Dějiny věd a techniky, No. 2, Vol. XLIX (2016)

PAPERS

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

SDĚLENÍ

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



Back to Top ↑