Hugh Agnew specializes in Central and Eastern Europe, with a focus on modern Czech history. His first book examines a group of intellectuals in late 18th and early 19th century Bohemia whose linguistic, literary and historical studies laid the foundations for the subsequent Czech nationalist movement. His most recent book surveys Czech history in its European setting, from the arrival of the Czechs in Bohemia to the present. Professor Agnew's current research explores the use of symbol and ritual in the Czech nationalist movement, topics on which he has published several preparatory studies, and which will be the theme of his next book. He has appeared on international and local media including CNN, C-SPAN, Czech Television, Voice of America's Czech service, and Radio Prague.
When a small group of Slovaks, meeting at the Evangelical lyceum in Bratislava early in 1843, dec... more When a small group of Slovaks, meeting at the Evangelical lyceum in Bratislava early in 1843, decided that from thenceforth they would write only in the Slovak language, they were in effect publicly declaring their existence as an independent nation in Central Europe. Though only some six students and their leader, L’udovit Stur, were present, their decision was quickly accepted by most active Slovak patriots; and in spite of some difficulties during the Bach era of the 1850s, the language of these patriots codified established itself as the separate literary language of the Slovak nation.1 This decision was to have far-reaching consequences, for it proved to be a decisive break with the tradition of ‘Czechoslovak’ cultural and linguistic unity, previously subscribed to by practically all Czechs and most Slovaks. The ‘Czechoslovak’ idea proved quite hardy however, surviving to become fundamental to the state ideology of the Czechoslovak republic between 1918 and 1938; and although contemporary thought in the Czech and Slovak federative republic no longer claims the existence of a single ‘Czechoslovak nation’ with two ‘branches’, the prickly issue of relations between these two kindred peoples remains politically significant.2
Horst Haselsteiner, ed. The Prague Slav Congress, 1848: Slavic Identities. Boulder: East European... more Horst Haselsteiner, ed. The Prague Slav Congress, 1848: Slavic Identities. Boulder: East European Monographs, DLII. Columbia University Press, 2000. vii, 112pp. $44.50, cloth.This slender volume unites some papers presented at the meeting of the Commission Internationale des Etudes Historiques Slaves in Vienna in 1998, the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Prague Slav Congress. Unfortunately, only seven selections are included, reducing a volume originally announced at approximately 300 pages to a postAtkins 1 12 pages. Given their restricted number, then, it is probably churlish to fault the selections for some unevenness in their quality and overall coherence. At least, each contribution can be given more attention here than would be possible with a larger collection.The volume editor, Horst Haselsteiner, asserts the Prague Slav Congress's lasting impact on its leading representatives through the structural principles it reinforced among them. These principles are, broadly, reciprocity, solidarity and federalism, and he argues that they derived both from Slavic (endogenous) and non-Slavic (exogenous) sources. There are some familiar suspects in this line-up, including Johann Herder, whose chapter on the Slavs is cited in full. Most surprising, perhaps, is his assertion that the United States, through de Tocqueville's Democracy in America, was significant in spreading the concept of federalism at and after the Prague congress. The Czechs and other Austrian Slavs could also have derived a federal model from the Habsburg Monarchy's political organization before the great centralizing reforms of Maria Theresa and Joseph II, however much this raised charges of "feudalism" from their German Liberal (and centralist) opponents. Haselsteiner's other points, though valid, do not strike the reader as dramatically new-which, since the selected bibliography ends with a work published in 1973, may reflect when the article was prepared.An essay by Edward Thaden, in which he attempts "to link the Slavic Congress of 1848 with the Commission Internationale des Etudes Historiques Slaves and the future of Slavic Historical Studies" (p. 101), concludes the volume. Thaden succeeds in juxtaposing, not linking, these events, but he does provide a useful and interesting summary of the work of the international commission and in particular the political pressures under which it has sometimes operated. all his readers may join him in urging the commission to represent all the Slavic countries in its future membership.Between these two essays are five studies devoted either to individuals or individual Slavic nations. Most tenuously related to the Prague Congress is the contribution by Bianca Valota on Mazzini and Italian attitudes to the Slavs. …
Czech nationalism differs in one important respect from its Polish and Hungarian counterparts: th... more Czech nationalism differs in one important respect from its Polish and Hungarian counterparts: the Czech nation did not have a “national” aristocracy. As a result, so the conventional wisdom goes, when the modern Czech nationalist movement emerged, even its leading elites were only a few generations removed from the countryside, giving it a supposedly more egalitarian and bourgeois coloring. This affected its ideology and political program, and by extension, helped account for the relative stability of the interwar Czechoslovak democracy, the most successful of the “successor states.”
The Slavonic and East European Review, Oct 1, 2021
This is the proof of the book review, as the publication's last 4 years are not available... more This is the proof of the book review, as the publication's last 4 years are not available online (at least to me).
When a small group of Slovaks, meeting at the Evangelical lyceum in Bratislava early in 1843, dec... more When a small group of Slovaks, meeting at the Evangelical lyceum in Bratislava early in 1843, decided that from thenceforth they would write only in the Slovak language, they were in effect publicly declaring their existence as an independent nation in Central Europe. Though only some six students and their leader, L’udovit Stur, were present, their decision was quickly accepted by most active Slovak patriots; and in spite of some difficulties during the Bach era of the 1850s, the language of these patriots codified established itself as the separate literary language of the Slovak nation.1 This decision was to have far-reaching consequences, for it proved to be a decisive break with the tradition of ‘Czechoslovak’ cultural and linguistic unity, previously subscribed to by practically all Czechs and most Slovaks. The ‘Czechoslovak’ idea proved quite hardy however, surviving to become fundamental to the state ideology of the Czechoslovak republic between 1918 and 1938; and although contemporary thought in the Czech and Slovak federative republic no longer claims the existence of a single ‘Czechoslovak nation’ with two ‘branches’, the prickly issue of relations between these two kindred peoples remains politically significant.2
Horst Haselsteiner, ed. The Prague Slav Congress, 1848: Slavic Identities. Boulder: East European... more Horst Haselsteiner, ed. The Prague Slav Congress, 1848: Slavic Identities. Boulder: East European Monographs, DLII. Columbia University Press, 2000. vii, 112pp. $44.50, cloth.This slender volume unites some papers presented at the meeting of the Commission Internationale des Etudes Historiques Slaves in Vienna in 1998, the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Prague Slav Congress. Unfortunately, only seven selections are included, reducing a volume originally announced at approximately 300 pages to a postAtkins 1 12 pages. Given their restricted number, then, it is probably churlish to fault the selections for some unevenness in their quality and overall coherence. At least, each contribution can be given more attention here than would be possible with a larger collection.The volume editor, Horst Haselsteiner, asserts the Prague Slav Congress's lasting impact on its leading representatives through the structural principles it reinforced among them. These principles are, broadly, reciprocity, solidarity and federalism, and he argues that they derived both from Slavic (endogenous) and non-Slavic (exogenous) sources. There are some familiar suspects in this line-up, including Johann Herder, whose chapter on the Slavs is cited in full. Most surprising, perhaps, is his assertion that the United States, through de Tocqueville's Democracy in America, was significant in spreading the concept of federalism at and after the Prague congress. The Czechs and other Austrian Slavs could also have derived a federal model from the Habsburg Monarchy's political organization before the great centralizing reforms of Maria Theresa and Joseph II, however much this raised charges of "feudalism" from their German Liberal (and centralist) opponents. Haselsteiner's other points, though valid, do not strike the reader as dramatically new-which, since the selected bibliography ends with a work published in 1973, may reflect when the article was prepared.An essay by Edward Thaden, in which he attempts "to link the Slavic Congress of 1848 with the Commission Internationale des Etudes Historiques Slaves and the future of Slavic Historical Studies" (p. 101), concludes the volume. Thaden succeeds in juxtaposing, not linking, these events, but he does provide a useful and interesting summary of the work of the international commission and in particular the political pressures under which it has sometimes operated. all his readers may join him in urging the commission to represent all the Slavic countries in its future membership.Between these two essays are five studies devoted either to individuals or individual Slavic nations. Most tenuously related to the Prague Congress is the contribution by Bianca Valota on Mazzini and Italian attitudes to the Slavs. …
Czech nationalism differs in one important respect from its Polish and Hungarian counterparts: th... more Czech nationalism differs in one important respect from its Polish and Hungarian counterparts: the Czech nation did not have a “national” aristocracy. As a result, so the conventional wisdom goes, when the modern Czech nationalist movement emerged, even its leading elites were only a few generations removed from the countryside, giving it a supposedly more egalitarian and bourgeois coloring. This affected its ideology and political program, and by extension, helped account for the relative stability of the interwar Czechoslovak democracy, the most successful of the “successor states.”
The Slavonic and East European Review, Oct 1, 2021
This is the proof of the book review, as the publication's last 4 years are not available... more This is the proof of the book review, as the publication's last 4 years are not available online (at least to me).
Imagine an intrepid web explorer looking for information on the Czech Republic. He or she might w... more Imagine an intrepid web explorer looking for information on the Czech Republic. He or she might well stumble onto the SunSITE at the Faculty of Mathematics and Physics at Charles University in Prague. When our websurfer clicks on the “Czech Republic” link, the screen displays the image shown in Figure 1.
This paper considers the Czech nationalists' use of songs and music in political demonstrations u... more This paper considers the Czech nationalists' use of songs and music in political demonstrations under Dualism, focusing on the pairing "Kaiserlied" - "Kde domov muj?" with reference also to other songs including "Hej slovane," "St. Vaclav chorale," "Hopsodine pomiluj ny", and more.
Uploads