STUDIES

ZELENKA Jan
Několik poznámek k (ne)kosmovskému pojetí českých dějin … S. 7
(Some remarks on the so-called “non-Cosma‘s conception” of Czech history)

The Chronica Boemorum, written by Prague‘s Dean Cosmas, plays a pivotal, crucial role in studying the early medieval history of the Czech lands. However, the uniqueness of the work is matched by the range of problems associated with its interpretation. In 1967, when František Graus published a study in the “Československý časopis historický” dedicated to the topic of the so-called “Necrologium Bohemicum” and “Martyrologium Pragense”, accompanied by the subtitle “Traces of a Non-Cosma‘s Conception of Czech History”, it seemed that a entirely new chapter in the field of domestic medieval studies was about to commence. The Necrologium, or rather the commemoration of persons hostile to the ruling House of Přemyslid, preserved here, was to be not only a proof of the bias of the chronicler Cosmas but also of the existence of a contemporary different, “unofficial” opinion towards the events depicted in his work. Although Graus devoted only a small part of his study to the problems outlined, it was the subtitle and especially the phrase “non-Cosma‘s conception” that became the key messa ge of the text, which seemed to offer new possibilities of studying older Czech history. An approach that was to have the potential to at least partially liberate research from the single and unique narrative of Cosmas, which for a large part of domestic early medieval history lacked any similar counterpart and corrective. The “non-Cosma‘s conception” took even up to the form of a methodical approach, revealing and reconstructing history and historical events, whether unintentionally or intentionally, hidden or distorted by the Dean. The following study not only returns to Graus‘s initial premise, but also tries to point out the actual problem of the “Cosma‘s conception” as a starting point for considering the existence of the “non-Cosma‘ s” one.
Keywords: Chronica Boemorum – Chronicler Cosmas – Czech Medieval History – Historiography – František Graus

RESUMÉ
The subject of “non-Cosma‘s conception” of Czech history, as proposed by František Graus, is contentious for two reasons. The first concerns the initial premise, whereby necrological records are compared with the text of the chronicle. František Graus did not further resume on his relatively concise study, leaving methodological issues, such as how necrology and chronicle relate, interact, and at what level their testimonies can be compared, unresolved. However, the ways in which memory is preserved in medieval necrologies and chronicles vary significantly, with the former primarily preserving spiritual rather than historical significance. This form of remembrance do not relate to the past or to contemporary events in the secular world, but focus on the deceased and on eternity. The inclusion of an individual in a necrological record is typically based on their importance to the community or specific and personal reasons, such as donations, founding contributions, or their familial and institutional affiliations with a church institutions, without the record automatically indicating anything else.
The author relied on the fact that the Necrologium mentions members of the Vršovci kin, who often appear in Cosmas‘ chronicle as opponents or even enemies of the Přemyslid rulers. According to Graus, this proves that a contemporary, independent opinion and attitude existed, which was different from the official Přemyslid line presented by the Dean. However, Cosmas did not simply condemn members of the kin in a straightforward manner. The depiction of the Vršovci was rather ambivalent. The chronicler acknowledged the family‘s importance and influence, with its members frequently featuring in the chronicle text and playing a significant role in the country‘s history. The reference to the massacre of the Vršovci in 1108, mentioned in the text of the Necrology, is moreover taken directly from the Chronicle of Cosmas. Given the position of the Vršovci in Czech society in the 11th and 12th centuries, it would be rather surprising if no members of the family were mentioned in the contemporary necrology. The Necrologium thus testifies to the opposite of what František Graus believed. Its testimony is in complete alignment with the information documented in Cosmas‘ chronicle, which it complements rather than contradicts.
Apart from the methodology, the comparison itself was controversial. Graus simply compared the necrological records with Cosmas‘ text (or rather his own perception of the ideological intention of the chronicle), from which he concluded that the Necrology testifies ‘anti-princely’ or generally unofficial views and attitudes. However, the wider context and deeper understanding of the original “Cosmas‘ s conception” was not explored. In his somewhat loose handling of terms such as ‘anti-princely tendencies’ or, conversely, ‘princely positions’, Graus, whether intentionally or unintentionally, presented Cosmas‘ Chronicle and the chronicler’s views as a monolith that was shattered by the almost dissident nature of the Necrology. This interpretation, however, does not correspond to the actual content of Cosmas‘ work. Cosmas did not simply write an homage to princely power or Přemyslid rule. Graus‘ attempts to identify ‘anti-princely’ or unofficial perspectives in the text of the Necrology were superfluous. No other chronicler of the Přemyslid era included such a well-developed, emphatic and recurring criticism of the ruling monarchs in his work as did Cosmas. This criticism was directed not only at the actions of individual rulers, but also at the way in which power was exercised in general. He portrayed the behaviour of the dynasty itself as depriving the Czechs of God‘s grace and the sacred “peace and a good year”.
The problem with Graus‘ approach is obvious. He sought to reveal the “non-Cosma‘s conception” but did not strive to reconstruct Cosmas‘s own conception. This should be the first step of this kind of research, however. We are thus faced with the rather complex question of what Cosmas‘ conception really was, and how it can be defined. The chronicle presents a limited range of “major” themes, including origo gentis, the Přemyslid myth, the mythical connection of the Czechs to the ruling dynasty, and the conventions of ruler succession. However, there are also a number of other themes or motifs, the interpretation of which is complicated by Cosmas‘ somewhat ambiguous approach. Even apparently straightforward characters can shift from being “tyrants” to “heroes” and vice versa throughout the storyline. This raises the question of the implications of seeking a “non-Cosma‘s conception” and how to proceed with this approach. While the temptation to uncover what lies beyond Cosmas‘s text and intentions is alluring, it also has the potential to be significantly misleading. For instance, examples of “non-Cosma‘s conception” could be an alternative version of the Přemyslid myth, a document of a different model of succession customs or a questioning of the Sts. Adalberts and Wenceslas ideology. There is no evidence of similar motives in the sources, nor indications of such, however.

SKÁLA Marek
Reforma nebo transformace? Rok 1968 a otázka drobného podnikání … S. 29
(Reform or transformation? 1968 and the question of small business)

The study deals with the short period between 1967 and 1969 in terms of the reform process, especially its economic components. Specifically, it focuses on the issue of the renewal of small business within the socialist economy. It analyses the changes in the normative system, media narratives, and government representations, and practical steps to implement reforms. It finds contradictions between the information that was reaching the public space and the actual and intended state. Archival and normative sources present a completely different picture than the one presented by the uncensored press before 1969. From this contradiction and other aspects, assessed through the established theoretical equipment of economics, it can be deduced that even the economic reform of 1968 would not lead to the restoration of even a small business.
Keywords: Šik’s reform – transformation – small business – 1968 – trade – economic history

RESUMÉ
After the absolute liquidation of private property, including the smallest business, the socialist economy began to have deeper and deeper problems. One of the fundamental attempts to start a socialist economy was the reform effort of the second half of the 1960s. During this period, there was also a discussion on the topic of small business or trades. The source base, consisting of archival sources, the press, and normative documents, portrays the processes of the time in basically contradictory ways. In the case of small business, the information addressed to the public proclaimed goals such as the restoration of trade business, independent craft cooperative business and a sharp increase in the economic independence of the individual. Such radical rhetoric also came directly from officials involved in the Small Business Commission. However, archival sources do not indicate that such changes were to be implemented. The upcoming regulations paint a similar picture. Selfemployment or other independent activities were not planned in the foreseeable future. On the contrary, all economic life was still to be tied to the state, although de jure it was to be separated from the state budget. Therefore, the question of an interrupted revolution in the case of economic reform is not appropriate. The intended reforms of the enterprises did not correspond to the theoretical concepts of a company. In the same way, there should have been no changes in property rights. Admittedly, there is a hypothetical possibility that the speed of liberalisation was high and shifts in the narrative often led to shifts in reality. Nevertheless, in the case of looking at real results, there was no potential to move beyond mere reform. From the point of view of economic theory, a deeper reform or transformation would not be possible to implement without fundamental changes in legislation regarding ownership and the position of the state in the economy. Such proposals as reprivatization and the like appeared only in the final phase of the Prague Spring, and in a very cautious form. Attempts at economic reform did not make any real progress in the case of small businesses. This did not happen until wo decades later as part of the economic restructuring reforms at the end of the 1980s.

MATERIALS

İPEK Göktuğ
Turkish Diplomats in Czechoslovakia in the Interwar Period
(1925–1939) … S. 59
(Turečtí diplomaté v Československu v meziválečném období
/1925–1939/)

Following the First World War, many new formed countries emerged on the global stage. Among them were the Republic of Turkey and the Czechoslovak Republic, both established on territories formerly under imperial rule. As these nations sought to solidify their place in the international arena, they recognized the necessity of establishing new diplomatic ties with one another. Consequently, a friendship treaty was negotiated between Turkey and Czechoslovakia during the Lausanne Conference, and on October 11, 1924, the treaty was officially signed. Subsequently, on July 6, 1925, additional diplomatic notes were exchanged, paving the way for the appointment of the first Turkish envoy to Czechoslovakia.
This article delves into the historical significance of Turkish diplomats serving in Czechoslovakia between 1925 and 1939. The primary objectives are to introduce these diplomats, shed light on their activities in Prague, ascertain their perspectives on Czechoslovakia, and explore whether their presence had any noticeable impact on the bilateral relations between the two countries. To accomplish these aims, the study draws upon a wide array of primary and secondary sources, including archival documents, articles, books, and newspapers, from both Turkey and the Czech Republic.
Keywords: Turkey – Czechoslovakia – Turkish diplomats – International relations – Interwar period

RESUMÉ
The end of the First World War and the establishment of new nation-states in the former Austro-Hungarian Empire also changed the basis of Turkish-Czech relations. After the war, the Czechoslovaks were among the winners, the Turks among the losers. However, both nations needed new allies in the postwar period because both Turkey and Czechoslovakia were established as new states that knew that in foreign policy, there are only permanent interests, not permanent friendships.
The treaty of friendship signed between Czechoslovakia and Turkey was ratified by Czechoslovakia on February 7, 1925. After the treaty became effective, the approval of two notes, which included a provision for sending mutual delegates, took place on July 6, 1925. In this process, the first Turkish envoy was appointed to Czechoslovakia. A few months later, the first Czechoslovak envoy in Turkey presented a letter of acceptance to Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk) in Ankara. Thus, an important threshold was crossed and a new era of mutual relations between two countries began.
In the 1920s and 1930s, Czechoslovakia and Turkey had the opportunity to get to know each other and look at each other from different perspectives. However, the political relations between these countries were not intense. In the years 1925–1939, there were nine Turkish diplomats in Czechoslovakia. Depending on the mutual relations, their activities sometimes were at the level of chargé d’affaires, sometimes at the level of envoy. Most of these nine diplomats stayed in Prague only briefly. A similar situation appears to have occurred in other Turkish diplomatic missions in the 1920s. By the 1930s, these problems have been rectified and the rotation of diplomats has become a more stable. This material study, based on original Czech and Turkish archival sources, takes into consideration all aspects of the mentioned development.

RESUMÉ
Konec první světové války a vznik nových národních států na území bývalého Rakouska- Uherska změnily také základ turecko-českých vztahů. Čechoslováci patřili po válce k vítězům, Turci k poraženým. Oba národy však v poválečném období potřebovaly nové spojence, protože jak Turecko, tak Československo vznikly jako zcela nové státy, které věděly, že v zahraniční politice existují pouze trvalé zájmy, nikoliv trvalá přátelství.
Smlouvu o přátelství podepsanou mezi Československem a Tureckem ratifikovalo Československo 7. února 1925. Poté, co smlouva oficiálně vstoupila v platnost, došlo 6. července 1925 ke schválení dvou nót, jejichž součástí bylo ustanovení o vyslání vzájemných delegátů. V rámci tohoto procesu byl jmenován první turecký vyslanec v Československu. Několik měsíců nato první československý vyslanec v Turecku předal v Ankaře akceptační dopis Mustafovi Kemalovi (Atatürkovi). Tím byl překročen důležitý práh a začala nová éra vzájemných vztahů mezi oběma zeměmi.
Československo a Turecko měly ve 20. a 30. letech 20. století příležitost se poznat a podívat se na sebe z různých perspektiv. Vztahy mezi oběma zeměmi ale nebyly intenzivní. V letech 1925–1939 působilo v Československu devět tureckých diplomatů. V závislosti na vzájemných vztazích se jejich činnost odehrávala někdy na úrovni chargé d‘affaires, někdy na úrovni vyslance. Většina z těchto devíti diplomatů pobývala v Praze jen krátce. Podobná situace panovala ve 20. letech 20. století zřejmě i v jiných tureckých diplomatických misích. Ve 30. letech 20. století se tyto problémy již podařilo napravit a rotace diplomatů se ustálila. Tato materiálová studie, založená na originálních českých a tureckých archivních pramenech, zohledňuje všechny aspekty uvedeného vývoje.

DISCUSSION

BOJDA Martin
Odborná diskuse, anebo volnost lhát a manipulovat? Reakce na článek O. Drexlera … S. 97

REVIEW ARTICLES AND REVIEWS

Recenze

Daniela Marcu ISTRATE – Dan Ioan MUREŞAN – Gabriel Tiberiu
RUSTOIU (eds.)
Christianization in Early Medieval Transylvania. The Oldest Church in Transylvania and Its Interpretation … S. 121
(Peter Bučko)

Olaf B. RADER
Kaiser Karl der Vierte. Das Beben der Welt. Eine Biographie … S. 128
(František Šmahel)

Bertrand SCHNERB
Burgundský stát 1363–1477 … S. 133
(Jiří Jurok)

František ŠMAHEL
Husitská revoluce I. Kořeny české reformace … S. 141
(Jiří Pešek)

Pavlína RYCHTEROVÁ (ed.)
Pursuing a New Order, Volume I., Volume II. … S. 146
(Karel Pacovský)

Ulrich EISENHARDT
Kaiserliche Gerichtsprivilegien. Ihre Bedeutung und die Entwicklung der Rechtspflege im Alten Reich … S. 150
(Petr Kreuz)

Marie BUŇATOVÁ
Hedvábí, sklo a koření. Obchod mezi Prahou a Itálií (1500–1620) … S. 154
(Roman Zaoral)

Tomáš HUNČOVSKÝ
Konrád Fischer (1631–1701): Život a dílo borovanského probošta … S. 160
(Marek Brčák)

Markéta KŘÍŽOVÁ – Jitka MALEČKOVÁ (edd.)
Central Europe and the Non-European World in the Long 19th Century … S. 163
(Miroslav Šedivý)

Pavel FABINI – Tomáš ZOUZAL (eds.)
Vše pro mandát? Podvody, korupce a násilí při parlamentních volbách ve střední Evropě v 19. století … S. 168
(Jan Županič)

Anna KOBYLIŃSKA – Maciej FALSKI (eds.)
Architects and their Societies. Cultural Study on the Habsburg-Slavic Area (1861–1938) … S. 171
(Tomáš Korbel)

Tal BRUTTMANN – Stefan HÖRDLER – Christoph
KREUTZMÜLLER
Die fotografische Inszenierung des Verbrechens. Ein Album aus Auschwitz … S. 177
(Vojtěch Kyncl)

Zprávy o literatuře … S. 181

CHRONICLENekrology

Marceli Kosman
(8. května 1940 Izbica Kujawska – 29. prosince 2023 Poznaň)
(Jaroslav Pánek) … S. 203

Knihy a časopisy došlé redakci … S. 211