Prehled dejin Ceskoslovenska. 1(1)-do r. 1526 (648 s.) 1(2) -1526 az do r. 1848 (648 s.). Praha. Academia. 1980 - 1982.

Two books of the first volume of the new collective work on the history of Czechoslovakia cover a huge period from the first traces of human presence on the territory of modern Czechoslovakia to the revolution of 1848. In Czechoslovak historiography, the creation of such generalizing works has a long tradition. As a rule, each such review is not only the result of a generalization of the conducted research, but also a new step in the theoretical understanding of history.

The reviewed work is the result of the work of a large team of Czech and Slovak historians led by Academician J. Pursch, Corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic. Slovak Academy of Sciences M. Kropilak (scientific editors of the entire publication), acad. O. Rzhiga, J. Janacek and R. Marenna (executive editors of the first volume) 1 .

In comparison with the previous similar work2, this review generally reflects a new stage in the development of historical science in Czechoslovakia. Its pages not only summarize the achievements of recent decades in the study of individual-

1 Author's call: A. Vantukh, Y. Vozar, D. Bialekova, P. Gapak, III. Kazimir, J. Korzhalka, R. Marcina, E. Maur, Y. Mesarosh, A. Mika, R. Pleiner, acad. Academy of Sciences of the Czech SSR and. Paulik, P. Ratkosz, J. Spevacek, C. Stania, M. Sukhy, J. Tibensky, D. Trzestik, P. Horvat, corresponding member. Slovak Academy of Sciences B. Hropovsky, F. Schmagel, A. Shpis, J. Ershil, I. Janacek.

2 Prehled ceskoslovenskych dejin. D. 1 (do r. 1848). Praha. 1958.

page 163

Some of the schematism, dogmatism, and simplified approach to complex issues that took place in the 1958 review were also overcome.

The first volume of the new work reveals more deeply the objective laws and specifics of the historical development of Czechoslovakia. The rejection of outdated schemes and templates, comprehensive and dialectical approach to understanding and presenting the historical process allowed the authors to offer a number of new concepts of certain periods of the history of Czechoslovakia during the feudal era.

Summarizing the results of a long discussion about what Great Moravia was, the authors of the section come to a convincing conclusion:" Great Moravia was already one of the forms of an early Medieval state", a transitional type that quickly developed towards an early feudal state (pp. 83-85). At the same time, many of the most important issues of the history of the VIII-early X century. they remain unresolved primarily due to the limited source base, as the authors point out.

A great advantage of the section "Czech lands in the period of early feudalism (X-XII centuries)" is a deep analysis of the early Czech statehood, the influence of geographical conditions not only on the development of the early feudal economy, but also on the formation of the territory of the Czech state, the important role of the state as a collective organ of the ruling class in the process of feudalization of society, the role of the squad in the genesis of the gentry. Here, too, one of the main points of the whole work is formulated - about a certain constant lag of the Czech Republic from Western Europe. "The main reason... backwardness was the slow development of large-scale feudal land ownership and agricultural production... In the Czech lands, the whole process was delayed for approximately one century, and this delay marked all their further development. This lag cannot be explained only by the continental position of the Czech lands, the negative significance of which was most clearly manifested in the economic relations of developed feudalism... First of all, it was largely determined by the basic conditions of the emergence of feudal relations" (p. 115). This thesis runs through all the sections devoted to the Middle Ages.

From the analysis of the socio-economic development of the early medieval Czech Republic, cities are somewhat excluded, because the authors return to the legal concept of their origin, considering only those localities that have rights and privileges fixed by letters of incorporation as cities.: Thus, the emergence of cities refers only to the XIII century (pp. 117, 119, 193-196). This leads to a one-sided and local understanding of the city. The question of what trade, craft and political centers were in the X-XII centuries also remains unclear. This approach has led to the fact that when reading the section devoted to Slovakia of the X-XII centuries, one gets the impression that the cities on its territory appeared earlier and were more developed than in the Czech Republic. Similar inconsistencies exist in the Czech and Slovak chapters on economic development in a number of other places, especially in the chapters on the sixteenth century.

In the sections on the history of the Czech Republic of the XIII-centuries. The reasons for the Czech Republic's backwardness are again emphasized: the slow development of the feudal domenic economy and its remoteness from the world trade routes (p. 188-202); an in-depth analysis of significant changes in the economy in the XIII century is given. Special attention is drawn to the paragraphs on colonization, which provide a comprehensive and objective assessment of this most important process, which influenced the entire development of medieval Bohemia. The class approach to the assessment of colonization, including non-ethnic colonization, helped to break away from the old one-sided-national concepts and deepen the study of the impact of colonization on all spheres of economic and social life. It is noted that along with many positive changes, colonization, due to its spontaneity, outgrew the real economic opportunities of the country, which led to a number of relatively small socio-economic crises up to the beginning of the 20th century. (pp. 201-202). As an essential feature of the structure of the Czech economy throughout the feudal period, the dependence of cities on the local market is considered, which only a few of the largest cities were able to overcome (p. 201).

In the social relations of the 13th century, the development of various categories of the peasantry, the constitution of the gentry as a class, the division of the feudal class into the higher (lords) and lower (knights) gentry, and the formation of the burgher class are highlighted. The latter is understood as a "new social class", and cities - as an alien fe-

page 164

odalism and its unsafe element (p. 204). Such an interpretation of the complex question that caused a discussion in Marxist medieval studies about the nature of medieval burghers is not confirmed, however, by the subsequent development of Czech cities, in which elements of new social relations did not arise even in the period of late feudalism. This is discussed in the following chapters, which introduces contradictions in the concept of the authors of the work. From the analysis of the social composition of the urban population (p.209-211), the nature of the "burgher class" and its composition remain unclear. It is not clear whether the authors include the patrician class or where the line separating the urban poor from the "burgher class" is drawn.

The chapters on the political development and international situation of the Czech Republic in the 14th century take into account the latest research, especially the works of J. P. Blavatsky. Spevachek 3 . It highlights the great positive contribution of the diplomacy of John and Charles of Luxembourg to the transformation of the Czech Republic into one of the leading countries in European politics, the significance of its transformation into a class monarchy and the emergence of the dualism of the power of the king and the estates as a defining feature of the country's internal political development for many centuries. The assessment of the reign of Charles IV overcomes both the old bourgeois tendencies to glorify him, and the equally one-sided and tendentious desire to discredit him, which was reflected in the works of the 1950s. The book provides a comprehensive coverage of the era of Charles IV, highlights its inherent contradictions, negative aspects, and achievements in the political, cultural and economic fields that allowed the Czech Republic to occupy one of the central places in Europe of the XIV century. The authors convincingly show the flourishing of the economy of the Czech lands under Charles IV, as well as the reasons that led to its short duration and led to economic stagnation already at the turn of the XIV-XV centuries; they trace the formation of deep contradictions in Czech society that caused a social crisis at the beginning of the XV century.

The most controversial interpretation in the entire work (as noted by the authors themselves, see p .511) is the interpretation of Gusism as a revolution, which is not new to Czechoslovak historiography and has not met with support from Soviet historians. 4 On the one hand, the rejection of the romantic tradition and idealization of the Hussite movement is visible, its negative aspects are even emphasized (the predatory nature of Hussite campaigns abroad, the division of the Czech people along confessional lines, etc.), and the innovative works of Ya. Meznik and Schmagel [5], who convincingly refuted the ingrained legend of the Hussite movement as an anti-German national liberation struggle, emphasized the supranational nature of the Hussite reformation. On the other hand, there is no detailed analysis of the social composition of the movement, it is not shown whether the Hussites had a real positive program hidden behind a theological shell, chiliasm is idealized, and the question of power in the Hussite movement is inaccurately stated.

The anti-feudal nature of the Hussite movement and its revolutionary elements cannot be doubted, but it must be taken into account that it was directed only against one element of feudal society, and not against the structure - forming element of feudal society-against the power and wealth of the Catholic Church. The Hussite movement did not become a peasant war for liberation from feudal exploitation. The Taborites did not see any real ways to reorganize society. This is precisely the reason for the rapid collapse of their "communist" community, and not because the Crusader aggression forced them to unite with the moderate burghers (p. 439). By the way, the reasons that made Taborites very often unite with Prague residents were not sufficiently explained. If 100 years later the Lutheran dogmas of predestination and justification by faith opened up a wide range of possibilities for the development of the-

3 Spevácek J. Karel IV. Zivot a dilo. Praha. 1980.

4 For more information, see: Rezonov P. I., Sanchuk G. E., Ozolin A. I. The Hussite Revolutionary Movement in New Works of Czechoslovak Historians. Voprosy istorii, 1954, No. 10; Sanchuk G. E. The Hussite Movement in Soviet Historiography. In: Voprosy istoriografii i istochnikovedeniya slavyano-germanskikh otnosheniy [Issues of Historiography and Source Studies of Slavic-German Relations], Moscow, 1973, p. 55; Ivanov Yu.F. Gusitskoe revolyutsionnoe dvizhenie v sovetskoi historiografii. - Soviet Slavic Studies, 1982, N 3, p. 49.

5 Меznik J. Venkovské statky prazskych mestanu v dobe predhusitské a husitske. Praha. 1965; ejusd. Narodnostni slozeni predhusitské Prahy. In: Sbcirnik historicky. Praha. 1970; ejusd. Tabor a Stare Mesto Prazske. -Ceskoslovensky casopis historicky, 1971, N 1; Smahel F. Jdea naroda v husitskych Cechach. Ceske Budejovice. 1971.

page 165

As a result of the development of bourgeois ideology, especially the ethics of the era of "initial accumulation of money", the Taborite ideology did not go beyond the egalitarian ideas of the original Christianity.

The Hussites never solved the question of power, that fundamental question of every revolution. In principle, the institution of royal power was not disputed by any of them, but the claim that the Tabor originally had the form of a theocratic republic (p.427) is unconvincing. Even in the ecclesiastical sphere, the Hussite Reformation could not completely emancipate itself from the Catholic Church, remaining formally within its framework, which, unfortunately, is not noted by the authors.

The question of the hegemon of the Hussite movement is very difficult. The authors rightly write that the cities and small nobility were the most active in the movement (p. 475), and the victory of Gusism allowed them to strengthen their socio-economic and political position. Thus, the Hussite movement did not shake feudalism, because as a result of the redistribution of land belonging to the church, the land ownership of the knighthood was strengthened, the possessions of the lords expanded, and the land ownership of urban communes arose, which ultimately contributed to the strengthening and "expansion" of feudalism. The work rightly emphasizes that the Hussite movement did not change the class structure of feudal society (p.474). The activities of King Jiri of Podebrad, who sought political balance in the country, peaceful foreign policy and religious tolerance, were highly appreciated. He again appears as the heir of the Hussite tradition (in its moderate version) (p. 488).

The post-Houthi period is viewed in a new way. The results of many years of work Y. Janacek 6 allowed us to change the characterization of city development: instead of economic stagnation, the economic and social stabilization of cities is proved, and the thesis of their political isolation is replaced by a more differentiated approach. The Sviatowatslav Treaty of 1517 between cities and the nobility is not interpreted as a defeat of cities, it is emphasized that it was not of great importance, and the strengthening of the role of cities in the political life of the country is noted. The period of the Jagiellonian dynasty is characterized in the book as a preponderance of estates in the system of dualism of power with all the resulting positive and negative consequences.

The second book of the first volume contains new characteristics of all the main stages of development of the Czech Republic in the XVI-first half of the XIX century. The emergence of the multinational Habsburg monarchy in 1526 is considered by the authors as a result of the regrouping of political forces and the offensive of the Habsburgs, the unsuccessful search for economic prerequisites for the emergence of their monarchy, as well as the thesis about the Ottoman threat that allegedly influenced the election of Ferdinand Habsburg as king of the Czech Republic and Hungary is rejected. The book emphasizes the internal weakness and heterogeneity of the new union (p. 11), and therefore the centralizing policy of the Habsburgs in the XVI - XVIII centuries is understood as strengthening from within the emerging "multi-component" state. In this process, the Czech Republic, which was one of the most important parts of the Habsburg monarchy, presented serious obstacles to centralism and absolutism due to the peculiarities of its political development (p. 11), which turned the second half of the XVI - beginning of the XVII century. into a period of intense struggle between the royal power and the estates, which ended with the defeat of the estate uprising of 1618- 1620s. The fact that in the second half of the XVI century. the religious-political issue was at the center of the struggle in the Czech Republic, which weakened the confrontation in the system of dualism of power, narrowed the class opposition, weakened it by dividing it along confessional lines, but gave the conflict in the Czech Republic an international character.

The socio-economic characteristics of the Czech lands in the XVI century contained in the work are convincing. The elements of early capitalist relations in this period are not given much importance because of their regional limitations and the protective-reactionary policy of the guilds, and the underdevelopment of these elements is emphasized. The authors suggest that the economic backwardness of the Czech Republic in the XVII century was caused by the stagnation of the second half of the XVI century, caused by the restructuring of the entire system of the European economy. However, when determining the degree of backwardness of the Czech Republic, the authors again proceed only from a comparison with the countries of Western Europe, whereas for the Central and Eastern Europe region, the Czech Republic was a highly developed country, where

6 Janácek J. Rerneslna vyroba v ceskych mestech v 16. stoleli. Praha. 1961; ejusd. Ceske dejiny. Doba predbelohorská Kn. 1, d. I. Praha. 1971; etc.

page 166

enslavement of the peasants came later, only after the Thirty Years ' War.

The authors ' assessment of the uprising of 1618-1620 shows the desire for objectivity and rejection of the national-confessional approach, omits the outdated thesis about its national liberation character, emphasizes the socio-economic conditionality of the defeat of the Czech Republic, and reveals its main cause (the absence of early capitalist relations in the country and the class-limited nature of the uprising). At the same time, the significance of this uprising remains unclear.

The Thirty Years ' War is interpreted, in contrast to the earlier assessment in the literature, not as a war of the young bourgeoisie with feudal reaction, but as a political struggle of European powers as a result of the restructuring of the entire socio-economic and political structure and system of relations in Europe in the XVI-early XVII centuries (p.179). When describing the second half of the 17th and first half of the 18th centuries, the authors abandoned the traditional concept of "the age of darkness" in Czech historiography, approaching this period in a more differentiated and objective way, showing the historical inevitability of the counter-reformation and the establishment of the corvee-serf system. The cultural development of the country is not limited only to the suppression of the cultural tradition of Czech Protestants, but also shows the great cultural and historical value of the Czech Baroque as a style in literature and art.

The authors also rejected the concept of the development of large-scale feudal economy in the 17th and 18th centuries, which was widespread earlier in Czechoslovak historiography, as a special path of capitalist development in the Czech Republic, emphasizing its corvee nature and extremely weak development of manufactories. They rightly believe that "the dominant position of large-scale feudal economy helped to strengthen feudal productive forces and relations, introduce a system of serfdom", and the use of feudal lords of early capitalist elements in the economy (manufactories) only gave strength and vitality to large estates (p.228).

The sections on the eighteenth century describe enlightened absolutism, show its internal contradictions, but generally progressive significance, and reveal the dialectic of the era when enlightened absolutism was freeing up space for capitalist development... he created the prerequisites for the emergence of bourgeois nations within the monarchy, which fundamentally contradicted his program of centralization and unification based on Austrian patriotism " (p. 330). The book convincingly proves that many progressive reforms became possible only thanks to centralism and contrary to the interests of the local nobility, which is characterized as the main defender of the old feudal relations.

In general, the sections on the 16th and 18th centuries show a rejection of the old anti-Habsburg and anti-Catholic concept of Czech history.

In the sections on national revival, the authors have overcome a number of traditional for Czechoslovak historiography insufficiently grounded ideas and given a new periodization of the national revival, due to changes in the social composition and nature of the requirements of its participants. It is fair to point out the specifics of Slovakia, where the national revival took place in the first half of the 19th century in the absence of a national bourgeoisie (p.559).

The history of feudalism in the Czech Republic and Slovakia appears in the reviewed work illuminated in many ways in a new way, based on the latest scientific achievements, which helped the authors overcome a number of shortcomings characteristic of previous works of this kind. Of course, the authors did not succeed in everything equally, but in general their review is a serious achievement of modern Czechoslovak historical science.

page 167

Permanent link to this publication: