The article aims to specify the different position of soups in gastronomic schemes and eating habits in the Balkans and Central Europe. It derives the essence of this status from the socio-cultural circumstances determined by the long-term affiliation of the national communities to multinational states formations, such as the Ottoman Empire and the Habsburg Monarchy. In both geocultural spheres, among other phenomena of everyday life became familiar the specifics of gastronomic culture. The culinary paradigms in both parts of Europe have undergone obviously differences, which can also be illustrated by the example of soups. They are becoming special case studies presenting the broader culinary context. However, in the context of nation building processes in the 19th and partly in the 20th century, there has been a collective shared effort to adapt the attributes of everyday life to the national ideology that is symptomatic for both the 'Ottoman Balkans' and the 'Habsburg Central Europe'. At the centre of attention are identification models whose spectrum shows symbolic and factual differences in the involvement of soups in the gastronomic practice of the Balkan and Central European cultural contexts. and Stať si klade za cíl specifikovat rozdílné postavení polévek v gastronomických schématech a stravovacích návycích na Balkáně a ve střední Evropě. Podstatu tohoto statutu odvozuje od sociokulturních poměrů determinovaných dlouhodobou příslušností sledovaných etnických společenství do mnohonárodnostních státních útvarů, jakými byly Osmanská říše a Habsburské monarchie. V obou geokulturních sférách zdomácněly mezi jinými fenomény každodenního života také specifika gastronomické kultury. Kulinární paradigmata v obou částech Evropy doznala zjevné rozdíly, jež lze ilustrovat i na příkladu polévek, které se stávají zvláštními případovými studiemi ilustrujícími širší kulinární souvislosti. V souvislosti s národotvornými procesy v 19. a částečně i 20. století se však projevila kolektivně sdílená snaha atributy každodenního života přizpůsobit utvářené národní ideologii, jež je symptomatická pro "osmanský Balkán" i "habsburskou střední Evropu". V centru pozornosti tak stojí identifikační modely, v jejich spektru vystupují symbolické i faktické rozdíly v zapojení polévek do gastronomické praxe balkánských a středoevropských kulturních kontextů.
In Czech historiography, Prince Charles I of Liechtenstein personifies the process of the post-White Mountain confiscations and the political and social changes in the post-White Mountain Czech lands. Between 1918 and 1945 he even became the subject of historiographical and journalistic discussion within Czech historiography, which was directly linked to the foundation and strengthening of the Czechoslovak Republic. These attitudes also led to discussions between historians standing on the side of the emergent Czechoslovak Republic and historians from the circle of the Prince of Liechtenstein. Contemporary research shows that the role of Charles I of Liechtenstein was by no means straightforward. This was due to the personal ambitions of the ruler of the emergent princely house, but also because of the complex historical context, when the representatives of the Central European aristocracy were searching for a place between the estates' community and the ruling dynasty. Charles I of Liechtenstein's case was also different due to geography and the individual countries where the Liechtensteins held positions, functions and offices. In the Margraviate of Moravia in particular, Charles I of Liechtenstein was the victim of confiscation declared during the Estates' Uprising. After the uprising had been defeated he could return to the country and reclaim his land. In Bohemia, Liechtenstein was rewarded for his loyalty to the Austrian house during the rebellion by soon becoming the emperor's commissar and then the emperor's governor. It was in that capacity that he arrested and tried the main rebels and presided over their execution at the Old Town Square. In the 1620s he organised the imperial confiscations in Bohemia. In Opava, which was gradually moving towards the Silesian principality, Liechtenstein attempted to enter as the supreme ruler and organise his own confiscations from this position. However, this manoeuvre came up against the interests of Emperor Ferdinand II and his central offices, which did not agree with such a division of the monarchy. But Charles I of Liechtenstein did make gains in Moravia, where he was awarded a large amount of property from his erstwhile opponent, the rebel provincial governor Ladislav Velen of Žerotín, the most important being the domain of Moravská Třebová. Charles I of Liechtenstein died in 1627 when, from the emperor’s perspective, peace and normality had finally returned to the Czech lands. His role in the confiscation process, albeit with certain dark shadows, nevertheless contributed towards the great advancement of the Princely House of the Liechtensteins, which would last for centuries.
Historical state rights are characteristics of a few empires. Legally,
they drew on the tradition of former estates’ orders and contained privileges of estates or a County with regard to the Emperor. In the second half of the 19th century, however, this legal argument gave way for interpretations that were genuinely political. Historiography has often interpreted this shift as an exclusively nationalist one. Taking the Austrian Bohemian Lands and Czech nationalism as an example, this paper shows how the more complex the discourse was, in which history was transformed into political claims. In the realm of the Habsburg Monarchy, state rights legitimized so
different ideas as feudal-estates’ orders, historic federalism or nation states. These political programs had conservative,
national-liberal and even democratic implications combined with integrationist or separationist policies. and Článek zahrnuje poznámkový aparát pod čarou
Karl I von Liechtenstein (1569–1627) was the first member of the Liechtenstein family to become a Prince of Liechtenstein, thus he was the founder of the Princely Family of Liechtenstein. Karl was the elder son of Hartmann II, Baron of Liechtenstein (1544–1585) and his wife, Countess Anna Maria of Ortenburg (1547–1601). According to the directives of his father he was brought up in the Protestant faith and attended a school in Moravia, run by the Bohemian Brothers. In 1599 he converted to Catholicism. Shortly afterwards Emperor Rudolf II (1552– 1612) appointed him as Chief Intendant (head of the imperial household), the highest position at court, an office he held, with interruptions, until 1607. In the following power struggles within the House of Habsburg he allied himself with the party of Archduke Matthias (1557–1619), who made him a hereditary prince in 1608. In 1614, Karl added the regency of the Silesian Duchy of Troppau (Opava) to his possessions. As a mark of gratitude for further aid before the Battle of White Mountain near Prague (8 November 1620) Karl was appointed to the positions of governor and "vice-regent" of the kingdom of Bohemia (at first provisionally, in January 1622 permanently) and as the first member of his family he was also bestowed with the Order of the Golden Fleece. As part of his function he led the capture and execution of the leaders of the Bohemian uprising (1618–1620). He did this in close co-ordination with Emperor Ferdinand II. To set an example, twentyseven leaders of the rebellion were arrested and sentenced to death. Ferdinand II confirmed the sentences and Karl presided over the public executions on 21 June 1621. Where possible, Karl recommended clemency to keep the bloodshed to a minimum. And indeed the Emperor commuted some of the death sentences. In 1622 Karl also gained the Silesian Duchy of Jägerndorf (Krnov) along with confiscated "rebel property" in Bohemia and Moravia. Karl was among those who made very large acquisitions. These were partly grants by the Crown in repayment of previous loans, and partly purchases at advantageous prices. At the end of the nineteenth century it was estimated that 41% of the then existing Liechtenstein family property had been acquired between 1620 and 1650. It is difficult to assess the first Prince of Liechtenstein. Little is known about his personality. Such evidence as there is suggests that Karl's disposition was moderate, except for his resolute accumulation of property. Given the standards then prevailing in Western Europe, the public execution of 27 "rebels" might be thought, for the times, a not exceptional retribution for what had occurred in Bohemia. Karl died on 12 February 1627 in Prague.
This article draws upon the remarkable diaries of Vojtěch Berger
to offer an original perspective on left-wing politics and the transformative effects of war, occupation, and violence in early twentieth-century Central Europe. Berger, a trained carpenter from southern Bohemia, began writing a diary at the turn of the century when he was a member of the Czechoslovak Social Democratic Party in Vienna. He continued to write as he fought for the Habsburg monarchy during World War I; moved to Prague and joined the Communist Party; endured the Nazi occupation; and questioned the
Communist Party, and his place in it, after liberation in 1945. Berger’s diary speaks to two constituencies that deserve more attention from historians: Czech-speaking veterans of World War I and rank-and-file members of the interwar Communist Party. The article argues that Berger’s politics, while informed by his experiences and framed by party ideologies and structures,
obtained significance through relationships with like-minded “comrades”. Furthermore, the article examines how Berger used his diary to create political self-understanding, to fashion a political self. Each world war, the article concludes, threw this sense of self into disarray. Each world war also spurred Berger to reshape his political self, and with that to reconstitute his political beliefs, his public relationships, and his sense of belonging in the world. and Článek zahrnuje poznámkový aparát pod čarou