Stanislav Ivanovich of Kiev (c1290-c1350)

Stanislav - the Kiev prince of the beginning of the XIV century, which is described in the Belarusian-Lithuanian chronicles of the 16th century of a lengthy edition (Chronicle of the Archaeological Society, Rachinsky, Olshevskaya, Rumiantsevskaya, Evreinovskaya, Bykhovets Chronicle). The question of the historicity of Stanislaus is controversial in modern historical science.

According to chronicle news, the Lithuanian prince Gedimin, defending Germans from Samogitia, began an offensive against the possessions of Prince Stanislav of Kiev, who called to his aid the Prince of Pereyaslav, Oleg, the Prince of Lutsk Leo and the Prince of Bryansk Roman. The united army of Russian princes was defeated in the battle on the Irpen River, during which Oleg and Lev were killed. Stanislav and Roman, according to the chronicles, fled to Bryansk, from where Stanislav invited the Ryazan prince who gave Stanislav his wife Olga as his wife and handed over to Stanislav the whole Ryazan principality. In Kiev, according to the chronicle, Gedimin placed his prince Olshansky Mindovg Olgimuntovich as his deputy.

Historiography The news of the Belarusian-Lithuanian chronicles served as a source for the Chronicle of Matej Strykowski, which timed the seizure of Kiev by Gedimin by 1320. In the nineteenth-century Russian historiography, beginning with NM Karamzin, the news of the Belarusian-Lithuanian chronicles about the capture of Kiev by Gedimin was traditionally questioned, and the figure of the Kiev prince Stanislav was fictitious. The basis for this was the late nature of the news, the anachronisms contained therein and the contradictions with the sources of the fourteenth century. In our time, arguments against the historicity of Stanislaus were summed up by the Ukrainian historian Elena Rusina. Among other things, she points out that information about the struggle of the Lithuanian prince Gedimin for Kiev land is not confirmed by earlier Belarusian-Lithuanian sources, nor Livonian and Prussian chronicles. News of the capture of Gedimin Kiev in the twenties of the fourteenth century is contradicted by the fact that in the 1930s Prince Fedor reigned in Kiev. In addition, the name "Stanislav" is not typical for the onomasticon of Russian princes. According to E. Rusina, the legend about the capture of Kiev by Gedimin arose in the 16th century as a justification for the claims of the princes of Olshansky to Kiev.

At the same time, a number of modern historians support the historicity of the news of the Belarusian-Lithuanian chronicles and recognize the existence of Stanislav. Ukrainian historian Felix Shabuldo, although he considers fiction a whole series of moments of chronicle history, in particular, a story about the fate of Stanislav after his flight from Kiev, but in general the history of the capture of Kiev by Gedimin recognizes the authentic, and Prince Fyodor considers Gedimin's protege. In his opinion, after the victory on the Irpen River, Kiev found itself in a peculiar double dependence on the Golden Horde and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which explains the finding of the Tatar baskak in 1331 in Kiev. In favor of the historicity of Stanislaus, according to F. Shabuldo, the mention in the Lubetsk Synod of "Prince John Stanislavovich", which apparently lived in the second half of the fourteenth century, speaks. Ukrainian historian Leonty Voitovich identifies Stanislaus with the Prince of Terenty mentioned in the Kiev synodik, who belonged to the Putivlian dynasty of the Rurik people, believing the name of Terenty with his baptized name. Prince Terenty was supposedly the brother of Vladimir Ivan Ivanovich, mentioned in the Seversky synodik as the prince of Kiev. Hence Voitovich calls Stanislav Stanislav-Terenty Ivanovich. In addition, Voitovich identifies Stanislav of Kiev with Prince Stanislav, mentioned by Athanasius of Kalfofoy among the votaries of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra.

Argument in favor of the reality of Prince Stanislaus is largely undermined by the publication of the Vvedensky Synod. Comparing it with other sources suggests that "John Stanislavovich" from the Lubetsk Synodic is, apparently, an incorrect transfer of the name of Ivan Svyatoslavich from the Kozelsk-Karachev branch of the Rurikovich, and Stanislav from the list of Athanasius of Kalfofoy is the son of Vladimir the Saint.