Architektura a ideologie. Výchovné instituce Adolfa Hitlera v protektorátu Čechy a Morava a v Říšské župě Sudety

This article examines the architecture of the Nazi regime in two occupied cities of Czechoslovakia, Praha/Prag and Jihlava/Iglau (the latter being one of the traditionally German-speaking island in the bohemia country), and focuses specifically on the process by which Hitler youth organisations (Hitlerjugend) in case of ‘education’ and indoctrination of youth were or were not successfully established in these cities. As comparison, he takes the political-administrative centres of the Sudeten Reichsgau, Ústí/Aussig, Opava/Troppau, Karlovy Vary/Karlsbad and Liberec/Reichenberg. Drawing on Czech and German archive materials, the extensive body of modern analytical literature, and propagandist literature from the period studied, the author examines the extent to which architecture served as a projection screen for Fascist propaganda in the Occupied Eastern territories. He describes the role played by the Reichsstelle für Raumordnung and shows how the Reich’s propagandist objectives came to be reflected in a high specific typology and stylistic lexicon/configuration for the architecture of Hitler youth hostels and homes He examines the process by which these organisations were powerful implanted into the space of occupied Czechoslovakia (and Sudeten) too, a topic that has not yet been addressed in (art) history too. The building projects developed for the Protectorate (published here for the first time) and managed by the Reich’s Hitler Youth Leadership in Berlin (Kulturamt, Reichsjugendführung, RJF, Abteilung HJ) reveal the ties that existed between the construction authorities in the Reich and the Protectorate, including the Planning Committee for the City of Prague. The author asks how many German and Czech architects participated for their own profit in the Nazi system, and for future research raises the hitherto taboo question of guilt and collaboration with the Nazis and the perception of this phenomenon in art history, i.e. the measure of active cooperation of not just German but also Czech architects who contributed to the planning and implementation of projects and thereby unequivocally had a hand in consolidating the totalitarian regime and de facto in the forced „Germanification” of their own people under occupation.

Polonofilizm i polskość wśród czeskich emancypantek w drugiej połowie XIX wieku: przykład Karoliny Světlej

The awakening of national consciousness went hand in hand in Bohemia with an anxiety about national disappearance. In this context, the recourse to Pan-Slavism was for the Czechs a way to encourage themselves through the idea of belonging to a great Slavic world, while the Slavic Congress organized in Prague in 1848 was an attempt to realize this ideal. The Congress was a failure from the political point of view, but it did have some socio-cultural repercussions: notably, it served as a pretext for the advancement of women's issues in Bohemia. It is indeed in the wake of the Congress that Honorata z Wiśniowskich Zapová, a Polish women settled in Prague after her marriage to a Czech intellectual, founded, under the guise of collaboration between all Slavic women, the first women's association, as well as a (very short-lived) Czech-Polish institute, where Czech, as well as Polish girls, could get a quality education in their mother tongue. Honorata was undoubtedly the source of the polonophilia wind that seemed to blow over the Czech emancipation movement in the second half of the nineteenth century. In particular, Karolina Světlá showed in her Memoirs a great recognition for Honorata's efforts in matters of emancipation and education, and explicitly took up the challenge launched by the latter in founding another women's association and in inaugurating a school for underprivileged girls. But the tribute Světlá paid to Honorata is even more evident in her literary work, where Poland and the Polish woman (who often wears Honorata's features) play a significant role (see for example her short novel Sisters or her story A Few Days in the Life of a Prague Dandy). Světlá was probably the Czech feminist writer who, in her activities and in her work, relied most strongly on the Polish woman as a model for the Czech woman. However, she wasn't alone. In general, it was a characteristic of the Czech feminist movement of the second half of the nineteenth century to have recourse to the Polish woman and to Poland as a landmark for comparison and as a goal to be achieved.

Traktaty pedagogiczne Honoraty z Wiśniowskich Zapovej i Klementyny z Tańskich Hoffmanowej – inspiracja czy przeróbka?

As is well know, the long-lasting influence in Poland of Hoffmanowa’s conservative pedagogical treatise « Keepsake of a Good Mother » (1819) was criticized by more progressive Polish women writers of the 19th century, such as Narcyza Żmichowska and Eliza Orzeszkowa. But the unexpected success of that book in other Slav countries later in the 19th century, especially in Bohemia, is less well known. Honorata z Wiśniowskich Zapová (1825-1856), a member of the Galician Polish szlachta who moved to Prague after her marriage in 1841 to the Czech writer K. V. Zap, has been recently exhumed as a Czech writer by Czech and Polish literary criticism: apart from her essays in Czech journals on her native country, much emphasis has been laid on the value of her most important work, Nezabudky, dar našim pannám (Forget-me-not: A Gift to Our Young Ladies, published in 1859), which was the first book of pedagogy dedicated to the instruction of young women in Bohemia. In her preface to this book, Zapová mentions Hoffmanowa as being one of her many sources of inspiration. Wishing to know more about what exactly Zapová owes to Hoffmanowa, in this article I compare Hoffmanowa’s book of pedagogy with Zapová’s. I am astonished to discover that Zapová’s book is in fact an almost literal translation from Polish to Czech of „Keepsake of a Good Mother” – in other words, that it is a plagiarism of Hoffmanowa’s book. The main question I ask here is : why did no one until now, either in 19th-century criticism or in our contemporary criticism, mention this literary fraud before?