Osobní knihovna lustrovaná Státní bezpečností
|Klíčová slova||Karel Teige – house searches – personal library – Deset let surrealismu [Ten Years of Surrealism] – text corrections – textual content changes|
|Typ článku||Recenzovaný článek|
|Citace||PETRUŽELKOVÁ, Alena. Osobní knihovna lustrovaná Státní bezpečností. Acta Musei Nationalis Pragae – Historia litterarum. Praha: Národní muzeum, 2016, 61(1-2), 93–98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/amnpsc-2017-0024. ISSN 0036-5351. Dostupné také z: https://publikace.nm.cz/periodicke-publikace/amnphl/61-1-2/osobni-knihovna-lustrovana-statni-bezpecnosti|
In November 1951, books, manuscripts and other archivalia were confiscated during house searches in the flats of Karel Teige and Eva Ebertová. The confiscated set of books was considered to be lost until 1994, when it was handed over from the State Archives to the Library of the Museum of Czech Literature. The article presents a fragment of Teige’s library in terms of thematic areas and identified provenances (dedications, glosses and additions, stamps, signatures). Another part of the article analyses Teige’s paper ‘Ten Years of Surrealism’, which was presented at a discussion evening of the Left Front and published in the collection Surrealismus v diskusi [Surrealism in Discussion] (1934), and Teige’s corrections and additions found in a copy from the confiscated collection. In the text, Teige systematically removed morphological and syntactic archaisms as well as filler words. In addition, Teige made numerous formulation changes and additions in many places of the text, especially those dealing with the relation of psychoanalysis and surrealism. In these passages and also in a part of his article on the Kharkiv Resolution, Teige refers to A. Breton, he quotes from the First and Second Manifestos of Surrealism, and he maps the Breton / Aragon conflict within the French group. Because of the frequency of the changes in the text, the article covers only selected changes always representing a certain type. Therefore, it is not a textological article, but it turns the attention of Teigean researchers to a previously unknown version of one of Karel Teige’s key texts of from the 1930s.