The author justifies the need to return to an analysis of the meaning of such words as “philosophy” and “philosopher” in the Kyivan Rus’ written sources of the 11th–14th centuries. This is explained not only by the inaccuracies the earlier research committed but also by the necessity to take contemporary achievements of Byzantine philosophical historiography into account. The author concludes that the preserved Kyivan Rus’ written sources reflect certain Byzantine interpretations of the words “philosopher” and “philosophy” as understood within particular (...) interpre-tive frameworks: philosophy may refer to a specifically “Christian” or “external” philosophy, presup-pose rational or mystical comprehension of divine wisdom, become verbalized or not. Some sources probably espouse an understanding of philosophy as a practice of true life. The word “philosopher” had different connotations, as well. It referred to advisers or officeholders at the court of the Byzantine emperor, wise princes, church intellectuals, connoisseurs of biblical books, etc. The author invalidates the idea that in Kyivan Rus’, there existed a holistic understanding of philosophy and philosophers. Instead, one should interpret these words as having a limited plurality of meanings. (shrink)

The ontology of artefacts in Byzantine philosophy is still a terra incognita. One way of mapping this unexplored territory is to delve into Michael of Ephesus’ commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Written around 1100, this commentary provides a detailed interpretation of the most important source for Aristotle’s ontological account of artefacts. By highlighting Michael’s main metaphysical tenets and his interpretation of key-passages of the Aristotelian work, this study aims to reconstruct Michael’s ontology of artefacts and present it as one instance, which (...) is perhaps exemplary, of the Byzantine ontology of artefacts. In particular, the study shows that this commentary holds a definite position on the nature of artefacts, according to which they are neither substances nor hylomorphic compounds. Indeed, artefacts lack a form altogether and their forms exist only in thought. As a result, Michael’s commentary provides an ontological interpretation of artefacts as accidental beings, i.e., as matter which acquires a mere property as opposed to a substantial form. While such an interpretation shows originality when compared to the Aristotelian text, it also indicates adherence to the reading established by Alexander of Aphrodisias, despite important departures concerning the status of natural forms. (shrink)

It remains largely unknown what was knowledge of philosophy by writers in Kyivan Rus’ of the 11th – 14th centuries. Moreover, there are no methodological foundations of resolving the issue. I suggest the key to the solution is the analysis of the meanings of words “philosophy” and “philosophers” in the texts of that time. This article aims to analyse how different researchers interpreted the meanings of these words in Kyivan Rus’ written sources of the 11th – 14th centuries. Use of (...) the word “philosophy” was interpreted by the researchers in six different ways: as an approximate synonym for the word “education”, but also as a pagan or Christian wisdom, as theology, as an allegorical method of interpreting Scripture, and as the knowledge of the nature of things. Some researchers emphasized one of the meanings, but others opted for a “pluralistic approach”, considering that Kyivan writers used the word in different meanings at the same time. The same is true about the word “philosopher”. It referred to an educated man, an ancient philosopher, a Christian thinker, a theologian etc. Another approach in the interpretation of these terms suggested Vilen Horskyi, distinguishing formal and essential properties of words “philosophy” and “philosopher”. He finds that the essential feature of philosophy was deification, a process whose aim is likeness to God, and cognition of God’s wisdom. Furthermore, according to Horskyi, in the philosopher the link between his knowledge and his action was inextricable. (shrink)

The author justifies the need to return to an analysis of the meaning of such words as “philosophy” and “philosopher” in the Kyivan Rus’ written sources of the 11th–14th centuries. In the author’s view, this is explained not only by the inaccuracies the earlier research committed but also by the necessity to take contemporary achievements of Byzantine philosophical historiography into account. The author concludes that the preserved Kyivan Rus’ written sources reflect certain Byzantine interpretations of the words “philosopher” and “philosophy” (...) as understood within particular interpretive frameworks: philosophy may refer to a specifically “Christian” or “external” philosophy, presuppose rational or mystical comprehension of divine wisdom, become verbalized or not. Some sources probably espouse an understanding of philosophy as a practice of true life. The word “philosopher” had different connotations, as well. It referred to advisers or officeholders at the court of the Byzantine emperor, wise princes, church intellectuals, connoisseurs of biblical books, etc. The author invalidates the idea that in Kyivan Rus’, there existed a holistic understanding of philosophy and philosophers. Instead, one should interpret these words as having a limited plurality of meanings. (shrink)