The events of the Italian campaign of 1859 rendered the continuation of absolutism in the Austrian empire impossible. It was attempted to establish a constitutional system which, while maintaining to a certain extent the unity Austrian constitutional changes. of the empire, should yet recognize the ancient constitutional rights of some of the countries united under the rule of the house of Habsburg. A decree published on the 20th of October 1860 established diets with limited powers. The composition of these parliamentary assemblies was to a certain extent modelled on that of the ancient diets of Bohemia and other parts of the empire. This decree was favourably received in Bohemia, but the hopes which it raised in the country fell when a new imperial decree appeared on the 26th of February 1861. This established a central parliament at Vienna with very extensive powers, and introduced an electoral system which was grossly partial to the Germans. The Bohemians indeed consented to send their representatives to Vienna, but they left the parliament in 1863, stating that the assembly had encroached on the power which constitutionally belonged to the diet of Prague. Two years later the central parliament of Vienna was suspended, and in the following year—1866—the Austro-Prussian war caused a complete change in the constitutional position of Bohemia. The congress of Vienna in 1815 had declared that that country should form part of the newly formed Germanic Confederation; this was done without consulting the estates of the country, as had been customary even after the battle of the White Hill on the occasion of serious constitutional changes. The treaty with Prussia, signed at Prague on the 23rd of August 1866, excluded from Germany all lands ruled by the house of Habsburg. As a natural consequence German influence declined in the Austrian empire, and in Bohemia in particular. While Hungary now obtained complete independence, the new constitution of 1867, which applied only to the German and Slavic parts of the Habsburg empire, maintained the system of centralization and attempted to maintain the waning German influence. The Bohemians energetically opposed this new constitution and refused to send representatives to Vienna.
In 1871 it appeared probable for a moment that the wishes of the Bohemians, who desired that their ancient constitution should be re-established in a modernized form, would be realized. The new Austrian prime minister, Count Renewed struggles of Bohemian nationalism. Karl Hohenwart, took office with the firm intention of accomplishing an agreement between Bohemia and the other parts of the Habsburg empire. Prolonged negotiations ensued, and an attempt was made to establish a constitutional system which, while satisfying the claims of the Bohemians, would yet have firmly connected them with the other lands ruled by the house of Habsburg. An imperial message addressed to the diet of Prague (September 14, 1871) stated that the sovereign “in consideration of the former constitutional position of Bohemia and remembering the power and glory which its crown had given to his ancestors, and the constant fidelity of its population, gladly recognized the rights of the kingdom of Bohemia, and was willing to confirm this assurance by taking the coronation oath.” Various influences caused the failure of this attempt to reconcile Bohemia with Austria. In 1872 a government with a pronounced German tendency took office in Vienna, and the Bohemians for a time again refused to attend the parliamentary assemblies of Vienna and Prague. In 1879 Count Eduard Taaffe became Austrian prime minister, and he succeeded in persuading the representatives of Bohemia to take part in the deliberations of the parliament of Vienna. They did so, after stating that they took this step without prejudice to their view that Bohemia with Moravia and Silesia constituted a separate state under the rule of the same sovereign as Austria and Hungary. The government of Count Taaffe, in recognition of this concession by the Bohemians, consented to remove some of the grossest anomalies connected with the electoral system of Bohemia, which had hitherto been grossly partial to the German minority of the population. The government of Count Taaffe also consented to the foundation of a Bohemian university at Prague, which greatly contributed to the intellectual development of the country. On the fall of the government of Count Taaffe, Prince Alfred Windischgrätz became prime minister. The policy of his short-lived government was hostile to Bohemia and he was soon replaced by Count Badeni.
Badeni again attempted to conciliate Bohemia. He did not indeed consider it feasible to reopen the question of its autonomy, but he endeavoured to remedy some of the most serious grievances of the country. In the beginning The language question. of 1897 Count Badeni issued a decree which stated that after a certain date all government officials who wished to be employed in Bohemia would have to prove a certain knowledge of the Bohemian as well as of the German language. This decree met with violent opposition on the part of the German inhabitants of Austria, and caused the fall of Count Badeni’s cabinet at the end of the year 1897. After a brief interval he was succeeded by Count Thun and then by Count Clary, whose government repealed the decrees that had to a certain extent granted equal rights to the Bohemian language. In consequence troubles broke out in Prague, and were severely repressed by the Austrian authorities. During the subsequent ministries of Körber and Gautsch the Bohemians continued to oppose the central government of Vienna, and to assert their national rights.
See generally Count Lützow, Bohemia, a Historical Sketch (London, 1896). The valuable collection of historical documents entitled Fontes Rerum Bohemicarum, published at Prague in the latter part of the 19th century, has superseded earlier ones such as Freherus (Marquard Freher), Rerum Bohemicarum Antiqui Scriptores. Similarly, the earlier historical works of Pubitschka, Pelzl and De Florgy are superseded by Frantisek Palacký’s Geschichte von Bohmen (Prague, 1844-1867), which, however, ends with the year 1526. Rezek, Gindely and others have dealt with the history of Bohemia posterior to the year 1526. Professor Adolf Bachmann published (vol. i. in 1899, vol. ii. 1905) a Geschichte Bohmens up to 1526, which has a strongly marked German tendency. Of French works Professor Ernest Denis’s Jean Hus, et la guerre des Hussites (Paris, 1878), Fin de l’independance bohème (2 vols., 1890), and La Bohême depuis la Montagne Blanche (2 vols., 1903), give a continuous account of Bohemian history from the beginning of the 15th century.
(L.)
Literature
The earliest records of the Bohemian or Čzech language are very ancient, though the so-called MSS. of Zelena Hora (Grüneberg) and Kralodvur (Königinhof) are almost certainly forgeries of the early part of the 19th century. The earliest genuine documents of the Bohemian language comprise several hymns and legends; of the latter the legend of St Catherine and that of St Dorothy have the greatest value. Several ancient epic fragments have also been preserved, such as the Alexandreis and Tandarias a Floribella. These and other early Bohemian writings have been printed since the revival of Bohemian literature in the 19th century. Of considerable historical value is the rhymed chronicle generally though wrongly known as the chronicle of Dalimil. The author, who probably lived during the reign of King John (1310-1346), records the events of Bohemian history from the earliest period to the reign of King Henry of Carinthia, the immediate predecessor of John. A strong feeling of racial antipathy to the Germans pervades the chronicle.
It is undoubtedly to be attributed to the high intellectual level which Bohemia attained in the 14th century that at that period we already find writers on religious and philosophical subjects who used the national language. Old Czech literature. Of these the most important is Thomas of Štitný (c. 1331-1401). Of his works, which contain many ideas similar to those of his contemporary Wycliffe, those entitled O obecnych vecech Krestanskych (on general Christian matters) and Besedni reči (in a rough translation “learned entertainments”) have most value. Štitný and some of his contemporaries whose Bohemian writings have perished are known as the forerunners of Huss. Huss, like many of his contemporaries in Bohemia, wrote both in Bohemian and in Latin. Of the Bohemian writings of Huss, who contributed greatly to the development of his native language, the most important is his Výklad viry, desatera Boziho prikazani, a patere (exposition of the creed, the ten commandments and the Lord’s Prayer) written in 1412. Of his numerous other Bohemian works we may mention the Postilla (collection of sermons), the treatises O poznani cesty prave k spaseni (the true road to salvation) and O svatokupectvi (on simony), and a large collection of letters; those written in prison are very touching.
The years that followed the death of Huss formed in Bohemia a period of incessant theological strife. The anti-Roman or Hussite movement was largely a democratic one, and it is therefore natural that the national language rather than Latin should have been used in the writings that belong to this period. Unfortunately in consequence of the systematic destruction of all Bohemian writings which took place through the agency of the Jesuits, after the battle of the White Hill (1620), a large part of this controversial literature has perished. Thus the writings of the members of the extreme Hussite party, the so-called Taborites, have been entirely destroyed. Of the writings of the more moderate Hussites, known as the Calixtines or Utraquists, some have been preserved. Such are the books entitled Of the Great Torment of the Holy Church and the Lives of the Priests of Tabor, written in a sense violently hostile to that community. A Bohemian work by Archbishop John of Rokycan has also been preserved; it is entitled Postilla and is similar though inferior to the work of Huss that bears the same name.
A quite independent religious writer who belongs to the period of the Hussite wars is Peter Chelcicky (born in the last years of the 14th century, died 1460), who may be called the Tolstoy of the 15th. His dominant ideas were horror of bloodshed and the determination to accept unresistingly all, even unjust, decrees of the worldly authorities. Though a strenuous enemy of the Church of Rome, Chelcicky joined none of the Hussite parties. His masterpiece is the Sít viry (the net of faith). Among his other works his Postilla and polemical writings in the form of letters to Archbishop John of Rokycan and Bishop Nicolas of Pelhrimov deserve mention.