The article provides a reassessment of Aristotle’s accounts of Socrates, which modern historians describe as one of the four main sources in solving the so-called Socratic problem. In the first part, the article returns to the grammatical distinction by which Aristotle mentions Socrates’ name. In the next part, it analyzes those places in Metaphysics and in Aristotle’s ethical writings that make mention of Socrates. In a more detailed fashion the structure of Aristotle’s Protrepticus, in which Socrates does not appear but his absence could be important for understanding Aristotle’s approach to philosophy, is then presented. In the last part, the article returns to the problem of the Sokratikoi logoi and asks whether Aristotle uses this term to mean a prose genre in which the fictional is mixed with the historical. These respective analyzes lead us to the conclusion that Aristotle worked freely with the character of Socrates, relying primarily on the representations of Socrates in Plato’s dialogues. Thus, Aristotle’s accounts do not help us in the reconstruction of Socrates’ historical attitudes. and Článok sa pokúša o prehodnotenie Aristotelových správ o Sókratovi, ktoré označujú moderní historici za jeden zo štyroch hlavných zdrojov pri riešení tzv. sókratovského problému. V prvej časti sa článok vracia ku gramatickému rozlíšeniu, ktorým Aristotelés uvádza Sókratovo meno. V ďalšej časti podrobuje analýze jednotlivé miesta v Metafyzike a v etických spisoch, ktoré sa zmieňujú o Sókratovi. Podrobnejšie sa pristavuje pri štruktúre Aristotelovho Protreptika, v ktorom Sókratés nevystupuje, ale jeho absencia by mohla byť významná pre pochopenie aristotelovského prístupu k filosofii. V poslednej časti sa vracia k problematike Sókratikoi logoi a kladie si otázku, či má Aristotelés na mysli pod týmto výrazom prozaický žáner, v ktorom sa mieša fiktívne s historickým. Jednotlivé analýzy vyúsťujú do záveru, že Aristotelés pracuje s postavou Sókrata voľne, opiera sa hlavne o obrazy Sókrata v Platónových dialógoch, takže Aristotelove správy nám nepomáhajú pri rekonštrukcii Sókratových historických postojov.
Interwar Romania was infamous for its many violent political and
social scenes. Some of these scenes represented exclusionary violence in its basic form, such as riots against Jews (and sometimes against other minorities) in 1922 and most prominently in 1927. But many other forms of violence were customary in Greater Romania. Clashes between villagers, destruction of memorials and statues, armed violence against the opposition electorate,beating up of politicians and occasional revolts against the authorities concerned an ever-growing state security apparatus that was rarely able to control these eruptions. Their persistence makes them suspicious of being a systemic phenomenon. In this article I argue that violence in this widespread form was a structural characteristic of Greater Romania, the result of systemic factors in
the new state. A loosening of moral constraint due to the preceding first world war, subsequent revolutions (and paramilitary endeavours) and the deficiencies of the state together had a decisive impact on the formation of a political culture that fostered violence from time to time. These factors on the one hand legitimized violence as a form of political action and, on the other hand, they resulted from and impeded successful nation building, and the realizationof the state’s promises for the nation. Thus, interwar Romania became a failing nation state and as such it facilitated popular forms of violence that was widely felt being justified by the legitimacy enjoyed by the ideology of the
nation-state. and Obsahuje poznámkový aparát pod čarou
The celebration of The Wallachian Year held in 1925 significantly influenced the development of folklore movement in the ethnographic region of Moravian Wallachia. This event inspired Arnošt Kubeša to promote traditional folk music and dances as part of his teaching career. For this purpose he founded with his students the first Wallachian Circle in the mid-1930s, he organised its public performances (as well as the first foreign tour of this kind of an ensemble) and continued to found other circles in the end. After his involuntary retirement from the education system due to his "political and ideological unreliability" and his withdrawal from the leading positions in folklore movement associations, Arnošt Kubeša started a new career as a museum employee. This study refers to his activities which contributed to the development of folklore in its second existence.