The source of the real power of the patriarch was becoming more and more clearly the sovereign. Even the Schism and the struggle with the Old Believers became the work of the secular "sword", while the spiritual "sword" turned into a pointer or, in the strongest case, into a rod for those who agreed to accept it. Only the secular authorities could send a "guard" so that the Patriarch could bring to his senses, for example, some dangerous thinker who asserted that every literate person had the right to "reason."

The ugliness and lawlessness that ended the brilliant patriarchal period could not have been a natural consequence of the development of the Russian Church, but the history of the patriarchs made them possible.

* * *

Very carefully and with reservations, adapting the quotations and giving only the most important references for the inquisitive, I consider it necessary to accompany my story with selections of the most valuable and interesting sources. The literary heritage of the patriarchs reveals the inner world and drama of the shepherd of the restless flock. Decrees and letters directly reflect the deeds, intentions and relations of the Patriarch with the flock, bishops and the state.

Andrey Bogdanov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Moscow, 1990–1997

Volume 1

The Establishment of the Patriarchate and Patriarch Job

The birth of an idea

The historical necessity of establishing a patriarchate in Russia had to be realized in specific events that have their own explanation. More precisely, a number of circumstances had to come into a certain combination in order for the fifth and first patriarchal cathedra to arise in the Universal Orthodox Church. If we delve into these circumstances, we may discover the secret springs of historical action.

A long time passed after the coronation of the Grand Duke of Moscow with the royal crown, decade after decade, but the Russian Orthodox Church continued to be meekly satisfied with the fact that at its head stood a metropolitan – nominally one of the great multitude of metropolitans, above whom towered the figures of the four patriarchs: Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch – who lived in the possessions of the Ottoman Empire.

The eastern policy of Ivan the Terrible was replaced by the western one, the war with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and then with the united Polish-Lithuanian state (the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) intensified the struggle between Orthodoxy and Catholicism in the vast disputed territories – and the Jesuits justified their mission as the vanguard of the papal idea by the fact that the head of the Russian Orthodox Church was dependent on the slave of the Sultan – the Patriarch of Constantinople. It was even more difficult for the Orthodox clergy in the territories of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth – Ukraine, Belarus, and partly Lithuania – because the Metropolitan of Kiev was not only nominally, but also actually subordinate to Constantinople! However, the years passed, and nothing changed in Orthodoxy.

It is easy to assume that Ivan the Terrible, who plunged the country into Great Ruin, feared and periodically massacred even his closest supporters, was deeply alien to the idea of strengthening the authority of the Moscow high priest (he changed and harassed the Moscow metropolitans in much the same way as he harassed his wives). But then the Terrible Tsar died.

On May 31, 1584, Fyodor Ioannovich was crowned on the Moscow throne. The Patriarch of Constantinople was sent 1000 rubles of alms for the commemoration of the soul of the deceased tsar. Rich gifts were also sent to the heads of other Orthodox churches, Greek and Slavic, in order of seniority: to the Patriarch of Jerusalem – 900 rubles for commemoration and 82 rubles for the health of the new tsar and queen, etc. The Moscow government did not forget the famous Orthodox monasteries with its alms, but its envoys nowhere mentioned a word or a hint about their desire to establish a patriarchal throne in Moscow. Everything went on as before.

And suddenly, in 1586, it turned out that the idea of establishing a patriarchate in Russia was extremely preoccupied by the Moscow authorities, secular and ecclesiastical, beginning with Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich and Metropolitan Dionysius. Prominent secular and ecclesiastical historians (including S. M. Solovyov, Metropolitan Macarius of Moscow and Kolomna, and Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy N. F. Kapterev) unanimously describe these events, without going into their background and mixing in their stories two completely different sources: the article list of the Ambassadorial Department, which documented what happened in 1586 [1], and the historical and journalistic legend, compiled after the establishment of the patriarchate in Russia. under the conditions of the undivided rule of Boris Godunov [2].