The article supplements the publication of the introduction to Theophan Prokopovych’s phil-osophical course. It analyses characteristics of Prokopovych’s manuscript in comparison with the manuscript of Georgiy Konyskyi’s philo-sophical course. The latter turns out to be a copy of the former, as it does not contain significant differences. The article describes the editorial principles of Prokop-ovych’s Prooemium and the significance of the text as well as gives short exposition of the content with the analysis of references by Prokopovych. It explains some (...) codicological and tex-tological characteristics of both manuscripts. The analysis of textual relation between the two manuscripts shows that Konyskyi’s manuscript contains much more mistakes than Prokop-ovych’s manuscript. Most of more than a hundred variations between the manuscripts are mis-takes in Konyskyi’s manuscript. The author supposes that the student, the scribe of Konyskyi’s manuscript, not completely understood rather complicated style of Prokopovych. Prokop-ovych’s position about the style of exposition shows balancing between humanistic and scho-lastic ideas. It states that Prokopovych refers usually to ancient authors. The references in the text are quite detailed, but not enough accurate. Almost half of them happen to be incorrect. It is probable that Prokopovych made references from memory. (shrink)