of Kiev and all Rus’. The Galicianmetropolitanate dissolved andwith Galicia’s
candidate at its head the metropolitanate of Kiev and all Rus’ was reunited.80
Petr maintained that unity. But the Galician challenge did not permanently
disappear. Towards the end of Petr’s life, the Galician metropolitanate was
re-established (1325). The new Russian metropolitan Feognost, however,
reclaimed the south-western bishoprics when he passed through Galicia on
his way to Vladimir (1327). He successfully defeated yet another attempt to
form a separate see for the Galician bishoprics by travelling to that region
in 1331, just months after the metropolitanate was re-established, and then to
Constantinople in 1332.In 1341 a Galician metropolitanate, which lasted until
1347, formed once again, prompting Metropolitan Feognost to continue to
devote his energies to abolishing it.81
In addition to the recurrent threat that the Galician bishoprics would be
detached from the Kievan metropolitanate, a second challenge arose from
Lithuania. By the second quarter of the fourteenth century Lithuania was
incorporating Orthodox lands that had been parts of Kievan Rus’. During
the reigns of Gedimin (1316–41) and Ol’gerd (1345–77) Lithuania extended its
authority over Smolensk, Chernigov, and Kiev itself. After Iurii II of Galicia
and Volynia died in 1340, Volynia also fell under Lithuanian control. Lithua-
nia, which had provided Novgorod with Prince Narimunt in 1332, was exer-
cising influence not only over Novgorod, but also Pskov and Tver’.82
In
conjunction with the extension of Lithuanian authority over the Orthodox
populations of these principalities, a separate metropolitanate was created
c.1315–19.When itsmetropolitan Theophilus (Feofil) died in 1330, no successor
was named. Feognost, who was in Constantinople in 1332, may have influ-
enced the decision to leave the post vacant.83
In 1352, on the eve of Feog-
nost’s death, Lithuania urged the renewal of its own metropolitanate. When
its appeals met little sympathy in Constantinople, the Patriarch of Trnovo
一五零
(Bulgaria) consecrated Theodoret asmetropolitan for Lithuania. Theodoret
claimed jurisdiction over all the Orthodox bishoprics within the lands ruled
by Ol’gerd, including Kiev. Although Theodoret was formally deposed and
excommunicated by the Patriarch of Constantinople, he continued to func-
tion as metropolitan in the Lithuanian see until 1354, when Constantinople
confirmed Aleksei as metropolitan of Rus’ and also named a new metropoli-
tan, Roman, for Lithuania (1355).85
Roman included Kiev, which recognised
Lithuanian suzerainty, in his ecclesiastical realm as well. Aleksei undertook
intensive efforts to recover the Lithuanian bishoprics. They included trips to
Constantinople and Kiev,where hewas detained for two years.Themetropoli-
tanate of Kiev and all Rus’, nevertheless, remained divided until Roman died in
1362.86
Thus, while the princes of Moscow were challenging Prince Mikhail
Iaroslavich and his sons for the Vladimir throne and ingratiating themselves
with the khan at Sarai to overrule the dynastic traditions guiding seniority and
succession, the metropolitans were reaffirming the Kievan Rus’ heritage as a
basis formaintaining the unity of their see andwere appealing to the patriarchs
of Constantinople to support their position.
Although not necessarily motivated by the same goals as the Daniilovichi,
some actions undertaken by the metropolitans aided the princes of Moscow
in achieving political dominance in north-eastern Russia. In a general way the
metropolitans’ recognition of theMongol khan as the suzerain of the Russian
lands obliged them to accept the khans’ decrees, including their choice of
prince for Vladimir. Petr, who becamemetropolitan of Kiev and all Rus’ when
the patriarch selected him over the candidature of Prince Mikhail of Tver’, is
frequently regarded as a partisan of the Moscow princes.87
Tensions between
Petr, on the one hand, and Mikhail of Tver’, who had also recently become
一五一
加载中,请稍候......