1. For general discussion of episcopal election in the medieval period, see Benson, Robert, The Bishop-Elect (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1968), esp. 24–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barraclough, Geoffrey, “The Making of a Bishop in the Middle Ages,” Catholic Historical Review (1933–1934): 274–319Google Scholar; Parsons, Anscar, Canonical Elections: An Historical Synopsis and Commentary, Canon Law Studies, 118 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1939)Google Scholar; Heintschel, Donald. E., The Medieval Concept of an Ecclesiastical Office, Canon Law Studies, 363 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1956).Google Scholar

2. Novgorod never developed a local dynasty as other Russian cities did. Novgorod at first received its prince from the Grand Prince in Kiev, who often installed his son or other trusted relative. In the early twelfth century, Novgorod began to choose its own prince and often invited the Grand Prince or his son to be Prince of Novgorod, and at times the Novgorodians dismissed their princes as well. After the first quarter of the fourteenth century, the Prince of Novgorod was, with very few exceptions, also the Grand Prince of Vladimir in Moscow.

3. On the political make-up of Novgorod, see Birnbaum, Henrik, Lord Novgorod the Great: Essays on the History and Culture of a Medieval City (Los Angeles: Slavica, 1981), esp. 86–90Google Scholar; (Vasilii Osipovich) Kliuchevskii, V. O., A History of Russia, trans. Hogarth, C. J. (New York: Russell and Russell, 1960), 1:337–38Google Scholar; Vernadsky, George and Karpovich, Michael, Russia at the Dawn of the Modern Age. A History of Russia (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1959), 4:38.Google Scholar

4. There were other archbishops in Russia prior to the fourteenth century, but the title was personal and did not extend to the eparchy.

5. Tanner, Norman, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, First Nicaea to Fifth Lateran (London: Sheed and Ward, 1990), 7, 140Google Scholar; Beneshevich, Vladimir N., Drevnei-slavianskaia kormchaia XIV titulov bez tolkovanij (St. Petersburg: Tip. Imperatorskoi Akademicheskoi Nauk, 1906; reprinted Leipzig: Zentralantiquariat der DDR, 1974), 1:84–85, 208.Google Scholar

6. Meyendorff, John, Byzantium and the Rise of Russia: A Study of Byzantino-Russian Relations in the Fourteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 82.Google Scholar

7. Percival, Henry R., The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church: Their Canons and Dogmatic Decrees (New York: Edwin S. Gorham, 1901)Google Scholar. Reprinted in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd ser., vol. 14, ed. Philip, Schaff (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1979), 594Google Scholar. For a discussion of the Apostolical Canons, see 591–93; Beneshevich, , Drevnei-slavianskaia kormchaia XIV titulov bez tolkovanij, 1:62.Google Scholar

8. Percival, , The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, 595Google Scholar; Beneshevich, , Drevne-slavianskaia kormchaia kniga bez tolkovanij, 1:67–68.Google Scholar

9. Tanner, , Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, Canon four of the First Council of Nicaea, 7Google Scholar; Beneshevich, , Drevnei-slavianskaia kormchaia XIV titulov bez tolkovanij, 1:84–85.Google Scholar

10. Tanner, , Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, Canon three of the Second Council of Nicaea, 140Google Scholar; Beneshevich, , Drevnei-slavianskaia kormchaia XIV titulov bez tolkovanij, 1:208.Google Scholar

11. The oldest complete manuscripts of the Kormchaia kniga are dated to the eleventh and twelfth centuries, though some Slavic texts of some parts of the book date back to the ninth century. This book of medieval Orthodox canon law has the texts of six of the seven ecumenical councils accepted by the Orthodox Church. The text of the fifth ecumenical council, (that is, the Second Council of Constantinople) is not included. See Beneshevich, Drevnei-slavianskaia kormchaia XIV titulov bez tolkovanij, 1: passim, esp., 839–40. On the dating of the manuscripts, see i.

12. The decree is published in Russkaia istoricheskaia biblioteka, [hereafter RIB] (St. Petersburg: Izdatel'stvo Arkhiograficheskoi kommissii, 1897), vol. 6, col. 82–84; Fennell, John I. L., History of the Russian Church to 1448 (New York: Longman, 1995), 51.Google Scholar

13. Kliuchevskii attributes the Life of Metropolitan Peter to Prokhor of Rostov, but Børtnes rejects this and attributes it to Kiprian, based on “the earlier Life … written by an anonymous Muscovite around 1327.” (Vasilii Osipovich) Kliuchevskii, V. O., Drevnerusskie Zhitia sviatykh kak istoricheskie istochniki (Moscow: n.p., 1871), 74ffGoogle Scholar; Børtnes, Jostein, Visions of Glory: Studies in Early Russian Hagiography, trans. Børtnes, Jostein and Nielsen, Paul L. (Oslo: Solum Forlag A/S, 1998), 116Google Scholar; Kuchkin, Vasilii Alekseevich, “Skazanie o smerti mitropolita Petra,” Trudy otdela drevnerusskoi literatury 18, 59–79.Google Scholar

14. Polnoe Sobranie Russkikh Letopisei, 40+ volumes to date (Moscow: Arkheographicheskaia kommissiia, Vostochnaia Literatura, Nauka, 1846–1995) [hereafter, PSRL,] vol. 21, part 1, 325Google Scholar; Cyprian (Kiprian), Metropolitan of All Russia, “Zhitie i zhizn' i malo ispovedanie ot chiudes izhe vo sviatykh otsa nashego Petra mitropolita arkhiepiskopa Kievskago i vseia Rusi. Spisano Kiprianom mitropolitom smirenym Kiev'skym i vseia Rusi,” Velikie Minei Chetii, fasc. 12 (Moscow: Arkheograficheksaia kommissiia, 1909), col. 1629Google Scholar; Børtnes, , Visions of Glory, 122.Google Scholar

15. Meyendorff, , Byzantium and the Rise of Russia, Appendix 8, 294–95Google Scholar; RIB, vol. 6, col. 173–86. Cf., Percival, , The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, 119, 595, 599Google Scholar; Beneshevich, , Drevnei-slavianskaia kormchaia XIV titulov bez tolkovanij, 1:67, 78, 263.Google Scholar

16. “Chin′ izbraniia i postavleniia v″ episkopy,” in Beneshevich, Vladimir N., Sbornik pamiatnikov po istorii tserkovnago prava: preimushchestvenno russkoi tserkvi do epokhi Petra Velikago (Petrograd: Izdaniia “Kult′ura i Znanie,” 1915), 24–41, esp. 24Google Scholar; Akty, sobrannye v″ bibliotekakh″ i arkhivakh″ Rossiiskoi Imperii arkheograficheskoiu ekspeditsieiu imperatorskoi akademii nauk,″ 4 vols. (St. Petersburg: Tipografii II Otedeleniia Sobstvennoi E. I. V., Kantseliarii, 1836) [hereafter, AAE,] vol. 1, no. 375; RIB vol. 6, 437–64, no. 52.Google Scholar

17. See the canons of the First and Second Councils of Nicaea and the Apostolical Canons, cited above.

18. “Chin′ izbraniia i postavleniia v″ episkopy,” Beneshevich, , Sbornik pamiatnikov po istorii tserkovnago prava, 24.Google Scholar

19. (Arsenii Nikolaevich) Nasanov, A. N., ed., Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis': starshego i mladshego isvodov [hereafter, NPL] (Moscow: Arkheograficheskie kommissiia, Vostochnia Literatura, Nauka, 1846–1995), 29–30, 216, s. a. 1156Google Scholar; NIV (PSRL 4), 9; Vernadsky, and Fisher, , A Source Book for Russian History, 1:70.Google Scholar

20. NPL, 40, s. a. 1193. See Vernadsky, and Fisher, , A Source Book for Russian History, 1:70.Google Scholar

21. NPL, 231–32, s. a. 1193.

22. NPL, 60, 261, s. a. 1219–20; NIV (PSRL 4), 27.

23. NPL, 68, 274–75, s. a. 1229. See Vernadsky, and Fisher, , A Source Book for Russian History, 1:70–71Google Scholar. The Prince Mikhail mentioned is Mikhail Vsevolodovich, Prince of Chernigov and, at that time, Prince of Novgorod. He later became Grand Prince of Kiev and held that office at the time of the Mongol Invasion. After fleeing west to Poland, he returned only to be beheaded by the Mongols in 1246 for refusing to worship an image of Chingiis Khan. For this, he and his boyar, Fedor, were canonized as martyrs by the Orthodox Church. Prince Rostislav was his son, then only a child. See Dimnik, Martin, Mikhail, Prince of Chernigov and Grand Prince of Kiev, 1224–1246 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1981).Google Scholar

24. NPL, 365, s. a. 1359. See Vernadsky, and Fisher, , A Source Book for Russian History, 1:71.Google Scholar

25. Ibid.

26. NPL, 322–23, s. a. 1274.

27. NPL, 40, 232.

28. NPL, 365.

29. Several chronicles fail to mention Iona's election in 1458, merely saying that he was placed in office. The Novgorodian Second Chronicle notes that Eufimii died in 1456 and that two years later Iona went to Moscow to be consecrated. NII (PSRL 3), 141. The Novgorodian Third Chronicle notes that Iona was sent to Novgorod. NIII (PSRL 3), 241. The Novgorodian Fourth Chronicle and the Sofiiskaia Chronicle also notes that Iona was placed in the archiepiscopate but mentions no election. NIV (PSRL 4), 492; Sof. (PSRL 5), 272. Both Stroev and Makarii, however, list Iona as having been elected in May, 1458, with his consecration taking place in February the following year. (Pavel Mikhailovich) Stroev, P. M., Spiski ierarkhov i nastoiatelei monastyrei rossiiskiia tserkvi (St. Petersburg: Kalasheva, 1877), col. 35Google Scholar; (Bulgakov), Makarii, (Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna), Istoriia russkoi tserkvi, 5 vols. (St. Petersburg: Tip. R. Golike, 1877–1889Google Scholar; reprint, Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Spaso-Preobrezhenskogo Valaamskogo Monastyria, 1995–97), 4:353. Golubinskii notes that Iona was consecrated in February, 1459, but does not mention his election. (Evgenii Evstingneevich) Golubinskii, E. E., Istoriia russkoi tserkvi, 2 vols., 4 parts (Moscow: n.p., 1901–1917. Reprinted Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Spaso-Preobrazhenskogo Valaamskogo Moanstyria, 1995), vol. 2, part 1, 504.Google Scholar

30. Raba, Joel, “Church and Foreign Policy in the Fifteenth Century Novgorodian State,” Canadian-American Slavic Studies, 13, no. 1–2 (1979): 53.Google Scholar

31. Vologdsko-Permskaia Chronicle (PSRL 26), 230.

32. (Valentin Lavrent'evich) Ianin, V. L. and (Mark Khaimovich) Aleshkovskii, M. Kh., “Proskhozhdenie Novgoroda: (k postanovke problemy),” Istoriia SSSR, 2 (1971): 32–61Google ScholarIanin, V. L., “The Archaeology of Novgorod,” Scientific American, 262, no. 3 (1990): 88.Google Scholar

33. NPL, 405–6, s. a. 1415. See Vernadsky, and Fisher, , A Source Bookfor Russian History, 1:71.Google Scholar

34. These are the elections of 1193, 1229, 1274, 1359, 1388, 1415, and 1421.

35. Of the bishops prior to 1165, two were Greeks, two were hegumens, and two were monks. The backgrounds of three are unknown, and all that is known of another is that he was Russian and not Greek.

36. While early church councils recognized this occurrence, they called for a timely period of training. However, the candidates from the white clergy in Novgorod were advanced through clerical ranks within a matter of weeks. This is not a phenomenon exclusive to Novgorod as Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, a layman at the time of his election, was advanced through the ranks of deacon, and priest, and shorn a monk, within a week of his election. See Julius Norwich, John, Byzantium, the Apogee (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992), 64–65Google Scholar; Kazhdan, Alexander and others, The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 3 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 3:1669.Google Scholar

37. NPL. 342–43. Emphasis mine.

38. Regel, W., ed., Analecta Byzantino-Russica, (St. Petersburg, 1891; reprint, New York: Burt Franklin, 1964), no. 12, 56Google Scholar; Vasil'evskii, V., “Zapiski o postavlenii russkikh episkopov pri mitropolite Feognoste v Vatikanskom grecheskom sbornike,” Zhurnal″ ministerstva narodnago proveshcheniia, 1888, 452Google Scholar; Eizo, , “Izbranie i postavlenie Vasiliia Kaliki na Novgorodskoe vladichestvo v 1330–1331gg.,” in Gippius, A. A., Nosov, E. N., Khoroshev, A. S., eds., Velikii Novgorod v istorii srednevekovoi Europy; k 70-letiiu Valentina Laurent'evicha lanina, (Moscow: Russkie Slovari, 1999), 210.Google Scholar The Novgorodian First Chronicle notes that Vasilii was shorn a monk in January 1331, after his election to the archiepiscopate. NPL, 342–43.

39. Metropolitan Feognost's registry shows a preference for hieromonks. Twenty-nine of the thirty-seven candidates in the thirteen elections were hieromonks, two were archimandrites, and six were either not named, or their office within the clergy was not given. Regel, , Analecta Byzantino-Russica, 52–56.Google Scholar

40. (Aleksandr Ivanovich) Nikitskii, A. I., Ocherk″ vnutrennei istorri tserkvi v″ Velikom″ Novgorode (St. Petersburg: Tip. V. S. Valasheva, 1879), 58–59.Google Scholar

41. NPL, 343; All the bishops present were from southwestern Rus', that is, present-day western Ukraine and Belarus. One, the bishop of Polotsk, was from what is now western Russia. In 1332, Bishop Feodor of Galich, named as being present at Vasilii's consecration, was elevated to the rank of metropolitan for the Metropoly of Galich. Makarii, , Istoriia russkoi tserkvi, 3:643Google Scholar. The bishops mentioned are the same as those mentioned as being present at Vasilii's election by episcopal synod in the Metropolitan Feognost registry, except that the Metropolitan does not mention the Bishop of Polotsk. Regel, , Analecta Byzantino-Russica, no. 12, 56Google Scholar; Vasil'evskii, , “Zapiski o postavlenii russkikh episkopov pri mitropolite Feognoste,” 452Google Scholar; Eizo, , “Izbranie i postavlenie Vasiliia Kaliki na Novgorodskoe vladichestvo v 1330–1331gg.,” 210.Google Scholar Meyendorff states that the consecration took place in Vladimir-in-Volynia, not in Kiev. Meyendorff, , Byzantium and the Rise of Russia, 84Google Scholar

42. NPL, 365; Nikitskii, , Ocherk″ vnutrennei istorii tserkvi v″ Velikom″ Novgorode, 58.Google Scholar

43. NPL, 281–83.

44. PSRL 3, 106; NPL, 406. The consecration of Archbishop Ioann 1388 also took place in the Uspenskii (Assumption) Cathedral and the Cathedral of St. Michael (Arkhangelskii Cathedral), PSRL 5, 243; PSRL 3, 94; NPL, 382; Nikitskii, , Ocherk″ vnutrennei istorii tserkvi v″ Velikom″ Novgorode, 59; A document of 1431 would indicate that it was standard by that time for the Novgorodian archbishop to be consecrated in the Uspenskii and Arkhangelskii cathedrals in the Moscow Kremlin. AAE, vol. 1, 99, no. 91.Google Scholar

45. PSRL 3, 67, s. a. 1300; NPL, 91, 330; Nikitskii, , Ocherk″ vnutrennei istorii tserkvi v″ Velikom″ Novgorode, 58–59.Google Scholar

46. This despite Meyendorff's assertion that Metropolitan Feognost faced a fait accompli presented by the election of Vasilii in Novgorod in 1330, and that the episcopal synod that “re”-elected Vasilii was merely a procedural formality. Meyendorff, , Byzantium and the Rise of Russia, 84.Google Scholar

47. NPL, 61–68; 263–74; Stroev, , Spiski ierarkhov i nastoiatelei monastyrei rossiiskiia tserkvi, col. 35.Google Scholar

48. NPL, 413–14; (Aleksandr Stepanovich) Khoroshev, A. S., Tserkov′ no-politicheskoi sisteme Novgorodskoi feodal'noi respubliki (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo Universiteta, 1989), 85.Google Scholar

49. NPL, 417.

50. The election was carried out on the instructions of “the Metropolitan of the Russian Land,” and Ioann was consecrated by “Metropolitan Pimen of all Rus′ ” (“mitropolitom Puminom′ vseia Rusi”), NPL, 381–83, s. a. 1388.

51. Vasilii's election is mentioned in note 12 of 13 notes. Regel, W., ed., Analecta Byzantino-Russica, 52–56, esp. 56Google Scholar; Vasil'evskii, V., “Zapiski o postavlenii russkikh episkopov primitropolite Feognoste 255, II, fev., 445–63Google Scholar; Meyendorff, , Byzantium and the Rise of Russia, 81–85Google Scholar; Eizo, , “Izbranie i postavlenie Vasiliia Kaliki na Novgorodskoe vladichestvo v 1330–1331gg.,” 209–10Google Scholar; Rowell, S. C., Lithuania Ascending, A Pagan Empire within East-Central Europe, 1295–1345 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 173–77. The place of the election is mentioned in NPL, 343.Google Scholar

52. Regel, , Analecta Byzantino-Russica, no. 12, 56Google Scholar; Vasil'evskii, , “Zapiski o postavlenii russkikh episkopov pri mitropolite Feognoste,” 452Google Scholar; Eizo, , “Izbranie i postavlenie Vasiliia Kaliki na Novgorodskoe vladichestvo v 1330–1331gg.,” 210.Google Scholar

53. NPL, 342–43; cf. NIV (PSRL 4), 52.

54. Meyendorff, , Byzantium and the Rise of Russia, 84.Google Scholar

55. Vasil'evskii, , “Zapiski o postavlenii russkikh episkopov pri mitropolite Feognoste v Vatikanskom grecheskom sbornike,” 448–50Google Scholar; Eizo, , “Izbranie i postavlenie Vasiliia Kaliki na Novgorodskoe vladichestvo v 1330–1331gg.,” 211.Google Scholar

56. NPL, 343; Rowell, , Lithuania Ascending, 173–76Google Scholar; Eizo, , “Izbranie i postavlenie Vasiliia Kaliki na Novgorodskoe vladichestvo v 1330–1331gg.,” 213–15. Cf., NPL, 343; NIV (PSRL 4), 52; PSRL 5, 219.Google Scholar

57. Eizo, , “Izbranie i postavlenie Vasiliia Kaliki na Novgorodskoe vladichestvo v 1330–1331gg.,” 215.Google Scholar

58. Golubinskii, , Istoriia Russkoi tserkvi, vol. 1, part 1, 360.Google Scholar

59. Vemadsky, George, Kievan Russia (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1948; copyright renewed 1976), 205.Google Scholar

60. Khoroshev, , Tserkov′ v sotsial′no–politkheskoi sisteme Novgorodskoi feodal'noi respubliki, 35.Google Scholar

61. Joseph, R., Strayer, , ed., Dictionary of the Middle Ages, 13 vols. (New York: Scribner and Sons, 1982–1989), 3:446.Google Scholar Meyendorff, author of the entry on the Byzantine Church in Strayer, attributes the clauses on election of bishops to Novella VI, as do others. Novella VI, however, deals with the moral character and marital status of possible candidates for the episcopate and not with the procedures for election. Scott, S., The Civil Law (Cincinnati, Ohio: Central Trust, 1932; reprint, New York: AMS Press, 1973), 17:152–56Google Scholar, cited in Leon, Bernard and Hodges, Theodore B., eds., Readings in European History (New York: Macmillan, 1958), 57–58Google Scholar; cf., Justinian, , Novellae constitutions, vol. 1, Novella VI, 47–66Google Scholar (this edition stops at Novella CXXXIV, and therefore CXXXVII cannot be compared); Corpus Juris Civilis, Latin Text, Novella VI, cols. 784–89; Novella CXXXVII, cols. 1045–47; Das Corpus Iuris Civilis (Romani), Novella VI, vol. 7, 40–51; Corpus Iuris Civilis, Greek and Latin Texts, Novella VI, vol. 3, 35–47; Novella CXXXVII, vol. 3, 695–99.

62. The candidates are named in the chronicles for only six of the elections, though in the election of 1274 Archbishop Dalmat named only two candidates as his possible successors. NPL, 323.

63. Regel, , Analecta Byzantino-Russica, no. 12, 56Google Scholar; Vasil'evskii, , “Zapiski o postavlenii russkikh episkopov pri mitropolite Feognoste,” 452Google Scholar; Eizo, “Izbranie i postavlenie Vasiliia Kaliki na Novgorodskoe vladichestvo v 1330–1331gg.,” 210Google Scholar. In 1434, Novgorod's Archbishop-elect Eufimii II was consecrated by Metropolitan Gerasim, the Lithuanian Metropolitan of Kiev, in Smolensk, and not by the Metropolitan in Moscow. NPL, 417; Martin, Janet, Medieval Russia 980–1584 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 249Google Scholar. All other Archbishops of Novgorod appear to have been consecrated by the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus' (residing in Moscow after 1308).

64. In 1388, Archpriest Izmailo brought out the lots to the waiting veche; NIV (PSRL 4), 95; NPL, 381–82; In 1193, a blind man carried out the lots; PSRL 3, 21; NPL, 232; Nikitskii, Aleksandr, Ocherk″ vnutrennei istorii tserkvi v″ Novgorode, 57Google Scholar; Lenhoff, Gail and Martin, Janet, “Marfa Boretskaia, Posadnitsa of Novgorod: A Reconsideration of Her Legend and Her Life,” Slavic Review 59, no. 2 (Summer 2000): 361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar In 1229, Prince Rostislav—then still a child—son of Prince Mikhail Vsevolodovich of Chernigov, at that time Prince of Novgorod, carried the lots out of the Sofiiskii Sobor (the Cathedral of Holy Wisdom) to the veche assembled before the cathedral. PSRL 3, 45; NPL, 68, 275.

65. Cf. NPL, 40, s. a. 1193.

66. Proverbs 16:33.

67. Acts 1:18. On Judas's death by hanging, see Matt. 27:5.

68. Acts 1:15–26, esp. verses 25 and 26.

69. PSRL 9, 125, 157.

70. Moskovskii letopisnyi svod, [hereafter Most] (PSRL 25), 326.

71. PSRL 13, 200, s. a. 1478; Stroev, , Spiski ierarkhov i nastoiatelei monastyrei rossiiskiia tserkvi, col. 35Google Scholar; Makarii, , Istoriia russkoi tserkvi, 4:353–54.Google Scholar

72. Mosk (PSRL 25), 330; Nikon. (PSRL 12), 215, s. a. 1483. Note that none of the candidates are from Novgorodian monasteries.

73. Mosk (PSRL 25), 330; Nikon. (PSRL 12), 215, s. a. 1483.

74. Mosk (PSRL 25), 330; Nikon. (PSRL 12), 214–15. The election was apparently held in Moscow and not in Novgorod. The almost two-month delay between the election and the consecration, though the metropolitan drew lots, is not explained.

75. Mosk (PSRL 25), 330; Nikon. (PSRL 12), 215, s. a. 1484. Here Sergei is called “the former Archpriest Simeon of the [Church of the] Mother of God.” Apparently he had been a member of the white clergy prior to becoming an elder in the Trinity Monastery.

76. Mosk (PSRL 25), 330; PSRL 13, 200; Stroev, Spiski iemrkhov i nastoiatelei monastyrei rossiiskiia tserkvi col. 35; Makarii, , Istoriia russkoi tserkoi, 4:353–54Google Scholar. Stroev and Makarii give the year of his election as 1483 and the year of his deposition as 1484. The Nikonian Chronicle gives the year of Sergei's consecration as 1483 and speaks of Gennadii becoming Archbishop in 1484, but says Sergei “left the archiepiscopate and went to the Trinity (Church) in the Sergeev Monastery for his tonsuring (in the schema).” Nikon. (PSRL 12), 215–16, esp. 216.

77. PSRL 13, 200, s. a. 1478; Stroev, , Spiski ierarkhov i nastoiatelei monastyrei rossiiskiia tserkvi col. 35Google Scholar; Makarii, , Istoriia russkoi tserkvi, 4:353–54Google Scholar; Nikon. (PSRL 12), 216. The Moskovskii letopisnyi svod mentions Gennadii's presence at the Council of 1491 but does not mention his placement. Mosk (PSRL 25), 331–32.