The history of Christianity in Russia before Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir, as an introduction to the history of the Russian Church

Contents Preface Part one. The history of Christianity within present-day Russia until the founding of the Russian kingdom (c. 60–862) Introduction Chapter I. The preaching of the holy Apostle Andrew in our countries. Chapter II. Church of Christ in ancient Scythia, or in the current Novorossiysk region. Chapter III. Church of Christ in ancient Sariatia, or in the present Caucasus region. Chapter IV. Church of Christ in Transcaucasia. Conclusion Part two. The history of Christianity itself in the Russian kingdom before the origin of the Russian Church under Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir Introduction Chapter I. Translation of the Holy Scriptures and liturgical books into the Slavic language. Chapter II. The beginnings of Christianity in the Russian kingdom since its foundation from Grand Duchess Olga. Chapter III. The state of Christianity in the Russian kingdom under Grand Duchess Olga and after her death until the conversion of Grand Duke Vladimir. Chapter IV. Conversion to Christianity of Grand Duke Vladimir. I thought about the first days... and learned. I have remembered your fate from eternity, O Lord, and been comforted. The history of the Orthodox Church in our fatherland usually begins with the conversion of Grand Duke Vladimir to Christianity, and they begin quite rightly. The Russian Church really did not appear until the time of the Equal-to-the-Apostles Enlightener of Russia: from then on we began a series of high priests, without whom, in the strict sense, there is no and cannot be a Church, a series that continues continuously to this day; Since then only our Church has received proper internal and external improvement; From then on, it became known in general history as a special, definite branch of the Universal Church. But it is equally true that Christianity existed in Russia even before the Grand Duke Vladimir, from the very foundation of the Russian kingdom, although we cannot say that even then we had a permanent higher hierarchy, and therefore, in the strict sense, there was a Russian Church. It is no less true that Christianity existed within the borders of present-day Russia even before the founding of the Russian kingdom, from the time of the holy apostles themselves, although even then we did not have any one specific Church, but there were several private Churches, or dioceses, most of which did not have any hierarchical connection with each other. How can we look at all these traces of Christianity in our fatherland before the origin of the Russian Church under the Equal-to-the-Apostles Enlightenment of Russia? The history of the Russian Church, without a doubt, cannot speak about them in their very composition, because this history must speak only about the Russian Church and begin with its beginning. But it also cannot ignore the indicated traces of Christianity, because they are closely related to the Russian Church. The attitude towards it of those beginnings of Christianity that appeared in our fatherland from the time of its foundation to Equal-to-the-Apostles Vladimir is obvious: it was Christianity in the Russian kingdom, among the Russian people and had a direct influence on the conversion to the holy faith of Grand Duke Vladimir with many of his subjects, i.e. on the origin of the Russian Church itself. The relation to it of those traces of Christianity that existed in the countries of our fatherland even before its founding is less obvious, but also undeniable. What is important here is that the holy faith existed in our countries between the peoples, whose descendants now, together with us, form one political body; Moreover, among the Christians who lived in Russia at that time, in all likelihood, as we will see, there were also our Slavic ancestors; and especially important is the reliable news that some of the then Churches that were within our borders either had an influence on the origin of the present Russian Church, or even became part of it over time. Will anyone accuse our civil history of the fact that, having as its subject the actual fate of the Russian kingdom, it does not forget to talk about the peoples who have lived in Russia since ancient times, simply because they lived in Russia; then talk about the Slavs in general, as the ancestors of the Russian Slavs, in particular about the Russian Slavs and some non-Slavic peoples who lived in Russia before the beginning of the Russian state; say, finally, about the Varangian-Russians, who, together with these Slavic and non-Slavic tribes, formed the Russian state? No doubt no one will blame; on the contrary, they would rather be accused if our civil history did not adequately mention all these subjects, so close to its essential subject. Our church history would certainly be wrong if it omitted without proper review those traces of Christianity that have existed since ancient times in the current regions of Russia, Christianity, which, by the way, our Slavic ancestors adhered to at that time and which later had an influence on the origin of the Russian Church itself. But where should our church history say about them, these traces of the holy faith, when in its very composition it cannot say? There is one place left: she can, she must say about them in advance, in the introduction. This is all the more natural since Christianity, which existed in Russia before Grand Duke Vladimir, actually preceded the Russian Church, and at the same time, undoubtedly, served as a preparation and, as it were, an introduction to its final foundation among the Russian people. Consequently, if every science is obliged to be only a list, a copy of its subject, and becomes more perfect the more faithful it remains to its original, then the history of our Russian Church will act in the present case as justly as possible and does not even have the right to act otherwise. This is exactly the point from which I looked at my subject when compiling the now published essay - “The History of Christianity in Russia before Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir.” I saw, I wanted to present this story as nothing more than an “introduction to the history of the Russian Church,” an introduction not to science, but only to history. Such a view of the main subject of the work has necessarily already extended to all its most particular subjects. And everyone can judge to what extent I could talk about each of them separately. My rule was to talk about them only to the extent that they were or are related to our domestic Church. Therefore, it was enough to only mention some in passing, about others it was necessary to say more, about others even more. My speech about the Armenian and Georgian Churches before the origin of our fatherland is brief, although a special considerable history could be written about each of them; it is brief because the relationship of these Churches to the Russian Church is very small: the first only relates to the fact that it is now within the same kingdom with it, the latter also because it recently joined it. More extensively, comparatively, I survey the traces of Christianity in the regions of Novorossiysk and the Caucasus, in which, by all considerations, our Slavic ancestors could then profess the holy faith, from where it also penetrated into the interior regions of Russia. Finally, with all the thoroughness that the essence of the subject and the sources allowed me, I tried to depict the beginnings of the holy faith in the Russian kingdom itself - here the relationship to our Church is the closest, most comprehensive and obvious. Looking in this way at the traces of Christianity that existed in Russia before the Grand Duke Vladimir, or more precisely, as the title of this book says, before the Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir, that is, until the time of his reign, when he, having accepted the holy faith himself, became its planter among his people and laid the foundation for the Russian Church proper, I could not help but notice that they are divided, in general, into two main ones departments of the memorable era of the founding of the Russian kingdom: some existed only within Russia, others in the Russian kingdom itself; some had much less to do with our native Church, others incomparably more. On this basis, I divided my work into two parts: 1) on the history of Christianity within the borders of present-day Russia until the founding of the Russian kingdom (c. 60–862) and 2) on the history of Christianity itself in the Russian kingdom before the origin of the Russian Church under Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir (862–992). The first part can only be called a vestibule, the last - the very entrance to the sanctuary of Russian church history. Part one. History of Christianity within present-day Russia until the founding of the Russian kingdom (c. 60–862) There is a time for everything, and a time for every thing under heaven. Do you see these mountains? As if the grace of God will shine on these mountains. Laurentian Chronicle. S. 4 If from the present order of things within the borders of our fatherland we are transported in thought to those distant times when the Russian kingdom itself did not exist within these borders, and we compare the past with the present, we will, without a doubt, be struck by the disorder of that time. The peoples and tribes that lived in the space of present-day Russia, in addition to being at the lowest level of social development, were divided among themselves by constant hatred. Mutual strife, raids and devastation constituted their main occupation. The strong oppressed the weak, ruled over them, and in turn became slaves of the strongest. At the same time, hordes of wild aliens, like streams of fiery lava, noisily rushed into our borders and, flowing from end to end, destroyed everything they came across, until they finally exhausted themselves mutually. The kingdoms of the Goths, Huns, Avars and Khazars, which quickly arose one after another in the spaces of Russia, like formidable meteors, from which the Roman colossus itself more than once came into awe, just as quickly disintegrated, leaving behind almost nothing but formidable debris. The picture is gloomy and most bleak! But let us take a closer look at this picture - and we will see many bright spots in it, we will see that even in this political chaos the seeds of that beautiful life that is now blooming with such fullness on our domestic soil were already hidden. Enumerating the peoples who have lived in Russia since ancient times, ancient historians mention here and there about sedentary tribes who loved to engage in arable farming and cattle breeding; They also mention tribes that already had their own cities and carried out trade; The family and even civic virtues of these tribes are often praised: the sanctity of their marriages, respect for the voice of elders in public affairs, mutual trust, good nature, hospitality, ancient simplicity of morals, etc. Are all these not the basic elements of social life and improvement? All that remained was to separate them from the harmful and hostile elements, connect them with each other, organize them, form them - and the most durable political building was ready to emerge. The same spectacle is presented to us by our own countries in terms of religion, if we compare their present state with that of that time. Now we can say without hesitation that we have a perfect day of true knowledge of God - then it was a perfect night; Now the light of Christ shines brightly throughout immeasurable Russia - then it was covered in thick darkness of idolatry. But evidence has been preserved that even in that darkness the stars were already twinkling, showing travelers the direct path to their mountainous homeland, that such stars from time to time multiplied more and more in number, until dawn finally came - the harbinger of the most joyful morning. These testimonies tell us: 1) that the holy Apostle Andrew the First-Called also preached the Gospel in some of our countries; Then they indicate undoubted traces of Christianity 2) in ancient Scythia, or the present-day Novorossiysk region, 3) in ancient Sarmatia, or the present-day Caucasus region, and even more 4) in ancient Iveria and Armenia, or the present-day Transcaucasia. Little, no doubt, and almost imperceptible was all this in that great period of the Church, when in other countries of the world, and especially within the Roman borders, it already shone with full light, when the greatest events took place in it, which had an impact on its entire destiny, hosts of great shepherds and teachers flourished, the faces of the great ascetics amazed the world with their holiness, Ecumenical Councils were formed, which confirmed the holy faith for all subsequent centuries. We repeat, small and almost invisible at that time were the few traces of Christianity that appeared within our borders. But let us remember that everything has its time and order, that, according to the wise plans of Providence, the Russian kingdom itself did not yet exist on earth. Other kingdoms were fulfilling their destiny in the human race, and for Russia, together with her Church, the lot was being prepared ahead. Chapter I. Preaching of the Holy Apostle Andrew in our countries. The ancient legend about the preaching of the Holy Apostle Andrew among us is worthy of all our attention. This is the news of our first sermon - and the apostolic sermon! And our ancestors believed this news at all times. They expressed it on occasion to every questioner; it was repeated by all our chroniclers from the first to the last. On one of the heights of Kyiv, where, according to legend. The first-called disciple of Christ erected the holy cross as a sign of the future enlightenment of Russia with the Gospel, from the beginning of the 13th century. a church was built in the name of the Exaltation of the Honorable Cross as a living testimony of belief in this sacred tradition; in the 16th century it was restored in the best possible way, and from 1744 to the present day there has been a magnificent church dedicated to the name of the First-Called of the Apostles, who was the first destined to call the Russian land into the Kingdom of Christ's grace. For a thorough consideration of such an important tradition, which in modern times some have begun to question, it seems to us that it is necessary to resolve the following questions: I) exactly and where exactly did the holy Apostle Andrew travel in our countries, II) to which peoples did he preach here, and III) what were the consequences of his preaching among us. I. Exactly and where exactly did the holy Apostle Andrew travel in our countries. The most ancient evidence of the preaching of the Holy Apostle Andrew dates back to the beginning of the third century. One belongs to Saint Hippolytus, Bishop of Portoena (c. 222), who in his short essay on the twelve apostles says the following about the holy Apostle Andrew: “Andrew, after preaching to the Scythians and Thracians, suffered death on the cross in Patras of Achaea, being crucified on an olive tree, where he was buried.” We read another from the famous Origen (200-258): “The apostles and disciples of our Lord and Savior, scattered throughout the universe, preached the Gospel, and namely: Thomas, as the tradition has been preserved to us, received Parthia as an inheritance, Andrew - Scythia, John received Asia, and so on.” Both of these testimonies are of great importance for our purpose as the testimonies of men who were distinguished by education and very close to the time of the event they mention. Origen studied with Clement of Alexandria, who was himself a student of Panten, and treated other apostolic men. Hippolytus calls himself a disciple of Saint Irenaeus, who for a long time enjoyed special closeness with Saint Polycarp and loved to question the direct disciples of the apostles about everything concerning their divine teachers. Consequently, Origen and Hippolytus could have learned about the place of preaching of the holy Apostle Andrew secondhand! In particular, the testimony of Origen is important because it really points to this ancient and undoubted source from which it is borrowed: how the tradition came down to us (ως η παράδοσις πέριεχε), and the testimony of Hippolytus because it clearly determines in which Scythia the holy Apostle Andrew preached: he preached, says the holy father, to the Scythians and Thracians, crucified in Patras; therefore, to those Scythians who lived in the neighborhood of the Thracians, and in that Scythia, which, starting from the Balkan mountains, went to the mouths of the Danube and extended beyond the Danube within the borders of our fatherland, and not at all to any Asian Scythians who lived beyond the Caspian Sea and in Siberia, and not to the Hyperborean Scythians who filled the north-eastern countries of Europe. In the fourth century we find more detailed legends about the holy Apostle Andrew. Saint Dorotheos (307-322), Bishop of Tyre, writes about him: “Andrew, brother of the Apostle Peter, traveled through all of Bithynia, all of Thrace and the Scythians (or, as in another list, the entire coastal country of Bithynia, Pontus, and Thrace, and the Scythians), preaching the Gospel of the Lord; then he reached the great city of Sevast (or Sevastopol), where the fortress of Aspar is located and the river Phasis (now Rion), near which the interior Ethiopians live; buried in Patras of Achaea, having been crucified by Egeates.” It is obvious that, according to the meaning of this legend, Saint Andrew, starting from the southern Black Sea coastline in Bithynia and Pontus, preached throughout the western coastline through Thrace, the northern coastline through the country of the Scythians, stretching from the Danube to the Sea of Azov, and appeared in the eastern coastline - in present-day Abkhazia, where the city of Sevasta was located - having crossed there by ship from the Crimean shores (which, however, is not clear from the words) or having made a dry journey around the Sea of Azov through ancient Sarmatia, i.e. passed, by the way, our current Novorossiysk region, probably. Caucasian, and reached Transcaucasia. This legend will receive great importance in our eyes when we take into account that it, like the entire short work of Dorotheus about the apostles, according to the assurance of those who read it in the original, was collected by the holy father from previous and, therefore, even more ancient Greek and Jewish documents, and therefore goes back, perhaps, like the testimonies of Hippolytus and Origen, to the age of the apostles. For those who doubt the authenticity of Dorofeev’s legend, we note that in the last half of the same fourth century this legend was repeated by the famous teacher of the Church, Bishop of Cyprus Epiphanius (†403), and with greater certainty regarding the preaching of the holy Apostle Andrew in ancient Sarmatia, one of the friends of Blessed Jerome - Sophronius (†390), who translated and slightly expanded from himself his catalog of church writers. “Andrew,” these additions say, “the brother of the Apostle Peter, as our ancestors told us, preached the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ to the Scythians, Sogdians and Saks, and also preached in the great Sevastopol, where the Aspar fortress and the Phasis river are located, where the internal Ethiopians live; buried in Patras of Achaea, having been crucified by Egeates, prefect of Edessa.” Again, an ancient source is pointed out - the tradition of the fathers - and it is already quite clearly expressed that the holy evangelist, on his way from ancient Scythia to Transcaucasia, visited Sarmatia - almost all the way to the Caspian Sea; because, although, according to ancient writers, the Persians in general called all the Scythians Saks, but, predominantly, the Asian Scythians who lived on the north-eastern shores of the Caspian Sea, and the Sogdians were their neighbors and in the first two centuries after the Nativity of Christ extended their power to the Alans, who lived, according to the news of European historians of that time, between the Volga, Don and the Caucasus, when, in all likelihood, Sogdians and founded in the Crimea the city of Sagdeya, or Sugdeya (present-day Sudak), by its name, about the time of origin of which nothing definite is known. After the testimony of two other, subsequent writers, namely Eucherius, Archbishop of Lyons (449), who, mentioning the gospel of the holy Apostle Andrew among the Scythians, is based on history, and Isidore of Spain (570-636), who claims that the Apostle Andrew received Scythia as an inheritance and together Achaia, which clearly hints which Scythia should be meant here, the testimony of Nikitas is very remarkable Paphlagona (†873). In a word of praise to this apostle, he says: “You, worthy of all my respect, Andrew, having received the north as your inheritance, jealously bypassed the Iberians, Sauromatians, Tauri and Scythians and flowed through all the regions and cities adjacent to Pot Euxinus from the north and south...” What is special here, firstly, is that the peoples to whom Saint Andrew preached in our countries are numbered in a different order than those of Dorotheus and Sophronius, and the apostle’s path leads from Georgia through the Caucasus and Novorossiysk regions to Greece. However, this does not matter: the writers, without significantly changing the historical truth, could list the countries where the holy evangelist passed through, and in a different order than what was actually the case. The important thing is that in this testimony the same places of our fatherland are indicated for Andreeva’s preaching as in the previous testimonies, only here it is much clearer and more precise. Nikita Paphlagon directly says that Andrei preached among the Iberians, which we do not find among previous writers, and his words are confirmed by the ancient legend of the Iberian chronicles, dating back to the time of the enlightener of Iberia Nina (c. 318), and on the other hand, by the fact that to this day, in the mountains of Abkhazia, the grave of Simon the Canaanite, who was the companion of the Apostle Andrew, is pointed out with reverence. Then Paphlagon mentions above to the north the Sauromatians, who lived in the first century precisely in the region of the Caucasus between the Volga, Don and the Caucasus Mountains, from where they had just advanced to European Scythia around this time. Further, he believes, according to the natural direction of Andreev’s path to Greece, the Tauri - the inhabitants of the Crimea, after them - the Scythians, who, understood in the closest sense, were actually located in the first century in the so-called Lesser Scythia - from Chersonesos to Borysthenes, and others to the Danube itself. The geographic accuracy is the most perfect! Finally, let us cite the testimony of another ninth-century writer, the Jerusalem hieromonk Epiphanius. Driven by pious zeal, he deliberately went around those places that, according to the legend of St. Epiphanius of Cyprus, were announced by the preaching of the holy Apostle Andrew, everywhere he tried to collect the most reliable information about him and, based on local legends, he was the first to draw up his life, quite detailed. From this life it turns out that within the boundaries of present-day Russia, the First-Called Apostle visited, with his disciples and collaborators, the land of Iveron, Svaneti and Ossetia, where the city of Fostofor was located; from there he went down to Abkhazia and preached in the city of Sevast; stretching further along Pomorie, he crossed the land of the Dzhigets, the country of Upper Sundag and reached the seaside city of Bosporus, the capital of the Bosporus Kingdom, near the Cimmerian Strait; from the Bosporus, following along the southern coast of Tauris, he arrived in Feodosia, a vast and populous city, then ruled by Prince Savremat, and from Feodosia he moved to the city of Chersonesus, where he remained for a long time. Thus, during his journey, Epiphanius, as it were, verified with local legends the well-known tales of fourth-century writers about the preaching of the holy Apostle Andrew in the southern countries of our fatherland. Epiphanius does not say whether the holy Apostle Andrew and his preaching extended from Tauride Chersonesos to the interior regions of present-day Russia. But our domestic chronicler, writing at the end of the 11th century, placed in his chronicle a story that the First-Called Apostle from Chersonesos reached the Kiev mountains along the Dnieper River, blessed them, erected a holy cross on them and predicted to his disciples that “on these mountains the grace of God will shine, there will be a great city and many churches God will erect”; and then, continuing his journey, he reached Novgorod itself and the Varangians. At the beginning of the story, the chronicler expressed himself: “Like a decision” - and thus directly pointed to its source - legend. This tradition could have been written, and the Monk Nestor could have used it among other written monuments of antiquity, which he sometimes referred to in a similar way. And that there were written legends about the Holy Apostle Andrew, very close to what the chronicler gave us, this is partly vouched for by an ancient Greek manuscript located in one of the Oxford libraries, from which only a small excerpt was published about the journey of the Holy Apostle Andrew in the country of anthropophagi, or cannibals, believed by ancient geographers to be in the depths of Russia. But it is much more likely, on the basis of Nestorov’s expression as if he were deciding, that the reverend chronicler took advantage of oral tradition, which could have been preserved in our countries from the very beginning of the Christian era, although they were almost continuously controlled by pagan peoples - the Goths (in the 3rd century), the Huns (in the 4th and 5th centuries), the Khazars (in the 7th and 8th centuries) and others. For, as we will soon see, in some southern regions of Russia, almost from the time of the Apostle Andrew himself, Christianity was constantly supported until its complete establishment in our fatherland, and these very pagan peoples little by little accepted our holy faith in the 3rd, 4th and subsequent centuries. Under such circumstances, the legend about our first and, moreover, apostolic sermon, as a most important event for local Christians, naturally had to pass from generation to generation, from fathers to children and be observed with all care, like a shrine, until it finally reached, after the adoption of Christianity by the Kyiv Slavs (in 866, 957 and 988), the very heart of Russia - Kyiv, and here the ears Nestorova. By the way, here is another oral tradition that has survived to this day, which says that the First-Called Disciple of Christ, marching along the Dnieper to Kyiv, due to the danger of navigation, spent some time on one high stone cape, known as Monastyrki, located on the seventh Dnieper rapids, the Nenasatimoi, or Nenasytitsky. However, the idea of ​​St. Andrew’s journey even to the inner regions of Russia, although not as separately as that of our chronicler, is also contained in some of the Greek news we examined: for example, in the news of Nikita Paphlagon, according to whom the holy evangelist traveled not only to all the southern regions and cities of our region adjacent to the Euxine Pontus (Black Sea), but also to all the countries of the north, of course, in the direction of this Pontus; and even more clearly - in the news of Nicephorus Callistus (XIV century), who, although later than our chronicler, could use the same ancient sources as him. In Callistus we read that Saint Andrew with his preaching reached the land of the anthropophagi and the Scythian deserts. But these deserts, according to the description of the ancients, were located approximately in the current Kharkov, Kursk and Tambov provinces. And by the country of the Anthropophagi we meant a country that lay in the depths of what is now European Russia, in the neighborhood of the Melanchlenians, who lived, according to Herodotus, 800 versts from the Black Sea to the north, in the neighborhood of the Fyssagetae, Budins, Agathyrsi and Nomads, who stretched across what is now Great Russia and Belarus to the Baltic Sea and further to the north. It is impossible not to recall here the legend about the holy Apostle Andrew that he preached in Poland, which, like the legend about his journey in Russia, has been preserved for centuries, in all likelihood only in the mouths of the people, and is finally contained in writing. This Polish legend reinforces ours, being mutually reinforced by it. Our venerable chronicler, having described the path of the holy evangelist through Russia - from Chersonese up the Dnieper to Kyiv, and from Kyiv further along the Dnieper and other rivers to Novgorod and the Varangian Sea - a path that really existed, notes that Saint Andrew went from the Varangians to Rome, from where he again crossed to Greece. Which way did he go? The chronicler does not speak clearly, but most naturally - the route that ran at that time from the Baltic Sea to the Adriatic Sea and Italy. And this only path at that time ran precisely through the plains of present-day Poland, the Carpathians, the valleys of Vaga and Pannonia. It was along it that the evangelist of Christ could walk to Rome and, passing, announce the word of the Gospel to the local residents. Be that as it may, the legend about the gospel of the holy Apostle Andrew, even in the inner regions of our fatherland, does not contain anything incredible, and there is no reason to reject it unconditionally or accept it as one idea. Will they say that this path is too far, that Saint Andrew already needed a lot of time to preach around the entire Black Sea and visit the regions of Greece, in which he undoubtedly founded several private Churches? But we must remember that this great teacher labored in his holy field not only for five or ten years, but at the very least for more than twenty, and in the most probable opinion, about forty; We must also remember the apostolic zeal with which Christ’s disciples hurried to the most remote countries of the world to attract them to their Teacher and Lord. We agree that there is a slight oddity in the narrative of our chronicler when he says that St. Andrew could have been occupied to such an extent by the custom of the Novgorod Slavs to wash in baths. But this is a necessary growth and embellishment, without which the most reliable legend, preserved for centuries in the mouths of the people, cannot do; this strangeness concerns a subject completely irrelevant to the narrative; it can be thrown away, it can be changed and even further increased, and the basis of the narrative about the journey of the First-Called in Russia will remain intact. II. What nations did he preach to here? In particular 1) What peoples could he preach to in ancient Scythia, or the current Novorossiysk region? First of all, it is certain that here, along the entire length of the Black Sea coast, there were then several Greek settlements, such as: Olbia, Chersonesus, Feodosia, Panticapaeum. But it is no less certain that the main inhabitants of these countries were barbarian peoples, and among them were hidden, albeit under false names, some Slavic tribes. Thus, very thoroughly and rightly, some scientists have now begun to recognize the ancient Getae as Slavs, who in the time of the apostles lived on both sides of the Danube at its very mouth, then extended up the Russian regions to the Tiras (Dniester) River, from which they were called Tiragetians (Tivertsi), further to the Dnieper itself and several years before the Nativity of Christ (c. 60-55) penetrated into the Crimea, where they captured Olbia and other Greek settlements. To be convinced of the Slavicity of the Getae, or Dacians, one has only to take into account a) their permanent location, according to ancient geographers, in the neighborhood of the Neuroi and Budins (Vudins, Veneds), who were undeniably true Slavs, and with this bear b) the clear testimony of Theophylact Simocatta (629), who claims that the Slavs were anciently called Getae (Vends, genets, enets, gents, getae), and then the testimony of the most learned Photius, who repeated the same thought twice, Photius, who was in close relations with the Slavs, engaged in their conversion, and therefore could easily acquire the most thorough information about them. It is worth delving into the meaning of the few words of the Getae, preserved by Strabo, which sound purely Slavic, as follows: the name of the most famous leader of the Getae - Voyrevist or, as in another place, Virevista, a completely Slavic name, long used in Poland, in the double form: Borivoy and Borevist, and now used in abbreviation: Borevich, Vyrvich, also the name of one Getian river - Bogaion, which they called and one sacred height, located near this river, a sound completely similar to Boggai, Bugai - a forest dedicated to the deity, as many areas in Poland are called to this day. It is also worth remembering d) two ancient legends of the Slavs: one is that their ancestors once dealt with Alexander the Great, the conqueror of the Getae, and the other about the happy battles of Trajan in Dacia, where, as is known, he fought with the local inhabitants, the Getae, or Dacians, and e) look at the current inhabitants of ancient Dacia, the Wallachians - a people descended from a mixture of the indigenous inhabitants of the country and the Romans immigrants who speak a mixture of Latin and Slavic and who for centuries listened to divine services in the Slavic language and used it in their diplomacy. One must, it seems, agree with those who think to see the Slavic tribe in the Krovichi (Kroviz), which Pliny believes beyond the Danube, in the neighborhood of the Tiragetians, in Russia, although vaguely. This opinion is supported by the very name of the people - Krovichi, which is so similar to the name of the Krivichi, according to Nestor, one of the Slavic-Russian tribes; partly, that since the time of Herodotus, almost all geographers indicate the dwellings of the Krovichs in the very places where the Getae lived, namely between the Danube, Pontus and Haem, or the Balkan Mountains; finally, that, according to ancient testimony, the blood people honored their sage Zamolxis as a divine man and almost like a god, and this Zamolxis, according to another ancient legend, was a Getae family - and the Getae honored him in this way; This Zamolxis, according to the third legend preserved among the later Greeks, was the most ancient Russian philosopher. “The Scythians-Russians,” writes Leo the Deacon in his description of Svyatoslav’s war against the Bulgarians and Greeks, “learned pagan worship and Hellenic sacrifices, as they say, from their philosophers Anacharsis and Zamolxis.” Therefore, the Bloods, it is true, were only a special generation of Getae, or Slavs, our ancestors. Not without reason, finally, some want to recognize as Slavs all the Sarmatians who just emerged from beyond the Don in the first century and flooded the entire present-day Novorossiysk region under the name of Roxolani and Iazyges, citing a) the origin of the Sarmatians from Media, from where the ancients brought out the Genetians, or Wends, a Slavic people, and, in particular, the Tsigins, or Czechs, one of the tribes Slavic; b) the coincidence of the dwellings of some Sarmatian branches with the dwellings of the Slavs: thus, the Sarmatians of Amaxovia, according to the testimony of Pevtinger’s maps, lived inside what is now Poland, in a country called Mazovia or Mazovsha, and the Baltic Sea itself, known to the ancients from local inhabitants under the name of Vened, was also called Sarmatian by them; c) to be included among the indigenous Sarmatian tribes of the Neurs and Vudins, Slavic tribes; d) the similarity and even supposed unity of the name “Sarmatian” with the name “brother” or “Serb” and the fact that the inhabitants of Sarmatia in ancient times were allegedly called Serbs, etc. We say that this opinion is not without reason, but it cannot be accepted in its entirety, for the name Sarmatians, although at the beginning, like the name of the Scythians, could have been the proper name of one specific people, but soon, like the same name of the Scythians, it became common to many and even all peoples living in Russia, or better, it became the name not of any people, but the local name of the country. Consequently, although it is indisputable that under this name, as before under the name of the Scythians, Slavic tribes were also hidden, perhaps even predominantly Slavic, but at the same time non-Slavic ones were also hidden, especially since the words and names of some Sarmatians preserved by the ancients, which are also found on ancient medals, do not sound at all Slavic. So, passing with the word of truth through ancient Scythia from the Don to the Danube, the holy Apostle Andrew had to meet on his way, among other things, Slavic tribes, even predominantly Slavic ones. 2) Who could he preach to in ancient Sarmatia, or the current Caucasus region? There was the main residence of the Sarmatians, who were divided into many tribes; but there, starting from the Cimmerian Bosphorus, or the present Kerch Strait, lived, according to Pliny, non-Sarmatian peoples: Maeotians, Vals, Serbs, Arrekhs, Tsingi and Psesii. We have already expressed our thoughts about the Sarmatians. In the reasoning of other peoples, we cannot help but notice that at least one of them, namely the Serbs, the best modern experts of Slavic antiquities have no doubt in recognizing as pure Slavs, and some even attempted to derive from this people all the Slavic tribes that have inhabited the vast countries of Europe since ancient times. The very name of the Serbs, a purely Slavic name, and still remaining the name of one of the Slavic generations, speaks very strikingly of the truth. To this should be added two more Slavic names of rivers flowing in the country of these Meotic Serbs: the Maravios (Maryryud) river, which, according to Ptolemy, was a side river of the Don, and the Serpa, or Sarpa, known to this day between the Volga and the Don, and finally, an important remark that some writers, like the ancient Pliny and Ptolemy, mention here about Serbians, and later ones, either right here or near these places, believe that the Vudinov, the Bulgars, and the countless tribes of Antes, whose Slavic origin is undeniable. Consequently, in ancient Sarmatia along the eastern shore of the Sea of ​​Azov and further in an indefinite space, the holy Apostle Andrew, among his listeners, naturally met Slavic tribes. As for the peoples to whom this apostle preached in Transcaucasia, we do not at all think of looking for anything Slavic in them. And therefore, leaving them aside, let us turn to a question that is closer to us. 3) To whom could the First-Called Disciple of Christ preach in the inner regions of Russia, starting from the mouth of the Dnieper to Kyiv, Novgorod and the Baltic Sea? Based on the reliable testimony of Pliny and Tacitus, writers contemporary to the apostles, it turns out that here, along the entire path of the holy evangelist, it was not any other peoples who lived then, but precisely our ancestors, the Slavs. Pliny (79) puts the Wends, or Slavs, in the middle, on the one hand, between the Sarmatians, and on the other, between the Sciri and Hyrrians. But the Sarmatians then dominated in the east, along the Don River to the Sea of ​​Azov, and in the south, along the Black Sea, in the present-day Novorossiysk region, and the dwellings of the Sciri and Girri were located on the Baltic coast. Consequently, according to the legend preserved by Pliny, all countries from the Don and the Black Sea, or more precisely. The Novorossiysk region to the very shores of the Baltic was inhabited in the first century after the Nativity of Christ by Slavic peoples. According to Tacitus (c. 100), the Wends extended in his time throughout the entire space between the borders of the Pevkins and Finns - the Pevkins, who lived in the mountains of present-day Sedmigrad on the right bank of the Dniester down to the mouth of this river and the Black Sea, and the Finns, who from ancient times occupied the extreme borders of northern Europe and only some of their branches extended on one side along the shore of the Baltic Sea to present-day Estonia, on the other to the junction of the Volga and Kama rivers. From here it is obvious that all the internal regions of Russia from the northern borders of Novgorod to the south, where now the provinces of Moscow, Smolensk, Chernigov, Kiev to the Dniester and the Black Sea were then occupied by the Slavs. Consequently (according to the testimony of Pliny and Tacitus) the Slavs occupied during the apostolic times the largest part of present-day European Russia and bordered to the north with the Finns near the northern edges of present-day Novgorod, to the east partly) with the Finns before the connection of the Kama with the Volga, and partly with the Sarmatians along the Don, to the south with the same Sarmatians who roamed in the region Black Sea, and to the west partly with the Finns, Skyrs and Girrs, who stretched along the Baltic coast, and partly with the Peevkins along the Dniester River. So, in fact, in native Russia, the holy Apostle Andrew, if he really traveled here, preached the Gospel not to anyone else, but, without a doubt, to the ancient local inhabitants, our ancestors - the Slavs. After this, it remains for us to resolve the last question, without the resolution of which all our research about the preaching of the First-Called within the Russians would be incomplete and insufficient to pronounce a final verdict on it - the question of: III. What were the consequences of his preaching to us? Has the holy evangelist found in our countries a readiness to accept heavenly teaching? And if he found it, did he found at least one or even several private Churches? And if he founded it, how long did they exist? Epiphanius, who collected at the beginning of the 9th century. information about the Apostle Andrew at the very places of his sermon is conveyed to us in his life as follows. In Iberia, Saint Andrew preached for quite a long time and enlightened many. In Svaneti, the ruler of the country herself accepted his preaching. In Ossetia, in the city of Fostofor, he converted many, and even more in Abkhazia, in the city of Sevaste. But the inhabitants of the land of the Dzhigets, cruel at heart, opposed the apostle and wanted to kill him, which is why he withdrew from them to the neighboring country of Upper Sundag, where the inhabitants joyfully followed his teaching. In Bosporus, his preaching and miracles attracted many to Christ, in Feodosia - only a small number of residents, and finally in Chersonesos - also many. In support of this information collected by Epiphanius, one can point to other evidence. According to an ancient legend recorded in the Georgian chronicles, the consequence of the preaching of the holy Apostle Andrew in Georgia was that not only was idolatry and fire worship weakened, not only was the cruel custom of sacrificing babies to the gods and eating the corpses of dead people destroyed by one of the kings of Iveron, named Rev, but also a small society of newly converted Christians appeared, against whom another king, Aderk, did not hesitated to initiate persecution. One of the most learned writers of the second century, Tertullian, among the peoples who professed the name of Christ in his time, mentions the Sarmatians, Scythians and Getae, who then lived at the very mouth of the Danube on both sides and further along southern Russia. In Tauride Chersonese, as we will see later, Saint Clement, Pope of Rome, who arrived in this country for imprisonment shortly after the departure of the Apostle Andrew from here, found more than two thousand Christians. In the ancient monthly books, or synaxarions, the following brief legend is found under the 20th day of January about the holy martyrs Enen, Nirina and Pina: “These saints were from Scythia, from the northern country, disciples of the holy Apostle Andrew. They taught about the name of Christ, and many of the barbarians were converted to the right faith and baptized. For this they were taken from the prince of the barbarians and much forced to deny Christ and sacrifice to idols, but they did not submit. It was a bitter winter, and all the rivers were so frozen that not only people, but also horses and oxen walked on the ice. The prince ordered large trees to be placed on the ice, as if with the very roots, and the saints to be tied to them. When the water became agitated and, breaking through the ice, little by little reached the necks of the saints, out of great cruelty they betrayed their holy souls to the Lord.” What kind of Scythia is this, of course? Was it the one that was located on the right, southern side of the Danube and stretched to the Balkans, or the one that was located on the left, northern side of the Danube, and extended within the borders of present-day Russia? It seems to us that the compiler of the legend meant this last Scythia, and that is why, having said that the saints were from Scythia, he added: “From the northern country,” as if in contrast to southern Scythia. And this fierce winter, this severe frost, which shackled all the rivers to such an extent, involuntarily makes us assume that the action took place somewhere here, perhaps near the Kyiv mountains, rather than across the Danube near the Balkan mountains. Be that as it may, it was only in the northern country of Scythia that the disciples of the holy Apostle Andrew acted, who converted many to Christ and tasted martyrdom. From the words of our reverend chronicler, we can conclude that in the inner regions of our fatherland, around Kyiv and Novgorod, the preaching of St. Andrew did not remain completely fruitless. True, at first our chronicle says that when the holy Apostle Andrew was in Kyiv, he only ascended the Kyiv mountains, blessed them and established a cross on one of them, prophesying about the future great city here and the numerous churches of God in it, and when he reached Novgorod, he marveled only at the strange custom of the local Slavs to wash in the baths; and not a word about whether the holy evangelist taught anyone among us, whether he was engaged in his main task - preaching - or was just traveling for some other purpose. But further we read that when he left us and came to Rome, then first of all he confessed to Christians there, as much as he taught and as much as he saw in the Slovenian land, traveling to Rome. However, we will not delude ourselves and admit that even if the holy Apostle Andrew laid down any beginnings of Christianity in the countries of Kyiv and Novgorod, they existed for a very short time. The rudeness of the people, the lack of trained shepherds and teachers, persecution from the pagans, and together the constant unrest and political upheavals were the reason that the holy faith, like that of some other peoples enlightened by the apostles themselves, was completely suppressed in our country for centuries. And Saint Apostle Andrew cannot at all be considered the direct founder of the Russian Church. No, this Church, as everyone knows, appeared in later times and is the daughter of the Church of Constantinople. The First-Called blessed this Church only from afar in the prophetic spirit, having established the holy cross on the mountains of Kyiv - its unshakable support. And if this apostle can be called its founder, then perhaps only a mediocre founder precisely because he also bestowed the first archpastor (Stachius) of Byzantium, from whom began the continuous succession of hierarchs of Constantinople and then, at the time determined by God, began the continuous series of our hierarchs, which continues to this day. And on the other hand, because the composition of the real Russian Church little by little included, noticeably and imperceptibly, all those small private Churches that were founded by the holy Apostle Andrew in the southern borders of our fatherland, and some of which, in all likelihood, as we will see later, have existed almost continuously since the time of this Apostle; although sometimes, especially before the fourth century, the holy faith was strongly suppressed in them by paganism, and although new sowers were subsequently needed so that the blessed seed sown here by the holy apostle would not completely die out and bear fruit. These small private Churches existed almost throughout the entire journey that the Apostle made in the southern reaches of Russia: in ancient Scythia, or the present-day Novorossiysk region, in ancient Sarmatia, or the present-day Caucasus region, and, finally, in Transcaucasia. Chapter II. Church of Christ in ancient Scythia, or in the current Novorossiysk region. Ancient Scythia, stretching from the Danube or even beyond the Danube from the Balkan Mountains to the Sea of ​​Azov and the Don across the entire space of the present-day Novorossiysk region, consisted of two parts - Lesser Scythia, located at the very mouth of the Danube on its right side to the Balkans, and on the left to the Karkinitsky Gulf and Tavroscythia, or present-day Crimea. In the first, that is, Lesser Scythia, there was only one diocese - Scythian, or Tomitan, and in Tauro-Scythia up to five dioceses are known, which from west to east along the Black Sea lay in the following order: Kherson, Gothic, Sourozh, Fulla and Bosporus. The seat of the Scythian diocese was the famous trading city of Tom, located on the southern side of the Danube near its mouth and, therefore, outside the borders of present-day Russia. But there is no reason to assert that the Scythian diocese did not extend beyond the northern branch of the Danube into the remaining half of ancient Lesser Scythia, which now lies entirely in Russia, where at the beginning of Christianity lived the same Getae who lived in Greek Scythia. On the contrary, it is known that the contemporary Scythian Bishop Theotimus of St. John Chrysostom, who himself was a Scythian by birth, also traveled on this side of the Danube, of course, according to his archpastoral duties, without fear of the Huns themselves, who had previously flooded this country and subjugated its indigenous inhabitants, the Getae. It is also known that Saint Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, learned, perhaps from Bishop Theotimos, about the Scythians who lived beyond the Danube (παρα τον Ιστρον, of course, in the direction from Constantinople) that they greatly thirsted for salvation (which means they were already previously familiar with Christianity), but did not have people who would satisfy them thirsty, he sent shepherds and teachers to them. Finally, according to the testimony of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, in these particular southern countries of ours, starting from the Danube, occupied in his time (10th century) by the Pechenegs, among the ruins of cities, some remains of Christian churches and crosses sculpted from stone were still found. The beginning of the Scythian diocese, or at least the beginning of Christianity in this country, should almost be attributed to the time of the Apostle Andrew himself. For, in addition to the fact that Tertullian also testifies to the Scythians and Getae as Christians, ancient acts of martyrdom often say that in Tom, as well as in other neighboring Thracian cities of Marcianople and Heraclea, persecution of Christians took place not only in the third, but also in the second and even in the first century. And in the last quarter of the third century, the Scythian bishop Evangelik was accidentally mentioned, who ruled the churches of this province under Diocletian (284-292) during the days of his persecution of the Church of Christ. From that time until the half of the sixth century, a whole series of Scythian or Tomitanian bishops are known, numbering up to twelve, of whom at least one, Theotimus, as we have already noted, was a Scythian by birth, that is, a Getae or Slav. He was famous for his high Greek education and piety. We know almost nothing about the subsequent fate of the Scythian diocese. There is no doubt that she was the first to suffer all the disasters and devastation from the barbarians, who, since the time of Emperor Justinian (529), began to continuously attack the Roman borders from across the Danube. Perhaps even at times, as a result of these devastations, she was completely left without a chief shepherd. But it was not abolished at all, for it was mentioned even by the end of the ninth century in the charter of Leo the Wise (886–911) about the metropolises subordinated to the Patriarch of Constantinople. The very cities of Scythia Minor, despite repeated devastation, also existed in the ninth and tenth centuries, according to the testimony of Hierocles and Constantine Porphyrogenitus. The main advantage of the Scythian hierarchs until the time of the Council of Chalcedon (before 451) was that they were independent in the management of their diocese and were called autocratic (αυτοκεφαλοι). This Council, by its 28th rule, together with other dioceses located within the borders of the barbarians, subordinated the Constantinople Patriarch and the Scythian one, although even before, almost since the elevation of Byzantium to the level of the capital of the Roman Empire, the Scythian bishops, like many other hierarchs of the eastern provinces, voluntarily recognized the authority of the Archbishop of Constantinople over themselves out of sheer respect for the place of his see and treated him in the most important cases. This explains why Saint Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, could take an active part in enlightening the Transdanubian Scythians with faith and send shepherds and teachers to them. On the other hand, there is no doubt that the Scythian bishops retained the title of autocratic hierarch even after the Council of Chalcedon. And the peculiarity of the Scythian diocese, as Sozomen noted, was that the ancient custom was constantly preserved here, according to which the churches of the entire province were always ruled by only one bishop. But what is primarily important for us is that this Scythian diocese, which lay partly within the borders of our fatherland, in all likelihood, was a Slavic diocese. And, firstly, as for that half of Lesser Scythia, which was on this side of the Danube from its mouth to the mouth of the Dniester and further along the Black Sea coast, here from the very beginning of Christianity the Slavs were constantly settled inhabitants, although many other peoples crossed their land in the 3rd, 4th and subsequent centuries, sometimes stopping there for quite a long time. In the first and second centuries, as we have already noted, the Getae and Tiragetae lived here, who can rightly be called Slavs; in the second, or at least in the third century, Pevtinger’s map here specifically posits the Wends, i.e. Slavs; in the fourth, according to Iornand, in these very countries the Gothic king Germanaric (332–350) waged bloody wars with the Antes, also Slavs; in the fifth (from 449), according to Constantine Porphyrogenitus, some of the Romans, whose empire extended to the Danube, crossed this river out of curiosity to find out who lived beyond it, and found here countless Slavic people; in the sixth, according to the testimony of the same Iornand, the Antes stretched from the Dniester along the shores of the Black Sea to the Danube; and according to another writer, here in 582, as soon as he arrived on the banks of the Danube from Lesser Greek Scythia, the Avar Khan Bayan found Slavic villages. The presence of the Slavs here in subsequent centuries is no longer subject to the slightest doubt: before the beginning of the Russian state, and according to our chronicler, the Sedyakhu along the Dniester and the Sedyakhu Dunaev to the very sea in this country, which the Greeks called Scythian, Uglich and Tivertsy, ancient Tiragetians - two Russian, purely Slavic tribes; and not only were they squatting, but they were squatting in large numbers and, moreover, had their own cities, which means they were long-standing settled inhabitants of the area. And in the midst of these Slavic-Russian cities, destroyed by the Pechenegs, in the 10th century. the remains of Christian churches and stone crosses were found, according to contemporary testimony; Who once prayed (of course, before the 10th century) in these Christian churches, if not the Slavic inhabitants of those cities? Likewise, on the other side of the Danube, in Greek Scythia Minor, the Slavs were permanent inhabitants. In the 1st and 2nd centuries. there lived the Getae and their fellow tribesmen, the Krivichi, who together with them revered the same domestic sage Zamolxis; in the fourth, when the Goths resettled in the region of Lower Mysia under Emperor Valens (364–378), and in the fifth, during the life of the Armenian historian Moses of Khorensky, twenty-five generations of Slavs lived there; in the seventh century, having moved to this Lesser Scythia between the Danube, Pontus and Gem, even as far as Varna, the Bulgarians found the same Slavs as settled inhabitants among seven generations. But what is even more remarkable is that they found here (by the Bulgarians’ own admission) the Greek faith and Greek priests. Isn't it a clear sign that the Scythian diocese was made up of Slavs, or at least predominantly Slavs? For we do not at all think to deny that in some cities of this province that has long been subject to the Romans, especially in the main city of Tom, where the Roman government that ruled the country was located, Greek Christians could live for trade or for other reasons. Finally, we cannot ignore two or three testimonies that somewhat determine the state of piety in the Scythian diocese. In the first centuries of Christianity, during the days of persecution of the Church, local Christians, like others, were not afraid to taste death for the holy faith; in the fourth and fifth, they, together with their shepherds, remained firm in Orthodoxy, despite all the attempts against them by the Aryan heresy and others; they even pointed to the Church of Scythia Minor as one of the exemplary ones in purity of faith and internal well-being, and to its flock as such Orthodox, who were distinguished, moreover, by deep respect for their spiritual shepherds. At the same time, mention is made of the pious custom of these Getae, or Dacians, of carrying camp churches with them during war. At the beginning of the sixth century (505-514), the inhabitants of Lesser Scythia, together with the Mizans and Thracians, out of zeal for Orthodoxy, themselves invited the military leader Vitalian to themselves and joyfully flocked to his banner so that he would defend the holy faith from the evil emperor Anastasius, who, having accepted Eutychianism, distorted it and persecuted the true children of the Church. According to ancient legend, the first preacher of the faith in Chersonese Tauride, founded several centuries before the birth of Christ by the Herakliots on the southwestern coast of Crimea, not far from present-day Sevastopol, is St. Apostle Andrew. And one can think that his preaching here did not completely remain fruitless, because when, thirty years after him in 94, Saint Clement, the Pope of Rome, who had been condemned to imprisonment by the Emperor Trajan, arrived in these places, which were then under the rule of Rome, he found here more than two thousand Christians who, according to the definition of the same government hostile to Christianity, were engaged in cutting and processing stones to deliver them to the internal cities of the empire. However, justice requires noting that these Christians could, of course, be from the local inhabitants of Crimea, and in particular Chersonesos, but they could also have been exiled here even before Clement from other parts of the Roman state. What the apostle began was continued by the apostolic husband, Saint Clement, who, having arrived in Tauroscythia, accompanied by many of his Roman flock, by this alone contributed to the multiplication of local Christians. But soon the miracle he performed drew the attention of the whole country to him, crowds of pagans hurried to him from all sides, and every day several hundred were baptized by him, so that within one year, according to Metaphrastus, the holy evangelist managed to eradicate paganism throughout the entire peninsula and establish up to 75 churches. Therefore, this shepherd can rightly be called the first bishop of Kherson, unless there has been a bishop in Kherson since the time of the Apostle Andrew himself. However, even now the holy faith has not been established on the Crimean peninsula. The news of the successes of Saint Clement quickly reached the Roman emperor and immediately attracted persecution of Christians, during which the archpastor himself (in 100) was drowned in the sea, and some of his flock also sealed their confession with martyrdom, while others, perhaps, decided to hide their faith from the pagans or were even forced to yield to violence. Be that as it may, only in the next two centuries, the second and third, nothing is known about traces of Christianity in the Kherson region, and if it was not completely exterminated here, at least it was strongly suppressed by paganism. This is evident from the fact that when in 310, during the reign of Emperor Diocletian, two missionaries, Bishops Basil and Ephraim, arrived in Tauroscythia from the Patriarch of Jerusalem Hermon, they found inveterate pagans in Chersonesus, and it took another fifteen years, it took all the apostolic zeal to finally establish Christianity here. Bishops Vasily and Ephraim, of whom the first chose Kherson itself as his field, and the latter turned to preach to the neighboring Scythians, after tireless labor, both had important success, but both soon on the same day (March 7), each in his own place, received the crown of martyrdom. Hearing about their blessed death, three more missionary bishops immediately rushed here - Eugene, Elpidius and Agathodorus, who had hitherto been engaged, by the will of the same Patriarch of Jerusalem, in preaching the gospel in the Hellespont - their zeal and exploits were crowned with even greater success in the Crimea than the exploits of their predecessors; but exactly a year later, on the same day (March 7), the new preachers of Christ were also honored to taste martyrdom from the local pagans and Jews for their preaching. During the reign of Constantine the Great, when the Church of Christ became dominant in the Roman Empire, it finally triumphed in the country of Kherson, partly with the assistance of this Equal-to-the-Apostles Emperor, and mainly through the special dispensation of Providence. Being on friendly terms with Emperor Constantine and willingly obeying his commands, the Chersonesos did not dare to oppose him even when the new Bishop Epherius, who arrived to them from the Patriarch of Jerusalem, brought with him an imperial decree so that in Chersonesos it would not be forbidden for Christians to openly profess their faith and perform divine services. These Christians immediately set up a church for themselves, and after the death of Etherius (which followed on the 7th day of March) they asked Equal-to-the-Apostles Constantine for another archpastor - Captain, a man of rare faith and boldness before God. For when, upon his arrival at his flock, crowds of pagans began to demand from him a sign to certify them of the divinity of Christianity, the man of God, for the sake of saving many thousands of souls, did not hesitate at all to decide on a feat that threatened him with death: calling on the Lord for help, he boldly entered, at the insistence of the infidels, into the kindled furnace, remained for an entire hour in the middle of the flames and, to the greatest amazement of everyone, remained unharmed. This great miracle, which completely converted the entire Kherson country, was reported to Emperor Constantine and the fathers who were in Nicaea at the First Ecumenical Council (in 325), who reverently glorified God, marvelous in His saints for the salvation of sinners. From now on, the Kherson diocese had already completely settled down and a continuous series of its archpastors began, of which, however, during the period of time we are considering, only five remained known to us. These were, after the eight already counted bishops of Kherson: 9th – Epherius II, who was present at the Second Ecumenical Council (in 381), between whose signatures we read: Epherius of Terson, instead of Kherson. 10th – Longinus, whose name appears twice under the acts of the local Council of Constantinople, which took place in 448. 11th – Stephen, who sat at the Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 535. 12th - George I, who signed the acts of the Council of Trullo in 692: George, unworthy bishop of Cherson of Doran - Γεωργιος, αναξιος Επισκοπος Ξερσωνος της Δωραντος. 13th - George II, who ruled the Cherson Church at the time when Cyril and Methodius, traveling to preach to the Khazars, found the relics of St. Clement in Chersonesus (about 860). The Kherson hierarchs, like the Scythian hierarchs, were autocratic (αυτοκεφαλοι) and independent in the administration of their diocese until the time of the Council of Chalcedon, which subordinated them to the Patriarch of Constantinople. In terms of numbers, the Kherson diocese, among others subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople, was considered either fifty-eighth, then twenty-fifth, or sixteenth. The Christians of the Kherson diocese were predominantly Greeks - inhabitants of the city of Chersonesos and other surrounding Greek settlements; but it cannot be argued that only the Greeks. For 1) it is known that in Chersonese itself, from the first centuries of Christianity, in addition to the Greeks, there were also Taurians, and Scythians, who occupied entire quarters, and Sauromatians, of whom in the third century were even the main rulers of Chersonese, and living among Christians for entire centuries, it is impossible that these barbarians were not more or less familiar with the holy faith and did not accept it; 2) the diocese of Kherson, of course, was not limited to the city of Chersonese, but extended to the entire country under its control, which, for example, during the reign of Constantine the Great, included all the coastal places of the southern Crimea to Feodosia and further to the east, although in subsequent times it was significantly reduced. But these places were then occupied mainly by barbarian peoples - Scythians, Taurians and others; again it seems incredible that at least some - a few - of them did not from time to time join the flock of Christ, living in such close proximity to Christians and under their authority. History, indeed, confirms that some of these barbarians accepted Christianity in the first centuries: such, for example, was the famous writer of the Church of the fifth century, John Cassian, a Scythian from Tauric Chersonese, a zealous denouncer of the Nestorians, who left several pious works praised by Photius. It is impossible to determine which tribe these Kherson Scythians belonged to, Slavic or non-Slavic. But no matter what they belonged to, the entire diocese of Kherson was not entirely Greek, and perhaps included some Slavs. The Goths, who moved towards the end of the second century (c. 182–215) from the Baltic coastline to the Black Sea borders of our fatherland and first established themselves between the Dniester and the Dnieper, and soon extended their power to the entire space of the present Novorossiysk region from the Danube to the Don and penetrated into the Crimea, for the first time the Gospel sermon was announced here during the reign of the Greek emperors Valerian and Gallien. In 260, having made a devastating raid on Asia Minor, Galatia and Cappadocia, these new enemies of the Roman Empire brought with them many Greek captives, including priests and clerics, who conveyed to their conquerors the first concepts of the holy faith. But at this time only a few were baptized, and it is not at all known that the Goths already had a bishop. They turned to Christ in much greater numbers (c. 323) during the reign of Emperor Constantine the Great, who, according to Socrates, having won a decisive victory over them by the power of the cross of Christ, so amazed the barbarians with his unexpected and extraordinary success over them that they not only refused the gifts that they usually received from the court of Constantine, but decided to completely surrender to that holy faith, under the protection of which Constantine remained so safe everywhere. After this, the Goths established a diocese, and their bishop Theophilus was present at the First Ecumenical Council (in 325), under the acts of which he signed the Metropolitan of Gothia or, as in other lists, Theophilus of Bosporitania from Gothia. This signature shows that the seat of the Gothic diocese was at first not in the Crimea, where, as we will see, it established itself over time, but in the country stretching from the Danube to the Dniester and the Black Sea, which then began to be called Gothia - in ancient Dacia, or the current part of Wallachia, but mainly Bessarabia - and even more specifically: it was located precisely at the Bosporus, or the Black Sea, therefore, undoubtedly on the present land Russian. Soon Christianity spread even more among the Goths with the assistance of some Greek missionaries, such as during the reign of Emperor Constantius (337–361) the priest Obadiah, whose preaching was accompanied by such success that in a short time he even founded monasteries for men and women in Gothia, mentioned by his contemporaries Epiphanius and Cyril; and blessed Eutyches, with whom, according to the testimony of Basil the Great, no one could then compare in the great work of converting the barbarians to Christ; finally, during the reign of Emperor Valens (365-378), the Thessalonite Bishop Asholus, whom the same holy father extols with all sorts of praise for his apostolic zeal in spreading and especially maintaining the holy faith among the Goths and calls him the adornment of his fatherland - Cappadocia. But at the same time, two greatest disasters befell the Gothic Church - persecution for the faith and the heresy of Arius. The culprit of the first was the Gothic king Atanaric, partly out of blind adherence to paternal superstitions, and more out of irreconcilable hatred of the Romans, whose religion his subjects accepted. This persecution was raised in Gothia three times - in 370, 371 and 372. and each time it continued with amazing cruelty. The believers, excited and strengthened by the Thessalonite bishop Ascholius, courageously went to torture of all kinds and surprised the entire Christian world with their firmness and zeal for the faith. This is what forced Saint Basil the Great to write to his relative Junius Soranus, who, being at that time the ruler of Scythia Minor, a Roman province neighboring Gothia, gave refuge to many Goths who had fled from persecution, and to ask this relative, if possible, to send back to his fatherland, Cappadocia, the very bodies of the Gothic martyrs. Soran, indeed, fulfilled the desire of the pious archpastor, sending him the relics of Saint Sava, who suffered during the last persecution. And the spread of the Aryan heresy among the Goths was facilitated by another of their kings, Fritigern, who, on the occasion of civil strife with Atanaric, having asked for help from the Emperor Valens, found nothing better to testify to his gratitude to him than the acceptance of the faith he professed, and carried away some of his subjects with him. But the main character in this case was the famous Bishop Ulfila. At first, precisely from 348 or 349, when he was ordained by the Constantinople Patriarch Eusebius, Ulfilas, following the example of his predecessor Theophilus, who was present at the Council of Nicea, strictly adhered to the Orthodox confession of Nicea. Then he became a semi-Arian, having signed in 360 at the local Council of Constantinople the Acacians under a confession in which although the Savior is called the only begotten Son of God and before the ages begotten of the Father, he is not consubstantial with the Father (ομοουσιος), as the Nicene fathers confessed, but only similar (ομοιος). Finally, on the occasion of the invasion of the Huns on Gothia, having been sent by the Gothic king as the main ambassador to the Emperor Valens (c. 377) to ask him for permission for the Goths to move to Mysia, Ulfilas, in order to succeed in his embassy, was forced to become a perfect Arian, and having an extraordinary moral influence on the Goths, for whom he worked very hard in enlightening them with the faith for which he invented writing and translated into the Russian language all the Holy Scriptures, except for the books of Kings, he separated from the Orthodox Church the entire Gothic people, who had hitherto remained in the apostolic teaching. However, Blessed Theodoret notes that the Goths did not become perfect Arians even after this, for although they recognized the Father as greater than the Son, they did not at all agree to confess the Son as created, and that they did not completely betray the Orthodox faith of their fathers, because Ulfilas, when he bowed them to the side of Valens, assured them that there was no difference in dogmas between the Orthodox and the Arians and that all disagreement occurred from empty word disputes. On the other hand, it is known that Saint Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (398–404), used all measures to convert the Goths to Orthodoxy; for this purpose, he gave them a special church for worship in Constantinople itself, supplied them with priests, deacons and readers from among their compatriots, often attended their services himself, forcing the Gothic presbyters to teach the people the faith or even turning to them with their own word of edification, and at the same time sent deliberate missionaries to Gothia itself beyond the Danube, whom he tried to reinforce in their holy feat with his letters. The consequence of such care was that, in addition to many of the Goths who moved to Mysia under Valens, all those who remained in Gothia itself, within our fatherland, returned to the bowels of the Orthodox Church, and even received the Orthodox Bishop Unilu from St. Chrysostom, and after his death (in 404) they asked for a new bishop. Soon after this (less than a hundred years from the time of its establishment), the Gothic diocese was transferred to Crimea and established in it forever, until the very end of its existence. Its residence here is the seaside region of Dori, where, according to Procopius, the Goths lived for a long time, numbering three thousand, who did not dare to follow Theodoric to Italy (c. 488). Likewise, the very name of Gothia is transferred to this country, which extended, as can be seen from the charter of 1380, along the southern sea coast from Balaklava to Sudak, or Surozh, which means in the direction from Tauride Chersonesus to the east. In the days of Procopius, part of the Christian Goths lived even near the Sea of ​​Azov and the Kerch Strait under the name of Tetraxites. It is definitely impossible to say from what exact time these Tetraxite Goths began to have a special bishop, but in 547 the death of their chief hierarch is already mentioned and that they sent four ambassadors to Emperor Justinian to ask for a new archpastor, whom they actually received. In subsequent times, they sometimes recognized the supreme authority of the Kherson bishop over themselves, and more often had their own. Such was John, Bishop of Goth, revered by the Orthodox Church, “who,” as it is said in our Cheti-Menaia, “in the kingdom of Leo the Isaurian and Constantine Copronymus (hence, c. 746) many from the iconoclasts of the underworld, and to Queen Irene (not before 769) had instructive conversations about the Orthodox faith; I became the Kiz rulers who committed heresy, having escaped from them, and went to the Lord in Mastriad.” The same was the Gothic Bishop Nikita, in whose place, on his instructions, the monk Cyril signed the acts at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787). To the credit of these Tetraxite Goths, it should be noted that they were not only constantly Orthodox, but were also distinguished by the most sincere and sincere faith and piety, as Procopius testifies about them. Turning to the last question regarding the Christian Goths within our fatherland, we admit from the first time that we do not at all agree to recognize them as a Slavic tribe, as some of our scientists want. Two or three testimonies from the Middle Ages, inaccurate, indecisive, which apparently confirm such an idea, mean nothing in front of clear and irrefutable evidence that convinces otherwise. Of the ancient writers, neither Procopius nor Iornand, who knew both the Goths and the Slavs very well and report the most separate information about their generations, by no means present these two peoples as one people, but constantly distinguish them. In 1253, the monk Rubrukvis, who personally visited our Crimean Goths, testifies that they spoke German, and this testimony was later repeated by another eyewitness, a 15th-century traveler. (1436) Jehoshaphat Barbaro. Even now, anyone can find the most tangible evidence of this in the surviving monuments of ancient Gothic writing and especially in the remains of Ulfil’s translation of the sacred books (hence, ca. 360), the authenticity of which is undeniable. But, rejecting the Slavs of the Goths, we do not at all think of rejecting the fact that the Gothic diocese, especially when it was located between the Danube and the Dniester near the Black Sea, also included some Slavs. On the contrary, we even affirm this idea, remembering, firstly, that the Slavs were the ancient inhabitants here even before the invasion of the Goths, and secondly, based on the testimony of the Gothic historian Iornand, that the Goths really conquered here, among other peoples, all the Wends, or Slavs, and on the simple consideration that the huge Gothic kingdom in the southern borders of Russia, which made the empire tremble Byzantine, could not at all have been composed of the Goths alone, who arrived here in very small numbers from the north. It is also impossible not to point out that in Ulfilov’s translation of the Holy Scriptures there are many Slavic words, which clearly suggests the closest and long-term communication of the Slavs with the Goths, and, moreover, in a religious sense: this translation could to some extent be understandable then during public services for the Slavs, although not to the same extent as for the Goths, if we assume that both constituted one spiritual flock and gathered together in churches. This idea is strengthened by the discovery that there are many Gothic words not only in the ancient Serbian laws and the current Bulgarian dialect, but in the Slavic translation of the Holy Scriptures by Cyril and Methodius itself. Living in the Crimea, the Goths were surrounded on all sides by the Huns, were sometimes (for example in 551) in friendly relations with their neighbors, the Utrigurs, the Hunnic tribe, and finally in 702 they were conquered by the Khazars, and among these peoples, as we will see later, there were undoubtedly Slavs. Consequently, there is nothing incredible if here, too, some Slavs could be Christians and be part of the Gothic diocese. This can be said with greater certainty in the reasoning of the other three dioceses located in Crimea further to the east, which are: IV, V and VI Dioceses of Sourozh, Fulla and Bosporus When exactly the diocese of Surozh, or Sugdai, was founded is definitely not known. But one can think that the inhabitants of Sudak and its surrounding settlements have been more or less enlightened by Christianity for a long time. This idea is led partly by the contiguity of these places with the Gothic diocese, partly by their position on the shores of the Black Sea, where they, like other southern settlements of the Crimea, were supposed to be in constant relations with the Greek Christians who traded here; and even more so, that in the fourth century, when several missionaries from the Church of Jerusalem came to the Crimean peninsula to spread the Gospel and when, as if it was established in the country of Cherson, all these places up to Feodosia and beyond were under the rule of Chersonesos. It is known, finally, that not only in the charter of Leo the Wise the Sugdai diocese was considered among the archdioceses, but also in the eighth century, Saint Stephen the Confessor bore the name of Archbishop of Sourozh, as can be seen from his life, which exists in the Slavic language in many ancient lists, from which it is abbreviated for our printed Ceti-Menaia. However, of all the hierarchs of the Sourozh diocese who were until the half of the 10th century, the memory of only three has been preserved, and it has been preserved almost exclusively in the life of St. Stephen that we mentioned. It is said here only in passing about the first hierarch - that after his death the Surozhans came to Constantinople to the local Patriarch German (he ruled the flock from 715 to 730) to ask for a new bishop. The second, as a result of this request, was sent to them from Patriarch Herman Saint Stephen, a Cappadocian by birth, a shepherd most zealous in faith and most pious. At this time, Emperor Leo the Isaurian initiated a persecution against icon worshipers and, persecuting them throughout his entire empire, sent, among other things, his wicked command to Surozh. Saint Stephen, zealous for orthodoxy, went to defend him personally before the emperor, boldly denounced him with the entire council of iconoclasts, was tortured and put in a Constantinople prison, predicting his tormentor's imminent death. After the death of Leo the Isaurian (741), through the intercession of Queen Irina, the wife of the new emperor Constantine Copronymus, who was the daughter of the Kerch (Kerch) king and had heard about the virtues and miracles of Saint Stephen back in her homeland, he was released from prison and appeared again on his throne. The third primate of Sourozh was Philaret, whom Saint Stephen, having foreseen his close departure to God, installed in his place as archbishop from among his clergy. From the same biography of Saint Stephen it is clear that although there was already a bishop in Surozh before him, Christianity did not flourish there. “In our city now there are many filthy people, and few Christians, and many evil heretics,” the Sourozh ambassadors said to Patriarch Herman and asked to give them a bishop, “able to teach and rule people well.” And then it is said about Saint Stephen: “The venerable one sat on the archbishop’s table, and in five years he baptized the entire city and its surroundings.” Within its borders, this diocese was, of course, not extensive and, probably, embraced, according to the custom that then existed throughout the Christian Church, only its district of Sourozh, and this district, as is reliably known, not only in the eighteenth, but also in the fourteenth century consisted of only nineteen or eighteen villages, remaining, perhaps, in this form from the eighth and seventh centuries. In subsequent times, Christianity flourished in the diocese of Sourozh, so that in Sourozh alone one could see even in the 16th century. many churches and chapels, although already in ruins. Almost no news has reached us about the Phulla (Φου̃λλα) diocese. We can only say that it was undeniably located in the Crimea, in the vicinity of the Sugdai diocese, with which it otherwise could not have been connected in later times. And this is all the more certain because the city of Fulla, or Philla (Φυλλα), is mentioned here in the ancient Greek biography of the holy Bishop John of Goth (VIII century), whose diocese extended, as we have seen, to Sudak itself; Here later (in the 9th century), “in the Fulst pagan,” Saint Cyril, the brother of Methodius, stopped the superstitious respect of the inhabitants for one great oak tree when he returned from the embassy to the Khazar Khan to preach, as the ancient biography, contemporary with Saint Cyril himself, says. The Phulla diocese was founded, perhaps, back in the fourth century, when preachers of the faith came to Crimea from Jerusalem and when Christianity, having become dominant in the Roman Empire, began to penetrate with particular force into all the surrounding countries. And in the 7th or 8th century. The Fulla diocese, like the Sourozh diocese, had already been elevated to the level of an archbishopric. The diocese of Fulla was, without a doubt, very small, which is why it was subsequently annexed to the diocese of Sourozh under the jurisdiction of one archpastor. If the information that has survived to this day about the Bosporan diocese, which had its residence in the ancient famous capital of the Bosporan kingdom - Panticapaeum, or Bosporus, where Kerch is now, is just as brief, but this information is the most accurate and definite. We undoubtedly know that the Diocese of Bosporus began at least from the beginning of the fourth century, because at the First Ecumenical Council there was already its bishop, who signed: Domnus of Bosporus. We also know that it continued its existence continuously throughout the present period, as evidenced by the names of its other bishops, preserved in the signatures of subsequent Councils or accidentally mentioned by historians. Thus, one bishop from Bosporus (απο Βοσπορου) is mentioned by Sozomen among those relatively famous archpastors for prudence and enlightenment, who, by order of Emperor Constantius, were to appear in 344 from each nation at the council in Nicomedia; this bishop, having arrived here before others, died during a terrible earthquake that occurred in Nicomedia. Another, named Eudoxius, was present at three local Councils: Constantinople in 448, when, under the chairmanship of Patriarch Flavian, the heresy of Eutyches was pronounced for the first time, Ephesus in 449, where Eutyches was illegally acquitted and Flavian condemned, and at Constantinople in 459, the purpose of which was to stop the increasing simony. Third, John in 519 signed the agreement of the Council of Constantinople with the local Patriarch John about the restoration on the sacred tablets (diptycha) of the names of the patriarchs Eusebius and Macedonius, which this new patriarch ordered to blot out, and in 536 he was present at the new Council of Constantinople, which was presided over by Patriarch Mina. Finally, the name of the fourth bishop of the Bosporans, Andrei, is mentioned in the signatures of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (in 787), where we read: “David, the most humble deacon of the most holy Church of the Bosporus, signed instead of Andrei, his most venerable bishop.” Likewise, there is no doubt that by the end of this period the Bosporan diocese, along with others located in Crimea, was included in the number of archbishoprics of the Constantinople Patriarch, under whose jurisdiction it had been a bishopric since the time of the Council of Chalcedon, according to its 28th canon. Now we will try to justify the idea expressed above that in all these dioceses, Sourozh, Fulla and Bosporus, there could be Christians and Slavs among them. To do this, one only needs to figure out which peoples have inhabited this country since the establishment of Christianity in it, of course, except for the Greek settlers who were the ancient inhabitants of the Bosporus and, perhaps, Surozh, as well as other surrounding settlements. It turns out that from the middle of the third century the Sarmatians and their kings, whose names even remained known, ruled here, ruled the entire Bosporan kingdom until 344 or 376; from the next century the Huns established themselves here (from 434) and, according to Procopius, filled the entire space from the Bosporus to Chersonesus, therefore, in fact, where the dioceses of Sourozh and Fulla were located; This continued until 669, when the Khazars extended their power over these tribes, as well as over the entire eastern country of Crimea as far as the Gothic region of Dori. Who were all these peoples? Leaving aside the Sarmatians, about whom we have already expressed our opinion, and the Khazars (who, although they extended their power over the Crimea, did not move into it, but had their dwellings somewhat higher, in southern Russia, and beyond the Don, to the Caspian Sea), we will give an answer regarding only the Huns, who lived in the southern Crimea throughout the dioceses of the Bosporus, Fulla and Sourozh constantly throughout the present period. The most reliable information about the Huns was left in his travel notes by Priscus Rhetor, who was in the Greek embassy to Attila (c. 450), a witness not only educated and modern, but also an eyewitness. What is he saying? He depicts the Huns in such a way that one cannot help but recognize them as Slavs, or at least not see them as predominantly Slavs. Not only did these Scythians (as Priscus constantly calls the Huns) cut their hair in a circle, wore shirts trimmed with patterns (dyed), steamed in baths, illuminated their homes with a torch, greeted their sovereign with bread and salt, that even in the palace of Attila himself Slavic customs prevailed, preserved by our princes and boyars until later times: songwriters sang, jesters acted and etc. Priscus, moreover, retained two Hun words, which are purely Slavic. “We were given,” he says, “instead of wine, what the natives call honey (μεδος), and our servants were given a drink, which the barbarians call kvass (καμος).” And what significance the Slavs had as part of the Hunnic horde can be concluded from the fact that some of their kings themselves and the most important dignitaries were of the Slavic tribe or bore Slavic names: such was, for example, their king Balamir, under whose leadership they set out in 374 from beyond the Don to Europe, therefore, even before they mixed with the local Slavs who fell under their power; these are the names of Boris, Vlad, Boyan, Skotan and others. Let us add to this that some writers mistook the Huns in general for a Slavic tribe or, on the contrary, called the Slavs Huns, and not only later writers - Kedrin (c. 1057), Egingard (839), Theophanes (748), but also modern Huns - Bede the Venerable (673–735) and Philostorgius (VB.) - an opinion, of course, exaggerated, but not without foundation. However, history has also preserved direct, although limited, evidence that the Huns living in the Crimea sometimes converted to Christianity. So, she tells about their king Gord, or Gord (Γορδας), who had his residence near Panticapaeum, that he, having concluded an alliance with the emperor Justinian in 529, was baptized in Constantinople, received from the font by the emperor himself and, endowed with rich gifts, returned to his region to protect, according to the conditions, the Roman possessions in Bosporus, although he was soon killed by his subjects because he wanted to convert them too harshly to the new faith he had adopted, ordering their ancient idols, silver and amber, to be taken away from them and melted down. The same is known about the ruler of the Crimean Utrigurs - Organ, who was also baptized in Constantinople itself, received the rank of patrician and, having returned to his possessions, no longer encountered any opposition here. And on the basis of these two cases, which, without a doubt, were noticed by the Byzantines because they occurred solemnly in their capital itself and concerned the most important persons in rank among the Crimean Huns, we can guess about other similar conversions that took place quietly on the Crimean peninsula itself among the masses of the people and therefore went unnoticed. Chapter III. Church of Christ in ancient Sariatia, or in the present Caucasus region. Ancient Sarmatia, located approximately between the Black and Azov seas, the Don, Volga, Caspian Sea and the Caucasus, was divided by writers differently and indefinitely, due to the differences in the peoples who lived in it and often moved from place to place. But since Christianity penetrated into it, and the dioceses founded in it became part of the Church of Constantinople, or the Eastern Church in general, the division of Sarmatia in church terms into two regions (provinces) became more known than others. The first bore the name Zikhia (Ζικχια - Zichia) and stretched along the entire coast of the Sea of ​​Azov and the Kerch Strait, approximately from the very mouth of the Don to the Caucasus, and to the east indefinitely - where the Alans bordered on it. The second was called Alania and embraced the rest of the space of Sarmatia near the Caucasus and the Caspian Sea and from the mouth of the Don and the Meotic coast to the northeast to the Volga. I. Traces of Christianity in Chikhia. In Zichia we know four dioceses, of which one had a residence in Phanagoria (Φαναγόρεια), another in Metrache (Μετράχα, Ταματάρχα, Tmutarakan, or Taman), the third in Zikhopolis, or Zikhia (Ζυγόπολιζ or Ζιχία), separated from Taman, according to Constantine Porphyrogenitus, by only one river - Ukrukh, the fourth in Nikopsis (Νίκοψις) near the current Shakupsa river. It is impossible to determine with accuracy the time of the founding of all these dioceses. It is only known that the bishops of the dioceses of Phanagoras and Zikhia at the beginning of the sixth century are mentioned as having already been present at the Councils: thus, Bishop John of Phanagoras was present at the Council of Constantinople in 519 and signed under the attitude of this Council to the Patriarch of Constantinople John about the restoration on the sacred tablets (diptychs) of the names of some of his predecessors, which he ordered to be blotted out, and the name Bishop Damian of Zichia was preserved between the signatures of the Council of Constantinople, which was chaired by Archbishop Mina in 526. The dioceses of Tmutarakan and Nikop in the charter of Leo the Wise (894–911) are already titled archbishoprics; the latter, i.e. Nikopskaya, is also named in the more ancient charter, known under the name Epiphanius of Cyprus and dating back to the 7th century. But if we take into account that the cities of Phanagoria, Tmutarakan, Zychopolis and Nikopsis, as founded by ancient Greek settlers, were probably inhabited primarily by Greeks and that these Greeks were in constant trade relations with their fellow tribesmen in Greece itself and lived in the neighborhood and under the same government with the inhabitants of the city of Bosporus, then the idea that in Zichia could Christianity established itself at least in the fourth century - after it had become dominant throughout the Greco-Roman Empire and when a special diocese already existed in the neighboring Bosporus. Or maybe, although one of the Zikhian dioceses was founded by the holy Apostle Andrew, who visited, among other things, as the description of his life testifies, the Zikkhs and Vosporins, that is, the very country of Zikhia, located near the Bosporus, or the Kerch Strait. Two of the dioceses of ancient Zichia, located in Phanagoria and Zikhopolis, were probably abolished by the end of the present period, because there is no longer a mention of them in the charter of Leo the Emperor, and were united with Tmutarakan and Nikop, and these two, as can be seen from the same charter, belonged to the number of dioceses whose hierarchs used the title of independent (αυτοκέφαλοι). As for the question of what tribe the Christians of the dioceses we are considering were, we would hardly be mistaken if we say that among these Christians, in addition to the Greeks, there could be Slavs. In the 1st and 2nd centuries, according to the testimony of Pliny and Ptolemy, Serbs lived here; in IV and V, the Bulgars are mentioned here by Moses of Khorensky, and there was a great Kuban-Caucasian Bulgaria, from which the Bulgars later emerged, the inhabitants of the Danube Slavs; in the sixth century, according to Procopius, the Huns, Uturgurs, Kuturgurs and Antes lived here, who, with the exception of the last few, are mentioned here in subsequent centuries; finally, in the 10th century, according to Arab news, the Russians found themselves in these very places. We have already seen whether the Serbs were Slavs, or whether the Huns and their most important generations - the Uturgurs and Kuturgurs - included Slavs. The Slavic origin of the Antes is beyond doubt, so all that remains is to show who the Bulgars and the Black Sea Russians were? The Bulgarian people, undeniably, contained a great number of Slavs. This is vouched for, on the one hand, by the testimonies of some ancient Greek writers, who recognize the Bulgars as one with the Huns, who included many Slavs, and on the other hand, by the testimonies of Arab writers concerning the Volga Bulgars themselves, with whom, however, the Caucasian and then the Danube Bulgars descended from them were, without a doubt, of the same tribe; one of these writers, Shems-ad-Din Dimashki, says that when he once asked the pilgrims going through Baghdad to worship in Mecca: “What kind of people are you?” - they answered him: “We are Bulgars, and the Bulgars are a mixture of Turks and Slavs.” Another, Ibn Fadlan, who himself was among the ambassadors from the Baghdad court to the Bulgarian sovereign, calls him in his description of Bulgaria the king of the Slavs, says that his subjects called him their ruler, and reports the case of how this owner ordered to give him honey wine, which in the native language was called Owl Some scientists even recognize the Bulgars as a pure Slavic tribe, pointing to the Slavic names of their kings and famous men - Valdimir (Vladimir), Bogoris, Boyan, Dargomir, etc.; on the names of cities, tracts, rivers and villages in places occupied by the Bulgars on the Danube after they crossed here from across the Don and from the Caucasus - the names are exclusively Slavic, and especially pointing to the undoubtedly historical fact that in the 9th century. (c. 862) when they converted to the Christian faith, these Bulgar immigrants are perfect Slavs and the Holy Scriptures, which we still use today, were translated into their language by Saints Cyril and Methodius. Those who accept that the Bulgars were not a Slavic tribe, but Mongolian or some other, must admit that these Caucasian immigrants could become famous here in some 160 or 190 years, for no more elapsed from the time of their settlement on the Danube until they accepted the Christian faith, to become famous from their local co-inhabitants - the Slavs, whom they found on the spot. But this seems impossible and contradicts all such historical phenomena. It would rather be expected that the ruling Bulgars would suppress here with their mass the meager remnants of the Slavs they enslaved, would unmongolize them, and not themselves turn into Slavs from them and, moreover, with such speed. If we could rely completely on the news of Arab writers about the Black Sea Russians, we would learn a lot from this news for our subject. They would have learned that the Russians were settled inhabitants in the places we are considering and occupied the entire country near the Black Sea, which from them was even called Russian, that they had their own cities here - Materkha, Rusia, or Rusa, and Tom, completely similar in name to the main city of the Scythians, who lived on the opposite shore of the Black Sea in Greece, at the mouth of the Danube. And most importantly, we would learn that these Russians were enlightened here by Christianity back in the fourth century, during the time of Constantine the Great; and from here how much light would be shed on the subject that now interests us! But the fact is that the evidence presented cannot be completely trusted. The Arab writers in whom they are found all lived in later times, and the most ancient of them began to talk about the Russians already in the 10th century. (Ibn Fadlan - 922, Masudi - 998), while the Greeks left us detailed descriptions of all these places in the 7th, 8th and 9th centuries. So what? None of the Byzantine writers, listing in detail the peoples who then lived in the Caucasus, the Black Sea, the Cimmerian Bosporus and the Maeotic Lake, ever mentioned the Russians here. Isn't this a clear sign that the Russians were here before the 10th century? was it not at all true that the Arabs, who recognized them already in the 10th century, confused our Slavic-Russians, who sailed along the Pontus from 866 and for about 150 years from 965, owned the principality of Tmutarakan, with the ancient inhabitants of the Black Sea country they occupied at that time? And that is why they themselves call these Black Sea Russians a mixture of different peoples and attribute to them cities that belonged to the ancient local inhabitants. However, in particular, the writer (Abu-l-Faraj) is trustworthy, testifying to the conversion of the Russians to Christianity back in the fourth century, that he himself lived by the end of the 13th century. (c. 1286) and that other Arab writers date the conversion of these Russians to the time of Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir. II. Traces of Christianity in Alanya. In Alania, stretching from the mouth of the Don to the Volga, the Caspian Sea and the adjacent Caucasus, in this true ancestral home of the Sarmatians, the beginnings of the Christian Church were laid very early. Let us not mention that, according to some ancient testimonies, the Sarmatians were called to Christianity by the apostles themselves and that it was the holy Apostle Andrew who preached the holy faith to the Alans; Since then there has been no way to prove the existence of Christianity in Alanya. Therefore, we will limit ourselves to the more well-known. Even Constantine the Great, according to the legend of the historian Socrates, having defeated the Sarmatians, who attacked the Roman regions together with the Goths, disposed both of them to adopt the holy faith for the first time. Towards the end of the fourth century, Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, among other peoples who in his time had bishops, priests, deacons, monks, virgins and generally flocks, places the Sarmatians, and Saint Chrysostom even ranks the Sarmatians in the category of those previously barbarian peoples who already had the teaching of the holy apostles translated into their own language. In the sixth century, during the reign of Emperor Justinian, some barbarians who lived on Tanais, or Don, according to Evagrius, asked this emperor for a bishop and received it, although it seems that this last news refers specifically to the Tetraxite Goths. Around half of the eighth century, a bishop was already very definitely mentioned in Khazaria, which, as we will see later, is the same as Alania. During the reign of Constantine Copronymus the iconoclast (741), says the month book of Emperor Basil (10th century), many of the Christians and hermits, after cruel torture, were killed and sent to prison. Among others, a certain recluse of Sosfensky (unknown by name) was deprived of his nostrils and exiled to Kherson; here they wanted to kill him, but he retired to Khazaria, where he was a bishop. Of course, it would be unfair to assert on the basis of the evidence presented that Christianity became dominant in Alanya and was accepted by everyone, but it is enough if it was accepted only by some, if it really existed here. Of the dioceses that were in Alanya, information about only two has been preserved, and only in later historical monuments. One of them, not only in the church painting of Emperor Andronikos Palaiologos (c. 1298), but also in the painting of Leo the Wise (886–912), is called the metropolis of Alania, and it is unknown where exactly it was located, the other in the same painting of Palaiologos and some cathedral acts of the 13th century. is titled the metropolis of Bitzina, or Vichina (Βιτξίνηζ) - a city that on ancient geographical maps is located in the Kuban, not far from the Caspian Sea. But these very names of both Alanian dioceses as metropolises give reason to conclude that these dioceses are ancient, especially the first of them, which even in the ninth century stood at such an honorable level in the Church hierarchy, while other, undoubtedly ancient dioceses located within our borders, such as Kherson, Gothic, Bosporus, were still considered to be at the level of archbishoprics. The writers of the Middle Ages, John Zonara (12th century) and Theodore Balsamon (13th century), probably not without reason, believed that there were dioceses in Alanya back in the days of the Council of Chalcedon (451) and that by the 28th rule of this Council they were included in the diocese of Pontus. The existence of any Alan, or Khazar, diocese in the 8th century. beyond all doubt, when, according to the words of the month of Emperor Vasily, there had already been a bishop there for about half of this century. And the idea that even in the days of Equal-to-the-Apostles Constantine Christianity penetrated into Sarmatia, the mention of bishops and the translation of the Holy Scriptures among the Sarmatians in those days, makes us believe even more in the antiquity of the Alanian dioceses. We will not analyze all the numerous evidence from antiquity about our Alans, about their relationship with the royal Scythians of Herodotus, about their identity with the Massagetae, Sarmatians, and so on. and so on. For our purpose, it is enough just to note that in ancient Alania, by the way, Slavic tribes constantly lived, and that the Alans are identical with the more famous Khazars, who undoubtedly included many Slavs. To convince ourselves of the first thought, let us remember, first of all, the words of Procopius that, starting from the very mouth of the Don, on its left side, countless Ant peoples stretch to the north, this means that the Slavs lived in the upper half of Alania, which lay from the mouth of the Don towards the Volga. They also lived here in the tenth century, according to the legend of the Arab historian Masudi (943–948), who writes: “Among the large glorious rivers flowing into the Pontus Sea is the so-called Tanais, flowing from the north. Its shores are inhabited by numerous Sclabian people (as the Arabs called the Slavs) and other peoples extending to the northern countries. Another of these large rivers is the Dina and Morava, which bears the same name among the Sklabs. On the banks of this river live the Bamchins and Moravians, the Sclabian peoples." Let us recall, on the other hand, the testimony of Moses of Khorensky, who believes the location of the Bulgars to be on the northeastern foot of the Caucasus, which means that the Slavs also had a settlement in the lower half of Alania, which was near the Caspian Sea and the Caucasus. And in these places, even under their own name, they are mentioned in subsequent times. Here the Arabian leader Mervan met the Saklabs in 735, when he made his way through Alania from Georgia to the Khazar possessions, from here in 944-945, according to Abu-l-Faraj, from the shores of the Caspian Sea the Slavs, along with the Alans and Lazgs, penetrated beyond the Caucasus, into the borders of Persia and, having captured the Karabakh city of Berda there, went back to your homeland. The identity of the Alans and the Khazars, which was recognized by our saint Demetrius of Rostov, cannot be doubted if we take into account that in the very places where, according to Byzantine news, the Alans lived, at the same time, according to eastern news, the Khazirs, or Khazars, were settled; the name of Alania is replaced by the name of Khazaria; The Caspian Sea, where the Alans lived, is called the Khazar Sea, and the actions attributed by some to the Alans are adopted by others to the Khazars. It is also not difficult to be sufficiently convinced that among the Khazars there were quite a lot of Slavic tribes. Of the Arab writers who knew the Khazars in their ancient dwellings between the Don, Volga and the Caucasus, Ibn Khaukan testifies that the language of the Khazars is the same as that of the Bulgars, of course, the Volga, and these Bulgars, according to Arab news, were a mixture of Turks and Slavs. Among the Byzantine writers, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who knew the Khazars already at their new home on the shores of the Azov and Black Seas, tells how once the ambassadors of the Khazar Kagan installed Prince Arpad for their friendly neighbors, the Ugrians (Turks), raising him on shields according to the custom and law of the Khazars (kata tin Zakonon). Turning to home news, we can cite here: 1) the words of the Monk Nestor: “I came from Skuf, rekshe from Kazar, Glagolemy Bulgarians, and sat on the Dunaevi,” and the Danube Bulgarians, as we saw, were a predominantly Slavic tribe; 2) the opinion of Saint Demetrius of Rostov that “the conversation with the Kozars was in the Slavic language” and they were the Slavic people in general; and 3) the testimony of our Cossacks that our Cossacks until the 18th century. were also called kazars. But if all this is true, if the Alans and Khazars are one and the same people, and the Alans were definitely enlightened by Christianity from ancient times, then what does the historical evidence mean about the conversion of the Khazars to Christ already in the last half of the ninth century? It is known how history tells us this remarkable event for us. Around 858–861 Khazar ambassadors arrived to the Greek Emperor Michael and told him: “From the beginning we believe in one God and pray to Him, worshiping to the east, but we maintain some cold customs. And so the Jews began to convince us to accept their faith, which many of ours have already followed, and the Saracens bow to theirs, claiming that it is the best of all existing on earth. In such circumstances, out of old friendship with you, we came to ask you for useful advice and assistance: send to us some learned man who would be able to compete with the Jews and Saracens; and if he puts them to shame, then we will accept your faith.” The king chose Constantine the Philosopher, famous for his learning, for this important task, who shortly before had gone to the Saracens for similar competitions. Inviting his brother Methodius with him, the wise Constantine first arrived in Korsun, learned the Jewish and Samaritan languages ​​here, and from here both brothers set off on ships along the Meotic Lake to the Caucasus, walked through the Caucasus Mountains to the Caspian Gate, where the Khazars were then located, and were received with honor by the Khazar Khan. After repeated heated debates about faith with the Khazars, Saracens and especially with the Jews, which Constantine had in the presence of the khan himself and which Methodius later wrote down, dividing into eight chapters, or words, the brother-apostles, with God's help, achieved the goal of their embassy - the prince himself, his boyars and many people believed in Christ and received holy baptism. Then, leaving with them for further success the gospel of the priests who came from Chersonesus, Constantine and Methodius, accompanied by many Greeks released from captivity at their request, and with a letter of gratitude from the kagan to the Greek emperor, returned to their homeland. What can be said against this news, contemporary with the life of the Equal-to-the-Apostles brothers themselves, and, therefore, one whose authenticity, at least in its main features, cannot be rejected by sound criticism? Doesn’t it follow from here one of two things: either the Khazars are not Alans at all, or Christianity has not been established among the Alans since ancient times? Neither one nor the other should be done. But it is only obvious that those Khazars, or Alans, who in the ninth century lived near the Caspian Sea and sent ambassadors to Constantinople to ask for preachers of the faith, were definitely not Christians before that time. But we do not claim, as we noted even before, that Christianity has long been accepted throughout Alanya. It could exist only in some parts of it, when in all others other faiths were professed; could even dominate the upper half of Alania, between the Don and the Volga, at a time when in the lower half, near the Caucasus and the Caspian Sea, they just decided to look for enlighteners. And this is all the more likely because even in the first half of the 8th century. and, consequently, more than a century before the embassy from the Caspian Khazars to Greece, the Christian preachers in Khazaria were mentioned by their own bishop, who had previously been a recluse of Sosthenes. On the other hand, if we take a closer look at the presented legend about the conversion of the Caspian Khazars, it turns out that Christianity was by no means unknown among them before. Otherwise, what would force them to send a deliberate embassy to Greece with a request for preachers of the faith without any prior proposal from the Greeks? Why did the ambassadors who arrived to the emperor want such preachers who would be strong to challenge the Khazar, Saracen, and Jewish sages? There is no doubt that the Kagan himself and his closest boyars who sent this embassy were not yet Christians, but weren’t they among the rest of the khan’s subjects who lived even in the very city where his capital was? And weren’t they the ones who, in fact, feeling themselves unable to put the Sracin and Jewish preachers to shame, out of zeal for the Christian faith, begged their prince and his nobles to send for the Greek sages for this purpose? According to the ancient life of Saint Methodius, Archbishop of Moravia, the Greek emperor sent Saints Cyril and Methodius to the Kazars precisely because “he blasphemed the Jewish peasant faith,” and according to the ancient Italian legend, the consequence of this embassy was that Saint Cyril “by the power of his word turned away all those from error who were carried away the treachery of the Saracens and Jews and who, now confirmed in the Catholic faith and taught (corroborati atque edocti), joyfully thanked God and his servant Constantine the Philosopher.” Arab writer of the 10th century. Ibn Fadlan testifies that even in his time, most of the subjects of the Khazar Khan adhered to the Mohammedan and Christian faith, and there were few pagans among them, and even fewer Jews. It must, however, be admitted in general that the news about the state of Christianity in ancient Sarmatia is very scarce and uncertain, incomparably scarcer and more uncertain than what we saw when surveying the state of Christianity in ancient Scythia. There is no doubt that it flourished in the former much less than in the latter. And the reason for this is very clear: Scythia was closer to Christian Greece, had the closest ties with it and was inhabited by a larger number of Greeks than Sarmatia. Chapter IV. Church of Christ in Transcaucasia. In our present-day Transcaucasia, between the Caucasus and Araks, the Black and Caspian seas, in ancient times there were two kingdoms: the kingdom of Georgia, which consisted of Georgia itself, or Iberia, Colchis, otherwise called Lazia, and Abkhazia (although these last regions were often separated from the first and enjoyed independence), and the kingdom of Armenia, or, more precisely, the eastern half of this kingdom, which included almost all Greater Armenia and Albania (present-day Dagestan), which were also often divided. With the establishment of Christianity in these places, two special Churches appeared here - Georgian and Armenian, which therefore it is appropriate for us to consider separately with all their branches, which from time to time acquired independence. But before we get down to this, we must say a few words about the preaching of the holy apostles in the Transcaucasian countries, for, in addition to Saint Andrew the First-Called, the common apostle, so to speak, for the entire Russian land, our Transcaucasian region was honored to hear the gospel of Christ from other apostles. I. Apostolic preaching in Transcaucasia. According to ancient legends preserved by church writers, five holy apostles visited Transcaucasia to preach: four of the twelve - Saint Andrew, Saint Matthias, Saint Bartholomew, Saint Jude Thaddeus, called Levi, and one of the seventy - Saint Thaddeus. The first, as we noted, bypassing the coastal regions around the Black Sea, when he reached Transcaucasia, preached here in the coastal countries that lay on his way, Colchis and Abkhazia; in the latter he labored for a very long time, especially in its famous city of Sevastopolis (present-day Iscuria). From here, through the Caucasus mountains, in which he buried his holy companion Simon the Canaanite, the holy evangelist went straight to the Zikhs who lived near the Sea of ​​Azov. He touched Georgia, or Iberia, only in its western part, which is confirmed by local chronicles, and was not in Greater Armenia and Albania at all. Saint Matthias also preached in Colchis. This is quite clear from the testimonies of Dorotheus, Bishop of Tire (507-522), and Niketas the Paphlagonian (c. 873), who say that Matthias, numbered among the twelve apostles instead of Judas, preached the gospel, died and was buried in the first Ethiopia; and by Ethiopia the ancients sometimes meant Colchis. But it is much more clear from the testimonies of Sophronius (c. 390) and Ecumenius (10th century): we read from them that Saint Matthias preached and was buried in that very Ethiopia where the rivers Apsar and Hissus were located, and both of these rivers are in Colchis. The Apostle Bartholomew, after his journey among the Indians, to whom he left the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew, preached the gospel in Greater Armenia and here, in the city of Alban (Albanopolis), from which the entire region was called Albania, he suffered martyrdom - this is what all the short legends about him say in the 3rd, 4th and subsequent centuries. From more detailed legends about this apostle we learn that his preaching, accompanied by numerous miracles, was a great success in Greater Armenia. The holy evangelist attracted to Christ the king of Armenia Polymios himself with his entire household, many boyars and countless people, until, at the command of the king's brother Astyages, encouraged by the priests of idols, he was headlong crucified on the cross. Both apostles Thaddeus also preached in Armenia. First, Thaddeus arrived here from the age of seventy to the Edessa ruler Abgar, who ruled Armenia. This owner, even in the days of the Savior’s earthly life, having heard about the miraculous healings of all kinds of diseases performed by Him, sent ambassadors to Him to ask for healing from incurable leprosy and was honored to receive from the Lord, along with His miraculous image, a promise that soon one of the apostles would be sent to him, who would grant him perfect health, not only physical, but also spiritual. It was as a result of this promise that Saint Thaddeus came to Armenia, who, having indeed healed Abgar, baptized him with his entire household, and after that, by many other miracles, having converted all the inhabitants of Edessa to Christ and establishing piety among them, he went to Mesopotamia, Syria and Cilicia, where he rested in the Lord. It is obvious that this apostle, whom the Armenians unanimously call their first apostle, did not penetrate into Armenia itself, and especially into that part of it that is now within the borders of our fatherland, for the city of Edessa did not lie in Armenia itself, but in upper Syria, or Mesopotamia, which only then belonged to Armenia. Is it possible to accept as reliable news the Armenian chroniclers who claim that Thaddeus from the age of seventy preached for 18 years (from 32 to 49) in Armenia itself, Great and Less, that he died here, was buried here in the Shavarshan region, in the village of Artaz, and that even a monastery was built here on his grave. Some time later, under the third Armenian king Sanatruk, Abgar’s nephew, after his difficult travels in Judea, Galilee, Samaria, Idumea, Arabia, Syria and Mesopotamia, another apostle Thaddeus, known under the name of Judah Levi, finally reached Armenia with his preaching. He was no longer in Edessa alone, but went into the very depths of Armenia and in the country of Ararat, having enlightened many with the holy faith for three years from 66 to 69, like the Apostle Bartholomew, who labored here around the same time, he died as a martyr on the tree of the cross. This Thaddeus is truly an apostle of Armenia itself, and even of that which lies within our borders. However, although our Transcaucasian region was visited by several holy apostles and almost all of them had important successes, it cannot be said that Christianity was established in this region from that time on and was accepted unquestioningly. No, and here, as in other countries of the world, it initially encountered many obstacles: from all the pagan inhabitants, blindly devoted to the faith of their fathers, from the pagan priests, who were threatened with many deprivations, from kings and rulers, who had long been accustomed to show themselves as patrons and defenders of the people's religion. And here it suffered for a long time, especially in Armenia, fierce persecution, and if it was not completely eradicated in some places, it remained in the most pitiful form. Not until the beginning of the fourth century did a new, better period for Christianity begin here, when the holy faith, having been accepted and protected by the rulers of Armenia and Iberia themselves, became more or less dominant among all the peoples subject to them. II. Church of Christ in Greater Armenia and Albania. First of all, this most important change for that region took place in the kingdom of Armenia. The main actors in this, by the will of Providence, were the Armenian king Tiridates, whom grateful compatriots honored with the name of the Great, and Saint Gregory, who later became the first archpastor of the Armenian Church, known as the Enlightener of his fatherland. At first, upon his accession to the throne (in 286), Tiridates appeared as the most cruel persecutor of Christians and mainly poured out his rage on his future companion in the great cause, Saint Gregory, who suffered from him up to fourteen different torments. But the amazing firmness of this great martyr, then his miraculous healing of the persecutor himself and many other miracles finally defeated the heart of the stubborn pagan king. In 301, Tiridates and his entire household received baptism from Saint Gregory, whom he himself soon sent with a request to the Archbishop Leontius of Caesarea for ordination as a bishop. As soon as the king was baptized, his kingdom was also baptized. The heart of this crown-bearer was so moved by zeal for the faith he had accepted that he promulgated a decree commanding everyone to accept Christianity, and obedient subjects hurried in thousands to the banks of the Euphrates, where Saint Gregory, with many presbyters brought by him from Caesarea, enlightened up to four million pagans with preaching and baptism over the course of seven days. Immediately the ancient idols were overthrown everywhere and churches to the true God were erected in their places. The wise king summoned many learned men from Greece, established schools and spared no expense for their maintenance, as well as for the maintenance of the clergy. And the pious and most zealous high priest traveled from country to country with the word of the Gospel, proclaimed it not only in Albania and other extreme borders of the fatherland, but also to neighboring peoples - the Persians, Assyrians, Medes - and during the thirty years of ruling the Church he established, he installed about four hundred bishops in it. At the same time, through the zeal of the king and other believers, several monasteries were founded in Armenia, of which the most famous, still existing, was erected by Saint Gregory the Illuminator himself in the then capital of Great Armenia, Vagharshapat, under the name of Etchmiadzin. It was here, twenty miles west of Erivan and, therefore, on the present Russian land, that the high priestly department of the Armenian patriarchs was established at that time. After such a wonderful beginning, no matter how happy the future could be expected for the Armenian Church! Meanwhile, it turned out completely differently. With the death of Saint Gregory (330), in whose memory it is still called Gregorian, and especially after the death of Tiridates (c. 340), a continuous series of disasters began for this Church, together with the country. For about half a century (until 387), Armenia retained its independence and was governed by its sovereigns. But even at this time, what did she no longer tolerate from the applicants for the throne and civil strife that suddenly followed after the death of Tiridates, even more from some of her kings, tyrants, such as Arshak III (from 363) and Popes (from 381), who did not spare anyone or anything to satisfy their passions, and most of all from their neighbors, the Greeks and Persians, in the midst of whom, as in the middle of two fires, she was! Every time as soon as the kings of Armenia bowed for their own benefits to the side of one of these peoples who were at enmity with each other, the troops of the other immediately rushed to devastate its regions; with every clash between the Greeks and the Persians themselves, it became a miserable field of their bloody actions. But the Greeks, as Christians, in such cases at least spared the faith of the unfortunate people. The Persians did not act this way at all: their main thought was always one thing - to return the Armenians to their ancient fire worship and force them to accept the religion of Ormuzd. The edict of the Persian king Sapor II (in 340), which served as the beginning of a terrible twenty-year persecution of Christians for confessing the Gospel, more than once penetrated with all its force into Armenia. Then Christian books were burned in it; in its schools it was prohibited to teach science in Greek and Armenian; Persian magicians wandered throughout all its regions preaching a different faith, distracting the people with promises and threats from the Christian faith, but the sword acted most terrible then: thousands of thousands had already died for the faith, and the persecution was still at the beginning - says one modern legend. And there was no one to take care of the weak, oppressed kingdom. Of the kings who ruled it at that time, there appeared one kind, wise and brave Varazdat (384), who wanted to somehow heal the wounds of his homeland, but his reign lasted only two years. The High Hierarchs of the Church did everything they could for their part, often sacrificing their lives for their flock. More than all of them, Patriarch Nerses I, whom his compatriots rightly called the Great, is worthy of grateful memory. Repeatedly he alone saved his fatherland and the Church from destruction. It was he who stopped the civil strife initiated after the death of Tiridates by illegal applicants for the throne, asking the Greek Emperor Constantine to elevate his legitimate heir, Tiridates' son Khosroes, to this throne; he later reconciled with his personal petition in Byzantium his unworthy king Arshak III with the Greek emperor Valentinian, when the latter’s troops had already entered Armenia to devastate it; reconciled the same king with his generals, who were already completely armed against him. During the days of the terrible Persian persecution that raged in Armenia, having retired to the Greek capital, Nerses the Great here begged Emperor Theodosius to send an auxiliary army to the Armenians and give them a legitimate king in the person of Pap (381), who was then raised in Constantinople. When this sovereign became a scourge for his subjects, Nerses was not afraid to rebel against him with pastoral exhortations and denunciations in defense of the oppressed people, until he tasted the cup of death from the hands of his ungrateful ruler. The misfortunes of Armenia, as well as the Armenian Church, did not stop, even in the last years of the original existence of this kingdom (387–428), when, divided into two parts between the Persians and Greeks, it still continued to have its own sovereigns, although not always from their fellow tribesmen. Almost continuous unrest and intrigues of different parties, several times renewed civil strife and persecution of Christians worried the unfortunate country even now, as before. Her history presents us with only one gratifying phenomenon at this time. During the reign of the meek and wise Vramshapuh (from 392), the so-called golden age of enlightenment in ancient Armenia, mainly spiritual, began. The famous Mesrop invented (in 406) Armenian writing and was the founder of an entire school of thinkers and writers; up to forty talented young men were sent for better education to Constantinople, Athens, Alexandria and upon returning to their fatherland they began, under the direct supervision of Mesrop himself and the most learned Catholicos Isaac the Great, to translate the Holy Scripture into Armenian according to the text of seventy interpreters sent from the Greek Patriarch Maximilian. Soon, from these young men, wonderful writers emerged, such as Moses Khorensky, Yegishe, Lazar Parbetsi, Koryun and others, who eloquently outlined the history of their fatherland and the Church, leaving many other useful works. In the subsequent time, when Armenia finally lost its independence and fell under the alien yoke of the Persians (428–632), its misfortunes reached their extreme limit. From the very beginning, the Persians launched an open persecution against Christians, which continued continuously during the three successive reigns of Iezdegerd, Bararan and his son. Whole thousands of confessors then tasted death in Armenia for the faith of Christ, and at their head was the valiant Archpastor Joseph. Numerous churches and monasteries were destroyed or imprisoned, and among others, the residence of the Etchmiadzin patriarchs was destroyed, who. Since then (from 454) they transferred it for several centuries (until 925) to the then new capital of Armenia, Tovin, or Tevin, which was also located within our current borders, not far from Ararat, where its ruins are still visible. It is impossible to read the descriptions of all these and many other disorders and troubles left by contemporaries without grief. “I weep for you, land of the Gaikans! - one of them cries, - I weep for you, famous country of the north! The king was gone, the priest, the adviser and the wise mentor were gone; your peace has been disturbed, there is indignation everywhere, riots everywhere, the holy faith has been trampled upon, and lawlessness and ignorance have taken its place! I cry for you, Church of Armenia, deprived of the splendor of the throne, the magnanimous shepherd and his wise companion... Antiochus is trying to reject the laws of our country, and there is no Mattathias who would prevent him. Wars and internal disturbances threaten us from everywhere, and there are no Maccabees to protect us... Who can compare his grief with ours, and who can portray it in words? Mad bishops rose up, kidnappers of high rank, chosen for bribes, greedy for riches... and became wolves, tormenting and devouring their flocks. The priests are proud, despise their dignity, devoted to luxury and vices... Our homes are in ruins, property is in the hands of robbers, nobles are in chains, and the common people are oppressed. Cities were taken, villages were burned and plundered; hunger, disease and death are everywhere. Piety is in oblivion, and hell will soon come, from which may God deliver us, to Him be glory forever!..” This hell really came, in a sense, for the ill-fated country when (632–858) the despotism and fanaticism of its new enslavers, the Arabians, burdened it - a hell also described by contemporaries and eyewitnesses. “This new people,” exclaims High Hierarch Nerses III in his lament, “like a dragon, devoured, like a lion, crushed all our bones, already exhausted by our former enslavers. Countless are the victims whose innocent blood has been shed. Some are doomed to slavery or sold; others, deprived of all property, were taken into captivity; still others are imprisoned in eternal chains... We are expelled from our fatherland and wander among alien peoples, forgetting about our homeland; our country is being devoured by our enemies before our eyes... The seat of the high priest, from which light formerly emanated, is now surrounded by darkness; the chief saints have withdrawn from him and are wandering among strangers.” To the honor of these high priests, it should be noted that, despite all the storms that raged in their fatherland, they constantly tried to maintain the light of science in it for the benefit of the Church. For this purpose, they even established a special rank in their church hierarchy, intermediate between bishops and priests, which, however, had a purely educational purpose and exists to this day under the name of Vartabeds, who, under Patriarch Moses II (551-594), with their combined efforts, created a new chronology system for the Armenians, starting from the time of its invention (from 551), and in general were constantly the most important engines of enlightenment in Armenia. In addition to all these external disasters of the Armenian Church, there were also internal ones that concerned the essence of faith. From its very beginning, this Church sacredly adhered to universal Orthodoxy. Its Catholicoses from Saint Gregory to Isaac (302–439), accepting ordination and being dependent on the Archbishop of Caesarea, remained in union and unity through the Caesarea Church with the entire Greek Church. And in the most important matters, they applied especially to the Patriarch of Constantinople, which is indisputably proven by the fact that the Council of Armenian Bishops, which condemned the works of Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia in 437, sent its verdict for final consideration to the Patriarch of Constantinople Proclus, from whom he later received an affirmative message. During all this time, the Armenian Church took direct part in the Ecumenical Councils, at which the fate of all Christianity was decided. Thus, at the First Ecumenical Council, Patriarch Aristakes and Saint James, Bishop of Nizibia, were present on her behalf, at the Second - Patriarch Nerses the Great, at the Third - at least the written confession of Patriarch Isaac was read. But since Armenia fell under the yoke of the Persians (428), its spiritual leaders were forbidden by the Persian government to go beyond the borders of their fatherland to Caesarea to receive ordination, which already cut off the first external connection of the Armenian Church with the Greek Orthodox. The disasters that have burdened Armenia since that time prevented its bishops from taking any part in the Council of Chalcedon (451), which examined and condemned the heresy of Eutachius; This already served as the beginning for its internal break with the Universal Church. Some malicious Syrians spread rumors in Armenia that the Council of Chalcedon, having rejected the Eutyches heresy, accepted and approved the opposite heresy of Nestorius, which was condemned even earlier at the Third Ecumenical Council (431). New rumors about the unrest and unrest that followed the Council of Chalcedon in Greece regarding the meaning of its dogmatic definition, and the attempts of two Byzantine emperors, Zeno and Anastasius, to define this meaning with arbitrary interpretations or to prohibit any debate about it, further confirmed the Armenians in prejudice about the Orthodoxy of the Council of Chalcedon. Not wanting to remain in bewilderment and indecision any longer, Catholicos Babken convened a local Council of his bishops in Vagharshapat in 491 in order to better consider the matter. But since those gathered had no one to learn the real truth about the Council of Chalcedon and they had no other news about it except the decree of Zeno, in which the definition of this Council was greatly distorted, then, based only on this document, they concluded 1) that the Council of Chalcedon respected the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia and his accomplices; 2) as if he divided Jesus Christ, like Nestorius, into two persons and into two sons; and after that 3) they pronounced an anathema on the Council of Chalcedon, or, more correctly, on the teaching that, in their opinion, was approved at this Council. It is obvious that all this at first occurred only from bewilderment and lack of accurate information about the truth, and it was not the Council of Chalcedon itself that was cursed, but a teaching that was completely alien to it. But in subsequent times, the Armenians, being convinced that their ancestors had very well investigated everything related to this subject, even under Catholicos Babken at the Council he convened (491), did not want to again sort out the complicated matter, and the mutual hostility between the Greeks and Armenians, which gradually increased, further prevented the discovery of the truth. A hundred years later (in 596), a new Council of Hierarchs of the Armenian Church followed in Tovin, chaired by Catholicos Abraham of Agbatani, when with even greater decisiveness all those who adhered to the Council of Chalcedon were anathematized, and among others, the Catholicos of the Georgian Church Kirion with all his flock, and the Armenians finally fell away from universal Orthodoxy. But from that time on, a series of attempts began to return those who had fallen away to the bosom of the true Church. In 597, at the complaint of the Georgian Catholicos Kirion and the desire of the Emperor Mauritius, a Council was convened in Constantinople, where the Armenian Catholicos Abraham sent his vicar Vartanes and Archimandrite Gregory, along with nineteen other Armenian bishops who had their own dioceses within the Greek. The fruit of this Council was, at least, that these last Armenian bishops unanimously accepted the rules of the Council of Chalcedon and that, on the occasion of the disagreements that arose between the Armenians from here (since the first two representatives of the Armenian Church returned to their homeland with their previous thoughts), a special Catholicos John Cocosta was elected for the Greek Armenians who reunited with the Church, although for no more than ten years (until 607 g.), when, as a result of new unrest in the empire, these reunited people again fell into their former error. In 629, at the Council in Feodosiopolis, in the presence of the Armenian Catholicos Ezra himself, a similar attempt was even more successful. When Emperor Heraclius, who was here, asked the Catholicos: “Why do you not agree with us in the faith?” - the Catholicos answered: “Beneficent sovereign! According to your wishes, it is easy for us to agree; We only beg you to reject the errors of Nestorius, which serve as the reason for our deviation from you; and, if such a perverse teaching is really established, as we heard, at the Council of Chalcedon, you too renounce this Council, then we will willingly unite with you.” Having then discussed in private together with his bishops the detailed confession of the Greek Church given to him by order of the emperor, in which Nestorius was anathematized, like all other heretics, Ezra solemnly confessed at the Council that the Armenian Church believes in exactly the same way as the Greek, and in conclusion, with all his bishops, he accepted the rules of the Council of Chalcedon. Unfortunately, there were now stubborn ones among the Armenians who did not agree to abandon their deep-rooted errors: a certain Archimandrite John Mairagometsi, openly calling the Catholicos a traitor to the faith, retired to Albania, acquired his closest followers and outraged the entire people there. On the other hand, the acceptance by many of the Armenians who lived in Greece, together with the Council of Chalcedon, of the very rites of the Greek Church, gave rise to their other fellow tribesmen who lived in the heart of Armenia to hate them for this deviation from their home churchism, then to abandon their agreement in the very confession with the Greeks and again reject the Council of Chalcedon. There was a similar attempt to reconcile the Armenians with the Church at the Council of Tovinos in 648 at the insistence of Emperor Theodosius, who sent the philosopher David here with his decree, but this time Patriarch Nerses III and the Armenian bishops directly refused to accept the Council of Chalcedon, and Nerses’s governor, Bishop John, even composed a document in 651. in his diocese, a small Council, where again anathematized the Council of Chalcedon and the Council that was in Tovin under Catholicos Ezra, proving that they recognized two natures separately in Jesus Christ. Finally, the last attempt of this kind in the period under consideration took place in 862, when, on the occasion of the extensive letter of the Patriarch Photius of Constantinople to the Armenian Catholicos Zacharias, where the confession of the Council of Chalcedon was defended in all detail, and as a result of some similar messages of the same patriarch to the most famous dignitaries of Armenia, a Council of Armenian bishops was convened in Shirakavan for a thorough consideration controversial subject. But even after this, the desired connection did not take place. Unfortunately, it must be admitted that the main reason for all these failures was not the teaching of the Armenians, in which, as is now clear from their confessions, they could very easily agree with the Orthodox, but only, it seems, political unrest, mutual popular enmity between Greeks and Armenians and mutual misunderstandings. Due to these reasons, the Armenians began to be accused of some other gross errors regarding faith, which the Armenians themselves consider completely alien to themselves. From the very beginning, the hierarchy of the Armenian Church appeared in full order and in all its breadth. If you believe the testimony of a contemporary, then Saint Gregory the Illuminator, as has already been noted, ordained up to 400 bishops for Armenia, although, in all likelihood, there is a succession of bishops here. At the very least, there is no doubt that in the first nine centuries the number of dioceses in Armenia exceeded one hundred, when in subsequent times there were about three hundred of them. The head of this entire hierarchy was always one Etchmiadzin, or Tovinsky, Armenian Catholicos, with the exception of only the case when, under the Emperor of Mauritius, a special patriarch was elected for a time (597-607) for the Greek Armenians. It should also be noted that there was also a Catholicos in Albania, one of the Armenian provinces, starting with his relative Gregory, who was appointed there to this rank by Gregory the Illuminator himself. But the Catholicos of Albania did not have the rights of Etchmiadzin, from whom he received ordination and was in constant dependence, enjoying, however, greater independence and advantages than all other bishops and archbishops of Armenia. It is also remarkable that these subordinate Albanian Catholicoses, although at times, in agreement with the entire Armenian Church, rejected the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon (thus, among the bishops who gathered in Vagharshapat in 491 and rejected these decrees for the first time, the Albanian Catholicos is mentioned), they did not, however, sometimes agree to accept its innovations. When, for example, after the Fifth Ecumenical Council, the bishops of Armenia wrote to the Catholicos of Albania Any, asking him to agree with them to sing the Trisagion hymn with the addition of the crucified for us, he directly answered them: “My predecessors Peter and Gregory sang only the Holy God... without any addition, which is why I will neither add here nor subtract.” Finally, we consider it not superfluous to mention one more subject in the history of the Armenian Church, which from the first time seems to have a special affinity for us: we mean the news that in Armenia, along the Araks River, from ancient times lived some kind of people who had their own bishop already in the fourth century. Some want to see in this people a Slavic, Russian tribe, and from here they draw the conclusion about the antiquity of Christianity among our ancestors. But there is absolutely no basis for such a thought, except for the accidental consonance in the name of the two peoples; and if we began to look for our Russia and our ancestors everywhere where a local name of this kind has ever sounded, then we would find them in all countries of the world. By the way, we note here that the antiquity of Christianity in Russia was once proven in precisely this way, based on the fact that the Russian bishop 'Αητύπατρος Ρώσου 1' signed the acts of the Council of Antioch in 363. Meanwhile, according to information from ancient writers, it turned out that the city of Ρώσσος or Ρωσόπολις, in which this bishop had his see, was by no means in Russia, but on the borders of Syria and Cilicia, and the Russian diocese was included in the Patriarchate of Antioch. III. Church of Christ in Georgia, Colchis and Abkhazia. A few years after the conversion of Armenia to Christianity, the conversion of Georgia followed. The Lord destined to be the last enlightener to be one pious wife from Cappadocia named Nonna, or Nina. She belonged to the number of those virgins dedicated to God who, during the days of Diocletian’s persecution, saving their faith and virginity, retired from the borders of the Roman Empire to Armenia and of whom thirty and seven were martyred here by Tiridates. At this time, with one of her companions, Nina, having escaped the sword of persecution, hastened to take refuge in neighboring Georgia. And here, having been taken captive by the inhabitants, with her extraordinary fasting, incessant prayers and preservation of virgin purity, she involuntarily attracted general attention and respect. Soon, the resolution of infertility granted by her in the name of Jesus Christ to one wife, the healing in the same name of the son of a widow, then the queen and the king herself, served as the beginning of a most important revolution in the fate of the Georgian people. This happened in 318. Instructed by Saint Nino in the faith in Christ the Savior of the world, Mirian (as the then king of Georgia was called) immediately ordered all the noblest of his subjects to gather in his capital Mtskheta and he himself, together with his wife and his equal-to-the-apostles enlightener, announced to them about the new, true faith, which he had already decided to accept, at the same time sent an embassy to the Greek emperor Constantine, and if you believe Armenian news, and to the enlightener of Armenia Gregory, asking them for shepherds. By the will of Constantine the Great, Patriarch Eustathius of Antioch, who happened to be there by chance, soon arrived in Georgia from Constantine with part of his clergy, who was joined by several priests sent from neighboring Armenia. This archpastor with the clergy at his side, flowing from end to end of the land of Iveron, finally converted it to Christianity, consecrated churches in it, ordained pastors and, having given it a sanctuary in the person of Archbishop John, returned to his patriarchal see, to which the Church he had newly founded was henceforth included. The subsequent fate of the Georgian Church, like the Armenian Church, represents an almost continuous struggle between light and darkness, with the victory, however, of the former over the latter. From time to time, good sovereigns appeared in Georgia who, caring for the welfare of the kingdom entrusted to them, also zealously cared for their native Church. Such was the son and successor of Mirian Bakur, during whose reign (342–364) the inhabitants of Iveria, Colchis, Abkhazia and even the Caucasus were united under one authority almost for the first time. Bakur's first thought was to spread the holy faith among all these subjects and to spread it especially in those places into which it had not previously penetrated. Following this, wherever there was the greatest need for temples, at his behest, numerous houses of God arose, which, with wise purpose, were built mainly on the sites of ancient pagan temples. At the same time, for the speedy improvement of the Russian Church and for the most convenient supervision of the progress in faith and piety of newly converted Christians, Bakur considered it necessary to open several episcopal sees in it. And in order to prepare worthy shepherds for it and, in general, to enlighten his people and strengthen them in the new faith, he tried to establish schools to which he called educated mentors from Greece and Assyria. Such were the later rulers: Miridat, son of Bakur, who finally established Christianity between the inhabitants of Klarzhet and Javakhet; Archil (413–446), who used all possible measures to eradicate the remnants of paganism in his kingdom and to cleanse the Georgian Church from some pagan and heretical customs and rituals that had crept into it; Vakhtang (446–499), who greatly influenced his subjects in favor of the Christian faith by the example of his pious life and zeal for the temples of God, but most of all by the establishment of schools at each episcopal see. It is worthy of note that during the reign of Bakur, in the schools he had newly opened, a beginning was laid for the translation of liturgical books from Greek into Georgian (and the translators probably used Greek letters, since Georgian, according to Moses of Khorensky, was invented already in the fifth century by the Armenian scientist Mesrop - the same one who invented the alphabet for his compatriots); and during the reign of Archil, at the pious desire of his wife Sandukhta, the New Testament was translated into Georgian for the first time. Of those who worked in this holy work, local chronicles have preserved the names of David and Stephen (5th century), who, however, translated the books of the Holy Scriptures not from the original, but from the Syriac translation and translated only a few, undoubtedly the most necessary for worship, which the Georgian Church used until the tenth century, until a new, better translation of all sacred and liturgical books from the Greek language appeared in it. The Lord sent the Georgian Church good shepherds who worked with all zeal for the good of their spiritual flock. More than all the others, Archbishop Peter (457) is worthy of the grateful memory of posterity. He did for his flock, one might say, everything that needed to be done given its then circumstances: he increased the number of schools in his fatherland, even establishing them in parish churches; ordered to correct the liturgical books distorted by scribes, to translate, in addition, some new ones that had not yet been translated, and to supply all churches with them; sent the most experienced priests to strengthen preaching among the inhabitants of Abkhazia, Mingrelia and the Caucasus, and opened several new episcopal sees in different places in Kartalinia, Kakheti, Somkhetia and Imereti. It is impossible not to mention here the thirteen Syrian fathers, or ascetics, of blessed memory in Georgia, who, by the secret calling of God, during the reign of King Parsman (541-555), arriving from Syria to Iberia, greatly contributed to the increase of piety in it. Having settled in secluded places, they, with their hermit exploits, wisdom and miracles, attracted a great multitude of people from all sides, who hurried to them either for blessings, or for advice and instructions. Soon, some of these holy ascetics (for example, John and Joseph) marked themselves by turning to the Church of Christ many neighboring savages who lived in the mountains of the Caucasus and Kakheti; others (Antony and Shio) became the founders of later famous hermitages and monasteries, gathering worthy disciples around them; the third (Aviv of Nekres and Jesse), at the request of the Georgian king and Catholicos, agreed to take on the rank of bishop and, appointed to the candlestick, for a long time shed around them the light of their good deeds for the glory of God and the salvation of their neighbors. However, the Georgian Church did not see as many happy circumstances during the period of time we are considering, as it experienced unrest and disasters. It is difficult to calculate everything that Georgia, and with it the Church, suffered from its external enemies alone - the Persians, Greeks and Arabians. The Persians attacked her mainly due to their blind adherence to their fatherly faith and hostility to Christianity. These attacks began during the reign of Bakur (342–364), a famous zealot for Christian piety. Since then, there has been almost no reign in Georgia in which they were not repeated; and almost every time the enemies of the name of Christ passed through a weak country with fire and sword, ravaged cities and villages, destroyed fields and caused all kinds of devastation; Each time the Persian magicians hurried into it with their preaching - to entice enslaved Christians to fire worship and torment those of them who proved themselves inflexible. Sometimes political reasons were also added to this: the Persians could not bear it when Georgia allowed itself any connections with their enemies the Greeks and therefore, for example, during the reign of the Georgian king Varaz-Bakur (379–393), offended by his alliance with the Byzantine emperor Theodosius the Great, they attacked Georgia, devastated Kartalinia, Kakheti, the Shikinsky and Shirvanskaya. It also happened that the Greeks raised their weapons against the Iberians, although not out of any religious hostility, but solely because of their friendly relations with Persia. Thus, when the Greek emperor Heraclius, pursuing the Persian king Khosroes, arrived in Iberia and here noticed in the government a clear disposition towards the Persians, he turned his weapons against the Georgians and caused great devastation among them. The Arabians in their attacks on Georgia, as well as on other countries, were driven primarily by religious fanaticism and hatred of Christians. Fulfilling the will of his master Omar, the successor of Magomet, who wanted to spread the teachings of the false prophet in Georgia, the military leader Mervan-abu-l-Kazim in 730 quickly invaded Imereti, set fire to cities and villages and, overthrowing churches, destroying everything Christian, subjected Christians to the most severe torment for their confession, which was repeated later with everyone horrors in 760 and repeatedly thereafter. At the same time, the Georgian Church had the grief of meeting enemies in its own children, and, moreover, in such children from whom it would most naturally expect only patronage and protection. We mean, firstly, the Georgian king Miridatus (reigned before 413), who, being extremely depraved in thoughts and heart, wanted to become a new Julian for his subjects and, despising their faith, greatly oppressed the Church of Christ until, according to Providence, he received worthy retribution from the hands of the Persians; and secondly, Archbishop Mobidag (434), who, using the supreme power in the Georgian Church, had a plan to quietly introduce Arianism into it and for this purpose little by little changed its ancient rituals and regulations to new ones, consistent with the spirit of heresy, tried to crowd out and even cut off from the Church, as if for some important offenses, those in whom he noticed a special commitment to Orthodoxy, and finally, wanting, apparently, only to give poorly educated shepherds guidance for studying the essence of the true faith, he expressed his blasphemous thoughts in writing and proposed them for general use. However, the Lord did not allow this wicked man to see the fulfillment of his plans: his treachery was soon exposed, his teaching was anathematized, and he himself, deprived of power, was excommunicated from the Church. More than once they tried to penetrate into Georgia and other heresies and false teachings, such as: the heresy of Peter Fullon, who preached that it was necessary to add to the Trisagion hymn "crucified for us", the heresy of the Albanians, who originally (c. 650) appeared in Albania and taught for the most part) in accordance with the errors of the Manichaeans and other Syrian heretics; finally, the heresy of the Monophysites, who, having invaded the Armenian Church by deceit and deceit, also thought to drag the inhabitants of Iberia with them. But all in vain: against the first heresy there was a Council of Shepherds in Georgia, which solemnly condemned it; against the second, the shepherds armed themselves with the sword of the Word of God, the kings with all their power, the people with obvious disgust; the third was anathematized by Catholicos Kirion, who, moreover, forbade his flock any communication with the lost. Thus observing the Orthodox faith of their fathers in all its purity and integrity, despite all the turmoil and disasters throughout the centuries, the Georgian people were able to maintain piety in themselves, to which even foreign observers sometimes involuntarily gave justice. “The Ivertians,” notes the Greek Procopius in one place, “are the best of all the Christians we know, and the strictest guardians of the laws and regulations of Orthodoxy.” For more than a century, the Iveron Church was dependent on the Patriarch of Antioch and its main hierarchs were titled only archbishops. But from 457, having received the name Catholicoses of all Iberia, they little by little asserted for themselves all the rights of independent (αυτοκέφαλος) management of their Church, especially since Patriarch Eutyches of Constantinople and Emperor Justinian expressed their consent to this. However, in the most important matters concerning the essence of faith, the Catholicos of Iveron even after this treated the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Emperor, as Catholicos Kirion did, for example, in 597 on the occasion of his competition with the Armenian shepherds about the Council of Chalcedon. From its very foundation, the Iveron Church, in addition to the Iveronians, included residents of Abkhazia, Colchis, or present-day Mingrelia, and the Caucasus. Subsequently, the Abkhazians and Colchians separated from it from time to time and had their own independent (αυτοκέφαλος) hierarchs, the former in the city of Sevastopolis, the latter in the city of Fazid; however, in such a way that both of these Catholicoses were under the supervision of Greek pastoral leaders. This happened partly as a result of the political separation of Abkhazia and Colchis from Iberia and the spread of the supreme power of the Greek emperors over the first two countries, who maintained several of their fortifications in them for this purpose, and partly because both many Abkhazians and many inhabitants of Colchis, the Svans and Laz, were converted to Christianity not by the Iberians, but by the Greek emperor Justinian, who, moreover, arranged for both he renovated churches and monasteries and sent Greek priests. As for the Caucasian mountaineers, due to the lack of educated Christian shepherds, due to the machinations of Persian magicians and constant political unrest, these savages not only fell away from the Church of Iveron, but almost completely little by little lost the holy faith. There were, however, cases when the Georgian Church, calmed from its own unrest, extended its care to the lost sons of the Caucasus and more than once returned them to its maternal bosom. Therefore, Christianity was maintained between them in some places for several more centuries, for it is known that in the thirteenth century the Bishop of the Caucasus was present at one of the Councils of Constantinople, and the Metropolitan of the Caucasus sat at another in 1317. With this we will conclude our brief overview of the beginnings of the Church of Christ in the current borders of our fatherland before its formation into a unique kingdom. The main conclusions to which he led us are the following: 1) The Holy Faith was sown within the borders of present-day Russia back in the apostolic age and by the apostles themselves, but it began to be fully established not before the fourth century, and, moreover, only in our southern regions - Novorossiysk, Caucasus and Transcaucasia. At this time, it was brought to us from neighboring Greece, mainly from Constantinople, with the assistance of the local emperors and patriarchs. 2) Since its establishment among us, the holy faith has spread and flourished most of all in our present Transcaucasia, where in two special kingdoms there were two fairly well-organized Churches, each of which included dozens, if not hundreds, of dioceses, while in the Novorossiysk region there were only six of them, in the Caucasus we know of barely four. The reason for this was partly the greater proximity of Transcaucasia to Christian Greece, but especially its political state. In Transcaucasia, in the kingdom of Georgian and Armenian, the inhabitants were united among themselves by the power of their sovereigns, who, having themselves adopted Christianity, could conveniently promote its spread and prosperity among their subjects; on the contrary, in ancient Scythia, and Sarmatia, and in general throughout the entire expanse of Russian land, there were no such organized kingdoms: Greek settlers lived here separately, Scythians and Sarmatians roamed from place to place in separate hordes, and sedentary inhabitants lived in separate tribes. 3) Almost all the main high priests of the dioceses that existed in our countries sooner or later acquired for themselves the name and rights of independents (αυτοκέφαλος). Despite this, all of them, due to the adoption of Christianity by the local inhabitants from Greece and, in particular, from Byzantium, and on the other hand, adhering to the rules of the Council of Chalcedon (with the exception of one Armenian Catholicos from a certain time), recognized over themselves, although to varying degrees, the spiritual authority of some Greek hierarchs, and mainly the Byzantine Patriarch; consequently, the Russian Church of that time, or located within the boundaries of present-day Russia, can be called, just like the present one, a daughter of the Eastern Church, and especially the Constantinople Church. 4) As a result of this connection, and partly due to the similarity of circumstances, everything that happened then in the Greek Church was repeated among Christians among us. At first there were persecutions against believers - these persecutions with all their force occurred more than once within our borders; heresies and schisms appeared one after another there - many of them penetrated to us; There there were Councils against heresies and schisms and in general for the improvement of the Church; pastors from our countries very often took direct part in these Councils. Here and there there was one Christian life and perfect sympathy. 5) Among the Christians who lived in ancient Scythia and Sarmatia, in all likelihood, were our Slavic ancestors, for there is no doubt that they were the main indigenous and permanent inhabitants here; although we do not have completely clear and direct evidence of the Christianity of these Slavs. No matter how curious for us all the information presented about the ancient state of the Christian faith in our native countries, between the peoples whose descendants are now our brothers in the political sense - and many brothers in the spiritual sense, being children of the same mother - the Orthodox Church - we cannot help but admit that this information does not yet have a special, heartfelt closeness to us... Going over them in our minds, following with our thoughts the course of the then church events within our current borders, we involuntarily you feel that Russia itself did not yet exist within these Russian borders - there was no thing in which they are primarily related to us and precious. But then, finally, an era came, memorable for all of northeastern Europe. From the political chaos that had been agitated for centuries in its immeasurable spaces, by the inspiration of the creative right hand of the Most High, a new kingdom arose, which, under the leadership of the same all-organizing right hand, went through a period of its gradual formation, has now reached the greatest power and embraces with itself, its name and power all these immeasurable spaces. This era is 862; this kingdom is the Russian kingdom, our glorious fatherland! From now on, we will primarily focus all our attention on it; Henceforth, our main task is to monitor how the holy faith was planted and planted among us, among our ancestors, until the Orthodox Church of Christ was finally established in our fatherland. Part two. The history of Christianity itself in the Russian kingdom before the origin of the Russian Church under Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir The power of the earth is in the hand of the Lord, and He will raise up what is needed in it in time. Blessed be the Lord Jesus Christ, who loved the new people, the Russian land, and enlightened them with holy baptism. Laurentian Chronicle. P. 83 We usually count up to five eras in the great work of enlightening Russia with the Gospel - up to five baptisms. The preaching of the holy Apostle Andrew in our countries is recognized as the first era; the second is the preaching of the Slavic apostles Cyril and Methodius in Bulgaria and Moravia, and especially their most important work - the translation of the Holy Scriptures and liturgical books into the Slavic language; third - the baptism of the first princes of Kyiv Askold and Dir; fourth - the baptism of Grand Duchess Olga; the fifth and final one is the baptism of Grand Duke Vladimir. We will follow this simple and natural division, with the exception of the sermon of the holy Apostle Andrew, which - since it concerned the countries of Russia itself, and not the Russian kingdom, which appeared later - we have already mentioned in its place. And first of all, let's talk about the translation of the Holy Scriptures and liturgical books into the Slavic language, let's say because although this translation was not made by us, it just as much belongs to us as to our other Slavic brothers, for whom it was originally made; it belongs to us now even more than to many of them, who, having been torn away from the Orthodox Church, have long been deprived of the happiness of hearing divine services in their native language; let’s say first of all because this translation was completed at the very time when the first rays of the holy faith were barely beginning to penetrate into the newly formed kingdom, and, undoubtedly, was the best preparatory means for its speedy spread in our fatherland. This study will serve as a kind of transition from the previous part of our essay to the present one and will constitute the most natural introduction to it. Then, in order, we will consider the baptism of the first princes of Kyiv - Askold and Dir - and the state of Christianity in our fatherland from this era to the Grand Duchess Olga. Next is the baptism of Grand Duchess Olga and the state of Christianity in our country before Grand Duke Vladimir. Finally, the baptism of the great Vladimir himself until the complete formation of the Orthodox Church in our fatherland, which since then has existed continuously to the present day. Chapter I. Translation of the Holy Scriptures and liturgical books into the Slavic language. Looking at this great event, which has attracted the fair attention of scientists in our days, you must feel that everything here is interesting for us: the circumstances of the event, the event itself, and its consequences. I. Circumstances of the event. When reviewing the circumstances, the first and most important question is the question of the time when this glorious translation began. We will not hide that there are some reasons to guess that the Slavs had some kind of translation of biblical and liturgical books even before Saints Cyril and Methodius - only the reasons, in our opinion, are unimportant and not at all convincing. This is, firstly, the idea that the Slavs were familiar with Christianity from ancient times, that many of them could accept the holy faith both within our fatherland, living where the dioceses of ancient Scythia and ancient Sarmatia were located, and especially within the Greek Empire, living in Thrace, Macedonia and Illyricum, where dioceses existed from the very first centuries and from where the Slavs often came to occupy the most important positions in Constantinople, even in the patriarchal chair and on the imperial throne, is a thought that receives new reinforcement from the fact that the Slavs were familiar with Christianity through the instructions of such a Church, which not only never had the custom of prohibiting newly converted pagans from translating the Word of God into their native language, on the contrary, it always assisted them in this, as Her experiences in relation to the Goths, Georgians, Armenians and others show. But what follows from all this? Nothing more than the fact that the Slavs have long been able to have translations of sacred books in their native language. They could have, undoubtedly, - every reasonable person will say, - but they could not have either, either due to a lack of people who would be able to do such work, or because, being part of the dioceses, where both the flock and the shepherds were predominantly Greek, it was necessary to use sacred books in Greek, or for some other reason. And that the Slavs then constituted at least one purely Slavic diocese anywhere, no one has yet proven this. This also includes the high merits of Slavic speech in the translation of the Holy Scriptures, belonging to Saints Cyril and Methodius, such merits that make it almost impossible that such a perfect work of the Slavic apostles was not preceded by several other, less successful attempts, so that in the language of a rude and uneducated people one could find such beautiful and rich words and phrases for expressing the most sublime truths of Divine Revelation from the first time. But even against this, it is enough to note: a) that from ancient times the Slavic language and people were not at all as rude and uneducated as they are usually imagined, following the testimony of the vain Greeks, who loved to call only themselves an educated nation, and all other peoples barbarians, b) that from a long time ago the Slavs could have their own written language and through it improve their word, using features, cuts, the Greek or Latin alphabet, unless they had their own letters, and most importantly, c) that Saints Cyril and Methodius, who translated the Word of God into Slavic speech, knew the Slavic language perfectly. And there is absolutely no need to presuppose any previous attempts of this kind. Apparently, some hint of the existence among the Slavs of some kind of translation of biblical and liturgical books before Cyril and Methodius is given by the following words of Chernorizets Khrabra: “First of all, the Slovenes did not name books, but with the curses and cuttings of the devil and the devil there are; Having been baptized, I need to write in Roman and Grach letters - Slovenian speech is not structured; and so on for many summers.” The question arises: why did the Slavs, who in paganism were content with lines and cuts, suddenly feel the need for better letters as soon as they accepted the Christian faith, and why, due to the need they felt, did they use Roman and Greek letters for many years? Obviously, it is most natural to look for the reason for such a change in Christianity itself - in that new teaching that the Slavs accepted and which they wanted to have in their language and that for this reason, therefore, they used Latin and Greek letters. But Chernorizets Khrabr himself completely undermines all such fortune-telling about the ancient Slavic translation of the Holy Scriptures when he says further: “If you ask the Slovenian booker, saying: who made the writings, or translated the books? They all say, and the one who answered said: Saints Constantine the Philosopher, called Cyril, write for us letters and add books, and Methodius, his brother.” Could we also cite here the testimony of Saint Chrysostom that the Scythians and Sarmatians already in his day had a translation of the Holy Scriptures or the apostolic teachings in their native language. But who can guarantee us that by these Scythians and Sarmatians the holy father actually meant those who lived in our southern borders, and not barbarians in general, many of whom at that time were actually already enlightened by Christianity and had the Word of God in their own language, like the Goths, Georgians and others? Who will assure us that if the Holy Father meant our Scythians and Sarmatians, then by these names we must certainly understand the Slavs, and not other tribes that lived within the Russian borders? Finally, the most important evidence, apparently, of the existence among the Slavs of some kind of translation of at least two sacred books - the Gospel and the Psalter - even before St. Cyril is the ancient life of Cyril himself, written by one of his contemporaries and closest students. The life tells that, having stopped in Korsun on his way to the Khazars, Saint Cyril first of all “learned that Jewish conversation and books”; then he learned the Samaritan language: “A certain Samaritan lived and came to him, acquired with him, and brought Samaritan books, and showed him, and asked him for a Philosopher, shut yourself up in the church, put yourself in prayer, and received wisdom from God, the honor of the beginning of the book is without blemish”; Finally, I learned the Russian language in the same way: “You will find that Gospel and the Psalter were written in Russian letters, and you will find a person speaking with that conversation, and conversing with him, and receiving the power of speech, applying various writings to your conversation, vowel and consonance, and making a prayer to God, in this way you will begin to honor and say, and give him many wonders.” From these words of the biographer, who could have been a companion of St. Cyril and a witness to the events described or could have heard about them from Cyril himself, it is obvious that at that time some kind of Russian writings and Russian books already existed - the Gospel and the Psalter. But at the same time, it is also obvious that Saint Cyril at first did not understand either these Russian writings or Russian books, just as he had not previously understood the books of the Samaritans, that he began to understand Russian writings and read Russian books only with the help of a person who spoke in Russian conversation and explained to him the power of speech, and by applying Russian letters himself, vowels and consonants, to his own language, i.e. Greek, and most importantly, he began to understand Russian writings and read Russian books with the help of God, as before I began to read the books of the Samaritans. This circumstance alone, that Saint Cyril, an expert in the Slavic language, at first did not understand either Russian writings or Russian books, leads to doubt whether they were truly Slavic. From the further narration of the same biographer Kirillov, it is revealed that Kirill himself, who now recognized Russian writings and the Russian Gospel with the Psalter, did not at all recognize them as Slavic. When, upon Cyril’s return from the Khazars, the king began to send him to the Moravians, one of the Slavic tribes, Cyril replied: “I’m glad to go there if they have letters in their language.” Could the holy man speak like that if he recognized the Russian letters he knew as Slavic? When the tsar subsequently said that neither his grandfather, nor his father, nor many others had found Slavic letters, no matter how much they searched, and advised Cyril to ask for help from God, then “Philosopher, according to the right custom, put this on the prayer and with frost accomplices; “I will soon reveal God to him, and then write the letters and begin the conversation, writing the Gospel: the word from time immemorial... and so on.” If Cyril had recognized the Russian writings and the Russian Gospel known to him as Slavic, then why did he invent new Slavic writings and again begin to translate the Gospel into the Slavic language, and did not use the old, ready-made ones? And the biographer Kirillov himself, who lived towards the end of the 9th century, when the Russian state had just been formed and the name of Rus' as a Slavic kingdom had not yet become generally known, could not mean by Russian writings and books Slavic, or Slavic-Russian, but called them Russian, perhaps only because that’s what a Rusyn man in Korsun called them. What were these Russian letters and books? It seems to us that Safarik’s guess that these were Gothic writings and books is fair. The Goths, as you know, were considered one of the Varangian peoples, like the Swedes and Varangians of Rus', and were fellow tribesmen. Many Goths, by the end of the second century, moved from the Baltic coast to the Black Sea and the Danube, and subsequently beyond the Danube and here, living for centuries together with the Slavs, told them many of their Gothic words, and from them they borrowed many Slavic words into their language. Here in the 4th century, after the Goths adopted Christianity, Bishop Ulfilas invented writing for them and translated the Holy Scriptures. A small colony of these Goths from the end of the 5th century. settled in the Crimea, in the Dori region, not far from Korsun, and had here her hierarchs and, of course, her holy books. These Goths, as their fellow tribesmen, could naturally be visited by the Varangian-Russians, who traveled so often in the 9th century. by water through Korsun to Constantinople on trade matters and in the service of the emperors, and often received holy baptism there. One of these Russians, who happened to be in Korsun when St. Cyril the Philosopher arrived there, or who constantly lived there (and there were many newcomers living in Korsun at that time), could have had the Gothic Gospel and Psalter and called them, as completely understandable to him, his own Russian books. Cyril could then study and understand the Gothic Gospel all the more easily because, as we have already noted, it contained many Slavic words. In confirmation of the conjecture we have stated, we can point to the undoubted historical fact that Saint Cyril actually once studied the Gothic language, had the Gothic Gospel at hand and used it. For “when comparing the ancient Slavic translation (performed by St. Cyril) and with the few hitherto surviving fragments of the Gothic translation,” one scientist testifies, “in the Slavic we discovered a lot of the same Gothic words and in the same places as in Ulfila’s translation.” After this, wouldn’t it be more prudent to abandon once and for all the seductive idea that the Slavs had any translation of at least some sacred books from the first centuries? Everything that can be thought up in favor of it obviously leads only to assumptions, and very shaky ones at that, without providing any direct evidence. Meanwhile, on the other hand, there is decisive evidence that says that the translation of the Holy Scriptures and liturgical books into the Slavic language was first carried out precisely in the second half of the ninth century by Constantine, in monasticism by Cyril, and Methodius. Modern biographies of these holy brothers, compiled by their disciples, have survived to this day, although in later copies. So what? In both biographies it seems that the first inventors of Slavic letters, the first translators of sacred books into Slavic speech, the first teachers of the Slovenian language were Saints Cyril and Methodius. In the life of St. Cyril, in addition to what we have given above about his invention of Slavic letters and the translation of the Gospel, it is further narrated that the Greek Tsar Michael sent with Cyril to Rostislav, Prince of Moravia, the epistole and wrote in it: “God, who commands everyone to come to true understanding, having seen your faith, create and now, in our year, the manifestation of the letters in your language, it was not given to him, and you too will be considered great among the nations, who glorify God with their tongue,” and further it is said that Saint Cyril, having arrived to the Moravians, “soon changed the entire church rite.” In the same way, the life of Saint Methodius testifies that when the king sent him with Saint Cyril to Moravia, they “put on a prayer that God would reveal to the Philosopher the Slovenian books, and having arranged writings and a conversation, they set up the Moravian path.” The “Praise” of Saint Cyril has also been preserved, compiled by one of his disciples, Clement the Bishop, who speaks in it about his teacher: “Translate the entire Greek church charter into the Slovenian language... with all the language of the hidden secrets in the convolutions of the verbal, intelligently confessing, the tale, the new writing, the new teaching.” Two more contemporary testimonies have survived, no longer left by the disciples of the Slavic apostles, but by outsiders, who, however, could have the most accurate information about them. The first belongs to Pope John VIII and is found in his bulls to Saint Methodius from 879 and to the Bohemian king Svyatopolk from 880; here not only is there a mention of Slovenian writing, invented by a certain philosopher Constantine, of the liturgy, the Holy Gospel and divine readings from the Old and New Testaments in the Slavic language, but at the same time the idea is expressed that all this began only under Svyatopolk, that the question of Slavic worship was then completely new and that for this hitherto unheard-of innovation the enemies of Saint Methodius they accused him before the papal throne. The second evidence is found in a note by an unknown person “On the Conversion of the Carinthians,” compiled in 873, which tells that Saint Methodius, having reinvented Slavic letters and replacing them with letters and the Latin language, and through them displacing Roman teaching, humiliated the practice of worship in Latin in the eyes of the Slavic people; and just as in the bulls of Pope John, all this seems to be an innovation. We find the same testimony about Saints Cyril and Methodius as the first creators of the Slavic alphabet and the Slavic translation of the sacred books 1) in the Prologue of John, Exarch of Bulgaria, to the Theology of Saint John of Damascus that he translated at the beginning of the 10th century: “Before then,” the exarch begins his speech, “the holy man of God Kstyantin, Philosopher of the river, many accepting the works, constructing the letters of the Slovenian books, and translating the selections from the Gospel and the Apostle: as much as he has achieved living in this dark world, so shall he transpose...” - and then he tells how, after the death of his brother, Saint Methodius translated all the Holy Scriptures. 2) In the “Tale of Writings” by Chernorizets Khrabr, already known to us and dating back to the first quarter of the 10th century. 3) In the life of Clement, Bishop of Bulgaria, disciple of the Slavic apostles, written shortly after his death (July 27, 916). one of his students. Here it is said about Saints Cyril and Methodius: “They zealously taught the teaching word in the Hellenic language and attracted many with their wisdom. But since the Slavic tribe, or the Bulgarian, did not understand the scriptures written in the Hellenic language, the holy men considered this a great evil... What are they doing? They turn to the Comforter, from whom comes the gift of languages ​​and the power of words... And indeed, having received this coveted gift, they invent Slavic writings, translate divinely inspired writings from the Hellenic language into Bulgarian and try to convey divine instructions to the most capable of their students. And there were many who drank from the source of their teaching. Of these, the chosen ones and the leaders of the entire host were: Gorazd, Clement, Naum, Angelarius and Savva.” And further: “Cyril, as if he was destined to remain in the flesh for such a time as to invent writing and translate the scriptures, moves to God...” 4) In a word of praise to Saints Cyril and Methodius, which, if it cannot be indisputably adopted by their disciple Clement of Bulgaria, at least appeared in the 11th or even in the 10th century. For in the list of the 12th century. it has been preserved to this day under the following title: “The word is commendable in memory of the holy and glorious teacher of the Slovenian language, who wrote letters to him, who translated new and old laws into their language, to Blessed Cyril and Archbishop Methodius of Panons.” In the word itself, the writer addresses the Slavic apostles with the following words: “Having transformed the Law of God into a new language, he has given it over, creating writings for him... not basing his work on the same foundation, but reimagining writings and completing them in a new language... from there (i.e., from the Khazars) to Western countries, preaching the gospel the word of God into a new language, and translating the entire church law from Greek, gave it to them in their own language... in the Western countries, the Panonian and Moravian countries, shining like the sun, driving away the darkness of sin, enlightening the letters and teaching the disciples to practice the church rite.” We consider it unnecessary to cite evidence from other writers of the 11th, 12th and subsequent centuries. Let us only note that the idea of ​​Saints Cyril and Methodius as the first translators of the Word of God and liturgical books into the Slavic language was unanimously accepted by all Slavs in all centuries; it became, one might say, one of the most sacred traditions of the Slavic Church, which the fathers reverently passed on to their children as a precious shrine. For us, in particular, Russians, the time of translation of the sacred books into the Slavic language by Saints Cyril and Methodius is also noteworthy that at the beginning it almost exactly coincides with the time of the founding of our fatherland. The Legend of the discovery of the relics of St. Clement, Pope of Rome, has been preserved, written, in all likelihood, by St. Cyril the Philosopher himself and, undoubtedly, an eyewitness and one of the main participants in the event. The title of this Legend indicates that the discovery of the relics took place in 861. And since it is known from the life of St. Cyril that he convinced the Kherson Archbishop to find the relics of Clement during his journey to the Khazars, and that soon after returning from the Khazars he had to go to the Moravians, and before leaving for them he invented Slavic writing, and began translating the Gospel, then we can assume that the last event could have followed precisely in 862. Another legend about the relics of Saint Clement, written by a contemporary of Saint Cyril the Philosopher in Latin (or in the so-called Italian legend), says that Saints Cyril and Methodius, having arrived in Moravia, labored here for four and a half years, then, at the request of Pope Nicholas I, they went to Rome, where they did not find him alive, but were met by his successor Adrian II, who, as is known, ascended the holy throne on December 14, 867. From here they rightly conclude that the time of arrival of the Thessalonica brothers in Moravia must be assumed in the first months of 863. But since Saints Cyril and Methodius invented the Slavic alphabet and began to translate the Gospel of John in Constantinople before setting off for Moravia, then the beginning of the translation of the holy books can be dated back to 862, when The Russian Kingdom began. The second, although not so important, question regarding the circumstances of the translation of the sacred books we are considering is the question of the place of this great work. Its beginning with sufficient thoroughness must be assumed back in Constantinople, as evidenced by the most ancient biography of St. Cyril and as it very naturally should have happened. But where is it continued, where is it completed? The evidence we know about this is not entirely consistent. According to one, the holy brothers labored only in Moravia, where they were invited by the local princes Rostislav, Svyatopolk and Kotsel; according to others - first in Bulgaria, then in Moravia; according to the third, on the contrary, they were already coming from Moravia to Bulgaria. All this news, however, does not exclude one another, but only complements and explains. It is true that Saints Cyril and Methodius were asked directly from the Greek Emperor Michael by the Moravian princes and were not previously deliberately invited to Bulgaria, but having gone to Moravia, on their way they first converted the Bulgarians, as some testimonies say. It is also completely natural that these Slavic apostles, especially Methodius after the death of his brother, during their stay in Moravia could again visit and did visit the Bulgarians they converted to strengthen them in the faith, as Clement’s biographer testifies. But, in any case, we must admit that the holy brothers converted to Christianity not only the Moravians, but also the Bulgarians, and, moreover, the Bulgarians first, for this opinion is confirmed by a large number of testimonies compared to other opinions, and by the importance of some of these testimonies, and by the fact, as we will see further, that the translation of Saints Cyril and Methodius bears the stamp of the Bulgarian dialect. Consequently, one can think that this translation, begun in Constantinople, was continued in Bulgaria, and completed in Moravia, where Saint Methodius was archbishop for a very long time, to whom this ending belongs. Several more questions concern the actual persons who participated in the translation of the holy books into the Slavic language. AND - 1) Who were Saints Cyril and Methodius from? The idea has long been rooted that they were Greeks from the city of Thessaloniki, where their father Leo held a very important military position. Recently, however, another idea appeared, that they were pure Slavs. The basis for the first opinion is that in some ancient legends Saints Cyril and Methodius are called Greeks or Romans, and one of these legends belongs even to their contemporary. But it is known that these names were often used not only by natural Greeks or Romans, but in general by everyone who was under the rule of Constantinople - the new Rome, no matter what tribe; Consequently, the indigenous Slavs, who undoubtedly lived at that time in the vicinity of Thessaloniki, the homeland of Saints Cyril and Methodius, could also be called. In addition, in many other news about the Thessaloniki brothers they are not at all called Greeks or Romans, and the legend about the Bohemian princess Lyudmila even says that Saint Cyril was taught the languages ​​Greek and Latin. In confirmation of the idea of ​​​​the Slavic origin of the Thessalonica brothers, they point to the name of Saint Methodius as a Slav in one Latin testimony of the 13th century, and to the name of Saint Cyril as a Bulgarian in the Serbian Synaxar of the 15th century. and to the words of Emperor Michael, which he said to the holy brothers, sending them to Moravia: “You are a Selunian, and all the Selunians speak purely Slovenian.” But the first two testimonies cannot have decisive force as they are too late, and the emperor’s words only express that all Thessalonians speak purely Slavic, and not that all Thessalonians are Slavs. Therefore, it seems to us, preference should be given to the previous opinion about the origin of the Thessaloniki brothers; at least, one of his contemporaries calls Saint Cyril a Greek. 2) Did both holy brothers participate in the translation of the holy books? And if both, then which of them worked more? And didn’t they have any assistants? There are testimonies that attribute the entire work to Saint Cyril alone, without mentioning his brother; there are others who, although not so clearly, speak in this case of one Saint Methodius; and there are third testimonies - the largest part, and, moreover, the most important in antiquity - which speak together of both. There can be no doubt that Saints Cyril and Methodius were both participants in the translation... Who is more? According to John, Exarch of Bulgaria, Saint Cyril the Philosopher translated only a selection from the Gospels and the Apostle, that is, the daily readings for the whole year, and died, and Saint Methodius completed everything else after his death. According to the ancient Pannonian life of the latter and the Nestor Chronicle, Saint Methodius worked together with his brother, translating with him the Psalter, the Gospel with the Apostle and selected church services, and after his brother’s death, translating all the Holy Scriptures. Consequently, contrary to generally accepted opinion, it would be much fairer to designate the great work of the Slavic apostles by the name of Saint Methodius, rather than by the name of Saint Cyril alone. From some evidence we also learn that the Thessaloniki brothers had assistants in translating the sacred books. A modern biography of St. Cyril notes that, having decided to go to preach to the Moravians, while still in Constantinople, “with his companions, he composed letters and began a conversation to write the Gospel.” And the biography of St. Methodius says that he, from “his disciples, planted two priests of a cursive writer, laid out all the books to be completed,” a message that was later repeated in the Russian temporary book by the Monk Nestor. Finally, in one Bulgarian legend even the names of some persons who were assistants to the Slavic apostles in translating the sacred books were preserved. These persons were called Naum, Klim, Savva, Angelarius and Erasmus and, like Saints Cyril and Methodius, are still known in Bulgaria under the name of the Bulgarian scribes. It is very clear where such assistants could be found: they, by the way, were formed for themselves by the Slavic first teachers from those numerous disciples whom they hastened to gather around them as soon as they arrived in the Moravian land and some of whom subsequently became worthy successors to them in the hierarchical degrees and in the task of translating the most important books for the Church into the Slavic language from Greek. 3) To which Church: the Eastern Orthodox or the Roman - do the Slavs owe their first teachers in the faith, and therefore their most important work - the translation of biblical and liturgical books into the Slavic language? Without any doubt. The Orthodox Church, contrary to the opinion of some Western scientists. For, firstly, not only in Slavic, but also in Roman ancient legends it is clearly narrated that Rostislav, the Moravian prince, sent an embassy specifically to the Greek Emperor Michael to ask for a teacher who would teach the Moravians to read divine books in their native language, and that after that, Saints Cyril and Methodius were actually sent to Moravia from Constantinople, while in no one The ancient act, neither Latin nor Slavic, does not say a word of anything similar in relation to Rome and the pope. Secondly, the very translation of the Word of God into the Slavic, barbarian language, the very administration of divine services in this language clearly show that this kind of work could only be accomplished with the blessing of the Eastern Church, and not at all the Western, which even then had the custom of not allowing this to converted pagans. And what if not the devotion of Saints Cyril and Methodius to the Greek Orthodox Church was the main reason for various unrest against them on the part of the Roman Catholic bishops of Pannonia? Why did they want to slander the Slavic apostles before the people and before the pope in unorthodoxy? Why did the Roman high priest demand them to his capital? And if at first, wanting to attract holy preachers to himself, and through them to retain Moravia, he allowed them to perform divine services in the Slavic language, then wasn’t this a complete prohibition soon after, and wasn’t Methodius himself declared a heretic? In vain they try to make it incredible that the Moravian princes, who were spiritually dependent on the Roman tiara - since Christianity was already widespread in Moravia by the western Salzburg bishops - could ask for a teacher from the Greeks. There is nothing incredible here: this dependence did not at all extend to the restriction of freedom. The princes wanted to have such teachers who would explain the Word of God to the Slavic people in speech that was understandable to them, and they, knowing from experience that they would not get what they wanted from Rome, from where their priests always came to the country with the Latin Bible, of necessity had to turn to Byzantium with a request. It may turn out that through such a rapprochement with Greece, the Moravian princes still hoped to receive help from her against the German sovereigns, with whom they were then at odds. It is also in vain to point out the attitude in which Saints Cyril and Methodius stood towards the Roman high priest, their arbitrary subordination to him and his patronage of their preaching. And the Slavic apostles, according to Christian prudence, had to turn to this high priest with their submission for their own success, because Moravia was then under his power, and the ruler of Rome found himself forced to patronize them for his own success, in order to keep the Moravians in his subordination, who so loved the preaching of the Thessalonica brothers, which was understandable to them. We must not forget that the falling away of the Roman Church from the Universal Church had not yet completely taken place; the then Pope John VIII was even in friendly relations with the Constantinople Patriarch Photius, and therefore, the trips of Saints Cyril and Methodius to Rome and their submission to the Pope could not at all seem like a betrayal of the Orthodox Church of Constantinople and evidence of their commitment to the Roman Church. It is in vain, finally, that they strive to prove that Saints Cyril and Methodius, although they introduced worship among the Slavs in the Slavic language, were allegedly following the rites of the Roman Church, not the Greek Church. This is refuted even by Western documents. In 967 The pope, establishing the Roman Catholic bishopric in Prague, commanded that the divine service should be performed not according to the rites of the Bulgarian or Russian Church, nor according to the custom of the Slavic language, but according to the statutes of the Roman Catholic faith. Isn't this a clear sign that the rituals of the Bulgarian Church, founded by Cyril and Methodius, were not Roman at all? The priest of Diocles (1161) says that the most holy man Constantine introduced among the Slavs the celebration of the liturgy according to the custom of the Greeks (more Graecorum). All the Roman rituals that Saints Cyril and Methodius could allow, if they even allowed it, when performing divine services for the Moravians enlightened by them, were limited to the fact that at the liturgy the Apostle and the Gospel were first read in Latin, and then in Slavic, because this was the only thing the pope himself wanted from them, for the supposedly greater importance of the sacred rite. If John VIII says that, having asked Methodius in the presence of other bishops, whether he believes in the Creed of the Orthodox Faith and sings it in the liturgy, as the Roman Church teaches and as approved at six Ecumenical Councils, he received an affirmative answer from him, then there is nothing inconsistent here, because at the Ecumenical Councils the Symbol was approved the same as the Orthodox Church has hitherto adhered to, without the addition of Filioque (and from Son), and this addition was not yet introduced into the Symbol by the Roman Church itself. Therefore, in the eyes of the pope, Saint Methodius, naturally, should have seemed like an orthodox and true archpastor. Finally, the most tangible proof of how Orthodox the Slavs were believed and taught by their unforgettable first teachers is the Writing on the Right Faith, preserved in one manuscript, studied by Constantine the blessed philosopher, teacher of Bose in the Slovenian language. The most remarkable thing here is that it is said about the Holy Spirit deliberately against the papists: I believe... and in one Holy Spirit, proceeding from one God the Father; from edinago - an addition that is not found in previous eastern confessions. Much more important for us are questions concerning the translation of biblical and liturgical books into the Slavic language itself, questions: 1) about what - which, in fact, of these books were translated by Saints Cyril and Methodius, and 2) about how - from what language and into which of the Slavic dialects they were translated. Let us dwell first of all on the liturgical books, because this is what the Slavic apostles first took up, translating from the books of the Holy Scriptures for the first time only those that are used in divine services. In the Pannonian Life of Saint Cyril, contemporary to him, it is said that, having arrived with his brother in Moravia, he soon changed the entire church rite and taught it to his disciples. One no less ancient Latin legend tells that, having stayed in Moravia for four and a half years and instructed the people in the Catholic faith, Saints Cyril and Methodius left here, before setting off for Rome, all the books (of course in the Slavic language) that seemed necessary for the performance of divine services. Finally, in another, equally ancient act - in the Pannonian Life of Saint Methodius - we read that the Pope, after he examined the Slovenian books brought to him by Saints Cyril and Methodius and heard the liturgy they repeatedly performed in Rome together with their disciples in the Slavic language, wrote to the Moravian princes, among other things, the following: “With the intention of sending Methodius to your country... let you teach, as you naturally asked, the books have been spoken in your tongue, and fulfill all the church rites.” How to understand these testimonies, especially the first two, which are so definite? Could it be that the Slavic apostles really translated all the liturgical books, and, moreover, translated them in four and a half years? Is this possible? We will not find anything impossible here, as long as we better understand the meaning of the second testimony that Saints Cyril and Methodius translated all the books - only those necessary for the performance of divine services, and we remember that these books could have been translated then only to the extent in which they existed. From the books used during worship, Saints Cyril and Methodius translated: 1) The Gospel and the Apostle. This is unanimously confirmed by almost every single ancient testimony about the Thessaloniki brothers. The Gospel was the first book with which they began their great work back in Constantinople, and the first Gospel word that sounded through their lips in the Slavic language and sanctified our language was the word about the eternal Word: From the beginning was the Word, and the Word was from God, and God was the Word. The Gospel and the Apostle were then translated in the form in which they are used in the churches, i.e. not in the order of the Evangelists and Apostolic Epistles, nor in the order of their chapters, but in the order of the church, or daily readings for the whole year. That is why John, Exarch of Bulgaria, noticed that Saint Cyril offered only selection (selected readings) from the Gospel and the Apostle. And it becomes clear why the holy brothers, having begun to translate the Gospels, began with the first words from John, whereas, according to the arrangement of the Gospels, they should have started from the first chapter of Matthew. It is known that the first verses of the Gospel of John constitute the first church beginning, read on the very day of Holy Pascha, and that this beginning was written in first place in the order of the day's readings. If so, then Saints Cyril and Methodius initially translated all four Gospels and all the Apostolic Epistles, but hardly in full, because some, very few, passages of the Gospels are not in the oldest church books of this kind. And this means that it will be necessary to assume that the passages missing from these books from the Gospels and the Epistles of the Apostles were translated by Saint Methodius later, during the translation of the entire Holy Scripture. 2) The missal together with the Breviary are two books most necessary for the bishop, priest and deacon: the first - during public worship, because it contains the rites of everything that they must do when performing the liturgy, matins and vespers; the second - in various cases of private worship, containing the rites of the holy sacraments (except for the Eucharist, celebrated at the liturgy) and other so-called priestly requirements: burial, blessing of water, etc. The translation of the Missal by Saints Cyril and Methodius is clearly evidenced by the ancient life of the first, stating that when he translated the entire rite of the church, he taught his disciples the matins and years of mass, and vespers, and vespers, and the secret service, also said by Pope John VIII in a letter to the Moravian prince Svyatopolk, the legend of Ludmila and the Priest of Diocles. And we can guess about the translation of the Trebnik, at least in its oldest articles, from the words of the pope to the Moravian princes about Saint Methodius: may he teach them in the Slavic language, according to the entire church rite, and with the holy moss... reksha, with service and baptism (the rite of baptism is in the Trebnik). However, even if there were no evidence of this kind, even then we could not at all doubt the validity of the translation of the Missal and Breviary by Saints Cyril and Methodius, knowing that they, together with their disciples, undeniably celebrated the liturgy and other services in the Slavic language and, without any doubt, had to perform the sacraments of baptism, repentance, marriage, etc. It goes without saying that the Trebnik of that time could not contain articles that appeared after the 9th century. 3) The Book of Hours together with the Psalter are two books that are as necessary for choir members as the Service Book and the Breviary for clergy. And without these books, Saints Cyril and Methodius could not have conducted daily services with their disciples in the Slavic language; therefore, having admitted the latter, we must also admit that the Book of Hours and the Psalter were already translated then. This is true and supported by evidence. The compiler of the ancient life of Methodius, the Monk Nestor and the priest of Diocles speak clearly about the translation of the Psalter, and the legend about Lyudmila speaks about the translation of the Book of Hours. 4) The Octoechos, or osmoglasnik, is another book necessary for the choir and mainly for singing on the choir, like the Book of Hours and the Psalter for reading during daily services, a book of songs divided into eight voices, or sections, each of which has its own special melody and is divided into seven particular chantings adapted to the seven days of the week with the canons of the Mother of God and the Most Holy Trinity. The translation of Octoechos is clearly attributed to the Thessalonica brothers by our reverend chronicler, although, without a doubt, it was the Greek Octoechos of that time and, therefore, incomparably smaller than the current one. It contained only the works of John of Damascus, or only the resurrection, and, moreover, incomplete ones, in which there could not, for example, be the canons of the Trinity, written already in the 9th century. Metropolitan of Smyrna Mitrofan, stichera of the Gospels compiled by Emperor Leo the Wise (886–912), exapostilary attributed to Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus (10th century). Investigations of all other days of the week, composed by writers of the 9th century. Joseph and Theophan and not suddenly, of course, which came into general use, did not fit into the Greek Octoechos of that time at all. 5) General Menaion - a book similar to the Octoechos, only containing not weekly celebrations, but celebrations of the feasts of the Mother of God and the Forerunner and, most importantly, celebrations common to entire ranks of saints, such as: prophets, apostles, saints, martyrs, etc., which is why it differs from the monthly or private Menaion, which contains a special celebration in particular for each saint for the duration of all twelve months of the year. In our oldest editions of the general Menaion (precisely in the edition of 1599 under Tsar Boris Feodorovich and in the edition of 1609 under Tsar Vasily Ioannovich Shuisky), it is noted in the afterword that this book is the creation and collection of the Holy Father Cyril the Philosopher, teacher of the Slovenes and Bulgars. Of course, such late evidence cannot be given credit, especially since it is not known where it was borrowed from. But in any case, it seems necessary to assume that at least some of the rites of the general Menaion for commemorating the saints of God were translated by the Thessalonica brothers, when it is known, for example, that Saint Methodius commemorated Saint Demetrius of Thessalonica. 6) Paremeynik, or a collection of readings from the Old, and partly from the New Testament, usually called paremias, which are read at Vespers on different days of the year. The existence of this book in the Slavic language in the days of Saints Cyril and Methodius is mentioned by Pope John VIII in a letter to the Moravian prince Svyatopolk: “Nothing prevents either sound faith or sound teaching from singing the liturgy in the Slavic language or reading the Holy Gospel or divine readings from the New and Old Testament.” If we don’t understand the proverbs here, then what kind of readings are these from the Old Testament? 7) The Charter, or the general order of Orthodox worship for the days of the whole year. The translation of this book can be attributed to Saint Cyril in part already on the basis of the mutual expression in his biography that he translated the entire church rite, but mainly on the basis of the general evidence presented above by us that the holy brothers translated all the books necessary for worship, and the Rule is, undoubtedly, a necessary guide for this. Only the Charter of that time was incomparably shorter than the current one, if it was not even completely different - the shortest, because at that time in the East, different Patriarchies used different Charters. And it is not without reason that our current Charter (Student) was introduced to us not with the introduction of Christianity, when all Slavic church books were brought to us from Bulgaria, but already in the 11th century. under the Venerable Theodosius. It is true that the Southern Slavs did not have this Charter and, therefore, did not receive it from the hands of their first teachers, but received another, which was first introduced to us, and then replaced by the Studian one. These are all the liturgical books about which it is at least somewhat known or one can guess that they were translated by Saints Cyril and Methodius. What then? Was it possible to translate these books in four and a half years? Without any doubt: firstly, there are not very many of them; almost all of them are small even now, and then they were even much smaller; on the other hand, Saints Cyril and Methodius then worked together and had several assistants from among their disciples. What liturgical books did the Slavic apostles not translate? Only those that had not yet been introduced into general use and which could somehow be dispensed with. They did not translate both Triodea - Lenten and Colored, which had just been collected into one composition in the 9th century, although their content for the most part appeared much earlier, and which, moreover, due to need, could be somewhat replaced by Octoechos; they did not translate the entire Menaea of ​​the month, which now consists of twelve large books and, therefore, the largest of all liturgical books, although at that time it was almost half the size of the present one, replacing it with the General Menaea; they did not translate the Anthologion and the simple Irmology, which, if necessary, could be replaced by the Octoechos and the general Menaea. When, therefore, the first needs of the Slavs, who wanted to hear the preaching of the Gospel in their native language, were satisfied, their holy first teachers began to think about how to translate the entire Word of God for them. But the Lord did not decree that Saint Cyril, who soon died, would see the fulfillment of this pious desire. It was granted to one Saint Methodius, who, after ruling the Pannonian Church for several more years in the rank of chief hierarch, had the time and special motivation to accomplish this great feat and presented all the Holy Scriptures for the Slavs. The evidence related to this can be divided into three types: some generally claim that Saint Methodius or Cyril (because the names of the two brothers were confused for a long time) translated the entire Holy Scripture; others, in addition, in particular determine the number of translated books; still others, finally, indicate the number of books translated, and the method and time of translation. The evidence of the first kind includes: 1) the words of the ancient legend about the Bohemian princess Lyudmila: “St. Cyril, who knew the Greek and Latin languages ​​perfectly... having invented new letters, translated the Old and New Testaments, and much more into the Slavic dialect”; 2) the words of the Dioclesian priest of the 12th century: “The Most Holy Man Constantine compiled the Slavic alphabet, translated the Gospel of Christ, the Psalter and all the divine books of the Old and New Testaments from Greek into Slavic”; 3) the words of the Dalmatian Chronicle, almost contemporary with the priest of Diocles, which attributes to St. Cyril the translation of the Gospel, the Epistles and the books of the Old and New Law, and 4) the words of Chernorizets Khrabra, that while Greek letters were invented very slowly by seven persons, and books from the Jewish language into Greek were translated by seventy men (the word book, obviously, is here a literal translation of the word Bible), Slovenian books (i.e. the Bible) are the only Saint Constantine, called Cyril, and made the writings and the books into Malech Leteh! Evidence of the second kind is found in John, Exarch of Bulgaria, and in one Slavic Prologue of the 13th century. Having mentioned Saint Cyril, who made only a choice from the Gospel and the Apostle and soon died, the exarch continues: “And the great Archbishop of God Methodius, his brother, transposed all the statutory books 60 from the Hellenic language, which is Greek, into Slovenian.” What is said here about biblical books, and not about liturgical books, is indisputable, because liturgical books are now incomparably less than sixty, while both before Methodius and after it was the custom in the Orthodox Church to count the books of Holy Scripture precisely up to sixty. A Prologue of the 13th century. here he dispels the last shadow of doubt when he says that Methodius translated all 60 books of the Old and New Testaments from Greek into Slovenian. Finally, we find evidence of the third kind: 1) in the Pannonian life of Saint Methodius, which tells that he “from his disciples planted two priests in cursive writing, laid out all the books in writing, perhaps the Macabees, from the Greek language in Slovenian, the sixth month, beginning from the month of March until the twentieth and sixth day of the month of October; Having finished, give worthy praise and glory to God, who gives such grace and haste, and offer the holy secret offering with your choir, create the memory of Saint Demetrius”; and 2) from our venerable chronicler, who repeats this legend almost word for word: “Methodius planted two priests, a great cursive writer, and translated all the books from the Greek language into Slovenian, the sixth month, which began from the month of March to the twentieth and 6th day of October; Having finished, I gave worthy praise and glory to God, who gave such grace to Bishop Methodius, Abbot Andronikov.” From the first time it is obvious that the Monk Nestor borrowed his news from the ancient life of Methodius. And if this is true, then the confusion will naturally be resolved as to what books our chronicler is talking about here - whether biblical or liturgical. Without a doubt, about the biblical ones, when in the Life of Methodius it is directly added: “Fulfill all the books, unless the Macabees...”. Thus, up to eight ancient writers unanimously testify to us, with the exception of some differences in words, that Saint Methodius translated all the books of Holy Scripture into the Slavic language. And of these witnesses, one speaks as a contemporary who had heard several times about the event he mentioned, and the other, moreover, as a student of Methodius himself, who wrote a biography of his teacher shortly after his death. Should we not believe such witnesses? There is one important bewilderment here: why until the 15th century. Among the surviving Slavic manuscripts we do not find a single list of books of the Old Testament, except for the Psalter, while lists of New Testament books are found quite often? But from the fact that now there are no more ancient lists of all the Old Testament books, it does not at all follow that they never existed. On the contrary, even now there are indications that they existed, and, therefore, if they were lost, then, of course, because they existed in a small number of copies, since copying all the Old Testament books was a great difficulty and, meanwhile, did not represent such an extreme necessity as copying the books of the New Testament and the Psalter, which were used in worship and therefore survived in considerable quantities. There is, we say, even now an indication of the existence of the books of the Old Testament in Slavic translation much earlier than the 15th century, and the indications are as follows: 1) a copy of the five books of Moses, made in the 15th century, has survived to our time. from a manuscript written in 1136 by Deacon Kirik in Novgorod, as evidenced by one postscript copied by a 15th-century scribe. from the oldest original; 2) in exactly the same copies of the 15th century. From a manuscript written back in 1047 for the Novgorod prince Vladimir Yaroslavich, books of prophets with interpretations have come down to us, and, what is especially remarkable, here is a scribe of the 11th century. in the afterword, literally copied by the scribe, it seems to express the idea that these books were translated by Saint Cyril or even that the scribe had the original Cyril at hand; 3) the Monk Polycarp, who described several lives of the holy Kiev-Pechersk ascetics, said this about the recluse Nikita, who lived during the abbot of St. Nikon (from 1078): “No one could compete with him with the books of the Old Testament; everything is out of mouth umeashe: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Judges, Kingdoms and all the prophecies according to order and all the books of the Jews”; and, 4) finally, in the written monuments of our 11th century: in the “Word” of Metropolitan Hilarion (written between 1037–1050), in the writings of Jacob and the Monk Nestor, passages are given from the Pentateuch of Moses, from the books of Judges, Kings, Proverbs, the Wisdom of Solomon and Jesus, the son of Sirach, the prophets Isaiah, Daniel, Hosea, Malachi and others. All this shows that, at least in the 11th century. The entire Bible existed in Slavic. Shall we say that it was only at this time that it was translated? But could our almost contemporary venerable chronicler have kept silent about such an important event? Could it really have hidden itself from him to such an extent that he directly attributes the translation of all the books of Holy Scripture to Saint Methodius? Let us add to this the testimony of experts that many Old Testament Slavic books, preserved in copies of the 15th and 16th centuries, bear indelible traces of the Bulgarian language not only of the 11th, but also of the 10th century, or in general traces of the oldest Bulgarian translation. It even seems completely incredible to us that back in the 9th or early 10th century. The Holy Scripture was not translated into the Slavic language - either by Methodius himself, or by his disciples, or by his contemporaries, when they found time to engage in translations of lesser importance, and sometimes even their own writings. Methodius himself translated a lot, and wrote a lot in the Slavic language, contrary to the model of the Catholic (Roman) faith. And of his disciples, one, Bishop Constantine of Bulgaria, in 906. translated four “Words” of Athanasius the Great into Arians, another, the Bulgarian Bishop Clement (died around 916), compiled many teachings for almost the entire year. Of his contemporaries, John, Exarch of Bulgaria, translated the “Theology” of St. John of Damascus, even his “Philosophy” and Grammar, translated and partially compiled the Six Days and some teachings, and Gregory, supposedly Bulgarian, translated civil and church history, etc. Could it be that all these persons would not have taken the trouble to first translate the Word of God into the Slavic language, if it had not already been translated? So that the Bulgarian prince Simeon, by whose will almost all the translations counted were made, did not especially take care of this, who even himself translated the works of St. Chrysostom and compiled a small collection of them under the name “Golden Stream”, a prince whom his contemporaries called, not without reason, a book lover and at the same time a lover of God? No, this could not be: John, Exarch of Bulgaria, clearly admits that he many times attempted to translate only teachers’ legends, i.e. the writings of the holy teachers of the Church, and not the books of the Bible... Why? Because,” he replies, “I have already taught sixty (books of Holy Scripture) to Methodius, as I heard. But how can we understand these 60 books of Holy Scripture, translated, according to the Exarch of Bulgaria, by Saint Methodius, when we count not 60 books in the Bible, but up to 75? Does this mean that Saint Methodius did not translate all the books of Holy Scripture? And if so, which ones did he translate and which ones did he not? We agree that by the name of the 60 statutory books, John, Exarch of Bulgaria, did not mean all the sacred books, but only those that are called canonical. In the famous Svyatoslav Izbornik of 1073, which was translated in the days of the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon, in all likelihood by John the Exarch himself, there is an article about the sixty books of the Holy Scriptures, and in this article, indeed, only the canonical books of the Bible are listed. True, these books are now considered not 60, but 65 (27 New Testaments and 38 Old); but it is known that the Jews usually counted all the books that were in their canon according to the number of letters of their alphabet as 22, combining for this purpose some books and, among other things, the twelve minor prophets together. And Christians, having accepted the Old Testament canon from the Jews, began to divide in it the writings of the 12 minor prophets, which for the Jews constituted one book, into twelve books and thus count in the Old Testament canon instead of 22 books 33, which, combined with the 27 books of the New Testament, gave the number 60. Consequently, according to the testimony of John the Exarch, Saint Methodius did not translate at all all the books of Holy Scripture, the so-called non-canonical ones, such as: the book of Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Jesus, the son of Sirach, the books of Ezra 2 and 3, and the books of Maccabees 1, 2 and 3. But here a new question involuntarily arises: who should we believe more - John the exarch, according to which Saint Methodius did not translate all the non-canonical books of the Bible, or the ancient life of Methodius, which testifies that he translated all the biblical books in full, except for the Maccabees alone (perhaps the Maccabees)? John the Exarch lived during the days of the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon (888–927), but whether he was a contemporary of Saint Methodius (885) is unknown. In any case, he knew and wrote about the translation of sixty books by Saint Methodius only from rumors, which he admits more than once, and he himself did not even see or did not have at hand some, if not all, of the biblical books of Methodius’ translation. Could it be that rumors about the great work of Saint Methodius that were not entirely accurate could have reached such a person? Meanwhile, the life of Saint Methodius was undoubtedly written by one of his direct students and assistants, who himself, perhaps, participated together with his teacher in the translation of the sacred books. Could such a person not know about this translation with all accuracy and not testify to it without error? To assert that the expression “Is it Macabea” means other than non-canonical books is complete arbitrariness and a conclusion from the part to the whole. And therefore, it seems to us, it is fairer to adhere literally to the testimony of Methodius’s biographer, that his great teacher “translated all the books, except the Macabees.” The following words of this biographer can arouse distrust in us from the first time - words later repeated by our Rev. Nestor - as if Saint Methodius, with the assistance of two priests of the Greyhound-scribes, translated all the books of Holy Scripture within six months. But with proper attention to the matter, mistrust will easily dissipate, whether we understand the word transpose in the literal sense or, as some want, in the figurative sense (translate, i.e. rewrote). If we say that Saint Methodius translated all the books of the Holy Scriptures, except the Maccabees, in six months, then in order to more accurately determine the volume of this work, it is necessary to exclude from it not only the three Maccabees books, but also the Psalter, which had already been translated before, even under Saint Cyril, and several chapters, or passages, from other books of the Old Testament, known as proverbs and then translated, and all 27 books of the New Testament, which were also almost entirely translated under St. Cyril. Thus, the work of Saint Methodius will be reduced by almost a whole third and it will turn out that Saint Methodius translated within six months only two and a half thirds of the current Bible. Can anyone really doubt that an excellent expert in Greek and Slavic, fully skilled in translating from one to another, with the help of two reliable assistants, could translate two-thirds of our Bible in six months, exclusively engaged in this one task? The event is even easier to explain if we take the word transpose in a figurative sense. Saint Methodius was able to translate the Holy Scriptures after the death of Saint Cyril, throughout his many years of service to the Church, finding free time for this from pastoral labors, and translated books one by one, in fragments, writing down the translation in rough and hastily. Having little by little brought everything to an end, he installed two “priests-greyhound writers”, who, alternating, rewrote over the course of six months everything that he dictated to them, of course, more than once demolishing his translation with the original itself and, as it were, re-presenting the Bible in their presence. As a result of this, they were the first to convey to others the news that Saint Methodius had completed all the books in six months. In general, it should be noted that the story of the disciple and biography of Methodius about the transposition of the sacred books not only does not instill distrust in him, on the contrary, it arouses special trust in front of all other witnesses. This accuracy in identifying the books translated (all the books were written, except the Macabees), in indicating the persons who worked during the translation (two priests of the Greyhound scribe), and the extreme accuracy in designating the beginning, continuation and end of the translation (started from March to the twelve and six days of October) to a certain day of the year (the day of St. Demetrius of Thessaloniki) involuntarily forces us to assume that the witness himself was an eyewitness of all of them narrated or, at least, could have learned all this from others in the best possible way. Let us now move on to resolving the issue of the language of biblical and liturgical books translated by Saints Cyril and Methodius. We have already heard part of the answer to this question, sorting through ancient evidence related to the event we are considering. Almost all of them unanimously claim that the Slavic apostles made their translation from Greek, and only two Latin legends rather vaguely express the idea that the Thessalonica brothers translated a lot from Greek and Latin. Shall we hesitate which of these opinions to give preference to? Moreover, the first is confirmed by an incomparably greater number of testimonies than the latter, and the most ancient testimonies, not only Slavic and Greek, but also Latin, while only two Latin ones, and very late ones, speak in favor of the latter; besides the fact that the evidence of the first kind is distinguished by complete certainty and accuracy, and the latter is so vague that one can easily attribute them to some other translations of Saints Cyril and Methodius, and not to biblical and church books, we only ask: which of these books could they translate from the Latin language? The liturgical books translated by them, without any doubt, were translated from Greek - they came to us from Bulgaria and, with some corrections, have reached the present day; everyone can see whether these rites are Roman. Moreover, the priest of Diocles clearly noted that the first teachers of the Slavs taught them to perform the liturgy according to the custom of the Greeks. And if Saints Cyril and Methodius had first translated the Roman church books, then where would this difference in the rites of the Bulgarian and Russian Churches from the rites of Latin worship, which one of the popes of that time so sharply designates, come from? Regarding the books of the Holy Scriptures, it is enough to recall the decisive testimony of one biographer and disciple of Saint Methodius that he translated all these books in full, except for the Maccabees, “from the Greek language into the Slovenian language,” although we do not deny that the Slavic apostles, during their great work, could have had at hand the Latin translation of Jerome as a guide, as they undoubtedly used the Gothic translation of Bishop Ulfilas. We will not deal in detail with the remaining half of the question about the language of biblical and liturgical books translated by the Slavic apostles, or about which of the Slavic dialects this translation was made into, because this subject belongs not so much to church history as to Slavic philology, if not exclusively the latter. It is enough for us to note: 1) that all the opinions of modern scientists related to this are divided into two types: the first includes those assumptions according to which the translation was originally made into a native common Slavic language that has not yet branched into dialects, and the second includes the opinion that the translation was made into one or another of the Slavic dialects in particular; 2) that the last class of opinions is further divided into several more particular ones: some recognize this dialect as Moravian, others as Slovak, others as Extreme Vindic, others as Serbian, and others as Bulgarian; and finally, 3) that in our days, especially, most scientists cast their votes in favor of the Bulgarian dialect. And it must be admitted that this opinion, compared with others, has the strongest foundations both in history and in philology. In history: 1) Of all the ancient evidence, there is not a single one that would claim that Saints Cyril and Methodius translated the Holy Scriptures or church books into Serbian, or Slovak, or Moravian, or High Vindic, while the biography of Clement, Archbishop of Bulgaria, who lived in the 10th century, directly says that this translation was made into the Bulgarian language - evidence even more so It is important that the biography writer was a student of Clement, which means he lived with him in Bulgaria itself and, therefore, could accurately recognize or even judge for himself the language of translation of the Thessaloniki brothers. 2) All other evidence, which, apparently, is vaguely expressed that the translation was made into the Slavic language, can be explained primarily in favor of the Bulgarian dialect. For it is known that in the 8th and 9th centuries, during the lives of Cyril and Methodius, as well as subsequently, the country then occupied by the Bulgarians bore two names: Slavinia, after its ancient inhabitants, and Bulgaria, after its new inhabitants, and, therefore, the language of the Bulgarians could and was indifferently called both Bulgarian and Slavic. John, Exarch of Bulgaria, who translated the Theology of St. John of Damascus into his native dialect, in the preface to this translation several times calls his language Slavic and at the same time his own. And the ancient biography of Clement, Bishop of Bulgaria, presents an even more striking example when he narrates: “Since the Slavic, or Bulgarian, people did not understand the Scriptures in Greek, the saints... prayed to the Comforter... to grant them the ability to invent writing that would be consistent with the rudeness of the Bulgarian language; their prayer was heard, and they, having invented Slavic letters, translated the God-given Scriptures from Greek into Bulgarian.” 3) And in subsequent times, the prevailing opinion among the Slavs was that their Bible was translated into Bulgarian. “Sia (Cyril and Methodius) transposed all the Divine Scriptures of Greek books into Slovenian into Bulgarian,” says one ancient written prayer book, and, judging by the language, this testimony seems to rightly be attributed to the 13th century. In the 16th century (in 1591), one archpriest, having translated the Gospel into the South Russian, or Little Russian, dialect, says that he made his translation from the Bulgarian original: this is what he calls the Church Slavonic language. 4) Not without reason, of course, Saints Cyril and Methodius live to this day in the mouths of the Bulgarian people as Bulgarian scribes. In philology: 1) The language of our Bible and liturgical books has a striking similarity to that used in Bulgaria in the 10th century, as can be seen from the translations of John, Exarch of Bulgaria. 2) Even the language of today's Bulgarians, despite all the outside influences that it has suffered over the centuries, is quite close to our liturgical language and the language of the Holy Scriptures; this can be verified by comparing the Gospel used by our Church with the Gospel recently translated into the new Bulgarian language. 3) And not only in the book language, but also in the spoken language of real Bulgarians, we also hear ancient Slavic, church and biblical words and expressions; Bulgarians even now say: az, seven, you, is, we are, naturally, essence, belly (instead of life), hail, gold, son, one-tenth, twelfth, and so on. 4) The letter yus, which characterizes ancient Church Slavonic manuscripts, is not found in living pronunciation today among any of the Slavic tribes, except for the Bulgarians. The reason why Saints Cyril and Methodius chose the Bulgarian dialect for their translation, and not any other, can be sought partly in the properties of this dialect: was it not at that time the most educated of all Slavic dialects and therefore most capable of expressing the lofty truths of Christianity? And mainly in the translators themselves: the Solun brothers naturally could choose for their translation the dialect that they themselves knew better. But in Thessaloniki and its environs, as well as in all of Mysia and part of Macedonia, then Bulgarians lived, mixed with the Slavs, and the dominant language was Slavic-Bulgarian. However, it should be noted that, having adopted the Bulgarian dialect as the basis for their translation, the holy translators, in order to better express the new, lofty and most diverse truths of Revelation, necessarily had to sometimes use words from other Slavic dialects known to them (for example, Moravian), and sometimes, perhaps, even compose new words based on ancient Slavic roots; on the other hand, they often had to resort not only to terms, but also to entire turns and forms of the Greek language, as can be seen from the translation itself, unless this latter was an involuntary consequence of their deep knowledge of the Greek language. Thus, in the translation of the Slavic apostles, the simple language of the Bulgarian people was elevated to a certain degree of artificial development, having at the same time received a special sheen from the influence of the Greek language, and from then on it became a bookish and learned language, different from the common Slavic dialects, being, however, with them everywhere where it was used, in constant interaction, being influenced by them and having its own influence on them. And besides the Bulgarians, all other Slavs could easily use and understand this translation, because the Slavic dialects at that time, without a doubt, did not yet have such differences among themselves as they do now, and it is known that even now the church books of our Russian edition and press are still understandable to the Danube Slavs, Serbs and Bulgarians. The consequences of translating the Bible and church books into the Slavic language were the greatest and most beneficial both for the Slavs in general and, in particular, for the Russians. This translation had the most powerful influence on the awakening of the national spirit in the Slavs and the clarification of their national identity. Here for the first time they heard the sounds of their native word in harmonious, ennobled, sublime speech and for the first time they began to understand how rich, majestic and beautiful the language of their ancestors was, for the first time they looked, so to speak, face to face into their own soul and saw all the greatness and strength of its natural forces, for the expression of which such a powerful word is used. This is mainly why, wherever the translation of the Thessaloniki brothers penetrated, the Slavs greeted it with delight, as something especially dear and close to their hearts, as something in which they first saw themselves in the best possible way. At the same time, being understandable to all Slavic generations, this translation, spreading among them, most vividly reminded them of their blood kinship and brotherhood, and offering them the truths of the new birth from God by the grace of the Holy Spirit, represented the best means for uniting them with even stronger ties of spiritual kinship - in Christ Jesus. This translation served as a most important era in the history of the formation of the Slavic people. Let us not deny that the Slavs were familiar before, more or less, with enlightenment and education, that some of them were at times familiar even with Greek sciences and scholarship, but all this was only the lot of a few, all of these were, as it were, exceptions to the general rule, and the masses were in extreme ignorance and rudeness, the minds of all were surrounded by the thickest darkness of ancient pagan superstitions, were shackled by centuries-old prejudices. And suddenly such a poor people, who know almost nothing, are given the book of Divine Revelation! A book whose very purpose is to dispel the darkness of pagan delusions, free people from age-old prejudices and enlighten everyone with the purest concepts about God, the world and man, such a book is given, and with it many others that explain it, in a language understandable to one and all! One can judge what a great revolution must have taken place then in the minds of the Slavic generations! Meanwhile, in other countries of the world, where the faith of Christ was preached in a language alien to the people, its holy truths could be fully accessible to only learned people, for the Slavs these invaluable treasures from the first became common property. Literate people themselves read the Word of God and church books, and those who could not read reverently listened to what was being read by others, and studied or hurried to open churches and there, in sacred songs, readings and prayers, they studied the highest dogmas of Christian theology. Would you say that the Slavs acquired all these truths by faith, and not by reason? But the important thing is that truths were actually assimilated, which, having been assimilated by faith, necessarily already became light for the mind, driving away the darkness of the superstitions that had hitherto enveloped it and in their place imparting to it new, life-giving, albeit incomprehensible, concepts; the important thing is that many of these heavenly truths, understandable to the human mind itself, naturally awakened in it its own forces, which had been dormant until then, gave rise to many questions about the great subjects of human knowledge, generated and fed a thirst for true knowledge. The Slavs suddenly felt the need for science and enlightenment as soon as they heard the Word of God in their native language from the lips of their first teachers. In Bulgaria and Moravia, schools were founded by Saints Cyril and Methodius and, as circumstances permitted, were subsequently supported. By the end of the 9th century. and at the beginning of X the Slavs already had learned men who not only translated many useful and edifying books for their compatriots, but even wrote their own works in their native language. Folk writing among the Slavs began with a beautiful dawn at a time when in other, now most enlightened countries of Europe: England, France and Germany, they had not even thought about it. This is how the holy brothers of Thessalonica did a lot for the Slavic language itself with their invaluable translation, here they taught Slavic speech to flexibility, correctness and euphony, made it capable of expressing the highest thoughts, the most diverse combination of them among themselves; here they left for subsequent Slavic writers a worthy example, which was imitated for entire centuries. But most noticeable was the influence of this translation on the spread of the Christian faith among the Slavs. We know that from ancient times some Slavic tribes lived in the neighborhood of the Greeks and Romans, enlightened by Christianity, that both of them more than once tried to communicate the holy faith to these savages, among other barbarians who attacked the world empire, and that Roman missionaries, according to their custom, sometimes even used violence and the sword for this. So what were the successes? The weakest and almost invisible. The Slavs did not understand the Gospel sermon offered to them in a foreign language, and therefore, naturally, did not agree to accept it; and even if they accepted it, they could not properly assimilate it and, bearing the name of Christians, remained, as before, almost pagans in their beliefs and rituals. This is how centuries after centuries passed, and this is how, without a doubt, new centuries would have passed if the Slavs themselves, guided by their common sense, had not finally decided to ask Byzantium for teachers who would proclaim the Gospel to them in speech that was understandable to them. Since then, everything has changed. Having received a translation of the Bible and liturgical books in their native language, the Slavs began to understand the holy faith, saw the superiority of its divine truths over their crude superstitions, and everywhere they met it with readiness and love. From now on, one might say, in a few decades, it spread between them much more than before in entire centuries. In the clothing of the Slavic word, it seemed to everyone to be something familiar and alien, was accepted with joy and became a necessary element of Slavic life. All such consequences of the great work of the Slavic apostles among the southern Slavs did not last long - political unrest, unrest and revolutions, amid which the very name of the Slavic was barely saved in those countries, did not allow these most beneficial consequences to be revealed there in full force. But under other, more favorable circumstances, they did not cease to open up in another country, equally Slavic, which they soon penetrated. Turning here to ourselves, we can directly say that the Slavic translation of the sacred books, in addition to the general effects it produced among the Slavs, that is, in addition to the awakening of the national spirit and self-awareness in our ancestors, in addition to the influence on their education and the spread of Christianity among them, produced special effects among us. He protected us from Islamism, protected and even turned us away from papism, tied us to the Orthodox faith and gave the Russian people the most sacred, religious direction. It is known that at a time when our fatherland was barely emerging, the teachings of Magomet made very rapid progress along our southeastern border between the Volga Bulgarians, Khazars and Burtases, where, among other tribes, some of the Slavs who lived there accepted it. Let us now take into account that with all these peoples the inhabitants of the internal regions of Russia were then in close relations through Asian trade, which was most carried out in Atel, Bulgars and Burtas; Let us remember the very property of the Mohammedan religion, which, to the extreme, flattered human sensuality, could easily seduce our pagan ancestors, as the experience of Vladimir himself, who was still choosing faith, showed; Let us remember all the fanaticism of the followers of the false prophet in disseminating his teachings, and especially the fact that natural Slavs could come to Russia from Volga Bulgaria as such distributors, and we will understand what a great danger threatened our ancestors then, and through them, all their descendants. But thanks be to the Lord, who has given good counsel for us! At this very time, the translation of the sacred books by Saints Cyril and Methodius was being completed and was almost completed; the Slavs already celebrated services in their own language; the joyful news of this, which spread through all the Slavic countries, reached Russia; Soon (as we will see in our place) the evangelists of Christ began to come to us with speech that was understandable to us and, of course, bringing with them Slavic books. Against such external means, except for the internal strength of Christianity itself, it was difficult for Islamism to act - and the faith of Christ truly triumphed over it and little by little began to illuminate the vast countries of Russia. Here, primarily, in this translation of the Word of God by the holy Thessalonica brothers, in this celebration of worship in the Slavic language, one must look for the main reason for the fact that all the attempts of the popes to spread their religion and power did not have any success among us, especially at the beginning. The Roman missionaries who came to our fatherland rightly seemed alien to us. We did not understand their way of speaking, nor did we understand their preaching, although they preached to us about Christ. How could we follow their suggestions, when at the same time we were already hearing our own sermon - familiar, understandable to everyone? What a choice, what a comparison! And when these missionaries began to suggest to our fathers that when turning to Latin we need to abandon the Slavic Bible and liturgy and take Latin ones in their place, what, other than obvious hostility, could such teachers expect from us? Coming to us in the Slavic dialect, the Orthodox faith from the first time came strongly to the Russian heart. She tied us to herself with twofold bonds: both with her inner dignity - her spiritual blessings and the sweetest promises to man, and with her outer clothing or the verb with which she spoke to us. Our ancestors loved her all the more because her sacred books were their first and almost only books for many centuries. Here was all the wisdom that fed the minds and hearts of our entire families and generations. With the guidance of these books, they learned to think, learned to look at the world, at themselves and at all the circumstances of their lives; They turned to these books in moments of joy and pious delight, and they hurried to them for consolation in times of troubles and sorrows. And naturally and imperceptibly, a pious direction was nurtured and strengthened in the minds and hearts of Russians: in families, clans and entire generations, passing, as it were, by inheritance from fathers to children; It naturally grew together with our very soul and became in it as if innate and ineradicable. In a word, the history of our Church and even of our entire fatherland would have had a completely different look if, at their very foundation, the Slavic translation of the Christian holy books had not been completed and introduced into Russia. But Providence wanted all these three events to flow together, so that at the very time when the Russian kingdom arose, as soon as the translation of biblical and liturgical books into the Slavic language was completed and not yet fully completed, so that at that very time the first foundations of Christianity in the Russian kingdom were laid. Chapter II. The beginnings of Christianity in the Russian kingdom since its foundation from Grand Duchess Olga. It is known how our fatherland was founded. The first stone was laid for it in northern Russia, mainly in Novgorod; the other - at the same time in southern Russia, in Kyiv. Here the first princes are three Varangian-Russian brothers: Rurik, Sineus and Truvor, by invitation; there are also two Varangian-Russian husbands: Askold and Dir, by right of conquest. The high lot fell to the lot first - the Russian state began from them, and the eldest of them, Rurik, became the ancestor of the Russian princes for several centuries. The latter also received a no less high lot - from them Christianity began in Russia. I. Baptism of the Russians under Askold and Dir. This first baptism of the Russians with all its circumstances is described by more than ten Byzantines, who, however, can be divided into three classes: some of them speak only about the beginning of the event; others also mention the continuation of the event; others, finally, either completely keeping silent about the beginning, and only suggesting it or mentioning it very briefly, quite thoroughly depict the very completion and end of the event. “During the reign of the Greek Emperor Michael III,” this is how the first ones begin their story, “at the time when the emperor set off with an army against the Hagarians, new enemies of the empire, the Scythian people of the Russians, appeared at the walls of Constantinople on two hundred boats. With extraordinary cruelty, they devastated the entire surrounding country, plundered the neighboring islands and monasteries, killed every single captive, and trembled the inhabitants of the capital. Having received such sad news from the Constantinople diocese, the emperor abandoned his army and hurried to the besieged. With difficulty he made his way through enemy ships to his capital, and here he considered it his first duty to resort to prayer to God. Michael prayed all night together with Patriarch Photius and countless people in the famous Blachernae church, where the miraculous robe of the Mother of God was then kept. The next morning, while singing sacred hymns, this miraculous robe was carried to the seashore, and as soon as it touched the surface of the water, suddenly the sea, hitherto calm and calm, was covered with the greatest storm; the ships of the godless Russians were scattered by the wind, capsized or broken on the shore; a very small number escaped death.” “Having thus experienced the wrath of God, through the prayers of Photius, who ruled the Church at that time,” other Greek writers continue, “the Russians returned to their fatherland and a little later sent ambassadors to Constantinople to ask for baptism. Their wish was fulfilled - a bishop was sent to them.” “When this bishop arrived in the capital of the Russians,” others finally say, “the Tsar of the Russians hastened to assemble a veche. There was a great crowd of common people present, and the king himself presided with his nobles and senators, who, due to a long habit of paganism, were more committed to it than others. They began to talk about their faith and the Christian faith; They invited the archpastor and asked him what he intended to teach them. The bishop opened the Gospel and began to preach to them about the Savior and His miracles, mentioning together the many different signs performed by God in the Old Testament. The Russians, listening to the evangelist, said to him: “If we do not see something like this, especially like what, according to you, happened to the three youths in the cave, we do not want to believe.” The servant of God did not hesitate, but, remembering the words of Christ: Whatever you ask in My name, I will do (John 14:14); believe in Me, the works that I do, and he will create (Jn. 14:12), of course, in the case when this is asked not for vanity, but for the salvation of souls, he boldly answered the pagans: “Although you should not tempt the Lord, however, if you sincerely decide to turn to Him, ask what you want, and He will fulfill everything according to your faith, no matter how insignificant we are before His greatness.” They asked that the very book of the Gospel be thrown into the fire, deliberately set apart, vowing to certainly turn to the Christian God if it remained unharmed in the fire. Then the bishop, lifting up his eyes and hands to grief, cried out loudly: “Lord Jesus Christ our God! Glorify now Your holy name before the eyes of this people,” and he threw the holy book of the Testament into a blazing fire. Several hours passed, the fire consumed all the material, and on the ashes the Gospel turned out to be completely intact and undamaged; Even the ribbons with which it was fastened have been preserved. Seeing this, the barbarians, struck by the greatness of the miracle, immediately began to be baptized.” Here in a few words is everything that the Greek writers have preserved for us about the first conversion of our ancestors upon the founding of our fatherland. What will we say on our part after listening to these ancient testimonies? First of all, the very essence of the event and its most important features are depicted here as clearly and definitely as possible, depicted in such a way that there is no room for doubt about their authenticity. It is certain, firstly, that the Russians attacked Byzantium during the reign of the Greek Emperor Michael III (842–867), when twelve Byzantines and two contemporaries between them speak about it. What is certain, secondly, is the miraculous defeat of these Russians at the walls of Byzantium, which is also confirmed by eight Greek writers and one contemporary, or, more fairly, confirmed by everyone who, not in passing, but deliberately described the fate of this campaign. But, what is closer to our goal, the subsequent baptism of our ancestors should not be subject to the slightest doubt, when seven witnesses assure us of this, one of whom was not only a contemporary of the event (Photius), but also the main actor in it. The same, finally, should be repeated regarding the miracle that the Greek archpastor performed before the eyes of our ancestors and which attracted them to the holy faith - it is mentioned by all the Byzantines who described in detail the conversion of the Russians, and not in passing, although there are only five of them, and at their head was Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who was born at the beginning of the tenth century, wrote sixty or seventy years after the baptism of the Russians and could in his own family to find the most reliable information about an incident that happened, according to him, during his reign and with the direct participation of his grandfather, Emperor Basil the Macedonian. But about some other aspects of this incident we will no longer find such clarity and certainty in the testimony of Greek writers; on the contrary, here we are met with either omissions or even discrepancies, which rightly gave and can give rise to various bewilderments and questions. This is the first question: are these Russians, who attacked Constantinople and were soon baptized, really our Russians, and not any others, when the Byzantines not only do not call them Kyiv, but call them by names common to many barbarian peoples - Scythians and Tauro-Scythians, and, therefore, do we rightly think of appropriating for ourselves what, perhaps, does not belong to us at all? The question is all the more important because, as you know, one famous scientist tried to resolve it not in our favor. However, all the thoughts of this scientist have long been refuted, and we can only repeat here briefly the ready-made refutations, with some of our own comments. The Byzantines, for sure, do not directly say that the Russians, who came to Constantinople during the reign of Michael and then were baptized, came precisely from Kyiv, and call them Scythians and Tauro-Scythians, but they clearly testify that these Scythians came along the Euxine Pontus from the north of Mount Taurus and were a warlike, victorious people, long known, and that’s already enough. To the north of Greece around Pontus Euxine, no Russians other than the Russians of Kyiv were ever known; Not a single writer of that time mentions a special people - the Black Sea Russians, who lived either near the Caucasus, or near the Sea of ​​Azov, or in Tauris, or between the mouths of the Dnieper and Danube. Where would these brave knights, attacking the Greek capital itself, come from and where would they have gone later, if they had not been the Russians of Kyiv? Nations do not fall from the sky, says our famous historiographer, and do not hide in the ground, like the dead according to superstitious tales. New important note: up to six Greek chroniclers who mention the Russian attack on Constantinople under Michael also describe another campaign of the Russians, who, according to them, came from Kyiv under the Grand Duke Igor. What then? They do not make the slightest distinction between these and other Russians; they call both by the same names and, obviously, consider them to be one people, which since the beginning of the 10th century. was already very famous in Constantinople, where many Kyiv Russians then served in the navy. It should be added that the Byzantines called not only the Russians Askoldovs and Igorevs, but also the Svyatoslavovs and Vladimirovs, Scythians, Taurians, and Tauro-Scythians, leading them also from the Cimmerian Bosporus; they even continued to call the Russians of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, placing Kyiv itself in Scythia and sometimes calling it the Scythian capital. It seemed incredible that Askold and Dir, having barely established themselves in Kyiv, could gather a large army and march on Constantinople itself. But their army was by no means numerous: two hundred boats could hardly fit about eight, but many, many ten thousand people. Such a squad could easily have been made up of only the Kievites and those Varangians who, following Askold and Dir, came to them from Novgorod, even if it were not true that the first princes of Kyiv had already managed to subjugate some neighboring Slavic tribes, the Drevlyans and Uglichs, before going to Greece. And not without reason, of course, our oldest chronicler attributes this campaign of the Russians directly to Askold and Dir. He could have learned about this from oral tradition: in Kyiv, during the life of the Monk Nestor, the very graves of Askold and Dir were still known. Or did our chronicler not borrow these names from the same Bulgarian manuscript of Chronograph Amartolov, from where, as we noted, he copied the entire legend about the campaign into his chronicle? At least, in the list of this manuscript, made in 1386, and made not in Russia, but in the Serbian Mount Athos monastery of Hilandar, the names Askold and Dir appear. Without admitting that the attack of the Russians on Byzantium, which took place during the reign of Askold and Dir in Kyiv and ended, according to the testimony of Porphyrogenitus, with the conclusion of an alliance between the Russians and the Greeks, belonged to our Russians, we will not understand what kind of friendship and love, which had existed for many years between Christians and Russians, could be spoken of by the Oleg ambassadors when concluding a new treaty with the Byzantines in 911, when, apart from the peace treaty between the Greeks and the Russians of Askold’s time, there was no news before 911. Greek historians, by the way, note that as soon as the bishop arrived to the Russians to preach the Gospel to them, the Tsar of the Russians convened a council (veche), at which his boyars and countless people were present and discussed for a long time among themselves about a change of faith. Doesn't this one trait point directly to our ancestors? Wasn’t that exactly how Grand Duke Vladimir later consulted with his boyars and people about a change of faith? Isn’t that how we usually decided all matters of great importance back then? Two ancient South Slavic writers, perhaps, on the basis of their home, most reliable traditions, attribute this baptism of the Russians, which, according to them, took place under the Greek Emperor Vasily, directly to our Russians of Kyiv, and the image of this baptism, compiled in the 14th century. in Bulgaria, clearly points to the very area of ​​​​Kyiv. Having resolved one confusion, let's move on to another. None of the Greek writers determines in what year the first baptism of our ancestors followed; Is it possible to determine this at least approximately? Can. According to Simeon Logothetes, or rather his Socrates, the Russian attack on Constantinople happened from 864 to 865, i.e. in the last days of the first and the beginning of the last, and from other evidence we know that the Russians sent ambassadors to Greece to ask for baptism a little later after returning to the fatherland after their unsuccessful campaign, and then these ambassadors went back to Kyiv with the bishop, who baptized the Kievites. Taking into account the amount of time spent by the Russians returning from the unfortunate campaign, the small amount they spent in their homeland upon their return before the ambassadors departed for Byzantium, and then the time spent by the ambassadors traveling there and back, we must agree that baptism could not have happened before 866. But, on the other hand, it cannot be said that it happened after. Patriarch Photius, in his regional letter to the Eastern Patriarchs about the apostasies of the Roman Church, says among other things: “The Russians... who recently were our enemies, have now (νυν και ούτω) become Christians and received a bishop for themselves...” - and thus, obviously, represents this event very close to the time when he wrote the letter itself. And it was written at the end of 866 or even at the beginning of 867, because Photius invites other patriarchs to the Council to consider many innovations of the Roman Church and mentions that some shepherds have already arrived at the Council, while others are expected soon. But, according to Nikita Paphlagonian, Photius convinced Emperor Michael to convene this Council after Basil the Macedonian was elected as Michael’s co-ruler, that is, after May 26, 866, and the Council itself was in the presence of both emperors, therefore, before September 23, 867, when Michael died. One can even believe that the conversion of our Russians took place in the last half of 866, after May 26, or after the election of Vasily the Macedonian as co-emperor to Michael. Part of the words of Saint Photius lead to this conclusion: “The Russians, who until recently were our enemies, have now become Christians,” and even more so, that some Byzantine and South Slavic writers, not without reason, attribute the conversion of the Russians to the reign of Basil. But aren’t these writers talking about another baptism of the Russians, especially since one of them, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, mentions an archbishop who was sent to Kyiv not from Photius, but from Ignatius and baptized the inhabitants of the Russian capital? And weren’t there then two baptisms of our ancestors - one under Michael and Photius, and the other under Vasily and Ignatius, as it seemed to some? No, such an assumption cannot be proven. The campaign of the Russians against Byzantium at that time was decisively one; everyone who mentions it refers to it during the reign of Michael, and no one talks about another similar campaign during the reign of Vasily. Baptism is also the same - you just have to compare the different testimonies about it from Greek writers. Where some of them stop in their narrative, others continue from there: the unknown person, who wrote a chronicle on the orders of Porphyrogenitus before the reign of Emperor Vasily, says only that the Russians, a little after their unfortunate campaign against Constantinople under Emperor Michael, sent ambassadors to Greece to ask for baptism, which they received, and Porphyrogenitus himself, who described the life of Vasily, without mentioning the campaign at all, directly begins his speech because Vasily made peace with the Russian ambassadors and sent an archpastor to Russia. In the same way, Kedrin, when describing the reign of Mikhailov, mentions the campaign of the Russians and then the Russian ambassadors who arrived to ask for baptism, and when describing the affairs of the Vasilievs, he only says that Vasily made peace with these ambassadors and sent a bishop to Russia. Finally, Zonara depicted the attack of the Russians in the history of Emperor Michael, without even mentioning here their desire to be baptized, and their very baptism is in the history of Emperor Vasily, without mentioning the campaign. The only thing that may seem strange is why some of these Greek writers, as well as some South Slavic ones, do not attribute the baptism of our ancestors to the time of both emperors - Michael and Vasily, if it definitely happened during their reign, but are attributed only to Vasily alone. But this is not difficult to understand: it is known that since Vasily became co-ruler with Mikhail, the latter bore only the title of emperor, and the real sovereign who managed all the affairs of the empire was Vasily. Both the Greeks and the southern Slavs, with whom Emperor Basil the Macedonian was a fellow tribesman, knew this very well. How, after this, can one reconcile the disagreement that Patriarch Photius appropriates the bishop’s embassy to the Russians, and Porphyrogenitus – Ignatius? Photius was a contemporary and the main participant in the event - could he not know it in all its details? Photius speaks about him in his regional epistle to the Eastern Patriarchs and, therefore, speaks before the whole Church - could he allow himself to lie? The enemy of Photius himself, Pope Nicholas, who tried in one of his letters to refute all the words of this message, does not at all accuse Photius of unfairly appropriating the treatment of the Russians. And let us note that Photius says decisively that the Russians do not only want to accept, but have already accepted the bishop, the shepherd, and Christian worship. And Porphyrogenitus? He wrote the life of his grandfather, Emperor Basil, 60 or 70 years after - was it difficult for him to somewhat mix up the details of the event and put the name of Patriarch Ignatius in place of the name of Photius? Having learned that the conversion of the Russians followed at the very beginning of Vasily’s accession to the throne, when, in fact, he was only a co-ruler with Michael, and also that soon after Vasily’s accession Photius was dethroned and Ignatius was elevated to his place, Porphyrogenitus could very naturally ignore a short period of time and attribute to the patriarch of Vasily’s reign what belongs, in the strict sense, to the patriarch reign of Mikhailov. This mistake of Porphyrogenitus will seem undeniable to us when we take into account the following circumstance. All four subsequent chroniclers: Kedrin, Skylitsa, Zonara and Glika, who only describe how the conversion of the Russians took place, borrow this legend almost word for word from Constantine Porphyrogenitus. Like him, they attribute the baptism of the Russians to the reign of Vasily, they mention the bishop sent to them, the miracle performed by the bishop to convince the pagans at their insistence. And yet, none of these four writers repeats that the bishop was sent to Russia from Ignatius. Why, while agreeing on everything, did they disagree with Constantine on only one thing? Without a doubt, because they had sufficient reason to disagree: they probably knew the truth from another source, perhaps they read the very district message of Photios, which for some reason was unknown to Constantine. Should we turn to our domestic traditions, we will find here new reinforcement for our thoughts. For many centuries, we all unanimously repeated the news that Rus' was baptized for the first time under Patriarch Photius and that the first bishop was sent to us from Photius. Moreover, the name of Photius, as the first planter of the holy faith in our fatherland, was so engraved in the memory of the Russian people that even all subsequent baptisms that took place under Saint Olga and Saint Vladimir were usually attributed to us, of course by mistake, to the same Photius. Is it not possible, however, to admit that Porphyrogenitus is speaking not about the first, but about the second archpastor sent to us at that time, and thus reconcile the discrepancies? It is known that Ignatius, upon his accession to the patriarchal throne, dismissed all the bishops ordained by Photius and installed his own in their places. It is not surprising if he then sent his bishop to Russia instead of Fotiev, demanding the latter back to Greece. And was it not for this purpose, as Porphyrogenitus writes, that Emperor Vasily sent rich gifts to the Russians in order to incline them to accept a new archpastor, consecrated by Ignatius, in place of the previous one? But such an explanation does not allow for the entire subsequent speech of Porphyrogenitus, which clearly states that before the arrival of the high priest sent by Ignatius, the Russians were still a completely godless people, that this archpastor performed before them the miracle of the fireproof Gospel, and that now only they began to convert for the first time. It is worthy of note why the writers of the Roman Church, despite all this, are trying hard to prove that the first seeds of Christianity were planted among us not by Photius, but by Ignatius. On this they build their favorite idea that from the very beginning it was not the Greek Orthodox confession that was introduced into Russia, but the Roman confession. But how is it known that Patriarch Ignatius shared those innovations of the Roman Church that Photius so rightly denounced and had already denounced the entire Council of the Eastern Church? From one peaceful relationship between Ignatius and the Pope? Yes, it would follow from this that Photius himself shared the Roman innovations he denounced, because Photius also subsequently had a peaceful relationship with Pope Nicholas. No, in Constantinople and throughout the East there were no these innovations before Ignatius; otherwise Photius could not have imputed them to the Roman Church alone, and Ignatius himself, even if he wanted, could not have introduced them after the Council that condemned them in 867, which at that time many in the East called ecumenical. A historian should not have such unclean motives when searching for historical truth. And if we say that it was Photius, and not Ignatius, who first implanted the Christian faith in us, it is only because we are confirmed by undoubted evidence. And let them thoroughly prove to us that it was Ignatius who sent us the first bishop, and not Photius; We will accept this news with the same willingness and conviction, especially since we honor Patriarch Ignatius with the entire Orthodox Church not only as a true believer, but also as a saint. Having said that upon the arrival of the bishop in Kyiv, the Russians held a council, at which the prince himself, nobles and countless people were present, and that, having seen the miracle performed by the bishop, they immediately began to be baptized, the Byzantines do not determine whether the Russian prince or, more precisely, both princes were baptized then. But could it have been different? Askold and Dir were themselves eyewitnesses of a miraculous storm near the walls of Constantinople, which aroused in them the thought of the greatness of the Christian God and the first desire to be baptized. It was then up to them, upon returning to their homeland, to send an embassy to Constantinople and ask for a Christian mentor; this already shows that the desire to be baptized was very strong in them. Otherwise, what could incline them to such an enterprise? When the bishop arrived in Kyiv, Askold and Dir themselves ordered the convening of a meeting, they themselves were present at it and, like others, saw the miracle of the unburned Gospel - who, first of all, if not them, would naturally follow the voice of the Gospel? They were the main agents in everything and, obviously, sought the truth with sincere zeal, without which nothing could make them act - how could they refuse it when it revealed itself to their gaze? And if they had not been baptized, then, one might say, no one would have been baptized in Kyiv. The people and nobles would not have decided openly to undertake such an undertaking without the example of the princes, out of fear alone. As a more direct proof of Askoldov’s baptism, they rightly point out that our first Christians had the Church of St. Nicholas over the grave of this prince; it cannot be that they agreed to build a Christian church over the grave of a pagan. It is also probable that Askold was named Nicholas in baptism, because we certainly had a custom of building churches over the graves of princes in honor of the saints named after them. The words of the chronicle of Joachim, calling Askold blessed, can serve as new evidence of his baptism for those who recognize the authenticity of this chronicle. The Byzantine writers left us almost no information about the bishop who baptized our ancestors. In our home news he is constantly called Mikhail. Where did this name come from? It is found not only in works or publications of later times, such as: in the printed Helmsman’s Book, in the preface to the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon and in the Cheti-Minea (July 15), but, according to one historian, who had many ancient manuscripts that remained unknown to us, it is also found in some ancient Russian copies, and is also found in the chronicle of Joachim. What to think about its origin? Did this name not pass into our ancient manuscripts from an oral tradition that had been preserved for centuries, or from the chronicle of some Greek or Bulgarian chronicler, still unknown to us, just as long as the Bulgarian copy of Amartolova’s chronicle remained unknown, which alone mentions the names of Askold and Dir when describing the Russian attack on Constantinople during the reign of Michael? At the very least, we have no reason to reject the aforementioned testimonies about our first bishop. It is impossible to believe that Porphyrogenitus was not a simple bishop, but an archbishop, Patriarch Photius himself calls him a bishop, who sent him to us, only bishop or the general name of bishop was called by all subsequent writers, who apparently borrowed from Porphyrogenitus the entire legend about the conversion of the Russians and, however, did not want to agree with him in the present case, just as they did not agree with him that this hierarch was sent from Ignatius. And what was the point of sending an archbishop to Russia when the Church was just being founded here and, of course, several dioceses could not suddenly appear that would have to be subordinated to such a high rank of hierarch. This archpastor, as well as the presbyter sent with him, mentioned by Photius, and perhaps others who soon came to their aid, could have been from the Slavs. Simple prudence required that people be chosen to preach to the Russians who would be able to converse with the pagans in speech that was understandable to them, and in the Byzantine Empire, where there were already many Slavic Christians, it was very easy to find such people. The likelihood of this assumption increases when we remember that almost at the same time or shortly before that, preachers skilled in the Slavic language, if not natural Slavs, were sent from Constantinople to another Slavic tribe, the Moravians; it increases even more when we pay attention to two pieces of evidence representing the then conversion of our ancestors to Christianity in connection with the conversion of the Danube Slavs. The Polish historian Stredovsky tells us one ancient legend that Saints Cyril and Methodius, themselves engaged in the conversion of the Bulgarians and Moravians, sent missionaries from themselves to other surrounding Slavs, and that at the same time a certain Navrok was sent to Russia - the legend is completely plausible both in itself, and at the same time because its truth is beginning to be supported by some of the latest research. For our purpose, what is especially remarkable about it is that the time of Navrok’s departure to us sharply coincides with the time of the conversion of our ancestors, when, as Photius says, they received (without determining where: directly from Constantinople or indirectly from the Moravian apostles at the behest of the Patriarch of Constantinople) a bishop and a presbyter (πόιμενα) and all Christian rites. It coincides, we say, because the embassy of Navrok is attributed not to Methodius alone, but to both brothers and, therefore, should have happened before 867, i.e. before sending them to Rome, where, as is known, Saint Cyril died. Another legend of this kind is presented to us by a passage found in a Greek manuscript, in which, although at first the circumstances of two baptisms, Askoldov and Vladimirov, are mixed up, the whole speech is exclusively aimed at depicting the first: it is clearly stated that this baptism happened under the Emperor Basil the Macedonian, who sent a bishop to us, and then it is described how the sent bishop performed a miracle among us, throwing the Gospel into the fire, which did not burn as a miracle affected our ancestors and how they began to be baptized. Together with the bishop, says the unknown compiler of the passage, two famous men were sent to the Russians, Cyril and Athanasius, who, seeing that the Russians did not understand the Greek alphabet, and fearing that due to their inability to write and read they would soon fall away from the faith, inscribed for them thirty-five letters, which are called: az, beeches, vedi, etc. and with whose help the Russians have remained unshakable in their knowledge of the Christian faith to this day. We readily agree that in this passage, which may have been compiled primarily on the basis of oral traditions, many details of the case and the very names of the missionaries are somehow distorted; But what is important for us, in fact, is the main idea expressed here - the idea of ​​​​introducing to us at the very beginning of Christianity the Slavic alphabet, and through it the Slavic liturgy. The naturalness and, let’s say, the necessity of this follows from the circumstances of that time: in Bulgaria and Moravia, for about four years, they sang services in Slavic and there were schools for training natural Slavs to be shepherds of the Church; With delight, as our chronicler notes, the Slavs listened to the greatness of God’s works in their own language, and the news of this managed to spread among all their fellow tribesmen. Is it possible that our ambassadors, who went to Constantinople to ask for baptism and on their way necessarily touched the borders of Bulgaria, did not ask for themselves in Constantinople what they themselves heard during the journey from their brethren and what it was so appropriate and natural for them to ask? Is it possible that the bishop, whether he was sent to us from Constantinople itself or from the Moravian apostles, passing through the country of the Danube Slavs, did not invite Slavic readers and singers with him for the most reliable success in his enterprise? Let us also not forget that at the time when the bishop was sent to us, Michael’s co-emperor, or better yet, the real emperor, was Basil the Macedonian, a natural Slav. Could he not have ensured that teachers of the faith familiar with the Slavic language were sent to his fellow tribesmen? It was not without reason that Patriarch Photius noticed that the Russians accepted Christian worship with great zeal and diligence; he, of course, had already received news of this from the preachers sent to us. How can we explain such diligence of our ancestors in worship from the first time, if not by the fact that they heard it in their native language, which especially attracted the Slavs everywhere? The Russians, without a doubt, would not have understood divine services in Greek, and without understanding, could they have accepted it with great zeal and diligence? II. The subsequent fate of Christianity in Russia before the conversion of Grand Duchess Olga. After accepting the holy faith, Askold and Dir still lived and ruled Kiev for about fifteen years. During such a period, under their patronage, it could become quite established and spread not only in Kyiv, but also in the vicinity of Kyiv through the efforts of the bishop and pastor, whom the Kyiv Russes received from the patriarch, and with the assistance, perhaps, of other preachers who came from Greece or Bulgaria. But after the death of Askold and Dir, who died (in 882), perhaps as martyrs for the holy faith, the pagan Oleg reigned in Kyiv. And throughout his reign (882–912) we know nothing about the state of Christianity in Russia; we cannot say whether it was completely eradicated from us or continued to exist and even spread. True, during Oleg’s treaty with the Greeks in 911, not a single Christian was seen among the Russian ambassadors, and both Oleg himself and his husbands, to confirm the terms of the treaty, swear by their weapons and the pagan gods - Perun and Volos. But it does not follow from this that there were no longer Christians among all of Oleg’s subjects. The Faith of Christ, which preaches humility and self-sacrifice, was adopted here, as elsewhere, primarily by peaceful residents, and during the reign of the pagan prince, by simple prudence, they could keep it in silence and even secretly. And as for the warriors who made up the prince’s squad and retinue, who were mostly from the Varangians, it is not surprising if they remained averse to the faith, which clearly contradicted their distinctive inclinations and habits; this is clearly seen from the subsequent history of Grand Duke Svyatoslav. It is also true that in the articles of the agreement concluded by Oleg with the Greeks, there is no mention of Christians and, in general, between all Russians; on the contrary, a Rusyn is directly opposed to a Christian, that is, a Greek. But this only means that the Greeks were known among us then under the name of Christians, and not at all that there were no Christians among the Russians themselves. Therefore, the exact same opposition between the Rusyn and the Christian is found in Igor’s treaty with the Greeks, when, as we will see, many of us undoubtedly already professed the holy faith. On the other hand, it is known that in the charter of Emperor Leo the Wise (886–912), who was a contemporary of our Prince Oleg, among the metropolises subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Russian Metropolis is already mentioned in 60th place. But it must be admitted that it is not mentioned in all lists of the charter, but only in some, and there is reason to think that it was included in some lists of this charter at a later time. Therefore, it would be unfair to conclude that in the days of Oleg the number of Christians among us increased, so that they constituted a special diocese. In the days of Oleg’s successor, Igor (912–945), the holy faith was undoubtedly spreading among us. And before, even since the time of Askold’s treaty with the Greeks, there was a constant connection between the Greeks and our ancestors, so that many of the Kyiv Russians served in the Greek fleet. But after Olegov’s treaty, with the accession of Igor, this connection intensified: entire trade caravans went from Russia to Constantinople along the Dnieper and the Black Sea, Russian guests stayed in Constantinople for several months at a time at the monastery of St. Mama, other Russians in the hundreds were hired into the service of the Greek emperor and spent almost their entire lives in Greece. The Greeks, without a doubt, did not miss the opportunity to introduce our ancestors to their faith, as they did with the Oleg ambassadors after the conclusion of peace. There were even written relations between the Greek emperors and the Russian princes, which could serve as a new reason for their subjects to come closer together in the very concepts of religion. Many Russians who served at the Greek court actually accepted the holy faith there, and some of them, although from time to time, returning to their fatherland, could bring it and communicate it to their neighbors and relatives. Be that as it may, only towards the end of Igor’s reign, with our new treaty with the Greeks in 944, the inhabitants of Russia in the articles of the treaty are already divided into baptized and unbaptized, and the baptized are placed everywhere even in first place - the number of Christians in our fatherland has managed to increase to such an extent! And the chronicler, narrating the oath of the grand ducal squad on the occasion of this treaty, notes that many of the Varangians themselves who lived in Kyiv were already Christians. Even more: in the same place in the chronicle it is said about the Kyiv church of St. Elijah, where Christian Rus' took the oath, and this church is called the cathedral. This name forces us to assume that there were other churches in Kyiv at that time, among which the Church of St. Elijah was considered the main one, or the cathedral church, an assumption that seems to be sufficiently confirmed by subsequent history. Dietmar, a contemporary of St. Vladimir, testifies that in his time there were more than four hundred churches in Kyiv - when did they manage to appear in such an amazing number? Is it really only ten or fifteen years since Vladimir’s conversion? It is more natural to think that they arose little by little from the time of Askold and Dir, or at least Igor. The existence of churches and Christians necessarily presupposes the existence of clergy. True, our oldest chronicle does not mention any shepherds before Grand Duchess Olga. But it is known that the Monk Nestor generally speaks extremely briefly about the first times of our history and therefore often remains silent about events that undoubtedly took place, such as, for example, the baptism of the Russians under Askold and Dir. Moreover, we know that the reverend chronicler did not say a word about our first three metropolitans of Vladimirov’s reign, who were very close to him in time, should we therefore doubt their very existence? It is all the more unfounded to conclude from Nestor’s silence alone about events that happened before Grand Duchess Olga that these events did not happen at all. It is enough if in his short chronicle he mentioned, albeit in passing, that there were then churches in Kyiv, among which the Church of St. Elijah was considered a cathedral: didn’t he already say by this that we then had pastors, at least priests and the lower clergy? Here we cannot ignore the opinions of one scientist, who says that the first seeds of Christianity were sown in Russia by the Varangians who wandered through it from Scandinavia, and, therefore, not by the Greeks, as we claim. But this opinion, in addition to being completely arbitrary, also contains inconsistency. “It seems to me,” another scientist rightly noted, “that such knights-errant had as little ability as they had the desire to convert pagans, and these latter nowhere showed such a great inclination towards Christianity as should be assumed without any reason in the Russians, assuming that they accidentally adopted a new religion from travelers.” If our chronicle says that many Varangians who lived in Kyiv were Christians, then who can prove that these Varangians brought the holy faith with them from their former fatherland, and did not accept it in Kyiv or Constantinople itself, where many of them, serving at the imperial court, actually accepted Christianity and from where they later brought it with them to us in Kyiv. There were already many Christians in the Russian kingdom among the ancient inhabitants of the country, between the Varangian newcomers and in the army itself, as can be seen from the agreement with the Greeks of Grand Duke Igor. For all that. The Church of Christ still remained with us, as it were, in the shadows and almost unnoticed; paganism, apparently, covered all of Russia and was considered the dominant religion, because the Grand Duke himself was a pagan. It was still necessary for the holy faith to ascend to the grand princely throne, to stand on this high candlestick, in order to become visible from everyone and finally disperse the darkness of idolatry. And so the wife of the same great prince, under whom Christianity reached such a significant degree among us, decides to accept the holy faith herself, places it with her on the throne and, if she does not finally establish it in our fatherland, then, in the words of the chronicler, appears in the proper sense, like the morning star before the sun, like the dawn before the light. Chapter III. The state of Christianity in the Russian kingdom under Grand Duchess Olga and after her death until the conversion of Grand Duke Vladimir. I. The baptism of Grand Duchess Olga and the promotion of her successes in the holy faith. The history of the conversion of Grand Duchess Olga, very simple and well-known in itself, is much obscured by the disagreements about it of both ancient and modern writers. First of all, they disagree on what made the wise princess travel to Constantinople and accept the holy faith there. According to some, this happened because there was no teacher’s piety in the country of Rustei at that time. But we have already seen the completely opposite: in Kyiv in the days of Grand Duke Igor there was a cathedral church of St. Elijah, indicating with its name the existence of other churches, and at the churches there were also necessary shepherds, of whom each could announce the Grand Duchess and perform the holy sacrament over her. Now let us note that Olga, in particular, had with her some Pope Gregory, without any doubt, a spiritual figure - a priest or bishop, who accompanied her to Greece from Russia and who himself could have baptized her in Kyiv. Equally unfounded is another idea, that Olga, having been taught the faith of Christ from the elders of Kyiv, wanted, but could not be baptized in her capital, fearing the people, and for this, according to the advice given to her by Christians, she went to Constantinople. If in Kyiv even ordinary residents openly professed the holy faith, having churches and pastors, and the people tolerated this, the people did not dare to rebel against Christians with the toleration of the Grand Duke, then could only the wife of this prince be afraid of the people? And at what time? Then, when, after Igor’s death, she held the very helm of government in her hands and did everything she wanted in Russia; when, with her wise and beneficial orders for the entire fatherland, she had already managed to arouse universal respect, love and gratitude for herself and forced everyone to bless her name. On the other hand, if the pagan party in Kyiv was really so dangerous that the ruler of the state herself had to go to a foreign land to be baptized, would this really have prevented the danger? Couldn't the pagans rebel against their princess upon her return to her fatherland, having learned that she had become a Christian? Or why would she travel to distant Constantinople, and not be baptized in the nearest Christian city of Kherson, where she could also be safe from her people? Why not be baptized in Kyiv itself, only secretly from the pagans, which, of course, would not be a great difficulty for the princess? Olga, others say, went to Constantinople without any thought of changing her faith, for political reasons, and there, captivated by the splendor of Christian churches and Christian worship, she decided to be baptized; or, without determining exactly when and why this pious determination was born in her, they claim that the Grand Duchess undertook a trip to Constantinople for external enlightenment and education alone, just as, for example, Peter the Great traveled to Amsterdam, London and Vienna. But both of these thoughts are arbitrary guesses. What kind of important political matters were these (unknown to anyone) that could require the personal presence of our Grand Duchess at the Byzantine court? And if they were, couldn’t Olga have sent her son Svyatoslav, who had already reached adulthood, there instead of herself, or sent ambassadors following the example of her husband Igor, who communicated with the Greek emperors through his plenipotentiaries? If she herself wanted to visit Constantinople for political reasons, why did she take Pope Gregory with her from Kyiv? It is even stranger that a woman of sixty-seven years old, who had been content with her lot and fortune all her life, suddenly decided to seek external enlightenment and brilliance for herself and for this purpose agreed to a long, difficult and dangerous journey, which had to be made along the Dnieper and the Black Sea and during which it was necessary to pass the Dnieper rapids, surrounded by the Pechenegs. No, only something especially important, especially close and sacred to her heart, could force Olga to decide on such difficulties and self-sacrifice. Our insightful historiographer guessed this feature better than anyone else and explained it with his usual eloquence. “Olga,” he says, “has already reached those years when a mortal, having satisfied the main impulses of earthly activity, sees the near end of it before him and feels the vanity of earthly greatness. Then true faith, more than ever, serves him as support or consolation in sad reflections on the corruption of man. Olga was a pagan, but the name of God Almighty was already glorified in Kyiv. She could see the solemnity of the rituals of Christianity, could, out of curiosity, talk with church pastors and, being gifted with an extraordinary mind, be convinced of the holiness of their teaching. Captivated by the ray of this new light, Olga wanted to be a Christian and she herself went to the capital of the empire and the Greek faith to draw it from the source itself.” Let us add to this that the Grand Duchess also had a close leader - Pope Gregory. Talking with her about the truths of faith and the destinies of the Church of Christ, the good mentor, perhaps, more than once transferred the thoughts of his spiritual pet to the famous Constantinople, where Christianity then existed in all its greatness and splendor, more than once told her how magnificent the churches of God are there, how solemn the worship there is, especially at the moments of the sacred rites of the patriarch himself, what an abundance of holy relics, miraculous icons and, in general, all Christian shrines. Such conversations naturally and imperceptibly could arouse in Olga’s soul a pious desire to see all this with her own eyes, a desire that could then be nurtured little by little into a firm intention and, finally, become such a need of the heart that it was no longer possible to resist, despite any obstacles. So it is now: good Christians, with all the decrepitude of their years, despising all the difficulties of wandering, undertake pious journeys to the most remote places, precious to their hearts according to Christian shrines; By the same attraction, the elderly Olga, still a pagan, but already proclaimed by Christianity and deeply convinced of its divinity and salvation, traveled to Constantinople. Another point of contention in the story of Grand Duchess Olga's conversion is whether she was baptized in Constantinople. Contrary to general belief, some resolutely rejected this event, or at least doubted it, because Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, a contemporary of Olga, who himself received her at his court and himself described in detail all, even the slightest, details of the reception, did not say a word about her baptism, whereas it would seem completely impossible to remain silent about such an important matter. But these scientists omitted from attention the simplest circumstance - namely, that Constantine Porphyrogenitus describes in his work only a ritual that was used at the Byzantine court during the reception of foreign ambassadors and, in particular, repeated during the reception of our Grand Duchess, and that, therefore, it was not at all appropriate for the crowned everyday writer to speak in his Ritual Book about such an incident, which in no sense could be attributed to the court rite. Meanwhile, the opposite idea - about the baptism of Grand Duchess Olga in Constantinople - has all the signs of historical truth. It is confirmed, on the one hand, by the testimony of our domestic chronicler, who lived no more than a century after the Equal-to-the-Apostles princess, who himself saw her holy relics in Kyiv and could reliably learn about her from the still living tradition; on the other hand, the testimony of Byzantine chroniclers: Kedrin, John Skylitzes Kuropalat and Zonaras, of whom the first two also lived in the 11th century, and the latter in the 12th century, and, finally, the testimony of one Frankish chronicler, perhaps a contemporary of Olga. The third, much more important, disagreement concerns the time when our Grand Duchess was baptized: in what year, under which emperor and patriarch. Our ancient writers had a lot of opinions about this: some attributed her baptism to the time of Emperor John Tzimiskes and Patriarch Photius, others - to the time of the same emperor and Patriarch Skomodren, others - to the time of Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus and Patriarch Theophylact, fourth - to the time of the same emperor and Patriarch Polyeuctus, pointing, however, almost unanimously to 955. No less opinions about this also among the latest writers, who, although they agree that Olga’s baptism happened during the reign of Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, do not agree regarding the name of the patriarch who performed the holy sacrament over her, calling him some Theophylact, others Polyeuctus, and regarding the year of the event, pointing sometimes to 946, then to 955, then to 956, then to 957. Currently, this the confusing issue can be considered finally resolved. The basis for the decision was some particulars in the Ritualist of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who described in detail the reception he gave to our princess, to which they previously could not or did not want to pay proper attention. It says here that Olga, during her stay in Constantinople, was received by the emperor twice - on September 9, Wednesday, and October 18, Sunday. But during the entire reign of Constantine Porphyrogenitus (945–959), the 9th of September on Wednesday and the 18th of October on Sunday could have happened, according to the Easter circle, only in 946 and 957. It is impossible to mistake the first of these years for the era of the baptism of our Grand Duchess, for the same Ritualist tells that Emperor Constantine received her not alone, but together with his co-emperor Roman, and that at the table on which fruits were offered to Olga after dinner, the children of both emperors sat with her. But Roman II became co-ruler with his father Constantine, according to the Byzantines, not before 948, and in 946 he could not yet have children, because he himself was still a seven-year-old child (born in 939). Consequently, the stay and baptism of our Grand Duchess Olga in Constantinople must be assumed in 957. And this means that the performer of the holy sacrament over her was not Patriarch Theophylact, who died in 956 on February 27, but his successor, Polyeuctus, famous for his learning and virtues. Finally, the last question in the history of the conversion of our Grand Duchess Olga, which is still being resolved in different ways, is the question of whether our princess, after receiving baptism in Constantinople, sent her ambassadors to the German Emperor Otgon I and asked him for a bishop and a presbyter, as many Western chronicles say. The essence of this story is as follows: “In 959, the ambassadors of the Rugian princess Helena (Helenae, reginae Rugorum), who, under Roman, the Emperor of Constantinople, was baptized in Constantinople, came to Otgon, insidiously, as it was later revealed, asking him for a bishop and a priest for their people. As a result, in 960 the monk Libutius was appointed bishop for the Rugians. But he, slowed down by circumstances, died the next year (961) even before he was sent to his place. Then a new bishop was elected - the Trier monk Adalbert, who, having been generously supplied by the emperor with everything he needed, immediately went to the Russian people. However, not succeeding in anything for which he was sent, and seeing all his efforts in vain, in 962 he returned back, having been expelled by the pagans, and he barely escaped with the greatest difficulty from their hands, and some of his companions were even killed.” Some scientists attribute this event to our Russians and our Grand Duchess Olga, others to the Rugians, residents of the island of Rügen. But, by all accounts, the truth seems to be on the side of the former. What is clearer than the words of the testimony and, let us not forget, the contemporary testimony: in 959, the ambassadors of Helen, the princess of the Rugians, who was baptized in Constantinople under the Emperor Romanus, came to Otgon? At that time we actually had Princess Elena, who was definitely already baptized, baptized in Constantinople, baptized under the emperors Roman and Constantine. If she is called the princess of the Rugs, and not the Russians, this is, without a doubt, a typo, because in other exactly the same testimonies she is already called the Russian princess (Ruscorum), her ambassadors - the ambassadors of the Russian people, and Adalbert - the bishop of Russia. Did the inhabitants of the island of Rügen have a similar princess then? Not at all - there was, they say, and flourished in wisdom (920-985) some abbess of the Gandergsheim monastery named Rhoswilda, Rosvida, otherwise Helena von Rossow, who came from a noble, perhaps princely Brandenburg family, was related to Otgon the emperor and had previously visited Constantinople, where she learned the Greek language. But how little do the sharp and surprisingly definite features of the evidence presented suit this Elena! She, firstly, is not the princess of the Rugians; was in Constantinople, but it is not known when: whether under Roman the emperor or at another time, and whether she was baptized there or in another place. And why don’t they want to understand our Grand Duchess here? Based on the silence about this in domestic chronicles? But in this case, many other reliable events would have to be excluded from Russian history. It seems incredible that Olga, having accepted the Orthodox faith in Greece, would have decided to ask for a bishop of the Roman Church, and a foreigner at that, while the West had already fallen away from the East, and Olga could have asked for pastors of her own tribe in Constantinople who knew the Russian language well. But it is precisely this improbability alone that should be rejected in the legend, and not the entire legend. The ambassadors of our princess could have been with Otto on some political matters, and not at all on matters of faith, and the Schafenburg Chronicle accurately notes that to Otto I, when he celebrated Easter with his son in Quedlinburg, among other ambassadors: Roman, Greek, Venetian, Hungarian, Polish, Bulgarian, Russian ambassadors also presented themselves. Otto, known for his extraordinary zeal in spreading the Roman faith, and with it his power, having learned from them that our Grand Duchess had already been baptized in Constantinople, could not, according to his usual inclination and policy, not intervene in this matter. He hastened to send his missionaries to us and, for the sake of appearances, could spread the rumor that the Russian ambassadors then came to him from their princess, while they had no idea about it. Similar actions on the part of the popes and their champions were repeated very often in subsequent times: how many letters of the Roman high priests have survived, in which they wrote to our princes: inclining to your ardent desires, or: having heard about your readiness to submit to the chair of St. Peter, etc., we are sending you our ambassador, whom we ask you to obey in everything, while our princes not only did not ask the pope to do so, on the contrary, clearly they resisted him! Yes, if Olga herself had asked for a German bishop, would she have allowed him to be expelled from Russia, and with such dishonor? On the contrary, this circumstance shows that Adalbert was sent to us without any request, unexpectedly and against the general desire. All other misunderstandings, due to which they do not agree to attribute this event to our Russians, but attribute it to the Rugs, are already resolved very conveniently. “Not one,” they say, “of the Western chroniclers calls this embassy from Grand Duchess Olga, but from Elena.” But Olga was already Elena at that time (i.e. in 959), therefore, this accuracy should, on the contrary, serve as a new guarantee for the fact that this is about our Grand Duchess. “If this had happened, then the Monk Nestor would certainly not have failed to include in his chronicle the important news about the apostasy of the Russians from the Christian faith and the attempt on the life of the first bishop of the Russian Church.” But there was no apostasy here: Adalbert was not asked and was not received by the bishop in Russia. “If, in fact, our Olga had passed into the bowels of the Catholic Church, would the Eastern Church really have considered the apostate from Orthodoxy a saint?” But, we repeat, there was no apostasy here at all: Olga did not ask for the Bishop of Rome, and did not accept it, and until the end of her life she remained the most zealous guardian of the Orthodox faith and piety. “Adam of Bremen, the Saxon chronicler, calculating the bishoprics of the Rugian Apostle Albert founded by him, limited himself to the cities and lands of the Saxo-Slavic; neither the Kyiv nor Novgorod bishoprics, which would be subordinate to Albert, are given anywhere.” But Albert was not accepted among us; he did not establish either the Kyiv or Novgorod bishoprics with us, therefore they could not be subordinated to him. “Cromer says very clearly that Archbishop Adalbert preached the Christian faith for 12 years on the Elbe, and not in Russia; The pope himself, elevating him to the Magdeburg metropolitanate and calculating his exploits, says that he preached beyond Laba and Sala to the neighboring Slavs, and Adam of Bremen calculates the bishoprics founded by Albert between the Elbe, Eider and the Pena River, therefore, all to the west of the Oder River, where the Rugians lived.” But Albert did all this after he was expelled from us, which is clearly evident from the words of Dietmar himself and partly of the pope. This means that it does not at all follow that he should not be sent to us. In general, no matter how unimportant this event is in our church history, that is, the embassy of the German Bishop Adalbert to us, it undeniably belongs to her and remains a monument to how early the attempts of the champions of the Roman faith to spread their influence in Russia began. Let us now consider some more circumstances in the history of the conversion of our Grand Duchess and move on to the rest of her Christian life. The appropriate time for the Russians to arrive in Constantinople, according to Porphyrogenitus, was the end of June and the beginning of July - at this time, of course, Olga also arrived there. Her first act in Constantinople was to receive holy baptism. The patriarch himself performed a great sacrament over her, and the emperor himself received her from the font. When the newly enlightened woman, upon leaving the holy font, rejoiced in soul and body, His Holiness the Patriarch turned to her with a word of greeting and said: “Blessed are you among the Russian women because you loved the light and left the darkness; the sons of Russia will not cease to bless you throughout the generations, with your most recent descendants,” and after that he commanded her about church rules, prayer, fasting, almsgiving, and bodily purity; and the blessed princess stood with her head bowed and, like a lip filled, accepted the teaching. It is very likely that some of her companions were baptized along with Olga, and with her were her relatives, including her nephew, up to 10 famous wives, 18 honorary servants, 22 attorneys from Russian princes, 43 merchants, and up to 10 officials. After baptism, Olga received the honors characteristic of her rank: she was received twice in the imperial palace with her entire embassy, ​​and a dinner was given in her honor twice: the first time on September 9, the second on October 18. Remaining for so long after her baptism in Constantinople, Olga managed to show that great zeal for true piety, those signs of sincere faith, which Greek historians did not fail to notice. By the way, she donated a “great service dish” to the St. Sophia Cathedral, studded with pearls and having a precious stone inside with the image of the Savior. Before returning to her fatherland, the newly enlightened woman considered it her duty to ask for a blessing from the patriarch who baptized her, who, giving his spiritual daughter blessings and instructions, handed her a holy cross with the following inscription: “The Russian land was renewed to God with holy baptism, which Olga, the blessed princess, received.” This cross was kept for a long time in the Kiev St. Sophia Cathedral, created by her great-grandson Yaroslav, and stood in the altar on the right side as a living witness to a memorable event and as a shrine, especially precious for the Russians. Upon returning to her fatherland, Olga, who accepted the holy faith as a result of a deep, heartfelt conviction in its holiness and salvation, until her very death remained faithful to the divine law and with her pious life, like the moon in the night, shone among the pagans for their spiritual enlightenment. Her first concern was to convert her only son Svyatoslav to Christ, although, unfortunately, all her efforts remained in vain. Our ancient chronicle depicts this care touchingly: “Often,” she narrates, “Olga said to her son: I, my son, have come to know God and rejoice; when you know Him, you will also rejoice. But Svyatoslav, not heeding this, said: how can I alone accept a new law when my squad begins to laugh at me? Olga answered him: if you accept baptism, then everyone will follow your example. But he disobeyed his mother and remained in idolatry; he was even angry with his mother... Despite this, Olga did not stop loving her son and repeated: God’s will be done! If God desires to have mercy on my family in the Russian land, then He will put it in his heart to turn to the truth, just as He showed me His mercy. And speaking thus, she prayed day and night for her son and for her people.” In addition to Svyatoslav, the Equal-to-the-Apostles also tried to instruct other residents of Kyiv on the path of truth, and, one must think, her preaching was not fruitless - we can conclude from the words of her chronicle that, although Svyatoslav himself did not agree to accept the holy faith, he did not forbid others from accepting it, who wanted to be baptized by their own will. Not limiting herself to the people of Kiev, the blessed princess wanted to share the priceless treasure of faith with other inhabitants of Russia. For this purpose, she flowed around the cities and villages throughout the Russian land, preaching the Gospel, as a true disciple of Christ and a fellow zealot for the apostles, and why should we not agree, even with a later witness, that many, marveling at her words, having never heard them before, kindly accepted the word of God from her lips and were baptized? It is not without reason that the Orthodox Church from ancient times used to call Olga Equal-to-the-Apostles. During these pious travels, the same witness continues, in the places where the idols had previously stood, the blessed princess erected crosses and from those crosses many signs and wonders have been created to this day - we again have no right not to believe the words of a person who himself also saw the crosses erected by Olga in different places, which, no doubt, was preserved in local traditions. If we remember here that Saint Olga lived for about twelve more years after her baptism, then we will be able to understand how much she could have introduced our ancestors to the true faith and thus brought closer and prepared the great era of the widespread spread of Christianity in Russia. While raising her grandchildren: Vladimir, Oleg and Yaropolk, while their father Svyatoslav was engaged only in war far from Kyiv, Equal-to-the-Apostles sowed the first seeds of the holy faith in the hearts of these young princes, although she did not dare to baptize them, fearing her rebellious son. And this planting of the first seeds of piety in the heart of one who soon enlightened the entire Russian land with Christianity is a new feat for which all Russian families should bless Blessed Olga. Being a zealous Christian and having a presbyter, Olga could not help but have a church. And the chronicle of Joachim, precisely, attributes to her the construction of the wooden church of St. Sophia in Kyiv, for which our princess allegedly received icons and priests from the Patriarch of Constantinople. The evidence, although very dubious in the eyes of some of the chronicles, this time turns out to be probable. The German historian Dietmar says as a contemporary that in 1017, during the terrible fire of Kyiv, the Church of St. Sophia burned down. This could not be the St. Sophia Church, built by Yaroslav, as our historiographer thought, because Yaroslav had just ascended the throne in 1017 and, being busy with the war with the Polish king Boleslav, did not have time to build it. Yaroslav's St. Sophia Church, stone and magnificent, according to some chronicles, was just founded this year, and completed already in 1037. In addition, Ditmar continues that in 1018 the Kiev archbishop met the Polish king Boleslav, who then took possession of Kiev, in the monastery of St. Sophia. This means that at the St. Sophia Church, which burned down in 1017, there was also a monastery, which after the burning of the church itself remained intact - when would Yaroslav have managed to start a monastery at his St. Sophia Cathedral? It seems that the compiler of the Nikon Chronicle expresses the idea that in the days of Grand Duchess Olga there was a St. Sophia Church dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary: Olga, he writes, dying gave her village of Budutino to the Holy Mother of God, and the Holy Mother of God was figuratively called the St. Sophia Church in Kyiv, as well as in Novgorod, and others dedicated to the Mother of God. Kiev Synopsis, and after that many of our writers believe that Olga built the Church of St. Nicholas in Kyiv on Askoldova’s grave. But this is a mistake: all the ancient copies of the chronicle say that Askold was buried where Olma’s court was located in the days of Nesterov and that on Askold’s grave this same Olma, or Alma, built the church of St. Nicholas, whom the scribes could easily turn into Olga, and the Joachim chronicle makes it clear that in the days of Olga and Svyatoslav, the church of St. Nicholas, built by Olma, already existed. Finally, the Degree Book and some of our other later chronicles tell that Equal-to-the-Apostles Olga sent a lot of gold and silver for the creation of the Church of the Holy Life-Giving Trinity in Pskov - the place of her homeland - the news in itself is very probable, although it was drawn from nowhere. Thus spending her life in deeds of piety, Saint Olga reached a ripe old age, and “was the first from Rus' to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” Her blessed death (in 969) was bitterly mourned by her son Svyatoslav, grandchildren and the entire people, not only Christians, but also the pagans themselves. At the time of her death, the Equal-to-the-Apostles commanded to “send gold to the patriarch”, not to perform a pagan funeral funeral over her and to bury her according to Christian law, and her will was holyly fulfilled: she was buried by a Christian priest in the place destined for herself, in the presence of countless people who accompanied her coffin to the grave. It is quite unfair that in some of the lists of our chronicle it is noted that Saint Olga secretly kept a presbyter with her; in many other lists, and even the most ancient ones, there is no word secretly, but it is only said that Olga had a presbyter with her, who buried her. And what did the Grand Duchess have to fear, from whom should she hide? She did not hide from Svyatoslav himself, to whose will everything was then submissive in Russia; on the contrary, she often persuaded him to become a Christian. And if Svyatoslav, to please her, did not forbid even his subjects to be baptized, could he restrict his mother’s freedom of conscience? Let us also not forget that from the time of Olga’s baptism, Svyatoslav almost did not live in Kyiv, being busy with continuous wars, and Olga herself remained the main ruler of Kyiv and the entire state, in whose hands was almost all power. Who would dare to forbid her to openly confess the faith that she accepted openly, before the whole world, in Constantinople and which she held with such fiery zeal? It is much more natural to think that during this entire period before the blessed death of Equal-to-the-Apostles, we had the best time for the holy faith, which had never happened before. II. The subsequent fate of Christianity in Russia before the conversion of Grand Duke Vladimir. With the death of the Equal-to-the-Apostles, this fate completely changed, at least for some time. There is a story in the chronicle of Joachim that when Svyatoslav experienced complete failure in the war with the Bulgarians and Greeks and destroyed almost his entire army, his nobles - pagans - inspired him with the idea that these failures were the execution of the gods for what he was suffering in his army and kingdom of Christians who worshiped another God. This slander irritated the Grand Duke so much that he immediately began to persecute the Christians who remained in his army, killed many of them, and among them even his brother Gleb, and at the same time sent an order to Kyiv - to destroy all the churches there and destroy the very name of Christians, promising to soon arrive there himself. But God did not allow the evil intention to be fulfilled: on the way back to Russia, Svyatoslav was killed and his will did not come true. This story does not contain anything incredible. There were indeed Christians in Svyatoslav’s army, as can be guessed from the words of his agreement with the Greeks. Svyatoslav also had a brother, of course a cousin, although our other chronicles are silent about him, and in all likelihood a Christian, for Constantine Porphyrogenitus testifies that the Russian Grand Duchess Olga was accompanied from Kyiv to Constantinople, by the way, by her nephew, who could have been baptized there with her. It is not surprising if, after the death of his mother, Svyatoslav decided to initiate a persecution against Christians, when even during her life he cursed at them, although he did not forbid to be baptized, or if he listened to the slander of his nobles against Christians, when by the opinion of these nobles and his squad he himself was restrained from accepting the holy faith and respected it more than the convictions of his mother. It became better for Christians in Rus', according to the same Joachim Chronicle, under the Grand Duke Yaropolk (972–980). For this prince, according to her, being a meek and merciful man to everyone, loved Christians and himself was not baptized because he was afraid of the people, and did not forbid others to be baptized. But this did not last long: the more the pagans disliked him, the more freedom he gave to Christians, and during the war he and his brother Vladimir treacherously allowed the latter’s army to win a victory over the army of Yaropolk, which soon resulted in the unfortunate death of this prince. Can we say that there is something incredible here too? Yaropolk, for sure, had a soft and meek heart, as can be seen from the chronicle of the Monk Nestor. He could have received an inclination towards Christianity, with such natural properties, during his upbringing from his pious grandmother Olga, and this inclination could have been supported and endeared to Christians by a Christian woman, abducted by his father from some Greek monastery and given to him in marriage. And isn’t this the explanation for one rather mysterious event in our church history - namely, that in 1044 Grand Duke Yaroslav ordered the bones of Yaropolk and Oleg to be dug up, baptized and placed in the Church of the Holy Mother of God? Didn’t Yaroslav have the most reliable information that both of these uncles were sincerely disposed towards Christianity and Christians and were not baptized only due to pressing circumstances? It is worthy of note that in 979 ambassadors from Rome from the pope came to Yaropolk. Why - the chronicler does not say, but is it difficult to guess? And this is the second attempt of the Bishop of Rome known to us to spread his faith and power among us. When, after the death of Yaropolk, Vladimir reigned in Kyiv (980), it seemed that the last minutes had come for the Christian faith in Russia. His first task upon his accession was to erect in Kyiv and Novgorod new, better idols of the pagan gods, whom the Russian Slavs had worshiped since ancient times. Perhaps he wanted to express his gratitude to the imaginary gods for achieving the grand-ducal throne and, at the same time, gratitude to the Kyiv pagans who secretly contributed to his success? Or did he want to make peace with the gods, considering them irritated by his fratricide? Be that as it may, only such an obvious and decisive patronage of paganism by Vladimir from the first time should have had the most unfavorable influence on the fate of Christianity in our country. The pagans triumphed, they joyfully hurried to their sacred heights, brought with them their sons and daughters, and there they performed their services before soulless idols and sacrificed their half-blooded ones. Not only that: in the printed life of Vladimir it is narrated that at that time he ordered that Christians themselves be brought to worship idols and those who did not submit to his will were put to death. Therefore, some of the believers were forced to hide their faith, others fled from Kyiv, and others allegedly even turned back to pagan wickedness. Meanwhile, idolaters, taking advantage of the patronage of the Grand Duke, destroyed all Christian churches in Kyiv. We do not know where Saint Demetrius got this news from, but only, without any doubt, from sources that existed before him, and, judging by the course of the then circumstances, they do not contain anything incompatible with them. Another, more particular case, showing the sad state of Christianity in our country in the first years of Vladimirov’s reign, is also described in the chronicle of the Monk Nestor. Having won the victory over the Yatvingians, the Grand Duke wanted to thank his gods with human blood. On the advice of the boyars and elders, he ordered to cast lots to recognize the sacrifice, and the lot fell on a beautiful young man, the son of a Varangian, who came to us from Greece and professed the Christian faith with his son. In vain did the father persuade those sent to him with this fatal news that the pagan gods are not gods, but soulless idols, the creation of human hands, and that one is the true God, the Creator of heaven and earth. This only irritated the ambassadors, who immediately left and told everything to others, which caused general confusion. The people burst into the Christian's courtyard with weapons in their hands, swept away the fence and urgently demanded that he hand over the victim doomed to the gods. The father then stood with his son in the vestibule of his house and answered: if your gods are truly gods, then let them send one from among themselves to take my son, but what do you demand?.. The irritated pagans cut down the vestibule of the house and buried father and son under its ruins. These were the first martyrs in Russia, whose memory, under the names of Theodore and John, the Church honors to this day on July 12. Of course, the lot could have fallen on a Christian youth by chance, but it is difficult to resist suspicion: was this not a malicious forgery on the part of the pagans who cast lots? And from here you involuntarily move on to the thought: how strong the pagan party in Kyiv was then in comparison with the number of Christians, and how much the Grand Duke trusted the former. But the deeper and more unfeigned Vladimir’s commitment to the ancient faith of his fathers seemed, the more palpable his aversion to Christians, the more striking the complete change that soon followed in him seems. Marvelous in his destinies, Providence determined that this very great sovereign, who, apparently, wanted to be the restorer of paganism that had fallen in Russia, would deal it the final blow and that, captivated by the holy faith himself, he would finally establish it throughout all the borders of his vast domains. The fiery prayers of Equal-to-the-Apostles Olga were fulfilled: the Lord had mercy on her family and the entire Russian Kingdom, and her most worthy grandson, in whose heart as a child she tried to plant the seeds of piety, having reached mature years, became not only a true Christian, but even an Equal-to-the-Apostles and educator of Russia. Chapter IV. Conversion to Christianity of Grand Duke Vladimir. This event is, without a doubt, the most important of all that has ever taken place on the face of the Russian land. Here the eternal fate of all future sons of Russia was decided; here, in some way, the entire subsequent fate of their temporary, earthly fatherland was decided. With the accession of Christianity under Grand Duke Vladimir, a new period of our existence began in all respects: a new period of our enlightenment, and our customs, and our legislation, and our civil improvement, and - what is most precious and higher in the life of peoples - a new period of our religious beliefs, our holy hopes, our morality. Our ancient pious chronicler vividly felt all the closeness to us of this great event and, as can be seen, with special love he tried to collect and record for the memory of posterity all, even the slightest, details of the sacred tradition. He tells in detail how Prince Vladimir’s transition from the darkness of idolatry to the light of Christ began, how it continued, and how it was accomplished. It should be noted that the Venerable Nestor, who wrote one century after the baptism of Vladimirov, could and, of course, drew his news about him from the most reliable sources: 1) from the oral accounts of eyewitnesses of the great event, such as, for example, the Venerable Jeremiah, who well remembered the baptism of Russia in 988, when he himself was baptized, and lived in the same monastery with the venerable Nestor (and Nestor, according to his own consciousness, was very fond of asking the ancient fathers and leading brothers of his monastery about those persons and events that he intended to describe); 2) from written narrations about this event, which, no doubt, were, such as, for example: Praise to our Kagan Vladimir, from the worthless baptism of the bykh, compiled by Hilarion, Metropolitan of Kyiv (between 1037–1050), and Praise to the same Grand Duke, along with a short life of him, written by Mnikh Jacob (mentioned in 1074). Therefore, the news of the chronicler about the baptism of Grand Duke Vladimir from the outside deserves all our faith. And all we can do is, going through them in order, consider mainly their internal side, that is, weigh the possibility of the details they convey, naturalness, etc. The history of the conversion of Grand Duke Vladimir according to the reverend chronicler apparently consists of three parts, corresponding to the gradual course and essence of the event itself. The first part contains a description of the various embassies that came to our Grand Duke with offers of faith, and his conversations with the ambassadors. “In 986,” this is how the reverend writer of everyday life begins his story, “ambassadors from Volga Bulgaria came to Vladimir and invited him to accept Mohammedanism. The Grand Duke did not refuse to listen to them and even listened, not without pleasure, when they told him that Mohammed allowed polygamy (in which Vladimir had lived until then) and promised his followers a sensual paradise. But when the ambassadors said that the teachings of Magomet require circumcision and prohibit the consumption of wine and pork, Vladimir did not like this at all, and he resolutely refused them. Missionaries from Rome soon arrived; on behalf of their high priest they announced the Christian God to our prince and began to expound in detail their teaching; but Vladimir, as if not wanting to listen to them, told them: “Go back: our fathers did not accept this teaching.” Then preachers from the Khazar Jews appeared. “We heard,” they said to Vladimir, “that Bulgarians and Christians came to you and persuaded you to accept their law; but Christians believe in Him whom we crucified, and we believe in the true God, in the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob." Vladimir, listening to their speech, suddenly asked: “Where is your fatherland?” “In Jerusalem,” the ambassadors answered. “But God, for the sins of our fathers, deprived us of our fatherland and scattered us throughout the whole earth." “How do you teach others,” the Grand Duke objected to them, “while you yourself are rejected from God; if God loved you and your law, you, of course, would not be scattered across foreign lands; do you really want the same for us?” Finally, the Greeks sent their philosopher to Vladimir. The messenger first of all announced to the prince that the news about the preachers coming to him from Bulgaria and Rome had reached Greece, and, saying this, he tried to briefly show the absurdities of the teachings of Mohammed and the errors of the Roman Church. When Vladimir added, for his part, that Jewish preachers also came to him and said that Christians believe in Him Whom the Jews crucified, the philosopher replied: “Truly, we believe in Him Crucified by the Jews, but this Crucified One is God, who came to earth and became incarnate for our salvation, tasted death, rose again and ascended to heaven, according to the predictions of the prophets. And the Jews, who dared to crucify their Messiah and did not repent, experienced the full brunt of heavenly wrath: God sent the Romans against them, who destroyed their cities, scattered them over the face of the whole earth and enslaved them to foreign peoples." “But why did God himself come down to earth and suffer such suffering?” – Vladimir asked. “If you want to listen,” answered the philosopher, “I will tell you everything in order.” And when the Grand Duke expressed his consent, the philosopher actually began to set out before him the entire plan of Divine economy and told how God created the world and the human race, how our first parents fell and received the promise of a future Savior, how people then multiplied, became accustomed to wickedness and perished in the flood waters, except for one pious family. He then told how God chose one specific Jewish people to preserve the true faith, prepared them to receive the Messiah, gave them the law through Moses, sent prophets who foreshadowed in detail the coming of the Messiah and the calling of the pagans. “Did these predictions come true,” Vladimir interrupted the narrator, “and when did they come true?” “They came true,” answered the philosopher, “when the Lord became incarnate.” And then he outlined the entire history of the incarnation and earthly life of the Savior, His suffering, death, resurrection, ascension into heaven, sending down the Holy Spirit on the apostles and their scattering throughout the earth to preach. Vladimir again stopped the evangelist with his questions: “Why was God born of a woman, baptized in water, crucified on a tree?“ The philosopher also solved these perplexities of the prince and continued that the teaching of the apostles was accepted by the whole universe - including other nations and the Greeks - and that the day will finally come when the Lord Jesus will come again to earth to judge the living and the dead and to reward each according to his deeds: to the righteous he will determine the Kingdom of Heaven, and to sinners and those who were not baptized in His name - eternal fire. Speaking the last words, the philosopher revealed the picture of the Last Judgment to the prince and pointed out to the right hand the Judge of the righteous, going with joy to the eternal abode, and to the left - the sinners drawn to eternal torment. Vladimir, looking at the picture, sighed deeply and said: “It is good on this right hand, and woe on this left side.” “If you also want to become with the righteous,” the preacher remarked to him, “be baptized.” Vladimir put these words on his heart and answered: “I’ll wait a little longer,” having the intention of testing all faiths, generously gifted the philosopher and sent him away with great honor.” How to look at this entire first part of Nesterov’s narrative? Should it be accepted as pure truth, or is it a complete fiction, a poem in the style of ancient spiritual mysteries, at least a story in which there is a lot of strange and incredible things, as it seemed to some scientists? In our opinion, there is nothing strange or incredible here, either in general or even in detail, with the exception of very few, and, therefore, there is no sufficient reason to consider the entire tale a fiction. There is nothing strange in the fact that different missionaries came to Vladimir, each of whom praised his own law and condemned all others: history presents more than one such case. Let us remember what the Khazar ambassadors said when they came to the Greek Emperor Michael to ask for a Christian teacher. They said: “The Jews convince us to accept their faith, and the Saracens bow to theirs...”. And Saint Cyril the Philosopher, who went to them on this occasion, had to compete about faith with the Jewish, Saracen and Khazar sages. The Volgars also write in their questions to Pope Nicholas that either Greek or Khazar preachers are trying to win them over to their faith. At the court of the Mongol emperors, teachers of different religions very often met: Christian, Jewish, Mohammedan and Buddhist - and argued about the superiority of one religion over another. In particular, there is nothing strange in the Bulgarian ambassadors coming to Vladimir: Vladimir had just ended the war with the Volga Bulgarians in 985 and made peace. This means that the easiest thing could have happened is that the Bulgarians then decided to send their ambassadors to us, perhaps to finalize the terms of the treaty or to renew the terms of trade that the inhabitants of the Volga had long carried on with the inhabitants of Russia. The easiest thing that could have happened in this case was that the ambassadors, conducting political negotiations with our prince, according to the secret order given to him, as if on the side, decided to praise their faith before him and persuade Vladimir to accept it. And on the part of the Bulgarians, such an act at that time could not have been more natural. Not long before, they themselves had accepted Mohammedanism and, therefore, retained all the fervor of religious enthusiasm for the spread of their faith, which in the first years of their conversion always distinguished the followers of the false prophet to the highest degree. On the other hand, the Bulgarians could hope, through the communication of their faith to our prince, to enter into the closest community with such a powerful sovereign as Vladimir, and at the same time be seduced by the thought that Vladimir, as, no doubt, they heard, being very devoted to sensuality, would easily accept the sensual teaching of Mohammed. Even less strange is the arrival of papal missionaries to Vladimir. The Pope then sent his preachers to all the countries of Europe, where Catholicism had not yet been spread and established; they acted simultaneously in Poland, Sweden, Norway, Hungary and other states. The pope then especially tried to attract to his side the Slavic states, which, due to their contiguity with Greece, were already gradually accepting the Orthodox religion from there. For this purpose, even a deliberate society of missionaries was established on the borders of Rus' and Poland - in partibus infidelium 2 - of which one - Albert - came to Grand Duchess Olga as a titular Russian bishop, and the other could come to Vladimir in the same way. And this is all the more certain because, according to a contemporary of the monk Ademar, a Western missionary sent by Emperor Otto III (reigned 983–1002), a certain Bruno, was definitely operating in Rus' around this very time, who even allegedly attracted some Rusyns to his teaching, although a Greek bishop who arrived in Russia a few days after him completely destroyed his successes and converted the entire country to Greek religion There is nothing strange in the coming to Vladimir of religious preachers from the Khazar Jews. It is known that these Jews really had a zeal to impose their beliefs on others, as they did with the Khazars themselves, where not only ordinary subjects, but also some kagans professed Judaism. It is also known that from the 8th century. Kievans were already trading with the Khazars who settled in the Novorossiysk steppes, and in the 9th century. were even under the rule of these Khazars, mixed with Jews, and that in the 11th and early 12th centuries. There were many Jews in Kyiv, where they occupied a whole special street, called Zhidovskaya after their name, and carried on a rich trade to the detriment of the Kyiv merchants. Why not admit that the same relations between the Khazar Jews and Kiev existed in the days of Vladimir, and that their ambassadors could very conveniently come to him with offers of faith, carried away by their usual fanaticism? From the history of St. Theodosius, we know that even in the 11th century, living in Kyiv, Jews loved to persuade Christians to their religion, and that St. Theodosius himself often entered into heated debates with them on this occasion, and in one chronicle it is noted that even then they managed to attract many Kyiv Christians to their faith. It should be added that the ambassadors from the Khazar Jews themselves expressed to Vladimir the reason that disposed them to come to him: “We heard that preachers from the Bulgarians and from Rome came to you...” Finally, there is nothing strange in the Greek philosopher coming to Vladimir. There were already many Christians of the Greek Orthodox faith in Kyiv. Having at first been subjected to Vladimir’s reluctance, they, no doubt, carefully watched all his actions regarding religion, they could not help but notice how Bulgarian and Roman ambassadors came to him with the intention of bending him to their law - was it not natural for these Kyiv Christians to notify the Greeks about the disposition of their prince to listen to religious preachers, to notify them because from among themselves, perhaps, they were not able to put out a person who would able to refute all other faiths before Vladimir and show the superiority of the Greek one? And so the Greeks send to us for this purpose a philosopher, an intelligent and learned man, who, indeed, at the very beginning declares that the reason for his arrival to our prince was the news that reached Greece about other missionaries who came to him: “We heard that the essence came...”. There is no reason to assume that this Greek preacher could have been sent to the Russian prince only from the emperor: he could have been sent in a private (unofficial) manner directly from the Patriarch of Constantinople or even from some other hierarch of the Greek or Bulgarian diocese closest to us. Therefore, it means nothing if no news of this embassy, ​​as unofficial, has been preserved in the Greek chronicles. But how could it happen that at one time ambassadors from such different directions suddenly came to Vladimir - out of what secret sympathy? It could have happened very simply. It was only necessary for the first Bulgarian ambassadors to come to Vladimir with proposals about faith - and we saw how natural such an embassy was - and the Roman missionary, who was then, according to the testimony of one contemporary, in Russia, perhaps even in the neighborhood of Kiev, having heard about this, as well as about the disposition of our prince to listen to such proposals, could suddenly hasten to him with his preaching. The Jews who carried out trade in Kyiv, noticing both of these attempts, could immediately call here their preachers from Khazaria, and the Kyiv Christians could also immediately invite a philosopher from Greece. And it is remarkable that the Greek philosopher, having arrived at Vladimir, said only: “We heard that Bulgarian and Roman ambassadors came to you,” but he did not yet know about the Jewish ambassadors and had already heard from Vladimir himself. The latter must have come to Kyiv after the local Christians sent news to Greece about the hitherto preachers, and when the Greek philosopher was already on his way to Russia - a direct indication that the missionaries came to Vladimir one after another very quickly! Justice also requires us to note that they did not appear to our prince at the same time or suddenly, but appeared successively throughout the whole of 986. Is it possible to allow the ambassadors to talk with Vladimir exactly as the Monk Nestor portrays? In all details, without a doubt, it is impossible: this kind of accuracy could only take place in such a case when someone wrote down these conversations at the very time they took place, directly from the words of those talking. But, at least, in the foundations of these conversations, which have already only just reached the one who first wrote them down, one cannot help but recognize the truth: they are all decent for the people talking and fair, with the exception of some of Vladimir’s questions and comments to the Jewish ambassadors and a few words of the Greek philosopher about the Mohammedans! The speech of the Bulgarian ambassadors to Vladimir was very natural: they knew the weak side of the prince and understood well why their faith could especially attract such people. Equally, Vladimir’s sharp answer to them about wine for Rus' is completely consistent with the concepts and circumstances of that time and could literally pass from mouth to mouth and survive until the Monk Nestor. There is no reason to reject the authenticity of Vladimirov’s response to the Roman ambassadors: he could point to the embassy of Western missionaries to Grand Duchess Olga and Yaropolk. Vladimir’s questions to the Greek philosopher, in continuation of the latter’s long speech, could not be more natural: they can involuntarily arise in the mind of a sane person, when for the first time he listens with depth to the wonderful sacraments of the Christian revelation. The philosopher’s speech itself and its vastness are just as natural after the Grand Duke expressed to him a desire to become acquainted with the essence of Christianity. Finally, nothing could be more natural than the fact that the philosopher, ending his sermon with the narration of the Last Judgment, suddenly showed the prince a picture of this Judgment, drew an involuntary sigh from his chest and gave rise to a desire in him to become part of the land of the elect and be baptized. Even if there is a legend that in a similar way, even before, one Bulgarian king was converted to Christianity, this does not give us the right to conclude that the same incident could not be repeated among us and that it was only by mistake that it was transferred to our Grand Duke. On the contrary, it is more natural to think that the Greek philosopher, knowing from previous experiences how powerfully the picture of the Last Judgment affects rude pagans, took care with the intention of using this proven remedy when converting Vladimir. And when the prince, who had been listening to his conversation for a long time, became deep in thought, it is not surprising if the suddenness of this picture struck him to the highest degree. How could the ambassadors talk with Vladimir and understand each other? Natural Slavs, as is known to be part of the Bulgarian people, or native Bulgarians, but quite familiar with the Slavic language from constant relations with their co-inhabitants, the Slavs, could come as ambassadors from the banks of the Volga; the Khazar Jews, who carried out trade in Kyiv for centuries, could themselves have studied our language somewhat, and could have translators; the Roman missionary, who had even previously preached in Russia, probably understood to some extent the language of the people to whom he preached, or, no doubt, already had a translator; finally, the Greek philosopher, most likely, could have been from the Bulgarians or other Slavic tribes that lived in Greece: it was easy for the Greeks to find such a preacher, but to send them required prudence and the desire for success. And this success, which really crowned the philosopher’s sermon, did not partly depend on the fact that the evangelist, fluent in the Slavic language, very clearly imprinted the truths of Christianity in the mind and heart of the Grand Duke? The second part of Nesterov’s narrative about Vladimir’s conversion depicts his conferences with his boyars and elders on the occasion of the missionaries who came to him, the sending of Russian ambassadors to test the proposed faiths on the spot, and the responses of these ambassadors upon their return. “The next year (987), says the chronicler, Vladimir called his boyars and city elders and told them: “Preachers of different faiths came to me: Bulgarians, Germans, Jews and Greeks, - each offered me their own law as the best of all and condemned the others; What will you award for this? ". “Prince,” the boyars and elders answered then, “you know that no one blasphemes his own, but, naturally, praises him; if you want to find out the matter better, you have men, send them to test the faiths offered to you on the spot.” Such a speech seemed pleasant to the prince and all the people; Ten wise men were immediately elected, who first went to the Volga Bulgarians, then to the German Catholics, and finally came to Constantinople. Here the emperor, having learned about the purpose of their coming, ordered to show them all the greatness of Greek worship; They were led to the magnificent St. Sophia Church, where the patriarch himself performed the liturgy with all solemnity. The majestic, never-before-seen sight completely amazed their hearts and feelings. They could not realize what they saw and heard, but were only amazed and in awe. When they returned to their fatherland, Vladimir again summoned the boyars and elders and ordered the ambassadors to tell everything they had seen. They spoke extremely unfavorably about the Bulgarian worship; They also did not approve of the services of the Germans, noticing that in the churches there were many German services, but no beauty. “But when we came to the Greeks,” the ambassadors continued, “we were taken to where they serve their God, and we do not know whether we were in heaven or on earth, because there is no such view and beauty on earth, and we are not able to describe them; We only know that God dwells there with people and that Greek worship is better than all others. We cannot forget this beauty, for every person, having tasted the sweet, turns away from the bitter; So we are not imams here, we don’t want to remain in the ancient pagan faith.” Having listened to the words of the ambassadors, the boyars and elders, for their part, remarked to the Grand Duke: “If the Greek law had been bad, then your grandmother Olga, the wisest of all people, would not have accepted it.” Then Vladimir asked: “Where will we be baptized?” “Where are you?” answered the boyars...” Another story - and again completely probable in all its details! When embarking on such a great task as changing religion in the entire state, Vladimir gathers the boyars and elders, or the people's veche, and demands their advice - this is what the princes of ancient Rus' always did in especially important cases; This is exactly what Askold and Dir did in a similar case, when the first bishop arrived from Greece to preach the Gospel. It is not without reason that in the saga of Olav, the king of Norway, raised at the court of Vladimir the Great, the memory of our prince’s conferences with the boyars and people regarding the adoption of Christianity was preserved, although much else related to this event was almost completely distorted in it. The boyars and elders advised the prince to send ten of the most intelligent men to test the faiths proposed to him on the spot - the most prudent and necessary advice! Our ancestors at that time were not yet able to judge the merits of different faiths by their teachings and abstract dogmas, and the ambassadors who came to us were no longer able to tell them each about their own law. What was left to do? One thing is to go and see with your own eyes all these religions in their outer manifestation and clothing, in their sanctuaries, festivals and worship, ask about the sign of their sacred rites and thus at least somewhat understand the inner dignity of the religions themselves, and this is what has been done. It is worthy of note that when the boyars and elders were convened to discuss faith, not one of them began to praise or defend the ancient faith of their fathers before Vladimir, not one even expressed a hint that there was no need to look for any other, better faith. Doesn't this indicate that our pagan ancestors already at that time began to quite clearly see the shortcomings of their fatherly religion and therefore were little committed to it? The elected ambassadors went to the Bulgarians to test their faith on the spot, then to the Germans, finally to the Greeks and, returning, gave complete preference to the Greek faith. The legend about this journey of Russian ambassadors to test their faith, in addition to our domestic chronicles, was preserved in another ancient Greek manuscript with exactly the same details, although somewhat distorted and exaggerated. And the physical possibility of this journey, for which the chronicler assigns about a year, should not be in doubt: the relations of the Kyivans with the Greeks and Bulgarians were free and easy, and the ambassadors went to the Germans, of course, by the closest [route] - almost a year for all this seems to be enough. No one, of course, will doubt that the Greek divine service, performed in the best of the Constantinople churches by the patriarch himself, could have a stronger effect on the Russian ambassadors than the divine service of the Mohammedans and the divine service of German Catholics in some simple, ordinary church, performed by one clergyman. The boyars and elders, as soon as they heard the praise of the Greek faith from the lips of the ambassadors, began to praise it themselves and convince Vladimir to accept it by the example of Olga - and again not a word about the ancient faith of the fathers and about other faiths, should it not be concluded from here that among these boyars and elders there were some Christians who secretly professed the Greek faith, and others, at least, had a predisposition to it? Finally, the third part of Nesterov’s narrative about Vladimir’s conversion describes his campaign against Kherson, his very baptism in this city, his marriage to the Greek princess Anna and his return to Kyiv. “The next year (988), says the chronicler, Vladimir gathered an army and launched a campaign against Kherson. For a long time he could not take the fortified city, despite all his efforts. In vain he threatened the Kherson people to keep them under siege for three whole summers if they did not surrender - the besieged did not agree. Finally, a certain Korsun man named Anastas shot an arrow from the city into the Russian camp with the inscription: “Behind you to the east are wells, from where the Kherson residents receive water through pipes; dig up the water pipes.” Hearing about this, Vladimir looked up to heaven and exclaimed: “If this comes true, I will certainly be baptized.” And indeed, this remedy turned out to be completely successful. Vladimir took possession of Kherson and, having entered it with his army, sent it to the Greek emperors Vasily and Constantine: “I have taken your glorious city; I will do the same with your capital, if you do not give up your sister, who is still unmarried, for me, which, as we hear, you have.” The emperors, for their part, demanded that he be baptized, agreeing only under this condition to fulfill his desire. “Tell your kings,” Vladimir answered the Greek ambassadors, “that I am baptized, that I have already experienced your law through my deliberate husbands and have fallen in love with your faith and your worship.” The emperors rejoiced and began to beg their sister Anna to go to the Russian prince. She did not agree and said: “It would be better for me to die than to go into this captivity.” But her brothers imagined that in this way she would become the cause of the conversion of the entire Russian people to Christ and would save her fatherland, Greece, from the terrible weapons of the Russians. And the sorrowful princess, accompanied by many dignitaries and elders, set off on a ship to Kherson, where she was greeted by the joyful inhabitants with all the signs of honor and zeal. Meanwhile, according to God’s dispensation, Vladimir fell ill with his eyes, so that he could not see anything, and he was greatly distressed by this. “If you want to be healed of your illness,” Anna told him to tell him, “be baptized quickly, otherwise you will not receive healing.” Vladimir agreed. Then the Korsun high priest with the presbyters who arrived from Constantinople, having announced the Grand Duke, performed the holy sacrament over him, and at that moment, as soon as he laid his hand on the baptized person, Vladimir instantly received his sight and exclaimed, leaving the holy font: “Now for the first time I have seen the true God!” Many of the squad, seeing the miracle that had taken place, immediately followed the example of their prince. The baptism took place in the Church of St. Basil, which stood in the middle of Kherson on the city square. The archpastor who baptized Vladimir taught him the most detailed Creed, as an example of sound words, which the prince would constantly adhere to, so as not to be carried away by the false opinions of heretics and renegades. Soon followed by Vladimir’s marriage to the Greek princess. In memory of all this, he created a church in Kherson and, having returned the conquered city to the Greek kings like a wreath for the hand of their sister Anna, he went to his capital. In this entire last part of the story that occupies us, only one subject remains a subject of bewilderment and disagreement for historians - this is Vladimir’s campaign against Kherson. It is not clear why the Grand Duke, busy with religious affairs, decided to suddenly raise his weapon and start fighting. It seems to some that the chronicler presents this campaign as a completely special incident, having no connection with the matter of the change of faith, that Vladimir went to Kherson, as he went shortly before to the Kama Bulgarians, as his fathers went in different directions before, and after his children, and that, therefore, if he had to be baptized in Kherson, it was by accident, and was not intended before the start of the campaign. But such an opinion cannot be accepted: it does not agree with the chronicle. The reverend chronicler said, as Vladimir asked his boyars: “Where will we receive baptism?” and as the boyars answered him: “Somewhere somewhere,” he immediately continues: “And last summer in the summer of 6496 Volodymer went from the howl to Korsun,” and thus obviously connects both of these events at the very beginning. Speaking further about the arrow fired by Anastas into the Russian camp, indicating the means to take possession of the city, it testifies that Vladimir at that time, looking up at the sky, said: “If this comes to pass, I will baptize myself.” This means that during the campaign he was busy thinking about changing his faith. When he subsequently took Korsun, demanded the hand of the Greek princess and heard from her brothers the necessary condition for this, he again expressed the same disposition of his thoughts: “Tell the king that I am baptized; For in these days you have tested your law, and I love your faith and service, which men have confessed to us in their message.” In conclusion, he was indeed baptized in Kherson. Consequently, from the very beginning to the end of the Korsun campaign, according to the chronicle, Vladimir was constantly occupied with the thought of accepting a new faith. But if it was precisely for this purpose that Vladimir went to Korsun, then why did he choose such an unusual means? Were there not pious teachers in Kyiv itself who could have baptized him? On the contrary, in Kyiv there were Christians, there were churches, there were pastors. Or did the Grand Duke fear in Kyiv the indignation of the people, still devoted to their gods, and therefore gathered an army, went to be baptized in a foreign city and, returning victorious, surrounded by a triumphant army, boldly hoped to deal with the people? But Vladimir had nothing to fear from the people: the boyars and elders already expressed their consent to him when they themselves convinced him to accept the Greek law and left him free to choose the place for baptism; and even if he was afraid, he had no reason to go with the army to Kherson, but it would be enough just to gather an army and, under its protection, be baptized in Kyiv itself; finally, history does not at all hint that Vladimir, upon returning from Korsun, would force the people to accept Christianity with an armed hand; everything was decided by one of his royal words. In our opinion, the best answer to the question “what did Vladimir go to Kherson for?” The very consequences of this campaign must serve. What Vladimir went to Kherson for, he, without a doubt, got: nothing could prevent the winner from achieving his goal. What did he achieve in Kherson? Firstly, he received baptism here, and received it with all solemnity and splendor; secondly, he received the hand of a Greek princess and, thirdly, he took with him from Kherson many icons, church vessels and shepherds to educate his subjects - all this together could be the true reason for Vladimirov’s campaign against the free Greek city. Having heard advice from his boyars - to choose a place for baptism at his own discretion, Vladimir, of course, thought for a long time about how to arrange things better. It was natural for him to want his baptism to be carried out with all possible solemnity and splendor - this was required by the highness of his rank, the importance of the enterprise, and the wise desire to influence his subjects more strongly by his example. The march to Kherson and baptism in it could not have been more consistent with this desire. Vladimir was baptized in the oldest and richest Christian city, where the sacred rites of the holy faith were performed with all the pomp of rituals in magnificent churches; he was baptized, having entered this famous city with the glory of a conqueror and, so to speak, having won the faith; baptized by a whole council of shepherds, many of whom were from Constantinople, and at the head was the Kherson Metropolitan himself. Kyiv in this regard was far from being equal to Kherson. On the other hand, it was natural for Vladimir to take care together of how it would be more convenient to find all the means necessary to enlighten his entire people with Christianity. Kyiv alone could not provide this kind of funds: it had Christian pastors, but, no doubt, insufficiently educated, whom the Kyiv Christians had difficulty obtaining from Bulgaria and Greece; There were church utensils, but also in very small quantities, acquired with difficulty from Christian countries. Vladimir could, of course, write to the Greek emperors with a request that they send preachers of the faith and the necessary church utensils to Russia. But for this he had to spend great expenses, send, perhaps, rich gifts to the emperors themselves and the Constantinople Patriarch and deliver all the funds necessary for the arrival of Greek preachers in Kyiv along with church utensils. And most importantly, this could not do without some humiliation for the Russian Grand Duke. The Byzantine court, for all its weakness, treated the barbarians arrogantly and with contempt when they appeared before it or addressed it without weapons. Vladimir knew how his grandmother Olga was received in Constantinople, how the Greeks later acted with his parent Svyatoslav, and he could rightly expect that they would do no better to him if he resorted to the Greek emperors with a humble request. And so he takes up arms, takes possession of the Greek city of Kherson, and not only without humiliation for himself, on the contrary, with full dignity forces the Greeks to fulfill all his demands. And in order to more successfully achieve both one and the other goal, that is, to accept baptism with greater solemnity, and with greater convenience to receive from the Byzantine court all the necessary means for enlightening his vast kingdom, Vladimir considered it best to combine with his conversion to Christianity a marriage with a Greek princess, the sister of the then reigning emperors. This kinship with the Byzantine emperors, which Vladimir achieved only through baptism, undoubtedly greatly elevated his very conversion in the eyes of his subjects and at the same time naturally disposed the Greek kings to be more diligent in fulfilling the demands of our prince regarding the enlightenment of Russia with the Gospel... It should be noted, however, that the idea of ​​getting the hand of a Greek princess was hardly born in Vladimir before leaving for Kherson and, therefore, could hardly have been one of the motivations for this enterprise, because it seems that he learned about the existence of the princess after the capture of Kherson. “Behold, I have taken the glorious city,” he then ordered to tell the Greek kings, “and I hear, behold, I have a virgin sister, and even ... and so on. The most fair way to understand the word “I hear” is that the prince only now heard about the princess, but did not know before, although it can be taken as the word “I know” in accordance with its use in the Slavic language. Be that as it may, however, only the campaign of Vladimirov to Kherson in order to accept the faith there can, not without reason, be considered the fruit of his deep considerations and prudence or wise advice that the boyars and elders inspired in him. All other details of this campaign, as well as Vladimirov’s baptism in Kherson, are no longer subject to any confusion or controversy, and therefore there is no need to examine them separately. We cannot, however, pass here in silence two of them, which, although not outright rejected, are somehow forgotten or put in the shadows by our historians. This is, firstly, the sudden healing of Grand Duke Vladimir from the blindness that struck him - this healing was accepted as a true miracle by the Grand Duke himself and all the eyewitnesses around him; it is portrayed as a true miracle by the reverend chronicler; a true miracle, therefore, should be recognized by us. And secondly, a detailed Creed, which was taught to Vladimir after his baptism. We think that this Symbol is really the same one that was commanded to the enlightener of Russia, and therefore it is the most precious monument of our church antiquity, just as the treaties of the first princes of Kyiv with the Greek emperors are the most precious monuments of our civil antiquity. Nowadays they agree that the aforementioned agreements were not at all invented by the chronicler himself, but definitely existed, came to him in writing - in originals or in copies from originals - and were only entered into the chronicle by him. Why not say the same about the confession of faith, which was handed over to our Grand Duke, no doubt on paper, as a guide for the rest of his life and which, having been brought by him to Russia, was probably preserved by him until the end of his life in its entirety, then bequeathed to the children as a great shrine, and thus could conveniently reach, although in copies, the Monk Nestor? It has now become known that this Symbol is a literal translation of the Greek confession of faith, written by Michael Syncellus (died c. 835). And we have the right to look at this Symbol as the first lesson in Orthodoxy, which Orthodox Greece taught us in the person of the enlightener of our fatherland. Having thus analyzed, piece by piece, the entire history of the conversion of Grand Duke Vladimir, what can we finally say about the reasons for this great event? It is all the more necessary to define them because there are several opinions on this matter, most of them false, unfounded and unworthy of the subject. Let us again follow the instructions of the chronicler. The whole thing, as he imagines, begins with the fact that preachers of the faith come to Vladimir: first Bulgarian, then Roman, then Jewish - and Vladimir willingly listens to them. But how could Vladimir agree to listen, if he did not immediately reject the proposals of the Bulgarian ambassadors and then all the others? A clear sign that he was no longer firm in his forefathers’ faith, was not sincerely committed to it, that he had already wavered internally in it. And yet, what a fiery zealot of fatherly beliefs this great prince appeared upon his accession to the throne of Kiev! With what zeal and love so recently did he hasten to erect the richest pagan idols and offer them, together with his subjects, even human sacrifices as a testament of gratitude! The change in such an ardent pagan, and the sudden change that took place secretly, without any external promptings, a strong change in religious beliefs at the highest level of their development, cannot be explained by anything other than the supernatural action of Divine grace. She alone could so quickly and strongly shake a heart deeply rooted in paternal superstitions, and, moreover, a heart hardened by the greatest vices that Vladimir the pagan allowed himself; she alone could awaken the voice of conscience in him and show this man all the crime of his former life and all the futility of idolatry; she alone could thus prepare him to listen to various preachers and predispose him to believe in the Gospel, for saving faith is the gift of God (Eph. 2:8; 4:7), and human means can only partially contribute to its establishment (1 Cor. 3:7 and 9). This is where the true beginning of Vladimirov’s great feat is! The principle, which, without a doubt, was later professed more than once by the Grand Duke himself, was recognized and professed by his contemporaries and immediate descendants. “When he lived,” says one of these people, “and ruled his land with truth, courage and meaning, a visit from the Most High came upon him, the all-merciful eye of the good God looked upon him, and his mind shone in his heart; he understood the vanity of idolatry and sought the one God who created everything visible and invisible.” The further continuation of the holy work, apparently, all depends on the Grand Duke Vladimir himself. He listens to different religious preachers, judges, evaluates their testimony - and chooses the best faith; he consults with his boyars and elders, sends ambassadors to test faith on the spot, listens to the narrative of the returning ambassadors, becomes even more confirmed in his election, decides to accept and actually accepts the Orthodox faith. A wise and thorough study of faiths and a complete, sincere conviction in the superiority of the Greek over all others is the second reason for the conversion of the great Vladimir, which we can attribute to his own mind, repeating after our most ancient archpastor: “You, Blessed One, came to Christ, guided only by your good sense and sharp mind; you have realized that there is one God, the creator of the invisible and visible, heavenly and earthly, and that He sent His beloved Son into the world to save people. With these thoughts you entered the holy font.” But here too there is so much obvious participation of the true Author of all good things - God! Who arranged that the Greek preacher came to Vladimir after all the others and therefore had the opportunity, on the one hand, to show the prince the shortcomings of other faiths already known to him, and on the other hand, with his clever reasoning about the Orthodox faith and the vivid picture of the Last Judgment, to so deeply affect the heart of the converted pagan? After all, all this could have followed quite the opposite. Who then arranged that the Russian ambassadors were so greatly amazed by the majesty of Greek worship and at the same time were awarded a vision of the powers on high? Who arranged the entire subsequent series of circumstances this way and not otherwise? It was necessary for the siege of Kherson to become prolonged and unsuccessful, and this elicited from Vladimir a decisive vow to accept the holy faith in case of success; After the capture of Kherson, Vladimir needed to find out about the Greek princess Anna, demand her hand from the emperors and receive from them a new, strong excitement to accept the holy faith. Finally, who else but the Almighty struck Vladimir with blindness, who, according to one chronicle, supposedly began to waver in his holy intention before Anna’s arrival, and who then miraculously healed him of blindness, as soon as he was sanctified in the baptismal font? Thus. The Heavenly Father, having desired to attract the Grand Duke of Russia, and through him all of Russia, to Christ the Savior of the world, deigned to use for this purpose all the means that He uses to convert lost children to Himself: both natural means - the inner voice of conscience and external circumstances, and supernatural means - miraculous. Shall we, finally, remain silent about the fact that the Russian people themselves took an active part in the conversion of Vladimirov in the person of their representatives - the boyars and elders and those ten most intelligent men who were sent to test their faith on the spot? The wise and deeply judicious advice of the former, the strong and unfeigned convictions of the latter, which the wise prince was pleased to listen to and accept, this universal sympathy for the innermost desires of his heart, this secret, but, nevertheless, obvious inclination of everyone around him to the Greek Orthodox faith, which Vladimir saw, touched and felt, in all fairness the third can be called the true reason for his baptism. How poor after this should all other opinions about the reasons for Vladimir’s adoption of Christianity seem to us - opinions not based on the news of our ancient chronicle! One Arab writer of the thirteenth century comes across the idea that Vladimir was baptized out of ambition and out of a desire to be related to the Greek emperors, as if Emperor Basil, fearing the success of the rebel Phocas, asked our Grand Duke for an auxiliary army, and Vladimir demanded the hand of a Greek princess in return and agreed to be a Christian. But it is obvious that this writer judged only by incorrect and mixed rumors and did not know at all the details of the event, which were so easy for our ancient Russian chronicler to preserve in all their correctness: he did not know that ambassadors of different nations came to Vladimir with proposals for a change of religion, that he tested the faiths offered to him, consulted about them with his boyars, sent deliberate men to investigate about them and then decided to be baptized; that he heard about the existence of the Greek princess already after the capture of Kherson, demanded her hand from the emperors as a winner, and not about their request for an auxiliary army, and sent them this army after entering into kinship with them. And if, indeed, only ambition and the desire for a family union with the Greek kings had disposed Vladimir to be baptized, then why would he first do everything that he did - allow various religious preachers to come to him and listen to him, send his ambassadors, hesitate, reason, consult about the faith, undertake a campaign against Cherson, etc.? Wouldn’t it be enough to approach the Greek emperors directly with a request for the hand of their sister and announce to them that, under this condition, they would accept their faith, and in case of refusal, go to war against them? Meanwhile, everything was in a different form. Some Western writers claim that the reason for the conversion of Grand Duke Vladimir was the convictions of the Greek princess Anna, the sister of Emperor Vasily II, who was allegedly married to our prince since 961. Again, an error that occurred from ignorance of the details of the event described by the Monk Nestor. Princess Anna, having arrived in Kherson, certainly urged Vladimir to be baptized as soon as possible; but even before that he had acquired a firm determination to become a Christian, and, moreover, as a result of completely different motives. And for the Greek princess to have been married to Vladimir since 961, this is not only not confirmed by any ancient writer, but contains obvious inconsistencies. In 961, Vladimir was only about 15 years old from birth, therefore, he could hardly be married, but most importantly, he was still a pagan, and the Byzantine court until the 13th century, i.e. Before his humiliation before the northern barbarians, he never gave up his princesses to the pagans. Stranger and more unfair than all the others is the thought of one of our compatriots, which should not even be mentioned if the completeness of the review did not require it. He claims that ambassadors from different nations did not come to Vladimir at all with offers of faith, and all this was done by his one wife, a Greek nun, who was inherited by him after the death of Yaropolk. She allegedly composed a drama in five acts from the faces of different preachers and, presenting it at the theater before Vladimir, greatly swayed the heart of the pagan and persuaded him to accept the Greek faith. “But such a vain dream that comes from an unrefined spirit,” let’s say in the words of our famous archpastor, “does not require refutation, as at first glance it is strange in itself. What kind of theaters are there under Vladimir? What kind of theatrical performances do nuns have in Greek monasteries? Theaters in Russia and after even until the 18th century. there wasn't... Why should the pen be allowed to play with such an important and divine action, where Vladimir himself, from his grandmother, the pious Olga, was knowledgeable enough about the Christian faith and was confirmed in this by the dignified advice of his nobles? What effect could a theatrical performance have on this, which diminishes the importance of truth itself when it is presented by laughers?” Let us add that this assumption, so strange in its content, is not based on anything and goes completely against the news of our ancient chronicler. No, judging by this most reliable news, the reasons for the baptism of Grand Duke Vladimir, as we have seen, were incomparably higher and sacred. Weighing them impartially, every sensible researcher will involuntarily say: a better, purer and more sincere, more thorough and trustworthy conversion to Christianity could not have been wished for by the one whom the Lord predestined to become the enlightener of an entire vast kingdom, because there could be no better conversion. The return of the God-blessed prince to Kyiv was solemn. He achieved the goal of his campaign against Kherson: he was baptized there with all due greatness and glory, acquired everything to enlighten his numerous people with the faith, and was now returning to his capital as a completely new man. He was accompanied by his Christian wife, the sister of the Greek emperors; accompanied by a victorious squad, in which most of the soldiers, if not all, were also Christians; accompanied by many priests of Korsun and Tsaritsyn (i.e., those who arrived with Princess Anna from Constantinople), who carried with them from Kherson the relics of St. Clement, Pope of Rome, and his disciple Thebes, as well as various church vessels, crosses, icons and all kinds of utensils. Having thus arrived in Kyiv with all the means to enlighten his subjects with the Gospel, Equal-to-the-Apostles Vladimir immediately began the holy work... But here we must stop. Here is the end of the history of Christianity in Russia before Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir and the beginning of the history of the Russian Church: the Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince, through his actions, finally planted and established the Christian Church in the Russian kingdom and gave it a complete hierarchy, which has existed continuously since then to the present day. Let us take one last look at this whole great event that is so close to us, which we have hitherto tried to study; Let us look not as an event separate from others, with its distinctive properties and details, but as an event among other contemporary events, in the midst of which it took place, under the finger of the same wise Builder of human destinies. At what time was the Russian Church planted in relation to the entire Christian world? During the most significant period for its enormous consequences, which continue to this day. Its beginning and final affirmation surprisingly coincide with two facets of that woeful era, when one of the best and most ancient branches of the Universal Church, which flourished for centuries with faith and piety, was noisily torn away from its life-giving root. The first baptism of the Russians followed in 866, a few months before the Council, at which a thousand Orthodox bishops in Constantinople pronounced the first verdict against the deviations of the Roman Church from ancient ecumenical Orthodoxy: in the same district message with which the Constantinople high priest invited all these bishops to his residence for judgment about various innovations of the Christian West, in that same message he informed the entire Orthodox The first news to the East about the establishment of Christianity in northern Europe among the Russians. And let us especially not forget that such a coincidence of circumstances did not happen according to human calculations. Our ancestors, setting off from Kyiv to Constantinople under the leadership of their first princes, had no idea of ​​​​looking for Christian enlightenment there for themselves - their only goal was military booty. Meanwhile, contrary to all expectations, they find at Constantinople what they were not looking for at all: a miraculous storm scatters their fleet and awakens in them an unmuffled thought about the greatness of the Christian God; They return to their fatherland with sorrow, but at the same time they rush to send ambassadors to Greece to ask for a Christian teacher. This is step one - what next? Soon the Greek archpastor really comes to Kyiv, ready to fulfill the holy desire of the Russians - and the Russians? They seem to have cooled down in their good intentions, they hesitate, are perplexed, they demand a miracle - and a new, most amazing sign completes the victory over the hearts of the pagans... Isn’t it obvious that God himself was at work here? Isn’t this a tangible sign that, according to the plans of the Infinitely Wise, the time had already come to throw at least the first seeds of Christianity into the bowels of the Russian land and lay at least the main stones for the subsequent building of the Russian Church? From the time of Patriarch Photius, who was the first to raise his voice against the illegal demands of the proud Vatican and gave us the first bishop, these demands completely ceased for a whole century. In the East there were no more anathemas against the Roman West, and in the West against the East, and between both Churches, if there was no perfect unity, at least everything was quiet and peaceful. But it was a deceptive silence before a new, most dangerous storm. Papal predominance, long hidden or significantly moderated, began again to manifest itself on an enormous scale. The patience of the eastern high priests was exhausted, and the Patriarch of Constantinople Nicholas Chrysoverg (983–995) again zealously rebelled against Roman abuses; his successor Sisinius considered it necessary to send out another time to protect the ancient statutes of the Church from these abuses, the district letter of Photius to all the archpastors of the East; Sisinius's successor, Sergius (since 999), was forced at the new Council of Constantinople to repeat the very condemnation against the Latins and to forever exclude the name of their high priest from church monuments; and after some forty or fifty years, the Roman Church had already decisively fallen away from the universal Church. It had to happen that during this very period of the final falling away from Orthodoxy of one Church in the West, the final establishment of another True Orthodox Church in the north of Europe took place... The Russian Church could have established itself much earlier, could have received a complete structure from the time of Askold and Dir, or under Igor, or under Grand Duchess Olga, if there had been God’s decree for this. And yet, exactly the whole century, during which the ancient world began to settle between East and West, passes for it completely fruitlessly: in Russia the Christian faith continued to exist, even strengthened and spread more and more, despite all that there is a constant higher church hierarchy, we do not see a proper church structure at all. But now the moment of the decisive falling away of the Roman Church from the truth of Orthodoxy is approaching, and God, who does not waste His miracles in vain, uses all natural and supernatural means to convert the Russian Prince Vladimir to Christianity, to give him as an enlightener of Russia and through him to finally form the Russian Church. What then? Is this really just an accident? An accident in the founding of the Church, whose purpose in the human race is always the most important and highest? Is it an accident where amazing, supernatural events directly indicate some special intention of Providence? And after about a thousand years have passed since the founding of our Russian Church, since the Wisdom of God has sufficiently justified itself in works and revealed itself to us in events, can we also not understand this all-good intention for us? The Roman Church, this rebellious daughter, ruled by the spirit of pride, so contrary to the spirit of the Gospel, has not yet returned to the loving bosom of her Mother, but the Russian Church, which God raised as necessary in the era of the first apostasy, has now achieved the most perfect prosperity and counts her children in the millions throughout more than a sixth of the continent of our entire planet... Doesn’t this indicate the high destiny of our Russian Church? from the first minute of its existence - to fill in the composition of the Universal Church the falling away from it of the Roman Church, which was once one of its first, best and most extensive branches? Let us turn, in particular, to the East, from where the holy faith was brought to us. What picture did he imagine at that time? The picture is bright and at the same time sad: the internal state of the Christian Church in the East was bright and joyful then; its external state was gloomy and sad. But both had special significance for us. Considering the Eastern Church from the first point of view and comparing it with the Western Church of that time, we are involuntarily excited to thank the Lord, who arranged it so that our ancestors accepted the faith not from Rome, but from Byzantium. The first advantage that the East had over the West at that time and which, together with faith, communicated to us, is the advantage of enlightenment, which is so necessary for the well-being of the Church. In Greece, enlightenment was supported, if not at a high level, at least to a fairly significant extent; it was supported more than in all other Christian countries. In Greece, he was assisted during that period by more or less several emperors, such as: in the first half of the 9th century. Emperor Theophilus, father of Michael III, under whom the first baptism of Russia followed; by the end of the 9th century. Emperor Basil the Macedonian, who highly valued the sciences, which he tried to enlighten all members of his family and, in the hours free from royal affairs, willingly studied himself; at the beginning of the 10th century Emperor Leo the Wise, named by this name as much for his personal love of wisdom and learned studies as for his patronage and encouragement of others to similar works; finally, about half of the 10th century. Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who surpassed all his immediate predecessors in this field. Contemporaries call him the direct restorer of the fallen enlightenment in Greece. He gathered men distinguished in their learning and ordered them to teach philosophy, rhetoric, geometry, astronomy and other sciences; He himself personally observed the successes of the young men, daily invited some of them to his royal table, encouraged others with monetary benefits, and still others with affectionate treatment and praise. And a little time passed before from these young men many learned and educated people emerged at all levels of social life. The emperor entrusted the best of them with the most important positions in the state and the Church - the positions of judges, senators, bishops, metropolitans, and thus, according to eyewitnesses, he adorned and enriched the entire Roman state with wisdom. At his command and with his direct participation, several works on history, agriculture, medicine and other branches of knowledge were compiled as a guide for subsequent generations. All this happened in the days of that sovereign, when our Grand Duchess Olga visited Constantinople. Of these enlightened people, no doubt, many were still carrying out their careers with honor even at the time when, thirty years later, Grand Duke Vladimir accepted the holy faith from Greece and Christian teachers. And what were the chief saints of Constantinople in particular, who communicated to us both the holy faith and teachers? For the first time, Rus' was baptized under Patriarch Photius, who, as everyone knows, with his extraordinary talents and learning stood above his age; in another, under Patriarch Polyeuctus, who was so distinguished by his holiness, wisdom and eloquence that many contemporaries called him the second Chrysostom, and the emperor himself rejoiced heartily, having been honored to have such a great husband during the days of his reign; finally, for the last time - under Patriarch Nicholas Chrysoverge, again a highly enlightened, zealous and pious shepherd, who, according to the chroniclers, was an adornment of the Holy See. We see a completely different kind of spectacle at that time in Western Europe. We can safely say that never, neither before nor after, has the West so accurately justified its name in relation to enlightenment. The sciences planted there by Charlemagne and supported by some of his successors, due to political circumstances, now came into extreme neglect and decline: no one supported them, no one encouraged them, and their pursuit was the private affair of a few. Roman historians themselves admit that among all the centuries, in terms of the poverty of enlightenment, there was for the West nothing like the ninth and, especially, the tenth, which is rightly called the dark or iron age. And only in such centuries of general ignorance of the laity and clergy could the notorious decretals of the imaginary Isidore of Seville appear and be unanimously accepted - a matter of cunning and deception for the elevation of papal power, the forgery of which is so gross and obvious that the most ardent champions of this power are now involuntarily ashamed of it. The importance of Greek enlightenment increased even more for us because it was then available to our ancestors through the Bulgarians in the sounds of their native word. In Bulgaria, after the great work of the Slavic apostles, science began very quickly in the schools they established and throughout the entire 10th century, especially under the patronage of the book-lover Tsar Simeon, it flourished in full bloom. There, at that time, many writings of the ancient teachers of the Church were translated into the Slavic language, many original pious works appeared, some manuals for schools were prepared in translation from Greek, such as: grammar, philosophy and theology of St. John of Damascus, church and civil history - so that when the enlightener of Russia, having enlightened her with faith, decided to plant science in her, all the necessary manuals for this were already prepared in the language for the first time Slavic – a circumstance of extreme importance! And this alone can explain to us why enlightenment took root so quickly and successfully on our domestic soil, and how, forty or fifty years after the baptism of Vladimir, Hilarion, a man of deep theological learning, could appear among us, and a century later, even the eloquent and highly enlightened Nestor the Chronicler and the golden-tongued Cyril of Turov. Could we hope for such help from the West, having accepted faith from it, no matter how high the level of enlightenment there?.. Another, incomparably most important advantage, which the East already had over the West at that time and which it communicated to us, is the holy Orthodox faith of Christ itself. The time of planting of our Church is a very remarkable time in this regard. Then the period of the most important heresies that tried to shake Christianity at its very foundations had already ended; the fundamental dogmas of Orthodoxy, especially those subject to controversy and controversy, have already been thoroughly examined, righteously and piously defined and approved with the permission of the Holy Spirit himself at the seven Ecumenical Councils, and in general all the truths of the Christian faith, general and particular, dogmatic and moral, ritual and canonical, in all their details and applications have already been fully revealed, thoroughly proven and defended in numerous scriptures of the wise teachers of the Church of the first eight centuries. All that remained was to stand firmly on these seven pillars and the supports touching them, on which the Wisdom of God created and established a home for itself for all subsequent centuries; It remained to preserve in all purity and integrity the ancient faith of the fathers and the best times of Christianity, the faith by which countless hosts of confessors, martyrs, ascetics, saints and people of all kinds and ranks had already been saved. In the East, this was how it was, everyone was jealous and concerned about it: shepherds and flocks, and during the two centuries when the holy faith was implanted among us, not a single new heresy appeared in all the countries of the East, and the remnants of ancient heresies, such as the Nestorians, Monophysites and Paulicians, being persecuted and eradicated, especially in Greece itself, became almost invisible - triumphant everywhere Orthodoxy. The zeal of the Eastern shepherds in maintaining the purity of the faith even extended beyond the boundaries of their flock - and so, as soon as the news spread among them that in the countries of the Roman Pontiff, in opposition to the ancient statutes of the Church, in opposition to the rules of the holy apostles, holy councils and holy fathers, certain innovations had been accepted and used - suddenly a thousand Orthodox bishops hastened to the Council of Constantinople and condemned these innovations. We know at that time the worthy high priests of Constantinople, who, not sparing themselves to keep intact the sacred statutes of the Church, boldly proclaimed the truth to the crown bearers themselves. Add to all this the fact that throughout the entire kingdom of Greece the blood of countless martyrs was fresh at that time, who joyfully tasted death for the veneration of icons during the inhuman persecutions that had stopped shortly before, and in the countries of Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt, where Islamism had already established its terrible rule, hundreds of Christians flocked to all kinds of torture for confessing the name of Christ - and you will have an idea of what love for the fatherly faith then inspired all the sons of the Eastern Orthodox Church. In general, the deepest respect for everything that the sacred Christian antiquity believed according to the instructions of the Savior himself and the holy apostles, that the holy Ecumenical and local Councils determined and approved, that the holy fathers of the Church bequeathed in their writings, was then universal, constant, ineradicable in the East. And this respect, as one of the main dogmas, was commanded by the Greeks to us in that very Creed that the enlightener of Russia brought from Kherson to his fatherland; this dogma, along with other members of the faith, has since been constantly repeated in their short confessions by all our archpastors before assuming high rank. But it was not so then in the West of Europe: there it was at this very time, i.e., towards the end of the ninth and the beginning of the tenth century, that for the first time they began to deliberately distort some dogmas and ancient statutes of the Church; many innovations, which little by little had entered the Roman Church even earlier in the form of private opinions and were used only locally, now, in defiance of the East, which dared to denounce them, received, according to the voice of the popes, universal importance for their flock or were even elevated to the level of dogmas. This should especially be said in relation to the two main errors of the Roman Church: the doctrine of the primacy of the pope and the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit and from the Son. The love of power of the popes and their views on supreme dominion in the Church have been revealed more than once before; but still they were not so open, not so decisive and constant, not so extensive. But when did this immense pride of the Vatican, which began in the first half of the 9th century. The East resisted, especially relying on the false decretals of Isidore; the popes stretched it to the last degree. Pope Nicholas I, who was then sitting on the throne, was the first to begin to spread in his letters the never-heard-of idea that the Roman throne has the right to judge everyone on earth, even emperors and patriarchs, without being subject to anyone's judgment; and Nicholas’ successor Adrian, through his missionaries in Constantinople, even decreed at the Council (the lawless one that was held against Photius in 869) that the power of the Roman Pontiff is higher than the power of the Ecumenical Councils themselves, which therefore do not have the right to judge him. Since then, the maintenance and spread of this false teaching has become the favorite subject of concern for all subsequent popes and their champions to this day. The doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit and from the Son was also known in the West in the 7th and 8th centuries, but is known only as the opinion of some scientists; little by little it was accepted in the Gallican Church, at the insistence of Charlemagne, it soon penetrated into Germany and Spain, and, however, many of the scientists even in those countries clearly resisted it; Pope Leo III himself solemnly rejected this addition as incompatible with the ancient Creed, and in the entire Italian Church it was indeed not used. But the Council of Eastern Bishops under Photius condemns this innovation - and the unyielding Pope decides to elevate it to the level of dogma, condemning the Eastern High Hierarchs for their counter-thought and ordering the Archbishop of Rheims Ginkmar, who was then considered the most learned man in the West, to defend the newly invented one at all costs, contrary to the teachings of the Holy Councils and Holy Fathers dogma of his Church. Such was the principle imprudently adopted at this time by the Roman Catholics for their doctrine! In words they continued to assert, as they still maintain, that their Church sacredly follows the definitions of the Councils and the ancient Holy Fathers, but in reality it was completely different: they decided to arbitrarily interpret the Holy Scriptures in order to somehow defend and defend their innovations, which were completely inconsistent with the teachings of both the Holy Councils and the Holy Fathers; they have decided - and cannot abandon this disastrous determination without simultaneously abandoning the innovations themselves; they decided - and opened a free entrance into the depths of their Church to all the religious upheavals that it has experienced since then and is still experiencing. What happiness for us that we did not accept faith from the pope at that time! From the beginnings of papism, Lutheranism necessarily degenerated with all its modifications and the horrors of the Reformation; From Lutheranism, like an inevitable fruit, rationalism has now blossomed - and then?.. Yes, this cup passes us by... And was it not precisely because of these proud and stubborn resistance of the Roman high priests to the truth of Orthodoxy that the Lord allowed at that time to appear in their pulpit in all the nakedness of the abomination of desolation, which has never been seen and which all sane people are involuntarily amazed? Let us not even mention how Lutheran writers look at the popes who lived towards the end of the 9th century and throughout the 10th century, although their strict judgment in the present case turns out to be completely impartial, but let us call the champions of papal power themselves as witnesses. They directly call these times the most unfortunate of all that have ever happened for the Roman Church, they call these popes monsters, the most vile in life, the most depraved in morals, and consider it difficult for themselves only to talk about their unheard-of iniquities. They even admit that everything that the Roman Church suffered from pagan emperors, from heretics and from all the persecutors who have ever been - all this was just child's play in comparison with the disasters that it suffered during the 9th and especially the 10th centuries. from their unworthy high priests. Like shadows and ghosts, they appeared one after another on the high priestly throne, some for a year, some for two, some for several months, and seemed to be in a hurry to surpass each other in debauchery, greed and all kinds of iniquities, very often leaving all power over their flock in the hands of indecent women. As they lived, in the same way, for the most part) and died: some in exile, some in prison, some at the hands of the executioner, often after death being subjected to extreme abuse from the very mob that was previously ruled. As the archpastors were, so were the shepherds subordinate to them: owning large estates, taking advantage of the ignorance of the people, they indulged in all sensual pleasures and vices and forced the best of their co-religionists to mourn the fate of their native Church. Oh, how different these morals of the Roman clergy are from the morals of the Orthodox clergy in the East! What a difference, especially between the morals of the popes of that time and the morals of the Patriarchs of Constantinople! Of the thirteen high priests who sat in the Byzantine cathedra during the planting of our Church, four, namely: Ignatius (867–877), Stephen I (886–893), Anthony II Cauleus (893–895) and Tryphon (928–933), were canonized by the Orthodox Church, and Anthony - even by the Church. Western; seven more: Nicholas Mysticus (895–906 and 911–925), Stephen II (925–928), Euthymius I (906–911), Polyeuctus (956–970), Basil I Scamandrine (970–974), Anthony III the Studite (974–984) and Nicholas Chrysovergus (984–996), according to contemporaries, were distinguished by more or less true holiness and many pastoral virtues, and some, moreover, by the lofty exploits of the strictest ascetic life, which the Roman writers themselves involuntarily agree with; another one - the wise Photius (857-867 and 877-886), although he was subjected to countless slander from his enemies and papists, who have not yet ceased to denigrate the memory of the great man, but in all fairness he was and is revered by the Orthodox as an ardent zealot of the faith and a champion of the truth, who adorned himself with suffering for the truth. And only one - Theophylact (933-956), the son of Emperor Roman Lecapinus, elevated to the patriarchal throne by vow and the irresistible desire of his father in his early youth (in the 17th year), did not at all understand the responsibilities of his high rank and, being mostly engaged in children's games and some secular entertainment, unworthily bore the name of the high priest. At the same time, modern chroniclers testify to the piety that flourished in the holy abodes and deserts of Greece and the East; they mention many holy men with whom the emperors themselves loved to talk, about great ascetics who possessed the gift of clairvoyance, miraculous healings and other spiritual gifts; and the most detailed biographies of the Monk Athanasius of Athos (July 5), Michael Malein (July 12), Luke, the new stylite (December 11), Paul of Latre (December 15), with whom Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus and the Bulgarian Tsar Peter corresponded, Nikon the Armenian and others perfectly justify these testimonies. We do not at all think of asserting that the 9th and 10th centuries. in terms of the state of piety in the East, they could be quite equal to the best, leading centuries of Christianity, but we will never agree to call these centuries times of decline of piety, when it was still so alive in those who were appointed to be models and leaders of others towards moral perfection. And can we remember here without a feeling of sincere gratitude that these worthy Greek shepherds, having communicated to us the holy Orthodox faith in all its purity and integrity, at the same time communicated to the Russian people the spirit of ancient Christian piety? Our first high priest, who came to us from Greece, was a man of high holiness, who was later canonized as a saint, and a few years later true asceticism was transferred to us from the holy Mount Athos, which so quickly flourished in the mountains of Kyiv and soon spread throughout the entire expanse of the Russian land. There was, as we have already noted, a gloomy side to the then state of the Orthodox Church in the East; there were disasters that it suffered, there was a danger that threatened it. But these disasters and danger, without having any harmful influence on the foundation of our Church then, at the present time only give us the opportunity to conclude about the high purpose of this latter. Most of the eastern countries, where the Orthodox lived, had long been under the rule of infidels. Syria and Egypt, which contained three patriarchates: Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch, then represented a pitiful disgrace, where the wild fanaticism of the ardent worshipers of the Alkoran operated with all its unbridledness. Christianity was persecuted by all means, supplanted, eradicated, the number of its followers decreased more and more, its sanctuaries were destroyed or turned into mosques. In the Byzantine Empire alone, the Orthodox still freely professed their holy faith, under the authority of the same-faith sovereigns - but what kind of empire was this? Devastated for many centuries by the raids of northern barbarians, weakened by the fall of Italy and many countries of the East, weakened by numerous bloody wars with the Persians and Saracens, finally shaken several times to its very foundations by internal unrest on the occasion of various heresies, especially from the Monophysites, Monothelites and iconoclasts, then Greece was almost a ghost of a once so powerful political body. Inside this body lay an incurable disease, which little by little but inevitably brought him closer to the grave. Extreme unrest in the succession to the throne, in administration and in all branches of state life, despite all the good care of some worthy monarchs who occupied the throne in recent times, and on the other hand, the terrible hordes of hitherto almost invincible sons of Islam that were increasingly approaching the very heart of the empire, menacingly foreshadowed to the whole world that the last hour was approaching for this famous kingdom, which had completed its high destiny for the world in general, and in particular for the world Christian. What then? Will the Lord really leave his true Church in oblivion? Will he really not show her a new place where she would flourish over time just as she had previously flourished in the East? Will He really not prepare for her a new powerful guardian and defender in a new powerful kingdom when Byzantium falls under the blows of Islamism? And so, at the very time when Orthodoxy was already being persecuted in the countries of Africa and Asia, and Greece, its last refuge in Europe and throughout the world, quickly inclined to fall, seemed to refuse to be its reliable repository. The Almighty is erecting a new kingdom in the north of Europe, not sparing even miracles in order to enlighten this kingdom with the light of the true faith, planting a new Church in it and thereby pointing both the Church and the state to their high destiny: one - to once become the main guardian of the purity of Orthodoxy for the entire Christian world, the other - to be the firmest bulwark for the preservation of the Orthodox Church itself. Who could have understood this then? And who does not understand this now? Having left the East, let us move on to the countries now occupied by our fatherland. What was remarkable here during the planting of our Church (866–992)? The very first attraction of that time within the current borders of our fatherland, without any doubt, was the foundation of the Russian kingdom. Apparently, there was no connection between this great event and the planting of the Russian Church that was taking place at that time: both of them took place separately and independently; there and here there were different actors, different goals; everything went in its own special order. And yet, both of these events took place in one people; both of these events surprisingly coincide with each other in their beginning, and in their continuation, and in their end. At once, almost in one year, the first foundations of the Russian state and the Russian Church were laid; then, as if hand in hand, they settled down little by little over the course of a whole century; Almost at once they received a complete, final education. And if we remember (which the historian must always remember), if we remember that here, as in all other events of the world, despite all the differences in appearance, there was one invisible, most important Actor - God, Who moves and directs everything towards one high goal, albeit in different ways - then can we not come to the question: what does such an exact coincidence of two most important events that took place in the same people mean? Why did the Lord please that our fatherland and our Church should arise and be formed together? Didn’t He want to combine them with each other from the first minute with the most inseparable bonds, just as He combines the soul with the body in a person? Didn’t He want that from then on, like the soul and body, they would form one inseparable being, live one common life, completely preserving their distinctive properties? The Church of Christ, in the words of Her Divine Founder himself, is a kingdom of this world (Jn. 18, 36); its only goal is to revive and educate people for the future and prepare them for eternal bliss in heaven. But at the same time, as a true planter of piety in humanity, she carries within herself the promise of the present life (1 Tim. 4:8); at the same time, it can have the most beneficial influence on the temporary fate of both individuals and entire nations, be their best guide on the path of civil improvement, the primary maker of inner peace, contentment and happiness in states and their most reliable savior in the days of storms and political unrest. On the other hand, every earthly kingdom in its structure is completely different from the Kingdom of God on earth - the Church of Christ - and has as its essential goal the temporary happiness and prosperity of people in all its forms. Meanwhile, it can serve as the most important aid for the Church that exists in its depths; can contribute to the development and prosperity of various branches of not only external, but in some way also internal life - so that we may live a quiet and silent life in all godliness and purity (1 Tim. 2:2); can be a powerful patron, guardian and protector of her from all enemies, internal and external. So, is it not this mutual, so beneficial and natural assistance to each other that the Almighty predicted for the Russian people and the Russian Church, combining them from the very beginning? Blessed be the Lord Jesus Christ, let us say following our holy leader-chronicler, ending with him our story about the beginning of the Russian Church, blessed be the Lord Jesus Christ, who loved the new people, the Russian land, and enlightened with holy baptism, who, through the mouth of his first-called apostle, predicted the future establishment and triumph of Christianity in the countries of desert Scythia, prepared then little by little, over the course of many centuries, this great event and, when the time predetermined by Him finally arrived, it erected the Russian Church as necessary for such lofty goals - both for the human race in general, and for the Christian world in particular, and - most immediately - for that vast region that now constitutes the Russian world proper!.. How She has since strived for her high destiny with the direct assistance of her most invisible Master and Head, what obstacles she has encountered on the way, how she has fought against them, defeated them, and triumphed, and to what extent she has already achieved one or another of her private goals - this is the task and subject for the history of the Russian Church. in countries inhabited by infidels (lat.) You might be interested in: