The Science Work
Site is for sale:
Category: History

To a question of features of development of the Kiev metropolitanate in the middle to the 2nd half of the 16th century

 © P.V. ShEVKUN, 2004



Vitebsk state medical university, department of the social humanities

Summary. Work is devoted to a problem of development of the Kiev metropolitanate in sulfurs. - vtor. floor. HU1 of century. It is shown that education by the end of HU1 of century in the territory of a metropolitanate of two actually independent, perceiving themselves as Orthodox Christians, church structures was in many respects caused by processes of registration of the Belarusian and Ukrainian nationalities.


Abstract. The study concerns the problem of the Kiev metropolitan diocese development within the middle - the second half of the XVI century. It is shown that the formation of two really independent church structures on the territory of the Kiev metropolitan diocese to the end of the XVI century which considered themselves Orthodox was in many respects caused by the processes of the Ukrainian and Belarusian nationalities formation.

In the history of the Kiev metropolitanate the middle - the second half of HU1 of century uses special attention of researchers. Interest is attracted first of all by the fact that in 1596 the union between orthodox church of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (PLC) and Vatican was signed. This unique event predetermined the subsequent religious and cultural development of Belarus and Ukraine. Distinguish from the reasons which influenced the conclusion of the union and on the general condition of orthodox church PLC: a position of the Catholic party and the royalty, the brotherly movement and actions of the Constantinople patriarchs, aspiration to reforms in churches and distribution of Protestantism. At the same time, influence of a national factor on processes in the Kiev metropolitanate in the middle - the second half of HU1 of century is practically not considered though dioceses, okhva-were its part

The address for correspondence: 210023, Vitebsk, the ave. of Frunze, 27, the Vitebsk state medical university, department of the social humanities - P.V. Shevkun

tyvayushchy both territory of Belarus, and Ukraine. The modern historiography investigates a national perspective in relation to HUP-HUSh of century. The Soviet historiography, though saw in some manifestations of religious life of the Ukrainian and Belarusian people (for example in the brotherly movement) national liberation fight, however class approach, characteristic of it, did not allow to approach the solution of this question more deeply and differentially. Departing from straightforwardness of the Soviet historiography, it is necessary to emphasize that the national component in development of the Kiev metropolitanate was shown in close connection both with the principles of the orthodox and church organization, and with features of development of the European culture and society in HU1 of century. With distribution of Protestantism and the followed religious wars the accurate determination of the principle of state and church relationship was required. It was given as a result of the Augsbur-sky religious world in 1555 and said:

"cujus region ejus religio" ("whose country, that and belief"). This situation, on the one hand, expressed the traditional monarchic principle of relationship of church and state. With another, in realities of HU1 of century was the evidence of new processes - processes of folding of the national church organizations as emphasized special communication between independent temporal power of a certain region and local church, reciprocity of their interests. In the territory of IS the specified situation was shown by means of the union of churches. It was necessary that the orthodox population of the Belarusian and Ukrainian lands which are a part of IS became coreligion with the royalty. For church - this major condition of success of its mission, for the monarchy

>- that base thanks to which it exists. Strengthening of centrifugal trends in a metropolitanate demonstrated processes of folding of the national church organizations. Completion of formation of the Belarusian and Ukrainian nationality could not be expressed in development of the consolidated position Belarusian and, respectively, the Ukrainian hierarchy or in aspiration to registration of independent church structures of two people. First, there was the general state of IS with the uniform monarch. Stay under the power of one governor of two orthodox metropolitanates was not only excessive, but also impossible. The monarchic power could not be consecrated twice, under a condition if the first is recognized as true. Secondly, the Kiev metropolitanate was under supervision of the Constantinople patriarchy. Crushing of a metropolitanate since it complicated relationship was unprofitable to patriarchs. Thirdly, the idea of a uniform Kiev metropolitanate and religious unity of Russia was rather strong and in many respects defined consciousness of people of the considered era. Therefore manifestation of national contradictions in the Kiev metropolitanate can be observed in features of a religious situation in Ukraine and Belarus, in aggravation of opposition between the metropolitan, the residence to - tory was in Novogrudka, and various representatives of the Ukrainian hierarchy in registration of the orthodox brotherhoods seeking for redistribution of the church power.

Behind these diverse phenomena and the conflicts having, at first sight, personal or corporate motives the deep trend, a trend of national self-determination of the people of Belarus and Ukraine in church life appears.

The events connected with establishment of the Lviv diocese visually illustrate a special religious situation in Ukraine unlike Belarus. Also they can be considered the initial stage when a contradiction between the metropolitan and representatives of the Ukrainian hierarchy reach the considered level. The Lviv episcopacy has an old story throughout which some time there was a Galitsky metropolitanate. This historical tradition was not forgotten. The metropolitan had a title: The metropolitan Kiev, and-litsky and vseya Russia, and the territory of the former metropolitanate was included into his possession. In this regard establishment of the new diocese in Lviv affected not only the rights of the metropolitan, but also a formulation of his title. The metropolitan appeared in rather difficult situation. Further a solution according to which shlyakhtich Makari Tuchapsky was hailed the bishop in lands for of an alition and Podoliya was found. However its status was not equal to the status of other bishops of the Kiev metropolitanate. Makari was the vicar of the metropolitan and even was obliged to sign antimensions (special fabric on which it is possible to make a church service) from his name [6, page 198]. The historical heritage, Uda is laziness of the new diocese from the residence of the metropolitan, an originality of a religious situation on L'vivshchyna forced it to be afraid of separatism from the new bishop. Already following Lvovsky the bishop Arseny Balaban actually irrespective of the metropolitan managed department. When Jonah III Protasiewicz, in the diploma Sigiz-Moundou to Augustus became the new metropolitan, in addition, he asked that the Galitsky arkhiyepiskopiya was again sent to his management [6, page 212]. By a paradoxical image restoration of influence of Lvovsky the Catholic archbishop for orthodox church in Galicia which that had before establishment of episcopacy was favorable to the metropolitan.

However a specific situation, in koto-

a swarm there lived the orthodox church in Ukraine, was shown not only in Galicia. The problem of the orthodox and Catholic relations was acute in Holmshchina. So, in 1533 a part of church manors was transferred by the king to the Catholic bishop. With distribution of Protestantism there was a problem of their intervention in church affairs. In 1565 the bishop Anthony asked Sigismund to forbid a local Protestant shlyakhta to interfere with religious life of the citizens and to interfere with them to visit Orthodox churches [6, page 463]. In the Vladimir diocese Stefan Batory gave an expektativa on episcopacy to Catholic Stanislav Zholkevsky [6, page 460]. The Ukrainian dioceses were actually independent and practically did not submit to the metropolitan both owing to remoteness, and owing to the royal right of patronage. The metropolitan had no opportunity to resolve the serious conflicts in the hierarchy environment. In these conditions everything depended on enterprise and financial resources of conflicting parties. Sources kept certificates on armed conflicts of applicants for the Vladimir and Holmsky dioceses. Controversial issues in the Lviv and Lutsk dioceses were in arms resolved. Without having an opportunity to prevent the specified conflicts, the metropolitan practically did not interfere with them.

Features of influence of orthodox society on church hierarchy also distinguish a situation in Ukraine from Belarus. In Polotsk long since there were veche orders. Guo - the rozhena privileges had because the principality was a part of VKL under the contract. Therefore as notices B. Flor, in the city there was probably a practice of collective patronage over local church with which also the grand duke had to reckon [8, page 139]. In the Pinsk diocese there were no traditions of the Polotsk earth and, probably, there was no organized position of orthodox community. The conflict between the bishop Kirill Terlets-ky and owners of manors concerning their intervention in spiritual affairs and courts [6, page 219] shows that actions of a shlyakhta were defined by exclusively mercenary motives and had chaotic character. In the territory of the metropolitan area in Belarus a situation

also was rather stable. Petty bourgeoises had neither resources, nor authority to seek for redistribution of the spiritual power in own favor. Magnates of VKL - both Orthodox Christians, and not Orthodox Christians - and without additional actions actually defined election of the metropolitan. Without their help it could hardly expect success in implementation of any serious plans. Other was a situation in Ukraine. In Galicia, first of all, thanks to support of a local shlyakhta and narrow-mindedness, in 1539 the episcopacy was restored. In the Holmsky diocese the crucial role in the termination of a conflict between the bishop Zinoviy and his son-in-law F. Omnis was played by a shlyakhetsky militia [6, page 464]. During calendar reform of Grigory of HS the galitsky shlyakhta and narrow-mindedness took the most active part in defending the old calendar. Reacting to passivity of the metropolitan in this question they wrote that great misfortune to be under its bishopric that he does not care for protection of the verbal sheep against wolves that at it Orthodox Christians suffer such troubles what did not happen earlier [6, page 264]. In Kiev, collective patronage over the KievoPecherskiy monastery gradually is established. In the Lutsk diocese of action of the bishop Jonah Borzobogaty led to armed conflict between it and at the beginning the prince Ostrozhsky, and then and the prince Pronsky. Business ended with a banition (exile out of borders of the state) the bishop and his relatives [6, page 248]. Thus, unlike Belarus in Ukraine the situation was much more difficult. In Belarus the authority and the power of the metropolitan it was too considerable that it could resist, putting forward own understanding of the rights and bishop's duties. The system of the state patronage was rather effective that VKL kept own administrative device. Ukraine of such conditions of maintaining relative stability did not know.

The remoteness from the centers of the government in IS and VKL together with the above-stated reasons created a possibility of the actions directed to formation of a specific control system over hierarchy. Galitskaya of the shlyakht and

was a favourite in this process

narrow-mindedness. However if shlyakht she was able to criticize only a condition of orthodox church, then the narrow-mindedness offered the special system of brotherhoods designed to exercise control over actions of hierarchy on behalf of all society. In 1586. The Antioch patriarch Jehoiakim IV approved Lvovsky's charter brotherhood, having made it stavropigialny. Besides the internal device the charter contained points giving to brotherhood the privilege of supervision of laymen and spiritual including the episcopate. The Lviv brotherhood had to become a sample for other brotherhoods, and they according to the diploma of the patriarch had to it submit [5, page 30-31]. Even the Vilensky Troitsk brotherhood founded in 1587 had no privilege in relation to clergy and the episcopate.

The aspiration to separate from the power of the metropolitan amplified by the end of the 80th years of the 16th century. It was connected with arrival of the Constantinople patriarch which was chapter of orthodox hierarchy of IS. The Ukrainian bishops tried to use his authority and influence on believers. The title of the exarch was received by the bishop Lutsky K. Terletsky. He appeared the deputy of the patriarch and undertook to watch church life of a metropolitanate. At this time probably the Vladimir bishop Melety Hreptovich who was at the same time and the archimandrite of the Kyiv Pechersk monastery, was entitled a protofroniya, i.e. the right to be the first among bishops after the metropolitan. Usually this place was taken by the Polotsk bishop. It should be noted that these two Ukrainian dioceses were the richest in the Kiev metropolitanate. Lvovsky the bishop Gideon Balaban achieved from the patriarch of the diploma according to which leaders of brotherhood Yury and Ivan Rogatiny, Ivan Krasovsky were excommunicated for the fact that with weapon protected the Onufriyev-sky monastery from people of the bishop and did not give it the chance to establish there the power [6, page 273]. However hopes of bishops for the patriarch were not equaled. He did not possess sufficient resources and motivation to give the chance of their embodiment. At this conjuncture bishops tried to find a way out in the union with Rome. Right after the Brest cathedral in June, 1590 the address of bishops of Lutsky, Lvovsky, Pinsk followed and

Holmsky to the king about desire to recognize their power of the Pope [7, page 37]. This statement was made after the decision of cathedral in favor of Lvovsky brotherhood about need to indemnify the loss caused to it by Lvovsky the bishop. As in a consequence the Holmsky bishop Dionysius Zbiruysky said, bishops were dissatisfied with desire of the metropolitan to expand the power over them more, than followed [3, page 365-367]. On the subsequent cathedral (1591) the decisions [6, page 475] connected with strengthening of the power of bishops both at themselves in dioceses, and in the relations with secular cartridges were made. The power of the metropolitan did not weaken, but his possibilities of influence on bishops were limited. Decisions of cathedral of 1591 carried a computer - romissny character. However the conflict of brotherhood and metropolitan with Lvovsky was not settled by the bishop. Balaban was condemned by the decision of Cathedral of 1593 on excommunication [6, page 300]. In June of the next year, on new Cathedral, its excommunication was again confirmed. It is indicative that in the final resolution there is a signature from all bishops only the metropolitan and the bishop Vladimir [6, page 302]. Despite all these measures, Gideon Balaban continued the activity in an episcopal dignity. About this time by the invitation of the bishop Kirill lords Lvovsky, Holmsky, Peremyshlsky gathered in the city of Sokal. At this meeting conditions of adoption of the union with Rome were made and it is entrusted to present to Kirill Terletsky them to the king and the metropolitan. In conditions the safety of all church system and its nenarushimost made a reservation both from secular persons, and from some spiritual, guarantees to the episcopate and clergy from actions of patriarchs, cancellation of privileges to brotherhoods, a posvyashchayemost of bishops from the metropolitan, and the metropolitan by bishops on blessing of Dad. In addition an opportunity to use the privileges of Catholic clergy made a reservation. The metropolitan added some conditions and, first of all, a guarantee for preservation of a metropolitanate and a dignity until the end of life in honor, respect and rest [1, page 211]. Thus, the agreement in Sokala showed aspiration of the episcopate, as well as earlier, to hardening of own power in dioceses and to strengthening of the influence in society at

minimum possible strengthening of the power of the metropolitan. The metropolitan who fell actually into a stalemate was forced to agree to these offers since to refuse to support the initiative of four bishops approved by the king threatened with serious consequences. The metropolitan Mikhail tried to keep the maximum freedom of action in the created conditions, having stipulated at the same time personal guarantees and conditions to keep its consent in secret. This initiative could not but seem to him dangerous as bishops whose aspiration to separate from the power of the metropolitan was obvious participated in the project. According to G. Balaban and M. Kopystensky, bishops gathered "obtyazhlivost mayuch from e. for I oskarzhen-eat m of the father metropolitan Mikhail people of some on us, bishops" [2, page 453]. Besides, the metropolitan became the main object of antiuniatsky promotion. M. Rogoza's fears are confirmed by the letter of Ipati Potey to it after negotiations in Torchin (January, 1595) with Bernard Matseyovsky. In it Potey retells Matseyovsky's assurances that after the union and the senior (the metropolitan - Sh.P.) will have bigger value and all will obey him and to be afraid that it is necessary to improve the maintenance of department, and the Kiev and Pechersky monastery has to be under control of the metropolitan [6, page 308]. The metropolitan openly suspected Kirill Terletsky of aspiration on its place. In the letter to Skumin-Tyshkevich the metropolitan who was still seeking to separate from active supporters of the union whether diplomatically asked "not to leave a metropolitanate? Already there is on call a metropolitan - lord Lutsky to whom also dominion behind it is promised to leave and give a metropolitanate" [6, page 319]. If with expansion of the draft of the union of fear that it is means of weakening of the power of metropolitan per se gradually receded into the background, then fears about preservation of a metropolitanate remained, apparently, very relevant. Lvovsky the bishop most sensitively reacted to similar change of nature of an uniatsky initiative. For it the union in the scale which appeared by the beginning of summer did not promise any advantages. Possible strengthening of the power of the metropolitan, influence Kirill Terlets-

whom and Ipati Potey promised him a role of the minor suffragan bishop. At the same time the union as it became clear, could not solve Lvovsky's problem brotherhood which had a great influence and various diplomas on the privileges. Besides, the largest Ukrainian magnate, the Kiev voivode prince K.K. Ost-rozhsky also was negative to an initiative of bishops. In July, 1595 the bishop Lvovsky Ge - deon publicly renounced the participation in business of the union [6, page 324]. In August, 1595 the Peremyshlsky bishop Mikhail Kopystensky followed its example [6, page 484]. Also the Kyiv Pechersk archimandrite did not obey to the royal diploma and if to consider that K.K. Ostrozhsky was the voivode in Kiev, then it is possible to claim that on a part of the metropolitan area with the center in Kiev opponents of the union also prevailed.

Thus when it became clear that the union

>- it is not a universal panacea that it is impossible to count with its help on strengthening of own episcopal power at simultaneous weakening of the power of the metropolitan, since if strengthening and unity of church hierarchy, only at all its levels is possible that fight for a statement and saving the union will be difficult and long that those orders to what bishops got used and what in more perfect form would like to keep should be adjusted, a number of influential representatives of orthodox hierarchy refuse the participation in the union. Others, headed by the metropolitan - the slave of this process, continue the begun business which was completed with the Brest Cathedrals in October, 1596 of supporters and opponents of the union. The subsequent events in life of the orthodox population of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (the approval of uniatsky hierarchy and distribution of the union, anti-uniatskoye the movement) resulted in the embodiment of those trends which were traced throughout the middle - the second half of HU1 of century. In the territory of Belarus the uniatsky hierarchy was fixed. The territory of Ukraine becomes the center of the antiuniatsky movement where also the corresponding hierarchy was created later [4, with 17].

Revival of Ukraine as one of the religious centers of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth took place in difficult, contradictory conditions and a reality -

elk business not only hierarchies, but also all Ukrainian society. Most brightly these processes were shown in the Lviv and Lutsk dioceses. Kiev, despite the history and value in the opinion of believers, in the administrativnotserkovny relation was directly subordinated to the metropolitan and therefore could not unite at this time various circles of the Ukrainian Orthodoxy which work independently. L'vivshchyna inspired by traditions of the Galitsky metropolitanate, which is unfairly humiliated with absence of the bishop and intervention of Catholics in religious life of Orthodox Christians, and after restoration of the diocese the status of the bishop as metropolitan's vicar, sought to restore the positions. This aspiration was so powerful that rather weak episcopal power could not accumulate it. The Lviv brotherhood becomes that center which tries to extend the influence on all part of the Kiev metropolitanate, exercising at the same time the power and influence of east patriarchs, orthodox magnates of the state, rather skillfully playing on contradictions between the bishop and the metropolitan. Independent activity of brotherhood, a claim for leadership in orthodox society led to collisions with the Lviv bishop whose plans broke against own diocese which instead of being to it a support, became nearly the main obstacle in a way of the embodiment of its ambitions. The Lutsk diocese, being the richest, allowed the lord to build far-reaching pla-

ny, which if were not implemented in full (partially in the exarch's title), then owing to those circumstances one of initiators and which "hostage" he became. The idea of the union which main conductor was Lutsky the bishop at the beginning was means of decentralization and an intrigue personally against the metropolitan. It predetermined its relation constrained to it. Further the union became as a factor of consolidation of hierarchy when personal ambitions receded into the background, and means of disengagement on two actually independent, perceiving themselves as orthodox, church structures. Structures which in the conditions of HU1-HU11 of centuries saw in each other the illegal education which brought split in a uniform Kiev metropolitanate.


1. The acts relating to the history of the Western Russia (AZR). SPb., 1851. - T.4.
2. Archive of Southwest Russia. Kiev, 1859. - T.1.
3. The acts issued by the Vilensky Arkheografichesky Commission (AVK). Vilnya, 1875. - T.19.
4. The power, a suspshstvo 1 Church in Ukrash1 at HU11 of the station Lv1v, 1996.
5. Krylov And. Lviv stavropigialny brotherhood. To., 1994.
6. m Makari. History of the Russian Church. M of 1996. - T.5.
7. The union in documents: Sb. / sost. V.A. Teplova, Z.I. Zueva. Mn., 1997.
8. B.N. Flor. The relation of the state to church at east and western Slavs (Middle Ages era) M., 1992.

Arrived 17.05.2004. Accepted in the press of 25.06.2004

Roger Williams
Other scientific works: