1. Count Leo Thun, 1843, quoted in Seton-Watson, A History of the Czechs and Slovaks, 182.
2. Hobsbawm, The Age of Empire, 144.
3. Nebeský, Geschichte des Museums, 1.
4. Calhoun, Habermas and the Public Sphere, 7. Geoff Eley, “Nations, Publics, and Political Cultures: Placing Habermas in the Nineteenth Century” in Calhoun, Habermas and the Public Sphere, 289. Quoted from Habermas, Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, 49.
5. For a recent example of this, see Godsey, Nobles and Nation in Central Europe.
6. Outram, The Enlightenment, 25.
7. Anderson, Imagined Communities, 6. Citation of Hugh Seton-Watson appears in Anderson’s footnote.
8. J. P. Eckermann to Johann Wolfgang Goethe, June 20, 1827, in “Gespräche mit Goethe.” Quoted in Bratranek, Briefwechsel zwischen Göthe und Sternberg, 9.
9. Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 9.
10. Lipset, Political Man, 311.
1. K. Sternberg, Leben des Grafen Kaspar Sternberg, 35.
2. Goethe, Collected Works (Volume Four), 28.
3. This view was subsequently adopted by non-Czech historians as well. Robert Kann and R. W. Seton-Watson, although not being quite so explicit, repeated the view that the nobility was unreservedly reactionary and ultimately responsible, along with the Habsburgs, for the period of “darkness” after 1620. There have been attempts to reevaluate the role of the nobility, along with other national issues. See in particular Agnew, “Noble Natio,” 50–71; Rak, Bývali Čechově; and Melville, Adel und Revolution.
4. This is also true of the Austrian nobility and their access to privilege and power. See MacHardy, War, Religion, and Court Patronage.