V reakci na recenzi své biografie českého historika Václava Chaloupeckého (1882-1951) Václav Chaloupecký: Hledání československých dějin (Praha, Karolinum 2014), kterou v minulém čísle tohoto časopisu publikovala Antonie Doležalová (Hledání Václava Chaloupeckého. In: Soudobé dějiny, roč. 23, č. 1-2, 2016, s. 211-216), se autor zamýšlí nad problémem figurace historiografického textu budovaného na materiálu primárních pramenů a v souvislosti s tím rovněž nad vnitrooborovou i širší recepcí současné české historiografie a nad mezemi i proměnami popularizace výsledků historického výzkumu., In response to a review of his biography of the Czech historian Václav Chaloupecký (1882-1951), Václav Chaloupecký: Hledání československých dějin (Prague: Karolinum, 2014), published in the previous issue of this journal (Antonie Doležalová, ''Hledání Václava Chalupeckého'', Soudobé dějiny, vol. 23 (2016), nos. 1-2, pp. 211-16), the author discusses the problem of composing a historical text built on primary sources and, in connection with that, the reception, both in the field and amongst the general public, of contemporary Czech historiography. He also considers the limits of, and changes in, the popularization of the results of historical research., Milan Ducháček., and Obsahuje bibliografii a bibliografické odkazy
The aim of this study is to describe and examine eight typescript variants of Ludvík Vaculík’s novel Czech Dreambook. The analysis is part of the textological preparation for the forthcoming two-volume edition of Czech Dreambook in the Czech Library. It presents hitherto unanalysed and for the most part unknown typescript material, which provides a unique insight into the genesis of the text. The study shows the strategies used by the author in the reworking process and notes the variable extent of the documentary features.
As Critical Hybrid Edition volumes contain an extensive genetic component, they are sometimes characterized within a foreign context as “genetic” editions. The aim of the paper titled Text genetics and the Critical Hybrid Edition is thus to analyse how particular editions based on Critical Hybrid Editions match the criteria set for digital genetic editions. The introduction presents a brief summary of the domestic reception of genetic editions, but the paper’s synopsis for comparing the Critical Hybrid Edition with the digital genetic edition comprises the criteria formulated in a study by Paolo D’Iorio (2010), and also takes into account the way the genetic edition is understood by Dirk van Hulle (2016), or the way genetic digital editions are specifically compiled, e.g. as part of the Nietzsche Source Project or the Samuel Beckett Digital Manuscript Project. The outcome is a sequence of distinctions between the Critical Hybrid Edition and the digital genetic edition concept, as well as a set of possible solutions that might be implemented in forthcoming Critical Hybrid Edition titles.