22 November 1995
Throughout the course of European history, the lands of the Crown of St. Wenceslas have served as a bridge between East and West. As a staple of the Holy Roman Empire, the former heart of the Great Moravian Empire has commanded a position in the Western scheme of development while maintaining a tie with the Slavic East. The Defenstration of Prague, a watershed event in the course of religious history, was the catalyst for the Thirty Years War. Later, as a Habsburg crownland, the lands of Bohemia and Moravia formed the backbone of the Austrian economy. To the early pan-Germans of the mid-nineteenth century this small region situated roughly midway between the Baltic Sea and the Adriatic Sea, and between the North Sea and the Black Sea, was an integral part of "Germany." To the Czech majority, however, the realm of the Crown of St. Wenceslas was a homeland governed by outsiders. In the wake of The Enlightenment, Napoleonic idealism, and conservative reaction to the failed national revolutions of 1848, both the Czechs and the Germans would enter a new era of nationalism in the second half of the nineteenth century. This new level of nationalism would find its focus in the lands of Bohemia, a region claimed both as a "German" province and the "Czech" homeland. As it turns out, events in 1866 would spark an era of conflict between the Czech and German nationalists over the issue of Czech national rights that would climax with the fall of the Czech dominated Reichsrat in 1897. Consequently, it can be said that the years between 1866 and 1897 are paramount in the parallel rise of Czech and German nationalism in Cisleithenian Austria.
In 1866 the Austrian Empire suffered a humiliating defeat by the Prussian army. The repercussions of this apparently minor war prove to by disproportionately significant. First, with the defeat of Austria, Bismarck was able to exclude the Danubian Monarchy from participating in any future unification of the German states. With Austria out of the picture, Prussia, as the next largest German country, would be the logical choice to lead a possible unified Germany. Second, the defeat of the Austrian army on the battlefield suggested to the Hungarian nationalists that the weakened Vienna could not withstand another Hungarian uprising as it had in 1848. To avert the threat of armed rebellion, the Austrian government conceded in 1867 to allow the Magyars a significant degree of autonomy. In effect, Austria was divided into two entities, both under the Habsburg crown, but each with its own parliament and bureaucracy. The realm of the Crown of St. Stephen was now master of its own lands. To the Slavic minorities on both sides of the Leitha this was seen as a move to empower the Germans and Magyars at the expense of the other nations(1).
But what of the lands of the Crown of St. Wenceslas? The Czechs believed that the lands of the Bohemian crown should receive the same privileges. In 1871, Emperor Franz Joseph promised to recognize Bohemia by his coronation as King of Bohemia, but the German and Magyar pressure frustrated the Czech attempts to formulate a national agenda(2). The Czechs were in need of some legitimate political process by which to further national goals.
In May and June of 1867, a delegation of Czechs ventured to Moscow to participate in an ethnographic exhibition. The goal of this visit was to examine the prospects for possible Russian protection against the dualist system of the Ausgleich (compromise) period(3). One result of this pilgrimage was that some Czechs, chiefly Julius Gregr, a leading future "Young Czech," began to accept Russia as a potential partner in the Pan-Slavic movement(4). Russian participation in the Pan-Slav movement was not widely accepted, based on Russian treatment of the Poles and Bulgarians. Nonetheless, Czech acceptance of Russia as a potential ally against the Germans was a reality in the early years of the Ausgleich(5).
In contrast to Pan-Slavism among the slavic client nations of the European powers which called for the unity of the Slavic nations, Pan-Germanism called for the unity of all German speaking people. By 1866, the idea of the unification of the German people was close to becoming a reality. In 1871, after the Franco-Prussian War, King Wilhelm of Prussia was crowned Kaiser of the German Reich. Germany was united. But what of the "Germans" living in Austria? Many Austrian Germans did not feel that they should be a part of a "Greater Germany." As the years went on, however, an increasing number of Austrian Germans began to believe that they belonged in a State comprised solely of members of their nation. The Habsburg Monarchy with it small German minority amongst millions of other nationalities was seen as somewhat anachronistic in comparison to the nation-states of the West. This led to the rise of Pan-Germanism in Austria.
For the Czechs, as the dualistic system settled into place, and the Pan-German noose continued to tighten, for a national movement to work, the Czechs could have looked towards their Slavic kinsmen. However, Pan-Slavism was beginning to lose its appeal. In 1872, Frantisek Palacky, a leader of the "Old Czech" party, and a strong Czech nationalist, wrote a Political Testament in which he called into question the nation's motives for supporting a Russian dominated "Pan-Slavism." Palacky argues that although Russians and Czechs share a common linguistic heritage, that ethnic kinship will not prevent the Russians from treating their Slavic brothers in the same manner that the Germans treat the Slavs(6). A despot is a despot, regardless of lineage.
The Czech national movement was really in need of a boost. An article by Hubert G. Schauer that appeared in Cas, the journal of the future "Realist" wing of the "Young Czech" party, attempted to, if not provide the boost to the national movement, at least give an idea of what could be done to resurrect the Czech nationalist agenda. Schauer maintains that the basic flaw of the Czech nation is that Czech culture is rooted in the present and has no vision towards future cultural needs(7). Schauer maintains that the nation that does not have a culture able to provide for the future, is destined to be absorbed by the more forward looking nations. To counter the affects that Schauer fears might happen to the Czech nation, a new wave of Czech literature and art was born in the 1890's. This Czech modernism, or Ceska Moderna, would constitute a dramatic shift from the mainstream and serve to "shock" the established Habsburg elite. In a sense, the period between 1890 and 1914 can be seen as a significant artistic and literary genre for the Czech people. It would seem that Schauer’s concerns were met.
By the 1890's, the Czech nationalist political agenda again became a reality. In 1891, the first Young Czech/Realist delegation was sent to the Reichsrat. This represented a new era in Czech nationalist politics. The "Young Czech," or National Liberal. party had been in existence since 1874. The young Czechs campaigned for democratic and liberal reforms and full national equality. The party’s support came from a variety of small interest groups including farmers, former "Old Czechs," nationalist intelligentsia, Social Democrats, business, and industry(8). The Young Czech party can be considered a reaction to the "Old Czech," or Nationalist Party. The Old Czechs, the original party of Frantisek Palacky, had been the forefront of Czech nationalist politics in the 1860's, but had descended into a period of German complacency by the 1880's.
The Young Czechs' new partners in politics, the Realists, were a group of Czech nationalists centered around Tomas G. Masaryk, Karal Kramar, and Josef Kaizl. The Realists brought with them demands for the abolition of aristocratic privileges, expansion of education, autonomy for the lands of the Bohemian Crown, and linguistic equality of Czech with German in Bohemia and Moravia(9). The life breath of the realists was enough to turn the political wing of the Czech nationalist movement around. After the inclusion of the Realists into the Young Czechs, the numbers of elected Young Czechs grew dramatically, until 1895 when the National Liberal Party was the largest party in the Bohemian Diet(10). At that point, the new premier of the Reichsrat was the Polish Count Kazimierz Badeni, who formed a coalition which included the Young Czechs.
Although the Czechs had made some gains under the earlier ministries, the Charles University in Prague was divided into Czech and German schools, the Badeni ministry appeared to be the greatest opportunity for the realization of Czech national goals. Paramount among the goals of the Young Czechs at this time was the equalization of the Czech language with German, without dividing the Bohemian lands into national districts. In 1897, Badeni introduced a language ordinance that would realize the goals of the Young Czechs, however, it was not to be. By disruption from the right, chiefly from German nationalists, the measure was stopped and Badeni resigned.
After the failure of the Young Czechs to succeed under Badeni in 1897, the party began to lose votes at a steady rate until the end of the Empire, at which point, Czech nationalist goals were truly met with the creation of the first Czechoslovak republic. Although Czech nationalism did not cease to exist after the fall of Badeni, 1897 represents an end to the Czech nationalist movement in that the Czechs would never again attain the majority in the Reichsrat that was possessed in 1897(11).
1897 is also an end, per se, to Czech nationalism in that it is the symbolic end of the "Liberal" era. In 1897, Karl Lueger, the anti-Semitic, Christian-Socialist mayor-elect of Vienna, was allowed to assume his post. A new era of Austrian politics had begun with Christian Socialists and Social Democrats replacing Czechs, Young and Old. Close diplomatic ties were forged between the Dual Monarchy and the German Reich. Throughout the German speaking world, from the likes of Theodor Mommsen, the idea of the victorious German over the uncivilized "other," be it Jew, or Czech, or any other minority, began to flourish. Needless to say, the minorities resisted the cultural and political pressure of the Germans. Nonetheless, it was the end of the century, and end of an era. German and Czech versions of nationalism had grown, bloomed, and were now fading into the uncertain future of the twentieth century.
1. Zdenek V. David, ed. Documents of Czech History, (Introduction to "Reaction to the Czech Pilgrimage of 1867 to Russia," Letters of Julius Grégr to Joseph Fric.)
2. Oscar Halecki, Borderlands of Western Civilization, 332.
3. David, ibid.
4. Julius Gregr, "Letter of 6 July 1867, to Joseph Fric."
5. Julius Gregr, "Letter of 19 July 1867, to Joseph Fric."
6. Frantisek Palacky, "Political Testament of 1872" (Epilogue to Radhost)
7. Huber G. Schauer, "Our Two Questions," Cas vol. 1, no. 1, 20 December 1886, 1-4
8. Stanly B. Winters, "Kramer, Kaizl, and the Hegemony of the Young Czech Party, 1891-1901," The Czech Rennaisance of the Nineteenth Century, Peter Brock & H. Gordon Skilling, ed.
9. Winters, ibid.
10. Winters, ibid.
11. Winters, ibid.
12. Theodor Mommsen, "Open Letter" in The Neue Freie Presse, 31 October 1897
Czech Moderna. The Manifesto of Czech Modernism.
David, Zdenek V., ed. Documents of Czech History, 1867-1914(manuscript).
Gregr, Julius. Letter to Joseph Fric. 6 July 1867.
---. Letter to Joseph Fric. 19 July 1867.
Halecki, Oscar. Borderlands of Western Civilization. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1952, pp. 343-47.
Mommsen, Theodor. Letter in Neue Freie Presse. 31 October 1897.
Palacky, Frantisek. Radhost. Prague, 1973, vol. 3, pp. 303-17.
Schauer, Hubert G. "Our Two Questions." Cas. vol. 1, no. 1, 20 December 1886, pp. 1-4.
Schorske, Carl E. Fin-de-Siecle Vienna: Politics and Culture. New York: Vintage Books, pp. 116-180.
Sova, Antonin. "To Theodor Mommsen." Letter in Neue Freie Presse. 1897.
Wandycz, Piotr S. The Price of Freedom. London: Routledge, 1993, pp. 182-3, 189-90.
Winters, Stanley B. "Kramar, Kaizl, and the Hegemony of the Young Czech Party, 1891-1901." The Czech Rennaisance of the Nineteenth Century. Ed. Peter Brock and H. Gordon Skilling. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 282-314.
Return to My Essay Page.
Return to The Domain of Depravity.