The study is based on an analysis of content and themes of the correspondence of the wellknown Enlightenment Era "provincial intellectual", a bank clerk from Čáslav Jan Ferdinand Opiz (1741-1812), with a country priest from the highlands on the border of Bohemia and Moravia, Karel Killar (1745-1806). Their correspondence - in most part hitherto unstudied - is deposited in the National Museum in Prague. It consists of more than 300 letters, written over a long period of 16 years (1793-1806), and it is fascinating for several reasons: it is conducted in French, which represents one of the very rare testimonies of a good knowledge of French in some members of other classes than the nobility in the 18th and 19th centuries; in this case, the use of French can be read as an implicit adherence to (French) Enlightenment, and perhaps even to the principles of the French Revolution. And it is the Enlightenment, the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars around which the entire correspondence revolves. Thanks to this we may not only form a deeper and more nuanced insight into Opitz, a wellknown sympathizer of the French Revolution, but also into the lesser known figure of Killar, a man of universal education and an Enlightenment era priest of Josephine stamp, who tried to integrate both the Enlightenment and the French Revolution within his firm Christian (Catholic) worldview., Daniela Tinková., and Obsahuje bibliografické odkazy
This essay aims to describe hitherto unknown notes of aesthetics lectures given by August Gottlieb Meißner (1753-1807) at Prague University. It compares these notes (made by a certain Wagner, and deposited in the Wienbibliothek im Rathaus) with notes deposited in Czech libraries, and seeks to determine their place chronologically amongst notes made by others attending Meißner’s lectures over the years. The most important difference in content between the earlier known notes and Wagner’s is Meißner’s negative attitude towards the Schlegel brothers. This attitude slightly alters our existing notion of his views on the relationship between literature and morality. Taken alone, the collections of notes in Czech libraries had led one to conclude that this Prague ordinarius was an ardent libertine, who dared, even at a conservative Austrian university, to push for the autonomy of art, including a thorough split between art and morality, regarding not only works of art, but also, to a certain extent, the artists themselves. By contrast, the Vienna MS as a matter of priority restricts this split to art, and limits it to the higher, moral aims of the artist as citizen. His approach to questions of morality and to the Schlegel brothers demonstrates that while Meißner considered himself part of the liberally enlightened current of contemporaneous literature, which made moving the emotions the central aim of art, he was no longer an adherent of upandcoming Romanticism with its extreme conviction about unlimited authorial liberty, which stemmed from the philosophical Idealism of the times. This attitude to the Schlegel brothers also suggests that Wagner attended Meißner’s lectures in aesthetics and rhetoric in the winter of 1800/1., Tomáš Hlobil., and Obsahuje bibliografické odkazy