Saint Cyprian Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus’, and the Hesychast Ideal of the Unity of “All Rus’”

By Hegumen Peter (Pigol)

In the Gospel, the Lord Jesus Christ established an immutable rule for the ordering of every aspect of our earthly life: to seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all other necessary things shall be added unto us (cf. Matthew 6:33). Throughout the ages, this principle has remained foundational for the children of Christ’s Church. The striving toward God—toward the grace-filled transformation of the person along the ascetic path to Christian perfection—fosters a unity of mind throughout the entire Christian community and contributes to its well-ordered state.

The fruits of the steadfast application of this Gospel principle became especially evident in the 14th century. During this difficult era—marked by foreign conquests and internal political turmoil—the Orthodox lands (Byzantium, the Balkans, and Rus’) experienced a religious and cultural revival that exerted a significant influence on socio-political developments. Scholars have termed this phenomenon the “Orthodox Renaissance.” It was during this period that the methods and means for pursuing the path of salvation—grounded in “mental prayer” (prayer of the heart/mind) and “mental labor”—were fully articulated and expounded upon by ascetic Hesychasts, including monks from Mount Athos and other like-minded spiritual strivers.

The 14th century also saw the emergence of sharp anti-Orthodox and anti-Hesychast tendencies, which arose primarily in connection with the development of rationalistic thought and atheistic humanism. This led to intense dogmatic debates—known as the “Hesychast controversies”—which erupted on Mount Athos and in Constantinople. During this era, national self-consciousness in countries within the Byzantine tradition began to develop on an ethno-phyletist, anti-ecclesial basis—a trend consistently detrimental to Orthodox peoples and states. In the Balkans, for instance, a struggle for “national freedom and independence” [14, vol. 1, p. 303] emerged, beginning with attempts to break away from ecclesial unity and the Hesychast tradition. As the Slavicist P. A. Syrku observed, there was an intensified “glorification of the nation and the kin” [14, vol. 1, p. 303]. In Bulgaria, a “national party”—consumed by this struggle—expelled the Hesychasts. In pursuit of immediate, “local” interests, the movement resorted to anti-canonical actions, schisms, and the distortion of both liturgical rites and dogmatic teachings. The noted scholar G. M. Prokhorov rightly points out that “the alignment of forces in Bulgaria was typical of other Orthodox countries as well” [11, p. 20]. The repercussions of this conflict—pitting these “provincialist” perspectives (which were, in essence, directed against long-standing cultural foundations) against the Hesychast tradition—eventually made themselves felt in Rus’ as well.

At the same time, however, the Hesychast movement—which originated within the monastic community of Mount Athos—grew and gained strength. This was especially true following the victory of the Hesychasts at the ecclesiastical councils in Constantinople, as the movement spread among Greeks, Slavs, and other ethnic groups, uniting them within the framework of a shared, pan-Orthodox ecclesial consciousness. It is no coincidence that the Hesychast movement emerged on Mount Athos; the Holy Mountain has always served, in effect, as a school of Orthodox unity for many different peoples. In pursuing the broader goals of the Church, the Hesychasts did not merely dwell in prayerful seclusion; they also engaged in extensive practical ministry. They developed theological thought, combated anti-canonical practices, heresies, and the influence of “Latinism,” and preached—calling upon all to become Hesychasts in spirit. They served as hierarchs, governed the state, and dedicated themselves to spiritual and literary pursuits, ecclesiastical art, translation, and the editing of texts.

Prominent figures of Hesychasm include Saint Gregory the Sinaite, Saint Gregory Palamas, the Patriarchs of Constantinople Callistus and Philotheus Kokkinos, as well as Saint Theodosius of Tarnovo, who served as a leader of the Hesychasts among the South Slavic peoples. Also to be included among them is their spiritual successor, Metropolitan Cyprian of Kyiv and All Rus’. The Russian Orthodox Church commemorates him on September 16/29 and May 27/June 9. He is also venerated as part of the Synaxis of the Hierarchs of Moscow, as well as the Synaxes of the Saints of Mount Athos, Moscow, and Volhynia—a testament to the great significance of Saint Cyprian.

When we speak the name of the “all-wise Cyprian,” there immediately arises the image of a learned hierarch—an expert in canon law and the liturgical typicon, a writer, a composer of hymns, a hagiographer, a translator, an editor, and a compiler of liturgical books. His diverse labors served the purpose of uniting society on the foundation of Orthodoxy. He himself expressed his aspirations as follows: “I seek neither glory nor wealth; rather, I desire humility and the unity of the Church—a Christian unity” [11, p. 202].

There are studies by both 19th-century and contemporary authors regarding the life and works of Metropolitan Cyprian; however, their perspectives are often biased. Only those scholars who adhere to Hesychast views offer an impartial assessment of the great works of this hierarch. He not only stood against the centrifugal forces that were fragmenting the Metropolitanate of “All Rus'” into nationalistic factions, but also proposed distinct, “extraordinary projects” [3, p. 301] concerning the future of the Russian people, the Slavic world as a whole, and other Orthodox nations—a subject that will be discussed further on.

The most significant dates and events pertaining to the life and work of Metropolitan Cyprian during the final period of his ministry are well-documented in historical records. Unfortunately, little is known about the earlier part of his life.

I shall focus on specific details in relation to the ideas of Hesychasm and how Metropolitan Cyprian embodied them.

It is difficult to determine the exact time of the hierarch’s birth; it is presumed to have been in the early 1330s. In keeping with the Hesychast tradition, he never spoke of his own origins or nationality, though other sources confirm that he was Bulgarian. The “Funeral Oration” for Metropolitan Cyprian, composed by Hegumen Gregory Tsamblak (who later became a metropolitan) [see: 16, pp. 25–32], reveals that the hierarch was a native of the city of Tarnovo, the capital of Bulgaria at that time. From the same “Oration,” we learn that he entered the monastic life at an early age and that his monastic brother—as well as a close spiritual associate, and in all likelihood a relative—was Euthymius, the future Patriarch of Tarnovo and a prominent ecclesiastical figure. St. Euthymius pursued his ascetic life at the Kilifarevo Monastery under the guidance of the Venerable Theodosius of Tarnovo, serving as a close associate of this great hesychast. It follows that St. Cyprian also embarked upon the monastic path at Kilifarevo under the tutelage of the Venerable Theodosius, who set the hesychast course for his disciple’s entire subsequent life and body of work.

St. Cyprian received his education at the renowned Tarnovo School of Letters, which had been established by the Venerable Theodosius at the Kilifarevo Monastery. There exists a body of scholarship concerning this remarkable hesychast school within the Slavic tradition. It suffices to note here that the educational process there was inextricably linked to monastic ascetic formation, grounded in the guidance of an elder and the practice of prayer. The 14th-century literary and translational endeavors of hesychasts from Mount Athos and the Balkans—including those from Tarnovo—facilitated the transmission to Rus’ of a significant number of works focused on moral-ascetic themes and mystical contemplation (by authors such as St. Symeon the New Theologian, St. Gregory of Sinai, St. John of the Ladder, and St. Isaac the Syrian).

In discussing the writings of St. Cyprian, researchers have observed that the “distinctive linguistic and stylistic features” characteristic of the Tarnovo school are “considerably tempered” in his work [9, p. 189]. In his texts, “rhetorical devices are employed with restraint,” and he “gets straight to the heart of the matter” [2, p. 231; 11, p. 143]. The style of Metropolitan Cyprian’s homilies approaches “that of spoken language, which lends them a unique simplicity and accessibility” [2, p. 233]. The hierarch “skillfully employed both simple, everyday language and literary-rhetorical devices” [2, p. 254], and did not always resort to the “weaving of words” (*pletenie sloves*).

All this leads researchers to argue that the hierarch Cyprian “drew upon principles developed by Athonite scribes.” Consequently, his contemporaries associated him specifically “with Mount Athos and Constantinople—with the Athonite school,” whose tenets and principles were shared by Slavic scribes, both Russian and Balkan (including those from the Tarnovo school) [10, pp. 510–511].

It may be further suggested that the distinctive features of the hierarch Cyprian’s work—linked, in part, to his personal qualities and talents—likely took shape during his time on Mount Athos, where he continued his monastic path and education in the company of the spiritual successors of Saints Gregory of Sinai and Gregory Palamas. It was also on Mount Athos, in all likelihood, that he received the tonsure into the Great Schema.

In his later responses to questions from the Venerable Athanasius of Vysotsky, Saint Cyprian himself briefly mentions his time on the Holy Mountain [13, col. 263]. This period of his life and formation on Mount Athos is highly significant, not least because it was there that the unifying ideals—which would later become the central focus of his life’s work—were put into practice. Given the extreme scarcity of information regarding his time on Athos, we shall attempt to draw some conclusions based on the available evidence.

There are various theories as to where exactly this Bulgarian monk pursued his ascetic life on Mount Athos. Some point to the Monastery of Saint Paul [5, p. 14], while others—with greater certainty—suggest the Great Lavra [14, vol. 1, p. 525], where Philotheos Kokkinos once served as abbot. However, the existing records indicate that the monk Cyprian did not follow a cenobitic (communal) monastic life, but rather lived as a *kelliote*—a solitary ascetic. For instance, Patriarch Euthymius, in an epistle addressed to “the monk Cyprian, living on the Holy Mountain of Athos,” refers to him as one who embraces a “life in the wilderness” and “seclusion” [6, p. 80]. Furthermore, the Patriarch addresses a question Cyprian had raised concerning “the reception of the Holy Mysteries in the absence of a priest while living in the wilderness” [5, p. 15]. Moreover, Cyprian’s *Sluzhebnik* (Liturgy book) contains specific rubrical provisions—necessitated by the “cramped conditions of the altar”—that would apply when the divine service is celebrated in a small, remote hermitage chapel [see: 7, bk. 1, pp. 180–181].

This solitary, eremitic way of life was well-suited for the practice of *hesychia* (stillness), as well as for literary and translational work. Throughout his subsequent work on translating and compiling liturgical books—such as his renowned *Horologion-Psalter* (Sledovannaya Psaltir)—Saint Cyprian paid close attention to Athonite traditions and the practices of hermits and skete dwellers [see: 7, bk. 2, pp. 439–440].

In this regard, I would like to propose a hypothesis. An oral Belarusian tradition holds that the Saint held the “Axion Estin” (“It Is Truly Meet”) icon of the Mother of God in special veneration. Given that the Athonite *kellia* (monastic cell) of “Axion Estin” was inhabited at various times by Bulgarian monks, it is plausible to assume that the monk Cyprian pursued his ascetic labors in this cell at Kapsala—a secluded area conducive to a life of prayer, yet situated not far from Karyes. However, it is also possible that he lived as a hermit within the precincts of the Great Lavra or Vatopedi—or even, at times, within the monasteries themselves. This is all the more likely given that, as researchers assert, when translating the *Diataxis* of Patriarch Philotheos Kokkinos and compiling a *Sluzhebnik* (Liturgicon) in Church Slavonic, Saint Cyprian based his work on a mid-14th-century Vatopedi manuscript of that Typikon—dating, that is, to the time of Saint Philotheos [14, issue 2, pp. 67, 74; 4, p. 35].

It was on Mount Athos that a pivotal event occurred in the life of the monk Cyprian: his meeting with Saint Philotheos, who became the spiritual mentor, patron, and guiding intellectual influence for the hesychast monk. Between his two terms as Patriarch, Saint Philotheos lived on the Holy Mountain from 1355 to 1363. It was likely he who ordained the monk Cyprian to the priesthood and, perhaps, tonsured him into the Great Schema.

According to a hypothesis put forward by P. A. Syrku, the monk Cyprian did not leave Bulgaria until the early 1360s; he arrived in Constantinople—accompanied by his first teacher, the Venerable Theodosius, and St. Euthymius of Tarnovo—to escape persecution by the anti-Hesychast “national party” in Bulgaria. If this hypothesis is correct, the future hierarch would have experienced firsthand the destructive nature of such teachings and actions, which in turn strengthened his commitment to the vision of “Orthodox universalism.”

In the early 1370s, the hieromonk Cyprian was in Constantinople, serving alongside Patriarch Philotheus; he was a close associate of the Patriarch and was entrusted with highly important missions. Later, he would go on to implement the Patriarch’s ideas. Under the guidance of Patriarch Philotheus, this ascetic monk—a man of prayer—fully matured into an ecclesiastical figure who would exert a profound influence on the society, politics, and culture of Rus’.

Ecclesiastical documents from the 14th century speak of Metropolitan Cyprian’s “virtue and piety,” as well as his ability to “wisely steer affairs in the right direction” [13, appendices, col. 200; 11, p. 25]. Guiding people and pointing them toward the correct, salvific path is, in essence, the primary objective of the public ministry rooted in Hesychasm.

Patriarch Philotheus, the mentor of St. Cyprian, was an Athonite monk, a direct spiritual successor to St. Gregory Palamas, and a theologian and liturgist. His activities contributed to the dissemination of Palamite teaching and the regularization of liturgical life. The Hesychasts viewed liturgical unity as a vital foundation for the pan-Orthodox union they sought to achieve. Patriarch Philotheos was also a far-sighted statesman who worked in concert with Emperor John Kantakouzenos. Saint Kallistos, too, shared their vision, though he employed somewhat different methods in his own ministry.

The goal of the Patriarch and the Emperor was to bolster the Byzantine state in the face of looming conquest by those of other faiths and the threat of Western interference, and to unite the nations of the Byzantine cultural sphere against a common danger. It was essential that Orthodox nations come to see themselves as a multinational community, built upon the solid foundation of an Orthodox, ecclesiastical worldview—and that the burgeoning Greek, Great Russian, Little Russian, Bulgarian, and other such national “self-determination” processes took place within the framework of Orthodox culture and traditions.

Hesychast figures devoted significant attention to Rus’. In the 14th century, the Russian people—a community defined by their shared religion—inhabited lands that were politically divided: the northeastern Great Russian principalities, which were subject to the Tatars, and the western Russo-Lithuanian territories (comprising present-day Belarus and Ukraine). This latter part of Rus’—referred to in Byzantine documents as *Mikra Rossia* (“Little Rus'”), specifically the Galician-Volhynian lands—fell under the rule of Lithuanian and Polish dynasties (which were, respectively, semi-pagan and Catholic). The Hesychast hierarchy faced the task of maintaining the spiritual unity of the Russian people, resisting the fragmentation of the Orthodox population into distinct nations with differing faiths and cultures, and fostering the development of a national consciousness rooted in the proper foundations.

Curbing the political separatism of the princes, liberating Rus’ from Tatar domination, and preserving Orthodoxy within the Lithuanian-controlled territories could only be achieved through a unified and robust ecclesiastical structure—led by a metropolitan who was committed to Hesychast traditions and stood above the narrow interests of local figures, or rather, one who could steer those interests in the “right direction.”

The metropolitan, appointed to Rus’ from Constantinople, was officially based in Vladimir from 1354—though in practice he resided in Moscow—yet he held the traditional title “Metropolitan of All Rus’.” This symbolic title embodied the concept of a Russian community, a shared social vision, ecclesiastical unity, and the political consolidation of Rus’ upon its age-old Orthodox foundations; it served as a reminder of the legacy of the Kievan state and the Orthodox culture it had embraced since its Baptism. There were instances when patriarchs—who were themselves adherents of hesychasm—permitted the temporary division of a metropolitanate, such as the separation of the Lithuanian and Little Russian (Ruthenian) dioceses (this occurred, for example, with the appointment of Saint Cyprian to the temporarily separate Russo-Lithuanian metropolitanate in 1375). However, this was done not to satisfy nationalistic aspirations, but rather as an act of “extreme *oikonomia*” (pastoral dispensation) and a “desire to preserve peace” [1, p. 176], for the spiritual benefit of the Church’s children.

Patriarch Philotheos sent numerous exhortatory epistles to Rus’, demanding that the ecclesiastical authorities treat the “Christ-named” (Christian) flock with impartiality, regardless of the rivalries between the various principalities. He urged the princes to remain devoted to Orthodoxy and to the Metropolitan of “All Rus’,” to maintain peace among themselves, and to stand united “against those foreign to our faith—the enemies of the Cross” [13, col. 118].

In 1372–1373, the hieromonk Cyprian was dispatched to Rus’ on an ecclesiastical-diplomatic mission—tasked, according to the documents, with “reconciling the princes with one another and with the Metropolitan” [13, appendices, col. 200] (that is, with Saint Alexius). Hieromonk Cyprian visited the Russo-Lithuanian, Muscovite, and Tverian lands. As historians have noted, these journeys played a significant role in advancing Patriarch Philotheos’s objectives: the “regulation of internal relations within Rus’” [11, p. 28] and the fostering of a “rupture” between Rus’ and the Golden Horde (thereby helping to set the stage for the events that would unfold on the field of Kulikovo). At the beginning of his tenure as metropolitan, Cyprian faced great hardships—reproach and exile—and for a long time, he was not recognized by the Grand Prince of Moscow, who sought to separate the northeastern Great Russian portion of the metropolitanate (a goal he managed to achieve for a time). The processes unfolding in Rus’ during the emergence of nationalist tendencies bore a distant resemblance to those that had taken place in Bulgaria.

Metropolitan Cyprian exerted every effort to steer these currents and movements in a proper, salvific direction—to imbue them with a specifically ecclesiastical character—so that if a nation or a people were to be glorified, it would be for their Christian zeal and their service to the Church of Christ.

Although Metropolitan Cyprian’s aspirations initially encountered strong opposition, they eventually gained the support of Russian hesychasts. It is well known that among his supporters were Saint Sergius of Radonezh, Archbishop Theodore of Rostov, and other figures within their circle. One of the Metropolitan’s devoted disciples was the Venerable Athanasius of Vysotsky.

The final period of Metropolitan Cyprian’s ministry—from 1390 until his passing in 1406—was especially fruitful, unfolding in peace and harmony with Grand Prince Vasily.

Having been “appointed over all the Russian land,” Metropolitan Cyprian concerned himself with strengthening Orthodoxy everywhere. He himself wrote that in Lithuanian Rus’, he “established holy churches, strengthened the Christian faith, and restored ecclesiastical sites that had lain desolate for many years, bringing them back into the fold of the Metropolitanate of All Rus'” [13, cols. 173, 182]. The hierarch undertook archpastoral journeys, spending long periods in Kyiv and in the Russian lands within the Kingdom of Poland.

The faithful revered him as a wonderworker; it was through his prayers in 1395 that a miracle occurred involving the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God, leading to the salvation of Moscow. (There is also a tradition that, while traveling through the lands of present-day Belarus, Metropolitan Cyprian—who was weary—was denied entry into a home by a Lithuanian host. The hierarch departed, and soon thereafter the house and the entire homestead burned down. The fire spared only the spot where the mittens left behind by the hierarch had been lying.)

The liturgical reforms implemented by Saint Cyprian—specifically the transition of church life to the Jerusalem Typikon—contributed significantly to the strengthening of Orthodoxy and the unification of the Russian Orthodox faithful. The Metropolitan worked to compile the necessary set of liturgical books and brought order to the performance of rites. He introduced the *Diataxis* of Patriarch Philotheos into liturgical practice—a “typikon that defined the structure of the Divine Liturgy, which soon became widely adopted and remains in use to this day” [4, p. 4]—translating it and producing a *Sluzhebnik* (Liturgy book) in Church Slavonic; this played a major role in shaping the established liturgical order.

I have previously alluded to certain ambitious, “extraordinary projects” undertaken by Saint Cyprian. According to some scholars [see: 8, p. 157; 12, p. 40], he—or his immediate circle—was responsible for a text known as the “List of Russian Cities, Distant and Near” [see: 15, pp. 83–137, 357–361; 8, pp. 150–163; 12, pp. 40–48; 17, pp. 61–70]. This document enumerates “cities” not only from the Russian northeast and the western Russian-Lithuanian lands, but also from Moldavia and Bulgaria. Notably, the list begins with these very regions—the lands from which Saint Cyprian himself hailed. It is possible that the Saint was contemplating not only the incorporation of Bulgarian and Moldavian dioceses into the “Metropolitanate of All Rus’,” but also the potential for a broader political unification of various territories inhabited by Slavs, as well as other Orthodox peoples. Furthermore, it is known that Saint Cyprian laid the groundwork for convening an “Ecumenical Council for the Union of Churches”—likely within the Rus’–Lithuanian territories, possibly in Kyiv—aimed at the “triumph of Orthodoxy over Latin ‘innovations'” [3, pp. 301, 303]. In this, he was following the vision of Patriarch Philotheos.

We can see the grand scale of the designs held by Saint Cyprian, who both developed and embodied Hesychast ideals. It is also clear how vital it is, in our own time, to focus on the personal salvation of the soul and on the Orthodox concept of national unity—grounded within the salvific path of the Church. With God’s help, the realization of this vision will foster a new Orthodox revival across the Slavic lands—brought about through the prayers of Saint Cyprian, Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus’—an ascetic of Mount Athos—as well as the prayers of all the Athonite Hesychast saints.

Sources in Russian:

1. Афонский патерик. М., 1897. Ч. 2.
2. Дмитриев Л. А. Роль и значение митрополита Киприана в истории древнерусской литературы (к русско-болгарским литературным связям XIV—XV вв.) // Труды отдела древнерусской литературы Института русской литературы. М.; Л., 1963. Т. 19. С. 215—254.
3. Иоанн (Мейендорф), прот. Византия и Московская Русь: Очерк по истории церковных и культурных связей в XIV в. Париж, 1990.
4. Красносельцев Н. Ф. Материалы для истории чинопоследования литургии св. Иоанна Златоустого. Казань, 1889. Вып. 1.
5. Леонид (Кавелин), архим. Киприян до восшествия на Московскую митрополию // ЧОИДР. М., 1867. Кн. 2. Ч. 1. С. 11—32.
6. Макарий (Веретенников), архим. Святой митрополит Киприан. М., 2013.
7. Мансветов И. Д. О трудах митрополита Киприана по части богослужения // Прибавления к Творениям св. отцов. М., 1882. Ч. 29. Кн. 1. С. 152—205;Кн. 2. С. 413—495.
8. Наумов Е. П. К истории летописного «Списка русских городов дальних и ближних» // Летописи и хроники: Сб. ст. М., 1974. С. 150—163.
9. Петрова В. Д. О некоторых особенностях языка Киприана (в сопоставлении с языком книжников Тырновской школы и Епифания Премудрого) // Вестник Самарского государственного университета. 2010. № 7 (81). С. 185—191.
10. Петрова В. Д. Тырновская школа и проблема «второго южнославянского влияния» // Вестник Нижегородского университета им. Н. И. Лобачевского. 2011. № 6 (2). С. 508—512.
11. Прохоров Г. М. Повесть о Митяе: Русь и Византия в эпоху Куликовской битвы. Л., 1978.
12. Подосинов В. В. О принципах построения и месте создания «Списка русских городов дальних и ближних» // Восточная Европа в древности и Средневековье: Сб. ст. М., 1978. С. 40—48.
13. Русская историческая библиотека, издаваемая Археографическою комиссиею. СПб., 1880. Т. 6; Т. 6: Приложения.
14. Сырку П. А. К истории исправления книг в Болгарии в XIV в. СПб., 1898. Т. 1: Время и жизнь патриарха Евфимия Терновского. Вып. 1; 1890. Т. 1: Литургические труды патриарха Евфимия Терновского. Вып. 2.
15. Тихомиров М. Н. Русское летописание. М., 1979.
16. Чтения в Императорском обществе истории и древностей российских при Московском университете. М., 1872. Кн. 1. Ч. 5.
17. Янин В. Л. Новгород и Литва: Пограничная ситуация XIII—XV вв. М., 1998.

Illustration: A folio from *The Ladder* (*Lestvitsa*). A manuscript copied by Metropolitan Cyprian, bearing his signature. Produced in Constantinople, at the Studion Monastery, in 1387. Russian State Library (RGB), Fond 173.1, No. 152, fol. 279v.

N. B. In his 2022 article, the author examines the life and spiritual legacy of the Athonite monk and hierarch—Metropolitan of Moscow, Kyiv, and All Rus’—Cyprian. In the late 14th and early 15th centuries, the hierarch championed the vital Hesychast concept of the unity of “All Rus’,” primarily in the ecclesiastical sense.