1. This article was written while in receipt of fellowships from the National Endowment for the Humanities and from the Russian Research Center, Harvard University, which I gratefully acknowledge. An earlier version was read at a meeting on November 8, 1979, sponsored jointly by the Harvard University Seminar on Eighteenth-Century Russia and the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, where it benefited greatly from the discussion that followed. I owe special thanks for helpful and encouraging comments to Professors Omeljan Pritsak, Edward Keenan, Riccardo Picchio, and Daniel Waugh, to Dr. Paulina Lewin, and to Mr. Edward Kasinec.

2. Public Record Office, State Papers 91/9, ff. 407-10.

3. I quote from the British Library's copy of the Moscow 1726 edition of Pravda voli monarshei (another copy of which is in the New York Public Library). This edition was reprinted in Tumanskii, F. O., Sobranie raznykh zapisok i soehinenii sluzhashchikh k dostavlenno polnago svedeniia o zhizni i deianiiakh … Petra Velikago. 10 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1787-88), 10:123–243 Google Scholar and in Polnoe sobranie zakonov rossiiskoi imperii s 1649 goda, 1st ser., 46 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1830-13), vol. 7, no. 4870 (hereafter cited as PSZ).

4. PSZ, vol. 5, no. 3151; ibid., vol.6,no. 3893. See also Bykova, T. A. and Gurevich, M. M., Opisanie izdaniigrazhdanskoipechati (1708-ianvar’ 1725) (Moscow/Leningrad, 1955 Google Scholar), nos. 271,664 (hereafter cited as Opisanie 1). The hostile “contradictions of certain.. .philosophers ” mentioned in the preface to Pravda voli monarshei might refer to the anonymous tract, The Prerogative of Primogeniture. Shewing that the Right of Succession to an Hereditary Empire depends not upon Grace, etc., but only upon Birth- Right. .. . Written on occasion of the Czar of Muscovy's Reasons in His late Manifesto for the Disherison of his Eldest Son from the Succession to the Crown (London, 1718), a copy of which is in the British Library (shelf-mark 8094.e.27/1), or to Treuer, G. S., Untersuchung nach dem Recht der Natur wie weit ein Fürst Macht habe seinen Erst gebohmen Printzen von der Nachfolge in der Regierung auszuschlissen (Wolffenbüttel, 1718)Google Scholar. The reference to seditious “hotheads” in the same preface evokes the complex and tragic affair of Tsarevich Aleksei Petrovich; for an introduction in English see Anderson, M. S., Peterthe Great (New York, 1979)Google ScholarPubMed, chapter 6 or, for a much fuller treatment, Wittram, R., Peter 1. Czar und Kaiser: Zur Geschichte Peters des Grossen in seiner Zeit, 2 vols. (Göttingen, 1964), 2:346–405 Google Scholar.

5. For full details of the work's publishing history, see Opisanie 1, no. 696; Bykova, T. A. and Gurevich, M. M., Opisanie izdanii napechatannykh kirillitsei(1689-ianvar’ 1725) (Moscow/Leningrad, 1958), no. 179 Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Opisanie 2); and Bykova, T. A., Gurevich, M. M., and Kozintseva, R. I., Opisanie izdanii napechatannykh pri Petre I: svodnyi kalalog. Dopolneniia i phlozheniia (Leningrad, 1972), nos. 592, 593Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Opisanie 3).

6. See P. N. Berkov's introduction, Opisanie I, pp. 24-27. Compare also Winter, Eduard, Halle ah Ausgangspunkt der deutschen Russlandkunde im 18. Jahrhundert (Berlin, 1953), p. 132 Google Scholar: “In diesem Werk [Pravda voli monarshei] bietet Prokopovič, angeregt von der Naturrechtslehre, eine kurze Enzyklopädie über die Lehre vom Rechte eines Herrschers im Sinne des ‘aufgeklärten Absolutismus’ in Russland” ; or Marc Raeff s appraisal of the treatise as “the great pièce justificative of Peter's reforms,” in Canadian-American Slavic Studies, 8, no. 2 (Summer 1974): 327-28.

7. See Oxford English Dictionary, 12 vols. (Oxford, 1933), 7:738 and 8:491 for contemporary examples of the use of both words.

8. Prokopovich, Feofan, O Smerli Petra Velikago, Imperatora Rossiiskago. Kratkaiapovest’ (St. Petersburg, 1727 [1726?]Google Scholar). For bibliographical details, see Cracraft, James, “Feofan Prokopovich: A Bibliography of His Works” Oxford Slavonic Papers , n.s., 8 (1975), p. 21, no. 89 Google Scholar.

9. See Consett to Lord Townshend, St. Petersburg, June 30, 1725 (Public Record Office, State Papers 91 /9, ff. 396-97). For Consett's career, see my introduction to James Cracraft, ed., For God and Peter the Great: The Works of Thomas Consett, 1723-1729 (forthcoming, 1981). This is a facsimile reproduction of the now rare 1729 edition of Consett's The Present State in which the original pagination is retained.

10. Consett, “Preface,” The Present Stale, pp. xix-xxii.

11. Consett to Lord Townshend, St. Petersburg, July 17, 1725 (Public Record Office, State Papers 91/9, f. 409).

12. See Consett, The Present State, pp. 254-336, 431-10.

13. Ibid., pp. li-lii, lvii, 8-9.

14. Cf. Cracraft, “Bibliography,” p. 19, no. 79.

15. Consett, The Present State, pp. xv-xvi.

16. Consett uses the Latin form of the name, which is how it is also to be found—Kondoidi—in the Russian sources cited below.

17. Condoidi's petition of 1726 is printed in Chistovich, I., Feofan Prokopovich i ego vremia (St. Petersburg, 1868), pp. 93–96 Google Scholar. For references to him in the Synod's records, see Opisanie dokumentov i del khraniashchikhsia v arkhive Sviateishago Pravitel'stvuiushchago Sinoda, 30 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1868-1914), vol. 1, cols. 71, 135, 137, 529-34, 555-56, 616, 706, 709, 730, 752-55, 769, CXXXIV, CXXXV, CCXLIII and Polnoe sobranie postanovlenii i rasporiazheniipo vedomstvupravoslavnago ispovedaniia rossiiskoi imperii, 14 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1872-1916), vol. 1, no. 298 (hereafter cited as PSP). See also Verkhovskoi, P. V., Uchrezhdenie Dukhovnoi Kollegii i Dukhovnyi reglament, 2 vols. (Rostov-on-Don, 1916 2:8 Google Scholar),, 104 (note 156), 181, 182. For the three opinions on divorce, see Cracraft, “Bibliography,” p. 21, no. 87. Also, for respectful and appreciative references to Condoidi by a German scholar and member in residence of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences between 1725 and I727,see Kohl, J. P., Introduetio in historiam et rem literariam slavorum (Altona, 1729), p. 26 Google Scholar.

18. Chistovich, Prokopovich, pp. 50-57, 96, 160, 172-73, 225, 347, 350-62, 377-78, 425-26, 581; Opisanie 1, no. 752; Izvekov, D. E., “Odin iz maloizvestnykh literaturnykh protivnikov Feofana Prokopovicha,” in Pamiatniki novoi Russkoi istorii , ed. Kashpirev, V. (St. Petersburg, 1871), pp. 1–35 Google Scholar; Panaitescu, P. P., Dimitrie Cantemir, viata si opera (Bucharest, 1958), pp. 202–208 Google Scholar; Dutu, A. and Cernovodeanu, P., eds., Dimitrie Cantemir, Historian of South East European and Oriental Civilizations (Bucharest, 1973), p. 175 Google Scholar; Ehrhard, M., Le Prince Cantemir à Paris (1738-1744) (Paris, 1938), p. 17 Google Scholar; Grasshoff, H., A. D. Kantemir und Westeuropa (Berlin, 1966), pp. 7-8, 62–68 Google Scholar; Legrand, E. et al., Bibliographie hellénique, ou Description raisonée des ouvrages publiés par des Grecs au dix-huitième siècle, 2 vols. (Paris, 1918-28), vol. 1, nos. 150,217,233, 241 (note 3Google Scholar); Russkiibiogrqficheskiislovar', 25 vols. (Moscow/St. Petersburg/Petrograd, 1896-1918), 2:371 (hereafter cited as RBS).

19. Consett, The Present State, pp. xv-xvi.

20. “Praesens Russiae Literaturiae status in epistolam adumbratus,” in Acta physico-medka Academiae Caesareae Leopoldino-Carolinae Naturae Curiosorum, vol. 1 (Nuremburg, 1727), appendix. For its author, Schend von der Bech, see Amburger, E., Die Mitglieder der deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 1700-1950 (Berlin, 1950), p. 66 Google Scholar; H. Grasshoff, “lz istorii sviazei Berlinskogo Obshchestva nauk s Rossiei v 20-kh godakh XVI11 v.,” in Rot’ i znachenie titeralury XVIII veka v istorii russkoi kultury: k 70-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia chlena-korrespondenta AN SSSR P. N. Berkova, ed. D. S. Likhachev et al. (Moscow/Leningrad, 1966), p. 60; and RBS, 23:90. Schend, like Consett, wasa corresponding member of the Berlin Academy of Sciences.

21. Opisanie 3, no. 584.

22. Opisanie I, no. 85.

23. Zakonodatel'nye akty Petra I, ed. N. A. Voskresenskii (Moscow/Leningrad, 1945), no. 114. The letter is a scribe's copy signed by Prokopovich.

24. Chteniia v imperatorskom obshchestve istorii i drevnostei rossiiskikh pri Moskovskom universitete (Moscow, 1862), book 1, section II, p. 21 (hereafter cited as Chteniia IOIR).

25. Cf. Gribble, Charles E., A Short Dictionary of 18th-century Russian (Cambridge, Mass., 1976), p. 84 Google Scholar; D'iachenko, G., Polnyi tserkovno-slavianskii slovar'… s X do XVIII vv. vkliuchitel “no (Moscow, 1899), p. 647 Google Scholar; Imperatorskaia Nauk, Akademiia, Slovar’ tserkovno-slavianskago i russkago iazyka , 4 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1847), 4:196 Google Scholar; and Slovar’ Akademii rossiiskoi, 4 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1822), vol. 4, col. 413.

26. Chteniia IOIR, p. 4.

27. Ibid., pp. 20, 25. For the work on the beatitudes, the catechism, and the book on the Kiev monastery's relics, see Cracraft, “Bibliography,” p. 28, no. 131; ibid., p. 26, no. 123; and ibid., p. 27, no. 126. Prokopovich's earlier reference above to a “little book on Baptism” probably refers to the work entitled, Istinnoe opravdanie Pravovernykh khristian, kreshcheniem polivatel'nym vo Khrista kreshchaemykh: nepravedno zhe izlobno … (St. Petersburg/Moscow, 1724); cf. Cracraft, “Bibliography,” p. 25, no. 113. There would seem to be little doubt that all four of these relatively minor religious works were written by Prokopovich.

28. Chteniia IOIR, p. 25.

29. See letter cited above, note 23.

30. PSP, vol. 2, no. 774.

31. PSP, vol. 2, no. 950.

32. Chistovich, Prokopovich, p. 120.

33. Morozov, P., Feofan Prokopovich kak pisatel’ (St. Petersburg, 1880), pp. 301–306 Google Scholar.

34. Verkhovskoi, Uehrezhdenie, 1:124-25.

35. Cf. Consett, The Present State, p. 9.

36. G. Gurvich's monograph, “Pravda voli monarshei” Feofana Prokopovicha i eia zapadnoevropeiskie istochniki (lur'ev, 1915), is the only monograph as yet devoted to the work. The most recent book-length study of Prokopovich attributes Pravda voli monarshei to him without question (see Nichik, V. M., Feofan Prokopovich [Moscow, 1977], pp. 115, 157–58, 179Google Scholar). Eighteenth-century attributions include Kantemir, A., Satiry i drugiia stikhotvorcheskiia sochineniia (St. Petersburg, 1762), p. 39 Google Scholar, where in a brief biographical note on Prokopovich written between 1736 and 1744 Kantemir mentions the work as among Prokopovich's few published works “known to me” ; Nakoval'nin, S. F., ed., Feofana Prokopovicha Slova i rechipouchitel'nyia, pokhval'nyia ipozdravitel'nyia Sobrannyia, i napechatannyia , 3 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1760-65)Google Scholar, vol. 1, Oglavlenie following p. 268, item 33; Procopowicz, Theophanis, Tractatus de Processione Spiritus Sancti (Gotha, 1772)Google Scholar, “Vita Auctoris,” unpaginated, where it is noted that Prokopovich “conscripsit [for Peter I in 1722 a work entitled] Aequitas voluntatis monarchicae, tunc temporis in lucem prodiit” ; Novikov, N., Opyt istoricheskago slovaria o rossiiskikh pisateliakh (St. Petersburg, 1772), p. 182 Google Scholar; “Vita Theophanis Procopovitsch,” in Scherer, J. B., ed., Nordische Nebenstudien, vol. 1 (Frankfurt and Leipzig, 1776), p. Leipzig Google Scholar, which lists among Prokopovich's writings “De jure Imperatoris Russiaci, successorem in Imperio, quern voluerit, nominandi” ; and Shcherbatov, M. M., On the Corruption of Morals in Russia, ed. and trans. Lentin, A. (Cambridge, 1969), pp. 150 and 152Google Scholar, where Shcherbatov refers to Prokopovich as “a flatterer, as is attested by his own book the Pravda voli monarshei, a monument of flattery and monkish servility to the sovereign's wishes.” The laconic and questionable nature of each of these attributions makes them of interest to the present inquiry only as evidence of an eighteenth-century tradition of ascribing the work to Prokopovich.

37. The statement in Cracraft, “Bibliography,” p. 22, no. 91, that “Prokopovich's original MS. [of Pravda voli monarshei is] at TsGADA,” is obviously (as well as unaccountably) wrong.

38. Most of the surviving Prokopovich autographs, including the one specifically referred to, are in the synodal archives at the Tsentral'nyi gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv SSSR (TsGIA) in Leningrad; cf. Valk, S. N. and Bedin, V. V., eds., TsGIA v Leningrade: Putevoditel’ (Leningrad, 1956), p. 93 Google Scholar. See also the older and far more detailed guide to the same collections, Opisanie rukopisei khraniashchikhsia v arkhive Sviateishago Pravitel'stvuiushchago Sinoda, 2 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1904-10), vol.2,pt. l.nos. 1706, 1834, 1835 and vol. 2, pt. 2, no. 2016 (hereafter cited as ORS). For the autograph work specifically referred to above, see ibid., no. 2134; this work would seem to be that listed inCracraft, “Bibliography,” p. 14, no. 39 (a sermon, possibly incomplete, printed in Nakoval'nin, Feofana Prokopovicha Slova i rechi, 3:303-17).

39. Cf. Cracraft, “Bibliography,” p. 20, no. 81.

40. Anonymous editor's preface, Istoriia Imperatora Petra Velikago ot rozhdeniia ego do Poltavskoi batalii (Moscow, 1788), pp. 3-6.

41. Cf. Novikov's contemporary judgment, for example, that Prokopovich was the “first of our finest [naizluchshikh] writers” (Novikov, Opyt istoricheskago slovaria, p. 177).

42. Chistovich, Prokopovich, pp. 121-24.

43. Morozov, Prokopovich kak pisatel', pp. 306-10.

44. Shmurlo, E. F., Pelr Velikii v otsenke sovremennikov i potomstva (St. Petersburg, 1912), pp. 17–18 Google Scholar. '

45. Stroev, V. N. et al., 200-letie Kabineta Ego Imperatorskago Velichestva, 1704-1904: Isloricheskie issledovaniia (St. Petersburg, 1911)Google Scholar, chapter 4, especially the footnote on p. 128 and pp. 131,136, 138-39. For the manuscript in question, see Bogoiavlenskii, S. K., ed., Tsentral'nyi gosudarstvennyi arkhiv drevnykh aktov: Putevoditel', 2 vols. (Moscow, 1946), 1:169 Google Scholar.

46. See, for example, Winter, Halle als Ausgangspunkt, pp. vii, 117; Nichik, Prokopovich, pp. 158, 177; Pavlenko, N. I., Petr pervyi (Moscow, 1975), p. 379 Google Scholar; Maikova, T. S., “Petr I i ‘Gistoriia Sveiskoi voiny,'” in Pavlenko, N. I. et al., eds., Rossiia vperiod reform Petra I (Moscow, 1973), p. 109 Google Scholar; Stepanov, V. P. and Stennik, Iu. V., Istoriia russkoi literatury XVIII veka. Bibliograficheskii ukazateV (Leningrad, 1968), no. 6375 Google Scholar. See Cracraft, “Bibliography,” p. 20, no. 81 for further references. See also Katsprzhak, E. I. et al., eds., Svodnyi katalog russkoi knigi grazhdanskoipechati XVIII veka , 5 vols. (Moscow, 1962-67), 3:293 Google Scholar, where the History is listed as a work by Prokopovich or as a work “published by M. M. Shcherbatov from a manuscript inspected and corrected by Feofan Prokopovich” : it is not clear which view the editors take. Chistovich is mistaken for Morozov in the relevant references in Cracraft, James, The Church Reform of Peter the Great (Stanford, 1971), p. 60 Google Scholar, note 1, and in Cracraft, James, “Feofan Prokopovich,” in Garrard, J. G., ed., The Eighteenth Century in Russia (Oxford, 1973), p. 95 Google Scholar, note 45.

47. Cracraft, “Bibliography,” p. 19, no. 79.

48. Epistolae illustrissimi ac reverendissimi Theophanis Procopovilsch variis temporibus et ad varios amicos datae (Moscow, 1776), no. 11. The key passage of the letter, for our purposes here, begins: “Absolvi denique pro Collegio seu Consistorio Ecclesiastico generali, constitutiones, vulgo Regulamentum. … Scriptum hoc sua Maiestas sibi iussit perlegi, et, aliquibus paucis mutatis, acde suo adiectis, vehementer approbavit; tum in Senatu legi iussit, ubi aderant Senatores, et sex Episcopi.” Scholarly references to this letter provide no details of its provenance: cf. Chistovich, Prokopovich, pp. 46-50; Trudy Kievskoi Dukhovnoi Akademii, February 1865, pp. 287-94; or Verkhovskoi, Uchrezhdenie, 1:161. See also Cracraft, “Bibliography,” p. 35, no. 174.

49. See Verkhovskoi, Uchrezhdenie, 2:12-76 for his edition of this manuscript of the Ecclesiastical Regulation with detailed notes and introduction. For his further discussion of the work's early history, see ibid., 1:155ff. This manuscript is also described in ORS, vol. 2, pt. 2, no. 2021 and presumably also is the one referred to in Valk and Bedin, TsGIA: Putevoditel', p. 87.

50. Verkhovskoi, Uchrezhdenie, 2:77-105.

51. For example, PSP, vol. 2, no. 597.

52. Opisanie2, no. 149; RBS, 25:474.

53. Opisanie I, no. 606; Cracraft, “Bibliography,” p. 19, no. 79.

54. Verkhovskoi, Uchrezhdenie, 2:3-7.

55. Verkhovskoi, Uchrezhdenie. 1:492-94; Temnikovskii, E. N., “Odin izistochnikovDukhovnago Reglamenta” Sbornik Khar'kovskago Istoriko-filologicheskago obshehestva , 28 (1909): 524–34.Google Scholar

56. Verkhovskoi, Uchrezhdenie, 2:28 (note 18); ibid., 1:155-56, 76 (note 248), 161.

57. Opisanie I, no. 320. In 1724, again at Peter's orders, Buzhinskii “thoroughly corrected” the translation of another work by Pufendorf (PSP, vol.4, nos. 1370,1440). The contemporary reference to Buzhinskii quoted above (p. 179)— “well known for his translation of Pufendorf” —might be recalled here.

58. See for example Fick's report of June 11, 1718, to Peter in PSZ, vol. 5, no. 3208. On Fick more generally, see Peterson, Claes, Peter the Great's Administrative and Judicial Reforms: Swedish Antecedents and the Process of Reception (Stockholm, 1979 Google Scholar). In a list ofSwedish official documents brought to Russia by Fick, the “Konigl: Kirchen-Gesetz und Ordnung” of 1686 is to be noted (see Cederberg, A. R., “Heinrich Fick: Ein Beitrag zur russischen Geschichte des XVIII Jahrhunderts,” Acta et Commentaliones Universitatis Tartuensis (Dorpatensis), B(Humaniora) , 27 (1930), appendix 1, p. 58, no. 61.Google Scholar

59. Eremin, I. P., ed., Feofan Prokopovich: Sochineniia (Moscow/Leningrad, 1961), pp. 4–5, 229-334, 491-500Google Scholar. A Russian translation by G. A. Stratanovskii and A.N. Egunov of this De arte poetica is also printed here (ibid., pp. 335-455). Only in the full title of the 1786 edition of this De arte poetica is Prokopovich identified as having “dictated” the work at the Kiev Academy in 1705. For references to several manuscript copies of the work extant in Kievan repositories in the 1890s, see Petrov, N., Opisanie rukopisnykh sobranii nakhodiashchikhsia vgorode Kieve, 3 vols. (Moscow, 1892-1904), vol. 1, nos. 246, 247, 248 and vol. 2, no. 306Google Scholar. For still another manuscript of the work, see Petrov, N., Opisanie rukopisei tserkovno-arkheologicheskago muzeia pri Kievskoi dukhovnoi akademii (Kiev, 1875-79), no. 417 Google Scholar, which Petrov says here is the Poetica published in 1786. So far as can be ascertained from Petrov's indications, these manuscripts all date from the middle or late eighteenth century (if not from the early nineteenth). It has been difficult to determine how many or which of these manuscripts may have survived. According to P. K. Grimsted, “Archives and Manuscript Repositories in the Ukrainian SSR: Kiev” (Princeton University Press, forthcoming), all but 86 of the 667 manuscripts listed by Petrov in Opisan rukopisei are now in the collections of the Central Scientific Library of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (TsNB) in Kiev, as are all but 69 of the 1227 manuscripts listed by Petrov in Opisanie rukopisnykh sobranii—though not, notably, the Poetica (Petrov, Opisanie rukopisnykh sobranii, vol. 2, no. 306), a manuscript then to be found at the Kiev Monastery of the Caves; cf. Grimsted, “Archives,” p. 375.1 am most grateful to Dr. Grimsted for letting me study a typescript of her forthcoming work. In his review of Ukrainian manuscript poelicae of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, H. M. Syvokin' reveals that before his death in 1936 V. I. Riezanov had been preparing for publication an edition of the Poetica attributed to Prokopovich on the basis of some five manuscripts of the work ( Syvokin', , Davni ukraiins'kipoetyky [Kharkhiv, 1960], pp. 27.Google Scholar, with reference to Riezanov's papers at the Nizhyn filial of the state archives of the Chernihiv oblast). Syvokin’ cites for his own purposes the 1786 printed edition of the Poetica and raises no question of attribution.

60. For the Poetica's indebtedness to the Poeticarum imtitutionum libri tres of J. Pontanus (Ingolstadt, 1594), see, most recently, G. Vogt, “Die Tragikomodie ‘Vladimir'des Feofan Prokopovie …” (Doctoral diss., Karl-Franz Universitat, Graz, 1968), pp. 21-31 and passim. This study draws extensively on Rezanov, V. I. (Riezanov, ), Iz istorii russkoi dramy. Shkol'nye deistva XVII-XVIII vekov i leatr iezuitov (Moscow, 1910 Google Scholar). Cf. Sokolov, A. N., “O poetike Feofana Prokopovicha,” in Shvedova, N. Iu. et al., Problemy sovremennoi filologii: Sbornik statei k semidesiatileliiu akad. V. V. Vinogradova (Moscow, 1965), pp. 443–49 Google Scholar, where the Eremin edition of the Poetica is cited throughout, where its debt to Pontanus and to J. C. Scaliger is noted while insisting that its author “did not limit himself to a simple svodka of materials,” and where the work is described in sum as “this important monument of early Russian literary-esthetic thought.” Or cf. Smirnov, A. A., “K probleme sootnoshenii russkogo predklassitsizma i gumanisticheskoi poezii F. Prokopovicha i lu. Ts. Skaliger,” in Kuleshov, V. I. et al., eds., Problemy teorii i istorii literatury: Sbornik stateiposviashchennyipamiatiprof. A. N. Sokolova (Moscow, 1971), pp. 67–73 Google Scholar, which cites the Eremin edition of the Poetica, attributes it to Prokopovich and dates it to 1705 without question, and seeks to contrast its theory of poetics with that of Scaliger. Smirnov judges Scaliger's theory “neoplatonist” and regards the theory of which Prokopovich is presumed author as having fundamentally modified Renaissance theory under the influence of Leibniz—for which achievement Prokopovich is termed a “Russian humanist.” By contrast, see, on the larger issues here, Lewin, Paulina, “Polish-Ukrainian-Russian Literary Relations of the Sixteenth-Eighteenth Centuries: New Approaches,” Slavic and East European Journal , 24, no. 3 (Fall 1980), pp. 256–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

61. Tikhomirov, F., Traktaly Feofana Prokopovicha O Boge edinom po sushchestvu itroichnom v litsakh (St. Petersburg, 1884),pp. 1–16 Google Scholar. Cf., most recently, Hartel, H. J., Byzantinisches Erbeund Ortho doxie bei Feofan Prokopovič (Wurzburg, 1970), pp. 31–32 Google Scholar, where the problem of attribution is raised without attempting to resolve it. For details of the various printed editions and translations referred to and of various manuscript versions of extracts from (presumably) Prokopovich's theological lectures, see Cracraft, “Bibliography,” pp. 25-30.

62. V. I. Shynkaruk et al., Feofan Prokopovych: filosofs'ki ivory v tr'okh tomakh, vol. 1: Pro rylorychne mystelslvo, Rizni sententsii (Kiev, 1979).

63. For further criticism of this volume, see my forthcoming review of it in Harvard Ukrainian Studies. At least six eighteenth-century manuscripts of a Rhetorica attributed to Prokopovich survive, and extracts from various of these manuscripts had previously been printed in Russian or Ukrainian translation. See Vomperskii, V. P., Slilislicheskoe uchenie M. V. Lomonosova i leorii trekh slilei (Moscow, 1970), pp. 189–200 Google Scholar; and Cracraft, “Bibliography,” p. 33, no. 168.

64. See Filosofs'ka dumka, 1970, no. 4, pp. 96-106; and ibid., no. 5, pp. 100-108.

65. Petrov, Opisanie rukopisei, no. 43.

66. Cf. references in Nichik, Prokopovich, p. 181, nos. 61, 62; Shynkaruk et al., Feofan Prokopovich: filosofs'ki ivory, p. 18; Filosofs'ka dumka, 1970, no. 4, pp. 96-106; and ibid., no. 5, pp. 100-108.

67. Twenty-four such poems are printed in Eremin, Sochineniia, pp. 209-26. Many poems or versions of poems attributed to Prokopovich remain in manuscript (see Cracraft, “Bibliography,” pp. 31-32).

68. Eremin, Sochineniia, pp. 4-14,149-206,475-79. For the literature on Vladimir, see also Cracraft, James, “Prokopovyč's Kiev Period Reconsidered,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies , 2, no. 2 (June 1978): 138–48.Google Scholar

69. In addition to the contemporary reference to Prokopovich as the “Russian Demosthenes” (quoted above, p. 179), see Trediakovskii's reference to “another Horace” and Sumarokov's to the “Russian Cicero” (quoted in Cracraft, “Bibliography,” p. 2).

70. Nakoval'nin, Feofana Prokopovicha Slova i rechi.

71. Eremin, Sochineniia, pp. 5-6. Cf. Vomperskii, Stilistieheskoe uchenie, pp. 75-76, referring to the practice at the Moscow press of removing Ukrainianisms from Prokopovich's works. The practice is particularly noticeable in the works of Prokopovich's Kiev period printed in Moscow, as is clearly illustrated by a detailed comparison of the Kiev and Moscow printed editions of Prokopovich's well-attested panegyric to Peter 1 of 1709 in celebration of the Poltava victory.

72. Eremin, Sochineniia, pp. 23-146, 459-75. Six of these speeches are printed again, from their contemporary printed editions on deposit in the Lenin Library, Moscow (Eremin prints from copies of same preserved at the State Public Library, Leningrad), in Grebeniuk, V. P. and Derzhavina, O. A., eds., Panegirkheskaia Hteraturapetrovskogo vremeni (Moscow, 1979), pp. 181–99, 208-19,234-43,265-78, 279-82, 283–300 Google Scholar. The Nakoval'nin edition continues to be cited by scholars without apparent reservation: for example, see N. D. Kochetkova, “Oratorskaia proza Feofana Prokopovicha i puti formirovaniia literatury klassitsizma,” in Makogonenko, G. P. and Moiseeva, G. N., Problem’ literaturnogo razvitiia v Rossiipervoi treti XVIII veka (Leningrad, 1974), pp. 50–80 Google Scholar for eighteen such citations.

73. Cracraft, “Bibliography,” nos. 11, 13, 16, 17, 23, 26, 30, 41, 47, 61, are all possibilities and nos. 26, 41, 47, 61 definite, in this regard.

74. See ibid., nos. 23, 25, 31, 38, 40, 49, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63.

75. See Grebeniuk and|Derzhavina, Panegirkheskaia Hteratura, pp. 100-105 and 127-28 for two such examples; see note 77 below for a similar case.

76. Cf. Valk and Bedin, TsGIA: Putevoditel', p. 93 and Petrov, Opisanie rukopisei, vol. 2, pt. 2, no. 2134. See also note 38 above.

77. It is reported in the St. Petersburg Gazette of February 15, 1721, that “On the morning [of February 14] His Majesty and the Ministers, as well as the bishops and other church dignitaries, attended the Liturgy in the Trinity Cathedral [in St. Petersburg], at the conclusion of which a sermon was preached by the Archbishop of Pskov, Feofan Prokopovich, concerning the inauguration of the Ecclesiastical College [renamed, later that same day, Most Holy Governing Synod]” . This information is confirmed in one of the journals regularly kept by Peter I's officials (see Cracraft, Church Reform, p. 178). The text of a “Sermon [preached] at the Inauguration of the Most Holy Governing Synod” is printed in Nakoval'nin, Feofana Prokopovicha Slova i rechi, 2:63-70. It compares closely with that found in a manuscript miscellany of works attributed to Prokopovich dating to not later than 1751 and now on deposit in the Manuscript Department of the State Historical Museum, Moscow (see Cracraft, “Bibliography,” p. 17, no. 65).

78. See the “Apocrypha” listed or referred to in Cracraft, “Bibliography, ” pp. 35-36. For an anonymous work in manuscript recently discovered and attributed to Prokopovich primarily on the basis of content, see Kozlov, O. F., “Dva neiizvestnykh sochineniia XVIII veka” Sovetskie arkhivw 1972, no. 3, pp. 76–78, 79-8Google Scholar 1. Kozlov's analysis illustrates the pitfalls to be avoided when attempting to make such an attribution.

79. Cf. apposite remarks by V. V. Vinogradov in his “Problema avtorstva i printsipy atributsii tekstov neizvestnogo proiskhozhdeniia,” in Vinogradov, Problema avtorstva i teoriia stilei (Moscow, 1961), pp. 8-63. 1 should emphasize that the method of attributing works to Prokopovich by means of thorough content and stylistic analysis with reference to a properly established canon does not preclude resort to any independent evidence of authorship. It only assumes that in many cases—half or more of the entire Prokopovich bibliography—no such evidence exists. 1 should also make clear that the method is to be adapted ab initio to the genre of the work being attributed—sermon or speech, poem, academic treatise or “course,” official proclamation or other official document—and that the results will depend in part on the nature of the work itself: poems are essentially personal in character (even when imitative); academic works (in Prokopovich's time) are compilational; official works are collaborative, and so forth. The study by L. Kjellberg, “La langue de Gedeon Krinovskij, prédicateur russe du XVIlle siècle,” Uppsala Universitets Ǻrsskrift, 1957, no. 7, is a model, from the linguistic aspect, of the kind of textual analysis being proposed here. Kjellberg, interestingly, views the language of the contemporary printed edition of Prokopovich's well-attested speech at Peter I's funeral (Cracraft. “Bibliography,” p. 15, no. 49) as transitional between Slavonic and Russian: “Russe avec apport slavon net” by comparison with the “Slavon avec apport russe plus ou moins net” of the oratorical efforts of his contemporaries and immediate predecessors as leading preachers in Russia, or with the “Russe avec apport slavon faible” of sermons of the 1740s and 1750s (Kjellberg, “La langue,” pp. 12,18).On the other hand,thechief value of the work of O. T. della Cava, “Feofan Prokopovič, His Life and His Sermons” (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1971), is to call attention to various “contradictions” and “striking contrasts” with respect to both content and style that are to be found when comparing the numerous oratorical and literary works attributed to Prokopovich. Dr. della Cava attempts to explain these contradictions and contrasts by alluding to contemporary personal, political, or other circumstances; it appears not to have occurred to her that all of the works in question may not have been written by the same person. She also notes that no proper content or stylistic analysis of the sermons attributed to Prokopovich has yet been undertaken.

80. Cf., similarly, various points made by Donald Ostrowski in his review of Sinitsyna's, N. V. work, Maksim Grek v Rossii (Moscow, 1977)Google Scholar in Kritika: A Review of Current Soviet Books on Russian History, 15, no. 1 (Winter 1979): 17-30. On the problem of attribution or “reattribution” of eighteenthcentury Russian works, see P. N. Berkov, “Ob ustanovlenii avtorstva anonimnykh i psevdonimnykh proizvedenii W i l l veka,” Russkaia literatura, 1958, no. 2, pp. 180-89. Noteworthy too is Berkov's conclusion that in the absence of “irrefutable proof of authorship” even a “full scientific attribution” must be considered hypothetical only: “a hypothesis remains a hypothesis” (ibid., p. 189)—a conclusion which Vinogradov, transcending his own caution, found excessively “pessimistic” (Vinogradov, Problema avtorstva, p. 193).

81. Vinogradov, Problema avtorstva, pp. 8-63.Research for this article was conducted in Moscow under the auspices of the International Research and Exchanges Board. I presented an earlier draft at the 1979 AAASS Convention in New Haven, Connecticut and wish to thank Professor Norman Naimark of Boston University for his helpful and supportive comments. Special thanks also are due to Patricia Polansky, Russian bibliographer at the University of Hawaii's Hamilton Library, who cheerfully tracked down many elusive provincial publications and helped me obtain them. All dates are Old Style.