ANNEX I

MOSCOW METROPOLITANS OF THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY

This topic, which is important in itself and is naturally not considered here, is also important in connection with Sergius of Radonezh, since the theme of the metropolitans refers to the theme of the Church in Russia in the fourteenth century, its organization, its policy, both within the Church and related to relations with the princely power, its tasks and goals, its moods and aspirations, its role in the spiritual development of society and its contribution to the Russian history of the century under consideration. With two of the Moscow metropolitans, Alexis and Cyprian, Sergius of Radonezh had relations of cooperation, respect, and moreover, mutual benevolence. In many respects, Sergius and these metropolitans were at one and the same time, and possible disagreements, if there were probably any, did not come to the surface and did not serve as any noticeable obstacle in the common cause.

Alexis and Cyprian, the Metropolitans of Moscow, not only for their noted and high position and for their close ties with Sergius, but also for their human qualities, for their policy and its results, deserve special attention. The same applies to Metropolitan Peter, who transferred the metropolitan cathedra from Vladimir to Moscow. He died when Bartholomew (Sergius) was still a child, and there could be no connection between them, of course. But Peter stood at the origins of the "Muscovite" period in the history of the Metropolia of the Russian Church and, already, of the line that was so successfully continued and deepened by subsequent Moscow metropolitans in the fourteenth century.

It must be said that the Mongol-Tatar invasion, the defeat of Kiev in 1240 and other sad events of that time, which led to the fact that Kievan Rus lay in ruins, had somewhat unexpected (at least at first glance) consequences in the life of the Russian Church and its metropolia, in particular. The Russian Church, the center of which from the moment of the adoption of Christianity was Kiev, on the contrary, avoided the collapse that state power and statehood experienced more closely than the Church, which is connected with the space of the state, power and possession. Of course, the Church from the middle of the thirteenth century and during the following century (not to mention the later times of the "sub-Tatar" existence, which was incomparably easier for the Church than for the secular princely power) experienced many changes, but they were determined mainly by two factors: the internal growth of the Russian Church and the awareness of its tasks in connection with those major events that significantly changed the political history of Russia in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. and the development of its position in relation to these changes. These tasks were not invented, but genuine. The hot breath of those days urgently determined what these tasks were to be. The urgency of the tasks implied a quick and life-prompted choice of solutions: only the "head" could not help in this matter, it was necessary to listen to the voice of life, to understand its deficits, to realize its requirements, to highlight its main imperatives. In a word, it was necessary to overcome the existing status quo, which would be salvation. And from the beginning of the fourteenth century, not very noticeable at the first steps, there was a slow, and then increasingly gaining strength, growth of historical creativity in Russia, both among the people, who no longer had the strength, nor the time, nor the desire to do anything other than the urgent reality of this day, both in the Church and in the state power. At one pole (the people) the problem is solved imperceptibly, as if gradually, if you will, egoistically and down-to-earth. At the other pole (power) everything is done naked, often rudely, cruelly, not in a Christian way. The Church tries (and does not always succeed) to avoid extremes. And if, on the whole, it coped with its task successfully in the fourteenth century (there is no point in talking about exceptions here), then this is to a large extent explained both by the understanding of the imperatives of the time and by the very personality of the leaders of the Russian Church, who correctly grasped the direction in which the winds of history blow.

Necessity as a consequence of lack often gives rise to the prospect of the path leading to salvation. The meaning of this perspective may be revealed late, at the end of the path, but this does not negate either the reality of the perspective itself or its salvific value. It is not difficult to see that the consequence of the Mongol-Tatar invasion and the decline of Kievan Rus was the shift of the center of Russian church power to the northeast. At the highest level, this is really manifested in the corresponding transfer of the metropolitan's residence from the south to the north. With these changes in mind, the historian of the Russian Church gives a panoramic description of the situation from this point of view:

In this case, church life was necessarily determined by the fate of political life. By the end of the pre-Mongol period, the state unity of Rus', which had its center in the Grand Duchy of Kiev, did not exist: by that time there were already two Grand Dukes sitting at two opposite ends of the Russian land, in the principalities: Galicia-Volhynia and Vladimir-Suzdal. Kiev became obsolete and ceased to be not only a grand ducal city, but also a princely one, and turned into a suburb ruled by a boyar-governor. The Tatar devastation belittled it completely and decisively raised before the metropolitans the question of their residence. The bifurcation of the grand ducal center somewhat delayed the decision on the question of a new metropolitan residence, because it forced them to wait and hesitate in their choice. Hence a certain period of wandering of the metropolitans in the Russian land. Then, when the metropolitans had already chosen the northern center instead of the southern, their wanderings were somewhat prolonged, owing to the temporary instability of the political center itself: Tver, Vladimir, and Moscow were fighting for supremacy. The struggle of the Moscow princes for the right to the grand princedom involved the metropolitans in politics. Through this, the state importance of the hierarchy grows even more than before, and at the same time the need in Russia to have metropolitans from among its Russian people, who would converse with the princes "word by mouth." More and more often, local princely deputies were sent to Constantinople as candidates for the metropolia, until, finally, the ill-fated Union of Florence forced the Russians to break off their former trusting relations with the Greeks and begin a new procedure for the independent election and installation of autocephalous metropolitans in Moscow. The power of the Russian metropolitans in ecclesiastical and especially political terms, which had risen to an unprecedented height since the break with the Patriarch of Constantinople, was rapidly declining, because it was losing the external powerful support of its independence. The overwhelming authority of the Moscow prince quickly grew over the Russian metropolitans, who appropriated the title of tsar and the Byzantine idea of patronage over all Orthodox Christians, and the appointment and fate of the metropolitans themselves began to depend to the same extent on the personal will of the Moscow princes as it was in the ruined Constantinople. The church hierarchy, which in word and deed had educated the Moscow autocracy, itself had to humbly bow under the authoritative hand of the brainchild it had cherished. Such is the most general outline of the historical fate of the Russian Metropolia.

(Kartashev 1991, vol. 1, 288–289).

The last part of this panorama belongs to a period half a century removed from the death of Sergius, although, of course, the roots of many phenomena sharply marked in the fifteenth century are in the fourteenth century.

In addition to the shift of the center of administration of the Russian Church to the northeast, it is necessary to note another phenomenon, which also partly followed from the general situation in Eastern Europe, which cannot be recognized as trivial. We are talking about the election of the Metropolitan of Russia on a "national" basis. In Kievan Rus', only twice were Russian priests on the metropolitan cathedra, and both times as a result of some disobedience to the Ecumenical Patriarch, self-will. Against this background, it may seem unexpected that more than thirty years (1249-1281) were on the cathedra of the Russian metropolitan Cyril. Historians rightly consider this concession to "Russian nationalism" to be a deliberate step by the Patriarch of Constantinople, who did not want to expose the Greek metropolitan to the vicissitudes of fate. In this case, there was a real fear, but also, apparently, a diplomatic calculation: Byzantium at that time (perhaps even temporarily putting an end to Russia) was in a hurry to establish peace and dynastic relations with the Mongol Empire. One way or another, but around 1249, Cyril, who had been made metropolitan by Patriarch Manuel II, returned to Russia. The Byzantine Church took an uncanonical step by renouncing its traditional domination over the Russian Church, which was missionarily dependent on it. However, Byzantium also had enough of its own internal concerns: since 1204, when the "Latin" conquerors seized Constantinople, the Byzantine authorities, secular and spiritual, vegetated like refugees in Nicaea, and in some way they had no time for "Russian" affairs.

Cyril's mission was successful. He managed to do the main thing for that time. He managed to earn the trust of the Russian princes, and even of the Tatars, and to obtain from the latter the liberation of the Church from tribute; moreover, Cyril obtained permission from the Tatars to establish an Orthodox diocese in Sarai. He was a caring and active pastor. Several times he traveled to all the dioceses and did everything to restore the order that had been disturbed by the invasion. In 1274, Cyril convened a Council in Vladimir, at which the well-known 12 canons concerning internal church affairs were worked out. By the end of Cyril's tenure as metropolitan, the situation in Russia had somewhat stabilized. And in Byzantium there was a significant change: in 1261 the "Latins" were expelled, and both the emperor and the patriarch returned to Constantinople. Byzantium again actualized its interests in Russia and, as it is believed, even during Cyril's lifetime it warned that Russia should not expect to have Russian metropolitans in the future, although it was Cyril's experience that testified to his successful activity in the Russian Church and the non-violation of mutual peace and harmony with the Greeks. However, the next metropolitan was the Greek Maximus (1287–1305). But the next metropolitan was again Peter (1308-1326), a native of Southwestern Russia. A similar "Greek-Russian" alternation continued in the fourteenth century; the "Greek-power" on the metropolitan cathedra in Russia began to recede, and more and more as the Moscow principality expanded and the power of the Moscow princes increased. It is no accident that in this constructive and creative period in the history of the Russian Church and its metropolitans during the century (1308-1406), with the exception of two "false metropolitans" Michael, "Mityai" and Pimen (unfortunately, in the same century there were many other ambitious adventurers among persons belonging to the clergy of high rank), gave four outstanding hierarchs-metropolitans. canonized by the Church – Peter, Alexis, Theognost and Cyprian. This is undoubtedly a marked event in the history of holiness in Russia, of that variety of it which is represented by hierarchs, holy bishops. This series in the fourteenth century was opened by Metropolitan Peter, whose veneration was established immediately after his death on December 21, 1326 (it should be noted that he was the first of the Russian metropolitans in this hierarchical row).

1. Metropolitan Peter, saint of Moscow

In the context chosen here, this outstanding figure can be dwelt on only for a short time: although Sergius of Radonezh was his younger contemporary; They did not meet each other, the age difference excluded such a meeting. However, the memory of Peter is also preserved by Epiphanius' "Life" of Sergius. Thus, when it is necessary to determine the time of Sergius' birth, Peter is mentioned among other chronological indices ([...] the monk was born [...] under Archbishop Peter [...]). In another case, speaking of a certain sign similar to that seen by Sergius' parents, Epiphanius refers to the "Life" of Peter (In the Life of our holy father Peter, the Metropolitan, a new miracle-maker who was in Russia, wrote that something like a sign had arrived). Of course, Sergius could not but have heard about him during Peter's lifetime, but he had to learn even more about him later, from people who communicated with him and knew more about him than Sergius. The modern reader can get an idea of Peter, his texts and his "Life" from a number of general, and more specialized studies, see: Klyuchevsky 1871, 82–88; Barsukov 1882, stb. 447–449; Macarius 1886, vol. 4, book. I, 312–317; Shevyrev 1887, vol. 3, 88; Kuchkin 1962, 59–79; Dmitriev 1963, 215–254; Dmitriev 1980, vol. 2, 64–70; Doncheva–Panayotova 1981; Sedova 1983, 256–268; Sedova, 1993; Prokhorov 1987, 163–166, 325–329 and others.