DVT 162, 61
Nová, hezká, německá a česká: dělení pražské univerzitní botanické zahrady (1882–1898)
Lucie Čermáková
New, beautiful, German and Czech: The Division of university Botanical
Garden in Prague (1882–1898).
In the year 1882, two new universities were
established, German and Czech, replacing the old Karl-Ferdinand University in
Prague. Professors were allowed to choose where they would teach; their institutes
followed them to the corresponding university. The position of the botanical
garden was, however, more complicated. It had to serve both universities, but
achieving agreement on cooperation between Czech and German chairs of botany
at the height of national tensions in Bohemia was complicated.
The aim of this study is to describe the process that led to the foundation of
two new university botanical gardens in 1898. It highlights particularly the role
professors of botany played in this process. It is difficult to compare this case
with situations in other university institutes, as the relationship between Czech
and German universities has not yet been systematically surveyed. In the
realm of the history of botany, this episode of institutional development has
been insufficiently described. Thus, this study is meant to serve as an opening
for a broader research on this topic.
Keywords: History of universities ● history of botanical gardens ● Moritz Willkomm ● Richard Wettstein ● Ladislav Josef Čelakovský
Summary
After the division of Karl-Ferdinand University in Prague the future and the
possible use of the university botanical garden remained uncertain. From 1882
a number of proposals concerning how to deal with this situation was put
forward: the separation of the botanical garden from the university and restoration
and division of the existing garden or a foundation of two completely new
botanical gardens. The problem was discussed for eleven years – only in 1893
was the proposal for establishing of new gardens accepted. The construction
took another five years.
The example of botanical gardens illustrates the complications brought
about by the decision to divide the university. A garden is a specific institution
that cannot be easily divided into two equal parts. In this situation, the agreement
between both sides was needed more than anywhere else. Moritz Willkomm,
director of the garden and professor of botany at the German university, did
not contribute to any constructive solution. His nationalistic attitude and certain
personal obstinacy prevented any mutual agreement. On the contrary, his
successor, Richard Wettstein, was able to push through the foundation of new
botanical gardens (Na Slupi) due to the cooperation with Czech professor of
botany, Ladislav Čelakovský.
Willkomm’s obstinacy and in contrast the mutual trust and respect of
Wettstein and Čelakovský can show us how particular persons can influence
the development of an institution. Their agreement, supported by governor
of Bohemia, Franz von Thun-Hohenstein, made the chair of botany the first
natural science chair of the Czech university, which acquired a new institute
building. One could therefore say that the botanical garden became an argument
for building other scientific institutes in the locality of Na Slupi.
Author’s address:
Katedra filosofie a dějin přírodních věd
Přírodovědecká fakulta UK
Viničná 7, 128 44 Praha 2
DVT 162, 89
Ošetřovatelské školství mezi tradicí a modernitou: snahy o prosazení anglosaského modelu
v meziválečném Československu
Růžena Zaoralová
Nursing education between tradition and modernity: efforts to enforce Anglo-
-Saxon model in interwar Czechoslovakia.
Although the international context was
of key importance for nursing education in inter-war Czechoslovakia, the topic
has been solely studied by American scholars so far; the Czech historiography
of nursing and medicine has not paid due attention to it until now. The study
focuses on how American nurses got involved in the improvement of nursing
conditions, what problems the implementation of their approaches met with,
why efforts to interconnect public health nursing with hospital nursing had failed
for a long time and why the aim to establish new nursing schools was difficult
to implement. The retrospective analysis of these questions is based on primary
sources (Czechoslovak and U. S. nursing periodicals, Czechoslovak archival
documents) and serves as a basis for comparison with published archival material
of U. S. provenance. The author regards the introduction of new approaches
in nursing as a part of the process of medicalization. She argues that the exercise
of biopower in relation to nursing education provoked a number of conflicts
conditioned by gender stereotypes, adjusted political and legal framework,
cultural customs and mentality.
Keywords: nursing care ● education ● Anglo-Saxon model ● Czechoslovakia ● 1918–1938
Summary
The Anglo-Saxon model of nursing education was introduced in Czechoslovakia
in the years of 1920–1923 thanks to the assistance of American Red Cross
nurses and Rockefeller Foundation experts. A need to change the relationship
between theory and practice in favour of practical subjects and to enhance the
pride in the nursing profession was considered the most urgent. The main tasks
that needed to be solved were aptly formulated by Frances Elisabeth Crowell,
member of the Rockefeller Foundation International Health Division, in her
situation report from 1922. She recommended, among others, to enhance the
professional identity of nurses, to define their competence and educational
requirements to become a registered nurse, to establish a Nursing Division of
the Ministry of Health, and to set up new schools with the combined program
in public health and hospital nursing. In fact, it was difficult to put these changes
into practice. The lengthy debates on innovations in nursing run into a number
of bureaucratic obstacles and prejudices expressed in the statements of
government officials and some professors of the Faculty of Medicine. One of
the specific Czechoslovak problems was a dichotomy between public health
nursing and hospital nursing. Due to the initiatives of Alice Masaryková, the
first head of the Czechoslovak Red Cross, public health work was perceived as
the domain of the social worker, while public health nurse had little or no status.
A similar stand was also taken by Sylva Macharová, the director of the nursing
school in Prague. It took eight years of negotiations before the Ministry of
Health proposed a satisfactory resolution, which gained government approval
to create a State School of Nurses for Public Health and Social Welfare at the
Institute of Public Hygiene. It is ironic that the health care leaders who struggled
to redefine nursing after the war only attained some clear purpose just as
Czechoslovakia was about to face the economic and political crises of the 1930s.
Author’s address:
Fakulta zdravotnických věd UP
Hněvotínská 3
775 15 Olomouc
DVT 162, 110
Botanický dokument z poloviny 18. století – Joannes Kisling (1713–1748)
Josef Smolka
Botanical document from the half of the 18th century – Joannes Kisling
(1713–1748).
The article is devoted to Joannes Kisling, professor of philosophy
in Prague – Clementinum, Jesuit university. He dealt with disciplines that were
not usually a focus of Jesuit science. Though he propagated natural sciences he
was a resolute exponent of the opinion that the sciences are to be interpreted
on the basis of Aristotelian philosophy. The article follows up a botanical part
of his work on planets and plants (pun in Latin – and the same in English: de
plantis et planetis).
Keywords: botany ● 18th century ● Bohemia ● Joannes Kisling
Summary
Joannes Kisling organized public exposition of stones, ores, minerals and fossils
in Clementinum Mathematical Tower in 1747, and he also published a special
opus about the exposition. One year later he prepared floristic exposition at
the same place. Both expositions were the first of their kind in Bohemia. Kisling
among other compiled an inventory of 1099 vegetal species in the discussed
publication, and 43 of them he exhibited and described. The text brings a
translation of this description of the species into Czech. His own system of
plants is mentioned, too (he probably did not know Linnaeus), and other related
topics are also discussed.
Author’s address: Nedvězská 6 100 00 Praha 10