M.: Terra, 1992. - 686 p. - ISBN 5-85255-103-1.
The file displays the pages of the publication. A classic comprehensive work on the history of the Russian Church by historian and theologian A.V. Kartasheva (1875-1960). Introduction
Kievan or pre-Mongol period
Spread of Christianity
Church administration in the Kyiv period
Dioceses and bishops
Diocesan administration bodies
Church laws
Means of maintaining the highest hierarchy
Parish clergy
Relations between authorities, church and state
Monasticism in pre-Mongol times
Christianization of the Russian people
A. Vera
B. Morality (personal and public)
Education of state power
Planting enlightenment
Disunion with the West
Bibliography of the Kyiv period
Moscow period
A. From the Mongol invasion to the fall of the southwestern metropolis
The fate of the Russian Metropolitanate.
The development of its relations to the Greek Church, on the one hand, and to the Russian state power, on the other (XIII-XVI centuries)
M. Cyril (1249-1281)
Maxim (1287-1305)
Peter (1308-1326)
Fegnost (1328-1353)
Alexy (1353-1378)
The struggle for the unity of the Russian Metropolis
Mikhail nicknamed (surname) Mityai
Pimen
Metropolitan Cyprian (1390-1406)
Metropolitan Photius (1408-1431)
Gerasim (1433-1435)
Isidore (1436-1441)
Church self-government of Moscow after the expulsion of Met. Isidora
Metropolitan Jonah (1448-1461)
Final division of the Russian Metropolis (1458)
Theodosius (1461-1464)
B. From the division of the metropolis to the establishment of the patriarchate (1496-1596)
Metropolitan Theodosius (1461-1464)
Philip (I) (1464-1473)
Gerontius (1473-1489)
Zosima (1490-1494)
Simon (1495-1511)
A lively question for Moscow theology
Reverend Neil Sorsky (1433-1508)
Historiosophical conclusion
Varlaam (1511-1521)
Daniel (1521-1539)
Joasaph (1539-1542)
Macarius (1542-1563)
Stoglavy Cathedral
Athanasius (1564-1566)
Hermann
St. Philip (1566-1568)
Cyril IV (1568-1572)
Anthony (1572-1581)
Dionysius (1581-1587)
Job
Theological disputes. Acquisitiveness and non-acquisitiveness
Journalism of Prince-monk Vassin
Maxim Grek
Heresies
Forerunners of the Strigolniks
Strigolniki
Heresy of the Judaizers
Heresy of Bashkin and Kosoy
The Case of Abbot Artemy
The case of clerk Viskovaty
Southwest Metropolis
From the division of the Russian Church in 1458 to the Union of Brest in 1596
List of Western Russians Orthodox metropolitans, who ruled from 1458 to 1596.
Grand Dukes of Lithuania, who became kings of Poland in 1386
General position of the Russian Church in the Lithuanian-Lola state
The state of church affairs under individual metropolitans
Metropolitan Gregory the Bulgarian (1458-1473)
Metropolitan Misail (1475-1480)
Metropolitan Simenon (1480-1488)
Jonah Glezna (1488-1494)
Metropolitan Macarius (1494-1497)
Metropolitan Joseph I Bolgarinovich
Metropolitan Jonah II (1503-1507)
Metropolitan Joseph II Soltan (1507-1522)
Internal Church Relationships
Situation in the former Galician Metropolis
Metropolitan Joseph III (1522-1534)
Metropolitan Macarius II (1534-1555)
Question about the Galician Metropolis
general characteristics provisions of the Orthodox Church for the first half of the 16th century:
reign of Sigismund I (1506-1548)
Protestantism in Poland and Lithuania
Sigismund II Augustus led. Prince of Lithuania from 1544 and King of Poland from 1548 to 1572.
Heretics
The positive side of Sigismund Augustus's liberalism for Orthodoxy
Metropolitan Sylvester Belkevich (1556-1567)
Jonah III Protasevich (1568-1576)
Lithuanian State Union (1569). Roman Catholic reaction. Jesuits in Poland
Ilya Joakimovich Kucha (1576-1579)
Onesiphorus Girl (1579-1589)
Russian Orthodox Enlightenment
Ostroh Bible 1580-81.
Ostroh school
Brotherhoods
Vilna Holy Trinity Brotherhood
Fraternal schools
Russian literary struggle
Episode of the struggle against the Gregorian calendar (1583-1586)
Sigismund III (1587-1632)
The beginnings of a union
Union
Arrival of Patriarch Jeremiah II
Metropolitan Mikhail Rogoza (1589-1596)
Open struggle for and against union
Political union of Orthodox and Protestants
Action in Rome
Union of Brest-Litovsk 1596 Cathedral. The beginning of the fight against the union
Opening of the cathedral
After Brest Cathedral
Bibliography

A. V. Kartashev

Essays on the history of the Russian Church

Preface. Introduction.

Pre-state era.

Was the Apostle Andrew the First-Called in Rus'?

The beginnings of Christianity on the territory of future Russia.

I. The beginning of the historical life of the Russian people.

II. The most ancient evidence of the Russians' acquaintance with Christianity.

The first baptism of the Kievan Russians.

Oleg (882-912). Igor (912-942). Princess Olga (945-969). Svyatoslav (945-972). Prince Vladimir. His conversion and baptism. Extra-Russian, Greek and Arabic evidence. Understanding the "Tale". Baptism of Kievites. The transformation of Prince Vladimir himself. Western myth about the baptism of Rus'. Relations between the popes and the prince. Vladimir. Who was the first Russian metropolitan?

Division into periods.

Kievan, or pre-Mongolian period.

Spread of Christianity. Church administration in the Kyiv period.

Dioceses and bishops. Diocesan administration bodies. Church laws. Means of maintaining the highest hierarchy. Parish clergy. Relationships between authorities, church and state.

Monasticism in pre-Mongol times. Christianization of the Russian people.

A) Vera. B) Morality (personal and public).

Education of state power. Planting enlightenment. Disunion with the West.

Moscow period.

A. From the invasion of the Mongols to the fall of the southwestern metropolis. The fate of the Russian Metropolitanate. The development of its relations to the Greek church, on the one hand, and to the Russian state power, on the other (centuries XIII-XVI).

M. Cyril (1249-1281). Maxim (1287-1305). Peter (1308-1326). Fegnost (1328-1353). Alexy (1353-1378). The struggle for the unity of the Russian Metropolis. Mikhail nicknamed (surname) Mityai. Pimen. Metropolitan Cyprian (1390-1406). Metropolitan Photius (1408-1431). Gerasim (1433-1435). Isidore (1436-1441). Church self-government of Moscow after the expulsion of Met. Isidora. Metropolitan Jonah (1448-1461). The final division of the Russian Metropolis (1458). Theodosius (1461-1464).

B. From the division of the metropolis to the establishment of the patriarchate (1496-1596).

Metropolitan Theodosius (1461-1464). Philip (I) (1464-1473). Gerontius (1473-1489). Zosima (1490-1494). Simon (1495-1511). Venerable Nil of Sorsky (1433-1508). Historiosophical conclusion. Varlaam (1511-1521). Daniel (1521-1539). Joasaph (1539-1542). Macarius (1542-1563). Stoglavy Cathedral. Athanasius (1564-1566). German. St. Philip (1566-1568). Cyril IV (1568-1572). Anthony (1572-1581). Dionysius (1581-1587). Job.

Theological disputes. Acquisitiveness and non-acquisitiveness.

Journalism of Prince-Monk Vassin. Maxim Grek.

Heresies.

Forerunners of the Strigolniks. Strigolniki. Heresy of the Judaizers. Heresy of Bashkin and Kosoy. The Case of Abbot Artemy. The case of clerk Viskovaty.

The southwestern metropolis from the division of the Russian Church in 1458 to the Union of Brest in 1596.

List of Western Russian Orthodox metropolitans who reigned from 1458 to 1596. The Grand Dukes of Lithuania, who became the Kings of Poland in 1386. 1569 united Poland. General situation of the Russian Church in the Lithuanian-Polish State. The state of church affairs under individual metropolitans.

Metropolitan Gregory the Bulgarian (1458-1473). Metropolitan Misail (1475-1480). Metropolitan Simenon (1480-1488). Jonah Glezna (1488-1494). Metropolitan Macarius (1494-1497). Metropolitan Joseph I Bolgarinovich. Metropolitan Jonah II (1503-1507). Metropolitan Joseph II Soltan (1507-1522). Internal church relationships. The situation in the former Galician Metropolis. Metropolitan Joseph III (1522-1534). Metropolitan Macarius II (1534-1555). Question about the Galician Metropolis. General characteristics of the position of the Orthodox Church in the first half of the 16th century: the reign of Sigismund I (1506-1548). Protestantism in Poland and Lithuania. Sigismund II Augustus led. Prince of Lithuania from 1544 and King of Poland from 1548-1572. Heretics. The positive side of the liberalism of Sigismund Augustus for Orthodoxy. Metropolitan Sylvester Belkevich (1556-1567). Jonah III Protasevich (1568-1576). Lithuanian State Union (1569). Roman Catholic reaction. Jesuits in Poland. Ilya Joakimovich Kucha. (1576-1579). Onesifor Devocha (Girl) (1579-1589).

Russian Orthodox Enlightenment.

Ostroh Bible 1580-81 Ostroh school. Brotherhoods. Vilna Holy Trinity Brotherhood. Fraternal schools. Russian literary struggle. An episode of the struggle against the Gregorian calendar (1583-1586). Sigismund III (1587-1632). The beginnings of a union. Union. Arrival of Patriarch Jeremiah II. Metropolitan Mikhail Rogoza (1589-1596). Open struggle for union and against it. Political union of Orthodox Christians and Protestants. Action in Rome.

Union of Brest-Litovsk 1596

Cathedral. The beginning of the fight against the union. Opening of the cathedral. After the Brest Cathedral.

Preface

None of the Christian European peoples are susceptible to the temptations of such self-denial as the Russians. If this is not a total denial, as with Chaadaev, then a frank, on occasion, emphasizing our backwardness and weakness, as if our, qualitatively secondary by nature. This very old-fashioned “Europeanism” has not yet been eradicated either in our generations, already leaving the scene, or in our youth, who are growing up in emigrant isolation from Russia. And there, in the large and distorted former USSR, the opposite extreme was imposed. There, both Europeanism and Russianism are denied and covered by an allegedly new and more perfect synthesis of so-called economic materialism.

In contrast to these two extremes, we, raised by the old normal Russia, continue to carry within ourselves an experienced sense of its spiritual values. Our premonition of a new revival and the future greatness of both the state and the Church is nourished by Russian history. It's time to embrace it patriotically with a loving heart and a mind wise by the tragic experience of the revolution.

Lomonosov, by the manifestation of his personality and the confession of his confidence, “that the Russian land can give birth to its own Platos and quick-witted Newtons,” instilled in us the confidence that we would become what we instinctively, according to an unerring instinct, we want to be. Namely: - we want to be in the first, leading ranks of builders of universal human culture. For there is no other thing worthy of primacy given to earthly humanity.

And this, not thanks to the museum-preserved relics of Monomakh's crown and the title of the Third Rome, and not thanks to Avvakum's fanatical devotion to the letter - all these were only noble premonitions - but through an impulse worthy of a great nation - to take an equal place on the world front of universal human enlightenment.

The ancient consciousness bequeathed to us its heritage in two more versions of the antithesis: I) Hellenes and barbarians and II) Israel and pagans (goyim). Christian-European consciousness merged this outdated division into one: into a single and higher, final cultural unification for the peoples of the whole world. In their racial, religious, national diversity, the inhabitants of the globe remain, for immeasurable periods of time, imprisoned in different shells of their hereditary forms of life, so dear to them, recognized as national. But this is not an essential or decisive historiosophical point. Whether anyone wants it or not, the objective fact of the exhaustion of the scheme of the global history of earthly humanity as a whole is obvious. No revisions are possible here. We, Christians and Europeans, need to accept this fact with gratitude for the honor and chosenness, as the holy will of Providence, and with prayer and reverence carry out our earthly procession towards the ultimate good goals, known only to the Creator One.

No matter how intensely, from time to time and place, living, historically topical tasks may become more acute, whether among us or among other peoples of the universe, we, once we have overcome the self-sufficiency of national particularism, cannot and should not waste our strength completely on this , in principle, we have already overcome the phase of cultural service. National forms of culture, like languages and religions, continue to function, but no one and nothing has the right to abolish and replace the qualitatively superior and commanding heights of his ministry that have already become clear and revealed to advanced Christian humanity. In this uttermost service there is an irrevocable moment of dedication and the right to leadership. Only on this path is it possible to overcome the “flesh and blood” of nations, with their zoologically humiliating and inevitable wars. Only on this path does light and hope open up - to overcome and defeat the great demonic deception of the godless international. Only in universal Christian leadership lies the promise of true human freedom and peace to the whole world. And on this path - worthy, highest, Holy place service to Russia and the Russian Church, and not under the banner of “Old Testament”, decaying nationalisms.

Annotation

KARTASHEV Anton Vladimirovich (1875-1960), Russian. Orthodox historian, theologian and biblical scholar. It is he who closes the chain of church academic thought of the 19th - mid-20th centuries, for after him no new comprehensive work on church history, published under the same author's name.

A. V. Kartashev

Preface

Introduction

Pre-state era

Was the Apostle Andrew the First-Called in Rus'?

The beginnings of Christianity on the territory of future Russia

I. The beginning of the historical life of the Russian people

II. The oldest evidence of the Russians' acquaintance with Christianity

The first baptism of the Kievan Russians

Oleg (882-912)

Igor (912-942)

Princess Olga (945-969)

Svyatoslav (945-972)

Prince Vladimir. His conversion and baptism

Outside Russian, Greek and Arabic evidence

Understanding the "Tale"

Baptism of Kievites

The Transfiguration of Prince Vladimir himself

Western myth about the baptism of Rus'

Relations between the popes and the prince. Vladimir

Who was the first Russian metropolitan?

Division into periods

Kievan, or pre-Mongolian period

Spread of Christianity

Church administration in the Kyiv period

Dioceses and bishops

Diocesan administration bodies

Church laws

Parish clergy

Relations between authorities, church and state

Monasticism in pre-Mongol times

Christianization of the Russian people

B) Morality (personal and public)

Education of state power

Planting enlightenment

Disunion with the West

Moscow period

A. From the Mongol invasion to the fall of the southwestern metropolis

The fate of the Russian Metropolis

The development of its relations to the Greek Church, on the one hand, and to the Russian state power, on the other (centuries XIII–XVI)

M. Cyril (1249-1281)

Maxim (1287–1305)

Peter (1308-1326)

Fegnost (1328-1353)

Alexy (1353-1378)

The struggle for the unity of the Russian Metropolis

Mikhail nicknamed (surname) Mityai

Metropolitan Cyprian (1390–1406)

Metropolitan Photius (1408-1431)

Gerasim (1433-1435)

Isidore (1436-1441)

Church self-government of Moscow after the expulsion of Met. Isidora

Metropolitan Jonah (1448-1461)

Final division of the Russian Metropolis (1458)

Theodosius (1461–1464)

B. From the division of the metropolis to the establishment of the patriarchate (1496-1596)

Metropolitan Theodosius (1461–1464)

Philip (I) (1464–1473)

Gerontius (1473–1489)

Zosima (1490–1494)

Simon (1495–1511)

Venerable Nil of Sorsky (1433–1508)

Historiosophical conclusion

Varlaam (1511–1521)

Daniel (1521–1539)

Joasaph (1539–1542)

Macarius (1542–1563)

Stoglavy Cathedral

Athanasius (1564–1566)

St. Philip (1566–1568)

Cyril IV (1568–1572)

Anthony (1572–1581)

Dionysius (1581–1587)

Theological disputes

Acquisitiveness and non-acquisitiveness

Journalism of Prince-monk Vassin

Maxim Grek

Forerunners of the Strigolniks

Strigolniki

Heresy of the Judaizers

Heresy of Bashkin and Kosoy

The Case of Abbot Artemy

The case of clerk Viskovaty

The Southwestern Metropolis from the division of the Russian Church in 1458 to the Union of Brest in 1596

General position of the Russian Church in the Lithuanian-Polish State

The state of church affairs under individual metropolitans

Metropolitan Gregory the Bulgarian (1458-1473)

Metropolitan Misail (1475-1480)

Metropolitan Simenon (1480-1488)

Jonah Glezna (1488-1494)

Metropolitan Macarius (1494-1497)

Metropolitan Joseph I Bolgarinovich

Metropolitan Jonah II (1503-1507)

Metropolitan Joseph II Soltan (1507-1522)

Internal Church Relationships

Situation in the former Galician Metropolis

Metropolitan Joseph III (1522-1534)

Metropolitan Macarius II (1534-1555)

Question about the Galician Metropolis

General characteristics of the position of the Orthodox Church in the first half of the 16th century: the reign of Sigismund I (1506-1548)

Protestantism in Poland and Lithuania

Sigismund II Augustus led. Prince of Lithuania from 1544 and King of Poland from 1548–1572

The positive side of Sigismund Augustus's liberalism for Orthodoxy

Metropolitan Sylvester Belkevich (1556-1567)

Jonah III Protasevich (1568-1576)

Lithuanian State Union (1569).

Ilya Joakimovich Kucha. (1576-1579)

Onesifor Devocha (Girl) (1579-1589)

Russian Orthodox Enlightenment

Ostroh Bible 1580-81

Ostroh school

Brotherhoods

Vilna Holy Trinity Brotherhood

Fraternal schools

Russian literary struggle

Episode of the struggle against the Gregorian calendar (1583-1586)

Sigismund III (1587-1632)

The beginnings of a union

Arrival of Patriarch Jeremiah II

Metropolitan Mikhail Rogoza (1589 - 1596)

Open struggle for and against union

Political union of Orthodox and Protestants

Action in Rome

Union of Brest-Litovsk 1596

Cathedral. The beginning of the fight against the union

Opening of the cathedral

After the Brest Cathedral

Notes

A. V. Kartashev

Essays on the history of the Russian Church

Volume I

Preface. Introduction.

Pre-state era.

Was the Apostle Andrew the First-Called in Rus'?

The beginnings of Christianity on the territory of future Russia.

I. The beginning of the historical life of the Russian people.

II. The most ancient evidence of the Russians' acquaintance with Christianity.

The first baptism of the Kievan Russians.

Division into periods.

Kievan, or pre-Mongolian period.

Spread of Christianity. Church administration in the Kyiv period.

Dioceses and bishops. Diocesan administration bodies. Church laws. Means of maintaining the highest hierarchy. Parish clergy. Relationships between authorities, church and state.

Monasticism in pre-Mongol times. Christianization of the Russian people.

A) Vera. B) Morality (personal and public).

Education of state power. Planting enlightenment. Disunion with the West.

Moscow period.

Kartashev A.V.

Essays on the History of the Russian Church Volume 1

Preface

Introduction

Pre-state era Was there Apostle Andrew the First-Called in Rus'?

The beginnings of Christianity on the territory of future Russia

I. The beginning of the historical life of the Russian people

II. The oldest evidence of the Russians' acquaintance with Christianity

The first baptism of the Kievan Russians

Oleg (882-912) Igor (912-942)

Princess Olga (945-969) Svyatoslav (945-972)

Prince Vladimir. His conversion and baptism Extra-Russian, Greek and Arabic evidence Understanding the “Tale”

Baptism of the Kyivans Transfiguration of Prince Vladimir himself Western myth about the baptism of Rus'

Relations between the popes and the prince. Vladimir Who was the first Russian metropolitan?

Division into periods

Kievan, or pre-Mongol period Spread of Christianity Church administration in the Kievan period

Dioceses and bishops Diocesan administration bodies Church laws

Relations between authorities, church and state

Monasticism in pre-Mongol times Christianization of the Russian people

B) Morality (personal and public)

Education of state power

Planting enlightenment

Disunion with the West

Moscow period A. From the Mongol invasion to the fall of the southwestern metropolis

The fate of the Russian Metropolitanate. The development of its relations to the Greek Church, on the one hand, and to the Russian state power, on the other (XIII-XVI centuries)

M. Cyril (1249-1281) Maxim (1287-1305) Peter (1308-1326) Fegnost (1328-1353) Alexy (1353-1378)

The struggle for the unity of the Russian Metropolis Michael, nicknamed (surname) Mityai Pimen Metropolitan Cyprian (1390-1406)

Metropolitan Photius (1408-1431)

Gerasim (1433-1435) Isidore (1436-1441)

Church self-government of Moscow after the expulsion of Metropolitan Isidore Metropolitan Jonah (1448-1461)

Final division of the Russian Metropolis (1458)

Theodosius (1461-1464)

B. From the division of the metropolis to the establishment of the patriarchate (1496-1596)

Metropolitan Theodosius (1461-1464)

Philip (I) (1464-1473) Gerontius (1473-1489) Zosima (1490-1494) Simon (1495-1511)

The most lively question for Moscow theology Venerable Nilus of Sorsky (1433-1508) Historiosophical conclusion Varlaam (1511-1521)

Daniel (1521-1539) Joasaph (1539-1542) Macarius (1542-1563)

Hundred-Glavy Cathedral Athanasius (1564-1566)

St. Philip (1566-1568) Cyril IV (1568-1572) Anthony (1572-1581) Dionysius (1581-1587)

Theological disputes. Acquisitiveness and non-acquisitiveness

Journalism of Prince-monk Vassin Maxim the Greek

Forerunners of the Strigolniki Strigolniki Heresy of the Judaizers

The heresy of Bashkin and Kosoy The case of abbot Artemy The case of clerk Viskovaty

Southwestern Metropolis from the division of the Russian Church in 1458 to the Union of Brest

1596 List of Western Russian Orthodox metropolitans who reigned from 1458 to 1596.

The Grand Dukes of Lithuania, who became Kings of Poland in 1386. The general position of the Russian Church in the Lithuanian-Polish State. The state of church affairs under individual metropolitans.

Metropolitan Gregory the Bulgarian (1458-1473) Metropolitan Misail (1475-1480) Metropolitan Simenon (1480-1488)

Jonah Glezna (1488-1494) Metropolitan Macarius (1494-1497) Metropolitan Joseph I of Bulgaria Metropolitan Jonah II (1503-1507)

Metropolitan Joseph II Soltan (1507-1522) Internal church relations Situation in the former Galician Metropolis Metropolitan Joseph III (1522-1534) Metropolitan Macarius II (1534-1555) Question about the Galician Metropolis

General characteristics of the position of the Orthodox Church in the first half of the 16th century: the reign of Sigismund I (1506-1548)

Protestantism in Poland and Lithuania

Sigismund II Augustus led. Prince of Lithuania from 1544 and King of Poland from 1548 to 1572. Heretics The positive side of liberalism of Sigismund Augustus for Orthodoxy

Metropolitan Sylvester Belkevich (1556-1567) Jonah III Protasevich (1568-1576)

Lithuanian State Union (1569). Roman Catholic reaction. Jesuits in Poland Ilya Joakimovich Kucha (1576-1579)

Onesifor Devocha (Girl) (1579-1589)

Russian Orthodox Enlightenment

Ostroh Bible 1580-81. Ostroh Brotherhood School

Vilna Holy Trinity Brotherhood Fraternal schools Russian literary struggle

Episode of the struggle against the Gregorian calendar (1583-1586)

Sigismund III (1587-1632)

The beginnings of the union

Arrival of Patriarch Jeremiah II Metropolitan Michael Rogoza (1589-1596) Open struggle for and against the union

Political Union of Orthodox and Protestants Action in Rome

Union of Brest-Litovsk 1596

Cathedral. The beginning of the fight against the union Opening of the cathedral After the Brest Cathedral

Preface

None of the Christian European peoples are susceptible to the temptations of such self-denial as the Russians. If this is not a total denial, as with Chaadaev, then a frank, on occasion, emphasizing our backwardness and weakness, as if our, qualitatively secondary by nature. This very old-fashioned “Europeanism” has not yet been eradicated either in our generations, already fading from the scene, or in our youth, who are growing up in emigrant isolation from Russia. And there, in the large and distorted former USSR

the opposite extreme was imposed. There, both Europeanism and Russianism are denied and covered by an allegedly new and more perfect synthesis of so-called economic materialism.

In contrast to these two extremes, we, raised by the old normal Russia, continue to carry within ourselves an experienced sense of its spiritual values. Our premonition of a new revival and the future greatness of both the state and the Church is nourished by Russian history. It's time to embrace it with a patriotically loving heart and mind, wise by the tragic experience of the revolution.

Lomonosov, by the manifestation of his personality and the confession of his confidence, “that the Russian land can give birth to its own Platos and quick-minded Neutons,” instilled in us the confidence that we would become what we instinctively, according to an unerring instinct, we want to be. Namely: - we want to be in the first, leading ranks of builders of universal human culture. For there is no other thing worthy of primacy given to earthly humanity.

with gratitude for the honor and chosenness, accept this fact as the holy will of Providence and, with prayer and reverence, complete our earthly procession towards the ultimate good goals, known only to the Creator One.

No matter how intensely, from time to time and place, living, historically topical tasks may become more acute, whether among us or among other peoples of the universe, we, once we have overcome the self-sufficiency of national particularism, cannot and should not waste our strength completely on this , in principle, we have already overcome the phase of cultural service. National forms of culture, like languages and religions, continue to function, but no one and nothing has the right to abolish and replace the qualitatively superior and commanding heights of his ministry that have already become clear and revealed to advanced Christian humanity. In this uttermost service there is an irrevocable moment of dedication and the right to leadership. Only on this path is it possible to overcome the “flesh and blood” of nations, with their zoologically humiliating and inevitable wars. Only on this path does light and hope open up - to overcome and defeat the great demonic deception of the godless international. Only in universal Christian leadership lies the promise of true human freedom and peace to the whole world. And on this path there is a worthy, highest, holy place of service to Russia and the Russian Church, and not under the banner of “Old Testament”, decaying nationalisms.

Introduction

The proposed Essays on the History of the Russian Church are just Essays, and not a complete set of materials, not a complete system of the History of the Russian Church, not a reference book. This is an overview of the main aspects in the historical development of the Russian Church, in order for the reader to make an evaluative judgment about the missionary role performed by the Russian Church in the history of Russia, in the history of all Orthodoxy and, ultimately, in world history. These essays, conceived in Russia half a century ago, did not and do not set as their task to provide readers with elementary information on the history of the Russian Church, assuming they are known from complete reference books, for example, from the “History of the Russian Church” by Archbishop. Philaret or a high-quality Textbook by Prof. P.V. Znamensky. The essays strive, by involving the reader in the problematic of characteristic moments and phenomena in the historical life of the Russian Church, to contribute to a living feeling of her experiences, her destinies, a loving understanding of her weaknesses, exhaustion, stumblings, but also her long-suffering, Christianizing feat and her slow, quiet, humbly majestic , holy and glorious achievements.

The author of these historical lessons would not have considered himself entitled to clutter either the book market or the shelves of libraries with real work, if not for the anti-Christian revolution, which terribly lowered the scientific and theological level of the Russian Church. Already before the revolution, there was an unusual, almost thirty-year stop in the cultivation of our discipline. After volume IV of the "Manual" prof. Dobroklonsky (1893) only new reprints of the Textbook of Prof. Znamensky was also reminded that the concern for updating the systematic presentation of the History of the Russian Church has not been forgotten by those who should know about it. The revolution brought a new many years of paralysis. Thus, in the place of this devastation, any repeated and generalized work on the History of the Russian Church, even one that does not pretend to be a new scientific development, becomes not superfluous and practically useful. Only to extend in this sense a hand of communication through the failure of the revolution from the old Russian generation of venerable giants of our specialty to the coming new giant of armchair labor in our liberated fatherland and liberated church - such is the modest task of these Essays.

Pre-state era

Was the Apostle Andrew the First-Called in Rus'?

Rus', as an entire state nation, was baptized by St. book Vladimir. But this event had its roots in previous centuries. Therefore, let us turn back to the depths of centuries to trace the initial fate of the spread of Christianity in Rus', as the reason for its later universal baptism.

The terminus a quo of our search cannot be indicated with mathematical precision, just as it cannot be indicated for the beginning of “Rus” itself. One thing was clear even to our ancestors of the 9th and early 12th centuries, that “from where (i.e., in the Russian land) the apostles did not teach,” that “in body the apostles were not from here”; This is what it says in the chronicle story about the murder of the Varangian Christians under Vladimir. Rev. repeats the same thing. Nestor in his life of Boris and Gleb. However, in one of the tales included in the Tale of Bygone Years, its editor has already shown a tendency to connect Russian Christianity with the times of the apostles. Having called our first teacher Methodius “the teacher of Andronicus” (an apostle from among the 70), he continues: “the same teacher of the Slovenian language is Andronicus the apostle, who went to the Moravians; and the Apostle Paul taught that, for there is Ilyurik, the ap. Paul, for the first time, the Slovene language is the teacher of the Slovenian language, and from him we are the language of Rus', and for us the teacher of Rus' is Paul.” If these were the views of the Russian people on the issue of the apostolic sowing in the Russian field until the beginning of the 12th century inclusive (the moment of the formation of the “Tale of Bygone Years”), then obviously, only after this time did they take on the confident form that was conveyed to them by the story of the visit to the Russian country ap. Andrew the First-Called.

This story is inserted in the Kiev chronicle among the story about the settlement of the Russian Slavs. When the name Polyan is mentioned, the conversation immediately moves on to a description of the “path from the Varangians to the Greeks”

And on the contrary, “from the Greeks along the Dnieper to the Varangian Sea, and along that sea to Rome.” “And the Dnieper will flow,” it says here, “into the Poneta Sea, the hedgehog of the Russian sea, according to which the Apostle Ondrei, brother Petrov, taught, as he decided.” Characteristic in the last words is the appearance of some skepticism on the part of the author in relation to the fact being conveyed, in view of which he hastens to abdicate responsibility for its reliability by vaguely referring to some source. But immediately afterwards he, or most likely someone else, his successor, boldly develops the timidly thrown opinion into a whole legend, half touchingly poetic, half completely unaesthetic, even absurd. Ap. Andrey from the seaside town of Asia Minor Sinop comes to Tauride Korsun. Here he learns that the Dnieper estuary is close

And decides to go through him to Rome. By chance (“by an adventure of God”) he stops for the night on a sandbank under the mountainous bank of the Dnieper on the site of the future Kyiv. “Rising in the morning,” he points out to his disciples the nearby mountains, predicts that there will be a great city and many churches here, climbs the mountains, blesses them and puts up a cross, and then continues on his way to Novgorod, where... he marvels at the bath self-torture , which he talks about upon his arrival in Rome.

The question about the historical authenticity of the legend will be answered by historical and literary information about its gradual development. The Book of the Acts of the Apostles, spreading mainly about the apostle alone. Pavle, remains silent about the fate of the twelve. This circumstance gave rise, even in the ancient Christian world, to the development of a rich apocryphal literature of various “praxis, periodi, martyria, tavmata,” which presented in detail the apostolic works and exploits of many of the 12th and 70th. A whole cycle of such legends has as its subject the preaching of the apostles Peter, Andrew and Matthew in the country of the Anthropophagi or Myrmidons and in the country of the barbarians. Their antiquity is very venerable. The fact is that all such types of apocryphal literature were used as a tool of insinuating propaganda by numerous Gnostic sects of the first centuries and subsequently by the Manichaeans. And analysis of the apocryphal tales of the cycle we are interested in from this point of view

leads special researchers (Lipsius, Zoga, etc.)1 to the possibility of attributing even their present edition to the 2nd century. Under this condition, preserving a grain of historical truth in them is easily acceptable. But the question is: how, after extracting the fantastic narrative excesses from these apocrypha, can one correctly interpret their extremely mysterious geographical and ethnic nomenclature? It is not easy to solve. Any real terminological element of the apocrypha of the first formation in their further history suffered changes that were very unfavorable for historical truth. The abundant heretical content of the first apocrypha opened the door to their intensive and frequent reworking in the spirit of other religious teachings (in an earlier era) and in the spirit of the Orthodox Church (especially in the 5th and 6th centuries); There were also imitations that were untendentious in the dogmatic sense. Examples show that during these alterations very little care was taken about the rules of historical accuracy, and bizarre metamorphoses occurred with proper names. S. Petrovsky (op. cit), unraveling, under the guidance of authoritative Germans, the meaning of the apocrypha relevant to our question, comes to the conclusion that they talk about the preaching of the apostle. Andrei, by the way, in the current Caucasian countries adjacent to the Black Sea, and even in the lands of the neighboring Azov region. However, solving this question without data from Oriental studies is quite risky. When, armed with these means, V.V. Bolotov, in his posthumous “Excursion E” (Christian Reading, 1901, June) touched on part of the scientific pattern woven by the Russian researcher, but it became hopelessly tangled, if not completely disintegrated. It turns out that, based on the linguistic data of the Coptic and Abyssinian legends, the activities of the apostles Bartholomew and Andrew, instead of the imaginary Black Sea region, belong purely to African territory. This example, of course, is not without significance for the future solution of the question posed.

In parallel with the lengthy tales about the missionary travels of the apostles, news also developed in a short form in the form of lists or catalogs marked with the names: Hippolytus of Rome (III century), Dorotheus of Tire (IV century), Sophronius, friend of Blessed. Jerome († 475), and Epiphanius of Cyprus († 403). These catalogs in the surviving editions are undoubtedly of a later origin than the lifetime of their imaginary authors, and in relation to the news about the missionary destiny, in particular the apostle. Andrew, go back to the original apocrypha and their later church alterations (5th to 8th centuries), as their source. At the same time, the vague apocryphal countries of barbarians and anthropophagi are here categorically localized in Scythia, although with a tendency to see Scythia in it not as European, but as Asian (Caspian).

They want to see an echo of an independent (non-apocryphal) church tradition in Eusebius. “When the holy apostles and disciples of Our Savior,” we read from him in III, 1, “were scattered throughout the entire universe, then Thomas, as the tradition contains, received Parthia as a lot, Andrew - Scythia ... Peter, as it is known that he preached in Pontus and Galatia... This is said word for word (κατά λέξειν) by Origen in the third part of his commentaries on Genesis.” This work of Origen has not survived to us, and to what extent and to what extent the given quotation represents a literal excerpt from it remains open to question among researchers of church literature2. Some see in many authoritative manuscripts of the history of Eusebius a special symbol before the word “Peter” and from this they conclude that the quotation from Origen begins only with the news about Peter, and the news about the apostle. Andrea belongs to Eusebius himself and modern (and not Origen) church tradition. But the antiquity of the tradition of the 4th century is not so deep that it cannot be explained from the same source we have indicated.

1 S. Petrovsky. Tales of the apostolic preaching along the northeastern Black Sea coast. Odessa. 1898. (XX and XXI vols. “Note. Imperial. Odessa. General. History and Ancient.”).

2 A. Harnask Gesch. d. altсh Litter. Leipz. 1893. S. 344.

However, the letter of Eusebius’s text suggests that all the lines about the apostles, starting with θομας, should be attributed to the quotation from Origen. The particle δε in the word Πέτρος δ"έν Πόντφ clearly corresponds to the particle μεν in the word θομάς μεν, linking these phrases into one period. Consequently, we can date the legend recorded by Origen to the end of the 2nd, beginning of the 3rd century. Eusebius repeats: Rufinus (“as we transmitted") and Eucherius of Lyons († 449) ("as history tells").

In the VIII, IX and subsequent centuries, the material accumulated over centuries in the form of apocryphal and church legends, brief news and local traditions sown everywhere by both served as a source for the compilation of new “acts”, “praises” and “lives” of the apostles. Here is the missionary activity of St. Andrei breaks up into three whole preaching journeys, copied from the travels of St. Paul, and the First-Called Apostle is already definitely being led through European Scythia

And along the northern and western coasts of the Black Sea it runs to Byzantium, where it supplies

the first bishop for this city is Stachy. Of the stories of the latter kind, the story of the monk Epiphanius3 should be noted, since it contains some elements that were later included in Russian legend. Epiphanius lived at the end of the 8th century and the beginning. IX centuries, when the burning question of our time was the question of icons. Under the influence of this ecclesiastical interest, Epiphanius, like some other persons of that time, undertook a kind of scientific archaeological journey through the coastal countries of the Euxine Pontus, in order to study local monuments and traditions concerning external worship in the time of the apostles. Therefore, in his narrative about St. Andrei, he carefully noted all the sacred images, altars, temples and crosses, which, according to the stories of local residents, originated from the time of the preaching of the named disciple of Christ. Here, by the way, there is more than one mention of an “iron rod with an image life-giving cross, on which the apostle always relied." Not far from Nicaea in Bithynia, "the blessed ap. Andrew, having overthrown the vile statue of Artemis, placed there a life-giving image of the saving Cross." Further to the east, in Paphlagonia, "he chose a place of prayer convenient for building an altar,

And consecrated it, erecting the sign of the life-giving cross." This is where both the cross and the rod, which appear in two versions of the Russian legend, originate. From the monk Epiphanius 4, app. Andrey from the Caucasian countries, without bypassing the Meotic Gulf (Sea of Azov), through the Kerch Strait, comes directly to the Bosporus (Kerch); from here it goes to the Crimean cities of Feodosia and Chersonesus; then sails by sea to Sinop and returns to Byzantium. The later Greeks expressed themselves much more boldly and had a broader idea of the area of the apostle’s missionary activity. Andrey in the north of the Black Sea. Nikita David of Paphlagon (late IX and

beginning 10th century), famous biographer of Patr. Ignatius, composed a series of rhetorical speeches of praise in honor of the apostles. In praise of the ap. To Andrew5 he expresses himself as follows: “Having received the north as your inheritance, you bypassed the Ivers and Sarmatians, the Taurians and the Scythians, every country and city that lies in the north of the Euxine Pontus and which are located in its south” (col. 64). “So, having embraced with the gospel all the countries of the north and the entire coastal region of Pontus... he approached that glorious Byzantium” (col. 68). From this angle, the terminology of the ancient apocrypha was now decisively applied to the spaces of southern Russia. The chronicler John Malala (VI century) also had the name

Myrmidons ("anthropophagi" of the apocrypha) is attached to the Bulgarians when they lived among

3 Migne P.G.E. 120 col. 216 sqq.

4 Epiphanius's narrative is almost literally copied by the anonymous author Πράξεις χαΐ περίοδοι... απ. Ανδρέου. (XI century?). Paraphrased by Metaphrast (10th century) and the author of the Georgian life of St. Andrew (X century?). If not Eliphaniah's narrative, then one of these, or similar stories, could have become known to the compiler of the Russian legend. Fragments of a very ancient translation of Epiphanius's story into the Slavic language have been preserved. See V. G. Vasilevsky.

J.M.N. Etc. 1877, part 189, p. 166.

5 Migne R. G. T. 106 soi. 53 sqq.

Meoticians, i.e. near the Sea of Azov. For Leo the Deacon (10th century), Myrmidonia was located there, and the Myrmidons were already considered the ancestors of the Russians, and the possessions of the Russians near the Sea of Azov were called. Myrmidonia. “In any case,” says V.G. Vasilevsky, “there is not the slightest doubt that in the 11th century the name of the Myrmidons, along with other names inherited from classical antiquity, served to designate Russians. Thus, in the Byzantine tradition and literature of the 11th century there was a lot of data for compiling the circulation Apostle Andrew on Russian soil.

Byzantium itself needed a legend about the apostle. Andrei in such full development. It was necessary, firstly, to protect one’s independence from Roman claims and prove one’s equality with Rome; secondly, to ensure for itself dominion over all possible churches of the East. Just as the powerful claims and successes of Rome were based on the fact that Rome is the seat of the supreme apostle, so Byzantium, in order to achieve the first of these goals, wanted to convince the world that it, too, was a genuine Sedes apostolica, no less, if not greater, than the Roman one, because which was founded by the older brother of the ap. Peter, the first disciple of Christ. In Nikita Paphlagonian we read the following appeal to St. Andrew: “Rejoice, therefore, first-called and foremost of the apostles, immediately next in dignity to your brother, and even older in vocation than he, in faith in the Savior and in teaching, first not only for Peter, but also for all the disciples” (col. 77). The legend claimed that the ap. Andrew installed his student and successor Stachys as bishop of Byzantium. Someone's caring mind came up with a list of names of the supposedly 18 successors of Stachy, up to the historically known first bishop of Byzantium, Mitrofan (315-325). To achieve the second goal - to ensure dominance over the rest of the eastern churches - Byzantium looked to St. Andrew, as the apostle of the entire East. Characteristic in in this regard an episodic story in the narrative of the monk Epiphanius about how two brother apostles shared power over the universe: Peter’s lot fell to enlighten Western countries, Andrey - eastern. From this we can conclude that Byzantium willingly supported the legends about the sermon of St. Andrew in those countries where they existed (Armenia, Georgia) and even tried to instill similar traditions in the northern countries (Moravia, Russia), where her influence extended. The fact that the Byzantines, on occasion, even directly instilled in the Russians the belief about the preaching of the apostle in Rus'. Andrey, we have documentary evidence. This is a letter to the Russian prince Vsevolod Yaroslavich, written on behalf of Emperor Mikhail Duka (1072-1077) by his secretary, the famous scientist of his time, Mikhail Psellus, with the aim of matchmaking the brother of the emperor's daughter Vsevolod. One of the arguments for the closest union of the two courts is the following: “Spiritual books and reliable histories teach me that our states both have one certain source and root, and that the same saving word is widespread in both, the same witnesses of the divine the sacraments and their messengers proclaimed the word of the Gospel in them."6 It is clear what these words mean.

So, Byzantium gave everything that was needed to create the Russian belief about the inculcation of Christianity among us. Andrey. And the Russian legend was not slow to appear. Its internal inconsistencies - the journey from Crimea to Rome through... Ladoga, belittling of apostolic dignity, etc. so great that Golubinsky’s usually ironic criticism here almost reaches the point of sarcasm. But we won't hit someone who's down. We will only try to find a possible series of ideas and materials that gave rise to individual components legends. First of all, the author must have been vaguely aware of the deserted state of the Russian country at the beginning of our era; that is why he leads the apostle along it only in passing. But where could he direct him along the great waterway, to what famous point of the ancient Christian world? From the Varangians, who had lived all over the world, the writer could hear that just as all roads lead to Rome, so from

6 V.I. Vasilevsky. “Russian visa. excerpts. J. M. N. Pr. 1877, part 181.

Varangian Sea, their fellow countrymen know the way to it. The very direction of the apostle in the Varangian sea seems to have a connection with the legends of the Norman north: there is some kind of (unpublished) Icelandic saga about the apostle. Andree7; There is also news that in ancient times St. Andrew was considered the patron of Scotland8. The influence of Varangian tales is likely to be seen in the story about the Novgorod baths; the plot is typical for the Finnish-Scandinavian north. We have in mind one story of Baltic origin on the same topic and in the same style. It is listed by a certain Dionysius Fabricius (XVI-XVII centuries) in his “Liyonicae histoirae compendiosa series”. The story goes like this. There once existed a Dominican monastery called Falkenau near Dorpat-Yuryev. The brothers, suffering from a lack of means of subsistence, decided to send a tearful letter to the pope. In it, the Dominicans depict their harsh, austere life of food and carnage. Every Saturday they place their flesh in terribly heated baths, scourge themselves with rods and douse themselves with cold water. The pope was surprised and sent his envoy to personally find out the affairs of the monastery. After the refreshment, he was led into a hot bathhouse. When the time came to bathe with brooms, the gentle Italian could not stand it: he jumped out of the bathhouse, saying that such a way of life was impossible and unheard of among people. Returning to Rome, he told the pope about the wonder he had seen (“Read in the General Nest. Letop.”, book I, p. 289). A humorous and absurd story, very reminiscent of our chronicle. The Russian southern author obviously had a specific, not particularly lofty goal in his story about the Novgorod baths. Having so beautifully exalted his native Kyiv, he, according to the Russian custom of making fun of everyone who is not from our village, decided to present the Novgorodians before the apostles in the most ridiculous form. The Novgorodians understood it this way, because, in response to the Kyiv edition of the story, they created their own, in which, without rejecting the glorification of Kyiv and completely silent about the baths, they claim that the ap. Andrei “into the boundaries of this great Novagrad goes down the Volkhov and plunges his staff a little into the ground, and from there the place is called Gruzino” (Verstakh 15 from the Volkhov station Nikol. railway; Arakcheevskoe estate). This miraculous rod “from unknown wood” was kept, according to the testimony of the writer of the life of Mikhail Klopsky, in his time (1537) in St. Andrew’s Church in the village of Gruzina.

When determining the reason for compiling the Russian legend and the time of its entry into the chronicle, we will follow the instructions of the interesting hypothesis of Prof. I.I. Malyshevsky (op. sit). The mentioned letter of the Greek emperor Michael Duca dated 1074, inspiring the idea of the preaching of the apostle. Andrei in Rus', found quite intelligent people at the Russian court. First of all, it was the leader himself. book Vsevolod Yaroslavich, who, according to his son, Vladimir Monomakh, “grey-haired at home, knew five languages,” including, of course, Greek, especially since he was married for the first time to a Greek princess. Vsevolod's daughter, Yanka (Anna) - the alleged object of matchmaking in 1074 - born of a Greek mother, also probably knew Greek language, as can be seen from what follows. Get and read “reliable spiritual books and stories” telling about St. Andrei, they thus had every opportunity. After this, this fact is remarkable. In 1086, Yanka became a monk. Vsevolod builds a church and a monastery for her in honor of St. Andrey. In 1089, she travels to Constantinople to visit her royal relatives, where at that time the former emperor Michael Duca himself still lived in the Studite monastery; His namesake secretary Psellus, the author of the historical letter, was also alive. As the abbess of the St. Andrew's Monastery, Yanka had a strong motive to obtain the most detailed information about the apostle from the supposed originators of her interest in his name. Another significant coincidence. Pereyaslavl bishop. Ephraim, who came from a wealthy family, had been to Greece and in particular to the Studite monastery, built a church in his cathedral city in 1089 in honor of the apostle.

7 V.G. Vasilevsky, op. сіт. With. 6869.

8 I.I. Malyshevsky “The Legend of the Visit to the Russian Country by St. ap. Andrey. Tr. Kievsk. Spirit. Academy 1888 No. 6 p. 321. The University of Edinburgh is dedicated to St. Andrey.

A. V. Kartashev

Essays on the history of the Russian Church

Volume II

Patriarchal Period (1586-1700)
Introduction.
Establishment of the Patriarchate.
Job - Patriarch (1589-1605). The political role of patriarchs. Job. Religious politics of the Pretender. Patriarch Ignatius (1605-1606). Tsar Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky. Patriarch Hermogenes (1606-1612). State-church ministry of St. Hermogenes. The influence of the feat of Patriarch Hermogenes.
7 years of interpatriarchate. The state role of the Church.
The deprivation and suffering of the Church from the turmoil.
Inner life of the Church.
Attempts to correct liturgical books. Patriarch Filaret (1619-1634). Church issues of the day under Patr. Filarete. Church and book affairs under Filaret. Start of school. To the characteristics of the Patr. Philareta. Joasaph I (1634-1640).
Patriarch Joseph (1642-1652). Book business under Patr. Joseph. School question. Ideological revival. Internal conflict in ideology. "Moscow - III Rome". The influence of a new idea on book and ritual corrections. Death of Patriarch Joseph († 15.III.1662). Patriarch Nikon (1652-1658). Correction of books and rituals. The depravity of the method of correcting books. The emergence of a schism. The dissatisfaction of the Orthodox themselves. Judgment of the Council of Russian Bishops of 1666 on book and ritual corrections. The trial of the Old Believers of the new cathedral in 1666–1667. Litigation between Nikon and the Tsar. Ideology of Patriarch Nikon. The trial of Patriarch Nikon (1660). Arrival of the Patriarchs (1666). Court. Judgments of the Council of 1667 on the relationship between church and state. The end of Nikon. The beginning of a special story Old Believer schism. Solovetsky riot. Patriarch Joasaph II (1687-1672). Patriarch Pitirim (1672-1673). Patriarch Joachim (1674-1690). Cathedral of 1682. Streltsy riot. Attempts to create a school. School-theological differences of opinion. Attempts to create a Higher Theological School in Moscow. Patriarch Adrian (1690-1700).
Implementation of the Union of Brest and self-defense Orthodoxy.
Powerful and violent methods of introducing a union. Basilians. Self-preservation of the Orthodox side. The role of brotherhoods The fight against union. Literary struggle. School wrestling. Merits of monasteries. Recovery Orthodox hierarchy Patr. Feofan. Legalization Orthodox Church after the death of Sigismund III (1633).
Metropolitan Peter Mohyla (1632-1647).
Scientific and theological creativity of the Kyiv Mogilin school.
Fruit Orthodox school and literature.
Reunion Kievan Rus with Moscow Russia and the annexation of the Kyiv Metropolis to the Moscow.
Synodal period.
Introduction.
Basic character and assessment of the synodal period.
Church under Peter the Great.
Personal religiosity of Peter I. The origin of the Protestant reform. The beginning of the dominance of the Little Russian episcopate. Secret Beginning church reform. Open autocratic reform. Manifesto and Oath. Reform of the Reform itself. “Home” reform of Peter and the criterion of universality. Recognition of the Synod Orthodox patriarchs. Reflection of the reform in the state legal consciousness. Reaction to the reform in the church consciousness.
Higher Church administration and the relationship of the Church to the state. Holy Synod after Peter the Great.

The time of Catherine I (1725-1727). The time of Peter II (1727-1730). The reign of Anna Ioannovna (1730-1740). Organization of the apparatus of the highest church authority
during the reign of Anna Ioannovna. "Bironovschina" in the church. Bishop's processes. The case of Voronezh Archbishop Lev (Yurlov). The case of George and Ignatius. The case of the archbishop. Theophylact (Lopatinsky). Accession of John IV Antonovich (1740-1741). The reign of Elizabeth Petrovna (25.XI. 1741-1760). Beginning of the secularization procedure. Emperor Peter III Fedorovich (1761-1762). Accession of Catherine II (1792 - 1796). Secularization of church lands. Personality of Catherine II. Secularization procedure. The case of Arseniy Matsievich. Court of the Synod. Arseny is in exile. Pavel (Kanyuchkevich) Metropolitan of Tobolsk and Siberia. After secularization. Hierarchs of Catherine's time.
Parish clergy.
From the time of Peter the Great's reforms. Heredity of places of service of the clergy. Standard framework and analysis. Parish clergy under Catherine II. Trials of the Pugachev region.
Theological school.
Reign of Paul I (1796-1801).

Patriarchal Period (1586-1700)

Introduction

We have already noted the convention of allocating the time of Russian patriarchs to a special period. But, on the other hand, we also recognized the objective basis that dictated the old historians of the Russian Church to see in the patriarchal time new chapter history, since after the Time of Troubles the entire Russian statehood and culture were renewed and moved forward towards the inevitable reforms of all Russian life in the direction of its synthesis with the West.
The dream of the Russian patriarchate inevitably arose in the middle of the 15th century. at the moment the Russian Church realized the transition to it from the fallen Constantinople of the universal mission of Orthodoxy. And one of the ideologists of this mission, embassy interpreter Dimitry Gerasimov, author of “The Tale of the White Cowl,” in his poetic forecast prophetically foresees and predicts Russian patriarchate: “And the great patriarchal rank from the reigning city of this city will also be given to the rust of the earth in its time, and that country will be called bright Russia, God has thus deigned to glorify the Russian land with thanksgiving, to fulfill the majesty of Orthodoxy and to create the most honest thing more than these first.” It was in such a self-sufficient, essentially autocephalous-patriarchal self-awareness that the Moscow church began its history, breaking with the Greeks. There are many indications that the break was complete. Let us remember here the decisive words of the leader. book Vasily III Ivanovich in a letter to Archbishop Jonah of Novgorod regarding the claims of the Communist Party of Patriarch Dionysius in 1469 for the forcible transfer of the Russian Church to the rule of the former Uniate, Metropolitan of Western Russia Gregory: “Yes, I do not order that ambassador of the patriarch, nor Grigoreev, to be allowed into his land : I do not demand it, neither his blessing nor his unblessing, we have it from ourselves, that patriarch himself, a stranger and a renunciant, and his ambassador and that godless Gregory: you, our pilgrim, would have known” (Russian Ist. Bibl. t . VI No. 100, p. 59). These words were a response to the statements of Patriarch Dionysius about the illegality of Moscow metropolitans, because they “are appointed arbitrarily and disorderly,” that is, without the blessing of the Communist Party. But the arrogance of the Communist Party could not be supported by the entire Greek East, for the situation changed profoundly with the fall of the Communist Party as the state support of Orthodoxy. Materially, Tsarist and wealthy Moscow took the place of Constantinople. The impoverished Orthodox East resolutely reached out to her. And Moscow used this pull to eliminate the canonical roughness that arose between it and the ecumenical patriarchy. Not only the monks of the Holy Mountain and its Slavic monasteries neglected the fact of the formal break between Moscow and the Holy Communist Party and boldly turned to Moscow for alms, scattering compliments to the Moscow Tsar and Russian Orthodoxy, but even the Patriarchs of Jerusalem and Antioch did the same and were ready on their own make direct formal statements about the integrity of Moscow Orthodoxy and the Orthodoxy of the Moscow kingdom. So, back in 1464, under Metropolitan. Moscow Feodosiya, the Jerusalem Patriarch Joachim was going to come to Moscow, in the words of Metropolitan. Theodosius, “although we, by the power of the grace of St. above him, Spirit to give your blessing from your own hand.” At the same time, Metropolitan Theodosius, nodding critically at Constantinople, adds that the Zion Church of the Patriarch of the Holy Land “is the head of all churches and the mother of all Orthodoxy.” The famous canonist prof. A. S. Pavlov proved that it was Joachim of Jerusalem who published the first volume of the Act. East. a letter from some patriarch to the Russian is great. to the prince with a blessing and the following formula: “In our humility, your reign has been forgiven in all church prohibitions.” In this roundabout way, de facto and de jure, the KPl ban on the Russian Church was gradually eliminated and reduced to nothing. The East, humbled by oppression and impoverishment, had to recognize and profess the Orthodoxy of the Muscovite kingdom and its hierarchy. In 1517, the abbot of the Sinai monastery Daniel called the Moscow prince with the full title of the Greek basileus: “autocratic, divinely crowned, greatest, holy king of all Rus'.” Even the KPl Patriarchs themselves inconsistently forget about their excommunication. KPl Patriarch Theoliptus in 1516-17. writes to Moscow Metropolitan Varlaam at the address: “To the All-Holy Metropolitan of Moscow and All Rus', to us, the most pious sovereign and lord.” The Moscow tsars were not passive, but directly sought to receive final and formal recognition from the ecumenical patriarchs of both the autocephaly of their church and the legality of the royal wedding performed on them in the person of Ivan IV. Canonically conscientious Muscovites doubted that this wedding was performed by the metropolitan, and not by the patriarch, as was the case in Byzantium. And so, when in 1556 Joasaph Metropolitan came to Moscow from the Communist Party of Patriarch Dionysius for alms. Eugrippsky, then Tsar Ivan IV wanted to take this opportunity to receive from the Patriarch himself, in addition to his compliments to the “holy kingdom,” also a formal confirmation of the former coronation. Seeing this touching modesty, the Greek hierarch, probably not without a sly smile, wrote to Moscow in response that the coronation ceremony performed by Metropolitan Macarius was “unserfful”, that according to the law not only the metropolitan, but also other patriarchs could not perform it , except Roman and Constantinople; therefore, the patriarch sends his special exarch-metropolitan to Moscow, “may he perform the divine sacrament and bless the sovereign-tsar, as if on behalf of the patriarch, having the power to create every principle of the priesthood without restraint, as a true and conciliar patriarchal exarch.” But the Moscow Tsar did not agree to this humiliation and sent in 1557, together with Exarch Joasaph, his ambassador, Archimandrite Theodoret (enlightener of the Lapps) to the Communist Party with rich alms and a persistent petition for simple recognition. As a result, after some delays, Dionysius’s successor, Joasaph II, sent a conciliar letter in 1562, which allows Tsar Ivan the Terrible to “be and be called king legally and honorably”; “king and sovereign of Orthodox Christians throughout the universe from east to west and to the ocean” with his commemoration in the east in the holy dectychs: “may you be among the kings as Equal-to-the-Apostles and glorious Constantine.” So poverty and alms did their job: they filled up the canonical ditch between Constantinople and Moscow, which formally lasted 83 years (1479-1562). And the arbiters of the destinies of Moscow politics, in good time, raised the question of declaring Moscow a patriarchy in its entire legal form through the Eastern patriarchs themselves.

Establishment of the Patriarchate

This point is extremely richly represented by sources and covered in the literature. In addition to “History of the Russian Church” vol. 10 Met. Macarius, he was described based on archival materials by Prof. prot. P. F. Nikolaevsky (“Chronicle Thu.” - 1879) and again studied by prof. A. Ya. Shpakov (Odessa, 1912).
Archival sources are located: 1) most of all in the Moscow Archive of the Min.Ing. Del. This is the so-called "Greek article lists" former. Ambassadorial Order. Then follow: 2) Collection No. 703 of the Moscow Synodal (formerly Patriarchal) Library (extracts from the files of the former Patriarchal Order). 3) Collection of documents in the Solovetsky manuscript No. 842 (Libraries of the Kazan Theological Academy). From foreign and foreign-language (Greek) sources, in addition to the letters of modern eastern hierarchs (n. Jeremiah II, n. Meletios Piges), scattered in various Russian publications, two memoir sources that came from the pen of two Greek bishops, companions in Moscow Patr. Jeremiah and accomplices in the establishment of the Russian patriarchate:
a) Memoirs of Hierotheos, Metropolitan of Monemvasia. Edition in app. To?. ???A?. W?o??A???o? ?????A??A P??? ?O? By? ??????O? IN?? A???A??. 1870.
and b) Memoirs of Arseny Metropolitan. Ellasonsky. Printed from Russian. translation by Prof. A. A. Dmitrievsky in “Trud. Kyiv Spirit. Academy", 1898-99.
And also the same Arseny’s description of the installation of Patriarch Job in an absurd poetic form (published in the same place in “Tr. K. D. Ak.”)
Memoirs are especially valuable for revealing behind-the-scenes details. In official acts, as always, there is a lot of falsehood. This series of documents is supplemented by those published long ago, the so-called:
a) “Statutory Charters on the establishment of the patriarchate (printed in the “Collection of State Charters and Treaties” vol. II);
b) “Laid down by the Charter of the Moscow Council of 1589.” (printed in Nikon's Helmsman of 1653 and in the “Rod of Government”);
c) “Conciliar Charter of the Eastern Patriarchs 8. V. 1590.” (Ibidem and, in addition, in the new ed. Regel“Analesta Vuzantino-Russica” St. Petersburg. 1891);
d) Resolution of the KPl Cathedral of 1593 on the place of the Russian Patriarch (in the Slavic translation published in the “Tablet” of 1656 and in the Russian translation in “Tr. Kyiv. Theological Academy” 1865, October).
We do not mention other secondary sources.

* * *

Russian historians (Karamzin, Kostomarov), when explaining the emergence of the Russian patriarchate, attached too much importance to the ambition of Boris Godunov, who promoted his protege Job to metropolitan and then adorned him with the title of patriarch. Although it cannot be denied that the ambitious Boris Godunov, having decided to transfer the weakened Rurik dynasty into the mainstream of his own family, wanted to consolidate in the people's consciousness his future accession to the mysticism of the patriarchal wedding, as befitted the real heir to the dignity of the Byzantine kings of all Orthodoxy, but main reason lay deeper.
The idea of the patriarchate grew organically from the entire history of the Russian metropolis of the Moscow period. She was on everyone's mind. During these years at the end of the 16th century. there was a very exciting reason for Moscow to establish a patriarchate. This was the outcome of a century-long feud over the church and Orthodoxy with Lithuania-Poland. Vytautas at the beginning of the 15th century. (1415) achieved the separation of the Kyiv part of the metropolis from Moscow. And now this separation there has already ended with a union, that is, annexation to Rome (1596). One of the motives for the union was the “decrepancy” of the Greek East. And with this alone they aroused in Muscovites interest in complete autocephaly, equality and even superiority over the Greeks in the form of Russian patriarchy. Prof. P. ?. Nikolaevsky wrote: “Russians’ distrust of the Greeks was deliberately supported by the enemies of Orthodoxy, the Jesuits, who, in the form of deviation of the Western Russian Orthodox from the Communist Party and from Moscow, in the 16th century. persistently pursued the idea of the loss of purity of faith and church order by the Greeks and the Muscovites who communicated with them. The Greek Church, wrote the Jesuit Peter Skarga, had long suffered from the despotism of the Byzantine sovereigns and finally fell under the most shameful Turkish yoke; the Turk raises and lowers patriarchs; the patriarch and clergy are distinguished by rudeness and ignorance; and in such a slave church there cannot be purity of faith. Rus' also adopted faith and customs from the Greeks; she communicates with the East; that is why there is no purity of faith in it, no miracle of God, no spirit of love and unity. Such reviews of the Latins about the Russian Church also passed on to Moscow; of course, they could not please the Russians, but they supported their dislike for the Greeks and suggested a different structure of church hierarchical orders in Russia, about the elevation of the Russian hierarchy not only in their own consciousness, but also in the eyes of the Western Russian Orthodox population and the entire Christian peace." It is very likely that the suggestions of P. Skarga in the ideologically leading circles of Moscow really revived the Grecophobia that had barely subsided since the Union of Florence and, most importantly, flattered the hope that southwestern Rus' itself, already crushed under the heel of Latinism, would perk up in spirit from the knowledge that its the older sister - the Russian church has already become a patriarchy, that the East is not dying, but is being reborn and calling for the same revival of its brothers in Lithuania and Poland. The national prestige of Moscow, state and church, always had in mind, among other things, this great historical question: who will win hegemony over the East European Plain - “the arrogant Poles or the faithful Ross?” (Pushkin).
The question of the patriarchate literally flared up in Moscow as soon as the news arrived that Patriarch Joachim of Antioch had appeared on the border of Rus', who, as we know, traveled through Lvov and Western Rus' at the most important moment of her life, on the eve of the sad memory of the Brest Cathedral, and was involved V active actions to defend Orthodoxy. The appearance of the Eastern Patriarch on Russian soil was an unprecedented fact in the entire history of the Russian Church.
Muscovites also developed a sense of habitual reverence for their fathers in faith, heirs of the glory of the ancient church, and a thirst to show their piety and the splendor of the kingdom. At the same time, a direct calculation arose to do a big thing - to begin negotiations on the establishment of the patriarchate. This is what they started to do.
The meeting of the patriarch was magnificent, unlike “none” in Poland and the West. Rus'. This alone could not help but flatter the Eastern patriarchs and please them. By order from Moscow, the Smolensk governor was ordered to meet the patriarch “honestly,” provide him with all amenities, food, and escort him to Moscow with honorary guards. On June 6, 1586, Patriarch Joachim arrived in Smolensk and from there forwarded his letter to Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich. This patriarch had already written to Ivan IV before and received 200 gold pieces from him. Letter from Patr. Joachim was full of Byzantine, i.e., immoderate praise for the Moscow Tsar: “If anyone has seen the sky and the heavens and all the stars, even if he has not seen the sun, he has seen nothing, but when he sees the sun, he will rejoice greatly and glorify the Creator and the Sun of our faithful Christians in these days, your royal mercy is the only boundary between us.” Based on this, the Moscow Tsar could easily pose the question: is it finally time for the “sun of faithful Christians” to have a patriarch near him?
The Tsar sent honorary ambassadors to meet the guest, to Mozhaisk and Dorogomilovo. 17th VI Patr. Joachim entered Moscow and was placed on the Nikolsky sacrum in Sheremetev’s house. On June 25 there was a ceremonial reception for the patriarch by Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich. But characteristically - Met. Dionysius did not pay a visit or greetings to the patriarch. This could not have happened without an agreement with the secular authorities. The Metropolitan clearly wanted to make the Eastern alms-seeker feel that he was a Russian Metropolitan, the same autocephalous head his church, like Patr. Antioch, but only the head of a larger, free and strong church - and therefore the patriarch should be the first to bow to him. And since the Patriarch wants to get around this by bowing to the Tsar, the first Russian Metropolitan “does not break his hat.”
According to honorable custom, the Patriarch was taken to the palace in a royal sleigh (even though it was summer) - by dragging. The Tsar received him in the “Subscription Golden Chamber”, sitting on the throne, in royal vestments, among the dressed up boyars and officials according to the rank of receiving ambassadors. The king stood up and walked a fathom away from the throne for the meeting. The Patriarch blessed the Tsar and presented him with the relics of various saints as gifts. He immediately handed over to the king a letter of recommendation, handed to him by the KPl Patriarch Theoliptus, together with Patriarch of Alexandria Sylvester, about helping Joachim cover the debt of the Antiochian see of 8,000 gold.
The king invited the patriarch to his place for lunch that same day! A very great honor according to Moscow rank. In the meantime, the patriarch was instructed to go to the Assumption Cathedral to meet with the metropolitan. This was deliberate in order to overwhelm the guest with official pomp and splendor and to reveal the Russian saint “at the pulpit”, surrounded by a countless host of clergy, in golden brocade vestments with pearls, among icons and shrines, overlaid with gold and precious stones. The poor titled guest had to feel his smallness before the real head in reality (and not nominally) Great Church. The Patriarch received an honorable welcome at the southern door. They took him to venerate the icons and relics. And at this time, Metropolitan Dionysius and the clergy stood in the middle of the church on the pulpit, ready to begin the liturgy. Like a king, according to the ceremony, he descended from the pulpit a fathom towards the patriarch and hastened to be the first to bless the patriarch. The dumbfounded patriarch, well understanding the insult inflicted on him, immediately declared through the interpreter that this should not have been done, but he saw that no one wanted to listen to him, that this was not the place or time to argue, and fell silent. As the document says, “he said lightly that it would be useful for the Metropolitan to accept his blessing in advance, and he stopped talking about it.” The Patriarch listened to the liturgy, standing without vestments at the rear pillar of the cathedral. The royal dinner after mass and the royal gifts were only the gilding of the pill for the distressed patriarch. The figure of the Russian Metropolitan, which had flashed before the Patriarch like Olympian greatness, again disappeared from him, and he should have felt that there was no need to argue against the height of the Russian Metropolitan. And the king must be repaid for the gifts. Thus, Moscow diplomats created an “atmosphere” for the issue in the Russian patriarchate. And the whole matter was carried out by the secular authorities. The patriarchs were drawn to her, they expected favors from her and received them. They had to pay her back. The Russian hierarchy was freed from the risk of diminishing itself and falling into the position of humble supplicants. She didn't ask for anything. It was as if she had everything. And the eastern hierarchs themselves should have felt their duty to her and given her the appropriate title of patriarch.
Immediately after this day, negotiations between the royal authorities and Patriarch Joachim about the patriarchate began. They were conducted secretly, that is, without written documents, perhaps out of fear that royal power Somehow I didn’t speak out before the KPl Patriarch against this. In the Boyar Duma, the tsar made a speech that after a secret conspiracy with his wife Irina, with his “brother-in-law, close boyar and equerry and governor of the courtyard and governor of Kazan and Astrakhan, Boris Fedorovich Godunov,” he decided to put next question: “From the beginning, from our ancestors, the Kyiv, Vladimir and Moscow sovereigns - the tsars and pious great princes, our pilgrims came from the metropolitans of Kyiv, Vladimir, Moscow and all Russia, from the Tsaryagrad and Ecumenical Patriarchs. Then, by the grace of Almighty God and the Most Pure Mother of God, our Intercessor, and the prayers of the great miracle workers of the entire Russian kingdom, and at the request and prayer of our ancestors, the pious kings and great princes of Moscow, and on the advice of the Patriarchs of Constantinople (?), special metropolitans began to be appointed in the Moscow state, by the verdict and by the election of our ancestors and the entire consecrated council, from the archbishops of the Russian kingdom even to our kingdom. Now, by His great and ineffable mercy, God has granted us the gift of seeing the coming to Himself of the great Patriarch of Antioch; and we give glory to the Lord for this. And we should also ask Him for mercy to install a Russian patriarch in our Moscow state, and advise about this with His Holiness Patriarch Joachim, and would order with him the blessing of the Moscow Patriarchate, to all the patriarchs.” Boris Godunov was sent to the patriarch for negotiations.
In the “Collection of the Synod Library”, the speeches of Boris Godunov to Patriarch Joachim and his answers are transmitted as follows. way. Godunov suggests to Joachim: “You should consult about this with His Eminence ecumenical patriarch Constantinople, and the Most Holy Patriarch would advise about such a great matter with you, with all the patriarchs... and with the archbishops and bishops and with the archimandrites and with the abbots and with the entire consecrated cathedral. Yes, they would send to the holy mountain and to Sinai about this, so that God would give such a great deed in our Russian state settled down to the piety of the Christian faith, and having thought about this, they would have told us how this matter could be accomplished.” Patriarch Joachim, according to the presentation of this document, thanked on his own behalf and on the other patriarchs the Tsar of Moscow for all the alms for which eastern churches They are praying for him, admitted that it would be “better” to establish a patriarchate in Russia, and promised to consult with the other patriarchs: “This is a great matter, the whole council, but it is impossible for me to carry out this matter without this advice.”
The last words sound strange. Almost all official documents about this case are tendentious. And here we involuntarily sense a hidden proposal from the Muscovites to Joachim (perhaps with a promise to pay the 8,000 gold pieces he is seeking), without delay, to install the patriarch himself, and then look for confirmation later.
The negotiations ended quickly. Joachim received something and promised to promote the cause among his eastern brethren. The Patriarch was allowed to visit the Chudov and Trinity-Sergius monasteries, where he was received with honor and gifts on July 4 and 8.
On July 17, he was again honorably received at parting by the Tsar in the Golden Chamber. The king here declared his alms to the patriarch and asked for prayers. There was not a word about the patriarchate. This has not yet been made public. From here the guests were sent to the Annunciation and Archangel Cathedrals for parting prayers.
But to the Assumption Cathedral and to Metropolitan. The patriarch did not visit Dionysius and did not say goodbye to the metropolitan. Joachim's resentment is quite understandable. But Dionysius’s persistent negligence of the patriarch is not completely clear to us. We have to resort to hypotheses. Perhaps, simply by reconnaissance on the road to Moscow (in Lithuania or already within Russia), it turned out that Patriarch Joachim spoke of the Moscow metropolitans (as opposed to the Kyiv-Lithuanian ones) as being arbitrarily autocephalous and not to the benefit of the church, independent of the Greeks . So Dionysius, with the permission of the king, made such a demonstration to the arrogant Greek. Moscow knew how to distribute diplomatic roles...

Scorpion

Patriarchal Period (1586-1700)

Introduction

Establishment of the Patriarchate

* * *

You may also like