Kultúrne dejiny 2/2018 / Cultural History 2/2018
Vyšlo nové číslo časopisu Kutlúrne dejiny / A new issue of magazine Cultural History was published
Štúdie, články / Studies, Articles
KEYWORDS: Western Roman Empire, the end of antiquity, historical interpretation, cultural transformation, late antiquity
ABSTRACT: The study examines the importance and impact of specific cultural contexts in the modern era within the historical interpretation of the fall of the Western Roman Empire. At the beginning is examined the long-standing discussion among historians about the determination of a specific period in which the ancient Roman Empire ended. The study defines the most important questions that emerged from this discussion, and the various responses of selected mind-forming European and American intellectuals from the second half of the 18th century to the present day. The study specifically explores the conscious and unconscious ideological prejudices, the cultural environment at a specific time and territory, and the life experiences that individual historians have projected into their concepts in an attempt to offer satisfactory answers to one of the most important events in the history of the Western civilization.
The historical interpretation of the end of the Western Roman Empire is one of the greatest challenges of modern historiography. Since the time of Edward Gibbon, the intellectual debate has gradually focused on addressing a number of key issues: When the Roman Empire ceased to exist, what were the causes of the demise, and what were the consequences for the following history in Mediterranean territory? The study points out that the answers to these questions largely depended on the civilization level and the cultural context in which individual historians formed their theories. Since the mid-19th century, some historians, such as A. Dopsch, rejected the search for the particular year of the demise of the Western Roman Empire. This attitude was based on a new understanding of the material culture of late antiquity in the second half of the 19th century, thanks to the significant development of archeology during this period. On the basis of comparative archeology, Dopsch emphasized the continuity between ancient and medieval times. The concept of “Long Late Antiquity” offered a wider range of interpretations of the demise of the Roman Empire in the Mediterranean. In the second half of the 19th century, the inter-war debate took place between French and German historians who sought to justify the historical claims on the borderland between France and the recently united Germany. A significant challenge was then to evaluate the importance of Germanic migration at the end of the Roman Empire. Nor Fustel de Coulanges, a French positivist historian who has been scrupulously striving to separate scientific research and nationalism, has not been resistant to ideological prejudices in this case. At the beginning of the 20th century, historical science in the issue of the late Roman Emperor was greatly influenced by Mommsen’s historical-critical method of gathering and studying sources and by Darwin’s evolutionary theory. Social Darwinism penetrated the historical analyzes of O. Seek and F. Tenney, who explained the decline of the Roman Empire by infiltration of the absolutist methods of governance from the Orient that caused a regression of political and social development. The first and second World war meant for many opinion-makers historians a disillusionment of faith in civilization progress. Authors often did not know how to evade their frustrations from the Second World War. P. Courcelle divided his work on Germanic migrations into three parts – the invasion, the occupation, the liberation, which basically duplicates the course of the 2nd World war in France. In the 1950s and 1960s, the generation of historians, headed by P. Brown, consciously separated from the interpretation of the late antiquity as a period of decadence, and instead set the concept of continuity between the classical antiquity and the medieval period. Scientific research focused on the eastern parts of the Roman Empire, where state institutions continued to function within the Byzantine Empire. The key to understanding of historical processes between the 4th and 7th centuries, was the study of marginalized literature which was able to provide a new knowledge of the cultural vitality of the time. In the second half of the 20th century, epithets, such as transformation, evolution, continuity instead of extinction or fall, are mostly used in the professional circles for the period of late antiquity. The last decades of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century is characterized by the term “Archaeological Revolution”. Thanks to the new discovery, a number of long-lived clichés are reinterpreted on the issues of the end of Roman state institutions in the West and East. Historical science does not capitulate for searching answers to the issue of the end of Roman power in the Mediterranean. This is evidenced by several major European and American projects, such as “The Transformation of the Roman World”. However, due to the relatively small amount of literary sources preserved from this period, there is still considerable room for introducing our own cultural context into the historical interpretation of this epochal process.
KEYWORDS: philosophy/reason, religion/faith, radical and moderate approach, medieval philosophy
ABSTRACT: The goal I pursue in this article is to look at the medieval discussions on the relationship of philosophy and religion from a systematic point of view, i. e. I will try to identify, classify and characterize different perspectives on solving this problem. In doing so, I draw some remote inspiration from the Wittgensteinian concept of “family resemblances” (Familienähnlichkeiten). The central criterion in distinguishing between them is the degree of autonomy attributed to philosophy or religion and the nature and extent of criticism directed at philosophy or religion. Based on this concept, we can delineate four main approaches: radical / moderate philosophical approach and radical / moderate religious approach. The present attempt is a combination of the historical approach with a systematic one. Based on a set of common and similar traits, there emerges a unifying account that can provide a meaningful “meta-orientation” in the chosen historical-philosophical topic.
Most of the accounts of the medieval discussions on the relationship between religion and philosophy have either a historical or philosophical character, or this relationship is presented only in the context of the work of one selected author. The goal I pursue in this article is a different one. I will attempt to look at the medieval discussions from a systematic point of view, i. e. I will try to identify, classify and characterize different perspectives on solving this problem. In doing so, I draw some remote inspiration from the Wittgensteinian concept of “family resemblances” (Familienähnlichkeiten). To achieve my goal I choose several figures who may be regarded as exemplary representatives of one or the other position. I am aware that attempting to systematize the main philosophical attitudes brings with it the risk that the result will not exhaustively capture all the developments in the opinions of the investigated authors and that some authors could be attributed to two or more approaches. Therefore, the present account of the main positions is meant to be preliminary and open to further corrections or criticisms.
I maintain that in the medieval discussions on the relationship of philosophy and religion two major positions can be identified. In view of the first one, it is rational / philosophical knowledge that is accentuated, whereas in the second one the emphasis is put on the primacy of faith / religion. Within these two main positions, it is possible to distinguish between radical and moderate approaches. The central criterion in distinguishing between them is the degree of autonomy attributed to philosophy or religion and the nature and extent of criticism directed at philosophy or religion. Based on this concept, we can delineate four main approaches: radical / moderate philosophical approach and radical / moderate religious approach.
The kernel of the radical philosophical approach (Al-Farabi, Averroes) lies in the claim that only the philosophical / rational truths are true in the absolute sense and therefore superior, whereas the religious truths are held to be true only in a derivative sense and are thus subordinate to philosophy. According to radical philosophers, philosophy offers scientific knowledge of principles in theoretical and practical sciences and supports them with syllogisms. Human reason is understood to be the highest power of the soul, the competence of reason is highly appreciated, and the world is seen as capable of rational interpretation. Religion, on the other hand, is denied its theoretical autonomy, often being portrayed as a mere derivative or imitation of philosophy. Religious truths are interpreted as a metaphorical-rhetorical expression of the truths of philosophy, and religious regulations as predominantly legal concretizations of general philosophical principles of practice. However, religion as a whole is not rejected, since by expressing the truths of philosophy in a metaphoricalrhetorical and concrete form, religion makes these truths accessible to the unlearned masses and thus fulfils a significant social function in the moral education of the masses. Philosophy and religion represent two paths to happiness, but their viability differs according to the nature of the individual person: the philosophical path is more perfect, superior, and in general intended for the educated / rational elite, while the religious path is incomplete, subordinate, and more suited for the broad masses of believers.
In the moderate philosophical approach (Boethius of Dacia), philosophy is understood to be a human science based on rational argument. Again, philosophy is intended only for the educated elite; it is either indifferent to religion or is open to it at best. Importantly, philosophy is not held to be competent to pass judgement on the articles of faith. Despite the positive appreciation of the capabilities and autonomy of human reason in the study of reality, philosophical investigation remains to be limited to the human perspective, and in this way its competencies and demands are restricted. Religious truths are considered to be superior because they come from revelation that transcends the limits of human science. Therefore, it is possible to say with no negative connotations that theology is not a science, or rather, that it is a science sui generis. The moderate philosophers do not criticize and do not act negatively against religion, but rather respect its superiority and autonomy for practical and theoretical-methodological reasons. According to them, philosophy and religion are two autonomous areas with their own subject matters, methods, and definite competencies, and it is appropriate to respect both of them. Philosophy is an autonomous way to happiness, but it is not an equal alternative to the religious path, because religion comes with a promise of happiness that totally exceeds human possibilities.
In the radical religious approach (Al-Ghazali), religious truths are viewed as superior to philosophical ones, because they come from the revelation of God which is true in every aspect. Philosophy and human reason are the target of constant criticism, their imperfection and falseness are strongly pointed out. Philosophy / human reason is partly denied its autonomy because of the fact that theoretical and practical philosophical truths are viewed as a derivative of religious law. The criticism of reason leads to elevation of the will of man and God to the rank of the highest power, which nourishes further development of modal logic. This critical attitude, however, does not lead to a flat condemnation of philosophy as such. Some philosophical disciplines are accepted (logic, part of ethics), but others are totally rejected (metaphysics) as a source of delusions and heresies that threaten religion. Philosophy needs to be revised and only afterwards will be capable of becoming a useful tool for religion / theology. Overall, it is emphasized that philosophy / human reason must be approached from a religious perspective. Philosophy is urged to acknowledge its subordination or the attitude of humility towards religion in both theoretical and socio-ethical dimensions. Philosophy is not admitted as a separate alternative way to attain happiness, since whenever there is any tension between religion and philosophy, religion must always be preferred.
In the moderate religious approach (Thomas Aquinas), similarly to the radical religious one, religious truths are considered superior both theoretically and practically, philosophical truths are viewed as imperfect and subordinate. Unlike the radical religious approach, the moderate religious approach considers the human reason / philosophy to be autonomous, albeit firmly subordinated to religion / belief and restricted to the human / natural perspective. Although human reason with its imperfections and fallacies is being criticized, there is also a positive view of its abilities. Human reason / philosophy leads to knowledge that can serve as a presupposition for supernatural truths of faith and be helpful in the contemplation, defense and spread of faith. The moderate theologians, unlike the moderate philosophers who avoid the interconnection of philosophical and religious discourses, are seeking to establish a synthesis between faith and reason. Theology is understood to be a science which, on the one hand, has similarities with philosophy (discursive character and syllogistic arguments), yet goes beyond philosophy and is regarded to be a sui generis discipline. Subjugation of reason / philosophy to faith leads to their greater perfection, and thus to more and more effective way of approaching God as the ultimate source of human happiness.
The present proposal for systematization of a multitude of medieval viewpoints on the issue of the relationship between philosophy and religion is advanced as a working framework which allows to include individual authors as well as particular periods of the author’s intellectual development. As already mentioned above, this framework is open to criticism and revisions. Notwithstanding some legitimate doubts and potential drawbacks, I see this framework as inspiring in that it might represent a step towards abandoning a purely historical-philosophical inquiry, which is always prone to end in an incommensurable plurality of analyses of various authors. The present attempt is a combination of purely historical approach with a systematic one. Based on a set of common and similar traits, there emerges a unifying account that can provide a meaningful “meta-orientation” in the chosen historical-philosophical topic.
KEYWORDS: aristocracy, lords, knights, narrative sources, 14th century, 15th century
ABSTRACT: In the text, the author analyses the change in how the authors of narrative sources from the Czech Lands in the 14–15th century perceived one of the prominent sectors of society – the aristocracy. He focuses on the traits of the nobility the chroniclers appreciated or, on the other hand, criticized. The author works with an extensive analysis of the most important extant narrative sources. A total of 16 chronicles were analysed, specifically The Chronicle of the Žďár Monastery (Cronica domus Sarensis, records from the period 1251–1300); The “Dalimil” Chronicle (describing the earliest times up until 1314), The Zbraslav Chronicle (Chronicon Aulae regiae, the chronicle maps the period between 1278–1338); The Chronicle of Francis of Prague (records from 1283–1353); The Chronicle of Beneš Krabice from Weitmile (records from 1283–1374); The Chronicle of Přibík Pulkava from Radenín (from the building of the Tower of Babel until 1330); The Neplach Chronicle (from the birth of Christ until 1360); Charles IV’s Curriculum Vitae (Vita Caroli imperatoris, the CV ends in 1346); a Report about John Hus in Konstanz written by Petr of Mladoňovice; a Narration about Jerome of Prague burnt in Konstanz in the name of Christ also written by Petr of Mladoňovice; a Very fine Chronicle of Jan Žižka, a companion of King Wenceslas IV; The Chronicle of Bartošek from Drahonice (records from 1419–1443); The Hussite Chronicle by Vavřinec of Březová (describes the period of 1419–1421 in great detail, with a short prologue from 1414 onwards); The Chronicle of Tábor written by Mikuláš Biskupec of Pelhřimov (describes the years 1419–1444); The Diary of a priest from Tábor on the negotiations of the Czechs on the Council of Basel (describes the years 1432–1433) and The Old Chronicles of Bohemia (records from 1378–1527).
The aim of the study was to analyse the changes in the perception of one of the prominent sectors of society in the Czech Lands – the aristocracy – in narrative sources from the Czech lands in 14–15th century. It was the nobility along with the monarch who defined the course of the Czech Lands in the studied period. A total of 16 chronicles were analysed, specifically The Chronicle of the Žďár Monastery (Cronica domus Sarensis, records from the period 1251–1300); The “Dalimil” Chronicle (describing the earliest times up until 1314), The Zbraslav Chronicle (Chronicon Aulae regiae, the chronicle maps the period between 1278–1338); The Chronicle of Francis of Prague (records from 1283–1353); The Chronicle of Beneš Krabice from Weitmile (records from 1283–1374); The Chronicle of Přibík Pulkava from Radenín (from the building of the Tower of Babel until 1330); The Neplach Chronicle (from the birth of Christ until 1360); Charles IV’s Curriculum Vitae (Vita Caroli imperatoris, the CV ends in 1346); a Report about John Hus in Konstanz written by Petr of Mladoňovice; a Narration about Jerome of Prague burnt in Konstanz in the name of Christ also written by Petr of Mladoňovice; a Very fine Chronicle of Jan Žižka, a companion of King Wenceslas IV; The Chronicle of Bartošek from Drahonice (records from 1419–1443); The Hussite Chronicle by Vavřinec of Březová (describes the period of 1419–1421 in great detail, with a short prologue from 1414 onwards); The Chronicle of Tábor written by Mikuláš Biskupec of Pelhřimov (describes the years 1419–1444); The diary of a priest from Tábor on the negotiations of the Czechs on the Council of Basel (describes the years 1432–1433) and The Old Chronicles of Bohemia (records from 1378–1527).
It was found that not all of the sources provide appropriate mentions relevant to the examined issue. No change in the perception of the examined social group over the course of the studied 200 years was determined. A decisive factor in evaluating the aristocracy in the chronicles was the social background of the chroniclers and their personal experience with the aristocracy. The positive traits of the nobility mentioned by authors dealing with the topic of the aristocracy in more detail were bravery and the ability to lead political affairs. In the chronicles, nevertheless, it was negative stereotypes that prevailed – laziness, parties, playing dice, tournaments, fondness of hunting, adultery, pride and vanity. The most forthright and positive treatise of the aristocracy was written by Jindřich Řezbář in The Žďár Chronicle – because the monastery was founded by nobles, which explains his praise of the dynasties of the founders and donators of the monastery, albeit with no direct collective mention of the aristocracy. In the Dalimil Chronicle, the author both praises the aristocracy as a social group with the right to dethrone an incompetent king, but also often criticises the nobility for their ill manners – fondness of hunting and hunting dogs, tournaments, debts, gluttony, drunkenness, carelessness in terms of honour, indifference towards political affairs and partiality towards the Germans. For the authors of The Zbraslav Chronicle (Petr Žitavský above all), the aristocracy was the root of all evil, disobeying laws, dissuading the king from proposing ideas for the betterment of the country (such as establishing a university in Prague, or drawing up a provincial code of law). Nobles were supposed to fight and not steal royal and clerical property; they were to ensure peace in their land. For The chroniclers of Zbraslav, members of the aristocracy represented, to a large extent, enemies disobeying the law, stealing, robbing and threatening stability on the land. For Petr Žitavský, the ideal situation was a strong monarch capable of maintaining the peace.
Pramene, preklady / Sources, Translations
KEYWORDS: Aurelius Augustinus, Ecclesiastical History, good and evil, translation
ABSTRACT: In this paper we propose the Saint Augustine‘s conception of the good and evil, which could be found in his essay De natura boni. The first translation into the Slovak language of the first chapters of this discourse is incorporated into this work as well. The main goal is held on the explication of the nature of good and the existence of evil in the God’s creation. We try to show that Saint Augustine in his teaching proclaims that there is no evil principle, or evil god as the source of any bad creation. We will see that the only creator is God, the highest good and the principle of all creatures created ex nihilo. According to Saint Augustine’s thinking the evil does not exist. There exists only the created good on the different stages of its perfection. To explain it we will see how Saint Augustine introduces the three categories – the measure, the form and the order, that have the influence on the perfection of the creatures.
Saint Augustine, the one of the biggest and in the history the most influential thinker of the Western Church, in his apologetic discourse having the title De natura boni (On the nature of Good) against the Manichaean dualism deals with the metaphysical question concerning the origin of good and evil. Using the platonic philosophy and the doctrine of emanation he proclaims that the highest good is God who claims ex nihilo the existence of all creatures. So, it is clear that the creatures having their origin the highest good must be good as well. Saint Augustine queries what good is itself? In his teaching he defines the good as nature. And nature is obviously good for him. The bishop of Hippo discerns in reality the three types of nature. The first one is nature not having been created, unchangeable and spiritual which is God itself. The second one is nature spiritual which is having been made and which is changeable. And finally the last one, the third nature is defined by Saint Augustine as nature created, corporeal, which could be modified and changed. All these natures are certainly good and they differ only on their stage of perfection and on the distance, which separates them from God. If the creatures are more elongated from the God, the source of good and perfection, they are less perfect and vice versa. There are also the other factors, which could modify the quality of the creatures. These factors are described by Saint Augustine as the categories that influence the nature of the creatures. He distinguishes three of them – the measure, the form and the order. The measure, form and order are in fact the three constitutional elements of each nature, of each being. The corruption of one of them corrupts the nature itself, not only the good of creature, but it is being obviously. And Saint Augustine believes that the destruction of only one of these three elements could destroy the whole being of the creature. It is evident that the creatures differ between them by the amount of the measure, form and order. In the question of the origin of evil our bishop of Hippo proceeds analogically. All created natures; all created beings are good by their nature. The good God can create only good creatures because he wants them to be good and perfect. The evil represents simply the absence of the good, the corruption or destruction of any of elements held in the nature of the being. At the end of our paper we could find the translation from Latin to Slovak language of elected chapters concerning the matter of good and evil taken from the Saint Augustine’s treatise De natura boni.
KEYWORDS: mystical theology, Franciscan spirituality, Capuchins, Benedict of Canfield, Regula perfectionis
ABSTRACT: The major work of the prominent English Recusant Benedict of Canfield, also known as Benet of Canfield, or Benoît de Canfield (1562 – 1610), a member of the Parisian Capuchin province, “Regula perfectionis” is the masterpiece of seventeenth-century mystical spirituality. It had circulated in manuscript since 1592 and served as a manual of two or three generations of mystics. For his influence, he has been called “Maître des maîtres eux-memes”. Throughout the seventeenth century more than fifty editions in various languages were published, but the book was also placed on the index of “libri prohibiti” in 1689. His writings stand full square in the tradition of the Franciscan masters of mystical theology. The published translation of the “Regula perfectionis” dedicated to the mystical life is preceded by a brief introduction to the work and the context of Benedict´s life.
„Nové médiá odoberajú klasickej literatúre, ale tiež prinášajú osobitnú tvorbu.“ Rozhovor s profesorom Jozefom Mlacekom / “While new media take away from conventional literature, they also lead to a particular type of production.” Interview with Professor Jozef Mlacek
Róbert Jáger, Nomokánon – právnohistorická analýza a transkript (Zuzana Mičková) (p. 271)
Viliam Štefan Dóci, Die seelsorgliche Tätigkeit der Kaschauer Predigerbrüder. Ein Dominikanerkonvent im Ambiente von Pfarrei, Stadt und Staat im 18. Jahrhundert (Gabriel Hunčaga) (p. 274)
Peter Walther, Hans Fallada. Die Biographie (Juraj Dvorský) (p. 288)
Michal Habaj – Ján Lukačka – Vladimír Segeš – Ivan Mrva – Ivan Albert Petranský – Anton Hrnko, Slovenské dejiny od úsvitu po súčasnosť (Tomáš Pastucha) (p. 290)
Liptov 12. Vlastivedný zborník. Liptovské múzeum v Ružomberku (Tomáš Pastucha) (p. 291)
Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens : stručná história ľudstva (Lukáš Tkáč) (p. 294)
Neil Gaiman, Severská mytológia (Lukáš Tkáč) (p. 295)
József Laszlovszky – Balázs Nagy – Péter Szabó – András Vadas (eds.), The Economy of Medieval Hungary (Ondrej Glod) (p. 296)
Daniela Dvořáková a kol., Stredoveké hrady na Slovensku. Život, kultúra, spoločnosť (Ondrej Glod) (p. 297)
Samuel Bruss, Rod Dessewffy – hanušovské panstvo (Ondrej Glod) (p. 298)
Mária Pitáková – Tomáš Tomo, Tlače 16. storočia vo fondoch Lyceálnej knižnice v Kežmarku (Martin Baloga) (p. 299)
Ján Golian a kol., (Ne)známe príbehy. Osem zabudnutých osobností 19. a 20. storočia (Igor Strnisko) (p. 300)
Peter Zmátlo (ed.)., Černovská tragédia. Zborník z medzinárodnej vedeckej konferencie konanej pri príležitosti 110. výročia černovských udalostí (Peter Tkáč) (p. 303)
Pavel Kolář – Michal Pullmann, Co byla normalizace? Studie o pozdním socialismu (Peter Tkáč) (p. 304)
Martin Furman, Opevnenia na Liptove (Tomáš Pastucha) (p. 307)
Adrián Eštok, Giraltovce 1416 – 2016 (Peter Tkáč) (p. 308)
Peter Chorvát, Veľká vojna v malom meste. Banská Bystrica v období prvej svetovej vojny (1914 – 1918) (Lukáš Bujko) (p. 309)
Historia Olomucensia 54, Sborník prací historických XLIV. Olomouc : Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci, 2018 (Tomáš Pastucha) (p. 311)
Vojenská história, roč. 22, č. 1. Bratislava : Vojenský historický ústav, 2018 (Tomáš Pastucha) (p. 311)
Medea – Studia MEDiaevalia et Antiqua, roč. 2015/2016, č. XIX/XX. Bratislava : Vydavateľstvo UK, 2017 (Lukáš Bujko) (p. 312)
Zborník Záhorského múzea v Skalici 8. Skalica : Záhorské múzeum, 2017 (Lukáš Bujko) (p. 313)
Autori/Author(s): Peter Zmátlo, Gabriel Hunčaga, Pavol Valachovič
- Správa o vedeckej konferencii Osobnosti „osmičkových“ rokov na Spiši (1268 – 1968), Spišské Podhradie, Kongresová sála, 9. júna 2018, Slovenská republika.
- Správa z výročnej konferencie Religion, Diplomacy and Peace, Commission Internationale D‘histoire et D‘etudes du Christianisme (C.I.H.E.C.), Collegio Teutonico di S. Maria in Campo Santo, 11. – 14. júna 2018, Vatikánsky mestský štát.
- Seminár o živote a diele historika starovekých dejín Josefa Dobiáša (1888 – 1972). Vila Lanna, Praha-Bubeneč, 20. septembra 2018; Pelhřimov 4. októbra 2018 v Divadle Lubomíra Lipského (slávnostný večer), Česká republika.
„Osmičkové roky“ na internete / “Years Containing Number Eight” on the Internet
doc. Mgr. Marek Babic, PhD.; Katolícka univerzita, Filozofická fakulta, Katedra histórie, Hrabovská cesta 1, SK-034 01 Ružomberok; firstname.lastname@example.org
prof. Michal Chabada, PhD.; Univerzita Komenského, Filozofická fakulta, Katedra filozofie a dejín filozofie, Gondova 2, SK-814 99 Bratislava; email@example.com
prof. PhDr. David Papajík, PhD.; Katolícka univerzita, Filozofická fakulta, Katedra histórie, Hrabovská cesta 1, SK-034 01 Ružomberok; firstname.lastname@example.org
Mgr. et Mgr. Anabela Katreničová, PhD.; Univerzita Pavla Jozefa Šafárika, Filozofická fakulta, Katedra klasickej filológie, Moyzesova 9, SK-040 01 Košice; email@example.com
doc. Mgr. Ladislav Tkáčik OFMCap, PhD.; Trnavská univerzita, Filozofická fakulta, Katedra filozofie, Hornopotočná 23, SK-918 43 Trnava; firstname.lastname@example.org
doc. Mgr. Erika Juríková, PhD.; Trnavská univerzita, Filozofická fakulta, Katedra klasických jazykov, Hornopotočná 23, SK-918 43 Trnava; email@example.com