at random, which is due to the grants won as well as the quantity of research community. Then, there is no specialized academic institution to co-operate with the university circles. Therefore, I agree with R. Vlcek, the colleague from Brno, in his appeal for a better co-ordination of Russian and - more widely - Slavonic studies. In this sense, establishing a research centre to join the academic and university activities. Of course, this is also about a high organizing activity of the researches themselves. It seems nearly self-evident that the research workers in the theoretical institutions should, considering their lower educational load, try and become more of scientific managers in the field.
It must be stressed that one of the problems of the field - from the point of view of its future - is the constantly narrowing institutional basis of research, being too dependent on grant money rather than doing systematic basic research and - last but not least - not very clear prospects for university education of young specialists, e.g. at the Faculty of Arts (Charles University), which also comprises the problem of finance. New phenomena of early 1990, connected with the shift from pro-November collective works towards predominancy of individual efforts (as an understandable response to the ancient rйgime methods of centralized planning of the research, the so called State Plan of Basic Research), now stay more or less unchanged despite the efforts towards team work, which must lead to adverse consequences unless there is a clear prospect. Although a number of grant projects is being run, there is no guaranty of continuity in the research. On the other hand, the results are not used so effectively and information about individual research projects is missing. Not all outputs are published that would deserve that.
What are the chances to improve the situation if the main thing granted is that more money cannot be expected, and sponsorship can only cover certain top conferences from time to time? Again I find it useful to mention the chance - not much made use of, I am afraid - of informal meetings of research workers concerned with Russia at regular table-talks (best once a year). It is desirable to inform about these meetings - and about the topics discussed - in professional journals such as Slovansky prehled to give the people a better chance to meet each other, exchange opinion and discuss a certain topic. An important role should be played by the Society for Research of Central and East Europe, since 1993 an associate member of the International Council for Research of Central and East Europe, as an indirect co-ordinator and organizer of regular annual meetings. (Compare the prestige of similar meetings of German specialists). In the first half of 1990s, the Society produced quite numerous activities, but after 1995 it seemed to abandon them [115; 116].
Similarly, the only specialized Czech journal for the history of East Europe Slovansky prehled should organize regular editorial staff meetings open to other specialists to discuss some hot topics; compare the practice of the journal Osteuropa. Slovansky prehled as well as Cesky casopis historicky (CCH) should bring much more reports or reviews about new foreign publications, research reports, discussions reflecting the state of East Studies in general. It is necessary to make a more intensive use of modern information media and communication technology. The same criticism may well apply to the Czech-Russian Commision of Historians, whose general information about the joint meetings we find too vague.
For historians, as well as other specialists in social sciences, will have a lot to do within East Studies, the more so when we consider the output of their colleagues in Poland or Hungary, not to speak of the immensely higher publication output particularly in Germany. And another question that has not been discussed here is the problem of the position of East Studies within the whole of universal history [117-119], which has not been reflected in Russian or East studies in Czechia either.
Джерела та література
VORACEK E. Soucasny stav a problemy ceske historiografie Ruska a Sovetskeho svazu // SlPr. 81 (1995), 4, 333-344.
SESTAk M. Vychodoevropska studia v CR 1989-1999 (Stav a perspektivy), nepublik. rkp. (1999), 1.
REIMAN M. Ruske dejiny v kontextu moderniho ceskeho vyvoje // SHS 24 (1998), 34.
BOCEK P. Reformatori ruske pravoslavne cirkve ve 13.-14.stol. // SlPr. 77 (1991), 353363.
BOCEK P. Vrchol ruskeho nestjazatelstvi v 1. Ctvrtine 16. Stoleti // SlPr. LXXVIII (1992), 305-320.
BOCEK P. Stat a cirkev v Rusku v polovine XVI. Stoleti. Metropolita Makarij a jeho spolecensko-politicke nazory // SPFFBU © 41 (1992), 39, 31-41.
BOCEK P. Stat a cirkev v Rusku na prelomu 15.-16. stoleti. - Brno, 1995.
LASEK J.B. Pocatky krest'anstvi u vychodnich Slovanu. - Praha, 1997.
VLCEK R.
