Historický ústav akademie věd České republiky, v. v. i.

ČESKÝ ČASOPIS HISTORICKÝ
THE CZECH HISTORICAL REVIEW
1/2007


OBSAH / CONTENTS

 

STUDIE / STUDIES

KALOUS Antonín, Spor o biskupství olomoucké v letech 1482-1497 (A dispute over the bishopric of Olomouc, 1482–1497)
s. 1-39

MAREK Pavel, Klientelní strategie španělských králů na pražském císařském dvoře konce 16. a počátku 17. století (The Clientele Strategy of the Spanish Kings towards the Prague Imperial Court in the Late 16th Century and the Early 17th Century)
s. 40-89


DOKUMENTY Z IX. SJEZDU ČESKÝCH HISTORIKŮ /THE IXth CONGRESS OF CZECH HISTORIANS

PEŠEK Jiří, Česká historiografie na počátku 21. století – cesty jejího hodnocení (Czech Historiography at the Onset of the 21st Century – Methods of Assessment)
s. 89-100

BŮŽEK Václav, Výuka historie na univerzitách v České republice – tendence a perspektivy (The Teaching of History at Universities in the Czech Republic – Trends and Perspectives)
s. 101-112

ŠMAHEL František, Závěrečný projev na IX. sjezdu českých historiků v Pardubicích 8. září 2006 (The Closing Address to The IXth Congress of Czech Historians at Pardubice, 8th September 2006)
s. 113-121


DISKUSE / DISCUSSION

TŘEŠTÍK Dušan – ŽEMLIČKA Josef, O modelech vývoje přemyslovského státu (On the Development Models of the Przemyslid State)
s. 122-164


OBZORY LITERATURY / REVIEWS

Recenze

REITEMEIER Arnd, Pfarrkirchen in der Stadt des späten Mittelalters: Politik, Wirtschaft und Verwaltung (Ivan Hlaváček) s. 165 - DONAVIN Georgiana - NEDERMAN Cary J. - UTZ Richard (eds.), Speculum sermonis. Interdisciplinary reflections on the medieval sermon (Jindřich Marek) s. 167 - FORBELSKÝ Josef, Španělé, Říše a Čechy v 16. a 17. století. Osudy generála Baltasara Marradase (Pavel Marek) s. 172 - HLAVAČKA Milan, Zlatý věk české samosprávy. Samospráva a její vliv na hospodářský, sociální a intelektuální rozvoj Čech 1862-1913 (Pavel Kladiwa) s. 175 - TRABA Robert, „Wschodniopruskość”. Tożsamość regionalna i narodowa w kulturze politycznej Niemiec (Maciej Górny) s. 177 - WAGNER Patrick, Hitlers Kriminalisten. Die deutsche Kriminalpolizei und der Nationalsozialismus (Tomáš Nigrin) s. 179 - GRANDNER Margarete - HEISS Gernot - RATHKOLB Oliver (edd.), Zukunft mit Altlasten. Die Universität Wien 1945 bis 1955 (Jiří Pešek) s. 182 - JUNKER Detlef - GASSERT Philipp - MAUSBACH Wilfried - MORRIS David B. (edd.), Die USA und Deutschland im Zeitalter des Kalten Krieges (Miloš Calda) s. 188

Zprávy
s. 193

Výběr ČČH
Ze zahraničních časopisů
s. 233


Z VĚDECKÉHO ŽIVOTA / CHRONICLE

Konference a výstavy

IX. sjezd českých historiků
(Petr Vorel – Tomáš Jiránek – Pavel Panoch – Marie Macková – Petr Svobodný – Zdeněk Beneš – Helena Peřinová)
s. 239

Projekt evropských komparativních dějin
(Miroslav Hroch)
s. 261

Šlechta a modernizace ve střední a východně Evropě. Perspektivy historického bádání o šlechtě
(Rudolf Kučera)
s. 263

Druhé česko-rakouské rozhovory o dějinách českých zemí
(Václav Bůžek - Jaroslav Šebek)
s. 265

Canossa 1077-2006. Otřes světa – Dějiny umění a kultura při nástupu románského stylu
(Kateřina Bicanová - Václav Pražák)
s. 268

Sacri canones servandi sunt. Završení christianizačních procesů právními prostředky ve středověké Evropě
(Robert Šimůnek)
s. 270

Slezští Piastovci v kultuře a evropských dějinách
(Marie Bláhová)
s. 273

Komunikace a prostor v českých a polských dějinách ve středověku a raném novověku
(Roman Baron - Miloslav Polívka)
s. 275

Poznávání se navzájem. Anglosaský svět a střední Evropa v raném novověku
(Martin Holý)
s. 278

Prostředky a působení veřejné komunikace v čase evropských reformací – výtvarné umění, hudba, performance, rétorika
(Václav Bůžek)
s. 280

Pragmatické písemnosti v kontextu právním a správním
(Mlada Holá)
s. 281

Sekularizace českých zemí v letech 1848-1914
(Denisa Nečasová)
s. 283

Hrdinství a zbabělost v české politice 19. a 20. století
(Denisa Nečasová)
s. 284

Historie a problémy paměti
(Jan Socha)
s. 286

Šestnáctý liberecký seminář
(Robert Kvaček)
s. 288


Knihy došlé redakci
s. 289

Výtahy z českých časopisů a sborníků
s. 289


RESUMÉ A ABSTRAKTY

ANTONÍN KALOUS
Spor o biskupství olomoucké v letech 1482–1497
Biskupství olomoucké bylo v druhé půli 15. století jedním ze dvou fungujících biskupství v českých zemích (druhým byla slezská Vratislav) s legálně zvolenými a v Římě potvrzenými biskupy. Nicméně v době mezi smrtí biskupa Tasa (Prothasia) z Boskovic (1482) a nástupem biskupa Stanislava Thurza (1497) byl úřad moravského biskupa předmětem sporu mezi vícero kandidáty různých stran. Otázka posloupnosti biskupů v Olomouci byla často nepřesně zpracovávána v literatuře, ovšem na základě pramenů jak z Olomouce, tak z Vatikánu je možné rozkrývat nejasné vztahy významné pro průběh sporu.
Uherský a český král Matyáš Korvín na počátku sporu ovlivnil volbu olomoucké kapituly (ta měla právo volit biskupa od roku 1207) a nechal zvolit svého kandidáta biskupa varadínského Jana Filipce, jednoho ze svých nejvýznačnějších diplomatů (1483?–1490). Tato volba ovšem působila problémy v Římě; přestože král Matyáš tvrdil, že je schopen u papežského stolce svou volbu jednoznačně prosadit, ani Sixtus IV a ani jeho nástupce Inocenc VIII nepotvrdili Jana Filipce v tomto úřadu, i když byl jediným v tomto období, kdo olomouckou diecézi reálně spravoval.
Všichni následní kandidáti mohou být rozčleněni do několika rozdílných skupin. Jan Vitéz mladší (1487–89), římský orator Matyášův, stejně jako Jan Filipec byl uherským prelátem (byl biskupem v Sremske Mitrovici (Hung. Szerém)) a zřejmě se mu dosazením na olomoucký stolec mělo dostat výraznějšího postavení a rozsáhlejších příjmů, které byly důležité pro jeho diplomatickou činnost. Druhou skupinu tvoří kandidáti místní kapituly – mezi nimi především Bohuslav Hasištejnský z Lobkovic (volen dvakrát 1490, 1493), dřívější biskup Tas a konečně biskup Stanislav Thurzo. Pro tyto preláty byl post olomouckého ordináře konečnou stanicí jejich církevní kariéry. Pro poslední skupinu kandidátů byla naproti tomu tato funkce pouze dalším z jejich četných beneficií, která měla přispět jak k jejich příjmům (zvláště proto, že příjmy italských biskupství byly obecně velmi malé), tak k jejich prestiži. Byli to kuriální preláti a kardinálové Ardicino della Porta (1489–93) a Giovanni Borgia (Juan Borja; 1493–97), synovec papeže Alexandra VI.
Spor o olomoucké biskupství ukazuje na tři rozdílné tendence v obsazování biskupství v pozdním středověku. Dómská kapitula, která získala právo volit biskupa na počátku 13. století, se stále snažila prosazovat svou vůli, ovšem v této době jednoznačně převládaly dvě tendence následující. První z nich byla snaha místních vládců ovlivnit rozhodování o biskupech, a tak dosadit vlastní lidi do významných funkcí (v případě Olomouce se jednalo o církevní i zemský úřad); král Matyáš se tak snažil posílit svůj vliv v jedné ze svých zemí. Druhou tendencí bylo úsilí nově konstituovaného papežství (po krizích 14. a počátku 15. století) posílit svoje postavení v oblasti vlády nad církví, včetně vlivu in partibus. V tomto období byla Morava (a také Slezsko, jak je vidět v případu Vratislavi) otevřenější evropským duchovním, církevním a politickým trendům než centrum českých zemích, samotné Čechy. K tomu přispěl i zábor Matyáše Korvína a vytvoření konglomerátu zemí v sedmdesátých a osmdesátých letech 15. století.

ANTONÍN KALOUS
A dispute over the bishopric of Olomouc, 1482–1497
The bishopric of Olomouc was, in the fifteenth century, one of the two functioning bishoprics in the Czech lands (apart from Wrocław), with the legally elected bishop confirmed in Rome. Nevertheless, in the period between the death of Bishop Prothasius of Boskovice (1482) and the start of the reign of Bishop Stanislaus Thurzó (1497) the office of the bishop of was a matter of dispute among more than one candidate. The question of the succession of the bishops of Olomouc was often incorrectly treated in literature, but on the basis of both Olomouc and Vatican sources the entangled relation might be revealed.
 It was the Hungarian and Czech king Matthias Corvinus, who had influenced the election of the chapter (it had the right to chose the bishop since 1207) and let his candidate Jan Filipec (bishop of Várad (Oradea) and a chief diplomat of Matthias) be elected (1483?–90). However, the election was causing problems in Rome and neither Pope Sixtus IV, nor Innocent VIII had confirmed Jan Filipec the bishop of Olomouc, even though he was the only one in this period, who in fact administered this office.
The other candidates might be divided into three different groups. János Vitéz the Younger (1487–89; the Roman orator of Matthias), just like Jan Filipec, was a Hungarian prelate (bishop of Szerém (Sremska Mitrovica)) and should probably gain more power and income with the new bishopric. There was a series of local candidates of the chapter – especailly Bohuslav Hasištejnský of Lobkovice (elected twice in 1490, 1493), previously Prothasius and the finally Bishop Stanislaus. For them all the office was the climax of their church career. However, for the last group of candidates the office of the bishop of Olomouc was just one other benefice, which was planned to contribute to their income (especially due to the small incomes of the Italian bishoprics) as well as their prestige. They were the curial prelates and cardinals Ardicino della Porta (1489–93) and Giovanni Borgia (Juan Borja, 1493–97), a nephew of Pope Alexander VI.
The struggle for the bishopric of Olomouc shows three different tendencies in the bishop-elections. The chapter, which gained the right to elect the bishop in the early thirteenth century, tried to enforce their ideas. The king endeavoured to influence its decision to be able to introduce his man to the important office (church as well as land office) of the newly acquired Moravia. And finally the papacy in the period of the revival of its secular government after the crises of the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries wanted to recover the power over the partes. In this period Moravia (and Silesia, as seen in the case of Wrocław) was more open to the general European spiritual, ecclesiastical and political trends than the centre of the Czech lands, Bohemia. It was mainly thanks to the conquering of the land by Matthias Corvinus and connecting it to his larger conglomerate of lands of the 1470s and 1480s.

ANTONÍN KALOUS: A dispute over the bishopric of Olomouc, 1482–1497
The bishopric of Olomouc went through a time of troubles between 1482–1497, when there were several candidates to the office nominated by the chapter, the king and the popes. The article tries to solve the succession of these candidates on the basis of the Olomouc as well as the Vatican sources. Jan Filipec was the only one of these candidates who was active in Olomouc itself, the others (a candidate of the chapter; another Hungarian prelate; or the curial prelates) never came to Olomouc. The influence of the papal curial was quite substantial in the decision making. The struggle for the bishopric was finally solved in 1497 with Stanislaus Thurzó, who was elected bishop in twenty-six and stayed in the office for forty-three years.

* * *

PAVEL MAREK
The Clientele Strategy of the Spanish Kings towards the Prague Imperial Court in the Late 16th Century and the Early 17th Century
One of the most important power groupings which was present at the Prague Imperial Court at the turn of the 17th century was the grouping that supported Spain’s policies. The existence of this faction is irrevocably linked to the activities of the Spanish ambassadors Guillén de San Clemente and his successor in office Baltasar de Zúnniga. The instructions received by Spanish diplomats before their departure to Central Europe to take up their posts usually advised them to seek the assistance of persons close to the Emperor. It was one of the main tasks of ambassadors to form and cultivate a network of confidants. The Spanish utilised a wide range of methods to attract and bind Central European noblemen to their Monarch’s policies. The most common ones were banquets, one-off financial payments, stipends and regular gifts. The Catholic King’s clients could also expect to be appointed to one of the Spanish military orders of Christian chivalry: Alcántara, Calatrava or St.James. It was not unusual to receive the Order of the Golden Fleece. The latter honours were, however, reserved for persons who exercised a proper political influence. Indeed, the amount and type of remuneration depended both upon the social status of the person rewarded and the importance of the services provided to the Spanish Crown. The Spanish ambassador acted as the true patron of the persons who promoted his country’s interests at the Imperial Court. In fact, he was merely the intermediary – a broker – of clientele relationships between Central European noblemen and his sovereign. Philip II. and his successor were, however, only able to intervene directly in the process of the formation and maintenance of their relationship network in the case of a nobleman’s visit to Madrid. Yet, they nearly always managed to utilise any such opportunity superbly, since their most important and most devoted clients came from the ranks of those noblemen who visited the Spanish Royal Court during their careers. The second, and simultaneously the final chance of influencing Central European grandees directly, available to the Catholic King, was by his correspondence. This usually involved congratulations sent to them on the occasion of festivities linked to their personal anniversaries and achievements, or short notes of gratitude enabling him to thank them for the services provided. Central European clients of the Catholic King were referred to as servidores in contemporary Spanish documents. This group of servidores was further subdivided depending on the degree of trust shown to them by the Spanish ambassador. Based on that fact these persons were either called servidores aficionados, or as the case may be inclinados (favourably inclined), or servidores confidentes (confidants). The relationship network of the Spanish Kings in Central Europe included Reich princes, important court dignitaries and also noblemen from all the hereditary Hapsburg Lands of the Hapsburg Monarchy. Indeed, a large number of clients came from the Bohemian Lands. In addition to the traditionally pro-Spanish Pernsteins, Ditrichsteins and Lobkowitzes, there were for example Karel of Lichtenstein and his brothers, Volf Novohradský of Kolovraty and his sons Zdeněk and Jiří and Oldřich Desiderius Pruskovský of Pruskov. The extensive representation of Bohemian grandees in the Spanish relationship network corresponded to the economic and strategic position of the Bohemian Kingdom. The importance of the Kingdom in the eyes of Spanish diplomats was undoubtedly strengthened by the presumed claim of Philip III. to the throne of St. Wenceslas. The Central European clients of the Catholic King were often blood relations of each other. Yet, apart from these ties, the relationship network of the Spanish rulers did not manifest any signs testifying to the existence of a compact group with a common programme which would correspond to the often used term - the Spanish Party, partido espannol or facción espannola.

PAVEL MAREK: Klientelní strategie španělských králů na pražském císařském dvoře konce 16. a počátku 17. století
Předkládaná studie zkoumá vazby, jež poutaly středoevropské šlechtice ke španělským panovníkům Filipovi II. a Filipovi III. Autor se v ní pokusil přiblížit podobu vztahové sítě španělských králů na pražském císařském dvoře konce 16. a počátku 17. století. Velká pozornost byla věnována především mechanismům, které sloužily k připoutávání jednotlivých dvořanů k politice Španělska.

PAVEL MAREK: The Clientele Strategy of the Spanish Kings towards the Prague Imperial Court in the Late 16th Century and the Early 17th
This study researches the links which tied Central European noblemen to the Spanish rulers Philip II. and Philip III. The author has attempted to interpret the nature of the relationship network between the Spanish Kings and the Prague Imperial Court in the late 16th century and the early 17th century. Much attention is paid primarily to the mechanisms which helped to bind individual courtiers to Spain’s policies.

* * *

JIŘÍ PEŠEK
Czech Historiography at the Onset of the 21st Century – Methods of Assessment
Czech historiography daily faces the necessity of defending the meaning and value of its work and the social relevance of being – financially - supported, and thus, the challenge of defining the criteria of academic efficiency. Yet, the main issue is the ambiguity of assessment criteria which should provide the discipline with feed-back. It is about the quantification of publishing output while the qualitative aspect is introduced from „outside“, and by means which are alien to historiography as a system. It is, however, necessary to pay attention especially to the quality of historiographic production comparable with that produced abroad. It is increasingly important to consider European-wide or possibly worldwide developments of thematisation of topics and sources, methodological approaches to them and the means of their interpretation.
The most recent bibliographies, which cover Czech output for 2000-2004 and deal with the period from 1918, contain 16430 entries, i.e. 3 300 studies a year. Czech historians are undoubtedly industrious. However, how are their research activities structured? The starting point for our analysis is the totality of grants awarded between 1999-2005 by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic (Grantová agentura ČR) as the most important national foundation for project promotion of science. It mirrors an important section of research and also, thanks to the fact that the representatives of he historical community themselves sit on these commissions instead of bureaucrats, it also reflects preferences accorded to historical research. The analysis is based on 183 approved grants which relate to projects in the broad area of history from the Middle Ages (including historical archaeology) until the end of the 20th century. The majority of approved grants focuse upon topics relating to the historical Czech Lands. Projects dealing with foreign issues represent 10 % and a further 10 % declare a wider than Czech context to their focus. Half of the projects were awarded to universities – in particular Moravian and Silesian, rather than Czech ones, the second largest recepients are the Institutes of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic (further known as AS CR).
Annually, compendia and dictionary projects represent about 14% of successful projects. From a chronological point of view the Middle Ages occupy an important position with 21 % of projects. Research on the Early Modern Period, though strong and highly impressive as far as results are concerned, accounts merely for 13 %. The Modern Period (1800-1938) dominates with 27 %. Research on the periods of dictatorships 1939-1989 “merely“ acquired less than 20 % of the sum total and 5 % of grants were of an inter-disciplinary nature. Two fifths of grants are thus devoted to an earlier history with three fifths to the 19th and 20th centuries. This ratio is similar to that shown in an analysis of German historiography at the turn of the 2nd millenium. Yet, whereas German historians,dealing with the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period, devote between one third to one half of their research to international topics, and the ratio of works on non-German themes for the following periods decreases only gradually, down to 20 % for the period after 1945. Czech historiography appears to have 10 % of its projects interested in foreign themes. Most research on foreign issues is published only in the Czech Republic and in the Czech language.
Living in the time warp of a „national“ horizon in historiographical discourse also threatens to set off the effect, which was identified, for example in Russian or Ukrainian post-Soviet historiography, namely a split of historiographical research and output between „local“ historiography, written in the national language, minimally receptive to shifts in world historiography and governed by topical national, mostly political themes, and international science, primarily Anglophone and Germanophone on the other side. The representatives of the latter no longer read works by local authors; they are content to use „native“ editions and compendia and source materials to create their own, sometimes not entirely comprehensible discourse. Thus, two parallel non-communicating worlds of the images of the past are formed.
Although Czech historiography attempts international communication, it is easy to establish that even where a Czech theme should be part of the context, „bohemica non leguntur“ – also when they are published in English in Czech periodicals. Czech historiography remains loyal to local themes in addition to being the captive of thematical structures of traditional historiography. It is evident from an analysis of projects sponsored by the GA CR: half of them comprise projects on political (or possibly historical-legal) history, and in all historical periods, the closer to the present the more projects. The second group dealing with broadly conceived social history and the history of towns represents merely one third of the total. Attention is focused on the period between the 16th century and the beginning of the 20th century. A third position is occupied by ecclesiastical history, primarily medieval; economic and financial history, with a sub-group of medieval numismatologist works in fourth place. It is tragically sad for the history of historiography that – in the light of the GA CR projects – there is a lack of interest in historiography of the period 1939-1989. Not enough support is given to researching the history of culture, the mass media and public opinion, modern ecclesiastical and religious history, the history of education, science and technology. Research on the 20th century is fixated on political history while the issues of culture and civilisation and their developments are overlooked, alongside the questions of religion and the role of churches, and possibly also gender studies. These projects do not seem to display any tangible interest in applying new methodological initiatives.
It is, however, impossible to limit ourselves to research when discussing the state of Czech historiography. For a long while historiography has been challenged by the fact that the teaching of contemporary history at Czech schools has been minimalised, so that generations of school-leavers are barely aware of the events and traumas of the last seventy years. They know next to nothing about the modernising changes within Czech society in that time or about its complicated, yet successful efforts to remain anchored in the cultural context of Western European civilisation, despite the dictatorships. This educational absence in its consequences threatens the political culture of Czech society. It is not possible to assess the development of Czech history or the historiography of the post-war period without the constant thematisation of a Central European and East European comparative context. Obviously, these comparisons should also be made across the Iron Curtain.

JIŘÍ PEŠEK: Česká historiografie na počátku 21. století - cesty jejího hodnocení
Autor tematisuje problematiku evaluačních hodnocení českého dějepisectví a tedy před nutnosti definovat kriteria vědecké výkonnosti. Kvantifikace publikačních výstupů bývá komplikována tím, že kvalitativní aspekt je nastavován „zvenčí“, a to způsoby historiografii systémově cizími. Klíčová je však otázka mezinárodně srovnatelné kvality historiografické produkce. Autor ozřejmuje uspokojivou kvantitativní produktivitu české historiografie, ale i její vysokou uzavřenost do národního kontextu a na bázi rozboru projektů, udělených v letech 1999-2005 Grantovou agenturou ČR jako nejvýznamnější státní nadací k podpoře vědy, popisuje (ve srovnání se soudobou německou historiografií) chronologický, tematický i národní/nadregionální charakter schválených projektů.

JIŘÍ PEŠEK: Czech Historiography at the Onset of the 21st Century – Methods of Assessment
The author selects the issues of evaluation assessments of Czech historiography as themes, and thus the necessity for defining the criteria of academic efficiency. The quantification of publishing output is complicated by the fact that the qualitative aspect is introduced from „outside“, and by means which are alien to historiography as a system. However, the key issue is the quality of historiographic output comparable with that from abroad. The author points out the satisfactory quantitative output of Czech historiography, but also its excessive ties to a national context. Based on an analysis of the projects awarded between 1999-2005 by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic as the most important national foundation for promotion of science, he describes the chronological, thematic and national/supra-regional nature of approved projects (in comparison with contemporary German historiography).

* * *

VÁCLAV BŮŽEK
The Teaching of History at Universities in the Czech Republic – Trends and Perspectives
The author does not pay attention to the teaching of history at any specific university department in this presentation which was delivered at the Congress of Czech Historians. Instead he has attempted, despite the demand for plurality in terms of the conceptions and contents of different programmes of the study of the historical sciences, to outline some general trends in the current instruction of history at the institutions of higher education in the Czech Republic.
For the present the numbers of applicants to study different programmes of the historical sciences have continually exceeded the capacity of the universities. Different universitites carry out an assessment of their candidates’ intellectual capabilities by different methods. The majority of universities have been gradually abandoning the elimination stage of fact-finding question and answer tests in their entrance examinations. A far greater emphasis is given to the oral interview for which the applicants submit a list of literature they have read. Nearly all university institutions have voiced their concerns about falling intellectural standards of candidates intending to study history. Only a very narrow group of better motivated candidates (only about 20%) applying to study history have a clear idea of their future professional career as teachers of history at primary and secondary schools or researchers at academic, cultural and other institutions. The absolute majority of candidates currently come to study history at universities in the Czech Republic – similar to their peers abroad – without any deeper understanding of their own future professional direction. Thanks to the long-term excess demand for the study of history, university departments continue to have an opportunity to select, in general, high-calibre first-year students, both male and female.
In recent years a structured programme of the study of history for non-teachers has become the norm at all the universities in the Czech Republic. Throughout the baccalaureate programme of study, which usually lasts six terms, undergraduates are offered comprehensive grounding in their chosen field, which enables them to gain employment in state administration, in the care of historic monuments, in the publicly or privately owned mass media or to continue their studies in the follow-on master’s degree programme. The critics of baccalaureate programmes point to the oversaturation of instruction, a lack of time to write good-quality baccalaureate diploma work and the undergraduates’ own low productivity in the first semesters of their study, which is linked to the ever increasing individual adaptation to methods of university teaching. The baccalaureate programmes of history contain in their fundamental courses, at best, selected chapters from a survey of history from prehistoric times until the present with differing degrees of emphasis upon the context and choice of different interpretative approaches. Yet, the follow-on master’s degree, which normally takes four semesters, usually demonstrates the high degree of narrow thematic and methodological specialisation at most universities in the Czech Republic. At present, students of the follow-on master’s degree study of history seem to be keenest on 20th century history, followed by the 19th century, while significantly lower down comes the Early New Age, and the least popular is the history of the Middle Ages.
The author pays special attention to the education of history teachers for primary and secondary schools. History teachers for primary schools should principally receive their degree qualifications at pedagogical faculties. The professional preparation of a teacher, who will face a number of educational problems at primary school should combine the foundations of the science of history in its interpretative outline from prehistoric times until the present with the didactics of history, psychology, pedagogy and practical experience at schools especially. The non-structured master’s degree study can be seen as a suitable model. On the other hand history teachers for secondary schools should be educated at philosophical faculties in structured programmes. One potential starting point is represented by the baccalaureate study of specialized history and the follow-on master’s degree study of history teaching for secondary schools. While the baccalaureate study undergraduates will gain fundamental education in a chosen field of study, in the follow-on master’s degree they will acquaint themselves with the foundations of pedagogy, psychology as well as the didactics of history. They will also deepen their knowledge of theory and facts, as well as their interpretative skills in specialized history seminars and academic modules. The didactics of history despite some theoretical development contribute little to the topical requirements of the everyday practical experience of teaching history at primary and secondary schools. High calibre graduates of master’s degree courses, both males and females, with an evident talent for academic work and who possess theoretical, methodological, historiographic and linguistic abilities and general intellectual faculties are admitted to PhD history programmes at universities in the Czech Republic. University teaching staff will have to learn to live with the fact that the absolute majority of PhD history programme graduates will seek further careers outside the science of history and research. They will expect a much greater freedom regarding the subject matter, the cultivation of their own critical thinking and expression, a greater mastery of theoretical and methodological approaches, which they will utilise for example in top management of a whole number of governmental, public and private institutions.
The period when the exclusive study of history attracted merely future teachers of history and a numerically negligible group of future academics with outstanding results from secondary school and above average intellectual faculties came to an end in the Czech Republic also at the threshold of the 21st century. This, owing to political developments, occurred much later than at universities abroad.

VÁCLAV BŮŽEK: Výuka historie na univerzitách v České republice – tendence a perspektivy
Studie vystihuje některé tendence obecnějšího významu v současném stavu výuky historie na univerzitách v České republice. Pozornost věnuje způsobům ověřování intelektuálních předpokladů ke studiu historie při přijímacích zkouškách. Upozorňuje na klesající úroveň znalostí uchazečů a malou míru jejich motivace ke studiu. Na všech univerzitách v České republice se stalo skutečností strukturované studium historie, které je rozdělené na bakalářský a navazující magisterský stupeň. Podstatné změny doprovázejí studium učitelství dějepisu pro základní a střední školy. Absolventi doktorských studijních programů historie budou stále častěji hledat uplatnění mimo vědecké instituce. V České republice skončila počátkem 21. století doba, kdy exkluzivní studium historie lákalo pouze budoucí učitele dějepisu a úzce zaměřené vědce. Propojení s potřebami praxe vyžadují zvláště bakalářské programy rozmanitých historických oborů.

VÁCLAV BŮŽEK: The Teaching of History at Universities in the Czech Republic – Trends and Perspectives
This study outlines some trends of more general importance in the current state of history teaching at universities in the Czech Republic. It focuses on the means of assessing intellectual abilities to study history during entrance examinations. It raises concerns about candidates’ declining levels of knowledge and their lack of a proper motivation to study. It is now common at all universities in the Czech Republic that there is a structured programme of the study of history, which is divided into a baccalaureate programme level and the follow-on master’s degree. Significant changes have accompanied the university study of history for prospective history teachers at primary and secondary schools. PhD graduates of history will increasingly seek employment beyond academic and research institutions. The beginning of the 21st century brought to an end the period when exclusive study of history attracted merely future teachers of history and narrowly focused academics in the Czech Republic. Baccalaureate programmes of study involving different historical branches in particular require close links with the needs of everyday life.

* * *

FRANTIŠEK ŠMAHEL
The Closing Address to The IXth Congress of Czech Historians at Pardubice, 8th September 2006
In his concluding reflections to the IXth Congress of Czech Historians the author focused upon four issues:
Historikerstreit from a Czech point of view
With a significant delay Historikerstreit came knocking at the gate of Czech historiography. However, it is still an unanswered question whether there is to be a new dispute about the meaning of Czech history. True, sooner or later some hidden realities will come to the surface, they will make waves, yet in no time, as customary in the Czech Lands, everything will calm down. It is possible to be even bolder: Even if Czech historiography had already experienced its Historikerstreit, it would not have been much better. Historiography does not exist only to dwell upon itself. Its proper mission is to carry out scientific investigations, to publish, to teach and to protect cultural heritage in our archives, museums and galleries.
Czech historiography in the contemporary world and in contemporary science
Nearly everything that has been cast out of Czech history, has now been welcomed back: the aristocracy and post-White Mountain Catholicism, the local ethnic Germans and the Jesuits, the Capitalish enterpreneur Tomáš Baťa and even the Protectorate President Emil Hácha. Czech history is, however, too full of turns of fate to contain the memory of all those events. Zealots have started to cast out the Hussite movement, the left-wing avant-garde of the First Republic, and even President Beneš himself. Historians cannot wish for anything more. The past, cut to the quick and drawn to the stage, attracts the wider attention of individuals also. Even our Sudeten-German colleagues headed by the immortalised Ferdinand Seibt, who devoted themselves to the history of the lost motherland, have contributed to the inclusion of Czech history within the ranks of a European history. From now on, it will be increasingly up to the upcoming generation of researchers to ensure how much of a knowledge of Czech historiography is taken into consideration by those abroad.
The timetable for history lessons is not an end in itself
The so-called Bologna Scheme of undergraduate education resulted in chaos in university education, yet it gradually seems to be settling down to a definite order. The rapidly increasing numbers of students lacking study preconditions, which were common earlier, inevitably shifted the level of general education downwards to the baccaleurate rank. Consequently, the follow-up MA study dropped of its own accord to a mere upper introduction into the study of the respective branch. Since a proper qualification for research and pedagogical activities may only be acquired, as things are, in a PhD programme of study, it is vital that proper attention is paid to this. History has, never ever before, been afforded such a long period of instruction in the Czech educational system. Yet, it should not be looked upon with pride, considering that History is not a Maturita discipline.
History, the Historical Sciences and the Humanities
Everything seems to point out that the distance between the Humanities and Sciences is growing ever wider, also for the fact that the Social Sciences have not yet elaborated a reliable system of assessment, which would justify the allocation of financial resources on the basis of scientific results achieved. Natural scientific research usually requires enormous financial resources which can now be obtained in supranational competitions, primarily within the European Union. It is obvious that the allocation of multi-million Czech crown grants is based on the established rules and monitoring mechanisms. All of these strengthen the influence of bureaucratic elements both locally and in Brussels. This has not until now applied to the discipline of History since Framework Plans have at most taken Sociology into account. Yet, even if historical research were not to be sponsored by Brussels in future, its rules will increasingly be applied also at a local level.

FRANTIŠEK ŠMAHEL: Závěrečný projev na IX. Sjezdu českých historiků v Pardubicích 8. září 2006
Ve svých závěrečných úvahách na IX. Sjezdu českých historiků se autor zaměřil na čtyři otázky: Historikerstreit po česku, České dějepisectví v současném světě a v současné vědě, Nejde jen o počet hodin dějepisu, Historie, historické vědy a humanitní disciplíny.

FRANTIŠEK ŠMAHEL: The Closing Address to The IXth Congress of Czech Historians at Pardubice, 8th September 2006
In his concluding reflections to the IXth Congress of Czech Historians the author focused upon four issues: “Historikerstreit” from a Czech point of view, Czech historiography in the contemporary world and in contemporary science, The timetable for history lessons is not an end in itself and History, the Historical Sciences and the Humanities.

* * *

DUŠAN TŘEŠTÍK – JOSEF ŽEMLIČKA
O modelech vývoje přemyslovského státu
Za vzájemných kontaktů historiků Polska, tehdejšího Československa a Maďarska začala od šedesátých let 20. století vznikat ucelená koncepce vývoje středoevropských států. Prokazovala, že Čechy, Polsko a Uhry kráčely v 10.-12. století jinou cestou než evropský Západ. Zatímco po rozkladu karlovské říše směřoval na Západě dějinný pohyb k lennímu zřízení, tak středoevropské monarchie Přemyslovců, Piastovců a Arpádovců, aby vůbec mohly zajistit svoji existenci, musely důsledně a pod přísným dohledem „státu“ organizovat a exploatovat své domácí zdroje. K tomu si vytvářely i specifické formy dohledu a hmotného zajišťování svých potřeb (hradská organizace = Castle Organisation, tzv. služebná organizace).
Tento „model“, vycházející z hospodářských a sídelně historických možností střední Evropy na prahu a v počátcích středověku, se pokusil rozrušit Libor Jan, souborně v knize Václav II. a struktury panovnické moci (Brno 2006). Nabídl představu o reálném rozdělení správy do dvou přísně separovaných oblastí: „soukromé“ panovníkovy domény a „veřejnoprávní“ sféry, a to od samého počátku přemyslovské vlády v 10. až do jejího konce na začátku 14. století (1306). V tomto období čtyř set let se prakticky nic zásadního v povaze panovnické moci a řízení státu nemělo měnit. Zatímco na panovníkovu doménu měli dohlížet vilikové (latinsky villicus) vybavení i soudními pravomocemi, kteří se v 13. století přetvořili v tzv. „krajské rychtáře“, tak „veřejnosprávní“ oblast řídili správci knížecích hradů. Ale ti neměli „žít“ z podílů na výnosech shromážděných v provinciích, které spravovali, ale z beneficií, jakýchsi „quasilén“, které jim uděloval panovník a které se měly skládat výlučně z pozemků.
Tento pokus o „revizi“ středoevropské vývojové cesty podrobili oba autoři kritickému rozboru. Ukázali, že argumenty Libora Jana stojí na velice vratkých základech a vlastně se „točí v kruhu“. Nejenže se vyznačují překvapující neznalostí řady důležitých historiografických titulů, ale současně vykazují celou řadu logických nedostatků a vnitřních rozporů, které jsou leckdy opřeny o chybné překlady z latiny. O znalosti obecnějších souvislostí evropského vývoje ani nemluvě. Proto Dušan Třeštík a Josef Žemlička nepovažují svojí polemiku za diskusi s novou koncepcí, která by stav výzkumu posunula o krok dále, ale za věcnou kritiku nezdařené publikace. Ale to neznamená, že by se o „středoevropském modelu“ a jeho vztahu k celkovému evropskému vývoji nemělo diskutovat. Naopak, taková (ovšem kvalifikovaná) diskuse je o to aktuálnější, že západní medievistika dosud nebere specifickou cestu střední Evropy příliš na vědomí.

DUŠAN TŘEŠTÍK – JOSEF ŽEMLIČKA
On the Development Models of the Przemyslid State
From the beginning of the 1960s onwards mutual contacts between historians from Poland, the then Czechoslovakia and Hungary led to the emergence of a comprehensive concept on the development of Central European states. It demonstrated that between the 10th and 12th centuries Poland, the Czech Lands and the Magyar Lands walked a different path to that of the European West. Whereas in the West the decline of the Charlemagne Empire meant that history inevitably marched towards a feudal order, the Central European monarchies of the Przemyslids, the Piasts and the Arpáds, in order to secure their very existence, had to organise and exploit their local resources rigorously and under the ever watchful eye of “the state.” For this purpose they also created specific forms to supervise and provide for their material needs (e.g. Castle Organisation, the so-called service organisation).
This „model“, based on the economic possibilities and travelling courts of Central Europe on the threshold of the Middle Ages and in its early stage, has been challenged by Libor Jan in his comprehensive study Václav II. a struktury panovnické moci (Wenceslas II and the Structures of Sovereign Power), Brno 2006. His concept suggested the real division of administration into two strictly separated areas: the Sovereign’s „private“ domain and the „public“ sphere, supposedly existing from the very beginning of Przemyslid rule in the 10th century until its demise at the beginning of the 14th century (1306). Practically nothing of importance in terms of sovereign rule and governance of the state changed during this period of four hundred years. Villeins (in Latin villicus) were responsible for supervising the Sovereign’s domain and were also given juridical responsibilities. In the 13th century they were transformed into „krajské rychtáře (chief regional magistrates).“ On the other hand, the „public“ sphere was ruled by governors of princely castles. They were, however, not supposed to „live on“ a share of the revenues collected in the provinces they administered but on benefices, I.e. sort of „quasifiefs“, which were awarded to them by the Sovereign and which were to consist exclusively of land holdings.
This attempt at a „revision“ of the developmental route of Central Europe has been critically analysed by both the authors named above. They have clearly demonstrated that Libor Jan’s arguments stand on very shaky ground and in fact „move round in a circle“. In fact, they do not merely demonstrate a surprising ignorance of a number of relevant historiographic works, but they simultaneously contain an entire range of logical shortcomings and internal contradictions, which are on occassion derived from erroneous translations from the Latin. This is not to mention a lack of knowledge of the more generalised framework of European development. For this reason Dušan Třeštík and Josef Žemlička do not consider their study to be a polemic on the new concept, which could advance research one step forward, but to be an objective criticism of a flawed publication. Yet, it does not mean that the „Central European model“ and its relationship to the development of Europe as such should not be discussed. On the contrary, such a discussion (obviously well founded) is even more topical today because Western Mediaeval Studies do not yet seem to take much account of the specific route followed in Central Europe.