Theofan Prokopovych and Georgiy Konyskyi are the most prominent professors of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy in the 18th century. Their courses (1707-09 and 1749/51) are well regarded among the researchers and translated into Ukrainian in 1980 and 1990 respectively. Both texts generally have been considered as original. However, after a careful examination, it possible to notice a strong influence of Prokopovych on Konyskyi. This publication provides a comparative critical edition of a section from both courses on the same topic, on the infinity. (...) The section is published together with the available Ukrainian translations. The four text are synchronized, so it is easy to track the same passage in all the texts. Since the texts of both authors are based on several manuscripts, the publication is accompanied with the apparatus criticus. Because there is no tradition of publishing critical editions of Latin texts in Ukraine, a detailed explanation of the rules of apparatus criticus is provided here. -/- At this stage, it is too early to give a full account of the connection between Konyskyi’s and Prokopovych’ courses; nevertheless, based on the published section, it possible to say that Konyskyi used Prokopovych text mostly verbatim. He made some structural rearrangements, added some comments and clarifications. His text sounds more logical and more easily to apprehend. Considering the main goal of teaching activity – to pass a common knowledge, clarity of explanation is a higher value, than originality. (shrink)

This article explores the use of imagery drawn from the legal sphere to describe intertextual relations in Roman culture, drawing attention to the interconnected nature of contemporary debates on ownership and private property in law and literary criticism. Taking as my starting point a remark by Seneca the Elder on Ovid’s “borrowing” of Virgil’s text, I show how the distinction often invoked between legitimate imitation and literary theft is explained by a deep-seated and multi-faceted analogy between literary and legal judgment. (...) Moreover, I show how the use of legal metaphors derives special meaning from the context of Seneca’s work, in which readers are asked to judge both the legal and the literary merits of the cases presented. (shrink)

Around 1700 collective efforts arose throughout Europe and in Germany in particular to compile dictionaries of anonymous and pseudonymous works. Why this sudden urge to "unmask" the hidden identities of authors? This essay seeks to establish a relationship between these efforts to identify potential heresy and emphasizes the ambivalent aspects of the learned guardians of order as a "police force of learning." It connects the reconstruction of practices of learning with reflections about the development of a critical public sphere and (...) it strives to combine the History of Scholarship with newer research on the establishment of a clandestine underground during the Enlightenment period. At the same time, the subject matter presents itself as relevant for contemporary discussions about anonymity and authorship, as well as pseudonymity, intellectual property, and the protection of privacy. (shrink)

Commentary on the first Ukrainian translation of Thomasius’ work entitled “Nucleus disputationis de plagio literario maxime theoreticus, thesibus paucis & brevibus comprehensus”, which is one of the Appendices to the famous “Philosophical dissertation on literary plagiarism”.

Teofan Prokopovych and Georgiy Konyskyi are the most prominent professors of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy in the 18th century. Their courses are well regarded among the researchers and translated into Ukrainian in 1980 and 1990 respectively. Both texts generally have been considered as original. However, after a careful examination, it possible to notice a strong influ-ence of Prokopovych on Konyskyi. This publication provides a comparative critical edition of a sec-tion from both courses on the same topic, on the infinity. The section is (...) published together with the available Ukrainian translations. The four text are synchronized, so it is easy to track the same passage in all the texts. Since the texts of both authors are based on several manuscripts, the publication is accompanied with the apparatus criticus. Because there is no tradition of publishing critical editions of Latin texts in Ukraine, a detailed explanation of the rules of apparatus criticus is provided here. At this stage, it is too early to give a full account of the connection between Konyskyi’s and Prokopovych’ courses; nevertheless, based on the published section, it possible to say that Konyskyi used Prokopovych text mostly verbatim. He made some structural rearrangements, added some comments and clarifications. His text sounds more logical and more easily to apprehend. Considering the main goal of teaching activity – to pass a common knowledge, clarity of explanation is a higher value, than originality. (shrink)

This is the first Ukrainian translation of J. Thomasius’ work “Nucleus disputationis de plagio literario maxime theoreticus, thesibus paucis & brevibus comprehensus”. It is presented with the original Latin on one page, with the translation on the next.

Commentary on the first Ukrainian translation of Thomasius' work entitled "Nucleus disputationis de plagio literario maxime theoreticus, thesibus paucis & brevibus comprehensus", which is one of the Appendices to the famous "Philosophical Dissertation on Literary Plagiarism".