Lutz Klinkhammer Tato stať, kterou v časopise Soudobé dějiny pokračuje seriál o vývoji a dnešním stavu disciplíny soudobých dějin ve vybraných evropských zemích, původně vyšla pod názvem „Novecento statt Storia contemporanea: Überlegungen zur italienischen Zeitgeschichte“ a je převzata ze sborníku editorů Alexandra Nützenadela a Wolfganga Schiedera Zeitgeschichte als Problem: Nationale Traditionen und Perspektiven der Forschung in Europa (Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2004, s. 107–127). Autor uvádí, že pojem „soudobé dějiny“ pro označení vyhraněné disciplíny historického bádání, jako je tomu v Německu nebo ve Francii, nemá v Itálii zřetelnou obdobu. Termín storia contemporanea zde měl po roce 1945 trojí význam. Jednak se užíval jako pojmenování dějinného úseku zhruba posledních dvou století, dále pro časově kratší období „krátkého 20. století“ (novecento) a konečně sloužil k charakteristice jakékoli historické události v jejím „soudobém“ rozměru, tedy její instrumentalizace podle aktuálních (politických či jiných) potřeb. Tyto významy autor ilustruje jednak na příkladech přehledů a učebnic italských dějin, jednak na aktuálních sporech o historické činy papežů a katolické církve, o světla a stíny italského národního sjednocení v šedesátých letech 19. století a údajnou levicovou ideologizaci poválečného italského dějepisectví. V něm se zrodil „mýtus rezistence“ proti německé okupaci z let 1943 až 1945, jehož rubem byla marginalizace, či dokonce tabuizace italského fašismu, a který odpovídal zájmům širokospektrální protifašistické koalice politických sil v Itálii. S hlubším výzkumem italského fašismu se začalo až v šedesátých letech. Od devadesátých let pak podle autora trvají ostré spory o hodnocení odboje (včetně komunistických zločinů) a fašistické republiky ze Salò, v nichž je patrná snaha o „plíživou rehabilitaci“ fašistické minulosti a které by svědčily pro tezi, že italské soudobé dějiny ve vlastním smyslu začínají rokem 1943. and This article, which is one of a series in Soudobé dějiny on the development of the discipline of contemporary history and its current state in selected countries of Europe, was originally published as “Novecento statt Storia contemporanea? Überlegungen zur italienischen Zeitgeschichte” in Alexander Nützenadel and Wolfgang Schieder (eds), Zeitgeschichte als Problem: Nationale Traditionen und Perspektiven der Forschung in Europa (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004, pp. 107–27). The author argues that in Italy, unlike Germany or France, there is no distinct term for “contemporary history” to denote this clearly defined discipline of historical research. The term storia contemporanea had three meanings since 1945. First, it was used to denote an historical period of roughly the last two centuries. Second, it meant only the “short” twentieth century (il novecento). Last, the term served to denote any historical event in its “contemporary” dimension, that is to say, its instrumentalization according to current needs, political or otherwise. The author illustrates these meanings by providing examples from surveys and textbooks of Italian history and from current debates on the historical actions of the popes and the Roman Catholic Church, the bright and dark sides of Italian unifi cation in the 1860s, and the alleged left-wing ideologization of post-war Italian historiography. In this historiography was born the “myth of resistance” to the German occupation of 1943–45, the other side of which was the marginalization of Italian Fascism or even its being made taboo. This corresponded to the interests of the broad anti-Fascist political coalition in Italy. More penetrating research into Italian Fascism did not begin to appear till the 1960s. Since the 1990s, according to the author, there have been fierce disagreements in assessments of the resistance (including Communist crimes) and the Nazi-puppet state known as the Salò Republic, in which there has been an evident endeavour to achieve the “creeping rehabilitation” of the Fascist past, which would speak in support of the argument that Italian contemporary history really begins in 1943.
The official Burgundian historiographer Georges Chastellain (perhaps 1415-1475) left an extensive work of various genres behind. We also find in the Chronicle noteworthy Bohemicalia and Luxemburg passages, concerning particularly the origin of Hussitism. Chastellain saw the roots of this revolution in the lascivious alliance of Prague girls and the monks of one monastery there. To be able to sleep with their lovers, the girls cut their hair and wore monk´s cowls. It was the beginning of absolute chaos and reversal of the established hierarchies in Bohemia. We do not know the direct source of the author´s inspiration, but ideologically the story is close to a number of works of anti-Hussite propaganda, emphasising the destructive role of women in the revolution. It is also not an accident that Chastellain included the chapter on the Prague girls just before the narrative on Joan of Arc, for whom as an author from Burgundy he did not sympathize. Also she changed into men´s clothing and her behaviour led to wars and chaos according to the author. The parallel was to be obvious. At the time when he wrote the passage on Hussitism, Georges Chastellain also considered the mission of historians and their place in the period society. He ascribed a place to them almost on the same level as aristocrats. It was a parallel: like aristocrats use the sword, the tongue must serve men of the quill for the elimination of the injustice of this world. and Martin Nejedlý.
k vyd. připravili Tomáš Breň a Pavel Janáček., Německé resumé, Obsahuje jmenný rejstřík, and Publikace vznikla v rámci výzkumného záměru Z90560517 a ve spolupráci s Katedrou společenských věd ČVUT a Svatoborem
This article examines the administration of rescue operations to save people from drowning and the distribution of rewards to rescuers in Bohemia during the 1780s and 1790s. Based on documented interrogations and official records, the article looks at the investigatory process, the conditions rescuers had to fulfil in order to apply for a reward from the Bohemian Gubernium, and the role of other actors in this process, such as witnesses and doctors. The study departs from the concept of biopolitics developed by French philosopher Michel Foucault and shows how the state authorities tried to foster mutual solidarity among town dwellers. While Enlightenment thinkers continued to stress the role of "love for human beings" (Menschenliebe), i.e. universal interpersonal solidarity, the elites held the view that the biggest motivation for anyone to save a person from drowning was monetary reward. The aim of the enlighteners, however, was to encourage people to embrace the ideal of "Menschenliebe" and to fully identify with it - hence their emphasis on cases of selfless acts, especially in newspapers and popular literature. Besides that, the article analyses the trend towards the medicalization of society in the Enlightenment period and changes in attitudes to death., Ondřej Hudeček., and Obsahuje bibliografické odkazy