HARVARD UKRAINIAN STUDIES - See also - Harvard University

Reviews 551handy reference aid. Denysjuk's monograph does not resolve many issues, but thequestions it raises and the unexplored territory it ventures into make it a valuablecontribution to the study of Ukrainian prose.Maxim TarnawskyUniversity of TorontoSINOPSIS, KIEV 1681. By Hans Rothe. Cologne and Vienna:Bohlau Verlag, 1983. 409 pp. DM 98.Hans Rothe's study of the Sinopsis is a welcome addition to the literature onseventeenth-century East Slavic history writing. He offers a lucid account of thereasons for the composition of the Sinopsis and provides a convincing resolution ofthe much-debated question of its authorship. Rothe's book consists of a lengthyintroduction and a facsimile of the 1680 edition. The introduction includes: a studyof the literature composed in Kiev's Caves Monastery in the seventeenth century; ashort overview of history writing in seventeenth-century Ukraine; an account of thecareer of Innokentii Gizel', abbot of the Caves Monastery (1656-1683), in whichRothe makes a good case for Gizel' 's authorship; and a careful discussion of theSinopsis's manuscript tradition and printed editions, of its sources and how these areused, and of its basic themes.Rothe's basic approach is to consider the Sinopsis within the context from whichit emerged—an approach which is regrettably rare in the study of early East Slaviccultural history. In so doing Rothe clears up many misconceptions andoversimplifications about the Sinopsis. He convincingly argues that the Sinopsiswas not intended as propaganda for the Muscovite-Ukrainian union, nor as a "textbook"on early Rus' history, nor as a Volksbuch. Rather, the Sinopsis was a productof the Caves Monastery written to fulfill a specific political agenda.The chief concern of the Caves Monastery in the second half of the seventeenthcentury was to protect its autonomy vis-a-vis the Kiev Metropohtanate and the MoscowPatriarchate. A major part of Gizel' 's political activity consisted of negotiatingwith the Muscovite authorities over this issue of autonomy. Rothe is at his best indemonstrating how this agenda is woven into the text of the Sinopsis. Both in hischoice and emendation of sources Gizel' attempted to emphasize the historicallystauropegial status of the Caves Monastery—that the monastery was subordinateonly to the Patriarch of Constantinople. The second part of the agenda was to enlistthe Muscovite tsar as the monastery's protector. Rothe shows how in the SinopsisGizel' emphasizes Moscow's leadership among all the Slavic peoples and the tsar's"rightful" claims to the Kievan inheritance. This focus on Moscow and on the traditionalrelationship of monastery and tsar is also achieved by the technique of"doubling" or "prefiguring." Gizel' develops a series of parallels—the CavesMonastery/the Trinity Monastery, Andrei Bogolubskii/Aleksei Mikhailovich,Kulikovo/Chyhyryn, Kiev/Moscow—which reinforce the notion of a unique histor-