ČESKÝ ČASOPIS HISTORICKÝ / THE CZECH HISTORICAL REVIEW
https://doi.org/10.56514/cch
ročník 121
č. 4/2023
S. 1009-1276 + i-xx

STUDIE / STUDIES

SOUKUP Pavel
Kolik bylo křižovych vyprav proti husitům? Papežska autorita
a jeji uplatněni ve valce s herezi … S. 1015
(How many crusades against the Hussites were there? Papal authority and its assertion in the war against heresy)

This article examines the ways in which the crusades against the Hussites were launched. It provides a complete overview of papal bulls issued for the purpose of eradicating heresy in Bohemia and Moravia, and explores the relationship between the crusading bulls and specialized legations. In addition, it investigates the practical implementation of papal ordinances, which was the main task of the anti-Hussite legates. The response of the secular arm to the calls to crusade and the preaching campaigns depended on a number of political considerations, meaning that the dispatch of expeditions did not always correspond to papal proclamations. Recurrent military failures resulted in repeated calls to arms by secular authorities and a re-publishing of crusade bulls by papal agents.

Keywords: Papacy – Crusade – Heresy – Hussitism

RESUMÉ
Although Hussitism was condemned as a heresy at the Council of Constance, that did not preclude its further spread. The Church reacted by proclaiming a series of crusades in 1420–1431, and again at the end of the reign of the Bohemian King George of Poděbrady. This article examines the ways in which the crusades against the Hussites were launched. It starts from the so-called pluralist definition, which understands crusade as a religious war authorised by the papacy and rewarded with spiritual benefits and temporal privileges. Typically, a crusade would consist of an issuing of a papal indulgence bull, its publication in a preaching campaign steered by a special legate, and the organization of a military expedition. The practice of the Hussite wars, however, often deviated from this model: either the papal call was not followed by the expected military response, or the warriors went to battle without the appropriate sanctification by the Church leaders. This flexibility in the organization of anti-Hussite crusades has caused a differing count of the crusades by various historians.

This article revisits the problem by providing a complete overview of papal bulls issued for the purpose of eradicating heresy in Bohemia and Moravia. Using manuscript sources from the Vatican archives and elsewhere, it demonstrates that there was a crusade bull for every anti-Hussite legation and every major expedition, including the 1422 and 1426 campaigns, whose crusading status is contested by some historians. During certain legatine terms, however, the papacy issued several crusading bulls, while the first crusade took place without a legatus a latere. Discerning individual crusades based solely on papal ordinances is thus hardly possible. The account of the chronicler Andrew of Regensburg suggests that contemporaries attributed equal weight to papal bulls and to calls to arms issued by papal agents and secular authorities. As a next step, therefore, the article investigates the practical implementation of papal bulls, which was the main task of the anti-Hussite legates. The response of the secular arm to crusader recruitment overseen by a legate depended on a number of political considerations, and thus the dispatch of large expeditions did not always correspond to papal proclamations. Without attempting to answer the question asked in the title of this article, it can be maintained that the crusades against the Hussites could only result from an interplay between ecclesiastical authority and secular agency. The reiteration of crusading calls shows that despite its practical inefficiency, the crusade was considered a relevant means of combatting heresy.

BŮŽEK Václav
Zviře v reprezentaci Habsburků počatkem novověku … S. 1047
(The animal in the representation of the Habsburgs at the beginning of the Modern Period)

The study sets out to present the changing roles of animals in Habsburg residences and courts in the long epoch from the end of the 15th to the beginning of the 17th century with partial time overlaps and in a wider comparative context of selected residences of other European rulers. At the same time, it strives for the inclusion of animals in the representative and propaganda activities of the Habsburgs. Last but not least, it attempts to draw attention to interpretation-bearing research topics, the desirable research of which in the Habsburg residences is inconceivable without a European comparative framework. The author has paid attention to the hunting of wild animals, which was carried out by the Habsburg rulers in the Renaissance and Baroque periods. He has also dealt with methods of obtaining and training horses at the Habsburg residences. The exotic animals in the menageries of Maximilian II and Rudolph II as well as their symbolic importance in the propaganda of the Habsburgs and the dramaturgy of court festivities were not neglected in the study. At least partial attention was focused on the breeding of birds of prey, Galliformes (landfowl), and hunting dogs. Deeper understanding of the changing role of animals in Habsburg residences and courts requires comparative research of the sparsely preserved written and iconographic sources and an interdisciplinary approach anchored in the historical-anthropological concepts of one of the streams of contemporary animal studies, with the awareness that the historical actor will remain mankind, not the animal kingdom.

Keywords: Early Modern Period – Habsburgs – residence – animal – propaganda – representation – hunting – hunting dog – bird of prey – horse – elephant and other exotic animals – landfowl (Galliformes)

RESUMÉ
The study sets out to present the changing roles of animals in Habsburg residences and courts in the long epoch from the end of the 15th to the beginning of the 17th century with partial time overlaps and in a wider comparative context of selected residences of other European rulers. At the same time, it strives for the inclusion of animals in the representative and propaganda activities of the Habsburgs. Last but not least, it attempts to draw attention to interpretation-bearing research topics, the desirable research of which in the Habsburg residences is inconceivable without a European comparative framework.

The changing relationship between Renaissance man and domestic, wild, and exotic animals was mirrored in the Early Modern Period in the representation of the Habsburg rulers and their dynasty. During the hunts organized by Archduke Ferdinand during his time as viceregent of the Kingdom of Bohemia, the joy of being in the wild and his desire to prove his personal skills in hunting experiences were combined. The representation of the knightly virtues of a successful hunter was reflected in the records of his hunting books from 1558–1566, in which not only the number of catches by individual species of game was recorded, but also whether the Archduke had personally hunted the animal and in what way he overcame it. The highest symbolic value was the kill of a deer with a massive rack of antlers, which the vicegerent took down with a single shot from a rifle. If, in exceptional cases, a hunter shot several robust animals at once with a single shot, such shots were considered miraculous, according to the records in the secret hunting book of his great-grandfather Maximilian I from the beginning of the 16th century. The actions of a successful hunter did not differ at the beginning of the Modern Period from the requirements for the behaviour of a victorious knight in a tournament, where the triumph was decided by the number of successful hits with a lance into the opponent’s body.

The image of the Habsburgs as skilled hunters endowed with knightly virtues and extraordinary abilities were part of their personal representation also in the Baroque period. The records in the hunting calendars of Charles VI, conducted in 1712–1740, still listed the data on the species and the number of game animals killed by one’s own hands, but, in comparison with the hunting books of Archduke Ferdinand, they also indicated the weight of individual kills. The increasing number of deer with massive racks of antlers shot and especially their increasing weight were a testimony to the skills of the successful hunter of the Baroque period. Although dogs and birds of prey were used to hunt wild game, a closer interest in learning about their origin, breeding and training in Habsburg residences has remained eclipsed in the research attention because of the fragmentary nature of the sources.

At the beginning of the modern period, the horse was transformed into the primary instrument of the Habsburgs’ representation, their dignity and power. Although they continued to be used in military campaigns and served as a means of transport, they appeared more and more often in court celebrations and entertainments, whether it was ceremonial entries of rulers, tournaments, horse races or horse ballet. Riding schools on the Apennine peninsula, especially in Naples, Mantua, and Ferrara, became the model for horse training for the Habsburgs. Before the middle of the 16th century, the first printed horsemanship manuals for horse training and horsemanship lessons drew from their experience, which were translated from Italian into German and influenced the teaching of horsemanship in Central Europe (especially Federigo Grisone). It was not until a half a century later that horsemanship textbooks were created in the Holy Roman Empire (Marx Fugger, Johann Jacobi von Wallhausen, Hans Creutzberger, Christof Jacob Lieb).

Around the middle of the 16th century, building models of horse stables and riding halls, which Maximilian II began to build near the Hofburg, spread to Vienna from the Apennine Peninsula. From the 1530s to the 1580s, the famous Habsburg stud farms (Falkenhof, Mönchhof, Kladruby nad Labem, Vellenberg and Lipica) were founded. For the crossbreeding of stallions and mares, in the second half of the 16th century, the Habsburgs required horses from famous horse breedings on the Apennine and Iberian peninsulas, which were mediated by their ambassadors at the court of Philip II, especially Adam of Ditrichstein and Hans Khevenhüller. The Habsburg rulers received rare horses from Italian stables not only as gifts from new ambassadors from Venice and Florence at their courts, but in the second half of the 16th century they used family ties to Ferrara and Mantua to acquire them. The lists of the horses and their names, interest in the state of health of stallions, and the feelings of owners when separated from their favourite animals demonstrated the strong emotional ties between Renaissance Man and the noble animal, which historical science has not yet paid research attention to.

Elephants, rhinoceroses, lions, leopards, gazelles, monkeys, parrots and other exotic animals from Africa and Asia reached the Habsburg residences around the middle of the 16th century mainly from the menageries of the Portuguese and Spanish kings. The Portuguese King Manuel I was especially aware of the symbolic meaning of the elephant and the rhinoceros, which since ancient times had embodied the ruling power over the world, so he gifted them to the Pope in 1514–1516 to draw attention to his merits in spreading and consolidating Christianity during overseas voyages. After his death, Queen Catherine of Portugal, who was the sister of Ferdinand I and the wife of John III, paid attention to a menagerie with foreign animals in Lisbon. She sent Indian elephants, rhinoceroses, monkeys, and parrots as gifts to the court of her brother Charles V in Valladolid, where they were seen by her nephew Archduke Maximilian, who held the office of Spanish viceregent there in 1548–1550.

After his return to Vienna, he began building a country residence in Ebersdorf in the 1550s, near which he established a garden and menagerie with foreign plants and animals. Imperial envoys in Spain took care of their shipments. Exotic animals were kept in Prague during the reign of Rudolph II in the Lion’s Court. So far, only in isolated cases have historians investigated the role played by lions, rhinoceroses, elephants, and other foreign animals in the propaganda of Maximilian II and the dramaturgy of court festivities in Habsburg residences. Similar topics are another prospective direction of research based on the interpretation of the symbolic meanings of period emblems of animals and their transformation in a long epoch.

Although exotic animals lived in the menageries of the Habsburg rulers in the second half of the 16th century, some of them preferred fenced gardens with cages and aviaries with common Galliformes from Central European forests. In such gardens, foreign animals were an absolute rarity. This was the case of Ferdinand of Tyrol, who kept only pheasants, partridges, and grouse west of Innsbruck’s Hofburg and at Castle Ambras in Tyrol. On the one hand, he admired the beauty of the colourful plumage of the birds of prey, which he even exhibited at Castle Ruhelust, on the other hand, he passionately watched the hunting games, during which birds of prey tore the bodies of pigeons and roosters from his farms.

Deeper knowledge of the changing role of animals in Habsburg residences and courts in the long epoch from the end of the 15th to the beginning of the 17th century with desirable time overlaps requires a comparative research of sparsely preserved written and iconographic sources and an interdisciplinary approach anchored in the historical-anthropological concepts of one of the streams of contemporary animal studies with awareness that Mankind, not the animal kingdom, will remain the historical actor. The study of animals in early modern Habsburg representation is inconceivable without focusing interpretive attention on both branches of the dynasty in networks of kinship, diplomatic, political, and cultural relations. Such a research approach will make it possible to learn the methods of procuring desired domestic, wild, and exotic animals and the routes along which knowledge about their breeding and training was spread between the residences of rulers and other noble persons in Central Europe.

KYRYCHENKO Volodymyr – SOKALSKA Olena –
SAMOILENKO Olena – BUTYRIN Yevhen
Theoretical concepts of local self-government in the Habsburg Monarchy (The nineteenth-century experience of the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria) … S. 1087
(Teoretické koncepty místní samosprávy v habsburské monarchii /zkušenost z 19. století z Království Haličského a Vladiměřského/)

This historical and legal research addresses the process of scientific conceptualization of the phenomenon of local self-government by the European liberal and democratic thought of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries as well as with the formulation of a theory describing the nature of self-governance and its relationship with the state and its agencies. It demonstrates how theoretical concepts introduced by prominent European scholars were interwoven into the process of reforms in the Habsburg monarchy based on the experience of the crownland of the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria. Furthermore, it shows that although inspired by the ideas of European liberalism, the system of local self-governance created in the Habsburg monarchy had little in common with the ideals of commune theory, while its nature and essence were interpreted only through the state paradigm.

Keywords: self-government – commune – free commune theory – state theory of local self-government – Habsburg monarchy – Galicia – municipal law

RESUMÉ
Článek se zabývá způsobem, jakým evropští myslitelé vnímali místní samosprávu a jak tyto myšlenky ovlivnily reformy v Království Haličském a Vladiměřském za Rakouského císařství. V 18. a 19. století se západní myšlení posouvalo směrem k demokracii, rovnosti a svobodě pod vlivem transformace společnosti způsobené industrializací. Mnozí filozofové diskutovali o ideálním stavu, kdy si občané vládnou sami, oproti realitě moderní zastupitelské vlády. V tomto kontextu se velmi zajímavým tématem stal charakter místní samosprávy a její vztah k ústřední vládní moci.

Příspěvek nastiňuje teorie badatelů, jako je například Johannes Althusius, Sidney a Beatrice Webbovi, Carl von Rotteck, Albert Schäffle, Rudolf Gneist a další. Jejich teorie komunit předpokládaly, že místní společenství budou o svých záležitostech rozhodovat samy, bez vměšování ze strany státu. Liberální ústavní myšlení v Rakousku pak ovlivňovaly především myšlenky Carla von Rotteck, který snesl důvody pro omezení byrokratické státní moci a ustavení samosprávných obcí dodržujících zákony, avšak vybavených sebeurčením. Jeho názory se však setkaly s kritikou ostatních teoretiků, jako byl například Lorenz von Stein. Ti argumentovali, že v praxi zůstává místní samospráva podřízená a závislá na dominantní státní moci. Příspěvek analyzuje situaci v Haličsku-Vladiměřsku a ukazuje vztahy mezi teorií a realizací v jejich komplexnosti. I přes liberální vlivy zůstal rakouský systém založen na dominanci státu nad místními orgány a komunitní reformy tak nikdy plně nerealizovaly teoretické ideály samosprávy. Přesto však mělo i Steinovo paradigma svá omezení. Tím, jak kladlo důraz na podřízenost komunit, nedokázalo vysvětlit sociální reality lokalizovaných potřeb. Příspěvek popisuje, jak se tyto rozpory mezi místní a státní koncepcí postupem času dařilo uvádět v soulad tím, že se ústřední i místní orgány začaly považovat za spolupracující společenské organismy, a nikoli za autonomní izolované jednotky.

Toto jemné rozlišení mezi tím, jak byla místní samospráva v rakouském kontextu pojímána a posléze institucionalizována, poskytuje širší poučení. Rozpory mezi teoretickými ideály a praktickými omezeními jsou téma, které se v analýze politických reforem stále znovu opakuje. Poznatky týkající se vyvažování práv ústředních a místních orgánů mají velký význam pro teorii vládnutí i v současnosti. Příspěvek nabízí dobře odůvodněnou historickou analýzu a významně tak přispívá k odbornému vědění. Umožňuje nám lépe porozumět vývoji formativních lokalistických myšlenek a tomu, jak byly realizovány v rámci politických a společenských podmínek své doby. Studium Haličska-Vladiměřska nabízí mikrokosmos, v němž je místní sebeurčení coby mocný princip objevující se po celém světě formováno vlivy, které jej přesahují.

LHOTÁK Jan
Čestné měšťanství a občanství jako konfliktní pole politických vztahů: české země 1849-1920 … S. 1111
(Honorary burgher status and citizenship as a conflicting field of political relations: the Czech lands 1849–1920)

The presented paper deals with the symbolic institute of honorary burgher status and citizenship, which arose from the originally medieval granting of burgher rights and after 1850 became a fixed part of the legislation of municipal foundations as a manifestation of the highest honour that local governments could endow. In its first part, the study follows the legislative development within the Austrian Empire (Austria-Hungary) with special attention to the Czech lands. The second part then, using the example of specific cases, formulates a thesis about the conflicting dimension of honorary burgher status/citizenship against the background of political struggles, conditioned by the electoral participation of its laureates – first in the struggles between conservatism and liberalism, later in the national dimension and struggles for national emancipation. The conclusion of the study approximates the demise of the honorary burgher status and its narrowing into a purely symbolic institute, which, however, continues to express periodconditioned political awards and preferences.

Keywords: Honorary citizens – honorary burghers – municipal self-government – nationalism

RESUMÉ
The presented study endeavours to summarise the legislative and practical Framework of the granting of the institute of honorary burgher status/citizenship in the period of the constitutionality in the Austrian Empire (Austria-Hungary). Although opinions have been heard in the professional literature about the importance of the phenomenon for historical research, the outputs so far have only been based on local probes of lists of individual laureates without analytical ambitions.

The institute of honorary citizenship embodies the penetration of the remnants of the “pre-March” (1849) estates’ organisation of society (the granting of burgher rights) into the emancipated civil society of the second half of the 19th century. This is partly reflected in the terminology, which specifically in Slavic languages sounded questionable (the terms honorary burgher and honorary citizen regardless of the legislation). The “pre-March” institute of the granting of burgher rights for no fee took on a political dimension after 1850, when Stadion’s Provisional Municipal Law granted honorary burghers the first place in the voter lists and thus participation in the privileged first electoral curia. Nevertheless, the more extensive application of this practice occurred only after 1861 and especially after the issuance of individual land municipal foundations (for Silesia in 1863, for Bohemia and Moravia in 1864) and municipal statutes. Especially at the national border, honorary burgher status/citizenship became a tool for the promotion of political goals, which was far from the original honorific dimension. The fact that honorary burghers/citizens could vote in the most privileged and influential first curia, regardless of their municipal affiliation and taxes, caused conflicting tensions that exceeded the milieu of municipal self-government itself, as honorary burghers/ citizens were voters for deputies to the land diets for two curiae (the towns and industrial sites, rural municipalities). Because of this, in the period 1863–1918, the purely honorary title became a cradle of political measurement, conducted at first between conservatism and liberalism, later more and more intensively between nationally defined camps in the ethnically heterogeneous parts of Cisleithania (mainly Bohemia, Moravia, but in a similar way also Tyrol and Carinthia). The most egregious cases in connection with municipal and subsequently land elections took place in East Bohemia (Lanškroun, Ústí nad Orlicí, Česká Třebová 1867) and South Bohemia (České Budějovice 1902–1907), however, in isolation, other evidence of a conflict dimension can be taken from other places in the Czech lands.

From the end of the 1860s, the voices calling for the regulation of the voting rights of honorary burghers/citizens grew stronger. This unequivocal tendency manifested itself in various forms. Adequate treatment of the institute of honorary burgher status/citizenship was to ensure two-thirds (in other countries also threequarters or even unanimous) approval, limiting the number of appointed honorary burghers/citizens at one meeting, etc. The most radical measure, namely complete disenfranchisement, succeeded only in exceptional cases (statute of the town of Liberec in 1889). The real solution to the chronic problem and the return of the title of honorary citizen/burgher to its original dimension was made possible only by the demise of the Cisleithan electoral system and the extension of the right to vote in its general and equal form in the successor states of Austria-Hungary.

MATERIÁLY / MATERIALS

HANELOVÁ Věra
Česká historická bibliografie … S. 1151
(Czech historical bibliography)

The paper discusses the beginnings of Czech historical bibliography and the publication of printed bibliographic lists by Čeněk Zíbrt and Josef Pekař. Each of them had their own ideas about the concept, publication, and content, which resulted in their personal conflict. Attention is also paid to the history of Polish and German historical bibliography and a comparison of the three.

Keywords: history of bibliography – bibliographic lists – Čeněk Zíbrt – Josef Pekař – Czech historical bibliography – Polish historical bibliography – German historical bibliography

RESUMÉ
The fundamental source for learning about the history of Czech historical bibliography is the bibliographic lists themselves. From their prefaces, contents, and classification scheme, it is possible to get an idea of the methodology and work involved in compiling them. Czech historical bibliography was founded by two prominent figures of Czech historical science – Čeněk Zíbrt (1864–1932) and Josef Pekař (1870–1937). From the end of the 19th century, bibliographic lists became an integral part of historical research and provided a unique and irreplaceable synopsis of the results of historical sciences on the territory of the Czech lands. They reflected social and political changes in the historiography of the 20th century. Reports, reviews, and polemics were given attention, thanks to which we can obtain interesting information about the history of historical bibliography. The reports mainly provided information about the publication of new bibliographic lists, their content, preparation, and problems during publication, while the reviews then evaluated their highlights and shortcomings. Bibliographic lists used to be a collective work, excerpts were provided by a wide circle of collaborators from the ranks of historians and archivists and were checked by important historians from the point of view of their specialisations. For some of them, creating bibliographies has become a lifelong mission.

Czech historical bibliography was inspired by the national bibliographies of neighbouring countries. As the comparison between the three showed, the Czech, Polish and German bibliographies have in common that their founders were historians, over time the publication of printed bibliographic lists was discontinued and there was a transition to an online environment with a database. Their publication by the Academy of Sciences and problems with finance or censorship in the second half of the 20th century are also common elements.

OBZORY LITERATURY / REVIEW ARTICLES AND REVIEWS

Recenze

Krakov – Norimberk – Praha:
Středoevropské metropole ve srovnávací perspektivě

Michael DIEFENBACHER – Olga FEJTOVÁ – Zdzisław NOGA (Hrsg.)
Krakau – Nürnberg – Prag. Die Eliten der Städte im Mittelalter und in der Frühen Neuzeit. Herkunft, Nationalität, Mobilität, Mentalität

Michael DIEFENBACHER – Olga FEJTOVÁ – Zdzisław NOGA (Hrsg.)
Krakau – Nürnberg – Prag. Stadt und Reformation. Krakau, Nürnberg und Prag (1500–1618)

Olga FEJTOVÁ – Antonia LANDOIS – Zdzisław NOGA (Hrsg.)
Krakau – Nürnberg – Prag. Stadt und Handwerk in der vorindustriellen Zeit
(Jaroslav Pánek) … S. 1165

Jan MAŘÍK – Martin MUSÍLEK – Petr SOMMER (eds.)
Svatá Ludmila. Žena na rozhraní věků 1171
(Jiří Pešek)

Anna PUMPROVÁ – Libor JAN (Hrsg.)
Cronica Aule Regie. Die Königsaaler Chronik 1178
(Ivan Hlaváček)

Mlada HOLÁ – Martin HOLÝ a kol.
Profesoři pražské utrakvistické univerzity v pozdním středověku a raném novověku (1457/1458–1622) … S. 1184
(Jiří Pešek)

Christian WIESNER
Tridentinisches Papsttum und Trienter Residenzpflicht. Römische Konzilsrezeption zwischen Kurienzentralismus und Seelsorgsreform (1563–1680) … S. 1196
(Tomáš Černušák)

Zdeněk HOJDA (ed.)
Výjezd šťastný. Cestovní deníky z kavalírských cest Václava Vojtěcha, Jana Norberta a Ignáce Karla ze Šternberka z let 1662–1665 … S. 1198
(Ivana Čornejová)

Anna JONÁKOVÁ – Luboš VELEK (eds.)
Havlíčku, Havle! Ke dvoustému výročí narození Karla Havlíčka Borovského … S. 1201
(Martina Power)

BEDŘICH ZE SCHWARZENBERGU
Poslední lancknecht … S. 1205
(Pavel Máša)

Moritz CSÁKY
Das Gedächtnis Zentraleuropas. Kulturelle und literarische Projektionen auf eine Region … S. 1208
(Jaroslav Pánek)

Nicholas MULDER
The Economic Weapon. The Rise of Sanctions as a Tool of Modern War … S. 1211
(Daniel Putík)

Zprávy o literatuře … S. 1217

Z VĚDECKÉHO ŽIVOTA / CHRONICLE

RYCHLÍK Jan
II. kongres polských bohemistických studií a českých polonistických studií 2023 … S. 1233

Nekrology

Petr Charvát
(12. ledna 1949 Praha – 17. září 2023 Praha)
(Josef Žemlička) … S. 1235

Petr Sommer
(30. listopadu 1949 Rakovník – 12. srpna 2023 Praha)
(Martin Nodl) … S. 1243

Lenka Hlávková
(17. 8. 1974 – 21. 12. 2023)
(Jan Baťa) … S. 1253

Knihy a časopisy došlé redakci … S. 1257

Výtahy z českých časopisů a sborníků … S. 1257