Library › A. N. Mouravieff › History of the Church of Russia

History of the Church of Russia

A. N. Mouravieff, tr. Blackmore, 1842

Period During Which the Metropolitans Sat at Kieff; Till the Invasion of the Tartars,…

The Metropolitan George, who was sent by the Patriarch John Xiphilinus early in the reign of Isyaslaff, translated with much solemnity the holy relics of the Princes Boris and Gleb to the new church of Vishgorod, which had been built on purpose to receive them. The faith of this prelate in the sanctity of the royal martyrs had been but wavering at first, but his doubts were altogether overcome by a miracle which was wrought over¹ their remains, and he then instituted a festival to their honour. In the account of this translation we find mention made in the Chronicles for the first time of the following bishops; Michael of Yurieff, Peter of Pereyaslaff, and John of Colma; and we may conclude that these three new dioceses were constituted about the same period, in consequence of the continually increasing spread of Christianity in the South of Russia.

The meek and timid George retired to Constantinople to escape from the civil feuds of Isyaslaff and his brethren, during the continuance of which his flock was exposed to the invasion of Boleslaus king of Poland, and to the encroachments of Rome: for the ambitious pope, Gregory the Seventh², offered military support to Isyaslaff, and stipulated that in return he should make his submission to the Roman See: and this was the first attempt of the Western pontiffs upon Russia. But Isyaslaff having regained his throne without foreign assistance, disappointed the schemes of Gregory, and being confirmed in the Faith of his fathers by Theodosius the zealous and orthodox hegumen of the Pechersky, persevered in it to the end of his troubled life³. Another great luminary was now ready to appear in the person of the Metropolitan John II., who was appointed by the Patriarch Eustratius⁴, and fed as a shepherd the Church of Russia for nine years. Nestor speaks of him with particular affection, describing him as a man well skilled in learning, very charitable to orphans and widows, courteous to rich and poor alike, humble, silent, and reserved, visiting the afflicted, and ministering to them consolation out of the holy Scriptures. In the MS. copies of the Kormchay⁵, or Russian Nomocanon, there is preserved a composition of his with the title of “Rule of the Church for sundry cases of conscience.” “There will never be his like again in Russia!” exclaims the cotemporary annalist; comparing him perhaps, at the time when he wrote, with his successor John III., a plain, ignorant man, whom Anna, the daughter of the Great Prince Vsevolod⁶, had brought with her from Constantinople, from the Patriarch Nicolas Grammaticus. She afterwards founded a convent for nuns and a school at Kieff. Another of her sisters, Eupraxia, also took the veil and died a nun; which was the less to be wondered at, since their father himself was a man full of piety and of love for the clergy, who was constantly founding monasteries, and bestowing rich presents upon churches.

The name of the Metropolitan Ephraim stands on the roll of the prelates of Kieff next after that of John, who died the year after his accession: but the Chronicles do not agree in the accounts they give of him. Some make him to have been a Greek, and sent by the same patriarch as his predecessor; others a Russian, of the suite of Isyaslaff, who received the tonsure and became a monk in the caves of Anthony; Nestor says nothing of any Metropolitan Ephraim, but only speaks of a bishop of Pereyaslavla of that name as the senior prelate of the synod which translated the remains of St. Theodosius, and as the builder of the celebrated cathedral of St. Michael in Pereyaslavla. Perhaps after the death of John III., which took place so soon, there was no other metropolitan sent for some time from Constantinople, and Ephraim, who lived in the neighbouring diocese of Pereyaslavla, administered the vacant diocese of Kieff, being respected for his Christian virtues and especially for his charity to the poor; for he had established hospitals with physicians to serve gratuitously in the different towns. His death is supposed to have occurred in the year 1096, when the khan of the Poloftsi⁷, Boniak, suddenly assaulted Kieff, destroyed its suburbs, and burned the Pecherskay Lavra.

But there are yet further difficulties in the Chronicles respecting this Metropolitan Ephraim. According to Nikon’s catalogue, Luke Jedyata, bishop of Novogorod, who had been chosen moreover by the great Yaroslaff, was, through the slanders of some of his own household, cited to appear before this metropolitan in his court at Kieff, and was there detained for the space of three years, until his character could be completely cleared: but according to the chronological reckoning, this event ought to be referred to some date before Hilarion had ceased to be metropolitan; and from hence several writers have even ventured to conjecture that Hilarion took the name of Ephraim, together with the Schema⁸ or Great Angelic Habit, and bore it at the time of his death. However that may be, the trial of the bishop of Novogorod, who already at that time had exclusively the title of Lord, on account of his share in the government of this independent town, shews how great was the power of the metropolitan over the bishops who were subject to him throughout the whole of Russia. Their election depended sometimes on the princes, either on the Great Prince or on the inferior appanaged princes, sometimes on the will of the primate, but they were all consecrated by the primate in person, and were subject to his jurisdiction and visitation; in the same way as the metropolitans themselves, who were always appointed at Constantinople, depended in spiritual matters upon the patriarch, and so preserved the infant Church of Russia in unbroken connection with the Church of Greece.

Already in the reign of Sviatopolk the son of Isyaslaff, the eldest of the grandsons of the great Yaroslaff, our attention is drawn to those bitter feuds of the appanaged princes, which eventually caused the entire dismemberment of Russia and her subjection to the Mongols. However, notwithstanding the weak and deceitful character of Sviatopolk, the other princes still respected the superior authority of the throne of Kieff, and the rights of primogeniture. For when Oleg of Chernigoff, the turbulent son of Sviatoslaff, together with his brethren raised an insurrection against the Great Prince, he was put down by the valiant son of Vsevolod, Vladimir Monomachus⁹, who at the same time reconciled the appanaged chieftains at the general session or assize of the princes. His sword, everywhere attended by victory, repelled also the savage enemies of the South of Russia, the Poloftsi, who leading a wandering life on the steppes of the Don and the Black sea, kept the Eastern frontiers in a state of continual alarm by their incursions, until they were themselves destroyed by the Mongols. But the perfidious cruelty of Sviatopolk in putting out the eyes of the Prince Basilko, at the instigation of his relative David prince of Volhynia, roused Monomachus and all the sons of Sviatoslaff to vengeance. They marched up to Kieff behind the walls of which the Great Prince lay trembling; when suddenly there appeared as a peace-maker in the camp of the incensed brethren the new Metropolitan Nicolas: “We beseech thee, O prince,” said he, “thee and thy brethren, that ye will not be so unnatural as to ruin your own country of Russia; for know that if ye begin to fight among yourselves, the unbelievers will rejoice, and will take away from us our land, which your fathers and grandfathers won by great toil and valour in all their wars in Russia: they sought even to conquer other countries, but ye now go about to ruin your own.”

There remained in Kieff a monument of the reign of Sviatopolk in the monastery of St. Michael with its gilded domes, which he built and named after his angel or patron saint; and in its magnificent church were deposited the relics of the illustrious martyr St. Barbara, which had been brought from Greece by Barbara daughter of the emperor of Constantinople, and first wife to Sviatopolk. There the same holy treasure is even yet preserved. The Metropolitan Nicephorus, a Greek by birth, who had been appointed by the Patriarch Nicolas, consecrated the new church, and during the fifteen years that he sat, shewed himself a worthy fellow-labourer to Monomachus. The eloquent and edifying letters which he addressed to him have been preserved. They were both men of great and enlightened minds, far outshining all their contemporaries, and set as twin models of Christian virtue, the one on the kingly, the other on the episcopal throne. The glory of Vladimir spreading far and wide, procured for him, in addition to the power, the crown and title of King. According to the account given in the Books of the Genealogies, the Greek Emperor Comenes sent him as a present the Crown, the Holy Barma¹⁰, and the life-giving Cross, the same which are now preserved in the Treasury at Moscow; and Neophytus the metropolitan of Ephesus, who brought these regalia from Constantinople, performed for the first time upon Monomachus, in the cathedral of St. Sophia, the sacred ceremony of Coronation, which was to serve as the model for all subsequent Coronations of Russian Sovereigns.

To Nicephorus is ascribed the formation of a new diocese at Polotsk, where he appointed Mina to be bishop; we cannot however affirm with certainty that he was the first ever consecrated to that See, for it seems very improbable that the principality of Polotsk, which was less dependent than the rest upon Kieff, and ruled as an appanage by powerful princes, the eldest of the whole race of the posterity of St. Vladimir, should have remained so long without having its own separate bishop. The same may be fairly conjectured of Smolensk, one of the most ancient cities in all Russia, whose bishops begin to be reckoned still later, and the Chronicles do not even agree as to their names. Some name Michael or Manuel as the first, who was made bishop by the Metropolitan Michael II.; others place two bishops, Ignatius and Lazarus, before Manuel; but Nestor speaks of the formation of the first dioceses in a very general and indeterminate manner. The lips of this father of Russian history closed about the year 1116, and another learned monk, Silvester, hegumen of the Vidoubetz monastery, became the continuator of his Chronicle, and carried it down to the year 1124. From this point the men who succeeded to the same pious work have concealed their names, but the history of Russia still continued to be written by the hand of some unknown monk, in the solitude and quiet of his cell, through all the storms and revolutions of the outer world.

About this same period, during the episcopate of St. Nicetas, who had been a monk of the Pechersky monastery, two celebrated religious houses were founded in Great Novogorod; one, the Yurieff monastery, by the zeal of Prince Mistislaff, though some traditions refer its foundation to Yaroslaff the Great; the other, that of St. Anthony the Roman, who sailed from the West up the Volkoff, and lived as a hermit on its banks near the Church of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin, which he is said to have built. In like manner as in Novogorod and Kieff, so also in many other chief district-towns, wherever the dawn of spiritual enlightenment so much as penetrated, monasteries were gradually formed, which spread it abroad over all the surrounding parts; and the word of God, carried about by holy solitaries, was let fall into the depths of the vales and forests as the quickening seed of a future life, which should bring forth its fruit in due season.

The successor of the wise and learned Nicephorus, Nicetas, consecrated to be metropolitan by the Patriarch John, buried the Great Monomachus¹¹ in the cathedral of the Assumption, amidst the tears of Russia. He was also witness of another great calamity, a dreadful conflagration, which destroyed, according to the account of the Chronicles, as many as four hundred churches and chapels in Kieff¹², which proves to what a flourishing state the capital must have already attained. He sat only for a short time. Michael II., who was sent by the same patriarch during the reign of Mistislaff the son of Monomachus, anxiously sought to extinguish those civil feuds which had arisen. In the first place he appointed a great churchman, Niphont, to be bishop of Novogorod, quelled an insurrection of the people by the threat of his episcopal interdict¹³, and even went thither himself to restrain the tumultuous citizens from going to war with the district of Souzdal; but the threats of Michael and his prophetic denunciations of their defeat were not attended to by the turbulent assembly¹⁴, and it was only their fulfilment in deed which could reduce the citizens of Novogorod to a temporary calm. Afterwards upon the death of the warlike Great Prince Mistislaff¹⁵, in whom the power of Monomachus was extinguished, the metropolitan reconciled his feeble successors to one another; that is, his brother Yaropolk¹⁶ with his nephews who were in arms against him, and Viacheslaff¹⁷ with the powerful prince of Chernigoff Vsevolod¹⁸, son of Oleg, who had wrested the power and title of Great Prince out of his hands: but wearied at length with the unceasing family quarrels of the princes, he retired to Constantinople, and there ended his days, having retained the dignity of metropolitan of Kieff till his death.

At that time Russia, throughout all her wide extent, exhibited a sad spectacle of disunion. A feud which was to last for a whole century burst forth into a flame between the reigning house of Monomachus, which was supported by the affections of the inhabitants of Kieff and by the popular recollections of the life and exploits of the great Vladimir, and the house of Oleg of Chernigoff, which represented the eldest branch, and so had in its favour the right of primogeniture above all the Russian princes. The appanaged princes engaging in the dispute respecting the great princedom, weakened its beneficial influence on the other parts of the state, while the incursions of the Poloftsi kept the whole South of Russia in a state of constant military excitement, until all perished together under the dreadful devastation of the Mongols. In the mean time new and independent principalities were formed in the West and in the North, and rose into power in proportion as Kieff declined. Vladimirko son of Volodar of Volhynia, partly by force of arms, and partly by his artful policy, founded a powerful principality at Galich, which made rapid advances during the long reign of his successor Yaroslaff. Some feeble glimmerings of Christianity began to penetrate into Lithuania from the neighbouring principality of Polotsk, which was a constant object of hostility to the house of Monomachus, and gradually fell under its attacks. Novogorod, while contending with the Swedes on its frontier, contributed to the spread of Christianity in the northern districts, and, in its stormy assemblies, made and unmade its own princes, changing according as this or that of the rival houses had the advantage, now inviting a prince of the house of Oleg, and then again inclining to the descendants of Monomachus.

Another germ of the future power of Russia began to form itself in the very heart of its extensive monarchy. A son of Monomachus, Yury Dolgorouky¹⁹, tired of waiting for the throne of Kieff, applied himself to the extension and improvement of his own patrimony, the district of Souzdal, by the conversion of the heathen, and by building towns, amongst which then first appeared the name of Moscow. Vladimir on the banks of the Kliasma was greatly enlarged during the reign of his valiant son Andrew Bogolubsky, and speedily rose to be the capital of an independent principality, which obtained all the prerogatives of the great princedom under another of his sons, Vsevolod. In the midst of this political dismemberment, the only thing which served as a pledge for the general unity was the confession of one and the same orthodox faith throughout all the limits of the kingdom. The bishops, as spiritual judges in their dioceses, and the hegumens of the religious houses, which were continually increasing in number through the piety of the princes, who themselves often finished in a cell their troubled days, served as mediators and peacemakers between the contending parties, and in the quality of ambassadors went backwards and forwards without danger between the hostile camps. Their dependence on the metropolitan involuntarily turned towards Kieff the attention of all Russia; while the primates themselves, who were sent to us from Constantinople, derived from that source a degree of learning and enlightenment which rendered our country superior for the time to the whole of contemporary Europe. But the disorders of civil society had their effect also on the affairs of the Church.

Isyaslaff, successor of Vsevolod the son of Oleg and grandson of Monomachus, having been informed of the death of Michael at a time when the patriarchal throne of Constantinople was vacant, resolved not to have a Greek again for metropolitan, as he was displeased that Michael had absented himself from Russia. Following the example of Yaroslaff²⁰, he convoked together to Kieff a synod of Russian bishops; Onuphrius of Chernigoff, who presided, Theodore of Belgorod, Damian of Yurieff, Theodore of Volhynia, Manuel of Smolensk, and besides these, according to the Chronicle of the Pechersky, the following; Euthymius of Pereyaslaff, Cosma of Polotsk, and Joachim of Touroff, which last shews the existence of the new diocese of Touroff. They all agreed to take the election of a metropolitan into their own hands, without the patriarch’s having any participation in the matter. Only one voice, that of St. Niphont of Novogorod, protested strongly against this infraction of Church unity, and of the canonical dependence of our hierarchy²¹, without which the infant Church of Russia could not rightly subsist. He reminded them of the written engagement they had entered into with Michael, probably on the eve of his departure, that they would not celebrate the Liturgy synodically again in the church of Sophia, so long as they should be without a metropolitan; but his remonstrances were in vain, and he was even confined for a short time in the Pechersky monastery, in consequence of his having refused after the election to hold communication with the new primate.

The choice of the synod fell upon Clement a monk of Smolensk and recluse of the Schema²² or Great Angelic Habit, and the Bishop Onuphrius proposed, that as a substitute for patriarchal Consecration, they should in ordaining him lay on his head the hand of St. Clement, Pope of Rome, whose relics had been brought from Cherson by Vladimir.

It is remarkable, that both the native Russian metropolitans Hilarion and Clement, were chosen from the strictest order of recluses; but their piety could not remedy the irregularity of their appointments. The opinion of St. Niphont, the friend of the Princes Dolgorouky and Sviatoslaff of Chernigoff, and representative of the powerful state of Novogorod, which made use of him in all her political relations with the princes of both the contending houses, was of great weight: and so much the more so, as the new patriarch of Constantinople, Nicolas Musalon, wrote him letters of thanks and commendation for the zeal which he had shewn in behalf of the Church. For nine years this struggle was continued in the midst of civil dissensions, which ran so high at one time, that not even his sacred character of a monk could preserve the Prince Igor²³, son of Oleg, from being torn to pieces by the populace of Kieff, on account of the pretensions of his family and their feud with Isyaslaff²⁴. But when Isyaslaff, in his turn, was compelled to fly into Volhynia, he took Clement with him, while Dolgorouky on his side despatched Niphont on an honorary embassy to the Patriarch Luke Chrysoberges to ask him to create another metropolitan; and during his short reign there arrived in consequence from Constantinople the Metropolitan Constantine, who condemned the acts of Isyaslaff and Clement, and even suspended for a time all the clergy whom the latter had ordained. The great Niphont had not however the consolation of seeing in Kieff the canonical primate, though he set out to meet him from Novogorod; he died before his arrival, and was buried in the catacombs of Kieff. His name was added to the catalogue of the saints, and he left behind him the glorious reputation of having been the Defender of all Russia.

But the ecclesiastical dispute did not so end. For when, upon the death of Dolgorouky²⁵, Isyaslaff²⁶ of the house of Oleg, and Rostislaff of the house of Monomachus, were contending for Kieff, Mistislaff prince of Volhynia, who had not forgiven the Metropolitan Constantine for the synod which condemned his father, expelled him from his see to Chernigoff, of which city he had formerly been bishop. There he ended his days, and shewed at his death an example of extraordinary humility, by ordering in his will, that his body should be cast out without the town, as unworthy of burial. The Prince Sviatoslaff, and Anthony the bishop, did not dare to disobey the will of the deceased; but on the third day, seeing that his remains had not been touched, they buried them honourably in the cathedral of St. Saviour.

While he and Clement were both yet living, a third metropolitan, named Theodore, was sent to Kieff from the same patriarch, at the joint request of the uncle and nephew, the Princes Rostislaff and Mistislaff²⁷, because the former did not recognise the election of Clement as canonical, while the latter had a personal dislike to Constantine. In the mean time, Andrew Bogolubsky, who was striving by all possible means to exalt above the other principalities his own capital, Vladimir, where he had erected a magnificent cathedral of the Mother of God, for the reception of a miraculous Icon brought from Greece, took occasion from the existing differences in the Church to ask for a separate metropolitan for himself from Constantinople. But the Patriarch Luke prudently declined granting his request for fear of breaking the unity of the Russian Church; he consented to no more than that the bishops of Rostoff should in future have their residence at Vladimir, and should gratify the piety of the prince by celebrating a festival in memory of the victory which he obtained over the Bulgarians on the same day with that of the Emperor Manuel over the Saracens. This festival is still observed annually on the first of August.

Nestor bishop of Rostoff, who had been deprived of his diocese by the Metropolitan Constantine, was then at Constantinople for the purpose of justifying himself before the patriarch; for, from the unhappy circumstances of the time, the dissensions of the hierarchy had been accompanied by a still greater mischief, in the dissemination of false doctrines among the people. Nestor was unjustly accused of violating the rule of the Church for fasting. He was said to have forbidden men to break their fast even on the festivals of the Nativity and Epiphany, if they fell on the Wednesday or Friday. This uncanonical doctrine, which did not originate with him, was revived by a bishop named Leon, who had come into his diocese during his absence; and Bogolubsky, standing up for the orthodox doctrine, sent Leon first to be tried by the metropolitan in Kieff, and afterwards to Constantinople, where he was condemned by the patriarch himself. But immediately after Leon, there appeared a self-elected pretender to the diocese of Rostoff, in the person of Theodore, a monk of the Pechersky, who fraudulently obtained the rank of a bishop at Constantinople; his imposture, however, was soon discovered, and his austerities put an end to by the prince, who despatched the offender to Kieff, where he was put to death for the scandal he had caused in the Church.

The introduction of the rank and title of Archimandrite into the Pechersky monastery, and the giving to the monastery itself the names of Lavra and Stauropegia²⁸, by letters procured from the patriarch, is ascribed to the Metropolitan Theodore, and from the first archimandrite of the Pechersky, Akindynus, this new dignity passed into general use in the other Russian monasteries. With the blessing of the same metropolitan, the Prince Bogolubsky established a festival in honour of the memory of Leontius the first bishop of Rostoff, whose relics he had disclosed in laying the foundation of his new cathedral.

Clement, who had been metropolitan, was still living in Volhynia at the death of Theodore, and the Great Prince Rostislaff, yielding to the entreaty of his nephew Mistislaff, had resolved to ask the patriarch to restore him to the metropolitical throne; but his ambassadors met on the road a new metropolitan, John IV., coming to Russia from Constantinople. Rostislaff was so much displeased, that it was only the fear of causing a new schism in the Church, joined with the friendly entreaties of the Emperor Manuel, which could induce him to acknowledge the new primate, who, however, during the two years of his short administration, won the affections of all men, and left a blessed memory behind him. There has been preserved to us a letter²⁹ of exhortation which he wrote to the pope of Rome, probably Alexander III., on the peace of the Church; for at that time, as the schism was not of very long standing, there were still mutual attempts made occasionally on both sides to re-establish union. In Novogorod also the memory of John was held sacred; for the Lord Elias, whose monastic³⁰ name was also John, a man of holy life, was raised, the first of all Russian bishops, to the rank of archbishop³¹ by this metropolitan, and the same title descended from him to his brother Gregory, a prelate of equal merit, in whose time the venerable Barlaam founded on the banks of the Volkoff his celebrated monastery of Khoutinsk, and afterwards, in like manner, to all the Lords of Novogorod.

The heresy of Leon was revived at Kieff in the time of the Metropolitan Constantine II., who had been elected at the desire of Rostislaff³² from amongst the Russian bishops; for the new prelate himself, from ignorance, held the opinion of Leon respecting the Fasts, and even convoked a synod at Kieff with the design of establishing this doctrine. But two men, who have since become illustrious by their writings, St. Cyrill the eloquent bishop of Touroff, and Polycarp archimandrite of the Pechersky, the continuator of the Lives of the Saints of Kieff or Patericon of Nestor, shewed themselves firm defenders of the true belief: the last-mentioned of the two even endured confinement for the word of truth. The pious writer of the contemporary Chronicle says that the city of Kieff itself suffered for the fault of her metropolitan; for in his time and that of the Great Prince Mistislaff³³ of Volhynia, who succeeded Rostislaff, eleven princes, who acknowledged Bogolubsky as their head, took by storm and sacked this mother of Russian cities, which lost from thenceforth her independence. Her rulers, retaining only the bare title of Great Prince, were appointed or displaced, for the most part, according to the pleasure of the princes of Vladimir or Galich, whilst the rival houses of Oleg in Chernigoff and of Monomachus in Smolensk ceased not in the mean time to carry on intrigues to possess themselves of that shadow of power which might yet belong to the name.

The metropolitical throne of Kieff remained vacant about ten years after the death of Constantine, when Nicephorus II., a Greek by birth, was at length appointed to fill it by the patriarch Basil. He was a pastor filled with all the virtues of the first Nicephorus his namesake, and with love to his new country; but he laboured in vain to put an end to the feuds of its rulers. He even took upon his own soul an oath pledged by the Great Prince Ruric to his son-in-law Romanus of Volhynia, in order that he might be enabled by the breach of it to satisfy Vsevolod the powerful prince of Vladimir, who demanded for himself certain towns which had been promised to Romanus. At length this Romanus, who was already prince of Galich, got possession of Kieff, and in his treatment of his father-in-law the Great Prince Ruric, set the first example in Russia of forcing a man to receive the monastic tonsure against his will; while Ruric himself, on the other hand, affords a solitary instance of a man putting off from himself the quality of a monk, in that he returned to the world and re-ascended his throne after the death of his enemy. In consequence of these civil feuds, Kieff suffered yet again once more, and having been thus twice sacked she never recovered herself afterwards till her final fall in the great invasion of the Mongols.

The new metropolitan, Matthew, was a witness of this calamity. He was sent from Constantinople shortly before its capture by the crusaders, and did his best, like his predecessors, to mediate between the princes, and succeeded in reconciling the Great Prince Vsevolod, surnamed the Red, with all the descendants of Oleg, to Vsevolod of Vladimir. At this wretched period of dissensions, the duty of peacemaker was inseparable from the dignity of the primate. In his time the men of Novogorod interfered for the first time in ecclesiastical affairs, by expelling their Archbishop Metrophanes, and sending to the metropolitan for Consecration a monk of the monastery of Khoutinsk, named Anthony; but neither did he please the people. Both Lords submitted themselves to the judgment of the metropolitan, and the first was confirmed in his see, while the bishopric of Peremuishla was given to the other, which however he quitted for the episcopal throne of Novogorod, and was a second time expelled from thence, and yet again restored, but after all ended his days in the monastery of Khoutinsk: such was the inconstancy and turbulence of the citizens of Novogorod. This is the earliest occasion on which we find mention made of the diocese of Peremuishla, as well as of several others, Galich, Minsk, Loutsk, and Ostrog. The precise period when these were founded is unknown, but their foundation, whenever it took place, is an evidence of the then flourishing state of the south of Russia.

New dioceses were also formed in the North. Although Riazan depended on the episcopal jurisdiction of Chernigoff, still the Chronicle speaks of a certain bishop of Riazan named Arsenius, who was taken prisoner, together with the princes of that town, by Vsevolod brother of Bogolubsky. The district of Mourom, which afterwards became subject to the bishops of Riazan, had then already been Enlightened by holy Baptism through the zeal of its Prince St. Constantine, of the family of the princes of Chernigoff, and of his sons Michael and Theodore. The two sons of Vsevolod also, Constantine and George, having quarrelled after the death of their father, were not content to have only one bishop in common between Rostoff and Vladimir; each wished to have him reside in his own capital; and the Metropolitan Matthew satisfied both of them by erecting a new diocese for Vladimir, to which he consecrated Simon the hegumen of the monastery of the Nativity, a man distinguished by his virtues, and by his having written the Lives of the holy recluses of the Pechersky.

The metropolitan Cyrill, who succeeded Matthew, was this time sent from Nice, where the emperors and patriarchs had taken up their temporary residence after their expulsion from Constantinople by the Latins. The cruel yoke, which weighed so heavily on the Greek empire, threw its shadow also even over our own country; for the Roman pontiffs began to act upon our frontiers through the arms of the Western Christians. The papal legate offered to Romanus prince of Galich the protection of the apostolic sword; but the chieftain pointing to his own proudly asked, “Has the pope any sword like this?” However, his youthful sons had already been driven out by Coloman king of Vengria and a Latin archbishop established in Galich. Mistislaff, the enterprising son of the valiant prince of Novogorod St. Mistislaff, took Galich by storm, and drove out the Roman clergy, but they speedily re-established themselves in this border district of Russia. In Novogorod too, the successors of St. Mistislaff, in conjunction with the princes of Pskoff and Polotsk, were obliged to contend with a new enemy, who had established himself on the neighbouring coasts of the Baltic. Bishop Albert had founded in Riga a new Order of Brethren of the Sword³⁴, who, uniting themselves afterwards with the powerful fraternity of the Teutonic Brethren, threatened our western provinces, and converted by force of arms the savage Lithuanians, who on the other side of their country, where they bordered upon Russia, were gradually enlightened by the mildest means.

Another most dreadful storm now came up from the East upon Russia, which was destined to groan under it for two hundred years:—the Mongols appeared! The Poloftsi, flying from before them, brought word that the barbarians had poured in upon their steppes, and our southern princes formed a coalition to repel the unknown enemy. A bloody battle was fought on the river Kalka. Three princes of the name of Mistislaff sustained it with desperate valour; but two, the Great Prince³⁵ and the prince of Chernigoff, fell in the action, while the third, the prince of Galich, was compelled to fly with a younger son of Romanus, the illustrious Daniel, to his own capital, where he ended his troubled days in the habit of a monk. The barbarians retired; for this was only their advanced guard; but other innumerable hosts gathered themselves together in Central Asia under the command of Batius, the grandson of Genghis Khan, so as to fall upon Russia at an interval of twelve years after the bloody battle on the Kalka. Unhappily all this time was lost in internal feuds between the southern and the northern principalities, and the virtuous metropolitan Cyrill went twice to Vladimir to reconcile the Great Prince with the masters of Kieff³⁶, and with the princes of Koursk. The invasion of Batius reduced all to peace under the ashes of their ruined cities.

Riazan was the first to suffer; her princes, Oleg and Theodore, died the death of martyrs. When Vladimir was besieged, the Bishop Metrophanes, with the consort of the Great Prince, her daughters-in-law, and the boyars, shut themselves up in the cathedral church; there they all received the Holy Mysteries and the Schema, in token of preparation for death, from the bishop, and from the Lord the crown of martyrdom, amidst the smoke and flames of the burning temple. George³⁷ himself fell in battle on the banks of the Siti, while his nephew, Prince Basilko, became a martyr for the Name of Christ. All the towns of the districts of Rostoff and Souzdal were sacked and pillaged; an invisible hand protected Novogorod and Pskoff. Kozelesk, which was well defended by its youthful prince, suffered last of all, as Batius was on his march back from desolating the North.

After a year came the turn of Southern Russia. Pereyaslavla perished with its Bishop Simeon; Porphyry of Chernigoff was let go alive by the conqueror from his ravaged diocese. The Mongols surrounded Kieff, and struck with its antique beauty, offered to spare it, if it would surrender; but in the absence of all the Russian princes it was heroically defended by Demetrius, a boyar of Daniel prince of Galich. As became the mother and head of Russian cities, Kieff gave a lesson to all Russia in preferring a glorious end to the disgrace of slavery³⁸. After a bloody siege, its walls and even every individual church was converted into a fortress by the despair of the citizens; but the cathedral of St. Sophia, the church of the Tithes, the monastery of St. Michael, and the Pecherskay Lavra, were taken one by one: they were given up to desolation; and it is probable that the Metropolitan Joseph, the unfortunate successor of Cyrill, perished with the rest in this general and fearful destruction, as there is no mention made of him afterwards in the Chronicles.

Notes

The word “over” may be illustrated by other expressions in use to designate the customary salutation of any holy relics in a church. They refer to the action of bending down over; the relics being generally in a raised tomb, often with a canopy above.
Isyaslaff, who was twice driven by his brothers and the other princes from Kieff, “demanded assistance from Borislaff king of Poland, and even from the German emperor Henry the Fourth, and for that purpose had sought the mediation of Pope Gregory the Seventh, to whom he had sent his son. The conditions upon which the pope promised him the assistance of the Roman Catholic princes are mentioned in the Epistle of Gregory, which is printed in Baronius’ Annals, tom. xi. p. 472. “Gregorius servus servorum Dei Demetrio” (this was the name which Isyaslaff received at his baptism) “regi Russorum et reginæ Apostolicam benedictionem. Filius vester limina Apostolorum visitans ad nos venit, et quod regnum illud dono Sancti Petri per manus nostras vellet obtinere, eidem beato Petro Apostolorum Principi debitâ fidelitate exhibitâ, devotis precibus postulavit, indubitanter asseverans, illam suam petitionem vestro consensu ratam fore ac stabilem, si Apostolicæ auctoritatis gratiâ ac munimine donaretur. Cujus votis et petitionibus, quia justa videbantur tum ex consensu vestro, tum ex devotione poscentis, tandem assensum præbuimus, et regni vestri gubernacula sibi ex parte beati Petri tradidimus, eâ videlicet intentione atque desiderio caritatis, ut beatus Petrus vos, et regnum vestrum, omniaque vestra bona suâ apud Deum intercessione custodiat, et cum omni pace, honore quoque et gloriâ idem regnum usque in finem vitæ vestræ tenere vos faciat, et hujus militiæ finito cursu, impetret vobis apud supernum regem gloriam sempiternam. Quinetiam nos paratissimos esse noverit vestræ nobilitatis serenitas, ut ad quæcumque justa negotiâ hujus Sedis auctoritatem pro suâ necessitate petierit, procul dubio continuo petitionum suarum consequatur effectum. Præterea ut hæc et alia multa, quæ litteris non continentur, cordibus vestris arctius infigantur, misimus hos nuntios nostros, quorum unus vester notus est et fidus amicus; qui et ea, quæ in litteris sunt, diligenter vobis exponent, et quæ minus sunt, vivâ voce explebunt. Quibus pro reverentiâ beati Petri, cujus legati sunt, vos mites et affabiles præbeatis: et quicquid vobis dixerint ex parte nostrâ, patienter audiatis, atque indubitanter credatis: et quæ ibi ex auctoritate Apostolicæ sedis negotia tractare voluerint, et statuere, nullorum malo ingenio turbari permittatis, sed potius eos sincerâ caritate favendo juvetis. Omnipotens Deus mentes vestras illuminet, atque per temporalia bona faciat vos transire ad gloriam sempiternam. Data Romæ XV. Kalendas Maii, Indictione decimatertiâ hoc est anno 1075.” — Baron R. MS.
Isyaslaff I., or Demetrius, son of Yaroslaff, was born in Kieff, A.D. 1024; ascended the throne in 1054; was twice expelled from it, again recovered it, and was killed in battle Dec. 3, A.D. 1078.
Sviatoslaff II., son of Yaroslaff, ejected his brother Isyaslaff from the throne of Great Prince A.D. 1072, and died in 1076; on which Isyaslaff recovered the throne, and died possessed of it as mentioned above, in 1078.
Eustratius Garidas was elected Patriarch of Constantinople A.D. 1081, and deposed in 1084.
The Patriarch Photius sent to Bulgaria, to the prince Michael the Nomocanon of Johannes Scholasticus, together with a missive on the office of the civil ruler towards the Church from himself. This was translated into Slavonic, and passed from Bulgaria into the Russian Church, where it received the additions of the Law for Judging the Laity, the Edicts of Vladimir and Yaroslaff, the Russian National Law, &c. It was not till long afterwards that the Nomocanon of Photius himself, with the Scholia of Aristin and Zonaras, superseded it in Russia.
Vsevolod I. (Andrew,) son of Yaroslaff, born in Kieff A.D. 1030, succeeded to the throne A.D. 1078, died in Kieff April 13th, A.D. 1094, and was buried in the church of St. Sophia.
In 1055 the Poloftsi, or Comani, came into the district of Pereyaslavla; they were a nomadic tribe of kindred origin with the Pechenegians, and probably with the people now called Kirgizi. …
The novice in the Eastern Church wears only the cassock; the simple monk wears also the gown, and the καμηλαυχίον. The mantle worn over the gown on certain occasions, is the badge of the μικρον σχῆμα, or lesser habit. The great angelic habit, or simply σχῆμα, is associated with the idea of total seclusion, and preparation for death; and the scapulary and other badges of it are covered with emblems of death and Christian faith.
This prince is said to have married Gouda, daughter of Harold king of England, for his first wife.
I will here give a short extract from a paper presented to the Society of Russian History and Antiquities by Eugenius, metropolitan of Kieff, which is applicable to the name of the prince mentioned in the next page. “The ancient Slavonians had only one name, to which was added their patronymic. The Russo-Slavonians had usually three names: one given by the father at their birth, another at their baptism, and the third their patronymic; as, for instance, Sviatopolk Michael, Isyaslavich. The termination of the patronymic in ‘ich’ is an honourable distinction, that of the common people always ending in ‘eff.’ The Christian names of many of the princes are not known, and it is imagined they were purposely kept secret, that the bearers of them might not be subject to sorcery or incantation, which it was supposed could not take effect unless done in the right name.”
Sviatopolk II. (Michael) son of Isyaslaff, born in Kieff, A.D. 1051, succeeded to the throne of his uncle Vsevolod I., A.D. 1094; died April 16, A.D. 1113; and was buried in the church of the Archangel Michael.
A kind of collar about the neck and breast and shoulders, used at the coronation of the ancient emperors, set in which were pictures of Christ, the Virgin Mary, &c.
Vladimir II. (Theodore) son of Vsevolod, surnamed Monomachus, was born in Kieff, A.D. 1053; by the general consent of all the appanaged princes he ascended the throne of Great Prince after the death of Sviatopolk, A.D. 1113; died May 19th, 1125; and was buried in the church of St. Sophia in Kieff.
The Chronicle of Nestor raises their number to 700, whilst Tatisheff, with more probability, reckons them at 30.
An episcopal interdict is said by Platon, in his Ecclesiastical History, to have consisted in forbidding the performance of every kind of service in the churches, and every kind of rite or sacrament in the houses; therefore the sick would die without making confession, or receiving the eucharist, and would be buried without funeral rites, children would remain unbaptized, and marriages unblessed; he therefore concludes that this interdict could not have been general, as otherwise the innocent would have suffered with the guilty, and that it was only laid on those who were actually engaged in the revolt.
The word “Véch,” here translated Assembly, applies exclusively to the popular assemblies of the two free towns of Novogorod and Pskoff.
As the free towns of Novogorod the Great and Pskoff were governed in a different manner from the rest of Russia, and the peculiarity of their constitution is frequently of importance in order to a right understanding of Russian Ecclesiastical History, I have thought it worth while to extract a few notices respecting them from Oustreloff’s History of Russia, 2nd edit., St. Petersburg, 1839.
The principality of Novogorod did not belong exclusively to any one branch of the family of Vladimir. The successors of Yaroslaff I., from having been engaged in continued contests in the South, partially lost sight of the North; and the citizens of Novogorod profited so well by these and other opportunities thus given them, as to establish their right of electing their own princes, and of limiting their authority, and making them swear to observe all their ancient privileges and rights; and if they found that the prince elected made any attempts to encroach on them or violate them, they immediately turned him out and chose another as his successor. But it is worth remarking, that they never selected one of their own citizens, but always a prince of the ruling family. There were few of these princes who reigned longer than three years: thirty were elected and dismissed in the course of a single century. During these constant changes the constitution of Novogorod was formed, and remained settled till the time of John III. The supreme power of enacting laws and deciding cases, either relating to their internal welfare or external relations, resided in the Vech or the council of the people, consisting of the citizens of Novogorod. They were assembled by the ringing of a bell, and at these meetings elected their prince, their Posadnik, (or lord mayor) their Vladika, Lord, or Archbishop, decided on questions of peace or war, tried criminals against the state, traitors, and those who held communication with an enemy. They examined the conduct of their prince and Posadnik, appointed punishments corresponding to the crimes they discovered, to the first banishment, to the second not unfrequently death: they also heard the complaints of the poor against the rich.
The right of deciding in civil affairs belonged exclusively to the prince, who was elected, as before mentioned, by the Vech. It was also his duty to take care that the peace of the state was not disturbed from within, nor violated from without; and to assist him in the performance of these duties he had his company or band, who in peace formed his court for trying causes, and his army in war. His revenue was derived from fixed fees or dues on trials, and certain other payments. In actual warfare he was the leader of their armies, but was obliged to consult the Posadnik as to the measures he adopted. In a word, the prince was only the judge and defender of the state, and if he failed to fulfil either of these duties, the Vech expelled him from his office.
The executive power was committed to the Posadnik, who was their first civil dignitary, and the president of their popular assemblies. He, in conjunction with their Chiliarch, commanded the regiments of Novogorod, conducted treaties, went on embassies, assisted the prince in managing his courts of justice, and in the event of his absence performed all his other duties. In a word, he was the instrument of fulfilling all the decisions of the Vech.
The authority of the ecclesiastical courts belonged to the Vladika or archbishop, who was elected by the Vech, and confirmed by the metropolitan of Kieff. Besides this, the Vladika enjoyed considerable authority in civil matters from his office of peace-maker: he was however bound to give an account of his conduct to the assembly of the people.
When Russia fell under the dominion of the Mongols, Novogorod, as well as Pskoff (which enjoyed the same form of government as Novogorod) were always given as a kind of appanage to the Great Prince appointed by the Khan, and it was this which in time gave him so great a preponderance over the appanaged princes as to enable him to unite them all under his sceptre. And when this title became hereditary in the descendants of John Kalita, both Novogorod and Pskoff acknowledged the Great Prince of Moscow as their protector. They however reserved to themselves the greater part of their popular privileges, and paid him tribute in token of subjection, and if ever the Great Prince on his succession to the throne hesitated to take an oath to observe all their rights, they compelled him to do it by threatening to put themselves under the protection of the Great Prince of Lithuania. John III., on his accession to the throne, adopted the same prudent policy as his predecessors; but when he became stronger, by having subjected all the appanaged princes to his sceptre, he took advantage of the first opportunity which occurred to reduce both Novogorod and Pskoff to subjection.
The Vech under the presidency of their Posadnitsa, (lady mayoress, or rather absolute mayoress elected by the Vech,) the celebrated Martha Boretska, a woman possessed of great wealth and ambition, attempted to throw off all subjection to John, and to negotiate an alliance with the king of Poland. On this John collected his army and met the insurgents near Novogorod to the number of 12,000, defeated them, took Martha’s son prisoner and beheaded him, and did not deprive the city of its privileges, but pardoned the city on the payment of eighty pood — (3,200 pounds) of silver of fourteen ounces each — or £11,200 sterling, and placed a governor there who was invested with supreme authority, and by his means formed a party amongst the citizens. On the occasion of a second insurrection excited by Martha, John blockaded the city, and compelled it to surrender partly by the effects of famine, and partly by the strength of his own party within the walls. After this he deprived the city of all its privileges, and reduced it and all its dependencies to the same state of subjection as the rest of his dominions, January 15th, 1478.
Mistislaff I., otherwise named Peter, son of Vladimir II., was born in Kieff A.D. 1076, ascended the throne after the death of his father A.D. 1125, and died there 1132, and was buried in the church of St. Theodore.
Yaropolk II., son of Vladimir II., was born in Kieff A.D. 1082, ascended the throne after the death of his brother A.D. 1132, and died in Touroff, Feb. 18, A.D. 1139.
Viacheslaff I., son of Vladimir II., was born in Kieff A.D. 1083, ascended the throne upon the death of his brother A.D. 1139, and after reigning twelve days, was dethroned by Vsevolod, son of Oleg, prince of Chernigoff, after whose reign, and that of his brother Igor, he partially recovered his rights, and died A.D. 1155.
Vsevolod II., son of Oleg, and grandson of Sviatoslaff II., born A.D. 1094, seized on the throne A.D. 1139, and died July 31, A.D. 1146.
“Dolgorouky,” i. e. the long-armed. This appellation descended to another branch of the family, by whom it is still borne as a regular surname. Such particular designations, which we should now term nicknames, were at that period very common, and became the origin of many of the family names now to be met with in Russia. The terminations in ‘off’ and ‘eff’ denote descent or derivation. Only those families which are descended from some of the ancient princes have retained the names of their former possessions.
Hilarion (A.D. 1051) was elected by the Russian synod without any reference to the patriarch; and Karamzin praises the wisdom shewed by Yaroslaff on that occasion, when there had been recently a war with the Greek empire, and Yaroslaff suspected that the emperors might use the ecclesiastical dependence of the Russian Church for political purposes, if the patriarchs were allowed to acquire a permanent right to confirm or nominate the metropolitans of Kieff. He at the same time regards the proceeding of the Russian synod as perfectly justifiable, and more canonical than the custom of honouring the patriarch with the power of either nominating or confirming. The author of a Dissertation “de Origine Christianæ Religionis in Russia,” published at Rome in the year 1826, observes, that the mutual anathemas of the Pope and the Patriarch Cerularius cannot be reasonably said to have affected the intercommunion of the Russian Church with the Latin, seeing that the Russian Church had just before asserted its perfect independence of Constantinople on occasion of the election of Hilarion.
The Metropolitan Platon, in his Church History, takes the same view of the subject with Karamzin and Oustreloff, and entirely differs from the opinion here expressed by our author. He states his own view of the subject, where he treats of the permanent establishment of the independent election and confirmation of the metropolitan of Moscow, which took place at a later period.
Other accounts say this was actually done. The Greek Acts of the martyrdom of St. Clement in the Chersonese existed in the time of St. Gregory of Tours, but have been shewn to be apocryphal by Tillemont, Orsi, and others. Louis Le Debonnaire having in 872 founded the abbey of Cava, near Salerno, enriched it with the relics of St. Clement, which had been sent to him by Pope Adrian, and they are said to remain there to this day, some portions of them having been also retained in the church at Rome, which bears his name, and which is of the very highest antiquity. — Bibl. Eccl. Vies des Saints, 8vo., p. 569. and see above p. 14.
Igor II., or David, son of Oleg, brother of Vsevolod II., was born in Kieff A.D. 1095, ascended the throne, according to the will of his brother, A.D. 1146, was expelled, after reigning only a fortnight, by Isyaslaff, son of Mistislaff, and was compelled to receive the monastic tonsure in Kieff, where he was afterwards murdered during a riot A.D. 1148.
Isyaslaff II., son of Mistislaff I., grandson of Monomachus, was born in Kieff A.D. 1096, ascended the throne A.D. 1146, was expelled from it the same year by his uncle Youry Dolgorouky, again ascended it in 1150, was again expelled from it A.D. 1152, reascended it, in conjunction with his uncle Viacheslaff A.D. 1155, and died the same year.
Youry I. (George) son of Vladimir II., surnamed Dolgorouky, was born A.D. 1091. He mounted the throne of Kieff by force of arms the first time A.D. 1149, he was expelled from it by his nephew, Isyaslaff II., A.D. 1152, reascended it, and was again expelled in 1153, and finally returned A.D. 1155, after his nephew’s death, and remained seated till his death, which took place A.D. 1157.
Isyaslaff III., son of Igor II. (David), was born in Chernigoff A.D. 1110, ascended the throne A.D. 1157, was expelled A.D. 1158 by Rostislaff, ascended it again A.D. 1160, and was soon after killed in battle.
Son of Isyaslaff II.
The word Stauropegia is Greek, like most other ecclesiastical terms in the Russian language, and means a church or monastery where a cross has been fixed by the patriarch, or by his authority. The first act preparatory to the building of any church or chapel is the fixing of a cross in the ground on the spot intended to be occupied by the Holy Table; and this should properly be done by the bishop. The fixing of a cross in the name of the patriarch signified that he gave the church and monastery where this was done the privilege of being exempt from the diocesan authority, and depending immediately upon himself. So at the present day the Lavras of the Pechersky, and the Trinity, &c., are Stauropegias depending immediately upon the synod, which stands in the place of the former patriarchs.
This letter appears in some MSS. of the Russian Kormchay or Nomocanon. It is also to be found in Greek and Slavonic, under No. XIV. in the Patriarchal Archives at Moscow; and Professor Matthæi has inserted it in his catalogue (No. 353). Herberstein, in his Commentaria (Francofurti, A.D. 1600, pp. 22 — 24,) has given an extract translated from this epistle into Latin with tolerable correctness. In the Russian this epistle is said to have been addressed to “Clement archbishop of Rome,” but Alexander III. was the occupant of the Roman see at the period at which the letter was written. The pope had called upon the metropolitan to unite in communion with him, which the latter declines, and refers him to the patriarch of Constantinople, to whom he requests him to make a direct application.
“Dilexi decorem domine ac pater beatissime Apostolicâ sede ac vocatione dignissime, quia ex remotis ad humilitatem et paupertatem nostram et alis dilectionis foves nos, et salutas nos sicuti tuos ex charitate, et interrogas specialiter de nostrâ fide verâ et orthodoxâ, de quâ etiam audiens, ut nobis beatitudinis tuæ Episcopus retulit, admiratus es. Et quia tantus es, et talis Sacerdos, propterea ego pauper saluto te, honorando caput tuum et deosculando manus tuas et brachia. Sis lætus, et a supremâ Dei manu protectus, et det Dominus omnipotens tibi, tuis spiritualibus, et nobis, ordinem bonum. Nescio unde exortæ sunt hæreses de verâ salutis et redemptionis viâ, et mirari satis non possum quis Diabolorum tam malus et invidus, tam veritati inimicus ac mutuæ benevolentiæ adversarius fuerit, qui paternam vestram charitatem a totâ Christianâ congregatione alienavit, dicens nos non esse Christianos. Nos profecto Christianos vos ex Dei benedictione ab initio cognovimus, licet in omnibus fidem Christianam non servetis, et in multis diversi sitis, id quod ex septem magnis Synodis ostendam, in quibus fides orthodoxa et Christiana instituta est ac prorsus confirmata, in quibus etiam tanquam septem columnis Sapientia Dei Domum sibi edificavit. In his præterea septem Synodis, omnes Papæ et digni sunt habiti Cathedrâ S. Petri, quia nobiscum sentiebant. In primâ autem Synodo erat Sylvester Papa, in secundâ Damasus, in tertiâ Cælestinus, in quartâ beatissimus Papa Leo, in quintâ Vigilius, in sextâ Agathon, vir honorandus et in sacris Scripturis doctus, in septimâ S. Papa Adrianus, qui misit primus Petrum Episcopum et Abbatem monasterii Sanctæ Sabæ; unde postea exortæ sunt dissensiones inter nos et vos, quæ pullulârunt præcipuè in antiquâ Româ. Sunt profecto mala multa, quæ a vobis contra leges divinas ac statuta committuntur: de quibus pauca ad charitatem tuam scribemus. Primùm de jejunio Sabbati contra legem observato; secundò de Jejunio Magno, in quo septimanam abscinditis, et carnes comeditis, ac propter carnium voracitatem homines ad vos allicitis. Item qui a presbyteris in baptismate inuncti sunt, illos vos jam denuo inungitis, dicentes illa simplicibus sacerdotibus facere non licere, sed solis Episcopis. Item de azymis malis, quæ manifestè Judaicum servitium seu cultum indicant. Et quod est caput omnium malorum, ut quæ confirmata sunt per SS. Synodos, ea vos cœpistis permutare et pervertere, dicentes de Spiritu Sancto quòd non tantùm a Patre sed et a Filio procedat; et multa alia majora, de quibus tua beatitudo ad Patriarcham Constantinopolitanum, fratrem suum spiritualem referre, et omnem diligentiam adhibere deberet, ut aliquando tollerentur isti errores, et ut unanimes essemus in concordiâ spirituali: sicut dicit Sanctus Paulus, informans nos; Oro vos, fratres, propter nomen Domini Jesu Christi, ut idem sentiatis et dicatis, et non sit inter vos discordia, et sitis in eodem intellectu fortificati, et in eâdem cogitatione. De istis sex excessibus, quantum potuimus, ad vos scripsimus; deinceps et de aliis scribemus charitati tuæ. Si enim ita res se habet sicuti audivimus, agnosces ipse nobiscum, transgredi vos Canones sanctorum Apostolorum et instituta magnarum septem Synodorum, in quibus erant omnes vestri primi Patriarchæ, et concorditer dicebant, quod verbum vestrum esset vanum. Et quod manifestè erretis, nunc palam redarguam.”
And then, after having gone into the other five points, quoting
On the 1st, the 64th of the Apostolical Canons, as of Pope Clement;
On the 2nd, referring to the Canons of “the 6th Great Synod;”
On the 3rd, to two different Canons of the Synod of Gangra;
On the 4th, to the “One Baptism” of the Creed;
He terms the 5th “errorem præcipuum et radicem totius hæresis,” and so proceeds with the 6th and last, as follows:
“Sextus denique error est, de Spiritu Sancto. Quomodo enim dicitis, ‘Credo in Deum Patrem, et Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum, Qui a Patre et Filio procedit?’ Mirabile est profecto et horrendum dictu, quòd audetis fidem pervertere; cum ab initio per universum orbem, in omnibus Christianorum Ecclesiis constanter canatur, ‘Credo in Spiritum Sanctum Dominum vivificantem et a Patre procedentem, Qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et glorificatur;’ quæ igitur vos non dicitis, sicuti alii Christiani omnes; sed additiones ponitis, et novam adducitis doctrinam; cum tamen Apostolus dicat, Si quis annunciaverit vobis, præter ea, quæ vobis diximus, Anathema sit. Utinam vos non incurratis istam maledictionem! Difficile est enim et horrendum, Dei scripturam, compositam per Sanctos, permutare et pervertere. Nescitis quam maximus sit error. Nam duas virtutes, duas voluntates, et duo principia de Sancto Spiritu adducitis, adimentes et parvi facientes ejus honorem, et hæresi Macedonianæ conformes estis; quod absit. Oro, et me inclino ad sanctos pedes tuos, ut ab hujusmodi erroribus, qui inter vos sunt, cesses, et maxime ab azymis abstineas. Volui etiam aliquid scribere de suffocatis et immundis animalibus et de monachis edentibus carnes: sed de his postea (si Deus voluerit) scribam. Parce autem propter maximam charitatem, quòd de his rebus ad te scripsi. An autem sunt facienda illa, quæ fiunt, interroga scripturas, et invenies. Rogo te, Domine, ut scribas ad Dominum nostrum Patriarcham Constantinopolitanum, et ad Sanctos Metropolitas, qui verbum vitæ in se habent, et sicut luminaria in mundo lucent. Fieri enim potest ut Deus per illos super hujusmodi erroribus inquirat, emendet, et constituat. Deinde, si tibi videbitur, mihi minimo inter alios omnes rescribas. Saluto te ego Metropolita Russiæ, et alios omnes tibi subjectos clericos et laicos. Salutant etiam te mecum sancti Episcopi, Monachi, et Reges, et magni homines. Charitas Spiritûs Sancti sit tecum, et cum omnibus tuis. Amen!”
This change of names, which was usual not only on first becoming a monk, but also on taking the schema, if not borne in mind, may often give rise to perplexity and misunderstanding in reading Russian history.
This was a merely titular promotion, as the new archbishop had no bishops under him: in fact, under whatever name, Russia seems never to have had more than one archiepiscopal province; but the first bishop depending immediately upon a patriarch, it seemed to be fit, and agreeable to analogy, that he should be metropolitan, at least in name; and this being so before the erection of the other sees, and there being no express provision from the beginning for the erection of archbishoprics, his nominal title of metropolitan suggested afterwards the idea of conferring the nominal dignity of archbishop on the chief of his suffragans; as afterwards we find the nominal dignity of metropolitan also given to others, when the original metropolitan was raised to the patriarchal dignity.
Some MSS. of the Russian Kormchay contain a canonical writing, apparently by this Archbishop John of Novogorod, — consisting of answers to a number of questions on which he had been consulted by a certain priest or monk named James. The Rubric or table of contents is inserted in the work of Herberstein above referred to with tolerable accuracy: among the more remarkable heads are the following. “Pueri in necessitate absque sacerdote baptizentur.” “Rhuteni cum Romanis in necessitate comedant, celebrent autem minimè.” “Rhuteni omnes Romanos non rectè baptizatos, qui in aquam toti non sunt immersi, ad veram fidem convertant; quibus conversis non statim Eucharistia, sicuti nec Tartaris aliisve a fide suâ diversis, porrigatur.” “Principis filia ei, qui Communione in azymis et cibis utitur immundis, non in matrimonium locetur.” “Non confessi, et aliena bona non reddentes ad communionem non admittantur.” “Sciens cum Romanis comedens orationibus mundis mundetur.” “Mercatores et peregrini ad Romanorum partes proficiscentes communione priventur; sed ad eandem injunctis quibusdam pro pœnitentiâ orationibus reconciliati admittantur.” The document from which the above headings are given cannot be later, in the late Baron Rosenkampf’s judgment, than the 12th century; and he would rather attribute it to John of Novogorod, who is referred to by the Chronicle of Nikon under the year 1008, and who died A.D. 1035. He says it cannot be later than the 12th century, and indeed it is followed in the same MS. Kormchay by a set of similar answers from St. Niphont, who died A.D. 1156; but if the title of Archbishop be rightly given in it to John (though he is called also Metropolitan, which must be an error, and an error by the way which only makes our supposition the more probable) it cannot be earlier than the time of that John who is the subject of the present note.
Rostislaff I., son of Mistislaff, born A.D. 1119, ascended the throne for the first time together with his uncle Viacheslaff, A.D. 1155, but was soon expelled by Isyaslaff. He ascended it again A.D. 1158, and was again expelled by the same prince, and after his death regained it for the third time, A.D. 1161, and kept it till his own death in 1168.
Mistislaff II., son of Isyaslaff III., ascended the throne A.D. 1168, was expelled A.D. 1170, by Andrew son of Youry, and died in 1171.
Gleb, son of Youry, ascended the throne A.D. 1170, and died in Kieff A.D. 1172.
Vladimir III., son of Mistislaff, ascended the throne A.D. 1172, and died A.D. 1173.
Romanus I., son of Rostislaff, ascended the throne A.D. 1173, quitted it in disgust in 1174, reascended it A.D. 1176, was compelled to quit it A.D. 1177, and died at Smolensk A.D. 1180.
Sviatoslaff, son of Vsevolod, ascended the throne of Kieff A.D. 1177, and died A.D. 1194.
Ruric II., son of Rostislaff, ascended the throne of Kieff in 1177, and was expelled the same year; reascended it in 1178, and was again expelled in 1201; he twice again experienced a repetition of the same change of fortune, when at length in 1203 he was compelled to take the monastic vows; after the death of his conqueror Romanus, he threw off the habit of a monk, and resumed the throne in 1206; was again expelled, returned in 1208, retired, and again returned, and was finally expelled A.D. 1211, and died A.D. 1215.
Vsevolod III., son of Sviatoslaff, ascended the throne of Kieff for the first time A.D. 1206, for the second time A.D. 1208, for the third time A.D. 1211, and was finally expelled A.D. 1214.
Meinhardt, a priest of the Augustinian order, had come from the bishop of Bremen in 1186 to be the first preacher of Christianity in Livonia, and was followed by Albert Buxhevden and his Sword-bearers just at the end of the 12th century. Albert received the title of Bishop of Livonia from the pope, built Riga, and permanently established the Germans on the Dwina. He established with the sanction of the pope, in 1201, his order by the title of the Brethren of the Cross of the Lord. The pope gave this order the Rule of the Templars, a white mantle, and red cross, with the lordship of all the lands they should conquer, so as to depend however themselves upon the bishops of Livonia. In about thirty years they had succeeded in reducing the greater part of Livonia, but finding themselves too weak to undertake much more, they in 1237 with the pope’s consent united themselves to the Teutonic order established in Prussia, retaining however their former constitution, officers, and bishops (who were nominated by the grand master of the Teutonic order) and only gaining a great accession of strength from so powerful an alliance or union. At the end of the 13th century dissensions broke out between the bishops and the knights about the sovereignty of the conquered territories. The order was ultimately reduced by John IV. — Oustreloff, vol. ii.
Mistislaff III., son of Romanus, ascended the throne of Kieff A.D. 1214, and died soon after the bloody battle on the Kalka, which took place May 1, A.D. 1224.
Vladimir IV., son of Ruric II., ascended the throne of Kieff A.D. 1224, and was betrayed and delivered up to the Poloftsi in 1235. From this period till the sacking of Kieff by the Mongols, there appear to have been many pretenders to the throne of the Great Princedom rapidly succeeding each other, whose names it is useless to mention.
George, i. e. of Vladimir, at that time the Great Prince.
Platon remarks on the complete success of the Tartar invasion, that such an event was to be expected, as since the death of Vladimir (that is, for more than two hundred years previously to the event) civil dissensions and wars had raged with scarcely any interruption throughout the whole of the country; and the cause of this was that there was no central government sufficiently strong to restrain the several petty princes from contending with each other. For although the Great Prince of Kieff, and afterwards of Vladimir, was nominally the head of the other Russian princes, his authority was not sufficiently established to make the others submit themselves to him: on the contrary they paid the greatest respect to him who happened to be the most powerful; and each in his turn strove to attain to this eminence. It may probably have been from a traditional recollection of the miseries their country suffered under the appanaged princes, that the Russians became afterwards so attached to an absolute monarchy.