Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Russia. Device in Southwestern Russia

After the death of Theodore, Prince Rostislav made an attempt to return Clement to Kyiv, but the patriarch again sent his protege, disregarding the desire of the Grand Duke. At the "petition" of the Byzantine emperor himself, the prince received Metropolitan John (1164), but firmly declared that he was resigning himself to this state of affairs for the last time. Thus, the turmoil that began with the appointment of Kliment Smolyatich ended with the victory of the Greeks. John IV was followed by Constantine II.

The successors of Constantine II were Nicephorus II (before 1183 after 1198), Matthew (12001220), Cyril I (1224) and Joseph (1236). It is known about Nikifor that he tried to initiate the reconquest of Galich, captured by the Hungarians. Matthew acted as an intermediary in the dispute between the Chernigov princes and Vsevolod the Big Nest. The time of Metropolitan Joseph's stay in Russia coincided with the beginning of the Mongol-Tatar invasion. This metropolitan went missing during the devastation of Kyiv by Batu

In 1375 he appointed Cyprian, Metropolitan of Kyiv and Lithuania, who enjoyed his unlimited confidence. After the death of Alexy, Cyprian was to lead the entire Russian Church as Metropolitan of Kyiv and Russia. This decision caused discontent in Moscow. Metropolitan Alexy himself saw as his successor

Pimen, one of the archimandrites accompanying him, used the documents with the prince's seal and received the metropolitan rank from the patriarch. At first, the Moscow prince was outraged by such an act and did not accept Pimen. However, not finding mutual understanding with Cyprian, he called Pimen to Moscow for the metropolis. At the same time, Dmitry Ivanovich again equipped an embassy in Constantinople, wishing to see his protege Dionysius on the metropolitan table.

This applicant was also unlucky. Returning from Constantinople, Dionysius was captured by the Kyiv prince Vladimir Olgerdovich and died in captivity.

After the death of Gerontius, the metropolitan was absent from Moscow for almost a year and a half. Metropolitan Zosima took the chair in 1490, and in 1494 he was removed from the chair. Zosima was replaced by Simon (14951511). During the time of the shepherding of Zosima and Simon, there were church councils for heretics, which led to a series of executions of dissidents. Metropolitan Simon left Varlaam as his successor, but this candidacy did not suit Grand Duke Vasily III. He imprisoned Varlaam in a monastery and chose the metropolitan himself. They became Daniel, who ruled the metropolis until 1539.

Two years later (1589), Boris Godunov made Job a patriarch, having obtained from Constantinople the establishment of a patriarchate in Russia.

In the XIV century, for the first time in ancient Russian literary practice, a hierarch's life was created. This is a hagiobiography of Metropolitan Peter, an outstanding church leader who contributed to the rise of Moscow among other Russian cities.

Peter became Metropolitan in 1305. And despite the fact that his candidacy was proposed by the Galician Grand Duke Yuri Lvovich, almost immediately after his initiation in Constantinople he went to North-Eastern Russia. Here he, being involved in the struggle between the princes Mikhail Yaroslavich of Tver and Yuri Danilovich of Moscow for the great reign, took the side of Moscow. This is probably why, and also due to the fact that the henchman of the Tver prince Georgy did not receive the metropolia, Peter was accused by the Tver bishop Andrei of the sin of bribery. On this occasion, in 1310 or 1311, a Council was held in Pereyaslavl-Zalessky, at which most of the clergy opposed Peter, but with the support of Moscow Prince Ivan Danilovich Kalita, he was acquitted. In 1313, Peter was honorably received in the Golden Horde, where he received confirmation of the old benefits for the clergy, as well as a new one, namely the right of the metropolitan court over all church people in all cases, not excluding criminal ones. Throughout his primacy, Peter consistently took the side of the Moscow princes in their struggle with the Tver princes. Moreover, in the 20s of the XIV century, he gradually moved to Moscow, and not long before his death announced that he wanted to be buried in Moscow. With his blessing, in August 1325, Prince Ivan Danilovich laid the Assumption Cathedral in the Kremlin, similar to the Vladimir Church of the Assumption of the Blessed Mother of God. However, Peter was not destined to consecrate this cathedral. On December 21, 1326, he died. Very soon, miracles of healing began to take place at his tomb, so that already at the beginning of 1327, at the initiative of Ivan Danilovich of Moscow, Metropolitan Peter was locally glorified as a saint.

Undoubtedly, in connection with this act, the first biography of St. Peter was compiled. According to V. O. Klyuchevsky, this happened no later than August 1, 1327 - the day of the consecration of the Assumption Cathedral in the Kremlin. The life was written by Bishop Prokhor of Rostov, a protege of the Metropolitan. His name is indicated in the title to some lists of works: "The Repose of Peter, Metropolitan of All Russia; and here is a reading for him, the creation of Prokhor, Bishop of Rostov." At the end of the text, it is also said about the participation of Ivan Kalita in this matter: "Prince Ivan, having written those miracles, sent an ambassador to the city of Volodymyr to the holy cathedral ...". Subsequently, on the occasion of the all-Russian canonization of St. Peter in 1339, it was partly revised. So, based on the work of Prochorus, the original edition of the Life was compiled, known from the lists starting from the 15th century.

This work is written in a new relatively literary manner: very simply, concisely, without any verbal intricacies. At first, Prokhor says that Peter was born from "a peasant parent." At the same time, he notes that before the birth of Peter, his mother had a wonderful dream about him. Then Prokhor briefly talks about Peter's childhood, youth and monastic life. In more detail, Prokhor dwells on the appointment of Peter as metropolitan, while he also notes the facts of the miraculous. So, the Holy Mother of God herself helped him, and Patriarch Athanasius foresaw by the fragrance in the church that it was Peter who was overshadowed by the grace of God. Prokhor also writes in detail about the trial of Peter in Pereyaslavl, and he lays the blame for this trial on Bishop Andrei of Tver, whom the devil put in his heart to send blasphemy against Peter to the Patriarch of Constantinople. Prokhor attributes the transfer of the metropolitanate from the city of Vladimir to Moscow by Peter himself: having gone around many cities, he saw that it was this city that was "clean with meekness in humility, called Moscow." The "Life" tells in detail about the death and burial of Peter and his posthumous miracles, in particular, about the appearance to a certain infidel, as if Peter, during the funeral procession, sitting on his bed, blessed the whole people. "So God glorify the land of Suzhdal with such a saint, and a city called Moscow, and the blessed Prince John, and his princess, and his children ..."

In artistic terms, this original biography of Metropolitan Peter is undoubtedly inferior to many literary works of the 11th-12th centuries. However, from an ideological point of view, it is remarkable that it reflected the fact of the actual transformation of Moscow from the capital of a small principality into an all-Russian national center: talking about the first Moscow saint, the Life also tells about the Moscow prince Ivan Kalita.

This ideological beginning of the Life was subsequently greatly developed by Metropolitan Cyprian, who twice turned to its plot and created two new literary works on the theme of the life of St. Peter.

Metropolitan Cyprian lived in a completely different era, when Moscow, especially after the victory over the Horde on the Kulikovo field, had already firmly secured the role of the political and spiritual center of Russia. Probably, then an urgent need arose among the people to express feelings of gratitude to the patron saint of Moscow. One must also think that Cyprian, embarking on the revision of the original edition of the Life of Peter, was also guided by personal motives, for, undoubtedly, he saw in the life of his predecessor many parallels to his own fate.

Originally from Bulgaria, Cyprian, before his arrival in Russia, was first a resident of the Studion Monastery, and then asceticized on Mount Athos. In December 1375, Patriarch Filofei Kokkin of Constantinople ordained him Metropolitan of Lithuania and Lesser Russia, moreover, under the still living Russian Metropolitan Alexy. This caused dissatisfaction with the Moscow prince Dmitry Ivanovich, who had his protege - Archimandrite of the Spassky Monastery Mikhail-Mitya. In the summer of 1378, after the death of Alexy, Cyprian tried to take the primatial throne in Moscow, but the prince did not allow it. Then, in 1380 in Constantinople, after the unexpected death of Mityai, the little-known Pimen was elected metropolitan of all Russia, so Cyprian had to be content with his former title. However, in Lithuania, he diplomatically contributed to the victory of Dimitri Ivanovich over Mamai in the summer of 1380, besides, he found support in Moscow from the most authoritative church figures - the spiritual inspirers of the struggle for the unification of Russia and its liberation from the Horde dependence, Sergius of Radonezh and Theodore Simonovsky. Therefore, in May 1381, he was nevertheless called to Moscow, but not for long: after the invasion of Tokhtamysh, during which Cyprian showed cowardice, the prince removed him and sent his new protege, Bishop Dionysius of Suzdal, to Constantinople. The latter was dedicated to the primate of the Russian Church. But he never returned home: in the spring of 1384 he was seized in Kyiv, where the disgraced Cyprian was, and killed in captivity. In Moscow, Pimen remained as metropolitan. Only after the death of Demetrius Donskoy, under his son Prince Vasily, in March 1390, Cyprian finally firmly settled in Moscow as the Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Russia. In this capacity, he lived his last sixteen years.

So, Cyprian's appeal to the life of St. Peter was not accidental. He realized himself as his successor and considered him his patron. Reworking the original version of the hagiobiography, Cyprian significantly enriched it with new facts and gave it a completely new sound. Most likely, Cyprian undertook this work during his first stay in Moscow. As a result, a new text appeared: "The month of December on the 21st day. Life and life and a small confession from miracles like in the saints of our father Peter, Archbishop of Kiev and All Russia. Written off by Cyprian the mere Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia." A large number of lists of this monument have been preserved, with the earliest being subsidized by the end of the 14th century.

He prefaced the biography of Peter with his own introduction, in which, reflecting on the righteous, he recalls the words of the Psalmist: "The righteous live forever, and from the Lord their reward and their building from the Most High." To the praised righteous man, people will rejoice. The righteous are to be glorified. Realizing his weakness, Cyprian, however, proceeds to a difficult task for him - a story about one of these righteous people. Complementing the information about Peter's childhood years, he gives details about his studies: it turns out that at first the lad studied without desire and success, which greatly saddened his parents. But one day a certain man in clergyman's robes appeared to him in a dream. He touched his tongue with his right hand and blessed the lad. After that, Peter quickly excelled in his studies.

Cyprian paid much attention to the monastic labors of Peter, emphasizing his virtue: “in the monastery, he is always a mentor in everything obedient and brethren without laziness, serving not like a man, but like God himself. and silence." Therefore, by reasoning as a mentor, he was ordained first to the rank of deacon, and then to the rank of priest. Cyprian precedes the story about the foundation of the Ratsky monastery by Peter with the remark: "It is not worthy of such a person to even go through the entire degree and then sit on the teacher's seat."

In the story about the icon-painting activity of Peter Cyprian, he introduced a description of this creative process: "The custom is in many ways: as if he always remembers his beloved face, Abie turns from love to tears. . It is possible that Cyprian personally saw, knew and highly appreciated the original works of Peter and among them, perhaps, the image of the Virgin, presented to Metropolitan Maxim. In any case, he tells in detail how the icon was created, how hegumen Peter presented it to Metropolitan Maximus when he met him, and how delighted the saint was at this gift.

In contrast to the original version of the Life, Cyprian tells in detail about the appointment of hegumen Peter to the metropolitan. At the same time, he emphasizes that during the time of the ascetic, the land of Volyn was glorious and rich. Not only the Prince of Volyn, but the whole country knew about the virtue of Peter. Cyprian also reports on the desire of the Volhynian prince to create an independent Galician-Volhynian metropolis and about his conversations about this with Peter: him." Secretly from the ascetic, he wrote to Constantinople about his desire to see the Father Superior of Rat on the holy throne.

Remembering the rival of Peter Gerontia, Cyprian cannot restrain his indignation: “But Gerontia, someone, the hegumen, dares to indignity, even though the rank of hierarchship, not knowing, as if “every gift is made from above is, descending from God, the Father with light!”. By sea to Constantinople. But for Gerontius, the journey turns into a test. Cyprian very figuratively describes the storm in which he fell: And resisting the wind from the nose of the ship defied, and I need a great ship and creator, and the waves are great moving. For Petrov, a certain ship is quiet and cold, like a marshmallow, and the wind is good."

The new Life tells much more about Peter's conflict with Bishop Andrei of Tver, first of all, about the Pereyaslav Cathedral. At the same time, Cyprian gives a caustic characterization of the Bishop of Tver: "It is easy for being with the mind, and the lightest with the mind." Introduces Peter's response speech into the text, in which he proposes to the council to depose him, so that the excitement that has arisen will calm down: "depend on me, and the rumor will subside from you!"

Cyprian also tells in more detail about the attitude of the metropolitan towards Moscow and the Moscow prince: Peter came to Moscow more often than to other places, here, on his initiative, the Assumption Cathedral was founded. At the same time, the hagiographer, in contrast to the original version, reproduces Peter’s prophetic speech about the future of Moscow to the prince: “If you listen to me, son, and raise the temple of the Most Holy Theotokos in your city, and you yourself will be glorified more than other princes, and sons, and bring you into childbirth, and the city will be glorious in all the cities of Russia, and the saints will live in it, and "his hands will rise on the splash of his enemy," and God will be glorified in it. And my bones will also be placed in it.

Further, Cyprian supplements the information from the original edition about how Metropolitan Peter was canonized as a saint. Thirteen years after Prince Ivan Danilovich's letter of posthumous miracles at the tomb of the saint was read in Vladimir, Metropolitan Theognost reported this to Patriarch John XIV of Constantinople. The latter sent to Moscow a decree on the canonization of Peter. The text of this decision is read in the work of Cyprian.

In conclusion, the compiler of the Life recalls his own history of becoming a metropolitan and his own ordeals in Constantinople, testifying at the same time to the miraculous help rendered to him by St. Peter: then lie on the reigning city. The sea is stricken with Latin, while the land and land are possessed by the godless Turks. And so, as a result of the gates of my being, the disease is unbearable and attacked me, as if I could barely live. But as soon as I died in myself, and called for help Saint Peter, saying to the mother: Servant of God and servant of the Savior... if it pleases you to reach your throne, and bow down to your grave, give me help and relief from illness. Then, then, to receive us with joy and honor, the great noble and great prince of all Russia Dmitry.

Thus, the biography of Metropolitan Peter, created by Cyprian, is distinguished by a property rare for the medieval literary tradition - autobiography. Whenever possible, Cyprian, talking about Peter, notes the similarity of his fate with his own: Prince Mikhail of Tver did not recognize Peter for a long time, while Cyprian was not recognized by Moscow Prince Dmitry for a long time; against Peter's candidacy for metropolitan, a protege of the Tver prince Gerontius was nominated, while Cyprian's competitor was a protege of the Moscow prince Mityai. Apparently, these parallels served Cyprian as a means of justifying his own right to the metropolis, as well as a means of justifying the right of the patriarchs of Constantinople exclusively, without the interference of the Moscow secular authorities, to choose and appoint Russian metropolitans.

Literally, the Life he created is a skillful work of literature, within which a simple factual detail of the original edition of the Life (" He was born a boy and was 7 years old, beginning to learn this grammar, soon the skill of all wisdom") turned into a religiously significant description: When I am born as a child, - writes Cyprian, - and the seventh year old, when I reach the age of a child, I become a parent, I study; but the teacher, with diligence, is attached to him, the child does not hastily do the teaching, but inertly and in every possible way is immutable. And about this, therefore, there was no small sorrow for his parents, and no small vanity for his peers and his teacher. but I will open it, the saint with my right hand, touching his tongue, and bless him, and as if by some sweetness I poured his larynx, and the young man was aroused, and no one was seen. the time of all his peers surpass and anticipate.

In the late 90s of the XIV century, under Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich, Metropolitan Cyprian of Moscow and All Russia for the second time turned to the ascetic life of his predecessor in the cathedra, St. Peter. As a result, a new literary work appeared - the Word of praise even in the saints of our father in the hierarchs of the great miracle worker Peter the Metropolitan of All Russia. It is known so far from a small number of lists of the 16th century. This work is a skillfully implemented - on the basis of the previous text - a synthesis of panegyric and hagiobiography. Accordingly, the entire text of the work is divided into two parts - the Word itself and the Life. The main content and property of this new text are rhetorical laudatory passages. Most likely, it was intended for a solemn pronunciation in the Assumption Cathedral of the Most Holy Theotokos, on the feast day of St. Peter (December 21).

In the first section of the work, Cyprian discusses the reason that prompted him to turn to the life of his holy predecessor, and his inability to tell about it in a worthy way. Here, in addition, he talks about the slander of Peter by Bishop Andrei of Tver, as well as about the miracle with Amos, whose arms were shortened, and about the miracle with the maiden, whose eyes were overgrown with a body. Then, recalling the gospel parable about the workers and the vineyard, the author claims that in the same way the divine Peter did not come into Christ's grapes at the eleventh hour, but already from the first hour, from his youth, he served the Lord day and night. The introductory part ends with praise of Metropolitan Peter and a prayer, before which Cyprian calls on the listeners: “We will also come to the all-honourable feast of the great bishop Peter, rejoicing to him, in songs and singing, rejoicing, we crown him and, bowing down, pray.” And more than once he points out that this eulogy was written by him for the holiday - in memory of the saint.

In the second part of the Word, Cyprian used the text of his earlier biography of Metropolitan Peter, but noticeably shortened it. So, he removed the story about the vision of the young man Peter in hierarchal robes, removed the response speech of Patriarch Athanasius to Gerontius when he arrived in Constantinople. There is no story in the Word about the Pereyaslav Cathedral (it is only mentioned in the first section), the author's autobiographical passages are also omitted. Cyprian consistently supplements the facts cited with commendable lines. Here is how, for example, Cyprian argues about the dream of Peter's mother on the eve of childbirth: “Something like this happened even before his birth. In the midst of his horn, the tree has grown blessedly and is overlaid with many flowers and fruits, but in the midst of its branches there are many lights that shine and fragrance emanating. branch! Blessed are you and your parents, who are blessed to be such a child. Honest mother of the blessed child, having awakened and wondered what will happen, or that the end of such a vision. Either way, if she did not even think, but the end after with surprise will reveal. enrich us! Rtsi to us, O land of Velynskaya, where you will find such inexhaustible wealth! the land of Velynskaa, as such a gift has been given to you!"

All the factual material of his first essay on Peter Cyprian subjected in the Eulogy to literary processing in accordance with the requirements of the genre he had chosen. If the style of the Life is only approaching the style of "convolutions of words", then the style of the Word is typical of this literary style. This is an alternation of rhetorical exclamations, rhythmization of the text, a combination of epithets, comparisons, words with the same root: Peter is a branch of piety, Peter is an apostolic zealot, Peter is a church affirmation ..., We saw the patience of the stolp, we saw the spiritual treasure, we saw the desert backsliding ... etc. These properties provided the work with a solemn and festive character. It is obvious that Cyprian attached a very special significance to the literary form, endowing it with symbolic semantics.

So, praising Peter, he reaches the highest degree of emotional tension at the end of the work - in an anaphoric chain of 15 "laudatory" sentences:
"/1/ Rejoice, radiant sun, blessed bishop, our father Peter, driving away the darkness of sin from those who honor you with love! /2/ Rejoice, enlightenment of the Russian land! /3/ Rejoice, multiplying the flock of verbal sheep! /4/ Rejoice, friend of God's revelations / 5 / Rejoice, intercessor of the sad, resorting to the race of your relics! / 6 / Rejoice, unstoppable dawn, enlightening everyone with piety! / 7 / Rejoice, as streams of healing pour out ailments of various obsessions! / 8 / Rejoice, miracles and banners surprising all / 9 / Rejoice, honey-bearing treasure, upon Christ, having come, rejoice with you and glorify the whole Russian country! / 10 / Rejoice, decorate your church with the light of God's understanding! / 11 / Rejoice, preacher of truth and kindness mentor / 12 / Rejoice, fragrant krine, fragrant with the love of all the great for Christ! / 13 / Rejoice, as if you are fairly adorned with kindness, with the sight of shining with an angel-like likeness! / 14 / Rejoice, a firm foundation for the glorious city of Moscow, and keep it with intercession from in hateful rags, like a true shepherd laying down his soul for the flock of Christ-named! / 15 / Rejoice, boiling with wisdom, and like an animal treasure, and besides this, all uncleanness and carnal desire!

It is remarkable, however, that immediately after this passage there follows a passage similar to it in numerological structure - an appeal to Peter, which is also a chain of 15 synonymous names for Peter:

"But / 1 / a prudent father and / 2 / a useful priest to the bishop, / 3 / to St. Peter, / 4 / a sweet soul to eat, / 5 / a beer that is sweet to the mouth, / 6 / a bee, the sweetest church, / 7 / a meal of books, / 8 / sobering the cup, / 9 / verbal salt, / 10 / oil softening mourning with wisdom, / 11 / harp of piety, / 12 / nozzle of punishment, / 13 / wealth of poverty, / 14 / repentance, / 15 / faithful servant of the Lord, Az But how well can I praise you, having a foul mouth and an unclean tongue!

The structure of the data - as if supporting or justifying each other - of the fragments seems completely unusual and unexpected (because it would be more usual to observe its duodecimal stem, which is typical, for example, for the hayretisms of the ikos as a hymnographic form). However, it is quite understandable, if we take into account the special veneration by St. Peter of the Most Pure Theotokos. In fact, after all, according to the Life, he painted the image of the Mother of God "Petrovsky"), and according to legend, two more icons - "Novodvorskaya" and "Assumption", Peter himself was honored with the miraculous help of the Mother of God; on his initiative, Prince Ivan Kalita founded in Moscow on the site of a wooden stone cathedral in honor of the Assumption of the Mother of God, and then this cathedral became the burial place of Peter himself. It is probably the aforementioned Mariological context of the life of St. Peter that allowed Metropolitan Cyprian to use the fifteen-decimal structure for his praise instead of the usual duodecimal. Thus, it is known that the sacred semantics of the biblical number 15 most vividly and clearly manifested itself precisely in the cult of the Mother of God - in the church-historical tradition and apocryphal tales about her life and death, in eortology and worship, in the prayer practice of the Middle Ages, and even - reflexively - in hagiographic literature.

The correctness of the conclusion about the numerological nature of the given text fragment is confirmed by the literary and stylistic habits of Cyprian, which he repeatedly demonstrates in the space of the text of the Laudable Word, and also partly in his earlier version of the biography of Peter. Obviously, in this way - through number writing - the writer consciously sought to convey additional information about his great predecessor.

As for the Life, the numerological predilections of Cyprian are expressed in it, as in the Laudable Word, in the form of constructions. Here, for example, is a passage about the founding of the Ratsky Monastery by Peter: "/1/ To proceed from the monastery and /2/ go around the area of ​​​​the place it is deserted, and /3/ find a place silently on the river, called Rata, and make yourself a home /4/ to make friends, and many labors /5/ to subside, and sickness to sickness /6/, and sweat /7/ shedding. ". As you can see, this construction is supported by 9 verbal predicates, which are distributed according to semantic gradation in three syntagmatic triads. The first triad (1-3) is devoted to the choice of a place, the second (4-6) - to its development, the third (7-9) - to Peter's personal efforts. Such - "matrix" - construction, as is known, is the norm of the style of "weaving words" and in this case constructively embodies "ordered gradualness", or its sacred essence. However, actually in the Life of Cyprian rarely uses such a device and at the same time it is unlikely that he sets himself any pragmatic tasks.

Quite another thing is the word laudable. The author of this text, firstly, is very fond of using five-fold constructions. At the same time, he implements them in different ways and in combination in the form of alternation or chains (strictly ordered parallelism) of either syntactic members of the same type, or lexemes-epithets, or lexical-syntactic repetitions:

"For there is joy and joy. / 1 ​​/ when a husband is righteous and reverend to accept the end of life, / 2 / when he sees the peace of his labors, / 3 / when, leaving sadness, to come for fun, / 4 / when, leaving the earth and all earthly , and goes to heaven, / 5 / when you leave the people, and from the aggela it settles and it is worthy to see God.

On this day, our father and teacher, pastor and mentor, reposed in the eternal belly, / 1 / marvelous in the saints, / 2 / the most sacred Peter, / 3 / the former saint, / 4 / the worker and / 5 / of the land of Russia: / 1 / Peter is a pious branch, / 2 / Peter is an apostolic zealot, / 3 / Peter is an ecclesiastical affirmation, / 4 / Peter is a heretical accuser, / 5 / Peter is a pious preacher.

"/1/ O glorious age! / 2/ O good wife! / 3/ O blessed dream! / 4/ O holy offspring! / 5/ O honest root, good industry! Blessed are you and blessed are the parents who were able to be such a child."

"Eat, blessed Peter, not a single one, nor two bear the burden, but all the brethren have received the service. / 1 ​​/ They saw the trembling of the pillars, / 2 / they saw the spiritual treasure, / 3 / they saw the worker is great, / 4 / they saw the hard adamant, / 5 / we saw desert upbringing, truly for God glorifying his saint and giving a bit of strength!

"Behold us /1/ apostle and preacher, behold us /2/ shepherd and teacher, behold us /3/ leader and ruler, behold us /4/ wall and fence, /5/ our great praise and our courage to God."

For a small work, such as the Laudable Word, these five-fold constructions are too often and noticeably repeated literary device. Obviously, it was not only deliberately used, but also with some sense, pragmatically. And rightly, this meaning is determined by the symbolic meaning of the number 5, - its conjugation with faith in the reunion of mankind and the Creator, accomplished through the Son of God, and in the mysteriously accomplished in the Holy Eucharist and Communion through the clergy, the unity of each Christian personally with the Savior Jesus Christ. Reflecting on the best clergyman and first hierarch in the Russian Church, the pre-elected Servant of God, Metropolitan Cyprian naturally relied on fivefold structures in precisely those passages that abstractly expressed the idea of ​​service and mediation in the name of Holy Unity inherent in the life of St. Peter.

The fact that the writer deliberately used constructive numerals and at the same time implied certain semantic information is quite clearly revealed upon careful consideration of another fragment of the Word of Praise, connected with the famous prophecy of St. Peter regarding the need to build a stone Assumption Cathedral in Moscow. The basis of the syntactic structure of this appeal to the Moscow prince Ivan Kalita is 8 predicates (and, accordingly, 8 syntagmas):

"If you listen to me / 1 / and raise the temple of the Most Pure Theotokos / 2 / in your city, - and / 3 / yourself will be glorified more than other princes, and your sons, and your grandchildren in generations and generations; and this city / 4 / will be glorious in all the Russian cities; and the saints /5/ will dwell in it; and /6/ lift up his hands on the splash of his enemy; and /7/ God will be glorified in him; also my bones in him /8/ will be laid down.

Metropolitan Cyprian transferred this fragment from his earlier text about St. Peter and reproduced it almost literally. But this speech is based on the text of the original edition of his biography, according to which the holy predecessor of Cyprian speaks briefly and does not predict anything: "May the Church of the Holy Mother of God be built in your city." It is already remarkable that Cyprian, in developing this short speech in his first version of the Life of Peter, used an octal constructive basis. But even more remarkable is the fact that, having transferred Peter’s own version of speech to the Laudable Word, Cyprian supplemented it with his own rhetorical commentary, stating the full fulfillment of the prophecy, and this commentary consists of exactly 8 questions:

"/1/ What's the matter, will we not see the prophecy of this saint? /2/ Haven't all this happened? /3/ Haven't the words about you died, the glorious city of Moscow? /4/ Haven't the countries and the land spread yours? /5/ Have not your hands risen up on your lapping enemies? /6/ (Not) Do you see the unfalse truth? / (Not) Will the saying come true: "And I will give miracles in heavenly grief"? /8/ Isn't it a miracle this is, and more than that, human nature, but the most venerable divine hierarch Peter, despising the short-term and fleeting life of this according to the revelation of God?

The constructive symmetry and isomorphism of prophecy and commentary are obvious. And again, the eightfold form chosen by Cyprian for these two passages seems expedient from the point of view of the coincidence of their abstract content and the symbolic significance of the number 8. Indeed, the semantics of the eight, as is known, is associated with ideas of salvation in Christ and eternal life. And this meaning of it is in full agreement with the general idea of ​​the fragments under consideration regarding the Divine predestination of the political and ecclesiastical victory of Moscow in the Russian land and Russia outside. The only guarantee of this victory is the erection of the stone Assumption Cathedral, and it is Peter who sees this future victory, that is, metaphorically, the stone of confession, on which the Savior promised to build His Church, so that "the gates of hell will not prevail against her" (Matt. 16: 18) . By the way, in the Service to Peter, Metropolitan Cyprian interpreted his name and its meaning for Moscow and Russia in exactly this way - according to one of the troparions of the 9th song of the thanksgiving canon to the saint: and immovable forever. However, a stone, more precisely, petra (rock), is a symbolic sign of Christ and, therefore, a sign of steadfastness and eternity. Accordingly, the octal structure of the passages connected together is a hint at the eternal meaning of both the prophecy of St. Peter and its real fulfillment in the era of Cyprian.

This writer is considered the founder of such a cultural phenomenon in Russia as "the second South Slavic influence." The development of a special expressive-emotional style of "weaving words" was associated with it in Russian literary work of the late XIV-XV centuries. As for Cyprian, in his own literary work the aforementioned style was most vividly realized precisely in the Laudatory Word to St. Peter. Apparently, in the context of this style, the numbering used by him should be considered. This technique, along with other techniques inherent in the expressive-emotional style, allowed the writer to secretly and pragmatically reveal the sacred meaning and nature of the primatial ministry of Metropolitan Peter.

The skill of Cyprian was brilliantly expressed in the fact that under his pen the "weaving of words", that is, the injection or condensation of symbolic images and thoughts, was clothed in symbolically significant numerological forms. The "ineffable silence" of the latter gave the text, in the eyes of those who understand, in addition to beauty, great semantic depth and value.

So, the hagiographic texts of Metropolitan Cyprian, dedicated to St. Peter, are undoubtedly his most striking literary works. Cyprian's other writings - letters, epistles - are more significant in church-historical terms. In addition, the translation works of Cyprian are also important for church culture. So, he introduced into the practice of the Russian Church new editions of the Missal, the Gospel, the Apostle, the Triodion and other liturgical books, but above all - the new charter of Divine services, the charter of St. Savva the Sanctified, Jerusalem. Undoubtedly, a significant replenishment of the Old Russian library with books brought from Constantinople, Athos and the Slavic lands is also associated with his name.

Metropolitans of Kyiv and All Russia (988-1305)

Quoted from the book: Shchapov Ya.N. State and Church in Ancient Russia. M. Nauka, 1989 Appendix I.
Compiled by A. V. Poppe. Authorized translation from German by A. V. Nazarenko.

[Michael]
[Leon (Leonty)]
1. Theophylact, 988 - until 1018
2. John I, until 1018 - c. 1030
3. Theopempt, circa 1035-1040s.
[Kirill]
4. Hilarion, 1051 - 1054
5. Ephrem, 1054/1055-c. 1065
6. George, c. 1065-ca. 1076
7. John II, no later than 1076/1077 - after August 1089
8. John III, summer 1090 - until August 14, 1091
9. Nicholas, c. 1093-to 1104
10. Nicephorus I, December 18, 1104-April 1121
11. Nikita, October 15, 1122-March 9, 1126
12. Michael I, summer 1130-1145
13. Klim (Clement) Smolyatich, July 27, 1147 - early 1155
14. Constantine I, 1156-1158/1159
15. Theodore, August 1160-June 1163
16. John IV, spring 1164-1166
17. Constantine II, 1167-1169/1170
18. Michael II, spring 1171 -?
19. Nicephorus II, before 1183-after 1201
20. Matthew, before 1210-August 19, 1220
21. Cyril I, 1224/1225 - summer 1233
22. Joseph, 1236-?
[Peter]
23. Cyril II, 1242/1247 - November 27, 1281
24. Maximus, 1283 - December 6, 1305

The following brief descriptions of the archpastors of the Russian Metropolis in the Byzantine Church are limited by necessity (due to the state of the sources) to their official actions; the author tried to use as fully as possible, although critically, the most important historiography, but in the article-by-article lists of bibliography it is indicated only selectively. The Kyiv era in the history of the Russian church is chronologically covered. After the death of Metropolitan Kiril II, the last proper Metropolitan of Kyiv, as a result of the transfer of the metropolitan residence to the north (first to Vladimir-on-Klyazma, then to Moscow) and the founding of a new metropolis in Galich (in 1303), the decline of a single church organization of all Eastern Slavs.

Our essays are the first attempt to give a concise history of the Russian Church of the Kievan era in the person of its metropolitans. Already from the chronological table it is clear that between 1121 and 1236. The Kyiv Metropolitanate was empty in general for about 26 years, since even under favorable conditions, the new metropolitan almost always arrived at the place not earlier than a year later. Therefore, we have the right to believe that during the entire Kievan era, the Kievan see was vacant for at least half a century, which, on the one hand, weakened the leadership of this church, and on the other hand, indicates its internal strength. The meager data of the sources do not allow writing real biographies of the metropolitans, which would reflect not only their official actions, but also their personal lives. So, for example, we actually know nothing about the period of life of the Kyiv metropolitans (who were all Greeks, with the exception of two reliable exceptions) before they were installed as metropolitans; and from their activities as the head of the Russian Church, only separate episodes are known. Therefore, already E. E. Golubinsky, all the profundity of which was appreciated only in our century, in his fundamental "History of the Russian Church" did not dare to give biographies of the metropolitans of the pre-Mongol period (which, incidentally, benefited the first volume) and began a chronological review of the Russian church history by the years of the reign of the metropolitans from the biography of Cyril II. Real experience is also faced with the difficulty that to this day there is not even a generally accepted list of Kyiv metropolitans. In the list we propose, all dubious names are excluded, which, however, are discussed in detail in the notes as far as possible. The list includes 24 metropolitans, 23 of which were known before, while one (Michael II) was discovered by us for the first time. Six metropolitans who figured in the historiography - Michael and Leon (ty) (the turn of the X-XI centuries), Cyril (1040s), Dionysius and Gabriel (beginning of the XIII century), Peter (c. 1244) - are not included by us in list for the inaccuracy of data about them.

[Mikhail] and [Leon (Leonty)]

According to the entrenched in the XVI century. tradition, the first Metropolitan of Kyiv was allegedly a certain Michael, who was succeeded by Leon (Leonty). The source of this tradition is the so-called church charter of Vladimir I, which dates back to the 12th-13th centuries. According to this monument, Michael is a contemporary of Vladimir and Patriarch Photius of Constantinople, which, in turn, gave rise to the opinion that Michael was the anonymous bishop who was sent by Photius to Russia in 867.

The appearance of the name Michael in the church charter is explained by the fact that in the Tale of Bygone Years, under the year 988, there is an instruction on faith, allegedly given to the newly baptized Vladimir. It is nothing more than an abbreviated translation of the creed, compiled in the first half of the 9th century. Michael Sinkell. The compilers of the church charter took this "instruction" as written for the sake of Vladimir and thus concluded that the author of the creed was also the first Russian metropolitan.

[Leo (Leonty)]

As the second or even the first Russian metropolitan at the end of the 10th century. they also called Leo (Leonty), who allegedly had a chair in Pereyaslavl. The reason for the emergence of this legend, which finally took shape in the 16th century, was also one of the editions of the 13th century. the church charter of Vladimir, in which Leo is a contemporary of Patriarch Photius. The very name of Leo, as one of the two contenders for the title of "first" metropolitan of Russia, seems to have been drawn from the title of a treatise on unleavened bread, "Leo, Metropolitan of Pereyaslavl in Ρωσία". However, this treatise could not have appeared before 1054, and its author was Leo, the titular metropolitan of Pereyaslav in the 1060-1070s (the Pereyaslav bishopric was temporarily a titular metropolis).

1. Theophylact

1. Theophylact, the first Kyiv Metropolitan attested by sources, was transferred to the Metropolis of Rosia from Sevastia in the Byzantine province of Armenia II under Emperor Basil II (985-1025). , being a supporter of Basil II, was forced to leave his metropolis during the civil war in early 987. If this is so, then it can be assumed that in the fall of 987, Theophylact, on behalf of the emperor, went to Kyiv, where he facilitated the conclusion of an agreement with Vladimir I. the prerequisite for the Christianization of Russia was thus created, and Theophylact headed the new Russian metropolis, which at first consisted of four bishops: Belgorod, Novgorod, Chernigov and Polotsk. hold it until 1018.

2. John I

2. John I - the second authentically attested Metropolitan of Kyiv. A small lead bull with the inscription “Io (anni) mi (t) ropo (liti) "Rosias" has been preserved, which V. Laurent, according to epigraphic features, definitely attributed to the turn of the 10th-11th centuries. In both hagiographic works about Saints Boris and Gleb , anonymous Tale and Nestor's Reading (i.e., according to the tradition recorded in the second half of the 11th century), John I is titled either "archbishop" or "metropolitan", that is, he acts as the head of the Russian church in the early years of the reign of Yaroslav the Wise (after 1019)... This circumstance suggests that it was John I who was the archbishop of Kyiv, whom Titmar of Merseburg refers to in the story of the events of 1018 (VIII, 32). John I is also considered the author of the oldest service in honor of Saints Boris and Gleb, however, since this liturgical composition is textually connected with both of the aforementioned hagiographic monuments, it could have appeared only at the time of the canonization of the martyr princes in 1072 or after it. metropolitan until 1018 and was, at the latest, until the mid-30s.

3. Theopempt

Theopempt - became a metropolitan after 1030, possibly around 1034, given his very likely connections with the environment of Emperor Michael IV. In 1039 (May 12?) Theopempt took part in the re-consecration of the Church of the Tithes in Kyiv. In the middle of that year, he stayed in Constantinople, where he participated in the patriarchal synod. Probably, during the years of Theopempt's stay at the cathedra, the fifth and sixth Russian bishoprics were founded in Yuryev-on-Ros' (the Cathedral of St. George) and in Pereyaslavl (the Cathedral of Michael the Archangel). A lead bull with the name Theopemptus has been preserved. Byzantine-Russian conflict 1043-1046 was not at all obliged to have a negative impact on the activities of Theopempt, since he, presumably, spoke in favor of the anti-emperor George Maniac; in any case, the widespread opinion that during these years the Kyiv department was empty is unfounded.

[Kirill]

Only from the 16th century there is information about a certain Metropolitan Cyril, the successor of Theopempt.

4. Hilarion

Hilarion is the first Russian-born Metropolitan of Kyiv. The history of his appointment is unusual. He was appointed to the metropolis by Prince Yaroslav the Wise from the hieromonks of the Church of St. Apostolov in Berestov, the princely residence near Kyiv, was elected by the cathedral of Russian bishops and in 1051 was consecrated and appointed as the head of the Russian church in Kiev's St. Sophia Cathedral. The appointment of Hilarion was carried out in circumvention of the rights of the Patriarch of Constantinople and was an attempt by Byzantine (in this case, Russian) monasticism to restore the ancient canonical rights of provincial church councils. At the same time, the legal subordination of Kyiv to the see of Constantinople was not at all questioned, so there is no reason to talk about any aspirations of the Russian church for autocephaly. A contemporary characterizes Hilarion as "a man of goodness, bookish and fasting", which was also expressed in his "Sermon on Law and Grace", which also included Praise to Prince Vladimir (c. 1049). This literary work testifies not only to theological knowledge, but also to the rhetorical and writing talents of its author, which suggests that Hilarion received his higher education in Byzantium. Participating in an embassy to the French royal court (c. 1048), he also had the opportunity to get acquainted with Western Europe. During his reign, the consecration took place on November 26, 1052 (1053) of the stone church of the monastery of St. George in Kyiv, founded by Yaroslav. As for the participation of Hilarion in the work on the so-called church charter of Yaroslav, it is doubtful, because the monument itself dates back to a later time (XII-XIII centuries). The removal of Hilarion was, apparently, in connection with the restoration of the previous order of the appointment of the Kyiv metropolitans and, probably, followed shortly after the death of Yaroslav in February 1054, since already in 1055 the Greek metropolitan Ephraim was attested.

5. Ephraim

Ephraim was Metropolitan of Kyiv from 1054/1055 to about 1065, while at the same time a member of the imperial senate with the high court rank of protoproedros (perhaps even protoproedros ton protosynkellon), as can be seen from the inscription on the lead seal he owns. His trial of the Novgorod bishop Luka Zhidyata in 1055 is known. On November 4 of an unknown year, Ephraim re-consecrated the St. Sophia Cathedral in Kyiv. A common opinion is that in the XI century. there were two metropolitans with the name "Ephraim", based on a misunderstanding: the second Ephraim, although he was appointed in Constantinople as titular metropolitans for life, but as such occupied only the Pereyaslav episcopal see (in the 1070-1090s) and was never a metropolitan of Kyiv.

6. George

George became metropolitan of Kyiv around 1065 and was so until about 1076; as is clear from the three lead seals that have come down to us, he was also a member of the imperial senate and bore the court title of synkel (synkellos). At the head of the Russian hierarchy, on May 20, 1072, George consecrated the church newly built by Izyaslav in Vyshgorod and supervised the transfer and discovery of the relics of both princes-martyrs, Boris-Roman and Gleb-Davyd, that is, the entire procedure for their canonization. From the 12th century Two works are attributed to George: one is of canonical content (The Commandment), the other is polemical (Contest with Latin), of which the belonging of the first to him is now especially questioned. The report of the annals about George's stay in Byzantium in 1073 does not need to be interpreted in the sense that this year his reign ended, since regular visits to the patriarchate were part of the duties of the metropolitans. There is evidence that it was George who ordained the first Rostov bishop and future Hieromartyr Leonty (the diocese was founded between 1073 and 1076). Not later than 1078, the chair was already occupied by his successor John II.

7. John II

Until recently, John II was considered the uncle of the famous Byzantine poet Theodore Prodrom (according to A. Kazhdan and S. Franklin, the dates of the life of both contradict this identification, as well as the assumption that John was the nephew's tutor). He occupied the Kyiv metropolitan see from 1076/1077, where he died in the autumn (winter?) of 1089. It seems that his first known action was the consecration of the Rostov bishop Isaiah, appointed by the Kyiv prince Izyaslav after July 15, 1077. John founded two new bishoprics: in Volodymyr Volhynsky about 1085 and Turov in 1088. In November 1086, John participated in a meeting of the permanent synod in Constantinople. The last news about him is his consecration of the Cathedral of the Assumption of Our Lady of the Kyiv Caves Monastery on August 14, 1089. John II of Peru owns at least the bulk of the canonical answers (c. 1083/1084) and the answer to Antipope Clement III (1084-1088), then how his authorship in relation to the Service to Boris and Gleb is questioned, although much speaks for the fact that this liturgical work was created by "a husband of cunning books and scientists" (PVL under 1089). An attempt to ascribe to John II also the translation of Syntagma XIV titles (by R. Pikhoy) is untenable. The attribution of the surviving metropolitan seals with the name of John requires further research.

8. John III "The Skopets"

John III "Skopets" was a metropolitan in Kyiv from about the summer of 1090 "from a year to a year", that is, an incomplete year. According to contemporaries, by the time of his arrival in Kyiv, John III was mortally ill, so by August 14, 1091, the Kyiv cathedra was again vacant (this can be unequivocally inferred from the story of the chronicle about the transfer of the relics of St. Theodosius of the Caves). It is likely that John III consecrated Bishop Marina Yuryevsky. Unlike his predecessor, John III is characterized in the annals as "a man not literate, but simple and simple in mind."

9. Nicholas

Nikolai headed the Kyiv Metropolis between 1092 and 1104. His name is mentioned only in two chronicles. At the insistence of the nobility and citizens of Kyiv, Nikolai, together with the widow of the Kyiv prince Vsevolod, in November 1097 acted as an intermediary between the rival princes, which indicates a certain connection between the metropolitan and the social and political life of Russia. In the summer of 1101, Nicholas again acts as a champion of inner peace. It is not entirely clear how right those who attribute to Nicholas the ordination of Novgorod Bishop Nikita; it is only clear that this last occurred no earlier than 1089 and no later than 1096.

10. Nicephorus I

Nicephorus I arrived in Kyiv on December 6, 1104, was elevated to the chair on the 18th of the same month (on Sunday) and occupied it until his death in April 1121. He is considered the author of four works, which at first, apparently, were written in Greek and then translated into Old Russian: two epistles to Vladimir Monomakh, one to Yaroslav Svyatopolchich, as well as a pastoral epistle to all believers; the last attribution cannot be considered proven, since Metropolitan Nicephorus II should also be taken into account. Nicephorus I contributed to the all-Russian spread of the veneration of Theodosius of the Caves, having included his name in the Synod (1108); in addition, he took part in the transfer of the relics of Saints Boris and Gleb on May 2, 1115. It is known for certain that the following bishops were ordained by Nicephorus: Lazar (1105) and Sylvester (1118) of Pereyaslavsky, Amphilochius of Vladimir-Volynsky (1105), Mina of Polotsk (1105) , Feoktist of Chernigovsky (1113), Daniil Yuryevsky (1114), Nikita Belgorodsky (1114), Cyril of Turov (1114) (not to be confused with the famous writer).

11. Nikita

Nikita arrived from Constantinople in Kyiv in the autumn of 1122, was elevated to the cathedra on October 15 (Sunday) and died on the metropolis on March 9, 1126. Being a metropolitan, he consecrated the bishop of Vladimir-Volyn Simeon in the spring of 1123 and on October 4, 1125 the bishop of Pereyaslavl Mark. The Pereyaslav see was empty for two and a half years (after the death of Bishop Sylvester on April 12, 1123) due to the refusal of the metropolitan to meet Vladimir Monomakh, who wanted to establish an independent see in Smolensk, where his grandson Rostislav was sitting and which then belonged to the Pereyaslav diocese. Vladimir Monomakh, in turn, stubbornly refused to approve a new candidate for the Pereyaslav chair. Only after the death of Vladimir on May 19, 1125, did his son Mstislav fulfill the will of the metropolitan.

12. Michael I

Michael I was, according to custom, appointed and ordained in Constantinople and arrived in Kyiv in the summer of 1130. Already in November-December of the same year, he consecrated Nifont to the Novgorod bishops, and in 1134-1136. participated in the establishment of the bishopric in Smolensk. Only with great difficulty did Mikhail manage to put an end to the troubles around the vacant Pereyaslav see (1134-1141), which arose as a result of protests against the separation of the Smolensk land from the Pereyaslav diocese; Mikhail was able to ordain another Pereyaslav bishop, Euthymius, only in 1141. allegations of partiality. At the turn of 1134-1135. he even ended up in prison for a short time, which should have hindered his mediation activities. The authority of the metropolitan was also undermined by his efforts in support of the pro-Byzantine policy of one of the coalitions of Russian princes (primarily Galician and Suzdal). Participation in the bickering over the Kyiv table in 1145/1146. - the last thing we know about Mikhail's political activities; at least during the enthronement of Izyaslav Mstislavich on August 13, 1146, he was no longer in Kyiv. The assumption that Mikhail was dismissed by Izyaslav, who was hostile towards him, does not find confirmation, since the dispute over the replacement of the metropolitan see in July 1147 suggested that it was vacant. As an argument against the appointment of Klim Smolyatich, only Michael's order from his message to the bishops was used, that the Metropolitan of Kyiv could be installed only with the consent of the Patriarch of Constantinople. On the basis of this message, one can guess that Michael resigned from the rank of metropolitan (unsubscribed from the metropolis) during the crisis, the culprit of which, apparently, was himself. At the same time, he recalled the primordial rights of Constantinople in order to avoid complications with the appointment of his successor. Since just in 1145 Michael was on a canonical visit to Byzantium, it is possible that the events in Kyiv that followed soon after were one of the reasons for his refusal to return there. However, the burial of a certain Metropolitan Mikhail in the Kiev Caves Monastery could be considered as an argument in favor of the assumption that Mikhail I died in Kyiv. This burial, according to the legend of the XVI century. , was attributed, however, to the legendary Metropolitan Michael of the 10th century, although with equal success it could be attributed to the metropolitan of the 70s of the 12th century. Michael II. For all that, it is very difficult to explain why the Metropolitan is buried in the Caves Monastery, and not in St. Sophia Cathedral.

13. Klim (Kliment) Smolyatich

Klim (Kliment) Smolyatich, the second Metropolitan of Russian origin, was appointed Prince of Kyiv Izyaslav Mstislavich, elected at the council of bishops by six votes against three, and consecrated on July 27, 1147 in St. Sophia Cathedral using the relics - the "head" of St. Clement of Rome. This attempt to break with the tradition of appointing Russian metropolitans in Constantinople is explained by the political bias of the predecessor Clement (Michael). The new Kyiv prince wanted to have an obedient instrument of his policy in the person of the head of the Russian church. The confusion in Constantinople (after the scandalous patriarchy of Michael II Kurkuas and Cosmas II of Atticus, the patriarchal throne was empty until the end of December 1147) contributed to the fact that the candidacy of Clement, a worthy and theologically educated man, was accepted with satisfaction by the majority of the Russian clergy. However, due to the fact that in the inter-princely struggle Klim sided with Izyaslav, his powers were recognized only in those lands that were in the sphere of political influence of the Kyiv prince. Under the leadership of Bishop Nifont of Novgorod and Prince Yuri Dolgoruky, an influential ecclesiastical and political opposition arose against Klim. Klim's attempts to win over the vacillators (see, for example, his message to the Smolensk prince Rostislav) were unsuccessful. There was a schism in the church: Nifont and other bishops who adhered to the tradition found themselves in the direct subordination of the patriarch. The fate of Klim depended on the results of the struggle for the Kyiv table. He was forced to leave the capital together with Izyaslav on August 26, 1149, returned there in April 1151 and left Kyiv again shortly after the death of Izyaslav, at the beginning of 1155. The last time Klim served in St. Sophia Cathedral for about three months, after after December 22, 1158 Kyiv was in the hands of Izyaslav's son Mstislav. After the death of Metropolitan Theodore, Prince Rostislav of Kyiv applied to Constantinople with a petition to approve Klim as a metropolitan retroactively, but this petition was not successful. As a writer, Klim is known for his letter to the priest Thomas. Klim's theological erudition, his knowledge of the Greek language, his command of rhetoric, and his competence in matters of ecclesiastical law suggest that he was educated in one of the higher schools in Byzantium (cf. his nickname "Philosopher"). Prior to his appointment to the metropolis, Klim labored at the highest level of monasticism - in the great schema - and in this capacity led the life of a recluse. The expression “zarub”, from where Izyaslav “brought” Klim to the metropolis, should be understood in the sense of a “shelter”, as it unambiguously follows from the text of the chronicle (“brought out of the zarub, be a Chernorites-skimnik”) and is quite consistent with the ascetic inclinations of the metropolitan. Thus, the discussion about whether Klim did not come from a monastery in the town of Zarub near Smolensk or Kyiv is groundless. Likewise, the nickname "Smolyatych", which was interpreted in the sense of "from Smolensk" by the place of birth or the location of the monastery, should rather be understood as a patronymic: "the son or grandson of Smolyata." The year of Klim's death is unknown; encountered indications of 1164 do not find confirmation in the sources.

14. Constantine I

Constantine I, ordained Metropolitan of Kyiv in autumn 1155 in Constantinople. The consecration of the new metropolitan took place at the request of Yuri Dolgoruky, who captured Kyiv in March 1155. On January 26, 1156, at a meeting of the patriarchal synod, Constantine delivered a speech on the sacrifice of the indivisible Trinity during the Eucharist, which was recognized as fundamental on this issue. The fact that such an experienced theologian was chosen, who, in addition, in his own words, was familiar with Russia even before his appointment, testifies to the concern in Constantinople at the possibility of a schism. Constantine arrived in Kyiv in the summer of 1156 and immediately began to fight against the "disobedient", in which, however, he somewhat overdid it. Klim and his late patron Izyaslav were anathematized, and all the activities of Klim as a metropolitan, including the consecration of church hierarchs to them, were declared invalid. All bishops - supporters of Klim were removed and, probably, even expelled; only after a written condemnation were the deacons ordained by Klim retroactively approved in their positions.

For some unknown reason, in the winter of 1156/1157, Bishop Nestor of Rostov, who by no means belonged to the adherents of Klim, was also removed, and the Greek Leon was put in his place.

After the Novgorod Bishop Nifont died in Kyiv, awaiting the arrival of Constantine, on April 21, 1156, Arkady, who was elected in his place, had to wait more than two years for the ordination by Constantine, which took place only on August 10, 1158. Constantine never managed to extend his jurisdiction to the entire ancient Russian territory; he was not recognized in Vladimir Volynsky, where Klim took refuge, and, perhaps, also in Turov. Constantine took a decisive step in establishing an independent bishopric on the territory of the Principality of Galicia, which had previously been part of the Volyn diocese, and appointed Kozma the first Galician bishop. Apparently, the strict measures taken by Constantine in order to improve the church hierarchy became the cause of new conflicts. After Kyiv fell into the hands of Mstislav, the son of Izyaslav, on December 22, 1158, Konstantin was forced to flee to Chernigov. The danger of a church schism was averted by an inter-princely agreement in March 1159: it was decided not to recognize either of the opposing metropolitans in the future and to ask Constantinople to appoint a new head of the Russian church. Shortly thereafter, Konstantin died in Chernigov. The last will expressed by him speaks of a confused state of mind: not considering himself worthy of burial, he ordered the Bishop of Chernigov Anthony to throw his body outside the walls of the city to be torn to pieces by dogs, which was done. However, general indignation at such an unusual act forced Constantine to be buried in the Cathedral of the Transfiguration of the Savior.

15. Theodore

Theodore was made Metropolitan of Kyiv at the request of the new Kyiv prince Rostislav (from April 12, 1159) in order to put an end to the troubles in church life (see Klim, Konstantin I). The death of Metropolitan Konstantin, which happened at that time, facilitated the new appointment. Theodore arrived in Kyiv in August 1160 and remained in office until his death in June 1163. Theodore mediated the reconciliation of Rostislav of Kyiv with the Chernigov prince in 1161. Probably, Theodore also participated in resolving the controversial issue of fasting on the Lord's holidays (the so-called “Leontinian heresy”), because, contrary to the prevailing opinion, one should apparently proceed from the fact that “Vladyka Theodore”, who defeated the Rostov-Suzdal Bishop Leon in a dispute, is not Theodorets, a favorite of Andrei Bogolyubsky, information about which appear only at the end of the 1160s and who, moreover, was never ordained, but the Kyiv Metropolitan Theodore; the fact is that this dispute, as can be seen from a comparison of both chronicle texts, should have taken place in Kyiv in 1161 or early 1162, when Bishop Leon, expelled by Andrei Bogolyubsky, passed through Kyiv on his way to Byzantium, where his opinion was also refuted during a public debate in the presence of Emperor Manuel I Komnenos.

16. John IV

John IV, Theodore's successor, held the metropolitan see until his death for two years (1164-1166). He was one of the first to be magnified with the title of Metropolitan of "All Russia". Not all lead seals with the name of John are amenable to exact attribution, but some of them, on which John is titled as the church head ton nantian "Ros, most likely belong to John IV: after overcoming the church schism, John IV was the second metropolitan of Kyiv after Theodore to extend his jurisdiction de facto to “all Russia.” On March 28, 1165, John consecrated Ilya Bishop of Novgorod and in the same year bestowed on him the title of titular archbishop. Bishop of Belgorod Worthy of attention are the circumstances that accompanied the ascension of John IV to the cathedra.

After the death of Theodore in June 1163, when the issue of his successor was discussed, there was also talk of the reappointment of Klim. A supporter of such a decision, Prince Rostislav of Kyiv, sent an embassy to Constantinople in the spring of 1164 in order to win Emperor Manuel I Komnenos over to his side. But the news of the planned restoration of Klim reached the shores of the Bosporus even earlier; here, without wasting time, they installed John IV as metropolitan and, together with the imperial embassy, ​​sent him to Russia. In Oleshya, near the mouth of the Dnieper, an unexpected meeting of both embassies took place, after which they moved together to Kyiv. Rostislav, being confronted with a fait accompli, succumbed to the persuasion of the imperial ambassador, who, in addition, delivered rich gifts, although in his heart he was against John. The widespread opinion that the prince of Kyiv initially rejected John's candidacy is based on a misunderstanding of the words "do not want to accept", which, according to the context of the chronicle narrative, should, however, be understood in the sense that Rostislav had no particular desire to accept the metropolitan imposed on him. Also unfounded is the opinion of V. N. Tatishchev, constantly revived in historiography, that during these negotiations, under the threat of a church schism, it was possible to achieve the consent of Byzantium to the fact that in the future all candidates for the Kyiv Metropolis would be supplied only with the prior consent of the Kyiv prince.

17. Constantine II

After the death of John IV, Constantine II became the Metropolitan of All Russia: "tis pasis" Rosias", as the legends say on two lead seals and one chryso-vul. Constantine arrived in Kyiv in 1167 and remained in office, probably until 1170. (cf. Michael II) Due to a strict interpretation of the necessity of fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays on the Lord's holidays, Constantine II and Bishop Anthony of Chernigov came into conflict with the influential Pechersky Monastery in Kyiv, it reached its highest intensity on Christmas Day 1168, which fell on Wednesday, when Constantine subjected the Abbot of the Caves to Polycarp to penance... This measure caused such irritation against him that the sack of Kyiv by the troops of Andrei Bogolyubsky in March 1169 was regarded as divine retribution for the "untruth of the metropolitan". (but not ordained) Bishop of Theodorets, to whom Byzantine civil law was applied. seeking the establishment of a new metropolis in Vladimir-on-Klyazma, did not want to be appointed from Constantine. At the same time Andrei Bogolyubsky withdrew his support. As a result, in the summer of 1169, by the verdict of Constantine, his tongue was cut off, his right hand was cut off and he was blinded. It can be assumed that the harsh course of Constantine II threatened the church-political interests of Byzantium, and therefore he was recalled by the patriarch. The opinion that Konstantin was of Russian origin (D. Obolensky) does not find confirmation in the sources.

18. Michael II

Michael II, missed by historiography, occupied the Kyiv cathedra, as can be established, in the 1170s. In the synodal decree of the Patriarch of Constantinople dated March 24, 1171, on taking the oath to Emperor Manuel I Komnenos and his son Alexei (II), born in 1169, among the 24 metropolitans present, the twelfth, in the proper sequence, is Michail "Rosias. This is trustworthy evidence was noticed already more than a century ago, but was never seriously taken into account, since it was believed that Constantine II remained in the chair at least until 1174. Moreover, the named Michael is unknown to Russian sources. In the story about the occupation of the Kyiv table by Roman Rostislavich, it is said that, among others, the Metropolitan and Archimandrite of the Pechersk Monastery came out to meet the prince who was entering the city. Constantine II, the last metropolitan, named after the events of 1169 d. However, it should be noted that the chronicle is not a single text, but a compilation, which is especially clearly seen in the example of its chronological inconsistency. Thus, the mentioned entry into Kyiv of Roman is attributed to 6682 (1174), while, according to completely reliable data, this prince occupied the Kyiv throne already in early July 1171. The story comes from the annals of the Caves Monastery, brought to 1182 and about 1200 partly used in the Kyiv chronicle, although in this case with incorrect dating: the compiler of the Kyiv chronicle confused the year of Roman's return to the Kyiv table (1174) with the year of his first reign (1171). On the other hand, neither the metropolitan nor the archimandrite was named by name in the contemporary story of the Pechersk author. Of course, it is quite possible that Metropolitan Constantine II and Abbot Polycarp, who had a conflict in 1169, had already reconciled by that time or, despite the conflict, expressed their readiness to lead the Kiev clergy, welcoming the new prince. At the same time, there is a detail in the story that makes it possible to doubt that it was Constantine II who was meant; the fact is that the abbot of the Pechersk Monastery is first mentioned here as the bearer of the honorary title of archimandrite. As is known, the Kyiv Caves Monastery belonged to those monasteries that were under the special patronage of princely power and were, to a certain extent, excluded from the jurisdiction of the metropolitan, using self-government. Thus, it seems reasonable to assume that Polycarp received the honorary title of archimandrite directly from the patriarch. Since in 1168-1169. the dispute about the posts was hardly yet resolved (for example, for the support of the metropolitan in this matter, Bishop Anthony of Chernigov was even expelled from the city by his prince), then the participation of Constantine II in encouraging Polycarp is very unlikely. On the contrary, this latter should be understood rather as a gesture of disapproval of the policy of Constantine II in relation to the Caves Monastery. Although there was no unanimity in Constantinople on the issue of fasting, they were well informed about the conflict in Russia. Patriarch Luke Chrysoverg was inclined to lighten the fasts on the Lord's holidays; in addition, he understood the significance of the Pechersk Monastery for the Russian clergy and appreciated its loyalty to the patriarchy during the recent struggle within the Russian church.

The new Patriarch Michael III (since January 1170) patronized monasticism and enjoyed its support, being an opponent of the union; he had every reason to keep the peace in the Russian church and to encourage the monastery devoted to Orthodoxy. As a result of this, his abbot received an advantage over other abbots of Russian monasteries; Perhaps it was at this time, given the new title of abbot, that the Pechersky Monastery was named Lavra. Thus, it can be assumed that the honorary title of archimandrite, in which capacity Polycarp first publicly appears during the celebrations in July 1171, was delivered precisely by the new metropolitan, who arrived in Kyiv around June 1171 (this month is the most favorable time for travel by sea and the Dnieper from Constantinople to Kyiv). How long Mikhail II occupied the chair is unclear, but here again it is necessary to recall the burial in the Pechersk Monastery of a certain Metropolitan Mikhail (see Mikhail I). If there is a historical grain behind this legend, then such a deviation from the custom of burying metropolitans in the Kiev Cathedral certainly indicates a close relationship with the monastery, the beginning of which, perhaps, was laid by the fact that it was this metropolitan who delivered the title of archimandrite to the Pechersk rector.

19. Nicephorus II

Nicephorus II became the Metropolitan of Kyiv until 1183 and stayed in the cathedra for at least twenty years. The first information about his activities dates back to 1183: on July 29 or August 5 of this year, Nikifor took the monastic vows of the newly elected rector of the Kyiv Caves Monastery, priest Vasily. Shortly before this, he consecrated the Greek Nikolai as a new bishop of Rostov in place of the deceased Leon, because of which his relations with the powerful Vladimir-Suzdal prince Vsevolod the Big Nest deteriorated, who demanded that the metropolitan approve the chosen one from "the people of our land", i.e. to approve the princely investiture. Nicephorus, who at first opposed this, finally gave in to pressure from the Kyiv prince Svyatoslav and on March 11, 1184, consecrated the Vsevolodov candidate, hegumen of the monastery of St. Savior on Berestov Luke, the new Rostov bishop. Deprived of the Rostov see, the Greek Nicholas in the same year received the Polotsk bishopric, where Bishop Dionysius had just died. This experience helped Nicephorus to understand the situation in his metropolis and establish mutual understanding with the most influential princes. In 1194 Nicephorus supervised the ceremony of placing Rurik Rostislavich on the Kyiv table, which took place in St. Sophia Cathedral. Nicephorus skillfully reconciled the princes among themselves, and in the course of one such mediation between Vsevolod and the Chernigov prince in the 1190s, he managed, with the support of the Kyiv prince, to establish a new, twelfth in a row, bishopric in Ryazan. In 1189, Nicephorus managed to attract the Russian princes to repulse the Hungarian interference in Galician affairs. In addition, it was Nikephoros who was probably the Russian archpastor who, according to Nikita Choniates, in 1201/1202 urged the Russian princes to campaign against the Polovtsians who were ruining Byzantium. At the request of Vsevolod, in 1190 Nicephorus ordained Bishop John of Rostov-Suzdal, and in 1197 Bishop Paul of Pereyaslav; even earlier, in 1189, he consecrated Bishop Andrian of Belgorod. Archbishops of Novgorod were also consecrated by Nicephorus: Gabriel (May 29, 1187), Martyrius (December 11, 1193) and Mitrofan (July 3, 1201). In the report about this last ceremony, the metropolitan is not named, but since Nikifor is attested in the Kyiv cathedra in the Kievan chronicle in 1198, and in the Novgorod chronicle in 1199, it can be assumed that in 1201 he continued to head it. A large lead seal has been preserved, on which Nicephorus, like his predecessors, calls himself the archpastor of all Russia. He (or his namesake Nicephorus I) also owns the pastoral epistle that has come down to us.

20. Matthew

Matthew became Metropolitan of Kyiv before 1210 and died on August 19, 1220. Matthew was the successor of Nicephorus, who probably died shortly after 1201. 1204 and until his death at the beginning of 1206 he resided in Thrace. On the other hand, it is quite acceptable to assume that due to the collapse of Byzantium, the Kyiv cathedra was empty for several years. If so, then Matthew could only be installed by the new Nicaean Patriarch Michael IV Avtorian, who took office in the spring of 1208, and arrived in Kyiv no earlier than 1209. In historiography, there is sometimes an erroneous opinion that Matthew was appointed by the Grand Duke Vsevolod the Big Nest, although this assumption is based solely on the words of V. N. Tatishchev. Be that as it may, in 1210 Matthew, on behalf of the Olgovichi, arrived as an intermediary in Vladimir-on-Klyazma, where he was honored with rich gifts. Thanks to the reconciliation that took place then, Vsevolod the Big Nest was recognized as the eldest among the Russian princes. Vsevolod Chermny from the Olgovich family was able to again take the Kyiv table, and his daughter married on May 15, 1211, Vsevolod's son Yuri the Big Nest. Shortly after the completion of this mission in the spring of 1211, Matthew ordained a new Archbishop of Novgorod, Anthony, to take the place of Mitrofan, who had been deposed on January 23, 1211 by Prince Mstislav Udaly and the Novgorodians. After the death in 1212 of Grand Duke Vsevolod the Big Nest and the division of the principality between his sons, the old Rostov bishopric was divided into two: on November 10, 1213 (1214?), Matthew consecrated Pachomius, until then rector of the Petrovsky monastery in Rostov, as the Rostov bishop, and at the beginning of 1214 (1215?) - hegumen Simon, once a monk of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery, became bishop of Vladimir of Suzdal. After the death of Pachomius, Kiril became bishop of Rostov at the beginning of 1216. At the end of his life, Matthew had to once again deal with Novgorod affairs. As a result of political upheavals in the Novgorod Republic, the previously deposed Mitrofan returned to Novgorod and at the end of 1219 again found himself on the cathedra in Novgorod Sofia. However, Archbishop Anthony had no intention of voluntarily relinquishing his post, and therefore Novgorod decided to send both archbishops to Kyiv, leaving the metropolitan to choose between them. Matthew restored Mitrofan, who returned to Novgorod on March 17, 1220; but Matthew also showed Anthony "honor" by making him a bishop in Przemysl. Thus, the foundation of the Przemysl cathedra, formerly part of the Galich diocese, should be considered as the result of an agreement between the metropolitan and the Galich prince Mstislav Udaly (since 1219), who patronized Anthony.

21. Cyril I

Kiril I was appointed Metropolitan of All Russia by Patriarch Herman II of Nicaea in 1224, and at the end of that year, accompanied by the Russian embassy, ​​he was "brought" to Kyiv, where he solemnly ascended the cathedra in Kiev's St. Sophia Cathedral on Epiphany (January 6), 1225. Kiril - the first Russian metropolitan, about whom it is reliably known that he was installed in Nicaea. The fact that the Kyiv cathedra was empty for more than four years indicates the difficulties that may have arisen in the issue of the canonicity of the appointment to the Russian Metropolis. Cyril died in the summer of 1233 between June 10 and August 15. In 1226-1227, as well as in 1230, in full agreement with the Kyiv prince Vladimir Rurikovich, Kiril acted as an intermediary in peace negotiations between the princes, which earned him great respect. The remark of the chronicler that, along with great erudition in the Holy Scriptures, Cyril also possessed a special gift of "teaching", also seems to point to his social activities. Cyril's mutual understanding with Russian monasticism was manifested, among other things, in his participation in the annual celebrations dedicated to the celebration of the memory of St. Theodosius in the Kiev Caves Monastery (which we learn quite by accident, due to the fact that on the same day, May 3, 1230, an earthquake happened). Kiril's concerns were aimed at strengthening the independence of the Russian church in relation to the princely power, as well as at its internal consolidation. The sources only briefly mention two councils, each of which was attended by five bishops and several abbots: one in Vladimir-on-Klyazma in March 1227 and the second in April 1231 in Kyiv. Another piece of evidence on this subject is contained in a letter addressed to Cyril by Patriarch German of 1228, where a warning is expressed not to consecrate slaves to the priesthood, and bishops are required not to consecrate unless a free letter is first presented. Princes, under the threat of excommunication, are forbidden to interfere in the property affairs of churches and monasteries, as well as in ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the scope of which, according to the message, was extremely small. The content of the letter was undoubtedly dictated to Patriarch Kiril, who sought, with the help of the authority of the patriarch, to eradicate abuses in the Russian Church. It seems that it was at this time that the church charters of Vladimir and Yaroslav first received their written form. Probably, in connection with the church policy of Cyril I, one should also consider the legend on his seal: “Kipillos monachos eleo f (eo) u archiepiskopos tis m (it) popoleos Rosias” . It is noteworthy that the Metropolitan of Kyiv titles himself here as "Archbishop of the Russian Metropolis", wishing thereby to indicate his supremacy in relation to all bishops who, according to this interpretation, acted within the limits of the authority received from the Metropolitan. In other words, the metropolitan sought to reduce the bishops under his jurisdiction to the role of his vicars (deputies). Such a policy looks very timely in the face of the fact that investiture by the princes (i.e., princely appointments) increasingly made bishops independent church rulers in relation to the metropolitan, who was left only to ordain princely proteges. The political fragmentation of Russia also narrowed the sphere of real power of the Kyiv metropolitans. Thus, the emergence of a trend towards κηδεμονία πάντων (“care of all”), which is so characteristic of the church policy of Metropolitan Cyril II in the second half of the 13th century, must apparently be attributed to the era of Cyril I. During the reign of Cyril I, the following bishops were consecrated : Mitrofan, bishop in Vladimir-on-Klyazma and Pereyaslavl, March 14, 1227 (in Vladimir-on-Klyazma); Spiridon, Archbishop of Novgorod, February 17, 1230 and Cyril (II), Bishop of Rostov, Yaroslavl and Uglich, April 6, 1231 (it is noteworthy that the bishops of Vladimir and Rostov are named not only by the location of their cathedral churches, but also by residences specific princes). Of the numerous literary works, the authors of which bore the name "Cyril", several teachings, without proper reason, are attributed to Cyril I.

22. Greek Joseph

The Greek Joseph was consecrated Metropolitan of All Russia by Patriarch Herman II in Nicaea and arrived in Kyiv in 1236. However, we have no evidence of his activities. Perhaps, the establishment of the diocese in Lutsk falls on his time, which took place, in any case, before 1240. It is not clear whether Joseph retired to his homeland with the beginning of the second Mongol campaign against Russia or died during the capture of Kyiv on December 6, 1240. So or otherwise, until 1245 a new metropolitan could not be sent from Nicaea, since from 1240 to 1244 the patriarchal throne was vacant.

[Peter]

A mysterious figure remains "quidam archiepiscopus de Russcia nomine Petrus... a Tartaris exterminatus" (i.e., "a certain Peter, archbishop of Russia ... expelled by the Tatars"), who spoke in 1244 in the Roman curia, and in 1245 d. - in front of the I Lyon Cathedral with information about the Tatars, as evidenced by a source reflected in the Chronicle of Matthew of Paris and the Bertin Annals. Perhaps the title of bishop (in the sense of an ordinary bishop) or archimandrite was misunderstood or translated? The latter possibility is quite probable for the reason that before the XIII century. in Western Europe the title archimandrita was also used in relation to archbishops. The assumption that we are dealing with a usurper of the metropolitan rank is not without probability.

Nothing more than a hypothesis is the opinion that the Russian bishop who fled to Western Europe is the abbot of the Kyiv Spassky Monastery Peter Akerovich, mentioned in the annals under 1230/1231.

23. Cyril II

Cyril II led the Russian Church for more than four decades (124? / 1247-1281), during the most difficult era of the Mongol yoke. For the first time, Kiril is mentioned as appointed, but not ordained in 1242/1243, surrounded by the Galician-Volyn prince Daniel. Being a nominal prince of Kyiv (since 1238/1239), Daniel then approved the candidacy of Cyril, who, perhaps, was Russian in origin, presumably, before that he was elected by a council in which bishops and abbots who were within reach took part. The idea of ​​the identity of the new metropolitan with the printer Daniel, who also bore the name Cyril, is just a hypothesis, although it has quite good reasons. Only upon the return of Daniil in the spring of 1246 from the Horde, where he went to bow to Batu Khan, did Kiril go to the patriarch (from 1240 to 1244 the patriarchal throne, as you know, was empty!) To be appointed to the Russian metropolis. On the way to Nicaea, Cyril acted as an intermediary in the negotiations between Prince Daniel and the Hungarian king Bela IV, which ended in an alliance between these sovereigns. Since the Hungarian mission required time, the ordination of Cyril should be attributed already to 1247. In the autumn of 1250, Cyril arrives in Suzdal, where in the winter of 1250-1251. the marriage of the daughter of Daniel with the Grand Duke of Vladimir Andrei Yaroslavich takes place. Especially striking is the mutual understanding and long-term cooperation of Kiril with Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky, who received the title of Grand Duke of Kyiv in 1249 at the Khan's headquarters, and in 1252 the Grand Duke of Vladimir. Both statesmen were skeptical about the proposals of the union by the pope, considering it futile to resist the superior forces of the Mongols. As a result, they decided to agree to the recognition of Mongol rule and to broad cooperation with the conquerors. The first known meeting between Kiril and Alexander Nevsky took place in 1251 in Novgorod, where Kiril, together with Bishop Kiril of Rostov, ordained Archbishop Dalmat of Novgorod. In 1252, Cyril led the celebrations in connection with the ascension of the new Grand Duke Alexander Nevsky to the Vladimir table. At the end of 1256 both of them again visited Novgorod. Around the same time (1255-1258) a bishopric was established in Tver. In 1261 - 1263. Kiril stayed in Vladimir-on-Klyazma, where he ordained Bishop Mitrofan of Sarai (Saray is the capital of the Golden Horde) and Bishop Ignatius of Rostov, and in November 1263 he participated in the solemn burial of Alexander Nevsky. Probably, in Kyiv, Cyril in 1269 consecrated Theognost, Bishop of Pereyaslavl of Russia and Saray; Following this, Theognost, on the instructions of the Metropolitan and Khan Mengu Timur, went to Constantinople to the emperor and the patriarch. His stay in Constantinople on August 12, 1276 is documented (see the "answers" of the patriarchal synod). Accompanied by the newly appointed Bishop of Vladimir in Kyiv in 1273, the former Kiev-Pechersk Archimandrite Serapion, Kiril arrived in 1274 in Vladimir-on-Klyazma, where he appointed him bishop of Volodimer, Suzhdal and Novgorod Nizhny. It was with this stay of Cyril in Vladimir in historiography that the important metropolitan council was associated, at which a decree was adopted against abuses in the church and among the clergy, and a collection of church regulations (nomocanon, helmsman's book) was officially approved, translated in the Balkans and sent to the metropolitan by the Bulgarian despot Yakov-Svyatoslav. This council, as was shown (Ya. N. Shchapov), already took place in 1273 in Kyiv. On the basis of this meeting, under the leadership of Cyril, a new Russian edition of the nomocanon was created. At the turn of 1275 and 1276. and throughout 1276 Cyril remained in Kyiv, where he ordained a new Archbishop of Novgorod, Clement and Theognost, successor to the deceased Serapion of Vladimir.
In 1280/1281 Cyril once again visited the Suzdal land; here he investigated the accusations against the Rostov Bishop Ignatius and acquitted him. During this trip, Cyril died in Pereslavl-Zalessky on November 27, 1281.

On December 6 of the same year, his remains were delivered to Kyiv (about 1000 km of sledge), where he was buried in the St. Sophia Cathedral, as the last Kyiv Metropolitan.

His successor Maxim (1283-1305), a Greek by birth, moved to Vladimir-on-Klyazma in 1299 with all his court and cathedral clergy and was buried in the Cathedral of the Assumption of the Mother of God there.

Kiril knew how to defend church interests before the Mongol khans. On August 1, 1267, Khan Mengu Timur issued him a letter of commendation (label), which contained guarantees of tolerance in religious matters, exempted the clergy from various taxes, proclaimed the inviolability of church property and religious objects, and benefits in relation to people subject to the church.

It can be concluded from the text that Cyril may have previously received such letters from the Golden Horde khans Batu (1237-1256) and Berke (1256-1266). Guesses that under Kiril allegedly weakened, if not completely interrupted, ties with Galich and Volhynia are groundless. The silence of the sources on this account is explained by their poor preservation. The fact that Rosia mikra, along with other Russian lands, remained under the jurisdiction of the Kyiv metropolitan, is evidenced by the following circumstance: the Russian nomocanon, developed under the leadership of Cyril, was adopted in the Volyn principality in its most ancient form; it was copied here in 1286. There are no grounds for asserting that Kiril transferred the metropolis to Vladimir.

Kiril is characterized by frequent trips to the dioceses, and Vladimir became just a residence for him during his long stays in North-Eastern Russia; especially in the period up to the death of Alexander Nevsky (1263), Cyril ruled the metropolis from here, at the same time in charge of the affairs of the vacant Vladimir cathedra. Such actions of Kiril were a logical consequence of the theory of "guardianship of all", which he adhered to. This theory was guided in the XIII and XIV centuries. and Byzantine patriarchs, reserving the right to supreme supervision. Kiril thought of himself as a real bishop of the entire metropolis with sovereign fullness of hierarchical authority, since the next in rank church hierarch, the patriarch, was too far away. This view was also expressed in the title, willingly used by Cyril: "Archbishop of All Russia". From this point of view, the bishops subordinate to him were regarded as acting only by virtue of the powers entrusted to them by the metropolitan. In this sense, a special bishop of Vladimir was not needed as long as Vladimir was often used by Cyril as a temporary residence. These views are also discernible in the Metropolitan’s appeal to Bishop Ignatius of Rostov (“brother and son”) or in the fact that Kiril, bypassing Bishop Clement, addresses the Novgorodians directly (“God entrusted me with the archdiocese in the Russian land, you listen to God and me ").

Notes

The metropolitans, whose names are in square brackets, were not included in the list of metropolitans given by Ya.N. Shchapov. The editors included these metropolitans in the general list without changing the numbering, and inserted information about them from the footnotes into the main text. - approx. ed.
Laurent V. Le corpus des sceaux de 1 "empire byzantin P., 1963. T. V, pars 1. P. 600. N 781.
Lives of the Holy Martyrs Boris and Gleb and services to them / Prepared. to the publication of D. I. Abramovich. Pg., 1916. (Monuments of ancient Russian literature. Issue 2). S. 19.
In the literature, due to a misunderstanding, it was repeatedly stated that Constantine ordered the alleged arrest of Polycarp. However, the Old Russian "prohibition" corresponds to the Greek epitimia - "repentance, punishment" - and can mean, in the worst case, dismissal from office.
Here, an explanation is needed regarding the names of Dionysius and Gabriel, who, starting from the XV-XVI centuries. are found in the lists of metropolitans between Nicephorus and Matthew. Both of the oldest catalogs of metropolitans are of Novgorod origin: one dates back to the 20s of the 15th century. and knows only Dionysius; the second one dates from the middle of the 15th century. and includes the name of Gabriel. Not to mention the justification for the pause between the death of Nicephorus II and the appointment of Matthew, the tradition that brought both names to us must be recognized as unreliable. The emergence of the name Dionysius between Nicephorus II and Matthew is very easy to explain if we take into account the method of compiling the catalog: the compiler simply looked for the name of the next metropolitan in various annals. And in one of them, under the year 1210, he found Metropolitan Dionysius (see Typographic Chronicle: PSRL. Pg 1921 T. 24. S. 85), where he is mentioned in the same context as Matthew in other chronicles; therefore, the mention of Dionysius is explained by a scribal error. It is more difficult to explain the appearance of the name Gabriel in the second catalog, but even here the reason lies in the additions made by the compiler of the catalog, who was not satisfied with the data of the annals and expanded the list with the names that he found in other documents. In one of them, he must have come across the name of some Metropolitan Gabriel (for example, the third Galich metropolitan in the first half of the 14th century had such a name). It is clear that the compiler could easily mistake the Galich metropolitan for Kyiv, although it is not entirely clear why in the catalog he is attributed to a time approximately a hundred years earlier. Possibly in the middle of the fifteenth century. succession of metropolitans of the 14th century. was so well known that the compiler had to look for a free place for Gabriel in the previous century.
In the literature, this Cyril is often called Cyril II, and Metropolitan Kiril II (1242-1281), respectively, Cyril III. At the same time, they consider Cyril I the metropolitan with this name, placed in the metropolitan catalog of the 16th century. between Theopempt and Hilarion.
Historiography has repeatedly pointed to the attempt of the Volyn Bishop Joasaph "to jump to the table of the metropolitan", as reported by the Ipatiev Chronicle. This deliberate usurpation was attributed to the years of the Mongol invasion (that is, after 1237); however, one news from the Novgorod I Chronicle, which was not paid due attention (NPL. S. 68 under 1229), allows us to date this event to a different time. The Novgorod chronicler unequivocally asserts that among the candidates for the Novgorod cathedra (approximately in May-June) 1229 was the Bishop of Volyn Joasaph. Such a claim on the part of a hierarch occupying another pulpit would look very unusual, so it is logical to think that at this time Joasaph was no longer in his original position. This assumption allows us to more accurately date the Volyn news. The chronicler, or rather, the prince's biographer, wanted to say that during the reign of Daniel Romanovich, that is, between 1216-1219 and 1264-1269, there were four bishops in Vladimir Volynsky, the first of whom was Joasaph. Further, from the text of the chronicle, it can be seen that Daniel appointed a bishop of the city of Kholm founded by him, a certain John, whose predecessor was the Ugric bishop, namely this very Joasaph, "and jump on the table of the metropolitan and for this he was overthrown by the speed of his table and transferred the speed of piskupy to Kholm" ( PSRL. T. 2. St. 739-740). The transfer of the see from Ugrivsk to Kholm should be connected with the appointment, apparently around 1240, to the bishops of Kholm John, who occupied the see in the early 1260s. It is known that Daniil founded the Ugrov diocese at the time when he was sitting in Vladimir Volynsky (see: Ibid. Stb. 842), i.e. before 1237/1238, but after 1229, as follows from Novgorod news about Joasaph. Based on these data, Ioasaph's career is restored as follows: from the monks of the monastery of the Holy Mountain near Vladimir Volynsky, in 1219 he became the bishop of this city; between 1220 and 1224 he tried to occupy the empty metropolitan see. This attempt failed and ended with his removal from office (1225), probably after the arrival of the new Metropolitan Cyril I. Vasily, a monk of the same monastery of St. Mountain, became the new bishop of Vladimir Volynsky. At that time, Daniel did not yet have the strength to oppose the decision of the metropolitan, but Ioasaph's claim to the post of archbishop of Novgorod in 1229 testifies that he did not abandon his ambitious plans and, moreover, enjoyed the certain support of the secular authorities. Somewhat later, Daniil founded the diocese of Ugry, appointing his protégé as the first bishop. All this could have happened with the consent of Metropolitan Kiril, or soon after his death (in the summer of 1233), in order to present the new metropolitan with a fait accompli. Apparently, the death of Joasaph, which followed a few years later, and the decision to transfer the bishopric to the Hill coincide in time.

Two large copies of such molivdovuls have been preserved, which are still unanimously attributed to Metropolitan Cyril I. However, one cannot exclude the candidacy of Cyril II, because among the arguments in favor of Cyril I, only one is really conclusive: both bulls were found during the archaeological excavations of the "Princes of the Mountain "(about 100 km south of Kyiv, near the mouth of the Ros). As numerous finds show, this princely residence was destroyed during the Mongol invasion, that is, in 1239/1240, or shortly after it.

The graffiti on the day of Cyril's death found in Kiev's St. Sophia Cathedral makes it possible to put the sign differently than A. N. Nasonov did in his edition of the Novgorod I Chronicle in the message about the death of Cyril.

It is unclear the meaning of the title prototronos, which is attached to Cyril in a letter to him from the Bulgarian despot Yakov-Svyatoslav (1261 or 1270): “. . I am writing to you, Archbishop Kiril, beloved of God, archpriest. . ." Prototronos - episcopus primae sedis in the patriarchy, denoted the first among the metropolitans, prototronos in the metropolis - the highest rank of the bishop of this metropolis (in Kyiv, this was the Bishop of Novgorod since 1165). Thus, the only possible assumption is that Cyril II was so named as the prototronos of the patriarchy, but such an assumption contradicts the traditional first place that the Caesarean See occupied in the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Otherwise, we could only talk about a short-term increase in the rank of the Russian Metropolis (from 60th to first place?); Could this be explained, say, by the special position of the Nicene emperors and patriarchs, or by the tendency to establish friendly contacts with the Mongols through the mediation of Cyril II? The assumption of prototronos as the bishop of the first table in the metropolis, i.e. Kyiv, it would be desirable to support data from other sources. In this case, one should proceed from the fact that Cyril II, who considered himself "the archbishop of all Russia", used the title prototronos in order to emphasize his claim to guardianship of all. However, we must not forget that here the title was applied by the Bulgarian sovereign, who, thanks to his family ties with the Byzantine court, should have clearly understood its real meaning. One cannot exclude the possibility that Yakov-Svyatoslav borrowed the title from the intitulation of the message of Cyril himself, although in this case both interpretations are possible.

The content of the article

METROPOLITAS IN THE HISTORY OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH. Russian Orthodox Church since its foundation in the 10th century. and until the establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate (1589) they were headed by metropolitans. As a representative of the church hierarchy, the Russian metropolitan exercised the power of the Patriarch of Constantinople in his metropolis and was under his jurisdiction. In fact, he was the head of the national church of an independent state and therefore had greater independence in relation to Constantinople compared to other bishops subordinate to Constantinople. The emperor of the Byzantine Empire, as the head of the Christian world, also formally had power over the Russian metropolitan. However, in real life, the exercise of the powers of the metropolitan largely depended on the prince, who at the moment occupied the grand throne.

Metropolitans to the Russian metropolis were elected in Byzantium from among the Romans and ordained in Constantinople. Through his proteges, the Patriarch of Constantinople got the opportunity to influence the policy of the Russian prince and exercise control over the young but powerful state of the Russians. In turn, the Russian princes, striving for independence from Constantinople and wishing to see a like-minded and assistant in the metropolitan, sought to transfer the management of the metropolis into the hands of the Russian hierarchs. The authority of the metropolitan in Russia was extremely high. As a rule, Russian metropolitans had a great influence on the state life of the country. They often acted as mediators in resolving diplomatic and military conflicts between princes, defending the unity of the Russian Church, and thereby contributed to the preservation of the unity of Russia. The metropolitans also played a prominent role in the development of Russian literature and education.

The first metropolitans (10th–11th centuries).

The residence of the head of the Russian Church until the 13th century. was in Kyiv, then in Vladimir on the Klyazma, and from the 14th century. in Moscow. The very first hierarch in the rank of metropolitan, sent from Constantinople under Prince Vladimir, was Michael (988-992). However, he did not have real episcopal power, since there were no bishoprics subordinate to him yet. The Russian Church was divided into dioceses by Michael's successor, the Greek Leonty (992-1008), who became the first Russian metropolitan. The place of residence of the first metropolitans was the city of Pereyaslavl, located not far from Kyiv. They moved to Kyiv under Yaroslav the Wise, who built not only the Sophia Cathedral, but also the Metropolitan House at the Cathedral. Following Leonty, the throne of Kyiv was occupied by John (1015–1037) and Theopemt (1037–1048). After Theopemt, the chair remained free for three years due to the military conflict that arose between Yaroslav and the Byzantine emperor.

In 1051, the first Russian Metropolitan Hilarion (1051–1062) occupied the Kyiv cathedra. The chronicle reports that he was elected by the will of the “autocratic” Yaroslav by the council of Russian bishops, and although Hilarion asked for blessings from the Patriarch of Constantinople, he became the first metropolitan to be ordained without the participation of Constantinople. The few information about Hilarion contained in Tales of Bygone Years, give an idea of ​​him as an outstanding figure in the period of political and cultural upsurge of Kievan Rus. A monk and presbyter, "a good and bookish man", he was the main assistant to the Grand Duke Yaroslav, who was striving for independence from Byzantium. His famous work A Word on Law and Grace represents an apology for the Russian state, which, after being baptized, as the author claims, became on a par with European states.

After Hilarion, the Kyiv Metropolis was again headed by the Greeks: Ephraim (c. 1055 - c. 1061), George (1062-1072/1073) and John II (until 1077/1078-1089). Only at the end of the 11th century. the Russian hierarch, the former Bishop of Pereyaslavl Ephraim (1089–1097), who was ordained in Constantinople, ascended the metropolitan throne. Then, again for many years, the proteges of the Patriarch of Constantinople follow in the list of metropolitans: Nicholas (1097), Nicephorus (1104-1121), Nikita (1122), Michael (1130 - not earlier than 1145). It is known about Metropolitan Michael that in the midst of princely troubles he left Russia and returned to Constantinople.

Kliment Smolyatich.

Having received the news of his death, Grand Duke Izyaslav convened a council of bishops in Kyiv to elect a metropolitan (1147), pointing to Clement Smolyatich, hermit, scribe and philosopher, "which had never happened before in Russia" as Michael's successor. Not all hierarchs agreed with the prince's choice. The pro-Greek bishops opposed Clement, demanding the appointment of a metropolitan in Constantinople as patriarch. However, the advantage was on the side of the Grand Duke Izyaslav and Kliment Smolyatich. To emphasize the legality of the consecration of the new metropolitan, the greatest relic was used in the enthronement ceremony - the head of St. Clement, Pope of Rome. Nevertheless, neither the patriarch nor some of the Russian bishops recognized Kliment Smolyatich. Some princes, rivals of Izyaslav, also did not accept Clement as the head of the Russian Church. Clement himself considered himself independent of the patriarch and did not even mention his name at the service. Beginning with Kliment Smolyatich, the metropolitans found themselves involved in the internecine struggle of the princes for Kyiv for a long period. In 1148 Prince Yuri Dolgoruky took possession of the throne of Kyiv. Clement, together with the Grand Duke, retired to Vladimir Volynsky. Their exile did not last long: soon Izyaslav regained Kyiv.

Constantine (1156–1159).

In 1155, Yuri Dolgoruky became prince of Kyiv, and in 1156 the Greek Metropolitan Konstantin (1156) arrived in Russia. First of all, Constantine deposed all the hierarchs appointed by Clement and anathematized the deceased Prince Izyaslav. The harsh measures of the new metropolitan aggravated an already difficult situation. When in 1158 the Izyaslavichi regained their throne city, Konstantin, who cursed their father, was forced to retire to Chernigov. Prince Mstislav Izyaslavich insisted on the return of Kliment Smolyatich to Kyiv. Rostislav Mstislavich pointed to the legally appointed Konstantin. After lengthy disputes, the brothers came to the decision to ask for a new metropolitan from Constantinople. The death of Constantine in 1159 allowed the patriarch to meet the request of the princes.

Theodore (1161–1163).

In 1160 Metropolitan Fyodor appeared in Kyiv. Ten months later, he died, not having time to prove himself as head of the metropolis.

After the death of Theodore, Prince Rostislav made an attempt to return Clement to Kyiv, but the patriarch again sent his protege, disregarding the desire of the Grand Duke. At the "petition" of the Byzantine emperor himself, the prince received Metropolitan John (1164), but firmly declared that he was resigning himself to this state of affairs for the last time. Thus, the turmoil that began with the appointment of Kliment Smolyatich ended with the victory of the Greeks. John IV was followed by Constantine II.

Constantine II (1167–1169).

According to sphragistics (the science that studies seals), it is from this metropolitan that the bishop of Kyiv receives the title of metropolitan of all Russia. Under Constantine, Andrei Bogolyubsky, who founded the Principality of Vladimir, made the first attempt in the history of the Russian Church to divide the metropolis. He turned to the Patriarch with a request to raise his candidate Theodore to the Metropolitan of Vladimir. However, the patriarch consecrated Theodore only as a bishop, showing in this case historical foresight, since the course of Russian history showed how important it was to preserve the unity of the church in conditions of feudal fragmentation and continuous princely strife.

The successors of Constantine II were Nikephoros II (before 1183 - after 1198), Matthew (1200-1220), Cyril I (1224) and Joseph (1236). It is known about Nikifor that he tried to initiate the reconquest of Galich, captured by the Hungarians. Matthew acted as an intermediary in the dispute between the Chernigov princes and Vsevolod the Big Nest. The time of Metropolitan Joseph's stay in Russia coincided with the beginning of the Mongol-Tatar invasion. This metropolitan went missing during the ruin of Kyiv by Batu.

Cyril II (1242–1281).

In 1242 Joseph's place was taken by the Russian bishop, Metropolitan Cyril II. The initiative to install Cyril belonged to the powerful Prince Daniel of Galicia. Due to the fact that Kyiv lay in ruins, Metropolitan Kirill almost constantly stayed in the north-east of Russia, working closely with Prince Alexander Nevsky. Nurturing the flock in the terrible years that followed the Mongol-Tatar invasion, he constantly traveled around the country, staying for a long time in Vladimir on the Klyazma. In 1252, he solemnly met Alexander Nevsky, who returned from the Horde, and put him on a great reign. Like Prince Alexander, Cyril chose in his policy the path of recognizing the rule of the Mongols in order to give Russia the opportunity for a gradual recovery from devastation. He succeeded in obtaining from the Mongol khans the release of the church from the payment of a burdensome tribute. The merits of this archpastor should also include the foundation of an Orthodox diocese in Saray for those Russian people who were forced to live in the Horde for a long time.

Maximus (1283–1305).

In 1283 Cyril was replaced by the Greek Maxim. With regard to the Tatars, he continued the policy of his predecessor. Since 1299, he also chose Vladimir as his place of residence, where he moved with all the clergy.

Peter (1308–1326).

The transfer of the metropolitan see to North-Eastern Russia caused concern among the Galician prince Yuri Lvovich, the grandson of the great Daniel, and prompted him to think about creating an independent metropolis. To fulfill his plans, he persuaded the abbot Peter of the Rat to go to Tsargrad. Arriving in Constantinople, Peter learned that the second pretender, a certain Gerontius, had arrived here from North-Eastern Russia before him, bringing the sacristy of Metropolitan Maximus as gifts to the patriarch. Despite the rich gifts, the patriarch chose Peter, to whom he handed over the hierarchal robes received from Gerontius, a pastoral baton and an icon, once painted by Peter himself as a gift to Metropolitan Maxim. In the Suzdal land, many were dissatisfied with this decision of Constantinople. Bishop Andrei of Tver even wrote a false denunciation of Peter. In 1311 the council of Russian bishops considered the complaint and acquitted Peter. In 1313, Metropolitan Peter made a trip to the Horde and asked the khan for confirmation of the privileges granted to the Russian Church, which exempted her from paying tribute. Contrary to the expectations of the Galician prince, Peter, who traveled a lot in the dioceses, liked to stay in Moscow, and a real friendship soon connected them with the Moscow prince Ivan Danilovich. Metropolitan Peter prophesied that Moscow would rise above all Russian cities and become the seat of the saints. With the blessing of Peter, Ivan Danilovich began the construction of the Assumption Church in the Kremlin, in which the saint bequeathed to be buried, thus laying the foundation for the tradition of burial of Russian metropolitans in the Moscow Assumption Cathedral. Shortly after his death, Peter was canonized and became one of the most revered Russian saints, and his relics, kept in the Assumption Cathedral, became the main shrine of the Moscow church. It is known that during his lifetime Peter chose his successor - Archimandrite Theodore, but, apparently, the patriarch refused the latter to the dignity.

Theognostus (1328–1353).

In 1338, a new metropolitan, Theognost, was sent from Constantinople to Russia. He first visited Kyiv, where the primatial cathedra was still officially located, then Vladimir, and then arrived in Moscow. It was Theognost who finally transferred the metropolitan see to the capital of the Moscow principality. During the reign of Theognost, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was formed in the southwest of Russia, which entered into a struggle for leadership with the Moscow prince. Having chosen the policy of supporting Moscow, Theognost in every possible way contributed to preserving the unity of faith and the ancient church order in all the dioceses of the Russian metropolis. In the 1330s-1340s, there was a turmoil in Byzantium caused by theological disputes about the nature of the Light of Tabor. The Bishop of Galicia did not fail to take advantage of this situation and managed to achieve the establishment of a metropolis in Galicia with the subordination of all the dioceses of Volhynia to it. In 1347, when a new patriarch ascended the patriarchal see of Constantinople, at the request of Theognost and Prince Simeon, he again subordinated Volhynia to the Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Russia. In 1352, a certain Theodoret arrived in Constantinople with rich gifts. Claiming that Theognost had died, he demanded ordination. The patriarch initiated an investigation, after which he expelled Theodoret. Despite this, the impostor managed to receive the metropolitan rank from the hands of Patriarch Tyrnovsky and settled in Kyiv. Theognost and Prince Simeon turned to the patriarch with a request, in order to avoid a repetition of such a situation after the death of Theognost, to appoint Bishop Alexy of Vladimir, who stood out among the Russian clergy both for his nobility and for his extraordinary abilities as a statesman, to the Russian metropolis. In 1353, during the plague, Theognostus died.

Alexy (1354–1378).

In the same year, Moscow received a letter calling Alexy to Constantinople. In 1354 he was ordained a metropolitan. Yielding to the request of the Moscow prince, the patriarch nonetheless emphasized that the election of a Russian bishop was an exception to the rule. Having learned about the appointment of Alexy, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania became active again. Prince Olgerd sent rich gifts to the Patriarch and his candidate for Metropolitan of Kyiv, Bishop Roman, through whom he intended to spread his influence to the Russian lands. The patriarch favorably reacted to the request of the Lithuanian prince. Lithuania received its own metropolitan, however, since the boundaries of the metropolises were not demarcated, a situation of constant rivalry arose between Alexy and Roman, who involuntarily interfered in each other's affairs. Church strife ended only with the death of Roman in 1362. Tensions with Lithuania led to the Russo-Lithuanian war in the second half of the 1360s. Constantinople feared that it could finally split the all-Russian church. Patriarch Filofei resolutely took the side of Moscow, seeing in it the strength with which he intended to prevent the collapse of Orthodoxy in the Russian lands. In 1370, he confirmed the decision that the Lithuanian land was not separated from the power of Metropolitan Alexy of Kyiv. However, the numerous complaints of Olgerd against Alexy, that the pastor did not pay due attention to Lithuania, which the Lithuanian prince did not get tired of sending to Constantinople, led the patriarch to decide on the division of the Russian metropolis.

In 1375 he appointed Cyprian, Metropolitan of Kyiv and Lithuania, who enjoyed his unlimited confidence. After the death of Alexy, Cyprian was to lead the entire Russian Church as Metropolitan of Kyiv and Russia. This decision caused discontent in Moscow. Metropolitan Alexy himself saw Sergius of Radonezh as his successor, but he resolutely refused to accept the dignity. Then the Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich, contrary to the will of Alexy, scheduled his confessor Mikhail-Mitya to the metropolis. Alexy died in 1378. This pastor, who for a quarter of a century headed the Russian Church, managed to raise the authority of spiritual authority to an unprecedented height. He had a great influence on the policy of Prince Dmitry Ivanovich, and in the years of his infancy he actually stood at the head of the state.

Mityai.

After the death of Alexy, Mityai began to rule the metropolis without consecration. Cyprian, who had come to assume his powers, was not allowed into Moscow. The prince sent Mityai to Constantinople to receive initiation. On the way, he died unexpectedly.

Pimen, one of the archimandrites accompanying him, used the documents with the prince's seal and received the metropolitan rank from the patriarch. At first, the Moscow prince was outraged by such an act and did not accept Pimen. However, not finding mutual understanding with Cyprian, he called Pimen to Moscow for the metropolis. At the same time, Dmitry Ivanovich again equipped an embassy in Constantinople, wishing to see his protege Dionysius on the metropolitan table.

This applicant was also unlucky. Returning from Constantinople, Dionysius was captured by the Kyiv prince Vladimir Olgerdovich and died in captivity.

Cyprian (1389–1406).

In 1389 the Grand Duke of Moscow died. Pimen also died. Only after this did the plan of the Patriarch of Constantinople come true: Cyprian became Metropolitan of Kyiv and Russia, uniting the entire metropolis in his hands, and stood at her helm until 1406. power. In the 1390s, he achieved the abolition of the Galician metropolis. The name of Cyprian is also associated with the implementation of church reform - the introduction of the Jerusalem Charter, adopted on Athos. On the initiative of Cyprian, the miraculous icon of Our Lady of Vladimir was brought to Moscow and a celebration was established in connection with the salvation of Moscow from the invasion of Tamerlane. Peru Cyprian, who was an outstanding writer, belongs Service and one of the editions of the life of the holy Metropolitan Peter.

Photius (1408-1431).

When Cyprian died, the enlightened Greek Photius came to replace him from Constantinople. The Lithuanian prince Vitovt tried to put pressure on Photius and force him to stay in Kyiv. Photius stayed in Kyiv for about six months, and then (1410) moved to Moscow. In response, a council of Lithuanian bishops in 1416 arbitrarily elected Gregory Tsamblak as metropolitan, who, despite the protests of Photius and Constantinople itself, ruled the Kyiv metropolis until 1419. After the death of Gregory, Vitovt again recognized the jurisdiction of Photius. Metropolitan Fotiy occupied one of the leading positions in the government under the young prince Vasily II. He managed to keep his uncle Vasily II, Prince Yuri of Zvenigorod, from an armed struggle for the throne of the Grand Duke.

Jonah (1448–1461).

Immediately after the death of the metropolitan, the naming of the bishop of Ryazan, Jonah, who had once been appointed to the episcopate by Photius himself, probably took place. However, the opportunity to send the embassy of Jonah to Constantinople for its establishment was formed only in 1435. By that time, a certain Isidore, a protege of Emperor John Palaiologos and Patriarch Joseph, supporters of concluding a union with the Catholic Church, had already received the rank of Metropolitan of Russia. Jonah, however, had to be content with the patriarchal blessing on the metropolis in the event of the death of Isidore. In 1439, Isidore attended the famous Florentine Council, and then came to Russia with the aim of introducing a union here. The council of Russian bishops urgently convened by the prince did not recognize the union and condemned Isidore. He was taken into custody, but in 1441 he was given the opportunity to escape from the Russian borders. The Grand Duke decided not to send the embassy of Jonah to Constantinople, where the imperial throne was occupied by John VIII, who signed the union, and the patriarchal throne was occupied by the Uniate Gregory Mamma. As soon as the death of the emperor became known in Moscow, Grand Duke Vasily considered it necessary to assume the function of the Orthodox emperor to defend Orthodoxy and convened a Council of Bishops, at which Jonah was elevated to the rank of metropolitan. Metropolitan Jonah was destined to become the last Metropolitan of All Russia.

Metropolises of Kyiv and Moscow.

In 1458, in Rome, the Uniate Patriarch consecrated Gregory, a disciple of Isidore, as Metropolitan of Russia. Gregory's claims extended to Southwestern Russia. In Moscow, they were forced to acknowledge the division of the metropolis. In 1460, Gregory sent an embassy to Moscow and demanded the removal of Metropolitan Jonah. The subsequent refusal, expressed in the most categorical form, confirmed the division of the metropolis into Kyiv and Moscow.

Theodosius (1461–1464).

Shortly before his death, Jonah chose Theodosius as his successor and, having discussed his decision with the Grand Duke, wrote a blessed letter addressed to Theodosius, which was made public after his death.

Philip I (1464–1473).

Theodosius acted in the same way with regard to his successor, Philip I. From that time on, one can speak of the autocephaly of the Russian Church.

Gerontius (1473–1489).

Metropolitan Gerontius was appointed without the blessing of his predecessor, who died suddenly, by the mere will of the Grand Duke. After that, the role of the Grand Duke in the election of candidates for the metropolitan throne increased significantly. The hierarchship of Gerontius was marked by a conflict with the princely authorities, who considered themselves more competent than the metropolitan, in one of the liturgical issues: Ivan III accused Gerontius of not “salting”, but against the sun at the consecration of the Assumption Cathedral. The Metropolitan tried for quite a long time to convince the prince that walking "salting" was a Latin custom. Not having achieved success, Gerontius left the department. The Grand Duke was forced to go to the Metropolitan with a petition and promise "in all sorts of speeches ... listen" to the primate. In 1484, Ivan III made an attempt to remove the "too independent" Gerontius from the chair. However, even in this case, the metropolitan retained the throne.

After the death of Gerontius, the metropolitan was absent from Moscow for almost a year and a half. Metropolitan Zosima took the chair in 1490, and in 1494 he was removed from the chair. Zosima was succeeded by Simon (1495–1511). During the time of the shepherding of Zosima and Simon, there were church councils for heretics, which led to a series of executions of dissidents. Metropolitan Simon left Varlaam as his successor, but this candidacy did not suit Grand Duke Vasily III. He imprisoned Varlaam in a monastery and chose the metropolitan himself. They became Daniel, who ruled the metropolis until 1539.

Daniel (1522–1539).

Saint Daniel felt dependent on the power of the Grand Duke and therefore supported him in all political activities. In 1523 he helped lure Vasily Ioannovich's rival Vasily Shemyachich to Moscow. The role of Daniel in the divorce of Vasily III from Solomonia Saburova is also notorious. It was Daniel who initiated the convocation of councils that condemned Maxim the Greek and Vassian Patrikeev. After the death of Joseph Volotsky, Daniel became a zealous defender of the right of monasteries to own estates. Contemporaries wrote about him that he ruled the church coolly, was "unmerciful", cruel and greedy. Peru Daniel owns significant literary works. It is known that he was directly involved in the compilation Nikon Chronicle. During the childhood of Ivan IV, Daniil supported the party of the Belsky boyars. The Shuiskys, who gained the upper hand, sent him into exile in 1539 to the Volokolamsk Monastery.

Joasaph (1539–1542).

The next metropolitan, Joasaph, who was elevated to the rank in 1539, also suffered for his adherence to the Belskys. In 1542, the Shuiskys staged a coup d'état. Joasaph tried to resist them. Fleeing from the rebels, who repaired the lord "all dishonor and great shame," Joasaph fled to the courtyard of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. Fearing his influence on the lad John, the boyars exiled the bishop to Beloozero, after which they elected a new metropolitan.

Macarius (1542–1563).

In 1542, the former Archbishop of Novgorod Macarius became the new metropolitan. This cautious and intelligent politician held the chair for twenty-two years. Under Ivan IV, he took the position of the first royal adviser and participated in solving the most important state problems. In 1547 he crowned Ivan IV and subsequently did much to establish the theocratic nature of the power of the sovereign. At the initiative of Macarius, several church councils were convened, at which questions of the canonization of Russian saints were decided. The innovation of Macarius was the discussion at church councils of issues of zemstvo dispensation, which allowed the church to influence the decisions of secular authorities. Macarius did a lot for the development of book writing, literature and art. Under his leadership, the Degree book of royal genealogy and Great Honor Menaion. Macarius died in 1563. His place was taken by the Metropolitan's disciple, Athanasius. Not possessing the political gift of Macarius, Athanasius remained in the department for only a year and voluntarily left it, not feeling the strength to resist the oprichnina. Cm. MACARY, ST.

Philip II (1566–1568).

Having released Athanasius, Ivan IV asked to take the chair of the abbot of the Solovetsky Monastery, Philip (Kolychev), seeing in him a candidate acceptable both for the Zemstvo and for the oprichnina. However, Philip had a stern and inflexible character. He clearly expressed his irreconcilable attitude towards the oprichnina. The confrontation between the metropolitan and the tsar ended with the public deposition of Philip, the procedure of which was thought out by Ivan the Terrible himself. The oprichny boyar burst into the cathedral and, interrupting the service, read the royal decree on the deposition of Philip. Malyuta Skuratov tore off his hierarch's mantle. The Metropolitan was thrown into a sleigh and taken away from the Kremlin. By decree of the tsar, Metropolitan Philip was strangled by Malyuta Skuratov in the Otrochi Monastery in Tver (1569). Philip became the last metropolitan who openly opposed secular authorities, denouncing the wrongs committed by the king (canonized in 1652). After him follows a number of figures who acted only as silent witnesses of what was happening (Cyril, 1568-1572; Anthony, 1572-1581).

Dionysius (1581–1586).

Under Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich, Dionysius became metropolitan. This hierarch tried to influence the tsar and reproached him for being too gullible in relation to Boris Godunov. It is natural that the powerful relative of the king did not like him. Godunov brought him down from the throne and installed Job, obedient to him, in 1587.

Literature:

Kloss B.M. Metropolitan Daniel and the Nikon Chronicle. - In the book: Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature, v. 28. L., 1974
Prokhorov G.M. The story of Mitya. Russia and Byzantium in the era of the Battle of Kulikovo. L., 1978
Meyendorff I., archpriest. Byzantium and Moscow Russia: Essay on the history of church and cultural relations in the 14th century. St. Petersburg, 1990
Skrynnikov R.G. Saints and Authorities. L., 1990
Meyendorff I., archpriest. Florence Cathedral: Reasons for Historical Failure- In the book: Byzantine Vremennik, v. 52. 1991
Sedova R.A. Saint Peter Metropolitan of Moscow in the literature and art of Ancient Russia. M., 1993
Macarius, Metropolitan. History of the Russian Church. M., 1994 and later.
Archimandrite Macarius (Veretennikov). Moscow Metropolitan Macarius and his time. M., 1996

With regard to the internal administration of the Russian metropolis, the metropolitans were completely independent, their decisions did not require patriarchal approval - primarily due to the remoteness and political independence of Russia from the Eastern Roman Empire. At the same time, as a rule, metropolitans were elected from the natives of the Empire and delivered there. Disputes over the succession to the throne to the All-Russian see often arose due to the fact that the Russian princes sought to supply Russian-born metropolitans in Russia, and the Tsargrad patriarchs held fast to the old order. So, on the occasion of the war between the Grand Duke Yaroslav and the Empire, the Kyiv see was empty for a long time, and in the year he ordered the Council of Russian Bishops to install the first Russian metropolitan, St. Hilarion, who was blessed by the patriarch only in hindsight. The election of Metropolitan Kliment Smolyatich at the Council of Russian Bishops in the year led to a split between them - those who insisted on the impossibility of appointing a metropolitan without patriarchal participation were at first persecuted, but then received the support of the new Grand Duke Yuri Dolgoruky. Grand Duke Rostislav was forcefully persuaded to accept Metropolitan John IV, appointed in the year without his consent, and declared that if the appointment of the metropolitan was repeated again without his consent, then he would not only not be accepted, but a law would be issued " to elect and install metropolitans from Russians at the command of the Grand Duke However, the opinion that at that time, under the threat of a church schism, it was possible to obtain the consent of the Empire to appoint only candidates approved by the prince to the Kyiv metropolis remains unfounded. Grand Duke Andrei Bogolyubsky made an attempt to divide the Russian metropolis into two, asking the patriarch to appoint presented by Prince Theodore to the Metropolitans of Vladimir, but the patriarch appointed Theodore only to the bishops... Thus, the procedure for sending Kyiv metropolitans from the Empire remained unchanged during the pre-Mongol period.

Mongol-Tatar yoke and Western unrest

Elected in Russia and installed in Constantinople, Metropolitan Kirill III headed the All-Russian Metropolis for about 40 years to a year and arranged a new order for its existence under the Mongols, firmly rejecting the possibility of a union with Roman Catholicism. Metropolitan Kirill called himself "the archbishop of all Russia," adhering to the concept of his supreme supervision over all the rulers of Russia, who acted by virtue of the powers handed over by the metropolitan. The Metropolitan could no longer manage the Russian churches from the devastated Kyiv and spent his life on the road, staying the longest in Vladimir-on-Klyazma, and his heir, Saint Maximus, had already finally settled in Vladimir.

The transfer of the metropolitan see to the north prompted Grand Duke Yuri Lvovich of Galitsky to ask for the foundation of an independent metropolis for his Western Russian lands. The Galician candidate, St. Peter, was appointed not to the Galician, but to the Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Russia, and in the year moved to Moscow, where the All-Russian cathedra was finally transferred from Vladimir by his successor, St. Theognost. At the same time, the subsequent All-Russian metropolitans in Moscow continued to be called Kyiv. At the same time, since the beginning of the 14th century, the Western Russian and Lithuanian princes have been trying to divide the Russian flock in church terms into Eastern and Western. Constantinople sometimes appointed Galician and Lithuanian metropolitans, and then again abolished these Western Russian metropolitanates. The stable existence of numerous Russian metropolises in the Mongol-Tatar period was not fixed, but this period became a time of inter-jurisdictional church unrest in the Russian flock, reflecting the growing political and cultural disunity of the Russian lands. The isolated Lithuanian metropolis has been known since the end of the 13th century, the Galician was established three times in the 14th century. Saint Theognost managed to achieve their closure. In the year Metropolitan Theodoret appeared in Kyiv, appointed by the Patriarch of Tarnovo, but the Council of Constantinople deposed him. Although Russian metropolitans were sometimes delivered earlier, the appointment of St. Alexis in the Empire in the year caused a special conciliar decision that the consecration of a Russian was an exception and that in the future All-Russian metropolitans should be supplied from the Greeks. At the same time, it was decided not to divide the Russian metropolis, which was soon violated by the will of the Lithuanian Grand Duke Olgerd, who was at enmity with Moscow. The boundaries of the Kiev-Moscow and Kiev-Lithuanian metropolitanates were not demarcated and rivals interfered in each other's affairs until the death of the Lithuanian Metropolitan Roman in the year. Despite the decision of the Council of Constantinople, Patriarch Filofey of Constantinople yielded to Casimir of Poland and Olgerd of Lithuania, again dividing the Russian metropolis into three - in the year he installed Metropolitan Anthony in Galich, and in the year Saint Cyprian in Kyiv. However, the latter, after the death of St. Alexis of Moscow and the unsuccessful opposition of the Grand Dukes of Moscow for more than ten years, was able to unite the Russian Orthodox flock by the end of his life. Again, the issue of dividing the Russian metropolis was raised in the 1410s by Grand Duke Vytautas of Lithuania, who, having been refused in Constantinople, himself gathered a Council of Lithuanian Bishops in the year in which he elected Gregory (Tsamblak) Metropolitan of Kiev-Lithuania. By the 1430s, a situation arose in which three Kyiv metropolitans were elected at once - Bishop Jonah of Ryazan in the Moscow state, Bishop Gerasim of Smolensk in Lithuania and Isidore in Constantinople. The latter received the appointment, being the instrument of the emperor John Palaiologos for the approval of the union with Roman Catholicism. Isidore accepted the Union of Florence in the same year, but in the same year, upon his return to Russia, he was condemned by a council of Russian bishops and fled from custody to Rome. After many years of delay, Saint Jonah was installed in Russia without the knowledge of the Uniate Patriarch Gregory Mamma. From that time on, the Metropolis of Kyiv and All Russia, with its center in Moscow, no longer resumed its dependence on the Church of Constantinople, and from the year it became known as Moscow and All Russia. Its recognition at the ecumenical level, already as an autocephalous Patriarchate, took place in the year at the Council of the Eastern Hierarchs. For its history, see Russian Orthodox Church.

Metropolis of Southwestern Russia

The fall of the Eastern Roman Empire, the mass departure of its elites from Orthodoxy, the strengthening of Roman Catholic expansion through Uniatism, the consolidation of the Muscovite state and the Commonwealth - all this led to the collapse of the unity of the Russian metropolis. In the same year, the former Uniate Patriarch Gregory of Constantinople left for Rome and appointed Isidore's disciple, the Uniate Gregory, to the Kyiv Metropolitanate. Pope Pius II, sending Gregory to King Casimir IV of Poland, ranked 9 dioceses as metropolises: Bryansk, Smolensk, Przemysl, Turov, Lutsk, Vladimir-Volyn, Polotsk, Kholm and Galicia. With the refusal of the Moscow bishops from the title of Kyiv, only the metropolitans of Southwestern Russia retained it. Metropolitan Gregory was not widely recognized among the faithful and soon returned to the bosom of the Orthodox Church, entering under the omophorion of Constantinople. The Church of Constantinople could do little to protect the Orthodox in the Commonwealth, and the subsequent history of the Metropolis of Kyiv is a constant struggle to preserve Orthodoxy in the face of Roman Catholic pressure. The chair of the Kyiv Metropolitans of South-Western Russia often moved, falling into the union among the hierarchy was a periodic problem, relations with the authorities were often hostile. Metropolitan George lived in Lithuania, and his heirs usually stayed in Vilna, but Metropolitan Joseph (Soltan) at the beginning of the 16th century lived mostly in Smolensk.

The struggle for the status of Orthodoxy in the Commonwealth proceeded with varying success. In the year the Vilna Council tried to achieve greater independence for the Orthodox Church in Lithuania; the judicial privileges of the Russian clergy were confirmed by the charters of Prince Alexander in the year and King Sigismund I in the year. In 1999, the Grodno Seim banned Orthodox Christians from holding the highest positions in the state. Metropolitan Onesiphorus (Petrovich-Girl) petitioned Stefan Batory for a letter confirming the rights and courts of the Orthodox Church, and from Sigismund III - a letter for church estates. Soon after, the long-prepared cause of the abolition of Orthodoxy in the Commonwealth was expressed in the year in the Union of Brest, which split the ranks of the Orthodox hierarchy.

The position of the metropolitan in ancient Russia was very high. Being the spiritual head of all Russian lands, he was not only at the head of the church hierarchy, but was often the closest adviser to the Grand Duke, and had an important influence on the course of state life. So, for the exaltation of the Moscow prince, the saints Peter, Alexy and Jonah did a lot; in the infancy of the faithful Demetrius of the Don, Saint Alexy was in fact the ruler of the state. The Metropolitan often acted as an arbitrator between princes. Princely charters often began with the words " with the blessing of our father Metropolitan," and also sealed with the Metropolitan's signature and seal.

Device in Southwestern Russia

With the division of the metropolises in the jurisdiction of the South-West from the middle of the century, there were at first 9 dioceses listed above. With the introduction of the Union of Brest, these dioceses were occupied by the Uniates, and although from a year on some Orthodox bishops were again delivered, in most cases they did not rule their dioceses. By the time the Local Council of the Metropolia was held in the year, seven dioceses operated in its composition - the Kyiv metropolitan proper, the archdioceses of Polotsk and Smolensk, the bishoprics of Przemysl, Lutsk, Lviv and Mogilev. Since a year, four dioceses remained under the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Gideon - Galicia, Lvov, Lutsk and Przemysl; but they too were soon converted into a union, after which Gideon remained with the proper metropolitan diocese.

In political life, in the early days of the formation of the Southwestern Metropolis, the metropolitan took his place among the highest officials of the state, but with the introduction of the union, the Orthodox metropolitan lost its importance. In the 17th century, he sought to take a seat in the Senate along with the Roman Catholic metropolitans, this was promised more than once, but was not fulfilled. The metropolitans take part in the councils in the election of hetmans, they also participate in the political struggle that took place in Little Russia between the Russian and Polish parties.

The sources of support for the Kyiv metropolitans consisted of the ownership of real estates, from court duties, duties for setting up, crown memorials, as well as various fees: canteens - two kopecks from each yard, world - by money, malt - by half, stationery - by money . The immovable estates of the Kyiv cathedra were formed mainly by way of grants from the state authorities, hetmans and Kyiv colonels; private individuals also donated a lot; a lot of land was acquired by the department itself by purchase.

Bishops

• St. Michael I (988 - 992)
• Theophylact (988 - before 1018)
• John I (before 1018 - c. 1030)
• Theopempt (1035 - 1040s)
• Cyril I (mentioned 1050)
• St. Hilarion Rusin (1051 - before 1055)
• Ephraim (c. 1055 - c. 1065)
• George (c. 1065 - c. 1076)
• St. John II (1076/1077 - 1089)
• John III (1090 - 1091)
• Nicholas (mentioned 1097 - 1101)
• Nikephoros I (1104 - 1121)
• Nikita (1122 - 1126)
• Michael II (I) (1130 - 1145/1146)
• Onufry of Chernigov (1145 - 1147)
• Theodore (1160 - 1161/1162)
• John IV (1163 - 1166)
• Constantine II (mentioned 1167 - 1169)
• Michael III (II) (1170 - ?)
• Nikephoros II (mentioned 1183 - 1198)
• Cyril II (1224 - 1233)
• Joseph (1236 - 1240)

Kyiv metropolitans of the Horde-Lithuanian period

• Cyril III (ordained before 1242/1243, ordained c. 1246/1247, mentioned in Russia 1250 - 1281)
• St. Maxim (1283 - December 6, 1305) in Kyiv, wandering, from 1299/1303 in Vladimir-on-Klyazma
• St. Peter (June 1308 - December 21, 1326) in Kyiv, from 1309 in Vladimir-on-Klyazma, from 1325 in Moscow
• ? St. Prokhor (December 1326 - 1328) high school, bishop. Rostov in Moscow
• St. Theognost (1328 - March 11, 1353) in Moscow
• St. Alexy (Byakont) (1354 - February 12, 1378) in Moscow
• St. Cyprian (Tsamblak) (1375 - September 16, 1406) in Kyiv, from 1381 in Moscow, from 1382 in Kyiv, from 1390 in Moscow
• Michael IV (Mityai) (1378 - 1379) named
• Pimen the Greek (ordained in 1380, received in 1382, deposed in 1384/1385) in Moscow
• St. Dionysius (1384 - October 15, 1385) imprisoned in Lithuania
• St.