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.

Six epistles are associated with the name of Peter. The first of them is a circular epistle on the occasion of the onset of Great Lent ("Instruction by the Abbot, Priest and Deacon"). From it it is possible to imagine a circle of more or less common violations of the Christian life and sins (obscenity, passions, drunkenness, ridicule, fornication, sorcery, usury, etc.) and a positive program (meekness and humility, care for the spiritual flock, reading appropriate books). The second epistle is addressed to the same addressees, but also "to me and to all Orthodox Christians." In the only known copy this epistle is attributed to Cyprian, but a modern scholar (Prokhorov 1987, 327–328) is inclined to believe that Peter has more reason to be considered the author of the epistle than Cyprian. The epistle contains advice to priests on what to do in the event of the death of his wife (or to go to a monastery, or, if he "has a weakness to abide and love worldly delights," to leave the priestly ministry), general instructions on piety and mercy. The third epistle is addressed to the widest audience, from bishops to "all Orthodox peasants": it is about sins, about prohibitions, and about what and how to do in order to avoid temptations and falling into sin. In the fourth epistle there is a call to obey the spiritual pastor and a reflection on the words of Christ about the blessed. The fifth text of Metropolitan Peter belongs to the genre of instruction and is entitled "The Instruction of Metropolitan Peter, when Vladyka Andrei is assembled." This text is in two parts: a sermon in which it is recalled that people are called "to eternal life" (the final words of the sermon are especially characteristic: "and let us enter, rejoicing into infinite joy, and into immortal life, and into ineffable beauty"; it seems that they well convey Peter's nature), and a eulogy to Metropolitan Peter. The sixth text, called by E. E. Golubinsky a "mysterious instruction," is designated as "The Instruction of Metropolitan Peter to the Great Prince Demetrius, and to His Death, and to His Brethren, and to the Episcopus, and to the Bolyars, and to the Old, and to the Young, and to All Christians." In this sermon there is a reminder of the punishment for those who do not pay attention to punishment, for "God will deliver such a one to the tormentor and [to] a great punishment. "Children, you were executed by God," "Children, do not give in to fearlessness," Peter addresses and, addressing his flock, conjures them, referring to what happened during the time of the Grand Duke and his death. And in the end, there is a call to "great obedience." This text also allows us to assume that Peter had an artistic beginning, his ability to influence the flock with words. The role of memory-remembrance in the preservation of tradition in the context of what Peter hints at is also evidenced by such a phrase as "It is good for old people to remember how it was during the time of the Grand Duke and at his death, and they remember him as a young man." — In the charters of Metropolitans Theognost and Alexis, an unknown charter of Peter is mentioned. It is possible that it is supposed to be connected with the dispute between the bishops of Ryazan and Saransk over Chervleny Yar. — For editions of these texts by Peter, see: Gorsky 1844, part 2, 73–84; Pam. Old. Russian. litas. 1862, iss. 4, 186–188; Pam. Dr. — R. Kan. pr. 1880, t. 6, stb. 159–164; Golubinsky 1904, vol. 2, I half., 119–120; Nikolsky 1909, 1109–1115.

But the main source about Peter, his life and work, of course, remains his "Life", written in the fourteenth century and having two editions of different value, since one is a revision of the other, moreover, a revision with a focus on expansion. The original redaction is associated with the Rostov bishop Prokhor, and the second ("famous") redaction was created by Cyprian, who did much to perpetuate the memory of Peter. In the first edition, two editions are distinguished. In one of them, the name of Prokhor is missing, in the other the "Teaching" of Peter is added to the "Life" itself (in connection with his dispute with the Tver bishop Andrei). Kuchkin 1962, 59–79, who has studied in detail the question connected with these two editions and their authorship, believes that it is the "Instruction" that is connected with the name of Prokhor, while the "Life" itself was compiled by an unknown author, possibly one of the clerics of the Dormition Cathedral in Moscow, close to both the late Metropolitan Peter and Prince Ivan Danilovich Kalita. The time of creation of this redaction is before August 14, 1327, which means that the text was created almost immediately after Peter's death. The second reason was caused by the needs of Peter's canonization in 1339 in Constantinople, also unusually fast. This text underwent a number of changes (the addition of the "Instruction", the introduction of a general title, etc.), and in 1348 it was supplemented with new fragments about miracles. The earliest copy of the second edition dates back to the late 15th and early 16th centuries (the oldest copy of the first edition is the 70s of the 15th century). The text of the "Life" in this edition is rather concise. He briefly and simply sets forth the main episodes of the life of Metropolitan Peter. Later, it was considered that the short text of the "Life" was not sufficient in taking into account what Peter had done for Moscow, and later Metropolitan Cyprian, on the basis of this short version, created as part of the Great Service to Metropolitan Peter a revised and significantly expanded version of the "Life", which is distinguished by high literary merit. The text contains a rhetorical introduction, a digression, a description of the prophetic vision of the young Peter in a dream, and a final word of praise. As a result, "the whole narrative acquired the character of a relaxed, lively and instructive story of a person with a broad life and literary outlook, self-confident, proficient in words, allowing himself emphasis and irony" (Prokhorov 1987, 164). The presence in this text of traces of the journalistic attitude of the compiler, who went through a difficult and not always successful struggle with the "pseudo-metropolitans" Michael, "Mityai" and Pimen, and with the Grand Duke Dimitri Ivanovich, is justified. The same author emphasizes that "under the pen of Cyprian, the Life also acquired the features of his autobiography" (Prokhorov 1987, 165), an observation that seems indubitable, especially since the text also includes a truly autobiographical fragment about Cyprian's misfortunes in 1379-1380, when he was in Constantinople besieged by the Genoese fleet (cf. also the motif of Peter's mystical help to Cyprian). By all accounts, the time of creation of this redaction is 1381. The report of the "Tale in Brief of the Wise Cyprian" from the Book of Degrees and a seventeenth-century collection that Cyprian wrote the Life in 1397-1404 is considered to refer to the Metropolitan's Eulogy of Metropolitan Peter, which is based on his own redaction of the Vita. Editions of the "Life" of Metropolitan Peter — Macarius 1886, vol. 4, book. 1, 312–317; Makary 1907, stb. 1620–1646; Step. Kn. 1912, 321–322 [= PSRL, vol. 21, 1st half, 1912]; Angelov 1958, 159–176; Prokhorov 1978, 205–215; Sedova 1993 [cf. the Russian translation of the "Prokhorov's" text of the "Life" — Izbr. zhit. sv. M., 1992, 243–249]. — Further, the text of the "Life" of Metropolitan Peter is quoted from the edition — Prokhorov 1978 (parchment Service Menaion for December, Kharkov State Scientific Library named after V. G. Korolenko, No 816281, ll. 128 rev. — 140; dated to the 80s of the fourteenth century) [440].

Metropolitan Cyprian was an outstanding stylist in his literary work, one of the best representatives of that rhetorical trend that was able to observe harmonious strictness, not allowing itself excesses, extremes, and had a sense of proportion. In this respect, Cyprian differed significantly from Epiphanius: the rhetorical never led him away from the chosen topic and did not arise between the author and his reader. The "Life" of Peter in the Cyprian redaction confirms this.

The text of the "Life" itself is framed by the introductory and concluding parts. Their stylistics differ from the hagiographic part proper, but precisely to the extent that it is necessary to draw the attention of a "serious" reader to the biography of Metropolitan Peter before beginning to familiarize himself with it [441] and to comprehend his laborious feat as a whole after the last page of this biography has been turned [442].

The main text of Peter's Life is simple: it is not extensive, but it is not narrow either, and therefore it is easy to overlook. The events of the saint's life unfold according to the traditional hagiographic scheme, in which, however, some events are singled out as especially noted, either because of their diagnostic importance in relation to the presence of holiness, or because of their drama, or because of some significance that will be fully revealed later. Attention should be paid to the essential similarity in the descriptions of the birth and childhood of Peter and Sergius, although the places of their birth within the East Slavic space developed by the Russians by that time were extremely opposite: the extreme south-west, Volhynia with its mountainousness and "light" forests, and the extreme north-east, flat, with almost continuous "dark" forests. But natural differences are erased before the manifestation of holiness, although this does not negate the role of the natural in the formation of man, who will later be understood as the bearer of holiness.

The exposition in the "Life" moves quickly, but without excessive haste, usually without distractions and filling in transitions. Thus, having briefly reported on the birth of Peter (for the blessed Peter was born of a Christian and a reverent parent in the land of Velynsk), the Life immediately reports on the sign that accompanied this birth, which is truly striking in its archetypal authenticity: