Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 6

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1

SPOLOČNOSŤ A HISTÓRIA – DVE STRÁNKY JEDNEJ MINCE

100%
Švorc P.
Historický časopis (Historical Journal)
|
2011
|
vol. 59
|
issue 4
591 – 600
EN
History and society are two inseparable elements. One cannot exist without the other. History forms a society, develops and shapes it. This complex and sometimes contradictory process leads to the society attempting to understand itself, its route and its direction. For this purpose the society creates an independent scientific discipline, namely history. The fourteenth congress of the Slovak History Society analysed the way how history is fulfilling its role in Slovakia. Slovak society accepts gladly the results of the correct work of the Slovak historians, most of them conscientiously add to the mosaic of the rich Slovak past, in spite of various pressures. However, there is another side to the same coin, which shows that there are many problems in the relationship of Slovak society to history: The politicians reach for the results of historical science only sporadically, and only when they need these results for their own purposes. This selective use of history, not only deforms historical knowledge, but also the historical consciousness of society. Slovak society suffers from an absence of historical education, which is inadequate and far from reaching the parameters of the neighbouring countries. Weak historical knowledge is reflected in people’s relationship to the national past. It is rather half-hearted, and not only in the schools, which are short of history textbooks and lessons for teaching history, but also in the institutions, namely archives and museums, which are obliged by law to care for the historical heritage of the country. However, even the historians themselves sometimes succumb to economic and pragmatic pressures. The result is inadequate research and so also bad interpretation of historical events.
2

RAKÚSKA HISTORIOGRAFIA A SLOVENSKÉ DEJINY

100%
Švorc P.
Historický časopis (Historical Journal)
|
2012
|
vol. 60
|
issue 4
673 – 700
EN
Slovak history and the history of the territory of Slovakia are not frequent themes in Austrian historiography. They have appeared only marginally and especially as part of the history of the Kingdom of Hungary up to 1918 or as part of the history of Czechoslovakia after 1918. This was a result of various factors. One of them was the fact that the destiny of the Slovaks and Austria were connected only with mediation. Only a few Austrian historians were concerned with the history of Slovakia before Slovakia became independent in 1993. In spite of this, we can say that notable authors such as Kurt Wessely, Helmut Slapnicka and Ludwig von Gogolák have written about the Slovaks, while Richard G. Plaschka and Horst Haselsteiner have not avoided them. The formation of a new state close to Austria reminded the Austrian public that Slovaks as well as Czechs lived in former Czechoslovakia. Slovakia and its history became more frequent subjects in Austria at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st century. Cooperation between the academic institutions of the two countries also supported this. Thanks to this, various Austrian – Slovak projects have started. The Österreichisches Ost- und Südost-europa-Institut in Vienna and its director Arnold Suppen have played an important role in this. Other Austrian researchers, such as Karl Schwarz, Valeria Heuberger, Friedrich Gottas, Valter Lukan, Thoma Kletečka, Martin Seger, Helmut Rumpler and Peter Jordan, began to research the history of Slovakia. Arnold Suppan, Karl Schwarz, Harald Heppner and others stood at the birth of Slovak – Austrian academic publications, which brought the great university centres: Vienna University, Karl Franz University in Graz, Klagenfurt University and others into research and promotion of Slovak history. At the beginning of the 21st century, Slovakia and its history has already become a lively part of Austrian historiography.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Rusíni a problém vymedzenia ich územia v druhej polovici 19. a na začiatku 20. storočia

100%
Švorc P.
Acta historica Neosoliensia Vedecký časopis pre historické vedy
|
2015
|
vol. 18
180-198
EN
In the second half of the 19th and in the early 20th centuries the Hungarian Ruthenians belonged to the least developed European nations in terms of national, cultural as well as economic life. They considered confessional identity more important than ethnic identity. The Ruthenians claimed allegiance to the Greek Catholic religion. However, they had three different answers to the question of what nationality they belonged to: Ruthenian – as the indigenous population of north-eastern Hungary, Ukrainian and Russian. This ethnic dilemma also complicated the issue of the determination of their territory, especially in relation to the Slovak population. In the 19th and early 20th centuries the ethnicity as well as the settlement of the Ruthenian population attracted the attention of the scholars of other nationalities rather than Ruthenians themselves. Their findings were often inconsistent, especially as far as the determination of their western ethnic boundary was concerned. The scholars were confused by the Greek Catholic faith of the population as well as the ambiguous census results. These were factors that complicated the demarcation of the provincial boundary in the new state of Czechoslovakia between the Subcarpathian Ruthenia and Slovakia after the collapse of Austria-Hungary and Subcarpathian Ruthenia’s joining of the newly established Czechoslovak Republic.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

FOR THE ANNIVERSARY OF PhD IN HISTORY, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, A MEMBER OF OUR YEARBOOK EDITORIAL BOARD ĽUBICA HARBUĽOVÁ

100%
Švorc P.
Міжнародні зв’язки України: наукові пошуки і знахідки
|
2022
|
issue 31
326-330
EN
The article covers the biography and scholarly activities of PhD in History, Associate Professor, a member of our yearbook editorial board Ľubica Harbuľová
5
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Krajinská hranica medzi Slovenskom a Podkarpatskou Rusou a jej odraz v interetnických vzťahoch (1919–1939)

100%
Švorc P.
Res Gestae. Czasopismo Historyczne
|
2017
|
vol. 4
165-180
PL
The 1918 break-up of Austro-Hungary was welcomed by most Slovaks and Rusyns. Gaining national freedom for both these Slavic nations in a new country – the Czechoslovak Republic – however, paradoxically, ended their existing mutual support and cooperation. The territory that Slovaks and Rusyns used to share was now, in the Czechoslovak Republic, divided by a national border. Although it only had an administrative function both on the map of Czechoslovakia and in the state government, in peoples’ (Slovak and Rusyn) minds it meant an actual barrier fulfilling its stated mission – division. The main problem of the national border in the interwar period laid in its location. Rusyns wished for it to be more westerly, as was determined by the Paris Peace Conference, and, thereby, for Subcarpathian Rus’ to gain the territory of north-eastern Slovakia where Rusyns also lived, while Slovaks were strongly opposed, as it concerned an ethnically mixed territory and included Slovak inhabitants.
6
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Český etnograf Jan Húsek a jeho výskumná cesta po slovensko-rusínskom pomedzí v 20. rokoch 20. storočia

100%
Švorc P.
Res Gestae. Czasopismo Historyczne
|
2020
|
vol. 11
98-110
EN
When Czechoslovakia was established in 1918 and incoporated Subcarpathian Rus’ in September 1919, the questions of Rusyn autonomy and the border between Subcarpathian Rus’ and Slovakia emerged. Rusyns requested that the territory of Eastern Slovakia – the historic counties of Spiš, Šariš and Zemplín – where many of them also lived, be included in Subcarpathian Rus’. The Slovak side refused it point-blank, which was apparent considered these counties to be Slovak, with Slovak majority populations, as it was apparent in the censuses taken in pre-1918 Hungary and Czechoslovakia in 1919, 1921 and 1930. There was therefore a danger of confl ict between the two Slavic nations forming the new state. The Czech ethnographer Jan Húsek was one of experts trying to prevent the confl ict from happening. In the 1920s, he took research trips to Eastern Slovakia to fi nd out where the ethnographic border between Slovaks and Rusyns lay. He planned, based on his fi ndings, to suggest to the Czechoslovak government where a fair internal border between Slovakia and Subcarpathian Rus’ should be placed. He published his researchin a voluminous monograph Národopisná hranice mezi Slováky a Karpatorusy (The Ethnological Border between Slovaks and Carpathian Rusyns, 1925). The conclusion of his work was, however, tentative. It was impossible to determine the ethnographic border between Slovaks and Rusyns in Eastern Slovakia, as Slovak and Rusyn inhabitants did not live in separate settlements; on the contrary, they were intermixed not only from the geographical viewpoint, but also regarding their family and work life, as well as in confession, culture, customs, etc. In the end, the border between Slovakia and Subcarpathian Rus’ maintained of the shape that was approved at the Paris Peace Conference and, for the entire interwar period, served as a permanent source of tension in Slovak-Rusyn relations.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.