Publikace osvětluje jednu ze zásadních kapitol dějin ruského dějepisectví. Přináší analýzu koncepce ruských dějin Borise N. Čičerina (1828–1904) v dobových souvislostech ruské historiografie a v kontextu Čičerinových děl státovědných a filozofických. Práce podrobně mapuje počátky a okolnosti vzniku tzv. státní školy v ruské historiografii, k jejímž představitelům patřili kromě Čičerina další výrazní představitelé ruského historického myšlení – K. D. Kavelin, S. M. Solovjov a T. N. Granovskij. Za pomoci relevantních pramenů jsou zkoumány jednotlivé aspekty jejich pojetí ruských dějin a dobové reakce na jejich díla. Kniha také zachycuje souvislosti mezi Čičerinovým pojetím ruských dějin a ruským liberalismem poloviny 19. století. ,The aim of the book is to clarify one of the fundamental chapters of Russian historiography history. It puts forward analysis of the Russian history concept of Boris N. Chicherin (1858–1904) within the Russian historiography context of that time and within the context of Chicherin’s works on politics and philosophy. The paper shows the beginnings and circumstances of the so called state school of Russian historiography, the representatives of which were apart from Chicherin other reputable representatives of Russian historical thinking – K. D. Kavelin, S. M. Solov’ev and T. N. Granovskii. Using the relevant sources the individual aspects of their Russian history concepts are examined as well as the reaction to their work at that time. The book also shows the connections between the Russian history concept of Chicherin and Russian liberalism of the 19th century.
The study deals with the previously neglected aspects of interwar history of the Department of History in Brno, namely unsuccessful attempts at habilitation, financial provision, process of building the library, lectures and seminar activities and Ph.D. graduates and theirs dissertation thesis.
In the last two decades, cognitive and evolutionary approaches have appeared as new and invigorating attempts to explain what religion is: how religious phenomena emerged, why they persist, and why we find recurring patterns across cultural and historical borders. When addressing such question from perspectives informed by evolutionary biology and cognitive science, a pertinent question arises: How do we reconcile these new theories, and more experimentally inclined approaches, with a more traditional historical and/or sociological study of religion? What can cognitive and evolutionary approaches teach a general science of religion? In this paper I argue that historiography must indeed take theoretical and explanatory models arising from cognitive and evolutionary approaches seriously, but that we need to conceptualize not only the relation between distinct explanatory levels, but also the constraints imposed by the scope of particular scholarly endeavors.
Since the second half of the 18th century, generations of intellectuals and sponsors have laid foundations of the contemporary Moravian historiography. Although the founders came from various material and social conditions, they pursued one common objective: the economic, cultural and scientific advancement of Moravia. An excellent knowledge of the Moravian history was the device and key for these people to discover their own capabilities. Beside the well-known founders of the Moravian historiography, many small researchers, fallen into oblivion today, worked hard in different regions for the common idea. František Vilém Horký was one of such renowned regional historians. His life and work is a telling example of an intellectual who arose from the poorest social stratum. He was able to free himself from gloomy situation, and to guarantee a reasonable material standard to his family by his diligence and tenacity. In addition to that, he started copying historically valuable documents and he drew and described various memorabilities. Thus, he created a vast family collection which was later on used by his talented son for publishing historical works. Manuscripts conserved until today are documenting the width of interest of this small intellectual living between 1764 and 1825.
Práce je příspěvkem k dějinám české rusistiky. Připomíná existenci a hodnotí význam akademického časopisu Československá rusistika, jenž po dobu pětatřiceti let (1956−1990) vydávala Československá akademie věd. Autorka uvádí úplný výčet všech vydavatelů, vedoucích redaktorů a výkonných redaktorů, kteří se na vydávání časopisu podíleli. Připomíná měnící se strukturu a odborné zaměření časopisu i jména a odborné zájmy autorů, kteří do časopisu přispívali. Ukazuje, že s časopisem spolupracovali nejvýznamnější filologové a literární vědci, v počátcích i historikové, své doby a publikovali zde materiály, které mohou mít nadčasovou odbornou hodnotu. Proto není objektivní a věcně přesné časopis přehlížet s poukazem na jeho "normalizační charakter" a hodnotit jeho význam bez důkladného seznámení se s jeho obsahem. and The work is a contribution to the history of Czech Russian Studies. It recalls the existence and the importance of the academic journal Československá rusistika [Czechoslovak Russian Studies] published for thirty-five years (1956−1990) by the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences. The author presents a complete list of all publishers, senior editors and executive editors who participated in editting and publishing the journal. The changing structure and professional interests of the journal, as well as the names of the authors who published their papers in the journal, are shown. At the conclusion it is empasized that papers and reviews of the most significant philologists, historians, and literary scholars of those times were published in the journal, and the materials published herein may be of timeless professional value. It is strongly recommended to study the contents of the journal to gain an objective overview of Czech Russian Studies and their representatives.
In the contribution were shown threads devoted to Lithuania and Lithuanians, based on the data from the Silesian chronicles and annals that were written in Silesia in the Middle Ages. Considerable geographic distance and almost any direct contact caused relatively little interest in the presenting this subject by the Silesian chroniclers. A little more attention was paid in the connection with the baptism of the grand duke of Lithuania Jogaila, his accession to the Polish throne, and the Christianisation of Lithuanians. The victory of the Polish-Lithuanian troops over the Teutonic Knights in the battle of Grunwald in 1410 was also of interest of the historiographers.
This paper's aim is to acquaint the reader with the history of research on the Moldovan chronicles in the Church Slavonic language (remarkable literary works of the 15th–16th century) in Romania. The analysis is focused on the unsatisfactory state of current research into these chronicles, and on its genesis and causes. The resarch dates back to the 19th century, when modern Romanian historiography and Slavic and literary studies were founded. Special attention is paid to the work of Ioan Bogdan, the first publisher of these chronicles. His influence on the next generation of Romanian researchers and the ways in which they attempted to move beyond his conclusions, thinking, and analytical methods are also analysed. The overall failure of these Romanian scholars' efforts is a key reason for the unfavourable assessment of the current state of resarch and its need for substantial improvement. and Cílem této práce je seznámit čtenáře se vývojem výzkumu moldavských církevněslovanských kronik (nepříliš známých literárních děl 15.–16. století) v Rumunsku. Analyzován je nepříliš uspokojivý současný stav tohoto výzkumu a především jeho geneze a příčiny. Ty sahají až do 19. století, kdy se utvářely moderní rumunská historiografie, slavistika a literární věda. Podrobně je sledováno působení prvního vydavatele kronik, Ioana Bogdana, jeho vliv na další generace rumunských badatelů a způsoby, jakými se tito badatelé Bogdanovy závěry, okruhy a způsoby analýzy pokoušeli překonat. Popis a zdůvodnění neúspěchu těchto snah pak formují argumenty, na jejichž základě jsou vyjádřeny nepříliš příznivé zhodnocení rumunského výzkumu kronik a nutnost jeho výrazné proměny.
The study deals with the development and instrumentalization of the Handlová strike (1940) in the historiography before 1989. In the paper, I will provide the situation that preceded the strike and then the analysis of its process. It will also be necessary to determine who initiated the strike and what role the illegal communist movement played in it. I am going to compare the forms of instrumentalization with some of the claims made by historiography after 1989. In the context of instrumentalization of a strike, several questions arise. Was this a significant historiographic milestone? For what purpose was it used? Who and why was he the maintainer of his instrumentalization? How much influence had the communists during the strike?
This study deals with remembering of former "Leader of the Nation" František Ladislav Rieger in the annual years of his birth and death in 1918, 1938 and 1948. It will be focused on celebrations and commemorative acts, which took place in these years, and on the participation of the political representation, historians and Rieger's family. The main questions are: how Rieger's legacy was interpreted by different political parties and how Rieger's place in the Czech historical memory changed owing to the events happened in the years ending with eight which are traditionally considered as an important milestones of the modern Czech history.
The proposal for a scientific study of religions (Religionswissenschaft) was born of the scientific impulse that swept Europe from the mid-nineteenth century and that gave birth to the study of history itself as a scientific and autonomous discipline. Increasingly, however, historians of religion abandoned historical methods altogether and the study of religion became associated with an a historical approach in which "history of religions" became a synonym for assembling a phenomenological corpus of truncated and decontextualized cultural data, the temporality of which was disregarded in favor of claims to their being manifestations of a sui generis sacrality. A history of religions, informed by the insights of the new cognitive sciences, can draw upon well-founded theory that can supplement and provide correctives to traditional historiographical tools. Nevertheless, the weight of the 150 history of the study of religion suggests that the future of the study of religion will inevitably differ little from that of its past.