Nowa wersja platformy, zawierająca wyłącznie zasoby pełnotekstowe, jest już dostępna.
Przejdź na
Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników

Znaleziono wyników: 6

Liczba wyników na stronie
first rewind previous Strona / 1 next fast forward last
Wyniki wyszukiwania
w słowach kluczowych:  textologie
help Sortuj według:

help Ogranicz wyniki do:
first rewind previous Strona / 1 next fast forward last
Content available remote Třetí ediční stadium vydávání Máje K. H. Máchy
This study examines critical editions of Máj by Karel Hynek Mácha in the period after the discovery of the poem manuscript in 1916. Hence it focuses primarily on publishing procedures in the ten editions (1919-1949) by Karel Janský, while also examining other important parallel editorial undertakings, editions from the previous period and editions that came out after the last critical edition in the Knihovna klasiků series (1959). This exposition focuses primarily on how both prominent Mácha editors set out their conception of the chronology of both primary sources: the first printing (1836) and the poem manuscript. It subsequently analyses which method of working with both sources they developed from this conception, and it focuses on a detailed analysis of the editing proces, i.e. on determining the phenomena which the editors considered to be errors within the text of the poem, their correction and what is known as the linguistic preparation of the text. The study shows developments in the approaches of both editors, the changes in the extent and method both sources were contaminated and in the application of the diplomatic approach, while also following the ongoing application of a methodologically different editing process method, which aimed to modernize and harmonize the published text. This process is observed within the context of the domestic discussion at that time on the extent and method for correcting the texts of the classics. The present description of changes in the text of critical editions of Máj is one of the bases for the forthcoming new edition of the poem in the Hybrid Scholarly Edition.
Content available Poznámka k Halasově Písni
This short article on František Halas’s poem Píseň (‘The Song’; 1932) draws attention to an editorial issue concerning the word nah (‘naked’) as it appears in the first verse (‘Jdu k tobě nah a s písní nahou’ / ‘I go to you naked and with a naked song’). In nearly all editions, this word was replaced with rád (‘happy’). The article presents the rationale for following the manuscript version (published only in the book of Halas’s poetry Doznání, 1972, edited by his son F. X. Halas) in connection to the meaning of this poem and others by Halas.
Content available remote Textová genetika a Kritická hybridní edice
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.
Since his death, Karel Havlíček Borovský (1821–1856) has been seen by the Czech public as a ‘national martyr’ (a view not entirely upheld by historical facts), as well as a symbol of courage, defiance and forthrightness. Similar qualities have been attributed to his fiction, a vivid and humorous reflection of the state of affairs in the culture and politics of his time. However, Havlíček’s poems and epigrams were created in the trying circumstances of Metternich’s Austria, during the revolutionary years of 1848 and 1849 and subsequent years of social depression. Throughout this period his publishing possibilities were limited to the demands of censorship, at risk of losing his literary existence. He wrote his best-known poems while detained in Brixen, with no hope of publication. During his lifetime he was unable to publish a single book of his own fiction, and for years after his death his works were known primarily through unauthorized copies. The first posthumous comprehensive editions of his writings (esp. Zelený 1870, Tůma 1886, Quis 1889 and 1906) were similarly limited by the political conditions of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. At the same time, however, they aimed at presenting an idealized image of the national poet by modifying and redacting the original texts. This study follows the situation outlined here from a textological perspective. In the first part, it notes the uncertain boundaries of Havlíček’s works in terms of textual units, author attribution and delimitation of genre. In the second part, it presents examples of censorship and self-censorship. In the third part, it deals with changes to Havlíček’s texts after the author’s death, mainly due to inaccurate copies and editorial interventions (e.g. the removal and concealment of taboo words). It is this aspect of publishing practice in the second half of the 19th century that results in a particularly problematic, flat and banal image of Havlíček’s work. The study is accompanied by analysis of several specific textual problems that remain unresolved.
Content available remote František Gellner si za ženu vezme gorilu
This study focuses on one of the most popular poems by František Gellner. The first part summarizes previous interpretations of the text, and on the basis of further source research, some of these are extended or partly corrected. In the next part, the study offers new relevant contexts in which this poem can be perceived. The analysis focuses predominantly on the motif of the gorilla. This motif is presented as significant at the time the poem appeared, broadly resonating throughout culture (and pop-culture) - among other things it seems related to a new reflection of the animal features of the human race, particularly sexuality. The concluding part of the study discusses the genesis of the text, analysing a manuscript variant of the poem (hitherto unknown) and the potential this source offers to the interpretation.
Studie se zabývá jednou z nejpopulárnějších básní Františka Gellnera. Ve své prvé části podává přehled dosavadních interpretací tohoto textu a některé z nich s využitím dalšího pramenného výzkumu rozvádí či částečně zpřesňuje. V další části se pokouší nabídnout nové relevantní kontexty, v nichž lze báseň vnímat. Výklad je soustředěn zejména k motivu gorily, jenž je předveden jako dobově příznačný a mnohočetně rezonující v kulturní a pop-kulturní sféře, mj. v souvislosti s reflexí animálních stránek člověka, zejména jeho sexuality. Závěrečná část studie je věnována genezi Gellnerovy básně, zejména analýze její dosud zcela neznámé rukopisné varianty a potenciálu, který tento materiál poskytuje pro interpretaci.
Content available remote Otázky rukopisu Máchova Máje : k chystané kritické edici básně
This study deals with one of the key topics relating to the forthcoming critical edition of Mácha’s Máj in the Kritická hybridní edice (KHE, Critical Hybrid Series) library, i.e. issues surrounding the only preserved manuscript of Mácha’s poem. It not only provides an analysis of this manuscript, which was discovered eighty years after the poet’s death and has not yet been appropriately examined, but also compares it with other surviving sources of Máj — particularly the first printed edition from 1836, while attempting to determine its textological status. The forthcoming edition has helped to refute the hypothesis that the manuscript was meant for the censor. The overall character of the manuscript and an analysis of its linguistic and graphic divergences and similarities with the printed version indicate that the manscript was most probably not written until after the printed edition of the poem was published (in April 1836), most likely as a transcript of it made by the poet himself, who died that same year (in November 1836). Mácha’s personal papers also include a similar manuscript — a fragment of a diary from 1835 (R57), which was created by an identical recording technique, clearly from the same batch of paper as the manuscript of Máj, thus evidently playing a similar role. However, this study does not focus on the final published version, which will be the task of the proposed publication.
first rewind previous Strona / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.