STUDIE / STUDIES

PÁLKA Adam
Husitské poselstvo, projev Pax vobis, šestice stručných vzpomínek: (staro)nové poznatky k chebskému jednání z května 1432
(Hussite delegation, Pax vobis speech, six brief memories: /old/new knowledge on the Cheb negotiations from May 1432) ... S. 7
The study deals with three aspects of the Cheb meeting between the Hussites and the Council of Basel (May 1432), which the previous research has not dealt with in detail. In the case of the composition of the Bohemian delegation, the author draws the conclusion that the list of Hussite envoys listed in the text of the Cheb safe conduct refers to persons intended for the Basel disputation, which appropriately appreciates the earlier brief observations of František Michálek Bartoš and Bohdan Kaňák. The study also offers a new insight into the speech of the conciliar legate Henricus Toke. Based on an analysis of the passages glorifying the Council of Basel, it seems that the Catholic speech was not as accommodating to the Hussites as it was hitherto judged to be. The last observed aspect is the numerous memories of Martin Lupáč. Their analysis demonstrates that, despite all their brevity, these texts can tell us new or hitherto only suspected facts about May 1432.
Keywords: Cheb judge – 1432 – Hussites – Council of Basel – Henricus Toke – Martin Lupáč

RESUMÉ
The Hussite-Council negotiations of May 1432 concerning the planned Hussite audience in Basel represented a major breakthrough in the relations of both parties. Although this event has been reflected many times in the literature, some aspects have not yet been sufficiently taken into account.
The composition of the Hussite delegation deserves detailed attention. F. M. Bartoš (1966) and B. Kaňák (2002) formulated a thesis that the enumeration of the Hussite envoys found in the Cheb treaty immediately after the text of the safe passage was meant as a list of the people intended to go to Basel, and not those who negotiated in Cheb. Apparently, this is a perfectly justified conclusion, but it has received a minimal response from the other historians. A Hussite letter from 27th February 1432 speaks in favour of Bartoš and Kaňák, in which it explicitly writes of the already completed determination of the delegation to Basel. Another indication is the similarity between the words oratores et legatos, which are demonstrably related to the mission to Basel and appear in Czech writings before May 1432, and the formulation nuntii et oratores before the list of Hussite emissaries in the Cheb treaty. Despite the fact that the enumeration is a controversial source and when reconstructing the mission it is necessary to rely primarily on the relation of Jan Maulbronn and the text of the Cheb treaty, it is still possible to consider which Hussites were welcomed in Cheb unnamed by Maulbronn. Petr Payne, Mikuláš Biskupec and Markolt of Zbraslavice appear to be highly likely participants.
Minimal attention was also paid to potentially controversial passages in the introductory speech of Henricus Toke. His speech has been traditionally evaluated as an obliging gesture towards the Hussites. This is true to some extent, but it is impossible to ignore a number of ideas that many Hussites present in Cheb could hardly accept. These problematic statements were all about the sovereign status of the Council of Basel within the Latin Church, which the Hussite emissaries had to doubt, even on the basis of previous council experience. Toke’s speech thus seemed to leave contradictory feelings in Czech listeners, regardless of a number of charitable sentences.
Last but not least, the six memories of the Utraquist Martin Lupáč, which bear witness to the content of difficult debates, especially regarding the arbitration authority (the judge of Cheb) in the forthcoming disputation, has not been sufficiently taken into account in the research on Cheb. An analysis of Lupáč’s reminiscences on the judge of Cheb leads to the conclusion that these are entirely credible sources, which, at least in some aspects, contribute to a better understanding of how the disputes about the judge of Cheb took place. Lupáč’s texts, for instance, make it possible to better reconstruct the arguments that both parties argued for when discussing the arbitration principle. Less plausible is the memory of the Council’s assurance that the anti-Hussite decrees would not be used against the Hussites, because Lupáč mistakenly linked this debate to the Church’s alleged power to abolish the conventions concluded with heretics.

HALAMA Ota
Bratr Jan Augusta před vstupem do Jednoty
(Brother Jan Augusta before joining the Unity ... S. 46
The topic of the study is a detailed description of the life and clerical journey of Jan Augusta (ca 1500–1572) from Utraquism to the Unity of the Brethren on the basis of recently found or newly interpreted sources. The future Brethren’s bishop Augusta was apparently born into a Prague Utraquist family of German origin and, like his father, was trained as a hatter. Dissatisfied with the internal situation of Bohemian Utraquism in the capital, he first combined his spiritual quest for a time with the Utraquist sect of the followers of Nicholas – weeping brothers (similar to the American Quakers), later reflecting on the life of a hermit or conversion to the Catholic Church. Supported by some Prague priests, he eventually decided to become a member of the Unity of Brethren in 1524, sold the Prague house and continued to join his stormy life with the Czech Brethren.
Keywords: Jagellonian Period (1471–1526) – Bohemian Utraquism – Unity of the Brethren – Jan Augusta

RESUMÉ
Brother Jan Augusta (ca 1500–1572) was probably the most important representative of the third generation of the Czech Brethren. For many years he held the office of a bishop in the Unity, but he entered the history mainly as the „Křivoklát prisoner“, a victim of the domestic recatholisation efforts of the Bohemian king Ferdinand I of Habsburg after winning the Schmalkaldic War.
Already in the 16th century it was well known in connection with Jan Augusta that the former Brethren’s bishop came from a Prague Utraquist family and was brought to the Unity by his own spiritual quest culminating in a conversion to the Brethren. Yet in spite of one exceptional attempt, August’s conversion has not yet been subjected to appropriate criticism and the known sources have been viewed through uniform optics. So far, however, no new sources have been sought to either fundamentally supplement or at least illustrate the given issue.
A concrete change was brought only by the study of Prague city books from the first half of the 16th century and becoming acquainted with the Brethren’s manuscript of the National Library in Budapest, although our research was well-known but unfamiliar and forgotten in terms of its content. Based on these new sources, it was now possible to introduce August’s journey to the Unity of the Brethren as follows:
Jan Augusta was born in Prague around the year 1500 to the hatter Wolf and his wife Uršula. The roots of Augusta’s family would probably be found in the Bavarian Augsburg, which also gave John his inherited nickname („Augusta“ – from „de Augusta“ – „from Augsburg“). At the same time, the German origin of Augusta’s family would explain why Jan himself signed his name predominantly as „Johannnes“, and also why a Prague hatter without higher education would be able to translate Luther’s treatises and be in personal and written contact with German reformers led by Luther.
Disappointment with the internal state of Bohemian Utraquism led Augusta to many dialogues with the Prague Utraquist priests at the turn of the 1520s, but we have not been able to trace his original parish yet. A particular watershed in his spiritual quest was the experience of the Nicholas sect in Tábor, South Bohemia. After early permanent disappointment in the weeping brothers, Augusta flirts with the idea of either going to the desert, becoming a hermit, or converting to the Roman Church. However, again through the intervention of the Prague priests, especially the radical Utraquist preacher Martin Hánek from Bethlehem Chapel, he opted in the end, in 1524, for a journey to Mladá Boleslav, to the Unity of the Brethren.
The whole study, more than the story of Jan Augusta, illustrates the state of Czech Utraquism in the capital in a situation when the Church under both species lost its previous spiritual leader, Master Václav Koranda the Younger, at the end of the decade and Master Paul Žatecký, when its doctrinal and moral decline deepened, and when many Utraquists found inspiration for the reform of their own Church either in revitalization of radical Hussitism or in adherence to the new reformist stream, which after 1519 was already strongly felt from the German lands. In this sense, Augusta’s conversion is born not only from his personal crisis, but from a society-wide crisis.
Translation by Sean Miler

FASORA Lukáš – PEČINKOVÁ Anna
Autonomie vysokých škol a jejich financování v českých zemích v letech 1848–1939
(The autonomy of higher education institutions and their financing in the Czech lands in 1848–1939) ... S. 68
The text analyses the development of the autonomy of higher education institutions in the Czech lands following the Prussian model with an emphasis on the aspect of the economic dependence on the state, which was very significant in European comparison. It notes the gradual development of autonomous identity in the representation of higher education institutions with a core at the universities and the achievement of a high degree of autonomy in the decision-making of the state in 1890–1930. At that time, higher education institutions became the leading bearers of a liberal vision of corporate management and a liberal-democratic view of the role of the state. Increasing cases of the abuse of the autonomy by the representations of higher education institutions mainly in the economic sphere led to the intensification of oversight and the gradual reduction of autonomy in the search for postliberal social order in Czechoslovak society with the advent of the economic and political crisis after 1929.
Keywords: autonomy of higher education institutions – state-financing – 19th and 20th centuries – Czech lands

RESUMÉ
The practical implementation of the “Humboldtian” model of higher education, relying on autonomous decision-making and the concord of research and teaching, took place in the Czech lands in the period between the reform of Leo Thun (1849–1851) and the closure of the higher education institutions by the Nazis in 1939. Higher education institutions were given a specific form of autonomy, which distinguished them from other autonomous unions in the public sphere, in particular in that the higher education institutions did not possess their own property and were therefore fully dependent on the supply of state funding. Economic dependence on the state strongly influenced the idea of the representations of the higher education institutions of their own social role and identity – on the one hand, schools respected their role as a state institute, while on the other hand they tried to act as self-governing corporations in some areas. In the text, the differences are analysed that distinguished the Prague university with an ancient tradition and awareness of the former possession of its own property from other universities in the Czech lands and furthermore universities as a whole from technical higher education institutions. It was precisely at universities, especially their faculties of humanities, that the widely understood concept of autonomy was gradually adopted and spread from there to other areas of the higher education sector and society as a whole. In this respect, university autonomy was a pioneer of social pluralism and transformation in the view of the state from a hierarchical authoritarian concept to a liberal-democratic concept. Simultaneously with the peak of higher education autonomy between 1890 and 1930, the crisis symptoms of this method of administration increased. The text follows in particular the problems associated with the inefficient use of state-provided funds and property. The malfunctioning of the “Humboldtian” system of autonomy in the 1930s led the state to interventions in the decision-making of higher education institutions in economic matters and later the reduction of the autonomy of higher education institutions as a whole and search for an alternative, post-liberal method of managing this socially very important sector of first-rate education and science.
Translation by Sean Miler

Diskuse / Discussion

LANGEWIESCHE Dieter
Gestaltungskraft Krieg. Europas Wege in die Gegenwart. Ein Essay
(War as a creative power. Europe‘s ways into the world of today)
(Válka jako dějinotvorná síla. Cesta Evropy k přítomnosti. Esej) ... S. 109
Why were people always willing to go to war if they wanted to realize ‘progress’? Without war (almost) no nation state, without successful war no successful revolution; without war no colonial empire and no decolonization. These serious historical facts are discussed here in the context of revolution and war in Europe. The second part examines why wars between states in Europe were conducted differently than colonial wars. Surely, racism was important. But the colonial war did not depend on racism. It was an asymmetric warfare against the entire population. In Europe, on the other hand, the model of ‘civilized war’ prevailed after 1815: War between armies on the battlefield, war between soldiers, not against civilians. It was a European “Sonderweg” of war. But also in Europe, it ended with the two world wars. Outside of Europe, Europeans have always waged other wars. Historically, wars against the population have always been the ‘normal war’, and it still is today. To ‘civilize’ it to a war between soldiers, if war should be unavoidable, is an ongoing task.
Keywords: War in Europe – colonial war – war and colonial genocide – European “Sonderweg” of war – war and revolution

RESUMÉ
Válka jako dějinotvorná síla — toto hořké historické poznání zde neprezentujeme jako temnou předpověď ve stopách historické antropologie, ale je třeba je chápat jako metodologickou pomůcku, jako pokus institucionálně se s touto hlavní linií evropských dějin rozejít. Evropská unie se tak jeví jako institucionalizovaný historický zlom, jako rozchod s Evropou válek, z níž vzešla naše přítomnost. Na tomto pozadí chce přítomný esej vyložit význam války jako formující síly na cestě evropských států do současnosti.
Článek vybírá dvě oblasti, v nichž zkoumá souvislost války a utváření budoucnosti: revoluci a kolonialismus.
Bez úspěšné války žádná úspěšná revoluce. To dokládá historie od anglických revolucí 17. století. Pokojné revoluce naší současnosti jsou výjimkou, kterou umožnila historická anomálie – pokojný nebo víceméně pokojný rozpad sovětského impéria. Historická normalita vypadá jinak. Impéria vznikají a zanikají ve válkách. Stejně tak velká většina států je výtvorem války. A to nejen v Evropě. Žádný národní stát v Evropě 19. století nevznikl bez války; a ve 20. století jen velmi vzácně.
Válka a revoluce byly historicky úzce spřízněny. Revoluci lze chápat jako pokus o pokrok skokem. Ten byl odkázán na válku – občanskou nebo mezi státy, často obojí. Revoluce, které to nedokázaly, ztroskotaly. Mohly sice vyzařovat vliv, ale otěží státní moci se revolucionáři nechopili. To dokládají i dvě velké revoluční vlny v Evropě let 1830 a 1848. Kde revoluce podlehla ve válce, neuspěla. Na rozdíl od revolucí konce 18. století, ve Francii a v severní Americe. Ty zvítězily, protože dokázaly postavit armády a vést válku za své cíle, proti kontrarevolucionářům doma i za hranicemi.
V soudu dalších generací bývá násilí, které revoluce použila k dosažení svých cílů, nezřídka vytěsněno na okraj jako nezbytná cena za pokrok. Ale „velké“ revoluce poznáme podle hor mrtvol, které po sobě zanechají. To platí pro Francouzskou revoluci stejně jako pro revoluci ruskou nebo čínskou. Úspěšné buržoazní revoluce jsou většinou pokládány za záruku zdárného vývoje směrem k demokracii. To platí pro Velkou Británii, pro Francii i pro USA. Na neúspěšné revoluce se nahlíží jako na překážky na této cestě. Že úspěch revoluce vzešel z války a občanské války, z hor mrtvol, to bývá v tomto obraze historického pokroku zaznamenáno jen zřídka. Vezměme si jako příklad německou revoluci na konci první světové války. Byla to jedna z tehdejších revolucí proti válce a za lepší, demokratickou budoucnost. Pokud to uděláme, zpochybníme obvyklý obraz historie.
V historii revolucí se vůle k demokraticky legitimované, ve svých cílech umírněné reformní revoluci projevuje jako vůle k humanitě skrze omezení násilí ve snaze vyhnout se revoluci s občanskou válkou. Revoluce však vytváří „to nové“ právě z násilí a teroru. To bylo známo z dějin revolucí evropsko-atlantického prostoru, a co se odehrávalo v tehdejším Rusku, jen tento historický poznatek potvrzuje. A potvrzuje ho i německá revoluce 1918/1919. Probíhala tak relativně nenásilně proto, že se prosadili ti, kteří ji beztak chtěli už předem omezit. Radikální revoluce vyžaduje radikální násilí, umírněná revoluce umožňuje zmírnit násilí vedoucí ke změně. V německé revoluci zvítězila vůle omezit revoluci. Zde to chápeme jako humánní rozhodnutí, a nikoli, jak je většinou obvyklé, jako politické selhání.
Ve druhé části článku se zaměříme na formy války v Evropě a na tehdejších koloniálních územích. V Evropě se po roce 1815 odehrálo cosi zvláštního: civilizující institucionalizace války. To je překvapivé, protože toto století chápalo své války v Evropě jako národní a lidové války. V takových válkách je vždy skryto nebezpečí, že se situace vymkne z rukou. Vedení institucionalizované války v podstatě spočívalo ve striktním oddělení bojujících vojáků a civilního obyvatelstva. Tento druh války, jenž se tehdy v Evropě stal ideálem jednání států, je nicméně spjat s určitými předpoklady.
1. Předpokladem institucionalizované války jsou silné státy s monopolem na násilí, uvnitř i vně. Tam, kde jsou státy slabé nebo se rozpadají, se vedou jiné války. A to i v Evropě 19. století: na evropských územích Osmanské říše.
2. Institucionalizovaná válka předpokládá, že za nejvyššího rozhodčího v konfliktu, který vedl k válce, je pokládáno bitevní pole. Válka jako duel mezi státy, vojensky přenesený na bitevní pole, mimo civilní obyvatelstvo. Proti tomuto ideálu – nikdy zcela neuskutečněnému, ale přesto s působností normy – stojí lidová či národní válka. Ta má všechny předpoklady rozložit jádro institucionalizované války, resp. popřít striktní oddělení bojujících a civilního obyvatelstva.
V neosmanské Evropě se podařilo takto civilizovat válku ve století mezi Vídeňským kongresem a začátkem první světové války. Byla to – jak argumentuje tento esej – doba evropské zvláštní cesty institucionalizované války. Ta skončila roku 1914. Ale její myšlenka žije dál a je rozvíjena v mezinárodním právu. Dnes s nárokem na globální platnost. To před rokem 1914 nebylo. Zvláštní evropská cesta institucionalizované války byla tehdy omezena na Evropu, což ukazujeme na příkladu německo-francouzské války, z níž vzešel německý národní stát, a na koloniálních válkách.
Koloniální války byly všude válkami neinstitucionalizovanými. Byly zdůvodňovány rasově jako samotný kolonialismus. Ale to neznamená, že neomezená válka, zaměřená na zničení základů života protivníka (ve smyslu jeho schopnosti a vůle klást odpor), byla rasistického původu. Ani na koloniálních územích. Určit roli rasismu pro tento druh války je mimořádně obtížné. Tento esej chce k tomu dát podnět, a proto srovnává koloniální války s lidovými a národními válkami v Evropě.

PEŠEK Jiří
Varšavští „sanační“ primátoři doby meziválečné a časů okupace. Téma historické i historiografické
(Warsaw “renewal” mayors of the interwar period and the times of the occupation: A historical and historiographic theme) ... S. 128
Based on a comparison of two current biographies of the famous Warsaw mayors of the 1930s and 1940s, Stefan Starzyński and Julian Kulski, the author tries to capture with the earlier literature the establishment and transformation of the historical image of both heroized personalities. Both had substantial merit in modernizing Warsaw in the 1930s, defending it against the Nazis and resistance activities, but were also adherents to Józef Piłsudski and were members of the elite „renewal“ military-authoritarian regime. The paper shows the supra-regional significance of the mayors of the metropolis, describes their posthumous political instrumentation, or the collisions of methods of the historiographic interpretations of these personalities.
Keywords: Contemporary History – East Europe – Warsaw – Mayor of the capital – Starzyński – Kulski – 20th Century – Historiography

Přehled bádání / Research overview

ŘEPA Milan
Politizace francouzského venkova v 19. století. Historiografický přehled
(Politicisation of the French countryside in the 19th century: A historiographical overview) ... S. 158
The Politicisation of countryside was an integral part of the fundamental transformation of society, which we usually refer to as modernization. The works on modern French history have contributed significantly to the knowledge of the regularity of the politicisation of the rural areas. The presented historiographic balance sheet represents the most significant of them and their authors, such as André Siegfried, Maurice Agulhon or Eugen Weber. It deals with the selection of topics, methods and theses and puts them in the context of the paradigmatic transformations of historiography in the 20th century as well as research on modern French history.
Keywords: Politicisation of the French countryside – history of France 1789–1914 – regional history – rural history – French historiography

Obzory literatury / Review articles and reviews

Recenze

Dana DVOŘÁČKOVÁ-MALÁ – Martin HOLÝ – Tomáš STERNECK – Jan ZELENKA a kol.
Děti a dětství od středověku na práh osvícenství
(Michaela Hrubá) ... S. 176

Stefan SAMERSKI (Hg.)
Wenzel. Protagonist der böhmischen Erinnerungskultur
(Petr Kubín) ... S. 179

Marianne SÁGHY – Robert C. OUSTERHOUT (eds.)
Piroska and the Pantokrator. Dynastic Memory, Healing and Salvation in Komnenian Constantinople
(Peter Bučko) ... S. 184

František ŠMAHEL
Die Basler Kompaktaten mit den Hussiten (1436). Untersuchung und Edition
(Petr Čornej) ... S. 189

Petr ČORNEJ
Husitství a husité
(Zdeněk Beran) ... S. 195

Josef KADEŘÁBEK
Nerovný boj o víru. Páni z Martinic a rekatolizace města Slaný (1600–1665)
(Lukáš M. Vytlačil) ... S. 198

Karel MALÝ
Tři studie o trestním právu v českých zemích v 17. a první polovině 18. století
(Jaroslav Pánek) ... S. 201

Maciej DORNA
Mabillon und andere. Die Anfänge der Diplomatik
(Ivan Hlaváček) ... S. 203

Miroslav ŠEDIVÝ
O švestky a brambory. Prusko-rakouská válka o bavorské dědictví 1778–1779
(Jiří Brňovják) ... S. 206

Karel WASKA (ved. autorského kol.)
Dějiny města Plzně, sv. 2, 1788–1918
(Jan Lhoták) ... S. 211

Lukáš FASORA – Miroslav KUNŠTÁT – Tomáš W. PAVLÍČEK a kol.
Papežství a fenomén ultramontanismu v českých zemích
(Marek Šmíd) ... S. 215

Michaela a Karl VOCELKOVI
František Josef I., císař rakouský a král uherský
(Lukáš Fasora) ... S. 217

Inge SCHEIDL – Ursula PROKOP – Wolfgang HERZNER
Wilhelm Stiassny (1842–1910). Jüdischer Architekt und Stadtpolitiker im gesellschaftlichen Spannungsfeld des Wiener Fin de Siecle
(Tomáš Korbel) ... S. 220

Jana KRTIČKOVÁ
Proměna pohřebního rituálu na přelomu 19. a 20. Století na příkladu západočeského města Chebu
(Karel Řeháček) ... S. 224

Jeffrey HERF
Unerklärte Kriege gegen Israel. Die DDR und die westdeutsche radikale Linke
(Florian Ruttner) ... S. 227

Zprávy o literature ... S. 230

Z vědeckého života / Chronicle

Nekrology

Zdeněk Kučera (30. března 1930 – 15. června 2019)
(Jan B. Lášek) ... S. 259

Josef Hejnic (20. října 1924 – 21. června 2019)
(Jaroslav Pánek) ... S. 263

Knihy a časopisy došlé redakci ... S. 268

Výtahy z českých časopisů a sborníků ... S. 268

Pokyny pro autory ... S. 287