Selected Papers from the 2003 SVU North American Conference, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 26-28 June 2003

The Enlightenment and the Bohemian : A Liberal Paradigm Zdeněk V. David, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars One Woodrow Wilson Plaza, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWWashington, D.C. 2004-3027

A perennial problem in Czech historiography has involved the relationship between modern Czech political culture, which emerged in the nineteenth century, and the of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and how to deal with the awkward 1620- 1780 intermezzo of the Counter Reformation. Traditionally, the two divergent viewpoints on this relationship were defined by Thomas Masaryk, who postulated a disruption in the Czech intellectual life between the sixteenth century and the Enlightenment, and by Josef Pekař, who sought to integrate the Counter Reformation into a seamless web of a continuous cultural development. Masaryk viewed the ideological content of the Awakening as liberal and universal, Pekař as ethnic and national.

My presentation is concerned with recent literature dealing with the Czech National Awakening, its sources, character, and objectives. It surveys the leading treatments on the topic in Czech, English, Russian and German. The Marxist-Leninist literature of 1945-1990 appears, as might be expected, rather stereotypical, and hence (with some exceptions) not particularly illuminating, More notable are several major works on the Czech National Awakening, which were written and published outside an official doctrinaire framework, abroad or, if in , after the Velvet Revolution. Finally, the most recent views from the turn of the second millennium are briefly examined. The survey finds that existing literature has paid scant attention to the substantive link between the sixteenth-century Utraquist culture and the National Awakening.

Let us first turn to the treatment of the relationship between the Bohemian Reformation and the National Awakening in the Marxist Leninist historiography, which has involved a paradox. On the one hand, the “revolutionary” character of Bohemian Reformation’s radical strands was held in high esteem. On the other hand, the Marxist ideology of historical materialism militated against a transfer of ideas over a lengthy hiatus. First, the culture of a period, its intellectual superstructure, was to be a reflection of the economic and social base, hence ideas played a derivative role in a particular historical era. Second, according to Marxism, the economic and social base of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was feudal, hence it was qualitatively different from the base of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, which was capitalist. The intellectual superstructures of the two eras, therefore, had to differ fundamentally. Third, the intellectual outlook of the Utraquist sixteenth century which was permissive, individualistic and open-ended was akin to the Enlightenment spirit that nurtured the National Awakening. At either end this outlook was at odds with the authoritative, collectivist and closed Weltanschauung of Marxism. Marxist historiography, therefore, had little incentive to emphasize the liberal features of either the Bohemian Reformation or the Enlightenment, or to dwell on the parallel between the two.

The major works, typifying the Marxist Leninist approach, include the following: Josef Kočí, České národní obrození (, 1978); Josef Haubelt, České osvícenství (Prague, 1986);

- 1 - Selected Papers from the 2003 SVU North American Conference, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 26-28 June 2003 and Josef Petráò and others, Počátky českého národního obrození: Společnost a kultura v 70. až 90. letech 18. století (Prague, 1990).1

Within the Marxist Leninist historiography two authors occupy a more distinctive and strangely contradictory place. One is Bedřich Slavík whose monograph, Od Dobnera k Dobrovskému (Prague: Vyšehrad, 1975) ironically for a work, published in the Communist era, exudes the harshness of a conservative Tridentine spirit in its negative attitude toward the liberal Catholicism of the Josephin Enlightenment. The other is Aleksandr S. Myl’nikov, whose Russian-language treatment of the topic, Epokha Prosveshcheniia v cheshskikh zemliakh: Ideologiia natsional’noe samosoznanie, kul’tura (Moscow, 1977), was preceded by a longer Czech version, Vznik národně osvícenské ideologie v českých zemích: Prameny národního obrození (Prague, 1974).2 Surprisingly for one coming out of the school of Soviet historiography, Myl’nikov celebrates the tolerant attitude and advocacy of intellectual freedom in the Bohemian Enlightenment virtually as an enthusiast for Jeffersonian liberalism.

Aside from Hugh Agnew, whose work is discussed later, among the significant works concerning the Bohemian National Awakening, appearing in latter part of the twentieth century, were those of Walter Schamschula, Die Anfänge der tschechischen Erneuerung und das deutsche Geistesleben, 1740-1800 (Munich, 1973), Vladimír Macura, Znamení zrodu: České národní obrození jako kulturní typ (Rev. ed. Prague, 1995; 1st ed., Prague, 1983); and Miroslav Hroch, Social Preconditions of National Revival in : A Comparative Analysis of the Social Composition of Patriotic Groups Among the Smaller European Nations (New York, 2000).

Schamschula says little concerning the awakeners’ interest in the literary legacy of the Utraquist period. Only in passing, he calls attention to the rehabilitation of by Kašpar Royko,3 as well as the call for reincorporating the Reformation period into the narrative of Bohemian history.4 As for language, he considers the proposed of the sixteenth- century grammatical norms as an elitist approach implying contempt for the common man’s speech, and thus as an experiment doomed to failure.5 Minimizing the content-value of the sixteenth-century literature, he subordinates its usefulness to the linguistic aspect and attributes its appreciation by the awakeners to the perfection of vocabulary, grammar and style.6 This in turn leads him to under appreciate the awakeners’ bibliographic work as an uninspiring, pedantic and rather pointless accumulation of dates, book lists and authors’ biographies, as well as histories of printing.7 Consequently, Schamschula fails to note the relationship between the production of such inventories and the program of reprinting the classics of the sixteenth-century that was to influence the intellectual life of the coming generations. In general, in his assessment of the awakeners’ interest in the culture of the Utraquist age, he does not draw any further conclusions for the relationship between the culture of the Golden Age and the intellectual content of the Awakening.

Vladimír Macura, even more blatantly, assigns the position of primacy in the National Awakening to the restoration of the to the status of a literary medium, not to the philosophical substance or the intellectual content of the Awakening. He (mis)directs much of his discussion of the linguistic character of the National Awakening (lingvocentrismus) by invoking

- 2 - Selected Papers from the 2003 SVU North American Conference, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 26-28 June 2003 the views of the Slovak, Jan Kollár.8 According to the index, Kollár with 17 lines receives a larger number of references than any other person or subject. This compares with 12 lines for Jungmann, 8 for Palacký, 4 for Havlíček, and merely 2 for Dobrovský. The fact that the first version of Macura’s book (1983) antedated the political division of Czechoslovakia might account for assigning Kollár -- for the sake of political correctness -- the role of a major player, rather than that of an atypical, and often mocked, Romantic maverick, in the otherwise realist ambiance of the Czech National Awakening.9 Despite the emphasis on the linguistic aspect of the revival Macura does not discuss either the restoration of the lexical and grammatical norms of the sixteenth century, or to the program of reprinting the sixteenth-century classics.

Hroch, above all, is the most sociologically oriented of the post-Communist authors so far considered and his approach may be viewed as highly mechanical (for devising mathematical formulae) and defective (for omitting intellectual factors). He appears to justify his emphasis on formal sociological aspects and his neglect of philosophical and cultural content of the National Awakening by appealing to what looks like the Marxist tenet that privileges the socio-economic base over the cultural superstructure. As he writes: “We are in any case convinced that the establishment of the general social and economic conditions governing the emergence of any national movement constitutes the necessary starting-point for a fresh interpretation of its program, its demands and its ideological superstructure.”10 On the central topic of our interest, he makes only one stray and cryptic remark concerning the relationship between the Awakening and the Utraquist period: “The Czech national movement could gain a point of support in the cultural sphere from a well-developed ancient [sic] literature.”11

Based on sources in Czech, , German and Russian, Hugh L.Agnew’s Origins of the Czech National Renascence (Pittsburgh, 1993) in a way represents an ecumenical summary of research on its topic toward the end of the twentieth century. On the whole, Agnew seems to be skeptical about the influence of the Bohemian Reformation. Instead, he calls attention of the contributions of the baroque culture, and views the tendencies to deny or diminish the value of the baroque as emanating from the simplistic, distorted and schematic version of historiography, characteristic of the Marxist Leninist historiography.

While Agnew pays considerable attention to the resurrection by the awakeners of the literature of the sixteenth-century Utraquist period, ultimately he follows Schamschula in the stress on the primacy of language, an attitude that leads to the under appreciation of the ideological heritage of the Golden Age. Rather than seeing in this legacy a source of substantive intellectual inspiration for the creation of a liberal political culture, Agnew views it as a tool of linguistic nationalism that simultaneously provided a proof of applicability of Czech to high learning, and supplied a model for such an application. The literary corpus of the sixteenth century was not valuable per se, but only to show that advanced scholarly subjects could be discussed in Czech language.12 Along these line, and only in this specific context, Agnew further stresses the shock value of realization how primitive the mid-eighteenth-century writing was in comparison with the sophisticated language and style of the sixteenth-century.13

- 3 - Selected Papers from the 2003 SVU North American Conference, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 26-28 June 2003

Like Schamschula, Agnew seems skeptical about the efforts of establishing the bibliographic canon of sixteenth-century that appeared to him as exercises in pedantry. He speaks of “rather sterile collection of bibliographic data.”14 Unlike Schamschula, Agnew did consider at some length the comprehensive projects for reprinting the sixteenth- century classics. Once again, however, the object and result of this activity was restricted to linguistic interests, namely to the revitalization of literature written in Czech language.15 The high linguistic standards of the sixteenth-century publications were to inspire the current writers to achieve a similar perfection of diction and style.16 Agnew does not note the almost inevitable transmission of liberal attitudes and values in philosophical, political, legal, and social thought via the reading and study of the sixteenth-century reprints by the younger generations.

After Agnew we reach the contemporary period at the threshold of the third millennium. Two recent publications on the era of the National Awakening merit attention, Jitka Lněničková, České země v době předbřeznové, 1792-1848 (Prague, 1999), and the collective work by Pavel Bělina, Jiří Kaše and Jan P. Kučera, Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české, Vol. 10, 1740-1792 (Prague, 2001).17

Lněničková devotes only a relatively small part of her book to the issues of the National Awakening.18 In discussing the revival, she does note that the welter of ideas included the awareness of a connection between the Bohemian Reformation and modern political liberalism: “particularly in the sense of tolerance, responsibility and freedom of thought for the individual, learning, etc.” She considers it as one idea among many entertained by Czech politicians of the 1840s, not as a matter of fundamental significance, constituting an intellectual core of the Awakening.19 The possibility of a massive transfer of ideas from the sixteenth to the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century is, therefore, not considered.

In any case, references to the intellectual ambiance of the Bohemian Reformation are scarce, and the names of Hus, Žižka, or George of Poděbrady do not appear in the index. Preoccupation with historical themes in literature and scholarship is explained not by a wish to learn from the past, but by the fear of Austrian censorship that made risky dealing with contemporary topics.20 Republication of authors from the period of the Bohemian Reformation by Matice česká is noted in passing as something inconsequential.21 In the area of language revival, Lněničková does not even discuss the conspicuous return to the grammatical norms of the Utraquist age.22

Similarly, little attention is paid to the role of the Enlightenment in the transmission of liberal, individualistic, and realistic attitudes into the modern political culture that was steered in a anti-Romanticist and anti-Hegelian direction. Instead, Catholic Enlightenment is presented as a phenomenon of minor significance without any notable relevance to the core values of the National Awakening.23 While Karl H. Seibt is mentioned, there is no reference to Josef Fesl, and Bernard Bolzano is presented as an eccentric and a marginal figure despite his seminal role in the education of two generations of the awakeners.24 In fact, the anti-Hegelianism of Bolzano and Franz Exner is deplored, together with the subsequent Bohemian distaste for philosophical Idealism.25

- 4 - Selected Papers from the 2003 SVU North American Conference, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 26-28 June 2003

While Lněničková minimizes the importance of the Catholic Enlightenment in the intellectual ambiance of the Awakening, she emphasizes the role of the Counter Reformation in engendering, above all via the Society of , the patriotic emotions that contributed to the genesis of the National Awakening. However, when it comes to naming particular individuals, who receive this high credit, instead of figures of the Counter Reformation, they consist mainly of ex-Jesuits or Jesuits’ disciples who turned from the Counter Reformation to Josephin Reform Catholicism. The former category includes Dobrovský, Pubička and Vydra, the latter Pelcl, Kramerius, Václav Stach and -one may add - Jan Jeník of Bratřice.26

As in the case of Hroch, Lněničková pays considerable attention to the class origin and character of the presumed rank and file supporters of the Awakening.27 More importantly, she continues to embrace the language revival as central to the awakeners, defining their aim in the 1840s as developing Czech-language literature comparable to that of Germany. Accordingly, she downplays the intellectual content of the Awakening, although she does note in passing that, aside from the linguistic preoccupation, the revival in Bohemia adhered to a liberal viewpoint in politics and social thought.

Bělina in parts 1-2 of Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české, Vol. 10, 1740-1792, devotes several sections to the poblems of the National Awakening with a focus on the period chronologically preceding the coverage of 1792-1848 by Lněničková.28

Unlike Lněničková, Bělina pays considerable attention to the Enlightenment and links its character with an interest in the Bohemian Reformation. He notes sympathy for moderate of the sixteenth century among the awakeners, particularly through favorable depictions of Jan Hus. According to him, their devotion to the spirit of the Enlightenment affected the awakeners’ insistence on Hus’s sincerity, orthodox Catholicism and reasonableness.29 The Enlightenment’s attitude of tolerance was projected onto Hus, particularly by Zitte, and onto the Bohemian Reformation as a whole by Otto Steinbach of Kranichstein’s Versuch einer Geschichte der alten und neuen Toleranz im Königreich Böhmen und Markgraftum Mähren (1786).30

Ultimately, however, Bělina – in what appears as a volte-face – indicates a marked disapproval of Catholic Enlightenment, as expressed through Joseph II’s religious reforms, and reveals a measure of sympathy for the Counter Reformation Catholicism.31 Accordingly, for instance, he questions the interposition of state authority between and the national churches for its detrimental effect on the latter.32 He also objects to much of the critique of the Jesuits’ role during the Counter Reformation. In an ultimate sally, he characterizes the Catholic Enlightenment, such as represented by Dobrovský, as “so dangerous to the Catholic cause.”33

Contrasting with Bělina’s benign view of the Counter Reformation are what seem to be residual signs of a Marxist interpretation. One such sign may be seen in attributing Pelcl’s dislike of the radical trends in Bohemian Reformation, not to the Enlightened distaste for religious fanaticism and violence, but to a fear of social upheavals inspired by the outbreak and

- 5 - Selected Papers from the 2003 SVU North American Conference, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 26-28 June 2003 denouement of the French Revolution.34 The idea of religion’s dependence on economics also surfaces in the reference to Lutheran antagonism to the Unity of Brethren that is attributed to the economic interests and anxieties of the propertied classes.35 In addition, there seems to be an echo of the Marxist approach in Bělina’s viewing the acceleration of economic development as the cause of the emergence of a territorial (and later of an ethnic) patriotism.36 Bělina’s view of the relationship between the Catholic Enlightenment and the Bohemian Reformation (in its moderate incarnation) is, therefore, paradoxical. On the one hand, he draws parallels between the two, especially for their tolerance and endorsement of peaceful discussion of theological issues. On the other hand, he tends to depict the Josephin Enlightenment in a rather negative light. Consequently, there is little to indicate that there was a positive transmission of ideas from the Bohemian Reformation via the Enlightenment to the Czech political culture that germinated during the National Awakening.

These findings suggest the need of freshly examining the actual transmission of political and cultural values over a gap of almost two centuries from the Bohemian Reformation to the National Revival. As I have suggested in a previously published article, the transfer could be traced through several channels, mainly (1) reprinting of sixteenth-century classics; (2) reproducing sixteenth-century writings in school and university textbooks; (3) celebrating Bohemian Reformation in history and literature; and (4) embracing as a political program the historical rights of the pre-1620 Bohemian state.37

On the whole then, recent historical writings both in the and abroad do not attribute a major formative role to the sixteenth-century Utraquist literature in the intellectual ambiance of the Bohemian National Revival of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. This image or interpretation of the Awakening’s relationship to the time of the Bohemian Reformation is, therefore, more in line with Pekař’s concept of linguistic nationalism than of Masaryk’s view of advancing the cause of freedom and universal (ethical) values. This probing is significant for illuminating the roots of Czech political culture in the modern period.

- 6 - Selected Papers from the 2003 SVU North American Conference, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 26-28 June 2003

1 An earlier post-World War II work, Albert Pražák, České obrození (Prague: E. Beaufort, 1948), is not a synthetic monograph, but a loose collection of essays on specific topics. Its focus is almost entirely on literary history.

2 Finally, there is a brief treatment, Aleksandr S. Myl’nikov, Kul’tura cheshskogo vozrozhdeniia (Leningrad: Nauka, 1982).

3 Kašpar Royko, Geschichte der grossen allgemeinen Kirchenversammlung zu Kostniz. 5 vols. (Graz, 1781- 1782; Prague, 1784-1796), see Walter Schamschula, Die Anfänge der tschechischen Erneuerung und das deutsche Geistesleben, 1740-1800 (Munich: Fink, 1973), 87.

4 Walter Schamschula, Die Anfänge der tschechischen Erneuerung und das deutsche Geistesleben, 1740- 1800 (Munich: Fink, 1973), 305.

5 Against these snobs, he posits the preference for the speech of simple Moravian folks of Joseph Vratislav E. von Monse, professor at the University of Brno; see Walter Schamschula, Die Anfänge der tschechischen Erneuerung und das deutsche Geistesleben, 1740-1800 (Munich: Fink, 1973), 235-237.

6 Walter Schamschula, Die Anfänge der tschechischen Erneuerung und das deutsche Geistesleben, 1740- 1800 (Munich: Fink, 1973), 248.

7 Walter Schamschula, Die Anfänge der tschechischen Erneuerung und das deutsche Geistesleben, 1740- 1800 (Munich: Fink, 1973), 253-254.

8 According to the index, Kollár with 17 lines receives a larger number of references than any other topic. This compares with 12 lines for Jungmann, 8 for Palacký, 4 for Havlíček, and merely 2 for Dobrovský. The fact that the first version of Macura’s book (1983) antedated the political division of Czechoslovakia might account for assigning Kollár the role of a major player, rather than that of an atypical maverick, in the Czech National Awakening. See Vladimír Macura, Znamení zrodu: České národní obrození jako kulturní typ. Rev. ed. Prague: H & H, 1995, 251-255.

9 See Vladimír Macura, Znamení zrodu: České národní obrození jako kulturní typ. Rev. ed. Prague: H & H, 1995, 251-255.

10 Quote: Miroslav Hroch, Social Preconditions on National Revival in Europe: A Comparative Analysis of the Social Composition of Patriotic Groups Among the Smaller European Nations, trans. Ben Fowkes (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000), 30.

11 Miroslav Hroch, Social Preconditions on National Revival in Europe: A Comparative Analysis of the Social Composition of Patriotic Groups Among the Smaller European Nations, trans. Ben Fowkes (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000), 61.

12 Hugh L. Agnew, Origins of the Czech National Renascence (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1993), 58-59, citing from Karel Hynek Thám, Obrana jazyka českého proti zlobivým jeho utrhačùm (Prague, 1783), 43-44.

- 7 - Selected Papers from the 2003 SVU North American Conference, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 26-28 June 2003

13 Hugh L. Agnew, Origins of the Czech National Renascence (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1993), 68, 70.

14 Hugh L. Agnew, Origins of the Czech National Renascence (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1993), 126.

15 Hugh L. Agnew, Origins of the Czech National Renascence (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1993), 93.

16 Hugh L. Agnew, Origins of the Czech National Renascence (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1993), 103, 125.

17 In addition, a recent treatment of the period from the viewpoint of literary history is offered by the collective work of Jan Lehár, Alexandr Stich, Jaroslava Janáčková and Jiří Holý, Česká literatura od počátkù k dnešku (Prague: Lidové noviny, 1998). Chapter 15, on the period of the Awakening, “Osvícenský klasicismus a jehe ústup. Pùsobení romantismu a národních snah,” pp. 151-176, is written by Alexandr Stich. It makes no mention of the admiration for the sixteenth-century literature, the return to the language norms of the Veleslavín era, or any other sign of interest in the legacy of the Bohemian Reformation..

18 The relevant sections are “Politické dění v českých zemích,” 73-95; “Vlast, národ a jazyk,” 113-165; “Krásná literatura,” 311-335; and “Vědecký život,” 390-401, in Jitka Lněničková, České země v době předbřeznové, 1792-1848 (Prague: Libri, 1999).

19 Jitka Lněničková, České země v době předbřeznové, 1792-1848 (Prague: Libri, 1999), 80-81.

20 Jitka Lněničková, České země v době předbřeznové, 1792-1848 (Prague: Libri, 1999), 141-142.

21 Jitka Lněničková, České země v době předbřeznové, 1792-1848 (Prague: Libri, 1999), 145, 399.

22 See, for instance, the discussion of language norms, Jitka Lněničková, České země v době předbřeznové, 1792-1848 (Prague: Libri, 1999), 119-120; a minor exception is the innocuous remark concerning Jan Nejedlý; ibid., 137.

23 Jitka Lněničková, České země v době předbřeznové, 1792-1848 (Prague: Libri, 1999), 252.

24 On Bolzano, presented as an advocate of a fusion of Czech and German nations in Bohemia (rather than of a civic society covering both nations), see Jitka Lněničková, České země v době předbřeznové, 1792-1848 (Prague: Libri, 1999), 80, 104, 393, 395; Jungmann’s characterization of Bolzano as “an enemy of the Czech nation,” 131.

25 Jitka Lněničková, České země v době předbřeznové, 1792-1848 (Prague: Libri, 1999), 394.

26 Jitka Lněničková, České země v době předbřeznové, 1792-1848 (Prague: Libri, 1999), 116.

27 Jitka Lněničková, České země v době předbřeznové, 1792-1848 (Prague: Libri, 1999), 145, 148, 398-399.

28 The relevant sections are “Auguři a haruspikové,” 155-194; “Josefinismus a jeho myšlenkové zdroje,” 220- 243; “Počátky organizace vědeckého života v českých zemích,” 427-438; and “Počátky vědecké historiografie a odvozených disciplín,” 439-452.

29 Especially, portraits of Hus by M. A. Voigt, Pelcl, Royko, and Zitte; see Pavel Bělina, Jiří Kaše and Jan P. Kučera, Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české, Vol. 10, 1740-1792 (Prague: Paseka, 2001), 242-243.

- 8 - Selected Papers from the 2003 SVU North American Conference, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 26-28 June 2003

30 Pavel Bělina, Jiří Kaše and Jan P. Kučera, Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české, Vol. 10, 1740-1792 (Prague: Paseka, 2001), 242-243.

31 Regretful tone over suppression of monasteries, religious brotherhoods, choral societies [literátská bratrstva], and tertiary monastic orders; Pavel Bělina, Jiří Kaše and Jan P. Kučera, Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české, Vol. 10, 1740-1792 (Prague: Paseka, 2001), 105.

32 Pavel Bělina, Jiří Kaše and Jan P. Kučera, Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české, Vol. 10, 1740-1792 (Prague: Paseka, 2001), 230.

33 “... tak nebezpecnem veci katolicke.” See Pavel Bělina, Jiří Kaše and Jan P. Kučera, Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české, Vol. 10, 1740-1792 (Prague: Paseka, 2001), 225. See also ibid., 223.

34 Pavel Bělina, Jiří Kaše and Jan P. Kučera, Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české, Vol. 10, 1740-1792 (Prague: Paseka, 2001), 244.

35 Pavel Bělina, Jiří Kaše and Jan P. Kučera, Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české, Vol. 10, 1740-1792 (Prague: Paseka, 2001), 227.

36 Pavel Bělina, Jiří Kaše and Jan P. Kučera, Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české, Vol. 10, 1740-1792 (Prague: Paseka, 2001), 12.

37 Zdeněk V. David, “Národní obrození jako převtělení Zlatého věku,” Český časopis historický, 99 (2001), 486-518.

- 9 -