Search

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 František Krčma and the eleven editions (1936-1959) 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 process, 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study focuses on the issues surrounding the effects of censorship on the publication of Karel Hynek Mácha's work before 1848, e.g. on the basis of previously unresearched lists of books passed by the censors. It presents the way the censors dealt with each work by Mácha in chronological order, primarily focusing on the issues involved in Cikáni and Máj, the former having been rejected in February 1836, whereas the latter was passed for publication that same month. The anecdote that has been passed down regarding Mácha's informal intervention with Zimmermann the censor is most likely true, but then in contrast to the previous tradition new sources indicate that in the case of Máj the censors were responsible for some unidentified alterations in the manuscript. The study also sets the newly discovered records of the censorship of the posthumous edition of Mácha's works under preparation within the context of other reports on its preparations, and shows that censorship had no direct part to play in the lack of success of the publication of Mácha's posthumous works in the 1840s. It also focuses on the deletions in Karel Sabina's biographical study of Mácha and deals with the question of why Mácha's Cikáni was rejected by the censors in 1836, but then passed in 1842 and 1844. A role was probably played here by the genre description of novel, which was problematic in the context of censorship legislation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]