Empire, commonwealth and jurisdiction: the Rus’ Metropolitanate within the Byzantine eparchal tradition (6-11th. c.) (original) (raw)
Related papers
Проблема поширення церковної юрисдикції Магдебурзького архієпископства на землі Рюриковичів у другій половині Х століття у світлі німецьких латиномовних хронік і анналів, 2018
In the second half of the 10th century Imperium Romanum in the person of Otto I and Otto II considered a possibility of restoring of the church-political relations with the Rurik dynasty after an unsuccessful attempt of the evangelizing mission of Bishop Adalbert in the lands of Rus’ between 959–962. We can assume, that after 959 the lands of Rurikids, although formally, but still could be subjected to the Magdeburg Bishopric. Significantly, in the Germanic Latin chronicles and annals of the end of the 10th – beginning of the 11th century a number of messages, related to the Rus’-German church-political contacts and missionary journeys of Magdeburg bishops in the lands of Rus’, is growing. By the verification of these and other sources, it was possible to reconstruct the church relations of the Magdeburg archbishopric with Rurikids in the second half of the 10th century. The author suggests that the archbishopric considered the possession of the Rurik dynasty as a part of its missionary eparchy during the specified period.
Происхождение и судьба византийских строителей Владимира Святославича и его сыновей: «константинопольское» и «неконстантинопольское» в зодчестве Руси конца Х – середины XI века // Искусство византийского мира 2: Сборник статей памяти О.С. Поповой / Отв. ред. И.А. Орецкая. М., 2023. С. 38-69, 2023
The article deals with the question of the origin of the Byzantine master builders working in Rus’ from the late 10th until the mid‑11th century. Three building crews can be distinguished: the builders of Valdimir’s Tithe Church, the masters of the first stage of Mstislav’s Saviour Cathedral in Chernigov, and the master builders of Yaroslav’s buildings. The first two crews came apparently from the Black Sea region: the first one brought in 989 the tradition of cross-shaped pillars and buttress arches and originated most likely from Cherson, and the second one (in the early 1030s) built of stone and bricks using ‘atectonic’ blind arches on the facades and came probably from the Northeastern or Eastern Black Sea region. From the very beginning of their work (St. Sophia in Kiev, the early 1030s) Yaroslav’s master builders demonstrate a combination of elements from Constantinople and ‘Helladic school,’ combined on Russian soil with the Eastern Byzantine tradition of cross-shaped pillars and buttress arches. Traces of Vladimir’s crew get lost after the completion of the Tithe Church. Plinth-makers and, possibly, masons from Mstislav’s crew could later join the masters of Yaroslav Vladimirovich in Chernigov. In turn, Yaroslav’s masters after the completion of St. St. Sophia, the Golden Gate in Kiev with the Annunciation church and the construction of the Tithe Church, about 1037, moved to Chernigov to finish work on the Saviour Cathedral, where they joined Byzantine plinth-makers from Mstislav’s crew, and then moved to Novgorod for the construction of St. Sophia in 1045–1050. Probably, the same crew built in the early 1050s the last churches of Yaroslav – St. George and St. Irene in Kiev. Thus, during the Yaroslav’s activity in building the stone churches, we see the work of only one crew: until 1037 in Kiev, in the late 1030s (and early 1040s?) in Chernigov, in 1045–1050 in Novgorod and in the early 1050s again in Kiev. However, traces of the plinth-makers of the first, Kiev stage of this crew can be traced in Russia until the 1070s, when the plinth characteristics of them were still found in the main part of the church of the Vydubitsy monastery. But most likely, the Greek masters left Russia after Yaroslav’s death in 1054, and partly even earlier, in the second half of the 1030s (probably the early Yaroslav’s plinth-makers of the Mstislav’s masters of the Saviour Cathedral in Chernigov), giving way to their former local apprentices. Keywords: Old Russian architecture, Byzantine architecture, Kiev, Chernigov, Novgorod, Constantinople, Cherson, Black Sea region, “Helladic school,” Vladimir Svyatoslavich, Mstislav Vladimirovich, Yaroslav Vladimirovich, plinth.
Authority over the sacred and the Institutionalization of the Rusian Church (XI-XII Centuries)
Novogardia 1 (9), 2021
Understanding "institutionalization" as the social process of construction , affirmation and legitimation of an authority that justifies itself as imperative , we aim to offer a theoretical approach to how some Rusian clergymen legitimized themselves and the Church between the XI and XII centuries, focused on the attempts to control the privilege to determine what is sacred. By admitting that the Church as an institution is historicized, that is, permeated by human relations, and approaching two examples-anti-Latin literature and the Klim Smolyatich controversy, we believe that what was perceived as attacks based on unofficial conceptions or order was interpreted a challenge to the churchly authority and, by the same token, forced clergymen to think about the nature of what they considered sacred.
Богословский вестник, 2022
The Church areas created in the Russian Orthodox Church in 1928 and 1934 did not exist long, and therefore did not have a noticeable impact on Church life. However, the idea of creating Church areas which united several dioceses was not forgotten. With the appearance of favorable conditions, nowadays this idea received a new development in the project of creating metropolitan areas and metropolias. The purpose of this article is to compare the status and powers of the governing bodies of metropolitan areas and metropolias, including the experience of creating regional Church centers a century ago. To achieve this goal, the method of comparative historical and сhurch-legal analysis was used. The territorial canonical structures created by experts and the Church legislator in the form of metropolitan areas and metropolias by uni cation of several dioceses have become a unique experience in designing regional Church centers. Having gone beyond the limits of pastoral and missionary tasks, which was a constant of all previous experience in building metropolitan areas administrations, modern metropolitan areas are endowed with administrative and judicial powers, and metropolias with administrative powers. In this work we are going to consider how this manifested itself in the details of the construction of regional Church centers.
О хронологии русских митрополитов XI в. (по поводу новой гипотезы А. П. Толочко) // Slověne. Vol. 8.1. P. 477-485, 2019
The article deals with the amendments made by A. P. Tolochko to the traditional chronology of the Russian metropolitans of the 11th cent., compiled by A. Poppe, and shows the weaknesses of both chronologies. Based on the latest epigraphic finds, a new chronology of the Metropolitans until the last quarter of the 11th cent. is proposed: Theophylact was transferred to Russia from the Metropolitan see of Sebasteia sometime before 1015; Theopempt became the Metropolitan no later than 1039; John ascended the throne after 1039 and reigned until 1051; Hilarion became the Metropolitan in 1051 (probably after July 24) and ceased to be in 1052 (before November 4); Ephraim received the Metropolitan see in 1052 (until November 4) and retained it at least until 1055; George, mentioned under 1072, could have become the Metropolitan as early as 1055. В статье разбираются поправки А. П. Толочко к традиционной хронологии киевских митрополитов ХI в., сформулированной А. Поппэ, и показываются слабые стороны обеих хронологий. На основании новейших эпиграфиче-ских находок предлагается новая хронология митрополитов до последней четверти XI в: Феофилакт был переведен на Русь с Севастийской митрополи-чьей кафедры до 1015 г.; Феопемпт стал митрополитом не позднее 1039 г.; Иоанн Ι взошел на престол после 1039 г. и правил до 1051 г.; Иларион сделал-ся митрополитом в 1051 г. (вероятно, после 24 июля) и перестал быть им в * В данной научной работе использованы результаты проекта «Модели представления прошлого в Средние века и раннее Новое время», выполненного в рамках Программы фундаментальных исследований НИУ ВШЭ в 2019 г.