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

ČESKÝ ČASOPIS HISTORICKÝ - THE CZECH HISTORICAL REVIEW
ročník 115 
č. 2/2017

s. 311-654


STUDIE | STUDIES

BERAN Zdeněk
Válka a násilí jako sociální kód české pozdně středověké šlechty ... s. 319
(Warfare and Violence as a Social Code amongst the Bohemian Late Medieval Nobility)

This study deals with the phenomena of aristocratic warfare and violence in late medieval Bohemia. Its main aim is to analyse the change, or the assumed retreat of aristocratic warfare from the life of the Bohemian nobility in the declining years of the Middle Ages. It makes use of the semantic analysis of the key terms used for designating aristocratic armed conflict, while it simultaneously questions some established terms as well as their accepted assessments; it also examines the viability and variability of the chivalric ideal owing to religious conflicts; further it approaches the legal background of the social order and focuses upon aristocratic warfare and violence as a social code in the context of changing social conditions.
It demonstrates what a significant role in the process of forming the Early
Modern society was played by an aristocratic ethos, which became the basis of a changeable, yet very viable social order in Late Medieval Bohemia.
Key words: Late Middle Ages, the Hussite movement, nobility, warfare, violence, knighthood, Bohemia

RESUME
This study deals with the phenomena of aristocratic warfare and violence in late medieval Bohemia. Its main aim is to analyse the change, or the assumed retreat of aristocratic warfare from the life of the Bohemian nobility in the declining years of the Middle Ages. It strives to overcome the until now preferred economic viewpoint and focuses upon sectional causes, accompanying phenomena and the general character of this change. It primarily gives emphasis to the reconstruction of the formative role of aristocratic warfare and violence in relation to the social order. It is possible to view the so-called “ranklement” (záští), or more precisely aristocracy at war to be the central notion of this study.
This work makes use of the semantic analysis of the key terms used for designating aristocratic armed conflict, while it simultaneously questions some established terms as well as their accepted assessments. Further, it examines the viability and variability of the concept of aristocratic violence embodied in the knightly ideal during repeated escalations and abatements of religious conflicts. It, afterwards, pays attention to the legal framework of the social order, which comprises not merely the norm-forming activities of the Land Estates but also alliances and contractual activities, alongside aristocratic customs which anchor the legal framework of legitimate violence. The law is understood as a dynamic entity closely linked with violence. In its final section, this study focuses upon aristocratic warfare and violence within the context of changing social conditions. Despite the fact that warfare (especially until the third quarter of the 15th century) formed an important part of the mentality and also of the social practice of the Bohemian aristocracy, it is evident that the nobility continually found
their own ways to reconcile partial conflicts as well as maintaining good order in the Land. Further, there is evidently a correlation between the weakening of the central power and the unprecedented development of religious tolerance, the very foremost bearer of which the aristocracy became. In particular, the aristocracy found a commonality of interests amongst themselves at the Land Court, where its Estate was formed. Its unification into clearly defined Estates capable of co-operation was the key factor and it went hand in hand with finding a modus vivendi between the two recognised confessions.
It seems that the preconditions for the emergence of a Modern Era state, law and justice had not arisen nor could have arisen as a result of the suppression of powerful feudal lords by royal power, but as a product of harmonisation of their interests and the organisation of these subjects into a functioning and co-ordinated system. As a result of the growing tendency to view violence as a matter of common interest internal warfare receded and the power apparatus was institutionalised.
Translated by Alena Linhartová

ČAPSKÝ Martin
K postavení Vratislavi v českých korunních zemích v pozdním středověku ... s. 346
(On the Status of Wrocław in the Czech Crown Lands in the Late Middle Ages)

The presented study follows reflections of Prague as “Head of the Kingdom” in the late medieval Lands of the Bohemian Crown and the question whether the Silesian city of Wrocław (Vratislav, Breslau) aspired to také over this role in connection with the anti-Hussite policy of King Sigismund of Luxembourg. Attention is paid to the conditions establishing the leading position of Prague within Bohemia and that of Wrocław within the framework of the Duchies of Silesia; to the role of political communication when forming concepts on the “first” or “second head of the Kingdom” and the importance of this construct in struggles to participate in political decision-making in the respective Lands of the Bohemian Crown. The author reaches the conclusion that the Wrocław municipal representatives utilised references to the leading position of Prague in order to legitimize their own aspirations in the transforming power bloc of the late medieval Duchies of Silesia.
Key words: Political communication, the Late Middle Ages, Lands of the Bohemian Crown, Prague, Wrocław/Vratislav/Breslau

RESUME
The presented study revises the theses of a Polish medieval historian Bogusław Czechowicz on the aspirations of the Wrocław municipal representatives to replace Prague from her place as the capital of the Bohemian Crown. Research has focused upon the geographical and political conditions, which contributed to the formation of the concept of Prague as “the Capital and Head” of the Kingdom and upon the circumstances under which the first references on the “second city” of the country in primary sources, i.e. the late medieval Wrocław, appear.
The author, in line with theses found in earlier literature, demonstrates that this status in terms of its political contents only materialised one hundred years later.
According to tradition, Prague may have been designated as “the Capital of the Kingdom” from the first third of the 14th century, yet it only materialised during the monarchical crisis linked to the rejection of the succession rights of Sigismund of Luxembourg. Literary and legal argumentation connected with the University’s writers’ circle complemented intense religious argumentation which legitimised the standpoints of the Hussite communities of Prague. Kutná Hora was the principal rival to Prague at that time and became the symbol of persecution of the followers of John Huss. The fact that Kutná Hora became a temporary safe haven for Sigismund of Luxembourg played its own role, alongside, possibly, a different language background of this environment leading to the minimal reception of the teachings of the John Huss reform circle. Latent tensions between the two towns can be documented in sources even in the following decades. After the election of Vladislav Jagello in Kutná Hora, the Prague councillors extorted a declaration that the place of holding this Diet was not at the expense of the rights of their community – the Capital of the Kingdom. The relations between the two relatively not too distant artisan and commercial centres were additionally accompanied by conflicts between the Old and New Towns of Prague. Yet, the restoration of residential and the Land-administrative roles of Prague Castle, which the ruler came to brand as Head of the Kingdom at the beginning of the 16th century, became a more serious threat to the political standing of Prague than their internal disunity. However, Prague sources do not document any rivalry with Wrocław.
At the same time as Vladislav Jagello and his court left the Prague conurbation, the political ambitions of Wrocław within the framework of Silesian political territory also faded away. Simultaneously, the attitudes of the Wrocław burgher class also underwent a development, the roots of which we can trace to the expansion of the power of the Bohemian rulers to the Oder River region and the annexation of the Duchies of Silesia to the Czech co-state. In the newly established balance of power, a number of the Ducal Houses, the Bishop of Wrocław and city of Wrocław itself had to re-define their positions. The ambitions of all the participants, Vratislav not exempting, aimed to only one goal, namely to become the decisive power in Silesia.
Generations of Vratislav aldermen strove for the implementation of their notion of their city as the centre of the Land. One step towards the realisation of this plan was to take over control of the Wrocław Hauptman Office, whose administrator was unofficially understood to be the first deputy of the ruler in Silesia. However, this was not enough for the city to be respected as “the Head of the Land”.
Therefore, the Wrocław aldermen changed their rhetorical strategy. Instead of talking about “the Head of Silesia” they started to talk about the second city of the Bohemian Crown Lands. They based their arguments for this assertion on the Proemium of a Charter by Sigismund of Luxembourg from March 1420. It was drawn up by a prothonotary acquainted with the hierarchy of Crown cities ossified in an Article in the Maeistas Carolinae of Charles IV. The formulation “the second Capital and Head of the Kingdom”, initially merely a matter of prestige, became endowed with a real political importance in the preserved texts and ambitions of the Wrocław aldermen. At the end of the Middle Ages and during the new political-administrative situation it could, finally, be replaced by the designation “the capital city” of Silesia. This political dispute was once again focused primarily on the Duchies of Silesia and the reference to the status of Prague was utilised as one of its arguments. However, as summarised above, we do not find any more specific references in sources of Prague provenance about the Oder metropolis being viewed as a political rival. Thus, within the framework of the Bohemian Crown Lands, both cities directed their own plans towards different regions of power and towards different populaces.
Translated by Alena Linhartová


PARMA Tomáš
Putování jednoho kardinálského klobouku.
Počátky a předpoklady církevní kariéry kardinála Františka Dietrichsteina ... s. 384
(The Travels of One Cardinal’s Hat.
Beginnings and Prerequisites for the Ecclesiastical Career of Franz Cardinal von Dietrichstein)

This article deals with the history of one particular Cardinal’s hat, whose journeys and fortunes intermingle with many aspects of European politics and ecclesiastical life. The main sources for its travails are the notes of a direct witness of these events, Juan Roco de Campofrío. In 1577, the
privilege of wearing this hat (galero) was granted to Archduke Albrecht, son of the Emperor Maximilian II by Pope Gregory XIII. It was sent to him in Spain, where he resided at the Court of Philip II. The Spanish King wished to appoint him also as the Archbishop of Toledo but due to his youth this
appointment was postponed. It only occurred after the death of Cardinal Quiroga in 1594. As a matter of coincidences, Albrecht did not accept a higher ordination and he was consequently able to relinquish the galero in 1598. It journeyed from Madrid to Brussels, and from there Albrecht sent it, accompanied by the Archbishop of Besançon and two other prelates back to Rome. Pope Clement VIII allowed the Archduke to decide on whose head the galero were to rest. Albrecht chose García Loaysa de Girón as his successor in the office of the Toledo Archbishopric, but the new Spanish King Philip III rejected his nomination. Thus, the galero finally came to rest on the head of Franz Seraph von Dietrichstein, and travelled with him to Moravia where this young Cardinal became the Bishop of Olomouc. His fortunes were also shared by his Cardinal’s galero which was used only exceptionally, during ceremonial entrances and processions. In the end it was probably also used during the Cardinal’s funeral at the beginning of the year 1637. Any traces of it then disappear; it was probably destroyed during the course of the Thirty Years’ War. The aim of this article is to point out the reasons which lead to the appointment of Franz Seraph von Dietrichstein as Cardinal, amongst which a coincidence also played its part.
Key words: Church history, Moravia, Cardinal’s Hat (galero), Philip II of Spain, Archduke Albert of Austria, Isabella Clara Eugenia of Austria, García de Loaysa y Girón, Juan Roco de Campofrío, Francis cardinal Dietrichstein

RESUME
This article deals with the history of one particular Cardinal’s hat, whose journeys and fortunes intermingle with many aspects of European politics and ecclesiastical life. The main source for its travails are the notes of a direct witness of these events, Juan Roco de Campofrío. In 1577, the privilege of wearing this hat (galero) was granted to Archduke Albrecht, son of the Emperor Maximilian II by Pope Gregory XIII and it was sent to him in Spain, where he resided at the Court of Philip II. In addition, the Spanish King wished to appoint him the Archbishop of Toledo but due to his younth this appointment was postponed. It only occurred after the death of Cardinal Quiroga in 1594. As a matter of coincidences, Albrecht did not accept a higher ordination and he was consequently able to relinquish the galero in 1598. The biretta journeyed from Madrid to Brussels, and from there Albrecht sent it, accompanied by the Archbishop of Besançon and two other prelates back to Rome. Pope Clement VIII allowed the Archduke to decide on whose head the galero were to rest. Albrecht chose García Loaysa de Girón as his successor in the office of the Toledo Archbishopric, but the new Spanish King Philip III rejected his nomination. Thus, the galero finally came to rest on the head of Franz Seraph von Dietrichstein, and travelled with him to Moravia, where this young man became Bishop of Olomouc. His fortunes were also shared by his Cardinal’s galero which was used only exceptionally, during ceremonial entrances and processions. In the end it was probably also used during the Cardinal’s funeral at the beginning of the year 1637, following which any traces of it disappear. It was probably destroyed during the course of the Thirty Years’ War.
The aim of this article is to point out the reasons which lead to the appointment of Franz Seraph von Dietrichstein as Cardinal: apart from his origins (from his mother Margarita de Cardona he descended from a family of Spanish grandees,
on the paternal line he was a grandson of the illegitimate daughter of Emperor Maximilian I), his talents and education, a significant role was also played by several coincidences, which became historical factors in this case. The same was true in the case of the Archduke Albrecht: firstly, the longevity of Cardinal Quiroga, which for so long prevented his accession to the Toledo Archbishopric; secondly that his ordination as priest and bishop might have been prevented by his mother’s devotion, as she wanted to have the church, in which the ordination was to take place, whitewashed; a final coincidence was the death of his elder brother. Once Albrecht resigned his cardinalate due to a dynastic marriage, the series of coincidences continued. The delay of Claude de Longwy, Archbishop of Besançon in his diocesis meant that he only arrived to Rome at a time when Philip II’s intention regarding the appointment of Loyasa as the new Toledo Archbishop could not be fulfilled. Albrecht’s choice of Dietrichstein was most likely influenced by the fact that there was not a suitable pretender for the galero in the House of Habsburg. In addition, it would not have been very appropriate to „keep“ it in the Family. A certain role was also played by the very choice of Bishop of Olomouc as the Papal Curia and the Imperial Court laboriously turned towards the person of Dietrichstein, because a second of the suitable candidates, Maximilian of Pernstein, died in Rome during his studies. An analysis of the particular case and fortunes of one Cardinal’s hat can point the way to a comprehensive and quantitatively taxing analysis of all the careers of Cardinals in the Early Modern Age, which would make the current classification of cardinalate appointments (especially in the works of Christopher Weber) more precise.
Translated by Alena Linhartová


KIRYU Yuko
Kodym’s Newspaper and the Creation of a Rural Public Sphere in Bohemia ... s. 407
(Kodymovy Hospodářské noviny a vznik veřejné sféry na českém venkově)

The development of civil society has been one of the major aspects in Czech historiography. Nonetheless, we still know relatively little about how this process took place in rural Bohemia, as so far, studies have focused primarily on the urban milieu. This paper aims to examine the Agricultural Newspaper under the editor Filip Stanislav Kodym (1852–1861). This periodical was published as part of the activities directed at enlightening the rural inhabitants after the abolition of serfdom in 1848–1849 and successfully penetrated the rural population. Analysing the Agricultural Newspaper, this paper tries to demonstrate the genesis of a public sphere in rural Bohemia following the abolition of serfdom.
Key words: Bohemia, 19th century, public sphere, civil society, newspaper

RESUME
Rozvoj občanské společnosti představuje jedno z klíčových témat novějšího českého dějepisectví. Přesto dosud víme poměrně málo, jak probíhal tento proces na českém venkově, neboť se dosavadní studie zaměřily především na městské prostředí. Článek analyzuje Hospodářské noviny, v kontextu daného tématu zásadní periodikum za redakce Filipa Stanislava Kodyma (1852–1861), a ukazuje genezi veřejné sféry na českém venkově po zrušení poddanství v letech 1848–1849.
Hospodářské noviny publikovala císařsko-královská Vlastenecko-hospodářská společnost jako součást aktivit směřujících k „osvícení“ venkovského obyvatelstva po zrušení poddanství. Není překvapující, že osvětu venkovanů podporovali rovněž čeští liberálové, moderní český národ si představovali jako společenství rovných a nezávislých občanů. Usilovali je vytvořit prostřednictvím vzdělání venkovských lidí, což mělo usnadnit osvobození od poddanských břemen.
Hospodářské noviny nejprve redigoval Josef Pečírka (1851–1852), ale počet jejich předplatitelů se nezvýšil tak, jak se očekávalo. Filip Stanislav Kodym, kterého lze označit jako českého liberála, převzal místo redaktora v roce 1852.
Pod Kodymovou redakcí noviny úspěšně pronikly do venkovské populace a staly se jedním z nejvýznamnějších českých periodik své doby. Co charakterizuje jeho vedení, je prostor a důležitost, které noviny vyhradily dopisům poslaným jejich čtenáři redakci. Kodym opakovaně vyzýval čtenáře, aby mu poslali příspěvky, a z nich publikoval co možná nejvíce spolu se svými komentáři v novinách. Podíl čtenářských příspěvků rychle stoupal.
Analýza interakce mezi čtenáři a Kodymem ukazuje, že se Kodym pomocí širokého spektra příspěvků snažil vytvořit veřejné fórum. Jeho novinové zprostředkování však nebylo neutrální, „výchovnými“ komentáři vštěpoval čtenářům občanské normy. Jeho snaha se ukazuje jako plodná, stál u vzniku „diskutující veřejnosti“ mezi venkovským obyvatelstvem. Tímto způsobem přinesly Hospodářské noviny podnět k vytváření veřejné sféry na českém venkově.


HOLUBEC Stanislav
Moderní světový systém Immanuela Wallersteina:
čtyřicet let vývoje jednoho paradigmatu a jeho reflexe ... s. 440
(The Modern World-Systems of Immanuel Wallerstein:
Forty Years of Development of One Paradigm and its Reflection)

The world-systems perspective linked with the name of Immanuel Wallerstein is a social-scientific paradigm in existence for more than forty years with varied sources of inspiration and profiled in different directions over time, as to fundamental postulates, research topics and also social sciences, which utilise this perspective. The author poses the question as to which social scientific approaches and theories impacted upon the formation and development of this paradigm, especially with regard to its key categories: hegemony, world economies, world empires, cores and peripheries. In addition, he poses another question as to how this paradigm changed in time, how the international community of authors, who took it as their starting point, changed and finally what its reflection outwith the Anglo-Saxon world, especially in the Central European environment, was. This article demonstrates that during the 1990s this paradigm succeeded relatively well in transforming itself from a project centred on the research of the history of global capitalism into a discipline which we can somewhat less accurately term the economic sociology of globalization. The article also demonstrates that this paradigm met with a rather varied response in different parts of the world. On one hand it was very successful in the USA and Latin America, it had a certain impact in Asia and Russia, yet it was less successful in Continental Europe. In the case of the post-socialist Central and Eastern Europe, it primarily met with a positive response amongst historians in the 1980s and amongst the critically minded younger generation of sociologists and politologists after the year 2000. Yet, in general, the response to it in the Czech environment has been negligible and despite a clear wave of interest in the first decade of the 21st century, it seems that this paradigm has not permanently established itself here.
Key words: world-systems, Immanuel Wallerstein, international response, world economy, geopolitics

RESUME
The world-systems perspective linked with the name of Immanuel Wallerstein is a social and scientific paradigm in existence for more than forty years with varied sources of inspiration and profiled in different directions over time, as to fundamental postulates, research topics and also social sciences, which utilise this perspective.
The author poses the question as to which social scientific approaches and theories impacted upon the formation and development of this paradigm. Its two principal sources are dependency theory and the Annales School, further the Polish School of the economic history of the Early Modern Age, and to a lesser degree sociological and structural functionalism, Marxism, Maoism, geopolitical theories and the theory of business cycles. This social-scientific paradigm is sometimes said to be the one author’s School or tradition, yet this is inaccurate because it is possible to identify more classical promoters within its framework: Andre Gunder-Frank, Janet Abu-Lughod, Christopher Chase-Dunn and Giovanni Arrighi, who formed concepts more or less different from Wallerstein’s concept. This article identifies three categories of works originating within the framework of the paradigm: great monographs by Wallerstein and other founders of this School, striving ambitiously at providing as complete a picture as possible of the functioning of the modern world; regionally focused works illustrating the paradigm in relation to a certain territory, in particular national states, and finally theme-focused works concentrating upon shorter time periods, which focus on analysing one certain event within the framework of the world-systems, most often from the areas of globalisation, commodity chains, environmental issues or social movements.
Other parts of this study analyse critically the key categories of this perspective. In particular this refers to the trinitarian concept, i.e. mini-systems, world-empires and world-economies, which is perceived as too rigorous and distorting the complexity of historical processes, which is evident, e.g. if we wanted to use them to describe the category of medieval Europe, as well as the Eurocentricity of these categories, which ignore the interactions in the Early Modern non-European world and overestimate the degree of the maturity of Early Modern Europe. In a similarly critical way, the category of hegemonies, their succession, the relationship between hegemonies and attempts to transform world-economy into a world-empire, or potentially the suitability of this category to analyse the modern-day world are approached. Further, the categories of core, semi-periphery and periphery and the mechanism of unequal exchange connected with them and peripheralisation are critically acknowledged. It is pointed out that definitions of these categories allow for the possibility of several interpretations and also the uncertainty whether they should rather be defined on the basis of economic activities or the functioning of local states. In particular, critical attention is drawn to the fact that the boundaries between these categories are unclear, the concept of unequal exchange raises many questions and so does the connected issue of the potential deepening inequality between core and periphery within world-systems.
This article further demonstrates that during the 1990s this paradigm succeeded relatively well in transforming itself from a project centred on the research of the history of global capitalism into a discipline which we can somewhat less accurately term the economic sociology of globalization, despite the fact that it had been regarded as out-moded. This is the concept of commodity chain and ecologization of the world-systems paradigm, which represent the two most important
innovations over the past twenty years. As the focus of interest has shifted from history to present-day, world-systems paradigm has not been much spoken about in discussions about the so-called global history. Yet, giving prominence to the importance of the global economy could make a real contribution to global history. The article also demonstrates that the world-systems paradigm met with a rather varied response in different parts of the world. On one hand it was very successful in the USA and Latin America, it had a certain impact in Eastern Asia and Russia, yet it was less successful in Continental Europe. In the case of post-socialist Central and Eastern Europe, it met with a positive response especially amongst historians in the 1980s and amongst the critically minded younger generation of sociologists and politologists after the year 2000. In general, the response to it in the Czech environment has been and is negligible and despite a clear surge of interest in the first decade of the 21st century, it does not seem that this paradigm has permanently established itself here. This might be ascribed to the absence of research on the unequal development of the historical regions in modern Czech historiography and other social sciences, as well as the disinclination of Czech social sciences to reflect upon themselves in a Central European regional context.



DISKUSE | DISCUSSION

JUDSON Pieter M.
Neue Sichtweisen. Die Erinnerung an die Habsburgermonarchie heute … s. 480
(Nové perspektivy. Paměť habsburské monarchie dnes)

This essay argues that in recent decades historians have developed several new approaches to the history of the Habsburg Monarchy. Today the Habsburg Monarchy is not seen as a “prison of the peoples” but rather as a laboratory for modernity, as a state comparable to other European states both in its strengths and weaknesses. The essay examines three specific areas: 1) the relationship between nation and empire in politics and daily life; 2) the empire seen in comparative European perspective; 3) the new tendency to see the collapse of the empire in terms of long term legacies and continuities rather than as a radical break.
Key words: Habsburg Monarchy, nationalism, Europe, 19th and 20th centuries

RESUME
V posledních desetiletích přišli historikové s několika novými přístupy k dějinám habsburské monarchie. Dnes již nebývá tato monarchie primárně vnímána jako „žalář národů”, ale více – a rozmanitěji – jako laboratoř modernity, jako státní útvar, obdobný a srovnatelný s jinými evropskými státy jak v silných, tak slabých stránkách. Esej zkoumá trojici specifických oblastí. Jde o vztah mezi národy a říší (vídeňským centrem) v politice a každodenním životě, dále o kontext – nahlížení habsburské říše ve srovnávací evropské perspektivě – a konečně o nové tendence sledovat zhroucení monarchie na podzim roku 1918 z hlediska dlouhodobých procesů se zdůrazněním prvků kontinuity spíše než radikálního přelomu.

PEŠEK Jiří
Knihy novoměšťanů a obyvatel Nového Města pražského 16. a 17. století v moderní edici. Zamyšlení nad prameny a dalšími možnostmi jejich dějepisného využití … s. 490
(The Books of New Town Burghers and Inhabitants of the
New Town of Prague in the 16th and 17th Centuries in a Contemporary Edition. A Reflection of Primary Sources and Further Options for their Historical Usage)

This discursive contribution analyses the editions of the three volumes on Prague, Libri Civitatis, by Jaroslava Mendelová. The first two list newly accepted burghers and their guarantors from the ranks of the citizens of the New Town of Prague in the years 1518 to 1657. Volume III contains the list of the inhabitants of the very same Town of Prague from 1585 and of their burgher guarantors. In general, those listed were poor inhabitants who were not entitled to municipal rights, yet they did not reside there illegally, without the knowledge or even against the will of their manorial nobility. All three primary sources have evidential value far exceeding the “simple” level of the history of urban migrations. The author especially highlights their use for the prosopographic research of Prague in the Early Modern Age.
Key words: The books of New Town burghers, register of town inhabitants, burgher guarantors, the New Town of Prague, the Early Modern Age

RESUME
Eine neue Edition der Bücher der Neubürger und der Einwohner der Prager Neustadt des 16. und des 17. Jahrhunderts. Überlegungen zu diesen Quellen und der Möglichkeit ihrer historiographischen Nutzung
Der Diskussionsbeitrag analysiert drei „Prager“ Bände der Editionsreihe Libri Civitatis, die von Jaroslava Mendelová bearbeitet wurden. Die ersten zwei Bände beinhalten Listen der neu in den Verband der Bürger aufgenommenen Personen und ihrer Bürgen aus den Reihen der Neustädter Bürger aus den Jahren 1518 bis 1657. Der dritte Band vermittelt die Konskription der nichtbürgerlichen Einwohner der Neustadt, die auf Verlangen des böhmischen Landtages im Jahre 1585 durchgeführt wurde. Auch hier finden sich Tausende Namen von bürgerlichen Zeugen, die der Ratskommission bestätigten, dass die – meistens sozial niedrig stehenden – Einwohner entweder in Prag geboren wurden oder sich hier legal – also mit dem Freibrief oder mindestens der Erlaubnis ihrer Obrigkeit aufhielten. Alle drei Quellen haben ein großes Aussagepotential, das weit über die Problematik der Städtemigrationen hinausreicht. Der Verfasser thematisiert die Möglichkeiten ihrer Auswertung und legt dabei Akzent auf ihren Wert für die prosopographische Untersuchung des frühneuzeitlichen Prags.


OBZORY LITERATURY | REVIEW ARTICLES AND REVIEWS

RECENZE
s. 508 - 581

ZPRÁVY O LITERATUŘE
s. 582 - 624

Z VĚDECKÉHO ŽIVOTA | CHRONICLE

Nekrology

Zdeněk Měřínský (16. ledna 1948 – 9. září 2016)… s. 625
(Josef Žemlička)

Miloslav kardinál Vlk (17. května 1932 – 18. března 2017) … s. 628
(Jaroslav Šebek)

Výtahy z českých časopisů a sborníků … s. 632