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




ŠMAHEL František – NODL Martin
Kutnohorský dekret po 600 letech. Bilance dosavadního bádání
[Six Hundred Years on from The Kutná Hora Decree. Survey of Research to Date]
s. 1-45

The Kutná Hora Decree of King Wenceslas IV. from 19th January 1409 amending the so-called university „votes“ is one of the most famous, yet not entirely indisputable events in the history of Prague University and the Czech Lands. Following a brief retrospective of research carried up to this time, the authors primarily deal with the issues which are still open or disputed.
Principally, it is disputed whether the corporation of the four university „nations“ at Prague Studium Generale was implemented from its foundation, since the first mention of their existence only appears in the Ordinaciones of the Prague Archbishop and University Chancellor Arnošt of Pardubice from 1360. All the evidence indicates that the actual split of masters and students into university nations only occured when their numbers increased and the division into similarly large national curias, following the example of Paris, might have seemed the most suitable option for the University administration.
Until the early 1380s the co-existence of the Prague university nations seemed without evident contradictions. The principle of parity was probably applied even when the first two master congregations were founded, namely Charles College and the College of All Saints, connected to it, in 1366, although the Founding Charter of Charles College does not mention the manner of allocating posts. It appears, according to the Chronicle of Beneš Krabice of Weitmile, that the first six posts were shared amongst the three members of the Bohemian university nation, the remaining three fell to members of the remaining nations. Although we do not know how the collegiatures were allocated during the twenty years following 1366, we can unequivocally conclude from the College’s composition prior to the Archbishop’s intervention in the 1384 elections that the Bohemian university nation held only one quarter of the posts before the dispute concerning these college posts erupted. It was primarily this fact, to which the ambitions of Masters from the Bohemian university nation, active at the University, was linked, together with the initiating role of the Archbishop of Prague John of Jenštejn, that led to an open dispute on the allocation of posts in the master collleges. Let us emphasise, that prior to the the issue of the Kutná Hora Decree, this dispute was, indeed, an isolated one. After 1390 the agreement on the allocation of posts in the master colleges at the University did not lead to any more tension, and thus, it was not, the cause for the later clashes amongst the individual university nations.
The second agreement, and for the university nations a much more important one, whose violation the masters of the three foreign nations saw as the principal argument for the rejection of the Kutná Hora Decree, was known as Concordia nacionum. Its conclusion towards the end of February 1385 was preceded by the above mentioned legal dispute concerning posts in colleges. In the course of this dispute the representatives of the three university nations finally agreed to recognize the supremacy of the Archbishop, provided that this only involved strictly defined questions, ensuing from his „mandates“. Under pressure from King Wenceslas IV. the parties to the dispute reached an agreement, which in its consequences eliminated the Archbishop’s power and led to the conclusion of a general agreement on the „harmony of nations“ (concordia nacionum). This agreement became a common legal norm, which on the one hand ruled that the contemporary parity representation of the individual nations in the administration of the university community be maintained. On the other hand, it prohibited the stirring up of legal disputes between the individual nations and referring them for resolution outwith the university community, be it the ruler himself or the Archbishop as University Chancellor, or even the Papal Curia. A new rector had to swear on the Concordia nacionum, and so did all who wanted to become part of the university body, after their matriculation.
According to the contemporary Defence of the Kutná Hora Decree from the pen of Master John of Jesenice, Bohemian masters, at that time, already „exceeded in numbers many times those of German masters and in all sciences and abilities rose above the foreigners“. Thanks to an increase in the posts in colleges and houses of the Bohemian nation, the number of local and currently active masters – regents of the Art Faculty increased year on year, nevertheless, they merely formed at most two fifths of the entire professorial body before 1409. There was also an increase in the absolute numbers of students from the Czech Lands with the baccalaureate degree from the Arts Faculty, but their proportion surprisingly decreased. If between 1399-1405 there were 21 per cent of students from the Bohemian nation amongst the succesful graduates, in the following three years their proportion fell by 4 per cent, i.e. well under one quarter. The tendency towards an ever increasing interest on the part of foreign students to study in Prague, which corresponded with a decrease in matriculation numbers at most neighbouring universities, must have caused concerns amongst the reform-minded minority of Bohemian masters headed by John Hus; one concern being that a potential circle of their future opponents might further expand. Thus, it was not an injustice in the division of the university votes but, on the contrary, the fears of their influence diminishing, that might have stood in the background of the political efforts of the Hus circle. Indeed, their arguments in terms of the natural law and the national language could only consecrate their efforts and give them further justification
Although the facts of the entire cause have already been reasonably well clarified, a number of disputed questions still remains. The authors have attempted to find acceptable answers within their comprehensive survey of events from the spring of 1408 until the departure of foreign students and masters from Prague in the summer of the following year. No matter how the nationalistic clashes, connected to the conflicting attitudes towards Hus’s reform movement at the turn of 1408-1409, culminated and contributed towards their dramatic outcome, the voluntary decision of King Wenceslas IV was, however, the immediate and the most decisive. He responded to the opposition of the three foreign nations towards the convening of the Council of Pisa, on which the King pinned his hopes for his return to the throne of the Holy Roman Empire. Further research will undoubtedly clarify some assumptions and perhaps discover yet-unknown source testimonies, although it is unlikely that they could substantially alter the overall understanding of this epoch-making event.
The demonstrative secession of the majority of foreign students and masters deeply influenced, through its international and local consequences, not merely University affairs but also the progress of the Czech reform movement. Prague University, thus, via facti, became yet another provincial institution of higher learning and definitively lost its authoritative prestige it had enjoyed during the reign of Charles IV. This degradation had to happen sooner or later. The temporary control of the Arts Faculty made it easier for the Hus reform circle to expand its legal campaign. However, large numbers of learned opponents simultaneously emerged in neighbouring countries and found their life-long mission in the fight against the Czech heresy. The exodus of seven to eight hundred foreign students and masters also had a serious economic impact upon the infrastructure of services and trades in the Old Town of Prague. The university exodus also increased nationalistic tensions in the Prague co-towns since the majority of affected traders, publicans and various tradesmen belonged to the German population.
The Decree of Kutná Hora assumed its „second life“ in the role of a “stand-in” factor in Czech-German relations. Earlier history viewed the events surrounding the Decree from the nationality and confessionary standpoint of individual authors. The Third Reich and Sudeten German viewpoints combined into the concept of Prague university as the first German or even Holy Roman university. Viewed from a contemporary point of view, the prevailing view of Czech historiography defending the Decree of Wenceslas IV in its entirety was also understandable. Negative and apologetic views were justified on the basis of nationality, confession or otherwise ideologized views of history. Yet, has the time now come to view events without these handcuffs? The authors have made an attempt, since it is no longer necessary to defend other higher principles than the objectivity of academic research. One can only get closer to it, but it cannot be grasped, as this would spell the end of historiography itself.

Kutnohorský dekret krále Václava IV. z 19. ledna 1409 o změně tzv. univerzitních „hlasů“ ve prospěch domácí korporace náleží k proslulým událostem v dějinách pražské univerzity i českých zemí. Po stručné retrospektivě dosavadního bádání se autoři předkládají vlastní řešení některých sporných otázek. Třebaže nacionální rozepře spojené s protichůdnými postoji k Husovu reformním hnutí přispěly k jejich dramatickému vyústění, bezprostředním a rozhodujícím aktem se stalo voluntaristické rozhodnutí krále Václava IV. vyvolané odporem tří cizích národů ke svolání koncilu v Pise, k němuž upínal své naděje na návrat na říšský královský stolec.

The Kutná Hora Decree of King Wenceslas IV. from 19 January 1409 amending the so-called university „votes“ to benefit the local corporation is one of the famous events in the history of Prague University and the Czech Lands, also. Following a brief retrospective of research carried up to the present time, the authors here present their own resolution of some disputed questions. Despite the fact that nationalistic disputes, connected to the opposing attitudes towards the Hus reform movement, contributed to their dramatic outcomes, it was the voluntary decision of King Wenceslas IV, that was the immediate and the most decisive. He responded to the opposition of the three foreign nations towards the convening of the Council of Pisa, to which the King pinned his hopes for his return to the throne of the Holy Roman Empire.

Key words: Bohemia, Prague, The Charles University, Colleges, Concordia nacionum, Quodlibet Disputation 1409, Czech reform movement, The Kutná Hora Decree

OGILVIE Sheilagh
Vesnická obec a tzv. „druhé nevolnictví“ v raně novověkých Čechách
[Communities and the ‘Second Serfdom’ in Early Modern Bohemia]
s. 46-94

What role did the village community play under the ‘second serfdom’? Understanding community institutions is central to our interpretation of the economy, politics, religion, culture, social structure, and demography of early modern European societies, and to any lessons these might hold for modern developing economies. Yet for many parts of pre-industrial Europe – including Bohemia, the subject of this article – we know little about how village communes functioned in practice and how they interacted with other major social institutions. This is particularly important for the societies of eastern-central and eastern Europe, where manorial institutions developed strongly during the early modern period. This article uses a detailed case-study of the northern Bohemian estate of Frýdlant / Friedland to investigate how communal and manorial institutions interacted under this so-called ‘second serfdom’.
Theoretical approaches to manorial-communal relations under serfdom fall into three main categories: ‘manorial dominance’, ‘communal autonomy’, and communal-manorial ‘dualism’. The ‘manorial dominance’ view argues that under serfdom, manors were strong and communes were weak. As landlord powers expanded during the ‘second serfdom’, it is assumed, communes weakened even further. The ‘communal autonomy’ view, by contrast, argues that manorial regulations only existed on paper and were impossible to implement in practice because villagers pursued their own independent strategies behind the defences of communal ‘social capital’. Many ‘autonomy’ theorists come close to arguing that serfdom did not actually matter and that there was little difference in practice between eastern ‘serfs’ and western ‘free’ peasants. This article, by contrast, advances a theory of communal-manorial ‘dualism’, whereby serfdom required both strong manorial institutions and strong communal institutions.
This finding emerges from a micro-study of daily interactions between the manor, communes, and individuals in the north Bohemian estate of Frýdlant / Friedland between 1583 and 1692. Using a database of manorial court minutes, serf petitions, censuses, estate lists, and tax registers, this article deploys a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches to analyse patterns of activity, as individual serfs sought to solve the problems of their everyday lives within the constraints imposed by both manor and commune.
This Bohemian study provides no support for ‘manorial dominance’ theories which assume that the ‘second serfdom’ succeeded because manors were all-powerful and communes supine. On the contrary, Bohemian communes under the second serfdom had considerable power. Indeed, their cooperation was essential for the manor to increase its exactions. In certain important respects – such as conflict resolution and contract enforcement – decision-making power actually shifted away from the manor and toward the commune as the second serfdom progressed. Thus micro-level evidence provides little support for the view that the second serfdom succeeded because powerful manorial institutions weakened or replaced communal institutions.
These findings cast doubt on arguments that ascribe the divergent development of post-medieval eastern and western Europe to the weakness of peasant communes in the east. It suggests, rather, that the growing power of overlords in eastern Europe was partly dependent on their successful co-option of communal powers and the oligarchies that dominated them. What did differ between eastern and western Europe, as the Bohemian evidence confirms, was the relationship of both manor and commune to the ruler. Whereas in western Europe, rulers increasingly diversified their political investments among rival social groups, in the east they concentrated them on the great landlords, who could therefore rely on state coercion to support them against both peasants and townsmen. This political reality created a strong incentive for communal oligarchs to collaborate with, rather than resist, manorial pressure.
But the lack of empirical support for a ‘manorial dominance’ view does not mean, as is so often claimed by proponents of the ‘communal autonomy’ view, that serfdom did not actually matter. This article shows that communes did not provide a sphere of autonomy in which villagers could act independently of manorial regulations. Rather, manorial officials intervened systematically and strategically in most central aspects of serfs’ decision-making, and both communal officers and ordinary villagers appealed to manorial institutions when communal institutions failed to deliver desired outcomes. Overlords may have exercised their rights of intervention rarely, but their entitlement to do so still affected people’s decisions. Even violations of manorial regulations simply created a black-market ‘informal sector’ in which the fact that transactions were illegitimate rendered them risky, costly, open to exploitation, and incapable of contributing to long-term economic development. Evidence from Bohemia suggests that serfdom did matter, but in ways that can only be teased out by close, local-level investigation into how it affected the everyday options of serf women and men.
A ‘dualism’ view, according to which serfdom required both a strong manor and a strong commune, is borne out by these Bohemian findings. But this article questions two further assumptions usually accepted by theories of dualism, manorial dominance, and communal autonomy alike. For one thing, serfdom does not seem to have meant that communal institutions – whether strong or weak – increasingly became mere tools of the manor. During the ‘second serfdom’ the manor on this Bohemian estate actually intervened decreasingly in the commune, because its own growing coercive power diminished its incentive to incur the costs of arbitrating conflicts irrelevant to manorial interests. As overlords became more secure in their ability to extort rents, labour services, taxes, and conscripts from rural society with the assistance of communal oligarchs, they perceived less advantage in purchasing legitimacy from individual serfs by providing justice or redressing wrongs.
Finally, this article casts doubt on the widely held view that the ‘social capital’ of shared norms, information transmission, and collective action characteristic of pre-industrial communities was unambiguously beneficial for human well-being or long-term social improvement. Rural communes were highly stratified and riven by conflict. Village office-holders were recruited from the well-off landed families, ran the commune in their own interests, and preferred the manor not to intervene in village affairs. The manor’s gradual devolution of costly contract enforcement and conflict resolution out to the communes benefited the village oligarchy but harmed weaker villagers such as the lower social strata, outsiders, and women. Such marginal individuals were never especially favoured by either manor or commune, but – as findings from early modern western Europe illustrate – benefited from tensions between the two which offered an alternative authority to which they might appeal. Serfdom was bad for villagers in many ways, but one of them was that it reduced outside intervention in communal affairs, exposing the weak and vulnerable not only to coercion by the manor, but also to the deployment of communal ‘social capital’ against them by their own more powerful neighbours within the community.

This article explores the role played by the village community in the so-called ‘second serfdom’, using a database of manorial court records, serf petitions, and other micro-level documents for the Bohemian estate of Frýdlant between 1583 and 1692. It casts doubt on ‘manorial dominance’ theories which assume that the ‘second serfdom’ succeeded because manors were all-powerful and communes supine. But it also questions ‘communal autonomy’ theories, according to which villagers were largely unconstrained by manorial regulations and serfdom did not actually matter. Instead, the Frýdlant evidence supports a theory of communal-manorial ‘dualism’, whereby serfdom required both strong manorial institutions and strong communal institutions. The Frýdland findings vividly illustrate the dark side of both manorial regulation and communal ‘social capital’, showing how overlords and village oligarchies systematically colluded to coerce weaker villagers.

Key words: Bohemia, serfdom, village community, social capital, Czech history

Československo-italská politická smlouva z roku 1924
[The Czechoslovak-Italian Political Treaty of 1924]
s. 95-118

In May 1924 Czechoslovakia and Italy concluded a political treaty, known as The Treaty of Cordial Collaboration. The motivation for Prague in signing this document differed fundamentally from that of Rome. Czechoslovakia primarily aligned itself with France, with which it concluded a treaty of alliance at the beginning of 1924. Yet, Czechoslovakia was not interested in being unilaterally linked to Paris and was also worried by the contemporary rhetoric that it had become a French vassal. By its treaty with Italy, Prague aimed to re-introduce a balance in its foreign policy. In addition, an Italian-Yugoslavian rapprochement occurred at that time, which was unequivocally welcomed by Czechoslovakia. It wanted to follow the example of its Yugoslav ally; to affiliate itself to the treaty and thus strengthen the status quo in Central and South-East Europe. By concluding the Treaty it also wanted to prevent Italy from supporting Hungarian and Bulgarian revisionist claims. Italy saw the Treaty as yet another step in its power struggle with France; Rome wanted to strengthen its position in Central and South-East Europe and to gain an influence upon the policy of the Small Entente (an alliance of Czechoslovakia, the Kingdom of the Serbs, the Croats and the Slovenes (Yugoslavia) and Rumania). Shortly after the conclusion of the Treaty, serious differences between Czechoslovakia and Italy emerged. At first there were ideological reasons for this (political leaders in Prague expressed their opposition to fascism following the murder of the Socialist MP Giacomo Matteotti, and furthemore they were convinced that Mussolini would soon fall from power). But, differences from the political point of view, which were already evident when the Treaty was concluded, also appeared. In the terms of the Treaty, Czechoslovakia and Italy were to adopt a joint approach in Central and South-East Europe (concerning the Peace Treaties from Trianon, Saint-Germain and Neuilly). Yet, this never took place in the years that followed. Czechoslovakia and Italy were rivals in the struggle for domination in this part of Europe. Their Treaty of 1924 was thus never put into practice. Czechoslovakia was, nevertheless, interested in its extension, which was rejected by Italy. Thus, the Treaty expired in 1929.

Studie se věnuje československo-italské smlouvě o spolupráci z roku 1924. Rozebírá motivace obou zemí, které je dovedly k podpisu smlouvy i okolnosti jejího uzavření. Následně ukazuje, že vztahy Československa a Itálie se smlouvou fakticky nikdy neřídily a ta proto neměla reálný význam. Československo přesto stálo o prodloužení platnosti smlouvy, Itálie to ale odmítla. Smlouva proto v roce 1929 vypršela.

This study is devoted to the Czechoslovak-Italian Treaty on Collaboration of 1924. It analyses the motivation of both parties, which led them to sign the Treaty, and the circumstances leading to its conclusion. It, then, shows that Czechoslovakia and Italy never, in fact, observed the Treaty in their relations and it was, thus, of no real importance. Czechoslovakia was, nevertheless, interested in extending the force of this Treaty, but this was rejected by Italy. The Treaty consequently expired in 1929.

Key words: Czechoslovakia, Italy, 1924, political treaty, Edvard Beneš, Benito Mussolini


Zánik Českého časopisu historického po únoru 1948 ve světle dobových dokumentů
[The Downfall of The Czech Historical Review after February 1948 as Seen in Contemporary Sources]
s. 119-147

The Czech Historical Review has always belonged to the essential and fundamental periodicals of the Czech historiography, its publishing has been suspended only twice – both due to serious political events in Middle Europe. In 1941 it was suspended by the censorship, because its editors (Josef Šusta, Karel Hrubý and Josef Klik) were not able to adapt their work to the Nazi propaganda, they were trying to maintain the scientific quality and they did not want to fulfill the requirements given to them by collaborators. The publishing of The Czech Historical Review was restored by its publisher – The Historical Club, which was the most influential professional association of historians in Czechoslovakia at that time. The Czech Historical Review was officially restored in 1946, but the preparations for the first volume had been worked on since the liberation of Czechoslovakia in May 1945. The most influential historians from the Prague University, professors Václav Chaloupecký and Karel Stloukal, together with the chairman of The Historical Club Jaroslav Werstadt established the new editorial board; they were supported by the wide group of historians of all political views, including Marxist historians. This cooperation was more or less working until the February communist coup d'état 1948, when the Communist party of Czechoslovakia started the attempts to gain control of the interpretation of the past, consequently it wanted to control the major historical review. While during the interwar period The Czech Historical Review was being published several times a year, after the War it was planned to publish three issues a year. Contrary to the plan, as provisional measure, only one issue (as 47 volume) was published for the year 1946 at the beginning of 1947, next issue was a double-volume 48-49 for years 1947-1948 published in the first half of 1949. In October 1949 was published (not really in a logical way) the second issue to the double-volume which formally consisted of 48-50 volumes, the reason for these actions was to eliminate delays in publishing. The Czech Historical Review itself had been endangered by the Marxist historians’ desire to take it over since the spring 1949. Although the first attempts were not successful, it was more or less obvious that it would have been impossible for The Czech Historical Review to stay under the jurisdiction of the association which wanted to be non-partisan and wanted to avoid all ideological pressures including Marxism-Leninism as a base for a “scientific” work. This study deals with the publishing of The Czech Historical Review in 1949 and discussions in The Historical Club about the possibilities of persistence of the magazine (especially in the annexes). The end of The Czech Historical Review came after the suspension of the publishing permission which had belonged to The Historical Club. The magazine was re-established as a platform for Marxist historiography with a new publisher in 1953 as The Czechoslovak Historical Review. The original name was restored after the fall of communism in 1990.

This study deals with the changes of The Czech Historical Review in the connection with the changes of the political situation emerging due to rising communist power in Czechoslovakia. The Czech Historical Review was established in 1895 and his publishing was suspended for the first time during the World War II (1941). After the war, there was restored the editorial board and there were published several volumes (1946-1949), but during that time the conflict between democratic historians and exponents of the Marxist-Leninist ideology in historiography was under way. This conflict became apparent in 1949 during the Marxist attempt to take over the magazine and during the temporal suspension of the magazine.

Key words: The Czech Historical Review, Historical Club, Marxist historiography, Marxism-Leninism, scientific magazines, Czech history, February 1948, 20th century


BENEŠ Zdeněk
Demýtizovat Golla… Kritické úvahy nad kritickým portrétem historika a jeho působení [De-mythologizing Goll… Critical Notes on a Critical Portrait of the Historian and his Work]
s. 148-151

Příspěvek reflektuje dosavadní dílo Bohumila Jirouška a soustřeďuje se především na jeho kritický přístup k formování a působení tzv. Gollovy školy, reflektuje právě na Gollově příkladě roli historika v české společnosti.

This contribution reflects on the work of Bohumil Jiroušek carried out until the present and it primarily focuses upon his critical approach to the formation and activities of what is known as the Goll School. It reflects upon the role of a historian in Czech society, using Goll as an example.
Key words: Czech lands, historiography, Jaroslav Goll


Přehledy bádání a historiografických studií

Poděbradové (Úvaha na okraj monografie o jedné větvi šlechtického rodu)
[The Lords of Poděbrady /A Note in the Margin on a Monograph concerning one branch of a noble family/]
s. 152-159

Review article hodnotí v širších historiografických souvislostech metodologický přístup k dějinám nejvýznamnější větve šlechtického rodu pánů z Kunštátu a Poděbrad, výrazně spoluutvářející podobu českých zemí, zvláště Českého království a Slezska v pozdním středověku a v raném novověku. Dějiny Poděbradů, jejichž mocenský vzestup souvisel s působením „husitského krále“ Jiřího z Poděbrad, všestranně zpracoval početný kolektiv specialistů z Univerzity Hradec Králové v knize vydané na jaře 2008.

This review evaluates, in a wider historiographical framework, the methodological approach to the history of the most important branch of the House of the Lords of Kunštát and Poděbrady, which significantly influenced the shape of the Lands of Bohemia, in particular the Kingdom of Bohemia and Silesia in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Age. The history oh the Lords of Poděbrady, whose rise to power was connected to the activities of the „Hussite King“ George of Poděbrady, has been comprehensively dealt with by numerous experts from Hradec Králové University in a publication printed in the spring of 2008.

Key words: Lords of Poděbrady, Czech Lands, Silesia, Late Middle Ages, Early Modern History

Dějiny Albánie - poslední opus významného českého historika
[History of Albania - the Final Opus by an Outstanding Czech Historian]
s. 160-168

Článek se zabývá poslední syntetickou prací nedávno zesnulého historika Pavla Hradečného Dějiny Albánii. V širší komparaci zařazuje Hradečného dílo do kontextu výsledků dosavadního bádání české historiografie o dějinách jihovýchodní Evropy. Zamýšlí se zároveň nad aktuálním stavem české historické balkanistiky.

This article deals with the final synthetic work, History of Albania, from the pen of the recently deceased historian Pavel Hradečný. In a wider comparison, it places Hradečný’s work within the framework of the results of contemporary Czech historiography concerning the history of South-East Europe. It also contemplates the current of Czech Historical Balkan Studies.

Key words: The history of Albania, Czech Historical Balkan Studies, the nature of national identity of the Albanians, Enverism


BEHRINGER Wolfgang, Kulturgeschichte des Klimas. Von der Eiszeit bis zur globalen Erwärmung (Petr Kreuz) s. 169 - BLUSSÉ Leonard, Visible Cities: Canton, Nagasaki and Batavia and the Coming of the Americans (Michal Wanner) s. 172 - ESSEN Andrzej, Polityka Czechosłowacji w Europie Środkowej w latach 1918-1932 (Ondřej Houska) s. 175 - CORNWELL John, Hitlerův papež. Tajný příběh Pia XII. (Jiří Lach) s. 178 - URBÁŠEK Pavel, Vysokoškolský vzdělávací systém v letech tzv. normalizace (Jiří Lach) s. 181

s. 184

Výběr ČČH
Ze zahraničních časopisů

s. 215



Jaroslav Eršil (20. 1. 1926 – 18. 11. 2008)
(Zdeňka Hledíková)
s. 221

Jaroslav Mezník (31. 12. 1928 – 28. 11. 2008)
(František Šmahel)
s. 226

Konference a výstavy

Korunní země v dějinách českého státu IV.
(Jana Fantysová-Matějková)
s. 229

Mezinárodní sympozium „Evropská města ve středověku“
(Martin Musílek)
s. 231

Třináctý mezinárodní kongres středověkého kanonického práva
(Dominik Budský)
s. 233

Terra cognita. Prostor a jeho interpretace v perspektivě studií o minulosti
(Marie Bláhová)
s. 234

Malá a velká společenství ve středověkých a raně novověkých dějinách Polska a českých zemí
(Miloslav Polívka)
s. 236

Turecké války, konstrukce obrazu toho druhého a šlechtická kultura ve středovýchodní Evropě raného novověku – mezinárodní sympozia ve Štýrském Hradci a Lipsku
(Václav Bůžek)
s. 238

Bratrský rozkol v Habsburském domě (1608-1611). 6. mezinárodní vědecké sympozium a zároveň 14. workshop pracovní skupiny Dvory Rakouského domu
(Tomáš Sterneck)
s. 241

Sběratelství, čtení a překládání – česká knihovna knížat z Eggenberku v kontextu doby
(Václav Bůžek)
s. 244

Nobilitace ve světle písemných pramenů
(Aleš Zářický)
s. 245

Multilingvismus ve střední Evropě v době osvícenství. Teoretické přístupy
(Jitka Skřičková)
s. 246

Ztracená blízkost. Praha - Norimberk v proměnách století
(Martina Maříková)
s. 247

Kořeny multikulturnosti Slezska se zvláštním zřetelem na Horní Slezsko
(Marie Bláhová)
s. 249

Lužické archivnictví. Vědecká konference k 75. výročí založení státního filiálního archivu v Budyšíně
(Petr Hrachovec)
s. 251

Slavkovská konference o mecenáši moravského studentstva Václavu Kounicovi
(Pavel Cibulka)
s. 252

Paměť města. Město a jeho obyvatelé ve 20. století
(Lucie Procházková)
s. 253

Knihy došlé redakci
s. 255

Výtahy z českých časopisů a sborníků
s. 255

Zasláno redakci

ŠMAHEL František
Zasláno redakci ad ČČH 106, 2008, s. 627-650
s. 262