The article is concerned with the persecution of Gypsies in Bohemia in the first third ofthe 18th century. As in other European countries, in cases where Gypsies had been already formally expelled from a land, Gypsy vagabondage was defined and punished as a capital crime. The article does not forget this normative aspect ofthe theme, but it nonetheless concentrates on the actual practice of persecution and above all on cases in which condemned Gypsies begged for mercy and their death penalty was in fact reduced to a more moderate punishment. The author also looks at the extensive powers of reprieve that the Prague Appellate Court (in the case ofGypsy vagabondage the tribunal offirst instance), was granted by the ruler in the 1720s. Condemned Gypsies were not explicitly mentioned in this context, but there is plenty of evidence that they were not excluded from this practice ofreprieve. The article criticises the view ofthe persecution ofGypsies that is based solely on the quantification ofincomplete data in the manuals of condemnation ofthe Appellate Court. These books not only fail to indicate when the condemned were later reprieved, but also do not allow us to reliably identify individuals condemned. There are examples of one person appearing several times in them, sometimes under different names. It is this misleading quantified evidence that has helped give rise to the idea that the persecution of Gypsies in the early modern period was the first stage of the Gypsy Holocaust in the 20th century. The article argues, on the contrary, that in relation to persecution the pre-modern differed from the modern state not only in terms of capacity, but fundamentally.
Two concentration camps were established for Roma people in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia in 1942. Roma from Bohemia were deported to Lety and Roma from Moravia to the camp near Hodonín u Kunštátu, before most of them were murdered in the “Gypsy family camp” (Zigeunerlager) in Auschwitz II. Birkenau. The lists of prisoners are valuable not only for historians (they were published previously by the historian Ctibor Nečas), but also for onomastics, as they allow us to analyse the naming practise of Czech and Moravian Roma in the pre-war period. There are 325 unique surnames on these lists, with most of them being Czech or German, and they thus demonstrate the connection with the territory and its language(s). The study discusses the most common Roma surnames in Moravia (e.g. Daniel, Holomek, Burianský) and in Bohemia (e.g. Růžička, Janeček, Vrba) as well as the surnames of Sinti living in the Czech borderland regions (e.g. Winter). It is shown that the surnames of Roma from Bohemia and Moravia were different due to the historical and social reasons. They were mostly derived from personal names (e.g. Florián) and place names (e.g. Dubský), they were motivated by the occupation adopted (e.g. Kovář ‘smith’) or the character and appearance of the individual (e.g. Malík ‘small’). After the war, only 583 of the 4,870 Roma who had been imprisoned returned.
CS
Na území Protektorátu Čechy a Moravy byly v roce 1942 zřízeny dva tzv. cikánské koncentrační tábory. Romové z Čech byly deportováni do tábora v Letech, Romové z Moravy a Slezska do tábora nedaleko Hodonína u Kunštátu. Většina z nich poté byla zavražděna v “cikánském rodinném táboře” (Zigeunerlager) v Osvětimi II. Březince. Seznamy vězňů jsou velmi cenné nejen pro historiky (byly vydány historikem Ctiborem Nečasem), ale i pro onomastiky, neboť nám dovolují nahlédnout do pojmenovávacích zvyklostí českých a moravských Romů v předválečném období. Na těchto seznamech nacházíme 325 příjmení. Většina z nich je česká, popř. německá, a dokládají tak sepětí s tímto územím a jeho jazykem/jazyky. Studie analyzuje nejčastější příjmení na Moravě (např. Daniel, Holomek a Burianský) i v Čechách (např. Růžička, Vrba a Janeček), stejně jako příjmení Sintů žijících v oblasti Sudet (např. Winter, Bernhardt). Ukazuje se, že příjmení Romů v Čechách a na Moravě byla odlišná, což bylo dáno historickými a sociálními příčinami. Nejčastěji byla odvozena z osobních jmen (např. Florián) nebo toponym (např. Dubský), byla motivována povoláním (např. Kovář) nebo charakterem a vzhledem (např. Malík). Po válce se z 4 870 Romů vrátilo jen 583.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.