Start page

Mykola Zharkikh (Kyiv)

Personal site


Metropolitan Michael

Nicholas Zharkikh

Abstract of the chapter

Detailed argumentation in ukrainian version

Fable of the Metropolitan of Kyiv Michael finds at least some support in the ancient source – "". According to researchers, this monument, which is based on Vladimir charter for the Tithe church, was finally formed in the 12th – 13th centuries.

The names of Michael and Photius in the statute are the result of research and assumptions by ancient scribes – the originator of the statute. This construction should be recognized at the level of scientific knowledge of those time, but the immediate value of these names is more than doubtful.

But the development of the legend does not stop at the actual name and the title of "first metropolitan": the acts had been assigned to him, such as

1. establishing monastery in Kyiv;

2. the name of the monastery St. Michael;

3. the claim that the monastery was thereby Golden-domed Michael's Monastery;

4. metropolitan residence at the monastery.

That's for this last point, and built a legend. Here it is, the "historical tradition" in front of us in your hand! If first metropolitan lived in Michael monastery, the Kopinsky not create a precedent unheard, but only restored long tradition of staying metropolitans in this monastery.

The main "source" here is (1672).

F.Sofonovych's referring to the "old story" is a literary fiction. In fact, this is a story written by Sofonovych himself. All listed them "acts" do not find any support in the ancient sources, and is the abstract assumptions (legend) of 17 cent.

A good critical review fable about "the first metropolitan Michael" gave at the time N.V.Zakrevski [Description of Kiev. – Moscow: 1868, v. 2, p. 502 – 506]. It does not touch the Vladimir's church charter, and only considered 17-century legends. But he was frightened of the natural inference that followed from his analysis – that metropolitan Michael did not exist at all and it is late historiographic fiction. Zakrevski started (without the need) to justify the orthodox obscurantism, saying, "the orthodox church – not latin, and it can not be invent the metropolitan". And facts turns out – just maybe, just invented.