History of the Russian Church Volume II. Part 1

Volume 1. Part 1 • Volume 1. Part 2 • Volume 2. Part 1 • Volume 2. Part 2 In memory of His Eminence Macarius, Metropolitan of Moscow His Eminence Macarius, during whose time as Metropolitan of Moscow (1879–1882) I published the first volume of the History of the Russian Church, gave me the opportunity to publish this first volume and in connection with it showed himself to be my benevolent patron. It is my sincere and ardent gratitude to him for both that obliges me to dedicate to his memory the present first half of the second volume of the History of the Russian Church. I published the first volume of my History of the Russian Church, consisting of two halves, representing two separate books, in the continuation of 1880–1881; I publish the first half of the second volume, which also consists of two halves in two separate books, in 1900: therefore, after 19 years. The period of years is such that, having been a man of mature years during the printing of the first volume, I print the second volume as a gray-haired old man. Regarding this extraordinary delay, which did not happen of my own free will, I can only say that it is extremely regrettable for me... Having prepared the second volume for printing after the first, but not seeing the possibility of printing it, I did with it as I should have done, that is, I put it in a box. At the same time, I, of course, followed what was written in Russian Church History about the time that is embraced by this second volume of my History. But I can’t absolutely guarantee that I haven’t missed absolutely anything from what was written again. However, if I missed something, it was only something that was not of significant importance, so, without denying the possibility of a certain number of omissions 1, I allow myself to be sure that they are not such that, thanks to them, the second volume of my History, which was printed late, would be out of date. Another thing is the advantages and disadvantages of it, as well as the first volume, which do not depend on the time, what kind of delay it is. Not belonging to the number of people who look at their creations in such a way as to deny the need and the possibility of further work on the same thing after them, I consider myself only one of many who have to work on the processing of Russian Church History. The reader can find my, so to speak, confession regarding this in a short speech with which I preceded my doctoral debate (former December 16, 1880) and which was published in the appendix to the second half of the first volume of History. I speak about myself there not with pharisaical or hypocritical humility, but with complete sincerity. His Eminence Philaret divides the history of the Russian church into five periods, namely: the first period, from the beginning of Christianity in Russia to the Mongol invasion (988–1237); the second period, from the devastation of Russia by the Mongols to the division of the metropolis (1237–1410); third period, from the division of the metropolis to the establishment of the patriarchate (1410–1588); fourth period, the period of the patriarchate (1588–1720); fifth period, synodal government (1721– ). His Grace Macarius divides the history of the Russian Church into three periods, namely: the first - the period of complete dependence of the Russian Church on the Patriarch of Constantinople (988-1240); the second – its gradual transition from this dependence to independence (1240–1589); the third is the period of its independence (1589–). I cannot find either one or the other division satisfactory. As for the Right Reverend Philaret, the “division of the metropolitanate,” that is, the separation of Kyiv or southwestern Rus' into a metropolitanate separate from Moscow did not have the slightest internal significance for the former, but only the external significance of reducing the boundaries of its ecclesiastical region 2 . And that the establishment of the patriarchate, which consisted only of renaming the highest primate of the Russian church from metropolitans to patriarchs, did not make the slightest change in the life and way of life of the church, this is what Eminence Philaret himself says. The division of the Right Reverend Macarius is both incorrect and unsatisfactory: firstly, the Russian Church ceased to be virtually independent of the Patriarchs of Constantinople not only from the time of the establishment of our own patriarchate, but much earlier; secondly, the Eminence combines into one period of independence undoubtedly different times from one another - the patriarchal and the synodal. The most satisfactory division of the history of the Russian church into periods seems to us to be the division that, if we are not mistaken, has recently been adopted for civil Russian history, namely, the topographic division into three periods: Kiev, Moscow and St. Petersburg. The topographical division of history into periods may seem somewhat strange to others. But the importance of topography in history as one of its factors is generally recognized 3, and if the periods of any church or civil history are such divisions of time that more or less differ from the previous and subsequent divisions of time in the nature of the life of a given civil or ecclesiastical society: then there is no doubt that the Kiev division of time, the Moscow division of time and the current St. Petersburg division of time represent precisely such periods of our church (as well as civil) history. Topography manifests its influence in history when it plays the role of one of the dividers of the latter into periods, in two ways - either in such a way that a new area determines a new life against the previous one; or vice versa, so that a new life requires a new area. We had both: with the transfer of the center of life from the south to the north, from Kyiv to Vladimir - Moscow, a new period of state and church life began in contrast to the previous one, determined by the terrain (implied - not exclusively by it alone); The new period of both lives, begun by Peter the Great, required the transfer of the center of life to a new place, from Moscow to St. Petersburg. The Moscow period should be divided into two halves: from the Mongol invasion to Metropolitan Macarius with his Council of the Hundred Heads, at which, so to speak, the result of his entire previous life was summed up, and from Metropolitan Macarius to the establishment of St. Synod. And the first half of the period, in turn, can be divided into two halves, namely, the time when our metropolitans were under the authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople and the time after their departure from this authority, which coincides with the division of the metropolis into two special metropolises and with the renaming of the metropolitans of all Russia who lived in Moscow, from Kyiv and all Russia to Moscow and all Russia, as well as with the formation of new ones in our country. views on the Greeks. The second volume of my History of the Russian Church covers the first half of the Moscow period or the time from the Mongol invasion to Metropolitan Macarius inclusive. Like the first volume, it will consist of two halves: the first half of the volume will be devoted to a chronological overview of the history of the church according to the reigns of the metropolitans or will present a series of biographies of these latter; the second half of the volume will be devoted to a review of church life according to its departments or types, such as administration, education, worship, etc. I deliberately say in the preface to the first volume of my History that our chronicles and our other historical monuments give the church historian too little opportunity to write real biographies of our metropolitans, as well as our other church historical figures. I had to listen to enough reproaches for my frank speeches from a certain class of people. But even now I am only forced to declare that I do not find it possible to renounce a single word that was spoken before. So, the reader, asking us what we could give him and what we are responsible for, should not ask us what, despite all our desire, we could not give due to circumstances beyond our control; we want to say: let the reader not blame us for giving him sketches of the life and activities of our metropolitans, whose name is biographies, but which are very far from being real biographies 4 . We mean new factual information, and not new views based on old factual information (the absence of speeches about new views on the basis of old factual information should be understood in the sense that, not sharing views, we refrain from polemics against them). At the same time, Eminence Philaret is incorrect and traces the division back to 1410, from the time of Metropolitan Photius, whereas it (a division that has been constant for a very long time has several multiple short-term divisions) began in 1458, from the reign of St. Ions. As, for example, with regard to us, the Russians, it cannot but be generally accepted that the great plain that we occupy, constituting half of Europe, largely determined the formation of the great Russian state. Not the same as church historians, but our civil historians have the right to complain about chroniclers. In Karamzin, who with his authority may protect me from unfair reproaches, we actually find this complaint, and moreover, expressed no less strongly than how we express it; about the biographies of princes he gives, he says: “if instead of living, whole images (I) represented only shadows, in fragments: then it was not my fault: I could not supplement the Chronicles!” (preface, ed. Einerling p. XI fin. and see below). You might be interested in: