The author talks about the complex and controversial life and work, analyzes the socio-political views of the thinker against the backdrop of a complex historical situation. Two periods of Smotrytsky's life and work are considered - the first, when he was an active supporter and participant in protests against Catholic dominance in Belarus, and the second - the last years of his life, when Smotrytsky moved away from this struggle. His scientific activity as a philologist, as the author of the famous "Grammar" of the Slavic language, which has retained its scientific significance for 150 years, is covered in detail.
FOREWORD
There are individuals in the history who are born of their era, but their significance and fame go far beyond its limits. There are also those who cannot be imagined outside of their time, outside the conditions in which they were brought up and lived. Smotrytsky combines the features of one and the other. Indeed, when we pronounce his name, we remember him first of all as the author of the well-known "Grammar" of the Church Slavonic language, which Lomonosov, together with Magnitsky's "Arithmetic", called "the gates of his learning." Less. Smotrytsky's social and literary activity as a polemical writer is known. It is closely connected with the era, incomprehensible and inexplicable without it. Without Smotritsky, it is difficult to imagine the development of literature and social thought in one of the most difficult periods in the history of Belarus - in the first quarter of the 17th century. As a son of his time, he reflected all its complexity and inconsistency.
Melety Smotrytsky attracted the attention of many researchers. Polish, German, Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian and other scientists wrote about him. Separate archival documents about the life of Smotrytsky were published, his works were published in translation and in the original, monographic studies and short articles were written about the life and various aspects of Smotrytsky's activity. The group of works devoted to the analysis of Smotrytsky's philological views is especially significant. And this attention is natural, because his "Grammar" retained its scientific significance for 150 years after publication.
The main advantage of all pre-revolutionary literature about Smotrytsky is the large amount of factual material that has been identified and collected. In their conclusions and interpretations, some authors were more objective and impartial (K. Kharlampovich, K. Elenevsky, A. Osinsky), others were tendentious (M. Koyalovich, S. Golubev, A. Demyanovich, Jesuit and Uniate historians).
However, all of them are characterized by one drawback, which essentially follows from the limited worldview. For them, it was important to find out the significance of Smotrytsky's church activities, the essence of the religious struggle of that period, and, depending on this, assess his place in the history of religious life. Pre-revolutionary historians saw only passionate and furious "theological squabbles" in the social struggle of that period. In their opinion, "if only people of that time could come to an agreement among themselves regarding heavenly things, then they would have no reason to quarrel over earthly matters." They either insufficiently, or did not at all concern the analysis of Smotrytsky's class position in the religious and political struggle that unfolded after the Brest Church Union. Therefore, they ignored the role of social and class ideas in the formation of the individual and in the nature of Smotrytsky's work, and placed all emphasis on one side - the religious one, which they illuminated as central and the only one both in Smotrytsky's activities and in the public life of that time.
In the post-October period, Soviet researchers paid insufficient attention to the study of social thought in Belarus and Ukraine of this period, the activities and views of Smotrytsky in particular. And only in recent years, mainly in the works of Belarusian and Ukrainian scientists devoted to the history of social thought and literature, Smotrytsky is not passed over in silence. Among these works, first of all, it should be noted A. Korshunov’s “Christamat na old Belarusian language literature” (Minsk, 1959), the collection “From the history of philosophical and socio-political thought of Belarus” (Minsk, 1962), the book - the beginning of the XVII century. in the fight against Vatzhanu i Unp "P. Zagaiko (KiTv, 1957), "In the glorious place of Vilna" A. Anushkin (M., 1962), "From the history of the socio-political life of the cities of Belarus in the 16th - half of the 17th centuries." 3. Kopyssky (“Proceedings of the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of the BSSR”, issue 3. Minsk, 1958) and others.
It is also impossible not to mention the latest works of P. Yaremenko "Restoroga" - an Ukrainian anti-Ushat pamphlet on the cob of the 17th century. (Kyiv, 1963) and “Ukrainian polemicist Christopher Fshalet and Yogo “Apokrisis” (Lv1v, 1964), which gives a detailed description of the period we are studying, an analysis of major polemical treatises of that time and an assessment of the religious and literary controversy, an active participant in which was Melenty Smotrytsky.
It seems to us that the gap in the study of the personality and activities of Smotritsky by Soviet scientists was not accidental: with his contradictory inconsistent position in the national liberation movement, he did not arouse the interest of researchers. Nevertheless, without Smotritsky it is impossible to fully imagine the social and cultural life in Belarus at the beginning of the 17th century. All this requires a thorough and objective study of his activities, which guided the author of this study.
EVERY EPOCH IS DIFFERENT
The years of life of M. Smotritsky fall on one of the critical periods in the history of Belarus. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania of that time, which included Belarus and Ukraine, was the economic oppression and arbitrariness of secular and spiritual feudal lords, it was the class struggle of the masses for their rights and human dignity, it was national and religious humiliation and oppression. The picture of life in general terms is quite vivid: the vast possessions of the princes with numerous settlements of peasants, either completely or partially dependent, enslaved by countless requisitions, chinches, etc .; lively cities with a variety of crafts, with merchants who trade, with various religious temples; numerous fortified monasteries with their own pharmacies and "spitals", printing houses, libraries and schools - after all, it was a time when "priests got the monopoly on intellectual education, and education itself thus assumed a predominantly theological character"
Two unions - political Lublin and church Brest - influenced the mindset and social movement of that time. In 1569, an agreement was approved at the Seimas in Lublin, according to which the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland formed a single state - the Commonwealth. It was an alliance that actually asserted the political, socio-economic and national dominance of Poland and determined its aggressive, colonial policy towards the principality of Lithuania. Of all the consequences of this political act, we will briefly consider only a few.
By virtue of the agreement, the Polish feudal lords could have land holdings in the Principality of Lithuania, which they were not slow to take advantage of. Now the peasants were exploited not only by their magnates - the Radziwills, the Slutskys, the Czarto-ryskys, the Volovichs, the Khreptoviches, the Khodkeviches, the Tyshkeviches, the Kishki, the Solomeretskys, and others, but also the Polish ones, who created their farmsteads based on corvee labor on still free lands. The Polish kings generously distributed the Belarusian lands into lifetime possession. The magnate Lukomsky was granted the whole Krichev starostvo with tens of thousands of peasants. The possessions of the feudal lord Voitkevich consisted of several districts, the king himself owned large land estates - Mogilev, Bobruisk, Gorodets, some elders with cities and villages. Domestic and foreign feudal lords, feeling the strength and support of royal power, intensified economic exploitation in their possessions. The desire of the Belarusian princes and gentry to be like the Polish magnates and gentry in everything demanded more and more expenses, which naturally resulted in the desire to squeeze as much income out of their possessions as possible.
As a result of the union, a large multinational state was formed. But the ruling class of Poland, supported by the top of the Catholic Church, launched an attack on the national culture of the Belarusian, Lithuanian and Ukrainian peoples, exalting the Polish nation and culture in every possible way and humiliating the national dignity of other peoples, their language, cultural traditions, national customs and customs. It was a course towards the spiritual enslavement of non-Polish peoples, towards the destruction of their language, culture, towards Polonization. National languages began to be gradually replaced, and Polish became generally accepted in communication and in office work; national features were subjected to ridicule and humiliation, national customs were desecrated. The vast majority of local feudal lords quickly began to abandon everything of their own, national. Lithuanian humanist of the 16th century. Dauksha "speaks with bitterness and reproach about the Lithuanian gentry, who, thirty years after the Union of Lublin, began to be ashamed of their native language."
Lithuanian, Belarusian and Ukrainian feudal lords and the gentry did not want to appear worse and lower than their Polish brothers in class in anything. This was expressed both in external imitation and in borrowing a way of thinking, certain norms of morality. Young people of princely and gentry families strove to receive education in Polish higher educational institutions. National features began to disappear in the construction and arrangement of dwellings, in clothing, their own, "grandfather's" customs in everyday life were forgotten. They began to build their houses according to the Western model: estates-castles, estates-fortresses; get luxurious carriages and rich furnishings, keep many servants, flaunt weapons and luxury. Language, clothing, cuisine, religion,. the whole way of life - everything has changed, nothing has remained of what would resemble one's own, national, original. There was only one estate title “pans and gentry to the law of the Roman and Greek”, and later this difference in faith will disappear completely in the entire gentry class of the Commonwealth.
Naturally, under these conditions, the lower classes, especially the peasantry, experienced national oppression not only from the side of the Polish authorities and magnates, but also from their local feudal lords, who showed contempt and intolerance for their slightest demands for independence and former rights. to manifestations of the national spirit and character.
Religious persecution was added to the class-economic and national oppression. The unlimited secular and spiritual power of the feudal lords gave them the opportunity to uncontrollably dispose of the conscience of their subjects. If this or that prince was of the Catholic faith, a follower of Luther or a supporter of Arianism and other religious sects, then he forcibly converted his subjects to the new faith. But this religious violence had, if one can say, a local significance, it once again confirmed the already disenfranchised and oppressed position of the subjects of the feudal lords, and especially the plebeian and peasant masses. From the end of the 16th century religious oppression and violence turned into the state policy of the feudal Catholic elite in relation to the Belarusian and Ukrainian peoples.
Over time, the Catholic Church, having taken a dominant position in Poland, began to implement its long-standing plans - plans for the union of the Orthodox Church with the Catholic Church under the leadership of the Pope. The Union of Lublin helped in many ways to implement their plans. Thanks to the church union, the Roman curia tried to compensate for the damage that had been inflicted on it by the reformation, when many countries - Germany, England, the Netherlands and some others - came out of the power of Catholicism. Through the union, the papacy tried to raise its prestige and expand the sphere of domination. The union of churches was also supposed to facilitate the possibility of subordination to the pope in the future of the rich Russian state. All this fueled the cosmopolitan ambitions of the popes during this period.
1. Grammar Slavonic correct syntagma. By the pandering of the many-sinful mnich Meletios Smotrisky, in the brotherhood of the Church of Vilna, at the Church of the Descent of the Most Holy and Life-Giving Spirit, established, wandering, won and accustomed, years from the incarnation of God the Word 1619. I rule the apostolic throne of the great Church of Constantinople, the Patriarch of Vilna, Mr. Father Timo fairy, Vilensky koinovy intercessor to Mr. Father Leonty Karpovich, archimandrite. In Evue, 1619. 252 pp. (504 p.). Signature below, according to notebooks (of which there are 31). On the reverse of the title page is the coat of arms of Prince Bogdan Oginsky; then: “A school teacher’s author”, and then comes another title page, on which the year 1618 is indicated, without indicating the place of publication; the reverse side is white. Epoch binding: boards covered with leather, brass clasps. 14.5x9.0 cm. Smotrytsky emphasized the need for conscious assimilation of educational material - "understand the words with your mind." He put forward 5 levels of training: "look, heed, understand, consider, remember." The main philological work of the Eastern Slavs!
2. Slavonic grammar by Meletius Smotritsky, published (multiplied) in Moscow, 1648 (beginning 7156 December 6, end 7156 February 2). Alexei; Joseph. Lines 19. Font: 10 lines = 78 mm. 388 sheets; their numbering and the signature of the notebooks (of which there are 48.5) at the bottom. In the beginning (sheets 1-44) - Preface of the Grammar. At the end - Afterword. Ornament: initials 1; screensavers 16 from 3 boards. Printed in two colors: black and red. Epoch binding: boards covered with leather, brass clasps. 21.8x17cm.
In 1618, in the town of Evie, near Vilna, an ABC Book of the Slovenska Language was printed. The title indicated that this "guidance" was prepared by the monks of the Vilna Monastery and that the primer was printed on July 24, 1618. Meletiy Smotrytsky also took over the publication of the Primer. Almost at the same time, in 1618-1619, the main philological work of the Eastern Slavs, Slavonic Correct Cvntaґma (Evye, now Vevis near Vilnius), was published - the basis of Church Slavonic grammatical science for the next two centuries, which withstood many reprints, revisions and translations. It consists of the following parts: spelling, etymology, syntax, prosody. Written on the model of Greek grammars, Smotrytsky's work reflects the specific phenomena of the Church Slavonic language. He owns the establishment of the system of cases characteristic of the Slavic languages (in this Smotrytsky was ahead of Western grammarians, who adjusted the cases of living languages to the norms of the Latin language), the establishment of two conjugations of verbs, the definition (still not entirely accurate) of the type of verbs, etc .; extra letters of Slavic writing, which she does not need, are marked. Smotrytsky’s “Grammar” also has a section on versification, where instead of syllabic verse, it is proposed to use metric verse, as supposedly more characteristic of Slavic speech (in fact, it reproduces an authoritative ancient model; Meletius’ experiment with artificial meterization of the Church Slavonic language had no consequences). His "Grammar" is full of many examples that facilitate the assimilation of grammatical rules. It was repeatedly reprinted (Vilna, 1629; Kremenets, 1638, 1648; Moscow, 1648, 1721, with an approximation to the living Russian language and additional articles on the benefits of studying grammar) and had a great influence on the development of Russian philology and the teaching of grammar in schools. There, on the shore of the lake with the same name, at the beginning of the 17th century, the estate of the princes Oginsky was located, where in 1618 Bogdan Oginsky founded a printing house that printed Slavic and Polish books. "Grammar" Smotrytsky - an outstanding monument of Slavic grammatical thought.
Melety Smotrytsky (in the world - Maxim Gerasimovich Smotrytsky, there is also a mixed form of the name Maxentius, the pseudonym Theophilus Ortholog; genus predp. 1577-1578, the town of Smotrych or Kamenetz-Podolsky - December 17 (27), 1633 (Derman) - Archbishop of Polotsk; writer, activist enlightenment. Actively advocated the accession of the Orthodox Church, located on Ukrainian lands, to the union; proposals were rebuffed by circles united around Bishop Isaiah of Przemysl (Kopinsky). Ivan Fedorov, a participant in the editing and publication of the Ostroh Bible, Meletius received his primary education at the Ostroh School from his father and Greek Cyril Lukaris (in the future also the rector of the Ostroh School, and later the Patriarch of Constantinople), where he received the opportunity to master the Church Slavonic and Greek languages to perfection. the death of Smotrytsky's father, Prince Konstantin Ostrozhsky sent a capable young man for further education at the Jesuit Vilna Academy (this happened, according to various sources, in 1594 or in 1601; the first option is considered more reliable); then Smotrytsky traveled a lot abroad, listened to lectures at various universities, especially at the Protestant Leipzig, Wittenberg and Nuremberg universities. He probably received his doctorate in medicine abroad. Returning, he settled with Prince B. Solomeretsky near Minsk. Smotrytsky often traveled to Minsk, fought against the union, as a result of which many Uniates returned to Orthodoxy and an Orthodox brotherhood was founded in Minsk. Around 1608 he moved to Vilna, was a member of the Vilna Brotherhood, anonymously published a treatise "Αντίγραφη" ("Answer"); probably taught at a fraternal school. Actively participated in the national-religious struggle. Under the pseudonym Theophilus Ortholog in 1610, he published his most famous work "Θρηνος" ("Lament"), like most of Smotrytsky's other polemical works - in Polish. In this work, the author scourges the bishops who have converted to the union, calls them to change their minds, but also criticizes the negligence and abuses of the Orthodox clergy; in polemics with Catholics, Smotrytsky acts as an encyclopedically educated person of his time, cites or mentions more than 140 authors - not only the fathers of the church, but also many ancient and revival scholars and writers. With this work, Smotrytsky gained immense popularity among the Orthodox; as he himself wrote, some contemporaries considered this book equal to the works of John Chrysostom and were ready to shed their blood and give their souls for it. Criticism of both the Catholic and Orthodox hierarchies, the display of religious and national persecution of the people of Little Russia and Belarus, and most importantly, the call for the active protection of their rights, greatly disturbed the Polish royal authorities. Sigismund III in 1610 forbade the sale and purchase of books by the Vilna Brotherhood under the threat of a fine of 5,000 gold pieces; The king ordered the local authorities to confiscate the fraternal printing house, take away and burn the books, and arrest the compositors and proofreaders, which was done. The editor and proofreader Leonty Karpovich ended up in prison; Smotritsky managed to avoid arrest. Very little information has been preserved about the life and work of Smotrytsky after the royal repressions. He probably returned to Little Russia; maybe he lived in Ostrog for some time and taught at the school there. Smotrytsky is considered one of the first rectors of the Kyiv fraternal school, organized in 1615-1616, where he taught Church Slavonic and Latin. Then he returned to Vilna, where he lived in the Holy Spirit Monastery. Under pressure or even at the categorical demand of the Vilna brotherhood, which could not remain indifferent to Smotrytsky's contacts with the Uniates, he became a monk under the name of Meletius. In 1616, his translation into the Little Russian language of the “Gospel of the instructive ... our father Callistus” was published.
"Grammar"consists of the following parts: spelling, etymology, syntax, prosody. Written on the model of Greek grammars, Smotrytsky's work reflects the specific phenomena of the Church Slavonic language. He owns the establishment of the system of cases characteristic of the Slavic languages (in this Smotrytsky was ahead of Western grammarians, who adjusted the cases of living languages to the norms of the Latin language), the establishment of two conjugations of verbs, the definition (still not entirely accurate) of the type of verbs, etc .; extra letters of Slavic writing, which she does not need, are marked. Smotrytsky's "Grammar" also has a section on versification, where instead of syllabic verse, it is proposed to use metric verse, as supposedly more characteristic of Slavic speech (in fact, it reproduces an authoritative ancient model; Meletius' experiment with artificial meterization of the Church Slavonic language had no consequences). His "Grammar" is full of many examples that facilitate the assimilation of grammatical rules. It was repeatedly reprinted (Vilna, 1629; Kremenets, 1638, 1648; Moscow, 1648, 1721, with an approximation to the living Russian language and additional articles on the benefits of studying grammar) and had a great influence on the development of Russian philology and the teaching of grammar in schools. In the alphabet books of the 17th century, extensive extracts were made from it. Smotrytsky's "grammar" was taken into account by the authors of a number of subsequent Slavic grammars published abroad - Heinrich Wilhelm Ludolf (Oxford, 1696), Ilya Kopievich (Amsterdam, 1706), Pavel Nenadovich (Rymnik, 1755), Stefan Vuyanovsky (Vienna, 1793) and Abraham Mrazovich (Vienna, 1794). Smotrytsky emphasized the need for conscious assimilation of educational material - "understand the words with your mind." He put forward 5 levels of training: "look, heed, understand, consider, remember." Some researchers mention a dictionary allegedly compiled by Smotrytsky around the same time, but no confirmation of this information was found. Equally doubtful is the information about the Greek grammar of Smotrytsky (allegedly published in 1615 in Cologne). However, his participation in the writing of the Primer of the Slavonic Language, published in 1618 in the same Evie, is confirmed. The reverse of the title page of the "Grammar" of 1619 adorns the coat of arms of Bogdan Oginsky, and the book itself has a dedication 
Patriarch Timothy of Constantinople and Archimandrite of the Vilna Monastery Leonty Karpovich. The Moscow edition of 1648 is the fourth in a row. Published by order of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and with the blessing of his spiritual father, Patriarch Joseph of Moscow, it appeared anonymously, in an "edited" form, supplemented by linguistic arguments, the authorship of which is attributed to Maxim Grek. The main text is preceded by a rather extensive preface, which contains maxims about the benefits of grammar, the need to read the Holy Scriptures, as well as the "mental guidance" of the Church Fathers. "Grammar" is divided into four parts: spelling, etymology, syntax and prosody, representing a new system of stress in versification. “What do these four parts teach. Spelling teaches the right to write, and to strike directly with a voice in speeches. Etymology teaches sayings in their own parts to be more precisely exalted. Syntax teaches words more difficult than sychinyat. Prosodia teaches with a meter, or a measure of quantity, to compose verses. Initially designed to resist the intensification of the Polonization of the western region, Smotritsky's book played an important role in the cultural development of Russia. Before the appearance in 1755 of the “Russian Grammar” by M.V. Lomonosov, it was the main textbook of the Church Slavonic language. For several decades, literate people have been studying Slavonic Grammar for the benefit of speaking and writing. But to be honest, the Slavic grammar of Meletius Smotrytsky was written in an incomprehensible language. To overcome it required a lot of patience and even courage. It was tricky to comprehend “the well-known art of speaking and writing teaching” from it. "What is voice stress?" - a Russian person could read and puzzled over the answer: “I am the prosody of the upper sign of the prosody.” Or: "What is word punctuation?" “There are speeches, in other words, by the chanting of banners different in the line, division.” But it was still possible to figure it out. And it was a serious book, containing, among other things, the rules, as "to compose verses by a meter or a measure of quantity." And this prosody of the philologist-innovator among his contemporaries and immediate descendants also often did not evoke sympathy. The famous poet of the XVIII century V.K. Trediakovsky in the article “On the Ancient, Middle and New Russian Poems” wrote about this: “It is not known whether he did not like the rhyme method or whether he was so in love with the ancient Greek and Latin method of versification that he composed his own, for our poems, completely Greek and therefore Latin. But no matter how laudable this diligence of Smotrytsky, however, our spiritual people did not accept this composition of his poems, he remained only in his grammar to show the descendants of an example, and they were sometimes affirmed more on rhymic verses of an average composition, bringing them into some serviceability and a model of Polish verses."
In 1620-1621 Patriarch Feofan of Jerusalem stayed in Little Russia and Belorussia: almost all the episcopal departments there passed into the union, and it was necessary to raise new hierarchs. Feofan sent letters in which he advised to elect candidates and send them to him. The Vilna candidate (Archimandrite of the Holy Spirit Monastery L. Karpovich) was ill, so Smotrytsky was assigned to go to Kyiv; his patriarch made him archbishop of Polotsk, bishop of Vitebsk and Mstislav (these chairs were occupied by the Uniate Josaphat Kuntsevich since 1618). At the end of 1620, after the death of Leonty Karpovich, Smotrytsky was elected archimandrite of the Holy Spirit Monastery. During this period, he launched an active work to protect Orthodoxy and new bishops, against the union; preached in Vilna churches, squares, in the town hall, sent his ambassadors with letters and books to cities, towns, farms and magnate castles ... The patron saint of the union, King Sigismund III, did not approve the new Orthodox bishops and the metropolitan. The royal government condemned Theophan's actions, declared him a Turkish spy, and ordered the bishops to be captured and brought to justice. Against Smotrytsky, Sigismund issued three letters in 1621, declaring him an impostor, an enemy of the state, an insult to majesty and an instigator, and ordering him to be arrested. A pogrom of the Orthodox was organized in Vilna. In response, Smotrytsky published a number of anti-Uniate works in which he defends the restoration of the Orthodox hierarchy, refutes Catholic-Uniate accusations, shows the arbitrariness of the royal authorities and the persecution of the Ukrainian and Belarusian population, who defended their rights and dignity: “Verificatia niewinności…” (“Justification of innocence…”, Vilna, 1621), “Obrona Verificatiey…” (“Defence of “Justification”…”, Vilna, 1621), “Elenchus pism uszczypliwych…” (“Exposing poisonous scriptures…”, Vilna, 1622) and others. Together with Metropolitan Boretsky Smotrytsky in 1623 he went to the Sejm in Warsaw, where they unsuccessfully tried to secure the approval of new Orthodox bishops. In the autumn of 1623, the rebellious population of Vitebsk killed the Uniate archbishop Iosafat Kuntsevich. With the blessing of Pope Urban VIII, the royal authorities brutally cracked down on the rebels, while Smotrytsky was accused of being their spiritual accomplice. Because of this, he decided to go beyond the borders of the Commonwealth and at the beginning of 1624 went to the Middle East, before stopping in Kyiv. He visited Constantinople, visited Egypt and Palestine; through Constantinople in 1626 he returned to Kyiv. As Smotrytsky later admitted in a letter to Prince Khreptovich, the trip was connected with the plans of the union, about which he did not dare to tell the patriarch. Smotrytsky wanted to receive from the patriarch a charter limiting the autonomy of the stavropegic brotherhoods, and indeed brought it. Returning Smotrytsky Orthodox greeted wary, even hostile. Archimandrite of the Kiev Caves Monastery Zakharia Kopystensky did not receive Smotrytsky and insisted that other monasteries do the same; the reason was the brought letters and rumors about his inclination towards the union. Only thanks to the efforts of I. Boretsky (also accused of being prone to the union) was he accepted by the Mezhigorsky Monastery. In order to dispel suspicions, Boretsky and Smotrytsky in the spring of 1626 “in front of many clergy, gentlemen of the gentry, voit, burmisters, rajtsy, church brotherhood and all the embassies clearly showed their innocence and fidelity before all their singing signs ...”, as Metropolitan Peter Mohyla wrote in a special letter . Smotrytsky found himself in a difficult situation: it was impossible to return to his Vilna monastery after bringing letters, but in Kyiv he was met unfavorably. He appeals to Prince Janusz Zaslavsky to get an empty position as Archimandrite of the Derman Monastery in Volyn, who was then under the patronage of Alexander, the son of Janusz. This act proved fatal in the life of Smotrytsky. At the instigation of the Uniate Metropolitan of Rutsky, Zaslavsky agreed to this, but on the condition that Smotrytsky join the union. After some hesitation, Smotrytsky agreed. But they did not completely believe him and demanded written confirmation of his conversion to Uniatism. In June 1627 Smotrytsky became a Uniate. At the same time, he asked that this be kept secret until answers were received from Rome, that the title of archbishop be retained for him, etc. The real reasons for this transition are interpreted in different ways. During 1628-1629, he published several books in which he justifies his actions, agitates for union, criticizes the works of Orthodox polemicists, including his past views, and deals primarily with purely theological issues. Smotrytsky's activities in favor of the union suffered a complete collapse. On his initiative, in the fall of 1627, a council was convened in Kyiv, at which he promised to prepare his catechism for publication, but asked first to be allowed to publish his reflections on the differences between the Orthodox and Catholic churches; in February 1628, at a council in the city of Gorodok in Volhynia, he already argued that the western and eastern churches do not differ in their basic provisions, so that their reconciliation is possible. To discuss his proposals, it was decided to convene a new council, for which Smotrytsky was to prepare an exposition of his views. But instead he wrote an "Apology", in which he accused the Orthodox of various heresies and called for them to join Catholicism; The book was published without the sanction of the Metropolitan. The Uniate K. Sakovich printed it. Smotrytsky's behavior and his book aroused indignation. Five bishops, many lower clergy, laity, and Cossacks came to the new cathedral in August 1628. Smotrytsky was not admitted to the meetings until he renounced the Apologia; he tried to resist, but when he learned that the people who had gathered at the Mikhailovsky Monastery were threatening reprisals if his Uniatism was revealed, he publicly renounced the book, signing an act cursing it, and straightening its sheets with his feet in front of the audience. To calm the people, the cathedral issued a district charter so that Smotrytsky and other hierarchs would no longer be suspected of Uniatism. But Meletius unexpectedly returned to the Derman Monastery, wrote and published the book Protestatia, directed against the cathedral, where he openly opposed Orthodoxy, explained his former renunciation of the union as blackmail, and asked the king to convene a new council to reconcile the churches. The council was convened in 1629 in Lvov, but the Orthodox refused to participate in it. Having found himself in a circle of people with whom he fought all his life, abandoned by old friends, the sick Meletius, remaining in Derman, did not write or publish anything else. He died there and was buried on December 17 (27), 1633 in the Derman Monastery. Meletius was not completely consistent, but with his activities, pedagogical work, the fruit of which was the Church Slavonic Grammar, Smotrytsky made an invaluable great contribution to the culture of the Eastern Slavs.
In 1618-1619, the main philological work “Slavenian grammar correct Cvntagma” (Evye, now Vevis near Vilnius) was published - the basis of Church Slavonic grammatical science for the next two centuries, which withstood many reprints, revisions and translations. "Grammar" Smotrytsky - an outstanding monument of Slavic grammatical thought. It consists of the following parts: spelling, etymology, syntax, prosody. Written on the model of Greek grammars, Smotrytsky's work reflects the specific phenomena of the Church Slavonic language. He owns the establishment of the system of cases characteristic of the Slavic languages (in this Smotrytsky was ahead of Western grammarians, who adjusted the cases of living languages to the norms of the Latin language), the establishment of two conjugations of verbs, the definition (still not entirely accurate) of the type of verbs, etc .; extra letters of Slavic writing, which she does not need, are marked. Smotrytsky's "Grammar" also has a section on versification, where instead of syllabic verse, it is proposed to use metric verse, as supposedly more characteristic of Slavic speech (in fact, it reproduces an authoritative ancient model; Meletius' experiment with artificial meterization of the Church Slavonic language had no consequences). His "Grammar" is full of many examples that facilitate the assimilation of grammatical rules. It was repeatedly reprinted (Vilna, 1629; Kremenets, 1638, 1648; Moscow, 1648, 1721, with an approximation to the living Russian language and additional articles on the benefits of studying grammar) and had a great influence on the development of Russian philology and the teaching of grammar in schools. In the alphabet books of the 17th century. extensive extracts have been made from it. Smotrytsky's "grammar" was taken into account by the authors of a number of subsequent Slavic grammars published abroad - Heinrich Wilhelm Ludolf (Oxford, 1696), Ilya Kopievich (Amsterdam, 1706), Pavel Nenadovich (Rymnik, 1755), Stefan Vuyanovsky (Vienna, 1793) and Abraham Mrazovich (Vienna, 1794).
Smotrytsky emphasized the need for conscious assimilation of educational material - "understand the words with your mind." He put forward 5 levels of training: "look, heed, understand, consider, remember."
Some researchers mention a dictionary allegedly compiled by Smotrytsky around the same time, but no confirmation of this information was found. Equally doubtful is the information about the Greek grammar of Smotrytsky (allegedly published in 1615 in Cologne). However, his participation in the writing of the Primer of the Slavonic Language, published in 1618 in the same Evie, is confirmed.
The struggle against the union (1620-1623)
In 1620-1621 Patriarch Feofan of Jerusalem stayed in Ukraine and Belarus: almost all Orthodox bishops there converted to Uniatism, and it was necessary to restore the Orthodox church hierarchy. Feofan sent letters in which he advised to elect candidates and send them to him in Kyiv. The Vilna candidate was originally Archimandrite of the Holy Spirit Monastery Leonty Karpovich, but because of his illness, Smotrytsky was entrusted to go to Kyiv. It was his Patriarch Feofan who appointed Archbishop of Polotsk, Bishop of Vitebsk and Mstislav. However, Smotrytsky did not receive any real ecclesiastical authority: since 1618, all the named departments were occupied by the Uniate Josaphat Kuntsevich, supported by the government of the Commonwealth.
At the end of 1620, after the death of Leonty Karpovich, Smotrytsky was elected archimandrite of the Holy Spirit Monastery. During this period, he launched an active work to protect Orthodoxy and new bishops: he preached in Vilna churches, in squares, in the town hall, sent his ambassadors with letters and books to cities, towns, farms and magnate castles ...
As expected, the patron saint of the union, King Sigismund III, did not approve the new Orthodox bishops and the metropolitan. The government of the Commonwealth condemned the actions of Patriarch Feofan, declared him a Turkish spy, and ordered the newly appointed bishops to be seized and brought to justice. Against Smotrytsky, Sigismund issued three letters in 1621, declaring him an impostor, an enemy of the state, an insult to majesty and an instigator who should be arrested. A pogrom of the Orthodox was organized in Vilna.
Most researchers believe that thinking can exist only on the basis of language and in fact identify language and thinking.
Wilhelm Humboldt, the great German linguist, the founder of general linguistics as a science, considered language to be the formative organ of thought. Developing this thesis, he said that the language of the people is its spirit, the spirit of the people is its language.
Another German linguist August Schleicher believed that thought and language are as identical as content and form.
Philologist Max Muller expressed this thought in an extreme form: “How do we know that the sky exists and that it is blue? Would we know the sky if there were no name for it?... Language and thinking are two names for the same thing.”
Ferdinand de Saussure(1957-1913), the great Swiss linguist, in support of the close unity of language and thinking, cited a figurative comparison: “language is a piece of paper, thought is its front side, and sound is the reverse side. You can't cut the front without cutting the back. Similarly, in language, neither thought can be separated from sound, nor sound from thought. This can only be achieved by abstraction."
And finally, an American linguist Leonard Bloomfield He argued that thinking is talking to oneself.
However, many scientists adhere to the opposite point of view, believing that thinking, especially creative thinking, is quite possible without verbal expression. Norbert Wiener, Albert Einstein, Francis Galton and other scientists admit that they do not use words or mathematical signs in the process of thinking, but vague images, use the game of associations and only then translate the result into words.
On the other hand, many manage to hide the scarcity of their thoughts behind an abundance of words.
Many creative people - composers, artists, actors - can create without the help of verbal language. Russian-American linguist Roman Osipovich Yakobson explains these facts by the fact that signs are a necessary support for thought, but inner thought, especially when it is a creative thought, willingly uses other systems of signs (non-speech), more flexible, among which there are conditional generally accepted and individual (both permanent and episodic) .
Some researchers (D. Miller, Y. Galanter, K. Pribram) believe that we have a very clear anticipation of what we are going to say, we have a sentence plan, and when we formulate it, we have a relatively clear idea of what what we are going to say. This means that the plan of the sentence is not carried out on the basis of words. The fragmentation and curtailment of reduced speech is a consequence of the predominance of non-verbal forms in thinking at this moment.
Thus, both opposing points of view are well founded. The truth most likely lies in the middle, ie. Basically, thinking and verbal language are closely related. But in some cases and in some areas, thinking does not need words.
Since ancient times, mankind has used various tools to transfer information among themselves. Initially, these were inarticulate sounds, rock paintings, certain gestures. But with the evolution of the human race, such a means of expressing one's thoughts and feelings appeared as language.
Today there are about 5-6 thousand languages, and each of them is unique in its own way. In order for certain people to recognize themselves as a nation, it is necessary to have a historical and cultural heritage. Language is the spiritual treasury of the whole nation and every person, as a particle of the spirituality of this nation. With the help of it, the necessary knowledge is accumulated for the subsequent development of generations. If people don't read books, communicate in their own language, then it will become a dead language because no one uses it. Moreover, the language is the most important and strongest link that connects the past, present and future generations of the nation into one big living whole. It turns out that a person can classify himself in such a group of people as a nation on the basis of "language". Only language exists as a living, native language only in the minds of the nation. It is in the language that the entire national character is imprinted, in it, as in the means of communication of a given people, individualities disappear and the common is manifested. The presence of a single national language provides society with the convenience of communication in various fields of activity - from the domestic sphere to production.
Language is a product of culture, it is an important force that unites people. As soon as there is a threat of the disappearance of a language, then there is a threat to the existence of the people itself. Language is the main means of communication within the people; it sets a common set of concepts in which the people think. Life irrefutably confirms the idea that language is a subtle measure of the state of the soul of a people, its culture. The political aspect of the language problem was most accurately expressed by the ancient Romans: Whose language is power.
2. Origins and formation of Russian grammatical thought. Philological activity of Maxim Grek. Primer by Ivan Fedorov. Slavic grammar of Lavrenty Zizania. Grammar of Smotrytsky. Grammar of Adodurov. Lomonosov as a philologist and linguist.
Maxim Grek arrives in Muscovite Rus', having a general idea of the Athonite, South Slavic edition of the Church Slavonic language. Its main task is to correct liturgical texts based on Greek originals (Colored Triodion, 1525) and create new translations from Greek (Explanatory Psalter, 1522). During this period, Maxim Grek perceives the Church Slavonic language as an imperfect model of the Greek language, which should be improved, focusing on Greek samples. He does not realize the specifics of the Russian version of the Church Slavonic language, considering the bookish language common to all Orthodox Slavs. Error correction is achieved by grammatical systematization of the elements from which the text is built. In his epistle, "The Word of Responsibility about Book Correction," he evaluates himself as the only expert on grammar who has the right to correlate the Greek and Church Slavonic languages. Teaches Greek and creates educational texts, lexical and grammatical essays; for educational purposes, he also translated the Psalter of 1552.
Comes to an understanding of the specifics of the Russian version of the Church Slavonic language. He is aware that errors in the Church Slavonic language arise not only because of ignorance of Greek, but also because of the inability to compare and correlate elements of the bookish and non-bookish language. The linguistic attitude of Maxim the Greek can be defined as a consistent "Russification" of the Church Slavonic language. In an effort to eliminate variability in one grammatical position, from the variant forms of the Church Slavonic language, Maxim chooses the variant that coincides with Russian. In this way, he gets rid of archaic, actually bookish constructions and, as a result, brings the bookish language closer to the spoken language.\
Ivan Fedorov
The very first primer was printed by Ivan Fedorov, the founder of book printing in Rus', in Lvov in 1574. Today, there is only one copy of this book in the world, which, fortunately, has been perfectly preserved. It belongs to the library of Harvard University USA. It was acquired in 1950, and only in 1955 did the world see a complete photocopy of a previously unknown textbook. It is curious that the primer came to Harvard from the Paris collection of S.P. Diaghilev. The book has no title, so it is also called the alphabet and grammar. It is composed of five 8-sheet notebooks, which corresponds to 80 pages. Each page has 15 lines. A primer was written in the Old Slavonic language. Some of its pages are decorated with headpieces typical of Ivan Fedorov's publications in the form of ornaments of intertwined leaves, buds, flowers and cones. The first page is occupied by 45 lowercase Cyrillic letters. Moreover, the alphabet is given in direct and reverse order, as well as in a breakdown of 8 columns. Probably, this technique of repeating the alphabet helped better memorization. The alphabet uses the subjunctive method inherited from the Greeks and Romans, which involves memorizing syllables. First, there were two-letter combinations with each vowel alphabetically (beeches - az = ba), then the same syllables with the addition of a third letter (beeches - rtsy - az = bra). Here az, beeches, rtsy are the letters of the Cyrillic alphabet. Three sections follow, introducing students to the elements of grammar. In the section "And this ABC from the book of osmochastnyya, that is, grammar" the author placed samples of conjugation of verbs for each letter of the alphabet, starting with "b". The forms of the passive voice of the verb biti are also given here. The section "According to prosody and also two lying se is imperative and descriptive" gives information about stresses and "aspirations" in words. And the section "By orthography" contains individual words for reading, written in full or abbreviated (under the sign "title" - a superscript icon, meaning skipping letters).
The alphabet ends with an acrostic. In an alphabetic acrostic (Greek "line edge"), or an alphabetic prayer, each line conveying the content of one of the religious truths begins with a certain letter. If you look at the left edge of the lines from top to bottom, then you get the alphabet. So the Holy Scriptures were remembered, and the alphabet was fixed.
The second part of the primer is entirely devoted to reading material. These are not only prayers, but also excerpts from the parables of Solomon and the epistles of the Apostle Paul, which, as it were, give advice to parents, teachers and students. On the last page there are 2 engravings: the coat of arms of the city of Lvov and the publishing mark of the first printer. Ivan Fedorov himself carefully selected the material for inclusion in his first primer. In an afterword about his role as a compiler, he wrote: "Even writings to you, not from myself, but from the divine apostles and God-bearing saints, the father of teaching, ... from grammar, there is little for the sake of early infantile learning." Some researchers compare the work of creating this primer with a scientific feat. After all, Ivan Fedorov showed himself not only as an outstanding master of the book business, but also as a talented teacher. For the first time, the alphabet tried to introduce elements of grammar and counting into the process of teaching reading (part of the text was divided into small numbered paragraphs). In addition, the children's textbook contains teachings on education, which must be done "in mercy, in prudence, in humility of mind, in meekness, long-suffering, accepting one another and granting forgiveness." The first sprouts of humanistic pedagogy were an absolute innovation for medieval Rus'. And a modest little book for primary literacy education went far beyond the usual alphabet, and was the beginning of a whole era that is being studied by primer.
Lavrentiy Zizaniy(Lavrenty Tustanovsky;? - after 1633) - archpriest, famous Belarusian scientist. Initially, he was a teacher at the Lvov Brotherhood School, from where he moved to Brest in 1592, then to Vilna (now Vilnius), where in 1596 he published the alphabet and Church Slavonic grammar. Grammar Zizania - one of the first monuments of East Slavic philology. Written with a conscious focus on Greek and Latin patterns. Its purpose was to prove the equal importance of the Church Slavonic language with Greek; Zizaniy did not pursue descriptive or normative goals (his prescriptions sometimes deviate quite strongly from the real language practice of that time).
Melety Smotrytsky in the world - Maxim Gerasimovich Smotrytsky - Orthodox Archbishop of Polotsk; writer, educator. In 1618-1619. - the main philological work "Grammatika Slavensky correct Cvntagma" - the basis of Church Slavonic grammatical science for the next two centuries. Consists of the following parts: spelling, etymology, syntax, prosody. Written on the model of Greek grammars, Smotrytsky's work reflects the specific phenomena of the Church Slavonic language. He owns the establishment of the system of cases characteristic of the Slavic languages (in this Smotrytsky was ahead of Western grammarians, who adjusted the cases of living languages to the norms of the Latin language), the establishment of two conjugations of verbs, the definition (still not entirely accurate) of the type of verbs, etc .; extra letters of Slavic writing, which she does not need, are marked. His "Grammar" is full of many examples that facilitate the assimilation of grammatical rules. It was repeatedly reprinted with an approximation to the living Russian language and had a great influence on the development of Russian philology and the teaching of grammar in schools. In the alphabet books of the 17th century. extensive extracts have been made from it. Smotrytsky's "grammar" was taken into account by the authors of a number of subsequent Slavic grammars published abroad.
Lomonosov (1711 - 1765)
Refers to the school of comparative historical linguistics - the idea of the relationship of languages. At 18, he develops a position on the kinship and commonality of a number of languages in the works of Russian Grammar (1755), On the Usefulness of Church Books in the Russian Language, 1757. He considers the Slavic languages, Russian, Polish, Bulgarian, Serbian, Shesh, Slovak came from common Slavic. Puts forward an assumption about their further division into the southeast and northwest groups. Different degree of similarity of languages (Russian is closer to Bulgarian than to Polish) Communication with other Indo-Europeans. languages - Baltic, Germanic, Greek, Latin. the development of Russian grammar in the works of Lomonosov should be strictly empirical method, contrasting with the a priori schemes of the philosophy of language of the 18th century. M. V. Lomonosov divides his “Russian Grammar”, which served as the basis for subsequent works on the Russian language, into six “instructions” (sections), in which he considers phonetics, spelling, word formation, inflection and features of individual parts of speech, syntax, as well as general problems of grammar(in the first "instruction"). Lomonosov divided all parts of speech into significant and important. Two parts of speech name and verb- were called the main, or significant, the remaining six - pronoun, participle, adverb, preposition, conjunction and interjection (in Lomonosov "interjection") - official.
The main provisions of M.V. Lomonosov entered the Russian grammatical tradition and were disclosed, supplemented in the works of A.Kh. Vostokova, F.I. Buslaeva, A.A. Potebni, F.F. Fortunatova, A.M. Peshkovsky, A.A. Shakhmatova, V.A. Bogoroditsky, L.V. Shcherba and V.V. Vinogradov. Norm formation. could show the life of the language in development - a characteristic feature. Shares Russian with Old Church Slavonic. The historically developed society is transferred to the language. Many examples from spoken language. "Instruction One" in Lomonosov's grammar is devoted to the disclosure of general questions of linguistics and is entitled "On the human word in general." In the same section, a classification of parts of speech is given, among which, in accordance with a long grammatical tradition, the following “eight significant parts are distinguished: name, pronoun, verb, participle, adverb, preposition, conjunction, interjection”. “Instruction II” - “On Russian Reading and Spelling” - examines the issues of phonetics, graphics and spelling. Speaking about the different pronunciation of words characteristic of various dialects of the Russian language (Northern, Moscow and Ukrainian), Lomonosov, being himself a native of the Arkhangelsk region and a bearer of the Northern Russian dialect, nevertheless consciously prefers the Moscow pronunciation. “The Moscow dialect,” he writes, “is not only for the importance of the capital city, but also for its excellent beauty, it is rightly preferred by others, and especially the pronunciation of the letter o without stress, like a, is much more pleasant.” According to Lomonosov, in a high calm, the letter e should always be pronounced without changing to o. The pronunciation in a number of forms of this letter as io (ё) is considered by him as belonging to a low calm. The Third Instruction - "On the Name" - contains the "rules of declensions". As a sign of a high syllable, Lomonosov notes here inflection -a in the genus pad unit. numbers male of the gender of hard and soft declension. The ending -у in the same case is considered as a sign of low style. “This difference in the antiquity of words and the importance of things signified,” he continues, “is very sensitive and often shows itself in one name, for we say: the holy spirit, human duty, angelic voice, and not the holy spirit, human duty, angelic voice. On the contrary, it is more characteristic to say: rosy spirit, last year's duty, bird's voice. A similar stylistic relationship is established by Lomonosov between the forms prepositional(by the way, we note that Lomonosov was the first to introduce this grammatical term to designate a case that was previously called descriptive) masculine in e (yat) and in y (§ 188-189). The forms of degrees of comparison into -the most, -the most, -sh are also recognized as a sign of “an important and high style, especially in verse: the farthest, brightest, brightest, highest, highest, most abundant, most abundant.” At the same time, Lomonosov warns: “but here one should be careful not to use this in adjectives of low significance or uncommon in the Slavic language, and not to say: faded, faded; quickest, quickest” (§ 215). "The Fourth Instruction", which has the title "On the Verb", is devoted to the formation and use of various verb forms and categories, and stylistic guidelines are also given here. The “Fifth Instruction” considers the use of “auxiliary and service parts of the word”, including participles, and contains important stylistic indications. According to Lomonosov, participial forms in -shchy, -shchy can be formed only from verbs “which have no difference from the Slavic ones both in pronunciation and in signification, for example: crowning, nourishing, writing” (§ 440), as well as from verbs in -sya: ascendant, fearful (§ 450). “It is not at all necessary,” wrote Lomonosov, “to produce participles from those verbs that mean something vile and are only used in simple conversations,” for example: speaking, champing (§ 440), touched, swayed, soiled (§ 444), blurted out, diving (§ 442). It is also noteworthy that Lomonosov's observation about the ratio of the use participial phrases and parallel clauses with the word which. Participatory constructions, Lomonosov believed, “are used only in writing, and in simple conversations they should be depicted through the ascended pronouns which, which, which.” The sixth "Instruction" devoted to questions syntax a, entitled “On the composition of parts of the word” and developed in the “Russian Grammar” in much less detail, which is partly compensated by the consideration of similar issues in the “Rhetoric” (1748). In the field of syntax, literary and linguistic normalization, according to the observations of V. V. Vinogradov, in the middle of the 18th century. was focused on almost exclusively in high syllable forms. Note that Lomonosov in § 533 of the grammar recommended to revive the turnover in the Russian literary language dative independent. “Maybe with time,” he wrote, “the general ear will get used to it, and this lost brevity and beauty will return to the Russian word.” It should be noted that syntax of the literary language of the 18th century. focused on German or Latin, in particular, complex sentences with participial phrases were modeled after the named languages. The language of the prose works of Lomonosov himself was no exception in this respect. Bulky periods prevailed in them, and verb-predicates in sentences, as a rule, occupied the last place. Likewise, in participial or participle turnovers, a similar place belonged to participial or participle forms. Let us cite as an example an excerpt from Lomonosov's words “On the Benefits of Chemistry”: “... Looking at natural things, we find two kinds of properties in them. We understand one clearly and in detail, although we clearly imagine the other in our mind, we cannot depict it in detail ... The first can be accurately measured through geometry and determined through mechanics; with others, such a detail simply cannot be used; for the fact that the first in visible and tangible bodies, the others in the finest particles and from our senses remote particles have their foundation. The works of G. N. Akimova convincingly show that Lomonosov’s versatile activity in the field of syntax also contributed to the formation of an “organic phrase” in modern Russian.
Melety Smotrytsky
One of the most popular Russian textbooks of the 17th-18th centuries, "The Grammar of the Slavonic Correct Syntagma" was published in 1618-1619 in the suburbs of Vilna - Evyu (in various sources there are also spellings Evyu and Evye). There, on the shore of the lake with the same name, at the beginning of the 17th century, the estate of the princes Oginsky was located, where in 1618 Bogdan Oginsky founded a printing house that printed Slavic and Polish books. The reverse of the title page of the Grammar of 1619 adorns the coat of arms of Bogdan Oginsky, and the book itself is dedicated to Patriarch Timothy of Constantinople and Archimandrite of the Vilna Monastery Leonty Karpovich.
The Moscow edition of 1648 is the third in a row (the second was published in 1629 in Vilna). Published by order of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and with the blessing of his spiritual father, Patriarch Joseph of Moscow, it appeared anonymously, in an "edited" form, supplemented by linguistic arguments, the authorship of which is attributed to Maxim Grek. The main text is preceded by a rather extensive preface, which contains maxims about the benefits of grammar, about the need to read
Holy Scripture, as well as the "spiritual instructions" of the Church Fathers.
The author of the "Grammar" Melety (Maxim) Smotrytsky is a learned monk who received a European education, a member of the Vilna Orthodox Brotherhood, who became an active church politician dealing with issues of confrontation between the Eastern and Western churches. For some time he taught the Slavic language at the school of the Vilna monastery, and on this occasion he compiled his Grammar.
It is divided into four parts: spelling, etymology, syntax, and prosody, representing a new stress system in versification. “What do these four parts teach. Spelling teaches the right to write, and to strike directly with a voice in speeches. Etymology teaches sayings in their own parts to be more precisely exalted. Syntax teaches words more difficult than sychinyat. Prosodia teaches with a meter, or a measure of quantity, to compose verses.
Initially designed to resist the intensification of the Polonization of the western region, Smotritsky's book played an important role in the cultural development of Russia. Before the appearance in 1755 of the “Russian Grammar” by M.V. Lomonosov, it was the main textbook of the Church Slavonic language. For several decades, literate people have been studying Slavonic Grammar for the benefit of speaking and writing.
Only the prosody of the philologist-innovator did not arouse the sympathy of his contemporaries and immediate descendants. The famous poet of the XVIII century V.K. Trediakovsky in his article "On the ancient, middle and new Russian poem" wrote on this occasion: "It is not known whether the he did not like the rhyme or so he was he did not like rhyme, or he was so in love with the ancient Greek and Latin method of versification that he compiled his own, for our verses, completely Greek and therefore Latin. But no matter how laudable this diligence of Smotrytsky, however, our spiritual people did not accept this composition of his poems, he remained only in his grammar to show the descendants of an example, and they were sometimes affirmed more on rhymic verses of an average composition, bringing them into some serviceability and a model of Polish verses."
The Moscow edition of Slavonic Grammar of 1648 appeared 11 years after the author's death. Shortly before his death, a sharp turn took place in Smotrytsky's worldview. If earlier, at the time of compiling the Grammar, the scholar-preacher tirelessly struggled with the idea of subordinating the Orthodox Church to the Uniate Church, then by the time the second edition of the textbook was published, having visited Italy and the Middle East, he accepted the union and in his last works spoke with sharp criticism dogmas of Orthodoxy.
Meletiy Smotrytsky (circa 1578-1633) Grammar of Slavonic correct syntagma. By the pandering of the many-sinful mnich Meletios Smotrisky, in the brotherhood of the Church of Vilna, at the Church of the Descent of the Most Holy and Life-Giving Spirit, built, wandering, won and accustomed, years from the incarnation of God the Word 1619. I rule the apostolic throne of the great God of Constantinople Church, Patriarch of Vilna, Mr. Father Timothy, Vilna Archimandrite Father Leonty Karpovich, acting intercessor. In Evyu, 1619. 252 pp. (504 p.) In whole leather binding of the 17th century. 14.4x9.1 cm. On the back of the title sheet. owner's inscription in hazelnut ink: "This is the grammar of Ivan Umov." Already in the “Description of early printed books of Slavic and Russian Count F.A. Tolstoy" (Moscow, 1829), the edition is classified as "very rare".
