1. Gellner, Ernest, Nations and Nationalism (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983), pp. 73–74.Google Scholar

2. Ibid.Google Scholar

3. Ibid., p. 55.Google Scholar

4. Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 1991), p. 36.Google Scholar

5. Gellner, Nations and Nationalism, p. 127.Google Scholar

6. Anderson, Imagined Communities, p. 36.Google Scholar

7. While the early history of the lands that would become Bohemia remains obscure, a realm under the rule of the Pr̆emyslid dynasty emerged in the tenth century, succeeding in attaching much of present-day Bohemia and Moravia, and first attaining the title of kingdom under Vratislav II (reigned 1061–1092). The kingdom, centered on Prague, waxed and waned, finally entering the Habsburg domains as a crown land in 1526. This was confirmed by the Bohemian estates, which remained in existence and were formally consulted in the appointment of the highest Habsburg official in Bohemia, the Oberst Burggraf, who took an oath of loyalty to the estates. Although these rights were lost with the introduction of the Verneuerte Landesordnung in 1627, as a result of the defeat of the rebelling estates in the Thirty Years War, the central administrative position of the Oberst Burggraf remained, uniting the territory administratively, and the estates remained as a further political expression of provincial unity. Estates’ approval of taxation, for instance, did not end legally until the 1770s, while the fact that top estates officials usually served in the crown land's administrative offices further reinforced the political association of the province.Google Scholar

8. Anderson, Imagined Communities, p. 33.Google Scholar

9. Ibid., pp. 37–38.Google Scholar

10. Zák, Jan, “The Role of Aristocratic Entrepreneurship in the Industrial Development of the Czech Lands, 1750–1850,” in Rechcigl, Miloslav, Jr., ed., Czechoslovakia Past and Present, Vol. 2 (The Hague: Mouton, 1968), pp. 1259–1260.Google Scholar

11. Klíma, Arnost, “Mercantilism in the Habsburg Monarchy with Special Reference to the Bohemian Lands,” Historica, Vol. 2, pp. 97–98.Google Scholar

12. Ibid., pp. 100–101.Google Scholar

13. Ibid, pp. 102–109.Google Scholar

14. Ibid., pp. 118–119.Google Scholar

15. Zák, “Aristocratic Entrepreneurship,” p. 1266.Google Scholar

16. Ibid., p. 1267.Google Scholar

17. Ibid., pp. 1268–1269. While there is little evidence about the precise relationship between the noblemen and the directors of these enterprises, there was probably a wide gap between the two bodies.Google Scholar

18. A term such as “transcending dynastic or territorial borders” might be more appropriate for pre-national Europe, but I have retained the anachronistic term “international” here and elsewhere to maintain consistency with Anderson's usage, which also appears in quotation marks.Google Scholar

19. Bohatc̆ová, Mirjam, C̆eská kniha v promĕnách století (Prague: Panorama, 1990), p. 155.Google Scholar

20. Horák, František, Five Hundred Years of Czech Printing (Prague: Odeon, 1968), p. 120.Google Scholar

21. Bohatc̆ová, C̆eská kniha, p. 155.Google Scholar

22. Horák, Czech Printing, p. 119; C̆enĕk Zíbrt, Z dĕjin c̆eského knihtiskar̆ství (Mlada Boleslav, Czechoslovakia: Hejda & Zbroj, 1939), pp. 38. Alakraw's Latin works were religious in nature, while the Czech one was a wall calendar.Google Scholar

23. Painter, George D. and Chrastek, Dalibor B., Printing in Czechoslovakia in the Fifteenth Century (London: Association Typographique Internationale, 1969), p. 24; Zíbrt, Z dĕjin c̆eského knihtiskar̆stv, p. 40.Google Scholar

24. Anderson, Imagined Communities, pp. 37–38.Google Scholar

25. Zíbrt, Z dĕjin c̆eského knihtiskar̆ství, pp. 22–24.Google Scholar

26. Horák, Czech Printing, pp. 122–125; Zíbrt, Z dĕjin c̆eského knihtiskar̆ství, p. 60.Google Scholar

27. Horák, Czech Printing, pp. 133–134.Google Scholar

28. Ibid., p. 136.Google Scholar

29. Sayer, Derek, The Coasts of Bohemia: A Czech History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998), pp. 41; Horák, Czech Printing, pp. 127, 128, 133.Google Scholar

30. Josef Volf, “Pr̆ehled vyvoje knikupectví a nakladatelstéví v c̆eskoslovensku do pr̆evratu,” in C̆eskoslovenská vlastivĕda, Vol. 7 (Prague: Bohumil Janda, 1933), pp. 565–567; Horák, Czech Printing, p. 120. The four burghers were Jan Pylík, councillor and secretary at the vineyard offices, Severýn, a shopkeeper, the physician Jan Bilý of Chlumec, and the merchant Matĕj of the White Lion.Google Scholar

31. Volf, “Pr̆ehled,” pp. 565–567; Bohatc̆ová, C̆eská kniha, p. 255. The first of the Bohemian book printers who was able to sell out his own printing works was Mikulas̆ Konac z Hodís̆kova, during the first quarter of the sixteenth century. The bookbinders were first organized as a guild in 1562. The work of individual bookbinders and therefore the place of the individual bookbinder within his profession and importance among other booksellers is difficult to ascertain due to the lack of signature devices in the works of this period.Google Scholar

32. Gellner, Nations and Nationalism, p. 78. The Hussite Reformation was a moral reform movement in Bohemia led by Jan Hus beginning around the turn of the fifteenth century and involving theological issues of realism vs. nominalism. Hus's martydom at the stake at Cosntance in 1415 was followed by a general uprising in Bohemia in his name in 1419. During this struggle, the use of the Czech language, rejection of the “German” university masters who had condemned Hus's writings, rejection of Imperial and Roman Catholic authority, popular and clerical moral reform, and theological reform, most substantially the issue of the Eucharist being offered in both species to the laity, all became intertwined.Google Scholar

33. Ibid., pp. 78–79.Google Scholar

34. Anderson, Imagined Communities, p. 38.Google Scholar

35. Far more substantial evidence exists for the production than for the sale or distribution of printed works. That the latter would follow the former is an assumption, but, since it is entirely likely that the market for Czech-language printing would be overwhelmingly in Bohemia, it is a reasonable assumption. That there might have been greater sales or distribution in Bohemia of German- or Latin-language works published outside of the province is not impossible, but perhaps less likely.Google Scholar

36. Klimes̆, Vladimir, Pr̆ehled c̆eského a slovanského novinar̆ství (Prague: Orbis, 1955), p. 28; Zíbrt, Z dĕjin c̆eského knihtiskar̆ství, pp. 30–35; Sayer, Coasts of Bohemia, p. 41; Painter, Printing in Czechoslovakia in the Fifteenth Century, pp. 9–11; Horák, Czech Printing, pp. 116–118. It is likely that woodblock printing had been in use since at least the 1430s, from which a picture of St. Christopher has been dated. There is also some evidence that a woodblock edition of Hus's Constance tractate was also printed in 1459.Google Scholar

37. Painter, Printing in Czechoslovakia in the Fifteenth Century, pp. 10–12, 18, 20, 22–23; Horák, Czech Printing, pp. 118, 121.Google Scholar

38. Horák, Czech Printing, pp. 118–119. Each is a modified version of the same bastarda or textura.Google Scholar

39. Painter, Printing in Czechoslovakia in the Fifteenth Century, pp. 24; Sayer, Coasts of Bohemia, p. 41. Sayer gives the greater figure of 39 out of 44 books.Google Scholar

40. Horák, Czech Printing, p. 116.Google Scholar

41. Painter, Printing in Czechoslovakia in the Fifteenth Century, p. 32. “Printers in outlying countries therefore concentrated upon the only profitable market left available to them, and produced mainly vernacular works, or Latin texts of regional significance, such as service books for local dioceses, or compositions by local authors.”Google Scholar

42. Josef Volf, “Dĕjiny novin a c̆asopisů do roku 1848,” C̆eskoslovenská vlastivĕda, Vol. 7, p. 392.Google Scholar

43. That the Czech language continued to evolve after this point, most importantly in the nineteenth century, does not significantly detract from this point.Google Scholar

44. Since there is no distinction in Czech between the terms “Czech” and “Bohemian,” I have retained the use of the term “Czech,” “Bohemia(n)” being a word of foreign origin. One should be careful, however, not to read this term out of historical context. It should not be assumed that it had at this time the same meaning as ascribed to it by later advocates of Czech national consciousness.Google Scholar

45. Sayer, Coasts of Bohemia, p. 41. Sayer translates c̆esky as Czech. With the caution mentioned above, I have left the translation of the term c̆esky as Sayer translates it.Google Scholar

46. Zíbrt, Z dĕjin c̆eského knihtiskar̆ství, p. 42.Google Scholar

47. Ibid.Google Scholar

48. Anderson, Imagined Communities, p. 39.Google Scholar

49. Gellner, Nations and Nationalism, p. 41.Google Scholar

50. Zíbrt, Z dĕjin c̆eského knihtiskar̆ství, pp. 24–27; Bohatc̆ová, C̆eská kniha, p. 209.Google Scholar

51. Zíbrt, Z dĕjin c̆eského knihtiskar̆ství, pp. 27–30.Google Scholar

52. Bohatc̆ová, C̆eská kniha, p. 216.Google Scholar

53. Hejnic, Josef, “Daniel Adam von Veleslavin: Zu den gegenseitigen Beziehungen zwischen der tschechischen und lateinischen Literatur im letzten Viertel des 16. Jahrhunderts,” in Harder, Hans-Bernd and Rothe, Hans, eds, Studien zum Humanismus in den böhmischen Ländern (Cologne: Böhlau Verlag, 1988), p. 264.Google Scholar

54. Hejnic, “Daniel Adam von Veleslavin”, p. 269.Google Scholar

55. Bok, Václav, “Zum deutschsprachigen Buchdruck des 16. Jarhhunderts in den böhmischen Ländern,” in Harder, Hans-Bernd and Rothe, Hans, eds, Studien zum Humanismus in den böhmischen Ländern (Cologne: Böhlau Verlag, 1988), pp. 243–246. Before 1600, there appeared in Bohemia 56 patents in Czech, 15 in German, and seven in both languages. It might also be mentioned that the great majority of the German-language works were printed in Prague.Google Scholar

56. Bok, “Zum deutschsprachigen Buchdruck”, p. 244.Google Scholar

57. Bok, “Zum deutschsprachigen Buchdruck”, p. 246; Zíbrt, Z dĕjin c̆eského knihtiskar̆ství, p. 72. Zíbrt identified 58 printers working in Prague during the period 1526–1620 as Czech, 21 as German, and four as of indeterminate nationality. Of the Germans, he claims that none was working in Bohemia prior to 1550. Zíbrt did not, however, disclose his method of identification, and, in any case, the assignment of nationality to sixteenth-century printers is a bit anachronistic.Google Scholar

58. Bok, “Zum deutschsprachigen Buchdruck”, p. 258.Google Scholar

59. Zíbrt, Z dĕjin c̆eského knihtiskar̆ství, p. 85. Indeed, from the beginning of printing in Bohemia, Czech-language religious printing proceeded on a very large scale. To 1613, there were a total of 15 Utraquist Bibles, 27 New Testaments, one separate Old Testament, 12 Psalters, 11 editions of the apocryphal Jesus Sirach, 30 reading collections from the Old and New Testament designed for liturgical and home use, as well as hymnals and other miscellaneous writings. Bohatc̆ová, C̆eská kniha, p. 160.Google Scholar

60. Klimes̆, Pr̆ehled, pp. 22–23, 28; Volf, “Dĕjiny novin,” pp. 391–392. Such early reports include the depiction of a discussion with invisible spirits in Plzen in 1503/1504, which appeared in Nuremberg around 1505, and the 1508 or 1509 sheet entitled “Copia der newen ceytung aus Presily Land,” which reported on a military campaign.Google Scholar

61. Klimes̆, Pr̆ehled, pp. 26–28; Volf, “Dĕjiny novin,” pp. 391; Beranková, Milena, Dĕjiny c̆eskoslovenské z̆urnalistiky (Prague: Nakladatelství Novinar̆, 1981), pp. 18. In Jindr̆íchohradec noviny, the majority of reports were summaries of political events or official communiques from the court of Maximilian I, and served to present the court's perspective. Maximilian I ruled the Habsburg lands in Central Europe from 1493 to 1519, as emperor after 1508.Google Scholar

62. Przedak, Alader Guido, Geschichte des Deutschen Zeitschriftenwesens in Böhmen (Heidelberg: Carl Winter's Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1904), p. 4.Google Scholar

63. Ibid.Google Scholar

64. Klimes̆, Pr̆ehled, pp. 19–20; Beranková, Dĕjiny, p. 17.Google Scholar

65. Klimes̆, Pr̆ehled, p. 19; Volf, “Dĕjiny novin,” p. 391. This system functioned only as a means of collecting the news, however. It was not until much later that the post was used for the distribution of newspapers. As a corollary, the news reports available in any given locale were generally confined to foreign sources and included little or no local news. Exceptions, however, were the Jindr̆íchohradecké noviny and the news reports of the printer Konac from Hodis̆kův, who included domestic political reporting in his newspaper during the second decade of the sixteenth century.Google Scholar

66. Volf, “Dĕjiny novin,” p. 392; Klimes̆, Pr̆ehled, pp. 28–30; Anderson, Imagined Communities, p. 39. Indeed, I would give far greater significance to “the impact of the Reformation” than Anderson, who describes it as an “extraneous factor” giving further impetus to the “revolutionary vernacularizing thrust of capitalism.” Anderson's own presentation of Luther's works as representing “no less than one third of all German-language books sold between 1518 and 1525” speaks to its importance, and again to the non-capitalistic, non-market-motivated aspect of the early printing industry. That they sold is important, but the writings involved were propagandistic in nature, serving a political or religious, rather than market purpose.Google Scholar

67. Klimes̆, Pr̆ehled, pp. 31–33; Beranková, Dĕjiny, p. 20.Google Scholar

68. Beranková, Dĕjiny, pp. 19, 21; Klimes̆, Pr̆ehled, pp. 31–40; Volf, “Pr̆ehled,” pp. 566; Zíbrt, Z dĕjin c̆eského knihtiskar̆ství, p. 70. In 1608, the Czech Protestant press was removed from the supervision of the archbishop and placed under that of the university, and in 1617, Mathew II again added secular, state supervision through the offices of the town hall and the governor to that of the archbishop and the university. Coming so late before the rebellion of the Czech Protestant estates, this decree also had little effect.Google Scholar

69. Volf, “Dĕjiny novin,” pp. 395; Volf, “Pr̆ehled,” pp. 566; Beranková, Dĕjiny, p. 21; Klimes̆, Pr̆ehled, pp. 32–34, 36, 38–40; Zíbrt, Z dĕjin c̆eského knihtiskar̆ství, pp. 70–72. Melantrých had been in partnership with Netolický since 1549.Google Scholar

70. Volf, “Dĕjiny novin,” p. 399; Horák, Czech Printing, p. 137; Beranková, Dĕjiny, p. 23. For comparative population figures see Beranková.Google Scholar

71. Horák, Czech Printing, p. 137.Google Scholar

72. Ibid., p. 138.Google Scholar

73. Bohatc̆ová, C̆eská kniha, p. 289; Horák, Czech Printing, pp. 139–141. Bohatc̆ová reports that over the course of the period 1622–1700 there were a total of 21 printers working in Prague and an additional nine in the countrysideGoogle Scholar

74. Volf, “Dĕjiny novin,” p. 400; Klimes̆, Pr̆ehled, p. 45. Information concerning the low productivity and poor material conditions at the Sedlc̆anská printers has caused some historians to doubt that Sedlc̆anská ever produced a truly periodical newspaper.Google Scholar

75. Ibid. But neither does he define this characterization nor do surviving copies exist.Google Scholar

76. Anderson, Imagined Communities, p. 61. The printer-journalist does not appear to be a North American phenomenon as Anderson claims. Likewise, the association between the purveyors of news and post officials also existed in Bohemia, in this case hundreds of years before their appearance in North America.Google Scholar

77. Przedak, Geschichte des Deutschen Zeitschriftenwesens, p. 15; Volf, “Dĕjiny novin,” p. 400; Klimes̆, Pr̆ehled, p. 46. There are several twists and turns to this story and little agreement between the historians involved, although all agree that there is little known about the Sedlc̆anská printing operation. According to Alader Przedak, Ludmila Sedlc̆anská's daughter of the same name sold her business to Arnold as early as 1669. But Volf and Klimes̆ maintain that the origin of the troubles dates from March 1672 when the Prague postmaster, Johann Franz Brahiers, who had become dissatisfied with Sedlc̆anská's printing of his correspondences, arranged to send them to Arnold instead. On 29 March, Sedlc̆anská protested this as a violation of her license, but was ultimately defeated in court, because, according to Klimes̆, her sex made her ineligible to inherit her mother's license. Ludmila Sedlc̆anská, the elder's original request for a license had included the condition of continuation under her descendents, but neither this nor the fact that she herself was female altered the limitation of inheritance to the male line. The only means by which Ludmila Sedlc̆anská, the younger might have come into possession of the business was, as her mother had done, under the provisions of widows rights. As a female descendent she had no legal rights to the inheritance.Google Scholar

78. Volf, “Dĕjiny novin,” pp. 400–405; Klimes̆, Pr̆ehled, pp. 45–51. Rosenmüller received his license to print the news in Czech on 22 December 1718. The paper appeared twice weekly with the exception of the period of the French occupation, 1742–1744. The name of the paper was changed first to Praz̆ské c̆eské noviny (The Prague Czech Gazette), then to Praz̆ské noviny (The Prague Gazette).Google Scholar

79. Przedak, Geschichte des Deutschen Zeitschriftenwesens, p. 15; Klimes̆, Pr̆ehled, p. 47.Google Scholar

80. Przedak, Geschichte des Deutschen Zeitschriftenwesens, p. 15.Google Scholar

81. Zíbrt, Z dĕjin c̆eského knihtiskar̆ství, pp. 114–116.Google Scholar

82. Klimes̆, Pr̆ehled, pp. 49–51. This last development had begun in 1659, when the Bohemian treasury began making payments to the Augsburg novellista Jeremias Schiffle for weekly shipments of German newspapers and reports. After 1679, this business was transferred to the Prague postmaster Brahiers, who procured copies of the Frankfurt, Leipzig, Hanau, and French papers for the Habsburg court. From 1691, he also began sending domestic news to the castle.Google Scholar

83. Bernard, Paul P., Jesuits and Jacobins; Enlightenment and Enlightened Despotism in Austria (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1971), p. 24. A scandal involving an attempt of the Jesuits to reorganize the commission without the approval of the court provided the reformers the opportunity to convince the Empress of the dangers of Jesuit power and the necessity of van Swieten's appointment.Google Scholar

84. Bernard, Jesuits and Jacobins, pp. 13–14, 25; Blanning, T. C. W., Joseph II and Enlightened Despotism (London: Longman, 1970), p. 30–31; Hermann Oberhummer, Die Wiener Polizei, Vol. 2 (Vienna: Gerold, 1938), p. 176. Van Swieten's censorship commission had six members: three lay and three clerical. Two, like van Swieten, were Jansenists. The Jansenists were at the forefront of the reform effort in the monarchy. The Austrian Jansenists included several bishops and archbishops, all educated at the Jesuitrun Collegium Germanicum in Rome.Google Scholar

85. Bernard, Jesuits and Jacobins, pp. 25–27. Although the periodical press continued to expand, a retreat from liberality in press policy occurred after the death of van Swieten in 1772, when Maria Theresa came under the stronger influence of the Archbishop of Vienna, Count Migazzi. One example of this uncertainty was the banning of Der Vertraute, the periodical of the reformer and personal friend of the Empress, Joseph von Sonnenfels, for criticizing the high aristocracy even while supporting actions taken by the court against them. His other paper, Der Mann ohne Vorurteil, was banned for offending Count Migazzi.Google Scholar

86. Blanning, Joseph II, pp. 141–142.Google Scholar

87. Ibid.Google Scholar

88. Bernard, Jesuits and Jacobins, p. 62. In 1782, the Censorship Commission in Vienna was abolished and central authority for censorship was given to the Education Commission headed by Gerhard van Swieten's equally liberal son, Gottfried.Google Scholar

89. Zíbrt, Z dĕjin c̆eského knihtiskar̆stv, p. 114.Google Scholar

90. Horák, Czech Printing, p. 143.Google Scholar

91. Ibid., p. 148.Google Scholar

92. Ibid., p. 144; Zíbrt, Z dĕjin c̆eského knihtiskar̆stv, p. 73.Google Scholar

93. Horák, Czech Printing, pp. 147, 150.Google Scholar

94. Anderson, Imagined Communities, pp. 33–34, 37–46.Google Scholar

95. Przedak, Geschichte des Deutschen Zeitschriftenwesens, pp. 38–39.Google Scholar

96. Ibid., p. 51.Google Scholar

97. Goods prices, for the purpose of general comparison, can be found in Przedak, Geschichte des Deutschen Zeitschriftenwesens, p. 51. The author provides no source for these figures and no information concerning the conditions (i.e. time of year, richness of the most recent harvest, geographic location, etc.) affecting these prices or any information substantiating that they are even representative for Prague. Even so, the cost of subscriptions for each periodical treated in Przedak can, of course, be taken with greater assurance, and when compared with the price of foodstuffs presents a rather clear indication of the great cost of the periodicals. One fl. W.W. equals 60 kr.Google Scholar

98. For the second year, Dobrovský changed the title and contents to include Moravian literature.Google Scholar

99. Beranková, Dĕjiny, pp. 50–53; Klimes̆, Pr̆ehled, pp. 102–107; Przedak, Geschichte des Deutschen Zeitschriftenwesens, p. 93. Steinský's journal appeared in 1783–1789. The Prager Museum was published from 1780 to 1784 and Der Kinderfreund from 1780 to 1787. The first was an original publication of the Normalschuldruckerei, but the second was a reprint of a journal published in HalleGoogle Scholar

100. Agnew, Hugh, “Enlightenment and National Consciousness: Three Czech ‘Popular Awakeners,”’ in Banac, Ivo, Ackerman, John G. and Szporluk, Roman, eds, Nation and Ideology: Essays in Honor of Wayne S. Vucinich (Boulder: East European Monographs, 1981), p. 205.Google Scholar

101. Klimes̆, Pr̆ehled, p. 108.Google Scholar

102. Przedak, Geschichte des Deutschen Zeitschriftenwesens, p. 96.Google Scholar

103. Ibid., pp. 96. Many of these copies were bought in yearly sets by nobles and clergymen, who sometimes ordered multiple copies for use in schools or for free distribution.Google Scholar

104. Volf, “Dĕjiny novin,” p. 408.Google Scholar

105. For a brief view of Meissner and his associates see Przedak, Geschichte des Deutschen Zeitschriftenwesens, pp. 105–113. In regard to the impact of Enlightenment ideals in Bohemia, a detailed study of Meissner and his associates including those across the border in Saxony and Thuringia is well warranted, but as yet lacking.Google Scholar

106. Klimes̆, Pr̆ehled, pp. 108–109; Volf, “Dĕjiny novin,” p. 427.Google Scholar

107. Nejedlý, Jan, “Zprava o tomto spisů c̆tvrtletním,” Hlasatel c̆eský, 1, pp. 3–4, cited in Agnew, Hugh, The Origins of the Czech National Renascence (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1993), pp. 158.Google Scholar

108. Volf, , “Dĕjiny novin,” pp. 428.Google Scholar

109. Agnew, , Origins, pp. 64–69, 158–159; Klimes̆, Pr̆ehled, pp. 110–112, 115; Thomas Pes̆ek and Jan Havranek, “Czech Journalism and the Czech Press, 1719–1914: Modernization and National Development,” unpublished manuscript, pp. 39–40.Google Scholar

110. Pes̆ek, and Havranek, , “Czech Journalism,” pp. 55–56. As with other newspapers of the time, the majority of reports in the Rosenmüller newspaper were taken from foreign, primarily Viennese, newspapers and official sources, but the inclusion of reports originating in Prague and the Bohemian countryside and in particular the emphasis placed upon advancing the Czech language were a departure from earlier practice.Google Scholar

111. Volf, , “Dĕjiny novin,” pp. 418–419; Pes̆ek and Havranek, Czech Journalism, pp. 34–35; Klimes̆, Pr̆ehled, p. 58. There were two failed attempts to open a new Czech-language newspaper during the 1770s.Google Scholar

112. Pes̆ek, and Havranek, , Czech Journalism, pp. 34–35; Volf, “Dĕjiny novin,” pp. 410–412; and Klimes̆, Pr̆ehled, p. 60.Google Scholar

113. The newspaper's title was later changed to Krameriusový cís. k. vlastenecké noviny (Kramerius's Imperial and Royal Patriotic News) and Shönfeld complained that the use of the adjective pos̆tovské infringed on his license.Google Scholar

114. Pes̆ek, and Havranek, , Czech Journalism, pp. 36–38; Volf, “Dĕjiny novin,” p. 410; and Beranková, Dĕjiny, p. 30. Kramerius's patriotic statements accompanying the opening of each paper can be found in both Volf and Beranková.Google Scholar

115. For a valuable look at the work of these three Czech revivalists see Agnew, , “Enlightenment and National Consciousness.”Google Scholar

116. Volf, , “Dĕjiny novin,” p. 415; Klimes̆, Pr̆ehled, p. 72. After Kramerius's departure, the Schönfeld paper declined dramatically.Google Scholar

117. The lower figure is reported in Volf, “Dĕjiny novin,” pp. 415, while the higher is found in Beranková, Dejiny, p. 41.Google Scholar

118. Volf, “Dĕjiny novin,” pp. 418–49; Pes̆ek and Havranek, Czech Journalism, pp. 34–35; Klimes̆, Pr̆ehled, p. 58.Google Scholar

119. Popkin, Jeremy D., Revolutionary News: the Press in France, 1789–1799 (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1990), p. 84. The number of hands that a periodical may have passed through in late eighteenth-century Bohemia is unknown, but a French contemporary, Pierre-Louis Roederer, estimated that each copy of a newspaper sold in Paris during the Revolution circulated through ten pairs of hands. He estimated that papers sent to the provinces circulated on the average among four people each. The actual circulation of papers sent to the Bohemian countryside may, however, have been quite a bit greater, since it may have been more likely for papers to have been read aloud publicly in areas where literacy was lower than in the provincial capital.Google Scholar

120. Klimes̆, Pr̆ehled, p. 57.Google Scholar

121. Blanning, Joseph II, p. 7: “Of all the privileged bodies which attracted the hostile attention of the enlightened thinkers the most powerful, the most wealthy and the most thoroughly detested was the Church.”Google Scholar

122. Klimes̆, Pr̆ehled, p. 55.Google Scholar

123. Agnew, “Enlightenment and National Consciousness,” p. 203.Google Scholar

124. Ibid., p. 205.Google Scholar

125. Klimes̆, Pr̆ehled, pp. 74–81. To this end, he enjoined his readers in a dialogue, stressing the importance of new agricultural techniques and scientific reasoning in contrast to superstition and orthodox religious practices. It should be noted, however, that Kramerius, like many other figures of the Austrian Enlightenment, was not anti-clerical, and praised those clergymen who followed a rationalist philosophy.Google Scholar

126. Volf, “Dĕjiny novin,” p. 415.Google Scholar

127. Pes̆ek and Havranek, “Czech Journalism,” p. 36–38.Google Scholar

128. Agnew, Origins, p. 186.Google Scholar

129. Ibid.Google Scholar

130. Przedak, Geschichte des Deutschen Zeitschriftenwesens, p. 61. The title of “court printer,” which had accompanied the Rosenmüller's monopoly rights to publish a German-language newspaper in Prague, was not, however, extended to Schönfeld until 1790.Google Scholar

131. Ibid., pp. 59–66.Google Scholar

132. Gellner, Nations and Nationalism, p. 100. It seems to me that in the Czech case, during this early period, the term “forceful cultural engineering” should not be understood primarily in a negative fashion as a violent coercion of the population, but rather in terms of the willpower needed to sustain the effort.Google Scholar

133. Ibid., p. 78.Google Scholar

134. Anderson, Imagined Communities, p. 39.Google Scholar

135. Ibid., pp. 76–7. While agreement can be found between Czech and German liberals during the 1848 revolutions on the undesirability of political participation by the working class, they quickly became divided from each other by questions of national rights. The matter of bourgeois class solidarity, the bourgeoisie as the “first classes to achieve solidarities on an essentially imagined basis,” as Anderson maintains, is far more complicated and problematic.Google Scholar

136. Ibid., pp. 42–43.Google Scholar

137. Ibid., p. 44.Google Scholar