Page:East European Quarterly, vol15, no1.pdf/43

Palacký’s letter or the formal Czech-German split, and German leaders only briefly discouraged its spread. See Reichenberger Wochenblatt, April 1, 1848; Prager Zeitung, April 5, 1848; and Černý, ed., Boj za právo, p. 82. On most accounts, Czech and German liberals shared responsibility for the deterioration of their relations.

29. “Ein Brief an Herr Franz Palacky,” Constitutionelles Blatt aus Böhmen, April 18, 1848. The response was written on the fifteenth, published three days later.

30. “Böhmen und das Frankfurter Parliament,” ibid., April 19, 1848. Cf. Heinrich Reutter, “Eine zweite Stimme über Oesterreichs Anschluss an Deutschland,” Prager Zeitung, April 18, 1848.

31. “Offenes Sendschreiben an meine Landsleute,” Bohemia, April 20, 1848.

32. Ibid.

33. “Rakousy,” NN, April 19, 1848, KHPS, II/1, pp. 17–18.

34. Robert Maršan, Čechové a Němci r. 1848 a boj o Frankfurt (Prague, 1898), pp. 73–75.

35. NN, April 19, 1848, KHPS, II/1. p. 18.

36. Ibid., pp. 18–19.

37. The German-dominated counterpart was the “Verein der Deutschen aus Böhmen, Mähren und Schlesien zur Aufrechthaltung ihrer Nationalitat.”

38. NN, May 19, 1848, in Václav Žáček, ed., Slovanský sjezd v Praze roku 1848: sbírka dokumentů (Prague, 1958), pp. 53–54. See also Václav Čejchan, “Ke vzniku myšlenky slovanského sjezdu,” Slovanský přehled, XX (1928), pp. 401–02. For attitudes of other Slavs toward the congress, see Jaroslav Šidak, “Austroslavizam i Slavenski Kongres u Pragu,” Historijski pregled, III (1960), pp. 210–13.

39. FPSD, I, p. 51. Josef Fischer, ed., Z politického odkazu Frant. Palackého: výbor statí (Prague, 1926), pp. 57–58, and 193. NN, June 29, 1848, KHPS, II/1, pp. 62–64.

40. FPSD, I, pp. 65–67. NN, October 25, 1848, and January 21, 1849, KHPS, II/1, pp. 187, and 274–76.

41. FPSD. I, pp. 59–64, 69–74, 112–20. Also Fischer, Myšlenka a dílo, I, pp. 225–26.

42. The reasons for the failure of constitutional government in Austria in 1848–49 are discussed in A.J.P. Taylor, The Habsburg Monarchy (London, 1960), pp. 71–85.

43. PN, March 19, 1848, KHPS, I, p. 239.

44. There is evidence of vacillation between Staatsrecht and “nationality” in practically all of Havlíček’s writing on constitutional government. In 1842, even before he embarked on his public career, he viewed the Bohemian kingdom as a legally indivisible unit comprised of all its historic units, including Silesia. See his map in Fond II T4–14, Literární archív Památníku národního písemnictví v Praze (LAPNP). The fact that the kingdom had lost the greater part of Silesia was due to the “illegal Prussian seizure” of 1742. NN, April 7, 1848, KHPS, II/1, p. 7. Early in the revolution, even as he spoke of Staatsrecht, he supported the plan of Oesterreichische Zeitung for a monarchy composed of ethnically homogenous, federal autonomous units. The latter clearly violated Staatsrecht, See “Die Völker Oesterreichs,” OZ, April 1, 1848; and NN, April 7, 1848, KHPS, II/1, pp. 5, 7. For additional information and contrasts see the issues of Národní noviny for the following dates: April 18 and August 1, 1848, and October 28 and November 8–9, 1849. KHPS,