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

ISSN 0862-6111
ročník 108/2010
č. 3/2010
s. 381-592



K ústrojí přemyslovského státu. Čechy a Morava jako země, království, markrabství
(On the Mechanism of the Przemyslid State. Bohemia and Moravia as a Land, a Kingdom, a Margraviate)
s. 381-405

The Przemyslids, the dynasty ruling Bohemia, annexed Moravia for perpetuity to its Bohemian core at the beginning of the 11th century. This constitutional union of both lands has lasted until the present day (as the Czech Republic). In 1085, Vratislav II acquired a lifetime royal title and similarly Vladislav II‘ s (1158) royal title was limited for life. It was only Przemysl Ottokar I. (1197-1230) who was granted the hereditary royal title in 1198, which was solemnly certified by the Roman Emperor and German King on 26 September 1212 (the Golden Bull of Sicily).
The development of Moravia was more complex as in the middle of the 11th century it was divided into two and later three parts (partes). The branches of the so-called Moravian Przemyslids, with each ruler having the title of Prince, ruled in Olomouc, Brno and Znojmo. They were subject to the rule of the Prince of „the Bohemians“ (dux Boemorum), whose seat was in Prague, yet simultaneously they were not excluded from claiming the Prague throne, if they happened to be the most senior representatives of the dynasty at any given time (the so-called Seniority Law of Břetislav I. from the mid-11th century). At the end of the 12th century, the time of the heightened inner-dynastic struggles, Conrad Otto, the Znojmo Prince, succeeded in achieving a degree of autonomy in 1182 and he consequently adopted the title of Margrave. A major section of historiography (especially Moravian historiography) refers to Moravia as a Margraviate from that time onwards. However, the Land itself was not known as such in written sources and it was termed a „land“ (terra). The Bohemian Kingdom (regnum Boemie) was understood to be unified; it was seen as a monarchy composed of two lands, Bohemia and Moravia. It was only in the second quarter of the 13th century, during the rule of Margrave Przemyslid († 1239), when Moravia came to be customarily referred to as a margraviate.
This development culminated during the reign of Przemysl Ottokar II. (1253-1278), who over the years became Dukes of Austria, Styria and Carinthia (and the Lord of other regions), in addition to his own „hereditary“ lands (Bohemia, Moravia). In order to advance his title, he had the Margraviate of Bohemia confirmed as an independent Imperial fiefdom. In the Privilege of King Richard of Cornwall the Kingdom of Bohemia and the Margraviate of Moravia (1262), then, stood as two entities, two Imperial duchies, which had been properly held from the Empire by Przemysl’s father and his forefathers (de principatibus regni Boemie et marchionatus Moravie... pater et progenitoresw tui iuste et racionalibiter ab imperio tenuerunt). The status of Moravia, which, in the spirit of earlier documents, was considered part of regnum Bohemiae, was clouded by this formulation to such a degree that it was only Charles IV’s Edict of April 1348, which clearly defined the Moravian Margraviate as the fiefdom of the Bohemian King.
Indeed, the formation of medieval Moravia into a specific part of the Bohemian state was aided firstly by the Margrave, then it developed further through the term Margraviate as a designation for the land, which was unified, yet from the mid-11th century divided into several partes. Przemysl Ottokar II‘s innovation granted to Moravia has thus lasted for centuries.

Český středověký stát se od počátku 11. století natrvalo skládal ze dvou hlavních územních celků: z Čech a Moravy. Jejich dosti unikátní vztah prošel několika etapami, během nichž se na jedné straně upevňoval charakter jednotné monarchie, na druhé straně se obě „země“ (terra) vyhraňovaly jako svébytné celky s vlastním územím, vlastní šlechtickou obcí a vlastní vnitřní správou a organizací. Zatímco s Čechami byl od sklonku 12. století spojen dědičný královský titul, tak Morava se postupně a teprve od druhé čtvrtiny 13. století vědomě vyhraňovala jako markrabství. Svorníkem, který Čechy s Moravou stmeloval, byl český král. Jelikož v závěru přemyslovského období (od poloviny 13. století do roku 1306) se český vládnoucí rod dramaticky zúžil, byl český král zároveň nositelem hodnosti markraběte Moravy.

The Bohemian medieval state was composed of two major territories: Bohemia and Moravia from the beginning of the 11th century. Their rather unique relationship went through several stages, during which the character of a united monarchy strengthened on the one side, on the other side both „lands“ (terrae) formed themselves as independent entities with their own territory, their own aristocratic estates and their own internal administration and organization. Whereas a hereditary royal title was attached to Bohemia from the end of the 12th century, Moravia then gradually, although only from the second quarter of the 13th century, consciously formed itself into a margraviate. The linchpin, which welded Bohemia with Moravia together was the King of Bohemia. As the ranks of the ruling Bohemian dynasty dramatically thinned towards the end of the Przemyslid period (from the mid-13th century until 1306), the King of Bohemia became simultaneously the holder of the title Margrave of Moravia.

Key words: Aristocracy, Bohemia, Bohemian State, Bohemian Kingdom, Central Europe, King, Land, Margrave, Margraviate, Middle Ages, Moravia, Przemyslid dynasty

Konfesijní politika šlechtických vrchností a šlechtická konfesionalizace v Čechách a na Moravě v 16. a 17. století
(The Confessional Policy of Aristocratic Masters and Aristocratic Confessionalism in Bohemia and Moravia in the 16th and 17th Centuries)

s. 406-442

This study would like to draw attention to the difficulties of the strict application of a German model of confessionalism upon Czech history of the 16th and 17th centuries. In addition, it attempts to introduce other interpretative possibilities alongside some other negative aspects of the concept of aristocratic confessionalism. This concept was defined in the 1590s in connection with the progress of confessional conditions in the Czech and Austrian Lands. The important role of the nobility in forming confessional conditions in both Crown Lands was determined firstly by their role in the political system of Bohemia and Moravia; secondly by their influence on the appointment and activities of the Lower Utraquist Consistory in the pre-White Mountain period and primarily by the extent of their land holdings. Approximately three quarters of all serfs, whose principal and sole master was their landed overlord, lived on the estates of the upper and lower nobility in the period under research. Aristocratic confessionalism tries to demonstrate the key role of the landed aristocratic masters in their attempts to confessionalize their serfs in the 16th century and in the early 17th century, as well as the role of aristocratic estate owners during the en-masse re-catholicization in the post-White Mountain period when the rule of aristocratic governance strengthened. This study has attempted to complement previous studies devoted to aristocratic confessionalism by presenting seven possibilities at the disposal of landed gentry as to how they could influence a confessional situation on their estates. It involved the exercise of patronage in relation to churches on their own estates; the activities of ecclesiastics (primarily missionaries or non-Catholic clergy) arriving from outwith their estates; the publication of ecclesiastical rules or other normative documents ruling on the conduct of both ecclesiastics and serfs living on the estate; granting privileges or economic benefits to the preferred confession; religious patronage; the activities of estate officials as the most important representatives of local governance on the estate and different forms of violent control exercised against the serfs. Yet, aristocratic confessionalism is not intended to be understood as a one-directional procedure, exclusively co-ordinated from above, albeit this factor was largely decisive. Indeed, it attempts to interpret the confessional policy of aristocratic masters as a method of social behaviour in which the aristocrat as a landed overlord was one participant, alongside various intermediaries of his decision-making, in addition to ecclesiastics and primarily serfs against whom these measures were implemented, with a varying degrees of success. However, only analytical case studies devoted to the situation on a particular aristocratic estate can demonstrate the impact or effectiveness of those directives; the involvement of different participants or on the contrary the response and techniques of resistence on the part of urban and rural subjects. Indeed, the author's doctorate is one example of such a case study. It analysed in great detail the development of local power structures and confessional conditions connected to the implementation of the counter-Reformation in the southern Bohemian aristocratic-ruled town of Jindřichův Hradec between 1590 and 1630.

Studie se pokouší sledovat vliv šlechty na utváření konfesijních poměrů v Čechách a na Moravě v 16. a 17. století. Klade přitom důraz na konfesijní politiku šlechticů jako pozemkových vrchností, jimž pojetí vrchnostenské vlády umožňovalo aktivně a pravidelně zasahovat do náboženských poměrů na jejich panstvích; právě na šlechtických panstvích žilo nadpoloviční množství poddaných v obou korunních zemích. Kromě vrchností umožňujících poddaným náboženskou toleranci (Josef Válka) totiž jiní páni a rytíři vystupovali jako aktivní nositelé reformace nebo protireformace (katolické konfesionalizace). V souvislosti s konfesijní politikou šlechtických vrchností se studie pokouší – jako námět k diskusi - tematizovat sedm postupů, které šlechtici měli a mohli využívat při ovlivňování vyznání svých poddaných.

This study attempts to observe the influence of the aristocracy on the formation of the confessional state of affairs in Bohemia and Moravia in the 16th and 17th centuries. It primarily focuses on the confessional policy of the nobility as manorial lords who were able to intervene actively and regularly in religious affairs on their estates; indeed, well over fifty per cent of the serfs in both Crown Lands lived on manorial estates. In addition to the authorities who practised religious tolerance towards their serfs (Josef Válka), other noblemen and knights actively upheld either the Reformation or the Counter-Reformation (Catholic confessionalism). In terms of the confessional policy of the manorial nobility, this study attempts to present – as a theme for discussion – the seven opportunities the nobility had at their disposal and could apply when influencing their serfs’ religious practices.

Key words: Bohemia, Moravia, the Early Modern Age, nobility, Reformation, aristocratic confessionalism, religion, church, local power

Organizační vývoj německých liberálů na Moravě v letech 1890-1914
(The Organizational Development of German Liberals in Moravia between 1890-1914)
s. 443-478

The original Deutschmährische Partei (renamed the Deutsche Fortschrittspartei in 1896) underwent a transition from an honorary party to a modernized type of stronger mass party organizationally between 1890-1914. The Deutsche Fortschrittspartei completed this process from a formal point of view by the adoption of an ingenious organizational statute in 1912. However, its practical implementation was not achieved overnight due to increased competition within the nationalist Liberal movement. When competing for the bourgeois vote, the Deutsche Fortschrittspartei’s principal competitors were the Deutsche Volkspartei and the Deutschradikale Partei. These three parties were differentiated from one another by their varying nationalistic views. The greatest distinction between the Progressive and the Radical Parties was the issue of antisemitism. The membership base of the Deutsche Fortschrittspartei retained many features of its previous „honorary“ period and was concentrated in urban areas. In the countryside, the Liberals gradually lost their positions, as their voters defected partially to the Nationalists, but primarily to the Radicals, although these were unable to prevent the foundation of an independent Deutsche Agrarpartei. In terms of organization, the Deutsche Fortschrittspartei continued to rely on political and non-political associations and it lacked normal satellite organizations. The Liberals maintained their strong base in the Deutscher Schulverein. In the Land and Imperial elections, the German Progressives defended their position as the strongest German political party in Moravia. Indeed, in the last Imperial elections of 1911 the parties of the nationalist Liberal camp even gained all the mandates in Moravia. They made use of all the advantages of the first-past-the-post two round electoral system and thanks to coaliton co-operation they defeated both the Social Democrats and the Christian Social Democrats. The fact that the most influential political positions in Moravia came to be held by the members of the Deutsche Fortschrittspartei, represented one of the principal differences between the German and Czech political establishments nationally. Whereas their long standing adversary with regard to the post of a national party – the Old Czech National Party disintegrated de-facto before World War I, the Deutsche Fortschrittspartei preserved its properly functioning structure. The organizational changes did not succeeded in democratizing conditions in the party significantly, as decision-making remained in the hands of a narrow group of leading personalities. Yet, as early as the 1890s the Liberal Party managed to shift their manifesto towards a more modern political doctrine, based on traditional liberal values, with an added emphasis on social issues and a stronger claim to nationalism. Potential conjectures on the further development of this Party were nipped in the bud by World War I.

Studie se zabývá vývojem německého politického liberalismu na Moravě od konce osmdesátých let až do první světové války. Přibližuje programové a organizační změny spjaté s transformaci původně všenárodní Deutschmährische Partei v Deutsche Fortschrittspartei. Věnuje se postavení německých liberálů v systému německých politických stran na Moravě a rolí nejvlivnějších osobností strany (A. Weeber, A. Promber, H. d’Elvert, R. M. Rohrer).

This study deals with the development of German political liberalism in Moravia from the end of the 1880s until World War I. It throws light on the manifesto and organizational changes connected to the transformation of the previously nationwide Deutschmährische Partei in the Deutsche Fortschrittspartei. It devotes much attention to the standing of German Liberals within the system of German political parties in Moravia and to the role of the most influential party personalities (A. Weeber, A. Promber, H. d’Elvert, R. M. Rohrer).

Key words: Moravia, Germans, liberalism, political parties, associations, Cisleithania, parliamentarianism


„Páni kamarádi“? „Páni odborníci“! A co ženy? Gender v raném dělnickém hnutí před rokem 1848. Glosa
(„Brother Workers“? „Master Tradesmen“! And What about Women? Gender Issues in the Early Working Class Movement prior to 1848. Summation)
s. 479-482


Přehledy bádání a historiografických studií

Proměny rolí i tváří divadla v “dlouhém 19. století“
(The Changes of the Roles and Faces of the Theatre in the „long“ 19th Century)
s. 483-495

This article discusses new German studies on the specifical political role of the opera theater in the „long“ 19th century in Central and Eastern Europe. They show the close relations between the modernization of theatre practice, culture as a whole and the changes in political culture. The transition from the (theatre) culture of the „word“ to the preference of the „optical“ played a major role in this process.

Key words: Theatre and Politics, Transition an Modernisation of Theater, 19th/20th century, Political culture, Central Europe

Panovnický ceremoniál a rituál v historickém bádání začátku 21. století
(Ceremony and Ritual in Historical Research at the Beginning of the 21st century)
s. 496-518

Již několik desetiletí stojí uprostřed zájmu historické vědy v západní Evropě panovnický ceremoniál a rituál, jejichž poznání dovoluje nově přehodnotit některé momenty související s povahou královské, popř. císařské moci. Nejdůležitější z ceremoniálních praktik spojených s osobou panovníka a jeho bezprostředním okolím jsou korunovace, jež začaly být zkoumány i v českém prostředí novým způsobem jako politická komunikace. Na jedné straně tak vystupuje panovník a jeho „mediální strategie“, na druhé potom publikum, které se snaží přijímat obraz svého vládce. Trochu stranou dosud stojí geografické srovnání zkoumající české korunovace ve středoevropském i širším evropském kontextu a také vývoj ceremoniálu v čase, zejména směrem do osvíceného 18. století. Vedle korunovací však jsou však zkoumány také další ceremoniální momenty spojené s panovníkem jako jsou jeho „přechodové rituály“ (křty, svatby, pohřby), frázování panovníkova dne, slavnosti u dvora nebo uspořádání vladařova prostoru, jehož cílem je regulovat přístup k němu a podílet se na jeho reprezentaci.

For several decades historical science in Western Europe has focused on the monarch´s ceremony and ritual, as their knowledge allows us to re-assess some moments connected with the nature of royal, or possibly imperial power. The most important ceremonies connected with the person of a ruler and his immediate environment are coronation ceremonies, which started to be researched, also in the Czech environment, in a novel way as a means of political communication. Thus, there is the ruler and his „media strategy“ on the one hand and on the other hand the public, which attempts to accept the image of their ruler. Less attention has until now been devoted to research dealing with Czech coronations in terms of geographical comparison in both the Central European and the wider European context, as well as the development of ceremonies in the course of time, especially towards the enlightened 18th century. However, in addition to coronations, other ceremonial moments such as „transitional rituals“ (baptisms, weddings, funerals),a division of the working day, festivities at the court or the arrangement of the ruler´s personal space, whose aim was to regulate access to him and participate in his represenatation have been researched.

Key words: ceremony, ritual, the ruler, coronation, representation, political communication


PATZOLD Steffen, Episcopus. Wissen über Bischöfe im Frankenreich des späten 8. bis frühen 10. Jahrhunderts
(David Kahous) s. 519-524

BOROVSKÝ Tomáš - CHOCHOLÁČ Bronislav - PUMPR Pavel (edd.), Peníze nervem společnosti. K finančním poměrům na Moravě od poloviny 14. do počátku 17. století
(Josef Grulich - Miroslav Novotný) s. 524-528

VÁLKA Josef, Myšlení a obraz v dějinách kultury … studie, eseje, reflexe, KROUPA Jiří - KNOZ Tomáš (edd.)
(Ivana Čornejová) s. 528-533

MENDELOVÁ Jaroslava, Dekrety reformační komise pro Nové Město pražské z let 1627-1629
(Jiří Pešek) s. 533-536

LOZOVIUK Petr, Interethnik im Wissenschaftsprozess. Deutschsprachige Volkskunde in Böhmen und ihre gesellschaftlichen Auswirkungen
(Kristina Kaiserová) s. 537-541

JANOUŠEK Pavel a kol., Dějiny české literatury 1945–1989, I–IV
(Monika Práchenská) s. 541-546

s. 547-567


Conference Report: The Changing Landscape of East-Central Europe since 1700 in Transnational Context (University of Oxford, 24-26 September 2009)
(Robert Evans - Mark Cornwall) s. 568-570

Knihy došlé redakci
s. 571

Výtahy z českých časopisů a sborníků
s. 571-590