Slavic grammar by Meletius Smotritsky. The significance of M.V.’s works

Meletiy Smotritsky(in the world - Maxim Gerasimovich Smotritsky, there is also a mixed form of the name Maxentiy, pseudonym Theophilus Ortholog; genus. prep. - or, the town of Smotrich or Kamenets-Podolsky - December 17 (27) (according to others, the village of Derman) - Archbishop of Polotsk; writer, educator.

He actively advocated the accession of the Orthodox Church located on Ukrainian lands to the union; the proposals were rebuffed by circles united around the Bishop of Przemysl Isaiah (Kopinsky).

Biography

early years

Meletius received his primary education at the Ostrog school from his father and the Greek Cyril Loukaris (in the future also the rector of the Ostrog school, and later the Patriarch of Constantinople), where he had the opportunity to master the Church Slavonic and Greek languages ​​perfectly. After the death of Smotrytsky’s father, Prince Konstantin Ostrogsky sent the capable young man for further studies to the Jesuit Vilna Academy (this happened, according to various sources, in or in 1601; the first option is considered more reliable); then Smotrytsky traveled a lot abroad, listening to lectures at various universities, especially at the Protestant Leipzig, Wittenberg and Nuremberg universities. He probably received his doctorate in medicine abroad. Having returned, he settled with Prince B. Solomeretsky near Minsk. Smotrytsky often traveled to Minsk and fought against the union, as a result of which many Uniates returned to Orthodoxy and an Orthodox brotherhood was founded in Minsk. Around 1608 he moved to Vilna, was a member of the Vilna Brotherhood, and anonymously published the treatise “Αντίγραφη” (“Answer”); probably taught at a fraternal school. He actively participated in the national-religious struggle. Under a pseudonym Theophilus Ortholog in 1610 he published his famous work “Θρηνος” (“Lament”), like most of Smotrytsky’s other polemical works, in Polish. In this work, the author castigates the bishops who have converted to the union, calls on them to come to their senses, but also criticizes the negligence and abuses of the Orthodox clergy; In polemics with Catholics, Smotritsky acts as an encyclopedic educated person of his time, quoting or mentioning more than 140 authors - not only the church fathers, but also many ancient and Renaissance scientists and writers. With this work, Smotrytsky gained enormous popularity among Orthodox Christians; as he himself wrote, some contemporaries considered this book equal to the works of John Chrysostom and were ready to shed blood and give their souls for it.

Criticism of both the Catholic and Orthodox hierarchies, the demonstration of religious and national persecution of the people of Little Russia and Belarus, and most importantly, the call for active defense of their rights greatly disturbed the Polish royal authorities. Sigismund III in 1610 banned the sale and purchase of books of the Vilna Brotherhood under threat of a fine of 5,000 gold pieces; The king ordered the local authorities to confiscate the fraternal printing house, take away and burn the books, and arrest the typesetters and proofreaders, which was done. Editor and proofreader Leonty Karpovich ended up in prison; Smotritsky managed to avoid arrest.

Very little information has been preserved about the life and activities of Smotrytsky after the royal repressions. He probably returned to Little Russia; maybe he lived in Ostrog for some time and taught at the school there. Smotritsky is considered one of the first rectors of the Kyiv fraternal school, organized in - , where he taught Church Slavonic and Latin. He then returned to Vilna, where he lived in the Holy Spirit Monastery. Under pressure or even at the categorical demand of the Vilna Brotherhood, which could not remain indifferent to Smotrytsky’s contacts with the Uniates, he accepted monasticism under the name Meletius. In 1616, his translation into the Little Russian language of “The Teaching Gospel ... of our father Callistus” was published.

"Grammar"

"Grammar" by Smotritsky. Edition 1721. Moscow

Journey to the East (1624-1626)

Works

• Θρηνος to iest Lament iedyney S. powszechney apostolskiey Wschodniey Cerkwie… - Wilno, 1610.
• Grammar Slavonic correct Cvntaґma... Evye, 1619. Reprint: Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 1979. Internet version (scanned).
• Apologia. - Lvov, 1628.
• Αντιγραφη (Antigraphy) // Monuments of polemical literature. - St. Petersburg, 1903. - Book. 3 (Russian historical library, T. 19).
• Verificatia niewinności // South African Republic. - Part 1. - T. 7.
• Lament for the world of the poor on the pitiful death of the holy-loving and in both virtues rich husband in God, the great lord Father Leonty Karpovich, archimandrite of the common monastery at the Church of the Descent of the Holy Spirit of the Vilensk Orthodox Church Brotherhood whom // Memorabilia of fraternal schools in Ukraine. - K., 1988.
• Collected works of Meletij Smortyc'kyj / Harvard Library of Early Ukrainian Literature: Texts: Volume I. Cambridge (Massachusetts): Harvard University, 1987. ISBN 0-916458-20-2.
• The Jevanhelije učytelnoje of Meletij Smotryc’kyj / Harvard Library of Early Ukrainian Literature: Texts: Volume II. Cambridge (Massachusetts): Harvard University, 1987. ISBN 0-916458-21-0.

Literature

• Vasilyeva Z. I. (ed.) History of education and pedagogical thought abroad and in Russia: Tutorial for university students. - M.: Publishing Center "Academy", 2002.
• 3asadkevich N. Meletiy Smotritsky as a philologist. - Odessa, 1883.
• From the history of philosophical and socio-political thought of Belarus. - Minsk, 1962.
• Korotky V.S. Creative path Meletius Smotrytsky. - Minsk, 1987.
• Kuznetsov P. S. At the origins of Russian grammatical thought. - M., 1958.
• Mitsko I. Z. Ostrozka Slovenian-Greek-Latin Academy. - K., 1990.
• Nimchuk V.V. Kiev-Mohyla Academy and development of Ukrainian. linguistics XVII-XIX centuries. // The role of the Kiev-Mohyla Academy in the cultural unity of the Slovenian peoples. - K., 1988.
• Nichik V. M., Litvinov V. D., Stratiy Ya. M. Humanistic and reformation ideas in Ukraine. - K., 1991.
• Osinsky A. S. Meletius Smotrytsky, Archbishop of Polotsk. - K., 1912.
• Piskunov A.I. (ed.) History of pedagogy and education. - M., 2003.
• Prokoshina E. Meletius Smotrytsky. - Minsk, 1966.
• Tsirulnikov A. M. History of education in portraits and documents: A textbook for students of pedagogical institutions. - M., 2001.
• Yaremenko P.K. Meletiy Smotrytsky. Life and creativity. - K., 1986.

Notes

Links

Categories:

• Personalities in alphabetical order
• Born in 1577
• Born in Dunaevetsky district
• Died on December 27
• Died in 1633
• Died in Zdolbunovsky district
• Buried in the Zdolbunovsky district
• Scientists of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania
• Religious figures of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania
• Philologists of Ukraine
• Publicists in alphabetical order
• Publicists of Ukraine
• Religious figures of Ukraine
• Bishops of the Orthodox Church of Constantinople
• Teachers of the Kiev-Mohyla Academy
• Bishops of Polotsk

Wikimedia Foundation.

The author talks about the complex and contradictory life and activities, analyzes the socio-political views of the thinker against the backdrop of a complex historical situation. Two periods of Smotritsky's life and work are examined - the first, when he was an active supporter and participant in protests against Catholic dominance in Belarus, and the second - the last years of his life, when Smotritsky retreated from this struggle. His scientific activity as a philologist, as the author of the famous “Grammar” of the Slavic language, which retained its scientific significance for 150 years, is covered in detail.

PREFACE

There are personalities in history who were born of their era, but their significance and fame go far beyond its boundaries. There are also those who cannot be imagined outside their time, outside the conditions in which they were raised and lived. Smotritsky combines the features of one and the other. In fact, when we pronounce his name, we remember him first of all as the author of the famous “Grammar” of the Church Slavonic language, which Lomonosov, together with Magnitsky’s “Arithmetic,” called “the gates of his learning.” Less. Smotritsky’s social and literary activities as a polemicist writer are known. It is closely connected with the era, incomprehensible and inexplicable without it. Without Smotritsky, it is difficult to imagine the development of literature and social thought in one of the most difficult periods in the history of Belarus - in the first quarter of the 17th century. As a son of his time, he reflected all its complexity and inconsistency.

Meletius Smotritsky attracted the attention of many researchers. Polish, German, Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian and other scientists wrote about him. Separate archival documents about Smotritsky’s life were published, his works were published in translation and in the original, monographic studies and short articles were written about the life and various aspects of Smotritsky’s activities. A particularly significant group of works is devoted to the analysis of Smotritsky’s philological views. And this attention is natural, because his “Grammar” retained its scientific significance for 150 years after its publication.

The main advantage of all pre-revolutionary literature about Smotritsky is the large amount of factual material identified and collected. In their conclusions and interpretations, some authors were more objective and impartial (K. Kharlampovich, K. Elenevsky, A. Osinsky), others were tendentious (M. Koyalovich, S. Golubev, A. Demyanovich, Jesuit and Uniate historians).

However, all of them are characterized by one drawback, which essentially follows from the limited worldview. It was important for them to find out the significance of Smotritsky’s church activities, the essence of the religious struggle of that period and, depending on this, evaluate his place in history religious life. Pre-revolutionary historians saw in the social struggle of that period only passionate and furious “theological squabbles.” In their opinion, “if only the people of that time could come to an understanding among themselves regarding heavenly things, then they would have no reason to quarrel over earthly affairs.” They were either insufficient or not at all concerned with the analysis of Smotritsky’s class position in the religious and political struggle that unfolded after the Brest Church Union. Therefore, they ignored the role of social and class ideas in the formation of personality and in the nature of Smotritsky’s creativity, and placed all the emphasis on one side - the religious one, which they highlighted as the central and only one in Smotritsky’s activities and in the public life of that time.

In the post-October period, Soviet researchers paid insufficient attention to the study of the social thought of Belarus and Ukraine of this period, the activities and views of Smotritsky in particular. And only in recent years, mainly in the works of Belarusian and Ukrainian scientists devoted to the history of social thought and literature, Smotrytsky has not been passed over in silence. Among these works, first of all, it should be noted “Hrestated pas of the old Belarusian literature” by A. Korshunov (Minsk, 1959), the collection “From the history of philosophical and socio-political thought of Belarus” (Minsk, 1962), the book “Ukrainian writers-pollemshti late XVI- cob of the 17th century. in the struggle against Vatzhanu i Unp” by P. Zagaiko (KiTV, 1957), “In the glorious place of Vilna” by A. Anushkin (M., 1962), “From the history of the socio-political life of the cities of Belarus in the 16th - half of the 17th centuries.” 3. Kopyssky (“Proceedings of the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of the BSSR,” issue 3. Minsk, 1958), etc.

It is also impossible not to point out latest works P. Yaremenko “Perestoroga” - Ukrainian anti-earth pamphlet to the beginning of the 17th century.” (Kyiv, 1963) and “Ukrainian writer-polemicist Christopher Fshalet and yogo “Apokrisis” (Lv1v, 1964), where it is given detailed characteristics the period we are studying, analysis of major polemical treatises of that time and assessment of religious and literary polemics, in which Melenty Smotrytsky was an active participant.

It seems to us that the gap in the study of Smotritsky’s personality and activities by Soviet scientists was not accidental: with his contradictory, inconsistent position in the national liberation movement, he did not arouse interest among researchers. Nevertheless, without Smotritsky it is impossible to fully imagine public and cultural life in Belarus at the beginning of the 17th century. All this requires a thorough and objective study of his activities, which is what guided the author of this study.

EVERY ERA IS DIFFERENT

The years of M. Smotritsky’s life coincided with one of the critical periods in the history of Belarus. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania of that time, which included Belarus and Ukraine, was economic oppression and the tyranny of secular and spiritual feudal lords, it was the class struggle of the masses for their rights and human dignity, it was national and religious humiliation and oppression. Picture of life in general outline seems quite bright: huge estates of princes with numerous settlements of peasants, either completely or partially dependent, enslaved by countless taxes, chinshas, ​​etc.; lively cities with a variety of crafts, with merchants conducting trade, with various religious temples; numerous fortress monasteries with their own pharmacies and hospitals, printing houses, libraries and schools - after all, this was the time when “the monopoly on intellectual education went to the priests, and education itself thereby took on a predominantly theological character”

Two unions - the political Lublin and the church Brest - influenced the mentality and social movement of that time. In 1569, at the Sejm in Lublin, an agreement was approved, according to which the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland formed a single state - the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It was an alliance that actually asserted the political, socio-economic and national dominance of Poland and determined its aggressive, colonial policy towards the Principality of Lithuania. Of all the consequences of this political act, we will briefly consider only a few.

By virtue of the agreement, the Polish feudal lords could have land holdings in the Principality of Lithuania, which they were not slow to take advantage of. Now, not only their magnates exploited the peasants - the Radziwills, Slutskys, Charto-Ryskis, Volovichi, Khreptovichi, Khodkevichs, Tyshkevichs, Kishki, Solomeretskys, etc., but also the Polish ones, who created their own farms based on corvee labor on the still free lands. Polish kings generously distributed Belarusian lands for lifelong possession. The magnate Lukomsky was granted the entire Krichevsky eldership with tens of thousands of peasants. The possessions of feudal lord Voitkevich consisted of several povets; the king himself owned large land holdings - Mogilev, Bobruisk, Gorodets elderships with cities and villages. Their own and foreign feudal lords, feeling the strength and support of royal power, intensified economic exploitation in their possessions. The desire of the Belarusian princes and gentry to be like the Polish magnates and gentry in everything required more and more expenses, which naturally resulted in the desire to squeeze as much income as possible out of their possessions.

As a result of the union, a large multinational state was formed. But the ruling class of Poland, supported by the top of the Catholic Church, began an offensive against national culture Belarusian, Lithuanian and Ukrainian peoples, in every possible way exalting the Polish nation and culture and humiliating the national dignity of other peoples, their language, cultural traditions, national mores and customs. This was a course towards the spiritual enslavement of non-Polish peoples, towards the destruction of their language, culture, towards Polonization. National languages ​​began to be gradually supplanted, and Polish became generally accepted in communication and in office work; were ridiculed and humiliated national characteristics, desecration national customs. The overwhelming majority of local feudal lords quickly began to abandon everything that was theirs, national. Lithuanian humanist of the 16th century. Dauksha “speaks with bitterness and reproach about the Lithuanian gentry, who already thirty years after the Union of Lublin began to be ashamed of their native language.”

Lithuanian, Belarusian and Ukrainian feudal lords and gentry did not want to appear in any way worse or lower than their Polish class brothers. This was expressed both in external imitation and in the borrowing of a way of thinking and certain moral norms. The youth of princely and gentry families sought to obtain education in Polish higher education institutions. educational institutions. National characteristics began to disappear in the construction and arrangement of housing, in clothing, and their “grandfather’s” customs in everyday life were forgotten. They began to build their houses according to the Western model: estates-castles, estates-fortresses; have luxurious carriages and rich furnishings, keep many servants, flaunt weapons and luxury. Language, clothing, cuisine, religion. the whole way of life - everything has changed, nothing remains that resembles our own, national, original. There was only one class title left: “lords and gentry of the Roman and Greek law,” and later this difference in faith will disappear completely throughout the entire gentry class of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Naturally, in these conditions, the lower classes, especially the peasantry, experienced national oppression not only from the Polish authorities and magnates, but also from their local feudal lords, who showed contempt and intolerance in everything “to the slam” for their slightest demands for independence and former rights , to manifestations of national spirit and character.

Religious persecution was added to class, economic and national oppression. The unlimited secular and spiritual power of the feudal lords gave them the opportunity to control the conscience of their subjects without control. If this or that prince was a Catholic, a follower of Luther, or a supporter of Arianism and other religious sects, then he forcibly converted his subjects to the new faith. But this religious violence had, if one can say, local significance; it once again confirmed the already powerless and oppressed position of the subjects of the feudal lords and especially the plebeian and peasant masses. Since the end of the 16th century. religious oppression and violence turned into the state policy of the feudal-Catholic elite towards the Belarusian and Ukrainian peoples.

Over time Catholic Church, having taken a dominant position in Poland, began to implement its long-standing plans - plans to unite the Orthodox Church with the Catholic Church under the leadership of the Pope. The Union of Lublin greatly helped the implementation of their plans. Thanks to the church union, the Roman Curia tried to compensate for the damage that was caused to it by the Reformation, when many countries - Germany, England, the Netherlands and some others - came out from under the rule of Catholicism. Through union, the papacy tried to raise its prestige and expand its sphere of domination. The union of churches was also supposed to facilitate the possibility of subordination to the pope in the future of the rich Russian state. All this fueled the cosmopolitan claims of the popes during this period.

Smotrytsky Meletiy, secular name Maxim, was born around 1577 in the village of Smotrych, Khmelnitsky region, Ukraine. He combined many talents: philologist, Belarusian and Ukrainian polemicist, socio-political and church leader, Polotsk Orthodox Archbishop (since 1620), Uniate Archbishop of Hieropolitan and archimandrite of the monastery in Derman.

Maxim received his initial education from his father at an Orthodox school in Ostrog. He called himself a student of Cyril Loukaris, a Greek scholar who later became the Patriarch of Constantinople. Later, with the support of the Kyiv governor K. Ostrozhsky, he studied at the Jesuit Academy in Vilna. He continued his studies at Protestant academies in Germany (Leipzig, Wittenberg). Then he lived in the Solomeritsky estate near Minsk. He joined the Vilna Orthodox Brotherhood at the Trinity Monastery, where he became close to the founder of the monastery, Leonty Karpovich.

At the age of 19, he witnessed the introduction of the Brest Church Union, the legitimacy of which he did not recognize.

His entire church and writing career developed in the context of religious, cultural and national polemics that took place in Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania and Poland in the first decades of the 17th century.

In 1608 - 1623 he was one of the most famous supporters of the renewal of the Belarusian-Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

After joining the union in 1627, he advocated reform of the Uniate church.

In 1610. The printing house of the Vilna Brotherhood of the Holy Spirit published, under the pseudonym Theophilus Ortolog, the polemical work of M. Smotrytsky “Frynos, that is, the Lamentation of the Eastern Church” in Polish, which he used in all his published polemical works. The author, in the image of the mother church, which cries and suffers, came out in defense of Orthodoxy against all Western Christianity. The work caused a wide socio-political resonance. Although the author diligently avoided political involvement, the book aroused the alarm of Sigismund III, who ordered the book to be burned and the printer and the author to be arrested. The publisher of the book, Leonty Karpovich, was sent to prison, but the anonymous author managed to escape punishment.

In 1616, the printing house of the Vilna Orthodox Brotherhood published “The Teaching Gospel” with a foreword by M. Smotrytsky.

In 1637, Metropolitan P. Mogila published a revised version, omitting the name of the interpreter, probably due to the scandal caused by M. Smotrytsky’s transition to the union.

Between 1617 and 1618 M. Smotritsky became a monk in the Vilna Monastery of St. Spirit under the name Meletia. He worked in the monastery's fraternal school and was the rector of the Kyiv fraternal school (1618-1620).

Smotritsky went down in the history of linguistics as a polyglot and the author of several school textbooks. In 1615 in Cologne he published a grammar of the Greek language, in 1617-1620. created the Lexicon (dictionary) of Church Slavonic and Greek, took part in writing the Primer of the Slovenian Language (1618).

The pinnacle of Smotrytsky’s scientific activity was “Slovenian Grammar, more correctly syntagma” (1618-1619). In it, the author argued that in the Church Slavonic language it is possible to develop science, and the Church Slavonic language itself is equal to Greek and Latin languages. “Grammar” by M. Smotritsky became an important factor in the development of East Slavic spiritual culture, and was reprinted several times until the 19th century. was the most authoritative and widely used textbook on Slavic linguistics in the Orthodox world. She was bullied twice in Moscow. Individual chapters were published in Holland.

Smotritsky was the first to introduce the letter “g” and legalize the use of the letter “y”; established rules for the lettering of vowels and consonants, the use of capital letters, dividing marks, and hyphenation rules; identified eight parts of speech - pronoun, verb, name, participle, etc.; described the declension of adjectives and numerals.

M. Lomonosov called “Grammar” “the gates of learning.”

In the XVIII - first half of the XIX century. it became the model for Serbian, Croatian, Romanian and Bulgarian grammars.

In 1620, M. Smotrytsky was delegated to a meeting with the Jerusalem Patriarch Theophan, who, returning from Moscow, where he ordained Patriarch Filaret, spent several months in the East Slavic lands of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In Kyiv, Feofan ordained 7 new Orthodox bishops to replace those who had transferred to the union, and among them the Archbishop of Polotsk and the Bishop of Vitebsk and Mstislav - M. Smotritsky.

Soon Smotritsky was elected archimandrite of the Vilna Orthodox monastery to replace the recently deceased Leonty Karpovich.

At his funeral, Smotrytsky spoke “Kazan to the Honest Cellar of Leonty Karpovich,” published in Russian (Vilno, 1620) and Polish (Vilno, 1621).

In the newly ordained Orthodox hierarchy, M. Smotrytsky now occupied the second most important place after Metropolitan Job Boretsky. In the coming years after this, M. Smotrytsky acted as the main defender of the Orthodox Church in the controversy over the legality of the newly installed hierarchy, which was disputed by the Uniate and Catholic sides,

At the same time, the views and activities of M. Smotritsky gave reason to Uniate circles to believe that he was close to joining them. Both opposing sides: Uniate and Orthodox - wanted to have him in their camp and made efforts for this, but neither, it seems, was completely confident in his loyalty.

In 1624-1625, after the reprisal of the inhabitants of Vitebsk against the Polotsk Uniate Archbishop I. Kuntsevich, M. Smotritsky traveled to the holy places of the Middle East, during which he visited Jerusalem and Constantinople. He never returned to Vilna.

He spent the last period of his life in Dermani as an archimandrite of a local monastery, which was in the possession of the Bratslav governor Alexander Zaslavsky, who had recently converted to Catholicism. Zaslavsky, together with Metropolitan I. Rutsky, persuaded M. Smotritsky to join the Uniate Church.

In 1627, he secretly, and after the council of 1628, openly accepted the union. Changes in worldview were reflected in the polemical work “Apology” (1628), which was condemned Orthodox Cathedral in August 1628 in Kyiv: the book was torn and thrown away, the Uniate archimandrite of the monastery in Dubno Kasyan Sakovich was cursed for printing it, and M. Smotrytsky was forced to renounce it in writing.

In order to discredit M. Smotrytsky in the eyes of the Uniates, the renunciation was printed in Russian and Polish languages. In a series of works written in Dermani over the next two years, M. Smotritsky polemicized both with the ideologists of Orthodoxy and with his own own works, written during the period of his affiliation with Orthodoxy.

The papacy, probably due to insufficient trust in M. Smotrytsky, could not decide what to do with him and hesitated in appointing him to the post of bishop. Meanwhile, this question arose before the Kyiv Council of 1628, when M. Smotrytsky was a secret Uniate.

On April 8, 1628, the Congregation for the Propaganda of the Faith asked Metropolitan I. Rutsky to confirm the sincerity of Smotritsky’s acceptance of the union and his loyalty to Rome, which he did in a letter to Rome dated January 9, 1629.

On May 5, 1631, Pope Urban VIII appointed M. Smotrytsky to the post of Archbishop of the Hieropolitan Church.

The last years of his life brought M. Smotrytsky many disappointments, in particular, the failed reconciliatory Uniate-Orthodox council in Lviv in 1629.

The last surviving manuscript of M. Smotrytsky is a letter to Pope Urban VIII, written from Dermani on February 16, 1630, in which he spoke about the use of pressure as the only means of resolving religious conflicts in “Rus”. He believed that the king and spiritual authorities should persuade the gentry to liquidate Orthodox churches and monasteries in their domains. At the same time, he convinced the pope of the need to prohibit the Rusyns from switching to the Latin rite from the Uniate one.

Meletiy Smotrytsky died in Dermani in December 1633, where he was buried.

Alexander A. Sokolovsky