The aim of this study is to show how the emotions - in particular the so-called "passions of the soul" - were understood and interpreted in the medical thinking of the late Enlightenment. We focus chiefly on three innovations in 18th century medicine: the "discovery" of the neuro-cerebral system (the ’birth’ of neurology); the search for the "seat" of illnesses in particular organs (the "birth" of pathological anatomy); and the gradual separation of the body and the soul as objects of medical enquiry (the "birth of psychiatry). We consider whether, and to what extent, these innovations contributed to the breakdown of the "old" diagnostic paradigms of the "passions of the soul", or whether in fact they helped to maintain them. We also discuss to what extent the consideration of these passions fostered a new approach to the relationship between the body and the soul in Enlightenment medicine. Some of the phenomena studied are illustrated by specific examples of (erotic) love and melancholy. and Obsahuje bibliografické odkazy
The article sets into focus the everyday practices of caring the sick in the Poor Clares’ convents of Bratislava, Trnava, Zagreb, Buda and Pest with a time scope focused on the era of Maria Theresa’s and Joseph II’s church reforms. It evinces that each convent had an infirmary, in which the sill nuns could be separated from the rest of the community and nursed according to the instructions of a doctor, but the investigation of the rooms and their equipment also reveals significant differences among them. While the infirmary was merely a sickroom with three or four beds in the case of the smaller communities of Zagreb and Pest, the bigger convents’ infirmaries - that accommodated nine-twelve patients - consisted of a complex set of interconnected spaces with various functions, including storage rooms, cooking facilities and places for making medicine. The infirmary chapels of Bratislava and Trnava and the liturgical equipment in the bigger, hall-like sickroom in Buda represent the interconnectedness of spiritual and medical care. The study also sheds light on possible correlations between self-supply and services provided by external lay practitioners, as it presents the strategies of the convents to reduce medical expenses, e.g. by producing medicaments, accepting novices with surgical-apothecary knowledge or contracting surgeons and physicians for a fixed annual salary. Finally, the paper points towards further research directions suggesting a more sophisticated analysis of the correlations between the nuns’ demand for proper medical care and their agency at the time of the abolition of their order in 1782., Katalin Pataki., and Obsahuje bibliografické odkazy
The aim of this paper is to point out that the growing need for well‐educated citizens in the increasingly bureaucratized 18th Century, in itself a wellknown phenomenon, should be seen in a wider context. First, we must consider how it relates to the gradual emergence of the modern European nationstate; and secondly, to the cultural and political consequences of social stratification. In nations with a cohesive social structure and, in some cases, a tradition of statehood, the growing numbers and importance of the new intelligentsia were primarily the result of an expansion of existing elites drawing on their own social class. In emerging nations formed largely through nationalist movements, on the other hand, the process was accompanied by the upward mobility of young men from the middle and lower middle classes. In some nations, such as the Czechs and the Finns, these were often the sons of petit bourgeois and artisan families; but in the majority of cases the emergent national intelligentsia found its recruits chiefly among farmers and the rural population as a whole (Lithuania, Estonia). Understandably, this distinction led to differences in the formation of national stereotypes, political cultures and attitudes to social organization. The use of the term "plebeian intelligentsia" in this context is meant as a typological characteristic rather than a pejorative label., Miroslav Hroch., and Obsahuje bibliografické odkazy
Mladý historik Matěj Spurný v monografii Nejsou jako my: Česká společnost a menšiny v pohraničí (1945–1960) (Praha, Antikomplex 2011) podle autorky odvedl výtečnou práci při výzkumu postavení tří vybraných menšin – neodsunutých Němců, Romů a volyňských Čechů – v českém pohraničí v patnácti letech od skončení druhé světové války. Zaměřil se přitom hlavně na vývoj postojů většinové společnosti vůči těmto menšinám a na jejich roli v rámci politiky československého státu, respektive Komunistické strany Československa. Jeho analýze různých úrovní tématu, práci se zdroji i přesnému a promyšlenému užívání pojmů nelze nic vytknout. Jádro knihy ale podle autorky spočívá ve zpochybnění stávajícího paradigmatu při výkladu poválečných československých dějin. Týká se to převládajícího dichotomického zobrazování vládnoucího režimu a ovládané společnosti jako dvou oddělených entit a periodizace poválečných dějin Československa s klíčovým mezníkem v únoru 1948. Spurný svůj „revizionistický pohled“ dokládá rozborem legitimizačních strategií komunistické strany ve vztahu k menšinám a vyzvednutím dlouhodobějších vývojových kontinuit., In his book, Nejsou jako my: Česká společnost a menšiny v pohraničí (1945–1960) (They Are Not Like Us: Czech Society and Minorities in the Borderlands, 1945–90; Prague: Antikomplex, 2011), the young historian Matěj Spurný has, according to the author, done excellent work in researching three selected minorities in the Czech borderlands in the first fifteen years since the end of the Second World – the ethnic Germans who were not expelled, the Roma, and the Volhynian Czechs. He focuses mainly on the development of the attitudes of majority society towards these minorities and on their role in the politics of the Czechoslovak state and the Czechoslovak Communist Party. His analysis of the various levels of the subject, his work with the primary sources, and his precise, well-considered use of terms are faultless. But, according to the author, the core of the publication is based on questioning the existing paradigm in the interpretation of post-war Czechoslovak history. This mainly concerns the predominant dichotomous depiction of the régime and society as two separate entities and the periodization of post-war Czechoslovak history with the milestone as February 1948. Spurný supports his ‘revisionist view’ with an analysis of the legitimating strategies of the Communist Party in relation to the minorities, and emphasizes the long-term continuities., Pavla Šimková., and Tři hlasy k jedné knize
Kniha Matěje Spurného Nejsou jako my: Česká společnost a menšiny v pohraničí (1945–1960) (Praha, Antikomplex 2011) podle autorky obohacuje českou historiografii o analýzu státní politiky vůči menšinám v poválečném českém pohraničí, nevypovídá však přitom ani tak o těchto menšinách a periferii jako spíš o většinové společnosti a centru. Spurný skvěle analyzuje jazyk propagandy a nacionalistické ideologie, vnáší do české historiografie nová stěžejní témata a významně přispívá do diskuse o charakteru komunistického režimu. Autorka se ovšem ve svých úvahách soustředí na teoretický rámec knihy. Problematizuje Spurného vymezení menšiny, v němž se dle jejího soudu nereflektovaně mísí sociálněkonstruktivistický přístup s objektivistickým pojetím založeným na přesvědčení o existenci konkrétních kritérií etnicity. Menšiny, které jsou předmětem jeho studia, ve skutečnosti nebyly vyčleněny na základě objektivních národních znaků, ale na základě hledisek, jimiž je poměřovala většinová společnost a její reprezentace. Ve druhé úvaze pak autorka vede diskusi o postavení národnostních menšin za komunismu, zejména o menšinové politice v Sovětském svazu. Ta je podle ní ve své až extrémní rozpornosti těžko uchopitelná, za její nejvýraznější rys však považuje umělou konstrukci etnických menšin. Tato skutečnost mimo jiné problematizuje zásluhy komunistického režimu o emancipaci menšin, jak o nich píše Spurný v souvislosti s československými Romy., According to the author of this article, 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) enriches Czech historiography with its analysis of state policy on minorities in the Czech borderlands after the Second World War. But the work says less about these minorities and the periphery than it does about majority society and the centre. Spurný provides a superb analysis of the language of propaganda and nationalist ideology, introduces key new topics into Czech writing about history, and contributes importantly to the discussion about the nature of the Czechoslovak Communist régime. By contrast, she concentrates on the theoretical framework of Spurný’s book, and takes issue with his definition of ‘minority’, in which, according to her, he unthinkingly combines a social-constructivist approach with an objectivist conception based on his belief in the existence of real criteria of ethnicity. The minorities that are the topic of Spurný’s book were not, she argues, actually excluded on the basis of objective national (or ethnic) features, but on the basis of perspectives by which majority society and its representatives gauged them. The author then discusses the status of national minorities under Communist régimes, particularly minority policy in the Soviet Union. That, according to her, in its extremely contradictory nature, is hard to comprehend, but she considers its most striking feature to be the artificial construct of ethnic minorities. This fact makes problematic, among other things, any credit that the Communist régime is allegedly due for having emancipated minorities, as Spurný writes they had done in connection with the Roma of Czechoslovakia., Kateřina Čapková., and Tři hlasy k jedné knize
a1_Studie chronologicky navazuje na předešlou a usiluje o zachycení hlavních vývojových linií sociální politiky v Československu mezi roky 1956 a 1989. Žánrově v sobě spojuje naraci historicko-analytickou a pamětnickou, neboť autor se již od konce padesátých let minulého století kontinuálně podílel na teoretickém i praktickém utváření sociální politiky v mezinárodních institucích a Československu (třebaže v období takzvané normalizace se nemohl exponovat veřejně). Díky tomu, že především ve druhé polovině šedesátých let působil v akademické sféře a aktivně participoval na řadě akcí směřujících k zásadním reformám československého sociálního modelu, poskytuje zde cenný vhled „insidera“ do tehdejšího intelektuálního kvasu. Autor přehledně registruje důležitá sociálněpolitická opatření v napětí mezi dvojí tendencí, kdy na jedné straně se sociální stát stal nástrojem populistické politiky komunistické strany a vlády, současně byl však vystaven tlaku ekonomické reality. Zatímco po období přebírání sovětského modelu sociálního státu se s počátkem destalinizace začaly projevovat snahy o jeho rozvolnění a liberalizaci, které akcelerovaly v čase pražského jara 1968, v následujících dvou dekádách takzvané normalizace byly opět likvidovány a vystřídány návratem k napodobování sovětského vzoru. Za dominantní rys „normalizační“ sociální politiky (zvláště v sedmdesátých letech) přitom autor označuje takzvanou korporativizaci – tedy přenášení řady sociálních úkolů z beder státu na podniky, což ovšem ve svých důsledcích osudově podvazovalo efektivitu a rentabilitu výroby., a2_V závěru statě pak upozorňuje na projekty vznikající ve Výzkumném ústavu práce a sociálních věcí ve druhé polovině osmdesátých let, které se v mnohém uplatnily při transformaci sociální politiky po pádu komunistického režimu., b1_This article follows on chronologically from the preceding article published in the current issue of Soudobé dějiny, and seeks to identify and explain the main lines in the development of social policy in Czechoslovakia from 1956 to the end of the Communist régime in late 1989. It combines historical analytical narration and eye-witness recollections – for the author was continuously involved, at international institutes and in Czechoslovakia from the late 1950s onwards, in the theory and practical implementation of social policy (although in the period of re-established hard-line Communism, called ‘normalization’, beginning in 1969, he was unable to be publicly involved). Since he worked in academia, mostly in the second half of the 1960s, and actively participated in efforts to achieve a fundamental reform of the Czechoslovak social model, he can provide valuable insight into the intellectual ferment of the times. In this article he provides a clear overview of the important social-policy measures that were developed and implemented between two tendencies, in which the welfare state became an instrument of the populist politics of the Communist Party and the Government, while faced with the pressures of economic reality. Throughout the period of adopting the Soviet model of the welfare state, efforts began, with the beginning of de-Stalinization, to develop and liberalize it, and these picked up pace in the months of the Prague Spring of 1968. In the next two decades, however, these efforts were again eliminated with normalization and the return to the Soviet model., b2_The author calls the main feature of normalization social policy (particularly in the 1970s) ‘corporatization’ – that is, the transfer of a whole range of social tasks from the State to the state-owned enterprises, which, however, had the effect of fatally hampering the efficiency and the profitability of production. In conclusion, the author points to projects created in the Labour and Social Affairs Research Institute in the second half of the 1980s, which were subsequently useful in many aspects of the transformation of social policy following the collapse of the Communist régime in late 1989., Igor Tomeš., and Obsahuje bibliografii
This study examines the taxation policy of Maria Theresa as evidenced by the situation in Bohemia. A fundamental measure that opened the way for subsequent developments was the passing of the ten-year compact (or "Rezess", as it was known), by the Bohemian parliament in 1748. This law guaranteed a fixed total tax contribution (5,488,155 gulders, 58 crowns) in return for a guarantee that the empress would not demand extra levies, even in the event of war. With the outbreak of the Seven Years’ War, however, the situation changed and in 1756 demands were made for exceptional taxes, military recruits, loans to the state budget, etc. Meanwhile the guarantee of a fixed total tax under the ten-year compact continued to apply. The Treaty of Hubertusburg (1763) brought no relief, as Maria Theresa asked parliament to approve not only an extension of the compact for the following military year, but new exceptional taxes and the reimposition of certain existing indirect taxes. These obligations, together with an increased tax burden in rural communities, remained in place until 1775, when a new ten-year compact was negotiated that lasted until 1789., Jan Lhoták., and Obsahuje bibliografické odkazy
Under Maria Theresa, the provincial courts in Moravia continued to operate along the lines set out in the judicial reforms of 1620-1650. Although the reform efforts of the Theresian system had little direct effect on them, the character of these courts did gradually change. By the early 1740s they were inundated with a backlog of unresolved cases that rendered them slow and unwieldy. Following the cancellation of inactive disputes, however, the number of open cases started to drop rapidly, and by the 1760s the provincial court was accepting an absolute minimum of new lawsuits. This was due less to any restrictions imposed by the state than to a lack of interest among the nobility in pursuing claims in the court. The provincial court continued to sit twice a year, but the reduction in the number of cases meant that the number of sessions in each judicial period also fell considerably. The nearly fifty cases heard by the provincial court in the reign of Maria Theresa were, however, similar in scope to those we are familiar with from the preceding period - property-related lawsuits among the nobility, disputes between monasteries and towns, criminal cases and claims by subject communities against their own landlords. Significant changes can also be discerned in the makeup of the courts, with judges being appointed on the basis of their legal training rather than their social standing or other "merits" and, generally, a far closer correspondence to other types of Theresian court, particularly the royal tribunal. There thus ceased to be a meaningful distinction between the royal and provincial judicial systems in the Theresian period., Jiří David., and Obsahuje bibliografické odkazy