Metropolitan of All Russia Theognost

St. Peter, having given Ivan Danilovich his consent to be buried instead of Vladimir in Moscow, left through this a kind of testament to his successors, so that they would establish residence instead of the first in the latter. However, this kind of will had the character of only an invitation and not at all an obligation, so it could be executed by the successors, starting with the immediate or first of them, or it could not be executed at all. Meanwhile, for the Moscow prince, in his state interests, it was extremely important that it happen as he wished, because the stay of the metropolitans in his appanage capital city would represent a decisive guarantee of the success of his idea of ​​​​raising his inheritance to the level of a hereditary great reign. To hope that the metropolitan sent to the place of St. Peter from Greece and the Greek turned out to be exactly the kind of person who was desired, that is, who would agree to promote the new political aspirations of Ivan Danilovich, of course, it was very unreliable. And the prince with St. Peter decided on a bold deed: bypassing the Grand Duke, they elected their own man, a certain Archimandrite Theodore 1, as the future successor to the second of them. But this time the courage did not have the success with which it is sometimes accompanied: Archimandrite Theodore was not installed by the patriarch as metropolitan and in the place of St. Peter was sent from Constantinople by the Greek Theognostus. We do not know the story of Theodore’s removal from the metropolitan see. In Constantinople, despite two recent cases of appointing metropolitans from natural Russians, they could not have the desire to do this; and since the unpleasant request did not come from the Grand Duke himself, but in addition to him from the appanage prince, then it could have been removed by the patriarch. But it is necessary to think that in any case, the Grand Duke, the second son of Tver Mikhail Yaroslavich, Alexander Mikhailovich, prevented the fulfillment of the request. The election of a candidate for metropolitan by the Prince of Moscow was an encroachment on his - the Grand Duke's rights, and at the same time an attack that was calculated specifically against him: naturally, he had to rebel with all decisiveness before the Patriarch against the search for the Prince of Moscow (it is very possible that Alexander Mikhailovich contrasted his own candidate with the candidate Ivan Danilovich, but that the Patriarch removed him, not wanting between the two candidates who have applied for a place should give preference to one). Fortunately for Moscow, which was destined to become the collector of Rus', its work was not lost even with the removal of its candidate from the metropolitan see. Just before the arrival of the new metropolitan in Rus', Ivan Danilovich managed to sit on the grand ducal table instead of Alexander Mikhailovich (at the end of 1327 - at the beginning of 1328) and met the new metropolitan not as an appanage prince of Moscow, but as a grand duke of Russia. It was the will of the new metropolitan to accept or not accept the Moscow demands of Ivan Danilovich; but, without accepting the demands, he would have made the Grand Duke his enemy. On the other hand, this Grand Duke was a statesman far from being an ordinary person, therefore, as one might assume, he had an ability to persuade and attract people to himself that was not entirely ordinary. Be that as it may, the new metropolitan expressed his readiness to be an assistant to Moscow in its state aspirations and thus, replacing his predecessor, was what Moscow desired and was looking for. “I came,” the Moscow chronicler says about Theognost, to the great table at the metropolis, to Kyiv and all of Rus', and I also came to Volodymer and to the glorious city of Moscow, to the most pure Mother of God, the Dormition, and to the wonderworking tomb of Petrov, and in his place, and in his courtyard, a lot of life, the mercy of God is with them, the most pure Mother of God and prayer and blessing from the great wonderworker Peter: but for many other princes it is not much sweet, even if the city of Moscow is known as a metropolitan living within you.”2 Other princes quite understood the meaning and significance of the metropolitans’ relocation to Moscow to live... Theognostus was made a Russian metropolitan and arrived in Rus' in 1328, the third year after the death of St. Petra. Having expressed his readiness to be an assistant to Moscow in her state aspirations, he was a very zealous assistant, so that in this capacity he acquired the full right to her gratitude, like his predecessor St. Peter and like his successor St. Alexey. Moscow set itself the lofty idea, putting itself in the place of Vladimir, to become the capital of a hereditary great reign; meanwhile, until then it was a very poor city. Since the appearance appropriate to the position is equally necessary from people, just as much from cities: then the princes of Moscow, if they seriously thought about making their capital the capital of a great reign, had to take care to make it, in relation to appearance, a city more or less corresponding to the role for which it was intended. Metropolitan was prompted to take care of this. Theognost Ivan Danilovich immediately upon his arrival in Moscow, and he himself took an active part in their implementation. In ancient times, both everywhere, and in particular in Rus', the decoration of cities was made up of churches or churches. In our Rus', stone churches were considered churches that beautify cities, in contrast to wooden churches, which were our ordinary churches. The beautification of Moscow with stone churches should have been taken care of in order to promote it from a number of poor cities and make it a magnificent city in the then sense, worthy of becoming the capital of a great reign. The construction of stone churches began in Moscow immediately upon the arrival of Metropolitan. Theognost, and he himself not only appeared as an assistant to the Grand Duke, but also took the initiative. The next year after his arrival, in 1329, he built two stone churches in Moscow - John Climacus 3 and the Apostle Peter (the worship of his honest faith); 4 in the next 1330, the Grand Duke founded the third stone church - St. Spas in his home or court Spassky Monastery 5; four years after this, in 1334, the Grand Duke built another stone church - the Archangel Michael 6. Thus, in a very short time after Theognost’s arrival in Moscow, thanks to him and his influence, five stone churches appeared in it, including the Church of the Assumption of the Mother of God, which was founded before the death of St. Peter's and in which he was buried. With this number of five stone churches, Moscow did not equal Vladimir; and since all the churches, not excluding the Church of the Dormition of the Mother of God, were very modest in size, it was not at all equal to them in the quality of churches: but without even having time to achieve this, it still immediately achieved the point of decisively moving forward from a number of other cities of Vladimir or Suzdal Rus'. Now, while declaring her lofty claims, she could no longer seem ridiculous due to the discrepancy between her claims and her appearance. With the relics of St. Peter, miracles began to happen from the very minute of his burial. Prince Ivan Danilovich ordered the recording of miracles even before Theognost’s arrival in Rus', being prompted - on the one hand, of course, by the immediate desire to glorify the miraculous, and on the other hand - undoubtedly by state goals to glorify Moscow, which was honored to receive a clear sign of God’s favor in the fact that the saint who died within its walls was honored to receive the gift of miracles from God, sent records of miracles to Vladimir, so that they could be read from the pulpit in the cathedral metropolitan church and thus become known throughout Rus' 7 . Miracles continued to be performed at the relics of St. Peter and after Feognostov’s arrival in Rus'. The Metropolitan, of course, could not take away the gift of miracles from the relics; but he very well could not have taken care of the solemn canonization of the miracle worker. Theognostus, prompted, on the one hand, by the desire to pay tribute to the saint of God, clearly glorified by God, and on the other hand, undoubtedly prompted by the desire to contribute to the glorification of Moscow, hastened in a solemn formal manner to canonize Peter. In order to give the act of this attribution or canonization the greatest possible solemnity and firmness, which also had significance in political matters, the Metropolitan did not perform it himself, as had been done heretofore and to which he had the right, but asked permission for it from the Patriarch. A letter to Theognostus from the Patriarch of Constantinople John Kalecki dated July 1339 has been preserved to this day, in which the Patriarch blesses the Metropolitan to canonize Peter 8. In his message, the patriarch writes to the metropolitan: “We have received the writings of your holiness with notification and at the same time certification about the bishop of the same holy church who was before you, that after death he was glorified by God and revealed as a true saint of Him, so that great miracles were performed from him and all sorts of illnesses were healed. And we rejoiced at this and rejoiced in spirit and gave due praise to God. And since your Holiness sought instruction from us about what should be done with such holy relics; (then we answer that you yourself know and do not know what order and custom the Church of God adheres to in such cases; having received firm and undoubted confirmation regarding this (saint), let your holiness act in relation to him entirely according to the same charter of the church: almost and please the saint of God with hymns and sacred hymns and commit this to future times, to the praise and glory of God, who glorifies glorifying Him." Canonization of St. Peter had the peculiarity that his relics were not carried out of the tomb, but still remained hidden in it. There is no doubt that this canonization had extremely important political significance for Moscow. From a very long series of Russian metropolitans during the three-hundred-year existence of the Russian Church, St. Peter, who deigned to choose Moscow as his place of residence, was the first to receive solemn church glorification: this could be seen as a clear sign of God’s special favor towards her, destining her for an exceptional lot 9 . At the same time, having within its walls the miraculous relics of the newly glorified saint, Moscow had to attract the eyes of all northern Rus'. In general, the coffin of St. Peter, after he - Peter was canonized, became a solid cornerstone for her in her aspirations for political exaltation. Arriving in Rus' and confirming his permanent stay in Moscow, Metropolitan. Theognostus the next year after his arrival, in 1329, but following the example of his predecessors Cyril and Maximus, and probably St. Peter, went to Novgorod to visit him. During his stay in Novgorod, he was supposed to provide a political service to Grand Duke Ivan Danilovich. The Khan's ambassador (Shevkal) arrived in Tver in 1327, who personally and through his retinue terribly oppressed the inhabitants; it came to the point of open indignation on the part of the latter, and the massacre that took place between the Tverichs and the Tatars ended with the Khan’s ambassador being killed, and all the Tatars who were with him were killed. Prince of Tver Alexander Mikhailovich, who was at the same time the Grand Duke of Vladimir, allowed this to happen (or perhaps even arranged it himself), fled from Tver and took refuge in Pskov, and the Khan (Uzbek), terribly angry with the act of the Tverichs, gave the great reign to Ivan Danilovich and demanded that the new Grand Duke present Mikhail to him Alexandrovich. Ivan Danilovich, accompanied by other princes and Novgorodians, went to Pskov to get the Tver prince. But the Pskovites resolutely did not want to extradite Mikhail Alexandrovich. Then Ivan Danilovich made a request to the Metropolitan to impose ecclesiastical excommunication on the Tver prince and the Pskovites. As can be seen from the chronicles, the metropolitan, who had just arrived in Rus', did not want to begin his activities with such a sad action as excommunication 10; but, in the end, he was forced to fulfill the demand of the Grand Duke. Alexander Mikhailovich, not wanting church excommunication to weigh on the Pskovites because of him, retired from them to Lithuania to Gediminas, and the Metropolitan after that lifted the excommunication from the Pskovites. From Novgorod in the next 1330, Theognost went to southwestern Rus' or, as the chronicles say, to the Volyn land. We said above that during the reign of St. Peter in 1316–1317, a separate metropolitan was installed for southwestern or Lithuanian-Galician Rus'. This individual metropolitan, named Theophilus, remained in the see until 1329 11 . But in this year, as one might think, he died (after the 7th of April, under which he is mentioned), and Theognostus, for his part, hastened to take advantage of this circumstance in order to again annex to the Metropolis of All Rus' the part that was separated from it. Indeed, he was received in Lithuanian-Galician Rus' as a legitimate metropolitan and stayed there for quite a long time 12; but at the same time that he was there, a new special Galician-Lithuanian metropolitan was installed in Constantinople 13 . From southwestern Rus', Theognostus went to Constantinople 14, but in all likelihood, to work for the removal of the newly installed separate metropolitan. However, his efforts remained unsuccessful. Unfortunately, we do not know at all the history of the resolution of the new Galician-Lithuanian metropolitan, in which Theognost, endowed, as we have reason to assume, with quite a lot of diplomatic wisdom, was skillfully carried out by the southern Russian rulers. In all likelihood, it should be assumed that the actor in this case was not the Grand Duke of Galicia, which was then the last of the Grand Dukes of Galicia, Andrei Lvovich, but the Grand Duke of Lithuania, wise and cunning, Gedimin 15. Most of the time During the reign of Metropolitan Theognost, the separate Galician-Lithuanian metropolis remained in existence, and only in 1347 he, together with the Moscow Grand Duke Simeon Ivanovich, was able to achieve that it was closed. At the same time, there is a possibility to think that Kyiv, which remained the real table of the metropolitans of all Russia, which became Lithuanian in state terms from 1321, was contested or completely taken over by the Metropolitan of Galicia-Lithuania 16. After this, in 1348 - 49, he visited southwestern Rus' for the second time 17. During Theognostus’s first stay in southern Rus', the Pskovites sent him an embassy with a request to appoint a separate bishop for them. After the Metropolitan's departure from Novgorod to southern Rus', Prince Alexander Mikhailovich of Tver, who had left Pskov for Lithuania, returned to Pskov again in order to reign there as Gediminov's assistant. The Pskovites, who had broken away from Novgorod in terms of state affairs, obviously desired ecclesiastical separation from it, and they, having elected a candidate for individual bishops of Pskov, a certain monk Arseny, sent him to the metropolitan with a request for installation. The request was strongly supported by Gediminas and all the princes of Lithuania. But Theognost, partly, probably, not wanting to offend the Novgorodians and their rulers, and partly, probably precisely because the fulfillment of the request would correspond to the views of Lithuania, refused it to the Pskovians, and, as one must think, he motivated his refusal to Gediminas with something plausible, i.e., he cited some canonical reason for the refusal. The return route from Constantinople, which, as we said, the Metropolitan went to from southern Rus', he took through the Horde 18. Maybe he needed to see the khan, who was then the famous Uzbek, for some church affairs; perhaps he had instructions to the khan from Constantinople; and maybe, finally, that he walked through the Horde simply because one of the roads along which he had to return from Constantinople to Rus' lay through it, and, as it seems, one of the roads along which the most traveled. In 1341, a change of khans took place in the Horde: the aforementioned Uzbek died and his son Chanibek (Dzhanibek) 19 took his place. Since Uzbek, upon his accession to the throne, legalized that metropolitans should come to the new khans to receive affirmative labels, Theognost had to travel to the Horde to the new khan for the now mentioned purpose (in 1342–43). This journey of his to the Horde almost had very sad consequences for the church. When he was with the khan, some Russian people told the latter that he had a lot of countless income in gold and silver and all kinds of wealth, and that therefore it would be very fair for him to pay the khan’s annual tribute to the treasury 20 . The unknown Russian people who told the khan about the metropolitan were probably some appanage princes, because the metropolitan, who was the exclusive supporter and friend of the Grand Duke, must have had enemies and ill-wishers among the former; and the reason for the slander could have been the fact that Theognostus, as we have some reason to think, was really a man who deliberately cared about increasing the metropolitan’s income and was more or less devoted to the sad passion of love of money. Heeding the slander, the khan demanded that the metropolitan undertake to pay him an annual tribute - from himself, it is understood, and from the entire clergy. But if it is really true that Theognostus brought disaster upon the Russian Church with his concern for increasing the metropolitan’s income; then he knew how to prevent trouble from her. Despite any threats and efforts of the khan's officials, through whom the matter was conducted, he resolutely refused the demand presented to him. The Khan of the Golden Horde, of course, was a despot; but, firstly, Khan Chanibek was one of the best despots 21; secondly, despots sometimes give in when they are firmly fought against by law. Since the time of Genghis Khan, the Mongols had an organic state law, located in the famous Yasa (that was the name of the collection of laws published by Genghis Khan), that the clergy of all faiths should be free from tribute. There is no doubt that, relying on this law, the Metropolitan managed to defend the inviolability of the rights of the Russian clergy. All the same, however, he not only took, but had to buy himself a victory: he had to spend six hundred rubles on gifts for the khan, khansha and their officials. In all likelihood, a significant part of this amount went to the khan’s wife, the famous Taidula, for she, as a sign of her favor to the metropolitan, gave him her own label in addition to the khan’s label - her husband: Feognost’s acquisition of the favor of this khansha should be considered a great good taken from bad luck. Like his three post-Mongol predecessors, Theognost undertook travels throughout his metropolis: in addition to his visit to Novgorod in 1329 and in addition to his two trips to the Volyn land, we also know from chronicles and from surviving historical acts that in 1340 he was in Bryansk, that in 1341 he visited Novgorod for the second time and that he was once in Kostroma (belonging to his own diocese) 22. But one evidence we have about Theognostus’s travels gives us the suspicion that he served not so much to benefit the government as to burden the clergy. About the arrival of the metropolitan to Novgorod in 1341, the Novgorod chronicler says: “Metropolitan Theognost Grechin arrived in Novgorod with many people, but it was hard for the ruler and the monastery to provide food and gifts.” That is, the metropolitan demanded from the archbishop (with the white clergy) and from the monasteries too expensive food for himself and his numerous retinue, and for both himself and his retinue, too large gifts. During his stay in Kostroma, Metropolitan. Theognostus held the cathedral. But about this council, except that it resolved a dispute between two bishops about the boundaries of the dioceses (Ryazan and Sarai) 23, we know nothing more. According to one chronicle, in 1353, not long before the death of Theognost, there was “a dream in Moscow to (Grand Duke) Semion (Ivanovich) and Prince Konstantin Vasilyevich (Suzdal) about the church account” 24. But what exactly the dream or the congress was about remains completely unknown to us. In the afterword to one manuscript written by led. book Ivan Danilovich Kalita in 1339, it is stated that “under his rule, godless heresies ceased” 25. If the scribe of the manuscript, who reveals in his (lengthy) afterword a penchant for writing, simply does not compose heresies, or if he does not mean by heresies something in the improper sense of the word: then for now we can say absolutely nothing about the heresies that occurred under Ivan Danilovich and in the first half of the metropolitan’s reign. Theognosta. We said above that during the reign of St. Peter, we began a denunciatory sermon against the custom that existed among us, following Greece, of bishops charging fees for decrees in church degrees. During the reign of Metropolitan Theognost's sermon continued. Currently known is the collection compiled under Ivan Danilovich ([1340], which is inscribed: “The book, called Vlasfimiya, rexhe blasphemy against heretics, chapters different from the gospel and from the canon of saints, the fathers, in them denunciations of God’s hated evil spirit-selling heresies.” In the collection, consisting of 67 chapters, the canonical decrees of the church and non-canonical writings of the fathers against simony or commissions. The purpose of the collection, as is clear from its contents, is to provide in it the opponents of charging for commissions with a panoplia or all the weapons to fight against the custom and against its defenders. Unfortunately, we cannot report on the collection of immediate information, because it is known to us only from a very brief description 26. During the reign of Metropolitan Theognost, in 1348, as our chronicles report, our Russian theologians were summoned to an international dispute with Latin theologians. Our neighbor Sweden, which was extremely devoted to Catholicism, as a result of the excitement caused by Rome, decided on such attempts as the subjugation of us Russians to Latinism by force of arms. We said above that the Swedes’ campaign against Novgorod in 1240, in which they suffered a terrible defeat from Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky, was nothing more than their crusade against us, undertaken for the now indicated purpose. A century and a quarter after this defeat, the Swedes decided to undertake a new crusade against Russia. But this time, as our chronicles tell us, before turning to arms, they challenged our theologians to a debate with their theologians. In the Novgorod Chronicle under 1348 we read: “Magnush, the king of the Svensk land, sent to Novgorodets, the river: send your philosopher to the congress, (and) I will send my philosopher, let them talk (to talk) about faith; but I want to hear which faith will be better; and if (if) your faith is better, then I will go to your faith, or if our faith is better, you will go to our faith, and we will all be one person, or you will not go (or if you don’t go) into unity, and I want to come against you with all my strength.” Sweden had some education in the 14th century, must have had learned theologians to some extent, and there is no doubt that the King of Sweden was completely confident in the victory of his philosopher over the Russian philosopher. In Novgorod, on the contrary, they must have been very well aware that our theologians would not emerge victorious from the proposed academic battle. Having received a challenge from the king, the Novgorod authorities, with the then Bishop Vasily at their head, organized a nationwide meeting and after the meeting answered Magnus: “If you want to find out which faith is better, ours or yours, we went to Constantinople to the patriarch, since we have received the orthodox faith from the Greeks, and we are not arguing with you about the faith.” After the Novgorodians refused to debate about faith, the king actually went to war against them, but the war was small and had a happy end for the Novgorodians 27. At the same time as refusing to debate with Latin theologians, our theologians had their own debates at home. From the Bishop of Novgorod Vasily, who in 1348 rejected the challenge of the King of Sweden and who died in 1352, a message to Bishop Theodore of Tver about earthly paradise has been preserved to this day 28 . From this message we learn that in Tver there were disputes about whether the earthly paradise, in which Adam was settled by God after creation and in which he remained in a state of innocence, perished or did not perish. Bishop Theodore of Tver belonged to the side of those who claimed that this paradise had perished, i.e. no longer exists. But the Archbishop of Novgorod was of the opposite opinion. Having learned about the strife taking place in Tver and what opinion the bishop held, Vladyka Vasily wrote a letter to Fyodor in which he claims that paradise has not perished, but still exists. The archbishop proves his opinion by referring to the apocrypha, which speaks of some saints, as if some of them lived near paradise, while others were in it itself, and finally by referring to his Novgorod merchants, who, sailing on the Black or Caspian Sea, were allegedly carried by a storm to the place of holy paradise. We will say more about this letter from Archbishop Basil to Bishop Theodore and its contents elsewhere. In 1353, just before the death of Metropolitan. Theognosta, Archbishop Moses of Novgorod, who not long before took the see for the second time instead of the deceased Vasily, sent ambassadors to Constantinople to the emperor and patriarch, “asking them, according to the testimony of Nov- city ​​chronicle, blessings and corrections about indecent things coming with violence from the metropolitan.” Unfortunately, it remains unknown to us exactly what the indecent things consisted of. The Nikon Chronicle makes it clear that the complaint was regarding protories on installations and regarding church duties for saints 29 . Since there could not be a complaint regarding the protories that were collected by the bishops from the lower clergy, for it is impossible to imagine that the metropolitan would lower the size of these protories: then it is necessary to understand the protories that were collected by the metropolitans from the bishops themselves and to understand the matter in such a way that Theognostus took or demanded too much from Moses for the second occupation of the see by him 30. As for church hierarchal duties, then raise should mean those duties that were levied by metropolitans from the lower clergy of the entire metropolis and understand the matter in such a way that Theognostus raised these duties. The patriarch's decision on the archbishop's complaint followed under Theognostus' successor, St. Alexei. In speeches about the latter we will talk about it. Metropolitan Theognostus acquired the right to the greatest gratitude of Moscow not only because he himself was her faithful and zealous friend and did everything he could to promote her political rise, but also because he took care and managed to leave a successor on his own, who brought the alliance of the highest church power with the princes of Moscow to its end and to its indissolubility. Theognostus, like St. Petra, had Moscow as its actual capital; but this stay of the second metropolitan in Moscow did not create an indispensable obligation for the third metropolitan - his successor - to do the same: the successor of Theognostus, like the successor of St. Peter, could return again to Vladimir and there, under the influence of other princes, become from a friend of Moscow its enemy; and yet the princes of Moscow were not yet in such a position that the possibility of such a case was completely excluded. Metropolitan Theognostus left in St. Alexei was a successor in his own right, who could completely replace himself for Moscow. This service of Theognostus to Moscow is all the more valuable because, being a Greek, in this case he went against his own Greek interests, for the appointment of Russian metropolitans from natural Russians, such as St. Alexey, the Patriarchal See of Constantinople was far from considering it a desirable matter. The Greek historian Nikephoros Gregoras, contemporary to Theognostus, reports news about our Russian metropolitan as a theologian, namely, news about how Theognostos reacted to the so-called Palamite disputes that arose in Constantinople in 1341 (regarding the teaching of Gregory Palamas about the uncreated Tabor divine light); but the news cannot be recognized as completely case. Being a bitter enemy of Palamas and his teaching, Grigora assures that the Russian Metropolitan also reacted to the teaching with decisive hostility. He says that the adherents of the Palamite party, wanting to drag Theognostus into the abyss of their own destruction, sent him, like all other bishops, new volumes (the volume or definition of the council of 1341, which recognized and approved the teachings of Palamas), but that he, having read (the writings sent to him) and saw (in them) the darkness of blasphemies and the despotically dominating (in them) Hellenic polytheism, immediately threw (them) to the ground and, covering his ears with great haste, jumped away from the evil hearing - that he wrote lengthy reproaches, with accusations and evidence appropriate from the Holy Scriptures, and sent them to the patriarch and bishops, calling these latter godless and polytheistic and extremely shameless retaliators and persecutors of fatherly traditions and subjecting them to the appropriate anathema 31. We also read from Nicephorus Gregoras the news that the Russian princes, with the Grand Duke (Simeon Ivanovich the Proud) at their head, sent Emperor John Cantacuzene (1347–[1355] a large sum of money for the restoration of the eastern apse of St. Sophia of Constantinople, which fell in 1345 32. Gregoras does not say directly, but with good reason one must think that Metropolitan Theognost disposed the princes to their generous donation, just as it is very likely what we mentioned above, namely, that the donation of the princes is in connection with the closure of the special Galician metropolis. Grigor is called Metropolitan. Theognostus was a reasonable and God-loving husband, who from his youth acquired in Constantinople (which, in all likelihood, was his homeland) a thorough knowledge of divine canons and laws 33. And one of our Russian chronicles calls him a great mentor of all Russia 34. Metropolitan Theognostus died on March 14, 1353. He was buried in the church of the apostle that he built. Peter (which, as we said above, did not constitute an independent church, but a chapel of the Church of the Assumption of the Mother of God or the Assumption Cathedral. He was laid in his church against the wall with his predecessor St. Peter). (It is usually accepted that the celebration of the memory of Metropolitan Theognostus began in 1471. But a church-wide celebration of his memory was never established, as it still is not. And as for the local celebration, in the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, it must be thought that it began sometime much later than 1471. One chronicle tells that in 1473 it happened miraculous healing at his tomb, but that the Grand Duke (Ivan Vasilyevich) and the Metropolitan (Geronty), when the miracle was announced to them, “were overcome by unbelief and did not command the whole city to glorify him” and left his tomb neglected for the following time, - Sofiysk 2nd chronicle, in Collect. (In the Moscow Synodal Library there is preserved a breviary bearing the name of Metropolitan Theognostus, which very strongly and very clearly exposes the wrong-mindedness of the schismatic Old Believers. This imaginary Theognostos breviary is the same thing as the conciliar action against the heretic Martyn the Armenian, - our History of the Russian Church, vol. I, half 2, p. 688. About the production him, - far from being very skillful, Fyodor Polikarpov, a famous student of Likhudov and director of the printing house, see the article: “Scientific activity of Evgeniy Bolkhovitinov”, published in the June book of the Russian Bulletin of 1885, p. 675 fin.). About the election of Ev. Peter, in his place as Archimandrite Theodore, is spoken by the unknown author of his first life (preparing to give up the ghost, the dying St. Peter “said to the venerable Archimandrite Theodore, his own warrior to the metropolis: “Peace be with you, child, I want to honor you”). Cyprian, as a newcomer and not sympathetic to the election of metropolitans in Russia itself, is silent about this very important circumstance. Who Archimandrite Theodore was remains unknown. If it were possible to accept the assurances of the chronicles that Daniil Alexandrovich, having founded the Danilov Monastery in Moscow, established an archimandrite in it, then one would have to think that Theodore was the archimandrite of this particular Danilov Monastery; but it is doubtful that Daniil Alexandrovich established an archimandrite in his monastery. Then, in northern Rus' (except for Novgorod) there were then two archimandrites: the Vladimir Nativity Monastery and the Rostov Petrovsky Monastery; the first was an archimandrite of the metropolitan, and the second of a foreign diocese, which is why it seems most likely to think of the first. It could, however, still be tactful that St. Before his death, Peter gave the rank of archimandrite to the abbot of the Danilov Monastery. Subsequently, a bell tower was built over the Church of St. John the Climacus (because people walk up stairs to the bell towers?), which is why it began to be called the Church of “St. John under the Bells”; currently it is under the bell tower of the Kremlin cathedrals, which received the name Ivanovskaya from it. In 1320, Ivan Danilovich, in memory of John the Climacus (March 30), had a son, Ivan (Risen, years old): it is likely that our church was built on this occasion. Church of St. Peter's was built not as an independent church, but as a chapel to the Church of the Assumption of the Mother of God, in which St. Metropolitan Peter (on the north side. It was built either because the worship of the chains of the Apostle Peter. (January 16) was, perhaps, the day of the angel St. Peter, or because the chapel for the worship of the chains was located in St. Sophia of Constantinople, see Pilgrim Anthony according to Savvatov’s edition. p. [63]. Nowadays there is the court cathedral of the Savior on Bor (located in the courtyard of the palace. - The chronicles say that the monastery was founded by Ivan Danilovich; but the monastery was mentioned earlier, in 1319, in the story about the bringing of the body of Mikhail Yaroslavich to Moscow from the Horde). Nowadays it is the Archangel Cathedral. Whether the stone wooden church of the Archangel Michael existed before is a question and it is more likely that it did not exist. The Nikon Chronicle assures that Danilo Alexandrovich and Yuri Danilovich were buried in the Church of the Archangel Michael. But Danilo Alexandrovich was buried in the Danilov Monastery, and Yuri Danilovich - in the Church of St. Dmitry, which later formed the chapel of the Assumption Cathedral (see the chronicles about the construction of the new Assumption Cathedral in 1473). See the first life of St. Petra, owned by an unknown person. As for even before the arrival of Theognost, it is clear from the fact that in Vladimir the records of miracles were read by the Rostov Bishop Prokhor, who obviously replaced the metropolitan who had not yet arrived and, in any case, died before the arrival of Theognost (In some lists of the life, Ivan Danilovich is called the Grand Duke, but this is a mistake or an erroneous amendment instead of Alexander Mikhailovich). In Acta Patriarchat. Constantinop. Miklosic, I, 191, and from here with Russian translation in Pavlov's Monuments, appendix. col. 11. In the Book of Degrees we read: “There have been many and many of the most holy metropolitans, who formerly (St. Peter) decorated the throne of the Russian metropolis, from the first in the city of Kyiv, His Holiness Metropolitan Michael, and to Maxim the Metropolitan, who lived in the city of Vladimir, and there are 23 of them in number—all these His lordship, the metropolitans showed many works and deeds and acquired many virtues to God and all of them, with the haste of the Holy Spirit, preserved the Church of Christ immaculately and piously corrected the word of the divine truth, and even if there were such holy things, they also received miracles from God, and also received heavenly honors every time against the work to their own: on earth, not a single one from them was worthy to receive on the day of remembrance of their celebration and solemn bliss, until God deigned to pass and establish the Kyiv and Vladimir powers in the God-loving city of Moscow, where then the power was Grand Duke Ivan, named Kalita, after his father, blessed Daniil Alexandrovich; and then, by the grace of God, this man of God, great among saints, Peter, came to the city of Moscow, with him, together with God’s grace, as he himself prophesied and blessed this holy saint of God, and God himself glorified him more than all the former Russian metropolitans before him,” - 1, 409. Ivam Danilovich and the other princes who were with him “began to exhort and pray to the Most Reverend Metropolitan Theognast, so that he would bind” Alexander Mikhailovich with excommunication and prohibition - Nikon, years. III, 153. Lithuanian metropolitan (ὸ Αιτβάδων, Αιτβῶν), mentioned in the records of the Patriarchal Council of Constantinople during the reign of St. Peter, under 1317, see the article about St. Petre), mentioned later in the same records under 1327 and under 1329; under the last year he is called by the name Theophilos, – Miklosic Acta Patriarchat. Constantinop. 1, 143 and 147. Metropolitan Theognost left Novgorod for the Volyn land no later than April 1330: this can be seen from the story of the First Novgorod Chronicle about the abdication of the Novgorod Archbishop Moses and the election of a successor to him (the Novgorodians, having spent 8 months without an archbishop after the abdication of Moses, elected a successor to him in January 1331, and Moses renounced after the departure of Theognostus from Novgorod); Theognost remained in southwestern Rus' at least until September 1331, for on August 25 of this year he dedicated Novgorod Archbishop Vasily in Vladimir of Volyn. That he was accepted in southwestern Rus' as a legitimate metropolitan is evident, firstly, from the fact that, while there, he installed bishops - Novgorod and also Tver; secondly, that he installed the Archbishop of Novgorod with the bishops: Polotsk, Vladimir, Galician, Przemysl and Kholm (Novgorod. 1st year). About the stay of Theognost in southwestern Russia, the Nikon Chronicle says that he went from Novgorod to the Volyn land, and from there he went to Galich in Zharova (but we can say which city of course) and came to Vladimir Volynsky, - III, 154 and 155. The Lithuanian Metropolitan Theophilus is mentioned in the records of the Patriarchal Council under 1323, and the new metropolitan, called Galician, ό Γαλ ί τζης - from which it is clear that the new, and not the same Theophilus, - probably just installed, is mentioned in the same records under April 6, 1331 - Miklos. Acta Patriarchate. Const. I, 164. That the new metropolitan was installed not only in Galicia, but also in Lithuania, this is clear from the letters on the closure of the Galician metropolitanate in 1347, which are now discussed below. Chronicles about the return of Theognostus to Moscow from his journey, which began from Novgorod. And if the metropolitan is called not Lithuanian, but Galician, then perhaps because outwardly the request for his installation came from the Grand Duke of Galicia. See chrysobul imp. John Cantacuzen from August 1347 on the closure of the Galician metropolis, his three letters to Russia about the same from September of the same year and the decree about the same of the Patriarchal Council, held in the same September, in the Monuments of Pavlov, appended. col. 13 sqq. In the now indicated acts it is stated that the Metropolitan of Galicia was installed not long before by the deposed Patriarch John Kalek; but since in 1331 Metropolitan of Galicia was installed not by Cripple, but by his predecessor Isaiah, this means that after the death of the metropolitan appointed by Isaiah, another was installed by Cripple. This other metropolitan was alive at the closure of the Galician metropolitanate in 1247 and some accusations were raised against him by this Theognost, as before, as a result of which the patriarch called him to trial in Constantinople, see the same acts and the following letter from the patriarch to the Metropolitan of Galicia himself. The accusations most likely mean the accusation that the Metropolitan of Galicia disputed and took over Kyiv from Theognostus. In the Nikovo Chronicle under 1346. reads: “That same summer, the Most Reverend Theognast, Metropolitan of Kiev (and) All Russia, advised something spiritual with his son, Grand Duke Semyon Ivanovich, and thus sent to Constantinople to the Patriarch for a blessing” (III, [186]. Here, in all likelihood, there is an embassy to the Patriarch with a request to close the Galician Metropolis (and also, perhaps, with a request and for the blessing of the third marriage of the Grand Duke, into which he had just entered). Tatishchev instead of this: “The Most Reverend Metropolitan Theognost held a council on spiritual matters for the correction of monastic service and church servants, and established the beginning of the year from September 1st (which is not true, see Karamzin IV, note 367, and V, note [246], and copied the list Great Prince Simion Ivanovich sent an ambassador with Archimandrite Rozhdestvensky to Constantinople to the Patriarch, asking for a blessing,” IV, 163. From Tatishchev this council and in the History of the Hierarchy, – 1, 264. But according to the news of the Greek historian Nicephorus Grigora, Grand Duke Simeon Ivanovich, together with other Russian princes, sent Emperor John Cantacuzene a large sum of money to restore the fallen eastern apse of St. Constantinople. Sofia. Taking into account that the money was sent precisely in 1347, it is not incredible to think of their relationship to the closure of the Galician Metropolis as one of two things, namely, either that they were in gratitude for this closure, or that the closure followed in gratitude for them. Nikon, let., III, 192: “that same summer ([1349] the (most) holy Theognast, Metropolitan of Kiev (and) All Russia, came from Volhynia." Chronicles about the return of Theognost from a trip to the Volyn land (Nikon, circa 1332, III, [160]. Chanibek, as we noted above, ascended the khan’s throne not directly after Uzbek, but after his elder brother Tinibek sat on it for a very short time. Nikon. years. III, 179. The Novgorod Chronicle says that they told the khan about Metropolitan Kalantai (printed: Kalantai). Since, according to Hammer, “kalan” means tax (Geschichte d. gold. Horde, S. 217, note [6], then kalantai should mean: tax collectors. Our chronicles speak of him: “This tsar Chanibek Azbyakovich is very kind to Christianity, he has created many blessings for the land of Rustei,” Nikon, years. III, 209. We know about our stay in Bryansk and visit to Novgorod from chronicles; about his stay in Kostroma - from the letter of St. Alexei on Chervleny Yar, published in Volume I of Historical Acts, No. 3, and reprinted in Pavlov’s Monuments, No. 19. See now the aforementioned letter of St. Alexey. Novgorod 4th, – Cathedral of the Years. IV, 60. The afterword was published in Information and notes on little-known and unknown monuments of Sreznevsky - appendix. to XXXIV volume. Head. Academician II., p. 147, and in Stroev’s Bibliological Dictionary, published by Bychkov, p. 2, note. For a collection discovered from one of the manuscripts of the former library of the Solovetsky Monastery, now owned by the Kazan Theological Academy, see Pravoslav. Interlocutor 1867, part II, p. 236. In our chronicles (Nikonovsk. and Voskresensk. under 1352, - first: III, 198, Degree. Book 6, [484] one reads the handwriting or spiritual testament of Magnus, in which he orders his children and his brothers and the whole land of Svea not to attack Rus' in spite of the kiss of the cross; “before,” says the king, “we are not allowed,” i.e. That is, we are not successful in our attacks on the Russians. Having talked about these unsuccessful attacks, starting with the one that took place under Alexander Yaroslavich in 1240, Magnus says about himself that after two campaigns on the Novgorod land he suffered a terrible shipwreck, that after that all sorts of disasters befell the Swedish land, and that God took away his mind, so he sat in a room for a year, being chained to the wall. “He took me out of the room with an iron chain,” says Magnus, my son Sakun, having arrived from Norway; but when he took me to Norway, a storm struck me again and I floated on the bottom of a broken ship for three days and three nights, until I was carried by the wind under the monastery of the Holy Savior to the Full River (the Full River is the Finnish river Aura-yuki, on which the city of Abov stands, see. Lerberg Research, Russian. translation page [159]. At the monastery, Magnus became a monk and wrote his spiritual will. In this will, we don’t know how authentic it is, under the monastery of St. Spas, of course, is a Latin monastery (located in Abov or above it on the river). But the monks of our Russian monastery of St. of the Savior, located on the island of Valaam, lovers of extraordinary legends (the visit of their island by Apostle Andrew) took this to themselves and composed a legend that Magnus suffered a storm in Lake Ladoga, that he was saved in their monastery, that in their monastery he converted to Orthodoxy, took monastic vows, ended his life and was buried, see History of the Hierarchy III, 489 fin. (cfr Trip to Valaam by Nemirovich-Danchenko). See it in the Book of Degrees, I, 480, in the 1st Sophia and Resurrection Chronicles under 1347. There were two bishops of Theodore in Tver in a row: the first 1330–1342, the second until 1360. If we refer the message to 1347, under which it is placed in the chronicles, then it is addressed to the second Theodore. The Chronicle, III, 206, says that the patriarch’s response message to the Novgorodians, which has not reached us, contained “about the problems with the appointments and about the church duties of the saints.” Archbishop Moses, leaving the see for the first time, took monastic vows, and the canonical rules prohibit bishops who accept the schema from returning to their former dignity - the cathedral in the Church of Wisdom Ave. 2 (in later times it was understood specifically about the schema, as about real monasticism - the answers of the Council of Constantinople to Bishop Theognostus of Saransk): violation of the canonical rules could have its the result is a deliberate increase in fees. However, it should be noted that one cannot particularly rely on the testimony of the Nikon Chronicle: about the letters of the patriarchs. Anthony to Novgorod from 1393, the chronicle says that they were “about protorekh and history, like those at sacred orders” - IV, 255 fin.; Meanwhile, in these documents that have come down to us (in Memorable Paul. Nos. 37 and 38, it is not said about the protocols for the appointments, but about something else (see below). Hist. Byzant. lib. XXVI, sar. 47, ed. Bonn. r. 114. Lib. XXVIII, sar. 35, and lib. XXXVI, sar. 31, ed. Bonn. pp. 192 fin. and 516.-About the fall of the apse at St. Sophia see Byzantium Κωνσταντινούπ. 1,511. Lib. XXVI, sar. 47, and lib. XXXVI, sar. 24. The so-called Typographical, p. 96 beginning. About the predecessor of Theognostus, St. Peter - in the January book of the Theological Bulletin. You might be interested in: