The article analyzes the political rhetoric of the Kievan church hierarchs after Pereyaslav 1654. Its characteristic features were appeals to the Old Russian past, demonstration of the uniqueness of Kiev as an "Orthodox Zion" and declaration of the historical right of the Moscow Tsar to the "Kiev heritage of Vladimir". The use of this rhetorical arsenal, which was formed during the 1620s and 1640s, is explained by the attempts of the church elite of the Hetmanate to justify to Moscow the special status of the Kiev Metropolis as the sphere of jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Immediately after the Pereyaslav Rada of 1654, where the hetman and the Zaporozhye Army were "brought under the high royal hand", the Moscow embassy headed by V. Buturlin went to Kiev. As we read in the embassy report," before reaching the city rampart, from the Golden Gate about a mile and a half " they were met by the Kiev Metropolitan Sylvester Kosov (1647-1657) with the Chernihiv bishop and abbots of Kiev monasteries. Near this historical "place of remembrance" - the traditional triumphal entrance to the once majestic "capital city", which a few years before Bohdan Khmelnitsky (1649) and Lithuanian Hetman Janusz Radziwill (1651) solemnly entered the city-the metropolitan "spoke a speech":

"Always come from the pious and Christ-loving his serene Highness the Tsar and Grand Duke Alexey Mikhailovich, autocrat of all Russia, from the Orthodox, Orthodox tsardom of men who have the desire to visit the pious legacy of the ancient Grand Dukes of Russia (here I give you my seat-Ya. Z.); always come to the seat of the first pious Russian Grand Duke, we proceed to you on candlemas; and he, the pious Vladimir, the Grand Prince of Russia, kisses you on my face; the Holy Apostle Andrew the First-Called, who was foretold in this place to shine forth the glory of God, who now by your coming is safely restored; the Venerable Anthony and Theodosius of the Pechersti, and all the venerable ones, summer and winter, kiss you, according to the common life of the first-born, and the Holy Spirit of the Church, and the Holy Spirit of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit of the Holy Spirit. live your life for Christ in these worn-out caves; we also kiss your nobility for Christ with all the consecrated cathedral; and as we kiss you lovingly, we cry: enter into the house of our God and into the seat of the first piety of Rus, for by your coming you will renew the youth of the inheritance of the pious grand dukes of Rus. " 1
Yaroslav V. Zatylyuk is a Junior Researcher at the Institute of History of Ukraine of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Research Sector on the history of Kievan Rus. E-mail: yaroslav.zatyluk@gmail.com

The article was written as part of a research project supported by the Victor Pinchuk Foundation.

1 an excerpt from the embassy report of V. Buturlin is given from the publ.: Acts relating to the history of Southern and Western Russia (dal-Acts of the Southern Federal District). - Vol. X. - St. Petersburg, 1878. - Stb. 252.

page 40
As is obvious from the text of the speech, the highest church hierarchs of the Kiev Metropolia met the Moscow ambassadors rather unusually. If in Pereyaslav the hetman and "all the Host of Zaporozhye" expressed unequivocal joy over the transfer of Kiev and Little Russia into the hands of the tsar as his historical heritage, and representatives of the lower clergy (in particular, Archpriest Gregory of Pereyaslav) unfounded declared the realization of"the fervent desire of our Orthodoxy" 2, the Metropolitan of Kiev did not mention the latter event in any way. Instead, he celebrated the past of Kiev as the capital and "mother see" of ancient Russian princes, and personified his congratulations with kisses of the main characters of Kievan history-the Apostle Andrew, Prince Vladimir and the saints of the Caves. Why did the first meeting of the Metropolitan of Kiev with the Moscow ambassadors, who were supposed to bring Kiev and the Zaporozhye Army "with gardens and lands" to the tsar, begin with the recollection of ancient Kiev history and its saints? What was Sylvester Kosov trying to communicate in this way, and to what extent did his verbal greeting to V. Buturlin "with comrades" express the sentiments of the Kievan church hierarchs regarding the events of 1654?

Unlike the hetman and the Cossack foreman in Pereyaslav, the Metropolitan of Kiev, in his welcoming speech at the Golden Gate, did not express any enthusiasm for the protectorate of the tsar over the historical territory of"Little Russia". Sylvester Kosov interpreted the appearance of the Moscow ambassadors in Kiev as a desire to visit the "seat" of ancient Russian princes, pretending that he did not know anything about the events of Pereyaslavl and that V. Buturlin and his companions had arrived in the ancient "capital city" to swear allegiance to the tsar of its inhabitants. 3 In addition, under the auspices of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, phrases about the" mother see " of Kiev and its saints spoke about something completely different. The essence of the metropolitan's message is hidden in his kiss, which is personified in the speech by the kisses of the Apostle Andrew and the Kievan saints. It is quite obvious that in the interpretation of Sylvester Kosov, the purpose of the greeting kiss was revealed through the interpretation of the corresponding passage from the epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Romans: "greet one another with a holy kiss. And all the churches of Christ greet you " (Romans 16: 16).4. Since early Christian times, the kiss has symbolized belonging to the Christian community - this is how its members, as well as neophytes, should be greeted.5 For them, it was a kind of peace sign, an acceptance of the duty to live in harmony with all members.

2 According to the embassy report, this is exactly how the local protopype greeted the Moscow ambassadors at the entrance to Pereyaslav (see: Ibid. - Stb. 205-206).

3 here it is appropriate to recall the conversation between Sylvester Kosov and V. Buturlin on the day of the solemn entry of the Moscow ambassadors to Kiev. On zakid boyar, chomu Metropolitan not klopotavsya before the king about perehid pid yogo "visoku hand", yak tse robiv "mnogozhzhda" Hetman B. Khmelnitsky ("and you about that Nikola did not beat his forehead and did not write and his royal Majesty did not look for mercy to himself"), that vidpoviv, scho " as de under the sovereign's high hand, Hetman Bogdan Khmelnitsky and the entire Zaporozhye army beat their brows, and the metropolitan did not cry out about it "(div.: Ibid. - Stb. 253-254).

4 in the Ostrog Bible 1581 edition This passage from the epistle of the Apostle Paul reads as follows: "Kiss one another with the kiss of the Holy Spirit. The whole c(e)rkvi X(risto)you would be Tseluyut" (ch. 16, ark. 32).

5 for the symbolic content of the kiss of peace in antiquity and the Middle Ages, see: Vollrath H. The Kiss of Peace // Peace Treaties and International Law in European History: From the Late Middle Ages to World War One / Ed. by R.Lesaffer. - Cambridge, 2009. - P. 162-184. according to the author, even in ancient Rome, slaves who were bought out of slavery were kissed by representatives of the community. This symbolized their inclusion in the free Roman community. In the Middle Ages, the kiss became part of a diplomatic reconciliation ritual. The church's interpretation of the kiss has not changed.

page 41
communities, and later churches. The church official greeted the Moscow ambassadors with a kiss as the pastor of all Orthodox Christians of the Kiev Metropolia. V. Buturlin "so tovarich" were of the same faith, but belonged to a different church with its center in Moscow, unlike the one headed by Sylvester Kosov. Therefore, with his kiss, he symbolically joined the Moscow ambassadors to his own church - "kissing is love, we call: enter the house of our God" and at the same time called for respect for it, to live in peace with it. The personification of this gesture by kissing the Apostle Andrew, Prince Vladimir, and the most important saints of the Caves was a signal that Muscovites had entered the bosom of the real "St. Vladimir's Church". And the mentioned heroes were supposed to help you correctly recognize it.

The historical characters that Sylvester Kosov appealed to were promoted in the printed texts of the Mohyla period of the 1620s and 1640s both as symbols of the" God-protected "Kiev and as" signs " of the true Russian Church centered in Kiev. The Apostle Andrew foreshadowed God's grace on the Kievan hills, and Prince Vladimir finally "enlightened" Russia by adopting Christianity. As is already evident from the text of the Palinodia by Zacharias Kopystensky (early 1620s), in the eyes of the Kievan ecclesiastical elite, the legend of the prophecy of the Apostle Andrew in the Kiev hills was the basis for asserting that the Russian Church belonged to Constantinople as an apostolic church. The Apostle Andrew, the founder of the patriarchal see in this city, was considered by the author of this work as the first baptist of Russia, through whom it was connected to the ancient apostolic capital of Tsargrad long before Vladimir.6 The Baptist Prince of Russia was considered the founder of the Russian church with its center in Kiev, so it is not for nothing that the same Zacharias Kopystensky, according to tradition, attributed to him the granting of various rights and privileges to the church, recalling the Church's Statutes. The Pechersk Saints Anthony and Theodosius were a kind of "business card" of the greatest and most ancient shrine of Kiev and Russian Orthodoxy - their exploits testified to the manifestation of God's special grace to the Kievan church. Sylvester Kosov's mention of all these characters in his speech addressed to V. Buturlin is an example of a complex game of associations and meanings in the Baroque culture, and in this case - a subtle hint of the uniqueness of the Kiev Metropolis and the fact that the oldest true Church of Russia is not in Moscow, but in Kiev - the "capital city" of the historical ancestors of the tsar.

In fact, Sylvester Kosov, in his welcoming speech, positioned himself not just as the pastor of the Kievan Metropolia, but as the true Russian church-the one founded by Prince Vladimir, the baptist of Russia. This was done in a veiled way, through a gesture with a kiss, which became a kind of symbolic act of introducing the Moscow ambassadors to the real church and tradition. This kind of demonstration by the Kiev Metropolitan of his own church as a long-time property of Constantinople and the real heir to the "church of Vladimir" is not accidental, because with the transition of the army

Kopystensky Z. 6 Palynodiya / / Russkaya istoricheskaya biblioteka [Russian Historical Library], Vol. 4, Book 1, St. Petersburg, 1878, Stb. 970 ("And that was the first time of God's contempt and his will to Saint Urena, and the Russian people were given to the novitiate of the capital of Constantinople"). Read more about the formation and special "veneration" of the Apostle Andrew from the 1620s. In Kiev and beyond, see: Sinkevich N. "Nikgdy bovem Apostolovo in vain did not go": a few observations on the cult of the Apostle Andrew in the Kiev Metropolis of the first half of the XVII century / / Bolkhovitinsky yearbook 2010. - K., 2011. - pp. 144-160.

page 42
The Kiev Metropolitanate certainly fell into the orbit of the influence of the Moscow clergy. Muscovy, although it was a single-faith state, but with a different church, traditions and, most importantly, attitude to the rest of the Orthodox churches. 7 After 1620, when, on the initiative of Patriarch Filaret of Moscow, a "decree was approved to seek out both the Belarusians themselves, who come from the Polish and Lithuanian states, in our Orthodox faith of the Greek lawthe Orthodox of the Kiev Metropolitanate, along with Catholics and Uniates, were considered "impious Christians" who should be baptized into the "correct faith"8. according to the observations of T. Oparina, such a fate befell the Cossacks who moved to the territory of Muscovy in 1650, that is, in the midst of the war under the leadership of B. Khmelnitsky. Moreover, this Filaret decree was reprinted in the large-circulation Moscow Breviaries of 1639 and 1651. 9 Familiarity with these publications could once again increase the fears of the Kiev clergy that they are treated extremely biased in Moscow as "heretics". In this regard, Sylvester Kosov, in his welcoming speech to the Moscow ambassadors, hinted that the real historical tradition and the real Russian Church is located in Kiev and, most importantly,is inextricably linked with Constantinople.

The speech of the Metropolitan of Kiev quoted at the beginning is just one of the illustrative examples of the use of book topos from the Old Russian past by church leaders of the XVII century, the theme of "Vladimir's legacy" in political rhetoric when communicating with Moscow, which we will try to analyze below. This is important not only for finding out the conditions and methods of various manipulations of historical knowledge, but also, first of all, for studying the features of the culture of "remembering the past"10 in early modern Ukraine. In this case, we will focus on the functioning of book toposes and information on ancient Russian history in a broader social context, that is, outside the environment of those who owned and created historical texts (in Ukraine of the XVII century). They were undoubtedly representatives of the Church)11. On the other hand, an analysis of the official rhetoric of the hierarchs of the second half of the 17th century is important for considering the status of the Kievan Orthodox Church.

7 For example, the Orthodox inhabitants of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the then Moscow State were treated as "strangers" (see: Keenan E. perception by Muscovites of other Eastern Slavs before 1654 / / his Zh. Russkie istoricheskie Mity [Russian Historical Studies], Moscow, 2003, pp. 38-65.

Kharlampovich K. 8 Little Russian influence on the Great Russian Church life. - T. I.-Kazan, 1914. - p. 22.

Oparina T. A. 9 Ukrainian clergy and the Moscow Patriarchate in the Middle of the 17th Century: Contacts and Conflicts (the question of the attitude to Kievan piety in Russian Church circles, circa 1651) // Orthodoxy of Ukraine and Moscow Rus in the XV-XVII centuries: general and different / Edited by M. Dmitriev. Moscow, 2012, pp. 232-266.

10 in modern historiography, the concept" culture of remembering "("Erinnerungskultur") provides for studying, on the one hand, the practice of historiography and constructing ideas about the past and its heroes among historians, and on the other-the conditions and features of the dissemination of historical texts or information from them, as well as their influence on the formation and functioning of established stereotypes about historical events or characters among different social strata (see: Cornelißen C. Was heißt Erinnerungskultur? Begriff - Methoden - Perspektiven // Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht. - 2003. - Bd 54. - S. 548-563).

11 almost all Ukrainian historical texts of the 17th century. about the Kiev-Russian past (Gustin Chronicle, Ukrainian Chronograph," Chronicle "by F. Sofonovich, "Synopsis") were created among the Kiev church scribes. Див. короткий джерелознавчий огляд цих пам'яток: Мыцык Ю. Ukrainian Chronicles of the XVIII century-Dnepropetrovsk, 1978. - pp. 12-31.

page 43
Metropolitan See of Moscow from 1654 to 1686, when it was officially subordinated to the Moscow Patriarch. The uncertainty of the situation motivated the church leaders of the Hetmanate to resort to various arguments in order to preserve their rights and status, first of all, to remain within the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

In fact, the Kiev clergy, who considered and pretended to be the real heirs of the "church of Vladimir", in 1654 were suspicious of their "co-religionists". Although the latter also professed the "faith of Vladimir", they were perceived as "strangers" and could only spoil Kievan Orthodoxy. 12 This is evident, in particular, from the testimonies about the attitude of the Kievan clergy to the political protectorate of the Moscow tsar in 1654. So, from the letter of the Chernobyl protopop, who witnessed the reception of the tsarist ambassadors by Sylvester Kosov, we learn that at the Golden Gate "they were met by Father Metropolitan and all the clergy, who did not see the world for tears, but from pity his grace Father Metropolitan already died" ("ich potykł otec metropolita, and wsze duchowienstwo, którzy za slezami swieta nie widłi, a od żalu Iego Mośč Otec Metropolita aß obumeral") 13. and if you believe the reports of the Greek John Varda Taflara, which he gave in Moscow in September 1654, it turns out that more

"last year, in 162 (A.D. 1653-Ya. Z.) [ ... ] two men cherntsov, the metropolitan of Kiev and now a clergyman, were sent to the king at the Cathedral of Kiev, saying that it was impossible for them to be united with the Moscow people, and they did not want that, but now Moscow wants to cross them." 14
Fears of "re-baptism" and, at the same time, rumors of a biased attitude towards Kievan Orthodoxy on the part of Moscow priests were so widespread that even in 1657, as we read in a letter dated October 19 from the Bishop of Mstislav and Orsha, then a confidant of the tsar in the Hetmanate, Methodius Filimonovich, addressed to the Okolnichy F. According to Rtishchev, there was a rumor among the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth that Moscow "will send its priests, and our priests will be married there (to Moscow and Siberia - Ya.Z.), just as they are now"15.

The statement of the envoys of Sylvester Kosov in Warsaw, according to a fragment of the above-quoted report by I. Taflara, about the impossibility of the Kievan Church to be "united with the Moscow people" was based not only on the awareness of its "otherness", but also on very real forecasts regarding the stunning changes that await the Kiev Metropolitanate in Muscovy. The Kiev hierarchs were not unreasonably afraid of being placed under the undesirable jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarch. The latter, in contrast to the distant Constantinople, is very close

Когут З. 12 vopros rossiiskoi-ukrainskoy edinnosti i ukrainskoy otdelnosti v ukrainskoi mysli i kul'tury rannemodernogo vremeni [The question of Russian-Ukrainian unity and Ukrainian isolation in the Ukrainian thought and culture of early modern times]. - K., 2004. - p. 133-169.

13 Cit. by publ.: Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities (dal-CHOIDR). - Book 3. - Moscow, 1861. - Mix. - P. 1.

14 Cit. for: Acts of the Southern Federal District-Vol. X. - Doc. N 17. - Stb. 773. I. Taflary at that time was in Warsaw, where he was taken as a prisoner after the Battle of Berestey in 1651. Therefore, his testimony has certain grounds.

15 Div.: Acts of the South. - Vol. IV. - St. Petersburg, 1863. - Doc. N 33. - pp. 41-42.

page 44
he would deal with the affairs of the metropolis and, as church leaders feared, would begin by changing its traditions and practices. These fears first turned into unsubstantiated protests. So, on the same day when Sylvester Kosov met the Moscow ambassadors at the Golden Gate, a monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Makary Krynitsky went to the Lutsk Grodno Court with a statement that the clergy did not swear an oath to Moscow, because, it turns out, they are afraid of being removed from their pulpits ("przsiengi od metropolitan and duchowienstwa upominaią się Moskwą, którey ieszcze nie czyniła, obawiaia sienili, aby starszych duchowienstwa nie odmienili)16. In the end, as is evident from V. Buturlin's statement already mentioned, the metropolitan and the abbots delayed swearing an oath to the tsar for several days, until, under the obvious influence (or pressure) of the Cossack elders, they sent people who committed this act for them. 17 Here it is also important to recall the well-known story of the metropolitan's quarrel with the tsarist voivodes regarding Land St. Sophia Monastery, where it was planned to build a fortress. As F. Kurakin reported to the tsar, Sylvester Kosov then

"he taught us to be angry with us and said [ ... ] that the metropolitan and the whole council beat their brows at you, the sovereign, that they did not order him to be under your sovereign's high hand, and that he lives with spiritual people about himself, under no one's authority."18
However, the clergy were forced to put up with the new political realities, that is, with the fact that, as the heads of the Moscow military men pointed out to them, they were now "under the Sovereign's high hand." Considering these and similar testimonies, S. Plokhy noticed that in the conflicts between Sylvester Kosov and the tsarist voivodes, the difference in the parties ' ideas about the religious unity of Russia was manifested. The researcher also pointed to a long-known letter from the nobleman Pavel Olekshich to Ivan Bogun, in which he " actually drew a parallel between the subordination of the Kievan Church to Moscow and the ecclesiastical union of Russia with Rome."

The inflexibility of the position of representatives of the highest Kievan clergy, which has been repeatedly noticed by researchers, can be considered a reaction to the obvious consequences of the patronage of the tsar of Muscovy. After all, it seems that in 1654, few doubted that the Kiev Metropolia should be under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarch.20 In the entourage of Hetman B. Khmelnitsky, this issue was considered resolved, which is evident from his appeals from 1654 to the Moscow primate Nikon as "the supreme pastor of our merciful one" 21.

16 Relacya Makarego Krynickiego, czernca z monasteru Pieczarskiego // ЧОИДР. - Book 3 (July-September). - Mix. - p. 5-6.

17 Acts of the South-Vol. X. - Stb. 255-260. the assumption that the oath from the representatives of the clergy took place under the pressure of the Cossack foreman was expressed by M. Hrushevsky (see: Hrushevsky M. History of Ukraine-Rus. - Vol. IX: Roki 1654-1657. - Book 1. - K., 1997. - p. 747).

18 Acts of the South-Vol. X. - Stb. 389-390.

19 see: V. S. Nalyvaykova Vera: kazachestvo i religiya v ranney sovremennoy Ukrainy [Faith: Cossacks and Religion in Early Modern Ukraine]. - K., 2005. - p. 417-418.

Karpov G. 20 The Kiev Metropolia and the Moscow Government during the Unification of Little Russia with Great Russia // Orthodox Review. - 1871. - N 8. - pp. 188-189.

21 It is noteworthy that this appeal was contained in the letter of the Hetman to Patriarch Nikon dated May 26 with a request to petition the tsar for the rights of the Kiev clergy (see: Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine, Kiev. - F. 220. - Op. 2. - Spr. 38. - Ark. 1; publ.: Documents of Bogdan Khmelnitsky / Ed. by F. Shevchenko. - K., 1961. - Doc. N 222. - pp. 353-354). Without any doubt, the phrase "the most excellent shepherd" written in the Cossack chancellery testified to recognition

page 45
the patriarch, like the tsar himself, automatically became the protector of the Zaporozhye Army and its church. This was also reflected in the recognition of the new title of Nikon by the Cossack chancellery. In particular, already in 1655, the Hetman and the general clerk I. Vygovsky addressed their letters to him as follows:"To the Great Sovereign, His Holiness Nikon, Patriarch of Moscow and all Great and Small Russia." 22

In Moscow, it seems, this was viewed in the same way 23. One cannot but agree with M. Grushevsky that despite the impossibility of accurately determining whether there was a clause in the so-called "articles of Bohdan Khmelnitsky" about the subordination of the Kiev Metropolia to the Moscow Patriarch 24, " Moscow politicians should have seemed quite thrown up by the consequence that when Ukraine passed over under the protectorate of the secular Moscow government, it must also recognize the superiority of the spiritual " 25.In this regard, the situation with the Belarusian dioceses of the Kiev Metropolis became quite significant - after the occupation of most of them by the Moscow army in 1654, they were transferred to the superiority of the Moscow Patriarch 26.

The Kievan church hierarchs, clearly unwilling to recognize the superiority of the Moscow primate, tried to justify before the tsar and get him to recognize the special status of their metropolitan27. They based their appeals on "recalling" the period of the ancient Russian princes. In the summer of 1654, an embassy headed by Innokenty Gizel, then abbot of the Monastery of St. Nicholas in Kiev, went to the tsar with letters from the Metropolitan and

the highest spiritual authority. In particular, in a message dated February 28, 1658, Colonel Martin Pushkar of Poltava addressed Metropolitan Dionysius Balaban of Kiev, recognizing his supreme spiritual authority.: "Your Grace Archbishop of Kiev, Galicia and All Russia, Lord and our most excellent pastor is clear in God" (cit. by publ.: Acts relating to the history of Western Russia. - Vol. V: 1633-1699. - St. Petersburg, 1853. - Doc. N 52. - pp. 101-102).

22 Cit. by publ.: Documents of Bohdan Khmelnitsky. - Doc. N 300. - pp. 412-413. Up to 1654 p. zvernennya formulyuvalosya desho inakshe: "To the Great prelate, His Holiness Nikon Patriarch of the reigning city of Moscow, and all great Russia to his great holiness" (div. listy B. Khmelnitsky ta I.Vigovsky do Nikon vid 12 serpnya 1653 p.: Monuments of the Kiev Commission for the analysis of ancient acts. - Ed. 1. - Vol. 3. - K., 1852. - Ed. 3. - Doc. 9-10. - Pp. 36-37).

23 here it is appropriate to recall the draft letter of Patriarch Nikon quoted almost verbatim by Macarius, in which Sylvester Kosov is called "son", and the words from his title - "exarch of the holy throne of Constantinople" - are crossed out (see: Macarius. History of the Russian Church, vol. 12, Moscow, 1996). Although Nikon did not directly call himself the pastor of Kosovo, however, calling him "son" and deleting references to Constantinople from his titulature testified to Nikon's desire to transfer the Kiev Metropolitanate under his superiority.

24 according to G. Karpov, this point did exist (see: Karpov, Metropolitan of Kiev and the Moscow government... - p. 192), but in the absence of the original of these "articles", such unambiguity was not shared by historians of that time.

25 Cit. by: Hrushevsky M. Istoriya Ukrainy-Rusi [History of Ukraine-Russia]. - Vol. - Kn. 1. - pp. 853-854.

26 ibid. Let us pay attention to the warning from the royal Charter to the Chaus priest Vasily concerning the Church of the Assumption of the Virgin and the priest attached to it:

"To that church, hire him a priest or let him go out of his share, but without the blessing of our father, the great sovereign, His Holiness Nikon, Patriarch of Moscow and all Great and Small Russia, do not serve as a priest"

(div.: Acts of the South-Vol. XIV. - St. Petersburg, 1889. - Stb. 662).

27 at the same time, they tried to enlist the support of the Cossack elite, recognizing the authority and authority of the Hetman over the entire territory of "Little Russia". In particular, Sylvester Kosov, in a letter to the tsar, called B. Khmelnitsky "our land's chief and ruler." On how, in the first years after 1654, the Kiev clergy chose a "patron" between the Polish king, the Moscow tsar, and the Cossack hetman, see: V. S. Nalyvaykova Vera..., pp. 327-329.

page 46
28. As B. Khmelnitsky pointed out in his letter of recommendation, the spiritual envoys went to the tsar to ask him to visit them.
"I have deigned to pardon him and all the Russian clergy and grant them rights, privileges, liberties, and all the good things that come from the ap(o) st (o)lsky pr (e)table of the Holy Patriarchs of Constantinople, as well as the blessed Princezya Vladi mer and from all kn (I)zey and pious lords of Russia and from the kings of polsk nadannye imyut " 29.

Seeking generous material support from the Moscow owner and confirmation of the property and other privileges of the Kiev monasteries, each of the abbots recalled the ancient Russian princes as the ancestors of the tsar. In particular, Klimenty Starushich (Vydubitsky Monastery) asked for a grant of the monastery, appealing to its past and to the "historical ancestors" of Alexey Mikhailovich:

"And that m(o) n (a)st (i)r was created by Vsevolod Yaroslavich from the ancient l(a)godless and hr(i)stoimenitym kn(i)zemlya, so from him and from hr(i)stoilyubivykh naslyudnikov it was fenced and fortified with contented villages"30.

In another petition for the confirmation of all the rights of the monastery by a separate royal charter, the Vydubitsky abbot summarized the history of his monastery as follows::

"The ancient ancient m(o) n (a) st(i)r Vydubitsky, from the Grand knyaz Vsevolod Yaroslavich, lit from the creation of the world 6578 created, and from hr (i)groan-hating Batu ruined, and then for the apostasy of Ragoza, the false Archbishop of Kiev, extreme desolation desolate"31.

Outside of the general task of the embassy was to get the tsar to confirm the status of the Kiev Metropolitanate as subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople and the non-interference of the Moscow Primate in any of its affairs: "so that I am from the novitiate of the Holy Patriarch of Constantinople to whom I have the right to live and be baptized and according to the rule of the saints from we belong, have not been distant." In the additional petition Innokenty Giselle" in the name of all " beat his forehead

"about all the waves and rights, especially about the first wave, which is all the waves and rights of the root, obedience to the highest shepherd of Constantinople, to whom we have also the right to live through St. t(a)go Ap (o)st(o)St. Andrew the First-Called and the canon of the Holy Fathers were excommunicated and joined together " 32.

28 Materials of the Embassy of div.: Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts (dal-RGADA). - F. 124. - Op. 1. - N 17. - Stb. 1-160. almost all of them are published, see: Acts of the South-Vol. X. - Stb. 705-770.

29 RGADA. - F. 124. - Op. 1. - N 17. - Stb. 27.

30 ibid. - Stb. 78.

31 ibid. - Stb. 93.

32 ibid. - Stb. 95.at the same time, Innokenty Gizel also stated that he would be happy to submit to Patriarch Nikon, but the canons of the holy fathers do not allow it.

page 47
In this case, as we can see, the jurisdiction of Constantinople over the Kiev Metropolia was justified by appeals to the "historical facts" of the Baptism of Rus propagated in the texts of the Mohyla era - the legendary visit of the Apostle Andrew to the Kiev hills, the final approval of the Orthodox faith by Prince Vladimir and the indissoluble connection of the Russian Church created by him with Constantinople.

In general, almost all petitions in the materials of the embassy of the Kiev clergy in 1654 are based on one method of rhetorical persuasion - an appeal to the times of the ancient Russian princes. Recalling the deeds of the tsar's " historical ancestors "(in this case, Princes Vladimir and Vsevolod Yaroslavich), the hierarchs directly hinted that the Moscow ruler, having accepted them as subjects, should preserve the existing rights and privileges (especially the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople) allegedly granted by his"ancestors". On the other hand, the Kiev priests positioned themselves as the direct heirs of the "church of Vladimir", because of this, too, it would seem that their rights should not be violated. Because, as in the petition to the tsar, the abbot of the Mikhailovsky monastery, Feodosiy Vasilevich, introduced himself and all the clergy,

"for though we are unworthy, yet we are the sons of Zion, the true Zion of the Orthodox Church, and above all in the holy city of Kiev, from which, as from Zion, the law came forth with the enlightenment and baptism of the whole Russian land. N(i) not o seven Zioni your royal Majesty this gl(agola)ti please."

Here he resorted to the metaphor declared in the Mohyla times about Kiev as "Orthodox Zion". During the period of the appearance of such a book topos (1630s), according to I. Shevchenko, naming Kiev "Roksolansky Zion" should have formed the perception of the Russian Church with its center in this city as the spiritual daughter of Jerusalem, which, in turn, made it possible to emphasize the antiquity of the Russian faith and its superiority over the Roman 33. n. According to Yakovenko, this motif was used in solemn poems from 1658 until the death of Sylvester Kosov to convey the idea of Kiev as a "God-protected city", which focuses on the messianic purpose of Rus'34. Feodosiy Vasilevich interpreted this idea in the same sense, but tried to show a different one. Identifying Kiev with Zion, he postulated the city as the center of" Russian baptism", which in turn emphasized the special purpose of the Russian Church (that is, the Kiev Metropolis). However, the abbot of the Mikhailovsky Monastery presented all its priests as "sons of the true Zion", clearly hinting that it is here that they are the true successors of the true Orthodox Church and tradition, as they were formed during the time of Prince Vladimir, the baptist of Russia. Accordingly, the tsar should have taken this into account and, as a sign of respect for the special historical fate of the Russian Church, "not to move the antiquities", that is, to confirm the rights and liberties of the Kiev hierarchs, the main of which was jurisdiction

Ševčenko I. 33 The Many Worlds of Peter Mohyla // Harvard Ukrainian Studies. - Vol. VIII: The Kiev Mohyla Academy. - N 1/2. - Cambridge, Mass., 1984. - P. 38. - Reference 41.

Yakovenko N. 34 The symbol of the "God-protected City" in the monuments of the Kiev Circle (1620s-1640s). parallel world: a study on the history of representations and ideas in Ukraine of the XVI-XVII centuries. - K., 2002. - pp. 329-330.

page 48
Constantinople. It is difficult to say whether such subtle hints were understood in Moscow (as, by the way, in the case of Sylvester Kosov's speech at the Golden Gate). However, despite all their rhetorical exercises, the Kiev clergy, apart from confirming their birthday rights, did not receive any guarantees (first of all, the royal charter) regarding the status of their metropolitanate.35
It should be noted that in this case, and over the next few decades, the argument for the historical dependence of the Kiev Metropolitanate on Constantinople was based on the same arsenal of "historical facts" and statements formed in the first decades of the XVII century. for the "war of words" with the Uniates. For the first time, Zacharias Kopystensky addressed Kiev-Russian history as a "well of arguments" to confirm the historical tradition of "Russian Orthodoxy" and its indissoluble connection with Constantinople in his "Palinody"36. In the "ancient chronicles and chroniclers", he allegedly found the necessary evidence, in particular about the stay of the Apostle Andrew"on the mountains of Kiev", repeated Baptism of Russia by Constantinople and about individual Russian princes and saints. All this, in general, was presented as invisible evidence of the manifestation of God's constant grace to the Russian Church, which in turn demonstrated its special mission and status.37 The handwritten work of Zacharias Kopystensky, which is widely distributed among the Orthodox, not only refuted the arguments of Lev Krevza's "defense of the union" (1617), but also provided justification for the legal status of the Orthodox Kievan Metropolis in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which in the 1620s, as is known, was not recognized by the king. In addition, this text formed the ideological basis for printed texts of the Mohyla era - primarily those that promoted the uniqueness and self-sufficiency of the Russian Church and Kiev as its sacred center. After 1654, the ideas and book toposes that previously formed the image of Kiev as a "God-protected city" and the place of the "church of Vladimir", and it itself was endowed with an unusual historical mission, were transferred to the political-state plane.

Also, after 1654. The Kiev hierarchs, both in petitions and in printed publications, actively proclaimed the" historical right " of the tsar to Kiev38.

35 the embassy's materials contain copies of royal letters to the Metropolitan and abbots of Kiev monasteries with identical wording like " give the Metropolitan (otherwise - Archimandrite of the Caves or Abbot - Ya. Z.) the former grafts, buildings that the Grand Dukes of Russia and the kings of Poland have [...] ownership and income " (div.: RGADA. - F. 124. - Op. 1. - N 17. - Stb. 134-146). As for the rights of the clergy, instructions were sent to the Kiev voivodes forbidding them to interfere with the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical court (see: Ibid. - Stb. 148-149).

36 See, in particular, the observations of S. Savchenko on the nature of the author's use of" Palinody " plots of ancient Russian history: Savchenko S. Drevnyaya Rus ' v polemicheskoi literatury kontsa XVI-XVII vvakh [Ancient Russia in polemical literature of the late XVI-XVII centuries]. Dnepropetrovsk, 2007, pp. 51-60.

Yakovenko N. 37 Symbol "The God-protected City" ... - pp. 311-314.

38 Here it is appropriate to recall the works of Lazar Baranovich "The Sword of the Spirit" (1666) and "trumpets of words preached" (1674). Engravings and postscripts in the preface to these publications proclaimed the" historical right "of the tsar to the" Kievan fatherland "and the entire"Orthodox Russian people". In the "Spiritual Sword", a poem placed in front of an engraving depicting the royal family tree, the roots of which go back to Prince Vladimir, we read:

"If the root is holy, then we are with(vya)you / paint the house of c (a)rskiy Boris and Gleb brothers / paint when the red blood is brought / and c (a)rya n (e) b (es) and for the house of c (a)rskiy prosyat / root of Vladimir, St.(I)t, from the same family, / s(vya)that is your breed to the king."

In "Trumpets of Words", the author uses the familiar metaphor of an eagle that protects Kiev and its shrines with its wings. See also the general description of these images and inscriptions:

page 49
the statement was based on the idea of a dynastic connection between the Moscow ruler and the ancient Kievan dynasty (Prince Vladimir, as most often declared). In particular, this idea, which appeared as early as the end of the 16th century, 39 was actively used as early as the 1620s, when Job Boretsky, the primate of the semi-legal Orthodox metropolitanate of the Polish - Lithuanian Commonwealth, made attempts to find mutual understanding and support in Moscow, demonstrating the existence of a "historical connection" between the local tsar and Kiev. In particular, in a letter of 1624, the Metropolitan of Kiev identified the Moscow ruler as "a branch and tribe of the great autocrats of all Russia" 40. Later, in 1640, Peter Grave sent an embassy to the tsar with the relics of his alleged "progenitor" - "holy and equal-to-the-apostles Grand Duke Vladimir" 41. the next embassy of the metropolitan dated 1646 p. it called the monarch "the true iskadie of the great-powerful co-owner of the Russian Saint Vladimir" 42. The manipulation of the idea of dynastic taxiness of the Romanovs from the Rurikids was based on quite pragmatic reasoning. As Peter Grave frankly put it in a letter to the tsar in 1640, the Orthodox monarch, a descendant of the baptist of Russia, should "be jealous of the holy ancestors" - equal and surpass in the guardianship of Kievan churches and shrines of ancient Russian princes. 43 Kievan Orthodox leaders, as in 1654, presented themselves as real descendants of the "church of Vladimir". Such self-identification, as can be seen from the letter of the abbots of the Kiev fraternal school to the Moscow tsar in 1626, was based on the positioning of Kiev as a place "where the first beginning of the enlightenment of the Russian homeland of the true God is known, but not in all countries, as from the source of blagostruynago, the well-known salvation has expired and flourished" 44., quite similar to the interpretation of Kiev by "Orthodox Zion" in the above-mentioned petition of Feodosiy Vasilevich from 1654.

Shamefully recognizing after Pereyaslav the dynastic connection of the Moscow tsar from the Romanov dynasty with Prince Vladimir, the Kiev hierarchs, unlike in previous decades, thus expressed political loyalty to the new protector. At first, the most skilled in this rhetoric received a generous caress for it. This, in particular, is evident from the unexpected "career take-off" of the Nezhinsky protopop Maxim Filimonovich. In January 1654, in a speech to the Moscow ambassadors, he compared Tsar Alexey Mikhailovich to Moses, who had been sent to Russia.

Radyshevsky R. drevnerusskie motivy v poezii Lazar Baranovicha [Old Russian motifs in the poetry of Lazar Baranovich]. Pisisnost 'Kyivskoi Rus' i stanovlenie ukrainskoi literatury [Writing in Kievan Rus and the formation of Ukrainian literature]. - K., 1988. - p. 251-253.

39 for the first time, in a letter from the Lviv Brothers to the Moscow tsar dated 1592, it was stated that as the co-religionist ruler and ancestor of the baptist of Russia, Prince Vladimir, he should have helped Russian Orthodoxy in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (see: V. S. Nalyvaykova Vera ... - pp. 354-360). In the 1620s, when this idea was actively exploited by church alms-seekers in Moscow, the recognition of the dynastic connection between the Romanovs of Moscow and the Rurikovs of Kiev came as a surprise even to the tsar's entourage.

40 RGADA. - F. 124. - Op. 1. - N 3. - L. 1-20; publ.: Kulish P. Materials for the history of the reunification of Russia. - Vol. 1: 1578-1630. - Moscow, 1877. - pp. 134-136.

41 For embassy materials, see: RGADA. - F. 124. - Op. 1. - D. 1. - L. 1-110. most of them are published in Acts of the South-Vol. III. St. Petersburg, 1861, pp. 27-52.

42 Words from the petition of the abbot of the Vydubitsky monastery Klimenty Starushich (see: RGADA. - F. 124. - Op. 1. - D. 2. - Stb. 23-30; publ.: Acts of the South. - Vol. III. - Doc.N 71. - pp. 75-77).

43 RGADA. - F. 124. - Op. 1. - D. 1. - L. 11-21; publ.: Acts of the South-Vol. III. - Doc. N 18. - pp. 27-29.

44 Cit. 6: Acts on Church-religious relations in South-Western Russia (1372-1648) / Ed. by O. Levitsky. - K., 1883. - pp. 573-575.

page 50
he dismissed "from the work of the Egyptians and from the hands of the Pharaohs' sons of Israel " 45.and soon, as part of the embassy headed by V. Zolotarenko (September 1654), Methodius tried to attract the attention of the tsar to himself, solemnly emphasizing the restoration of the hitherto fallen "historical existence of Little Russia". His speech can be considered an example of the use of arguments"from history"in rhetoric. Spochatku vin dyakuvav tsarevi, scho that "squandered sons of Russian zloukhishchreniem in a single body russkago great reign combined razseyannykh, like a cocoon of its chick under the wing", pislya tsogo pereishov to stverdzhennya istorichnogo right of the tsar to Mala Rus, "like the grand dukes and autocrats of Russian righteous and grandfatherly paternal lot and inheritance". The speech ended with the expression "hope", which is supposedly "Little Russia [...] places on the tsar, Yako dedich, stepfather and heir" 46. After that, not so much time passed and Methodius became Bishop of Mstislav and Orsha, and after the death of Sylvester Kosov in 1657 - locum tenens of the Kiev Metropolis. But the most important thing, according to G. Karpov, in the career of Methodius was that he was considered a confidant of the tsar, his "agent", adviser, because of which he had a significant influence on the course of affairs in the Hetmanate until the end of the reign of Hetman Ivan Bryukhovetsky.47
Eventually, after 1654, claims of a dynastic connection and the rights of the Muscovite tsar to Kiev will become commonplace in the rhetoric of both the Cossack and ecclesiastical elites of the Hetmanate. 48 Moreover, in the maelstrom of ruins and given the growing religious intolerance towards the Orthodox in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Kiev's hierarchs will increasingly assert themselves in demonstrating political loyalty to the Russian Orthodox Church. the king is 49. as is evident from the printed texts of the 1660s and 1670s (in particular, The Spiritual Sword of 1666, the Trumpets of Verbal Preaching of 1674, and, undoubtedly, the synopsis of 1674), for the church intellectuals of that time, Moscow became a guarantee of inner peace, and at the same time a guarantor against the Islamic threat (especially in the conditions of devastating campaigns 50. However, recognizing the tsar as the ruler of Kiev and the Russian Church, they continued to stubbornly resist the possibility of being under the superiority of the Moscow Patriarch. The monarch-friendly hierarchs have repeatedly made it clear that, as a" descendant of Vladimir, "the tsar must preserve the special status of the Kiev Metropolitanate, the successor of the"Church of Vladimir."

45 see Methodius ' speech in V. Buturlin's list of articles: Acts of the South-Vol. X. - Stb. 266.

46 RGADA. - F. 124. - Op. 1. - N 23. - L. 1-9; publ.: Acts of the South. - Vol. XIV. - Stb. 175-179.

Karpov G. 47 Methodius Filimonovich-Bishop of Mstislav and Orsha, guardian of the Kiev Metropolia (1661-1668) / / Orthodox Review. - 1875. - N 1. - Pp. 71-72.

Kogut P. 48 ot Gadyach do Andrusov: osyslenie "Otechestva" v ukrainskoi politicheskoi kul'tury [From Gadyach to Andrusov: understanding the "Fatherland" in Ukrainian political culture].

49 it should be clarified here that the Orthodox Metropolia of Kiev, as well as the entire Hetmanate, was divided into "two banks"in accordance with the orientation of the hetmans. Kiev hegumens and archimandrites, as well as the left-bank protopopies and Bishop Lazar Baranovich of Chernigov, supported the Moscow tsar. But the Kiev metropolitans-Dionysius Balaban (1657-1663) and Iosif Tukalsky (1663-1676) - held a separate position: the former supported the pro-Polish orientation of Hetmans I. Vygovsky and P. Teteri, and the latter was a loyal associate of Hetman P. Doroshenko. Trying to neutralize their influence and taking into account the fact that both were not in Kiev, Methodius Filimonovich was ordained locum tenens of the Metropolitan see in Moscow (until 1667), and after the death of Joseph Tukalsky, Lazar Baranovich became it. Russian Orthodoxy between Kiev and Moscow: An Essay on the History of the Russian Orthodox Tradition between the 15th and 20th centuries, Moscow, 2010, pp. 173-185.

Yakovenko N. 50 Ocherk istorii srednevekovoi i rannemodernoi Ukrainy [Essay on the history of medieval and Early Modern Ukraine].

page 51
Therefore, the Kiev clergy continued to respond with the same rhetorical arguments "from history" to any attempts to reassign the metropolitanate, which for various reasons were initiated both by the Hetman administration and Moscow during the two decades after 1654. after the death of Metropolitan Sylvester Kosov (April 1657), the Kiev voivodes were "all mayors with great reinforcement " It is possible that from a position of strength - Ya. Z.) persuaded the local clergy not to elect a primate without the knowledge of the Moscow Patriarch 51. promising to first address this issue to Moscow, the Kiev hierarchs, together with the Orthodox bishops of the left and right banks of the Dnieper, independently elected Metropolitan Dionysius Balaban. When asked by the tsar's okolnichy B. Khitrovo why he did not send a blessing to the Moscow Patriarch, the newly-elected patriarch expressed the arguments already familiar to Moscow: "from the beginning of holy baptism, the Kiev metropolitans, one in the second, received a blessing from the most holy patriarchs of Constantinople."52 After the Pereyaslavl Articles of 1659, one of which provided for the subordination of the Kiev Metropolitanate to the Moscow Patriarch, the Cossack embassy sent by Yuri Khmelnitsky to Moscow defended the interests of the Kiev hierarchy in an Embassy Order with a similar argument:

"As [the Metropolitan and all dukhivnitsvo Malo Rosii - Ya. Z.] had previously lain down to the most Holy and supreme Patriarch of Constantinople and gave away his novitiate, so now, with the same freedom and sovereignty, he found it intact and inviolable." 53
Since 1665, Hetman I. Bryukhovetsky has repeatedly taken the initiative to reassign the Kiev Metropolitanate, and to appoint a metropolitan from Moscow to Kiev. 54 but in Moscow itself, apparently due to the difficult situation caused by the conflict between the tsar and Patriarch Nikon and the trial of him, this proposal was answered evasively, that they would allegedly soon address a similar question to The Patriarch of Constantinople. Such steps of the hetman extremely worried the Kiev hierarchs and even the metropolitan locum tenens Methodius Filimonovich, who was placed in Moscow. Soon all of them came to the Kiev voivode and "with great fury" demanded to reveal all the intentions of the tsar in relation to the metropolis. Moreover, in addition to the usual rhetorical appeals about the historical belonging of Kiev to Constantinople, the churchmen said that if

51 see the reply of the Kiev voivode A. Buturlin to the tsar for August 1657: Acts of the South-Vol. IV. - St. Petersburg, 1863. - Doc. N 7. - pp. 6-9.

52 Cit. for: Karpov G. Dionysius Balaban, Metropolitan of Kiev: From the history of relations of the Kiev Church hierarchy to the Moscow government / / Orthodox Review. - 1874. - N 1. - P. 122.

53 Acts of the South-Vol. V. - St. Petersburg, 1867. - Doc. N 2. - P. 6. Dodatkovim arуменumentom kozatskogo embassy bulo: "About what we do not talk to the worldly nalyzhati, but what more the Patriarch of Constantinople deigns, on that and we will stay."

54 this proposal in the instructions to the envoy of Hetman L. Gorlenko was justified as follows:

"So that the spiritual rank of Kievan to the Lyack metropolitans does not wobble and that Little Russia, having heard about the sending of a Russian builder to the metropolitanate, is established and strengthened under the highness of his royal most illustrious majesty, and the spiritual rank, leaving double-mindedness, is not removed from the obedience of the most holy patriarchs of Moscow"

(see: RGADA. - F. 124. - Op. 1. - D. 49. - L. 1-33; Acts of the South. - T. V.-Doc. N 122, 127. - pp. 267-277, 281-285). Subsequently, it is precisely Hetman I. Bryukhovetsky who will repeat this in Moscow personally.

page 52
"they should have a Moscow metropolitan, and not according to the ancient rights and liberties of their election [...] they will be locked up in the mon (a) styreh and unless they are dragged from the m(o) n (a)st (i)rey by the neck and legs " 55.

The verbal conflict was resolved after the voivode assured that in any case the issue of the Kiev Metropolitanate would be resolved in Constantinople, and that their ancient rights would not be violated.56 The higher hierarchs soon recalled the special status of their metropolitanate during the church council in Moscow in 1666-1667, where the case of Patriarch Nikon was considered. To the remark of the primates of Alexandria and Antioch that none of the Kiev hierarchs should wear a Cross on their Mitres, Lazar Baranovich and Methodius Filimonovich pointed out their subordination to the Throne of Constantinople, and then they are not going to change anything on the instructions of other leaders.

As you know, the decision on the reassignment of the Kiev Metropolitanate to the Moscow Patriarch lasted for more than thirty years. The resistance of the Kievan church hierarchs and the confrontation of hetmans on different banks of the Dnieper played a certain role in this, but the situation inside the Moscow Patriarchate itself (the schism for Nikon), as well as the extremely difficult geopolitical situation in the region, in particular the protracted wars with the Turks of the 1670s and the unresolved issue of Kiev's territorial affiliation to the 58. Meanwhile, the attempts of the Kiev clergy to justify to the tsar and their own flock the special status of the Kiev Metropolitanate determined the transformation of "historical memory" and ideological accents in the printed texts of that time.

Key among them was the Synopsis of 1674, which presents the history of the "Orthodox-Russian people" from its beginnings to the ruling Moscow state.

55 in this dispute, by the way, one of the most important concerns was voiced, why in Kiev they opposed the reassignment of the power of the Moscow Patriarch. The hierarchs referred to the "experience" of being a Moscow protegee in the Smolensk see, which radically changed the traditions of the episcopate.:

"in Smolensk n (i)not Filaret Archbishop(i)s (co)p, and he de rights and liberties of all d (u) khvonog (o) rite took away, and d(u)khovnoy rite, and the gentry, and philistines all calls inovrtsy, and they de Orthodox hr(and)stiane, and tolko de in Kiev vred will be the same metropolitan of Moscow, and he will de also call their Kiev residents, and all the Little Russian cities, and in the same era there will be a schism, and the rebellion will be considerable, and they will receive a more luther death than they will have a Moscow metropolitan in Kiev".

It is important that, as we can see from this document of 1666, the Kiev clergy continued to be afraid of "crossing" in the future.

56 all quotations about this conflict are from the report of the Kiev voivode V. Sheremetev (see: RGADA. - F. 124. - Op. 1. - D. 3. - L. 1-21). Within a few months, Archimandrite Innokenty Gizel of the Caves voiced the same arguments to the tsar's envoy E. Frolov: "but there was no Metropolitan of Moscow in Kiev from time immemorial, because the Kiev Metropolia is under the blessing of the Patriarch of Constantinople" (see: Acts of the South. - Vol. VI. - St. Petersburg, 1869. - Doc. N 41. - Pp. 104-105).

Relations of the Little Russian clergy with the Moscow government during the reign of Alexey Mikhailovich. Moscow, 1899, pp. 385-390.

58 In 1669, the then head of the Embassy Order, A. Ordin-Nashchokin, believed that it would be easier to defend Kiev's belonging to Moscow in negotiations with the Poles after the Kiev Metropolitanate was reassigned to the Moscow Patriarch. On this occasion, he wrote three reports on how to solve and justify such a change of jurisdiction in front of everyone (see: RGADA. - F. 124. - Op. 1. - D. 10; two of them are published: Acts of the South-T.-St. Petersburg, 1877. - Doc. N 2. - Pp. 7-14). However, these proposals were not taken into account, in our opinion, given the difficult situation in the Moscow church and due to possible fierce resistance from the Kiev clergy.

page 53
Tsar Alexey Mikhailovich (in the editions of 1678 and 1681, the story was extended to Fyodor Alekseevich). The main message of the book, which in historiography is traditionally called the first textbook on East Slavic history59, was the justification by historical precedents of the idea of" unity of Great and Little Russia", which, despite one Orthodox faith, did not exist until 1654. The connection between Kiev and Moscow - the various "descendants" of the once united Russia, the author of the synopsis deduced using ideas about the common ethnic origin of Muscovites and Rusyns (designated in the text by the concept of "Slovenian people") from one progenitor Mosokh; a single Orthodox faith and the ruling royal dynasty, allegedly started by Rurik. The latter gives grounds to proclaim Kiev "the tsar's fatherland", which should belong to him as "the legacy of Prince Vladimir". With this in mind, modern Ukrainian historiography treats Synopsis as "conceptually the most perfect Russian-centric historical and ideological product of the last third of the 17th century." 60 Indeed, ideologically, this text influenced the historical and political identity of the then readers in the Hetmanate, whose leaders hesitated to find a protector between Moscow, Warsaw, and Istanbul. 61 In addition, the publication of this book once again reinforced the position of Moscow and the arguments of its diplomats in negotiating commissions with representatives of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth regarding the reasons for the tsar's failure to comply one of the terms of the Armistice of Andrusovo in 1667, which provided for the return of Kiev to the Polish Queen.

On the other hand, the Synopsis expressed the hidden intentions of the Kiev church hierarchs (in particular, the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra) regarding the special status of the archdiocese. The latter was associated with the presentation of Kiev as a special sacred and historical center, because the text, as you know, mainly narrated the history of Kiev and its princes, it was about the famous temples of the city, the time of their construction, etc. 62. This kind of "historical journey" was supposed to convince readers that Kiev is " glorious 63. In the synopsis author's interpretation, the past of the capital and Center of Russian Orthodoxy has several "frontiers". So, according to the text, before 1240. Kiev was a capital and royal city, but the destruction of Batu in 1240 led to the fact that all the glorious greatness of it "could not be chosen", because the Grand Duchy turned into a voivodeship and became part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 64. however, on March 1, 1654, the city returned to the tsar, so

Eremin E. P. 59 K istorii obshchestvennoi mysli na Ukrainy vtoroi poloviny XVII v. [The key to the history of public Thought in Ukraine in the second half of the 17th century]. Trudy Upravleniya drevnerusskoi literatury, vol. 10, Moscow, 1954, pp. 212-222; Peshtich S. L. "Synopsis" as a historical work // Ibid. - T. 15. - Moscow; Leningrad, 1958. - pp. 284-298; Marchenko M. Ukrainian historiography from ancient times to the middle of the XIX century. - K., 1959. - pp. 56-63.

Vorobey V. 60 " Volim tsar vostochnogo...": Ukrainsky Hetmanate and the Russian dynasty before and after Pereyaslav. - K., 2007. - p. 266.

61 on the foreign policy guidelines of the Hetmanate leaders, the circumstances and reasons for their change, see: Chukhlib T. hetmans and monarchs: The Ukrainian State in International relations 1648-1714-K.; New York, 2003.

62 According to A. Pritsak, the synopsis's description of the history of Kiev should attest to the image of the city as "God-chosen" and unique, which was first developed by the author of the Tale of Bygone Years at the beginning of the 12th century (see: O. Pritsak Kiev and All of Rus': The Fate of A Sacral Idea / / Harvard Ukrainian Studies. - Vol. X. - N 3/4. - 1986. - P. 279-301).

63 Vidpovidnu chap pro Kiiv div.: Synopsis or Brief collection from various chroniclers about the beginning of the Slavic-Russian people. - K., 1674. - pp. 121-123.

64 ibid., pp. 106-107.

page 54
"b (o) g (o) sp (a) the most glorious and original all in Russia ts(a) rst city of Kiev, for many times its own, a fair m (s) l(o)steyu B(o) zhii, paki on the first being returned, from the drevnego property of ts (a) rskago, paki in the Domain of c (a) rskoe priyde " 65.

This statement expressed the hidden hint of Kievan church leaders addressed to the tsar and all his subjects that Kiev, as a city with a unique princely and sacred past, should once again become the central "city", as it was once under the" ancestors " of the tsar. Obviously, in this case, it was not so much about restoring the city's role as a political center, but rather about recognizing the special status of its church. Since, according to the synopsis version, Alexey Mikhailovich received Kiev "with very rich treasures, holy churches and monasteries." 66 under the protectorate of the tsar, the "God-protected city" would have been renewed as a special church center. Accordingly, he should have confirmed all the rights and privileges of local hierarchs - descendants of the "church of Vladimir", in particular, the stavropegic status of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, 67 and also retain the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople over the metropolis, because this was still the case at the time of the baptism of Russia. As we can see, this text justified before the entire Orthodox flock the project of the Kiev hierarchs of 1654, who tried to defend the special status of their metropolis in the state of the Moscow tsar.

So, to summarize. With the active "recollection" of ancient Russian history, which began in the first half of the 17th century and was embodied in the creation of historical narratives, Kiev church authors gradually formed a set of arguments for polemics with the Uniates, during which they proved the historical connection of Kiev with Constantinople and justified the special Messianic purpose of the Russian Church and its center as "Orthodox Zion". The main arguments first presented in the Palinody of Zacharias Kopystensky (1621) were based on several historical subjects, primarily chronicle tales about the legendary prophecy of the Apostle Andrew in Kiev, repeated baptisms of Rus, as well as demonstration of certain "facts" of the princely past of Rus, the continuous connection of Kiev with Constantinople and all the exploits of the Kievan saints.

After Pereyaslav 1654 The Kievan church hierarchs actively used the main "historical" arguments previously used by Zacharias Kopystensky for the "war of words with the Uniates" and, in particular, to prove the legality of the restoration of the Kiev Metropolitanate in 1620. Presenting themselves to the tsar as "sons of Orthodox Zion", they tried to defend the special status of their metropolis, which, according to them, is still a part of the Russian Orthodox Church. since the time of the Apostle Andrew and the Baptism of Rus

65 ibid., p. 121.

66 ibid., p. 122.

67 It is not without reason, by the way, that the synopsis contains the text of a letter from one of the "ancestors" of the Moscow tsar, Prince Andrey Bogolyubsky, who allegedly in 1159, in agreement with the Patriarch of Constantinople, gave the Pechersk Monastery a special status and estates. In fact, this letter was a forgery of the end of the XVI century (see: Zatylyuk Ya. The letter of Andrew Bogolyubsky to the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery / / Ruthenica. - Vol. VII. - K., 2008. - pp. 215-236). Here it is appropriate to recall G. Rothe's hypothesis that the main task of the synopsis was to promote the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra (see His preface to the facsimile reprint: Sinopsis, Kiev 1681: Facsimile mit einer Einleitung / Einleitung von H. Rothe. - Cologne, 1983. - S. 42-63). Z. develops this idea in detail. Когут, см.: Когут З. the impact of politics on Innokenty Gizel and the publication of the Kiev Synopsis: new understanding / / Innokenty Gizel. Izbrannye raboty v 3 vol.-Vol. III [Selected works in 3 vols. - Vol. III].

page 55
Vladimir was under the guardianship of Constantinople. At the same time, the rhetorical arsenal of church leaders, as well as the Cossack elite, was mostly filled with declarations about the alleged historical right of the Moscow tsar to the "Kievan Heritage", based on the idea of a dynastic connection between the Moscow Romanovs and the Kiev Rurikovich, which its local hierarchs actively exploited in the 1620s and 1640s to obtain material support in Moscow, and after 1654-to demonstrate political loyalty to the new protector.

In turn, the "historical" arguments used in the political rhetoric of the church elite of the Hetmanate determined the transformation of the "historical memory" of the past of Kiev and the entire "Russian people" in the then printed texts. This is evident from the first editions of the synopsis, which linked the ancient Kievan history precisely with Muscovy, where, they say, the" descendant of Prince Vladimir " rules, which should revive the "royal being" of Kiev and the status of the Kiev Metropolis, which was directly derived from the"Church of Vladimir" by its hierarchs. But in 1686, after being reassigned to the Moscow Patriarch ,the " church of Vladimir "in Kiev lost its connection with the" old days", the evidence of which, as its leaders declared, was the jurisdiction of Constantinople.

The aim of this article is to analyse political rhetoric of the Kyivan church hierarchs after the council of Pereiaslav in 1654. This rhetoric appeals to the Old Rus' past, demonstrates of the uniqueness of Kyiv as the "Orthodox Zion" and declarates the historical right of Muscovite tsar to the "Kyivan heritage of the prince Volodymyr". Usage of such rhetorical repertoire, which was developed during 1620-1640, was determined by the attempts of the church elite of the Hetmanate to justify the separate status of the Kyivan Metropolitanate as the sphere of jurisdiction of the Patriarche of Constantinople.

page 56
permanent address of the article: http://ebiblioteka.ru/browse/doc/29086402

simple search
advanced search
catalog of publications
help
feedback
Subscription Terms and Conditions
© 2014 East View Information Services | All rights reserved.

Product version: 4.13-SNAPSHOT.s8050.bbuild-189

Permanent link to this publication: