Home What do dreams mean Anton kartashev essays on the history of the Russian church. AV Kartashev Essays on the History of the Russian Church Volume II. Period Kievan, or pre-Mongolian

What do dreams mean

Anton kartashev essays on the history of the Russian church. AV Kartashev Essays on the History of the Russian Church Volume II. Period Kievan, or pre-Mongolian

Abstract

KARTASHEV Anton Vladimirovich (1875-1960), Russian. orthodox historian, theologian and biblical scholar. It is he who closes the chain of church academic thoughts XIX- the middle of the 20th century, because after it a new comprehensive work on church history published under the same author's name.

A. V. Kartashev

Foreword

Introduction

The pre-state era

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

Beginnings of Christianity in the Territory future Russia

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

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

The first baptism of the Kievan Rus

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 Kyivans

The transformation of Prince Vladimir himself

Western myth about the baptism of Rus'

Relations of the Popes with Prince. Vladimir

Who was the first Russian metropolitan?

Division into periods

Period Kievan, or pre-Mongolian

Spread of Christianity

Church Administration in the Kievan Period

Dioceses and bishops

Diocesan authorities

Church laws

Parish clergy

Relations between authorities, church and state

Monasticism in pre-Mongolian times

Christianization of the Russian people

B) Morality (private and public)

Education of state power

Planting enlightenment

Disengagement from the West

Moscow period

A. From the invasion of the Mongols to the falling away 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 (XIII-XVI centuries)

M. Cyril (1249-1281)

Maximus (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 for the expulsion of m. Isidor

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)

Rev. Nil of Sorsk (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 controversies

Possessiveness and non-possessiveness

Journalism of Prince-Monk Vassin

Maxim Grek

Forerunners of Strigolnikov

Strigolniki

Heresy of the Judaizers

Heresy of Bashkin and Kosoy

The Case of Hegumen Artemy

Case of clerk Viskovaty

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

General position 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)

Iona 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)

The question of the Galician Metropolis

general characteristics 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 Prince of Lithuania from 1544 and King of Poland from 1548–1572

The positive side of the liberalism of Sigismund August for Orthodoxy

Metropolitan Sylvester Belkevich (1556-1567)

Jonah III Protasevich (1568-1576)

Lithuanian state union (1569).

Ilya Ioakimovich Heap. (1576-1579)

Onesiphorus Devocha (Girl) (1579-1589)

Russian Orthodox Enlightenment

Ostrog Bible 1580-81

Ostroh school

Brotherhood

Vilna Holy Trinity Brotherhood

Fraternal Schools

Literary struggle of Russians

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 Michael Rogoza (1589 - 1596)

Open struggle for the union and against it

Political union of the Orthodox with the Protestants

Action in Rome

Brest-Litovsk Union of 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.

The pre-state era.

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

The beginnings of Christianity in the territory of the future Russia.

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

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

The first baptism of the Kievan Rus.

Oleg (882-912). Igor (912-942). Princess Olga (945-969). Svyatoslav (945-972). Prince Vladimir. His conversion and baptism. Non-Russian, Greek and Arabic testimonies. Understanding the "Story". Baptism of Kyivans. The transformation of Prince Vladimir himself. Western myth about the baptism of Rus'. Relations of the Popes with Prince. Vladimir. Who was the first Russian metropolitan?

Division into periods.

Kievan or pre-Mongolian period.

The spread of Christianity. Church administration in the Kievan period.

Dioceses and Bishops. Diocesan authorities. Church laws. Means of maintenance of the higher hierarchy. Parish clergy. The relationship of authorities, church and state.

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

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

Education of state power. The planting of enlightenment. Separation from the West.

Moscow period.

A. From the invasion of the Mongols to the falling away of the southwestern metropolis. The fate of the Russian metropolis. The development of its relationship 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). 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 for the expulsion of m. Isidor. Metropolitan Jonah (1448-1461). The final division of the Russian metropolis (1458). Theodosius (1461-1464).

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 the historian and theologian A.V. Kartashev (1875-1960). Introduction
Kievan or pre-Mongolian period
Spread of Christianity
Church Administration in the Kievan Period
Dioceses and bishops
Diocesan authorities
Church laws
Means of maintenance of the higher hierarchy
Parish clergy
Relations between authorities, church and state
Monasticism in pre-Mongolian times
Christianization of the Russian people
A. Faith
B. Morality (private and public)
Education of state power
Planting enlightenment
Disengagement from the West
Bibliography of the Kievan period
Moscow period
A. From the invasion of the Mongols to the falling away of the southwestern metropolis
The fate of the Russian metropolis.
The development of its relationship to the Greek Church, on the one hand, and to the Russian state power, on the other (XIII-XVI centuries)
M. Cyril (1249-1281)
Maximus (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 for the expulsion of m. Isidor
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 liveliest question for Moscow theology
Rev. Nil of Sora (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. Possessiveness and non-possessiveness
Journalism of Prince-Monk Vassin
Maxim Grek
heresy
Forerunners of Strigolnikov
Strigolniki
Heresy of the Judaizers
Heresy of Bashkin and Kosoy
The Case of Hegumen Artemy
Case of clerk Viskovaty
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 ruled from 1458 to 1596
The Grand Dukes of Lithuania, who since 1386, together with the kings of Poland
The 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)
Iona 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)
The question of the Galician Metropolis
General characteristics of the position of the Orthodox Church in the first half of the 16th century:
reign of Sigismund I (1506-1548)
Protestantism in Poland and Lithuania
Sigismund II Augustus Prince of Lithuania from 1544 and King of Poland from 1548 to 1572
Heretics
The positive side of the liberalism of Sigismund August for Orthodoxy
Metropolitan Sylvester Belkevich (1556-1567)
Jonah III Protasevich (1568-1576)
Lithuanian state union (1569). Roman Catholic reaction. Jesuits in Poland
Ilya Ioakimovich Kucha (1576-1579)
Onesiphorus Girl (1579-1589)
Russian Orthodox Enlightenment
Ostroh Bible 1580-81
Ostroh school
Brotherhood
Vilna Holy Trinity Brotherhood
Fraternal Schools
Literary struggle of Russians
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 Michael Rogoza (1589-1596)
Open struggle for the union and against it
Political union of the Orthodox with the 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
Bibliography

A. V. Kartashev

Essays on the history of the Russian Church

Preface. Introduction.

The pre-state era.

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

The beginnings of Christianity in the territory of the future Russia.

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

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

The first baptism of the Kievan Rus.

Division into periods.

Kievan or pre-Mongolian period.

The spread of Christianity. Church administration in the Kievan period.

Dioceses and Bishops. Diocesan authorities. Church laws. Means of maintenance of the higher hierarchy. Parish clergy. The relationship of authorities, church and state.

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

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

Education of state power. The planting of enlightenment. Separation from the West.

Moscow period.

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). Rev. Nil of Sorsk (1433-1508). historiosophical conclusion. Varlaam (1511-1521). Daniel (1521-1539). Joasaph (1539-1542). Macarius (1542-1563). Stoglav Cathedral. Athanasius (1564-1566). German. St. Philip (1566-1568). Cyril IV (1568-1572). Anthony (1572-1581). Dionysius (1581-1587). Job.

theological disputes. Possessiveness and non-possessiveness.

Journalism of Prince-Monk Vassin. Maxim Grek.

Heresy.

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

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 ruled from 1458 to 1596 The Grand Dukes of Lithuania, who since 1386 together became the Kings of Poland. 1569 united Poland. 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). Iona 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). The question of 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 Prince of Lithuania from 1544 and King of Poland from 1548-1572. Heretics. The positive side of the liberalism of Sigismund August for Orthodoxy. Metropolitan Sylvester Belkevich (1556-1567). Jonah III Protasevich (1568-1576). Lithuanian state union (1569). Roman Catholic reaction. Jesuits in Poland. Ilya Ioakimovich Heap. (1576-1579). Onesiphorus Devocha (Girl) (1579-1589).

Russian Orthodox education.

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

Brest-Litovsk Union of 1596

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

Foreword

Not one of the Christian European nations is not characterized by the temptations of such self-denial as the Russians. If this is not a total denial, as in Chaadaev, then a frank, on occasion, emphasizing our backwardness and weakness, as if our secondary quality by nature. This very old-fashioned “Europeanism” has not yet become obsolete in our generations already leaving the stage, nor in our youth growing up in an emigre isolation from Russia. And there, in the large and warped former USSR, the opposite extreme was imposed. There, both Europeanism and Russianism are denied and overlapped by an allegedly new and more perfect synthesis of so-called economic materialism.

In contrast to these two extremes, we, nurtured 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 coming greatness of both the state and the Church is nourished by national history. It's time to cling to it with a patriotically loving heart and mind, wiser from the tragic experience of the revolution.

Lomonosov, by the manifestation of his personality and 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 will become what we instinctively, by unmistakable instinct, want to be. Namely: - we want to be in the first, leading ranks of builders of universal culture. For earthly humanity has not been given another worthy primacy.

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

The ancient consciousness bequeathed its heritage to us in two more variants of antithesis: I) Hellenes and barbarians and II) Israel and pagans (goyim). The Christian-European consciousness has merged this outdated bifurcation 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 for boundless periods of time remain enclosed in different shells of their own, so dear to them, hereditary forms of life, recognized as national. But this is not an essential and not decisive historiosophical moment. Whether someone wants it or not, the objective fact of the exhaustion of the scheme of the global history of earthly humanity, as a whole, is evident. No revisions are possible here. We, Christians and Europeans, must accept this fact with gratitude for the honor and chosenness, as the holy will of Providence, and with prayer and reverence make our earthly procession towards the final good goals known only to the Creator One.

No matter how burningly aggravated, at times and places, living, historically topical tasks, whether in our country or in other peoples of the universe, but we, once having overcome the self-sufficiency of national particularism, cannot and should not waste our strength without a trace on this , in principle, the phase of cultural service we have already overcome. National forms of culture, like languages and religions, continue to function, but no one and nothing has the right to cancel and replace the qualitatively superior and commanding heights of his ministry that have already become clear and revealed to advanced Christian humanity. In this limit of services there is an irrevocable moment of consecration and the right to leadership. Only on this path is the overcoming of the “flesh and blood” of nations, with their zoologically humiliating and inevitable wars, accomplished. Only on this path opens up a gap and hope - to overcome and defeat the great demonic deception of the godless international. Only in the universal Christian leadership is the promise of true human freedom and peace to the whole world. And on this path - worthy, higher, Holy place service to Russia and the Russian Church, and not under the banner of "Old Testament", decaying nationalisms.

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). Political role Patr. Job. The Religious Politics of the Pretender. Patriarch Ignatius (1605-1606). Tsar Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky. Patriarch Hermogenes (1606-1612). State-church ministry of St. Hermogenes. Influence of the feat of Patriarch Hermogenes.
7 years of interpatriarchy. State role of the Church.
The hardships and sufferings of the Church from turmoil.
The inner life of the Church.
Attempts to correct liturgical books. Patriarch Filaret (1619-1634). Church wickedness of the day under Patr. Filarete. Church and book business under Filaret. School start. To the characteristics of Patr. Filaret. 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 rites. The perversity of the method of correcting books. The emergence of a split. Orthodox dissatisfaction. Judgment of the Council of Russian Bishops of 1666 on book and ritual corrections. Trial of the Old Believers of the New Cathedral of 1666–1667. Lawsuit between Nikon and the Tsar. Ideology of Patriarch Nikon. Trial of Patriarch Nikon (1660). The arrival of the patriarchs (1666). Court. Judgments of the Council of 1667 on the relationship between church and state. End of Nikon. The beginning of a special history of the Old Believer schism. Solovetsky rebellion. Patriarch Joasaph II (1687-1672). Patriarch Pitirim (1672-1673). Patriarch Joachim (1674-1690). Cathedral of 1682. Shooter riot. Attempts to create a school. School-theological differences. Attempts to create a Higher Theological School in Moscow. Patriarch Adrian (1690-1700).
Implementation of the Union of Brest and self-defense Orthodoxy.
Imperious and violent methods of introducing a union. Basiliana. Self-preservation of the Orthodox side. The role of fraternities. Fight against union. Literary struggle. School fight. Merits of the monasteries. Recovery Orthodox hierarchy Patr. Feofan. Legalization Orthodox Church after the death of Sigismund III (1633).
Metropolitan Peter Mogila (1632-1647).
Scientific and theological creativity of the Kyiv Mogilin school.
Fruit Orthodox school and literature.
reunion Kievan Rus with Moscow Rus and the accession of the Kyiv Metropolis to the Moscow.
Synodal period.
Introduction.
The main character and evaluation of the synodal period.
Church under Peter the Great.
Personal religiosity of Peter I. The birth of the Protestant reform. The beginning of the domination 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 sense of justice. 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.

Time of Catherine I (1725-1727). 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. "Bironovshchina" in the church. Bishop processes. 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 (XI 25, 1741-1760). The 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 process. The case of Arseniy Matsievich. Synod Court. Arseniy in exile. Pavel (Kanyuchkevich), Metropolitan of Tobolsk and Siberia. after secularization. Hierarchs of Catherine's time.
Parish clergy.
From the time of the reforms of Peter the Great. The heredity of the places of service of the clergy. Regular frames and parsing. Parish clergy under Catherine II. Tests of Pugachev.
spiritual school.
The reign of Paul I (1796-1801).

Patriarchal Period (1586-1700)

Introduction

We have already noted the conditionality of allocating the time of the Russian patriarchs in special period. But, on the other hand, we also recognized the objective basis that dictated to 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 a Russian patriarchate inevitably arose in the middle of the 15th century. at the moment of consciousness by the Russian Church of the transition to it from the fallen Tsaregrad of the universal mission of Orthodoxy. And one of the ideologists of this mission, the embassy interpreter Dimitry Gerasimov, the author of The Tale of the White Klobuk, in his poetic forecast prophetically foresees and predicts the Russian patriarchate: she will be called bright Russia, deigning to God to glorify the Russian land with thanksgiving, fulfill majesty Orthodoxy and create more honestly than the first of these. In such a self-sufficient, essentially autocephalous-patriarchal self-consciousness, the Moscow church began its history at that time, breaking with the Greeks. There are many indications that the gap was complete. Let us recall here the decisive words of the vel. book. Vasily III Ivanovich in a letter to the Archbishop of Novgorod Jonah regarding the claims of the KP of Patriarch Dionisy in 1469 to the forcible surrender of the Russian Church under the rule of the former Uniate, Metropolitan of Western Russian Grigory: do not order: I do not demand him, neither his blessing, nor his unblessing, we have him from ourselves, that very patriarch, alien and renunciate, and his ambassador and that damned Gregory: you, our pilgrimage, knew it was ”(Rus. East. Bible vol. VI No. 100, p. 59). These words were a response to the statements of Patriarch Dionysius about the unlawfulness of the Moscow metropolitans, because they are "arranged by themselves without authority and disorderly", that is, without the blessing of the Communist Party. But the arrogance of the CP could not be supported by the entire Greek East, for the situation changed profoundly with the fall of the CP as the state pillar of Orthodoxy. Tsarist and wealthy Moscow took the material place of Tsaregrad. The impoverished Orthodox East resolutely reached out to her. And Moscow used this attraction in order to eliminate the canonical roughness that arose between it and the ecumenical patriarchate. Not only the monks of the Holy Mountain and its Slavic monasteries neglected the fact of a formal break between Moscow and the 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 to make direct formal statements about the purity of Moscow Orthodoxy and the Orthodoxy of the Moscow kingdom. So, back in 1464, under Met. Moscow Theodosius, the Jerusalem Patriarch Joachim was going to come to Moscow, in the words of Metropolitan. Theodosius, “although we, according to the power of the grace of St. Spirit give your blessing from your hand. At the same time, Metropolitan Theodosius, nodding critically at Tsaregrad, adds that the Zion Church of the Patriarch of the Holy Land "is the head and mother of all Orthodoxy to all churches." The well-known canonist Prof. A.S. Pavlov proved that it was Joachim of Jerusalem who published Act I, vol. East the letter of some Russian patriarch is great. to the prince with a blessing and such a formula: “our humility has your reign forgiven in all church prohibition.” In such a roundabout way, de facto and de jure, the KPl ban on the Russian church was gradually eliminated, reduced to nothing. Humbled by oppression and impoverishment, the East had to recognize and profess the Orthodoxy of the Muscovite kingdom and its hierarchy. In 1517, the abbot of the Sinai monastery Daniel dignifies the Moscow prince with the full title of the Greek basileus: "autocratic, divinely crowned, greatest, holy king of all Rus'." Even the CPl patriarchs themselves inconsistently forget about their excommunication. KPlsky Patriarch Theoliptus in 1516-17. writes to the Moscow Metropolitan Varlaam at the address: "To the All-Holy Metropolitan of Moscow and All Rus', to us the sovereign and lord of the most pious." The Moscow tsars were not passive, but also directly sought to obtain final and formal recognition from the ecumenical patriarchs and the autocephaly of their church, and the legality of the royal wedding performed over them in the person of Ivan IV. The canonically conscientious Muscovites had doubts that this wedding was nevertheless performed by the metropolitan, and not by the patriarch, as was the case in Byzantium. And so, when in 1556 Ioasaph Metr. Evgrippsky, then Tsar Ivan IV wanted to take advantage of this opportunity to receive from the Patriarch’s KP himself, in addition to his compliments to the “holy kingdom”, also a formal confirmation of the former coronation. At the sight of this touching modesty, the Greek hierarch, probably not without a sly smile, wrote to Moscow in response that the crowning of the kingdom, performed by Metropolitan Macarius, "is not serf," that, according to the law, not only the metropolitan, but also other patriarchs cannot perform it. , except for 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 any principle of the priesthood unhindered, like a true and conciliar patriarchal exarch.” But the Muscovite tsar did not agree to this humiliation and sent in 1557 together with Exarch Joasaph in the KP of his ambassador, Archimandrite Theodoret (enlightener of the Lapps) with rich alms and persistent petition for simple recognition. As a result, after some delays, already the successor of Dionysius, Joasaph II, in 1562 sent a conciliar letter, which allows Tsar Ivan the Terrible "to be and be called king legally and piously"; “the king and sovereign of Orthodox Christians throughout the universe from east to west to the ocean” with his commemoration in the east in the holy deptychs: “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 moat between Tsaregrad and Moscow, which formally lasted 83 years (1479-1562). And the arbiters of the fate of Moscow politics in good time raised the question of declaring Moscow a patriarchate in all legal form through the eastern patriarchs themselves.

Establishment of the Patriarchate

This moment is extremely richly represented by sources and covered in the literature. In addition to the "History of the Russian Church" v. 10 Metropolitan. Macarius, it is described by prof. arch. P. F. Nikolaevsky (“Chr. Thu. - 1879) and re-studied by prof. A. Ya. Shpakov (Odessa, 1912).
Archival sources are: 1) most of all in the Moscow Archive Min.In. Del. This is so called. "Greek article lists" ex. 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 Spiritual Academy). From foreign and foreign-language (Greek) sources, in addition to the letters of modern Eastern hierarchs (p. Jeremiah II, p. Meletius Pyg), scattered in various Russian publications, two memoir sources that came out from the pen of two bishops of the Greeks, companions in Moscow Patr. Jeremiah and accomplices in the establishment of the Russian Patriarchate:
a) Memoirs of Hierofei, 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 Metr. Ellason. Printed from Russian. translation by prof. A. A. Dmitrievsky in “Labor. Kyiv Spirit. Academy", 1898-99.
And also the same Arseny's description of the placement 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 conditional falsehood. This series of documents is supplemented by long-published, so-called:
a) "Statutory Charters on the establishment of the patriarchate (published in the "Collection of State Letters and Treaties" vol. II);
b) "Laid down Diploma of the Moscow Cathedral of 1589". (printed in Nikon's Pilot in 1653 and in the "Rod of the Board");
c) “Conciliar Charter of the Eastern Patriarchs on May 8, 1590.” (Ibidem and, moreover, in the new ed. Regel"Analesta Buzantino-Russica" St. Petersburg. 1891);
d) Decree of the KPlsky Cathedral of 1593 on the place of the Russian patriarch (in the Slavonic translation published in the Tablets of 1656 and in the Russian translation in the Proceedings of Kiev. 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 made his henchman Job the 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 dynasty of Rurikovich into the mainstream of his own kind, wanted to fix in the minds of the people his future accession to the throne with the mysticism of precisely the patriarchal wedding, as befitted the real heir to the rank of the Byzantine kings of all Orthodoxy, but main reason lay deeper.
The idea of the patriarchate organically grew out of the entire history of the Russian metropolis of the Moscow period. She was on everyone's mind. During these years of the end of the sixteenth century. there was a very exciting occasion for the establishment of the patriarchate by Moscow. That was the outcome of the age-old 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, with accession to Rome (1596). One of the motives of the union, the Jesuits put forward the "senility" of the Greek East. And by this alone, they aroused in Muscovites an interest in complete autocephaly, equality, and even superiority over the Greeks in the form of the Russian Patriarchate. Prof. P. ?. Nikolaevsky wrote: “Russian 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 the purity of faith and church orders 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 had finally fallen under the most shameful Turkish yoke; the Turk raises and lowers patriarchs; the patriarch and the clergy are distinguished by rudeness and ignorance; and in such a slave church there can be no purity of faith. From the Greeks adopted faith and orders and Rus'; it 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 opinions of the Latins about the Russian Church also passed to Moscow; of course, they could not please the Russians, but they maintained their dislike for the Greeks and suggested a different structure of the church hierarchical order in Russia, about the rise of the Russian hierarchy not only in their own minds, 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 Moscow circles really revived the Greek phobia that had barely subsided since the Union of Florence and, most importantly, flattered the hope that southwestern Russia itself, already crushed under the heel of Latinism, would perk up from the realization that its the elder sister, the Russian Church, has already become a patriarchy, that the East is not dying, but is being reborn and is calling for the same rebirth of its brothers in Lithuania and Poland. The national prestige of Moscow, state and ecclesiastical, has always had in mind, among other things, this great historical question: who will win hegemony over the East European plain - "puffy Pole or faithful Ross?" (Pushkin).
The question of the patriarchate literally flared up in Moscow as soon as the news came out that Patriarch Joachim of Antioch appeared on the border of Rus', who, as we know, traveled through Lvov and Western Rus' to the very important point her life, on the eve of the sad memory of the Brest Cathedral, and was involved in active actions to defend Orthodoxy. The appearance of an Eastern patriarch on Russian soil was an unprecedented fact in the entire history of the Russian Church.
Muscovites also have a sense of habitual reverence for their fathers in faith, heirs of glory ancient church, and a thirst to show their piety and the splendor of the kingdom. Arose together and a direct calculation to do a big thing - to start negotiations on the establishment of the patriarchate. This is what they started.
The meeting of the patriarch was magnificent, unlike "none" in Poland and the West. Rus'. This alone could not but flatter the Eastern patriarchs and please them. By order from Moscow, the Smolensk governor was ordered to meet the patriarch "honestly", to deliver him all the comforts, food, and accompany 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 praises to the Muscovite tsar: “if someone sees the sky and the sky of heaven and all the stars, if he does not see the sun, he is nothing, but when he sees the sun, he will rejoice zealously and glorify the creator and the Sun of our faithful Christians these days, your royal mercy is one between us. Proceeding from this, the Muscovite tsar could easily pose the question: is it time, finally, for the "sun of faithful Christians" to have a patriarch by his side?
The tsar sent honorary ambassadors to meet the guest, to Mozhaisk, to Dorogomilovo. 17th VI Patr. Joachim entered Moscow and was placed on the Nikolsky sacrum in the Sheremetev house. On June 25 there was a ceremonial reception of the patriarch by Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich. But characteristically, Mr. Dionysius did not visit or greet the patriarch. This could not have happened without an agreement with the secular authorities. The metropolitan clearly wanted to make the eastern beggar feel that he is a Russian metropolitan, the same autocephalous head of his church as the patriarch. Antioch, but only the head of a larger, free and strong church - and therefore the patriarch should have been the first to bow to him. And since the patriarch wants to circumvent this by bowing to the tsar, the Russian metropolitan is the first "does not break his hat."
The patriarch, according to the honorable custom, was dragged to the palace in the royal sleigh (although it was also summer) - dragged. The tsar received him in the "Signed Golden Chamber", sitting on the throne, in royal vestments, among dressed up boyars and ranks according to the rank of receiving ambassadors. The king got up and walked a sazhen from the throne to meet. The patriarch blessed the king and presented him with the relics of various saints. He immediately handed over to the tsar a letter of recommendation handed to him by Patriarch Theoliptus of the KPl together with Patriarch Sylvester of Alexandria, about helping Joachim to cover the debt of the See of Antioch in 8,000 gold pieces.
The king invited the patriarch to his place for dinner on the same day! A very great honor for the 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 brilliance and to reveal the Russian saint "in the pulpit", surrounded by an innumerable 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 of the real (and not nominally) Great Church. The patriarch was greeted with an honorable meeting at the southern doors. He was led to venerate icons and relics. Meanwhile, Metropolitan Dionisy with the clergy stood in the middle of the church on the pulpit, ready to begin the liturgy. Like a king, according to ceremonial, 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 offense inflicted on him, immediately declared through an interpreter that this should not be done, but he saw that no one wanted to listen to him, that there was no place and no time to argue, and fell silent. As the document says, “he said a little that it was more convenient for the metropolitan to accept a blessing from him in advance, and he stopped talking about that.” 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 a pill for the distressed patriarch. The figure of the Russian metropolitan, which flashed before the patriarch like Olympian majesty, again hid from him, and he must have felt that there was no need to argue against the height of the Russian metropolitan. And the king must be paid for the gifts. So the Moscow diplomats created an "atmosphere" for the question in the Russian patriarchate. And led the whole thing secular power. The patriarchs were drawn to her, they expected favors from her and received them. She had to pay with her. The Russian hierarchy was spared the risk of diminishing and falling into the position of humble petitioners. She didn't ask for anything. She seemed to have everything. And the eastern hierarchs themselves had to feel their duty to her and give her the appropriate title of patriarch.
Immediately after this day, negotiations began between the tsarist government and Patriarch Joachim about the patriarchate. They were conducted secretly, that is, without written documents, perhaps out of fear that the tsarist authorities would somehow come out against this before the KPlsky patriarch. In the Boyar Duma, the tsar made a speech that, after a secret agreement with his wife Irina, with his “brother-in-law, close boyar and equerry and voivode of the courtyard and governor of Kazan and Astrakhan, Boris Fedorovich Godunov”, he decided to raise the following question: “From the beginning, from the ancestors our, Kiev, Vladimir and Moscow sovereigns - tsars and great pious princes, our pilgrims were delivered metropolitans of Kiev, Vladimir, Moscow and all Russia, from the patriarchs of Tsargrad and ecumenical. Then, by the grace of the 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 forefathers, the pious tsars and great princes of Moscow, and on the advice of the patriarchs of Tsaregrad (?), Metropolitans began to be especially delivered in the Moscow state, according to the verdict and election of our forefathers and the entire consecrated cathedral, from the archbishops of the Russian kingdom even to our kingdom. Now, by His great and inexpressible mercy, God has granted us to see 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, so that we can arrange a Moscow Russian Patriarch in our state, and advise on this with holy patriarch Joachim, and to order with him about the blessing of the Moscow Patriarchate, to all the patriarchs. Boris Godunov was sent for negotiations to the patriarch.
In the "Collection of the Synod Library" Boris Godunov's speech to Patriarch Joachim and his answers are given next. way. Godunov suggests to Joachim: “You would have advised on this with the Most Holy Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Most Holy Patriarch would have advised on 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, and to the holy mountain, and to the Sinai they would tell about it, so that God would give such a great deed in our Russian state settled down to the piety of the Christian faith, and if we thought about it, they would announce to us how it would be more convenient for that business to take place. Patriarch Joachim, according to the presentation of this document, thanked on behalf of himself and other patriarchs of the Tsar of Moscow for all the alms for which the Eastern churches pray for him, admitted that it would be “beautiful” to establish a patriarchate in Russia, promised to consult with the rest of the patriarchs: “that is a great thing , of the entire cathedral, and without this advice it is impossible for me to do that thing.
The last words sound strange. Almost all official documents about this case are tendentious. And here we involuntarily sense a hidden offer from Muscovites to Joachim (perhaps with a promise to pay them the 8,000 gold coins they are looking for), without delay, to appoint a patriarch himself, and then look for confirmation later.
The negotiations ended quickly. Joachim received something and promised to contribute to 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. It hasn't been made public yet. From here, the guests were sent to the Annunciation and Archangel Cathedrals for parting prayers.
But in the Cathedral of the Assumption and to the Metropolitan. The Patriarch did not visit Dionysius and did not have any farewell to the Metropolitan. Joachim's resentment is quite understandable. But Dionysius' stubborn negligence of the patriarch is not entirely clear to us. We have to resort to hypotheses. Maybe it was just by reconnaissance on the way back to Moscow (in Lithuania or already within Russia) that Patriarch Joachim spoke of the Moscow metropolitans (unlike the Kiev-Lithuanian ones) as autocephalous and not for the benefit of the church independent of the Greeks . Here Dionysius, with the permission of the king, made such a demonstration to an arrogant Greek. Moscow knew how to distribute diplomatic roles...