The feedback on the Slavophile theory of the Hussite movement in the Czech non-fiction historical literature (before 1918)

Abstract

This article deals with the reflection of Czech historians and political writers on the works of Russian Slavophilehistorians about the Hussite movement. The apologists of the Slavophile concept (such as P. Novikov and A. Th. Hilferding) defended the idea of the succession between Orthodoxy and the Hussite movement, supposing that Orthodoxy was brought to Czechia by Cyril and Methodius. This conception remained highly unpopular among the Czech authors. The professional Czech historians, such as J. Kalousek and J. Goll indicated that the information on such continuity is first found in the sources only starting from the mid-16th century, and noted that the communion in both forms was also spread in the West. The Czech authors that were studying the Russian Thought of the 19th century, such as P. Durdík and J. Perwolf, saw this concept as a mere transplantation of the contemporary Slavophile ideology into the past. The Catholic authors headed by A. Lenzrevealed numerous differences between the Hussite and Orthodox creeds.It was only J. V. Kalaš to advocate the Slavophile concepts, but this was caused by his uncritical acceptance of Russian Slavophile literature. The rest of the Czech authors were united in the criticism of the Slavophile publications that was caused by the national solidarity of the Czech intelligentsia and by the weak academic grounds of this theory.