Reconstructing the Life of Simeon Polotskii on the Basis of Manuscripts

There are some more objective clues that cast doubt on the hypothesis of Sazonova and Robinson without, however, definitely refuting it. Lukash Piotrovsky was in fact a well-known Polish linguist of the seventeenth century, the author of a very popular grammatical tractate that was reprinted many times. (The first edition was published in 1634; Simeon had one of the reprinted issues in his library).25 This Lukash Piotrovsky died in 1679 and is most likely not to be identified with Lukash Piotrovskii, the clerk of Polatsk. Gordeev argues that according to his mother's will the latter was younger than Samuel (Simeon), who was born in 1629. In that case, however, Luke could have been no more than four years of age when he wrote the grammar book! Anyway, the claim that Luke was younger than Simeon is also just an assumption: Gordeev bases it on the fact that in the mother's will Luke is mentioned after Simeon. Though we may consider this point a fairly serious one, there remains a certain measure of doubt and documentary evidence is required. There is one more argument against the hypothesis of Sazonova and Robinson, namely the fact that in 1679 Simeon Polotskii made his will and left Luka "chervonykh zolotykh sto" (100 rubles in gold).26 This may indicate that in 1679 Luke was still alive. However, we cannot exclude the possibility that he thed after Simeon wrote the will. Simeon does not seem to mention anything like mis in his papers, but we may as yet be unaware of such evidence. The most important indications that Lukash Petrovsky the grammarian and Lukash Petrovsky the scribe were two different people are several signatures in magistrate documents, Simeon's mentioning of Luka's name in his letters,27 as well as the above-mentioned fact that a certain Sitnianovich-Piotrovskii corrected some documents. These facts suggest that Luka was a clerk throughout the 1650s, 1660s, and 1670s; while his namesake was a professor in Krakow. The hypothesis of Sazonova and Robinson may be considered quite interesting, although there is evidence against it, and it should not be definitively discarded as yet.

Let us turn to another fact, mentioned in the same manuscript (ff. 37^sup v^-38^sup v^), i.e., a "List upominarnyi do hetmana... pisanyi ot preosviashchennaho Kalista, episkopa Polotskaho i Vitebskaho" [Register, made for the Hetman by Eminent Kallist, bishop of Polatsk and Vitebsk]. The marginal note at the end of the letter reads as follows:

A[nn]o 1661. Augusti 29. P[rzewielebny] Piotr Ciapinski podnosilt [sic!] Pfrzewielebnemu] kniaziu [the further writing Andreiu is crossed out] Jwanu Andrfeevichu] Chowanskiemu. Na Zarzeczu. Stoiacemu z polkami Wielkiego Nowogroda y Pskowa. H[osu]d[a]ria Caria Alexia Michaylowicza. etc. Które wielka. klijska. poniesli. Tegoz roku pod Kuszlikami...

[1661, August 29. Eminent Petr Tshapinsky made offerings to Eminent Duke Ioann Andreevich Khovansky, who was then standing wiui the troupes of Veliky Novgorod and Pskov, subjects of Tsar Alexey Mikhailovich, who had been badly defeated the same year near Koushliki].