The article supplements the publication of the introduction to Theophan Prokopovych’s philosophical course (taught at Kyiv-Mohyla Academy in 1707-09). It analyses characteristics of Prokopovych’s manuscript in comparison with the manuscript of Georgiy Konyskyi’s philosophical course (taught in 1747-1749). 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 Prokopovych’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 textological characteristics of both manuscripts. The analysis of textual relation between the two manuscripts shows that Konyskyi’s manuscript contains much more mistakes than Prokopovych’s manuscript. Most of more than a hundred variations between the manuscripts are mistakes in Konyskyi’s manuscript. The author supposes that the student, the scribe of Konyskyi’s manuscript, not completely understood rather complicated style of Prokopovych. Prokopovych’s position about the style of exposition shows balancing between humanistic and scholastic ideas. It states that Prokopovych refers usually to ancient authors. The references in the text are quite detailed, but not enough accurate. Half of them (6 out of 12) happen to be incorrect. It is probable that Prokopovych made references from memory. (shrink)

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)

The paper provides an overview of the early considerations regarding the phenomenon of plagiarism – from Greco-Roman antiquity to the time when a thorough study examining literary theft in its textual, legal, and moral manifestations was printed, i. e. “Philosophical Dissertation on Literary Plagiarism” by Jacob Thomasius. Although the issue of plagiarism was very vital in ancient times, all the oldest considerations concerning the appropriation of other people’s texts were essentially pragmatic moves or reactions rather than purposeful theoretical interpretations of (...) the subject. However, in addition to the situational grounds of the accusation, they can reveal certain principles that, according to estimations of the time, could prevent or refute allegations of plagiarism. It was enough if the author stated, albeit generally but clearly, that the fragments of other people’s texts, whether altered or not, were used. It was also acceptable if the reader believed that the author considered his borrowings recognizable to educated readers. Another reason for the elimination of possible accusations was the factor of competition – the author’s desire to adapt the achievements of another cultural environment in his own one, significantly improving them. The medieval and early modern materials generally testify to the relevance of ancient views and reveal some new problems. This is, in particular, the incompatibility of new more formalized ideas about authorship and traditional educational practices, which encouraged the uncontrolled use of others’ texts. Some authors also emphasized that plagiarism was an obstacle to the development of science. The paper ends with examples that show how European ideas about the rules of using others’ writings may help interpret the writing methods of the early modern Ukrainian authors, including philosophers. (shrink)

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)

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 paper provides an overview of the early considerations regarding the phenomenon of plagiarism – from Greco-Roman antiquity to the time when a thorough study examining literary theft in its textual, legal, and moral manifestations was printed, i. e. “Philosophical Dissertation on Literary Plagiarism” by Jacob Thomasius. Although the issue of plagiarism was very vital in ancient times, all the oldest considerations concerning the appropriation of other people’s texts were essentially pragmatic moves or reactions rather than purposeful theoretical interpretations of (...) the subject. However, in addition to the situational grounds of the accusation, they can reveal certain principles that, according to estimations of the time, could prevent or refute allegations of plagiarism. It was enough if the author stated, albeit generally but clearly, that the fragments of other people’s texts, whether altered or not, were used. It was also acceptable if the reader believed that the author considered his borrowings recognizable to educated readers. Another reason for the elimination of possible accusations was the factor of competition – the author’s desire to adapt the achievements of another cultural environment in his own one, significantly improving them. The medieval and early modern materials generally testify to the relevance of ancient views and reveal some new problems. This is, in particular, the incompatibility of new more formalized ideas about authorship and traditional educational practices, which encouraged the uncontrolled use of others’ texts. Some authors also emphasized that plagiarism was an obstacle to the development of science. The paper ends with examples that show how European ideas about the rules of using others’ writings may help interpret the writing methods of the early modern Ukrainian authors, including philosophers. (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.