Metropolitan of All Russia St. Peter

The successor of Metropolitan. Maxim 1 was St. Peter, again a natural Russian, like Metropolitan. Kirill III 2, and precisely, again a southerner and from the same Galich-Volyn region as the latter. Source of information about the life of St. In addition to the chronicles, we have Peter in two more of his lives. Since miracles began to happen at his relics from the very moment of his burial and since there were deliberate reasons for concern for his speedy all-Russian glorification, then in a very short time after his death, which followed in 1326, his life was written. And since the first written life was later found unsatisfactory, as a result of this, another or second life was compiled. The first life in some well-known copies of him is attributed to Prokhor, Bishop of Rostov, who was appointed St. Peter in 1311 and who died two years after him in 1328; but the life speaks of Prokhor in the third person and describes him as a monk, which is why it should be considered the work of an unknown person 3 . The second life was written by Met. Cyprian after 1390 (in which he finally sat in the metropolitan see in Moscow) 4. The life of the unknown is very short, in terms of narrative it suffers from obvious omissions, and in terms of oratory it is too sparse in words. The Life of Kiprianovo partly constitutes a literary treatment of the life of the unknown, and partly provides new information against him, filling in his narrative omissions. Unfortunately, it is absolutely impossible to say about the lives that they represent a source of information about the life of St. Petra is quite satisfactory. First of all, they say nothing about his church and government activities, limiting themselves in this case to a few general phrases and pointing to only one feature of his activity, which in itself is very vague. Then, their other information related to the history of his life contains omissions and omissions. The time of consecration of St. Peter's was a time of extremely fierce struggle between the two princes of Tver and Moscow over the question of primacy, behind which, visible or invisible to those fighting, was the question of which principality - Tver or Moscow - should become the seed of the future great Rus'. Between two fighting St. Peter became and stood on the side of the Prince of Moscow, which contributed to the resolution of the struggle in favor of Moscow. But the authors of the lives did not belong to the number of people who would be alien to this struggle; they belonged to one of the parties, namely the Moscow one. In Moscow they did not want the history of the involvement of the church in the struggle of the state to be known in all its detail, and that is why our lives contain omissions and omissions and represent some special cases included in the history of the ordination of St. Peter, in such a form that they are incomprehensible or even completely represent inconsistencies. However, with regard to the question of involving the church in the struggle of state life, they still constitute an extremely important source of information for us, for the cover of omissions and silences that they throw over history here can easily and with confidence be lifted. Lives tell that after the death of Metropolitan. Maxim, there was found in Vladimir Rus' some abbot Gerontius, who, being possessed by the disease of autocracy and not seeing anyone rebuking himself, dared with the audacity to delight the rank of sanctity, took with him the metropolitan sacristy, many icons from the Vladimir Assumption or Metropolitan Cathedral, metropolitan dignitaries and went to Constantinople to seek appointment as Russian metropolitan. Lives tell us very important news, but only in such a form that it lacks the quality of credibility. So that in Rus' there could be an abbot devoid of reason, who would have the hope that he would come to Constantinople to the patriarch, express his desire to occupy the see of the Russian Metropolis and he would be appointed metropolitan, obviously, it is completely impossible. But even if such a sick abbot had been found, then in any case it is clear to us that our Gerontius was not such an abbot. He took with him the metropolitan sacristy, many icons from the Vladimir Assumption Cathedral and metropolitan dignitaries: but how could he have done all this if he had gone to Constantinople without permission? Let us assume that he would have stolen the sacristy and icons, although this is not said and although it was not at all easy; but how could he, having gone without permission, take the metropolitan dignitaries with him? Thus, it is absolutely clear that Abbot Gerontius went to Constantinople to seek appointment to the see of the Russian Metropolis, not without permission, but after being sent. Who could have sent him is also completely clear: he could not have been sent by anyone other than the then Grand Duke of Vladimir. At the moment of death, Met. Maxim, the Grand Duke of Vladimir was the Tver appanage prince Mikhailo Yaroslavich, who took the grand-ducal throne at a very recent time (Andrei Alexandrovich Gorodetsky, whose place was taken by Mikhailo Yaroslavich, died on June 22, 1304, and Metropolitan Maxim died on December 6 or 16 of the following 1305). This means that he is Mikhailo Yaroslavich and sent abbot Gerontius to Constantinople to be appointed metropolitan of the Russians. The subsequent behavior of Mikhail Yaroslavich towards St. Petra makes us think that when he sent abbot Gerontius to Constantinople, he had in mind not only that, by making him a metropolitan, he would receive in his person a metropolitan from among the natural Russians, but also his own special and personal goals. Precisely, it seems necessary to think that Mikhailo Yaroslavich, wanting to install his candidate as metropolitan, wanted in the person of the metropolitan to acquire an assistant in his struggle with the Prince of Moscow, which began from the very moment he occupied the grand-ducal throne, and at the same time an assistant in the elevation of his Tver inheritance, to which elevation of their ancestral inheritances the princes then began to strive. How far Mikhail Yaroslavich’s views extended in relation to the Metropolitan, we cannot say, because he did not have the opportunity to discover his views. However, it does not seem likely to accept that they extended to the idea of ​​​​transferring the metropolitan see from Vladimir to Tver, which the Prince of Moscow later did, for this idea, as we will see below, meant something different when applied to Moscow and something else when applied to Tver, and on the part of Mikhail Yaroslavich it would have been too unexpected, because it would have been too courageous and decisive on his part. If he had this thought, he would have sent not Abbot Gerontius, but his Tver bishop, to be installed as metropolitan: otherwise it would follow that he intended to remove the bishop from the see, while it is known that he was on the most friendly terms with the latter. One must think that what we have now indicated was the reason why the life of St. They don’t want to say that Peter the Abbot Gerontius was sent to Constantinople by Mikhail Yaroslavich. The idea of ​​turning to the assistance of metropolitans in the state struggle, which Moscow took advantage of with such success, belonged to Tver itself, and Moscow may have been reluctant to have this recorded in history. Hegumen Gerontius, sent by Mikhail Yaroslavich to Constantinople, was not made a Russian metropolitan there. At the same time that he went to Constantinople, another candidate was sent there from Russia to be appointed metropolitan not of all Russia, but only of part of it. This is the candidate of the Galich Grand Duke Yuri Lvovich, sent for installation as individual metropolitans of Galich. We said above that in 1308, under Metropolitan. Maxima Galizia was given a separate metropolitan. But it must be assumed that this metropolitan, having not occupied the see for long, died around the same time as Maxim, and that in this way it happened that the candidate elected by Mikhail Yaroslavich as Metropolitan of All Russia, and the candidate elected by Yuri Lvovich as Metropolitan of Galich, were sent to Constantinople for installation at the same time. The candidate for the Galich Grand Duke was Abbot St. Peter, and he, instead of being appointed metropolitan of Galich, was appointed by the patriarch as metropolitan of All Rus'. St. Peter was born unknown where in the Galicia-Volyn region and from unknown parents of what condition; but, judging by some indications, one can think that he was from parents of sufficient wealth, belonging to the boyar or merchant class, and that his homeland was either the city of Lvov, the then capital of Galicia, or the city of Belz, located north of Lvov 5 . Having learned to read and write and all, as the author of the first life says, wisdom, Peter, unknown to what he was called in the world, immediately after finishing his book studies, being a 12-year-old boy, entered a monastery in order to become a monk. After a more or less long stay in the monastery, at which, according to the lives, he was diligently zealous about monastic deeds and, at the same time, wanting to add a piously useful activity to his deeds, he learned the art of icon painting to such an extent that he became a “wonderful icon painter,” he wished to found his own monastery, which he built not too far to the north from the capital of the principality of Lvov, on the river or rivulet Rata, flowing in what is now Austrian eastern Galicia and flowing from the left into the upper western Bug 6. According to Met. Cyprian, in the rank of abbot of his monastery of St. Peter became so famous for his life that he became known to the prince and nobles and generally to his entire country. This great glory of Peter, as one must think, was what made him the choice of Yuri Lvovich when the prince was looking for a candidate for metropolitan 7 . Regarding how it happened that not the candidate of the Vladimir Grand Duke, Hegumen Geronty, was installed as Metropolitan of All Russia, but the candidate of the Grand Duke of Galich, Abbot St. Peter, the authors of the Lives say that Gerontius and Peter, having taken a trip to Constantinople, simultaneously boarded ships to cross the Black Sea, but that while Peter very successfully made the crossing across the sea, Gerontius was miraculously detained by a storm; - that having appeared before the patriarch and the council of metropolitans who was with him, Peter was recognized by them as worthy of the rank of hierarch and was placed in metropolitans, that in due time Gerontius also appeared, but that the patriarch, having tested him, refused to consecrate him and proclaimed Peter metropolitan of all Russia. The meaning of the not entirely clear story seems to be that Peter, who arrived in Constantinople before Gerontius, was made a separate metropolitan of Galicia, that Gerontius, who arrived after Peter, was found unworthy of consecration to the rank of metropolitan, and that the patriarch, having put aside his idea of dividing the Russian Metropolis into two special metropolitanates, renamed Peter from the metropolitans of Galicia to Metropolitans of all Russia. If this is so, then such a presentation of the matter cannot be considered completely probable: not finding hegumen Gerontius worthy of being appointed metropolitan and at the same time satisfying the desire of the Grand Duke of Vladimir to have a person he liked as his metropolitan, the patriarch could instead of Gerontius demand another candidate from the prince. It is much more likely that the patriarch, the same Athanasius, who in 1303 gave Galicia a special metropolitan, the first time made Peter, and not Gerontius, the metropolitan of all Russia because this time, having changed his thoughts for some reason, he did not want to give Galicia a special metropolitan. The Grand Duke of Galich Yuri Lvovich, demanding from the patriarch a special metropolitan for Galicia, both last time and the current one, of course, represented to him that metropolitans living in Vladimir, distant from Galicia, could not have proper pastoral care for his country. By denying the prince a special metropolitan and appointing as metropolitan of all Russia the candidate sent by him, the prince, the patriarch could answer him that Peter would have proper care for his homeland from distant Vladimir. We do not have positive information, but judging by what follows, we must think that the Grand Duke of Vladimir Mikhailo Yaroslavich used considerable efforts in Constantinople to prevent Peter from being installed as metropolitan of all Russia and to defend his candidate: this is partly indicated by the fact that Peter was installed as metropolitan not a little time after Maxim. If the efforts of the great prince were not crowned with success, then it is necessary to accept that the patriarch, having decided to deny Yuri Lvovich a special metropolitan, certainly wanted to satisfy him by installing his candidate as metropolitan of all Russia 8. In the history we have now conveyed of the replacement of the metropolitan see after the death of Maxim, the remarkable thing is that he led. book Mikhailo Yaroslavich, contrary to the existing order of appointing our metropolitans not from natural Russians, but from Greeks, turned to Constantinople with a request to ordain a candidate chosen by himself from among natural Russians as metropolitan. It is obvious that the prince came to the idea or attacked the idea of ​​his request, based on the exception just before made by the Greeks themselves, who left it to the Russians to elect their own candidate for metropolitan immediately after the Mongol invasion. The idea of ​​turning to Constantinople with a request to ordain candidates elected in Russia itself, after Mikhail Yaroslavich, as metropolitans was adopted by the Russians. And thus, the exception made by the Greeks themselves at the beginning of our period, out of fear of the Mongols, served to pave the way for a new procedure for the election of our metropolitans. St. Peter was installed as Metropolitan of All Rus' in 1308, the third year after the death of Metropolitan. Maxima. In the same year he returned from Constantinople to Russia and arrived at his oldest table in Kyiv, from which, as one must think, he went to visit his homeland Galicia and his Grand Duke Yuri Lvovich, unless he made this visit on the way from Constantinople to Kyiv. The following year, 1309, he appeared at his new and actual table in Vladimir Klyazemsky. Metropolitan Cyprian says that when St. Peter appeared in northern Rus', then “from the beginning the enemy and warrior of the human race created a little holy word and forced someone not to want that coming.” Despite the secrecy of Cyprian’s speeches, it is completely clear who these some were who did not want Petrov’s coming, that is, it is completely clear that it was the leader who expressed his reluctance to accept Peter’s coming. book Mnkhailo Yaroslavich, who expected to see his own chosen candidate at the metropolitan see, was deceived in his expectations and besides whom, in any case, no one could express his reluctance. “In due course,” continues Cyprian, “(those who did not want Petrov’s coming) saw that saint for themselves (and) submitted to him with humility,” i.e. Metropolitan. Cyprian wants to say that he led. book Mikhailo Yaroslavich, who at first did not want to accept Peter, then reconciled with him and accepted him with a sincere heart. But this, as can be seen from what follows, is completely true: the Grand Duke, who at first did not want to receive Peter, then found it inconvenient to do so and, having reconciled himself with the unexpected and unwanted Metropolitan in a feigned manner, decided to petition the Patriarch for his legal removal from the see. The question arises here: why Mikhailo Yaroslavich did not want to reconcile with St. Peter in a sincere way and why didn’t he try to win him over to his side, so that Peter could replace Gerontius for him? Unfortunately, we do not have any positive data to answer this question; The only probable thing is that when Peter was appointed metropolitan, Mikhailo Yaroslavich, by his opposition to him, armed him against himself to such an extent that sincere reconciliation between them was no longer possible. Very shortly after Peter took over the metropolitan see in Vladimir, Bishop Andrei of Tver 9 sent a denunciation against him to the patriarch with some very serious accusations against him. Metropolitan Cyprian will pass off Bishop Andrei’s action as his personal matter, claiming that he decided to do it “astonished at this vanity of glory,” that is, having a desire to take the metropolitan table instead of Peter. But Cyprian forces us to accept what is impossible to accept. For Bishop Andrei, as well as any bishop, to decide to seek the overthrow of the metropolitan apart from the Grand Duke, this would be incongruous, and it is absolutely clear that Andrei did not act on his own, but as an instrument of the Grand Duke and, at the same time, his appanage prince of Tver. It may very well be that it was agreed between the Grand Duke and the bishop that, in the event of the overthrow of the metropolitan, the latter would take his place; However, this could not have happened, but it could have been that the bishop only wanted to assist the Grand Duke in clearing the metropolitan position for his other candidate. The Grand Duke and Bishop Andrei, having sent their denunciation against the Metropolitan to the Patriarch, kept the matter in deep secrecy, so that no one knew; “But,” says Cyprian, “Andrew’s whispering was not hidden from the Most Reverend Saint Peter,” and this makes it clear that the latter was not one of the people who could be taken by surprise. The accusations brought by the Grand Duke and Bishop against the Metropolitan were so serious that the Patriarch - the same Athanasius who appointed Peter to the Metropolitan - immediately sent his cleric or his patriarchal official to Russia for a conciliar investigation of the matter. The patriarchal cleric, having arrived in Russia, convened a council in Pereyaslavl Zalessky, which took place in 1310 or at the beginning of 1311 10. The council was convened not in the capital city of the Grand Duke and Metropolitan Vladimir, and not in the capital city of the Grand Duke Tver, but in the suburb of the Moscow appanage of Pereyaslavl, there is no doubt, because the metropolitan did not want to see either the capital of the Grand Duke as his place: in his capitals the Grand Prince would have had greater convenience in convening and conducting the council in this way, so that he would turn out to be biased and hostile to the metropolitan, and this, of course, the latter could not wish for at all. The convened council was not a church council in the proper sense, but a church council and at the same time a secular or zemstvo council. As for the spiritual, two bishops were present at it: the accuser of the Metropolitan Andrei of Tverskoy and also Simeon of Rostov, the best of the abbots and monks and priests; There were quite a few secular princes and many nobles present. Grand Duke Mikhailo Yaroslavich himself was not at the council, because he was in the Horde. Instead of him, his two sons, Dmitry and Alexander Mikhailovich, came to the council; however, since they were still children, the first 11 and the second 9 years old, the Grand Duke was entrusted with supporting the accusation against the Metropolitan, of course, not by them, but by the boyars accompanying them. We do not know how the council took place. But, firstly, it was extremely stormy: “there was a lot of rumors,” says Metropolitan Cyprian, “as if it was not unknown what would happen,” that is, that between the secular supporters of the Grand Duke and the Metropolitan it almost came to arms. Secondly, it ended with the perfect acquittal of the metropolitan or the perfect revelation of his innocence. What exactly was St. accused of? Peter from the Grand Duke and from his bishop before the patriarch and what he was judged for at the council, the life of Peter is completely silent about this and this constitutes a mystery. There can be no doubt that some very serious charges were brought up: for, firstly, the patriarch, in his letter to the metropolitan, sent with the clergyman, directly tells him: “behold, the words of your tongue have come from your tongue to your shrine”; secondly, the severity of the accusations is also indicated by the patriarch’s immediate sending of his cleric for a conciliar hearing of the case. On the other hand, there can be no doubt that the Metropolitan was not at all guilty of the charges brought against him: if he had been guilty, then the Grand Duke, that is, the representatives and supporters of the latter who were present at the council, of course, would have allowed him to justify himself. Added to this is another puzzling circumstance. Bishop Andrei brought grave accusations against the metropolitan before the patriarch, which turned out to be completely unjust; Consequently, he brought a grave slander against the Metropolitan. However, after the Council of Pereyaslavl, at which the injustice of his accusations was discovered, he was not removed from the pulpit and was not subjected to the general contempt that would have followed him if he had been a serious slanderer; True, he later left the department, but five years after the council and obviously not as a consequence of it, but as for his reputation, then under 1321 we find an indication in the chronicles that makes it clear that he remained a person respected by all 11. This tricky riddle will be explained to us in a possibly satisfactory manner if we accept that Bishop Andrei accused the Metropolitan before the Patriarch of what, some time after the council, the Grand Duke Mikhailo Yaroslavich himself again accused the former before the latter on his own behalf, namely, of collecting bribes for appointment to church degrees or of simony. Explaining the acts of the Vladimir Council of 1273, we said that the custom came to us from Greece from Greece for bishops to charge a fee for placement in church ranks - that our bishops, following the Greek ones, allowed themselves to abuse the payment and that this circumstance forced Metropolitan. Cyril to make an order at the council so that in the future the bishops should not levy more than what was established in Greece by imperial decrees. We have no information whether Met. Cyril to achieve the goal of stopping the abuses of bishops in the future; but he achieved another goal, which he did not have in mind. His deliberate speeches about payment for placement in church degrees attracted the attention of free-thinking people to the latter, using this word in its best meaning, and these people found that not only was it illegal to abuse the collection of fees, but that the fee itself was illegal. More than likely, the first reason for the unforeseen Met. Cyril of the result that free-thinking people came to was he himself with his conciliar rule on collecting fees. In his rule, the Metropolitan first makes lengthy and heated speeches about the fact that one should not take bribes for appointments, with extracts about this from the cathedral rules, and does not at all explain that by bribe he means not collection in general, but collection of excess, illegal, and then suddenly prescribes: “do not collect from them (those appointed to church degrees) anything other than (due): as I have decreed in the metropolis, let it be in all bishops, - let the cliroshans (episcopal) take 7 hryvnias from the priesthood and deaconry - from both,” and in turn does not say directly, as it was in fact, that his order was a confirmation of what was legitimized by the Greek emperors. Since the decrees of the Greek emperors that determined the amount of payment for delivery were not known to us, anyone who read Cyril’s rule could easily think that it was he himself who first introduced and legitimized payment for supply; and since he legitimizes it after his own lengthy and insistent speeches against the collection of bribes for installations, free-thinking people could easily come to the conclusion that the Metropolitan, despite himself, is legitimizing something completely illegal. Once carried away into criticizing the legal collection of payment for delivery and making detailed inquiries in the canons, these people could easily go further and even to the point of recognizing the payment as illegal and despite its legalization by the Greek emperors, for it was really contrary to the canons (Basily the Great rule 90s, letters of Patriarchs Gennadius and Tarasius). We found such free-thinking people on our board. book Mikhail Yaroslavich and we have direct indications that Bishop Andrei of Tver belonged to precisely such free-thinking people. If we accept this latter as a positive fact and if we at the same time imagine Bishop Andrei as such a free-thinking person who did not know that a certain amount of payment for supply exists in Greece, as something legalized, and who originated it in our country from Metropolitan. Kirill, then the whole matter of his accusation of the Metropolitan before the Patriarch will be explained to us. When the Bishop of Tver saw that the newly arrived metropolitan was charging a legal fee for assignments, he found that the metropolitan was charging a bribe and, serving the Grand Duke, who wanted to have reasons to overthrow the metropolitan from the throne, made a denunciation of him to the Patriarch of Constantinople 12 . This latter understood the denunciation in the sense that the Metropolitan was really charging a bribe, that is, that he was not only charging a legal fee, but also allowing himself to take beyond what was legal, and hastened to send his cleric to Russia to investigate the matter. The arriving cleric found that the metropolitan was charging only the legal fee; therefore, at the same time I found that the Metropolitan was innocent of the accusation brought against him. At the same time, Bishop Andrei turned out to be not a serious slanderer, but only a person who, regarding one subject, this legal payment for deliveries, had his own opinion. With this presentation of the matter, the strange composition of the spiritual side of the cathedral will become clear to us. Of the bishops, except for Andrei, who had to accuse the metropolitan, only one was present at it, but on the contrary, many priests were called to it. Since the bishops represented the side taking payment, and the priests the giving side, it is completely understandable why the Grand Duke ordered that there be as few bishops and as many priests as possible at the council: the bishops were to be for the metropolitan, and the priests against him 13 . We said above that we have positive indications regarding Bishop Andrei’s belonging to those free-thinking people who looked at legal payment for deliveries as an illegal bribe. To this day, a message from a certain Tver monk Akindinus to Vel. book Mikhail Yaroslavich, in which the Grand Duke is convinced to eradicate the heresy of bribery of saints in the Russian Church, and by bribery is meant the collection of legal fees for orders 14. In support of his words about the illegality of collecting fees, Akindinus refers to the fact that he was sent by his bishop to Constantinople to the Ecumenical Patriarch Niphon and that the patriarch and the council answered his question regarding the collection of fees, which is completely illegal for any kind of collection. Patriarch Niphon, the successor of Athanasiev, occupied the see from 1312 to 1315, and the sending of his monk by Bishop Andrei to him 15 obviously means that the bishop, surprised by the court of the patriarchal clergyman, who did not find the metropolitan, who collected payment for installations, guilty of collecting bribes, sent his man to Constantinople to thoroughly investigate find out how they look at pay and bribes 16. The Pereyaslav Council, as we said, took place in 1310 or at the beginning of 1311. Metropolitan, he was forced to leave the department when the cathedral trial ended with an acquittal for the latter (If the same did not happen with Andrei, then, one must think, because the Grand Duke defended him in the most decisive manner). Lives of St. Peter is not told to lead. book After the first unsuccessful attempt to remove the metropolitan from the pulpit, Mikhailo Yaroslavich made further attempts to achieve the same thing. From another source we know that the Grand Duke made another similar attempt, which took place very shortly after the Council of Pereyaslavl or, in other words, within a very short time after the first attempt. Mikhailo Yaroslavich after the death of Metropolitan. Maxim sent to Constantinople to install his candidate abbot Gerontius as metropolitan for the purpose of acquiring in the person of the metropolitan a strong assistant in his state struggle with the Prince of Moscow and in his desire to elevate his clan in Pereyaslavl, a great cathedral: there were all bishops and abbots, priests, deacons and monks and from the patriarch Athanasius is a learned cleric, and the former Metropolitan of Kiev and all Russia, the former Metropolitan of Kiev and all Russia, had much debate from the divine Scripture and with the help and intercession of Prince Ivan Danilovich overcame the damned heretic, and he himself went through the cities, teaching the right to believe and tame rumors, and drive away the confusion of the devil." Tatishchev had at his fingertips such a list of the first life. St. Peter, belonging to an unknown person, in which, after the story about the Cathedral of Pereyaslavl, it was read, as it is read in some now known copies: “and behold the heretic, who came to the place, and cursed” instead of: “and Seita the heretic, “... and attributed these words, speaking about a heretic who had nothing to do with the Council of Pereyaslavl and who appeared later (see about him below), to this latter. But since Tatishchev read in the life that Bishop Andrew of St. Peter did not curse, but forgave, which meant that the heretic was not he, but someone else; Tatishchev creates this other one in the person of the archpriest of Novgorod, giving Bishop Andrei the role of only a helper. We cannot say why the archpriest, but Novgorod, perhaps because the Strigolnikov sect appeared in Novgorod not very long after the Council of Pereyaslavl. As for where Tatishchev gets his heresies, the source of the first heresy is clear: in Tver, soon after Bishop Andrei, there was a dispute about whether material paradise had perished or not, and Bishop Theodore of Tver was of the opinion that he had perished (letter about paradise from Archbishop Vasily of Novgorod, † 1352, to Bishop Theodore of Tver, in Sofia. 1st and Resurrected under 1347, in the book. I, (480); regarding the source of the second heresy, which has no logical connection with the first and even moreover, we cannot say anything (about a possible source of Tatishchev’s speeches about heresies, see below). Tver inheritance. Instead of Gerontius, another was sent to him as metropolitan, whom he met with hostility and whom he immediately tried to remove to the see in order to replace him with his new candidate. It is quite natural that this other one is St. Peter, being greeted in this way by the Grand Duke, had to turn to the side hostile to him, that is, to the Prince of Moscow. If Mikhail Yaroslavich had the idea to use the Metropolitan as an assistant in his struggle with the Prince of Moscow, then it was not difficult for this latter, Yuri Danilovich, to understand the full importance of the idea, especially since he was a man who was not at all behind Mikhail Yaroslavich in his ability to understand. The Grand Duke greeted the arriving metropolitan as an enemy: it is clear that the Moscow prince had to rush to get along with him as a friend. That's how it really happened. At the Council of Pereyaslavl, the newly arrived metropolitan had among the secular people present at him a large party of his supporters, who, with the party of supporters of the Grand Duke, almost came to arms. There is no doubt that the leader of this party was the Prince of Moscow, in whose suburbs the council was convened. Thus, Mikhailo Yaroslavich, who sent abbot Gerontius to Constantinople to be appointed metropolitan and received Peter instead, achieved not to acquire in the metropolitan an assistant in the fight against the enemy, but rather to provide the enemy with an assistant in the fight against himself. It is clear that Mikhailo Yaroslavich could not put up with this state of affairs and that the desire to remove the metropolitan from the department should have been his most urgent desire. The message to Mikhail Yaroslavich of the Patriarch Niphon of Constantinople, which we mentioned above 17, has survived to this day. From this message we learn that the Grand Duke, shortly after the Council of Pereyaslavl, made a second attempt to overthrow the Metropolitan. The Patriarch's message is a response to the Grand Duke's message to him. It turns out that the Grand Duke, in his message to the Patriarch, blamed the Metropolitan and demanded a trial against him. Regarding the wines, it is given to know that the metropolitan was accused by the prince of many illegal matters; in particular, two faults are indicated: firstly, that the metropolitan allowed marriages in illegal degrees of kinship, and secondly, that he received bribes from his appointment. As for the trial, it seems that the Grand Duke, having in mind the Moscow party of the metropolitan’s defenders, asked that it be held not in Russia, but in Constantinople; Regarding this, the Patriarch writes to Mikhail Yaroslavich: “We write to your reign and your power: if (the Metropolitan) wants to come here and give an answer, that’s good; but if he doesn’t want (to come here) of his own free will, then they sent him by force, and (with him came those) who know his guilt and witnesses; when the Metropolitan comes, then, if he is acquitted, he (may he remain Metropolitan), otherwise we will install another person whom your love for God desires, a man certified by good deeds from all people.” Along with the accusations against the Metropolitan, the Grand Duke asked the Patriarch to send him “the charter and the law”; what the charter and law do not say, but probably about those points that at the moment were the subject of disputes and doubts in Russia, and mainly, as one must think, about the collection of payment for deliveries. Regarding this collection of fees, the Pereyaslavsky Council, apparently, had to convince the Grand Duke that it could not serve as a point of accusation against the Metropolitan, since, having previously been accused of the same thing, he was acquitted at the Council. But it must be thought that regarding the views of the Constantinople people on the payment, the Grand Duke was misled. We said above that immediately after the Council of Pereyaslavl, Bishop Andrei sent a monk to Constantinople to find out how they looked at payment for performances. This monk, who went to Constantinople, assures Mikhail Yaroslavich in his message to him, the prince, that he asked the patriarchal council in Constantinople, at which, along with the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Patriarch of Jerusalem was also present and which consisted of 36 metropolitans, and that he allegedly received the answer: “even up to half the perper (perpir - golden Byzantine coins of 5 rubles) or little else (the one who bets will take from what is bet), a village of blood, called and tavern, is equal to Judas and will not have a part with Christ either here or in the future.” It may very well be that such an answer was actually given to the monk in Constantinople; but it was given to him, so to speak, in a sophistical manner. In Constantinople they realized that payment for supplies was illegal, because it too clearly contradicted the canons of the church; That’s why they came up with the idea of ​​calling it not payment for deliveries, but fees or costs for deliveries. To the question: is it permissible to pay for supplies in Constantinople, they answered that it is illegal and extremely lawless, but at the same time it was understood that it was permissible and legal to collect protoreys. Based on the report of his monk, Mikhailo Yaroslavich could suspect that the cleric of Patr. Athanasius, who came to Russia to judge the Metropolitan, judged incorrectly, and therefore could accuse the Metropolitan before the Patriarch for the second time of the same collection of fees for orders. What further history this second attempt of the Grand Duke had remains unknown. Since Patr. Niphon, the worst of the Patriarchs of Constantinople at this time, despite all his bad qualities, was an extremely money-loving man, for which he was expelled from the throne 18, then Mikhail Yaroslavich, but apparently it was possible to achieve his desire with the help of bribery. If this did not happen, then perhaps because he began his second attempt during the recent period of Nifontov’s short sitting on the patriarchal see, so that the patriarch did not have time to fulfill the prince’s wishes. There is no doubt that the Grand Duke and the Metropolitan remained enemies in subsequent times, until the death of the first of them in 1318. But whether the prince made further attempts to get rid of the Metropolitan remains unknown to us 19 . St. Peter ruled the Russian Church for 18 years and a half, from 1308 to the end of 1326 20 . The chronicles say absolutely nothing about his church and government activities. Lives talk about it, but in too general terms. The unknown author of the first life, in his story reached the return of St. Peter to Russia from Constantinople from his installation, writes about him: “and he came to his metropolis and began to teach the erring peasants, weakened by the need for the sake of the filthy infidels, interpreting the Gospel scriptures and the apostles, like the Great Basil, John Chrysostom, Gregory, and expounded the teachings to thus showing his humility and thereby affirming the true faith in the peasants, passing through the Volyn land and the Kyiv and Suzdal lands, teaching everyone everywhere.” Having spoken about the Council of Pereyaslavl, which ended with the acquittal of St. Peter, the same author further continues: “the holy saint began to teach not only in the city, but in all (villages), all in the countries (countries?) and all the places passing by, having no labor for himself, but concerned about the flock of Christ’s verbal sheep.” Having then spoken about the prophecy of St. Peter of one heretic, about which below, our author also adds: “the holy greater feat of the underworld is fasting and merciful alms, affirming the pereas of how to lead the flock of Christ’s sheep of the verbal flock, and the monk and the monk.” Metropolitan Cyprian, for his part, does not fully reproduce what has been said and does not add anything new. In our general reviews, a positive characteristic feature of the activity is that St. Peter, like his two post-Mongol predecessors, undertook travel throughout his metropolis for his personal supervision and arrangement. One written monument to the activities of St. who has survived to this day. Peter, - his instructive letter to priests and laity 21, makes it possible to see in him the first introducer of the special law that existed in our church regarding widowed priests, namely, that these priests, if they want to retain the priesthood, should go to monasteries, and if they want to remain in the world, then they would not sing, i.e., resign from the priesthood. The law was in no way based on the canons of the church and, in fact, contradicted them, for the canons, without taking into account the Lord and the Apostles that virginity is higher than marriage, do not necessarily require that priests have wives, but only allowed them to have them (Trulsky sob. pr. (13): but it, as one should think, was caused by the urgent demands of the benefit of the church. i.e. it is necessary to think that widowed priests in such a significant majority led a shameful life that the law on their removal from the world or on their resigning from the priesthood seemed to be the only way to rid the church community of the temptation that they caused. The real words of the Metropolitan’s instructions regarding widowed priests are the following: “if a priest’s wife dies, let him go to a monastery, (and then) he has his priesthood; if he is weak and loves worldly pleasures, but not fasting; if he does not listen to my word, let him be unblessed, (and also) those who partake of him.” The Metropolitan prefaces his instructions in the letter with the remark that he had already written about this to widowed priests many times, and this makes it clear, firstly, that he encountered resistance to his new law, and secondly, that he introduced it with great persistence. At the beginning of the epistle being analyzed (after the attack), St. Peter says: “I wrote to you many times, both as a priest and as a teacher, how you should continue,” and with this he will let you know that one or another significant number of teaching epistles were written to him. Currently, only three of these messages are known, and the authenticity of one of the three is an unresolved question. The entire content of the letter, in which the instruction regarding widowed priests is read, or the first one preserved, is the following: after the attack, in which both the right faith and good works are equally necessary, a general admonition to the priests to carry out their pastoral service with dignity and diligently shepherd their spiritual sheep; private admonitions to them: that they impose proper penances on the penitent and do not make leniency for the sake of “taking” i.e. gifts, that they prohibit triplets and quadrugamists who have unmarried wives, that they abstain from drunkenness; an admonition to all Orthodox Christians to have the fear of God in themselves, to run to church and bring a gift to God from their property, to love and honor priests and monks, to have mercy on the poor, widows, orphans, captives and those in prison. The message is not extensive in scope, and everything we have now conveyed is presented in it briefly, in the form of fragmentary instructions and instructions. Second teaching letter of St. Peter, which has the inscription: “instruction (to my children) by the abbot and priest and deacon” 22, contains general instructions to priests so that they try to be true shepherds, and not mercenaries, and so that they take care of decorating themselves with Christian and pastoral virtues. It is also not extensive in scope 23. The third message, assimilated by St. Peter, being addressed to bishops, priests, archimandrites, abbots and deacons and to all Orthodox Christians 24, consists of two parts. In the first part there are instructions and instructions for priests regarding their own behavior 25 and regarding their pastoral duties 26, as well as partly instructions for monks 27; in the second part there are admonitions to the laity regarding their Christian duties and reproof for their failure to fulfill these duties 28 . Since the first part of the message seems identical with one message from Metropolitan. Photius (with slight differences - partly with excesses, partly with omissions) 29: these may be written as a result of the last generation (l. 388 beginning), namely, as should be understood, as a result of the desire expressed by the latter to receive his writings from the presbyter. It may be that the saint is St. Peter (in his flock there are princes and powers - l. (389). The writer expresses to the one to whom he writes his zealous desires, so that he will provide well for the flock entrusted to him by God. Three cases are assumed: either that the letter really belongs to St. Peter, and Photius borrowed his message from him; or that a later scribe combined the epistles of Photius and Peter into one place and gave his combination the name of the first; or, finally, that this later scribe combined the epistle of Photios and the unknown metropolitan into one place and attributed his connection to St. Peter is completely arbitrary. As for the high probability of one of the three cases, it does not seem at all likely to us that Photius borrowed his message from the letter of St. Peter, so, in our opinion, we can talk about the affiliation of St. Peter only the second part of the letter. In this last case, we cannot say anything and must limit ourselves only to noting what does or does not belong to St. Peter, this part of the message, in any case, we do not have it in its original form, but in a greater or lesser, partly ignorant, alteration of the compiler (just like the first part that makes up the message of Photius) 30. Since we do not have teaching messages from previous saints. Peter the Metropolitans; then one could assume that he was the first to introduce these messages. However, there are some reasons to think (we will give them later) that this is not so - that the custom of writing such messages already existed before and that they have not been preserved from previous metropolitans to the present day. From what we have just said, some features can be obtained to characterize St. Peter as a shepherd. Firstly, there is no doubt that he was a very zealous shepherd: this is evidenced by his travels around Rus' for the purpose of teaching and correction and his many pastoral letters. Secondly, we are given to know that, despite his zeal, he had an unusual character, which made him capable of being an initiator and innovator in resolving the issue of improvements and corrections (the law on widowed priests). Above we gave a general review of St. Peter of his first life, that he taught peasants, like Basil the Great and John Chrysostom and Gregory the Theologian, i.e. that he was a very teaching shepherd. That this review must be understood not as a simple commonplace is clear from the words of St. himself. Peter, who in one of his surviving epistles writes: “For this reason, children, by writing and unwriting I compel you to do good deeds; therefore I must always remember and write (to you) that you are helpful and saved.” 31 St. Peter, during his stay at the metropolitan see, at least once had to travel to the Horde, where he received the khan's label, which has survived to this day. In 1313, Khan Tokhta or Tokhtagu died and Khan Uzbek took his place. The new khan, upon his accession to the throne, as we said before, gave legalization so that in the future not only princes, but also metropolitans would appear to newly ascending khans to receive affirmative labels, and demanded that the implementation of this legalization begin with himself. As a consequence of this, St. Peter in 1313 and had to take a trip to the Horde. It is not known by whom or when, the preface to the label he received from the khan states that he had in mind to achieve his own goals, namely, to bring to the khan a complaint about the insults of the church from some crafty people and to prevent any plans of the German ambassadors and the papal bishop Matthew who intended to go or were going to the khan 32 . The story of the journey of St. Peter suggests in him a person who possessed a worldly gift or worldly wisdom in dealing with people and doing business: it was completely and exceptionally successful. The new khan did not call the metropolitan to see him in order to cause him any trouble; but he could receive it coldly and disrespectfully. In fact, according to Chronicle 33, St. Peter “in the Horde the king was greatly honored and was quickly released from the king with much honor.” That this was indeed the case is fully confirmed by the label given by the khan. In its edition, this label differs from all other khan’s labels in that it is comparatively very extensive, so that the rights of the metropolitan, its recipient, are confirmed in it with a lengthy verbosity that has the appearance of deliberate urgency. It is necessary to think that the khan's office produced the label in the form in which it exists, but at the deliberate order of the khan, who wanted to express through this his special favor towards the saint. Petru. Then, as we indicated before, in its very content the label differs in one important feature from the label of Mengu-Temirov, given by Metropolitan. Cyril: it provides St. Peter to judge the people belonging to him in everything without exception - “both in robbery and in the act, in theft and in all sorts of cases.” By the crafty people, about whose grievances the Metropolitan meant to complain to the Khan, with a very high probability we should mean none other than the Grand Duke Mikhail Yaroslavich himself. The khan’s extremely kind label to the metropolitan lets him know that he generally showed himself to be the latter’s patron to the fullest extent possible; and now the indicated feature of the label is more than likely to be understood as a consequence of the Metropolitan’s complaint against the Grand Duke, i.e., that the Khan, wanting to save him from any clashes with the Grand Duke, freed the people who belonged to him from any jurisdiction of the second. Since during the stay of St. Peter in the Horde, the Grand Duke was there (to receive his label) and, no doubt, tried his best to counteract him: then, in order to explain his complete success, it seems necessary to assimilate to him that worldly gift that we spoke about above 34. As for the plans that the German ambassadors and Bishop Papa had and which St. wanted to warn. Peter, then, given the complete silence (as far as we know) from Western sources, we cannot say anything positive about this. It seems most likely to us that the pope, who was then engaged in promoting his Latin Christianity on the Black Sea coast of the khan’s possessions, wanted, with the help of German ambassadors, to install his bishop under the khan and in his capital as the same bishop of Sarai as our Orthodox bishop was. If this is so, then the efforts of St. Peter, who rightly should have seen this as a danger to our Orthodoxy, were crowned with success. We said above that he led. book Mikhailo Yaroslavich accused the metropolitan before the patriarch of collecting payment for deliveries, that is, collecting payment that existed legally, which the prince accepted as illegal. This private accusation against the metropolitan, having not achieved the goals for which it was designed, then came out in the form of a public protest against our existing practice of charging for deliveries. We mentioned above that Bishop Andrei of Tver, immediately after the Council of Pereyaslavl, sent his monk to Constantinople to make inquiries about how they look at payment for deliveries there, and that the Grand Duke, misled by the monk’s report, for the second time after the Council accused the Metropolitan before the Patriarch of the same collection of fees. From this monk, named Akindina, who went to Constantinople, a message has been preserved to Mikhail Yaroslavich, in which he assures the prince that in Constantinople a numerous patriarchal council called him any collection of payment as komana and simony, and in which he convinces the prince to put an end to the existence of the illegal custom with his state power. The message addressed to the prince was released by Akindinus among the reading people as a public composition, and thus appeared among them as a public and open protest against the existing custom. In its content, Akindinovo’s message is extremely harsh. Completely equating the collection of payment for performances that existed in our country to simony and spiritual selling, he attacks him with all the mercilessness that would be appropriate in relation to these latter. “For the sake of silence, I am afraid of condemnation,” the monk writes to the prince, “seeing the heresy growing and multiplying, I wear out shamelessness and bare lips, I have become accustomed to a God-hating custom from the eldest of our saints to the least, the unsaleable grace of the Holy Spirit is introduced into the purchase and collected from the appointment of the metropolitan from the bishop and from the priest and the deacon and the others are the clergyman, and the bishop is also the clergyman from all those who exist under him, from the first to the last, and from all the priesthood: the apostolic (and) God-bearing father, the conciliar tradition of the one placed on the bribe and with the one who appointed him, removes both from the dignity and is by no means involved in the life of his degree (commands) and reduces him to damnation.” Completely equating the collection of payment with simony, the monk Akindinus does not hesitate to proclaim the final conclusions that followed from here: “by placing and collecting what was set,” he says, “he is already deposed, (and having been installed) from the deposed there is no benefit from the installation, and he partook of the most pure mysteries from him (the appointed), knowing that he will be condemned,” and again: “According to the great Athanasius, every person who receives reason from God to reason, following the ignorant shepherd, will receive torment, but it is said: the blind leading the blind, both will fall into a pit, falling into the abyss.” With merciless courage and no small causticity, Akindinus denounces our bishops for charging fees for their appointments. Some of the bishops, not knowing how to respond to those who denounced them, expressed a desire to stop the mouths of the accusers through violent coercion. Akindinus says about them: “the love of money, darkened by passion, who wants to say something in truth, is forbidden by malice, with a crooked message saying: we ourselves know, we do not need your confession.” Other bishops said that they were charging fees for the sake of filthy, i.e. Tatar, violence. Akindinus answers them: “the filthy one, like a robber and a thief, makes every effort to plunder where he sees wealth (as he implies, this is the case among you - bishops); and where the poverty of Christ’s humility, he does not hope to gain anything, then he does not force and does not torment”... “Apostles,” Akindinus asks the bishops, “with riches from the end and preaching the word protekosh until the end of the world?” Addressing the Grand Duke with conviction to show diligence in correcting the bishops, Akindinus says: “It is a blessing for the whole church to fulfill the purity of the saints and boldness towards God, if they live rightly and similarly, having a good understanding of the divine scriptures, being able to block the lips of a heretic and the sacred canons to lead and create; and not to to be called by the name of the saints and to be adorned with cleansing vestments and to be proud of the multitude of those who are coming, to honor oneself with the following of many people, and to forbid without truth, tormentingly, and not hierarchically, and to cover oneself with malice from those who denounce.”... St. Peter, having been sent to Constantinople by the Galich Grand Duke Yuri Lvovich for installation as individual metropolitans of Galich, was installed there as metropolitan of all Russia. Patriarch Athanasius, who had given Galicia a separate metropolitan in 1303, then for some reason changed his thoughts and after the death of this separate metropolitan, which followed simultaneously with the death of the Metropolitan of All Russia Maxim, refused Yuri Lvovich’s request to give Galicia a new separate metropolitan. But during the reign of Peter himself, under the second successor of Patriarch Athanasius, John Glick, southern Rus' again received a separate metropolitan. This new metropolitan, named Theophilus, is called not Galich, but Lithuanian, because it should be thought that he was demanded from the emperor and patriarch not by the Grand Duke of Galich, but by the Grand Duke of Lithuania; As for his metropolitan region, then in all likelihood it must be assumed that it embraced both Trans-Dnieper Rus'-Lithuania and Galich, as we see after Peter under Theognostus. The Lithuanians, a special people in the Indo-European family of peoples, the closest among other peoples of the family to our Slavic, lived along the southern and eastern shores of the Baltic Sea in what is now north-eastern Prussia (starting in the west of the Vistula River) and in our provinces of Courland and part of Livonia and then inland from the sea - in our provinces of Kovno and part of Vilna, Suwalki (kingdoms Polsky), Minsk and Grodno. The western half of the Lithuanians, bearing the special name Prussians, was conquered in the 13th century (from 1230 to 1283) by the German Order; the eastern half (our current Russian) formed the Great Duchy of Lithuania, which extended its power over a very significant part of our Rus'. Until the forties of the 13th century, the eastern Lithuanians did not constitute one state, but were divided into small and very small possessions. Around 1238, a prince-collector of the land appeared to them, who united all the small possessions into one state; this prince, “autocrat of the entire land of Lithuania” 35, was Mindaugas, who ruled until 1263. From this Mindaugas the conquest of Rus' by the Lithuanians begins. We do not know the history of Mindaugas's conquests, but at the end of his reign he owned a more or less significant part of the Principality of Polotsk 36. Under his successors Troyden (1270–1283) 37 and Viton (1283–1315), the Lithuanians completed the conquest (in the form of direct conquest or subordination to their vassal power) of the Principality of Polotsk and took possession of the Principality of Turov and part of the Principality of Volyn. Viten's successor, the famous Gediminas (1315–1341) 38, who moved the capital of the principality from Troki, where it had hitherto been located, to Vilno) in 1320 conquered the entire principality of Volyn, and in 1321 captured the ancient capital of Rus' Kiev, so that by 1321 all southwestern Rus' became Lithuanian, behind with the exception of Galicia. The history of installation at St. Peter of a separate metropolitan of Lithuania, who, as with all probability we must think, received Galicia under his administration or was appointed metropolitan of Galicia-Lithuania, remains unknown to us in its details. In one of the lists of the catalog of episcopal sees compiled under Emperor Andronikos Palaiologos the Elder (1282–1327), one reads the historical remark that Lithuania, belonging to the metropolis of Great Russia, was made a special metropolis under the aforementioned Emperor Andronikos and under Patriarch John Glick 39; and John Glyka occupied the patriarchal throne from May 1316 to the same month 1320. Then, in the records of the acts of the Patriarchal Council of Constantinople of the 14th century that have survived to this day. we find that the Metropolitan of Lithuania (ὁ Λιτβάδων) was present at this council in August 1317 40. From what has just been said, we obtain the historical data regarding the installation of an individual Metropolitan of Lithuania, that he was installed in 1316–1317 and that he was asked by the emperor. Andronika and Patr. John Gliki Grand Duke of Lithuania Gediminas. It was completely natural that this latter, having taken possession of a very significant part of Rus', would find the ecclesiastical dependence of his Russian subjects on the metropolitan who lived in Vladimir-Moscow Rus' inconvenient and politically unsafe: and therefore he could come to the idea of ​​​​looking for a special metropolitan for his Lithuanian Rus'. The department of a separate Lithuanian metropolitanate was established not in such a way that one of the existing Lithuanian-Russian bishops was elevated to the rank of metropolitan, but in such a way that the metropolitan was installed as a new one against the previous bishops, with a new diocese and with a new department. Lithuania itself was assigned to the metropolitan's diocese, how many Russians were in it and how many Orthodox Christians were in it from among the Lithuanians themselves; and his department was located in the city of Novogrudok (New Town), the current district city of the Minsk province. During the reign of St. Peter was a heretic in our Rus'. News about this heretic is read in the lives of St. Petra; but, unfortunately, they are extremely brief and completely vague. The unknown author of the first life writes: “and Seita 41 of the heretics (holy saint) came (var. came) to the place and cursed and.” Metropolitan Cyprian says: “at the same time (precisely when Peter began to reach old age) Seit the heretic appeared and was alien to the Church of Christ and the Orthodox faith, philosophizing; the saint, who betrayed and did not repent, condemned him to the curse, and he will perish.” 42. This one who appeared at St. Petre the heretic takes us to the Muslim world. Seit is an Arabic word, actually seid, and means: master. According to the general use of this word in the Muslim world, it constitutes the title of the descendants of Mohammed from his daughter Fatima and son-in-law Aliyah; but among the Tatars, as our chronicles and other monuments make clear, the highest Mohammedan spiritual clergy were called Seites (as if Mohammedan bishops, perhaps because they had them or should have been from the descendants of Mohammed) 43 . News of the lives of St. Peter about our heretic, apparently, should be understood in such a way that he was the highest Mohammedan-Tatar spiritual, who converted to Christianity and then fell into heresy. It seems to us that it is much more likely to think otherwise, namely, that the word heretic is used in the Lives in a very improper sense, that Seit was the highest Mohammedan spiritual, who did not accept Christianity, but remained a Mohammedan, and that he entered into a debate with St. Peter for the purpose of trying to convert him to Mohammedanism or at least defeat him in a theological dispute. During the reign of St. Peter, under Khan Uzbek (who ascended the throne in 1313), the Tatars adopted Mohammedanism: it is quite possible that at first among their Mohammedan spirituality there were people who dreamed of converting their Russian tributaries to Mohammedanism; our Seit could have been one of the Mohammedan spiritualists who were carried away by such a dream, that is, he could have arranged a theological debate with St. Peter, inspired by the hope of converting him, and after him his flock, to Mohammedanism, or at least having in mind to shame him before his flock, in order to thus open access to Mohammedan propaganda for the latter. In the first life of the unknown it is said that St. Peter betrayed the heretic - according to some lists: “having arrived at the prue”, according to others: “arriving at the prue” 44, i.e., that either he went to the heretic for a debate or that the heretic came to him for this purpose. In the first case, the matter must be understood in such a way that, at the request of Ovitus, St. Peter was summoned by the khan for a debate in the Horde; in the second case, it was that Seit himself came to him in Vladimir or Moscow. In any case, these “arrived” and “arrived” do not go to an ordinary heretic at all (since neither Peter would have gone to him, nor he to Peter) and reinforce the likelihood of our assumption 45. Mohammedan theologians in East Asia had a great tendency to debate with Christian theologians. It is not incredible that they retained this tendency among the Tatars, and that if we do not know about them, it is only because of the silence of our chronicles. However, after the dispute we supposed, St. Peter with the Mohammedan theologian, we positively know about the same dispute between St. Alexey. During the reign of St. Peter, and precisely at its very beginning, there was an attempt by the pope to attract the Galich Grand Duke Yuri Lvovich to an alliance with the Roman Church. Dlugosh writes about this under 1309: “Pope Clement V, having sent ambassadors to the Russian king, exhorted and convinced him so that, in accordance with his promise given through ambassadors and through messages, he would not neglect (delay) to begin obedience to the Roman Church and to an alliance with it; the king, having sent away the apostolic ambassadors in vain (with nothing), remained steadfast in old schism and wanted to prefer Greek errors to Catholic piety” 46. Unfortunately, we have no other information about the attempt other than what is read in Dlugosz and which we have now given; and therefore, it remains completely unknown to us when and for what reasons Grand Duke Yuri Lvovich sent his ambassadors and his messages to the pope. At the end of the reign of St. Peter, in September 1324, the determination of the Patriarchal Council of Constantinople took place, which had financial significance for the Russian Metropolis. The income of the department of the Patriarchs of Constantinople then became scarce to such an extent that it turned out to be insufficient for the patriarch and the clergy or his officials who were with him. As a result of this, the council ordered that in the future, the metropolitans and archbishops subordinate to the patriarch should provide him with assistance through an annual contribution of certain amounts corresponding to their income 47. In the conciliar verdict, which spells out the metropolises and archdioceses with the designation of the amount that each must contribute, there is no Russian metropolis, as well as all the metropolises and archdioceses external in general - those located outside the Byzantine Empire. This probably means that external metropolises and archdioceses did not find it convenient to impose a mandatory contribution and relied on voluntary assistance on their part. Be that as it may, one can hardly doubt that in relation to the exclusive Russian Metropolis, which had probably already served as an assistant to the patriarchs, if not constantly, then not rarely, such voluntary assistance began to be considered obligatory, which created in the budget of our Metropolitan and our bishops an important expense item under the name of “Constantinople exit”. The famous case of St. Peter, who had a very important influence on the decision of the political fate of Rus', was his transfer of the metropolitan see from Vladimir to Moscow. Moscow, in which the great Russian state was created, does not belong to the number of cities of Rus', neither prehistoric nor historically famous: in the Principality of Suzdal a small suburb was cut down, which later became, with the proliferation of the Suzdal princes, a small appanage, and this small suburb and small appanage almost immediately rose to the level of a city, gathering around itself the entire Russian land. Moscow was mentioned for the first time in chronicles in 1147, during the reign of Suzdal Prince Yuri Vladimirovich Dolgoruky. The legend recorded in later times for this prince also assimilates its construction. Tradition says that on the site of present-day Moscow there was an estate of the rich boyar Stefan Kuchka, which consisted of a boyar estate and the villages surrounding it, that Prince Yuri Vladimirovich, being offended by the boyar, ordered his execution, and took over his estate, and on the land of the estate, having found a convenient place for a city, he ordered the city to be cut down, which he named after the river Moscow 48 . The second half of the legend, which makes Moscow a village of blood, may be unfair; but it is a historical fact that it was placed on a place called Kuchkov 49, therefore, it was really placed on the land of the boyar Kuchka: according to legend, Yuri Vladimirovich, having killed Kuchka, gave his daughter Ulita to his son Andrei (Bogolyubsky); Perhaps the prince did not kill the boyar, but, having married his son to his daughter, received the estate from him as a gift or as a dowry for his daughter 50. The prince placed the city, which was intended to serve as a border fortress and guard against the principalities of Smolensk, Chernigov and Ryazan, as cities were most often located, on a spit between two rivers - on a hill (Borovichsky, then Kremlin) between the Moscow River and the Neglinnaya River flowing into it (now flowing under the Alexander Garden). In 1213, Grand Duke Yuri Vsevolodovich sent his son Vladimir to Moscow as an inheritance. In 1238 Moscow was burned out by the Tatars. After the invasion of the Tatars, it seems that for quite a long time it remained without its appanage prince 51, and then the Grand Duke Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky (1252–1263) placed his youngest son Daniel in it, whose descendants remained in it, immediately after him beginning to elevate it to the level of famous Moscow. Danil Alexandrovich's successor, his eldest son Yuri Danilovich, a bitter enemy of Grand Duke Mikhail Yaroslavich, who sat after him on the grand-ducal throne for four years, from 1318 to 1322, was a contemporary of St. Peter: he took his father’s place in Moscow in 1304, having preceded the metropolitan for four years, and died at the end of 1325, exactly a year and a month before the death of the latter 52. In the lives of St. Peter we find stories about the transfer of their metropolitan see from Vladimir to Moscow. The unknown author of the first life writes: “As you pass through the cities, you (the holy hierarch) found a city that is honest in meekness, called Moscow, in it (you will find) a godly prince, named Ivan, the son of Danilov, the grandson of Alexandrov, merciful to the holy churches and to the poor, most willing to the holy books (and) a listener of the holy teachings; dwelling (the saint) in that city and spoke to the pious prince: “O son! Your piety is great, serve me today,” the holy metropolitan promised the pious prince and spoke: “Let the Holy Mother of God build a stone church in your city”; the noble prince bowed and said: “Thy prayer, holy father, let it be done”; make the former church and tomb more holy with your own hands; After a short time, his death was announced by a holy angel.”... It is further said that St. Peter died in Moscow and was buried in the newly founded stone Church of the Mother of God. Cyprian we read: “And as the man Peter passed through the cities and places of God, he came to the glorious city called Moscow, even then he was small and few people, and not as we now see him; in that city he had the pious and great prince Ivan Danilovich, the grandson of Alexander the Blessed, in whose form Blessed Peter Orthodoxy is radiant and adorned with all kinds of good deeds, merciful to the poor, giving honor to the holy churches of God and those ministers, curious about the divine scriptures and a listener of the holy teachings of the book; He will create a church made of stone in the name of our most pure Lady Theotokos and the Ever-Virgin Mary, prophesying to her: “As if I were my son!” Having listened and erected the church of the Most Pure Mother of God in your city, and you yourself will be glorified more than any princes and your sons and grandsons (will be glorified) throughout the generations, and this city will be glorious in all Russian cities and the saints will live in it and raise up its hands against the splashes of its enemies and God will be glorified in it, and my bones will also be placed in it. The prince received these words from the teacher with joy, began with care for the church to be diligently founded, and began the day from the day of its removal and erection.” It is further told that before the church was finished, St. Peter died and was laid in it, in a coffin prepared by him himself. Ivan Danilovich Kalita, the younger brother of Yuri Danilovich, took his place in Moscow at the end of 1325, a year and a month before the death of St. Peter (and until then he was sitting in Pereyaslavl, which went to their father Danil Alexandrovich in 1303 after his nephew Ivan Dmitrievich died without children). Thus, according to the presentation of the Lives, it would appear that St. Peter, at the very end of his life, came to Moscow with “honest meekness,” as the author of the first life aptly expresses its poverty, that he found the local prince Ivan Danilovich a very pious man and that this last circumstance aroused in him the desire to be buried in Moscow, which indeed was done. Even if we had no data for a proper understanding of the matter, then even then it could not seem probable to us at all in the form it appears in the lives. The Metropolitan found a pious prince in one small city, and suddenly he has a desire to be buried in this city: what is the internal connection here? The Metropolitan, of course, should have been very happy that there was a pious prince in his metropolis; but it is completely incomprehensible that he suddenly had a desire to be buried in the town of the pious prince: he had a see in Vladimir and he was supposed to be buried with it 53. The second of the life-givers, Metropolitan. Cyprian lets slip that this was not the case: he says that St. Peter came to Moscow under Ivan Danilovich, that is, not earlier than a year before his death, and yet then he says that the saint “started to live in that city in more places,” that is, he makes it known that the metropolitan did not come to Moscow just a year before his death. The matter really should be presented far from the way it is presented in the lives. After the death of Metropolitan. Grand Duke Mikhailo Yaroslavich sent Maxim to Constantinople to be installed as metropolitan of his abbot Gerontius in order to acquire a strong assistant in his devoted metropolitan in his struggle with the Prince of Moscow and in general in his aspirations for the elevation of his ancestral Tver. When instead of Gerontius he came to the metropolitan see of St. Peter, the Grand Duke, met the unexpected metropolitan as an enemy, and remained this enemy throughout his life, more than once trying to overthrow him from the department. Met as an enemy by the Grand Duke, Peter naturally and necessarily had to seek friendship with his enemy, the Prince of Moscow, for between two enemies, having been accepted as an enemy by one, he could not become anything other than a friend of the other. At the same time, the Prince of Moscow could not do anything other than to seek with all possible haste and with all possible diligence the friendship of the Metropolitan, who had found an enemy in the Grand Duke. Mikhailo Yaroslavich, in order to fight his enemy and to elevate his Tver inheritance, wanted to acquire an assistant in the metropolitan, and he did not succeed: naturally, the Moscow prince, using the thoughts of his rival, immediately had to use all his efforts to achieve what Mikhail Yaroslavich failed to achieve, that is, to acquire in the metropolitan the assistant that the latter wanted to find in him. Thus, it is necessary to think that the close connection and friendship of the Metropolitan with the Prince of Moscow, not with Ivan Danilovich Kalita, but with his elder brother Yuri Danilovich, began from the very first minute of the Metropolitan’s arrival in Rus'. That this was indeed the case, we have positive evidence for this. At the Pereyaslavl Council, the newly arrived Metropolitan has a large party of secular supporters: it is clear that these supporters were created for him and that the Prince of Moscow was at the head of these supporters. Immediately or very soon after the Council of Pereyaslavl, in 1311. son of the Grand Duke, who was probably still in the Horde, as during the cathedral, Dmitry Mikhailovich came with an army against the Prince of Moscow, as it seems, forced to protect the grand-ducal rights of his father: the Metropolitan, clearly a supporter of the Prince of Moscow, used such a decisive measure against Prince Tverskoy as excommunication. So, meeting St. Peter's relationship with Moscow should have begun not just a year before his death, but from the very first minute of his arrival in Rus', that is, the actual arrival in Suzdal or Vladimir Rus'. Having as his enemy the Grand Duke, to whom Vladimir belonged, although he did not live there permanently, the Metropolitan, naturally, could find it inconvenient and embarrassing for himself to stay in his cathedral city, and therefore it is very likely to assume that from the very first minute of his arrival in Rus' he tried to live as little as possible in Vladimir and as much as possible in Moscow, with his ally, the Prince of Moscow. That this was really the case, we have indications of this in the chronicles. Making it known that Peter's stay or residence in Moscow began from the first time he occupied the metropolitan department, the chronicles say that he had his court in Moscow in two places - first on one, and then moved to another (at first the court was located at the Church of John the Baptist at the Borovitsky Gate 54, then it was moved to the place where it remained forever - to the site of the current synodal chamber) 55. These frequent and long stays of the Metropolitan in Moscow, which began from the first time of his arrival in Russia, did not mean that he transferred the metropolitan see from Vladimir to Moscow: they only meant the residence of the Metropolitan instead of his capital city in one of the suburbs of his diocese, which was Moscow in relation to Vladimir in church-administrative terms. After temporary, more or less frequent and prolonged stays or residences in Moscow, St. Peter finally transferred the metropolitan see to it from Vladimir. Regarding this last action of St. Peter, in fact, it is necessary to think that he only began to think about him at the very end of his life, during the reign not of Yuri Danilovich, but indeed, as the lives say, only of Ivan Danilovich. This is clearly evidenced by the history of the stone church, in which St. Peter was about to be buried. If only Yuri Danilovich had expressed his desire, or more precisely - as we will say below - his consent to be buried in Moscow; then Yuri Danilovich would have built a stone church long ago and in advance, which would have served as a tomb for him. But this church was built only under Ivan Danilovich: it is clear that the idea that Peter should be buried not in Vladimir, but in Moscow, appeared only under him. Based on the history of the construction of the church, we can even determine with complete accuracy the time when it was decided between St. Peter and Ivan Danilovich, so that the remains of the former were laid not in Vladimir, but in Moscow. Stone churches, like all stone buildings, begin to be built in the spring; Our church began to be laid at a completely different time than usual - in the month of August 1326 (it was founded on August 4): obviously, the laying began not at ordinary times for the reason that only at this unusual time the aforementioned agreement took place. And if they did not postpone the laying until the spring of next year, then one must think that they did not find it possible to do this due to the old age and sickness of the saint. Peter, who actually died four and a half months after the founding of the church. Lives of St. Peter is assured that he himself expressed to Ivan Danilovich a desire to be buried instead of Vladimir in his place in Moscow. But to present things this way is completely unbelievable. Circumstances forced St. Peter to live often, or maybe for the most part, instead of Vladimir in Moscow. But Vladimir was his cathedral city and he should have been buried at his cathedral. As Metropolitan, St. Peter could have absolutely no motives for wanting to be buried instead of Vladimir in Moscow; and to present the matter as if the piety of the Moscow Prince aroused in him a desire to be buried instead of Vladimir in Moscow, as we have already said, would be very strange, because metropolitans should be buried at their sees, and not in any and not in any other places of their dioceses, where they will have to meet pious people. Had motives to wish that St. Peter was buried in Moscow and so that his successors began to live in it, Prince Ivan Danilovich in those political forms, so that the presence of the metropolitan see in Moscow would facilitate the transfer of the grand-ducal throne from Vladimir to it. And it is necessary to accept that the initiative in this matter regarding the decision of St. Peter to be buried instead of Vladimir in Moscow belonged not to himself, but to the prince, that Ivan Danilovich, having the desire that St. Peter, instead of Vladimir, was buried with him in Moscow, turned to him with urgent requests about this, and he, yielding to the requests of the prince and entering into his political views, gave the latter his consent regarding this. Ivan Danilovich, having inherited the throne of Moscow after the death of his brother, did not inherit from him the throne of the Grand Duke, which, after Yuriev’s short sitting on it (1318–1322), again returned to the princes of Tver 56, so that at the moment when an agreement took place between Ivan Danilovich and St. Peter about the burial of the latter instead of Vladimir in Moscow, the former was not a Grand Duke, but only an appanage prince of Moscow. It seems strange that Ivan Danilovich dreamed of moving the capital of the great reign from Vladimir to Moscow, when he did not yet own this capital. But he urgently strove to take possession of the capital and it was, so to speak, a done deal for him. Yuri Danilovich, after a 14-year intense search for the throne of the Grand Duke under Mikhail Yaroslavich (1304–1318), finally got it, when he was soon driven out of it again (1322), it seems, he gave in to despair and gave up on him 57 . But Ivan Danilovich, having taken his brother’s place on the Moscow table, began the search for the throne of the Grand Duke with the same persistence with which Yuri Danilovich searched for it in the aforementioned first 14 years. Between Tver and Moscow, the matter was set up in such a way as to be or not to be one or the other of them. Using the most precise speeches about this transfer of St. Peter of the metropolitan see from Vladimir to Moscow, we must say that, strictly speaking, St. Peter did not at all transfer chairs from one city to another, and the action that he did in relation to Moscow, which is usually called the transfer of the chair, can be called such only in a very improper and very inaccurate sense of the word. The metropolitan see could be transferred formally and truly for two reasons - either for the church reason that Vladimir would cease to exist, or for some reason it turned out to be impossible to stay, or for the state reason that Moscow would instead become the capital of the great reign. Neither one nor the other reason existed at all, and St. Peter, who had no reason at all to transfer the see from Vladimir to Moscow, really did not transfer it at all, because for quite a long time after him, the see of metropolitans continued to remain in Vladimir, and if the metropolitans after him began to live in Moscow, this meant that instead of living at their see, they began to live in one of the suburbs of their diocese (contrary to the 82nd rule of the Carthage cathedral). We said that if Moscow had taken the place of Vladimir as the capital of the great reign, then there would have been a legitimate reason for the transfer of the metropolitan see from one city to another. On the contrary, in this case it was necessary to ensure that the residence of the metropolitans in Moscow would contribute to the elevation of the latter to the status of the capital of the great reign (after which the metropolitan see could be transferred to it in a formal manner). Without transferring the metropolitan see from Vladimir to Moscow in a formal manner, which was impossible due to non-existence of reasons, St. Peter could only help ensure that his successors, following him, confirmed their stay in Moscow, this suburb of the metropolitan diocese, instead of their cathedral city of Vladimir. In order to achieve this goal, St. Peter did what he agreed to be buried instead of Vladimir in Moscow. The desire for respect for his successors, expressed by him in this agreement, that is, the desire for the successors to remain living at his grave, was not at all obligatory for these latter: it could come true, as it actually happened, or it could not come true. But to do something that would be obligatory for the successors, St. Peter was unable to do so because it was beyond his means. He could only take measures so that his immediate successor was like him, a man who had the desire to live in Moscow; He actually took these measures, as we will say below in speeches about Theognostus, who took the see of metropolis after him. So, the history of the so-called transfer of St. Peter the metropolitan see from Vladimir to Moscow is presented in the following form. St. Peter, having been appointed metropolitan and arriving in Vladimir, found the Vladimir Grand Duke Mikhail Yaroslavich as his enemy, and his Grand Duke remained such an enemy for the entire subsequent time. Received as an enemy by the Grand Duke, St. Peter, of necessity, had to turn to the enemy of this latter - to the Moscow Prince Yuri Danilov, with whom he entered into an alliance of friendship. But in his relationship with the Grand Duke, not finding it convenient for himself to stay in Vladimir, at his cathedra, where the Grand Duke, St., was the owner. Peter often, or perhaps even very often, lived with his ally, Yuri Danilovich in his Moscow, which in church and administrative terms was one of the suburbs of the metropolitan diocese. At the end of St.'s life. Peter's successor to Yuri Danilovich on the Moscow table, his brother Ivan Danilovich, set out to keep the metropolitans in Moscow forever, in order to ensure through this his political plan to move the capital of the great reign from Vladimir to Moscow. For this purpose, Ivan Danilovich turned to St. Peter with a request that he agree to be buried instead of Vladimir in Moscow - and St. Peter, satisfying the request and sympathizing with the political aspirations of the prince friendly to him, gave the latter his consent. - Why do the lives of St. Peter, written by people who deliberately cared about the interests of Moscow, present the matter as if he himself expressed to Ivan Danilovich a desire to be buried in Moscow, this is completely understandable: with such a presentation of the matter, i.e. that St. Peter himself chose Moscow as the place of his burial, the fact of his burial there received a new and special, in the sense of importance for it, church-political significance. In church and administrative terms, as we said, Moscow was a suburb of the metropolitan diocese. If it had its own bishop or belonged to another diocese, not the metropolitan one, then it could very well be and is very likely that St. Peter, not finding it convenient for himself to stay in Vladimir, would have chosen for his stay not her, but some other city that belonged to his diocese. Thus, the circumstances of Moscow, destined to be the collector of Rus', were precisely such that St. Peter could live in it, and then be buried within its walls. Moscow, which had set its mind to becoming the capital of a hereditary great reign instead of Vladimir, was still “humble with meekness,” in the apt expression of the first biography of St. Peter, that there was not a single stone church in it. St. Peter, of course, could have been buried in it and in one of the wooden churches. But his burial in Moscow was calculated on the fact that at the church in which he would be buried, his successors would begin to live in it, as if according to the covenant expressed by him through this. As the future de facto cathedral church of the metropolitans (next to the juridical cathedral - the Vladimir Assumption Cathedral), our church was supposed to be made of stone. Having received the consent of St. Peter in order to be buried in Moscow, Prince Ivan Danilovich hastily began building a stone church as a tomb for the metropolitan. This church, very modest in size 58, although despite its outward modesty and which soon became famous, was founded on August 4, 1326. In two or one and a half autumn months it could not be fully built; meanwhile St. Peter died in the same winter, from December 20 to December 21 59. As a result of this, his body was buried in the begun, but unfinished, church, which was completed and consecrated the following year, 1327. Having prepared a stone coffin for himself in advance, he placed it in a compartment of the altar or proskomedia near the outer wall 60: this is where his remains were laid. With the relics of St. Peter, miracles began to happen from the very minute of his burial. In a solemn and formal manner, he was canonized just 13 years after his death under the following Metropolitan Theognostus. To this day, several sacred objects and things are preserved in Moscow, which are assimilated by the tradition of St. Petru. They are the following: 1) the icon of the Dormition of the Mother of God, painted by the saint, located in the Assumption Cathedral, in the lower tier of the main iconostasis, second on the right side of the royal doors; 2) another icon of the Mother of God painted by him, deliberately known under the name of Petrovskaya, located in the same Assumption Cathedral, in the chapel of the Apostles Peter and Paul; 3) a panagia that belonged to him (gold, semi-oval, on a silver gilded chain, decorated with lalas and Kafim grains, with an onyx inserted into the front side, on which is carved an image of the prophet Daniel with a Greek inscription on the sides: ὁ προϕήτης Λανιήλ, and with a carved on the back side, in gold, there is an image of the Mother of God Hodegetria), kept in the Synodal sacristy; 4) a sakkos that belonged to him (made of azure satin, with four-pointed crosses woven in circles), stored in the same sacristy; 5) the epitrachelion that belonged to him (made of clove damask, decorated with 6 large and several small ones, lined with small pearls); kept in the same sacristy; 6) the staff that belonged to him, renewed patron. Joachim, located in the Assumption Cathedral and standing at the patriarchal seat; 7) his liturgical cap, located in the same cathedral with his relics (in the spiritual letters of the Grand Dukes Vasily Vasilyevich and Ivan Vasilyevich, - Collected state grams, and agreements I, 206 and 398, and in one letter on the death of Tsar Boris Fedorovich Godunov, - Act. exp. II, 86 fin., the cross of the wonderworker Peter is mentioned as belonging to the named sovereigns: but at present this cross is unknown). Our second metropolitan after the Mongol invasion, a Greek by birth, who died in 1305. Our first metropolitan after the Mongol invasion, who died in 1280. From the synodal collection of the 16th century, the life was published by K. I. Nevostruev in the January book of the Kharkov Spiritual Messenger of 1802; from the Novgorod Sophia collection of the 14th century, printed by Rev. Macarius in the appendices to the IV volume of history; the third list known to us is in the 16th century collection of the Trinity Lavra Library, No. 786 f. 300; for an indication of other lists, see Klyuchevsky in Old Russian Lives of Saints, p. 75, note. 2, and in Barsukov in Sources of Russian hagiography, col. 447, adding to those indicated a list in the synodal. RKP. No. 421. Bishop Prokhor learns the life in the list printed by Rev. Macarius and in some of the unpublished lists. Placed in the Degree Book, -1, 410; readable in manuscripts and in separate form (see Rev. Macarius Ist. vol. IV, appendix 3, Vostokov Description of manuscripts of the Rumyantsev Museum and Barsukov ibid; we know the lists: former Volokolamsk-No. 195, l. 226. and No. 593, l. 226, and Lavra Trinity No. 789, l. (51). St. Peter built his own monastery, from which we can conclude that he was a man of means, therefore, that he was a city dweller by birth, belonging by class to the boyars or merchants. He built his monastery in the area between Lvov and Belz, from which we can conclude that he was born in one or another of these cities (Since high-born monks were usually appointed to all high church positions, we would be inclined to assume that St. Peter was from a noble boyar family; but the author of the first life, who does not make any hint of this kind, keeps us from assuming. The father of Peter’s life is called Theodore, but the mother is not named; in one Rumyantsev collection the father is called Jacob, and the mother is Eupraxia, in Vostok no. 324, p. 514 col. Monastery of St. Peter, built in the name of the Savior (Preobrazhensky) does not currently exist; in its place now stands a village, with a parish church also of the Savior, which has two designations: Palace (Palaces) and Spaskoe (Spasskoye) and which is located almost equidistant between the cities of Zholkov (Zolkiew, to the district of which it belongs) and Belz (directly south of the latter, in the diocese of Przemysl, in the deanery or deanery of Ugrovsky), see Galichsky Historical Collection issue III, pp. notes VII, approx. 6. Zubritsky in Critical-Historical. tales of red Rus', page 71 note, the former monastery of St. Peter in the present village of Verkhrate, located not far to the west from the village of Palace, is incorrect, because in the village of Verkhrate there is a parish church in the name of St. George (according to Shematism). The author of the History of the Hierarchy, V, 667, erroneously considers the monastery of St. Peter the Ratsky Vozdvizhensky monastery, located in the northwestern corner of the Volyn province, on the Rata River, flowing from the left into the upper Pripyat. Metropolitan Cyprian, presenting the matter in such a way that Yuri Lvovich sent Peter to Constantinople in order to petition for the first grant of a special metropolitan to Galicia or for the first separation of it into a special metropolitanate, assures that the prince did not tell Peter that he himself was being elected as a candidate for metropolitan, but that only in the message sent with him to the patriarch and the council secretly asked him to be appointed to he is the metropolitan. But since Peter could not be sent to Constantinople with the indicated assignment (for, as we said, Galicia was already separated into a special metropolitanate), it is obvious that he could only go there as an open (and self-led) candidate for metropolitan. Yuri Lvovich was married to the sister of Mikhail Yaroslavich (Ipatsk, years under 1281, - 2nd ed. p. 583, Resurrection years under 1282, - in Collected Lett. VII, (176); but this close relationship, apparently, did not serve to ensure that the latter could settle down with the former. Bishop Andrey was born Litvin or Litovets, the son of Prince Gorden or Erden; in 1266 he was captured by Dovmont of Pskov, also a Lithuanian. He was appointed Bishop of Tver by Metropolitan. Maxim in 1290 from the abbots of the general monastery of the Mother of God (as one must think, the one he himself built and was located on the Shoshe (Sheshi) River, which forms the right tributary of the Volga, flowing in Staritsky and Tver districts, in the lower part of its service serving as the border of the latter from the Klin district of the Moscow province, in which, upon removal from the department, he died in 1323). Patriarch Athanasius, who sent a cleric to try the metropolitan, retired from the throne at the end of 1310 or at the beginning of 1311; Bishop Prokhor of Rostov, who was present at the council with the rank of abbot of the Yaroslavl Spassky Monastery, was appointed bishop by Peter in 1311 (according to the not particularly reliable testimony of the so-called Tver Chronicle, Prokhor was installed on March 21, 1311). This year, Dmitry Mikhailovich Tverskoy, the son of Mikhail Yaroslavich, turned to his mediation to conclude peace with Yuri Davidovich of Moscow. Before Peter, Andrei saw how Metropolitan, who ordained him as bishop, collected payment for ordination. Maxim. It must be thought that Andrei also viewed the collection of fees in the same way as an illegal matter; and if he did not inform the patriarch, it was because he had no personal reasons for this. The only bishop of Rostov, Simson, who was present at the cathedral after Andrei himself, left his see very shortly after, in 1311. One might think that he was of the same thoughts as the Bishop of Tver, that for this reason he was the only one of all the bishops who got to the council and that, having declared himself an enemy at it The message was published in Orthodox. Interlocutor 1867, part II p. 246, and in Pavlov's Monuments of Canon Law, col. 150. In the inscription of the message, Akindinus is called the monk of the Lavra of the Holy Theotokos. It is probable that he was from his own St. Andrew's Monastery. Tatishchev reports the following unexpected about the Pereyaslavl Cathedral in 1313 (IV, (92)) the following unexpected: “That same summer, the heretic archpriest of Novgorod appeared in Novgorod, and to him came many things from the church and the laity, and Bishop Andrei of Tver helped them, saying: behold, like paradise on earth perish, and the holy angel the monastic rank was abused by the godless teaching of demons, and many of the monks who left (from the monasteries) got married; The message was printed and reprinted in the same place as the message to the same Mikhail Yaroslavich from the monk Akindinus. See about him in the history of Nikephoros Gregoras and in the deliberate accusatory word against him by Nikephoros Khumna, printed in Anecdotes of Boissonade, V, 255. Bishop Andrei left the department to retire to the monastery he founded in 1315. It is very possible that he was forced to do this by enmity with the metropolitan, after unsuccessful attempts to overthrow the latter. That in the course of 18 years and a half, this is stated in the inscription of the life of an unknown person according to some lists (for example, the Trinity Lavra, see the printed Description), and from the life or in addition to it in the chronicles - Nikon, years. III, 131, also in the synaxarion or calendar of the Followed Psalter, Met. Cyprian. – RKP. Moscow Spirit. Academician No. 142 (December 21). Printed in Pavlov's monuments, no. 17, col. 159 Printed in the Addenda to the works of the Holy Fathers for 1844. The words of the inscription, placed in brackets, are from the RKP. Volokol, monastery, now the library of Moscow. Spirit. Acad., No. 566. In the now mentioned Volokolamsk manuscript, it is attached to our message as its second part or merged with it into one whole, - l. 387 rev. fin., a letter from some presbyter to some saint Printed in Monuments of Kushelev-Bezborodko, IV, 186 (about him in Filaret’s Review § (65). Abstain from drunkenness and avoid unnecessary feasts at all times, and especially during Lent; do not drink before lunch; do not engage in trade and usury. Teach the laity to come to church, honestly fast and partake of the holy mysteries annually, to abstain from fornication, to honor spiritual fathers and carnal parents, not to eat at feasts before lunch, to abstain from foul language, to avoid all witchcraft, and not to be invited to the so-called “field”; separate triplets and allow only very young people who will not have children to enter into a third marriage; baptism should not be performed through dousing, but through threefold immersion, and allow only one godfather or one godfather at a time, depending on the gender of the baby. Do not trade or engage in usury; Monks and nuns should not live in the same monasteries. Exhortations: to honor spiritual fathers and priests in general; stand in church during the service honestly and with fear, listen to reading and singing and without talking or whispering; denunciation: “to the ungifted.” that is, those who do not partake of the body of Christ at least once a year; to those who offend the Church of God and her servants and to those who do not listen to the commandments of the apostles and the rules of the saints, the father “and the author of the message says my holy metropolitan commandment.” With a message to Novgorod, August 29, 1410, printed in Acts of the Expedition, I, no. 369, and reprinted in Pavlov's Monuments, col. 270. In one Chronograph (library of the Bethany Seminary, No. 2215, part I l. (63) we came across a mysterious teaching of St. Peter, which, due to its brevity, we present here in full: “The teaching of Metropolitan Peter to the great prince Demetrius and to his death (sic, necessary: son, spouse?) and to his brethren and to the bishop and to the boys and to the old and to the young and to all Christians (italics in cinnabar). Children, were naturally from God in execution, the father loves him, and he punishes him; he is remembered by the young, and the young have great obedience and keep it." One might think that this is a teaching to Grand Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich on the occasion of the murder of his father in the Horde in 1318; but this expression does not allow us to assume: "the old people remember well," for under St. Peter the death of Mikhail Yaroslavich was very well remembered. not only the old, but also the young. In the second message of our account.-In 1312 St. Peter removed the rank of Bishop of Sarai from Ishmael. Since the Bishop of Sarai occupied such a position that he could play a very important political role, directing the favor of the Khan’s court in one direction or another, it could be that the bishop suffered church execution for non-ecclesiastical guilt (about the bishop specifically Izmail cfr Resurrection Years under 1296). But if we accept that the bishop was defrocked for direct guilt in office, then we will have to see in the saint. Peter the Metropolitan is very strict. See Karamz. IV, approx. 245. Not long before (in the previous 1312), Barsanuphius, who was appointed bishop of Saransk in place of the deposed Ishmael, if he had already managed to establish connections and acquaintances in the Horde, was undoubtedly a zealous seeker for the metropolitan (and that in later times, at least, the bishop enjoyed the deliberate favor of Uzbek, we have positive evidence of this - Nicholas III, 155 beginning). Ipatsk years., 2nd ed. page 567. In 1259, Lithuania came to Smolensk with Polotsk; therefore, this year the Polotsk people were already tributaries of Lithuania. After the death of Mindovg, his son Voishelk gave the great reign of Lithuania to his son-in-law (his sister’s husband) Shvarn, the son of David Romanovich of Galich; but this one soon died and a natural Lithuanian again ascended the Lithuanian throne. The year of death of Gediminas according to the Russian Chronicles, including the 1st Novgorod Chronicle, kept by his contemporaries. At Rally and II. V, 494, approx. 2 (in the note the year is also indicated, but in the printed list there are not enough tens and units in addition to thousands and hundreds, “in 68.. summer” from S.M.). Acta Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani, ed. MyklosicemiMiller, I, 72. We correct the reading of the name according to the life of Cyprian. In the list of lives printed by Rev. Macarius instead of “Seita” reads: “se tako”, in the list of the Trinity Lavra: “Sitya”. The author of the Nikon Chronicle, borrowing news about the heretic from the life of Cyprian, instead of “Seit the heretic” writes: “Here is the heretic.” For evidence from chronicles, see Karamzin and Artsybashev on the Indexes; in ABC Books the word sows is interpreted by the word ruler, i.e. bishop, cfr. Nikon, years. V, 261. The Greeks also called Mohammedan spiritual seites, see Ducange in Gloss, Graecit. sl. Σε ΐ τιδες . According to Vamberi, in Khiva at present the supreme clergyman (naqib) is always one of the seids or descendants of the prophet. The first reading is in the list printed by Rev. Macarius, the second - in the Trinity Lavra. If Met. Cyprian says about the fate of Seit that he, cursed by Peter, died, that is, he was subjected to civil execution: this could have happened very simply: he mistook Seit for an ordinary heretic and added “perish” according to an a priori conclusion. Lib. IX, ed. Lips. 1711, b. 928. Acia Patriarchat. Constantinop. Miklosic. I, 126. In Karamz, vol. II, approx. 301 (the later tales are here, and Vol. I, note (292). Tradition believes that the place of the estate of the boyar Kuchka is on the present-day Chistye Prudy, between Myasnitskaya and Pokrovskaya streets behind the post office. Ipatsk, years. under 1176, 2nd ed. p. 407: “Idosh to Kutskov, rexho to Moscow” Yakim Kuchkovich and Pyotr Kuchkov were the main killers of Andrei Bogolyubsky. Some later chronicles and legends call Yaroslav Vsevolodovich's youngest son Mikhail, nicknamed Khoroborit (the brave), the Prince of Moscow, who was killed in the war with the Lithuanians in 1248 (see Karamz. IV, 42 and Solovyov, vol. III, ed. 4 p. 186 beginning); but we doubt this: the prince was buried not in Moscow, but in Vladimir (Laurent. years under 1248). Yuri Danilovich began to look for the grand-ducal throne under Mikhail Yaroslavich immediately after the former occupied the latter, which was in the same 1304. In 1318, he managed to achieve that Mikhailo Yaroslavich was killed in the Horde, leaving him the grand-ducal throne. But in 1322, the throne was taken from him by the son of Mikhail Yaroslavich Dimitri, who in 1325, avenging his father, killed him in the Horde. In terms of his moral qualities, Yuri Danilovich, as is known, ranks among our old-time princes in one of the lowest places (the man is completely and to the last degree not a knight). During his stay in Moscow, Herberstein was also told a (somewhat Zamoskvoretsk) legend that St. Peter moved into it for the sake of some holy elder Alexei who lived there (the metropolitan could not have called the elder back to Vladimir, so he himself did not find it difficult for his sake to transfer the see of the metropolis from Vladimir to Moscow...). The so-called Typographical Chronicle, p. 259. Nikon, years. III, 130 beginning Dmitry Mikhailovich, who expelled Yuri from the throne of the Grand Duke in 1322 and then killed him in the Horde in 1325, was himself executed for this latter by order of the khan (in September of the following 1327, a little over 10 months after the murder of Yuriev, during which he was imprisoned in the Horde); but the throne of the grand duke was still not taken away by the khan from the princes of Tver: it was given to Dmitriev’s brother Alexander, in whose place after the death of St. Peter and Ivan Danilovich sat down. From 1322, Yuri lived not in Moscow, but in Novgorod and was not engaged in intrigues against Dmitry Mikhailovich, but in Novgorod affairs (Novgorod. 1 years old; perhaps, however, he meant to wait for an opportunity and, with the help of the Novgorodians, take the grand-ducal throne from the Prince of Tver). The current Moscow Assumption Cathedral is not the original one we are talking about, but was built again on the site of the original one. According to the testimony of the first life, St. Before his death, which was announced by an angel, Peter distributed his property to the poor, priests, monks and nuns, all churchmen and his household. That it is near the outer wall is clear from the words of the Nikon and Resurrection Chronicles about the location of Feognostov’s body. You might be interested in: