1 Gill, Joseph,The Council of Florence (Cambridge, 1959).Google Scholar

2 Halecki, Oscar,From Florence to Brest (1439-1596) (Rome, 1958).Google Scholar

3 The papers have been published in Church History, XXIV (1955). I. Ševčenko,“Intellectual Repercussions of the Council of Florence,” pp. 291-323; D. Geanakoplos,“The Council of Florence (1438-1439) and the Problem of the Union between the Greek and Latin Churches,” pp. 324–46; M. Cherniavsky,“The Reception of the Council of Florence in Moscow,” pp. 347–59.

4 (Moscow-Leningrad, 1948), 774.Google Scholar

5 Vernadsky, George, The Mongols and Russia(New Haven, 1953), p. 313 Google Scholar: “Only after they had become convinced that the Byzantine authorities had no intention of repudiating the union did the Russians decide to act.” Dimitri Strémooukhoff, “Moscow the Third Rome: Sources of the Doctrine,” Speculum,XXVIII (1953), 88, n. 23: “Vasili II and the Metropolitan Jona explain the necessity of electi ng the metropolitan at Moscow and not at Constantinople by the dissension which divided the imperial city when there was no longer a patriarch of the ancient piety.“

6 , II / l (Moscow, 1900), 479–80.

7 Two historians in recent years have hinted that the civil war had some impact on the religious problem. See Cherniavsky, , “Reception of the Council of Florence in Moscow,” Church History, XXIV, 355 Google Scholar, and Ammann, A. M.,Abriss der ostslawischen Kirchengeschichte(Vienna, 1950), pp. 145–46.Google Scholar

8 Many accounts deal with these events, differing in some details, emphases, and in interpretation, but conforming essentially to this scheme. See, for example, Ammann, Abriss …, pp. 139 ff.; A. Ziegler, Die Union des Konzils von Florenz in der russischen Kirche (Wiirzburg, 1939); H. , V. (St. Petersburg, 1892), 170–83, 204–5; C. , I (St. Petersburg, n.d.: II / l, 428 ff.

9 hereafter cited asHCPI, XII (St. Petersburg, 1901)Google Scholar, 41. Some Western historians have attempted to attribute sole responsibility to Vasilii II for the rejection of union in Moscow. See Ledit, J., “Russie,” Dictionnaire de theologie catholique, XXIV (1939), 243; Gill, ,Council of Florence, p. 361; Ziegler,Die Union., pp. 108 ff.Google Scholar

10 , III, 773-74; Jugie, Martin,he schisme byzantin (Paris, 1941), p. 368;Google Scholar Gibbon, Edward,History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. Bury, J. B. VII, (London, 1900), 135–38;Google Scholar Gill, ,Council of Florence, pp. 350 ff., 356;Google Scholar Geanakoplos, , “The Council of Florence,” Church History, XXIV, 355–56.Google Scholar

11 The Russian Primary Chronicle, trans. Cross, S. H., in Harvard Studies and Notes in Philology and Literature, XII (Cambridge, 1930), 203.Google Scholar The entry is found under the year 988, but apparently was inserted at a later date. See also Schaeder, Hildegard,Moskau das dritte Rom (2nd ed.; Darmstadt, 1957), pp. 22–23.Google Scholar

12 “Reisebericht eines unbekannten Russen (1437-1440),” ed. and trans. G. Stockl, Byzan tinische Geschichtsschreiber, II (Graz-Vienna-Cologne, 1954), 153–54. For additional evidence on the development of the anti-Roman conditioning, see Jugie, Le schisme byzantin, pp. 236 ff. A. (XI–XV ee.) (Moscow, 1875).

13 M. (St. Petersburg, 1889)Google Scholar, pp. 10 ff.; Vasiliev, A., “Was Old Russia a Vassal State of Byzantium?” Speculum, VII (1932), 358.Google Scholar

14 • I / I, 281 ff.

15 Differing views on the reasons for the move are held by modern historians. See KnoieBcrafi B. O., II (Moscow, 1937), 23–24;Google Scholar A.E, (Petrograd, 1918), pp. 121–23, 136–37;Google ScholarAmmann,Abriss., pp. 82–84; …, I, col. 917.

16 To cite but one example, in 1329 the Greek-born Metropolitan Feognost rendered valuable assistance to Ivan I of Moscow, when he excommunicated Prince Alexander of Tver and his Pskovian hosts. Alexander was forced to leave Pskov, thereby allowing the citizens of the merchant town to make peace with the prince of Moscow. , VII (St. Petersburg, 1856), 207.

17 Direct evidence to support this statement is difficult to obtain. One wonders, however, why metropolitans visited the capital of the Tatar khans on occasions when they were not required to obtain the usual confirmations for the church, such as when a new khan assumed the throne. One such instance occurred in 1333. “Metropolitan Feognost arrived in Moscow, having been in Constantinople and at the Horde.” IICP1, VII, 204.

18 Ammann, Abriss., pp. 90 f., 93 ff.

19 …, pp. 306 ff.; Ammann, Abriss …, pp. 94–96; , II/l, 179–85,190–92.

20 , hereafter cited as PиБ, VI (St. Petersburg, 1908), Supplement, cols. 44, 46.Google Scholar Obolensky, D. (“Byzantium, Kiev and Moscow,”Dumbarton Oaks Papers,s XI [Cambridge, Mass., 1957], pp. 38–39)Google Scholar has translated this passage from the original Greek.

21 Ammann, Abriss …, pp. 101–3; …, 11/1,226–60.

22 Cyprian, a Bulgarian, had been made“Metropolitan of Kiev and of all Rus” in 1375, with headquarters in Lithuanian Kiev. Upon the death of Aleksei (which came in 1378) he was to become the sole primate for all Rus. He never won definitive recognition in Moscow until 1390, where he resided until his death in 1406. Apparently Cyprian maintained close relations with the rulers of Lithuania • ., II / l, 341). Photios (ROSSI) and Isidore (1436–41) were both Greeks. Neither had been a candidate of the rulers of Lithuania or Moscow (ibid., II / l, 357-58). A Lithuanian bishop, Gerasim of Smolensk, won Byzantine approval as metropolitan of the entire eparchy in 1432 (to 1435), I [Moscow-Leningrad, 1941], 41-42; II [Moscow, 1955], 44; IIpecHjiKOBi, 06pa-soeanie …, p. 395, n. 1). For the correct dating of Gerasim's enthronement, see , II / l, 416, n. 2. The appointment of Gerasim must be viewed as an unusual case. At this time the Byzantine emperor anticipated the convocation of an ecumenical council and Gerasim's pro-union sympathies made him a timely candidate (Halecki, From Florence to Brest, p. 39). The Muscovite court, however, following a precedent set in the reign of Dmitrii Donskoi, refused to recognize Gerasim as metropolitan for north-eastern Rus. In the episcopal letters of Bishop Iona of Riazan of the 1440's and 1450's, Gerasim's tenure, along with Isidore's, was passed over in silence. Iona referred to the“widowhood” of the Russian church since the death of Photios (PиБ, VI, No. 66, col. 557).

23 Ostrogorsky, G.,History of the Byzantine State (New Brunswick, 1957), pp. 492–93.Google Scholar

24 , XI (St. Petersburg, 1897), 168.

25 Vernadsky, Mongols and Russia, pp. 294–301; CoлoьBfceBъ., ИcmopiЯ Pocciu …, I, cols. 1052-60; ., pp. 386-94; XIV-XV бekax (Moscow, 1960), pp. 743–68.

26 ∏CPл, VIII, 92–93.

27 The earliest definitive date scholars have been able to assign to the nomination of Iona is March, 1433. In a letter of that dae, the bishop revealed that he had been“ nominated to the most holy Russian metropolitanate. “ PиБ, VI, No. 61, col. 521.

28 Two reasons may be p roposed for the delay: first, a metropo litan for Rus, Gerasim of Smolensk, hadalready been enthroned in 1432 (see above, n. 22); second, a nd pe rhaps less convincing, is the argumentthat the dynastic crisis impeded this venture. Actually, if Vasilii II can be believed, he desired to have Iona become metropo litanso that he might use the spiritual sword to bolster the grand princely position. In a 1441 letter, addressed to Patriarch Metrophanes, Vasilii noted (PиБ, VI, No. 62, cols. 529-30),“After the death of … Photios and after I was forced to journey to the Tatarcourt[1432-33], both because of the in t ernecinestruggle, and for the well being of Christianity and the benefit of the clergy, Iordered Bishop Iona of Riazan to go to you … with a petition to the Holy Tsarand the Most Holy Patriarch and the Divine Sobor, with our letters and petitions, asking you that Iona be made metropolitan.” For the dating of Isidore's consecration, see Ziegler, Die Union …, p. 59.

29 Gill, Council of Florence, pp. 54 ft.

30 t;>Ammann, Abriss …, p. 139:“Aber jetzt machten sich die Gesichtspunkte Konstantinopels erst recht geltend. Der Kaiser und der Patriarch wollten in Moskau einen Mann ihres Vertrauens haben, der die russische Kirche im Sinne der Grosskirche lenkte. Und der Sinn der beiden Haupter dieser Kirche stand auf Verhandlungen mit Rom und gegebenenfalls auch auf eine Vereinigung der beiden Kirchen. So sandten sie als Metro-politen Isidor … nach Russland.”

31 Vasilii II later claimed that he accepted Isidore because he was duly consecrated. He reluctantly consented to Isidore's departure for the West, but also required Isidore to swear protection for the Orthodox position at the Council (Pиь, VI, No. 71, cols. 580-81). We may wonder, since Vasilii wrote this after Isidore's return and deposition, whether he did not wish to appear wise in hindsight by indicating concern about the fate of Ortho-doxy on the eve of the Council. When Isidore left for the West he had a considerable Russian following, including the bishop of Suzdal. Any suspicion of betrayal would have surely reduced the size of the contingent. For the composition of the suite that left Rus in 1437, see , II / l, 431–32.

32 Several early returnees came back in 1440 with the news of the Council's decisions and Isidore's adherence to union ( •, II / l, 455, n.l; Ziegler, Die Union …, p. 96). Yet when Isidore finally arrived in Moscow in March, 1441, the grand prince allowed him to celebrate mass in the cathedral church inside the Kremlin. Only after Isidore inserted the pope's name in the diptychs and had the decree of union proclaimed, did the grand prince then convene a synod to decide Isidore's fate (ΠCPл, VIII, 108-9). Vasilii and the bishops, already summoned to Moscow prior to Isidore's return (ibid., XII, 41), saw no other recourse, after hearing the heresy with their own ears, than to depose Isidore and remand him to a dungeon. The embarrassed silences in the chronicles over key events and the long period of hesitation after the first news of the betrayal suggest that the members of the Muscovite court and the upper clergy were caught in a dilemma for which they had no precedent in the Russian past to guide them.

33 …, II / l, 452 ff.; ΠCPл, VIII, 109; Pиь, VI, No. 62, col. 534.

34 Pиь, VI, No. 87, cols. 654-55.

35 ΠCPл, VI, 161–63. No official admiss ion exists that Is idore was allowed to escape. The closest to such atatement we possess is in a letter of 1460 of Metropolitan lona to the Lithuanian bishops, where he c laimed that Is idore escaped. Continued lona :“ The Orthodox Grand Prince Vasilii Vasil 'evich did not pursue him in order to bring him back, for he was stupid and impious, nor did he desire to detain him and become contaminated by his heresy, since the holy rule of the divine law of the Holy Apostlesdecrees that such an abjurer of the Church be burned at thes take or buried alive.” Pиь, VI, No. 87, cols. 654-55. For a similar view, see Gill, Council of Florence, p.

36 Pиь, VI, col. 525.

37 For the entire letter, see ibid., VI, cols. 524–36.

38 ibid., cols. 535–36.

39 , I I I (St. Petersburg, 18G4), Supplemen t, p p. 28–36.

40 , III, 774.

41 Summaries and analyses of these developments may be found in Vernadsky, Mongols and Russia, pp. 315-25; …, I, cols. 1062–79; , pp. 398–407; …, pp. 769–72; 787–808.

42 Vernadsky, Mongols and Russia, pp. 301–2.

43 ΠCPл, VIII, 112–13.

44 bid.,VIII, 113–14.

45 Ibid., IV (St. Petersburg, 1848), 125.

46 Ibid., VIII, 115; XII,

47 Ibid., XXIII (St. Petersburg, 1910), 152.

48 Ibid., VIII, 115–17.

49 Ibid., XII, 69.

50 Ibid., VIII, 117–18.

51 Ibid., VIII, 118; XXIII, 153.

52 Ibid., VIII, 118–19; XII, 71.

53 …, pp 799–804.

54 PиБ VI, No. 84, cols. 633-34. The following statement is found in an episcopal letter of 1459:“ … Grand Prince Vasilii Vasil'evich and his son Grand Prince Ivan Vasil'evich, summoning us, their intercessors, … consecrated our lord lona, Metropolitan of Kiev and of all Rus.” Reference to Ivan as grand prince at the time of Iona's elevation (December, 1448) dates the cooptation before that time.

55 , VII (St. Petersburg, 1897), 194.Google Scholar

56 GustaveAlef, , “The Political Significance of the Inscriptions on Muscovite Coinage in the Reign of Vasili II ,” Speculum, XXXIV (1959), 11–12. Google Scholar

57 , I (St. Petersburg, 1841), No. 40, pp. 75-83.

58 ΠCPл, VIII, 121.

59 XIV-XV 66., ed.(Moscow-Leningrad, 1950), pp. 150–55.

60 ΠCPл, XII, 74-75; PиБ, VI, No. 64, pp. 539-42. The two letters, found under this number, seem to have been erroneously dated by the editor to late 1448. They appear to have been formulated before the spring of 1449.

61 ΠCPл, VIII, 125. See also the letter of lona to the archbishop of Novgorod in 1452, asking that he use his influence to alter the policy of the Novgorodian officials. , I, No. 53, pp. 101–3.

62 ΠCPл, VI, 180.

63 See PES, VI, No. 66, cols. 559–61; No. 71, col. 578; Vernadsky, Mongols and Russia, p. 313; ., II / l, 415, 481–83.

64 ΠCPл, VIII, 121–22.

65 Only fragmentary evidence has survived concerning this opposition. See E. Denisoff, “Aux origines de l'eglise autocephale,” Revue des etudes slaves, XXIII (1947), 73. Probably Casimir, grand prince of Lithuania, had been consulted in the spring of 1448, since his envoy was in Moscow at that time (ΠCPл, XII, 74). Casimir did not officially recognize Iona's jurisdiction over the Orthodox Lithuanian provinces until January 31, 1451 (PиБ, VI, No. 67, cols. 562-66), only after he had won a favorable political settlement with Moscow in 1449 …, No. 53, pp. 160-63). When the political climate of relations between the two powers turned stormy in the 1450's, Casimir rejected Iona's jurisdiction over the Orthodox provinces under his jurisdiction and allowed for the creation of a uniate metropolitanate in 1458 (Halecki, From Florence to Brest, pp. 85 ff.). Trouble also arose with the Novgorodians. While in 1448 the archbishop of Novgorod acknowledged Iona as the lawful metropolitan , I, 75), the Novgorod-ian city fathers later flouted Iona's authority (presumably because he had not followed customary procedure in his election), when they offered the excommunicate Dmitrii Shemiaka asylum between 1450 and 1453. While the Novgorodians were attempting to create political embarrassments for Moscow, their refusal to honor Iona's entreaties had to be predicated on ecclesiastical grounds.

66 None of the letters formulated by Vasilii II to Constantinople after Isidore's deposition is believed to have been dispatched. On this there is general agreement, though the explanations vary.

67 PиБ, cols. 582–83.

68 See Cherniavsky,“Reception of the Council of Florence in Moscow,” Church History,XXIV, 349 ff. It should be noted that the various eulogistic accounts praising Vasilii's actions in deposing Isidore and in defending Orthodoxy date after 1458. There is also the probability of a connection between the appearance of these tracts—strident in tone—with the appearance of a uniate metropolitan in Lithuania in 1459. The Lithuanian grand prince insisted that his metropolitan, Gregory, be recognized in Moscow (ΠCPл, VI, 169; PиБ, VI, No. 87, p. 655). The new religious crisis forced Metropolitan Iona, the East Russian clergy, and the grand prince to wage a polemical war against this new threat to Orthodoxy and this undoubtedly had an effect upon the appearance of the panegyric