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


ročník 113
s. 297-628



„Právo knížete“ a „právo země“ jako pojmy staršího středověku
(“Ducal Law” and “the Law of the Land” as Concepts in the Late Middle Ages)
s. 303-345

One of the most distinctive features of the early Bohemian (yet also the Polish and partly the Hungarian) “state” was a specific role afforded to the duke. He did not merely exercise ruling obligations. In his name, the entire farming population was burdened with a complex system of taxes, obligations and corvée. These were consequently redistributed and served to provide financial resources for the army, officials and the administrative apparatus as a whole. It was administrative castles (civitates, urbes) that became the means by which this complex organizational burden was managed They were most widespread in the fertile regions of Bohemia and Moravia. The early nobility was not distinguished by owning large estates, as it did later, and its powers and infl uence resulted from its role in the services of the “state” and the dynasty.
The duke was the formal recipient of practically all resources and incomes, that were available, including the titles to land, metals, waters and forests. He laid claim to the establishment of marketplaces, the minting of coins, income from judicial proceedings and the collection of customs and tolls. He ly burdened the whole land with his “rights” and claims. Primary sources mention sums of money, payments and burdens, “which belong to the duke for his own use” (quod ad principis spectat utilitatem). However, this “ducal law” is referred to using various terms; in addition to a real “right”, liberty, law, customs, mores, usage, justice, order, utility, equality (ius, libertas, lex, consuetudo, mos, usus, iusticia, ordo, utilitas, aequitas) are mentioned. A radical transformation occurs from the end of the 12th century. The duke released and “liberated” the property of ecclesiastical institutions, in particular, from his own “rights” (ius, iura ducis). In other words, it meant that people settled on these properties were exempt from obligations imposed by the duke. Yet, this did not constitute a “right” for them (that was at the duke’s prerogative), but a burden and an obligation, so that written documents provide evidence about “liberation from the rights”.
Towards the end of the 12th and in the course of the 13th century, Central Europe underwent a systemic transformation which changed the template of the functioning of contemporary state formations down to their very foundations. “Ducal rights” were becoming anachronistic. The Bohemian ruler (and a hereditary king from 1198) gave them up with ease and he started to establish his authority on different foundations (royal towns, castles, royal estates, taxes). We can observe how these original ducal claims, monopolies and rights became gradually diluted, or transferred onto the landed nobility. The ruler merely kept some segments of his earlier rights and monopolies and imposed an updated meaning on them (for example, mining rights to silver and other precious metals, the right to mint coins). Simultaneously, the prestige of another law, namely “the law of the land” (ius terrae) grew, because “lands” as corporations represented by the nobility became the second main component of state authority alongside the ruler.“ The law of the land” was initially bound up with the forms of property safeguards (techniques of marking the boundaries of landed estates; the role of witnesses in boundary marking, etc.). It had a long prehistory before it finally constituted itself as the law of the nobility, exercised at the Land Court, among others. However, the Land law was never codified in the course of the Middle Ages; the nobility defended fiercely the concept of a free “discovery” of it. It was only The Vladislav Land Code (1500) that was enacted as a uniform legal code throughout the land.
Even in historical (and not merely in legal historical) contexts, “law” changes into one of the substantive attributes of the Middle Ages. The autarky of the entire distribution apparatus of the early state was supported by “ducal law” to a great degree; “the law of the land” or the Land’s law became the pillar of the entire system of legal frameworks brought into existence in the late Middle Ages (for example, town law, mining law).

This study deals with two concepts which played a fundamental part in understanding the role of an early “state” and its financial base, not merely in Bohemia but also in Silesia and Poland, in particular. Firstly, there was “ducal law” (ius, iura ducis), which was understood to be a set of pensions, incomes, fees, corvée and various monopolies to which the ruler claimed an entitlement based on the title of his sovereignty over the land and the “people”. Consequently, the early state, or respectively its governing and executive powers were “nourished” by those means. The other concept is “the law of the land” (ius terrae), to which the nobility later looked and understood it as an expression of their privileged position as opposed to the ruler’s powers.

Key words
: Bohemia, the Middle Ages, Law, Ducal law, Premyslid

Jan Marek z Clary a Aldringenu jako vyslanec Leopolda I. u saského kurfiřtského dvora na konci 17. století
(Johann Marcus Count von Clary und Aldringen as the Envoy of Leopold I at the Saxon court of the Prince-elector at the End of the 17th Century)
s. 346 -380

This study has two basic aims. Primarily, this is a contribution to the history of Baroque aristocracy in the Hapsburg Monarchy. It uses the example of Johann Marcus Count von Clary und Aldringen to demonstrate why aristocrats entered the diplomatic service of the Austrian Hapsburgs and what impact it had on their lifestyles; how it burdened their finances and whether this service was of benefit to them. The author comes to the conclusion that Johann Marcus was one of those aristocrats who had to invest their own money in diplomatic missions, yet this investment was of huge benefit to them – they did not merely enhance their own career advancement but that of their sons, also. In this instance, thanks to his diplomatic mission in Saxony, the Count Clary-Aldringen became a member of the Dietrichstein faction; he obtained the office of a Geheimrat (a Privy Councillor), his elder son sat on the Imperial Council, and the other concluded a prestigious marriage in Vienna. The mission of Count von Clary und Aldringen is, thus, understood as one of the key steps to the consequent rise of the generation of Johann Marcus’s grandsons to princely rank.
Secondly, this represents a contribution to the history of Early Modern Age diplomacy and Hapsburg-Saxony relationships as the author analyses the diplomatic activities of Johann Marcus Count von Clary und Aldringen in the hectic period of the Emperor’s battles with the Turks and the French, also, during the reign of the Electors of Saxony, John George III and John George IV. The focus on Saxony is rather exceptional in contemporary historiography; envoys of a merely “second rank” (“Abgesandte” in German) performed their duties on this territory and contemporary literature rather focuses on Hapsburg embassies to other crowned heads of state. The author succeeded in compiling the Envoy’s itinerary for the years 1686–1694, which demontrates unequivocally that Johann Marcus did not have a permanent residence in Saxony. The Count Clary-Aldringen was a sort of exceptional diplomat, who represented his ruler abroad, yet he regularly lived more than six months of the year in Bohemia at his estates. In the last two years in his post, his visits to Saxony were merely sporadic (as a result of the Schöning causa). The above shows that the Emperor did not rely on Count Clary-Aldringen in all matters and that a number of specialist issues (especially military ones) were placed in the hands of other envoys, who complemented the services of Johann Marcus if necessary, or they may have completely substituted him, yet, they only visited Saxony briefly. In nearly ten years, there were seven such missions in total, which clearly documents that the Count rarely concluded negotiations about military assistance on his own. The author further attempts to explain why Count Clary-Aldringen remained in his post in the final two years also, although he rarely made trips to Saxony. He explains it by the fact that the legation secretary and the Count’s confidant Johann Janus acted in Dresden and continued to run the chancery even during Count Clary-Aldringen’s absence. In addition, the Count continued to pay the rent for the upkeep of a legation in Dresden and kept it functioning, so that even during his absence, his dwelling fulfilled a number of tasks, which pertained to the post of an envoy and which could not be fulfilled by those who came to visit for brief periods of time at the Emperor’s bidding. Further, the Count had the ownership of the famous spa of Teplice (Teplitz in German), which was annually visited by members of the Saxon Prince-elector’s family, so that there was not an individual in the entire Hapsburg Monarchy who would have known the ruling Prince-elector of Saxony and his family better. Thus, it seems that the Emperor valued him not merely for his diplomatic skills but also for the fact that he knew the Prince-elector’s family intimately and for his willingness to combine his stays abroad with his normal lifestyle. All these matters make the Count von Clary-Aldringen’s legation a very specific diplomatic mission, a knowledge of which broadens our knowledge of the history of Hapsburg diplomacy significantly.

This study is a contribution to the history of Early Modern Age diplomacy and focuses on one specific mission of a nobleman in the service of the Emperor at the end of the 17th century. The nobleman concerned was Johann Marcus Count von Clary und Aldringen, who represented Leopold I in Saxony in the years 1686–1694. This diplomatic mission was chosen intentionally as it represents diplomatic legations, which were centred on the Holy Roman Empire, and have until now been under-researched. The author summarises fundamental facts about this mission – Clary-Aldringen’s itinerary is closely analysed and provides evidence of the very special nature of this legation, which was rather dissimilar to diplomatic travels as we know them from contemporary documents. In this case the envoy did not reside permanently in Saxony. Despite that he managed to remain in this post for a relatively long period of time and the author tries to account for the reasons. He analyses various tasks which the envoy had to carry out abroad (the provision of military assistance or the running of a diplomatic chancery); he also deals with the phenomenon of legation secretaries and describes the atypical relationship of the Count towards the Prince-elector’s family. Finally, he provides evidence that this mission contributed significantly to the rise of the House of Clary-Aldringen in contemporary aristocratic society.

Key words: Leopold I, Saxony, Johann Georg III, Johann Georg IV, 17th century, diplomacy, Johann Marcus Count von Clary und Aldringen

VLHA Marek
“What is the Bohemian nation?” Geneze povědomí o českém národu ve Spojených státech amerických do počátku 20. století
(“What is the Bohemian Nation?” A Genesis of the Awareness of the Czech Nation in the United States of America up to the Beginning of the 20th Century)
s. 381-417

Contemporary research on the issue of the formation of an image of the Czech nation on the territory of the USA stands in sharp contrast with considerable attention devoted to making the image of the New World and the United States of America. The complexity of this process was a-priori based on the considerable geographical distance separating the two nations; relatively small numbers of the Czech speaking population and the absence of an independent Czech state. Thus, the rise of Czech society in the course of the 19th century mostly remained unknown to the American public and was concealed under the cove of complicated conditions in the Austrian Empire, oft en understood as German living space. In addition, until the third quarter of the 19th century, Americans considered Austria to be a sort of “terra incognita”, namely one of the centres of European despotism and negatively perceived Catholicism. The key role in increasing public awareness about Czechs was achieved by mass emigration from the Czech lands to the USA, the origins of which go back to the 1850s. It was the immigrants themselves who had a dominant infl uence on American society in terms of propaganda and agitation (and not merely during World War I). However, above all, they had a permanent impact through their very physical presence in individual regions.
Apart from geographical and demographic factors, the ambivalence of the term “Bohemian” was of considerable importance in the complex process of Americans‘ recognizing and understanding the existence and aspirations of the Czech ethnic group. In addition to Czechs as residents of Bohemia, it also embraced Romani persons and persons living an unconventional life, while the two latter terms dominated for a considerable part of the 19th century. This fact led to a number of misconceptions, not merely on the part of Americans but also of the Czech ethnic group itself. This issue was considered highly sensitive by the members of the immigrant community themselves, in particular. Although the community experimented from the very beginning with the use of an unambiguous term to designate members of the Czech nation, it was only aft er the foundation of the independent Czechoslovak state that the term “Czech” became widespread. Indeed, it was so even notwithstanding the fact that one can occasionally come across variants of this designation in the American environment far back in the 19th century (for example also as Czekh, Cyech, Chekh, Tchekh, Tscheck).
Until about the mid-19th century there was a minimal awareness of Czechs in American periodical literature and book publishing and it was accompanied by a number of misconceptions. Visits to Bohemia and Moravia occupied a marginal place in American travelogues, simultaneously a general lack of interest corresponded with the low awareness of the Slavic nations as such. Occasional political news about events in the Czech lands were in some cases additionally infl uenced by the practice of transcribing news from the German press, which frequently espoused anti-Czech views. In this context, a well-informed literary work of Therese Albertine Louise von Jacob Robinson, a Slavic studies scholar of German origin, represents an isolated phenomenon. An increased interest in the Czech environment and its history, especially of the Hussite era and the Reformation can be observed in the American religious press, which also refl ected its missionary interests. In the course of the second half of the 19th century the standards of news reporting significantly improved, which mirrored general information boom (telegraph, increase in the numbers of periodicals, etc.) and growing numbers of Czech immigrants.
The degree of attention and the attitudes of numerous American regional newspapers primarily resulted from the quantity and social status of local Czech community. The development in Chicago can be seen as instructive. In connection with rapidly growing settlements of Czechs there, as early as the 1860s the term “Bohemian” came to be primarily linked with Czechs, accompanied by a general awareness of the existence of the Czech ethnic group. Yet, the total strength of the Czech community was not sufficient to lead to the emergence of a specific national stereotype of Czechs in the USA, as was the case with the Germans or the Irish. Instead, they were at first mistakenly included amongst, for example Germans or Poles, and later amongst the broader identity of a „new immigration“, a negatively perceived grouping of Slavonic and South-European non-Protestant immigrants. The period around the turn of the century brought about a derogatory word “Bohunk”, which probably conjoined the term “Bohemian” and “Hunky” (Hungarian). Efforts to record Bohemia as their native country in the American Census and for the American authorities to respect Czech nationality, which was, indeed, achieved as time went by, were integral parts of the efforts to have one’s national identity recognized.
One of the fundamental areas of involvement in public life was participation in politics. In the final quarter of the 19th century, numbers of Czechs holding public offices and posts in administration increased, however, the importance of the Czech element nationwide remained small. Repeated proposals to form a unified Czech-American political movement, whose existence would have strenthtened the role of the Czech ethnic group within the framework of the USA, were unrealistic. Similarly, repeated efforts to establish a unified organisation promoting Czech interests or publishing an English journal, which would mediate Czech history, culture and political aims to the broader public failed. Prior to World War I, it was only possible to publish a monthly periodical Bohemian Voice (1892–1894) in this spirit for a few years. Despite an undoubtedly qualitatively improved and increased awareness of the Czech nation in the USA, it continued to be generally insignificant even until the outbreak of World War I.

This study focuses upon the topic of the formation of an image of the Czech nation in the United States of America during the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th century. This process was hindered not merely by the geographical distance, small numbers of the Czech speaking populace and the absence of an independent Czech state but also by the polysemy of the term “Bohemian”, which was commonly used in the American environment to refer to Czechs. The principal role in the process under research was played by the direct interaction of American society with the Czech emigrant community. Yet, even on the threshold of the 20th century, the sense of familiarity with the Czech ethnic group within the USA remained problematic and, in fact, was restricted regionally with regard to the distribution of Czech immigration. Despite more information becoming available and the significant importance of Czech immigrants in some regions, there did not emerge a specific national stereotype of a Czech person, and Czech nationality was included in broader categories.

Key words: Czech history, American history, 19th century, Czech-American
relationships, ethnicity, emigration

Friedensnobelpreis für Tomáš Masaryk? Ein Intrigenspiel
 (Nobelova cena míru pro Tomáše Masaryka? Hra plná intrik)
s. 418-453

Dějiny Nobelových cen míru skrývají řadu překvapení. Mnozí z kandidátů – mezi nimi ti, kdo cenu získali, především však ti ostatní – zůstávají dodnes neznámí. Dějiny nominací a jejich úspěchu nebo ztroskotání jsou zároveň i dějinami domovin kandidátů, jejich podporovatelů i protivníků, jsou dějinami cest politického vývoje i proměn ducha té které doby. Předložená studie se obírá dějinami jednoho „poraženého“: Tomáše Masaryka, který byl v letech 1913 a 1914 nominován na Nobelovu cenu. Jeho nominace představovou politikum. Její udělení by pro habsburskou monarchii znamenalo skandál. Český profesor a poslanec říšské rady totiž patřil mezi nejostřejší kritiky Rakouska-Uherska. Tím, že referoval o chybách ministerstva zahraničí během tzv. Friedjungova procesu 1909, resp. procesu pro velezradu v Záhřebu po anekční krizi 1908 a že císařské a královské diplomaty obvinil z cíleného podvodu, přispěl rozhodujícím způsobem k ztrátě důvěryhodnosti a popularity rakousko-uherské diplomacie. Připočtěme k tomu, že Masaryk již v 90. letech 19. století podporoval jihoslovanské hnutí, které bylo ve vůdčích vídeňských kruzích trvale považováno za hlavní nebezpečí stability mnohonárodnostní monarchie. Masarykovy střety s rakousko-uherským ministrem zahraničí Aloisem z Aehrenthalu – plné vzájemných předhůzek ohledně balkánské politiky a vztahu k Srbsku – trvaly až do ministrovy smrti roku 1912. Poté Masaryk veřejně kritizoval i nového ministra zahraniční Leopolda Berchtolda. Zároveň se pokusil během první balkánské války působit jako prostředník mezi Bělehradem a Vídní. Taková zprostředkovací akce však byla ministerstvu zahraničí nevítaná.
S ohledem na tyto skutečnosti sotva překvapí, že zpráva o Masarykově nominaci na Nobelovu cenu míru nebyla ve Vídni přijata právě pozitivně. Především následník trůnu František Ferdinand, který se o nominaci dozvěděl jako prvý, byl toho názoru, že udělení ceny Masarykovi je třeba zabránit za každou cenu.  Předložený článek analyzuje dějiny nominací na pozadí politických událostí v Evropě a zasazuje je do kontextu tehdejších zahraničně politických aktivit Rakouska-Uherska. V letech 1912/1913 proběhly dvě balkánské války, habsburská monarchie dvakrát vyhlásila ultimatum a dvakrát mobilizovala proti Srbsku a Černé Hoře a v těchto letech otřáslo říší také několik skandálů. V takové době by vyznamenání prosrbského, monarchii nepřátelského poslance rakouské říšské rady Nobelovou cenou míru znamenalo pro habsburskou říši blamáž. Už sama nominace představovala provokaci. Masarykovi kolegové z univerzity František Drtina, Edvard Beneš, Václav Novotný a několik dalších z jeho politického nebo vědeckého zázemí se snažilo najít pro nominaci podporu v zahraničí. Psali nominační dopisy a organizovali podpůrné kampaně ve Skandinávii. Článek ukazuje jejich cíle, záměry a způsoby jednání. O to samé se snaží pro špičkové zahraničně politické představitele ve Vídni, kteří dělali, co bylo v jejich silách, aby Masarykově nominaci nebo dokonce udělení ceny zabránili. Je přitom zřejmé, že v ministerstvu na Ballhausplatz panovala – na rozdíl od skupiny Masarykových podporovatelů – neinformovanost jak o vlastní proceduře udělování Nobelových cen, tak o možných kanálech jejího ovlivňování. Šéf diplomatické mise ve Stockhlomu ani vojenský atašé ve Skandinávii neměli ani potřebné znalosti ani kontakty. Informován a angažován se ukázal být pouze císařský velvyslanec v Kodani/Kristianii. Jen jemu se podařilo uskutečnit významné kroky proti nominaci, přičemž je ovšem nutno vzít v úvahu, že Masarykovy naděje na získání ceny byly roku 1913 minimální.
Mezi ministerstvem zahraničí a následníkem trůnu přitom existovala ohromná diskrepance jak co do vnímání nominace na Nobelovu cenu, tak co do sledování skrytého cíle jejího odvrácení. Článek ukazuje, že v této věci hrála velkou roli osobní animozita následníka trůnu vůči Masarykovi. František Ferdinand se po udělení ceny roku 1913 zajímal o Masarykovy vyhlídky pro příští rok a odpovídajícím způsobem pak instruoval své vojenské diplomaty. Pražský profesor byl skutečně nominován ještě jednou a jeho vyhlídky byly tentokrát podstatně lepší. Nobelova cena míru však roku 1914 nebyla – poprvé od založení – v důsledku války udělena.
Předložená studie ukazuje, že při rozhodování o Nobelově ceně míru nestála v popředí vždy jen angažovanost dané osoby pro mír, nýbrž také národní a politické zájmy. Pokouší se proto blíže osvětlit roli jednotlivých zahraničně politických aktérů a chce také ukázat, jak silně a tematicky mnohostranně zasahoval následník trůnu do všech oblastí zahraniční politiky. Zároveň se tu ozřejmuje, jak rozdílné bylo vnímání Masaryka v politických a univerzitních kruzích Prahy a Srbska v protikladu k vůdčím politickým kruhům ve Vídni.

This study deals with the lesser known story of the nomination of Tomáš Masaryk for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1913 and 1914. It covers the following questions: Who nominated Masaryk and for what purpose? What was the official motivation for his nomination? How did the leading circles in Vienna react to the nomination? As Masaryk was one of the harshest critics of the Habsburg Monarchy, especially of its foreign policy, his nomination was extremely controversial. It preoccupied the diplomats and officials during the crisis of the two Balkan Wars when Masaryk tried to play an active role in foreign policy. This article focuses on the analysis of the actions of the Austro-Hungarian Foreign Office and the heir to the throne Francis Ferdinand trying to frustrate his nomination.
Key words: Nobel Peace Prize, Tomáš Masaryk, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Austro-Hungarian Foreign Policy, Balkan Wars, South Slavs, diplomacy

Fašistický mýtus znovuzrodenia v kontexte ideológie Národnej obce fašistickej a Rodobrany
(Fascist Myth of Rebirth in the Context of Ideology of the National Fascist Community and the Nation’s Defense)
s. 454-487

The paper is one of the first ever contributions to the issue of revealing faces of fascism in interwar Czechoslovakia with a help of a new theoretical approach defined by “the New Consensus” platform. It uses a broad heuristic basis and on the “Case Czechoslovakia” tries to discuss strengths and weaknesses of Roger Griffin’s methodological tool. Author refl ects the international debates on fascism within past decades and brings inspirational remarks on further redefining of the radical political stream born in the 20th century.
The preface of paper briefl y analyzes a history of comparative fascist studies from 1960s up to the present. In an effort to bring a “fresh breeze” to a quite static discussion on fascism in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, author’s main aim is to debate whether fascism was exclusively Italian specificity or, according to Griffin, an international phenomenon which in various national permutations existed outside Apennine peninsula as well. Author does not wish to prove Griffin’s model of generic fascism suggestively, but to use the concept only for heuristic and comparative purposes. Thus the presence of “palingenetic myth” in the ideology of the National Fascist Community and Rodobrana represents the core problem which he pays attention to.
The National Fascist Community (Národná obec fašistická – NOF) was the most notable fascist party in interwar Czechoslovakia. The NOF was founded in March 1926 as a result of a merger process of minor fascist and nationalistic movements. Though it has oft en been considered to be a “Czech party”, the NOF representatives always emphasized its nationwide and Slavic character. The party rooted mainly in the Czech Lands, however, from the beginnings fascists tried to expand their membership base in Slovakia as well. Their starting position was not the best. In the second half of the 1920s right-wing parties like Hlinka’s Slovak People’s Party (Hlinkova slovenská ľudová strana), Republican Party of Agricultural and Smallholder People (so-called Agrárna strana) or Slovak National Party (Slovenská národná strana) had a stable number of supporters yet. Thanks to the similar shared nationalistic values the NOF had been attempting to attract an electorate of more traditional parties to its side. These attempts had not been bringing success for a long time. Fascist had been failing to find an appropriate platform which could have reached a feedback within the Slovak society. Their radical ideas counted on dissolving all political parties and parliament, suppressing German, Hungarian and especially Jewish infl uence in politics, economy and public life, fundamental reforms of state administration, etc. Inexplicit ideology of the NOF lacking “Slovak program” without clarifying an attitude towards the question of autonomy for Slovakia and other important aspects showed to be one of the main reasons why fascist never gained more support than just a little over 2% in 1935 general elections. Apart from this failure the ideology of the NOF fully matched with Griffin’s definition of fascism (fascist organization). The NOF tended to use a motive of their leader Radola Gajda, former general of Czechoslovak legions in Russia during the World War I, who, in accordance with the fascist’s rhetoric, was “the chosen one” to redeem the Czechs and Slovaks again and to deliberate them out of “foreign captivity” represented by infl uential minorities in Czechoslovakia. The same applied to Slovak Rodobrana whose spiritual father, Professor Vojtech Tuka, combined popular nationalistic slogans with motives deeply infl uenced by Catholic dogmas, romanticism and martyrdom to create an extraordinary ideological concept, most similar to the Romanian Iron Guard.
Author, based on his research, considers both movements as revolutionary and fascist in the sense of Griffin’s theory. Though he appreciates Griffin’s model as very helpful for comparative studies and scholar discourse, he argues that an “idealtype approach” and a concept of generic fascism cannot be absolutised due to its diversion from the social reality which might lead to degradation of historical terminology – not just in case of fascism but other terms like communism, democracy, totalitarianism, etc. as well.

The paper aims to analyze the ideology of two most notable fascist organizations in the first Czechoslovak Republic – the National Fascist Community and Slovak Rodobrana. The paper focuses on the possibilities of using the methodology of so-called “the New Consensus” platform on interpreting the concept of generic fascism. Author, on the basis of “palingenetic myth” as a definitional core of fascist organization, tries to check the functionality of the core motive of this relatively new theoretical approach towards fascism in the Anglophone historiography. In the end he points out on the strengths and weaknesses of the infl uential concept defined by British historian Roger Griffin. The study offers new suggestions for the discussion on the field of fascist studies as well.

Key words: Fascism, Ideology, Comparative Fascist Studies, National Fascist Community, Rodobrana, Palingenetic Myth, Collapse, Rebirth, Czechoslovakia



Nová edice a zhodnocení Koldínových Městských práv,
s. 488-505

Práva městská Království českého. Edice s komentářem
(Ludmila Sulitková) s. 488-495

MALÝ Karel – ŠOUŠA Jiři (edd.)
Městské právo ve střední Evropě
(Marek Starý) s. 496-505

Civilization. The West and the Rest / Civilizace. Západ a zbytek světa
(Jaroslav Pánek)
s. 505-511

Úsvit rasismu
(Markéta Křížová)
s. 511-514

JAN Libor (ed.)
Dějiny Brna, sv. 2 – Středověké město
(Jan Mareš)
s. 514-521

FULLENBACH OP Elias H. – MILETTO Gianfranco (Hrsg.)
Dominikaner und Juden. Personen, Konfl ikte und Perspektiven vom 13. bis zum 20. Jahrhundert / Dominicans and Jews. Personalities, Confl icts, and Perspectives fr om the 13th to the 20th Century
(Jakub Zouhar)
s. 521-523

BŮŽEK Václav a kol.
Společnost českých zemí v raném novověku. Struktury, identity, konflikty
(Tomaš Sterneck)
s. 523-528

Jednota bratrská v městech pražských v době předbělohorské a rejstřík členů pražského sboru
(Ota Halama)
s. 528-531

Na ďalekých cestách, v cudzích krajinách. Sociálny, kultúrny a politický rozmer konfesionálneho exilu Uhorska v 17. storočí
(Olga Fejtová)
s. 531-536

LISA Martina
Die Chronik des Václav Nosidlo von Geblice. Aufzeichnungen aus der böhmischen Exulantengemeinde in Pirna zur Zeit des Dreißigjährigen Krieges.
(Jana Hubková)
s. 536-538

BROOK Madeleine
Popular History and Fiction. The Myth of August the Strong in German Literature, Art and Media
(Miloš Řeznik)
s. 538-542

Královéhradečtí biskupové a jejich rezidence
(Tomáš Malý)
s. 542-545

KUKOWSKI Martin – BOCH Rudolf
Kriegswirtschaft und Arbeitseinsatz bei der Auto Union AG Chemnitz im Zweiten Weltkrieg
(Zdeňka Kokošková)
s. 545-548

FRANC Martin – KNAPÍK Jiří
Volný čas v českých zemích 1957–1967
(Denisa Nečasová)
s. 548-551

Zprávy o literatuře
s. 552-591


DUFKOVÁ Kateřina
Česko-lichtenštejnská komise historiků
(The Czech-Liechtenstein Commission of Historians)
Peter GEIGER – Tomáš KNOZ – Eliška FUČÍKOVÁ – Ondřej HORÁK – Catherine HOREL – Johann KRÄFTNER – Thomas WINKELBAUER – Jan ŽUPANIČ
Česko-lichtenštejnské vztahy v dějinách a v současnosti. Souhrnná zpráva Česko-lichtenštejnské komise historiků
s. 592-595

PÁNEK Jaroslav
Čestné členství Sdružení historiků ČR třem zahraničním bohemistům
(Honorary Membership of The Association of Historians of the Czech Republic for Three Foreign Czech Studies Researchers)
s. 596-603


Jiří Kořalka (7. února 1931 – 30. ledna 2015)
(Magdaléna Pokorná)
s. 604-607

Výběr z bibliografie prací Jiřího Kořalky
(Kristina Rexová)
s. 607-610

Knihy a časopisy došlé redakci
s. 611

Výtahy z českých časopisů a sborníků
(Václava Horčáková a Kristina Rexová)
s. 611-625