¹ In addition to secondary sources, this articles relies on a collection of documents relating to the Patriotic Economic Society in the Czech Central State Archive (hereafter cited as SÚA) in Prague. The collection is extensive, comprising both handwritten books and documents in more than two hundred cartons covering the years 1767 to 1838. Among other topics, the more than eighty volumes from the PES and its earlier incarnations include meeting minutes, indexes to meetings and notes, lists of members, accounts of the state of the organization, the society's account books, catalogs of the society's library, and subscription lists. The cartons in the archival fond are arranged chronologically, and the archive has a guide that describes the number of documents on any given topic (beekeeping, statutes of the society, fossils, potatoes, and so forth) within individual cartons.

² Maria Theresa lost Silesia but retained Opava, Krnov, and Lisa. The Czech ethnic core of the Bohemian Lands was retained, despite the large territorial loss, with the remaining lands corresponding roughly to the territory held under the Přemyslids.

³ Haugwitz was himself a student of Austrian cameralism and shared Emperor Joseph's hostility toward the provincial estates. See Scott, H. M., “Reform in the Habsburg Monarchy, 1740–1790,” in Enlightened Absolutism: Reform and Reformers in Later Eighteenth-Century Europe, ed. Scott, H. M. (Ann Arbor, 1990), 152CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also, for a more in depth discussion of the monarchy's two reform periods, see Ingrao, Charles, The Habsburg Monarchy 1618–1815 (Cambridge, 1994), 159–72, 178–92.Google Scholar

⁴ A large group of Bohemian estates members had sworn allegiance to Bavarian Elector Charles Albert, whom Maria Theresa saw as the usurper of her husband's rightful place on the imperial throne. This episode, in contrast to the loyalty and support sworn by the Hungarian nobility, did little to encourage Maria Theresa to avoid any incursions into the local power of the landed nobility in Bohemia. See Hassenpflug-Elzholz, Eila, Böhmen und die böhmischen Stände in der Zeit des beginnenden Zentralismus: Eine Strukturanalyse der böhmischen Adelsnation um die Mitte des 18. Jahrhunderts (Munich, 1982).Google Scholar

⁵ In this opinion Maria Theresa was not entirely correct. There were certainly ministers and nobles at court who were more interested in their own wealth and privileges—and did much to maintain both—regardless of the problems facing the empire. There were, however, men such as Kaunitz and Haugwitz who were committed to both the empress and to reform, regardless of their Bohemian or “provincial” background. The division was not really between Bohemians or Hungarians and others, but rather between those nobles who had connections at court and those who resided in the country.

⁶ “Maria Theresa's Testament,” in The Habsburg and Hohenzollern Dynasties in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, ed. Macartney, C. A. (New York, 1970), 109.Google Scholar

⁷ Ibid., 112.

⁸ Ibid., 110.

⁹ Ibid., 114.

¹⁰ While it is clear that there were considerable differences in the peasants' circumstances, many historians have described the Bohemian peasantry as one of the most oppressed of the monarchy. William Wright describes the general patterns of landholding, the labor and financial obligations imposed on the peasants, and the general conditions of life in the country leading up to the Raab reforms as part of his discussion of the relationship among monarch, noble, and peasant. Wright, William, Serf, Seigneur, and Sovereign: Agrarian Reform in Eighteenth-Century Bohemia (Minneapolis, 1966).Google Scholar

¹¹ “Maria Theresa's Testament,” 123.Google Scholar

¹² Ibid., 130.

¹³ In his biography of Joseph II, Derek Beales has pointed out the degree to which Maria Theresa revised her opinions on rural matters, seeking toward the latter half of her reign to act more radically in the restructuring of rural life and labor. In this regard, Joseph was not the cutting edge of reform. See Beales, Derek, Joseph II, vol. 1, In the Shadow of Maria Theresa 1741–1780 (Cambridge, 1987), 343–58Google Scholar. Others have also noted that the adversarial relationship between estates and monarch has been overemphasized, as both worked together in matters of taxation as well as reform. As H. M. Scott notes, “Crown and Estates were partners rather than opponents.” See Scott, , “Reform,” 157.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Quoted in Blum, Jerome, The End of the Old Order in Rural Europe (Princeton, 1978), 221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁵ In the case of the government, which was interested in increasing the size of the standing army, population increases and the physical well-being of subjects had additional military implications.

¹⁶ P. G. M. Dickson's two-volume work provides an excellent and extensive discussion on administrative reform and its financial effects, as well as a complete chapter on the Contribution and its impact on Bohemia's economy. Dickson makes clear that the stringent collection of the levy had contributed to the situation in 1775, when the ability of domains to pay the tax broke down. See Dickson, P. G. M., Finance and Government under Maria Theresia, 1740–1780, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1987), 2:208.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Many historians have interpreted the end of this system of ten-year recesses as a death knell for the vitality of political action in the diet, and it is true that, as the institution seemed increasingly superfluous, the aristocracy deserted it. However, Dickson provides a convincing picture of the continued dialogue between members of the estates and the monarch or central government over the issue of the tax burden, suggesting that the estates remained engaged and vigilant on this issue particularly, if on few others. There were obviously a number of avenues taken by elites no longer interested in using solely the estates as a means of opposition to the central government.

¹⁸ Menzel, Wolfgang, Die nationale Entwicklung in Böhmen, Mähren und Schlesien: von der Aufklärung bis zur Revolution 1848 (Nuremberg, 1985), 25Google Scholar. This development was begun even earlier with the Pragmatic Sanction, a document that fundamentally altered the imperial principle and made the monarchy indivisible.

¹⁹ One should not underestimate the impact of these changes on the Bohemians, who submitted to it, it has been suggested, out of a sense of guilt for the episode of 1740. See Kerner, Robert, Bohemia in the Eighteenth Century (New York, 1932), 36Google Scholar. While Haugwitz's plans for a complete reform of local administration were not entirely successful, the reforms did seem to the nobility to be a “revolution in government,” as Prince Joseph Khevenhüller-Metsch remarked. Scott makes a convincing argument that the Seven Years' War was the real undoing of the reform program, as it left the finances of the monarchy in ruins, which de facto returned some political power to the provincial estates by virtue of their right to approve taxes. Dickson also provides evidence that the financial weakness of the monarchy, exacerbated by the Seven Years' War, allowed the nobility to regain somewhat its footing in the bureaucracy. See Dickson, , Finance and Government, vol. 1Google Scholar. See also Szabo, Franz, “Reevaluating the Habsburg Monarchy from Counter-Reformation to Enlightened Absolutism,” Dalhousie Review 68, no. 3 (1989): 336–56.Google Scholar

²⁰ Quoted in Blanning, T. C. W., Joseph II (London, 1994), 58.Google Scholar

²¹ Beales, , Joseph II, 338Google Scholar. As Beales describes, this was one of the most celebrated moments of Joseph's reign, an episode that highlighted his practical interest in agriculture and social relations in the countryside. Not only did Joseph receive much publicity from this, but the plow itself was preserved as a monument erected on the site. Beales also provides anecdotes for the mild distaste with which local nobles viewed the veneration of this historical event. Others have suggested the episode did serve to “ennoble” rural life.

²² Beales suggests that Maria Theresa came to view the peasant question as a moral one, in part because of the famine and revolt in 1775. In her view, the system of labor and landholding in place at the time was unacceptable, and robot was an unmitigated evil. However, in her attempts to abolish serfdom and robot, Joseph stymied her. There are various explanations for his position, which appear so contrary to the more radical stance that he generally occupied. Beales posits that Joseph, despite usually being supportive of impoverishing the nobility, attempted to focus on the larger picture and on the rural economy as a purely fiscal matter; he felt that any radical restructuring in the countryside would destabilize the situation, given the recent unrest. If chaos resulted in Bohemia, the entire monarchy would suffer. Beales, , Joseph II, 355–58Google Scholar. As Joseph himself wrote to his brother Leopold, “the empress would like to overturn the whole Urbarium, published a year ago with all possible solemnity[;]… change the entire rural economy of the propertied; finally give relief to the subject in respect of all his dues and obligations without paying the slightest regard to the lord, and so put [the lord] in the position of losing at least half the revenue he enjoys, thus lowering all land values and making as many bankrupts as there are lords who have debts or liabilities, which are numerous.” Beales, , Joseph II, 355.Google Scholar

²³ Ralph Melville gives an excellent overview of the size and wealth of Bohemian holdings in comparison with other regions in the Habsburg lands, and ties the strength of local landlords not just to the size of latifundia, but to the administrative and judicial rights that local landlords had managed to maintain. See Melville, Ralph, Adel und Revolution in Böhmen: Strukturwandel von Herrschaft und Gesellschaft in Österreich um die Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts (Mainz, 1998).Google Scholar

²⁴ Quoted in d'Elvert, Christian, Geschichte des k.k. mährischen-schlesischen Gesellschaft zur Beförderung des Ackerbaues, des Natur- und Landeskunde, mit Rücksicht auf die bezüglichen Cultur-Verhältnisse Mährens (Brno, 1870), 20.Google Scholar

²⁵ Good, David F., The Economic Rise of the Habsburg Empire, 1750–1914 (Berkeley, 1984), 34.Google Scholar

²⁶ See Freudenberger, H. L., “Progressive Bohemian and Moravian Aristocracy,” in Intellectual and Social Developments in the Habsburg Empire from Maria Theresa to World War I, ed. Winters, Stanley B. and Held, Joseph (New York, 1975)Google Scholar; and idem, “Industrialization in Bohemia and Moravia,” Journal of Central European Affairs 19, no. 4 (1960): 9–56.Google Scholar

²⁷ Szabo, Franz A. J., Kaunitz and Enlightened Absolutism, 1753–1780 (Cambridge, 1994), 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁸ For this discussion, I am relying on the excellent biography of Kaunitz by Franz Szabo, who discusses Kaunitz's views on agrarian and administrative reform. Szabo, , Kaunitz, 155–80.Google Scholar

²⁹ The 1751 reduction of feast days was supported by a reforming papacy until the death of Benedict XIV in 1758. His successor, Clement XIII, was less inclined to support these “innovations.” Wangermann, Ernst, “Reform Catholicism and Political Radicalism in the Austrian Enlightenment,” in The Enlightenment in National Context, ed. Porter, Roy and Teich, Mikul´š (Cambridge, 1981), 129.Google Scholar

³⁰ Van Horn Melton, James, “The Nobility in the Bohemian and Austrian Lands, 1620–1780,” in The European Nobilities in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, ed. Scott, H. M., 2 vols. (London, 1995), 2:143.Google Scholar

³¹ D'Elvert, , Geschichte, 23–24.Google Scholar

³² Špatný, František, Stručný déjepis c.k. vlastenecko-hospod´řské společnosti v Čech´ch (Concise history of the Imperial Royal Patriotic Society in Bohemia) (Prague, 1863), 3Google Scholar. In the course of her reign, Maria Theresa became much more interested in a full scale abandonment of the robot system and supported Raab's efforts in Bohemia to prove the point. Both Joseph and Kaunitz feared the fiscal repercussions from this, as Szabo makes clear. See Szabo, , Kaunitz, 176.Google Scholar

³³ The agrarian society in Carinthia also recognized this problem, and attempted to offset it by writing into their charter that those wishing to journey to Klagenfurt for meetings could do so from time to time without cost to themselves. SÚA/Vlastenecko-Hospodářské Společnost (Patriotic Economic Society; hereafter cited as VHS)/carton 1.

³⁴ SÚA/VHS/carton 1/5/July 1769. The concern was echoed in other documents, including minutes of discussions setting up the society after 1767.

³⁵ Just to give a representative sample of the list provided by d'Elvert: Scotland (1723), England (1757), Leipzig (1763), Klagenfurt (1764), Laibach (1767), Petersburg (1765). D'Elvert, , Geschichte, 32–33.Google Scholar

³⁶ Quoted in D'Elvert, , Geschichte, 17.Google Scholar

³⁷ SÚA/VHS/carton 39/1791.

³⁸ Teich, Mikuláš, “The Royal Bohemian Society of Science and the First Phase of Organized Scientific Advance in Bohemia,” Historica 2 (1960): 161Google Scholar. Teich takes issue with the conclusion of “bourgeois” authors that the impulse behind the establishment of this and other societies was imported from Western philosophical and scientific ideas. According to Teich, the social and economic conditions favorable to the introduction of these ideas had to exist.

³⁹ SÚA/VHS/carton 1/5/July 1769.

⁴⁰ While there was no direct institutional link between the PES and the Societas Incognitorum (1747) established in Olomouc, there was an overlap in members (as was also true for other intellectual societies in Bohemia); Stepling was among these. And, as with the Society of Sciences, there was common ground in the motives—patriotic and otherwise—for scientific inquiry and the need to make knowledge available for public consumption.

⁴¹ New members in August 1789 included Count Buquoy, Count Francis Kolowrat, Count Spork, and Count Salm.

⁴² Schnabel listed the members as thirteen honorary, forty-one actual, and eighty-six correspondent members. Schnabel, G. N., Statistische Darstellung von Böhmen (Prague, 1826), 29Google Scholar. Schnabel mentions that, despite the best efforts of the “enlightened Bohemian farmers” in the PES, there seemed little hope of improving the agricultural production of the land. Schnabel, , Darstellung, 28.Google Scholar

⁴³ As will become clearer in later discussion, the almanacs and other writings for public consumption put out by the PES had many of the same characteristics as the traditional “Haus-vaterliterarur,” including reliance on paternalistic chastising and moralizing, and emphasis on sharing experience and knowledge.

⁴⁴ SÚA/VHS/Kniha (Book) 1.

⁴⁵ The names of the society varied across documents, but included: Die k. k. Ackerbaugesellschaft im Königreich Böhmen, Die Gesellschaft zur Beförderung des Ackerbaues und der freien Künste im k. Böhmen, Die Patriotisch-Ökonomische Ackerbaugesellschaft, and Die Patriotisch-Ökonomische Gesellschaft.

⁴⁶ Or, as d'Elvert reports, the standard quip for Bohemia was “Schaferei, Brauhaus und Teich machen die böhmischen Herren reich.” D'Elvert, , Geschichte, 8Google Scholar. As d'Elvert describes, these changes were built on the important improvements introduced earlier, particularly the standardization of weights and measures, the slow improvement and construction of roads, improvement of the postal system, and the removal of internal tolls.

⁴⁷ See Fuss, Franz, Geschichte der k.k. ekonomisch-patriotischen Gesellschaft in Koenigreich Boehmen von ihrer Entstehung bis auf das Jahr 1795 (Prague, 1797).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ SÚA/VHS/Kniha 1/163.

⁴⁹ For a discussion of the role of academies in the development of science, see Voss, J¨rgen, “Die Akademien als Organisationsträger der Wissenschaften im 18. Jahrhundert,” Historische Zeitschrift 231 (1980): 43–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁰ SÚA/VHS/Kniha 1/107–8.

⁵¹ SÚA/VHS/Kniha 3/113 (4 May 1789).

⁵² SÚA/VHS/Kniha 1/122.

⁵³ Voli, Miloslav, Významní členové a spolupracovníci vlastenecko-hospodářské společnosti v království českém (Important members and associates of the Patriotic Economic Society in the Bohemian Kingdom) (Prague, 1967)Google Scholar. The PES's books listed attending members at meetings as well as descriptions of new members and their expertise.

⁵⁴ Prague, Archiv Národniho Muzea (Archive of the National Museum)/Fond Šternberk-Manderscheid)/carton 181/folio Diplomy.

⁵⁵ SÚA/VHS/carton 1. In the PES review of the Carinthian society's rules, the commentator noted that this particular section was self-explanatory, and could be adopted by the PES without further elaboration.

⁵⁶ D'Elvert, , Geschichte, 40.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Dickson, , Finance and Government, 1:51.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Freudenberger, , “Progressive Bohemian and Moravian Aristocracy.”Google Scholar

⁵⁹ SÚA/VHS/carton 1/18 November 1770.

⁶⁰ Ibid. This proposal echoed that of the Austrian provincial chancellor Wilhelm Ernst von Felsenberg, who also recommended a network of “economic inspectors” for both regulatory and prescriptive purposes. See Szabo, , Kaunitz, 162.Google Scholar

⁶¹ SÚA/VHS/carton 1/28 January 1775.

⁶² Schindler, Norbert and Bonss, Wolfgang, “Praktische Aufklärung-Ökonomische Sozietäten in Süddeutschland und Österreich im 18. Jahrhundert,” in Deutsche patriotische und gemeinnützige Gesellschaften, ed. Vierhaus, Rudolf (Munich, 1980), 256.Google Scholar

⁶³ SÚA/VHS/carton 1/28 January 1775.

⁶⁴ D'Elvert, , Geschichte, 33.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ SÚA/VHS/carton 1/28 January 1775. This was an anonymous report sent to the society.

⁶⁶ Franz Szabo makes this point about the local nature of agrarian policies for the earlier period as well. See Szabo, , Kaunitz, 155.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ SÚA/VHS/Kniha 1/1787.

⁶⁸ SÚA/VHS/Kniha 1/1770.

⁶⁹ SÚA/VHS/Kniha 1/1787/61.

⁷⁰ SÚA/VHS/Kniha 1/3/5 January 1770.

⁷¹ SÚA/VHS/Kniha 1/5–6/10 January 1770.

⁷² D'Elvert, , Geschichte, 40.Google Scholar

⁷³ SÚA/VHS/carton 11/28 January 1775.

⁷⁴ For a complete discussion of the relationship between this early patriotism and the national movement, see Krueger, Rita, “From Empire to Nation: The Aristocracy and the Formation of Modern Society in Bohemia, 1740–1848” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1997).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ SÚA/VHS/Kniha 20b/1775.

⁷⁶ According to Christian d'Elvert, schools to promote “rational” beekeeping were established in Vienna in 1770 and in Moravia in 1775. See D'Elvert, , Geschichte, 28.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ The discussions about domestic versus imported sheep stock are an interesting study in building domestic industry. Here the emphasis was not on relying solely on domestic animals, but on creating economic autarky by importing certain breeds from abroad to integrate their superior wool into the domestic herd. This would improve domestic production and have beneficial consequences for the textile industry and the quality of its finished goods, which would in turn have benefits for the economic vitality of Bohemia.

⁷⁸ SÚA/VHS/Kniha 3/5 December 1787.

⁷⁹ SÚA/VHS/carton 39/Almanach für Landwirthe im Königreich Böhmen/1792. The circulation of this type of publication is difficult to ascertain. The society expected to print at least 20,000 copies. Even knowing the number of copies does not uncover the depth of readership, as most of these publications were intended to be shared.

⁸⁰ D'Elvert, , Geschichte, 33.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Dickson, , Finance and Government, 1:109.Google Scholar

⁸² See Teich, Mikuláš, Královská česká společnost nauk a počátky vědeckého průzkumu přirody v Čechách (Royal Bohemian Society of Sciences and the beginnings of scientific surveys of nature in Bohemia) (Prague, 1959).Google Scholar

⁸³ SÚA/VHS/Kniha 3/1788.

⁸⁴ The discussion on this issue is in SÚA/VHS/Kniha 3/1788 (88–115). There was also passionate resistance on the part of the Bohemian Society of Sciences. Československá Akademie věd (Archive of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences)/Královská Česká Společnost Nauk (Royal Bohemian Society of Sciences)/carton 60/1788.

⁸⁵ SÚA/VHS/Kniha 3/99/7 April 1789.

⁸⁶ SÚA/VHS/carton 39/190–91/1792.

⁸⁷ SÚA/VHS/Kniha 1/126.

⁸⁸ SÚA/VHS/Kniha 3/8 June 1789/128.

⁸⁹ SÚA/VHS/Kniha 3/10 August 1790/129–32.

⁹⁰ SÚA/VHS/Kniha 1/110.

⁹¹ SÚA/VHS/Kniha 1/167.

⁹² SÚA/VHS/Kniha 3/10 August 1789/133.

⁹³ SÚA/VHS/Kniha 20b/140/29 December 1775.

⁹⁴ D'Elvert, , Geschichte, 6.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ SÚA/VHS/Kniha 3/1787.

⁹⁶ Dickson, , Finance and Government, 1:119.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ SÚA/VHS/Kniha 20b/142/1775.

⁹⁸ Literacy rates were improving as a result of Maria Theresa's school reform. James Brophy makes an excellent argument that can be applied to Bohemia about the links between literacy and semiliteracy and the public, namely that the habits of reading aloud connected the illiterate or semiliterate to the public sphere. See Brophy, James, “Habits of Reading, Habits of Mind: The Politicization of the Common Reader in the Rhineland, 1770–1815.”Google Scholar Paper delivered at the British Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies, January 2002 (cited with permission of the author).