Count Joseph of Auersperg (1767-1829) was a lawyer, the president of the Bohemian Land Court and a member of the Prague Masonic lodge "At the Truth and Unity at the three Crowned Pillars" (Zur Wahrheit und Einigkeit zu den drei gekrönten Säulen). After the so called Jacobin trials (1794-1795) the Masonry was forbidden in the Habsburg monarchy and the Masonic lodges stopped their activities in order to avoid the state persecution. Despite the official proscription of Masonic lodges count Auersperg attempted to renew this lodge. Auersperg made use of the atmosphere of the illusive political thaw after the defeat of the Austrian army in 1809. He managed to succeed in his efforts until 1812 when the Austrian police traced this activity on the grounds of opening and controlling his correspondence. The count was then punished by transfer to Brno to serve there as the president of the Appellate Court in Moravia. In Brno he entered the environment influenced by local masons who after the dissolution of their lodge channelled their activities to philanthropy, culture and organization of science. They initiated a plan to found the Moravian museum in Brno after the example of Joanneum in Graz in Styria. In the person of Auersperg these men found an ardent supporter of this idea. Auersperg participated in presenting the programme of the new museum to the MoravianSilesian Gubernium. The plan was approved by the authorities and Auersperg thus became one of the founders of this prominent institution. The harassment he suffered from the police regime and his overall case are illustrative of the methods used by the Austrian state against its real as well as supposed opponents. In his private correspondence with friends Auersperg made critical remarks about the situation at the Land Court in Prague, which was also revealed by the police and reported to the emperor. Moreover, the contacts Auers, Dušan Uhlíř., and Obsahuje bibliografické odkazy
The study discusses Libor Jan’s hypothesis that the Rajhrad Monastery was not only founded as an independent institution, but was also a collegiate chapter and not a Benedictine cloister. Jan later declared Rajhrad a significant centre for the 10th century South Moravian church and even the seat of a bishop’s filial office. Although these hypotheses were insufficiently supported, they began to be accepted in the literature. However, most of the arguments in favour of these ideas can be disproven. The author examines the so-called Pseudo-Břetislav Fakes that include the Břevnov Monestary’s claim to Rajhrad and proves the authenticity of the testimony within. The conflict between the Olomouc bishops and Břevnov is also discussed, presenting the older claims by the Prague institution. The author also analyses immunity and indulgence documents, which do not show the independence of the Rajhrad Monastery. The author also doubts the church tradition lasting from the post-Great Moravia period, which is the basis for Jan’s hypotheses. and Dana Zapletalová.
To mark the 40th death anniversary of František Dvorník, one of the eminent twentieth-century experts in Slavic and Byzantine history and in relations between the churches of Rome and Constantinople, the Institute of Slavonic Studies of the CAS organized the international symposium entitled Francis Dvorník: Scholar and His Work at villa Lanna in Prague. The conference was also included in the events celebrating the 125th anniversary of the foundation of the Czech Academy of Sciences and Arts. On September 10, 2015, the Institute of Slavonic studies of the CAS and the editorial board of Byzantinoslavica organized (also on the occasion of the 40th death anniversary of Francis Dvorník) an international workshop Lives, Roles and Actions of the Byzantine Empresses (4th-15th c.). and Martina Čechová.
There are many uncertainties about the production and dissemination of vocal polyphony manuscripts from Prague illuminators’ and scribes’ ateliers compared with the dissemination of monophonic vocal manuscripts. The only known “workshop” producing manuscripts with primarily polyphonic music is the one led by Master Jan Kantor Starý († 1582) in Prague’s New Town. However, the number of surviving manuscripts suggests that more “workshops” might have existed in Prague at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries. The goal of this study is to ascertain if there were any other ateliers in Prague producing vocal polyphony manuscripts during the analysed period. The findings are based on recent palaeographic and codicological analyses of the selected group of polyphonic sources written by identical scribal hands: Kutná Hora Codex from 1593 (Czech Museum of Music, Prague), Trubka’s Gradual from 1604 (Prague City Archives, Prague), the Partbook of the St. Barbara Literary Brotherhood in Přeštice from 1619 (National Library of the Czech Republic, Prague) and a bifolio from an unknown partbook in the Gradual of the St. Castulus Church from 1580 (Library of the Archbishop’s Chateau, Kroměříž). The comparison of the analysed scribal hands indicates the existence of an atelier that was probably from the milieu of the royal court. Systematic inquiries into the professional production of polyphonic manuscripts should thus continue because that is the only way to better and fully understand the musical culture of the Czech lands during the Renaissance., Natálie Krátká., Obsahuje bibliografické odkazy, and Jan Pulkrábek [překladatel]
a1_Studie analyzuje československé politické dějiny první poloviny sedmdesátých let na tématu prezidentského nástupnictví po generálovi Ludvíku Svobodovi (1895-1979), s akcentem na roli Gustáva Husáka (1913-1991), který vyšel z politické krize let 1968-1969 jako nejmocnější aktér a na čtrnáctém sjezdu Komunistické strany Československa byl potvrzen ve funkci jejího generálního tajemníka. Autor s využitím sovětských archivů poukazuje na diference mezi jednotlivými činiteli ve vedení KSČ, zvláště na nejednotnost takzvaných zdravých sil, přičemž lze podle něj hovořit o rozkladu tohoto bloku, zformovaného během pražského jara, na několik menších skupin. Tajemník Ústředního výboru KSČ Vasil Biľak (1917-2014) byl pod tímto vlivem a sovětským tlakem donucen rezignovat na ambice stanout v čele KSČ a musel se spokojit s pozicí stranické „dvojky“. Sovětské vedení odvozovalo společenskou stabilitu Československa od pevnosti stranického vedení, a zejména stavělo na spolupráci Husáka a Biľaka, jimž to dávalo najevo. Zdravotní stav neumožňoval Ludvíku Svobodovi plnohodnotně vykonávat prezidentský úřad, osobně ani o udržení funkce neusiloval, přesto byl v zájmu politické stability ve funkci potvrzen v březnu 1973 a zůstával jakýmsi provizorním řešením. Studie nepotvrzuje hypotézu, že byl nakonec donucen v květnu 1975 k odchodu z prezidentského křesla proti vlastní vůli; nebyl ani ve stavu, aby mohl tento akt vědomě učinit., a2_Snaha Gustáva Husáka obsadit prezidentský úřad průběžně narážela na otázku kumulace funkcí a nacionální faktor, přesto se mu díky centristické politice a podpoře Moskvy podařilo dosáhnout v této záležitosti „podivné jednoty“ ve vedení KSČ, takže se stal 29. května 1975 prvním a zároveň posledním československým prezidentem slovenské národnosti. V českých očích ovšem zůstával nadále Slovákem, jenž se výrazně podílel na neblahém procesu takzvané normalizace společnosti po srpnu 1968, zatímco pro slovenský národ se čím dál více stával odrodilcem, „pražským Slovákem“. Ke studii je připojena edice relevantních dokumentů a biogramy členů vedení KSČ, kteří o Husákově prezidentské volbě rozhodovali., b1_This article presents an analysis of Czechoslovak political history of the first half of the 1970s and the question of who would succeed General Ludvík Svoboda (1895-1979) as Czechoslovak President. The emphasis is on the role of Gustáv Husák (1913-1991), who emerged from the political crisis of 1968-69 as the most powerful actor, and was, at the 14th Congress of the Czechoslovak Communist Party, confirmed as General Secretary of the Party. Using Soviet archives, the author points to differences between the individual members of the Party leadership, and particularly to the lack of unity amongst the so-called ‘healthy forces’. According to him, it is fair to talk about the disintegration of this bloc, which had been formed during the Prague Spring, into several smaller groups. The secretary of the Central Committee of the Czechoslovak Communist Party, Vasil Biľak (1917-2014), was, in consequence of this and Soviet pressure, forced to abandon any ambitions to stand at the head of the Party, and had to be satisfied, instead, with the position of Number Two in the Party. The Soviet leadership derived social stability in Czechoslovakia from the firmness of the Czechoslovak Communist Party leadership, and in particular counted on the collaboration of Husák and Biľak, and it made this clear to both men. Svoboda’s failing health prevented him from properly discharging his duties as President of Czechoslovakia, but he did not even try to hold on to the presidency, even though, in the interest of political stability, he was confirmed in office in March 1973, and remained something of a temporary solution. The article does not seek to challenge or confirm the hypothesis that he was forced to step down in May 1975; although, in any event, Svoboda was in no condition to have taken this step himself., b2_Husák’s efforts to become President kept running up against the question of the accumulation of offices and also the Czech-Slovak national factor, even though, thanks to centrist Czechoslovak policy and support from Moscow, he succeeded in achieving a ‘peculiar unity’ over this question in the CPCz leadership, so that on 29 May 1975 he became the first, and also the last, Czechoslovak President who was a Slovak. In Czech eyes, however, he remained a Slovak who had, after August 1968, considerably participated in the unfortunate re-imposition of hard-line Communism known as ‘normalization’, whereas for the Slovak nation he increasingly became a turncoat, a ‘Prague Slovak’. The article is followed by a number of relevant documents and biographical sketches of the Party members who were decisive in Husák’s election to the presidency., and Michal Macháček.
Historik, spisovatel a publicista Petr Placák v knize razí kontroverzní tezi, že v Československu v letech 1945 až 1948 vládl fašistický režim, který navazoval na nacistický režim z let německé okupace (1939-1945) a předjímal komunistický totalitní režim po únoru 1948. Fašismus přitom pojímá jako širší kategorii, než je obvyklé, když jej definuje především aktivistickým politickým stylem. Autor situuje Placákův přístup na teoretickém poli bádání o nedemokratických režimech do blízkosti mladších, postklasických stoupenců teorie totalitarismu. Oceňuje spíše druhou část jeho práce, analyzující politické poměry v poválečném Československu do roku 1948. Podle Budila jde o legitimní a v mnoha směrech přesvědčivý obraz, který logicky vysvětluje příčiny zhroucení československé demokracie, a paralela mezi Československem v roce 1945 a Itálií v roce 1922 působí věrohodně. Jako méně přínosnou hodnotí první část knihy, obsahující rozsáhlý exkurz do teorie a historie totalitních, fašistických a autoritářských hnutí dvacátého století. Placákova skepse ke schopnosti společenských věd podat jejich adekvátní vysvětlení není dost zdůvodněná a jeho geneze fašismu by měla být zasazena do širších souvislostí., In his book Gottwaldovo Československo jako fašistický stát (Gottwald´s Czechoslovakia as a fascist state), the historian, novelist, and journalist Petr Placák (b. 1964) puts forth the controversial view that from the end of the Second World War, in May 1945, to the Communist take-over, in February 1948, Czechoslovakia was ruled by a fascist regime, which was a kind of continuation of the Nazi regime during the German occupation of Bohemian and Moravia from mid-March 1930 to early May 1945, aticipating the Communist totalitarian regime beginning with the takeover in late February 1948. Placák thus conceives of fascism as a broader category that is generally considered to be, and he defines the regime by its activist political style. The author locates Placák´s theoretical approach to researching undemocratic regimes close to later, "post-classic" adherents to the theory of totalitarianism. More than the first part of the book, it is the second part that the reviewer appreciates. This part, which analyses the political situation in Czechoslovakia before the February takeover, presents, according to the author of the article, a legitimate and in many respects convincing picture, logically explaining the causes for the collaps of Czechoslovak democracy; indeed, the parallels Placák draws between Czechoslovakia after May 1945 and Italy in 1922 are credible. By contrast, the first part of the book, consisting of a long excursus into the theory and history of the totalitarian, fascist, and authoritarian movements of the twentieth century, is, in his view, weaker: Placák´s scepticism about the ability of the social sciences to provide satisfactory explanations for these movements is not well founded, and his explanations for the genesis of fascism lack context., [autor recenze] Ivo Budil., První ze 3 příspěvků v oddíle Tři hlasy k jedné knize: Konfrontace - kontrasty - kontexty, and Obsahuje bibliografické odkazy
This study examines how love was represented in late 18th century Czech fiction, as exemplified in the works of Antonín Josef Zíma and Prokop Šedivý. First we place Czech writing in its historical context with reference to contemporary French literature. We then focus on the formal features of works on love, discuss the influence of Sentimentalism on Czech culture, and finally consider the relationship between love and morality. Our study concludes that there is no evidence of originality in attitudes to love in late 18th century Czech fiction; instead, writers looked to foreign literatures for their themes. The resonance they produced in the Czech context, however, was different from that in countries with a richer literary tradition., Tomáš Dufka., and Obsahuje bibliografické odkazy