This paper provides an overview of findings from recent analyses of a part of the rare book collection possessed by the First Faculty of Medicine at Charles University that encompasses Johannes Marcus Marci of Cronland’s work. The collection of Marci’s texts as a whole had not been studied thus far. The rigorous research conducted revealed that ten publications bound in six volumes represent a full cross-section of Marci’s work. Moreover, this collection is remarkable because of its exceptional artistic value and fine typography. Marci’s texts were published by prestigious Prague printers - either individual ones or by institutional print shops (the Jesuit print shop or the Archbishop’s print shop). These printers were able to meet the need for complicated typesetting and to produce the demanded number of copper engravings to accompany the text with fine illustrations so the result would be worthy of the author’s status. The present study also gives a full bibliographical description of the “sammelband” bound together as a single volume with the other four titles (shelfmark K2508a). This collection of Marci’s major works (originally only four) had a fifth added after 1654. The handwritten notes in the margin showed renewed interest in this scholar that appeared in the Czech lands in the 18th and 19th centuries. The First Medical Faculty’s collection of Marci’s works is not complete and does not include all his medical treatises, but it does reflect the breadth of his oeuvre. The provenance research proved that three volumes were part of a carefully curated book collection built up by Friedel Pick, a professor at Charles University. These print artefacts significantly enrich the faculty’s collection of early printed books and deserve further inquiry., Markéta Ivánková., Obsahuje bibliografické odkazy, and Jan Pulkrábek [překladatel]
Autor provádí shrnující komparaci disentu v Československu a Německé demokratické republice v sedmdesátých a osmdesátých letech minulého století, poukazuje na jeho afinity a odlišnosti v obou zemích a nabízí jejich zdůvodnění. Upozorňuje na asymetrie srovnávaných případů, které se týkají rozsahu a povahy pramenného materiálu, stavu a dosažených výsledků historického bádání a užívané terminologie, a upřesňuje pojem disentu, s nímž pracuje. Konstatuje, že disent v českých zemích, zrozený z porážky pražského jara 1968, se diferencoval do reformněkomunistického, křesťanského, liberálního, kulturního a sublkulturního proudu, přičemž tato pluralita byla propojena a zastřešena založením Charty 77 a posléze se rozvíjela i do dalších občanských iniciativ. Na Slovensku, kde Charta 77 nezakotvila, se disent profiloval nábožensky, národně a od poloviny osmdesátých let ekologicky. V NDR zaznívaly v sedmdesátých letech ojedinělé hlasy marxistického disentu a socialistická orientace byla vlastní i nezávislým občanským iniciativám vzniklým v osmdesátých letech, které se vyvíjely v podobě mírového hnutí na půdě evangelické církve. Východoněmecký disent se narozdíl od českého a slovenského vyznačoval relativní generační a ideovou homogenitou, nedisponoval mezinárodně uznávanými intelektuálními autoritami symbolizujícími občanský protest, byl jen slabě programově zakotven a svou legitimizaci neodvozoval z diskurzu lidských práv, ale rétoriky antimilitarismu. Pro odlišnou povahu disentu v NDR byly klíčovými faktory paralelní existence Spolkové republiky a z toho plynoucí masový rozsah emigrace, rozdílné postavení církví a vztah k národní tradici zatížený nacistickým dědictvím, jenž neumožnil názorovou konfrontaci o dějinách, jako tomu bylo v Československu., b1_In this article the author has undertaken a summarizing comparison of dissidents and dissent in Czechoslovakia and East Germany in the 1970s and 1980s, pointing out their similarities and differences, which he endeavours to explain. He points out the asymmetry of the cases he compares, which stems from the nature and scope of the source material, the current state of historical research, and the results that have been achieved, as well as the terminology used. He also offers a more precise definition of dissent and dissidents, which he then employs. He also reminds his reader how dissent and dissidents in the Bohemian Lands, which arose after the defeat of the 1968 Prague Spring reform movement, separated into Reform- -Communist, Christian, liberal, cultural, and sub-culture branches. This pluralism was linked together by the establishment of an umbrella organization, Charter 77, eventually also developing into other groups (občanské iniciativy) of Czechoslovak citizens seeking to act independently of Party and State control. In Slovakia, where Charter 77 never really took root, dissent was expressed in religious, national, and, from the mid-1980s, environmentalist terms. In East Germany in the 1970s, voices of Marxist dissent were sporadically heard and the socialist orientation was also particular to the independent alternative movements (Bürgerinitiative) that emerged in the 1980s and developed as a peace movement in the Protestant Church. East German dissent and dissidents, unlike Czech and Slovak, were characterized by some generational and ideological homogeneity. They did not have at their disposal internationally recognized intellectual authorities who would symbolize civil protest. And they lacked a programme that would help them to put down roots. They derived their legitimacy from the rhetoric of antimilitarism rather than from human-rights discourse., b2_ Of key importance to the different nature of the dissident movement in East Germany were the existence of another German state next door and, related to that, the massive defection to West Germany, the different status of the churches, and the attitude towards a national tradition burdened with the legacy of Nazism, which, unlike in Czechoslovakia, severely hampered the expression of different points of view about the past., and Jan Pauer.
The aim of the present paper is to examine certain philosophical issues which have set the tone of the philosophical reflection in eighteenth century France in relation to a specific case study: that of the "wild child" known as Victor of Aveyron. Found in 1800 in central France, Victor was later transferred to the Parisian Institute of the DeafMutes, where he became the object of educational activities of JeanMarc Itard, a medical expert known for his works on the problem of hearing loss. Through a brief critical examination of the most notorious philosophical texts dealing both with the question of wild children and deafness (namely by Rousseau, Diderot and Condillac), we attempt to show that the specificity of Itard’s educational method consists in an application of the sensualist approach towards the human individual (as it is exemplified especially in the work of Condillac) on a concrete human subject, considered as a tangible proof of the inexistence of innate ideas. On this basis, we sketch several broader questions concerning the status of anomaly in the eighteenth century philosophical thought (namely, wild children and deafness), as well as some hypotheses on education and its fantasmatic aspects in general., Josef Fulka., and Obsahuje bibliografické odkazy
a1_ Tématem článku jsou vztahy mezi Nicolae Ceauşeskem (1918-1989), generálním tajemníkem Rumunské komunistické strany (Partidul Comunist Român) a předsedou Státní rady Rumunské socialistické republiky, a Josipem Brozem Titem (1892-1980), předsedou Svazu komunistů Jugoslávie (Savez komunista Jugoslavije) a prezidentem Socialistické federativní republiky Jugoslávie, tak jak se vyvíjely v politické rovině v letech 1966 až 1969, tedy v době, kdy vrcholilo a posléze bylo potlačeno reformněkomunistické hnutí v Československu. Analýza rumunského historika těží především z nedávno zpřístupněných dokumentů v rumunských centrálních archivech referujících o pěti schůzkách mezi oběma státníky v uvedeném období. Autor nastiňuje vztahy Rumunska a Jugoslávie od padesátých let minulého století a charakterizuje jejich pozici v rámci mezinárodního komunistického hnutí, která byla také hlavním tématem rozhovorů Tita s Ceauşeskem. V zájmu obou vůdců bylo udržet si větší manévrovací volnost, kterou se jim podařilo vydobýt vůči Sovětskému svazu, a zabránit upevnění jeho dominance v „socialistickém táboře“, kterou se zejména Rumuni snažili vyvažovat přátelskými vztahy s Čínskou lidovou republikou. Vzájemný vztah Tita a Ceauşeska líčí autor jako založený na důvěře, jež vycházela ze sbližování společných zájmů a umožňovala koordinovat zahraničněpolitické postoje i překonávat dílčí neshody. Toto strategické partnerství se projevilo i v otevřené jugoslávské a rumunské podpoře pražského jara, jak ji nejnápadněji deklarovaly návštěvy obou státníků v Praze vpředvečer vojenské intervence pod vedením Sovětů do Československa, a poté v odmítavém postoji vůči tomuto násilnému aktu., a2_Srpnovou okupací Československa se Tito, a zvláště Ceauşescu cítili přímo ohroženi a konzultovali spolu možnosti, jak předejít nebo čelit eventuální sovětské invazi do jejich zemí. Autor přitom připisuje Titovi zásadní vliv na proměnu Ceauşeskovy rétoriky od konfrontačního veřejného odsouzení okupace po pragmatické potvrzení loajality ke Kremlu. Oba státníci poté volili cestu zdrženlivosti a snahy o zlepšení vztahů se Sověty, aniž by změnili svůj nesouhlas s okupací a odpor k sovětské hegemonii. Nejodhodlanějším gestem vzdoru Nicolae Ceauşeska bylo přijetí amerického prezidenta Richarda Nixona v srpnu 1969 v Bukurešti., b1_The article is concerned with the relations between Nicolae Ceauşescu (1918-1989), the General Secretary of the Romanian Communist Party and Chairman of the State Council of the Romanian Socialist Republic and, on the other side, Josip Broz Tito (1892-1980), the Chairman of the Union of Communists of Yugoslavia and President of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, as they developed at the political level from 1966 to 1969, when the reform Communist movement in Czechoslovakia was coming to a peak and was soon crushed. This analysis by a Romanian historian draws mainly on records recently made accessible in central Romanian archives, which relate to the five meetings between these two senior politicians in this period. The author outlines Romanian-Yugoslav relations from the 1950s onwards, and discusses their place in the international Communist movement, which was also the main subject of the talks between Tito and Ceauşescu. It was in the interest of the two leaders to maintain the greater room for manoeuvre which they won from the Soviet Union. That was supposed to prevent the buttressing of Soviet dominance in the ‘Socialist camp’, which the Romanians in particular tried to use to compensate for friendly relations with the People’s Republic of China. The author argues that the mutual relations between Tito and Ceauşescu were based on trust and stemmed from the identification of common interests, which enabled them to coordinate foreign-policy positions and surmount particular disagreements. This strategic partnership was also manifested in the open Yugoslav and Romanian support for the Prague Spring, the most striking declarations of which were the two Prague visits by the two heads of state on the eve of the Soviet-led military intervention in Czechoslovakia, and afterwards in their negative positions on the act of aggression., b2_Tito and particularly Ceauşescu saw the August occupation of Czechoslovakia as a direct threat to their own security, and they consulted each other about possible ways to avoid, or face, eventual Soviet military intervention in their own countries. The author attributes considerable influence to Tito in changing Ceauşescu’s rhetoric from a confrontational public condemnation of the occupation to a pragmatic confirmation of loyalty to the Kremlin. The two heads of state henceforth chose a path of restraint and sought to improve relations with the Soviets, without abandoning their disagreement over the occupation or their resistance to Soviet hegemony. Ceauşescu’s most resolute gesture of resistance was to welcome the US President, Richard Nixon, to Bucharest in August 1969., Cezar Stanciu ; z angličtiny přeložila Marzia Patonová., and Obsahuje bibliografii