THE WORKS OF FEOFAN PROKOPOVICH AND THEIR IMPACT ON PUBLIC LIFE IN RUSSIA

Feofan Prokopovich began writing his own compositions while still teaching at the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy. This was the first attempt to stabilize the training of future servants of God and facilitate their further education. Basically, during this time Prokopovich pays attention to the field of poetics, because it was this field of teaching that required writing essays and works of many other genres. In particular, F. Prokopovich wrote a work related to both tragedy and comedy. This tragicomedy was called "Vladimir" [1., pp.127-128], written in 1705.

In this tragicomedy, the ignorance of pagan priests subject to superstition was ridiculed. The work also raises the topic of the confrontation of enlightenment against ignorance, in the form of an internal struggle of Prince Vladimir over the change of religion of Russia, called by Prokopovich ignorance and paganism was "filth". Nevertheless, this work was a kind of parallel to the modern struggle of Peter Alekseevich against the clergy and boyars who were often dissatisfied with the reforms. Frequent references to historical sources in Prokopovich's works are not accidental.

The publicist used them to compare or draw parallels to the events taking place in Russia, most often supporting the monarch's reforms. It is also worth mentioning that the personal library of the publicist included about 25 thousand volumes, including incredibly valuable manuscripts from the period of Ancient Russia, and after the death of the political publicist were transferred in 1736 to the library of the Academy of Sciences.

I would like to note that Feofan Prokopovich also took an active part in editing the "Historiiswey War", describing important military, foreign and domestic political events, the economic situation of the country in chronological order during the Northern War, and it should also be noted that Prokopovich was the author of the "History of Emperor Peter the Great, from 1773 his birth before the Battle of Poltava" [2., pp. 102-103], since it was published after Prokopovich's death, it was not published by the author himself, but by M.M. Shcherbatov, who is a famous Russian historian.

Shortly after the Battle of Poltava, in 1709, Feofan Prokopovich addressed the emperor who arrived in Kiev. Prokopovich made a speech with "A word of praise about the glorious victory over the troops of the army" [3., p. 139], then simply "The Word". "The Word" [4., pp. 155-156] is connected with the traditional panegyric speech quite nominally, in essence being a new original composition, judging by the literary features of the "Word".

The "Word" was written in honor of the victory, as mentioned earlier. In the Northern War. The analysis of this victory was carried out in connection with the personal knowledge of Feofan Prokopovich in the political, historical and social values of Poltava. The "word" is not only an assessment of the Poltava victory, it was also an assessment. Prokopovich does not write any compliments in the "Word" in the direction of the Russian sovereign, but rather severely assesses the forces invested and the reasons for the victory.

Just against the general background of Prokopovich's literary works, there is also "Epinikion" [5., p. 157], dedicated to the Battle of Poltava, as well as "The Word". This work is known for the fact that it was written immediately in three languages, thereby standing out from the rest of Prokopovich's works. However, checking this article later and analyzing its content, the researchers came to the conclusion that the structure, system of images and speech presentation in the work are different depending on the translation.

Later, I.A. Chistovich in the work "Feofan Prokopovich and his Time" [6., pp. 390-391], that Feofan solemnly greeted Peter I in St. Sophia Cathedral, Feofan Prokopovich in honor of the victory at the Battle of Poltava, was a Panegyric printed in the printing house of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra.

It was written in two languages, in Russian and, at that time popular, Latin. G.N. Moiseeva indicates that F. Prokopovich was not a participant in the battle, and all the information described in his writings was mainly taken from the brochure "Mandatory relation about the main battle ...", which was widely distributed after Poltava.

Comparing the Church Slavonic and the Polish version of the Epinikion, according to S. I. Nikolaev, there is a clear difference of textual differences existing in these two editions. Feofan Prokopovich in the work "Epinikion" already from the first lines describes the unprecedented delight of the victory of Peter I, who tries to show it in various ways. Feofan Prokopovich in his writings identifies the image of Peter Alekseevich as a rather tough ruler.

He wrote the treatise "The Word about the power and honor of the tsar" in 1718 [7., pp. 320-321]. Here F. Prokopovich clearly outlined the sacred features of monarchical power. He even compares the power of the monarch with the power of God, which even makes it possible to justify to some extent the trial that Peter I carried out over his son, Tsarevich Alexei. In his other work, no less famous, in the "Truth of the Will of the Monarch"3 F. Prokopovich explains the concept of absolutism.

In his opinion, the power of the monarch and his rights, including, should be transferred by will, but not in accordance with the law on inheritance. Also in this work, he conducts a comparative analysis between an elective monarchy and a hereditary monarchy.

As a result, he comes to the conclusion that the monarch's rights to the will are fully justified. In 1722 , F. Prokopovich wrote his next work, "The Truth of the Will of the monarch in determining the heir of his power." Here he examines the reason for the appearance of the statute of succession and explains the emergence of a dynastic crisis in the state, which occurred as a result of the death of Tsarevich Alexei.

The seriousness of the situation is also manifested in the fact that Peter had no male heirs, and there was also the fact that the emperor disliked his own grandson. According to the issued statute, the monarch had the right to independently elect the heir to the throne and change the decision if the chosen one does not justify the hopes.