Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:35:32.399Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Public Opinion, Public Order, and Press Policy in the Neoabsolutist State: Bohemia, 1849–52

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Jeffrey T. Leigh
Jeffrey T. Leigh
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Marathon County, Wausau WI 54401.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the historiography of the Habsburg monarchy, the era of neoabsolutism, 1849–59, has generally been defined as either a period of reaction or one of missed opportunity when domestic policy was subordinated to the dynasty's great power interests. Historians commenting on this era have made important contributions, mostly in the area of foreign policy, state finance, economic developments, and constitutional theory, and have focused on what could or should have happened had the government chosen various reform agendas. None, however, have investigated the substantial developments then taking place in the alteration of state-society relations in the area of public opinion formation. Their interpretations have therefore missed and consequently masked the neoabsolutist state's pioneering efforts to create a wholly new relationship with the monarchy's disparate lands and peoples founded upon the rule of law under the Stadion Constitution, 4 March 1849, and then the Sylvester Patent, 31 December 1851.

Type
Articles
Information
Austrian History Yearbook , Volume 35 , January 2004 , pp. 81 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © Center for Austrian Studies, University of Minnesota 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 As mentioned by Okey, Robin in The Habsburg Monarchy: From Enlightenment to Eclipse (New York, 2001), 427Google Scholar: “The domestic side of neo-absolutism is not well served in English, with the exception of economic policy.” Even in his own work, however, while he mentions the important liberal reforms enacted under the Stadion Constitution (160), he does not pursue their ramifications, asserting the traditional judgment of heavy-handed repression and implying a resulting cultural stagnation for non-German-language culture (162). In addition to the general treatment of the 1850s found in standard works in English, Czech, and German, a few works treat the monarchy and even Bohemia specifically during this period. The standard works include Beller, Steven, Francis Joseph (London, 1996)Google Scholar; Macartney, C. A., The Habsburg Empire, 1790–1918 (New York, 1969)Google Scholar; Redlich, Joseph, Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria: A Biography (New York, 1929)Google Scholar; Sked, Alan, The Decline and Fall of the Habsburg Empire, 1815–1918 (London, 1989)Google Scholar; Taylor, A. J. P., The Habsburg Monarchy, 1809–1918 (New York, 1965)Google Scholar; Tobolka, Zdeněk, Česká politika (Czech politics) (Prague, 1907–1909)Google Scholar; Urban, Otto, Česká spolčanost, 1848–1918 (Czech society, 1848–1918) (Prague, 1982)Google Scholar; Stourzh, Gerald, Die Gleichberechtigung der Nationalitäten in der Verfassung und Verwaltung Österreichs, 1848–1918 (Vienna, 1985)Google Scholar; Wandruszka, Adam and Urbanitsch, Peter, Die Habsburgermonarchie 1848–1918, vol. 2, Verwaltung und Rechtswesen (Vienna, 1975)Google Scholar; and Winter, Eduard, Revolution, Neoabsolutismus und Liberalismus in der Donaumonarchie (Vienna, 1969).Google Scholar In addition to the relevant Czech-language periodical literature and monographs on literary figures, works on the monarchy and Bohemia in this period include Stölzl, Christoph's Die Ära Bach in Böhmen (Munich, 1971)Google Scholar, which concentrates on economic change, and Brandt, Harm-Hinrich's Der österreichische Neoabsolutismus: Staatsfinanzen und Politik, 1848–1860 (Göttingen, 1978)Google Scholar which focuses on state finance.

2 Strictly speaking, the first published press law was that of 18 May 1848, undertaken during a revolutionary crisis. This precedent was maintained after the suppression of the revolutions with the Press Law of 13 March 1849 and constitutes a qualitative change from Vormärz practices.

3 Allgemeines Rechts-, Gesetz-, und Regierungsblatt für 1849, The Press Law of 13 03 1849Google Scholar, section 26. “Whoever through a publication either: a) pursues disobedience, rebellion, or resistance against the laws, instructions, decrees of the court, orders of the public officials or the professional organs, or b) pursues hostility, encourages hostility, or seeks to injure either the different nationalities (Volksstämme, religious communities, a single strata or estate of the civil society, or legally constituted body, if it is not treated as a severely frowned upon trespass of another law, will be punished with up to two years imprisonment.”

4 Stourzh, , Die Gleichberechtigung, 27.Google Scholar

5 Allgemeines Rechts-, Gesetz-, und Regierungsblatt für 1849, No. 151, section 5.

6 Prague, Státní ústřední archiv (The State Central Archive, hereafter cited as SÚA), Spisy prezídia českého místodržitelstvív Praze (The collections of the Presidium of the Bohemian Governorship in Prague; hereafter cited as PM), 1850–54, 8–4–8, 262; Spisy prezídia policejního ředitelství v Praze (The collections of the Presidium of the Police Headquarters in Prague; hereafter cited as PP), 19 February 1850, Sacher-Masoch, to Mecsery, . “Since last year, the national motif has been employed to give the rampant democratic ideas more vitality and endurance.” SÚA, Tajné spisy prezídia českého gubernia (The confidential collection of the Presidium of the Bohemian Governorship; hereafter PGT) 1849–1852Google Scholar, St/18, 25 March 1852, Sacher-Masoch, to Mecsery, . “It is therefore high time that the government strikes in this regard with all energy so that the future must not be handed over, because nothing is so dangerous for the state and religion of Bohemia as Nationalität.” SÚA, PM 1850–54, 8–4–8, 19 02 1850Google Scholar, Sacher-Masoch to Mecsery.

7 SÚA, PM 1850–54, 8–4–13, 3 April 1850, Sacher-Masoch to Mecsery.

8 SÚA, PGT 1849–52, St/18, 25 March 1852, Sacher-Masoch to Mecsery.

9 Ibid.

10 SÚA, PM 1850–54, 8–4–15, Präs. 143/B, 4 December 1850, Khevenhüller to Mecsery.

11 SÚA, PGT 1849–52, A/1, 4 March 1849, Mecsery to the officials of the imperial post; SÚA, PGT 1849–52, P/28,17 February 1851, Mecsery to Bach; SÚA, PGT 1849–52, F/26, 16 November 1849, Bach to Mecsery; SÚA, PM 1850–54, V/l, 26 August 1850, Bach to Mecsery.

12 SÚA, PGT 1849–52, St/18, 6 February 1852, Sacher-Masoch to Mecsery.

13 SÚA, PGT 1849–52, A/1, 28 February 1849, Khevenhüller to Mecsery.

14 Pech, Stanley, The Czech Revolution of 1848 (Chapel Hill, 1969), 257–58.Google Scholar Mecsery described the upper strata of society as entirely passive and the urban layers as solidly Czech national or, in the case of the workers, willing to attach themselves “to any movement.” He identifies the leaders of the National Party—Palacký, Brauner, and others—as being against violent revolution, but stated that they would be drawn into any such struggle. He characterized the radicals as wholly committed to their cause. As for the peasants, he deemed them as yet neutral, capable of active resistance, and unwilling to support the government, but unlikely to support a violent revolt. He reported the German districts as quieter than the Czech.

15 Srb, Adolf, Karel Havlíček Borovský (Prague, 1906), 128.Google Scholar

16 SÚA, PM 1850–54, 8–4–15, 4 December 1850, Khevenhüller to Mecsery.

17 The charges stemmed from Havlíček's, articles, “Správa záležitosti obecních” (The management of public affairs) and “Proč jsem občaném?”Google Scholar (Why am I a citizen?), which had appeared in the 14 August issue of Slovan.

18 SÚA, PM 1850–54, 8–4–15, Präs., 143/B, 4 December 1850, Khevenhüller to Mecsery.

19 SÚA, PM 1850–54, 8–4–15, No. 628 PP, 2 March 1851, Sacher-Masoch to Mecsery.

20 SÚA, PM 1850–54, 8–4–15, N.B. 63 Präs., 5 March 1851, State's Prosecutor to Mecsery.

21 SÚA, PGT 1849–52, K/6, 154 gp., 8 May 1849, Mecsery, to Hauptmann, Pilsner; SÚA, PGT 1849–52, K/6, 6 06 1849Google Scholar, Pilsener Hauptmann to Mecsery. In an unusual move, the previous editor, Jan Knedlhans-Liblinský, had been removed from participation in Bohemian journalism through military conscription. This maneuver had been similarly used against other young members of the active opposition.

22 SÚA, PGT 1849–52, W/12, 4 June 1849, Mecsery to Bach.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid. Kuhe was the editor of Prager Abendblatt and Constitutionelle allgemeine Zeitung von Böhmen, both of which were eventually suspended by the military command.

25 SÚA, PGT 1849–52, P/28, 322 PP, 1 February 1851, Sacher-Masoch to Khevenhüller.

26 SÚA, PGT 1849–52, P/28, 161 gp., 17 February 1851, Mecsery to Goluchowsky, the Stadthauptmann, and Bach.

27 SÚA, PGT 1849–52, P/28, 17 February 1851, Mecsery to Goluchowsky, the Stadthauptmann, and Bach.

28 Macartney, , The Habsburg Empire, 443, 454.Google Scholar

29 Hrzalová, Hana, “Rozmach českého novinařství v letech 1848–1849 a jeho význam pro vývoj české literatury” (The rise of Czech journalism, 1848–1849, and its meaning for the development of Czech literature), Ceska literatura (Czech literature) 5 (1957): 410.Google Scholar

30 SÚA, PGT 1849–52, St/18, 6 February 1852, Sacher-Masoch, to Mecsery, ; Winter, Revolution, 7.Google Scholar In these times between the revolutions and the era of high capitalism, religious questions and national questions stood coequally at the center of public affairs.

31 See note 3.

32 The other two topics that shared this distinction were politics and public morality.

33 SÚA, PM, 1850–54, 8–4–22, 7 August 1850, The Military Commander in Prague, General Khevenhüller.

34 SÚA, PGT 1849–52, P/28, 1 February 1851, Sacher-Masoch to Mecsery.

35 Roubík, František, Časopisectvo v Čechách v letech 1848–1862 (Journalism in Bohemia in the years 1848–1862) (Prague, 1930), 128.Google Scholar A fourth religious periodical, Časopis pro katolické důchovenstvo (Journal for Catholic clergy), began publication in 1828, and from 1852 was under the editorship of the archbishop's notary, František Havránek. It ended during the same year, however, due to insufficient sales.

36 Roubík, , Čtsopisectvo, 80–81.Google Scholar The only religious journals to appear in German were Die Wahrheit, which was a short-lived periodical of the Catholic Society (Katholikenverein) in Prague and appeared only in 1849 and 1850, and the Jewish Stimme der Zeit, which was published for a short period in 1850.

37 SÚA, PM 1850–54, 8–4–16, 57 Minister des Innern, 31 December 1849, Bach to Mecsery.

38 SÚA, PM 1850–54, 8–4–16, 77 Präs., 4 January 1850, Mecsery.

39 SÚA, PM 1850–54, 8–4–16, 181 M.I., 9 January 1850, Bach to Mecsery.

40 SÚA, PM 1850–54, 8–4–16, 457 Präs., 31 January 1850, Mecsery to Bach.

41 SÚA, PGT 1849-–52, P/33, 7 March 1850, Sacher-Masoch to Mecsery.

42 Winter, , Revolution, 100.Google Scholar

43 SÚA, PM 1850–54, 8–4–33, No. 375 PP, 3 February 1851, Sacher-Masoch to Mecsery; 10 February 1851, Mecsery; 1858 Pr., 22 February 1851, Mecsery; No. 777, 14 March 1851, Sacher-Masoch to Mecsery.

44 The journal had already been issued a warning for this same offense on 14 March. SÚA, PM 1850–54, 8–4–33, No. 886 P.P., P. 205 B, 25 March 1851, Khevenhüller to Mecsery.

45 SÚA, PM 1850–54, 8–4–33, 511 B, 2 April 1851, Khevenhüller to Mecsery; and No. 2800, 3 April 1851, Mecsery to Khevenhüller.

46 SÚA, PM 1850–54, 8–4–33, 23 June 1851, Khevenhüller to Mecsery; No. 2913/M.I. 1851, 30 May 1851, Josef Růžička to the Ministerial Council.

47 SÚA, PM 1850–54, 8–4–33, 2 May 1851, County President Graf Mercardin to Mecsery.

48 SÚA, PGT 1819–48, H/76, 27 July 1843. Štulc had already come to the government's attention in 1843 as a result of his correspondence with Karel Havlíček as the latter traveled in Galicia. According to a report originating in Vienna, the correspondence indicated an enthusiasm for pursuing Slavic interests that were in no way acceptable to the government.

49 Winter, , Revolution, 95.Google Scholar

50 Blahověst, 5, no. 23 (5 06 1851).Google Scholar

51 SÚA, PM 1850–54, 8–4–50, No. 4672/Präs., 11 June 1851, Mecsery to Khevenhüller.

52 Blahověst, 6, no. 7 (13 02 1852).Google Scholar

53 SÚA, PM 1850–54, 8–4–50,1173/Pr. 19 February 1852, Mecsery to Khevenhüller.

54 SÚA, PM 1850–54, 8–4–50, Präs. 534/B, 25 February 1852, Khevenhüller to Mecsery.

55 SÚA, PM 1850–54, 8–4–50, 623 PP, 27 February 1852, Sacher-Masoch, to Mecsery, . Blahověst, 6, no. 9 (26 02 1852).Google Scholar

56 SÚA, PM 1850–54,8–4–50, Präs. No. 546/B, 1 March 1852, hevenhüller to the archbishop of Prague and Wenzel Štulc.

57 SÚA, PM 1850–54, 8–4–50, 1558/Pr., 2 March 1852, Mecsery to Khevenhüller.

58 SÚA, PM 1850–54, 8–4–50, 548/B, 4 March 1852, Khevenhüller to Mecsery.

59 SÚA, PM 1850–54, 8–4–50, 1773/Pr., 31 March 1853, Mecsery to Kempen.

60 SÚA, PGT 1849–52, St/18, 6 February 1852, Situation Report, Sacher-Masoch to Mecsery.

61 SÚA, PM 1850–54, 8–5–40,9148/Pras., 17 December 1852, Mecsery to Kempen.

62 Ibid.

63 SÚA, PM 1850–54, No. 1723/315 IV, 10 February 1853, Kempen to Mecsery.

64 Včela had been edited at various times during the revolutionary year by Havlíček, Karel, Sabina, Karel, and Knedlhans-Liblinský, Jan; the periodical closed in 05 1849.Google Scholar

65 SÚA, PM 1850–54, 8–4–26, No. 2924, 8 October 1850, Mecsery to Khevenhüller.

66 SÚA, PM 1850–54, 8–4–26, Präs. 112/B, 8 October 1850, Khevenhüller to Mecsery.

67 SÚA, PM 1850–54, 8–4–32, No. 2340 PP, 28 December 1850, Sacher-Masoch to Mecsery.

68 Roubík, , Časopisectvo, 68–69Google Scholar; Beranková, Milena, Dějiny československé žurnálistiky (History of Czech journalism) (Prague, 1981), 130.Google Scholar

69 SÚA, PM 1850–54, 8–4–92, No. 2841 PP, 30 August 1852, Sacher-Masoch to Mecsery.

70 SÚA, PM 1850–54,8–4–15,2290 Pr., 4 September 1850, Mecsery to General Prokurator Hikisch.

71 Allgemeines Rechts-, Gesetz-, und Regierungsblatt für 1852, The Press Law of 27 05 1852Google Scholar, section 5.

72 SÚA, PM 1855–59,8–4–17–5, No. 847, 31 March 1856, Paumann, to Mecsery, ; 8–4–17–5, No. 1186 PP, 16 04 1858Google Scholar, Paumann, to Mecsery, ; 8–4–7–3, No. 1073 PP, 14 04 1856Google Scholar, Paumann, to Mecsery, ; 8–4–7–3, No. 1618 PP, 2 07 1858Google Scholar, Paumann to Mecsery.

73 Pešek, Thomas and Havránek, Jan, “Czech Journalism and the Czech Press, 1719–1914: Modernization and National Development,”Google Scholar unpublished manuscript, 51.

74 Roubík, , Časopisectvo, 58.Google Scholar

75 Ibid.

76 SÚA, PGT, 1849–52, PM 1850–54 and 1855–59, and Tajné spisy presidia policejního ředitelstvív Praze (The confidential collection of the Presidium of the Police Headquarters in Prague; hereafter PPT), 1852 contain numerous documents speaking to this issue. Of particular note are several documents found in PGT, 1849–52, P/28, PPT, 1852/88, PM 1850–54, 8–4–4, 8–4–22–4, PM 1855–59, 8–4–94–1.

77 SÚA, PM 1855–59, 8–4–94–1, No. 12761/Pr., 1 December 1859, Mecsery to Kempen.

78 The original documentation on this struggle—which involved many of the current and future luminaries of the Czech national movement, including František Palacký, František Rieger, Josef Frč, Fürst Rudolf Taxis, Franz Uher, Franz Šimaček, Alois Krása, Josef Jireček, Dr. Anton Springer, and Franz Grégr—can be found at SÚA, Tajné spisy prezídia českého místodržitelsrví v Praze (The confidential collections of the Presidium of the Bohemian Governorship in Prague), C/12 and PM 1855–59, 8–4–103–1.

79 Roubík, , Časopisectvo, 57.Google Scholar