Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-l4ctd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-06T23:34:31.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Slovaks in the Habsburg Empire: A Struggle for Existence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2009

Václav L. Beneš
Václav L. Beneš
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The example of the Slovaks, next to the Ruthenians the weakest and least privileged people of the Danubian monarchy, is eminently fitted to the examination of Austria's ability to deal with the main problem of its modern political life, namely, that of the coexistence and possible reconciliation of its nationalities. One of the first to point out this fundamental issue for the continued existence of Austria with unusual clarity was František Palacký in his 1848 letter to the Vorparlament of the Frankfurt National Assembly. Far from being an expression of unreserved faith in the future of the monarchy, his memorable words on the necessity of the Habsburg state1 were dictated by political realism and foresight. Emphasizing the dangers of German nationalism and Russian imperialism, which he perhaps intentionally exaggerated,2 the Czech leader was fully aware of the political weakness of the small Slav nations who were only gradually establishing their national identity. It was for their sake that he gave a final expression to the policy of Austro-Slavism, seeking the salvation of the Austrian Slavs in the preservation of the monarchy. He endeavored, however, to give it a new raison d'être based on the creation of a common defensive system for its individual nationalities in which all were to be given “complete equality of rights and respect.” While sincere, Palacký's support of Austria was neither unconditional nor devoid of a strong element of doubt. The nationalist policies of the Austrian Germans and the rebellious Magyars, whose chauvinism was only thinly covered by a veneer of liberalism, caused him to moderate his opinion in regard to the ability of the Austrian rulers to change the empire into a federal and democratic state. Thus, at the end of his Frankfurt message Palacký expressed only the hope that the Habsburg monarchy would not miss the opportunity to change into a state based on principles of justice, which alone could save it from disintegration.

Type
The Slovaks, Ukrainians (Ruthenians), Rumanians, and Italians
Information
Austrian History Yearbook , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , January 1967 , pp. 335 - 364
Copyright
Copyright © Center for Austrian Studies, University of Minnesota 1967

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 See Palacký, František, Radhošt (3 vols., Prague: F. Tempský, 1871–1973), Vol. III, p. 14.Google Scholar

2 It is clear that Palacký feared the Germans much more than the Russians. His warning against a Russian “universal monarchy,” which he regarded as “a misfortune without measure and bound,” while almost prophetic from the point of view of contemporary East-Central Europe, was motivated by his desire to deny substance to the suspicion that his federalization plans were influenced by the ideology of Pan-Slavism. As pointed out by Tomáš Masaryk, G., “the relationship between Palacký's idea of Austrian federalization and Kollár's concept of Slavic reciprocity, both from the conceptual and material points of view, appears to be very close.”Google Scholar See Masaryk, Tomáš G., Česká otázka (Prague: Pokrok, 1908), p. 87.Google Scholar

3 Krofta, Kamil, Čtení o úatavních dějinách slovenských (Prague: Historický klub, 1924), p. 3Google Scholar. The same approach, treating the history of Slovakia as a part of that of Hungary, can be detected in a number of other historical publications. This is, for instance, true of Rapant, Daniel's two-volume K počatkom maďarizácie (Bratislava: Kuratorium Čs. zemedelského múzea, 1927–1931)Google Scholar and even of Bokeš, František' Dejiny Slovákov a Slovenska, published as the fourth volume of Slovenská Vlastiveda (Bratislava: Slovenská akadémia vied a umení, 1946).Google Scholar

4 Typical of this approach are Botto, Julius's Krátka historia Slovákov (Turčiansky Sv. Martin: Slovenská národná strana, 1914)Google Scholar; and Krofta, Kamil's Čechové a Slováci před svým státním sjednocením (Prague: Orbis, 1932).Google Scholar

5 Novotný, Václav, Z dějin československých (Brno: Osvětové knihkupectví, 1921), p. 54.Google Scholar

6 Denis, Ernest, La question d'Autriche. Les Slovaques (Paris: Delagrave, 1917), p. 92.Google Scholar

7 In his “Introduction” to Holotík, Ľudovít and Tibensky, Ján (eds.), Dejiny Slovenska, Vol. I (Bratislava: Slovenská Akadémia vied, 1961), p. 91.Google Scholar

8 See Pražák, Albert, Národ se bránil (Prague: Sfinx, 1946), pp. 104–106.Google Scholar

9 See Baník, Anton, Ján Baltazar Magin a jeho politická, národná a kulturná obrana Slovákov r. 1728 (Trnava: Spolok Sv. Vojtěcha, 1936).Google Scholar

10 For a list of their writings, see Pražák, , Národ se bránil.Google Scholar

11 A reflection of this point of view can be found in Luborod, Bedlivý's (pseudonym for L'udevít Štúr) Starý i nový věk Slováků, which was written in 1841 and published by Josef Jirásek (Bratislava: Učená společnost Šafaříkova, 1953). See pp. 19–23.Google Scholar

12 Rapant, , K počiatkom madarizácie, Vol. II, p. 392.Google Scholar

13 The few years of Josephinist reforms even prompted a national revival among the Slovaks, giving rise to the idea of an independent Slovak language, which was voiced in 1787 by Anton Bernolák. See Holotík, and Tibenský, , Dejiny Slovenska, Vol. I, p. 361Google Scholar; and Bokeš, , Dejivy Slovákov a Slovenska, p. 137.Google Scholar

14 Denis, , La question d'Autriche. Les Slovaques, p. 146.Google Scholar

15 Evidence of the desperate situation of the Slovaks can be found in the correspondence of L'udevít Štúr with various Czech patriots. See Frýdecký, František (ed.), Dopisy L'udevíta Štúra Jaroslavu Pospíšilovi (Pacov: Přemysl Plaček. 1919), p. 43.Google Scholar

16 These organs included the palatine (viceroy) with his viceroyal council, the royal Hungarian chancery, the Hungarian court council, and the highest financial organ, the Hungarian chamber. Since the reign of Joseph II these organs, which theoretically represented the sovereignty of Hungary, were under the direct influence of the emperor and his court.

17 Rapant, Daniel, Slovenský prestolný prosbopis z roku 18W (2 vols., Liptovský Sv. Mikuláš: Tranoscius, 1943), Vol. I, pp. 8–21.Google Scholar

18 Ibid.

19 As pointed out by Botto in his Krátka historia Slovákov, pp. 52–54Google Scholar, “the Magyar nationality expanded to such a degree that there was hardly a Hungarian diet at which the aristocracy would not pass laws either giving precedence to the Magyar nationality and language, or replacing Latin by Magyar.”

20 Of these, the following deserve to be expressly mentioned: Hoič, Samuel, Sollen wir Magyaren werden? (Karlstadt: Johann Prettner, 1833)Google Scholar; and Šuhajda, L'udevít, Der Magyarismus in Ungarn (Leipzig: Robert Binder, 1843)Google Scholar. The latter was written by L'udevít štúr and published in Slovak translation by Goláň, Karol under the title Žaloby a ponosy Slovákov (Turčiansky Sv. Martin: Matica slovenská, 1946).Google Scholar

21 Later Count Zay summed up his anti-Slav ideas in a pamphlet entitled Protestantismus, Magyarismus, Slawismus, which was published in Leipzig in 1841.

22 The idea of a petition was considered by the Bratislava Slovaks as early as 1840. The petition was to be submitted to the Hungarian diet. Later Kollár prepared an appeal to be sent to the emperor. Both petitions, while marked by radicalism and integral Slovak nationalism, were never presented. See Rapant, , Slovenský prestolný prosbopis z roku 1842, Vol. I, pp. 23–27Google Scholar; and Bokeš, František (ed.), Karol Goláň. Štúrovské pokolenie (Bratislava: Vydavatel'stvo Slovenskej akadémie vied, 1964), pp. 62–63.Google Scholar

23 A detailed analysis of the petition can be found in Rapant, , Slovenský prestolný prosbopis z roku 1842, Vol. I, pp. 113–120.Google Scholar

24 Metternich reacted rather adversely to the word “Magyarismus,” which was frequently used by the Slovaks. “Words ending in -ismus are usually understood in an evil sense,” he told them, “even though they may mean something good. The word Theos, for instance,” he remarked, “indicates what is most respectable for man, but theism is evil.” As quoted in Chalupka, Ján, Iter Viennense 1842Google Scholar, published in Rapant, , Slovenský prestolný prosbopis z roku 1842, Vol. IIGoogle Scholar, Dokumenty, Doc. No. 117.

25 Goláň, , Štúrovské pokolenie, p. 99.Google Scholar

26 Rapant, , Slovenský prestolný prosbopis z roku 1842, Vol. I, pp. 133–143.Google Scholar

27 A detailed discussion of the imperial decision can be found in Rapant, , Slovenský prestolný prosbopis z roku 1842, Vol. IIGoogle Scholar, Dokumenty, Doc. No. 156.Google Scholar

28 Rapant, , Slovenský prestolný prosbopis z roku 1842, Vol. I, p. 238.Google Scholar

29 This attitude was made clear in a statement by Štúr, in his pamphlet Das XIX Jahrhundert und der MagyarismusGoogle Scholar, which was published in 1845. In it he praised Metternich, the Viennese government, and Austria, which, he held, plays a similar role among its own nations as within the pentarchy. See Rapant, Daniel, Dejiny slovenského povstania r. 1848–49, Vol. I (Turčiansky Sv. Martin: Matica slovenská, 1937), p. 142.Google Scholar

30 For the attitude of Archduke Stephen, the son of the late Palatine Joseph, see Botto, Julius, Slováci. Vývin ich národného povedomia (2 vols., Turčiansky Sv. Martin: Kníhtlačiarský spolok, 1923), Vol. I, pp. 64–69.Google Scholar

31 See Štúr, 's article “Noví vek” in the 03 31, 1848Google Scholar, issue of Slovenskje narodňje novini, and the leaflet written by Hurban under the title Brother Slovaks, which was published in Vienna at the beginning of April, 1848. Both are reprinted in Bokeš, František (ed.), Dokumenty k slovenskému národnému hnutiu v rokoch 1848–1914 (2 vols., Bratislava: Slovenská akadémia vied, 1962–1965), Vol. I (1848–1867), pp. 15–18 and 20–22.Google Scholar

32 The most serious incident was that which took place in Hont County, which resulted in the arrest of the Slovak poet Janko Král and his friend Ján Rotarides for inciting the people against the authorities. Both were arrested with the assistance of the army. Rapant, , Dejiny slovenského povatania r. 1848–49, Vol. I, p. 185.Google Scholar

33 For the text of the “Demands,” see Bokeš, , Dokumenty k slovenskému národnému hnutiu v rokoch 1848–1914, Vol. I, pp. 23–26Google Scholar. A good summary can be found in Lettrich, Jozef, History of Modern Slovakia (New York: F. A. Praeger, 1955), pp. 29–30.Google Scholar

34 Rapant, Daniel, Dejiny slovenského povstania r. 1848–49, Vol. II (Turčiansky Sv. Martin: Matica slovenská, 1950), p. 10Google Scholar. See also Tobolka, Zdeněk, Slovenský sjezd v Praze roku 1848 (Prague: Šimáček, 1901), pp. 110–113.Google Scholar

35 “The Croatian question changed into a mere position on the Vienna-Pest chessboard.” Rapant, , Dejiny slovenského povstania r. 1848–49, Vol. II, p. 62.Google Scholar

36 See the manifesto “To My Hungarian Nations” issued by Ferdinand V on 09 25, 1848Google Scholar, in Rapant, Daniel, Slovenské povstanie roku 1848–49. Dejiny a dokumenty, Vol. II, Pt. 2 (Turčiansky Sv. Martin: Matica slovenská, 1949), Doc. No. 308, p. 346.Google Scholar

37 See Bokeš, , Slovenská vlastiveda. Dejiny Slovákov a Slovenska, p. 182.Google Scholar

38 By the middle of February the Slovak contingent was composed of 19 units, each with 90 men. Rapant, Daniel, Slovenské povstanie 1848–19, Vol. III (Bratislava: Slovenská akadémia vied, 1956), p. 260.Google Scholar

39 Ibid., p. 303.

40 For the text of the first draft of the petition see Bokeš, , Dokumenty k slovenskému národnému hnutiu v rokoch 1848–1914, Vol. I, pp. 59–62.Google Scholar

41 Ibid., pp. 62–63.

42 Of the early proposals, those of the members of the government (Count Francis Stadion and Alexander Bach), as well as the more detailed plans of Karl Rosenfeld and Count Janos Mailáth, were relatively favorable to the Slovaks. Of special interest were the proposals of the government-appointed trustees of the Slovak nation, Ján Kollár, František Hanrich, and Ján Hlaváč. As was to be expected, Kollár's memorandum favored the Slovak point of view; those of his more conservative colleagues supported at least the most important Slovak demands. Bokeš, , Slovenská vlastiveda. Dejiny Slovákov a Slovenska, pp. 185–191 and 198–205.Google Scholar

43 Rapant, Daniel, Slovenské povstanie roku 1848–49, Vol. IV (Bratislava: Slovenská akadémia vied, 1963), p. 280.Google Scholar

44 Daxner, Štefan M., V službe národa (Bratislava: Slovenské vydavatel'stvo krásnej literatúry, 1958), pp. 114–115.Google Scholar

45 Rapant, , Slovenské povstanie roku 1848–49, Vol. IV, p. 750.Google Scholar

46 On the initiative of the Slovak political leaders (Hurban and Hodža), the Slovak cause was defended by the bishop of Diakovo, Josip Juraj Strossmayer. His endeavors, however, were of little avail. See Bokeš, František, Dokumenty k slovenskému národnému hnutiu v rokoch 1848–1914, Vol. I, pp. 187–189.Google Scholar

47 Rapant, Daniel, Viedenské memorandum, slovenaké z roku 1861 (Turčiansky Sv. Martin: Matica slovenská, 1943), p. 4.Google Scholar

48 The memorandum and the records of the Slovak National Assembly were published under the title Slovenské Národné shromaždenie v Turčianskom Sv. Martine 1861 (Turčiansky Sv. Martin: Matica slovenská, 1941).Google Scholar

49 See his Viedenské memorandum slovenské z roku 1861, p. 31.Google Scholar

50 See Seton-Watson, Robert W., A History of the Czechs and Slovaks (London: Hutchinson, 1943), p. 266.Google Scholar

51 Bokeš, , Slovenská vlastiveda. Dejiny Slovákov a Slovenska, p. 228.Google Scholar

52 For the text of the memorandum and the proposed “royal privilege,” see Rapant, , Viedenské memorandum slovenské z roku 1861, pp. 136–157.Google Scholar

53 For the history and an evaluation of the Matica slovenská, see Botto, Julius, Dejiny Matice slovenskej (Turčiansky Sv. Martin: Matica slovenská, 1923)Google Scholar; and Mésároš, Július and Kropilák, Miroslav (eds.), Matica slovenská v našich dejinách (Bratislava: Slovenská akadémia vied, 1963).Google Scholar