HARVARD UKRAINIAN STUDIES - See also - Harvard University

550 ReviewsLack of information about the editions used as sources diminishes theusefulness of the second volume. Judging by the footnote references, one mayinfer that Father Solovij did not have access to the original editions and sorelied on copies and reprints. For Threnos, he used a manuscript copy, now inthe library of the Sorbonne, whose accuracy is unconfirmed. The chaptersdevoted to Threnos are nonetheless valuable because the work is relativelyinaccessible. For Antigraphë, Verificatia niewinności, Obrona verificaciey,Elenchus pism uszczypliwych, Justificatia niewinności, Supplicatia, and Protestatiathe author had recourse to well-known reprints of the late nineteenthand early twentieth centuries. One should bear in mind, however, that thesereprints contain many errors. It seems that he did not have access to copies ofApologia, Paraenesis, or Exaethesis (which have not been reprinted), but drewhis information from Susza and recent studies of Smotryc'kyj. Further researchshould check the validity of this information.The second volume is further weakened by the lack of information about thecorpus of Smotryc'kyj's works. The Ruthenian version of Smotryc'kyj'sKazan'e (Vilnius, 1620) is available in a reprint and was cited in the bibliography,but there is no mention of it elsewhere. The Polish version of Kazanie(Vilnius, 1621) and the Evangelye ucitelnoe (Vevis, 1616) are perhapsSmotryc'kyj's least known works and are not readily available, so theirabsence here is not surprising. Father Solovij bases his discussion of Verificatianiewnności on the reprint of the first edition, although Smotryc'kyj publisheda much modified second edition very soon after the appearance of the first.Antigraphë and Supplicatia, on the other hand, are of uncertain authorship.Father B. Waczyński ("Czy Antigrafe jest dziełem Maksyma [Melecjusza]Smotryckiego?," Roczniki Teologiczno-Kanoniczne, vol. 1, Lublin,1949) has demonstrated convincingly that Smotryc'kyj should not be consideredthe author of Antigraphë. It is possible that Smotryc'kyj wrote Supplicatia,but no direct evidence for the attribution has been found. In general, thearticle by Father Waczyński provides solid guidelines for a discussion of thecorpus of Smotryc'kyj's works. Yet, for some reason it has not received dueattention, so that scholars continue to base their work on erroneous assumptions.For example, the most recent work on Smotryc'kyj (M. Smotryc'kyj,Hramatyka, ed. V. V. Nimćuk, Kiev, 1979) again makes the usual attributionof Antigraphë to Smotryc'kyj. Father Solovij outlines all of Waczynski'spoints without giving any counter arguments of his own, yet continues toaccept the traditional attribution.Despite these shortcomings, Father Solovij's work will be of use to a widerange of scholars. It is the most ambitious study of Smotryc'kyj to date, andthe first large-scale attempt to characterize the whole of the writer's life andworks. Its compilation of passages from both primary and secondary sources