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


ročník 111/2013
č. 3/2013

s. 481-680
ISSN 0862-6111



Čechy a říše: problém pramenů nebo historiografie?
(The Czech Lands and the Holy Roman Empire: the Problem of Primary Sources or Historiography?)

s. 481–516

The picture of the Bohemians in the Imperial chronicles shows that although the Czech Princes were respected partners as early as the 10th century, yet this picture was also assigned beyond the borders of the space with which these authors identified themselves. This relationship was even endowed with a specific feature, namely a tributary obligation. Despite the fact that no mention of this is made in the texts from the 11th–12th centuries, a sort of „stranger-danger“ leaves an unpleasant aftertaste. Thus, the Czech princes soon ranked themselves within this group of „Imperial Princes“; they were even afforded the right to participate in the election of the Roman King, yet in the case of a conflict the cultural stereotype placing their political rival amongst the barbarians would be re-activated. Indeed, a mere few manuscript documents may separate the views which on one hand extol their virtues or classify them amongst the barbarians. It is also worth mentioning that the events in the Czech Lands would find themselves in the viewfinder of the „Imperial“ chroniclers only in the case when mutual conflict arises between them.
A comparison of the image of the „Bohemians“ as outsiders with their own self- concept makes it possible for us to present several theses at the conclusion of our research. Firstly, both the authors active within the borders of the Przemyslid overlordship and the chroniclers from the territory of present-day Germany and Austria share the view that in the temporal hierarchy the Przemyslid Prince stood below the rank of the Roman Emperor or King and owed him obeisance. Secondly, both groups of texts differentiate between the „Bohemians“ and the „Teutones“ and understand them to be unique communities with their own „customs“. However, in the Imperial chronicles we only come across the „Bohemians“ in situations when they find themselves at odds with the Roman King. These situations are also mentioned by the authors from Bohemia and Moravia, yet while the former expect them to show obedience and yield, the latter emphasize, often through the mouths of the main characters of their books, distinct and expressly granted rights, which co-create their own understanding of themselves. Together with their specific „customs“ and „manners“ and their mutually shared past, they represent one of the sources of identity which further strengthen the „difference“ which both sides emphasize. However, the „difference“ represents a useful weapon in the hands of some Imperial chroniclers: a means to take the „disobedient“ or otherwise inconvenient Princes of the „Bohemians“ down a peg or two to the position of the rulers of barbarians, and thus dishonour them even more.
It is probable that the chroniclers of the Przemyslid dominia often run into this „outer image“ of themselves during their study trips and travels abroad and also in their work with texts which they intended to use when writing up their works; similarly, Przemyslid diplomatic missions, consisting of the members of the highest echelons of aristocracy, had to face such an image of themselves. It is, then, more than likely that this „external picture“ also impacted on the formation of their own identity, becoming a part of it, be it as a positive or negative imprint.
Apart from this, rather „reactive“ side of the image of themselves, positively defined identificators, which one could relate to, played an important role– namely the shared image of the common past, evidenced by Cosmas and those who copied him and his followers; the Dynasty and Holy patrons, in particular the „eternal King“ St. Wenceslas. While the positive factors contributed to the fact that this identity took root, the negative influences undoubteldy contributed to the fact that it became defined early.

This study emerged with the aim of confronting the picture of the Bohemians in the early medieval Czech sources before 1200 AD with the perceptions in documents which originated outwith the territories of Bohemia and Moravia. It is evident that the picture of the Bohemians in Imperial documents developed from that of the image of a tributary ethnic group, living beyond the boundaries of the Empire up to the concept of the Czech Prince as one of the Princes of the Holy Empire, who stood at the head of a specific ethnic group which is always placed alongside the „Teutones“, yet sometimes at the same level as the Bavarians and Saxons.

Key words: the Holy Roman Empire, the Przemyslids, 10th-12th centuries, identity, the picture of the „others“

Šosovní, nebo poddanské vesnice? K interpretaci pozemkového příslušenství zeměpanských měst ve středověku
(Borough /= Šos/ or Serf Villages? On the Interpretation of the Estate Property of Landowning Towns in the Middle Ages)
s. 517–562

This contribution deals with the notion and interpretation of the legal status of the so-called borough (= šos) villages which were attached to free Royal boroughs in the pre-Hussite period. Local historiography has used this term in different meanings of the word from the middle of the 19th century without ever either attempting to provide its terminological clarification or searching for analogies in a Central European context (e.g. German term Stadtdörfer). Having analysed written references, the author is led to the conclusion that “šos” corresponded to the term “borough treasury.” Upon the discovery of further pieces of information, the author arrives at a definition of the legal position of borough (=šos ) villages: at the time of the foundation of a free royal borough or thereafter the overlord attached neighbouring villages to it in order to strengthen its economy. If they were not in his ownership, but in aristocratic or monastic control, he exercised his foundation rights or sovereign power and had the relevant property exchanged for another by force. He, then, attached the acquired villages to the respective Royal borough. This attachment did not represent their transfer into the borough’s ownership but it meant that the villages “suffered” the borough, i.e. they were subject to municipal law and to the judgment of the Borough’s Royal Reeve (rychtář in Czech) who was the closest representative of Royal power (chiefly during higher court proceedings). Together with the borough and according to the same land rent system the villages paid an annual feu duty or heritable interest (called “the municipal census”) and were liable to meet intermittently levied fiscal overlord demands (special taxes and various financial costs). Consequently, they had the duty to contribute to borough treasury (Lösung in German, šos in Czech – i.e. property taxes imposed by the King) and to send a number of men for the town watch, if needed. The sovereign preserved his overlord rights in terms of these attached villages, which meant that he exercised the right of patronage over parish churches in these villages; he received a feu duty and made decision on changes in property ownership within borough villages. In principle, the borough villages were to pay both the feu duty and the “property” tax but consequent developments did away with this uniformity. Throughout the pre-Hussite period borough communities sporadically purchased “uncooperative” estates in the countryside and they, thus, became their legitimate landlords, albeit the scope of these phenomena was rather limited as compared to the post-Hussite period. It was only due to the intervention of the Hussite Revolution, the long interregnum and an increase in the political importance of towns, that burgher villages were gradually transformed to normal serf villages. In the next part of his study the author analyses various forms of penetration of municipal law into the countryside (for example a local aristocratic landlord might grant the right that his villages were to be governed by the law of this or that Royal borough, documented for example in the Chodsko and Tachov regions), including the weichbild concept (i.e. a Royal borough and villages attached to it). At the conclusion of his article and based on his findings, he engages in a controversy surrounding the term borough landed estate, employed in Czech historiography since the mid-1980s. He declines to include those Royal borough villages which were not the property of town communities within the system of borough landed estates as they paid a feu duty to the overlord and there were no vassal farms with a central administration (i.e. Maierhofs) there. He does not consider the duty to pay property taxes to be an attribute of a landed estate as all inhabitants living inside the wall of a borough were subject to it, also.

Příspěvek se pokouší osvětlit pojem a právní postavení tzv. šosovních vesnic, připojovaných k českým zeměpanským městům v předhusitské době. Zabývá se terminologií pojmu šos, jeho starším výkladům v české historiografii a stanovuje jeho význam rozborem systému platebních povinností v zeměpanských městech (městský cenzus, lózunga). Následně si všímá právního vztahu šosovních vesnic vůči panovníkovi a právům, kterými na jejich území disponoval (patronátní práva, souhlas při pozemkových transakcích). Podává přehled možných způsobů pronikání městského práva na venkov (vikpild, udílení městského práva šlechtickými vrchnostmi apod.). V závěru polemizuje s pojmem městský velkostatek pro dobu do roku 1420.

This contribution attempts to clarify the concept and legal position of the so-called borough (= šos) villages attached to free Royal boroughs in the pre-Hussite period. He deals with the notion of town property tax (šos in Czech), its earlier interpretations in Czech historiography and defines its meaning by analysing the system of fiscal duties in free Royal towns (feu duty, property taxes). He then pays attention to the legal relationship between borough villages and the sovereign and to the rights the latter exercised on their territories (patronage rights, consent for land transactions). The author provides a survey of possible options in which municipal law penetrated into the countryside (weichbild, the nobility granting the option that municipal law might be used, etc.). In its conclusion he argues against the usage of the concept of borough landed estates for the period prior to 1420.

Key words: Bohemia, the Middle Ages, legal history, town and countryside, land-owning towns, free Royal boroughs, borough (= šos) villages, town villages, weichbild, borough treasury, property taxes – losungen, šos, borough landed estates

„Dass dieses Haus halb von Juden, halb von Christen bewohnt werde“. Interreligiöse Stiftungen im jüdischen Bürgertum am Beispiel Prags in der zweiten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts
(“So that this house be inhabited half by Jews, half by Christians”. Interreligious foundations set up by the Jewish middle classes in Prague during the Second half of the 19th century)
s. 563–578

Článek se zabývá chudinskými nadacemi, založenými a financovanými pražským židovským měšťanstvem v druhé polovině 19. století. Tato skupina obyvatel se poměrně často angažovala v mezikonfesijních nadacích, které byly určeny stejným dílem pro židy i pro křesťany. Nadace koncepčně vycházely ze společenské sebeinterpretace židovských mecenášů. Jejich obraz sebe sama byl až do poslední třetiny 19. století, tj. až do emancipace židovského obyvatelstva ústavou z roku 1867, určován dlouhodobě platnými stereotypy vztahu židovských, za zvláštní skupinu obyvatel říše považovaných poddaných k jejich vrchnosti. Pro židovské mecenáše tak jako určující platily především sociální kategorie „židovský“ versus „nežidovský“. Ty měly být v paritně koncipovaných nadacích vybalancovány. Tento přístup měl za důsledek tu skutečnost, že nacionální otázka, která postupně ke konci 19. století nabyla virulentní povahy, nehrála v chudinských nadacích oné doby v podstatě žádnou roli.

This article deals with the foundations for the poor set up by Prague Jewish middle classes in
the second half of the 19th century. This group of citizens was rather often involved in inter- confessional foundations destined to benefit both the Jews and the Christians alike. In terms of their concept, the foundations were based on the social self-interpretation of their Jewish patrons. Until the last third of the 19th century, i.e. their emancipation in 1867, they understood themselves as separate from the majority society as it was stipulated by law. Thus, the Jewish patrons were primarily concerned with the social categories of “Jewish” versus “non-Jewish” which were to be balanced in their equal foundations. As a result, the nationality question, which evolved into its most virulent form towards the end of the 19th century, did not, in fact, play any role in the foundations for the poor existing at that time.

Key words: the Hapsburg Monarchy, the Czech Lands, Prague, the 19th century, Jews, Christians, Jewish middle classes, foundation, confessionalism, the nationality question

Eric Hobsbawm – historik mezi vědou a politikou
(Eric Hobsbawm – Historian between Scholarship and Politics)

s. 579–602

Eric Hobsbawm (1917–2012) was not only a historian, but also a publicly active intellectual whose books achieved wide circulation worldwide. His life-long position was that the central ideas of Karl Marx and Marxism itself are valid for the interpretation of the past as well as the current issues. In contrast with the standard conception of academic history, Hobsbawm was not afraid of establishing parallels between the past and the present.
For a significant part of his life, Hobsbawm was a member of the Communist Party. He was influenced in this affiliation by his personal experience, e.g. the end of the Weimar Republic, or his studies at Cambridge in the 1930s. Unlike many other Marxist scholars, he remained a member of the party even after 1956. Lach is of the view that this relation to Communism influenced Hobsbawm’s research, including the selection of the research topics, the interpretation of certain phenomena (e.g. the position of the Soviet system in history), or his focus on history from “the bottom-up perspective”, i.e. as it is seen through the eyes of the common people. At the same time, Hobsbawm tried to conceive Marxism without dogmatism; in other words, he did not reduce the objects of his research to economic, social or political issues. Consequently, a significant part of his work consists of examining cultural phenomena.
Hobsbawm’s most influential books include four volumes dedicated to the period between 1789 and 1991 (The Age of Revolution, The Age of Capital, The Age of Empire, The Age of Extremes). In this synthetic work, he formulated his original view of modern and contemporary history. The volumes introduced some original concepts (e.g. the concept of dual revolution) and a number of provocative propositions (e.g. in the comparison of totalitarian regimes). In addition, they are written in a refined style. In Czechoslovakia, Hobsbawm’s work was reflected on since the 1950s, but not completely systematically and partly through the ideology ruling there before 1989. Scholars who knew Hobsbawm and reflected on his opinions include Josef Polišenský and Miroslav Hroch who played a major role in disseminating his thoughts. Even though Hroch systematically studied Hobsbawm’s treatises on nationalism, he understood the significance of Hobsbawm’s work in its entirety.

Eric Hobsbawm (1917–2012) was a British historian of Jewish origin recognized worldwide. This article traces several topics which were central for Hobsbawm as a man and a scholar. It deals with Hobsbawm’s relations to Communism as a political ideology and Marxism as a method of examining the historical process. Both these relations are reflected significantly in his extensive work which focuses primarily on the 19th and 20th centuries. Hobsbawm also excelled in popularizing the topics in modern history for the general public. The main issues studied by Hobsbawm included social classes, revolution, nation and nationalism, or the history of common people. Although the reflection of his work in Czech, or Czechoslovak, historiography was not quite wide, some Czech historians (especially Miroslav Hroch) did study Hobsbawm’s ideas.

Key words: Eric Hobsbawm (1917–2012), Marxist historiography, history and politics, Hobsbawm and Czech historiography



COUFAL Dušan, Polemika o kalich mezi teologií a politikou 1414–1431. Předpoklady basilejské disputace o prvním z pražských artikulů
(František Šmahel) s. 603–604

COUFAL Dušan, Polemika o kalich mezi teologií a politikou 1414–1431. Předpoklady basilejské disputace o prvním z pražských artikulů
(Petr Čornej) s. 605–609

ZINGERLE Elisabeth (ed.), Nuntiatur des Girolamo Portia 1599–1602
(Tomáš Černušák) s. 610–612

SIGLOVÁ Tereza, Soudové zisku nenesou. Spory obyvatel městeček pardubického panství v 16. a 17. století
(Pavel Matlas) s. 612–616

SMUTNÝ Bohumír, Brněnští podnikatelé a jejich podniky 1764–1948. Encyklopedie podnikatelů a jejich rodin
(Milan Myška) s. 616–618

POPELKA Petr, Zrod moderního podnikatelstva. Bratři Kleinové a podnikatelé v českých zemích a Rakouském císařství v éře kapitalistické industrializace
(Zdeněk Jindra) s. 618–621

BAYERLEIN Bernhard H., Der Verräter, Stalin, bist Du! Vom Ende der linken Solidarität. Komintern und Kommunistische Partein im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939–1941;
TÝŽ, Predateľ – ty Stalin! Komintern i kommunističeskie partii v načale Vtoroj mirovoj vojny (1939–1941). Utraščennaja solidarnosť levych sil
(Jiří Pešek) s. 621–628

BOLTON Jonathan, Worlds of Dissent. Charter 77, The Plastic People of the Universe, and Czech Culture under Communism
(Svatava Raková) s. 628–636

s. 637–656



Tomáš Durdík (24. 1. 1951 – 20. 9. 2012)
(Jan Klápště – Petr Sommer) s. 657–677

Knihy došlé redakci
s. 661

Výtahy z českých časopisů a sborníků
s. 661