During the reign of the empress Maria Theresa and in particular of her successor Joseph II, the Habsburg monarchy went through substantial changes. The state took control of parts of public life which had until then been independent. Besides arts, which started to be controlled through the state academy, architecture became the centre of attention. Architecture regulated by state was supposed to observe the so called architectura civilis (Bürgerliche Baukunst) the principles of which had been formulated by German and Austrian theoreticians and mathematicians in the second half of the 18 century. The main features typical for the architectura civilis were simplicity, practicality and economy, which suited the enlightened state. Architects and engineers with profound theoretical knowledge who were able to respond to a wide spectrum of assignments became important for the intentions of the state. Designers who did not make part of the guild structure and who had such wide competences that they could design architecture normally designed by engineers - fortifications, roads, and bridges were considered as ideal. This study focuses on the professional bibliography of two significant engineers working in the service of the estates and the state in Moravia at the last years of 18 century Johann Anton Krzoupal von Grünnenberg, and first Director of the Provincial Building Directorates in Brno Karl Jacobi von Eckholm., Michal Konečný., and Obsahuje bibliografické odkazy
Křesťanova biografie Zdeňka Nejedlého podle autorky provokuje k některým podstatným otázkám, které česká historiografie dosud nedokázala náležitě zpracovat. Nápadný je tu především rozpor mezi slabým reálným vlivem Nejedlého na veřejné dění, jak je s narůstající intenzitou sugerován Křesťanovým výkladem, a jeho obrazem v současné české společnosti, jenž díky rámcům kolektivní paměti přetrval všechny historické zlomy a v němž Zdeněk Nejedlý nabyl podoby jakéhosi „démona“ československé vědy a kultury v poválečném období. V prvé řadě se do něj zapsal svým konceptem českých dějin, který se stal nadlouho součástí učebních osnov, ale i svým protežováním Bedřicha Smetany jako „nejnárodnějšího“ českého skladatele nebo řízením českého školství po únoru 1948, vnímaným jako synonymum sovětizace. Bylo to však podle Olšákové právě Nejedlého ideologické pojetí českých národních tradic, které vyvolávalo odpor odborné veřejnosti a stimulovalo kritické bádání a formulaci odlišných náhledů na minulost. Křesťanovo uchopení „druhého života“ Nejedlého pak před sociology paměti klade například otázky, zda se v postoji české společnosti k jeho osobě promítala touha po kontinuitě předválečného a poválečného Československa anebo zda byl jeho výlučný kolektivní obraz odvozován spíše od prvorepublikového uctívání „tatíčka Masaryka“ či od „kultu osobnosti“ sovětského vůdce Stalina. Autorka konstatuje, že co do zpracování a koncepce textu ční Křesťanova biografie vysoko nad obvyklou českou historickou produkci, na závěr ale zpochybňuje Křesťanovu charakteristiku Nejedlého jako politika a vědce „v osamění“., Křesťan’s biography of Zdeněk Nejedlý raises some fundamental questions, according to Olšáková, which Czech historians have not yet been able to deal with properly. Particularly striking is the contradiction between Nejedlý’s actually weak influence on public events, as is increasingly suggested by Křesťan’s interpretation, and his image in contemporary Czech society, which, because of the frameworks of collective memory, has outlasted all the historical watersheds, and Nejedlý has come to look like a ‘demon’ of the arts and sciences in Czechoslovakia in the post-war period. First and foremost, he left his mark in this period by his conception of Czech history, which for a long time became part of school curricula, but also with his promoting Bedřich Smetana as the ‘most national’ of Czech composers, or his running the Czech school system after the Communist takeover in February 1948, which was perceived as synonymous with Sovietization. But it was, according to Olšáková, Nejedlý’s ideological conception of Czech national traditions which provoked the resistance of specialists and stimulated critical research and the formulation of different views of the past. For sociologists of memory, Křesťan’s understanding of the ‘second life’ of Nejedlý then raises questions, such as whether in Czech society’s attitude to the man a desire for the continuity of Czechoslovakia before and after the Second World War is not projected, or whether his exclusively collective image was not derived from the First Republic’s reverence for ‘Daddy Masaryk’ or from the ‘cult of the personality’ of the Soviet leader Stalin. Olšáková states that in terms of treatment and conception Křesťan’s biography is far superior to the usual Czech histories, but she ultimately has doubts about Křesťan’s assessment of Nejedlý as a politician and scholar ‘all alone., [autor recenze] Doubravka Olšáková., Obsahuje bibliografii, and Tři hlasy k jedné knize
Vierzehnter Band, Vom Jahre 1408-1411, im Auftrage des Mährischen Landesausschusses herausgegeben von Berthold Bretholz., KČSN, and Obsahuje přívazek : Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Moraviae, Bd. 15 / Berthold Bretholz
The aim of the article is to characterise for the first time ever the role of book culture in building the confessionality of post-Hussite society and subsequent generations. For such an extensive research goal, it was necessary to choose a broad interdisciplinary approach, making it possible to place social phenomena previously assessed in isolation into the context of the day. The individual passages of the article are therefore devoted to editorial models, to the archaeology of the printed text and the basics of reading, to the history of illustration and book printing, to language and bookbinding. It has been confirmed that book culture - created by the reception of manuscript and printed products - can be understood as a faithful mirror of a religiously pluralistic society. However, where modern historiography ends with the research of confessionality, the study of book culture may begin to reveal the much more general mechanisms of the individual and social mentality in which the religious-political process took place. The mentality of the readers (burghers and partly the lesser aristocracy) for whom the copied and printed books were intended, was negatively impacted by the remnants of Hussitism and by contemporary Utraquism, which coexisted in a dualistic symbiosis with minority Catholicism. These influences, which at the time were commonly referred to as “renaissance”, bound readers to the Middle Ages. The more massive growth of their intellectual potential was made possible only by the cultural restart brought about by the change in the political situation after the Schmalkaldic War of 1547, which met with a somewhat negative response in both earlier and modern historiography. However, through the study of book culture, we are becoming convinced that the bourgeoisie began to compensate for the privileges which the monarch had deprived them of through various forms of self-education and self-presentation, by means of which it revived itself from these medieval residuals and at the same time competed with the aristocracy., Petr Voit., Obsahuje bibliografické odkazy, and Stuart Roberts [překladatel]