Глава третья. 1 Управление.

1. – Metropolitans and their highest administration. Temporary divisions of the Russian metropolitanate into two and three special metropolitanates before the final division into two metropolitanates. – Nationality of Russian metropolitans and their relationship to the Patriarch of Constantinople. – The nature of the management of metropolitans and their outstanding, especially remarkable, deeds. – The relationship of metropolitans, as the highest church authority, to the grand dukes, as the highest state authority. – State merits and state significance of metropolitans. We set out the history of the temporary divisions of the Russian Metropolis in parts in detail above [in the first half of this volume], speaking about the metropolitans of all Russia under whom these divisions took place. Here we will briefly repeat what has been said. Before the invasion of the Mongols, our fatherland split into two separate great principalities through the formation of a special grand-ducal table in Galicia; After the invasion of the Mongols, by the middle of the 14th century, a significant part of our country was conquered by the Lithuanians. It was natural for the Grand Dukes of Galicia, and after the conquest of Galicia by the Poles, for the Kings of Poland and the Grand Dukes of Lithuania, not to be in church terms under the rule of Vladimir - Moscow. Hence the search for special metropolitans by the aforementioned kings and princes and the temporary divisions of the Russian Metropolis that took place. At the same time, it happened once that the division occurred for purely accidental reasons. For the first time, the metropolis was divided into two metropolises under the second metropolitan Maxim after the Mongol invasion in 1303: Emperor Andronikos Palaiologos and Patriarch Athanasius gave this year, at the request of the Galich Grand Duke Yuri Lvovich, a special metropolitan of Galicia (1 half of the volume, p. 96). After the death of Maxim in 1305, at the same time that the Grand Duke of Vladimir sent a candidate to Constantinople to be appointed metropolitan of all Russia, now the aforementioned Yuri Lvovich sent his candidate there with a request to be appointed to individual metropolitans of Galicia, and the prince’s request was not successful and the candidate he sent, St. Peter, was appointed by the patriarch as metropolitan for all of Rus' (ibid. p. 101). This unsuccessful embassy of Yuri must be understood either in such a way that it was given to Galicia in 1303. a special metropolitan died at the same time as Maxim, or so that he died earlier than the latter - that after his death the See of Galicia was again subordinated to the Metropolitan of All Russia, and that Yuri, taking advantage of the death of Maxim, again wanted to get a separate metropolitan. For the second time, the metropolis was divided into two metropolitanates under Maximus's successor, St. Petre: the same as above, Emperor Andronikos Palaiologos and the second successor of Patriarch Athanasius John Glyka in 1316–17. gave a special metropolitan to Lithuania or Lithuanian Rus; Moreover, as most likely one should think, Galicia was also included in Lithuania (ibid. p. 125). This Lithuanian-Galician metropolitan, given in 1316–17, named Theophilus, remained at the see during the entire reign of St. Peter and during the reign of Metropolitan Theognostus until 1329. In the last year he died, and Theognost managed to ensure that the Lithuanian Russians recognized him as their metropolitan. However, this was very short-lived: in 1330–31. a special Galician metropolitan was installed in Constantinople, who was supposed to have Lithuania under his authority. From 1330 or 31 a separate department of Galicia-Lithuania existed until 1347, when Theognostus and Grand Duke Simeon Ivanovich managed to ensure that it was closed, and that its separate existence was declared in Constantinople as a lawless novelty (ibid. pp. 147, 153 and 157). However, this was also very short-lived. Five or six years after this, in 1352 or 1353, the last of which is the year of the death of Theognostus, Lithuania and Galicia obtained for themselves a special metropolitan in the person of a certain Theodoret. Since this Theodorite was installed illegally, having managed to receive dedication to himself from Patriarch Ternovsky, he was removed from the department; but in his place at the same time as St. Alexey in 1354 was appointed metropolitan of all Russia, a special Lithuanian-Galician metropolitan was appointed in the person of a certain Roman, who remained at the see until the end of 1361. (ibid. p. 182). For ten years after the death of Roman, St. Alexei united all of Rus' under his rule, but in 1371. a division was made again: dismissing the requests of the Lithuanians (Olgerd) to give them a special metropolitan, the patriarch saw himself forced to fulfill the demand of the Polish king to give a special metropolitan for Galicia, to which Bishop Anthony was appointed metropolitan of Galicia proper, without Lithuania joining Galicia (ibid. p. 208). Just over two years before the death of St. Alexei, at the end of 1375, Hieromonk Cyprian was installed as metropolitan of all Russia; when he was not accepted in Moscow and received Lithuania under his authority, there were three metropolitans in Rus': Moscow or All Russia, Galician and Lithuanian. Under Cyprian, Lithuania, so to speak, shared his – the metropolitan’s – fate. In 1381 he took the see of the metropolitanate of all Russia: along with him Lithuania joined the latter; in 1382 after an unprecedented one and a half year reign, he had to leave the department: at the same time, Lithuania again became his separate metropolis; in 1390 he finally occupied our department, and at the same time finally united Lithuania with it for his reign (ibid. p. 209 sqq). Galicia since 1371 and until the end of the reign of Cyprian († September 16, 1406) it remained a separate metropolis: until the end of 1391 - beginning of 1392. occupied her chair, appointed in 1371. Metropolitan Anthony; after the death of Anthony, the patriarch, for reasons unknown to us, did not find it possible or did not want to appoint a new metropolitan for Galicia, but did not annex it to the metropolitanate of all Russia, and while maintaining the separateness of its see, ruled it through his exarchs (ibid. p. 342). Metropolitan Photius received from the patriarch all of Rus' into his power, that is, Moscow not only with Lithuania, but also Galicia, a separate department of which was closed. But he did not retain this entire Rus' under him throughout his reign: under him, and this time for random reasons, there was a short division of the metropolis into two special metropolises, with Lithuania and Galicia falling away from Moscow together (Gregory Tsamblak, - ibid. p. 369). After Isidore fled from Moscow in September 1441. and before the installation of St. as Metropolitan in Moscow. Jonah in December 1448 The Moscow part of the Metropolis of All Russia, on the one hand, and the Lithuanian-Galician part, on the other, represented two special administrative entities: Moscow was governed in ecclesiastical terms by its deputy metropolitan; Lithuania and Galicia either continued to recognize the power of Isidore over themselves or were governed by the same deputy metropolitan, but special from Moscow and their own. Constituted metropolitan, St. Jonah managed to achieve that in 1451. King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania Casimir subjugated Lithuanian Rus' to his power, but did not manage to achieve that the king - Grand Duke gave him Galicia, which was left nominally the property of Isidore (ibid. p. 491). In 1458 at St. Jonah saw the final division of the Russian metropolitanate into two special metropolitanates - Moscow and Lithuanian-Galician (ibid. p. 503). General provisions that can be expressed regarding the temporary divisions of the Russian Metropolis from the Mongol invasion to St. The ions are as follows: 1) Immediately after Metropolitan Maxim transferred the metropolitan see from Kiev to Vladimir, the great princes of Galicia were filled with the desire to have their own special metropolitan, which they retained until their extinction, with which the existence of the principality ceased, in the middle of the 14th century. 2) After the Lithuanians conquered a significant part of Russia by the middle of the 14th century, the Lithuanian Grand Dukes had the same desire as the Galician princes, and the first two among these princes - Gediminas and Olgerd - strove to fulfill their desire with all urgency. 3) Galicia, in the person of its own princes and then the kings of Poland and Lithuania, found it inconvenient and undesirable for themselves to be in ecclesiastical dependence on a metropolitan residing in Muscovite Rus'; but they, for the reasons stated above, did not see for themselves any inconvenience in both of them being under the authority of the same separate metropolitan, which is why this was the case from 1316–17. to 1361 4) Grand Duke Olgerd, who made every effort to bring the true cathedral city of the metropolitans of all Russia Kyiv into the possession of his individual Metropolitan Roman, in all likelihood, combined with these efforts that very important political plan to make his Lithuanian Rus' the central and real Russia. 5) Starting from Olgerd’s son Jogaila, the Grand Dukes of Lithuania cease to be urgently concerned about providing individual metropolitans to their Lithuanian Rus' (with the exception of the concern for this of Vytautas under Photius, which, being caused by motives not of church-political, but personal, should not be taken into account). This, in all likelihood, should be explained by the fact that the great princes, being under the influence of the Catholic clergy, found it more advantageous for Catholic propaganda for Rus', subject to them, not to have its own metropolitan, but to be under the authority of a metropolitan who resides away from it. And if the King of Poland Casimir the Great turned in 1370. to the Patriarch of Constantinople demanding a special metropolitan for Galicia, then his action can probably be explained by the fact that he was a sovereign distinguished by perfect religious tolerance and caring more about the welfare of all his subjects than about Catholic propaganda. (And Lithuanian Rus' and Galicia finally separated from Moscow under St. Jonah not so much due to the desire of the kings of Poland and the Grand Dukes of Lithuania, but rather due to the desire of the Orthodox clergy of Lithuanian Rus and Galicia themselves: we will talk about this below). 6) The fundamental teaching of the Patriarchs of Constantinople was that all of Rus' should form one indivisible metropolis. On this basis, Patriarch Luke Chrysoverg decisively rejected the request of Andrei Yuryevich Bogolyubsky to establish a special metropolis in Vladimir from Kyiv 2. The actions of the patriarchs of our later times, contrary to the recognized principle, should be explained by two reasons: firstly, the fact that they saw themselves forced to yield to the urgent demands of the Grand Dukes of Galicia and Lithuania and the Kings of Poland (Cazimir); secondly, by the fact that in our later times they, together with the emperors, have become much more willing to give up their principles in order to receive monetary gratitude. In the pre-Mongol period, our metropolitans were usually Greeks, elected in Constantinople, and there was not a single example of a candidate being appointed metropolitan who was elected in Russia itself and from natural Russians, so our great princes, when they wanted to have metropolitans from natural Russians, had to, encroaching on the rights of the patriarch, install them in Russia itself. This principle, that Russian metropolitans must certainly be Greeks, was very firmly maintained by the Patriarchs of Constantinople even after the Mongol invasion. Patriarch Philotheus in his conciliar act on the installation of St. as metropolitan. Alexei writes: “although it was not at all common and not safe for the church (for the Russian Metropolitan to be one of the natural Russians), but for the sake of reliable and laudable testimonies (about him - Alexei) and for the sake of his virtuous and godly life, we agreed to this (i.e. so that he, Alexey, would be appointed metropolitan); however, we agreed to this only in relation to this, precisely and exclusively, the king of Alexei, and we do not at all allow and do not allow that in the future anyone else who came from Russia would be appointed to the local bishops” (i.e., metropolitans). The metropolitans after the invasion of the Mongols before Cyprian were in turn Greeks and Russians (the line actually begins last, and that is what it is: Cyril III - Russian, Maximus - Greek, St. Peter - Russian, Theognostus - Greek, St. Alexius - Russian, Cyprian is not Russian and not Greek by nationality, but Greek by appointment, the first and very unseemly deviation from his rule, Greeks). They did it themselves and of their own free will. The enslavement of Russia by the Mongols at first spread such horror that there were no hunters among the Greeks to take the place of Metropolitan Joseph, who fled from them from Kyiv, so the Russians had to elect the first metropolitan after the Mongol invasion from among their own. Deviation from the rule, made by the Greeks of their own free will, gave the Russians the right to demand that deviations be allowed in cases where the Greeks did not have good will to do so. Then the patriarch and the emperor were made compliant by their unfortunate circumstances. Returned in 1261 from Nivea to Constantinople to the place of the crusaders, very poor; they then continued, due to the rapid decline of the empire under the blows of the Turks, to become poorer and poorer. Being in a similar position, one and the other, and especially the latter, could not help but be inclined to derive monetary benefits from deviations from the rule, that is, to agree to these deviations for the highest possible monetary payment or for possibly good monetary gifts from the Russians. And that this really was the case, we talked about this above. It can be said with confidence that if, after the installation of Metropolitan Kirill III, the Russians had firmly set their minds to the idea of having their metropolitans certainly from natural Russians (and if in this case they had not interfered with themselves, as was the case when installing a successor to St. Peter (1 half of the volume, p. 146): then they would have been quite successful in their endeavor, i.e., that every time they replaced the see they would have been able to buy from the Greeks deviation from their rule [Cf. 1 half of the volume pp. 345–346, pp. 409]. The history of the relations of Russian metropolitans to the Patriarchs of Constantinople during the time subject to our consideration is divided into two halves: this is until St. Jonah and from the installation of St. Ions. Until St. Our metropolitan ions were truly dependent on the patriarchs; from the appointment of Jonah, they began to be dependent on them only purely nominally, or more precisely, they ceased to be in any way dependent on them. The actual power of the patriarchs over the metropolitans consisted of: 1) in the right to supply them; 2) the right to supervise their activities and behavior, the right to try them and depose them in the event of misconduct and crimes on their part and general unworthiness; 3) the right to call them to regional patriarchal councils; 4) in the right of court of appeal to their metropolitan court, and 5) in relation not to metropolitans as individuals, but to the metropolis as a region, in the right of the so-called stauropegy. This real power of the patriarchs over the metropolitans, due to the special conditions of the Russian Church, as the metropolis of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, could not manifest itself in a completely real way. The patriarchs fully and fully exercised their right to appoint Russian metropolitans; but the right and together the duty of supervision, due to Russia’s remoteness from Greece, remained more nominal than they had any real application. In an unimaginable way, the patriarchs could supervise the activities and behavior of Russian metropolitans only through their special officials, who would either permanently live in Russia or come to it from time to time for more or less short periods (their exarchs or, as it were, their nuncios). But as far as is known, neither of these nor any other officials were there at all. In general, regarding patriarchal supervision, Russian metropolitans and before St. The ions must be represented as being under such supervision only in idea, but not in reality. – As for the application by the patriarchs of their right to judge Russian metropolitans and complaints to the patriarchs against the metropolitans from the Russian side, several cases are known in this regard. In 1310 or 1311 Patriarch Athanasius sent his cleric or dignitary to Russia to carry out a conciliar trial of St. Peter, as a result of a denunciation to the patriarch against the latter by Bishop Andrei (and Grand Duke Mikhail Yaroslavich). Soon after the council, the Grand Duke turned to the Patriarch with new accusations against the Metropolitan (1 half of the volume, p. 106 and p. 112). In 1347 Patriarch Isidore demanded that the Metropolitan of Galicia appear before him at the cathedral court (ibid. p. 160). In 1353 Metropolitan of Feognost, Archbishop of Novgorod Moses appealed to Patriarch Philotheus with a complaint about extortions and oppression (ibid. p. 167). After 1370 Patriarch Philotheus intended to conduct a trial between St. Alexei and Tver Prince Mikhail Alexandrovich, as a result of a complaint to him - the patriarch about the former from the latter. In 1373–74 and in 1376 the same Patriarch Philotheus sent his apocrisiaries to Russia to carry out inquiries about the same St. Alexei, as a result of complaints against him from the Lithuanian Grand Duke Olgerd and in the second case, as a result of denunciations against him from the patriarchal apocrisiary, who came to Russia in 1373–74. (Cyprian, - ibid. p. 211). Archbishops of Suzdal Dionysius and Euphrosynus brought complaints to the patriarchs against the metropolitans that the latter were taking away from them - the archbishops - cities belonging to their diocese (ibid. p. 319. We are not talking about patriarchal councils against metropolitans Pimin and Cyprian because these councils were not called by the Russians and the latter were, so to speak, human in relation to them third parties). Regarding the obligation of Russian metropolitans to come to Constantinople for patriarchal councils, the following requirement is read in the conciliar act about the installation of St. as metropolitan. Alexei, dated June 30, 1354: “Because he (the Metropolitan) must, as the divine and sacred canons command, come here (to Constantinople) out of duty of his submission to the holy, universal and apostolic Church of God and according to their canonical instructions, but since he does not have the convenience (opportunity) to come every year due to the distance and difficulty of the path: then we We command that he, without any contradiction (εὐθύντου ὄντος τοῦ πράγματος), come here for the same duty that he has, and for the sake of necessary church affairs, as well as for the sake of important questions (perplexities) that may arise in his entire area through (every) two years; if, due to some illness or other obstacles, he is not able to personally come to the sacred and divine council held with us, then he is obliged to choose and send here whom he finds worthy in his clergy, and convey (to us and the council) through his (properly) written and sealed letters about what requires urgent consideration, so that here, by God’s grace, it will receive its due. restoration and correction” 4. Based on the now stated demand of Patriarch Philotheus to St. Alexei might have thought that everyone who preceded Alexey and everyone who came after him before St. Our metropolitan ions appeared in Constantinople at the patriarchal councils in person or through representatives no less often than every two years. But with all probability one must think that the patriarch’s demand does not express what really happened, but only what he, in his opinion, had the right to oblige the metropolitans to, and that it was presented to St. Alexey did not want this one to fulfill it, but so that, knowing him and remembering him, he would be more firmly and more vividly aware of his dependence on the patriarch. That our metropolitans did not travel to Constantinople regularly every two years, that they traveled there only very rarely, or, like some of the metropolitans of the Mongol time, did not travel at all, this cannot be doubted. Let us assume that our chronicles might not even talk about such frequent trips of metropolitans to Constantinople, which is, however, very difficult to admit: in any case, in their stories they could not help but let us know about the too frequent absence of metropolitans from Russia, which we do not find in them at all. The chronicles may not have said anything directly about the fact that the metropolitans regularly sent representatives to Constantinople to Constantinople in their place at certain times and may not have made it known in an accidental and unintentional way. However, these regular embassies of authorized representatives are extremely doubtful: In all our writing and in all our official acts, as far as one and others are historical, there is no indication of such regular embassies at all. In general, regarding the fulfillment of their duty by our metropolitans to appear at the patriarchal councils, one must probably think that they themselves traveled to Constantinople very rarely, and others did not travel at all, but that they sent their representatives quite often, although not at certain times, and not so often that in total there was at least one embassy for two years. As for the consideration of the affairs of the Russian Church at patriarchal councils, in this regard we know of one case. This is their consideration by the council of 1276. as a result of questions proposed to the council, on behalf of Metropolitan Kirill III, by Bishop Theognostus of Sarai. We are not aware of any cases in which, at the time of our speeches, Russian bishops and clergy in general, or Russian laity, turned from the court of their metropolitans to the appellate court of the patriarchs of Constantinople. The Patriarchs were too far from Russia for the Russians to find it possible to appeal to their highest court. Bishops, in the event of their deposition by metropolitans, of which there were examples, would have the opportunity to appeal to the appellate court of the patriarchs. But living witnesses could not be brought before them for trial; they would override the court of the metropolitans only on the basis of the testimony of the interested parties themselves (the judge and the convicted person): and in this case, it would, of course, be in vain for the bishops to hope that some patriarch would give more faith to them than to the metropolitans. The right of stauropegy that belonged to the Patriarchs of Constantinople consisted in the fact that they could, throughout their entire patriarchal district, withdraw certain individual monasteries and churches, if the latter’s ktitors expressed a desire, from the authority of local bishops and subordinate them directly to their patriarchal authority. Since monasteries and churches, having been made stauropegic, along with their subordination to the direct power of the patriarch, also became taxable to him, and not to local bishops, 5 it is obvious that it should have been desirable for the patriarchs to have as many stauropegic churches as possible anywhere else, and in particular here in Russia. Since, on the other hand, our monks could not help but find it more pleasant for themselves to be under the nominal authority of a distant patriarch than under the real authority of local bishops, it is obvious that it was also desirable for them to make the monasteries stauropegial. For both of these reasons, one would expect that in Russia we would have a possibly large number of patriarchal stauropegial monasteries. In fact, we did not have such monasteries at all, with the exception of one and only one example. It is necessary to think that our great princes, without whose permission and consent the builders of the monasteries could not seek from the patriarchs to make their monasteries stauropegial, for fear of giving too much space to the power of the patriarchs in Russia, did not want to give this permission and consent at all. The only stauropegic patriarchal monastery in Russia was the Moscow Simonovsky Monastery, to which the abbot Theodore, elevated by the patriarch to archimandrite, asked for the right of stauropegia when he was in Constantinople in 1384. 6. But it is very likely that this single monastery did not remain stauropegial for very long. Regarding the actions of the care of the Patriarchs of Constantinople for the Russian Church and regarding cases of their interference in its affairs, we know only the following little: Patriarch Nile sent around 1382. his admonishing message to Pskov regarding the Strigolnikov split that arose here (1 half of the volume, p. 402) 7; Patriarch Anthony in 1393 sent two messages to Novgorod urging the Novgorodians to submit to the demands of Metropolitan Cyprian regarding the so-called monthly trial (ibid. p. 316). Thus, the power of the Patriarchs of Constantinople over the Russian Church, while they retained it over it, consisted mainly in the fact that they installed Russian metropolitans. As for the manifestation of power in everything else, it was very insignificant. What blatant abuses the Greeks allowed themselves with the installation of our metropolitans and how much they lost their authority through this in the eyes of our ancestors, we spoke about this in detail above (1 half of the volume, p. 260 fin. and p. 345). It must be thought that since the time of St. Peter, our metropolitans provided the patriarchs with an annual, more or less significant, subsidy (ibid. p. 132). But we do not have any positive information about this subsidy 8 . In 1448 Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich the Dark erected St. Jonah as metropolitan by his Russian bishops because the patriarchs of Constantinople were then Uniates. If, soon after this, Constantinople had not been taken by the Turks and if, during the existence of the Greek emperors, the Orthodox patriarchs had returned to the patriarchal see, then, as in all probability one should think, the previous order of installing our metropolitans would have been resumed for an indefinite time, with the only limitation, perhaps, from the previous one, that they would have been elected exclusively from natural Russians. But in 1453 in Constantinople, the Turkish sultans took the place of the Greek emperors, and this circumstance, despite the fact that at the same time the Orthodox patriarchs returned to the place of the Uniate patriarchs, had the consequence that we forever decided to appoint our own metropolitans ourselves. On the one hand, our sovereigns resolutely did not want the Russian Church to have the Muslim Sultan of Turkey as its secular head, and on the other hand, they began to look at themselves as successors to the Byzantine emperors, with which their idea of ​​themselves was incompatible with the fact that our metropolitans were installed as patriarchs (ibid. p. 508). In the eyes of society, this overthrow of the power of the Patriarchs of Constantinople found its justification mainly in the fact that since the Council of Florence, the purity of true Orthodoxy among the Greeks had been damaged (ibid. p. 458). The Patriarchs of Constantinople did not formally grant our metropolitans the right to be installed as their bishops, but they did not directly and openly protest against this installation, but saw themselves forced to recognize it as a fact and, silently tolerating the order introduced by the Russians, did not interrupt their communication with the Russian Church (ibid. p. 511). Russian metropolitans since the time of St. The Ions did not formally declare themselves independent of the Patriarchs of Constantinople or autocephalous, but they actually became so: they completely stopped all relations with the patriarchs as subordinates to their superiors. An autocephalous metropolitan represented something that did not exist in the Greek Church and which, from the point of view of the administrative structure of this church, should have been recognized as illegal. In order to give legal independence to the highest leader of their church, the Russians had to elevate him to the rank of patriarch. But in the sphere of the church, our ancestors were too leisurely and extremely prudent and cautious in realizing their aspirations for the highest. And for a very long time they agreed to be content with a virtually autocephalous metropolitan, although this metropolitan was something abnormal. There is no doubt, however, that they began to look at their metropolitan as an actual patriarch, so to speak, very long before he became an actual patriarch: In unofficial and non-public writings we find that Metropolitan Simon (1495–1511) is already called a patriarch 9 . According to church canons, an essential feature of metropolitan government should have been its conciliarity. Rule 34 of the so-called apostolic rules prescribes: “It is fitting for the bishops of every nation (of course: every metropolitanate) to know the first in them and recognize him as the head, and not to do anything that exceeds their authority without his judgment: .. but let the first do nothing without the judgment of all.” Rule 9 of the Council of Antioch prescribes: “Let not (the bishop of a small region) attempt to do anything without the bishop of the metropolitan area, but also this one without the consent of the other bishops (of his diocese).” To what extent the administration of our Russian metropolitans of this time was distinguished by this canonical character of conciliarity, or to what extent, on the contrary, it suffered from its absence, we cannot say in a positive way, because we have no positive evidence for this. The conciliarity of metropolitan administration requires the frequent and regular convening by metropolitans of the bishops of their regions to diocesan (metropolitan) councils. This is how it was in the ancient Greek Church: in ancient times, metropolitans were ordered to convene bishops to councils twice a year, and since the Council of Trullo (692) once a year. That our Russian metropolitans did not have the custom of annually convening bishops for councils from the very first time of the existence of our church, we spoke about this before (I volume 1 half, pp. 256/294) 10. And from this it naturally follows that the management of our metropolitans in relation to the nature of conciliarity, from the very first time, was more or less not what it should have been. But both in relation to the pre-Mongol period and to the time we are considering, we are not able to definitively answer exactly how much and how much government departed from the canonically prescribed image. Russian chronicles of both the pre-Mongol period and the time subject to our speeches rarely speak of the convening of councils by metropolitans, so that based on them one would think that the administration of our metropolitans retained only the most insignificant remnant of conciliarity. But if, regarding the pre-Mongol period, on the basis of aprioristic assumptions, one should think that councils, not being collected by metropolitans annually, were nevertheless collected quite often: then regarding our time we have some positive evidence that councils were collected by metropolitans not as rarely as one might believe on the basis of the chronicles. From this time, several voluntary letters have been preserved to this day, given by bishops to metropolitans, stating that they, the bishops, without coming to the metropolitans at councils, would express their consent in advance to everything that would be decided at the councils. Here is one of these letters, namely from Bishop Vassian of Tver (installed in 1477), given to Metropolitan Gerontius († 1489): “Behold, Yaz Vasiyan, Bishop of Tver, gave this letter of mine to my master, the Most Reverend Gerontius, Metropolitan of All Russia: which God’s great work delights, according to the holy rule, my most reverend lord, Metropolitan Saint Gerontius of All Russia (instruct) sborne: install a bishop or archbishop, or who will govern church affairs according to the holy apostolic rule, and with him my God-loving warfare, archbishops and bishops, and the language of my master, the Most Reverend Gerontius, Metropolitan of All Russia, I give my will and desire, and with my brothers, with the Orthodox archbishops and Russian bishops, for those divine deeds I am also with them in one will and desire” 11. The voluntary letters of the bishops do not tell us that the councils were convened by the metropolitans too often, but, in any case, they let us know that the councils were convened by them not extremely rarely and that the conciliar management of church affairs by the metropolitans was considered the way of conducting the latter, which is required by the holy apostolic rules. In addition to our letters, we know one piece of evidence that the Russian bishops of this time did not completely forget the injunction of the church canons about the annual gathering of councils by metropolitans; Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod writes to Metropolitan Zosima: “We have been ordered (to us bishops) to come together every year to you, our father, and to carry out a conciliar correction of an unknown thing with us, with our children and fellow ministers” 12. To what extent exactly the councils were not extremely rarely convened by the metropolitans of our time, unfortunately, we cannot determine with any approximate accuracy. The conciliarity of the metropolitan administration, in any case, could not completely disappear or completely collapse because there were needs of this administration that inevitably required the convening of councils, this is the replacement of episcopal sees. The need to replace episcopal sees did not arise every year, but, in any case, quite often, so that if other metropolitans convened councils solely on occasions of the installation of bishops, then even then the nature of the conciliarity of administration would still be preserved to some extent. Be that as it may, in comparison with the pre-Mongol period, the time we are considering must necessarily be represented as a time of a more or less significant weakening of the conciliarity of metropolitan administration. In the pre-Mongol period, our metropolitans were Greeks, and for them the example of the Greek Church should have been much more binding than for natural Russians, which half of them were before St. Jonah, and from him our metropolitans completely became. The Moscow grand princes strenuously strove for autocracy and autocracy: and the spirit and aspirations of the princes were to a large extent transferred to the metropolitans... According to the canonical rules, the metropolitan must judge the bishop and, in the event of his guilt and unworthiness, remove him from the cathedra no other than with the participation of other bishops subordinate to him, in other words, he must judge and condemn no other than a council 13. In Russia at this time there have been cases of bishops being tried by metropolitans and the former deposing the latter. Whether all of our metropolitans always acted in this case as prescribed by the canonical rules, or others and sometimes acted autocratically, that is, autocratically, we cannot say, because we do not have sufficient information for this. Metropolitan Kirill in 1280 he excommunicated Bishop Ignatius of Rostov from sacred service; but nothing is said in the chronicle about the trial that preceded the excommunication (see 1 half of the volume, p. 80; Nikon Chronicle III, 69). Metropolitan Maxim in 1295 removed Jacob, Bishop of Vladimir, from his bishopric; but the chronicle also says nothing about the trial 14. St. Peter in 1311 removed the rank from Bishop of Sarai Ishmael; but again the chronicle says nothing about the trial 15. Metropolitan Theognost in 1847 or before this year he excommunicated Bishop Daniel of Suzdal; but again nothing is said in the chronicle about the trial 16. Metropolitan Cyprian in 1390 deposed Bishop of Tver Euthymius from his rank, and in 1401. at the same time he forced Archbishop John of Novgorod and Bishop Savva of Lutsk to unsubscribe from their sees: In both cases, Cyprian judged the bishops conciliarly (1 half of the volume, p. 318 and p. 323 fin.). Under Metropolitan Simon, the archbishops of Novgorod were deprived of their chairs - Gennady in 1504. and Serapion in 1509. Regarding the deposition of Gennady in the chronicles, it is not entirely clear in relation to our question that the Grand Duke and Metropolitan removed him from the throne after searching for his guilt. And regarding the deposition of Serapion, we know that it took place after the cathedral trial of him (ibid. p. 617 and p. 641). Under Metropolitan Macarius, Archbishop Theodosius of Novgorod was deposed from their cathedras in 1550, and after 1555 Bishop Theodosius of Kolomna. But the first bringing down of the chronicle is presented as the work of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, without saying anything about the participation of the metropolitan in it 17; and the second reduction, according to the assurance of our tsar in a message to Prince Kurbsky, was the work of neither him, the tsar, nor the metropolitan, but the boyars’ sedition 18 . While the Russian Church recognized the authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople over itself, our bishops, in the event of illegal actions towards them by the metropolitans, had to bring complaints against the latter to the patriarch. But when the Russian Church became virtually independent, the bishops were left in this case to seek court proceedings against the metropolitans from the council of other bishops of the Russian Church. We know of at least one example of a bishop seeking justice against a metropolitan at a council of bishops; this is precisely - by Bishop Vassian of Rostov on Metropolitan Gerontius (ibid. p. 555 fin.). Representatives of the highest government authorities, church and state, are usually divided into two categories: some are ordinary people, ordinary people, and they simply rule in the sense of administering current affairs or in the sense of the highest temporary leadership of an established or ready-made administrative machine; others are exceptional, outstanding people who not only rule in the sense now indicated, but also strive for greater or lesser improvements in the area of ​​administration under their control. Just as in general in human society the decisive majority are ordinary people, and exceptional people are only in the smallest minority, so it is with respect to representatives of the highest administration: the decisive majority of them are ordinary people, and only the smallest minority are exceptional people. The general law of all humanity applies in particular to our Russian metropolitans of the time we are considering. During this time, 18 metropolitans replaced the Russian metropolitan see, and among the 18 metropolitans there were two outstanding people, namely, the first among them was Cyril and the last was Macarius. Two more can be counted among the named two - Metropolitan Theodosius and Archimandrite Mikhail-Mityai, who did not occupy the chair, but was only appointed to it. With a very small number of outstanding people among our metropolitans of the time in question, there could not have been a significant number of remarkable deeds. These remarkable deeds are the actions of three councils: 1274, 1503 and 1551, and the initiative of the most important one, decreed at the second council, did not belong to the metropolitan himself (Simon), and then, without a council, the correction of the morals of the clergy was undertaken by Metropolitan Theodosius. Regarding our ordinary metropolitans of the time under review, we cannot say with certainty whether to rank most of them in the better half of their category or in the worst: our information about their church and government activities is so insufficient that we, without being carried away by a deliberate desire to praise or condemn, are not able to pronounce a decisive verdict on it. If we rely on the general praise of some of them, if we rely on the absence of reproachful reviews of others between them: then the most probable opinion will be that the majority of them should be ranked in the better half of their category. We have reason to consider St. to be the most zealous among them in the matter of government. Petra and Photius. We cannot name anyone among them who would be distinguished by positive neglect of their duty. Not as rulers, but as people in general, two people can directly be called unworthy: Zosima and Daniel. The first - for his private life (not to mention his heresy); the second - for his moral rules and for his merciless hatred of the enemy, and in relation to him one should not forget about the virtues that atone for the shortcomings. (Metropolitan Cyprian did not manage to receive the see in a very worthy manner; but as a metropolitan he is not before us a person subject to condemnation). Therefore, we have reason to suspect that Metropolitan Theognostos was, to a greater or lesser extent reprehensible, self-interested and that St. Alexei was more or less powerful beyond measure 19. Since the time of St. Our metropolitan ions became virtually independent of the patriarchs of Constantinople. But this overthrow of their dependence on the patriarchs did not mean that they acquired absolute independence: instead of dependence on the patriarchs, they entered into a new and greater dependence on their own great princes. While our metropolitans were installed as patriarchs, they were inviolable for the great princes: the latter did not at all dare to dethrone them with their own power. St. Peter was extremely hated by Grand Duke Mikhail Yaroslavich; the prince used all his efforts to remove the hated metropolitan from the throne through the mediation of the patriarch: but he did not dare at all and did not even think about doing this last with his own power. After metropolitans began to be installed in Russia itself, the great princes were not slow to acquire the power to appoint and replace them as their officials. The first three after St. The metropolitan ions Theodosius, Philip and Gerontius were canonically elected by councils, but from the fourth Zosima the election turns into a simple form, approving appointments made by the Grand Duke himself. With the third after St. Jonah, Metropolitan Gerontius, such misunderstandings arose among Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich and such relations were established that the sovereign was very willing to remove the metropolitan from the department, and, however, he did not dare to do so. And the sixth after Jonah, Metropolitan Varlaam, Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich drove out from the department in exactly the same way as he drove away the boyars he disliked. The first expulsion was immediately followed by the second and third expulsion of Metropolitans Daniel and Joasaph (carried out, however, not by the sovereign, but by the boyars, but following the example shown by the sovereign). State power has a legal and indisputable right to participate in church affairs. But when a representative of the highest church authority becomes a simple official of a representative of the state authority or sovereign, completely dependent on the will and arbitrariness of the latter, then it cannot be said that this was for the good of the church. However, our sovereigns did not themselves go so far as to place themselves in non-canonical relations with the metropolitans; In this case, they did only that they set an example for the Byzantine emperors in their relations with the patriarchs. It may very well be that the marriage of Ivan Vasilyevich III to Sophia Fominichna accelerated our sovereigns’ adoption of the example of the Byzantine emperors (both in this respect and in others); but there can be no doubt that, recognizing themselves as successors to the Byzantine emperors, they would have borrowed their example even without this marriage. [Abuse in the installation of Russian metropolitans occurred throughout the period described. People who, for one reason or another, aspired to the metropolitan throne, while they were being installed in Constantinople, gave promises to the patriarchs, and since they began to be installed in Moscow, they began to give them to the grand-ducal boyars. At least, Abbot Zacharias of Pskov asserted this during the interrogation of Novgorod Archbishop Gennady, see above, p. 22 note]. Our metropolitans of the pre-Mongol period saw their pastoral duty in relation to the state in calming the civil strife of the princes and preventing bloodshed between them. The first two metropolitans after the Mongol invasion, Cyril and Maxim, were the same peacemakers as their pre-Mongol predecessors; but St. Circumstances of the time placed Peter in a new position in relation to the state. Before his accession to the department, a struggle began in northern Rus' between two rivals - the princes of Tver and Moscow for state dominance, and due to his occupation of the department, he found himself in such a position that he had to take the side of the Prince of Moscow against his rival, Prince Tver. Having become an ally of the Prince of Moscow, St. Peter blessed his aspirations for state autocracy and tried to ensure this autocracy for Moscow by expressing his consent to be buried in it instead of Vladimir, in which he should have been buried. Successors of St. Peter Theognostus and St. Alexei were the most zealous assistants of the princes of Moscow in achieving the goal of their aspirations, which was actually achieved during the reign of the second of them. Thus, the mission and together the merit of St. Peter with his two successors was that they assisted the Moscow princes in creating a unified Russian state. The merits of our three metropolitans should not be excessively exaggerated, but on the other hand, they should not belittle it. It was not the metropolitans who awakened the desire for autocracy in the Russian princes. If they had not at all contributed to its establishment with us, then it would have been established with us without them: for if for them the Greek Empire could represent the ideal of a state structure, then the princes were led by the course of history to strive to gather the state into one whole. But there can be no dispute or doubt that the named metropolitans contributed extremely much and decisively to the establishment of autocracy in Moscow and that they contributed extremely much to accelerating its establishment here in Russia. In the first case, their merit goes to Moscow itself, but in the second, it goes to the entire fatherland. Without the assistance of the metropolitans, the struggle between the princes for autocracy could have been much longer, and at the same time accompanied by incomparably greater disasters for the country than what it was actually accompanied by. Old Moscow did not deny the state services of Saints Peter and Alexei for it, but did not want to recognize the merits of the Greek Theognostus; history must at least be fair to the latter, obligated to place it alongside the first two. After St. Alexei, under whom the state unity of Russia reached its strength, Metropolitan Photius had to provide his services to the state, but not with regard to maintaining its unity, but with regard to eliminating the struggle between two lines in the princely house of Moscow (1 half of the volume, p. 410). – In a united state, the political vocation of the metropolitans became to grieve before the sovereigns for those who were disgraced, and to be guarantors for the sovereigns before the people of the state, and vice versa regarding the inviolability of the promises of one side to the other, i.e., it became their vocation, as it should be, to personify and represent Christian mercy and Christian conscience. [Wed. 1 half volume pp. 81, pp. 94, pp. 133–144, pp. 152–153, pp. 193–206, pp. 501–503]. 2. – Bishops and their diocesan administration. Number of dioceses. – Replacement of episcopal sees. – Administration and court in Muscovite Rus' and Kyiv Russia. By the time of the Mongol invasion, there were 15 dioceses in Russia, counting the metropolitan’s own diocese, namely: 1) Belgorod, 2) Yuryev, 3) Pereyaslav, 4) Chernigov, 5) Peremyshl, 6) Galich, 7) Ugrov, 8) Vladimir-Volyn, 9) Turov, 10) Polotsk, 11) Smolenskaya, 12) Novgorodskaya, 13) Rostovskaya, 14) Vladimir-Klyazemskaya, 15) Ryazanskaya. After the Mongol invasion, during the time we are considering, four existing dioceses were closed and seven new dioceses were opened, so that by the time of the death of Metropolitan Macarius, all the dioceses in Russia, counting the metropolitan’s own diocese, were 18. The following dioceses were closed: Belgorod, Yuryevsk, Pereyaslavl and Vladimir-Klyazemsk. The first three dioceses were closed or closed immediately after the Mongol invasion and precisely as a result of this invasion: on the one hand, the small areas of all three dioceses were so terribly devastated by the Tatars by beating the inhabitants or by taking them into captivity that from our Russian point of view on the dioceses they did not seem sufficient to constitute such 20; on the other hand, the territories of all three dioceses lay so close to the steppe chosen by the Mongols for habitation (from the Volga to the Dnieper and further beyond the Dnieper), that the latter, having completed the conquest of Rus', did not flee far from them with their hordes, as from other dioceses, but remained in them as terrible inhabitants 21, for which reason it might have been impossible for bishops to stay in them. The dioceses of Bogorodsk and Yuryevsk, as it must be thought, were annexed to the metropolis itself, and the diocese of Pereyaslavl was annexed to the newly opened diocese of Sarai. The Diocese of Vladimir-Klyazemsk was closed by Metropolitan Maxim in 1300. in such a way that he moved his own residence from Kiev to Vladimir and that he made the diocese his own diocese, connecting it with Kiev. The seven newly opened dioceses were: Lutsk, Sarai, Tver, Suzdal, Kolomna, Perm and Kazan. We have already spoken about the Lutsk diocese above (I volume 1 half, p. 579/700). It may very well be that it was discovered even before the Mongol invasion. But it is unknown when it was discovered; it was first mentioned in the chronicle in 1284. 22 If after the Mongol invasion it was opened before 1271, then its discovery belonged to the same appanage prince of Vladimir-Volyn (in the Grand Duchy of Galicia) Vasilko Romanovich, who could have opened it before the Mongol invasion. If it was discovered after 1271, then its discovery belonged to Vasilkov’s nephew Mstislav Danilovich, to whom the first gave Lutsk as an inheritance (separating it from the Vladimir inheritance, left as an inheritance to his son Vladimir) at his death in the mentioned year. On the establishment of the Sarai department by Metropolitan Kirill in 1261. we have already said above (1 half of the volume, p. 60). Either simultaneously with the disappearance of the Tatar Golden Horde in 1480, or some time earlier, the bishops of Sarai were transferred from the capital of the khan Sarai to Moscow, where they were given a suburban estate for residence, called Krutitsy (from the fact that it lies on the steep bank of the Moscow River) 23. Since the Sarai department was established for the purpose of allowing representatives of our faith to remain under the Horde khans, it would follow that with the disappearance of the khans, it should have closed. It was not closed, as one might think, on the one hand because on the Moscow outskirts of the Mongolian steppe, which formed the diocesan region of the bishops, Russian settlements appeared (in the eastern half of the present Oryol province and in the southern half of the present Tula province), and on the other hand, because the Moscow metropolitans wanted to have them with them as their vicars. The actual diocese of the bishops of Sarai, created by colonization, was then, in ancient or later times, increased at the expense of the neighboring diocese of Chernigov in the southwest. In 1459–61 under Metropolitan Jonah, the bishops were renamed from Saraisky to Sarsky and Podonsky 24, and after moving to Moscow they unofficially began to be called Krutitsky from the place of their see in Moscow. How long the Pereyaslavl diocese was under the control of the Saraisky bishops remains unknown. In any case, no further than the final division of the metropolis, after which it had to go to the Kiev metropolis, since its area belonged to Lithuania - Poland. The Diocese of Tver, which embraced the Tver appanage principality, which was opened through separation from the great reign immediately after the Mongol invasion 25, was established between 1274 and 1285 under Metropolitans Kirill or Maxim and under the second or third Tver appanage prince Svyatoslav or Mikhail Yaroslavich 26. The diocese of Suzdal, established in the appanage principality of Suzdal, which, like Tver, was separated from the great reign immediately after the Mongol invasion 27, was opened or St. Peter or Metropolitan Theognostus. It became reliably known before 1347. 28. In 1464 Kaluga and Torusa (or Tarusa, a district town of the Kaluga province, between Kaluga and Serpukhov, 70 versts from the first) with other volosts were attached to the diocese of Suzdal, from which the bishops began to be called Suzdal and Torusa 29. It is not known exactly how it happened that a region not neighboring, but located very far from it, was attached to the diocese, so that a very large stripe emerged. Kaluga and Tarusa were assigned to the diocese of Suzdal when the Bishop of Chernigov, who had fled to Moscow from Lithuania, was appointed to its see. This, in all likelihood, should explain the matter. Chernigov then belonged to Lithuania (where the Uniate Metropolitan Gregory appeared, from whom Euthymius fled) 30, and Kaluga and Tarusa, which belonged to the Chernigov diocese, were in the Moscow region: in Moscow and gave to the former bishop of Chernigov what belonged to his former diocese in the Moscow region. Taking this opportunity, they could make an increase to the bishops of Suzdal as a reward for Nizhny Novgorod and Gorodets, which were taken from them to the metropolis, as we talked about above (1 half of the volume, p. 205 fin. and p. 319). The Kolomna diocese was first mentioned in 1353, in which Metropolitan Theognost died 31. Since Kolomna did not constitute a special appanage, belonging until the beginning of the 14th century to the appanage of Ryazan, and then being annexed to Moscow, the establishment of a see in it should be assimilated not by the desire of the princes, but by the metropolitans themselves, and should be understood in such a way that the metropolitans, who began to live in Moscow, wanted to acquire in the Bishop of Kolomna, as it were, their own vicar (which he really is) 32 . From what has just been said, it follows that the establishment of the Kolomenskaya See should be adopted either by Theognostus, under whom it became known, or by his predecessor, St. Peter, who first began to live in Moscow. But since St. Peter’s life in Moscow was not yet at all stable (see in the 1st half of the volume), then he could not at all even think about creating a vicar for himself for Moscow. And for this reason, the discovery of the diocese of Kolomna should in all likelihood be assimilated by Theognost, under whom it became known (and who took the metropolitan see in 1328). Belonging under Theognost in civil terms to Moscow, Kolomna, as it is not incredible to think, belonged in ecclesiastical terms not to the metropolis, but in its original civil affiliation to the diocese of Ryazan. Thus, we can believe that Metropolitan Theognostus, in order to create a vicar for himself, cut down not his own, but someone else’s diocese. On the establishment of the diocese of Perm in 1383. and the diocese of Kazan in 1555, we spoke above (1 half of the volume, pp. 287 and 800 fin.). In 1492 under Metropolitan Zosima, by order of Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich, the city of Vologda was added to the diocese of Perm, which until then had been in the joint possession of the metropolitan and the archbishop of Novgorod (ibid. p. 609). The Perm bishops moved their see from Ust-Vym to Vologda, as it was closer to Moscow and as offering greater convenience for life. Mentioned in the acts and chronicles of the diocese: Pereyaslavl, - of course, Pereyaslavl Zalessky, and Zvenigorod, - Zvenigorod Moscow. There were no episcopal sees established in Pereyaslavl and Zvenigorod, but unplaced bishops temporarily lived in them and were named after them. Bishop Athanasius of Vladimir-Volyn lived in Pereyaslavl, who arrived in Moscow before 1353. 33; he is called in the spiritual will of Grand Duke Simeon Ivanovich Bishop of Pereyaslavl 34. Bishop Daniel of Smolensk lived in Zvenigorod, 35 and retired from the see in 1382. or before this year 36 ; it is called Zvenigorodsky in the chronicles 37. During the time we are considering, some changes occurred and were taking place with the dioceses that existed before the Mongol invasion. Soon after this invasion, the Ugrovsky See was transferred by Daniil Romanovich from Ugrovsk to Kholm 38, which is why the bishops, instead of the Ugrovsky ones, began to be called Kholmsky. The bishops of Chernigov transferred their see for a time or from time to time from Chernigov to Bryansk, which, after the invasion of the Mongols, until the fall of the Lithuanian power in 1355, occupied with its appanage princes a leading position in the entire Chernigov region; why bishops are sometimes called Bryansk instead of Chernigov. The greatest changes occurred in the metropolitans' own diocese. Immediately after the Mongol invasion, small areas of the closed dioceses of Belgorod and Yuryev were annexed to it. In 1300 Metropolitan Maxim transferred the metropolitan see from Kyiv to Vladimir and made the Vladimir diocese his diocese; but in Kyiv he did not install a special bishop, but left him behind him, so that after this transfer of the see, the metropolitans had two dioceses - Vladimir and Kiev. When in 1316–17 When a special metropolitanate of Lithuania was opened, then all of Lithuania, as far as the Orthodox population was in it, was made the metropolitan's own diocese, with the metropolitan see in Novgorod or Novogrudok. At that time, when the special metropolitanate of Lithuania was closed, this own metropolitan diocese was annexed to the two mentioned dioceses of the Metropolitan of All Russia as his third own diocese. 18 dioceses against the pre-Mongol 15 or three extra dioceses against the pre-Mongol period - the increase in the number of dioceses is too insignificant! But as for Russia itself, there was no increase at all, and the same number of 15 dioceses remained as before, for two new dioceses - Perm and Kazan were opened in the newly acquired regions, and the third - Sarai in the region, so to speak, imaginary and, in any case, non-Russian (in partibus infidelium). If in the pre-Mongol period a much larger number of dioceses could have been opened in our country than was actually the case, somewhat similar to the number of Greek dioceses, then all the more could this have been done after the invasion of the Mongols, at the time we are considering. But, as we said above, even before the Mongols, the custom was firmly established among us for dioceses to embrace vast areas, having nothing in common with the Greek dioceses, and the opinion was firmly rooted in the bishops that church canons prohibit violating the once established boundaries of dioceses. The princes of Tver and Suzdal, thinking about the political role of their fiefs, established episcopal sees; but all the other very many appanage princes had no worries about this at all. The metropolitans created a suffragan bishop for themselves in the Bishop of Kolomna and did not go further than that! If the metropolitan Greeks of the pre-Mongol period, by their own will or against their will, established a completely strong precedent in this regard, then the few metropolitan Greeks of the post-Mongol period cannot be blamed for this. What significance the enormity of our dioceses had for the matter of administration and, in general, for the entire character of our bishopric, we spoke about this above (in the 1st half of Volume I). Politically, the Russian Church was not in one state, but first in two: the great principalities of Vladimir-Moscow and Galicia, then in three: the Grand Duchy of Moscow, Poland, which took the place of Galicia, and Lithuania, whose sovereigns conquered a significant part of Rus'. At the moment of the final division of the metropolis into two under St. Jonah belonged to Lithuania not only all of Rus', which made up the pre-Mongol principalities of Polotsk and Turov and the Grand Duchy of Kiev, but also the largest part of Smolensk Rus' and almost all of Chernigov or Seversk Rus'. In the Smolensk region, the Lithuanians owned the cities: Toropets (now Iskovsky), Bely, Vyazma, Dorogobuzh, Yelnya, Smolensk itself, Mstislavl (now Mogilevsky), Roslavl; in the Chernigov region, their border cities from Moscow were: Mosalsk, Serpeisk, Meshchovsk (now Kaluga), Belev (Tula), Mtsensk, Trubchevsk (Orlovsky), Rylsk and Putivl (Kursk). Ivan Vasilyevich III, after the war with his son-in-law, King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania Alexander, acquired from him, following the truce of 1503, which turned into permanent peace, part of what the Lithuanians owned in the Smolensk region, namely the cities of Toropets, Bely and Dorogobuzh, and the entire Chernigov region 39 . Ivan Vasilyevich's successor Vasily Ivanovich in 1514. conquered Smolensk from the Lithuanians. Regarding the replacement of episcopal sees in the time we are considering, we can only add a little to what we said in Volume I, and which largely applies to our time. In the pre-Mongol period there were a very small number of examples of white priests being appointed bishops without first being tonsured as monks 40 . In the time we are considering, as we should think, although we do not know direct evidence regarding this, there were no such examples: for even by the end of the pre-Mongol period, we had established the view that a bishop should be a monk or tonsured a monk before being installed 41 . Candidates for bishops were predominantly elected from the same caste of monks, more or less well-born and pedigree, as in the pre-Mongol period. We cited above the positive testimony of this from the Monk Joseph of Volokolamsk, relevant in our time (1 half of the volume, p. 628). How uneducated some (and perhaps many, most) bishops were, an example is the Bishop of Vologda, about whom Fletcher speaks) 42 . What happened to the right of metropolitans to elect candidates for bishops - whether it remained with them or was taken away from them by their sovereigns, we have no positive evidence regarding this. It seems most likely to think that the law remained with the metropolitans, but that they were completely dependent on the sovereigns, namely, that when the sovereigns did not have their own candidates, they allowed the metropolitans to elect them; and when they had and indicated, the metropolitans had to carry out their will 43 . In Novgorod, until it was conquered by Moscow, archbishops were elected, as began in the half of the 12th century (I vol. 1 half, p. 456/556), by the people's assembly. – [A similar order was in Lithuanian Rus' of the 15th century, as can be seen from the letter of Metropolitan Jonah to the Bishop of Polotsk Callistus, in which the following is read: “to the son, and then you tell us how God pleases, and the great ruler, lord and son of ours, the great king, God put on the heart of both the Most Pure Mother of God and all the noble Russian princes and the boyars there and the priest and all the people of the Lord’s name, our Orthodox Christian faith, our children, loved you so that you could be their bishop here” 44]. Those appointed as bishops paid the metropolitans an appointment fee, just as those appointed as priests and deacons paid it to all bishops. We talked about the size of this duty in Greece above (I volume 1 half, pp. 308/349). How much it was charged here in Russia, regarding this we, unfortunately, have no information at all for the time we are considering, as well as for the pre-Mongol period. In the pre-Mongol period there was a privileged monastery, from which there were mainly brother bishops, this is the Pechersky Monastery. Nowadays we do not find such a monastery. For Moscow Rus', the Pechersky Monastery was important, the Trinity Radonezh Monastery of St. Sergius. But he did not at all have the privilege of delivering candidates for bishops (and if he wanted to acquire it, he did not acquire it at all). Brothers who were candidates for bishops were indifferently from monasteries throughout Russia. The only limitation in this case was that they were brothers mainly from the best monasteries, that is, in fact, the most famous; but this limitation, as one must think, is not because the best monasteries wanted to be preferred, but because the monks who were recognized as worthy of episcopacy lived primarily in these monasteries. We have evidence that among the monks there were deliberate seekers of the bishopric, who used all their efforts to obtain it. The biography of the Venerable Stephen of Perm speaks of his installation as a bishop: “the venerable one did not know that he would be a bishop, and did not seek dominion, neither fidgeted, nor strove, nor rushed, nor bribed, nor made promises” 45 . We know other similar evidence 46. According to canonical rules, an abolished episcopal see must be replaced within three months from the death or general retirement of the bishop 47 . In Russia, this requirement of the canons was not observed at all, and the departments remained unoccupied for entire years; and there was such an exceptional case that the Novgorod See, after the conquest of Novgorod by Ivan III, was left without a bishop for 17 years. In those cases when bishops refused their cathedras and retired from them, we acted in accordance with the 2nd rule of the council in the Church of Wisdom, which says: “if a bishop or anyone else of the episcopal dignity wishes to enter monastic life and enter the place of repentance, let him no longer seek the use of episcopal dignity,” i.e. that Bishops who retired from their cathedras, laying down their bishoprics, became simple monks 48 . In the pre-Mongol period, the Novgorodians asked the metropolitan for their bishop for the title of archbishop (I volume 1 half, pp. 376/443). At the time we are considering, the bishops of two sees managed to receive the title of archbishop from the Patriarch of Constantinople, and, however, the bishops of only one see retained it forever. In 1380 Bishop Dionysius of Suzdal received the title of archbishop from the patriarch (1 half volume p. 251); but after one successor of Dionysius (Euphrosyne, † 1407), this title was taken away by the metropolitans from the bishops of Suzdal. In 1387–88 received from the patriarch (and, as the Greek acts assure, from Metropolitan Pimin, ibid. p. 256) Bishop Theodore of Rostov; after the death of Theodore (1395), the title was taken away from the bishops, but in 1448. Metropolitan Jonah returned it to them again 49, and since then they have kept it forever. [The archbishopric was established in Polotsk by Grand Duke Vitovt, November 15, 1415. there is already an archbishop: in the conciliar charter of the Lithuanian bishops on the election and installation of Gregory Tsamblak, the Bishop of Polotsk is called “Theodosius Archbishop of Polotsk,” - Pavlov’s Monuments p. 309 (but Metropolitan Photius in his district charter addresses Theodosius like this: “the corrupted non-bishop of Polotsk Theodosius”, – ibid. p. 329). After the capture (1563) of Polotsk by the Terrible, the Polotsk diocese came under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Metropolitan, and in the place of Bishop Anthony, the former Suzdal Bishop Tryphon was appointed there with the title of Archbishop of Polotsk, which was also borne by his 3 successors (until 1578). I. M. Pokrovsky Russian dioceses in the 16th-19th centuries, pp. 400–402. Metropolitan Macarius History of the Russian Church vol. VI, pp. 349–350]. In the pre-Mongol period, the composition of the diocesan bishop's administration was as follows: 1) a bishop with a council of presbyters or so-called kliroshan who was with him, who formed his administrative board, and with a special official who was with him and his kliros - the vicar, who was a deliberate diocesan judge; 2) not in all, as one should think, dioceses, but only in the most extensive ones between them, there were district governors, who also had councils of presbyters or clirochans with them and who, together with these councils, were administrators and judges of certain districts in the dioceses, representing, as it were, episcopal vicars 50; 3) lower district officials, assistants to both the bishops themselves and the district governors where these latter were located; These are tithes, whose own duty was to collect tithes or tribute from the bishops, but who were entrusted by the bishops with some supervision over the clergy. The diocesan bishop's administration of the time we are considering has its own special history in Kievan Rus' and its own special history in Moscow Rus', so the two halves of Rus' should be discussed separately in this regard. We will start with Muscovite Rus', since it is the subject of our speeches. In Moscow at the time under review, very important changes took place regarding diocesan administration and court, namely, instead of a conciliar administration, it became individual and instead of a spiritual one, to some extent secular or worldly; instead of a spiritual one, the court became secular. Management, instead of a cathedral one, became one-man in such a way that the bishops of the Moscow half of Rus' lost their councils of priests - kliroshans, and that after the cessation of the existence of these councils, they were left to manage the dioceses with their own person. We said above that it was not particularly difficult for cathedrals under bishops of priests - kliroshan - to be destroyed. But if it was not difficult for them to be destroyed, then on the other hand they could be preserved. It happened in Russia that they disappeared among the bishops of Muscovite Rus' and retained their existence among the bishops of Kievan Rus'. From this circumstance, that cathedrals did not disappear in all of Rus', but only in one half of it, it clearly follows that the reasons for their disappearance in this one half were not general, but some local ones. It seems to us that the most likely local reason that should explain the disappearance of priestly-kliroshan councils under bishops in Moscow Rus' is that the metropolitans of all Russia, who moved from the time of Maxim to Moscow Rus', began with St. Peter to have a stay not at his cathedral in Vladimir, but in one of the non-cathedral cities or suburbs of his diocese - Moscow. Metropolitans from St. Peter began to live in Moscow, but since their life in it was not at all a formal transfer of the department to it, as we talked about above: the administrative metropolitan council of presbyters or their choir was not transferred to Moscow, but remained in Vladimir 51. Thus, the metropolitans, having begun to live in Moscow, of necessity began to govern their metropolitan diocese without their council of elders or without their choir, which was located in another place. When the possibility arose that from the actual see of the metropolitan Moscow would be elevated to official sees, the metropolitan presbyteral choir could be transferred from Vladimir to Moscow: but this opportunity did not come very soon (in 1354, only Vladimir was officially recognized by the patriarch for the metropolitan see - 1 half volume p. 181), and for a very long time During the period of time that had passed before this, the metropolitans had already acquired the habit and, so to speak, had acquired a taste for governing the diocese without a choir. And therefore, instead of transferring the latter to Moscow, they allowed him to cease to exist in Vladimir, and they themselves forever, as from the very beginning of their stay in Moscow, remained the sole rulers of their dioceses. It is completely natural for bishops to follow the example of their metropolitans. The example of our metropolitans regarding the transformation of diocesan administration from a conciliar into an individual one was such an example for our bishops, which they could not help but sympathize with; and therefore, the bishops of the Moscow half of the metropolis, as those closest to them at their place of residence and as being one with them in the closest sense of the word, followed their example, removing their choirs from themselves and ceasing their existence. – As for the bishops of Kievan Rus, they also had an inclination to follow the example of the metropolitans; but there the choirs managed to defend themselves from their encroachment. In Moscow Rus', the struggle between the choirs and the bishops, whether they wanted to or did not want to wage it, was impossible, because the first to encroach on them here were the metropolitans themselves; and in Kievan Rus, which had its own traditions, they did not want to know the innovations of Moscow, although they came from the latter. Then, while the Orthodox sovereigns of Moscow had to patronize the bishops' desire for autocracy, since they themselves strived for it, in Kievan Rus, which was politically under the sovereigns of other faiths, the ancient orders of the church were under the protection of society 52! The conciliarity of diocesan administration and its individuality are two completely different things: the first is canonical and what is desired, the second is anti-canonical and what cannot be treated with sympathy at all. Therefore, one cannot help but regret that, with the introduction of Christianity, Greek executive positions in the diocesan administration were not established in our country. Then, in Moscow, perhaps, we would have preserved the conciliarity of diocesan administration in its secondary Greek form (I vol. 1 half, p. 320/372), for to remove from oneself a college of advisers without specific responsibilities for each member and to abolish certain positions with a range of responsibilities and rights assigned to each, as we said above (ibid. p. 328/383), are two different things. In our case, the metropolitans, having moved to live from Vladimir to Moscow, would certainly have transferred the college of executive officials with them to the latter, and this college could have become under them a secondary administrative council, like the secondary council of the Greek 53. From what has been said, it is clear that our metropolitans began to rule their dioceses individually, without the participation of the council of presbyters - the choir, from the time they moved their stay from Vladimir to Moscow. – As for the bishops of Moscow Rus', the choir churches were not destroyed by any administrative order of the metropolitans (for if such an order had existed, it would have extended to the Kyiv half of the metropolitanate), but they themselves closed or destroyed them, imitating the metropolitans in this case. And from this it is obvious that they did not close (disappear) at the same time for all bishops, but closed gradually - for some earlier, for others later. We do not know of such evidence, from which it would be clear that by a certain time not a single one of the Moscow bishops had a council of presbyters - kliroshan. Based on one indirect evidence 54, we can assume that the time of the final disappearance of councils among all bishops was the second half - the end of the 15th century 55. In the pre-Mongolian period, our bishops with the councils of presbyters who were attached to them, the choirshans, carried out the diocesan court through special officials deliberately appointed for this purpose - episcopal (cathedral, as opposed to district) governors, who, in all likelihood, were elected from among the cliroshans themselves 56 and who, in any case, were people of clergy. At the time we are considering, among the bishops of the Moscow half of the metropolis or Moscow Rus', their secular officials, their so-called episcopal boyars, took the place of spiritual governors as diocesan judges. Secular officials were supposed to appear under our bishops from the very minute our episcopal sees were opened. Our princes provided the bishops with tithes or a tenth of their dues from the population of the dioceses for their maintenance; for the reasons that we indicated above, they arranged the matter in such a way that the tithe was collected from the population by the bishops themselves. But since it was found most decent that the tithe should be collected by people not spiritual, but secular or secular, the princes immediately had to give the bishops secular officials who could be tithe collectors or tithes 58 . Over time, the bishops established extensive farms, to which were later added, in later times, immovable estates in the sense of estates inhabited by peasants. To manage various parts of the economy and to supervise them, to manage and manage estates, bailiffs and clerks were needed. These latter, together with the secular officials who had been with the bishops before them, made up the staff of the bishop's service people, who, according to the degree of their merit and according to their service seniority, were divided into four official positions: servants, boyar children, nobles and boyars, and by servants one should not mean ministers or slaves directly working, namely bailiffs, overseers, officials in general, and moreover boyars should not at all be equated with princely boyars, but understood as senior in rank, according to personal or family merit, among the serving people of the bishops themselves 59 . In ancient and old times, both our princes and bishops did not separate the official administrative from the economic, and the entire staff of secular service people was indifferently employed by the bishops both for economic services and for that official and administrative service, which was intended and was introduced among us to correct under the bishops secular, and not spiritual, people from the very opening of our bishops' departments 60. It is these secular serving bishops who, in the time we are considering, under the bishops of Moscow Russia, are the senders or, more precisely, the owners of the diocesan court, which in fact happened in such a way that bishops began to appoint their senior boyars to diocesan judges instead of spiritual governors, which means that each bishop has one boyar, and not many at the same time. How this extremely anti-canonical and extremely contrary to the spirit of the church, so to speak, secularization of the diocesan episcopal court happened in Moscow, we are not able to explain with complete thoroughness and can only express the most probable assumptions that seem to us. Since ancient times, we have found under our bishops lower secular officials - tiuns 61. We do not know at all what the duties of the tiuns were in ancient times; Regarding later times, we know that they were police officials who monitored the behavior of the clergy of the cathedral episcopal cities, and especially the behavior of the clergy who came to the cathedral cities from the districts (in Moscow - the behavior of the clergy flocking from all over Russia, about which below 62. But there is every likelihood of thinking that in ancient and later times the tiuns were also mainly judicial officials - assistants to diocesan judges 63. In our civil administration, the position of tiun was generally the position of a judge (partly independent, mostly a dependent, low-ranking official, acting as a judge under the highest administrative official 64; and since officials usually get their names from the nature of their positions, this gives reason to assume that the bishop's tiun was a judicial official. In terms of his police duties, our tiun was quite consistent with the secular official of the Greek church administration, ekdiku 65; but the ecdik was not only a police overseer of the clergy, but partly also a judge, namely, a judge of the clergy and monks in non-ecclesiastical matters - in civil suits and in criminal crimes 66 From what has been said, it seems completely probable to us to assume that in ancient times our archbishop tiuns, acting as assistants and assistants to the cathedral governors, acted as judges. clergy and laity court in matters not strictly spiritual, which belonged to the jurisdiction of bishops 67. If we admit this, then it will be possible to some extent to explain how it could happen that the Moscow bishops were replaced by secular boyars as diocesan judges. Of the two bishop judges, one was secular from the very beginning; but if from the very beginning secular officials were legally admitted to the bishop's court, then it was not entirely impossible for the secular servants of the bishops, in their desire to seize, to achieve acceptable the sophistic conclusion, that is, their unfair claim that the court could be given to them in full. A comparison of Moscow Rus' with Kievan Russia, in which the secular service people of the bishops, of course, were the same in their inclinations and aspirations as those of Moscow and in which they did not carry out our capture, and here also makes it clear that in Moscow Rus' there were some special circumstances that contributed to the fact that the not impossible became an actual fact in it. These special circumstances may be specified. Since the time of St. Alexei began to be “ordered” or to enter the service of the metropolitans not only by low-ranking princely service people, but also by very well-born people (see 1 half of the volume, p. 224) 68 . It was natural for well-born people to have excessive and completely undue claims, and it was they who could achieve the goal of seizing all judicial diocesan power from the metropolitans into their own hands and thus turning their church court from spiritual into secular. When exactly the transformation occurred, which took place in the manner we assume, remains unknown. But we have reason to think that among the metropolitans themselves it happened more or less soon after St. Alexey, if only not in front of him. Since in this case, as in the destruction of the Presbyterian-Kroloshan councils, the bishops followed the metropolitans, from whom the beginning began here, not as a result of direct decrees and orders from the latter, but only by imitating their example: then here, as there, our transformation of the court among the bishops should not have happened suddenly and not for everyone at the same time. In this regard, we know that by the end of the 15th – beginning of the 16th century it was more or less, if not completely, common among the Moscow bishops 69 . (Since the transformation could not have happened suddenly for all the bishops, it follows from this that among the metropolitans themselves it took place more or less soon after St. Alexei). We said above that diocesan administration in Muscovite Rus' not only turned from cathedral to individual, but also to some extent became secular instead of spiritual. The district governors of the bishops, in which dioceses they were located, were not only judicial, but also administrative officials: with the rights of plenipotentiary deputies of the bishops themselves, they governed certain districts or certain parts of the dioceses. But even in these district governors, following the cathedral governors, their secular boyars began to be installed as bishops instead of clergy. Thus, in those dioceses in which there were district governorships, not only the clergy began to be judged by secular people in all spiritual matters, but partly the same secular people began to replace priestly places, for the governors had the right to this replacement (of course, without the right of consecration, for which they sent the candidates they identified for the places to the bishops). So, in the time we are considering in the Moscow half of Rus', a change took place with the diocesan bishop's administration in the closest sense of the word, that from the conciliar it became individual and from the spiritual partly secular. And the change with the diocesan bishop’s court is that from the spiritual it became secular. But both one and the other change did not begin immediately after the invasion of the Mongols, and both of them, as one must think, did not finally take place more or less soon. And therefore, the history of diocesan bishop's administration and court in Muscovite Rus' for the time we are considering should be divided into two halves (a definite boundary between which, according to what was said above, cannot be drawn): the first half, when the administration remained conciliar and completely spiritual, and the court remained spiritual, and the second half, when the administration became individual and partly secular, and the court became secular. While the administration remained conciliar, the bishops governed dioceses with councils of presbyters - kliroshans. We also have absolutely no specific information regarding this conciliarity of government for the time we are considering, as well as for the pre-Mongol period. In itself, it is likely to assume, which applies to all presidents of the colleges in general, that some of the bishops had an inclination to ensure that the government was strictly conciliar and that others, on the contrary, had the desire and desire to elevate their own power above the power of the council. After the management became individual, the bishops began to manage the dioceses with the help of executive officials, which were: clerks with larger or smaller staffs of clerks, that is, secretaries with staffs of clerical officials who were in charge of the written part, and treasurers, in ancient times called printers 71, who, on the one hand, sealed administrative acts when it was required by their family, bishop's seals, and on the other hand, they collected duties for the acts that followed from them. (It seems that in later times the treasurers of the bishops were predominantly, if not exclusively, monks, and not secular officials. This must be explained, on the one hand, by the fact that they found it indecent for secular people to possess and dispose of the bishop’s, as if sacred, seal, and on the other hand, by the fact that the bishops wanted to have their senior cell attendants as treasurers: Maxim the Greek calls the metropolitan treasurer protosyncellosis) 72. But if what we have just said is true, then in relation to treasurers, the Novgorod department was an exception. In Novgorod in ancient times, before Archbishop Simeon, who ruled the diocese from 1415 to 1421, the treasurers of the archbishops were from secular 73 and only with him began to be appointed from the monks. In the life of Archbishop Euthymius Vyazhitsky, who was appointed treasurer by Simeon as the first of the monks, it reads: “This man became the first treasurer of the monastery, just as he had been; before that in the ancients all the treasurers were laymen,” - in Monuments of Kushelev - Bezborodko, IV, 18, col. 1 sub fin. (But in life, don’t we mean by laity not secular officials, but white priests?). While the diocesan court remained spiritual, the judges under the bishops were their cathedral governors, who, as long as choirs existed under the bishops, were elected from among the choir members themselves, 74 and for the rest of the time, for which they outlived the choirs, they were appointed by bishops at their personal discretion. Regarding the scope of judicial rights or the powers of the cathedral bishop's governors, we have neither direct information nor instructions: one must think that in cases of lesser importance they pronounced sentences themselves, and that in cases of great importance they reported for ruling sentences to the bishops with the choir councils, and upon the disappearance of the latter, individually to the first. From spiritual to secular, as we said, the diocesan court transformed in such a way that the bishops began to entrust the duties of the cathedral vicar or diocesan judge instead of clergy to one of their secular boyars. This secular cathedral governor was originally called, as it seems, also the governor 75; and then he acquired the name or title of the bishop's boyar in the closest sense of the word and κατ ’ ἐξοχήν (In Novgorod, the boyar - governor or boyar - dignitary was distinguished from other archiepiscopal boyars by the fact that he was called the boyar of Sophia, while other boyars were called archbishop's boyars - Volokolamsk manuscript No. 410 sheet 50 beginning 76; perhaps in other places he was distinguished from other boyars in a similar way). At the beginning of the Χ 5th ΙΙ century, we find that the boyar-vicar shared the duties of the diocesan judge with the bishop's butler (the bishop's boyar who was in charge of the estates belonging to the bishop's department) 77 . If this was already the case at the time we are considering 78, then we must think that the butlers were given the bishop's court over the clergy who were in the bishop's estates. Assistants in the capacity of judges, both spiritual governors and subsequent secular boyars, in all likelihood should be supposed bishop tiuns, as we discussed above. The executive officials under one and the other were clerks with clerks and then also special messengers or messengers for bringing the accused to trial, for making inquiries and inquiries at crime scenes and for carrying out court sentences. Their general name was nedelschiki, since they performed their duties on a weekly basis, but they were also called bailiffs, from the fact that they were assigned to the guilty, - closers, from the fact that, when carrying out inquiries, they brought the case against the latter, - and pravetchiki, from the fact that they put the guilty on the right [which consisted in the fact that a debtor who did not pay for a certain time, every day, except holidays, was brought before the court or order where he was accused, and They beat me on the legs with batogs for several hours] 79 . Belonging to the central diocesan administration, the bishop's tiun, in addition to being, as must be assumed, an assistant to the diocesan judge, was also, as we said, a police official. What his duties were in this last case, we have indicated above. While the bishops of Moscow Rus' ruled their dioceses conciliarly, with the participation of the presbyters - kliroshan, so long their district governors, in which dioceses these governors were, ruled their districts or their parts of the dioceses also conciliarly, with the participation of the same presbyters - kliroshan. Just as cathedral governors were elected from among the cathedral cliroshans themselves, so our governors were elected from among the cliroshans of the governorships themselves 80. As for the scope of power of district governors, as administrators and judges, we have already said regarding administrative power that it was completely complete and extended to appointment to priestly places. To this we must only add that, judging by one example known to us, we can think that some bishops, and sometimes somewhat limited it 81. Judicial power must be more or less complete; but, however, it also had some restrictions, so that other matters, such as those related to disputes over land, were presented or sent to the bishops themselves for reporting 82 . To the court of the governors, which completely belonged to them, there was a right of appeal to the court of the bishops themselves 83. When the councils of presbyters—kliroshans—of the bishops themselves disappeared, these councils also disappeared of their district governors, so that these latter, like the bishops themselves, became sole rulers of their districts. since they were not only rulers, but also judges, then as the latter, like cathedral governors, they had tiuns as assistants, which we already know positively 84, and they had the same executive officials as cathedral governors, that is, not only clerks and clerks, but also week workers. After the position of cathedral bishops' governors was appropriated by the secular boyars of the bishops, the same boyars began to be appointed to the positions of district governors 85. But, as it seems, with this position, in relation to its seizure by the boyars, it was somewhat different than with the position of cathedral governors. The latter, having once been captured by the boyars from each bishop, forever became their inalienable property, so that after the first capture they were permanently and exclusively appointed to it; in relation to the district governorships, this constancy, as it seems, was not established, so that, mixed with the boyars, clergy continued to be appointed to them 86. There were district governorships, which were an exception and were constantly replaced by clergy; these are the Kiev and Novgorod (Novogrud)-Vilna viceroyalties of the metropolitans in Lithuania, while they retained the latter (and if only before the final separation of Lithuania into a special metropolitanate, the custom appeared in Moscow of appointing secular episcopal boyars as district governors). The reason for the special behavior of the metropolitans in relation to these two of their governorships should be that the custom was not introduced among the bishops of the Kyiv half of Rus' to appoint secular persons as their governors, and that the metropolitans considered themselves obliged and found it necessary to comply in this case with the customs of Kyiv. However, in this case, too, they deviated from the customs of Kyiv in that they destroyed, under their two mentioned governors, the councils of presbyters - kliroshans, making them, as they themselves were, sole rulers 87 . The powers that belonged to the district bishop's governors are visible from the desk document given by Metropolitan Jonah to his Vilna or Novgorodka governor. The letter reads: “They appointed their elder and protodeacon as viceroy in their metropolis, in the name (by name) of Michael, they ordered him to keep our place in Vilna and Novgorodka....: and the whole church justification and courts and spiritual affairs ordered him to set him straight and to build church villages and ours, people to guard and surveil in every possible way, that the vicar, with the blessing of our humility and punishment, must straighten out all church and spiritual affairs, with great strength, and sanctify the newly erected antimises (sic) of Christ’s divine churches, and confirm the old ones in the name of our humility, also as a clerk who wants to be ordained deacons and become priests, with all kinds of testing; it is enough for those who are spiritually worthy to give their letters” so that they, as assigned to their places, will be consecrated by the neighboring bishops closest to each of them 88 . That now the indicated powers belonged not only to the exceptional in their position, the viceroys of the metropolitans of Kiev) and Vilna, as one might think, but also to all the bishop's governors in general, this is evident, firstly, from the fact that above our charter in some lists the inscription is read: “a letter of complaint for the vicegerency of Kiev or for another vicegerency”, see in the Acts Legal; secondly, from the fact that the highest administrative right to appoint to priestly places also belonged to other governors 89 . When the responsibilities of tithes as diocesan bishop's officials were fully defined - whether in the pre-Mongol period or after - remains unknown to us. In the time we are considering in Muscovite Rus', they appear with these fully defined responsibilities as dual officials - administrative in the strictest sense of the word and at the same time judicial. As strictly administrative officials, they had deanery supervision over the clergy of their tithes; as judicial officials they judged the clergy and laity (insofar as the latter were subject to the judgment of bishops) in matters of lesser importance. As for supervision, no later than from the time of Metropolitan Cyprian, having been appointed to their positions on a seasonal basis or having been changed to them annually, they, firstly, when taking their places, inspected the appointed or dispensing letters from the priests and deacons of the tithes, in order to see if there were any impostors or prohibited ones between them, and secondly, they toured the tithes once a year. since the tithes were secular people, it is necessary to think that judgment over the clergy and laity was initially granted to them only for non-spiritual matters; but in later times, when the highest non-spiritual and spiritual court from the bishops was appropriated by the boyars, and they - the tithes - became lower judges, as much non-spiritual as spiritual 90. In relation to the administration, tithes, in addition to supervising the clergy, were also tasked with issuing so-called crown banners or written permission to perform marriages. As officials, judicial tithes had with them tiuns as assistants and executive officials – week workers 91 . We said that no later than from the time of Metropolitan Cyprian, tithes were appointed to their positions on a case-by-case basis. This is for the purposes of so-called “feeding”. The bishops supported their numerous secular service people in such a way that some were given a salary, others were given their estates on the estate 92, and others were appointed for feeding to economic-patrimonial or church-administrative positions, such as tithes. A person was given some position for a certain period of time, with which taxes and duties were associated, and, having fed on these taxes and duties, he was obliged to serve the bishop for free for another certain time. In order for the feeding positions, to which tithes belonged, to bypass as often as possible the circle of secular bishop officials who made up the category of feeders, it became a custom to appoint them to positions depending on the weather, or at least, this became a custom in relation to the tithe positions 93 . In later times, cathedral and district city cathedrals belonged to some extent to the bodies of the diocesan administration. As long as there were colleges of presbyters under the bishops—the kliroshans—these kliroshans issued antimensions to newly built churches, and they went to consecrate them. (If the churches were not too far from the diocesan or vicarious cities) 94. When the colleges of presbyters - kliroshans - disappeared from the bishops of Moscow Rus', the right to issue antimensions to churches and consecrate them was granted here to the priests of cathedral and district cathedrals. Then, both one and the other, the cathedrals were given the right to issue crown banners in their cities. Finally, priestly elders can also be included to some extent in the diocesan administration. At the time we are considering, our parish clergy paid taxes and various duties to the bishops. But taxes to bishops and some duties were collected from the clergy in such a way that an allocation had to be made between the individual paying units of each tithe, as a tax district. To produce this layout, authorized tithes were chosen from among the priests, who were called priestly elders. Having no official duty to supervise the clergy, they could be assistant tithes in supervising him, as if semi-officially 95. There were some local peculiarities in relation to legal proceedings, which we partially discussed above. Probably, the first Metropolitan Kirill III after the invasion of the Mongols established a custom, which continued until Metropolitan Pimin, for the court of appeal to the court of the Novgorod Archbishop or for the Metropolitan himself to go to Novgorod 96 for a month after three years on the fourth or to send his authorized representatives there for the same duration of time and for the same period (1 half volume p. 310). What custom the metropolitans established in relation to Novgorod, such, in turn, was the custom that the archbishops of Novgorod established in relation to Pskov, i.e. that they themselves also began to go to Pskov for the court of appeal for the trial of their Pskov governors on the same month and after the same three years on the fourth, and precisely - they always began to go themselves, and not sometimes send authorized representatives 97 . At the same time, just as the metropolitans, coming to Novgorod, performed the solemnity of the so-called unction, so the archbishops, coming to Pskov, performed the same celebration. The visits of the Novgorod archbishops to Pskov with numerous retinues were very difficult for the Pskov clergy, who, during their monthly residence in Pskov, were obliged to support them with their retinues at their own expense. Therefore, Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich in 1528. ordered Archbishop Macarius to live in Pskov not for a whole month, but only for 10 days 98. Some individual bishops took their own private measures to strengthen the supervision of the clergy and to give greater perfection to their administration. We know such measures of the Novgorod archbishops Euthymius I and Macarius in relation to their Pskov governorship. In Pskov, there were several cathedrals for daily services, to which all the priests of the region were assigned piecemeal to keep the line in the service (about which see below) and whose leaders were cathedral elders. (They should not at all be confused with the priestly elders, who were mentioned above). Archbishop Euthymius in 1426 instructed the cathedral elders that they (in addition to his archbishop's vicar) investigate the legitimacy and dignity of priests coming to them from other places, by examining their appointments and letters of release and by sending them to confessors 99; and Archbishop Macarius in 1528. ordered that proteges appointed to priestly and deaconal positions by the vicar should appear to him, the archbishop, for initiation not only with a letter from the governor himself, but also with a letter from the cathedral elders, which would testify to their dignity 100 . We have already spoken above about the space of the diocesan bishop's court at the time we are considering (I volume 1 half, pp. 356/415). The Council of the Hundred, listing in its acts civil or non-spiritual matters that were subject to the judgment of bishops, does not list all of them that were actually subject to, but only some. This, in all likelihood, should be understood in such a way that he lists the cases in which the trial was carried out most often, so that they constituted a group of the most common cases of the secular episcopal court; These matters are: firstly, civil litigation of the clergy and laity over serial letters or marriage contracts, under spiritual letters or spiritual wills, over bondage in loans or on borrowed bills and because of the so-called deposits, i.e. because of the giving by some people of money or things to others for safekeeping, and secondly, criminal cases of the clergy in battles and robberies 101. The diocesan bishop's court was significantly expanded in our country at the expense of the secular or princely court. But in later times it began to be reduced in favor of this last court, and precisely - it began to be reduced not in relation to the jurisdiction of the bishops of the laity, but of the clergy itself. The sovereigns, through their letters of non-conviction, began to exempt the clergy from the jurisdiction of bishops in civil and criminal cases and to subordinate them in these matters to their own courts. This mainly applies not to the parish clergy, but to the monks; however, examples of letters of non-conviction granted to the first are also known 102. In relation to the call sign of urgency, legal cases that were subject to the jurisdiction or jurisdiction of bishops were divided into two groups: strictly spiritual matters and non-spiritual matters under their jurisdiction. The cases of the first group were indefinite, that is, priests or laymen accused of spiritual crimes could be summoned to the court of bishops at any time, and not only within certain periods. The cases of the second group, just like in the princely court, were urgent, i.e., certain deadlines were assigned for the defendants in these cases to arrive for trial. Priests and deacons in relation to the court in civil litigation and criminal cases were distinguished from the laity by the fact that the bishop's judges could sentence them to the judicial field and to the judicial kissing of the cross only with a deliberate report to the bishops themselves 103. In the form we have presented, the diocesan bishop's administration existed in Muscovite Rus' until the time of the Council of the Hundred Heads. The Council of the Hundred Heads carried out in the diocesan administration or - since its projects or sentences were not implemented in practice - it prescribed extremely important transformations in relation to it in its actions. As for the administration in the closest sense of the word, the council does not restore its previously existing conciliarity. This latter disappeared in Moscow so long ago and so long before him that there could no longer be any talk about her, and that no thought about her came to the mind of any of the tsar’s other advisers besides Metropolitan Macarius 104 . In this regard, the cathedral directs its concerns to, if possible, strengthen supervision over the parish clergy. Regarding the diocesan court, the council in its instructions does what, firstly, removes the episcopal boyars from the spiritual part of the court, and secondly, that the non-spiritual court reserved for them is arranged so that it is, if possible, a just court. Until the time of the Council of the Hundred Heads, the overseers of the parish clergy were tithes. But these were very unreliable and very unsatisfactory guards. As we said, according to the existing feeding system, they were appointed to their position for a year, so that after a year they returned to the bishop for free service and waited for their new turn. Naturally, under such orders, all the concerns of the tithes should have been aimed at feeding themselves as well as possible throughout the year. There is no doubt that they very carefully supervised the behavior of the clergy and their misdeeds, but the latter - not in order to strictly inform the bishops, but then in order to take and extract as many bribes from the guilty as possible. The Stoglavy Cathedral appoints new officials to supervise the parish clergy, and not secular, but spiritual, these are the cathedral archpriests and elected priestly elders with their assistants, ten priests. The cathedral archpriest of each city, and if there are monasteries in the city, then in partnership with the archimandrites and abbots of the latter, is appointed as the main overseer of the parish clergy of the city and its district; under it, in each city, as many priestly elders should be elected as is required by the number of clergy in the city district, which is divided between them. Ten priests should be selected as assistants to the elders in villages, churchyards and volosts, or in general from among village priests. The cathedral archpriests, in partnership with archimandrites and abbots or alone, having the main supervision over the clergy of the districts through the elders, directly supervise the clergy of the cities themselves and over the elders themselves. The elders and deities, traveling around their districts, observe the clergy of the districts. It is the duty of the archpriests and elders with the tens to supervise the entire behavior of the clergy and over the accuracy and rigor of their performance of the entire set of their duties, and the council repeatedly and most urgently orders the archpriests and elders with the tens to carry out the post of their supervision with all conscientiousness and with all diligence 105. In its concern for establishing possible real supervision over the parish clergy, the Council of the Hundred Heads not only established the positions of permanent supervision that we have now indicated, but also orders all bishops to send from themselves to their dioceses for temporary audits and, as if their exarchs, who would supervise the clergy and together teach them, the best priests from their cathedral-cathedral clergy 106 . Returning the spiritual part of the diocesan bishop's court to its former and canonical spirituality, the Stoglavy Council removes the episcopal boyars from this part of the court and prescribes: in spiritual matters, both the clergy and the laity, the bishops should judge themselves, together with the archimandrites and abbots; in case of illness, entrust the proceedings of this court to a council of sacred persons, so that cases that will be judged without them are then, also conciliarly, reported to them themselves. The bishop's boyars and secular bishop's officials in general, with the exception of clerks or clerical officials, will not be present at this trial at all. At the same time as removing the episcopal boyars from the spiritual part of the highest diocesan court, the council removes tithes from the same part of the lower court, ordering them not to judge anyone in spiritual matters 107. Having left the bishop's boyars and generally secular serving people with a non-spiritual diocesan court, namely, the court of the highest boyars, i.e., each bishop had a so-called boyar in the closest sense of the word, and the lower court - the tithes, the Stoglavy Council took care to make, to the extent possible, this secular bishop's court a just court. For this purpose, he turns to the same radical means with which the tsar, somewhat earlier than the council, intended to correct the court of his city governors, namely, to legislate that this court would take place in the presence of well-known official witnesses. The Council prescribes that at the trial of the episcopal boyars and tithes, there should be priest elders and tithe priests, two and three people each, and city elders and kissers and zemstvo clerks, whom the tsar orders. These witnesses must write for themselves copies of court cases and, upon approval by the court clerks and after their own assault on them, as well as after their assault on the real cases, keep them (copies) with them until the boyars or tithes report the cases to the bishops. If the plaintiff and defendant tell the bishop that the trial was exactly as it was written in the case, then the bishop, having discussed with skilled people, will pronounce the verdict. If the plaintiff or defendant says that the court was not like that, then the bishop turns to the copy kept by the witnesses and to the interrogation of them themselves, and decides the verdict in accordance with this new inquiry 108. So that bishops appoint worthy persons to the position of boyars - governors or boyars - diocesan judges and so that they do not have the opportunity to appoint whomever they want from among their service people, the Council of the Hundred Heads prescribes: bishops should select candidates for filling the position not from all the clans serving them, but only from some of the most deserved ones, and appoint them only with the knowledge of the tsar; If any bishop has such service families from which it would be “more suitable” to choose boyars, then the bishop should ask the tsar to grant him a boyar. At the same time, the cathedral also prescribes regarding the clerks who will serve under our boyars, so that the bishops keep them with them, that is, appoint them to positions, also with the knowledge of the sovereign 109. Taking care of protecting the judicial rights of bishops, the council, by agreement with the tsar, abolished the granted letters of non-conviction, which we discussed above 110. The further history of diocesan administration and court after the Council of the Hundred Heads is not subject to our speeches. But we must briefly say that the transformations and improvements in administration and justice, prescribed or designed by the council, remained a dead letter in the book of its decrees and were not put into effect. Supervision of the parish clergy still remained with the tithes; the spiritual part of the diocesan court did not become spiritual in relation to the judges in the old way and again remained with the boyars and tithes. At the trial of the boyars and tithes, perhaps the above-mentioned witnesses were present for some time, but, in any case, this time was very short 111. So, at the time we are considering, starting with St. Peter, the diocesan bishop's administration turned from a cathedral into an individual one, and starting with St. Alexei or his closest successors, the diocesan bishop's court turned from spiritual to secular. In the first case, as we saw above, a change in order began and not entirely through the direct fault of people: St. Circumstances forced Peter to manage his diocese without the assistance of the council of choir presbyters. But one way or another it happened, one cannot help but deeply regret that it happened. Autonomy is what people are most reluctant to part with and, no matter how easily it comes to them, they give it up only with the greatest difficulty. The unity of our bishops, as the reader knows from our messages, is not particularly ancient. And, however, its defenders have a strong inclination to trace it back to apostolic times and to pass it off as that form of diocesan hierarchal government that should be recognized as canonical 112. It is absolutely true that an autocratic bishop can be a very good bishop; but when the apostles established conciliar government in the church, then, of course, they knew what was best for it. Autonomy puffs up a person, making him more powerful than he should be, and if there was a danger of this, it was here, due to our local circumstances. The extreme vastness of our dioceses, in relation to which they were not inferior to the entire Greek patriarchates and even surpassed them, must necessarily have had the consequence that our bishops would become more infected with the spirit of power. And so, in Moscow, autocracy was added to this in order to make the bishops of this half of Rus' powerful to the highest possible degree. And there is no doubt that this was really so, meaning the majority of bishops (and not all of them without exception). Above we told the case of Serapion, Archbishop of Novgorod with the Monk Joseph of Volokolamsk (1 half volume p. 636 sqq). We have no reason to classify Serapion as one of the worst bishops of his time, but, on the contrary, we have reason to classify him as one of the best, and this best bishop of the early 16th century speaks of his power over the clergy subordinate to him as applied to the person of Joseph: “I am free in my monk to bind and loose.” In general, Serapion’s entire behavior in the Joseph affair shows that the spirit of excessive power was a decisive disease of the bishops of the Moscow half of Rus' at the beginning of the 16th century. (Authority develops tyranny in a person. There are many tyrants among people; there are quite a few of them among bishops: but a bishop is a tyrant and a true misfortune for the clergy subordinate to him). Like any other boss, a bishop may have a tendency towards despotism or be infected with the passion of love of money, and may be inferior in quality and even much inferior to his position. A person inclined towards despotism, having become a bishop under the condition of autocracy, cannot turn into a complete despot in order to become a severe scourge for the subordinate clergy? For a person infected with the passion of love of money, when is it more convenient to become a bribe-taking bishop, is his power limited and controlled by a council of co-rulers, or is he autocratic? A bishop, inferior in quality to his position, under the condition of autocracy, will represent one of two things: either, ruling himself, he will rule very unsatisfactorily, or he will submit to the complete influence of his household or consistory secretary, so that the diocese will be ruled not by him, but by one or the other of the latter two. How often among our bishops of the time we are considering, generally infected with the spirit of power to the point of excessiveness, there were people inclined towards positive despotism, how often people inferior to them in their qualities were appointed to the episcopal sees, we cannot say 113. But that our bishops of this time were very obsessed with the passion of love of money, this, referring to such an example as that of Gennady, Archbishop of Novgorod (and to the evidence that we give below), we can say positively. And when, one might ask, was it easier for bishops to fall into the crime of simony - when they ruled conciliarly or when they began to rule individually? The transformation by the bishops of Moscow Rus' of their diocesan court from spiritual to secular through the replacement of clergy by secular boyars in the positions of their governors was something highly anti-canonical. It is impossible to allow the bishops to not understand the anti-canonical nature of such a transformation. And therefore, it seems not incredible to think that they acted in this case not so much of their own free will, but rather yielding to the decisive pressure on them from their boyars, which they did not find the strength to resist. It may even be that these episcopal boyars, with their desire to seize the position of diocesan judges, found themselves more or less strong support in the great princes themselves, who could find it useful for themselves that the main officials of the bishops, which were their judges, should become secular boyars. If this is so, then we must think that our transformation did not begin from the time of St. Alexei, who, by his character and by his state position, could very well resist not only the pressure of his boyars, but also the support they found from the Grand Duke, and from the time of Alekseev’s successor, Cyprian. This latter, who (according to what we said above) should have felt not entirely secure in his department, could see the need to purchase his boyars for his own benefit. And according to his moral rules, as far as we know them, he was capable of sacrificing the canons of the church to his personal interests. Having assimilated the beginning of our anti-canonical transformation to Cyprian, we must accept that while Photius was very firm in character and, as we have the right to think, very canonical in direction, it had a break, and that it finally began to take place after Photius. Leaving aside all the anti-canonical nature of the occupation of the place of diocesan judges by secular episcopal boyars, we must think that since this usurpation occurred, the diocesan episcopal court has lost extremely much in its quality. Episcopal governors from among the spiritual, whether lay priests or monks, could be not without sin; but the boyars, according to their boyarism and their boyar needs, had to at least ten times increase the amount of income that the not sinless among the first received. That the court of the episcopal boyars was of very poor quality is directly evidenced in the questions or proposals of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich to the Stoglavy Council 114. The lower administration, which consisted of direct supervision of the parish clergy, and of lesser importance the court of clergy and laity (as far as the latter were under the jurisdiction of the bishops), belonged to the tithes, who, as officials, if not administrative-judicial, then at least administrative, date back to the pre-Mongol period. But if the tithes as diocesan officials represented something old, only somewhat expanded, so to speak (to the point of being abused to provide them with a spiritual court of lesser importance): then in all likelihood one must think that the method of appointing them to places, practiced at the time we are considering, represented something new - we mean their weather changes on the tithes. Due to this last circumstance, which forced the tithes to direct all their thoughts to making as much money as possible during the year, they were to become a true disaster for the clergy and laity. In the questions or proposals of the tsar to the Council of the Hundreds, it is evidenced that the tithes in the villages sold priests, that is, they robbed them as judges, without mercy, that in the absence of those among the latter who were actually guilty, they created them with the help of false informers and informers, specially engaged in the matter of false denunciation (public women who slandered clergy in violence were used as informers), that because of their terrible exactions, many parish churches had no priests, and they stood without singing 115. The Council of the Hundred Heads recognized the tithes as unfit to supervise the parish clergy and appointed new ecclesiastical officials in their place for this purpose. But, not content with this, the council also took away from them the duty - the right to collect tribute from the clergy, since at the same time the priests and deacons had great need and sale from them, and assigned the duty of collecting tribute to the newly appointed ten priests. The collection of tribute was precisely the task for which the tithes were established or which was their own service, and, apparently, with the appointment of other officials to this service they had to cease to exist. And yet, this did not happen at all. Numerous states of bishop's service people demanded places for their feeding, and tithes, removed by the council from supervising the clergy and from collecting taxes, were left as lower judicial officials over the clergy and over the laity in civil matters. This large number of staffs of bishop's service people constituted such inviolability in the eyes of the metropolitan and in the eyes of the tsar with all his advisers that it did not occur to any of them to reduce the staff and thus completely abolish the position of tithes. Left by the council as lower judges in civil matters, tithes, to the grief and misfortune of the clergy and laity, and after the council retained all those responsibilities - rights or the entire circle of activity that they had before it, i.e. in other words, they were left with all the opportunity to rob the clergy and laity that they had before 116. In the Kyiv half of Rus', as we said, the diocesan bishop's administration and the diocesan bishop's court did not undergo the same transformation and the distortions that they underwent in the Moscow half of Rus'. The most likely explanation for this circumstance, that the bishops of Kievan Rus did not follow the example of the bishops of Moscow Rus regarding the transformation of diocesan administration from a cathedral into an individual one, we have already indicated there above. It must be thought that in this half of Rus', which was under the highest state power of a different faith, the whole society itself took a much more active part in the affairs of the church than was the case in Moscow 117, and that the decisive opposition of public opinion against Moscow innovations forced the bishops of this half of Rus' to abandon the latter. In later times, as the surviving acts conclude, the councils of presbyters - kliroshans of Kievan Rus took formal obligations from newly appointed bishops that they - the bishops - would inviolably observe the rights and benefits of their presbyters - kliroshans 118 . It is very likely that one can think that the custom of collecting these formal obligations began from the time the example of Moscow began to threaten the cliroshans with danger, and that, thus, they, taking advantage of the support of public opinion, themselves deliberately and diligently took care to preserve and protect themselves from the encroachment of the bishops. Having managed to maintain their existence, the cathedrals of presbyters - kliroshans of Kievan Rus in later times underwent some changes in their internal organization. We said above that in the Greek Church the original presbyteral council of bishops gave way to a council of executive officials, and that this change occurred in Greece after we adopted Christianity (1 half of Volume I pp. 320/372). In Kievan Rus, the original council of presbyters - the kliroshan, which we borrowed from Greece, at an unknown later time, so to speak, adapted to the secondary Greek council, namely, it is, like this latter, consisting of officials with special names and with certain positions or with each official having his own set of responsibilities. Of the historical acts that present to us the structure of the later presbyteral choirs of Kievan Rus in this form, only one is known so far. According to this act, the episcopal choir consists, just as in Greece, of five officials, but not a six-numbered five, as there, but five in number, as they are: the great economy, the great skeuphylax, the great chartophylax, the protecdicus and the prothonotary 119. Against the Greek officials, what is missing in our five is the great sacellarius and sacellius and the extra one is the prothonotary, who among the Greeks did not belong to the first or main five of officials, which, in fact, constituted the government councils under the bishops. The presbyters - cliroshans of the later Kievan Rus were not priests of cathedral episcopal cathedrals, but were rectors of parish churches 120; but in the cathedrals, alternating with each other on a weekly basis, they were confessors and leaders of proteges who were ordained priests and deacons. Just as the councils of presbyters-kliroshans were preserved in the Kyiv half of Russia under the bishops themselves, so they were preserved under their district governors 121. And thus, in this half of Rus', the diocesan administration remained conciliar in its entirety. The bishops of Kievan Rus, as well as Moscow, had secular boyar servants. But these latter did not at all carry out the seizure here that they carried out in Moscow. On the one hand, the existence of choirs should have prevented this and made it almost impossible, and on the other hand, between them there were, as one must think, no well-born people who could prevail over the spiritual element in church administration and court 122. Both cathedral governors and district governors were always in Kievan Rus from the clergy, and namely, they were elected by the choirs themselves, in the first case by the cathedral, in the second by the subject district, from their own members 123. In Kievan Rus, as well as in Moscow, there were secular rulers or bishop tiuns under the bishops with choirs and cathedral governors 124. About their judicial position, you need to think that until the transformation of the clergy into certain officials happened, they were assistants to the governors as judges of the clergy and laity in non-spiritual matters. And when this transformation happened and when the protekdics appeared, as such (in non-spiritual matters) judges of the clergy and laity, they became assistants to these latter, turning in this area of ​​​​court from real judges into assistants. The lowest diocesan administrative officials in Kievan Rus were tithes in partnership with the archpriests 125. The first, as we said, more or less became such officials even before the Mongol invasion, and the second were made officials in Kievan Rus after this invasion and, as one must think, on the model of the deans of the Catholic Church. Whether both of them together were only administrative officials in the narrowest sense (supervisory only), or also judicial officials, remains unknown to us. If the latter, then it is likely to think that the tithe was supposed to judge the clergy and laity in non-spiritual matters, and the archpriest - in spiritual ones. 1. – Certificate of title to the son of the boyar Posnik Pudov of the Vologda Archbishop Varlaam. 1629 [A copy of this charter was delivered by N.I. Suvorov in 1861 to the Imperial Archaeographic Commission (see above p. 43, note 3). In E. E. Golubinsky’s additional notes to this chapter, among other things, it reads: “print the document, which is indicated on sheet 54, ver. fin. (p. 43, note 3). The list is in the Archaeographic Commission.” – The search for a copy of this charter in the Archaeographic Commission was unsuccessful, and no response was received to a request about it sent to Vologda Bishop Nikon. In view of this, E.E. Golubinsky’s desire could not be fulfilled]. 2. About the Kiev kliroshans. 1. [The Vilna Cathedral of 1508–1509 decrees that if a priest reaches great outrages, then “we (bishops) together, with our wing - from the monks and priests, do not order such an outrageous person to hold the priesthood.” Russian Historical Library, published by the Archaeographic Commission, vol. IV, St. Petersburg, 1878, p. 13. About the fact that the Vilna Cathedral was held on December 25, 1508. to January 18, 1509, see S. T. Golubev: Panegyric to Kiev-Pechersk Archimandrite Elisha Pletenetsky 1618, Kyiv, 1910, p. 38]. 2. In 1539, the Lvov bishopric was established, in place of the long-closed Galich one, and the first bishop of Lvov, Macarius, in the same 1539, convened the Lvov priests and, after consulting with them, established a choir and granted it the power to hold it, like other bishops. In his charter dated November 16, 1539 (Acts of Southern and Western Russia Vol. I, No. 103, p. 106; cf. Vol. II, No. 118, pp. 140–141) we read: “They did it, and they renewed the speech that had been instilled, which had been lost from long ago until now, and there were spiritual ceremonies at that holy metropolitan church of the Holy Great Martyr Christ and Victorious George in Lvov before Muri, and there were spiritual ceremonies to the praise of God, that is, there was a choir; Therefore, we humble Macarius, Bishop of the Metropolis of Galicia, Bishop of Lvov and Kamenets Podolsk, about this, having thought about this many times, supposedly sweetly, putting aside all speech, by the gift of the holy consubstantiality and indivisibility of the life-giving Trinity and the influx of the Holy Spirit, we did it, calling the priests of Lvov and Rozmov (iv)shi behind them, they created a choir and forced them to keep it and still being a descendant, since other bishops have it. And that income is taken from the holy metropolitan church of the Holy Great Martyr George, half the cathedral for the clirochans, and in the Lvov district, if the church is consecrated, then half is lost; and one Kriloshan and Vladika are planning to go to the consecration of the church; and if you make the old church holy, then it’s for the kriloshans. And for the decision of the priesthood, which guy will come, which Kriloshan will be a week, that guy will be the priest’s confessor, and from confession (may give) 6 groschen; and if some Kriloshans serve with Vladika, the newly-consecrated one will give them a penny; and if someone gave ten forties, the mistress would receive half of it; If there were one albo for two or three or four or five, then for kriloshan. And whoever has the right to spiritual needs, threatens to take it from the ruler; and in the oblivion of the ruler, the governor who came to the law may give, whose reason is, the law may be taxed with six pennies, then the rules will be opened. And if there was a need to dedicate a church to a Kriloshan, the bishop would not take anything from that brother, except to serve dinner for him. If the same son of Kriloshan wanted to become a priest, then the ruler will not take anything from him. And if the ruler dies, the kryloshans are planning to keep the fate of the whole of their motsi bishopric from the gentlemen of the earth to the law of our holy Greek, both small and great, and with the gentlemen of the burghers of Lvov; If the south comes out, then they will pay taxes to the appointed or consecrated ruler of the bishopric with all the church treasures. And if there were any Kriloshan who stood in front of the ruler, the ruler of the karati would not punish him with greedy execution, as soon as he was excommunicated from service until that hour, he would do it all right, the shepherds of the commandments of the holy fathers ruled; but the Kriloshanin is not punished by someone who was judged by a single spiritual court. But the ruler does not choose the governor; the Kriloshans have just chosen him, they ask him to give orders to the ruler, and the ruler asks him to bless him. And who, according to me, did not have to hold on to our allotment of that sheet and not to swear at him for anything, on that be the oath of God and the holy father three hundred and unblessed from our beastly shepherd Cyrus Macarius, Metropolitan of Kyiv and Galicia and All Rus', and Bishop of Peremysk and Sambir Arseniy, and our capital Macarius Bishop of Galicia and Lvov and Kamenets of Podolsk, unblessing and church oath, may he be cursed in this century and the next. And to this leaflet we have attached our own seals for the sake of authenticity. And at that hour there were honorable kryloshans about Christ: Father Fedorovsky Zacharias, the governor; father Nikolinsky Stefan; Father of Epiphany Anthony; father Blagoveshchensky Iyakov; father Spasky Avtonom; Father Pokrovsky John; Father Voznesensky Gregory and Deacon Zachariah.” 3. Metropolitan Macarius of Kiev in his letter dated January 10, 1349 (ibid. No. 118, pp. 125–126) writes: “We are familiar with this leaf of ours, whoever needs to know it, or even listen to it, the present and the future. Just as the bishopric of the Metropolis of Galicia perished from the stake for hundreds of years and was buried without the shepherd of its bishop in those famous places, in Galich, in Lvov, in Kamenets Podolsk, then our Lord of holy and glorious memory, his grace, King Zhikgimont and the Grand Duke of Lithuania, seeing that in those metropolitan places the praise of God Little by little it became impoverished, and the flock of Christ was sad for the people without their shepherd, the royal mercy cared for him, behind the building of some lords there, he installed a bishop, and gave that bishopric to the glorious Makar of Tuchansky; where, in accordance with the will and the story of the ruler, we consecrated and blessed that Macarius for the bishopric of the metropolis of Galicia, and on our own behalf we installed our courtier as viceroy instead of the bishop, giving him mots from ourselves in spiritual rights, who is in his parishion with our blessing. So this Macarius, being already a bishop, and having seen the great poverty in the capital church in Lvov before the death of the holy Great Martyr of Christ George, and the priestly misery, for which the praise of God cannot be attributed to being in that cathedral church, having entered into an affair with the sacred and God-loving bishop of the God-saving city of Przemysl and Sambora, Father Arseniy, and with some other spiritual and secular persons, with the writing and remembrance of our elder shepherd, they built a cathedral in the church of the Holy Great Martyr of Christ George, to establish the praise of God, and wrote down as a priest with his sheet that Bishop Macarius and with Father Vladika of Peremysk for the eternal hours, and he himself is a priest of the cathedral and after him being the lords of Lvov should complete and give out eternal watches, that is: if the church is to be sanctified in the Lvov district, half of the rulers and half of the priests will go to the choir, and one of the Kriloshan men with the mistress is planning to go to that dedication; and if you dedicate an old church, then everything is a kriloshan, and the owner gets nothing from it; and if the protege is useful for someone’s week, that priest wants him to be spiritual, and from that he wants to take six pennies from him; whoever the priests of that day will serve under the mistress, the protege gives him a penny each, and if someone gives ten forty, the mistress half and the kriloshan half; and if they give three forty or five for two albos, the owner will get nothing from it, everything will be a crapshoot; and a priest without his priests or his deputy does not dare to refuse anyone, and whatever reason is right, he asks him to set aside six pennies, then he is guilty; and if you dedicate your church to a kriloshan, then the bishop will not take anything from him, but he will be obliged to celebrate a dinner for him. And whoever the Kriloshan wants to put his son in priesthood, the lord allows him to do it for free, without taking anything from him. When the lord would die, the kriloshans are trying to keep the bishopric in their own hands, from the gentlemen of the earth and from the gentlemen of the bourgeoisie, and the possessions of the lord and church intact to the will of the ruler. And whoever the Kriloshan attacks against the mistress, swears him with the scourge that the holy fathers ruled, by spiritual law. But the ruler does not allow him to choose a governor, only the Kriloshans with his blessing. Who was ordered to write it down in front of us and is doing it in himself; and all the kriloshans of the cathedral church of the Holy Great Martyr of Christ George the Lvov beat us with a chol, and they, having kept the record and sheet of the ruler of their favors, confirmed with our sheet the eternal clock, and that record was not destroyed by other bishops there. We, seeing the speech audible, and hailing the Church of God and the ministers of the church, eternally confirm this record of the Lord Kriloshan of St. Yury with this sheet of ours on the eternal clock; then all the future rulers of Lvov are bellowing with a cryloshan, not retreating from the lord’s record, filling the eternal hours; and if any ruler wanted to destroy this record and not fill him with kriloshan, we place on him the oath of the saints of the father of seven councils and from us let his shepherd be cursed in this age and the next. Why did they attach our maistate seal to this sheet?” 4. In the message of Archimandrite Isaiah Boloban of Unevsk, who was to be installed as bishop of Lviv in place of his uncle Gideon Boloban, addressed to the future flock dated February 3, 1607, we read (Acts relating to the history of South-Western Rus', published by A. S. Petrushevich, Lvov, 1868, pp. 8–15, no. 3): “Abiye came to Lvov diligently in the love of Christ, gathering together the sacred brotherhood of priests and canons, that is, the correct priests, who preside in the sacred church with the bishop, showing them this. With them and the rest of the church clergy and people, may this not be hidden from them, the will of the departed bishop, and the accompaniment of this royal before the retreat, which is here the bishop's and sinkgelnaya patriarchal writings, which together with all the neighboring sacred clergy and other people, and the reverent presbytery of Lvov who confessed, as ancient writings contain from the ancient princes and kings and bishops for all deanery among them for the success of the churches devoted to them for the better. Not only that, but also others from the fulfillment of the church, have a schedule of brotherhood from the Holy Ecumenical Patriarch, so that this may be inviolable and not damaged. To these stauropegians in some places, for the honor of the great church, they are opposed not only as a waster of Christ’s lamb. Everyone who does not collect, in other words, scatters; What is not with me is on me. Yes, he would be contrary, and would not impute the will of Christ at all, so that many would be saved because of him, or offend them, or belittle his church, and hide the number from them by damaging lawful things, let it not happen. But also to multiply and grow, warming and merciful with diligence of love, like a bird under its veils, like things to thrive for the best, for the glory of the most honorable and magnificent name of our Lord Jesus Christ, the culprit of the world, into the most pure core of the bride of his church, who gathers the sparks of our mother’s child. In the same way, with all my soul and with all my heart, I receive all this tree, either from the Christ-loving and most peaceful kings and princes, or from the most holy patriarchs; much more from the Ecumenical Patriarch, and his pronomy 126 here, the essence is either from the archbishop, or the bishop of the Orthodox, and before the apostasy of those who were, even lower from anywhere in the review, they are opposed to the gospel of Christ, or the commandment and the sacred canon of the apostles and the conciliar charter and the rule of the ecumenical and locally former, and all inspired scripture and church teaching, and all tradition and custom of the ancients in the church the contents and behavior of the great church of Constantinople, and we are subject to it in no way that is contrary to, or inconsistent with, if the essence, I promise, and I will testify before my Lord Jesus Christ, to fully contain and protect from all slander under the weight of the church, and the final eruption of my later. Such is the honorable presbytery, the brotherhoods that are faithful to fulfill the commandments of Christ, especially in the union of Christ devoted to love. Nothing creates the faithful, as if there were only one. For this reason, we prayed to our father not to be dissolved, that his name might be united in the union of the peace of Christ by the contending faithful, so that we would not dissolve the unity of the spirit. This is the lot, this is the legacy left to us, to make peace with each other about others. We also bring to us those who are lost in the world, for those who remain in love for us, Jesus Christ will abide in us, giving us His peace. Likewise, the Stavropegians should remain motionless according to the pronomies of the patriarchs, who were from the beginning. Not only will this be firmly maintained as a bishop and a guardian and a trustee who wants to be saved, but also for the building of the church, and for the benefit of the entire fulfillment of the church, they will delight. With ready zeal I will do everything against their request. And what I promise to those here in Lvov, the same in Galich and Kamenets. We are united as Christ's people into one body by the Church, desiring that even before the assembly of presbytery in its headship, it will be from them that we preside with them whenever they please, before the appointment of me, or by appointment, let them choose the five for the office of the 127 church: the great icon, the great scyofylaka, velika hartofelac, protekdic, prothonotary. Those who, according to the canon of the Fourth Council, care about the acquisition of church power have. And support all parishes from them, and build them according to the bishop’s command. The bishop and the church are in need, the bishop is tormented by them: even a faithful builder will be like one who watches God. Ovzhe holding church vessels. Chartophylax holds the church's charter justification. Judge of all church wines and medical wines of judgment. In addition, in other clergy wines there is ekdik 128, that is, an avenger, like the right hand of a bishop. Protectik, that is, the oldest avenger, in the intercession of the captives and the offended, and the judge of blameworthy faults. The prothonotary is all about the judges. According to these, and to this lesser five other clergy from the worldly, if they want to choose divine scriptures for their benefit for this purpose. Moreover, according to the divine commandments, the apostle, and this with all the news, not from a single bishop or archbishop, is motionless, and is not at all in dispute, as if they will have judgment by the eternal judge with me, who dares to corrupt the apostolic commandment about this. How appropriate is it to elect a bishop in general, holding them according to the law of the saints, the apostle, whose commandment. I cleave with all my soul, just as they proclaim to the congregational teaching in the 8th book: I have spoken to us as the twelve apostles of the Lord, I am with us and the chosen vessel Paul, and Jacob the bishop, and the other presbyter, and the seventh deacon. First I killed the river Peter, Bishop Herotonisan 129 To be, as in the previous books, we elect from all the people together with presbytery, and from them we also testify that he is worthy of being a bishop, and so on. Moreover, according to this sacred commandment, I want each other to ascend to this throne without punctuation, from whomever the person was chosen. But the canon of saints of the Apostle and the Synod of Antioch on another part of this is preserved entirely, there is disagreement that quenches and delights the malice of passion, but when a bishop has been elected, it will not be accepted from the people what should be done for him, and what is due to the church for this, who did not admonish the covetous people. We also explain this canon, as the church needs it, about the bishop, so that he may remain firmly in his fortress, so that it will be revealed, as we say, that there will be episcopal estates, and church estates, so that he has the power to bequeath, and the church, through ignorance of episcopal things, will not bring destruction in his own. And those in Carthage had estates, which the bishop did not have before ordination, but then acquired, and the churches were multiplied and sanctified. If it were otherwise, the bishop would be like a robber and deprived of his honor. And like in Trulla: about the integrity of church things. As if the bishop passed away, no one appropriates his name for himself, but let this choir preserve, whoever wants to be a bishop, and even this will be tempted, and in the news it will not be destroyed. So I promise to send without hesitation to the Most Holy Patriarch of the Ecumenical Church, praying in every way, together with you in honorable presbytery to His Majesty with my sacred writing, first of all, the election of a bishop as... spoken in the message according to the apostolic commandments, and confirm the canons, and assign the order of clergy to us, dividing the flock the court(s) on them are responsible for being a spiritual husband. And on their own worldly for the decoration of the church deanery, and the strengthening of the courts: even fertilizer will be the greatness of the church by these offecians in the city in this bishopric, to whom I will honor the exarchship for the glory of the name of the great throne of the new Rome. If they want to elect the archpriest to be a presbytery, which is the most skillful from others, let them elect together among themselves, not against any bias, but according to the will of God, and I and I will bless, I resist nothing, when all are in good order. And if I am convicted by disagreeing with the deeds that were written on my behalf, or if I am shaken in my faith, let it not be so. Behold, Lord Christ, I now firmly and clearly confess before the entire church assembly, of whom the Holy Spirit has gathered; for I believe in one God the Father, and his only begotten Son Jesus Christ, who was before all ages. And the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father, and is given by the Son, as from the beginning the Orthodox Church professes the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church, in which we were born and brought up, so that God, worshiped in Trinity, may be kept by us to the end. With her, I accept the seventh Ecumenical Councils, even having gathered to preserve honorable dogmas, I confess and even the canons and commandments established on them to keep, since at different times and years our fathers were legitimized by the saints, and even they accepted, I will kindly accept with them, but from them they turn away and I. I also profess to maintain church peace and not think in any way contrary to it. In everything I agree with everyone before me, the Orthodox bishop, and in everything I obey the great patriarch, and the great church, and fully observing his pronomy. But let all this be known to you: the urgent need of the sacred and great council of the great church of the new Rome, even about these, and which you also, in the crawling of the church, demand to be announced, as it is more dangerous to see what is being seen and discussed by the council. Moreover, for those with understanding, the essence is better and more meaningful. Over these I place my seal for the preservation of all and the fulfillment of what the law commands, and with my hand I will support this way, and not otherwise, to be, not in one, and from those like me who want to be the diadochi 130, we hold everything together, like a sacred treasure, and even from the most holy patriarch, which you want to recover, as if the church had died on the crawl, Whenever they are brought, resisting nothing, or arguing, the contents of these are inviolably ready to be signed by the imam, who have gathered for you and with them you will delight. If I appear otherwise than this confession and my signature, I will be subject to the canon of Carthage, as episcopal honor, but I will be deprived. Written in Lvov at the capital church, St. George the Great Martyr of Christ in the month of February G (3) rock V54; а¦з (1607). 5. Eustathius Tisarovsky, who was installed in the place of Gideon Boloban, in his letter to the same Lviv flock dated January 22, 1608. writes (ibid. pp. 17–20, No. 4, or Galician Scientific Collection 1868, issues I and II, pp. 70–73): “Eustathie Tisarovsky, by the grace of God, was named Bishop of Lvov, Galicia, Kamenets Podolsk. To the endless glory of the most holy, life-giving, indivisible Trinity, for the knowledge of the whole camp in eternal generations, Christ-named people. With my letter I explain and clearly confirm that when I named the humble Eustathius to the episcopate, my brothers, who have seen Christ in the beloved of Lvov, Galicia and Kamenets Podolsk, the churches of the saints of God, the clergy of all, the vedlugs of ancient rights and I call to be cleross and clerics, rights, privileges from their favors, the princes of the Russians, the kings of Poland, the archbishops, many bishops, to fill the visual wars in order and approval of the order of the Kleroshan and clergy, having shown them; Abym got along with us and I brought them these danins, fundys, the rights of the riverside Kleros order confirmed them with a sheet and with my note. I am sick and aware of the greatest of my abilities, following the promise of the action of the Holy Spirit, who, in the union of peace, creating a house in a dwelling for himself, divided his gift into rose vessels, creating the apostles, other prophets, and teachers, giving action to the forces, who did that through his chosen vessel and overthrows the mob: Each one receives his gift from God, and in whatever he is called, let him abide in it. The head of the head cannot be moved in any way, because we are after you: for the heads are one another and one body, the one head and the Savior of Christ, and from that head, knitted with sinews of guilty and legalized mercy. By my voluntary list of these same ones and exchanged, which could be shown for later, each and every one is special, supposedly in that sheet of exchange there were rights, privileges, sheets, old-time curses, loudness and coexistence with priests, churches with the ground, brotherhoods, stauropegias, and parafelnom where the kolvek. And especially here at Lvov we were from the holy memory of their favors of the Polish kings and Russian princes: as well as from the most holy patriarchs of the ecumenical throne of Constantinople, the metropolitans before the retreats of Kyiv, Galicia and all Rus'; and the bishops of Lvov, Galicia and Kamenets-Podolsk, my ancestors of the Council and Prevatna. And most of all, the churches of the Eastern Orthodoxy of the Most High God of the new Zion with the canon and rules of the holy apostles and the seven ecumenical councils of the holy God-bearing Fathers were not contrary to tradition, but in everything they were guilty: and from myself and others, I will cook and ensure and protect the boroniti. All of you and each of them is supposedly inscribed here from word to word, tsale not zkgvaltsone not porushone eternally, I myself hold sacred bliva obetsya and reproach, and in the dark hours the descendant bishops who were after us are the same from generation to generation to eternal generations, as if for the affixed maple, rest, peace, justice, mercy, faith and holiness, It is possible to have what one wants in a Christ-like manner. That is all with our good faith and our whole intention for holiness, devotion, and church devotion. And especially school sciences, brotherhood for the sake of life and the proliferation of God’s praise, we ourselves repair and our descendants are angry with them, then keep eternal hours of repairing and fulfilling the same. Change the free election of the bishop from the gentry and the mixture and brotherhood of all the camps of Catholic Orthodoxy to the Oriental Eastern Holy Church by the people, the obedience of the Holy Patriarchs to the front of Constantinople. I reject the well-known clergyman, and I also allow myself to be fleeced by the governor, whom the bishop intends to bless. And I myself don’t want to be a bishop without their wave-like robberies, I wouldn’t give a damn. And if you were taken away from the machinations of the soulful enemy from that Orthodox holy faith from the obedience of the most holy patriarchs of Constantinople, he retreated, only in a submissive manner to the needs of the worldly authorities, and not in a Christ-like manner, belittling and humbling even to the point of death. Against the rules of the holy God-bearing fathers and their right to the clerics, without the hassle of building and allowing them to sit in full and send justice (and he was proud of the leaders), even in their ranks he repaired church income through himself, or to whom he allowed repairs, or according to a dead bishop in front of the heights of the full fate, or even being on the episcopacy degree the one who was consecrated moved into the bishopric, and extracted the work from them: I voluntarily set it up for myself and for my descendants and invest it. And I was called before the first call to the right of the secular under guilt, that is, thousands of hryvnia, without deviating from the order: but before the spiritual I was called under brutality and removal from the Church of God. Rights, privileges, aperata, structures, vessels in silver, in zloty, in pearls and in any colvek of matter of episcopal and priestly churches: the Holy Great Martyr George in Lviv, Galicia on Krylos, the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and Kamenets Podolsk, the Holy Life-Giving Trinity, which are to be registered, and a register with the signature of the hands and their seal Kleroshanskaya and our episcopal one in a proper place at the church of the capital: and for their keys Kleroshanskaya will take possession and rule with them, and with all our might, until the death of the church of God, serve, remember, harrow under the same above-predicted guilt. You ted all the articles written above, forbid everything to Almighty God and to the whole church, I decree the clerosum. And for the proof of faith and confirmation with my seal with the signature of an authoritative hand, I confirm, sign, attach, that I will be guilty of both the books of the city and the zemstvo. In Lvov, at the capital's church, the Holy Great Martyr George became the capital of the Lvov bishopric. When all the gathered priests of the Lvov Kleroshans and clerics were gathered by God’s grace, they were in their rank of Kleroshans, and the brotherhood of the Assumption of the Holy Mother of God Stavropegion of Lvov, and all the brothers who were in Lvov and during the presence of his grace, Pan John Meleshka Rotmistr k.i. ml. and Pan Vasily Samsonovsky, and Pan Stefan Cholganski, Pan Mikhail and Pan Prokol Tisarovski. Fate from the birth of Jesus Christ the Son of God 1608 of the month of January, day 22. Eustathius of Tisarovsky with his powerful hand. Ignatius notary." 3. – Parishes and parish clergy. Regarding parishes and parish clergy, we only have to make some additions to what we said in Volume I (1 half, pp. 377/444) and which also applies to the time we are considering. ↓ Finding priests for places in parishes was the responsibility of the votchinniki of villages or parish communities, but at the same time this continued to be the ktitor’s right not only of the former, but also of the latter (the community of parishioners is the same ktitor in relation to their church as an individual patrimony is to his own) 131, so if the bishops themselves took it upon themselves to send priests to non-proprietary parishes, then the parishioners could not accept them 132. When the priestly position in the parish was filled not in such a way that the parishioners brought an unordained candidate (deacon) to the bishop for initiation, but in such a way that they found a ready-made, unplaced priest: then in the latter case it was not required that the bishop confirm the priest in place, but it was only required that the first one show his transferee, and if he was from another diocese, his release letter, a letter to the local tithe, so that it would be clear that he is a valid and not a banned priest. Since there were a lot of candidates for priests and for every decent position there were a whole crowd of competitors: then in some, at least localities, if not throughout Russia, parishioners of wealthy parishes sold places to candidates at auction, giving them to those who gave them a large fee for the place. In a similar way, the butlers and clerks of the sovereigns, who were in charge of their replacement at the churches located in the palace estates, traded places. The excessive number of parishes not only remained the same as in the previous time, but it must be thought that they even increased significantly in proportion to the population. The peasants who lived on black state lands sought to open parishes as much as possible, seeking convenience for themselves in relation to church requirements; small estate owners unnecessarily built churches on their estates out of their own lordly vanity or to satisfy the vanity of their wives; unplaced priests, who walked throughout Russia in large numbers, diligently preached to one and another about the holiness of the work of building churches and establishing new parishes in order to create places for themselves. This extreme increase in the number of parishes had the consequence that many of them were often left without priests, and their churches stood without singing. The small peasant world built a church and opened a parish; there was a candidate for priesthood who agreed to serve for the most insignificant payment or rubbish. But this candidate, having been ordained a priest, lived for a very short time in the parish and left it to look for a better one - and the parish remained without a priest until it found a new candidate of the same kind, who acted in exactly the same way as the first, etc. The vain little patrimonial owner built a church on his estate and opened a parish; but he had enough desire to support a priest decently for two, three, or even years, and he began directly by supporting the priest as meagerly as possible - and again the same story as above. The Council of the Hundred Heads made instructions against the sale of places to priests by parishioners and the sovereign's butlers and against the excessive proliferation of parishes. In the first case, his instruction is that he addresses with an order and at the same time an admonition to the persons in question, so that they do not sell church places, but elect priests without money by having an immaculate life, being proficient in reading and writing, and performing their duties skillfully 134 . In the second case, against the immense proliferation of parishes, the council prescribes that new parishes should be opened only with the permission of the bishops, and that the bishops give their permission only in those cases where there is a real need for this and when there is hope that priests can be supported in the new churches. The newly opened parishes, the churches of which, due to their poverty, remained without priests and stood without singing and in which there was no real need, the cathedral orders to be closed, and the churches are ordered to be taken to the churchyards to the churches of those old parishes from which the new ones were separated, and to be used as chapels at these churches 135. But among the very poor parish churches, which were left without priests and stood without singing, there were also those in which there was a real need in the area. The Council of the Hundred Heads, instructing the bishops to take every possible care to ensure that such poor churches do not stand without singing, makes an order in this case, the expediency of which remains incomprehensible to us. These churches stood without singing because the priests did not want to live with them due to the poverty of their contents; and the cathedral, by its instructions, creates means for supplying these churches with books and icons, and as for the priests, without indicating any ways to increase their maintenance and without even providing them with absolutely no benefits over other priests, it orders them, as it was before, to live about the parish and about the church land 136. The unspoken meaning of this instruction, perhaps, is that the bishops were entrusted with their authority to appoint priests to these churches with the promise to the latter that after a certain period they would receive the best parishes. At the parish churches there were chapels or chapels, also called narthexes (from the fact that they were sometimes located in the narthexes of parish churches; hence the name of the special priests of the chapel churches - prikryne), whose purpose was either to serve as memorial churches for the families of their organizers, or to serve as early churches for the parishes, so to speak, in which early masses could be celebrated on holidays. The order we indicated from the Stoglavy Cathedral, that new parish churches standing without singing should be brought to the graveyards of the old parish churches and set up as chapels with them, if only the order was carried out, should have created a new class of chapel churches without any specific purpose. The Council does not simply order the destruction of the churches of the closed parishes, as it seems, because it finds such destruction of churches undesirable and disapproving 137 . In addition to parish churches with chapels, there were house churches, built by boyars in the courtyards of their city houses. Just as in the pre-Mongol period there were a great many of these churches in Kiev, so in the time we are considering there were a great many of them in Moscow. Martin Behr, who wrote his Moscow Chronicle in 1612, says that in his time there were at least three thousand churches in Moscow 138. It is very likely that he is greatly exaggerating; but, in any case, it follows from his testimony that there were an extraordinary number of churches in Moscow. And this multitude necessarily suggests that while there was a relative surplus of parish churches, there was an even greater surplus of house churches. Between the parish churches there were a special class of city churches, called cathedrals 139, which, having been appointed to satisfy the needs of commemorating the dead, were churches in cities with daily services. Initially, one cathedral was established in each city; but over time, in large cities, new cathedrals were added to the first cathedral. That this was already the case in the pre-Mongol period is confirmed by one later chronicle, namely the so-called Tverskaya chronicle, which, under 1159, speaks of St. Sophia in Kyiv and all the cathedrals in it 140. Regarding the time we are considering, we know that seven councils were established in Moscow, Novgorod and Pskov: they did not go further than seven, because the number seven was the number of ecumenical councils (to which, somewhat originally, of course, cathedrals - churches) were equated. There were seven cathedrals in Novgorod by 1417. 141; in Moscow seven cathedrals are mentioned under 1479. 142; in Pskov, the second cathedral to the first or initial one was established in 1357, then over the course of a short century, until 1471, four more cathedrals were established, and finally, the seventh cathedral was established unknown when until 1528. 143. ↓ In Novgorod, it was not so that only the priests of the cathedrals held daily services in the cathedrals, but that the priests of the entire city held them there, and precisely in the original and cathedral cathedral of St. All the priests of the city served Sophia on a weekly basis, and for the same weekly sequence they were assigned to the rest of the cathedrals or belonged in parts, that is, a certain number of them to one cathedral, another to another, etc. 144. In Pskov it was different than in Novgorod: here, in parts, not only the priests of the entire city belonged to the cathedrals, but also the priests of the entire region, that is, with urban and rural priests 145. Whether what was indicated now consisted only of the peculiarities of Novgorod and Pskov or whether this was the case in other places, we cannot say anything. News about the establishment of new cathedrals in Pskov reports that the priests of newly opened parishes (and newly opened places in old parishes) did not join the communities of existing cathedrals, but remained unincorporated, and that of these unincorporated ones, when they reached a larger number, new cathedrals were formed 146 . Some of these new councils were formed in such a way that the priests who made up the community had to maintain daily services not in one church, but in two or three (the fourth council, established in 1453, had two, the fifth council, established in 1462, three). The heads of the first councils in cities, and where there were always one of them, which, of course, was the largest part - and the only ones, were called archpriests 147; the heads of other councils after the first were called cathedral elders 148. Unfortunately, our information about the cathedrals is still very insufficient 149. (In Pskov, the non-mercenary priests themselves tried to establish new cathedrals; therefore, it was profitable for them, and, therefore, the matter must be presented in such a way that the memorial money that they sang in the cathedrals constituted their total income. But in Novgorod, the regular service of all the priests of the city in the St. Sophia Cathedral was their duty, so whoever did not fulfill the duties paid a fine - Acts of the Expedition vol. I, no. 229, p. 221 col. 2 fin.. 150. The latter should probably be understood in such a way that the regular service only in the cathedral was the duty of the priests) 151. It is necessary to think that in the time we are considering, even more than in the pre-Mongol period, the main candidates for parish priests and other clergy positions were the children of priests and clergymen in general, for, as is completely natural, over time the clergy had to become more and more isolated and turn into a caste. There is no doubt that this contingent of the priesthood was not only very sufficient, but also extremely redundant, since it is known that the clergy class is growing at a rate much greater than any other class of the inhabitants of the state. However, it was not at all the case that the clergy was separated into a caste, formally closed, and access to the priesthood remained free for the laity, to the extent that the latter had the opportunity and at the same time the desire to compete with candidates from the very spiritual environment. What relief was decreed by Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich in the contractual document with Metropolitan Cyprian regarding the admission of priestly children to the clergy, and what restrictions were decreed by him regarding the admission of laity to the priesthood, we cited above (1 half of the volume, p. 328). It should be thought with full probability that in subsequent times they retained their power of relief, but whether restrictions also retained it, we cannot say 152. The pre-Mongol custom of masters appointing their slaves as priests, without freeing them from slavery, remained for some time after the Mongol invasion. This can be assumed on the basis that Metropolitan Kirill in the acts of the Vladimir Council of 1274. Among other rules regarding ordination to the priesthood, he also prescribes the following: “not to bring a slave to the priesthood unless his master first releases him before many with a certificate, and let him go if he wants, and after his ordination, let him not appropriate (no longer appropriate) to himself” [Cf. in the 1st half of this volume p. 72]. At the time we are considering, it was very common among us for the places of parish priests to be occupied by hieromonks, who, as such, are called abbots. The name abbot, when applied to a hieromonk living in a parish, meant that he had the right to be a spiritual father from the bishop (and these hieromonks received the name abbots from the fact that in ancient times in monasteries the right - the obligation to be the confessor of monks belonged to their abbots - abbots, so the names abbot and confessor became synonymous). The name shows that initially it was allowed for us to occupy the places of parish priests only to such hieromonks who had the right of spiritual direction from the bishops; permission could have been given because the right of confessor in ancient times did not belong eo ipso to all priests, but was deliberately granted only to some of the most worthy, and that for this reason) there could be a shortage of confessors among white priests 153. But in later times, the places of parish priests were occupied by hieromonks who did not have the right to clergy, and it was also the case that widowed priests were tonsured monks in order to retain the priesthood, and then remained in their places 154. In the questions of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich to the Stoglavy Council, it is indicated as a disorder that “the monks of the worldly churches live in the dust,” and in all likelihood this should mean precisely the monks who did not have the right to clergy. But in the definitions of the council we do not find any instructions about our monks 155. Given our complete lack of education, the only requirement that could be, and in fact was, presented to our candidates for the priesthood, was that they “have good literacy” (Vladimir Cathedral of 1274), that they be “ready to read and write” (Stoglavy Cathedral). As was the case in the pre-Mongol period, that in reality the priests satisfied extremely little of this modest requirement, so it remained without the slightest improvement in the time we are considering: after the probably insignificant minority of priests who were truly literate, the decisive majority of them were extremely illiterate, and a very large minority, as one must think, were completely illiterate. From the time we are considering, we have two testimonies about the degree of literacy of our priests during this time - Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod in his letter to Metropolitan Simon and the Stoglavy Cathedral. The latter simply says that proteges who want to be promoted to deacons and priests have little literacy skills 156 . But Gennady, in his letter to Simon, fortunately for us from the point of view of the interests of history, launches into detailed speeches about the illiteracy of the proteges of his Novgorod diocese and thereby gives us the opportunity to clearly imagine the degree of this illiteracy. “Now,” he writes, “they will bring to me (the parishioners of some church) a peasant (to appoint him to one or another church degree), and I will order him to be given the Apostle to read, and he does not even know how to step; and I will order him to be given a psalter, but he can barely walk through it. And I will refuse him, and they (the parishioners) in (their) apology (and justification) say: such (already), sir, (our) land, we cannot find a person who is good at reading and writing. They beat me with their foreheads (about the proteges they bring): please, sir, tell me to teach them (saying) the litany - and he cannot stick to a word, you tell him this, and he says something else; the alphabet, they ask to leave and don’t want to learn it”... About the teaching of children preparing for the clergy by their teachers - masters, Gennady writes: “ignorant men teach the children, but only spoil their speech (reprimand): first study Vespers with the student and for this you need to bring the master porridge and a hryvnia of money, and for Matins - also and more than that, and for the hours - especially, and these funeral services (gifts) are in addition to the payment for which you ordered (to learn); but (the student) leaves the master, and he doesn’t know how to do anything, he just wanders through the book, and he doesn’t know anything about the church order” 157... In the excerpts we cited, Gennady speaks about the majority of the proteges of the Novgorod region; but the Novgorod region has the full right to enter into agreements with all of Russia. And, consequently, this is what the majority of priests throughout Russia, contemporary with Gennady, said: “just wandering through the book”! That there existed at the time we are considering a considerable number of priests who were completely illiterate, “oral,” this cannot be doubted. We spoke in detail about these priests, who are of particular interest, above 158. That the extreme illiteracy of the majority of our priests concerned anyone in the highest church-governmental sphere until the end of the 15th century, this remains unknown to us. As far as we know, the first to raise speeches about this illiteracy and about the means to eliminate it was the aforementioned Gennady, Archbishop of Novgorod. Gennady found that the only means to eliminate illiteracy was the establishment of state-owned literacy schools, in which children preparing for the priesthood would undergo a mandatory and compulsory full course in the science of literacy, which he defined as follows: “the alphabet, the boundary is completely interpreted, and the subtitle words, and the psalter are strictly followed” 159, i.e., passing through all the edges or columns of the alphabet warehouses, study of subtitle words and possibly a thorough exercise in reading according to the following psalter. Gennady made passionate representations about the need to establish schools to Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich and Metropolitan Simon; but his representations remained without any effect and had no consequences. After Archbishop Gennady, the Council of the Hundred Heads decided to establish better literacy schools for those preparing for the priesthood than those that existed before. Until then, these latter learned to read and write either from their fathers - priests or from the so-called masters - lay people who taught literacy and kept schools for this purpose in their homes, and since both teachers were illiterate, the students turned out to be the same. The Council of the Hundred Heads decreed the following regarding the establishment of better schools than before: “By the tsar’s council, we conciliarly lay down: in the reigning city of Moscow and in all cities the archpriests and elder priests, with all the priests and deacons, to elect, with the blessing of their saint, good, spiritual, priests and deacons and clerks, married and pious, having the fear of God in their hearts, the able and others to use, and who would be literate - to read and write: and those priests and deacons and clerks should set up schools in their houses, so that the priests and deacons and all Orthodox Christians in every city would give them their children to learn to read and write and to learn book writing and church singing of the psalter and reading of lectern. And those chosen priests, and deacons, and clerks would teach their students the fear of God and literacy; and write and sing and read with all spiritual punishment; and most of all they would protect and keep their disciples in all purity and protect them from all corruption, and especially from the vile sin of Sodom and fornication and all uncleanness. So that they (your students), - the council begins from here to address its speech to the teachers themselves, - through care and teaching, when they come of age, become worthy of the priestly rank. And they would punish their disciples and teach them in God’s holy churches the fear of God and all decorum, psalmody and reading and singing and canarching according to church rites. And you would teach your students to read and write as much (as well) as you yourself can, and you would teach them the power of writing according to the talent given to you by God, without hiding anything, so that your students would learn all the books that the Holy Church accepts, so that later they could not only use themselves, but also others and teach the fear of God about everything useful. You would also teach your students to read and sing and write, as much as you can, without hiding anything, but expecting a reward from God, and also here from their (the students’) parents, accepting gifts and honors according to their condition." 160 We have fully cited the definition of the Stoglavy Council on schools in order to show what ideal of literacy schools for candidates for priests floated before the eyes of Metropolitan Macarius. This ideal was the highest: in relation to the scientific side, if one might put it this way, he dreamed of literate academies, because he wanted not only to teach students to read and write well, but also to make them well-read in church teaching books. Then, he wanted the students to be given the best possible moral education, but if such was the ideal, then the matter of its implementation was set in such a way that it should not have been realized at all. Metropolitan Macarius does not design state schools, but instructs archpriests and priests to invite the best priests, deacons and clerks in their cities, so that they open private schools in their homes and conduct teaching and education in them according to the specified program. The proposed private schools could open and exist only if it was profitable for the priests, deacons and clerks, that is, if the parents of the students agreed to pay them well. But this could not be, because parents - priests had to prefer not only high pay, but also any kind of payment, to teach their children themselves, and parents - laymen should prefer to pay cheaper to previous teachers. And therefore, the project for new schools, drawn up by Metropolitan Macarius, had to remain a simple dead letter of the actions of the Hundred Head Cathedral 161. Archbishop Gennady had already proclaimed the idea of ​​the need for state schools. Why did Metropolitan Macarius not respond at all to this thought, i.e. Why he did not sympathize with her or why he found her unfulfillable, unfortunately, we cannot say anything. If we were to assume that he did not sympathize with the reluctance to take the teachers’ maintenance personally, then, of course, this would not speak very much in his favor; but, as it seems, this cannot be assumed about him (although, however, one can assume about the bishops who were present with him at the council). Regarding the composition of the clergy and regarding the occupation of places in churches by priests and other clergy, the following should be said: ↓ Sextons did not become readers and singers or sextons of the left choir, as now, but continued to remain only church servants - candle burners and candle bearers, that is, candle lighters in front of icons and their bearers in front of priests during exits, and also censer preparers and censer givers 162 . As such, they were not marked or tonsured by bishops and were not dressed by them in a small phelonion (surplice), and did not receive clerical initiation at all 163, but remained strictly laity. They were not appointed to their positions by bishops, but were simply accepted into their places by priests and parishioners 164. Deacons or deacons were divided into two classes: those not appointed by bishops and those appointed. We, following Greece, established a custom so that the children of priests who wanted to follow in the footsteps of their fathers, which was, as we said, the largest part, and the children of laymen who wanted to go to the clergy, were allowed to become priests in churches immediately after they became able to do so. That is, immediately after they became able to read and sing in church 165. These clerks, who began to act as clerks from childhood, until they sought episcopal consecration, were the clerks who had not been appointed. It may very well be that, following the children, adults also began to act as deacons in churches in a similar way, that is, without initiation. In our country, as in Greece, these unofficial clerks wore the clerk's hair cut (humentse, covered with skufia) 166. – Based on the fact that the Vladimir Council of 1274, confirming the canonical rules, prohibits unconsecrated persons from reading the apostle and singing the prokeimenon, one could believe that these clerks were allowed in our country only in churches that already had clerks installed. But in all likelihood one must think that the definition of the council, together with the canonical rules that it confirms, remained with us, as in relation to the latter it was in Greece, completely ineffective and that our clerks were everywhere where it happened. Those of these clerks who for some reason did not strive for the priesthood and intended to remain clerks forever, probably forever, or at least for the most part, remained without episcopal consecration, because they had no need for it. Whether they had the right, like appointed clerks, to change places, or whether they had to remain forever at the same parishes in which they began their clerkships, we cannot say; but it is more likely that the latter, because they did not have letters on the basis of which they could be accepted in other parishes (although, on the other hand, those who began their priesthood in some parishes without episcopal letters, apparently, could continue it in other parishes without the same letters). Those of our clerks who thought about the priesthood, which should be understood about the overwhelming majority of them, upon reaching adulthood, which was supposed to be 18 years of age 167, went to the bishops for installation. Having been appointed bishops and having received the assigned letters from them 168, they could change places as much as they wanted, that is, as many priests and parishioners as they could find who expressed a desire to accept them 169. For this, it was only required that immediately upon entering each place they should show their assigned certificates to the local tithes 170. One must think that they did not directly appoint lay candidates to the priesthood (with a few days of passing through the diaconate and deaconship), but always appointed ready-made clerks who served in the field for a more or less long time (with a few days of passing through one diaconate). A clerk who wanted to be ordained a priest had to find a parish in which there was a vacant priestly place and whose parishioners would agree to accept him 171 . With electives (notes, sentences) from parishioners, he went to the bishop to seek initiation 172. Consecrated by the bishop and placed in place, the priest had the same freedom to change places as the clerk, with only some restriction of freedom against the latter. A priest who was dissatisfied with his place and wanted to find a better place for himself went to the bishop and asked him for a letter of passage or a transfer certificate, if he intended to look for a place only in his diocese, or a leave certificate, if he intended to look for it not only in his own, but also in other dioceses (in the official language; the letters are called: the first - a blessed transfer certificate, the second - a blessed leave certificate). Having found an empty place with a letter, the priest settled on it - if, of course, he was accepted for it - observing the only formality that he showed the letter to the tithe). (Since the fee for letters of transfer and leave was the same - see below, it is obvious that it was more profitable for every priest to straighten the second letter; the first was probably asked for in the only case when the priest moved from one place to another specific one). The ancient teaching of the saint to the newly ordained priest admonishes this latter: “thou hast been appointed to her church, do not leave her all the days of your life unless there is great need” 173; Some of our metropolitans tried to inspire that a priest should leave a church and go to another, not according to the holy fathers, - that “to which church a presbyter was appointed and written by the bishop, there he must eat and serve the throne of God to the death” 174. Anyone who undertakes to be a shepherd of the flock should not abandon the flock. But in our case, our circumstances, that is, these are many poor parishes, forced us to abandon the idea of ​​​​the priest as a shepherd who does not leave the flock. One must, however, think that, given the existence of the same circumstances, it was exactly the same as with us in Greece. There is no doubt that the number of poor parishes in our country was very large; and from this it undoubtedly follows that the number of unplaced priests wandering around the world and busy looking for places for themselves was always very large in our country 175 . Canonical rules require that all members of the clergy without exception and all church employees be monogamous (Apostle, canon 17, St. Basil the Great canon 12) 176. Consequently, sextons and sextons should also be like that. As for our practice in this case, it seems that we more or less strictly observed the canonical requirement in relation to clerks and more or less violated it in relation to sextons. Metropolitan Kirill in the acts of the Vladimir Cathedral of 1274. prescribes that sextons should be pure, i.e., monogamous, and does not make the same prescription regarding clerks; Metropolitan Cyprian was asked by the monk Athanasius: is it possible for a sexton to be a bigamist and a trigamist 177, and was not asked about the clerk. It is as if it should be understood in such a way that practice in accordance with the canons did not give rise to a prescription in the first case, and to a question in the second. Metropolitan Zosima, who in his way of thinking had no inclination to care about observing the canons, wanted to allow the clerks to commit bigamy; but he met with a decisive protest not only from the bishops, but also from the priests 178. However, before the Stoglav Cathedral, not only sextons, but also clerks were bigamists and triplets, which was deliberately pointed out in the tsar’s questions. The Council, confirming the canons, prescribed: “to be a sexton and sexton in all churches of a monogamous person, but not to be a second-married sexton and sexton according to the sacred rule” 179. The history of our widowed priests and deacons until the beginning of the 16th century. we stated above [see in 1 half of this volume pp. 393–394, pp. 522–523, pp. 545–548, pp. 609–610, and pp. 618–623]. St. Peter, trying to ward off the temptation that widowed priests caused with their lives, made a decree: if a widowed priest wants to remain in the world, then let him resign from the priesthood; if he wants to retain the priesthood, then let him go to a monastery and become a monk. It is not known how strictly the decree of St. Peter after his death; but Metropolitan Photius, immediately upon his accession to the see, deliberately resumed it, with a certain addition to the priests and deacons, whom St. may or may not mean. Peter 180. The decree, which had been observed for a long or short time after the death of Photius, ceased to be observed at all by the end of the 15th century: then it was solemnly restored and approved by the verdict of the council of 1503. The Council of the Hundred Heads ended our history for the time we are considering, which decisively confirmed the conciliar verdict that took place half a century before it 181. At the same time, Metropolitan Macarius, in one of his private decrees, prescribes this benefit in favor of widowed priests and deacons, that if one of them has a son or brother or son-in-law or nephew, then in case of dignity, one or the other of these should be put in his place 182 . Our clergy included prosphora bakers or bread bakers, who were considered by us as the successors of the ancient deaconesses. We required them to be widows after their first marriage, and not after the second or third 183. In the 13th century, it was still quite common for us to have civil marriages without a church wedding; Bishop Theognostus of Sarai asked the Patriarchal Council of Constantinople that if a woman who remains a widow after such a marriage has a pure life or takes monastic vows, then can she bake prosphora, and received the answer: if she accepted repentance from her spiritual father and is old, then it is possible 184. The Council of the Hundred Heads made its instructions regarding prosphora care, namely the following: “proskurnitsa must be pure monogamous widows, and not second-married widows, and are appointed (to their position) from fourty years of age and from fifty years of age”; then, contrary to the custom that was very widespread at that time: “and the monks of the worldly churches will not be in the marshmallows” 185. (On the illegal commission of certain proskomedia actions by prosphora guardians, see below in the section on divine services 186. [Cf. 1 half of volume I p. 470]. 4. – Means of maintaining the higher and lower clergy. At the time we are considering, the means of maintaining the highest clergy or bishops were divided into two classes: first, the means of maintaining the bishops themselves; secondly, the means of maintaining their officials are separate from them. The means of maintaining the bishops themselves were also divided into two classes and were: firstly, tributes and duties from the lower clergy and from the laity of the dioceses; secondly, immovable estates, consisting of villages or estates with economic establishments and quitrent lands inhabited by peasants. When establishing dioceses following the introduction of Christianity, St. Vladimir appointed tithes from princes and private people for the maintenance of bishops. Tithe from princes, as established by St. Vladimir, was supposed to consist of: firstly, a tenth of the income that they received from their villages or from their private economic estates; secondly, a tenth of the quitrents that they received from the tax-paying population, and thirdly, a tenth of the court fines and duties that went to them from criminal and civil cases. Of these three types of princely tithes, a little over a century after St. We do not find Vladimir as obligatory for the princes to pay tithes from their estates to the bishops (I volume 1 half, pp. 423/514); and the princes, who established new dioceses in their appanages even a short time after the now indicated short time - in the middle of the 12th century, did not provide the bishops with even a tithe from court fines and duties, giving them only a tithe of tribute (ibid.). Thus, after half of the 12th century, the princely tithe to the bishops consisted of a tenth of the dues from the tax-paying population. Regarding tithes from private people, we know that in the middle of the 12th century, private fiefdoms who had privately taxed people were obliged to pay it to the bishops, and namely, like princes, to pay a tenth of the quitrents they received 187 . The first tithe or from the princely dues was separated into a special tax, and the bishops collected it themselves through their special officials - tithes. After the invasion of the Mongols, we find neither tithes, as a special tax, collected by bishops from princely quitrent people, nor tithes from private patrimonies, but instead of both, we find a household tax, which is taken by bishops from quitrent people, both princely and private patrimonial quitrents, as well as from all people and non- quitrents, or which they take from all laypeople in general, and the amount of which is from quitrent people far from a tenth of the quitrents, and from people without quitrents – far from a tenth of the income. How did this transformation of tithes from quitrents (princely and private patrimonial) into significantly lower taxes happen, and at the same time, how did the direct imposition of taxes on all tax-exempt people happen? We have absolutely no positive information or indications regarding this. It seems likely to think that the Mongols were the reason for the transformation that occurred. During their first invasion, they terribly devastated our fatherland, so that the people had to become extremely poor for some time. At the same time, it became necessary to impose a new tax on him to pay the Tatar output or to pay tribute to the Khan of the Golden Horde, as well as to support his officials who lived in Russia itself (Baskaks). These two circumstances could have prompted the princes to significantly reduce the tax paid to the bishops by the tax-paying population, and turn it from a tithe into something much smaller. As for the extension of taxes to people and non-taxable people, this latter can probably be understood as a consequence of our reduction: the bishops agreed that their taxes from tax-paying people would be reduced, but in turn they could seek some reward in having the tax extended to people and non-taxable people. (It is very likely that in relation to tax-paying people there was a reduction in taxes and at the same time its equalization. Tax-paying princely people paid tithes to the bishops in the form of a special tax; but bishops had to receive tithes from tax-paying people living on the lands of private patrimonial owners from the patrimonial owners themselves, and these latter could pay it very irregularly or not pay it at all. Reducing the tax from their tax-paying people, the princes necessarily imposed it on the tax-paying people living on the lands of private patrimonial lands, leaving it to the bishops themselves to collect it in addition to the patrimonial people) 188 . We don’t know whether with the consent of the princes or without their consent, but the tax was extended by the bishops not only to all laymen without exception, but also to all the lower clergy, and, moreover, to the clergy not only as a household tax, but also as a land tax. And, thus, the pre-Mongol tithe or tax from the population in the amount of a tenth of the taxes paid by this population to the princes and private patrimonies, after the invasion of the Mongols, is in the form of a household tax, significantly lower than the tithe, from all laymen without exception, as well as in the form of a household-land tax from all the lower clergy. Exactly how large the tribute was at the time we are considering, which replaced the pre-Mongol tithe, regarding this, unfortunately, we do not yet have information for all of our time 189 . The first information that we have relates only to the half of the Χ 5th ΙΙ century, being found in the letter of Patriarch Joasaph to the Pskov Archbishop Arseny dated 1667. The archbishop turned to the patriarch with a demand regarding the imposition of tribute on the clergy and laity of his diocese, and the patriarch answered the archbishop that in his patriarchal region, by decree of the great sovereign - the tsar, the clergy and laity were subject to tribute in 1651. as follows: “from the priest’s yard, four money, from the deacon’s, two money, from the deacon’s and from Ponamarev and from prosvirnitsyn and from the Bobylskys (located on church land) one money from the yard, from the boyars and princes, from the nobles and from the children of the boyars and sovereign’s palace villages, from the clerks, six (six) money from the yard, from the townspeople, from the elders and tselovalnikovs and from the peasants, four money from the yard, from the Cossacks and Streltsy and from the Pushkars, two money from the yard, from the Bobyl and boyar business people, money from the yard (church) 190; board grooms and from fishing grounds and from beaver runs from the banner (from the site) for three altyns with money; from church land - from arable land from a quarter - three money, from hayfields - two money from a haystack” 191. The 17th century is a time too far from the Mongol invasion, but for now we are forced to be content only with this late information and draw from it only general, most vague conclusions to the previous time. It is impossible to imagine things in such a way that the amounts of taxes established after the Mongol invasion gradually decreased in subsequent times, because for such a reduction, that is, for such a reduction by the princes, we will not indicate any reasons in the circumstances of the subsequent time; but it is necessary to imagine the matter in such a way that the amounts of taxes established after the Mongol invasion either constantly remained the same or - which is much more likely - gradually increased with unknown speed. Consequently, having positive information about the size of taxes in the half of the 17th century, we must think that they were either the same throughout the previous time or - as this should be taken as more probable - that they were smaller and precisely - the further back, the smaller. And in the half of the 17th century. the taxes were very small; therefore, if we accept that the further back we go, the smaller they should be, then in their original form, as they were established after the Mongol invasion, we should imagine them to be very small. A satisfactory explanation of the not incredible fact that the pre-Mongol tithe was suddenly turned into an extremely small tax would be precisely the fact that after the terrible defeat of the Tatars the people found themselves in the position of a complete beggar. To what we have just said about the small amounts of taxes, however, some reservation must be made. We reported its dimensions, which in the half of the 17th century it had in the patriarchal region. But from later times we have evidence that diocesan bishops collected it “with an increase” against the patriarchs 192, that is, arbitrarily increasing it against the latter. What happened in later times, then in all likelihood we need to think about all the earlier times. In the old days, our tax-paying population was mobile, since the peasants were not the later serfs, but free tenants who had the will to move from one land to another. As a result, the number of houses in rural parishes in our old days could change significantly every year, sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing. Meanwhile, the bishop's tribute from the parishes was collected not in such a way that it was taken annually only from each existing house of the parish (from the “living”, as they expressed it then), but in a different way. At certain, unknown to us, dates, or perhaps at indefinite and arbitrary intervals, the bishop's boyar children made a household inventory of the parishes and compiled salary books 193. According to these salary books, as according to the current audit tales, the bishop's tax was collected, i.e., after the compilation of salary books, the number of houses in the parish increased or decreased before the compilation of new salary books. At all times, the parish had to pay tribute from the number of houses that were listed in it according to the books 194. Since with this method of collecting tribute, it could be difficult for some parishes, due to the loss of houses in them, and easy for other parishes, due to the profit of houses: it is very likely that between the parishes of tithes, as payment districts, a home equation was made. That is, that between the parishes of the tithes, annually, or at least after short periods of time, such a distribution of taxes was made that would correspond to the available or actual number of houses in each parish. Tithes collected taxes from parishes; but at the same time, the actors on the side of the clergy are priestly elders or elected priests. One must think that it was these elders who carried out our equalization of taxes between parishes. Regarding the collection of tribute by tithes, one should not imagine things in such a way that they would personally collect it from each house in all the parishes of their tithes: this would be impossible for them. In the parishes, the tax was collected by the priests themselves, and from the latter it was already received from the salary books by the tithes 195. Our tax from the laity of the dioceses, and from the laity and from the lower clergy, which replaced the pre-Mongol tithe, was called: either simply tribute, which was its own name and the name adopted by it, in contrast to the other tribute, which is now discussed below, or the tribute of Peter the Great and without the noun Peter's (in the noun, neuter gender - Peter's), since it was collected on Peter's days 196. We said above that in Greece, taxes were imposed by the bishops both on the laity of the diocese and on representatives of the lower parish clergy - priests. In Russia, parish priests and deacons were subject to not one tax, but two taxes. Regarding the household tax, which we were talking about now, priests, not only with deacons, but also with sextons and sextons, were joined to the laity, as if for the sake of order, although at the same time they had to pay not only household taxes, like the laity, but also land taxes, if the church had land; but from priests and deacons, without sextons and sextons, our bishops collected another tax from us - the priestly-deacon tax, so to speak. Bishops are obliged to tour their dioceses annually; In ancient times it was considered the duty of priests to support bishops during these tours. In Russia, perhaps, bishops toured their dioceses in a very sloppy manner for some time at first; but then, due to the vastness of our dioceses and the impassability of our roads, they completely abandoned this custom 197. However, having abandoned the habit of touring dioceses, our bishops did not forgive the priests for the expense to which the latter would be obligated in the event of detours; They turned this expense into an annual tax from priests and deacons, which was called the tax collection and the Christmas tribute, and in the Novgorod region the entrance, and for the collection of which they annually sent special secular officials from themselves, called zaezdchiki 198. Metropolitan Kirill III in the acts of the Vladimir Cathedral of 1274. prohibits bishops from taking our taxes from priests, threatening them with excommunication otherwise. But the ban remained without any effect. In the contractual document between Vasily Dmitrievich and Metropolitan Cyprian, it is stipulated that the metropolitan should take six altyns from the church [see. in the first half of this volume p. 328]. Since later news lets us know that the entrance tax was not collected from all priests in the same amount, but depending on the size of the parish, then in the decree of Vasily Dmitrievich it should be implied that the tax was distributed between individual priests in such a way that it would be six altyns per church per circle. Over time, we have some information about the amount of taxes in the Novgorod diocese. In the Novgorod region itself, the archbishops took the entrance fee in the middle of the 5th Ι century: from the priest or priests of the church, which had a parish of 147 obezh, five Novgorod hryvnias 199, and from the priest of the church, which had a parish of 50 houses, delivering an income of three Moscow rubles per year, the Moscow hryvnia, with the inclusion in that number of a duty called blessed marten and about which now below; in the Pskov region, before Archbishop Gennady (1484–1504), so much was taken from the entrance that from each priest and from each deacon, including the same blessed marten, a hryvnia and a quarter; and Archbishop Gennady added three money with three quarters of 200 for each priest and deacon. In connection with the collection or entrance, as we have just made it known, there was also a special duty to bishops from priests and deacons, called the blessed marten. Given the freedom that existed for priests and deacons to move from parish to parish, they could very often change to the latter. Consequently, it was considered the duty of the bishops that, during their annual tours of the dioceses, they should ascertain the legitimacy of each priest and deacon by examining their charters and then bless and confirm each of them in his place. For this act of blessing and confirmation, which bishops would have performed when they toured the dioceses, and which they did not perform without touring the dioceses - they entrusted the inspection of the letters to the tithes - and our duty was collected by them from the priests and deacons. As an addition to the collection or entrance, it was collected along with it, as if it were part of it. Based on some indications, one must think that it was levied on priests and deacons not based on the profitability of the parishes, but on everyone, without exception, the same 201. We still have no information about its size. There can be no doubt that before the half of the 16th century, as well as after that, which we know for certain, the bishops allowed themselves to abuse the tributes from the laity and from the clergy in order to collect them in a larger amount than in which at any given time it was necessary to collect them and than in which they were collected in the metropolis 202. On this basis, it would be expected that the Council of the Hundred Heads, averting the possibility of abuse in the future, would precisely indicate in its definitions the legal amount of tribute, as it does for the same reason with the amount of duties. And, however, the council does not at all prescribe this legal amount of tribute in an exact way, limiting itself in this case only to a general admonition to the bishops so that they do not plot anything new against what was previously established 203. How to explain this omission is not entirely clear to us. Be that as it may, from a historical perspective one cannot help but regret that it took place. For some reason, without deliberately taking care to prevent abuses regarding the imposition of taxes (imposition or imposition of taxes), the council took care to prevent abuses regarding their collection. Since, according to the council, priests and deacons had a great need and sale from the tithes and from the monasteries who had collected taxes until then, he decreed that for the future it would be not these bishops’ officials who collected taxes, but the ten’s priests with the zemstvo elders and kissers, whom the tsar would order 204 . The fees 205 collected by the bishops from the clergy and laity were as follows: 1. Fees for ordination to deacons and priests. At the Vladimir Cathedral in 1274. Metropolitan Kirill ordered that for ordination to deacons and priests, from both, our duty of seven silver hryvnias should be collected (1 half of the volume pp. 69–70). Destroyed by the cathedral of 1503. (ibid. p. 612) and more or less soon after it was restored, the duty is determined by the Stoglavy Council in the following amounts: for ordination to deacons and together to priests - the Moscow ruble and the blessed hryvnia; for ordination to deacon - half a ruble and a blessed hryvnia; for ordaining a ready deacon to the priesthood is the same as for ordaining a deacon, that is, half a ruble and a blessed hryvnia 206. Metropolitan Kirill makes it clear in his definition that before his time the duty was levied in our country in larger amounts than what he sets; and from the definition of the Stoglavy Council the same should be concluded regarding the time that preceded it. It is remarkable that our legislation does not impose any duty for appointment as a clerk, whereas in Greece it was required. It is obvious that Metropolitan Kirill’s seven hryvnias should be taken as corresponding to the seven gold coins that were supposed to be charged in Greece for ordination to the priesthood; and since there these seven coins were divided in such a way that one was charged for ordination as deacons and three each for ordination as deacons and priests, i.e., four for ordination from laymen to deacons and three from deacons to priests: it is clear that the legitimation of Metropolitan Kirill should be understood as prescribing to collect: for ordination from deacons to deacons four hryvnias and for ordination from deacons to priests three hryvnia. The blessed hryvnia, which is added by the Hundred Head Cathedral to the priestly ruble and the deacon's half and which appeared unknown when - it may very well be that even before the council of 1274, it represented a fee to the bishop for a charter with which he blessed a priest or deacon for a well-known parish. We place our duty among (and at the head of) the duties that belonged to the bishops themselves; but one must think that it belonged to them only in part, namely, that while there were councils of presbyters - kliroshans under the bishops, they shared it with these latter, and then began to share it with the clergy of their cathedral churches 207. 2. Fees from parishioners and letters of leave for priests and deacons, which we discussed above. We do not find news about the size of this duty before the Stoglavy Cathedral. This latter assigns the same fee from both of the charters and from both priestly and deaconal ones - half a Moscow 208. 3. Duty from stole and orary ("ular") letters to widowed priests and deacons who, not wanting to become monks, were left in the churches in a clerical position (see above and in the first half of the volume, p. 619). The Council of the Stoglavy prescribes that nothing should be taken from these letters other than the writing altyn and the printed altyn, that is, except for the payment for their writing and for their provision with a government seal 209 . But the council itself makes it clear, and we have historical evidence, that before it a fee was levied for these charters 210. 4. Fee from desk documents for archimandrites and abbots. Before the Vladimir Cathedral in 1274. the bishops collected from those appointed as abbots (there were still very few archimandrites at that time) a fee, which was called “pososhny” and which the council prohibits [see. in the first half of the volume pp. 70–71; see also page 416]. The size of our duty, which, obviously, is a renamed and modified continuation of the tax, the Stoglavy Cathedral determines: “from the desktop charters of the archimandrites and abbots, according to the Moscow ruble” 211. or a gift, offering, worship, from priests and archimandrites with abbots to bishops, when the former appeared to the latter at their annual councils, which took place on assembly Sunday. Vladimir Cathedral 1274 prohibits bishops from “collecting anything from the rulers of the church when they gather divine councils”; but the prohibition in this case, as in others, was ineffective and the gift of worship under our name of the cathedral marten remained obligatory until later times. We know nothing about its size. It is likely that, within the limits possible for the gift, it had arbitrary dimensions, varying not only in different dioceses, but also among different bishops of the same diocese. 6. The duty from the tarkhan letters of grant to the parish churches, by which the clergy of the churches were exempted from bishop's taxes for certain years, or by which they were relieved of them for certain years, as we said above (p. 98, note 1). We have no information about the size of the duty for the time we are considering, but at the end of the 16th century. the archbishops of Novgorod collected nine altyns 213. 7. The crown tax or fee for written permission to perform marriages, given by bishops to priests through tithes and called crown banners (from how one should think that the forms on which the permissions were written were issued from the bishops sealed, marked, with their bishop's official seal). The Stoglavy Council testifies that its information about the duty did not extend beyond Ivan Vasilyevich III and that from the time of this sovereign it was levied in the amount: from the first one took an altyn, from the second - two altyns, from the third - four altyns 214. Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, probably referring to the oppression that tithes could do to people who arranged marriages, it seems, wanted to abolish this duty; but the council made him an idea 215 that the banner letters, for which a fee is taken, are issued to priests so that they do not marry in nepotism, in matchmaking, in the family and in the tribe - and the sovereign agreed to leave it, approving for the future its previous size, which we have indicated now. This duty did not go entirely to the bishops: the residents of the cities were given crown banners not by the tithes, but by the city cathedral clergy, who also took the duty upon themselves. 8. A tax per piece, which was a fine on girls and widows, surviving children (or even though they did not survive children, they led a clearly prodigal life) 216. We have no information on how much this duty, mentioned in Yaroslav’s imaginary charter, was levied at the time we are considering. In the half of the 17th century. in the Novgorod diocese it was taken at half a ruble 217. 9 . Funeral duty levied on funeral memorials that were issued for the burial of people who died suddenly 218. We also have no information about the size of our duty at the time we are considering. Under Patriarch Filaret, it was taken in the patriarchal region of the hryvnia 219, and in the half of the 17th century. in the Novgorod diocese - half 220. Another means of maintaining bishops, in addition to tributes and duties from the lower clergy and laity of the diocese, were immovable estates, which consisted of two classes - villages or estates with economic establishments and quitrent lands inhabited by peasants. About the immovable estates of bishops for the time we are considering, we can say even less than what we said about them during the pre-Mongol period (1 half of volume I, pp. 433/519 sqq), almost nothing. There is no doubt that all the bishops had these and other estates; There is no doubt that the first estates expanded as time passed, and the second multiplied, but we have no positive information regarding this, and what exactly these and other estates were by the half of the 16th century. Concluding from the monasteries, which, according to one foreigner, in the middle of the 16th century owned a third of the lands of the entire state 222, one would think that the bishops had a very large amount of land inhabited or occupied by peasants. But the conclusion to the bishops from the monasteries would be unfounded: lands inhabited by peasants were donated to the monasteries to commemorate themselves, their parents and their families, but the bishops did not have this incentive to donate the same lands. The Council of the Hundred Heads only lets us know that the bishops had estates of our class, and makes this known, firstly, by allowing the bishops, in the event of crooked justice, of their boyars and butlers to take over from the latter the estates given to them 223; secondly, by prohibiting the bishops from giving their state money and their state grain in rosts and in nasps to the peasants living on their lands, ordering them to lend them money and grain without rosts and without nasps 224. That some bishops had quite enough of our class of estates, this can be concluded from the fact that very well-born people had a desire to go to their service, therefore, that the bishops had the opportunity to place them properly 225; and that the estates of our class were not poor among all the bishops, this can be concluded from the fact that, according to the accusations against them, they lived very luxuriously 226 . [It is known about Metropolitan Peter that, "having inherited possessions from the Vladimir bishops, he increased their number with new acquisitions. He bought the city of Aleksin with volosts and villages, with rivers and lakes, with sidewalks and with all the land that had been a burden on the city since ancient times. Under him and under his successor Theognostus, the see of "davan villages" near Vladimir and Moscow. Under Metropolitan St. Alexie belonged to the department of “land and water, houses, vegetable gardens, grapes, mills, - among other things, the villages and lands of Lukhovsky (in the current Kostroma province), Senezhsky (in the Vladimir province), land holdings of the “eternal metropolitan monasteries of Konstantinovsky and Borisoglebsky and from the villages”, the village of Cherkizovo and some others purchased by him villages indicated in his spiritual will. Metropolitan Cyprian, who loved to live in quiet rural places and willingly followed agricultural work, owned, in addition to the lands inherited from his predecessors, the villages of Golenishchev and Selyatin near Moscow, which were his favorite residence, exchanged the city of Aleksin for the Karashsky volost or the settlement of Svyatoslavl near Rostov, received lakes for his home Annunciation Monastery, rozderti, sands, wastelands, etc. Successively following him in the 15th and 16th centuries. The metropolitans, almost all, gradually, in greater or lesser numbers, increased the possessions of the department inherited from their predecessors. The acquisitions of Metropolitans Photius, Jonah, Philip I, Gerontius, Simon, Varlaam and Daniel were especially significant, although other metropolitans also cared about increasing the land wealth of the department” 227. [In addition to all this, the bishops had one more source of income: they became usurers, giving money on interest; from the beginning of the 16th century. We have evidence that the metropolitans themselves did this 228. Vassian Kosoy also asserts this in his denunciations of the Russian bishops, saying that they treated debtors just as unmercifully as any other moneylenders] 229. The bishops had to support their diocesan administrative and judicial officials themselves, without receiving special or special funds from the government for this. They supported these officials in such a way that they partly ceded them some of their duties, and partly created new duties for them at the expense of the lower parish clergy, and then partly, perhaps, paid them a direct salary from their income, and that the most important among them settled on their estates. The own fees ceded by the bishops for the maintenance of officials were: part of the fees for ordination to deacons and priests, all judicial fees and the fee for antimensions in the church; newly created duties were: clerical duties on various administrative papers and direct, temporary and annual duties on the lower clergy, special from taxes levied on the bishops themselves. While councils of presbyters-kliroshan existed under the bishops, they had the following items of income: a greater or lesser part of the fees from ordination to deacons and priests (and the other part to the bishops themselves, see above), more than half of the judicial fees 230 (and about the other part now below) and the duty from antimensions 231. At the same time, regarding the governors, one must think that they, as belonging to the cliroshans, received the same cliroshan share, but only in a larger amount than others. After the presbyteral choirs disappeared under the bishops and the place of the diocesan judge under them was taken by secular boyars, the means of supporting these latter became the larger half of the court fees that the choirs previously received. Under the governors, as judges, and under the boyars who took their place in the same capacity, tiunas were assistants and there were clerical officials - clerks and clerks. These latter, in the first and second cases, received for their maintenance that lesser half of the duties, which, as part of them, in the first case was not collected by the choirs, but in the second by the boyars 232 . As for the amount of court fees, we have no information at all regarding sales or fines for criminal cases, but regarding fees for civil litigation we have positive information for the time starting from the second half of the 15th century: Novgorod judicial charter of 1471. 233 and after it the Stoglavy Cathedral 234 order that a hryvnia duty be taken from the ship ruble. For the Moscow Metropolitan Tiun, as a police official, and with it, perhaps, for other bishop tiuns, as for the same officials, a duty was created for his supervision over the clergy visiting Moscow, as we discussed above. Giving visiting priests banners or notes with permission to serve them at Moscow churches, he collected from them a fee for a month of permission of ten money and two altyns (and whoever hired to serve without reporting to him, he took a wash or a fine of two rubles. Since the priests who wanted to be hired to serve converged on the Ilyinsky sacrum, the fee was called the sacrum) 235. Service court officials, the so-called weekmen, received their own special duties, called walking and driving, depending on whether they went on court business in the city or went to the district 236. As a means of support for executive administrative officials - for treasurers and clerks and clerks in our region, clerical duties were created on administrative papers, which were divided into temporary or occasional and annual or permanent. Temporary certificates issued to priests and deacons, such as installed, transitional and leave, epitrachelion and orary, preferential or tarkhan, were written by clerks, “attributed” or signed (secured) by clerks and approved through the application of the bishop's seal by treasurers. For one thing, for another and for a third, they were obliged to pay duties to clerks, clerks and treasurers. It is not without probability that one can think that the size of these duties was more or less arbitrary among the bishops. When the Stoglavy Council, determining the issuance of stole and orary letters duty-free to widowed priests and deacons, only orders clerks and clerks to take a writing altyn and treasurers a printed altyn 237 for them, then it seems that it should be understood in such a way that he assigns the same clerk-clerk and treasury duties and for those charged, travel documents and certificates of release. Regarding the duties levied on preferential or tarhan letters, some of which went to the bishop's butlers, we have information not for the time we are considering, but for the end of the 16th century. At the end of the 16th century, the Novgorod diocese levied duties for these letters: printing duties - altyn, clerk duties - eight altyns and eight money, and a butler's duty - altyn 238. Annual taxes paid by the clergy to the bishops, on the one hand, were accepted by the treasurers and recorded in the books by the clerks and clerks, and on the other hand, in relation to the payers, they were cleared with receipts or receipts that were written - signed second and sealed first, and the clergy were obliged to pay annual taxes for this to the treasurers and clerks with the clerks. The first duty was called the state altyns or the state payment duty, the second duty was the clerk’s duty and the writing or note duty, but in acts, for the most part, both duties are combined into one place and are called state duties. We have no information about how much these government duties were paid to treasurers and clerks and clerks at the time we are considering; but at the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th century, they were paid in the patriarchal region and some dioceses half a quarter of an altyn per church, and in other dioceses four altyns per church 239. Znamenny letters for weddings constituted an annual need for parishes. But writing and printing fees were also charged for their writing and printing. Regarding their size in our case, we have an indication from the beginning of the 17th century that the banner or crown duties were taken by the bishop 4 rubles, 26 altyns, 4 money, and the writing - printing duty 1 ruble, 28 altyns, 4 money 240. Regarding the means of maintaining the district governors, where they were, we cannot say anything positive. It seems likely to think that while these governors were from the clergy and had choirs with them, they enjoyed the same income with the choirs as the cathedral choirs with their governors (and regarding the share of the governor himself, one must mean the same as regarding the share of the cathedral governor), and when they became secular, they began to enjoy the same income as the secular boyars - judges under the bishops. But since the court of the district governors had the right of appeal to the court of the bishops themselves and, therefore, the cathedral choirs with the governors, and then the boyars - judges also had fees from appeal court cases, then the income of the district governors - spiritual with choirs and secular without choirs should be imagined as less in comparison with the incomes of the cathedral persons corresponding to them, as much as there could be duties from the court of appeal 241. As a means of maintaining local administrative officials - tithes, annual duties were created - taxes to them from the lower parish clergy, and moreover, not one duty - not two taxes, like the bishops themselves, but moreover. Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich, in his contractual document with Metropolitan Cyprian, recognizes as legal for the future three annual taxes on tithes from the parish clergy: entry, Christmas and Peter's. In later times, they collected four annual fees from the clergy: the same entry fee, called entry and entry, the appearance of a marten with a letter, autumn passage and stern. The entry or entry fee of Vasily Dmitrievich and of later times was a tax to the tithes, which was paid to them by the clergy upon their entry into the tithes or when they took their places, which, as we said above, happened annually. Vasily Dmitrievich's Nativity and Peter's, obviously, were duties to the tithes, paid to them by the clergy on the Nativity of Christ and on Peter's Day. The later appearance of the marten with a letter meant that when tithes arrived at their places, priests and deacons were obliged to show them their letters, as we talked about above, and that in addition to the entry and especially from him they paid a duty, which was called in our name. Autumn passage meant a duty that was paid by the clergy to tithemen during their autumn passage through the tithes or during their autumn tour of the latter. The sterns, as with a very high probability one must think, were a combination of two duties of Vasily Dmitrievich - Rozhdestvensky and Peter's. The princely governors, as we know, collected three annual “feeds” from the residents of their governorships as their duties: entry, Christmas and Peter’s 242. These three feeds correspond to the three tithe duties of Vasily Dmitrievich’s charter, and, therefore, we can assume that they meant the same thing. But if so, then it is obvious that the missing two sterns of Vasily Dmitrievich’s letter should be understood in the later indefinite “stern”. Vasily Dmitrievich, in his contractual document with Metropolitan Cyprian, decides that the titheman should take six altyns per year from the church for all three of his duties; and we still have no information regarding the size of the four duties in the future. Be that as it may, there can be no doubt that if the legal amount of duties was not too high, then the tithes did not comply with it at all and tried in the most persistent way to extort as much as they could from the clergy. A person was provided with food for one year so that then, until a new turn, he would serve the bishop for several years for free. Naturally, he had to try with all his might to be fed as much as possible. With what truly Mongolian-Tatar energy the tithemen tried to feed themselves can be seen from the fact that, according to the testimony of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich in his questions to the Stoglavy Council, from their robberies many churches stood empty without priests 243 . So, our bishops arranged the matter of maintaining their administrative and judicial officials in such a way that they largely entrusted the maintenance to the lower parish clergy. Not for the history of the maintenance of officials, but for the history of taxes (duties and payments) of the lower clergy, it should be added to what has been said that the bishops to such an extent made this clergy the subject of feeding for their secular service people and for all their official servants, to the extent possible 244. (((112 There was no need for the two bishops’ tributes to be collected by two special officials, i.e., tithes and riders, for both of them could be collected alone first. But (“I will carry your umbrella, and he will carry your stick”) there was some pretext to create a feeding place for secular service people, and it was created in the position of a rider, who, as an imaginary the administrative official (being the only tax collector, of course, he was not one in reality) was assigned a special annual fee from the lower clergy (Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich in his contractual document with Metropolitan Cyprian instructs the visitor to take his fee, “arrival”, three times a year from the church, and we have no information about further times). Since the clergy had a great need and sale from the monks, just as from the tithes, the Council of the Hundred Heads decreed that the tribute collected by the monks should be collected not by them, but by the same ten priests and zemstvo elders and kissers, who were entrusted with collecting the tribute previously collected by the tithes 245 . Thus, the position of rider was abolished by the council; however, the duty that they collected was preserved for the future and was to be collected from the clergy by ten priests along with tributes 246, i.e., it was to be given by the bishops to their serving people, whom they would only nominally appoint as riders or clothe them with this title, providing them with rider duties as a true sinecure. The actual needs of the service required that very few assistants join the tithes. Meanwhile, we have indications that the staffs or retinues of these assistants with them were very numerous and reached up to fifteen to twenty people 247 . This must be understood in such a way that it was not for the needs of the service, but for the types of feeding, that as many nobles - children of boyars as possible - were added to the tithes. The tithes with their numerous staffs of assistants or, as it were, attaches and riders, we don’t know whether “all duty officers” embraced the bishops 248 from among the boyars - children of boyars who had the right to duties from the lower clergy 249; but this was followed by numerous “beggars” 250 from the servants. Some paid fees - filing on the spot when receiving various papers, others themselves came to the clergy to collect them 251. In particular, these servants' duties are mentioned: cook's, groom's, stoker's 252, human or populaya wheat, half or polteya, black food, i.e. duties for bishop's cooks, coachmen and grooms, stokers, serving wheat and half (half) meat to their black people and some other food for the latter, i.e. that is, probably their food during their glorification of Christ by the clergy 253. We turn our speech to the means of maintaining the lower parish clergy. Christianity was introduced among us in such a way that, only in a not particularly comparative manner, many individuals were brought to a sincere conviction of its truth, and that the majority of the people, with all their lower masses, were baptized by order of the government and under compulsion. It goes without saying that people baptized in this way could not have the desire to pay the priests for services and private services for them, as it became later, because they had to be forced to perform the requirements and services themselves, and that they could not have the desire to give to the priests those universal alms that became known to us under the name “slavs” or alms for glory. Consequently, at first the priests had to be provided for their maintenance through a certain salary or through a certain rug. Our chronicles talk about the giving of “lessons” to priests or a certain salary by our first princes and do not say anything about giving them the same lessons by anyone else. But in all likelihood, we need to understand them not in such a way that the princes took upon themselves the maintenance of all the priests, but in such a way that they, the chronicles, only mean to praise the princes for their especially diligent fulfillment of that part of the duty that they took upon themselves. It is necessary to think that this responsibility was divided according to affiliation, namely, that in the parishes that were established in the cities, the princes assigned the responsibility of maintaining priests to the communities of residents assigned to the parishes (imposing, as must be understood, the communities with a household tax or household collection in favor of the priests). – That in rural parishes, which were established on lands in the strictest sense of princely (palace) lands, the princes took upon themselves the maintenance of the priests. - That in the parishes that were established on the lands of private patrimonial owners, they assigned the responsibility to these latter, and that in the parishes that were established on the lands of the black state, they assigned it to the parish communities or worlds (with the same household taxes as in cities) 254. Thus, the initial means of maintaining the parish clergy, the only and at the same time universal, was a certain salary or a certain curse. Over time, this abuse, as a means of maintaining the parish clergy, disappeared or was reduced to a very large extent. When Christianity became so established among the people that they realized the need for services and all kinds of services and began to pay priests for them, and when along with this the custom appeared for priests to make voluntary collections from parishioners under the name of slavs, then with the large number of candidates for priests, the competition that arose between them should have forced them, so to speak, to lower their prices. Namely, it was supposed to force them to declare their consent to occupy places in populous and rich parishes and without receiving a curse, for only the income from services and services and from fame. The consequence of this should have been that private patrimonial lands, on whose lands such parishes were located, would cease to consider the dacha of Rug obligatory for themselves and would reduce the matter to voluntary diligence, not bound by any positive obligations, and that the lay communities of cities and lands of the black state, whose parishes were the same, would completely stop paying the priests Rug. After the change we indicated in the attitude of the people towards Christianity took place, the curse should have remained in those only urban parishes and in those only rural parishes located on the lands of private patrimonial lands and black-state peasants. – In parishes on patrimonial lands, it will remain mandatory, without turning into voluntary. - Which were so poor that there were no hunters to occupy priestly places in them for the sole income from services and fame. But even in these parishes there was a change in the size of the rug compared to the original time. At first, as one must think, the size of the ruba, in which it had to be paid, was precisely determined by the government. Subsequently, it became the subject of a free agreement between private patrimonies and communities (urban and rural) and between the priests who came to their parishes; that is, the priest found that the income from services and fame was insufficient, and he, so to speak, negotiated with the patrimonial owners or communities in a commercial way to increase certain amounts of money. As for the princes, it is very likely that one must think that they forever retained the recognition of their obligation to give friendship to the clergy of the parishes located on their own lands. Or, in other words, in the parishes located on the prince’s own lands, ruga forever remained one of the means of supporting the clergy, whether there was or was not an urgent need for it, due to other income. However, as for the size of the rouge, here too one must probably think that they ceased to be obligatory and began to depend on the goodwill of the princes. After in the manner indicated by us there was a significant reduction in the rule that was initially universal, in later times it somewhat spread or multiplied in another way: the parishes of poor urban or rural parishes located on the lands of the black state, parishes - mainly the first ones - whose communities were not able to adequately arm them, turned to the sovereigns with a request for a friend, in which way a more or less significant number of poor parishes appeared, which, being not on the sovereigns’ own lands, they received a rug from them, which was like a government salary 255. The princes, city parish communities and patrimonies, as one must think, paid the clergy a certain share in money and a certain share in kind in bread; Regarding all the rural parish communities of the Black Land (Black Land), since in ancient and old times money was something very difficult to obtain for rural people, one must think that they paid exclusively in the second way 256. In these peasant-black-land parishes, as we have instructions, ruga was collected by the clergy in such a way that each house of the parish was obliged to pay or deliver to it, in addition to what was voluntarily given in glory, a certain, certain share of the amount of grain that was plowed 257. When Christianity was sufficiently established among the people, the place of rugs as a general means of maintaining the parish clergy took over: charging fees for services and private services, and collecting voluntary alms, known as slavs. The history of the transition from one common means of support to others, as is partly clear from what we have just said above, must be imagined in such a way that the priests little by little introduced fees and charges as an addition to the ruba - that when they introduced them, the competition of numerous candidates for priestly positions made the rube cease to exist as a common means, leaving only ours as such - pay and charges. Regarding the amount of payment for demands and services, we do not have any positive information at all; but, firstly, it should go without saying that it was not exactly the same everywhere, but somewhat different in different places, because it was not established by the government; secondly, with a high probability one must think that, in accordance with the value of money, it was approximately the same as it is now, and perhaps a little lower. As for voluntary donations for fame, one must think that in the villages, where they were made in kind - bread, and not money, they were more significant than today, for in the old days the people, with an abundance of land, were undoubtedly richer in bread than at the present time. Payment for services with private services, having become the general means of maintaining all our parish clergy instead of punishment, at the same time became, just as the latter did at first, the general means of maintaining the clergy and the only one. Along with the general means of maintenance, there were private means. In relation to these second means, the clergy was divided into two classes: rural and urban. The rural clergy had their own private means of maintenance, at the same time more or less common to them as a class, in church arable and hay land for their own cultivation and for their own use. The city clergy had as their private means of support, which was not at all common to them as a class, but belonged only to some individual and comparatively very few churches, income from immovable uninhabited and inhabited estates or from so-called rental articles and from estates. Land for their own cultivation and their own use of the clergy was cut off or separated by rural parishes to their churches, partly as a replacement for the clergy 258, partly as an addition to it 259, and partly as an addition to the payment for services with services and to collections in addition to the clergy (i.e. at least the clergy agreed to serve in the churches and without the clergy). Since in ancient and old times there could only very rarely be rural parish churches whose parishioners would feel a lack of land, then in all likelihood one must think that plots or allotments of land for the own use of the clergy existed with the majority of rural churches, and that the churches that remained without them were only a few exceptions. However, we have indications that such churches did exist 260. The size of the plots of land allocated to churches for the clergy’s own use in different places, of course, was different, depending on the wealth of land among the parishioners; but judging by the very later times, one must think that in general a normal allotment was considered to be such an allotment in which the priest, or in the case of a multi-clergy, each of the priests would receive for his share such an amount of land that would be equal to the amount of it that constituted a good peasant tax in a given place 261. Types of uninhabited real estate that could provide rental income, attached by pious people to city parish churches with the aim of increasing the maintenance of their clergy, were: vegetable gardens, orchards (meaning not those that were in the own use of clergy, being at their homes 262, but which, having nothing to do with the houses of clergy, were arranged by some laymen in more or less in an extensive form for industrial purposes, and then attached to churches), hayfields (reapings) and trading shops 263. How great was the number of city parish churches that owned real estate of the types we indicated at the time we were considering, we have no positive information at all. But in general it is necessary to think that their number was very insignificant, so that they represented nothing more than exceptions among other churches 264; At the same time, regarding the size and value of real estate of our species, one must think that for the most part it was such that it brought in only very insignificant income. The number of city parish churches, to which the estates inhabited by peasants were attached, was even more limited than the number of churches to which the above types of immovable uninhabited estates were now attached, and precisely, as most likely one must think, they were attached almost exclusively to cathedral churches or cathedrals. Information relating to later times makes it clear that the applications of fiefdoms to these last churches were very meager, so that, with a few exceptions, they owned the most insignificant fiefdoms 265. The unusually great zeal that the laity showed regarding the application of patrimonies to monasteries, apparently, should have been directed not at the monasteries, but at the parish churches, for it was easy to prove that they, the laity, were obliged to take care of the means of maintaining their parish clergy, and it was very difficult to prove that they were obliged to take care of the means of maintaining the monks. But while the parish clergy did not at all have time to prove to the laity what was required to be proved in their interest, the monks very much managed to prove to them something else, namely, that posthumous commemoration should be purchased at the price of property donations or offerings and that the only competent and real places for this commemoration, so to speak, are monasteries 266 . The Greek monks already managed to prove this last point to the laity, so that we, the Russians, had ready-made orders that were not created and established by us, although, however, our monks also diligently cared about maintaining the existing orders (about which see below). We had one area that was an exception, among the inhabitants of which it was quite common to attach uninhabited and inhabited real estate to parish churches, both urban and rural. This is precisely the Pskov region, the reason for the special customs of which we are not yet able to indicate. But the majority of the clergy of the Pskov region were no better off from this provision of church estates than the clergy of other places. For the most part, the arrangement with church estates was not so that they were in the use of the clergy of the churches. Estates were regarded as the property of parishes; lay elders, usually two in number, were selected from the parish communities to lead the churches; the elders hired priests for the churches for a certain agreed price, and what was left over from the income from the estates then went to the upkeep and maintenance of the churches, went out into the world and ended up in the pockets of the elders, in general went anywhere, but not to the priests. The Pskov clergy waged a stubborn struggle with the laity for church estates; but victory remained with the laity until later times 267. It was quite common among us in the old days for beggars, since they collected alms mainly from churches, to set up living cells in church monasteries (cemeteries) or in church fences. The land tax from the poor provided some income for the clergy of those churches in whose monasteries there were settlements of their cells 268 . A special class in our parish clergy was the clergy of city cathedral churches. We don’t know whether the cathedral churches always had parishes 269, but together with the income from the parishes or in addition to them, the clergy of these churches had the means of their maintenance (common, except for the private ones - estates, which not all cathedrals had, or at least not all of them had any significant): Firstly, a ruble from the government, which it received at first, and which remained with it forever. Secondly, the income is commemorative, since the cathedrals were churches deliberately commemorated 270; thirdly, duties from antimensions to newly built churches (which, as we said, were issued by cathedrals) and fourthly, payment for the consecration of churches, if representatives from it, the cathedral clergy, went to consecrate churches; fifthly, the fee for the crown banners, since these latter were issued to the residents of the cities themselves by the cathedrals. The clergy of cathedral bishops' councils had that extra source of income compared to the clergy of county councils, because they received a larger or smaller portion of the fees collected by the bishops for ordination to church degrees 271. To increase the means of their maintenance, clergy are not prohibited from private studies, as long as these latter are not dishonest or contemptuous 272 . Our rural clergy had farming as their private occupation. How common private classes were among the city clergy, and what kind of private lessons they were, remains unknown to us. The means of supporting our parish clergy were very limited and not luxurious. The Stoglavy Council, with its diverse and broad concern for improvements in the entire area of ​​church life, did not show the slightest concern for increasing the means of supporting the parish clergy. But the council should not be blamed for this: it was beyond its ability to increase the means of maintaining the clergy. This latter could be done in two ways: either through the imposition on the people of a certain, certain tax in favor of the clergy, or through a significant reduction in the number of parishes and through the introduction of states in relation to them. But the civil government would never have agreed to the first, because the people were already extremely burdened with taxes (and if anyone imagines that in the old days it was much easier for the people than at the present time, he is greatly mistaken); Yes, it would be both very unfair and unreasonable: for the very little that his shepherds were for the people, he already paid them enough, and to impose a tax on him in favor of the latter would mean to make the shepherds, who already had not particularly high authority in his eyes, completely hated by him. Against the second, a significant reduction in the number of parishes and the introduction of staff in relation to them, the laity would scream terribly, and the clergy themselves would scream terribly with the laity. Having ordered the closure of parishes whose churches stood without priests, the Council of the Hundred Heads did everything it could in this regard, and to go further would mean striving for what Metropolitan Theodosius achieved - to arouse curses against both the people and the clergy. While not worthy of accusations for not taking care of increasing the means of supporting the clergy, the council can rightly be reproached for not taking sufficient care to lighten the burdens that lay on it, for not completely abolishing the positions of tithes, which were a true scourge for it, and having abolished the position of horse-riders, it retained the duty they collected - for not restoring the definition of the council of 1503. about the non-payment of fees for placement in church degrees - which did not prescribe anything definite regarding taxes, leaving room for arbitrariness. The resolutions of the Stoglavy Council regarding the means of maintaining the parish clergy are as follows: Firstly, he admonishes the priests not to extort payment for services (forbids torture from baptism, repentance and communion) 273. Secondly, it sets the exact amounts of the duty for antimensions, which were collected by the priests of the cathedrals, and the fees for the consecration of churches, which in the cities were always consecrated by them - the cathedral priests, and for the consecration of which in the districts they were sometimes called or, even without a title, traveled to nearby villages from the cities. The cathedral sets the amount of duty for antimensions: for an antimins in a large church (at present, in the “real”) half a half; for the antimension to the warm church and to the chapel - five altyns 274. The council's instructions regarding payment for the consecration of churches are as follows: do not demand a certain amount from church parishioners, do not be content with what they give; for this - take a third part of the income that will come to the church on the eve of its consecration and on the very day of consecration 275. Thirdly, he expressed his consent to the king to eliminate one abuse that had crept in shortly before (that is, before him - the council). During the early childhood of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, the boyars who ruled the state and their favorites assigned official rank to the clergy of the city churches of which they were parishioners. The sovereign wanted to destroy or abolish this rule, and the council gave its consent 276. Chapter one consists of speeches about “the metropolitans of Kiev and all Russia”, located in the half of this volume on pp. 50–468, chapter two consists of speeches about “metropolitans of Moscow and all Russia”, in the same place on pp. 469–875. See also what Emperor John Cantacuzene says in his chrisovule about the closure of the Galician-Lithuanian Metropolis in 1347. and Patriarch Philotheus in his letter to St. Alexey on the occasion of the installation of a special metropolitan in Galicia, - 1 half of the volume, p. 161 and p. 209. In Pavlov’s Monuments of Old Russian Canon Law [Russian Historical Library, vol. VI], col. 45. In Pavlov's Monuments, col. 49. Before Patriarch George Xiphilinus (1193–1198) and under him, stauropegial patriarchal monasteries and churches paid taxes to local bishops - Ralli and P. V, 102; but no later than from the time of Patriarch Herman II († 1239) they began to pay them to the patriarchs, - ibid. p. 110 (for later times, see ibid. p. 584 sub fin.). Nikon Chronicle IV, 230 beginning, see 1 half of volume p. 254 beginning. And about his instructions to the Suzdal Archbishop Dionysius, who traveled to Constantinople, to go upon returning home to Pskov “for the correction of those who have absented themselves from the apostolic church of Christ (i.e. Strigolnikov) and for approval by the priest and the honest monastery and all people named for Christ,” see Dionysius’ letter to Pskov Snetogorsky Monastery on observing the rules of community life, - Pavlov in Monuments col. 205 fin.. About the hitherto not preserved or as yet unknown message of Patriarch Philotheus to the Monk Serius of Radonezh with an exhortation to him to introduce a hostel in his monastery and about the hitherto preserved letter of Patriarch Callistus to the monastery of St. Sergius with an exhortation to the brethren to submit to the abbot (whom, as one must assume, the brethren were dissatisfied with his introduction in the monastery hostels), see in our book: “Reverend Sergius and the Trinity Lavra created by him,” pp. 22 and 33 [1st edition and pp. 37–38 and 2nd edition, p. 47, M. 1909]. [In the Nikon Chronicle we read, among other things, that Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich of Tverskoy († 1399) sent “alms to the Cathedral Church of St. Sophia to the Patriarch and the Tsar, just as it had been his custom many times to send alms to the Cathedral Church of St. Sophia and the Patriarch,” - Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles vol. XI, p. 177. Compare 1 half of volume p. 347]. See the message of Elder Joseph of the Volokolamsk Monastery Nil Polev to Elder German in the article: “Relations of the monks of Kirill of Belozersky and Joseph of Volokolamsk Monasteries”, printed in Part X of the Addendum to the Works of the Holy Fathers, p. 525. (Metropolitan Macarius is called Patriarch in the public scripture - chronicle: Nikon Chronicle VII, 204 beginning). I will indicate the pages of Volume I of the History of the Russian Church from both editions, putting the numbers together and separating them with a slash, and the first number should be understood about the first edition, and the second – about the second. If the page is indicated by one number preceded by a slash, then it will be necessary to understand this in such a way that the subject speech is in one second edition and constitutes a surplus against the first edition or an addition to it. In Pavlov's Monuments No. 109. Also known are the letters: Bishop Theodosius of Ryazan, given to the same Metropolitan Gerontius - ibid. No. 106, and Archbishop Macarius of Novgorod, given to Metropolitan Joasaph, - Acts of the Expedition vol. I No. 184, IV. See also in the 1st half of the volume, p. 568, about Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod. (We do not indicate the voluntary letters of bishops given for the election of new metropolitans, of which there are several known). Acts Historical vol. I No. 101, p. 145 col. 1. – That bishops were not particularly willing to go to metropolitan councils, this is shown by the letter of St. Jonah to Bishop Moses of Tver from 1459, with which the Metropolitan for the third time, after two vain invitations, calls the bishop to the council, - in Pavlov’s Monuments No. 82, col. 625. Apostolic canon 74, 2nd ecumenical council canon 6, 4th ecumenical council canon 9, Council of Antioch canons 12, 14 and 15. The so-called Academic Chronicle under our year. Nikon Chronicle III, 108 beginning. Ibid. III, 193 fin., Typographic Chronicle 92 fin. (Nathanael was put in place of the excommunicated Daniel in 1347, - ibid. under our year and the Resurrection Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles VII, 210 fin.). 2 The Novgorod Chronicle says: “in the summer of 7059, the month of December at 21, the Most Reverend Archbishop Theodosius took from Veliky Novgorod the king and sovereign of our Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich of All Russia to the glorious city of Moscow,” - Collection of Chronicles III, 154. 1 Pskov Chronicle says: “In the summer of 7059, the Tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich brought Archbishop Theodosius from Novgorod,” – ibid. IV, 308. See the Tsar’s message in the edition of Ustryalov: Tales of Prince Kurbsky, 2nd edition p. 210 sub fin.. That after 1555, we rely on Stroev’s assurance in his “Lists of Hierarchs and Abbots of Monasteries”, col. 1031 start. ↓ Before 1490, the Pskov abbot Zacharias, who belonged to the Strigolniki or the Judaizers (see 1 half of the volume, p. 569), justifying himself to Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod that for three years he himself had not received communion and had not given communion to the monks of his monastery, said to the archbishop: “and who has deeds?” to give communion? The priests were appointed for a fee, and the metropolitan dei and bishops were appointed for a fee” (meaning, in relation to the priests and rulers, the legally existing payment for the appointment). And when the archbishop said: “But the metropolitan is not appointed for compensation,” Zechariah replied: “When the people went to Constantinople to install the metropolitan, and he gave money to the patriarch, and now he gives promises to the boyars secretly,” see Gennady’s letter of 1490. to the Cathedral of Bishops in Pavlov's Monuments col. 779 fin.. The accusation of Zechariah may apply to the five metropolitans or to one or another of the five metropolitans, namely St. Jonah, Theodosius, Philip I, Gerontius and Zosima; but it is also quite possible that he is simply slandering. – (The metropolitans did not have special officials to manage the metropolis itself). Plano-Carpini, passing through in 1246 through Russia from the pope to the great khan (1 half volume p. 82), says that on the road from Volyn to Kiev he and his companions had nothing to fear from the Russians, because they had an escort from the Volyn prince Vasilko Romanovich, and also because most of them (the Russians) were beaten by the Tatars or taken captive. According to the same Plano-Karpini, the first Tatar village from Kyiv on the other side of the Dnieper was Kanev, located on the banks of the Dnieper, 214 versts southeast of Kyiv. As for Pereyaslavl, the Hypatan Chronicle says that Daniil Romanovich of Galich, who went to Batu, “came to Pereyaslavl and set it off V17; Tatarov,” - page 535 sub fin.. Hypatian Chronicle, – page 609. From 1359, when Khan Berdibek was killed, there was great confusion in the Horde for a very long time, and one might think that the bishops were transferred from Sarai to Moscow shortly after this year. But, on the other hand, the presence of bishops in the capital of the khan could be very important for the great princes, since they could convey to the princes about everything that was happening here. And therefore it seems most likely to think that the princes kept the bishops in Sarai until he disappeared or until before his disappearance he lost all meaning for them. That in 1378–79 the bishops of Sarai did not yet live on Krutitsy, see ibid. p. 277, about the installation of St. Stephen of Perm in Hieromonks (although, however, it could be that at that time the Sarai department was idle). If we assume that the renaming of the bishops from Saraisky to Sarsky and Podonsky (which is discussed below) was done after they moved from Sarai to Moscow, then they were renamed in 1459–61. In currently known official acts, Vassian, Bishop of Sarai, under 1459 is called Saraisky, and under 1461. – Sarsky and Podonsky, – see Pavlov’s Monuments col. 628. and Voskresenskaya). Our two bishops are also called Podrelsky (Silouan: Podrelsky and Krutitsky) in Karamzin to volume VI, notes 219 and 326. The first Grand Duke of Vladimir, Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, after the Mongol invasion, separating Tver as a special inheritance from the great reign, planted his son Yaroslav Yaroslavich in it. (This is how it is usually accepted, and the Resurrection Chronicle even claims that Tver itself was founded or turned from a village into a city after the invasion of the Mongols - Collection of Chronicles VII, 245; meanwhile 1 Novgorod Chronicle says that the Tatars killed the son of Yaroslavl in Tver they took - ibid III 52 beginning). The first bishop of Tver was Simeon, who moved to Tver from Polotsk (list of bishops in the first volume of the Nikon Chronicle, appendices, p. 5 beginning): in the acts of the Vladimir Cathedral of 1274. (inscription) it is called Polotsk, and in 1285 it is Tver: Laurentian Chronicle under this last year. – In the Nikon Chronicle it is read under 1271. (III, 35 beginning) about the burial of Yaroslav Yaroslavich, who died on the road from the Horde: “and taking him to Tver, Bishop Semyon of Tver, with the usual funeral hymns, laid him in the church of the holy wonderworkers Kozma and Domyan in Tver,” but in the Resurrection Chronicle the name of the bishop is not and is read (Collection chronicles VII, 171): “and carried his body to Tver and laid his body in the church”... The expression of the Nikon Chronicle “put” instead of “put” makes it clear that the name of the bishop is inserted after it. The first prince of Suzdal was Andrei Yaroslavich, the son of Grand Duke Yaroslav Vsevolodovich. Further princes of Suzdal were the descendants of either this Andrei or Andrei Alexandrovich, the son of Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky, which remains unresolved, see Solovyov vol. III, 4th edition p. 270 fin.. Karamzin wrote from an unknown chronicle that in 1314. John, Bishop of Suzdal, reposed (to volume IV note 247 sub fin.), but this John is doubtful; in 1350 Metropolitan Theognost blessed Bishop Daniel of Suzdal, who had been excommunicated by him (the Nikon and Typographic Chronicles), and this Daniel should be considered the predecessor of the one appointed in 1347. Bishop Nathanael (the same chronicles and the Resurrection). In Karamzin’s chronicle under 1465 (erroneously instead of 1464): “Ephimey, Bishop of Bryansk and Chernigov, came running to Moscow, leaving his bishopric, and gave him Suzhdal, and Koluga and Torus” (to vol. VI note 629, col. 88 fin.). Since before this Euthymius the bishops of Suzdal were not called Torus, we think that Kaluga and Torus were given to him. He was appointed to the See of Suzdal following the installation of Philip Bishop of Suzdal as Metropolitan of All Russia, which was on November 11, 1464. (Nikonovskaya and Voskresenskaya chronicles). Succeeded by Evfimiev from 1483. Theodore, also a former bishop of Chernigov, in one letter preserved from him calls himself Suzdal and Torus, - in Pavlov’s Monuments col. 751 fin.. Before the separation from the diocese of Suzdal, our appendage part to the region of the patriarchs, which was decided by the council of 1667. (Additions to the Acts of History, vol. V, no. 102, p. 493, col. 1) and what was carried out in 1672. (see Acts of the Expedition vol. IV, no. 230, p. 500 col. 2), it consisted of: Torusa, Kaluga, Obolensk, Aleksin, Yaroslavets Maly, Tula Inscription and something else (see. Anania Fedorov Historical collection about the city of Suzhdal, in the Temporary of the Society of History and Antiquities, book XXII, pp. 71 and 111). Cfr in Pavlov's Monuments, Metropolitan Jonah's letter to him, – No. 88, II, col. 664. At the burial of Metropolitan Theognost, who died on March 11 of this year, Bishop Athanasius of Kolomna was present along with other two bishops (Nikonovskaya and Resurrection chronicles). See 1 half of the volume, p. 277, about the ordination of St. as hieromonk. Stephen of Perm on his departure to preach. He was present at the burial of Metropolitan Theognostus, - Nikon and Resurrection chronicles. About his life in Pereyaslavl, see the Epiphanius life of St. Sergius of Radonezh and in the abbreviations of the life read in the Nikon Chronicle IV, 218 fin. and 2 Sofia Chronicles, - Collection of Chronicles VI, 121 beginning. Vivliofika I, 63, and Collection of state charters and treaties I, 38, col. 2. Nikon Chronicle IV, 269 and the Resurrection Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles VIII, 70. Nikon Chronicle IV, 140. Nikon Chronicle IV, 160 and 193; Resurrection Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles VIII, 52 and 61. Hypatan Chronicle under 1223, p. 494 fin.. Soloviev, V, 153 fin. (Acts of Western Russia vol. I, no. 192, p. 288). To the speeches in the 1st half of Volume I (pp. 301–307/355–359) about the incompatibility of monasticism with the rank of bishop, it is worth adding the following: under the Emperor Isaac Angelus (1185–1195), married people (not monks) were still appointed bishops, - in Ralli and P., V, 321. Definition Council of Constantinople under Patriarch Anthony (1388–1397) about liberation from the vows of monasticism due to the rank of bishop and about a bishop who was not a monk, who later accepted monasticism, that he cannot be a bishop, see A. P. Lebedev: Essays on the history of the Byzantine-Eastern Church, M. 1892, p. 305. Metropolitan Philaret, in a note on the issue of the rights of monastics to dispose of their property, says: “A monastic elevated to the rank of bishop, of necessity, is obliged to subordinate the character of monasticism to the higher character of episcopacy, and to perform monastic duties to the extent that they are consistent with the position and duties of a bishop,” - Collections of Opinions and Reviews, vol. IV, p. 194 fin. (1857). Consequently, he admits that a bishop from among monks is not a monk, but only from among monks, i.e., the same thing that I say. Metropolitan of Moscow Timofey Shcherbatsky († April 18, 1767), the first of the bishops, was buried according to the order of priestly burial; from this incident it was made by St. The Synod has legitimized that henceforth all bishops should be buried in the same way, - I. M. Snegirev Life of M. Plato, 1, p. 36; History of the hierarchy of Archimandrite Ambrose, I, 91 fin.. Currently, bishops are buried with priestly burial, - Nikolsky A Guide to the Study of the Charter p. 752; Wed in 1 half of Volume I pp. 304–305, note 3/356, note 2. It is an as yet inexplicable strangeness for us that Metropolitan Photius changed the monastic names of two Novgorod bishops appointed by him: the monk Sampson, elected in 1415, was named Simeon at his consecration, and the monk Em(i)lian, elected in 1424, was named Euthymius. This was not done during the installation of Novgorod archbishops, either before or after, and it is not known that it was ever done during the installation of other bishops. One could assume that the names of Simeon and Euthymius were changed because they were chosen from ordinary monks. But the successor of Euthymy (1st) by name, also Euthymy (2nd), was also chosen from ordinary monks and, however, his name was not changed. Is it because Metropolitan Photius changed his names because he did not consider the names Sampson and Emelyan to be bishop names? (On the change of names in Greece for monks promoted to patriarchs, see A.P. Lebedev Essays on the history of the Byzantine Eastern Church, M. 1892, p. 379. Patriarch Athanasius and his successor John of Sozopol at the end of the 3rd century preferred monks to the white clergy for episcopal positions. – ibid. page 381 beginning). [This foreigner reports his conversation with one of our bishops in Vologda. Fletcher offered him the New Testament and pointed to the 1st chapter of the Gospel of Matthew. The bishop began to read very well. Then Fletcher asked him: “What part of the Holy Scriptures has he read now?” The bishop could not answer this question. Fletcher suggested a few more questions: “How many evangelists were there in the New Testament,” he asked. Answer: I don't know. “How many Apostles were there?” Answer: 12. – “How does he hope to be saved?” The bishop responded to this that “he does not know whether he will be saved or not; but if God has mercy or mercy and saves him, then he will be very happy about it; if not, then there is nothing to do.” “Why did he take monastic vows,” Fletcher also asked. For this, the bishop answered, so that he could eat his bread in peace." About the Russian State, published by A. Suvorin, St. Petersburg, 1905, p. 100. - Kurbsky says that there were bishops who could not read - see Tales of Prince Kurbsky, p. 230]. Gury Archbishop of Kazan was elected by lot. – Nikon Chronicle, VII, 231. [Monuments of Pavlov col. 614. During the 16th century, “in Southwestern Rus',” writes S. T. Golubev in his book: Peter Mogila, vol. I, p. 245, the replacement of the highest hierarchical places depended primarily on the Polish kings, who, having appropriated the title “supreme rulers of spiritual capitals and all spiritual bread,” enjoyed unlimited rights in the distribution of bishops and monasteries”; cf. p. 81. Their example could have an influence on the Moscow sovereigns]. In Monuments of Kushelev-Bezborodko, IV, 148 col. 2. Prince Boris Vasilyevich of Volotsk accused Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod of “taking the estate to the rank of saint or worldly princes with the help,” see Gennady’s letter to Boris in Pavlov’s Monuments No. 113, col. 755 start. Gennady denies the validity of the accusation, ibid.; but the fact that the prince could build it makes it clear that this really happened. (Monks from boyar families sought the episcopacy through their connections: this was a general and open custom (as there are similar monks now). For the purchase of bishop’s seats, see Maxim the Greek, vol. I, p. 139 fin., 140 beginning; vol. III, 187). ["The highest hierarchical places (in South-Western Rus'), writes S. T. Golubev, began to be looked at, in most cases, as profitable items - as a means of quick and sure profit. Bishops and rich archimandrites were solicited (resorting to the most inappropriate means) not by persons prepared to perform high hierarchical duties, but by well-born nobles, exclusively occupied with issues of church estates." See his book Peter Mogila, vol. I, p. 245; Wed p. 298]. 4 Ecumenical Council rule 25. See the abdication letters of bishops in Pavlov’s Monuments No. 110 and No. 112 (and notes to them by the learned publisher), samples of abdication letters in the XIV part of Vivliofika Novikov, p. 254, the abdication letter of Gennady Archbishop of Novgorod in Acts of the Expedition vol. I No. 384, the abdication letter of Metropolitan Daniel ibid. No. 185, spiritual charter of Metropolitan Macarius in Acts of History vol. I, No. 172 (former bishops Theodore of Suzdal and Niphon of Kolomna are called monks, in 1485 and 1505, - Acts of History vol. I, No. 94 and No. 114, pp. 139 and 169; in 1585 Hieromonk Varlaam, former Bishop of Suzdal, - Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1878, book III, Makhrishchi Monastery, pp. 10 fin and 11 beginning); about Archbishop Feodosius of Novgorod in Volokolamsk Manuscript No. 512, sheet 213 (after his abdication he is called an elder), about Patriarch Job in the Description of Synodal Manuscripts No. 359, p. 76, Elder Job, former patriarch. (Monk schema-monk Nektariy, who was the Siberian Archbishop, 1667, - Additions to the Historical Acts, vol. V, p. 101. In 1723, a hieromonk, former metropolitan, - Description of the Nilova Stolbensky hermitage). – About Metropolitan Zosima, who, even after being removed from the see, appropriated the rank of bishop, we spoke above, 1 half of the volume p. 577 fin.. – We know one example that a bishop who left the see, then, after quite some time, was elevated to another see, this is precisely the example of Trifon Stupishin, who in 1551 left the see of Suzdal, and in 1563 year he was appointed to the department of Polotsk, see Karamzin, vol. IX, 29 and note 93, also in volume III of the Russian Historical Library col. 175. Typographic Chronicle p. 256 fin.. We spoke presumably about the power of district governors as vicars in Volume I (1 half, pp. 331/383). But this should be said positively, for whatever powers the exclusive governor of the metropolitan in Kyiv had in later times, the same were possessed by the governors and non-exclusive ones, see the letter of grant of the Novgorod Archbishop Macarius to the Pskov clergy, dated July 21, 1528, in the History of the Principality of Pskov Metropolitan Eugene, part II, p. 77, No. X. When Archimandrite Mikhail-Mityai, elected as the successor of St. Alexei, went to Constantinople in 1379 for assignment, he was accompanied, among other things, by the “kryloshans of Volodymyr”. – Nikon Chronicle IV, 73 fin. [Cliroshans in Moscow Rus' of the post-Mongol period are mentioned: in the acts of the Vladimir Cathedral of 1273. cathedral episcopal choirs; in the message of the unknown-named Bishop of Vladimir to the unknown-named Grand Duke, son of Alexander Nevsky († 1263), the inviolability of church courts says that these courts (judicial fees) were given to the kliroshan (judges) for needs. About Metropolitan Maxim; It is said in the chronicles that, transferring the metropolitan see from Kyiv to Vladimir, he came from the former to the latter with his entire choir - the so-called Typographical Chronicle p. 58 beginning, also Degree, book I, 378. In the intermetropolitanate between Maxim and Peter, it is said that after the death of the former, a certain abbot Gerontius went to Constantinople to seek appointment as metropolitan, who took with him the hierarch’s clothes and utensils, one icon of the Mother of God and the pastoral staff “and church dignitaries” (Degree Book I, 414). – These dignitaries are precisely the kliroshans, and the name is a translation of the Greek ἄρχοντες, as the latter were titled. Under Metropolitan Theognostus - Historical Acts vol. I, p. 1, col. 1 fin.. After Alexey to Cyprian. - Karamzin V, notes 57 and 60. Under Cyprian - Karamzin V, note 254, p. 99 beginning (and a wonderful expression is used: “with all its choir, whitely forming” in Cyprian himself in the teaching to the clergy of 1395, Historical Acts vol. I, No. 11, p. 20: “sometimes there are churches, and the essence of the priests is Krilosha and deacons”...; in the life of Metropolitan Peter, written by him: the patriarch sent to judge Peter “the only one of the clergy of the church,” that is, one of the officials of the patriarchy, Degree Book I, 417. As one might think, the choir people disappeared or began to disappear in Muscovite Rus' from the time of Metropolitan Jonah. See 1 half of volume I pp. 326/381 note 1; Wed about the cliroshans under Metropolitans Kirill and Maxim, in the 1st half of volume II pp. 94–95]. From the acts of South-Western Russia, speaking about the episcopal choir, we know one letter of 1366, which names the Bishop of Przemysl Hilarion with his kloshans, see Memos of the diplomatic and judicial-business language of Russian, published by Y. Golovatsky, Lvov, 1867, p. 7 beginning. In the Kodin catalog of bishops' officials it is said about the first five: μετὰ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως, - in Rally and P. V, 531. In 1357 the Patriarch of Constantinople had officials from the secular, not from the spiritual - Miklosic Acta Patriarchat. Constantinop. I, 368–375. We know very little of such evidence about individual bishops who also speak of the existence of our cathedral under them: in an unknown year, the Bishop of Ryazan came to Metropolitan Theognostus to sue the Bishop of Sarai from outside the diocese “with his wingers” (in Pavlov’s Monuments col. 165 beginning); in Novgorod, as recorded in the chronicle (Nikonovskaya V, 66 fin.), in 1416 “Nahum the Great Kryloshanin of Saint 1 Sophia” reposed in 1416 (in Chronicles 2 and 4 of Novgorod without the addition of “great”). – [Wed. speeches about kliroshans in the first half of volume I pp. 323–328/377–382]. In Kievan Rus, in later times, they were elected from among the cliroshans, and precisely by the cliroshans themselves, and were only approved by the bishops, see in the 1st half of volume I, pp. 326/380. (Metropolitan Jonah appointed his protodeacon as his Lithuanian vicar - in A.S. Pavlov, col. 570 fin.). About the fact that the bishop's vicar is his judge, see Acts of the Expedition, vol. I, no. 103, p. 79, col. 2, as well as the contractual letter of Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich with Metropolitan Cyprian, - ibid.. The viceroy of the lords judges according to the charter of Vladimir, instead of the bishop, - see Karamzin, vol. I, note 506, p. 139. The bishop's boyar (judge) is a monk. – Acts of the Expedition vol. I, No. 85; Historical readings about language and literature Academy of Sciences 1856–1857, p. 203. Bishops have several boyar-judges, - M.I. Gorchakova is also there On immovable estates, appendices p. 52. Under 1515, the metropolitan Vladimir governors are called black. – Acts of the Expedition vol. I, No. 159; Under the black governor there was also a white one, one of the secular ones. Vladimir, having assigned a tithe to the Church of the Virgin Mary built by him in Kyiv, gave the first to Nastas Korsunyanin (Laurentian and Ipatian Chronicles under 996). Anastas, without any reason considered to be an archpriest and in fact should be mistaken for a secular person, was appointed by Vladimir as the head of the tithe collectors or tithemen of the Church of St. Mother of God (Alexander Nevsky in 1259 gave tithes to the church in Rostov. The words of the unknown Bishop of Vladimir in a letter to the son of Alexander Nevsky, that under the latter tithes were still given to the church, should be understood to mean that only Alexander himself gave tithes on his own. And the words: “that church was robbed” should be understood to mean that Nevsky’s sons stopped giving tithes. About taking away tithes from churches after the Mongol invasion, compare the preface to the label given to Metropolitan Peter). It is necessary to distinguish nobles from nobles: the first were service people of the indicated class; the second were servants or servants (yard servants) of every class of service people (they were among the tiuns and among the week workers). ↓ [On the metropolitan boyars, courtiers and servants in 1379, see in the first half of this volume, p. 242]. Metropolitan boyars under 1378, - Nikon Chronicle IV, 67. In the agreement between Metropolitan Cyprian and Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich, new boyars after Metropolitan Alexei, he has 5 boyars (including a monk), - Historical Acts vol. I, no. 9, p. 4 fin., no. 215 fin.; boyars in Vladimir, - Acts of the Expedition vol. I, No. 11; steward in 1396, – Nikon Chronicle IV, 266; the boyar and the steward are mentioned during relations with the Novgorodians. Metropolitan Jonah's boyars - Historical Acts vol. I, no. 43, p. 86, col. 2; Pavlova page 541 beginning. The son of a boyar with Metropolitan Theognost in 1330, - Nikon Chronicle vol. III, p. 158. With the Bishop of Ryazan boyars in the 15th century, - D.I. Ilovaisky History of the Ryazan Principality, p. 290. The bishops replaced spiritual officials with secular ones, by the way, because the latter were more obedient. In the first edition of the 1st half of volume 1, we omitted about these bishops' tiuns, because we did not examine the evidence of their existence already in the pre-Mongol period; see it in the 2nd edition, page 388, note 2. By tiun here, obviously, we mean our episcopal tiun. [From later times we have an indication that the tiuns of the bishops changed depending on the weather, just like the tithes. Russian Historical Library, vol. II, col. 882 fin., 1615]. ↓ On the police duties of tiuns in later times, see Stoglav chapter 69, Kazan edition p. 326, and Acts of the Expedition vol. II No. 223; vol. III No. 264. (In the Chronicle of the Studies of the Archaeographic Commission, issue 1, departments V-VI p. 31 sub fin., the letter of the Vologda Archbishop of 1629 for the tiunship of one boyar son is indicated, with the designation in it of the rights and duties of the tiun). [Cm. below page 65 in the “Appendices” to this section]. That the episcopal tiun is a judge is clear evidence in the Acts of History, vol. I, no. 111, p. 164; it is also quite clear in Stoglav p. 324; in the Makaryevsky Chet-Minea on December 31: about the hedgehog of the church court, do not offend, nor judge without the lord of the tiuna. The duties of a judge require special knowledge of laws and customs; and since administrative officials with the right to judge might not have this knowledge, they always had experts in the field of court - tiuns. See 4 Ecumenical Council rule 23 sub fin.. See Rally and P. IV, 530 fin., and V, 531. The clergy was given the right to administer justice and robbery. – Acts of the Expedition vol. I, Nos. 19, 28, 36, 37, 41; Historical Acts vol. I, nos. 2, 15 and 58. Serfdom before the Stoglavy Cathedral (bondage) was carried out by bishops. – Notes for the history of Stoglav in the Chronicles of N. S. Tikhonravov, v. V, page 138 beginning. In 1504 the Grand Duke freed the metropolitan peasants of the Moscow and Vladimir districts from his court and from his tributes - Acts of the Expedition vol. I, no. 139, p. 110. Metropolitan Theognostos also began to accept large boyars into his service: in the agreement between Metropolitan Cyprian and the Grand Duke, the boyars who were ordered under Theognostos are mentioned. Did St. Alexei receive them because that was the case with the Patriarch in Constantinople at that time? See also Kurbsky’s words about the service of noble men of noble families with bishops, according to Ustryalov’s edition, p. 121. See in the 1st half of the volume, p. 621 fin., reproaches to the bishops of the Rostov priest Georgy Skripitsa. Since the transformation of the diocesan court from spiritual to secular could only happen after the councils of presbyters-kliroshan had disappeared from the bishops, then the later time of the transformation of the court determines to some extent the later time of the disappearance of the councils. In Pskov, their viceroys from secular people began to be appointed archbishops of Novgorod no later than the beginning of the 15th century, see 1 Pskov Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles, vol. IV, pp. 197, 205, 215 fin., 232 fin., 236: (vol. V, 18, Nikitsky Essay on the internal history of Pskov p. 318 319. In Novgorod in 1478, the viceroy of the archbishop was from the secular. - Collection of chronicles, vol. VI, pp. 33, 202, VIII, 199; see also Nikitsky's Essay on the internal history of Novgorod). Metropolitan printer Archimandrite Dorotheos, who accompanied Mikhail-Mityai to Constantinople (Nikon Chronicle IV, 73) and died in 1406. (Karamzin, to vol. V note 254, col. 104), should be taken for the metropolitan treasurer. Subsequently, assistant treasurers were called printers. See 1 half volume p. 816, note 1. ↓ [Boyars in Novgorod are mentioned back in 1331: In the story about the dedication of Archbishop Vasily, the chronicle names two Novgorod boyars who went with him to Metropolitan Theognostus in the Volyn land. And then he expresses himself like this: “Vasily, Vladyka of Novgorod, at the same time, go from the Metropolitan with his boyars,” - Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles, vol. IV, pp. 75–76; Novgorod Chronicle according to the Synodal list pp. 326–327. In the sixties of the 15th century (1463–1465), Archbishop Jonah of Novgorod sent “his boyars” to Metropolitan Theodosius - Monuments of Pavlov col. 699. Among the boyars of Archbishop Gennady was Prince Ivan Krivoborsky, mentioned in the charter of Grand Duke Ivan III (1488), - Historical Acts vol. I, no. 285, p. 521, col. 1. The “boyar son” of Archbishop Jonah is mentioned (1461), - ibid., No. 275, p. 507, col. 2; “Servant Fedor” of Archbishop Euthymius Vyazhitsky (1458), – ibid. No. 269, p. 500, col. 2; Archbishop Macarius (1535) had Prince M. Obolensky, - Complete collection of Russian chronicles, vol. VI, p. 294]. This was the case in later times in Kievan Rus (see below), and regarding district governors we have evidence that says the same thing in the history of Moscow Rus, see also below. However, the well-known words of Bishop Simon of Vladimir to the monk of Pechersk Polycarp: “If you were worthy, you would have appointed a vicar in both bishoprics – Vladimir and Suzdal,” make it clear that already in ancient times bishops could appoint vicars not from among their clirochans. (Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod made the Venerable Joseph of Volokolamsk his vicar in the Volokolamsk district, - Life of Joseph, written by an unknown person, according to the edition of K. I. Nevostruev, p. 47: “The same (Gennady) veneration of her husband (Joseph), as he created his vicar for the churches of Volokolamsk V17;, and entrust all the ecclesiastical vindications and guilts to him, and also the fruits of that city to the bishops and certain church income to his monastery throughout the years of his episcopacy.” – Archimandrite of Pechersk in 1474 was the vicar of the Kyiv Metropolis, – entry on the Academic manuscript No. 43 (Zlatostruy). [Description of the manuscripts of Archimandrite Leonid, issue II, page 67: “this book was written... by the command of Mr. John, Archimandrite of Pechersk and the governor of the Kiev Metropolis.” Wed. entry on Patericon 1 of the Cassian (Akakievskaya) edition by D.I. Abramovich Research on the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon, St. Petersburg, 1902, p. 67. Metropolitan Jonah appoints a governor, “having discussed with all the boyars” (with his own or the Grand Duke?), – Historical Acts vol. I, No. 48; Monuments of Pavlov, no. 69, col. 570]. Mentioned in the Novgorod Chronicles under 1476. the vicar of the Archbishop of Novgorod, Yuri Repekhov, seems to have been a cathedral vicar, and not one of the district ones. [“When they begin to call for many years to all Orthodox Christians, and then the archbishop says to the Sophia boyar and the deacon of the Grand Duke and honest people and all Orthodox Christians: be healthy,” see A.P. Golubtsov Official of the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral, M. 1899, pp. 253–254 or Readings Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities 1899, book II. In the legend about the discovery of the relics of Nikita, Bishop of Novgorod in 1558. it speaks of a boyar who was entrusted with church affairs in Novgorod (an archbishop's boyar, given to the archbishop by the tsar). See Historical Acts vol. II, no. 355, p. 422, col. 1 (Metropolitan Joasaph has a boyar son, Bogdanov, and a butler, Ignatius the Devil, - Acts of the Expedition, vol. I, no. 184, p. 161). In the acts of the Stoglavy Council, the butler appears as a judge - chapter 69, Kazan edition p. 323: but as a judge over the peasants, whether only the bishops or over the clergy, this is not clearly visible. “Nobles” among the governors and their tiuns, used as week workers and bailiffs - Acts of the Expedition vol. I, no. 37, p. 29; also No. 5 sub fin.. See also about the nobles at the monastery tiun, ibid. No. 6 fin., p. 3; No. 34. About the weekly workers, see Metropolitan Eugene History of Pskov, IV, 96 sub fin.. In addition to the fact that this was the case in the later Kievan Rus, which is discussed below, we also know about this from the history of Muscovite Rus': in Pskov, until 1435, the viceroys of the Archbishop of Novgorod were from the Pskovites themselves, i.e. from among the local vicar choirs themselves - see 4 Novgorod Chronicle and 1 Pskov Chronicle in the Collection Chronicles IV, 58 and 209 (For the choir in Pskov at the end of the 14th century, see the charter of Metropolitan Cyprian in the Historical Acts, vol. I, no. 8, p. 17). Archbishop Macarius of Novgorod limited it in 1528. the power of his Pskov governor by prohibiting him from appointing alien priests to places without his knowledge, see his letter in the History of the Principality of Pskov, Metropolitan Eugene, II, 83 sub fin.. In 1517 The Vladimir viceroy of the metropolitan judged a controversial case about land and reported it to the metropolitan to pronounce the verdict and issue the right to the corrected party, - Legal Acts of 1838. No. 16, p. 29 fin.. Cfr a letter of non-conviction granted to the Novgorod Metropolitan Varlaam in 1598, printed in Volume I of Additions to the Historical Acts No. 148 p. 251, col. 2. On the travel court of governors - for the examination of cases on appeals to the governor, see Acts of the Expedition vol. I, No. 37, p. 29. The high social position of episcopal governors in ancient times is evident from the fact that they appear with the princes together with their senior boyars when concluding international treaties - Collection of state charters and treaties vol. II, p. 6 sub fin.. See, for example, Legal Acts of Kalachov vol. II, No. 173; Acts of the Expedition vol. I, no. 159. In the 1st Pskov Chronicle under 1454. it is written: “there was a very great fire in the city of Pskov: the governor’s mistress caught fire from Prokofiev’s court,” - Collection of Chronicles IV, 215 sub fin.. This Prokofy seems not to be a priest, but a secular person; and if this were so, then we would have here an indication of the time no later than which district governors began to be appointed bishops from among their boyars. In the charter of Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich dated 1515, the metropolitan governors of Vladimir are called black - Acts of the Expedition vol. I, No. 159. But with absolute probability it must be assumed that before 1515 the metropolitans already had white or secular governors in Vladimir. (In 1517, the viceroy of the metropolitans in Vladimir was secular: Legal Acts of 1838 No. 16). [Metropolitan Jonah addresses his message to “the present vicar of the Polotsk bishopric, who was named abbot of that capital, Elder Callistus,” - Pavlov’s Monuments col. 613]. See 1 half of the volume, p. 340, about Metropolitan Cyprian’s replacement of his Kyiv governor, without mentioning the wingers. In Pavlov's Monuments No. 69, also in Historical Acts vol. I, No. 48, and in Kalachov's Legal Acts vol. II, No. 167. [Cf. 1 half of volume I pp. 332/387]. See the letter of honor from Archbishop Macarius of Novgorod to the Pskov clergy, dated July 21, 1528. in History of the Principality of Pskov by Metropolitan Eugene, part II, p. 83 fin. sqq. (The patriarchs in Kostroma had an order, because [there was] governorship: this is the case in all governorships, - Description of documents and affairs of the Synod, I, col. 200–201. In later times, orders were also issued in small towns - Yuryevets, see the autobiography of Archpriest Avvakum, my manuscript folio 12 fin. and back. The Ryazan metropolitans mentioned the State Order, the Judgment Order order of spiritual affairs, Spiritual order - see Piskarev Ancient letters pp. 27, 30, 88, 97, 114, 120. The Kholmogory bishop has two orders - see Icon of Patriarchal Affairs). Bishops freed churches from the court of tithes and subjected them to their own court. So, for example, Metropolitan Macarius frees with his charter of 1542. the clergy of the rural churches of the Dmitrov tithe, which belonged to the Nikolo-Pesnoshsky monastery, from the court of the Tithes: but my tithes do not judge those priests, and who cares about them and the language of Macareus, Metropolitan of All Russia, I myself judge them, Acts of the Archaeographic Expedition vol. I No. 197. - (Metropolitan Jonah entrusted the correction of the Vyatka clergy to his tithe, but did not send a spiritual governor). Under Metropolitan Jonah, under the tithe (boyar), there were nobles: “My ten-tenant Yuri the equerry... My boyar Yuri the equerry himself was killed in the elk, and my nobles were killed to death.” Charter around 1451 in Pavlov's Monuments, no. 70, col. 573–574. [There is an indication in the court list of 1498–1505 for the transfer of lands to the estates of the metropolitan children of the boyars, - Legal Acts of 1838, No. 8, p. 14. The Stoglavy Council prescribes (according to the Kazan edition, p. 322) to deprive the boyars and butlers convicted in an unfair court of their estates]. That tithes were appointed to their positions according to weather conditions, we read direct information about this from the foreigner Anthony Possevin in his commentary De rebus Moscoviticis, ad religionem spectantibus, - in Supplementum ad historica Russiae monumenta, p. 23, col. 1. Our acts speak about this only indirectly, however, with complete clarity: tithes received a tax called entry (see below); but they received this duty annually, and, consequently, they moved in tithes annually. That tithes received an annual entry permit already during the time of Metropolitan Cyprian, see his contractual document with Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich, Acts of Espedition vol. I, no. 9, p. 5, col. 2. (The governors who lived in the governorships have their own tithes, see Gorchakov On land holdings. Appendices p. 41 beginning, letter of Metropolitan Simon in 1495: “but my governors of Volodymyr and tiuns and the governors of the tithes do not judge that priest.” According to the council of 1273, tithes were supplied to bribe, - Monuments of A. S. Pavlov, col. 92, therefore, not from his own service people, but from strangers, outsiders. But under Metropolitan Jonah, the equerry was a tithe, a boyar, - Historical Acts, etc. I, No. 50. In the second half of the 17th century. tithes were divided into quarters, - Acts of the Expedition vol. IV, No. 188, p. 241. In the charter of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich in 1622. Bishop of Kolomna diocesan administrative districts: passing tithes and orders, - Vivliofika Polevova, I, 250. For orders, see N.P. Rozanov in the History of the Moscow Diocesan Administration according to Index). That the right to issue antimensions originally belonged to the cliroshans is evident from the fact that it remained so in later Kievan Rus. ↓ In the metropolis, priestly elders long before Metropolitan Macarius, see Gorchakov On land holdings, Appendix p. 37 fin., charter of 1452. Metropolitan Jonah: “He doesn’t need any of my tribute, nor to the priest’s elder with tax burdens” (Popov’s elders initially appeared in the Pskov region: since the tithes were fleecing, the local priests (liberals) began to choose those entrusted with this in order to collect bishop’s income. Cathedral elders also initially in Novgorod and Pskov. Elder Popovsky is mentioned under 1343, - Collection of Chronicles IV, p. 189. In 1478, in the metropolis, the elder priest, to whom the burdensome priests are drawn, - Acts of the Expedition, vol. I, no. 105, p. 81; the same in 1496, - Additions to the Historical Acts, vol. I, no. 215 p. 362 col. 1; - in 1540, - Acts of the Expedition, vol. I, No. 197, p. 176. In 1544, the Pskov rural and suburban priests were given a special elder, - Collection of Chronicles IV, 306 beginning; therefore, until 1544, rural priests were subject to city elders and, therefore, there were elders. only in the city). [For a census of churches in the metropolitan diocese under Metropolitan Daniel, see in 1 half of the volume, pp. 733–734]. I do not know any information about the Metropolitan’s trips to other dioceses for the monthly trial. ↓ [Our hierarchs took the example of the Patriarch of Constantinople, who after 4 years on the fifth bypasses the metropolises to administer justice and collect alms - from Ducange Gloss. Graecit. word ἔξαρχος col. 400 from De consensu allusion and the word φιλότιμον]. ↓ 1 Pskov Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles IV, 297 (see also p. 287. In 1333, Vladyka Vasily went to Pskov, and before that he had not been in Pskov (Vladyka) for 7 years - 1 Novgorod Chronicle, p. 77. But 1 Pskov - in 1330?). In 1337 Vladyka Vasily went to Pskov to the entrance and the Pskovites did not give court, - 1 Novgorod Chronicle, p. 78. In 1352. The people of Pskov called Vladyka Vasily to them to bless them, and the Vladyka went to them - 1 Novgorod Chronicle, p. 85. In 1360. on the occasion of the pestilence, Bishop Alexei went to Pskov and blessed everyone, from the great to the poor, - 1 Novgorod, record of the church court, - Acts of the Expedition vol. I, no. 103, p. 79 (cfr ibid. no. 86 and no. 92). Cfr Pskov Judgment Charter (literal version available). Among the classical Greeks - a passing court, see Svida in Index'e Iudices Atheniensium, p. 1871 start; in England - a court of passage - see Weber's History vol. II, 448 fin.). [On the monthly court of the metropolitans in Novgorod, see the 1st half of the volume, pp. 306–319, pp. 394–395 and p. 883]. See Euthymius’ letter in Historical Acts vol. I, no. 31 and in Pavlov’s Monuments no. 54. See in History of the Principality of Pskov, Metropolitan Eugene, II, 83 fin.. Chapters 68 and 69 Kazan edition, pp. 302, 305, 318 fin., 326 beginning (On the jurisdiction of the clergy in Greece, see Martigny, p. 158, col. II beginning, II, Immunités. In the Sultan's berats, the Greek bishops are supposedly given the latter authority over marriages, dowries, divorces, spiritual wills and etc.. The deposits were presented to the court of bishops because they were deposited mainly in churches?). Acts of the Expedition vol. I, No. 159 (cf. Historical Acts vol. I, pp. 204, 212, 216, 346. In parallel to the desire of the clergy to be judged in civil matters by the princes - in Pskov the laity themselves wanted to subordinate the clergy in the same matters to their court). Letter of grant from Archbishop Macarius of Novgorod to the Pskov clergy in the History of the Principality of Pskov by Metropolitan Eugene, II, 79 (cf. IV, 177 fin. and about the mixed court ibid. IV, 96); Stoglav chapter 68, Kazan edition p. 306 beginning. In the tsar's questions to the council there is nothing about this conciliarity. Stoglav chapters 6, 34 and 69, Kazan edition pp. 79–80, 141, 312 sqq (see also pp. 50, 127, 315. The archpriests and priestly elders in the city constitute the district administrative council (subsequent spiritual boards); cf. Western Russian archpriests). Stoglav chapter 69, Kazan edition p. 317. Stoglav chapter 68, Kazan edition pp. 296 sqq and 304 sqq (cf. pp. 259, 292 294, 297–299, 306, 324. The Stoglavy Council says exactly how the trial should be carried out: “search to search” - to carry out an investigation, p. 296 (how exactly). Privileges in relation to to the court of archimandrites and abbots: they are not sent with records and bailiffs. Wed also in the Law Code of Ivan III, - Historical Acts, vol. 154 col. 2, 155 col. 1; in the Law Code of Grozny §§ 17, 19, 91. For the mixed court, see Stoglav, page 294. 300; in the Law Code of Grozny §§ 30, 91). Stoglav chapters 68 and 69, Kazan edition pp. 302 sqq, 315, 318 fin. (Pop elders judge the clergy according to Stoglav, - Acts of the Expedition vol. I, No. 232, p. 227. The Stoglav Cathedral authorizes the elders to look after the tithes, and in case of an unjust trial, write to the saints and the tsar. But these are empty words. About the court of the episcopal boyars, see Stoglav according to the Kazan edition, p. 53, 302–304, 306, 318, 321, 322, 324, 326; cf. Acts Historical vol. I, pp. 267 fin. (XVII century), 417. About the court of tithes Stoglav pp. 53, 304–307, 315, 322. About the week workers Stoglav pp. 319. About the kissers, see Karamzin, vol. II, 37; V, note 404, p. 172; VII, note 362; VIII, note 91; Code of Law of Grozny §§ 68. – Where did Grozny get the kissers in court? Macarius, being the Archbishop of Novgorod, could have recognized Sweden and given the idea to the tsar? See “The Land of the Midnight Sun” in Russian Notes, February 1883, p. 528 (Two Assessors). Stoglav chapter. 69, Kazan edition pp. 322–325. About the tiuns p. 324 beginning, 325 beginning; about the Moscow Tiun p. 325. Stoglav chapter 67, Kazan edition pp. 59, 293, 300. [Wed. in 1 half of the volume pp. 787–788]. The English Bishop Pearson, in his work Vindiciae Ignatianae, allegedly provides a lot of evidence that the difference between bishops and presbyters dates back to the very beginning of the Christian Church - see in the Orthodox Interlocutor 1895, September, Gusev’s article about Ignatius the God-Bearer, p. 65. - Archbishop Innocent in his, printed according to the definition of the Holy Synod, In the outline of church history he writes: “bishops (in the primal church), evading arbitrary authority, accepted the participation of presbyters in all matters (Note: Some bishops did not even write epistles without the complicity of presbyters)... In each church, the bishop and presbyters constituted the government class”... Division (of history) first, century two, V, state of the hierarchy, edition 1817 pp. 44 and 46. – Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow says: “In writings intended to admonish those who are mistaken, one should be careful to say that the words: bishop and presbyter according to the apostle are unambiguous,” Alphabetical Index, word: Bishop, p. 359. – On conciliar government in the Christian Church, see article in the Readings of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities in 1870. book IV and article by N.K. Sokolov, written about this article; Wed also Sushkova: Canonical structure of church government. In later times there were bishops who were tormentors, for example, Joseph, Archbishop of Kolomna; – see Solovyov’s History of Russia, vol. XIII, p. 149; There were such things in our period. Among the first questions, question No. 7, Kazan edition p. 53. How the bishops (Kholmogory) composed their courts in later times - Description of the documents and affairs of St. Synod vol. I, pp. 515–517; Complete collection of resolutions and orders, vol. II, p. 56. Cfr message of St. Jonah to the boyars and lords of Lithuanian Rus, written around 1458 on the occasion of the appointment of the Uniate Metropolitan Gregory as Pope for Lithuania, in which the Metropolitan urgently invites all the princes and boyars and lords of the Russian Lithuanian Rus to stand firmly for Orthodoxy - Historical Acts vol. I, no. 45, in Pavlov’s Monuments no. 80. Such obligations are known, given to the councils of the choir, three Lvov bishops: the installed Macarius of Tuchansky and the named Isaiah Boloban and Jeremiah Tisarovsky [See. below, pp. 68–76 1 2 3, in the “Appendices” to this section]. See the above letter from the named bishop Isaiah Boloban. (The division in later Kievan Rus of the kliroshan into offekia was not in fact, but only in words). In later Kievan Rus, choirs are sometimes called chapters in Western style, - Russian Historical Library, publication of the Archaeographic Commission, vol. IV, p. 64 and Galician Scientific Collection of 1868, issues III and IV, p. 346 or Acts relating to the history of South-Western Rus', published by A. S. Petrushevich, Lvov 1868, p. 186. (On the fact that the cliroshans in the district vicars are made up of parish priests, see Vilna Index pp. 159, 180; the vicar himself is from the parish priests, and he is from among the cliroshans. In South-Western Rus' there was a consistory in 1595, see S. T. Golubeva Peter Mogila, vol. I, p. 259 beginning. About diocesan councils in Kievan Rus, - Metropolitan Macarius, History of the Russian Church, vol. XI, p. 578 beginning). Kliroshan in Sambir at the beginning of the 15th century, where the bishop of Przemysl was the vicar - a charter in the Acts of Western Russia, vol. I, no. 31, p. 45; Kryloshan in Vilna at the end of the 15th century, where the viceroy of the Kiev Metropolitan was located - ibid., No. 152, p. 175. Metropolitan Joseph Saltan of Kyiv, who occupied the see from 1500 to 1519, either did not have any boyars at all - the children of boyars, or there were too few of them: he appointed royal nobles to his tithes, see Acts of Western Russia vol. II, no. 77, p. 101. About the fact that in the 16th and 17th centuries in Galicia, governors were elected not by bishops, but by clergy members, and the former only blessed or approved them - see Acts of Southern and Western Russia, vol. I, p. 106 and the letter of Bishop Eustathius Tisarovsky of Lvov, indicated above. As for ancient times, it seems that bishops elected them: the words of Bishop Simon of Vladimir, quoted above, and in the acts of the Vladimir Council of 1273 the remark that sometimes bishops appointed governors for a fee. (Metropolitan Jonah had a governor of Krichevsky, - Acts of History vol. I, no. 260, p. 489, col. 2; cf. Degree Book vol. II, p. 185. Krichev - near Mstislavl, see Semenov's Geographical Dictionary. In 1452 he had two governors in Lithuania - Kiev and Novgorod, - see Pavlov's Monuments, p. 590). The first mention of the ruler's tiuns in southern Rus' known to us dates back to 1366, see Golovatsky's publication: Monuments of the diplomatic and judicial-business language of Russian in the ancient Galicia-Volodymyr principality, Lvov, 1867, No. 3, p. 7. See Acts of Western Russia, vol. II, no. 77, p. 101. About the archpriests in Pavlov’s Monuments No. 133, II, col. 914 (and in Metropolitan Macarius' History vol. XI, pp. 303 and 370). [In the charter of Metropolitan Jonah (1451) they are mentioned under the governor (?) Protopopov, - Monuments of Pavlov, No. 69, col. 572; there are none in Muscovite Rus' - Historical Acts vol. I, no. 64 (beginning of greeting), p. 115, col. 2]. ΙΙρονόμια, advantage. Οφφίκια, orders, officia. Διάδοχος, heir, successor. Wed. S. T. Golubeva History of the Kiev Theological Academy p. 82 sqq. Stoglav, chapter 41, question and answer 14, Kazan edition, p. 176 fin.. Stoglav, chapter 41, question-answers 14 and 15, Kazan edition p. 176 and 177 (Some places were private property; they were sold. They appeared in such a way that the priests built churches and formed parishes - see A. S. Lebedev Belogorod bishops p. 18 fin.: the priest built a church with his kosht; the parishioners accepted him into their parish, so that he and his children would be in the parish of that church forever, and in that they gave him a reception record in hand. Comp. Additions to the Historical Acts, vol. XII, p. 374; Collection of Chronicles, vol. III, p. 148 beginning. Russia 1884, book II, Mix p. 37: the priest bequeaths the church and the parish to his son-in-law (1738). Priests bought church places from parishioners and with these places, and parishes became property; only the one who bought the place or the heir could become a priest - Additions to the Historical Acts vol. V, p. 473, § 30. They approached the bishop with the person who would buy the place as with the person to whom they wanted to rent the place or sold the place; they themselves left to look for other places. On the sale of seats, see the decrees of the councils of 1503, 1666–1667 and 1675. Legal Acts of Kalachov, vol. II, p. 393. Bills of sale for the sale of a church site by one priest to another, see Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities of Russia 1890. Book IV, Research, Russian Manuscripts p. 50 and in the Yaroslavl Diocesan Gazette of 1894. No. 29, col. 458. In the 17th century. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich allocated 2000 rubles. from the money left after Patriarch Joseph to pay for church places - Acts of the Expedition vol. IV. About church places as private property in the 18th century in N. P. Rozanov in the History of the Moscow Diocesan Administration. Yarengsky parish in the Arkhangelsk province - private property, - Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities of Russia 1884. Book III, Mixture, Petition of Dionysius, p. 12. For the donation of half of the village church to the monastery, see the letters of I. D. Belyaev, according to the Description of D. I. Lebedev, p. 30, No. 142. One Tver resident gave a contribution to the Trinity - Sergius Monastery, a stone church in Tver, - List of tombstones No. 824. The priests owned two parishes, that is, they simultaneously served in two neighboring parishes, - Additions to the Historical Acts, vol. V, p. 466 col. 2 (here we also talk about the sale of seats). Patrimonists of churches in 1646–76, - Russian Historical Library, vol. XIV, p. 389. In South-Western Russia, priests paid dues to the lords (as payment for seats?), - Metropolitan Macarius, History of the Russian Church, vol. XI, p. 621, - See another half of volume I pp. 414–415/492–493). See previous quote. Stoglav, chapter 84, Kazan edition, page 369 sqq. Stoglav, chapter 70, Kazan edition p. 329. Stoglav p. 176. For side churches, see 1 half of Volume I, p. 416/494. Just as in the pre-Mongol period, each side church had its own priests, separate from the priests of the main church, so it was in subsequent times, ours and long after ours: in the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral in the 17th century there were nine altars, and each altar had its own priests, Description of Synodal Manuscripts No. 399, pp. 372 and 373 (in 1552 it contained: archpriest, 18 priests, protodeacon, 4 deacons, archdeacon, – Collection of Chronicles III, 251); in the Moscow Intercession Cathedral in the second half of the 18th century, each of its 20 altars had their own special priests, - Belyankina Historical information about Intercession and St. St. Basil's Cathedral in Moscow, p. 10. (Each aisle, whether it was in a special annex to the church or in the church itself, had its own special priests who received their own special rugue. In Nevolin's On Pyatina, Appendix p. 203, the aisle located on the floors of the church has its own special patrimony. At each altar there are special priests: general position. The principle was that the priest should serve one throne, and not several. But in John the Baptist on Opoki, see 1 half of volume I, pp. /496–497. In Moscow cathedrals there are special priests in the chapels: Viktorova Description of notebooks and papers of ancient Palace orders, page 174. About chapel priests who were hired to serve daily in the chapels by parents - see Description of the Nativity Church in Sergiev Posad, compiled by Hieromonk Arseny in the Readings of I. O. I. and Others. R. 1891 book 3, p. 60). Tales of contemporaries about Dimitri the impostor, published by Ustryalov, part I, edition 3 p. 59 fin.. (In Moscow, according to the testimony of foreigners, each boyar had a home church for his wife). The name comes from the fact that the priests of the city gathered there for daily services. Collection of Chronicles, XV, 228 fin.. Hypatan Chronicle under 1187. talks about all the Galich cathedrals, - page 442; but whether the city of Galich or the land of Galich is not clear, and how the latter seems. 1 Novgorod Chronicle under this year, - Collection of Chronicles III, 107. Typographical chronicle under this year, p. 293 (at the consecration of the Assumption Cathedral, - Nikon Chronicle VI, 108 beginning). 1 Pskov Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles IV, 191, 211, 215, 221; Historical Acts vol. I, no. 283; in the History of the Principality of Pskov, Metropolitan Eugene, II, 77, letter from Archbishop Macarius (In the city of Likhvin in 1686 there was a second council. Manuscripts by I. D. Belyaev according to the description of A. E. Viktorov, p. 95 fin.). See Archimandrite Macarius in the Archaeological Description of Church Antiquities in Novgorod, I, 34 and Acts of the Expedition vol. I, no. 229, p. 221 col. 2 fin.. (Thus, the priests of the St. Sophia Cathedral received memorial money for the services that the priests of the parish churches sang for them for free; and in addition they themselves sang, so that they received double memorial money. See also the resolutions of the Stoglavy Cathedral, according to the Kazan edition, p. 424; cf. Historical Acts I, 520). See 1 Pskov Chronicle for 1544, p. 306 beginning. The sixth council, established in 1471, was composed of 102 non-competent priests, - Historical Acts vol. I, no. 283, pp. 519–520 [See. in the first half of this volume p. 545]. The cathedral priest, replacing the archpriest, is higher than the abbot-confessor - Vivliofika, book XIV, p. 157 fin.. In Pskov, cathedral elders distribute bishop's letters to the villages, - Metropolitan Eugene History of Pskov, II, appendices p. 86. In 1544. in the Pskov region, rural priests separated from the city priests (from all seven councils) and Archbishop Theodosius gave them a special headman, - Collection of Chronicles IV, 306 beginning. In cathedrals there is a daily service, so every day one could find a church to which to submit a memorial. They made orders for commemorations. Each ordered mass was served separately (in the priest’s repentance: those who had sinned, several forties served together). But sometimes there were so many orders that it was impossible to serve in it alone. Then they distributed it among the parishes that belonged to the cathedral (they were purchased): in the order of Patriarch Job to the elders of the cathedral, this is how it was. (And in the West, city priests resell the celebration of Mass to rural priests). In monasteries and hostels, priests were paid for funeral masses: they were hired. On prayer for others for hire, the word of the Venerable Metropolitan Hilarion in the August Chet-Minea of ​​Metropolitan Macarius, folio 1384 verso (by Archimandrite Joseph in the Index col. 466). [By resolution of the Kyiv Council of 1640. The archpriests were obliged to serve weekly with St. Sofia, and in order to attract them more to this, they were assigned 15 groschen for it. See Metropolitan Macarius History of the Russian Church, vol. XI, p. 587. Cf. 1 half of volume I pp. /486, 497–502]. Near Moscow, in the village of Izmailovo there was a cathedral church (Readings by O.I. and Dr. R. 1886, book I, Radonezh Tithe, p. 35) - that is, a church with daily services. Moscow Cathedral 1666–1667 legitimizes the heredity of the priesthood, - Additions to the Historical Acts, vol. V, p. 473, § 29 (For the deacon of the nobles, see the Nikon Chronicle, vol. IV, p. 205). In the charters issued to the priest in 1531, 1599, 1629, 1658 and 1717, it is prescribed what he accepts in spirit - see Legal Acts of 1838, pp. 404–406; Legal Acts of Kalachova vol. III, col. 435, 437. “Farewell list of the spiritual father” (priest) of the 16th century. in Legal Acts of Kalachov, vol. III, no. 345, col. 399. The priest could not give communion to someone other than his spiritual son (a person who had not confessed to him) - Historical Acts Vol. I No. 31 p. 61. “The Tatars are nothing like abbots, priests and monks”; abbots, i.e. hieromonks serving at churches. Stoglav chapter 5, question 9, Kazan edition p. 56 (Notes for the history of Stoglav in the Chronicles of Tikhonravov, V, 138. Previously, confessors were only appointed, as is still the case for priests: just as now a confessor is appointed to the deanery for priests, so before a confessor was appointed for everyone to a known area. Abbots - confessors in the 16th century - Vivliofika book XIV, p. 156 sqq, charter of Theodosius of the Archbishop of Novgorod. - Metropolitan Eugene History of Pskov, II, additions p. 83, 84 fin., 85 beginning; Lists of hierarchs col. 889 Ryazan hierarchy, p. 45. Abbot Chigas, - Collection of Chronicles VI, 234 fin., who built the church, was a hieromonk in the parish. In the writing of G. Skripitsa (at the beginning) priests and abbots serving in the parish churches are called hieromonks, - Description of the Synodal Manuscripts, part I, page 296 fin.. In the Makaryev Chet-Minea on August 31. (3047) “to give a letter to the sacred monk when installing him as a spiritual father” (published in Pavlov’s Monuments, col. 913–914). From Ducange in Gloss. Graec. col. 473: Ἡ γούμενος, Plebanus. Stoglav, chapter 25, Kazan edition p. 120. Historical Acts vol. I, No. 104, p. 147. (Regarding what Gennady says about gifts to teachers, one can compare Kostenko Central Asia, St. Petersburg, 1871, p. 70: for raising children in the lower schools of Central Asia “no specific reward is due. Usually students, coming to school for the first time, bring some kind of gift and repeat voluntary donations to indefinite time. Sometimes, by agreement with the parents, gifts are given in a different order; for example, when a child enters school, another is given; when he learns to read, a fourth, etc. see Chistovich, Feofan Prokopovich, p. 51. Arabs in Egypt teach boys to read and write out of sheer piety, Brem II, 67). 1 half of volume I pp. 407/479. – (After the invasion of the Mongols, it was suddenly necessary to put many priests in the place of those beaten and taken captive by the Tatars. The candidates installed were very bad, barely literate and illiterate (and thus, in the future, the level of the priesthood decreased and literacy between priests was supposed to fall and bishops took money, not paying attention to dignity. In the dioceses in which bishops were killed, there were few priests for a long time. Evidence of illiteracy for the clergy of Metropolitan Daniel, see A. S. Arkhangelsky in Nil Sorsky, p. 192. Compare the review of the Moscow Council of 1667 about people appointed to priests (“they know how to herd cattle”), Pososhkov’s testimony about the illiteracy of the proteges that the priests traded - see Acts of the Expedition, vol. I, no. 159. The priest cannot write - Acts of I. D. Belyaev, described by D. I. Lebedev p. 56 fin.. In southwestern Rus' during the time of Peter Mogila there were priests who could not read at all - S. T. Golubeva Kiev Metropolitan Peter Mogila, vol. II, p. 488. For the pitiful state of the lower clergy in the West, see P. I. Gorsky in the Cathedral of Trent first. That in Greece there were clerics who did not know any letters at all, Justinian makes it known in Novell. VI, cap. 4; in Nikonovskaya Kormcha chapter 42, § 4, sheet 350). It seems not incredible to think that completely illiterate priests came from sextons. Since the duty of the sextons was not to sing and read, but only to serve the priest during divine services, they were appointed from illiterate people. But another illiterate sexton, having served for 20 years at the church, could learn a little church services by heart, and then, imagining his long-term service, could seek the priesthood. Acts Historical vol. 1, p. 148 beginning. Stoglav chapter 26, page 121. The schools designed by the Stoglavy Cathedral did not appear not only due to the fault of the lower clergy, but also of the bishops, who did not care about them at all. (Reward for teachers from God...). See the exemplary assignment to the sexton of Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod in the Legal Acts of 1838. No. 388, p. 410. See the same letter from Gennady. Now the indicated exemplary letter to the sexton Gennady apparently indicates that the sextons were blessed to be sextons by the bishops. But in fact, the letter written by Gennady should be understood only in such a way that he, striving to streamline the occupation of places in churches, wanted to introduce a custom in his diocese so that sextons would receive an episcopal blessing for the exercise of their position. That we did not have this before Gennady is evident from the fact that there was even a class of clerks who were not appointed bishops, which is discussed below. (Under Metropolitan Macarius, sextons are determined (as scumbags and watchmen) by the priests themselves, - Orthodox Interlocutor 1863, I, 210; - clerks and sextons are appointed without a bishop, - Acts of the Expedition, vol. I, p. 221. Unordained sextons under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, - Complete collection of laws, vol. I, p. 442 p. 9; under Patriarch Joasaph II, - Acts of the Expedition, vol. IV, p. 213 col. 2, § 9; Additions to the Historical Acts, vol. V, p. 461 col. 1. Under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, sextons and sextons traded, - Code chapter XIX, art. c. for a newly ordained priest - the sexton and sexton do not enter the altar, - Monuments of Pavlov col. 105). The 7th Ecumenical Council speaks about this custom, prohibiting it, in canon 14. But after the council, the custom not only did not emerge, but even extended to the point that bishops began to formally appoint young children (six-year-olds and even three-year-olds - sic!) (σφραγίζειν) as clerks, see Ralli and P. I, 68. The ancient Slavic rite for the installation of a bishop speaks of the appointment of a clerk: “a reader is signified only if he can only have the honor of the apostolic books and proverbs, even if you are young in years and age, but your life is pure,” - in Pavlov’s Monuments col. 464 start. The Hypatan Chronicle speaks about our clerks under 1148, - 2nd edition p. 259 fin.. This year the Novgorodians needed to gather as large an army as possible against the enemy, and they decided that everyone who could would go to war: “well (let) every soul go, and even a clerk, and (instead: and) a gumenzo is shorn for him, and not given (the bishop) will be, and you (he) will go, and whoever is appointed (bishop) will pray to God.” (In the 1st half of Volume I, pp. 393/464, this passage was interpreted incorrectly by us). About our clerks among the Greeks, see Ralli and P. II, 616 and 617. At Ralli and P. I, 66 fin.; II, 619; VI, 80. For a sample, see the Legal Acts of 1838. No. 387. Priests also changed places in a similar way, only they were required to have so-called passers-by or letters of release. That such letters were not required from clerks is evident from the fact that nowhere in the acts where they should have been spoken about is not mentioned. The charters issued by the clerks were called newly minted charters. This name must be explained in such a way that the clerks did not present them to the tithes every year, as the priests were obliged to do, but only immediately upon entering each place, when they were in place again. That the clerks did not show their letters to the tithes every year is evident from the same silence in the acts that we have indicated now [Instructions of the Vladimir Cathedral of 1274. about those appointed to the lower ecclesiastical degrees, see the 1st half of this volume, pp. 71–72]. For a detailed overview of the parish of the Arkhangelsk region, see the Readings of I. O. I. and others. R. 1879, book I, Acts of the 17th century, p. 8. [The one who was ordained a priest confessed before ordination with the testimony of 7 priests. They talk about this: Vladimir Cathedral (Pavlova, Monuments, p. 91); Metropolitan Photius about the confessor and 6 witness priests (ibid., pp. 423–426); The Stoglavy Council agrees with Vladimirsky (according to the Kazan edition, p. 381, according to Subbotin’s edition, 373). Wed. data in the “Testimony of the confessor about the protege” (Pavlov ibid., pp. 909–912), in the case of Elder Artemy (Acts of the Expedition I, no. 239, p. 253 col. 1). - In the acts of the council of 1273. it is prescribed to keep proteges at the cathedral churches for so long until they understand everything. Consequently, schools of proteges were formed at the cathedral churches]. In Pavlov's Monuments col. 108 start. Photius, – ibid. col. 433 fin.. About priests without a church, see 4 Novgorod Chronicle, - Collection of Chronicles IV, 96. In the Pskov region, priests were hired for churches, - Metropolitan Eugene History of Pskov, II, appendices pp. 84, 85 beginning, rug). In the Undolsky manuscript No. 50, page 141, it reads “October 1, 1604 about supernumerary priests,” an interesting addition to Stoglav. In 1724, independent and unclothed priests - Art. A. S. Lebedeva On the issue of serfdom in parish churches, pp. 4, 5 and 7 (here also about wild spiritual quarrels among themselves). In the message of Archbishop Gennady to Metropolitan Simon, it is made known that we installed unmarried deacons and priests. Acts Historical vol. I No. 253, p. 478 col. 2; Pavlov in Monuments col. 259 [Wed. 1 half of Volume I pp. 390/459 and 464]. Historical Acts vol. 1, no. 101, p. 144, message to Zosima from Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod (the priest did not want to serve with a bigamist clerk). Stoglav, chapter 5, question 24, chapters 8 and 12, Kazan edition pp. 67, 88, 99 fin.. In Pavlov's Monuments col. 435 start. Stoglav chapter 5 question 18 and chapter 81, Kazan edition pp. 62, 364. Acts of the Expedition vol. I No. 229, p. 221 col. - in A. S. Pavlov in Monuments col. 430; Materials for the history of Stoglav in the chronicles of Tikhonravov V, 138, § 16 (widower priests have second wives, others, after being tonsured, remain parish priests in 1509, in support of its definition against widowed priests, refers to the royal commandments and the example of the Church of Constantinople). Historical Acts vol. I, No. 289, p. 527 col. 1. “The message of Cornelius, the monk of Snetnaya Gora to his son, priest Ivan, who wants to marry a second time” (and leave the priesthood) published in the study of N. Serebryansky: Essays on the history of monastic life in the Pskov land, M. 1908 p. 527–532; cf. pp. 490–495. For the list of messages, see also the manuscript of the collection of I. D. Belyaev according to the Description of A. E. Viktorov, No. 11. p. 9). See Pavlov's Monuments col. 259, 922 fin. (And the custom of some places required that prosphora guardians not eat meat - ibid. col. 433. Cf. Sgoglav p. 57, 99 fin.). Ibid. col. 138 [See also in the first half of volume 1 pp. 390/459–460 and the first half of volume II p. 71]. Stoglav, chapter 8, Kazan edition p. 86 fin.. From the charter of Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich to the Vladimir Demetrius Cathedral, given in 1515, it is clear that among the peasants of the cathedral there was a special category of bannermen and anglers, that is, persons obliged to wear the banners of the cathedral during religious processions and deliver the coals needed for the cathedral for worship - Acts of the Expedition vol. I, no. 159, p. 129. Due to an oversight, we did not talk about tithes from private patrimonies in the 1st edition of the half-volume and we correct ourselves in the 2nd edition - page 508 fin.. After the Mongol invasion, tribute from everyone because before the Mongol invasion, tithe from everyone, - Volume I, 1 half p. 424. In Western Russia, tithes in the 15th century, - Vostokov Description of the manuscripts of the Rumyantsev Museum p. 178 col. 1 (tenth of the annual income from the estates - the church). From the time we are considering, quite a considerable number of granted tarhan letters have been preserved, given by bishops to parish churches, with which the bishops either completely exempt the clergy of churches from tribute or make it easier for them. But the letters do not give us the information we need. (Amounts of tribute to bishops in the 16th century, - Acts of the Expedition vol. III, No. 109, p. 150, col. 2; - at the beginning of the 17th century - ibid. No. 175, p. 258. For some parishes, bishops eased the tribute, just as some cathedrals did not pay tribute. The great princes also exempted churches and monasteries from tribute to the metropolitan and bishops). Cfr Acts Historical vol. V, no. 172, p. 302 col. 2. Acts of the Expedition vol. IV, no. 195, p. 367 col. 1 (cf. No. 240, p. 514 col. 1. On the salary of the clergy by tribute under Patriarch Nikon, see Solovyov’s History of Russia, vol. XIII, p. 150. On tributes from the clergy and laity, see the Kholmogorovs in Historical materials about churches and villages of the 16th-18th centuries, issues I-XI, see, for example, issue XI, p. 96. They said about Metropolitan Photius that with his tributes he created the whole land (Russian-Lithuanian) - Nikon Chronicle V, 51; therefore, he collected from everyone. In the History of the division of the metropolis under Photius, is there any indication of the metropolitan collecting tributes from the entire clergy (three years later on the fourth)? Lithuania (a trip to Lithuania for the purpose of reconciliation with Vytautas, which ended in robbery), it is clear that the metropolitans also collected tribute in the episcopal dioceses. On a trip to Lithuania in 1411, Photius “collected ordinary tribute” from priests not in his metropolitan diocese, - Gustino Chronicle, Collection of Chronicles II, 353; collected tribute to Smolensk, therefore, in foreign dioceses - Nikon Chronicle V, 53; Collection of Chronicles II, 53; VIII, 87; ↓ See Historical Acts vol. V, no. 172, p. 303 col. 1. See Historical Acts vol. I, no. 129, p. 191; cfr ibid. Vol. V, No. 172 and Acts of the Expedition Vol. IV, No. 95 and No. 240 [Cf. above pp. 54–55 note 2]. (On the imposition of tribute “on arrival” at the beginning of the 17th century, see the Chronicle of the Studies of the Archaeographical Commission, issue 3, department 3, p. 10). If, in the interval between one and the other books, new parishes were opened, then they paid tribute along with those old parishes from which they separated (new parishes were called exhibitions, and old parishes in relation to them - state churches; about exhibitions, see Stoglav, according to the Kazan edition, pp. 63 fin., 373 fin.). That the entrance and tithes were collected by the priests, and not the tithes and riders themselves, see Historical Acts vol. I, no. 142. (The tribute to the bishops was called: the collection under Metropolitan Cyprian, under Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich in 1547, - Historical Acts vol. I, No. 149; “at the council,” - Archimandrite Macarius Description of Nizhny Novgorod Church Antiquities p. 360. Under Metropolitan Macarius, it was collected on the Nativity of Christ, - Legal Acts Kalachova vol. II, 562; in Stoglav on the Nativity of Christ or “for collection”. Tribute to the bishop of the Nativity and Peter, - Acts of the Expedition vol. I, No. 125 and No. 137, the first tribute itself, the second arrival, Acts of the Expedition vol. I, No. 176 (Metropolitan Macarius National and Petrine). Rozhdestvensky), - Acts of the Expedition, vol. I, no. 278, p. 314 col. 2 fin.; ibid. No. 293 and no. 294. Under 1378, metropolitan tribute: tribute from churches, collection, Peter’s and Christmas, - Nikon Chronicle vol. IV, p. 70. Metropolitan Cyprian took from churches - collection and arrival and nothing more, - Acts of the Expedition, vol. I, p. 5 col. 2. In 1626, church tribute is called tithe, - Russian Historical Library, vol. XIV, p. 353). – Two bishops’ tributes are named after the holidays on which they gathered, Christmas and Peter’s Day. That our tribute is precisely Peter’s, this is evident, firstly, from the fact that another tribute, not yet from the holiday on which it was collected, has a different name for the collection, in the contractual document of Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich with Metropolitan Cyprian, it is prescribed to be collected on the Nativity of Christ [see. in the first half of this volume p. 328 ]; secondly, from the fact that we know of such charters in which two bishops' tributes are called not both by their holiday names, but one by a holiday name, and the other by a non-festive name - the national one and the Peter's tribute, from which it is clear that the latter is precisely our tribute, see Acts of the Expedition vol. I, no. 197, p. 176; History of Hierarchy, III, 267 beginning. From our time we have one piece of news about a certain tour by one bishop of his diocese; it was about Archbishop Simeon of Novgorod that it was reported in 1419 that he “traveled around the Korel land in his train,” see Karamzin to vol. V, note 254, col. 110 start. That the tax was collected by the bishops from only priests and deacons without sextons and sextons, this is, firstly, what we are told about the collection of our taxes by the Archbishops of Novgorod in the Pskov region, see below; secondly, this is evident from the fact that the blessed marten duty combined with our tax was levied only on priests and deacons, see also below (Pogost to princes, the same as the entrance to bishops, was paid under Grand Duke Ivan III, Collection of state charters and agreements, vol. I, pp. 387 and 388). Historical Acts vol. I, No. 142 (The entrance and the blessed marten, - Historical Acts I, No. 170, p. 326 col. I (1563); ibid. No. 238 p. 448 col. I (1592); No. 235, p. 450 col. 2 (1592). Under Metropolitan Cyprian 3 money. In 1563, lightly: hryvnia and marten - Historical Acts I, No. 170). The Archbishops of Novgorod in a special way collected their entrance fee from the priests and deacons of Pskov and the Pskov region. They came to Pskov for their so-called monthly or appeal court, three years later on the fourth: during these visits they took their entrance from the priests and deacons of the city and region once in four years. Before the time of Archbishop Gennady, a four-year access tribute was taken, with the inclusion of the blessed marten, so much that each priest and each deacon received five hryvnia, and Archbishop Gennady added 15 money for each priest and deacon, see the letter to the Pskovites of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, dated July 27, 1555, in History Principality of Pskov Metropolitan Eugene, II, 89, XII. (As for the fact that before Archbishop Gennady they took 5 hryvnia for the entrance, the letter does not say this clearly. But this should be concluded from the fact that after Gennady the Pskovites asked for a letter from the tsar - now indicated, which was ordered to take 5 hryvnia, i.e. it is meant to take as much as was taken before Gennady). The same blessed marten was collected from newly appointed priests and deacons in the middle of the 16th century. from everyone in the same amount of hryvnia, see below. How in later times bishops increased the size of fees beyond what was required, see Chistovich Feofan Prokopovich p. 291. Stoglav, chapter 66, Kazan edition p. 292 fin.. Stoglav, chapter 68, Kazan edition p. 308, (309 sqq. According to Stoglav, the treasury of bishops, as well as monasteries, was supposed to be inspected by tsarist officials). [Cm. also in the first half of this volume pp. 368–369]. Our “duty” corresponds to the Greek συνηθεία, about which the stories of Justinian and Ducange in Gloss. Graec. σονηθεία. Stoglav, chapter 41 question 4 and chapter 89, Kazan edition p. 167, (375) and 379 fin.. Vladimir Cathedral 1274 represents our duty as the cliroshan’s own duty, for it prescribes: “let the cliroshans collect 7 hryvnias from the priesthood and from the deaconry, from both.” The Stoglavy Council says that it is levied “for the cathedral” - Chapter 89, Kazan edition p. 379. But on the other hand, we have evidence that represents the bishops themselves taking it, see the messages to Grand Duke Mikhail Yaroslavich of the Patriarch of Constantinople Nile and the Tver monk Akindinus, - in Pavlov’s Monuments No. 16, and the act of the council of 1503, - in the Acts of the Expedition, vol. I, No. 382. (The priests, in addition to paying for initiation, also paid bishops for places, depending on the place - the council of 1503. Demetrius of Rostov has about prostitute duties in “Search”, - 2 parts, chapter 28, protects against schismatics. Payment for installation took away from the bishops Theodosius Yanovsky, - Chistovich Feofan Prokopovich p. 708 fin.. For the charter issued to the deacon of Metropolitan Macarius, see Legal Acts of 1838, No. 386. That in Greece (only in the Patriarchate of Constantinople) they took a fee for ordination (and tried to hide it) - see Patriarch Gennady in the Chronicle of events of Archimandrite Arseny p. 561. About the protest against charging a fee for ordination, raised in Tver by Bishop Andrei - see in the first half of this volume pp. 106-115, 123-125). Stoglav, chapter 41 question 4, Kazan edition p. 167. If a priest who had a transfer or release letter entered the place in the cathedral city itself, then he was brought by parishioners to the bishop and for his blessing he also had to pay the blessed hryvnia - Stoglav, chapter 41 question 14, Kazan edition p. 177. Stoglav, chapter 41 question 4 and chapter 89, Kazan edition pp. 167 and 380. See in the 1st half of the volume, p. 548, about Archbishop Jonah of Novgorod (Epitrachilion charters in the 17th century granted widowed priests the right to serve without liturgy or with liturgy. Charters were given for a certain period - see Legal Acts of 1838, No. 391, p. 415. There is an expression: “letter with service,” page 416, col. 2 beginning; therefore, there were certificates without service). Marten is a gift (in general), - A. S. Pavlova Monuments, col. 903 fin.. See Historical Acts vol. I, no. 231 et seq. Stoglav, chapter 46, Kazan edition pp. 219 and 224 (In the charter of Ivan Vasilyevich known to us in 1488: “three money to the tithe lord of the banner,” - Acts of the Expedition vol. I, No. 23, p. 93 col. 2; and in the charter of Vasily Ivanovich in 1518: “from the banner is given to the metropolitan tithe, from the first wife an altyn, and from a bigamist two altyns, then to him from the seal,” - Historical Acts vol. I, No. 125, p. 184 col. 2). Ibid. p. 218; Wed pp. 52 and 310. See Historical Acts vol. V, to 290, p. 533 beginning. Acts of the Expedition vol. IV, no. 151, p. 298 col. 1 fin.. “Funeral memories of the sudden burial of dead bodies,” – Historical Acts vol. V, no. 290, p. 533 col. 1. Sample of a funeral memory from 1601. see in the Legal Acts of 1838. No. 408. History of the Hierarchy III, 269. Acts of the Expedition vol. IV, no. 151, p. 298 col. 2. – (In addition, there is also a duty for bishops: Moscow courtyard craft, travel to Moscow. Archbishop Sergius of Novgorod in 1484 “many abbots and priests sold and introduced many new duties” (Moscow, extra against Novgorod), – Collection of Chronicles vol. V, p. 41 fin.. In 1495 they wanted to take a military tax from the Pskov priests - Pskov Chronicle vol. I, p. 269). Grozny gave villages (lands) to the Kazan archbishop, - Milyutin On the real estate of the clergy in Russia, note 111 beginning, note 119 p. 59. The Tver archbishop owned the Oleshye region in 1286, - Nikon Chronicle III, 85 (Milyutin note 119). To Novgorod - the city of Molyatitsy, - Milyutin note 241; 1 Novgorodskaya, p. 101 fin.. In 1498. Ivan III gave Zvenigorod to the Sarai bishop Prokhor with all duties, - Milyutin page note 45 fin., cf. note 241. About the fact that Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod should not buy estates, see Acts of the Expedition, vol. I, no. 289, p. 346. For Adam Clement, who was in Russia in 1553, see Milyutin in the essay: On the immovable property of the clergy in Russia, p. 121 fin.. Stoglav, chapter 69, Kazan edition p. 322. Stoglav, chapter 76, Kazan edition p. 344 (Cf. p. 61). Prince Krivoborovsky served with Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod; Prince Obolensky served with Macarius, when he was Archbishop of Novgorod; Kurbsky in his History of Ivan the Terrible says that in Russia many noble men of light families own church estates, serving the bishops [see. above p. 43 and p. 47 notes]. Bishop's servants are prohibited from acquiring estates by the Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. Under Metropolitan Cyprian, the metropolitan boyars did not buy land in the metropolitan volosts, - Acts of the Expedition vol. I, p. 4 fin.. See the 1st half of this volume, p. 662 fin.. (On the wealth of bishops and the poverty of the lower clergy, see the testimony of Petrei in I. I. Sokolov. The attitude of Protestantism to Russia in the 16th and 17th centuries. p. 240. On the income of the patriarchs in 1682, see the manuscripts of I. D. Belyaev according to the Description of D. P. Lebedev p. 93 beginning. - Vassian Patrikeev writes: “the masturbation (whimsical and refined comfort) and decoration of the current bishops who are worthy of confession,” - Orthodox Interlocutor 1863, vol. III, p. 196 beginning. The bishops were from the boyars and feasted and reveled with the boyars like abbots-archimandrites. news of the 18th century (Georgy Dashkov, Archimandrite of the Trinity, etc. See St. Sergius and the Trinity Lavra created by him, M. 1909, 2nd edition, p. 136). modern bishops, - Orthodox Interlocutor 1863, vol. II, p. 564. Serapion of Novgorod was a good bishop, and read about him in the letters of St. Joseph of Volokolamsk to Kutuzov and Tretyakov. – Metropolitans also had a special income: taxes were collected from the clergy of the entire metropolis every 3 years on the 4th (for Metropolitan Alexei they collected from the entire metropolis when he was in Constantinople. See 1 half of Volume I of our History, p. 773 to p. 437). The metropolitans went to Novgorod for the court of appeal after 3 years on the 4th in order to take their three-year quitrent along with court fees. (The Novgorodians, in agreements with Grand Duke Ivan III, agreed that there would be no summons for trial against them (so regarding the bishop: so as not to call the metropolitan to Moscow) - Collection of letters and agreements, vol. I, no. 20; cf. pp. 4, 7, 10, 12, 14. Fees for the monthly court to the metropolitan of Novgorod lords, - ibid. vol. I, No. 20. Metropolitan Cyprian, upon his arrival in Novgorod, demands his trial; but if there were no appellants, as the Novgorodians decided, then he demands some kind of fees associated with the court. See the Degree Book (tribute). connected to the court. Is there a connection between the metropolitan court and the princely black forest? The Grand Duke must come for his court of appeal in three years to the fourth, - Sofia Vremennik (Stroeva) vol. II, p. 182 (Collection of state charters and agreements, vol. I, no. 20, p. 28 col. 2?). Similar orders took place in the East: among the Syrochaldeans, once every three years, all villages, according to the rule, make an offering to the patriarch - Christian Reading for 1898, September, p. 440 [Cf. above p. 55, note 2, p. 55, note 3, and in the first half of this volume pp. 70–71]. M. I. Gorchakov On the land holdings of all-Russian metropolitans, patriarchs and saints. Synod, St. Petersburg, 1871, pp. 48–51. See also Milyutin On the real estate of the clergy in Russia, notes 169, 189, etc., Legal Acts of 1838. No. 12, Ivanova Description of the State Archive of Old Cases, M. 1850. pp. 201 and in the first half of this volume pp. 217, 326–329, 362–363, pp. 412, pp. 557, and pp. 795–800. Kalachov's Legal Acts vol. II, No. 126, V, p. 6. How high the interest rates were in 1489, - Meichik's Letters p. 122. How the bishops were hungry for money - the example of Gennady, Archbishop of Novgorod. The chronicler's review of Patriarch Filaret says that he was not a lover of money. Consequently, the love of money was an extremely remarkable phenomenon. See in the 1st half of this volume p. 663 beginning. That court fees were paid to the kliroshan is evident from the message of the unknown Vladimir bishop to the unknown Grand Duke, the son of Alexander Nevsky, which says: “the prince and boyars cannot intercede in the (episcopal) courts..., then it was given by the kliroshan for needs”..., in Pavlov’s Monuments col. 118. In later times (in Moscow) antimensions were issued and city cathedrals collected a fee for them; but, judging by the later Kyiv orders, it must be thought that the transfer of antimensions and duties for them to the councils took place after the presbyteral choirs disappeared under the (Moscow) bishops. – Judging by what happened later, it must be assumed that it was necessary to invite representatives from the choir to the consecration of the churches closest to the cathedral cities, and that they collected a certain fee for the choir. According to the law of law of Ivan Vasilyevich III in the princely court, it is supposed to take the guilty from a ruble case: two altyns for the judge, eight money for the clerk, - Historical Acts vol. I, No. 106, p. 148 col. 2 fin.; according to the code of law of Ivan Vasilyevich IV: for the judge - eleven money, for the clerk - seven money, for the clerk - two money, - ibid. page 221 col. 2 start. (It is not clear who the tiun gets his share with - the judge or the clerk). Acts of the Expedition vol. I, no. 92, p. 69 col. 2 fin.. Stoglav, chapter 69, Kazan edition p. 321. Stoglav, chapter 69, Kazan edition p. 325 fin.. They shouldn’t travel with people of one size, - Stoglav Kazan edition p. 320 [A person of one size is a farmer who has one howl, one share of the land]. Stoglav, chapter 41, question-answer 4, Kazan edition 167 fin. (On the duty on new commemorations for sextons, sextons and mallow makers, see Historical Acts vol. V, No. 290; on the new hryvnia - Acts of the Expedition vol. IV, No. 151; on transferable letters - Mandate 97). Acts Historical vol. I, V 231 ff (inscriptions at the ends of the letters). [Cm. also in the first half of this volume the resolution of the council of 1503. p. 616]. Acts Historical vol. I No. 234 and No. 235; Legal acts of 1838 No. 221, V; History of the Hierarchy III, 263 (and 268; in the Novgorod diocese in 1592 - four altyns: Historical Acts above, and in 1580 - “according to old times, according to calculation”: ibid. No. 208, p. 399 col. 2. See also Acts of the Expedition vol. I, No. 197 and No. 278; vol. IV, Nos. 125, 240 and 293; it is also the payment duty, ibid. No. 195, Legal Acts 1838, No. 222, p. 238 col.). Legal acts of 1838 No. 221, IV, p. 238. About the travel food of the governors, - Acts of the Expedition vol. I, No. 37, p. 29; Wed I. I. Sreznevsky has the word low water in the Dictionary. See charter charter of Belozerstsy Ivan Vasilyevich III, 1488, in the Acts of the Expedition, vol. I, no. 123, p. 92. Stoglav, chapter 5, question 7, Kazan edition p. 53 (Beer is brewed for the tithes for their passages, - Acts of Western Russia vol. I, no. 71, p. 88, col. 2. The Venerable Joseph of Volokolamsk in his letter to Tretyakov does not hesitate to boast that he bullied the archbishop's tithes; see Khrushchov in his study of the Venerable Joseph, p. 208. The fight with the priests of the titheman under Metropolitan John, - Historical Acts vol. I, No. 50 (even then the tithemen were disgusting; the behavior of Metropolitan Jonah). Boyar serfs-bloodsuckers, - Collection of chronicles, vol. IV, 154; the same and bishop's serfs (tithes, etc.). For tithe incomes in the 17th century, see Russian Historical Library, vol. XIV, p. 376. And the city governors asked for food - Supplement to the Historical Acts vol. XII, p. 373). On the responsibility of bishops for their officials, see the opinion of Gennady Archbishop of Novgorod at the end of the letter to Joasaph, Archbishop of Rostov (an ax cannot cut without a cleaver). In Greece, the number of spiritual and secular officials for the bishops was determined so that the bishops, to the burden of the parish clergy, would not have too many of them. See my Brief Essay on the History of the Slavic Churches, page 259 (Chrisovul). Παροικος in the sense of the bishop’s houseman, living at his house (“servants and boyar children”). Stoglav, chapter 68, Kazan edition p. 308. In one Novgorod charter of 1543. it is made known that tithe-keepers traveled around the tithes on no less than ten horses - Historical Acts vol. I, no. 142, p. 208 col. 1. If we assume one-horse carts and put two people on each, we get only twenty people, and if we assume two-horse carts and put three people on each, we get fifteen people. Under Metropolitan Jonah, governors toured the tithes with crowds of nobles, see Pavlov’s Monuments, No. 70, col. 573. See the document in History of the Hierarchy, V, 408. The following are mentioned: marten with quitrent and Danish duties, but to whom they went remains unknown to us. Acts of the Expedition vol. III, no. 89, p. 123 col. 2. Historical Acts vol. I, no. 236, p. 453 (inscription at the end of the document). [Wed. resolutions of the council of 1503 in the first half of this volume p. 616]. Was it not the case that the patrimonial people were the patrons of the churches in their fiefdoms? The great and appanage princes were ktitors of all churches in state-owned areas, because candidates for priests were chosen by their butlers (Stoglav); later, in Poland the sovereign is the ktitor of all such churches. About the priests at the house churches of the boyars - Code of Law of the Terrible § 88: there is no time for an elderly priest (there is no time limit for living), and he is free to go out indefinitely. Charters of hand, - Historical Acts vol. I, No. 128, p. 190. The sovereigns first gave arms to the churches they themselves built, and then they began to give money to their friends and poor churches in general. The abuse also went to the side priests. Those who set up chapels for churches assigned priests their friends, - Stoglav according to the Kazan edition, p. 70 (p. 130 they were given a friend from the Tsar), because the income from the parish went to the priests of the main church. According to Herberstein, parishioners of some churches gave church money in interest and, from the resulting interest, paid other priests - in the Religio department, according to the Antwerp edition of 1557. sheet 31, translation by Anonimov, page 47. In the contract document of the parishioners of one village with a sexton who came to them, dated 1673, it is decreed: “It is against him (the sexton) to collect onion rye from us, as before, half an arrogant (ka?) from the onion,” - Legal Acts of 1838. No. 285, p. 291 col. 2; in the same contractual document also with the sexton, 1682, it is decreed: “to collect onion grain from us parish people in the old days, with the same baskets as the previous sextons, and in addition to the grain grain, he (the sexton) will collect from us two requests - Peter’s and the autumn, who will give what,” - ibid. No. 286, p. 292 col. 2. Onion - some unknown size measure of arable land, cfr in Sreznevsky’s Dictionary this word (cf. Lokhvitsky [A.V. Essay on church administration in ancient Russia, - in the Russian Bulletin for 1857, vol. VII] pp. 227 and 228). See Nevolin’s study On the Pyatina and Churchyards of Novgorod for extracts from the Scribe Books, appendices pp. 103 fin., 106, 107, 109, 112 and others: “the clergy plow the church arable land for themselves in the place that sang.” Cfr in the Legal Acts 1838 No. 286 fin. (Cf. Stoglav according to the Kazan edition, p. 330 beginning). See Nevolin ibid. in the same extracts from the same Scribe books, appendices pp. 33, 39, 153, 200, 202. (Some clergy settled on the black land in order to have land, if the parishioners did not give it or there was little of it, that is, they took on taxes in order to pay the rent). The Regulations of Peter the Great, which are very recent in our time, make it clear that not all rural churches had land (for the maintenance of students in schools, take a 30th share of bread from church lands, “where the essence is”; parishioners who have elected a candidate for priest to their church must write in petitions to the bishops, “what kind of abuse or land will he have”). In later times, we find a considerable number of rural parish churches that had peasants, see the Statement of how many, according to the 1700 census books, there were monasteries and the spiritual department of peasant households in general, printed in the Description of the state archive of old affairs by P. Ivanov (Moscow, 1850), p. 344 sqq. But regarding most of the churches, behind which there were peasant households one to three at a time, one must think that they received their few peasants from the landowners already while the first ones became serfs; and regarding the not too many churches, behind which we find ten to twenty peasant households, in all likelihood we must think that they were closed monasteries, from which they inherited estates. (In the first quarter of the 18th century in the Novgorod diocese there were 41,594 peasants behind the monasteries, and 315 souls behind the parish churches, - Chistovich Feofan Prokopovich p. 644 fin.. The parish priests judged the peasants who belonged to the churches). With the constant transition of priests from place to place, their houses near churches had to be ecclesiastical (secular). Stoglav, chapter 31, Kazan edition p. 72 (and 409. Some mosques in Cairo have public baths from which they derive income, - Brem II, 124 beginning. The Church of Ivan the Baptist on Opoki in Novgorod was given the weight of some goods, - Acts of the Expedition vol. I, No. 282, p. 324. It was a convivial merchant. Company of merchants created an income for its maintenance in such a way that the goods that it (the company) traded obliged its members to hang on the scales of the church so that it would be more weighty.). The foreigner Herberstein asserts this in a positive way; he says: certe non multae parochiae repiuntur, praediis ac possessionibus dotatae, exceptis episcopatibus et quibusdam monasteriis, - in the department of Religio, according to the Antwerp edition of 1557. sheet 31; translation by Anonimov p. 47. From the above-mentioned statement for the year 1700 we learn that the only cathedral that owned a relatively good estate was the Moscow Archangel Cathedral, which constituted the tomb of the sovereigns; in our year there were 413 households behind it. Next comes the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, behind which there were 269 courtyards, and the Suzdal Cathedral, behind which there were 162 courtyards. Then there were few cathedrals, behind which there were courtyards from 70 to 90. (On the estates given to the cathedrals by Tsars Ivan the Terrible, Boris Godunov and Vasily Shuisky, see Milyutin On the immovable property of the clergy, note 264; on the estates of parish churches - ibid. p. 154; on priests - votchinniki - ibid. p. 157 beginning. Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich in 1518 gave the Chukhloma Church of St. Nicholas a village with the right to judge the peasants and the clergy, - Acts of the Expedition vol. III, No. 95 (from Milyutin, p. 45 fin., cf. notes 159, 167). priests of the Ustyug Cathedral 2 villages, - Charters of the XIV and XV centuries, D. M. Meichik, p. 100, No. II. Cathedral clergy owned estates separately from the bishops - Anania Fedorov about Suzdal in Vremennik book XXII, p. 48. If certain annexes of estates were made to the secular cathedral churches, it was precisely because among the secular churches they were churches specially commemorated. See Historical Acts vol. V, no. 172, p. 301 (cf. p. 200), and in the Description of documents and affairs of St. Synod vol. I, appendix no. 33, col. 320. (About church elders in Pskov, see Description of the Synodal Manuscripts of Gorsky and Nevostruev, department 3, part 1, No. 419, p. 473 (two elders). In Pskov, parishioners themselves should be in charge of church estates, - Collection of Laws vol. VIII, No. 5574, p. 293 (June 9, 1730). About Western church Vogts (Vogten) cfr Gieseler II / 2, 298 and especially in Ducange in Gloss. Latinit. Advocati Ecclesiarum I, p. 178. On church estates in Pskov, see A. S. Pavlov in the History of the secularization of church property pp. 16, 18, 27. Pskov order in the management of parish property estates are reminiscent of southwestern brotherhoods. Is there no affinity? Where were secular churches that belonged to the whole world, and not private ones, everywhere the world was the owner of the property of churches? And where were private ones, were there private people? In the 17th and 18th centuries, church elders were called church clerks, - Readings of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities, book II, Materials for the history of the Arkhangelsk diocese. pp. 2, 3, 5, 10 and 11; – elder, pp. 3 fin., 12; – church builders, – pp. 13 fin.. [See. also in the first half of this volume pp. 329, pp. 525–527, pp. 545]. “Church wealth is the wealth of the poor.” This is what Zonara and Balsamon say in their interpretation of the 59th Apostolic Canon, in Ralli and P., II, 76 and 77; in Nikonovskaya Kormcha, sheet 17. See also Ducange in Gloss. Graecit. under the word Πτωχικὰ, col. 1271 fin.. (Zonara in the interpretation of the 4th rule of the Council of Chalcedon, - in Ralli and P. - II, 227 fin.; Zonara and Balsamon on the 14th rule of the Neocaesarea Council, - in Ralli and P. III, 92–93). In N.V. Kalachov About the Helmsman p. 122. If the first-founded cathedrals had parishes, then it will be necessary to present the matter in such a way that they were assigned a double scolding - from the parishioners and from the government, which is what we are talking about now. (In Novgorod, cathedral priests received a “celebratory allowance” for services in parish churches, see above, pp. 81–82). Commemoration took place in cathedrals because they held daily services; then, if there were more orders, it was distributed to churches (then in Moscow - Tiunskaya Izba). (Stoglav according to the Kazan edition p. 310 fin.). In the half of the 17th century. The Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral received a duty from the prosphoropes (we don’t know whether it was annual or collected from them only at the first appointment to the place, and we also don’t know whether from the prosphoropes of the entire Novgorod district or just the city itself) - Acts of the Expedition vol. III, No. 306, p. 453 col. 1 start. There has been no news regarding duties on prosphora stores in other places. 7 Ecumenical Council rule 17; Council of Carthage, rule 19. (On freedom from state taxes of the later Greek clergy in Ralli and P., II, 570 (interpretation of the 4th rule of the ecumenical council), Martigny p. 159 col. 1, § 2). Stoglav, chapter 45, Kazan edition p. 217. Stoglav, chapter 47, Kazan edition pp. 221 and 417. Stoglav, chapter 45, Kazan edition p. 216; Wed pp. 51 and 211. Stoglav chapter 5, questions 31 and 97, Kazan edition pp. 71 and 408: in question 31, by the way, it reads: ... “After my mother, until my age, many monasteries received charters throughout the years to give alms for future use in their friends, and other monasteries and churches, many parishes, again at the same time, received charters for a friend from the treasury; and those monasteries villages have other incomes, and parish churches have a street in the parish (option: parish courtyards), and others have villages, and vegetable gardens, and orchards, and harvests, and other duties, and underground shops, and in those days they arranged for themselves from the treasury. The Council decided: “And about this you, sovereign, pious Tsar, order it known to search: ... according to which the monastery will be in large and small and poor places, your father, the ever-memorable Sovereign, Great Prince Vasily Ivanovich of All Russia, gave alms for use, and to you the Tsar and now in those monasteries for the same reason give alms for use. And according to which your father gave alms to the monastery as an order, those monasteries will have villages and income and can live with them without that curse, and then in your royal will and date and set aside. And according to which your father gave alms to the monasteries and churches in poor places in order, and from you the king received all those many letters that giving alms will be of use, and you, the Tsar Sovereign, and order to search for it, it is known: with which it will be possible for the poor monastery and churches to live without that rug, and then the sovereign is in your royal will; and it will be impossible for the wretched monastery and holy churches to live without your wrath in the future, and you, the pious king, will worthily and righteously grant such. And other wretched monasteries and places and holy churches, having no help from anywhere, should be organized into their Christ-loving kingdom. And those temporary priests and deacons this summer brought their priests and deacons to the cathedrals, and gave them abuse and alms from your royal treasury without your royal knowledge, and leave all those priests and deacons, and do not give them royal abuse, and do not let them sit at their tables, and live for them and pray to God in the old way at your churches.” (The boyars and their favorites not only served the priests of their parishes with ruga, but also joined them to the cathedrals - p. 411 sub fin.; the latter should be understood to mean that they joined the cathedrals regarding the collection of fees for the royal prayer services and royal memorial services and regarding going to the royal health and memorial tables, which in Moscow were arranged by the tsar himself, and in other cities - local butlers).[Cf. in the first half of this volume p. 799]. You might be interested in: