Editovaný nevelký soubor 21 (respektive 22) kusů korespondence historika J. V. Šimáka s prezidentem T. G. Masarykem, jeho kancléřem Přemyslem Šámalem a Kanceláří prezidenta republiky z let 1919-1931 dokládá povahu vztahu osobností, které se v rovině odborné i osobní míjely, ale v rovině státně politické a společenské se nemohly zcela opomenout. Korespondence obsahuje jak úřední tak osobní dopisy (osobní dopisy psal ale pouze Šimák, nikoliv Masaryk) a dobře ilustruje fungování Kanceláře prezidenta republiky. Dokládá Šimákovo postavení v historické vědě, jeho nelehkou pozici univerzitního profesora nového oboru (historické vlastivědy československého státu na Karlově univerzitě) a jeho stálý zřetel k podpoře vlastivědného bádání i osvětové práce., This modest edited collection of some 21 (or 22) items of correspondence between the historian Josef Vítězslav Šimák and President Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk, his Chancellor Přemysl Šámal and the Office of the President of the Republic between 1919 and 1931 illustrates the nature of relations between these figures, who at a professional and personal level only crossed paths, but who at the state-political and the social level could not entirely ignore one other. This correspondence contains both official and personal letters (though only Šimák, not Masaryk, wrote the personal letters) and clearly depicts operations at the Office of the President of the Republic. It also demonstrates Šimák's standing in historical studies, his awkward position as a university professor in a new field (Czechoslovak state historical ''homeland'' studies at Charles University) and his ongoing interest in support for homeland studies research and public education work. (Translated by Melvyn Clarke.), and Překlad resumé: Melvyn Clarke
The study deals with the historical evolution of the normative appraisal of the 28th of October, 1918, within Czech historiography and politics. The author tackles the perspective of direct participants in the context of the "argument over credits", structuring the political discourse of interwar Czechoslovakia. The paper then concludes with an overview - how was the topic of the 28th of October presented in Czech historiography after 1989. and Článek zahrnuje odkazy pod čarou
This essay is a response to the discussion paper by Daniela Tinková on Enlightenment and vernacularization. The author welcomes the approach that sees Enlightenment as a debate, since to see it as a battle is to confuse logical truth with fiction. It should be said, however, that Tinková’s model attributes an active role only to the elites, and overstates the idea of the disappearance of the state. In the 18th century we may not have had a national state, but we did have a state. A common fallacy among Czechs regarding the timing and mechanism of the emergence of the National Revival is to ignore that state and consequently espouse the unrealistic thesis that the national agitation arose among a free people in the repressive period preceding March 1848. They also fail to appreciate the importance of the constitutional monarchy post-1861, when for the first time Czechs were able to engage in free political debate. As a result it was not until the late 19th century that a belated Czech Enlightenment took hold, inspired largely by France and Scotland. Home-grown Enlightenment traditions had by then been forgotten.
This study analyzes celebrations of presidents’ birthdays in interwar
Czechoslovakia. The authors discuss the formative role of the holidays within the framework of the construction of Czechoslovak national identity. They focus on new forms of the celebrations and discuss how the earlier pattern of Emperor Francis Joseph Festivities were employed in republican festivities. The authors deal with political negotiations of festival regulations and codes as well as their implementation in practice. They analyze which narratives were employed for the image of the president and the presidency in general. They also illuminate how first Czechoslovak president Tomáš G. Masaryk’s birthday was commemorated after his abdication and particularly after his death, and how the festivity was changed after Edvard Beneš became president. and Článek zahrnuje poznámkový aparát pod čarou