Epistolary dialogue of Lazar Baranovych with his contemporaries: problem of religious and political choice

Abstract

The purpose of the work. The article on the material of Lazar Baranovych's epistolary examines the question of his religious and political choice in the context of Ukrainian state formation. Methodology. An interdisciplinary approach, which involves the use of historical and philological research methods, is applied. The method of historical reconstruction was used to reproduce various aspects of social life in the second half of the 17th century. The historical and literary method made it possible to characterize the peculiarities of his religious and political choice through the prism of the archbishop's letters. Scientific novelty. On the basis of Baranovych's epistolary with contemporary addressees, his attitude to important political and religious events of the present time, the role of this extraordinary personality in the social and religious processes of Ukraine during the Ruin period are shown. Conclusions. The correspondence of the Chernihiv bishop with famous contemporaries, political and religious figures (hetmans, bishops, writers) proves that he persistently defended the traditional rights of the Kyiv Metropolis: he took care of the church, was concerned with the organization of its hierarchy, tried to avoid a split, although he acted not independently, taking into account the position of the political authorities, Ukrainian and Moscow. Bishop of Chernihiv maintained contacts with the hetmans of Right-Bank and Left-Bank Ukraine. In his letters, he not only shows favoritism or disfavor to statesmen, but also gives his own assessments of political events in Ukraine, such as: the atrocities of the Cossack administration in the field, the search for an Ottoman protectorate, etc. The epistolary proves that the Chernihiv bishop took a clear pro-Moscow position in a political sense. He was concerned about the atrocities of the Moscow governors in Ukraine, but this did not become an obstacle to consistently flatter the Moscow tsar, stressing the advantages of a single-minded ruler and the disadvantages of political rapprochement with Turkey. He justified his own concessions and compromises with Moskovia by the prospects of such a union for Ukraine, neglecting the imperial ambitions of the northern neighbor and not allowing any other protectorate.