Autor přibližuje hlavní myšlenky knihy Matěje Spurného Nejsou jako my: Česká společnost a menšiny v pohraničí (1945–1960) (Praha, Antikomplex 2011), kterou hodnotí jako významný přínos k sociálním dějinám poválečného Československa. Spurný se v ní totiž pokouší nejen postihnout proměňující se vztah majoritní české společnosti a jejích tehdejších politických elit vůči minoritním skupinám (Němcům, Romům a volyňským Čechům), ale i zachytit myšlenkový svět a sociální praxi, které se po válce rodily v pohraničí na pozadí tamních procesů vysidlování a osidlování. Autor zdůrazňuje hlavně Spurného tezi, že dění v pohraničí se stalo v jistém smyslu laboratoří celostátního vývoje, zpochybňuje však opodstatněnost spojování analýz volyňských Čechů s dalšími skupinami reemigrantů. Kniha podle něj přináší mnoho nových poznatků o českém pohraničí a jeho obyvatelích, a navíc může inspirovat diskusi nad obecnějšími otázkami o české poválečné historii a jejích interpretacích., In this article the author discusses the main ideas in Matěj Spurný’s Nejsou jako my: Česká společnost a menšiny v pohraničí (1945–1960) (They Are Not Like Us: Czech Society and Minorities in the Borderlands, 1945–60; Prague: Antikomplex, 2011). He considers the book an important contribution to the social history of post-war Czechoslovakia, since Spurný attempts not only to identify the changing attitude of majority Czech society and its political élites towards minority groups (Germans, Roma, and Volhynian Czechs), but also to identify the Sinnwelt and social practice which emerged in the borderlands after the Second World War against the background of the local processes of expulsion and resettlement. The author focuses on Spurný’s argument that events in the borderlands became, in a certain sense, a laboratory for state-wide developments. But he expresses doubts about the justifiability of linking analyses of the Volhynian Czechs with other groups of remigrants. According to the author of the article, Spurný’s Nejsou jako my adds much to our knowledge about the Czech borderlands and their inhabitants, and is likely to encourage debate about more general questions related to post-war Czech history and its interpretation., David Kovařík., and Tři hlasy k jedné knize
This essay aims to describe hitherto unknown notes of aesthetics lectures given by August Gottlieb Meißner (1753-1807) at Prague University. It compares these notes (made by a certain Wagner, and deposited in the Wienbibliothek im Rathaus) with notes deposited in Czech libraries, and seeks to determine their place chronologically amongst notes made by others attending Meißner’s lectures over the years. The most important difference in content between the earlier known notes and Wagner’s is Meißner’s negative attitude towards the Schlegel brothers. This attitude slightly alters our existing notion of his views on the relationship between literature and morality. Taken alone, the collections of notes in Czech libraries had led one to conclude that this Prague ordinarius was an ardent libertine, who dared, even at a conservative Austrian university, to push for the autonomy of art, including a thorough split between art and morality, regarding not only works of art, but also, to a certain extent, the artists themselves. By contrast, the Vienna MS as a matter of priority restricts this split to art, and limits it to the higher, moral aims of the artist as citizen. His approach to questions of morality and to the Schlegel brothers demonstrates that while Meißner considered himself part of the liberally enlightened current of contemporaneous literature, which made moving the emotions the central aim of art, he was no longer an adherent of upandcoming Romanticism with its extreme conviction about unlimited authorial liberty, which stemmed from the philosophical Idealism of the times. This attitude to the Schlegel brothers also suggests that Wagner attended Meißner’s lectures in aesthetics and rhetoric in the winter of 1800/1., Tomáš Hlobil., and Obsahuje bibliografické odkazy
Obě publikace podle recenzentky spojují do značné míry osobnosti jejich autorů, chronologické vymezení a tematické zaměření na vojenské a politické, respektive diplomatické dějiny, menší pozornost je pak věnována situaci v Protektorátu Čechy a Morava na sklonku války. Recenze přibližuje jednotlivé kapitoly či statě publikací spolu s hlavními tezemi autorů a zamýšlí se nad kontextem historického výzkumu závěru druhé světové války a přechodu k poválečným poměrům., According to the reviewer, the two publications under review – Smetana, Kokoška, Pilát, and Hofman’s Draze zaplacená svoboda: Osvobození Československa 1944–1945 (Freedom at a High Cost: The Liberation of Czechoslovakia, 1944–45) and Kokoška et al.’s Nultá hodina? Československo na jaře 1945 ve strategických souvislostech (Starting from Scratch? Czechoslovakia in Spring 1945 in the Strategic Contexts) – to a considerable extent combine the personal outlooks of their authors, a chronological delimitation, and an orientation to military, political, and sometimes diplomatic history, but pay less attention to the circumstances in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia towards the end of the Second World War. The reviewer acquaints the reader with the individual chapters or articles in the publications, together with the authors’ principal arguments, and considers the context of historical research on the end of the Second World War and the transition to post-war conditions., and [autor recenze] Radka Šustrová.
Between the Baroque and Romanticism attitudes to death and the discursive framework of the emotional experience of dying fundamentally changed among the Catholic high nobility. The ideal baroque death was supposed to take the form of an extreme point at which the dying person confessed their sins through theatrical gestures and utterances. The deathbed ritual explicitly confirmed the denominational and spiritual orientation of the family. In succeeding generations, both aristocrats and commoners were expected to be confirmed in that orientation by a written and iconographic testimony rich in symbols. Romanticism, on the other hand, imbued the process of dying with sentiment, loving care and family cohesion, which among the high nobility brought solace and a peaceful death. Finally, between the Baroque and Romanticism the relative status of private and public experience of the last moments changed. The Baroque "theatrical" deathbed, which was presented with the central figure of the dying individual and the priest, was a public event. Gradually it changed into a more intimate, quiet contemplation with only a few witnesses gathered in the family circle. Moreover, the doctor came to replace the priest as the chief attendant at the dying person’s bedside. What remained unchanged was the anxious determination to conform to expected patterns of behaviour. By trying to fulfil the contemporary ideal of a "good death", the counts of Martinice and the princes of Schwarzenberg tried to affirm their unique position in Bohemian (and European) aristocratic society. Their emotional experience of death was intended to serve as an example to their descendants and form one of the constitutive elements of the family’s collective memory., Václav Grubhoffer, Josef Kadeřábek., and Obsahuje bibliografické odkazy