The first printed history of the Russian state synopsis. Dream of Russian unity

The author of the "Synopsis", first published in Kyiv in 1674, is considered the rector of the Kiev-Mohyla Collegium and Archimandrite of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra Innokenty Gizel (c. 1600-1683). Written 20 years after the annexation of the Left-Bank Ukraine to Russia, this work gained popularity and remained one of the most popular books on Russian history until the beginning of the 19th century. Synopsis, or Short description from various chroniclers, about the beginning of the Slavic people, about the first Kiev princes and about the life of the holy, faithful and great prince Vladimir, the first autocrat of all Russia, and about his heirs ”survived about 30 editions, its total circulation was a record for its time. An interesting detail: in the Kiev "Synopsis" of 1674, the Grand Duke Vladimir Svyatoslavich is referred to as the autocrat of all Russia ...

On the reign of Grand Duke Vladimir in Kyiv and throughout Russia and on the autocracy of his Summer from the creation of the world six thousand four hundred and seventy-six, and from the Nativity of Christ nine hundred and seventy osmago, Grand Duke Vladimir Svetoslavich, coming from the root of Augustus, Caesar of Rome, who ruled the whole universe, grandson Igorev, great-grandson of the Ruriks, after the death of his brothers Olga and Yaropolk1 embodied their reigns and all of Russia - midnight (northern), eastern, noon (southern), white and black - brought to their power, starting to write the king and the grand duke and autocrat of Russia . Having created the city, great and red, fifty miles from Kyiv, calling it Belgorod, and the throne of the reign of Veliky Novgorod was brought to Kyiv.

On the courage of Vladimirova

While Vladimir is autocratic in all of Russia, turn your thoughts to warfare and martial courage. First, you brought military abuse to Mechislav, the prince of Poland, and taking under him the city of Przemysl, and Cherven, and the parish of Radomysl, and many others. Defeat the Vyatichi and impose on them a tribute of a sheleg, less than a half, from a plow. Then Vladimir went with a great army across the Danube, and took into his region the lands of Bulgarian, Serbian, Karvat, Sedmigrad, Vyatitskaya, Yatvyaz, Dulepskaya, Volosskaya, Multyanskaya and the Bobrutsk Tatars, and lay tribute on all of them, to the south (which) before the Greek Caesar dayah.

About the various ambassadors, to the faith of Vladimir admonishing

When (when) the Grand Duke Vladimir, the monarch or autocrat of all Russia, was glorified by the courage and majesty of his kingdom in all the sunflower more than others, the darkness of demonic seduction, that is (that is) idolatry, was not driven away from him by the light of the baptism of the saint, began to go to him come envoys from various kingdoms and principalities, everyone praising their faith. At the beginning, ubo (so) the Mahometans arrived; Vladimir asked them about faith, and they answered: “We believe in God, and Mahomet deigns us to have wives if anyone wants and use all sorts of sweets, tochi (only) be circumcised, do not eat pork meat and do not drink wine,” and I offer other unseemly things, even (which) it is not absurd to write. Vladimir, as if (for) a woman-loving be, more diligent about wives, listen; but circumcision and non-drinking of wine do not love him, and the speech to them: “We cannot stay without wine, because in Russians all fun and friendship happens in drinking.” Likewise (also) the Tatars, the Egyptians, the Arabs, the Germans, the Jews, and other renouncers. The Pope of Rome, and the Caesar of the West, and the German princes often send, but accept their faith and Christian law; but Vladimir do not deign to them, as (for) the statutes of Latinism are a little pious and their churches are not very red, I think he should be; Tochiyu (only) ambassadors from the Greek Caesars and patriarchs have a place with him with faith and charters of their imesh, as if (as) the same Polish chronicler Strikovskiy testifies.

About the Greek ambassadors to Vladimir

Whenever (when so) the ambassadors from the kings of Greece, Basil and Constantine, Cyril the Philosopher and others came to Vladimir, then Kirill the Grechin with Vladimir, like (as) a wise man, talking about the faith of Christians, starting from the creation of the world according to all the prophecies even before the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, about baptism, about the passions, about the crucifixion and his three-day resurrection from the dead. Then, after offering a word about the second coming of Christ, about the Last Judgment, about the torment of sinners and about the kingdom of the infinite, the righteous prepared, I will give him a great golden cloth as a gift, from the same Greek Caesars and sent from the patriarch; on it, the Last Judgment of God is depicted more cunningly. Vladimir, looking diligently at her, ask the Philosopher to interpret to him about these, who (who) stand at the right hand (on the right hand) and who stand on the left (on the left hand). And the Philosopher told him, as (that) they will become at the right hand, even they believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, the only true God, and are baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and do good deeds; these after death will inherit the temporary eternal life and the kingdom of heaven. They will become Oshuyu, even (who) do not believe in the one true God and are not baptized, but they live lawlessly and do evil deeds according to their lusts; you into the eternal fire of Gehenna for endless torment, where (where) the worm does not fall asleep and the gnashing of teeth, they will go. Having heard this, Vladimir will sigh and say: “Blessed are these, who will stand at the right hand; woe to those who will be on their feet.” And Cyril the Holy replied: “If (if) you are baptized to the Tsar and stop evil deeds, you will be at the right hand; but if you live in abomination, your place will be on your left.” Vladimir promised to be baptized, and then answered: “I will reason and tempt good about all faiths”; and release the Philosopher with great gifts and honor.

About Vladimir's Council on Faiths and the Message

After the departure of St. Cyril the Philosopher, Vladimir summoned his boyars and advisers to the city of Vladimir, lying over the Klyazma River; appoint him in your name and in that capital, or your royal throne, from Kyiv, 2, and the royal capital contained there even to John Danilovich, Prince of Belarus, 3 ilk (who) brought it from Vladimir to Moscow city. And offer Vladimir his boyar a word about various ambassadors, praise his faith sent to him, and about Cyril the Philosopher, who was from the kings of Greece, as if (what) he told him from the beginning of the World to the incarnation of the Lord, about baptism, about resurrection, about the Kingdom of Heaven and about the pain of Gehenna; and the boyars and his wise men spoke to him: “Everyone always praises his own, and does not blaspheme; but you, Grand Duke, if (if) you want to know the truth more reliably, have a lot of wise people, send them to all earthly states, so that they see and know every faith and how someone serves God; when they return, they will inform you and us about everything in detail and completely, like self-seers. On the advice of Abie (immediately), Vladimir sent the chosen men everywhere to inquire about the faiths. Those who were sent from him to various countries contemplate and test about the faiths and ministries of God. Then he came to Tsarigrad and informed the Greek king, Vasily and Konstantin, the brothers, the guilt of his coming. The king rejoiced and informed the most holy Patriarch Sergius of Tsarigrad about them. Then His Holiness the Patriarch commanded to decorate the church and create a holiday; and he himself, in the most precious hierarchal robes, with many bishops prepared to celebrate the divine liturgy. During the liturgy, the tsar came with those sent from Vladimir to the church, and when the ambassadors saw the beauty of the glory of God, and heard the sweet singing, they were very surprised: not on earth, but in heaven, I am standing, for at that time the light of heaven is their fall; and bysha in a frenzy. After the celebration of the Divine Liturgy, he took the kingdom of the envoys into his chambers and created honor and institution for them; and pleased with every abundance, sending them away with gifts.

On the return of ambassadors to Vladimir

When the envoys returned to Vladimir, packs (again) Vladimir the boyar and all his advisers and wise men convoked and commanded the envoy to tell everyone where he was, what you saw and what you heard about all the faiths and services to God. The messengers told, as if (that) there is not a single divine service and faith taco [do not] love, like Greek. “Whenever, - rekosha, - having led us into the Greek church, where (where) they pray to their God and perform the rite of God’s service, we saw the inexpressible beauty and splendor in their church, and singing to hearing is very sweet, where (where) everyone the clouds of autumn brightened us, and were in a frenzy: we imagined not on earth, but in heaven at that time standing; and there is nowhere in all the peoples and churches of the structure, beauty and ministry of God, like the Greeks. For this sake we believe, as if (that) their true faith is and the true God lives with those only (only) people. And the boyar said to Vladimir: “If (if) the Greek faith was not true, then your woman Olga would not have assured, for the wife was very wise.” Then Vladimir, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, is illumined, from the darkness of idolatry, as if from a dream, awakening, the holy Greek faith of the outer and inner eyes (eyes), as if I am clear, shining on the candlestick, seeing and knowing, as (that) it is righteous and true, and say, “What shall I do? I will go to the land of Greece, and I will receive hail, and I will find teachers there”; and as if you intended, do it (so) and do it.

About the campaign of Vladimir in the Greek land for the sake of baptism

Having gathered Vladimir a great military force, go to Taurikia, south (which) is now called Perekop, where (where) taking Kafu4, the glorious Greek city, and then the main place of all Taurikia is Kherson5, lying above the Pontic Sea, pleasantly, taking sweet water, rurami ( channels) underground current; their own Kherson archpriest Anastasy showed Vladimir, writing on an arrow and shooting from a bow from hail in front of his tent from Kherson. Abie (immediately) sent to the Greek Caesars in Constantinople, Konstantin and Basil, the sons of John Zemiska6, informing them that he had taken the glorious city of shelter Cherson, and promised to create Tsarigrad as well, if (if) he did not give his sister, Princess Anna, to him into a wife. To that message, the Caesars answered (so): “It is not worthy for us, a Christian monarch or autocrat, to you, a filthy prince, to give your sister as a wife, but if you are baptized, depart from godless idols, and turn to the true God and our Lord Jesus Christ, take our sister to wife, and more (greater) than her, inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. Hearing about this, Vladimir said: “Because (because) my faith, already of old from my messengers, love more than all others, send a bishop to baptize me, and yourself come with your sister to me or send me to wife; I will return all of Tavrikia and Kherson to you.

Hearing the favorable news to the Caesars, she rejoiced greatly, and exhorted her sister with every petition into a marriage union with Vladimir. She, even though she was a little reluctant, but, having entrusted herself to the will of God, deigned to their advice with weeping. And so all the Caesars in the ship, accompanying my sister Anna with many princes and nobles on the way to Cherson with the bishop. But when the princess, having reached Cherson, was escorted to the chambers of the city, abie (immediately), by the will of God, fell blindness into the eyes of Vladimir, and began to doubt the faith of the saint and baptism, not praying (believing, thinking) to be punished by the gods from her intention to the faith of Christians . But the princess sent a messenger to him, saying: “If you are not baptized, you will not get rid of blindness, but if you are baptized, then you will be deprived not only of bodily blindness, but also spiritually deprived.”

About the baptism of Vladimir and his brother

And so the great autocrat of Russia, Vladimir Svetoslavich, accepted the Orthodox Christian Greek faith, commanded himself to be baptized in Kherson, six thousand four hundred ninety-six years from the creation of the world, and nine hundred and eighty osmago from the Nativity of Christ. When you start to be baptized, be glorious a miracle. For as soon as Vladimir enter the holy font and the Archbishop of Kherson lay his hand on him, blessing him, may he receive the Holy Spirit, abie (immediately) from his eyes blindness, like scales, fall, and his sight is clear, like never [not] hurt more than eyes , and give praise to God, in the Trinity we glorify the Holy One, saying: “Now you know the true God,” and a new name was given to him in holy baptism, Basil. At the same time, his boyar and all the Russian army were baptized with him.

According to this, Vladimir is combined in marriage with Anna the princess, and there was joy in marriage and world joy; put up in Kherson the stone church of St. Basil in memory of the name of your baptized.

On the baptism of all the people of Kiev and all Russia

The great autocrat of Russia Vladimir was marked the day for all the people to holy baptism and commanded throughout the city of Kiev to announce the sits (so): The Lord Jesus Christ and I are disgusted. Hearing about this, the people of Abie, for the appointed time, without number of men and women, flocked to the Pochaina River, and Tsar Vladimir himself, with all the synclite and the consecrated Cathedral, came. Then the priests and deacons, having put on sacred clothes, stood at the breeze on the boards arranged on the river Pochayna, where (where) at the breeze is now the Church of the Holy Martyrs Boris and Gleb. The people go into the river, the older ones are deeper, the younger ones are shallower, not up to the neck, not up to the waist, and the priests give names to each (each) and read baptism prayers over them, immerse in water and baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

On the division of the reign of Russia from Vladimir by his son

Vladimir Svetoslavich, after the baptism of his entire Russian state and after many military labors, sat on his royal throne in Kyiv, beginning to think in himself and, like a wise builder of his house, to reason, so that his sons would be twelve after his death in peace and indestructible fraternity love union abiding , about the reigns of internecine discord and bloodshed did not have. Divide with them your great Russian state into twelve parts: Vysheslav, your eldest son, Dada Veliky Novgorod, your first inheritance; Izyaslav - Polotsk; Svyatopolk - Turov; Yaroslav - Rostov, after the death of Vysheslav, he gave the same Yaroslav Novgrad; Boris - Rostov; Gleb - Murom; Svyatoslav - Drevlyans; Vsevolod - Vladimir; Mstislav - Tmutorokany; Stanislav - Smolensk; Sudislav - Pskov; Pozvizda, or Brachislav, - Volyn, Lutsk. The priests also sent with them, commanding them like a father to his son, that everyone from them in his reign strives to teach the Christian faith and baptize people in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

On the death of Vladimirov

Grand Duke Vladimir Svetoslavich, autocrat of all Russia, having enlightened all his Russian land with holy baptism with the help of the almighty God, uprooted all idols and idols (places of worship of pagan gods), created many churches of saints, spread the Orthodox faith and firmly established, built many almshouses, and having graciously and abundantly satisfied all sorts of needs and needs, according to so many virtues of yours in the world to the Lord God, you betray your spirit, with a psalmist saying: “In Your hands, my God, I commit my spirit”; and moved from the earthly to the Heavenly Kingdom of the year from the creation of the world six thousand five hundred and twenty-five, and from the Nativity of Christ one thousand seventeen and ten, the month of July, the day of five and ten, in Berestovo.

I reigned for thirty-five years, eight years in unbelief, and twenty-seven years in baptism. Svyatopolk 9 buried him in a Marmur (marble) coffin, with great pity and weeping of all the people, in the stone church of the Most Holy Theotokos of the Tithes 10 in Kyiv, which Vladimir himself created. Then, between the saints, like an apostle, he venerates him and with the church the holy memory of the repose of his day on the fifth of July, venerate us. His head is now in the holy great miraculous Lavra of the Pechersk Kiev, offered in the great Church of the Assumption of the Most Holy Theotokos11 on the day of his memory to everyone and on other days, whenever anyone wishes, to kiss.

Publication prepared Alexander Samarin, Doctor of Historical Sciences

NOTES

1 Oleg (d. 977), Prince of the Drevlians, and Yaropolk (d. 978 or 980), Grand Duke of Kyiv in 972–978 (980), sons of Prince Svyatoslav Igorevich. According to chronicle evidence, Oleg died during the strife with Yaropolk, and Yaropolk was killed, arriving at negotiations with Vladimir Svyatoslavich, then the prince of Novgorod. In 1044, the son of Prince Vladimir, Yaroslav the Wise, ordered that the remains of Oleg and Yaropolk be dug up, their bones baptized (which was a non-canonical act, probably due to the absence of a Greek metropolitan in Kyiv at that time) and reburied in the Kiev Church of the Tithes (see below) .

3 We are talking about the Grand Duke of Moscow Ivan Kalita (c. 1283–1340). Why the author calls him Belarusian is unknown.

4 Kafa - the name of the city of Feodosia in the X-XV centuries. At present, on the shore of the Feodosiya Gulf in the southern part of the city there is a historical and architectural reserve "Genoese fortress of Kafa" (built in the XIV century)

5 This refers to Chersonese.

6 John Tzimiskes - Byzantine emperor in 969-976.

7 According to the generally accepted chronology based on the Tale of Bygone Years, Vladimir died in 1015.

9 Svyatopolk Vladimirovich (nicknamed the Accursed, c. 979-1019) - the son and successor of Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich, the Grand Duke of Kyiv in 1015-1016 and 1018-1019. In The Tale of Bygone Years, Svyatopolk the Accursed is accused of organizing the murder of half-brothers Boris and Gleb, who, under Yaroslav the Wise, were glorified as holy martyrs.

10 Church of the Tithes (Church of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary) in Kyiv is the first stone church in Russia. The beginning of its construction is attributed to 989, when, according to the "Tale of Bygone Years", Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich "thought to create the Church of the Most Holy Theotokos and sent the masters from the Greeks." It was built as a cathedral not far from the prince's tower, and Prince Vladimir allocated a tenth of his income - tithing - to support the church and the metropolis, hence the name of the temple. The construction was completed in 996. According to a legend entered in the Book of Degrees, Prince Vladimir transferred the remains of his grandmother, Princess Olga, to the erected church. Vladimir himself and his wife, the Byzantine princess Anna, were also buried there. In 1240 the Church of the Tithes was destroyed by the Mongols.

9 In 1632–1636 in Kyiv, during the analysis of the ruins of the Church of the Tithes, ancient sarcophagi were discovered, which Metropolitan Peter Mogila mistook for the burials of Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich and his wife Anna. A skull was removed from the burial, which the metropolitan considered the remains of the prince. The acquired relic was transferred to the Assumption Cathedral of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. In the 17th century In Kyiv, a special veneration developed for the “honest head of the holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir”, during the holidays it was carried around the city. The location of the relic is currently unknown.

New time.

background

The historian of the Orthodox Church Vasily Bednov, in his dissertation, argues that back in the year, the Vilna Orthodox Brotherhood compiled and printed in Polish "Synopsis" outlining the history of the Russian people from the baptism of Russia to 1632. This document was drawn up specifically for the convocation Sejm of 1632 (convened after the death of King Sigismund III), in order to acquaint senators and Sejm ambassadors with the rights and liberties of the Orthodox, which were granted to them by the first Polish-Lithuanian sovereigns, but over time were increasingly infringed upon by the Polish kings. It is possible that it was this book that served as the basis for Gisel's Synopsis.

As some scholars believe, the main part of the "Synopsis" consisted of an abbreviation of the chronicle of the abbot of the Mikhailovsky Monastery Theodosius Safonovich. According to another point of view, the main source of the author of the "Synopsis" was "Kgonika Polska, Litewska, Żmudzka i wszystkiej Rusi" by Matvey Stryikovsky and the Gustyn Chronicle (the author widely used the list of the Gustyn Chronicle, known under the cipher Arch. VIII, or Gustynskaya's protograph that did not come down to us annals).

The Synopsis talks about the unity of Great and Little Russia, about a single state tradition in the Old Russian state, about a common Rurik dynasty and about a single Russian, "Orthodox Russian" people. According to the "Synopsis", the people "Russian", "Russian", "Slavo-Russian" are one. Kyiv is described as "the glorious supreme and all the people of the Russian main city." Russia is one. After centuries of humiliation and separation of the “prince of Kiev” from “Russia”, finally the “mercy of the Lord” came true, and “God-saving, glorious and original of all Russia, the royal city of Kyiv, due to its many changes”, again returned to the Sovereign Russia, under the arm of the all-Russian tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, as "from time immemorial the fatherland of the scepter-bearing progenitors", an organic part of the "Russian people".

At the same time, being little familiar with the Russian chronicles and based on the works of Polish historians, the compiler of the Synopsis tried to describe, among other things, the ancient times of the Russian people, about which the Tale of Bygone Years knows nothing. Repeating the ethnogenetic legends popular in the early modern times, "Synopsis" indicates the progenitor of the Muscovite peoples of the biblical Mosokh, the sixth son of Afet, the grandson of Noah. As a South Russian work, "Synopsis" focused its narrative on the history of Kyiv, passing from the events after the Tatar invasion only about those that were directly related to Kiev: about the fate of the Kiev metropolis, about the annexation of Kyiv to Lithuania, and so on. In the first edition, "Synopsis" ended with the annexation of Kyiv to Moscow, and in the next two editions, the Chigirin campaigns were added.

Spreading

"Synopsis" was widely used both in Little Russia and throughout Russia throughout the 18th century and went through 25 editions, of which the last three were published in the 19th century. In Moscow, "Synopsis" was a success because it was at one time the only educational book on Russian history.

Despite the numerous editions, Synopsis was copied by hand for a long time. The Russian historian Vasily Tatishchev directly pointed to the "Synopsis" as one of the sources of his views, and the elements of his scheme, which relate to the unity of Great and Little Russia, can be found in all the authors of the multi-volume "History of Russia": Nikolai Karamzin, Sergei Solovyov and Vasily Klyuchevsky. Therefore, the concepts of "Synopsis" as a joint heritage of the Great Russian and Little Russian elites were later fought by Ukrainian nationalists, in particular Mikhail Grushevsky.

reception

As historian Ivan Lappo wrote in his work,

Some twenty years after the Pereyaslav oath of Bogdan Khmelnitsky and the Cossacks, the idea of ​​the unity of the Russian people, the idea of ​​the organic unity of Little Russia with Great Russia, the state union of the entire Russian people, found its clear and precise expression in Little Russian literature. The first edition in Kyiv in 1674, Synopsis, based on the historical idea of ​​a united Russia, consolidated the union of Little Russia with Sovereign Russia, completed in 1654.

The spirit of the Synopsis also reigns in our historiography of the 18th century, determines the tastes and interests of readers, serves as a starting point for most researchers, provokes protests from the most serious of them - in a word, serves as the main background against which the development of the historical science of the past takes place. centuries.

Milyukov P. N. The main currents of Russian historical thought. SPb., 1913. S. 7.

Write a review on the article "Kyiv Synopsis"

Notes

1. Kotenko A. L., Martynyuk O. V., Miller A. I. . Journal New Literary Review. - M: ISSN 0869-6365-C.9-27.
2. Dmitriev M. V. // Questions of History, No. 8. 2002. - P. 154-159
4. Malinov A.V.. St. Petersburg: Publishing and trading house "Summer Garden", 2001.
5. Peshtich S. L.// Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature. - M., L.: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1958. - T. XV. - S. 284-298.
6. Kohut Z. The Question of Russian-Ukrainian Unity and Ukrainian Distinctiveness in Early Modern Ukrainian Thought and Culture" // Peoples, Nations, Identities: The Russian-Ukrainian Encounter.
7. // Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron
8. Miller A.I.. - St. Petersburg. : Aletheia, 2000. - 260 p.

Literature

• Peshtich S. L.// Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature. - M., L.: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1958. - T. XV. - S. 284-298.
• Formozov A. A.. - M .: Sign, 2005. - 224 p. - (Studia historica. Series minor). - 1000 copies. - ISBN 5-9551-0059-8.(in trans.)
• . - M .: Europe, 2006. - 248 p. - (Evrovostok). - 500 copies. - ISBN 5-9739-0054-1.

Links

• (ukr.)
• // Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron: in 86 volumes (82 volumes and 4 additional). - St. Petersburg. , 1890-1907.

An excerpt characterizing the Kyiv synopsis

“But I remember: they told me that you were born under cabbage,” said Natasha, “and I remember that then I did not dare not to believe, but I knew that this was not true, and I was so embarrassed.
During this conversation, the maid's head poked out of the back door of the divan. - Young lady, they brought a rooster, - the girl said in a whisper.
“Don’t, Polya, tell them to take it,” said Natasha.
In the middle of conversations going on in the sofa room, Dimmler entered the room and approached the harp in the corner. He took off the cloth, and the harp made a false sound.
“Eduard Karlych, please play my favorite Monsieur Filda’s Nocturiene,” said the voice of the old countess from the drawing room.
Dimmler took a chord and, turning to Natasha, Nikolai and Sonya, said: - Young people, how quietly they sit!
“Yes, we are philosophizing,” said Natasha, looking around for a minute, and continued the conversation. The conversation was now about dreams.
Dimmler began to play. Natasha inaudibly, on tiptoe, went up to the table, took the candle, carried it out, and, returning, quietly sat down in her place. It was dark in the room, especially on the sofa on which they sat, but the silver light of a full moon fell on the floor through the large windows.
“You know, I think,” Natasha said in a whisper, moving closer to Nikolai and Sonya, when Dimmler had already finished and was still sitting, weakly plucking the strings, apparently in indecision to leave or start something new, “that when you remember like that, you remember, you remember everything , until you remember that you remember what was even before I was in the world ...
“This is metampsikova,” said Sonya, who always studied well and remembered everything. “The Egyptians believed that our souls were in animals and would go back to animals.
“No, you know, I don’t believe that we were animals,” Natasha said in the same whisper, although the music ended, “but I know for sure that we were angels there somewhere and here, and from this we remember everything.” …
- May I join you? - Dimmler said quietly approached and sat down to them.
- If we were angels, why did we get lower? Nikolai said. - No, it can't be!
“Not lower, who told you that it was lower? ... Why do I know what I was before,” Natasha objected with conviction. - After all, the soul is immortal ... therefore, if I live forever, so I lived before, lived for eternity.
“Yes, but it’s hard for us to imagine eternity,” said Dimmler, who approached the young people with a meek, contemptuous smile, but now spoke as quietly and seriously as they did.
Why is it so hard to imagine eternity? Natasha said. “It will be today, it will be tomorrow, it will always be, and yesterday was and the third day was ...
- Natasha! now it's your turn. Sing me something, - the voice of the countess was heard. - Why are you sitting down, like conspirators.
- Mum! I don’t feel like it,” Natasha said, but at the same time she got up.
All of them, even the middle-aged Dimmler, did not want to interrupt the conversation and leave the corner of the sofa, but Natasha got up, and Nikolai sat down at the clavichord. As always, standing in the middle of the hall and choosing the most advantageous place for resonance, Natasha began to sing her mother's favorite play.
She said that she did not feel like singing, but she had not sung for a long time before, and for a long time after, as she sang that evening. Count Ilya Andreevich, from the study where he was talking to Mitinka, heard her singing, and like a pupil in a hurry to go to play, finishing the lesson, he got confused in words, giving orders to the manager and finally fell silent, and Mitinka, also listening, silently with a smile, stood in front of count. Nikolai did not take his eyes off his sister, and took a breath with her. Sonya, listening, thought about what an enormous difference there was between her and her friend, and how impossible it was for her to be in any way as charming as her cousin. The old countess sat with a happily sad smile and tears in her eyes, occasionally shaking her head. She thought about Natasha, and about her youth, and about how something unnatural and terrible is in this upcoming marriage of Natasha to Prince Andrei.
Dimmler, sitting down next to the countess and closing his eyes, listened.
“No, countess,” he said at last, “this is a European talent, she has nothing to learn, this gentleness, tenderness, strength ...
– Ah! how I fear for her, how I fear,” said the countess, not remembering to whom she was speaking. Her maternal instinct told her that there was too much in Natasha, and that she would not be happy from this. Natasha had not yet finished singing, when an enthusiastic fourteen-year-old Petya ran into the room with the news that mummers had come.
Natasha suddenly stopped.
- Fool! she shouted at her brother, ran up to a chair, fell on it and sobbed so that she could not stop for a long time afterwards.
“Nothing, mother, really nothing, so: Petya scared me,” she said, trying to smile, but tears kept flowing and sobs squeezed her throat.
Dressed-up servants, bears, Turks, innkeepers, ladies, terrible and funny, bringing with them cold and fun, at first timidly huddled in the hallway; then, hiding one behind the other, they were forced into the hall; and at first shyly, but then more and more cheerfully and amicably, songs, dances, choral and Christmas games began. The countess, recognizing the faces and laughing at the dressed up, went into the living room. Count Ilya Andreich sat in the hall with a beaming smile, approving the players. The youth has disappeared.
Half an hour later, in the hall, among the other mummers, another old lady in tanks appeared - it was Nikolai. The Turkish woman was Petya. Payas - it was Dimmler, the hussar - Natasha and the Circassian - Sonya, with a painted cork mustache and eyebrows.
After condescending surprise, misrecognition and praise from those who were not dressed up, the young people found that the costumes were so good that they had to be shown to someone else.
Nikolai, who wanted to take everyone on an excellent road in his troika, suggested that, taking with him ten dressed-up people from the yard, go to his uncle.
- No, why are you upsetting him, the old man! - said the countess, - and there is nowhere to turn around with him. To go, so to the Melyukovs.
Melyukova was a widow with children of various ages, also with governesses and tutors, who lived four miles from the Rostovs.
“Here, ma chere, clever,” said the old count, who had begun to stir. “Now let me dress up and go with you.” I'll stir up Pasheta.
But the countess did not agree to let the count go: his leg hurt all these days. It was decided that Ilya Andreevich was not allowed to go, and that if Luiza Ivanovna (m me Schoss) went, the young ladies could go to Melyukova's. Sonya, always timid and shy, began to beg Louisa Ivanovna more insistently than anyone else not to refuse them.
Sonya's outfit was the best. Her mustache and eyebrows were unusually suited to her. Everyone told her that she was very good, and she was in a lively and energetic mood unusual for her. Some kind of inner voice told her that now or never her fate would be decided, and in her man's dress she seemed like a completely different person. Luiza Ivanovna agreed, and half an hour later four troikas with bells and bells, screeching and whistling in the frosty snow, drove up to the porch.
Natasha was the first to give the tone of Christmas merriment, and this merriment, reflected from one to another, grew more and more intensified and reached its highest degree at the time when everyone went out into the cold, and talking, calling to each other, laughing and shouting, sat down in the sleigh.
Two troikas were accelerating, the third troika of the old count with an Oryol trotter in the bud; Nikolai's fourth own, with its low, black, shaggy root. Nikolay, in his old woman's attire, on which he put on a hussar, belted cloak, stood in the middle of his sleigh, picking up the reins.
It was so bright that he could see plaques gleaming in the moonlight and the eyes of the horses looking around frightenedly at the riders rustling under the dark canopy of the entrance.
Natasha, Sonya, m me Schoss and two girls sat in Nikolai's sleigh. In the old count's sleigh sat Dimmler with his wife and Petya; dressed up courtyards sat in the rest.
- Go ahead, Zakhar! - Nikolai shouted to his father's coachman in order to have an opportunity to overtake him on the road.
The trio of the old count, in which Dimmler and other mummers sat, screeching with skids, as if freezing to the snow, and rattling with a thick bell, moved forward. The trailers clung to the shafts and bogged down, turning the strong and shiny snow like sugar.
Nikolai set off for the first three; the others rustled and squealed from behind. At first they rode at a small trot along a narrow road. While we were driving past the garden, the shadows from the bare trees often lay across the road and hid the bright light of the moon, but as soon as we drove beyond the fence, a diamond-shiny, with a bluish sheen, a snowy plain, all doused with moonlight and motionless, opened up on all sides. Once, once, pushed a bump in the front sleigh; the next sleigh and the following jogged in the same way, and, boldly breaking the chained silence, the sleigh began to stretch out one after the other.
- A hare's footprint, a lot of footprints! - Natasha's voice sounded in the frosty constrained air.
– As you can see, Nicolas! Sonya's voice said. - Nikolai looked back at Sonya and bent down to get a closer look at her face. Some kind of completely new, sweet face, with black eyebrows and mustaches, in the moonlight, close and far, peeped out of the sables.
"It used to be Sonya," Nikolai thought. He looked closer at her and smiled.
What are you, Nicholas?
“Nothing,” he said, and turned back to the horses.
Having ridden out onto the main road, greased with runners and all riddled with traces of thorns, visible in the light of the moon, the horses themselves began to tighten the reins and add speed. The left harness, bending its head, twitched its traces with jumps. Root swayed, moving his ears, as if asking: “Is it too early to start?” - Ahead, already far separated and ringing a receding thick bell, Zakhar's black troika was clearly visible on the white snow. Shouting and laughter and the voices of the dressed up were heard from his sleigh.

Synopsis or Brief collection from various chroniclers, about the beginning of the Slavic-Russian people, and the original book (i) zey b (o) saved city of Kyiv about the life of the s (vya) t (a) th faithful great prince (i) of Kiev and all Russia, the first autocrat of Vladimir, and about the heirs of the bl (a) hot (e) stive power of eg (o) Russian, even before ... presvet (lago) and bl (a) good r (o) s (u) d (a) rya n (a) our ts (a) rya, and the great prince (o) zya Alexy Mikhailovich of all the Great, Small, and White Russia autocrat. In the holy great miraculous Lavra of the Kiev-Pechersk, the stauropegion of the most holy ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, with the blessing of the most honored in Christ, the father, Innokenty Giziel, by the grace of God, archimandrite toyazhde S (vy)ty Lavra, depicted in type. Kyiv, type. Kiev Pechersk Lavra, 1674 (7182). 4°. 124 p. Lines: 24, ca. 28. Fonts: 62, approx. 52 mm. Pages in linear frames. Their account is at the top, and at the bottom of the litter in notebooks. Binding: boards covered with leather. On the top binding sheet is the inscription "The book called Synopsis". The first word in the title is in Greek. It was based on "Kronika" by Matvey Stryikovsky and Russian chronicle sources (mainly the Gustyn chronicle). Due to its main idea - the need for the reunification of the Slavic peoples - and the availability of presentation, Synopsis played a significant role in the dissemination of historical knowledge in Russia XVI I-XVIII centuries The final text of the Synopsis was not formed immediately. In its first edition, the description of events was brought up to 1654. The first printed book on the history of Ukraine and Russia. The synopsis of 1674 is the greatest rarity and has not been seen on open sale for a very long time!

Bibliographic sources:

1. Ukrainian books of the Cyrillic printing of the 16th-18th centuries. Catalog of publications stored in GBL. Issue II, vol. 1. Moscow, 1981, No. 124.

2. GBL Book Treasures. Issue 1. Books of the Cyrillic press of the XV-XVIII centuries. Catalogue, Moscow. 1979, no. 42.

3. Karataev I. “Chronological painting of Slavic books printed in Cyrillic letters. 1491-1730". SPb., 1861, No. 808.

4. Undolsky V.M. "Chronological index of Slavic-Russian books of church printing from 1491 to 1864". Issue I. Moscow, 1871, No. 884.

5. Stroev P. “Description of early printed Slavic books located in the Tsarsky library”, M., 1836, No. 201.

6. Stroev P. “Description of early printed books of Slavic and Russian, located in the library of Count F. A. Tolstov”, M., 1829, No. 154.

7. Sopikov V.S. "The experience of Russian bibliography", Part I, St. Petersburg, 1904, No. 1082.

8. Titov A.A. has an undoubted commercial interest. Early printed books according to the Catalog of A.I. Kasterina, with the designation of their prices. Rostov, 1905, No. 447 ... 12 p.!

9. International book. Antiquarian catalog No. 29. MONUMENTS OF SLAVIC - RUSSIAN BOOK PRINTING. Moscow, 1933., No. 99 ... 12-50 US dollars!

Compiled by Archbishop of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra Innokenty (Gizel), it was first published in 1674, supplemented in 1678 and 1680, and over the course of two centuries it went through many more editions of the civil press. The synopsis of Archbishop Innokenty played an important role in the Slavic culture of the 17th-18th centuries. Until the time of M.V. Lomonosov, the work was very popular; Dmitry Rostovsky to his chronicle, was used by historians S.V. Velichko, V.N. Tatishchev, M.V. Lomonosov, Paisiy Hilendarsky. This is the first attempt, under the influence of Polish models, to summarize the history of Southwestern Russia in chronological order. The Synopsis enjoyed great success among Russian readers, especially during the 18th century, in which the Synopsis went through 20 editions. It was last published in Kyiv in 1861. Due to the brevity of the presentation, the Synopsis was a textbook of the history of mainly Kiev, compiled according to the chronicle of the abbot of the Mikhailovsky monastery Theodosius Safonovich. The first edition of the Synopsis (1674) ended with the annexation of Kyiv to Moscow, the second (1678) is accompanied by a story about the Chigirin campaigns. There are 110 chapters in the Synopsis. The main part of the Synopsis (63 chapters) is devoted to the history of Kyiv before the Tatar invasion. This is the most processed part. The central interest in it is occupied by the Baptism of Russia. The Synopsis tells at length about the reign of Vladimir Monomakh and his acquisition of royal regalia from Kafa. Information about the invasion of the Tatars and events close to it are fragmentary and brief, but the story of the Mamaev invasion and the Battle of Kulikovo is retold in detail in 29 chapters.

The Synopsis ends with fragmentary information about the Kiev metropolis and Kyiv after its annexation to Lithuania. Thanks to the school in which the Synopsis was a textbook, it reigns in our historiography of the 18th century; determines tastes and serves as a basis for researchers of history, who began with an analysis of the confusion of names of peoples, comparisons with the annals and corrections of its shortcomings, of which omissions in the history of the northeast of Russia should be considered the largest: there is no information about the reign of John III and John IV, the conquest of Novgorod and etc. According to the "Synopsis", the people "Russian", "Russian", "Slavo-Russian" are one. Kyiv is "the glorious supreme and all the people of the Russian main city." Russia is one. After centuries of humiliation and separation of the "Princeship of Kiev" from "Russia", the "mercy of the Lord" finally came true, and "God-saving, glorious and original of all Russia, the royal city of Kyiv, due to its many changes", returned to the Sovereign Russia, under the hand of the all-Russian Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, as "the eternal fatherland of the scepter-bearing forefathers", an organic part of the "Russian people". According to the historian Miller, the author of the Synopsis pursued the goal of giving the Muscovite tsar motivation to continue the struggle against the Commonwealth for the liberation of the rest of the “single Orthodox people” from Catholic rule and to facilitate the incorporation into the Russian ruling class by the elite of the Hetmanate. According to some scholars, the main part of the "Synopsis" consisted of an abbreviation of the chronicle of the abbot of the Mikhailovsky monastery Theodosius Safonovich.

Archimandrite Innokenty Gisel (German: Innozenz Giesel, c. 1600, Prussia - November 8 (18), 1683, Kyiv) - Archimandrite of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra (since 1656), rector of the Kiev-Bratsk College. Innocent Gisel was from Prussia and belonged to the Reformed Church. In his youth, having arrived in Kyiv and settled here, he converted to Orthodoxy and took the vows as a monk. Peter Mogila, seeing in him a talented person, sent him to complete his education abroad. Gisel took courses in history, theology and jurisprudence at the Lviv Latin College. Returning from abroad, Gisel stood guard over the Orthodox Church in view of the danger that threatened her from the Jesuits and Uniates. From 1645 he became abbot of several Orthodox monasteries. In 1647, Pyotr Mohyla bequeathed to Innokenty Gizel the title of "benefactor and trustee of Kiev schools" and entrusted supervision of the Kiev-Mohyla Collegium. In 1648, Gisel took over as rector of this educational institution. He became Archimandrite of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra in 1656. Gisel was repeatedly awarded by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and enjoyed his respect for his devotion to Orthodoxy and Russia. The Little Russian people especially fell in love with Gizel, becoming attached to him with all their heart. In order not to part with him, he refused more than once from the highest positions offered to him. Known for his literary and publishing activities (see "Kyiv Synopsis", "Kiev-Pechersky Patericon", etc.) Gisel was of the opinion that God, being everywhere, is involved in every essence, and this is what confronts him with the material world. Gisel denied the presence of substantial changes in the sky and proved the homogeneity of earthly and heavenly matter. He argued that movement is any changes that occur in the material world, in particular in society, and thus showed movement from a qualitative, rather than mechanistic, side. In 1645-1647 he taught the course "Essay on all philosophy" (Opus totius philosophiae) at the Kiev Collegium, which had a noticeable impact on the academic tradition of the late 17th - early 18th centuries. Theologian, philosopher, cultural and church figure. An outstanding figure in the public and church life of Ukraine in the second half of the 17th century. Professor and rector of the Kiev-Mohyla Collegium, Archimandrite of the Caves Monastery. Innokenty Gizel (presumably, his surname could have sounded a little differently - Kisel) was born in Prussia, but devoted his whole life to Ukraine. As a young man, Gizel arrived in Kyiv and entered the Kyiv Collegium, where he showed outstanding abilities. Metropolitan P. Mohyla sent a talented student to study in Poland and England at his own expense. Returning, Gizel took the tonsure and was elected professor of philosophy at the Kiev-Mohyla Collegium; and in 1646 he was appointed its rector. At the same time, he was abbot of two Kiev monasteries - Kirillovsky and Nikolaevsky. From 1656 until the end of his life, Gizel was the archimandrite of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, where, under his leadership, the monastery's printing house twice (in 1661 and 1678) reprinted the chronicle of the monastery - "The Kiev-Pechersk Patericon". In the Assumption Cathedral of the Caves Monastery, according to the will, Gizel was buried. Until the beginning of the XIX century. in the Kiev-Mohyla Collegium there was a tradition of holding public debates, to which representatives of secular and spiritual authorities, as well as everyone who wished, were invited. One of the first well-known disputes took place in 1646, when rector Gizel entered into a polemic with the teacher of the Kiev Jesuit Collegium Chekhov on the topic "The Descent of the Holy Spirit." In his political views, Gisel took the position of fighting the enemies of Orthodoxy and therefore condemned the attempts of the Ukrainian hetmans to enter into an alliance with Catholic Poland or Muslim Turkey. In 1667, he wrote about this to Hetman P. Doroshenko in connection with the latter's conclusion of an agreement with the Tatars. With regard to the alliance with Moscow, Gisel took an ambiguous position. Like most Ukrainian clergy, he believed that an alliance with Orthodox Russia would save the Ukrainian people from foreign religious oppression. However, the Archimandrite of the Caves opposed the punitive campaigns against the Right-Bank Ukraine, which Russian troops carried out during the Ruin. In a letter to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich in 1661, he wrote that such military operations were no different from Catholic or Tatar pogroms of Orthodox shrines. In addition, Gisel considered the subordination of the Kiev Metropolis to the Moscow Patriarchate as an anti-canonical and sinful act. In 1667, he, along with other Kiev clergy at a feast, refused to raise a cup for the health of the Kiev voivode P. Sheremetev and Moscow's protege, Hetman I. Bryukhovetsky, calling the latter a villain. Despite this, Alexei Mikhailovich favored both the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery and its archimandrite: he ordered various publications from the monastery printing house and often made significant donations to the monastery. Great importance Gisel gave upbringing and education. The range of his activities was quite wide - preaching, science, literature, publishing. Gizel's works had a polemical focus, and his sermons defended the rights and privileges of the Kiev Metropolis. L. Baranovich called Gizel for his mind "Ukrainian Aristotle". Gisel is the author of the theological and ethical treatise "Peace with the God of Man", which outlines humanistic views and facts from the history and life of Ukraine in the 17th century. He also owns a number of treatises and training courses on philosophy in Latin and Ukrainian book language. In the work "Essay on all philosophy" (1645-1646), idealistic concepts were combined with materialistic tendencies. In his reflections, Gisel used the philosophical heritage of antiquity and modern times: the main views of the academic philosophy of Aristotle, complicated by Neoplatonism, traditional for Ukrainian scientific thought; outstanding thoughts of Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes and other contemporaries. Gisel recognized the postulates about the impossibility of creating and destroying matter, about the homogeneity of "heavenly" and "earthly" matter. Gisel, like most Mohyla philosophers, saw the meaning of life in creative work and the creation of social good. Recognizing the free will of man, he gave priority to the mind, which makes it possible to make a choice between good and evil. The most outstanding book, the authorship of which is attributed to the Archimandrite of the Caves Monastery Gizel, is the "Synopsis" - the first Ukrainian historical treatise. It is possible that Gisel edited this book and led the team of authors who selected the necessary texts and translated from Polish the chronicle of M. Strynkowski, which was widely used in the Synopsis. "Synopsis" examines a wide range of issues of ancient history: the origin of the Slavs, their language and name; the emergence of the Russian people; the foundation of Kyiv and the deeds of the first Kiev princes, in particular Vladimir; the baptism of Russia and the spread of Christianity; the conquest of Kyiv by the Lithuanian prince Gediminas. Gisel also considered the issues of contemporary history - the main story was brought up to 1651, when A. Kisel became the Kiev governor. The author also mentions two sieges of Chigirin, 1677 and 1678. The book does not mention at all such important historical events as the signing of the Union of Brest in 1596 and the uprising of B. Khmelnitsky in 1648. The Kyiv Synopsis was taken as the basis Russian historiography: references to this work are contained in almost all modern textbooks on source studies and historiography, not only in Ukraine, but also in Russia. It was one of the most frequently reprinted books available to readers. Until the 19th century "Synopsis" was considered a textbook of "home history" in Ukraine, Russia and Belarus. The main ideas of Synopsis are Orthodox pan-Slavism and the glorification of Kyiv as the most ancient Orthodox center of all Russia. The creation of such a literary work determined the needs of the Ukrainian national revival of the 1670-1680s, when cultural figures sought to prove the greatness of their people, who began to establish themselves in the international arena as an independent nation, which had long been under foreign wrath. With the strengthening of the role of Kyiv as a capital city, the need arose to prove the continuity between the capital of an authoritative Kievan Rus and the main city of Ukraine-Hetmanate of the XVII century. Of course, modern historical science does not agree with all the statements and conclusions of Gisel. The reason is that the author of the Synopsis used the works of Polish chroniclers (Dlugosh, Chekhovsky, Stryikovsky), who, in turn, relied on ancient chronicles, often distorting the historical facts and creating their own interpretation of events. Often these interpretations were completely legendary or fictional and, as a rule, devoid of real historical ground. From the Synopsis, these inventions of the Polish chroniclers migrated to historical literature as reliable facts, but later they were refuted by M. Lomonosov and other researchers. So, the ethnonym “Slavs” and the names of the first Kiev princes (Svyatoslav, Yaroslav, Mstislav) Gizel considered formed from the word “glory”, proudly noting that the ancestors of the Slavs were distinguished by courage and military prowess. The author also recalls completely fantastic “details” of Russian history - about the participation of Slavic squads in the campaigns of Alexander the Great, which allegedly confirms the corresponding letter of the great conqueror. However, many of the facts mentioned in the Synopsis are now considered reliable by researchers. So, many historians agree with the founding date of Kyiv - 430. Gizel's story about the Slavic pagan pantheon is also interesting - a unique source of the spiritual history of pre-Christian Russia, naming the names and functions of the Slavic gods: Perun, Veles, Lada, Lelya, Kupala, Kolyada, Tura, Dazhbog, Stribog, Simargl, Mokosh. Many facts from Kiev history are important for studying the history of Ukraine in general and Kyiv in particular: about the burial of Prince Oleg on Mount Shchekavytsia, about the origin of the words "Cossacks" and "Cossacks", etc. Thanks to this, "Synopsis" still remains one of the most significant sources of national history.

Innocent Gizel - Kyiv scientist, was born in Prussia, in a Reformed family. In his youth, he moved to Kyiv, converted to Orthodoxy, attracted the attention of Peter Mohyla and was sent by him abroad for scientific studies. Judging by the "Synopsis", which reveals an inclination towards history in the author, and by the "World", which speaks in detail about the rights and duties of a Christian, one can think that Gisel, in addition to theology, also studied history and jurisprudence abroad. Upon returning to Kyiv, Gizel was a teacher and rector of the Kiev Collegium. Under him, L. Baranovich was a teacher of the college, students were Galyatovsky, Slavinetsky, Satanovsky, probably Simeon Polotsky. Gisel maintained frequent relations with the Moscow government on monastic economic and political issues. In 1654, Gisel was in Moscow with various petitions from the Little Russian elders and the clergy. In 1656, Gizel received the rank of archimandrite and rector of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra and retained it until his death in 1683. I. was a supporter of Moscow, but at times he undertook to defend the "liberties" of Little Russia. Tsars Alexei Mikhailovich and Fedor Alekseevich and the ruler Sofia Alekseevna favored I. and sent him valuable gifts, but he was watered. the requests were dismissed. I. was one of the most learned people in Little Russia in the 17th century. L. Baranovich called him Aristotle in his letters and gave him his literary works to review and correct. He participated in public disputes with Catholics, delivered sermons, which, according to St. Demetrius of Rostov, "the weak were reinforced as if with medicine," assisted the Little Russian scientists in the publication of their works. In 1669 Gisel published an extensive Op. "Peace with God to man" (again in 1671), which has no theological significance. The book is dedicated to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. In 1690, the Moscow Patriarch Joachim recognized this book as harmful, new-born, for subordinating the author to "external teachers", i.e. Catholics, in the interpretation of some obscure religious issues. Gisel's book speaks in detail about sin in general and about individual sins in particular, about repentance, a confessor, etc. In the book there are curious everyday details in places. The attitude towards people is gentle, humane, which is especially revealed in the permission from the obligation to fast for old, weak, burdened people. Against the Jesuit Boyma, Gisel published a polemical Op. "On True Faith". According to the chronicle of Theodosius Sofonovich, Gizel compiled the famous "Synopsis" (ed. 1674, 1676, 1680, 1718 and 1810 ), which was the main textbook on history before Lomonosov (for it, see Synopsis and Russian historiography). Gisel enjoyed the fame of a kind and charitable person.

Innokenty Gizel - archimandrite of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, was born in the former Polish Prussia from the parents of the Reformed Confession, and studied there from childhood; but in his youth, having come to Kyiv, he turned to the Greek-Russian Church and accepted monasticism in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. When the Metropolitan of Kyiv Peter Mohyla, intending to establish Latin-Russian schools in Kyiv, sent capable people from Balti and Monasticism to foreign schools for education to become a teacher, Gizel was sent to the Lvov Academy among them. At the end of his circle of sciences there, he returned to Kyiv and was appointed Teacher and Preacher. In 1645 he was consecrated hegumen Dyatlovitsky, and in 1646 he was renamed the Kiev-Bratsky Monastery and Rector of the Academy; in 1650 he was transferred with the same rank to the St. Cyril Monastery, from there in 1652 to Kiev-Nikolaev, with the continuation of the Rector's position; and in 1656 he was promoted to the Archimandrite of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra and died there on February 24, 1684. St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov, who was then Abbot, in 1685 composed and spoke to him for a year's commemoration of the Laudable Word, which is printed in the Collected Works of his. According to the will of the founder of Kiev schools, Metropolitan Peter Mohyla, Gizel had the title of Benefactor and Trustee of these after his death. When he was Archimandrite of the Kiev-Pechersk, after the Grave he undertook to collect and supplement the Menaia of the Readers: but this work remained to be completed by St. Demetrius. Gizeleva's works:

1) A theological book entitled: Peace to man with God, or Holy repentance, reconciling the Gods of man, the teachings from the Holy Scriptures and the Teachers of the Church collected, printed in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra in 1669 in a sheet. There are several obscene interpretations in this book, and in the Chapter on permitted and prohibited degrees of kinship in marriages, much is dissimilar to the rules of the Pilot's Book. For this reason, by the Decree of the Holy Synod of 1766, it is forbidden to refer to this book in deciding the degrees of kinship and marriage cases;

2) Synopsis, or a brief description of the beginning of the Slavic people and the first Kiev princes before the Sovereign Tsar Feodor Alekseevich, printed with the first stamping in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra in 1674, then in 1678 and 1680 in the same place, all in 4 parts of the sheet . Of these, the latest edition is more complete than the first. The third edition of 1680 has been doubled in text terms, and an illustrative part has been added:

This book, full of errors and malfunctions, however, is not Gizelevo's own work, but was abridged by him or by someone else under him and supplemented from the Chronicle of Theodosius Sofonovich, Hegumen of the Kiev-Gold-Overkho-Mikhailovsky Monastery (see the article about him below). But since there was no other printed Russian History before the publication of Lomonosov's Brief Russian Chronicler, this only Synopsis was repeatedly printed at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, so that from 1718 to 1810 there were already 9 Academic editions. Stralenberg, and following him, and Dalin attributed this work to some Patriarch Konstantin, and the latter even called him an ancient Russian Historian. In 1823, this Synopsis was published in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra with the addition of murals of the Grand Dukes, Tsars and Emperors of Russia, Grand Dukes of Lithuania, Kings of Poland, Specific Princes of Russia, Metropolitans of Kiev, Hetmans of Little Russia, Khans of the Great Hordes and Crimean, Governors and Castellanes of Kiev ;

3) Gisel is also credited with a book called: The Science of the Mystery of Holy Repentance, that is, the Truthful and Sacramental Confession, printed in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra in 1671 in the 4th share of the sheet;

4) There is also in the Library of the Moscow Synodal his handwritten book in Polish called: True Faith (Prawdziva Wiara), composed in response to a letter from the Jesuit Pavel Boyma, published in 1668 in Polish in Vilna under the name Old Faith about the power of St. Peter and Paul of Rome, and about the procession of the Holy Spirit.

The fourth edition looks like this:

Innocent (Gizel). [Synopsis] or Brief collection from various chroniclers, about the beginning of the Slavic-Russian people, and the original book (ya) zekh b (o) the saved city of Kyiv about the life of the blessed great prince (ya) of Kiev and all Russia, the first autocrat of Vladimir and about the heirs of the bl (a) hot (e) stive power of his (o) Russian, even before the presvet (lago) and bl (a) good g (osu) d (a) rya n (a) our c (a) rya, and led (any) prince (I) Feodor Alekseevich, all the Great, and the Lesser, and the White of Russia, the autocrat. ... By bl (a) g (o) s (lo) vein ... Innokenty Giziel ... archimandrite also with (vy) ty Lavra, depicted by type. - - Kyiv: printing house of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, 1680 (7188) [not earlier than 1681]. - tit. l., l. , 1–224 pp. [those. 228] p.: ill.; 4. Tit. l. in a set frame. Pages in linear frames. Illustrations: 2 from 2 boards: Noah's Sacrifice, signed: "Roku 1678 A:K" (l.v.); “Tsar Vladimir”, signed: “Roku 1680 m (e) s (i) tsa dekemvr? days? 30. I: K:” (p. 60). Russian coat of arms with the initials of the title and name of Tsar Fedor Alekseevich: "Bzh M V G Ts I V K". Ornament: headpieces 1; endings 1; initials 2 with 2 boards. Print: Single color. Typesetting: The first word of the title is printed in Greek script. Publication type:

There are three identical in composition Kiev editions of the Synopsis, dated 1680. The sequence of editions was determined by S.I. Maslov on the basis of the study of their text, filigrees, wear of ornamental boards. The edition belongs to B. Features editions: in notebook "A" there are no errors in the numbering of pages; us. 223 verses are not separated from the previous text by a typographic ruler, the typesetting ending is placed outside the linear frame. Corrected 3rd Edition typos. There are discrepancies in the text, indicating editorial work, so in the article “On the arrival? ... of the Zaporizhzhya troops to Kiev”, the names of the Gadyach, Poltava and Mirgorod colonels are named (p. 217–218) (Maslov, 1928, p. 10–11 )...

After all, every person needs to know about his homeland and tell other questioners. For people who do not know their kind are considered stupid. Theodosius Safonovich, hegumen of the Kiev Golden-Domed Monastery of St. Michael (XVII century) "Kyiv synopsis" is a bright and interesting phenomenon of Russian culture, literature and history. The work was first published in the printing house of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra in 1674 and was reprinted more than 30 times during the 17th-19th centuries. What made this work of the 17th century so in demand by Russian society for more than two centuries? The 17th century was a turning point in the history of Europe - the New Age began. Significant changes have affected the social, economic and political spheres. One of the manifestations of new social trends was the emergence of nation-states built on the unity of the people-nation, common historical destiny, culture (an important part of which was religion) and the choice of a single model of socio-economic development. Eastern Europe was undergoing massive changes, and many signs testified to the transformation of the "Russian land" into the "Russian state". The Kyiv Synopsis was not only a reflection of the process of unification of Russia as a people and Russia as a state, but also as a means of fighting for a unifying idea. The two ideological centers of this historical movement were Kyiv and Moscow. In this regard, the history of the publication and reprinting of Synopsis is indicative. The initiative to develop a unifying ideology came from Kyiv, and after the first edition of 1674, in which the narrative ended with the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, the second edition of 1678 followed, in the text of which minor changes and additions were made related to the accession to the throne of Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich. The number of chapters, and there were 110 of them, has not changed. The third edition, also produced in the printing house of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, was supplemented with six chapters about the Chigirin campaigns of the united Russian army, which prevented the Turkish-Crimean aggression. Subsequent editions, starting from 1736, were issued by the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences. The latest Kiev edition was taken as the basis, and since then Synopsis has consistently included 116 chapters. The changes affected something else: without making a translation, which, due to the commonality of the Slavic (Old Russian) language and its insignificant archaism, was, in fact, not needed, the St. Petersburg publishers used the Petrine civil font instead of Cyrillic. In addition, the publishers considered it necessary to add an explanation about the prophecy of Dmitry Volynsky before the Battle of Kulikovo, since it was based on pagan content. The last three editions of 1823, 1836 and 1861 were again carried out in Kyiv. What is a synopsis? Who wrote the "Kyiv Synopsis"? Synopsis (Greek) - review, presentation, collection of some material. Modern analogues of this form are abstract, manual, encyclopedic article. In the tradition of ancient Greek science, the term was used to refer to material presented in a concise, non-judgmental form and containing comprehensive information about any subject. In Byzantium, synopses were mainly theological and historical texts. The main principle of presenting historical texts was chronological. The compilers of synopses were called weather forecasters. The Kyiv Synopsis is a good example of a systematic presentation of history. It contains selected and presented in chronological order brief information about the main events of Russian history, which, from the author's point of view, had a fateful significance for the people and the state. This principle of presentation is a transitional form from chronicle writing (compilation of chronicles), characteristic of the Middle Ages, to historical scientific research, which has become the main form of understanding history in modern and contemporary times. The chronicle was created by a person immersed in a theocentric worldview. God was the creator of man and his history; he alone possessed the knowledge of the meaning of the historical process. Man knew the beginning (the creation of man, Adam, Eve, Noah) and the end - the Second Coming of Jesus Christ and the Last Judgment. The chronicle was created for God as evidence of the earthly life of individuals and peoples, therefore the chronicler, realizing his mediating role, did not dare to give an individual assessment of events, facts and people. He was not the "creator" of history, but its witness. The chronicler knew that the main thing for a person is the preservation of the soul in order to stand at the Last Judgment at the right hand of the Creator. If he gave assessments to historical characters and events, then they concerned the observance of the norms of Christian morality. This was his "teaching" position. Troubles, failures, defeats were interpreted as a warning and punishment for sins. But the chronicler was not a pessimist; he expressed deep optimism, since God, who endowed the life and history of the Christian people with meaning, will surely preserve and save him, provided that he preserves his soul and is faithful to his destiny.

In modern times, a revolutionary upheaval is taking place in consciousness: theocentrism is being replaced by anthropocentrism. Man becomes the creator of the world, culture, history, morality and God himself. History turns into an arena for the battle of human forces: its desires, ideas, delusions, etc. A historical work becomes an analytical work, where the author evaluates the play of human forces from an interested position. This simplified analysis of the worldview revolution is presented here for the sole purpose of showing the features of the text of the Kiev Synopsis. It is no longer a chronograph, but it is also not a historical study. The forecaster is a participant in contemporary history; he is no longer only a fixer, but also an exponent of a certain ideology. His author's position is not expressed in the fact that he, as a modern researcher, directly declares his views, assessments, assumptions and conclusions. His position is manifested primarily in the selection and systematization of the material. A single monumental canvas is formed, like a mosaic, from multi-colored and diversified "pieces of smalt" - episodes of history, each of which plays with its own individual color in favor of the single idea of ​​​​the work. The individual position of the author, and he is a supporter of the all-Russian idea, is also hidden behind the traditional etiquette for annals. For example, the same verbal formula is used to designate events and persons separated in time. The Pechenegs, Polovtsians, Tatar-Mongols, Turks and Crimean Tatars, who at various times opposed the Russian people and the state, are called “filthy”, that is, pagans, by the author of the “Synopsis”. The weather forecaster calls St. Vladimir, Yaroslav the Wise, Vladimir Monomakh, Alexander Nevsky, Ivan Kalita, Alexei Mikhailovich and Fyodor Alekseevich Romanovs “Autocrat of the All-Russian”, which is only outwardly a form of polite title. In fact, behind this lies the promotion of the idea of ​​continuity and succession of Russian statehood. The ease and grace with which the author of the Synopsis directs the reader's attention and forms a correct assessment of events, the coherence and logic of the narrative, the harmony between form and content - all this determined the special role of this work in the formation of Russian historical science. For a whole century, the Kyiv Synopsis served as a textbook of Russian history. And then, being pushed aside by the historical works of M.V. Lomonosov, M.M. Shcherbatova, V.N. Tatishcheva, N.M. Karamzin and others, has become an artifact of both Russian history and Russian historiography. The author of the Kiev Synopsis is Innokenty Gizel (Kgizel), at the peak of his career, the rector of the Kiev-Mohyla Collegium and archimandrite of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. Some researchers express doubts about his authorship, more precisely, about his sole authorship. The main points of this critical position are as follows: 1) in Chapter 111 he is referred to in the third person (“honorable Mr. Innokenty Gizel”), 2) the work contains passages that differ in a number of textual features. According to the genre "Synopsis" - a compilation work, including excerpts from others, also part of the compilation works. The mention of Innokenty Gizel as a participant in the meeting of Moscow and Cossack troops in Kyiv, on the one hand, can be explained by the etiquette adopted in the literary works of the transitional period. And, on the other hand, the participation of another author in the work on compiling the Synopsis does not deprive Innokenty Gizel of the role of the main organizer, leader and ideologist of this literary project. Innokenty Gisel (1600–1683) was born in Königsberg, in Polish Prussia. His family belonged to the Reformed (or otherwise Protestant) direction in Christianity. Having moved to Kyiv in his youth, Innokenty Gizel converted to Orthodoxy and took monastic vows. According to some reports, he began his education at the Kiev fraternal school, and then, on the recommendation of his mentor, Metropolitan Peter Mohyla, he was sent to study abroad. Gisel completed his studies with courses in history, theology and jurisprudence at the Lviv Latin College. From 1645 he successively served as abbot of several Orthodox monasteries. And in 1647, Peter Mohyla bequeathed to Innokenty Gizel the title of "benefactor and trustee of Kiev schools" and entrusted supervision of the Kiev-Mohyla Collegium. In 1648, he took the post of rector of this educational institution. He became Archimandrite of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra in 1656. Innocent Gizel remained in history as a brilliant theologian, preacher, educator, church and public figure. During his long life, he was a witness and participant in the fateful events for Russia and the Orthodox Church. In 1654, the Archimandrite of the Caves met in Smolensk with Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, and subsequently wrote to him more than once. The Kiev-Pechersk Lavra received rich gifts from Fyodor Alekseevich and Sofya Alekseevna. Innocent Gizel acted in line with the church and public policy of Peter Mohyla, that is, he was a supporter of the independence of the Kiev Metropolis and its stay under the formal authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople. This prevented him from becoming such a figure on an all-Russian scale, such as, for example, Simeon Polotsky, Feofan Prokopovich, Dmitry Rostovsky. In history, he remained a representative of the regional elite. The Kyiv Synopsis is evidence of the birth, maintenance and upholding of the unifying Russian idea by church circles in Southwestern Russia, which was part of the Commonwealth. History has repeatedly made it possible to make sure that the unifying tendencies were most clearly manifested on the periphery of countries, lands, and areas of peoples' settlement. The danger of proximity to an alien culture, the oppression of an alien statehood, is felt more acutely by the inhabitants of the outskirts, and it is they who are often the initiators of centripetal processes. Russia, in the 16th-17th centuries, built its statehood on other ideas. The Union of Florence in 1439, the fall of Constantinople in 1453 and the overthrow of the Horde yoke in 1480 are the main events that occupied the Great Russian consciousness in the 15th-16th centuries and served as a starting point for the formation of a new self-identification model in the minds of the elite and the people. The vision of Russia as part of a single Orthodox world, preserved by Constantinople - the "Orthodox Kingdom" became impossible. The Turks, who captured Constantinople, destroyed the former Christian vision of world history in the Russian minds. And here the concept of the “wandering Kingdom”, popular in the Middle Ages, came in handy. Elder Philotheus, monk of the Eleazar Pskov Monastery, in letters to Vasily III Ivanovich u, Ivan IV Vasilyevich and clerk M. Misyur-Munekhin clearly articulated an idea that has long been recognized by Russian society - the idea of ​​civilizational independence and the sole responsibility of the Russian state for the preservation of the Orthodox world. Not pride, not arrogance, not the notorious “imperial ambitions” are heard in the texts of Philotheus, but historical doom due to the only possible choice and heavy responsibility: “Open your eyes, look around - and you will see the obvious: there are no more Orthodox countries in the world, once glorified, only Russia remained Orthodox, it is she who is the Orthodox kingdom, but you yourself are not a great prince, but an Orthodox tsar ”,“ So let your sovereignty, pious tsar, know that all the Orthodox kingdoms of the Christian faith have converged in your single state: you alone king in all under heaven to Christians. The concept of "Moscow - the third Rome" served as the basis for the emergence of other - instrumental - ideas. The legitimacy of the power of the Moscow Grand Dukes and Tsars was justified traditionally for medieval consciousness: 1) through proof of the preservation of direct dynastic succession, 2) through stories about the transfer of symbols of royal power. The path along which an uninterrupted river of royal blood flowed and along which the sacred symbols of power were transmitted was as follows: Old Rome - Constantinople - (Kyiv) - (Vladimir) - Moscow. In the “Message about the Monomakh’s Crown” by Spiridon-Sava and the “Tale of the Princes of Vladimir” close to it (Pakhomiy Serb?, Dmitry Gerasimov?), the idea was expressed about the origin of the Rurik dynasty from the legendary Prus, a relative of the Roman Emperor Augustus. It also outlined the history of the transfer of royal regalia from Emperor Constantine Monomakh to his grandson Prince Vladimir Monomakh of Kiev. These ideas have received universal recognition, and therefore have been widely used in many writings. Another topic that occupied Russian ideologists was the solution of the issue of the relationship between secular and ecclesiastical power, when both the royal and the highest ecclesiastical authorities find themselves in one state. Then it was clear to everyone that the historically established hierarchy of patriarchs was a tribute to tradition. The constant tearful appeals of the Eastern patriarchs, constrained by other religions and non-Orthodox states, for property and monetary support to the Russian tsars, suggested the true state of affairs in the Orthodox world - the primacy of the Russian Church. Two "parties" took shape in the Russian church - the Josephites and the non-possessors. The Josephites (as the supporters of Joseph Volotsky, the influential hegumen of the Dormition Volokolamsk Monastery, were called) considered the preservation of the unity of the country the main condition for strengthening the church. They fought for the strict observance of Orthodox norms, and therefore for them the fight against separatism was a form of tough opposition to heresies. Numerous non-possessors or “Volga elders”, whose spiritual leader was Nil Sorsky, fought against church property (i.e., money-grubbing). They sought to elevate the church and monasticism to the level of high spiritual service, asceticism. Obviously, representatives of both irreconcilable trends defended the priority of the church over the state, and their ideological confrontation was only a dispute about the methods of influence of the church on secular power. The writings of Ivan IV the Terrible and Ivan Peresvetov reflected a different position: their authors defended the thesis of the supremacy of secular power over church power. In a sharp and lengthy discussion that unfolded in the 16th century, the realistic political line of supporters of the autocracy won, according to which the interests of the here and now existing Russian state should be guided. This victory showed that Russia does not yet want to move from the state idea to the implementation of the universal or imperial idea. Fear for Russia, for its safety determined the outlook of the Russian ideological elite. “Look at all this and think… how these countries perished!” - one of the motives for the correspondence between Ivan the Terrible and his opponent, Prince A. Kurbsky, who fled to Lithuania. Autocracy is not only an individual centralized power, but also a sovereign, independent, “own” power. In 16th-century Russia, the first steps were taken towards the development and implementation of the theory of Russian sovereignty. It is noteworthy that in a number of European countries at that time there was a need to justify national sovereignty: the Italian Machiavelli, the Frenchman Bodin and the German Luther expressed ideas close to the views of Ivan IV the Terrible. The basis of the ideological position of the Russian Tsar was political realism, pragmatism, the realization of the national Russian interest, and the refusal to solve seemingly impossible tasks. “I am not proud of anything and do not boast, and I do not think of any pride, for I am fulfilling my royal duty and do not do what is beyond my strength.” The turmoil of the beginning of the 17th century undermined Russian statehood, the Third Rome staggered ... But following tradition and the desire to defend one's faith, one's state, one's people won a victory in a difficult confrontation between various political forces. The "first Russian emperor" - the ambitious False Dmitry I and other impostors - disappeared into oblivion. And the Romanovs managed to become the founders of a new dynasty because, in the eyes of the people, they were the successors of the Rurik dynasty. So, the preservation of Orthodoxy, the observance of the "original" rights of the estates, the preservation of one's traditions and the protection of one's land from foreign and heterodox aggression - these are the ideas that also became the basis of the new-old Russian statehood. Disputes about the relationship between secular and ecclesiastical power resumed in the 17th century under the second Romanov, Alexei Mikhailovich. Patriarch Nikon tried to put the priesthood above the kingdom, the church above the autocracy, he claimed the place of the first ecumenical patriarch. This concealed the threat of using the Russian state to solve the religious problems of the entire Orthodox ecumene. The ambitions of the patriarch, not supported by real resources, ultimately led to the collapse of his career. Under his ideological diktat, Russia reunited with strenuous efforts with the Orthodox Lesser and White Russia. One can only imagine what would have happened to the Russian state and country if Nikon had been the first ecumenical patriarch… But the victory remained with the tsar. You should think about why Alexei Mikhailovich went down in history under the title "Quiet". Not because there were no social upheavals in his reign: there were the Copper and Salt riots, and the Novgorod uprising, and the disobedience of the Siberian Tatars and Bashkirs, and the uprising of the monks of the Solovetsky Monastery, and the revolt of Stepan Razin ... But because, opposing "silence "Rebellion", he primarily set himself the pragmatic, even utilitarian goals of restoring order "in his house." And the title of "sovereign of all Russia" should not be misleading. It was a title-idea, a title-dream, a title-memory of the former unity of the Russian lands. Alexei Mikhailovich was not the initiator of the project of reunification of the lands that were once part of a single ancient Russian state. Moreover, he was not titled "autocrat" either. He ruled jointly with the Zemsky Sobor according to the conditions adopted in 1613 during the election of his father Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the kingdom. The title "Tsar, Sovereign, Grand Duke and All Great, Small and White Autocrat of Russia" he accepted only on July 1, 1654, after the Pereyaslav Rada took place. Following the Little Russian aspirations (and dozens of Cossack foremen sent requests to Moscow to accept Little Russia under the scepter of the Russian Tsar) set before Alexei Mikhailovich the task of performing the functions that corresponded to autocratic power, in particular, protecting new subjects and arranging newly acquired lands. The idea of ​​uniting the Russian people under the rule united state came from the southwestern Russian lands. This de facto regional initiative took on various forms, including spontaneous popular impulse. Ideologically, it was substantiated by the educated elite - the Orthodox clergy of Southwestern Russia. It was it that built the concept of a united Slavic-Russian people since ancient times, a united and uninterrupted Kiev-Moscow state from the 9th to the 17th centuries, an invariable adherence to Orthodoxy of the divided Russian people. This ideological onslaught of the “Kiev elders”, sophisticated in the system of evidence, familiar with Latin learning, the onslaught using ideas, myths, and motives close to the Russian mind and heart, influenced Alexei Mikhailovich’s decision to go beyond the “quietest” politics. The ideological background of the events of the middle of the 17th century was much more complicated, and the reunification of all of Russia did not look so inevitable and imminent. The advice given to Tsar Yuri Krizhanich, who came to Russia as a Slavophile Serb, in his work Politics (1666) testifies to the presence of a different point of view. He advised Alexei Mikhailovich to strengthen "self-rule", focus on solving issues of domestic policy, primarily social, strengthen the borders of the state, literally close the borders, limiting communication with foreigners and gentiles. It was a program to protect one's own ethnic, religious and historical identity. Yu. Krizhanich was the first who so clearly and interestedly promoted the idea of ​​Russia as a national state. It is very significant that Krizhanich's antipode of Russia was Poland, called the "new Babylonia", which, in his opinion, was the focus of all the traits that brought death to the Slavic people and state. If we think according to this logic, then the reunification of most of the Russian lands that were part of Poland with Great Russia opened up another historical perspective for Russia - imperial - with all its shortcomings. In this regard, the "Kyiv Synopsis" is of undoubted interest, since the victory was won by the ideology of reunification, justified and developed in this work. How the Kyiv idea of ​​​​all-Slavic unity and the Moscow concept of Russian statehood were combined. The "Synopsis" was written on the basis of the "Chronicle" by Theodosius Safonovich (Sofonovich), hegumen of the Kiev Golden-domed St. Michael's Monastery, compiled in 1672-1673. It was a topical historical work aimed at the formation of a national Russian self-consciousness. The full title of the work is "Chronicle, compiled from the ancient chroniclers, from Nestor of the Caves and others, also from the Polish chronicles about Russia, from where Russia began." Theodosius Safonovich preceded the presentation of events with the remark: “After all, every person needs to know about his homeland and tell others who ask. For people who do not know their kind are considered stupid. Great Russian historical literature in the 16th-17th centuries developed in the direction of "secularization", that is, the formation of secular historical and socio-political concepts. And the ideas of national, cultural and state identification became the conceptual framework of Russian writings. In the 17th century, at about the same time as the Kiev Synopsis, other works on Russian history appeared. If Krizhanich in the already mentioned "Politics" (1666) called for the abandonment of all legends when justifying the legitimacy of power, then the "History of the Tsars and Grand Dukes of the Russian Land" (1669) by deacon Fyodor Griboedov, written on behalf of Alexei Mikhailovich, reproduced the main state legends. At this time, the need to write Russian history in accordance with the new rationalist worldview was acutely felt. Instead of divine providence, national, cultural, social and political expediency should have become the main criteria. An interesting monument of that time has come down to us - a preface to an unwritten work on Russian history, called by researchers "Historical Teaching" (1676-1682). The unknown author believed that the historian should take an active and interested position and, observing the truth, reveal the causes of the phenomena described. With bitterness, he admitted that "only the people of Moscow and Russian history have not been put together and published according to custom from the beginning of their common history." Printed in a typographical way, "Kyiv Synopsis" played the role of the first textbook of Russian history, because its author made an attempt to combine old and new methods of upholding the unity of the Russian people, the Russian state and Russian Orthodoxy. So, "Kyiv Synopsis" ... What, how and why was the "Kyiv Synopsis" written? The work begins as a medieval historical work: the "beginning of history" is described, that is, Noah's flood and the division of the earth between his sons (ch. 1). Russian history was given meaning by God, who singled out this people and placed them in one of the prominent places in world history. If Shem got the eastern lands and the dignity of the priesthood, and Ham got Africa and the "yoke of work", then Japheth inherited Europe and "royal dignity, military courage and the expansion of the tribe." To a greater extent, according to the compiler of the Synopsis, the purpose of the Japhet tribe was revealed in the Slavs and in the Russian people. The glorious, that is, the Slavs, were the most warlike, and the Russians acquired their name from the great dispersion (ch. 2, 5). Russian, or Russian, peoples are Slavs, "of one nature, their father Japheth, and of the same language" (ch. 5). And therefore, the Slavic-Russian people, as a people of a “benevolent breed,” have since been in greatness and “decorate with a crown of ever-blooming glory.” Antique history is a kind of background for the strengthening of Slavic power. Legends are taken from Polish sources about the gift to the Slavs by Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC. e. some letter confirming their privileges, about the fear of the Slavs of the Roman emperor Augustus and about the alleged Slavic origin of the German leader Odoacer, who ruined Rome (ch. 3). The compilers decided not to stop at a literal reading of these legends in modern pseudoscientific and ideological teachings. Thus, the history of the Slavic Russians fits into the concept of "one people - one origin - one country - one goal" by Innokenty Gizel. In this regard, it is interesting how harmoniously the mention of the annexation of Kazan and Astrakhan by Ivan IV was added to the text of the Synopsis in the introductory review chapters on the geography of the continents. Here the meaning of history dominates, and not strict adherence to chronology and logic. After all, the meaning of the deeds of Ivan the Terrible is access to the possessions of Shem, following the royal destiny of the Japheth tribe (ch. 4). It is also indicative that when listing European peoples and states, the weather forecaster builds a regular order: first comes the territory of Byzantium, then “Slavs, Russia, Moscow, Poland, Lithuania”, then the “near abroad” of the Slavic peoples, and only then in the chaotic disorder of the country and peoples of Western, Northern and Southern Europe (ch. 4). “Synopsis” is a work of transitional type, therefore sometimes historical facts gleaned from ancient writings are interpreted symbolically, and biblical texts, on the contrary, not allegorically, but literally. So, here the legend is reproduced that Moscow got its name from the son of Japheth Mosokh, and therefore the Russians began to be called "Moskhovites", that is, Muscovites (ch. 8). Innokenty Gizel added separate chapters on the Sarmatians and Roxolans to his work (Ch. 6, 7). His version of the interaction of the Slavs with these peoples passed into the historical science of the 18th–20th centuries (M.V. Lomonosov, D.I. Ilovaisky, A.V. Artsikhovsky, P.N. Tretyakov, B.A. Rybakov, etc.) . The idea of ​​a Slavo-Russian community, cultivated by the author of the Synopsis, also found expression in the terminology used. The people, whose history this work was devoted to, the compiler called "Slavs", "Rus", "Dews", "Rosses", "Rusyns", "Russians", "Russians", "Russians", "Slavic Russians", "Slavic Russians". ”, “rosky people”, “Russian people”, “Russian people”. This serves as an additional means of proving the idea that “the Russians are a country, but united in nature” (ch. 16). Innokenty Gizel was not original: “Russian” and “Russian” in many writings of that time were called the people and language, which at present, due to political upheavals and ideological concepts, have received different names. For example, the "Bible" translated by Francis Skorina (XVI century) was named the author of "Bivliya Ruska". The Ostroh Bible of 1581 was addressed "in Christ to those chosen among the Russian people, the son of the Church of the East, and to all those who agree with the Slovene language and unite to the Church of Orthodoxy, Christ-named people." In the Polish "Chronicle" by M. Stryikovsky, the language of Southwestern Russia is called "Slavic Russian". The German diplomat S. Herberstein wrote in his “Notes” (XVI century): “Of the sovereigns who now own Russia, the main one is the Grand Duke of Moscow, who has most of it under his rule, the second is the Grand Duke of Lithuania, the third is the king Polish, who now rules both Poland and Lithuania. The author of the Synopsis considers all of Russia to be the common property of the Russian people. And therefore, South-Western Russia, which is under foreign rule, for him is part of a single Russia, and the people inhabiting these lands are part of the Russian people. This explains the fact that in describing events from the 9th to the 17th century, he uses the general formulas: “The Russian main city of Kyiv”, “our intercessor of Russia, the Holy Apostle Andrew the First-Called”, “ancient Russian Chroniclers”, “Russian land” and “Russian country ”, “Russian people”, etc. Consequently, Russian history, according to the weather forecaster, begins with the origin of a single Slavic Russian people and ends with the unification of Russian lands under the rule of the Russian Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and his heir Fyodor Alekseevich. If the people are one, then the history of its statehood is also one. The compiler of the text applies the general terminology to the designation of the Russian state, which he dates back to the 5th century. From the Polish chronicles, he learned about the date of the founding of Kyiv in 431 and ends with contemporary events of the 17th century. In the chapters devoted to the first Russian principalities, the period of feudal fragmentation, etc., up to reunification with Great Russia, we find the designations of the country and the state used in parallel: “Russia”, “Rus”, “Russian Land”, “Russian Land”, "Russian Land", "Russian State", "all Russian states", "all Russian Principalities", "Russian State". In the last chapters, “Great and Small and White Russia” appears. It is noteworthy that the word “Ukraine” and its derivatives are never found in the Synopsis. The titles of princes, grand dukes and kings also serve as proof of the never-ending unity of the people and the state. "Princes of Russia" were named Kyi, Shchek and Khoriv (ch. 13); Olga was named the princess of "Kiev and all Russia" (ch. 25); Svyatoslav and Vladimir I the Saint are called "Grand Dukes of Kiev and All Russia Autocrats" (ch. 26-46). Prince Yaroslav, son of Vsevolod the Big Nest, is called "The Oldest Prince of the Moscow Land and over Kyiv" (ch. 104). And about Daniil Galitsky, his contemporary and one of the most powerful princes of Southwestern Russia, it is said that he only “was written as the Autocrat of All Russia” (ch. 104). Alexander Nevsky is called the "Prince of Kiev from the Russian Land" (ch. 104). Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich bears the title "Great Sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke, Autocrat of All Russia" (ch. 108), and Alexei Mikhailovich is titled as "Our Great Sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke, Autocrat of All Great and Small and White Russia" (ch. 110 ). Innokenty Gizel uses all the ideas that formed the basis of Russian statehood in the 16th-17th centuries. He deduces the origin of the Russian dynasty from Emperor Augustus, reproduces the legend of Monomakh's crown (ch. 58), actively promotes the idea of ​​succession of power from Kyiv to Vladimir, from Vladimir to Moscow. The unity, commonality, continuity of the history of the Russian people and its statehood - this is what determines the structure of the Synopsis. It consists of the following thematic blocks:

1) Slavic ethnogenesis, the “destiny” of the Slavs, their place in world history (ch. 1–12);

2) the reign of the first Russian princes from Kiy, Rurik to Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh (ch. 12–60);

3) Batu's invasion, the stay of Russian principalities under Tatar-Mongol yoke(Ch. 71-73, 104);

4) the creation of an anti-Tatar coalition by Dmitry Donskoy and the battle of Kulikovo (ch. 74–103);

5) the history of the Orthodox Church: the transfer of the Kiev Metropolis to North-Eastern Russia (ch. 105); division of Russian metropolises (ch. 107); the establishment of a patriarchate in Moscow (ch. 108);

6) the entry of the Volyn, Galician and Kiev principalities into Lithuania, and then Poland, the reduction of the Kiev principality to the status of a voivodship (ch. 106, 109);

7) the unification of Russian lands under the rule of Moscow Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (ch. 110);

8) Chigirinsky campaigns (ch. 111-116).

The structure of the Synopsis indicates that its author considers the unification of the Russian lands to be a natural outcome of history. Moreover, he pursues and defends the national-state position with all means available to him. It is no coincidence that the chapters devoted to the history of the 17th century, that is, the reunification of the Russian lands and the Russian people, are so pathetic. The author offers us a hymn of Russian unity and salvation of Little Russia: “God-saving, glorious and original of all Russia, the Royal City of Kyiv, after many changes in its position, by a fair mercy of God returned to the first place, from the ancient Tsar’s property again came to the Tsar’s property, when the Tsar to the Tsars and The Lord lifted up the horn of his Christ above the other kings of the earth. In a figurative sense, the horn is strength, power, protection; the horn of the inrog, that is, the unicorn, is an ancient symbol, at the time of interest to us, was used to denote the idea of ​​the triumph of the Christian state; met, for example, in Russian symbols of the period of the Kazan campaign. The Great Sovereign of our Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich, of all Great and Small and White Russia, the Autocrat and many states and lands of the eastern and western and northern patriarch and grandfather and heir and Sovereign and possessor, returned his Tsarist Most Serene Majesty from time immemorial to the eternal skiptron-bearing progenitors of his fatherland, That royal city of Kyiv…” By linking Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich and St. Vladimir I, the author of the Synopsis, as it were, completes the cycle of “returning to square one”. Fedor Alekseevich Romanov appears as "a good branch ... from a good root in piety of the original Tsar of Kiev and All Russia, Autocrat of the Holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir." The story of the Battle of Kulikovo played a special role in maintaining the idea of ​​unity. No other topic took up such a volume (29 chapters out of 116). It is important to note that this is an event of the XIV century, when part of the Russian lands came under the rule of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. But for the Kievan author, the Battle of Kulikovo is a fact of common Russian history. Therefore, he only casually mentions another battle where the Tatar troops were defeated - the victory of the Lithuanian prince Olgerd in the battle near Blue Waters in 1363 (ch. 103). The Battle of Kulikovo, on the other hand, appears as an act of resistance for the entire Russian-Orthodox civilization: it is a battle for "the Christian faith, for the holy churches, for the Russian land." It is no coincidence that in the presentation of the history of this battle, Vladimir I the Holy, and Alexander Nevsky, who became symbols of the Russian faith and Russian victories, and the holy martyrs Boris and Gleb, the defenders of the Russian army before God, are mentioned. Special attention given to the participation in the battle of Dmitry Mikhailovich Bobrok-Volynsky, who, along with the Olgerdovich brothers, represented Southwestern Russia. Thus, the view of the author of the "Synopsis" is no different from the interpretation of the Battle of Kulikovo, which is present in other Russian sources, for example, in the "Zadonshchina" and the chronicle "The Tale of the Battle of Mamaev". Both North-Eastern and South-Western Russia are united and in solidarity in the assessment of this significant victory for the development of the entire Russian Orthodox civilization. The compiler of the "Synopsis", drawing the path of Russian unity, nevertheless, remains a Little Russian and a citizen of Kiev. His view is the view of a person from that part of the Russian land, which for many centuries was deprived of its statehood, experienced oppression from non-believers and foreigners. This largely marginal, provincial position determines some of the features of the text of the Kiev Synopsis. The author knows very little about Russian history outside the Kiev region, Volhynia and Galicia. The modern reader will be surprised by the fact that the presentation lacks information about Novgorod and Pskov history, about the ways of establishing statehood in the North-Eastern Russian principalities, about the rise of Moscow. The text does not mention Vsevolod Yuryevich the Big Nest, who was not only the Prince of Pereyaslavl and Vladimir, but also the Prince of Kiev, as well as the Grand Dukes of Vladimir and Moscow Vasily I Dmitrievich, Vasily II Vasilyevich Dark, who were connected by blood ties with the Lithuanian dynasty. The Grand Dukes of Moscow Ivan III Vasilyevich and Vasily III Ivanovich are absent from the presentation, without highlighting the activities of which the origins of the power of the Russian state are incomprehensible. Ivan IV the Terrible is mentioned once. His son, Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich, was remembered by the compiler only in connection with the establishment of the patriarchate in Russia. Not a word is said about the Time of Troubles at the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th century, without which the emergence of the Romanov dynasty and the Western foreign policy of Russia are inexplicable. But, even while remaining a provincial, the author of the Synopsis tries, for any reason (and sometimes even for no reason), to insert into the story information about all-Russian history known to him in the form of reservations, remarks, and references. The author's efforts are also visible in giving a general Russian meaning to the history of Southwestern Russia. In the chapter, which tells about how Oleg the Prophet killed Askold and Dir and occupied Kyiv, there is a remark: “and from the Princes of the Varangians, from Igor Rurikovich, other Princes, even to the Grand Dukes of Moscow, had their own kinship” (ch. 19). In the chapter devoted to the theme of the choice of faith by Saint Vladimir, the action is transferred to Vladimir-on-Klyazma, where he "transferred his Tsar's throne from Kyiv, and the Tsar's Capital was kept there even before John Danilovich" (Ch. 38). Vladimir-on-Klyazma (now Vladimir) was founded at the beginning of the 12th century. Vladimir Monomakh, and the capital was moved here by his grandson Andrey Yurievich Bogolyubsky, who had previously captured Kyiv and taken booty there. After these events in 1169, Kyiv, which had previously been only a nominal capital, finally lost its status. Andrei Bogolyubsky acquired the title of Grand Duke and transferred the Great Table to Vladimir. But only his brother Vsevolod Yurievich Big Nest, having overcome the resistance of other contenders for the Great Table - the more ancient Rostov and Suzdal, received the title of Grand Duke of Vladimir. The statement of the author of the Synopsis is also legendary, that it was Vladimir the Saint who founded and built the Assumption Cathedral in Vladimir: “Vladimir and the Church in the name of the Most Holy Theotokos built there” (ch. 47). The cult of the Mother of God was and remains the most important component of Russian Orthodoxy. And therefore, the idea of ​​the succession of power from Kyiv to Vladimir received here a religious and symbolic expression: the Mother of God Church of the Tithes in Kyiv - the Assumption Cathedral of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra - the Assumption Cathedral in Vladimir. It is no coincidence that the Moscow princes built the Assumption Cathedral in the Kremlin three times, as well as in Vladimir. So, the author of the Kiev Synopsis is a spokesman for the idea of ​​continuity and succession of Russian statehood, and therefore an interested defender of the reunification of Russian lands under the rule of the Moscow Tsar in the 17th century. Moscow appears in the presentation of Innokenty Gizel not only as an actual, but also as a symbolic, sacred capital of Russia-Russia. Moscow was not yet in sight, and the weather forecaster talks about it in a presentation of biblical events. Moscow thus fills with content, symbolizes the unity of the people, country and state. Moscow for the Kievan author does not exist separately from South-Western Russia, which is why he insists that “from Mosokh, the forefather of the Slavic Russian, by his heritage, not only Moscow is a great people, but also all of Russia or the Russia mentioned above occurred ...” ( chapter 8). The transfer of imperial regalia to the Kiev prince Vladimir Monomakh does not mean at all that it is Kyiv that still retains imperial significance. Therefore, the compiler of the text notes that the royal crown "to this day under the Great Sovereigns, the Tsars and the Grand Dukes of Moscow and All Russia, the Autocrats, is worthy and righteously maintained" (ch. 58). Moreover, Moscow is not only the successor of Kyiv and Vladimir, but the city of the higher glory of the Russian people, its rebirth and exaltation: “And so, by the majesty of the glory of the Princely Throne, transferred from the city of Vladimir, the God-saved city of Moscow became famous, and the ancestral name of Mosokh in it for the people The Russian has been updated…” (ch. nine). It is no coincidence that this idea is developed in the narrative of the victorious Battle of Kulikovo. The unification of Russian princes, the victory over Mamai, the triumph of Orthodoxy over Islam are filled with Moscow symbols. The sacred cathedral, which escorts Dmitry to the battle, passes through the Frolovskaya, Constantinople and Nikolskaya towers of the Kremlin, and Dmitry prays in the Archangel Cathedral. The return of the Russian army with a victory is described as following the Moscow shrines of Prince Dmitry: he visits the Andronikov Monastery, passes through the Frolovsky Gates, thanks the deceased ancestors and the Moscow miracle workers in the Archangel Cathedral (ch. 75–103). Thus, Moscow is interpreted by the author of the Synopsis as 1) the main Slavic city (from Mosokh), 2) a common Russian city, 3) the legitimate successor of Kyiv and Vladimir, 4) the actual and symbolic capital of Russia, the Russian people and Russian Orthodoxy. In this regard, it would be interesting to find out what assessment Vilna and Krakow acquire, how is the presence of part of the Russian lands in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Commonwealth described and assessed?

Defending the version of the common origin of the Slavs, Innokenty Gizel deliberately separates the Lithuanians from them. He points out that they come from another people - the Tsimbri, and their tribal relatives - the Goths, Cumans, Yotvingians and Pechenegs (ch. 11). The Polish character first appears in the chapter on Svyatopolk the Accursed - this is Boleslav I the Brave. The presence of the Polish king here, as in all Russian chronicles, is only the background of the internecine struggle and the reign of Yaroslav the Wise. Innocent Gisel reproduced the Polish legend about the Boleslav sword, allegedly serrated on the Golden Gate of Kyiv in 1018 (ch. 52). In fact, Yaroslav did not renovate or fix the Golden Gate, allegedly chopped down by Boleslav. Both the Kievan Sofia and the Golden Gate were built by Yaroslav much later. Sophia is a temple-triumph erected on the site of the victory of the Russian army over the Pechenegs. And this victory was won in 1036. Boleslav II the Bold also appears - only as a character influencing the struggle for Kyiv of the sons of Yaroslav (ch. 53). In several chapters about the reign of Yaropolk Vladimirovich, who tried to reconcile the parties of the Monomakhoviches and the Olgoviches, King Boleslav III Krivousty is present as an active participant in the events (ch. 60-63). The adventurous story about how Yaropolk overcame "cunning by cunning" and took revenge on Boleslav for his dishonesty is of a literary, not historical, nature. In fact, Boleslav Krivousty never captured Yaropolk Vladimirovich, and the latter did not take part in the war between the Polish king and the German emperor Henry V. Prince Volodar Rostislavich was in Polish captivity, really captured by Boleslav by cunning. And the subsequent events, so captivatingly described in the Synopsis, are connected with Volodya's son Vladimirko Galitsky and other characters. In general, the text of the Synopsis is replete with errors and inaccuracies. For example, the date of death of Yaropolk Vladimirovich is 1138, not 1140; Vladimir I died in 1015, not in 1017; the church of St. Nicholas in Kyiv was built by Olma, not Olga, etc. It is not the task of the publishers to conduct a source analysis of the Synopsis text. This work interests us as evidence of the development of Russian thought in the 17th century. This story contains an emotional and moral assessment of the activities of the Polish king and the Russian prince. The death of Boleslav is retribution for unrighteous behavior towards Yaropolk Vladimirovich. The joy of victory over foreigners is present in the description of Roman Smolensky's reign in Kyiv: “He was very brave and defeated Lithuania; captivating many, he kept them in heavy shackles and placed heavy work on them, harnessed some of the chained to the plow like oxen and plowed the fields around Kyiv; and from there came a parable, how one Litvin, harnessed to a plow, who learned the Russian language, said: “Roman, Roman! If you live thin, you will yell at Lithuania!” (ch. 66). The common misfortune for European peoples and states - the invasion of the Tatar-Mongols - changed the priorities in the forecaster's assessments. The "fierce Tatar yoke" in his eyes justifies the flight to Hungary of the Kiev prince Mikhail Vsevolodovich and the Galician prince Daniel Romanovich. Describing in detail and in detail the courageous resistance of the Hungarians, the compiler of the text, like the author of The Tale of the Murder of Batu, reports that Batu died in Hungary (ch. 104). Batu died in 1255 in the eastern uluses of the Mongol Empire. The reigns in Kyiv, Galicia and Volhynia of the last independent Russian princes from the Rurik dynasty are described very briefly. The weakening of the southwestern Russian lands due to the Tatar-Mongol defeat, according to the author, was the main reason for their falling under the rule of Lithuania. One would expect that more than three centuries of the history of Southwestern Russia from the 14th to the 17th centuries would find worthy and complete coverage in such a detailed work by the Kievan author. And one cannot hide surprise at the fact that the stay of a part of Russia in these states occupies only two chapters. For comparison: the reign of Olga is described in 4 chapters, the reign of Vladimir I the Holy - in 22 chapters, the Battle of Kulikovo - in 29 chapters. “The glorious autocracy of Kiev has ceased,” the author formulates a brief conclusion, describing the annexation of Russian lands to Lithuania in the 14th century (ch. 106). The pain of loss and humiliation, the awareness of historical injustice are also read in the story about the establishment of the Kiev province by King Casimir IV in the 15th century: turned” (ch. 109). And the history from the 15th to the middle of the 17th century appears in the presentation of the weather forecaster as a simple enumeration of the Kiev governors. Apparently, the negative historical and emotional assessment of these events, and not at all the lack of historical sources, determined this feature. The author of the Synopsis uses a different literary form to describe this period of history. This is no longer a narrative, but a chronicle, consisting of only two pages. For comparison: in the chapters on the Chigirin campaigns, only the description of the leadership of the army that arrived to defend Kyiv from the Turks and Tatars takes up five pages and is distinguished by great attention to detail. Here there are such expressions as “a fair Little Russian ruler”, “many Princes, Neighbor Boyars, Okolnichie, Voevodas and other leaders of God-skilled in military affairs”, “sociable and infantry Serdyuks, called so from a particularly kind heart”, etc. n. And about two centuries of being a part of the Polish-Lithuanian state only: “The summer of the birth of Christ 1593 was the Governor in Kyiv, Prince Dmitry Putyatich and died” (ch. 109) ... The author of the Synopsis ignores important events of the Polish government: the restoration of Kyiv by King Casimir IV (XV century), the introduction by Alexander Kazimirovich of the city of Magdeburg law (XVI century), etc. Apparently, the Kievan remembered something else: the weakening of the old-time Russian life, the aggression of Catholicism, the establishment of "Biskupstvo", the emergence of the union. Therefore, according to his logic, the consequences of the ruin of Kyiv in 1240 were overcome only in the 17th century by reunification with the Russian state. The last voivodeship of Adam Brusilovsky is remarkable for the author of Synopsis only in that “after that voivodeship, the mercy of the Lord descended from heaven on the original royal city of Kyiv of all Russia” (ch. 109). So, the stay of the southwestern Russian lands as part of Lithuania and Poland is practically not described. The author does not consider this period of his regional history to be either positive, or favorable, or natural. He uses all available means to convey the idea that the part of the Russian people, subordinate to the Lithuanians and Poles, did not develop a new self-identification, but remained as Russian as the inhabitants of Muscovy. This is just an interrupted tradition of the development of Russian ethnicity and statehood, restored in the middle of the 17th century. The Kyiv synopsis, which reflected the topical issues of the formation of Russian national consciousness in the 17th century, is distinguished by its anti-Tatar and anti-Turkish orientation. This is understandable. In 1240, Kyiv was completely destroyed by Batu's hordes. The second time Kyiv was devastated and burned to the ground in 1416 by the army of Khan Mengli Giray. And in the future, the Tatars did not leave the lands of Little Russia alone. That is why the Tatars and Turks, so disturbing the consciousness of the Russian people in the 17th century, are already mentioned in the first chapters of the Synopsis (Ch. 4, 7). The civilizational contradiction between the Slavic-Orthodox and the Turkic-Islamic world is expressed in the text through the medieval idea of ​​the hierarchy of peoples. In the "Kiev Synopsis", as in many Russian sources, the Tatars are called "nasty." The Romans used the term poganes to refer to non-citizens of the polis. Then this naming was extended to all pagan barbarians who did not belong to the "Roman world". Russians began to call so alien aliens of the pagan faith. The designations in the "Synopsis" of the Tatars and Turks as "Agarians" and "Ismailians" have the same meaning. The Old Testament story about the appearance of the illegitimate son Ishmael by the forefather Abraham, whose mother was the slave Hagar, made it possible to interpret the aggression of the Tatar-Mongols as an illegal invasion of enemies rejected by God. The refusal to include Tatars and Turks in their world and their history led to the use of stable speech turns in the text. Batu is awarded the epithets "evil", "damned", "nasty", "filthy", "godless". Mamai is called "godless", "cursed", "damned", "filthy", "impious". In relation to the Turkish sultan, his commanders and the Crimean Khan, the expressions “hater of the Christian race”, “grandson of the father’s lies”, “hard-hearted god-opponent”, “Christ-hating infidel” are used. The synopsis strongly leads the reader to the idea of ​​a constant confrontation between Russia and the Turkic world. In the chapter on Vladimir Monomakh, there is his meaningful remark: “He won many times over Polovtsev and other adversaries, because he was very brave and courageous; and the Genoese, who at that time owned Taurida, where the Perekop Horde is now ”(ch. 57). For the first time, the theme of civilizational confrontation merges with a story about real history in Ch. 71, and this is connected, of course, with the Batu invasion. The arrival of the Tatar-Mongol hordes is explained as a punishment for people for sins: “And the Tatars of all Russia Stolny and in the whole sunflower glorious Royal City of Kyiv took, the city and its environs were burned with fire, some people were flogged, and others were captured, and the whole State of Kiev was turned into nothing – in God's punishment for human sins” (ch. 76). The notion that Russian Christians are chosen by God supports the writer's optimism. The story of Christian disasters always ends with "jumping ahead" and remarking on their victory and return to their rightful place in history. So, in the story about the devastation of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra by the Tatars, we meet an optimistic remark about its revival in the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. The same logic can be traced in the presentation of the history of the stay of Russian lands under the Tatar-Mongol yoke: “... and how the Sovereigns possessed Christians until the Great pious Prince Dimitri of Moscow defeated their vile power ...” (ch. 74). The battle of Kulikovo appears as the beginning of the God-predetermined liberation of Christians. In the mouth of Metropolitan Cyprian, the author puts the words: “If, Sovereign, God protects a person, then the whole world cannot kill him” (ch. 76). Dmitry tells the guards: “The Lord is our helper, we will not be afraid; what will man do to us?" (ch. 78). The ambassador to Mamai, Zechariah, exclaims: “God will do what he wants, and it will not be the way you want” (ch. 80). It is significant that the story about the Chigirinsky campaigns is written on the model of the story about the Battle of Kulikovo. It has the same structure, logic, emotional and value assessment. But the proximity of these events, the acutely felt danger from the Turkish-Tatar aggression allowed the author to draw more radical conclusions about the significance of the Chigirin campaigns: their entire wicked family, or the transformation of their rotten state into an Orthodox Monarch…” (ch. 116). Thus, the author of the Kiev Synopsis closely connected the theme of Russian unity and the rise of the Russian state with the theme of opposition to the Turkic-Islamic world. He acknowledged that the intervention of these peoples is the "historical fate" of Russia-Russia, but subject to the unification of popular and state efforts, this problem is solved to the delight of the Russian-Orthodox world. Innokenty Gizel is an interested author. He is a representative of a part of the Little Russian elite - the highest Kiev Orthodox clergy, which, along with the Cossack and gentry leaders, was one of the initiators of the political unification of Russia. He stood on a par with such ascetics of Orthodoxy as Prince Konstantin Konstantinovich Ostrozhsky, Archimandrites of the Caves Nikifor Tur and Elisey Pletenetsky, Zaporozhye hetmans Peter Konashevich-Sagaydachny and Bogdan Khmelnitsky, Metropolitan Petro Mogila and many others. The purpose of his life was to continue the work of his mentor Peter Mohyla, who restored the Kiev Orthodox Metropolis. The results of Peter Mohyla's activities were impressive. This includes the restoration of the church hierarchy, the replacement of Uniate priests and bishops with Orthodox ones, the return of Orthodox churches and monasteries, and educational and publishing activities. But if Pyotr Mogila launched his vigorous activity in conditions when Russia was not ready to offer worthy resistance to Poland, then Innokenty Gizel witnessed the offensive foreign policy . The Russian-Polish war of 1654-1667 ended with the return of the Smolensk region, Chernihiv region and the lands along the left bank of the Dnieper to Russia. The policy aimed at expanding the autonomy of the Orthodox Church in a weakening heterodox state, which was the Commonwealth, had to undergo changes in connection with the entry of Russian lands into the growing Russian Orthodox state. The Synopsis was written at a time when the inertia of the struggle for the autonomy of the Kiev Metropolis continued to operate, and the main factor in its “separation” and an instrument of pressure on the Russian monarchy was submission (even if formal) to the Patriarch of Constantinople. In the 30-60s of the 17th century, the Orthodox clergy of the Kiev Metropolis became part of not only the cultural and religious, but also the political elite. And in Moscow, the church also claimed a leading role in state policy. Recall that the unification of Great, Little and White Russia took place virtually simultaneously with the church reform, called Nikon's. These two phenomena are connected and interdependent. If the Russian Church had not been given the opportunity to prioritize the relationship between Orthodox patriarchs and metropolitanates, had not established itself in the right to be the bearer of Russian and Greek, that is, “universal” Orthodox values, then the ideological basis for the reunification of Russia would not have appeared. The "Kyiv synopsis" of 1674 is a reflection of the position of the church elite of Little Russia in the conditions of the transformation of the "militant church", which existed as part of the Commonwealth, into an integral part of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. The Orthodox idea permeates the entire text of the Synopsis, creating a structural framework for a chronological presentation and giving a common meaning to events scattered over time. Beginning with the words about the “Beginningless Parent and Creator of all creation”, the exposition ends with gratitude in the intercession of Russia to “the Most Pure Lady of the Mother of God”, the holy Russian miracle workers, the venerable fathers of the Caves and all the saints. There is practically no Catholicism and Uniatism as factors of Russian history in the text of the Synopsis. We are talking not only about Great Russia, but also about those territories that were part of the Polish-Lithuanian state. Catholics appear only as characters in Russian history. Russian is Orthodox - this is the main idea of ​​the essay. Therefore, after the message that the Pope of Rome crowned Daniel of Galicia, there is an important reservation that even after these events, Daniel “strongly established the Orthodox faith and remained in it until the end of his life” (ch. 104). The author holds the idea that the Russians are unfairly subordinate to the Poles, as they have great advantages. In particular, he insists on such an example of superiority as the acquisition of writing earlier than that of the Poles (ch. 15), which, in the author's opinion, is nothing less than the "second baptism" of the Slavs (ch. 44). The theme of the baptism of Russia in the "Synopsis" is given great attention. The second largest thematic block (22 chapters) is dedicated specifically to the baptism of Russia by Vladimir I the Saint. A special role is played by chapter 44 “On how many times the Rosses were baptized even before Vladimir’s kingdom”, in which the author describes the five-fold baptism of the Slavs and, therefore, shows the historical inevitability of the adoption of Orthodoxy. Consistently and logically set forth in the "Synopsis" is the idea of ​​succession to the Russian metropolis (Kyiv, Vladimir, Moscow) and the establishment of a patriarchate in Russia. The move of the Kiev Metropolitan Maxim in 1299 to Vladimir-on-Klyazma appears under the pen of the weather forecaster as an inevitable consequence of the weakening of the church after the Mongol-Tatar invasion (ch. 105). True, the compiler of the text settled Metropolitan Maxim immediately in Moscow. But this process was more complex and lengthy. The next metropolitan was a native of Volhynia, Peter. Rurikovich Yuri Lvovich, who ruled Galicia at that time, wanted to establish a metropolis in Galich, but Peter, ordained to the rank of All-Russian Metropolitan, made a fateful decision for Russia - in 1326 he chose Ivan Kalita for his stay in Moscow. The laying of the Assumption Cathedral at his request was a step towards turning Moscow into a metropolitan cathedral city. And the next Metropolitan Theognost had already formally established a metropolis in Moscow. But, being a representative of the Little Russian clergy, remote from the center of the development of Russian Orthodoxy, Innokenty Gizel knows very little about church history from 1299 (metropolitan Maxim's move) to 1589 (the establishment of the patriarchate). Mentioning in episodes is the main method of telling about Orthodoxy in Great Russia. However, provincial narrow-mindedness did not prevent the author of the Synopsis, who consistently defended the anti-Polish and anti-Lithuanian lines, from including in the narrative a story about church leaders who fought against the division of the Russian metropolis and Uniatism. This is Metropolitan Peter, who chose not Galich, but Moscow for his stay (ch. 85); Metropolitan Alexy, who opposed Olgerd in his attempts to transfer the Russian metropolis to Lithuania (ch. 108); Jonah, who was raised to the rank of Metropolitan by the Council of Russian Hierarchs after the expulsion of the Uniate Isidore (Ch. 108). The establishment of the patriarchate harmoniously completes the theme of the rise of the Russian Orthodox idea in the structure of the Synopsis. The author included in the text information about the problem that worried the Orthodox community so much - about the place of the Russian patriarch and gave him the desired third position (ch. 108). According to Innokenty Gizel, there is a relationship between the high status of the Russian Church and the victories of the Russian state. He concludes that the tsar, anointed by the patriarch for the good cause of protecting Little Russia from the Turks and Tatars, “destroyed the final aspiration of the filthy Agarians and the wicked Ishmaelites; Kyiv filled with good hopes beyond expectations and cooled the entire Orthodox-Russian people with such an action with joy and welcome joy” (ch. 110). Alexey Mikhailovich thus closes the series of "ideal princes", that is, rulers who unite adherence to Christian values ​​​​and protection of the interests of the state. In the Synopsis, many princes were mentioned who were distinguished by piety, who built churches and monasteries, gave them part of their property, etc. The Pechersk archimandrite paid a special place to the all-Russian shrine - the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. The narrative about the ruin of Kyiv and the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra (ch. 71,72) describes the devastating consequences of the Tatar-Mongol invasion for Russian Orthodox culture. The aching pain from irreparable losses shines through in the words of the author: “The Holy Pechersk Monastery cannot return to its original existence and ancient beauty. For the present structure differs far from the first” (ch. 72). He cannot but tell about the heroic deed of the Chernorizians, who resumed the “small ringing, called the good news” (ch. 73). Andrey Bogolyubsky, for his patronage of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, is dedicated to a whole story: “he gave his city Vasilev to the holy great Lavra of the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos of the Caves in Kiev” (ch. 65). And the realization of the centuries-old dream of the Russian people about unification acquires a symbolic image - the communion of the Russian Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich to the Caves Shrines (ch. 110). So, the author of the Synopsis is a defender of Orthodoxy, a supporter of the strengthening and exaltation of the Russian patriarchy. And even his regional position as a representative of the Kiev Metropolis does not prevent him from carrying out the idea that the unity of the church is the path to the liberation and triumph of the Russian Orthodox world... The Kyiv Synopsis left a deep mark on Russian culture. In addition to repeatedly reprinted copies, handwritten copies also circulated. The Synopsis was translated into Latin and Greek. St. Dmitry, Metropolitan of Rostov, included it in his work. In Ukraine, "Synopsis" was used by the compilers of folk chronicles. In Russia, it became the basis for the formation of the anti-Norman theory; M.V. used it in his work. Lomonosov and N.M. Karamzin, the latter drew from this work information about the ancient Slavic pagan gods and their cults. To late XIX- at the beginning of the 20th century, the Kyiv Synopsis began to be regarded as important source study of Russian historical and socio-political thought. It was from this point of view that the historian P.N. Milyukov. Today, the Kyiv Synopsis is not only one of the main sources for studying the socio-political consciousness of the Kiev elite during the reunification of Great Russia and Little Russia. It is an important evidence that the idea of ​​unity always lives regardless of the borders separating a single people. Now, when myths are being planted in Ukraine that the reunification of Great Russia and Little Russia was entirely the initiative of Moscow, which supposedly “captured Ukraine” out of imperial motives, the voice of the Pechersk monk Innokenty sounds in defense of another idea - the idea of ​​​​a common origin of the Slavic Russians, a common history, common joys and sorrows, common fate. And, despite all the archaic nature of his language and argumentation, he is more convincing and truthful than the newly appeared myth-makers, who neglect historical truth for the sake of momentary political gain. It is useful for the current myth-makers to know what the rector of the Kiev-Mohyla Academy and archimandrite of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra Innokenty Gizel thought about the future of a single state:

“... Let the high power of the Kingdom rise, expand, affirm, and he, our Great Sovereign ... always with victorious overcoming over all sorts of enemies and adversaries ... let him abide from generation to generation, Amen ... "

SYNOPSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1. About the beginning of the ancient Slavic people.

2. About the name and about the Slavic language.

3. About the freedom or liberty of Slavenskaya.

4. About the three parts of the World, called Asia, Africa and Europe, in brief notice. About Asia. About Africa. About Europe.

5. About the Russian people, or more characteristically Russian, and about the dialect, or its name.

6. About the Sarmatian people and their dialect.

7. About the people of Roksolanstem and about his dialect.

8. About Mosokh, the progenitor of Slavenorossiysk and about his tribe.

9. About the dialect of the Moscow people and the Royal City.

10. About Kozarekh.

11. About Cimbra.

12. About the glorious supreme and all the people of the Russian main city of Kyiv and about its beginning.

13. About the original Princes of Kiev and about the creation of the city of Kyiv and its name.

14. About the death of Kiy, Shchek and Khorev and about their legacy after them.

15. About this, when Ross wrote to the nobility.

16. More about Russia or Russians in midnight countries, and about Veliky Novgorod.

17. About the reign of Rurik with the brethren in the Russian Land.

18. About Oskolde and Dir, a tribe of Kyiv, what a cup of princedom in Kyiv.

19. About the reign of Igor Rurikovich with Oleg uncle.

20. About the possession of Oleg in Kyiv and about his death.

21. About the reign of Igor Rurikovich in Kyiv according to Oleg.

22. About the reign of Grand Duchess Olga in Kyiv.

23. About Olga's first trip to Drevlyany.

24. About the second trip by Olgin to Drevlyany.

25. About Olga's campaign to Tsarigrad and about her baptism.

26. About the reign of Svyatoslav, or Svetoslav Igorevich in Kyiv, and about the death of the Blessed Grand Duchess Elena.

27. On the division of the principalities of Svetoslav by his son and on his death.

28. About the reign of Yaropolk Svetoslavich in Kyiv.

29. On the coming of the Grand Duke Vladimir Svetoslavich to Kyiv.

30. About the reign of the Grand Duke Vladimir in Kyiv and throughout Russia and about his autocracy.

31. O idol. About pouring water on the Great Day.

32. About the wives of the Vladimirovs.

33. About the courage of Vladimirova.

34. About Belgorod, how jelly freed from the siege.

35. About the victory of Vladimirova over the Pechenegs near Pereyaslavl, from her Pereyaslavl was created and named.

36. About the ambassadors of various to the faith of Vladimir admonishing.

37. About the Greek ambassadors to Vladimir.

38. About Vladimirov's council about beliefs and the message.

39. About return of ambassadors to Vladimir.

40. About the campaign of Vladimir in the Greek land for the sake of baptism.

41. About the baptism of Vladimir and his brother.

42. About the baptism of all the people of Kiev and all Russia.

43. About the baptism of the sons of Vladimirov.

44. About this, the kolkrats of Rossa were baptized before Vladimir, even before his reign.

45. On the establishment of the Orthodox Faith in Russia and the eradication of idols.

46. ​​About the Church of the Most Holy Theotokos Tithes in Kyiv.

47. About the campaign of Vladimirov to Suzhdal, Rostov and Veliky Novgorod.

48. On the division of the reign of Russia from Vladimir by his son.

49. On the death of Vladimirov.

50. Thanksgiving to God from all Ross about his inscrutable gift.

51. About the reign of Svyatopolk in Kyiv, years from the creation of the World 6525, and from the birth of Christ 1017.

52. About the reign of Yaroslav in Kyiv, years from the creation of Light 6527, and from the birth of Christ 1019.

53. About the reign in Kyiv of the Grand Duke Izyaslav Yaroslavich and the foundation of the Church of the Caves is still ancient.

54. About the second expulsion of Izyaslav from Kyiv, and about the foundation of the Great Stone Church of the Caves, its decoration, and about the stone fence of the entire monastery.

55. About the reign of Vsevolod Yaroslavich in Kyiv.

56. About the reign in Kyiv of Mikhail Svyatopolk Izyaslavich.

57. About the reign of Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh in Kyiv.

58. About this, from where did the Russian Autocrats wear the royal crown on themselves.

59. About the reign of Mstislav Monomakhovich in Kyiv.

60. About the reign of Yaropolk Monomakhovich in Kyiv.

61. About this, how did Yaropolk Boleslav return cunning to cunning.

62. The second providence of Yaropolk's vengeance over Boleslav.

63. About the various Princes in Kyiv, like one other from the Throne to the exile.

64. Paki about various Princes in Kyiv, and about their expulsion from the Throne internecine.

65. About the reign of Mstislav Izyaslavich in Kyiv and about other Princes who owned Kyiv.

66. About the reign of Roman Prince of Smolensk in Kyiv.

67. About reigning in Kyiv Yaroslav Izyaslavich.

68. About this, as if do not bless the Autocrat of the Russian Roman, Vladimir Bishop of the Greek law to fight with Christians, except for the blessing of guilt.

69. Dispute about the Capital of the Russian Autocracy and the expulsion of the Prince from the Hungarians, or from the Ugrians.

70. About the princes of various Kiev.

71. About the reign of Mikhail Vsevolodovich in Kyiv, and about the invasion of the wicked Batu.

72. About the ruin of the Beautiful Holy Great miraculous Lavra of the Pechersk Kiev.

73. About the good news in the Holy Monastery of the Caves for the Church service, from where it began.

74. About the years, in them the Kiev Principality and all Russia autocracy under the Tatar yoke abide.

75. About the notice to the Grand Duke Dimitri, as if the wicked Mamai is going to war against Russia.

76. About the message from the Grand Duke Dimitri of gifts to Mamaev.

77. About the message of the first watch.

78. About the message of the second watch.

79. About the arrival of the Russian Princes and Governors and many armies to Moscow.

80. About Zakhariya's going to the horde to Mamai.

81. About Mamaeva's letter to the Grand Duke Dimitri.

82. On the departure of Zechariah from Mamai.

83. On the coming of Zechariah from the embassy to Moscow.

84. About the march of Grand Duke Dimitri to the Monastery of the Holy Trinity.

85. About the campaign of the Grand Duke Dimitri from Moscow against the godless Agarians.

86. About the advent of the Grand Duke Dimitri to Kolomna and about the organization of the regiments.

87. About the message of the guards from the Grand Duke Dimitri, and about the grief of Olga Rezansky and Olgerd of Lithuania, as if Prince Dimitri went to battle.

88. On the coming of two Olgerdovich brothers to the aid of the Grand Duke Dimitri.

89. About the transition to the Don and about the taking of Mamaev's language.

90. About the organization of the armies for battle, about the strengthening of all regiments from the Grand Duke Dimitri and about his prayer.

91. About the signs of Dimitri Volynsky foreshadowing.

92. About the appearance of the Holy Martyrs Boris and Gleb.

93. About the outcome of both troops to battle, about the dispensation from Prince Dimitri instead of himself Michael, about the message of Sergius and the courage of Peresvet the black man.

94. Message from Abbot Sergius.

95. About the bitter and most terrible hour, in which there are many creations of God, drink the mortal cup in battle.

96. About the vision of open heavens.

97. About the outcome of the secret from the ambush regiment to fight and about the glorious victory over the Tatars.98. About the gathering of Christian troops under their own signs; about the search and acquisition of the Grand Duke Dimitri, and about the great joy from the victory over the Tatars.

99. About the train of the Grand Duke Dimitri between the corpses. 100. About the examination of the regiments and the calculation of the dead.

101. On the return of the Grand Duke Dimitri with a solemn victory to Moscow.

102. About the campaign of the Grand Duke Dimitri to the Monastery of the Holy Trinity.

103. About the death of Mamaeva.

104. About the princedom of Kiev under the fierce yoke of the Tatars and about the Princes of Kiev in part.

105. About the resettlement of the Metropolitan of Kiev to Moscow.

106. About the capture of the Stolnago Russian city of Kyiv from the Lithuanian Prince Gediminas, and about the accession of the Prince of Kiev to the Lithuanian.

107. Whence two Metropolitans in Russia, one in Moscow, and the other in Kyiv.

108. About this, when the Patriarchal Throne is settled in the reigning city of Moscow.

109. About the transformation of the Great Prince of Kiev into the Voivodeship.

110. On the return to the first packs of the Royal existence of the God-saved city of Kyiv.

111. About the first Besurman parish near Chigirin.

Synopsis or Brief collection from various chroniclers, about the beginning of the Slavic-Russian people, and the original book (i) zey b (o) saved city of Kyiv about the life of the s (vya) t (a) th faithful great prince (i) of Kiev and all Russia, the first autocrat of Vladimir, and about the heirs of the bl (a) hot (e) stive power of eg (o) Russian, even before ... presvet (lago) and bl (a) good r (o) s (u) d (a) rya n (a) our ts (a) rya, and the great prince (o) zya Alexy Mikhailovich of all the Great, Small, and White Russia autocrat. In the holy great miraculous Lavra of the Kiev-Pechersk, the stauropegion of the most holy ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, with the blessing of the most honored in Christ, the father, Innokenty Giziel, by the grace of God, archimandrite toyazhde S (vy)ty Lavra, depicted in type. Kyiv, type. Kiev Pechersk Lavra, 1674 (7182). 4°. 124 p. Lines: 24, ca. 28. Fonts: 62, approx. 52 mm. Pages in linear frames. Their account is at the top, and at the bottom of the litter in notebooks. Binding: boards covered with leather. On the top binding sheet is the inscription "The book called Synopsis". The first word in the title is in Greek. It was based on "Kronika" by Matvey Stryikovsky and Russian chronicle sources (mainly the Gustyn Chronicle). Due to its main idea - the need for the reunification of the Slavic peoples - and the availability of presentation, Synopsis played a significant role in the dissemination of historical knowledge in Russia in the 17th-18th centuries. The final text of the Synopsis was not formed immediately. In its first edition, the description of events was brought up to 1654. The first printed book on the history of Ukraine and Russia. The synopsis of 1674 is the greatest rarity and has not been seen on open sale for a very long time!

For some reason, it is not republished, it is very rarely mentioned and even more rarely cited in modern historical literature, despite the circumstance I have indicated that it has beenthe onlytextbook of Russian history, became widely known in the Orthodox world and translated into Greek and Latin, then the languages ​​of international communication in Europe.

Compiled by Archbishop of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra Innokenty (Gizel), it was first published in 1674, supplemented in 1678 and 1680, and over the course of two centuries it went through many more editions of the civil press. The synopsis of Archbishop Innokenty played an important role in the Slavic culture of the 17th-18th centuries. Until the time of M.V. Lomonosov, the work was very popular; Dmitry Rostovsky to his chronicle, was used by historians S.V. Velichko, V.N. Tatishchev, M.V. Lomonosov, Paisiy Hilendarsky. This is the first attempt, under the influence of Polish models, to summarize the history of Southwestern Russia in chronological order. The Synopsis enjoyed great success among Russian readers, especially during the 18th century, in which the Synopsis went through 20 editions. It was last published in Kyiv in 1861.

SYNOPSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1. About the beginning of the ancient Slavic people.

2. About the name and about the Slavic language.

3. About the freedom or liberty of Slavenskaya.

4. About the three parts of the World, called Asia, Africa and Europe, in brief notice. About Asia. About Africa. About Europe.

5. About the Russian people, or more characteristically Russian, and about the dialect, or its name.

6. About the Sarmatian people and their dialect.

7. About the people of Roksolanstem and about his dialect.

8. About Mosokh, the progenitor of Slavenorossiysk and about his tribe.

9. About the dialect of the Moscow people and the Royal City.

10. About Kozarekh.

11. About Cimbra.

12. About the glorious supreme and all the people of the Russian main city of Kyiv and about its beginning.

13. About the original Princes of Kiev and about the creation of the city of Kyiv and its name.

14. About the death of Kiy, Shchek and Khorev and about their legacy after them.

15. About this, when Ross wrote to the nobility.

16. More about Russia or Russians in midnight countries, and about Veliky Novgorod.

17. About the reign of Rurik with the brethren in the Russian Land.

18. About Oskolde and Dir, a tribe of Kyiv, what a cup of princedom in Kyiv.

19. About the reign of Igor Rurikovich with Oleg uncle.

20. About the possession of Oleg in Kyiv and about his death.

21. About the reign of Igor Rurikovich in Kyiv according to Oleg.

22. About the reign of Grand Duchess Olga in Kyiv.

23. About Olga's first trip to Drevlyany.

24. About the second trip by Olgin to Drevlyany.

25. About Olga's campaign to Tsarigrad and about her baptism.

26. About the reign of Svyatoslav, or Svetoslav Igorevich in Kyiv, and about the death of the Blessed Grand Duchess Elena.

27. On the division of the principalities of Svetoslav by his son and on his death.

28. About the reign of Yaropolk Svetoslavich in Kyiv.

29. On the coming of the Grand Duke Vladimir Svetoslavich to Kyiv.

30. About the reign of the Grand Duke Vladimir in Kyiv and throughout Russia and about his autocracy.

31. O idol. About pouring water on the Great Day.

32. About the wives of the Vladimirovs.

33. About the courage of Vladimirova.

34. About Belgorod, how jelly freed from the siege.

35. About the victory of Vladimirova over the Pechenegs near Pereyaslavl, from her Pereyaslavl was created and named.

36. About the ambassadors of various to the faith of Vladimir admonishing.

37. About the Greek ambassadors to Vladimir.

38. About Vladimirov's council about beliefs and the message.

39. About return of ambassadors to Vladimir.

40. About the campaign of Vladimir in the Greek land for the sake of baptism.

41. About the baptism of Vladimir and his brother.

42. About the baptism of all the people of Kiev and all Russia.

43. About the baptism of the sons of Vladimirov.

44. About this, the kolkrats of Rossa were baptized before Vladimir, even before his reign.

45. On the establishment of the Orthodox Faith in Russia and the eradication of idols.

46. ​​About the Church of the Most Holy Theotokos Tithes in Kyiv.

47. About the campaign of Vladimirov to Suzhdal, Rostov and Veliky Novgorod.

48. On the division of the reign of Russia from Vladimir by his son.

49. On the death of Vladimirov.

50. Thanksgiving to God from all Ross about his inscrutable gift.

51. About the reign of Svyatopolk in Kyiv, years from the creation of the World 6525, and from the birth of Christ 1017.

52. About the reign of Yaroslav in Kyiv, years from the creation of Light 6527, and from the birth of Christ 1019.

53. About the reign in Kyiv of the Grand Duke Izyaslav Yaroslavich and the foundation of the Church of the Caves is still ancient.

54. About the second expulsion of Izyaslav from Kyiv, and about the foundation of the Great Stone Church of the Caves, its decoration, and about the stone fence of the entire monastery.

55. About the reign of Vsevolod Yaroslavich in Kyiv.

56. About the reign in Kyiv of Mikhail Svyatopolk Izyaslavich.

57. About the reign of Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh in Kyiv.

58. About this, from where did the Russian Autocrats wear the royal crown on themselves.

59. About the reign of Mstislav Monomakhovich in Kyiv.

60. About the reign of Yaropolk Monomakhovich in Kyiv.

61. About this, how did Yaropolk Boleslav return cunning to cunning.

62. The second providence of Yaropolk's vengeance over Boleslav.

63. About the various Princes in Kyiv, like one other from the Throne to the exile.

64. Paki about various Princes in Kyiv, and about their expulsion from the Throne internecine.

65. About the reign of Mstislav Izyaslavich in Kyiv and about other Princes who owned Kyiv.

66. About the reign of Roman Prince of Smolensk in Kyiv.

67. About reigning in Kyiv Yaroslav Izyaslavich.

68. About this, as if do not bless the Autocrat of the Russian Roman, Vladimir Bishop of the Greek law to fight with Christians, except for the blessing of guilt.

69. Dispute about the Capital of the Russian Autocracy and the expulsion of the Prince from the Hungarians, or from the Ugrians.

70. About the princes of various Kiev.

71. About the reign of Mikhail Vsevolodovich in Kyiv, and about the invasion of the wicked Batu.

72. About the ruin of the Beautiful Holy Great miraculous Lavra of the Pechersk Kiev.

73. About the good news in the Holy Monastery of the Caves for the Church service, from where it began.

74. About the years, in them the Kiev Principality and all Russia autocracy under the Tatar yoke abide.

75. About the notice to the Grand Duke Dimitri, as if the wicked Mamai is going to war against Russia.

76. About the message from the Grand Duke Dimitri of gifts to Mamaev.

77. About the message of the first watch.

78. About the message of the second watch.

79. About the arrival of the Russian Princes and Governors and many armies to Moscow.

80. About Zakhariya's going to the horde to Mamai.

81. About Mamaeva's letter to the Grand Duke Dimitri.

82. On the departure of Zechariah from Mamai.

83. On the coming of Zechariah from the embassy to Moscow.

84. About the march of Grand Duke Dimitri to the Monastery of the Holy Trinity.

85. About the campaign of the Grand Duke Dimitri from Moscow against the godless Agarians.

86. About the advent of the Grand Duke Dimitri to Kolomna and about the organization of the regiments.

87. About the message of the guards from the Grand Duke Dimitri, and about the grief of Olga Rezansky and Olgerd of Lithuania, as if Prince Dimitri went to battle.

88. On the coming of two Olgerdovich brothers to the aid of the Grand Duke Dimitri.

89. About the transition to the Don and about the taking of Mamaev's language.

90. About the organization of the armies for battle, about the strengthening of all regiments from the Grand Duke Dimitri and about his prayer.

91. About the signs of Dimitri Volynsky foreshadowing.

92. About the appearance of the Holy Martyrs Boris and Gleb.

93. About the outcome of both troops to battle, about the dispensation from Prince Dimitri instead of himself Michael, about the message of Sergius and the courage of Peresvet the black man.

94. Message from Abbot Sergius.

95. About the bitter and most terrible hour, in which there are many creations of God, drink the mortal cup in battle.

96. About the vision of open heavens.

97. About the outcome of the secret from the ambush regiment to fight and about the glorious victory over the Tatars.98. About the gathering of Christian troops under their own signs; about the search and acquisition of the Grand Duke Dimitri, and about the great joy from the victory over the Tatars.

99. About the train of the Grand Duke Dimitri between the corpses.

100. About the examination of the regiments and the calculation of the dead.

101. On the return of the Grand Duke Dimitri with a solemn victory to Moscow.

102. About the campaign of the Grand Duke Dimitri to the Monastery of the Holy Trinity.

103. About the death of Mamaeva.

104. About the princedom of Kiev under the fierce yoke of the Tatars and about the Princes of Kiev in part.

105. About the resettlement of the Metropolitan of Kiev to Moscow.

106. About the capture of the Stolnago Russian city of Kyiv from the Lithuanian Prince Gediminas, and about the accession of the Prince of Kiev to the Lithuanian.

107. Whence two Metropolitans in Russia, one in Moscow, and the other in Kyiv.

108. About this, when the Patriarchal Throne is settled in the reigning city of Moscow.

109. About the transformation of the Great Prince of Kiev into the Voivodeship.

110. On the return to the first packs of the Royal existence of the God-saved city of Kyiv.

111. About the first Besurman parish near Chigirin.

112. About the second Besurman parish near Chigirin.

113. About the glorious victory over the Turks and Tatars that was on the mountain.

114. On the coming of Orthodox troops near Chigirin.

115. About the return of the Christian troops from Chigirin, and about the fleeing Turks and Tatars from the Orthodox Troops.

Compiled by Archbishop of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra Innokenty (Gizel), it was first published in 1674, supplemented in 1678 and 1680, and over the course of two centuries it went through many more editions of the civil press. The synopsis of Archbishop Innokenty played an important role in the Slavic culture of the 17th-18th centuries. Until the time of M.V. Lomonosov, the work was very popular; Dmitry Rostovsky to his chronicle, was used by historians S.V. Velichko, V.N. Tatishchev, M.V. Lomonosov, Paisiy Hilendarsky. This is the first attempt, under the influence of Polish models, to summarize the history of Southwestern Russia in chronological order. The Synopsis enjoyed great success among Russian readers, especially during the 18th century, in which the Synopsis went through 20 editions. It was last published in Kyiv in 1861. Due to the brevity of the presentation, the Synopsis was a textbook of the history of mainly Kiev, compiled according to the chronicle of the abbot of the Mikhailovsky monastery Theodosius Safonovich. The first edition of the Synopsis (1674) ended with the annexation of Kyiv to Moscow, the second (1678) is accompanied by a story about the Chigirin campaigns. There are 110 chapters in the Synopsis. The main part of the Synopsis (63 chapters) is devoted to the history of Kyiv before the Tatar invasion. This is the most processed part. The central interest in it is occupied by the Baptism of Russia. The Synopsis tells at length about the reign of Vladimir Monomakh and his acquisition of royal regalia from Kafa. Information about the invasion of the Tatars and events close to it are fragmentary and brief, but the story of the Mamaev invasion and the Battle of Kulikovo is retold in detail in 29 chapters.

The Synopsis ends with fragmentary information about the Kiev metropolis and Kyiv after its annexation to Lithuania. Thanks to the school in which the Synopsis was a textbook, it reigns in our historiography of the 18th century; determines tastes and serves as a basis for researchers of history, who began with an analysis of the confusion of names of peoples, comparisons with the annals and corrections of its shortcomings, of which omissions in the history of the northeast of Russia should be considered the largest: there is no information about the reign of John III and John IV, the conquest of Novgorod and etc. According to the "Synopsis", the people "Russian", "Russian", "Slavo-Russian" are one. Kyiv is "the most glorious supreme city and the main city of all the people of Russia." Russia is one. After centuries of humiliation and separation of the "Princeship of Kiev" from "Russia", the "mercy of the Lord" finally came true, and "God-saving, glorious and original of all Russia, the royal city of Kyiv, due to its many changes", returned to the Sovereign Russia, under the hand of the all-Russian Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, as "the eternal fatherland of the scepter-bearing forefathers", an organic part of the "Russian people". According to the historian Miller, the author of the Synopsis pursued the goal of giving the Muscovite tsar motivation to continue the struggle against the Commonwealth for the liberation of the rest of the “single Orthodox people” from Catholic rule and to facilitate the incorporation into the Russian ruling class by the elite of the Hetmanate. According to some scholars, the main part of the "Synopsis" consisted of an abbreviation of the chronicle of the abbot of the Mikhailovsky monastery Theodosius Safonovich.

Archimandrite Innokenty Gisel (German: Innozenz Giesel, c. 1600, Prussia - November 8 (18), 1683, Kyiv) - Archimandrite of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra (since 1656), rector of the Kiev-Bratsk College. Innocent Gisel was from Prussia and belonged to the Reformed Church. In his youth, having arrived in Kyiv and settled here, he converted to Orthodoxy and took the vows as a monk. Peter Mogila, seeing in him a talented person, sent him to complete his education abroad. Gisel took courses in history, theology and jurisprudence at the Lviv Latin College. Returning from abroad, Gisel stood guard over the Orthodox Church in view of the danger that threatened her from the Jesuits and Uniates. From 1645 he became abbot of several Orthodox monasteries. In 1647, Pyotr Mohyla bequeathed to Innokenty Gizel the title of "benefactor and trustee of Kiev schools" and entrusted supervision of the Kiev-Mohyla Collegium. In 1648, Gisel took over as rector of this educational institution. He became Archimandrite of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra in 1656. Gisel was repeatedly awarded by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and enjoyed his respect for his devotion to Orthodoxy and Russia. The Little Russian people especially fell in love with Gizel, becoming attached to him with all their heart. In order not to part with him, he refused more than once from the highest positions offered to him. Known for his literary and publishing activities (see "Kyiv Synopsis", "Kiev-Pechersky Patericon", etc.) Gisel was of the opinion that God, being everywhere, is involved in every essence, and this is what confronts him with the material world. Gisel denied the presence of substantial changes in the sky and proved the homogeneity of earthly and heavenly matter. He argued that movement is any changes that occur in the material world, in particular in society, and thus showed movement from a qualitative, rather than mechanistic, side. In 1645-1647 he taught the course "Essay on all philosophy" (Opus totius philosophiae) at the Kiev Collegium, which had a noticeable impact on the academic tradition of the late 17th - early 18th centuries. Theologian, philosopher, cultural and church figure. An outstanding figure in the public and church life of Ukraine in the second half of the 17th century. Professor and rector of the Kiev-Mohyla Collegium, Archimandrite of the Caves Monastery. Innokenty Gizel (presumably, his last name could have sounded a little differently - Kisel) was born in Prussia, but devoted his whole life to Ukraine. As a young man, Gizel arrived in Kyiv and entered the Kyiv Collegium, where he showed outstanding abilities. Metropolitan P. Mohyla sent a talented student to study in Poland and England at his own expense. Returning, Gizel took the tonsure and was elected professor of philosophy at the Kiev-Mohyla Collegium; and in 1646 he was appointed its rector. At the same time, he was abbot of two Kiev monasteries - Kirillovsky and Nikolaevsky. From 1656 until the end of his life, Gizel was the archimandrite of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, where, under his leadership, the monastery's printing house twice (in 1661 and 1678) reprinted the chronicle of the monastery - "The Kiev-Pechersk Patericon". In the Assumption Cathedral of the Caves Monastery, according to the will, Gizel was buried. Until the beginning of the XIX century. in the Kiev-Mohyla Collegium there was a tradition of holding public debates, to which representatives of secular and spiritual authorities, as well as everyone who wished, were invited. One of the first well-known disputes took place in 1646, when rector Gizel entered into a polemic with the teacher of the Kiev Jesuit Collegium Chekhov on the topic "The Descent of the Holy Spirit." In his political views, Gisel took the position of fighting the enemies of Orthodoxy and therefore condemned the attempts of the Ukrainian hetmans to enter into an alliance with Catholic Poland or Muslim Turkey. In 1667, he wrote about this to Hetman P. Doroshenko in connection with the latter's conclusion of an agreement with the Tatars. With regard to the alliance with Moscow, Gisel took an ambiguous position. Like most Ukrainian clergy, he believed that an alliance with Orthodox Russia would save the Ukrainian people from foreign religious oppression. However, the Archimandrite of the Caves opposed the punitive campaigns against the Right-Bank Ukraine, which Russian troops carried out during the Ruin. In a letter to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich in 1661, he wrote that such military operations were no different from Catholic or Tatar pogroms of Orthodox shrines. In addition, Gisel considered the subordination of the Kiev Metropolis to the Moscow Patriarchate as an anti-canonical and sinful act. In 1667, he, along with other Kiev clergy at a feast, refused to raise a cup for the health of the Kiev voivode P. Sheremetev and Moscow's protege, Hetman I. Bryukhovetsky, calling the latter a villain. Despite this, Alexei Mikhailovich favored both the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery and its archimandrite: he ordered various publications from the monastery printing house and often made significant donations to the monastery. Gisel paid great attention to upbringing and education. The range of his activities was quite wide - preaching, science, literature, publishing. Gizel's works had a polemical focus, and his sermons defended the rights and privileges of the Kiev Metropolis. L. Baranovich called Gizel for his mind "Ukrainian Aristotle". Gisel is the author of the theological and ethical treatise "Peace with the God of Man", which outlines humanistic views and facts from the history and life of Ukraine in the 17th century. He also owns a number of treatises and training courses on philosophy in Latin and Ukrainian book language. In the work "Essay on all philosophy" (1645-1646), idealistic concepts were combined with materialistic tendencies. In his reflections, Gisel used the philosophical heritage of antiquity and modern times: the main views of the academic philosophy of Aristotle, complicated by Neoplatonism, traditional for Ukrainian scientific thought; outstanding thoughts of Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes and other contemporaries. Gisel recognized the postulates about the impossibility of creating and destroying matter, about the homogeneity of "heavenly" and "earthly" matter. Gisel, like most Mohyla philosophers, saw the meaning of life in creative work and the creation of social good. Recognizing the free will of man, he gave priority to the mind, which makes it possible to make a choice between good and evil. The most outstanding book, the authorship of which is attributed to the Archimandrite of the Caves Monastery Gizel, is Synopsis, the first Ukrainian historical treatise. It is possible that Gisel edited this book and led the team of authors who selected the necessary texts and translated from Polish the chronicle of M. Strynkowski, which was widely used in the Synopsis. "Synopsis" examines a wide range of issues of ancient history: the origin of the Slavs, their language and name; the emergence of the Russian people; the foundation of Kyiv and the deeds of the first Kiev princes, in particular Vladimir; the baptism of Russia and the spread of Christianity; the conquest of Kyiv by the Lithuanian prince Gediminas. Gisel also considered the issues of contemporary history - the main story was brought up to 1651, when A. Kisel became the Kiev governor. The author also mentions two sieges of Chigirin, 1677 and 1678. The book does not mention at all such important historical events as the signing of the Union of Brest in 1596 and the uprising of B. Khmelnitsky in 1648. The Kyiv "Synopsis" was the basis of Russian historiography: references to this work are contained in almost all modern textbooks on source studies and historiography not only Ukraine, but also Russia. It was one of the most frequently reprinted books available to readers. Until the 19th century "Synopsis" was considered a textbook of "home history" in Ukraine, Russia and Belarus. The main ideas of Synopsis are Orthodox pan-Slavism and the glorification of Kyiv as the most ancient Orthodox center of all Russia. The creation of such a literary work determined the needs of the Ukrainian national revival of the 1670-1680s, when cultural figures sought to prove the greatness of their people, who began to establish themselves in the international arena as an independent nation, which had long been under foreign wrath. With the strengthening of the role of Kyiv as a capital city, the need arose to prove the continuity between the capital of the authoritative Kievan Rus and the main city of Ukraine-Hetmanate of the 17th century. Of course, modern historical science does not agree with all the statements and conclusions of Gisel. The reason is that the author of the Synopsis used the works of Polish chroniclers (Dlugosh, Chekhovsky, Stryikovsky), who, in turn, relied on ancient chronicles, often distorting the historical facts presented in them and creating their own interpretations of events. Often these interpretations were completely legendary or fictional and, as a rule, devoid of real historical ground. From the Synopsis, these inventions of the Polish chroniclers migrated to historical literature as reliable facts, but later they were refuted by M. Lomonosov and other researchers. So, the ethnonym “Slavs” and the names of the first Kiev princes (Svyatoslav, Yaroslav, Mstislav) Gizel considered formed from the word “glory”, proudly noting that the ancestors of the Slavs were distinguished by courage and military prowess. The author also recalls completely fantastic “details” of Russian history - about the participation of Slavic squads in the campaigns of Alexander the Great, which allegedly confirms the corresponding letter of the great conqueror. However, many of the facts mentioned in the Synopsis are now considered reliable by researchers. So, many historians agree with the founding date of Kyiv - 430. Gizel's story about the Slavic pagan pantheon is also interesting - a unique source of the spiritual history of pre-Christian Russia, naming the names and functions of the Slavic gods: Perun, Veles, Lada, Lelya, Kupala, Kolyada, Tur, Dazhbog, Stribog, Simargl, Mokosh. Many facts from Kiev history are important for studying the history of Ukraine in general and Kyiv in particular: about the burial of Prince Oleg on Mount Shchekavytsia, about the origin of the words "Cossacks" and "Cossacks", etc. Thanks to this, "Synopsis" still remains one of the most significant sources of national history.

Innokenty Gizel - Kyiv scientist, was born in Prussia, in a Reformed family. In his youth, he moved to Kyiv, converted to Orthodoxy, attracted the attention of Peter Mohyla and was sent by him abroad for scientific studies. Judging by the "Synopsis", which reveals an inclination towards history in the author, and by the "World", which speaks in detail about the rights and duties of a Christian, one can think that Gisel, in addition to theology, also studied history and jurisprudence abroad. Upon returning to Kyiv, Gizel was a teacher and rector of the Kiev Collegium. Under him, L. Baranovich was a teacher of the college, students were Galyatovsky, Slavinetsky, Satanovsky, probably Simeon Polotsky. Gisel maintained frequent relations with the Moscow government on monastic economic and political issues. In 1654, Gisel was in Moscow with various petitions from the Little Russian elders and the clergy. In 1656, Gizel received the rank of archimandrite and rector of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra and retained it until his death in 1683. I. was a supporter of Moscow, but at times he undertook to defend the "liberties" of Little Russia. Tsars Alexei Mikhailovich and Fedor Alekseevich and the ruler Sofia Alekseevna favored I. and sent him valuable gifts, but he was watered. the requests were dismissed. I. was one of the most learned people in Little Russia in the 17th century. L. Baranovich called him Aristotle in his letters and gave him his literary works to review and correct. He participated in public disputes with Catholics, delivered sermons, which, according to St. Demetrius of Rostov, "the weak were reinforced as if with medicine," assisted the Little Russian scientists in the publication of their works. In 1669 Gisel published an extensive Op. "Peace with God to man" (again in 1671), which has no theological significance. The book is dedicated to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. In 1690, the Moscow Patriarch Joachim recognized this book as harmful, new-born, for subordinating the author to "external teachers", i.e. Catholics, in the interpretation of some obscure religious issues. Gisel's book speaks in detail about sin in general and about individual sins in particular, about repentance, a confessor, etc. In the book there are curious everyday details in places. The attitude towards people is gentle, humane, which is especially revealed in the permission from the obligation to fast for old, weak, burdened people. Against the Jesuit Boyma, Gisel published a polemical Op. "On True Faith". According to the chronicle of Theodosius Sofonovich, Gizel compiled the famous "Synopsis" (ed. 1674, 1676, 1680, 1718 and 1810 ), which was the main textbook on history before Lomonosov (for it, see Synopsis and Russian historiography). Gisel enjoyed the fame of a kind and charitable person.

Innokenty Gizel - Archimandrite of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, was born in the former Polish Prussia from the parents of the Reformed Confession, and studied there from childhood; but in his youth, having come to Kyiv, he turned to the Greek-Russian Church and accepted monasticism in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. When the Metropolitan of Kyiv Peter Mohyla, intending to establish Latin-Russian schools in Kyiv, sent capable people from Balti and Monasticism to foreign schools for education to become a teacher, Gizel was sent to the Lvov Academy among them. At the end of his circle of sciences there, he returned to Kyiv and was appointed Teacher and Preacher. In 1645 he was consecrated hegumen Dyatlovitsky, and in 1646 he was renamed the Kiev-Bratsky Monastery and Rector of the Academy; in 1650 he was transferred with the same rank to the St. Cyril Monastery, from there in 1652 to Kiev-Nikolaev, with the continuation of the Rector's position; and in 1656 he was promoted to the Archimandrite of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra and died there on February 24, 1684. St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov, who was then Abbot, in 1685 composed and spoke to him for a year's commemoration of the Laudable Word, which is printed in the Collected Works of his. According to the will of the founder of Kiev schools, Metropolitan Peter Mohyla, Gizel had the title of Benefactor and Trustee of these after his death. When he was Archimandrite of the Kiev-Pechersk, after the Grave he undertook to collect and supplement the Menaia of the Readers: but this work remained to be completed by St. Demetrius. Gizeleva's works:

1) A theological book entitled: Peace to man with God, or Holy repentance, reconciling the Gods of man, the teachings from the Holy Scriptures and the Teachers of the Church collected, printed in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra in 1669 in a sheet. There are several obscene interpretations in this book, and in the Chapter on permitted and prohibited degrees of kinship in marriages, much is dissimilar to the rules of the Pilot's Book. For this reason, by the Decree of the Holy Synod of 1766, it is forbidden to refer to this book in deciding the degrees of kinship and marriage cases;

2) Synopsis, or a brief description of the beginning of the Slavic people and the first Kiev princes before the Sovereign Tsar Feodor Alekseevich, printed with the first stamping in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra in 1674, then in 1678 and 1680 in the same place, all in 4 parts of the sheet . Of these, the latest edition is more complete than the first. The third edition of 1680 has been doubled in text terms, and an illustrative part has been added:

This book, full of errors and malfunctions, however, is not Gizelevo's own work, but was abridged by him or by someone else under him and supplemented from the Chronicle of Theodosius Sofonovich, Hegumen of the Kiev-Gold-Overkho-Mikhailovsky Monastery (see the article about him below). But since there was no other printed Russian History before the publication of Lomonosov's Brief Russian Chronicler, this only Synopsis was repeatedly printed at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, so that from 1718 to 1810 there were already 9 Academic editions. Stralenberg, and following him, and Dalin attributed this work to some Patriarch Konstantin, and the latter even called him an ancient Russian Historian. In 1823, this Synopsis was published in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra with the addition of murals of the Grand Dukes, Tsars and Emperors of Russia, Grand Dukes of Lithuania, Kings of Poland, Specific Princes of Russia, Metropolitans of Kiev, Hetmans of Little Russia, Khans of the Great Hordes and Crimean, Governors and Castellanes of Kiev ;

3) Gisel is also credited with a book called: The Science of the Mystery of Holy Repentance, that is, the Truthful and Sacramental Confession, printed in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra in 1671 in the 4th share of the sheet;

4) There is also in the Library of the Moscow Synodal his handwritten book in Polish called: True Faith (Prawdziva Wiara), composed in response to a letter from the Jesuit Pavel Boyma, published in 1668 in Polish in Vilna under the name Old Faith about the power of St. Peter and Paul of Rome, and about the procession of the Holy Spirit.

The fourth edition looks like this:

Innocent (Gizel). [Synopsis] or Brief collection from various chroniclers, about the beginning of the Slavic-Russian people, and the original book (ya) zekh b (o) the saved city of Kyiv about the life of the blessed great prince (ya) of Kiev and all Russia, the first autocrat of Vladimir and about the heirs of the bl (a) hot (e) stive power of his (o) Russian, even before the presvet (lago) and bl (a) good g (osu) d (a) rya n (a) our c (a) rya, and led (any) prince (I) Feodor Alekseevich, all the Great, and the Lesser, and the White of Russia, the autocrat. ... By bl (a) g (o) s (lo) vein ... Innokenty Giziel ... archimandrite also with (vy) ty Lavra, depicted by type. - - Kyiv: printing house of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, 1680 (7188) [not earlier than 1681]. - tit. l., l. , 1-224 p. [those. 228] p.: ill.; 4. Tit. l. in a set frame. Pages in linear frames. Illustrations: 2 from 2 boards: Noah's Sacrifice, signed: "Roku 1678 A:K" (l.v.); “Tsar Vladimir”, signed: “Roku 1680 m (e) s (i) tsa dekemvr? days? 30. I: K:” (p. 60). Russian coat of arms with the initials of the title and name of Tsar Fedor Alekseevich: "Bzh M V G Ts I V K". Ornament: headpieces 1; endings 1; initials 2 with 2 boards. Print: Single color. Typesetting: The first word of the title is printed in Greek script. Publication type:

There are three identical in composition Kiev editions of the Synopsis, dated 1680. The sequence of editions was determined by S.I. Maslov on the basis of the study of their text, filigrees, wear of ornamental boards. The publication belongs to group B. Distinctive features of the publication: in notebook "A" there are no errors in the numbering of pages; us. 223 verses are not separated from the previous text by a typographic ruler, the typesetting ending is placed outside the linear frame. Corrected 3rd Edition typos. There are discrepancies in the text, indicating editorial work, so in the article “On the arrival? ... Zaporizhian troops to Kiev” the names of the Gadyach, Poltava and Mirgorod colonels are named (p. 217-218) (Maslov, 1928, p. 10-11 )...

After all, every person needs to know about his homeland and tell other questioners. For people who do not know their kind are considered stupid. Theodosius Safonovich, abbot of the Kiev Golden-Domed Monastery of St. Michael (XVII century) "Kyiv synopsis" is a bright and interesting phenomenon of Russian culture, literature and history. The work was first published in the printing house of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra in 1674 and was reprinted more than 30 times during the 17th-19th centuries. What made this work of the 17th century so in demand by Russian society for more than two centuries? The 17th century was a turning point in the history of Europe - the New Age began. Significant changes have affected the social, economic and political spheres. One of the manifestations of new social trends was the emergence of nation-states built on the unity of the people-nation, common historical destiny, culture (an important part of which was religion) and the choice of a single model of socio-economic development. Eastern Europe was undergoing massive changes, and many signs testified to the transformation of the "Russian land" into the "Russian state". The Kyiv Synopsis was not only a reflection of the process of unification of Russia as a people and Russia as a state, but also as a means of fighting for a unifying idea. The two ideological centers of this historical movement were Kyiv and Moscow. In this regard, the history of the publication and reprinting of Synopsis is indicative. The initiative to develop a unifying ideology came from Kyiv, and after the first edition of 1674, in which the narrative ended with the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, the second edition of 1678 followed, in the text of which minor changes and additions were made related to the accession to the throne of Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich. The number of chapters, and there were 110 of them, has not changed. The third edition, also produced in the printing house of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, was supplemented with six chapters about the Chigirin campaigns of the united Russian army, which prevented the Turkish-Crimean aggression. Subsequent editions, starting from 1736, were issued by the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences. The latest Kiev edition was taken as the basis, and since then Synopsis has consistently included 116 chapters. The changes affected something else: without making a translation, which, due to the commonality of the Slavic (Old Russian) language and its insignificant archaism, was, in fact, not needed, the St. Petersburg publishers used the Petrine civil font instead of Cyrillic. In addition, the publishers considered it necessary to add an explanation about the prophecy of Dmitry Volynsky before the Battle of Kulikovo, since it was based on pagan content. The last three editions of 1823, 1836 and 1861 were again carried out in Kyiv. What is a synopsis? Who wrote the "Kyiv Synopsis"? Synopsis (Greek) - review, presentation, collection of some material. Modern analogues of this form - abstract, manual, encyclopedic article. In the tradition of ancient Greek science, the term was used to refer to material presented in a concise, non-judgmental form and containing comprehensive information about any subject. In Byzantium, synopses were mainly theological and historical texts. The main principle of presenting historical texts was chronological. The compilers of synopses were called weather forecasters. The Kyiv Synopsis is a good example of a systematic presentation of history. It contains selected and presented in chronological order brief information about the main events of Russian history, which, from the author's point of view, had a fateful significance for the people and the state. This principle of presentation is a transitional form from chronicle writing (compilation of chronicles), characteristic of the Middle Ages, to historical scientific research, which has become the main form of understanding history in modern and contemporary times. The chronicle was created by a person immersed in a theocentric worldview. God was the creator of man and his history; he alone possessed the knowledge of the meaning of the historical process. Man knew the beginning (the creation of man, Adam, Eve, Noah) and the end - the Second Coming of Jesus Christ and the Last Judgment. The chronicle was created for God as evidence of the earthly life of individuals and peoples, therefore the chronicler, realizing his mediating role, did not dare to give an individual assessment of events, facts and people. He was not the "creator" of history, but its witness. The chronicler knew that the main thing for a person is the preservation of the soul in order to stand at the Last Judgment at the right hand of the Creator. If he gave assessments to historical characters and events, then they concerned the observance of the norms of Christian morality. This was his "teaching" position. Troubles, failures, defeats were interpreted as a warning and punishment for sins. But the chronicler was not a pessimist; he expressed deep optimism, since God, who endowed the life and history of the Christian people with meaning, will surely preserve and save him, provided that he preserves his soul and is faithful to his destiny.

In modern times, a revolutionary upheaval is taking place in consciousness: theocentrism is being replaced by anthropocentrism. Man becomes the creator of the world, culture, history, morality and God himself. History turns into an arena for the battle of human forces: its desires, ideas, delusions, etc. A historical work becomes an analytical work, where the author evaluates the play of human forces from an interested position. This simplified analysis of the worldview revolution is presented here for the sole purpose of showing the features of the text of the Kiev Synopsis. Source

Kyiv synopsis

Synopsis Kyiv

Synopsis Kievsky (« Synopsis, or a brief description of the beginning of the Russian people”) - a compilation review of the history of Southwestern Russia, compiled in the second half of the 17th century and published for the first time in the printing house of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, for the last time in Kyiv in. The author is allegedly Innokenty Gizel. Until the beginning of the 19th century, Synopsis was used as a school history textbook.

The book talks about the unity of Great and Little Russia, about a single state tradition of Kievan Rus, about a common Rurik dynasty and about a single Russian, "Orthodox Russian" people.

According to the "Synopsis", the people "Russian", "Russian", "Slavo-Russian" are one. Kyiv is "the glorious supreme and all the people of the Russian main city." Russia is one. After centuries of humiliation and separation of the "Princeship of Kiev" from "Russia", the "mercy of the Lord" finally came true, and "God-saving, glorious and original of all Russia, the royal city of Kyiv, due to its many changes", returned to the Sovereign Russia, under the hand of the all-Russian Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, as "the eternal fatherland of the scepter-bearing forefathers", an organic part of the "Russian people". According to the historian Miller, the author of the Synopsis pursued the goal of giving the Muscovite tsar motivation to continue the struggle against the Commonwealth for the liberation of the rest of the "single Orthodox people" from Catholic rule and to facilitate the incorporation into the Russian ruling class by the elite of the Hetmanate.

As historian Ivan Lappo wrote in his work,

Some twenty years after the Pereyaslav oath of Bohdan Khmelnitsky and the Cossacks, the idea of ​​the unity of the Russian people, the idea of ​​the organic unity of Little Russia with Great Russia, the state union of the entire Russian people, found its clear and precise expression in Little Russian literature. The first edition in Kyiv in 1674, Synopsis, based on the historical idea of ​​a united Russia, consolidated the union of Little Russia with Sovereign Russia, completed in 1654.

As some scholars believe, the main part of the "Synopsis" consisted of an abbreviation of the chronicle of the abbot of the Mikhailovsky Monastery Theodosius Safonovich. "Synopsis" was widely used both in Little Russia and throughout Russia throughout the 18th century and went through 25 editions, of which the last three were published in the 19th century. The "Synopsis" outlines the ancient times of the Russian people, about which the initial chronicler knows nothing: according to the interpretation of the "Synopsis", the progenitor of the Moscow peoples was Mosokh, the sixth son of Afet, the grandson of Noah. On the other hand, the compiler of the Synopsis knew little of the Russian chronicle. Being a South Russian work, "Synopsis" focused its interest on the history of Kyiv, almost completely bypassing Vladimir and Moscow in silence and passing on from the events after the Tatar invasion only about those that were directly related to Kiev: about the fate of the Kiev Metropolitanate, about the accession of Kyiv to Lithuania and so on. In the first edition, "Synopsis" ended with the annexation of Kyiv to Moscow, and in the next two editions, the Chigirin campaigns were added. In Moscow, "Synopsis" was a success because it was at one time the only educational book on Russian history.

The spirit of the Synopsis also reigns in our historiography of the 18th century, determines the tastes and interests of readers, serves as a starting point for most researchers, provokes protests from the most serious of them - in a word, serves as the main background against which the development of the historical science of the past takes place. centuries.

Milyukov P. N. The main currents of Russian historical thought. SPb., 1913. S. 7.

Despite the numerous editions, Synopsis was copied by hand for a long time. The Russian historian Vasily Tatishchev directly pointed to the "Synopsis" as one of the sources of his views, and the elements of his scheme, which relate to the unity of Great and Little Russia, can be found in all the authors of the multi-volume "History of Russia": Nikolai Karamzin, Sergei Solovyov and Vasily Klyuchevsky. Therefore, the concepts of "Synopsis" as a joint heritage of the Great Russian and Little Russian elites were later fought by Ukrainian nationalists, in particular Mikhail Grushevsky.

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .

See what "Kyiv Synopsis" is in other dictionaries:

- (synopsis less often), synopsis, husband. (Greek synopsis review) (philol.). Collection of articles, materials on any issue. Kyiv synopsis (name of the first compiling textbook on Russian history, published in 1674). Dictionary… … Explanatory Dictionary of Ushakov

- (Greek synopsis review) (Kyiv synopsis) the first educational historical work published in Kyiv in 1674. The alleged author is Innokenty Gizel. Information about the origin and life of the Slavs, the history of the Old Russian state, Ukraine, Russia ... Large encyclopedic Dictionary

This term has other meanings, see Synopsis (meanings). Synopsis (an acceptable version of the synopsis, taking into account the original Greek stress) (other Greek σύνοψις, from Greek words ... Wikipedia

I Synopsis (Greek sýnopsis review) 1) a collection of information, materials, articles on any issue, most often arranged chronologically. The term is applied mainly to historical writings. 2) In theological literature, the code ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

- (from Greek sunopis review), Kyiv synopsis, ist. work, ed. in Kyiv in 1674. Innocent Gizel is considered the author of S. S. was the first educational book on history and enjoyed wide popularity until the middle. 19th century (survived about 30 editions) ... Soviet historical encyclopedia

SYNOPSIS, SYNOPSIS, and; well. [from Greek. synopsis review] Knizhn. Sequential presentation of events, chronicle. // Consolidated, summary statement of what l. * * * SYNOPSIS "SYNOPSIS" (Greek synopsis review) ("Kyiv synopsis"), the first educational ... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

- (συνοψις, from the Greek words: συν with and όπτω I look) in the scientific nomenclature of the ancient Greeks meant a presentation in one general review, in a concise form, without detailed argumentation and without detailed theoretical reasoning, of one whole subject or ... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron

- "Kyiv synopsis" (Greek sýnopsis review), the first educational historical work, published in 1674 in Kyiv (until the middle of the 19th century it went through 30 editions). The supposed author is Archimandrite of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra Innokenty Gizel. Contains information... encyclopedic Dictionary

Synopsis has several meanings: Synopsis in science, presentation in one general overview, in a concise form, without detailed argumentation and without detailed theoretical reasoning, of one whole subject or one field of knowledge. Synopsis ... ... Wikipedia