CC BY
33P. I. Gaydenko
About bishopic monasteries and eparchs' rights to Kievan Rus monasteries
Одним из важнейших институтов древнерусской церковной организации и древнерусского государства были монастыри. При том, что в историографии деятельность монашеских общин восточнославянского общества уже неоднократно становилась предметом специального научного исследования, многие стороны жизни древнерусского иночества остаются ещё не вполне выясненными. К числу таких областей вполне могут быть отнесены вопросы отношения монашества и епископата, а также деятельность епископских обителей.
Жизнь древнерусских монастырей обладала не только своими особенностями, но и во многом повторяла ситуацию в Византии. В империи роме-ев противоречия между епископатом и монастырями также существовали. Однако на Руси клубок этих внутрицерковных конфликтов был сложнее, поскольку здесь не существовало развитого внутреннего письменного права, не менее остро стоял вопрос и о комплексе канонических норм. В сложившихся условиях широкой автономии древнерусского иночества епископат был вынужден предпринимать усилия по созданию собственных обителей.
В представленной статье предпринята попытка обозначить ряд особенностей в принципах организации и деятельности древнерусских епископских монастырей.
Ключевые слова: Киевская Русь; Древнерусская церковь; каноническое право Древней Руси; древнерусские монастыри; епископские монастыри Древней Руси; церковно-государственные отношения Древней Руси; внутрицерковные отношения в Древней Руси
The problem of the relationship between ancient monasteries and monks and the episcopate is not new and has many a time drawn the attention of researchers of ancient Russian Church. The reason for such attention were various conflicts that regularly arose between monks and Old Russian archpastors on a variety of aspects and, first of all, on hierarchal intervention into internal affairs of religious communities. The presence of such conflicts can be seen in the chronicles and hagiographical reports about the life of
Kiev Monastery of the Caves1 or on the basis of the will of Anthony the Roman who forbade outsiders, including bishops, to interfere in electing a new hegumen2. An equally negative characterization of episcopal invasion into the affairs of a convent is seen in the spell inscribed on the Cross of Saint Euphrosyne of Polotsk (Гайденко, Москалёва, Фомина 2013: 108-109). All this suggests that under the circumstances in 11-12th centuries, the hierarchs' intention to declare their authority and cover with episcopal omo-phorion those who have taken monastic vows, was sometimes perceived by contemporaries as something alien and violating the norms of monastic autonomy. In general, the above contradictions had arisen in the past, including at the dawn of Christianity. Moreover, they were not overcome in Byzantium either3.
If in Byzantium the problem of episcopal power over monasteries was accounted for mainly by economic factors, as well as the contradictions between the empire's canonical and legal norms relating to the monastic community as a voluntary associations or boards4, in Russia the tangle of issues was more complicated and contained threads of other difficulties.
The main reasons that for a long time complicated the situation of ancient Russian episcopate, included its utmost detachment not only from the life of the most part of its potential flock but from the clergy entrusted to it. The contents of the Questions of Kirik, of the canonical responses of metropolitans George and John make it clear that the most part of ancient Russian eparchs
1 A clear rebuke to bishops is contained in the Life of Theodosius of the Kiev Caves, that ridicules the bishops' inability to resist the wisdom of Theodosius of the Kiev Caves (ЖФП 1978: 382, 383). Equally reproachful sounds the chronicle of the "metropolitan untruth" in relation to Kiev Caves hegumen Polycarp (ПСРЛ. Т. 1: стб. 354).
2Actually, this prohibition most likely became essential after Anthony's death, when his successor Andrey was the hegumen (СЖПАР 2005: 269).
3For further information please refer to M.A.Morozov's paper (Морозов 2005: 106-121).
4For further information please refer to M.A.Morozov's paper (Морозов 2010: 77-87).
were very distanced from the Christian communities in their districts and almost did not personally interfere in the internal life of pastors under their control, not to mention the flock5. Such state of affairs resulted in a substantial freedom of behavior and action, including that in the monastic environment. The commensalities of monk and nuns, that became the subject of the metropolitan's special attention, as well as other specific aspects of monastic behavior, convincingly show that the inner life of monasteries, as well as the monks' behavior on the whole were hardly controlled by the episcopate (КОМИ 1880: стб. 14, 16-17; НС 2004: 254).
The cultural and socio-political realities of Byzantium and Rus also significantly differed. This means that the use of the imperial laws and canons in the territories of newly enlightened barbarians, and this is how Rus was regarded in the Empire of Romans6, did not seem possible. It's enough to note that the Byzantine system of church punishments in Rus for a long time remained ineffective and it was only used in exceptional cases and only in relation to the episcopate7. It is these circumstances that can account for the fact that in the Eastern Slavic society the episcopal court did not apply regular penances to those who have sinned but fines which were more familiar and understandable to the local population (УКЯ 1976: 85-91; Щапов 1972: 302-305; Щапов 1989: 36). The cultural differences that existed between Rus and Byzantium could not but affect the behavior and customs of the local monks that brought into the life of the institution the experience and preferences of the social environment from which this or that monk originated.
5More details on bishops' detachment from clergy life in Novgorod and Kirik the Novgorodian's duties see the work of Т. Fomina and P. Gaidenko (Гайденко, Фомина 2012: 83-92).
6More details on Greek-Byzantine concept of barbarism and on the Byzantians' attitude to Rus see S. Ivanov (Иванов 2003: 19-21, 169-172, 209-223).
7More details on ecclesiastical courts of the clergy and episcopate punishments see the work of V. Filippov and P. Gaidenko (Гайденко, Филиппов 2011: 106-111).
An equally challenging problem was the polyphony of jurisdictions represented in Rus: Constantinople, Roman, and Irish. In addition, part of the clergy was actually removed from under the bishopric omophorion and was under the jurisdiction of the princes, and even of the nobility. Finally, many monasteries had the broad powers of canonical autonomy, and the hierarchal power was next to none in relation to wandering monasticism. Thus, we can say that the power of the episcopate over much of the clergy remained purely nominal.
Apparently, church hierarchs neither were capable of controlling the religious activity of the Latin missionaries supported in the prince and boyar environment. Regular receptions of papal legates and missionaries at the court of the Grand Princes8 can well be considered not so much in the context of ecclesiastical tolerance as in the specific notions of the canonical structure of the church, that dwelt in the minds of the princely family (Koctpomhh 2015: 62-
8Missions serving the interests of papacy or German missions, as well as Latin missionaries and envoys vested with dignity, are evidenced by a wealth of Latin and Old Russian sources: the failing mission of bishop Adalbert (60s of 10th c.), pope's mission (1000), Bruno of Querfurt's mission to the Pechenegs (1007), the presence of Kolberg bishop Reinbern in Turov during the reign of Svyatopolk the Accursed (1016); French mission headed by bishops Roger of Chalon and Gautier de Meaux to Yaroslav the Wise's court; legation of bishop Burchard to Svyatoslav Yaroslavich (about 1075), finally, the arrival in 1203 of the pope's legate to Roman Mstyslavych's court (ПСРЛ. Т. 2: стб. 189-190; ПСРЛ. Т. 9: 68; Татищев 2005: 463-464; Бруно 2010: 55-62; Титмар 2010: 84; Адемар 2010: 88; Ламперт 2010: 120-121; ChSP 1863). At the same time, the presence of bishop Reinbern in Turov can hardly be regarded as something quite out of the ordinary. A similar canonical situation that, in fact, arose for entirely different political and canonical reasons, could be seen in the former Albanian and Bulgarian lands of the Byzantine Empire in the 13 th century. Whereupon, Reinbern's servise in Turov could hardly include a corresponding titulary. Most likely, his position in the lands of Prince Svyatopolk was different and was analogous to bishop Clement of Ohrid's service among Bulgarians, where it was carried out not on the area but on the ethnic basis (Мучай, Джуери, Ри-стани, Пентковский 2014: 15-17, 27-28).
68). Recognition of the important role of the Roman throne in the Ruriks princely family is evidenced by the mere fact of the recourse of Prince Izyaslav, who was exiled from Kiev, to Pope Gregory VII (ППГ 2010: 111-114; Макарий 1995: 281-282; Воейков 1983: 215, 222; Назаренко 2002: 534-537; Толочко 2003: 54-66). In any event, the antilatin controversy in Russia, formed in a narrow Greek circle, 9 shows stable sympathy for Western Christianity among ancient Russian political elites. Equally representative are the attempts of canonical regulation of the local Christians' attitude to Latin presence. In this regard, very indicative are the categoric prohibition by Metropolitan George to attend foreign worships and Kirik the Novgorodian's and bishop Niphont's disapproval for baptizing children by Latin priests (ВК 1880: стб. 60) At the same time, however, bishop Niphont saw nothing reprehensible in borrowing the practice of ordering liturgies from the Irish (ВК 1880: стб. 44). Probably, the latter was justified by material benefits.
However, all these examples allow us to conclude that in the eyes of Novgorod and Kiev (including cloisterers) Eastern and Western (European and Irish) rite church services were largely equivalent. There is no reason to believe that the activities of the Irish, South Europeans, Latin priesthood, and monasticism were taken as carrying a threat. Most likely, the local clergy did not take heterodox Christian sanctuaries and temples as territorial claims centers but rather as places for ethnic worship. Moreover, when summing up the canonical situation in Rus, we have to admit that currently available sources do not exemplify any restrictions of the
9 The number of antilatin works in the pre-Mongol period of Russian history is small, but all these are quite indicative and reveal numerous problems both in reconstruction of the past and in understanding of the processes of that time: (ПФП 2010: 295-297; Чичуров 2007: 107132; Мошин 1963: 87-105; ПВМ 2006: 129-139; ПЯМ 2006: 153-170; Павлов 1878; Голубинский 1901: 852-869; Подскальски 1996: 280303; Бармин 2006; Костромин 2011а: 6-97;. Костромин 2013а; Полянский 2006: 67-73; Мильков 2006: 152; Неборский 2006: 55-59).
9 «Не достоить в латыньстеи цркви стояти и пениа их слоуша-ти» (НС 2004: 241).
activities of Latin monkhood and clergy in Rus, whose cultural activity is easily traced in the life of Novgorod and Kiev (Мурья-нов 2007: 163-176; Кузьмин 2004: 173-203; Симонова 2011; Симонова 2014: 3-72; Костромин 2011b; Костромин 2015: 4875; Мильков, Симонов 2011: 30-79). Such a tolerant and even neighborly peaceful coexistence of foreign and local churches and hierarchies to a great extent helps to explain why Anastasios of Korsun chose to escape to Poland rather than to adopt a new canonical situation (ПСРЛ. Т. 2: стб. 131). Probably, to Anastasios, such a step, i.e. a departure, seemed to be the most painless way out of the predicament in which he found himself during the struggle between Svyatopolk and Yaroslav. Probably, the intrafamilial conflict and Yaroslav the Wise's victory resulted in strengthening of the Greek clergy in Kiev, which, most likely, was something that the famous Korsun priest feared most of all.
An equally calm and even friendly attitude to Roman episcopate seems to be found among eparchs, too. The respect and the benevolence, free of confrontation, with which Metropolitan John addressed antipope Clement III in his message, have long been noted10. It is obvious that southern Russian eparchs looked to Rome with the same hope during and in the first years after the Mongol invasion, declaring their willingness to see the Pope their "father" and "master" (Рубрук, Карпини 1911: 61; Галимов 2015: 95-100).
All the above leads to the conclusion of the highly variegated canonical picture of the church life of pre-Mongol Rus. This means that the relationship between the episcopate and monasteries were formed under the conditions of this polyphony which significantly complicated the activity and life of archpastors.
The question of the scope of rights of the eparchs over monasteries has time and again been risen in historiography. And to a large extent the answer to the problem formulated seems to be giv-
10This departure is reported in the Primary Chronicle (nCPH. T. 2: ct6. 131).
10 The position set out was most consistently reasoned by K. Ko-stromin: (Koctpomhh 2013b: 17).
en by Byzantine canon law. However, it should be noted that the problem of the scope of Byzantine canonical monuments used in pre-Mongol Russia has not been solved. And the most outstanding remains the question of the Corpus of Canon which could be considered as all-Russian and immutable to comply with11. However, did they exist at all?
Anyway, Yaroslav the Wise chose to introduce extremely original canonical norms in Russia, which, though concerned the issues of Christian morality, but were implemented based on principles that contradicted Byzantine clerical and state practice that has never known such a removal from the state jurisdiction (the princely Court in Russia) of so many different groups of people only on the basis of their poverty or formal relation to church activities. Byzantine canon law did not certainly know the canonical decrees of the Ecumenical Councils and a similar system of fines. In fact, nothing is known either about any princely decisions authorizing the activities of religious institutions in the Kievan Rus. Consequently, Byzantine canonical rules could be applied in Rus only in so far as they were recognized by church and princes of a certain church and political center. However, this in no way means that episcopate was not familiar with the basic canons. On the contrary, the Byzantians undoubtedly knew the legal aspects of the activities of religious institutions. As for the Old Russian episcopate, Niphont of Novgorod's answers to Kirik, as well as the referral of the authors of this Novgorod "Questions" to the authority of other eparchs, lead to the conclusion that some of Russian hier-archs (of local origin) also had quite a clear understanding of at least the basic church laws. However, the local episcopate, including Niphont, who compared to some of his fellows can be considered an expert in Greek law, were only familiar with the provisions of canonical law in the most general terms. Moreover, it is most likely that Old Russian eparchs had a vague understanding of the "spirit" of these laws. A striking example of this is Niphont's stand on election of Kliment Smolyatich. Then the eparch of Novgorod
11 The emergence of a single all-Russian set of canonical rules dates back only to the late 13th century (Щапов 1978: 135-208).
in his arguments substituted the canonical norms of metropolitan election and enthronement and holding councils (the majority democratism) with personal rights of the patriarch and local veche norms (absolute unanimity of decision-making) (ПСРЛ. Т. 2: стб. 340-341; Фомина 2014: 199).
Formally, regardless of the historical conditions of appearance of certain norms and the procedure for their application, a bishop had to have two essential rights over monasteries: 1) the right of approval of establishing a cloister and 2) the right of complete authority, supervision, and trial over monks of this or that order. This is how it is set out in the work of protopriest Vladislav Tsypin (Цыпин 2012: 344-345). In fact, as can be seen from the diverse administrative, legal, and economic disputes that accompanied the entire history of relations between monasteries and cathedras, as well as the legal acts and decisions resulting from these conflicts12, all of the above rights of eparchs were limited, and sometimes merely declarative. A similar situation existed in Byzantium, too13. Moreover, as stated by protopriest Vladislav Tsypin, from the scientific point of view, the broad rights of hierarchs over monasteries is merely a historiographical fiction based on an extremely simplified and biased summation of norms from disparate and diachro-nous documents. As previously noted, sources, on the contrary, evidence significant limitations of episcopal authority in respect of not only major temples, but monastery life as well. Such a situation is quite consistent with historical conditions and Old Russian canonical legal and mental realities (Гайденко, Москалёва, Фомина 2013: 22-54). Besides, the above difficulties hindered the material resources of cathedras. As a result, one of the ways to resolve the
12 The examples of such solutions may include the establishment of archimandrite's office in Kiev and the restrictions of episcopal authority, as well as of its material appetites with regard to The Church of St.John the Baptist-on-Opoki and St. George's Monastery in Novgorod.
13 More details on the ambiguity of episcopal authority over monasteries in Byzantium see works of M. Morozov (M0p030B 2006: 362-375; M0p030B 2010: 77-87).
contradictions was the foundation of bishopic monasteries in Russia.
Such monasteries existed both in Byzantium and Western Europe. For Russia, however, it was a new experience. In addition, when considering ancient Russian monastic communities, by far not in all cases it is easy to determine which of the monasteries of that time can be classified as bishopic. The existing situation is accounted for by not only the content of the sources, but also by the fact that the canonical and legal realities of Byzantium and Rus differed in many ways and sometimes even contradicted each other.
In Byzantium, a bishopric monastery meant a monastery established and maintained from the bishop's personal funds. I.e., it was a ktitor monastery with the donator being or considered to be the eparch. Undoubtedly, hierarchs' participation in monastic life brought its own specific features into the monasteries' everyday life and the principles. But in theory, over time, such a monastery could change its status by electing a new ktitor or by declaring its "independence". At the same time, we cannot overlook the so-called eparchial monasteries, which once were given a brief, but a very succinct characteristic by I. Sokolov (Соколов 2003: 292). In fact, these were the monasteries that existed without the bishop's participation, but that paid contributions to him. Actually, they were under the control of the cathedra and recognized over them the full episcopal authority, regardless of to what extent it was justified from the point of view of Byzantine law, and in Rus conditions - from the point of view of local canonical and legal norms as well.
From all appearances, none of the large princely monasteries can be classified as a bishopic or a eparchial monastery. And among the monasteries of Kiev, no monastic community seems to be indisputably falling under the specified features This probably was explained by the stability of ktitor's power here over local monasteries, that successfully resisted the local metropolitan cathedra, limiting its interference in the internal life of the local monastic communities.
An entirely different situation is seen in Turov, Smolensk, Rostov, and Novgorod. Sources clearly indicate that in all these centers there were monasteries that can be categorized as bishopic or, at least, eparchial monasteries. In most cases, these were the largest and most influential monasteries. Moreover, in Turov and Rostov the monasteries were the bishops' residences14. The causes for the appearance and material success of bishop monasteries in provincial political centers are quite clear. The prosperity of these monasteries was most likely provided by not the relentless prayers of their inhabitants but by the economic realities of the time. In most of these centers, except for Novgorod, the local elites did not have enough resources to found and maintain monastic communities to the extent that would allow them to compete with the opportunities that the bishop acquired through his princely tithes. Moreover, the local elites, again with the exception of Novgorod, in Turov, Rostov, and Smolensk were less free from the prince's power control. Even the murder of Andrey Bogolyubsky was not so much the result of the opposition of the elites and the prince's power, as an act of extreme irritation. The massacre of the prince should rather be regarded as the desperate resistance of the local nobility and the squad to the despot. We must not forget that, taking the Vladimir throne, Andrey Yuryevich broke all existing rules of building relations with the squad and nobility15. Actually, this was the cause of the tragedy in Bogolyubovo.
14 According to the brief Life of kitchener Martin of Turov, the seat of the local eparchs had the urban monastery of Boris and Gleb (CTMM 1995: 583). As for Rostov, the local monastery of Dmitry, at least under bishop Cyril, was regarded by the eparch as the place of his recreation and residence in his old age (nCP.H. T. 1: ct6. 452; ^bophh-neHKO, KpuBomeeB, cokotob, fflanomHHK 2012: 109).
15While the obituary of Andrey Bogolyubsky tries to focus on the gentleness, charity, and the temple building activity of the prince (nCPH. T. 1: ct6. 367-369), the personality of this ruler was still rather despotic. The exiling of siblings, authorization of bloody trials and executions headed by bishop Theodore, two fierce campaigns against Kiev and Novgorod, looting of churches and monasteries in Kiev, executions of people in his entourage, as was the case with one of the Kuchko boyars kind sons
A bishopric monastery in Smolensk is reported in the Life of the Reverend Abraham. Judging by the history of foundation of this monastery and by the circumstances of appointment of its first hegumen, who was Abraham, it was not a eparchial, but a bishopric monastery. It is noteworthy that the main temple of the monastery was dedicated to the patron saint of Smolensk hierarch (^AC 2005: 52-55).
Equally interesting is the situation in Novgorod. It is here, with the variety and completeness of sources, that we can observe the polyphony of canonical norms and cultural ties. The riches of the city and its elite created in this major political center a kind of competition of not only political, but also church and canonical ideas. One result of such a course of life was the emergence of a large number of various monasteries on the banks of the Volkhov.
There were also bishopric monasteries here. These included the monasteries founded by the future Novgorod eparchs Arkady (1153) and Martiry (1192) (nCP-H. T. 3: 215, 231). Apparently, the cloisters changed their status together with the status of their donators. However, there are no grounds to assert that after the death of Arkady and Martiry the monasteries remained in charge of the cathedra. Most likely, the monastic communities and their households founded by the renowned eparchs continued to maintain their partial autonomy in the future. It is seen especially clearly by the example of the Arkady monastery.
The situation with the so-called "eparchial" monasteries is more difficult. It is obvious that under bishop Niphont, during the first years of his see, the cathedra finally succeeded to make the Novgorodians recognize its right of initiation hegumens in monasteries, which previously had enjoyed autonomy. The first such monastery was that of St. Anthony (1131). Its founder was or-
of - these are all on the prince of Vladimir's conscience. The fact that at the critical moment, his closest servant, virtually his entire squad, and all his entourage turned away from him also counts against Andrey (the historiography on this matter see in Krivosheyev (KpnBomeeB 2003: 64, 104, 201)).
dained to the priesthood and chirotonized to a hegumen, i.e. he became a "pope hegumen" (ПСРЛ. Т. 3: 207; СЖПАР 2005: 265266). As this practice strengthened, Novgorod archbishops' power soon spread to most of Novgorod monasteries. Actually, this was the factor that reduced some monastic orders to the level of "epar-chial" monasteries. The first of these, probably, was the monastery of Anthony the Roman, that has already been mentioned. The complete resubmission of the monastery to the cathedra occurred probably after Anthony's death. Such course of events is evidenced by not only the prohibition to recognize the hegumen appointed by the bishop, attributed to him (if the candidacy of a new hegumen was not approved by the brethren), but by other circumstances as well (СЖПАР 2005: 269).
The Questions of Kirik, the monk and domestic of Anthony's monastery, includes extremely noteworthy issues regarding the organization of cloisterers' life, including the tonsuring of the questioner himself (ВК 1880: стб. 25-26, 29-30). Taking into account the fact that Kirik was the eparchial secretary chartulary (Гайденко, Фомина 2012: 83-92; Симонов 2015: 102-107), the problems taken by him to the episcopal court lead to the following preliminary conclusion. There is every reason to believe that by the end of Niphont's ruling part of Novgorod monasteries recognized the bishop's authority and regulated their life with account of the eparch's opinion. However, resubmission of the monasteries to cathedras can be traced in other centers as well. For example, the expansion of the bishop's influence on the life of the monks can be seen in the epistles of Cyril of Turov (ПК 2009: 41-52; СЧЧ 2009: 53-64) and permanent conflicts between the Caves monastery and the metropolitanate. Finally, the grotesque unanimity of Smolensk hegumens in the court, mentioned in the Life of Abraham, who apparently condoned to the eparch (ЖАС 2005: 44, 45), also indicates that they were extremely dependent on the will of the holder of the local Smolensk cathedra.
•k k k
All the above allows us to conclude that as the Old Russian church organization strengthened, the bishops' rights over local monasteries extended. However, in Rus the canon law in monastic life regulation never achieved the same level of development of as it was in Byzantium. Nevertheless, the episcopal cathedras were able to not only extend their influence to the monasteries of their districts, but as early as in the second half of the 12th - early 13 th c. they managed to form a network of strong and influential bishopic and "eparchial" monasteries that became agents of bishop authority in monastic environment.
Автор: Гайденко Павел Иванович - доктор исторических наук, доцент, профессор кафедры гуманитарных дисциплин Казанского национального исследовательского технологического университета (ул. Карла Маркса, 72, Казань, 420015, Россия). prof.gaydenko@rambler.ru
Заголовок: About bishopic monasteries and eparchs' rights to Kievan Rus monasteries [О епископских монастырях и о правах архиереев в отношении монастырей Киевской Руси].
Литература, использованная в статье
Адемар 2010 - Адемар Шабанский. Хроника // Древняя Русь в свете зарубежных источников / под ред. Т. Н. Джаксон, И. Г. Коноваловой и А. В. Подосинова. Т. 4: Западноевропейские источники. Сост., пер. и ком-мент. А. В. Назаренко. М.: Русский Фонд Содействия Образованию и Науке, 2010. С. 86-89.
Бармин 2006 - Бармин А. В. Полемика и схизма: История греко-латинских споров 1Х-Х11 веков. М.: Институт философии, теологии и истории св. Фомы, 2006. 648 с.
Бруно 2010 - Бруно Квертфуртский. Послание к германскому королю Генриху II // Древняя Русь в свете зарубежных источников / под ред. Т. Н. Джаксон, И. Г. Коноваловой и А. В. Подосинова. Т. 4: Западноевропейские источники. Сост., пер. и коммент. А. В. Назаренко. М.: Русский Фонд Содействия Образованию и Науке, 2010. С. 55-62.
Воейков 1983 - Воейков Н. Н. Церковь, Русь и Рим. Джорданвиль: Свято-Троицкий монастырь, 1983. 512 с.
ШВБГСА АОТ^ИА. 2016 (1/2)
ВК 1880 - Вопросы Кирика, Саввы и Ильи, с ответами Нифонта, епископа Новгородского, и других иерархических лиц // Русская историческая библиотека. Т. 6: Памятники канонического права: Ч. 1: Памятники XI-XV в. СПб., 1880. Стб. 21-62
Гайденко, Москалёва, Фомина 2013 - Гайденко П. И., Москалёва Л. А., Фомина Т. Ю. Церковь домонгольской Руси: иерархия, служение, нравы. М.: «Университетская книга», 2013. 150 с.
Гайденко, Филиппов 2011 - Гайденко П. И., Филиппов В. Г. Церковные суды в Древней Руси (XI - середина XIII века): Несколько наблюдений // Вестник Челябинского государственного университета. Серия: История. Вып. 45. 2011. № 12 (227). С. 106-111.
Гайденко, Фомина 2012 - Гайденко П. И., Фомина Т. Ю. О церковном статусе Кирика Новгородца и иных составителей «Вопрошания» // Вестник Челябинского государственного университета. Серия: История. 2012. № 16 (270). С. 83-92.
Галимов 2015 - Галимов Т. Р. «Желают иметь Господина Папу своим преимущественным господином и отцом»: к проблеме возникновения церковной унии на южнорусских землях (середина XIII в.) // Церковь. Богословие. История. Материалы III Международной научно-богословской конференции, посвященной 130-летию Екатеринбургской епархии и памяти Собора новомучеников и исповедников Церкви Русской. Екатеринбург. 6-7 февраля 2015 г. / Екатеринбургская митрополия, Екатеринбургская духовная семинария Миссионерский институт Уральский федеральный университет имени первого Президента России Б.Н. Ельцина, Институт гуманитарных наук и искусств Лаборатория археографических исследований. Екатеринбург: Екатеринбургская духовная семинария, 2015. С. 95-100.
Голубинский 1901 - Голубинский Е. Е. История Русской Церкви: Т. 1: Период первый, Киевский или домонгольский: Ч. 1. М., 1901. 968 с.
Дворниченко, Кривошеев, Соколов, Шапошник 2012 - Дворничен-ко А. Ю., Кривошеев Ю. В., Соколов Р. А., Шапошник В. В. Русское православие: от крещения до патриаршества. СПб.: СПбГУ, 2012. 412 с.
ЖАС 2005 - Житие Авраамия Смоленского // Библиотека литературы Древней Руси: Т. 5: XIII век / под ред. Д. С. Лихачёва, Л. А. Дмитриева, А. А. Алексеева, Н. В. Понырко. СПб.: «Наука», 2005. С. 30-65, 456-459.
ЖФП 1978 - Житие Феодосия Печерского // Памятники литературы Древней Руси: XI — начало XII века / сост. и общ. ред. Л. А. Дмитриева и Д. С. Лихачёва. М.: «Художественная литература», 1978. С. 305-392, 456458.
Иванов 2003 - Иванов С. А. Византийское миссионерство: Можно ли сделать из «варвара» христианина? / РАН Ин-т славяноведения. М.: Языки славянской культуры, 2003. 376 с.
КОМИ 1880 - Канонические ответы митрополита Иоанна II // Русская историческая библиотека. Т. 6: Памятники канонического права: Ч. 1: Памятники XI-XV в. СПб., 1880. Стб. 1-20.
СЧЧ 2009 - Кирилла, епископа Туровского, сказание о черноризском чине из Ветхого Завета и Нового: того носит образ, а этого наполняет делами // Колесов В.В. Творения бл. Кирилла Туровского. Притчи, слова, молитвы. Исследования и тексты / публ., коммент., предисл., пер. В. В. Колесова. М.: «Палея», 2009. С. 53-64.
Костромин 2011а - Костромин К. А., свящ. Проблема атрибуции «Слова Феодосия, игумена Печерского, о вере крестьянской и о латынь-ской» // Христианское чтение: научно-богословский журнал, 2011. 1(36). С. 6-97.
Костромин 2011b - Костромин К. А. Церковные связи Древней Руси с Западной Европой (до середины XII в.): Страницы истории межконфессиональных отношений. Saarbrücken: LAP, 2011. 257 с.
Костромин 2013а - Костромин К. А. Развитие антилатинской полемики в Киевской Руси (XI - сер. XII вв.): Страницы истории межцерковных отношений. Saarbrüken: Sanktum, 2013. 149 с.
Костромин 2013b - Костромин К.А., свящ. Разделение церквей в контексте общеевропейской и международной политики IX-XII вв. // Вестник Русской христианской гуманитарной академии. 2013. Т. 14. № 1. С. 14-22.
Костромин 2015 - Костромин К. А., прот. Конфессиональная поликультурность Киевской Руси нач. XI в. // Древняя Русь: во времени, в личностях, в идеях. Альманах. Вып. 3: Материалы научной конференции «Равноапостольный князь Владимир и формирование русской цивилизации», Санкт-Петербург, 23-24 сентября 2015 г. / под. ред. к.и.н., прот. К. А. Костромина. СПб., 2015. С. 48-75.
Кривошеев 2003 - КривошеевЮ. В. Гибель Андрея Боголюбского: Историческое расследование. СПб.: СПбГУ, 2003. 240 с.
Кузьмин 2004 - Кузьмин А. Г. Крещение Руси. М.: «Эксмо»; «Алгоритм», 2004. 416 с.
Ламперт 2010 - Ламперт Херсфельдский. Анналы // Древняя Русь в свете зарубежных источников / под ред. Т. Н. Джаксон, И. Г. Коноваловой и А. В. Подосинова. Т. 4: Западноевропейские источники. Сост., пер. и коммент. А. В. Назаренко. М.: Русский Фонд Содействия Образованию и Науке, 2010. С. 115-121.
Макарий 1995 - Макарий (Булгаков), митр. История Русской Церкви. Кн. 2: История Русской Церкви в период совершенной зависимости её от константинопольского патриарха (988-1240) / науч. ред. А. В. Назаренко. М.: Изд-во Спасо-Преображенского Валаамского монастыря, 1995. 704 с.
Мильков 2006 - Мильков В. В. Предисловие к публикации [Послание Ярославу, князю Муромскому, о вере латинской] // Творения митрополита Никифора / [изд. подгот. С. М. Полянским; отв. ред. М. Н. Громов, С. М. Полянский]; ИФ РАН, РГБ, ГИМ. М.: «Наука», 2006. С. 152.
Мильков, Симонов 2011 - Мильков В. В., Симонов Р.А. Кирик Новгородец: учёный и мыслитель / Памятники древнерусской мысли: исследования и тексты. Вып. VII. М.: Изд-во «Кругъ», 2011. 544 с.
Морозов 2005 - Морозов М. А. Монастыри средневековой Византии: Хозяйство, социальный и правовой статусы. СПб.: Изд-во СПб. ун-та, 2005. 174 с.
Морозов 2006 - Морозов М. А. Императорское ктиторство при Комни-нах и Российские традиции // Труды кафедры истории России с древнейших времён до XX в. / отв. ред. Д. Ю. Дворниченко. СПб.: СПбГУ, 2006. С. 362375.
Морозов 2010 - Морозов М. А. Церковная собственность и ктиторство в Византии при императоре Юстиниане // Труды исторического факультета Санкт-Петербургского государственного университета. 2010. № 2. С. 77-87.
Мошин 1963 - Мошин В. Послание русского митрополита Леона об опресноках в Охридскойрукописи // Byzantinoslavica, 24. 1963. P. 87-105.
Мурьянов 2007 - Мурьянов М. Ф. К культурным взаимосвязям Руси и Запада в XII в. // Мурьянов М. Ф. История книжной культуры России. Очерки: В 2 ч. СПб.: Изд. дом «Мрь», 2007. Ч. 1. С. 163-176.
Мучай, Джуери, Ристани, Пентковский 2014 - Мучай С., Джуери С., Ристани И., Пентковский А. М. Средневековые церкви в долине Шушицы (Южная албания) и славянская епископия свт. Климента Охридского // Slovène. 2014. Т. 3. № 1. С. 5-42.
Назаренко 2002 - Назаренко А. В. Древняя Русь на международных путях: Междисциплинарные очерки культурных, торговых, политических связей IX-XII вв. М.: «Языки русской культуры», 2002. 784 с.
Неборский 2006 - Неборский М. Ю. Митрополит Никифор и антилатинская полемика на Руси // Творения митрополита Никифора / [изд. подгот. С. М. Полянским; отв. ред. М. Н. Громов, С. М. Полянский]; ИФ РАН, РГБ, ГИМ. М.: «Наука», 2006. С. 334-339.
НС 2004 - Неведомы(х) словесъ . изложено Георгиемъ . митрополи-то(м) Киевскымъ . Герману игоумену въпрашающу . оному поведающу // Славяне и их соседи. Славянский мир между Римом и Константинополем. М.: «Индрик», 2004. Вып. 11. С. 233-255.
Павлов 1878 - Павлов А. Критические опыты по истории древнейшей греко-русской полемики против латинян. СПб., 1878. 210 с.
ПК 2009 - Повесть Кирилла, многогрешного монаха, о белоризцах и о монашестве, о душе и о покаянии — Василию, игумену Печерскому // Коле-сов В.В. Творения бл. Кирилла Туровского. Притчи, слова, молитвы. Исследования и тексты / публ., коммент., предисл., пер. В. В. Колесова. М.: «Палея», 2009. С. 41-52.
Подскальски 1996 - Подскальски Г. Христианство и богословская литература в Киевской Руси (988-1237 гг.) / пер. А. В. Назаренко; под ред. К. К. Акентьева. СПб.: Византинороссика, 1996. Т. 1. 572 с.
Полянский 2006 - Полянский С. М. Никифор - выдающийся мыслитель Древней Руси // Творения митрополита Никифора / [изд. подгот. С. М. Полянским; отв. ред. М. Н. Громов, С. М. Полянский]; ИФ РАН, РГБ, ГИМ. М.: «Наука», 2006. С. 5-86.
ШВБГСЛ ЛОТ^ИЛ. 2016 (1/2)
ПВМ 2006 - Послание Владимиру Мономаху о вере латинской // Творения митрополита Никифора / [изд. подгот. С. М. Полянским; отв. ред. М. Н. Громов, С. М. Полянский]; ИФ РАН, РГБ, ГИМ. М.: «Наука», 2006. С. 129-139.
ПСРЛ. Т. 1 - Полное собрание русских летописей. Т. 1: Лаврентьев-ская летопись. М.: «Языки славянской культуры», 2001. 496 с.
ПСРЛ. Т. 2 - Полное собрание русских летописей. Т. 2: Ипатьевская летопись. М.: «Языки славянской культуры», 2001. 648 с.
ПСРЛ. Т. 3 - Полное собрание русских летописей. Т. 3: Новгородская летопись старшего и младшего изводов. М.: «Языки славянской культуры», 2000. XII, 720 с.
ПСРЛ. Т. 9. - Полное собрание русских летописей. Т. 9: Летописный сборник, именуемый Патриаршей или Никоновской летописью. М.: «Языки славянской культуры», 2000. 288 с.
ПФП 2010 - Послание Феодосия Печерского князю Изяславу Яросла-вичу «О вере христианской и о латыньской» // Памятники общественной мысли Древней Руси: Т. 1: Домонгольский период / сост, автор вступ. ст. и коммент. И. Н. Данилевский. М.: РОССПЭН, 2010. С. 295-297.
ППГ 2010 - Послания папы Григория VII к польскому князю Болеславу II и киевскому князю Изяславу Ярославичу (1075 г.) // Древняя Русь в свете зарубежных источников / под ред. Т. Н. Джаксон, И. Г. Коноваловой и А. В. Подосинова. Т. 4: Западноевропейские источники. Сост., пер. и коммент. А. В. Назаренко. М.: Русский Фонд Содействия Образованию и Науке, 2010. С. 111-114.
ПЯМ 2006 - Послание Ярославу, князю Муромскому, о вере латинской // Творения митрополита Никифора / [изд. подгот. С. М. Полянским; отв. ред. М. Н. Громов, С. М. Полянский]; ИФ РАН, РГБ, ГИМ. М.: «Наука», 2006. С. 153-170.
Рубрук, Карпини 1911 - Рубрук Вильгельм, Карпини Иоанн Плано. История Монголов. Путешествие в восточные страны / введение, перевод и примечания А. И. Малеина. СПб.: Типография А.С. Суворина, 1911. 232 с.
Симонова 2011 - Симонова А. А. Эволюция древнерусского религиозного мировоззрения XI - XIV вв.: Дисс. к.и.н. М., 2011. 336 с.
Симонова 2014 - Симонова А. А. Основание Успенской церкви Киево-Печерского монастыря. Западные параллели // Древняя Русь: во времени, в личностях, в идеях: Альманах / под ред. д.и.н. П. И. Гайденко. СПб.; Казань, 2014. Вып. 1. С. 63-72.
Симонов 2015 - Симонов Р.А. Кирик Новгородец (1110 - после 1156/1158) как хартофилакс // Вестник МГУП имени Ивана Фёдорова. 2015. № 4. С. 102-107.
СЖПАР 2005 - Сказание о житии преподобного Антония Римлянина // Святые русские римляне: Антоний Римлянин и Меркурий Смоленский / подг. текстов и исслед. Н. В. Рамазановой. СПб.: «Дмитрий Буланин», 2005. С. 233-272.
СТММ 1995 - Сказание о туровском мнихе Мартыне // Макарий (Булгаков), митр. История Русской Церкви. Кн. 2: История Русской Церкви в период совершенной зависимости её от константинопольского патриарха (988-1240) / науч. ред. А. В. Назаренко. М.: Изд-во Спасо-Преображенского Валаамского монастыря, 1995. С. 583.
Соколов 2003 - Соколов И. И. Состояние монашества в Византийской церкви с середины IX до начала XIII века (842-1204): Опыт церковно-исторического исследования / вступ. статья Г. Е. Лебедевой. СПб.: «Изд-во Олега Абышко», 2003. 464 с.
Татищев 2005 - Татищев В. История российская. В 3 кн. М.: АСТ; Ермак, 2005. Т. 2. 732, [4] с.
Титмар 2010 - Титмар Мерзебургский. Хроника // Древняя Русь в свете зарубежных источников / под ред. Т. Н. Джаксон, И. Г. Коноваловой и А. В. Подосинова. Т. 4: Западноевропейские источники. Сост., пер. и ком-мент. А. В. Назаренко. М.: Русский Фонд Содействия Образованию и Науке, 2010. C. 63-89.
Толочко 2003 - Толочко П. П. Дворцовые интриги на Руси. СПб. : «Алетейя», 2003. 224 с.
УКЯ 1976 - Устав князя Ярослава о церковных судах [Пространная редакция. Основной извод] // Древнерусские княжеские уставы XI-XV вв. / сост. Я. Н. Щапов, отв ред. Л. В. Черепнин. М.: «Наука», 1976. С. 85-91.
Фомина 2014 - Фомина Т. Ю. Епископская власть в домонгольской Руси: истоки, становление, развитие. М.: «Университетская книга», 2014. 360 с.
Цыпин 2012 - Цыпин В., прот. Каноническое право. М.: Изд-во Сретенского монастыря, 2012. 864 с.
Чичуров 2007 - Чичуров И. С. Антилатинский трактат Киевского митрополита Ефрема (ок. 1054/55 - 1061/62 гг.) в составе греческого канонического сборника Vat. Gr. 828 // Вестник Православного Свято-Тихоновского гуманитарного университета. Серия 1: Богословие. Философия. Религиоведение. 2007. № 3 (19). С. 107-132.
Щапов 1972 - Щапов Я. Н. Княжеские уставы и церковь в Древней Руси XI-XIV вв. М.: «Наука», 1972. 340 с.
Щапов 1978 - Щапов Я. Н. Византийское и южнославянское правовое наследие на Руси в XI-XIII вв. М.: «Наука», 1978. 292 с.
Щапов 1989 - Щапов Я. Н. Церковь в Древней Руси (до конца XIII в.) // Русское православие: вехи истории. М.: «Политиздат», 1989. С. 1070.
ChSP 1863 - Chronicon Sancti Petri Vivi Senonensis // Bibliotheque historique de L'YONNE ou Collection de legends, chroniques et documents divers pour server a l'histoire des differentes contrees qui forment aujourd'hui ce department. T. 2. Auxerre: Perriquet et Rouille, imprimeurs de la societe; Paris: Didron, 1863.
Information about the article Author: Gaydenko Pavel Ivanovich - Doctor of Historical Sciences, the associate professor, professor of department of humanitarian disciplines of the Kazan national research technological university (Karl Marx St., 72, Kazan, 420015, Russia). prof.gaydenko@rambler.ru
Title: About bishopic monasteries and eparchs' rights to Kievan Rus monasteries.
Summary: One of the most important institutions of Old Russian church organization and Old Russian state were the monasteries. Although the activity of monastic orders of Eastern Slavic society has repeatedly been the subject of special scientific historiographic research, many aspects of Old Russian monastic life have not yet been given proper consideration. Such areas may well include the questions of the relationship between monasticism and episcopacy, and the activity of the bishopic (episcopal) mansions.
The life of ancient monasteries did not only have special features, but also in many ways mirrored the situation in Byzantium. In the Empire of Romans (the Eastern Roman Empire), the contradictions between the episcopate and monasteries also existed. However, in Russia, the web of these internal ecclesiastic issues was more complicated since there was no elaborate domestic written law; the question of canonical norms body also loomed large. Under the current conditions of the broad powers of Old Russian monasticism autonomy, the episcopate had to take efforts to found their own monasteries.
The present paper attempts to identify a number of features in the principles of organization and activity of ancient Russian bishopic monasteries.
Key words: Kievan Rus; Old Russian church; canon law of Ancient Rus; Old Russian monasteries; episcopal (bishopic) monasteries of Ancient Rus; church and state relations of Ancient Rus; internal church relations in Ancient Rus.
References (transliteration)
Ademar Shabanskij (2010). Hronika [The chronicle], in: Drevnyaya Rus' v svete zarubezhnyh istochnikov [Ancient Russia in the light of foreign sources]. Moscow, Russkij Fond Sodejstviya Obrazovaniyu i Nauke Publ., 2010. Vol. 4. pp. 86-89. (In Russian).
Barmin A. V. Polemika i skhizma: Istoriya greko-latinskih sporov IX-XII vekov [Polemic and schism: History of Greek-Latin disputes of the 9-12th centuries]. Moscow, Institut filosofii, teologii i istorii sv. Fomy Publ., 2006. (In Russian).
Bruno Kvertfurtskij. Poslanie k germanskomu korolyu Genrihu II [The message to the German king Henry II], in: Drevnyaya Rus' v svete zarubezhnyh istochnikov [Ancient Russia in the light of foreign sources]. Moscow, Russkij Fond Sodejstviya Obrazovaniyu i Nauke Publ., 2010. Vol. 4. pp. 55-62. (In Russian).
Voejkov N. N. Cerkov', Rus' i Rim [Church, Russia and Rome]. Dzhordan-vil': Svyato-Troickij monastyr' Publ., 1983. (In Russian).
Voprosy Kirika, Savvy i Il'i, s otvetami Nifonta, episkopa Novgorodskogo, i drugih ierarhicheskih lic [Quiricus, Savva and Ilya's questions, with Nifont's answers, the bishop Novgorod, and other hierarchical persons]. in: Russkaya is-toricheskaya biblioteka [The Russian historical library]. St. Petersburg, 1880. Vol. 6, pt.1. col. 21-62. (In Russian).
Gajdenko P. I., Moskalyova L. A., Fomina T. Yu. Cerkov' domongol'skoj Rusi: ierarhiya, sluzhenie, nravy [Church of domongolsky Russia: hierarchy, service, customs]. Moscow, Universitetskaya kniga Publ., 2013. (In Russian).
Gajdenko P. I., Filippov V. G. Cerkovnye sudy v Drevnej Rusi (XI -seredina XIII veka): Neskol'ko nablyudenij [Church courts in Ancient Russia (XI - the middle of the 13th century): Several supervision]. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta.. 2011, no. 12 (227) (=Series: Istoriya. Issue. 45), pp. 106-111. (In Russian).
Gajdenko P. I., Fomina T. Yu. O cerkovnom statuse Kirika Novgorodca i inyh sostavitelej «Voproshaniya» [About the church status of Quiricus Novgo-rodts and other originators of "Asking"]. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. 2012, no.16 (270) (=Series: Istoriya. Issue. 45), pp. 83-92. (In Russian).
Galimov T. R. «Zhelayut imet' Gospodina Papu svoim preimushchestven-nym gospodinom i otcom»: k probleme vozniknoveniya cerkovnoj unii na yu-zhnorusskih zemlyah (seredina XIII v.) ["Wish to have Mister Papu the primary mister and the father": to a problem of emergence of the church union on South Russian lands (the middle of the 13th century)], in: Cerkov'. Bogoslovie. Istoriya. Materialy III Mezhdunarodnoj nauchno-bogoslovskoj konferencii, posvyashchen-noj 130-letiyu Ekaterinburgskoj eparhii i pamyati Sobora novomuchenikov i ispovednikov Cerkvi Russkoj. Ekaterinburg. 6-7 fevralya 2015 g. [Church. Divinity. History. Materials III of the International scientific and theological conference devoted to the 130 anniversary of the Ekaterinburg diocese and memory of the Cathedral of new martyrs and confessors of Church of the Russian. Yekaterinburg. February 6-7, 2015]. Ekaterinburg, Ekaterinburgskaya duhovnaya seminari-ya Publ., 2015, pp. 95-100. (In Russian).
Golubinskij E. E. Istoriya Russkoj Cerkvi [History of the Russian Church]. Moscow, 1901. Vol. 1, pt. 1. (In Russian).
Dvornichenko A. Yu., Krivosheev Yu. V., Sokolov R. A., Shaposhnik V. V. Russkoe pravoslavie: ot kreshcheniya do patriarshestva [Russian Orthodoxy: from a baptism to patriarchate]. St. Petersburg, SPbGU Publ. 2012. (In Russian).
Zhitie Avraamiya Smolenskogo [Avraamiya Smolensky's life], in: Bibliote-ka literatury Drevnej Rusi [Library of literature of Ancient Russia]. St. Petersburg, Nauka Publ., 2005. Vol. 5. pp. 30-65, 456-459. (In Russian).
Zhitie Feodosiya Pecherskogo [Theodosius of the Caves's life], in: Pa-myatniki literatury Drevnej Rusi: XI — nachalo XII veka [Monuments of literature of Ancient Russia: XI beginning of the 12th century]. Moscow, Hudozhestvennaya literature Publ., 1978. pp. 305-392, 456-458. (In Russian).
Ivanov S. A. Vizantijskoe missionerstvo: Mozhno li sdelat' iz «varvara» hristianina? [Byzantine missionary work: Whether it is possible to make of the Christian's "barbarian"?]. Moscow, Yazyki slavyanskoj kul'tury Publ.. 2003. (In Russian).
Kanonicheskie otvety mitropolita Ioanna II [Initial answers of the metropolitan John II], in: Russkaya istoricheskaya biblioteka [The Russian historical library]. Vol. 6, pt 1. St. Petersburg. 1880. col. 1-20. (In Russian).
Kirilla, episkopa Turovskogo, skazanie o chernorizskom chine iz Vethogo Zaveta i Novogo: togo nosit obraz, a ehtogo napolnyaet delami [Kirill, the bishop Turovsky, the legend on a chernorizsky rank from the Old Testament and New: that is carried by an image, and it fills with affairs], in: Kolesov V.V. Tvoreniya bl. Kirilla Turovskogo. Pritchi, slova, molitvy. Issledovaniya i teksty [Blessed Kirill Turovsky's creations. Parables, words, prayers. Researches and texts]. Moscow, Paleya Publ., 2009. (In Russian).
Kostromin K. A. Problema atribucii «Slova Feodosiya, igumena Pecher-skogo, o vere krest'yanskoj i o latyn'skoj» [Attribution problem "Words Feodosiya, the abbot Pechersky, about belief country and about latynsky"]. Hristianskoe chtenie: nauchno-bogoslovskij zhurnal. 2011, no. 1(36), pp. 6-97. (In Russian).
Kostromin K. A. Cerkovnye svyazi Drevnej Rusi s Zapadnoj Evropoj (do serediny XII v.): Stranicy istorii mezhkonfessional'nyh otnoshenij [Church communications of Ancient Russia with Western Europe (to the middle of the 12th century): Pages of history of the interfaith relations]. Saarbrücken: LAP Publ., 2011. (In Russian).
Kostromin K. A. Razvitie antilatinskoj polemiki v Kievskoj Rusi (XI - ser. XII vv.): Stranicy istorii mezhcerkovnyh otnoshenij [Development of anti-Latin polemic in Kievan Rus' (XI - it is gray. The 12th centuries): Pages of history of the interchurch relations]. Saarbrüken, Sanktum Publ., 2013. (In Russian).
Kostromin K. A. Razdelenie cerkvej v kontekste obshcheevropejskoj i mezhdunarodnoj politiki IX-XII vv. [Division of churches in the context of the all-European and international policy of the 9-12th centuries]. In Vestnik Russkoj hristianskoj gumanitarnoj akademii. 2013, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 14-22. (In Russian).
Kostromin K. A. Konfessional'naya polikul'turnost' Kievskoj Rusi nach. XI v. [Confessional polylevel of culture of Kievan Rus' head of the 11th century], in: Drevnyaya Rus': vo vremeni, v lichnostyah, v ideyah. Al'manah. St. Petersburg, 2015. Issue 3. pp. 48-75. (In Russian).
Krivosheev Yu. V. Gibel' Andreya Bogolyubskogo: Istoricheskoe rassledo-vanie [Andrey Bogolyubsky's death: Historical investigation.]. St. Petersburg, SPbGU Publ., 2003. (In Russian).
Kuz'min A. G. Kreshchenie Rusi [Christianization of Rus']. Moscow, Ehksmo Publ., Algoritm Publ., 2004. (In Russian).
Lampert Hersfel'dskij. Annaly [Annals], in: Drevnyaya Rus' v svete za-rubezhnyh istochnikov [Ancient Russia in the light of foreign sources]. Moscow, Russkij Fond Sodejstviya Obrazovaniyu i Nauke Publ., 2010. Vol. 4. pp. 115-121. (In Russian).
Makarij (Bulgakov), mitr. (1995). Istoriya Russkoj Cerkvi [History of the Russian Church]. Moscow: Izd-vo Spaso-Preobrazhenskogo Valaamskogo mo-nastyrya Publ., Book 2. (In Russian).
Mil'kov V. V. Predislovie k publikacii (Poslanie Yaroslavu, knyazyu Muromskomu, o vere latinskoj) [The preface to the publication [The message to Yaroslav, the prince Muromsky, about belief Latin]], in: Tvoreniya mitropolita Nikifora [Creations of the metropolitan Nikifor]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 2006. p. 152. (In Russian).
Mil'kov V. V., Simonov R. A. Kirik Novgorodec: uchyonyj i myslitel' [Quiricus Novgorodets: scientist and thinker]. Moscow, Krug Publ., 2011. (In Russian).
Morozov M. A. Imperatorskoe ktitorstvo pri Komninah i Rossijskie tradicii [Imperial ktitorstvo at Komninakh and the Russian traditions], in Trudy kafedry istorii Rossii s drevnejshih vremyon do XX v. [Works of department of history of Russia from the most ancient times to the 20th century]. St. Petersburg, SPbGU Publ., 2006, pp. 362-375. (In Russian).
Morozov M. A. Monastyri srednevekovoj Vizantii: Hozyajstvo, social'nyj i pravovoj status [Monasteries of medieval Byzantium: Economy, social and legal statuses]. St. Petersburg, SPbGU Publ., 2005. (In Russian).
Morozov M. A. Cerkovnaya sobstvennost' i ktitorstvo v Vizantii pri impera-tore YUstiniane [Church property and ktitorstvo in Byzantium in case of the emperor Justinian]. Trudy istoricheskogo fakul'teta Sankt-Peterburgskogo gosudar-stvennogo universiteta. 2010, no. 2, pp. 77-87. (In Russian).
Moshin V. Poslanie russkogo mitropolita Leona ob opresnokah v Ohridskoj rukopisi [The message of the Russian metropolitan Leon about a feast of unleavened bread in the Okhridsky manuscript]. Byzantinoslavica. 1963, vol. 24, pp. 87105. (In Russian).
Mur'yanov M. F. K kul'turnym vzaimosvyazyam Rusi i Zapada v XII v. [To cultural interrelations of Russia and the West in the 12th century], in: Mur'yanov M. F. Istoriya knizhnoj kul'tury Rossii. Ocherki [History of book culture of Russia. Sketches]. St. Petersburg, Mir Publ., 2007. Part 1. pp. 163-176. (In Russian).
Muchaj S., Dzhueri S., Ristani I., Pentkovskij A. M. Srednevekovye cerkvi v doline Shushicy (Yuzhnaya albaniya) i slavyanskaya episkopiya svt. Klimenta Ohridskogo [Medieval churches in Shushitsa's valley (The southern Albania) and a Slavic episkopiya of the prelate Clement of Ohrid]. Slovène. 2014, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 5-42. (In Russian).
Nazarenko A. V. Drevnyaya Rus' na mezhdunarodnyh putyah: Mezhdisci-plinarnye ocherki kul'turnyh, torgovyh, politicheskih svyazej IX-XII vv. [Ancient Russia on the international ways: Interdisciplinary sketches of cultural, commercial, political connections of the 9-12th centuries]. Moscow, Yazyki russkoj kul'tury Publ., 2002. (In Russian).
Neborskij M. Yu. Mitropolit Nikifor i antilatinskaya polemika na Rusi [The metropolitan Nikifor and anti-Latin polemic in Russia], in: Tvoreniya mitropolita
Nikifora [Creations of the metropolitan Nikifor]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 2006. pp. 334-339. (In Russian).
Nevedomy(h) sloves . izlozheno Georgiem . mitropolito(m) Kievskym . Germanu igoumenu vprashayushchu . onomu povedayushchu [The unknown words stated by Georgy, the metropolitan Kiev for the abbot Herman asking him]. Slavyane i ih sosedi. Slavyanskij mir mezhdu Rimom i Konstantinopolem [Slavs and their neighbors. The Slavic world between Rome and Constantinople]. 2004, issue 11, pp. 233-255. (In Russian).
Pavlov A. Kriticheskie opyty po istorii drevnejshej greko-russkoj polemiki protiv latinyan [Critical experiments on history of the most ancient Greek-Russian polemic against Catholics]. St. Petersburg, 1878. (In Russian).
Povest' Kirilla, mnogogreshnogo monaha, o belorizcah i o monashestve, o dushe i o pokayanii - Vasiliyu, igumenu Pecherskomu [Kirill's story, the multi-guilty monk, about married clergy and about a monkhood, about soul and about repentance - to Vasily, the abbot Pechersky], in: Kolesov V. V. Tvoreniya bl. Kirilla Turovskogo. Pritchi, slova, molitvy. Issledovaniya i teksty [Blessed Kirill Turovsky's creations. Parables, words, prayers. Researches and texts]. Moscow, Paleya Publ., 2009. pp. 41-52. (In Russian).
Podskal'ski G. Hristianstvo i bogoslovskaya literatura v Kievskoj Rusi (9881237 gg.) [Christianity and theological literature in Kievan Rus' (988-1237)]. St. Petersburg, Vizantinorossika Publ.. 1996. Vol. 1. (In Russian).
Polnoe sobranie russkih letopisej [Complete collection of the Russian chronicles]. Vol. 1: Lavrent'evskaya letopis' [Lavrentyevsky chronicle]. Moscow, Yazyki slavyanskoj kul'tury Publ., 2001. (In Russian).
Polnoe sobranie russkih letopisej [Complete collection of the Russian chronicles]. Vol. 2: Ipat'evskaya letopis' [Ipatyevsky chronicle]. Moscow, Yazyki slavyanskoj kul'tury Publ., 2001. (In Russian).
Polnoe sobranie russkih letopisej [Complete collection of the Russian chronicles]. Vol. 3: Novgorodskaya letopis'starshego i mladshego izvodov [Novgorod chronicle of the senior and younger izvod]. Moscow, Yazyki slavyanskoj kul'tury Publ., 2000. (In Russian).
Polnoe sobranie russkih letopisej [Complete collection of the Russian chronicles]. Vol. 9: Letopisnyj sbornik, imenuemyj Patriarshej ili Nikonovskoj letopis'yu [The annalistic collection called by the Patriarchal or Nikonovsky chronicle]. Moscow, Yazyki slavyanskoj kul'tury Publ., 2000. (In Russian).
Polyanskij S. M. Nikifor - vydayushchijsya myslitel' Drevnej Rusi [Nikifor is an outstanding thinker of Ancient Russia], in: Tvoreniya mitropolita Nikifora [Creations of the metropolitan Nikifor]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 2006. pp. 5-86. (In Russian).
Poslanie Vladimiru Monomahu o vere latinskoj [The message to Vladimir Monomakh about belief Latin], in: Tvoreniya mitropolita Nikifora [Creations of the metropolitan Nikifor]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 2006. pp. 129-139. (In Russian).
Poslanie Feodosiya Pecherskogo knyazyu Izyaslavu Yaroslavichu «O vere hristianskoj i o latyn'skoj» [Theodosius of the Caves's message to the prince
Izyaslav Yaroslavich "About belief Christian and about latynsky"], in: Pa-myatniki obshchestvennoj mysli Drevnej Rusi [Monuments to social thought of Ancient Russia]. Moscow: ROSSPEHN Publ., 2010. Vol. 1. pp. 295-297. (In Russian).
Poslaniya papy Grigoriya VII k pol'skomu knyazyu Boleslavu II i kievsko-mu knyazyu Izyaslavu YAroslavichu (1075 g.) [Messages of the father Grigory VII to the Polish prince Boleslaus II and the Kiev prince Izyaslav Yaroslavich (1075)], in: Drevnyaya Rus' v svete zarubezhnyh istochnikov [Ancient Russia in the light of foreign sources]. Moscow, Russkij Fond Sodejstviya Obrazovaniyu i Nauke Publ., 2010. Vol. 4. pp. 111-114. (In Russian).
Poslanie Yaroslavu, knyazyu Muromskomu, o vere latinskoj [The message to Yaroslav, the prince Muromsky, about belief Latin], in: Tvoreniya mitropolita Nikifora [Creations of the metropolitan Nikifor]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 2006. pp. 153-170. (In Russian).
Rubruk Vil'gel'm, Karpini Ioann Plano. Istoriya Mongolov. Puteshestvie v vostochnye strany [History of Mongols. Travel to east countries]. St. Petersburg A.S. Suvorin Publ., 1911. (In Russian).
Simonova A. A. Osnovanie Uspenskoj cerkvi Kievo-Pecherskogo monas-tyrya. Zapadnye paralleli [Foundation of Church of the Assumption of the Kyiv Pechersk monastery. Western parallels], in: Drevnyaya Rus': vo vremeni, v lich-nostyah, v ideyah: Al'manah. St. Petersburg; Kazan'. 2014. Issue 1. pp. 63-72. (In Russian).
Simonova A. A. Ehvolyuciya drevnerusskogo religioznogo mirovozzreniya XI-XIVvv. [Evolution of Old Russian religious outlook of the XI-XIV centuries]: PhD dissertation (History). Moscow, 2011. (In Russian).
Sinonov R. A. Kirik Novgorodec (1110 - posle 1156/1158) kak hartofilaks [Quiricus Novgorodets (1110 - after 1156/1158) as chartofilax]. Vestnik MGUP imeni Ivana Fyodorova. 2015, no. 4, pp. 102-107. (In Russian).
Skazanie o zhitii prepodobnogo Antoniya Rimlyanina [Legend on life of the Reverend Anthony Rimlyanin], in: Svyatye russkie rimlyane: Antonij Rimlyanin i Merkurij Smolenskij [Saint Russian Romans: Anthony Rimlyanin and Mercurius of Smolensk]. St. Petersburg, Dmitrij Bulanin Publ., 2005. pp. 233-272. (In Russian).
Skazanie o turovskom mnihe Martyne [Legend on the turovsky mnikh Martyne], in: Makarij (Bulgakov), mitr. Istoriya Russkoj Cerkvi [History of the Russian Church]. Moscow, Spaso-Preobrazhenskij Valaamskij monastyr' Publ., 1995. Book. 2. p. 583. (In Russian).
Sokolov I. I. Sostoyanie monashestva v Vizantijskoj cerkvi s serediny IX do nachala XIII veka (842-1204): Opyt cerkovno-istoricheskogo issledovaniya [Condition of a monkhood in the Byzantine church from the middle of IX before the beginning of the 13th century (842-1204): Experience of church and historical research]. St. Petersburg, Oleg Abyshko Publ., 2003. (In Russian).
Tatishchev V. Istoriya rossijskaya [The history is the Russian]. Moscow, AST Publ., Ermak Publ., 2005. Vol. 2. (In Russian).
Titmar Merzeburgskij. Hronika [The chronicle], in: Drevnyaya Rus' v svete zarubezhnyh istochnikov [Ancient Russia in the light of foreign sources]. Moscow, Russkij Fond Sodejstviya Obrazovaniyu i Nauke Publ., 2010.Vol. 4. pp. 6389. (In Russian).
Tolochko P. P. Dvorcovye intrigi na Rusi [Palace intrigues in Russia]. St. Petersburg, Aletejya Publ., 2003. (In Russian).
Ustav knyazya Yaroslava o cerkovnyh sudah (Prostrannaya redakciya. Os-novnoj izvod) [The charter of the prince Yaroslav about church courts (Vast edition. Main recension)], in: Drevnerusskie knyazheskie ustavy XI-XV vv. [Old Russian princely charters of the 11-15th centuries]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1976. pp. 85-91. (In Russian).
Fomina T. Yu. Episkopskaya vlast' v domongol'skoj Rusi: istoki, stanovlenie, razvitie [The episcopal power in domongolsky Russia: sources, formation, development]. Moscow, Universitetskaya kniga Publ., 2014. (In Russian).
Cypin V., prot. Kanonicheskoepravo [The Canon law]. Moscow, Sretenskij monastyr' Publ., 2012. (In Russian).
Chichurov I. S. Antilatinskij traktat Kievskogo mitropolita Efrema (ok. 1054/55 - 1061/62 gg.) v sostave grecheskogo kanonicheskogo sbornika Vat. Gr. 828 [The anti-Latin treatise of the Kiev metropolitan Yefrem (apprx. 1054/55 -1061/62) as a part of the Greek initial collection Vat. Gr. 828]. Vestnik Pra-voslavnogo Svyato-Tihonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Series 1: Bo-goslovie. Filosofiya. Religiovedenie. 2007, no. 3 (19), pp. 107-132. (In Russian).
Shchapov Ya. N. Vizantijskoe i yuzhnoslavyanskoe pravovoe nasledie na Rusi v XI-XIII vv. [The Byzantine and South Slavic legal heritage in Russia in the 11-13th centuries]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1978. (In Russian).
Shchapov Ya. N. Knyazheskie ustavy i cerkov' v Drevnej Rusi XI-XIV vv. [Princely charters and church in Ancient Russia the 11-14th centuries]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1972. (In Russian).
Shchapov Ya. N. Cerkov' v Drevnej Rusi (do konca XIII v.) [Church in Ancient Russia (until the end of the 13th century)], in: Russkoe pravoslavie: vekhi istorii [The Russian Orthodoxy: history milestones]. Moscow: Politizdat Publ., 1989. pp. 10-70. (In Russian).
Chronicon Sancti Petri Vivi Senonensis, in: Bibliotheque historique de L'YONNE ou Collection de legends, chroniques et documents divers pour server a l'histoire des differentes contrees qui forment aujourd'hui ce de-partment. T. 2. Auxerre: Perriquet et Rouille, imprimeurs de la societe; Paris, Didron, 1863. (In Latin).
The paper submitted on 29.04.2016 The paper is admitted for publication on 22.11.2016
