The article analyzes the translations and interpretations of the philosophical course Stephan Kalynovskyi taught at the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy in 1729–1731. Drawing on unpublished translations, editorial corrections, letters, etc., the author reconstructs the history of this course’s translation for the first time, which began in the late 1960s. The author analyzes whether the researchers transcribed and translated the handwritten Latin text correctly and to what extent their interpretations of the course’s philosophical ideas are valid. The article demonstrates that researchers neither had (...) the proper knowledge of the scholastic philosophical tradition and, in some cases, its specific type of Latin nor created the necessary critical apparatus. It resulted in many flaws in their works. Ukrainian philosophers grossly misinterpreted Kalynovskyi’s course because they found the Enlightenment, Cartesian, and local Ukrainian ideas in the text, written in Paris in the 1630s. The author also demonstrates that contemporary studies of Kalynovskyi’s course mostly repeat dubious Soviet ideas, while several dishonest scholars even practice plagiarism. (shrink)

Report on the first four meetings of the Seminarium Historico-Philosophicum (26.06 – 15.11.2023), organized with the support of the Sententiae community.

The article analyzes the philosophical course of Stephan Kalynovskyi taught at Kyiv-Mohyla Academy in 1729–1731. By now researchers considered this course to be one of the best monuments of Ukrainian philosophical thought of that time. However, the textual analysis has shown that the course was borrowed verbatim from François le Reés, a French author who wrote it in Paris in the 1630s. The article also analyzes all other currently known educational courses of Kalynovskyi (courses on rhetoric, history, mathematics). Neither they (...) were written by the professor himself, but borrowed, mostly verbatim, from other authors. The article drew conclusions about the (un)originality of Kalynovskyi's courses based on a comparison of his courses with their sources, identifying authorial changes, deviations, etc. In addition, an attempt was made to find out whether the verbatim borrowing of someone else's text without indicating the author during teaching could be considered plagiarism at that time. Biographical information about Kalynovskyi, as well as an overview of the church sermons that he delivered as a bishop, allows a better understanding of his educational courses. (shrink)