Page 164 - Studia Universitatis Hereditati, vol 13(1) (2025)

Konceptualno podoben pogled na Žižko, fights, successfully opposing worldwide res
češko husitsko reformacijo in revolucijo je mogel ponse, marks a time. Jan Žižka of Trocnov’s
v obdobju do ustanovitve moderne slovenske dr- leadership and political vision defined the
žave dobiti tudi slovenski bralec, kajti v našo ma- early years. All efforts by bourgeois histo-
terinščino prevedeno delo Václava Huse Dějiny riography to depict the Hussite revolution-
Československa (1961, slovenski prevod pod nas- ary movement as ‘Žižka’s work’ result from
lovom Zgodovina Čehov in Slovakov je bil izde- a defective personalistic perception of his-
lan po 2. izdaji iz leta 1962) npr. vprašanja lastni- torical evolution. The Hussite revolutionary
ne v skupnosti taboritov bralcu razjasnjuje z wave originated from a more general basis,
naslednjimi besedami (Husa 1967, 82): from Czech villages and towns, where the
working people rose against the ancient op-
Lastninska skupnost taboritov kajpada še ni pressive order.
164 mogla privesti do ustanovitve komunistič- Slovenian readers had access to a conceptu-
nega družbenega reda, ker ni temeljila na
podružbljanju proizvajalnih sredstev. To je ally comparable perspective of Žižka, the Czech
studia universitatis hereditati, letnik 13 (2025), številka 1 / volume 13 (2025), number 1
bil t. i. potrošniški komunizem [sic!] [pouda- Hussite Reformation, and the revolution until
ril J. V.] ... modern Slovenia was founded. For example, Vá-
clav Husa’s Dějiny Československa (1961, translat-
Tak pogled na zgodovinske fenomene ed into Slovenian as Zgodovina Čehov in Slovak-
ni bil tuj niti historiografiji o reformaciji 16. ov based on the 1962 second edition) discusses
stolet ja. V Nemški demokratični republiki je the question of property in the Taborite com-
tako v soj žarometov zgodovinopisja, publici- munity (Husa 1967, 82):
stike in umetnosti namesto podpornika knežje Of course, the Taborite community of
smeri reformacije, »reakcionarja« Luthra, sto- property could not cause the creation of a
pil mnogo radikalnejši Thomas Müntzer, NDR communist social order since it was not
pa je tega kreativnega, elokventnega in ekspre- founded on the socialising of the means of
sivnega voditelja kmečke vojske iz časa Bun- production. This was so-called consumer
dschuha (1525) inscenirala na filmu (1956) ter communism [sic!] [emphasised by J.V.] ...
ga nazadnje upodobila celo na bankovcu za pet
mark. Such a viewpoint was not foreign to the his-
th
In sicer na podobno emblemski ter za his- toriography of the 16 -century Reformation.
toriografa s stališča idearija in imaginarija dobe Rather than the ‘reactionary’ Luther, the radical
imagološko izzivalen način, kot je npr. wilhel- preacher and theologian Thomas Müntzer, head
minska Nemčija v letih 1908–1910 na Flotten- of the peasant army during the Bundschuh (1525),
huderter (100 RM) vgravirala grb, kraljevske was pushed into the forefront of history, journal-
dragulje in krono, hrast ter floto odprtega mor- ism, and art in the German Democratic Repub-
ja, kot je Weimarska republika na bankovcu za lic. The GDR showed him on the 5-mark bank-
50.000 mark leta 1922 upodobila Luthra ali kot note and in film from 1956.
je hitlerjanski III. Reich na bankovcu za 5 RM Akin to how Wilhelmine Germany (1908–
izrisal likovni emblem nacističnega rasnega kul- 1910) engraved the coat of arms, royal jewels,
ta, moško glavo v slogu Arna Brekerja. Ali: kot je crown, oak, and open-sea fleet on the Flotten-
komunistična Čehoslovaška trikrat (1953–1962, hundert (100 RM), this was done in a similar-
1962–1972: 25 čehoslovaških kron; 1971–1991: ly emblematic and, for a historian, ideologically
20 kron) na bankovec postavila Jana Žižko (Čor- and imaginatively provocative way; the Weimar
nej 2019, 656). Republic depicted Luther on the 50,000-mark
banknote in 1922; or the Nazi Third Reich por-
trayed a male head in the style of Arno Breker,