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

ročník XCIV
č. 4


Kristýna JAŠKOVÁ
Rusko a maltská otázka v letech 1800–1804
[Russia and the Maltese Issue, 1800–1804]
s. 505–522

In the troubled atmosphere of the early 19th century, which was characterised as the period of Napoleonic wars, Malta became a region, where interests of European powers clashed. It posed as a gate to the Mediterranean Sea and consequently a chance to gain control over Egypt. Great Britain made her claim to Egypt and France desired to re-capture it.  The situation became more complicated when, at the end of 1798, the Russian tsar Pavel I. got himself proclaimed grand-master of the Knights of Malta. At that time, the island grew into an intersection of the three greatest European powers’ interests. 
Through analysing contemporary materials, the essay follows diplomatic negotiations between the mentioned countries and indicates to what extent the Maltese issue shaped relations between the powers in 1800-1804.
In 1800, the tsar managed to make peace with Napoleon, which resulted in termination of all hostile schemes against Russia. However, the tsar’s unexpected death in March 1801 stopped the gradual, growing affiliation between France and Russia. With Alexander I., not only the existing pro-Bonaparte course, but also the view of Malta, changed.
Settlement of the Maltese issue was determined by the long-awaited Treaty of Amiens, signed on 2nd March 1082 between Great Britain and the French Republic. It became one of the most heatedly discussed points of the entire convention and a subject of lengthy disputes not only between both the signatories, but also in the entire Eastern Empire.
The situation started to escalate and headed for a new war at an uncontrollable pace. In addition, Napoleon deliberately exaggerated the disputability of the Maltese issue and fuelled the disputes in order to bring the tsar to his side and subsequently use Malta as a pretext for unleashing another conflict against Great Britain.  In spite of these efforts, Russia deepened its orientation to Great Britain. Bonaparte’s unwillingness to compromise some of his European territorial ambitions contributed to this progress. Whether the efforts on all sides were real or just pretended, the indeterminate situation finally made the tsar enter a counter-French coalition in 1804 and, after a brief détente, a new war broke out again.

Slovanský mýtus v reflexii chorvátskeho ilyrizmu
[The Slavic Myth in the Reflection of the Croatian Illyrism]
s. 523–537

The essay describes the creation of a nationalistic ideology in the Illyric movement. It pays particular attention to the archetypal origin of Slavic, or perhaps Illyric ideology. The preface explains general theory of the myth’s essence and its role in the European protonationalism in the first half of the 19th century. The author accentuates the fact that symbols and rituals, together with other forms of archetypal conduct, differ from other (medieval and ancient) manifestations of sacral life by their expressional interpretation and refinement. 
The first part of the essay deals with the myth’s role in Croatian protonationalism and its link with the cultural collective identity of the Slavs. It exposes the terminological heterogeneity and mistaken identity of the terms Illyrian, Croatian and Slav, which was caused by an initial inaccuracy of the Slavic nationalistic conception. 
The second part is dedicated to the process of forming the South Slavs’ ideology in connection with the practical side of their mother tongue, which was one of the most important forms of manifesting their national spirit. Upon the uneasy process of implementing Gaj’s standard language form, it indicates the level of radius and popularity of Illyrism not only in its centre, i.e. the Croatian territory, but also beyond it, particularly in the Serbian and Slovenian space.
The concept of Illyrism as a collective union of the Slavic entity followed pan-Slavic ideas of Croatian scholars in the first half of the 19th century. The closing part comments on their influence on the Illyrian movement, disputes concerning territorial boundaries of Great Illyria and searching for legitimacy of the term “Illyrian” as a collective denomination of the South Slavs.

Ukrajinská otázka v českém meziválečném myšlení a politice
[The Ukrainian Issue in the Czech Interwar Thinking and Policy]
s. 539–558

From its very first days the young Czechoslovak Republic had to take a clear stance toward the instable conditions in Central and Eastern European region. With the support of the governing circles the Czech Lands became one of the major centers of Ukrainian national existence in the interwar Europe. There were dozens of educational, cultural and scientific Ukrainian institutions rising in Prague and other cities. This would not be possible without President Masaryk’s personal contribution. The Czech attitude toward Ukrainedom as a concrete political program was challenged by the case of Subcarpathian Rus’. At first there was much confusion on the part of the government which is why it chose to support Russophiles in the early 1920’s. Later the government changed its mind in favor of the Ukrainian movement. At the same time, however, every sign of Ukrainian nationalist spirit was considered by the authorities as a separatist threat. At that moment the Czech standpoint concerning Ukrainians reached a crossroads of topical political interests and traditional reminiscences related to the Ukrainian question and originating in the fundamental Czech relationship with Russia. With regard to Ukrainianism the domestic political scene was roughly divided along the Right-Left division line. While the socialist parties aligned with the ‘Castle’ were supportive of the Ukrainians’ right of self-determination, the conservative and nationalist platforms were attracted to an idea of Russia within pre-revolutionary borders. This scheme corresponded with the prewar political fragmentation of the Czech political environment. The Ukrainian exile socialist groups enjoyed a special support from Czechoslovak governments while the rightist Cossack, Monarchist or nationalist factions were kept under surveillance. The Ukrainians found a number of qualified apologists – as well as rivals – among Czechoslovak historians, Slavists and publicists who focused on the topic in the early 1920’s.
With the onset of Czechoslovakia’s second decade, the Czech view on the Ukrainian exiles and their ambitions got politicized. The reason behind this was the changing international situation, the problematic Czechoslovak-Polish relations, a growing pro-Soviet orientation of Czechoslovak foreign policy and last but not least the worsening national conflict in the easternmost part of Czechoslovakia. The necessity of coming to terms with Poland correlating with radicalization of younger Ukrainian generation attracted attention of the state intelligence. Shortly before the German invasion of Bohemia and Moravia, Prague had to accept the victory of Ukrainian national idea in autonomous Subcarpathia.

Martin MAREK
Československá delegace studující kaučukodárné rostliny v SSSR v roce 1936
[Studying Rubber Yielding Plants in the USSR by a Czechoslovak Delegation in 1936]

s. 559–567

In summer 1936, a six-member delegation was sent to the USSR to collect rubber from rubber trees. Although the Czechoslovak Agricultural Academy was the official promoter, it was the Baťa Company, which initialised and sponsored the delegation. An impulse to the mission stemmed from growing prices of raw rubber on the world market.  The project continuously followed the existing study programmes of the Baťa Company on the Soviet territory. The content of the programmes demonstrates opinions, which the Baťa management cherished about the Soviet Union and its science. After the first familiarisation with the problem and procuring the necessary documents in Moscow offices, the delegation spent the longest part of their four-week long stay in the Caucasus, where most of the cultivating and productive farms were located.  In their paper, the members of the delegation concentrated on the description of alternative rubber-yielding plants, in particular the Kok-saghyz (Taraxacum Kok-saghyz Rodin), which was suitable for naturalising in the Czechoslovak conditions. They also described physical and geographical aspects of the countryside, condition of the farm building and apartments, personality traits of supervisors and social conditions of the peasants. They criticised the quality of services. During their stay, the delegation recorded several interesting societal, political and economical contexts. When they returned, their findings were publi¬shed in special and popular educational forms. For several following years, botanical findings of the Kok-saghyz were experimentally tested on the Zlín experimental grounds, before unprofitability of industrial production was proved.

István JANEK
Československo mezi léty 1948–1956 (Pohled maďarského historika)
[Czechoslovakia between 1948 and 1956 (Viewed by a Hungarian Historian)]
s. 569–588

In 1956, the Czechoslovak authorities successfully suppressed all traces of a potential uprising. The Czechoslovak society was not yet prepared for a political turn-over in the 50’s. Slovak Hungarians could choose between their survival as a minority and an uprising in autumn 1956. A sober deliberation excluded all steps leading to a Hungarian revolution. The Slovak Hungarians still had vivid memories of suffering, which they experienced after 1945. Worries of being accused of irredentism were strong and any support of Hungarian revolution was unthinkable.


Jaromír MACH
Komentář a dokumenty k dějinám Ruské vědecké společnosti badatelské při Ruské svobodné univerzitě v Praze
[Documents and Comments on the History of the Russian Scientific Society Attached to Russian Independent University in Prague]
s. 589–602

With regard to the social structure of the Russian exilian community in the Czechoslovak Republic, the Russian aid programme was dominated by support of education system, science and research. Under this support, which is unique on a world wide scale, Russian National University was established in Prague in 1923, shortly after the arrival of significant Russian intellectuals in the Czechoslovak Republic. As a result of gradual decrease in the number of students (i.e. Russian emigrants) in the late 1920’s, the university started to concentrate on scientific activities. This fact inspired estab¬lishment of the Scientific Research Society in 1933.
The Society held more than 250 lectures in its ten-year-long existence. It published twelve volumes of scientific works and many more works by individual authors in an unbound form. The main source of income for publishing activities came from annual celebrations of the Russian Scientific Day (i.e. the so-called Tatjania Day), which was organised by the Society.
In addition, the Society helped many outstanding exiled Russian scientists to find a profession. Some of them did not stay long in Prague and implanted themselves at West European or American universities. However, many scientists stayed in Prague a great part of their academic lives and rooted themselves in the Czechoslovak science in an ineffaceable way.
The interest and respect, which the Society (and it members) enjoyed in the academic world, is documented by extensive correspondence and exchange of publications. The Society kept relations with colleges and universities all around the world. Some universities even requested re-establishment of the contact after WWII.


Dějiny Chorvatska
(Filip Šisler)
s. 603–605

Miroslav JEŘÁBEK
Za silnou střední Evropu. Středoevropské hnutí mezi Budapeští, Vídní a Brnem v letech 1925–1939
(Vladimír Goněc)
s. 605–607

Balkánské gerily v komparativní perspektivě
(Momčilo Pavlović – Tetsuya Sahara – Predrag J. Marković (eds.): Guerilla in the Balkans: Freedom Fighters, Rebels or Bandits – Researching the Guerilla and Paramilitary Forces in the Balkans. International Conference Belgrade – Leskovac – Vranje Sept. 14–16, 2006)
(František Šístek)
s. 608–613

A Good Comrade. János Kádár, Communism and Hungary
(Barbora Umancová)
s. 613–614

Plameny nenávisti. Etnické čistky v Evropě 20. století
(Filip Šisler)
s. 614–617

Dimitris KERIDIS (ed.)
New Approaches to Balkan Studies
(Filip Šisler)
s. 617–619

Hladomor v Ukrajine v rokoch 1932–1933
(Michal Roman)
s. 620–621

Historik v proměnách doby a prostředí 19. století
K vydání připravili Jiří Hanuš a Radomír Vlček
(Josef Šaur)
s. 622–623

Filozofskiot kluč na makedonskiot identitet
(Tereza Fantlová)
s. 623–625

(Petr Krpec)
s. 625–627

Trojjazyčné vydanie Zvädnutého lístia I. Franka
(Mikuláš Nevrlý)
s. 627–628

Lubomir E. HAVLIK
Dukljanska hronika i Dalmatinska legenda
(Lubomíra Havlíková)
s. 628–629)

Pod okriljem svetosti. Kult svetich vladara i relikvija u srednjovekovnoj Srbiji
(Lubomíra Havlíková)
s. 630–631

Vztahy Rakousko-Uherska a Spojených států amerických v období první světové války
(Petr Prokš)
s. 631–633


Svět akademií. Rodina Jirečkova, Josef Hlávka a organizování české vědy (K 100. výročí úmrtí J. Hlávky)
[The World of Academies. The Jireček Family, Josef Hlávka and Organising the Czech Science (Commemoration of J. Hlávka’s 100th Death Anniversary)]
s. 645–656

The essay maps relationships of particular members of the Jireček family with the architect and patron of the Czech science, Josef Hlávka. It hints on some less known aspects of the ČAVU’s origin and suggests that the Jireček family was very friendly with the Hlávka family. 
Of the Jireček family, Josef Jireček was the closest to Josef Hlávka and the person most strongly linked with the establishment of ČAVU. His work for the architect and builder Josef Jireček, his role as Hlávka’s expert adviser and lawyer, his considerate influence on Hlávka and empathy with his conditions and problems have not yet received appropriated attention. J. Jireček participated in preparatory phases of establishing the ČAVU: he talked Hlávka out of selling the Lužany estate and thus had merit in maintaining one of the principal sources of its financing. He prepared for Hlávka dedicative documents for establishing a foundation, which supported Czech science and art. Unlike his brother Hermenegild and son Konstantin, Josef Jireček did not become a member of ČAVU, because he died in 1888 and did not live to see its official establishment in 1892. The relation between Josef Hlávka and Hermenegild Jireček had a character of mutual admiration. Konstantin Jireček tended to regard the patron of Czech science with disrespect, which is a common practice with young generation.