Duke Ivan Danilovich Kalita, and Metropolitan Theognost came to the idea regarding him to be the latter’s successor at the metropolitan department. I said above that the stay of Theognostus, following St. Peter, in Moscow did not in any way create an obligation for his successor to do the same: Theognostus’ successor might again want to return to Vladimir, meanwhile the Prince of Moscow did not yet feel in such a position as to completely hope to prevent such an accident. Wanting to eliminate the possibility of such an accident, Ivan Danilovich and Metropolitan Theognost decided to do what the first of them unsuccessfully did together with St. Peter, namely, to elect a candidate for the metropolitan see. With this decision, the choice of prince and metropolitan fell on Alexy. Very close to the court of the Grand Duke by birth, the son of the boyar Byakont should not have broken his ties with the court and retired to a monastery, especially to a monastery located in Moscow itself. On the contrary, now these connections of his were to become even closer, for now he appeared in the palace not as a servant, but as a monk, bringing blessings and soul-saving conversation. Alexy had brilliant talents, and the Grand Duke could not help but notice this upon his closest observation; The Grand Duke could not doubt the complete devotion of his godson to himself and his home: and all this was to decide his choice. As a result of this decision, immediately after the death of Ivan Danilovich, in the first year of the reign of his son Semyon Ivanovich, namely at the end of 1340, St. Alexy, as a pre-elected candidate for metropolitan, was made metropolitan governor 296. Alexy spent more than 12 years in the position of metropolitan governor, which consisted mainly of being a metropolitan judge 297. In 1350, in the 11th year of Alexiev's governorship, Metropolitan Theognost fell into illness 298. Realizing the disease was dangerous, the Metropolitan, together with Grand Duke Semyon Ivanovich, sent an embassy to Constantinople to the Emperor and Patriarch with a request that in the event of his death, Theognostus would not be installed as a Russian metropolitan Greek, but a candidate would be appointed who would be sent from Moscow. After the death of St. Peter Ivan Danilovich Kalita sent his candidate to Constantinople with a similar request, and the request was not respected. But Ivan Danilovich, immediately after the death of Peter, was not the Grand Duke of Russia, so he could not have his own authority in the eyes of the patriarch and had to face decisive opposition from the Grand Duke (who was the Tver Prince Alexander Mikhailovich). Semyon Ivanovich was the Grand Duke of Russia, and, moreover, a Grand Duke who was already aware of his strength to such an extent that he was given the title of Proud. Moreover, Metropolitan Theognostus was a Greek and, to put it in trivial language, should have known all the entrances and exits in Constantinople, i.e. had to know what ways to conduct business there in order to achieve success. Be that as it may, the embassy returned from Constantinople with a response from the emperor and patriarch that the request was accepted. Before the embassy returned from Constantinople, at the beginning of December 1352, three months before his death, Theognostus installed Alexy as bishop of Vladimir, that is, as his metropolitan vicar 299. It is not entirely clear why he did this and, moreover, in a strange way he gave him the title of Vladimir, while he himself was Vladimir. One can to some extent suspect that in case of failure of his request in Constantinople, i.e., that if in Constantinople they did not want to agree to the installation of Alexy as metropolitan and installed a metropolitan from the Greeks, then this one, having come to Russia and finding the Vladimir department occupied, would inevitably have to agree to live in Moscow and become instead of the Kiev-Vladimir Kiev-Moscow. Metropolitan Theognost died from his illness, which began in 1350, on March 11, 1353, 300, and 47 days after him, on April 26, Grand Duke Semyon Ivanovich also died from the general disease that was then raging in Russia, which chroniclers call the black death, leaving the grand ducal throne to his brother Ivan Ivanovich. The embassy, ​​returning from Constantinople from the emperor and patriarch, found neither one nor the other alive. Immediately after the arrival of the ambassadors from Constantinople, who returned shortly after the death of Theognostus and Semyon Ivanovich 301, Alexy went there to be appointed metropolitan. However, although Constantinople expressed consent to install him, he was not installed immediately as he appeared in the face of the emperor and patriarch. The act of the patriarchal council on his elevation to metropolitan 302 has been preserved to this day. From this act it turns out that he lived in Constantinople on probation for a whole year. The emperor and the patriarch expressed their consent to the appointment of a natural Russian as a Russian metropolitan, but not at all with any particular desire, and they wanted to make sure that the candidate sent was such that he could be installed safely, that is, that he retained due obedience to the patriarch: and therefore they kept him in Constantinople for a whole year, wanting to examine him, which, i.e., what kind of test, is directly stated in the act of the conciliar 303. Since such morals prevailed in Constantinople at that time that no test could be passed without proper application, no matter how high the qualities were and no matter how indisputable the rights of the subject 304 were: then with a high probability one must think that the long test to which Alexy was subjected cost him very dearly and that he was forced to attend the funeral of the imperial and patriarchal officials, if not to present gifts to the emperor and patriarch themselves, spend a large and very large amount of money. He was elevated by the patriarch, who was then Philotheus 305, from the bishops of Vladimir to the metropolitan of Kyiv and all Russia in the month of June 1354 306. In the aforementioned conciliar act regarding the case of his installation as a Russian metropolitan, as a natural Russian, it is written: “although such a thing is completely unusual and unsafe for the church, however, for the sake of reliable and laudable testimonies about him (Alexy) and for the sake of his virtuous and godly life, we judged this to be, but (this) is relative to Alexy’s cyrus alone and we do not at all allow and do not allow it to happen in the future Russian bishop (metropolitan) is someone else, rushing (here) from there: Russian metropolitans should be appointed from (clergy) of this God-glorified, God-exalted and prosperous Constantinople.” Then, the conciliar letter makes an order to the Metropolitan regarding his visits to Constantinople: “Since he (Cyr Alexy) must, as the divine and sacred canons command, come here out of duty of his dependence on God’s holy universal and apostolic church and according to the prescription of the canons, but does not have the convenience of coming every year, both due to the distance of the journey and its difficulty: then we command that he every two years, since the matter is subject to reporting (εὐθυντοῦ ὄντος τοῦ πράγματος, - since he must give an account in the management of the metropolis?), he came here both for his very duty, which lies on him, and for the necessary church needs, as well as for (resolution) of important issues arising throughout his district. [The words εὐθυντοῦ ὄντος τοῦ πράγματος A. S. Pavlov translates: if there is a matter that requires reasoning, - col. 50, middle. We do not agree with him because matters that require reasoning are discussed further (“according to the necessary church needs that arise”), so that his translation results in a not entirely correct pleonasm; at the same time, the word εὐθυντός (in Pavlov, following Miklosic, it is incorrect εὐθύντου instead of εὐθυν τοῦ) - more for a report than for reasoning. (We indicate the translation of A. S-cha in view of the possible case that we are mistaken, and not he)]. If, due to some weakness or other obstacles, he is not able to personally appear at the sacred and divine council held with us, then he is obliged to choose and send here from his clergy whom he finds capable. And to convey through your own, properly sealed, letters about urgently needed matters, so that by the grace of God they receive proper dispensation and correction here.” We said before that in Greece, in relation to the obligation to appear at patriarchal councils, metropolitans were divided into two categories - metropolitans who had districts of subordinate bishops under them and metropolitans who did not have such districts, or titular ones. The latter were obliged to appear annually to the patriarch in order to form his σύνοδον ὲνδημοῦσαν with him; as for the first, they had to come to the patriarch at his council only as needed 307. Since Metropolitan Alexy belonged to the first category of metropolitans, the demand that the conciliar act made on him did not apply to him. It is more likely to assume that it was presented to him for the reason that he was a natural Russian. Obliging Alexy to appear before himself every two years, the patriarch wanted to have constant evidence of his proper obedience. We do not know whether Alexei fulfilled the demand of the council by sending his delegates to Constantinople, but as for his own travels to it, during his entire 24-year stay at the department he was there only twice, including this time. Alexy's ordeal in Constantinople did not end with receiving the rank of metropolitan. On the contrary, now a new stage of testing has begun for him there. Eight to ten months before the death of Metropolitan Theognostus, a certain Theodorite appeared in Constantinople and solicited the patriarch to become a Russian metropolitan. The Patriarch, as he himself says, 308, having carried out a thorough examination (of the matter) and learned that Metropolitan Theognostus was still alive, did not accept Theodoret and told him to wait until he, the patriarch, dealt with Russia (with Russia) and learned the truth about Theognostus. Then Theodoret fled from Constantinople to Ternov and bought himself ordination as metropolitan from the Bulgarian Patriarch. While Alexy was in Constantinople, awaiting his appointment as metropolitan, Theodoret appeared in Kyiv and sat down at the metropolitan see there. The news that we find about Theodoret in the patriarchal letters is not entirely clear; but they can be explained without difficulty and with confidence. It is impossible to think that Theodoret was an unauthorized adventurer who would wildly hope that he would come to Constantinople, express here a desire to receive the see of the Russian metropolitanate, and it would actually be given to him; it is necessary to think that he was sent to Constantinople from southwestern Rus' in order to be installed as a separate Galician-Lithuanian metropolitan. And if the patriarch speaks about him in such a way that it is as if he was looking to occupy the see of the metropolis of all Russia: then in the speeches of the patriarch one must see nothing more than simple inaccuracy and unreasonableness. (Perhaps they were intentional in order to present Theodoret, who allowed himself to turn to the Patriarch of Ternovsky for initiation, as a person who came to Constantinople with absurd claims). In 1347, as we said above 309, Metropolitan Theognost, together with Grand Duke Simeon Ivanovich, managed to achieve the closure of the separate Galician-Lithuanian metropolis. But in Galicia and Lithuania, of which the first then fell under the rule of Poland, which had Casimir the Great (1333–1370) as its king, and in the second the famous Olgerd (1341–1380), son of Gediminas, was the Grand Duke, they could immediately resume the attempt to acquire a new metropolitan, for although in the acts and charters of 1347 the division of the Russian metropolitanate for two special metropolises was called a novelty and a lawless matter, but the king and the grand duke could not help but know well that these were empty words that meant nothing and to which, if the request was supported by other “weighty” evidence, they could not pay any attention. The Patriarch says that he answered Theodoret to wait until he, the Patriarch, having dealt with Russia, learned the truth about Theognostus. This means that Theodoret came to Constantinople with complaints against Theognostus, precisely, as one must think, with that usual complaint among Galicians and Lithuanians that the metropolitan living in the north was neglecting the Galician-Lithuanian part of his metropolis. What made Theodoret flee from Constantinople to seek an illegal appointment with the Patriarch of Tern is not clear. But even though he was installed illegally, he was accepted by Olgerd and sat in Kyiv as Metropolitan of Galicia-Lithuania (if he was accepted by Olgerd, then it is clear that he was sent by him). Alexy did not look for a conciliar verdict from the patriarch, by which the separation of Lithuania into a special metropolitanate would be declared, as in 1347, to be a lawless matter (because, of course, he found this search at the moment vain and impossible); but in relation to Theodoret, he had two requests to the patriarch. As we said above, there is a possibility to think that individual Galician-Lithuanian metropolitans who were contemporary with Theognost until 1347 challenged and took over from him Kyiv, which remained the true capital of the metropolitans of all Russia, but from 1321 it became Lithuanian in terms of statehood. [The words about when Kyiv became Lithuanian, due to an oversight, were not corrected in accordance with what we say on page 128 (electronic version - footnote No. 213, corr.) (and on pp. 160–161 in note 3, electronic version - footnote No. 268, corr.).] Theodoret really did what is probably possible assume about his predecessors: he took possession of Kiev and settled in it, as in his cathedral city. Secondly, Alexy feared that Theodoret might make attempts to subordinate the Novgorod diocese to his power. Just before the death of Metropolitan Theognostus, as we also said above, the ruler of Novgorod sent an embassy to Constantinople with a complaint about indecent things coming with violence from the metropolitan: naturally, Alexy could be afraid that Theodoret, taking advantage of this, would try to win over the Novgorod archbishop to his side. Thus, Alexy turned to the patriarch with two requests: firstly, that Kyiv be returned to him from under Theodoret; secondly, so that he, the patriarch, would use his assistance to prevent Theodorit’s encroachments on Novgorod. The Patriarch granted both of Alexy's requests. In fulfillment of the first request, the patriarch drew up a conciliar definition 310, which recognizes and approves the resettlement of the metropolitans of all Russia to live from Kyiv to Vladimir that happened under Maxim, or the transfer of their seat (κάθισμα) from the first to the last, as accomplished through a blessed fault, but which at the same time recognizes and declares the metropolitans and for their first seat (οἰκεῖος θρόνος καὶ πρῶτον καθισμα) Kyiv, and encroachments on it by the Metropolitan of Galicia-Lithuania are rejected and condemned as predatory violence. In fulfillment of the second request, the patriarch wrote a letter to the Novgorod archbishop (referred to in the letter as bishop 311), in which he informs this latter that Theodoret received consecration as a metropolitan completely illegally - that he, the patriarch, has already written about this to all the places there, i.e., to Lithuania and Galicia, and in which he forbids the archbishop to recognize an illegal metropolitan under threat excommunication. Now, with what has been said, the new, which had a different and worse meaning, Alexy’s test in Constantinople did not end, but, on the contrary, it had just begun. We mentioned that Alexy did not seek from the patriarch a conciliar verdict, by which the separation of Lithuania into a special metropolitanate would be declared a lawless matter; the patriarch satisfies Alexy's requests regarding Theodoret, but at the same time does not say at all that he would not allow the installation of a special metropolitan for Lithuania, which he should have said if his thoughts really were like that. Based on the absence of these general speeches, it is very likely to assume that the patriarch, having written to Olgerd about the illegality of Theodoret, expressed his readiness to legally install a special metropolitan for Lithuania. Be that as it may, in reality this was exactly the case. As a result of the letters sent by the Patriarch to Lithuania and Galicia, about which he speaks in the letter to the Archbishop of Novgorod, Theodoret, who was illegally appointed metropolitan, was removed there from the metropolitan see; but immediately after the removal of the illegally installed metropolitan, Olgerd sent to Constantinople another candidate for installation as metropolitan of Lithuania - a certain Roman, who arrived in Constantinople and was consecrated there when Alexy had not yet left Constantinople. Having been appointed metropolitan, Roman, like Theodoret, expressed his claims to Kyiv as the capital of his separate metropolis: for this reason, a long struggle ensued between the two Russian metropolitans who were in Constantinople 312. The decision of the Patriarchal Council regarding the claims of Theodoret, apparently, had already decided the matter. That is, it was decided that Kyiv should remain under the Metropolitan of Vladimir or All Russia, as his senior table. But the struggle between the two Russian metropolitans presented such an attractive prospect of profit for the imperial and patriarchal officials that they could not help but give it full speed, and on the other hand, perhaps, the Grand Duke of Lithuania demanded a new review of the matter. The struggle, indeed, cost both litigants so dearly that they did not have enough money, and they sent ambassadors to Rus', both to the same Bishop of Tver, Theodore, so that a collection would be made from the clergy, and, moreover, one must think, an intensified collection, because, as our chronicle says, as a consequence of this arrival of ambassadors, “the burden of greatness was imposed on the priestly rank everywhere” 313 . Alexy addressed the bishop of Tver as the bishop of his metropolis, although it is not entirely clear that he addressed him specifically and not any other 314. As for Roman, he must have turned to the Bishop of Tver due to his special relationship with the Tver princes. These princes, sworn enemies of Moscow, were allies and relatives of Olgerd of Lithuania 315, whose candidate was Roman; in addition, there are indications that he himself was a relative of the princes of Tver 316, and, therefore, one must think that he was recommended to Olgerd as a candidate for metropolitan by these very princes. So, he, Roman, could count that the princes of Tver would force their bishop, having broken away from the power of the Metropolitan of Vladimir and all Russia, to recognize the power of him, the Metropolitan of Lithuania, and in any case he could count that the princes would force the bishop to send money to him, and not to Alexy. To whom the money was actually sent, we do not know; in all likelihood and more than likely - to Alexy. Be that as it may, in the end, he defeated his opponent, and Kyiv was left to him 317. During the stay of St. Alexy in Constantinople followed the decision of the patriarch on the complaint of the Novgorod Archbishop Moses against Metropolitan Theognostus. Regarding this decision, in the Novgorod Chronicle under the year 1354 it reads: “that same summer, the ambassador of the Archbishop of Novgorod, Bishop Moses, came from Tsaryagrad and brought him robes of the cross and letters with a great award from the Tsar and the Patriarch and a golden seal.” From the words of the chronicler it would follow that the archbishop had complete success with the patriarch with his complaint. But he, the chronicler, speaks of one letter from the patriarch to the archbishop, which was sent to the latter with his ambassadors, and wisely keeps silent about another letter, which was sent to him some time after the return of the ambassadors. The first letter did not reach us 318, and we know about it from the second letter: in this second letter it is made known that the first letter was indeed written in a very favorable tone or contained a “great grant”, and the chronicler’s news is indeed confirmed that the patriarch gave the archbishop robes of baptism, although with the explanation that the archbishop himself asked for these vestments from the patriarch, referring to the fact that that Metropolitan Theognostus gave them to his predecessor Vasily. But after the first letter, the archbishop received a second letter from the patriarch. We do not know how it happened - whether it was so that the archbishop’s ambassadors managed to receive the letter from the patriarch when Alexy had not yet arrived in Constantinople, or whether it was so that they received it after his arrival there. If the latter, then in any case it was during the very first time of his stay in Constantinople, when he, having not yet received the rank of metropolitan, had just begun to endure his test there. In this situation, it was very inconvenient for him to enter into any decisive litigation with the archbishop’s ambassadors before the patriarch. But the ambassadors left, and Alexy remained in Constantinople, passed the test and, having gained the full favor of the patriarch, received the rank of metropolitan. Then things changed. Regarding the archbishop's complaint, the metropolitan probably presented to the patriarch that it was unfounded, and then he brought a counter-complaint against the archbishop in disobedience, having at the same time the fact that during his stay in Constantinople, the Novgorodians, of course, not without the blessing of the archbishop, were working in the Horde to have the grand-ducal throne after Simeon Ivanovich went not to his brother Ivan Ivanovich, but to the rival of the Moscow prince, the Suzdal prince Konstantin Vasilyevich. And immediately or shortly after the installation of Alexy as metropolitan, the patriarch sent the Archbishop of Novgorod a second letter, which no longer contained a “great grant” 319. Bypassing the archbishop's complaint in complete silence, the patriarch urgently and decisively invites him in the letter to show unquestioning and completely due obedience to his metropolitan. At the same time, he instructs him that in those cases when he finds it necessary to write to him, the patriarch, about something, he should do this only with the knowledge of the metropolitan, with the exception of one case, if the metropolitan took away from him the baptismal vestments given to him by the patriarch. (We suspect quite a bit that the main reason for Archbishop Moses’ complaint against Metropolitan Theognost was these baptized vestments, which the Metropolitan for some reason did not want to give to the archbishop after he had given them to his predecessor - that this not only greatly offended Moses himself, but also all the Novgorodians who could look at the baptized vestments given by Theognost Archbishop Vasily, as a distinction once and for all granted to their rulers). The second letter of the patriarch to the Archbishop of Novgorod, which we have spoken about now, complements our information about the care with which the patriarch wanted to guarantee himself regarding Alexy’s obedience to him, as he had been appointed Russian metropolitan from among the natural Russians. The letter states that “representative” or recommendatory documents were requested for him, i.e., as it should probably be implied, surety letters, letters of the Russian bishops, and that the patriarch, if we understand him correctly, did not first want to release Alexy from Constantinople until he received these letters. During his trials, which we have just discussed, St. Alexy lived in Constantinople for two whole years - a year before his elevation to metropolitan and a year after his elevation to metropolitan. He returned to Russia in the fall of 1355 320. He held the metropolitan see for 24 years, from 1354 to the beginning of 1378. We know absolutely nothing about his church and government activities, despite the duration of the latter, except how many and what kind of bishops he installed during his time as metropolitan. His first biographer, Pitirim, reads a very brief general review of this activity, which is the following: “St. Alexy’s continuation in the priesthood and teaching of the summer is content, teaching the word of God and fighting through piety, ruling the true word of the Orthodox faith, appointing bishops, priests and deacons” 321. Preserved to this day from St. Alexy’s teaching message or teaching to his flock, promulgated by him, as it is given in the message, when he occupied the metropolitan see 322. At the beginning of the letter, the saint says that he is addressing his flock, “before he must eat and teach them.” But after this introductory letter, did he write in imitation of St. Peter, and other general teaching messages addressed to the entire flock, remains unknown to us. In addition to one general teaching message, we have preserved from St. Alexy, as evidence of his archpastoral zeal for teaching, two private teaching messages, one of which is addressed to the clergy and laity of Nizhny Novgorod and Gorodets, and the other to the residents of the Chervleny Yar region, the current Voronezh province. In 1365, as discussed below, St. Alexy took from the bishop of Suzdal and annexed Nizhny Novgorod and Gorodets with their districts to his metropolitan diocese. It was probably on this occasion that he wrote a teaching message to the clergy and laity of the Novgorod and Gorodets region 323. The second private teaching letter was added by St. Alexy for a business letter. He needed to inform the residents of the Chervleny Yar region that between the two bishops of Ryazan and Sarai who were arguing about them, they should recognize the first of the two as their legitimate bishop - and to the official letter about this he added a teaching word addressed to the residents of the region 324. In the first or general teaching letter of St. Alexy contains instructions - exhortations to “Christ-loving Christians”: to love each other; have the fear of God in your hearts; keep the commandments of God, bringing daily repentance for your sins, doing alms and avoiding inappropriate deeds, such as: fornication, drunkenness, robbery, violence, sorcery and all sorts of cobis, unsatisfaction of wealth and all evil possessions, to have in your mind death with reward to each according to your deeds; princes, boyars and nobles judge the court rightly and mercifully and do not take bribes from the innocent; to all laity (“human children”): fear God and honor the prince and priests; flock to confession to the spiritual fathers, remembering at the same time that true repentance is to hate one’s previous sins; to diligently go to churches for public worship, without thinking of replacing it with home prayer, and at the same time - intending to go to them, to be at peace with everyone, to enter them with fear and reverence and the fear of God, and to stand in them, thinking about one’s sins and not engaging in conversation. In a message to abbots, priests and deacons and all Christians - St. Nizhny Novgorod and Gorodets. Alexy tells the abbots and priests about their duty to teach the laity and exhort them to this. In particular, he instructs to teach the fear of God, confession of sins and alms according to strength - so that the strong do not offend the lesser, so that everyone has peace, love and truth among themselves, so that they are partakers of the body and blood of Christ and so that they cut off from themselves “the root of evil, rebellion to all iniquity” - drunkenness. After this, again, he exhorts the abbots and priests to lead the laity on the path of the commandments and “to the whole truth,” presenting to them that they must have great care for the verbal flock of Christ. In conclusion, he exhorts the laity to have honor, submission and obedience to their spiritual fathers, since these latter command them what is beneficial to their souls and saved. The letter to Chervleny Yar, the inhabitants of the region of which, representing a Ukrainian rabble, were, in all likelihood, very bad Christians, contains admonitions: to fulfill the commandments of Christ, having peace with each other, truth, chastity, alms, confession of one’s sins, and to avoid dark deeds: all malice and sorrow (enmity), rage and anger, fornication and adultery, resentment and envy, murder and drunkenness. Repent and turn to God, remembering death and resurrection and the Last Judgment; love priests and monks and ask for their prayers; to have mercy and look after widows, orphans, polyanyniks and strange people; visit those in prison. From very brief speeches about the church and government activities of St. Alexy must return to his speeches about those church and government troubles of his, which regarding the separate Lithuanian metropolitanate began from the very moment of his appointment as metropolitan. Alexy and Roman, having been judged in Constantinople, arrived in Rus'. But the Metropolitan of Lithuania was extremely dissatisfied that he failed to take possession of Kiev under the Metropolitan of Moscow. No less, and even more than the metropolitan, Olgerd himself should have been dissatisfied with this, who, as one must think, connected extremely important political plans with the idea of ​​​​taking away the ecclesiastical power over Kiev from the Metropolitan of Moscow. And the very next year after returning from Constantinople, in 1356, Roman went there again to again seek himself from the Patriarch of Kyiv 325. Upon his arrival in Constantinople, Alexy was also summoned there 326, and between the two metropolitans again a “great dispute” 327 took place before the patriarch and his council, as our chronicle reports. But this time, too, Alexy prevailed over Roman: the patriarch and the council confirmed their previous verdict so that Kyiv would remain the metropolitan of all Russia, which was the metropolitan of Vladimir-Moscow 328. Only, if we correctly understand the not entirely detailed speeches of the conciliar act conveying information 329, the dioceses of Little Russia were subordinate to Roman, by which we should mean the part of Little Russia that then depended on Poland, as well as Galicia conquered by the Poles (and which, if we correctly understand the speeches of the cathedral, until then, therefore, was under the authority of Alexy). Roman’s secondary failure not only did not stop Alexy’s troubles, but, on the contrary, increased them even more. Vexed to the last degree by the patriarch, Romanus, without saying goodbye to him, left Constantinople 330 and, returning home, by agreement with Algerd, decided to take by force what he could not obtain legally. Claiming that it was not Metropolitan Alexy of Moscow, but he, Metropolitan of Lithuania, who was the real metropolitan of all Russia, and in fact acquiring this title for himself, he began to come to Kyiv to serve there and perform ordinations. Carrying out, together with Olgerd, the principle that everything that belonged to Lithuania in civil terms should also belong to him, the Metropolitan of Lithuania, in church terms, he made new thefts from Alexy: in 1356, Olgerd took possession of Bryansk and the Chernigov region, and he - Roman hastened to express his claims to the Bryansk bishopric (former or displaced Chernigovskaya 331. Trying to take revenge on Alexy in every possible way, he aroused Olgerd, who, however, had exactly the same feelings for the Moscow Metropolitan as he did, so that the Prince of Lithuania attacked the city of Aleksin, which belonged to the Moscow See as a patrimonial property, and plundered it 332. All this prompted St. Alexy in 1357 sent his ambassadors to Constantinople with complaints against Roman to the Patriarch 333. For a long time in Constantinople, the case was examined by listening to representatives of both metropolitans, and the ambassadors of the Metropolitan of Lithuania warned the ambassadors of the Metropolitan of Moscow by the arrival there 334; finally, the patriarch decided to send the apocrisiaries to Russia to study the matter on the spot. While all this was going on, Alexy had to drink the cup of evil to the bottom. Having sent his ambassadors to Constantinople with complaints against Roman, he himself, in the month of January 1358, undertook a trip to Kyiv to visit the first capital of his metropolis, which had been taken from him by the Lithuanian Metropolitan. But here, according to the account of one of the later acts of the Council of Constantinople, what happened to him was that Olgerd, who had the greatest hatred for him, “took him away by deception, took him into custody, took away valuable utensils from him, and perhaps would have killed him if he, with the assistance of some, had not fled secretly and thus got rid of danger” 335. To investigate the metropolitans on the spot, the patriarch sent his apocrisiaries to Russia in the summer or autumn of 1361 336. We do not know whether this trial was started by the apocrisiaries, but, in any case, it was not completed; this is for the reason that soon after the arrival of the Apocrisiaries in Russia, at the end of 1361, Romanus suffered death 337. After the death of Roman, Olgerd failed to ensure that a new special Lithuanian-Galician metropolitan was installed in his place; on the contrary, Alexy managed to ensure that the Lithuanian-Galician metropolis was reunited with his metropolis of all Russia. This unity of the metropolis did not remain until the end of the reign of St. Alexia, but it lasted quite a long time. We will return to its new division below. Having absolutely no information about St. Alexy as a church ruler, we have some information about him as a statesman. St. Alexy was chosen as the successor to Metropolitan Theognostus in Russia itself, as we said, with the goal that he could be for the princes of Moscow what Theognostus himself and his predecessor St. were for them. Peter. St. Alexy did not disappoint the hopes placed on him; but the circumstances of the time demanded that he become a statesman in relation to Moscow in a closer and more personal sense of the word than in which his two predecessors were. St. Peter and Theognostus had a stay in Moscow instead of Vladimir, making it their actual capital city, and provided the princes of Moscow with their assistance in their state affairs, as far as they could and as far as the princes sought this from them; but they were not called participants in government and stood outside it. The circumstances of the time placed St. Alexy at the head of state administration, so that he was a metropolitan and at the same time the first statesman, the head of the boyar duma of his princes. It fell to him to occupy the metropolitan see at a time when the princes of Moscow were people who demanded guardianship over themselves. In the same year as Metropolitan Theognost, 47 days after him, Prince Simeon Ivanovich died and left his brother Ivan Ivanovich as his successor. This Ivan Ivanovich was, as the chronicles say, a “quiet and meek” sovereign, that is, a weak sovereign. Ivan Ivanovich died in 1359 and left his son Dimitri Ivanovich, a 9-year-old boy, as his successor. Both princes, one due to weakness, the other due to his infancy, had a need for a leader and guardian over themselves: and the leader - guardian of both was he - St. Alexy. We do not know positively whether he was the real or official head of state administration under Ivan Ivanovich; Simeon Ivanovich, in his spiritual testament, written before his death, orders his brothers - Ivan Ivanovich and Andrei Ivanovich (who died shortly after himself): “they would listen to the nature of our father, Vladyka Oleksei, as well as the old boyars, who wanted good for our father and for us” 338, and with this it seemed as if he was formally putting him - St. Alexia at the head of the boyar duma. Be that as it may, we have positive and clear evidence that Ivan Ivanovich, before his death, left him as the formal and real regent of the state with his young son Dimitri 339. Thus, St. Alexy was both a metropolitan and at the same time the head of state administration - partly, perhaps, in a non-formal way, partly in a completely formal way. For a metropolitan or, in general, the head of the church to formally be the regent and ruler of the state, this is the only case in our Russian history. We cannot give a complete description of all the state activities of St. Alexia, because we don’t have enough information for this. But we positively know that he was the most zealous guardian of the possessions and power of the Moscow princes against external enemies: Contemporary evidence belonging to the friends and enemies of St. Alexy, according to us, is told that he, having received custody of his young son Dimitri from the dying Ivan Ivanovich, “made every effort to preserve the child and retain the country and power for him.” That he was “entirely devoted” to the task entrusted to him of caring for the “child sovereign” 340. Dimitri Ivanovich Donskoy was the first of the great princes of Moscow to clearly and definitely declare his aspirations for state autocracy, but he declared them in such a young age that it must necessarily be assumed that St. Alexy. To what extent during his time Moscow increased in its strength and realized this latter is evident from the fact that the famous Battle of Kulikovo took place in the third year after his death... His efforts to protect the power of the Prince of Moscow St. Alexy, as one must think, began immediately after the death of Simeon Ivanovich, who, dying, entrusted his brothers to the future metropolitan. From the weak successor of Simeonov, Ivan Ivanovich, the Suzdal prince Konstantin Vasilyevich sought in the Horde to take away the grand-ducal throne - an energetic man, according to the chronicles, who reigned “honestly and menacingly,” who, moreover, found support for himself among the Novgorodians, for these latter, having experienced the growing power of Moscow 341 and wanting to undermine it, came to the Horde to fight for him with your silver. If Ivan Ivanovich managed to remove his opponent and receive from the khan a label for a great reign, then with a very high probability one should suspect the efforts of St. Alexia. We said above that Metropolitan Theognost, on his trip to the Horde in 1343, managed to buy the favor of Khansha Taidula, the wife of Khan Chanibek. The wives of the Golden Horde khans were not at all harem hermits, and in general had no less importance with them than the wives of European sovereigns with their husbands 342. But Taidula, a woman who stood out from the ordinary, had an exceptionally great influence on state affairs and was a real co-ruler of the khan - her husband 343. Metropolitan Theognost, understanding the importance of the khansha's patronage, of course, recommended his future successor to her before his death (through special ambassadors or through the bishop of Sarai 344 and the assistance of Taidula Alexy and could use it to remove the rival who appeared to Ivan Ivanovich. He went to Constantinople to be appointed metropolitan earlier than the princes went to the Horde for labels, but he could keep his the path through the same Horde, through which there was then, if not the only, then the most common way to Constantinople, so that by the time Ivan Ivanovich arrived in the Horde, he could already arrange things in his favor. From evidence dating back to 1357, which is discussed below, we know that St. Alexy, on his two trips to Constantinople before this year, became personally known to Taidula and gained her greatest respect. Both could have taken place on the second trip: but since on the first trip he had a deliberate need to be with the Khan and Khansha, it seems most likely to think that this took place precisely on the first trip 345. In 1357 St. Alexy had the opportunity to provide an important service to Taidula, and this benefited Moscow. The khan's wife fell ill with some kind of illness. Since the Mongols considered doctors to be servants of faiths, as we talked about above 346, it is natural that Taidula should have sought help from them. We don’t know whether she turned to spiritual people of different faiths who were in the Horde and received no help from anyone, or whether she directly remembered St. Alexy, whom I met during his travels in Constantinople, as a virtuous and holy representative of the Russian clergy; Only in 1357, in the month of August, did she send an embassy to him asking him to come and visit her. St. Alexy went to the Horde, and through his prayers the Khansha received a miraculous healing. Here is a story about this, read in the Resurrection Chronicle: “The same (1357) autumn, an ambassador from Queen Taidula from the Horde came to Metropolitan Alexei, calling him to the Horde, and came to visit her ill health; He began to prepare for the path, and then the light lit up by itself at the tomb of the wonderworker Peter, August 18th; The metropolitan, singing a prayer service with the whole congregation, broke it up and distributed it to the people for blessing, and the same day he went to the Horde, and when he came there, he healed the sick queen, and was soon released with great honor.”347 Even during the stay of St. Alexy in the Horde, a great jam began there: Chanibek was killed by his son Berdibek. But since Taidula managed to retain all her influence even with her ferocious son, such as Berdibek was; then Moscow saw her gratitude for the benefit shown to her: Grand Duke Ivan Ivanovich, who went to the Horde after the return of the Metropolitan from it, easily received there a confirmation label for the great reign, without meeting a rival in any of the other Russian princes (and even the princes friendly to Moscow received control from the khan against their enemies 348. We mentioned above that St. Alexy, like St. Peter, held a debate in the Horde with the Mohammedan theologians (p. 131, electronic version - footnote No. 186, corr.). The debate took place during his trip to the Horde to heal the Khansha. It is likely that the Muhammedan clergy, disgraced by the Russian metropolitan regarding the art of medicine, wanted, in turn, to prevail over him in a scientific and theological dispute. Be that as it may, our information about the debate, unfortunately, is limited to the sole knowledge of the name of the person with whom St. was to conduct it. Alexy: this is Munzi the hero, the son of Mollagavzadin the blind, whose wife was the sister of Khan Barak (Berke? 349). [Mollagavzadin, in all likelihood, you need to read: Molla Gavzadin, that is, a molla or mullah, named Gavvadin.] - About the fact that St. Alexey preserved the label to this day, we have already said before (p. 34 electronic version - footnote paragraph No. 59, corr.). In November 1358, Grand Duke Ivan Ivanovich died, leaving behind an infant son, Dimitri. Meanwhile, in the Horde, Berdibek was killed by Kulpa, and Kulpa five or six months later was killed by Navrus. Among these murders, Taidula remained unharmed (she was killed shortly afterwards); but has already lost its former meaning. Before Navrus, the Suzdal prince Dimitri Konstantinovich, the son of that Konstantin Vasilyevich, whom we mentioned, appeared as a rival to the young prince of Moscow for the great reign, and Navrus, perhaps hostile to the house of Chanibek, who patronized the family of the princes of Moscow, gave the great reign to this Dimitri of Suzdal. But the misfortune that befell Moscow did not last long. Dmitry Konstantinovich began his great reign in June 1360, and two years later, a little over 350, in 1362, St. Alexy and the Moscow boyars had already managed to obtain from the Horde, in which the greatest suppressions continued and which was divided into two halves, a label for the great reign again for their Moscow prince. Since 1362, Dmitry Ivanovich remained the Grand Duke of Russia throughout the reign of St. Alexy without any interruption: this year 1362 is the year from which the hereditary and unchallenged seat of the Moscow princes on the grand-ducal throne began and in which, at the same time, the grand-ducal throne was finally transferred from Vladimir to Moscow. Between the Russian princes during the reign of St. Alexy's somewhat dangerous rivals to Moscow remained those princes of Tver, who in the previous time had the hope of gaining the upper hand over her. At the moment of Alexy's accession to the metropolitan see, the princes of Tver were divided into two halves: one half was Vasily Mikhailovich, the son of that Mikhail Yaroslavich, who was the enemy of St. Peter and with whom Yuri Danilovich of Moscow waged a fierce struggle - with his sons; the other half was represented by the grandchildren of Mikhail Yaroslavich - the children of his son Alexander (who briefly occupied the grand-ducal table in front of Ivan Danilovich Kalita and died in 1339), with his elder brother Vsevolod Alexandrovich at their head. Under Simeon Ivanovich, both sides became related to Moscow, namely, Simeon Ivanovich himself married the sister of the Alexandrovichs in 1347 (third marriage), and Vasily Mikhailovich married his son to the daughter of Simeon Ivanovich in 1349. But the uncle and nephews could not get along in peace with each other, and Moscow took advantage of their enmity to pursue its goal of destroying their rivals: Moscow took under its protection the side that it considered harmless to itself, Vasily Mikhailovich and his sons, and opposed the side that it found dangerous for itself, the Alexandrovichs. In 1357, Vsevolod Alexandrovich turned to the Metropolitan with a complaint against his uncle, that is, against Vasily Mikhailovich, that he was offending him and his brothers, contrary to the agreement on the ownership of the inheritance; but the Metropolitan decisively took the side of Vasily Mikhailovich and, at “his word,” the latter sent his ambassadors to Moscow to create peace and great love with the Moscow prince 351. In the same year, 1357, after the death of Khan Chanibek, Vasily and Vsevolod went to the Horde to the new Khan Berdibek to complain about each other; but the second was intercepted on the road by the Moscow governors, and when later he nevertheless appeared in the Horde, it was by the king and queen, i.e. Berdibek and his mother Taidula, without trial, was handed over to his uncle, from whom he, as well as his boyars and servants, received “great languor, and great sale and robbery,” and to the black people his part of the inheritance – “given (in tribute) sale of great wealth” 352. In 1365, Vsevolod Alexandrovich died, followed by his two brothers, from the then raging pestilence, and only one brother, Mikhailo Alexandrovich, remained as the representative of the side that Moscow considered dangerous for itself. Soon after the death of Vsevolod, Mikhail began a quarrel with Uncle Vasily over the escheated inheritance (which belonged to Semyon Konstantinovich, Vasiliev’s nephew and cousin Mikhailov, who died childless in the same 1365). Those who quarreled, on the orders of the Metropolitan, were judged by Bishop Vasily of Tver and found Mikhail Alexandrovich in the right (to whom, indeed, the dying Semyon Konstantinovich ordered his princess). But at the bishop’s court, Vasily Mikhailovich and his sons brought a complaint to the metropolitan: the bishop was called to Moscow and because he took the side of one of the contenders whom the Moscow statesmen considered dangerous for their prince, he “will have a great trial in Moscow about that judgment” 353; Vasily Mikhailovich was given an auxiliary Moscow army so that he would go to take Tver from Mikhail, which, however, he did not manage to do, having devastated only the volosts and villages that belonged to the latter. The trial took place in 1366. The next year, 1367, is a famous and epoch-making year in the history of Moscow, in which Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich, led by the boyars and headed by St. Alexy, for he himself was still only a 17-year-old youth, openly and decisively declared his aspirations for autocracy: In the spring of this year, he began to build the stone city of Moscow, that is, the stone Kremlin in Moscow 354, and at the same time, as the chronicler says, “he began to bring all the Russian princes under his will, and those who did not obey his will, he began to encroach on them” 355. The demand for obedience was also presented to the Tver prince Mikhail Alexandrovich; but Mikhailo Alexandrovich responded by going to Lithuania to join his son-in-law Olgerd 356. When soon after this he returned from Olgerd with the Lithuanian army, which helped him devastate the estate of his uncle Vasily Mikhailovich, the Moscow Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich made peace with him. But after a little time (in 1368), Moscow decided to resort to an extraordinary means against him. “Great Prince Dmitry Ivanovich,” says the chronicler, “with his father, the Right Reverend Alexei Metropolitan, invited Prince Mikhail Alexandrovich of Tver to Moscow with his love, and then made speeches with him, and then they were judged for the third time 357 in the world in truth: yes (then) he was confiscated, and the boyars who were around him, they were all caught and lit up in different ways" 358 ... What was the purpose of the extraordinary means is not clearly visible; but a happy accident freed Mikhail Alexandrovich from his sudden captivity: in Moscow it became known that three ambassadors from the Horde were going there; The prince and his advisers were embarrassed by their action - “doubting,” as the chronicle says, and released the prisoner, obliging him to submit with a kiss of the cross. We must make a small digression to talk about the attitude of St. Alexy to what happened in Moscow with the Tver prince. What share of participation in the act with the prince, that is, in his capture, should the saint assimilate? Alexy, remains unresolved. Metropolitan Platon, based on what, according to the chronicle, the victim himself thought and said 359, understands the matter in such a way that what happened to the prince happened by the direct will of the saint. Alexy, and in justification of the saint, says in his Brief Russian Church History: “This act of Metropolitan Alexy cannot be judged otherwise than that it came from true love for the fatherland. He saw to what misfortune Russia had been brought through many appanage reigns, and through the incessant battles and ruins between them, and through this she subjected herself to the Tatar yoke: and under this painful and dishonorable yoke, she did not cease from civil strife. The holy and enlightened elder also saw that there would be no end to this misfortune and yoke if the appanage reigns continued and the autocracy was not restored. Why did Metropolitan Alexy not only assist the Grand Duke’s enterprise to subjugate the appanage princes to himself, but he was successful in everything; but it was almost like he, as an old and experienced and respected man in rank, instilled such advice in the young prince and reinforced it” 360. Other historians, such as Karamzin, consider it probable to assume that St. Alexy was involuntarily involved in a matter contrary to his conscience, i.e., that he was not able to impose his veto on what was thought out by the boyars besides him and saw himself forced to yield to their firm decision 361. Still other historians, like the Eminence Filaret 362 and Makariy 363 and S. M. Solovyov 364, do not deliberately touch upon the issue, passing it by unintentional or intentional silence. We, for our part, do not dare to speak out positively on the issue, but our general ideas about the moral character of St. Alexy makes us think about his attitude towards the unfortunate capture in such a way that, without completely denying the human weakness 365 he showed at the same time, we are confident that this weakness he showed had possibly sufficient, well unknown to us, excuses and justifications. In all likelihood, Mikhailo Alexandrovich did not consider it obligatory for himself to be forced to kiss the cross, and Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich soon after sent a large army against him. Then the prince of Tver fled to Lithuania to Olgerd and began to tearfully beg him for protection from the prince of Moscow. Olgerd, heeding the pleas of Mikhail Alexandrovich and the strong pleas of his wife - his sister, and at the same time harboring the greatest personal hatred for the Moscow prince and Metropolitan Alexy for their desire to establish in Rus' that strong autocracy that he had already established in Lithuania, and for the latter for his victory over him - Olgerd on the issue of a separate Lithuanian-Galician metropolis, decided to make an attempt to inflict such a defeat on Moscow that it would crush it. He gathered as large an army as he could and - as he always did in all his wars - attacked the enemy completely unexpectedly. The Grand Duke of Moscow, taken by surprise, did not have time to gather troops from distant places and could only send insignificant detachments to meet Olgerd to block his path to Moscow. Having easily defeated these detachments, the Grand Duke of Lithuania quickly approached the walls of Moscow itself (December 21, 1368), and terribly devastated the Moscow region that lay on his way. However, his hopes of inflicting a complete defeat on the Moscow prince did not come true: he was not able to take the newly built Moscow stone Kremlin, in which the Grand Duke and the Metropolitan were locked, and, having stood under it for three days, had to return back and be content with the fact that he had captured countless people and that he had taken with him all the cattle (captured near the city?). The Metropolitan, who had two swords, turning from material weapons to spiritual ones, subjected Mikhail Alexandrovich to ecclesiastical excommunication for directing Olgerd to Moscow; and together with him he subjected Olgerdov’s Russian ally in his campaign to Moscow, the Smolensk prince Svyatoslav Ivanovich, to the same excommunication. Having used his own spiritual power against the princes, the metropolitan addressed a complaint against them and to the patriarch, and, as one might think, sent a more or less generous offering to Constantinople in favor of the impoverished great church. In response to the complaint, Patriarch Philotheus, who took the see for the second time after the death of Callistus I, on October 8, 1364, sent his letters to Rus', in which, after declaring his greatest affection for the metropolitan, going so far as to call the latter a great man - μέγας ἀνθρωπος, he exhorts all princes to show him - due obedience to the Metropolitan, and in which he confirms on his part the excommunication he imposed on the princes of Tver and Smolensk, promising the princes to allow them from him only if they bring him, the Metropolitan, repentance and ask him for forgiveness and if he writes about them to him, the Patriarch 366. In view of the Metropolitan's use of a spiritual weapon, Mikhailo Alexandrovich, for his part, turned to the Patriarch with a complaint against him and demanded that the Patriarch give him a trial. At first, the patriarch decided to give trial to the prince and the metropolitan and invited them both to appear in Constantinople within a year, either in person or through authorized representatives 367; but then, probably, having learned about the capture of Mikhail Alexandrovich in Moscow and seeing that the metropolitan would not be able to completely justify himself in this sad matter, he wrote to both of them in a message 368, in which he urges them to reconcile with each other. The Patriarch writes to the Metropolitan: “Imitating the peacemaker Christ, I answer and punish you: I don’t see anything good in the fact that you have tempting discord with the Tver prince Mikhail, because of which you need to go to trial; but as a father and teacher, try to reconcile with him and if he has sinned in anything, forgive and accept him as your son, and have peace with him, as with other princes; and he, as I am writing to him about, must bring repentance and ask for forgiveness; This is what seems good and useful to me: let it be so without any controversy; if you do not want this, but are looking for judgment, then I do not interfere with the trial, but be careful that it does not seem difficult for you” 369. In his last words, the patriarch obviously hints to the metropolitan about the matter of the capture of Mikhail Alexandrovich in Moscow. After Olgerd brought him to Moscow at the end of 1368, Mikhailo Alexandrovich fought with the Moscow prince for another seven years: three more times he brought Olgerd against him, twice he straightened out the label for a great reign in the Horde, but finally, in 1375, he had to humble himself before him, surrender to his full will and recognize himself as his henchman 370. Simultaneously with the letters to the princes, in which the latter are exhorted to show obedience to the metropolitan, the patriarch sent his letter to the Novgorod Archbishop Alexy 371. In a very severe letter in tone, the patriarch reproaches the archbishop - firstly, for the fact that he uses the baptized phelonion, while his predecessor (Moses) received from the divine council the right to use it only himself personally, without transferring the right to his successors; secondly, because he, the archbishop, does not show proper obedience and obedience to the metropolitan and the grand duke, but resists and contradicts them. By ordering the archbishop to unquestioningly and without any excuses to lay down the crosses from his felonies, the patriarch orders him to have proper respect, obedience and obedience to the Grand Duke and Metropolitan. Otherwise, he threatens him with deposition and deprivation of his bishopric. What caused this harsh letter, which, unfortunately, is known to us with an omission in one place resulting from damage to the manuscript, we cannot yet say in a positive way; We will return to fortune-telling speeches about this below. In the fight against the Tver prince Mikhail Alexandrovich, St. Alexy resorted to spiritual weapons. We know of another example of his use of this weapon in state affairs. In 1365, the princes of Suzdal, brothers Dimitri and Boris Konstantinovich, quarreled among themselves because the younger brother Boris seized the Nizhny Novgorod table, which was then the main one in the inheritance, and became idle after the death of the third, eldest brother Andrei. Demetrius turned to the intercession of the Grand Duke, to whom immediately before he had renounced all rivalry for the Grand Duke's throne and for whom, perhaps, his daughter had already been plotted, who was married to him in the following year 1366. (This marriage, arranged by the leaders of the Grand Duke, should be considered to a greater or lesser extent as a marriage of political calculations). Ambassadors were sent to Boris Konstantinovich, who in turn was Olgerd's son-in-law, so that he would make peace with his brother and share his estate with him; but Boris did not listen to the ambassadors. Then St. Alexy “took away” (the expression of the chronicle) from Bishop Alexy of Suzdal and annexed Nizhny Novgorod and Gorodets to his metropolitan diocese, probably because he sided with the younger prince, and sent St. Sergius of Radonezh to the former with his spiritual powers. Arriving in Nizhny, the Monk Sergius called Boris to Moscow. When he did not listen and did not go to Moscow, Sergius closed all the churches in Nizhny, that is, he imposed a church ban and excommunication on the city. After spiritual weapons, the quarrel was ended by worldly weapons: the Grand Duke sent Dmitry Konstantinovich an auxiliary army and, in view of him, Boris Konstantinovich made peace with his brother, ceding Nizhny to him. Now we must return with speeches to the separate Lithuanian-Galician metropolis, which will lead us to speeches about the installation of a successor to St. Alexia. Simultaneously with him, Alexy, in 1354, Roman was installed as a separate metropolitan of Lithuanian-Galician, who sat on the see until the end of 1361 and who at all times, being strongly assisted by Olgerd, or more precisely, by joint forces with the latter, waged a stubborn struggle against him because of Kyiv. At the end of 1361, Roman died, and Olgerd failed to get a new separate metropolitan in his place; on the contrary, the Lithuanian-Galician metropolis was reunited with the metropolis of all Russia. There can be no doubt that Olgerd made every effort to get a new metropolitan. - That then, as after, he represented and complained to the patriarch that Alexy, who was the head of state affairs in Moscow, was an implacable enemy of him - Olgerd and that he - Olgerd resolutely did not want to have him as his metropolitan: and yet the efforts were not crowned with success. We have a conciliar determination on the reunification of the Lithuanian-Galician metropolis with the metropolis of all Russia, which took place more or less shortly after October 1364, 372, which is a secondary determination about this and which confirms the original determination that has not reached us, which took place immediately after the death of Roman. This definition seems to make it clear that Olgerd, after the first unsuccessful attempt to get a new separate metropolitan in Roman’s place, soon afterwards resumed his efforts for the same thing. Roman died, and the first decision on the reunification of the Lithuanian-Galician Metropolis with the Metropolis of All Russia took place during the patriarchate of Callistus. The confirmation determination, which took place shortly after October 1364, refers to the second patriarchate of Philotheus: one can understand the matter in such a way that Algerd, having failed in his request for a new separate metropolitan before Patriarch Callistus, renewed it before Patriarch Philotheus, who took the place of Callistus. Then, the most conciliar definition makes one suspect that even after him Olgerd did not stop his efforts. The definition is included in the code of cathedral records; but in the code it is crossed out and regarding this circumstance a note was made to it that the patriarch recognized it as canceled and invalid, which is why it was necessary to cross it out. It seems to follow from this that the patriarch, having drawn up his definition, then changed his mind and decided to install a new separate Lithuanian-Galician metropolitan. Be that as it may, after the death of Roman, Olgerd’s efforts to get himself a new separate metropolitan were not crowned with success. We do not at all know the history of the victory won in this case by Metropolitan Alexy over the Lithuanian Grand Duke, but we have a strong inclination to think that this victory should be considered extremely important. The existing acts positively tell us that Olgerd with all his insistence supported Roman in his struggle with Alexy over the possession of Kiev 373, and we highly suspect that the Lithuanian sovereign, a man with a great state mind, had that deeply political plan so that, having delivered Kyiv to his metropolitan of Lithuania, he would turn him into the metropolitan of all Russia, so that the metropolitan Vladimir-Moscow, having exchanged roles with him, turned out to be only a side and additional metropolitan with him. If this happened, it could be accompanied by unusually important consequences both in church and political terms... In seeking church power over Kiev, which belonged to Lithuania politically, Roman and Olgerd were actually right; fortunately for us, at that very time the Greeks were in such relations with the Bulgarians and Serbs, thanks to which they could not have the slightest desire to recognize this principle that - whoever belongs to political power should also belong to church power 374. As we know from Greek acts, Olgerd had the most irreconcilable hatred for Alexy 375; he should have hated Alexy because he was a statesman, not at all inferior to him, and his rival was completely equal to him. But we think that he hated Alexy most of all precisely because the Metropolitan defeated him in the church struggle, under which he hid unusually important political plans. Alexy managed to defeat Olgerd’s plans (of course, unless we are mistaken in assuming that the latter had them); but he could not prevent a new separation of southern Rus' from northern Russia from taking place under him. Nine years after the death of Roman, in 1370, King Casimir of Poland, who owned Galicia and part of Volhynia, turned to Patriarch Philotheus of Constantinople with an urgent request 376 that Galicia be given a separate metropolitan, representing to the patriarch, on the one hand, that “the whole land perishes without law,” i.e., meaning that Metropolitan Alexy leaves neglected and without care of the Galician part of his metropolitanate, and on the other hand - that Galicia had long ago begun to have separate metropolitans 377, and threatening that, if the request was refused, he would baptize the Russians of Galicia into the Latin faith and install a Latin metropolitan for them. As a result of the king’s urgent and decisive request, in the month of May 1371, the patriarch appointed a candidate sent by the king, Bishop Anthony, to the Galician metropolitanate 378 . This Anthony was not appointed metropolitan of Galicia-Lithuania, as had previously happened when individual metropolitans were appointed for southern Rus', but only of Galicia, with the bishops subordinating to him that were under the authority of the king, but without the bishoprics under the authority of the Lithuanian Grand Duke being subordinate to him. Having installed Anthony as metropolitan of Galicia, Patriarch Philotheus wrote a letter to Metropolitan Alexy justifying his action 379. The Patriarch tells the Metropolitan that he did not find it possible to refuse the king’s request, because otherwise the king threatened to convert the Russians under his authority to the Latin faith and install a Latin bishop for them. Calling Alexy himself to be a judge, the patriarch asks him: would he have found it possible to act differently in his (the patriarch’s) place? Expressing his complaint to the Metropolitan that, as they reported to him, the Patriarch, “he does not care about all the Christians living in different parts of Rus', but has established himself in one place (i.e. in Moscow), but left all other places without pastoral leadership, without teaching and spiritual supervision,” and that for so many years he did not visit or survey Little Russia, which was under the rule of the king, the patriarch tells the metropolitan that he should complain about what happened to himself. The message was written in a tone of sincere goodwill towards Alexy. That the church affairs of Galicia were indeed in a very sad situation is evident from the fact that there was not a single bishop there except Anthony, so that he, having been appointed metropolitan, at the same time received from the patriarch all the dioceses of his metropolis for temporary episcopal control, until the appointment of bishops. Immediately after the Polish king, or perhaps simultaneously with him, Olgerd 381 turned to the patriarch with a request for a separate metropolitan. We said above that after the sudden and terribly devastating invasion of Moscow by this latter in 1368, Metropolitan Alexy complained to the Patriarch about Mikhail Alexandrovich of Tver, who had let him down, and about Svyatoslav Ivanovich of Smolensk, who participated with him in the campaign as his ally. At the same time as complaining about the Russian princes, the Metropolitan complained to the Patriarch and about Olgerd himself. As a result of this second complaint, the patriarch, out of his love for the metropolitan, as he says in his message to him 382, ​​wrote a letter of admonition to Olgerd. The Grand Duke of Lithuania begins his message to the Patriarch, in which he asks him for a special metropolitan, with a response to Alexy’s complaints and accusations. Justifying himself, Olgerd brings grave accusations against the Metropolitan and the Grand Duke of Moscow: it was not I, he says, who began to attack, but they, and they attacked me nine times; my brother-in-law Mikhail (Tver) was treacherously captured in Moscow, my son-in-law Boris (Nizhny Novgorod) was taken away from the principality, my other son-in-law Ivan Novosilsky was seized with his mother and wife - my daughter; they took away many cities from me; from my servants leaving for them, they remove the godfather kiss from me: “and under our fathers,” Olgerd concludes his accusations, “there were no such metropolitans!” For this, presenting to the patriarch that the metropolitan, who blesses the Moscow Grand Duke for the shedding of blood, does not go either to Kyiv or to them in Lithuania, no matter what they call him, Olgerd asks the patriarch for a special metropolitan. At the same time, he asks for a special metropolitan not for Russian Lithuania alone, but for all of Rus', which was hostile to Moscow and which was in friendship with him - Olgerd: “give us another metropolitan,” he demands from the patriarch, “for Kyiv, Smolensk, Tver, Little Rus', Novosil, Nizhny Novgorod.” Having been forced to satisfy the king’s request, the patriarch, due to his disposition towards Alexy, did not want to satisfy Olgerd’s requests and sent his apocrisiary to Russia so that he would reconcile the prince with the metropolitan and arrange matters between them 383. What the patriarchal apocrisiary managed to do in Rus', we have no information; but the Lithuanian Grand Duke did not receive a special metropolitan. At the end of 1370, Olgerd launched an unsuccessful raid on Moscow, so he himself had to ask for peace; Following this, in Moscow they decided to attempt a real reconciliation with him and in 1371 asked his daughter to marry Prince Vladimir Andreevich, cousin of the Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich. All this could be the reason that Olgerd refused before the patriarchal apocrisiary his demand to receive a separate metropolitan. But some unknown time after this, he again turned to the patriarch with a new request for a special metropolitan. In response to a new request, the patriarch sent a new apocrisiary to Russia at the end of 1373 or at the beginning of 1374 384. The consequence of the journey to Rus' of this new apocrisiary, who was Hieromonk Cyprian, the subsequent Russian metropolitan, was not only that Olgerd was given a separate metropolitan, but also that a new metropolitan was appointed to the see of the metropolitanate of all Russia, who was to replace the living metropolitan Alexy. This new metropolitan, appointed not only to the Lithuanian see, but also to the see of all Russia, in order to replace Alexei in the latter, was precisely Hieromonk Cyprian himself, who went to Russia as a patriarchal apocrisiary. In the records of the acts of the Patriarchal Council of Constantinople we find two stories or two testimonies about the installation of Cyprian as Russian metropolitan. According to one testimony dating back to a later time and precisely when the patriarch and the council, after various hesitations in relation to Cyprian, who had been installed as metropolitan, were on his side, all the blame for his installation is placed on Metropolitan Alexy 385. The conciliar act containing the testimony states that Metropolitan Alexy armed Olgerd against himself to the last degree. - On the one hand, by the fact that as a metropolitan he completely abandoned the Lithuanian part of his metropolitanate to the mercy of fate and without any care and did not visit it at all. On the other hand, by the fact that, as the regent of the state, he went into wars, feuds and discord with the Lithuanian sovereign and the Russian princes allied to the latter. - That Olgerd with the now indicated princes, as a result of the exhortations of the patriarch addressed to them in 1370 through letters, expressed a desire to reconcile with the metropolitan, but that he completely refused reconciliation. - As well as the efforts of the one sent by the patriarch some time after the letters (in 1373–1374), for the same reconciliation of the Metropolitan with the Lithuanian sovereign and the Russian princes allied to him, his deliberate apocrisiary Cyprian, due to the stubborn and decisive refusal of peace on the part of the Metropolitan, turned out to be completely in vain. - Which did not have any success and the letter of the Patriarch to the Metropolitan, sent as a last attempt, after the way Cyprian returned from his failed embassy. After all this, offended to the last degree by the stubborn hostility of the Metropolitan, the Lithuanian sovereign and the Russian princes allied with him sent a great embassy to the patriarch, through which they asked and begged to give them a new metropolitan, saying that they were making a request for the last time and that in case of refusal they were ready to move (implying the Russian princes) to another church. The Patriarch, says the conciliar act, on the one hand did not find it possible to refuse the request of Olgerd and the princes, and on the other hand, he did not want to divide the Russian metropolis into two halves. Therefore, he, having decided to take a middle path in the matter, appointed a special metropolitan for Lithuania, namely, Cyprian himself, who served as ambassador to Russia, but so that after the death of Alexei he would transfer to the department of the metropolitanate of all Russia and again unite both parts into one whole. Thus, according to the conciliar testimony we have just conveyed, Cyprian was installed during the life of Alexy as metropolitan not of all Rus', but only of Lithuania. But this is not true; There is no doubt that he was appointed metropolitan of all Rus': he was ordained metropolitan and, having arrived in Russia, he immediately, during the life of Alexy, laid claim to the see that the latter occupied. In another conciliar testimony, dating back to an earlier time and precisely this one, when the patriarch and the council were against Cyprian 386, all the blame for his appointment as metropolitan is placed on himself. It says here that Patriarch Philotheus sent him to Russia for the purpose of trying to reconcile Metropolitan Alexy with Olgerd, but that he, having forgotten the order of the one who sent him, completely devoted himself to the thought of how to take possession of that church himself - that he managed to enter into the closest friendship with the Prince of Lithuania and achieved that the latter handed him a letter to present to the Patriarch - himself (i.e. Cyprian) and compiled - in which he demanded from the latter that he - Cyprian - be appointed metropolitan, and otherwise threatened to take the metropolitan from the Latin Church - that at the same time, having assured Alexy that he would act in Constantinople in his favor and that he would take full care of him, he (Cyprian), instead of a friend, obliged to thank for all the good received from the metropolitan, showed himself as his worst enemy, “brought (to Constantinople) false reports against him, filled with many accusations, ἐγκλημάτων μεστούς) and made every effort to depose him. In this second testimony it is made clear that Cyprian was made metropolitan of all Russia in order to take the place of Alexy during his lifetime and immediately, although the matter is not presented with complete clarity. It says here that Cyprian, who was ordained metropolitan of Lithuania, received, moreover, “such a conciliar action so as not to miss another part”, that “he even sought the complete deposition of that elderly metropolitan (i.e. e. Alexy), but that his plan was not a success.” Namely, that church dignitaries were sent to Russia with him to conduct an inquiry into Alexy’s life and listen to the testimony of accusers and witnesses against him, and that everything reported against him turned out to be an empty and unfounded word. These not entirely clear speeches must be understood in such a way that Cyprian, having brought grave accusations against Alexy before the patriarch and his council, was appointed metropolitan of all Russia in a conditional manner. Namely, that if, after examining the case, the accusations turn out to be fair, he will take the place of Alexievo, but if not, then he will remain the Metropolitan of Lithuania only 387. When you read two testimonies of the same patriarchal council about the same subject, but diametrically opposed to each other, you involuntarily indulge in very sad thoughts about this council... In any case, the truth regarding how things happened is undeniable for us. We know from our chronicles that Cyprian, immediately upon arriving in Rus', tried to occupy the see of the Metropolitan of All Russia under the living Alexy. Therefore, there is no doubt that the matter was as his second testimony represents, i.e., that he brought serious charges against Alexy and that conditionally, provided that the charges brought against Alexy turned out to be fair, he was made under him, alive, the metropolitan of all Russia. The patriarch who conditionally installed Cyprian as the metropolitan of all Russia was Philotheus, who had previously shown such great affection for Alexy. It necessarily follows from this that Cyprian brought too serious charges against Alexy. What the latter consisted of, we cannot say; in itself it would probably be thought that he presented Patriarch Alexy as such a person who is resolutely not tolerated by all Russian princes, with the exception of the Prince of Moscow; but the fact that the apocrisiaries sent by the patriarch to investigate the charges brought against Alexy came to Moscow seems to indicate that some charges were brought against him, the verification of which was required in Moscow itself. Cyprian was appointed metropolitan of Lithuania and conditionally metropolitan of all Russia on December 2, 1375 388, which would be two years and two and ten days months before Alekseeva’s death. Our chronicles say that immediately upon arrival in Lithuania, he sent ambassadors to Novgorod and Moscow to present his rights to the metropolis of all Russia, - that in Novgorod they answered him: “send to the Grand Duke in Moscow, and if he accepts you as a metropolitan in Rus', then you will be a metropolitan for us,” and that the Grand Duke answered him: “We have Metropolitan Alexy and you Why did you put your bet on a living metropolitan? 389. According to Greek news, the patriarchal apocrisiaries, sent to investigate the accusations brought against Alexius, arrived in Moscow 390 and found that all the accusations amounted to slander - and Cyprian remained in Lithuania. These news convey how the unexpected and incredible was met in Moscow, that in place of the living St. Alexy was installed as a new metropolitan. It is in them that it reads: “(with Cyprian, who was appointed metropolitan) church dignitaries are sent (to Russia) authorized to conduct an inquiry into the life of Alexy, to listen to what accusers and witnesses will say against him and to report to the Holy Council in writing about everything that will be revealed: everything turned out to be an empty and untenable word - there were no accusers or anyone who knew anything illegal about him. On the contrary, everyone considered him a father and called him the savior of the people, everyone stood up for him with their heads, and the most terrible curses were uttered against Metropolitan Cyprian, who acted so dishonestly against the holy man (κατηρῶντο τά φρικοδέστατα); the strong indignation and considerable excitement and confusion of the people, excited (by this matter) throughout the Russian land, was calmed (only) by the incessant suggestions and advice of Metropolitan Alexy, addressed both to everyone in general and to each individual. Letters were also sent to our most holy great Church of God with a complaint about the cloud of sadness that covered their eyes as a result of the installation of Metropolitan Cyprian and with a request to the divine council for sympathy, compassion and fair help against the undeserved insult that befell them” 391 ... An absolutely incredible case of installing a new metropolitan in the place of the living St. Alexy really should have created the strongest imaginable excitement in the entire Russian-Moscow land. Alexy enjoyed extraordinary respect in his Muscovite Rus' both as a shepherd of holy life and as a statesman who had rendered the greatest services to the fatherland - and suddenly, when he was living out his last days, adorning the country and making up its pride and glory, a certain Bulgarian (like Cyprian was), who somehow obtained the rank of metropolitan in Constantinople, appears in Rus' to bring dishonor upon him. Alexia from his place!.. It goes without saying that in Moscow there could be absolutely no desire for the place of St. After his death, Alexy was taken over by Cyprian, who allowed himself such extraordinary actions towards him and towards Muscovite Rus' itself. However, the Metropolitan and the Grand Duke did not even turn to Constantinople with a request to remove Cyprian from the see of the metropolis of all Russia and to appoint a new candidate as metropolitan as metropolitan in the event of the abolition of the see. They decided to elect the future metropolitan themselves and in Russia itself. It is not impossible to assume that they had a common idea to begin a new procedure for the permanent election of our metropolitans from the Russians themselves, for both of them had to recognize the Russia of their time as having the right to this claim, and both of them were people whose consciousness of themselves was not lower than their position. But, in any case, they could not help but be confident that it was completely achievable that this time a candidate chosen by them would be installed in Constantinople. Having decided to elect a future metropolitan in Russia itself, St. Alexy and Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich initially did not agree on the choice of candidate: St. Alexy wanted to see St. Sergius of Radonezh as his successor, and the Grand Duke chose as his successor the Archimandrite of the court Spassky Monastery, Mikhail, or, as he was also called, Mityai. But since the candidate of St. Alexia resolutely refused the last offer 392 made to him: that left only one candidate for the Grand Duke. We will talk about Mikhail-Mityai below as special speeches, and now we will talk about St. Alexia. Metropolitan Theognost decorated Moscow with stone churches: St. Alexy increased the number of monasteries in it, and at the same time increased the number of these churches. Before him, there were, as far as is known, four monasteries in Moscow: Danilov, Spassky Courtier, Epiphany and Petrovsky; he built three monasteries himself and blessed another builder to build the fourth monastery. Three monasteries built by St. Alexey, the essence: Chudov, Spassky Andronikov and Alekseevsky. Chudov or Chudovsky Monastery, dedicated to the Archangel Michael - the celebration of his miracle in Khoneh (September 6, hence the name Chudov, Chudovsky), being dedicated to St. Alexy to serve as a tomb for him and together constitute a cathedral or house metropolitan monastery 393, built by him in 1365. The stone church of the monastery, founded this year, was completed the same year. According to legend, the monastery was built on the site where the khan's stable stood, and which was donated to St. Alexy, healed from him by Khansha Taidula 394. Pitirim says in his life that he not only built a stone church in the monastery, which he decorated with icons and sacred vessels and, simply put, all sorts of church ornaments, but that he also placed in it a large stone refectory and stone cellars, i.e., it makes it known that he built the monastery with all the care. His care and generosity with which he provided the monastery with its contents is evidenced by his “spiritual letter” of an unspecified year, which has survived to this day in its original form, with which he attached to the monastery up to ten villages 395 . The Spassky Andronikov Monastery, according to the story of the monastic chronicle and the life of St. Sergius, was built by St. Alexy due to a special impulse. Returning in 1355 from his first trip to Constantinople to the patriarch, he was caught by a storm on the Black Sea and vowed to build a monastery in honor of the saint or holiday of the day on which he safely reached the shore. He reached the shore on August 16, on which the transfer of the Icon Not Made by Hands from Edessa to Constantinople is celebrated, and in honor of this holiday he built a votive monastery near Moscow, on the banks of the Yauza River. To manage the construction and organization of the monastery of St. Alexy asked St. Sergius of Radonezh for his disciple Andronik, from whom the monastery received its name. Alekseevsky Monastery in the name of St. Alexis the man of God, the first convent in Moscow, as monastic tradition says, was built by St. Alexy for his two sisters. It was erected on Ostozhenka, in the place where the Conception Monastery now stands (After 1514, in which it was destroyed by fire, the monastery was moved to the Chertorye or Chertolye tract, where the Church of the Savior currently stands. In 1837, when it was decided to build the now named church in its place, it was moved to Krasnaya Sloboda, to its current location). The fourth monastery in Moscow, which was built by St. Alexy blessed another builder, there is the Simonov Monastery, built by the nephew of St. Sergius and the monk of his monastery, Theodore. In addition to three monasteries built in Moscow itself, St. Alexy was the founder of the same number of monasteries outside of Moscow, and one of these monasteries outside Moscow was also built new, and the other two were rebuilt from ruins. A new monastery built by St. Alexy, - according to legend, as a result of a special vision, was the Bishop of Sergiukhov (who received the name from his builder - the lord or from the Lady Theotokos, to whom his church was dedicated?); the monasteries that he renovated were Tsar Konstantinovsky near Vladimir and Blagoveshchensky in Nizhny Novgorod. The last two monasteries of St. Alexy made the houses metropolitan monasteries. The number of six monasteries built and restored by St. Alexy, clearly testifies that he was an exceptional zealot for increasing the number of monasteries in our country. But in the history of our monasticism he is known not only for this. Together with St. Sergius of Radonezh, he was a transformer of our monastic life. We will talk about this second, and perhaps more important than the first, merit in relation to our monasticism later, when we review the history of monasticism for the time we are considering. In the sacristy of the Chudov Monastery a handwritten Slavic Gospel is preserved, the letter and the very text of which are assimilated by the tradition of St. Alexia. The manuscript of the Gospel is parchment, ⅛ of a sheet, written in two columns in very small, very good, half-letter; contains: the four gospels in the order and complete form of the evangelists (tetras), the acts and epistles of the apostles, the apocalypse and a short month; in addition, on the page in front of the gospel, which is an unknown page after the beginning that has not been preserved, on the front page is a passage of moralizing content, and on the back are the Ten Commandments, and then between the gospel and the acts is the 41st word from Pandekt Nikon the Montenegrin about the installation of rulers. All sheets in the manuscript number 170,396. According to the research of experts, the text of the New Testament contained in the manuscript is not identical with the text of other known ancient copies, so that it could be mistaken for a simple reproduction or a simple rewrite of one of the pre-existing editions of the translation. But it differs in many special readings (options) and many features or differences in the translation, which they see in it (according to experts) as a new translation or a new edition of the latter. Tradition is learned by St. Alexy and writing the manuscript, and completing the new translation contained in it. What St. Alexy could have made a translation or made a comparison of one of the existing editions of the translation with the Greek original, this is entirely possible. He lived under Metropolitan Theognostus as his governor for 12 years. For such a considerable time, being constantly in the company of the Greeks who made up the retinue or court of Theognostus, he could learn spoken Greek in an unnoticed manner, without mentioning the deliberate motives that he might have had for this. It is true that spoken modern Greek is far from being the same as written ancient Greek. But having learned one, it was easy to learn another, and it is not incredible to assume that St. Alexy, having acquired knowledge of spoken Greek, had the desire to use a little more effort to achieve the ability to read the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament in the Greek original 397. The idea of ​​making a new Slavic translation of this Holy Scripture could have come to him in a very simple way: While reading the Greek original, he noticed some inaccuracies in the Slavic translation, and if he did not read according to the edition with which the Slavic translation he had was made, he should have noticed differences in the readings (variants), and one and the other could arouse in him the idea of ​​​​a new translation. A legend recorded in later times claims that the translation was made by St. Alexy in 1355 398; slightly correcting the record, one must think that the translation was made by him in 1354-1355, during his long stay in Constantinople to receive the rank of metropolitan and for litigation with Metropolitan Roman, which we discussed above. The matter of translation carried out by St. Alexy, it should not be imagined in such a way that he compared many Greek lists with one another and, through comparing the lists, reached the point of reading those that seemed to him the most satisfactory - he, of course, did not make such learned demands on himself: It is necessary to imagine the matter in such a way that he took a list of the edition of the Greek original, which in his time was recognized in Constantinople as the most satisfactory, and from this list he made a translation. That is, he actually corrected one of the existing editions of the translation. If his translation or its correction by one of the editions of an existing translation differs from other editions of the latter in many special readings (variants 399), then this should not be understood to mean that St. Alexy had many Greek manuscripts at hand, and so that the only Greek manuscript from which he translated or from which he corrected one of the editions of the existing translation contained an edition different from those editions from which other Slavic translations were made. Regarding its character and quality, the translation of St. Alexia is distinguished, as people who have specially studied it find, by its literal closeness to the Greek original 400. One must think that the saint made his translation for private and private purposes, for himself, and not in order to transmit it or introduce it into public use: at least, not a single copy is known that would have been copied from his manuscript 401. Regarding the currently accepted Slavic text of the New Testament, the translation of St. Alexia is very important. The Bible correctors of the times of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, from whom the current text of the New Testament comes, as they themselves or their contemporary witnesses say, the first Slavic book for their new translation (correction) was the book “translation and manuscripts of St. Alexei Metropolitan, the Wonderworker of All Russia” 402: in places that presented different readings (options) from the manuscripts, the correctors, no doubt, had in mind the authority of St. Alexy, in many cases they took readings of his translation 403. The circumstances of the time placed St. Alexy was in an exceptional position - he was a metropolitan and at the same time, for most of his reign, the regent of the state, partly, perhaps, unofficially, partly completely official and real. As regent of the state of St. Alexy fulfilled his duties in the most diligent and zealous manner and, being a statesman with brilliant talents, conducted state affairs in such a way that he rendered the greatest services to Moscow 404. In general, among the statesmen of the original Moscow and among the creators of the Russian state, he holds one of the most honorable places. True, from our previous presentation it can be seen and on the basis of it it must be admitted that the title of regent of the state was not entirely favorable for the church and government activities of St. Alexy, and that it was to some extent in antagonism with his title of metropolitan. But by the very essence of the matter, and, in any case, under the given circumstances, it was impossible to combine two titles in such a way that it would remain completely indifferent for one and for the other of them. If this was impossible, and yet St. Alexy was destined to combine titles: then, reconciling with what was inevitable, we can only say that, called to become a statesman, St. Alexy, as such, occupies one of the highest places among the creators of the Russian state and that he acquired the greatest right to the gratitude of those for whom this state was created 405. From the history of St. We did not say here about Alexy, as a metropolitan: firstly, about the appearance under him of the Strigolnikov sect in the Novgorod region; secondly, that from his time real boyars began to enter the service of the metropolitans, which circumstance had an important influence on the nature of church government, and thirdly, about his canonization of the Lithuanian martyrs Anthony, John and Eustathius who suffered under Olgerd. We will talk about the Strigolniki under the rule of Metropolitan Photius, which included the adoption of decisive measures against them and the disappearance of their sect. We will talk about the entry of real boyars into the service of the metropolitans and the canonization of Lithuanian martyrs in special chapters on administration and worship during this time. St. Alexy had a long life and ended his days in extreme old age: he died at least 80, and perhaps 85 years of age, on February 12, 1378 406. He was buried, as we already let you know above, not in the Assumption Cathedral along with his two predecessors in Moscow, but in his ktitorium - the Chudov Monastery. In 1431, under Metropolitan Photius, on the occasion of the reconstruction of the church, his relics were found 407, and at the end of 1448-beginning of 1449, under Metropolitan St. Jonah was given a solemn celebration of his memory 408. Twelve years of confusion in the metropolitan department after the death of St. Alexia (Mikhail - Mityai, Cyprian, Pimin). Candidate for metropolitan office in the place of St. Alexy, Grand Duke Dimitri Ivanovich, as we said, had an archimandrite of his court Spassky Monastery, Mikhail, called Mityai 409. This Mikhail-Mityai, who only appeared in the ranks of our church-historical figures, because he was not destined to occupy the metropolitan see, was, according to the chronicles, an unusually and phenomenally remarkable person. In view of such remarkableness of Michael, the chronicles even make the fact that, allowing themselves an absolutely unique exception in relation to church-historical persons, they offer deliberate stories about him 410. He was from the Kolomna village of Teshilova, located on the Oka River, the son of a priest 411, and before meeting the Grand Duke he was a priest in Kolomna itself. This is how the chronicler describes him based on his external and internal qualities: “This priest Mityai was tall and wide in age (height), tall and vigorous (strong, muscular), shoulders (having) great and thick, brada (he was) flat and long, and his face (was) red (handsome), - we give birth and rank (outward representativeness and external beauty) surpassing all people; his speech is light and clear and loud, but his voice is very red; He is very good at reading and writing: having a great course in books, and interpreting the power of books, and reading sweetly and wisely, and speaking wisely in books, and no one has promised such; and sing deliberately; and in affairs and in courts and in reasoning he is graceful and wise, and has pure and unobscured speech and speech and a great memory; and with ancient stories and books and parables of spiritual and everyday life, no one has found such words” 412. As we see, the chronicler can hardly find words in his language to praise Michael and wants to say that he was a phenomenal perfection in every respect; in everything, according to the chronicler, he was superior to all people: with extraordinary external dignity and beauty, with such a voice that made him an excellent singer and the only reader, he was an unusually intelligent man and unusually educated in the sense of that time, that is, well-read in books to the possible extent. Equally exceptionally edifying both in spiritual conversation and in secular or secular conversation, he was an indispensable businessman in all serious matters and at the same time an entertaining interlocutor in light conversation. So he equally possessed both those qualities that make people respect him and those that attract general love to them (make them the favorites of society). It may very well be that the chronicler is too blinded by the perfections of Michael and depicts his portrait to us with somewhat exaggerated features; but, in any case, this blindness is not at all the blinding of a biased supporter, for whom the chronicler in relation to Michael cannot be taken at all, and, therefore, the undoubted conclusion from the words of the chronicler is that Michael really represented a rare image of a remarkable person. Mikhail’s exceptional and completely outstanding personality attracted the attention of the Grand Duke to him: Having transferred him from Kolomna to Moscow, the Grand Duke made him, on the one hand, his spiritual father, and on the other hand, a very important and one of his most trusted officials, his printer, and generally brought him closer to himself as his favorite and favorite. As his favorite, Dmitry Ivanovich had an extraordinary affection for Mikhail, exactly the same as Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich had for Nikon, if only not more: “loving him dearly,” says the chronicler, “and honoring him as his father above all” 413. As a result of this, Mikhail, being a priest, took such an unusually high position under the sovereign that he became, as it were, second in command to him: “no one,” says the same chronicler, “was in such honor and glory as he, Mityai; having glory and honor above all; be in honor and glory from the great prince and from everyone and everything I will honor him, like a certain king”... Taking advantage of the extraordinary affection of the Grand Duke, Mikhail - which cannot be said about Nikon - also enjoyed universal love: “I love him all,” says the chronicler; and as for the nobles and boyars in particular, they not only did not harbor envy and hatred for the favorite, extraordinary in all respects and senses, but, loving him as much as the Grand Duke, like the latter had him as their spiritual father (the Grand Duke, “loving him dearly, so did his boyars..., the boyars and nobles who came to him in spirit..., were the father spiritual to all, to the oldest boyars 414. Was Michael infected with a vain inclination towards pomp and panache, or was this required of him by his position and deliberately, as from a favorite, was demanded by the Grand Duke, only like nobles and bishops, he surrounded himself with many servants and youths (“having many servants and youths”), and in the luxury of clothes he surpassed all the nobles and bishops: “all the days,” says the chronicler, “ changing with precious robes, and shining in his robes like a kind of surprise, no one wears such a robe and no one wears such a robes all day long, like him - priest Mityai.” “In this rank and dispensation,” as the chronicler puts it, Mikhail spent many years. Two years before the death of St. Alexy's position as an archimandrite in the court Spassky monastery of the Grand Duke became vacant, and then Dmitry Ivanovich began to convince and ask Michael to agree to take monastic vows, so that from the Spassky archimandrites he could be appointed metropolitan in the place of St. Alexia. At first, Mikhail resolutely refused to become a monk; but then, partly bowed by the most urgent convictions and requests of the Grand Duke, and partly forced to obey direct force 415, he was tonsured a monk and on the very day of his tonsure made an archimandrite in the abolished place. The question for researchers was how St. reacted. Alexy to appoint Grand Duke Mikhail as his future successor. In the chronicles we have not one legend about Michael, but two: of these two legends, one was written not by his supporter, but also not by his enemy - from the legend we borrowed everything that was reported about him above and it constitutes a historical source of information about him; another legend was written by his obvious enemy and, in its content, is nothing more than an indictment note against him 416. In the first legend, which is not hostile to Michael, there is absolutely nothing about how St. reacted. Alexy to his appointment as Grand Duke as his future successors - Alexy. Completely silent about this, the legend says that Mikhail, tonsured a monk, was made Archimandrite of Spassky with the thought of being the successor of St. Alexy, and that after the latter’s death he was introduced by the Grand Duke to the court of the metropolitans in order to be appointed metropolitan. The legend hostile to Michael assures that St. Alexy reacted very unfavorably to his election as the Grand Duke as future metropolitan, and precisely - according to the two editions of the legends, the matter appears in two slightly different forms. According to one edition of 417, St. Alexy, despite all the insistent requests of the Grand Duke, refused to bless Michael in his place, motivating his refusal allegedly by the fact that the apostle demands from the bishop that he should not be a new science in Christianity (not one of the converts - 1 Tim. 3:6), but Michael is a new science in monasticism, and says to the sovereign in his last answer: “I am not willing to bless him, but the Lord will give him God and the Most Pure Mother of God and the Most Reverend Patriarch and the Ecumenical Council, I bless him.” According to another edition 418, St. Alexy, having been begged and forced by the Grand Duke, did not find it possible to refuse his consent positively and decisively, but gave it in such a form that he secretly expressed his desire and at the same time uttered a prophecy about the unfulfillment of the Grand Duke’s desire: “Alexy, the Metropolitan,” says the legend according to our edition, “was begged and forced (by the Grand Duke), and neither promised the request to be him, but telling him in a saintly and senile manner, and even more prophetically, saying: “I am unwilling (the option is dissatisfied) to bless him (Michael), but God and the Holy Mother of God and the Most Reverend Patriarch and the Ecumenical Council will give him one.” One could to some extent suspect that the legend hostile to Michael, having been written by Metropolitan Cyprian, to whom Michael had caused too much trouble with his candidacy, was telling a lie. But nowadays we are able to say this last thing in a positive way. Found in manuscripts was a letter from Metropolitan Cyprian to the Monk Serius of Radonezh with his nephew Abbot Theodore, written after he - Cyprian after the death of St. Alexy unsuccessfully came to Moscow to occupy the department of the Metropolis of All Russia 419. From this letter it is revealed that St. Alexy, without any ambiguity, but with a perfect expression of his will and desire, as far as it depended on him, approved and blessed Mikhail to be his successor. Firstly, Cyprian, as he himself says in the letter, who knew very well what was happening in Moscow before and at the moment of Alexy’s death, does not hint in a single word that the latter did not want to bless Michael in his place; and he would deliberately and urgently talk about this if it really were so, because his interests would require him to talk about it, and it would be very important for him. Secondly, he at length and strenuously proves in his epistle by canonical rules that it is not appropriate for a saint to leave his throne as an inheritance to someone and place it on the hierarchal property, which he also wants: as is absolutely clear, this is directed against the fact that the saint. Alexy left Mikhail as his heir. Thirdly, Cyprian speaks directly about St. Alexie: “he could not (that is, he did not have the right) to leave an heir after his death.” Finally, fourthly, we read from him: “we saw the letter, (so) the Metropolitan wrote down while dying, and that letter will be with us at the great council.” This means: I saw the letter with which Alexy, when dying, wrote down the metropolis to Archimandrite Michael, and this letter will be presented by me to the Patriarchal Council as proof of the illegal behavior of the deceased metropolitan. The currently known Greek acts make it clear that shortly before the death of St. Alexy was sent from Moscow an embassy to the patriarch with a request that the latter recognize Alexy, the candidate chosen by the Grand Duke as his successor (see more about this below). It is not directly clear from the acts that the embassy was sent not only by the Grand Duke, but also by St. himself. Alexey. Based on what has just been said, this seems more than likely. We know that St. Alexy at first tried to appoint St. Sergius of Radonezh as his successor. It follows from this that Mikhail was not the candidate for him, which he directly and from the first time decided on together with the Grand Duke, and that he had something against him. What exactly could St. Alexy vs. Mikhail, we can’t say positively; It is not impossible, firstly, to admit that he, the former regent and ruler of the state during the sovereign’s infancy, having seen his new favorite in his place with the Grand Duke, had a human feeling of jealousy for the latter; secondly, it is likely to assume that in Mikhail, who was very reluctant to become a monk, he did not find a sufficiently monastic modest spirit - that the candidate for metropolitan seemed to him a more properly secular and secular person 420. While in Moscow they were choosing a successor to St. Alexy, sitting in Kyiv, waiting for his death, was already ready for his successor. This is Cyprian. Cyprian knew that in Moscow they harbored the greatest enmity towards him for his actions with St. Alexey; he knew that the favorite of the Grand Duke, for whom the sovereign had an extraordinary affection, had been chosen as the latter’s successor. Despite all this, after the death of Alexy, he decided to go to Moscow in order to obtain for himself the see of the Metropolis of All Russia. The Grand Duke, having learned of his intention to come to Moscow, placed cordons on the road so as not to let him through. But this did not stop him: he came to Moscow, making his way through a roundabout route. In Moscow, what happened to him was what could be expected from his completely extraordinary behavior: he was captured and put in prison (arrested), and then escorted out with all possible dishonor. Cyprian’s very exceptional act makes it clear that he belonged to the number of people capable of acting ahead and endowed with that courage that takes cities. But, without imagining him as a very eccentric person, it is difficult to admit that he did not have any reason to harbor at least faint hopes. And indeed, there is evidence to suggest that he had some reason to harbor some hope. Mikhail was such a favorite of the Grand Duke that the sovereign did not hear his soul; together with the Grand Duke, all the boyars loved him extremely and really wanted to see him as a metropolitan. Meanwhile, we read in the legends that the entire clergy, from the highest to the lowest, both black and white, had a completely different attitude towards him - that the clergy extremely disliked him and extremely did not want to see him as a metropolitan. What could be the reason for this dislike and reluctance, we will say a little below; but it is very likely to think that Cyprian based some of his hopes on them. Together with his above-mentioned letter to the Monk Sergius, written after his expulsion from Moscow, his letter to the same Sergius, written on the road to Moscow 421, has been preserved. The letter is very brief and does not contain anything special: the Metropolitan informs St. Sergius that he is going to Moscow, and expresses a desire to see him. It is very possible to suspect that something else was hidden behind the innocent letter and that at the same time Cyprian turned to Sergius with very important quests, which were inconvenient to talk about in the letter and which had to be conveyed orally by its deliverers, namely, with the quest for the Monk Sergius, together with other influential persons from the clergy of the Grand Duke, to agitate before the latter in favor of him - Cyprian. It was on this agitation, with convictions of which Cyprian could turn not only to St. Sergius, but also to others who had authority with the Grand Duke among the clergy 422, and he could place some hopes that turned out to be completely futile. We learn about Cyprian’s arrival in Moscow and what happened to him here from his letter to St. Sergius, written after his expulsion from here. This message, in which he, on the one hand, reports what happened to him, and on the other, and most importantly, pours out his complaints on the Grand Duke, produces a truly depressing moral impression. Cyprian managed to achieve that the patriarch conditionally installed him as metropolitan of all Russia, by submitting to the latter false denunciations against St. Alexy, filled with many false slander against him, and, having used all means to overthrow him from the pulpit 423, and now, when they remove him from this pulpit, he cries out to heaven and earth and to all Christians about the greatest injustice inflicted on him, which has not been heard in the whole world... “They rely on the kuns,” he says about the Grand Duke with his candidate, “but he finds it possible to assert about himself - to your truth... After all, he was appointed metropolitan of all Russia, and consigning to complete oblivion the means by which he achieved this, and, conscious only of his rights, he says: “even if my brother (i.e., Alexy, slandered by him) died, I am the saint in his place, mine is the metropolis.” The last words: “mine is the metropolis” sound so strange that there would be a desire to comment on them with harshness, for which we do not have the spirit 424... Cyprian in his letter excommunicates and curses those who were the culprit of the disgrace that happened to him in Moscow, but at the same time, prudently and just in case, sparing his own only culprit - the Grand Duke, he vainly punishes with divine wrath only the unfortunate officials of the latter, who, in their duty of obedience to the sovereign, were simple executors of his will 425. Cyprian came to Moscow, as can be seen from his letter to St. Sergius, between June 3 and 23, 1378, 426, i.e. about four months after the death of St. Alexia. Our chronicles say absolutely nothing about his visit to Moscow. The reason for the silence must be considered that, having appeared in Moscow, he was arrested there so quickly and so secretly - which he himself makes clear in his letter to St. Sergius - that rumors about his arrival did not spread in society and that the latter remained completely unaware of the incidental event. Having made an unsuccessful trip to Moscow, Cyprian “rushed,” as he himself puts it, 427 to seek his rights to the see of the Metropolis of All Russia in Constantinople, to the Patriarch. But here, too, he “found, as the Greek acts express it, a time that did not correspond to his goal”... 428. In one of the acts of the Patriarchal Council of Constantinople, which provides information relevant to us, it is read that the Patriarch of Constantinople, the successor of Philotheus, who installed Cyprian as metropolitan, Macarius 429 immediately after learning of the death of St. Alexy, sent to Great Russia, that is, to Moscow, to Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich, his letters, in which, on the one hand, he declared that he did not accept Cyprian in any way, and with which, on the other hand, he handed over this, that is, Great Russia, church to Archimandrite Michael 430. It is impossible and would make no sense at all to allow the patriarch to send these letters to Moscow on his own initiative, without being asked from the latter. On his own initiative, he could still remove Cyprian from the Moscow department, but why on his own initiative would he appoint Mikhail to it (about whom, without messages from Moscow, he could not have known anything)? Therefore, from this it is obvious that shortly before the death of St. Alexy from Moscow sent a request to the patriarch to remove Cyprian from the see of the metropolis there and to install Michael on it. From the act of the conciliar it is not clear who sent the request - whether it was the Grand Duke alone or together with the Metropolitan, that is, St. Alexey; but, as we have already said, based on other information, it is more than likely to assume the latter. It is very possible that in the act of the conciliar, with the elimination of all doubts, it was directly stated by whom the request was sent, but, unfortunately, in this place there is a greater or lesser omission in it, resulting from damage to the manuscript. Be that as it may, Cyprian appeared in Constantinople when the patriarch was completely in favor of Moscow’s requests and when he had already given his answer, which we have given, to Moscow. It is natural, therefore, that with his search for the see of the metropolis of all Russia, he found a time in Constantinople that did not correspond to his goal. Judging by what Cyprian himself says in the life of St. Peter about the reception he received from Patriarch Macarius, and about Macarius himself 431, one must think that this reception was extremely unfavorable. Immediately after the death of St. Alexy Archimandrite Michael was elevated by the Grand Duke, with the advice and approval of the boyars, to the court of the metropolitans, in order to rule the metropolis as a designated metropolitan before being appointed actual metropolitan. Cyprian, in his letter to the Monk Sergius, and behind him a legend hostile to Michael about the latter, found in the chronicle, assure that the named metropolitan, having been introduced into the metropolitan courtyard, “unknown to this, it was terribly strange and unusual” - that he clothed himself with the full dignity of metropolitan: He put on the white metropolitan hood, the metropolitan mantle, the metropolitan cross with paramanda 432, used the metropolitan staff - that he stood in the church in the metropolitan place, and even sat in the holy altar on the metropolitan throne. Regarding this accusation against Michael from Cyprian and the legend, we cannot speak in a completely positive way. Apparently, it was pointless for Cyprian to slander Michael before the Monk Sergius, because the latter could know the truth very well; therefore, one would have to think that he is telling the truth. But, on the other hand, the legend of the chronicle about Michael, which is not hostile to the latter, does not mention a single word about what Cyprian accuses Michael of. If we assume that Cyprian and the legend hostile to Michael are telling the truth, then the question will again remain for us: to what extent what Michael did was “terrible and unusual.” While we have never had a case before where a metropolis was ruled by an appointed metropolitan, we have had cases where bishops were ruled by appointed bishops: If we had positive information about what custom we had regarding appointed bishops, then we would be able to speak out in one sense or another about the behavior of Michael. But, unfortunately, we lack this information. In Cyprian's letter to St. Sergius, we seem to find indications that Michael did not do anything terrible or unusual, but did only what was being done among us, and that he did it with the blessing of St. Alexia. Cyprian writes: “it was not possible” for him (Alexius) to leave an heir after his death; If there was a previous order to place holy robes on someone, they cannot be worn by anyone else, but only by the saint alone.” In these words, Cyprian seems to want to say that St. himself laid some holy robes on Michael, blessing him to become a metropolitan. Alexy. Further, Cyprian writes: “they are slandering the Metropolitan, our brother (i.e., Alexy), that he blessed him (Michael) for all those things,” namely, the use of the metropolitan clothes mentioned above and for sitting in the metropolitan seat. But when comparing these last words of Cyprian with his words given above, there is a possibility of thinking that what he passed off as slander was not actually slander. In particular, that St. Alexy, when naming Michael his successor, could have placed on him a metropolitan cross with a paramand; regarding this we have decisive evidence or certification in the Epiphanius Life of St. Sergius of Radonezh. Epiphanius says that St. Alexy, who at first wanted to leave the Monk Sergius as his successor, laid on him with his own hands, like some kind of betrothal to the holiness, a golden cross with a paramand 434. Reasoning a priori, it is very difficult to admit that Mikhail allowed himself to do anything terrible and unusual in his behavior: being a man as smart and prudent as he seems to us, why on earth would he want to behave like a vulgar upstart? That there really was nothing reproachful, “terrible and unusual” in his behavior, positive evidence can be given for this, although, however, only a silentia. While at the metropolitan see as a designated metropolitan, he had a strong quarrel with the Bishop of Suzdal Dionysius: the bishop does not reproach him, as a designated metropolitan, for inappropriate behavior, whereas otherwise this reproach should have been expected from the bishop. The story of the chronicle about Michael, which is not hostile to him, speaks of his being in charge of the metropolis as a designated metropolitan: “and sitting on that great and high table (metropolitan) with every region and innocence towards everyone, as befits a metropolitan to rule; and throughout the metropolitan area, they collected tribute from churches, collections, Peter’s and Christmas incomes and lessons, and metropolitan taxes, all collected, and lived and ruled.” In the tone of the story, one can hear some reproach to Mikhail for appropriating too broad and excessive power for himself. If this is so, then the reproach is unfair: firstly, Mikhail rightfully owned all the power that he used; secondly, he had letters from the Patriarch of Constantinople, which formally confirmed all this power to him: In the letters of Patriarch Macarius, which he wrote to Moscow immediately after he learned of the death of Alexy and in which he recognized Michael as the successor of the last (according to a petition from Moscow), the named metropolitan was given all power (πάσα ἀρχή ) over the Moscow church with the exception, which was self-evident, of consecration or the right to confer church degrees 435. The Patriarch of Constantinople in his letters, which we have mentioned now, expressing his consent to the appointment of Michael as successor to St. Alexia, at the same time, invited them to be the first to arrive in Constantinople for initiation 436. And Michael, after one or another short time after being named metropolitan, began to prepare for the journey to Constantinople. But then, the chronicler says, he changed his thoughts and began to say to the Grand Duke: “it is written in the apostolic canons that two or three bishops will appoint a bishop; the same is written in the paternal rules: let the Russian bishops gather, numbering 5 or 6, and let them appoint me as bishop and metropolitan. “The chronicler says absolutely nothing to explain this decision of Michael, how to understand it. Since, in relation to himself, Michael had absolutely no special motives to want his installation to take place in Moscow, and not in Constantinople, for in the latter he was called and expected by the patriarch: it is not incredible to assume that he, as an ordinary person, had the bold idea of ​​introducing a new procedure for the election and installation of Russian metropolitans, that is, the election and installation not in Constantinople, but in Russia itself. Knowing the affairs and people in Constantinople, he could hope that he would have time to obtain consent there for a similar, of course very important, change in the order of filling the department of the Russian metropolitanate: the Emperor of Constantinople, who was then in the most disastrous and pitiful situation, was in extreme need of money 437, and in the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which was then very low in moral terms, they were extremely greedy for this latter. The Grand Duke and the boyars expressed their consent to the decision made by Mikhail, and bishops were convened in Moscow. But one of the bishops ruined the plans (if only there really were common plans). This was the Bishop of Suzdal Dionysius, who harbored a hidden enmity towards Mikhail, because he himself dreamed of a metropolitan see 438. Arriving in Moscow, he so decisively protested to the Grand Duke against the intention to install Mikhail in Moscow, as against an inappropriate implementation of the laws, that the Grand Duke became embarrassed and saw himself forced to abandon the idea given to him by Mikhail. Following this, the hidden enmity between Michael and Dionysius turned into a very strong open quarrel, and the situation changed in such a way that the former, abandoning the decision he had made to settle in Moscow, saw himself forced to hasten a trip to Constantinople. Dionysius, having arrived in Moscow, did not consider himself obligated to come to Michael to bring him an official bow, as required by the relationship of a subordinate to a superior. This was accepted by Michael, who, meanwhile, some lovers of quarrels - intriguers from secular or spiritual circles - tried in every possible way to arm against Dionysius for extreme insult to himself. When Michael sent to Dionysius with a reprimand, why he did not come to him with a bow, as to his superior, Dionysius appeared to the appointed metropolitan and answered: “You sent to tell me that you are my boss, but you are not my boss at all, and it was not me who should have come to you, but you, who should have come to me with a bow: I am a bishop, and you are a priest, but who is greater - a bishop or a priest?” Angry to the last degree, Michael said to Dionysius: “You called me a priest, but wait a little, I will come from Constantinople from the Patriarch and then I will make you less than a priest”: after this, says the chronicler, “there was a lot of abuse and rumors between them.” Having quarreled terribly with the appointed metropolitan, the bishop of Suzdal decided to go to Constantinople to try to get himself a metropolitan position there under Michael. What the bishop based his hopes on is not at all clear and not at all visible to us; but Archimandrite Mikhail did not consider them at all chimerical; not being able to give a satisfactory explanation of the matter; for our part, we can only point out that the hopes were indeed not entirely chimerical: a letter to Dionysius of Patriarch Nile, Makariev’s successor, has survived to us, by which the bishop was elevated to archbishop; from this letter it turns out that Dionysius wrote to Macarius, and that the latter invited him to come to Constantinople 439 (according to the prevailing morals in Constantinople at that time, it is not impossible to assume that Macarius wanted to see in Constantinople two contenders for the Russian metropolis in order to sell it at an auction for a higher price). The Grand Duke, in order to deprive Dionysius of the opportunity to go to Constantinople, ordered him to be captured and imprisoned. Then the bishop, according to the delicate expression of the chronicle, “outwitted” the sovereign, and according to the indelicate expression of simple language, he deceived him: He began to ask the Grand Duke for freedom and assured him that he would not go to Constantinople without his permission, and introduced the Monk Sergius of Radonezh as his guarantor 440. The Grand Duke, believing Dionysius and relying on his guarantor, released him and sent him to his see. But the bishop, having spent a short time in Suzdal, moved from it to Nizhny Novgorod and from there, betraying his guarantor, ran along the Volga to Constantinople. Michael, suspecting the Monk Sergius of complicity with Dionysius, flared up with terrible anger against him and threatened to destroy his monastery 441; but at the same time he himself found himself forced to hasten the journey to Constantinople. St. Alexy died on February 12, 1878. Archimandrite Michael went to Constantinople after July 20, 1379. Consequently, he remained at the metropolitan see as a designated metropolitan for a year and five months. As we have already said, Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich had an extraordinary friendly affection for Mikhail, “loving him dearly and honoring him as a father above all.” As a result, he equipped him to Constantinople in a completely exceptional way: firstly, in case of any needs there and in case of a lack of money, he entrusted him, so to speak, with all his will and provided him with all his credit - he gave him unwritten charters or forms, sealed with the Grand Duke's seal, on which he could write on behalf of the Grand Duke, which he found necessary, letters, and on which he could write in the name of the Grand Duke, borrowed letters or bills in such amounts as would be necessary (not exceeding the Grand Duke's loan). Secondly, he sent with him, to accompany him, an extremely brilliant retinue. This retinue, so numerous that it represented a whole “very great regiment,” consisted of: three archimandrites, the metropolitan Vladimir choir, the archpriest and protodeacon of the Moscow cathedral, a large number of abbots, priests, deacons and monks, the boyar of the Grand Duke, who had to represent the person of the latter, as his ambassador, and at the same time received from him eldership or the authorities over the entire train 442, five metropolitan boyars, two translators, the best metropolitan courtiers and the best metropolitan servants. An extraordinary farewell was arranged for Mikhail and his farewell from Moscow; he was escorted far out of the city “with great honor and glory”: the Grand Duke himself with his children and boyars, all the bishops, all the archimandrites and abbots, priests and monks, merchants and worldly people, and a multitude of people. On July 26, Mikhail with a regiment of his companions crossed the Oka near Kolomna and headed to Ryazan. From Ryazan he went to the Horde or Tatar steppe in order to walk through it to the Kafin or Black Sea. In the Horde, Mamai stopped him; but, after a short delay, he released him with honor, ordering him to be given a label (preserved to this day) and escorted all the way to the sea 443. Having boarded the ship, Michael crossed the Black Sea and was already approaching Constantinople by the Bosphorus, so that it was already visible; but then... by the will of God, his story and story suddenly ended: he suddenly fell ill and died suddenly, so that he was brought to Constantinople already dead, only to be buried in it 444. [About the rumors circulating in Moscow that Mikhail-Mityai died a violent death, which we, for our part, consider unfounded and which, as one must think, arose from a comparison of the suddenness of his death with the extreme dislike of the clergy towards him, - in the Nikon Chronicle, IV, 76.] Before we part with Mikhail, we must say a few additional words about him. The hostile legend about him in the chronicle assures that, contrary to the Grand Duke and the boyars, the priests and monks were very unwilling to see him in the metropolitans, in the place of Alexiev, and then says that when he was elevated to the court of the metropolitans, then “they began to arm themselves against priests and monks and abbots and archimandrites and bishops, and having condemned and sold many and risen with authority, not offending anyone" ... that "bishops and archimandrites and abbots and monks and priests sighed because of him, because you imprisoned and punished many in iron chains and humbled and punished them with authority." If the legend does not compose all this in order to present Michael as a hated tyrant and tormentor, then it lets us know that Michael intended to be an exceptional metropolitan. To suggest that he launched a cruel persecution of the clergy, starting with the bishops, for no apparent reason and without any reason, of course, would be completely unfounded and untenable. If he started this persecution, then it must be assumed that he brought it down on unworthy people. Therefore, it must be assumed that he wanted to make it the task of his reign to reform the morals of the clergy from top to bottom. The legend makes it clear that Michael was abundantly endowed with the courage and energy that was required for the mission he proposed, which was very difficult for him and, therefore, gives the right to assume that the mission would not have ended in the sad complete fiasco with which 80 years after him it ended with one of his successors (Metropolitan Theodosius) ... One cannot but sincerely regret that such was the fate of a man who was undoubtedly extremely remarkable 445 . But the saddest side of Michael’s sudden death is that it was precisely this that served as a completely unexpected reason for the most deplorable confusion at the metropolitan see, so that his entire short story turned, as it were, into just a sidebar to the saddest fairy tale. After his death, Mikhail’s companions had to return to Moscow with nothing and with unexpected news of his death. But they did not do this: they decided to install a metropolitan from among themselves. We said that Michael was accompanied by three archimandrites; These archimandrites were: John of the Moscow Petrovsky Monastery, Pimin of the Pereyaslav Goritsky Monastery and Martigian of the unknown Kolomna Monastery. The embassy council decided to appoint one or the other of the first two archimandrites as metropolitans. Prolonged and heated arguments ensued between supporters of both candidates; but finally Pimin's side gained the upper hand 446. On one of the unwritten charters or on one of the forms that Grand Duke Michael provided, they wrote on behalf of the former a petition to the patriarch that Pimin be made metropolitan. Patriarch Nilus, successor of Macarius, who called Michael to Constantinople, fulfilling the imaginary request of the Grand Duke, and installed Pimin as metropolitan. It seems extremely perplexing and incomprehensible why the ambassadors could decide to do such a blatant thing as this arbitrary decision of theirs to seek the appointment as metropolitan of one of the archimandrites who were among them: In order to want to dispose of the metropolitan see for themselves, in addition to the Grand Duke, for this they had to be crazy people or people, as they say, with two heads. How can you explain to yourself their absolutely incredible act? The only possible and only probable explanation is that they were carried away and driven towards him by the Greeks. In our chronicles and in Greek acts it is stated that the patriarch, by appointing Pimin as metropolitan, deceived the ambassadors 447; but this is not only a complete untruth, but also a most incongruous lie, so as not to express it in a much harsher way towards those who deliberately say it 448. Nilov's predecessor Macarius was written from Moscow that Michael would be sent to him to be appointed metropolitan, and he himself wrote to Michael, calling him to be ordained in Constantinople. Metropolitan Cyprian, after his unsuccessful trip to Moscow, went to Constantinople to challenge Michael for the see of the Metropolitan of All Russia, and when the ambassadors arrived in Constantinople, he was there 449; Bishop Dionysius of Suzdal was also there, somewhat forestalling the ambassadors; finally, it was completely impossible that the ambassadors themselves, with their great multitude and, on the one hand, in the absence of unanimity between them, and on the other hand, given the ability of the Greeks to find out secrets, could keep their secret a secret. It may seem puzzling that our own chronicles, covering the Greeks, claim that the latter were victims of deception. But this puzzling thing will be explained to us if we assume that in our chronicles in this place none other than Cyprian, who wanted to cover up the Greeks, speaks, for which there is also positive evidence 450. Thus, there cannot be the slightest doubt that in Constantinople it was very well and absolutely reliably known that Archimandrite Michael, and not anyone else, was sent to be ordained metropolitan. But if in Constantinople, despite excellent and completely reliable knowledge of the matter, they appointed Pimin instead of Mikhail, then it seems absolutely necessary to assume that the very idea of ​​​​replacing the real candidate with a false one was submitted to the ambassadors there. After all, one cannot, in fact, imagine ambassadors as crazy and two-headed people; and if so, then what motives could they have for an incredible act that could bring them nothing except to attract the terrible wrath of the Grand Duke? But the Greeks are another matter. The ambassadors brought with them the metropolitan treasury 451 left after Michael, - as one should think from the latter’s relationship with the Grand Duke, huge; They brought with them the unwritten charters of the Grand Duke, through which any amount of money could be borrowed. If the ambassadors had returned home only after burying Michael in Constantinople; then all this would have been taken back to Moscow by them. Meanwhile, all this could have remained in Constantinople, if only they had been encouraged to look for the position of metropolitan for another, a dummy, instead of the real deceased candidate. The ambassadors, of course, had to be afraid of falling under the grave wrath of the Grand Duke for their outrageously daring act; but the Greeks could reassure them that they would have time to excuse and justify them before the sovereign. And we really know that the patriarch, even after he could no longer feign ignorance that he had installed Pimin as an illegal candidate, worked very hard for him before the Grand Duke 452. But, considering it more than probable that the initiative of the incredible deed belonged to the Greeks, one cannot, of course, imagine our ambassadors as complete fools, and, therefore, one cannot think that they agreed to put forward a false candidate instead of a real one only in order to deliver money to the Greeks and so as not to deliver anything to themselves except the danger of the grave wrath of the Grand Duke. If they agreed to this, then it is necessary to think that they agreed as much to deliver the money to the Greeks as to deliver it to themselves, that is, to pay a certain amount of money to the Greeks and divide a certain amount, under the guise of payment to the Greeks, among themselves. Thus, this installation of Pimin as metropolitan should be presented as a two-sided robbery of the Grand Duke by both strangers and his own. The Nikon Chronicle assures that this robbery was pure and beyond all measure, fabulous and monstrous. Namely, that not only was it spent, i.e. distributed to the Greeks and divided by the ambassadors among themselves, the entire cash brought treasury, which, as we said, should be imagined as huge, but what else was borrowed from the Constantinople bankers in the name of the Grand Duke, against his bills written on the above-mentioned charters or forms, more than 20 thousand rubles of silver 453, which with our current money will be more than two million rubles credit 454. The ambassadors arrived in Constantinople with Michael's body no later than the end of August - beginning of September 1379. Pimin was installed as metropolitan in the month of June of the following 1380 after a 9 or 10 month stay in Constantinople 455. This slowness is explained by the fact that the ambassadors arrived in Constantinople while the patriarchal see, after the overthrow of Macarius 456 from it and before the installation of the new Patriarch Nile, remained idle 457, i.e., it should be implied that the dignitaries and officials of the patriarchate, having intended a magnificent gesheft (we believe that it is quite permissible to use in our case indecent word) the installation of a false candidate as metropolitan of Moscow, kept the ambassadors in Constantinople to wait for the election of a new patriarch. In this latter there were two people who were supposed to loudly testify and protest against Piminov’s imposture, these were Metropolitan Cyprian and Bishop Dionysius of Suzdal. But here they found it possible not to stop the matter even in the face of two witnesses. As for Cyprian, the conciliar act on the appointment of Pimin makes it clear that he had to renounce his protests against the falsity of Piminova’s candidacy and his demands for the see of the metropolis of all Russia to himself, in view of the threat that he, having been appointed metropolitan during the life of Alexy in an illegal manner, would be deprived of the Lithuanian see. Waving his hand, Cyprian fled from Constantinople, without waiting for Piminov’s dedication 458. As for Dionysius, he received the title of archbishop in Constantinople, and with very considerable probability one can suspect that the title was given to him so that he would agree not to act as a formally protesting witness. Appointed metropolitan in June 1380, Pimin in the same month was present at one conciliar meeting and signed the act of this latter. From this signature it turns out that he received the title of Kyiv, although Kyiv was in the actual possession of Cyprian, but did not receive the title: “all Russia”. He signed the conciliar act: “Smereni Metropolitan Poimin Kiev (kiy) and Great Russia” 459. It remains incomprehensible how Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich did not learn about the death of Michael and the plans and enterprises of his ambassadors in Constantinople for a whole 9-10 months, and how he did not send there to impose his veto on their machinations. It is likely that this must be explained by the exceptional circumstances of that time. Mamai was gathering and preparing to make that terrible invasion of the Grand Duke, which ended with the famous Battle of Kulikovo on September 8, 1380: perhaps the Tatars completely stopped communications between Moscow and Constantinople; Perhaps the Grand Duke, absorbed in the worries of gathering and equipping the unprecedentedly great army against Mamai that was required, had absolutely no time to think about his ambassadors who were in Constantinople. And Pimin, who was appointed metropolitan, was in no hurry to return to Russia. It is necessary to think that now the matter was that the patriarch would first try to win over the Grand Duke in his favor and convince the latter to accept him as a legitimate metropolitan. However, if this was so, the patriarch’s efforts failed. Having learned what the ambassadors did in Constantinople after the death of Michael, the Grand Duke became extremely angry and decided not to accept Pimin. We don’t know whether Cyprian, through his well-wishers, managed to win over the sovereign in his favor or whether he, seeing no other way out, forced himself to suppress his feelings for him, only Dmitry Ivanovich, not wanting to accept Pimin, decided to send for Cyprian. In March 1381, he sent his spiritual father Simonovsky Abbot Theodore 460 to Kyiv to call Cyprian to his department, as a result of which Cyprian arrived in Moscow on Ascension Day, May 23, the same year 1381 461. Seven months after Cyprian’s arrival in Moscow, therefore, in December of the same 1381, Pimin, returning from Constantinople, also appeared within Russia. When he came to the border city of the Grand Duchy of Kolomna, the Grand Duke sent to seize him and take him for exile past Moscow (without bringing him into it) to Kostroma Chukhloma, and his squad, Duma members and advisers, that is, all members of the embassy who were responsible for his appointment, were taken to different places and put in prison 462. Apparently, this would be the end of the sad story: one way or another, Cyprian obtained the metropolitan see during the life of St. Alexy, but the Grand Duke reconciled with him, or at least with the need to tolerate him, and called him to Moscow. However, the huge money that Pimin paid for the metropolitan see in Constantinople ensured that the story did not end there. Patriarch Nil, having learned that his efforts for Pimin were in vain and that instead of the see he was imprisoned, turned to new, most urgent efforts for him: the patriarch began to besiege the Grand Duke with his letters, in which, on the one hand, he accused Cyprian, and on the other, he interceded for Pimin. The consequence of these new letters was that the Grand Duke, perhaps not personally changing or conquering his hostile feelings towards Cyprian, sent the latter away from Moscow and summoned the imprisoned Pimin to the see 463. In August 1382, there was an invasion of Moscow by Khan Tokhtamysh, who after the Battle of Kulikovo took the place of Mamai, who had been overthrown by him. The Grand Duke wanted to fight with the new khan, as he fought with the previous one, but he met decisive resistance to his intention from the princes and his boyars, because after the terrible Kulikovo battle there was a complete shortage of military men, and as a result of this, with a small retinue, he retreated from Moscow to Pereyaslavl, from which he later retired to Kostroma. When the Tatars appeared under the walls of the capital abandoned by the Grand Duke and when terrible excitement began between the inhabitants of the latter over whether to fight or not to fight the Tatars, the Metropolitan did not find it possible to stay in Moscow and fled from it to Tver. This flight of Cyprian from the besieged capital served as a pretext for the Grand Duke to reveal his anger against him and expel him from Moscow, and in his place call Pimin, who had previously been transferred from Chukhloma to the same Tver 464. Cyprian was expelled from Moscow in the fall of 1382, after October 7, having spent 16 months in the metropolitan department there. As it happens in theatrical comedies, everything has calmed down and suddenly everything rises upside down again, so in our most deplorable comedy from real life, new faces appeared on the stage to continue it further. Bishop Dionysius of Suzdal, who went to Constantinople in the summer of 1379, shortly before Mikhailov’s trip there, lived there until 1383 (he left his bishopric to the mercy of fate for three years and a half!). At the beginning of this year (in January) he returned to Russia in the rank of archbishop, which was given to him by Patriarch Nilus 465. We do not know how strongly he protested against the installation of Pimin as metropolitan, which took place before his eyes; one can, as we said, assume that it is not particularly strong, and it is quite possible to suspect that he received the rank of archbishop precisely because he agreed to remain a silent witness, and did not act as a formally protesting witness: but, returning to Russia, he decided to get himself the metropolitan throne near Pimin, which he had long dreamed of. He probably told the Grand Duke the story of Pimin’s appointment as metropolitan in all its ugly truth; Probably, he was the first to inform the Grand Duke about the enormous amount of money that was borrowed by Pimin and the ambassadors on behalf of the latter. Be that as it may, he managed to arm the Grand Duke against Pimin, and in June 1384 he sent him - Dionysius to Constantinople together with Simonov's Archimandrite Theodore "government for the sake of the Russian metropolis", as our chronicles say vaguely, precisely - as the Greek acts say more definitely, to demand the deposition of Pimin and to seek the installation of himself in his place - Dionysius 466. There can be no doubt that the patriarch knew very well about the illegality and fraud of Pimin’s candidacy and at the time he appointed him metropolitan; but now formal statements regarding this were brought and presented to him on behalf of the Grand Duke, and he had no choice but to pretend to be deceived and abandon Pimin, that is, sacrifice this latter. This is what the patriarch did: he agreed with the council that Pimin, if what was being reported against him was true, should be deposed from the pulpit, and sent two metropolitans to Russia with a retinue of dignitaries 467 so that, after hearing the accusations against Pimin from the Grand Duke, they would depose him and put Dionysius in his place 468 . The patriarch himself did not appoint Dionysius as metropolitan, as one should think, because, on the one hand, he wanted to try to reconcile the Grand Duke with Pimin and in this sense gave instructions to the metropolitans, and on the other hand, because he did not trust Dionysius and suspected him of a deceiver who was looking for the metropolitan see on the basis of forged letters drawn up on behalf of the Grand Duke 469. Thus, an unprecedented event was about to take place - the installation of a Russian metropolitan in Russia itself by the hands of Greek metropolitans. But this event did not happen. The patriarchal metropolitans came to Moscow in the fall of 1384 or the winter of 1384–85 470, but Dionysius, who had been named Russian metropolitan by the patriarch, did not appear there. We don’t know whether he walked together with the Greek metropolitans or separately from them, but for some reason he made his way back not through the Horde, but through Kyiv. Cyprian was sitting in Kyiv: being gifted with the inclination and ability to resort to decisive means to achieve his goals, he did not think about resorting to that means to capture the new rival that had appeared to him, which he managed to do with the hands of the Kyiv prince Vladimir Olgerdovich 471. In conclusion, without having time to escape from him, Dionysius died about a year later. (October 15, 1385 472 Theodore Simonovsky returned safely to Moscow and received from the patriarch - for himself the rank of archimandrite, and for his monastery the right of stauropegy 473. Apparently, such morals prevailed in Constantinople at that time that if all the Russian bishops and abbots had gone there for shopping, no one would have returned empty-handed). Even after the capture of Dionisiev in Kyiv, Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich did not want to reconcile with Pimin. Since he could not wish for Cyprian in view of the act that the latter had just committed - this capture of Dionysius, it is necessary to think that he demanded the installation of a new metropolitan for himself. But a new metropolitan was not assigned to him, and instead he was faced with the saddest and most insulting thing that, with the existence of two metropolitans, he would not have one. Leaving the patriarchal metropolitans in Moscow to enjoy the hospitality of the Grand Duke - and one must think that they wanted and tried to take advantage of it as long as possible - Pimin in May 1385 went to Constantinople to work there for the restoration or strengthening of himself at the metropolitan see 474. For his part, the patriarch, when Pimin came to him, wrote out Cyprian with his letter, who arrived in Constantinople along with the patriarchal metropolitans who went to Moscow and returned some time after Pimin 475. Without appointing a new metropolitan to the Grand Duke, the patriarch proposed to give a trial to the two existing metropolitans in order to decide which of them should be recognized as having the legal right to the Moscow see. It is completely incomprehensible why and for what reasons the patriarch, so guilty before the Grand Duke for the installation of Piminov, wanted to impose on him one or another of the metropolitans he did not want. But it is not only incomprehensible, but also completely inexcusable, the behavior of the patriarch, who, intending to give the Grand Duke one or another of the metropolitans that the latter did not want, did not want to give him a single one: the metropolitans lived in Constantinople awaiting trial, and the Grand Duke remained in the unknown - who would be his metropolitan and without any metropolitan, for about three years - until the end of 1387 - beginning of 1388. Did the patriarch delay the trial for so long because he did not find it necessary to rush with the affairs of the Russian church at all, or did he have some special motives for this: but when you see that people looked at the whole church as their toy, then a terrible sadness involuntarily takes over you... The end of the incredibly long delay was that Cyprian defeated Pimin, and the matter was accompanied by unexpected actions on the part of the latter, and incredible actions on the part of another, who was in Constantinople, a representative of Moscow. Soon after the metropolitans who went to Russia returned to Constantinople, the Grand Duke again sent Archimandrite Theodore to Patriarch Simonovsky with confirmatory demands for the deposition of Pimin and with a new presentation of evidence of his guilt 476 . At first, Theodore actually behaved like a zealous accuser of Pimin. But then, before the conciliar trial of the metropolitans began, he and Pimin, according to the testimony of the conciliar act of 1389 on the deposition of Pimin, “became like-minded people and, having entered into a conspiracy among themselves and made oaths to each other and made some mutual obligations and entered into some inappropriate connections,” fled from Constantinople to Anatolia (Asia Minor) to the Turks and, having found support from the latter, they poured out from there many blasphemies (curses) both against the kingdom and the church, i.e. both the emperor and the patriarch 477. Pimin’s behavior can be understood in this unexpected way. It is known that at that time the Turks took possession of almost the entire Byzantine empire, and that the emperors of Constantinople, with the very little that remained in their power, were perfect slaves of the Turkish sultans 478. Based on what has just been said, the behavior of Pimin should be explained in such a way that he, after seeing that the chances of victory in Constantinople were leaning towards Cyprian, fled to the Turks in order, with the assistance of the latter, to defeat his enemy. It may seem incomprehensible how Pimin came up with the idea of ​​​​turning to the Turks, and how he could find support from them. But regarding this we have instructions. The Greek acts say that Pimin and Theodore “entered into some inappropriate relationships.” At that time there was a fairly large Turkish colony in Constantinople 479; when he was appointed metropolitan, Pimin borrowed money, among other things, from the Turkish bankers of Constantinople 480: so, by inappropriate connections, obviously, one must mean connections with these bankers and understand the matter in such a way that they, the bankers, arranged for Pimin to find help from the Turks. In all likelihood, the Turks should mean not the Sultan himself, who, however, then had his capital no longer in Asia, but in Europe - in Adrianople, but some pasha closest to Constantinople; by Anatolia we should not at all mean the depths of Asia Minor, but, as it is made clear in the acts themselves, places very close to Constantinople, perhaps just the Asian shore of the Bosphorus. Thus, Pimin's unexpected behavior can be understood; but Theodore’s behavior seems incomprehensible. Greek acts say that Pimin appointed him bishop of Rostov (with the participation, as it should be implied, of some Greek bishops) and that, with the permission of the metropolitan, he arbitrarily appropriated the title of archbishop 481; but this cannot be considered a sufficient incentive for him to shamefully betray the Grand Duke and become an accomplice of Pimin: he could, so to speak, legally buy both from the patriarch. Be that as it may, with the help of the Turks, Pimin failed to win the case. The emperor and the patriarch several times and strenuously invited him to return to Constantinople and personally appear at the council 482; For some reason he did not want to do this: and the patriarch and the council deposed him from the throne in absentia, and Cyprian was proclaimed the legitimate metropolitan of all Russia 483. This verdict of the patriarchal council took place at the end of 1387 - at the beginning of 1388 484. Proclaimed the legitimate metropolitan of all Russia, Cyprian was in no hurry to go to Moscow. He had such guilt before the Grand Duke as the capture of Dionysius, and, one must think, he found it necessary to conduct preliminary negotiations with the sovereign in order to achieve reconciliation. But declared deposed, Pimin appeared in Moscow in the month of July (6th) 1388. In our chronicles about this coming of Pimin it is said: “Metropolitan Pimin came to Rus' from Constantinople, not to Kyiv, but to Moscow only, and he came without wrong, since Kipreyan was the metropolitan in Kyiv, and Pimin the metropolitan in Moscow” 485. Now Pimin said the above or something else about the result with which he arrived from Constantinople (after his more than three-year absence!), but he was accepted by the Grand Duke; therefore, one must think that he hid from the sovereign about his deposition and appeared before him as a legitimate metropolitan. If what the Greek documents say about the relationship of Theodore of Rostov (formerly Simonov) to him is true, then it is necessary to think that he, for his part, assisted him in deceiving the Grand Duke 486. It is possible, however, to assume that Pimin and Theodore did not deceive the sovereign, but in another way persuaded him to accept the first of them as a true metropolitan, namely, they could present to the sovereign that the trial was carried out illegally, without inviting Pimin to the council, and that as a result of this, the verdict of the council could not be recognized as valid. And since the Grand Duke was faced with an alternative - to accept Pimin or Cyprian, he, reluctantly, could now find this argument convincing for himself. Having lived in Russia from July 1388 until the spring of the following 1389, Pimin again went to Constantinople. (13 April 487). If he deceived the Grand Duke; then he had to fear that the deception would soon or not soon be revealed. (And in this case, it will be very strange and incomprehensible that for almost a whole year the Grand Duke was not allowed to know from Constantinople from the Patriarch or from Cyprian about the conciliar decision that had taken place). And, therefore, after his completely vile act, he had to run away with a new supply of money to make a new, no matter what, attempt to justify himself, or at least do something to hide from the eyes of the Grand Duke, leaving himself to fate. If he did not deceive the Grand Duke, then, in view of the new collected supply of money, he could have the desire to win a legal victory over Cyprian and achieve a formal repeal of the conciliar decision. Regarding this journey of Piminov, a directly contemporary writer says: “Great Prince Dmitry Ivanovich was indignant at the Metropolitan about this, as if he had gone without his advice, there would have been some kind of discord between them” 488 . If the sovereign was deceived by Pimin and considered him a legitimate metropolitan, then he could disagree and be indignant at his trip because he found the latter unnecessary. If the prince was not deceived by Pimin, then the reason for the indignation remains unclear to us. Despite the fact that Pimin went on a journey against the will of the Grand Duke, he could take with him a fairly large retinue, which consisted of: one bishop (Mikhail of Smolensk), archimandrite (Moscow Spassky Monastery Sergius Azakov 489), archpriests, priests, deacons (among whom there were a protodeacon and an archdeacon), monks and servants. Five bishops 490 Russians with archimandrites, abbots and monks escorted the metropolitan from Moscow even to Pereyaslavl of Ryazan (present-day Ryazan) and almost further. (It may very well be that they were driven not so much by the desire to express their respect to the metropolitan, but by the desire to make a pleasure trip and take advantage of the hospitality of the Ryazan Grand Duke, whose capital was on the way and who really gave the bishops many and great feasts 491). While Pimin was in Russia, a change took place in the patriarchal department in Constantinople: Patriarch Nil died and his place was taken in January 1389 492 by a new patriarch, Anthony. The new patriarch, within a very short time after his accession to the throne, in the following month of February, drew up a new council on the case of Pimin and Cyprian (of whom the latter, meanwhile, remained in Constantinople) and at this council confirmed the verdicts of the council of Nilov, i.e. Pimin was recognized as deposed, and Cyprian as the legitimate metropolitan of all Russia 493. Whether Pimin knew when he went to Constantinople that he had already been deposed twice is not clear from our chronicles. What awaited Pimin in Constantinople: would he have managed to achieve his restoration with the help of new money, or would he have been deposed for the third time, and what would he have decided to do in this last case - these questions remained unresolved. His present journey was the end of his adventures. He reached Constantinople and, not daring to appear there directly, first stopped in one Turkish city on the Bosporus in order to enter into relations with Constantinople through others, and then moved to Chalcedon, which is from Constantinople on the opposite side of the mouth of the Bosphorus. Here, in Chalcedon, he gave his sinful soul to God on September 11, 1389 494. It is very possible that Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich would not agree to accept Cyprian. But he died a little over a month after Piminov left Moscow - on May 19, 1389. His son Vasily Dmitrievich, who succeeded him, agreed to accept Cyprian, with which, finally, the end of our confusion came. In the History of the Western Church, as we know, there are pages that people belonging to this church would be torn out with great pleasure. Without boasting excessively in front of the West, we must know that in the history of our church there are extremely bad pages. The exceptional circumstances of our time, combined with the happy accident that the Greek acts of this time have been preserved and discovered, somewhat lift for us the thick veil behind which in our ordinary history, by the will of our chroniclers, our highest clergy with its moral physiognomy and quality is hidden from us. The little part of the picture that is revealed to us cannot in any way be called attractive. Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich composed the retinue of Archimandrite Michael for the trip to Constantinople, no doubt, from people whom he considered especially good, and however, these especially good people allowed themselves such an extremely bad thing as the installation of Pimin; Dionysius of Suzdal, Theodore of Rostov are taken for very respectable people, and yet they appear before us in no way in a brilliant light. The Greek authorities, who with brave unceremoniousness allowed themselves in relation to the Russian metropolis those egregious acts of which they were then capable, confidently imagined that if they wrote lengthy and eloquently lying exculpatory notes, the Russians would, without objection, find themselves guilty exclusively. But they were completely wrong. The Russians expressed their protest against the moral debauchery of the Greeks in a decisive, albeit unexpectedly peculiar way: they formed the conviction that morally fallen people had lost the true piety of the faith, and ceased to recognize their authority in this regard. We will return to very important speeches about this below. Our chronicles assure that Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy was a sincere and deeply pious man (although, as we already mentioned, he was not fully accustomed to the divine scriptures). One must therefore think that the most deplorable confusion in the metropolis, which began with the unexpected death of his favorite Archimandrite Michael and continued until the very end of his life, caused him extremely strong and deep grief. According to the Nikon Chronicle, in 1388, ambassadors from the Pope came to Moscow 495. At that time there were two popes at the same time - in Rome itself, Urban VI and in Avignon, Clement VII. One must think that Urban sent the embassy, ​​for we know that in 1384 he sent an embassy to the Greeks 496. In all likelihood, the matter of this embassy should be understood in such a way that the pope learned of the extreme confusion occurring in the Russian metropolitanate and that he considered the moment convenient to address the Grand Duke, who should have been outraged by the behavior of the Greeks, to begin an alliance with the Roman Church. (On the papal throne, which simultaneously had two popes, it was exactly the same as on the see of the Russian metropolitanate; but the popes, according to their dual special logic, could find that what was unusual and inexcusable for others was usual and excusable for them...). St. Stephen, Bishop of Perm During the period of time of our confusion at the metropolitan department, a very important and very joyful event took place, as if in compensation for them, of the conversion to Christianity by one valiant missionary who appeared as a significant number of foreigners who had hitherto remained in paganism, subject to Rus'. This is precisely the event of the conversion to Christianity of St. Stefan of Perm of part of the people of Perm or Permyaks, known under the special name Zyryan. Speeches about St. Stephen should begin with a complaint that we could have a very good life of him and that in fact we have his life, which, in the sense of a biography or in the sense of a historical narrative, can far from be recognized as very good. The biography of St. Stefan was his younger contemporary, his personal interlocutor and friend, the monk of the Trinity St. Sergius Monastery Epiphanius. This Epiphanius is also a famous man in his own way, representing among our writers the lives of the saints of a writer so outstanding that his contemporaries, who marveled at him, gave him the loud title of the wise. (“Epiphanius the Wise”). He fully possessed the ability to write lives; but if in general among our writers of lives, following their Greek predecessors, the main advantage of their works was placed not in the detailed and thorough transmission of information about the saints, but in the rhetorical elegance of speech, in rhetorical, one way or another achieved, verbosity and intricate eloquence: then Epiphanius stood out among our writers of the lives of saints in this respect more than in any other, and was an amateur rhetorical elegance and intricate eloquence, for which he received from his contemporaries the title of the wise, to the nec plus ultra or to the most extreme limits of the possible. Thanks to this man, who could write a very good life of St. Stephen in the sense of a biography, and gave us an embellished, in the words of the Book of Degrees 497, life of him, which in this sense cannot be called very good. Epiphanius wrote two lives, our St. Stephen and St. Sergius of Radonezh. In Sergiev’s life, either because he was subject to someone’s good outside influence or, perhaps, because he did not want to be completely monotonous in both lives, rhetoric is in greater or lesser balance with the actual content and he is completely carried away by the former only occasionally. But in Stefanov’s life, the factual content is decisively sacrificed to unbridled, one might say, rhetoric, as a result of which this life, being, like Sergiev’s life, very extensive in volume, is very poor in factual content and very unsatisfactory in relation to this latter: Epiphanius treats the factual side of his narrative as if with deliberate negligence, and as for the sequence of the story, he not only does not care about it, but as if he deliberately wants confuse her. And thus, unfortunately, it happened that, having a very extensive life of St. Stephen, we do not have complete and detailed information about his life and activities, and with this extensive life in our hands we must speak a lot on the basis of guesses and assumptions 498. And all the more, of course, it is worthy of regret that the activity of St. Stefana is not some ordinary or ordinary person, but outstanding and exceptional. St. Stephen was born in the city of Ustyug, which is located at the confluence of the Sukhona and Yuga rivers, forming the Northern Dvina, and which is currently a district city of the Vologda province. Coming from a spiritual rank, although, however, in ancient times this title did not yet exist in the true sense of the word, he was the son of one of the clergy or clerks of the Ustyug cathedral 499. The exact year of his birth is not known, but it is approximately 1345, which will be the time of the reign of Grand Duke Semyon Ivanovich the Proud in Moscow and the management of the Russian Church by Metropolitan Theognost. His worldly name also remains unknown. Endowed by nature with brilliant mental abilities, Stephen showed his exceptional sharpness when he was sent by his father to learn to read and write: he learned to read well, so that he was admitted to conarchy and reading in the cathedral in less than a year, which, with our ancient method of teaching, amounted to extraordinary speed. Having begun to act as a deacon in the cathedral during his studies, Stefan, as one must think, remained a deacon in it even after the end of his studies, and he could be made a real deacon if there was a vacancy, or serve above the staff, in the form of a voluntary assistant to his father, if there was no vacancy. But in his place and position as clerk, Stefan was something not entirely ordinary. We said that he was endowed with brilliant abilities; Along with brilliant abilities, he was endowed with a passionate, uncontrollable desire for education, for knowledge, and in order to acquire the self-education that was possible in our country at that time, he began to read books with all zeal. One cannot think that Ustyug of the 14th century was too rich in books; but it is also possible that it was not completely poor in them, for in addition to the cathedral there were two monasteries in it (which exist to this day - Arkhangelsk and Gleden Trinity). The life writer’s assurance that in Ustyug Stefan learned “all the grammatical cunning and book power” suffers, one must assume, from a considerable exaggeration, and it also contradicts his own further speeches about Stefan’s dissatisfaction with his Ustyug learning and his desire for more; but that he had the opportunity to acquire and acquired quite significant erudition in Ustyug is acceptable and not incredible. And thus, the young Ustyug clerk should be imagined as a more or less learned person in our then sense of the word and one of the most learned people in his entire city, if only not literally the very first scientist in it. A young clerk, possessing more or less learning and one of the most learned people in his city, if only not the very first scientist in it: this is not like all our old clerks and current clerks, but an extraordinary example for us of those clerks who visited the ancient Greek church and to which such famous church fathers as Basil the Great and John Chrysostom belonged, who began serving in clergy or clergy precisely in the position of readers or what is the same - clerks. After 10–12 years as a priest in the Ustyug cathedral and after acquiring in Ustyug all the learning that could be acquired there, Stefan, led by his acquired learning to be convinced of the vanity of worldly life, set out to become a monk, and decided to become a monk not in Ustyug, but in another place that would give him the means to acquire greater learning. It is not known exactly when exactly the thought came to him to become an educator of the pagan people living next door to his homeland. It is most likely that he was in Ustyug before he became a monk, when he saw with his own eyes these pagans, probably in considerable numbers, living not only in the neighborhood of the city, but also in the city itself. That even in Ustyug, and before becoming a monk, he had the intention of becoming an educator of the pagan people neighboring his homeland, this is indirectly confirmed by the biography writer, speaking about his intermediate life between Ustyug and going to preach to the pagans, that “he had this idea for a long time.” But if we assume that the intention to become an educator of the pagan people was adopted by Stefan back in Ustyug, before becoming a monk, then it is not impossible to imagine things in such a way that the decision to become a monk was mainly caused in him by the awareness of the need for this to fulfill his intention. Assuming now the above, it will be very likely to think that Stefan learned, or at least began to learn, the language of the people, whose intention was to become an educator, even before leaving Ustyug for his chosen place of tonsure. To become a monk, Stefan chose one of the monasteries of his diocesan city of Rostov, namely the monastery of St. Gregory the Theologian, located near the bishopric and called the Shutter. The name of the monastery, perhaps, comes from the fact that in ancient, as in later times, it was surrounded by a blank wall to the wall of the bishop's monastery, so that there was no gate of its own from it, but it was necessary to enter and leave it through the bishop's monastery; And that, perhaps, regarding the exit of its few monks, for it was small, there were special strict rules, in other words, that it was a monastery of especially strict hermits, established for monks who wanted such seclusion by one of the Rostov bishops 500. The reason why Stefan chose the monastery of Gregory the Theologian for his tonsure was that in this monastery there was a good library, which he wanted to use to complete his self-education: “having taken tonsure,” the biography writer says about Stefan, in the city of Rostov at St. Gregory the Theologian in the monastery, called the Shutter, near the bishop, as there were many books that one is satisfied with what exists for his needs for the sake of veneration.” If our explanation of the name of the monastery by the Shutter is correct, then Stephen could also have been attracted to it by its special convenience, to indulge in reading books there, as well as monastic deeds. In the monastery, Stefan with all zeal began to complete his self-education, indulging in day and night reading books, as the biography insistently says. Pointing to Stephen's desire to acquire self-education, not superficial but thorough, Epiphanius says that he cared not only about reading as many books as possible, but also about assimilating what he read as best as possible, so that not a single verse or a single sentence (not a single phrase) remained incomprehensible to him in what he read. For a better understanding of everything he read, he diligently sought interviews with bookish and intelligent people older than him in age. It was as if the monastery of Gregory the Theologian was predominantly inhabited by bookish monks, and as if the interviews to which Stefan diligently devoted himself, seeking a better understanding of everything, took place within the walls of the monastery itself. But Stefan did not end his self-education by reading as thoroughly as possible the largest possible number of Slavic books. He also learned Greek in order to be able to read Greek books that had not been translated into Slavic. This news is that Stephen learned Greek so unexpectedly that not everyone is inclined to believe him. However, the biography of Stephen, monk Epiphanius, for all his inclination towards rhetoric, was a very respectable man - in his old age he was elected by the brotherhood of the Trinity Monastery to be their confessor, and so that his words that Stephen learned the Greek language well and constantly read Greek books - that he knew how to speak Greek and that he made translations from Greek 501 - were nothing more than an invention and blatant lies, and, moreover, fabrications and lies told to Stephen’s contemporaries, since the life was written shortly after his death, it is absolutely impossible to allow this in a moral way, otherwise one would have to abandon faith in anything and one would have to give up on the whole history. The question is, for what reason could Stefan have the desire to learn the Greek language and how he could learn it in Rostov. According to the biography, Stefan became a monk in the Grigorievsky Monastery under the Bishop of Rostov Parthenia; about this Parthenius there is a possibility to think that he was a Greek by birth; and if we assume the latter, then the whole matter will be explained for us. Parthenius took the Rostov see when he was Metropolitan of Moscow, St. Alexia; we have a complete list of bishops appointed by St. Alexy, and Parthenius is not on this list: to explain such a riddle, it seems likely to think that Parthenius was a Greek by birth, that he came to Russia as a ready-made bishop or already having the rank of bishop, and that St. Alexy only appointed him to the place, but did not ordain him. There could have been Greek officials with Bishop Greek, for he could have come with one or another number of companions (with a whole retinue). Greek officials might have had Greek books that had not been translated into the Slavic language, or about the translation of which into the Slavic language was not known to Stefan. - And this will be the solution to the whole matter: having seen Greek books from the Greeks that were not translated into the Slavic language or the translation of which into the Slavic language was not known to him, he was inflamed with the desire to read them, and for this purpose he decided to learn the Greek language from the Greeks 502. Our prevailing ideas about the Greek language are such that it is an unusually difficult language - that it takes many years to learn and that no one has the patience to learn it to the end. The Greek language is indeed not a particularly easy language; but, nevertheless, it is very possible to learn it, and with diligence and decisive persistence and in not a particularly long time. Everyone knows that our famous fabulist I. A. Krylov, being an almost 60-year-old man, decided to somehow learn the Greek language and learned it in a very short time. But if Krylov, being an almost 60-year-old man and starting to study the language not for any serious motive, but simply out of whim, learned it very quickly, then a young man like Stefan, who had a good ability for learning languages ​​and decided to learn Greek for a very serious reason, could learn it much faster 503. Deciding to study the Greek language, Stephen could be inspired by the living example of St. who was before him. Metropolitan Alexy, who, as we know and need to think about, was known by all of Russia at that time, being the vicar of the metropolis under the Greek Metropolitan Theognostus, learned the Greek language from the latter’s family. So, Stefan learned the Greek language and, according to his biography, diligently read Greek books. Making a general review of him as a learned man, Epiphanius says that he was a wonderful didaskal, full of wisdom and reason, and that he was taught all external philosophy, book wisdom and competent cunning. Epiphanius’s words must be understood in such a way that Stefan was well-read not only in paternal and church books in general, but also in secular books of scientific and serious content. And if he does not allow himself to make additions in this case, then Stefan’s knowledge of secular scientific books could only be due to Greek books, for such books were very scarce in Slavic. Based on the testimony of Epiphanius, we must imagine Stefan as a man with brilliant mental abilities and at the same time a scientist in the then sense of the word or book reader, not only one of the best in Russia, but with his knowledge of the Greek language, completely exceptional. We are not able to fully believe the truth of Epiphanius’s speeches about Stephen, because there are no such works left from the latter on the basis of which such verification could be made. But still, we have the opportunity, to some extent, to believe the truth of Epiphanius’s speeches, for without leaving behind himself works that were deliberate and more or less significant in size, Stefan left behind him one small and random work. The history and internal qualities of this work do not serve to refute Epiphanius. In 1386, already a bishop, Stefan had the need to visit Novgorod. Not long before that, the Strigolnikov sect arose in Novgorod, and Archbishop Alexy of Novgorod asked Stefan during his stay in Novgorod to write denunciations against the debauchees of the faith of Christ, which Stefan fulfilled, writing a small denunciation against Strigolnikov, which has survived to this day. The fact that Alexy, going around all the scribes of his diocese, turned to Stephen with a request to write a denunciation, indicates that the latter really enjoyed the reputation of an outstanding bookish person; and in terms of its internal qualities, the denunciation should rightly be recognized as very good: It was written in a remarkable literary manner, remarkably not confused in the presentation of thoughts, which is what our old writers especially suffer from, and with a very skillful formulation of polemics, so that a more conclusive denunciation against Strigolnikov could not have been written (without refuting the justice of that accusation against the clergy, because of which the Strigolniki separated from the church, for the positive fact that it represented This accusation, of course, could not be refuted by any skill; Stefan convincingly proves the injustice and illegality of the Strigolniks’ separation from the church because of this accusation). And if we assume that the denunciation was written by Stefan during his stay in Novgorod, then, taking into account the short time that he could have at his disposal, it will be necessary to recognize his small polemical work as completely brilliant. [When we say that Stefan of Perm convincingly proves the injustice and illegality of Strigolnikov’s separation from the church, and then that his writing off could not represent the slightest convincing for Strigolnikov: then we find ourselves contradicting ourselves because in the first case we do not make a reservation in a sufficiently detailed manner. We do not mean an irrelational persuasiveness, which was impossible given the existence of the fact of collecting payment, but only relative, to the extent that it was possible given the existence of this fact, and which for the Strigolniks themselves, with their understanding of the latter and in general with their point of view on the matter, really could not be convincing at all. That is, we want to say that Stefan undoubtedly shows his art of proving, but that if he does not achieve his goal, it is for a reason that no longer depends on him.] Speaking about Stephen mainly as a learned or bookish person, the writer of his life tells us what he was like as a monk. As a monk, Epiphanius presents him as a strict ascetic. “Having clothed himself,” he says of Stephen, in the monastic rite and labored well in the monastic life, striving for virtue through fasting and prayer, purity and humility, abstinence and sobriety, patience, goodness, obedience and love, and most of all, attention to the divine scriptures...; with diligence you practiced every virtue, with diligence you created every virtue...; to his monastic sister, to the good hedgehog about Christ, I marveled at his life, not just as a monk, but also as a simple child.”... As a deliberately bookish person, Stefan carried out the corresponding obedience in the monastery, namely, he wrote holy books, in which, according to Epiphanius, he had great skill, being not only a calligrapher, but also a tachygrapher, i.e. only a typewriter, but also a shorthand writer. Some time unknown to us after entering the monastery, which must be understood as having reached the canonical age of 25, he was ordained as a deacon, i.e., hierodeacon. Endowed by nature with excellent mental abilities, Stephen with all diligence formed himself into a learned theologian and generally a learned person in the then sense of the word, not so much for himself, but for the sake of that external high goal, to appear as a worthy preacher of the true God before the pagan people, the apostolic work of converting them to Christianity was conceived by him. The pagan people, whose settlements were adjacent to Stefan’s homeland, the city of Ustyug, and which he was kindled with a desire to convert to Christianity, were the Vychegda Permians or Permyaks belonging to the Finnish family of peoples, who later received our special name Zyryan 504 (from one separate tribe among the people, which in the 14th century Epiphanius called the Syryans). This people - the Vychegda Permians or Permyaks actually made up half of the entire people of Perm or Permyaks - the other half were the Kama Permyaks, the remnants of which retain the name of Permyaks to this day and whose region was called Great Perm. But the two halves of the people have separated themselves from each other in such a way that they are mistaken for two special related peoples (both peoples still call themselves by the same name, but one people understands the language of the other people very poorly or does not understand at all). The settlements of the Zyryans, as we will call the Vychegda Permyaks, whom Stefan converted to Christianity, are located in the eastern half of the current Vologda province, along the Vychegda River, which flows into the Northern Dvina 70 miles below Ustyug and along the tributaries of the Vychegda - from the north to the Vymu and from the south to the Sysol. Moreover, in the northeast they extend quite significantly into the Arkhangelsk province, along the Pechora River with the Izhma flowing into it and along the upper Mezen. Currently, the Zyryan settlements are separated from the Northern Dvina and from Ustyug, which lies on it, by a fairly wide strip of purely Russian settlements. But in the 14th century, during the time of Stefan, they approached Ustyug itself, while the current fairly wide strip of purely Russian settlements appeared in such a way that the Zyryans closest to Ustyug and the Dvina in general became completely Russified. The capital or main place of the Zyryansky land in terms of civil and religious, or at least in the second, was the present village of Ust-Vym, located at the confluence of the Vym and the Vychegda, 83 versts east-northeast of its district city of Yarensk, which in turn is located 260 versts northeast of Ustyug. As for the tributary status of the Zyryans to the Russians, from a long time ago until the time before Stefan they were tributaries of the Novgorodians, and in an unknown exact way the time immediately before Stefan was taken from the Novgorodians by the great princes themselves 505 . The good and holy thought of becoming an educator of the pagan people, as we said, in all likelihood came to Stefan when he was still living in Ustyug and looking at the pagans with his own eyes. At the same time, we said, he probably learned, or at least began to learn, the Zyryan language. But Stefan could not begin to implement his plans soon. In order to receive a blessing from his superiors to go preach to the pagans, he had to become a man from a young man. To baptize converts and to establish worship among them, he had to be a hieromonk. But he could have been ordained a hieromonk no earlier than upon reaching the age of 30, for the strict canonical injunction not to ordain a presbyter before the age of 30, one must think, was observed in our country in ancient times, at least in relation to monks. Assuming that Stefan entered the monastery as a 20-year-old youth and that he did not begin to directly implement his intention until the 30th year of his age, we obtain that he lived in the monastery, preparing for his mission in a distant way, through completing his education, which we discussed above, for up to ten years. The start to the direct implementation of the intention should have begun with additional study of the Zyryan language. If, before becoming a monk, Stefan had just begun to study the language, then it goes without saying that he should have completed his study of it. If, before becoming a monk, he had completely learned it, then in the absence of practice on it for ten years he had to more or less forget it. And, in any case, to lose the ability to speak it easily and freely, which was necessary for him as a future preacher of Christianity to the Zyryans. Epiphanius doesn’t say anything, but it is necessary to think that Stefan returned to Ustyug to further study the Zyryan language. If he had been a rich man, he could, through his Ustyug relatives, have sent the Zyryan resident to Rostov to live with him, but there is absolutely no reason to assume that he was a rich man. But even if he were a rich man, he should have preferred to complete his study of the Zyryan language in Ustyug, provided that he interacted with many Zyryans and around the very places of their habitat, to which excursions could be made, than in Rostov with the help of Zyryanin alone, who, in relation to much of everyday life, the knowledge of which was necessary when studying the language, would only tell what could be seen in Ustyug with his own eyes. In general, it seems most likely to think that Stefan returned to Ustyug to study the Zyryan language. In Ustyug, he could live in one of its two monasteries, or even with his relatives, for in ancient times it was quite acceptable for monks to stay in the world even without particularly blessed reasons. From a monastery that belonged to the bishop's house and was under the direct authority of the bishop, such as the Grigorievsky Monastery, Stephen could not leave without the permission and blessing of the latter. And thus, it must be accepted that after leaving the monastery for Ustyug to finish studying the Zyryan language, in order to become a preacher of Christianity among the Zyryans with this language, Stefan asked for a blessing for this from the Bishop of Rostov. Having studied the Zyryan language, which, of course, took not just two or three weeks, but maybe six months, maybe a year, and maybe even more, Stefan did not immediately go to preach to the Zyryans. After this he had another preparation to do. After converting the Zyryans to Christianity, he decided to give them divine services not in Slavic, but in their own Zyryan language, for which it was necessary to compile the Zyryan alphabet, which the Zyryans did not have before, and translate the liturgical books into the Zyryan language. The Zyryans did not represent semi-Russianized foreigners, among whom there were more or less numerous colonies of Russians and whose territories would be taken as purely Russian, so that it would not be possible to imagine, through the introduction of worship in their own languages, artificially turning them into special peoples, which they ceased to be in reality. - The Zyryans were a people special from the Russians and living separately from them, who had only the relationship with them that they paid them tribute. And Stefan, following the example of Constantine the philosopher, the first teacher of the Slavic, and recognizing the justice and validity of the arguments with which Constantine defended his translation of liturgical books into the Slavic language from attacks on him by the so-called trilinguals, decided to do for the Zyrians the same thing that Constantine did for the Slavs. Divine services among the Zyryans in their native Zyryan language could not be introduced by Stefan on his own authority, but only under the condition that he received permission to do so from the head of the Russian church, the Metropolitan. When, one wonders, did Stefan ask for the required permission: was it then, when he had done all the work and came to ask permission to go to preach to the Zyryans, or before starting the work - we mean compiling the alphabet and translating books? Epiphanius does not answer this question, as well as many other questions, but in itself it seems much more likely to think that before the start of the matter, and not after it was completed. Compiling the alphabet of the Zyryan language was not difficult, but translating liturgical books into the Zyryan language, due to its complete unpreparedness for expressing the concepts of Christian doctrine and all sorts of abstract concepts, was a very difficult task. And if Stefan had decided on it without first asking for permission, then he would have decided on very great work with a very great risk, which he did in vain, because in advance he could not be sure that permission would be given to him. At the same time, he could rightly fear that if he invents the alphabet and translates books without prior permission, he would be subject to anger for this, which would ruin his whole business so that he would not even receive permission to go to preach. Stefan went to preach to the Zyryans after the death of St. Metropolitan Alexy in 1378 or 1379. But if he previously asked permission for the invention of the Zyryan alphabet and for the Zyryan translation of liturgical books, which seems most likely, then he asked it from St. Alexia. And thus, there is a very high probability of thinking that the Zyryan worship in their own Zyryan language was introduced with the permission and blessing of this great saint. One must think that Stefan was engaged in compiling the alphabet and translating books not in Rostov, having returned to it from Ustyug, but still in the same Ustyug. For at the same time, for all kinds of linguistic or language inquiries and to resolve all kinds of linguistic perplexities, he needed to be among the Zyryans or near them. When inventing or composing his Zyryan alphabet, Stefan did not follow the example of Constantine the philosopher, did not adapt the Slavic alphabet to the Zyryan language, as he adapted the Greek alphabet to the Slavic language, but composed his own special alphabet, which had nothing in common with the Slavic alphabet, and which, in the general appearance of its more square than round letters, resembles the Hebrew or Slavic alphabet the alphabet is not Cyrillic, but Glagolitic 506. If the assumption of scientists is correct that Stefan took the features and cuts or runes that were used by the Zyryans before as signs for the letters of his alphabet, then one would have to think that he did this out of a desire to make his alphabet as simple as possible for the Zyryans and such that by its very outward appearance, being composed of signs long known, it would attract them to itself, and not push them away from itself. If he himself, in the exact sense of the word, invented signs for letters, then it will be difficult to say anything about the motivation for this and it will hardly be possible to praise the invention 507 too much... Having compiled the Zyryan alphabet and translated liturgical books into the Zyryan language in one or another volume necessary, and, if he had Greek liturgical books at hand, he could translate not only from the Slavic translation, but also from the Greek original 508, Stefan went to Moscow to ask for permission and blessing to go preach the gospel to the Zyryans chosen as the successor of St. Alexy and the head of the metropolis after his death, Archimandrite Mikhail-Mityai 509. Archimandrite Michael, the usual ideas about whom, as a bad temporary worker for Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich, are completely unfair, as we talked about above, accepted St. Stephen with the greatest favor, exactly as it should have been to receive a person who came to ask for permission to undertake the apostolic feat. Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich, for his part, reacted to Stephen’s request with the same great favor as the betrothed metropolitan. The Emperor was a sincerely and zealously pious man, and he could not help but sympathize with the whole heart of the idea of ​​​​enlightening the pagans with the light of Christianity. And at the same time, he could not help but find the implementation of the thought very important and desirable in state forms (Epiphanius speaks little and dryly about Mikhail and, completely unfairly, puts on the stage instead the Bishop of Kolomna, who was only an executor of other people’s orders, for reasons clear to us: Firstly, the named Metropolitan, as we mentioned, had a very big misunderstanding with the Monk Sergius of Radonezh, whose disciple there was Epiphanius; secondly, in general he left the most bad memory among the monks, for he intended to take drastic measures to correct them). If our assumption is correct that Stephen previously asked St. Metropolitan Alexy permission to introduce divine services among the Zyryans in their native language, then Mikhail confirmed the permission given by Alexy; and if the assumption is unfair, then he gave this permission. Until then, Stephen had the degree of deacon; but in order to baptize those who were about to accept Christianity and to introduce worship among them, he needed to have the degree of presbyter. And by order of Michael, he was made a hieromonk (by the aforementioned bishop of Kolomna). Then, the appointed metropolitan supplied Stephen with everything necessary for erecting churches and for introducing divine services to future Christians - antimensions with holy relics, St. myrrh, wooden oil and everything needed, that is, as one should think, icons, liturgical vessels and clothes and all church utensils. Since Mikhail was not only the favorite of the Grand Duke, but enjoyed the extreme love of all the sovereign boyars, it is very likely to think that the boyars, having been invited by him to help equip a person for a holy undertaking, diligently assisted him, if possible, to generously supply Stefan with everything necessary for the future Zyryansk churches - we will see below that the money itself was not forgotten. Demetrius of Rostov says about Stephen in Chet-Minea that “the venerable one took the letters from Moscow”; Demetrius is repeated by almost all later ones. However, Epiphanius does not talk about the letters, and we are perplexed as to what they could be: did they contain an order that the Zyryans should not kill Stefan? but that went without saying; contained an order for the Zyryans to accept the Christian faith? but if they had found it possible to make such an order, they would have done it long ago through police officials. Having received permission in Moscow and a diligent blessing to go to preach to the Zyryans and equipped with everything necessary for this, Stefan went to his Ustyug in order from there to carry the words of the good news of Christ to the pagans. A later legend says that Stefan descended from Ustyug down the Dvina to the confluence of the last Vychegda - to the first Zyryan village from Ustyug, which was located at the confluence of the Vychegda into the Dvina - now this is the famous village of Kotlas, to which the railway to the Dvina from Vyatka was built. And that from this first Zyryan village he began his evangelism. Forcing Stefan to baptize the inhabitants of the village after a short sermon, the legend further says that from Kotlas he took the path along the Vychegda to the capital city of Zyryan Ust-Vym. And that, along the way, he stopped to preach in villages along the river - that he baptized quite a few, or at least some of them, and that in those villages that he baptized, he erected chapels 510. But this later legend about Stephen’s preaching on the road to Ust-Vym cannot be recognized as reliable. Not to mention the fact that in the time of Stefan the Zyryan settlements began not at the confluence of the Vychegda with the Dvina, but at Ustyug itself, two decisive objections must be made to the legend. Firstly, having baptized the inhabitants of Kotlas and the villages along the Vychegda to Ust-Vym, Stefan could not have given them priests and introduced divine services to them. And having baptized, he would have left them with what they had before: why would they spend time converting them and what would be the purpose of baptizing them, and what could those baptized do with these chapels, except perhaps, returning to paganism, to place their idols in them? Secondly, prudence demanded that Stefan begin his sermon in the capital city of Zyryan - Ust-Vym. From our Russian history we know that in civil affairs the attitude of subordinate cities and villages to their elders and capital cities was expressed by the statement: “what the elders think of, the suburbs will do the same.” And from the history of other nations, we know that the same situation expressed the relations of younger cities and villages to older and capital cities in religious matters. When the famous baptist of the Baltic Slavs, Otto of Bamberg (1124–1139), came preaching Christianity to a nearby city earlier than the older city, the inhabitants of the first told him: go to our older city, if they listen to you there, then we will listen 511. So, if Stefan had started preaching to the Zyryans not from the capital Ust-Vym, but from the indicated villages, he would undoubtedly have been told what was given now, i.e., that if you go to Ust-Vym, if they listen to you there, then we will listen. Thus, it is necessary to think that to preach Christianity among the Zyryans, Stefan went directly from Ustyug to their capital city of Ust-Vym. Epifaniy does not provide any details about Stefan’s arrival in Ust-Vym and even completely passes over it in silence. Let us dwell on one detail, which is not of great importance, but which is not superfluous and is directly required by the further narrative. Upon arrival in Ust-Vym, Stefan had to somehow arrange life in it: how did he arrange it? To suppose that he would settle in the apartment of some pagan Zyryanin is quite incredible: what are we to think? It seems necessary to think that he built his own house in Ust-Vym and that he settled in this own house. Regarding how he proceeded with the making of the house for himself, one can believe in two ways, namely, either that he cut it down upon arrival at the place with the help of one or two servants whom he brought with him, and with the help of those boatmen who delivered it to Ust-Vym, or that he brought it with him ready-made, disassembled or assembled. The latter is much more likely than the first, since making a house on site would be fraught with great trouble. As for the finished house, then, according to the testimony of foreigners, in the old days it was a very common custom for us to build small houses in some places in order to transport them along the rivers disassembled or completely assembled to other places. And, therefore, Stefan only had to buy a similar house in Ustyug and bring it with him on a raft to Ust-Vym. The stock of supplies for future churches with which he was endowed in Moscow must have constituted a significant treasure. He could have brought this luggage with him, in this case taking a ship of considerable size for the trip to Ust-Vym from Ustyug, or he could have left it in Ustyug for a while. The arrival of Stephen in Ust-Vym, of course, was an event for its inhabitants that completely stunned them, for what could be more unexpected than the arrival of a man to preach a new faith? Having come to their senses from a terrible surprise, they could have turned back this man, who had come to them to preach a new faith, honestly and dishonestly, preventing him from landing on the shore. But this man was from Moscow and, free to listen to him or not, they could not prevent him from settling between them... Having settled in Ust-Vym, Stefan fervently prayed to the Lord God for His blessing on the undertaking and began preaching the Gospel to the Zyryans. Complete and relatively quick success awaited him, but not completely quick. At first, very few listened to his sermons, but as for the majority, they remained deaf to it and tried to find ways to get the preacher away from them. If the Zyryans had been a braver people, it could very well have happened that, wanting to get rid of Stephen’s urgent preaching, they would have laid their hands on him; but the Zyryans are not a very brave people, they are downright cowardly people: they do not dare lay hands on Stefan for fear that Moscow, terrible for them, will cruelly avenge him. They tried to save him from themselves with false, so to speak, insurances: under the leadership of their wise men and wizards, they gathered around his home, armed with stakes, and threatened to kill him; They lined his house with brushwood and straw, threatening to burn him alive. (Not daring to lay hands on Stefan, the Zyryans themselves were aware of their cowardice and curiously justified it to themselves: “This cunning man Stefan,” they said, would never be the first to start a battle, but if he did, then we would show ourselves to him.” As if one could expect Stefan to start the battle for some reason). Ready to suffer even death for Christ, if it were destined to happen, Stephen was not at all embarrassed by insurance and responded to them by intensifying his preaching. During this first period of Zyryan’s persistence, he had the leisure to continue his translation of liturgical books into the Zyryan language. Having little success at first, but inspired by the firm hope of subsequent greater successes, Stefan built in Ust-Vema, for the few baptized by him and with the goal of impressing the unbaptized, a magnificent wooden church in the name of the Annunciation of the Mother of God, “as this holiday is the beginning of all the great feasts of the Lord and as this is the firstfruits of our salvation” 512. Material for a magnificent wooden church was abundant around Ust-Vym; but it was built, of course, not by the Zyryans, but by carpenters drawn from Russia, from Ustyug: the magnificent church had to be more or less expensive, and this makes it clear that Stefan was generously endowed in Moscow, among other things, with money. The church was built on a hill, and it is believed that this hill is artificial, filled up: if so, then the filling of the hill could not have been cheap. In Ust-Vym there was another hill on which the main Zyryan idol stood - and on an artificial or natural hill Stefan erected a church so that it would, so to speak, be a parallel to the idol - so that, looking at the magnificent church and the idol, which was not a magnificent building at all, - something, as one should think, like a simple, rather large barn, the Zyryans were predisposed by this look and this comparison in favor of Christianity. Expressing himself not entirely clearly, Epiphanius seems to want to say that the church was consecrated in a solemn manner; if so, then it will be necessary to think that the clergy from Ustyug was called to consecrate the church. Stefan himself became the priest of the church he built; some of those baptized by him could have been its readers and singers even without clerical initiation; and as for the deacon, he either sent one of those baptized by him to Moscow to the metropolitan to be ordained a deacon, or he found it possible to do without him for the time being. The magnificent church built by Stephen made a very big impression on Zyryan; he himself, by his meekness and his kind treatment of them, managed to win their complete favor, and, nevertheless, they hesitated to follow his tireless invitation to abandon their false faith and accept the true faith that he preached to them. Proclaiming to the pagans about the one true and living God, who created heaven and earth, the Christian preacher proved to them that their idols were simple and dead stumps of wood and logs, in which no gods who would benefit or harm them lived at all, as they imagined. But the minds of undeveloped people are convinced only by tactile evidence: it was necessary to clearly show them this, it was necessary to prove to them that their hope was vain, that their imaginary gods had sufficient power to protect themselves from an impudent encroacher on them, such as he was - a Christian preacher. St. Stefan, endangering his life, decided to do this by committing to fire the main idol of Ust-Vym, who was the main idol of the entire Zyryansk land. Taking advantage of the time when there was no one in the idol, and when it was not protected by anyone, Stefan set it on fire. The enraged sorcerers and magicians who came running rushed at him with stakes and axes, but only ashes remained from the idols and imaginary gods... This momentary conversion of the entire multitude of gods into nothing, while the gods did not touch a single hair on the head of the daring one who raised his hand against them, made a stunning impression on the people. On the ashes of their idol and, as it were, on the ashes of their own paganism, the inhabitants of Ust-Vym gathered for a large gathering to decide the question: what should they do. The ardent and urgent sermon of St. Stefana immediately convinced the pagans that their lost gods really were nothing and led them to a decision: to accept the one great and true God who was preached to them. Thus, the baptism of the Zyryans as an entire people began... I recall a similar act that took place long before Stephen and was accompanied by the same good consequences. The Baptist of the Germans, Archbishop Boniface (715–755), found in the country of the Hessians an old oak tree dedicated to Thor or the god of thunder and enjoying the greatest national veneration. To show the pagans the insignificance of the imaginary god, who allegedly lived in a tree, he cut down the latter with his own hands, and when the people, confidently expecting a cruel execution from God for his daring, saw that he remained safe and sound, they were so amazed by this that the majority decided to be baptized 513... Stefan did not baptize the inhabitants of Ust-Vym in such a way that immediately, as they expressed a desire to be baptized, them to the river. He prepared them, if possible, for the adoption of Christianity, commanding them to go to the Church of God as catechumens for a certain time and diligently teaching them at this time the truths of the Christian faith. Those who were baptized had to be given clergy and their services had to be properly arranged. This was Stephen's immediate next step. From among the baptized, he recruited husbands, youths and children who could be ordained priests and other church positions and began to teach them to read according to his newly invented Zyryan alphabet and to perform services according to his newly translated Zyryan books. Those of the recruited candidates who, due to their age, immediately after training could be promoted to priests and other church positions, were sent by him to Moscow for initiation. At the same time, he erected two more churches in Ust-Vym. These churches, erected precisely on the hill on which the burnt idol stood, were in the name of Nicholas the Wonderworker and Archangel Michael. The construction of the last church, according to the surviving legend, was connected on the part of Stephen with one act, similar in meaning and purpose to the burning of the idol and representing a repetition of the act of Bonifacius. On the hill, close or not close to the former idol, stood a huge birch or a huge spruce, for which the people had great reverence, as a kind of deity (perhaps taking it for the abode of some god or many gods). Stephen cut down the sacred tree, which no one dared to approach, with his own hands and erected the church so that the stump of the tree served as the foundation for its throne 514. The Zyryan people, represented by the Ust-Vymlyans, inclined to the decision to accept Christianity instead of paganism, but the Zyryan sorcerers and magicians were against this decision. These latter used all their efforts to turn the people away from Stephen and from his new Moscow faith. The most famous among the Zyrian magicians, their elder and head, was at that time a magician named Pam 515. Being at the age of decrepit old age and having residence not in Ust-Vym, but quite far from it 516, he, it seems, at first did not take part in the fight against Stefan, leaving it to his younger comrades. But when the matter took such a serious turn that paternal paganism began to face an inevitable fall, the Magi were inspired to speak out against Stephen and this elder of theirs, who represented their last hope. Pam arrived in Ust-Vym and addressed, on the one hand, his admonitions to the baptized Zyryans, convincing them to return to their fatherly faith, on the other hand, he began to debate with Stefan. Among the baptized there were a number of weak ones who heeded the admonitions of the sorcerer, but here the saint immediately corrected the matter. Stefan countered Pam's admonitions with his own admonitions. As for the majority, they, while remaining firm in Christianity, answered the sorcerer that Stephen proved the insignificance and powerlessness of the pagan gods 517. In the debate with Stefan, Pam did not give in to the arguments and admonitions of the first, but it goes without saying that he himself, in turn, did not defeat him. To shame the Christian preacher before the people and thus discredit his preaching, and at the same time to demonstrate the superiority of himself and his faith, the elderly sorcerer decided to cunningly resort to the same visual means with which Stephen showed the insignificance of the pagan gods. Imagining Stefan the same sorcerer that he was, i.e. fancied himself, Pam asked him if he knew how to charm fire and water, and, having received the answer that he could not and had not studied this trick, he made a public challenge to Stefan: to prove whose faith is better and whose gods are stronger, through testing with fire and water. Namely - that let both of them pass through the blazing fire and let both pass a certain space in the river under the ice (from ice hole to ice hole). Pama's calculation was that Stefan, not knowing how to conjure fire and water and imagining that he, the sorcerer, could do it, would refuse the challenge and thus disgrace himself and his faith before the people. But he was completely deceived in his calculations, and his cunningly intended means only served to ensure that the final blow to paganism was dealt with his own hands. In firm hope in the miraculous and omnipotent help of God, St. Stefan didn't hesitate to accept the challenge. They found a separate house in the city (the burning of which would not have caused a fire), set it on fire, having first opened its doors, and when it flared up, Stefan took the sorcerer’s hand, inviting him to go inside through the open doors: but Pam refused. They came to the river, made two holes in the ice at a certain distance, so that one could go under the ice and the other could come out. Stefan again urgently invited the sorcerer to go and Pam resolutely refused again. This great shame, with which the elder of the magicians covered himself, was supposed to block the lips of these latter ones, so that all speeches against Christianity would fall silent or become powerless. When the main pagan-Zyryan idol was destroyed in Ust-Vym, when the inhabitants of this main place of the whole earth expressed a desire to be baptized; when three Christian churches appeared here, so that the capital of the earth turned from pagan to Christian: the complete victory of Christianity over paganism in the Zyryansk land was a matter decided and achieved. Ust-Vym was for the Zyryans the head to which thoughts for the whole earth belonged; as it was everywhere and always and as it should be, whatever the head decided to do, it was necessary and inevitable that everyone who recognized themselves as belonging to the composition of its body should have done it, for the decision of the head was a decision for everyone and had to be binding on everyone. After the baptism of Ust-Vym, the Zyryan land had no choice but to strive to become Christian in its entirety. Indeed, this is how it was: people from all over the world began to flock to Stefan in Ust-Vy, seeking from him to learn the new Moscow faith, which he established in their capital and demanding baptism from him. Thus, after Stefan established Christianity in Ust-Vym, things became in such a situation that he did not have to try so much to convert the people to Christianity, as the people themselves sought from him to make them Christian. However, Stefan's personal travels to churchyards and villages were required. He had to walk through one and the other partly in order to baptize all the inhabitants in them (after those who came to him in Ust-Vym to baptize and all those who did not come), but mainly in order to destroy the local idols in them. We said that St. Stefan, having destroyed the main idol Zyryan in Ust-Vym, clearly convinced them that their pagan gods were nothing; but this “nothing” is not entirely accurate. It must be understood in its own sense (lack of existence) only in relation to a few of the people, but in relation to the majority of the latter it must be understood in the sense of insignificance (as a qualitative predicate to the existing). It is impossible for the majority of pagan people converted to Christianity to immediately recognize their pagan gods as truly nothing; Seeing how Christian preachers destroy the gods with complete impunity, the majority of the people, without ceasing to believe in their existence, come to the conviction of their insignificance in comparison with the Christian God, by whose power the preachers act, so that they actually accept the latter not as the only God, but as a God higher than his gods. Without ceasing to believe in the existence of gods, the majority of the people do not cease to believe that the gods are still gods - that, although they are insignificant before the power of the Christian God, they have sufficient strength to protect themselves from people and take revenge on these latter in case of insults. On this basis, the majority of every pagan people converted to Christianity, even after conversion, does not cease to have fear of their former gods and does not dare to raise their own hands against them, fearing their vengeance. As happens in general with pagans who accept Christianity, so it was with the Zyryans. Residents of churchyards and villages came to Stefan in Ust-Vym and asked him for baptism; but, returning home, they did not dare to raise their hands to the local idols of their former gods. Thus, St. Stefan had to travel through churchyards and villages in order to destroy the local shrines located in them with his own hands. The pagan Zyryans used to make offerings to the gods from their hunting catches, and therefore their idols were hung with the skins of sables, martens and foxes, and all sorts of other fur-bearing animals, which, giving the idols the appearance of fur shops, in general constituted significant values ​​in each place and which, in any case, represented abundant material for the best fur clothing. Consigning the idol to the fire, St. Stefan destroyed in this fire everything that was in them, and with his similar selflessness aroused surprise among the people. Destroying the idols, St. Stefan ordered churches to be cut down in churchyards and villages and supplied, that is, actually determined, priests for them, as far as he could obtain a prepared supply of these latter. Apostolic activity of St. Stefana was extremely successful among the Zyryans. He went to preach to them in 1378 or 1379, and by 1383, that is, within four or five years, he had so far established and spread Christianity among them that this year he had the idea of ​​going to Moscow to ask the newly baptized for his special bishop. The motivation for Stephen to want the newly baptized to be given their own special bishop, according to his biography, was that Moscow is very far from the land of Zyryansk 518 and that it would be very difficult for the latter to contact it with all sorts of church matters and needs. It must be assumed that he had other, no less important, motives. Baptizing Zyryan, St. Stefan did not baptize all of Perm, but only part of it; after the baptized part, there still remained its own or so-called Great Perm (the current Perm province): if the country had not been given its own special bishop, then the spread of Christianity in it, without having a leader in the person of this bishop, could have stopped at half, only at what Stephen himself did. Then, if the country were left to the pastoral care of only priests and the administration of bishops' officials, without giving it its own bishop, then one and the other, without direct and close supervision over themselves, could conduct things in such a way that the baptized would again return to their old paganism. In Moscow, the request of St. Stefan about granting the Zyrians their special bishop was accepted by the Grand Duke and Metropolitan, who was then Pimin, without any objections with complete favor, and these bishops installed St. himself. Stefan. The biography writer assures that they did not find anyone more worthy to occupy the episcopal see than him; but with absolute probability one should think that there were no hunters at all to occupy an exceptional pulpit, in which what awaited a person was exactly the opposite of what awaited a person in ordinary pulpits - not the sweetness of the seat with the possibility of eliminating all the bitterness of labor, but, on the contrary, only the bitterness of the latter, without any of the sweets of the former 519 . St. Stephen was consecrated bishop of Zyryansk or, as he and his successors were called, of Perm 520, by Metropolitan Pimin at the beginning of 1383 (in the winter months of January-March). Returning to Ust-Vym, which was to become the cathedral city of new bishops, St. Stephen made the first-built Church of the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary his cathedral, and for his residence he built a large monastery at the Church of the Archangel Michael 521. The biography writer says absolutely nothing about how the Grand Duke provided for the maintenance of the new bishop or whether it was somehow provided for by him. The information, we don’t know where it was borrowed from, claims that the Grand Duke gave the entire Ust-Vym volost with its rich arable land and meadows to the new bishops, and that, in addition, he provided them with tribute (?) from merchants and industrialists who came to Perm, which had hitherto been collected in the Grand Duke’s treasury 522 . From one source or another, St. received. Stefan had his own content as a bishop, but the biography makes it clear that the sources, even if they consisted only of the voluntary zeal of the flock, were not scanty. Praising Stefan’s poverty, love of strangers and hospitality, he says: “since many times he brought life by boat from Vologda to Perm and all this was wasted not just for his own craft, but precisely for the needs of strangers and those who come and everyone else who needs it” 523. Information says that the Grand Duke provided their Stefan with special advantages over other rulers both in the management of the diocese and in judicial matters 524; but, unfortunately, they do not report what exactly the advantages were. In the rank of bishop of St. Stephen spent 14 years of his life, from 1383 to 1396. During all this time, he completed the work of converting the Zyryans to Christianity and the work of establishing a Christian church for them: he baptized those who remained unbaptized, looking for them throughout the Zyryan country and throughout its borders 525, erected churches in graveyards and villages and prepared priests and clerks for them as a teacher (supervisor of teachers) in the one he established at his department for this purpose. school, established monasteries and gathered monks in them, completed the translation of liturgical books into the Zyryan language 526. Since monasteries were an important means of maintaining and establishing Christianity among the people, it is very likely to think that St. Stefan tried to arrange as many of them as possible. The biography confirms this when he says that Stefan, among other things, “decorated the monasteries and tonsured them into monks and set up abbots for them” and that “monasteries and pilgrimages (under him in the Zyryansk land) were established” 527. After the cathedral monastery at the church of the Archangel Michael, which the biography directly speaks of 528, and later legend calls it built by St. Stefan two more monasteries: the Ulyanovsk Spasskaya Hermitage, located on the Vychegda River, 165 versts up from Ust-Sysolsk (250 versts from Ust-Vym, abolished unknown when before the states of 1764 529), and the Stefanovskaya Hermitage, located on the river Votchinka or Ozhin, flowing from the right into Sysola, in 60 versts from Ust-Sysolsk, abolished about half of the last century. In the second desert, as they say, until the very end of its existence, church services were partly performed in the Zyryan language 530. By converting any people from paganism to Christianity, it is impossible to ensure that all of them immediately become purely and truly Christian; on the contrary, it always happens that for the first more or less long time after conversion, the majority of the people are lame on the right and left, that is, they have two faiths, honoring the new God whom they accepted, but continuing to honor the old gods whom they had to leave. This majority usually cannot imagine that God alone would be able to rule the whole world and that He alone would be able to take care of all the diverse needs of people. So it was with the Zyryans. St. Stephen knew this illness of his flock and at the end of his life he made an attempt to cleanse or heal them from it. He called representatives of the people to him and told them: “Until now I have treated you like babes in the faith, now I want to test whether you have come to the age of husbands; show me by your actions your faith, whether you truly believe strongly: whoever wants to show himself more than anyone else as a true Christian and more than anyone else who loves me, let him find secret (hidden) idols - either in his home or in his neighbor and anywhere else, let him bring them to the people's assembly and destroy them with his own hands - whoever does this, I will declare him my friend in front of everyone, I will thank and reward him 531. This is some kind of “trick” of St. Stefan, which had in mind the good of people, and was accompanied, according to his biography, by the most desirable consequences. He writes about this: “they (the Zyryans) heard (the commandment of the bishop), each of them strove with each other, so that where to find out and invent the hidden (hidden) idol, so that whoever, having cooked first, would show his diligence, and then see marvelously between them: even if someone wanted, being a hypocrite about faith, his idol hide it, but not in a better way, because they are looking at themselves, watching each other, before even their girlfriends will not expose him, but the slanderers (accusers) are kind among themselves, knowing each other's secrets, neighbors being among themselves: and with tatsie wines they were finally destroyed by their household and completely cleansed of idols, and by accomplished in faith with wives and children" 532. Take to St. Stefan managed to completely cleanse all the people he had baptized of idols; no doubt, this would be exaggerated, because this does not happen so quickly. If we give faith to the words of the biography, then they will need to be understood about the part of the people to whom the teaching word of the bishop could constantly be addressed, and which at the same time was under his constant close supervision - to the residents of Ust-Vym itself and the surrounding churchyards and villages. Be that as it may, in any case, the apostolic work of St. Stephen, which consisted of the baptism of an entire people, is a truly remarkable work. This business of his is distinguished by a very important characteristic feature, which gives it a very special meaning and dignity. Almost all our other missionaries of ancient and ancient times who worked to convert foreigners to Christianity acted under greater or lesser patronage and with more or less assistance from civil authority, so that they acted not only under the protection of this authority, but also with its real participation. St. Stephen came out to preach the Gospel and did it without any patronage and without any help from the civil authorities. He went to the Zyryans to convert them to Christianity, hoping only for God's help; he achieved that he forced them to abandon paganism and accept Christianity, solely by the power of conviction, without any and without the slightest participation of coercion. In general, as a preacher of Christianity among the pagans, St. Stephen stands before us as a true new apostle. Having been the baptizer of the Zyryans and having been appointed their bishop, St. Stefan, in this last title, wanted to be not only the spiritual shepherd of his people, but, as the life writer puts it, also their intercessor, a mourner and an industrialist in their everyday needs and affairs 533. He interceded for him before the Grand Duke, seeking to eliminate abuses and oppression in collecting tribute from him. He tried to ward off the predatory raids of the Novgorod so-called ushkuiniki or filibusters on him, turning to these latter with his admonitions. When another foreign people, the Vogulichs, attacked him, he inspired his military armies to courage and led the latter with the weapon of the cross in their hands. When there was a famine in the Zyryan land, he tried to be a nourisher for the people, getting bread from border Russia 534. In addition to one’s own and direct activity, which consisted in enlightening the Zyryans with Christianity, there is still reason to assimilate St. Stefan has a side activity, namely, to place him among our writers and our translators from the Greek language. An accusatory teaching against Strigolniki has been preserved to this day, above which the inscription is read: “this copy from the rule of the saints the apostle and saints father gave to the ruler of Na(o)Ugorodtsky Alexei Stefan, the bishop of Peremysk on Strigolniki” 535. It is quite probable that instead of Peremsky one should read Peremsky 536, i.e. Permsky, and that by the author of the copy one should mean our St. Stefan. In 386, he traveled to Novgorod, as one must think, in order to seek protection for his flock from the Ushkuiniki we mentioned: at that time, at the request of the Archbishop of Novgorod, he could write his teaching. We spoke about the merits of teaching above. We will return to it a little lower when we talk about Strigolniki. As for Stephen’s activities as a translator from Greek, there are some reasons for him to master the translation of a large legal (legal-moral) collection known as “The Standard of the Righteous.” The preface to Meril, which has the form of a teaching to the Grand Duke (as one must think, together with the collection itself, translated from Greek and only addressed from the face of the emperor to the face of the Grand Duke) is found in our manuscripts in a separate form with the inscription that it is a letter from Stephen to the Grand Duke Dimitri Ivanovich 537. [Comparing one with the other the two oldest known manuscripts of the Meril of the Righteous - the Trinity Lavra parchment, attributed by the descriptor of the Lavra manuscripts to the end of the 14th century (Descriptions of the Lavra Manuscripts No. 15), and the Moscow Theological Academy paper, second half of the 15th century (fundamental No. 187, by Archimandrite Leonid in the Description of the Academy Manuscripts, issue 2, p. 267) we find: firstly, that in both manuscripts the Measure is divided into two parts, of which in the first part of both manuscripts there are moralizing extracts about the right court from the Holy Scriptures, from the church fathers and from the so-called Bee, and in the second part of both manuscripts there are extracts from the Kormcha book of canons and civil Greek laws with the addition of Russian ones - the Charter of Vladimirov (in the form of that historical note that We indicate in the 1st half of 1 volume, p. 528, electronic version - footnote No. 1139, approx. corr.) and Pravda Yaroslavova 538; secondly, that the first part of the Meril (moral), being in the Lavra manuscript much more extensive than in the academic manuscript, in relation to what is in the latter, represents perfect identity with it, namely, that in the first manuscript there are 54 chapters, and in the second - 31 chapters, and that these 31 chapters are exactly the same in both manuscripts, and in the Lavra manuscript they constitute the first half of our part Merila, and that the second part Merila (legal) is its own in one manuscript, and its own in another manuscript, or different from another in one manuscript. From what has just been said, it follows that the first part of the manuscripts, common to both of them, should be taken as our own Standard, with the assumption regarding the excess of one manuscript against the other, that either the original was not written in full in the academic manuscript, or that a significant addition to the original was made in the Lavra manuscript 539 . This part of the Standard of the Righteous could have been compiled in Russia, for all the extracts in it were made from books that existed in Slavic translation, but there is no obstacle to considering it as translated from Greek. As for the preface to Meril, which has the form of a teaching to the Grand Duke: because of its darkness and because of the philosophical nature of the speeches in it about God and man, it is more likely to be considered as translated from Greek than as original Russian, with the only caveat that the translator made three small inserts from the preface to the acts of the council of 1274. (The first half of the teaching to the prince with his conclusion was published by Rosenkampf in the Review of the Helmsman’s Book, - in the 1st edition, 262 pages of the last account. - What does A.S. Pavlov say about Meril the righteous in the preface to his edition of the “Book of the Law”, - p. 15 fin., refers to the second part or to the second parts of Meril).] It could happen that the preface, having been copied from Meril as a separate teaching, was adopted by St. Stephen in an erroneous and unfair manner; but it is also possible that it was written with the same inscription that Merila had in the currently unknown lists of Merila, and, consequently, that according to the inscription in some lists there is a possibility of assimilating the translation of the collection of St. Stefan. Our inscription, forcing Stefan to assimilate the translation of the collection, makes it clear that the latter was completed by him not during the period of his life preceding his departure to preach to the Zyryans, but during the preaching period (after the Kulikovo victory over the Grand Duke Mamai). Regarding the seeming improbability that in this second period of his life St. Stefan had time to translate from Greek into Slavic; it can be noted that he remained in the episcopal department for 14 years, and that during these 14 years the work of enlightening Zyryan was not constantly in such a position that he could not tear himself away from it for a minute or that he could not combine it with other affairs at all times. However, it goes without saying that what has been said now only removes objections to probability, without in the least increasing it itself. (We have indications of the existence of some kind of Zyryan code of law 540, and on the other hand, we have evidence from the biography of St. Stephen that he translated something like this into the Zyryan language from Greek 541. On the basis of this, there is some incentive to suspect: was it not that St. Stephen simultaneously translated the Righteous Measure into the Slavic and Zyryan languages. It is true that the suspicion is very weakened by the question: what would Stefan consider necessary for Zyryan to measure the righteous? But, being very weakened, he does not withdraw completely, for such an answer is also possible that he considered it necessary for something unknown to us and incomprehensible to us. - As for the testimony of the preface to Meril the Righteous, read as a preface, in the currently known lists of Meril the name of the translator is not indicated, and the prince to whom the preface is addressed is called Demetrius in some lists 542, by which we should mean either Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy or Dmitry Alexandrovich son of Nevsky (who occupied the grand-ducal throne during 1276–1277 and 1283–1292), in others – Mikhail 543, by which we will probably mean either Mikhail Yaroslavich or Mikhail Alexandrovich Tverskoy (of which the first † 1318, the second - 1400), thirdly, not named but 544. After a 14-year stay at the episcopal see of St. Stefan died on April 26, 1396 during his stay in Moscow, where he arrived to Metropolitan Cyprian for church needs. In Moscow, he was buried in the court Spassky Monastery (Spas on Bor 545). Since this monastery was a tomb for Moscow princesses and for princes who died in Moscow, with the exception of the great princes themselves, who were buried in the Church of the Archangel Michael, and bishops who died in Moscow were usually buried in the Miracle Monastery of St. Alexy, then for the burial of St. Stephen in the court tomb, undoubtedly, should be looked at as a sign of special respect that the Grand Duke (Vasily Dmitrievich, son of Donskoy 546) wanted to express to the famous baptizer of the pagan people. Solemnly and formally, our new apostle was canonized by the Macarius Council of 1549 547. [Stephen of Perm is remembered as a saint (implied - locally revered) in the charter of Metropolitan Simon dated August 1501, - Acts of History vol. I, No. 112, II fin.. And Herberstein makes it known that Stefan began to be revered by the Russians as a saint more or less long before his time - in Starchevsky, t. I, p. 58, col. 1 (in numerum deorum relatus est clear error instead of: in numerum sanctorum).] St. Stephen baptized one half of the Perm people. His successors at the episcopal department worked on the baptism of the other half - their own Permians, who lived in the current province of Perm, which they managed to achieve for 65 years after him (their own Perm was finally baptized by the fourth successor of St. Stephen, Jonah in 1462). The Nikon Chronicle and the Degree Book, making a mistake in a way that is not entirely clear to us, call Metropolitan Cyprian Serbin 548. In fact, he was not a Serb, but a Bulgarian. His homeland was the capital city of Bulgaria, Ternov; the family into which he was born was the noble boyar family of Tsamblakov. He was the paternal uncle of the famous Lithuanian Metropolitan Gregory Tsamblak and, as they accept, without sufficient grounds, however, a relative of the last Bulgarian (Ternovo) Patriarch Euthymius 549. From the life of Cyprian before his entry into the clergy of the Patriarch of Constantinople, as an official of the latter, which he is in our history, we know that he spent a long or short time as a monk on Athos 550. It is not entirely clear, or better yet, it is not at all clear how Cyprian, being not a Greek by birth, but a Bulgarian, could get into the official clergy (“kliroshan”) of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Since Patriarch Philotheus, under whom he is a cleric, was from Athos (from the abbots of the Lavra of St. Athanasius), one could assume that he acquired the favor of this patriarch during his stay on Athos; but it is difficult to admit this for reasons of time 551. Another thing that can be pointed out to explain the incomprehensible case is that Cyprian had influential family connections in Constantinople. Among the noble boyars of Constantinople, as well as among the Ternovsky boyars, were the Tsamblaki 552. One might think that both Tsamblaki represented one family, which was divided in such a way that one half of it “went” to serve in someone else’s court, and that the Tsamblaki of Constantinople, being relatives of Cyprian, arranged his career, securing for him the position of a patriarchal cleric or, which is the same thing, putting him on the road to the bishopric 553 . The history of Cyprian from his arrival in Moscow as a patriarchal apocrisiary or ambassador during the life of St. Alexy and before his confirmation in the rank of Metropolitan of All Russia, we conveyed above. It can be added to the story of his victory over Pimin that there is a possibility of suspecting here the same court influences that we have just mentioned. In the month of May 1387, Cyprian, who lived in Constantinople awaiting trial with Pimin, was sent by the emperor to Lithuania on some of his state affairs 554. One might think that Cyprian was recommended to the emperor and arranged so that he would provide or attempt to provide the latter with a public service by his relatives who were at the imperial court. Patriarch Nil, by his conciliar determination, which took place at the end of 1387 - at the beginning of 1388, declared Pimin deposed from the see and declared Cyprian the legitimate metropolitan of all Russia. But Cyprian needed to achieve reconciliation with Grand Duke Dimitri Ivanovich, and after this determination he did not rush to Moscow, but remained to live in Constantinople. In January 1389, the place of the deceased Nile was taken by a new patriarch, Anthony. This latter, in a very short time after ascending the throne, in February of the same 1389, confirmed the conciliar resolution of Nile, which declared Pimin deposed from the see and recognized Cyprian as the legitimate metropolitan of all Russia. We do not know what success Cyprian achieved during the year with his attempt to reconcile with the Grand Duke. But soon after the conciliar confirmation of Patriarch Anthony, on May 19, 1389, Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy died. His son Vasily Dmitrievich, who took his place, obeying the conciliar verdicts, expressed a desire to accept Cyprian, and the latter arrived in Moscow to take the see of the Metropolis of All Russia. When Cyprian departed from Constantinople to Rus', we see with him the Archbishop of Rostov (former abbot of Simonov - Archimandrite) Theodore. This must be understood in such a way that Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich, upon his accession to the grand-ducal throne, sent Theodore to Constantinople to invite Cyprian to Moscow. A loan bill has been preserved to this day in the Slavic language, which on September 8, 1389, Cyprian and Theodore gave in Constantinople to the emperor’s close man, Nicholas Notara dierminevt, in a thousand old Novgorod rubles 555. This thousand rubles, one must think, was spent on parting gifts to the emperor and his dignitaries and the patriarch and his officials. And since it cannot be assumed that Theodore arrived from the Grand Duke without money, then this thousand rubles should, in fact, be looked at only as an addition to the lack of cash 556. On October 1, 1389, Cyprian left Constantinople for Russia 557. At the moment of departure, in addition to Theodore of Rostov, two more Russian bishops were with him in Constantinople and then returned with him: Mikhail of Smolensk and Jonah of Volyn 558; Michael accompanied Pimin on his last trip to Constantinople and from the metropolitan, who was declared deposed, he moved there to the metropolitan, who was declared legitimate; How and why the Bishop of Volyn came to Constantinople is not clear, but it is likely that he brought Cyprian money from his Lithuanian metropolis 559. The Patriarch sent with Cyprian, as his apocrisiaries, who had to install him in the cathedra, two of his metropolitans (the same ones - Adrianople and Ghana, who came in 1384-85). After crossing the Black Sea, landing in Belgorod or present-day Akkerman, where he was beaten by a storm 560, Cyprian made his way to Kyiv. From Kyiv he went to Moscow before the great conspiracy of 1390 (which was on February 14) and arrived there, accompanied by two Greek metropolitans and six Russian bishops (of which four, except Theodore of Rostov and Michael of Smolensk, either arrived to him in Kyiv or went on the road), on the middle week of Lent 561, being solemnly welcomed Grand Duke 562. Cyprian held the chair of the Metropolitan of All Russia for 17 years, from 1390 to 1406. According to the Nikon Chronicle, immediately after his arrival in Moscow, all the Russian bishops came to him to formally express to him that they recognized him as their legitimate metropolitan. This arrival of all the bishops, whether they appeared voluntarily or deliberately called by the metropolitan, should have had the meaning of pacification after previous unrest and confusion 563. Cyprian's first government matter upon occupying the see was the trial of the Tver bishop at the request of the Tver Grand Duke. Between the Tver Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich and the local bishop Euthymius Vislen, appointed by St. Alexy in 1374, 564 there was dislike, which reached such a degree in 1387 that the prince did not want to tolerate the bishop in the see and he was forced to retire to a monastery 565. In a very short time after arriving in Moscow, at the end of June of the same 1390, the Metropolitan, at the insistence of Mikhail Alexandrovich, undertook a trip to Tver to judge the bishop, whom the prince had a strong desire to get rid of. The Metropolitan was accompanied on his journey by Greek metropolitans and two Russian bishops (Mikhail of Smolensk and Stefan of Perm) who came with him from Constantinople. It is not entirely clear that the Metropolitan himself undertook a trip to Tver, and did not, on the contrary, summon the Bishop of Tver to Moscow; It is likely to think that he did this on the one hand - out of a desire to take advantage of the hospitality and generosity of the Tver prince with the Greek metropolitans, and on the other hand - out of the motivation that accusations were brought against the bishop from many people from the clergy, boyars and ordinary laymen, so that it was inconvenient to call numerous witnesses to Moscow. The prince arranged a most solemn meeting for the metropolitan with the Greek metropolitans and Russian bishops accompanying the latter: 30 versts from Tver his grandson Mikhail Alexandrovich greeted him, 20 versts away his eldest son, and 5 versts from the city he himself came out to meet him. For three days, the metropolitan and his companions received great feasts and many gifts from the sovereign. On the fourth day, the trial of the bishop took place: in the palace of the Grand Duke, a church-secular council was held of spiritual judges under the chairmanship of the metropolitan and of secular judges, consisting of his boyars convened by the prince, whom he united with the spiritual judges in one place. The bishop was accused of rebellion and church discord, and extremely many and extremely grave accusations were brought against him from archimandrites, abbots, priests and monks, from boyars, nobles and from ordinary people. The bishop could not justify himself in the accusations brought against him, and the metropolitan and the council of clergy, finding the latter just and making a completely unsuccessful attempt to end the trial with peace, sentenced him to be deposed. In place of Euthymius, at the request of the prince, the Metropolitan appointed his protodeacon (archdeacon) Arseny as bishop of Tver. Unfortunately, it remains completely unknown to us what exactly Euthymius was accused of and found guilty of, and how he armed the prince and his flock against himself, for the narratives about his trial do not say anything definite at all. We are only given to know that the case was something completely exceptional. Evfimy was accused before the Metropolitan by everyone; the charges brought against him were extremely grave; the hostility towards him was the most extreme and decisively irreconcilable, from this it follows that we must imagine the bishop as a person out of the ordinary, unworthy. But behind this there seemed to be something else hidden, the cause and guilt of which was not the bishop: Metropolitan Protodeacon Arseny, whom the Grand Duke expressed a desire to see in the place of Euthymius, agreed to accept and take the chair with the greatest reluctance, so that they barely installed him, “they saw,” it says in the stories about the trial, “there (in Tver) there was a lot of abuse and enmity and they were embarrassed and be horrified... for fear of enmity and many battles." Having before us an exceptional case, but one that remains completely dark for us, we can only complain for the thousandth time to our historical narrators that they either say nothing about church affairs or speak in such a way that their speeches are of little more benefit to us than silence. (We have two narratives about the trial of Cyprian over Bishop Euthymius: one is read in the Nikon Chronicle, - IV, 195 fin. sqq, the other in a separate form - found on a pasted sheet in one manuscript of the synodal library and printed by Karamzin in 232 notes to volume V and in the Description of Synodal Manuscripts, section III, part 1, p. 312 (No. 387, between sheets 277 and 278). Both narratives are apparently modern: some of their speeches are verbatim similar; the trial of the bishop, in one narrative is presented somewhat shorter, in the other somewhat more extensively, is presented in exactly the same way in both: but they disagree with each other regarding the chronological and externally factual side of the case. The narrative, read in a separate form, is considered to be more important. authoritative, we followed in this regard in our transfer of the case, says that Cyprian went to Tver in 1390 “from the days of Peter”. The narrative read in the Nikon Chronicle speaks of two trips of Cyprian to Tver: the first “from the great day” of 1391, when he deposed Euthymius, but did not install Arseny, and the second in the same year, when he installed Arseny on August 15. The narrative speaks about the first trip in almost the same words as the narrative, read separately, about the only one, and names the same companions of the metropolitan as the latter. It names all the previous ones as companions of the metropolitan on the second trip, but adds two more bishops to them (Daniil of Zvenigorod and Jeremiah of Ryazan). How to explain and how to reconcile the discrepancy between the two narratives remains perplexing for us. The legend, read separately, speaks of the trial of the bishop: “And on the fourth day (after Cyprian’s arrival in Tver), the elders and archimandrites and abbots and priests and deacons and the entire priestly rank gathered to the great prince; he convened his boyars and collected the wallpaper in one place and sent an ambassador to the metropolitan; They began to complain about the rebellion of the church against Euthymius, the bishop of God's city of Tferi (it should be read: Bishop of Tferi, the city of God), but the metropolitan gathered together and began to judge, and Euthymius did not find righteousness in his mouth, as David said: a crooked man will not live half his days; archimandrites and abbots and priests and boyars tortured him in many courts, but the metropolitan judged (him) according to the rule of the saints, the Father, and cast him out.” The legend read in the Nikon Chronicle about the same trial of the bishop says: “On the fourth day, the archimandrites and abbots and presbyters, deacones and the entire priestly and monastic rank gathered to the Grand Duke; He convened his boyars and gathered together in one place both a sacred council and a secular council and an ambassador to Cyprian, Metropolitan of All Russia; They began to complain about their ruler, Vistula of Tver, about rebellion and church discord; Cyprian, Metropolitan of All Russia from the bishopric, with the entire sacred council and with the guests from the Greek metropolitans, sat down at the court and began to judge according to the divine and sacred rule of the holy apostles and holy fathers, and there were many slander (i.e., accusations 566) against Euthymius, the ruler of Tver, - all risen nan, slandering (accusing), archimandrites and abbots and priestesses and boyars and nobles and progenitors. Metropolitan Cyprian, with the entire sacred council, judged according to the rule of the holy apostles and holy fathers and commanded the bishop to remain simply besides the sacred ones, until he was still tortured to think; The great prince began to ask for something else, and Metropolitan Cyprian with the entire sacred council dismissed Bishop Evthymius of Vistula from the bishopric.” Having appointed his protodeacon Arseny as bishop of Tver, at the request of Alexander Mikhailovich, the metropolitan tried to reconcile the prince with the former bishop, but did not have time at all: “the great prince and his ruler Euthymius were brought into great humility and love, and there was no peace and love, but especially enmity and great warfare arose, even Then many other slander (accusations) were made against Euthymius, the Bishop of Vistula, which were very grave and unbearable, and enmity and abuse were very fierce, and about this Metropolitan Cyprian was much troubled and it was not possible to quench the enmity and create love.” When Cyprian went back to Moscow, taking Euthymius with him, in order to place him to live in his Chudov Monastery, Arseny, who was elected but not ordained bishop of Tver, did not stay in Tver, “fearing the dominion to be accepted in Tver, seeing there was a lot of fighting and enmity there and was confused and horrified.” On his second visit to Tver, which is briefly discussed, the Metropolitan installed Arseny as bishop of Tver, and “barely begged (him) to be a bishop, being afraid of enmity and many fights, and barely installed him as a bishop”). From his predecessor Pimin, Cyprian inherited a quarrel with the Novgorodians, which he addressed immediately after the Tver affair. In Lent of 1385, as the chronicles report, the Novgorodians gathered a veche and at it made a common vow, sealed with a kiss on the cross, that in the future they should not be called to Moscow for trial before the metropolitan, but that they should sue their archbishop. Moreover, it was decided that at the latter’s trial, two boyars and two hagiographic husbands should be present on both sides suing or litigating 567. In this curse of the Novgorodians, the point was that in the future they would not appeal from the court of their archbishop with appeals to the court of the metropolitan. In ancient and ancient times, the area of ​​jurisdiction of our bishops, as we said before, 568 was incomparably more extensive than at the present time, and namely, not only the clergy were subject to their trial as citizens in all civil cases and criminal crimes, with the exception of the most serious crimes, but also the laity in a significant number of those and other cases and crimes. Thus, the Novgorodians made their mutual oath agreement at the veche not to appeal to the metropolitan to the court of their archbishop in those cases and litigation for which they were subject to the court of the archbishop. They decided that in the future, two boyars and two husbands from both suing and litigating parties should be present at the archbishop’s court, as is obvious, with the aim that the archbishop’s court, which was supposed to be peremptory in the future, would have greater firmness and reliability and enjoy greater confidence. The chronicles do not say whether the agreement or sentence was the work of the laity alone or the clergy together, but from what follows it is clear that it was the work of both one and the other. The Greek acts related to our case, which we will talk about further, supplementing our chronicles, tell us that the Novgorodians with their verdict meant not only to free themselves from the metropolitan’s court of appeal, but also to give their archbishop more or less significant independence from the latter, in order to acquire for their church a kind of, or at least to some extent, independence. The Novgorod ambassadors, who went to the Patriarch of Constantinople on our matter, told him, as he himself conveys in one of his letters to them (the Novgorodians): we don’t want to sue the metropolitan, nor so that when he calls our bishop to him, the bishop goes to him 570. On his own behalf, the patriarch reproaches the Novgorodians that they do not want to sue the metropolitan and do not want to show him obedience according to the old custom (ὑποταγὴν ἀπονέμειν κατὰ τὴν ἀρχαίαν συνή θειαν 571. According to the evidence of Greek acts, the Novgorodians decided their sentence as a result of some reasons given to them by Metropolitan Pimin. But one can think that it was not just a matter of unknown reasons on Pimin’s part, and that the real history of our case begins a little earlier. In 1346, Metropolitan Theognost granted baptismal vestments to Archbishop Vasily of Novgorod. The chronicles do not say whether he did this on his own initiative, as an expression of his favor to the archbishop, or at the deliberate request and deliberate search of the latter and the Novgorodians; but it is much more likely that the second, and it should be assumed that by giving their ruler a new distinction beyond the title of archbishop, the Novgorodians intended to further promote him from the ranks of other bishops and even more put him in a special position. The Moscow grand princes, immediately after recognizing themselves as great princes - collectors of the land in the person of Ivan Danilovich Kalita, declared an unambiguous desire to subjugate Novgorod to their power 572; Naturally, the Novgorodians, in turn, began to take care of defending themselves from the Moscow Grand Dukes. Having managed to make the metropolitans their Moscow princes, the princes were able to act on Novgorod through the power of the metropolitans over its archbishops; and therefore it was natural for the Novgorodians to strive to make sure that their archbishops were as independent as possible from the metropolitans. And it is very likely to think that they asked Metropolitan Theognost for baptismal vestments for Archbishop Vasily with the goal that, on the basis of this distinction, they would assign to their archbishops special rights, the recognition of which could be demanded from subsequent metropolitans (the white hood, which constituted the distinction of the Novgorod rulers and to which the Novgorodians acquired great significance, was also produced by them from the archbishop Although this is not true, as we will say below, it shows that Archbishop Vasily, who received baptized vestments from Metropolitan Theognostus, was taught by them the acquisition of special rights. violence from the metropolitan." Contrary to the testimony of the Nikon Chronicle, it is very likely to think that this was not about the rules on the decrees and not about church duties, but specifically about baptismal vestments. The Novgorodians looked upon the granting of these vestments by Metropolitan Theognost to Archbishop Vasily as their grant to all subsequent Novgorod archbishops once and for all; Meanwhile, Theognostus, having given the vestments to Basil, did not want to give them to Moses. Perhaps the Metropolitan did not want to give the latter our vestments because he did not want to pay the amount he demanded for them; but it is also possible that already Vasily with the baptized vestments changed his behavior towards him, the Metropolitan, and that this was noticed by him. Archbishop Moses managed to receive baptismal vestments from the patriarch himself, 574 and how he behaved in them towards the metropolitan remains unknown. But his successor from 1359, Alexy, having appropriated the use of these vestments without permission, for the patriarch had given them to Moses only in a personal way, behaved in them towards Metropolitan Alexy in such a way that in 1369-70 he complained to the patriarch about his disrespect, disobedience and disobedience (see above p. 205, electronic version - footnote paragraph No. 371, approx. corr.). Thus, it can be taken as very probable that from the time of Archbishop Vasily, the Novgorodians and their rulers set out to make the former as independent as possible from the metropolitans, and the latter to become so independent, and that the verdict of 1385 was not something sudden, but rather the final expression of their aspirations. Having ordered that the metropolitans not appeal to the court of appeal from the court of their archbishops and having proposed to obtain from the patriarch that the metropolitans would not have the right to summon archbishops to themselves, they wanted to place the latter in such a relationship with the former that some would only receive initiation from others and then would not know them. But no matter to what extent the plans of the Novgorodians extended and no matter what significance, in any case, their decision not to appeal from the court of their archbishops to the court of appeal of the metropolitans should have been extremely unpleasant for the latter, for it very sensitively affected their monetary interests. The court in civil cases subject to the jurisdiction of spiritual power, as in cases subject to civil power itself, was combined with us with certain monetary duties; Consequently, the Novgorodians, having pronounced their verdict, at the same time sentenced to deprive the metropolitans of the court fees that they received for their trial, and since the court of appeal was probably charged double fees against the ordinary court, there is no doubt that this was very sensitive. But that was not the main thing. Our post-Mongol metropolitans carried out their trial on appeals to them, if not from all dioceses - a question about which we will decide below, in deliberate speeches about the trial, then from the Novgorod diocese in a special way. For this purpose, they did not summon the litigants to Moscow, but themselves went to Novgorod or, for the most part, sent their authorized representatives to replace them as judges. They came to Novgorod, and mainly sent their representatives to it at certain certain times, namely, after three years on the fourth, and since they themselves or through representatives had to judge within a month (judicial session), their court of appeal was known as the monthly court 575. Arriving in Novgorod for the trial, the metropolitans at the same time, as it were, and partly in reality, came to survey the diocese: and for the visit in this last sense, they collected a universal tribute from the entire clergy of the diocese, called the entrance. Although the metropolitans for the most part did not come to Novgorod themselves, but sent representatives, tribute was still collected in these latter cases, or, in other words, it was regularly collected three years later on the fourth 576. Unfortunately, we have no positive information at all about the size of the entrance tribute to the metropolitans in Novgorod and can only determine this approximately. Just as the metropolitans came to Novgorod for their monthly court of appeal, so, in turn, the archbishops of Novgorod for the same court, on complaints or appeals to them to the court of their Pskov governor (maybe all the bishops, on complaints to the court of their governors who lived in their governorships 577, which is also below), came to Pskov and like metropolitans charged his clergy their entrance fee. We have information about how large the entrance fee or tribute was collected by the Novgorod archbishops from the clergy of their Pskov governorship a century after our quarrel between the Novgorodians and the metropolitans, at the end of the 14th - beginning of the 15th century. Namely, at the end of the 14th – beginning of the 15th century, under Archbishop Gennady (1484–1504), a fee was levied on the archbishop’s entrance from the clergy of the Pskov governorship during his visits to Pskov three years later on the fourth for a monthly trial “from every abbot and from the priest and from the deacon, from urban and rural, from local and non-local (who occupied places and who did not borrow) from a bald head (per person) for half and fifteen money in Moscow money (in Moscow account, Moscow coin "578. It is more than likely that the entrance duty of the metropolitans in Novgorod was higher than the entrance duty of the Novgorod archbishops in Pskov. But if we assume that it was not lower, then we will assume something that should be taken as undoubted. In ancient and old times, as we said before, we had a very large number of priests - incomparably more than at present. In the Novgorod diocese, during the reign of Metropolitans Pimin and Cyprian, there were no less, if not much more, two thousand local and non-local priests. If we assume that there were two thousand of them and that the entrance fee for metropolitans was then fifty per person, then we will get a thousand rubles. And thus, we will receive a thousand rubles † one or another unknown, but, in any case, a significant amount of court fees. But that was not all. During the month-long stay or residence of the metropolitans in Novgorod for the court of appeal, the clergy of the Novgorod diocese was obliged to provide them with their retinues with food or maintenance. Concluding from the food of the same bishops of Novgorod in Pskov, one must think that it was calculated in such a way that it was as if the metropolitans were supposed to have a daily large feast, and that they found it most profitable, as the archbishops of Novgorod did, to act in such a way that, being usually maintained at their own expense or also at the gratuitous expense of the monasteries, they took from the clergy instead of food in kind feed money 579. Archbishop Gennady took 488 Moscow rubles 580 in feed money from the Pskov clergy. If we assume that the metropolitans took five hundred rubles of this money from the Novgorod clergy - and we have the right to assume this, bearing in mind the news of the Novgorod chronicler that in 1341 the arrival of Metropolitan Theognostus was hard for food for the ruler and the monasteries - then we will receive one and a half thousand rubles † an unknown amount of court fees. The feed duty, apparently, could only be collected when the metropolitans themselves came to Novgorod; but just as the entrance tax was collected not only when the metropolitans came themselves, but also when they sent representatives, so in all likelihood the same should be thought about our duty. But even now what we have indicated is not all. Coming to Novgorod, the metropolitans, on the one hand, taught its citizens their highest archpastoral blessing and for this received a “remembrance” from the citizens; on the other hand, they revealed themselves to the subordinate clergy, and the clergy, according to existing custom, had to offer them the same commemoration or gifts for this; Regarding the collection of funerals and gifts, it is very likely to think the same thing as regarding the entrance tribute and feed duties, i.e., that, having been turned into a regular and definite tax, they were collected not only when the metropolitans themselves arrived, but also when they sent authorized representatives. In the end, it must be accepted that the metropolitans received from Novgorod three years later on the fourth of their so-called monthly trial at least two thousand rubles. The then two thousand rubles with our money are more than two hundred thousand rubles in banknotes. And this was such an amount three years into the fourth, for which the metropolitans had every incentive to quarrel with the Novgorodians, regardless of the church-state goals that the latter might have, rendering their verdict not to appeal to their court of appeal. The Greek acts speak very vaguely about the reasons that Metropolitan Pimin gave to the Novgorodians to pronounce their sentence, namely - they say that the latter were somehow seduced and offended by Pimin - that they pronounced the sentence because of an empty and unimportant reason 581. As we said, the Novgorodians pronounced their sentence in Lent in 1385. According to some chronicles, Metropolitan Pimin, preparing to go to Constantinople and, therefore, having a need for money, either immediately before the Novgorodians pronounced their sentence or immediately after this, came to them in Novgorod to receive the fees of his monthly court, and had to leave with nothing 582. During his subsequent short stay at the department, he did not have the opportunity to fight with the Novgorodians because of the latter’s encroachment on his metropolitan rights and duties. In May of the same 1385 he went to Constantinople and remained in Greece until July 1388; from July 1388 to April 1389 he lived in Russia, but at that time his own situation was so bad, or, more precisely, completely desperate, that he had no time to fight the Novgorodians. But Cyprian, who was proclaimed Metropolitan of All Russia after the deposition of Piminov, turned his concerns to the verdict of the Novgorodians, which to such an extent encroached on his metropolitan financial interests, immediately after he could recognize himself as the actual Metropolitan of All Russia. While still in Constantinople, before leaving for Russia, he asked Patriarch Anthony to write his letter of exhortation to the Novgorodians 583, which he immediately sent to Novgorod 584 upon arrival in Moscow. Freed from the Tver business, which, at the invitation of the Tver Grand Duke, he was supposed to take up immediately after arriving in Moscow, he immediately turned to the Novgorod business. Since the patriarchal letter did not have any effect on the Novgorodians, in order to convince them to abandon the sentence they had passed, in February 1392 Cyprian himself undertook a trip to Novgorod 585. The Novgorodians greeted him with appropriate honorable solemnity and gave him and his retinue a courtyard 586; Over the course of a week and a half, he celebrated two solemn liturgies, and Archbishop John of Novgorod and the citizens created many feasts for him and honored him with many gifts. But when, on the Week of Orthodoxy, which fell on February 25 in 1392, he celebrated the third liturgy in the St. Sophia Cathedral and after the liturgy began to ask the Novgorodians for “the court of his month” so that they would give him court and duties, as was the case under other metropolitans: he met a decisive refusal. The mayor and thousand of Novgorod and all the citizens unanimously answered: “Mister! about the trial, they kissed the cross and wrote off the letter of cross among themselves, that we should not call to the Metropolitan”... (“we all kissed the cross for one, we should not be called to the Metropolitan for trial and the Metropolitan should not judge us, and we wrote and sealed the letters and sealed our souls”... 587. Having not achieved the slightest success, the Metropolitan, in terrible anger at the Novgorodians, left them on the third day after this (having stayed with them for two weeks and a half) and betrayed them, including their clergy and their archbishop, to excommunication 588. Returning to Moscow, Cyprian sent an ambassador to Constantinople 589 to complain about the Novgorodians to the patriarch. In turn, the Novgorodians sent their own ambassadors to Constantinople 590 to seek from the patriarch recognition of the legality of their sentence, along with the presentation of a new demand that the metropolitan not summon their archbishop to his place in Moscow and probably to work for him to lift the excommunication imposed by the metropolitan from them. The Patriarch wrote two letters to Novgorod, one after listening to the metropolitan ambassador, the other after listening to the Novgorod ambassadors who arrived soon after the first, and sent both together at the end of 1393 to Russia with his apocrisiary, Archbishop Michael of Bethlehem 591. The Patriarch urgently convinces the Novgorodians in his letters to reconcile with the metropolitan, and as for excommunication, he not only does not remove it from them, but also at length proves to them all its power and reality 592. It may very well be that the patriarch’s letters would not have had any special effect on the Novgorodians; but before they were written, Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich intervened in the Metropolitan’s quarrel with them. The Grand Duke demanded that they send him a letter of kissing the cross, in which they wrote down not to be called to court before the Metropolitan, promising that the Metropolitan would remove from them the sin of kissing the cross; when they refused this to the sovereign, in Lent 1393 593, he sent his army against them. The Novgorodians captured the suburbs of Torzhok, Volok Lamsky and Vologda with their volosts and conquered many volosts. In turn, they took possession of the suburbs of the Grand Duke: Klichen (in the then Rzhev district 594), Ustyuzhnaya and Velikiy Ustyug and many volosts: there was a lot of bloodshed on both sides. But then the Novgorodians, not wanting, according to the Novgorod chronicles, to see more bloodshed among Christians, i.e., as it should be implied, seeing their powerlessness to fight the Grand Duke, they sent to him with a petition about the old days and delivered to him their letter of kissing the cross against the metropolitan. The Grand Duke made peace with the Novgorodians, and the Metropolitan allowed them from kissing the cross, lifting the church excommunication that he had imposed on them 595; for this last, the Novgorodians bowed to the prince and metropolitan with a funeral service of half a quarter of one hundred rubles 596. Thus, with the help of the weapons of the Grand Duke, the Metropolitan, apparently, managed to defeat the Novgorodians; however, it turned out that this victory was only imaginary: wanting to force the Grand Duke to stop the war and together wanting to force the Metropolitan to lift the excommunication he had imposed, the Novgorodians deceived them with feigned humility. In 1394, the apocrisiary of the patriarch arrived in Russia with his letters, and the following year, 1395, during Lent, Cyprian went with him to Novgorod 597; The Novgorodians received the metropolitan, as the first time, with great honor, but they again refused the month-long trial and the associated duties. This time circumstances favored the firm resilience of the Novgorodians. For this new and seemingly treacherous refusal, the Metropolitan flared up against them, naturally, with even greater anger than before, and if he had been left to his own devices, then, no doubt, he would have immediately again imposed on them the excommunication that he had just lifted; but some political reasons unknown to us that the Grand Duke had (either the approach of a formidable enemy in the person of Tamerlane or something else) now tied the Metropolitan’s hands in this regard. Unable to act with a thunderstorm of anger, he wanted to achieve his goal through the paths of peace: In the hope of attracting the Novgorodians and reconciling them with himself, he remained in Novgorod for a long-term residence 598. But peaceful means also turned out to be in vain: after living for a long time in Novgorod, the Metropolitan had to leave with nothing, without having time to get the Novgorodians to agree to return to him the monthly trial and the fees associated with the latter 599. Now the news about Cyprian’s litigation with the Novgorodians over the month-long trial ends with the above, and the chronicles leave us in the dark about how the matter ended. But from evidence dating back to the time of Cyprian’s successor, Photius, we know that it ended in complete failure of the metropolitan’s efforts. After 1395, Cyprian summoned the Novgorod Archbishop John to Moscow three times, namely in 1396, 1397 and 1401. Nothing is said about the reason for the first call. About the reason for the second and third summons 1 The Novgorod Chronicle vaguely says that they were “about saintly affairs”: in all likelihood one should think that all three times the archbishop was summoned by the metropolitan regarding our monthly trial. Summoned for the last time, John was subjected to a conciliar trial of seven bishops and, according to the testimony of the Nikon Chronicle, which speaks of the council of 600, he was forced to unsubscribe or renounce the bishopric 601. However, after staying in Moscow for 3 years and 4 months, he was again returned to the department 602. At the same time as he was arguing with the Novgorodians over a month-long trial, Metropolitan Cyprian had a lawsuit with the Archbishop of Suzdal outside the diocese, which, perhaps, was also inherited by him from his predecessor, or perhaps was raised by himself and about which, with the complete silence of our chronicles, we know only from Greek acts. We said above that in 1365 St. Alexy took Nizhny Novgorod and Gorodets from Bishop Alexy of Suzdal. He returned them to Alexiev's successor Dionysius, installed in 1374. But Archimandrite Mikhail-Mityai, who took the see of the metropolis after his death, probably as a result of his quarrel with Dionysius, laid claim to our cities, and the latter, while he was in Constantinople, asked the patriarch for an affirmative letter for them, as for cities belonging to the Suzdal appanage and to his Suzdal diocese 603. In 1386, on the occasion of the non-existence of Metropolitan Pimin in Moscow, who was in Constantinople, the latter was sent to the patriarch or, perhaps, to the metropolitan himself, for installation as archbishop of Suzdal in place of the deceased Dionysius, archimandrite of the Nizhny Novgorod Pechersk Monastery Euphrosynus. This Euphrosynus, appointed archbishop by Patriarch Anthony in July 1389, either in view of the fact that after Mikhail-Mitya he was laying claim to the cities and Pimin, or generally for the fortress and just in case, asked the patriarch for the same letter as his predecessor 604. Be that as it may, Metropolitan Cyprian, having sent his ambassador to the patriarch with a complaint against the Novgorodians in 1392, at the same time brought his own claim regarding our cities against the Archbishop of Suzdal. How the Metropolitan proved his claim to the Patriarch, this is told to us in the Patriarch’s message to the Archbishop of Suzdal, sent with the apocrisiaries sent to Russia at the end of 1393 (Archbishop Michael of Bethlehem and Tsar’s boyar Alexy Aaron). Having said in the message about the letters given to Dionysius and himself - Euphrosynus, the Patriarch continues further: “But now the Most Reverend Metropolitan of Kiev and all Russia, most honorable (ὑπέρτιμος), in the Holy Spirit the beloved brother of our dimension and co-servant, together with the most noble and glorious Grand Duke of Moscow and all Russia, in the Holy In the Spirit, the most desired son of our dimension, Cyrus Vasily, wrote and sent (to us) with the son of our dimension, Cyrus Demetrius the Athenian, beloved in the Holy Spirit (letters) about these cities and claim that the initial report of your elder (predecessor of Euphrosinov Dionysius 605) was unfair, as if (the cities) belonged to the Suzdal diocese, but that they belonged to the metropolis Russian and from time immemorial and from time immemorial they were owned and managed by it, - that your elder (Dionysius) asked them from the Metropolitan of All Russia, Kir Alexy, in order to own them exarchically and actually owned them until the death of Kir Alexy - that when Kir Alexy died, and the installation of another as metropolitan due to the unrest that occurred - as you also know - was delayed, your elder kept these cities and, finding the circumstances here (in Constantinople) favorable for himself, since there was no common metropolitan of Russia, but there was one or the other, he made a report (to the patriarch), saying that (the cities) belonged to his diocese, and received (them from the patriarch)” 606. Satisfying the claim of the Metropolitan and the Grand Duke, the Patriarch instructed his apocrisiaries to conduct a new inquiry into the case. In the order that was given by the patriarch to the apocrisiaries, the following is prescribed to them regarding this: they must demand from the archbishop the royal and patriarchal charters given to him and his predecessor and look in the charters: on what basis the cities were given to them - whether because they laid claim to them, calling them their ancient cities, or because they asked for them from the metropolis as a donation. If the first, then the archbishop must prove his right with written acts, living witnesses and in any way whatsoever, and if he proves, then let the cities remain with him, and if he does not prove, then they must be returned to the metropolitan. If the latter, then let the cities remain with the archbishop for the time being, and the metropolitan is given the right to ask the emperor and patriarch for charters, which would destroy the power of deeds of gift to archbishops 607 . What the apocrisiaries found and how they decided the matter remains unknown to us, because we have no further information. But according to their decision or contrary to it, and at the same time or several after the city were annexed to the metropolitan see 608. Since the right of the Suzdal archbishops to them was undeniable, and what the Metropolitan and the Grand Duke reported regarding them was completely unfair (so Cyprian appeared before the Patriarch with proof of his claim, which was obviously false!): it is obvious that their accession to the metropolitan see was an act of simple brutal violence (as for St. Alexy, as his behavior proves, he did not want to completely take away the cities from the Suzdal bishopric, but only took them away from Bishop Alexy). Judging other quarrels, conducting his own litigation as a metropolitan, Cyprian also had his own personal battle. A student of Dionysius, Archbishop of Suzdal, Evfimmius, who founded the Spassky Monastery in Suzdal (now Spaso-Evfimiev) did not order to be called, that is, he did not want to recognize him as a metropolitan, probably because he captured him - Evfimiev's teacher in Kyiv. Unfortunately, we do not know the details of this battle; but the Monk Joseph of Volokolamsk, regarding his quarrel with the Archbishop of Novgorod Serapion, speaks about it more than once, with the goal of referring to the fact that Cyprian saw himself forced by it to beat the Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich with his forehead against Euthymius 609. We know as little about the church and government activities of Cyprian and can say just as little as about the activities of almost all of his predecessors. Cyprian was one of the metropolitans who lived exceptionally long, for in total, counting from his consecration, he remained at the metropolitan see for a whole 30 years, but whether he belonged to the number of metropolitans exclusively or not exclusively who ruled, we do not know at all. In his letter to St. Serius of Radonezh, written on the occasion of an unsuccessful trip to Moscow after the death of St. Alexy, in the third year of his stay at the Lithuanian department, Cyprian boasts that he very carefully puts in order the disordered affairs of the metropolitanate, that is, the Lithuanian one. And that not only with his efforts did he straighten out the church work there and establish Christianity, but that he also led many of the pagan Lithuanians to the knowledge of the true God and to the Orthodox faith through holy baptism 610. It may very well be that when Cyprian boasts, he is not boasting. But, in any case, a person’s self-praise cannot be accepted as real historical evidence. There is later evidence that Metropolitan Cyprian made a new Slavic translation of the book of church laws or Kormcha. In 1627, the Moscow Epiphany abbot Elijah and the book reference Gregory, who, on the orders of Patriarch Philaret, were conducting a debate with Lavrenty Zizaniy about his Catechism, defending the authority of the Helmsman, then used in Moscow, said to Lavrenty: “Cyprian, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia, when he came from Constantinograd to Russian metropolis, and then he brought with him the correct books of the Christian law, the Greek language of the rule, and translated them into Slavic, and by God’s grace they remain to this day without any troubles and butts (and) new introductions” 611. But they rightly think 612 that Elijah and Gregory were mistaken and that they only accepted the list of the latter written by Cyprian as Cyprian’s translation of the Helmsman. Perhaps this list was still preserved in their time, or perhaps they were based on the testimony of the Degree Book, which says that during the great Moscow fire of 1547, Metropolitan Macarius saved from the fire, among other things, “the book of Divine Rules, which Metropolitan Cyprian brought from Constantinople from Constantinople” 613. Besides the fact that no real traces of Kpprian's translation of the Helmsman have been found, it is in itself completely incredible to assume that he undertook a new translation with existing translations, because he could not have had any motivation to do so. If in his time the Greeks had come into use with a new edition of the Helmsman, different from those (two) that had hitherto been in the Slavic translation, then his new translation would have been understandable. But this did not happen, and therefore a new translation of what had already been translated long ago would not have made sense. That Cyprian wrote the list of Helmsman with his own hand and wrote it while in Constantinople is very likely: we have evidence that he loved to write books 614 and we positively know that he did this during his long stay in Constantinople 615. Regarding Cyprian’s list that has not reached us, we should think that of the two editions of Kormcha that existed in the Slavic language, he represented the edition that was acquired for Russia by Metropolitan Kirill from Bulgaria in 1262 and which is now known to us under the name of the Ryazan or Iosifov edition, for this edition was then in general use among the Bulgarians and Serbs, from whom he could take Cyprian originals for copying during his stay in Constantinople. The translation of this edition was the work of St. Savva of Serbia, and one must think that Cyprian took care to acquire from one of the Serbian bishops a list for copying that was as good as possible. We said above that in 1401, Archbishop John of Novgorod was convicted in Moscow by a conciliar court of seven bishops. Together with John, Bishop Savva of Lutsk was tried and convicted, who also had to unsubscribe from the bishopric and was also detained in Moscow. What Savva was convicted for remains unknown. The Nikon Chronicle, in which one reads about the council, presents the matter in such a way that it is as if both bishops were accused of the same thing. The chronicle speaks hollowly about the reason for the condemnation of Sava together with John: “for metropolitan Cyprian laid reproach on them for certain holy things, so that not only would they themselves find what was useful and saved, but that something else would be useful and saved, for nothing destroys the demonic nets like subjugation and humility 616. Two letters of Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich, given by him to Metropolitan Cyprian, have been preserved to this day, of which the authenticity of one, however, is not indisputable and in which the Grand Duke, on the one hand, confirms to the Metropolitan his church-judicial and patrimonial rights, and on the other hand, confirms or, perhaps, re-decrees the restrictions of his church-governmental rights and his patrimonial obligations in relation to the state. With one of the letters, the Grand Duke confirms to the Metropolitan the so-called charters of Vladimir and Yaroslav. Here is this document, which is not extensive in volume, in full and word for word: “Behold, the Great Prince Vasily Dmitreevich of All Rus', sitting with his father with Cyprian, Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus', I ruled in the old days about the courts of the church, having exhausted (the version of “who took it”, i.e. to us) the old nomocanon, as my great-grandfather ruled, Holy Great Prince Volodymer, and his son, Great Prince Yaroslav of All Rus'; how they, sitting with the metropolitans, ruled about church judgments and copied the nomocanon according to the Greek nomocanon, that church courts and all church justifications, as has been the case for a long time: according to the same thing, we have ruled now, even if it were motionless, never in advance for the future (for other things, in the future) would neither be increased nor diminished, but so it would stand motionless, as those great holy princes inscribed and strengthened” 617. Karamzin, who first found the copy of the letter, doubted its authenticity 618. But if the doubts expressed by him cannot be recognized as valid 619, then instead of his reasons for doubts, new ones can be indicated. In the currently known lists of the charter 620, the inscription is read that it was copied from the great and old nomocanon in Moscow in the summer of 6911, indictment 11, November on the 19th day, i.e. November 19, 1402. Defenders of the authenticity of charter 621 understand the attribution in such a way that one of the later scribes copied it from the nomocanon written in Moscow in 1402; but the direct meaning of the attribution is that the scribe of 1402 copied it from the great and old nomocanon. If we accept this latter meaning, then the attribution will be obviously fake, because for the scribe of 1402, the nomocanon of Cyprian's time could not be the old nomocanon. Agreeing to accept the letter as genuine, one should not understand the matter in such a way that the Grand Duke in the proper sense confirmed the statutes of Vladimir and Yaroslav to the Metropolitan. These statutes never fully coincided with existing reality; but after they appeared, it began to be accepted that in general the reality of any given time is based on them. Therefore, the confirmation by the Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich to Metropolitan Cyprian of the statutes of Vladimir and Yaroslav, if it really took place, should be understood in such a way that he confirmed to the Metropolitan that region and that space of the church court that the latter had in his time, or in other words, that the Grand Duke confirmed to the Metropolitan for the future the status quo in this regard. Another letter from the Grand Duke to the Metropolitan confirms the patrimonial rights and, at the same time, the obligations of the latter, establishes restrictions on his church and government rights and confirms, and in part, perhaps, re-establishes the rules regarding the mixed court. Under the charter, according to the lists currently known of it, there is an incorrect date, on the basis of which it should be attributed to either 1392 or 1404 622. It seems most likely to accept the first year and understand the matter in such a way that the Grand Duke and the Metropolitan made an agreement at the beginning of the reign of the second. The introduction to the charter reads: “Behold, the great prince, gray, with his father, the Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus', ruled about church houses and about volosts and about lands and waters and about all church duties.” Then, the content of the charter is the following: the estates belonging to the metropolitan see from the times preceding Metropolitan Alexy and from his time remain with it, as it was under Metropolitan Alexy 623. House metropolitan monasteries belong to the metropolitan with all their estates 624. Boyars and servants of the Grand Duke and Metropolitans should not buy metropolitan estates, and whoever bought them must return what they bought and get their money back 625. This decree, in all likelihood, should be understood to mean that either Metropolitan Pimin, needing money for his trips to Constantinople, sold some of the estates that belonged to the metropolitan see, or that, taking advantage of Pimin’s long-term absences, the metropolitan boyars sold them and appropriated them for themselves, and that Cyprian, through his decree, intended to return the estates back. The peasants living in the metropolitan estates 626 are judged by the metropolitan himself with a volostel or a closer, and there will be no judge of the Grand Duke; peasants living in the estates of house metropolitan monasteries 627 are judged by the abbots of the latter. From the metropolitan peasants, the Grand Duke will take the Tatar output according to his own quitrent, and not take any more quitrent from them, and the squirrels and cuttings will not be taken from them by the Grand Duke, but by the Metropolitan; when to give tribute to the Tatars, then the Grand Duke will take the dues from the church people, and when you don’t give tribute to the Tatars, then you won’t take the dues; The Grand Duke's tax collector and lineman should not be in the metropolitan villages. The fact that some of the metropolitan peasants 628 erected mansions on the Grand Duke in Vladimir is postponed, because it happened again, not according to the duty 629. Yam (yam, postal duty) to the Grand Duke from the metropolitan peasants, according to the old days, is the sixth day (of persecution) - when the villages of the Grand Duke are given (that is, when, by order of the Grand Duke, the horses of his villages are put out), then the metropolitans will also give. If metropolitan church people sell their household goods, then they will not give tamgas, but whoever sells the purchase (bought) will give tamgas. And if the metropolitan’s people live in the city, but are drawn to the palace, they should be described and a quitrent put on them, as well as on the Grand Duke of the nobles. If a person of the Grand Duke seeks judgment on the abbot, or on the priest, or on the monk, then the trial will be general. When there is no metropolitan in the great reign, he will go somewhere, and someone will seek judgment against the metropolitan from the Grand Duke: then if there is a mixed court, judge the Grand Duke and court fees in half, and if there is a metropolitan court, then the metropolitan governor will judge. If anyone seeks judgment from the Grand Duke against the metropolitan governor or foreman or volost, then the Grand Duke must judge for himself. And regarding the war, we establish: when I, the Grand Duke, sit on a horse, then (to go) the metropolitan boyars and servants, under the metropolitan commander, and under mine - the Grand Duke's banner; and those of the boyars and servants who did not serve Metropolitan Alexy, but entered the service again, will go under my Grand Duke as governor - where he lives, he is under that governor. And for your tribute (“prefabricated”), take the metropolitan from each church six altyns per year, and the entrance (“arrival”) three money, and moreover, do not take anything; and the titheman should take his all kinds of duties (entry, Christmas and Peter's) at six altyns (per year) from the church, and moreover, not take anything - collect the metropolitan tribute on the Nativity of Christ, and the tithe duties on Peter's days. Which cathedral churches in the cities did not give tribute under Theognostus and under Metropolitan Alexius, they will not give tribute now. The Metropolitan will not appoint my servants the Grand Duke and my given people to priests and deacons; and whoever is a priest, even if he is enrolled in my service, but wants to be promoted to priest or deacon, then he is free to become; and the priest who lives with his father and eats his father’s bread is the metropolitan, and the priest who is separated and does not live with his father and eats his own bread, he is my Grand Duke.” We said above that Khan Mengu-Temir in his yarlyk to Metropolitan Kirill granted the latter the power to ordain to church degrees from all laypeople without exception: the decree of the Grand Duke, so that the metropolitan does not ordain his priests and deacons, the prince’s servants and these people should be viewed as a cancellation or as a limitation of the khan’s decree (and what is read in the charter of the great Prince further is a literal repetition of what is read in the Khan's label). Unfortunately, we do not find any news in the chronicles regarding the origin of the second of our letters. In any case, its content shows that it was written by the Grand Duke not only at the request of the Metropolitan, but also on his own impulse, with the aim of not only confirming the rights of the Metropolitan, but also putting restrictions on them or confirming these latter. We will return to literacy again below, in the second half of the volume, in the chapter on management. Two charters of Metropolitan Cyprian have survived to us, in which he is the guardian of the church-governmental and property rights of the bishops subordinate to him and the last rights of the clergy in general. During his second stay in Novgorod in 1395, he wrote a letter to the Pskovites, in which he convinces them and together instructs them: 1) so that they, the laity, do not take away from their archbishop and do not arrogate to themselves the right to judge and execute priests, even if these latter were even obviously and obviously unworthy people (widowed and without resigning from the priesthood who married a second time); 2) so that they do not enter church lands and villages purchased by churches or received as a gift per soul 630. Some time or another after this, Cyprian gave his affirmative or, as it were, protective letter to the Novgorod Archbishop John, in which he orders: 1) that none of the laity should dare to assert the rights of an archbishop over the clergy, - over abbots and monks, priests and deacons, and that, in turn, none of the clergy, under pain of ejection and excommunication, dared to be taken away from the archbishop with the help of secular authorities; 2) so that none of the laity dares to enter into the immovable estates of the archbishop's see, into its graveyards and villages and lands and waters with all duties 631. Metropolitan Cyprian occupies a special place in the history of our worship: he introduced a new edition of the service book and a new liturgical charter for us. In the early days of Christianity, as we said in Volume I 632, each private church had its own special liturgy. This diversity gradually disappeared in such a way that the liturgies of the most famous fathers, such as Basil the Great and John Chrysostom, were accepted everywhere. But the liturgies of Basil the Great and John Chrysostom, with the liturgy of the presanctified gifts attached to them, for reasons that we explained there 633, for a very long time represented a great local variety. In the second half of the 14th century, Cyprian’s contemporary, Patriarch Philotheus of Constantinople, who first occupied the see in 1354 and died after 1376, in order to put an end to diversity, prepared a deliberate edition of the service book and introduced it into use in his patriarchal church as a specific edition. It was this edition of Filofeev’s service book that was translated into the Slavic language and introduced into use among us by Metropolitan Cyprian. As for the statutes of other worship, with the adoption of Christianity we borrowed from the Greeks several such statutes: the statute of the Great Church of Constantinople or the Patriarchate of Constantinople for bishops, an unknown number of monastic statutes for monasteries and parish churches (for the former in full form, for the latter in an abbreviated form). Over time, the monastic charter of the Constantinople Studite Monastery, as edited by Patriarch Alexy of Constantinople 634, came into general use in all churches. But in Greece - in the Patriarchate of Constantinople, from which we borrowed the statutes, during the first half of the 13th century (according to the testimony of Simeon of Thessalonica), a change occurred that all their own, hitherto existing statutes were abandoned, and the monastic Jerusalem statute of Saint Sava the Sanctified was adopted for general use. This Jerusalem charter of St. Sava and was introduced into our use by Cyprian either in his own translation from Greek or, which is much more likely, in a translation made 50 years before in Serbia. We will return to detailed speeches about the missal and charter introduced by Metropolitan Cyprian in our country, and in general about his works related to the divine service, later, when we deliberately speak about the state of our divine services during our period of time. And here we note that in relation to divine services, Cyprian showed great zeal: in addition to the fact that he delivered us a new edition of the missal and a new charter, he translated a considerable number of private services and prayer sequences from Greek into Slavic and, it seems, he partly composed them himself. Two letters from Metropolitan Cyprian concerning divine services have been preserved. One letter was written in Novgorod, during his stay there in 1395, and contains answers to various private questions related to the divine service, proposed to him by the Novgorod clergy 635. Another letter was written in Pskov on the occasion of transmitting to the local clergy a more efficient service book than the one the latter had until then 636. We will also return to the contents of these letters below. During the reign of Metropolitan Cyprian, in 1395, the miraculous icon of the Vladimir Mother of God was transferred from Vladimir to Moscow, from the local Assumption Cathedral to the local Assumption Cathedral. The reason for the transfer was the invasion of Russia by the formidable conqueror Tamerlane in 637. This second in strength of weapons and vastness of conquests, the Mongolian Genghis Khan, who appeared in the Mongolian horde of Dzhagatai, which was the legacy of the second son of Genghisov Dzhagatai or Chagatai and embraced the lands that make up Bukhara with Khiva and our Turkestan (ancient Transoxania, called the Blue Horde in our chronicles), undertook several campaigns against our Kipchak or golden Mongol Horde. On his last campaign, undertaken in 1395, Tamerlane defeated and drove out the Khan of Sarai Tokhtamysh from the throne and, without stopping in the Horde, moved further west to Russia. When he appeared on the banks of the Don, in the land of Ryazan, where he took and plundered the city of Yelets 638, Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich, leaving his uncle Vladimir Andreevich Donskoy in Moscow for the siege, went with an army to guard the enemy to Kolomna, on the banks of the Oka. While here, the Grand Duke received news that Tamerlane was preparing to march on Moscow and intended to capture and put to the sword the entire Russian land. Not relying on his own strength, he decided to turn to the intercession of the Mother of God and, on the advice of the metropolitan and the boyars, commanding everyone to fast and repentance and intense prayer, he ordered the local miraculous icon of the Mother of God to be brought from Vladimir to Moscow. Having been raised in Vladimir on August 15, on the feast of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary, the icon was brought to Moscow on August 26: and on the very day that it was brought to Moscow, Tamerlane turned with his troops back from Russia. The legend about the transfer of the icon to Moscow says that on the night of that day, as the icon was brought to Moscow, Tamerlane saw “a very terrible dream, like a great mountain, and from the mountain the saints were coming to him, having rods of gold in their hands, and it was very attractive to him, and above the saints in the air, a woman in scarlet robes with a multitude of army, was attractive to him.” fiercely,” that Tamerlane came into great awe from the dream he had seen and immediately gave the order to turn his entire countless army back. The icon brought to Moscow remained there forever 639. In memory of the miraculous deliverance of Moscow through the intercession of the Mother of God from the terrible danger that lay ahead, the Grand Duke and the Metropolitan decided to build in Moscow, in the place where the icon was found, a monastery in the name of the Presentation of the Virgin Mary (“the same place then was on Kuchkovo Field, near the city of Moscow, on the very road of Volodymyr 640. After occupying the see of the Metropolitan of All Russia in Moscow, Cyprian traveled to Lithuanian Rus' twice to visit it - the first time in 1396, the second time in 1404. Even while he was Metropolitan of Kiev-Lithuania and lived in Constantinople, seeking the see of the Metropolis of All Russia, a state event occurred in Lithuania that was extremely important for the fate of Orthodoxy in it, unexpectedly resolving the issue of this fate in a negative sense. At the same time that in the second quarter of the 13th century the Lithuanians formed one state out of small possessions, they quickly began to conquer southwestern Rus' adjacent to them. But along with this latter, they just as quickly began to strive to transform their state from Lithuanian-Russian, on the contrary, into Russian-Lithuanian. Russians of the 13th-14th centuries were not at all high in relation to spiritual culture (in relation to spiritual and moral development); but they were still incomparably superior to the Lithuanians in this respect, and the victors immediately took a decisive path towards adopting the nationality of the vanquished. The courtyards of the Lithuanian princes, the great and the appanage, were filled with Russian boyars from the conquered Russian regions and quickly began to Russify them; the princes themselves, voluntarily striving for the greatest possible Russification, intensively sought marriages with Russian princesses, so that their children would be raised more Russian than Lithuanians, and in a very short time, Russification reached such a degree that the Russian language, having received a decisive advantage over Lithuanian at the courts of the princes and among the boyars, was made the exclusive official language of administration and court in the entire principality 641. The Grand Dukes of Lithuania up to and including Olgerd († 1377) remained pagans 642, but the children of Gediminas and Olgerd were all baptized into the Christian Orthodox faith; Russian Orthodox Christianity, which was spreading unhindered in the country, made very significant progress in it 643, and there was very little left for it to become the general and exclusive faith of the people... But in 1386, an event occurred that immediately turned Lithuanian history in a different direction. The Polish king Louis († 1382) 644 left behind his 13-year-old daughter Jadwiga (Hedwig) as heir to the throne, and the Poles needed to find a husband for their queen. The Lithuanian Grand Duke Jagiel, son and successor of Olgerdov, and the Lithuanian boyars were extremely seduced by the opening opportunity to unite Lithuania with Poland and they made every effort to achieve this, as a result of which on February 15 of this year the marriage of Jagiel with Jadwiga took place. It is more than likely that this unexpected turn in the history of Lithuania in the other direction was a fortunate circumstance for Moscow, which in Lithuania, which had turned from a Lithuanian-Russian into a Russian-Lithuanian state, could have met a very dangerous rival in the gathering of Rus'. But for the Russian Church in Lithuania, and with it for the Lithuanian Metropolis, our event was a highly regrettable circumstance. Jagiello, seeking to receive Jadwiga's hand, not only himself expressed his readiness to be baptized into Latin from Orthodoxy, to which he had hitherto belonged 645, but also promised the Poles to convert his entire people to Catholicism. In relation to the Lithuanian-pagan part of the population of the principality, Jogaila with all zeal set about fulfilling his promise immediately after taking the Polish throne, in which, using partly measures of meekness, partly measures of severity, he had quick success (of course, converting the mass of pagan Lithuanians from paganism to Christianity for the first time only in a completely external way). As for the Orthodox, whether natural Russians or converted Lithuanians, Jogaila did not dare to attempt to turn them into Catholics as quickly as he quickly turned pagans. But, nevertheless, in relation to them, the most zealous desire of both himself and his successors was henceforth that, under the authority of the Roman high priest, they would form one church flock with other subjects of the Polish-Lithuanian crown. Thus, from 1386, from the time of Jogaila’s marriage to Jadwiga, the position of Orthodoxy in Lithuania changed completely. Until then, it was, if not the dominant faith, then tolerant in her, just as much as the dominant one; it spread quickly and freely among the Lithuanian people and had every hope of becoming the dominant faith; the Grand Duke himself was already an Orthodox Christian, for this was the case after Olgerd Jagiello. Henceforth, with the establishment of Catholicism in Lithuania, Orthodoxy became a schismatic faith in it, hated by the government, which set its goal in relation to it to oppress and suppress it and strive to eradicate it. However, for Cyprian personally, as the Lithuanian-Russian metropolitan, the extremely important event that happened in Lithuania was not of particular significance: he was on very good terms with Jagiel and with his cousin, who was imprisoned from the latter in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, who with him was baptized from Orthodoxy to Catholicism, Vytautas 646 and personally did not experience any damage from the fact that the situation in Lithuania had completely changed Orthodoxy. For his first visit, Cyprian left Moscow for Lithuania in Lent 1396, two weeks before Easter, which was April 2 that year. He left Moscow with Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich, who wanted to see his father-in-law Vitovt 647, since he was not far from Moscow, in Smolensk, which he had just taken. Having spent Easter with the Grand Duke at Vytautas, Cyprian went to Kyiv and lived in it and in Lithuania in general for a year and a half 648. Shortly before his arrival in Lithuania, an incident occurred in Kyiv, which, one must think, caused him more or less trouble. In the month of January 1396, the local prince Skirigailo Olgerdovich died of a suspicious sudden death in Kyiv, and rumor accused the Kyiv metropolitan governor of the Monk Thomas Izuf of the Holy Mountain of his death, claiming that he brought a poisonous potion to the prince at a feast arranged for him 649. Probably, rumor considered Thomas to be an instrument of one of the Skirigailovs’ enemies in the large family of Lithuanian princes 650. Since before his death Skirigailo was at peace with the king and the Grand Duke 651, one should think that Jagiello and Vytautas pursued Thomas with their anger or, at least, demanded that the metropolitan remove him from his governorship. What Cyprian did during his one and a half year stay in Lithuania in relation to church administration remains unknown to us. But we have unexpected information about his affairs there, not related to church administration. Jagiello, as it turns out, either on his own or, which is much more likely, inspired by the Latin clergy, dreamed of uniting the Orthodox population of Lithuania with the Catholic population of Poland and Lithuania into one church union through its union with the pope. At the same time, he wanted to do things not in such a way as to arrange a union directly between the pope and his Orthodox subjects - which he had not yet thought of, but in such a way as to arrange a union between the pope and the Greeks. But what is unexpected is that Cyprian, as we learn, fully sympathized with Jogaila’s thoughts about union. The latter, together with his Latin clergy, of course, dreamed of a union in which the Greeks would submit to the pope; but since it is impossible and there is no reason at all to think the same about Cyprian, it must be assumed that the Metropolitan finds it possible to dream of a real union, in which the Greeks would not submit to the pope, but would actually reunite with him. It is very likely that the gullible dream, from which, however, the Greeks themselves were not free, had its source in the ambitious thought of becoming a great benefactor of Greece, namely, that after the reunification of the Greeks with the pope, the Western sovereigns would give the latter assistance in their fight against the Turks, and that thus he, the metropolitan who laid the foundation for this, would become the main culprit in such a famous cause as the salvation of the Byzantine Empire from barbarians. Be that as it may, only Jagiello and Cyprian, during the Metropolitan’s stay in Lithuania, decided to write to the Patriarch of Constantinople about convening a council to organize the union of churches, and Russia was appointed as the place of the council, that is, probably Lithuania. We have preserved the patriarch's response messages to the king and metropolitan, dated January 1397, in which the patriarch speaks out against the timing of convening the council due to the unfortunate state circumstances of the Byzantine Empire. “You write,” the patriarch answers the king, “about the unification of the churches: and we earnestly desire this, only this is not a matter of the present time, for (we) are at war with the wicked (i.e., with the Turks), the ways (to us) are locked, our affairs are in a cramped position. Under such circumstances, is it possible that someone from us would go to draw up a council there (that is, in your Russia)? If God sends peace and the paths become clear, we are ready for this and of our own volition; and for this to happen, we earnestly ask your honor to unite in the spring with the most noble king of Hungary and march with your army to crush the wicked. Then, once the paths are cleared, the union of churches can conveniently take place, as your honor desires and as we also desire. The most noble King of Hungary, if God willing, will move (against the Turks) from the month of March - with such words and intentions he left us, and don’t doubt it” 652. Unfortunate circumstances, apparently, made the Greeks gullible to the last degree. The Hungarian king about whom the patriarch speaks was Jagiello's brother-in-law, the husband of Jadwiga's elder sister Maria, Sigismund. On September 28, 1396, in the Battle of Nicopolis on the Danube, he suffered such a complete and terrible defeat from the Turks (Sultan Bayezid) that he did not immediately dare to appear before the eyes of his people (for whom he was an alien stranger, for he was a German) and fled from the battlefield for a time to Constantinople, under the pretext of concluding an alliance with the emperor 653. And the Greeks placed their trust in the words and promises of a man in such a position! In his reply message to the Metropolitan, the Patriarch writes the same thing about the untimeliness of convening the council as he did to the king, adding that the matter requires not some local council, but an ecumenical one. For this, he urgently asks the Metropolitan to use all efforts to induce the king to provide assistance to the Greeks against the Turks in conjunction with the Hungarian king, “for,” says the patriarch, “as you yourself write, the king is your great friend.” Regarding the appointment by the king and metropolitan of the site of the cathedral in Russia, the patriarch says that, due to its distance from Greece, it does not seem to be a convenient place, not only under current circumstances, but also in peacetime 654. The second time Cyprian traveled to Lithuanian Rus', as we said, was in 1404. He set off from Moscow in June or July 655 and headed to Vilna to Vytautas. Having spent some time with Vitovt, and, according to the Nikon Chronicle (which may very well belong to Cyprian himself), he saw great honor from the Grand Duke himself and from all the princes and from the lords and from the whole land 656, he went to Kyiv. In total, he stayed in Lithuanian Rus' almost as long as on his first visit - a year and five months, and returned to Moscow on January 1, 1406 657. The first thing he did upon arrival in Kyiv was to catch him, i.e. arrest and send to Moscow his local governor, Archimandrite Timofey, and all his servants who were with the governor, who were ordered to keep and manage all sorts of affairs and things in Kyiv, and install a new governor (Archimandrite Theodosius of Spassky) and new servants 658. What caused this decisive and drastic measure of the metropolitan in relation to his officials 659, the chronicle does not say; but, as it goes without saying, it is because they performed their duties in a blatantly unsatisfactory manner. The simultaneous arrests and resignations of all make it clear that these Kyiv metropolitan officials, with the governor at their head, represented one gang of robbers who stole the metropolitan's income or robbed the subordinate clergy, and what is much more likely - both the first and the second together. From other affairs of Cyprian in Lithuania during his trip to it, we know about another similar resignation, only it took place not on the metropolitan’s own initiative, but at the request of a third party. During Cyprian's stay in Kyiv and in Lithuania in general, Bishop Anthony of Turov was extremely slandered before the Grand Duke Vytautas, accused, among other things, of sending letters to the Horde Khan Shadibek (who took the throne instead of the deceased Temir-Kutluy in 1401) and calling the khan to Kyiv and Volyn and other Lithuanian-Russian regions and cities, so Vytautas urgently demanded that the metropolitan depose the bishop 660. Tatishchev, it is unknown where he borrowed the news, claims that Anthony was slandered before Vytautas by the Latins, to whom he was hated because he firmly denounced their heresy and strengthened all of Lithuania and Volyn with his teaching and raised up the fallen, and affirmed those who wavered in the consciousness of the truth, and that he could not be restrained either by gifts or threats 661. If we were to give faith to Tatishchev’s words, then one would be able to suspect to some extent that the slander of the bishop before Vytautas was not slander, or at least had reasons: the bishop, who zealously fought with the Latins for Orthodoxy, even if he did not go so far as to enter into relations with the khan, could openly express that the power of the Tatars, distinguished by complete religious tolerance, for the Russians is preferable to the power of the great the princes of Lithuania, who, in the person of Vytautas, became persecutors of their faith 662. Be that as it may, only fulfilling the demand of Vytautas, Cyprian removed the episcopal rank from Anthony and sent him to Moscow, to the Simonov Monastery. At the same time, one chronicle, as if making it clear that the metropolitan did not consider the bishop guilty and removed his rank from him, only not finding it possible to refuse Vytautas his demand, says that Cyprian, having sent Anthony to Moscow and commanded him to live in the Simonov Monastery, “ordered him to rest in peace and not to offend him in any way, just not to leave the monastery” 663. During Cyprian’s stay in Lithuania in 1405, a congress of Jogaila and Vytautas took place in the city of Milolubna or Milolub (located unknown to us where 664. The metropolitan also appeared at the congress of sovereigns and, according to our chronicles, lived with them in great honor for two weeks, “and gave him gifts and his boyars and his servants.” Apparently, Cyprian was really on very good terms with Jagiello and Vytautas, but whether he was looking for these very good relations for the benefit of Orthodoxy in Lithuania or, on the contrary, he had them because he did not care too much about Orthodoxy, it is difficult and tricky to decide... We said above that before 1371, if we supplied a special metropolitan from Moscow for southwestern Rus', then we supplied it together for Lithuanian Rus' and Galicia, so that Lithuanian Rus' and Galicia constituted one church whole, and that in 1371 a separate metropolitan was appointed for Galicia from Lithuania, which remained with the Metropolitan of Moscow (St. Alexis) and which soon afterwards received its own separate metropolitan, that is, separate from Moscow and Galicia, in the person of Cyprian. When Cyprian took the see of the metropolis of all Russia in 1390, he united under himself the see of Moscow and Lithuanian Rus', but the see of Galicia remained outside this union as a special metropolis. Bishop Anthony, appointed metropolitan of Galicia in 1371, lived beyond 1390, when Cyprian took the see of the metropolis of all Russia in Moscow, that is, Moscow and Lithuania itself, and died either at the end of 1391 or at the beginning of 1392 665. After the death of Anthony, Galicia was not annexed to the Metropolis of All Russia or the Moscow-Lithuanian Metropolis, but still remained a separate metropolis. Immediately after the death of Anthony, with the permission of the King of Poland, i.e. Jogaila, Lutsk Bishop John took charge of the metropolis, in order to later become a real metropolitan. After being in charge of the metropolis for about a year and a half, in the second half of 1393, he went to Constantinople to seek appointment as a full metropolitan. But shortly before his arrival in Constantinople, the ambassador of Cyprian came to the patriarch with a letter from the latter, in which he, John, was accused of some very important crimes in relation to the bishop of Vladimir-Volyn. The Patriarch suggested summoning the Bishop of Vladimir to Constantinople to conduct a trial between him and the accused. Then John, despite all the patriarch’s persuasions to wait for the arrival of the bishop of Vladimir, fled back to Galicia, with the intention of impersonating himself there as a metropolitan appointed by the patriarch 666. For such an incredibly impudent act, the patriarch excommunicated John and wrote about him to Cyprian, so that he - on the one hand, wrote about him to the king - as, says the patriarch, and I myself wrote to him - so that he (the king) expelled him from the bishopric of Lutsk and sent him to him - Cyprian, and on the other hand - canonically overthrew him and installed another as bishop of Lutsk, in his place 667. However, John enjoyed the patronage of Jogaila and not only was not deposed by Cyprian from the Lutsk bishopric, but also still remained the head of the Galician metropolis. In 1397, at the same time as sending the king a response to his proposal to unite the churches, the patriarch sent his exarch, Archbishop Michael of Bethlehem, to Galicia for temporary management, and wrote to the king about John: “the bishop of Lutsk, if he wants to be forgiven and gain love and honor from us, let him leave Galicia as soon as he sees the archbishop of Bethlehem, which your honor, with all its rights, may give to the archbishop, and let him, the bishop, go to his metropolitan and bow down before him. And if he blesses him and allows him, then we will do for him what your honor desires.” In his last words, the patriarch means that John should be appointed metropolitan of Galicia. In the event that the metropolitan does not allow the bishop, the patriarch invites Jogaila to choose another worthy candidate to replace the metropolitan see, and if the sovereign does not have one, he volunteers to find him among his own 668 . At the same time as Jagiel, the Patriarch wrote about Bishop John and the Metropolis of Galicia and Cyprian. Regarding the bishop, the patriarch writes to the metropolitan that nothing more has been done and will not be done about him, except for what he, the metropolitan, knows, until the bishop is cleared of the accusations brought against him and until he, the metropolitan, writes about him to him, the patriarch, and instructs the metropolitan to carry out a more rigorous investigation about the bishop, in the presence of the bishop of Vladimir, than before. Regarding the Galician metropolis, the patriarch lightly reprimands Cyprian for the fact that in relation to it he encroached on his patriarchal rights, placing, as he himself announced, a bishop in one of its sees. The Patriarch says that upon the installation of Anthony in 1371, it was decided that the Galician Church should constitute a special metropolis and that thus the care of it belongs to him, the patriarch. 669 What the Archbishop of Bethlehem did in relation to the Galician metropolis remains unknown 670. From February 1397, a note was preserved from Bishop John of Lutsk to King Vladislav, i.e. Jagiel, that if the king helps him, the bishop, to be installed as the metropolis of Galich, then he, the bishop, undertakes to give the king two hundred Russian hryvnias and thirty horses 671. Whether John succeeded or failed to become Metropolitan of Galicia also remains unknown. Since under 1401 another bishop of Lutsk is mentioned, and not he 672, then in this year either he was no longer alive or he was the metropolitan of Galicia (unless, however, it was the case that he was removed from the see by Cyprian and was not appointed metropolitan). In 1371, a separate Galician metropolitan was installed, at the request of the Polish king, so that Rus', subject to Poland, would have its own special metropolitan. And since in 1371 not only Galicia, but also part of Volyn was subject to Poland, the Galician metropolis, then open, embraced not only Galicia, but also part of Volyn, namely, from this latter the bishoprics of Vladimir and Kholm then belonged to it. After 1371, with the civil transition of these dioceses under the rule of Lithuania, and in church terms they came under the authority of the Moscow-Lithuanian Metropolitan: the Bishop of Vladimir was subordinate to Cyprian in 1393 673; the bishop of Kholm was subordinated to him at least in 1405 674. From the order given by the patriarch to the Archbishop of Bethlehem when he was sent as exarch to Galicia in 1397, it is clear that the church affairs of this latter, due to the long-term absence of its metropolitan see, were in an extremely sad state. On the one hand, Catholics conducted active and successful propaganda; on the other hand, the Orthodox clergy has reached the point where impostor priests have appeared. Letting you know that things were not only in an extremely sad, but also unbearably bad situation, the patriarch says that many from Galicia wrote to him about them 675. We said above that the Greeks in vain imagined and hoped that such a blatant matter as the installation of Pimin as metropolitan would go in vain for them and that everything would be perfectly settled with their eloquently deceitful messages - that, on the contrary, the Russians, who had hitherto not particularly respected them, from the time of the installation of Piminov and the most regrettable confusions to which it gave rise, decidedly began to look at them as people who were morally bankrupt and deeply fallen, and that this look at them was reflected in the strange and unexpected opinion that appeared among the Russians that they, the later Greeks, had betrayed the purity of Orthodoxy of their ancient fathers. There can be no doubt that Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy, who had to become such a pitiful toy and such a sad victim in the hands of the Greeks, had and expressed the most bad feelings towards them. But we know nothing about this 676. We positively know about his son Vasily Dmitrievich that he openly and without hesitation expressed his disdain for the Patriarch of Constantinople and that he did not place the emperor in anything and demanded from the metropolitan that the name of the emperor should not be commemorated in diptychs at divine services. In 1392, as stated above, the Metropolitan sent his ambassador to Constantinople with a complaint against the Novgorodians - his boyar Dmitry the Athenian, whose nickname shows that he was a Greek by birth. Perhaps the metropolitan himself conveyed to the patriarch through his ambassador what people in Russia were thinking and saying about him and the emperor, in any case, the metropolitan ambassador as a Greek brought this to his attention, and we learn about Vasily Dmitrievich’s feelings for the patriarch and emperor and about his speeches about them from the patriarch’s letter to the Grand Duke in 1393. Denouncing the Grand Duke for his hatred of the Greeks, the Patriarch writes to him: “Why do you neglect (περιφρονεῖς) me, the Patriarch, and do not at all give (me) the honor that your ancestors, the great princes, gave - you despise me and the people whom I send to you, so that they do not have (you) at all honors and places that patriarchal people have always had?.. With sorrow I also hear that you allow yourself some (reprehensible) speeches about my most powerful and holy autocrat. They inform me that you are preventing the metropolitan - that it is completely impossible - to remember the name of the king in diptychs and that you say: “We have a church, but we don’t have a king and don’t even think about him.” exceptional position in the church and according to his exceptional merits for it 677. Despite their extremely bad feelings towards the Greeks, the Russians had the generosity to provide them with financial assistance in their plight. However, in all likelihood it should be thought that the Greeks were obliged in this case not so much to the generosity of the Russians (which reservation should especially be understood about Moscow and the Grand Duke), but rather to the zealous, fortunately for them), philoromeism (Greek love) of Metropolitan Cyprian. At that time, the entire Balkan Peninsula had already been conquered by the Turks, and the Byzantine Empire was almost limited to the walls of Constantinople alone 678. While conquering the empire, the Turks for a long time did not dare to approach Constantinople itself, due to the inaccessibility of its walls for the then artillery and for the then siege art. But finally, it was his turn. Sultan Bayazid, angry that at the moment of the death of Emperor John Palaeologus in 1390, John's son Manuel, who was held hostage by him, managed to escape from him in order to take his father's place 679, sent an army to blockade Constantinople, which stood under its walls for seven years. During this blockade, in 1395–96, the emperor and the patriarch were sent to Russia to ask for financial assistance. Metropolitan Cyprian, to whom the request was addressed and to whom it was received during his stay in Lithuania, sent to ask for alms “in such need and misfortune” to the Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich, to the Grand Dukes of Tver and Ryazan, to other Russian princes, also to the boyars and merchants, and turned to Vitovt, with whom he was staying. And besides all this, he ordered a collection from churches and monasteries throughout the metropolis, and thus managed to collect a lot of alms: According to some chronicles, a total of 20 thousand rubles were collected. The collected money was sent to Constantinople in 1398 680. In 1400, during the secondary blockade of Constantinople by Bayezid, the patriarch turned to Metropolitan Cyprian with a new, urgent request for help 681. Whether help was sent this time remains unknown, for our chronicles say nothing about it. Metropolitan Cyprian is one of our writers. But the question that is not entirely resolved is what exactly he wrote. We positively know that he wrote the life of St. Metropolitan Peter; If we count his extensive letter to Abbot Athanasius among his literary works, then in this letter we will have his second literary work. There is evidence to believe that either he himself or others under his supervision wrote the chronicle of his time. But the testimony about Cyprian’s literary activity, read from Tatishchev, also assimilates him to the writing of many lives of Russian saints, the composition of the Book of Degrees, and regarding the chronicle, he claims that he compiled one from the beginning of the Russian land. In its original form, this testimony reads: “(Metropolitan Cyprian) wrote books with his own hand, as for spiritual instruction the cathedrals that were in Rus' were written down, many (and) lives of Russian saints and the degrees of the great Russian princes, and others for carnal instruction, like truths and judgments and the Russian chronicle from the beginning of the Russian land, all in a row, and many books to Having gathered together, he ordered Archimandrite Ignatius Spasky to finish, even as he had observed” 682 . In this not entirely sensibly stated testimony, the words “scripture” and “prescription” are used not only in the sense of the present work, but also in the sense of simple copying and, perhaps, translation. For the councils that were in Rus', that is, the acts of the councils, Cyprian, of course, did not compose, but only copied, and truths and courts, if we mean Russian here, he copied. If it’s Greek, he translated. Thus, Cyprian’s own writings remain in evidence: many lives of Russian saints, degrees of Russian great princes and the Russian chronicle from the beginning of the Russian land. The words of the testimony: “he commanded Archimandrite Ignatius Spasky to finish, even as he had observed,” can be understood in two ways: either so that with the word “commanded” the “me” is missing and what Ignatius himself says here, or so that Ignatius handed over the work entrusted by Cyprian to him to an unknown third and what this third says. One way to understand it or another, but, in any case, it seems to us that the speaker here is a direct contemporary of Cyprian. It may very well be that this immediate contemporary is not invented by Tatishchev or his source 683, but that his (the contemporary’s) authentic speeches are cited in the testimony is extremely doubtful. The certificate says that Cyprian “prescribed the councils that were in Rus',” that he “prescribed truth and courts.” Since Cyprian generally loved to study and spent a lot of time copying books, it is obvious that the special reference to his copying of councils and truths and courts should be understood in such a way that he not only copied them (for he copied many other things), but also made, as it were, his own editions of them, in order to give them the meaning of publications or editions authorized by church authorities. But there was only one Russian council that left its written records before Cyprian, this is the Vladimir Council of 1274. If there were acts of one council, then Cyprian could not prescribe the acts of the councils, and then for him to find it necessary to make an edition, i.e., as it is necessary to mean in this case - publication in a separate form, of one existing council, this is completely implausible: the act of the council, representing in its volume not a whole book, but a small article, was never written in a separate form (in a special small notebook), but always was placed in Kormchikh. As for truths and judgments, if we do not mean the Helmsman by them, we cannot think of anything to mean 684, and if we mean the Helmsman, we will not explain why this descriptive name was used instead of the proper name. Between his works, Cyprian mastered the writing of many lives of Russian saints. But this is completely untrue: after the life of St. Metropolitan Peter not only does not have many lives that could be assimilated with any probability by Cyprian, but not even one at all 685. Thus, it is extremely doubtful that the testimony about Cyprian’s literary works read in Tatishchev belonged to a contemporary of the latter. Consequently, in the Tatishchevsky certificate we have later evidence of two literary works of Cyprian - the Degree Book and the Russian Chronicle from the beginning of the Russian land. As for us personally, we highly doubt the reliability of the evidence in relation to both one and the other work. For a person to have the desire to study Russian history, it was necessary that he loved Russia itself; but Cyprian was an alien stranger. True, he was a Slav, not a Greek, but there is no reason to imagine him as a Slavophile, as is usually represented: Accepted by the Greeks as one of their own and as such reaching the see of the Russian metropolis, he was and tried to show himself a Philorome, placing his honor and glory in this, but for him to be animated by a special love for Russia, this is not visible from anywhere, and in this case we have almost positive evidence to the contrary, as we point out somewhat lower. If he wrote the chronicle of his time, if he wrote the life of St. Petra; then in the first case he cared not about Russia, but about himself. As for the second case, here too a personal motive could be assumed - to connect one’s name with the name of St. Petra. But, as most likely one should think, he was here only executing the request of the Russians, who wanted to have a more satisfactory life of St. Peter than what they had. The sedate book after the weather chronicles represents an experience in the systematic history of Russia; The Russian chronicle from the beginning of the Russian land, assimilated by Cyprian, should be presented as a consolidated chronicle of all or many previously existing chronicles (as Tatishchev presents it 686, for Cyprian, obviously, could not write his own chronicle from the beginning of the Russian land). But in order to undertake these new historical works against the previous ones, it was necessary not only to be distinguished by a special love for Russia, but also to have special views on it as an incentive to work. During the time of Metropolitan Macarius, to whom the Degree Book should be fully assimilated (i.e., whose actual thoughts, filled by others) and to whose reign the appearance of consolidated chronicles should be attributed, such special views existed (Russia became a great land, the third Roman kingdom, which took over the second Roman kingdom - Byzantium). But in the time of Metropolitan Cyprian they did not yet exist. And to think that Cyprian, towering above the Russians themselves and ahead of the course of events, formed special views on Russia for himself is completely unfounded and impossible (impossible, by the way, because he should have considered it a foregone conclusion that the Byzantine Empire would be taken by the Turks). We cannot say anything positive against Cyprian’s assimilation of the consolidated chronicle, because no consolidated chronicle is indicated that could be mistaken for Cyprian’s 687. As for Cyprian’s ability to assimilate the Degree Book, i.e. its first part, which covers the time before Cyprian, then - firstly, at the beginning of the life of Vladimirov, which constitutes the first degree, it is said that it was collected with the blessing and command of Metropolitan Macarius (I, 76), and if the first degree of the book was compiled under Macarius, then the entire book must be attributed to his time. Secondly, the Makarievsky compilers, speaking about the literary works of Cyprian, do not say anything about his writing the Book of Degrees and that they, the compilers, were his successors, while they did not have the custom of appropriating the works of others; thirdly, the presentation of Cyprian’s activities in the Degree Book does not present anything at all that makes it clear that he himself was the descriptor of the activities 688. After Tatishchevsky’s certificate of Cyprian’s literary activity, we also have evidence of it from the Degree Book. This last one reads: “(Metropolitan Cyprian) wrote books with his own hand, and translated many holy books from Greek into Russian and left enough (a) 689 scriptures for our benefit, and wrote the life of the great wonderworker Peter, Metropolitan of All Russia, and decorated it with praises” 690. By translations from Greek, the Degree Book, as one should think, means translations of Cyprian related to divine services. If by happy writings for benefit she does not mean the same translations, then either one must assume writings that remain unknown to us, or understand by them the letters and epistles of Cyprian, or, finally, take the words as a simple phrase of praise to him, in which what is possible from him, as from a man of great books, which he was according to the review of chronicles 691, repeated by the Degree Book, is presented as reality. So, regarding the Tatishchevsky testimony, which assimilates to Cyprian the writing of the lives of many Russian saints and the compilation of the Degree Book and Russian Chronicle from the beginning of the Russian land, it should be said that in the first case, about the writing of many lives, his testimony is undoubtedly false, that in the second and third cases it is extremely doubtful. Then, the works of Cyprian known to us remain: 1) the life of St. Peter, 2) an epistle to Abbot Athanasius, if we only put it in a series of literary works, and 3) chronicle records about his time, perhaps written not by himself, but only under his supervision. Life of St. Peter, as we said above, is nothing more than an oratorical or literary adaptation of a previously existing life, written by an unknown person, with some, few additions to this first life in relation to the fact. The historical merits of life, as we also said, are more negative than positive; however, in this case the fault is not with Cyprian, but with the author of the first life, whom he reproduces. As for the literary merits of a life, in this regard it cannot be recognized as a thorough and serious work, which a person would do with all possible diligence, and as far as it was sufficient, but on the contrary, it should be considered an easy and hasty work, on which very little labor was spent. In the preface to his life, Cyprian wants to make it known that he undertook his work on his own initiative; but it is much more likely that he did it at the request and did not do it with any special diligence. Serbian writers contemporary to Cyprian, to whose school he belonged, were distinguished by their extraordinary oratorical verbosity and managed to compose very lengthy lives even in the absence of factual material. This Serbian verbosity, which does not contain anything good, but which was taken for something very good, is not at all in the life of Cyprian, although material for it could have been found. If greater thoroughness of work had been visible, one would have thought that Cyprian rose in this respect above the Serbian writers of his time. But not finding in his work what was accepted by these latter as dignity, we do not find in it what could be accepted as real dignity. In general, the life of St. Petra Kiprianovo represents only a light treatment of the life belonging to an unknown person. - Hegumen Athanasius, to whom Cyprian wrote his letter, was a student of St. Sergius of Radonezh and abbot of the Serpukhov Vysotsky monastery, built by him at the request of the local prince Vladimir Andreevich. He turned to Cyprian with a message in which, firstly, he asked the metropolitan to write him instructions on how to asceticize and govern the brethren, and secondly, he proposed a number of questions, in order to obtain answers, about various subjects of church liturgical and church everyday life, general and private monastic practice. Postponing the execution of the first petition until another time, Cyprian wrote an extensive response letter to Athanasius, in which he resolves the questions proposed by the latter and which ends with a small moral instruction 692. The greatest readiness with which Cyprian wrote to Athanasius answers to his questions and with which he volunteers to answer him further (see above) and the not special diligence with which he processed the life of St. Peter, involuntarily lead us to think that by writing answers to Athanasius at the very beginning of his stay in Russia 693, he wanted to establish himself through archpastoral jealousy, and that by writing the life of St. Peter, when he was already firmly seated at the see of the Metropolitan of All Russia 694, he did not care about establishing himself in any way. – As for Cyprian’s chronicle records about his time, whether written by himself or on his instructions and under his supervision by others, we do not have them in a separate form, but in the story of the Nikon Chronicle about the time of Cyprian, other things are undoubtedly taken from these records, the other must be taken as taken from them with all probability 695. Let's talk about Cyprian's translations from Greek, which relate to the divine service, below, in a general overview of the divine service. According to the Nikon Chronicle and the Degree Book, Cyprian, among other things, loved to copy books with his own hand 696, which news is confirmed by other evidence and his autographs that have survived to this day 697. This activity, which in our opinion was strange for a metropolitan, then had all its meaning. At that time there was no printing for books, but handwriting. In order for the manuscripts not to be filled with scribes' errors, it was necessary that there should be lists of books, as correct as possible, against which other lists could be verified, and the lists written by Cyprian had to serve such an important role. The love of copying books presupposes good handwriting, without which it would be strange: Cyprian really wrote in a very good half-form of the then Serbian form. Avoiding the city noise of Moscow, Cyprian loved to live outside it, either in his village of Golenishchevo near Moscow or in his Vladimir estate on the Holy Lake 698. In Golenishchev he died on September 16, 1406, after 30 years without a month and a half in the rank of metropolitan. Four days before his death, he wrote a farewell letter, in which he taught forgiveness and blessing to everyone and mutually asked for the same from everyone, and which he ordered to be read over his coffin during the funeral service for his body 699. The Nikon Chronicle, repeated by the Book of Degrees, makes a general review of Metropolitan Cyprian: “This Metropolitan Cyprian was full of all wisdom and divine reason (byashe), and was a great scholar and spiritual zealot, striving for a virtuous life, and enjoying teaching and punishment more than everyone else, for he had much diligence and feat to teach everyone the word of God, tender idle talk and vain words and fill the ears of laughing people” 700. We cannot say how much of this general review there is actual truth and how much of that simple obituary rhetoric with which we are so familiar at the present time. It was to be expected that Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich, following former examples, would choose a candidate for metropolitan to replace Cyprian in his Moscow from among natural Russians. If in the time preceding the Mongol invasion the Greeks did not refuse to supply candidates elected in Russia itself, then even less could this refusal be expected now. The political circumstances of the Greeks, which had long been very unhappy, by the time of Cyprian's death had reached, so to speak, an extreme degree of unhappiness: they were in extreme need of the financial rewards that they could receive from the Grand Duke for installing a candidate from natural Russians. But Vasily Dmitrievich, despite his hostile feelings towards the Greeks, did not act as should have been expected; after the death of Cyprian, he sent his ambassadors to Constantinople to the patriarch with his council and to the emperor, through whom he asked that the patriarch and emperor elect and send a metropolitan to Moscow “according to the old duty,” that is, they sent a metropolitan, choosing him according to the old custom from the Greeks 702. With considerable probability one can think that the Grand Duke was not blessed to act according to the new custom, contrary to the old duty, by Metropolitan Cyprian, who, although he was a Slav by birth, was not a Slavophile in his feelings, but a Greekophile: extremely grateful to the Greeks for accepting him into their midst and as such a naturalized Greek having been installed as a metropolitan by the Russians, he was most zealously devoted to the Patriarch of Constantinople and had to take care of his rights and duties 703. In the year of the death of Metropolitan Cyprian, enmity broke out, leading to war, between the Lithuanian Grand Duke Vitovt and his son-in-law, the Grand Duke of Moscow. Being at loggerheads with Moscow; Vytautas did not want to have the same metropolitan as her. Therefore, simultaneously with the embassy of Vasily Dmitrievich to Constantinople, he sent his embassy there with a request that a special metropolitan be appointed to him. At the same time, he sent to the patriarch the candidate whom he wanted to see as the Lithuanian metropolitan, namely, the bishop or archbishop of Polotsk Theodosius, a Greek by birth 704. But in Constantinople, for one reason or another, among which the main one should probably be considered the reluctance to offend Moscow, friendship with which was then very much valued and for which, perhaps, already at that time there were very important plans (marriage union, about which below), they refused Vytautas’s request and appointed one metropolitan to the departments of Moscow and Lithuania or to the department of the metropolis of all Russia. This new metropolitan of all Russia, appointed not from the Russians, but from the Greeks, was Photius. Photius was a Peloponnesian or a Marine, from the city of Monemvasia or Malvasia 705. As he himself reports about himself, he entered the monastery in his earliest adolescence and had as his leader in monasticism or as his “elder” the famous, in his words, ascetic of his time Akaki, who was later appointed metropolitan of Monemvasia. Living under Acacius, who had already been appointed metropolitan 706, probably as some diocesan official, Photius was one day sent by his elder to Constantinople to the emperor and patriarch. He came to the capital while the ambassadors of the Russian Grand Duke were there, who had arrived to ask for a new metropolitan, and the emperor and the patriarch appointed him, Photius, as the Russian metropolitan. He was consecrated by the patriarch as metropolitan on September 1, 1408 (according to that time - on the New Year 707. The unexpected election of Photius, who randomly arrived in the capital - if only the matter was really as it seems to them - makes it clear that he was elected not for any extraneous motives or considerations, but for the direct impulse that he was recognized as a candidate worthy of the place. We also have evidence of his dignity - in the fact that he was in friendship with people who stood high in the then Greek church world: a letter to him from the monk Joseph Bryennius has survived to us, who in his time enjoyed great fame for his learning and strict life and who calls him in the letter his truest friend (φίλος γνησιώτατος 708 . Exactly one year after the dedication, on September 1, 1409, Photius arrived from Constantinople to Kyiv, accompanied by ambassadors from the emperor and patriarch 709. Since Vytautas sent his candidate to be appointed special metropolitan of Lithuania, there is no doubt that he did not greet the unexpected and uninvited metropolitan of all Russia who arrived to him with much cordiality. However, Photius somehow managed to reconcile him with himself: the prince recognized him as his metropolitan, and he lived in Lithuania with the ambassadors accompanying him for about six months. Later, having quarreled with Photius, Vitovt claimed that the metropolitan, having come from Constantinople, promised him, the prince, to have a stay with him in Lithuania, and that only on this condition did he, the prince, agree to accept him, the metropolitan 710. But for Photius to promise Vitovt to return the see of the metropolis of all Russia from Moscow to Kyiv is completely incredible. One must think that if he really gave Vytautas any promise, then the promise was to visit Lithuania not only occasionally, but as often as possible. Photius arrived in Moscow from Lithuanian Russia, accompanied by the same imperial and patriarchal ambassadors, on March 22, 1410, on the eve of the Holy Resurrection of Christ 711. In his spiritual testament, he says that the time of his 20-year administration of the Russian metropolis was for him a time of continuous sorrows, tears and sobs. And these words hardly contain an exaggeration. He came to Moscow almost immediately after its region was terribly devastated by the Tatars; the first half of his reign was filled with personal sorrows for him; During the second half of his reign, terrible pestilences raged almost continuously in Russia, joined by equally terrible famines. Arriving in Moscow, Photius found his church metropolitan household in the saddest state and his metropolitan estates in the Moscow metropolitan house and in the metropolitan villages or estates everything was plundered, so that he found one and the others empty. Princes, boyars and other covetous people took possession of the metropolitan estates 712. At the end of 1408, Edigei made his terrible raid on Moscow; Having devastated the Moscow region, he did not take Moscow itself and only kept it under siege for some time; but when the capital, abandoned by the Grand Duke, was besieged by the Tatars and when there was confusion in it, so that people began to run, “not caring about their property or about anything else,” then robbers and thieves and predators appeared in it, filling their hands with wealth and robbery” 713. It is very likely that the boyars and metropolitan servants, now taking advantage of the indicated circumstance, i.e., seeing the opportunity to blame the plunder of the metropolitan’s house on these robbers and thieves, and hastened to plunder his property. As for the metropolitan villages, their managers and volosts could do the same with their economic establishment and their economic reserves. What reason and excuse the princes and boyars could have found for themselves to plunder and develop the metropolitan's real estate is not visible; It may be that “the hand washes the hand,” namely, that the metropolitan boyars, plundering movable property, allowed and assisted the princes and boyars in plundering the immovable property, so that later they could come under the protection of these great predators. Metropolitan Photius, upon his arrival in Moscow, finding his Moscow house and villages empty, and his estates plundered, took the firm intention not to let himself be laughed at by the unceremonious robbers and to achieve to find and return to himself everything that was lost 714. Prone to tears and sobbing, about which he almost incessantly speaks in his writings, he was not, however, of a weak character, as one might assume, but on the contrary, he was of a strong and fearless character, as the chronicle testifies 715. At the same time, which is not contrary to tears and sobs, and as his quarrel with Vitovt and the Lithuanian clergy over the installation of Tsamblakov shows, he was a very ardent man: and he led the search for the stolen and the fight against predators - in relation to some, like the princes and princely boyars, with unyielding persistence, in relation to others, like his own boyars and servants, with merciless severity. We do not fully know the history of this struggle and have only fragmentary news regarding it. Under the year 1414, it is read in the Nikon Chronicle that in this year news came to Metropolitan Photius from Kyiv to Moscow, “even though many slanders were created against him by crafty people, who fled from Moscow from Moscow, their own beings, to the Chernigov ruler, and from there to Lithuania to Vytautas” and that “such (with) - quarreling him with Vytautas and a great war aroused and great confusion and rebellion arose among the saints of God’s church” 716. The flight of his people from Photius, that is, his boyars and servants, and the extreme degree of their enmity towards him make it clear that he exacted from them what they had stolen with inexorable and merciless severity. His persistence, with which he tried to return his estates from the princes and boyars of the sovereign, is made known by the same Nikon Chronicle, when, under the previous year 1413, it says that in the fall of this year “the people of Neblazia rose up against Photey, Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Russia, and slandered him against his son, Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich, inflicted a lot of slander on Metropolitan Photey against the Grand Duke and (co)-quarrel (them) and created (between them) dislike” 717. There can be no doubt that those princes and boyars who were guilty of theft of church estates and from whom the Metropolitan tried to return the property of his see were slandering the Grand Duke and quarreling with the latter. Photius's letter to Vasily Dmitrievich has survived to this day, which relates to the present case and in which the Metropolitan asks the sovereign that everything that was given to the Church of God by his ancestors and approved for her, he, for his part, approved through his pious deposition. That is asks the sovereign to issue him approved or affirmative letters for the patrimony belonging to the metropolitan see 718. We do not know when the Metropolitan addressed his request to the Grand Duke - whether before he began efforts to return the metropolitan estates stolen from it, or after the efforts were crowned with greater or lesser success 719. If the former, then you need to understand the matter in such a way that the metropolitan wanted to receive charters not only for those estates that at that moment actually belonged to the metropolis, but also for all that were mastered or appropriated from it by the princes and boyars, in order to quickly regain his property with the charter of the Grand Duke in his hands. If the latter, then you need to understand the matter in such a way that, returning to the metropolis the estates stolen from it, the metropolitan wanted, through the letters of the Grand Duke, to firmly establish them for her for the future. As for the success that Photius had in his efforts to return the plundered estate to the metropolitan department, then regarding immovable estates, the Nikon Chronicle makes it clear that he had more or less complete success; at the same time, the chronicle makes it clear that the metropolitan’s message to the Grand Duke should be understood in the last of these senses. It reads: “the acquisitions of the metropolis of its church and the income of Photey the Metropolitan began to renew, and that where it was wrong to begin to seek, or from the princes and boyars, or from the princes and boyars, or from some other covetous people that was taken away, the villages and the authorities and the incomes and duties of Christ’s house and the Most Pure Mother of God and the holy great wonderworkers Peter and Alexei: he is all This from them was received and firmly established in the house of Christ and the Most Pure Mother of God” 720. Movable estates, which can be hidden and passed off as property, are not as easy to return as immovable ones, and it is likely that the metropolitan’s success here was far from complete - that he managed to return only what he could seize in the hands of predators, as if red-handed. We said that Photius arrived in Moscow almost immediately after its region was devastated by the Tatars. The next year after his arrival, he himself had the opportunity to flee from the Tatars. In the summer of 1411 he came to Vladimir to visit his senior cathedral city. At this time, one of the Nizhny Novgorod princes, whom Vasily Dmitrievich expelled from their inheritance at the beginning of his reign, sent to the latter by “exile,” that is, secretly and suddenly, a detachment of five hundred, consisting of half Russians and half Tatars (under the leadership of Tsarevich Talych). The Tatars hoped to capture the metropolitan in Vladimir in order to rob him and, very likely, to take him prisoner, in order to obtain possibly a good ransom for him from the Grand Duke and from the church or clergy; however, they did not succeed: knowing nothing and not suspecting danger, Photius left the city for his estate on the Holy Lake on the eve of the exiles attacking him. Then the Tatars rushed after the metropolitan, but the latter, notified in time from Vladimir of the threatening disaster, took refuge from them in his neighboring estate - on the Senezh lakes, where there were forests and strong places, that is, swamps 721. In gratitude to God for deliverance from danger, Photius built the Church of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary on the shore of Lake Sengi - if not an ordinary one, then, in any case, cut down in two or three days, and lived at the church, crying that he had left the kind silence and silence of the deserted monastery and, with the acceptance of the rank of metropolitan, rushed into such an abyss of passions for more than four weeks 722. At this time, the slanderers had not yet managed to quarrel between the Grand Duke and the Metropolitan, and the first summoned Photius from his Senezh desert to Moscow to consult with him about his very important family matter, namely, the marriage of his daughter with the eldest son of the Constantinople Emperor Manuel John. For one reason or another, the Greeks did not make it a custom to marry our princesses: in the pre-Mongol period this still happened occasionally 723, but from the invasion of the Mongols to our case, not a single similar example is known. Emperor Manuel, as one must think, decided to marry his eldest son and heir to the daughter of the Moscow Grand Duke because he found this marriage very desirable for himself under his circumstances. The Moscow Grand Duke could not at all provide the emperor with military assistance against the Turks 724, but he could provide him with financial assistance, and this latter was no less important than the first, for money was needed not only for the fight against the Turks, but also for simple existence. It is very likely that Photius, when he went to Russia, was instructed by the emperor to find out whether the marriage could take place and whether he promised the benefits desired from it, and that the Metropolitan sent an affirmative answer to Constantinople. Be that as it may, in 1411, with the advice and blessing of the Metropolitan, Vasily Dmitrievich decided to marry his daughter to a Greek prince and sent her to Constantinople. We saw above what a low opinion Vasily Dmitrievich had of the emperors of Constantinople; no doubt, he knew very well that their throne was on the eve of its fall. But to have the imperial heir as your son-in-law, whether it would have been possible to see him as a real emperor or, on the contrary, after he lost the throne, he had to take him and his daughter into his bread, was such an honor that could not help but flatter the Moscow Grand Duke. The daughter of Vasily Dmitrievich, named Anna, was only 10 years old at the time of her departure to Constantinople: this shows how the emperor was in a hurry to enter into a relationship with the Moscow Grand Duke in order to derive the desired benefits from the relationship with him. However, he did not have to be Vasily Dmitrievich's matchmaker for long: Anna lived as a Greek princess for only three years, having been kidnapped by the pestilence that raged in Constantinople 725. In addition to the message of Metropolitan Photius to Vasily Dmitrievich, which we mentioned above, another message of his to the Grand Duke has been preserved, from which it turns out that he had and made claims against the sovereign himself regarding the encroachment on the income of his department. In this second letter, the Metropolitan urgently convinces the Grand Duke to return to the church some duties taken away or appropriated by him from it. “Be aware, my son,” the Metropolitan writes to the sovereign, “and behold, how you have despised the Church of God, by force, by charging inappropriately, and you have not helped yourself; Proclaim, my son, to the Church of Christ and to me, your father: “Those who have sinned, forgive me, and you, O Father, are obedient and submissive to me in everything; the great law and the Church of Christ of the duty of evil that was corrupted was fulfilled and corrected, imagined and given and established from the beginning from my ancestors and even set aside for many years, even corrupted was "" 726 ... Unfortunately, Photius does not speak directly at all and does not make it clear what duties he means; as if he was only hinting that there were some duties collected in Moscow itself, because he makes a reproach: “and this (is happening - duties are taken away) in such a great city, in a great reign” 727. And when he says: “for many years,” it seems to make it clear that the duties were taken away from the church by the Grand Duke under Cyprian and that they were not included in the agreement that Vasily Dmitrievich concluded with the latter, and which was not discussed above. What success the Metropolitan had with his efforts to regain the duties taken from the church by the Grand Duke remains unknown. One may think that there is none, and it is not without probability that one can assume that these efforts were the main reason for the Grand Duke’s enmity towards him, which his (the Metropolitan’s) slanderers managed to incite. The Grand Duke could not be satisfied with the very form of the request addressed to him by the Metropolitan: the message was written in completely decent terms, but its tone was urgent and its sound was authoritative, so that the Metropolitan was not so much asking as demanding 728 . With his persistent efforts to return the stolen movable and immovable estates of the metropolitan department, Photius created enemies for himself between his boyars and servants and between the boyars of the Grand Duke. The latter, using or not using reasons, tried and managed to quarrel between him and Vasily Dmitrievich. But the former, in conjunction with the latter, tried and managed to arrange for him another, very gestural, revenge. The boyars and servants of Photius, who fled from him to Lithuania, set out to create a quarrel between him and Vitovt as much as possible and slandered him to the Grand Duke of Lithuania in every possible way. The sovereign's boyars, that is, the Moscow sovereign's boyars, through their agents, diligently helped them in this 729: and the combined efforts of one and the other led to the fact that Vitovt was inflamed with hatred of Photius and decided to take away the Lithuanian metropolis from him, in order to install another metropolitan in the department under his control. According to the Nikon Chronicle, the enemies of Photius represented Vytautas: “from the beginning, the metropolitans of all Russia had Kyiv as their table, now they have put Kyiv into nothing and are bringing everything from it to Moscow, and now Metropolitan Photius is bringing all the church ornaments and vessels to Moscow and all of Kyiv and the whole earth is empty with heavy duties and great tributes and inconvenience wearable" 730. Vitovt himself, in his letter of notification, written after the installation of a separate metropolitan of Lithuania, speaks of the motives that forced him to do this: “(we were prompted to do this) by the fact that we have long seen how the church of the Kyiv metropolis is not being properly supported (“not being built,” Polish stroic′), but is becoming impoverished; no matter how many metropolitans there have been in our memory, they did not care about the church, as was the case in ancient times, but, collecting church income, they all took it away for spending in other places; church treasures and shrines, - dski [dski - boards? approx. corr.] of the great passion of Christ, the scepter of the Mother of God and the mantle and sandals of Her 731, honest icons bound in gold and many other expensive ones and all the honor of the church of the Kyiv metropolis were transferred to another place; who can count everything that the ancient princes arranged for their honor and as a souvenir for themselves, except for gold and silver and church decorations, and that all the metropolitans transferred to another place? fulfilled our request and sent Photius to Moscow and Lithuania. I didn’t want to accept Photius, but he promised to stay with us and take good care of the church. However, he did not live here in Kyiv and devastated it even more; Therefore, we, not being able to tolerate this and not wanting to see the impoverishment of the church of the Kyiv metropolis, installed a special metropolitan 732. It is necessary to think that the enemies of Photius slandered Vytautas not what is indicated, but something else, and that Vytautas, for his part, suddenly wanted and had a decisive intention to take away the metropolis from Photius, not for the reasons that he presents as legal, but for others that did not have this character of legality. It is true or not that the metropolitans devastated Kyiv 733, but Vytautas tolerated Cyprian, accepted Photius, and very soon after he took the Lithuanian metropolis from the latter, he again agreed to return it to him; although, being a very unzealous Catholic, Vytautas was not a persecutor of the Orthodox Church, but for him to care about its welfare is more than doubtful 734. Vytautas could not be indignant at all with the tributes and duties that the metropolitans collected in Lithuania, since they were (that is, considered) legal; and that Metropolitan Photius, for his part, could drive him out of patience with his exactions in those three and a half years that passed from the metropolitan’s arrival in Russia to his (Vytautas’) decision to install a special metropolitan for Lithuania, this is completely incredible. It is also completely untrue that Photius did not want to properly take care of the Lithuanian part of his metropolis; we have already said above that it is impossible to believe Vitovt, as if Photius promised him to transfer or return the metropolitan see from Moscow to Kyiv, and that he could promise him only to visit Lithuania more often than before; but as for this last promise, the Metropolitan showed his intention to actually fulfill it: two years after his arrival in Rus', he walked from Moscow to Lithuania and lived there for about a whole year, if not more 735. In general, it is necessary to think that Photius’s enemies tried and managed to arouse in Vytautas personal strong hatred of the metropolitan and that out of personal vengeance the prince decided to take away his Lithuanian part of the metropolis from the latter. What exactly Vytautas’ enemies slandered against Photius, we do not know; but it must be assumed that the metropolitan was presented to him as his reproach, insulter, his enemy and hater, etc. That this was really the case is shown by the very history of the taking away of the Lithuanian part of his metropolis from Photius. Prompted by personal enmity and personal revenge, Vytautas wanted, however, to act with a legal or legitimate appearance. One cannot at all think that the Lithuanian bishops are too eager to see a separate metropolitan; in this case, the exactions from them in favor of the metropolitan would not be less, but perhaps only greater, while the supervision would be stronger and much more burdensome for them. On this basis, the testimony of the Nikon Chronicle that Vytautas by force forced them to act in accordance with his desire is fully worthy of belief. He began by forcing the bishops to submit a letter to themselves, in which the latter declare that they see the great church of Kyiv completely desolate and despised by Photius, Metropolitan of Moscow, and the flock of Christ is careless and perishable, as if the metropolitan does not want to see the great cathedral churches of the metropolitan Kyiv, i.e. as if he does not want to visit the Lithuanian part of his metropolitanate, - as if the metropolitan does not want to rule the people of God, as is worthy and as befits a metropolitan, but moreover, he collects church parishes and profits and all sorts of ornaments - the old dispensation and expensive things and transfers all the honor of the great Kyiv church to another place, where he lives, which is in the city of Moscow, and in which they are bishops, prompted, as he says, by sorrow and great sadness for the cathedral church of Kyiv and for the people of God, they pray to the sovereign to strive for the Lord to give them a helping hand 736. Having received this letter from the bishops, more than likely dictated by himself, Vitovt drove the governor and the Fotiev officials out of Kiev, having previously robbed them, ordered to describe the Kyiv Metropolitan Cathedral Church with all its movable property, also to describe the cities and volosts with villages or immovable estates that belonged to the cathedral and distributed the latter (obviously, governed in his activities by no concern for metropolitan see) into the possession of his panam 737. Photius, having learned to what extent his enemies had managed to arm Vytautas against him 738 and what the latter had thought of in his anger at him, immediately decided to go to Lithuania to make an attempt at reconciliation with the sovereign, before whom he had been slandered, and if the attempt was unsuccessful, go to Constantinople and try with the patriarch to prevent Vytautas from installing a special metropolitan. But when he appeared in Lithuania, on the orders of Vytautas he was captured, robbed and, not allowed into Constantinople, returned to Moscow 739. Two robberies or robberies - first of the metropolitan's officials, then of himself, make it clear that Vytautas acted out of personal anger against Photius (which was the fruit of the efforts of the latter's slanderers), and not for the motives that he pretends to be. Because in the latter case, the robberies, although they took place in the 15th century, would be shameful acts completely inexplicable. When starting to elect his special metropolitan, Vytautas forced the bishops to write a letter of renunciation from Photius, by which he was subjected to extreme shame, and which was supposed to offend him to the extent to which only a person who is not at all deprived of the ability to be offended can be offended. This letter is as follows: “To Photius, the former Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Russia, we, the bishops of the Kiev Metropolis, write by the grace of the Holy Spirit: since you came (to Russia), we have seen that you do many things not according to the apostolic and paternal rules, and we, according to the rules, tolerated (you) as our metropolitan and expected correction from you; but we heard about you and were truly convinced of a certain thing that is not only not according to the rules, but also exposes you to eruption and damnation - you yourself admit this, having examined your conscience, and we do not write about it, not wanting to shame you; So, we announce to you that, according to the rules, we do not recognize you as a bishop - and this is our final word to you” 740). Photius solemnly, in the face of his entire church and all people, is accused by the Lithuanian bishops of the most shameful vice or sin, for which he is subject to deposition and curse, for which the bishops do not recognize him as a true bishop and break off the church union with him. The bishops could have been forced to such an incredible and incredibly outrageous act only by Vytautas’s personal, boundless anger against Photius. Since it is not entirely clear from Vitovt’s side, one must think that Photius, robbed in Lithuania and forcibly returned to Moscow, gave full rein to his harsh tongue, which was an expression of an extremely hot temper. The candidate whom Vytautas wanted to appoint as a special metropolitan of Lithuania was Abbot Gregory Tsamblak. Tsamblak, as we said above, was a Bulgarian, from the city of Ternov, from the local boyar family of Tsamblakov, the nephew of Metropolitan Cyprian. About his life before his arrival in Russia we know - not in a completely reliable way, that, having moved from Ternov to Constantinople as a monk or to be tonsured as a monk, he was for some time in the clergy of the Patriarch of Constantinople - and in a completely reliable way that he was successively, but it is not known in what order, hegumen of the Decani monastery in Serbia and a presbyter of the great Moldovan Church or an official (kliroshanin) under the Moldavian metropolitan, and finally - that he was the abbot of the Greek monastery of Plinair, located either in Constantinople itself or somewhere in its vicinity 741. He arrived in Russia, according to a letter from Cyprian, in the very year of the latter’s death and did not find him alive 742. Of course, he went to Cyprian in Moscow; but as the news of his uncle’s death met him in Lithuania, he remained here without reaching Moscow (where, after his uncle’s death, he probably did not expect a particularly favorable reception). It is not impossible that Cyprian had in mind to leave him as his successor at the see of the metropolis of all Russia, hoping to persuade the Grand Duke to do this and to obtain the patriarch’s consent to this. What Tsamblak was like in Lithuania before his election as metropolitan remains unknown. At the moment of Vitovtov’s decision to elect a special metropolitan for Lithuania, which we are talking about, the Bishop of Polotsk Theodosius (called archbishop in the acts of our time), whom the prince had previously wanted to appoint to the same special metropolitan, was still alive; therefore, one must understand the matter in such a way that either Tsamblak managed to acquire a greater favor with Vytautas than that enjoyed by Theodosius, or that this time the latter himself abandoned the desire to occupy the metropolitan see. In the second half of 1414, Vytautas sent Gregory to Constantinople to be ordained metropolitan, and, standing for the bishops and wanting to give the matter the appearance that it was not about satisfying his personal vengeance, but about the needs and benefits of the church and satisfying the demands of its primates, he forced the bishops to write letters to the patriarch in which they stated the guilt of Photius and asked to be appointed to special positions. Metropolitans of Gregory 743. But if Vytautas did not let Photius himself into Constantinople, then his ambassadors managed to get there, and through these latter the metropolitan managed to achieve with the patriarch that Gregory not only was not installed, but for the great confusion that he caused in the church, he was also expelled from the priesthood and subjected to excommunication 744. When Gregory returned from Constantinople with a refusal, Vytautas, as he himself says, gathered the bishops and ordered them to appoint Gregory as metropolitan themselves, contrary to the patriarch 745. We don’t know whether Gregory hid from Vytautas about his deposition from the priesthood and excommunication by the patriarch, or Vytautas hid it from the bishops, or no one hid anything, and the bishops were forced to do what the prince wanted, no matter what. After the verdict was pronounced, Vytautas, as one must think, fulfilling the urgent request of the bishops, in March 1415, sent to Constantinople with a request to the patriarch that Lithuania be given a special metropolitan, and appointed the deadline for the answer to Elijah's day and the last - the Dormition of the Virgin. When the last deadline passed and no response was received from Constantinople, Vytautas intended to carry out the sentence, but at that time the imperial and patriarchal ambassadors returning from Moscow to Constantinople were passing through Lithuania. They persuaded Vytautas to postpone the deadline until the Apostle Philip or until November 14, promising to talk about the matter to the emperor and patriarch 746. When no answer was received from the patriarch and on November 14, the next day, November 15, - therefore, Vytautas, burning with impatience for vengeance, had already had everything ready for a long time - the bishops ordained Gregory as metropolitan of Lithuania (in the New City of Lithuania or in Novogrodok 747). Having installed Gregory as metropolitan, the bishops, on the same November 15, published a district charter, in which they explain and justify their action. They say that they grieved and were in sadness, seeing the Kyiv church and the flock of Christ despised by Metropolitan Photius, careless and ready for destruction, since for the flock the Metropolitan was a shepherd only in name, but not in fact, he only collected income from it, living in another place. And since in relation to the church he did only that all its old dispensation and all its sacred things were transferred to that other place where he lived 748 - that with this sorrow for the church and for the people of God, the merciful God moved the heart of the Lithuanian sovereign to expel Photius and install a special metropolitan for Lithuania. - That Vitovt sent with a request for this to Constantinople, but that Emperor Manuel refused him his a righteous petition for the sake of their unrighteous gains, and that they, having gathered at a council, with the advice and will of representatives from all of Lithuanian Orthodox Christianity, according to the grace of the Holy Spirit given to them, installed Gregory as metropolitan. Justifying the unauthorized installation of Gregory, contrary to the patriarch, the bishops refer to the apostolic rule, which supposedly says that two or three bishops ordain a metropolitan, i.e., which allows two or three bishops to appoint a bishop, for example, who was in Russia under Izyaslav, for the example of the Bulgarians and Serbs, and, finally, and most of all, for the fact that the grace of the Holy Spirit acts equally in all Orthodox bishops Putting aside the possible reproach on the part of some unreasonable people that they, as bishops, by appointing a metropolitan themselves, deny the faith, the bishops declare that this will not happen - that they hold to the faith of the church from the apostles and saints of the father and piously confess - that all Simonite heresy, selling the grace of the Holy. The spirit on gold and silver, they curse and send away with anathema - that they have the most holy patriarchs and their metropolitans and bishops for their fathers and brethren and, in accordance with them, hold the confession of faith, but that they turn away and do not want to tolerate violence against the Church of God from the tsar; the holy ecumenical patriarch and the divine council of Constantinograd,” says the bishops, “cannot appoint a metropolitan according to the rules, but whomever the king commands, and henceforth the gift of the Holy Spirit is bought and sold: “for this reason,” they proclaim, concluding their charter, “by looking and judging, as it is unrighteous for us to accept such metropolitans as were appointed by purchase.” come from the king, the layman of the future man, and not according to the will of the patriarchs and (not) according to the tradition of the existing Apostolic Council" 749 . Presenting the emperor as the only culprit for the fact that Vytautas was denied a special metropolitan, the bishops, of course, were well aware that they were lying; but if they began to accuse the patriarch, then they would have nothing with which to justify themselves. When the bishops proclaim that they find it unjust to accept metropolitans appointed in Constantinople, because they were installed on a bribe, while they were trying to get a metropolitan from there, and no more than one day has passed since the unfulfilled expectations: then such speech, of course, is ridiculous; but, not daring and not wanting to say something funny, the bishops were not able to conclude their charter the way they conclude it. For his part, Vytautas also published a district charter (without a numerical date), in which, voicing his accusations against the metropolitans and in particular against Photius, which we cited above, he tries to present the case for the appointment of a special metropolitan for Lithuania in such a way that he was allegedly prompted to do so by concerns about the Orthodox Church of his state and the desire to avert the reproach from himself that he, as a non-Orthodox sovereign, does not want to take care of her 750. It is completely understandable how Photius reacted to this order of Gregory, which was the fruit of a malicious intrigue arranged against him and, moreover, he was not only insulted in every possible way, but also most outrageously disgraced. Anyone in his place should have lost his temper with anger and bitterness, and he should have lost his temper even more with these feelings because he was by nature a very impressionable (sensitive) and very hot-tempered person. He immediately sent an embassy to Constantinople with a request to the Patriarch to declare Gregory an illegitimate metropolitan and pronounce excommunication and curse on him, and at the same time, having subjected him to deposition, excommunication and curse at his own council 751, he promulgated against the deed committed in Lithuania, what is the order of Gregory, an extensive district message, addressed to bishops and to every priestly and monastic rank and to pious princes and rulers and to all the Lord's people named for Christ, in which, setting as its task to show the extreme lawlessness of the act of the Lithuanian bishops, it gives full vent to its feelings 752. If the appointment of Gregory had really been carried out for blessed reasons, as a result of true concerns for the good of the church, then it would be impossible not to find the epistle of Photius very and excessively harsh and should, with all justice, subject it to strict condemnation. Lithuanian Rus' had an undeniable legal right to its own special metropolitan. If what she had a legal right to was not given to her legally, and she herself took it illegally, then, in the case of blessing and respectful motives, we would rather blame those who illegally denied the legal than those who illegally acquired the legal. For the illegality would be equally on both sides, and while the party arbitrarily taking would have every excuse for itself, the party arbitrarily refusing would have no excuses for itself. But in this case, the good of the church was a simple cover for completely different, purely personal, motives, and knowing these motives for which the rights of the metropolitan were illegally encroached upon, i.e., knowing that there was nothing excusable in them, we cannot help but find him right in the case when he interprets the lawlessness of the Lithuanian bishops, whom he attacks in his message, as such not only in form, but also in essence. He presents this lawlessness of the bishops as the most blatant and tells them that “there is nowhere to be found who would create such lawlessness as you have created”; he calls them themselves vile, nasty, stinking, accursed, unholy, darkened, wolves, and not shepherds, God-hating, godless, forerunners of the Antichrist; He strongly urges his flock not only not to agree with them in any church action, since he considers them to be corrupted, but also not to have any everyday communication with them until the very communication in food and drink. In general, the message has the harshest tone imaginable. But if we remember the incredible act of the bishops, who allowed themselves to publicly accuse Photius of the most shameful sin, for which he was supposedly subject to defrocking and damnation - if we remember that they represent him and call him a robber: then we will not find it possible to strictly blame the metropolitan for any harshness and we will only have to sincerely regret that he was brought to such an extreme degree sharp. To the assurance of the bishops that in Constantinople the metropolitans are appointed on a bribe by the emperor, Photius responds by pointing to their own examples: “rtsi mi you,” he turns to the Archbishop of Polotsk, “the seduced non-bishop of Polotsk Theodosius: after the repose of the holy deceased Metropolitan Cyprian, weren’t you, the ruin, going to metropolis? and you yourself, wretched one, have promised (promised) silver and gold about this arrangement; If only this had been done for compensation, they would not have sent you away as a idler, but sent you away with great humiliation and coldness, saying to you: “Let your gold and your silver be with you for destruction”!.. “And he also looked for the metropolis,” he says, pointing to the example of Tsamblak, “seduced by Gregory and blaming his many possessions, and not listening to him, but also from the rank of priesthood, the ecumenical patriarch and cursed him, and barely escaped execution.” Most of the writings of Metropolitan Photius, especially the early ones, are distinguished by one very important drawback: until he got used to the Russian language, which did not happen very soon, he wrote in Greek and forced to translate; but for some reason the translations were done very unskillfully and unsatisfactorily, which is why there is darkness in the writings, making them difficult to read and, if they are of an oratorical character, destroying their oratorical power and expressiveness. For our message, Photius seemed to have found a special translator who almost completely avoided this shortcoming and, as a result, it is easy to read, making all the strong impression for which it was intended 753. By lashing out with his anger solely at the bishops, Photius is not behaving entirely rightly, for Vytautas was the culprit of the matter, and the bishops were only tools in the hands of the prince. This means that even in the extreme irritation of anger, the metropolitan did not lose prudence: he hoped to reconcile with Vytautas, and therefore leaves him completely on the sidelines, venting himself on the bishops who wanted to be too obedient servants of the prince and through whose servile agency he was the latter so insulted and disgraced to such an extent. In his letter, Photius expresses confidence that the war raised in the church by the appointment of Gregory will soon end: “I hope in God’s love for mankind, which will soon come to pass.” This should be understood to mean that Photius was confident in the help of the patriarch and that with this help he hoped to overthrow Gregory. Confidence in the patriarch's help did not deceive Photius: Patriarch Euthymius, to whom he turned immediately after the installation of Gregory, betrayed the illegally installed metropolitan to eruption and pronounced excommunication and curse on him; when Euthymius died in March 1416 and Joseph took his place, Photius immediately turned to this second one, and he, for his part, did the same as Euthymius 754. However, the help of the patriarch, that is, the patriarchs one after another, turned out to be invalid, and Tsamblak continued to remain on his throne. But Photius’s hope in God’s love for mankind regarding the speedy end of the war in the church was fulfilled in a different way. After a four-year stay at the department, Tsamblak died in an unknown manner when, in the winter period between the end of 1419 and the beginning of 1420 755. Photius, either through the mediation of the Moscow Grand Duke or himself directly, managed to reconcile with Vytautas, and the latter completely forgot to think about a special metropolitan for Lithuania, which thus united again in church relations with Moscow 756. Grigory Tsamblak occupies a very honorable place in the history of our Russian and generally East Slavic church literature as a famous preacher. We will talk about him as such a preacher later. As for his moral character, which, as we know, does not in any way correspond to preachers with their talents, we do not know any positive reviews about him in this regard; but the factual data that we have does not encourage us to think about it in any high regard. Sent by Vytautas to Constantinople to be ordained as individual metropolitans of Lithuania, he was subjected to expulsion from the priesthood and excommunication by the patriarch, and, despite this, he found it possible not to abandon his candidacy. Consecrated to the rank of metropolitan, he was twice declared by the patriarchs to be an illegal metropolitan, with confirmation of his removal from the priesthood and excommunication, and despite this he remained in the cathedra. Of course, he could make excuses that the patriarchs acted illegally towards him: but how valid can these excuses be considered when we know the motives that led to his appointment as metropolitan? In view of our facts, it is also very suspicious that before arriving in Russia he changed several places. In general, there seems to be sufficient reason to suspect that he was what in secular language is called a careerist and adventurer 757. The episode of the separate existence of the Lithuanian metropolis under the leadership of Gregory Tsamblak was marked by some attempt or, more likely, a type of attempt on the part of Vytautas to unite the Orthodox of Lithuanian Rus' with the Catholics. The Nikon Chronicle tells that Tsamblak asked Vytautas why he adheres to the Latin faith, and not the Greek, - that Vytautas answered Tsamblak: if you want to see in the Greek law not only me, but also all the people of my land, then go to Rome and argue with the pope and his sages. - If you argue with them, we will all accept the Greek faith. And if you don’t argue; I will force all the people of my land who adhere to the Greek faith to accept the Latin faith. And that the prince sent the metropolitan with his lords to Rome to the pope 758. This story is a legendary reproduction of a real fact. Without sending Gregory to Rome, Vytautas actually sent him to the Council of Constance, which lasted from November 5, 1414 to April 22, 1418. Gregory arrived at the council when it was already ending, on February 19, 1418; together with the ambassadors of the Emperor of Constantinople, with whom he arrived at the same time, he was received by the Pope (Martin V) in a solemn manner; during the short time of his stay in Constance, he, like the Greek ambassadors, was not constrained in his faith and was allowed to perform divine services according to his own rite. He told the pope through the Polish bishops present at the council that he resolutely did not want to proceed with a union with the Roman Church - and that was the end of the matter 759. What motives guided Vytautas in sending Gregory to the council remains unknown. But it is much more likely to think that he did not seriously think about a union or other union of his Orthodox subjects with the Latins, but that he ordered his Orthodox metropolitan to go to the council only in order to do what was pleasing to the pope (he may have been forced to imitate Jogaila, who was a zealous Catholic). Not at all like this zealous Catholic like Jogaila, Vytautas, of course, could not help but find it desirable to unite or unify his subjects in the faith of political types; but if he intended and was inclined to fulfill this desire, then nothing would prevent him from acting more decisively. And, meanwhile, we do not see such more decisive actions on his part at all 760. Metropolitan Photius, having received back into his power the Lithuanian metropolis, which he had lost due to the intrigues of his enemies, hastened to visit Lithuania, and greeted the flock returned to him again with an extensive teaching message 761: he traveled to Lithuania with the ambassadors of the patriarch and the emperor, from whom, as one must think, he asked for help in reconciling with Vytautas, in 1420, i.e. either in the very year of Gregory’s death or in another year 762. From that time on, he maintained the friendship of Vytautas, no longer concerned about his rights to the Lithuanian metropolis, until the latter’s death at the end of 1430. We said above that Galicia, which in 1371 under St. Alexia was given a special metropolitan, and continued to remain a separate metropolitan under Cyprian. Under Photius, it was reunited with the metropolis of all Russia: in 1412, on his trip to Lithuania, which our chronicles do not speak about, but about which the Lithuanian chronicle speaks, he was in Galich 763; in 1413, the metropolitan governor 764 was in charge of the Galician diocese; under 1414 and 1415 we find a bishop in Galich 765; On a trip in 1420, Photius was in Galich and Lvov 766. One must think that the Patriarch reunited the Metropolis of Galich with the Metropolis of All Russia when Photius was appointed metropolitan. What could have prompted him to do this, whereas before he wanted to preserve her separateness, is not clearly visible. It seems likely to guess that Jagiello (who, as the Polish king, had jurisdiction over Galicia) did not allow the installation of special metropolitans in Galicia in the form of Latin propaganda, and that the patriarch finally found it impossible and useless to manage it through his exarchs. When Vytautas took Lithuania from Photius, Galicia also departed from him 767. Metropolitan Photius ruled the Russian church, counting from the day of his arrival in Russia, 21 years and 10 months: arriving in Russia on September 1, 1409, exactly one year after his installation, he died on July 1 or 2, 1431. Among our metropolitans, he occupies an outstanding position as a diligently teaching shepherd. It may well be that our natural Russian metropolitans, who began with Cyril III, would have a desire to be diligent teachers; but they did not have the full and proper opportunity to do so. Not possessing real education (and being only people more or less book-read), they were not able to compose church words or teachings and had to limit their zeal in this regard, as we see in the example of Saints Peter and Alexy, to a few pastoral epistles to their flock. We do not know how many of the Greek metropolitans were able to compose church words, but we know that very few of them showed their zeal through this kind of teaching, namely, only one such metropolitan is positively known - Nicephorus I (1104-1121) and two can likely be taken for such: John II († 1089) and Cyril II (1224-1233), since the chronicles They say about them that they were very good teachers. Metropolitan Photius labored diligently in the field of teaching through church preaching. True, very few of his church words have survived to us, only eight. But one must, with probability, think that this is a small part of a lot 768. In his words, he says more than once that he often and repeatedly turns to the method of teaching by preaching 769. Being a zealous teacher in the field of church preaching, Photius is an equally zealous teacher through pastoral teaching letters. Upon his accession to the department, he addressed a teaching pastoral letter to the entire priestly and monastic rank, in which he spoke about the height of the priesthood and the importance of the duties associated with it 770. When he re-entered the charge of the Lithuanian metropolis after the death of Tsamblak, he addressed a teaching message to the entire population of this metropolis - to the noble and pious princes and nobles, to the entire priestly and monastic rank and to all people named after Christ 771. According to the indications in bibliographic catalogs, one can think that there are two more general teaching messages of his 772. Then, his teaching messages to private places and to individuals are known: two messages to priests, monks and all laymen of some unknown places 773; three messages to Pskov also to priests, monks and all laity 774; three messages to the Kyiv Pechersk Monastery 775; message to the Pskov Snetogorsky monastery 776; message to St. Paul of Obnor 777. The last message is deliberate proof that Photius had a zealous readiness to teach: St. Paul came to the metropolitan to ask for a blessing to form a monastery; when, having received a blessing, he built a church in the newly founded monastery and sent to the metropolitan to ask for an antimension, Photius, despite the fact that he taught the monk a lot about abbot duties orally during a personal meeting, wrote him on the second occasion a message about the same thing, namely ours. They find that the church words and teaching messages of Metropolitan Photius have very little oratorical merit. Even if this were completely true, it would not at all speak against his zeal for teaching, or, better said, it would speak in favor of his zeal. Because then he would represent a person who, despite the fact that he did not have the gift of teaching, caring about the fulfillment of his pastoral duties, diligently tried to be a teacher. But assessing the oratorical dignity of the church words and teaching messages of Photius not by our current standard, but by the standard that is contemporary and applicable to him, one cannot in any way deny them this dignity. They find that the words and messages are too drawn out and verbose and are not consistent in the presentation of thoughts. But this deficiency, in our opinion, is a property of all Greek orators, not only of the later worst times, but also of the most ancient best; In our present opinion and taste, Chrysostom himself is drawn out and verbose and does not differ in strict consistency in the presentation of thoughts; Isocrates and Demosthenes also suffer from these shortcomings. They find that the words and messages of Photius are devoid of strength and life, sluggish and boring. But we cannot agree with this. They really do give that general impression; but this is not the fault of Photius. As we said above, for a long time he could not get used to the Russian language, 778 he wrote in Greek and forced him to translate from Greek into Russian. But unfortunately for him, the translations were made very unsatisfactorily, with a literal reproduction of the original, as a result of which darkness and incomprehensibility should appear in them, and moreover, the darkness and incomprehensibility were greater, the more oratorical the original was, for the more artificial the language is, such as oratorical, the darker and more incomprehensible the translation should be when literally reproducing the original; This translator, who, as they probably guess, was the Bulgarian Pachomius 779 who came to Russia with him, generally spoke very little Russian, so the language of his translations was somehow unsuccessfully made and artificial, some kind of semi-Russian, and not real Russian. Naturally, with such shortcomings in the translation, the words and messages of Photius produce the indicated general impression, for the darkness and incomprehensibility and, in general, the monstrousness of the language destroy the strength and life of the content and make the reader bored. But from under this very unsatisfactory shell of the translation, the oratorical power and liveliness of the original comes through everywhere, and in some places it comes out quite clearly. And as for the actual Photius as an orator, there is no doubt that not only did he not suffer from a lack of strength and liveliness as a disadvantage, but, on the contrary, he was distinguished by them as a virtue. (Regarding Photius, one involuntarily recalls Maxim the Greek: Maxim was a very witty writer and the most poisonous in his denunciations, and, however, the salt of his wit and the poisonousness of the denunciations are often largely destroyed by the unsatisfactory Russian language of his translator or himself). In place of everything that has now been said about the church words and teaching epistles of Photius, something else should be said about them, namely, that they are hardly distinguished by much independence and perhaps represent simpler compilations selected from the fathers than his real oratorical works. As literary works, we will deliberately return to the words and messages below, in the second half of the volume. We have very little information about the church and government activities of Photius as an activity. [In the confession of faith of the newly ordained bishops, read in the rite of episcopal installation dating back to the time of Metropolitan Photius, the newly ordained bishop, among other things, promises: “I shall not do anything (contrary to the canons) according to need, either from a king or from a great prince or from many princes or from many people, even if they are abhorred by death... Always call me to you, my master, without any word from me, go to you: although the princes tremble me, although the boyars tremble me (that is, they do not let me go, they do not allow me to go), we will not disobey the command of you, our master, the Metropolitan of All Rus',” - Acts of the Expedition vol. I, No. 370, p. 463, col. 2 beginning, in Pavlov's Monuments col. 453–454. If we were to believe that the demand for these promises belongs specifically to Photius, and does not constitute an old demand and represents, together with the entire order, a translation from Greek (which the words “not from the king” seem to indicate and which in itself is more probable): then it would serve to characterize him – Photius. Probably, as evidence of the strong character of Photius or of that “courage” of which the Nikon Chronicle speaks, the news (unfortunately, very brief and not at all detailed) should be taken that in 1411 (February 2, - Nikon Chronicle V, 36 fin.) he appointed the Muscovite Anthony to the Tver bishop against the wishes of the Tver people, - Danilovich's chronicle in Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1898 book IV, pp. 62–63. (As if it were so that two candidates were nominated for the draw for bishops - one at the request and on the instructions of the Tver prince from Tver, the other against the wishes of the prince by Photius himself from the Muscovites, and that when the lot was drawn for the latter, Photius appointed him as a bishop, despite the reluctance of the prince and the Tver in general). The characterization of Photius is that in 1418 he “necessarily” “installed as bishop a person whom he considered worthy of episcopacy, namely, the abbot of the Spaso-Kamensky Monastery, Greek Dionysius, as archbishop of Rostov,” 2 Sophia Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles VI, 141.] From one of his letters to Pskov we learn about his orders regarding widowed priests, namely, that upon arrival at the see he confirmed the legitimation of St. Peter, so that these priests would become monks and not remain to serve in secular churches - that later, during the pestilence “for the sake of need,” that is, due to the lack of priests who were not widows, he allowed them to serve in the world for a while and that, after the need had passed, he again insisted on observing the law 780. Photius says about his prohibition against widowed priests remaining in the world that he imposed it on them “according to the divine father’s tradition”: but what does he mean by this divine father’s tradition, which, we think, he does not compose, remains completely unknown to us and arouses our bewilderment. We have already said above that in Greece there was (and could not be) our legalization regarding widowed priests. But, not being (and could not be) a general legitimation of the entire Greek Church, was it not there a private legitimation of certain individual places, which the Metropolitan had in mind when he referred to the tradition of the divine father? Referring to this tradition, Photius also cites a theoretical justification for the legalization: “a secular priest,” he says, until God was pleased in their temporary life with their friendship, and then their priesthood came into being; and when I take up their friends and the sex of their bodies to God, then (in, in?) the dead essence and the earth of their natural body are accepted into corruption by the worm: (then) and they should, thanks to God’s destinies and His command, go to the monastery and monastic robes from the abbot of the spiritual abbot, shave themselves,” etc.... This theory is that with the death of a wife, who is one with her husband the body, the widowed priest, represents a half-dead man who should not remain in the world, if it belongs to Photius himself, testifies to his ability to invent plausible, albeit untenable, theories... However, one way or another, Photius justified the legitimation of St. that he confirmed. Peter about widowed priests, but if he considered it necessary to confirm it and insisted on its observance: then it is obvious that he, like St. Peter, recognized it as necessary to ward off the temptation that widowed priests caused by their behavior. We said above that Metropolitan Cyprian failed to ensure that the Novgorodians returned to him the right of the so-called monthly court of appeal and the fees associated with this court. After Cyprian, Photius tried the same thing, and his efforts also remained unsuccessful. [Photius tried to force the Novgorodians to return the monthly court to him by the measure or means that for a long time he did not appoint the candidates they elected as archbishops. He did not appoint a successor to John, about whom p. 318 (electronic version - paragraph after footnote No. 599, corr.), for a year and two months, then for two years, more than a year and a year and a half too (1 Novgorod Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles III, 105 fin. sqq.). The canons prescribe not to delay the installation of bishops, except in cases of unavoidable need, beyond three months - 4th Ecumenical Council, canon 25: but in this case, before and after Photius, as, indeed, in Greece, we did not pay any attention to the canons at all.] The letter of Photius to the Tver Bishop Elijah has been preserved to this day, which was written after the death of the Novgorod Archbishop Euthymius Bradaty or 1st, which took place on November 1, 1429, and by which the Metropolitan, on the occasion of the unfilling of the Novgorod see, allows the bishop to supply deacons and priests in the areas of the Novgorod diocese neighboring his diocese (Bezhetsky Verkh and in Volok Lamsky 781. In this letter, the Metropolitan reports on his unsuccessful efforts to return his monthly court of appeal from the Novgorodians. He writes in the letter the following: “when I came (from Constantinople) to the Russian Metropolis, I was accompanied by the ambassadors of the holy king and the holy patriarch and all the ecumenical (i.e. patriarchal) cathedral, and they brought patriarchal letters (to the Novgorodians) about church antiquity and visited them (in Novgorod) with a demand that they - the Novgorodians of church antiquity, the court of the call sign, surrender to the Church of God and to me - the saint according to the ancient times, and they did not surrender the antiquity; then Vladyka Ivan came to me (in the winter of 1412 782) and promised to restore the old church history to me, but he did not. And then the Novgorodians sent me to install Simeon as archbishop (installed on March 22, 1416), and after him Euthymius (installed in September 1424), and I ordained both of them as archbishops, and these archbishops also promised me to restore the ancient church 783, as well as all the Novgorod ambassadors (who came with archbishops) gave a firm word that they would renounce the ancient times to the Church of God and to me, and just as the rulers did not restore (to me) the ancient times of the church, so the Novgorodians have not renounced this antiquity to this day.” Our chronicles say absolutely nothing about the quarrel and litigation between Photius and the Novgorodians over the monthly trial; and the Metropolitan himself makes it known in our letter that he conducted the litigation, so to speak, in a completely passive manner - presenting demands and not taking any measures to induce and force the Novgorodians to fulfill them. Since Photius undoubtedly had a very hot temper, his behavior in our case does not seem entirely expected and understandable. This surprise and incomprehensibility must be explained by one of two things - either by the fact that, having been involved in a quarrel with Vitovt, the Metropolitan did not want to have another quarrel, so as not to seem like a quarrelsome person, or by the fact that for his duties he did not consider it a blessed and good thing to subject the Novgorodians to church excommunication, which alone could have an effect on them. The latter seems most likely, because if he had intended to fight with drastic measures, he would have resorted to them before he quarreled with Vytautas. Be that as it may, one or the other, in any case, Photius’s behavior towards the Novgorodians speaks highly in favor of his pastoral qualities and morals. The letter lets Bishop Elijah know that after the death of Archbishop Euthymius Photius did not intend to install a new archbishop for the Novgorodians until they returned to him the antiquities of the monthly trial 784. The question of how the matter would end this time remained unresolved due to the Metropolitan’s own imminent death. During the reign of Photius and with his participation and assistance, the Strigolnikov sect that appeared there in Pskov, which we will now talk about, ceased to exist. The Strigolniki, representing a schismatic society, separated from the church due to the fact that they did not want to recognize their contemporary bishops and priests as true shepherds, as those who supplied and were supplied for bribes and as leading a life unworthy of shepherds. Our historical information about the emergence of the sect and its existence is extremely scarce. Under 1375, which refers to the reign of St. Alexy and is the fourth year before his death, the chronicles report that in Novgorod three debauchees of the Christian faith were put to death: Nikita the deacon, Karp - according to some chronicles - a simpleton, according to other chronicles and according to legends - also a deacon, and a third - unknown by name and a simpleton 785. These were the founders of the sect, the main one among whom seems to be Karp 786; being a simpleton or a deacon, he had the craft of a strigolnik, that is, a barber, from which the sect 787 received its name. The news read in the accusatory writings against Strigolnikov makes it clear that the aforementioned three founders of the sect, before being subjected to civil execution, were subjected to church excommunication 788, therefore, that they were not executed immediately after they appeared, but after a more or less lengthy sermon 789. The later witness, the Monk Joseph of Volokolamsk, calls Karp a resident of Pskov 790; since under Metropolitan Photius we find a sect in the same Pskov, new researchers usually accept that it arose precisely in Pskov. But the chronicles do not say where Karp and his comrades were from, and where the sect arose; It is very possible that it originally arose in Novgorod and that only later, exterminated in this latter, it concentrated in Pskov, where we see it under Photius. Be that as it may, the execution that befell the founders of the sect did not put an end to the existence of the sect itself. Archbishop Dionysius of Suzdal, who returned from Constantinople in 1383, probably fulfilling the request of the Archbishop of Novgorod (Alexey), brought the Novgorodians and Pskovites from Patriarch Nile an accusatory letter against Strigolnikov 791; in 1386 he was in Novgorod, according to the needs of his department, St. Stefan of Perm and at the request of the same Archbishop of Novgorod made an incriminating write-off against them 792. After this, we have no news about them until the time of Metropolitan Photius. The Strigolniki were, as we said, not heretics, but schismatics. They fell away from the church and formed their own special society, not because they rejected certain points of the church’s doctrine, but because they did not want to be in communion with the Russian bishops and priests of their time. Arguing that all bishops and all priests are appointed for bribery or sacrilege, that is, through simony, that some and others take bribes and lead an unworthy life; The Strigolniki argued behind this that all Russian bishops and priests are not true bishops and priests - that the former do not teach the latter the true grace of the priesthood and that it is in vain for Christians to receive the sacraments from the latter, because everything taught by them is not real. Not by reason, but by the nature of their separation from the church, the Strigolniki bear a very close resemblance to the current schismatics - the Bespopovtsy. We do not have a detailed presentation of the Strigolnikov teachings. According to St. Stephen of Perm, the main one among the founders of the sect, Deacon Karp, “copied the scriptures to help his heresy”; but this scripture has not reached us. The source of information about the teachings of the Strigolniks for us is the letter against them from Patriarch Nile and the writing off of St. Stephen, in which in both (mainly in the latter) it is presented very briefly and fragmentarily. The Strigolniki slandered the entire ecumenical council - the patriarchs, metropolitans and bishops, the abbots and priests and the entire sacred rank, saying that they were not appointed according to their patrimony, since the patriarchs, metropolitans and bishops sell the spirit, taking a bribe from the installation 793. Considering the saints and priests and all the clergy, as providing and being supplied for a bribe, as heretics, they separated from the church under the pretext of piety and desiring to preserve the divine scriptures and the strictness of the canons, so that through communication with bishops and priests heretics they themselves would not become such 794. At the same time, the Strigolniki pointed to the behavior and life of bishops and priests and, finding that the shepherds did not behave and live in a pastoral manner, they declared them to be untrue shepherds, whose services are not valid, and from whom it is in vain and should not be taken the sacraments. Catching Christians with the words of the Savior spoken to the apostles: “have no vaginas, nor brass in your belts” and, as it should be implied, pointing out what bishops should be according to the Apostle Paul, the Strigolniki spoke about their contemporary bishops and priests: “they are unworthy of their service, as they are not not acquisitive (because they are not non-acquisitive), but they take property from peasants, the offering given to them for the living and for the dead”... “many people collect their property”... “these teachers are drunkards, they eat and drink with drunkards and take from them gold and silver and ports, from the living and from the dead”... 795. Separating themselves into a special society from bishops and priests, as from heretics, the Strigolniki appointed simple, uninitiated people as their teachers and prayer leaders, referring to the Apostle Paul, who commanded the common man to teach 796, and, no doubt, like the schismatics of the non-priests, justifying themselves with their exceptional position. As for the performance of the sacraments, regarding the communion of St. Stefan only says that they did not accept it from the priests, and does not say whether it was replaced with anything. Strigolniki, according to him, replaced confession to the priest with repentance to the earth, and, perhaps, they were guided by the indication that in the old days, when reading prayers at Trinity Vespers, they did not only stand on their knees, but bowed their heads to the floor and that during this “lying down” they read a prayer, which, by the way, contains an appeal on behalf of the reader: “And you, mother earth, have sinned with your soul and body." Regarding how the Strigolniki dealt with other sacraments, St. Stefan doesn't say anything, i.e. his silence in all likelihood should be understood to mean that in relation to other sacraments he had no reason to reproach Strigolnikov. Then he assures that the Strigolniki rejected singing over the dead and their commemoration through prayers and offerings: “it is not worthy,” the Strigolniki said, “to sing over the dead, neither to remember (them), nor to perform services, nor to bring offerings for the deceased to the church, nor to create feasts, nor to give alms for the soul of the deceased.” We think that St. In our case, Stefan does not represent the teaching of the Strigolnikov quite correctly - that they did not reject prayers for the souls of the dead at all, but only recognized the prayers of contemporary priests as invalid, and that, without rejecting the benefits of alms, they, perhaps, only rejected the benefits of feasts - this unique alms, and the benefactors and benefactors (the beggars) drank for the soul of the deceased, which is why the Monk Theodosius rebelled against funeral feasts Pechersky. But, on the other hand, it is not impossible that the Strigolniki, carried away by harsh human justice, which limits God’s mercy. And, relying on the law and the requirements of limited human truth, in this case they went into heresy and taught that for a person who lived sinfully, what others do for his soul after his death cannot be useful. That God’s mercy cannot be bought, that the hope of posthumous atonement for sins takes away the incentive to live a righteous life, and so on. How the Strigolnikov split could have arisen among us, we have already discussed before. In the Greek Church, from very ancient times, there arose a custom, which soon became universal, for those who supply to all sacred degrees to collect payment from those supplied. The most strict and decisive canonical regulations were made against the custom and, despite this, it remained in full force, acquiring the meaning of a real law, which was indeed recognized by the Byzantine emperors. Here in Russia at the beginning of the 13th century there were zealots of the purity of the church statutes and the strictness of church canons, who rebelled against custom as against lawlessness. The Strigolnikov split was nothing more than an extreme expression of the preaching of these zealots, as a protest boldly carried to its final end. We saw above what the Tver monk Akindinus, a contemporary of St. Petra. He writes in a letter to his Tver prince: “I am afraid of silence for the sake of condemnation, seeing the heresy growing and multiplying and wearing unveiled lips, having become accustomed to a God-hating custom from the oldest of our saints to the least, the unsaleable grace of the Holy Spirit is introduced into the purchase and collected from the provision..., the apostolic and God-bearing father of the conciliar tradition established on the reward and with the one who set it, I will replace it and by no means to anyone who is not involved in the existence of my degree (commanding) and introducing it into a curse "... "The following (Simon the Magus) saints, the father of the council of the universe with other local ones, was cursed and rejected everywhere..., having put in place and taking what was put in place, he has already been cast out, and (supplied) from the deposed one will in no way benefit from the ordination and by partaking of the most pure Mysteries from him (ordained), knowing that he will be condemned... According to the great Athanasius, every person who receives reason from God to reason, following the ignorant shepherd, will receive torment, according to what was said: the blind leading the blind, both will fall into a pit, falling into the abyss... If he receives even little from the ordination, then the bishop is no longer a bishop and those who partake of him will be condemned.”... Akindinus says that bishops who charge a fee for ordination are not bishops - that they are heretics, followers of Simon the Magus, cursed and rejected by all ecumenical and local councils - that they must break off communion with them, for those who are in communion with them are they will be condemned and they will suffer torment. What Akindin proclaims as a given is what the Strigolniki actually did. Separating themselves from bishops and priests, as those who supply and are supplied for bribes and, as a result, untrue, the Strigolniki also pointed out that bishops and priests are money-grubbers and bribe-takers. That the former collect estates, and the latter extort (the well-known common folk “tear”) from the living and the dead - that both lead lives unworthy of true shepherds. This shows that the protest against bishops and priests, which began with payment for installation, then went further - that the ideal of the priesthood, represented by the example of the times of the apostles and in general of distant antiquity, awakened in the minds of people, and that the Strigolniki protested against contemporary bishops and priests not only for a private reason - because of installation for a bribe, but in general from the point of view of this ideal, which floated before their minds - what in general they found the priesthood had fallen and wanted to see it renewed 797. If it is true that the Strigolniki denied the reality and benefit of prayers and offerings for the dead, then their moral ideal was inexorable severity (severe Puritanism), and it is natural that they applied this ideal as a standard, first of all, to those who should be on its guard, such as shepherds, i.e. bishops and priests. We do not know how much the Strigolniks’ own life corresponded to their teachings and their ideals; but St. Stefan makes it clear that we are talking about sincere people who actually strived for what they believed in their moral requirements. Without reproaching the Strigolniks for falsity or for being morally demanding only in words, he only wants to devalue their deeds when he says: “these are the heretics who are fasting, praying, scribes, hypocrites, who act cleanly before people: if people did not see their pure life, then who would believe their heresy?” Two accusatory works were written against the Strigolnikovs - the letter of Patriarch Nile and the writing off of St. Stefan 798. Neither one nor the other could have the slightest influence on them, because neither one nor the other could represent the slightest convincing for them. The fact of charging fees for deliveries was beyond any doubt; and since it existed, there were no valid arguments with which to refute them. And only apparent arguments were powerless in relation to them, because they were not at all from among the dark people, but, on the contrary, from among relatively educated people who had studied book words 799. The Patriarch writes in his charter: “the conciliar and apostolic Church of Christ, stretching from end to end (of the earth), by the grace and power of Christ himself, both in dogmas, stands indestructible, firm and unshakable, and in strict observance of the sacred canons, and (therefore) those who ordain for money, as selling the unsellable grace of the All-Holy Spirit, we put on a par with Simon and Macedon and other Doukhobors... But if those who are ordained on their own, without being forced by anyone, often make blessed expenses for candles, for (church) wine, for dinners and for similar expenses, then these expenses cannot be brought into any reproach, because ordination is a gift... for other things can be taken for ordination and others are expenses for necessary needs.” To this the Strigolniki could answer the patriarch: firstly, that he was telling a complete lie, as if those ordained incurred expenses only often, and not always, and as if they incurred them on their own, without being forced by anyone; secondly, regarding the blessing of expenses, which, according to Basil the Great, is all the worse, for whoever does evil under the guise of good is worthy of double punishment - both for doing evil and for using good as an accomplice, so to speak, in committing sin (rule 90), and that Gennady of Constantinople in his letter, unconditionally prohibiting payment for ordination as something vile and simony, does not allow in this case any fabrication and reinterpretation, no pretext and no sophistry. St. Stephen does not deny the fact of universal collection of payment for delivery, and in refutation of the Strigolnikovs he can only say something completely unconvincing for them and completely untenable. If payment for installation, he asks Strigolnikov, is, in your opinion, a bribe prohibited by the canons, and all priests are appointed for payment, then in your opinion, does it mean that there is not a single true priest on the whole earth? But the answer to this question was the very existence of the Strigolnikov sect - they separated from the church because all priests are paid and, consequently, because all priests, in their opinion, are not true priests. The universal existence of payment is presented by Stephen as a sign that it is not a bribe prohibited by the canons, as if the universal existence of sin in people is a sign that it is not sin. If all the priests supplied for a fee are priests supplied for a fee, then where, he asks Strigolnikov, can we get true priests - Christ will not come to incarnate on earth a second time, an angel will not come down to dedicate a priest to you? That is asking about this impossible (which cannot be followed) from God, he naively forgets about what is very possible for the people themselves, so that the collection of fees is abolished and abolished, in other words, pointing out the impossibility of correcting the matter through the direct intervention of God, he forgets about the perfect possibility of correcting it through the people’s own strength... Finally, he claims that the income from installations constitutes for bishops those church lessons about which the apostle said that “the clergy feed on the church and The altar girls are separated from the altar... It must be thought that the Strigolnikov sect, despite the fact that it represented a protest against the actual abuse that existed in the church and that it was impossible to prove the wrongness of their accusations, was not numerous and was not at all widespread. Any kind of collection was to such an extent in the spirit of the time and to such an extent constituted its law and norm and its basis and “foundations” that there could only be individual people - so to speak, overly strict and overly sensitive and delicate legalists who would see in payment for supplies an illegal bribe and simony, but that the majority and the masses and in general the entire “people”, using the expression of Metropolitan Photius, did not at all have such a moral sensitivity, so that the protest against abuse can find some strong response in them and can be warmly accepted by them. In general, it seems likely to think that the Strigolnikov sect, in relation to its numbers, was not so much a real sect, which would count its followers in hundreds and thousands, as a small circle of extremely strict people, which counted its adherents in units and tens. If in the first time after the appearance of the sect, the Archbishop of Novgorod hastened to report it to the patriarch and asked the latter for an accusatory letter against the schismatics; if he took advantage of the arrival of St. Stephen of Perm, in order to receive from him an accusatory write-off on the latter: then these worries and concerns of the archbishop may not mean that the schism, when it appeared, found numerous followers, but that the archbishop feared this in the future, and that he was afraid for his income - proxies duties. Finally, the letters of Metropolitan Photius to Pskov make it clear that this is not about a large society of sectarians, but about “some” who have been darkened and fallen away from Christianity 800 . Photius learned about the existence of the Strigolnikov sect in Pskov not at the very first time of his stay at the department, but five or six years later after his arrival at the department, from a report from the Pskov clergy. On September 23, 1416, he wrote a message in Pskov to the local authorities, priests and all Christians, in which, having denounced the malice of Strigolnikov 801, he persuades the Pskovites to assure them and punish them on the true path. And in case of their unrepentance and stubbornness, he commands to wed them away from their Orthodox faith, so that among them they will not be Orthodox as chaff among the wheat 802. What the word “to marry” means is not entirely clear in the message, but the following messages from Photius make it clear that he does not mean to expel the Strigolniks from Pskov and from the Pskov region, but to cast them out and completely excommunicate them from the society of the Orthodox Church. Since this punishment could not have an effect on the Strigolnikov, because they themselves excommunicated themselves from the society of the church, either the present message of Photius did not have any consequences for the schismatics, or the Pskovites, having received it, took any measures of civil severity against them. It must be thought that the latter, and the Pskovites could be guided by the canonical rules that Photius cites and of which one, the 5th Council of Antioch, commands to hand over those who disturb the peace of the church to worldly rulers, in order, by implication, to humble them with civil executions, and the other, the 13th Council of Two, as it is read in the metropolitan’s letter 803, commands to (certainly) imprison them. And one must precisely think that the execution indicated by the double council was used, and that at the same time one part of the Strigolniki was captured and imprisoned, while the other part managed to hide and run away. 11 years after the first message, dated June 22, 1427, Photius wrote a second message to Pskov against Strigolnikov 804. Here he calls them newly indignant from the devil’s nets being kicked (set). And this, in all likelihood, should be understood in such a way that when the Pskovites took measures against them after his first message, some of them, as we said, managed to avoid imprisonment and hide, and that then they appeared again. The measures that Photius prescribes against the Strigolnikov in our second letter are the same as in the first. But the Pskovites, as the first time, used their own measures against them, namely civil executions, probably corporal punishment and imprisonment. When, after this, the Pskovites informed the metropolitan that those who had not managed to escape and the captured heretics were showing stubbornness and unrepentance, and that they “looked up to the sky there as the Father,” rejecting, by implication, the spiritual fathers of the earth, such as bishops and priests, then with a message dated September 23 of the same 1427 805, Photius confirms his previous spiritual measures against stubborn and at the same time allows the use of civil punishments against them, but not the death penalty, but “external” executions and imprisonment. Finally, with a message of September 24, 1429, as one must think - in view of the extreme stubbornness of the schismatics, the Metropolitan confirms his permission to use civil executions, and, again prohibiting the death penalty, with regard to other executions he expresses himself more strongly than in the previous message: “but otherwise (after the death penalty) in every way and by imprisonment bring them to knowledge” 806. From what we have said, it is clear that Photius’s relationship with the Strigolniki represents something not entirely ordinary: he twice orders the Pskovians to use exclusively spiritual and ecclesiastical measures against them. And only after this, when the Pskovites, in addition to his permission, twice turned to civil measures, he allows them these latter, with the proviso that, in any case, the death penalty should not be used, to which the founders of the sect were devoted and to which the Pskovites and its stubborn followers probably expressed an inclination. We don’t know whether the Pskovites managed to catch all the Strigolniki 807, but, in any case, we must think that as a result of the persecution brought against them in 1427, their small anti-church society scattered so much that it no longer gathered and was not restored. At least, after 1427 there are no mentions of the Strigolniki as a special society or circle. In the life of St. Paul of Obnor we find news about Metropolitan Photius, which goes a long way toward characterizing him as a shepherd. The Monk Paul, after long-term solitary asceticism, set out to found a monastery; when he came to the metropolitan to ask for his blessing for this, Photius not only did not give him a blessing, “but also a certain verb was cruel to him,” until he was enlightened about the monk by a miraculous revelation 808. It is necessary to think that the Metropolitan mistook St. Paul for one of those founders of monasteries who aspired to be founders not at all out of sincere zeal for monasticism, but for various extraneous motives, and of which there were extremely many at that time. Thus, the news makes it known that Metropolitan Photius was an enemy and persecutor of hypocrisy and emptiness. Having changed his opinion about Paul as a result of a miraculous vision about him (and, perhaps, naturally received the most accurate information), Photius showed himself from the other side - from the side of his zeal for pastoral teaching: he not only verbally taught the true zealot of monasticism a lengthy instruction about monastic duties, but then also sent him a deliberate scripture about this 809. We said above that three teaching letters of Metropolitan Photius to Pskov have been preserved. In addition to these three teaching messages and in addition to the now indicated messages about Strigolniki, we also have a long series of his messages to the same Pskov, going back to the number 7, the content of which consists of instructions and rules regarding worship and regarding church discipline and life. The Pskovites had a special relationship with Metropolitan Photius: through their posadniks, who traveled to Moscow to see the Grand Duke, and through their priests, who were deliberately sent to the Metropolitan, they turned to the latter with questions regarding subjects that were puzzling to them in the field of worship and discipline and informed him about the shortcomings of their church life. In response to questions and reports from the Pskovites, the Metropolitan wrote his now indicated messages to Pskov 810. We will return to the content of this category of messages later, when we review our worship and our church life for this time. The messages indicate that Photius answered the questions of the Pskovites with the greatest readiness and that he treated their reports with the same care. After the invasion of the Mongols, our ancestors had and gradually strengthened the idea of ​​appointing their metropolitans not from the Greeks, but from their own environment - natural Russians, which idea, as we said above, was originally suggested to our ancestors by the Greeks themselves. Some acts of the time of Metropolitan Photius make it clear that after one thought arose among our ancestors and another, in relation to it, a further thought, namely, not only to elect metropolitans from natural Russians, but also to install them in Russia itself. In two lists of the order of installation as bishop, dating back to 1423 and 1424, we find that the newly installed bishop in his confession of faith, among other things, makes a promise: “I also promise this: we do not want to accept another metropolitan, unless they appoint someone from Constantinople, as we accepted from the beginning” 811. In a promise, another metropolitan cannot be understood as a metropolitan sent from the pope, for during the time of Photius and before him there was not the slightest reason to fear that the Russians would accept a metropolitan from the pope, and it is necessary to mean a metropolitan installed in Russia itself, i.e. it is necessary to understand the matter in such a way that the promise was included in the confession of faith of the newly appointed bishops in view of the fear that the Russians would decide to install their own metropolitans at home. Perhaps fear arose under Photius himself, to the second half of whose reign the lists of ranks of installation date back to, or perhaps even under his predecessor Cyprian. In the chronicles, in official acts and in general in written monuments of the time of Cyprian and Photius, there are no direct indications that the mentioned thought appeared among the Russians under one or the other of them. But since it cannot be assumed that our promise was the first or second to be included in the confession of faith of the newly installed bishops without any basis, then one should think that the mentioned thought, without being declared by the Russians in writing, with one or another of the metropolitans, began to circulate among them orally. It is very likely that the Russians themselves would have entertained the idea for more or less a long time, without deciding to implement it; but special circumstances that happened quite soon after Photius put them in need and forced them to decide to bring the idea into execution... In 1425, after the death of Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich (who died on February 27 of that year), public service was required from Metropolitan Photius, and he became a zealous servant of the son of the deceased Grand Duke - Vasily Vasilyevich (who remained a ten-year-old boy after his father). According to the existing right of succession to the throne, after Vasily Dmitrievich, the eldest of the three present, his brothers - Prince of Zvenigorod and Galich Yuri Dmitrievich 812 - should have taken the table. But Vasily Dmitrievich, introducing a new order of succession to the throne, left his son as his successor. However, Yuri Dmitrievich did not want to give up his right to his nephew, and as a result, hostile actions immediately began between the two rivals. On the very night of Vasily Dmitrievich’s death, Photius sent his boyar to Zvenigorod to call Yuri to Moscow; but he refused to go to Moscow, retired from Zvenigorod to Galich and from here sent an embassy to Vasily, through which he expressed his threats to him and concluded a short-term truce with him. Yuri took advantage of the truce to gather an army against his nephew; Vasily did the same with his boyars and, preventing the attack, he himself was the first to oppose his uncle. Seeing Vasily’s determination, and realizing his powerlessness to fight him, Yuri began to run from his troops and demand that his nephew conclude a truce with him for a year. Then in Moscow it was decided to send the metropolitan to Yuri in Galich, so that he would convince the prince to conclude peace. Photius readily accepted the assignment and managed to achieve the goal, and, according to the chronicles, he owed his success to supernatural help. At first, Yuri resolutely refused peace and agreed only to a truce; but when the Metropolitan, in anger at his stubbornness, left Galich without giving a blessing to him and the city, a great pestilence broke out in the latter, and the prince hastened to turn the Metropolitan back from the road, asking for his prayers and agreeing to fulfill his demand. Through the prayers of Photius, who returned, the pestilence stopped, and the prince, in turn, kept his word and sent envoys to Moscow to conclude peace 813. Having made peace with Vytautas after the death of Gregory Tsamblak, Photius visited the Lithuanian part of his metropolis immediately after this, in 1420. At the end of 1422, he again went to Vytautas 814. Some, we don’t know how reliable, evidence says that he was later in Lithuania and Galicia in 1428 815. The last time Photius traveled to Lithuania was in the second half of 1430. At the end of this year, it was planned that Vytautas would be crowned with a royal crown, which was bestowed on him by the German Emperor Sigismund. For the upcoming celebration, Vitovt gathered numerous guests from the crowned heads; Among the guests was his grandson Vasily Vasilyevich of Moscow, and with the Grand Duke, in all likelihood, also as an invited guest, Metropolitan Photius. If you believe our chronicles, then this time, on the eve of his death and, so to speak, on the eve of the death of the metropolitan, Vitovt showed extraordinary friendship towards the latter. When the coronation celebration did not take place, since the Poles did not allow the imperial ambassadors carrying the crown into Lithuania, and when the guests left, Vytautas, according to our chronicles, kept Photius with him and kept him in great honor for another 11 days 816. Bitterly deceived in his ambitious dreams and at the same time cruelly disgraced by the Poles, Vitovt, perhaps, sought consolation in conversations with the metropolitan. Photius left him three days before his death, which followed on October 24, 817. Arriving in Moscow to take office, Photius found his Moscow metropolitan house and his metropolitan villages or estates robbed and empty. In his spiritual testament, he says that the house and villages that God gave strength to, he built and completed for everyone. Metropolitan estates multiplied under him, as he testifies in the same will, not only in Moscow Rus' - in the great reign and in appanages, but also in Lithuania: some he bought himself, others he received as a spiritual or sincere contribution from noble and faithful princes and from all Orthodox Christians. One of the contributions, which took place immediately after Fotiev’s arrival in Russia and was very significant, is recorded in the Nikon Chronicle. In May 1410, the famous Prince Vladimir Andreevich, nicknamed the Brave or Donskoy, cousin of Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy (grandson of Kalita), died. At his death, he gave for himself and for his family to the house of the Mother of God and the wonderworkers Peter and Alexei his village near Moscow, Kudrino, with 13 villages and settlements and all sorts of land that belonged to the village from antiquity 818. Our chronicles say nothing about Photius’s benefaction to the impoverished emperor and patriarch of Constantinople. But it is necessary to think that he, a natural Greek, did good to them even more diligently than Cyprian, and in general - to the extent that he could 819. We said above that Metropolitan Cyprian either himself directly or through others kept the chronicle of his time. Most likely, the same should be thought about Metropolitan Photius: in the narration of the Nikon Chronicle for his time, in some places people who were contemporary with him and close to him clearly make themselves visible. Photius died on July 1 or 2, 1431 820. Before his death, he wrote, like Cyprian, a spiritual will, in which he provides biographical information about himself before his appointment as metropolitan and in which he assures that his time at the metropolitan see was for him a time of continuous sorrows, tears and sobs 821 . Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich, after the death of Metropolitan Cyprian, did not want, following the examples that preceded him, to install a metropolitan from natural Russians and took him from the patriarch, according to the old duty, from the Greeks. On the contrary, his son Vasily Vasilyevich, after the death of Metropolitan Photius, or, more likely, his son’s advisers, since the latter was only 16 years old at the time of Photius’s death, again wanted to return to the new custom that had begun and install a metropolitan from natural Russians. One fairly modern legend assures that in this case they acted exactly as during the election of St. Alexy, namely, that even during the life of Photius and therefore, as it should be implied, with his consent and with his assistance, the patriarchal blessing was asked for his future successor from the natural Russians 822. But it is very doubtful that the assurance of the legend was true, for if it were true, one would have to expect that Vasily Vasilyevich and St. Photius, whom he chose to succeed. Jonah will later talk about this; and yet they say nothing. One must think that the decision made to elect a metropolitan from natural Russians would have been carried out immediately after the death of Photius. But this was prevented by the circumstances of the Grand Duke. We said above that Vasily Dmitrievich's brother Yuri Dmitrievich of Zvenigorod-Galich made peace with Vasily Vasilyevich in 1425, recognizing him as the Grand Duke and renouncing his rights to the Grand Duke's throne, which he had presented. In 1431, Yuri Dmitrievich returned his letters of kissing to his nephew, accepting the intention to go to the Horde to seek a great reign under him from the khan. It is believed with complete probability that Yuri Dmitrievich decided to resume his quest in view of the death of his grandfather and strong defender Vasily Vasilyevich Vitovt, which took place at the end of 1430 823. It must be assumed with no less probability that the death of Vasiliev’s other defender, Metropolitan Photius, had an influence on Yuri’s determination, who in 1425 forced him to peace with the threat of church excommunication and who could have resorted to the latter at any other time. Be that as it may, but a month and a half after the death of Photius, on Assumption Day 1431, Vasily Vasilyevich was supposed to go to the Horde and returned from the khan to Moscow as the conqueror of his uncle no earlier than Peter's Day the following 1432. Only after this return could the election of a candidate for metropolitan begin. When exactly the election took place remains unknown. But in general it should be attributed to the space-time of the second half of our year 1432. The Bishop of Ryazan and Murom, St. Jonah 824. In one of his later letters to Constantinople, Vasily Vasilyevich assures regarding the election of Jonah that he made it with his brethren, with the Russian great princes and with the local princes and with the ruler of the Lithuanian land - the Grand Duke and with the saints of his land and with all the priests and spiritual people and hostels (monks) and desert hermits - with the holy elders and with his boyars and with all his land - with all Orthodox Christianity 825. If the Grand Duke speaks the truth, then this extraordinary and most solemn universality of the election of Jonah will need to be understood in two ways - or in such a way that in Moscow they were afraid of the refusal on the part of the patriarch to install a natural Russian as metropolitan and wanted to influence him with the solemn universality of the sentence; or so that they accepted the intention to elect metropolitans for the future without fail from natural Russians (only with their appointment from the patriarch) and that therefore they wanted to make out of our election a kind of era in this regard 826. One way or another, Bishop Jonah, who was elected metropolitan a short time after the death of Photius, managed to take the metropolitan see not very soon and only after others had occupied it. In the same year 1432, as Jonah was elected in Moscow, the Grand Duke of Lithuania Svidrigailo, successor of the Vytautas (brother of Jogaila), sent Bishop Gerasim of Smolensk to Constantinople to be installed as metropolitan, who was installed as patriarch 827. Which metropolitan Gerasim was appointed to – whether all of Russia or only Lithuanian – remains reliably unknown. In itself, the latter would seem most likely; but there is evidence that identifies him as the Metropolitan of All Russia, and we know his deeds, which he did not have the right to do as Metropolitan of Lithuania. 2 The Pskov Chronicle, which speaks of Gerasim’s journey to Constantinople to be appointed metropolitan, claims that he returned from the patriarch, having been appointed “metropolitan on Russian soil,” and that if he did not go to Moscow, but stopped in his Smolensk, it was only because in Moscow there was then confusion among the princes 828; 3 The Novgorod Chronicle, speaking about Gerasim’s consecration of the Novgorod Archbishop Euthymius, calls him twice Metropolitan of Moscow and once Metropolitan of All Russia 829; the life of Euthymy, dedicated by Gerasim, says that he - Euthymy “goes (for dedication) to the city of Smolensk, the metropolitan there then existing, and there he accepts the perfect rank of archbishopric by the hand of the Right Reverend Gerasim, Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Russia” 830. Then, this consecration of Archbishop Evethym by Gerasim, which he performed in the spring of 1484, was the work of the metropolitan not of Lithuania, but of Moscow or all Russia, since the Archbishopric of Novgorod belonged to the see of the second, and not the first metropolitanate. Despite, however, everything now indicated, it should be accepted as much and most decisively more likely that Gerasim was appointed metropolitan only of Lithuania, and not of all Russia. It is already extremely difficult to explain that the emperor and patriarch of Constantinople, given the importance of the Moscow Grand Duke for them at that time, i.e., given the need they had for him at that time, appointed a separate metropolitan for Lithuania; but for them to decide to appoint a candidate sent by the Grand Duke of Lithuania as metropolitan of all Russia is completely incredible (and the cases that took place a long time ago - the installation of Cyril III and St. Peter, due to the change in circumstances that occurred, would not at all serve to explain our case). Meanwhile, this puzzling fact that Euthymius of Novgorod sought dedication from the Metropolitan of Lithuania and that the Novgorod and Pskov chronicles and the life of Euthymius have a desire to pass off this metropolitan as the Metropolitan of All Russia can easily be explained. We said above that Metropolitan Photius, who tried in vain after Cyprian to get the Novgorodians to return to him the “monthly court” and the duties associated with the latter, appointed them two archbishops - Simeon and Euthymius 1 (Bradatoy) and refused to appoint a third - our Euthymius 2 (Vyazhitsky), who, having been elected on November 13, 1428 or 1429, two and a half or one and a half years before the death of Photius, remained uninitiated under him. It was natural for Euthymius and the Novgorodians to fear that the successor Photiev would make the initiation of the first of them dependent on the latter giving up their stubbornness in relation to the monthly trial; and therefore, it was natural for one and the other to take advantage of the non-existence of the metropolitan in Moscow and the existence of a special metropolitan in Lithuania in order to receive from the latter - one consecration as archbishop, the other - consecrated archbishop. But as soon as Evfimiy and the Novgorodians allowed themselves to achieve their desires in an illegal way, such as the dedication of the first by the Metropolitan of Lithuania, it was completely natural that the chroniclers of Novgorod and Pskov and the author of the life of Evfimiyev, wanting to present the illegal as legal, passed off Gerasim as the Metropolitan of All Russia. We also have positive, however, later and not at all reliable, evidence that Euthymius, by accepting initiation from Gerasim, attracted the wrath of the Moscow Grand Duke 831. Thus, in all likelihood, one should think that Gerasim was not appointed metropolitan of all Rus', but only of Lithuania, and that his appointment did not serve as an obstacle to Jonah going to Constantinople to seek ordination as metropolitan of all Russia or Moscow 832. But if now this cannot be considered the reason why Jonah could have delayed his journey to Constantinople for initiation, then nevertheless this delay took place and its actual reason should be considered the unfavorable state circumstances of Moscow itself. By Peter's Day 1432, Vasily Vasilyevich returned from the Horde, bringing from the khan a label for the great reign, and during the second half of the year Jonah was elected to the see of the metropolis; but either he was detained in Moscow by the wedding of the Grand Duke, which took place on February 8, 1433, or, undelayed, he was engaged in preparations for Constantinople, which could not be too fast, since it was necessary to prepare as much money as possible, as jams began to appear on the Grand Duke’s throne. A very short time after Vasily Vasilyevich’s wedding, Yuri Dmitrievich ascended to it and over the course of two years, 1433 and 1434, twice removed him from the grand-ducal throne in order to occupy the latter himself 833. Under such circumstances, Jonah obviously could not decide to go to Constantinople: having gone to Greece from one great prince. He could come back with a friend and this other could not be accepted. The opportunity to think about travel came in the second half of 1434. Yuri Dmitrievich, having taken the grand-ducal throne for the second time on March 31 of this year, died on it just over two months later, on June 6, 834; of the three sons left after him, the two youngest (Dmitry Shemyaka and Dmitry Krasny) wanted to see Vasily Vasilyevich as the Grand Duke rather than their older brother (Vasily Kosyoy), who was abandoned. As a result of all this, Vasily Vasilyevich not only returned to the grand-ducal throne, but also sat firmly on it 835. After half of 1434, Jonah was finally sent by Vasily Vasilyevich to Constantinople to be appointed metropolitan. When exactly he left Moscow for Constantinople remains unknown; approximately it should be assumed that no later than the end of 1435, the beginning of 1436 836. However, the long-delayed and finally completed journey turned out to be in vain: not long before Jonah’s arrival in Constantinople, a Russian Metropolitan was appointed there from among local Greek candidates, and as a simple companion to whom he, Jonah, was supposed to return to Russia. It is not entirely clear that, just as the Russians hesitated in sending to Constantinople to consecrate their candidate, the Greeks, for their part, hesitated in replacing the chair of the Russian metropolitanate, independently of the Russians themselves. Perhaps, busy with their then negotiations with the West on the matter of uniting churches, they did not find time to take care of replacing the department of the Russian metropolitanate. Perhaps they were slow to appoint a metropolitan to Russia in view of the unrest taking place on the Moscow grand-ducal throne; Perhaps, finally, the only reason for the delay was that they were in no hurry at all to install Russian metropolitans. In the end, the reason for the delay of the Greeks remains completely unclear and unknown to us 837. For one reason or another they delayed too long, but then their own circumstances demanded that the see of the Russian metropolitanate be replaced by them. We just mentioned that they were then negotiating with the West regarding the union of churches. By the end of 1435, these negotiations had reached the point that it was decided to convene a deliberate council to organize the matter of uniting the churches, the place of which was then appointed Ferrara in Italy and regarding which at the end of 1435 they began to make preparations 838. Since the Greeks certainly wanted the Russian metropolitan to be present at the council, by the way, it was necessary to take care of replacing the see of the Russian metropolitanate, which had hitherto remained empty. Shortly before the arrival of Ionin in Constantinople 839, about half of 1436, the Greek Isidore, who became notorious in the History of our Church for his attempt to introduce the Florentine Union among us, was installed as Russian metropolitan. Isidore, according to contemporary evidence, is a natural Greek, according to later evidence and taken from unknown sources, he is a Greekized Bulgarian and, as must be accepted, it is a Greek, not a Bulgarian 840, in relation to his merits - a man who stood out from others for his brilliant talents and excellent education 841, before being appointed Russian metropolitan, he was the abbot of the Constantinople monastery of St. Demetrius 842. In the rank of abbot of the monastery, he was sent in 1433 by Emperor John Palaiologos, among other ambassadors, to the Council of Basel to negotiate the union of churches, which led to the establishment of the Council of Ferraro-Florence 843. The choice of Isidore as a Russian metropolitan is usually presented in such a way that the Emperor and Patriarch of Constantinople, preparing to go to the Ferrara-Florentine Council, wanted to see at the see of the Russian metropolitanate a person who would be devoted to the cause of uniting churches and that he, Isidore, fully met this requirement, and by devotion to the cause of uniting churches they mean the readiness to sacrifice Orthodoxy to Latinism, which Isidore showed at the very cathedral But such a presentation of the matter is completely unfair in relation to the emperor and the patriarch. When going to the Ferraro-Florence Council, the emperor and the patriarch did not at all have in mind to buy an alliance with the pope at the price of sacrificing Orthodoxy to Latinity, as actually happened. Together with all the Greeks, they had a firm, albeit strangely frivolous, confidence that the truth of Orthodoxy would be able to triumph over the stubbornness of the Latins, and therefore they went to the council not at all with the predetermined intention of yielding, but, on the contrary, with the full hope of achieving that the opposing side would do so 844. And thus, Isidore’s deliberate readiness to sacrifice Orthodoxy to Latinism would not only not have won him the special favor of the emperor and patriarch, but, on the contrary, would have been a very bad recommendation for them. As for Isidore himself, we cannot say when he became a secret supporter of Latinism; but there is no doubt that he became its obvious supporter no earlier than at the Council of Ferraro-Florence itself. And in our Russian legends and acts there is evidence that the Greeks expected to see in him at the council not a traitor to Orthodoxy, but one of its firmest and most reliable defenders, and that when he came to Russia and while he remained in it before traveling to the council, no one knew or suspected him of the Latinist he appeared to be. One of Isidore’s companions to the cathedral, the Suzdal hieromonk Simeon (who was with the Suzdal bishop Abramia, who accompanied the metropolitan), compiled a description of the cathedral and here says that when the Russian metropolitan delayed his arrival in Ferrara, the Greeks postponed the debate, waiting (as if) for his arrival, “more than everyone else,” Simeon explains, “The Greeks thought Isidore a great philosopher, and that’s why they were waiting for him” 845. Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich in one of his messages to Constantinople says that he received Isidore “like the most holy metropolitans before him, thinking that this one is the only one from them, not knowing what he wants to do in advance” 846. Metropolitan Jonah, in his letter to a Russian bishop, says that while Isidore was in Russia before the council, “no one knew then” that he intended to subordinate all of our great Orthodoxy to Roman laws and teachings 847. Thus, regarding the installation of Isidore to the see of the Russian metropolitanate, it seems necessary to think not that he was elevated to it because of his well-known devotion to Latin, but that he was recognized as worthy of its occupation due to his qualities. And that, placing him in a high place, in order to give him greater external authority (just as Bessarion of Nicea and Mark of Ephesus were promoted from hieromonks to metropolitans just before leaving for the council), they expected to see him at the council as one of the most reliable fighters for Orthodoxy 848. Although Jonah was somewhat late to arrive in Constantinople, they could, if they wanted, settle the matter, namely, Isidore, in order to clear the department of the Russian metropolitanate for a candidate sent from Russia itself, could be transferred to one of the local, actual or titular, departments. But in Constantinople at this time and under these circumstances they could not wish to do this and, on the contrary, as one must think, they were very pleased that it turned out to be possible to install a Russian Metropolitan not from natural Russians, but from Greeks. For very important reasons, the Greeks must have wanted the Russian metropolitan to be present at the council on the unification of churches, and yet this natural Russian metropolitan could not be relied upon to want to come to the council. Seriously thinking about the union, and dreaming of arranging it in a lasting way, the Greeks wanted the council at which it would take place to be a real ecumenical one and that on the Orthodox side there would be present not only themselves, but representatives of all other private churches. And among other private churches, the Russian Church took first place 849. Secondly, and if not the main thing, then extremely important in everyday life, the Greeks needed the money of the Russian Metropolitan. Reduced to wretched poverty, they had to go to the cathedral and be supported during their stay at the expense of the pope. But, thinking about the unknown future, they could not completely deny the possibility that the council, instead of unification, would end in greater division: in this case, with the cessation of the papal salary, the only means of salvation for them in their desperate situation could only be the money of the Russian metropolitan 850. Accompanied by Jonah, the bishop of Ryazan and the ambassador of the Grand Duke, who went with Jonah to Constantinople, also his imperial ambassador, Isidore arrived in Moscow on Tuesday in Holy Week 1437 (April 2, 851). Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich should have been extremely offended by the fact that in Constantinople they did not appoint Jonah to him as metropolitan and that instead of Jonah they sent him Metropolitan Greek from there. Candidates for metropolitans had already been elected several times in Russia itself, and until then there had been no refusal to appoint them on the part of the emperor and the patriarch: to the extent that he, Vasily Vasilyevich, should have been more aware of his authority as a sovereign, against his predecessors, for this authority and his consciousness increased with each reign, the less he should have expected a refusal and the more unexpected refusal should have seemed offensive to him. Subsequently, the Grand Duke assured that at first he absolutely did not want to accept Isidore, who was unexpectedly sent to him, and that he finally agreed to accept him, only not wanting to quarrel with the Greeks and only begged by the imperial ambassador and the metropolitan himself. In a message written to Constantinople after the Council of Ferraro-Florence, the Grand Duke speaks of Isidore’s coming to him and his reception: “and about whom we did not send, nor asked for, nor demanded, he sent to us, and the river - this Isidore: and God knows, if not for that, our original Orthodox Christianity was observed and feared If we didn’t have God in our hearts, we didn’t want to accept him (Isidore) away; but for the royal ambassador there is prayer and for the most holy patriarch blessing and for him (Isidore) contrition and much subjugation and petition barely before his presence.” Having finally agreed to accept Isidore, the Grand Duke accepted him, as he himself says in the same message, with all due honor and with all due zeal: “When you force us to conquer him (Isidore) with much and petition, and with him as a father and teacher with much honor and good zeal, as before, like those of our previous metropolitans Russians, imagining that this one is the only one from them, not knowing that he wants something to happen from him in advance” 852. The Nikon Chronicle, without saying anything about the Grand Duke’s initial reluctance to accept Isidore, only says that the arriving metropolitan was received by the sovereign with all possible honor and with all possible favor: “the toy (1437) of spring on Tuesday of Bright Week in Velitsa days came to Moscow from Tsariagrad from Patriarch Joseph to the metropolitan Isidore Metropolitan Grechin, a storyteller and scribe in many languages, and Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich received him honestly and sang prayers in the holy and cathedral church of the Most Pure Mother of God and created a feast for him, Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich and bestowed gifts of light and many on him” 853. Comparing the testimony of the Grand Duke himself with the testimony of the Nikon Chronicle, it is very likely to present the matter in such a way that at first Vasily Vasilyevich resolutely did not want to accept Isidore, and then, changing his anger to mercy, accepted him extremely kindly. Isidore was a very smart man and endowed with excellent diplomatic skills, therefore, among other things, with an exceptional ability to deal with people and gain their favor. It may very well be that, being a “multi-language storyteller,” he knew the Slavic language, and that in this way the need for translators was eliminated for conversations with him, a circumstance that made the Greek metropolitans especially inconvenient for the sovereigns. It could therefore be that the Grand Duke at first resolutely did not want to accept Isidore, but then he liked the sent metropolitan very much. When Vasily Vasilyevich speaks of Isidore’s contrition and much subjugation and petition, it is very likely to understand his words not only in their literal sense, but also in the broader sense of the metropolitan’s intense efforts to gain his favor with the sovereign. Isidore went to Russia from Constantinople when the matter of the council had already been finally decided and when the emperor and patriarch had already begun to prepare for the upcoming trip to Italy. As a result of this, he, for his part, immediately upon arrival in Moscow began the same preparations for the journey to the cathedral. Our legends assure that Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich declared a decisive protest against Isidore going to this council on the union of churches and that he finally gave his consent only very reluctantly, or that he actually did not give his consent, but only did not prevent the Metropolitan from going when he wanted to go, without listening to him - the sovereign 854. The Grand Duke, according to our legends, allegedly told Isidore that the holy fathers, having sealed the holy faith of Orthodoxy at the seven ecumenical councils, “about the osmnom council, those who constituted (option - those who are constituted) cursed and anathematized them and excommunicated them from heretics, unanimously opposing God to those who do” 855, and also: “with our The union of the law has not happened to our ancestors and parents since the Romans, and I do not want it, since we did not accept from the Greeks the union of the law of being with them” 856. It is absolutely probable that we should think that what we read in our legends was written (and composed) after the Ferrara-Florentine Council took place and after the Greeks, and in particular Isidore, betrayed their ancient paternal Orthodoxy at it. The Grand Duke could not have foreseen that the council would end the way it did; Likewise, the Grand Duke, as he himself says, could not have foreseen that Isidore would appear to him as a traitor to Orthodoxy. The Greeks went to the council in full confidence that they would have time to triumph over the Latins and that the union would take place on the condition that the latter renounce their new teachings and customs; to assume that the Grand Duke knew the Latins much better than the Greeks and that he considered the hopes of the latter to be ridiculous illusions would be without any basis. But why on earth would the Grand Duke want to oppose his metropolitan’s journey to the council, the result of which was expected to be the reunification of the Latins with the Orthodox Church on the condition that they renounce their innovations? After all, this is exactly what the Orthodox Church constantly prays for and what she constantly expects and hopes for! The words put into the mouth of the Grand Duke by the legends: “I do not want to unite with the Romans, since we have not accepted the law of being with them from the Greeks,” have all their meaning in relation to the union that actually took place, and represent complete nonsense in relation to the union that was expected. In the same way, this teaching that the holy fathers “constituted a curse on the eighth council” could appear among us only after the eighth council actually took place and ended so sadly for Orthodoxy 857. The positive data that we have does not at all confirm that Isidore went to the council against the will of the Grand Duke and to his displeasure. And, on the contrary, they say something completely different; they force one to assume that not only did the Metropolitan go to the council with the full consent of the sovereign, but that the latter, for his part, took great care to ensure that the Russian Church and the Russian state were represented by the metropolitan at the council in the most dignified manner possible. If the Metropolitan had gone to the council against the will of the Grand Duke, then, of course, the Emperor would have arranged for him to undertake his journey in the most modest manner. Meanwhile, Isidore set off, accompanied by such an exceptionally brilliant retinue that it consisted of no less than a hundred people. Whether this retinue consisted only of the metropolitan’s own people or also of the people of the Grand Duke, but, in any case, without the deliberate will of the sovereign it could not have been so numerous. Simeon of Suzdal, in his story about the Council of Florence, speaking about this retinue, makes it clear that its large number was required and conditioned by the dignity of the Russian land. And the Grand Duke, of course, took care of this dignity: “And there were many people,” writes Simeon, “there were a lot of people, 100 (people), with Metropolitan Isidore, more than all (other bishops), that land is glorious and the Fryazovs call it Great Rus'” 858. By the way, one of the Russian bishops went to the council with Isidore; but for the bishop to go with the metropolitan against the will of the Grand Duke, it is absolutely impossible to assume, and this alone, the bishop’s accompaniment to the metropolitan serves as sufficient and decisive proof that the first to travel to the council was not at all contrary to the will of the sovereign. Then, Isidore took with him such a huge amount of goods or “rubbish”, which he had to turn into money as needed, as all our old travelers did when going to Western Europe, that his convoy or train consisted of two hundred horses 859. It is impossible to think that there were only the metropolitan’s own funds, and it is necessary, on the contrary, to assume that there was extremely significant help from the Grand Duke. Firstly, Isidore, who went to the council five months after arriving in Moscow, did not have time to save money. Secondly, to believe that he found money accumulated and ready in the metropolis is completely incredible: He came to the see six years after the death of his predecessor Photius and there can be no doubt that during this time the boyars and officials of the metropolis managed to plunder everything that had been accumulated by the latter, just as they plundered everything after the death of Cyprian. Further, we know about such actions of Isidore, which he used to replenish his funds, which he could not afford to do without the consent of the Grand Duke (addition to the metropolis of Pskov, which is discussed below). Finally, if Isidore had gone to the council against the will of the Grand Duke, then all of Russia would not have seen him off on his way with much courtesy; and yet we see the completely opposite: he was seen off as if in triumph and with a clear expression of sympathy on the part of the Russians for the journey he had undertaken 860. Isidore set off from Moscow on a journey to the council on the Nativity of the Virgin Mary (September 8) 1437 861, staying in Russia for five months after arriving from Constantinople 862. We spoke above about his numerous retinue and his huge cargo train. The composition of the retinue remains unknown in detail; We only know that among the clergy, the Bishop of Suzdal Avramiy (who was accompanied by the priest Simeon, who compiled the story of the Council of Florence) and the Archimandrite of the unknown monastery Vassian belonged to it. And among the secular ones, in addition to the Metropolitan’s own boyars, there is a princely ambassador named Thomas, who in the description of Isidorov’s journey to the cathedral is called the Tver ambassador, and in the story of Simeon of Suzdal’s cathedral, the ambassador of the Grand Duke, and who, as one must think, was precisely the ambassador of the Grand Duke, but taken from the Tver boyars. In Constantinople, Isidore was instructed to bring Russian bishops with him to the council 863; if Isidore took with him only one bishop, then, in all likelihood, this should be understood to mean that among the Russian bishops there were no more hunters to take the trip to Italy. Having been honestly escorted from Moscow by the assembled bishops 864, Isidore headed to Tver, Novgorod, Pskov and from there to Riga. From Moscow to Riga via Novgorod and Pskov is not a completely straight road; but the metropolitan needed to be in these two cities to replenish his funds. Isidore arrived in Tver on Vozdvizhen’s Day (September 14). About the meeting that was given to him here, an unknown description of his trip to the cathedral says: “and Prince Boris of Tver with his boyars met him with great honor, and Vladyka Ilya met him with crosses with all the priests and all the people of that city.” After living in Tver for nine days, Isidore arrived in Novgorod on October 7, 865. Met at a great distance from the city with great honor by the archbishop and the Novgorod mayors, the metropolitan had his last overnight stay before the city in the Yuryev Monastery, which is located 3 versts from it 866. The next day he solemnly entered the city, being met by the bishop with crosses, with priests and deacons and all the people “in great cramped conditions.” In the church located above the Kremlin gates, the Metropolitan put on his vestments and blessed the water with which the people were sprinkled. Then he went to Saint Sophia and exposed himself to her; After the meeting, he feasted with the Archbishop of Novgorod, and “gave him (the latter) the honor of greatness.” According to the Nikon Chronicle, Isidore’s visit to Novgorod had the result for him that the Novgorodians “gave him judgment according to the old days and gave him all his duties according to the old times” 867. If we accept the news of the chronicle as reliable, and there does not seem to be any special incentive to deny him faith (for the speech, as the reader does not forget, is about Isidore 868), then this result will represent something very remarkable: we know that the court and duties that the Novgorodians so easily gave to Isidore were in vain sought to be received from them by Metropolitans Cyprian and Photius. During his stay in Moscow, Isidore summoned the Novgorod Archbishop Euthymius, who went to him on July 7, 869, and who lived with him until his departure from Moscow 870: he probably managed to win over the archbishop in his favor. But it was not enough to win over the archbishop, but it was necessary to obtain the consent of all the citizens; could not do this in relation to the three previous archbishops (John, Simeon and Euthymius 1st). It seems to us the only probable thing to think that Archbishop Euthymius and the Novgorod citizens were moved to unexpected compliance by the fact that the Metropolitan needed money for such an important purpose as traveling to the council and helping the Greek bishops at the council, i.e., that they were completely sympathetic, as an extremely important matter, to this council, from which they expected not at all what it actually gave In fact, the Novgorodians did not want to stand behind money and in relation to a good church-wide initiative they wanted to show themselves as active helpers. If the Grand Duke had been against the Metropolitan’s journey to the council, then the Archbishop of Novgorod could not have had the desire to be his active assistant, the Metropolitan, in this case: and this makes it clear and serves as evidence that the matter should not be presented this way. After staying in Novgorod for a week, Isidore arrived in Pskov on Nikolin’s day (December 6). Met by the Pskovites at the border of their region and entering their city with the same solemnity as in Tver and Novgorod, the Metropolitan lived with them for a very long time - seven weeks. His stay in Pskov was marked by an extremely important act on his own part. He removed Pskov and its region from the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Novgorod and subordinated it to his own authority, installing his governor in it. And, if you believe the Pskov chronicle, he even took over all the archbishop’s estates, which were located in the Pskov region 871. It is impossible to allow the Metropolitan to do this without the consent of the Archbishop of Novgorod, because, firstly, his behavior towards the Archbishop would be extremely treacherous, and secondly, and most importantly, the Archbishop would resolutely protest, while the chronicles, including the Novgorod one, say absolutely nothing about any protest of the latter. It is equally impossible to allow the Metropolitan to now do what is indicated without the Grand Duke, for this was an act that did not at all belong to the metropolitan’s sole competence. Since Pskov, politically, then began to decisively pull towards Moscow instead of Novgorod 872 and the Pskovites were at that very time at odds with the Novgorodians 873, the permission given to the Metropolitan by the Grand Duke to transfer Pskov with its region from the Novgorod diocese to his own diocese can be understood in such a way that the Grand Duke satisfied the desire of the Pskovites, which completely coincided with his own political views. But if this is so, then the permission given specifically to Isidore cannot serve as evidence that the Grand Duke was against his trip to the council. As for the archbishop, it seems only probable to us to think that the metropolitan asked him for Pskov with all the income from the latter, including from the archbishop's estates located in his region, for temporary use, in order to thus strengthen his funds. In the end, no matter how we understand this transfer of Pskov by the Metropolitan from the archbishop's diocese to his own diocese, it remains an act that on the part of the Metropolitan, who did not enjoy the favor of the Grand Duke and was under his wrath, would be inexplicable. Since liberation from the power of the Archbishop of Novgorod (either forever, which may have been assumed, or temporarily) coincided, as has just been said, with the Pskovites’ own desires: they received the Metropolitan with all zeal and replenished his funds as much as they could; the description of Isidorov’s trip says that “that (in Pskov) there were many feasts and great gifts for him” 874, and the Nikon Chronicle assures that the Pskovites gave him the fees of the monthly archbishop’s court 875. From Pskov to Riga, for some reason, Isidore again took a not entirely direct route - to Koster (Verbeek on the Embach River, between Lake Peipsi and Dorpat 876, and Yuriev Llvonsky (Dorpat 877, and arrived on February 4, 1438. Having for some reason a very long, eight-week stop in Riga 878, he left there on May 5 by sea to Lubeck, where he landed on May 19. From Lubeck he traveled to Ferrara through the whole of Germany to the cities of Luneburg, Braunschweig, Leipzig, Bamberg, Nuremberg, Augsburg, Innsbruck and Padua, and arrived at the site of the cathedral on August 18, 1438, having spent a year less twenty days on the road. Isidore's journey to the Ferrara-Florentine Cathedral, as we have repeatedly mentioned above, is described by one of his companions, who remains unknown by name (but not by Simeon of Suzdal, to whom the description is unfairly attributed). According to its plan, the description represents a diary of the journey from Moscow to Florence and back from Florence to Ofen or Pest in Hungary 879; the diary names the main cities through which Isidore walked, indicating the distances between them, and briefly describes them themselves, indicating their features compared to our cities and describing their attractions. Having reached Ferrara and from it moving to Florence, the author gives a brief history of the Ferrara-Florence Cathedral. The description is remarkable in that it represents the first notes by a Russian person about Western Europe. As a literary monument, we will return to it later, when we talk about our literature for a given time 880. Isidore arrived in Ferrara 5 and a half months after the Greeks (who arrived there on March 4, 1438). However, he found the cathedral not only not finished, but almost never even started. Simeon of Suzdal in his story about the cathedral says that the slowdown occurred because the Greeks were waiting for Isidore, whom “they considered more than all the great philosopher”; but the real reason for this was something else. The Emperor of Constantinople hoped to receive military assistance from the Western sovereigns against the Turks through the union of churches; for this purpose, he needed either the sovereigns themselves or their representatives to be present at the council; Meanwhile, neither one nor the other came to the council at all. At the same time that the pope organized our council, the anti-papal council of Basle (1431–1443) took place in the Catholic Church, which served as a continuation of the Council of Constance (1414–1418), which, placing conciliar power above the papal power, proposed to transform the church in its head and members; all the Western sovereigns were on the side of this last council and therefore, whether present or not present at it, did not want to appear at the papal council. Arriving in Ferrara and not finding any sovereigns or their representatives there, the Emperor of Constantinople demanded that the pope summon one or the other to the council, and until that time he resolutely refused to proceed with the unction; then the pope, having promised the emperor to send legates for the sovereigns, decided that, having opened the cathedral immediately - which was done on April 9, 1438 - to postpone the solemn acts of the council until the arrival of the sovereigns or delegates, and in the meantime, while waiting for them, to engage in private discussions about the subjects of disputes between both churches 881. Since neither the sovereigns nor their representatives appeared in Ferrara until the very time of Isidorov’s arrival, this was the reason that until the very time of his arrival the solemn conciliar debates had not yet begun. Having waited in vain for the sovereigns or commissioners for a very long time, they finally decided to begin the solemn unction without both, which was done on October 8, 1438, a month and 22 days after Isidorov’s arrival. Until the beginning of 1439, solemn debates took place in Ferrara, then in January of this year the cathedral was transferred by the pope to Florence (the papal bull announcing the transfer was read on the 10th) and here they continued until March 24, 1439. The debate led to absolutely nothing: regarding the controversial points of doctrine and practice (Filioque, purgatory, unleavened bread), the Greeks remained with their own, and the Latins decidedly with theirs. After this result of the debate, the Greeks were told that they must either agree to the teachings of the Roman Church, or return to their fatherland 882. Return to the fatherland with nothing, i.e. without any hope of help from the Western peoples against the Turks, it was terrible for the Greeks, and so they set themselves a tricky task: is it possible to reach an agreement and arrange a union besides theological debates. Of course, this turned out to be possible only in such a way that the Greeks completely yielded to the Latins, which, in the end, happened. For three months, April-June, the Greeks showed vain firmness, hoping to induce the pope to comply, and then had to sign an act of union with his entire will: this act of Florentine union or Florentine union was signed on July 5, 1439, and on July 6 was solemnly proclaimed in the Florentine Cathedral. While the solemn theological debates were taking place, our Russian Metropolitan took absolutely no part in the actions of the conciliar, leaving Mark of Ephesus and the eloquently irrepressible talker Vissarion of Nicaea to talk with the Latins 883 . But when the debate was over and the question arose of how to arrange an agreement beyond theirs, Isidore acted as the main character. He declared himself a resolute defender of union with the pope on the condition of the concessions required by the latter, and there can be no doubt that he was the main creator and culprit of this Florentine union (and the eloquent Vissarion, who managed to fall in love with the West as a more attractive arena for his eloquence than the East, only willingly followed him 884: he managed to influence the constantly hesitant emperor, decisively announcing to him that if he does not want a union, then the matter can be arranged without him 885; with his undoubtedly very great authority among the bishops, he managed to defeat the stubbornness and fearful doubts of the latter 886. What made Isidore become an ardent supporter of the union with the pope, that is, this treacherous union in which the union with the pope was bought by betrayal of Orthodoxy, we cannot say, because he did not make any confession regarding this and left no explanation. We can only say with certainty that the reason was not papal money, because he did not need money at all and because the pope, who was not particularly rich at that time, would not have been able to bribe a person who received the income of the Russian metropolitan 887. We know the words spoken by Isidore at the council, which with a very high probability can be taken as the answer to our question. When the debate led to absolutely nothing and when the pope gave the Greeks time to either find ways to unite or respond with a positive refusal, then at the first meeting of the Greeks on this occasion, Isidore, casting his first vote, said: “It is better to unite with the soul and heart with the Latins than to return without finishing the matter; Of course, you can return, but how to return, where, when?” 888 That is These words mean: it is, of course, possible to return back without arranging a union with the pope, but then there will be absolutely no hope of saving the fatherland. In all likelihood, one must think that the desire and hope to save the fatherland with the help of the pope and Western sovereigns was the reason that prompted Isidore to decide to betray his father’s faith. It is not impossible that personal ambition was also added to this - the desire to occupy that brilliant and high position in the Roman hierarchy or in the Latin spiritual kingdom, which he later actually occupied; however, justice and impartiality oblige us to say that we know of no positive indications in this regard 889 . Isidore was the main organizer of the union; he approached it, as he proposed to others, with soul and heart: and he tried to express this in his very signature under the act of union, which differs from all other signatures in its expressiveness and which reads: στέργων καὶ συναινῶν ὑπέγραψα, i.e. lovingly agreeing and I will sign with approval 890. Along with himself, Isidore forced Bishop Abraham of Suzdal to sign the act, whose signature reads: “The humble Bishop Abrahamio (probably an error in what was printed instead of: Abraham) of Suzdal I will sign” 891. Greek bishops began to leave Florence after the signing of the conciliar act; the emperor departed from it on August 26, 892. Having gained the greatest favor of the pope with his efforts to establish a union, our Russian metropolitan remained with him the longest and set off on the return journey on September 6. Even earlier, the pope elevated him to the rank of cardinal presbyter 893; upon his departure, the pope invested him with the title of his apostolic plenipotentiary legate de latere for the provinces of Lithuania, Livonia and all of Russia and for the cities, dioceses, lands and places of Lechia, i.e. Poland (probably should mean Russian Poland or Galicia, which was the Russian part of Poland 894. On the way back, Isidore did not take the same road as he had come. From Florence he went to Venice, where he stayed with the emperor and other Greeks who were here for more than three months (from September 15 to December 22) and from which the Grand Duke's ambassador, boyar Thomas, fled from him or, perhaps, simply left in advance. In Venice he boarded a ship and sailed along the Adriatic Sea past Pola (in Istria) to Senj (Zengg, Segna) in Croatia or Croatia. From Senj, having landed there on January 7, 1440, he went to Zagreb or Agram in the same Croatia, to Budim or Ofen-Pest in Hungary, to Krakow in Poland and further to Russia. From Budim in Hungary, where he arrived on March 5, 1440, Isidore sent a pastoral letter to the entire region of his legate - Poland, Lithuania, Livonia and Russia, in which he informed his flock about the great event that had taken place - the union of churches. “Rejoice,” Isidore writes in the epistle, “and rejoice, all who now exist in the Lord, for the Eastern Church and the Roman Church were divided for so long and were united to a single hostility, and now through true union they have united into the original union and into peace and silence and into love and into the ancient unity of authority (i.e., papa’s) without any separation... Receive this holy and most holy union and unity of command with great spiritual joy and honor; I pray to you all in (the name, - about the name) of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has shown mercy to us, that you may not have any division with Latin, for you are all servants of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ and in the name of his baptism: one God, one faith and one baptism, otherwise (therefore) there would be one harmony and silence and peace in you in Christ Jesus. But you, the Latins, have given birth to all those who are in the Greek faith, truly believe, without any reflection, for all baptisms are the essence, and their baptism is holy and experimental (recognized) by the Roman Church.” Next, Isidore convinces the Greeks and Latins that the former, without any doubt, go to Latin churches, and the latter to Greek, and that the former accept the Body of Christ, perfected on unleavened bread, and the latter on sour bread. Isidore concludes his message: “So the great ecumenical council finished eating in a revealed sitting (in a solemn meeting, - ἐν δημοσί ᾳ συνελεύσι, in sessione publica), after much interrogation and testing of the divine scriptures, in an honest and large church, serving in city of Florence (sic) under the years of the Incarnation of the Lord in the year 1439, the month of July on the 6th day" 896. From Budim in Hungary, after a 10-day stay in 897, Isidore headed to Krakow, the capital of the Polish king. In the first Polish city on the road, Sandecz, located in the Carpathians, on the Dunajce River (flowing into the Vistula), he was met (March 25, on Good Friday) by the Bishop of Krakow Zbigniew Olesnicki, who was received hospitably and helpfully 898. Isidore, no doubt, went to Krakow to the king in order to please him with the news of such an important and so desired event for him as the unification of his subjects into one in relation to the faith, and to ask him for the appropriate state orders regarding the Russians and the Orthodox in general of his state, who have now become one spiritual herd with the Catholics. But, as one must think, Isidore’s first meeting with the king was not at all in relation to the outpouring of mutual joy as he expected it. The Polish king Vladislav III (son and successor of Jagiello) before Isidore’s arrival in Poland, on March 6, 1440, was elected king of the Hungarians and the Hungarian deputies sent to him urgently encouraged him to hasten his journey to Hungary 899. Considering the probable time of Isidorov’s arrival in Krakow and the time of the king’s departure from it, we find that the Metropolitan managed to capture Vladislav there no more than 5 days before the departure of 900 and in general when he could not think about anything else except the upcoming trip. As for the attitude of the Catholic clergy towards Isidore in Krakow, Dlugosz says that he, being reunited with the Roman Church and faithful, was allowed to serve according to his Greek custom in the Krakow Cathedral 901. From Krakow, Isidore went to reveal himself in his new title of papal cardinal and legate de latere and to announce the union he had brought to his Russian flock. However, he did not rush to Moscow, but remained in Lithuania for a very long time. From Krakow he headed to Przemysl, and on the way to it in the town of Tarnow (located almost directly east of Krakow, on the Dunajce River 902 he consecrated a Catholic church together with one Polish bishop 903. In what order and with what ceremony he proclaimed the union in this first Russian place - what Przemysl was, we have no information; we also have no information about how the local first Russians accepted him and the union he brought. From Przemysl Isidor went to the capital city of Galicia, Lvov (Lemberg), which he arrived no later than May 15 and where, visiting Galich, he remained until July 10, 904. From Lvov, Isidor went to the capital of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Vilna, to which, heading to Belz, Grubeshov, Kholm, Vlodavu, Brest-Litovsk, Volkovysk and Troki, arrived on August 13 or 14, 905. After August 14, 1440, Isidore remained in southwestern, Polish-Lithuanian, Rus' for another six months: where exactly during this time he stayed or what kind of travel he made, we have no positive information. 2 The Pskov Chronicle says that on the Intercession of the Virgin Mary (October 1), 1440, he came to Lithuania 906: from this testimony of the chronicle, if true, it will follow that after August 14, he traveled or again to Galicia in Kievan Rus. Dated February 5, 1441, there is a letter to Isidore of the Kyiv prince Alexander Vladimirovich, in which it is made known that at the time of its writing the metropolitan was in Kyiv 907; and without indicating the time, Simeon of Suzdal and the Gustin Chronicle 908 speak of his stay in Kyiv. Then, Simeon of Suzdal, also without indicating the time, speaks of his stay in Smolensk (which was annexed to Lithuania by Vitovt in 1395 909. Isidore arrived in Moscow from Lithuania on Sunday of the 3rd week of Lent in 1441, which was March 19 this year; therefore, if we count his stay in Galician-Lithuanian Russia from mid-April 1440, in total he stayed in it for a year without a month. Church union with the Pope of the Orthodox inhabitants of Galicia and Lithuanian Rus' was for the King of Poland and for the Grand Duke of Lithuania, in political terms, a highly desirable thing. And, however, this union, having been arranged at the Council of Florence and having been brought by Isidore to Poland and Lithuania, was not at all introduced and introduced here between the Russians. So we have before us a very strange phenomenon: on the one hand, people very earnestly desired union, and on the other hand, when this union, which had actually been established, was brought to them, they did not seem to pay any attention to it. The local Russians owed this seemingly mysterious fiasco that befell the Union of Florence in Poland and Lithuania to very happy circumstances for them. First, however, it should be noted that if the union had been introduced and introduced, then, as most likely one should think, it would not have been at all the bloody affair that it appeared at the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th century. In the first half of the 15th century, the Polish kings, the Polish Catholic clergy and in general all the Poles were not yet such extreme fanatics as they had become by the end of the 16th century, for they had not yet gone through the educational school of the Jesuits and were not yet under the leadership of people like these latter. As for the fortunate circumstances for Russian Poland and Lithuania, which eliminated even the attempt to introduce a union brought by Isidore, they consisted in the fact that neither the King of Poland nor the Grand Duke of Lithuania could take upon themselves the matter of introducing the union and had to leave it to their own fate. First of all, at the moment of Isidorov’s arrival with the union, the Poles were in such an ecclesiastical position that they did not recognize the pope from whom it was brought. At that time there were two popes: Eugene IV, who arranged the union at the Council of Florence, and Felix V, elected by the Council of Basel. And the Poles, not finding it convenient to recognize any one pope, did not recognize either one or the other 910. And thus, the union, although it was something very desirable, having been brought from an unrecognized pope, was such a desirable thing that it was inconvenient to take advantage of it. Then, King Vladislav III of Poland, as we said, just before Isidore’s arrival in Poland, March 6, 1440, was elected king of Hungary. Having gone to Hungary the following month of April, he never returned to Poland, which was entrusted to the administration of the governors, and on November 10, 1444 he died in the battle with the Turks at Varna (from which it is called Varna). Absent from Poland and busy partly with Hungarian affairs (the fight with Elizabeth, the widow of his predecessor on the Hungarian throne Albrecht), partly with the war with the Turks, which he began immediately after he was elected king of the Hungarians, Vladislav did not have the opportunity to take up the union brought from the pope in his Polish lands. True, while in Hungary, he published in March 1444, after recognizing Eugene and, as one must think, prompted by the latter’s former legate (Cardinal Julian, who died with him in the Battle of Varna) his letter, in which, after expressing his great joy about the long-desired and finally accomplished union, he completely compares the Orthodox clergy in all rights and privileges with Catholic clergy 911. But with this letter alone, which, moreover, was given after Isidorov’s flight from Moscow, little could be done, and yet all the king’s activities in relation to the union were limited to this alone. There was a Grand Duke in Lithuania, but he was in such a position that he could not dare to attempt to introduce a union, even if he had the desire to do so. Five days before Isidorov’s entry from Hungary into Poland, on March 20, 1440, the Grand Duke of Lithuania Sigismund Keistutievich was killed, having driven Svitrigail from the throne, and Vladislav’s brother Kazimir was elected prince in his place. But this new Grand Duke, both in his personal character and in his personal qualities, was far from being either a zealot of the faith or a statesman, in view of his dangerous rival in the person of Sigismund’s son Mikhail and in view of the quarrels in Lithuania between the boyar parties, he felt too unsteady on the Grand Duke’s throne to decide on such a thing as an attempt to introduce a union. Thus, the union in Poland and Lithuania was left to itself and to the spiritual measures that Isidore himself could use to introduce it. But the Orthodox did not at all want to accept the union 912, and Isidore’s spiritual measures turned out to be completely powerless. However, the Orthodox princes of Lithuania did not drive Isidore away at all, but recognized him as their metropolitan: we have positive evidence for this. Above we mentioned the charter of the Kyiv appanage prince Alexander Vladimirovich 913, given to Isidore on February 5, 1441. With this letter, the prince confirms to “his father Sidor, Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus'” the possession of metropolitan estates in the Kyiv region, his metropolitan income and court, and all his spiritual or church-governmental metropolitan rights. Then, we know another positive proof: the Smolensk prince Yuri Semenovich-Lugvenievich 914 betrayed Isidore to his hostile companion at the Florence Council - Simeon of Suzdal 915. The certificate of Alexander Vladimirovich makes it clear that the Orthodox princes of Lithuania, not recognizing Isidore as a papal cardinal and legate, wanted to see in him only what he was before the Council of Florence - an Orthodox metropolitan. As for how the simple Orthodox people received Isidore in Galicia and Lithuania, we have only very unreliable information regarding this. There is evidence that in Lvov the people did not want to go to the services that he performed. But this evidence belongs to the writer already in the 17th century 916. The Gustin Chronicle assures that the people drove him out of Kyiv 917; but judging by Alexander Vladimirovich’s letter, it is very difficult for him to allow the prince to allow the people to do this. There is a letter from Isidore, given by him in Kholm on July 27, 1440 and addressed to the Kholm elders, governors, reserves and all Orthodox, with an admonition not to take away from one suburban priest (from the priest of St. Savior from the Pillar 918 the church garden 919. Since at the end of the letter it reads: “to us, the existing Orthodox Christians of Lyakh and Rus'”..., now God has given - one brother Christian Christians of Latin and Rus'”: it is assumed that the citizens of Kholm took away church land from the priest because he recognized Isidore and the union; but, obviously, the assumption is far from firm, for if this were the case, then it would be natural for the citizens to completely drive the priest away from the church 920. After almost a year's stay in Lithuania, Isidore came to Moscow, as we said, on the third Sunday of Lent, March 19, 1441. What awaited him here was different than in Lithuania: there they did not accept the union he brought from the pope, but accepted him himself, finding it somehow possible not to recognize him as a papal cardinal and legate and at the same time recognize him as “the lord and father of his metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus'”; here they did not subject him to such exposure from the new thing he brought, but then to subject him to condemnation for this brought. The Moscow chronicler presents Isidore's arrival in Moscow and what happened after his arrival in the following way. As the papal cardinal and legate, the metropolitan entered the city presenting the Latin cross 921 and three clubs or staffs 922. Arriving at the Kremlin, he went straight to the Assumption Cathedral and here he first sang a prayer service for the Grand Duke and for all Orthodox Christianity, and then celebrated the liturgy, at which he ordered to remember “firstly” 923 instead of the name of the Patriarch of Constantinople, the name of Pope Eugene 924; At the end of the liturgy, he ordered his protodeacon in a surplice with an orarion to come out to the pulpit and loudly read the charter of the eighth council or the act of union, signed on July 5, 1439. At the end of everything, he presented the Grand Duke with a letter to the latter from the pope 925, in which he, informing the sovereign about the unity of the churches that had taken place, urgently asks him to help Isidore diligently with all his strength in introducing a union in Russia 926. The behavior of Isidor, who boldly proclaimed the union and commemorated the name of the pope instead of the name of the patriarch, as if by the very act of introducing it, led to extreme embarrassment and confusion of the Grand Duke, all the bishops who had gathered in Moscow to meet the Metropolitan, and all the boyars of the Grand Duke. The bishops and boyars were so confused that they completely refused to give the sovereign any advice on what to do: “all the princes were silent and the boyars and many others, and even more so, the bishops of Russia were all silent and dozed off and fell asleep”... The Grand Duke, so to speak - abandoned by everyone, began to think alone with himself and, thinking three days, on the fourth day he gave the order to take Isidore into custody, declaring him a heretic subject to a council trial. Then “all the bishops of Russia were excited, the princes and boyars and nobles and many Christians then remembered and understood the previous Greek laws and began to speak in the holy scriptures and call Isidore a heretic” 927... This picture drawn by the chronicler of the general extreme confusion in Moscow caused by the arrival of Isidore, and soon followed, thanks to the firmness of the spirit of the Grand Duke, by a general decisive rise and awakening, is nothing more than a picture composed in a later time. Before coming to Moscow, Isidore lived in Lithuania, upon returning from the Council of Florence, for almost a whole year; therefore, it is very clear that there could be no talk of any surprise that would cause great confusion. It is necessary to think that the decision to deal with Isidore as it was done was made even before his arrival in Moscow. It is necessary to think that this decision made or the adoption of this decision has its own history; but, unfortunately, the latter remains unknown to us. When the first rumors reached Moscow about how the Council of Florence ended, that is, unexpected rumors that the Greeks not only did not return the Latins to their ancient Orthodoxy at it, as they had hoped and were sure, but on the contrary, they themselves betrayed this Orthodoxy to the Latins and recognized their heresies - as then we, without any reservations, but completely positively, looked at the retreats of the Latins: then, without a doubt, the rumors were defeated everyone was in the greatest confusion and painful bewilderment as to what to do and what to do in view of this unexpected act of the Greeks. The great confusion that reigned for some time in Moscow is evidenced by Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich himself in his message to the Athonite monks 928. But then the darkness of bewilderment was to gradually dissipate for the Moscow Russians, and their confusion was to be replaced by an ardent and firm determination to act as defenders and guardians of Orthodoxy. As one might most likely think, Isidore, having returned from the council, was in no hurry to go to Moscow for the deliberate reason of giving the outside Russians time to get used to the idea of ​​meeting him as a papal cardinal and legate. It is quite likely that he used the time spent in Lithuania to try to prepare and dispose the local Russians to accept the union he brought. But in fact, he gave time for the Moscow people to completely come to their senses and firmly make a decision regarding him, which he did not want at all. The ambassador of the Grand Duke, boyar Thomas, who came running (came) from him from Venice, Bishop Abramy and one or another part of his companions, who came from him to Moscow when he remained in Lithuania 929, were supposed to tell in Moscow how this unexpected union took place. That is to tell that only very few of the Greek bishops sincerely embarked on it - that the majority agreed to it either bought with gold or forced by moral oppression, and that some, like Mark of Ephesus, not only did not accept it, but also resolutely and with all their might protested against it. We have no direct indications, but in all likelihood we must assume that the Grand Duke, having received the news about the Council of Florence, hastened to make inquiries in Constantinople about how the union was accepted there. And if he did this, then he had to find out that the decisive majority of both bishops and laity met the union with the greatest indignation and did not want to know it at all - that most of the bishops who went to the council hastened to repent of their betrayal of Orthodoxy - that some and other bishops protested against the union before the emperor in a formal way through the conciliar definition of 930 and that the union only holds Emperor with very few. We were at that time in living relations with Athos, so the Grand Duke could not help but immediately learn how the Athonite monks, who enjoyed exceptionally great respect in the Orthodox world, accepted the union: and he had to learn that these monks not only rejected the union with the same indignation as most other Greeks, but also opposed it as deliberate opponents among the Greek people 931. Thus, before Isidorov arrived in Moscow, the Grand Duke had to learn that this union, arranged by all sorts of untruths, was greeted by the Greeks with the greatest indignation - that it was rejected by them by a decisive majority of the clergy and laity and that only the emperor and a few were holding it in Constantinople, having been forced by his unfortunate circumstances. In view of the information now indicated, the Grand Duke could not be embarrassed by the question: what should he do with this union brought by Isidore? If the Greeks, who would have needed the union so much in their terrible state situation, indignantly rejected it: then what else could he do, who did not need to buy anything at the cost of betraying Orthodoxy? It may very well be that the idea of declaring Isidore an illegal metropolitan and a traitor to Orthodoxy also came to some Orthodox princes of Lithuania, and that only they could not carry it out under their state circumstances: the Grand Duke of Moscow was fully able to reject not only the union, but also the apostate metropolitan who brought it, against whom he should have been filled with all the greater indignation because it was no one another like him, the metropolitan, was the main culprit and organizer of the union. Three days later, on the fourth day after arriving in Moscow, on Wednesday during the week of the cross, Isidore was taken into custody, namely, placed under guards (under house arrest) in the Chudov Metropolitan Monastery 932. After this, the Grand Duke convened a council of bishops, archimandrites and abbots and the entire priesthood 933 and instructed the council, having exposed the heresy of Isidore with the true judgment of truth, to try to get the Metropolitan to be ashamed and put aside the Latin heretical connections and agreements and obey and repent, so that in this way he could receive mercy. When Isidore remained adamantly firm in his loyalty to the union and did not at all want to obey the sacred council, he was still left behind the guards in the Miracle Monastery, having decided to wait for conversion and repentance from him 934; at the same time, as our acts, chronicles and legends make clear, they tried to influence him through threats, namely, that if he did not repent, a new great council would be convened against him 935 and that he could be sentenced to death by burning or by being buried alive in the ground 936. What the Grand Duke would have done with Isidore in the end remains unknown. After sitting in the Chudov Monastery behind the guards throughout the spring and summer, on the night of September 15, 1441, he fled from Moscow 937. The Grand Duke, no doubt, was extremely pleased that with this flight Isidore himself resolved and put an end to the difficult question: what to do with him, strictly forbade anyone to catch up with him and gave him complete freedom to disappear from Russia, wherever he knew 938. From Moscow Isidore fled to Tver. The local prince Boris Alexandrovich again put him behind the bailiffs. But the Grand Duke, having allowed him to sit here for some time, in Lent of 1442 ordered his release, and he fled to Novogrodok to the Lithuanian Grand Duke Casimir 939. We don’t know whether it was that after the condemnation and deposition of the Muscovite, the Orthodox princes of Lithuania did not want to recognize him as their metropolitan, or that after that he generally felt very awkward and false among the Orthodox: only, after briefly staying with Casimir in Novogrodk, he ran to Rome to the pope 940. This ended Isidore’s tenure at the see of the Russian metropolitanate, and this was the outcome of his attempt to introduce the Florentine Union in Moscow Rus'... One must think that he ran to the pope extremely embarrassed and ashamed. According to Simeon of Suzdal, leaving the Council of Florence for Russia, he encouraged the pope with assurances that he would certainly be able to introduce a union in Moscow - that the Grand Duke of Moscow was young 941 and would not dare to resist his will - that the bishops of Moscow were not bookish, and would not be able to say anything contrary to him regarding the union 942; and suddenly, after such assurances, immediate arrest as soon as he appeared in Moscow, admonitions from unlearned bishops - putting aside Latin heresies, bring repentance, and shameful flight!.. [Regarding the significance of the Union of Florence in the history of our Russian church, cfr our article: “On our polemic with the Old Believers,” published in the January book of the Theological Bulletin for 1892.] We have finished our speeches about Metropolitan Isidore, as far as he is subject to our narration, 943, but we have not finished our speeches about the Florentine Union, of which he was the main culprit. In human history, as we know, there are a lot of completely unexpected things. The Union of Florence has a very unexpected and at the same time very important significance in the history of the Russian church: the new opinion of the Russians about Greek Orthodoxy originates from it - an opinion that is as incredible at first glance as it is incredible that it originates from it. The Greek bishops who were present at the Council of Florence had the weakness to betray Orthodoxy to the Latins, but the majority of them, immediately after returning from the council, sincerely repented of this, and, in any case, the Greek clergy and the Greek people, who were not present at the council, met the union with the greatest indignation, resolutely rejected it and did not want to hear about it at all. It is true that Emperor John Palaiologos, who organized the council and decided to sacrifice Orthodoxy to his political needs, remained faithful to the union, prompted by the same needs, until his death, which followed on October 31, 1448. It is true that John’s successor Constantine, who at first showed himself to be a zealot of Orthodoxy and an enemy of the union, then, in view of the decisive preparations of the Turks for the capture of Constantinople, resorting to this union as the only means of salvation that he could find, again recognized it at the end of 1452 944: but all this did not in the least concern the clergy and the people. And on the contrary, all this aroused only the greatest indignation among the clergy and people 945. On May 29, 1453, Constantinople was taken by the Turks, the Byzantine Empire ceased to exist, and the Greeks had absolutely no mention of a union, but only extreme hostility towards the Latins, strengthened by the union of even more former ones. It would never occur to anyone who knows at least how the union was accepted by the Greeks to think that it damaged the purity of Orthodoxy among the Greeks (for in fact, without being accepted by them at all, it, on the contrary, decisively strengthened their devotion to Orthodoxy). And, however, in our country, soon after the Council of Florence, it was proclaimed that the union damaged the purity of Orthodoxy among the Greeks, so that from then on the true pure Orthodoxy remained with us alone - the Russians, which view of the corruption of Orthodoxy among the Greeks, first expressed shortly after the Council of Florence, was preserved by our ancestors right up to Patriarch Nikon, and it was this that was the reason that brought about there we have a split in the Old Believers 946. The riddle, completely incomprehensible at first glance, is explained by the fact that the new view of the Russians on the Greeks only originates from the Union of Florence and does not have its true cause - that this union randomly appeared for the Russians as an event that they could point to and refer to as the reason. The real reason for our new view of the Greeks, which seemed so unexpected and incomprehensible, was that we, Russians, being a people without real enlightenment, formed for ourselves unique views on the purity of true Orthodoxy, which, firstly, led us to such a complication that we had to accuse either the Greeks or ourselves of deviating from the purity of Orthodoxy, and which, secondly, gave us the right to see apostates from the purity of Orthodoxy precisely in the Greeks. The point here is in the views we have formed on church rituals and, in general, on church ritual appearance. We accepted Christianity from the Greeks at a time when they had not yet ceased to have a variety of church and liturgical rites (with which the service began and about which see in the 2nd half of the first volume of History, p. 297 sqq (electronic version - chapter “Public worship”, corr.). This diversity from the Greeks passed on to us. In the absence of real enlightenment, we had to go into to that extreme, in order to assimilate an exaggerated meaning to rituals, equating them with the dogmas of faith. But since, firstly, extreme views do not appear suddenly, but develop gradually, - since, secondly, during the Kievan period we were under the influence of the Greeks, and partly by other influences that prevented the rapid development of extreme views (cfr ibid. p. 765 sqq, electronic version - 5 paragraph after footnote no. 1708 et seq., corr.): then in this first period we had not yet reached the extreme of looking at rituals as dogmas and from this point of view looking at the diversity of their forms. As a result, during this period, the variety of rituals that came to us from the Greeks existed among us, without confusing anyone at all. After the invasion of the Mongols, when the influence of the Greeks and all other influences weakened, when in the Moscow north we became a people who had retreated beyond the mountains and behind the wall from all other peoples and became so isolated within ourselves that we began to represent, as it were, European China, the development of extreme views had to proceed unchecked and quickly and reach its end. But when we equated rituals with the dogmas of faith, it is natural that we began to find the existence of the same ritual in several forms as impossible as it is impossible in relation to dogmas, and as a result we had to use deliberate efforts to bring the rituals to uniformity. And, in any case, to ensure that between several forms of rituals that existed in more than one form, one form is recognized as correct and Orthodox, others as incorrect and not Orthodox. But at the same time, it happened by chance that with regard to some multi-formed or diverse rituals, we recognized as correct and Orthodox not those forms that came into dominant use among the Greeks (who also introduced uniformity over time, although not for the reasons that the rituals were looked at as dogmas): we accepted from the Greeks the addition of fingers for the sign of the cross, two-fingered and three-fingered 947, and while Among the Greeks, in later times, three-fingered became dominant; in our country, on the contrary, two-fingered was recognized as correct and Orthodox. We adopted from the Greeks the custom of proclaiming the song of hallelujah strictly and strictly, 948 and while among the Greeks in later times the custom of triangulation became dominant, among us the custom of aggravation was recognized as correct and Orthodox. If our ancestors had known some archeology, they would have known that in both cases both customs are equally Orthodox in origin. If they had some enlightenment, then they could not find this or that form non-Orthodox: but if this were, then their unique views on rituals would not have been formed. Noticing the difference between the Greeks and themselves in the rituals by which they had internalized the meaning of the dogmas, the Russians naturally had to ask questions: who then departed from the purity of Orthodoxy (for one of the two forms in both cases was recognized as Orthodox, the other as non-Orthodox)? For the Russians to recognize themselves and their fathers as apostates would, of course, be completely unexpected; At the same time, they saw real reason to consider not themselves, but the Greeks, as apostates: they treated rituals and all church-ceremonial appearance with incomparably greater respect than they noticed in the Greeks. And so, in this way, the Greeks became, in the eyes of our ancestors, apostates from the purity of truly ancient Orthodoxy. But they had to ask themselves questions: when and how could the Greeks retreat from the purity of true Orthodoxy? For the first time they had to ask themselves this question immediately after the Council of Florence, and they answered that our council damaged the purity of Orthodoxy among the Greeks. But that the council was not the real reason that made our ancestors think that the purity of Orthodoxy had been damaged among the Greeks is evident from the fact that they soon left it alone and began to explain the matter with various other reasons, namely, that the Greeks’ liturgical books were damaged by the Turks who enslaved them, that the Latins damaged these books from them, or that they rushed to the West with manuscripts after the fall of Constantinople or when they began to print books in Latin lands. We will talk about this in more detail below. Thus, the Council of Florence was the first case to which the Russians found it possible to refer in order to proclaim that the purity of true Orthodoxy had been corrupted among the Greeks. The first is the most important thing, because an opinion, launched on apparently sufficient grounds, may no longer need particularly sufficient grounds. And it so happened that the first reference to the Florence Cathedral seemed to be in fact solid. The reference was made not when uniformity of rituals had already been introduced among us and when we had to defend the forms we had adopted against the forms that had become dominant in Greece, but when uniformity was still being introduced and when other forms were fighting for the right to correctness and Orthodoxy with others. In the first half of the 15th century in one of the Russian regions, namely Pskov, the dominant custom regarding the hallelujah song was tripling; but there were defenders and doubles. One of these latter, just before the Council of Florence, wanting to know the truth, went to Greece and here, as he claimed, having returned to Pskov, he allegedly heard from Patriarch Joseph and on Athos that the song of Hallelujah should be doubled and not tripled 949. But the majority who stood for triplicity responded to the defender of duality that Patriarch Joseph with the Russian Metropolitan Isidore and the Pope of Rome held the 8th Council in the city of Florence in Fryazh, he really did not deserve to exist, why did the Patriarch soon accept vengeance by the righteous judgment of God - before he reached his table, and that according to this council the destruction of the Greeks of the earth began... that at the Council this (which was “for these years”) the Greeks rejected the truth to their destruction... that in vain he, the defender, quotes the words of Scripture: for from Zion the law and the word of the Lord will come from Jerusalem, for this applies to the apostles and their successors - the holy patriarchs, and now we must expect from Jerusalem only the Antichrist with his destructive teaching... that for all this it is not appropriate for us to accept new teachings from the Greeks and corrupt from the Greek land 950... Those who said the above, of course, would find it difficult to answer how Patriarch Joseph could have become infected with the new Latin teaching before traveling to the Council of Florence; but they had evidence that this incomprehensible somehow took place. For the first time, disputes about the Hallelujah song began in Pskov during the reign of Metropolitan Photius; The Pskov clergy addressed a question to the Metropolitan about this and in response received from him instructions to transcribe Canto 951. Standing on a point of view that no longer allowed two equally correct forms or customs and having absolutely no way to explain the deviation from correctness on the part of Metropolitan Photius, and at the same time having this Florentine Council to explain the deviation on the part of Patriarch Joseph, the defenders of the triple song decided that the reason in the latter case was precisely the council (although it is not clear how, before it took place). Therefore, they write to the defender of duality, who referred to the Patriarch and Athos: “It is more fitting for you, father, more than the Patriarch and Athos (implying that they have already departed from the truth of Orthodoxy) to listen to Christ himself, the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia, Photius, who is also inscribed to us in the house of the Holy Trinity in Pskov.” Following the Council of Florence, we proclaimed not only that this council damaged the purity of Orthodoxy among the Greeks, but also that in general we, in Russia, have greater Orthodoxy and higher Christianity than in Greece, or that we, Russians, are a better and more pious Orthodox people than the Greeks. According to strict logical consistency, this statement should perhaps have been made before the first; but in history not everything always goes in strict sequence. The statement, like the first, was caused by a special case, and the case took place after the Council of Florence. But here, as there, the occasion was only the occasion which produced the statement, and not the cause which produced the stated opinion, the stated views. Having adopted an exaggerated importance for rituals and equating them with dogmas, our ancestors at the same time and for the same reason, in the matter of Christian piety, attached an exaggerated importance to outward piety or outward reverence for God and were carried away to the extreme of that imaginary piety, the representatives of which among the Jews were the Pharisees and which was condemned by the Savior in the person of these latter. Our direction was expressed by our great zeal for external prayer and for places of external public prayer - churches or churches. So in this respect we became superior to the Greeks and in this sense began, undoubtedly, to represent people more pious than them 952. But we, of course, did not understand our piety in such a way as to see in it, in itself, that simple nothingness about which the prophet Isaiah speaks (chap. 1 and 58), which does not give us any right to imagine anything about ourselves, but we saw real piety in it and, following the Evangelical Pharisee, who thought of ourselves “as I am not like other men,” we began to imagine about ourselves that we are an Orthodox people, surpassing the Greeks in our piety. The special reason that caused this statement on the part of our ancestors was the capture of Constantinople by the Turks and at the same time the final fall of the Byzantine Empire. Based on the well-known vision of the prophet Daniel about the four kingdoms (chapter 7), there was an opinion in the Christian world that the Roman kingdom would exist until the end of the world, having as its purpose the guard and protection of Christianity and Orthodoxy 953. But reality showed that this eternal Orthodox-Roman kingdom was not destined to constantly reside in its own or actual Rome, but to move from place to place: the old or proper Rome, seven centuries after the Nativity of Christ, fell into the Apollinarian heresy (through the assimilation of unleavened bread, which Apollinaris allegedly introduced because he did not recognize human flesh in Christ), having been seduced by King Carulus, i.e. e. Charlemagne 954, and Constantinople took its place as Orthodox Rome; but then Constantinople was taken by the Turks, so that the third Orthodox Rome had to appear. since by the time of the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, “the entire Christian (Orthodox) kingdom had come to an end and descended into a single kingdom of our (Russian) sovereign”: the Russians came to the conviction that our Moscow was destined to be the third Orthodox Rome, which claim they declared almost immediately after the capture of Constantinople by the Turks. In this case, the Russians, proving their rights to the great role that was destined for them, and that they deserve it, declared that they were better Christians than the Greeks. In the very short time after the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, in 1461–1462, regarding the consecration of Theodosius as metropolitan to the place of St. Jonah, we have issued a narrative collection dedicated to the Florence Cathedral under the title: “A word selected from the Holy Scriptures, in Latin, and a legend about the compilation of the Latin Osmago collection and about the eruption of Sidor the lovely and about the installation of metropolitans in the ruth of the land, for these same praise to the blessed Grand Duke Vasily Vasilievich of All Russia" 955, which contains: 1) Simeonov’s story about the Florence Cathedral (in a new adaptation of its secondary edition, which is read in the chronicles and in Novikov) with the addition of Vasily Vasilyevich’s installation in the place of St. Isidore. Jonah and the appointment as pope at the request of Isidore of the false metropolitan Gregory; 2) a story about the fall of the Latins from Orthodoxy, indicating their heresies 956, 3) praise to Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich, as a firm champion and guardian of Orthodoxy, with notification of the installation of Theodosius 957, elected during his lifetime, as metropolitan in Jonah’s place. Our narrative collection, more than likely of official or official origin, was written with the aim of justifying the installation of Metropolitans Jonah and Theodosius in Russia itself and generally showing that from the first of them the Russian Church legally and for good reasons embarked on the path of independence. But at the same time, it is expressed in the meeting, although not yet with complete clarity, that the Russian sovereign is called to take the place of the Emperor of Constantinople and that the Russian people, called to take the leading place among the Orthodox peoples instead of the Greeks, are better Christians than these latter. In the first respect, it is not yet said that Moscow took the place of Constantinople and became the third Rome, but Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich is constantly called Tsar 958 (blessed and divinely crowned) and as such he is given epithets indicating the role assigned to him as a defender of Orthodoxy: “an accomplice in the piety of true Orthodoxy, the highest source of good faith.” 959. In the second respect, it speaks of the piety that has shone in the Russian land and that it is fitting for it, the Russian land, to rejoice in the universe and under the sunshine, since it is clothed in the light of piety, has the cover of God on itself with the many-light grace of the Lord and is filled with the flowers of the blooming beauty - God's churches, like the stars of shining holy churches, like the rays of the sun shining, adorned with splendor and the collection of holy singing of the exalted 960, and, finally, that in Russia there is “greater Orthodoxy and higher Christianity,” although it is not directly added: than in Greece 961. We declared the Greeks to be apostates from the purity of true Orthodoxy completely without any guilt on their part (while in fact they did not apostatize in the slightest from the purity of true Orthodoxy). But it is more likely to be thought that they paid cruelly in this case for their other guilt before us. We have reached the point in our views that we have mixed rituals with dogmas, equating the former with the latter; It happened by chance that we became separated in rituals from the Greeks, and the question arose for us: which of the two of us - we or they, deviated from the path of truth? If they retained all their moral influence on us and all their moral authority in our eyes; then the matter might not have ended the way it ended: being students, and not teachers of the Greeks, we could, with our misunderstanding of our disagreement with them in rituals, not accuse them of deviating from the purity of true Orthodoxy, but admit ourselves as having made mistakes. But precisely at the very time when our unique views on rituals entered the phase (reached the limit) of their final formation, the Greeks allowed themselves to do things in relation to us that shook their moral influence on us to the core: we mean the installation of Cyprian as metropolitan during the life of St. Alexy and especially this outrageous act - the installation of the self-proclaimed candidate Pimin as metropolitan. We cited above the evidence of the Greeks themselves, to what extreme extent these two cases in a row aroused and armed the Russians against them and what kind of abuse, hatred and contempt they attracted from the latter. During the period of these acts, the Greeks did not become at all worse than they were before; but to the Russians, who until then did not know them well from their bad side, it could easily seem that they had suddenly fallen morally. This idea of ​​​​the sudden moral fall of the Greeks, the reason for which they themselves gave, being transferred from the moral sphere to the sphere of doctrine, gave the Russians a simple way to explain how it could happen that the Greeks retreated from the purity of true Orthodoxy. The explanation was that the Greeks suddenly fell. And so, our ancestors, easily explaining the matter to themselves, began to teach that there were ancient Greeks who firmly adhered to the purity of true Orthodoxy, and that then new Greeks took their place, who fell and betrayed the purity of true Orthodoxy... And Joseph’s arrival in Russia is recorded in only one chronicle, the Novgorod chronicle. End of 1237: “that same summer Metropolitan Grchin came from Nicaea to Kyiv, named Esif” (later chronicle codes are taken from the Novgorod Chronicle). In this case, the matter could be presented in such a way that while the Greeks were about to elect a metropolitan, Grand Duke Daniil Romanovich, prompted by circumstances discussed below, saw himself in the need to elect him himself, and that the Greeks did not find it convenient to protest against the election. And the duration of the gathering on the part of the Greeks, who, however, were in no hurry to elect our metropolitans, should be explained by the fact that from 1240 to 1243 they did not have a patriarch. We do not know who owned Kiev immediately after the Mongol invasion of it (and based on what is reported in the Ipatan Chronicle about Mikhail of Chernigov, who came to it immediately after its capture by the Mongols - 2nd edition p. 624 fin., in all likelihood one should think that no one owned it, because immediately after this capture there was not only nothing to own, but there was nowhere to live). At the end of 1246, when Daniil Romanovich was traveling through it to Batu (year near Plano-Carpini, see now below), the boyar of the Grand Duke of Vladimir Yaroslav was sitting in it, - Ipata Chronicle under 1250, 2nd edition p. 535. Hypatian Chronicle under 1223 fin., 2nd edition p. 494 fin.. The chronicle does not directly say that Joasaph “jumped onto the metropolitan’s table” in the absence of Daniel, but this must be assumed, because otherwise the prince would not have allowed him to do this. See Volume I of History, half 2, page 578 (electronic version, see 5. Galich, paragraph 4. proofreader’s note) Hypatan Chronicle under 1243 (incorrectly instead of 1242). Daniil Romanovich, having heard that Batu was coming back from Hungary, went from Kholm, to which he had moved his capital from Ugrovsk, to his brother Vasilko in Vladimir and took with him Cyril (the named) Metropolitan. In addition to the Ugric diocese, in the Galich-Volyn region there were three more dioceses: Galich, Przemysl and Vladimir. The then bishops of Galich and Vladimir are known to us by name (I volume 1 half, pp. 552 and 573, electronic version - footnote paragraph No. 1362, footnote paragraph No. 1375, corr.). The Bishop of Przemysl is not known by name, but he cannot be assumed, because he was an enemy of Daniel (Hipata Chronicle under 1241 sub. fin., 2nd edition p. 527 fin., just like the Bishop of Galich, ibid. directly above). After the own bishops of the Galich-Volyn region, it is not impossible, however, to think of two more bishops, these are Yuryev and Belgorod, whose dioceses ceased to exist, no doubt, during the Mongol invasion, but who could survive their dioceses and whose names are not known. - To assume that Metropolitan Kirill was the printer of Daniil Romanovich, who appears with him in 1241 (Ipata Chronicle under this 1241), we see no real basis. The printer Kirill appears to us as a military man almost simultaneously with the election of the Metropolitan. The Hypatan Chronicle speaks of Daniel's journey to the Horde under 1250. But Plano-Carpini, who was with Danilov’s brother Vasilka at the beginning of 1246, clearly testifies to Daniil that he was then with Batu. And the chronicle itself says that during Danilov’s journey to Batu through Kyiv, the boyar of the Vladimir Grand Duke Yaroslav Vsevolodovich was sitting in the latter, and Yaroslav died in 1246 (The chronicle speaks of Kirill’s journey as having taken place after Danilov’s travel to the Horde; but in 1250, Kirill not only had already returned from the trip, but also arrived in Vladimir Rus). That Daniel returned from Batu in February - March 1246, see below in the speeches about his relations with the pope. That the Hypatan Chronicle says a complete lie, that Cyril went to the patriarch for installation in 1250, this can be seen from what has just been said above. Having gone to the post through Hungary, he was urgently asked by the Hungarian king to take upon himself efforts to arrange a marriage between his daughter, the king, and the son of Daniel, to which he agreed and for which he returned to Galicia, - Ipatan Chronicle ibid... Hungarian historians date this marriage to 1245, - Geschichte von Ungarn Fessler, processed by Klein, I, 392; but that is also unfair. Yaroslav Vsevolodovich died in 1246; he was succeeded by his brother Svyatoslav, who in 1248 was driven from the throne by his son Andrei. Ibid., cfr Hypatan Chronicle p. 555. III, 69, under the year 1280: “that same summer, His Eminence Kirill, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia, left Kiev according to his custom, and walked through the cities of All Russia, teaching, punishing, correcting”... The Metropolitan arrived in Suzdal Rus' in the fall of 1250 and in the winter of that year he married Grand Duke Andrei Yaroslavich and the daughter of Daniil Romanovich in Vladimir. And, probably, also the Vladimir Theodore in the place of the soon deceased Serapion, who was installed in the same year (before Clement), but the place of whose installation is not indicated in the chronicles. Lavrentyevskaya, followed by Nikonovskaya. That the bishops, constantly staying with the khans, roamed with them, this is made clear in the question of Bishop Theognostus to the Council of Constantinople, which we cited above - page 41 (electronic version - footnote No. 70, corr.). Many Russians were taken captive by the Mongols during the enslavement of Rus'; then, at least at first, they produced in it, as in other conquered countries, very strong military concepts, see Plano-Carpini Information Art. VII, also Hammer Geschichte d. gold. Horde, S. 146, and finally - it is said about some Russians (the original Cossacks or the ancestors of subsequent Cossacks), who wandered in the steppes and robbed travelers (Rubrukvis, see Karamzin IV, 38. Since a number of Orthodox Christians from the Caucasian dioceses lived among the Mongols, the bishops of these last dioceses expressed claim to visit the diocese of Sarai for the sake of their flock. The Patriarchal Council of Constantinople in 1276 decided that these Caucasian Christians living between the Mongols should be subject to the jurisdiction of the bishop of Sarai. See the Greek original of the council’s responses to Bishop Theognostus of Sarai in the Monuments of Old Russian Canon Law, published by the Archaeographical Commission (A. S. Pavlov), I, second account col. 10, § 15). About the appointment of the second bishop of Sarai by Metropolitan Kirill in 1269, the Nikon Chronicle writes: “that same summer, the Most Eminent Kirill, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia, installed Theognast as bishop of the Russian (i.e., Kyiv) Pereyaslavl and Sarai” - III. 50 start. In the inscription of the acts of the Vladimir Cathedral of 1274, this Theognost is called Pereyaslavl. In Mengu-Temir’s label, it seems that it is actually given to some extent to know that the Metropolitan was personally present in the Horde, for it says: “This Metropolitan was given this letter.” See Volume I, half 1, page 365 (electronic version – footnote paragraph No. 1243, corr. note) sqq. John Zonara, first an imperial dignitary and then an Athonite monk, wrote his interpretation at the end of the first quarter of the 12th century; Alexei Aristinus, nomophilax and steward of the great church, in the second quarter of the same century; Theodore Balsamon, nomophilax and chartophylax of the great church and then patriarch of Antioch (titular) - in the third quarter of the same century. To page 63. [Currently, the prevailing opinion is that the interpretations of Aristinus should be considered older than the interpretations of Zonara, namely, that the Aristinian interpretations, written on behalf of Emperor John Komnenos (1118–1142), refer to the first or second quarter of the 12th century, and that the Zonarin interpretations, written in the first years of the reign of Emperor Manuel Komnenos (1143–1180), belong to second-third quarter of the 12th century.] For the despot Jacob Svyatislav (Svyatslav), see Stritter in Memorr. rorr. II, 763, 768 beginning. It is not entirely clear that Cyril addressed the despot Svyatislav, and not the Bulgarian Tsar Constantine Tech himself (maybe he made acquaintance with the despot on his journey to be appointed metropolitan). The history of Metropolitan Kirill's acquisition of his Helmsman's book is made known from a letter to him from Svyatislav and from the record of one of the scribes who wrote the list for the latter, which is read in some later lists of the Helmsman - Vostokov Description of the Rumyantsev Museum CCXXIII, p. 290 sqq. In the record of the scribe who wrote part of the Helmsman for Svyatislav, the year of writing is indicated; but in the later known manuscripts it is read in such a way that it can be taken as both 1262 and 1270 (the year itself is the last, and the indict with it is the first year). The late I.I. Sreznevsky considered the first year more likely, see his “Ancient monuments of Russian writing and language” under 3262 and Information and notes on little-known and unknown monuments No. LXXXI, p. 11, V; however, at the Vladimir Council of 1274, Cyril speaks of the Helmsman in such a way that it seems as if he acquired it very recently, that is, it seems to point more to the last year than to the first. See our Brief History of the Bulgarian, Serbian and Romanian Orthodox Churches, page 452. See A. S. Pavlova, The Initial Slavic-Russian Nomocanon, Kazan, 1869. – Jacob Svyatislav in a letter to Cyril and one of the scribes of the list in his entry call the Helmsman’s Book sent to the Metropolitan Zonara, while in it the interpretations are not Zonarinov, but Aristinov, probably because from the oldest of the interpreters of Zonara all sorts of Helmsmen with interpretations of the canons it was customary to call them Zonars. Svyatislav writes to the Metropolitan about his Helmsman, which is not entirely clear to us: “But this (this) Zonar and this cannot be written down anywhere, since it is like this Zonar in every kingdom of one being at the gathering, as the holy fathers ordered and warned us.” Nikon Chronicle under the year 1274: “Cyril Metropolitan came from Kyiv to Volodymyr and brought with him Serapion, the archimarite of Pechersk, to the bishopric of Volodymyr and Suzdal,” - III, 58. See also Karamzin, IV, note 153. Inscription of acts: “Rule of Kuril of Metropolitan Ruska (and) the meeting of the bishops: Dalmata of Nougorod, Ignatius of Rostov, Theognost of Pereyaslavl, Simeon of Polotsk, for the installation of Bishop Serapion of Volodymyr.” The acts of the council, published in Volume I of Russian Monuments, are reprinted in Part 1 of Monuments of Old Russian Canon Law, which we mentioned above. The acts must be read in the latest edition, made in the most satisfactory manner for the present time. The beginning of the introduction is very unclear and lacks grammatical correctness, so you have to reproduce it by guesswork. Basil the Great, canonical rule 90, district letter of Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople (459), letter of Patriarch Tarasius to Pope Hadrian (about 787). For the quotation of the decrees, see the 1st half of volume I, page 527 (electronic version - footnote paragraph No. 970, corr.). You can understand the metropolitan’s words this way: don’t charge them anything more than what I have legalized... I volume 1 half p. 363 (electronic version – footnote paragraph No. 730, corr. note) I volume 1 half p. 401 (electronic version footnote No. 794 corr. note). Cfr speeches about the prosphora guardians of the Stoglavy Cathedral, - Ch. 5, question 11, and ch. 8, Kazan edition pp. 57 and 87. See Vol. 1 half, p. 769, (electronic version - “Additions and amendments” to footnote No. 1036, footnote No. 843 corr.) In the ancient saintly teaching to a newly ordained priest, among other things, it reads: “but servants do not touch sacred things, nor do they burn incense,” - Monuments of Canon Law, col. 105 fin.. See Vol. I, half of page 742. (electronic version – footnote No. 1668, corr.) Also included among the rules of the cathedral is the rule read in the Helmsman and in collections in a separate form about not depicting a cross on the ground (rule of the Council of Trula 78, - actually on the floor in churches and in houses, which the Greeks did through mosaic laying out of stones - Valsamon’s interpretation of this rule) and not carving a cross out of ice on the day of Epiphany at the site of the consecration of water (on Jordan, which the Serbs still do today), so as not to baptize or consecrate waters on Epiphany with many linked crosses and not to wear this bunch of crosses for up to 8 days for transfer (the great entrance to the liturgy), - Monuments of Canon Law, col. 100. But this rule is read separately from the acts of the council and in the Sophia Helmsman, written under Archbishop Clement, successor of Dalmatus, who was present at the council. Until recently, questions and answers were related to 1301 and the reign of Metropolitan Maxim. But the late Right Reverend Porfiry Uspensky found in the library of one Athonite monastery a fragment of their Greek original, from which their real year is revealed, see Monuments of Canon Law, col. 129, where the questions and answers are printed (Sata in his Medieval Library, - Μεσάιωνιχη Βιβλιοθηχη, reports that in addition to the Athonite one, there is another Greek list of questions and answers, located in the library of the Constantinople Holy Sepulcher Metochion, - vol. III, preface p. 92 [year 6984, obviously an error or typo instead of 6784]. Isn’t the Holy Sepulcher list more complete than the Athonite list?). In different lists the number of question-answers is different, see in Monuments ibid.. In the found fragment of the Greek original one question-answer is read, which is not in Slavic, and from this it follows that the question-answers were translated from Greek (in which the first ones were proposed to the council and in which the second were given by the council) not entirely completely. We have given an excerpt from the metropolitan’s letter on the Novgorod Chronicle (Collected Chronicles III, 62). In the Nikon Chronicle (III, 52) it is read in a more extensive form; but it is probable that the distribution belongs to the chronicler himself. The latest chronicle also says that the Metropolitan sent a letter to the Novgorodians as a result of the Grand Duke’s request to him to provide his assistance in establishing peace. See I volume 1 half, page 490 sqq. (See “The Assurances of Some Roman Catholic Writers...” corr.) Ibid. p. 701. (Electronic version – footnote paragraph No. 1083, corr.) See Plano-Carpini, who was precisely one of the papal ambassadors who went to the khan, ch. I. The letters of the Pope sent with the ambassadors to Daniel are unknown at the present time. The Ipat Chronicle assures that for the Grand Duke of Galich some exception was made in the Horde and that he was not subjected to all the humiliation to which other princes were subjected; but in this case it is quite possible not to believe the chronicle. Turgenev's diploma in Historica Russiae Monimenta, I, LII, p. 57 (here, - LXV, p. 58, the pope’s letter to King John, that is, to his brother Daniil Vasilko Romanovich, who had a different name of John). Letters of the Pope ibid., LIII and LIV, p. 57 and 58. Ibid. LXXII, r. 64. Letter from the Pope to the Archbishop of Prussia. The Hypatian Chronicle began in 1255, 2nd edition, p. 558 (“Old times he sent it”...). Rainalda Annales Ecclesiastici, 1249, XV, Hypatan Chronicle ibidd.. By a letter of December 1247, the pope recognized the legal marriage of Vasilko Romanovich with the unknown to us Dubravka, with whom he was in the third degree of kinship - Turgenev ibid. LXXVI, r. 67. Whether the pope did this at the request of the prince, or without a request as a precautionary and deliberate expression of his favor towards him, is not clear from the letter. (If we assume that the princess was a Catholic, a relative of Danilova and Vasilkova’s mother, then she will probably think that the pope’s confession was asked at her request). [We do not consider Dubrovka to be the daughter of the Vladimir Grand Duke Yuri Vsevolodovich, about whose marriage Vasilka in 1226 is spoken of in the so-called Gustine Chronicle, because Vasilka’s marriage with Yuri’s daughter (who was his fourth cousin’s aunt, that is, she was not in the third, but in the ninth degree of kinship with him) would not represent anything illegal (as well as the wife’s name Vasilkova Dubrovka or Dombrovka speaks against considering her as Yurieva’s daughter). If the Gustin Chronicle tells the truth about Vasilko’s marriage to Yuri’s daughter, then in Dubrovka you will need to see Vasilko’s second wife (accepting that otherwise, or among the Galicians-Vladimirs themselves, she was called Elena, since the Ipata Chronicle speaks in 1265 about the death of Grand Duchess Vasilkova, named Olena). The Polish genealogist Yablonovsky, as Karamzin points out - to volume IV note 55, considered Dubrovka to be Princess Zaslavskaya.] Turgenev ibid. LXXXYIII, b. 78. Rainalda Annales Eccless. 1253, XXIV. Campaign against the Czech king to help the Hungarian king (Ipata Chronicle under 1254). Danilov's father Roman Mstislavich was married twice. The first time - on the daughter of Rurik Rostislavich, whom he released or drove away from him in 1197. Who his second wife was, from whom Daniil and Vasilko, remains unknown to us, but that she was a Catholic can be concluded from the fact that she was the daughter-in-law of the kings of Hungary and Poland - Ipata Chronicle, p. 480 fin. and 481 fin.. Charter of Alexander IV dated 1257. in Turgenev, ibid. XCL, r. 84. Hypatan Chronicle under 1255. Daniel was crowned, as the chronicle lets us know, during Innocent’s lifetime, therefore, not in 1255, to which it dates the coronation, but not later than 1254, in which Innocent died (in December). According to the chronicle, the coronation took place more or less a short time after the aforementioned campaign of Daniel with the Polish king, and this campaign took place in the summer of 1253. (Fessler's Geschichte von Ungarn, adapted by Klein, I. 398). This is how we are led to think by the words of the Hypatian Chronicle, which says: “Nekenty bo (pope) curses those who blaspheme (sic) the Greek Orthodox faith, and I want to create for him a collection about the right faith about the united church,” - under 1255, 2nd edition p. 548 fin.. In Turgenev, ibid. XCV, r. 84. If not in 1254, then in 1255, the metropolitan was actually in northern, Vladimir, Rus'. According to the Hypatan Chronicle, Daniel was crowned with a royal crown by the papal legate with the participation of all his bishops - in 1255, 2nd edition p. 548 fin.. Not to mention the metropolitan, the chronicle seems to make it clear that he was not intentionally or deliberately absent, and as for the bishops, some could be encouraged to concelebrate with the legate by order of the Grand Duke, others themselves could be as free-thinking as he was. Solovyov's Stories vol. III, ch. 3, 4 edition p. 182 beginning. The pope's letter from Turgenev, ibid. LXXVIII, p. 68. Regarding his assurance about Yaroslav, the pope refers to the report of Plano-Carpini; but that the reference should be considered false is clear from the fact that Plano-Carpini says nothing of the kind in his description of the trip to Tatars, although he mentions his meetings with Yaroslav. Thaner's charter from the pope in Vetera monumenta Poloniae, I, XCV1, p. 46. 1 Sofia Chronicle (Sofia Vremnik Stroev) under 1251. According to the Nikon and Resurrection Chronicles, Kirill died on December 7, 6788 from S.M.; according to the 1st Novgorod and Sofia Chronicles - December 6, 6789 from S. M. All new historians (Eminence Philaret and Macarius, Karamzin and Solovyov) attribute the death of Kirill to 1280. from R. X., and the matter should be understood not so that they prefer the chronology of the first two chronicles to the chronology of the last two chronicles, but so that in the last two chronicles they think to see the September count of years (in which, in converting years from S. M. to years from R. X., if there are months September - December, one must subtract from the first years not 5508, but 5509). But in the 1st Novgorod and Sofia chronicles, the count of years is not September, but, undoubtedly, March (see the year 6784 in the Novgorod Chronicle), from which it will follow that Cyril died in 1281, and not 1280 (the 1st Novgorod Chronicle, kept by contemporaries, speaks of the death of the metropolitan in connection with the Novgorod event, and this can serve as deliberate evidence of the correctness of its chronological testimony). We are not saying that it is not known about any of Maxim’s successors that they traveled to the Horde immediately after occupying the department, for here it would be possible to assume that they all passed directly from Constantinople through the Horde. The Nikon Chronicle under our year: “the former bishops of all Russia called to Kiev to Maxim, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia.” We find the last news in Cyprian's Life of St. Peter, which tells that Peter presented Maxim with the icon of the Mother of God of his letter when he came to the Volyn land to visit and view it. Printed in the History of the Right Reverend Macarius, vol. IV, appendix XXIV, and in Monuments of Canon Law, col. 139. Question (19). Is it worthy to eat meat on Wednesday and the heels of the apostolic feasts? Answer . "And Wednesday and Fridays shall not be ruined by any of the Lord's holidays, except for the great days of Holy Week - let them eat on Wednesdays and Fridays, and on the Descent of the Holy Spirit, and when the Nativity of Christ or the Epiphany occurs, and when there is a week about the tax collector and the Pharisee. Apart from these 5 holidays, let Wednesdays and Fridays not be ruined, for they are forbidden by the divine canons..." That Metropolitan Maxim fled from Kyiv in 1299 is indicated by the Novgorod Chronicle under this year (end of the year): In Novgorod this year it was not known where the Metropolitan was, i.e., fleeing from Kyiv, he made his way to Vladimir in places unknown to the Novgorodians. He arrived in Vladimir, according to some chronicles (Voskresenskaya), on April 18, 1300. Metropolitan Maxim's transfer of the metropolitan see from Kyiv to Vladimir (actually, not the see, which remained in Kyiv, but the capital, the seat, χάθισμα, see below) was a case of the metropolitan transferring his see from his capital city, which had fallen to the power of the barbarians, to one of the episcopal cities of his metropolis. Regarding this case, Balsamon writes (in his interpretation of rule 82 of the Council of Carthage, in Ralli and P. III, 486) that some metropolitans considered themselves to have the right to do this without permission, that others recognized the need for conciliar permission, and others for the royal command, and that in his own opinion, both were necessary. Whether Metropolitan Maxim belonged to the first category of metropolitans or for something else, only he transferred the metropolitan see from Kyiv to Vladimir without asking in Constantinople, and this transfer was formally recognized by the patriarch only in 1354, when St. Alexey. – In the Vladimir Assumption Cathedral there is an icon of the Maximov Mother of God, on which the Mother of God is depicted teaching the omophorion to Metropolitan Maxim. The signature on the icon reads: “This holy, miraculous image of the Most Holy Theotokos was painted in the summer of 6807 (1299), according to the vision of Maxim, Metropolitan of Vladimir and All Russia (sic) wonderworker, Grechenin by birth: when he came from Kyiv to Vladimir and from the worthwhile procession in his cell it was not enough Having fallen asleep, Abiye sees that in reality the light is great and unusual, and in that light the Most Pure Virgin Mother of God appeared to him, holding the Eternal Child in her hand, and the verb: my servant Maxim, you have come kindly to visit my city, and give him an omophorion, saying: take this omophorion and feed the verbal sheep in my city, aka the reception, awaken from sleep and; in the cell there was no one in the form, and the omophorion was found in his hand..., and this miracle became famous throughout the Russian land and in Palestine, and he commanded (the Metropolitan) to paint this image in the same likeness as in the form” (Dobrokhotova Monuments of Antiquity in Vladimir Klyazemsky, p. 74, § 2). The miraculous vision that Metropolitan Maxim had was supposed to serve in the eyes of the Russian people as a justification for his action. (April 18 is a celebration of the icon of the Mother of God of Maximovskaya (one of two things: either the icon is celebrated on April 18 because Maxim actually arrived in Vladimir on this date, or vice versa because his arrival in Vladimir refers to April 18, because the icon is celebrated on this date).) The ?? v54;v34; ιά, – in Ralli and P. V, 494, note 1. See also the article by A. S. Pavlov: “On the beginning of the Galician and Lithuanian metropolitanates and about the first metropolitans there according to Byzantine documentary sources,” published in the May book of the Russian Review for 1894. Metropolitan Cyprian in the Life of St. Petra speaks of the attempt of the Galician Grand Duke Yuri Lvovich to obtain a special metropolitan for Galicia, made after the death of Metropolitan Maxim, as the first attempt. It is possible that Cyprian did not know about the actual first installation of a special Galician metropolitan; but it is not impossible that even though he knew, he feigned ignorance, for it was in the interest of the Moscow metropolitans that the history of the Galician (Galician-Lithuanian) metropolitanate should be as little known as possible, so that each installation of a special Galician metropolitan could be protested as against an unprecedented and unheard of innovation. See Monuments of Canon Law, appendices col. 125. In the Resurrection Chronicle, regarding the place in the cathedral where Maxim was laid, it is said: “in the cathedral church of the Holy Mother of God, in the church (chapel) of the Martyr Panteleimon of Christ,” - Collection of Chronicles VII, 184 (Also in the Degree Book, I, 403). From the synodal collection of the 16th century, the life was published by K. I. Nevostruev in the January book of the Kharkov Spiritual Messenger of 1862; from the Novgorod Sophia Collection of the 14th century, printed by His Eminence Macarius in the appendices to Volume IV of History; the third list known to us is in the 16th-century collection of the Trinity Lavra Library, No. 786, sheet 300; for an indication of other lists, see Klyuchevsky in Ancient Russian Lives of Saints, p. 75, note 2, and Barsukov in Sources of Russian Hagiography, col. 447, adding to those indicated a list in the synodal manuscript No. 21. Bishop Prokhor learns the life in the list printed by the Most Reverend Macarius, and in some of the unprinted lists. Placed in the Degree Book, – I, 410; read in manuscripts and in a separate form (see the Most Reverend Macarius History vol. IV, appendix 3, Vostokov's Description of the Rumyantsev Museum manuscripts and Barsukov ibid.; we know the lists: former Volokolamsk No. 195, sheet 226, and No. 593, sheet 226, and Lavra Trinity No. 789, sheet 51). St. Peter built his own monastery, from which we can conclude that he was a man of means, therefore, that he was a city dweller by birth, belonging to the boyars or merchants by class. He built his monastery in the area between Lvov and Belz, from which we can conclude that he was born in one or another of these cities. (Since in ancient times monks were mostly appointed to all the highest church positions by birth, we would be inclined to assume that St. Peter was from a noble boyar family: but the author of the first life keeps us from assuming, who does not make any hint of this kind. - The father of Peter’s life is called Theodore, but the mother is not called by name; in one Rumyantsev collection the father is called Jacob, and mother Eupraxia, - in Vostokov No. 359, sheet 324 ver., p. 514 col 2). Monastery of St. Peter, built in the name of the Savior (Preobrazhensky), does not currently exist; in its place now stands a village, with a parish church also of the Savior, which bears two names: Dvortse (Palaces) and Spas'kye (Spasskoe) and which is located almost equidistant between the cities of Zholkov (Zolkiew, to the district of which it belongs) and Belz (directly south of the latter, in the diocese of Przemysl, in the deanery or deanery of the Ugric), see Galich Historical Collection issue III, pp. notes VII, note 6. Zubritsky in the Critical-Historical Tale of Red Rus', p. 71 notes, believes the former monastery of St. Peter in the present village of Verkhrate, located not far from the village of Dvortse to the west, is incorrect, because in the village of Verkhrate there is a parish church in the name of St. George (according to Shematism). The author of the History of the Hierarchy, V, 667, mistakenly considers the monastery of St. Peter the Ratsky Vozdvizhensky monastery, located in the northwestern corner of the Volyn province, on the Rata River, flowing from the left into the upper Pripyat. Metropolitan Cyprian, presenting the matter in such a way that Yuri Lvovich sent Peter to Constantinople in order to petition for the first grant of a special metropolitan to Galicia, or for the first separation of it into a special metropolitanate, assures that the prince did not tell Peter that he himself was being elected as a candidate for metropolitan, but that he only secretly asked from him in a letter sent with him to the patriarch and the council, so that it is he who is appointed metropolitan. But since Peter could not be sent to Constantinople with the indicated assignment (for, as we said, Galicia was already separated into a special metropolitanate), it is obvious that he could only go there as an open (and self-led) candidate for metropolitan. Yuri Lvovich was married to the sister of Mikhail Yaroslavich (Ipatskaya Chronicle under 1281, 2nd edition p. 583, Resurrection Chronicle under 1282, - in the Collection of Chronicles VII, 176); but this close relationship of the princes, apparently, did not serve to ensure that the second could settle down with the first. Having died on December 21, 1326, St. Peter shepherded the Church of God for 18 years and 6 months (as it is said in the inscription of his life, belonging to an unknown person, according to some lists of the latter, for example, the Trinity Lavra in No. 786, and from the life in some chronicles - Nikon III, 131, Typographic p. 80, 3 Novgorod - in the Collection of Chronicles III, 224, in the calendar The following psalter of Metropolitan Cyprian, - manuscript of the Moscow Theological Academy No. 142, and in monthly books with the “chronicle”, for example in the Synodal manuscript on the Description of Gorsky, and Nevostruev No. 432, sheet 238 ver., p. 579). Bishop Andrey was born Litvin or Litovets, the son of Prince Gerden or Erden; in 1266 he was captured by Dovmont of Pskov, also a Lithuanian. He was installed as bishop of Tver by Metropolitan Maxim in 1290 from the abbot of the general monastery of the Mother of God (as one must think, the one he himself built and was located on the Shosha (Sheshi) River, which constitutes the right tributary of the Volga, flowing in the Staritsky and Tver districts, in the lower part of its serving as the border of the latter from the Klin district of the Moscow province, in which, upon removal from the see he died in 1323). Patriarch Athanasius, who sent a cleric to try the metropolitan, retired from the throne at the end of 1310 or at the beginning of 1311; Bishop Prokhor of Rostov, who was present at the council with the rank of abbot of the Yaroslavl Spassky Monastery, was appointed bishop by Peter in 1311... If we were to give faith to the so-called Tver Chronicle, that in the month of March 1311 St. Peter was in Tver and that on the 20th and 21st of the month he made two appointments as bishops here (Collected Chronicles XV, 408): it would follow from this that the council took place after March 1311, for St. Peter could have been in Tver before the cathedral and not in the first time after the cathedral. But the testimony of the chronicle should be considered erroneous, since according to it, one of the bishops appointed in Tver was Prokhor of Rostov, about whom we know that he was appointed bishop after the council. This year, Dmitry Mikhailovich Tverskoy, the son of Mikhail Yaroslavich, turned to his mediation to conclude peace with Yuri Danilovich of Moscow. Before Peter, Andrei saw how Metropolitan Maxim, who ordained him as bishop, collected fees for ordination. It must be thought that Andrei also looked at the collection of fees by these latter as an illegal matter; and if he did not inform the patriarch, it was because he had no personal reasons for this. The only bishop of Rostov, Simeon, who was present at the cathedral after Andrei himself, left the department very shortly after him, in 1311. One might think that he was of the same thoughts as the bishop of Tver, that for this reason he alone of all the bishops went to the council and that, having declared himself an enemy of the metropolitan at it, he was forced to leave the department when the council trial ended in acquittal for the latter. (If a similar thing did not happen to Andrei, then, one must think, because the Grand Duke defended him in the most decisive manner). The message was published in the Orthodox Interlocutor of 1867, part II. p. 246. and in Pavlov's Monuments of Canon Law, col. 150. In the inscription of the message, Akindinus is called the monk of the Lavra of the Holy Mother of God. It is likely that he was from his own St. Andrew's Monastery. Tatishchev reports the following unexpected about the Pereyaslavl cathedral in 1313 (IV, 92): “That same summer, the heretic archpriest of Novgorod appeared in Novgorod, many people came to him from the ranks of the church and laity, and Bishop Andrei of Tver helped him, saying: behold, like paradise on earth perish, and the holy angelic monastic order cursed by the godless teachings of demons named after the name, and many monks who came out (from the monasteries) got married; His Eminence Metropolitan Peter convened a great council in Pereslavl: there were all the bishops, and abbots, priests, deacons and monks, and from Patriarch Athanasius the learned cleric, and there was much debate, just the Eminence Peter, Metropolitan of Kiev and all Russia from the divine scripture and the help and intercession of Prince Ivan Danilovich overcame the damned heretic, and he himself went through the grades, teaching the right to believe in taming rumors, and driving away the devil’s embarrassment.” Tatishchev had at hand such a list of the first life of St. Peter, belonging to an unknown person, in which, after the story about the Pereyaslavl Cathedral, it was read, as it is read in some now known copies: “and behold, the heretic was great, having come to the place, and cursed” instead of: “and Seita the heretic was great,”... and attributed these words to a heretic who had nothing to do with the Pereyaslavl Cathedral and who appeared later (see about him below), to this last one. But since Tatishchev read in the life that Bishop Andrew of St. Peter did not curse, but forgave, which meant that the heretic was not he, but someone else; Tatishchev creates this other one in the person of the archpriest of Novgorod, giving Bishop Andrei the role of only a helper. We cannot say why - the archpriest, but the Novgorod one, perhaps because in Novgorod, not very long after the Pereyaslavl Council, the Strigolnikov sect appeared. As for where Tatishchev gets his heresies, the source of the first heresy is clear: in Tver, soon after Bishop Andrei, there was a dispute about whether material paradise had perished or not, and Bishop Theodore of Tver was of the opinion that he had perished (letter about paradise from Archbishop Vasily of Novgorod, † 1352, to Bishop Theodore of Tver, in 1 Sophia and Resurrection Chronicle under 1347, in Degree Book I, 480); regarding the source of the second heresy, which has no logical connection with the first and even moreover, we cannot say anything (about a possible source of Tatishchev’s speeches about heresies, see below). The message was printed and reprinted in the same place as the message to the same Mikhail Yaroslavich from the monk Akindinus. See about him in the history of Nikephoros Gregoras and in the deliberate accusatory word against him by Nikephoros Khumna, printed in Anecdotes of Boissonade, V, 255. Bishop Andrei left the department to retire to the monastery he founded in 1315. It may very well be that he was forced to do this by enmity with the metropolitan, after unsuccessful attempts to overthrow the latter. Printed in Pavlov's Monuments, no. 17, col. 159. The Greek patriarchs who were present at the Moscow Council in 1667, canceling the legalization of St. Peter about widowed priests for the future, they pronounced their verdict about him: “Be judged, even if, in addition to the rules, it is believed that a widowed cleric should not serve the Divine Liturgy, especially for the increase in the outrage of unskilled clerics, for the sake of danger, it was good,” - Additions to the Acts of History, vol. V, p. 493, col. 2. (And the assurance of the Vilna Cathedral of 1509 that the contemporary Church of Constantinople adhered to precisely the practice regarding widowed priests that has existed with us since the time of St. Peter - Russian Historical Libraries, published by the Archaeographical Commission, vol. IV, col. 11, as far as we know, should be recognized as unfair). Published in the Additions to the Works of the Holy Fathers for 1844. The words of the inscription, placed in brackets, from the manuscript of the Volokolamsk Monastery, now the MDA library, No. 566. In the now-mentioned Volokolamsk manuscript, attached to our epistle as its second part or merged with it into one whole, - folio 387 ver. fin., a letter from some presbyter to some prelate, written as a result of the latter’s command (folio 388 beginning), namely, as should be understood as a result of the latter’s expressed desire to receive his scripture from the presbyter. It may be that the saint is St. Peter (princes and powers in his flock, sheet 389). The writer expresses to the one to whom he writes his zealous desires, so that he will provide well for the flock entrusted to him by God. Printed in Monuments of Kushelev-Bezborodko, IV, 186 (about him in Filaret’s Review § 65). Abstain from drunkenness and avoid unnecessary feasts at all times, and especially during Lent; do not drink before lunch; do not engage in trade and usury. To teach the laity to come to church, honestly fast and partake of the holy mysteries every year - to abstain from fornication, honor spiritual fathers and carnal parents, not eat at feasts before lunch, abstain from foul language, avoid all witchcraft, and not be invited to the so-called “field”; separate triplets and allow only very young people who will not have children to enter into a third marriage; baptism should be performed not through pouring, but through triple immersion, and allow only one godfather at a time, depending on the gender of the baby. Do not trade or engage in usury; Monks and nuns should not live in the same monasteries. Exhortations: to honor spiritual fathers and priests in general; stand in church during the service honestly and with fear, listen to reading and singing and without talking or whispering; reproof: “ungifted,” that is, those who do not partake of the body of Christ at least once a year; those who offend the church of God and her servants and do not listen to the commandments of the apostles and the rules of the saints, the father “and,” says the author of the letter, “my hierarchal metropolitan commandment.” With a message to Novgorod dated August 29, 1410, printed in Acts of the Expedition, I, No. 369, and reprinted in Pavlov's Monuments, col. 270. In one chronograph (library of the Bethany Seminary, No. 2215, part 1 sheet 63) we came across a mysterious teaching of St. Peter, which, due to its brevity, is given here in full: “The teaching of Metropolitan Peter to the great prince Demetrius and his death (sic, is it necessary: son, spouse?) and to his brethren and to the bishop and to the boyars and to the old and to the young and to all Christians (italics in cinnabar). Children were naturally from God in execution, but the father of the son loves him, and punishes; but for the first and second and third punishment you will not listen, God will deliver such a tormentor and (in) a greater execution; children, do not give in to fearlessness; the old people remember well what it was like during the time of the Grand Duke and at his death, and they remember it to the young, and have great obedience to the young.” One might think that this is a lesson to Grand Duke Dmitry Mikhailovich on the occasion of the murder of his father in the Horde in 1318; but the expression: “old people remember well” does not allow us to assume this, for under St. Petre was remembered very well by the death of Mikhail Yaroslavich, not only the old, but also the young. Ό ῥ ήτωρ, γράφων λόγους διδασκαλικούς ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ ἀρχιερέως, - in Ralli and P. V, 532, note. In the second message of our account. The chronicles do not speak deliberately about the travels of St. Peter in Rus', but they mention one incident that took place during these travels, in which his life was in danger. Here is the story about this in the Resurrection Chronicle (read more abbreviated or more widely in other chronicles): “In the same winter (1310), after baptism, Peter, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia came to Bryansk, and at that time Prince Vasily came with the Tatar army to Bryansk against Prince Svyatoslav (Glebovich, his uncle, who expelled him in the previous 1309 - Nikon Chronicle); Metropolitan Peter spoke to Svyatoslav: “share your reign with Prince Vasily or flee the city”; Svyatoslav, relying on his courage and the great strength of the Bryansk, said: “The Bryansk, sir, will not let me in, but they want to lay down their heads for me,” and did not listen to the words of his father, the Metropolitan, and went against the army; But when they stepped in, the slaughter of evil took place: Bryantsi, having betrayed Prince Svyatoslav, the king of the mill, abandoned his banner, and fled; Prince Svyatoslav fought a lot at his court and was killed quickly on April 2; Peter the Metropolitan then secluded himself in the church, and God save him from the filthy.” See Karamzin IV, note 245. Not long before (in the previous year 1312), Barsanuphius, who was appointed bishop of Sarai in place of the deposed Ishmael, if he had already managed to establish connections and acquaintances in the Horde, was undoubtedly a zealous seeker for the metropolitan (and that in later times, at least, the bishop enjoyed the deliberate favor of Uzbek, we have positive evidence of this - Nikon Chronicle III, 155 beginning). About the propaganda carried out by the popes at that time on the Black Sea coast of the khan’s possessions, see Mozheim in Historia Tartarorum ecclesiastica (the pope’s letter of July 1333 on the establishment of the bishopric of Kherson with its subordination to the Metropolitan of Bosporus, see Teiner in Monumenta Poloniae, t. I, p. 347). – Some indications that sometime after 1313, the bishopric of Sarai was established by the popes, if not actual, then nominal, see Lequen in Oriens christianus, t. III, col. 1108. We do not agree with us - A. S. Pavlov in the above article: “On the beginning of the Galician and Lithuanian metropolitanate” (not entirely rightly thinking that he misled us) and Mr. N. Tikhonravov in the dissertation: “The Galician metropolitanate”, published in “Russian Conversation” for 1895. G. Pavlov does not find it possible to accept our assumption that the Lithuanian metropolis embraced Galician Rus', for two reasons: “1) in Galich there existed then, if not de facto, then de jure, its own metropolis; 2) if the Galician-Volyn princes were burdened by the subordination of their bishops to the Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus', with whose great princes the southern Danilovichi no longer had any political scores: all the more they should have shunned the new metropolitan from neighboring Lithuania, with which they had long ago begun to have hostile scores,” - page 31 beginning. As for the first reason, we do not quite understand it: at this time, which we are talking about, there was no special metropolis in Galicia, neither de facto nor de jure; in 1303, a special metropolis of Galicia was opened, but then it was closed, ceasing to exist de facto and not remaining at all to exist de jure (although the former example of the opening of a metropolis, of course, was significant for the future) and its The dioceses were, as before 1303, under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan of All Russia. The second reason, seeming solid at first glance and so to speak theoretically or, “generally speaking,” does not turn out to be so upon closer and actual examination of the case. The Lithuanian metropolis was opened, as we now say below, in 1316–1317. But in 1315-1316 (as far as we can rely on our information, and there is almost no reliable information in the then History of Galicia, Lithuania and Kievan Rus) there was a war between Galicia and Lithuania that ended in peace, so the metropolis was opened just after the conclusion of peace. Then, in 1316-1317, in which the metropolitanate was opened, the relations between the Galician and Lithuanian sovereigns were those of two neighbors, of whom one was so strong as to impose his will on the other, and the other was so weak as not to dare to resist the will of the first: the Lithuanian sovereign, who had just taken the throne, was the famous Gediminas, who in the previous war had won a decisive and brilliant victory over Galicians, and the Galician sovereign, who had also just taken the throne, was instead of Yuri Lvovich, who died in the previous war, by his weak (by general opinion) son Andrei Yuryevich. Gedimin, of course, must have had a strong desire to see Galician Rus' under the rule of its metropolitan, since this was very important in state matters, and for him to meet decisive resistance to his desire in Andrei Yuryevich, this seems very unlikely. G. Pavlov also refers to the fact that the burial of Metropolitan Peter was performed by the Lutsk Bishop Theodosius: the bishop, he says, came to Moscow, of course, on diocesan business; this means that in 1326 the Galician-Volyn dioceses were subordinate to the Kyiv metropolitan - page 11. But it is not at all impossible and not incredible to assume that the bishop came to Moscow not on diocesan affairs, but on state affairs, moreover, he could come either to Moscow to Ivan Danilovich, or to Vladimir, to Tver, to the Grand Duke, and in Moscow only to be passing through. In conclusion, we must say that every probable opinion is only a probable opinion: we defend our opinion because it seems probable to us, but if there were positive data or reliable evidence revealing its fallacy, then, of course, we would not insist on it. Hypatan Chronicle, 2nd edition p. 567. In 1258, Lithuania came to Smolensk with Polotsk; therefore, this year the Polochans were already tributaries of Lithuania. After the death of Mindovg, his son Voishelk gave the great reign of Lithuania to his son-in-law (his sister’s husband) Shvarn, the son of Danil Romanovich of Galich; but he soon died and a natural Lithuanian again ascended the Lithuanian throne. The year of death of Gediminas according to Russian chronicles, including 1 Novgorod, kept by contemporaries. Until recently, on the basis of Stryjkowski, it was accepted that the conquest of all southwestern Rus' was completed by Gediminas in 1321 with the capture of Kyiv. This is currently rejected, but a probable general consensus regarding the course of Gediminas's conquests has not yet been established. For our part, as we said, we consider it most likely that by the end of his reign Gediminas brought his conquests to the level to which Stryjkowski brought them by 1321. New research on the history of Kievan Rus, the Volyn land, Galicia and Lithuania for the time we need, in which there is almost nothing reliable, is: V. B. Antonovich “Essay on the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania”, published in the Kyiv University News of 1877–1878, and then, in a corrected form, in volume I of the Collection: “Monographs on the history of Western and South-Western Russia”, published in 1885; N. P. Dashkevich “The Lithuanian-Russian state, the conditions of its emergence and the reasons for its decline,” published in the same Izvestia in 1882 (and separately in 1885?); A.F. Andriashev “Essay on the history of the Volyn land until the end of the XIV century”, Kyiv, 1887; I. P. Filevich “The Struggle of Poland and Lithuania-Rus for the Galician-Vladimir Heritage”, published in the Journal of the Ministry of Public Education for 1890 and then issued as a separate book; M. S. Grushevsky “History of the Kiev land from the death of Yaroslav to the end of the XIV century”, Kiev, 1893. At Ralli and P. V, 494, note 2 (the year is also indicated in the note, but in the printed list the tens and units “in 68.. summer” from S. M. are missing from the thousands and hundreds). Acta Patriarchate. Constantinop. Miklosic, I, 72. We correct the reading of the name according to the life of Cyprian. In the list of the life printed by the Right Reverend Macarius, instead of “Seita” it reads: “se tako”, in the list of the Trinity Lavra: “Sitya”. The author of the Nikon Chronicle, borrowing information about the heretic from the life of Cyprian, instead of “Seit the heretic” writes: “Here is the heretic.” [Herberstein says: Seid apud Tartaros – supremus sacerdos, – in Starczewski t. 1, p. 70, col. 1.] For evidence from chronicles, see Karamzin and Artsybashev on the Indexes; in the Azbukovniki the word seit is interpreted by the word ruler, i.e. bishop, cfr Nikon Chronicle V, 261. Among the Greeks, such Mohammedan spiritual ones were called seites, see Ducange in Gloss. Graecit. sl. Σε ΐ τιδες . According to Vamberi, in Khiva at present the supreme clergyman (naqib) is always one of the seids or descendants of the prophet. The first reading is in the list printed by His Eminence Macarius, the second in the Trinity Lavra. If Metropolitan Cyprian speaks about the fate of Seit, that he, cursed by Peter, died, that is, he was subjected to civil execution: then this could have happened very simply: he mistook Seit for an ordinary heretic and added: “perished” according to an aprioristic conclusion. Lib. IX, ed. Lips. 1711, p. 928. Acta Patriarchate. Constantinop. Miklašić, I, 126. In Karamzin, vol. II, note 301 (later tales are here, and vol. I, note 292). According to legend, the place of the estate of the boyar Kuchka is on the current Chistye Prudy, between Myasnitskaya and Pokrovskaya streets behind the post office. Ipat Chronicle under 1176, 2nd edition p. 407: “Idosh to Kutskov, reeksha to Moscow.” Yakim Kuchkovich and Pyotr Kuchkov were the main killers of Andrei Bogolyubsky. Some later chronicles and legends call the Moscow prince the youngest son of Yaroslav Vsevolodovich Mikhail, nicknamed Khoroborit (brave), killed in the war with the Lithuanians in 1248 (see Karamzin IV, 42 and Solovyov vol. III, edition 4 p. 186 beginning); but we doubt this: the prince was buried not in Moscow, but in Vladimir (Laurentine Chronicle under 1248). Yuri Danilovich began to look for the Grand Duke's throne under Mikhail Yaroslavich immediately after the former occupied the latter, which happened in the same 1304. In 1318, he managed to achieve that Mikhailo Yaroslavich was killed in the Horde, leaving him the grand-ducal throne. But in 1322, the throne was taken from him by the son of Mikhail Yaroslavich Dimitri, who in 1325, avenging his father, killed him in the Horde. In terms of his moral qualities, Yuri Danilovich, as is known, ranks among our old-time princes in one of the lowest places (the man is completely and to the last degree not a knight: Karamzin’s review of him - IV, 106 fin.). During his stay in Moscow, Herberstein was also told this (somewhat Zamoskvoretsk) legend that St. Peter moved into it for the sake of some holy elder Alexei who lived there (the metropolitan could not have called the elder back to Vladimir, so he himself did not find it difficult to transfer the metropolitan see from Vladimir to Moscow for his sake...). The so-called Typographic Chronicle, p. 259, also in Karamzin V, note 386, col. 167. Nikon Chronicle III, 130 beginning. Dmitry Mikhailovich, who expelled Yuri from the throne of the Grand Duke in 1322 and then killed him in the Horde in 1325, was himself executed for this last by order of the Khan (in September of the following year 1327, a little over 10 months after the murder of Yuriev, during which he was imprisoned in the Horde; but the throne of the Grand Duke was still not taken away by the Khan from princes of Tver: he was given to Dmitriev’s brother Alexander, in whose place Ivan Danilovich sat after the death of St. Peter. From 1322, Yuri lived not in Moscow, but in Novgorod, and was not engaged in intrigues against Dmitry Mikhailovich, but in Novgorod affairs (1 Novgorod Chronicle; perhaps, however, he meant to wait for an opportunity and, with the help of the Novgorodians, take the grand-ducal throne from the Prince of Tver). The current Moscow Assumption Cathedral is not the original one we are talking about, but was built again on the site of the original one. According to the testimony of the first life, St. Before his death, which was announced by an angel, Peter distributed his property to the poor, priests, monks and nuns, all churchmen and his household. That it is near the outer wall is clear from the words of the Nikon and Resurrection Chronicles about the location of Feognostov’s body. About the election of St. Peter, in his place as Archimandrite Theodore, is spoken by the unknown author of his first life (preparing to give up the ghost, the dying St. Peter “said to the venerable Archimandrite Theodore, his own military leader to the metropolis: “Peace be with you, child, I want to honor you”). Cyprian, as a newcomer who did not sympathize with the election of metropolitans in Russia itself, is silent about this very important circumstance. Who Archimandrite Theodore was remains unknown. If one could accept the assurance of the chronicles that Daniil Alexandrovich, having founded the Danilov Monastery in Moscow, established an archimandrite in it, then one would have to think that Theodore was the archimandrite of this particular Danilov Monastery; but it is doubtful that Daniil Alexandrovich established an archimandrite in his monastery. Then, in northern Rus' (except for Novgorod) there were then two archimandrites: the Vladimir Nativity Monastery and the Rostov Petrovsky Monastery; the first was an archimandrite of the metropolitan, and the second of a foreign diocese, which is why it seems most likely to think of the first. It could, however, also be the case that St. Before his death, Peter gave the rank of archimandrite to the abbot of the Danilov Monastery (only in 1330 the archimandrite of the palace Spassky Monastery, who, according to the chronicles, was moved this year from the Danilov Monastery, was called not Theodore, but John). Nikon Chronicle III, 139. See the Greek records about the installation of bishops under Metropolitan Theognostus, discovered by Mr. Regel in one Vatican manuscript and printed - in Russian translation in the article by Mr. Vasilievsky: “Records about the installation of Russian bishops under Metropolitan Theognostus in the Vatican Greek collection”, published in the February book of the Journal of the Ministry of Public Education for 1888; in the Greek original - in the edition of Mr. Regel: Analecta Byzantino - Russica, Petropoli, 1891. See Acta Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani, published by Miklosic and Miller, I, 147 (after two nameless mentions of the Metropolitan of Lithuania, under 1317 and 1326, this time the acts call him by his name, which is Theophilus). In the month of January 1327, i.e. immediately after the death of St. Peter, we see the Metropolitan of Lithuania in Constantinople - Acta Patriarchat. Constantinop., I, 143. Of course, he came to Constantinople on some business of his metropolis, but what exactly and whether the trip had any connection with the death of St. Petra, unfortunately, we can’t say anything at all. Subsequently, a bell tower was built over the Church of St. John the Climacus (because people walk up stairs to the bell towers?), which is why it began to be called the Church of “St. John under the Bells”; Currently it is under the bell tower of the Kremlin cathedrals, which received the name Ivanovskaya from it. In 1326, Ivan Danilovich, in memory of John Climacus (March 30), had a son, Ivan (Resurrection Chronicle): it is likely that our church was built on this occasion. Church of St. Peter's was built not as an independent church, but as a chapel to the Church of the Assumption of the Mother of God, in which St. Metropolitan Peter (on the north side. It was built either because the worship of the chains of the Apostle Peter (January 16) was, perhaps, the day of the angel St. Peter, or because the chapel for the worship of the chains was located in St. Sophia of Constantinople, see Pilgrim Anthony according to the edition of Savvaitov, col. 63). Nowadays there is the court cathedral of the Savior on Bor (located in the courtyard of the palace. - The chronicles say that the monastery was founded by Ivan Danilovich; but the monastery was mentioned earlier, in 1319, in the story about the bringing of the body of Mikhail Yaroslavich to Moscow from the Horde). Nowadays it is the Archangel Cathedral. Whether the stone wooden church of the Archangel Michael existed before is a question and it is more likely that it did not exist. The Nikon Chronicle assures that Danilo Alexandrovich and Yuri Danilovich were buried in the Church of the Archangel Michael. But Danilo Alexandrovich was buried in the Danilov Monastery, and Yuri Danilovich - in the Church of St. Demetrius, who later formed the chapel of the Assumption Cathedral (see the chronicles about the construction of the new Assumption Cathedral in 1472). 11 years after the construction of the Church of the Archangel Michael, during the years 1344–1345, all five stone churches were painted with wall writing, which was done partly by Greek masters, partly by their own Russians. We will deliberately talk about this below, in the section on churches and worship. See the first life of St. Petra, owned by an unknown person. As for even before the arrival of Theognost, it is clear from the fact that in Vladimir the records of miracles were read by the Rostov bishop Prokhor, who obviously replaced the metropolitan who had not yet arrived and, in any case, died before the arrival of Theognost. (In some lists of the life the Grand Duke is called Ivan Danilovich, but this is a mistake or an erroneous amendment instead of: Alexander Mikhailovich). In Acta Patriarchat. Constantinop. I, 191, and from here with a Russian translation in Pavlov's Monuments, appendices col. 11. In the Book of Degrees we read: “There are many and many more holy metropolitans, who formerly (St. Peter) decorated the throne of the Russian metropolis, from the first in the city of Kyiv, His Holiness Metropolitan Michael, and to Maxim, the Metropolitan, who lived in the city of Vladimir, of whom there are 23 in number - all these holy hierarchs The metropolitans showed many works and deeds and acquired many virtues to God and all with the haste of the Holy Spirit preserved the Church of Christ immaculately and piously corrected the word of the divine truth, and even if such things were holy, they received from them many miracles and gifts from God, and also received heavenly honors every time against their labor: on earth not a single one from them was worthy to receive on the day of their remembrance the celebration and solemn bliss, until God deigned to pass and establish the Kyiv and Vladimir powers in the God-loving city of Moscow, where then the power was Grand Duke Ivan, named Kalita, after his father blessed Daniil Alexandrovich; and then, by the grace of God, this man of God, great among saints, Peter, came to the city of Moscow, together with him God’s grace came, as he himself prophesied and blessed this saint of God, and God himself glorified him more than all the former Russian metropolitans before him,” - I, 409. Ivan Danilovich and the other princes who were with him “began to exhort and pray to the Most Reverend Metropolitan Theognost, so that he would bind” Alexander Mikhailovich with excommunication and prohibition, - Nikon Chronicle III, 153. See the above Greek records about the installation of bishops by Metropolitan Theognostus. Unfortunately, the places of production are not indicated in the records; but it is much more likely to think that the installations of these three bishops took place in Moscow or Vladimir than in Novgorod. Acta Patriarchate. Constantinop., I, 164. See the above and now mentioned records on the installation of bishops. As can be seen from the same records about the appointment of bishops in accordance with the news of our chronicles. See Pavlov in the mentioned article “On the beginning of the Galician and Lithuanian metropolises,” page 33. And that the ὁ Γαλίτζης who was in Constantinople in April 1331 was undoubtedly the Metropolitan of Galicia, and not a bishop, as others assume, this is evident, firstly, from the fact that he is given the title ὑπερειμοσ 'a, which could not possibly have been given to the bishop, secondly, from the fact that in the records of the Galician metropolis, closed in 1347, opened in 1337-1338, it is said that before that time it was opened πολλάκις - many times (Pavlov ibid., p. 17), while if we accept that in 1331 there was a bishop, then we will have only two discoveries of the metropolis before 1347. Chronicles about the return of Theognost from a trip to the Volyn land (Nikon Chronicle under 1332, III, 160). That in 1333, many chronicles say; that in the spring, this is indicated by some chronographs, according to which the Metropolitan, having arrived from the Horde in 1338, laid the foundation for the Church of the Archangel Michael in Moscow that year. Chanibek, as we noted above, ascended the khan’s throne not directly after Uzbek, but after his elder brother Tinibek sat on it for a very short time. Nikon Chronicle III, 179. The Novgorod Chronicle says that they told the khan about the metropolitan Kalantai (printed: Kalantai). Since, according to Hammer, “kalan” means tax (Geschichte d. gold. Horde, S. 217, note 6), then kalantai should mean: tax collectors. Our chronicles speak of him: “This tsar Chanibek Azbyakovich is very kind to Christianity, he has created many blessings for the earth of the Rusty,” - Nikon Chronicle III, 209. See the transfer of old money to new ones in the article by V. O. Klyuchevsky: “Russian ruble of the 16th-18th centuries. in its relation to the present,” published in Book 1 of the Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities for 1884. Acta Patriarchal Constantinop., I, 171 beginning. The act occupies a place between acts with dates - from July 1337 and from February 1338. It is true that Emperor John Cantacuzene and Patriarch Isidore, in their letters on the closure of the third Galician metropolitanate, date its opening to the time of the unrest taking place in Constantinople, which unrest, consisting of an internecine war between the mother of the young emperor John Palaeologus and the ruler of the state, the subsequent co-emperor of John, our own Cantacuzene himself, began in October 1341. But one must think that the emperor and the patriarch are only blaming the unrest in order to present the opening of the Galician metropolis as a reprehensible matter (in reality, no internal connection can be seen between the unrest and the opening of the metropolis). King Casimir of Poland, who in 1370 asked the Patriarch of Constantinople for a special metropolitan for Galicia, wrote in his letter to him about this letter: “From the century of centuries, Galich was known as a metropolis in all countries and was the throne of the metropolis from the century of centuries: the first metropolitan of your blessing Niphon, the second metropolitan Peter, the third metropolitan Gabriel, the fourth Metropolitan Theodore, - in Pavlov ibid. col. 126. Taking Nifont for the first Galician metropolitan, installed in 1303, and meaning by Peter the Metropolitan of All Russia, St. Peter, who was sent to Constantinople to be installed as separate metropolitans of Galicia, regarding Gabriel and Theodore, one can think that they need to be placed one in the place of the other and that the second of them was the metropolitan of 1331, since we positively know from the Greek records about the installation of bishops by Theognostus that the metropolitan of 1331 was called Theodore, and the first was the metropolitan of 1337–1338 year. Greek acts on the closure of the metropolis among six, namely, the chrysobul of Emperor John Cantacuzenus from the month of August 1347 and his letters to Metropolitan Theognostus, Grand Duke Simeon Ivanovich and Prince Lubart Gediminovich, from September of the same year, the decree of Patriarch Isidore and his letters to the former Galician metropolitan from the second of the two indicated months of the same year, - in Pavlov's Monuments, col. 13 sqq, nos. 3–8. After the Grand Duke of Galicia, Yuri Lvovich, who died at the end of 1315 during the defense of the city of Vladimir from Gediminas, there were two sons, Andrei and Lev, of whom the first took the grand-ducal throne in Lvov (which was the then capital of the great reign), and the second sat on an appanage in Lutsk. Lev Yuryevich, who died before 1320, as they say - in 1319, was succeeded in the Lutsk inheritance by his son-in-law, the husband of his daughter, Lyubart, son of Gediminas. After Andrei Yuryevich, who died in 1324, there was a son, Yuri, who, being childless, occupied the throne until 1337 and on whom the line of Galician princes ended or was cut short. Yuri Andreevich was succeeded by Boleslav Troydenovich, the son of the Polish Mazovian prince Troyden, whose mother, and Troyden's wife, was the daughter of either Yuri Lvovich or Andrei Yuryevich. After the death of Boleslav, for his adherence to Catholicism, and, perhaps, for another reason that he was poisoned by the Galician boyars on March 25, 1340, the Polish king took possession of his own Galicia (for 9 years until 1349, he struggled with persistent indignations - Dlugosh), Volyn Lyubart Gediminovich with his brothers (cfr agreement of the sons of Gedimin with the Polish king, printed in the Acts Western Russia, Vol. I, No. 1), and Western Russia, so to speak, above Volyn, as far as it had not yet been conquered by the Grand Dukes of Lithuania, these latter took possession. In Lithuania, Gediminas sat on the grand-ducal throne until the end of 1341; Gediminas was succeeded by his son Evnutius, who in 1345 was driven from the throne by his brother, the famous Olgerd. In Pavlov's Monuments col. 38. The decree is not entirely clear in this place, so it is not clear who exactly pronounced the excommunication - the metropolitan or the patriarch. The real words of the decree are: “We (the patriarch with the council) cancel the conciliar act on the Galician (metropolitanate) that recently took place, during the unrest, under the patriarch who was before us (John Kalek, who was deposed on February 2, 1347), resolving and removing the conciliar act then pronounced against bishops and other persons who do not obey the Galician metropolitan, church prohibition, as incorrectly carried out.” - Bishop Daniel of Vladimir-Volyn, who lived in Pereyaslavl Zalessky and who in 1344 installed the Monk Serius of Radonezh as abbot, should be considered one of the bishops who fell under the ecclesiastical prohibition of the metropolitan or patriarch, and because of enmity with the metropolitan, retired to northern Russia. Ibid. col. 40. We strongly suspect that the accusation that Theognostus brought against the Metropolitan of Galicia before and after the closure of the metropolis was that the Metropolitan of Galicia, with the assistance of Gediminas, took over from him, the Metropolitan of All Russia, the main cathedral city of his metropolis, Kyiv. It is very likely that in 1337–1338, when the Galician metropolis was opened, Kyiv in state terms already belonged to Lithuania, that is, it had already been conquered by Gediminas; but if it did not yet belong to Lithuania, then, in any case, it was in such a vassal dependence on it, which made it possible for the Metropolitan of Galicia to take it over from the Metropolitan of All Russia, for in such a vassal dependence, as can be seen from the story of the Novgorod Chronicle about the journey of the Novgorod Archbishop Vasily to the Volyn land to the Metropolitan for dedication, Kyiv was still in 1331 year. By the way, our suspicion is confirmed by the fact that there is no news at all that Theognostus was in Kyiv even once. [That Metropolitan Theognost either did not visit Kyiv at all or was not there upon his arrival in Rus' (from which the first would follow as a probable conclusion), the Typographical Chronicle speaks about this directly, although vaguely: “In the summer of 6836, Metropolitan Grechin, named Theognost, came to Rus'; I haven’t been to Kiev,” – page 82 sub fin..] III, 186. – In Tatishchev, instead of what is read in the Nikon Chronicle, the following unexpected is read: “The Most Reverend Theognostos, Metropolitan, held a council on spiritual affairs for the correction of monastic service and church servants; and set the beginning of the year from September 1st (which is a complete lie), and copied the list of the ambassador, Grand Prince Simion Ivanovich with Archmandrite Rozhdestvensky to Constantinople to the Patriarch, asking for a blessing,” - IV, 163, see also I, 67, (from Tatishchev Moscow Cathedral of 1347 and in the History of the Hierarchy, - I, 264). Simeon Ivanovich's first wife was the Lithuanian princess Augusta or Aigusta, named Anastasia in baptism, with whom he was married in the winter of 1333 and who died on March 11, 1345; his second wife was Eupraxia, the daughter of the Smolensk prince Fyodor Svyatoslavich, with whom he married in the summer of 1345 and whom he sent back to her father the following 1346; His third wife was Maria, the daughter of the Tver prince Alexander Mikhailovich, with whom he married in 1347. Hist. Byzant. lib. XXVIII, cap. 35, and lib. XXXIV, cap. 31, ed. Bonn, p. 192 fin. and 516. About the fall of the apse of St. For Sophia, see Byzantium in Κωνσταντινουπολις ’e, I, 511. Its renewal is spoken of in one act of the end of 1348 - Acta Patriarchat. Constantinop., I, 275. In the emperor’s letter to Lubart, the matter is presented as if the bishop of Galich was elevated to metropolitan in addition to the quests of him, the prince, and that if he accepted him, it was only out of good obedience and submission to the holy Church of God - in Pavlov col. 34. But it is necessary to think that it was only Greek diplomacy that did not seek the opening of the metropolitanate, prince, and therefore there is no need for you to be upset by its closure. We know about our stay in Bryansk, visiting Novgorod and traveling to the Volyn land from chronicles; about his stay in Kostroma - from the letter of St. Alexy on Chervleny Yar, printed in Volume I of Historical Acts, No. 3, and reprinted in Pavlov’s Monuments, No. 19. In Bryansk, Metropolitan Theognostus, just as was the case with St. Peter, happened to be during sedition, which is about the same as about St. Peter, the Resurrection Chronicle reads: “The same (1340) winter, the month of December 6, killed Gleb Svyatoslavich of Bryantsy, leading him out of the church of St. Nicholas; At that time, Metropolitan Theognost was in Bryansk, and it was impossible to appease them.” See now the aforementioned letter of St. Alexey. 4 Novgorod, – Collection of chronicles IV, 60. The afterword is published in Stroev's Bibliological Dictionary, page 2 note, and in Information and notes on little-known and unknown monuments of Sreznevsky, No. LXXXVI. [The afterword was printed in the posthumous work of A. E. Viktorov, published by the Archaeographic Commission: Inventories of manuscript collections in book depositories of northern Russia, p. 68.] About the collection discovered in one of the manuscripts of the former library of the Solovetsky Monastery, now owned by the Kazan Theological Academy, see Orthodox Interlocutor 1867, part II, p. 236. In our chronicles (Nikonovskaya and Voskresenskaya under 1352, - first: III, 198, Degree Book I, 484, cfr Karamzin. IV, note 348) the handwritten or spiritual testament of Magnus is read, in which he orders his children and his brothers and the whole land of Svei not to step on Rus' in spite of the kiss of the cross: “before - says the king does not help us,” that is, we are not successful in our attacks on the Russians. Having talked about these unsuccessful attacks, starting with the one that took place under Alexander Yaroslavich in 1240, Magnus says about himself that after two campaigns on the Novgorod land he suffered a terrible shipwreck - that all sorts of disasters befell the Swedish land after that, and that God took away his mind, so that he sat in a room for a year, chained to the wall with an iron chain. “I was taken out of the room,” says Magnus, “by my son Sakun, who came from Norway; but when he took me to Norway, a storm overtook me again and I floated on the bottom of a broken ship for three days and three nights, until I was carried by the wind under the monastery of the Holy Savior into the Full River. (The full river is the Finnish river Aura-yuki, on which the city of Abov stands, see Research Russian translation p. 159). In the monastery, Magnus became a monk and wrote his spiritual will. In this will, we don’t know how authentic it is, under the monastery of St. Spas, of course, is a Latin monastery (located in Abov or above it on the river). But the monks of our Russian monastery of St. The Savior, located on the island of Valaam, lovers of extraordinary legends (the visit of their island by Apostle Andrew) took this to themselves and composed a legend that Magnus suffered a storm in Lake Ladoga, that he was saved in their monastery, that in their monastery he converted to Orthodoxy, became a monk, ended his life and was buried, see History of the Hierarchy III, 489 fin.. (For the poetic epitaph carved on a wooden board and located on the imaginary grave of Magnus, see A.N. Muravyov in Travel to Russian Holy Places, part 1, 6th edition p. 311, also in Nemirovich-Danchenko in Trip to Valaam (whom we do not currently have at hand to quote in more detail). The epitaph is not at all ancient, as the Valaam monks of Muravyov seemed to assure, but was composed by some poetic poet and writer in a not very long time, see Travel through Lakes Ladoga and Onega by N. Ozeretskovsky, published in St. Petersburg, in 1792, p. 75, and the indicated III volume of the History of the Hierarchy, printed in 1811, page 490 beginning, which directly and clearly states that there is no inscription on the imaginary grave of Magnus. To Ozeretskovsky, the monks seemed unable to name the mythical Swedish king by name, for he says: “Near the monastery there is a whole maple grove, in which the hermits show the grave of a certain Swedish sovereign”). See it in the Degree Book, I, 480, in 1 Sophia and Resurrection Chronicles under 1347. There were two successive bishops of Theodore in Tver: the first 1330–1342, the second until 1360. If we date the message to 1347, under which it is placed in the chronicles, then it is addressed to the second Theodore. The Chronicle, III, 206, says that the patriarch’s response message to the Novgorodians, which has not reached us, contained “concerns about appointments and church duties.” Archbishop Moses, leaving the see for the first time, took monastic vows, and the canonical rules prohibit bishops who accept the schema from returning to their former dignity - the Council in the Church of Wisdom, rule 2 (in later times it was understood specifically about the schema, as about real monasticism - the answers of the Council of Constantinople to Bishop Theognostus of Sarai): violation of the canonical rules could have its the result is a deliberate increase in fees. However, it should be noted that one cannot particularly rely on the testimony of the Nikon Chronicle; about the charters of Patriarch Anthony to Novgorod from 1393, the chronicle says that they were “about protorekh and istorekh, like those at sacred orders” - IV, 255 fin.; meanwhile, in these charters that have come down to us (in Pavlov’s Monuments No. 37 and No. 38) they do not speak about protores at appointments, but about something else (see below). Hist Byzant lib. XXVI, cap. 47, ed. Bonn. p. 114.– In one Greek manuscript of the Moscow Synodal Library of the 15th century there is a conciliar volume against Varlaam and Akindinus with the names of those who signed it. According to the description of the Greek manuscripts of the library of Archimandrite Vladimir, under the volume, among other things, there is a signature: Μητροπολίτης Ῥ ωσίου ὑπέρτιμος Φεόγνωστος , – No. 337, sheet 38, p. 497. If Ῥ ωσίου is not an error or typo instead of Ῥ ωσίας, then here we should mean not our Russian metropolitan, but the Greek metropolitan of the city of Rosiya or Rusiya, in the ancient times of Topira (which is located in European Turkey, in Thrace or Rumelia, not particularly far away northeast of the city of Enos, and is now called Keshan or Ruskioy by the Turks); if there is an error or typo instead of Ῥ ωσίας, then it is our Russian metropolitan. [We inquired in the synodal manuscript: the metropolitan is precisely Ῥ ωσίου, and not Ῥ ωσίας, therefore - not our Russian, but the Greek city of Rosiya or Rusiya; at the same time, he is not Θε ό γνωστος, as Fr. erroneously read. archimandrite, and Θεόδουλος (probably the same one who signed the conciliar act of 1355 - Acta Patriarchat. Constantinop. I, 433. The conciliar volumes against Varlaam and the Barlaamites were printed in volume 151 of the Patrology of Min, having been borrowed from the Dosithean edition of Τόμος ἀγάπης, but our volume is not between them).] Lib. XXVI, cap. 47, and lib. XXXVI, sar. 24–31. Voskresenskaya in the Collection of Chronicles VII, 217, and Typographical, p. 96 beginning. According to the Nikon and Typographical Chronicles, Theognost died on March 11, according to the Resurrection Chronicle - on March 1, according to the Degree Book (I, 444) - on March 14. The testimony of the Nikon and Typographic chronicles must be recognized as correct, since the first of them later says that Grand Duke Simeon Ivanovich, who died on the 26th of the following April, reposed half a week after the metropolitan, the forties who passed him. 183 The Moscow Synodal Library preserves a missal named after Metropolitan Theognostus, which very strongly and very clearly exposes the wrongheadedness of the schismatics - the Old Believers. This imaginary Theognost breviary is the same as the conciliar act against the heretic Martyn the Armenian - our History of the Russian Church, vol. I, 2 half p. 688 (electronic version - second paragraph after footnote No. 1545, corr.). About its production, far from being very skillful, by Fyodor Polikarpov, a famous student of Likhudov and director of the printing house, see the article “Scientific activity of Evgeniy Bolkhovitinov”, published in the June book of the Russian Bulletin of 1885, page 675 fin.. The first life of St. Alexy, belonging to the Bishop of Perm, appointed from among the archimandrites of Miracles, Pitirim, in the inscription of which, according to the currently known lists, the name of the author is not indicated and about whose affiliation to Pitirim we learn from the second biography writer - Pachomius, is read separately in manuscripts (we have at hand the Trinity Lavra No. 789) and is included in some chronicles: the so-called Typographical, under the year 1377, - page 132, and Voskresenskaya, under the same year, - Collection of Chronicles VIII. 26. From the manuscripts printed in volume I of materials for the history of the Russian church, published in the Kharkov Spiritual Bulletin, page 43 sqq. (February 1862. – Let us note in brackets that some question the attribution of the life to Pitirim and consider it to be authored by an unknown monk of the Chudov Monastery contemporary to the latter). When exactly Pitirim’s life was written remains unknown, but the most likely time should be considered 1447–48. (See Klyuchevsky Old Russian Lives of Saints, p. 134; if Pachomius says about the life that he uses the writings of Archimandrite Pitirim, who followed - after 1441 and before 1447 - was appointed bishop of Perm, then, probably, this should be understood not so that, according to his - Pachomius' information, Pitirim wrote the life when he was still an archimandrite, but so that in the inscription of the life it read: “it is written “to be an archimandrite, and to be an archimandrite”... which, according to the expression used in the old days, may mean not that the life was written by Pitirim when he was still an archimandrite, but that it was written by a bishop, a former archimandrite. There is a younger edition of this life, which appeared around 1486 - Klyuchevsky ibid. p. 243 fin.. The second life, written by the famous compiler of lives Pachomius Serbin in 1459 (Klyuchevsky, ibid., pp. 120 and 137), is found in many manuscripts (we have at hand the Volokolamsk No. 523 and No. 634 and the Trinity Lavra No. 789), and in 1877 it was printed by the Society of Lovers of the Ancient writing, – publications of the Society No. IV. It represents a literary treatment of the life of Pitirimov, supplemented partly, perhaps, on the basis of oral traditions, partly from the Epiphanius life of St. Sergius of Radonezh. The third and fourth lives were compiled in the 16th century and placed: one in the Nikon Chronicle, - IV, 55, the other in the Degree Book, - 1, 444; the first represents a literary adaptation of the life of Pitirimov, supplemented, like Pachomius, from the life of St. Sergius. The second, written by order of Metropolitan Macarius, is an adaptation of Pachomius with additions from the chronicles. The fifth life was compiled at the end of the 17th century and belongs to the famous Miracle monk Euthymius, a student of Epiphanius Slavinetsky (Descriptions of the Synodal Manuscripts of Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 338, sheet 13, p. 814). In the records of the acts of the Patriarchal Council of Constantinople, to which we have referred many times before. We will quote them below not according to the Acta Patriarchat. Constantinop. Miklosic, and according to the Monuments of Old Russian Canon Law by A. S. Pavlov, where the records relating to us are placed with a Russian translation. All information about the Principality of Chernigov has completely ceased since the invasion of the Mongols. Instead of Chernigov, Bryansk became the main table in the principality, to which the first was annexed as a suburb. On this main table and on the side tables (in Glukhov, Karachev, Torus, etc.) sat the children and grandchildren of Mikhail Vsevolodovich, who was killed by the Tatars in 1246 (who had numerous offspring) and, perhaps, the children and grandchildren of his brother Andrei Vsevolodovich, about whom the Ipata Chronicle under 1261, 2nd edition p. 562 beginning, cfr History of the Seversk land until the half of the 14th century. D. Bagaleya (Kiev, 1882). According to the not entirely intelligible evidence of the genealogical books, “behind him was (then) Moscow” (i.e., that he was then the governor of Moscow?), see Karamzin, vol. IV, note 324. – Since Moscow was Fyodor Byakont’s first princely city on the way to the north, it may very well be that Danilo Alexandrovich, a prince not particularly important, disposed him to stay with himself by promising him a possibly high position in himself. According to Pitirim, all the years of the life of St. Alexy, who died on February 12, 1378, was 85, which would imply that he was born in 1292; but Pitirim himself says that Alexy was 17 years older than Grand Duke Simeon Ivanovich, who was born in 1315, from which it follows that he was born in 1298. - Besides Simeon-Elevferius, or, as his genealogical books call him, Alferius, Fyodor Byakont had four more sons; From these sons came the boyar surnames of Ignatiev, Zherebtsov, Fomin, Pleshcheev and others. The Fomin family, descended from Fedorov’s second son Theophan or Fofan (from his youngest son Stefan), according to the genealogy book, “all served with the metropolitans” (Genealogical book, Novikov edition, I, 278 beginning), and Theophan’s eldest son Daniel, in his dying monastic life David, was one “of the nobles, the oldest bolars of the Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy, his servant molded and looked like no one else,” - in Karamzin, from the Trinity Chronicle, vol. V, note 254, col. 98, Nikon Chronicle IV, 251 fin.. However, now the above is read in the second or younger edition of Pitirimov’s life; in the first edition it only says “even in infancy, learned to read and write.” Pachomius reads a story, borrowed by him, as one must think, from oral tradition, about the miraculous calling of Simeon-Elevtherius to monasticism. The story is as follows: “When (Eleutheria) passed away in the 12th summer (of age), I still had (him) a child, as if it happened (to him) to shoot a hole in the birds (to spread out nets, meaning in the field, to catch birds), and Abiye, heeding this, having dozed off, a voice came to him, saying: ““ Alexei! what in vain "You are working, and from here you will be catching people"; and when I woke up from sleep, I saw no one, and marveled at the unusual voice, and even more so at the new title, saying: Alexei, and from that hour the youth became like a great man in despondency and contemplation... In the life of St. Sergius of Radonezh we find some information about the life of St. Alexy in the Epiphany Monastery, namely, in the life it is said that Sergius’s elder brother Stefan, who left him (Sergius) in the desert and went to Moscow, to the Epiphany Monastery, found Alexy in the monastery, who “honorably passed through the life of the Cherneks” (in it), that “with him (Alexy) Stefan was both very lively in spiritual life, but in the church on the choir both it is worth a number” that “also a certain Gerontius, a deliberate and glorious old man, lived in the same monasteries (together with them)” - lithographic edition of the life, page 61 ver. The time of the election of St. Alexy's position as governor is determined by the fact that he held the position of governor before being appointed bishop of Vladimir for 12 years and 3 months (Nikon Chronicle IV, 58, Degree Book I, 450), and he was installed as bishop on December 6, 1352. That Alexy was made governor not under Ivan Danilovich, who died on May 31, 1340, but under Semyon Ivanovich, Pitirim directly says. Regarding the duties of St. Alexy as a viceroy, his life of the 16th century says: “and elevated him to the eldership and arranged for his viceroy to be a hierarchical government, so that God’s people and all church courts judge in truth according to the sacred rule,” adding about the purpose of placing him as a governor: “so that according to Theognostus and the throne his heir will be,” - Degree Book. I, 450. The news that Metropolitan Theognostus fell ill in 1350 is read in one chronograph that we have at hand - the library of the Bethany Seminary No. 2215, vol. I, sheet 288, col. 2. St. Alexei was installed as bishop by Theognost on December 6, 1352, and was a bishop until Theognost’s death not for four years, as stated in the life placed in the Nikon Chronicle - IV, 58, but “only three months or a little more,” as Pitirim clearly says. As for Vladimir, having not yet been formally recognized by the patriarch as the capital city of the metropolitans, which recognition followed later, under Alexy himself, it could only be considered as a place of temporary residence for the metropolitans, which they could again cede to the bishops who had been there before them. 1 Novgorod Chronicle: “Metropolitan Theognost died, having suffered much,” - Collection of Chronicles III, 85. Between 6 and 22 July 1353, as the Nikon Chronicle makes clear, III, 202 and 203. In Pavlov's Monuments, appendices col. 41. Ἐξετάσει δεδωκοτες ἀκριβεστάτ ῃ ἐπὶ ὁλόκληρον ἤ δη ἐνιαυτόν , – subjecting it to a thorough year-long test. Positive evidence of what has just been said will be presented to the reader later, partly in the history of St. Alexy, mainly in the history of confusion in the department of the Russian metropolitanate that followed his death. Replaced Callistus I in April 1354. The conciliar act on his elevation to metropolitan was written on June 30, 1354. History of the Russian Church vol. I, half 1, p. 236. (electronic version - footnote No. 515, corr.) In his letter about Theodorite to Novgorod, in Pavlov’s Monuments, appendices col. 60. Further information about Theodoret is in the conciliar act on the transfer of the see of the Russian metropolis from Kyiv to Vladimir, ibid. col. 63. Our Nikon Chronicle speaks of the appointment of Theodoret as metropolitan by the Patriarch of Tern in 1352, – III, 201. In an article about Metropolitan Theognostus. The direct and indirect news that we have about Alexy’s fight with Roman are in disagreement with each other. Some news dates the struggle to the time before the elevation of Alexy to metropolitan or until June 1354; other news dates it back to the time after the elevation of Alexy to metropolitan; third news forces us to deny its very existence, claiming that Alexy left Constantinople before Romanus arrived there. Our Resurrection chronicles, - in the Collection of Chronicles VIII, 9, and Typographical, - page 97 beginning, say that Alexy returned from Constantinople to Rus' in the fall of the same 1354, in which he was elevated to metropolitan: this will mean that he returned immediately as he was elevated to metropolitan, and from this it will follow that the struggle took place before the elevation. That Alexy left Constantinople before Roman arrived there, this is stated by the Constantinople council ruling on the case of Alexy and Roman, dating back to 1361, which we will talk about below - in Pavlov’s Monuments col. 71 sub fin.. But it is necessary to think that our mentioned chronicles are mistaken and that the conciliar action of Constantinople, an unintentional mistake on the part of which cannot be allowed due to its proximity to the time of the struggle, deliberately tells a lie. Against our two chronicles, which claim that Alexy returned from Constantinople in the fall of 1354, we have two other and more authoritative chronicles that claim that he returned in the fall not of 1354, but of 1355, these are the Trinity (former) chronicles, - in Karamzin, vol. IV, note 383, and 1 Novgorod, - Collection of chronicles vol. III, p. 86. Then, that the struggle should be attributed to the time not before, but after the installation of Alexy as metropolitan, this is absolutely clear from the following. Firstly, the patriarch drew up his determination on the transfer of the metropolitan see from Kyiv to Vladimir and wrote his letter to the Novgorod archbishop about Theodoret in July 1354 after the elevation of Alexy to metropolitan; but neither the definition nor the charter contains a word about Romanos, whereas they should necessarily have spoken about him if he had already been in Constantinople at that time. Secondly, we have documentary and undoubted evidence that Roman was in Constantinople on August 7, 1355 (see Acta Patriarchat. Constantinop. Miklosic, t. I, p. 433, signatures under the conciliar act of August 17, 1355). But there is no doubt that Romanus was in Constantinople on August 17, 1355, not arriving there a second time after the installation, but remaining there after it (the installation), and since, on the one hand, there is in itself no reason to assume that he remained in Constantinople too long after Alexius, and on the other hand, we positively know that he returned after him - Nikon Chronicle III, 204: then according to Because of this stay of Roman in Constantinople, it is necessary to attribute the return of Alexy from it to Russia to the autumn not of 1354, but of 1355 (and his departure from Constantinople should be assumed earlier than August 17, when Roman was there and Alexy was no longer there). As for the conciliar definition of 1361, we can contrast his assurance that Alexy left Constantinople before Roman arrived there, we can contrast the following news, read in our Nikon Chronicle under 1354: “that same summer, a rebellion occurred in the priesthood, which had never happened before in Rus': in Constantinople, the patriarch appointed two metropolitans to all the Russian land Alexey and Roman, and great dislike was the boundary between them; and then from both of them, ambassadors from Constantinople came to Tver to Theodore, the ruler of Tver, and the priestly rank received the weight of greatness everywhere.” - III, 204. For the news of the Nikon Chronicle we cited to be fictitious, this is absolutely impossible to allow. The conciliar decision sends Alexy from Constantinople before the arrival of Romanus, as one must think, so as not to mention and remind about the litigation that was taking place between the metropolitans, since this litigation was an extremely disgraceful act on the part of its organizers; The truth, with which the council deals somewhat freely, was that Romanus arrived in Constantinople, when Alexei was actually planning to leave it (see Pavlov’s Monuments col. 53).- There is also evidence according to which the whole matter was the opposite of how it is usually presented and how it really was, this is the evidence of the Greek historian (immediate contemporary) Nicephorus Gregoras, who claims that after the death of Theognostus he arrived in Constantinople and, according to the request of Olgerd, who promised to accept Christianity, he was ordained metropolitan of all Russia, as if after the dedication of Romanus he arrived in Constantinople Alexy, according to Grigora, is an extremely bad man, and with the help of money he achieved that he too was appointed metropolitan, and as if in this way the Russian metropolitanate was divided into two (Historiae Byzantinae lib. XXXVI, cap. 36, ed. Bonn. p. 519). Grigora's testimony, remarkable in that it represents almost the only (accidental) example of Greek speeches about the affairs of the Russian Church, in its quality should be ranked among the examples of Greek perversion of history and Greek ease in denigrating people due to personal motives. Gregoras had the greatest hatred for Emperor John Kantakouzenos and Patriarch Philotheus, who elevated Alexius to metropolitan status, because of the dispute about the Tabor light, in which he (Gregora) was an ardent defender of the teachings of Varlaam and Akindinus against the teachings of Gregory Palamas, and now, out of a desire to impose a very bad act on Kantakouzenos and Philotheus, he and the great shamelessness, for which lying and writing history can mean the same thing, represents the events of the installation of two Russian metropolitans completely opposite to how they really were, and with that moral insanity for which it costs nothing to denigrate a person in the most vile way, he portrays Alexy, about whom he has absolutely no information, appropriating the meaning of information only from slander heard from representatives of the side hostile to him, as an extremely bad person. Nikon Chronicle, see previous note. St. Alexis was elevated to metropolitan in the month of June 1354 by Patriarch Philotheus by the will of Emperor John Cantacuzen. But in January of the following year, 1355, John Cantacuzene had to abdicate the throne, followed by Patriarch Philotheus, who ceded the department for the second time to Callistus I. One must think that this change on the imperial throne and the patriarchal department, if it did not double the expenses of those competing, still greatly increased them. The senior bishop in the metropolis of Alexy was the Archbishop of Novgorod, but he was with him, by inheritance from Theognostus, which is now in the text, if not completely hostile, then in very strained relations. The eldest after the Archbishop of Novgorod was the Bishop of Rostov, and we cannot say why Alexy did not turn to him. There is some reason to believe that Alexy was in personal friendship with the Bishop of Tver (Nikon Chronicle III, 211); this, perhaps, was the reason why he turned to him. In 1350, Olgerd married the daughter of the Tver prince Alexander Mikhailovich (who was the Grand Duke before Ivan Danilovich). In Nikifor Grigora, Lib. XXXVI, ed. Bonn. Vol III, p. 518. We know about the outcome of the litigation from the definition of the Patriarchal Council of 1361, in Monuments. col. 73 sqq. To our great regret, because, as one might think, from it we would know what exactly the archbishop’s complaint was (Nikon Chronicle III, beginning 206). It was not included in the records of the actions of the Patriarchal Council, probably because it was, so to speak, cashed out by the letter that followed it. She is in Monuments col. 51. Written in July 1354. On the way back from Constantinople on one of his two trips to it, St. Alexy, having endured a storm on the Black Sea, landed on the shore on August 16, which we know from the history of his construction of a votive monastery (Andronikov) in honor of the holiday of our day. This enduring of the storm is mostly attributed to the second journey; but in fact it should be attributed to the first journey, for from the second journey of St. Alexy had already brought an icon for their proposed monastery, and he returned from his second trip not in the fall, but in the winter, see below. To install two Tver bishops (Vasily in 1361 and Euthymius in 1374), Alexy traveled to Tver itself, to install one Suzdal bishop (Dionysius in 1374) - to Suzdal itself. If, on the basis of these examples, we were to assume that it was generally, or at least for the most part, customary for him to travel to install bishops in their very cathedral cities, then one would think that he also had in mind the purposes of pastoral supervision (supervision). Printed in Volume 5 of the Additions to the Works of the Holy Fathers, p. 30. Published in 1 book of “Soulful Reading” for 1887, p. 458. The certificate was printed in Vol. I of Historical Acts, V 3, and reprinted in Pavlov’s Monuments, No. 19. We find it in Constantinople in July 1356, - Acta Patriarchat. Constantinop. Miklosic, t. I, p. 362 fin.. Nikon Chronicle III, 206, cathedral definition of 1361 in Monuments col. 73. Set off in the fall of 1356, - Resurrection Chronicle, in Collected Chronicles VIII, 10. Nikon Chronicle ibidd. Alexy returned in the winter of 1356 - Resurrection Chronicle ibid. Council definition of 1361. See the same council definition of 1361. Patriarchal charter to Roman of 1361 in Monuments col. 86 (that Aleksin belonged to the Moscow department, having been bought from someone by St. Peter, see the charter of Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich in the Description of the state archive of old affairs of P. Ivanov, p. 212, and the Nikonov chronicle under 1347 [III, 190], others under 1348). See the conciliar act of 1361 and the patriarch’s letter to Roman of the same year in Monuments. In January 1358, Alexy went to Kyiv to visit him (Nikonovskaya and Resurrection Chronicles) and during his stay there he was captured by Olgerd and imprisoned, from which he escaped. Since Alexy does not complain to the patriarch about this act of Olgerd, one must think that he sent ambassadors with complaints against Roman to Constantinople earlier than his trip to Kiev. According to the story of the cathedral act of 1381, - Monuments col. 167. (Our chronicles, speaking about the journey of St. Alexy to Kiev, do not say anything about what happened to him there. According to our chronicles, having gone to Kiev in January 1358, St. Alexy returned to Moscow in 1360, - Nikonovskaya and Resurrection, it is unknown when before the month of July - the first chronicle, III, 214 and 215). The conciliar act and the patriarchal letter to Roman dated July 1361 say that it was decided to send ambassadors; but their departure could have been somewhat delayed. Nikon Chronicle IV, 2, cfr patriarchal council act of 1364 in Monuments, col. 95. A year before his death, in 1360, Roman came to Tver (Nikon Chronicle III, 214); but, in all likelihood, not in order to try to subjugate the Bishop of Tver to his power, who, in any case, did not show him any honor and did not even want to see him, but in order to reconcile the quarreling Tver princes, cfr Soloviev History vol. IV, edition 4 p. 274. In Collection of State Charters and Treaties I, No. 24, p. 38, col. 2 fin.. In the Greek acts, see the cathedral act of 1380. in Monuments col. 165, and the same act of 1389 ibid. col. 197: Grand Duke Ivan Ivanovich “before his death, he not only handed over his son to the care of the Metropolitan (Alexy), but also entrusted him with guardianship of all power (τὴν τῆς ἀρχῆς ἀπάσης ἐπιτροπείαν καὶ φυλακήν ), not trusting anyone else (in view of the multitude, external and internal enemies).” Greek acts, in Monuments col. 165 and 197. See 1 Novgorod Chronicle under 1332, 1333, 1337, 1339 and 1340. Cfr in Grigoriev’s dissertation “On the reliability of Khan’s labels”, p. 65 sqq. Dad, turning to the khan, considered it necessary to write a special message from the khan to Taidula. We have direct instructions regarding the deliberate devotion of St. Alexy, the then bishop of Sarai (Athanasius) - in Greek acts, Monuments col. 53. The label given by Taidula to St. has survived to this day. Alexy in case of his travels to Constantinople (travel sheet); but, unfortunately, it cannot be decided in what year it was given, see Grigoriev in the mentioned dissertation, p. 89. In the chapter: “The enslavement of Rus' by the Mongols and the relationship of the Mongol khans to the Russian church or to the Russian faith and to their clergy,” above p. 22 (electronic version - footnote No. 39, corr.). In the life of St. Alexy Pitirimov does not report his healing of the Khansha; The chronicles speak about him: the Resurrection Chronicle, the story of which we have given - in the Collection of Chronicles VIII, 10, and Nikonovskaya, - III, 208. The later lives of St. Alexy takes the story from the chronicles and more or less remakes it: according to them, the Khansha’s illness was eye; She was ill for three years; The khan and khansha allegedly knew about the metropolitan only by hearsay. - The Resurrection and Nikon Chronicles say that St. Alexy was released from the Horde with great honor. But the other two chronicles: 4 Novgorod, - in the Collection of Chronicles IV, 63, and 1 Sofia, - ibid. V, 228, - they say that he received “a lot of languor” from the Tatars in the Horde. The matter, in all likelihood, should be understood in such a way that St. Alexy, who saw great honor from the khan and his mother (Taidula), accepted languor during the suppression that began in the Horde from the khan's officials. - In the Moscow Synodal sacristy there is a copper ring, which is passed off as the ring donated by Taidula to St. Alexia. Of course, it would be very doubtful to accept a copper ring, worth a few pennies, as a gift from the queen. But it turns out that he is only, so to speak, a substitute for a real ring that disappeared in the past or present century. There is a decree of St. Synod of January 28, 1722, which states that Peter the Great, having been remembered on January 28 at the Liturgy in the Miracle Monastery, saw “at the image of the miracle worker Alexy, which is carried out during great crucifixions, in the weight on the tsate is a gold ring, which is called the own of that miracle worker Alexy,” and ordered that it be taken to the synodal the sacristy, and by which (by decree) it is prescribed to carry out the command of the sovereign. (Complete collection of decrees and orders for the department of the Orthodox Confession, vol. II, no. 386, p. 42). Life of St. Alexia, placed in the Degree Book, correcting Pachomius, who is falling into incongruity (cfr in Klyuchevsky in Lives p. 139), speaks of his two journeys to the Horde, which took place one after the other: the first - to heal the Khansha and the second - at the request of Grand Duke Ivan Ivanovich to appease in favor of the fierce prince Berdibek, - I, 456. [But the Right Reverend Savva in the 5th edition (and maybe before the 5th, just not in the 1st) of his Index of the Patriarchal Sacristy says that already in the inventory of the last one from 1695 it appears: “the ring of Alexei, Metropolitan of Arap Copper, a gift from the Nogai king Zhanbek - p. 47, col. 2 note.] The latest record of the debate, made on the basis of oral tradition, is read in one Rumyantsev manuscript, according to Vostokov’s Description No. 214, p. 278. It is: “Mollagavzadin was blind, and his wife was a queen, Baraka was the king’s sister, and his son was Munzi the hero: he had an affair with the Metropolitan with Alexy in the Horde before the king, if the blind queen enlightened Zenebekova in the Horde.” Nikon Chronicle III, 215 and 220, Resurrection Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles VIII, 11 and 12. Nikon Chronicle III, 208. Nikon Chronicle IV, 15. Cfr Brief Russian Church History of Metropolitan Plato, I, 190 fin. In one chronicle passage, according to a letter belonging to the 17th century, it is directly stated that Dimitri Ivanovich founded the city of Moscow with stone on the advice of his great father Alexei the Wonderworker - Bychkov Description of the collections of the Public Library I, 154. [This is also said in the Degree Book, - I, 463 fin..] Nikon Chronicle IV, 15. Olgerd, as we said above, was married to the sister of Mikhail Alexandrovich. In one chronicle (Voskresenskaya): “on the third day.” Nikon Chronicle IV, 19. Having been released, Mikhailo Alexandrovich, according to the Nikon Chronicle, “began to have peace about this with Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich, becoming angry and complaining especially about the Metropolitan, saying: I have so much love and faith for this Metropolitan above all others, and he has only disgraced me in mate”, – IV, 19 sub fin., see also the Resurrection Chronicle. T. V, col. 8. As if this is also suggested, to express it not entirely clearly, A.V. Gorsky in his article: “St. Alexy, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia,” published in volume VI of “Additions to the works of the Holy Fathers,” pp. 116–117. History of the R.C. period 2, § 29. History of R. Ts. volume IV, p. 51 fin. History of Russia vol. III, 3rd edition p. 324. – His Grace Filaret completely passes in silence the fact of the capture of the Tver prince in Moscow; His Eminence Macarius says that the prince, who was actually taken into custody in Moscow by deception, accused not only the prince of Moscow, but also the metropolitan of this treachery; S. M. Solovyov says that “in 1368, Grand Duke Dimitri and Metropolitan Alexy kindly invited Prince Mikhail to Moscow for an arbitration court,” and then silently, “after this trial, the Tver prince was captured along with all the boyars and put in prison.” And whoever wants to claim that the saints are completely sinless is subjected to strict condemnation by the canonical rules - the Council of Carthage, rules 128-130. (And whoever would like to prohibit history from any talk about the sinlessness admitted by the saints in their deeds, has against him the Gospel story itself, which is not silent about Peter’s three-fold denial of the Savior and about other former cases of the apostles’ manifestation of their human sinfulness.) Six letters of the patriarch to Rus' from June 1370 in Monuments, col. 97 sqq (the metropolitan is called a great man in the letter to the Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich, col. 101; in general, about the patriarch’s declaration of his affection for the metropolitan, see the letter to the latter, col. 105). Letters of the patriarch to the metropolitan and prince from September 1371, - in Monuments col. 150 sqq. Nikon Chronicle IV, 44. From June 1370, - in Monuments col. 115. Council definition of 1361, in Monuments col. 70. See our Brief outline of the history of the Orthodox churches of Bulgarian, Serbian and Romanian, pp. 106 and 473 (seizing its regions from the empire, the Bulgarians and Serbs and in church terms subordinated the captured regions to the jurisdiction of their patriarchs: but the patriarchs of Constantinople protested against this in the most decisive manner). The now mentioned conciliar act of 1364 says that Olgerd was ready to endure and do everything so as not to have Alexy as metropolitan and so as not to see his power and country in his spiritual subordination - Monuments col. 93. Letter from the king to the patriarch in Monuments, col. 125. The king actually claims that “from century to century Galich has been known as a metropolis in all countries and has been the throne of the metropolis from century to century.” The conciliar act on the installation of Anthony in Monuments, col. 129. Before his installation, Anthony, like Alexius, had to survive in Constantinople for a long time in order to be subjected to a thorough test ( δοκιμασ ίᾳ). From Augustus 1371, in Monuments col. 141. Ὁ φείλει δὲ λαβεῖν ἐπιδ ό σεως λόγ ῳ καὶ τὰς ἁ γιωτάτας ἐπισκοπάς ... The expression ἐπιδ ό σεως λόγ ῳ does not mean that the dioceses are subordinate to Anthony as a metropolitan, which is self-evident, but that each of them is entrusted to him for temporary control as a bishop. In the first life of St. Alexy reads the list of bishops appointed by him during (for the entire time) his stay at the metropolitan see. In this list, if it is complete, there is not a single bishop installed in southern, Galician-Volyn, Russia. His letter to the Patriarch in Monuments col. 135. From Augustus 1371, in Monuments col. 145. On the dispatch of the apocrisiary in a letter to Alexius dated Augustus 1371, in Monuments col. 147. The Apocrisiary appears to Metropolitan Alexy in February 1374 - Nikon Chronicle IV, 40. Indication in the cathedral definition of 1389, - in Monuments col. 193. Evidence from the cathedral of 1380, – in Monuments col. 166. In one place of the conciliar act it is said and in an almost completely clear way that Cyprian was appointed metropolitan of all Russia, in the place of the living Alexy, it is said that he, Cyprian, should have been expelled from the borders of Rus', since he received the Russian church by deception and was not canonically installed, even during the life of the legitimate metropolitan Alexy, who was deprived of his church in absentia and without trial - in Monuments col. 179. See his spiritual charter. The Resurrection Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles VIII, 25, and the Nikon Chronicle IV, 48. The last chronicle says that it is as if Cyprian himself personally came to Moscow; but this is very incredible, and in another place she clearly says that he did not come himself, but sent ambassadors, ibid. p. 92. And what is read in the first chronicle according to the printed lists, that, having heard the given answer of the Novgorodians, Cyprian “did not send an ambassador to the Grand Duke to Moscow,” probably needs to be corrected, as it actually was, into the affirmative “and the ambassador.” Our Nikon Chronicle also speaks about the arrival in Moscow of the Apocrisiaries (two certain protodeacons, one of whom is named George, and the other Ivan), - IV, 47, but without any indication of the reason for the arrival. Monuments col. 172 sub fin.. When St. Alexy called the Monk Sergius to him and revealed to him his desire to see him as his successor, the latter answered: “Forgive me, Vladyka, for you have spoken beyond my measure, and this in me (the consent to fulfill the desire) will never be found: who am I a sinner and the worst person of all?” - To the strengthened insistence of Alexy Sergius answered: “Holy Vladyka, if you want to drive away my poverty from hearing your shrine, do not put anything else about seven, speak to my badness, and let no one else”... See Epiphanius’ Life of St. Sergius, according to the lithographic edition of fol. 253. Nikon Chronicle IV, 198. See Monuments of Moscow Antiquity by Snegirev, p. 131. The charter, which has survived to us, unfortunately, in a significantly damaged form, was published phototypically, with its exact reproduction, in 1892 as an appendix to the Gospel of St. Alexy, about whom below. Its reading with the supposed restoration of the damaged text is during the publication of the original, in Monuments of Moscow Antiquity, p. 142 fin., and in the Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities of 1886, book I, in the article “Radonezh tithe”, p. 30. In 1892, to celebrate the five hundredth anniversary of the death of St. Sergius of Radonezh, with whom St. Alexy was in a close friendship; the gospel was published phototypically or with an exact reproduction of the original by the late Eminence Leonty. About the Gospel, see the dissertation of G. A. Voskresensky: Ancient Slavic translation of the Apostle and his fate until the 15th century, p. 187 sqq, his articles: “The New Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ. The work of Saint Alexy, Metropolitan of Moscow and All Rus'. Phototype edition of Leonty, Metropolitan of Moscow”, and “Alexievsky copy of the New Testament to the Four Gospels of St. Nikon, the Wonderworker of Radonezh”, placed in the January and July books of the “Theological Bulletin” for 1893, and his later work: “Characteristic features of the four editions of the Slavic translation of the Gospel of Mark”, Moscow, 1896, pp. 258 sqq; also the assembly speech of I.D. Muretov under the title: “Church-practical and scientific-theological significance of the Slavic translation of the New Testament in the work of St. Alexy, Metropolitan of Kiev-Moscow and All-Russia,” published in the November and December books of the “Theological Bulletin” for 1897. What St. Alexy, in any case, knew the Greek language enough to write his signature in Greek, see about his letter to Chervlyony Yar in the Description of the Synodal Manuscripts of Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 338, sheet 34 verso, and in Pavlov’s Monuments col. 167. See the note on the correction of the Bible under Alexei Mikhailovich, printed in the Historical Dictionary of Metropolitan Eugene, I, 182 fin. Voskresensky in the said dissertation, p. 186. Although there are lists that can be taken as corrected from his manuscript - Voskresensky in the last article mentioned above. See the mentioned note, page 182 fin.. Voskresensky in his dissertation, p. 186. – The letter of the Gospel is small and very good, completely calligraphic, half-written. Of course, one cannot at all declare it impossible that St. Alexy was able to write calligraphically: but since semi-regular calligraphy requires a lot of time (very slow), and St. Alexy, saving his time, had every opportunity to replace himself with a real or professional calligrapher: this is the basis for doubting that part of the legend that assimilates the writing of the manuscript by St. himself. Alexia. (Although, on the other hand, it is not impossible to assume that the saint deliberately wanted to take the trouble to prepare a good copy of the Gospel). Comparison of the Gospel with the handwritten (as is accepted) spiritual letter of St. Alexia to the Chudov Monastery, which we mentioned above, does not give room for a positive answer, either in the affirmative or in the negative sense (as if it were the same hand, but as if not the same hand...). – Reading the entire manuscript of the Gospel in its phototype edition, since its small writing has faded or faded, is generally very difficult, and for us with our bad eyes it is completely impossible. But we read the Gospel of Mark, printed by G. A. Voskresensky in his publication: “The Gospel of Mark according to the main lists of four editions of the handwritten Slavic Gospel text” (Sergiev Posad, 1894), and we can now say the following: 1) The list of the New Testament, assimilated by the tradition of St. Metropolitan Alexy, contains or represents an undoubted special edition of the Slavic translation of the New Testament; 2) This special edition of the translation was made by a Russian, and not by any other Slav (for Russian words are used: pogost, which translates the Greek word κώμη, - I, 38 and VI, 6, 36 [in the first case: κωμοπόλεις - graveyards of the city], moshna, which is translated Greek word πήρα – VI, 8); 3) A special edition of the translation was made not by selecting from the existing editions what seemed to be the best readings, but by comparing it (the translation) with the Greek original; 4) The clear purpose with which the edition was made was the possible accuracy of the translation, in fact, its possible literalness, which is brought in the edition to nec plus ultra. Direct data to answer the questions: do St. To Metropolitan Alexy, the editing of the translation and the writing of the list do not represent the Gospels, for they could not represent them, but some indirect data seem to incline more towards a negative answer. Not to mention the few errors that were, of course, possible for St. Alexy, in the translation we find a strange, so to speak, originality (in another case we would call it whimsicality, originality), which St. Alexy and which consists, firstly, in the fact that some Greek words were left untranslated without any reason (vlasfimiya, which means blasphemy, - II, 7, vlasthimisaet - blasphemes: III, 29, sinapno grain - gorushno grain (mustard, editor's note) IV, 31, olokavtomat - burnt offerings: XII, 33, catapetasma - according to the ancient opona, according to the modern veil: XV, 38, centurion - centurion: XV, 39, paraskevi - heels: XV, 42); secondly, in the fact that some proper names are left in their Greek form (Bartimeos, - X, 46, Galileos - XIV, 70). As for the writing of the list, we find in the letter of the Gospel some liberties, as it were, (some, as it were, jocula) on the part of the writer, which the saint would also hardly have allowed himself. Alexy and which consist in the fact that proper names are sometimes written half in Russian and half in Greek Bartholomaia, - III, 18, phariseoi, - III, 6, saddo υκ аioi, - XII, 18). Without assimilating St. Alexey preparing the edition of the translation and writing the list, it will be possible to imagine the matter in such a way that during his stay in Constantinople, he ordered the production of the edition of the translation he desired and writing the list to one of those Russians who, according to the testimony of his contemporary Stefan Novgorod, lived in Constantinople, in the Studite monastery, and were engaged in copying the Slavic books of the Holy Scriptures and liturgical books for sending them to Rus'. Some of its features, such as the use of little-known words instead of well-known ones (for example, I, 7, vstugva (vustzga, corr. ) instead of belt, V, 15, sludba instead of shore, actually: steepness, rapids), the use of peculiar words (II, 49, mosque, VII, 22 nonsense, IX, 3, pralnik, IX, 18, skr’tati, IX, 50, peaceable), bold use of language to achieve perfect literalness ( κακεῖνον λιθοβολήσαντες ἐκεφαλαίωσαν – and that stone has thrown the table of contents: XII, 4, συνέδριον – seat: XIII, 9, XIV, 55, XV, 1, ἔτυπτον αὐτοῦ τὴν κεφαλὴν - Biyahu his chapter: XV, 19) the translation of the gospel reminds us of the disciple of St. Sergius of Radonezh and his biographer Epiphanius the Wise, about whom see our book: “Reverend Sergius of Radonezh and the Trinity Lavra created by him,” part I, notes 1 and 66, so we have a suspicion that it was not he, on behalf of St. Alexy, and together with the Venerable Serius, who prepared the edition of the translation and wrote the copy. The suspicion is unexpectedly reinforced to some extent by the fact that in the sacristy of the Trinity Lavra there is kept a list of the Gospels, assimilated by tradition to the Monk Nikon, about the relationship of which to the Chudovsky or Alexievsky list, which is the subject of the speeches, one should think that the editor of one of them had the other at hand, see the article by G. A. Voskresensky: “The Alexievsky List of the New Testament and the Four Gospels of the Venerable Nikon", published in the July book of the Theological Bulletin for 1893. However, when expressing our suspicion, we do not at all think of insisting on it and leave it to the future, if it turns out to be possible, to confirm or refute it. Having been the teacher of Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich, St. Alexy made him a sincerely and zealously pious man; but it is strange that the prince, according to the testimony of the story of his life and death, was not well taught in books. In the 17th century, allowing himself to denigrate the memory of St. in a not particularly laudable manner. Alexy, they wanted to cover with his authority the humiliating attitude towards the Crimean Tatars. In order to get rid of the raids of these Tatars on the Ukrainian regions of the state, they had to pay them annual very large “wake”, which, of course, did not serve our glory, and so, to justify this ignominy, they came up with the idea that “Alexey, Metropolitan of Moscow, arranged to give those wakes, after the time he was in the Crimea in full,” see Kotoshikhin On Russia during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, Ch. IV, § 37. All chronicles (1 and 4 Novgorod, 1 Sofia, Academic, Nikon and Resurrection), as well as Epiphanius in the life of St. Sergius (lithographic edition sheet 256) attribute the death of St. Alexy by 6885 from S. M. or by 1377 from A. X. But he died on February 12 on Friday (Nikonovskaya and Resurrection chronicles), and February 12 was on Friday not in 1377, but in 1378 from A. X., to which, on the basis now indicated, most of the new historians attribute his death. The explanation of the mystery regarding the chronicles and Epiphanius is that at that time there was a March reckoning and that according to this March reckoning, January and February 1378 were the last months of 1377. (When converting the September reckoning to the current January reckoning, in the case of the months of September-December, it is necessary to subtract from the years from S.M. not 5508, but 5509; on the contrary, when converting the March reckoning to the January reckoning, in the case of the months of January and February, it is necessary to subtract from the years from the creation of the world not 5508, but 5507). Nikon Chronicle IV, 65 fin. (cfr Klyuchevsky p. 133): “In the summer of 6939 (1431) during the reign of Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich, under His Holiness Photey, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus', the top of the church collapsed during the sacred litorgy and the priest had not yet emerged from the altar, but was unharmed: and thus the place of that church was cleared and started digging, wanting to found a new church in stone; and the sitsa diggingly found the sacred body of Alexei, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus', the sitsa and his vestments were intact, on the 20th day of the month Maia.” - The relics of St. Alexis were placed in the chapel of the newly built church. In the second half of the 15th century, Archimandrite Chudovsky, subsequent Archbishop of Novgorod. Gennady built a church in the monastery in the name of the saint himself, into which the relics were transferred. In place of the dilapidated Gennadian Church, a new church, still remaining, was built for the relics (with altars in the name of the Annunciation of the Mother of God and St. Alexis) in the second half of the 17th century (about the desecration to which the relics were subjected to by the French in 1812, having been thrown out of the shrine, see N. Rozanov in the History of Moscow Diocesan Administration, part of the third book II. page 25). At Key, ibid. (Description of the Synodal manuscripts of Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 410, l. 410 ver., p. 443 beginning).– For cancer of St. Alexy’s vestments are kept: sakkos, epitrachelion and vestment, and his staff, which, however, was renewed by Patriarch Joachim - Snegireva Monuments of Moscow Antiquity, p. 137, col. 2 sub fin.. “Mikhail, called Mityai,” is the story of Mikhail (Mityai) in the chronicles. Mityai is a diminutive of Dimitri (Mitya, Mityai; the Tver Chronicle calls Mityai exactly Mitya). It is likely that Mityai was not Michael’s nickname, but his worldly name in a diminutive form (as the Degree Book understands this, - I, 466 beginning). The speeches of the chronicles about Mikhail do not at all give reason to assume that instead of Demetrius he was called Mityai diminutively as a reproach and abuse: therefore, one must think that he was called this way or in special affection and as if in contrast to others, or simply randomly and without any reason, because it was customary to use his name that way. Two stories about Michael in the Nikon Chronicle under 1378, - IV, 66 sqq. (The second story begins: “It is fitting to know who this is”..., p. 68 beginning). In the Resurrection Chronicle (Collected Chronicles VIII, 28) and the so-called Typographical Chronicle (published in Moscow in 1784, p. 137) the stories are combined into one and in some places they present their own edition. “Son of Teshilsky priest Ivan, like him on the Oka River.” Currently, there is no Teshilova village near Kolomna on the Oka and not on the Oka. There was (and we don’t know whether there is) on the Oka the village of Teshilovo, significantly upstream from Kolomna, on one or the Tula side of the river; but it became Moscow only under Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich (Collection of state charters and treaties I, 281 fin., 285). Nikon Chronicle IV, 68. Nikon Chronicle IV, 72 fin. The Grand Duke brought Mikhail closer to him around 1370, when he was 20 years old (born in 1350): the expression “like a father” makes it clear that Michael, in relation to the Grand Duke, was at the age of his father. The latest edition according to the Resurrection and Typographical Chronicles. “Not all by will, but as if by necessity, he was brought quickly (to be tonsured) to the monastery of the Holy Savior.” The expression “as if”, as can be seen from the context of the speech, should not be understood in the sense that Mikhail only pretended not to want, but should be taken as a special way of expression - either unsuccessful or wanting to give the thought a special shade. The legend about Michael, which is hostile to him, occupies first place in the Nikon Chronicle. How the legend is read in the Nikon Chronicle. How the legend is read in the Resurrection and Typographical Chronicles. The epistle, together with two other epistles to the same Sergius and Theodore and with a fourth epistle to an unknown abbot, was published in the Orthodox Interlocutor of 1860, part 2, p. 85; reprinted in Pavlov's Monuments. col. 173. St. Alexy, after what he experienced from Cyprian, of course, had no desire to see him as his successor: but since the candidate he himself had chosen, St. Sergius of Radonezh, decisively refused “the offer made to him: then, in any case, he had to agree to Michael’s candidacy. And he gave the letter in the name of Michael, obviously, so that, in view of Cyprian’s claims, his will would be indisputably known to everyone. In Orthodox Interlocutor, ibid., p. 84. Along with the three letters to St. Sergius, Cyprian’s letter to an unknown abbot was preserved - in the Orthodox Interlocutor ibid., p. 105. If the assumption is correct that by abbot we should mean St. Athanasius, abbot of the Serpukhov Vysotsky Monastery, then one can think that Cyprian turned to Athanasius in the same quest as to the venerable Sergius. Afanasy could act on the Grand Duke through his appanage prince Vladimir Andreevich, with whom Dmitry Ivanovich lived in sincere love and friendship. Evidence of the conciliar act of 1380, in Monuments col. 171. Having now tried by the indicated means to overthrow St. Alexia, Cyprian finds it possible to exclaim: “What is my guilt before the prince before the great? I hope in God that he will not find a single fault in me.”... Regarding what happened to Cyprian in Moscow upon his arrival in it, the message reads “I went a different way (to Moscow, past the posted cordons)..., he (the Grand Duke) set over me a tormentor, the damned Nicephorus, and left the evil that he did not do to me? blasphemy and abuse and ridicule, robberies, hunger! He imprisoned me in the night, naked and hungry, and from that night I became cold and now the guards; My servants, for many evil things that they did to them, releasing them on skinny nags, without saddles, in bast clothes, they took the robbed people out of the city, up to their shirts and knives and leggings, and boots and shakos (hats) were not left on them!... The Grand Duke promised me without guilt, robbed me, kept me forever hungry and naked, and my monks are in another place, my servants are away; He imprisoned me at night, and ordered my naked servants to be sent away with merciless words: and who can utter the blasphemies they have uttered against me? then, when another day grew dark, and came to know me, I did not see whether they were leading me to death or to drowning; and even more cruelly: the leading guard and the accursed commander Nicephorus, clothed me with the clothes of my servants and rode on their horses and saddles." Letter to St. Sergius from the road to Moscow (from the city of Lyubutesk, which is currently the village of Lyubutskoye, in the Kaluga province, 48 versts from Kaluga, at the confluence of the Lyubucha River with the Oka) dated June 3; letter on expulsion from Moscow (it is unknown where) dated June 23. In the life of St. Peter, - Degree Book I, 422 sub fin.. However, he did not rush immediately after returning from Moscow: on October 18, 1378, he was in Kyiv and on that date he wrote a letter to St. Sergius (Orthodox Interlocutor ibid. p. 103). In a letter to an unknown abbot, which has no date, Cyprian says that he is going to go to Constantinople through the Wallachian land (ibid. p. 105): in all likelihood, this should be understood to mean that he set off in the winter of 1378–79, when it was inconvenient to sail across the Black Sea. The act of the Patriarchal Council of Constantinople in 1380, in Monuments col. 173. Philotheus was demoted from the pulpit, as Cyprian makes clear in the life of St. Peter, - Degree Book I, 423, Andronicus, the son of Emperor John Palaiologos, who took the throne from his father. And this last happened on August 12, 1376. Information relevant to us is provided by two acts of the patriarchal council - the act of 1380 on the installation of Pimin as metropolitan of Moscow and the act of 1389 on the approval of Cyprian to the see of the metropolitan of all Russia - mainly the second. Now the above mentioned act is reported in 1389, in Monuments col. 205. Degree Book I, 422 fin.. In the old days, the metropolitans and our bishops, in addition to the paramand worn by the monks over their shirts, had another elegant paramand, which in non-liturgical attire was worn over the cassock (an ancient cassock), and during divine services it was worn over the cassock, and to which belonged a gold or gilded cross worn on the neck on top of it on the gaitan; this paramand, in contrast to the internal paramand, was called a service one, see about it the Life of Epiphanius of St. Sergius of Radonezh according to the lithographic edition, page 253 verso, the ranks of ordination to bishops in the Acts of the Expedition vol. I, No. 184 and No. 375, p. 159 col. 2 and 473 col. 1, a note on how Patriarch Theophan of Jerusalem served in the Description of the MDA manuscripts belonging to Archimandrite Leonid, issue I, p. 166 fin., inventory of the Patriarchal sacristy of the 17th century, printed in the Bulletin of the Society of Ancient Russian Art at the Moscow Public Museum for 1874–1876, Nos. 6–10, pp. 13, Proscinitary of Sukhanov, - Synodal manuscript No. 574, sheet 313, verso, according to the Kazan edition, page 230 note. The image of the paramand is in the photographs attached to the index of the Patriarchal Sacristy of the Right Reverend Savva, No. 51. Cyprian and the legend is confirmed by Epiphanius in the life of St. Sergius, who says: “A certain Archimandrite, named Michael, ascended to the throne of the bishop, and daringly put on the priest’s clothes and put a white hood on himself”... lithographic edition sheet 256 ver. Lithographic edition sheet 253 verso – 254. Conciliar act of 1389, in Monuments col. 205. As you know, it was with the then Emperor John Palaiologos that incredible anecdote happened that he was arrested by his creditors (in Venice, in 1370, on his way back from the pope). Dionysius, the founder of the Nizhny Novgorod Pechersk Monastery, was installed as bishop of St. Alexy in 1374. Acts of History vol. I, no. 251, p. 431, col. 1 start. The chronicle reads mysterious speeches about the attitude of the Monk Sergius towards Michael: “I have not trusted Dionysius Bishop of Suzdal, and also the Monk Abbot Sergius of Radonezh,” - Nikon Chronicle IV, 72. “Reverend Abbot Sergius said: I pray to the Lord God with a contrite heart, that he will not allow Mitya, who boasts, to destroy this holy place and drive us out without guilt,” - ibidd.. - If Michael had not suffered a quick death, then, of course, the misunderstanding would have been cleared up, and he was reconciled with the Venerable Sergius, although he was of a much different spirit than him. Yuri Vasilievich Kochevin Oleshinsky. Nikon Chronicle IV, 83. He was buried at some church in Galata. In one manuscript of the 17th-18th centuries, located in the library of St. Synod (bearing the name Spiritual Flower) extracts have been preserved from the so-called Bee (about it - Vol. 1 half, p. 752 electronic version - footnote paragraph No. 1657, corr.), which belong to Mikhail and which he made, according to the remark of one of their scribes, “reproaches directed at Dionysius (Suzdal), hedgehog about the power-hungry foreigners,” see Sreznevsky Ancient monuments of Russian writing and language, p. 110, col. 1 fin.. It is possible that the extracts are important for the characterization of Mikhail, and therefore it is advisable for someone to deliberately look at them. – One of the settlements adjacent to the city of Kolomna is called Mityaevskaya (Semyonov’s dictionary under the word Kolomna): it is very likely to think that the settlement was donated by Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich to Mikhail and that it bears the name of its former famous owner. John was not at all averse to becoming a metropolitan; but when the side that was not his was taken, he, as usual, loudly screamed that the ambassadors were doing injustice before God and before the Grand Duke. Nikon Chronicle IV, 76 (after the Nikon Chronicle, Resurrection and Typographical Chronicles); act of the council of 1389, in Monuments col. 208. And if our historians believe this lie, not finding anything puzzling for themselves in the fact that Archimandrite Michael’s companions, on their own initiative, decided to replace him with a fake metropolitan candidate, then their innocence is truly great... Conciliar act of 1380, in Monuments col. 176. He tried to compete with Pimin and “fled” from Constantinople when he saw that he could not defeat the self-proclaimed enemy. See a few below. In this place in the chronicle it is stated that not only all the clergy, but also all the boyars did not want to see Michael as a metropolitan. Nikon Chronicle IV, 74 beginning. Act of the Council of Constantinople 1389, in Monuments col. 209 fin.. See below. IV, 76 beginning (The so-called Tver Chronicle, - Collection of Chronicles XV, 440 says, not entirely clear, that “more than 70 and 6 debts were taken”). Accepting with V.O. Klyuchevsky that the ruble of the beginning of the 16th century, and, consequently, of an earlier time, was equal to no less than 100 credit rubles today, see his article: “Russian ruble of the 16th - 18th centuries in its relation to the present,” published in 1 book of Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities for 1884 (Karamzin believes that in 10 thousand rubles the first half of the 15th century there were at least 55 pounds of silver, - V, 145. Consequently, in 20 thousand rubles there will be at least 110 pounds of silver. In 110 pounds of silver there are more than 100 thousand of today’s rubles. Assuming that the value of the then ruble was related to the value of the current ruble as 1:20, we get the same two million of today’s rubles. And what is the general relationship between the rubles of the second half of the 14th century and. present, can be seen from the fact that in 1437 the Pskovites presented Metropolitan Isidore, who was traveling through their city to the Florentine Cathedral and, by some of his actions, acquired their zealous gratitude, great gifts, consisting of only 120 rubles, see below in the story about Metropolitan Isidore). [The Nikon Chronicle, making it clear that the robbery was frantic, says: “And having made many promises and distributed them here and there, as well as funerals and gifts, no one can say or count, and so it was barely possible to satisfy everyone”; -IV, 76 beginning. Regarding the question of the relationship of the then rubles to the current ones, or vice versa, we can also point out the following. In 1382, Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich paid for the burial of the inhabitants of Moscow beaten by Tokhtamysh (which, having been taken by the khan on August 26 of our year, was subjected to terrible plunder from him, and the inhabitants of which were subjected to a terrible massacre) from 80 dead people for a ruble or a kopeck and a quarter per person, - Typographical Chronicle p. 181, Resurrection Chronicle in the Collected Chronicles VIII, 47 sub fin.. In 1472, the Pskovites presented “in honor” to the bride of Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich Sophia Fominichna, who was traveling through their city, “from all of Pskov” 50 rubles in pennies, - Pskov Chronicle in the Collected Chronicles IV, 244 and 245. In 1475, the European-famous architect Aristotle Fioraventi was assigned to the service of Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich for a salary of ten rubles a month - Sofia Vremennik Stroeva, II 142, 2 Sofia Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles IV, 199 beginning.] The conciliar act on the installation of Pimin as metropolitan in Monuments col. 165. Macarius was deposed from the pulpit after Andronicus, who had installed him, was deposed from the imperial throne. And this last happened about half of 1379. (For the overthrow of Macarius, see Cyprian in the Life of St. Peter, Degree Book I, 423). What in September 1379 The patriarchal department was idle, see Acta Patriarchat. Constantinop. II, 6 sub fin.. When after September 1379. and until June 1380. was elevated to the place of Macarius Nile remains unknown. Acta Patriarchate. Costantinop. II, 8. Nikon Chronicle IV, 92 fin. The story of the Battle of Kulikovo, placed in the Nikon Chronicle, - IV, 86 sqq, claims that Cyprian arrived in Moscow earlier than this battle, on May 23, not 1381, but 1380, but it tells a lie (just as it tells a lie, forcing Dmitry Ivanovich to pray in Moscow before leaving for the battle to the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God, transferred to Moscow later). The Greek acts speak of the punishments that the Grand Duke subjected to the members of the embassy guilty of installing Pimin: “he confiscated the estate of some, sent others into exile, put others in prison and subjected to corporal punishment, and some were sentenced to death,” - conciliar act of 1389, in Monuments col. 290. Cathedral Act of 1389, in Monuments 209 fin.: πεμπομένων, πλειόνων δέ ὐπὲρ Ποιμένος, ο ὖ τος νικ ᾷ καὶ παραλαμβάνει τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἑκείνην. Our chronicles, not aware of the patriarch’s efforts for Pimin before the Grand Duke, consider the Grand Duke’s anger at Cyprian for his flight from Moscow to be the real reason for his removal by the Grand Duke (Resurrection Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles VIII, 48). But we do not see at all any reasons why the Grand Duke could really be angry with Cyprian for his flight. (There is no reason to believe that the Grand Duke could have hoped that if Kiprianov had stayed in Moscow, she would not have suffered the disaster that befell her - the terrible plunder by the Tatars). And therefore we find it most likely to consider the actual reason for the removal of Cyprian, in accordance with the indications of the Greek acts, the efforts for Pimin on the part of the patriarch. It may even be that there is no connection between Cyprian’s flight from Moscow from Tokhtamysh and his removal from the throne by the Grand Duke, and that they are connected only by our chronicles: Tokhtamysh’s invasion took place at the end of August, and Cyprian was expelled from Moscow in October. In the Nikon Chronicle, IV, 139, none other than Cyprian himself speaks about the removal of Cyprian from the pulpit; but he expresses himself dully about the reason: “the Grand Duke did not like... Cyprian... and he has dislike for him” (Tokhtamysh took Moscow on August 26, and Cyprian remained in Tver until October 3, when he was called to Moscow by the Grand Duke). The patriarch's charter on his elevation of Dionysius to the rank of archbishop in Russian in Acts of History, vol. I, no. 251, p. 471. Conciliar act of 1389, in Monuments col. 211. The Act speaks of two, one after another, trips of Dionysius to Constantinople: first for preliminary negotiations with the patriarch about the deposition of Pimin and without Theodore, then for the formal demand for this, accompanied by the latter. But our chronicles speak of one trip. - Upon his return from Constantinople in 1383, Dionysius went to Novgorod with a patriarchal letter to the archbishop regarding the local Strigolniki, and from Novgorod, at the invitation of the archbishop, he went to Pskov. In the last city, he behaved like a real ambassador or patriarchal exarch, from which behavior one can conclude that he presented himself to the Grand Duke as a person whom the patriarch would be very pleased to see at the metropolitan see. Nikon Chronicle IV, 145 fin.: “In the same autumn (1384) two metropolitans Grechin came from Constantinople, one named Matvey, the other Nikandra, and archdeacons and dignitaries.” Resurrection Chronicle in the Collected Chronicles VIII, 49: “Also in the winter (1384–85) came from Constantinople there are two metropolitans Grechin, one name..., and with them archdeacons and other dignitaries.” According to the Greek acts, two metropolitans and two dignitaries were sent - one church, the other royal - conciliar act of 1389 in Monuments 211 fin.. Council act of 1389 in Monuments p. 211 fin.. (Our chronicles say that the metropolitans were sent to call Pimin to the patriarch, meaning - for trial - Nikon Chronicle IV, 145, fin.). Council act of 1389, ibid.. See third note above. In all likelihood, one should think that Dionysius walked through Kyiv together with the patriarchal metropolitans and that while these were allowed through freely, he was captured. Since they walked in autumn or winter, it must be thought that they chose the land route to Kyiv (via Bulgaria and Moldova) due to the danger or impossibility of sailing in the Black Sea. Dionysius, bypassing Kyiv, could turn into the Tatar steppe (if only travel along it was possible in autumn and winter); but he might not have suspected that what happened to him in Kiev would happen, or, suspecting, he thought to consider himself safe under the protection of the patriarchal metropolitans. Our chronicles, out of ignorance, claim that Dionysius was appointed metropolitan by the patriarch. According to the Nikon Chronicle, IV, 145, he returned in the summer of 1384, according to the Resurrection Chronicle, in the Collection of Chronicles VIII, 49, in the fall of this year. According to the council act of 1389, he fled from Russia, putting aside his monastic robes and putting on secular ones, and arrived in Constantinople after many wanderings from place to place. – In Monuments col. 213 fin.; and according to our chronicle, before leaving for Constantinople, he went to Novgorod to collect the fees of his so-called monthly court, about which see below, in the speeches about Metropolitan Cyprian. - Collection of Chronicles V, 239 (“Metropolitan Pimin went to Tsaryugrad to Novgorod, and the Novgorod metropolitan was not given a month to judge in Novgorod"). Council act of 1389 in Monuments col. 215. According to our chronicles, Theodore was sent by the Grand Duke to Constantinople for the second time “about the administration of the metropolis” in 1386. Cfr concerning this message of the Patriarch Nile to Pope Urban VI of 1384 in the Acta Patriarchat. Constantinopol., II, 87. For this colony see Hammer in Geschichte d. Osmanischen Reiches, 1,247 fin.. “I borrowed silver in the name of the great prince from Fryazi (from the Genoese bankers who lived in Galata) and from the Besermians,” Nikon Chronicle IV, 76. Conciliar act of 1389, in Monuments col. 217. The emperor, to assure Pimin that he would be completely safe in Constantinople, sent his sacred encolpies to him, - in Monuments col. 217: regarding this, see Vol. 1, half, p. 412 (electronic version - footnote paragraph No. 960, corr.). Before the conciliar trial, on May 29, 1387, Cyprian was released by the patriarch from Constantinople to Lithuania on some imperial matter, in order to return within a year - a letter in Monuments col. 189. We do not know when Cyprian returned to Constantinople, but the one-year period he asked for shows that he did not intend to return soon - Pimin, after a conciliar ruling in absentia against him, ran to Russia in July 1388. Nikon Chronicle IV, 156. Subsequently, Theodore again appears in Constantinople under Cyprian, but that he was returning to Russia with Pimin, see Nikon Chronicle IV, 160 beginning (he is among those accompanying Pimin on his third trip to Constantinople). This third journey of Pimin to Constantinople was described in detail by the monk of the Bishop of Smolensk, Mikhail Ignatius, who accompanied the Metropolitan. Description in the Nikon Chronicle, – IV, 158 fin. sqq, and in a separate form published by Sakharov in Tales of the Russian People, book VIII. [The Walk of Ignatius was published by the Palestine Society, making up the 12th edition of its collection.] Now the aforementioned Ignatius. Sergius Azakov, being a hieromonk or abbot of an unknown monastery, was among the companions of Archimandrite Michael on his journey to Constantinople and, therefore, was among those responsible for the installation of Piminov as metropolitan. But if he was later appointed archimandrite of the court monastery of the Grand Duke, then, as can be seen, he not only managed to avert the latter’s wrath, but also gained his favor (he was later the bishop of Ryazan). They are led by Archbishop Theodore of Rostov. But if the purpose of the too long farewell was amusement, then it began on Tuesday of Holy Week. (And, in any case, as many as five bishops did not find anything inconvenient in spending the time of Holy Week and Easter traveling, if not for pleasure, then completely unnecessary!). Acta Patriarchate Constantinop. II, 112. A very extensive act of this council, telling the history of our confusions, in the Monuments col. 193. The ship on which Pimin was crossing the Black Sea was washed up in Sinop by a storm. From Sinop along the southern coast of the Black Sea he reached the city of Astravia (Astrabites, now Istrawros), located near the entrance to the Bosporus, and from here, through his companions, he began relations with Constantinople. For burial, Pimin was brought to Constantinople and here he was laid in the Church of the Forerunner, located outside the city wall, on the edge of the sea opposite Galata. Ignatius does not say, perhaps for personal reasons, but our chronicles say that the estate left after Pimin was “raziasha inii.” (Resurrection Chronicle for 1389. When Pimin boarded a ship in Azov, he was arrested by his creditors, whom he later managed to beg or perhaps satisfy with the payment of interest. It is not clear whether these were Constantinople creditors, who happened to be in Azov at that time, or local ones. If the latter, then this will mean that Pimin borrowed not only in Constantinople, but also in Azov).– Some scribe of liturgical books of the 16th century, who arrogated to himself the right to be the editor of the calendar, included Pimin among the saints! (Barsukova Sources of hagiography col. 459) IV, 158: “That same summer, ambassadors from the Pope came to Moscow.” See Acta Patriarchate Constantinop. II, 80 (message of Patriarch Nile to Pope Urban). The Life was published twice: in 1862 in the IV edition of Monuments of Ancient Russian Literature by Kushelev-Bezborodko, pp. 119–171, and in 1897 by the Archaeographic Commission in a separate form, the second edition, made according to a list older and more serviceable than the first, is more satisfactory than the first. (Not unconditionally, however, since in some special cases, obviously, reading the first edition should be considered better). We will indicate both editions, with the first edition denoted by the letter P., the second by the letter K.. The chronicles give Stefan the nickname or surname Snoring. But according to Epiphanius, this was not Stefan’s nickname or surname, but a mocking nickname, which, for some reason, some of the Muscovites gave him - P. p. 161, col. 1, K. p. 89 (“We also know those, among the Muscovites, who also call you a kidah, but I call you snoring, not understanding the power and grace of God that is in you and with you.”) – The names of Stephen’s father and mother reported by Epiphanius were: Simeon and Maria. It may be that under the narrow and invisible place in which the author of the record about the Bishop of Rostov Kirill, read in the Laurentian Chronicle under the year 1231, wrote himself, we should mean our monastery of Gregory the Theologian. “Desiring more intelligence, as if I had studied Greek literacy and Greek books in the form of wisdom, and the Greek books are more venerable, and I have always had them in my possession, and I was able to speak in three languages, and I also knew how to read and write three languages, which are: Russian, Greek, Permian,” - P, p. 122 col. 2, K. page 8. To explain how Stefan could learn Greek in Rostov, they refer to the news of the life of Tsarevich Peter of Rostov, that in the Rostov Cathedral under the contemporary Tsarevich, Bishop of Rostov Kirill (1230–1262), they sang in Greek on the left wing. The link is ridiculous in the extreme. Do they really think that the sextons of the Rostov Cathedral were appointed by people who knew Greek and that they had a set of Greek liturgical books in their hands? Bishop Kirill himself or one of his predecessors ordered that in the Rostov Cathedral on the days of bishops' services or in general on holidays, for greater solemnity, the chants should be on the left wing: Lord, have mercy and Give, Lord, or just the first one, not in Slavic, but in Greek: this is the only thing that can be assumed (within the boundaries of common sense) about the famous Greek chant in the Rostov Cathedral. But it is unlikely, to simplify the matter, that one should not understand the testimony of life differently than how it is usually understood, namely, to understand it not about the language, but about the melody, for it is said that in the Rostov church of St. The Mother of God was then “singing good-voiced, like angels: then in the church the left wing was Greek, and the right wing was Russian.” (About the Bishop of Rostov Kirill, who is glorified for his extraordinary teaching and for the fact that he decorated the Rostov cathedral church with everything, like none of his predecessors, and who is therefore very likely to learn the institution of Greek singing in one sense or another, see in the Laurentian Chronicle, in the above-mentioned entry, read under the year 1231). From the point of view of a seminarian who has been studying Greek for 10 years and who, in the end, is not able to translate two or three verses from the Gospel, you need to study this terrible language for your whole life, and even then you won’t learn it... In fact, with diligence and lack of talent, you can learn Greek well in about six months and no more than in a year. According to the Geographical-Statistical Dictionary, the first known time that the Vychegda Permyaks were called Zyryans dates back to 1573 - volume II, the word Zyryans. Epiphanius, who could not help but know the matter in an accurate and reliable way, clearly represents the Zyryans of Stefanov’s time as tributaries of the great princes themselves. He puts into the mouths of the Zyryan sorcerers, who were trying to turn the Zyryans away from the faith of the Moscow preacher, who was Stefan: “Can anything good come to us from Moscow? Isn’t that where we got the heaviness and the heavy tribute and the violence and the Tivuni and the finisher and the bailiff?” and then he says about Stefan that, with his petitions to the Grand Duke, he many times saved the Zyryans from work and violence and the Tiun sale and lightened the burden of tribute, and speaks of the Novgorodians as people outside the Zyryans, who only suffered from the robbery of the Novgorod so-called ushkuiniks. If in the treaty charter of the Grand Duke with the Novgorodians, written in 1471, Perm is listed among the volosts belonging to the latter (Collection of state charters and agreements vol. I, no. 20, p. 27, Acts of the Expedition vol. I, no. 91, p. 67): then it is necessary to understand here Kama Perm without Vychegda Perm. That the last Perm came under the rule of the great princes before 1471, we have clear evidence of this in the letter of Metropolitan Jonah to the Vyatchans, which was written around 1452 and in which the Vyatchans are reproached: “now the Grand Duke’s patrimony was fought: Sysola and Vym and Vychegda,” Acts of History vol. I, No. 261, p. 490, Monuments of Canon Law, published by Pavlov, No. 73, col. 592. And in the list of Dvina lands of 1471 it is made known that Vychegda Perm has long belonged to the great princes, for one of the regions of this Perm, Vazhka, which lay along the river of the same name, flowing into the Mezen (the northwestern corner of the current Yarensky district, making up the so-called Udory or Udora region) is said to be “the original place of the Grand Duke Vychegda, Permyaki,” – Acts of the Expedition vol. I, no. 94, p. 75. For the Zyryan alphabet with the name and outline of its letters, see Karamzin, vol. V, note 125, and especially in Mr. Lytkin’s article “The Quincentenary of the Zyryan Territory,” published in the December book of the Journal of the Ministry of Public Education for 1883; without the lettering in Article II. D. Shestakova: “St. Stephen, High Hierarch of Perm,” printed in the first edition of News and Scientific Notes of Kazan University for 1868, p. 75 sqq. Samples of Zyryan writing: in the now indicated article by Mr. Lytkin, in the article by Mr. Shestakov: “Reading the ancient Zyryan inscription”, printed in the January book of the Journal of the Ministry of Public Education for 1871, and in the brochure by I. S. Nekrasov: “Perm letters in manuscripts of the 15th century”, Odessa, 1890. The famous Polish historian of Lithuania Narbutt, who, however, is not so much a historian as a chronicler (with the uncommendable features that distinguished Polish chroniclers), going further than other scientists, wants to see St. Stefan, not at all invented by him, but taken completely ready-made, the ancient Biarmian alphabet (used in Lithuania!), see his Dzieje starožytne narodu Litewskiego, vol. I, p. 448, Dodatek V, About Abecadle Biarmskiem. One could assume that the desire to translate liturgical books from the original Greek was one of the motivations to learn the Greek language. But we do not point out this impulse without being authorized to do so by the biography of Stephen. To the question asked by some: why for permission and blessing to go to preach the gospel to the Zyryans, Stefan turned not to his bishop of Rostov, but to the head of the metropolis himself, the answer is that, not to mention everything else, permission to go to preach the gospel to the Zyryans with liturgical books translated into the Zyryans language could only be given by the latter and not the first. See in the Plyushard Encyclopedic Lexicon the article of the late N. I. Nadezhdin about the Vychegda River, - Lexicon vol. XII, p. 240, also The Legend of the Life and Works of St. Stephen, Bishop of Perm, A. M. (Archimandrite, who died as Archbishop, Macarius), St. Petersburg, 1856, p. 11. Vita S. Ottonis in Acta SS. Bollandistov, July t. I, p. 400, see also Hilferding's History of the Baltic Slavs, in Complete Works vol. I, p. 12. Epiphanius: “Trying to establish the holy church of God, decorate it with every adornment, like a beautifully adorned bride, make it tall and beautiful, make it beautiful and good, make it truly wonderful and wondrous.”... P, p. 130, K. p. 22. According to Bandtke in the History of the Polish State, the adoption of Christianity by the Lithuanians under Jogaila “was most facilitated by the remark (of the people) that the gods did not take revenge on those who, at the command of the king, extinguished the sacred fire that was constantly burning in Vilna, exterminated the divine snakes and cut down the sacred groves and oaks” - Russian translation vol. II, page 3 beginning. See in the History of the Hierarchy VI, 573. The legend, mistaking the tree for a birch, says that the birch was called the tricky one: “the tricky birch,” - from Archimandrite Macarius, p. 14. The tricky one, from a bitch, means: creating troubles, harmful, harmful (λυμεών, perniciosus), see Vostokov's Dictionary under the word prokoudliv. Pam is called a centurion: “Pam a centurion.” This means that he was not only a magician, but also an official (at the time we are talking about, perhaps already a rank one). State power among the Zyryans and Permyaks, as well as among the eastern neighbors of those and other Vogulichs, was constituted by princes or princes (prince in the Old Slavic sense of the word), under whom there were officials called centurions in Russian, see Karamzin, vol. VI, 33 and note 461. According to legend, Pam lived in the village of Knyazh-Pogost, located on the Vyma River, 40 versts from Ust-Vym (which was believed to be the main place of the Zyryan tribe of the Vymich) - with Nadezhdin in Plushar’s Lexicon, XII, 230. In response to Pam’s boast that he would unleash his many gods on Stefan and that the gods would frighten, drive away and crush him, the baptized Zyryans among other things answered the sorcerer: “You crazy old man, it is in vain that you boast about the true servant of God! This Stefan destroyed your gods and they could not harm him; Having removed the shrouds from the main idols, he gave them, for desecration of the idols, to his servant Matveyka, and he made underpants and onuchi and leggings out of them and wore them without any harm, and he was of our own family - Permin.” - Epiphanius in P. p. 139, col 1, in K. p. 41. From Moscow to Yarensk 1163 versts; and from Yarensk to Ust-Vym they consider 85 versts. The biography of Stephen, pointing to the dark sides of the morals of his time, speaks of the installation of Stephen as a bishop: “he did not seek dominion, neither twirled, nor strove, nor rushed, nor bought, nor made promises: he did not give anything to anyone and no one took anything from him from his appointment, neither a gift, nor a promise, nor a bribe,” - P. p. 148, col. 2, K. p. 62 (Epiphanius says something similar to this in the life of St. Sergius regarding his appointment as abbot - lithographic edition, sheet 105 fin.). Stephen's successors, after the baptism of their own or Great Perm began, began to be called Great Perm. History of Hierarchy VI, 572–573. Archimandrite Macarius in the Legend p. 25 fin., with reference to the Vologda Provincial Gazette of 1850, No. 6; Regarding the volost, the author of the History of the Hierarchy says the same thing - VI, 572 beginning. P. p. 155, col. 1 beginning, K. page 76. St. remained unbaptized. Stefan one or another part of the Zyryans who lived in the Pechora outskirts. These unbaptized ones were baptized soon after him by the monks of the Trinity Pechora Hermitage (History of the Hierarchy V, 550), located at the confluence of the Mylva River into the Pechora (in the Vologda province, 380 versts northeast of the city of Ust-Sysolsk). Zyryansky liturgical books of St. Stefana have long gone out of use among the Zyryans, having been replaced by Slavic ones. It is not known whether this happened by the good will of the Zyryans, as the knowledge of the Russian language spread between them, or through coercion; but since Stefan’s books no longer exist at all, it is impossible to decide from the books themselves to what extent Stefan translated. Epiphanius assures that he translated the liturgical books into the Zyryan language in their entirety. About the preparation by Stefan of the first series of priests from the Zyryans at the beginning of the sermon, he says: “and the commandment to learn to read and write: the Book of Hours and the Osmoglasnik and the Song of David, but also all other books,” - P. p. 135 sub fin., K. p. 34 About the service of the Zyryans during the bishopric of Stefanov, Epiphanius says: “and his priest said the mass in the Permian language, I will perform matins and vespers, I will sing the Perm speech, and the canonarchs will read according to the Perm books of the canonarch, and the readers will read the Perm conversation, and the singers will shout out all the Perm songs,” - P, p. 149 col. 1 beginning, K. page 63. In the last century, Academician Lepekhin found a fragment of the Zyryansk liturgy of John Chrysostom, written in Slavic letters; it was printed by Lepekhin in his Day Notes of a trip to different provinces of the Russian state, - III, 242 (see also in the above-mentioned article by P. D. Shestakov: “St. Stephen, High Hierarch of Perm,” section 6, entitled: “On the ancient translations of liturgical books that have come down to us in the Zyryan and Perm languages,” p. 90 sqq). Speaking about the works of Stephen even before his installation as a bishop, Epiphanius writes that, by the way, “it’s not his business: he wrote books, translated from Russian into Permian, but also from Greek many times into Permian,” - P. p. 146 col. 2 fin., K. page 58 sub fin. This unclear and mysterious speech seems to make it clear that Stefan translated not only liturgical books into Permian, but also teaching books, see below. P. p. 149 col. 1, K. p. 63. The biography writer says in a low voice that in Ust-Vym “a monastery of a great people was created, and then it was named a bishop’s monastery,” without naming the church at which the monastery was created - P. p. 130 col. 2, K. page 23 beginning. That it was created under the church of the Archangel Michael is known besides him - History of the Hierarchy. VI, 570 fin.. Epiphanius in P. p. 154 col. 2 beginning, in K. page 75 beginning. P. p. 160 col. 1, K. page 87 beginning. The biography writer does not directly say the latter, but only lets it be known, and at that it is not entirely clear - in P. p. 155 col. 1, in K. p. 76. In one place in his life, Epiphanius makes it known that there were people who found shortcomings in Stephen. Imagining the Perm people crying for the death of their baptizer - the bishop and complaining that he died and was buried in Moscow, the biography writer puts into their mouths the words we have already cited above: “The Muscovites will not honor you like we do, nor will they please you; We know those like them and the nicknames of the kidahu. I call you out of nowhere and snoring, not understanding the power and grace of God that is in you and by you,” - in P. p. 161, col. 1, in K. p. 89. What this “snoring”, meaning a person capable of violence, to be attributed to violent seizures (“impudently”), and how fair it is, remains unknown. In some alteration and with the assimilation of the Patriarch of Constantinople Anthony, it was published in Historical Acts, vol. I, No. 6; in its original form with the inscription now given in Pavlov’s Monuments No. 25, col. 211. From Perem - Perm: in the 4th Novgorod Chronicle under 1386 it is: “Stephen Vlydyka of Perem”. In a separate form with the now indicated inscription, the preface was found by the Pogodins in one manuscript of the 16th century and in a Russian translation was published by him in Moskvityanin 1847, part I, Materials p. 121. Not given by Pogodin in its original form, the inscription reads in his Russian translation: “Stephen Bishop of Perm from the Divine Scriptures, an instructive message to Orthodox Tsar and Grand Duke Dimitri Ivanovich of All Russia, autocrat and winner (because he defeated the godless Besermensky Tsar of the Horde"). In the academic manuscript, the second part has its own special title, which is: “The chapters are chosen from the rules of the holy apostles and the seventh ecumenical saints of the collection, not only those, but also the local ones and others like certain saints, the fathers especially former, rules on theology and on the Orthodox faith and on the rules.” One of the articles in the surplus of the Lavra manuscript against the academic one is Russian, namely, the well-known interrogation of the tiuna of Constantine, Prince of Polotsk, called Bezrukiy, with Simeon, Bishop of Tver (Karamzin IV, note 178). But without drawing a general conclusion from this article to everything that constitutes a surplus, one can understand the matter in such a way that it alone represents an insertion. Archimandrite Macarius in the Legend, p. 46, note 22, with reference to the Vologda Provincial Gazette of 1850, No. 22. P. p. 146 col. 2 fin., K. p. 58: “translating from Russian (books) into Permian, but also from Greek many times into Permian.” See Rosenkampf's Review of the Helmsman, 1st edition p. 265 of the last account, and Kalachov On the meaning of the Helmsman, - in Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities, year 3, No. 3, p. 128. For example, in the manuscript of the fundamental library of the MDA No. 187. In the Novgorod Khutyn monastery in the 17th century, some collection of Stephen of Perm was kept, but the collection compiled or translated by him, or just written, remains unknown. (Undolsky Inventory of books of sedate monasteries, No. 1886). “I placed it in the notorious city of Moscow, in the monastery of the Holy Savior, in a stone church, included in the church on the left side,” - Epiphanius. Who, according to Epiphanius, during Stephen’s illness “he himself came to visit him.” Relics of St. Stephen is buried under cover in the Spassky Cathedral. Nikon Chronicle, V, 2, Book of Degrees, I, 465 sub fin.. One would think that the chronicle and the book use the name Serbin not in the proper and precise sense of a Serb, but in the general and inaccurate sense of a Slav of the Balkan Peninsula, since in the time of Cyprian the Serbs were superior to the Bulgarians in all respects. But they both call Grigory Tsamblak not Serbin, but Bulgarian. That Cyprian was the paternal uncle of Gregory Tsamblak, and, therefore, Tsamblak himself, and that he was born in Ternov, see Gregory Cyprian’s eulogy (funeral) (printed by Archimandrite Leonid in Book I of the Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities in 1872; excerpts from it, what is historical in it, are in the article by A.V. Gorsky about Metropolitan Photius, published in the Additions to the Works of the Holy Fathers, part XI, p. 28 note, in the Description of Synodal Manuscripts No. 235, sheet 236, pp. 139–140, and in Shevyrev’s 15th lecture on the history of Russian literature “It’s his own,” says Gregory about Cyprian, our fatherland. iznese..., brother beashe to our father"). The nobility of the Tsamblak family is evidenced by the Bulgarian Synodikon of the Week of Orthodoxy, which has been preserved to this day, written in the 14th century, and known from the first sovereign, who introduced it in Bulgaria under the name of the synodik of Tsar Boris, in which Tsamblak is recorded, with the rank of great primikir, which in our opinion is the chief ceremonial master of the court and at the same time the head of the sovereign’s apartment in war (the synodik was published in the XXI book of the Vremennik of the Society of History and Antiquities and recently in a more correct manner in the II volume of the News of the Russian Archaeological Society in Constantinople. Our not named Tsamblak should be counted among the exclusively famous people, because for this reason alone he could be included in the synodik of the week of Orthodoxy along with a few other boyars. He was probably killed, thus suffering for his faith and fatherland, in one of the battles with the Turks). Evidence of the relationship between Metropolitan Cyprian and Patriarch Euthymius is thought to be found in the same laudatory word of Gregory Tsamblak to Metropolitan Cyprian. But Gregory’s words, taken as evidence, are very unclear; Talking about Cyprian’s visit to Ternov during his journey from Russia to Constantinople in 1379, Gregory says that Cyprian saw “his fatherland so righteous, as worthy of many praises, holding his own and the great Euthymius,” and they want to see the required evidence in the word we underlined: “his own,” which is understood in the sense that Gregory calls Euthymius his Cyprian. Meanwhile, the first in his praiseworthy word Euthymius (printed in Glasnik, XXXI, 258) does not make any hint that he himself, and, consequently, his uncle Cyprian, was a relative of Euthymius. The letter of Euthymius to Cyprian is known, written while the latter was a monk of Athonite (printed in Christian Reading 1882 for the month of July, cfr in the Description of Synodal Manuscripts No. 208, sheet 284 ver., also in article a. Yes, “Cyprian before his accession to the Moscow see,” placed in Book II of the Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities for 1869): the tone in which the instructions to Cyprian are taught in the letter makes it possible to see in Euphemia either his father by monasticism or an older relative by the flesh, but in view of what has been said, it is more likely to mean the first than the second. The letter of Euthymius to Cyprian, mentioned in the previous note, is inscribed: “To Cyprian, who lives in the holy Mount Afonstei.” Cyprian himself, in a letter to Abbot Athanasius, says that he was on Athos, and expresses himself in such a way as to suggest that his stay was short-lived; making a reference to the monks of the Holy Mountain on one occasion, he adds: “I also saw it myself,” - Acts of History vol. I, 253, p. 480 col. 1 beginning, and in Pavlov's Monuments col. 263. Philotheus left Athos to take the see of Metropolitan of Irakli (from where he was appointed patriarch) no later than 1350, see Acta Patriarchat. Constantinop. Miklosic, I, 300. But Cyprian, who died in 1406, could not have been more than 20 years old at that time. If he could have already come to Athos then, it is difficult to allow that, as a young man of less than 20 years old, he forced Philotheus to form an opinion of himself as a person capable and worthy of holding the highest church positions. John Cantacuzenus mentions, under the years 1330–1352, Arsenius Tsamblak (ὁ Τζαμπλάκων), who held a court trusted position called μέγας παπίας and consisted of guarding the imperial palace as its commandant (μέγας παπίας had the keys to the gates of the city or the fence of the imperial palace, unlocked and locked them), - Lib. II, pp. 22 and 27, Lib. III, pp. 11 and 42, Lib. IV, p. 32. In the Greek satirical work of the beginning of the 15th century: “Journey to Hell Mazari” (Ἐπιδημία Μαζαρι ἐν ᾅ δου) the gentleman Tsamblak, famous in his time, is mentioned: Τζαμπλάκων ἐκεῖνος ὁ καβαλλάριος, - from Boassonad in Anecdota Graeca, III, 121. - As for the Patriarch of Terniv Euthymius, we do not know whether he would have had the desire to arrange the fate of Cyprian, but, in any case, we must think that he himself was placed in Patriarchs not earlier or only very slightly earlier than Cyprian was installed as metropolitan, see our book A Brief Essay on the History of the Orthodox Churches of the Bulgarian, Serbian and Romanian, p. 87. What kind of official Cyprian served under Patriarch Philotheus remains unknown to us. The conciliar act of 1389 says that he was sent to Russia by the patriarch as οἰκεῖος αὐτοῦ καλόγηρος, - in Pavlov’s Monuments, No. 33, col. 199. A conciliar charter about this in Pavlov's Monuments, No. 32, col. 189. Published in Acts of History, vol. I, no. 252, p. 473. In its very text, the promissory note or, in our old way, bondage is called the “Tavular letter”. This means: a notarial deed - a deed written by a notary (Tabularium - notary's office). About Nicholas Notar, who under the Emperor John Palaiologos (1341–1390) was a dermineteut or translator (dragoman, see Gloss. Graecit. under the word διερμηνευτής), and was elevated to the rank of great dermineteut by John's successor Manuel. see Duka and Frantza. The chronicles say about Theodore that Patriarch Anthony gave him an archbishopric - Nikon Chronicle IV, 197, Resurrection in the Collection of Chronicles VIII, 60. This should be understood to mean that the patriarch confirmed to Theodore the title of archbishop, which had previously been given to him by Pimin. Nikon Chronicle IV, 171. In the month of July 1389, Archbishop Euphrosinus of Suzdal was installed as patriarch in Constantinople (in Monuments No. 34, col. 229), sent to Russia in 1386 (Nikon Chronicle IV, 151 beginning, Resurrection Chronicle in the Collection VIII, 50. And under the month of April 1389 he is mentioned in Ignatius of Smolensk, - in the Nikon Chronicle ibid. p. 160 beginning, as being in Russia and as already ordained as a bishop, one must think, according to the erroneous interpolation of Ignatius by one of his copyists, this third bishop, since he had a lawsuit with the metropolitan (over Nizhny Novgorod and Gorodets, - in Monuments ibid., see below), probably went separately from him and earlier than him. When the metropolitan entered Moscow, we see him among the bishops meeting the latter. Nikon Chronicle IV, 171 fin.. The Grand Duke went out to meet the Metropolitan with his family, with the boyars and with all the residents of Moscow, 9 miles from the city, to the village of Kotly (located to the south of Moscow, on the Tula or Serpukhov highway). St. Nicholas the Old, from whom Cyprian was donned to the priesthood or in liturgical robes, was somewhere outside the city or at the end of the city in the now indicated direction (and is not at all the current St. Nicholas Monastery, which is on St. Nicholas Street, although it was called St. Nicholas the Old, and also, in all likelihood, is not the current St. Nicholas in Khlynov, as the author of the History of the Hierarchy thinks - VI, 323). Nikon's Chronicle IV, 193 fin.: “then all the bishops of Russia came to Metropolitan Cyprian in Moscow, saying: Behold, Cyprian has become Metropolitan of All Russia.” This performance is remarkable in that Cyprian was present at it as the patriarchal ambassador - Nikon Chronicle IV, 40. Nikon Chronicle IV, 152. The word slander in ancient times was used in two senses: in the sense of slander, as now, and also in the sense of denunciation of accusations, cfr Vostokov's Dictionary. It is clear from the context that in our place it is used in the latter sense. Nikon Chronicle IV, 146, 4 Novgorod Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles IV, 91, the so-called Rostov Chronicle in Karamzin V, note 106, p. 36 fin.. Time in an exact way (in