Representation of Episcopal Power in Pre-Mongol Rus’

Readers of my blog will be aware of my studies in the role of the church in medieval Rus’. Today’s post is a translation of an article about various methods used in Rus’ to denote the power of the bishop’s office prior to the Mongol invasion, when the Orthodox church was still a relatively new power in that land. The article was interesting both as an overview of the use of pechati (bullae, lead seals) and the use of titles and ceremonies to establish and enforce power structures in medieval Rus’ society. The article was particularly interesting in its discussion of the title of vladyka (which I’m translating here as lordship), which I had seen used in other texts without any real explanation of its origin or use. The study of seals, in particular, seems like it could be a particularly interesting rabbit hole to explore.

Representation of Episcopal Power in Pre-Mongol Rus’: Bullae, Credentials, Orders, Titles

A translation of Гайденко, П.И. “Репрезентация архиерейской власти в домонгольской Руси: буллы, верительные документы, сан, титулы.” Вестник Челябинского государственного университета. 2013. №18 (309). История. Вып. 56. С. 67–78.

[Translation by John Beebe, known in the Society for Creative Anachronism as Master Ivan Matfeevich Rezansky, OL.]

[Translator’s notes: I’ve done my best to convey both the meaning and style from the original. Comments in square brackets and footnotes labeled “jeb” are my own. This document may contain specialized vocabulary related to embroidery, archeology, Eastern Orthodoxy, or Russian history; see this vocabulary list for assistance with some of these terms. This translation was done for my own personal education, and is provided here as a free resource for members of the Society for Creative Anachronism who may be interested in this topic but are unable to read Russian. I receive no compensation or income for this work. If you like this translation, please take a look at other translations I have made available on my blog.]

[The article in the original Russian can be found here: 
https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/reprezentatsiya-arhiereyskoy-vlasti-v-domongolskoy-rusi-bully-veritelnye-dokumenty-san-tituly]

The phenomenon of church authority is considered to be one of the interesting and not yet fully studied phenomena of Christian life. Research into this area is able to reveal the mechanisms how the church functioned as a whole, as well as its specific institutions and members. This article attempts to consider some features of how hierarchal power in pre-Mongol Russia was represented.

Any authority, including that of the church, needs to demonstrate its capabilities and rights. Moreover, it presents itself as the source of that authority.^[1]On the nature of the representation of power, cf. Bojtsov, M.A. “Kogda stanovitsja vidno, chto korol’ golyj?” Poblekshee sijanie vlasti. Moscow, 2006, pp. 5-6. As a result, any power, be it secular or religious, is acutely aware of the need to create an advantageous personal image that is understood by others and perceived by subordinates with due respect and approval.^[2] See further: Bojtsov, M.A. “Chto takoe potestarnaja imagologia?” Vlast’ i obraz: ocherki potestarnoj imagologii. St. Petersburg, 2010, pp. 12-16. In the Middle Ages, just as today, this was achieved through the creation and use of a variety of external forms, through which those in power demonstrate their social and hierarchical “otherness:” clothing, regalia, luxury goods. A variety of actions became one more option for self-expression. This role was served by various gestures, certain symbols, and elements (tools and models) which were practically required for the maintenance of their prestige, both to manage the congregation and to build relationships with the secular heads of society.

It is true that the power of the bishop had its own specific features. As with any other power in the medieval world, it was made sacred. This holiness, however, was not determined by this carrier of grace’s birthright, his calling “from above,” or even his dedication, as was the case with secular rulers or worldly personages^[3]It is important to note here that for a long time, until at least the Cluny reforms or “revolutions (as Dzh.G. Berman has called them), medieval Europe did not recognize a strict separation of secular authority, especially as it concerned the power of kings, rulers and emperors (Berman, Dzh.G. Zapadnaja traditsija prava: epokha formirovanija. Moscow, 1998, pp. 85-120.) This process of the secularization of power was seen even less in Byzantium, where “worldly” and “spiritual” principles remained inseparable until the complete fall of Constantinople to the sabers of the Turks (see further: Dargon, Zh. Imperator i svjaschennik. Etjud o vizantijskom «tsezarepapizme». St. Petersburg, 2010.), but much greater, for the bishop was able to open or close the gates of Heaven.^[4]On of Christ’s commandments, addressed to the apostles, speaks quite definitively on this matter: “Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matt 18:18) This circumstance, however, did not at all hinder the ministry of the bishop from becoming immersed in an abyss of worldly concerns or from being constrained by a multitude of social conditions.

The bishops of Medieval Rus’, as prices of the church and the successors of apostolic grace, were endowed with essential immunities and powers, and whether consciously or not, were involved in those actions and processes that can be qualified as a representation of hierarchical power. Given that this phenomenon is generally well studied with respect to secular rulers, it would seem that the forms and methods of declaring and demonstrating the authority of the bishops, especially with regard to Medieval Rus’, has never received special consideration.

Ecclesiastical hierarchs were distinguished by their “dissimilarity” to others. The bishop, as a priest, was obliged to wear certain clothing, to communicate with others in a particular way, and to comply with certain standards of behavior which were definitely different from those of any other environment, making the bishop a recognizable figure and attracting the attention of those around him. This was a natural element of life which simultaneously demonstrated, firstly, the bishop as a person and secondly, exposed the status that the bishop possessed by nature of his dedication and the authority delegated to him. This can be seen on the one hand as an element of preaching and education, and on the other as a variant of declaring the social-canonical position and authority of one in the highest of holy orders.

Sources allow us to distinguish the following forms of representing episcopal power: 1) the use of external symbols of power (seals, credentials, iconography, special chambers, clothing, surrounding oneself with luxury items, creating one’s own administration); 2) actions related to pastoral, liturgical and canonical functions (the liturgy, the organization of the divine service, the consecration of churches, the commision of the court and the imposition of church sanctions, ordination (or the rejection of such), the dissemination of messages); 3) the participation in events that had social significance (sitting at feasts; correspondence with representatives of the princely family, maintaining relations with and drawing closer to the nobility and other major church hierarchs (or, conversely, distancing oneself from less important people), and finally, participation in political life, for example, the reconciliation of warring parties, etc.).

The scope of this article does not allow us to analyze and evaluate all of the elements listed above. Therefore, we will confine ourselves to the characteristics of only a few of them: the bulls used by bishops, credential documents, and titles.

The necessity to demonstrate one’s power, as a rule, is realized in two main cases. First of all, this occurs when those in power do not enjoy the levels of respect and trust that their owners rely upon. Secondly, the need for special steps to demonstrate their rights and powers arises during societal crises, when specific results are expected from those in power.

As has been noted above, to the people of the Middle Ages, with their clearly-expressed social hierarchy, it was natural to emphasize one’s social status. This was expressed in a variety of ways: the creation of regulations and the maintenance of customs related to clothing, forms of participation in events and symbolic actions, rules and norms of behavior, and so forth.^[5]For more on the hierarchical foundations of medieval society, cf: Huizinga, Jokhan. Osen’ Srednevekov’ja. St. Petersburg, 2011, pp. 110-133; Foss’e, Rober. Ljudi Srednevekov’ja. St. Petersburg, 2010, pp. 230-250.

The ecclesiastical hierarchy, whose semantic images were drawn from the sacral space and had to meet the norms of religious consciousness ^[6]Itemizing the specifics of religious images in art, V. Vlasov drew attention to the fact that they are impersonal, detached and exist outside the sensual sphere (Vlasov, V. Iskusstvo Rossii v prostranstve Evrazii: v 3 t. Tom 1: Ideja i obraz v iskusstve Drevnej Rusi. St. Petersburg, 2012, p. 11). These qualities are equally characteristic of images of church authority, which present not in itself, but in the power of Christ. A separate question: how was this feature exploited in regards to the “personal,” “unrequited,” and “sensual” earthly interests of the church as an institution and of its bishops?, certainly sought to ensure that the forms they demonstrated, reflecting the status and powers of the clergy, were maximally effective not only in the religious and world-outlook spheres, but also in the political. To solve this task was extremely difficult, because the methods of representing church authority which came from Byzantium inevitably collided with local Russian peculiarities, due largely to a general lack of preparation for the perception of Christian norms and values of religious consciousness, a lack of understanding, and sometimes even rejection of the bishops’ leading role in the organization of the church. In any event, for a long time in the reality of Rus’, possessing the title of bishop did not guarantee the bearer of that rank absolute authority, not even in the church.^[7]The most obvious example is the mockery of Metropolitan Georgij (1072), who did not believe in the sanctity of the Russian martyrs Boris and Gleb (PSRL, Vol. 2, Folio 172 obv.) As a result, the task of defending the power of the bishopric and maintaining its “image” (as we would say today) seemed greater than it actually was. In its early stage, in particular during the first century of Christianity in Rus’, this problem was of particular urgency, since it was closely tied to the question ensuring the basic safety of the bishops’ lives.

The use of bullae^[8]jeb: A seal attached to an ecclesiastical edict, typically made of lead.

V.L. Janin has recreated the history of medieval Russian seals has been recreated to some level of detail. The results of his archeological studies and the chronicles allow us to conclude that their use was a widespread practice in Rus’, which in turn was reflected in the presence of people called “seal-makers” [pechatniki] in princely circles.^[9]Janin, V.L. Aktovye pechati Drevnej Rusi X-XV vv., v 2 t. Tom 3: Pechati, zaregistrirovannye v 1970-1996 gg. Moscow, 1998, pp. 25-26; PSRL, Vol. 2, Folio 792 obv. The right to use stamps was traditionally considered to be one of the symbols of legal right, nobility, upper socio-political status, and of belonging to the layer of those in power. In both Rus’ and in Western Europe, suspended lead seals became regalia of state power.^[10]Klimanov, L.G. Vizantijskie otrazhenija v sfragistike. St. Petersburg, 1999, p. 12. Bishops were no exception and, like their secular sovereigns and feudal lords,^[11]With all of the anachronism and conventions around this term in relation to the realities of medieval Rus’ in the 11th-13th centuries, so far this is the only way to identify the social status of leaders from the period under review. they had the right to use them. In general, episcopal seals were, if not of a single type, then at least created according to common church patterns. From the second half of the 11th century onward, the most important feature of episcopal seals was the use of the image of the Holy Virgin. Under the conditions by which the rules for the use of symbols and signs were strictly regulated in the church-state system of Byzantine society, these changes had far-reaching consequences.

A seal with the image of Christ from the time of the Macedonian dynasty became the privilege of the emperor, serving as a reflection of that sacred idea and as a reminder “of the subordination of the Basileus^[12]jeb: Greek: emperor to the heavenly order.^[13]Zholive-Levi, K. “Obraz vlasti v iskusstve epokhi makedonskoj dinastii (867-1056).” Vizantijskij vremenik. Moscow, 1988, p. 144. For samples of these imperial seals, see: Sokolova, I.V. Pechati vizantijskikh imperatorov: katalog kollektsii. St. Petersburg, 2007, pp. 50-68.. Naturally, the image of Our Lady personified a similar order in relation to the church and its hierarchs. This state of affairs was fixed decisively by the late 11th century, when symbols of patriarchal authority (names assigned to specific patriarchs of the saints) disappeared from metropolitan and episcopal bullae (metallic seals).^[14]Janin, V.L. Aktovye pechati…, Tom 1: Pechati X – nachala XIII v. Moscow, 1970, pp. 46, 53. These consolidated changes unequivocally demonstrated the increasing role of the church, in essence, announcing its own “motherhood” with respect to imperial power. In Rus’, it is true, this tradition acquired its own specifics.

Before the beginning of the 12th century, Russian princes did not place the face of the Savior on their seals, as the emperors did. Beginning already with Sviatopolk Okajanny^[15]jeb: Sviatopolk I of Kiev, ruled 1015-1019 and Jaroslav the Wise^[16]jeb: ruled 1019-1054, who desired to see the apostle Peter and St. George the Victorious respectively on their own bullae and coins, the Rjurikovichi princes typically used images of their heavenly patrons.^[17]jeb: Changes in the choice of symbolism that occurred following the death of Vladimir Sviatoslavich fit in well with the patterns which F.B. Uspenskij found to be characteristic of the era. When analyzing the symbolism used on medieval seals and coins, this outstanding scholar noted: “However, as far as the ruling dynasties are concerned, naive admiration of neophytes, even during critical periods of history, was as a rule very quickly replaced by political pragmatism, on the one hand, and the desire, on the other, to demonstrate a full development of new cultural stereotypes. In other words, every object or image related to the everyday life of the ruling family immediately began serving to legitimize its power. In an era of change, just as before, the right to power was determined by belonging to a clan that already had had power from one generation to another. <…> Many types of medieval metaphors and emblems were born precisely in the collision of these various origins and in reflection of proper names.” (Uspenskij, F.B. “REX LUDENS, Onomasticheskie sharady srednevekovykh gosudarej.” Vlast’ i obraz: ocherki potestarnoj imagologii. St. Petersburg, 2010, p. 49.). The two exceptions are the Christener of Rus’, Vladimir Sviatoslavich,^[18]jeb: Vladimir the Great, ruled 980-1015 who did not refuse the direct use of imperial symbols on his coins and bullae,^[19]See the article by V.L. Janin and samples of bullae: Janin, V.L. Aktovye pechati…, Vol. 3, pp. 13-25, 16 (illus. 2), 259-260 (tab. 12)., and Jaroslav Vsevolodovich,^[20]jeb: Jaroslav II of Vladimir, ruled 1238-1246 who also placed the image of Christ on his seal.^[21]See further: Janin, V.L. Aktovye pechati…, Tom 2: Novgorodskie pechati XIII-XV vv. Moscow, 1970, pp. 156, 255 (illus 370, 371); Uspenskij, F.B. REX LUDENS. Onomasticheskie sharady…, p. 61-63. Together with these, as has already been mentioned, by the second half of the 11th century, the image of the Virgin Mary became a general symbol of the church’s hierarchical power. In this case, Russian metropolitans and bishops followed the tendency that already existed in the empire.^[22]V.L. Janin comes to the conclusion that the enfolding and consolidation to a single symbolism of bullae for Russian archbishops, the image of the Holy Virgin, occurred at the turn of the 11th-12th centuries. (Janin, V.L. Aktovye pechati…, Vol. 1, p. 53). See bullae of the church hierarchs: ibid. pp. 253-254, illus. 5, 6; Janin, V.L. Aktovye pechati…, Vol. 3, pp. 27-38, 261-262, tables 3, 4. For example, the oldest Novgorod episcopal seal, found in 2005 and belonging to Nikita (1096-1109) already bore the image of the Mother of God, with a prayer addressed to her: “Have mercy on Nikita, Pastor of Novgorod.”^[23]Janin, V.L. “Drevnejshaja novgorodskaja vladychnaja pechat’.” Vizantijskie ocherki. St. Petersburg, 2006, p. 231. But, if Byzantine ecclesiastical-political practice used the faces of the Savior and of the Holy Virgin to express the harmony and symphony between the worldly (imperial) and ecclesiastical (patriarchal) principles of the empire, this did not occur on Russian soil, as hierarchically speaking, the Holy Virgin surpasses all of the heavenly orders of angels and saints, the images of which were stamped on the seals of the Russian princes. Rus’ had no concept of this symphony of power, toward the existence of which she had neither a clear state institutions, nor canonically aligned church institutions. Therefore, even Metropolitan Hilarion’s comparison of Vladimir Svjatoslavich to Moses^[24]Hilarion draws a direct comparison between the labors of Vladimir and the giving of the Law to Israel by Moses. But, in this case, the flourishing state of Christianity under Jaroslav the Wise, regarded as a triumph of Grace, is likened to the baptism of Rus’ in the name of Christ: “For the law brought those who were under the law to the grace of baptism, and baptism brings its sons into life everlasting. After all, Moses and the prophets preached about the coming of Christ, and Christ and his apostles preached about resurrection and about life in the future century.” (“Slovo o Zakone i Blagodati mitropolita Ilariona.” Pamjatniki obschestvennoj mysli Drevnej Rusi: v 23 t. Tom 1: Domongol’skoj period. Moscow, 2010, p. 175.) and Kiev to New Jerusalem^[25]Danilevskij, I.N. Drevnjaja Rus’ glazami sovremennikov i potomkov (IX-XII vv.). Moscow, 2 did not suggest a similar identification of the priesthood and higher clergy with the images of Aaron and the Levites as can be traced, for example, in the Byzantine ecclesiastical art of the Macedonian period.^[26]On images of Moses and Aaron in Byzantine imperial artwork, see: Zholive-Lev, K. Obraz vlasti…, pp. 71-78). In this respect, the symbols fixed on the bullae of the Russian church hierarchs turned out to have higher status and significance. As a result, the actions of Svjatopolk Izjaslavich, who V.L. Janin believes tried to unify the images used on princely and episcopal seals, seem quite justified. It is possible that the prince well understood the symbolism of the seals and, with the introduction of uniform requirements for episcopal seals, hoped to prevent the political strengthening of the episcopate and prevent Byzantine snobbery.

Credentials

Medieval church rules unequivocally state that when moving from one diocese to another, clerics (including bishops) were required to have a “representative letter” certifying identity and rights of that deacon, presbyter or bishop.^[27]This is reported in the 12th, 15th and 16th apostolic rules (Pravila Pravoslavnoj Tserkvi s tol’kovanijami Nikodema, episkopa Dalmatinsko-Istrijskogo. Vol. 1. Moscow, 1911, pp. 71-78). Therefore, it is natural to expect that Byzantine hierarchs arriving in Rus’ would have carried similar documents. In favor of this idea that hierarchs would have had these letters, is the fact that these hierarchs frequently served as legates. In addition, this Byzantine practice, based on Greek snobbery, did not assume the role of personal initiative seen in the Romans’ baptism of the barbarians. On the contrary, it called for the organization of Christian missions to the lands of the barbarians, to which Rus’ no doubt also belonged,^[28]In the writings of Photius and Konstantin Porphyrogenitus, the people of Rus’ grew up as “scary” wild barbarians, “leaving everyone behind in ferocity and bloodshed.” (“Okruzhnoe poslanie Fotija , patriarkha Konstantinopol’skogo, k vostochnym arkhierejskim prestolam, a imenno – Aleksandrijskomu i prochaja.” Drevnjaja Rus’ v svete zarubezhnykh istochnikov: v 5 t. Tom 2: Vizantijskie istochniki. Moscow, 2010, p. 132; Konstantine Bagrjanorodnyj. “Ob upravlenii imperiej.” ibid. p. 157). to be initiated by the petitioners themselves, and was typically preceded by the conclusion of various arrangements between the emperor and the leaders of the new nations desiring to enter Constantinople’s orbit.^[29]It was to these very conclusions that S.A. Ivanov arrived. See further: Ivanov, S.A. Vizantijskoe missionerstvo: Mozhno li sdelat’ iz «varvara» khristianina? Moscow, 2003. Obviously, this procedure would extend to the process to establish a new episcopate. A set of written letters related to the creation of the Smolensk bishopric, accompanied by the conclusion of a written contract, can serve as confirmation of this development.^[30]“Smolenskie gramoty kafedral’noj tserkvi Bogoroditsy.” Drevnerusskie knjazheskie ustavy XI-XV vv. Moscow, 1976, pp. 140-146; Schapov, Ja.N. Knjazheskie ustavy i tserkov’ v Drevnej Rusi. XI-XIV vv. Moscow, 1972, pp. 136-149. As for these “representative letters,” not a single example has survived to modern times. However, traces of some activity that had public significance and certified or, on the contrary, refused to certify the authority of church hierarchs can be seen in Patriarch Luka Chrysoverga’s letter and form of address to Andrej Jurievich Bogoljubskij.^[31]This letter was addressed not only to Andrej, but also to the episcopate, as well as Kievan Prince Mstislav Izjaslavich who, satisfied with the Patriarch’s actions which undermined not only the ecclesiastical but also political claims by Andrej, “sent” the Patriarch “many gifts”. (PSRL, Vol. 9, pp. 223-230; RIB, Vol. 6, Part 1, Folios 63 obv-76 obv).

The absence of surviving credentials, however, leads to the idea that their use in Rus’, where the number of bishops was extremely limited^[32]The conclusions by A.V. Kartashev, O.M. Rapov, and Ja.N. Schapov allow us to say with certainty that by the beginning of the Mongol invasion in Russia, 15 episcopates had arisen – 16 if we include the episcopate of Tmutarakan, whose entry into the Rus’ metropolitan and subordination to the Metropolitan of Kiev is still in doubt and does not have sufficient supporting evidence. By the second half of the 12th century, the territory of the principality of Tmutarakan was absorbed by the “Polovtsian sea,” as N.F. Kotljar put it figuratively (Kartaschev, A.V. Sobranie sochinenij: v 2 t. Tom 1: Ocherki po istorii russkoj tserkvi. Moscow, 1992, pp. 182-183; Rapov, O.M. Russkaja tserkov’ v IX – pervoj treti XII v.: Prinjatie khristianstva. Moscow, 1998, pp. 208-377; Schapov, Ja.N. Gosudarstvo i tserkov’ Drevnej Rusi XI-XIII vv. Moscow, 1989, pp. 33-55). As a result, the question of the Tmutarakan episcopacy as a part of the Kiev Metropolis remains open. and the departments themselves were unstable,^[33]T.Ju. Fomina has drawn attention to the fact that there are frequent examples in the Chronicles where some bishop seats were empty for extended periods of time, for example, Vladimir-Volyn (1094-1105), Galicia (1165-1235), Peremysl (1225-1241), Ugrovsk (after 1238). Moreover, by a certain stage in the middle of the 11th century, the center of the Rostov bishopric was mobile (Suzdal’, Rostov, Vladimir). In this researcher’s opinion, the causes of this described phenomenon have not yet received comprehensive study. was hardly widespread. Therefore, it would seem, there existed other means for verifying the legitimacy or canonicity of the authority of this or that bishop.

Reports from some sources suggest that, for medieval Russian hierarchs and their contemporaries, more convincing evidence of the legitimacy of the rights and authority of bishops were not written certificates, but special procedures, to which strict adherence served as the strongest argument in favor of the canonical power of a given bishop. These procedures were a particular method of ascent to office: the arrival of the hierarch, the procedure for their election, and their elevation. The significance of these formal actions is confirmed by the records of Metropolitan Hilarion, who reports that he received ordination by the will of “the pious bishops,”^[34]Hilarion, St. Metropolitan. Slovo o Zakone i Blagodati. Moscow, 1994, p. 113. and in a report about the facts of the cathedral, mentions that they had elected Kliment Smoljatich. In the case of Metropolitan Kliment, one more step was used: his elevation to the metropolitan office was carried out using the head of St. Clement, the Roman pope.^[35]”And Onofrii of Chernigov said: I shall bring us together to suggest how to become like Greece by the hand of St. John, and having thus judged, the bishop was made metropolitan, by the glory of St. Clement. (PSRL, Vol. 2, Folio 341 obv.) In both cases, attention was paid to the communality of the decision.^[36]PSRL, Vol. 2, Folios 143 obv., 340 obv-341 obv. No less significant is a report in the Chronicle on the circumstances of the arrival in Kiev of Metropolitan Constantine, who was received by the Grand Prince.^[37]PSRL, Vol. 2, Folio 485 obv. The ritualized elevation of this new high priest to the office once again emphasized the legitimacy of this new head of the medieval Russian ecclesiastical organization. Given the uncertainty of the canonical status of those seeking the right to serve the preeminent medieval Russian throne, such attention to formal nuances is quite justified.^[38]On the ecclesiastical-political struggle for the Kiev Metropolitanate in 1147-1159, cf: Makarij (Bulgakov), Metropolitan. Istorija Russkoj Tserkvi: istorija Russkoj Tserkvi v period sovershennoj zavisimosti ee ot Konstantinopol’skogo patriarkhata (988-1240). Vol. 2. Moscow, 1995, pp. 289-284 [sic]; Golubinskij, E.E. Istorija Russkoj Tserkvi: v 2 t. Tom 1: Period pervyj, Kievskij ili domongol’skij. Part 1, Moscow, 1901, pp. 300-316; Tolochko, P.P. “Strasti po mitropolitam kievskim.” ΑΝΤΙΔΩΡΟΝ: sb. st. v chest 75-letija G.G. Litavrina. St. Petersburg, 2003, pp. 110-118; Litvina, A.F. “Trajektorija traditsij: glavy iz istorii dinastii i tserkvi na Rusi kontsa XI – nachala XIII v. Moscow, 2010, pp. 21-137. In some cases, the chronicles mention not only the arrival of a new metropolitan, but also their elevation.^[39]Regarding the metropolitans, three cases of “elevation” or “enthronement” are known: Hilarion (Hilarion, St. Metropolitan. Slovo o Zakone i Blagodati…, p. 113), Nikifor (PSRL, Vol. 2, folio 256 obv.), Kliment Smoljatich (PSRL, Vol. 2, folios 340 obv – 341 obv).

The Novgorod chronicles, which recorded many such details, are particularly valuable in this regard: the election of proteges, the fact of their departure to Kiev, and the dates of their return to the city of St Sophia.^[40]Arkadij departed for Kiev in 1158 and returned to Kiev on 13 September (PSRL, Vol. 3, p. 217). About Il’ja, it is known that elevated by Metropolitan Ioann on 28 March and returned to his diocese on 11 May 1165 (PSRL, Vol. 3, p. 219). Gavriil was ordained in Kiev on 29 March, and returned to Novgorod on 31 May. Martirij’s ordination occured on 10 December 1193, and by 16 January, he had already returned to the banks of the Volkov (PSRL, Vol. 3, p. 232). This order was partially broken during the overthrow of Mitrofan and the selection of Antonij in 1211. But, when the monk Arsenij (1223) was elected to the archbishop’s seat, the previously established order was restored. Similarly, the arrivals or departures of Novgorod hierarchs who were promoted in Kiev, or, on the other hand, whose rights required special consideration and approval by the metropolitan, were noted.^[41]For example, this touched on the circumstances of Bishop Il’ja’s elevation to archbishop. The Chronicle reports the event solemnly and specifies the dates of consecration (28 March) and of His Lordship’s return to Novgorod (11 May) (PSRL, Vol. 3, p. 219). But, the most remarkable ritual by which new Novgorod archbishops asserted their power, their introduction to the court of St. Sophia, was carried out by special procedure.^[42]During the election of Arkadij in 1156, the Novgorodians “entered, and entrusted in him the position of bishop in the courtyard of St. Sophia.” At the same time, the Chronicle describes with protocol accuracy the order of elections the vocations of the protégés, and also lists all those who participated in this event: all of the people, Prince Mstislav Jur’evich, all of St. Sophia’s clergy, all of the city’s priests, hegumenes, and monks (PSRL, Vol. 3, p. 216). With similarly meticulous detail, the Chronicles also reported Gavriil’s election to the bishopric (PSRL, Vol. 3, p. 228), and after his death, in 1193, that of Manturija (Matirija) (PSRL, Vol. 3, pp. 231-232). In 1200, in the same way, Mitrofan, who had previously lost in the elections to his predecessor, was elevated to archbishop (PSRL, Vol. 3, pp. 238-239). Similarly, in 1223, Arsenij was elevated to the Lordship’s seat (PSRL, Vol. 3, p. 263). At the same time, after each election, they were all solemnly elevated to the Lordship’s court. Only after this did the Novgorodians inform the Metropolitan about their selection.

Titles and Orders

An equally-important attribute of the socio-political position and canonical powers of the highest ecclesiastical personages are their titles and the external signs of hierarchical value: their vestments, distinctive and specific elements of their “wardrobe,” and so forth. Prior to its recognition by Constantine, the very early church did not know divisions between bishops by rank, titles, and their attendant external forms of distinction, which was well known in the Middle Ages, and has survived until today. But, as church institutions became part of the empire, bishops began to adopt the same symbols of power and distinction which corresponded to the traditions of secular dignitaries. The specific administrative-territorial organization of the eastern regions of the Roman empire, or later of Byzantium, defined as a principle the territorial-canonical organization of ecclesiastical life, the hierarchy of its districts, and the complex of powers and external symbols of its hierarchs’ rights of honor. To an extent, this order of canonical organization of the upper church leadership was inherited by Rus’. But, the Byzantine system of organization was faced with a slew of difficulties here, as is noted in historiography. First of all, the principles of organization of Byzantine diocesan organization did not correspond to the local forms of leadership and the territorial divisions of medieval Russian territories, lands and principalities. Secondly, in eastern Slavic society, the power of the metropolitan and of the bishops was significantly limited, when faced with the wide canonical autonomy of the monasteries and royal churches. As a result, the ecclesiastical titulature of the bishops, to a greater or lesser degree, bore the imprint of a certain otherness and distinction which was filled with a real content of canonical power. Nevertheless, in both the princely and church environment of Rus’, the value of high church rank was well understood, and was simultaneously seen as a request for the expansion of church and political rights for this or that territory.

Examples of these pretenses are few, but illuminating. For the first time, the problem of elevating the bishop’s title (rank) was realized in relation to the Primate of Kiev. The question of what title was originally born by the head of the Russian church, archbishop or metropolitan, has been an item of much discussion.^[43]There are several opinions in the historiography of this subject. Their main sources are the various interpretations of news about the opposition of the children of Vladimir Svjatoslavich, and about the Russian archbishop who met the troops of Svjatopolk Boleslav’s union and who carried out a diplomatic mission to Yaroslav (Titmar Merzeburgskij. “Khronika.” Drevnjaja Rus’ v svete zarubezhnykh istochnikov. Vol. 4: Zapadnoevropejskie istochniki. Moscow, 2010, pp. 81, 83.) Some of the judgments come down to the fact that, until 1037, the medieval Russian church was organized either as an archdiocese, or as some kind of mission with a structure that is difficult to define. It is true that the issue of the possible evolution and probable canonical jurisdiction of the archdiocese or mission may be resolved in a number of different ways (Prisjolkov, M.D. Ocherki po tserkovno-politicheskoj istorii Kievskoj Rusi X-XII vv. St. Petersburg, 2003, pp. 24-47; Kuz’min, A.G. Kreschenie Rusi. Moscow, 2004, pp. 21-77; Gajdenko, P.I. Stanovlenie vysshego tserkovnogo upravlenija v Kievskoj Rusi… Ekaterininburg, 2011, p. 148). A more traditional point of view, supported by ecclesiastical research, is that Rus’ initially acquired the status of a metropolitanate, from the moment of its official baptism. This theory was substantiated scientifically by the work of A.V. Nazarenko. This scientist led no less convincing arguments in favor of the fact that in the Western European canonical consciousness, the titles of Archbishop and Metropolitan were essentially interchangeable (see further: Nazarenko, A.V. Drevnjaja Rus’ na mezhdunarodnykh putjakh: mezhdistsiplinarnye ocherki kul’turnykh, torgovykh, politicheskikh svjazej IX-XII vv. Moscow, 2001, pp. 311-338; Titmar Merzeburgskij, Khronika…, pp. 81, 83). But, regardless of the answer, the actions of Jaroslav the Wise led to a consolidation of the Russian church under the rank of metropolitan.^[44]PSRL, Vol. 2, Folios 139 obv – 141 obv. It is apparent that in the second half of the 11th century, the medieval Rus’ political elite fully realized and accepted the idea that the title of Metropolitan corresponded to the title of Grand Prince or a complete political suzerainty. This can explain the creation and existence of two more metropolitans, in Chernigov and Pereslavl, in the 1070s-1090s.^[45]On the simultaneous existence of 3 metropolitanates in Rus’, see: Prisjolkov, M.D. Ocherki po tserkovno-politicheskoj… pp. 73, 79-80, 83; Gajdenko, P.I. Ocherki istorii tserkovno-gosudarstvennykh otnoshenij v Kievskoj Rusi: stanovlenie vysshego tserkovnogo upravlenija (1037-1093 gg.). Kazan’, 2006, pp. 84-115; Nazarenko, A.V. Drevnjaja Rus’ i slavjane. Moscow, 2009, pp. 207-245. What is more, in Pereslavl, their right to the metropolitan was justified historically.^[46]PSRL, Vol. 1, Folio 208 obv. No matter how you qualify the canonical rights of the Chernigov and Pereslavl metropolitans – either titular (cf. A.V. Nazrenko) or real (cf. P.I. Gajdenko) – the desires of the princes and bishops to secure higher hierarchical status for their departments and for themselves is obvious.

Another example of active attempts to raise the canonical position of the pulpit the rank of its head bishop is the dramatic history of the efforts by Prince Andrej Bogoljubskij and his favorite bishop, Feodor, to establish a new metropolitan center in Vladimir.^[47]PSRL, Vol. 1, Folio 355 obv – 357 obv; Makarij (Bulgakov), Metropolitan. Istorija Russkoj Tserkvi. Vol. 2, pp. 295-296; Golubinskij, E.E. Istorija Russkoj tserkvi…, Vol. 1, Part 1, pp. 439-443; Voronin, N.N. Andrej Bogoljubskij. Moscow, 2007, pp. 84-118. V. Milkov, who linked this subject with earlier news about Hilarion, Luka Zhidjat and Climent Smoljatich, is almost certainly correct. All of these stories are united by the idea of the creation of church autonomy.^[48]See further: Mil’kov, V.V. “Dukhovnaja druzhina russkoj avtokefalii: Ilarion Kievskij.” Rossija XXI v. 2009 (4), pp. 112-157; (5) pp. 98-121. Moreover, in each of these cases, the most important sign of the existence of canonical and political authority was the fact that the bishop held the rank of metropolitan.

It is true that, with regard to Novgorod, this problem proved easier and more efficient to resolve. This was facilitated by the circumstances which led to Kliment Smoljatich assumed the Metropolitan throne of Kiev. What happened was not agreed upon by Constantinople. Novgorod’s grecophile bishop, Nifont, was an open opponent of the new Russian primate, having rejected the canonicity of Climent’s election and having rejected the opportunity to perform the liturgy with the new metropolitan.^[49]PSRL, Vol. 1, Folio 315 obv.; Vol. 2, Folios 340-342, 483-484; Vol. 3, p. 214; “Kievo-Pecherskij paterik.” Biblioteka literatury Drevnej Rusi. Vol. 4, St. Petersburg, 2004, pp. 352-355. As a result of this conflict, Nifon became allied with the Patriarch.^[50]This is confirmed by Chronicle reports about the Patriarch’s letter to Nifont (PSRL, Vol. 2, Folio 484 obv.; Kievo-Pecherskij Paterik…, pp. 352-353; “Gramota tsaregradskogo patriarkha (Nikolaja Muzalona) k novgorodskomu episkopu Nifontu.” Istorija Russkoj Tserkvi. Vol. 2, p. 581.) The Novgorodian bishop was elevated to archbishop, and his region was reassigned to the Constantinople metropolitanate, which suited Novgorod’s political ambitions. And, although the title of a powerful archbishop was not automatically inherited by successors after death, this did not prevent the Novgorodians from assuming the right to to elect their own bishops.^[51]PSRL, Vol. 3, Folio 216 obv.; Janin, V.L. Ocherki istorii srednevekovogo Novgoroda. Moscow, 2008, pp. 63, 78. In 1165, with promises and gifts, Novgorod finally received a special rite of honor from the Kiev metropolitan – the establishment of the designation of their local hierarch as archbishop.^[52]Golubinskij, E.E. Istoria Russkaja Tserkvi... Vol. 1., part 1, p. 443; PSRL, Vol. 3, p. 219; Tatischev, V.N. Istorija Rossijskaja, v 3 t. Vol. 2. Moscow, 2005, p. 331. In reality, it was not a full-fledged archdiocese, but rather one in name only,^[53]In the period under study, archbishop was the rank or title of the primate of a local autonomous church or of a national district which had several bishops and reported directly to the Patriarch (Tsypin, V. “Archiepiskop.” Pravoslavnaja entsiklopedija [PE]. Vol 3. Moscow, 2001, pp. 530-531.) When His Lordship Il’ja was elevated to Archbishop, Novgorod was denied the subordination of the bishops of Smolensk and Polotsk to its archdiocese. In addition, this title was presented not in the name of the Patriarch, but in the name of the Metropolitan. With these steps, both the Metropolitan and the Grand Prince strove to prevent the political and canonical powers of Novgorod and its seat from multiplying further (Tatyschev, V.N. Istorija Rossijskaja… Vol 2, p. 331)., but under the conditions of medieval Rus’, even this arrangement opened wide administrative, political, and canonical possibilities for the city and its seat. Suffice it to say that the title of lordship [“vladyka“] was first assimilated by the bishops of Novgorod.

The typical title of bishop was also greatly valued, as it opened to its holder immense material and canonical legal opportunities. They aspired to this title, and having achieved it, they were prepared to defend the right to wear it by all available means.^[54]Examples of such protection can be traced particularly well in the middle and second half of the twelfth century. These include the maneuvering of the Bishop of Smolensk Manuel, who first spoke out against the ordination of Clement Smolyatich, who later “ran” for the Russian Primate, and finally met the new Greek Metropolitan Constantine (PSRL. Vol. 2, pp. 341, 485). Similar diplomacy can be traced in the described conflict around the name of Clement Smolyatich in the actions of the Polotsk bishop, who tried to find a common language not only with Nifonot and Klim, but also the Greek Konstantin (PSRL. Vol. 2, p. 485; RIB. Vol. 6, part 1. Folio 33 obv. [Kirik. 43]; “Voproshanie Kirikovo.” Kirik Novgorodets: uchenyj i myslitel’. Moscow, 2011, p. 417 [Kirik. 43]; Gajdenko, P.I. “Komentarii.” ibid. p. 444 [81]; The actions of the Chernigov Bishop Anthony, vainly striving not to admit to the bishopric of Pechersk Abbot Pachomius and for the sake of eliminating an opponent who did not disdain any unworthy bishop by the actions expressed in the “Metropolitan’s Iniquity”, are no less obvious and obvious. Finally, the intentions and steps of bishop Leon, who did not disdain in any way in order to get and keep the Suzdal department, were clear (ПСРЛ. Vol. 1. Folio 354 obv.; Gajdenko, P.I. “Tserkovnye sudy v Drevnej Rusi (XI – serediny XIII v.): neskol’ko nabljudenij.” Vestnosti Cheljabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. 2011 (12) Issue 45, pp. 106-116; ibid., “Vnutritserkovnye konflikty v domongol’skoj Rusi: prichiny vozniknovenija i sposoby preodolenija.” Vestnik Ekaterinburgskoj dukhovnoj seminarii. 2012, issue 2, pp. 40-59); the spread of simony (bribery) in the episcopal environment in the second half of the 12th century resulted from the bishops’ struggle to maintain their positions (on evil and simony amongst the episcopate of medieval Rus’, see: Romanov, B.A. Ljudi i nravy Drevnej Rusi: istoriko-bytovye ocherki XI-XIII vv. Moscow, 2002, pp. 150-154. It is important to note that the presence of bishops in the orbit of the princes already by the 12th century not only contributed to the archbishop’s authority, but also strengthened the position of the prince. The most clearly named characteristic of episcopal-princely relations manifested itself during the during church celebrations in 1072 and 1115. At that time, bishops who arrived for festivals came as part of their princes’ retinues.^[55]PSRL, Vol. 1, Folios 171 obv., 280 obv. However, the creation and affirmation of the bishops in the prince’s circle supported not only purely ecclesiastical goals, but also political: the rise of certain lands and the princely clans which ruled them. Other examples are also interesting – the emergence of a bishopric under Vladimir Svjatoslavich,^[56]Gajdenko, P.I. “K voprosu o tserkovnoj sobstvennosti i tserkovnykh dokhodakh v Kievskoj Rusi (postanovka problemy).” Finno-ugry – Slavjane – Tjurki: Opyt vzaimodejstvija (traditsii i novatsii). from: Materials of the All-Russian Scientific Conference. Udmurtskij Institute of History, Language and Literature UrO RAN, UdGU. Izhevsk, 2009, pp. 624-631. and the establishment of bishoprics in Smolensk and Vladimir.^[57]Schapov, Ja.N. “Knjazheskie ustavy i tserkov’ v Drevnej Rusi. Moscow, 1972, pp. 136-149; Dvornichenko, A.Ju. Russkoe pravoslavie: ot kreschenija do patriarshestva. St. Petersburg, 2012, pp. 102-108.

It is important to note that the presence of bishops in the orbit of the princes already by the 12th century not only contributed to the archbishop’s authority, but also strengthened the position of the prince. The most clearly named characteristic of episcopal-princely relations manifested itself during the during church celebrations in 1072 and 1115. At that time, bishops who arrived for festivals came as part of their princes’ retinues.^[58]PSRL, Vol. 1, Folios 171 obv., 280 obv. However, the creation and affirmation of the bishops in the prince’s circle supported not only purely ecclesiastical goals, but also political: the rise of certain lands and the princely clans which ruled them. Other examples are also interesting – the emergence of a bishopric under Vladimir Svjatoslavich,^[59]Gajdenko, P.I. “K voprosu o tserkovnoj sobstvennosti i tserkovnykh dokhodakh v Kievskoj Rusi (postanovka problemy).” Finno-ugry – Slavjane – Tjurki: Opyt vzaimodejstvija (traditsii i novatsii). from: Materials of the All-Russian Scientific Conference. Udmurtskij Institute of History, Language and Literature UrO RAN, UdGU. Izhevsk, 2009, pp. 624-631. and the establishment of bishoprics in Smolensk and Vladimir.^[60]Schapov, Ja.N. “Knjazheskie ustavy i tserkov’ v Drevnej Rusi. Moscow, 1972, pp. 136-149; Dvornichenko, A.Ju. Russkoe pravoslavie: ot kreschenija do patriarshestva. St. Petersburg, 2012, pp. 102-108.

No less noteworthy was the use or assignment of secular titles to parts of the Russian primacy. This was a general church practice, known in both Western Europe, as well as in the lands of the Christian East. This reflected the involvement of the church and its priests in the political and social processes in their contemporary communities. Obviously, the Greek bishops who arrived in Rus’ would have retained their titles, which declared their status in the Byzantine palace hierarchy.

The titles of Russian bishops are known primarily through the Chronicles. As a rule, the bishop’s chair was designated, representing one saint or another.^[61]Examples of such designations of diocesan bishops in medieval Russian chronicles are numerous, so we will not present this abundance of citations. But, more to the point, titles are traced, first of all, in the rolls of the metropolises and dioceses of the Constantinople patriarchate, and secondly, in the texts of legends on bullae used by the bishops. If the bullae themselves were a manifestation of identity and belonging to the layer of those in power or having the right to perform specific socially and economically important actions, then the titles were a sign of “individuality,” used to highlight the specific rights of a specific representative of the Roman Empire and its church.^[62]On the problems of identification in medieval society and the emergence of individual symbols, see: Pasturo, Michel. Simvolicheskaja istorija evropejskogo Srednevekov’ja. St. Petersburg, 2012, pp. 227-240.

A purely ecclesiastical title typically indicated the rank of the bishop, the city where his seat was located, or, if the case concerned a metropolitan, the canonical region of his ministry. The latter case is of particular interest, since it defined the borders of the territory over which the bishop held full power. In this case, the legend on the bulla of Konstantin II (1167-1169), Metropolitan “of all Rus'” is significant, drawing attention to the fact that the power of the owner of that bulla extended to all of the lands of Rus’. V.L. Janin explained this addition to the Metropolitan’s title as a reaction to the autocephalist processes that were underway in Vladimir.^[63]Janin, V.L. Aktovye pechati... Vol. 1, p. 53; Vol. 3, pp. 21, 35-36. But, it’s possible that this matter was not only in Feodorets and the far-reaching plans of Andrej Bogoljubskij. Canonical separation of lands also sometimes occurred at earlier stages. For example, during the ecclesiastical-political conflict caused by the elevation of Climent Smoljatich, there actually existed two metropolitan centers in Rus’, forming around Climent and the Greek henchmen, supported by princely families which were vying amongst themselves. The signs of ecclesiastical-political autonomy of the territories are also present in other events. In the second half of the 12th century, the practice of townsfolk and princes electing candidates for the bishopric gained wide approval. Examples of such elections of candidates to fill vacant positions are noted not only in Novgorod, but also in other political centers: Turov, Smolensk, and Vladimir. Moreover, already in the 12th century, Metropolitan Nicephorus already held the title of “Archbishop of All Rus’,”^[64]Janin, V.L. Aktovye pechati... Vol. 1, p. 48 which was probably intended to overcome the existence of three Russian metropolitans by the end of the 11th century, and warned of the possibility of their dissolution. These processes of canonical autonomation of lands, which Constantinople and its metropolitans were unable to oppose, could not but help disturb the patriarchate. As a result, the appearance in the titles of Kievan archbishops of the “all Rus'” wording appears to have been a naturally occurring phenomenon, reminding local church and political elites about the canonical rights of the metropolitans.

Legends which preserve titles with a secular character (or a character which one can call “secular” or “civilian”) deserve closer scrutiny. Firstly, this concerns the bullae used by Metropolitans Efrem, Georgij, Nikolaj, Konstantin, and Ioann II. On the bullae, the bishops are designated not only as hierarchs of this or that territory, but also as court officials: prōtoproedros, proedros, synkellos, or prodromos.^[65]Efrem was called a protoproedros, Georgij was called a synkellos, Ioann II was called a prodromos, and Nikolaj and Konstantin were called proedros. (Janin, V.L. Aktovye pechati... Vol. 1, pp. 44-53.) Considering that Russian princes bore the modest title of “archon,” this led to an extremely sensitive situation, out of which, from the point of view of the church, the position of the metropolitan became of even higher status.

Even with the multitude of services and responsibilities in the Rus’ social ladder, the princely and episcopal courts of Kiev and other lands did not know the same diversity of posts and titles that were present in Byzantium, Rome, or a large portion of the royal courts of Western Europe.^[66]On the princely court in pre-Mongol Rus’, cf.: Tolochko, A.P. Knjaz’ v drevnej Rusi: vlast’, sobstvennost’, ideologija. Kiev, 1992; Kotljar, N.F. “Tseremonial, etiket i razvlichenija knjazheskogo dvora Romanovichej.” Drevnjaja Rus’: voprosy medievistiki. 2007(2). pp. 22-33; Kotljar, N.F. “Dvor galitskikh Romanovichej (XIII v.).” Drevnjaja Rus’. 2008(1). pp. 60-71; Kotljar, N.F. “Knjazheskaja administratsija v Drevnej Rusi.” Drevnjaja Rus’. 2010(3), pp. 33-47; On the bishop’s court (palace), cf.: Florja, B.N. “Arkhierejskij dom.” PE. Vol. 3, pp. 532-534. Most likely, the Russian tradition of titling, which did not have such an abundance of titles, limited the designation for significant and respected individuals was limited to the term “lord” [muzh]. Usually, this term of address was used with individuals associated with princely service. But, this social attribute can hardly be called a full-fledged title. Most likely, it was used by contemporaries as a marker of high social status^[67]About “lords” [muzhi], cf.: Sergeevich, V.I. Drevnosti russkogo prava v 3 t. Tom 1: Territorija i naselenie. Moscow, 2006, pp 152-156. and was used to denote that a person was of “generous” and “noble” birth. This is why Ioann II,^[68]Metropolitan of Kiev and of All Rus’, 1078-1089 whose noble birth was likely known to contemporaries, was referred to as “lord” in the Chronicles,^[69]PSRL, Vol. 2, Folio 199 obv.; Nazarenko, A.V. “Ioann II.” PE. Vol. 23. Moscow, 2010, p. 471. which we can assume was in recognition of his high social status in the court of the Grand Prince. In any event, Ioann is the first Russian metropolitan whose death was recorded.

However, there was a specific ecclesiastical title which arose in Rus’, by which some bishops who held wide political and canonical-legal powers were addressed – “lordship” [vladyka]. Most likely, the range of powers of a lord arose as a result of princely or urban investiture, delegating a wide range of powers to the bishops. According to sources, in the late 12th-mid 13th centuries, the title “lordship” is mentioned in reference to the bishops of Novgorod, Smolensk,^[70]“Zhitie Avraamija Smolenskogo.” Biblioteka literatury Drevnej Rusi. Vol. 5. St. Petersburg, 2005. pp. 44, 45, 52, 53., Rostov,^[71]PSRL, Vol. 1, Folio 355 obv., Vladimir^[72]PSRL, Vol. 3, Folio 287., and Peremyshl’.^[73]PSRL, Vol. 2, Folio 793.

The observations above suggest that the existing forms to represent episcopal power were aimed at ensuring the socio-political status of the episcopate. Inherited from Byzantine practices, these variations of declaring the status and powers of medieval Russian bishops were reflected in local canonical and legal consciousness. Moreover, these forms and manifestations became an answer to the difficult social-political situation in Rus’. With Byzantine stubbornness and Greek diplomatic persistence, and through a variety of ways of demonstrating its authority, the episcopate sowed the idea of its equality with, and sometimes precedence over, princely authority. Its result was the appearance of a particular phenomenon – the institute of “lordship:” bishops endowed with a breadth of not only canonical, but also socio-economic, political, and legal rights.