¹ See, for example, the comments in Banac, Ivo and Bushkovitch, Paul, “The Nobility in the History of Russia and Eastern Europe,” in The Nobility in Russia and Eastern Europe, ed. Banac, Ivo and Bushkovitch, Paul (New Haven: Yale Concilium on International and Area Studies, 1983), 1–16Google Scholar, and Gella, Aleksander, Development of Class Structure in Eastern Europe: Poland and Her Southern Neighbors (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989), 29–37Google Scholar. Beneš, Václav, “Czechoslovak Democracy and Its Problems, 1918–1920,” in A History of the Czechoslovak Republic, 1918–1948, ed. Mamatey, Victor S. and Luža, Radomír (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973), 44–46Google Scholar, makes the same point.

² See Taylor, A. J. P., The Habsburg Monarchy, 1809–1918 (1948Google Scholar; rpt. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1985), 57.

³ The most recent edition of the Kronika Boleslavská is Daňhelka, Jiří, Hádek, Karel, Havránek, Bohuslav, and Kvítková, Naděžda, eds., Staročeská kronika tak řečeného Dalimila, 2 vols. (Prague: Academia, 1988)Google Scholar. For examples of the attitudes of the chronicler, see 105, where the establishment of the Czechs in Bohemia is called “the beginnings of the Czech language,” or 129, which contains Libuše's famous prophecy promising weal to the kingdom if it will preserve its language. Other examples abound.

⁴ Banac, Ivo, The National Question in Yugoslavia: Origins, History, Politics (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1984), 21Google Scholar.

⁵ For a challenging discussion of the roots of this ethnic self-awareness, see Armstrong, John A., Nations before Nationalism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1982)Google Scholar.

⁶ The pioneering American scholar, Hayes, Carlton J. H., begins his Historical Evolution of Modern Nalionatism(New York: R. R. Smith, 1931)Google Scholar with the eighteenth century. Kohn, Hans, The Idea of Nationalism: A Study in Its Orígins and Background (New York: Macmillan, 1944)Google Scholar, recognizes precursors among the ancient Greeks and Hebrews, but sees seventeenth-century England as exceptional, and the French Revolution as the key watershed in the emergence of modern nationalism. His views are neatly summarized in Kohn, Hans, Nationalism: Its Meaning and History, rev, . ed. (Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1965), 9–15Google Scholar.

⁷ Kedourie, Elie, Nationalism, 3rd ed. (London: Hutchinson, 1966)Google Scholar, presents it as an invention of nineteenth-century German intellectuals. Weber, Eugen, Peasants into Frenchmen: The Modernization of Rural France, 1870–1914 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1976)Google Scholar, argues that the process of creating the modern French nation was in some respects not completed until the late nineteenth century, or even World War 1.

⁸ See Gellner, Ernest, Nations and Nationalism (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1983), 8–14Google Scholar. His víews are supported by some historical anthropologists, such as Anderson, Robert T., Traditional Europe: A Study in Anthropology and History (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1971)Google Scholar, especially chapter 15.

⁹ Smith, Anthony D., The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986), 76–83Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Ibid., 83–87.

¹¹ Ibid., 87–88.

¹² I do not intend to imply that members of the Czech ethnic community would have used these terms themselves—that would be a gross anachronism. Rather, I am exploring the usefulness of applying Smith's categories to the specific case of the Czech crown lands.

¹³ Graus, František, Die Nationenbildung der Westslawen im Mittelalter (Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke, 1980), 51–64 and 87–113Google Scholar, devotes special attention to Bohemia; see 139–43 for his summary conclusions. See also his “Die Bildung eines Nationalbewusstseins im mittelalterlichen Böhmen (die vorhussitische Zeit),” Historica 12 (1966): 73–84. Other writers on earlier forms of ethnic Czech self-awareness include šmahel, František, “The Idea of the Czech Nation in Hussite Bohemia,” Historica 16 (1969): 143–247, and 17 (1970): 93–197Google Scholar, and more recently Mezník, Jaroslav, “Dějiny národu českého v Moravě (Nárýs vývoje národního vědomí na Moravě do poloviny 19. století),” Český časopis historický 88 (1990): 34–62Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Graus, Die Nationenbildung, 146–47.

¹⁵ On this see Čornej, Petr, Tajemství českých kronik (Prague: Vyšehrad, 1986), 304Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Smith, Ethnic Origins, 77.

¹⁷ For a survey in English of Czech and Slovak nationalism, see Zacek, Joseph Frederick, “Nationalism in Czechoslovakia,” in Nationalism in Eastern Europe, ed. Sugar, Peter F. and Lederer, Ivo J. (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1969), 167–206Google Scholar, and the same author's annotated bibliography, “Czech and Slovak Nationalism,” Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism 17 (1990): 327–31.

¹⁸ See Smith, Ethnic Origins, 130–34, on which much of this discussion rests. The “triple revolution” and its impact on nationalism are discussed in different ways in Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 1983)Google Scholar, and Gellner, Nations and Nationalism.

¹⁹ Navari, Cornelia, “The Origins of the Nation-State,” in The Nation State: The Formation of Modern Politics, ed. Tivey, Leonard (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1981), 13–36Google Scholar. See also Tilly, Charles, ed., The Formation of National States in Western Europe (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975)Google Scholar.

²⁰ See Anderson, Imagined Communities, especially chapter 4. For a slightly different explanation of this cultural revolution, linking it to the demands of modern, industrialized society, see Gellner, Nations and Nationalism, 19–38.

²¹ Breuilly, John, Nationalism and the State (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1982Google Scholar; rpt. 1985), stresses the political nature of modern nationalism. See especially 1–35 and 352–84. The Czech case is treated in some detail on 99–103.

²² Ibid., 334–50.

²³ Banac, National Question, 27.

²⁴ A useful summary on “enlightened despotism” in English is Blanning, T. C. W., Joseph II and Enlightened Despotism (London: Longman, 1970)Google Scholar. Other works linking the national revivals with “enlightened despotism” include Winter, Eduard, Barock, Absolutismus und Aufklärung in der Donaumonarchie (Vienna: Europa Verlag, 1971)Google Scholar, and Chlebowczyk, Józef, Pmcesy narodotwórcze we wschodniej europie śmdkozvej w dobie kapitalizmu (od schyiku XV1I1 do poczqtków XX w.) (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1975), 77–112Google Scholar. An abridged version of the latter work is available in English as On Small and Young Nations in Europe (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1980)Google Scholar.

²⁵ Hanke, Gerhard, “Das Zeitalter des Zentralismus (1740–1848),” in Handbuch der Geschichte der böhmischen Länder, ed. Bosl, Karl, vol. 2 (Stuttgart: Anton Hiersmann, 1974), 437–68Google Scholar.

²⁶ Hroch, Miroslav, Die Vorkämpfer der nationalen Bewegung bei den kleinen Völker Europas, Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Philosophica et Historica, Mongraphia XXIV–1968, (Prague: Universita Karlova, 1968), 24–26Google Scholar, outlines a very influential three-stage typology for national revivals among Europe's “small nations.” The first stage is characterized by scholarly research into the nation's past by a small group of intellectuals, the second by patriotic agitation in the name of the nation by a larger, though still relatively limited, group of patriots, and the third stage by the emergence of a mass-based, political movement. Hroch's views have recently appeared in English as Social Preconditions for National Revival in Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985)Google Scholar.

²⁷ Rogger, Hans, National Consciousness in Eighteenth Century Russia (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960), 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar, defines national consciousness primarily in cultural terms. See also Myl'nikov, Aleksandr Sergeevich, “Kul'tura i natsional'noe samosoznanie narodov tsentral'noi i iugovostochnoi evropy v epokhu natsional'nogo vozrozhdeniia,” Sovetskoe slavianovedenie, no. 4 (1974):73–84Google Scholar.

²⁸ On the place of the intelligentsia in nationalism, see Smith, , Theories of Nationalism (New York: Harper & Row, 1971)Google Scholar, especially chapters 6 and 10; Breuilly, Nationalism and the State, 327–33; Kedourie, Nationalism; and Anderson, Imagined Communities.

²⁹ Seton-Watson, Hugh, “Nationalismus und Nationalbewusstsein,” in Österreichische Osthefte 8 (1966): 3–4Google Scholar. Conflicting views on the importance of the nobility in the Czech national renascence can be found in Josef Pekař's review of Hanuš, Josef, Národní museum a noše obrození, vol. 1 (Prague: Nákladem Národního musea, 1921)Google Scholar, in Český časopis historický 28 (1922): 469–77; Muk, Jan, Po stopách národního vědomí české šlechty pobělohorské (Prague: Nákladem politického klubu československé národní democracie, 1931)Google Scholar; and Kapras, Jan, “Národní vědomí české šlechty,” Národnostní obzor 1 (1931): 9–12Google Scholar.

³⁰ Kerner, Robert Joseph, Bohemia in the Eíghteenth Century: A Study in Political, Economic and Social History with Special Reference to the Reign of Leopold II, 1790–1792 (New York: Macmillan, 1932), 66Google Scholar.

³¹ Toman, Hugo, Das böhmische Staatsrecht und die Entwicklung der österreichischen Reichsidee vom Jahre 1527 bis 1848. Eine rechtsgeschichtliche Studie (Prague: J. G. Calve, 1872), 82Google Scholar.

³² Kerner, Bohemia in the Eighteenth Century, 67.

³³ Toman, Das böhmische Staatsrecht, 83. On Polish and Hungarian national traditions see George Barany, “Hungary: From Aristocratic to Proletarian Nationalism,” in Sugar and Lederer, eds., Nationalism in Eastern Europe, 259–309, and Peter Brock, “Polish Nationalism,” in ibid., 310–72.

³⁴ The following discussion of the changes in the Bohemian nobility is based on Kerner, Bohemia in the Eighteenth Century, 68–71. The general picture he presents squares with that recently given by Poliš;enský, Josef in Revoluce a kontrarevoluce v Rakousku, 1848 (Prague: Svoboda, 1975)Google Scholar, published in English as Aristocrats and the Crowd in the Revolutionary Year 1848 (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1980)Google Scholar; see especially 77–79.

³⁵ The individual totals add to 189 not 174. I was unable to reconcile this discrepancy. The numbers are from Kerner, Bohemia in the Eighteenth Century, 70; Kerner relied on the semiofficial Schematismus für das Konigreich Böhmen from 1789.

³⁶ von Riegger, Joseph Anton Ritter, Skizze einer statistischen Landeskunde Böhmens (Leipzig and Prague: Kaspar Widtmann, 1795), 98–99Google Scholar.

³⁷ See Drabek, Anna M., “Der Nationsbegriff in Böhmen an der Grenze von Aufklärung und ‘nationaler Wiedergeburt,’” in Vaterlandsliebe und Gesamtstaatsidee im Österreichischen 18. Jahrhundert, ed. Csaky, Moritz and Hagelkrys, Reinhard (Vienna: VWGÖ, 1989), 43–61Google Scholar.

³⁸ Kinský, Franz Joseph Graf, Erinnerung über einen wichtigen Gegenstand, von einem Böhmen, in Des Grafen Kinsky, gesamelte Schriften (Vienna: Wappler, 1786), 3:57Google Scholar.

³⁹ On the “defenses of the language” see Pražák, Albert, Národ se bránil. Obrany jazyka českého od uejstarších dob po přítomnosl (Prague: Sfinx-Bohumil Janda, 1945)Google Scholar. Kinský's arguments, in fact, echo those of earlier “defenders of the language,” notably the seventeenth-century Czech Jesuit Bohuslav Balbín. Balbín's manuscript work on the Czech language was published in 1775 by František Martin Pelcl under the title Dissertatio apologetica pro lingua slavonica, praecipue bohemica, and served to reinforce the impetus Kinský had given to the awakeners' concern for the language. For the full story of Pelcl's edition of the Dissertatio, see most recently Johanides, Josef, František Martin Pelcl (Prague: Melantrich, 1981), 107–46Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Kinský, Erinnerung, 112–13.

⁴¹ The Czech historian Arnošt Kraus exclaimed: “This Austrian general is a Slav, a Czech and a German at the same time!” Cited in Schamschula, Walter, Die Aufänge der tschechischen Erneuerung und das deutsche Geistesleben, 1740–1800 (Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1973), 119Google Scholar.

⁴² A detailed study of the Hungarian reaction to Josephinism is Béta Király, K., Hungary in the Late Eighteenth Century: The Decline of Enlightened Despotism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969)Google Scholar. Kerner, Bohemia in the Eighteenth Century, is still indispensable on the policies of the Bohemian Estates at this time.

⁴³ Krameriusovy c. k. vlastenské noviny, May 7, 1791, May 14, 1791, June 25, 1791, and December 3, 1791.

⁴⁴ Ibid., May 7, 1791. Since it is clear from internal evidence that Kramerius's correspondent was in all probability a Slovak, the strength of this territorial identification must have been very great for him to express himself thus.

⁴⁵ Lemberg, Eugen, Grundlagen des nationalen Erwachens in Böhmen. Geistesgeschichtliche Studie, am Lebensgang Josef Georg Meinerts (1773–1844) unternommen (Reichenberg [Liberec]: Gebrüder Steipel, 1932), 35Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Gerhard Hanke, “Das Zeitalter des Zentralismus,” 555.

⁴⁷ Thám, Karel Hynek, Obrana jazyka českého proti zlobivym jeho utrháčům, též; mnohým vlastencům v cvičení se v něm liknavým a nedbalým (Prague: J. F. von Schönfeld, 1783), 21Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ A classic example is Voigt, Mikulas Adaukt, “Vorrede von den Gelehrten Adel in Böhmen und Mähren,” in Abbildungen Böhmischer und Mährischer Gelehrten und Kunstler, ed. Pelcl, František Martin, vol. 2 (Prague: I. K. Hraba, 1775), i–xxviGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁹ Bohuslav Tablic to Jan Nejedlý, n. d. [1801?], Literární archiv Památníku národního písemnictví, Prague [hereafter LA PNP], Jan Nejedlý collection, sign. 1/3/59.

⁵⁰ See Myl'nikov, Aleksandr Sergeevich, Epokha prosveshcheniia v cheshskikh zemliakh. Ideologiia, natsional'noe samosoznanie, kul'tura (Moscow: Nauka, 1977), 67–97Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Zacek, Joseph F., “The Virtuosi of Bohemia: The Royal Bohemian Society of Sciences,” East European Quarterly 2 (1968): 147–59Google Scholar. See also Kaloušek, Josef, Děje Krái. české společnosti nauk spolu s kritickým přehledem publikaci jejích z oboru filosophie, historie a jazykovědy, 2 vols. (Prague: Nákladem Královské české společnosti nauk, 1885)Google Scholar, Prokeš, Jaroslav, Počátky České společnosti nauk do konce XVIII. století (Prague: Nákladem Královské české společnosti nauk, 1938)Google Scholar.

⁵² Later renamed after Josef Kajetan Tyl, the Estates Theater has recently had its original name returned. Vondráček, Jan, Dějiny českého divadla: Doha obrozenská, 1771–1824 (Prague: Orbis, 1956), 55–64Google Scholar. The movement to found a Czech national theater is the subject of Kimball, Stanley B., Czech Nationalism: A Study of the National Theater Movement, 1845–1883 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1964)Google Scholar.

⁵³ See Hanuš, , Náodní museum a naše obrození, and Havránek, Jan, “The Development of Czech Nationalism,” Austrian History Yearbook 3, part 2 (1967): 235Google Scholar. A study of another cultural institution, the Matice česká, in a comparative framework is Kimball, Stanley B., The Austro-Slav Revival: A Study of Nineteenth-Century Literary Foundations (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1973)Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ Hroch, Miroslav, “The Social Composition of the Czech Patriots in Bohemia,” in The Czech National Renascence of the Nineteenth Century, ed. Brock, Peter and Skilling, H. Gordon (Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1970), 36–39Google Scholar. See also Hroch, , “Přměny české společnosti a jejích vliv na národní obrození,” in Struktura společnosti na území Československa a Polska v 19. století do roku 1918 (Prague: Ústav československých a světových dějin ČSAV, 1988), 16–37Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Pražák, Albert, “Duch naší obrozenské literatury,” in his České obrození (Prague: E. Beaufort-Národní správa, 1948), 16Google Scholar. See also Morava, Georg J., Franz Palacký: Eine frühe Vision von Mitteleuropa (Vienna: Österreichischer Bundesverlag, 1990), 75–76Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ See especially Voìgt, Mikuláš Adaukt, Über den Geist der böhmischen Gesetze in den verschiedenen Zeitalter (Dresden: Walther, 1788)Google Scholar. The classic study of the Czech státní právo is Kaloušek, Josef, České státní právo, 2nd ed. (Prague: Bursík a Kohout, 1892)Google Scholar. See also Toman, , Das böhmische Staatsrecht, and Kramář, Karel, Das böhmische Staatsrecht (Vienna: Die Presse, 1896)Google Scholar. A study from the perspective of Czech-German relations is Birke, E. and Oberdorfer, K., eds., Das böhmische Staatsrecht in den deutsch-tschechischen Auseinandersetzungen des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts (Marburg/Lahn: N. G. Elwert Verlag, 1960)Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ Toman, Das böhmische Staatsrecht, 180–84. See also Drabek, Anna M., “Die Desiderien der böhmischen Stande von 1791: Überlegungen zu ihrem ideelen Gehalt,” Die böhmischen Länder zwischen Ost und West. Festschrift für Karl Bösl zum 75. Geburtstag (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1983), 132–42Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ Peter F. Sugar, “External and Domestic Roots of East European Nationalism,” in Sugar and Lederer, eds., Nationalism in Eastern Europe, 3–54.

⁵⁹ Jungmann to Antonín Marek, February 9, 1810, in Emler, Josef, ed., “Listy Josefa Jungmanna k Antonínu Markovi,” Časopis Musea královstvi českého 55 (1881): 508Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Jungmann, Josef, “O jazyku českém: Rozmlouvání druhé,” Hlasatel český 1 (1806): 344Google Scholar.

⁶¹ Šebastián Hněvkovský to Jan Nejedlý, November 7, 1804, LA PNP, Prague, Jan Nejedlý collection, sign. 1/3/59.

⁶² Pech, Stanley Z., The Czech Revolution of 1848 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1969), 36Google Scholar. See also Okáč, Antonín, Český sněm a vláda před březnem 1848. Kapitoly o jejích ustavnich sporech (Prague: Nakladelství Zemského národního výboru, 1947)Google Scholar.

⁶³ Cited in Pech, Czech Revolution of 1848, 78.

⁶⁴ Kann, Robert A., The Multinational Empire: Nationalism and National Reform in the Habsburg Monarchy 1848–1918 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1950), 2:21–39Google Scholar, analyzes the work of the Kroměřiž constitutional committee. See also Joseph F. Zacek, “Nationalism in Czechoslovakia,” in Sugar and Lederer, eds., Nationalism in Eastern Europe, 182–83.

⁶⁵ Although some scholars, such as Hroch, Die Vorkämpfer, see 1848 as the crucial watershed, others look to the 1860s and 1870s. See Kořalka, Jiří, Die tschechische Bürgertumsforschung, Universität Bielefeld Sonderforschungsbereich 177, SFB-Arbeitspapier Nr. 5 (Bielefeld: Universitat Bielefeld, 1989)Google Scholar, and Kutnar, František, “Problematika, současný stav a úkoly badání o národním obrozeni severovýchodních a východnich Čech,” Fontes Musei Reginaehradecensis 8 (1971): 34–44Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ See Garver, Bruce M., The Young Czech Party, 1874–1901 and the Emergence of a Multi-Party System (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1978)Google Scholar, for an excellent study of later nineteenth-century politics in the Czech lands. The most recent survey from the Czech side is Urban, Otto, Česká společnost, 1848–1918 (Prague: Svoboda, 1982)Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ On the constitutional structure of government and administration see Wandruszka, Adam and Urbanitsch, Peter, eds., Die Habsburgermonarchie, 1848–1918 Vol. II, Verwaltung und Rechtswesen (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1975)Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ On the Staatsrecht tradition during this period, see von Falkenstein, Eugenie Trützschler, Der Kampf der Tschechen urn die historischer Rechte der böhmische Krone im Spiegel der Presse, 1861–1879 (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1982)Google Scholar, Okáč, Antonín, Rakouský problem a list Valerland, 18607–1881, 2 vols. (Brno: Musejni spolek, 1970)Google Scholar, and Urfus, Valentín, “Ceský státoprávní program na rozhrání let 1860–1861 a jeho ideové složky,” Právně-historické studie 8 (1962): 127–72Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ Cited in Drabek, “Der Nationsbegriff in Böhmen,” 54. The böhmische Nation consisted of both Czech and German Völker. See the text of the declaration printed in Lehmann, Hartmut and Lehmann, Silke, eds., Das Nationalitätenproblem in Österreich, 1848–1918 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973), 44–48Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ Cited in Kořalka, Jiři, “Fünf Tendenzen einer modernen nationaler Entwicklung in Böhmen,” Österreichische Osthefte 22 (1980): 209Google Scholar.

⁷¹ Besides the works cited in notes 64 and 66, see Jenks, William A., Austria under the Iron Ring, 1879–1893 (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1965)Google Scholar.

⁷² Already present in Palacký's attitudes, it was further developed by Tomáš G. Masaryk. Several of his key articles have been published in English as Masaryk, Tomáś G., The Meaning of Czech History (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1974)Google Scholar. It did not, of course, entirely replace the other tradition in the nationalist ideology, as the work of the historian and nationalist Josef Pekař shows, for example his speech onthe death of Emperor Franz Joseph, excerpted in Lehmann and Lehmann, eds., Das Nationalitätenproblem, 105–9.

⁷³ Cited in Havránek, “The Development of Czech Nationalism,” 236–37.

⁷⁴ Ibid., 237.

⁷⁵ See Thomas, (Tomáš) Masaryk, Garrigue, The Making of a State: Memories and Observations, 1914–1918 (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1927Google Scholar; rpt. New York: Howard Fertig, 1969): “My programme was a synthesis of Czech aspirations in the light of our constitutional, historical and natural rights” (41). The frontiers granted the new state under the peace settlement of 1919 were, in the West, the historic frontiers of the lands of the Czech crown.

⁷⁶ Kořalka, “Fünf Tendenzen,” 208–9. Thus the Českoslovanská sociální demokratická strana meant the Social Democratic party of the Bohemian Czechs—the translation “Czechoslavonic Social Democratic party” is slightly misleading. The other element in the pair was českoněmecký.

⁷⁷ Kořalka, Jiří, “Das Nationälitatenproblem in den bömischen Ländern, 1848–1918,” Österreichische Osthefte 5 (1963): 7–8Google Scholar. See also Munch, Hermann, Bömische Tragödie. Das Schicksal Mitteleuropas im Lichte der tschechischen Frage (Berlin: Georg Westermann, 1949)Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ Kořalka, “Fünf Tendenzen,” 209.

⁷⁹ See István Déak, “Progressive Feudalists: The Hungarian Nobility in 1848,” in Banac and Bushkovitch, eds., The Nobility in Russia and Eastern Europe, 123–36, and Barany, “Hungary,” in Sugar and Lederer, eds. Nationalism in Eastern Europe.

⁸⁰ Davies, Norman, Heart of Europe: A Short History of Poland (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 331–36Google Scholar, and Wiktor Weintraub, “The Noble as Hero and the Noble as Villain in Polish Romantic Literature,” in Banac and Bushkovitch, eds., The Nobility in Russia and Eastern Europe, 47–64.

⁸¹ See Krofta, Kamil, Dějiny selského stavu, 2nd ed. (Prague: Jan Laichter, 1949), 349Google Scholar.

⁸² Wank, Solomon, “Aristocrats and Politics in Austria, 1898–1899: Some Letters of Count Alois Lexa von Aehrenthal and Prince Karl Schwarzenberg,” Austrian History Yearbook 19–20 (1983–1984): 156–59Google Scholar. See also Okáč, , Rakouský problem a list Vaterland, Allmayer-Beck, Johann Christoph, Der Konservatismus in Österreich (Munich: Isar Verlag, 1959)Google Scholar, and Thienen-Adlerflycht, Christoph, Graf Leo Thun im Vormärz. Grundlagen der bömischen Konservatismus im Kaiserthum Österreich (Graz: Bohlau, 1967)Google Scholar.

⁸³ These attitudes come through clearly in correspondence between Baron Alois Lexa von Aehrenthal and his father, Johann. See, for example, von Aehrenthal, Baron Alois Lexa to his father, August 1, 1880, in Briefe und Dokumente zur Geschichle der österreichisch-ungarischen Monarchic Teil I, Der Verfassungstreue Grossgrundbesitz, 1880–1899, ed. Rutkowski, Ernst (Munich and Vienna: Oldenbourg, 1983), 98Google Scholar; Baron Johann Lexa von Aehrenthal to his son Alois, November 13, 1885, in ibid., 120–22; and Baron Johann Lexa von Aehrenthal to his son Alois, October 8, 1886, ibid., 129–30.

⁸⁴ Count Oswald Thun to Ernst von Plener, March 8, 1892, and April 4, 1892, ibid., 179–82.

⁸⁵ See the election manifesto dated November 6, 1895, in ibid., 235.

⁸⁶ Baron Alois Lexa von Aehrenthal to his father, October 7, 1881, ibid., 101–2.

⁸⁷ These feelings are strongly expressed by Prince Max Egon Fürstenberg in a letter to Prince Schwarzenberg, Karl, a leading Conservative, dated 12 30, 1897Google Scholar, after extreme German opposition to the Badeni language ordinances had led to a serious constitutional crisis. Ibid., 422–23.

⁸⁸ Count Oswald Thun to Prince Alain Rohan, March 15, 1898, ibid., 466–70, cited passage on 468.

⁸⁹ Schwarzenberg, Prince Karl to Prince Dietrichstein-Mensdorff, Alexander, June 16, 1870, in Briefe zur deutschen Politik in Österreich von 1848 bis 1918, ed. Molisch, Paul (Vienna and Leipzig: Wilhelm Braumüller, 1934), 158–59Google Scholar; for similarly strong expressions of adherence to the Staatsrecht principle see Count Heinrich Clam-Martinic to Count Egbert Belcredi, August 4, 1867, in ibid., 101–2.

⁹⁰ See the exchange of letters between Count Leopold Thun-Hohenstein and Prince Georg Lobkowicz during 1877 and 1878, in ibid., 194–97.

⁹¹ Prince Georg Lobkowicz to Count Leopold Thun, October 18, 1877, ibid., 195. Emphasis in original.

⁹² See von Aehrenthal, Baron Alois Lexa to Buquoy, Count Karl, December 13, 1889, in Rutkowski, , ed., Briefe und Dokumente, 152–53Google Scholar.

⁹³ The leading Verfassungstreue nobles considered “Fido” Schwarzenberg one of the most extreme nationalists among their conservative counterparts. See Prince Max Egon Füirstenberg to Prince Karl Schwarzenberg, December 30, 1897, in ibid., 423. A monument to the identification of this branch of the Schwarzenberg family with Czech nationalism, and the lingering strength of the “lateral-aristocratic” tradition in it, is Schwarzenberg, Karel, Pisně Českého státu (Rome: Křest'anská akademie, 1976)Google Scholar. The present heir to the title is President Václav Havel's chief of chancery.

⁹⁴ For example, although Count Rudolf Czernin decided not to cast his vote for the Conservatives in 1895, since attempts at a compromise between them and the Verfassungstreue had failed, he “could not bring it into harmony with the traditions of [his] family” to vote for the opposing list of candidates, so he did not cast a vote. Count Rudolf Czernín to Prince Max Egon Fürstenberg, November 20, 1895, in ibid., 240.

⁹⁵ The citation is taken from Thun's work Der Slawismus in Böhmen, as cited in Pech, The Czech Revolution of 1848, 30.