St. Cyprian, Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Russia

Cyprian was greeted unfavorably in Russia when he first appeared there to take the metropolitan throne (1377). At that time, the Supreme Shepherd of the Russian Church, St. Alexy, before whom all Rus' revered. Having received a negative response from the Archbishop of Novgorod to his proposal to accept the rank of metropolitan, Cyprian stopped in Kiev, waiting for more favorable circumstances in the future. About a year has passed. St. Alexy reposed (February 12, 1380). Grand Duke Dimitri Ioannovich did not at all think of inviting Cyprian to his place. He wanted to have his spiritual father and favorite, Spassky Archimandrite Michael 1, as his metropolitan. True, neither the Bishops nor the other clergy shared this desire with him; The monks even prayed to God that He would not allow Mityai, whom they did not love, to become a metropolitan 2: but the Grand Duke did not change his intentions. Only, in order to win over the general opinion towards him, he was in no hurry to appoint the elected one. Meanwhile, Mikhail, by his behavior, really justified the dislike of the clergy towards him. The humility befitting the monastic rank was not visible in him. While still an archimandrite, he allowed himself to be adorned with a holy mantle and a white hood, and to use the metropolitan staff; moved from the Spassky Monastery to the courtyard of the metropolitan, and assumed control of all courts, all church collections 3. At first, he decided to go to Constantinople to be ordained metropolitan, according to the established procedure: but then, probably fearing the difficulties of obtaining the metropolitan throne during the life of Cyprian, who had been installed in Constantinople, little by little he began to incline the Grand Duke’s thoughts towards having the ordination performed in Moscow by Russian bishops. The Grand Duke did not resist such suggestion; convened bishops to Moscow for council. No one contradicted his wishes, except for the Bishop of Suzdal Dionysius, who dared to assert that such an unauthorized consecration of a metropolitan would be contrary to church rules 4 . The voice of the bishop, respected for his virtues, a friend of St. Sergius of Radonezh, was accepted by the Grand Duke, and Michael was cruelly offended by the destruction of his dream. There were people who intensified the disagreement; They pointed out to the betrothed metropolitan that Dionysius did not want to show him any respect, that, having arrived in Moscow, he did not appear to Michael to receive the blessing. At the first opportunity, Mikhail expressed his displeasure at this to the Bishop of Suzdal. He answered: “It was not I who should have come to you, but you who should have come to me. I am the Bishop, you are nothing more than a priest." Irritated by this answer, Mikhail objected: “You consider me nothing more than a priest; and I will make you less than a priest; with my own hands I argue with your mantle of the tablet, just to return from Constantinople” 5. After such a quarrel, Dionysius found it necessary to go to Constantinople. Having learned about this, Mikhail convinced V. Prince to detain the Bishop of Suzdal in Russia, at least until a year had passed after Mikhailov’s consecration. Demetrius took his measures; He kept Dionysius under strict supervision and did not let him leave Moscow until he assured V. Prince that he was no longer thinking about traveling to Constantinople, and presented the Abbot of Radonezh as a guarantor for the fidelity of his word. Having thus received freedom, the Bishop of Suzdal retired to Nizhny Novgorod, and from there he immediately went by water to Constantinople. Then Mikhail, angry with Dionysius and his guarantor, began to hurry with his departure. He went with a huge retinue of clergy and secular persons: with him were three archimandrites: John Petrovsky from Moscow, Pimen Pereyaslavsky and Martin Kolomensky - the archpriest of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral and the clergy of the Vladimir Cathedral Church, the metropolitan printer and two translators, the metropolitan boyars and servants. With them, V. Prince released his boyar, to whom he entrusted the management of the retinue, which represented an entire regiment, and gave Mikhail “unwritten charters” under his seal, in case of need for money. After all the preparations, Michael finally set out from Moscow (in July 1379), accompanied by the V. Prince himself and his children and all the Russian Lords 6 . On the way, outside of Ryazan, Mikhail was detained in the Horde: however, he was soon released without difficulty and even received from Khan Atyulyak, or Tyulubek, Mamaev’s nephew, a label in which he was called metropolitan 7. But God’s judgment opened on the uncalled: almost in the pier of Tsaryagrad itself, Mikhail, in sight of its walls, died. Mikhail's companions did not want to return to Moscow with nothing; They decided to elect his successor from the remaining archimandrites. Some leaned in favor of Petrovsky John, others elected Pereyaslavsky Pimen. The boyars also lent their voices in favor of the latter, and on one of the white sheets given by V. the Prince they wrote on his behalf a request to appoint Pimen as metropolitan, and Archimandrite John, who threatened to reveal all their machinations, was put in chains. Thus, Pimen came to the patriarch for initiation. But in Constantinople Cyprian had long been expecting the most favorable circumstances. Left in oblivion when the metropolitan see in Moscow became idle, he, after a two-year stay in Kyiv, decided to seek his rights again in Constantinople. There he no longer found his ordainer, Blessed Philotheus, on the patriarchal throne. With the subsequent change in the Empire, he was removed to a monastery, and in his place, without conciliar election, solely under the influence of the then Emperor, Macarius was elevated, who had nothing in common in spirit with his predecessor. But his patron himself unexpectedly lost his throne. The council declared Macarius the thief of the priesthood and put him in prison. This sentence was signed, among other things, by our Metropolitan Cyprian 8. In place of Macarius, the Nile was erected (1380–1388), with which the Russian Metropolis repeatedly had relations. The plans of the inquisitive Pimen forced Cyprian to rush to Russia: but either the Genoese ships at sea or Amuratov’s war on land detained him within the walls of Constantinople. Finally, after a thirteen-month stay here, he went to Kiev, with the hope of a better turn of affairs, after the death of the Grand Duke's favorite. Indeed, as soon as he appeared in Kyiv, V. Prince, having heard about the death of Mitya and the assassination attempts of Pimen, whom he did not want to see at the see of St. Peter and Alexy, sent there his spiritual father, Simon's abbot Theodore, to ask Cyprian to come to Moscow to the see of the metropolis. Cyprian appeared in Moscow on May 23, 1381, and was received with all solemnity by the V. Prince and the people 9. Russia then celebrated its glorious victory over the hordes of Mamai (September 8, 1380). The main participation in this battle belonged to V.K. Moskovsky Dimitri Ioannovich. This event revealed the significance of Moscow; all the efforts of her princes to concentrate power in her were justified; Daniel's family was covered with new glory. Metropolitan Cyprian, sympathizing with the joy of Russia, and especially Moscow, in the first year of his reign, “by the life of St. Peter" reminded the residents of the capital that Moscow began to rise from the time the saint transferred his see to it, that in this rise of Moscow and its triumph over its enemies, the prophetic word of the first saint, who rested in it, to his son Daniel was fulfilled: "If you listen to me, my son, you will erect the church of the Most Pure Mother of God in your city, and you yourself will become more famous other princes, and your sons, and your grandchildren throughout the generations, and this city will be glorious in all Russian cities; his hands will rise up on the shoulders of his enemy.” Standing at his tomb, Cyprian also recalled how peacefully the saint and the prince lived then, helping each other. “There was unceasing spiritual joy in the midst of both: I listen to the prince in everything and bestow great honor on my father, according to the Lord’s command, speaking to His disciples: accept you, He accepts Me, but I will again be close to the saint and my prince regarding mental and physical matters” 10. Having taken the chair of Petrov, which had been disputed for a long time, Cyprian found it necessary to add to his narrative how he himself, during his last stay in Constantinople, oppressed by enemies, overcome by illness, as soon as he appealed to St. saint for help, as he received free passage to Russia and relief from illness 11. It seemed that one could expect lasting peace and harmony between V. Prince and the new high priest of Moscow. When concluding a peace treaty with Oleg, Prince of Ryazan, V. Prince invited the Metropolitan to participate 12. When news arrived that Mikhailov's companion, Pimen, with the help of money 13 managed to achieve the dignity of metropolitan, and was traveling from Constantinople to Moscow: then V. Prince, having once recognized Cyprian as his metropolitan, did not want to see his rival; not allowing him to reach the capital, he ordered that the signs of his high rank, which he had illegally admired, be taken away from him, and he himself be taken to Chukhloma, from where a year later he was transferred to Tver. But after Tokhtamyshev’s invasion of Moscow, the relationship between V. Prince and the Metropolitan changed completely. This invasion was so sudden that V. Prince did not have time to gather his forces to repel the enemy, and was forced to leave Moscow. The people were worried; some prepared to remain under siege, others abandoned the city; but they were not allowed to leave, their property was taken away from them. The Metropolitan, who returned to Moscow from Novgorod 14 only two days before the start of the siege (August 23, 1382), tried in vain to calm the restless citizens. Nobody listened to him. Therefore, finding his presence useless for the capital, Cyprian decided to leave it together with V. Princess Evdokia. Robbed, like others fleeing Moscow, he sought safety in Tver. This removal from Moscow, and the fact that Cyprian sought refuge with the Prince of Tver, who did not want to take any part in repelling the enemy, and the first then sent to Tokhtamysh to ask for approval for the century. the princely throne - all this gave the Prince a very unfavorable opinion about Cyprian. After the removal of Tokhtamysh, returning to Moscow, he did not hesitate to send his boyars to Tver for Cyprian (October 7, 1382), and, reproaching him for the cowardly abandonment of his flock 15, released him completely from Moscow, calling from Tver the previously disgraced Pimen. Thus, Cyprian again went to Kyiv, from where seventeen months ago he was called to Moscow. One of the disciples of St. Sergius, who served as abbot at the Serpukhov Monastery for eight years, Afanasy 16, voluntarily shared his exile with him. Moscow presented a pitiful sight after the devastation caused by Tokhtamysh. All its churches and monasteries were plundered and desecrated by enemies who did not respect any shrine, who craved only gold and silver; many clergy were put to death, including two archimandrites and several abbots; More than twenty thousand corpses lay on the city streets, in houses and churches, and there was no one to perform the funeral service or bury them. Some surrounding cities suffered the same thing: Vladimir, Zvenigorod, Mozhaisk, Pereyaslavl 17. This is the position in which Pimen received his flock! - However, although V. Prince called him to manage the metropolis, he, without having a power of attorney for him, soon sent Hegumen of Simon Theodore to Constantinople to ask for new orders from the Patriarch regarding the Russian Metropolis (in June 1383) 18 . Not long before this, Bishop Dionysius of Suzdal returned with Theodore to Constantinople (at the end of 1382) and received the rank of Archbishop from the Patriarch 19 . In Constantinople, probably at the request of the V. Prince, Dionysius was installed as Metropolitan of All Russia even before the two who had been appointed before were legally replaced: Cyprian and Pimen. Theodore was elevated to the rank of archimandrite, with the direct subordination of the Simonovsky monastery to the Patriarch himself, as stauropegic. At the same time, the Patriarch sent two metropolitans to Russia to summon Pimen to trial in Constantinople (1384) 20 . But Dionysius, intending, following the example of his predecessors, to first visit Kyiv, as the capital city of his metropolitanate, was detained there by Prince Vladimir of Kyiv, who met him with a reproach: why did he go to be appointed metropolitan without the consent of all the Russian Princes? Here Dionysius died a year later, not having had time to enjoy the honors of the highest rank, but having managed to win for himself the crown of truth in heaven 21. Pimen reluctantly went to the Patriarch for trial: he was not accompanied by a huge retinue, as Michael had been before. A few months after the arrival of the patriarchal ambassadors (May 9, 1385), with one abbot of Rostov Abraham, he sailed along the Volga to Sarai, and from there to Constantinople 22. He stayed here for three years, leaving his metropolitanate without charity, which required the personal presence of the archpastor. V. The Prince again sent his confessor, Archimandrite Theodore, to the Patriarch, who took the main part in all relations regarding the affairs of the metropolis 23. Finally, Pimen returned from Constantinople (July 6, 1388), owing even more debt to foreign merchants, 24 but with rights to the metropolis only in Moscow. Kyiv was given to Patriarch Cyprian, who himself was then in Constantinople 25. But Pimen had no luck this time either. Soon disputes opened up between him and V. Prince. Therefore, after nine months, he decided to go to Constantinople again, and, fearing that V. Prince would not agree to this, on Holy Week, probably during his absence from Moscow, he left secretly, taking Michael Bishop with him. Smolensky, Archimandrite of the Spassky Grand Ducal Monastery Sergius and others 26. Dissatisfied with this act, V. Prince after him sent Bishop Theodore of Rostov to Constantinople again, it seems for reconciliation with Cyprian 27 . All disputes were finally resolved by the fact that Pimen, barely reaching Constantinople, died (September 11, 1389), and even earlier V. Prince himself (May 19). Frequent relations with Constantinople on church affairs under V. Prince Dimitri Ioannovich show that, after the happy wars with the Tatars, more convenience opened up, or at least the Russians had more courage to travel through their uluses. In the Constantinople Baptist Monastery, some monks remained to live forever 28. Among them was the Serpukhov abbot, Ave. Athanasius, who left Russia with Cyprian. Returning now to his throne in Moscow, Cyprian begged this elder to go with him, promising him the highest honors. But the disciple of the humble Sergius, content with the wretched cell, refused: “this cell, he said, is better for me than any honors” 29. Blessed by the new Patriarch of Constantinople Anthony again for the entire Russian Metropolis, Cyprian 1 Oct. 1389 set off on the journey, taking with him two Greek metropolitans, Theodore Archbishop of Rostov, Michael of Smolensk and Jonah of Volyn 30. Cyprian's long stay in Constantinople exhausted the meager means of supporting him; he had to resort to a loan 31. Leaving Greece, he was forever separated from his neighboring fatherland - Serbia, at a time when the Turks devastated his native land and in the Battle of Kossovo put an end to the Serbian State, which had recently been adorned with the title of Empire. After the first failure in Russia, he managed to visit his native city of Ternov, where the Bulgarian Patriarch Euthymius gave him a solemn welcome 32. By loving to study books, he could take with him from Bulgaria and Serbia and thus preserve from destruction the fruits of spiritual education that were preserved there 33 . In Constantinople itself, where he was forced to stay for quite some time waiting for a change in circumstances, he was engaged in copying church books in the Studite monastery 34. Knowing, from his first stay in Moscow, what we had from book works and what was missing, he could bring to us translations of the works of his fathers, unknown to us; - having become well acquainted with the customs of the Church of Constantinople, which the last Patriarchs: Isidore, Philotheus and Nilus, enriched with their new creations, could transfer some new rites to the Russian Church, or bring the previous ones into conformity with the Greek ones. God gave such a Shepherd to the Russian Church after the unfortunate turmoil, within twelve years after the death of St. Alexy who shook the throne of the Metropolis! Many important matters awaited the Archpastor, who was returning to his familiar Rus'. During his absence, the Strigolnikov heresy intensified in Pskov. Lithuania, having adopted the Roman Catholic religion, threatened to suppress the beginnings of Orthodoxy and spread the unfavorable influence of Latin bishops to the Orthodox dioceses in southern Russia. In Tver, enmity between the Prince and the Bishop forced the latter to retire to a monastery. In Novgorod, a willful attempt was made to secede from the metropolitan court. But on the other hand, there was enough that could please the pious Shepherd. Perm was enlightened by the labors of one monk. Our monasteries, spreading especially in the north, became richer with new ascetics, and new ascetics with new exploits. During Kiprianov's autumn voyage across the Black Sea, a storm scattered the ships of Russian travelers. Those separated already considered each other dead: but finally everyone gathered to Belgorod on the Dniester, thanking God for salvation, unharmed 35. In mid-February 1390, Cyprian was in Kyiv, and at the beginning of March he had already arrived in Moscow. V. Prince himself, Vasily Dimitrievich, with his mother Evdokia, met him outside the city on Kotly. In the church of St. Nicholas (Old, on Nikolskaya Street) 36, Cyprian put on his clothes, and from here he solemnly walked to his throne. Russian bishops came to him for confirmation on their thrones, as to their Metropolitan 37. The Russian hierarchy then consisted of four Archbishops: Novgorod, Rostov, Suzdal and Chernigov, and fourteen Bishops 38 . Rostov and Suzdal were granted the dignity of archbishop in Constantinople, and in the Rostov diocese it passed from Theodore to his successors, but in Suzdal the successors of Euphrosynus did not have this dignity 39 . First of all, the affairs of Tver and Novgorod attracted the attention of the Metropolitan. Not yet letting go of the Greek metropolitans, Cyprian in the same year went with them to Tver, at the invitation of Tver V. Prince Mikhail Alexandrovich, for the trial of the local Bishop Euthymius, taking with him two Russian Bishops: Stephen of Perm and Mikhail of Smolensk. Euthymius Wislen, appointed Bishop of St. Alexy in 1374, known to Cyprian himself from his stay in Tver during the invasion of Tokhtamyshev, had already lived in the monastery for more than three years, having retired from the throne due to dissatisfaction with the Prince 40. The diocese was in need of an archpastor. The Prince of Tverskoy as soon as he heard about Cyprian’s approach to Tver, he sent his grandson to meet him, 30 versts from the city, his eldest son, 20 versts away, and five versts away he himself met him with his other children and boyars. For three days he then honored the Metropolitan and his companions with feasts and gifts. On the fourth day (July 6), the Council of Euthymius was opened in the chambers of the grand dukes. Many clergy appeared with accusations against their Bishop for the confusion of the Church, and Euthymius could not justify himself, and was deprived of the throne. Cyprian placed him in the Chudov Monastery, where he died two years later, and instead gave him Archdeacon Arseny as Bishop of Tver (July 24), who later became famous for his godly life 41 . It was not so easy for the caring Archpastor to console the turmoil in the Novgorod diocese. The heresy of the Strigolnikov that arose in it and the renunciation of the Novgorodians from the metropolitan court equally revealed self-will, with the difference that in the first case some dogmatic truths that lay at the basis of church institutions were questioned, in the latter we see a dispute that actually concerns governance. The Strigolniki formed a society of people dissatisfied with the existing hierarchy. The main reasons for their displeasure were that all clergy, as they assured, were appointed to their ranks on a bribe, that priests also took money for performing church services, and that they led a disorderly life. Under such pretexts, the Strigolniki did not want to accept the sacraments from their priests: Baptism, the Eucharist, or confess to them, and in general they not only rejected the local clergy, but also the highest hierarchy of the Greek-Russian and Constantinople Churches. But since they also needed mentors in their society, they appointed teachers for themselves, turning some of Ap’s sayings to their advantage. Pavel. In the same way, they arbitrarily established that repentance should be performed not before the priest, but before the one God, with bowing to the ground 42. The first false teachers, including the disrobed Deacon Karp, appeared in Pskov, moved to Novgorod, and here they were thrown from a bridge into the river by ordinary people. Volkhov; but their followers remained in Pskov. This was in the last years of the administration of the All-Russian Metropolis of St. Alexia 43. During the turmoil that followed the death of this saint in the Metropolis, Bishop Dionysius. Suzdalsky, taking advantage of his stay in Constantinople, explained the state of these affairs to Patriarch Nil, and brought a letter from him to the residents of Pskov with an admonition not to follow the false teaching of the Strigolnikov; He appeared with this letter to the Archbishop of Novgorod, traveled to Pskov, and exhorted those who had been seduced to turn to their mother Church 44. The spirit of self-will was also reflected in the relations of Novgorod to the Metropolis. In 1385, the posadniks with the boyars, living and black people, on behalf of the whole of Novgorod, at a meeting with an oath, decided not to go to Moscow for trial before the Metropolitan, but to sue according to the Nomocanon with their archbishop, inviting two boyars and two living people each from the plaintiff and the defendant 45. Judging by the main culprits of this decree and the persons elected as mediators 46, we can conclude that this determination was not actually a hierarchical separation of Novgorod from Moscow. Archbishop Alexy, apparently, did not participate in this dismissal from the metropolitan court. We see that, after the publication of such a decree, a successor to Alexius, John 47, was appointed without any difficulty. So this deposition actually did not come from the spiritual authorities in Novgorod. It is now not entirely clear to us what direct relationship secular persons could have with the Metropolitan through the courts, having their own archpastor in the Archbishop. But some chronicles, calling this court monthly 48, give reason to conclude that between Novgorod and the Metropolitan there were the same relations as between Pskov and the Archbishop of Novgorod. The Archbishop of Novgorod retained the right to a month-long trial over Pskov; in addition to the fact that he had his governor in Pskov, he could come to Pskov every three years, live here for a month at the expense of the city, collect court duties following him, regardless of tribute from the clergy (called entrance); sometimes the Archbishop came for the week of Orthodoxy, or the so-called “gathering Sunday”; in this case, he proclaimed blessed memory to the deceased benefactors of Pskov, who lived for many years, and a curse to enemies and ill-wishers. But if the Archbishop arrived later than the week of Orthodoxy, the residents of the city demanded that this rite be performed; because they believed in the power of the blessing and unblessing of the saint 49. So, if the metropolitan court is rightly called monthly: then, in all likelihood, it consisted of the same rights over Novgorod that the Archbishop of Novgorod had over Pskov. It did not concern the Archbishop himself and the Novgorod clergy, except because the Archbishop, according to the special structure of government in Novgorod, also had influence on the civil affairs of his region. But limiting itself to cases between secular persons, this court delivered to the Metropolitan a certain part of the court fees. By deferring from the Metropolitan's court, the Novgorodians had in mind to save their income and protect their independence from the influence of the Metropolitan in favor of the V. Prince of Moscow, with whom Novgorod was at enmity, rightly fearing from him the destruction of their freedom. Cyprian, while still setting out from Constantinople, took with him ambassadors and a letter from the Patriarch to assert his rights regarding the trial. This letter, in addition to the Patriarch, was signed by the Council of Metropolitans 50, of which two: Adrianople and Ghana, were themselves sent from the Patriarch. Cyprian immediately sent this letter to Novgorod: but it had no effect. Then the Metropolitan himself went to the rebellious with the Bishop of Ryazan from the Greeks. The Novgorodians made a solemn welcome to the Metropolitan (February 11, 1392); they set aside several courtyards for his large retinue; were present at his services in the St. Sophia Cathedral and in the princely courtyard; listened carefully to his teachings. But when the Metropolitan, having performed the customary rite of Orthodoxy, began to demand his trial from the Novgorodians, the posadniks and the thousand resolutely announced that they had sworn an oath not to go to Moscow for trial. No matter how hard Cyprian tried to assure them that he could remove the oath from them, they stubbornly stood by their decision, and the Metropolitan left Novgorod in strong displeasure with him 51 . To resolve the dispute with the Metropolitan, the Novgorodians sent their ambassadors to Constantinople to the Patriarch 52, and the Metropolitan sent his own. Meanwhile, V. Prince, seeing in the separation of the Novgorodians a danger for his relations with Novgorod, came out against them with troops (1393), captured Torzhok, Volok-Lamsky, Vologda and other cities. The Novgorodians, for their part, took Ustyug, Ustyuzhna and other volosts from V. Prince. There was a lot of bloodshed on both sides. Finally, the Novgorodians decided to make peace with V. Prince, who supported the rights of the Metropolitan. To do this, they used Rostov Archbishop Theodore 53 as a mediator, and sent their letter of the cross to the Metropolitan, with which they renounced his trial. Peace was concluded, and Cyprian announced to Novgorod by letter that he was lifting the oath from them 54. Soon those sent to Constantinople returned; The Bishop of Bethlehem arrived with them, who brought with him two letters from the Patriarch 55. The Patriarch's decision was not in favor of Novgorod. The Patriarch ordered to obey the Metropolitan in everything 56. Then Cyprian again went to Novgorod (1395), taking with him the patriarch's ambassador. Received by the Novgorodians with great honors, he stayed in Novgorod for more than three months, trying to arrange things peacefully. Without revealing any hostility towards the Archbishop, despite the futility of his demands, he tried to protect the inviolability of the courts of the Archbishop of Novgorod from the claims of the Pskovites 57 . He himself went to Pskov, and then sent Bishop Theodosius of Polotsk with a letter from the patriarch to admonish those infected with the Strigolnic heresy 58 . But Cyprian did not achieve the main goal of his trip to Novgorod; he was again denied access to the court 59 . However, the agreement between Novgorod and the Metropolitan was not violated. Cyprian left Novgorod peacefully, teaching the Archbishop instructions and rules on various subjects related to worship and church administration 60. Probably, the menacing rumors about the invasion of Tamerlane forced them to care about maintaining peace, even if it was at the expense of rights. This time it was enough that the Novgorodians paid all the expenses for sending an embassy to Constantinople on their case, and with significant gifts they compensated for the refusal to constantly collect court duties 61. We mentioned the invasion of Tamerlane. Indeed, Russia heard with horror that countless hordes of this conqueror, who styled himself “ruler of the world,” were approaching her borders. At the beginning of August 1395, they devastated the Ryazan borders. V. The prince decided to meet them as his father met Mamai - with weapons in his hands. Leaving the Serpukhov Prince Vladimir Andreevich in Moscow and the Metropolitan who had recently returned from Novgorod, he himself went to the banks of the Oka to Kolomna, and from there he called on his archpastor and the people to assist the defenders of Rus' with fasting and prayers; ordered to strengthen Moscow in case of a siege, and at the same time, for the safest fencing of the capital, he asked the Metropolitan to transfer from Vladimir to Moscow the image of the Most Holy Theotokos, famous for its miracles, according to legend, painted by St. Evangelist Luke 62. The appeals of V. Prince did not remain ineffective. The fast that came before the Feast of the Dormition of the Mother of God was devoted to the most ardent prayers and feats of strict self-mortification. In the churches, prayers were incessantly performed for the Prince and his warriors; The Metropolitan almost did not leave the church - he either taught those who remained in Moscow, or prayed for those going to shed their blood for the faith and the fatherland. The clergy of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, sent by him to Vladimir, took the ancient shrine into their hands on August 15 and ten days later, accompanied by many people, approached the walls of Moscow with it. On the 26th, the Metropolitan with all the clergy and residents of the capital went out of the city to meet the coming Patroness. In this countless multitude, it was impossible to see a person, says the chronicler, who would not cry and send out prayers with hope to the Most Holy Lady. And the prayer of faith was heard, the hope was not put to shame. On the very day when the icon of the Mother of God was buried in Moscow, Tamerlane left the banks of the Don, where he stood for two weeks. Was this not the obvious patronage of the Queen of Heaven not only for Moscow, but also for our entire fatherland, which was threatened with devastation from an enemy incomparably stronger than Mamai and Tokhtamysh? The formidable enslaver of the East seemed to come only to punish the devastator of Moscow Tokhtamysh, and to further weaken the ties that connected our fate with the Sarai Horde. The news of Tamerlane's removal was received with inexpressible joy in Moscow. Having confessed the mercy of God, everyone exclaimed: “It was not our commanders who drove him away, it was not our armies that frightened him, but an invisible force sent fear and trembling upon him. Driven by the wrath of God, he withdrew from the Russian land.” And when V. Prince returned with his troops to Moscow, then it was decided to build a church and a monastery at the site of the meeting of the miraculous icon of the Most Holy Theotokos, which to this day retains the name given to it from this meeting, and then it was established everywhere to celebrate the 26th of August, as the day of Russia’s deliverance from a terrible enemy 63. Five years have already passed since Cyprian ruled the affairs of the Russian Church, constantly residing in the northern half of his Metropolis. The southwestern dioceses, which were under the rule of sovereigns of other faiths, no less required his personal supervision. In Lithuania, in 1387, the Roman religion was solemnly introduced. This important change could not remain without influence on the Russian regions connected to Lithuania. In addition, in different Lithuanian cities and in the capital itself. During the reign of Lithuania, a significant number remained professing the Orthodox faith. So, at the beginning of 1396, Cyprian decided to go to survey his southwestern dioceses. The need for this was all the more urgent because at the beginning of this year, rumors spread that the Olgerds’ son Svidrigailo had died from poison given to him by the Metropolitan’s governor in Kyiv, Thomas Izufov 64 . Intending to leave his northern dioceses for a long time, Cyprian hastened to settle unfinished business here. He summoned Archbishop John to him, probably to confirm his peaceful relations with Novgorod, in order to thereby put an end to any plans of hostility against the Metropolis or V. - the reign. John was received very favorably in Moscow and released two days later 65. – The Rostov diocese lost its shepherd in November 1384. The valiant pupil of the Radonezh Monastery and a worthy relative of its founder, the first Archbishop of Rostov Theodore, not yet in his advanced years, followed his great mentor to the courts of the Lord. Cyprian chose and dedicated the God-loving Gregory in his place (March 19, 1396) 66, and after that he immediately went with the V. Prince to Smolensk, under which then stood Vytautas, the V. Prince of Lithuania, who, after the death of Svidrigail, received Kyiv under his authority. Vitovt received his son-in-law, V. Prince of Moscow, friendly. And Cyprian did not find in him a zealous adherent of the newly adopted religion. The Smolensk See remained empty at that time, although the two Bishops who occupied it: Daniel and Mikhail, were still alive. The first one was erected to St. Alexy Metropolitan, but, leaving his throne (in 1388), lived in Moscow 67. The latter was taken from the Simonov Monastery, where he was an associate of St. Theodore, later Archbishop of Rostov, and the spiritual father and mentor of St. Kirill of Beloezersky 68. Glorious for his virtues, he was installed (in 1383) as Bishop of Smolensk Met. Pimen, together with him he went to Constantinople on his third journey, but avoiding the turmoil to which the reign of Smolensk was subjected, he sought solitude in the Trinity Monastery of St. Sergius 69. Vytautas did not prevent the installation of a new Bishop of Smolensk. And the Metropolitan on the very day of Easter (1396 April 2) ordained Cassian, probably from the Smolensk clergy, to this rank 70. After that, Cyprian received permission to go to Kyiv. – Having no information about his actions in these countries, we will limit ourselves here to a brief overview of the state of the Orthodox Church in the southwestern half of the Russian Metropolis. The southwestern Russian lands were then united with either Poland or Lithuania. Poland appropriated Galicia, which contained the Orthodox dioceses of Galich and Przemysl, and extended its claims to those areas in which the dioceses of Volyn and Kholm were located. With the gradual establishment of Germans and Poles among the Russians, it was necessary to establish four dioceses of the Roman religion here: in Galich, Przemysl, Vladimir and Helm, and the Bishop of Galich, who was also called Lviv, was awarded the title of Archbishop 71. At first, Latin bishops bore only the name of their dioceses, due to the insufficiency of their flock; then, especially through the efforts of Jadwiga, Queen of Poland, they settled in their sees, but even then not all at once 72. In the Russian regions that belonged to the V. Principality of Lithuania, there were dioceses, in addition to the aforementioned Smolensk, Chernigov, Polotsk, Turov and Lutsk. In these regions, under the supreme rule of the Lithuanian princes, the rulers were partly Russian princes, partly the descendants of Gediminas, and especially the children of his sons Olgerd and Keitut. Most of these Lithuanian princes, marrying princes of the Orthodox faith, or descending from them, were brought up in it from an early age: but some, yielding to other types, changed their faith to the Latin confession. This is what Olgerd’s son Jagiello did, in the Orthodox faith Jacob, in the Latin Vladislav, in order to receive the hand of the Polish queen Jadwiga and with her the Polish throne; This is what two more of his brothers Skirigailo and Svidrigailo did, 73 who, however, retained their attachment to the Orthodox religion until the end of their lives. Vytautas followed the example of Jogaila, and at baptism into the Orthodox faith he was named Yuri, and in the Latin faith Alexander 74. Given this state of affairs, in the Lithuanian-Russian regions Orthodoxy was in more favorable circumstances than in the cities subordinate to Poland. But besides the Russian regions, the Orthodox faith was also widespread in Lithuania. In the capital of the Principality of Lithuania, Vilna, already one and a half or two centuries after the Roman religion was introduced here and barriers were put in place to the further spread of the Orthodox faith, it was still in force. Herberstein at the beginning of the 16th century. wrote that in Vilna at that time there were more churches of the Orthodox confession than the Roman one, although it was dominant 75. Another writer of the same century testifies that in Vilna the Russians had 30 stone churches 76 . Back at the end of the XIV century. There were also Orthodox monasteries there 77. In the same way, followers of the Greek-Russian religion were scattered throughout other Lithuanian cities, not forming any special dioceses, but probably being under the supervision of metropolitan governors 78 . Perhaps the time was lost to form a special diocese, if not for Lithuania, then in the vicinity of it, and at the request of its princes, when the Pskovites wanted to install a special bishop for themselves, separating from Novgorod 79 . Be that as it may, with the introduction of the Roman religion in Lithuania (1387), the position of the Orthodox here changed. It was no longer possible for Russian Pastors to again acquire followers of the Orthodox faith from pagans 80. Newly baptized Lithuanians of the Latin faith were even forbidden to marry Russians unless they submitted to the Roman Church, under threat of corporal punishment otherwise 81. Orthodox churches were openly, in public acts, called synagogues 82. Russians were rebaptized as pagans 83. There is news of victims for not agreeing to change the Orthodox faith 84 . On the other hand, Jadwiga called Venedictine monks from Prague to Krakow to perform divine services in the Slavic language, with the intention of showing the Russians the possibility of preserving divine services in a language intelligible to them with the recognition of the Pope as the head of Christianity, and founded a college in Prague itself for twelve Lithuanians who wanted to listen to theology there 85. Thus, the Polish government, caring about the establishment of the Roman religion in Lithuania, sought to limit the Orthodox. Cyprian had to endure with patience what he could not change on his own: - when insurmountable obstacles were encountered, it was timely to be compliant and benefit from the very indifference of V. Prince of Lithuania to matters of faith 86. After spending a year and a half in his wanderings, he returned to Moscow (October 7, 1397) with three Bishops of the southwestern dioceses: Michael of Smolensk, Isaac of Bryansk or Chernigov, and Theodore of Lutsk 87. Of these, we see Bishop Isaac again later at the Chernigov pulpit; Mikhail retired to the desired peace with his disciple Sergiev, St. Nikon; Theodore probably also did not return to his throne. But as soon as Cyprian left Lithuania, he was to experience new grief from one of the Orthodox Shepherds of that country. A strange act has come down to us, by which a certain Bishop John from Lutsk 88, in gratitude for the promised assistance for his installation as metropolis of Galich, pledged to donate 200 Russian hryvnia and 30 horses to the King. Such an open trade in holy orders and the unauthorized separation of dioceses from the All-Russian Metropolis to form a new one in Galich, for the first time, involuntarily makes one doubt the authenticity of the act itself. But, unfortunately, the act is not a forgery 89. Consideration of further events confirms to us that indeed the All-Russian Metropolis, even before the Council of Novogrod (1415) under Metropolitan Photius, was for a time subject to division, and that the dioceses that were actually in Galicia, then united with Poland, were separated from it, namely: Galich and Przemysl. We do not see any relations with them, M. Cyprian 90. Cyprian's successor, M. Photius, in 1414 appointing Gerasim to the episcopal see in Vladimir of Volyn, he wrote: “The Russian Church was united by the favor and grace of God and was quickly brought into the first world and established, and all divisions were abolished, and according to long-standing custom and law it was strengthened that there would be a single Metropolis from the entire Russian land, as it originally came from holy baptism and one Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus' ... and for this sake I elected the holy monk Gerasim and installed him as a bishop in the most holy bishopric of the God-saved city of Volodimer” 91. So Bishop John from Lutsk managed to achieve what he wanted and received the Galician metropolis. His name appears at the preliminary meetings of southwestern bishops on the establishment of the Lithuanian-Russian Metropolis under Photius, although in the chronicle he is not called a metropolitan 92. Galicia was also in a similar separation from the All-Russian Metropolis under St. Jonah 93. While suffering losses in the southwestern regions, the Russian Metropolis made significant gains in the northeast. The son of the Ustyug cleric, having learned from his father to read and write and perform church services, found an opportunity in a trading city to become acquainted with grammatical tricks, and wanting to further spread the circle of his information, he went to the cathedral city of his diocese, Rostov. Here he entered the monastery of St. Gregory the Theologian, near whom the Bishop lived; he chose this Abode precisely because there were many books in it. Unattached to anything worldly, the young man decided to renounce the world forever. Hegumen Maxim tonsured him and named him Stefan. This was under E. Parthenia 94. Stefan delved deeper into reading spiritual books; loved to often talk with wise elders; I tried to understand everything that was incomprehensible to myself. Of course, with this intention, he also learned Greek. Greek books could be found at the Rostov department: because a century before this, under E. It was even the custom of Cyril to conduct church services in the cathedral church to the left face in Greek, and to the right face in Slavonic 95 . But Stephen showed himself to be no less zealous in his monastic works than in his teaching. “God gave this Inca the idea of ​​enlightening the pagans close to his fatherland with Christianity. In the Dvina region, to which Ustyug belonged, many thousands of Zyryans, or, as they were called then, Permians, were stagnant in the darkness of idolatry. Their settlements then began sixty miles from Ustyug up the Dvina, from the confluence of the river. Vychegda 96. It is very likely that Stefan was familiar with their language as a child. Having a desire to be their enlightener, the zealous monk paid more attention to him, perhaps, and deliberately went to Ustyug to study him, 97 then he compiled his own alphabet for him, and began to translate church service books into this language. With these labors he finally came to Moscow. Here they willingly accepted his holy intention. Bishop Gerasim of Kolomna, having made him a hieromonk, blessed and admonished him with his instructions, provided him with St. mur, antimensions and other sacred things. And the Grand Duke, who knew him well before, having his own officials in Perm 98, could protect Stefan with his diploma in his actions. Thus, the evangelist of Christ went to the apostolic work (1379). Having descended from Ustyug along the S. Dvina until the river flows into it. Vychegda, Stefan met here the first Zyryan village - Kotlas and, enlightening it with faith, founded a church in it 99. Continuing his path along the right bank of the Vychegda, he preached the name of Christ to the pagans, leaving traces of his gospel everywhere 100. Having passed the places where Solvychegodsk and Yarensk now stand, he stopped at the confluence of the river. Vym with Vychegda, where then, apparently, was the main focus of the Zyryans 101, from where they extended further up the rivers: Vychegda, Vym and Sysole. With love, he admonished the erring, boldly destroyed their idols and idols, and courageously withstood the attack of the stubborn. Finally, the Lord allowed him to triumph over stubborn opponents, and Stefan erected the first Christian church in Ustvy in honor of the Annunciation of the Most Holy. Mother of God. He immediately introduced worship here in a language understandable to the people, opened a school for teaching literacy, and taught adults and children himself. The splendor of the church captivated the simple inhabitants of the wild region even more. But even in the midst of his successes, Stephen still had to fight with the inveterate adherents of paganism and self-seeking people, who with new faith feared the strengthening of Moscow's rule in their area and the loss of their significance 102. Among these opponents of Stephen, the biography especially mentions Nam the Centurion, with whom the dispute was finally to be resolved by testing through fire and water. The pagans invited Stephen to walk with him through the blazing fire and, if this was not enough to justify the true faith, to descend in one place under the ice of the Vychegda River in order to emerge in another. Whoever passes both tests, his faith will be recognized as right. The humble preacher of the faith of Christ, trusting in the power of the Gospel, agreed to this demand: but the enemy himself refused his proposal. The people wanted to kill the deceiver, but Stefan did not allow anything to touch him. Such love of the preacher of the faith of Christ, revealed in all his relations with those who converted and with those who were persistent, involuntarily attracted everyone to him 103 . On the other hand, they saw his complete selflessness: when he crushed the idols, all their decorations and all the offerings dedicated to them, such as the skins of various animals, which the surrounding forests were rich in, he set on fire as desecrated, without using anything from them. Having thus strengthened his acquisitions for Christ in the land of Perm and in various places that he dedicated - having already had enough baptized, or noticing the readiness to be baptized, Stefan decided to ask his new flock for a bishop: since it was difficult to refer the ordination of priests to any of the nearest dioceses. So, after four years of work in Perm, he went to Moscow with this need in mind. When his exploits became public in Moscow: some marveled at his wise measures to spread the faith, his successes among a wild and uneducated people; others reasoned: why was it necessary to invent new writing for the Perm people? Before there was no literacy in Perm. In one hundred and twenty years the world will end (for then they expected that with the end of the seventh thousand years the world would end). – If there was a need, then a Russian letter 104 was enough. But our government, civil and spiritual, reasoned differently: approving Stephen’s orders and hoping for even greater success from his experience and zeal, Metropolitan Pimen, with the consent of V. Prince 105 decided to install Stephen himself as Bishop of Perm. This was in 1383. During his tour of the metropolis, Pimen consecrated Stephen in Vladimir, and from there released him to the newly formed diocese for him. Returning to his people, St. Stefan established his department in Ust-Vym; He established a monastery 106 at the Church of the Annunciation, paid more attention to his schools, selected from among his students those capable of holding spiritual positions and placed them in church degrees. Others continued to study the Book of Hours, the Octopus, and the Psalms of David, learned to sing, and copied newly translated books. Always having people ready for priestly service, he could now freely erect new churches in different villages and provide them with priests. – We cannot determine from modern monuments how far he managed to expand the boundaries of his diocese, but there is no reason to reject the indications of tradition later written down. Let us note in general that at that time the population of the region was limited to just the banks of the rivers - let us recall that Stefan began his preaching from the very confluence of the Vychegda and extended it to Ust-Vym: extending further along the same river to the east, he founded the Ulyanovsk desert on its upper reaches, 165 versts from Ustsysolsk 107, and another 60 versts from this city, on r. Sysole, nicknamed Stefanovskaya after his name. In this last monastery, even in the last century, some verses of the church service were sung in the Zyryan language 108. Here is an approximate definition of the boundaries of the newly founded diocese from the west, east and south. As for its northern limits, then, in all likelihood, they spread along the banks of the Vym, and, perhaps, touched the distant shores of Pechora 109. There is no doubt that not all the inhabitants of such a vast country were suddenly converted, and moreover by one person 110; there is even reason to think that some tribes completely withdrew from these places because they did not want to accept the faith offered to them 111: but Stephen was the first to bring Christianity to these rude children of nature, strengthened its existence in this country with prudent measures, directed his employees, and in churches and monasteries scattered over a vast area, established points from which, spreading the light of faith, could illuminate those who were frozen in the darkness of idolatry. Caring for the spiritual well-being of his flock, Stephen took an active part in their external well-being. The Novogorod freemen often went along the rivers to rob defenseless residents; Disputes and wars that repeatedly arose between Novgorod and V. Prince over the Dvina regions opened the door to new devastation of this country. Officials in. princes in a remote region often allowed themselves all sorts of violence against the unrequited Zyryans. Neighboring tribes, dissatisfied with their treatment, launched attacks on them. In all these cases, Stefan showed himself to be a compassionate father. – He went to Novgorod to petition for them (1386) and to V. Prince in Moscow (1390), admonished the robbers themselves, interceded for the unfortunate before the boyars 112. Having gone to Moscow for the last time in 1396, when Metropolitan Cyprian was within the Lithuanian borders, St. Stefan died here (April 26). His body was laid in the Grand Duke's Spassky Monastery (now the Spassky Cathedral, in the Kremlin) 113. Returning from the Lithuanian borders, the Metropolitan appointed St. as his successor. Stephen, to continue the work he had begun and establish the newly enlightened flock, Isaac (Jan. 20, 1398) 114. In Moscow, renewed displeasure between V. Prince and Novgorod awaited Cyprian. Fearing relations between Novgorod and Vitovt, and wanting to take away from the trading city one of the main sources of its wealth - the Dvina lands, V. Prince offered the residents their voluntary citizenship and occupied them with his boyars 115. Probably, at his own suggestion, Cyprian, immediately upon his return to Moscow, sent his steward for Archbishop John of Novgorod, demanding him to come to him. Relations with Vytautas were interrupted, and the Metropolitan released the Archbishop in peace 116. But when John, with the mayors and boyars of Novgorod, appeared to the V. Prince and began to petition for the return of his ancient possessions to Novgorod and for the establishment of the previous relations between him and the V. Prince; Vasily did not accept the “kind word” from the Vladyka and did not put aside his dislike for Novgorod: then the Novgorodians decided to return by force what had been taken away. Appearing to their Archbishop, they asked for his blessing for the undertaking, “We can no longer tolerate violence from V. Prince, they said to their Lord; bless us to look for the fatherland of St. Sofia." John gave in to their demand. Soon they cleared their regions of grand ducal officials 117, devastated the Dvina possessions of V. Prince, punished their traitors, and then again offered peace to V. Prince through Archimandrite Porfiry of Yuryev and the mayor. The world was approved according to old times, 1398 118. But two years later, the Archbishop of Novgorod was again summoned to Moscow and, while the troops of V. Prince carried out devastation on the Dvina, M. Cyprian, according to the word of V. Prince, established a Council (in July 1401), at which they forced John to ask for dismissal from the diocese. However, no one was appointed in his place, but only he was detained in Moscow and had to stay here in custody in a monastery for three years and 4 months, “so that not only will he be punished for his humble thinking and work, but others will also benefit,” as the Chronicle says 119. The same fate befell Bishop Savva of Lutsk at the same Council, but we do not know his guilt. More than six years passed from the time Cyprian returned from his first trip to the Lithuanian-Russian dioceses to his second. At this time, free from external worries, he could more conveniently engage in his scientific works and pay more attention to the internal state of his metropolis. For this, avoiding the noise of the city, he sought solitude, and his favorite location was the village near Moscow, Golenishchevo, where he built a church in the name of the three saints 120, then the Vladimir parish on St. Lake, where he also erected a church in honor of the Transfiguration of the Lord 121. Here, among the dense forests, in the silence of his cell, he worked on translating Greek books, compiled his own books and rewrote some with his own hand. In one of our Chronicles (from Tatishchev) we find a fairly detailed calculation of these works of St. Cyprian, apparently compiled by a contemporary. It says here: “and wrote books with your own hand, as if for spiritual instruction, the records of the Councils that were in Rus', many lives of Russian saints and the degrees of the Grand Dukes of the Russians; another for carnal instruction, such as truths and judgments, and the Russian chronicle from the beginning of the Russian land, all in a row, and having collected many books for this, he ordered Archimandrite Ignatius of Spassky to finish it, even as he had kept it.” It is not known who this Ignatius is. Is it not the one who, while still a deacon, accompanied Metropolitan Pimen on his last trip to Constantinople, remained here after his death, traveled to Palestine and, returning, brought with him a fairly detailed description of everything he saw 122? Is it not for this reason that this description was included in some of our Chronicles, while we do not find other journeys in them? Shouldn’t the last words be attributed closest to him: even and observoh, clearly meaning the fulfillment of the will of the archpastor, and not to an extraneous third party, to whom he supposedly bequeathed to convey this will to the archimandrite 123? If such considerations are true, and if Tatishchev’s History accurately conveys the words of the original from which they are borrowed, then it would be impossible not to value this testimony about the works of the learned archpastor, although many of them have not reached us, and although, on the other hand, his translations from the Greek language are not mentioned among them as known. The word: prepis does not give the right to think that Cyprian only copied certain books, and did not compile some himself, extracting them from various ancient monuments and combining them into one whole 124. We do not have a separate presentation of the Russian Councils with the name of Cyprian: but back in the 16th century. was kept in the Moscow Assumption Cathedral Helm, as they said then, brought by Cyprian from Constantinople 125, to which the definitions of the Russian Councils could have been attributed to them. Only two such Councils, which issued their rules on the affairs of the Russian Church, are known before the time of Cyprian: one in Vladimir in 1274, the other in Constantinople in 1301; but they could also include the rules issued by some Russian Metropolitans. Of the Lives of Russian Saints compiled by Cyprian, we know only the Life of St. Peter Metropolitan of All Russia. But others could have been added to it, corrected by Cyprian in the syllable, just as one can undoubtedly attribute to him the inclusion of the names of Serbian saints in our calendar 126. The Power Book in its present form appears to be a work from the time of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich 127. But Cyprian could have laid the foundation for this work, which was included in the later work 128. Truths and judgments, according to the chronicle, are attributed by Cyprian to carnal instruction. This gives us the right to think that what is meant here is not so much statutes on church rights and courts, but rather judicial and criminal laws, then consisting of Russian truth and various charters 129, and perhaps Greek laws adopted as part of the Helmsman. Finally, the Russian Chronicle, begun by Cyprian from the beginning of the Russian land, and containing everything in a row (i.e.: not like in the Degree Book), for the compilation of which the Metropolitan collected many books, but did not have time to finish it, that is, bring it to his time, and entrusted the completion of it to the Spassky Archimandrite Ignatius, is not the famous Trinity Chronicle (charateic) according to the testimony of the historiographer who used it, written by a contemporary of V.K. Vasily Dimitrievich 130, and ending with a description of the Edigeev invasion (1408) 131? A detailed description of contemporary events in the whole of Russia, moreover, from the point of view of the Moscow government, gives the right to conclude that it was compiled under the supervision of government officials. In this situation we can imagine the archimandrite of the Grand Ducal Monastery, endowed with the power of attorney of the foremost saint in Russia 132. With the cessation of this chronicle, the news of other chroniclers about the same reign becomes brief and incomplete. In addition to these works, in which the deep sympathy of the Serbian newcomer for the one-tribal Rus' was expressed, we must say here about other writings of St. Cyprian for the benefit of the Church proper, known to us from the very monuments 133. He cared a lot about the uniformity of the sacred acts of worship throughout the metropolis, and about the protection of church books from errors and damage. For this purpose, he himself, having compared the Slavic Service Book with the Greek original, wrote this book with his own hand, and left with it strict instructions for its future copyists 134. For the same purpose, Cyprian sent out to the dioceses lists of the Liturgy and other church rites, such as baptism, marriage, blessing of water and the rite of Orthodoxy performed in the first week of St. Pentecostals 135, supplementing the details of the charter with private instructions in their obediences 136. The formidable invasions of Moscow by enemies during Cyprian’s time inspired him, as a zealous prayer-booker, with the idea of ​​translating into our language the “prayer hymn to our Lord Jesus Christ and the Most Holy Theotokos,” compiled for such occasions by Patr. Philotheus 137, as well as other canons and akathists of this Patriarch and his successor Isidore, probably brought from Constantinople by Cyprian and soon translated into our language 138. Commemoration of St. Gregory Palamas, Archbishop of Thessalonica, glorified by the hymns of Patriarch Philotheus, can also be dated back to the time of Cyprian. But it was not just scientific works and the organization of worship that occupied Cyprian. “Having no ambitious plans, he nevertheless wanted to preserve his rights within the limits that were originally established when our hierarchy was established. How little he was disposed to interfere in matters not related to spiritual authority, and to extend his claims to civil affairs, this is best shown by his letter to the Pskovites, in which he cancels the arbitrary orders of the former Archbishop of Suzdal Dionysius on civil administration. “I heard,” writes Cyprian, that the Bishop of Suzdal Dionysius, while in Pskov, gave you a letter in which he made an addition to the letter of V.K. Alexander (Yaroslavich) - what to follow, how to judge, how to execute, and put a curse on those who did not obey this letter. It was Bishop Dionysius who was not doing his own thing; This is not according to the law and not according to the rules. If indeed K. Alexander gave you his letter, it is because every king in his kingdom, every prince in his reign is free to give letters. And that Dionysius got involved in something other than his own business and wrote his own, illegal letter: I cancel it. Go according to V.K. Alexander’s letter, as before, but send Dionisiev to me, I will tear it apart myself: this letter is not a letter. On behalf of the Patriarch, I remove the unblessing and curse attached to it from you and bless you. The Suzdal Lord did this in troubled times, and did it on his own. The Patriarch did not order him to do this” 139. This is how the Metropolitan, who was well acquainted with the laws of Greece, correctly understood the attitude of spiritual authorities to civil affairs. Empire and church rules! But he could also rightly wish that the civil government would mutually recognize and protect by its law the inviolability of the rights of the Church. Hitherto, due to the unfortunate circumstances of Russia, the Metropolitans received labels from the Tatar khans, which granted them (the Metropolitans) the right to trial and reprisal against all the clergy and other people under their jurisdiction, as well as the full disposal of church and monastic property. Now, when the circumstances of Russia had changed significantly, and the Metropolitans had stopped traveling to the Horde, they had to expect confirmation of their former rights from V. Prince of Moscow, whom the Metropolis very diligently helped to rise above all other princes. And so in 1402, the Great K. Vasily Dimitrievich, in consultation with Metropolitan Cyprian, decided to approve these rights for the metropolis with his charter 140. In this act it was said: “Behold, the Great Prince Vasily Dimitrievich of All Rus', sitting with his father, with Cyprian Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus', ruled in the old days about church courts. The old nomocanon has worn out, as my great-grandfather, St. The Great Prince Volodymer and his son the Great Prince Yaroslav of all Rus', - how they, sitting with the Metropolitans, ruled about church courts and copied the nomocanon according to the Greek nomocanon, that church courts and all church justifications, as has been the case for a long time: according to the same thing, we have now ruled, even if it was motionless, never in advance for the future, nor it would be multiplied or diminished, but it would still stand motionless, as those great holy princes inscribed and strengthened.” By this act, V. Prince wanted to equal his great ancestors in pious zeal for the Church, no matter how much social conditions had changed over the course of four centuries. But if not all the details of the statutes of St. Vladimir and V.K. Yaroslav could be applied to the modern state of the Church and the state, at least the essential in these statutes should have been retained, namely the definition of the area of ​​ecclesiastical court. The patrimonial rights of the Metropolis also required definition. As a monk, M. Cyprian did not have any attachment to the increase of his possessions, nor did he advise taking care of both. This is what he wrote about this subject to Abbot Athanasius, his spiritual friend: “It is not given to monks to own villages and people. Fathers. How can one who has once renounced the world and everything worldly, again bind himself to worldly affairs - again build up what he destroyed, as the Apostle says, and thus be a transgressor of his vows? Ancient St. the fathers did not acquire either villages or wealth, as for example. St. Pachomius, St. Theodosius of the hostel, head, St. Gerasim and many other saints. Fathers in Palestine, in Mount Sinai, in Raifa, and in the Holy Mountain, which I myself saw. But later, when the previous order gradually weakened, monasteries and monasteries began to own villages and assets. This requires a lot of attention and caution. “You asked me what you should do with the village that the Prince gave to the monastery?” Here is my answer and advice: if you and your brethren trust in God, and until now God has fed you without a village, and will continue to feed you in the future: then why bind yourself to worldly concerns and, instead of remembering God and serving Him alone, remember about villages and worldly affairs? Pay attention to this: as long as the monk is free from all worldly worries, he is at peace with all the laity, everyone loves him, everyone salutes him. When he undertakes to take care of villages and other worldly affairs, then the need will arise to go to princes and other leaders, to visit judicial places, to defend the offended, to quarrel and involuntarily humiliate himself in front of everyone, just so as not to expose his own to offense, to undertake great labors and leave his rule. And what’s even worse: when the monks begin to own villages and carry out justice over men and women, often go to them and bother for them: then how will they differ from the laity? It is dangerous for monks to enter into communication with women and have conversations with them (it is difficult to eat). But, if it were possible, it would be good to arrange it this way: let there be a village near the monastery, but the monks should never visit it, but give it to the management of some God-fearing layman, and he will take care of all the affairs, so that he delivers everything ready-made, livestock and other needs to the monastery. For it is harmful for monks to own villages and often go to them” 141. This is how the monk Cyprian reasoned! But Cyprian’s position as Metropolitan of All Russia was different. He inherited from his predecessors volosts and lands, which he was supposed to protect as a gift to the Church of God. Boyars served under him; he had his own stewards 142; his house was not a cell, but a palace 143. The patrimonial possessions of the Metropolitans were located both in southern Russia 144 and in northern Russia - from the time of the transfer of the Metropolitan's see, first to Vladimir, then to Moscow. Therefore, the villages and hamlets that belonged to the Metropolitan in the Eastern Principality of Moscow were partly in the Vladimir region, partly in the Moscow region. In the Vladimir region, the Metropolitan had his own monasteries, directly dependent on him: Konstantinolensky and Borisoglebsky, which also had their own villages. V. Prince Vasily Dimitrievich, establishing both of them at the see of the metropolis 145, a) freed those living in the estates of metropolises and monasteries from their taxes, excluding the years when he himself would pay tribute to the Horde: then the Metropolitan had to participate in the exit, according to a quitrent letter 146; b) released from his court, with the exception of the mixed court and complaints against the abbot in the absence of the Metropolitan from the V. Principality, or against his governors and tithes; c) exempted from customs duties, however only for the sale of homemade works, and not in the case of trade. Granting these benefits to the estates of the Metropolis, which were exempted from all fees by the khan's labels, V. Prince at the same time made special orders about the metropolitan boyars and about the children of priests. The boyars and metropolitan servants had to participate in wars under the command of the metropolitan, or grand-ducal, governor. Without forbidding the appointment of his grand ducal subjects as priests and deacons, V. Prince instead demanded that priestly children who do not enter the clergy and live separately from their parents be expelled from the Metropolitan’s department to the Grand Duke. - Finally, V. Prince, by mutual agreement with Cyprian 147, determined the amount of collection from churches in favor of the Metropolitan and his officials. Each church had to contribute six altyns annually to his treasury, and when he viewed the diocese - three money (“check in”); The titheman also received six altyns from the church in his tithe (“for the entry, for the Nativity, and for Peter’s”) 148. Here are some features of the economic life of the metropolises, according to hitherto known monuments, so defined for the first time in northern Russia! Having arranged his affairs in Moscow, Cyprian again had to go to Kyiv, where he was called by the unrest caused by his governor, so important that it was necessary to replace him and all those serving under him 149. Having visited Kyiv, he went to Lutsk, where, together with the Bishops of Lutsk and Kholm, he installed Vladimir of Volyn as Bishop. In Milolyubov, a Volyn city, at the congress of the King of Poland Jogaila and V. Prince of Lithuania Vytautas, he saw both sovereigns and lived there for a whole week, honored by them with gifts: but with regret he had to give in to the urgent demands of Vytautas to replace Bishop Anthony of Turov. The accusation was leveled against this Bishop that he had communicated with Khan Shadi-Bek, calling on him to rule in Kyiv and Volyn; they presented letters as if they had written them to the Horde. The main reason for such accusations was the Latin clergy, who were not satisfied with his zeal for maintaining Orthodoxy in their country. He forcefully denounced their heresy, our chronicle says, and strengthened all of Volhynia and Lithuania with sound teaching, raised up the fallen, strengthened the wavering, not heeding any threats. Cyprian, having discovered the true reason for his dislike towards the Bishop of Turov, at first thought to satisfy Vytautas’ demand only by keeping Anthony with him. But Vitovt insisted that he be completely deposed; threatened otherwise the Metropolitan would tear away all the Lithuanian-Russian dioceses from him: a threat that he carried out ten years later, under Cyprian’s successor! - Avoiding greater evil, Cyprian decided to remove the decorations of the priesthood from the Bishop of Turov and take him with him to Moscow to rest him there 150. Such things did not bode well for the future! On January 1, 1406, Cyprian returned to Moscow. This was already the last year of his earthly wandering. Hitherto in good health, he often began to feel attacks of illness, and, preparing for his outcome, he retired again to his secluded cell in Golenishchev. The last time he celebrated there was August 26, the day of Moscow’s deliverance from the formidable hordes of Tamerlane, and on this day he ordained Archimandrite Simonovsky Hilarion as Bishop of Kolomna; two weeks later he consecrated the Bishop of Suzdal, Mitrofan; fell ill and never got up again. His last word to the children he left behind was his will, in which, while forgiving everyone, he himself asked everyone for forgiveness. St. Cyprian reposed on September 16th. Archbishop Gregory of Rostov with two newly installed Bishops and a council of clergy interred his body in the cathedral Dormition Church, reading out loud to everyone the spiritual letter of the deceased Shepherd 151. V. The prince was not in Moscow at that time: he had already marched with his troops against Vytautas. For almost thirty years St. Cyprian bore the burden of governing the Russian Church, but for no more than eighteen years he was truly the Metropolitan of All Rus', about a year and a half under V. Prince Dimitri Ioannovich, and sixteen and a half under his son, Vasily Dimitrievich. Relics of St. Cyprian were found during the dismantling of the Assumption Cathedral in 1473 152 The chronicles contain a special story about this Mikhail, or Mityai, as he was usually called, probably in a derogatory sense. See Nikonov. Letop. IV, 66 et seq. “No one in the metropolis wanted this Mitya, the bishops and abbesses and presbyters and the entire priestly rank; Consider praying to God for this, so as not to allow Mitya to become a metropolitan, but only the great prince wants to see him in that rank.” Letop. containing Russian history from 1206 to 1514, or Typographer. Moscow 1784 p. 145. Step. Book 1, 516. “I will freely dare to go up to the metropolitan court, and put on me a mantle from the source and a white hood, and take a pastoral staff, and I will all obey him as if I were a retinue.” Letop. Printer. p. 140. “And the tribute is collected from the monks, the collection and Christmas, the metropolitans’ dues and duties, then they collect everything, preparing for the metropolis.” “And forbid in. to the prince, rivers: who taught you how to implement the laws? It’s not fitting for him to be like that.” Nikon. Letop. T. IV, 70. Some chronicles speak of the intention to consecrate Michael only as a bishop, others - as a metropolitan. But in the present case the former was almost equivalent to the latter. “You call me a priest, but I can’t get a priest in you, but I argue with your tablets with my own hands, but I won’t take revenge on you now, but when I come from Constantinople.” Letop, Typographer. page 141. Letop. Typographer, page 144. Nikon. IV, 63. “On the reliability of the Khan’s labels”, Grigorieva, pp. 73 and 86. The chronological testimony is not correct, but is easy to guess. This was a year before Mamaev’s invasion of Russia. Cyprian himself talks about all these circumstances at the end of his biography of St. Petra. Step. Book 1, 422. 423. His narrative is supplemented by Greek news about changes in the then patriarchs of Constantinople; without him, we would not have known about the second forcible removal of Philotheus from the throne, and about the fate of Macarius himself, who, according to the Greek. lists, only two and a half years of rule are assimilated. Unfortunately, Cyprian does not name the Emperor who patronized Macarius. But this must be the son of John Palaiologos, Andronicus, who seized the throne from his father and kept him in prison for about two years, until the Genoese gave him help. Cyprian mentions these Latins, who then dominated the waters of the Black Sea, in the same narrative when he talks about the reasons for his slowdown in Constantinople. See Lebeau Histoire du Bas Empire. T.XX p. 449 – 459. Cyprian, installed at the end of 1376 and at the beginning of the next year, appeared in Russia, two years later, on the third year, he retired to Constantinople; track. arrived here in continuation of 1379; spent here, as he himself writes, thirteen months. until the end of 1380. During this time there was a Council on Macarius. According to chronological research Bandura, Patr. Philotheus left the throne in 1376, Macarius ruled for two and a half years, and so on. before 1379 Pimen arrived in Constantinople almost at the same time as Cyprian, or a little later than him. Printer. Lepop. page 147. Assembly of States. Gram. T. 1. N 32. Typographer. Letop. “Pimen, in bondage, V. Prince and his advisers borrowed your silver at interest rate in the name of Prince the Great from Fryaz and Besermen; and he is still growing silver, making promises and distributing a lot to all sides.” - Pimen appeared in Russia seven months after Cyprian. In Nikonov. Years . It was added that the debt incurred by Pimen extended to more than 20,000 rubles. silver IV. page 76. Nick. Years. IV. p. 137. “And Cyprian, then stayed in Tver, came again from Novgorod before the coming of the Tokhtamyshevs for two days, and saw violence and strife in the city, and retreated to Tver, and disappeared there.” Other chronicles do not mention Cyprian's trip to Novgorod. In Novgorod A. Let. only the arrival of Archbishop Dionysius is mentioned. Suzdal to Novgorod with letters from the Patriarch. But that Cyprian really was not in Moscow shortly before the siege can be concluded from the fact that on August 14. It was not the metropolitan who baptized V.K. Dimitri Ioannovich’s son, but the abbot of Simonov Theodore, whereas in the previous year, the son of Prince Vladimir Andreevich of Serpukhov was baptized by Cyprian himself with the abbot of Trinity Ave. Sergius. “V. Prince Dmitry Ioannovich was not angry with him, because he did not sit down under siege in Moscow.” Printer. Years. page 182. Trinity Letop. in East G.R.T.V. pr. 122. Subsequently, Athanasius from Kyiv, together with Cyprian, retired to Constantinople (East. Description. Manuscript. Ruchyants. Museum p. 517). Since between 1382 and 1390 Cyprian lived either in Kyiv or in Constantinople, and Athanasius, having retired from Serpukhov, before moving to Constantinople, could have been an abbot in some southern monastery, the famous letter of Cyprian to Abbot Athanasius (Act. Histor. T. 1. N. 253.), expressing among other things their close spiritual relationships with each other, could have been written to this venerable monk Athanasius. Typographer, years. pp. 177 – 179. Charter to Dionysius for the archbishopric in Act. Histor. T. 1. N. 251 Typographer. Years. pp. 184, 185. “And he was laid in the furnace of Anthony; his body is still intact and incorruptible.” See Description. Kiev-Pech. Laurel. 1837 p. 114. Nikon Let. IV. page 147. Typographer. Years . under 1386 “the same summer in. Prince Dmitry Ivanovich sent his spiritual father Theodore, hegumen (archimandrite) Simonovsky for metropolis to Constantinople.” The descriptions of Pimenov’s 3rd trip to Constantinople mention how Azov merchants captured Pimenov and his retinue for previous debts. Nick. Years. IV, p. 162. Nick. Years. page 159. “Prince V. is indignant about this, as if he would go without his advice, otherwise there would be some kind of discord between them.” - An interesting description of this journey, made on the orders of Pimen, by one monk from the retinue of the Bishop of Smolensk, Ignatius, was preserved in the chronicles. Nikonov. IV. pp. 158 et seq. Russian Temporary. M. 1820. Part 1. p. 293 et ​​seq. From the description it is clear that many Bishops accompanied the Metropolitan to the Don River, including Theodore, who had already been elevated to Bishop. Rostovsky. The same Ignatius also described his journey to Jerusalem. Ibid page 177. Theodore, who saw off Pimen in April, together with the other Bishops, was already in Constantinople in September, as can be seen from his debt record given together with Cyprian to Nicholas Notare (Act. Histor. Part 1. N. 282). From this act it is also clear that Cyprian at that time already considered himself the Metropolitan of the entire Russian land, he promised to escort those sent from Notara with goods even to the river God (Bug) - “until the last ones are gone from every Russian land”; - to secure his debt, he gave a letter to V. Prince Dimitry Ioannovich, “and the letter was shared by the debtor with faith”; - in case of non-payment, he provided to collect his debt from any Russian; anywhere, in a Cafe, or in Greek land. All this, as well as the fact that Cyprian and Theodore took on one common debt record, shows that Cyprian looked at his relationship with V. Prince no longer in the same way. 8 Sep. 1389, as shown by indictment 13, and Pimen died at 11 o’clock in the same month. From here it should be concluded that Pimen’s fate was already decided even if he had not died. Ignatius writes: “I went to the monastery of St. John, as the Greek verb says. In the language of Prodromus, in Russian the Forerunner is spoken, and we bowed to her and kissed her, and the good Rus' that lives there rested us in peace.” Nick. Years. IV, p. 167. Description Rumyants. Music pp. 516, 517. Ignatius in Letop. Nikon. IV. p. 171. It is strange that Theodore here is called only Archimandrite Simonov, while above p. 160 he is called the Bishop of Rostov. Act. Histor. T. I. N 252. The loan consisted of 1000 rubles. old Novgorod ones. It was made together with Theodore Archbishop of Rostov. In the event of their death, it was proposed to collect the debt from their churches and monasteries, before this debt had been paid off for those churches. The diploma was witnessed by the Emperor and the Patriarch. Gregory Tsamblak, in a eulogy to Cyprian, spoken three years after his death (1409), mentions Cyprian’s visit to the city of Ternov 30 years ago (next 1379), during a trip from Kyiv to Constantinople. The preacher tells all this quite broadly. This word is in manuscript. Synodal Bible under N 384, in 4 d. The city of Ternov here is called the fatherland of Cyprian. From his message to Abbot Athanasius it is clear that he was on Athos for some time; but it must have been much earlier. Dictionary about writers of the spirits of the rank. Part II. page 321. This can be seen from his signature on the manuscript stored in the library of M.D. Acad., under N. 152 in 4 d. It says: “In the summer of April 24, 6895, this book was completed in the Studite monastery by Cyprian, the humble Metropolitan of Kiev and all Russia.” This manuscript is the Ladder of St. John Climacus. See an excerpt from Kiprianov’s letter from Ignatius. Nick. Years . IV. 171, 172. About the church and monastery of St. Nicholas, the so-called Old, see Stroeva, Index to the royal exits pp. 59, 60. About the meeting Nikon, Years. IV, 193., where it is said, “I came to Moscow during the great fasting week of the cross.” Easter in 1390 was April 3. Nikon. Years . IV, 193. “Then all the Bishops of Rustia each received their own bishopric, and came to Metropolitan Cyprian in Moscow, saying to the face: Behold, Cyprian has become the Metropolitan of all Russia, and having come from Kiev, he sits in Moscow, in his Metropolis.” Histor. Hierarch. Ross. Churches, ed. 2 pp. 64, 65, where two lists of Russian dioceses of the XIV century are placed. But in these lists, dioceses that have long been united with each other are still considered separately, for example: Belogorod, Yuryev and Polotsk, and some are not considered at all, for example. Zvenigorodskaya In the chronicles of Cyprian's time, in addition to the above-mentioned archdioceses, the following are mentioned. bishoprics of Tver, Ryazan, Kolomna, Sarai, Zvenigorod, Perm, Smolensk, Volyn, Turov, Polotsk, Lutsk, Chelm. These should include the dioceses of Galich and Przemysl. Act. West. Ross. T. 1. p. 33. Nikon. Years . IV, p. 182. Euthymius's case is not entirely clear. In Nick. Years . IV, 195 – 199 the accusations against him are called slander; It seems that Cyprian did not suddenly decide to accuse Euthymius, and only at the insistence of the Prince dismissed him from the diocese, that the newly elected Arseny himself did not agree for a long time to accept the throne of Tver, due to unrest, and that Cyprian only installed Arseny on August 15 during his second stay in Tver. In a modern record found by Karamzin, under the Church Charter (Ist. G.R.T. V, pr. 232.), the matter is stated differently. It is directly said here about Euthymius that “at the trial righteousness was not found in his mouth. Archimandrites, abbots, priests and boyars tortured him in many trials.” The trial of Euthymius and the execution of Arseny refer to the same visit to Tver by Cyprian. Finally, in the Life of Arseny, Bp. Tverskoy, ed. in 1764, Euthymius is accused of interfering in princely affairs, of dispelling various “false wisdom about Christ, like Arius, about the Mother of God, like Nestorius, and other Origenian and Sevirian errors,” and that he did not agree to recognize any other court over himself than the Ecumenical Council. That's why he's called a heretic. But various errors have crept into Arseny’s life, which weaken the credibility of some of his testimony, for example. It says here that M. Cyprian, before his elevation to the Metropolis, was the Abbot of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, as if the trial of Euthymius took place under V.K. Dimitri Ioannovich Donskoy. In the present case, it will be safer to follow the modern record, without completely rejecting the testimony of the chronicle. From the reception of Cyprian by Tver K. we can conclude that he really wanted to have the Metropolitan on his side. The false teaching of the Strigolnikov is revealed in the messages of Patriarch Nile (Act. Arch. Exp. T. 1. N. 4) and in the message attributed to Patriarch Anthony (ibid. N. 6). In the latter, some additions are clearly visible. Eg. several lines have been transferred to this message from Nilov; from which it turns out that Patriarch Anthony sent Dionysius with his letter to Pskov, while this was done by Nile; the message of the Greek Patriarch gives examples from the Patericon of Kiev-Pechersk. Nick. Years . IV, 46 under 1375 Novgor. I Years. page 93 Nikon. Years . IV, 130. The letter itself, sent with Dionysius, in Act. Histor. T. I. N. 4. For a more detailed discussion of the Strigolnikov heresy, see Discussions on heresies and schisms of the Russian Church. Page 68 – 91. East. G.R.T.V. pr. 106, extract from the Rostov Chronicle. Similar to this one, but not in everything, and to Nikon. Years . IV, 146. A new circumstance was added in the Archangel-City Chronicle: “that same summer (6893) Metropolitan Pimen went to the great Novgorod for a monthly trial, and the Novgorodians did not give it to him.” There are different opinions about their number. Karamzin talks about four; Rosenkampf (Review of the Helmsman, ed. 1. Note p. 228 et seq.) about eight. Years. And Novgor. under 1388 (more correctly 1389). This is the name of the dispute between Novgorod and the Metropolitan, the dispute about the menstrual court in Letop. Arkhangelogorodskaya, pp. 91, 94, 95, in Nikonovskaya IV. 200. “I began to ask them for the judgment of my month,” and in other places. In Letop. I. Novgor. under 1399 it is said: “Vladika John go to Pskov, to your entrance, and the Pskovites will give great honor to their master, father Vladyka John, and give him judgment according to the old days.” Pskov. Years . under 1435: “In the same winter, Vladyka Euthymius arrived in Pskov, on the 13th day of the month of January, not on his arrival, not in his turn, but on the next day. And the Pskovites accepted him, and asked him to collect the money, and he didn’t say anything about collecting it, and he asked Pskov for his judgment and for the sake of his entrance. And the Pskovites did not often promise him, but began to collect money and for their antiquity, that he wants to install a governor and mayor with his own hand - Novgorodians, and not Pskov, and not like the first Lords of the Ustavish. And the Pskovites did not give him that will. And he got angry for that, and be one week, and off he went. And Prince Volodymer and the posadniks and boyars of his sugnas in Nevadichi, and they finished him off with their foreheads, and he returned. And he put the collection up to the Metropolitan, and the Pskovites gave him his trial for a month, and the entrance to the priest’s name.” For more information about collecting, see the same place under 1456, 1453, 1466, etc. In Years Arkhangelogorodskaya under 6896 mentions the signatures of the Metropolitans: Nicomedia, Nicaea, Chalcedon, Monemvasia, Adrianople and Serbia. In Nikon, under 6899, Gansky and Dramsky are also mentioned. The certificate did not reach us. Novgor. Letop. at Karamzin T, V. approx. 147. Slch. Novgor. I L etop. under 6899 and Arkhangelskaya p. 95 Nikonovskaya IV, 200, 202. Arhang. under 690. “The Novgorodians sent to Patriarch Anthony that the Metropolitan did not bless them according to the rule, and brought a blessing from the Patriarch.” Archangelor. under 6903 Collection State gram T. 2. N. 13. To Novgor. I L. It is not said what kind of letters these are, only it is noted about the teaching of a Christian. For that in Nick. Letop. it is directly stated that in one it is written “about the prototypes and history, hedgehogs at the appointment of priests”; the other contained “a lesson to all Orthodox Christians.” The first is obviously against Strigolnikov. Novgorod. Years . at Karamz. T. V pr. 149. Act. Histor. T. 1. N. 10. the charter was given in Novgorod on May 12, 1395. Pskovsk. Years . under 1396. This charter must be the same as that printed in the Act. Histor. T. 1. N. 6. That's exactly what Novgorod says. Letop. in Full Collection Letop. III p. 97. Novgorod Letop. at Karamz. T. V. pr. 149: “I won’t give him justice.” Arkhangelogorodskaya: “but there is no trial for the Metropolitan in Novgorod.” Pskov. Years . under 1396 he says that Cyprian came to Pskov to visit Vladyka and spread dislike for the whole of Novgorod. But in Letop. Nikon. IV. p. 257. and in Step. Book 1, 522 the contrary is stated, namely, that the Novgorodians agreed to give the Metropolitan a trial. This testimony, given the contradictory evidence of many other, most reliable chronicles, is very doubtful. Act East. T. 1. N. 11. the letter was given in Novgorod. East. G. P. T. V. pr. 149. Nikon. Years . IV, pp. 253, 254 says that the Novgorodians sent Cyprian 600 rubles. It's the same in Step. Books 1. page 521. The history of this image in Art. Book T. 1. pp. 534 et seq. See Memory. Moscow. Ancient Snegireva p. 13. etc. 13. Narbut in his History of the Lithuanian People T. V. p. 547. The news is borrowed from the chronicle of Danilovich. Stryikovsky blames Archimandrite of Kiev-Pechersk Avraamy for the death of Svidrigail. Dlugosh writes simply ab uno religioso Ruthenorum venenatus moritur, and explains such a cruel act by the intolerant cruelty of Svidrigail. Histor. Polon. Lib. X. b. 142. Lips. 1711. Letop. I. Novgorod, p. 97. In the catalogs of the Bishops of Rostov, between St. Theodore and Gregory also mention Arseny. But according to modern records included in the Chronicle, Gregory is considered the 35th Bishop of the Rostov See, in this order “34. Archbishop Theodore. 35. This Gregory.” See eg. Sofiysk Time ed. Stroev. Part I, p. 416. Mentioned during the burial of V. Kn. Demetrius Ioannovich, in 1389. East. 1 R. T. V. pr. 118 Died and was buried in the Chudov Monastery in March 1397. pr. 254. The life of St. Kirill Beloezersky is described. Pachomius. Rk. Moscow. Spirit. Academy. In 1397, He returned with Cyprian to Moscow, and five years later he died in the Trinity Monastery, where he was laid next to the tomb of the Venerable. Sergius. East. G.R.T.V. pr. 254. East. G.R.T.V. pr. 166. Zubritsky History of Red Rus', pp. 146, 169. This happened between 1361-1375 at the request of King Casimir and Prince of Galich Vladislav Opolsky. See also there about the Bishop of Przemysl, who could take his throne no earlier than 1390. Page 223, 224. In 1398, the dispute about the boundaries of the dioceses of Przemysl and Galich was resolved, pp. 227, 228. In 1413, King of Poland Vladislav Jagiello took away the cathedral church in Przemysl from the Orthodox and gave it to the Roman Catholic bishop, pp. 223, 224. On the small number of churches Latin in Red Russia, even at the end of the 14th century, see ibid. p. 59. approx. Dlugosz, describing the baptism of Jogaila into the Latin faith in 1385, and with him his two brothers about the rest, say: re liqui Litvaniae duces, fratres ducis Iagellonis, cum dudum ante Graecorum rit u b aplisma sorti ti fu e rint, ad iterandum baptisma non poterunt induci. Histor. Polon. L X. p. 104. Narbuth. V. 382. and T. 1. pp. 392, 401. Novgorod. summer “Prince Vitovt was formerly a Christian, and his name was Alexander, and he rejected Christianity and accepted the Lyad faith.” East. G. P. T. V pr. 182. Rerum Moscovit. Commentarii. De Religionc Vilna. Etsi romanum ritum sequitur, plura tamen templa Ruthenici, quam Romani ritus in ea cernuntur Ed. 1557. p. 28. Narbuta V. p. 496. pr. 1. In the Pskov Chronicle (ed. Pogodin), under 1471, it is written about a fire in Vilna, which was witnessed by the Pskov ambassadors, “the Lyadsky end burned down to 400 households and the Lyadsky goddess: and the Russian end was destroyed by God and St. God’s churches and Christian courts, bringing non-believers to faith, Christians to repentance.” And when describing the baptism of Vilna by Jagiel, our Chronicles say: “and baptize Lithuania into the German faith, half of his city of Vilna.” Soph. Time Part 1. p. 382. Not his half of the city, as Zubritsky interprets (Ist. Cherv. Rus. p. 195. pr. 83.), but half of his city. See Dlugoss. Hist. Polon L. X. p. 140. Metropolitan governors in Lithuanian-Russian cities have been mentioned since the time of M. Photius. In the charter of St. Jonah is told to one of these governors: “I granted him, ordered him to hold his governorship in Kev, and in Vilna, and in Novegorodok, and in Gorodok, and throughout the city and place, and in the village, wherever there are my metropolitan churches, which from ancient times were taxed, under my brother, under Photey Metropolitan, to that our metropolitan governorship.” Act. East. T. 1. N 48. Knowing the relationship of Photius to the Lithuanian-Russian countries, one cannot think that from the time of Photius alone the influence of the governors of the Metropolis extended to the Lithuanian cities. And in Kiev, undoubtedly, they were under M. Cyprian. Novgor. I Years under 1331 “I came (to M. Feognost) as an ambassador from IIleskov from Prince Alexander, and from Gidimon (Gediminas) as an ambassador and from all the princes of Lithuania, and brought Arseny with me, wanting to put him in power in Pleskov.” The participation of the Lithuanians in this matter is explained, however, by the fact that Prince Alexander was imprisoned in Pskov, as the chronicler says, from Lithuanian hands. See below the case of Anthony Bishop. Turovsky. In the charter given by Jogaila to the first bishop of Vilna, it was said: ut nullus Litvanus utriusque sexus Rutheno similiter utriusque matrimonio copuletur, nisi prius obediat obedientiæ Romanae Ecclesiæ cum effectu. Ad quod etiam poenis corporalibus compellendi. Collection ancient gram Vilna 1843 Part 1. appendix. V. page XLV. Narbut in his History of Lithuania. of the people Part 1. p. 399. points to the act of 1412, which says “penes synagogam ruthenicam Micula”; Zubritsky p. 209. – on the Lviv acts of 1467. The famous supporter of Huss, Jerome of Prague, in his interrogation at the Council of Constance, among other things, said that, while in Lithuania, he found there quite a few people accepted into the Roman Church, who were baptized into some kind of Russian faith; that Alexander Vytautas and the local bishops asked his opinion whether those people could be considered true Christians or not, and that he did not advise the clergy to rebaptize them. Narb. T. 1. p. 398. In our Chronicles, for example. Soph. Time Part 1. p. 382. it says “he (Yagaila) has two Litvins, larger than him, and they were baptized into the Christian faith, although he baptized them into his own Latin faith, they did not listen; King Jogaila ordered them to be executed with many torments and to death.” When Vitovt was informed that in some places the people converted to the Latin faith persisted in their previous opinions and were ready to leave their country and seek refuge in a foreign one, he ordered the preachers to leave there. “Vytautas wanted better,” says one of these preachers, “for Christ to have fewer people than he did” (Narbut. V. p. 406). East. G.R.T.V. pr. 254. under 1398 That's what he calls himself in the recording. But the addition from Lutsk hardly gives the right to call him bishop of Lutsk. At least the other southwestern bishops did not title themselves that way. It was first published under Opis. Kiev-Sofiysk. Council in the appendices then in the Acts relating to Western Russia T. 1. N. 12. It came to us not in the list, but in the original, which has a modern archival note, and was kept in Runyantsevsk. Museum. Entry given on February 1st. 1398. Meanwhile, in 1405 he installed a bishop in Vladimir Volynsky along with the bishops of Lutsk and Chelm. I.G.P. T. V. pr. 254. Act East. T. 1. N. 18. This act dates back to 1414, but most. Moreover, it is known that Bp. Gerasim of Vladimir already participated in the affairs of the Novogrodsky Council on the establishment of a special Metropolis for all southwestern dioceses and in the installation of Gregory Tsamblak as metropolitan. See Act. Zap. Russia. N 24. Nikonov. Years. etc. In Nikonov. Years . V. p. 51. In addition to Dionysius of Lutsk, Ivan Galitsky, Pavel Chervensky, probably Przemyslsky are mentioned. See about it in the Addendums to the Ed. Creation St. Fathers in Russian translation . 1846 T. IV. p. 248. Subsequently, with the formation of the Lithuanian-Russian Metropolis, after St. Jonah, the last Metropolitan of All-Russia, the Galich dioceses could become part of this metropolis, and thus the division between the southwestern dioceses would be destroyed. See Note. in Act. relating to the history of the West. Russia, to the letter T. 1. No. 12. Life of St. Stephen, E. Permsky, is described by his friend and co-worker at the St. Gregory Monastery, and then by a student of St. Sergius and his biography, St. Epiphanius. From it we will draw some details of our story about St. Stefan, taking advantage of the rki. Moscow. D. Academy. The name E. Parthenia in East. Ross. Hierarch. Ed. 2. Part 1. Art. 245. considered doubtful. But in the lists of Rostov Bishops, placed in the Chronicles at the end of the 14th century, Parthenius was listed as number 31. See for example. Soph. Vr. Part 1 p. 415. In the Life of Peter Tsarevich, “then in the Church of the Holy Mother of God the left one was wearing a Greek waist, and the right one was a Russian.” Rki. Moscow. D. Academy N 63. Histor. Ross. Hierarch. T.VI. page 567. The biography writer only says “and learn the Perm language yourself, and write a new Perm letter and write the unknown alphabet.” But how could he learn the Perm language in Rostov? In grams V. Prince Dimitri Ioannovich Andrei Fryazin was told about his award by Pechora “and in Perm there are carts, as it was before.” Act. Arch. Expedition T. I. N 6. East. Ross. Hierarch. VI. 567. Residents of these places and further up the Vychegda have long since become Russified. Nowadays the Zyryan language begins from the village. Mezhogi is 20 versts above Yarensk. Encyclop. Lexicon, XII, 250. In addition to the conversion of the pagans, traces of his journey can be seen in the chapels and crosses he erected, and in various legends. Encyclop. Lex. XII, 219 Epiphanius said “for anyone who wants to march into the Perm land, there is a convenient path from the city of Ustvym up the Vychegda River, until it enters Perm itself.” According to the Book of the Big Drawing, at the confluence of the Vy, called here the river Ptitsa, the city of Perm stood “and along the river Vychegda from the top from the right country the city of old Perm, from Ust Vychegda 140 versts." “The Bird River fell into the Vychegda River, from the top of the country under hail near Staraya Kemya” 1846 pp. 194, 198. Epiphanius puts into the mouth of Stefanov’s main opponent, Nam-Sotnik, among other things the following words: “Can anything good come to us from Moscow? Isn’t that where we got the heaviness and the heavy tribute and the violence, and the tivuns, and the closers, and the bailiffs? “For this reason, don’t listen to him (Stephen), but even more so, listen to him, who wants the best for you.” “I am your race and the same land with you” - I am your long-time teacher.” His enemies themselves said: “We cannot resist words with the abbot who is new to Moscow, unless we marry him by force, executing him with ulcers, but in both cases, have the custom of being quiet, so as not to start a battle.” To justify the works of Stephen, his biography uses the famous work of the Bulgarian monk Khrabra about writings, applying to the enlightener of Perm what is said there in favor of St. Cyril and Methodius, and on this occasion lists the letters themselves invented for the Permian language. “Most of all, V. Prince was very honored to appoint him: for he knew Stefan very well and loved him for a long time” Epiphanius. Epiphanius, speaking about the structure of this church, notes “where later its great monastery was created, and then its bishopric was named.” East. Ross. Hierarch. VI 467. Here, 600 versts from Ustsysolsk, in ancient times there existed the Trinity Monastery, which depended on the Perm diocese and then on the Vologda diocese. East. Bishop. Ros. V, p. 350. Epiphanius says that St. 700 people were baptized by Stephen. He does not mention the monasteries he founded, where they were erected: “and he erected churches; - and decorated the monasteries and tonsured them into monasteries and established abbots for them.” It is a pity that Epiphanius was not his friend’s companion. See Encycl. Lex. about Voguls. T. XI. page 122. The words of Epiphanius from his Lamentation of the Permian land, on the death of Stephen, are worthy of note: “Today (now) the remnant of the good provident and intercessor, who prayed to God for the salvation of our souls, and to the prince about our complaint, and for benefits and for our benefit, to the bolyar, to the beginning - the ruler of this world was our warm intercessor, many times delivering us from violence and work and Tivun sales, and heavy tribute making it easier for us. But these Novgorodians themselves, the Ushkuinites, the robbers, his words admonished the people not to fight us... They were reproached by our foreign-pagan neighbor. Loni, Vogulitsa, Yugra and Pinese, heretics, murderers, robbers, foreign-pagan Gogulichi (Voguls) are advancing; The army of heretics is advancing: but the commanders are bearing down, who would crush them with spiritual vice.” About the translations of St. Steffna in the Zyrianskith language, see Dictionary of Scripture. Spirit. China, Part II. page 234 and cm. Some parts of the ancient translation of the Liturgy into the Zyryan language are printed in Ancient Notes of Lepekhin’s Travels 1780. Part III. pp. 242 – 249. We find interesting remarks about the Zyryans even earlier than Lepekhin in the travel of Izbranides to Cathay. Here the traveler calls them the Seeds of Trees. Vivliof. 2 Ed. T. VIII. Art. 362 –364. In the Journal Moskvityanin, 1847, book. 1. Stephen's message to Vel. Prince Dimitri Ioannovich later discovered doubts about its authenticity. See in Readings of Moscow. Histor. Society. Year III. N. 9 in the article, G. Kalachova “On the meaning of Helmsmen in the system of ancient Russian law”, p. 127. I. G. P. T. V. pr. 234. In Sof. Vr. Isaac's setting dates back to September. 1397 Part I. gr. 418. But then Cyprian was not in Moscow. “On the relationship of Novgorod to the V. Princes”, Solovyov. In Reading Moscow. Histor. Societies. Year. 2. No. 1, Art. 77. In Years Novgorod. 1. p. 98. speaks of this challenge, but does not explain its reasons, which can be discovered from consideration of the circumstances of the case. The same Chronicle of 1399 speaks of Vitovt’s displeasure at the termination of relations with him. Without a doubt, one of the main reasons that prevented the union of Novgorod with Lithuania was their difference of faith. That is why the Chronicle of Novgorod describes Vytautas so unfavorably, p. 101. But looking for their property, some dared to touch the shrine. The Archangel-Gorod chronicle tells that the Novgorodians took Ustyug, plundered and burned its cathedral church and took with them the miraculous icon of Hodegetria; and one impudent person even dared to tie her up with a rug, saying: “Not a single captive who is tied goes to a foreign land.” – But the Archbishop of Novgorod rightly denounced such insolence and ordered the Novgorodians to return the icon to its place with all the stolen church things and to rebuild the cathedral church in Ustyug, pp. 99, 100. – However, it is not clear how to reconcile some of the circumstances of this case with another testimony of the same Chronicle. In 1490, when there was a search about the time of the initial construction of this church, clerks found from books that it was built with the blessing of Arch. Rostovsky, two or three years before the devastation of Ustyug by the Novgorodians, pp. 168, 169. Years 1. Novg. Art. 98 – 100. Years. Nikon. IV, 300, 301. Archangelor. Art. 102 “Metropolitan Cyprian, according to V. Prince’s word, caught the bishop and put him in jail for being a guard at the Chudotsky Monastery, for a month’s trial, which was not given.” – The last thought, however, is not confirmed by the testimony of other Chronicles. V, Soph. Vr. 1, 427. “And (John) sat in court in Moscow, with St. Nicholas the Old.” Nikon. Le t. V, 37. “On the holy lake near the c. The Transfiguration of the Lord, which was staged by Metropolitan Cyprian and often lived there, admired the wooded desert places.” Here the Svyatoozersky Monastery was subsequently formed, mentioned already in 1504. Act. Arch. Exp. T. I. p. 111. About this monastery. see East. Hierarch. Ros. T. VI p. 70. He could have been Archimandrite Spassky after Theodosius, who in 1404 was taken by Cyprian as governor of the metropolis in Kyiv. East. G.R. T. V. pr. 254. See Dictionary. about Pisat. Spirit. rank Ed. 2. Part 1. p. 322. In the same Dictionary, p. 194. it is said that in the library of the Academy of Sciences, between the manuscripts in the sheet, there is an abbreviated chronicler written by Ignatius (the traveler) from 1254 to 1423. For the meaning of the word “prepis”, see below in the note about M. Cyprian’s missal (6). East. G.R. T. VIII, pr. 173. Step. Book T. 2. p. 248. It was preserved during the Moscow fire (1547). The Epiphany Abbot Elijah also points to this Helmsman in his debate with Lavrentiy Zizaniy. Rosenkampf, Reviewed. Helmsman Book 1829 pp. 72, 73. Baron Rosenkampf tries to determine the composition of this Helmsman, but only by his own guesses. He considers Kiprianov's translation of the rules to be different from the translation of the Kirillov and Ryazan editions, with interpretations that he attributes to Dimitri Khomatin. This translation of the rules and interpretations was found by him not in a separate form, but in the consolidated Helmsman of M. Macarius, according to the list of 1615 (See links to this translation of the rules and interpretations in the description of the consolidated Helmsman, in the appendices to the index of the Helmsman's Review. N. VII. pp. 209 - 312. Samples of translation of the rules are presented by Rosenkampf in the notes to his Review of the Helmsman on pp. 38, 50, 54 and 55, and interpretations attributed to Dimitri Khomatin, in the same place, pp. 40 - 44. In a different composition, his summary Helmsman is presented according to the list of M. of the Assumption Cathedral, briefly described by I. M. Snegirev in the Monument to Moscow Antiquity, pp. 46 - 48). But if one can judge the composition of Cyprian’s list of Helmsman by the letters of his successor, Metropolitan Photius, then Rosenkampf’s guesses are unlikely to be confirmed. In the letter of Photius against Gregory Tsamblak (Act. Ist. T. I. N. 19.), which contains up to 29 rules of the Apostolic and Council, 15 of them with interpretation, these interpretations are borrowed for the most part from Aristen. East. Hierarch. Ross. Ed. 2. T. I. page, 519. It is attributed to Met. Macarius, and according to the inscription on the list belonging to the Moscow Miracle Monastery, it was collected by Macarius’ successor, Metropolitan. Afanasy. This inscription must be handwritten; for it was said by the humble Metropolitan (Monuments of M. Antiquities p. 147). For later additions to the Degree Book, see the Dictionary of Writers. Spirits. rank (1, 322). Vostokova Description of the river. Blush. Museum, R. CCCLXIII. and the next In this regard, the Republic of Kazakhstan deserves special attention. Degree book belonging to Rumyants. Museum, and described by Vostokov under N. ССССХV. It is incomparably shorter than the printed edition, but from the 14th degree, as Vostokov notes, it has fewer omissions. The Thirteenth degree should have ended with the work of M. Cyprian. Cyprian himself wrote: “every king in his kingdom, or a prince in his reign, is free to do this; he manages all affairs and writes down letters.” Act. History. T. I N 10. East. G.R.T.V. pr. 144. When describing the quarrel between V.K. and the Novgorodians in 1392, the chronicler, standing on the side of the Moscow government, reproaches the Novgorodians for being obstinate and changeable since ancient times, and says: “if you want to be tortured, open the book: The Great Russian Chronicler, and read from the great Yaroslav to this present Prince.” I.G.R.T.V. pr. 148. So in the Great Russian Chronicle it was then possible to find all the events from the beginning of Russian History to the time of Vasily Dimitrievich; by the name of the Great (chronicler), it differs from private and local, more or less complete chronicles. The chronicle conceived by Cyprian seems to be such a Great Chronicler. In St. Book 1, 558., and in other chronicles it is only said: “and translate many holy books from Greek into Russian and leave enough scripture for our benefit.” Kept in the Synod. bib. under N. 478 at 8 d. Inscription on l. 72 and rev. next “This service book was transcribed from the Greek books into the Russian language, by his own hand, the humble Metropolitan Cyprian of Kiev and All Rus'... If anyone wants to rewrite this book, be careful not to add or put aside one word, or a single poke (sic), or the hooks, which are under the lines in the rows, below the change I will say some, or add from the usual ones, or set aside some, neither in deacons, (ectenias), nor in exclamations, nor in prayers”... Vietnam. Europe 1813. Part LXXII century. 215, 216. The dual meaning of the word is remarkable here: prepisat. Prescribing from Greek books is not the same as simply “copying”, otherwise a new Greek list would come out. And in his instructions to those who prescribe this book, Cyprian has in mind precisely ordinary copyists. - “Do not shorten or spread the prayers of Chrysostom, but offer them in the form in which they are dedicated,” confirmed Cyprian’s ordainer, Patriarch Philotheus, threatening violators of this rule with anathema (Ar. Nicol. Papælopol. Prenotion. Mystagog. p 332) and he himself issued a charter for the priesthood, printed. in Gohar (Euchologium Græcum p. 1 et sq.) Act. Histor. T. 1 N 8. Message to the Pskov clergy. About the order of Orthodoxy, or the synodik, Cyprian writes: “and the synodik of the right Tsaregorod sent to you, which is why we remember here, or curse the heretics.” Such instructions are filled, in addition to the message to the Pskov clergy (see previous note), the teaching of Cyprian to the Novgorod clergy (Act. Ist. T. I. N. 11.), and the message to Abbot Athanasius (N. 253). In RK. General Menea, owned by M.D. Academy, under N. 77 sheets. 281 “the canon of prayer is the creation of the most holy and ecumenical Patriarch Philotheas, and the labors of the humble Metropolitan of All Rus' Cyprian” RK. XV century. In the same district. placed: a) a collection of canons and akathists for each day of the week, compiled by part of Patras. Philotheus, partly Isidore, and intended more for private use. L. 417–455. In the prayer that concludes the canon on Saturday, there are the names of not only Russian saints, saints and martyrs, but also Serbian ones. In one of the akathists, specifically for Wednesday, kontakia and ikos are arranged according to the Russian alphabet. But it is not said who compiled the akathist. b) Canon “in general adversity, on land and surface”, Patr. Filofeya. c) Prayers of P. Philotheus “during the terrible and worldwide plague” (which raged in the 2nd half of the 14th century in Asia and Europe). d) Canon for the communion of St. Tain, Patr. Isidora. Act. East. T. 1. N. 10. The document was written on May 12, 1395. Karamzin, having found this document in one (Goryushkinsky) chronicle (Ist. G.R.T.V. pr. 233), doubted its authenticity. But later it was found in three more lists of Helmsmen. One among the RK. Blush. Museum, under N 232 beginning. XVI century (see East. Description, hand, Rumyants. Music. p. 296.); the other two are mentioned by Baron Rosenkampf in Obozr. Helmsman. Notes pp. 209, 210. In the first two lists at the end of the letter it is said: this bundle was quickly written off (in another list) from the great and old Nomocanon in Moscow in the summer of 6911, indictment of the month of November 11. (in other cases, the 11th month is on the 19th day). Other doubts regarding the authenticity of this act are thoroughly resolved in the articles of Mr. Nevolin. about the Church court in Russia before Peter V. Zhuri. Min. adv. enlightenment 1847. Aug. pp. 147–151. Act. East. T. 1. pp. 149, 480. East. G.R.T.V. pr. 170 and 254 (under 1396). However, the archbishop has Novgorod. stolniki are mentioned even earlier. T. III. Ave. 324. “And that the metropolitan people live in the city, and are drawn to the palace, having described them, and put a quitrent on them, just like on my Princes of the Great Palace." Act. Arch. Exp. Vol. 1. p. 5. Acts West. Ros. T. I. N 26. Act. Archaeogr. Exp. T I. N 9. But the village of Aleksino, purchased by St. Peter, under M. Cyprian, it was exchanged for the settlement of Svyatoslavl, or Karash. Act. East. T. 1. N. 215. Lukh and Seneg belonged to the Vladimir region. In addition, metropolitan villages had to bear yam duty on an equal basis with the villages of V. Prince. At the beginning of the letter it is said, “I am the Great Prince.... sitting with my father.... Metropolitan of Kiev and all Russia, ruled over... and about all church duties.” According to this calculation, the salary collection from each church extended to 75 money. And since the money under V.K. Vasily Dimitrievich was no less than 14 grains of apothecary weight, in total it was necessary to pay up to 75 spools of silver. See Description. ancient rus. coins M. 1834. p. 4 - The charter was given in 1404 on June 28, as revealed from the testimony of indictment 12. In 1389 it could not have been given because Cyprian was then still in Constantinople, and not in Moscow. “On July 20 (1404) a week, Metropolitan Cyprian went from Moscow to Lygga and Kyiv, and took his governor Timothy and his servants there and sent them to Moscow, and installed there his governor Theodosius, Archimandrite Spassky, and chose Sitsa and his servants,” Ist. G.R.T.V. pr. 254. Nikon. Years . Part IV. p. 315 Tatishcheva Part IV. pp. 419, 420. East. G.R.T.M. approx. 254. under 1405, and a postscript from the Trinity Chronicle. in note 232. Description of the death of St. Cyprian and his spiritual letter are placed in Step. Book T. 1. p. 558 et seq. and in the Chronicles. Attached to the letter are several reflections on the vanity of the world and human life. Soph. Time Ch. Ch. page 136 You might be interested in: