Historical Dictionary of the Czech State. 2nd ed. Historical Dictionaries of Europe 72 by Rick Fawn and Jiří Hochmann

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

1. Strictly speaking, the singular form “Czech state”, as used in 2010, should refer to the Czech Republic alone, since its predecessors—from the dukedoms of the tenth century and the kingdom comprising the Lands of the Bohemian Crown in the high Middle Ages to the Czechoslovak state in its various political articulations between 1918 and 1992—can hardly be considered to be identical to it. However, the designation of the dictionary as “historical” gives warrant to assuming that the term “Czech state” is intended to cover any and all state formations on Czech territory in the past: after all, a historical dictionary confined to the history of the Czech Republic alone would have fairly limited material with which to work.

2. See, for example, Andrew M. Drozd, Review of Historical Dictionary of the Czech State, 2nd ed., Slavic and East European Journal 54, no. 4 (2010): 736.

3. See Hugh Agnew, The Czechs and the Lands of the Bohemian Crown (Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 2004): 33, 35, 40.

4. For the original text of the Four Articles, see František Palacký, ed., Archiv český čili Staré písemné památky české a morawské [Czech Archiv, or Old Czech and Moravian written monuments], vol. 3, pt. 1 (Prague: W Kommissí u Kronbergra i Řiwnáče, 1844), 213–216. For a modern summary, See Agnew, The Czechs and the Lands of the Bohemian Crown, 45. In fairness, it should be noted that the Historical Dictionary’s entry on the “Hussite Movement” gives a clearer summary of the first article as a demand for “free preaching” (p. 121).

5. Especially as other introductory works on Czech history, such as Agnew, The Czechs and the Lands of the Bohemian Crown, xxiii–xxvi, use the diacritically full forms of these abbreviations.

6. On this and other terminological solecisms, see Drozd’s review, cited in note 2 above.