Czechs who did go to Russia before 1848, see pp. 12, 128–30, and 247. Also Ivan Pfaff and Vladimír Závodsky, Tradice česko-ruských vztahů v dějinách (Prague, 1957), p. 111.
15. FPSD, I, p. 20.
16. There is no satisfactory study of liberalism as it affected the western Slavs. A balanced interpretation of Austro-German liberalism is in Georg Franz, Liberalismus: die deutschliberale Bewegung in der Habsburgischen Monarchie (Munich, 1955).
17. Josef Fischer, Myšlenka a dílo Františka Palackého (2 vols.; Prague, 1926–27), I, pp. 147–48.
18. Ibid., p. 163.
19. Ibid., pp. 218–21. Also helpful is Zacek’s discussion in Palacký: The Historian as Scholar and Nationalist, pp. 83ff.
20. “Korouhev naše,” PN, March 19, 1848, KHPS, I, p. 241.
21. “Naše politika,” Národní noviny (hereafter, NN), April 12, 1848, KHPS, II/1, p. 14. He expressed similar thoughts in “Daniel O’Connell,” PN, June 13–27, 1847, and in “Výklad hesla Národních novin,” NN, July 4, 1848. Cited in KHPS I, p. 194ff, and II/1, pp. 67–69.
22. Emanuel Chalupný, Havlíček: prostředí, osobnost a dílo (Prague, 1929), p. 398.
23. “Politický aforismus o státu,” FPSD, I, pp. 7–8.
24. PN, December 27, 1846, KHPS, I p. 148.
25. S.V. Utechin, Russian Political Thought (New York, 1963), pp. 105ff.
26. Karel Slavíček, Tajná politická společnost Český Repeal 1848 (Prague, 1947), pp. 73–117 passim. Also, Karel Kazbunda, české hnutí roku 1848 (Prague, 1929), p. 38.
27. The complete list of demands is in Jan Černý, ed., Boj za právo: sborník aktů politických u věcech státu a národa českého od roku 1848 (Prague, 1893), pp. 12–17.
28. The other causes are diverse and difficult to interpret because they involve charges, some biased, made by both nationalities during the revolution. To the Germans, some Czechs, including Havlíček, created a dangerous misunderstanding of Czech intentions when they urged their fellow nationals to tear down German signs in Prague and to replace them with Czech language posters. See PN, March 19, 1848, KHPS, I, p. 235; and K.J. Beneš, ed., Rok 1848 v projevech současníků (Prague, 1948), pp. 54–55. Also offensive to Germans were the activities of the Svatováclavský sbor (St. Wenceslaus Corps), later renamed Svornost (Unanimity). As a paramilitary civilian guard, the corps committed itself to defend always and everywhere the Czech nationality”, and some of its members incited riots and intimidated persons considered unsympathetic to Czech aspirations. Such activities may have suggested to the Germans a Czech desire for exclusive control of the Bohemian revolution. Additional information is in Josef Toužimský, Na úsvitě nové doby (Prague, 1898), pp. 157–59, and in W.W. Tomek, Paměti z meho ziwota (2 vols.; Prague, 1904–05), I, p. 259.
The Czechs, for their part, objected to the wearing of the Great German tricolors in Prague which, in early April, produced a number of violent clashes between Czech and German partisans on the avenue Příkopy. See Palacký’s concerned remarks before the Národní vybor on April 13 and 14, FPSD, I, p. 38. In addition, it is clear that there was strong pro-Frankfurt sentiment in Bohemia already weeks before