This research article is devoted to the research of philosophical terms of the famous Kyivan Rus’ artifact on translation of the 11th century – “Miscellany of 1073”. Scientists studied this subject in the past. However, they were focused on logical terminology, reflected in the famous fragment of “Miscellany”, which was called “philosophical treatise”. The author of this research article, unlike other scientists, has researched a part of the text “Joseph on the Maccabees”. It is no less important for clarifying the (...) peculiarities of the philosophical terms use than the already mentioned “philosophical treatise”. The chapter “Joseph on the Maccabees” in “Miscellany” is a translation of fragments of the 4 Maccabees from Greek into Old Church Slavonic, which raises the issue – how passions can be guided by reflection. This well-known apocrypha is quite saturated with receptions of classical Greek philosophy, primarily Platonism, Aristotelianism and Stoicism. It is also extremely valuable as an illustration of the complex process of the translator’s selection of ancient Slavic equivalents of Greek philosophical terms related to the philosophy of knowledge and ethics. Some of them were subsequently established in our philosophical language. In particular, the features of translation of such Greek words as “λογισμὸς”, “νοῦς”, “λόγου”, “σοφία” reflected in “Miscellany” into Old Church Slavonic have been analyzed, and the possibility of Old Church Slavonic terms translation into modern Ukrainian has also been considered. The result of the study is recognition of the need to raise the issue of modern Ukrainian philosophical terms ability to reproduce ancient Greek or even ancient Slavic terms associated with philosophy of knowledge in the process of translation. In particular, when dealing with “Miscellany”, it becomes clear that it is wrongful to reflect all cognitive processes and psychic instances with the concept “mind” in the modern terminological scheme. When dealing with old handwritten material in Old Church Slavonic, in particular “Miscellany of 1073”, it is necessary to define and distinguish the concepts of “reflection”, “mind”, “intellect”, “wisdom”, since they had specific meaning generated by attempt to translate them from Greek. (shrink)

У статті автор звертається до дослідження «Послання» Климента Смолятича. Мета публікації – з’ясувати що сáме названо «філософією» у творі на основі узагальнення традиції досліджень цього питання. Результатом роботи стало виявлення, що провідними інтерпретаціями уявлень про філософію, нібито вміщених у «Послання» є версії про те, що філософія тут розумілась як: (1) «освіта» й «освіченість», (2) язичницька мудрість, (3) християнська мудрість, (4) алегоричний метод тлумачення Біблії, або (5) було представлене плюралістичне розуміння. Автор висловлює думку, що найімовірніше у «Посланні» не висловлено якихось чітких (...) уявлень про те, що є філософією, а її образ є швидше аморфним, ніж плюралістичним, таким, що не чітко диференціює філософське і нефілософське знання. Такий образ філософії є досить типовим для тодішньої культури Візантії, під упливом якої однозначно перебували як Климент, так і його опонент – пресвітер Фома. (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)