The Teaching of Philosophy at the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy at the End of the Seventeenth to Eighteenth Century

MYKOLA SYMCHYCH

The question of how strongly various factors influenced the teaching of phi­losophy at the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy (Kyievo-Mohylians'ka Akademiia) has re­peatedly drawn the attention of researchers.¹ However, the hypotheses they proposed were based for the most part on a general impression of the content of the philosophy courses and not on a textual comparison with the probable influencing texts.

It is worth to begin with the singular discussion that took place in Kyiv in 1755. The discussion started with the decree issued on 31 August 1755 by Metropolitan Tymofii Shcherbats'kyi, in which the prefect of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy Davyd Nashchyns'kyi was forbidden to read philosophy according to Johann Heinrich Winkler's textbook Institutionesphilosophiae universal (which he had been doing for the preceding two years), “inasmuch, as attested by the reverend prefect Davyd himself, conducting a dispute appropriately based on this author is in no way possible.”³ To improve the situation, the metropolitan “pastorally ordered” him to teach philosophy according to the textbook by Edmund Purchotius,⁴ “who, upon our examination, is understandable with respect to all his precepts, as well as suited to exercises.”⁵ However, the prefect did not accept this “recommendation” and in his message of 2 September 1755 addressed to the metropolitan asked that he be permitted not to teach philosophy according to Purchotius, “which to be sure is more worthwhile than the old Jesuit ones (italics mine - M.S.), except that today Wolffian philosophy, which is accepted and interpreted throughout Europe, is much more useful, because [it is] more fundamental, comprehensible, and sound than that of Purchotius.”⁶ As examples of Wolffian philosophy, the prefect cited the textbooks of Winkler and Friedrich C.

For his part, Konys'kyi, responding to a question from Tymofii Shcherbats'kyi, wrote:

Both authors, whose superiority one over the other your excellency is dis­cussing, Purchotius and Baumeister, I have not read comprehensively, be­cause I did not have them when I myself practiced philosophy by virtue of my former position, which I personally regard as my misfortune, because then I would not have wasted my time on the rubbish of Aristotle’s inter­preters. And for that reason, I cannot fully and completely judge between the two named authors.⁹

However, continued Konys'kyi, after analyzing some chapters of Baumeister’s textbook, he nonetheless recommended that it be used at the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, and the parts that were not sufficiently elaborated in that work should be taken from the Winkler, whom metropolitan did not like. Despite the fact that both authors employ the methodo mathematica (method of mathematics), in Konys'kyi’s opinion, this should not affect the conduct of disputations adversely.

Most likely the archbishop’s arguments made the appropriate impression on Shcherbats'kyi because beginning in 1755, the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy entered into the “Baumeister era,” which lasted until the reform of the school in 1817. Christian Baumeister’s textbook became popular not only at the Academy.

This discussion is important for us not only because it marked the establishment of Wolffianism in the Russian Empire but also because it cast light on the teaching of philosophy at the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy up to 1755. In particular, the ideas ex­pressed by the “discussants” enable us to formulate four research questions:

1. Did the metropolitan propose teaching philosophy according to Purchotius' textbook only because of its “understandable precepts” and its “suitability for exercises,” or were there any other reasons?

2. Was the dictation of texts, which the metropolitan refers to, a characteristic feature only of Nashchyns'kyi's lectures, or did such precedents exist earlier?

3. How should we understand Nashchyns'kyi's words that Purchotius' philosophy was much more useful than “old Jesuit philosophies”? Why Jesuit in particular?

4. How should we take Archbishop Heorhii Konys'kyi's statement about the years wasted on the “rubbish of Aristotle's interpreters”?

With regard to the first question, precedents of teaching according to the text­book of Edmund Purchotius were recorded even earlier. Thus, Davyd Nashchyn- s'kyi, who taught philosophy starting from the 1753/54 academic year, was preceded by Heorhii Shcherbats'kyi (the metropolitan's nephew, as it happens) as the prefect and professor of philosophy at the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy. Two transcriptions of his course from the 1751/52/53 academic years have survived to our time.¹¹ A comparison of the first transcription with the text in the section on logic in the published textbook by Edmundus Purchotius Institutiones philoso­phiae¹² shows that both texts are exactly the same, except that a part of a sentence has been omitted in one of the transcriptions of Heorhii Shcherbats'kyi's course, and a paragraph is missing in the other transcription.

As regards the second question, the reading of philosophy courses, as the above examples of Heorhii Shcherbats'kyi's course show, such an amazingly exact match of texts cannot be explained by anything other than that the students either wrote the course from dictation, or that they were given copies of the textbook and they copied it at lectures or at home. When we compare the tran­scriptions of the courses of Shcherbats'kyi's predecessors, which have survived in several variants, we can see that the differences attest that they were usually written from dictation.¹³ In addition to the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, this practice was widely employed in the Jesuit colleges of the Commonwealth. According to Ludwig Piechnik, the method whereby instructors dictated their own lectures was originally introduced by the Dominican Francisco de Victoria in Salamanca. This method, spreading from there to universities throughout Europe, except Italy, was also used in Jesuit colleges. However, the Ratio Studiorum plan of 1586 proposed the requirement to abandon this method, as not in conformity with the Constitutions of the Society of Jesus.¹⁴ But in discussing this proposal, the majority of provinces expressed their support for keeping the dictation method, with the Polish province, in particular, taking an active position.¹⁵ Therefore, the final version of the Ratio Studiorum in 1599 recommended that lectures be read in a way that allowed students to record only what they regarded as necessary, but, at the same time, permitted dictation if the students were unable to make notes on their own.¹⁶

In another of his works, Ludwig Piechnik traces in greater detail the technique of instruction in Jesuit educational institutions, including the Vilnius Academy, where the professor dictated the material and the students wrote it down, with the professor leaving the final fifteen minutes for explaining the most difficult passages in what he had dictated.¹⁷

It is quite likely that the methods of instruction at the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy were modeled on those used in Jesuit educational institutions.

The resemblance between the Jesuit methods of instruction and the practices of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy leads us to the third problem: how much influence did the philosophy taught at Jesuit colleges and academies exert on the philos­ophy courses at the Academy before 1751? Much has been written about the in­fluence of the Jesuits on the Academy's scholarship, beginning with such “classic” researchers of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy as Mykola Petrov, Kostiantyn Khar- lampovych, Dmytro Vyshnevs'kyi, Mykhailo Lynchevs'kyi, and Aleksander Jablonowski.¹⁸ Yet there is still no clear definition of how this manifested itself in the field of philosophy. An indirect proof of the scale of Jesuit influence on the Academy is the extraordinary density of Jesuit educational institutions in areas neighboring on Kyiv in the eighteenth century.¹⁹ A more direct proof is the fact that part of the instructors at the Academy had obtained their education in Jesuit schools,²⁰ so it is quite likely that they used the philosophical knowledge gained there in teaching their own courses.

Aside from tracing proof of personal contacts with Jesuit professors of philos­ophy, there is also evidence of their influence on philosophy courses at the Kyiv- Mohyla Academy in a comparison of the extant transcriptions of the courses themselves.

After establishing the attribution of all currently known transcriptions²¹ of lec­tures in the philosophy classes of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy before 1751, I iden­tified thirty courses.²² The results of our attribution are as follows:

* The identification code in regular font refers to manuscripts in the collection of the National Library of Ukraine (ir nbu). Here and elsewhere, I have used the Ukrainian abbreviations for internal archival identification numbers, such as “od. zb.” which means “odynytsia zberihannia” translated as “archival unit of preservation.”

As the table shows, only two courses have survived from the first half of the seventeenth century and six courses from the last quarter of the seventeenth cen­tury, whereas from the first half of the eighteenth century, we have courses from practically every academic year (the exceptions being 1709-11 and 1731-33). The level of representation of the source base from the end of the seventeenth to the first half of the eighteenth century is sufficient to trace what kind of influence the teaching of philosophy the Academy experienced and the extent to which the philosophical doctrine represented in each course changed during this period.²³ But the totality of the transcriptions (even if we consider each course in only one transcription) constitutes a huge body of approximately 18,000 sheets of hand­written text. Obviously, to make an in-depth study, decipher, and translate this material requires many researchers. In contrast, an attempt to establish the ele­ments of influence can be undertaken employing less time- and labor-intensive methods of research, which I will try to present below.

We know that the program of instruction in the Academy's philosophy class consisted of the following basic sections: 1) dialectics (logica minor or introduction to logic): usually taught for two months at the beginning of the academic year, and encompassed formal rules of logic, in accordance with Aristotelian syllogis- tics; 2) logic (logica major, philosophia rationalis): taught for the subsequent six to seven months, contained an examination of some epistemological and meta­physical problems, with a tie-in to Porphyry's Isagoge, Aristotle's Categories, On Interpretation, Prior Analytics, and Posterior Analytics (most often the other books of the Organon were not considered);²⁴ 3) physics (philosophia naturalis): taught for the following eight to nine months, explored certain problems of natural philosophy with a tie-in to Aristotle's Physics, On the Heavens, On Generation and Corruption, Meteorology, and On the Soul; 4) metaphysics: taught no more than one month, examined some metaphysical problems that had not been taught in preceding sections, no particular tie-in with Aristotle's Metaphysics was found. In the transcription of Teofan Prokopovych's philosophy course, in addition to the parts mentioned above, which were preserved very fragmentarily, there are sections on mathematics and ethics (of the latter, only four sheets of text are ex­tant). In addition, beginning with Stefan Kalynovs'kyi's course (1729/30/31 aca­demic years), instruction in ethics was made compulsory, most often tied in with Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics.

The best preserved of all the philosophy course transcriptions is the section on logic (logica major): it is missing only from the first course of Syl'vestr Pinovs'kyi (1711/12/13 academic years) and is partly damaged in the course that was probably taught by Prokopii Kalachyns'kyi (1693/94/95 academic years). In addition, the lectures in logic are marked by the density and importance of the philosophical problems that were explored in them. In view of this, logic is the most suitable section for a comparative analysis.

As a first step, the structure of each course was identified - that is, sections, sub­sections, paragraphs, and points that comprised it. A comparison of them revealed great similarity among the courses: almost all the courses examine the same ques­tions; some paragraphs even have identical titles. At the same time, the selected courses have almost an identical structure, which gave us reason to assume a tex­tual similarity of these courses.

A test of this hypothesis showed that there are a number of courses with ex­actly matching texts. Thus, a large part of Inokentii's Popovs'kyi's course in the 1699/1700/01 academic years is an exact copy of Stefan Iavors'kyi's course. We find the same situation when we compare the texts of Syl'vestr Kuliabka's first and second courses and Amvrosii Dubnevych's first course, and the section on major logic in Ieronim Mytkevych's course differs from Platon Malynovs'kyi's only in its introduction. There are also extensive identical passages shared by Amvrosii Dubnevych's second course and the first two courses taught by Mykhailo Kozachyns'kyi, as well as Teofan Prokopovych's course and Heorhii Konys'kyi's two courses, which I will discuss below. Exactly matching texts were not found among the other courses that I analyzed, but the structure of these courses in the section on major logic is very similar. This suggests that these courses were struc­tured under the influence of one source or a certain internally related group of sources. But to be able to state this with relative certainty, a comparison of their structure alone is not enough: it is necessary to analyze the contents of these courses. This task can be performed quite successfully by considering the char­acteristic features of the way that the professors at the Academy wrote their phi­losophy courses.

Until 1753, the teaching of philosophy at the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy consistently employed the “method of disputation” (methodus disputationis). The distinguish­ing feature of this method was that the name of each paragraph was constructed in the form of a question, the answer to which was given in the paragraph, and each paragraph, in turn, was constructed according to a well-defined structure. It began with some commentary and definition of terms, which helped to explain the gist of the question. This was followed, most often in a single sentence, by a response to the posed question, which was introduced with one of the following words: dicendum (it must be said that), dico (I say), conclusion nostra (our con­clusion), asserto (I assert), and so forth. The response is usually called the thesis or conclusion. After the thesis was formulated, there followed citations from the philosophers who supported it and those who rejected it.²⁵ Then the thesis was proven in the form of a syllogism, each premise of which was also proven as a syllogism. After the thesis was proven, the ideas of opponents were refuted. The objection of the opponent was stated in one sentence, and immediately after the word respondeo (I respond), there followed proof of the invalidity of the objection. The response to the objection was always expressed in the form of a syllogism. Often the conclusion was followed by more than a dozen objections, usually con­nected with one another. Not infrequently several theses-conclusions were pro­posed in one paragraph, each of which was followed by the entire apparatus of proofs and refutations of the ideas of opponents described above.

This method, as already mentioned, was virtually identical in each course. As we can see, the main conceptual emphasis was on the thesis. By identifying the theses, it is possible to obtain a fairly accurate idea of the views held by the author of the given course. Inasmuch as most courses were written following an almost identical structure, comparing the theses from various courses allows us to com­pare them more or less adequately to one another.²⁶

I tried to perform this kind of comparison using two sections, which, in my opinion, are fairly representative of the philosophical thought of that period: De distinctionibus (The distinctions) and De universalibus in communi (The univer­sals in common). These two sections are linked and reveal the Academy profes­sors’ views on the problem of universals. I found that Stefan lavors'kyi’s course, probably Inokentii Popovs'kyi’s course (ca. 1700), as well as his course in the 1699­1702 academic years, Khrystofor Charnuts'kyi’s first course, Syl'vestr Pinovs'kyi’s course, losyf Volchans'kyi’s both courses, Platon Malynovs'kyi’s course, Amvrosii Dubnevych’s both courses, leronim Mytkevych’s course, and Syl'vestr Kuliabka’s both courses contained virtually no significant conceptual differences in the an­alyzed sections. It is safe to say that all the named authors adhered to one and the same doctrine in resolving the problem of universals, a doctrine that was very close to the views of the well-known Jesuit philosophers Pedro Hurtado de Men­doza, Rodrigo Arriaga, and Francisco Oviedo.

On the other hand, the solution to the problem of universals proposed in three other courses that I examined (Khrystofor Charnuts'kyi’s second course and Ilar- ion Levyts'kyi’s first and second courses), which are greatly similar to the preced­ing group in their structure and method of instruction, can be found in another noted Jesuit philosopher, Thomas Compton Carleton. Incidentally, a comparison of the two courses taught by Ilarion Levyts'kyi with Khrystofor Charnuts'kyi’s second course showed not only their doctrinal similarity but also that sometimes large portions of their texts were exactly identical. At the same time, Ioasaf Krokovs'kyi’s first and second courses, Teofan Prokopovych’s course, Stefan Ka- lynovs'kyi’s course, Mykhailo Kozachyns'kyi’s third course, as well as the first and second courses of Heorhii Konys'kyi differ quite markedly in some places from the courses in the two preceding groups.

The fact that the overwhelming majority of philosophy courses taught by the professors of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy are highly similar suggests that the given courses were written under the influence of some one source or group of related sources. To verify this assumption, I used the same procedure to examine several philosophy courses taught in Jesuit colleges in the Commonwealth during the same period as those at the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy. In particular, I analyzed the course of an unknown instructor at the Lviv Jesuit College taught during the 1700/01/02²⁷ academic years, the course of Tomasz Dunin at the same Lviv College during the 1719/20/21 academic years,²⁸ the course on logic read by Thomas Kruger at the Vilnius Academy in the 1713/14 academic year,²⁹ and the course of an anonymous author from an unidentified Jesuit college taught during the 1709/10/11 academic years.³⁰ A comparison of these courses showed that the De distinctionibus and De universalibus in communi sections did not differ significantly from identical sec­tions in the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy courses in our first group above (for example Stefan lavors'kyi's).

As we can see, the concept that was most widespread in the philosophy courses taught by the Academy's professors was also employed in the Jesuit colleges of the Commonwealth. In our opinion, the only explanation of the phenomenon that most philosophy courses at the kma for more than forty years (from la- vors'kyi to Mykhailo Kozachyns'kyi's second course, that is, from 1691 until 1743) taught the same, essentially identical, doctrine was its prevalence in the practice of Jesuit educational institutions. Accordingly, the Academy professors made use of the works of their Jesuit colleagues when preparing their lectures.

An example of the obvious use of Jesuit courses at the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy is the philosophy course of Khrystofor Charnuts'kyi (1702/1704 academic years). In some of his citations, Charnuts'kyi writes: “Meus in philosophicis professor R[evrendus] P[ater] Georgius Gengel, vir sublimitate ingenii, sollemnitate doc­trinae Polonae Pronvinciae theologus non prostremus” (My professor of philos­ophy [classes], the Reverend Father Georgii Gengell was not the least theologian in the Polish province, the height of talent and pinnacle of learning).³¹ Jerzy (Georgii) Gengell did indeed teach philosophy at the Jesuit colleges in Lviv in 1687-89, Jaroslaw (1690-91), and Lublin (1691-93),³² and Khrystofor Charnuts'kyi had to have attended his lectures at one of these institutions. Later Jerzy Gengell wrote a number of works of mostly polemical nature (against Rene Descartes, John Calvin, and Martin Luther) and was famous for being a crusader against atheism in Poland. Unfortunately, the named published works were not philos­ophy courses, making it difficult to determine what philosophical concept their author taught his students and thus identify what Khrystofor Charnuts'kyi had borrowed from his teacher. However, the Manuscript Institute of the National Library of Ukraine holds two extant manuscripts of fragments of the philosophy course read by Jerzy Gengell at the Jaroslaw Jesuit college.³³ A comparison of these courses with Khrystofor Charnuts'kyi's course shows that Charnuts'kyi used Gen- gell's text for the most part verbatim, but rewording, shortening, and changing it in places.

The departure from the Jesuit template at the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy proceeded gradually. At the beginning of the 1740s, philosophy was taught at the Academy by Mykhailo Kozachyns'kyi.³⁴ He was the only Academy professor to read three philosophy courses. The first two he taught on the basis of his student notes. Amvrosii Dubnevych's course from the 1727-29 academic years has survived to our time in a transcription by Mykhailo Kozachyns'kyi. Kozachyns'kyi's third course had absolutely no similarity to Dubnevych's course. But it had great sim­ilarity to the course of a not very well-known Swiss Capuchin. A comparison of the section on logic of Mykhailo Kozachyns'kyi's course from the 1743-45 aca­demic years and the Cursus philosophicus by Johann Martin Brunk, known under his monastic name of Gervasius Brisacensis, reveals a great similarity.³⁵ The two texts are almost completely identical.

After Mykhailo Kozachyns'kyi, the philosophy course was taught by Hedeon Slomyns'kyi, who noted in the title of his course that he would base himself in the section on logic on the work of Bartholomäus Keckermann.³⁶ This course differed even more from all the preceding courses. I was unable to identify which of Keckermann's textbooks he used and in what way,³⁷ but the fact that a Protes­tant author was utilized as a model attests to the increasingly marked departure from earlier tradition.

Heorhii Konys'kyi, who figured at the beginning of this article, taught two phi­losophy courses at the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy. He taught the first course (1747-49) on the basis of Teofan Prokopovych's philosophy course. He made unambiguously clear to whom this text belonged in his dedication to Prokopovych at the beginning of the course.³⁸ In his second course (1749-51), he diverged from Prokopovych's text, although the textual link between the two courses was still quite strong. Prokopovych's course differed significantly from the Jesuit template, but it was still written in accordance with Aristotelian tradition.

Thus, as we can see, the gradual shift away from the Jesuit template for philos­ophy courses began in the 1740s. At the current state of research, it is difficult to say what caused this departure. Was it the supplantation of Jesuit influence by the authority of German universities, or internal changes in Jesuit philosophizing itself, which was becoming infiltrated by Cartesianism and later also Wolffianism? But there is no doubt that in the middle of the eighteenth-century Jesuit philos­ophy was already perceived as outdated. This, among other things, can be clearly seen in the correspondence of 1755 regarding the teaching of philosophy, which I discussed at the beginning of this article. It is as a manifestation of this assess­ment that we should understand Heorhii Konys'kyi's remark about wasted years on the “rubbish of Aristotle's interpreters.”

As we can see, various factors influenced the content of the philosophy courses and the manner in which they were taught at the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy: until the mid-eighteenth century, it was the Jesuit school, and after that, Wolffianism. In this article I sought to draw attention not only to the existence of these factors but also to the special aspects of their reception by the Academy professors.

Translated from the Ukrainian by Marta Skorupsky

NOTES

This article is based on the study by M. Symchych, “Zauvahy do vplyviv na vykladannia filosofii v Kyievo-Mohylians'kii akademii kintsia XVII-XVIII st.,” Kyivs’ka Akademiia 2/3 (2006), 74-85. This topic is examined in greater detail in the monograph: M. Symchych, Philosophia rationalis u Kyievo-Mohylian­s'kii akademit: komparatyvnyi analiz mohylianskykh kursiv lohiky kintsia XVII - pershot polovyny XVIII st. (Vinnytsia, 2009). But considerable time has passed since the publication of both the article and the monograph, so that some changes have been made in the 2006 article that reflect the current state of my familiarity with this subject.

1 See A. Jablonowski, Akademia Kijowsko-Mohylanska (Cracow, 1899), 100;

D. Vishnevskii, Kievskaia Akademiia v per. pol. XVIII st. (Novye danye, otnosi- ashchiesia k istorii etoi Akademii za ukazanoe vremia) (Kyiv, 1903), 206;

M. Tkachuk, “Filosofs'ki kursy Kyievo-Mohylians'kol akademii v konteksti ievropeis'koho skholastychnoho dysputu,” in Relihiina filosofs 'ka dumka v Kyievo-Mohylians’kii akademit, ed. V. S. Hors'kyi et al (Kyiv, 2002), 52-60; V. Kotusenko, “Vykladannia filosofii v iezuits'kykh kolehiumakh XVI-XVII stolitta Kyievo-Mohylians'kii akademii,” in Ukratna XVII stolittia: suspil’stvo, filosofiia, kul'tura. Zbirnyk naukovykhprats’ naposhanupamiatiprofesora Valerii Mykhailivny Nichyk (Kyiv, 2005), 83-107.

2 Johann Heinrich Winkler (1703-1770) - German philosopher, adherent

of Christian Wolff. I had access to the following edition of his textbook: Io. Henricus Winkler, Institutiones philosophiae universae usibus academicis accommodatae, 2nd ed. (Leipzig, 1742).

3 Akty i dokumenty, otnosiashchiesia k istorii Kievskoi Akademii (hereinafter - adka), part 2, vol. 2 (Kyiv, 1905), 174.

4 Edmundus Purchotius (Pourchot) (1651-1734), French philosopher-Cartesian, known for his textbook Institutiones philosophicae ad faciliorem veterum, ac recentiorum philosophorum lectionem comparatae, the first edition of which appeared in Paris in 1695. It consists of four volumes: I. Complectens logicam, metaphysicam et elementa geometriae; II. Quo physica generalis continetur;

III. Qui physicam specialem comprehendit; IV. Contients ethicam et exerciones scholasticas in Aristotelis metaphysicam. More than ten editions of the text­book were published, the last in 1767.

5 adka, 174.

6 Ibid., 174.

7 Ibid., 176.

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid., 179.

10 It was republished in Latin in Moscow in 1798 and 1802, and in St Petersburg in 1818. The parts of his course on logic and metaphysics appeared in Russian translation: Kh. Baumeister, Logika, transl. from Latin by A. Pavlov (Moscow, 1760); Kh. Baumeister, Metafizika (Moscow, 1764).

11 Instytut rukopysu Natsional’noi biblioteky Ukrainy im. Vi I. Vernads’koho (Manuscript Institute of the V.I. Vernads'kyi National Library of Ukraine; hereinafter - ir nbu), f. 307, spr. 454, ark. 1-183 zv. (complete course); f. 305, spr. 174, ark. 1-93 zv. (last page of logic, metaphysics, physics, ethics).

12 Edmundus Purchotius, Institutiones philosophiae ad faciliorem veterum, ac recentiorum philosophorum lectionem comparatae (Padua, 1751).

13 For greater detail, see my article “Vyznachennia dzherel'noi bazy dlia doslidzhennia vykladannia filosofii u Kyievo-Mohylians'kii akademii u XVII-XVIII st.,” Magisterium, no. 23 Istoryko-filosofs’ki studii (2006), 43-8.

14 L. Piechnik, Powstanie i rozwoj jezuickiej Ratio studiorum (1548-1599) (Cra­cow, 2003), 67. See also: Monumenta paedagogica Societatis Jesu: Nova editio penitus retracta, vol. 5, Ratio atque institutio studiorum Societatis Jesu (1586, 1591,1599), ed. Ladislaus Lukacs SJ (Rome, 1986), 56-8.

15 “De ratione atque institutione per sex patres deputatos Romae anno 1585 conscripta iudicium Congregationis provinciae Poloniae mandato R.P.N. ad eundem finem celebratae Vilnae anno 1586 mensibus octobre, novembre et decembre, et januario sequente,” in Piechnik, Powstanie i rozwoj jezuickiej Ratio studiorum, 200-9.

16 Idid., 68.

17 L. Piechnik, Dzieje Akademii Wilenskiej, vol. 1, Poczqtki Akademii Wilenskiej 1570-1599 (Rome, 1984), 145.

18 See N. Petrov, Kievskaia Akademiia vo vtoroi polovine XVII veka (Kyiv, 1895), 61; K.V. Kharlampovich, Zapadno-russkie pravoslavnye shkoly XVI i nachala XVII veka, otnoshenie ikh k inoslaviiu, religioznoe obuchenie v nykh i zaslugi v dele zashchity pravoslavnoi very i tserkvi (Kazan, 1898), 359; D. Vishnevskii, Kievskaia Akademiia vper. pol. XVIIIst. (Kiev, 1903), 90; Aleksander W. Jablonowski, Akademia Kijowsko-Mohilanska: zarys historyczny na tle rozwoju ogolnego cywilizacji zachodniej na Rusi (Cracow, 1899-1900), 167-8; Mikhail Z. Linchevskii, “Pedagogiia drevnikh bratskikh shkol i preimushzhestvo drevnei Kievskoi Akademii,” in M.Z. Linchevskii, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, 2 vols (Kyiv, 1906), 1:87.

19 Thus, according to Stanislaw Bednarski, in the Polish Jesuit Assistentia [province] in 1700 philosophy was taught in 19 colleges, in 1710 - 15 colleges, in 1720 - 23 colleges, in 1730 - 31 colleges, in 1740 - 33 colleges, in 1750 - 36 colleges, and in 1756/57 - in 36 colleges. See S. Bernadski, Upadek i odrodzenie szkol jezuickich w Polsce (Studjum z dziejow kultury i szkolnictwa polskego) (Cracow, 1933), tables 2-3.

20 I know this to be true about loasaf Krokovs'kyi, Stefan Iavors'kyi, and Teofan Prokopovych. See M. Symchych, “Mohyliantsi v zakhidnykh universytetakh,” in Relihiina filosofs'ka dymka vKyievo-Mohylians’kii akademn, ed. V.S. Hors'kyi (Kyiv, 2002), 269-86.

21 In preparing these attributions, I took into account the manuscripts that are held at the ir nbu, tsdiauk (Central State Historical Archive in Kyiv), as well as manuscripts from the collections of the rnb (Russian National Li­brary, St Petersburg), ban (Library of the Academy of Sciences, St Peters­burg), rgb (Russian State Library, Moscow), and nbl (N.I. Lobachevskii Scientific Library, Kazan). I thank Kostiantyn Sutorius for information about Kyiv-Mohyla Academy manuscripts in Russian libraries.

22 By the term “philosophy course” I mean the text that was dictated by the professor over two years of instruction of philosophy at the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy. Inasmuch as the given text was written down by various students from dictation, the same philosophy course has often come down to us in several transcriptions.

23 In light of the time interval of nearly half a century between the courses taught by Iosyf Kononovych-Horbats'kyi and Inokentii Gizel' and and all the other philosophy courses given by the Academy professors, I have refrained from analyzing the two early courses in this article, because this would have required including additional sources.

24 In his course, Teofan Prokopovych did not treat dialectics as a separate sec­tion. What was traditionally taught in dialectics, he examined in the first four books of logic (rnb, f. spb ds 64, 1-92).

25 It often happens that the author of the course is satisfied with an abstract ex­pression along the lines of: ‘Ita multi recentiores contra paucos” (thus [assert] many newer [philosophers] contrary to a few).

26 Naturally, the researcher cannot confine himself to reading and noting only the theses, because the theses taken apart from the earlier objections that explain them are often incomprehensible.

27 ir nbu, f. 312, od. zb. 623.

28 Ibid., f. 306, od. zb. 112.

29 Ibid., f. 305, od. zb. 305.

30 Ibid., f. 312, od. zb. 629.

31 Ibid., f. 312, od.zb. 625, 97.

32 “Gengell Jerzy” in Encyklopedia wiedzy o jezuitach na ziemiach Polski i Litwy 1564-1995, oprac. Ludwik Grzebien, sj (Cracow, 1996), 178.

33 iR nbu, f. i, od. zb. 4406 - dialectics and logic, and f. 3, od. zb. 4408 - dialec­tics and metaphysics. In addition to these courses, the ir nbu had one more manuscript of Gengell's philosophy course from 1690-92. It is listed in Petrov's catalogue and should be located in f. 306, od. zb. 92. But this manuscript has been lost: its absence was discovered in the course of the 1966 inventory. In view of the fact that after Khrystofor Charnuts'kyi's death his library was transferred to the Kyivan Cave Monastery (see S.R. Kahamlyk, O.V. Matkovs'ka, and Z.I. Khyzhniak, “Charnuts'kyi Khrystofor,” in Kyievo- Mohylians 'ka Akademiia v imenakh, XVII-XVIII st. Entsyklopedychne vydan- nia (Kyiv, 2001), 582-3), and the manuscripts of the monastery's library constitute fond 306, it appears very likely that the lost manuscript was

of Charnuts'kyi's lecture notes of Gengell's course.

34 Mykhailo Kozachyns'kyi's secular name was Manuilo.

35 Gervasius Brisacensis, Cursus philosophicus brevi et clare metodo in tres tomulos distributus, vol. 1: Logica (Cologne, 1734).

36 Bartholomäus Keckermann (1572-1608), Protestant philosopher who taught at the universities of Wittenberg, Leipzig, and Heidelberg. He is known for his philosophy textbooks, of which he wrote more than ten.

37 Nor can it be ruled out that Slomyns'kyi based his course not on Keckermann himself but on one of his followers.

38 rgb, f. 152, od. zb. 130, 4.