II. Краткий очерк истории Румынской или Молдо-Валашской православной церкви

State history of the voivodeships of the Ugric-Vlakhian and Moldovan-Vlakhian Ugrovlahia or Ungrovlahia, i.e. Ugric or Hungarian Wallachia, the Greeks called the current so-called Wallachia (among the natives themselves it is called Tsar Muntenyaska, which means a mountainous country, from munti - mountains; we called it - by the Polished pronunciation of the native name Multyansky land and Multyanami, and by the collapsed one - Mutyansky land and Mutyanami). Moldovlachia (Wallachia of the Moldavian River), also Mavrovlachia, i.e. black Wallachia, and Rosovlachia, i.e. Russian Wallachia, the Greeks called present-day Moldavia 180 (among the natives it is called Tsar Moldoveia, i.e. the land of Moldova, the rivers of Moldova; we called it - sometimes by its own name, i.e. Moldavian land, but mainly - Voloshskaya land and Volokhi). Wallachians and Moldavians are two very close branches of the same tribe, which is called the common generic name of Romanians, as well as Wallachians or Vlachs, and the first of the names is a modified form of the word Roman (romanus - Romanian), and the second is a word used in ancient times by the Slavs and Germans to designate the peoples of the Gallic or Celtic tribe in general, and the same Romans or Italians in particular (see in our ancient chronicle in Collected Chronicles. 1, 2; the Germans still have the word Wälsch, ancient. Walch, Waloh, which serves to designate an Italian, cfr Shafar. Ancient. I, 1, 390 sqq). The nationality of the Romanians or Valachomoldavians is not among the primitive and indigenous; it arose in the 2nd-3rd century AD from the mixing of the ancient inhabitants of the country - the Dacians with the emperors who settled in it. Trajan by Roman colonists (after this the latter is also named Romanians or Vlachs). Together with nationality, the language of the Romanians is a conglomerate of the languages ​​of the two named peoples, which was then formed grammatically under the influence of our Slavic language and which is also enriched with many words taken from this latter. In addition to the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, the Romanians inhabit our Russian Bessarabia, the Austrian provinces of Bukovina, Transylvania, Banat and eastern Hungary, and also the northeastern corner of the principality of Serbia (constituting a special branch of the tribe, the so-called Kutsovlachs or Tsintsars, numbering up to three hundred to five hundred thousand, live in solid masses and scattered in Macedonia, Thessaly and Albania). Their total number (with the exception of the Kutsovlakhs) rises to seven million; in the principalities themselves - in Wallachia about two and a half, in Moldova about one and a half million. The Romanians appeared in the light of history as a special people very late, no earlier than the half of the 13th century. During the first four centuries of the existence of their new nationality, i.e. from the 3rd to the 7th century, the so-called great migration of peoples took place; since their country, by its position, was inevitably the first stop for each horde of conquerors who approached the empire and wanted to cross the Danube into Moesia and Thrace or penetrate upstream further to the west: then they, the indigenous inhabitants, not being able to unite into anything strong, either passed from under one yoke to another, or took refuge from the sword of strangers in their mountains. Probably, at the end of the 7th century, and in any case no later than the beginning of the 9th century, the Romanians fell to the power of the Mysian Bulgarians, that is, those Bulgarians who, having conquered the Slavs living in Mysia in 678–80, founded their own state in it, Bulgarian in name and Slavic in nationality. This circumstance was a very important and to some extent decisive event in the history of the Romanian tribe - having accepted the Christian faith through the Bulgarians, the Romanians accepted it not from the west, but from the east, and thus forever joined the family of Christian Orthodox peoples. As for the history of the dependence of the Romanians on the Bulgarians, our information in this regard is fragmentary and not entirely satisfactory. We said that the Bulgarians subjugated the Romanians, if not at the end of the 7th century, then no later than the beginning of the 9th century: about the terrible destroyer of the empire, the Bulgarian sovereign of the early 9th century Krum, Byzantine chroniclers report that, capturing crowds of Greek prisoners, he resettled them in his Transdanubian possessions, i.e. in present-day Wallachia and Transylvania (see Memor. pop. II, 553, 558, cfr. 542, 556); from the words of the Byzantines it should also be concluded that the Bulgarians looked at this part of their possessions at that time not as an accidental and appendage, but as a real and real integral (incorporated) part of their state (the chroniclers directly call it Βουλγαρία ’ εχεῖθεν τοῦ ̒̒Ἵ στρου ποταμοῦ, i.e. Bulgaria adjacent to the Danube on that side, ibid). At the end of the 9th century, a significant part of the Romanian people forever passed from the rule of the Bulgarians to the rule of the Ugrians or Hungarians; these latter, having appeared around 885 on the lower Danube, soon then moved further to the west, into their current territory, and upon taking possession of the Slavic Panionia, they subjugated to their power the neighboring part of Romanian Dacia, precisely the so-called regions at present - Transylvania and Banat (see Fessler's Geschichte von Ungarn, ed. 2, Leipzig, 1867, part 1, pp. 59, 110, 113 and 460). At the same time, the Bulgarians suffered significant damage in the remaining part of their Transdanubian possessions or present-day Wallachia: at the distance of the Hungarians, the left bank of the lower Danube, approximately to the present day Bucharest, was captured by the Pechenegs, who remained here throughout the further independent existence of their horde, namely, surviving the first Bulgarian kingdom, until half or until the end of the 12th century (see Constantine Porphyr. De administr. imperio. ed. Bonn., p. 164 sqq, 173, 177, in Memor. III, 777 sqq). It is unknown in what position they were in during the period of Greek domination over Bulgaria (1019–1185), the Wallachian Romanians were again subjugated by the Bulgarians to their power after the restoration of the Bulgarian kingdom. The Greek chroniclers do not directly talk about this; but this must be concluded, firstly, from the fact that the Bulgarians themselves from the first times of the second kingdom are called by some of the modern Byzantine chroniclers Vlachs or Vlachs, and Western peoples directly mistook them for these latter (Nicetas Choniates almost always calls them Vlachs, see Memor. pop. II, 672 sqq; that Western peoples mistook the Bulgarians for Vlachs, see above the correspondence of Pope Innocent III with the Bulgarian king Kaliyan), - secondly, from the fact that the Vlachs are presented as participants in the Bulgarians in the wars with the Greeks (see Memor. pop. II, 675 lower text, 674), and finally, thirdly, from the fact that the first Bulgarian sovereigns of the second kingdom call themselves in official acts kings of the Bulgarians and Vlachs (see Kaliyan's correspondence with Pope Innocent III). How long the Romanians were under the rule of the Bulgarians this second time, nothing positive is known. In all likelihood, the dependence began to weaken immediately after the death of Asen II, with his weak successors, and completely ceased soon after this, when the Romanian state, founded at that time in the north of Wallachia, began to acquire some strength and at the same time reveal the ability of attraction in relation to the Wallachians 181. The first Romanian state proper, the current Principality of Wallachia, as we just said, was founded in the middle of the 13th century. It did not arise from the appanage or vassal power of the Bulgarians in Wallachia, but was formed completely apart from it, having owed its beginning to Romanian immigrants from Hungarian Transylvania; namely, its founder was the Romanian ruler of one small region in southern Transylvania (Fogary or Fogarasha) named Radu Negrovod or Radu Black, who fled beyond the Carpathians to northern Wallachia from the invasion of Hungary by the Mongol Khan Batu. Having established himself with his companions first in the city of Campulungo (which means a long field or long-field - Campus longus, near the Carpathians, on a tributary of the upper Ardgis), and then moving the capital somewhat south to the city of Ardgis or Ardgish (on the upper Ardgis, also called Courte d'Ardgish, which means a princely house, the palace of Ardgish), he gathered around himself a significant part of the Romanians of Wallachia, which laid the foundation for the Romanian state, which subsequently embraced all of present-day Wallachia, and which, bearing the title of voivodeship (probably because Transylvania itself, from which Radu came, was ruled by the Hungarians by officials who were called in Slavic voivodes or in Omagyar pronunciation wais), was called by the Greeks, the Slavs and the Romanians themselves (in Slavic acts) Ugrovlahia or Ungrovlahia. Radu and his successors did not recognize the authority of the Bulgarian sovereigns over themselves; Their relationship to the Hungarian kings, from whose possessions they came from, is not entirely known, but they recognized the power of these latter, probably for a very short time, and more nominally than in reality (cfr. Fessler Geschichte von Ungarn, ed. 2nd vol. I, p. 465 fin.). At the end of the 14th century, under the governor Mircea I, Ugrovlahia achieved a significant degree of strength and prosperity; The state, in addition to all of present-day Wallachia, included part of Transylvania (the Transplana countries, as well as a more or less wide strip along the right bank of the Danube in northern Bulgaria with the inclusion of the city of Dristra or Silistria, which is why the Ugrovlahian sovereign, in the consciousness of his strength, accepted the title of “Mr. Autocratic” (see the chrysobuls of Mirce in the Vlaho-Bulgarian charters collected by Y. Venelin, St. Petersburg, 1840, p. 18 sqq). But under the same Mircea, or under one of his closest successors, the Ugrovlahian Romanians had to recognize the supreme power of the Turks over themselves, under which they were constantly afterwards and from which they have not yet completely freed themselves. Initially, the dependence was very weak and insignificant - paying a certain, very small tribute to the sultans, the Ugrovlahian governors then remained completely independent sovereigns, even with the right of separate war and peace; but over time it increased more and more, and finally, due to some circumstances, it became almost even more difficult than the direct citizenship of other Christian provinces of the empire. The power of the governor from the first times of the existence of the state was not hereditary in Ugrovlahia, but electoral for life; when the country came under the supreme power of Turkey, it was decided that the governors should be elected by the highest clergy (metropolitan with bishops) and boyars, without any participation or interference from the Turkish government - and the sultans strictly observed this condition for some time. But from the first years of the 16th century, no longer thinking of keeping their obligation, they began to arrogate to themselves the right to appoint governors; although at first they still appointed them not from their own Constantinople Christian officials, but from natural or at least naturalized Romanians, but the now opened possibility of purchasing the dignity (from the Grand Vizier with influential persons under him and under the Sultan himself) aroused whole crowds of applicants among the Ugrovlahian boyars, who tried to buy up the place from each other when it turned out to be idle, and who constantly sought to buy it at living commander; as a result, on the one hand, the competition of applicants quickly increased the size of the annual tax, which was paid by the country to the Turkish government, - on the other hand, the insecurity of the position of the governors forced them to be as hasty as possible in collecting wealth: but all this placed a heavy and constantly increasing burden on the masses who delivered the tax and served as the subject of exploitation. Finally, from the first years of the 18th century, truly disastrous and unhappy times came for the Wallachian (as well as for the Moldavian) Romanians. The Turkish government, wanting to suppress the attempts of uprising that had begun then (over the war with the Turks of our sovereign Peter the Great) and succumbing to the suggestions of the Greeks of Constantinople - the famous Phanariots, decided to appoint governors from among their own Christian officials, precisely from these now called Phanariots. Since the Phanariot governors looked at their position solely as a means to enrichment; since they were not appointed for life, but only for three years, and therefore had to try and manage to enrich themselves in such a short time; since, not being connected with their subjects by any sense of common nationality, they had towards them only a feeling of a certain Greek contempt for everything non-Greek and therefore could not know any measure in their aspirations for enrichment: then the period of their reign was a period of true and literal robbery, and the governors or hospodars, with very few exceptions, were nothing more than the true and actual destroyers of the unfortunate people entrusted to them. The reign of the Phanariot princes lasted for a whole century, until 1821; The uprising of the so-called Greek Eteria that broke out in this last year (which led to the formation of the present Greek kingdom) aroused distrust in its Greek officials in the Turkish government, and it again began to appoint natural Romanians as governors of the principalities, which they were before 1856. The Moldovan voivodeship, the current principality of Moldavia, to which our Russian Bessarabia and Austrian Bukovina also belonged 182, was founded too much later than the previous one by a whole century. The country, which was previously in the power of the Polovtsians or Cumans, did not have its own Romanian rulers, and the Romanian state in it was founded, as in Ugrovlahia, by Transylvanian immigrants; this was about 1860 183 . Founded in close proximity to Poland (the original capital was the city of Suceava or Sochava in present-day Bukovina), the Moldovan governors from the very first time had to recognize themselves as vassals or tributaries of this latter, which they almost constantly remained for a century and a half. In the first years of the 16th century, Moldovlahia, threatened by the Turks, having broken away from Poland, hastened to voluntarily recognize the supreme power of the Sultan to prevent the danger of being forcibly conquered and turned into a real Turkish province, after which in all subsequent times its fate was almost the same with the fate of Ugrovlahia. After constantly changing governors from their own Romanian boyars and from various strangers and adventurers, from the first years of the 18th century, in it, as well as in Ugrovlahia (and somewhat earlier than this latter), the terrible reign of the Favariot governors began. Having got rid of them at the same time, both sides simultaneously began to be revived to a better national existence. Since the time of Empress Catherine the Great, our Russian government has taken an active part in the destinies of both principalities and provided them with its most zealous patronage. At the conclusion of the Kuchuk-Kainardzhi peace of 1774, an obligation was demanded from the Porte to protect in the principalities the complete inviolability of freedom of faith and the rights of the clergy - a promise to “observe all philanthropy and generosity in imposing taxes on them (the population of the principalities), and, among other things, it was decided that the government of the Brilliant Porte “agrees that, according to the circumstances of both of these principalities, the ministers of the Russian imperial court, located at the Sublime Porte, could speak in favor of these two principalities, and promised to listen to them with respect similar to friendly and respectful powers” (First Collection of Laws vol. XIX, No. 14, 164, article 16). By the Akkerman Convention of 1826, in order to more effectively protect the interests of the principalities, Russia reserved for itself the right to formally intervene in their affairs (when removing the governor, to prevent abuses on the part of the Porte, the second Collection of Laws, Vol. I, No. 620), and General Kiselev, who soon after occupied the principalities with Russian troops (in continuation of 1828–1834), satisfying the recognized With this convention, the urgent need to correct the disordered many parts of their government, compiled for them the so-called organic statute, i.e., a set of laws, which earned the deep gratitude of their populations (about Kiselev’s management of the principalities, see the article in the Journal of Min. Nar. Prosv, part XXXI, VI, 228. Well-minded Romanians remember his services for their country: “Kiselev, whose name Romanians are obliged to pronounce only with gratitude and love, resurrected our fatherland with laws that should make us a people. When signing the Adrianople peace treaty of 1829, after the most careful protection of all the rights and benefits of both principalities, it was insisted on our part on a new important measure tending to strengthen their well-being, namely, that in the future the governors should be elected not for a seven-year term, as was before, but for life (Second Collection of Laws vol. IV, No. 3128. - At the Vienna conferences 1855, after the Crimean War, which was unfortunate for us, the Russian protectorate over the principalities, which had become even stronger since 1848, but, as it seems, during this recent time, fair or unfair, did not deserve special gratitude from the Romanians, was completely removed). Not useless in case of inquiries, although vulgarly long, the series of Ugrovlahian governors is the following 184. 1. Radu (Radul, i.e. Rudolf) Negru or Radu the Black – 1241–65. 2. Michael Bassaraba, brother of Radu the Black – 1265–1284. 3. Dan (Denis) I, son of Radu the Black – 1265–1284 4. Stephen I Mailatu – 1298–1324. 5. John I of Bassaraba – 1324–1340 6. Vlad (Vladislav) I, brother of the previous one - 1340–1342. 7. Alexander I, brother of the previous one - 1342–1352. 8. Nicholas, son of the previous one - 1352–1366 185. 9 . Radu II, brother of John I and the two following him......... 1366–1376 186. 10. Dan II, son of the previous one - 1376–1382. 11. Mircea I, son of Radu II, – 1383–1418. 12. Mircea II, son of the previous one - 1418–1419. (And his rival Mikhail was mentioned - 1418.) 13. Vlad II, brother of the previous one - 1419–1422. 14. Vlad III Dracul, son of Mircea I – 1422–1446 (and his rivals: Dan III, son of Vlad II, 1423–1437, Vlad 1432, Alexander 1435, Radu 1444 and 1446). 15. Dan IV, son of Dan III – 1446–1448. 16. Vlad IV, nephew of Mircea I. – 1448–1455. 17. Radu III, son of Vlad III – 1455–1456. 18. Vlad V Dracul (the same one about whom the famous story), brother of the previous one, son of the same Vlad III, - 1456–62. 19. Radu III for the second time – 1462–1473. 20. Vlad VI, nicknamed the Monk, briefly at the end of 1473 - at the beginning of 1474. 21. Radu III for the third time – 1474–1476. 22. Vlad V for the second time - 1477–1479. 23. Vlad VII, son of Radu III – 1479–1493. 24. Radu IV, the great, son of Vlad - some V, others VI - 1493-1568. 25. Mikhna (Mikhail) I, nicknamed the Evil One - 1508–1510. 26. Radu V Vladutsa – 1510–1513. 27. Negu I Bassaraba – 1513–1518. 30. Vlad VIII succeeded each other in continuation. – 1519–24.) 187 31. Radu VII for the second time – 1524–1529. 32. Moses, son of Vlad VII – 1529–1530. 33. Vlad IX – 1530–1533. 34. Vintila - 1533–1534. 35. Radu VIII (Peter Paisius) – 1534–1541. 36. Radu IX, son of Radu VII – 1541–1545. 37. Mircea III, son of Mikhna I, – 1545–1554. 38. Petrashko (Peter) I, son of Radu VIII – 1554–1557. 39. Mircea III for the second time - 1558–1563. 40. Peter II the Lame, son of Mircea III – 1563–1567. 41. Alexander II, another son of Mircea III – 1568–1577. 42. Mikhna II, son of the previous one - 1578–1583. 43. Peter Churchel III, son of Peter I (Petrashka) – 1583–1585. 44. Mikhna II for the second time - 1585–1591. 45. Stefan II Surdul (deaf) – 1591–1592. 46. Alexander III – 1592. 47. Michael II the Brave, son of Peter I (Petrushka) – 1592–1600. 48. Simeon Grave from the end of 1600 to the end - 1601. 49. Radu Šerban I Bassaraba – 1601–1611. 50. Radu X, son of Mikhna II – 1611–1616. 51. Alexander IV – 1616–1617. 52. Gabriel Mogila, son of Simeon Mogila – 1617–1619. 53. Radu X for the second time – 1619–1623. 54. Alexander V, son of Radu X – 1623–1628. 55. Alexander IV for the second time - 1628–1630. 56. Leo (Leon), son of Stefan Tomza, governor of Moldova - 1630–1633. 57. Radu XI, son of Alexander IV – 1633. 58. Matthew Bassaraba – 1633–54. 59. Constantine Bassaraba, son of Shcherban I – 1654–1658. 60. Mikhna III – 1658–1659. 61. Georg Ghika – 1659–1660. 62. Grigory Ghika, son of the previous one - 1660–1664. 63. Radu XII, son of Leo Tomna – 1665–1669. 64. Anthony - 1669–1672. 65. Gregory Ghika for the second time - 1672–1673. 67. Shcherban II Cantacuzenus – 1679–1688. 68. Constantin Brancovano – 1688–1714. 69. Stephen III Cantacuzene – 1714–1716. 70. Nikolai Mavrocordato, starting a series of Phanariot governors - 1716. 71. John Mavrocordato – 1717–1718. 72. Nicholas Mavrocordato for the second time - 1719–1730. 73. Constantine Mavrocordato – 1730. 74. Mikhail Rakovitsa – 1730–31. 75. Constantin Mavrocordato for the second time - 1731–1732. 76. Gregory Ghika – 1733–1735. 77. Constantin Mavrocordato for the third time - 1735–1741. 78. Mikhail Rakovitsa for the second time - 1741–1744. 79. Constantin Mavrocordato for the fourth time - 1744–1748. 80. Gregory Ghika for the second time - 1748–1752. 81. Matthew Ghika – 1752–1753. 82. Konstantin Rakovitsa – 1753–1755. 83. Constantin Mavrocordato for the fifth time - 1756–1758. 84. Scarlato Ghica – 1758–1761. 85. Constantin Mavrocordato for the sixth time - 1761–1763. 86. Konstantin Rakovitsa for the second time - 1763–1764. 87. Stefan Rakovica – 1764–1765. 88. Scarlato Ghica for the second time - 1765–1766. 89. Alexander Ghika – 1766–1768. 90. Grigory Ghika – 1768–1769. 91. Manolaki Rovetti - 1770. (In 1771–1774, the principalities were occupied by Russian troops.) 92. Alexander Ypsilanti – 1774–1782. 93. Nikolay Karadzha – 1782–1783. 94. Mikhail Sutso – 1783–1786. 95. Nikolai Mavrogeshi – 1786–1790. 96. Alexander Mavrocordato was a governor only in name (due to the war with Russia, which the principalities were engaged in). 97. Mikhail Sutso for the second time in – 1791 (Here Palauzov is missing one governor.) 98. Constantine Ypsilanti – 1802–1805. 100. John Karaca – 1812–1818. 101. Alexander Sutso for the third time - 1818–1820. 102. Scarlato Callimachi – 1821–22, the last Phanariot, who was considered a governor only nominally, but on the occasion of the uprising raised in Wallachia by the Greek thesterists, did not go to rob the country itself. 103. Gregory Ghika – 1822–1828. 104. Alexander Ghika – 1834–1842. 105. Grigory Bibesko – 1843–1848. 106. Barbo Stirbey – 1849–1853 An equally long series of Moldovlahian governors is the following 188: 1. Dragos, founder of the state around 1359. 2. Bogdan I of Saxony, son of the previous one, before 1365. 3. Laczko, son of the previous one, before 1373. 6. Balcha or Balsha is mentioned in 1391 189. 9 . Stephen I for the second time - 1395–1399 190. 12. Alexander the Good, brother of the previous one - 1402–1432. 13. Ilyashko and Stechko (Ilia and Stefan), sons of the previous one, at the same time - 1432–1437. 14 Roman II, son of Ilyashka – 1437–1447. 18. Alexander II – 1451 191. 19. Bogdan III after – 1451. 20. Peter (Aaron) III to – 1458. 21. Stefan (Bogdan) IV, the Great, son of Bogdan III – 1458–1504. 22. Bogdan IV, son of the previous one - 1504–1517. 23. Stephen V, son of the previous one - 1517–1526. 25.Peter Raresh – 1527–1538. 26. Stephen VII Lepuet, brother of the previous one - 1540. 27. Alexander Kornia – 1540. 28. Peter Rares for the second time - 1540–1546. 192 29. Ilya II and Stephen VIII, sons of the previous one - 1546–1552. 30. Alexander (Peter) IV, Lepusciano – 1552–1561. 31. Vasily (Vasilaki, impostor) – 1561–1563. 32. Stephen IX Tomza – 1563–64. 33. Alexander IV for the second time - 1564–1566. 34. Bogdan VI (V?) – 1566–1572. 36. Ivan Podkovar (Saxon) – 1574. 38. Peter VI the Lame – 1586–1591 193. 40. Stefan Rezvan – 1595. 41. Jeremiah's Tomb - 1595–1606 194 . 42. Simeon Mogila, brother of the previous one - 1607. 43. Konstantin Mogila – 1607–1609 195. 44. Stephen XI Tomza – 1610. 45 Bogdan VII – 1610–1615. 46. Caspar Graziani (Italian) – 1615–1618. 47. Alexander V – 1618–1621. 196 48. Stepan XI Tomza for the second time - 1621–1623. 49. Radu I the Long (formerly the Ugrovlahian governor under the name Radu X) – 1623–1626 197. 50. Myron Bernavsky (Pole) – 1626–1630. 51. Moses Tomb – 1630. 52. Alexander (son of Ilya) – 1631–1633. 198 53. Alexander (son of Radu I) – 1634. 54. Moses Tomb for the second time – 1634. 55. Vasily Lupul (originally Albanian) – 1634–1654. 56. Stefan Georgica – 1654–58. 57. Georg Ghika (originally Albanian) – 1658–1660. 58. Stephen XII, son of Lupul - 1660–1662. 59. Evstratiy Dabisha – 1662–1666. 60. Ilya, son of Alexander Ilyich - 1667. 61. Alexander Dukas – 1667. 62. Ilya for the second time - 1667–1669. 63. Alexandre Ducas for the second time - 1669–1672. 64. Stefan Petriceu – 1673. 65. Dimitri Kantakuvin – 1673–1676. 66. Anthony Rosetti – 1676–1679. 67. Alexandre Ducas I for the third time – 1679–1684. 68. Demetrius Cantacuzene for the second time - 1684. 69. Constantin Cantemir – 1685. 70. Constantin Duca, son of Alexander Duca – 1685–1693. 71. Antion Cantemir – 1693–1696. 72. Constantin Duca for the second time - 1696–1701. 73. Mikhail Rakovitsa – 1701–1704. 74. Antioch Cantemir for the second time - 1705. 75. Mikhail Rakovitsa for the second time - 1705–1708. 76. Nicholas Mavrocordato – 1708–1710. 77. Dimitri Cantemir – 1711. 78. Mikhail Rakovitsa – 1716–27. 79. Gregory Ghika - 1727–1733. 80. Constantin Mavrocordato – 1733–1735. 81. Gregory Ghika – 1735–1741. 82. Constantine Mavrocordato – 1741–1743. 83. John Mavrocordato – 1743–1747. 84. Constantine Mavrocordato – 1748. 85. Konstantin Rakovitsa I – 1749–1753. 86.Matthew Ghika – 1753–1756. 87. Konstantin Rakovitsa – 1756. 88. Scarlato Ghica – 1757. 89. John Callimachi – 1758–61. 90. Gregory Callimachi - 1761–64. 91. Gregory Ghika – 1764–1766. 92. Gregory Callimachi - 1766–69. 93. Constantin Mavrocordato – 1769–1774. 94. Gregory Ghika – 1774–1777. 95. Konstantin Muruzi – 1777–82. 96. Alexander Mavrocordato – 1782–1785. 97. Alexander Mavrocordato II – 1785–1787. 98. Alexander Ypsilanti – 1787–1792. 99. Alexander Muruzi – 1792. (Palauzov has one voivode missing.) 100. Alexander Muruzi – 1802–1805. 101. Scarlato Callimachi. He did it for the second time - 1812–1819. 102. Mikhail Sutso – 1819–1821. 103 Ivan Sturdza – 1822–1828. 104. Mikhail Sturdza – 1834–1848. 105. Gregory Ghika – 1849–1853. Most of the governors of both principalities are completely unknown people, and a considerable half are simply insignificant. The best Wallachian governors are: Mircea I, Michael the Brave, Matthew Bassaraba and Shcherban II Cantacuzene; the best Moldavian governors: Alexander the Good, Stefan the Great (matchmaker of our Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich III) and Vasily Lupul. The capital of Ugrovlahia or Wallachia during the first century and a half of the existence of the state, as we said above, was first the city of Campylungo, and then Ardkis or Ardgish. From the 15th to the half of the 17th century, the Vlachs had two capitals - Torgovishche and Bukarest, of which the first was the main one (see Vlacho-Bulgarian charters collected by Y. Venelin). From the half of the 17th century to the present, the capital is in Bucharest 199. The capital of Moldova and Moldavia until the half of the 17th century was in Suceava, located in what is now Austrian Bukovina; from the first years of the second half of the 16th century to the present day it has been in the city of Iasi. The beginning of Christianity among the Romanians There is no news or records about the adoption of the Christian faith by the Romanian people, neither intentional nor accidental, so absolutely nothing can be said regarding the details of their conversion. There are no direct indications anywhere regarding the time of their baptism; but this latter can be determined with certainty by inference from some positive data available to us. We said above that part of the Romanian territory, known as Transylvania, passed from the rule of the Bulgarians to the rule of the Magyars during the very occupation of present-day Hungary by the latter. The Christian faith of the Romanians of Transylvania, which they accepted at their first conversion, was the same that the majority of them maintain at the present time, that is, Eastern Orthodox; but since it is impossible to allow the ruling people to allow the ruled people to accept a Christian faith that is not the same as themselves, it is necessary to assume from this that the Orthodox Romanians of Transylvania converted to Christianity before their Catholic masters - the Magyars. That this was indeed the case, there is direct evidence for this: Transylvanian chronicles tell that at the end of the 10th century, the Magyar appanage ruler of Transylvania, pagan Pula, initiated persecution of the Christian Romanians of his region and that they were Christians of the Eastern confession (see Fessler's Geschichte von Ungarn, ed. 2, 1867, vol. 1, p. 110 fin.). Thus, in general, it should be taken as positive and undoubted that the Romanians of Transylvania adopted Christianity before their conquerors, the Magyars (who were baptized in the last years of the 10th century), became Christians. But if this is so, then it can be said with certainty when exactly before. When, having adopted Catholicism, the Magyars could not allow the subject Romanians to accept Orthodoxy after them, just as, remaining pagans, they could not allow them to accept Christianity before them 200; therefore, if the Romanians of Transylvania adopted Greek Orthodoxy before the Magyars adopted Latin Catholicism, then it is necessary to think that they accepted it before falling under the power of these latter. Before the Magyars, the Romanians of Transylvania were under the rule of the Bulgarians, and thus the only thing that, after what has been said, remains to be accepted regarding their conversion to Christianity, is that they were baptized by the Bulgarian sovereigns either simultaneously with the Bulgarian people themselves, or shortly after it, generally between the seventies of the 9th century, when Christianity was established in Bulgaria, and between the first years of the 10th century, when they (Romanians) were baptized from the rule of the Bulgarians Transylvania) came under the rule of the Magyars. What was said about the Romanians of Transylvania also applies to the Romanians of Wallachia, because they were also under the rule of the Bulgarians, and one could not be baptized without the other. It is not known for certain about the Romanians of Moldova whether the power of the Bulgarians extended or did not extend to them; if not, then it may very well be that they adopted Christianity somewhat later than the first two and not by anyone’s external compulsion, but by themselves, carried away by the example of their baptized relatives, and the new faith could not have established itself among them suddenly, but gradually 201 . How the Bulgarians organized church administration in the Romanian-Transdanubian part of their possessions remains completely unknown. In all likelihood, no separate episcopal sees were established for the Romanians, but they were subordinated to the jurisdiction of the border bishops of Bulgaria itself (Viddinsky, Dristriansky, Branichevsky), who supervised the clergy of their country through their archpriests or exarchs. As for Moldovala or Moldavia separately, from the 11th century, after our ancestors accepted the Christian faith, it probably received its clergy not from Bulgaria, but from Volyn-Galician Rus, which was closer to it 202. After the conquest of the pre-Balkan part of Bulgaria by John Tzimiskes, Wallachia remained with the Bulgarians. Therefore, in church terms, she, of course, continued to depend on the Bulgarian Archbishop, who transferred his throne to Macedonia, and did not come under the authority of the Metropolitan of Dorostol, appointed by Tzimiskes for pre-Balkan Bulgaria. Having finally conquered all of Bulgaria in 1019, Emperor Vasily the Bulgarian Slayer confirmed to the Bulgarian Archbishop the inviolability of all those of his church possessions that he had at the moment of conquest, and traces. one must think that Romanian Wallachia, which had now become politically independent, as it seems, was left behind him as before. After the Bulgarians restored their kingdom in 1185, their former archbishopric, located in Ahrid, remained with the Greeks, and they opened a new archbishopric in Ternov; immediately after the restoration of the kingdom, having again subjugated the Romanians of Wallachia to their power, there is no doubt that they did not leave them under the authority of the Archbishop of Achrid, who was now no longer a Bulgarian, but a Greek archbishop, but handed them over to their own archbishop, that is, this Ternovsky. Metropolis of Ugrovlahia The Romanian state itself was founded in present-day Wallachia, as we said above, in the middle of the 13th century. But whether this state soon began to have its own bishops remains unknown. G. Palauzov, speaking not entirely intelligibly and, according to the bad habit of many Russian scholars, without indicating the source, says that upper or northern Wallachia has long had its own bishop, whose see was located in Ardzhiz (Dominions of Wallachia and Moldavia, p. 30). If by ancient times we mean the times preceding the founding of a special state by Radu Cerny, then his testimony will be more than doubtful, because there are absolutely no hints anywhere about the existence of its own bishops in Wallachia at the indicated times. If we understand his words in such a way that in Arjis, the capital of the state founded by Radu Cerny, its own episcopal see was established shortly after the founding of the state itself, then they will seem very probable, because it was completely natural for the sovereigns of a separate state to immediately become concerned about obtaining, if not their own special church administration (metropolitan), then at least one for the entire state of their own bishop. The reliable history of the Ugrovlahian hierarchy begins no earlier than the half of the 14th century, precisely from 1359, when the Ugrovlahian governor Alexander asked for a bishop from the Patriarch of Constantinople and subordinated his church to the supreme power of this latter. The official record of this is preserved in the minutes of the Patriarchal Synod of Constantinople, printed by Miklosic under the name Acta Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani (Vindobonae, 1860, t. 1, p. 383 sqq). Having or not having previously had his own bishop, which, unfortunately, is not clear from the record, the governor asked for a bishop from the Patriarch of Constantinople because he wanted to be with his people not under anyone else, but precisely under his highest ecclesiastical authority. Under whose highest ecclesiastical authority he was before and why he wanted to come under the authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople, the record also does not say; but it must be assumed that before Ugrovlahia depended on the Patriarch of Ternovsky and that the governor found this dependence inconvenient for himself due to the state clashes that his country inevitably had to have with directly neighboring Bulgaria. Having called upon him to manage church affairs, Metropolitan Joakinthos Kritopulos, subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople, 203, the governor urgently asked the Patriarch (Callista I) that this Joakinthos be recognized as the Metropolitan of all Ugrovlahia, and he gave an oath of the always unchangeable subordination of the Ugrovlahia church to the patriarchal throne for the future and an obligation to accept Metropolitans are none other than those elected and consecrated precisely by him, the Patriarch. The latter fulfilled the request of the governor (demanding that he strengthen his promise with a written act), and thus, from 1359, a series of bishops with the name of the metropolitan began in Ugrovlahia. Eleven years later, in 1370, another bishop’s see was opened in Ugrovlahia, also with the title of metropolitanate. The above-mentioned Metropolitan Joakinthos, due to his extreme old age, found it difficult to fulfill his duties and, probably, wanting to transfer his throne in advance to his brother, the priest and Dikeophylax Daniel Kritopulos, with the consent of the governor and together with the latter, asked the Patriarch (Philotheus) that Daniel be made metropolitan of all Ugrovlahia. Fulfilling the request for the elevation of Daniel to metropolitan, the Patriarch appointed him - before the initiation he was tonsured a monk and renamed Anthimus - not for the whole of Ugrovlahia, but for its half, so that in the future there would be two metropolitans in Ugrovlahia (see Acta Patriarchat. Constantinop. 1, 532 sqq). The second metropolitan did not have to depend on the first, and both of them, each in his own right, had to be dependent on the patriarch. Why such a strange church-governmental structure was introduced by the patriarch is not clearly visible; but probably in order to more reliably keep Ugrovlahia subordinate to his throne: one metropolitan, who had bishops subordinate to himself, taking the example of the Patriarch of Tern and the Archbishop of Akhrid, could soon proclaim himself an autocephalous metropolitan, i.e., renounce the power of the patriarch and assign independence to himself; but with several equal metropolitans, each of whom depended directly on the patriarch, this was impossible (see, however, even lower, in the Transylvanian metropolitanate). The first or eldest of the two metropolitans was given the title of metropolitan πάσης Οὐγγρίας καὶ Πλαγηνῶν, i.e. all Ugria and adjacent regions (see Kodin in Ralli and Potli V, 501 fin., Acta Patriarchat. I, 494), and with the titles ἔξαρχος καὶ ὑπέρτιμος he had a place after the Metropolitan of Nicomedia (Kodin ibid., - which in the list of this latter is the seventh in the series of metropolitans, ibid. 499); the second was called metropolitan τοῦ μέρους Οὐγγροβλαχίας τῆςκατὰ τὸν Σεβερῖνον (Acta Patriarchat. II, 519, 312), and with the title ὑπέρτιμος (ibid. I, 535) first took place after the Metropolitan of Melitene (ibid. I, 536), and then of Amasia (Kodin in Ralli and Potli V, 502 beginning - of which the first in the Kodin catalog is the 13th in the general series, and the second – 12, ibid. p. 499). The department of the first metropolitan was probably in the same city as the capital of the state, that is, first in Ardzhiz, and then, after moving the capital at the end of the 14th or at the beginning of the 15th century from Ardzhiz to Torgovishche, in the latter; his diocese, as can be concluded from the instructions regarding the diocese of the second metropolitan, consisted of the eastern part of Wallachia, starting in the west of the Aluta (Oltu) river, or the so-called present-day greater Wallachia. The diocese of the second metropolitan, judging by the fact that he is called metropolitan consisted of the western part of Wallachia, starting in the east from the same river Aluta, or the current so-called small Wallachia, because Severin, the Severinsky region, was the name of this now indicated region; his department was probably located in the city after which the region and the diocese were called, i.e. Severin (being founded by the Romans, it is believed that it was named after the Emperor Alexander Severus; existing to this day in the form of a small town and currently called Zöreny - Chereny, see Buesching Erdbeschreibung, part 1 of the 2nd, p. 1625 (in Hoffmann's Lexicon Universalë Severinum - vulgo Sverin), is located on the Danube between the western border of Wallachia and the city of Chernets, closer to the latter, opposite the ruins of the former Trajan Bridge across the Danube on the maps we have - on one it is called Turnul, on others Severiner Thurn and Turnu Severin) 204. How long this double-headedness existed remains unknown. Being necessary for the patriarch, it could not in any way be found convenient by the Ugrovlahs themselves, and therefore it is very likely that it would not last long. Subsequently, in Ugrovlahia there was one metropolitanate with bishoprics subordinate to it, of which until recently, or at least until the eighties of the last century, there were two, namely: 1) Rymnik (the city of Rymnik in northern Aluta 205 and 2) Buze or Buze (the city of Buzeo on the Buzeo River, which flows into the Seret, in eastern Wallachia, in Greek. Ποζαίον ). The time of the opening of the bishoprics remains precisely unknown: the life of the Patriarch of Constantinople Niphon, who spent some time in Wallachia in the last years of the 15th or the first years of the 16th century, assimilates their opening to this particular patriarch (see life in the Athos Patericon, St. Petersburg, 1860, part 2, p. 22 fin., cfr Kogalnichan Histoire de la Valachie p. 106, -according to his life, Niphon opened two new dioceses, but since after that there were only two, there could not be any old ones); but if we do not reject the reliability of some official documents, then they existed in the middle of the 15th century (we mean the agreement of Sultan Mohammed II with the Ugrovlahian governor Vlad V Dracul, concluded in 1460, which see Palauzov in Gospodarstva p. 28, § IV, cfr Kogalnichan Histoire de la Valachie p. 90 206. Currently There are three episcopal sees: the two named above and the third - Ardzhis (Ardzhis in Greek Ἀρτζέσιος), established unknown to us when after 1773 (that before 1773 there were two bishops in Wallachia, see Kogalnichan ibid. p. 147 - that they were exactly the two named above, see his ibid. p. 147, preface to the Psalter, printed in Wallachia in 1037, in the Register of Early Printed Books of Shiryaev No. 74, Vlacho-Bulgarian Charters of Venelin p. 312 beginning, Syntagmation Chrysanthus). The currently known incomplete series of Ugrovlahian metropolitans is the following. Metropolitans of all Ugrovlahia 1. Joacinth Critopulus. Having previously held the rank of Metropolitan of Witzin, he was called to Ugrovlahia to manage its church affairs before 1359; was confirmed by the Patriarch of Constantinople with the rank of Metropolitan of Ugrovlahia in this last year; mentioned under 1370 and died no later than 1380 (see Acta Patriarchat. Constantinop., published by Miklosic, t. I, pp. 383 sqq, 532 sqq). 2. Khariton. Mentioned as metropolitan of all Ugrovlahia under 1380 (Acta Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani II, 19). 1. Anthimus, in the world Daniel, Kritopul, brother of Joacinthos. He was appointed metropolitan of Severin in 1370 (Acta R. S. t. I, p. 532 sqq). In 1381 he moved to the senior department of all Ugrovlahia. 2. Afanasy. Mentioned in the acts as the second in degree, i.e. the Severinsky, Ugrovlahian metropolitan under 1389 and 1396 (Acta P. C. t. II, pp. 135 and 291, cfr 289, where he is directly called Σεβερινοῦ). Under 1400 and 1401 the metropolitan τοῦ μέρους Οὐγγροβλαχίας τῆς κατὰ τον Σεβερῖνον is anonymously mentioned (Acta R.S. t. II, pp. 312 and 519). 3. Anfim Kritopul, brother of Joacinthos, who was first Metropolitan of Severin and about whom is above. He transferred to the see of the Metropolitan of All Ugrovlahia, probably after the death of Khariton, in 1381 (see Acta R.S. t. II, p. 27, where in May 1381 he signed below the place assigned to the Metropolitan of all Ugrovlahia, and p. 39, where in November of the same 1381 he signed in the place of this last one). Mentioned as the metropolitan of all Ugrovlahia until 1389 (ibid. t. II, pp. 48, 129). To this Anfim there is a message from the Patriarch of Ternovsky Euthymius (see Grigorovich's Travels in Turkey p. 188 and above). From 1401 there is a letter from Patriarch Matthew I of Constantinople to the Metropolitan of All Ugrovlahia, concerning the church affairs of Moldova, but the Metropolitan is not named in it (Acta R.S. t. II, p. 494). 4. Macarius. Mentioned in 1456 in the message of Archbishop Dorotheus of Achrid to the Moldovlahian governor Stejan IV (see Glasnik VII, 179 beginning). It seems that under him there was no longer a metropolis of Severinsky and he was the actual metropolitan of all Ugrovlahia 207. 5. Niphon, former Patriarch of Constantinople. After the second deposition from the patriarchal throne (which happened in 1495 or 1496), 208 he stayed for some time in Ugrovlahia and corrected the duties of the local metropolitan in it (which he did not have the highest supervision, directing the activities of the then Ugrovlahia metropolitan, namely, he assumed the duties of the metropolitan, this is directly and clearly stated in his life). He was invited to Ugrovlahia by the latter's governor Radul IV, who, while traveling to Constantinople, had the opportunity to see and recognize him in Adrianople, where he was in exile. According to his life, Niphon made diligent efforts to organize the church affairs of Wallachia and to improve the Christian morals of its inhabitants. After a few years spent in Wallachia, he was forced to leave it (on Athos) due to enmity with the governor (the same Radulus IV) because of one violator of church marriage rules (see life in the Athos Patericon, part 2, p. 7 also in Turco-graecia Crusius, p. 144 fin.). The last years of the 15th or the first years of the 16th century should be taken as the time of his stay in Wallachia. (He was in Wallachia at the time of the election of Patriarch Pachomius to the see of Constantinople, Turcogr. ibid., but exact numerical data about both this and other contemporary Patriarchs of Constantinople are not yet available.) The Wallachian Church, together with Mount Athos, honors Niphon as a saint, and part of his relics is located in Argis. 6. Maxim. In the world he was called George; was the grandson of the penultimate Serbian despot or sovereign Juri Brankovich, the son of his son, Despot Stefan, who wandered outside the fatherland. He took monastic vows in his youth, while in Austrian Sirmium or Srem, where his mother and the rest of the family settled. Arriving in Ugrovlahia under the governor Radula IV (according to Safarik, probably repeating Engel, whom, unfortunately, we do not have in our hands, in 1503), he was invited by him to take the throne of the metropolitans, which probably happened either immediately or shortly after the removal of the patriarch from the country. Nifonta; under Radul's successor, Mikhne I (1508–1510), he retired to Srem, to the Krušedolski monastery he founded here; under the second successor of this latter, Negu Bassarabe (1513–1518), was again called to Ugrovlahia, but after not staying there for long and appointing another metropolitan - unfortunately, not named in the news - he again retired to Krushedol, where he died, if our sources are not mistaken in the testimony, in 1516 (we take information from Safarik in Geschichte d. Südslawisch. Literatur, Prag, 1865, III, 122; short life of Maxim in Glasn. XI, 125, brief news in the Serbian, so-called Tronosha, Glasn chronicle. V, III; for the year of death, see the Serbian chronicle in Glasn. XI, 155 and Monumenta Serbica Miklosic r. 549 fin; see also Raicha History of the Slavic peoples, book. X, chapters VI and VII, and Martynov's Annus Eccles. under January 18th). Maxim is revered by the Serbian Church as one of its saints (he is omitted from Rev. Philaret in “Saints of the Southern Slavs”). 7. Macarius. According to the news found in Kogalnichan (Histoire de la Valachie p. 118), he was appointed Ugrovlahian metropolitan after the death of Maxim, at the request of the governor Negu Bassaraba, by the Patriarch of Constantinople Pachomius 209, before 1518. Reconciling this news with the legends about Maxim, perhaps the matter should be understood in such a way that this Macarius was the unknown person whom Maxim, retiring from Wallachia, appointed as his successor. 8. Varlaam. Mentioned in 1538 (see Vlaho-Bulgarian charters collected by Yu. Venelin, St. Petersburg, 1840, p. 163). 9 . Yanaky (Ioanniky?). Mentioned under 1556 (ibid. p. 169). 10. Ephraim. Mentioned as being before 1560 or in that year itself (ibid. p. 176). 11. Daniel. Mentioned under 1566 (ibid.p.178 fin.). 112. Euthymius. Mentioned under 1571 and 1575. (ibid. p. 214 and in Karataev’s Painting of Slavic Books No. 68, p. 13). 13. Seraphim. The successor of Euthymius (U Venel. ibid. 228) is mentioned under 1585 (ibid. 219). From the time of this Seraphim, the Ugrovlahian metropolitans began to be called archmetropolitans (see ibid. 219 and instructions on the following metropolitans, and cfr 214). We have no direct explanation of what this means; Probably, the bishops subordinate to the metropolitan then received the names of metropolitans, and for him himself the name of archmetropolitan was invented in order to distinguish him from these latter. 14. Euthymius. Metropolitan (Archbishop) Euthymius, by whom it is unknown whether he should mean II, or another time the previous one, is spoken of under 1595 in the news given by Kogalnichan (Histoire de la Valachie p. 147, in Palauzov p. 38 fin.). 15. Luke. Mentioned under 1610 and under 1624 (Vlacho-Bulgarian charters of Venelin, p. 257 and Relations between Russia and the East by Muravyov, part 2, p. 30 beginning). 16. Grigory. Mentioned under 1629 and 1634 (in Venelin ibid. pp. 294 and 311, Relations with the East part 2, p. 83 fin. and Kogalnichan Histoire de la Valachie p. 271). 17. Theophilus. Mentioned under the years 1637–1647 (see Venelina ibid. 302, Karataeva Painting of Slavic books No. 403, 492, 540, and the afterword to the Slavic-Wallachian translation of Thomas a à Kempis, printed in 1647 in the Delsky monastery, - in the Description of old printed books of Tolstov No. 107, p. 289. In Relations between Russia and the East, part 2, p. 348, around 1640, the Metropolitan of Ugrovlahia is called Feofan instead of Theophilus, probably by mistake or typo). 18. Stephen. Mentioned under 1650 (see Barataeva Painting of Slavic books No. 596, p. 81 and the small so-called schismatic Proskinitarium of Arseny Sukhanov - record of a conversation on May 11, 1650). Through his efforts, it was translated from Greek into Romanian and in 1652, at his expense, the Helmsman’s Book was printed in Torgovishche (this Romanian Helmsman’s Book, called in Romanian Endreptare leggii, which is a translation of the Greek word nomocanon and means the rule of laws, law-enforcer, but known mainly under the Slavic name “Rules”, is still in the official church used in both principalities. In its composition, it is different from our Russian-Slavic Kormcha, published under Patriarchs Joseph and Nikon. It consists of two parts: the first part contains one of the later editions of the nomocanon of Manuel Malax 210, divided into 417 chapters; in the second part - the abbreviated rules of the councils and fathers, on which Aristin wrote his interpretations, along with the very interpretations of this latter. (i.e. this is almost the same as the first half of our Russian Helmsman), and then the question-answers of St. Anastasius of Sinaite (for some; for others, even extracts from the fathers). The translation from Greek into Romanian was completed under the direction, among other things, of the famous Paisius Ligarides, who lived here in Russia. There is a Latin translation of this Helmsman, made in 1722. See Kopitar's article in Wiener Jahrbücher d. Literature Bd. XXV, S. 158 sqq, Binera De collectionibus canonum Ecclesiae graecae, Berolini, 1827, b. 45, Tzaharie Delineatio p. 99, from Zhishman in Eheresht d. oriental Kirche, Wien, 1864, S.77 fin., in Rosenkampff's Review of Pilots, ed. 1, p. 71 and approx. 66, (disagreeing with others) and in the article: Some information about Paisius Ligarid, printed. in the journal Additions to Creation. Holy Fathers, vol. XXI, p. 136). 19. Ignatius. Mentioned under 1654 (Vlahobolg. charters, p. 329). 20. Stephen. Mentioned under 1656; another or a second time - previous, we do not know (Raich in his History of the Slavic Peoples, book XI, chapter VI, §10 fin., says that in September 1656 Metropolitan Stephen of Wallachia was appointed Metropolitan of Transylvania; since he speaks here from the words of a contemporary (Brankovich), we believe that he is not mistaken). 21. Feodosius. In 1688, the Ugrovlahia voivode Shcherban Kantakouzin, the former Patriarch of Constantinople Dionysius, who was then in Ugrovlahia, the Serbian Patriarch Arseniy Chernoevich and this Ugrovlahia Metropolitan Theodosius wrote letters to Moscow about raising arms against the Turks and about the liberation of Eastern Christians from their heavy yoke (see more about these very interesting letters brought by the Archimandrite of the Athonite Pavlov Monastery Isaiah, in Relations between Russia and the East, part 4, handicraft by Acad. 1099 vol. fin. Rumyants. Museum, f. 251 vol. sqq, response of Patriarch Joachim to Metropolitan Theodosius in the Icon, according to the list of Undolsky f. Mentioned under the years 1697, 1699 and 1701 (see bibliographic list of Greek printed books Νεοελληνικὴ Φιλολογία, Andrei Papadopoulos Vreto, Athens, 1854, I, nos. 126, 131 and 134). 22. Anfim. He was originally from Iveria or Georgia. Having come to Wallachia before 1692 (Νεοελλην. Φιλολογία I, No. 120), he first lived as a hieromonk in one of the Bucarest monasteries (ἐν μον ῇ τῶν εἰσοδείων τοῦ Συναγόβου, ibid. I, No. 127), in 1705 he was installed as bishop of Rymnik, in 1706 as metropolitan of Ugrovlahia (Νεοελλην. Φιλολογία I, σελ . 177 and Lequien’a I, 1248). He was a very learned man at that time; he had his own printing house, in which he constantly, when he was both a hieromonk and a bishop and metropolitan, was diligently engaged in printing Greek books (see ibid; one Slavic book printed by him is also known, see Painting of Slavic books by Karataev No. 1208, p. 155). Having aroused the wrath of the governor Nicholas Mavrocordato, known for his terrible cruelty, at the end of 1716 he was disgracefully deposed from the throne and condemned to imprisonment, and then during the journey to this latter, probably on his own orders, he was killed by the accompanying Turkish guards (see Kogalnichan Histoire de la Valachie p. 377 sqq, in Palauzov p. 138). 23. Daniel. Probably the immediate successor of Anthimus; mentioned in 1719–21 (Lequien'a I, 1249). 24 Georgy. Was before 1736 (see Elsner Neueste Beschreibung derer Griechen Türckey, Berlin, 1737, who wrote his book in 1736 from the words of the Greek archimandrite Athanasius Dorostam). 25. Stephen. Mentioned under 1736 Νεοελληνικὴ Φιλολογία Vreto I, no. 184). 26. Grigory. In 1770, he came to St. Petersburg among the deputies sent from the estates of both principalities to thank Catherine II for the patronage provided to them by Russia (Palausov Gospodarstva p. 146). 27. Filaret. Mentioned before 1795 (Νεοελλην. Φιλολογία Vreto I, no. 343). 28. Dositheus. Mentioned under 1800 (see the New Greek Helmsman, the so-called Πηδαλίον, prepared for printing in 1703 and printed in Leipzig in 1800, p. 554, in the list of subscribers). 29. Dionysius the Wolf. Was in the thirties of this century, during the reign of the first natural Romanian ruler of Wallachia after the Phanariots, Gregory Ghika (who 1822-1828); after the end of power in both principalities, together with the secular Phanariots, the spiritual Phanariots, like the prince, resumed a number of Wallachian metropolitans from natural Romanians (news of this Dionysius was accidentally encountered by us in an article in a Romanian newspaper, reprinted in the Constantinople Bulgarian newspaper Svetnik, 1864, No. 35). 30. Grigory. We know about him because the Romanian translation of some words of John Chrysostom, published by him in 1827, is mentioned (see Beschreibung der Moldau und Walachei Neugebaur S. 328). 31. Neophyte. It was staged in 1840 (in Neugebaur ibid. S. 329, Palauzovo Gospodarstva, 242 and 248). 32. Grigory. Mentioned under 1847 (see Life and writings of the Moldavian elder Paisius Velichkovsky, Moscow, 1847, p. 2). 33. Nifont. Mentioned in the years 1852–1867 (see lists of departments in Christ. Ch. 1853, I, 358, 1856 I, 119, 1858 I, 152, 1868 I, 711, Ralli and Potli V, 521 and Palauzovo Gospodarstva 267). The Ugrovlahian metropolitan see was probably originally located together with the capital of the state in the city of Ardzhis. After Arjis, having been moved either together with the capital of the state, or in any case no later than the beginning of the 16th century. (see Vlachobulgarian letters of Vinelin p. 144 and cfr. 163) she was in Torgovishche, where she remained until the twenties or thirties of the 18th century (in 1715 she was still in Torgovishche, see Νεοελλην. Φιλολογίαν Vreto I, no. 159, but in 1736 already in Bucharest, ibid. I, no. 184; in Torgovishche it was at the Monastery of the Ascension, see Wepelin’s letters, pp. 144 and 330). From the twenties or thirties of the eighteenth century to the present day, it has been located in Bucharest. We spoke above about the ecclesiastical dependence of Ugrovlahia until 1359 or before the establishment of its own special metropolis in it. In 1359, having received a special metropolitan from the Patriarch of Constantinople, Governor Alexander solemnly and oathly promised for himself and for his successors that in the future Ugrovlahia would always recognize the authority of him, the Patriarch of Constantinople; but this promise was kept for a very short time, and between 1389-1394 we find the Ugrovlahian metropolis under the authority of the Archbishop of Achrid (see the letter of Patriarch Constantine. Anthony to the governor Mircea in Acta Patriarchat. Constantinop. Miklosic, II, 230). This time they left the patriarch for no more than three or four years, and, as one might assume, at the request of the Turks, the Ugrovlahians returned to him again (the message of Patriarch Anthony, about which above, probably dates back to 1393–94, but earlier in 1389 and later in 1396, the Ugrovlahia metropolis was dependent on the patriarch Constantinople, see Acta Patriarchat. Constantinop. II, 135 fin., 291) 211; but under 1456 again we find evidence that the Metropolitan of Ugrovlahia was then subordinated to the Archbishop of Akhrid (see the letter of the Archbishop of Akhrid Dorotheus to the Moldovan-Vlakhian governor Stefan in Glasnik VII, 179). Regarding the subsequent time, we have no direct indications until the half of the 17th century. Based on some indications, not entirely definite, it seems that during the 16th and first half of the 17th centuries, the Ugrovlahian metropolitans were not subordinate to either the Patriarch of Constantinople or the Archbishop of Achrid, but were autocephalous, like the second of these latter. In the charters of the first half of the 16th century. Ugrovlahian metropolitans are called “metropolitan-archbishops” or simply archbishops (see Vlaho-Bulgarian charters of Venelin, pp. 168, 169, “to our father, Metropolitan Archbishop Varlaam,” “to our father, Archbishop Kvr Yanaky”). The name of archbishop, as we said above, was not used in the same sense in the Western and Eastern churches: in the Western Church it was nothing more than a simple synonym for the name of metropolitan, used primarily before this second one; in the Eastern Church it had its own separate meaning, it was here that archbishops were called, firstly, bishops who were not subordinate to their local metropolitans, but subordinate directly to the district patriarch; secondly, metropolitans who were not subordinate to their district patriarchs, but with the exception of the name and degree of patriarchs, enjoyed in the management of their dioceses the rights of the same independence and independence as these latter. Since the Orthodox Ugrovlahia was in the immediate neighborhood and was in constant close relations with Catholic Hungary, it is, of course, not impossible to assume that the name of the archbishop, without meaning anything special, began to be used by the Ugrovlahs in application to their metropolitans simply in imitation of their Catholic neighbors (among the Hungarians, as in general in the Western Church, of the two unambiguous names, the name archbishop). But it seems much more likely and more reasonable to think that the name of the archbishop was used by them in the sense not of someone else’s, but of their own Greek church; and if this is the latter, then the name of the archbishop, adopted by the Ugrovlahian metropolitans, will constitute proof that the metropolitans enjoyed the rights of autocephaly and did not recognize themselves as dependent either on the Patriarch of Constantinople or on the Archbishop of Achrid. It is very possible that the metropolitans arrogated to themselves the right of autocephaly on their own, solely in agreement with their sovereigns and without any actual concession of these rights to them by their former supreme superiors; but the point is not what claims others made on them, but how they wanted to have themselves. Since the eighties of the 16th century, Ugrovlahian metropolitans began to be called archmetropolitans instead of metropolitans and archbishops (see above). As we said above, this in all likelihood should be understood in such a way that then the names of metropolitans were given to the bishops subordinate to the metropolitan and that a new name was invented for him himself in order to distinguish him from the latter. But if this explanation of the matter is correct, then the external shine that this renaming of the subordinate bishops gave to the hierarchical position of the Metropolitan of Ugrovlahia was befitting only the position of an autocephalous metropolitan-archbishop, and necessarily leads to the conclusion that in the second half of the 16th century the Metropolitan of Ugrovlahia was not, or at least did not want to be dependent on the patriarch of Constantinople, nor from the Archbishop of Achrid, and if he was not recognized by others (cfr Turcograeciae Crusius p. 197, note λβ ´), then at least he himself wanted to recognize himself as autocephalous or completely independent 212. From the middle of the 17th century, probably having been subordinated simultaneously with the Metropolitan of Moldova (see. below), the Metropolitan of Ugrovlahia nominally or actually began to recognize the Patriarch of Constantinople as his highest superior, which he still recognizes to this day (according to the Wallachian Kormcha, printed in 1652, the Metropolitan of Ugrovlahia is the exarch of the Patriarch of Constantinople, see Geschichte der griechisch-orientalischen Kirche in Oestreich, Bishop of Transylvania A. Shaguny, Hermanstadt, 1862, S. 48, § 26; evidence of the same from the end of the 17th century, S. 80, § 16. In any case, the dependence of the Metropolitan of Ugrovlah on the patriarch could not be greater than that of the Metropolitan of Moldova, about whom see below). At present, the dependence of the Wallachian Metropolitan on the Patriarch consists in the fact that he generally recognizes him as his highest authority in case of matters exceeding his own power, and then, in particular, unless our sources are mistaken, he appoints bishops of his metropolis only with his approval (see Silbernagl Verfassung und gegenwärtiger Bestand et caet. S. 139). As for the election of the metropolitan, at the present time, like before (at least before the beginning of the 18th century, cfr below about Moldavia), it does not belong to the patriarch. Having previously been appointed, probably the same as in Moldova, as a governor, now he is elected by a commission of members of the people's representative assembly (drawn up specifically for this case) with the participation of the first class of boyars, and then, according to the prince, he is only recognized by the patriarch (Silbernagl, ibid. S. 139). As for the political rights of the metropolitan and bishops, they are all eo ipso members of the people's representative assembly, and the former, also eo ipso, is also its chairman (see Paris Diplomatic Convention of 1858 § 18; Silbernagl ibid. S. 139). The diocesan governing bodies in each diocese are: 1) a spiritual consistory located under the bishop, 2) district archpriests, in charge of the white parish clergy of the diocese (and corresponding more to our district spiritual boards than to dean ones), and 3) district archimandrites or abbots, heads of monasteries (Silbernagl ibid. S. 141 and Neugebaur's Beschreibung der Moldau und Walachei S. 204). For preparation for church degrees, each bishop has a theological seminary, with state-owned content in all four together for 110 people 213 (ibid. S. 141). Like all other Orthodox countries, Wallachia and Moldavia were not abandoned by the care of the popes. We know the following about their attempts to extend their power to the first of these last two. In 1370, Pope Urban V wrote a letter to the Wallachian governor Ladislaus (Latitzlao) 214, in which he urged him, leaving schism and all errors, to enter the fence of the Holy Roman Church; The pope pointed out to the prince the Latin preachers of the true faith, who, as the pope says, were then in Wallachia, especially due to the efforts of Ladislaus's stepmother, the widow of the governor Alexander, Clara, a sufficient number (see the pope's message from Rainald in Annall. Eccles. an. 1370, n. 6. About Alexander's widow, Clara, probably a Catholic by birth and devout Catholic according to feelings ibid. an. 1370, n. In 1374 Pope Gregory XI, wishing to strengthen the faith of the recently converted Romanians (probably through the activities of the now named preachers) and to more firmly organize further propaganda, thought about establishing a special Catholic bishopric in Wallachia; for this purpose, he turned for advice to the Hungarian archbishops of Gran (Strigoniene) and Koloč, in which city to appoint the see, what boundaries to give the diocese, which metropolitan to subordinate it to, etc. (in Rainald ibid. an. 1374, n. 9). But this intention of the pope, in all likelihood, was not carried out; at least there is no mention anywhere in later news of any Wallachian Catholic diocese founded shortly after 1374 215 . After Gregory XI we have no information for two whole centuries, namely until Pope Gregory XIII at the end of the 16th century. The famous papal businessman Jesuit Anthony Possevino, in 1583 having been sent by this pope to Transylvania to organize local church affairs (to return to the bowels of Catholicism the local Magyars and Saxons who had fallen away from Protestantism and Reformation), from there he went, also on behalf of the pope, to neighboring Wallachia and Moldavia (Teyner Annales Ecclesiastici t. III, p. 453). In addition to his main concern (the same as in Transylvania, namely, the return to Catholicism of the Moldavian Magyars and Saxons who had fallen away from Protestantism), as one must think, he did not fail to make attempts, although they turned out to be completely in vain in the first of the two countries, also regarding union. Immediately after this, circumstances turned in such a way that Rome probably congratulated itself on its complete success. Possevino was in Wallachia under the voivode Michna II (ibid.); who replaced Mikhna in the same 1583, voivode Peter III Churchel himself was a zealous champion of the cause that was unsuccessfully tried by the Jesuit, that is, this union with the pope. Back in 1579, having worked in Paris to get a voivodeship with the help of the French king, i.e. through his ambassador in Constantinople, Churchel turned to Pope Gregory with a request to use his petitions for him before the king, and promised, if he received the throne, to use zealous efforts to introduce Catholicism in his country (in Thaner ibid. t. III, pp. 85 and 669 fin.). Having received the throne in 1583, in fact, with the assistance of the king and the pope (Teyner's Monumenta Poloniae et Lithuaniae t. III, p. 93), he did not change his word, which is clearly evidenced by the fact that he is boasted by Gregory's successor, Sixtus V, as vir catholicus cumcue sancta sede coniunctissimus (Teyner ibid. t III, p. 2). But no matter how zealous the efforts of this Peter in favor of the pope might have been, in any case he could not do anything, because his reign lasted only for no more than two years 216. Currently, there are up to 9 thousand and a half Catholics in Wallachia (at the beginning of this century there were no more than a thousand, in 1830 there were 6 thousand; we cannot say whether this increase comes from the arrival of Western settlers in Wallachia or from the success of Catholic propaganda among the Romanians themselves). Their church affairs are in charge of the Bishop of Nikopol, to whom, in addition to Wallachia, a significant part of northern Bulgaria is subordinated and who has a residence in Bucharest (see Neher's Kirchliche Geographie und Statistik, Regensburg, 1805, B. 2, S. 493 and 495). Metropolis of Moldovalachia The first bishop's see opened in Moldovala was not our own Orthodox, but someone else's - the Roman Catholic one. This strange beginning is due to the care of the Franciscan monks, or, as they also call themselves, Minorites, who were active in Poland. After the pagans of Livonia and Lithuania reached the Orthodox of our Galician Rus', which was located under Poland, the Franciscan missionaries did not fail to then extend their activities to the latter’s neighbor, and also a vassal of the former, Moldovalachia 217 . It is not known what success (most likely, very weak or none at all) these had among the Moldavian people themselves, but they managed to persuade the Moldavian prince or governor Laczko to accept Catholicism 218 . In order to put their business in the country on the firmest possible footing, they hastened to ask the pope for permission to found a special bishopric in Moldovalachia, which was opened in the city of Serete in 1371 (oppidum Czerethense, Cerethense, sn. Theiner Monumenta Poloniae et Lithuaniae t. I, pp. 664 and 660 fin., his Monumenta Hungariae t. 99, Rainald Annales Eccles. an. 7 sqq). Orthodox bishopric sees were first established in Moldovala in 1393-94. After a bad start, it seemed destined to continue going wrong, and this first establishment of its own Orthodox sees was accompanied by sad accidents and quite long-term important confusion. We have modern official records about the entire case, but, unfortunately, it cannot be presented according to the latter in all its completeness and clarity. Remaining a whole country completely without bishops and forced to be content only with priests who were received from Galicia, the Moldovan Romanians, in all likelihood, were not happy with their similar humiliated position in relation to the church. Apparently, fate itself wanted to come to their aid: in 1387–88, the Patriarch of Constantinople arrived in neighboring Hungary or, perhaps, even to themselves (which remains unknown), and at their request or, perhaps, even at his own call (which also remains unknown) appointed them their own separate bishop. Thus Moldovalachia received its own bishop; but it turned out that this Patriarch of Constantinople, who consecrated a bishop for her, was an impostor - he was a Greek adventurer named Paul Tagara (Ταγάρις), and, as one can conclude from the fact that not only the Romanians, but even the French were deceived by him, - an adventurer who is not ordinary (see about him in Acta P. C. II, 224 - his own story; from Pichler in Geschichte d. kirchlich. Trennung zwischen dem Orient und Occident I, 381, - news taken from the French chronicler. Tagara was in Hungary before traveling to Rome, see ActaP. II, 228, and in this latter he arrived shortly before the death of Pope Urban VI, see Pichleribid., who died in October. 1389). When the deception was discovered, Patriarch Anthony of Constantinople decided that he should be in charge of Moldovalachia, as an exarch or viceroy of the Metropolitan of Galicia (which Anthony was from 1371, see Acta P.C. I, 578), who was appointed bishop by Tagara, but then resigned his episcopal rank and pronounced excommunication on his dedicator, Hieromonk Simeon (that as the vicar of the Metropolitan of Galicia, this is not directly said, but this must be implied by the connection of thoughts, and cfrActa P. C. II, 529) - that if the metropolitan dies before him, he has to inherit after him metropolitan see (implied: uniting Galicia and Moldova), and if, on the contrary, the Moldovan governor is given the opportunity to elect another administrator of church affairs in his place (Acta P. C. II, 157 fin. sqq, implies: having τ o continue to remain the vicar of the Metropolitan of Galicia). But, not content with this decision of the patriarch, which only promised, under a certain condition, the Galician-Moldovlachian metropolitan see to the Romanian candidate, but did not give or promise the country special bishops, the Moldovlachs turned to their own, that is, this Galician-Moldovlachian metropolitan, who gave them two bishops (Joseph and Meletius, ibid. II, 241 sqq, 529 sqq). Since they were not looking for a special metropolitan for themselves, but only wanted bishops subordinate to the Metropolitan of Galicia, then this, apparently, would have been the end of the matter. But when the named bishops were installed, the Patriarch of Constantinople had the intention of elevating Moldovala to a special metropolitanate. What made the patriarch want the Moldovans to receive more than what they themselves were looking for is not directly stated anywhere in the acts, but in all likelihood the motivation was the desire to have the country under his direct control: remaining only with bishops, Moldovans would continue to depend on the Metropolitan of Galicia, and having received its metropolitan, it would act, as a metropolis, in direct dependence on the patriarch himself throne. In a way that is not entirely clear and understandable to us, this desire of the patriarch to impose on the Moldovans what they, apparently, themselves should have sought and asked for, became the cause of a rather long and serious church unrest. When the metropolitan appointed for them by the patriarch arrived to them, they found themselves under their own metropolitan with two bishops subordinate to him, that is, under their own church administration, separate from Galicia; but whether they personally did not like the metropolitan appointed for them (a Greek named Jeremiah) or for some reason they did not want to be directly dependent on the patriarch at that time, only the first, upon arrival in the country, was immediately driven out of it with dishonor, and this began the aforementioned unrest. The unreceived metropolitan subjected the Moldovan bishops and the entire country to ecclesiastical excommunication, which was later confirmed by the patriarch himself. Soon after the removal of the metropolitan, the Moldovan voivode (Stephen) sent his ambassadors to Constantinople with a petition for recognition of the bishops and for the lifting of excommunication (the metropolitan was expelled before August 1394, Acta P.C. II, 223; the Moldavian embassy was in Constantinople in May 1395); but the patriarch did not heed either one or the other request, and having sent to the Moldovans a demand that the allegedly illegal bishops be removed, he entrusted the management of the country, until the final resolution of the matter, to one of the Moldovan archpriests (Acta P. C. II, 241 sqq). Following this (in September of the same 1395), the patriarch sent one of his metropolitans to investigate and settle the matter on the spot (ibid. II, 256), but this, as can be seen from what follows, also did not lead to anything. After a year and a half, during which the Moldovans probably remained hostilely alienated from the patriarch who did not want to give in to them, another Greek metropolitan was sent to them (in January 1397) for new attempts at an agreement and for the temporary management of their church, as a patriarchal exarch (ibid. II, 278). But the matter dragged on, and the country was under excommunication (ibid. II, 494) and for another five whole years. Finally, in 1401 Governor Alexander, probably soon after ascending the throne, sent a new embassy to Constantinople to the then Patriarch Matthew I to seek peace. There are no records of how the efforts ended this time, but judging by the record of the conditions on which the patriarch set the satisfaction of the requests addressed to him, it should be thought that of the two bishops appointed by Metropolitan Anthony of Galicia, the one who was still alive at that time, or at least in the cathedra, was already one - Joseph - was recognized as a true and legitimate bishop and was elevated to the rank of Metropolitan of Moldova (ibid. II, 528 sqq, 532) 219, and that thus in 1401 or 1402 its own special metropolitanate was established in Moldovalaia 220. 1) Joseph. Let us now understand the aforementioned Joseph, who was appointed bishop by Metropolitan Anthony of Galicia; as we said, it is not known positively, but it is probable that in 1401–1402 he was recognized by the patriarch as a legitimate bishop and at the same time the Moldova metropolitan. His see was in the city, which in Greek was called Ἀσπρόκαστρον (Acta P. C. II, 529), which means white city, and by which, perhaps, the current Bessarabian Balti should be understood. In 1416 (in the year of the death of the Patriarch of Constantinople Euthymius II, who died in March of this year, see Ducange in the Glossarium Graecitatis under the word ποιεϊν) and it is unknown how long after this, the Metropolitan of Moldovalachia was an unknown someone whom the Patriarch of Constantinople Euthymius for some reason did not want to recognize legitimate metropolitan (one can guess, because he was installed without the consent of the patriarch, solely by the will of the emperor), but who was recognized as such by Evfimiev’s successor, Patr. Joseph (the news is found in Siropulus in the History of the Council of Florence, but in the list of this latter, from which the printed edition was made by Kreighton, they are in incomplete and damaged form, see sect. 2, c. 2 sqq and p. 4 fin., - in the last place under τὸνεἰρημένον μητροπολίτην Lequien, in Oriens I, 1146, means the metropolitan of Media, about whom a little higher, and not the Moldovan himself - incorrectly). 2) Anfim. Hieromonk Gregory Mamma, later (from 1446) Patriarch of Constantinople, mentions this Anthima, who was unknown when exactly after Joseph, in one of his writings; namely, he says that this Anthimus took monastic vows, but, having been entreated by the council, he again returned to fulfill his bishop’s duties, despite the church rule, which prohibits this (see Lequien’s Oriens I, 1252. Isn’t it he, of course, at Syropul, and is it because Euthymius did not want to recognize him as metropolitan, because the church rule was violated by the will of the emperor and against will of the patriarch?). 3) Gregory. Having been installed as metropolitan of Moldova, it is unknown when before 1435, in this last year he was in Florence with Pope Eugene, and here, having accepted Catholicism (and not just proceeding to the union), he received from the pope authority to go preach it among the Orthodox population of the kingdom of Hungary in Wallachia, Bulgaria and Moldavia, neighboring the latter (see two letters given to him by Pope Eugene in Florence in March 1435, - one, with which he is authorized to go with a sermon to the named countries, in Rainald an. 1436, n. 27, - the other, a security road - salvus conductus, in the ed. of Monumenta Slavorum Meridionalium I, p. For what reasons and under what circumstances he accepted Catholicism remains unknown to us (the imaginary Gregory Tsamvlak of the Moldavian chronicler Miron Kostin, there is no doubt, there is precisely this, still mysterious, Gregory, see the article of the late N.I. Nadezhdin in the Notes of the Odessa Society of Historical and Ancient. vol. I, p. 296 fin. sqq). 4) Damian. Together with the ambassador of the Moldovan voivode (named ὁ Νεάγωγις and with his archpriest Constantine) he was present at the Council of Florence and was among those who signed the act of unification of churches (see Sgyropuli Hist. Concil. Florent., ed. Breyght, sect. III, c. 2, p. 45 and signatures under acts of the Council of Florence). If the acts of the Council of Constantinople of 1450–51 are indeed not fictitious, then at this last council, continuing to remain Metropolitan of Moldova, he solemnly renounced, together with others, the Union of Florence (see Allacius De perpetua consensione p. 1387 fin.; doubts regarding the authenticity of the conciliar acts in Allacius ibid. p. 1389, on the protection of their authenticity in the “History of the Florence Cathedral”, Moscow, 1847, p. 198 note 221. 5) Vissarion. He died in 1456 (see the letter of the Moldavian governor Stefan to Archbishop Dorotheus of Akhrid in Glasnik VII, 177 fin.). 6) Theoktist. Mentioned under the years 1463–1470 (in two letters of voivode Stefan IV, one of which was printed in the Chronicle of Occupations of the Archeogr. Commission, book 4, St. Petersburg, 1868, department II, p. 4, and the other is in the Collection of Moldavian letters of Lukashevich, received in the Moscow. Rumyantsev Museum, No. 10, and in records on one liturgical book written in Moldova, see the library of the former Undolsky No. 78, page of the last volume, January Minea. 7) Feofan. Mentioned under 1568 (Russia's relations with the East on church affairs, Muravyova, part 2, p. 25). 8) Georgy Mogila, uncle of the Kyiv Metropolitan Peter Mogila. Mentioned in 1588 as shortly before being appointed metropolitan (Teyner's Monumenta Poloniae et Lithuaniae t. III, p. 46); was until the next 1589. Together with the then Moldavian governor Peter the Lame, he expressed his readiness to begin a union with the pope and, it seems, was its zealous supporter (ibid. pp. 46, 49, 50. Moldavian Metropolitan George, who signed the charter of the Council of Constantinople in 1590, confirming the newly established Russian patriarchate, in all likelihood, there is this George Mogila, who lived in Constantinople after his voluntary or involuntary renunciation of the throne, see the preface of Nikonovsk, fol. 24). 9) Anastasy Krimka or Krimkovich. In June 1589, he wrote a letter to Pope Sixtus V, asking him to intercede with the Polish king for Stefan, the son of the voivode Alexander, who (Stephen) was seeking the throne under the then voivode, named above Peter (Teyner's Monumenta Poloniae et Lithuaniae t. III, pp. 104 and 165. In the letter, the pope, by the way, is welcomed: aequali apostolis et cum angelis colloquenti etsecundum Deum legem danti ac primum verbum ponenti, canones constituenti juxta rectam viam Dei...magno et illmo papae et caet.). In 1602, under the voivode Stefan Tomz, he founded the Dragomirna monastery in Bukovina, which still exists to this day (see Archiv für Kathol. Kirchenrecht, published by Baron von Moy de Sons and Vering, 1865, 4 Heft, S. 159 note, where the news is borrowed from Schematismus of Bukovina diocese in 1863). The last mention of him known to us was in 1625 (see Stroeva Description of the Tsar's manuscripts No. 328, p. 324). 10) Afanasy. Mentioned under 1630 (Relations with the East, part 2, p. 107). 11) Varlaam. Mentioned under the years 1635–1652 (see the letters of governor Vasily Lupul in 1635 and 1651, the first in the Notes of Odessa. General History and Ancient. vol. 3, p. 262, the second in the Kherson. Eparch. Vedom. 1867 No. 2, p. 86, Relations with the East, part 2, pp. 200, 349 and 356 and part 3, manuscript 573, 663 vol. and 672 sqq; signatures under the conciliar act of 1642, assimilated to Cyril Lucaris in De perpetua consensione Eccles III, s. 1085 and in Chronicon Philippi Cyprii, ed. Hilarii, p. 478; dedication to the 1647 edition of the Slavic translation of Thomas Kempis in the Description of Tolstov’s old books No. 107, p. 239). 12) Gideon. In 1655 he was with us in Moscow, and here, together with the patriarchs Macarius of Antioch and Gabriel of Serbia, he gave patronage. Nikon’s answer to his written request about folding the fingers for the sign of the cross (see in Nikonovsk. Tablets “The Word is answered to the reader”). 13) Dositheus. Mentioned under 1679–1690 (see Icon of Patriarchal Affairs, according to Undolsky's list in the Rumyants. Museum, pp. 3 vol. sqq, 30 vol., 658, Relations between Russia and the East, part 4, manuscript pp. 1121, 1127 vol., 1202, Complete Collection of Laws No. 1324, Karamzin’s History, according to Einerl’s edition, volume 1, note 529); turned to Moscow several times for alms (ibid.); by the way, he asked and received from Patriarch Joachim typographical supplies for printing the translations he made from Greek and Slavic into the Volosh language 222 (in Icon fol. 3 vol. sqq and 30 vol.; he sent to Moscow some of his translations from Greek into Slavic and other book works, namely the translation of the 12 epistles of Ignatius the God-Bearer and his extracts about the transubstantiation of the body of Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist, and asked from Moscow for some Slavic books, in Relations with the East f. 1121). 14) Savva. Probably the successor of Dositheus; mentioned under 1696–1699 (Relations with the East, part 4, l. 1198, Νεοελλην . Φιλολογία Vreto I, No. 130, chrysovul of the governor Antiochus Constantine 1699 in Kherson. Diocese. Ved. 1867 No. 2, p. 88). 15) Misail. Mentioned before 1716 (see extract from the Syntagmation of Patriarch Jerusalem. Chrysanthes, in Biblioth. Graec. Fabricius t. XIII, ed. Hamburgi, 1727, p. 487, cfr. Νεοελλην . Φιλολογ . Vreto 1, no. 159). 16) Gideon. Mentioned under 1721–1736 (Lequien, I, 1254, Elsner Neueste Beschreibung derer Griechisch. Christen in der Türckey, S. 100). 17) Jacob. Mentioned under 1794 and 1800 (see Life and writings of the Moldavian elder Paisius (Velichkovsky), Moscow, 1847, p. 96 and the Modern Greek Helmsman - Πηδαλίον, first 1800 edition, p. 853, in the list of subscribers). 18) Benjamin. Was in the first quarter of this century; boasts as a zealous shepherd and a zealous patriot (Palaus Gospodarstva pp. 153 and 176). 19) Gabriel. Was in the years unknown to us between the previous and the next (mention of him in the Notes of the Odessa Society of Historical and Ancient. Vol. I, p. 289 note). 20) Sophrony. Was in 1852 (see List of departments in Christ. Read. 1853, book I, p. 359). 21) Benjamin. Was in 1855–1857 (see lists of departments in Christ. Reading 1856, book I, p. 120, 1858 book I, p. 152), and probably he was also mentioned under 1847 (see Life and writings of the Moldavian elder Paisius (Velichkovsky) pp. 2 and 96), 22) Sophrony. Mentioned at the end of 1857 (Palaus Gospodarstva p. 265 fin.). 23) Kallinik. It was mentioned in 1867 and probably continues to this day (see the list of departments for 1867 in Christ. Thur. 1868, Part I). The see of Bishop Joseph, who in 1401-1402 was the first to be elevated to metropolitan of Moldova, as we said above, was located in a city that in Greek is called Ἀσπρόκαστρον, but by which it is unknown which one should mean one of the cities of Moldavia 223. In subsequent times, probably starting with Joseph's immediate successors, the metropolitan see was located in the city of Suceava or Sochava, which until the half of the 16th century. was also the capital of the state. When exactly the Moldovan metropolitans moved from Suceava to the new capital of the state - the city of Iasi, remains unknown to us, but in any case not earlier than the 18th century, because Metropolitan. Dosithea positively knows under 1679–1690 that he still lived in Suceava (see Relations with the East, part 4, l. 1121 and 1127 vol.), and about Metropolitan Misail under 1715, that he still continued to be called Soceava (Fabricii Biblioth. Graec. XIII, 487. After the transfer of the capital of the state from Suceava in Iasi, the metropolitans of Moldovalachia, remaining to live in the former, came to the latter for solemn services on major holidays, see. The Jerusalem journey of the Russian traveler of the forties of the 17th century, in Vremnik General. East. and Ancient book 10, Mixture, p. 22, cfr. Relations with the East Muravyov, part 3, handwritten. l. 672). The title of Metropolitan of Moldova in the 17th century. was ὀ Σοτζάβας καὶ πάσης Μολδοβλαχίας καὶἔξαρχος Πλαγιανῶν (see Allation De perpetua consensione Eccles. p. 1085 fin., and in Karamzin, but ed. Einerl., about the 18th century in Biblioth XIII, ed. currently there is: ὁ Μολδάβιας, ὐπέρτιμος καὶ ἔξαρχος Πλαγηνῶν (in Ralli and Potli V, 521). Episcopal sees in the Moldavian metropolis were opened gradually. From the two letters of voivode Stefan IV dated 1463 and 1470 (indicated above in the news about Metropolitan Theoktiste) it is clear that then there was only one department - Romanesque (the city of Roman or Romani-Vaivar on the Serete River, slightly above the confluence of the Moldava River). 224 Exactly when this first department was opened remains unknown, but in any case before 1456 (see the official document from this year in Glasnik VII, 178 fin., where about the Moldovlachian bishops in the plural). The charter of the voivode Stefan V dated 1519 speaks of the second episcopal see - Radov or Radautz (the city of Radov or Radautz or Radovets in upper Moldova. The charter is in the Chronicle of Occupations of the Archaeological Commission, book 4, p. 12; strengthening one immovable estate for the bishopric, the voivode says that this estate is the “gift of the ancestors of his grandfathers”: but since the estate could have been given to the monastery in which the episcopal see was located, and before this latter was opened in it, no conclusions about the prescription of its opening can be drawn from the words mentioned). No later than the forties of the 17th century. and in all subsequent times there were three episcopal sees in the Moldovan metropolitanate: now called Romanesque 225 and Radovo and the third - Khush or Gush (city of Khush or Gush, Husch, Χουσίον, to the southeast of Iasi, not far from the Prut), see the letter of governor Vasily Lupul from 1635. in Notes of the Odessa Society of History. and Ancient vol. 3, p. 269, signatures under the acts of the Iasi Cathedral of 1642 in Allation in Deperpetua consensione p. 1085 and in Chronicon Philippi Cyprii, ed. Hilar. p. 478, Moldavian charters of 1651 and 1699 in Kherson. Eparch. Led. 1867 No. 2, pp. 86 and 88, Relations with the East, part 3, l. 672, Syntagmation Chrysanthes. – Currently, in the Moldavian metropolitanate there are also three episcopal sees: 1) Romanesque or Romanivaivar, 2) Chush and 3) Lower Danube or Tulchin, opened after 1864 (see lists of sees in Christ. Thur. 1865 and 1868 Radautskaya in Austrian Bukovina, see below). During the first time of its existence, the Moldovan Metropolitanate was dependent on the Patriarch of Constantinople; namely, it is positively known that it was under his authority until the end of the Council of Florence (which took place in 1438–39, and Metropolitan Damian, who was present at which, as is positively known, was installed as Patriarch of Constantinople, see Sgyropuli Hist. Concil. Florent., ed. Creyght., sect. IX, p. 8, p. 260), and if the news about the Council of Constantinople of 1450–51 is reliable, until this last year inclusive (according to news, at this council the Metropolitan of Moldova, named above Damian, cast his vote against the Union of Florence through the Metropolitan of Nicomedia, De perpetua consensione p. 1387 fin.). Soon after this, it is unknown when exactly before 1456, it passed from the authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople to the authority of the Archbishop of Achrid (see the letter of the governor of Moldova Stefan to the Archbishop of Achrid Dorotheus dated April 1456 and the latter’s answer to the first in Glasnik VII. 177 fin. sqq). What was the reason for the transition remains unknown. Cantemir, based on unknown reasons, claims that the Union of Florence, precisely - according to him, when the Metropolitan of Moldova, who was at the Council of Florence, having accepted the union with the pope, did not dare to return, then Mark of Ephesus appointed his archdeacon as Metropolitan of Moldova, and since the Patriarch of Constantinople was then a Uniate, ordered him (the newly installed metropolitan) for confirmation of his rank to appeal to the Archbishop of Achrid (who, as Cantemir probably implies, did not take part in the Council of Florence, see Description of Moldavia, p. 363); but his testimony is generally very doubtful. Wallachia, neighboring and related to Moldavia, was temporarily separated from the power of the Patriarch of Constantinople even before the Council of Florence: it is very possible that this time the reason for the fall for both countries was not church circumstances at all, but, as before for the latter, civil or state circumstances unknown to us. As for the subsequent time, then, according to the same Cantemir (ibid., p. 364), until the forties of the 17th century, until the reign of the governor Vasily Lupula (1634–1664) and the Patriarch of Constantinople Parthenius I (1639–1644), the metropolis of Moldova always continued to remain under the authority of the Archbishop of Achrid, and under Vasily Lupula, as a result of representations to him from the patriarch, it was returned to the authority of this latter. If in fact it is true that it constantly continued to remain under the authority of the Archbishop of Achrid 226, then one should think that the dependence was very weak and more nominal than real, that is, that the archbishop did not take any part in the election and installation of metropolitans and did not interfere in the least in the affairs of their internal administration, and that the whole matter was limited to simple abstract recognition of him by the metropolitans as their highest superior. Regarding the dependence of the Metropolitan of Moldova on the Patriarch of Constantinople after the return of the Moldavian church to the power of this latter, it is positively known that it was the same as we assume the dependence on the Archbishop of Achrid, i.e. more nominal than real. Cantemir says the following about his time, the end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th centuries: “The Metropolitan of Moldova in the Eastern Church has a special honor over all others. Although he does not bear the name of the patriarch, he is not subordinate to any of them; for although he accepts a blessing for the metropolitanship from the Constantinople, he cannot be either elected or deposed by him, and is not obliged, like other metropolitans, to expect psiphon (confirmation in his rank) from the great Church of Constantinople. When he receives confirmation from the prince, the three bishops of Moldova perform the ordination, and notify the patriarch in writing that the name is a humble, God-fearing and learned man in a calling to the help of the Holy Spirit, but not in any other way, depending on human will, chosen. The prince does the same in a special letter to the patriarch, which the patriarch cannot reject in any way, and must follow the prince’s will in everything. However, he is also completely free from the tribute paid to the patriarch under the Greek name koinotinos kai voifias (i.e. κοινότινος καὶ βοηθείας - communication and help); he is not obliged by any law to ask the patriarch about things undertaken or to be accepted by the Moldavian Church, but has the same great power in his metropolis as the Ohrid patriarch in his." 227 (ibid., p. 367). Since the forties of the 17th century, the Metropolitan of Moldova has been under the authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople to the present day; dependence on the patriarch is now almost as insignificant, as it was before, it is she who is exactly the same as the Metropolitan of Wallachia (see above; the political rights of the Metropolitan of Moldova are the same as this latter; the structure of diocesan administration in the Moldavian dioceses is the same). To prepare for church degrees, there is at the Moldovan metropolis, in the monastery of Sokal, one for the entire principality, a theological seminary with state support for 80 people (see Silbernagl Verfassung und gegenwärtiger Bestand sämmtlicher Kirchen des Orients, S. 142). The parish clergy of both principalities have not yet been exempted from taxes to their bishops. At the end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th century, the annual tribute of a Moldavian priest to his bishop consisted of 200 aspr in money (about a Russian ruble) and fox or marten fur (Cantemir ibid., p. 370 fin.) 228 ; at present, both in Moldavia and in Wallachia, an Austrian half-ducat or about one and a half rubles in silver is collected annually from each priest in favor of the bishop (Silbernagl ibid. S. 144, § 54). There are 128 monasteries and convents in both principalities (72 in Wallachia and 56 in Moldavia). Of these, only 45 are Romanian, and the remaining 83, with their estates and incomes, belong to various holy places in the east, mainly the Holy Sepulcher, i.e., the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and the monasteries of Mount Athos (the Patriarch of Jerusalem owns 9 monasteries in Wallachia and 13 monasteries in Moldavia, 229 see Silbernagl ibid. S. 145 sqq). The efforts of Catholic propaganda in Moldavia among that country's own Romanian population were as unsuccessful as in Wallachia. We said above that a Catholic bishopric was opened in the city of Serete back in 1371. 230 But at its establishment, either the flock was meant to be only a future one, which the bishops had to create for themselves with their preaching, or if it already existed, then not from the Romanians themselves, but from the Magyars and Saxons, whose settlements were in Moldavia; at least regarding the subsequent time (the end of the 16th century), it is positively known that all Moldavian Romanians belonged to the Greek Church, and the Catholics were the Magyars and Saxons who were just now named and lived in the country (see Teiner’s Monumenta Poloniae et Lithuaniae t. III, pp. 43 fin. and 91). Having existed for quite a long time, but without any harm to the Orthodoxy of the Romanians, the Seret bishopric, probably due to the poverty of its Magyar-Saka flock, which did not have the opportunity to support a special bishop, was closed at the beginning of the 17th century (see Neher'a Kirchliche Geographie und Statistik II, 153 note 1, Lequien'a Oriens III, 1120 fin.). After 1371 another attempt to bring the Moldavian Romanians under the supreme authority of the pope, and precisely through the Union of Florence, was made at the end of the 16th century. We said above that the Jesuit Anthony Possevin in 1583, together with Transylvania and Wallachia, was sent to Moldavia (Teyner Annales Eccles. t. III, p. 454); His own assignment was to work for the return to Catholicism of the Moldavian Magyars and Saxons who had fallen away from him to Protestantism; but, in all likelihood, trying to achieve more than what was entrusted, he did not fail to turn to the Orthodox Romanians themselves with proposals for union. Be that as it may, it was only the Jesuit Stanislav Varshevitsky, who was sent from Poland to Moldavia five years after him (at the end of 1588), having completely succeeded in the first with the assistance of the civil government of Moldavia, and with quick and decisive success carried out the matter of the second; the then governor of Moldova, Peter IV, and the then metropolitan of Sochava, George Mogila, for reasons and motives unknown to us, expressed their zealous readiness to recognize, on the terms of union, the supreme power of St. seats (see Teinera Monumenta Poloniae et Lithuaniae t. III, b. 43–51, 91 sqq). Thus, Moldova had to forestall our Western Rus' by betraying Orthodoxy; The Jesuits were already thinking about establishing their own seminary in it (ibid. p. 45 beginning), and Archbishop of Lvov Dimitry Solikovsky, to whom it was entrusted by the pope to the highest administration, promised not to spare his efforts (ibid. p. 92). But the matter, unexpectedly quickly brought almost to the very end, was just as quickly resolved into complete nothingness; it is not known positively what was the reason for this latter, but after 1588 there is absolutely no mention of the Moldavian union (one of the main drivers of the matter, Metropolitan George Mogila died or left the see in the next 1589; as for the governor Peter, he was probably cooled in his zeal for the pope by the fact that the latter, calling him under the roof of his power, at the same time expressed his readiness to assist in the search under him the throne to his rival, at Teiner ibid. 104 and 165 sqq - to these two circumstances the Moldavian Romanians probably owe their gratitude for saving themselves from the union 231. The successor of George Mogila, Metropolitan. Anastasius was strongly invited by the pope to recognize the Roman Church, ibid. r. 165, but, as one can conclude from the lack of further news, completely unsuccessfully). For the Moldavian Saxons and Magyars who returned from Protestantism to Catholicism, at the end of the 16th or beginning of the 17th century, a bishopric was opened in the city of Bacov or Bakau (on the Bystritsa River, not far from its confluence with the Seret, see Neher's Kirchliche Geographie II, 239 and 492, Lequien III, 1117 and 1120 fin.); but having existed until half of the last century (when it was transferred to Transylvania), it did not conduct propaganda or, at least, was not successful in it. At present, Catholics in Moldavia (consisting of the above-mentioned, now already fallen, Magyars and Saxons) are considered to number from 40 to 60 thousand; they are headed (since 1838) by a special bishop who resides in Iasi (see Neher’a ibid. 492). Having accepted the Christian faith through the Bulgarians and being dependent on them for quite a long time, the Wallachian and Moldavian Romanians for many centuries used our Church Slavonic language as their liturgical and written language. Initially, this happened, no doubt, from the fact that the Slavic language was the language of the dominant people, that the Greek liturgical books, existing in a Slavic translation, were not translated into the Romanian language, and that, while the first through this translation was made into a written language, the latter remained not yet attached to writing 232. In subsequent times, without any special need and with the greatest inconvenience for themselves, the Romanians continued to use the foreign Slavic language, of course, simply due to a lack of energy for innovation and as a result of the established custom. In public writing, our own Romanian language began to be used together with Slavic from the middle of the 17th century, from the time of the governors - the Moldavian Vasily Lupul and the Wallachian Matthew Bassaraba. Lupul started a printing house for printing books in the Romanian language in his capital Iasi, and Bassaraba set up the same in Torgovishche, and in the first in 1646 the Code or book of civil laws for the Moldavian principality, compiled in Romanian, was printed in 1646, and in the second in 1632 the book of church laws or the so-called translated from Greek into Romanian was printed. Helmsman 233. As for worship, we have evidence that the Slavic language continued to be used in it until the beginning of the 18th century; and then when it was replaced by Romanian remains unknown to us 234. We do not have at hand samples of the Slavic language of liturgical books used in Moldavia and Wallachia 235 . But as for the language of state acts, it is not the same in the acts of the first and second countries. The Romanians of Wallachia, having borrowed the Slavic language from the Bulgarians, and in subsequent times were in close communication with them; As a result, the language of the Wallachian letters is a corrupted Bulgarian. The Romanians of Moldova, having initially borrowed the Slavic language from the same Bulgarians, subsequently were in close communication not with them, but with our Chervono- and Little Russians; as a result of this, the language of the Moldavian charters is not Bulgarian, but South Russian (see Vlaho-Bulgarian charters collected by Yu. Venelin, and in particular Venelin’s own speech about this, p. 319). Orthodox Romanian Church in Austrian Transylvania, Banat, eastern Hungary and Bukovina Transylvania with the Banat, as we said above, was taken from the Bulgarians by the Hungarians during the very occupation of their current territory, at the end of the 9th century. From then on, becoming Magyar in its upper class or nobility and remaining predominantly Romanian in its rural population, 236 it was under Hungarian rule, first briefly as a special vassal principality, and then as a simple voivodeship of the Hungarian kingdom itself, until 1538. When in this year Hungary finally fell into the hands of Austria, the Transylvanian voivode John Zapolya, who had previously tried in vain to seize the Hungarian crown, proclaimed his region a separate principality, which it remained until 1688, almost constantly being at that time in vassal dependence on Turkey, with the help of which it tried to defend itself from the claims of the German emperors 237 . In 1688, Transylvania was conquered by the Austrians, after which in 1713, when the last prince who was before the conquest died, it was reunited with Hungary, and in 1765. made a special duchy, dependent on the latter. The Banat, or more fully and more precisely the Banat of Temesvar, is the region located between the Danube, Tissa, Maros and the borders of Transylvania and Wallachia, with the main city of Temesvar. Until 1538, Banat belonged to Hungary, forming a special voivodeship there. In this last year he separated from her along with Transylvania; but in 1552 it was conquered by the Turks, under whose rule (being ruled by special Temesvar pashas) it remained for 164 years. In 1716 it was conquered from the Turks by the Austrians, from whom in 1779, like Transylvania, it was reunited with the lands of the same Hungarian crown. The Transylvanian-Banatian and Hungarian Romanians adopted the Christian faith of the Greek Eastern confession through the Bulgarians at the same time as the Wallachian Romanians. From then on, they all remained purely Orthodox until the end of the 17th century; starting from the end of this century, quite a significant part of them were attracted to the union, and currently, of the 2,250,000 Romanian population of these lands, about two thirds are Orthodox and about one third are Uniate 238. A little-known people, these Romanians represent a very remarkable example of unshakable attachment to the faith of their fathers, despite all the hardships of the conditions under which they had to profess it. Their Orthodox Greek faith, for eight whole centuries, precisely until the end of the last century (until 1791), was not a legally recognized and free religion (recepta) in these lands, but only a tolerant one (tolerata) 239, and tolerant no more than as much as the government could please at any given time 240. As people holding a faith without rights, they were forced and forced to pay tithes in favor of the dominant first Catholic and then Calvinist clergy 241; as representatives of a faith without rights, their priests, being deprived of the benefits of their church rank, were obliged to pay all sorts of state taxes, and if they served in parishes located on the lands of landowners, then, in addition, all sorts of taxes to the latter 242. The Catholic government of the Hungarian kings was not particularly tolerant; but then the Calvinist-Protestant government of the Transylvanian princes (who accepted Calvinism along with the majority of the Magyars of Transylvania in the middle of the 16th century) acted with complete intolerance, who went so far as to subordinate the Orthodox metropolitan to their Calvinist superintendent and who composed and imposed on the Orthodox a kind of special, close to Calvinism, Orthodoxy (see below), and under which permission to build or rebuild a church could be sought only on the condition that the Orthodox community undertake not only to pay tithes to the Calvin pastor, which it did anyway, but also to participate in the maintenance of the Calvin schoolmaster and in the maintenance of the Calvin parsonage, church and school 243 . In general, the Transylvanian-Banatian and Hungarian Romanians, for eight whole centuries, had to profess the Orthodox faith under conditions that were almost even more difficult than under which the Greeks and Turkish Slavs maintained and continue to maintain it. But despite this, with the exception of the aristocracy or nobility, which behaved exactly like our nobility of southwestern Rus' under the rule of Poland, that is, they hastened to go over to the side of the nationality and faith of the ruling people 244 (Magyars), they constantly remained firmly devoted to this unrecognized and humiliated paternal faith. The Transylvanian Romanians did not have their own higher clergy for a very long time. It is positively known that they did not have their own bishops until the end of the 13th century (see Fessler's Geschichte von Ungarn, ed. 2, vol. I, p. 488 fin. sqq.); then, when exactly they received them remains unknown, and the first mention of them found in acts dates back to 1479. While there were no bishops of their own in the neighboring and same-tribal Wallachia, the Transylvanian Romanians, as one should think, received their clergy from the same Bulgaria, and also, probably, from our neighboring Little Rus' in the north, and there was a shortage of parish priests, as happened under similar circumstances in other countries and in it itself in later times could be replenished by the activities of monks (i.e., hieromonks), who, traveling around the country, corrected the necessary church requirements. After their individual bishops appeared in Wallachia, priests in Transylvania, no doubt, were supplied by these latter, and it is very likely that it was entrusted to them from the Patriarch of Constantinople into church administration even in a formal way, namely, that it was assigned to the diocese of the Metropolitan of Severinsky closest to it. The first currently known mention of the Transylvanian bishops, as we said, dates back to 1479; namely, in one royal charter from this year the Transylvanian Metropolitan Ioannikis is mentioned (Iovanichik, in Shaguna S. 23, in Gintz S. 63). We said above that in Wallachia, in a strange way, two metropolitan sees were established, independent of each other. It is likely that we can assume, firstly, that the second of the two sees, the Severinsky one, was made not just dependent on the first bishopric, but an independent metropolis, because in addition to part of its own Wallachia, Transylvania, which was independent from the latter in state terms, was subordinated to it; secondly, that the Transylvanian metropolis was a continuation of the Wallachian-Severinsky metropolis, i.e., that the see The metropolitanate was moved from Wallachia to Transylvania, and in the first a simple bishopric was made in its place. The number of Transylvanian metropolitans after being transferred to the country or after the establishment of a metropolitan see in it, as far as it is currently known, is the following: 1. Ioannikiy, whom we talked about above, mentioned under 1479. 2. Varlaam, mentioned under 1537 (in Gintz S. 15. Under 1494, a metropolitan is mentioned without being named, ibid. S. 68, in Shaguna S. 30). 3. Stephen the 1st, mentioned under 1557 (in Shaguna S. 34 beginning). 4. Gennady, mentioned. under 1560 (Shaguna has S. 47 and 149 fin.), and, probably, under 1577–80. (in Gintz S. 19, Safarik Geschichte d. Südslawisch. Literatur., III, 128, No. 47 and 280, No. 250, and Karataev Chronological list of Slavic books, St. Petersburg, 1861, p. 14, No. 76). 5. Orest (Jorest), mentioned under 1581 (in Gintz S. 19). 6. John Prislop, mentioned. under 1595 (ibid.). 7. Dositheus, mentioned. under 1597 (ibid. S. 20). 8. John, mention. under 1599 (ibid.). 9. Theoktist, mentioned under 1609 (ibid.). 10. Savva, according to some - ex around 1620 (ibid.) 11. Gennady (Georgius Bradi), mentioned under 1628–41. and called archmetropolitan (ibid. SS. 20 and 70 and in Shaguna S. 47). 12. Elias Orest (Helias Jorest), successor of Gennadius, after a short reign, dethroned, according to the official act - for his crimes, and according to other evidence - for his firmness in opposing Calvinist propaganda (in Gintz SS. 21 and 70 sqq). In 1645 this Orestes came to Moscow for alms to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and brought a letter of identification about himself from the metropolitan and the bishops of Moldova, who wrote the following in the letter: “We testify to the most honorable and bright image of your royal majesty this bishop in the name of Orestes from the country of the Ugric land, who from his childhood in our land (in Moldova) was in the Putnom monastery raised and elevated to the priesthood. When the death of the Archbishop of Ardon in the Ugric land 245 happened and the Volokhi were left without a shepherd, they asked King George of Rakotsa 246 to give them a shepherd at his will, and they chose this Orestes, who was ordained by Theophanes (erroneous instead of Theophilus) Metropolitan of the Ugric Lakhian. Three years later, the devil, who hates goodness, raised up the great priest of the royal (Calvinian superintendent) Chulay George 247, who was in the Lutheran heresy, like the king himself and all the Ugrians, and slandered this Orestes before the king, erecting a great untruth against him; everything that was taken from him was taken away and he himself was imprisoned, where he spent nine months with many priests and Christians, not for any guilt, but for the Christian faith, because he did not want to be seduced by Lutheranism. Seeing his strong faith, the king himself gave him, for twenty-four guarantees, a thousand thalers, so that the money would soon be given to the royal treasury and he was released to collect money for this payment. He came to his Putny monastery, where the great princes of Moscow are commemorated; there he could not collect enough money to pay this debt, and therefore we, seeing his poverty and oppression, took pity on him and sent to your royal majesty to ask for help at the foot of your throne” (Muravyov’s Relations with the East, part 2, p. 347). 13. Stefan Simonovich (Stephanus Simonius), probably a Serb, successor of Orestes, reigned from 1643 to 1651. 248 From the diploma that was given to this metropolitan upon his installation by Prince George Rakoczi, the disastrous and extremely humiliated position in which the Orthodox Church in Transylvania was then found is revealed. In this diploma, among other things, it is written: 1) the metropolitan is obliged to accept the catechism that was given to him (it is unknown which one, probably close to Calvin’s), and try to have it accepted by others, and teach children according to it; 2) perform baptism, according to the commandment of our Lord Jesus Christ, with simple water in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, (i.e. e., probably implied, without anointing); 3) Holy Communion should be given only to adults who have a perfect mind and lead a blameless life; 4) do not worship the crucifix and icons in the church, but look at them as decoration and a reminder of the passion of the Lord, and teach this to others; 5) burials should be performed according to the custom of the Calvin Church; 6) no priest or layman who would like to convert to the Reformed Church should be hindered in his intention; 7) the metropolitan annually has the right to hold a council with the priests, but at the same time he is obliged to ask the advice of the Reformed bishop (i.e., the superintendent) and obey him; 8) select archpriests with the approval of the consistory (Orthodox or Calvinist, it is not visible) and the Reformed bishop, and without the consent of this latter, do not remove them from office; 9) when touring the diocese, examine possible complaints together with the priests and then present them to the Reformed bishop for a final decision (in Gintz S. 72 sqq, in Shaguna S. 38 sqq). – Metropolitan Stefan translated the New Testament into Romanian, which was printed in the metropolitan capital of Karlsburg in 1648 249 . 14. Daniel, successor of Stephen: in 1655 he retired to Wallachia (in Gintz S. 23, in Shaguna S. 40 fin.). 15. Savva Brankovich, from the family of the Serbo-Hungarian Brankovichs, who ruled for 26 years from 1654 to 1680 (in Shaguna S. 41, in Gintz S. 26 and Rajic, book XI, chapter VI, §§ 10 fin. and 20 fin.). Praised as one of the best and most zealous Transylvanian metropolitans; managed to beg from the government freedom for the Orthodox clergy from taxes (however, only for a while); not only allowed, but also encouraged the replacement of the Slavic language with Romanian in worship; to acquire funds for the restoration of monasteries and churches destroyed by the Turks (who were then at war with the Transylvanian prince), he went to Russia to collect alms; at the end of his reign, as a result of the slander of the Transylvanian Calvinian superintendent Tufei, who was tirelessly plotting against him, he was imprisoned for some time (in Gintz S. 26, in Shaguna S. 41 beginning sqq and in Rajic book XI, chapter VI, § 5 sqq). 16. Joseph, Sava's successor, installed in 1680 (in Gintz S. 27). 17. Joasaph, Joseph’s successor, a Greek by birth, installed in 1682 (in Gintz S. 27, in Shaguna S. 48). 18. Savva, staged in 1684 (by Shaguna ibid.). 19. Varlaam, who ruled from 1687 to 1693 (in Gintz S. 29, in Shaguna SS. 46, 48, 61 sqq, 150). 20. Theophilus, staged in 1693 (in Shaguna S. 48; according to Gintz - Varlaam until 1690, and Theophilus from 1692, but Shaguna seems to be more correct). Not long before (in 1688), Transylvania was conquered by the Austrians, and the Catholic clergy, which had now become dominant in it instead of the Reformed, immediately decided to begin the task of attracting the Romanians to a union with the pope 250; Unfortunately, the high shepherd of the Transylvanian church did not turn out to be sufficiently firm and incorruptible - seduced by the promise that if the union was accepted, the Orthodox clergy would be completely equal in rights with the Latin, Metropolitan. Theophilus at the council of 1697 recognized the primacy of the pope and Roman dogmas 251. 21. Athanasius, dedicated in 1698 252. Almost immediately after the dedication he entered into relations with the Latins about the completion of the matter of union, which was not completed due to the death of his predecessor, and after short hesitation in 1700 he actually finally accepted this latter with part of the clergy and people 253. The transition to the union of Metropolitan Athanasius, who was at that time the only Transylvanian bishop, interrupted the series of Transylvanian metropolitans, and the majority of the country's Romanians who remained faithful to Orthodoxy remained after this without their own bishops until 1783. Regarding the administrative dependence of the Transylvanian metropolitans, positive information is available only from the half of the 17th century; namely, from that time they were dependent and received initiation from the Ugrovlahian metropolitans (in Shaguna S. 48 fin.; Patr. Chrysanthos in his Syntagmation: “ο ὗ τος - Metropolitan of Transylvania - ἔχει ἀναφωρὰν ? ἐξαρχικῷ δικαί ῳ"). For this, as for previous times, then, according to news that is not entirely positive, their subordination to the Ugrovlahian metropolitans took place in 1595 (by agreement of the Transylvanian prince Sigismund Batory with the Wallachian governor Michael the Brave, in Gintz S. 19 fin.); and before this, in the absence of any news, one can only assume that in all likelihood they were under the direct authority of the Patriarchs of Constantinople themselves. The cathedral seat of the Transylvanian metropolitans from ancient to modern times was the city of Karlsburg, which was formerly called in Latin Alba Julia (in Magyar Latin Nandor Albensis), in German Weissenburg, in Slavic Belgrade, and which is currently called Karoly-Fejervar among the Magyars (on the Maros river, see Shaguna SS. 23, 32, 41, 47 and others, Gintz SS 19 fin., 63, 70, 78 and others). As for the episcopal sees that the Transylvanian metropolitans had under them in Transylvania itself (with the exception of eastern Hungary, about which below), news about them begins in the middle of the 16th century. Under 1557, the bishopric of the monastery of Fel-Diod is mentioned (in Gintz S. 15, in Shaguna S. 34), which belonged to the district of the city of Silvas (in Shaguna S. 50, cfr Gintz ibid., currently, it seems, non-existent or, at least, unknown to us in its location). Around the same time, episcopatus Wladensis (sic, in Gintz S. 15) is mentioned, by which, in all likelihood, should be understood the bishopric of the destroyed monastery of Vadu, located near the city of Dees (on the united Shamosh, a little below the confluence of the large and small Shamoshes) and indeed, some monuments of its antiquity suggest the existence of an episcopal see in it (in Shaguna S. 55 fin. sqq). Under 1651, Bishop Bisztranensis is mentioned (in Gintz S. 78), whose see, in all likelihood, should be placed in the city of Bistritz, located in the northern part of Transylvania (cfr. in Gintz SS. 71 and 79). Based on the title of the Transylvanian metropolitans, who in the second half of the 17th century. called themselves metropolitans of the holy metropolis of Carlsburg, (cities or places) Vadu or Vad, Silvas (Szisvas and Silvasch) and Fogarasch 254. Shaguna believes that there were three bishoprics in Transylvania, namely these Vadu-Fogarasch (S. 49, cfr. ibid. SS. 47 and 150). According to Syntagmation Chrysanth, the Metropolitan of Transylvania had two bishops under him in Transylvania itself: τὸνΣιλβὰς, i.e. Silvash, καὶ τὸν Βαντ (sic), which must be the same with Vadu or Vad Shaguna (in the last period of existence metropolis, these episcopal sees of it, it seems, remained idle, see Shaguna SS 40 beginning, 42, 43, 64, 65, 75, 89, 96, where everywhere together with the metropolitan it is said only about archpriests and priests, and there is no mention at all about the bishops of the Cuman, supposedly dependent on the metropolitan of Transylvania. Shaguna says (S. 32, 49, cfr. 21) simply out of a misunderstanding: there were no Orthodox Cuman dioceses, but there was a Latin Cuman diocese, whose proper name is Milkovsky and about which see above). After Metropolitan Athanasius accepted a union with the pope in 1700, the Orthodox Romanians of Transylvania were left without their own bishops, having been formally deprived of the right to have them (Shaguna S. 110), as we said above, until 1783. To obtain priests, they turned partly to the metropolitans and bishops of Wallachian and Moldavian, partly to the Serbian-Austrian Metropolitan of Karlovitsky with his bishops 255; the lack of priests was made up for by the activities of monks who traveled around the country (ibid. 112). In 1761, as a result of repeated requests from the Romanian Orthodox clergy and the people of Transylvania to the government, they were entrusted by the latter to the temporary management of the Serbian Bishop of Budim or Ofen (which is in Hungary) Dionysius Novakovich, and after his death (in 1767) to his successor at the See of Budim (since 1770) Sophronius Kirilovic (see Shaguny S. 117 and the catalog of Serbian episcopal sees of Musicki in Glasnik VI, 65 sqq; according to Musicki, Transylvania (Erdel) was entrusted to Dionysius Novakovic not in 1761, but in 1749). In 1783, as a result of the same requests from the Romanians to the government and as a result of the representations of the Karlowitz Metropolitan, they were finally given their own bishop, who was assigned to reside in Hermannstadt (the main city of Transylvania, which in Western Slavic is Sibin, in Magyar Nagy-Szeben); at the same time, it was determined that he would depend on the Karlowitz metropolitan and the council that was attached to him, taking part in the latter on an equal basis with other bishops, but that the political rights and advantages enjoyed by the Serbian people in Austria did not apply to him (with his flock) (in Shaguna S. 118 and note, in Musicki. ibid. p. 52). The first bishop was the Serb Gedeon Nikitich, who ruled from 1783 to 1788 (ibid. S. 118 sqq). The second bishop was also the Serb Gerasim Novakovic, who ruled from 1789 to 1796. Under him and as a result of his efforts, in 1791 the Orthodox Church of the Romanians of Transylvania, from the tolerant one that it had been until then, was declared recognized or full-fledged state (ibid. S. 120 fin. sqq, however cfr. ibid. S. 131). After the death of Gerasim Novakovich, the Germanstadt department remained unfilled for 14 years. During this period of time, the Transylvanian Romanians, wishing to have natural Romanians rather than Serbs as their bishops in the future, 256 strenuously sought from the Austrian government so that the bishops would not be appointed by the Karlowitz Metropolitan, but would be elected by the Transylvanian clergy themselves and from among them. The efforts of the Romanians were crowned with success, and in 1810 the Transylvanian clergy was granted the right to elect their own bishop, but with the confirmation that this bishop, a natural Romanian, would continue to be dependent on the Serbian metropolitan of Karlowitz (ibid. S. 122 sqq, 130). The first bishop of Germanstadt from natural Romanians was Vasily Moga, who ruled for 34 years, from 1811 to 1845 (ibid. S. 128sqq). Andrei (Baron) Shaguna was installed as the second bishop of Germanstadt from natural Romanians in 1848 (ibid. S. 134 fin. sqq), author of the above-mentioned book, from which we reported information about the Transylvanian Orthodox Church; remaining in his cathedra to this day, since the end of 1864, when the Romanians were separated from the Serbs by the Austrian government in church terms, he is the Romanian-Austrian metropolitan (see below). For Transylvanian Uniates after the adoption of the union, Metropolitan. Athanasius left the former Orthodox metropolitan see to exist, and the metropolitan, renamed bishops, was subordinate to the Catholic Archbishop of Gran (in Shaguna S. 105, in Gintz 103 beginning). Subsequently, we do not know when exactly, the see was moved from Karlsburg to Fogaras, and the bishops began to be called Fogaras or Fogars. From ancient times to modern times, the Romanian population of the eastern part of Hungary was constantly under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Transylvanian metropolitans (see Gintz SS. 63, 68 beginning, 71 sub fin., 77, 79, also Syntagmation Patriarch Chrysanthes). This part of the metropolis also had its own episcopal sees. The first, and for quite a long time, as it seems, the only department here was the Munkacs Department, founded no later than the half of the 15th century. This department, in fact, was not Romanian, but Russian - it was actually open and existed for the Little Russian population neighboring the Romanian in the northeastern part of Hungary; but the Bishop of Munkacs was administratively subordinate to the Metropolitan of Transylvania, and as belonging to the same metropolis, he was in charge not only of the Russian population of Hungary, but also of the entire, or at least the Romanian population of this latter, closest to the department 257 . In the second half of the 17th century, the Transylvanian metropolitans called themselves in their title, among other things, the metropolitan archbishops of “Marmaros and the bishops of Hungary” (in Shaguna SS. 47, 62 and 150). Since the region of Marmaros, located in the same Hungary (in the corner between Galicia, Bukovina and Transylvania, with the main city of Nahy-Szigeth), also had at that time its own special bishop (patron Chrysanth, who wrote shortly after this, speaks about him), then the bishop of Marmaros and, in the plural, bishops of Hungary - this will be no less than at least three episcopal sees. Among these sees, the Munkács should not be considered, because by the time we are talking about, it no longer existed - it ceased to exist in 1652, and the certificates about the bishops of Hungary date back to 1689. Where to look for these others, except for the Munkács, who existed in Hungary in the second half of the 17th century. episcopal sees, remains precisely unknown; Shaguna, firstly, affirms that there was a bishopric in the city of Gross-Vardein or Great Varad (in Weiter Nagy-Varad), and secondly, he suggests that the same could exist in the city of Bigar (located in ruins not far to the north of Gross-Vardein, SS. 49, 150 and 158 approx.). At the last time of the existence of the Transylvanian metropolitanate in the Hungarian part of its diocese there was one bishopric, namely Marmaros 258. Whether the bishop of Marmarosh followed his metropolitan when the metropolitan accepted a union with the pope in 1700 remains unknown 259; but, in any case, his see was closed, and thus the Orthodox Hungarian Romanians, like the Transylvanian Romanians, were left completely without their own bishops. After this, just like the Romanians of Transylvania, they turned to one of the Serbian bishops, namely, the bishop of Arad closest to them, to whose diocese they were later included in an official manner by the Austrian government (in Shaguna S. 152 sqq, list of bishops of Arad in Glasn. VI, 54 sqq; the Serbian see of Grossvardein, which we mentioned above in the note, existed for a very short time). In the first quarter of this century, after the Transylvanian Romanians managed to get the government to appoint bishops not from the Serbian, but from their own naturally Romanian clergy, to the Germanstadt see open to them, these Hungarian Romanians turned to the government with a similar request; namely, since the vast majority of the population of the Arad diocese consists not of Serbs, but of Romanians, they demanded that bishops be appointed not from the former, but from the latter. This is what they managed to achieve in 1829 (Shatuna S. 159). The seduction of the Hungarian Romanians into the union, which began in 1700, when Metropolitan Athanasius accepted it, continued after that unabated, and for the Uniates, in addition to the previously existing bishopric of Munkacs, another was soon opened (during the reign of Emperor Charles VI, who 1711-1740) - Grossvardein (in Shaguna S. 151 sqq. For some time, probably a very short one, at the beginning of the 18th century there was a special Uniate bishop in the Marmaros county, after which this county was annexed to the Munkacs diocese. Currently, regarding the distribution of the area, the Romanians of the north-eastern part of Hungary in the south along the Berettyo river, which flows not far to the north from Gross-Vardein, are all Uniates, and the Romanians. eastern Hungary south of the said river are half Uniate and half Orthodox, see Ficker's Bevölkerung der Oesterreichischen Monarchie, Gotha, 1860). The history of church administration among the Banat Romanians is very brief. Before the arrival of Serbian settlers in their region and before the latter opened their dioceses, which was at the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries, they, in all likelihood, did not have their own bishops. On whom they depended until this time in an official manner remains unknown; but they could supply priests for themselves during the 14th-15th centuries in neighboring and related Wallachia, and before that also in their former neighboring Bulgaria. After the Serbian settlers who fled from the Turks occupied the southwestern part of the Banat and after they opened episcopal sees, the Romanians here received bishops in the person of these Serbian bishops, in whose charge, together with the Serbs themselves, they were then in all subsequent times. The Serbs initially opened two episcopal sees in Banat, and then in subsequent times they constantly continued to have two, namely, Vershets and Temesvar, - we will talk about them below in the history of the Serbian church. We have no positive information about the beginning of the Latin Union between the Banat Romanians. But there is no doubt that the Austrian government and the Latin clergy began their efforts about this, just as they did in Transylvania and eastern Hungary, immediately after the region was conquered from the Turks, which happened in 1716. The Uniates here, until recently, did not have their own special bishop and were under the authority partly of the Hungarian bishop of Grossvardein, partly of the Transylvanian Bishop of Fogaras (Neher's Kirchliche Geographie II, 245). Bukovina was annexed to Austria from Moldova in 1774. For the church administration of the local Orthodox population (of which the total number is more than three hundred and fifty thousand and in which the Romanians themselves are up to two hundred thousand), the Austrian government retained the Radautsky bishopric located in this part of Moldova; only instead of the Metropolitan of Moldova it was subordinated to the Metropolitan of Karlovitsky, and in 1786, for political reasons, it was transferred from Radautz to Chernovtsy (and, however, the bishop still continues to be called Radautz). In this last city, until 1865 it continued to be under the authority of the Metropolitan of Karlovitsky 260, and since 1865, under the authority of the Metropolitan of Germanstadt, it remains to this day (in Shaguna S. 173 sqq). Transylvanian, Hungarian and Banat Romanian Uniates until 1850 were governed by two Uniate bishops - Fogaras in Transylvania and Grossvardein in Hungary (who both depended on the Hungarian Catholic Archbishop of Gran). In 1850–53, the pope opened two more sees for them, namely, the Shamosh-Uyvar in Transylvania (the city of Shamosh-Uyvar on the Shamosh river, northeast of Klausenburg or Kolochvar) and the Lugosh in Banat (the city of Lugosh on the Temes river, east of Temesvar), and, having erected the Fogarash bishopric in the metropolis (in 1854), formed from it with the three named bishoprics a special metropolitan district (Neher'a Kirchliche GeographieII, 244 sqq). The Russian-Uniate diocese of Munkacs or Ungvar should also be partly included among these four dioceses, since the population of the Marmaros county that belongs to it consists of 20 percent Romanians. The Metropolitan of Fogaras resides not in Fogaras, but in a place not very far to the northeast of Karlsburg, on the river. Küküllö, the town of Balasfalva or Blasendorf, where the department was moved quite a long time ago by his predecessors (in Neher ibid.). We said above that the Transylvanian Orthodox Romanians at the end of the last century began to seek from the Austrian government that not Serbs, as was the case before, but natural Romanians be appointed to their episcopal sees, and that they managed to achieve their desire in 1810. Recently, they turned to the government with a new request, namely, that it completely separate them from the Serbian metropolitanate of Karlowitz and form for them their own special Romanian metropolis. We do not know whether this was the desire of all or the majority of the Romanian Transylvanian people, or only the harassment of some individuals in the form of their own ambition (of which some accuse the former Bishop of Gfrmannstadt, currently Metropolitan of Romania, Baron Andrei Shagunu); be that as it may, it was only in 1884 that the Austrian government, which then had the need to win over the Romanians in its favor (see Annuaire des deux Mondes, XIII, 1864–1865, 540), favorably accepted their request and actually opened the required metropolitanate. The above-mentioned Andrei Shagun was elevated to metropolitan, with the title of metropolitan of all the Romanian people found in the Austrian powers and archbishop of Germanstadt. His metropolitan district was formed from four dioceses - three that existed before: Arad and Velikovaradin, Bukovina and Dalmatia, and the fourth newly opened - Karan-Sebesh 261, which was separated from the dioceses of Temesvar and Vershets (see lists of departments in Christ. Reading. 1868, May, p. 724, cfr. the same lists for 1864 ibid. 1865, February, p. 162; the Dalmatian diocese is not Romanian, but Serbian - why it was taken away from the Serbian Metropolitan of Karlovitsky, see below in the history of the Serbian church, despite all our searches, we could not find articles or books from anyone in Moscow that would detail the history of this branch. Romanians from the Serbs, and our information about him is still very superficial. In addition to the above-mentioned book Annuaire, see also in the Modern Chronicle of the Moscow Gazette of 1865, No. 12, p. 11, col. That Moldavia was called Mavrovlachia, and not Wallachia, see Acta Patriarchat. Constantinop. Miklosic II, 170 beginning, 223, 241 sqq, 257, 278, where everywhere the metropolitan and the metropolis of Moldova are meant, also Codina - in Ralli and Potli V, 502 beginning. On the contrary, after the Turks, Moldavia was called white Vlahia, and black Wallachia (this is probably because the first voluntarily recognized their power, and the second was conquered by them), see Cantemir Description of Moldavia, Moscow, 1789, p. 5. Among the Turks and after them among the Greeks, Moldavia was and is also called Bogdania (Μπογδανία , as they think, because the first Moldavian governor who recognized the supreme power of the Sultan was Bogdan). Without studying the state history of the voivodships in a special way, in the rest of this section we are mainly guided by the books - Kogalnichan Histoire de la Valachie, Berlin, 1837, and Palauzov Romanian Gospodarstva Wallachia and Moldavia, St. Petersburg, 1859. Bukovina was received by Austria from Moldova in 1774, Bessarabia was annexed to Russia in 1812. Certificate of Patr. Anthony to the governors Balsha and Dragosh, about which Palauzov in the Gospodarstva of Wallachia and Moldavia p. 63, is not forged; it belongs to the patriarch. Anthony IV and written in 1391, see it in Acta Patriarchat. Constantinop. Miklosic, II, 156, and in the ancient official Latin translation by Shatuna in Geschichte der Griechisch-Orientalischen Kirch in Oestreich, Hermanstadt, 1862, S. 27. Consequently, the founder of the state, if only he was really called Dragosh, was not this, but another Dragosh. This list of Wallachian governors, which is only approximately correct regarding the first ten of them, is taken from Kogalnichan and Palauzov. Here Kogalnichan's year is incorrect, because in the acts of 1359 Alexander is called the voivode, see below about the establishment of the Ugrovlahia metropolis. It is also incorrect here: according to reliable documents, in 1369 and 1370 the Wallachian governor was Ladislav (Vladislav), the son of the governor Alexander, see below about Latin propaganda. In 1522, the governor of the Ugrians. was Ϊ ω. Negoe, by which we should probably mean Nego I (Notes of an admirer of the Holy Mountain, Kiev, 1864, p. 246). We take it from Palauzov, making some of our own amendments and comments. Palauzov does not have this Balshi, and after Peter Stefan I 1389–1392; but there is a letter from the patriarch to the governor Balsha (Μπαλίτζας) with his brother Dragosh (Νδράγος). Anthony of August 1391, see Acta Patriarchat. Constantinop. Miklosic, II, 156. From May 1395 there is a letter to him from Patr. of Constantinople, see Acta Patriarchat. Constantinop. II, 243. In 1543, the governor of Moldova. was Ϊ ω. Yankul (Notes of Odessa. General History and Ancient. vol. IV, department 2, p. 322). Palauzov's order of governors here is incorrect; it should be restored according to Cantemir (Description of Moldavia p. 108), namely: Ivonia (called John the Armenian by Cantemir), Peter VI the Lame, Ivan Podkovar (called Iankul by Cantemir), Peter V Palauzov, missed by Cantemir (a letter to him from Pope Gregory XIII dated May 1583 from Teiner in Annales Ecclesiastici t. III, p. 454), Peter VI the Lame for the second time. That Peter VI was a voivode for the first time after Ivan Podkovar, this can be seen from his chrysobulos of 1577 and 1579, see Slavische Bibliothek, ed. Miklosic, V. I, S. 178 and from the entry on one liturgical book written in Moldova in the 16th century, see the library of the former Undolsky No. 82, l. 108 rev. There is something wrong here, because in 1602 the governor was Stefan Tomza (see below about Metropolitan Anastasia). In Cantemir's Description of Moldavia, M., 1789, p. 110, after Simeon Mogila, Michael I, son of Simeon Mogila, and then Konstantin and Bogdan, sons of Jeremiah Mogila. The years of Konstantin Mogila and those following before Kaspar - something is wrong: there is a charter of Konstantin from 1611; before Caspar in 1615, not Bogdan, but Radul (see in the Notes of Odessa. General History and Ancient. vol. 3, p. 256 sqq). In 1618, the governor of Moldova. was not Alexander, but Stefan, son of Bogdan (ibid. vol. III, p. 259). Here Radu the Long is either for the second time, or the years of his reign are not going well; there is reliable news that he was a Moldovan voivode for three years sometime before 1621 (see Muravyov's Relations with the East, part 2, p. 2. Radul, mentioned under 1615, see previous note, it is probably he). In 1633, the governor of Moldova. was Peter, son of Stephen (ibid. vol. IV, div. 2, p. 350). From Trade to Bucharest the capital was finally moved, by order of the Sultan, in 1659. See Hammer's Histoire de l'Empire Ottoman, b. LIII, ed. Paris, 1842, t. III, p. 64. Having been conquered by the Magyars, Transylvania, however, formed a separate vassal region, but not with Romanian, but with Magyar appanage princes and the upper class; but the Romanian peasants, if they had previously been pagans, of course, could not have thought about accepting Christianity apart from their Magyar princes and nobles who remained in paganism. It may very well be that the first beginnings of Christianity were laid between the Romanians back in the 4th century, who for some time owned part of their territory, the Goths. But there can be no doubt that these first beginnings soon disappeared; and therefore there can be no talk about them. (On Christianity among the Goths, see History of Christianity in Russia before Equal to the Apostles Prince Vladimir, Rev. Macarius, p. 67 sqq.) Regarding the time immediately preceding the establishment of its own episcopal sees in Moldova, this is known in a positive way, see the letter of Pope Urban V regarding the opening of a Latin bishopric in Moldova in 1371 (in Rainald an. 1370, n. 7) and below about the founding of the Moldavian metropolitanate. Βιτζίνης. Vitzina - Βίτζινη (Bychina) was located somewhere in ancient Alania, our current Caucasian region, see Lequien'a Oriens I, 1349 and the map attached to this volume, on which it is in the upper reaches of the current river. Kuban. The Metropolitan of Witzin accepted the invitation to lead someone else's church, probably because at that time his own diocese existed more in name than in reality, and he, remaining simply a titular metropolitan, lived, like other bishops of the same kind, without any business in Constantinople. On the map of Serbia with the borders of Wallachia and Bulgaria, published in the last century by the heirs of Homann (the famous publisher of the large geographical Atlas) about the city of Chernets, near which the former city of Severin is located, it is noted: olim sedes Principum Valachiae. This evidence, of course, should be understood to mean that in Chernets or in nearby Severin there was a residence of appanage rulers or governors of the Severinsky region. If it is true, then it serves to confirm our assumption that the second Ukrainian Metropolitan had a see in Severin, because it was most natural for a bishop to stay in the same city with a civil ruler. Among the southern Slavs, Rymnik is called Rybnik and the diocese of Rymnik-Rybnitskaya, see for example. preface to the Psalter, printed in Wallachia in 1637, in the Register of Old Prints. Shiryaev's books, M., 1833, No. 74, p. 76, and Mushitsky's catalog in Glasnik VI, 85. From 1717 to 1739, the Rymnik diocese, since the city of Rymnik with part of its district was then in the power of the Austrians, was under the authority of the Serbian-Austrian Metropolitan of Karlovytsia, see Mushitsky ibid. Neugebaur in his work Beschreibung der Moldau und Walachei (Breslau, 1854, S. 203) says that the bishop of Rymnik bears the title of Severinsky because his see was once in Turnu-Severin (cfr Verfassung und gegenwärtiger Bestand Sämmtlicher Kirchen des Orients, Landshut, 1865, S.141 beginning, where the bishop of Rymnik is called Novoseverinsky). If he is telling the truth, then the Rymnik see, originally located in Severin and initially having the name and dignity of a metropolitanate, as we have seen, was opened in 1370. Kogalnichan (Histoire de la Valachie p. 111) and Palauzov (Gospodarstva p. 30) claim (following Fessler) that two Ugrovlahian metropolitans were present at the Council of Florence in 1438, simply on the basis of a strange misunderstanding. The Ugrovlahian metropolitans were awarded degrees after the Metropolitans of Nicomedia and Amasia (see above), and the named writers think that the names of these latter were assigned or transferred to them - finding among the metropolitans of Nicomedia and Amasia present at the council, they believe that these were the Ugrovlahia metropolitans. It is strange that the Ugrovlahian governor was not even asked to send his representatives to the council, while the latter were asked from all the other Orthodox rulers - from the emperor of Trebizond, from the sovereign of Iveron, from the great. the prince of Moscow, from the Serbian despot and from the governor of Moldova (Syropuli Hist. Concil. Florent. ed. Creyght. sect. III, p. 2, p. 44). Perhaps they were stopped in Constantinople by the confusion that was then occurring in Ugrovlahia - during the struggle of several rivals who were taking away the province from each other, they did not know who to turn to. According to our Russian news, Nifont was the actual Patriarch of Constantinople in 1495 (see History of the State Russian Federation by Karamzin, ed. Einerl., vol. VI, note 476). As one must conclude, this was his second, and not his first, patriarchate; but the second time he sat on the throne for one year, and the next. and was deposed either in the same 1495 or in the next 1496. Probably, we need to understand Theoliptus, because Pachomius does not fall in time; patriarche oecumenique de Janina, which Kogalnichan speaks about further, is precisely this Theoliptus, because it was he who was appointed patriarch from among the metropolitans of Janina. Manuel Malax (the younger), a native of the Peloponnese, who was a notary under the Theban metropolitan, and then, in his old age, a teacher at the Patriarchal School of Constantinople, lived in the 16th century. and died in 1581, see Turcograeciam Crusii p. 185 beginning and Fabrizia Biblioth. Graec. t. X, ed. Hamb., 1721, b. 529. The Nomocanon (in the Greek original known only from manuscripts and not described in detail anywhere) was compiled in 1561–63; immediately accepted for use, it immediately began to undergo changes and additions, so that the currently known lists of it vary greatly in volume and arrangement of content, see Tsakhariye Historiae juris Graeco-Romani delineatio, Heibeld., 1839, p. 89 sqq. However, if the presence of one of the Ugro-Lachian metropolitans in Constantinople in 1396 (as well as in 1400, ibid. p. 112) cannot be taken as indispensable proof that Wallachia was then under the patriarch, then in any case it is certain that it was under him in 1401 (ibid. p. 494). G. Rasch in his book Die Völker der Unteren Donau und die Orientalische Frage (Breslau, 1867, S. 203 fin.) states that the Metropolitan of Bucarest also bears the title of Patriarch of Nikopol. Unfortunately, we are unable to believe how true this unexpected testimony is. But if it is. is really fair, then we would have new evidence that in the 16th-17th centuries the Ugrovlahian metropolitans enjoyed independence and independence. At present, the Wallachian Metropolitan can lay claim to the title of Patriarch only because this title was once borne by former Ugrovlahian metropolitans; but the latter could appropriate it to themselves only in the 16th - first half of the 17th century, because regarding the time, starting from the second half of the 17th century, we positively know that they were already metropolitans subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople. As for the fact that the Wallachian Metropolitan bears the title of Patriarch of Nikopol, it is not always known, but at least at the end of the 17th century, the Ugrovlahian metropolitans, it seems, actually casually called themselves Nikopol. We do not have direct evidence of this, but we are convinced of the validity of this from the following: Lequien in his Oriens Christianus says that not long before, in the last years of the 17th century, the Turkish Sultan sent to Vienna to negotiate peace with the German emperor the governor of the Ugrovlahian and the archbishop of Nicopolis (I, 1224); but there was no archbishop of Nicopolis in the proper sense (meaning Nicopol or Nigebul on the right bank of the Danube in Bulgaria), and therefore by archbishop of Nicopolis, probably, he should mean, since there is no one else, an archbishop or metropolitan of merchants (Lequien, who claims that there was a bishop of Nicopolis in the half of the 15th century (ibid.), and Silbernagl and Neher, who claim that there is a metropolis of Nicopolis at the present time (see the above Verfassung Geographie und Bestand Sammtl. Kirchen d. Orients first §. 32 and Kirchliche Geographie und Statistic of the secondV. 2, s. 496), they are telling lies. Neither the Bulgarians, nor the Wallachians, nor the Greeks in later times ever had the diocese of Nikopol; The Greeks had it only in ancient pre-barbarian times). As for the reason why the Metropolitan of Ugrovlahia could be called Nikopol, the Vlachs, starting with the governor Mircea I, for some time owned the right, Bulgarian, bank of the Danube (Mircea calls himself “the owner of both sexes throughout the entire Danube”, see Vevelin’s Vlacho-Bulgarian charters p. 18), and the Metropolitan of Ugrovlahia, in whose own dioceses he was supposed to belong to the city of Nikopol during its time under the Wallachians, could accept and forever retain the title of Nikopol in order to perpetuate the memory of this foreign possession. How similar these seminaries are, at least to our not very brilliant educational institutions of the same name, remains unknown to us. Under 1370, Kogalnichan had a governor, Nikolai, but this is wrong; in the actual existence of the governor Ladislaus, the son of the governor Alexander, in addition to the letter of the pope, the latter’s own letter of 1369 assures (in which he calls himself Ladislaus and the son of Alexander); see it in Battian's edition of Leges ecclesiasticae regni Hungariae, 1727, t. III, b. 217. Whether or not there were any Catholic bishoprics founded in Wallachia at any time remains a question. Kogalnichan (Histoire de la Valachie p. 110) and other researchers consider the Wallachian Catholic diocese of Milkov, located somewhere on the Milkov River, which currently serves as the border between Moldova and Wallachia and flows from the Carpathian Mountains from Transnylvania. But this is unfair: from the letter of the Wallachian governor Ladislaus (about which in the previous note) it is clear that Wallachia did not have its own Catholic bishopric until 1369, and from the words of Pope Gregory XI it is clear that there was no such bishopric in it until 1374; meanwhile, it is positively known that the diocese of Milkovo existed before this time (see Teiner’s Monumenta Slavorum Meridionalium t. I, p. 270. According to Fessler, the bishopric of Milkovskaya was a Transylvanian diocese; having been founded in the first unknown times of Christianity in Hungary, it existed for the local (Transylvanian) sheklers, and from 1227 for the then converted Latin missionaries to Christianity of the Moldavian Cumans or Cumans, and was closed in the 15th century, see his Geschichte von Ungarn., ed. 2, 1867, vol. I, p. 342 and 465 beginning, cfr. Lequien's Oriens III, 1121). Further, Kogalnichan says that the Latin diocese of Ardzhi was founded by governor Mircea I (ibid. p. 110); but this is more than doubtful. The Latin see of Nicopolis (in Nicopolis of the Danube), which he speaks about (ibid. p. 456), may indeed have existed at the end of the 18th century (although it is more likely to mean the Orthodox see of Ruschuk), but in any case its discovery should be attributed to the time when Nikopol no longer belonged to the Wallachians. - In 1369, the Wallachian governor Ladislaus, following the example of his predecessors, entrusted the ecclesiastical administration of the Catholics of his country to the Latin bishop of Transylvania (see his charter indicated in the previous note): it is likely that in all subsequent times they were under the authority of the same Transylvanian bishop. For this reason, the following is known about the relations of the popes to the Wallachians and the relations of the latter with the former. In 1500, Pope Alexander VI, renewing the jubilee to the Magyars and Poles, given to them for the war with the Turks, extended it, without being asked by anyone, to the inhabitants of Wallachia (Teyner Monumenta Slavorum Meridionalium t. I, p, 542; however, under Wallachia, provincia Valachiae, perhaps here it should be possible to understand not their own Wallachia, but Transylvania, and the jubilee extended not to the Orthodox Romanians, but to the Catholic-Magyar nobility of the latter). In 1519, the Wallachian and Moldavian governors sent an embassy to the pope expressing their readiness to take part in the campaign against the Turks, which was then organized by the pope in the west (in Teiner ibid. p. 571). In 1593, the pope invited the Wallachian and Moldavian governors, through his ambassador, to take part, together with other sovereigns, in the crusade militia against the same Turks (Teyner's Monumenta Poloniae et Lithuaniae t. III, p. 210). -What Kogalnichan (Histoire de la Valachie p. III) and Palauz (Dominions p. III) say 30 fin.) about Catholicism in Wallachia after the Council of Florence, belongs to the realm of fabulousness, because, as we said above, the Ugrovlahian metropolitans were not at this council at all. At the same time as the Franciscans, the Dominicans also came to Galicia and Moldavia, see Supplemeatumad historica Russiae monumenta Turgene vii, p. 127. Lačka's father is called Bogdan the Saxon or Saxon. Doesn't this mean that he really was a German (Transylvanian Saxon), and not a natural Romanian, and isn't that precisely why his son turned out to be receptive to the preaching of the Franciscans? Patr. Matthew says that his predecessor, Patr. Anthony supposedly excommunicated the Moldovan bishops because it was reported to him (Antony) that they were σερβοεπίσκοποι, i.e., that they accepted consecration and were sent to Moldavia from the Serbian patriarch, who illegally arrogated to himself the right over a foreign region and as a result of which they were not legitimate bishops. Sending his ambassadors to Moldova to finally investigate the matter, the patriarch instructs them that if this was previously reported to the patriarch. Anthony will be unfair, but on the contrary, as the Moldavians themselves reported, it will turn out to be fair that the bishops were consecrated by the Metropolitan of Galicia, then they, the ambassadors, now have the one remaining of the two bishops to declare, according to the authority given to them, the true bishop and the legitimate Moldavian metropolitan. But the first was really unfair (and was nothing more than a later Constantinople fabrication to cover up the previous true reasons for excommunication), and the last was really fair; and therefore one must think that the ambassadors did what they were ordered to do in the second case. By the metropolitan of the Maurvlachians, who was present in Constantinople in July 1401 (Acta R. S. II, 519), we should not mean this Joseph, but Jeremiah, who was appointed before, but was not accepted by the Moldova, and after that received the metropolitanate of Tern (ibid. II, 223, 529); as for Joseph, at the end of the same July 1401, the patriarch was just sending his commissioners to Moldavia for a final study of his case (ibid. II, 530). The Moldo-(Moor)-Vlachian metropolis is mentioned as already existing in the Kodin list of sees, written in 1387 (see Ralli and Potli V, 502 beginning). But there is no doubt that this was either a later addition made by Kodin himself, or by someone else. Cantemir, in his Description of Moldova, based on unknown reasons, claims that Met. Damian, having accepted a union with the pope out of ambition at the Council of Florence, did not dare to return to his throne, and in his place as metropolitan of Moldova, Mark of Ephesus appointed his archdeacon, a Bulgarian by birth, Theoctistus (Moscow, 1789, pp. 363 and 384). But, firstly, it is positively and reliably known that Theoktistus was not Damian’s successor (we know about Vissarion, who was after Damian and before Theoktistus, from an official document), and, consequently, talk about special reasons for his appointment is in any case unfair. Secondly, it is more than likely that it is just as unfair that Damian did not return to Moldavia from the Council of Florence. There are no particularly good reasons to doubt the authenticity of the acts of the Council of Constantinople of 1450–51; but according to these acts, Damian remained Metropolitan of Moldova to this year 1450–51 inclusive. Patr. Jerusalem Dositheus, who seems to have borrowed information from a good source, in his History of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem says that the Moldovan governor rejected and cursed the Florence Council precisely after the return of the metropolitan home (book 10, chapter 6, vol. 2, p. 910, col. 1. Speaking about the non-return of Damian, does Cantemir confuse him with the mysterious his predecessor Gregory, who accepted Latinism even before the Council of Florence and who, it seems, really did not dare to return to Moldavia?). Of the books printed by Dosifei in Romanian, the Psalter is currently known, printed (together with the Slavic) in Iasi in 1680, see Register of Old Prints. Shiryaev’s books No. 135 and Sonikov’s No. 956. In the article list of Trifon Korobeinikov's journey in 1593, located in one of the Moscow chronographs. Spirit. Academician (schism. No. 434), in the Description of the Iasi Cathedral Church of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker it is incomprehensibly said: “and the Metropolitan of Belsky serves right there at the church” (list at the end of the manuscript, the list itself § 13). Belsky, isn’t this from Balti, which can be meant by Ἀσπρὁκαστρον, and doesn’t this mean that the Moldavian metropolitans actually initially had a residence in this city, and then continued to keep its name in their title? In the charter of 1470, the following is remarkable: first it says once: “before us (the governor) and before our metropolitan kyr Feoktist and before our bishop kyr Tarasiy from the Romanov trade,” and then in all other mentions (of which there are three): “before our metropolitans” ... “and our metropolitans kyr Feoktist from Suceava and kir Tarasiy from Romanov bargaining" ... "and the seals of our metropolitans." From this, it seems, it should be concluded that in Moldovlakhia there was originally the same thing as in Ugrovlakhia, that is, not a metropolitan with a bishop subordinate to him, but two special metropolitans. At the end of the 17th - beginning of the 18th centuries. the bishop of Romanes bore the title of archbishop. See Cantemir's Description of Moldova p. 363. Kantemir cites the very message of the patriarch. Parthenius to Vasily Lupula, with whom he convinced the governor to return Moldavia to the throne of Constantinople. If this message is genuine, then it really shows that before that Moldavia was dependent on the Archbishop of Achrid. But on the other hand, Mr. Miladinov in one of his articles cites, unknown to us from where taken, the words of George Mogila, Metropolitan of Moldova, who, speaking about the beginning of the independence of the Moldavian metropolitanate, which was independent in his time, traces it back to the times of the imperial. Andronik Palaeologus (1282–1328) and writes: “The metropolitanate of Moldova was taken (Andronik) from the subordination of Ohrid and established, let there be like a patriarch, just as Ohrid and Cyprus are, as well as Moldova” (see the Bulgarian collection “Brotherly Labor” published in Moscow in 1860, book 3, p. 21 fin.). That George Mogila, plotting a union with the pope, himself did not want to recognize the authority of either the Archbishop of Achrid or the Patriarch of Constantinople (see Teiner's Monumenta Poloniae et Lithuaniae t. III, p. 44), this is completely natural: but when he refers the beginning of independence to such distant times (incorrectly), then one must conclude that it began not from his own time, but somewhat earlier and was not an accidental episode regarding the union, but an established matter. Little limited on the part of the patriarch, the Metropolitan of Moldova was significantly limited on the part of the prince or governor; according to Cantemir, the election and removal of bishops belonged not to him, but to this latter. In the same way, the prince, and not the bishops, had the right to elect and remove archimandrites and abbots of monasteries, ibid. 368 sqq. In Transylvania in the 17th and 18th centuries. Candidates for the priesthood gave fox fur to the archpriests for the latter's finding them places in their archpriests (see Shaguna S. 99, n. 2). Of the other patriarchs, the Patriarch of Constantinople does not own a single monastery in the principalities, and Alexandria and Antioch each have one monastery in Moldavia, ibid. Attention was first paid to the Moldovan Romanians more than a whole century before the opening of the Seretian bishopric, when the Moldovan voivodeship did not yet exist. Pope Gregory IX, having learned that in the Catholic diocese of Cuman (i.e., present-day Moldova - the Cuman bishopric was the name of the Milkovsky bishopric, located in Transylvania and embracing the country of the local Sheklers, since since 1227 the Moldavian Cumans or Polovtsians, who were then converted to Catholicism, were included in it) lived Orthodox Vlachs, demanded from the Hungarian king assistance to their conversion to Catholicism and intended to open a special bishopric for them (see Rainald an. 1234, n. 38). But the demand and assumption remained simply on paper. After this, under 1592, we find news that at the beginning of this 1592 or at the end of the previous 1591, the governor Peter had the intention of going to Rome for some “most pleasant” business for the pope (Teyner Monum. Pol. et Lithuan. III, 209). If the years of his reign under the city of Palauzov are correct, then he was already deposed, and probably wanted to go to Rome in order to receive from the pope a recommendation to the French ambassador in Constantinople with a new proposal for a union, and with the help of this latter to again obtain the voivodeship. Expressing himself not entirely intelligibly, Cantemir claims that Slavic letters instead of Latin and the Slavic language instead of Romanian were adopted in Moldova for written and church use after the Council of Florence (Description of Moldova, p. 383). But, firstly, he asserts here something incredible and impossible: if the Romanians first used their own language, then why on earth, having abandoned their own, would they then accept someone else’s? Secondly, it is positively known that they used the Slavic alphabet and the Slavic language before the Florentine Council (see Vlacho-Bulgarian letters collected by Venelin). In general, if the Romanians accepted the Slavic language for use, then there is no doubt that they could only accept it immediately after their baptism from the Bulgarians, when they still did not have the opportunity to use their own language and when the latter could impose the Slavic language on them. See Cantemir's Description of Moldavia pp. 387 and 256, and Palauzov's Romanian Gospodarstvo pp. 50 and 106. The first incorrectly says that in Wallachia under Shcherbat Kantakouzene, the second - that in Moldavia after Wallachia. For the Romanian Helmsman's Book, see above. In the Iasi printing house after the Code, other books were printed in Romanian; it is Cantemir who makes it known that the Gospel with the Apostle and the Service Book were printed (ibid. p. 387. According to the Greek Dimitri Prokofiev, in the catalog of Greek scientists of the 16th-18th centuries, the Holy Scripture was translated in Moldova from Greek into Romanian by the same Nicholas Spafariy, who later, under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, lived in Russia, see Fabric. Graec. XI, ed. Hamb., 1722, p. Palauzov, based on unknown reasons, claims that worship in the Romanian language was introduced in Moldavia in 1636, and in Wallachia two years earlier (Gospodarstva p. 106). But Cantemir, of course, is not mistaken when he speaks of his own time: “the same prince (Vasily Lupul) established that in the cathedral church (Iasi) in honor of the church of the patriarchs (Patriarch Lupul subordinated the Moldavian metropolis) there should be a choir of Greek singers, and a whole half of the mass was sung in Greek, and the other in Slavic, which is what the offering consists of" (Description Moldova p. 387). On the other hand, the same Cantemir, not expressing himself very intelligibly, makes it clear that the most important liturgical books since the time of Lupul, having been translated into Romanian, began to be used in the latter, if not in the divine service itself, then in home reading (ibid.). Since the 18th century was a century of unlimited domination in the principalities of secular, and with them, probably, spiritual Phanariots (one Romanian article, which we accidentally encountered in a reprint in the Constantinople Bulgarian newspaper Svetnik, 1864. No. 36, states this positively), then one should think that the Slavic language in worship was first replaced by Greek, and not Romanian, and that this latter was finally introduced only in the present century, when the right to elect governors from among their own was returned to the populations of both principalities. We are talking about handwritten books. As for printed books, the Wallachian and Transylvanian Romanians used and themselves reprinted Serbian books, and the Moldavian Romanians probably used southern Russian books (for a list of currently known early printed Serbian and Ugrovlahian books, see Karataev in the Painting of Slavic Books and Safarik in Geschichte der Südslawisch. Literatur., Prag., 1865, III, 249 sqq; about printers in Safarik ibid. S. 123 sqq and in Arkiv za Pavestnicu Jugoslavensku, published by Kukulevich Sakcinsky in Zagreb, book 1, p. 121 sqq). The population of Transylvania, in addition to the Magyars and Romanians, consisted of 1) the so-called Sheklers or Szeklers (in Latin, Siculi, who consider themselves descendants of the Huns, but scientists recognize them as a special branch of the Magyars) and 2) the Saxons (mainly the Flemings themselves) who were called to the country to settle in 1143. See Fessler's Geschichte von Ungarn, 2nd ed. vol. 1, pp. 25, 247 and 461. The number of Transylvanian princes is as follows: 1) John Zapolia 1538–1540, 2) John Sigismund, son of Zapolia, 1540–1571, 3) Stefan Batory 1571–1574, 4) Christopher, son of Batory 1574–1586, 5) Sigismund, son of Christopher, 1586–1601, 6) Moses Shekeli 1602–1603, 7) Stefan Bocskay 1604–1607, 8) Sigismund Rakoczy 1608, 9) Gabriel Batory 1608–1613, 10) Gabriel Bethlen 1615–1629, 11) Stefan Bethlen 1629, 12) George Rakoci I 1630–1648, 13) George Rakoci II 1648–1657, 14) Franz Redai 1657, 15) Achatius Bertshai 1658, 10) George Racoci for the 2nd time 1660, 17) Achatius Bertshai for the 2nd time 1661, 18) John Kemenius 1661, 19) Michael Apafi I 1661–1681, 20) Michael Apafi II 1681–1705, †1713. We compiled this list from the book Geschichte des Temeser Bants von Leoph. Böhm, Leipzig, 1861, Erster Theil. The Transylvanian Magyars, imitating the example of their Romanian subjects, first began to accept the Christian faith also from the east. In 948, the appanage Transylvanian prince Giula came to Constantinople and was baptized (see Kedrin in Stritter in Memor. pp. III, 620, Fessler Geschichte von Ungarn, ed. 2nd volume 1, p. 73, also our Nikon Chronicle 1, 115), and the Greek bishop he took with him successfully preached Christianity between its relatives (Kedrin ibid. and Fessler ibid. p. 110 fin. - about the persecution of Christianity under the nephew of the previous pagan Giul the Younger). But in 1002, Transylvania was completely annexed to Hungary, which had recently accepted Christianity from the Latins, which put an end to the spread of Orthodoxy among the Transylvanian Magyars. See Romanian Transylvanian Metropolitan Andrei Shaguna Geschichte der Griechisch-orientalischenKirche in Oestreich, Hermannstadt, 1862, S. 121 and 166 fin. and Io. Hintz Geschichte des Bisthums der griechisch-nichtunirten Glaubensgenossen in Siebenbürgen, Hermannstadt, 1850, S. 16. However, in Transylvania, despite the law of 1791, the Orthodox faith was considered only tolerable even in 1810, in Shaguna ibid. S. 131 clause 7. There is a legislative act from 1224, from which it is clear that before and after that the Transylvanian Orthodox Romanians were obliged to pay tithes to the Latin clergy (Shatuna S. 23 beginning). It is not known whether they were ever released from this obligation during the next two centuries, but in 1468, King Matthew Corvinus, following complaints from the Latin Transylvanian bishop about their reluctance to pay taxes, by means of a decree strictly prescribed this to them (see Battian's edition of Leges ecclesiasticae regni Hungariae, Claudiopoli, 1827, t. III, p. 529 fin. In 1481, the same king freed them from the illegal and deeply hated tribute, which was confirmed in 1495 by his successor Vladislav of Bohemia (in Shaguna S. 25, in Gintz S. 23 sub fin.); but in 1498 the second of those named again with all severity obliged them to it, and, since they wanted to persist, two years later he most decisively repeated his order (in Battian III, 609 and 635 fin.). During the first century, the possessions of their own Transylvanian Calvinist princes, although they were probably not exempted from tithes by a formal legislative act, for the most part managed to become free from it in practice; but in the half of the 17th century. again an end was put to this freedom through a deliberate law issued regarding them (in Gintz S. 23 sqq., cfr. in Shatuna S.. 61 note). Romanian priests were freed from all government taxes - some unknown when before 1479, others in this last year (see Shaguna S. 23 and Gintz S. 63, decree of Matthew Corvinus of 1479 - the Metropolitan asked the king for only the priests of the Comitat of Marmaros, no doubt because the priests of other places had been released earlier); but that in subsequent times this freedom was very poorly recognized is clear from the fact that during the 17th century. Transylvanian metropolitans were forced to repeatedly ask the princes for its confirmation (in Gintz S. 20 and in Shaguna S. 41) and that the priests were finally excluded from the per capita salary only during the revision of 1754 (in Gintz S. 46 note). As for the dues to the landowners, the priests were freed from them in 1609, being obliged for the future only to give them the usual, probably annual, gift (do na solita, in Gintz S. 20, cfr. in Shaguna S. 30 fin.); but how little the landowners thought to recognize, and how little the government thought to insist on the recognition of the decrees given by them regarding this, can be seen from the legislative acts of the late 17th and early 18th centuries, according to which, the priests of that time not only paid the landowners certain colonicales praestationes sub honorarii titulo, but were also forced the jobbagyonum (serfs) to move ad robottas laboresque (in Shaguna S. 85, in Gintz S. 92 fin. and 102). Regarding the children of Romanian priests at the end of the 16th century. it was decided that if they are married and live in their own homes, then they are peasants of the landowners on an equal basis with all other peasants, and if they are single and live with their fathers, then they are free to choose their type of life (in Shaguna S. 36 fin.). It is not known from what time before the half of the 17th century, the Orthodox metropolitans of Transylvania themselves were obliged to pay an annual tax to their princes. In the charter for the metropolitanate, given in 1643 by Prince George Rakoczi I, Metropolitan. To Stefan Simonovich, by the way, it is written: “pro censu annuali pelles martinianas triginta et duas ac lynceas quatuor, juxta usum hactenus observatum, fisco nostro (metropolitan) singulis annis administrabit (in Gintz S. 75; the same in the same charters and subsequent metropolitans, ibid. 81 and 86). See Shaguna ibid. S. 57 sqq. Ardon from Nandor, as the city of Karlsburg was called in Hungarian, in which the Transylvanian metropolitans stayed. Of course, the Transylvanian prince George Rakoczi I, who was from 1630 to 1648. The Transylvanian princes probably called themselves and were called by their subjects kings since the Sultan gave the Hungarian royal crown to Stefan Bocskai in 1605. See Böhm's Geschichte des Temeser Banats, th. I,S. 142. In the official act of Gintz, S. 71, he is called Stephanis Gelei. Gintz has SS. 22, 70 and 77, at Shaguna SS. 38 and 40. The Serbian historian Yuri Brankovich, skipping Orestes, puts Metropolitan between Gennady and this Stephen. Dositheus (in Raich, book XI, chapter VI, § 21); but to us Dositheus is one and the same person with Orestes, or he has a mistake, see the official act in Gintz S. 70 sqq. In Shaguna S. 40, in Gintz S. 22. The initiative for this replacement of the hitherto Slavic language with its own Romanian language belonged not so much to the metropolitan himself as to the civil government, which intended to acquire through this greater convenience for its Calvinist propaganda. As a result of this, the essentially beneficial undertaking to translate books from a foreign language into their own language was met by the Romanians very unfavorably, in Gintz S. 22 sqq, 72. The main and zealous leader of the matter was the Primate of Hungary, Archbishop of Gran Leopold Kollonich. – The Austrian government and its Catholic clergy became concerned about the matter of union as soon as they received Transylvania into their power. Archimandrite Isaiah of Athonite, who came to Moscow in 1689 with letters from the Wallachian governor Shcherban Kantakouzene and from the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Serbia (see above), reported on the affairs of Transylvania: “he went to the Sedmigrad land, which had escaped from under the Sultan and succumbed to the Caesar; there are many Orthodox people in it who have suffered oppression in their faith from the Papageans; the Roman bishop came from Vienna and rewrote all the churches and told the priests: so that everyone should be united with the Roman Church, and if they don’t want to, they will be tortured, and the people will be forced by the Caesar’s decree, and from such coercion there is great sadness, because under the Turkish yoke they were burdened by taxes, but in the faith there was no coercion” (Relations of Russia with the East, Mr. Muravyov, hand-mand. Mosk. Spirit. Part 4, l. 1110 fin.). Gintz has S. 31, Shaguna has S. 62 sqq. The acceptance of four points was required: 1) the primacy of the pope, 2) the acceptability of unleavened bread for the sacrament of the Eucharist, 3) the procession of the Holy Spirit and from the Son, and 4) purgatory. Shaguna has S. 48 fin. At the consecration of Athanasius as a merchant metropolitan, the Jerusalem Patriarch Dositheus was in Wallachia. For some special reasons (i.e., suspecting, for example, Athanasius’s instability in Orthodoxy), or simply out of his well-known extreme jealousy, he gave the newly ordained metropolitan a rather lengthy instruction. In this latter, by the way, we find: 1) on Sundays and holidays, and at funerals, and in general when and where it happens, the metropolitan must speak instructions to the Serbs and Russians in the Slavic language, and to the Romanians in Romanian, but perform divine services always and for everyone either in Greek or in Slavic (in Shaguna ibid. S. 75, nn. 2 and 5; however, contrary to this last order, Metropolitan Athanasius later obliged his clergy to perform divine services in Romanian, ibid. 100, n. 2) the metropolitan must believe and teach others that transubstantiation in the sacrament of the Eucharist is accomplished through prayer and the blessing of the priest (S. 76 fin.); 3) perform the sacrament of consecration of oil to seven priests and no less than two, but not one (S. 78, l. 15); 4) upon initiation into church degrees, do not take any fees or gifts (S. 81 and 22); 5) the metropolitan must convene diocesan councils twice or at least once a year (S. 79, n. 20). From the instructions of the patriarch we also learn that not long before that, the “Orthodox Confession” of Peter Mogila was translated into Romanian (S. 80 fin., one of the reasons for the compilation of which, according to some Romanian writers, was Calvinist propaganda among the Transylvanian Romanians, in Gintz S. 21 fin.). For details, see Shaguna S. 70 sqq and Gintz S. 33 sqq, see also Pichler's Geschichte der Kirchlichen Trennung zwischen dem Orient und Occident II, 130. At the council of 1700, at which it was finally decided to accept the union, the metropolitan proposed several rules for observance in the future, mainly relating to church improvement. Some of these rules are quite interesting and introduce the local customs of the Transylvanian church, see Shaguna S. 98 sqq. The city of Fogarasch or Fogaras in southern Transylvania on the river. Alute. Ibid. S. 110. The Serbs began to move from their homeland beyond the Danube, to the Hungarian kingdom now belonging to the Austrian crown (to Srem and Slavonia, to the western half of the Temesvár Banat and to the southern half of their own Hungary), from the half of the 15th century, when their fatherland was enslaved by the Turks, and then gradually continued resettlement until the first half of the last century; Currently there are up to 1,150,000 of them in the Austrian Empire (in the areas indicated now). Being very desirable settlers, because they increased the means of military struggle against the Turks, they received from the Hungarian kings a certain amount of freedom of their religion; why from the very first time they began to establish episcopal sees, and back in the 15th century. (in recent years) established a special church administration, making one of the open sees a metropolitanate. The town of Karlovets or Karlovitsy, in which the Serbo-Austrian metropolitans have resided since the beginning of the last century, is located in Srem, on the right bank of the Danube, a little below the city of Peterwardein. If you believe the complaints of the Romanians, then the Serbs behaved towards them no better than the Greeks behave towards the Bulgarians in Turkey. About the Russians of the Little Russian tribe, who have inhabited the northeastern part of Hungary since ancient times (a strip running parallel to the Carpathians from 38 Greenwich degrees of latitude in the west to 42½ of the same degrees in the east, and in the western half of this strip they are mixed with Slovaks, and in the eastern with Romanians), see in detail in Biederman’s work Die ungarischenRuthenen - first issue Innsbruck, 1862. The episcopal see in the city of Munkács or Mukachev was opened by them around 1454 (see Pichler in Geschichte der Kirchlichen Trennung zwischen dem Orient und Occident II, 127). Continuing to exist continuously since then, it was constantly under the Transylvanian metropolis (in Gintz SS. 68 beginning and 77). In the middle of the 17th century, namely in 1652, Bishop Parthenius of Munkacs accepted the Latin Union (in Pichler ibid., about the dedication of this Parthenius in 1651 in Gintz S. 77), and at present all Hungarian Russians, numbering at least 500,000 souls, are Uniates (for church administration they currently have two episcopal sees - the old Munkacska, with the bishop's residence in Ungvar or Uzhgorod, and the new one, opened in 1816, Eperies or Pryashevskaya, Neher'a Kirchliche Geographie II, 227 sqq). With the bishop's see it is unknown in what exact place in the region, Patr. Chrysanthus in Syntagmation. This Marmaros bishopric should not be mistaken for the same as the Munkacs bishopric, firstly, because at the end of the 17th century. the latter no longer existed - secondly, because even before its closure (in 1652), at least during the last period of its existence, the Marmarosh region no longer belonged to it (in Gintz S. 77 fin.). The Orthodox see located in Gross-Wardein from 1694–95 should not be included here, because it was not a continuing Romanian one, but a newly discovered Serbian one, as see in the history of the Serbian church. Gintz says that from among the Marmarosh clergy, together with the metropolitan, 3 archpriests and 59 priests accepted the union, but says nothing about the bishop, 8. 33. Perhaps the department remained idle then. In relation to the Bukovina diocese, the Karlowitz metropolitan did not have the right to appoint candidates for bishops (which belonged to the government), but only the right to recommend candidates who, according to his information, were worthy. Shaguna ibid. S. 174 fin. The city of Karan-Sebezh or Karan-Shebesh is located in western Transylvania, near the border with Banat, on the river. Temesh. You might be interested in: