Jan Hus is especially well-known as a preacher and theologian whose activities anticipated the European protestant reformation and the hussite movement. It should not be forgotten, however, that Hus worked for many years as a teacher at the Faculty of Liberal Arts. He was therefore also a philosopher reflecting on contemporary subjects, among which was the reception of the philosophical thought of John Wyclif at Prague University, and the discussion of the reality of universals connected with it. The study maps Hus’s realist conception of universals on the basis of an analysis of the dispersed fragments of his pronouncements on universals from his quaestiones and from his Sentences commentary. The author divides this mapping into four different contexts: (1) God’s nature and the Trinity of Persons; (2) the ideas in God’s mind; (3) being as an analogical quasi-universal; and (4) the very conception of universals, that is of genera and species. In these different thematical areas, the study shows that Hus’s realism played an important role in his philosophico-theological thought of constituting its philosophical grounding. It could be said that although Hus’s realistic attitudes were influenced to a great extent by the thought of John Wyclif, Hus rejected or softened Wyclif’s heterodox opinions and the demands stemming from realism. Hus’s metaphysical standpoint, in the writings in question, also do not show a direct connection with his thoughts on church reform.
Comparison of one of the commentaries on the Apocalypse which originated at the Prague University and is contained in the manuscript Osek Cist. 37 of the Prague National Library, ff . 1–129, coming from Osek, dating from 1402 and used to this day by experts, with a copy of the same work in the manuscript I Q 16 of the University Library in Wroclaw, created 1378, has excluded the hitherto assumed authorship of Heřman Švab of Mindelheim, as well as the authorship of Heřman of Prague, assumed, not beyond doubt, by Fr. Stegmüller. Temporal relationship and the data of the colophones of both of these preserved manuscripts lead to the conclusion that the author of this Commentary is an other „Doctor Heřman“, Heřman of Winterswick, a member of the Prague university who composed the Commentary sometime in the late seventies of the 14th century.
Comparison of one of the commentaries on the Apocalypse which originated at the Prague University and is contained in the manuscript Osek Cist. 37 of the Prague National Library, ff . 1–129, coming from Osek, dating from 1402 and used to this day by experts, with a copy of the same work in the manuscript I Q 16 of the University Library in Wroclaw, created 1378, has excluded the hitherto assumed authorship of Heřman Švab of Mindelheim, as well as the authorship of Heřman of Prague, assumed, not beyond doubt, by Fr. Stegmüller. Temporal relationship and the data of the colophones of both of these preserved manuscripts lead to the conclusion that the author of this Commentary is an other „Doctor Heřman“, Heřman of Winterswick, a member of the Prague university who composed the Commentary sometime in the late seventies of the 14th century.
Comparison of one of the commentaries on the Apocalypse which originated at the Prague University and is contained in the manuscript Osek Cist. 37 of the Prague National Library, ff . 1–129, coming from Osek, dating from 1402 and used to this day by experts, with a copy of the same work in the manuscript I Q 16 of the University Library in Wroclaw, created 1378, has excluded the hitherto assumed authorship of Heřman Švab of Mindelheim, as well as the authorship of Heřman of Prague, assumed, not beyond doubt, by Fr. Stegmüller. Temporal relationship and the data of the colophones of both of these preserved manuscripts lead to the conclusion that the author of this Commentary is an other „Doctor Heřman“, Heřman of Winterswick, a member of the Prague university who composed the Commentary sometime in the late seventies of the 14th century.
In the Middle Ages, Pseudo-Aristotelian Secretum secretorum was an exceptionally widespread text, both in Latin and vernacular versions. It was a thematically varied treatise, a kind of sum of knowledge, containing information from statecraft, natural sciences, medicine and health science. The main attention of the study is focused on the spread of this treatise in medieval Bohemia. It follows not only its manuscript preservation and its context, but also the milieu in which this text was received, or which parts were received in the given, specific milieu. An important theme is also the translations into Czech and the reception of this treatise in texts written in Czech., Pavlína Cermanová., and Obsahuje poznámky pod čarou
Ernst Mach (1838-1916) byl jmenován profesorem fyziky na c. k. KarloFerdinandově univerzitě v Praze rozhodnutím císaře Františka Josefa z 11. března 1867 jako nástupce profesora Viktora Pierra (1819-1886) povolaného koncem zimního semestru 1866/67 na polytechniku do Vídně. V. Pierre zastával profesuru fyziky na pražské univerzitě od r. 1857 a od října 1864 suploval také profesuru obecné a technické fyziky s německou vyučovací řečí na pražské polytechnice. V návrzích na obsazení obou uvolněných profesur, předložených akademickými sbory zmíněných vysokých škol, byli ze všech uchazečů jako vhodní kandidáti uvedeni v obou případech na prvním místě profesor univerzity v Innsbrucku Adalbert von Waltenhofen a na druhém místě profesor univerzity ve Štýrském Hradci Ernst Mach. Totožnost návrhů překvapuje jak s ohledem na zdůrazňování specifičnosti výuky fyziky na obou vysokých školách (tj. pro techniky na polytechnice a pro filosofy a farmaceuty na univerzitě), tak představou, že by obě profesury měly nadále být zastávány jediným profesorem). O jmenování E. Macha profesorem fyziky na univerzitě (a A. v. Waltenhofena profesorem fyziky na pražské polytechnice) rozhodlo dobrozdání, které si ohledně návrhu předloženého profesorským kolegiem filozofické fakulty pražské univerzity vyžádalo Staats-Ministerium, Abteilung für Cultus und Unterricht, od Školské rady, sekce pro filozofické fakulty (Unterrichtsrath, Section für philosophische Fakultäten) ve Vídni. Ta, na základě pochvalného vyjádření profesora Josefa Stefana o E. Machovi, pořadí navržených kandidátů na profesuru obrátila: primo loco doporučila E. Macha, secundo loco A. v. Waltenhofena. Profesura fyziky s německou vyučovací řečí na pražské polytechnice, která byla zemským ústavem, byla obsazena na základě veřejného konkurzu vypsaného Zemským výborem Království českého 12. prosince 1866. O místo se ucházelo celkem 17 uchazečů (mezi nimi E. Mach, dopisem z 2. prosince 1866). Jako jediní způsobilí k navržení na profesuru byli komisí vybráni: Adolph Wüllner (mimořádný profesor na univerzitě v Bonnu, od jeho navržení však bylo nakonec ustoupeno pro nesplnitelnost jeho požadavku ohledně fyzikálního kabinetu), A. von Waltenhofen a E. Mach. U E. Macha komise vysoce hodnotila úroveň jeho vědeckých prací, ovšem s poznámkou, že tématem spadají více do oboru fyziologie než do fyziky, jeho pedagogické působení na univerzitě označila zatím za krátké. E. Mach nastoupil na profesuru fyziky na pražské univerzitě k začátku letního semestru 1867. Na univerzitě v Praze působil až do konce šk. r. 1894/95 (od šk. r. 1882/83 na pražské německé univerzitě). Pedagogickou, vědeckou a vědecko-organizační činností patří k, nejvýznačnějším osobnostem v historii vědy v českých zemích. V souvislosti s jednáními o obsazení profesury fyziky na pražské univerzitě byl v r. 1866 formulován (ze strany posluchačů i profesorů matematicko-fyzikálních oborů) také požadavek na zřízení druhé profesury (vyšší) fyziky na pražské univerzitě. Druhá profesura (pro matematickou fyziku) byla na pražské univerzitě zřízena a obsazena až v roce 1872 a jejím prvním držitelem se stal Ferdinand Lippich., Ernst Mach (1838-1916) was appointed Professor of Physics at the Imperial and Royal Charles-Ferdinand University in Prague under a decree made by Franz Josef dated 11th March 1867, as the successor to Professor Viktor Pierre (1819-1886), who had been appointed at the end of the winter semester 1866/67 to the Polytechnic in Vienna. Viktor Pierre had held the professorship of physics at Prague University from 1857, and from October 1864 he also stood in for the professorship of General and Technical Physics, lectured in German at the Prague Polytechnic. In nominations to fill both vacant chairs presented by the academic committees at these higher education institutes, out of all the applicants in both cases, Innsbruck University professor Adalbert von Waltenhofen was put forward as a suitable candidate for the first post and Graz University professor Ernst Mach for the second one. The identicality of the nominations is surprising both with regard to their emphasis on the specific nature of the physics tuition at both higher education establishments (i.e. for technicians at the polytechnic and for philosophers and pharmacists at the university), and the idea that both positions would continue to be filled by a single professor. The appointment of Ernst Mach as professor of physics at the Prague University (and Adalbert von Waltenhofen professor of physics at the Prague Polytechnic) was decided by an expert report which was required by the Ministry (Staats-Ministerium, Abteilung für Cultus und Unterricht), from the Educational Board, Philosophical Faculty Section (Unterricht-Rath, Section für philosophische Fakultäten) in Vienna regarding the nomination submitted by the teaching staff at the Prague University Philosophical Faculty. On the basis of the commendation of Ernst Mach sent by Professor Josef Stefan, the Ministry reversed the order of the nominated candidates for the professorship, recommending Ernst Mach for the first post and Adalbert von Waltenhofen for the second. The professorship of physics with German as the lecturing language at the Prague Polytechnic, which was a regional institute, was filled subsequent to a public competition called by the Regional Committee of the Kingdom of Bohemia on 12th December 1866. A total of 17 applicants were applying for a position (including Ernst Mach, with a letter from 2 nd December 1866). The only ones who were eligible for nomination to the professorship were selected by a commission: Adolph Wüllner (Associate Professor at the University of Bonn, although his nomination was eventually withdrawn due to the impracticability of his requirement regarding the physics department), Adalbert von Waltenhofen and, Ernst Mach. In Mach’s case the commission highly appreciated the standard of his scientific works, while noting that their subjects come more under physiology than physics and that his pedagogical work at the university had so far been brief. Ernst Mach took up the chair of physics at Prague University at the beginning of the 1867 summer semester. He worked at Prague University until the end of the 1894/95 academic year (at the Prague German University from the 1882/83 academic year). Thanks to his pedagogical, scientific and science organizational activities, he ranks as one of the most prominent figures in the history of science in the Czech lands. In connection with the procedures over occupation of the physics chair at Prague University a requirement was also formulated to establish a second professorship in (higher) physics at Prague University. The second professorship (in Mathematical Physics) was established at Prague University, but the post was not filled until 1872, when Ferdinand Lippich became the first professor., and Překlad resumé: Melvyn Clarke
Stanislav of Znojmo (died 1414), a professor of the Prague Theological Faculty, first a teacher and friend to Jan Hus, but then his decided opponent, wrote a comprehensive treatise, probably around 1403, entitled De vero et falso. The subject of my article is an analysis of the content of this work. In it, Stanislav deals with the question of the truth of a proposition and the problem of its truth-maker. The question of the truth-maker falls into the area of metaphysics, and so the author speaks of metaphysical truth. In so far as metaphysical truth is concerned, Stanislav of Znojmo defends a decidedly realist standpoint, judging that categorematic expressions are not alone in having real counterparts in the world, but syncategorematic expressions (for example, statement conjunctions, words expressing negations and so on) also have such counterparts. Stanislav’s treatise, in its overall orientation, belongs to propositionalism, a trend in logical thought widespread at the end of the Middle Ages. Although the author of the treatise De vero et falso does not cite contemporary authors, he shows a knowledge of some exponents of propositional logic (namely Gregory of Rimini, for example). His main inspiration, however, is undoubtedly the work of John Wyclif.