Metropolitan of All Russia Kirill III (the first after the Mongol invasion)

In the very year of the Mongol invasion of Vladimir Rus', i.e. in 1237, Metropolitan came to us from Greece. Joseph, to take the place of Metropolitan. Cyril II, 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 *. It is more than likely that before Batu’s invasion of Kyiv, he retired to Greece to avoid the threatening 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 have failed 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, in the place of Joseph, the metropolitan was installed not from the Greeks, but from natural Russians. Why this happened—whether because the Russians stole their rights from the Greeks, or vice versa because the Greeks gave up their rights to the Russians—remains unknown. If the first, then the Russians, but for some unknown reason, wanted to take away their rights from the Greeks only in part: the metropolitan, elected by them themselves and from among the natural Russians, went to the patriarch for initiation **. 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 quite natural that this time there would be no hunters among the Greeks to occupy the see of the Russian Metropolis, despite all its attractiveness... In Russia itself, as it goes without saying, those of its princes who were senior in it should have taken 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 great prince, there were then two great princes, 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. But one must, however, think that Daniel appropriated 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 it, 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, it seems that it did not belong to him – Daniel 1. 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 it must be thought that the Grand Duke of Vladimir, either for his part also thinking about replacing the metropolitan see, or perhaps expecting a metropolitan from Greece, having learned about the election of the latter 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, Bishop of Ugrov Joasaph 2 appropriated to himself metropolitan rights over the church 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 also opened a diocese 3, served as the capital of the Grand Duke instead of Galich, in which he wanted to stay. Probably, as the bishop of the actual capital of the great prince, Joasaph hastened to appropriate metropolitan rights to himself. But, greatly 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 nevertheless 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 the wasp idle after its 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 1243 4 . Who this Kirill was, elected by Daniil Romanovich to the Russian Metropolitan, remains unknown. Since we can say with confidence that he was 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 5 . While Kirill remained only an elected metropolitan, he was in charge of the metropolitan morals of those dioceses that were located within the Grand Duchy of Galich. But it is more than likely that his power did not extend to all the other dioceses that were 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 superior over them and independent or autocratic. Consecrated by the patriarch, Kirill became and was recognized as the metropolitan of all Rus'. An outstanding feature of the reign of Metropolitan. Cyril’s difference against his pre-Mongol predecessors is that he did not constantly stay in Kyiv at his see, but left his metropolitan capital for more or less long periods, if not absent from it for the most part, 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, the 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 was deprived of any princes: Kyiv, captured in 1238 by the Galich Grand Duke Daniil Romanovich, was annexed to the second newly appeared to the great reign as a suburb and received the grand ducal boyar as his governor. Even if there had been an invasion of the Mongols, 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 of time 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 stopped living permanently in Kyiv and began to leave it often and for a long time to stay with one or another Grand Duke. To the now indicated external reasons that prompted Met. Kirill to leave Kyiv for more or less long periods, with a high probability there should be an internal reason attached, which forced him to leave Kyiv in order to travel around Rus'. We have reason to believe that Met. Kirill was a particularly zealous shepherd. It is therefore easy to 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 of this reason for the enterprise of Metropolitan. Kirill's repeated travels around Russia, and at the same time multiple departures from Kyiv, in a positive way 11. Be that as it may, we positively know that Met. 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, some or other short time after his return from the patriarch from his installation, he set off from Kyiv to Suzdal Rus' and arrived in Vladimir through Chernigov and Ryazan 12. In 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 the next year, 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 year, 1263, we find him 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. On the one hand, it leads to suspicion that Kirill for some reason became estranged from his homeland after becoming metropolitan of all Rus'; and on the other hand, the Galich-Volyn chronicle behaves in relation to him in such a way that its silence, perhaps, does not mean anything: having mentioned his election as metropolitan by the Grand Duke and his journey to the patriarch, both times completely randomly, it does not even say that he (Kirill) came to Daniil Romanovich immediately after the dedication, and yet this at least is absolutely necessary to assume. Daniil Romanovich had relations with the Pope of Rome, and one would think that they pushed the Metropolitan away from the prince; but relations did not continue throughout Danilov’s reign and, it seems, did not reach the point where the Metropolitan had reasons to sever his ties with the prince, and if they did, it did not last long; 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 Grand Dukes 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 Cyril was called upon to rule the Russian Church when the rule of the Mongols began over the Russian land. After the terrible devastation of Russia during the enslavement itself, in which the church, represented by the clergy and in places of public worship - churches, suffered just 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 I said before, 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, Met. Upon his accession to the throne, Cyril had no need to worry and try to establish certain relations between the Mongols and 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 he only had to acknowledge the joyful fact with thanksgiving to God. It may very well be that Cyril, after his ordination 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 great 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: “the same summer ordained Metropolitan Bishop Mitrofan Sarai” 14. 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. Что епископам Сарайским дозволено было ханами обращать Татар в христианство и что такие обращения, в большем или меньшем числе, действительно имели место, об этом мы сказали выше 18 . In 1279, shortly before his death, Metropolitan. Кирилл исходатайствовал у преемника Беркаева хана Менгу-Темира ярлык, которым ограждалась неприкосновенность веры и прав духовенства от посягательств Монгольских чиновников и который, как необходимо думать, был вызван тем, что чиновники более или менее позволяли себе эти посягательства. В Никоновской летописи под 1279-м годом читается: Того же лета прииди Феогнаст епискуп Сарайский в третиия (и)з Греческия земли, из Царяграда; посылал убо его пресвещенный Кирилл, митрополит Киевский и веса Русии и царь ординский Менгутемир к патриарху и ко царю Михаилу Палеологу Греческому, – от пресвещеннаго Кирила митрополита грамоты и поминки и от царя Монгутемира грамоты и поминки, (от) обою» 19 . Это известие должно понимать так, что хан Монгутемир имел нужду отправить посольство к импер. Mikhail, probably because of Nogai, the leaders 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 the greater success of the embassy, ​​he invited Metropolitan to assist him. Kirill. It is not without probability that for the latter purpose he called the Metropolitan to his Sarai, and the Metropolitan could take advantage of this personal stay with the Khan on his own business to ask him for a label 20. 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 two previous trips to Constantinople on behalf of the khan, although on one of these trips, as we know and what is below, he was also involved in church affairs. We said above that we have reason to think about Met. 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 Helmsman’s Book with interpretations of the canons that he acquired for Russia and the acts 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 should consider him not only a particularly, but also an exceptionally zealous shepherd, who should be given one of the outstanding places among other senior shepherds of the Russian Church. The Russian Church possessed the Slavinsky translation of the so-called church canons that constitute 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, belonging to an unknown or unknown people (constituting the second part or the so-called syntagma of the 14-nominal nomocanon, which in its final edition, made by Patr. Photius, was called Photiev), also incomplete, but not significantly, but only very little 21. Metropolitan Cyril’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 continuation of the 12th century preceding it, the Greeks began to interpret the church canons of Zonarino, Aristinovo and Valsamonovo 22. He wished to acquire a Slavic translation of the canons, accompanied by an interpretation, from the southern Slavs. To receive the Slavic Helmsman, the contents of the canons with interpretations, the Metropolitan made a request to the Bulgarian despot or the Bulgarian appanage ruler (prince) Jacob Svyatislav 23. This latter, having asked the desired Helmsman from his Patriarch of Ternovsky, ordered the list to be copied for the Metropolitan and sent it to him in an unknown year - 1262 or 1270. 24 Acquisition of Metropolitan Cyril the Slavic Helmsman, 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 25, and from the Serbs it was borrowed by the Bulgarians. This translation of Sava was delivered to Metropolitan Kirill by Despot Svyatislav 26. In the preface to the acts of the Vladimir Cathedral 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, “oblistasha, rekshe have been interpreted, and by the grace of God they shine clearly, driving away ignorance and enlightening everything with intelligent light and eliminating sin.” These words, which say that before him, Metropolitan Kirill, there was no 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. Sava's words meant that the Serbs did not have a Slavic translation of the rules until that 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’ collection of church canons began to exist in our country in two editions: in an abridged edition with Aristinov’s interpretation, in which form it was in his – Kirill’s Helmsman’s book, and in the complete edition, which we had before him, but with the same interpretations of Aristinov’s attributed from his Helmsman (as well as in the canons themselves with the addition of his Helmsman in the abbreviated edition of the little that was missing). The surname of the Helmsman, containing the canons in the first edition, is called from the oldest known list of it, written in 1283 for the Ryazan Bishop Joseph, the surname of the Ryazan or Iosifovskaya. 1276–1294 with the surname Sofia or Novgorodskaya, printed under Patriarchs Joseph - Nikon in 1650–53, is the Helmsman of Ryazan). The year 1274 was the 25th–26th year of Cyril’s tenure at the metropolitan see, counting from the time of his consecration, and the 31st year 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 suddenly had 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 council 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 just been said, the testimony of the Nikon Chronicle receives all its credibility, although, perhaps, it amounts to nothing more than a simple assumption of the chronicler, only expressed by him in the form of positive news that Met. Kirill, by the way, then often left Kyiv and traveled throughout Rus' 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 Met. 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. Cyril, 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, remained faithful to his vow throughout his long-term reign. It is therefore necessary to look at the acts 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 in himself without writing throughout his long life. Component of the act of the Vladimir Cathedral of 1274 “Rule” Met. 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 not very long, while there is no doubt that this series could be very long. So that Met. Cyril could not have been 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 as complete a picture as possible 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 acts of the Stoglavy Council. Be that as it may, the acts of the Vladimir Council of 1274, called Rule 28 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 actions 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 29. «Преблагий Бог наш, – начинает митр. Cyril his introduction - who creates all kinds of providence for our salvation and who, according to His unknown destinies, through the all-creating 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 preservation, observe the holy rules of the most holy apostles and our venerable fathers who came after them, who, having the vital word, with their most pure laws they protected the church of God as with some solid walls and which laid at 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: be of good cheer, I have overcome the world 30 . But,” continues the Metropolitan, addressing the Russian Church, “I am Kirill, the humble Metropolitan of All Russia, partly through my own vision, partly through hearing from others, I 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, или от непосещения епископами (своих епархий), или от невразумительности правил церковных. The last reason, says the Metropolitan, the incomprehensibility of the rules, has now been eliminated after the acquisition of the Helmsman with interpretations..., “so, for 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 our father’s commandments and thereby inherit grief.” Далее митрополит обращается к своей пастве с теми воззваниями, которые мы привели выше: «Какую прибыль мы получили, оставив Божии правила? Не разсеял ли нас Бог по лицу всей земли?» etc. “Now,” the Metropolitan concludes his introduction, I have thought to gather together with the saints and with the venerable bishops to conduct a test about church things.” 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, strictly speaking, represented 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 31, 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 a reader, take one gold coin, called an yperpir (ὑπίρπυρον) and containing the value of 20 francs, for ordination to a deacon, three more gold coins, for ordination to the priesthood, three more such the same coins, or a total of seven gold coins for the installation of priests. Soon after Isaac Komnenos, his decree was confirmed by his nephew Alexei Komnenos (1080–[1118] 32. In Russia, as I said before, 33 the collection of this fee could not become a custom immediately after we adopted Christianity, because at first our government had to appoint priests by recruiting candidates through compulsory recruitment, and from people who were appointed priests not of their own free will, it was impossible to demand additional payment for the fact that they were appointed. 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 had passed since 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. And just as in Greece selfish bishops allowed themselves to violate the imperial decree and take more than what he prescribed, so it was with us. Dissatisfied with the illegal increase in fees for ordination, 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 allowed themselves to further 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 deacons and priests - in both degrees together, no more than seven hryvnia, i.e., in a not entirely definite and not entirely detailed manner, it confirms the legalization of the imperial. Исаака, при чем Греческий иперпир приравнивает к Русской гривне. Делая предписание от своего лица, митр. Cyril says in the act of the conciliar: “do not collect from them (those ordained as deacons and priests) anything other than (due): as I have decreed in the metropolis, 34 let it be in all bishops - let it be taken up. kliroshan (episcopal) 7 hryvnia from the priesthood and from the deaconry - from both,” and the way of its expression makes it clear that in the previous time the legalization of the imperial. Isaac was violated not only by the bishops, but also by the metropolitans themselves, and consequently, the latter themselves set the first example of breaking 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 appointment to a place in addition to the fee for initiation, payment for installation as abbot, called "pososhny" (for the presentation of the abbot's staff), payment for placing a lay priest as a confessor ("abbess"), payment for appointment as a prosphora guardian, "bribe" for appointment as governor and foreman, extortion from priests and abbots of monasteries (“from the ruler of the church”) offerings and gifts during their arrival at diocesan councils, which took place on the so-called “assembly Sunday”. The punishment for bishops who would dare to violate these instructions now is determined by the council to be defrocked. The illegal means that some of our bishops resorted to, 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 pleasing someone,” 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 ("provoz deyati") and extorted gifts from them under the name "sbornago". We think, as we said before, 35 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 to all beggars in general because they all collected alms from the churches under their jurisdiction - 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 a deacon, they must find out the life of the appointed one, as 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 preserved 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 Sodom fornication or with cattle or in his hand, whether he was not guilty of theft, excluding the 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 whether he starves his servants with hunger and nakedness and whether he overworks them with too much work, whether he runs away from tribute, or whether he is a sorcerer. If anyone is convicted of even one of the wines just mentioned, he cannot be a priest, a deacon, or a cleric. And whoever, according to the testimony of the 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 the “euchia” (εὐχή), that is, the clergy prayer 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 ordained a deacon, and not earlier than 30 years old, a priest.” Recalling some rules regarding admission to the clergy, the cathedral confirms the message of the Patriarch of Constantinople Herman to Metropolitan. Cyril II of 1228 36 about the non-ordination of slaves to priests who have not previously received freedom from slavery, and regarding this he prescribes: “not to appoint a slave as a priest unless first his master releases him (to freedom) in front of many witnesses with a written (release) letter and does not allow him, the slave, to go where he wants.” 2. Against errors in performing the rite of proskomedia. 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 kind of 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 after 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 the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” with 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 performed according to his feelings (known parts of the body). Further, the council prescribes that after baptism, the newly baptized should be honored with the communion of the Holy Mysteries, whether it be in the city or in the village. For this, the council prescribes: “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.” 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 most likely should be understood as prosphora guardians) 37 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 of the 15th canon of the Council of Laodicea, an interpretation of this rule, which states that unconsecrated persons are forbidden to sing and read on the ambo, and commands that henceforth in all churches unconsecrated persons should not read the apostle, sing the prokeme, and should not enter the altar. A clerk,” the council continues its instructions, “even if he is consecrated (and not just wears clothes and a clerk’s haircut without dedication), 38 must not touch the sacred vessels and must not in any way dare to bring the holy candile (that is, must not dare to perform the act of censing) 39, which is only appropriate for a priest and a deacon and which is forbidden even to the greatest bishop’s clerk (to the 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 kutya 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, 40 we command the venerable bishops: if the priests who indulge in drunkenness do not repent, then pervert them all, for it is better one who serves worthily 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). Не совсем понятно для нас, что священники начинали свое пьянство не со дня св. 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 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 some kind of demonic disgrace, with whistling and with a cry and with a cry they call in some stingy drunkards and beat themselves with drekoly (stakes) until death and take for themselves the clothes of those killed (i.e., or plunder them, stealing from the dead, or - which seems more likely - they will disassemble and remake it, superstitiously assimilating to it some special 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 age and in the future; If anyone opposes our law, then accept neither offerings from them, that is, prosphora and kutya, nor candles, and when they die, let the priests not perform a funeral service for them, and let them not perform commemorations for them, and let them not be buried near the Church of God (i.e. let them not be buried in the cemetery, but outside it); If any priest dares to do anything (either of the above) against 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 childish fun, but terribly bloody massacres 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 to go wall to wall, and in which entire volosts went 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, it is the latter, and the matter should most likely 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 41. And we also heard, writes the council: within Novgorod, brides are taken to the water (that is, they are taken, as it should be implied, either for pagan sorcery over them or for performing pagan religious actions). And now,” the council instructs, “we do not command them to do this, but if they do not stop, then we command them to curse 42.” 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 a complete one, but only as some implementation of the actual thought of Metropolitan. Kirill. We very much think that this real thought of the Metropolitan should presuppose the possibility of a complete conciliar condemnation of the shortcomings of Russian church life, and that if instead of the desired complete action of the conciliar only a few, not particularly large, “something” came out, then the reason for this must be considered the external conditions we have indicated, i.e. that the matter turned out to be beyond the strength of the council members from the literary (clerical) side - that the literary presentation was for them such labor that they were not able to overcome and that instead of an extensive scroll of deeds, reaching the size of a whole book, they were able to draw only that 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 conciliar 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 as 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, wanting to ensure that the act of the council would be as valid as possible for the clergy under his command and for his flock, promulgated it in his diocese in such a form that it seemed as if at the council decisions were 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 Cathedral of 1274, the reign of Metropolitan. Kirill is another written monument related to the church-governmental area and also partly testifies 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 43. 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, the case about them is very likely to be presented 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 for this reason 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 questions and the answers received are known. In their content, the questions mainly concern the performance of public worship and the special cases that may occur 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 relationship 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 diocese of Sarai in particular, which was in special conditions). 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 managed. 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 regarding worship and also regarding disciplinary church life existed between us and the Greeks. У нас во времена митр. Cyril, the Studite liturgical charter was in use, 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. For this, His Eminence Kirill, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia, excommunicated Bishop Ignatius from the sacred service, until, with great difficulty, Prince Dimitri Borisovich of Rostov, grandson of Vasilkov (and nephew of Glebov), begged the Metropolitan for him. Having forgiven and given permission to the bishop, the metropolitan told him: “don’t be arrogant and don’t consider yourself sinless, and don’t worry so much. about prohibition and excommunication, as much 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” (i.e. we attract the mercy of the Lord to ourselves by our mercy towards our neighbor); плачь же и кайся, сын мой, до самой своей смерти об этой неподобной и бесстудной дерзости, ибо уже скончавшегося осудил ты прежде суда Божия, а когда он был жив, ты стыдился его и дары от него брал и ел и пил с ним и водил общество с ним и веселился, и когда было можно исправить, не исправлял, а ныне хочешь исправить посредством такого жестокого запрещения и отлучения; если желаешь оказать помощь ему, то окажи милостынями нищим и молитвами и совершением по нем поминовенных служб». Сделав, таким образом, пространное обличение епископу Игнатию, митрополит Кирилл простил его и благословил служить, и утешил его, чтобы он не впал слишком в большую скорбь. To what extent did Metropolitan take an active part? Kirill 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 the fact that the metropolitan fulfilled 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 us - I guarantee you for this; if you kissed the cross (in order not to receive the prince, I allow you from kissing the cross) and I take penance upon myself and answer for it before God” 46. During the reign of Metropolitan Cyril, 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 13th century, before the invasion of the Mongols, the popes made three attempts in this sense in relation to Russia 47. 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 48; 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 Khan of Mongol Guyuk. He entrusted these ambassadors, who had to go through Galicia, with the task of making an attempt to start negotiations with the Galich Grand Duke, providing them with his letters to the latter. 49 The ambassadors who were in Galicia in January 1240 did not find Daniil Romanovich at home, because at that time he went to the Horde to see Batu, and Danilov’s brother Vasilke, who was receiving posts, she decided to give them no answer 50. 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, in which case the humiliation he had just experienced in the Horde before the khan 51 could have strongly affected him, and mainly, as one must think, wanting to decorate his Head with a royal crown, which would equal 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, accepted them with the greatest readiness. Immediately upon returning from the Horde, he sent his ambassador, some kind of abbot, to the pope 52. 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 to him, in which the latter writes that, condescending to the prayers of the prince (tuis supplicationibus inclinati), he accepts him and his state under the patronage of St. Peter and his. 53 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. In the following year, 1247, negotiations reached the point that Daniil Romanovich, through ambassadors specially sent to the pope, expressed to him his desire to begin an alliance with the Roman Church 55, 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 56, and the pope, for his part, agreed to the proposed condition 57, at the end of the year he entrusted the Archbishop of Prussia, to whom he had previously entrusted the duty of being the legate of St. in relation to Russia. throne 58, personally go to Galicia to complete the annexation of the country to the Roman Church 59, and sent the Grand Duke a royal crown with two of his bishops 60. 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 61; that is, as his words are likely to be interpreted, he said with irony that he would need not what the pope could give, but what he could not give 62 . 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 Pomoravia (?), calling on them to organize a crusade against the Tatars 63; in this letter, the pope calls the Galich prince his new beloved in Christ, his son (nuper carissimus in Christo films) and says that he received a message from him. It should be plausible to think that shortly before this, the pope again turned to Daniil Romanovich with both previous proposals and convictions and that he received from him such a polite answer that did 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 64, and here he met Daniil Romanovich, who had just returned from a campaign he had undertaken together with the Polish king 65. Despite all the assurances from the legate to the Grand Duke that the pope 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 of Catholic origin, 66 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 on its head 67 in the city of Drogichin (located on the western Bug, down from Brest-Litovsk, - currently a provincial town in the Grodno province, Belsky district) 68. 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 act in such a way as to make him a king, and then, as a king, convince him to become his real spiritual son. What actually happened, we do not know for sure. It seems most likely to us to think that Daniel did not formally embark on a union with the Roman Church, but only made a promise to do so if the pope arranged a union or union with the Greeks 69 . 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 1157, reproaches the Grand Duke for not keeping the oath he gave to the pope 71. 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 did Metropolitan feel about this whole matter of Daniel’s relationship with the Pope? Kirill, we have absolutely no positive information. 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' 72. 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. Sudden interruption of the first relationship. in 1248, it probably falls at the time when Cyril had already returned from the patriarch’s appointment: the suddenness of the interruption seemed to conceal 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 himself forced to admit and excuse 73…. Having begun relations with the Grand Duke of Galich in 1246 and seeing their great success at first, Pope Innocent IV was inspired by the desire and hope to attract northern Rus' along with 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 lordly agitations 74. 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 begin an alliance with the Roman Church, which he intended to do very soon if his sudden death had not befallen him 75 . 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 as a sign of Alexander’s readiness to begin an alliance with the Roman Church: at the end of the same year 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 76 . But that’s where the matter ended... In one of our stories the following story is read about the arrival of the pope’s ambassadors to Alexander. “Once upon a time the Pope from great Rome sent his ambassadors to him. The ambassadors said to the prince: this is what our dad says to you: we heard that you are an honest and wondrous prince and that your land is great, so we sent to you the two smartest of our twelve cardinals; Gald and Gemont, so that you listen to our teaching. But the Grand Duke Alexander, having thought with his wise men, wrote to the pope: “from Adam until the flood, and from the flood until the division of the language; and from the division of 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 birth of Christ and to the suffering and to the resurrection Him, 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." an extract to let you know that the prince and his theologians pressed the pope victoriously - a learned answer. Metropolitan Cyril, died on December 6, 1281 78. This year he undertook a journey from Kyiv and 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 death befell him. It seems that he convened a church council of bishops of northern Rus' in Pereyaslavl; at least at the moment of his death these bishops were with him - Clement. Novgorodsky, 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. Russian Church Metropolitan. Kirill ruled 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 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 kind of consolation is that living images no longer await us. In addition to the Ugrov diocese, there were three more dioceses in the Galich-Volyn region: Galich, Przemysl and Vladimir. The then bishops of Galich and Vladimir are known to us by name (I volume 1st half, pp. 552 and 573; the bishop of Przemysl is unknown by name, but he cannot be assumed, because he was an enemy of Daniel (Ipatsk. years. under 1241 sub fin., 2nd ed. p. 527 fin., just like the bishop of Galich, ibidd. directly above). After the own bishops of the Galich-Volyn region, it is not impossible to think of two more bishops, these are Yuriev and Belgorod, whose dioceses ceased to exist, no doubt, during the Mongol invasion, but who could survive their dioceses and whose names are unknown - To assume that Metropolitan Kirill was the printer of Daniil Romanovich, who appeared with him in 1241 (Ipatsk. under this 1241), we do not see any real basis. The printer Kirill appears to us as a military man almost simultaneously with the time the metropolitan was elected. That the Hypatan Chronicle says a complete lie, that Cyril went to the patriarch for installation in the year 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 - Ipatsk. years. ibid. Hungarian historians date this marriage to the year 1215, - Fessler's Geschichte von Ungarn, processed by Klein, I, 392; но это также несправедливо. Ярослав Всеволодович умер в 1246-м году; he was succeeded by his brother Svyatoslav, who was driven from the throne in 1248 by his son Andrei. Ibidd., cfr Ipatsk. years. p. 555. III, 69, under 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 Russia 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 Theodore of Vladimir 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 (in the article on the enslavement of Rus' by the Mongols, - Theological Vestn. July, p. [51]. Many Russians were taken captive by the Mongols during the enslavement of Rus'; then, at least for the first time, 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 Karamz. IV, [38]. (Since a number of Orthodox Christians from the Caucasian dioceses lived among the Mongols, the bishops of these last dioceses expressed the claim to visit the diocese of Saransk 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 Saransk, 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 Archaeological Commission (A. S. Pavlov), I, second account col. 10, § [15] About the appointment of Metropolitan. Cyril in 1269, the second bishop of Saransk, the Nikon Chronicle writes: “that same summer, the blessed Cyril, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia, installed Theognast as bishop of Russia (i.e. Kiev) of Pereyaslavl and Saraya” - III. 50 beginning In the inscription of the acts of the Vladimir Cathedral of 1274, this Theognost is called Pereyaslavsky. In an article about the enslavement of Russia by the Mongols, ibid. 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, 1st half, page 365 sqq. John Zonara, first an imperial dignitary and then a monk of Mount Athos, 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. For the despot Jacob Svyatislav (Svyatslav), see Stritter in Memorr. popp. II, 763, 768 beginning. It is not entirely clear that Cyril addressed the despot Svyatislav, and not the Bulgarian Tsar Constantine Tekh himself (maybe he made acquaintance with the despot on his journey to be appointed metropolitan). The history of the acquisition of mitres by Cyril 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 are read in some later lists of the Helmsman - East. Description Room. Muz CCXXIII, page 290 sqq. In the record of the scribe who wrote part of the Helmsman for Svyatislav, the year of writing is indicated; but in 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 indic of the first year). The late I.I. Sreznensky considered the first year more likely, see his “Ancient monuments of Russian writing and language” under the year 3262 and Information and Notes on little-known and unknown monuments No. 4, p. 11 V; however, at the Vladimir Cathedral of 1274, Cyril speaks of the Helmsman in such a way that it seems as if he acquired it very recently, that is, as if it points more to the last year than to the first. See our Brief History of the Orthodox Churches of Bulgarian, Serbian and Romanian, page 452. See A. S. Pavlova. Первоначальный славяно-русский номоканон, Казань, 1869. – Иаков Святислав в письме к Кириллу и один из писцов списка в своей записи называют посылаемую митрополиту Кормчую Зонарою, тогда как в ней толкования не Зонарины, а Аристиновы, вероятно, потому, что от старейшего из толкователей Зонары всякие Кормчие с толкованиями канонов принято было называть Зонарами. Не совсем понятное для нас пишет Сватислав митрополиту о своем Кормчей: «а писанием сию (сия) Зонаря да ся никде не препишет, понеже тако подобно есть сей Зонаре во всяком царстве единой быти на съборе, якоже святии отци уставиша и упредиша нам». Никоновская летопись под 1274-м годом: «Прииде из Киева Кирил митрополит в Володимер и приведе с собою Серапиона архимандрита Печерскаго в епискупы Вододимерю и Суздалю», – III, 58. См. еще у Карамз. IV, approx. 153. Надписание деяний: «Правило Кюрила митрополита Руськаго (и) съшьдъшихся епископ: Далмата Ноугородьского, Игнатья Ростовьского, Феогноста Переяславьского, Симеона Полотьскаго, на поставление епископа Серапиона Володимирскаго». The acts of the council, published in Volume I of Russian Monuments, are reprinted in Part I of Monuments of Old Russian Canon Law, which we mentioned above. The deeds should be read in the latest edition, made in a manner that is possibly satisfactory 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 90th, district letter of Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople (459), letter of Patriarch Tarasius to Pope Hadrian (c. 787). For the quotation of the decrees, see the 1st half of Volume I, p. 430. You can understand the metropolitan’s words this way: don’t charge them anything more than what I have legalized... I vol. 2nd half., p. 363. I vol. 1st half., p. 401. Cfr speeches about the prosphora guardians of the Stoglavy Cathedral, - Ch. 5, question 11, and ch. 8, Kazansk. ed. pp. 57 and 87. See 1st volume, 1st half, p. 769, to p. 393 note. 4. In the ancient saintly teaching to a newly ordained priest, among other things, it is read: “but servants do not touch sacred things, nor do they burn incense,” - Monuments of the canons. rights, col. 105 fin. See Vol. I, 2nd half, p. 742. 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 (right. Trulsk sob. 73, - actually on the floor in churches and in houses, which the Greeks did through mosaic laying out of stones - Walsam. Interpretation of this rule) and not carving a cross out of ice on the day of Epiphany at the place of consecration of water (on Jordan, which the Serbs still do) so as not to baptize or consecrate waters on Epiphany with many linked crosses and not to wear this bunch of crosses until 8 days for transfer (the great entrance to the liturgy), - Monuments of the canonical. rights, 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 the year 1301 and to the reign of Metropolitan. Maxima. 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, - Μεσαιωνικη Βιβλιοθηκη, reports that in addition to the Athos 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 Athos list?). The number of questions and answers is different in different lists, see Memo. ibid. In the found fragment of the Greek original, one question-answer is read, which is not in Slavonic, and from this it follows that the question-answers were translated from Greek (in which the first were proposed to the council and in which the second were given by the council) not entirely completely. III, 69. However, it must be noted that what is characteristic in our case in relation to the metropolitan is the accusatory speech that he says to the bishop (and which is now below). But it is not at all impossible that this speech is the work of the chronicler himself. We have given an excerpt from the metropolitan’s letter according to the Novgorod Chronicle (Collected Lett. III, [62] In the Nikon Chronicle (III, [52] it is read in a more extensive form; but it is likely that the distribution belongs to the chronicler himself. The latter chronicle also says that the Metropolitan sent the letter to the Novgorodians as a result of the Grand Duke’s request to him to provide his assistance in establishing the world. See Vol. I, 1st half., p. 490 sqq. See Plano-Carpini, who was precisely one of the papal ambassadors who courted the khan, ch. I. Грамоты папы, отправленные с послами к Даниилу, неизвестны в настоящее время. 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, pp. 57 and 58. Idid. LXX11, r. 64, letter from the pope to the Archbishop of Prussia. Ipatsk letop. under 1255 beginning, 2nd ed. p. 548 (“Anciently he sent this one”...). Raynalda Annales Ecclesiastici, 1249; XV, Ipatsk. letop. ibidd. With a letter of December 1247, the pope recognized the legal marriage of Vasilko Romanovich on the unknown to us Dubravka, with whom he was in the third degree of kinship - in Turgenev, ibid LXXVI, p. 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 the mother of Daniilova and Vasilkova, then it will probably be thought that recognition was asked from the pope at her request). Turgenev ibid. LХХХVIII, r. 78. Rainalda Anuales Eccles. 1253, XXIV. A campaign against the Chegis king to help the Hungarian king; (Ipatsk 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 - Ipatsk. years, pp. 480 fin. and 481 fin. Charter of Alexander IV dated 1257 from Turgenev, ibid. XCL, r. 84. Ipatsk letop. under 1255, Daniel was crowned, as the chronicle makes clear, during the life of Innocent, traces. not in 1255, to which she attributes the coronation, and 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 (Feschichte von Ungarn. Fesler, processed by Klein, I, [398]. This is how the words of the Hypatian Chronicle encourage you to think, which says: “Nekenty bo (pope) curses those who blaspheme (sic) the Greek Orthodox faith, I want to create for him a collection about the right faith about the united church,” - under 1255, 2nd ed. page 548 fin. In Turgenev, ibid. XCV, r. 84. If not in 1254, then in 1255, the metropolitan was indeed in northern, Vladimir, Russia. According to the Ipatian Chronicle, Daniel was crowned with a royal crown by the papal legate with the participation of all his bishops - under the year 1255, 2nd ed., p. 548 fin. Not to mention the metropolitan, the chronicle seems to make it clear that he was absent unintentionally or intentionally, and as for the bishops, some could be prompted to concelebrate with the legate by order of the Grand Duke, others themselves could be as free-thinking as he was. Solovyov's History vol. III, ch. 3, 4th ed. pp., 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-Carnni; but that the link should be considered false is evident from the fact that Plano-Carnini says nothing of the kind in his description of the trip to the Tatars, although he mentions his meetings with Yaroslav. Thaner's charter from the pope in Vetera monumenta Poloniae, I, XCVI. p. 46., Sofia 1st 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 Novgorod 1st and Sophia Chronicles - December 6, 6789 from S. M. All new historians (Rev. Filaret and Makariy, Karamzin and Solovyov) place the death of Cyril in 1280 AD, and the matter should not be understood in such a way that they prefer the chronology of the first two chronicles to the chronology of the last two chronicles, and 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, it is necessary to subtract from the first years not 5508, but [5509]. But in the Novgorod 1st and Sofia chronicles, the count of years is not September, but undoubtedly March (see in Novgor. years. year [6784], 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 accuracy of its chronological testimony. And upon Joseph’s arrival in Russia, the entry is read in only one chronicle - the Novgorod one. The end of 1237, “that same summer Metropolitan Grechin came from Nicaea to Kiev, named Esif.” 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 at all to elect our metropolitans, should be explained by the fact that from 1240 to 1243 they did not have a patriarch. You might be interested in: