A guess about the origin of the ancient Russian legend, which calls the first Russian metropolitan Mikhail the Syrian

In the Xth book of “Readings in the Historical Society of Nestor the Chronicler” there is an article: “On the question of the 12th century Kiev metropolitan Michael.” This article, signed with the initials P.L., by the way, summarizes opinions on the question of the actual existence of another Russian Metropolitan Michael, who in the well-known chronicle of the 16th century, the so-called. The Degree Book appears to be the first Russian metropolitan, a contemporary of St. Vladimir (pp. 7–13). The essence of the opinions hitherto expressed on this last issue boils down to the following provisions: 1) a number of Russian metropolitans, undoubtedly, begins with Leon, or Leonty, named in a completely reliable source - in the first Novgorod Chronicle; but 2) in this chronicle, the news about Metropolitan Leon was subsequently (no later than the 13th century) distorted by the addition that he was sent to Rus' by Patriarch Photius, who died 100 years before the baptism of Vladimir; 3) the name of Metropolitan Michael, instead of Leonty, appeared in the Degree Book simply due to a misunderstanding by the compiler of this chronicle. And the misunderstanding, according to the witty explanation of Professor E.E. Golubinsky, happened in this way: our ancestors, apparently, knew in the Slavic translation the circular message of Patriarch Photius (about the errors of the Latins). This message, by the way, conveys the news of the contemporary baptism of the Russians, who, according to the patriarch, showed themselves to be so devoted to the Christian faith that they accepted the bishop. Greek chroniclers, notes Prof. Golubinsky, is not called by the name of the bishop sent by Photius to his contemporary Russes, but in the Slavic legends themselves, referring to Zonara and Kuropalat or Skylitzes, we do not know on what basis he is called Metropolitan Michael. Then, citing the authentic words of the Gustyn Chronicle about this metropolitan, prof. Golubinsky notes: this legend “clearly states that Metropolitan Michael was sent by the Russians from Patriarch Photius not under Vladimir, but much earlier; but the compiler of the Degree Book chose to believe the Novgorod Chronicle and the monuments repeating it (by the way, the charter of Vladimir), i.e. attributed the sending of the first metropolitan to Rus', under St. Vladimir, Patriarch Photius, but called this metropolitan, according to another source, Michael, and not Leon” 1. What source is this? Of course, not the Gustine Chronicle, which is almost a whole century younger than the Degree Book 2. Moreover, in this chronicle, Metropolitan Michael, sent to Rus' by Patriarch Photius, clearly differs from Metropolitan Michael, sent to us under St. Vladimir by another patriarch - Nicholas (Chrisoverg) 3. Thus, the above considerations of the venerable historian of our church, although they sufficiently explain the origin of the anachronism of the Novgorod and other chronicles, presenting Patriarch Photius as a contemporary of St. Vladimir, but, according to the direct statement of the author himself, they do not give anything to resolve the question of the origin and original written source of the legend, on the basis of which the Degree Book, the Gustyn Chronicle and other monuments call the first Russian metropolitan (under Vladimir) Michael. We offer the following guess to resolve this issue. In the initial chronicle, under 988, there is a text of a confession of faith, allegedly taught to Vladimir, at his baptism in Korsun, by the local bishop, whom the chronicle does not name. The author of this confession is now known: this is Michael Syncellus 4, presbyter of Jerusalem. But he, without a doubt, was known to our literary ancestors, since his confession of faith in the same Slavic translation in which it is read in the chronicle is also found in the Izbornik of Svyatoslav of 1073 with the exact designation of the name of its author: “Mikhail Sunkel of Jerusalem writing about the right faith” (l. 20). When the identity of this “writing” with the confession of faith placed in the chronicle was noticed, then it was natural to come to the idea that Michael Syncellus is one person with the hierarch who baptized Prince Vladimir and taught him the right faith. And since already at the time of the initial Kyiv chronicler there were different legends about the place of Vladimir’s baptism: according to some, he was baptized in Korsun (which the chronicler believes), according to others - in Kyiv, according to others - in Vasiliev - then it is not surprising if, in the ideas of people who adhered to the last two legends, Michael, the former syncell of Jerusalem, turned into the first Russian metropolitan, the baptist of the prince Vladimir and all of Kievan Rus. Our guess is to some extent facilitated by the mysterious circumstance that Michael Sincellus of Jerusalem in Russian tradition received the nickname Sirin (i.e. Syrian): Syria and Palestine are adjacent countries and both were then under the rule of the Baghdad caliphs (in Syria). Therefore, a native of Jerusalem, such as Michael Syncellus, according to the direct evidence of his biography (as a confessor of icon veneration, he was canonized by the Eastern Church 5), could receive the nickname Sirin in the language of our ancestors 6. The genetic connection we establish between the legend about the first Russian Metropolitan Michael and the confession of faith placed in the initial chronicle, which was supposedly taught to Vladimir by his baptists, nowhere appears with such clarity as in the southern Russian edition of the monument known under the name of the church charter of St. Vladimir. In this edition we read: “Behold, Prince Vladimir, ... received holy baptism, enlightened in soul and body, ... and glorified God, for I was worthy to receive such grace by the Right Reverend Metropolitan Michael, and took his first metropolitan, ... with him I baptized the entire Russian land. Then the entire metropolitan spoke with words about the Christian faith, and how the holy fathers established the faith in all councils” 7. The last words directly point to the chronicle as their source: they contain an abbreviated summary of the legend of the seven ecumenical councils, which ends the mentioned confession of faith. But when did the revision of the Vladimirov Charter that concerns us take place? The closest basis for resolving this issue is provided by two handwritten southern Russian Kormchias, which contain the older lists of this edition. True, these Helmsmen themselves, according to the letter, belong to the 16th century; but they preserved the afterword of their original, written in 1286 for the Volyn prince Vladimir Vasilkovich 8. In both Kormcha there are two identical lists of the Vladimirov Charter: one is placed after the rules of the Seventh Ecumenical Council and constitutes the 16th chapter of the entire book, the other stands almost at the very end, after the mentioned afterword of the Kormcha of 1286, and is not included in the count of chapters 9. Already this position of both lists makes it clear that the first of them belonged to the composition of the original Helmsman of Vladimir Vasilkovich, and the latter is an addition of later copyists of this Helmsman, who probably already made copies from copies. Thus, the origin of the southern Russian edition of the Vladimirov Charter and, therefore, the oldest written evidence of the existence of a tradition in our country, according to which Michael was considered the first Russian metropolitan, can most likely be attributed to the first half of the 13th century. Even before the appearance of the Degree Book, this legend in northern Russian chronographs was combined with the news of the Novgorod Chronicle about Leonty as the first Russian metropolitan, and the contradiction in evidence from both sources was eliminated so that Metropolitan Michael was placed in first place, and Leonty in second. The chronographs speak about the first under the year 988, and about the second under the year 991, repeating the well-known anachronism of their source: “In the summer of 6499, Vladimir was taken from Patriarch Photius by Metropolitan Leontius of Kiev” 10. Golubinsky, History of Russian. churches, vol. I, floors. 1, pp. 243–244 Full collection letop, vol. II, p. 232 (preface by publishers) Ibid., p. 256; Wed page 251 (under 987) Michael Sincellus was a contemporary of Theodore the Studite and his associate in the struggle for icon veneration during the reign of Emperor Theophilus (829–842). A letter from St. Theodra to Michael, Syncellus of Jerusalem (Migne, “Patre bog. graec.”, t. 99, p. 1640 et seq.). The Greek text of the life of Michael Syncellus in one copy of the 11th century begins with the words: πόλεως ‛Ιερονσαλήμ. See Papadopoulo Keramevsa, Catalog of Greek. manuscripts of the Jerusalem Patriarchal Library, vol. II, p. 319. “This is probably for some reason, which, however, we cannot currently indicate,” notes Prof. Golubinsky about this mysterious nickname (cited. Works, p. 245, note 1). This edition of the Vladimirov Charter was published in the History of Rus. Church of the Reverend Macarius, vol. I, ed. 2, pp. 282–284. For details about these Helmsmen and their original, see my essay: “Imaginary traces of Catholic influence in the most ancient monuments of South Slavic and Russian law.” Moscow, 1892, pp. 131 et seq. All chapters in both Helmsmen are counted as 68. Behind the latter is the above-mentioned afterword by the Helmsman of 1286. See A. Popova, Collection of Slavic and Russian articles included in the chronographs of the Russian edition. Moscow, 1869, p. 9. You might be interested in: