Between “Here” and “Over There”: Short-term and Circular Mobility from the Czech Lands to Latin America (1880s–1930s)*

Markéta Křížová
Center for Ibero-American Studies, Charles University, Prague
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

The present text deals with the phenomenon of short-term mobility from the Czech Lands to Latin America from the end of the nineteenth century to the 1930s on the basis of sources such as memoirs, letters, and official reports, oral histories, and family histories. An examination of patterns in short-term labor mobility can offer interesting insights into the mechanisms of communication in the broader Atlantic region in the period in question and also further an understanding of cultural and economic interchange and the perceptions by the migrants themselves of their place in the world, their “home,” and their identities. By transmitting skills, experiences, and cultural knowledge, they assisted in the creation of “transnationalism from below” on both sides of the ocean.

Keywords: short-term mobility, labor mobility, Czech Lands, America, Argentina, nineteenth and twentieth centuries, transnationalism from below

Introduction

In 1937, Matěj Poláček, a carpenter from southern Moravia, disembarked in the port of Buenos Aires. This fact in itself would be of little interest. In the previous half century, hundreds of thousands of Central Europeans, men and women, had made the same trip. However, Poláček walked down from the deck of Cap Arcona, a luxury transoceanic ship, after having spent several weeks vacationing in his native village. The company for which he was working, the German corporation Grün & Bilfinger, had given him compensation for the work he had performed in the form of tickets for the vessel which had brought him from Hamburg to Buenos Aires in less than two weeks.1 This seems to be at odds with the standard image of Central European migrant worker, but numerous historical sources prove that since the end of the nineteenth century, thousands of migrants had been crossing the Atlantic back and forth, maybe not in such a high-class fashion as Poláček, but playing their part in a complicated web of economic and social relations which transcended the borders of nation states and continents. They were not opting for permanent resettlement, but worked overseas for some time to acquire capital to use in their home countries or to supplement the family income.

The interest of scholars in the great transatlantic migration of the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth centuries has resulted in a fair amount of monographs and shorter studies. There are many “bilateral histories of migration,” in the words of Tara Zahra, for instance histories of Poles in Chicago or Czechs in Argentina.2 Historians have paid attention in particular to the reasons for which migrants chose to leave their homelands, the mechanisms of integration into receiving societies, and/or the maintenance of earlier loyalties. Only recently has an interest emerged among scholars in the persisting strong and multilayered ties between the countries of origin and those of destination.3 There were in fact rather high rates of return. About 30 percent of the Europeans who entered through the North American ports between 1815 and 1914 returned to Europe, and the proportion was even higher for Latin America during this period, so the phenomenon of return and circular mobility is indeed worth consideration.4 The movement across the Atlantic certainly left profound marks on the intellectual and material culture of the countries from which the migrants set sail and the societies where they settled, whether permanently or temporarily.

In the discourse of the times and to a great extent also in the historiography, return migration was and is often equated with failure. Certainly, there were those who returned because they were unable to fulfill their visions. Still, the glum picture given by Charles Dickens in his American Notes of those “coming back, even poorer than they went” hardly captures the complexity of the phenomenon of overseas mobility.5 In fact, the preponderant majority of those who headed for America planned to return. In 1900, the Portuguese consul in Buenos Aires wrote, with respect to his fellow countrymen coming to Argentina: “The main aspiration of this people is to save some money to buy small plots of land in their homeland.”6 Furthermore, at the time, thanks to the improvements in maritime and overland travel, workers were able to cross the Atlantic repeatedly. Alongside the colonies of fellow countrymen who were trying to establish themselves in the New World arose communities of those “with their feet in both societies,”7 able to maintain (at least partially) their status in their home society, including kinship ties and political loyalties. After returning, by bringing information and money to their native communities and putting into practice knowledge gained abroad, they drew relations, friends, and countrymen who had remained at home into the Atlantic system of economic and cultural interchange. Thus, they contributed to the creation on both sides of the ocean of what Ewa Morawska has called “transnationalism from below,” in which everyday people participated as the principal agents within the borders of the choices allowed to them by the concrete socio-political circumstances.8 On the other hand, while becoming “transnational,” these men and women were able to define who they were and where they belonged, in spite of competing allegiances for different “homes.”9

The realization that the transatlantic migration of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and, in fact, all migration has almost never been unidirectional has prompted many historians to use the term “mobility” instead of the concepts of “outmigration” and “immigration, ” which were originally coined to meet the administrative needs of nation states in the nineteenth century.10 I prefer it in this article, as it better captures the multidirectional and interwoven patterns of migration activities, with emphasis on the short term and the repeated and circular moves over the ocean and back. My goal is to demonstrate, via a very limited case study focused on the Czech Lands/Czechoslovakia,11 how this type of study can help us move beyond a narrowly nationalistic approach to the study of history. Also, as historians have shown a considerably stronger interest in migration to the United States than in migration to the southern parts of the American continents, I have focused on mobility to and from Latin America as the principal starting point of my analysis.

While there has been a steady influx of individuals and smaller groups from Central Europe to the southern parts of the American continent since the colonial period which grew stronger throughout the nineteenth century, the main impetus for increased interest in settling in Latin America was the Immigration Act of 1924, which limited opportunities for Czechs, together with other Central and Eastern Europeans, to enter the USA. Also, the adverse consequences of the global economic crisis in the 1930s in Central Europe and the local booms in various parts of Latin America sparked further interest in Latin America (even though, as I will explain, the global crisis caused drops in available workplaces in Latin American countries as well).12 While the permanent migration from the Czech Lands to Latin America has been studied intensively by Czechoslovak/Czech historians since the 1960s,13 the phenomenon of short-term, circular, and return mobility has not yet received similar attention.

Sources

There certainly is an explanation for the relative lack of interest among historians in short-term mobility, namely, the scarcity of sources. In a sense, these migrants fall into a “blind spot” in the archival documentation, as the official statistics usually only include people who sought the approval of the authorities to leave the country permanently. It is not possible to determine the volume of the back and forth movement between America and Europe with any precision. Short-term laborers often relied on the help of family members or friends, especially at the beginning of their ventures, but they were relatively mobile and they remained largely outside the more compact expatriate communities in America, mixing instead with other salaried laborers, either locals or immigrants from other countries. Thus, their names do not appear frequently in the source materials concerning national clubs and associations in the host societies.14 There is, furthermore, a general problem with statistics dealing with migrants from Austro-Hungary. Czechs were often automatically considered either “Austrians” or “Germans,” or they were mixed with other Slavs, like Poles; they sometimes even presented themselves as such when looking for work.15

There are scattered mentions of companies sending their employees overseas in the published and manuscript autobiographies of migrants, the documentation from official visits by Czech and Austro-Hungarian and later Czechoslovak officials touring Latin America for various purposes, and travelogues or newspaper articles, and in the archival fonds. Interviews were done with Czech settlers repatriated from Latin America after 1918, as well as (by mail) with their fellow countrymen who opted to stay abroad, by the employees of Československý ústav zahraniční [Czechoslovak Foreign Institute].16 Finally, there are the family histories, transmitted orally, together with postcards, photographs, and other memorabilia. Several decades ago, Julianna Puskás eloquently demonstrated the value of these types of documents for the study of (not only) Hungarian migrations.17 Many of the testimonies—some of them so far unknown to or little exploited by historians—are only indirect; often there are just scraps and pieces from peoples’ life histories.

Given the nature of these sources, one is compelled to adopt a qualitative rather than a quantitative approach. My interest lies primarily in the agency of migrants themselves, as individuals and members of family units and local communities, who were acting within concrete social, geographical, and temporal spaces. Overseas migration always involved individual decision making, and if we seek to arrive at a nuanced understanding of these historical processes, we must consider individual stories as well as the broader collective phenomena. Still, my ambition has been to arrive, on the basis of these individual stories, at some general conclusions with respect to the transatlantic entanglements, which constituted one of the crucial historical factors in the making of present-day Central Europe.18

The chronological delineation of this study connects two very distinctive political regimes, beginning with the period when the Czech Lands still constituted part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and ending two decades after they had been made part of the new, postwar state of Czechoslovakia. While major political events often make suitable milestones for historical study (and in certain respects the founding of Czechoslovakia in 1918 constituted a turning point in the history of migrations, since tens of thousands of Czechs, Moravians, and Slovaks returned from over the world to the lands of their birth),19 I still opt for structural approach. Therefore, I examine short-term and circular mobility from its commencement at the very end of the nineteenth century (due to the considerable reduction in the cost of transatlantic passage) up to the beginning of the World War II, when overseas transit in general was brought to an abrupt end.

Back and Forth

The concept of “short-term mobility” escapes precise definition.20 People had a wide array of reasons for leaving for the New World, and a similarly diverse array of experiences once they arrived. For the present analysis, and aware of the insufficiencies of my approach, I take as central the initial aim of returning instead of remaining and becoming permanent residents and, at times, a pattern of repeated visits. The social composition of the group under consideration is also important. I do not take into account the members of the managerial staff of the Austrian/Czech/Czechoslovak companies in the Latin American branches (i.e. what is referred to as “career migration”21), nor do I consider the journalists and travelers who earned their living along the way. Rather, I focus on individuals who came from the same social strata as the long-term and permanent migrants, specifically the lower and middle classes, urban and rural, and in the majority of cases people who did manual labor. For them, living overseas was a means to an end, a labor strategy,22 not the final objective of their endeavors. The intention of returning rules out the poorest, who often had to sell everything they possessed, arriving in the New World “with just the shirt they had on, without a penny in their pocket,” as stated one of the texts from the beginning of the twentieth century the author of which warned Czechs against emigration.23 Surely also those who planned to return sometimes had difficulties raising the necessary cash and were compelled to take out mortgages or ask for loans from their relatives, but were not forced to sell everything (and clearly, the mere act of taking out a mortgage or asking for a loan meant that the person intended to return).24 Also, the poorest migrants usually lacked the necessary qualifications that would enable them to find better-paid jobs and save money for a return ticket.

Of course, sometimes the decision to stay or return was not made by the migrants themselves, but rather was dictated by outside forces. Many of those who originally planned to stay permanently returned within a few years, because the promises made by the agents and the authorities of the host country had given them misleading impressions of the realities of everyday life in the New World. Sometimes people who wished to return were forced to stay when they realized that their savings would barely suffice to buy a return ticket. Judging from the memoirs and interviews, there were many such cases. “I came to Argentina, as many of us did, thinking that I will get rich quickly and easily and I will earn a lot of money and then immediately I will return home. This was my firm conviction when I left home,” stated František Lukešík, who came to Argentina around 1910. As he could not find salaried work, he ended up in the agricultural colony Presidencia Roque Sáenz Peña, founded in 1913 by several Czech families.25

There was never significant seasonal transatlantic mobility from the Czech Lands, i.e. nothing equivalent to the Spanish and Italian golondrinas (swallows), farmhands who took advantage of the alternating agricultural cycles between the hemispheres and spent the European winter harvesting fruit and wheat in Argentina and then returned to Europe in May.26 Even with the improved system of railroad traffic, the Czech Lands remained too distant from the Mediterranean and Atlantic ports to make such movements worthwhile. Most of the Czechs and Moravians who went to America for shorter stays were industrial rather than agricultural workers, and they came for periods of years instead of several months. Still, there was a correlation between overseas mobility and the existing patterns of seasonal work.

This, in fact, is true for the whole of Europe. While traditionally the various types of migration—transatlantic, continental, or regional—have been studied in virtual isolation, in recent decades various historians have proven their mutual interdependence, and the “push” and “pull” models have given way to more complex explanations.27 As for the Czech Lands, in some parts, such as southwestern Bohemia and southern Moravia, mostly poorer agricultural regions with high number of landless or petty farmers who could not support their families by working the land alone, there existed a long tradition of seasonal and short-term labor mobility within and outside the Austro-Hungarian Empire to Germany, Serbia, and Italy. Not just young and single, but also married men would spend up to eight months a year seeking skilled or semi-skilled employment as farmhands, bricklayers, brickmakers etc. Women worked as maids in Vienna, but also as construction assistants all over Germany and Austria.28 A special survey of seasonal labor mobility ordered by the Austrian government in 1913 as a supplement to the regular censuses shows clearly the extent of the short-time absences. At the local level, there were places where seasonal workers made up 20 percent or more of the total population, a figure comparable to the percentages in the best-known regions of seasonal out-migration in Europe, like the Italian Friuli.29 Of course, there were also regular or occasional movements from other regions—for example, miners from northern Bohemia drifted to the Ruhr area in times of labor shortage.30

Given the intensity of this mobility, overseas transfer does not appear as exceptional as traditional historical studies have tended to suggest. Rather, it seems to have been one of the alternatives workers could pursue. The fact that communities with existing traditions of seasonal and short-term mobility had already established social mechanisms for accommodating absences and returns is important. There existed what could be termed a “culture of mobility,” i.e. a collective strategy for coping with and taking advantage of the willingness of some of their members to travel by adjusting existing norms, values, and ideologies to their absences.31 Females took male occupations on the farms or hired day laborers to do them; families and the community at large were willing to accept some of the novelties brought about by the return of laborers. The laborers themselves were already used to making accommodations in the new environments in which they had lived, and, last but not least, while working in various European countries, they had opportunities to learn about the possibilities of transoceanic migration.32

It is possible that some of the seasonal workers originally did not plan to go to America, but decided to cross the Atlantic only after coming to the Italian port, for example, and encountering agents of shipping companies.33 Similarly, it is possible that they were approached with offers of work or attracted by rumors while working in Germany, as was the case of Poláček. Up to World War I, in particular Brazil and later Chile actively spread immigration propaganda in Germany, so the Czech seasonal workers who were coming to Germany also became the targets of agents. And even when they did not opt to move overseas themselves, these seasonal workers brought home information about such opportunities from Germany or Italy.34 America certainly was not an unreachable, strange world for Central European farmhands and workers. Of course, mobility, whether short-term or permanent, also depended on concrete economic conditions in a given region. And it should be noted that for the period under consideration overseas short-term mobility remained of secondary importance in comparison with the continuing seasonal labor movements within the Czech Lands or to neighboring countries. The possible paths for improving one’s economic and social status for the inhabitants of the Czech Lands at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries included a number of choices.

A Typology of Short-term Migrants

The countries of destination in Latin America for the short-term migrants were mostly the same as for the long-term and permanent migrants: first and foremost Argentina and Brazil, then to a lesser degree Chile (mostly due to its geographical position, which made short-term stays more difficult) and Mexico, and only exceptionally Central America or other Latin American countries. Argentina and Brazil in particular offered an acceptable climate and a relatively large array of work opportunities due to rapid modernization and urbanization, which had been underway since the second half of the nineteenth century, a factor even more important for short-term migrants than for those who mostly opted for privately owned land and an independent existence.

Regarding the typology of short-term mobility from the Czech Lands, there are two clearly distinguishable groups. The first of these consisted of unskilled or semi-skilled workers motivated by the vague notion of the “American dream,” as it was spread by the agents of the transportation companies and the colonizing societies or by the successes of their predecessors. In their effort to earn money quickly, they were willing to take any work, but they usually proved ill-prepared for the realities of life in the New World.35 From the point of view of cultural exchange, they did not have much to share with the host societies, and though their work as farm hands or factory workers provided them with new experiences, these insights were not of much use in their native communities. Many of such would-be short-term migrants were in the end forced to remain for a longer period of time than they had initially planned or even permanently, since it proved almost impossible to save money for the return journey. Sometimes, they were repatriated at the expense of the Austro-Hungarian or Czechoslovak embassies.36 Repeated warnings from the authorities and already established fellow-countrymen offer clear evidence of their considerable vulnerability to economic oscillations and social pressures; however, their numbers increased nonetheless, especially during the economic crisis of the 1930s, even though labor opportunities in Latin America decreased sharply precisely at that time.37

The second group consisted of skilled workers. Some of them came to America to find employment in their respective fields, either at random or drawing on the previous experiences of relatives or friends. Others were sent by the companies for which they were working in Europe. For both groups, Latin America offered better opportunities than the United States, where the labor marked had been saturated by immigrant and domestic specialists since the second half of the nineteenth century. Sometimes, factories in Argentina, Brazil, and Chile themselves sent agents to Europe to seek specialists in professions in which there was a high demand for the comparatively few skilled laborers;38 furthermore, these countries actively encouraged the establishment of foreign companies. As the Czech Lands had historically produced some specialized jobs, these workers adapted with relative ease not only to their new lives in various European countries, where their expertise was in demand, but also to conditions on the other side of the ocean. There was also the aforementioned traditional seasonal mobility of construction workers from southern Bohemia and southern Moravia. Matěj Poláček, to whose third arrival in Argentina in the span of ten years I alluded in the opening lines of this article, had been working as a migrant laborer since the 1890s, first in Hungary, then in various German cities, and then in the New World. There, he took part in such projects as the construction of the huge Cruz del Eje dam, the railroad bridge at San Lorenzo, and the “Tiro Federal,” that is, shooting grounds for the federal army in the Argentinian capital.39

There were Czech railroad builders, construction workers, and factory workers all over Argentina, as the precipitous expansion of railroads created a need for people with experience in these professions. For example, workers from the Czech factory in Kopřivnice, a famous producer of railroad carriages, were invited to the state-owned factory in Tafi Viejo in 1910. Because there was a scarcity of work in Kopřivnice at the time, the factory management supported their temporary absence and even organized Spanish courses for them. Of about forty workers, some stayed in Argentina, while others returned home before the war.40 For the dangerous work at the oil fields in southern Argentina, experienced miners were recruited by German agents in the Czech mining regions Ostrava/Ostrau and Kladno.41 At the beginning of the 1930s, the Škoda company of Plzeň delivered facilities for the newly built beet sugar refinery plants in the Argentine provinces of Mendoza and San Juan. Since the nineteenth century, the Bohemian Lands had been at the foreground of sugar production in Europe. After a very unsuccessful first season in the Argentinian enterprise, Škoda arranged to send over technicians and “boilers,” along with the machinery.42

The Bohemian Lands were also famous for beer production. Not only were Czech beer, malt, and hop important export articles, but since the end of the nineteenth century brewing machinery had been exported to furnish breweries all over Latin America. Again, specialized workers were sent to start production, some of them repeatedly when new branches of breweries were established or production was expanded. Vojtěch Vaníček, representative of the Economic Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, traveled in South America together with the aforementioned Zdeněk Fafl in 1910 on behalf of the Trade and Commercial Chamber. He found Czech specialists “in almost every brewery we passed through.”43 Similarly, after visiting Argentina and Brazil in 1910 and finding many Czechs in local breweries, Czech economist Leopold Perutz recommended that “our vocational and trade schools teach Spanish and Portuguese.”44 At the beginning of the twentieth century, Jan Mikš first passed through various European breweries, concluding with Zagreb in 1910. He then moved to to South America; there was comparatively intense mobility, both permanent and short term, between Croatia and Latin America, especially Chile.45 For two years, Mikš worked in breweries in Santiago de Chile, Buenos Aires, Montevideo, and other cities. In Santiago, he made the acquaintance of Count Kolowrat-Liechtenstein, the Austrian envoy to Chile, who later employed him as a tenant of his own brewery in the town of Rychnov in eastern Bohemia.46 And, finally, there were representatives of specific professions such as musicians who at the time were in great demand in Argentina, especially in Buenos Aires, where they provided not only the dance music and entertainment in restaurants, but also live accompaniment for silent films.47

The preponderant majority of the short-term migrants were male, in contrast to the more balanced mix in the case of long-term migrants. Still, there were also female specialists. Uruguayan and Argentinian upper-class families preferred maids and cooks from Europe over local labor as a sign of high social standing;48 and there has been a tradition of Czech and Moravian maids going to Vienna, so again the move overseas was more of a prolongation of existing mobility patterns than the establishment of entirely new ones. Also, the Argentinian elites employed governesses from Central Europe who were able to speak French for lower wages than “genuine” French gouvernantes.49 There were certain risks, as the mediating agencies sometimes delivered the young women to brothels.50 In response to numerous reports and complaints, as of 1930, women from Czechoslovakia under the age of twenty-five could only travel to Argentina or Brazil if they could presents an affidavit from a family member or employer who pledged to provide “financial support and moral supervision.”51

Experiences Overseas

Specialized workers often came to South America with a contract already in hand. They were thus spared the humiliating stay in the “Immigrants’ hotels” in Buenos Aires or São Paulo, where they could stay for free, but where conditions were crowded and discouraging,52 and the equally discouraging clamor for work, any work at all. Because they possessed skills that were rare in Latin America, they were able to negotiate their pay and sometimes even the luxury of an occasional trip home. They often felt superior and sometimes voiced a sense of superiority over local laborers, and sometimes even seem to have had a notion of themselves as representatives of a “civilizing mission” who were spreading European/Czech skills in undeveloped regions. The authorities in the home country were actually aware of this and commented on it negatively. While the Habsburg state did not intervene actively in the “export” of skilled workers, the Czechoslovak Ministry of Trade and Industry made efforts (although mostly in vain) to keep specialists in prominent export industries (such as beer-making, sugar-making, glass-making, the textile industry, etc.) within the state borders even in times of rising unemployment during the great crisis of the 1930s precisely because they feared that the transfer of technological knowledge abroad would create competition for domestic production.53

Still, even the position of a highly qualified worker was not at all secure, and America was far from a “new home.” Often, salaries were lower than had been promised.54 Many of the workplaces were far from inviting. For example, in the oil fields in southern Argentina, the workforce consisted mostly of foreigners, the atmosphere was highly cosmopolitan,55 and earnings were relatively high. But, according to the memoirs of some of the Czech workers, the housing conditions were dismal, consisting mostly of crude shacks made of boards and corrugated sheets; there was acute lack of drinking water, which was sold at high prices. Medical facilities were inadequate and there was no compensation for work-related accidents. As the region was isolated, the workers lacked protection and could hardly flee.56

The situation on railroads was similar. When in 1929 the Argentinian government started the construction of the railroad from Salta to Formosa, it negotiated the involvement of a Hungarian company which recruited skilled workers in various places, including the Czech Lands. But as soon became evident, high earnings notwithstanding, the working conditions were hard. Because of the lack of proper machinery, the laborers had to do backbreaking manual work, drinking water was scarce and housing inadequate. In response to reports on these conditions, the Hungarian government forbade further recruitment of workers for Argentina, but the Czechoslovak authorities only issued warnings through the Czechoslovak Foreign Institute.57 Of course, these experiences, if narrated back home, might have had discouraging effects. The dominant image of Latin America as a region in which work was reduced to manual labor is interesting. “In Argentina, intelligence will not find work, as there are enough educated people. Argentina needs only laborers in agriculture and in trade.”58

Those who had worked first in Western Europe, had been members of labor unions and had taken advantage of (or taken part in ensuring) social securities and labor legislature resented the lack of protections for workers in Latin America. The situation was particularly bad in Brazil. “There are no legal protections for workers. The laborers are blatantly oppressed. […] Every factory has its own warehouse with food for workers. Often the laborer does not get any money at all. If he needs medicine or other necessities, he must buy at a high price from the warehouse of the factory and sell at a loss for cash.”59 Of course, this was even more stressful for short-term migrants, who had hoped to accumulate meaningful savings as quickly as possible. For some of the migrants, the stay overseas seems to have been crucial as an experience which increased their awareness of social issues.60 Last but not least, migrants had to face anti-immigrant sentiments, which with the passage of time became more intense in many Latin American countries.

Migrants who aspired to remain in their new homes for longer period of time or even permanently mostly tried to settle down as quickly as possible on purchased or rented estates. The relative availability of land in Latin America at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, when it was becoming scarce in the USA, was one of the major attractions for Czechs (who, unlike other migrants from eastern and southern Europe, generally aspired to settle in the countryside instead of looking for work in urban areas). The temporary migrants, in contrast, often moved around, either because they were sent to new locations by the companies for which they were working or because, in their search for work, they had gotten to know various parts of the country and fellow workers of various nationalities. As they opted for a short, profitable stay in America, with as few expenses as possible, and as they often worked in multilingual and multinational environments, many of them considered it impractical to devote time and money to activities like learning Spanish or Portuguese, especially when they were working for French or German companies.

The dominance of German companies in Argentine industry eased the process of adaptation for Czechs and Moravians, most of whom had at least a superficial knowledge of German. When Karel Urban, one of the would-be sojourners who decided to stay in America, responded to the questionnaire of the Czechoslovak Foreign Institute, he commented: “I only remembered several words in Portuguese, but that bit of my German helped me everywhere.”61 The language barrier was another factor which prevented the short-term migrants from constructing the notion of a home (albeit temporary) in America. Of course, without the knowledge of the local language, they were also more vulnerable to being cheated by employers or members of the local population.

The American Trunk

While it was demonstrated above that intercontinental mobility in many respects was followed by long-established models of labor sojourns, this did not just mean a widening of the radius of travel for work. Stays overseas had some important repercussions for the migrants themselves, their families, and the local communities. Of utmost importance were the remittances that flowed into the villages and suburbs in the Czech Lands. The fact that “temporary immigrant comes to earn money and then leaves with wages, [which] is important for doing the work, but is not something [the host country] needs for its development” was noted by the contemporary Czech commentators62 and officials in Latin America. Many of the contemporary commentators noted the substantial difference in wages between Argentina, for example, and Europe, not forgetting, however, immediately to note also the high living costs, especially the prices of basic foodstuffs.63 As remittances came mostly through the mail or by personal delivery, it is difficult even to estimate the total sums involved. But they probably meant a boost to local economies through the purchase of land plots and houses64 and also due to the fact that the prolonged absences of numerous males made it necessary to employ hired hands.

The notion of “American wealth” even entered local folklore. One Moravian offered the following characterization of the advantages of migrant labor in the New World for people in the Old: “Good for women in the old country, who have their husbands in America. They work, they send money home.”65 And they also sent exotic goods. Poláček once dispatched a chest of oranges from Argentina shortly before Easter, and his daughters gave them away instead of painted eggs, which is the local custom on Easter Monday.66 This story could be seen merely as a curiosity, but it illustrates the fact that such gifts sent or brought home reinforced the exotic image of the New World in Central Europe and could be also regarded as a symbol of the progressive interlinking of local and regional economies to the transatlantic system.

The returning migrants also brought back information about the world on the far side of the ocean. In his monograph, Mark Wyman uses of the metaphor of the “America trunk” as an apt symbol for both emigration and remigration, of coming to America and returning to the homeland, of conserving the memories of the mother country and bringing home new wares, goods and ideas.67 Certainly, the letters from relatives and friends living in America represented an important source of information for their home communities and, later, for historians.68 But first-hand experiences transmitted by word-of-mouth, together with the presents and memorabilia taken out of the trunk, probably had an even stronger impact, though not one that would leave much trace in historical records. But perhaps these presents and memorabilia influenced the contents of the “American trunk” packed by the next generation of migrants. The seasoned “Mexican” or “American” in fancy clothes, able to deal with any situation and endeavoring to climb the social ladder, even entered the local folklore, including songs, jokes, and fairytales, as well as the popular literature all over the Czech Lands.69

In his memoirs, František Vyšata, a traveler and ardent proponent of the Czech national spirit among migrants, lamented that “the preparation of our fellow countrymen for such a vital step as leaving of motherland was minimal or nonexistent.” Migrants simply bought their tickets from “eloquent agents” and then “off they went to try their luck.”70 But, as was already noted, this was in fact not true. More often than not, prospective migrants had abundant and surprisingly precise information which helped them make carefully considered decisions when contemplating travel overseas. It certainly was not a coincidence that the Czech and Moravian regions in which we find highest number of seasonal migrants to European countries and, later, to America—southwestern Bohemia, southern Moravia—were also regions from which numerous individuals and families decided to move overseas permanently. In a study of contemporary transmigrants, Peggy Lewitt refers to this flow of information as “social remittances” in an effort to accentuate its importance for the increase in the material wellbeing of the home communities because it stimulated other forms of mobility.71 The two types of mobility certainly reinforced each other, as the return migrants spread knowledge, direct or indirect, of the opportunities overseas, while the permanent settlements of fellow countrymen made the shorter stays of those who did not want to remain for good easier. Also, within the framework of short-term mobility, the chain pattern acquired great importance. Memoirs and correspondence confirm that on returning for another stay in America, workers often took with them relatives—brothers, bothers-in-law, nephews etc. —to follow them to the Americas.72

Alongside the economic implications, there were important social and cultural consequences for community cohesion and the lives of the members of communities from which migrants departed for the New World. The overseas sojourns differed from previous patterns of seasonal mobility, if only due to the longer duration of labor stays. Short-term migrants did not dispose of their properties, and for the most part, if married, left their wives behind, thus maintaining also their social position in the community and preventing themselves from establishing closer social ties in the host societies. Though the wives took over the everyday tasks, their husbands managed their affairs from long-distance through correspondence and messages sent back and forth with traveling friends and relatives. Still, the outcomes of their prolonged absences could be damaging. Both contemporary commentators and recent studies have spoken of the “feminization” of society, as wives and other family members were forced to take over some of the work and, perhaps more importantly, the social responsibilities (and thus to some extent the social influence) of the departed men.73 Folklore captured the feelings of uneasiness and a sense of fragmentation, tension, and inconsolable emptiness: “Children are crying aloud when they bid farewell to their father over the wide sea.”74 The documentation of the Czechoslovak Foreign Institute covers many cases of fathers gone overseas and mothers who died or were seriously ill, leaving the care of the offspring to relatives or the state.75 Therefore, since the 1930s, anyone applying for a passport and leaving minor children behind had to demonstrate that he or she had provided for their support.76

Conclusion

The impact of returnees on their home surroundings depended, of course, on many factors, including the length of their stay in the Americas and the extent and type of contacts they had had with American society. However, some general trends emerge. In her comments on the impacts of the return of migrant workers from the United States on the Hungarian countryside, Puskás notes the crucial impact of experiences with the democratic establishment, political freedoms, which made it more difficult for the returnees to tolerate the more restricted conditions in their home country.77 As the sources concerning Czech and Moravian migration to South America indicate, upon returning, the migrants lacked “freedom” in a different sense—lowered social restraints and pressures, less cramped living conditions, and a sense of greater responsibility for one’s own life.

One finds explicit allusions to the lack of “freedom” and the discomforts of living in densely populated areas in the correspondence of returned migrants sent via the Czechoslovak Foreign Institute and implicit references in the memoirs of Matěj Poláček. In this sense, the feeling of being at “home” unexpectedly shifted overseas, throwing into doubt the notions maintained during the sojourns in America. A letter sent in 1929 by the Moravian returnee to compatriots in Argentina documents not only the intense communication with people oversees, the interchange of letters, and the frequent visits of relatives, but also the fact that even returning home and buying land was not necessarily a definite step. “How was the harvest? I am homesick for America, I liked it there, except for the flies. […] Here we are among strange people. […] When we tire from working for others, we will sell [what we have] here again and go over to you. […] The country is nice here, fields all flat, but more work than with the cotton over there.”78 The anonymous author of the letter still drew a distinction between “here” and “over there,” but her loyalties were not at all clear-cut. Poláček bought a “ranch” in Argentina, while also investing in real estate in his native village, manifesting fervent affection for his homeland. That he was prevented in 1946 from embarking again for South America and was subsequently deprived of part of his properties as a consequence of the rise to power of the communist regime is a different story.79 What is important in this context is the evident multiplicity of “homes” Poláček (along with hundreds or thousands of other Czechs and Moravians) was able to come to regard as “his,” a sentiment he was at least partially able to transmit to his surroundings, drawing the peripheral regions of Central Europe into the transatlantic economic and cultural interchange.

Bibliography

Primary sources

National archive of the Czech Republic, fonds ČÚZ [Czeholslovak Foreign Institute], boxes 30, 33 and 39.

 

Blau, Josef. Böhmerwälder Hausindustrie und Volkskunst, II. Teil: Frauen-Hauswerk und Volkskunst. [Orig. ed. 1918.] Grafenau: Morsak, 1993.

Čech-Vyšata, František. Patnáct let v Jižní Americe [Fifteen years in South America]. Prague: Kvasnička a Hampl, 1927.

N.a. “Čeští litografové v São Paulo, Jižní Amerika” [Czech Lithographers in São Paulo, South America]. Grafik 29, no. 10 (1937): 7.

Čvančarová, Boža. Na tvrdém úhoru [On hard and barren land]. Prague: author’s publication, 1931.

Dickens, Charles. American Notes for General Circulation. London: Chapman & Hall, 1842.

Hamáček, J. “Brazílie” [Brasil]. In Do Argentiny a do Brasilie [To Argentina and Brasil], edited by J. Hamáček and Jan Jetmar, 15–60. Prague: Folber, 1905.

Jetmar, Jan. “Hrst úvah o Argentině a české inmigraci” [Handful of considerations on Argentina and Czech immigration]. In Do Argentiny a do Brasilie [To Argentina and Brasil], edited by J. Hamáček and Jan Jetmar, 1–15. Prague: Folber, 1905.

Kodýtková, Anna. 21 let v Argentině [21 years in Argentina]. Prague: Mladá fronta, 1951.

Korčák, Jaromír. Vylidňování jižních Čech: Studie demografická [Depopulation of southern Bohemia: A demographic study]. Prague: Spolek péče o blaho venkova, 1929.

Kresta, Václav. Stát São Paulo: Informace československým exportérům a vystěhovalcům [The state São Paulo: Information to Czech exporters and migrants]. Prague: Folber, 1931.

Mitteilungen des Statistischen Landesamtes des Königreiches Böhmen 24, no. 2. Prague: Statistisches Landesamt des Königreiches Böhmen / J.G. Calve‘schen Univ.-Buchhandlung, 1916.

Mlček, Vincenc. Vzpomínky na Argentinu [Remembrances of Argentina]. Edited by Eduard Mlček. Šumperk: Calluna, 2011.

Perutz, Leopold. “O hospodářském významu Argentiny” [On the economic importance of Argentina]. Česká revue 3, no. 11 (1909–10): 684–99.

Poláček, Matěj. Za velkou louži: Vzpomínky moravského dělníka Matěje Poláčka na Afriku a Jižní Ameriku [Across the Great Pond: Memoirs of the Moravian worker Matěj Poláček on Africa and South America]. Edited by Markéta Křížová. Prague: NLN, 2017.

Vaníček, Vojtěch. Republiky řeky La Platy [Republics of the La Plate River]. Prague: Merkur, 1911.

Vyhnanovský, František, ed. Cestovní pasy a vystěhovalectví: Komentované předpisy se vzorci podání [Passports and emigration: Commented regulations with examples of submissions]. Prague: Českomoravský Kompas, 1939.

Župan, Franta. Pepánek nezdara [Pepánek, the rascal]. Prague: František Topič, 1917.

 

Secondary sources

Agstner, Rudolf. Von Kaisern, Konsuln und Kaufleuten: Die k.(u.)k. Konsulate. Volume 2. Vienna: Lit, 2012.

Al-Ali, Nadje, and Khalid Koser, eds. New Approaches to Migration? Transnational Communities and the Transformation of Home. London–New York: Routledge, 2002.

Bade, Klaus J. Emigration in European History. Translated by Allison Brown. Malden–Oxford: Blackwell, 2003.

Bielik, František, et al. “Slovak Images of the New World: ‘We could pay off our debts’.” In Roots of the Transplanted: Late-Nineteenth-Century East-Central and Southeastern Europe, edited by Dirk Hoerder and Inge Blank, 379–99. Boulder: East European Monographs, 1994.

Bielik, František. “Zo života Slovákov a Čechov v Patagonii” [From the life of Slovaks and Czechs in Patagonia]. Slováci v zahraničí 11 (1985): 148–52.

Bjerg, María. “Male Narratives from the Margins of the Country of Immigrants: Two Norwegians in Argentina in the 1920s.” In Expectations Unfulfilled: Norwegian Migrants in Latin America, 1820–1940, edited by Steinar A. Sæther, 162–84. Leiden: Brill, 2016.

Borges, Marcelo J. Chains of Gold: Portuguese Migration to Argentina in Transatlantic Perspective. Leiden–Boston: Brill, 2009.

Bovenkerk, Frank. The Sociology of Return Migration: A Bibliographical Essay. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1974.

Brouček, Stanislav. Krajané a domov: Nástin dějin Československého ústavu zahraničního (1928–1939) [Fellow countrymen and homeland: Overview of the history of the Czechoslovak Foreign Institute]. Prague: Ústav pro etnografii a folkloristiku ČSAV, 1985.

Brouček, Stanislav, and Tomáš Grulich. Domácí postoje k zahraničním Čechům v novodobých dějinách (1918–2008) [Domestic attitudes towards Czechs abroad in modern history (1918–2008)]. Prague: Public History, 2009.

Chaney, Elsa. “The World Economy and Contemporary Migration.” International Migration Review 13, no. 2 (1979): 204–12.

Ciafardo, Eduardo. “Cadenas migratorias e inmigración italiana: Reflexiones a partir de la correspondencia de dos inmigrantes italianos en la Argentina, 1921–1938.” Studi Emigrazione 38, no. 102 (1991): 233–56.

Da Orden, María Liliana. “Fotografía e identidad familiar en la migración masiva a la Argentina.” Historia Social 48 (2004): 3–25.

Da Orden, María Liliana. Una familia y un océano de por medio: La emigración gallega a la Argentina: una historia a través de la memoria epistolar. Barcelona: Anthropos, 2010.

Devoto, Fernando. Historia de la inmigración en la Argentina. Buenos Aires: Editorial Sudamericana, 2003.

Dubovický, Ivan. “Krajanská kolonie Presidencia Roque Sáenz Peña (příspěvek k počátkům českého vystěhovalectví do Argentiny)” [Expatriate colony Presidencia Roque Sáenz Peña (contribution to the beginnings of Czech emigration to Argentina)]. Češi v cizině 12 (1987): 139–81.

Elrick, Tim. “The Influence of Migration on Origin Communities: Insights from Polish Migrations to the West.” Europe-Asia Studies 60, no. 9 (2008): 1503–17.

Frank, Alison Fleig. Oil Empire: Visions of Prosperity in Austrian Galicia. Cambridge, MA–London: Harvard University Press, 2005.

Frid de Silberstein, Cairna L. “Immigrants and Female Work in Argentina: Questioning Gender Stereotypes and Constructing Images – The Case of the Italians, 1879–1900.” In Mass Migration to Modern Latin America, edited by Samuel L. Baily and Eduardo José Míguez, 195–217. Wilmington: Scholarly Resources, 2003.

Grygar, Ladislav. “Osudy rozdělené oceánem: S Misslerem do Argentiny” [Destinies divided by the ocean: With Missler to Argentina]. In Ostrava: Příspěvky k dějinám a současnosti Ostravy a Ostravska 30 (2016): 327–39.

Holmes, Douglas. Cultural Disenchantments: Worker Peasantries in Northeast Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989.

Kaplan, Marcos. “La primera fase de la política petrolera argentina (1907–1916).” Desarrollo Económico 13, no. 52 (1974): 775–810.

Klíma, Jan. “Antonio Neugebauer y los orígenes del socialismo en la región de La Plata.” Ibero-Americana Pragensia 7 (1973): 111–34.

Kořalka, Jiří, and Johannes Hoffmann. Tschechen im Rheinland und in Westfalen 1890-1918: Quellen aus deutschen, tschechischen und österreichischen Archiven und Zeitschriften. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2012.

Krebber, Jochen. “Creed, Class, and Skills: Three Structural Limitations of Chain Migration.” In European Mobility: Internal, International, and Transatlantic Moves in the 19th and Early 20th Centuries, edited by Annemarie Steidl et al., 69–77. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009.,

Křížová, Markéta. “Iberoamerikanische Studien in der Tschechoslowakei zur Zeit des Kalten Kriegs.” Translated by Lauren Blecha. In Kleinstaaten im Kalten Krieg: Kulturelle, politische, militärische und wirtschaftliche Wechselbeziehungen zwischen Europa und Lateinamerika, edited by Albert Manke, Kateřina Březinová, and Lauren Blecha, 61–82. Bielefeld: Transcript, 2016.

Kuzmicic, Pastora de. Inmigrantes croatas a través del siglo XX: Sus sueños e historias del Cono Sur. Santiago de Chile: Red Internacional del Libro, 1998.

Lewitt, Peggy. The Transnational Villagers. Berkeley–Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2001.

Moch, Leslie Page. Moving Europeans: Migration in Western Europe since 1650. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2003.

Moltmenn, Günter. “American-German Return Migration in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries.” Central European History 13, no. 4 (1980): 378–92.

Morawska, Ewa. “Disciplinary Agendas and Analytic Strategies of Research on Immigrant Transnationalism: Challenges of Interdisciplinary Knowledge.” The International Migration Review 37, no. 3 (2003): 600–40.

Novotný, Jiří, and Jiří Šouša. “La malta de Bohemia en América Latina en la primera mitad del siglo XX.” Ibero-Americana Pragensia 27 (1993): 63–78.

Opatrný, Josef, ed. Emigración centroeuropea a América Latina. 4 vols. Prague: Karolinum, 2000–2006.

Opatrný, Josef. “Propaganda y contrapropaganda en los asuntos migratorios: Informaciones para los emigrantes en los textos de Ferdinand Missler, Ferdinand Klindera, František Čech-Vyšata y Anna Kodýtková.” In Emigración centroeuropea a América Latina III, edited by Josef Opatrný, 25−53. Prague: Karolinum, 2004.

Pajovic, Slobodan S. “La emigración yugoslava a América Latina.” In Acerca de las migraciones centroeuropeas y mediterráneas a Iberoamérica: Aspectos sociales y culturales, edited by Moisés Llordén Miñambres, 83–91. Oviedo: Universidad de Oviedo, 1995.

Pánek, Jaroslav, and Oldřich Tůma et al. A History of the Czech Lands. Prague: Karolinum, 2009.

Pavlicová, Martina, and Lucie Uhlíková. “Vystěhovalectví do Ameriky a kulturní paměť (Na příkladu moravské zpěvní tradice)” [Emigration to America and the cultural memory (On the example of Moravian song tradition)]. In Od folkloru k world music: Svět v nás, my ve světě [From folklore to world music: World in us, we in the world], 9–24. Náměšť nad Oslavou: Městské kulturní středisko, 2014.

Perutka, Lukáš. “Jižní Amerika a její hospodářství na počátku 20. století pohledem Zdeñka Fafla” [South America and its economy at the beginning of the 20th century seen through the eyes of Zdeněk Fafl]. Český časopis historický 115, no. 4 (2017): 1046–74.

Prutsch, Ursula. Das Geschäft mit der Hoffnung: Österreichische Auswanderung nach Brasilien 1918–1938. Vienna–Cologne–Weimar: Böhlau, 1996.

Puskás, Juliana. “Consequences of Overseas Migration for the County of Origin: The Case of Hungary.” In Roots of the Transplanted: Late-Nineteenth-Century East-Central and Southeastern Europe, edited by Dirk Hoerder and Inge Blank, 391–413. Boulder: East European Monographs, 1994.

Puskás, Julianna. “Hungarian Overseas Migration: A Microanalysis.” In A Century of European Migrations, 1830–1930, edited by Rudolph Vecoli and Suzanne M. Sinke, 221–39. Urbana–Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1991.

Sæther, Steinar Andeas, ed. Expectations Unfulfilled: Norwegian Migrants in Latin America, 1820–1940. Leiden: Brill, 2016.

Smutná, Vlasta, and Jaroslav Smutný, eds. Keď som sa já z mojho kraja do Ameriky zberal: Písně našich vystěhovalců [When I have been getting ready to leave home for America: Songs of our emigrants]. Veselí–Moravou: Chludil, 2006.

Solberg, Carl E. Oil and Nationalism in Argentina: A History. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1979.

Steidl, Annemarie. Auf nach Wien! Die Mobilität des mitteleuropäischen Handwerks im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert am Beispiel der Haupt- und Residenzstadt. Vienna–Munich: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik, 2003.

Steidl, Annemarie et al. “Relations among Internal, Continental and Transatlantic Migration in Late Imperial Austria.” Social Science History 31, no. 1 (2007): 61–92.

Steidl, Annemarie et al., eds. European Mobility: Internal, International, and Transatlantic Moves in the 19th and Early 20th Centuries. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009.

Thistlethweite, Frank. “Migration from Europe overseas in the 19th and 20th centuries” (XIe Congrès International des Sciences Historiques, Uppsala 1960). [Repr. in A Century of European Migrations, 1830–1930, edited by Rudolph Vecoli and Suzanne M. Sinke, 17–58. Urbana–Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1991.]

Vázquez-Presedo, Vicente. “The Role of Italian Migration in the Development of the Argentine Economy, 1875–1914.” Economia Internazionale: Rivista dell’ Istituto di Economía Internazionale 24, no. 3–4 (1971): 606–26.

Wyman, Mark. Round-Trip to America: The Immigrants return to Europe, 1880–1930. Ithaca–London: Cornell University Press, 1993.

Yans-McLaughlin, Virginia. “Metaphors of Self in History: Subjectivity, Oral Narrative, and Immigration Studies.” In Immigration Reconsidered: History, Sociology, and Politics, edited by Virginia Yans-McLaughlin, 254–91. New York–Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Zahra, Tara. The Great Departure: Mass Migration from Eastern Europe and the Making of the Free World. New York: W. W. Norton, 2016.

Zeitlhofer, Hermann. “Bohemian Migrants: Internal, Continental and Transatlantic Migrations in Bohemia at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century.” In European Mobility: Internal, International, and Transatlantic Moves in the 19th and Early 20th Centuries, edited by Annemarie Steidl et al., 189–206. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009.

Zeitlhofer, Hermann. “Zwei Zentren temporärer kontinentaler Arbeitsmigration im Vergleich: Der Böhmerwald und das Friaul um 1900.” In Übergänge und Schnittmengen: Arbeit, Migration, Bevölkerung und Wissenschaftsgeschichte in Diskussion, edited by Annemarie Steidl et al., 45–75. Vienna: Böhlau, 2008.

International Architecture as a Tool of National Emancipation: Nguyen Cao Luyen in French Colonial Hanoi, 1920–1940*

Ulrike von Hirschhausen
University of Rostock
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

* This paper is the revised form of a lecture given at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in Budapest on April 5, 2017, as part of its lecture series “Current Approaches to Global History.” Many thanks go to Dr. Judit Klement and Dr. Krisztián Csaplár-Degovics, who stimulated thoughts about globalizing cities and also made my stay in Budapest at the time of the demonstrations in support of the Central European University a wonderful experience of collegial friendship. I am also deeply indebted to the anonymous reviewer from the Hungarian Historical Review for his or her critical reading and very helpful ideas.

This paper takes the city of Hanoi as an example in order to explore the potential of global history with regard to the urban context. It argues that the specific conditions of French urban planning made international architecture, not indigenous traditions, a tool of national emancipation in the 1930s and 1940s. The colonial administration of France in Indochina became increasingly concerned with integrating vernacular elements in its colonial architecture in order to visualize a policy of assimilation. This “Indochinese Style” was clearly seen as part of an imperial repertoire of power to which Vietnamese architects were opposed. Most of them, as the professional biography of Nguyen Cao Luyen illustrates, therefore considered contemporary architecture, as the International Style, to be an appropriate tool to reengineer a colonized society in the direction of national emancipation. When the French assigned a large area in southern Hanoi exclusively to the Vietnamese, this “New Indigenous Quarter” turned into a laboratory of international architecture that the emerging Vietnamese middle-class regarded as a means of practicing global modernity. Only the interconnectivity of the local, the imperial and the global realm helps us to better understand why at the local level internationalism appeared in Hanoi to be the appropriate tool for designing a national future.

Keywords: colonialism; Hanoi; architecture; international style; urban planning; empire.

Introduction

French colonialism in Hanoi was particularly concerned with urban planning. In 1900, the city, located in the north of Vietnam, became the capital of France’s newly conquered territories in Southeast Asia, termed French Indochina and roughly including the present-day areas of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. A French presence needed to be created visually in order to assert political domination over the territory against indigenous revolts as much as to demonstrate reformist attitudes towards the Vietnamese in a field considered a less overtly disciplinary form of colonial rule. The bulk of current research on Hanoi’s built environment has followed well-known assumptions of colonial rule as an effective power, which reconstructed the inner city as a French capital, neglected traditional housing of the Vietnamese and enforced ethnic separation between the Vietnamese and the European—primarily French—population.1 This, however, seems to partially reflect long-standing and unquestioned ideas of empire-building as a process planned in Western metropoles, forcefully implemented by colonial élites and resulting in a rather static geography of power between the colonizers and the colonized. The critical New Imperial History that is currently emerging questions this notion by focusing on the ambivalent and changing mutual relationship between the colonizers and the colonized in order to open a new understanding of both their diverse agencies in “making and unmaking” empire. This way, the historic entanglement of peripheries and centers, which historiography has often treated in isolation, also becomes visible. Attributing greater weight also to indigenous actors who were bridging these spaces sharpens our sensitivity to the outcome of the colonial encounter as an interactive phenomenon without neglecting the unequal distribution of power upon which it is based.2

Cities have not constituted a major field in which historians have tested such premises, whereas social scientists are particularly concerned with the emergence and governance of global cities today.3 This article takes the built environment of the colonial capital of Hanoi as an exemplary field in which imperial, colonial and national actors used architecture as a strategy to initiate and enforce their frequently contradicting and sometimes overlapping visions of political power, economic hierarchy and cultural identity.4 The Vietnamese Nguyen Cao Luyen (1907–1987) exemplifies a group of indigenous architects. By tracing his imperial biography in the 1930s and 1940s, the activities of these men who were eager to realize their visions of Hanoi’s urban design and city planning in the face of colonial hierarchy and ethnic segregation will be explored. I argue that the specific condition of French urban planning made international architecture, not vernacular traditions, a tool of national emancipation. This thesis builds on two points. First, France’s colonial administration became increasingly concerned with integrating regional and local traditions and elements in its colonial architecture in order to visualize a policy of assimilation. An “Indochinese style” emerging from these efforts was clearly marked as part of an imperial repertoire of power that indigenous architects opposed. Second, some of these architects, including Nguyen Cao Luyen, therefore considered the International Style that had reached its heyday in Paris, Dessau, Berlin, Chicago and Tokyo during the late 1920s and 1930s to be the appropriate tool to reengineer a colonized society. Rather than a reinvention of indigenous traditions, adapting to and reinterpreting global modernity would strengthen their program of national emancipation and future autonomy. Practicing global modernity as a prerequisite for these aims for them meant selecting and converting principles of contemporary avant-garde architecture and adapting them to the local context of Hanoi. A sufficient explanation for these policies, which they considered to be anti-colonial, needs to take three dimensions into account: the colonial environment of Hanoi as well as the metropolitan influences of Paris that Nguyen Cao Luyen had experienced as an intern with Le Corbusier as much as the global trends of the International Style that in the mid-1930s were practiced selectively on a worldwide scale. The interconnectivity of these realms—the local, imperial and global—helps us to better understand why at the local level of Hanoi, internationalism appeared to be the appropriate tool for designing a national future.

An “Indochinese Style” as a Repertoire of Power

City planning and urban architecture became an object of change after World War I. Various factors were responsible for shifting attitudes of both the French colonial administrators and Vietnamese élites in Indochina. In Paris, debates over colonialism had taken on a new tone in the French parliament. Politicians demanded visible attention to the needs of the colonized and started to replace the former leitmotif of “assimilation” with the term “association” as a means of managing ethnic diversity in the colony. Concealing the hard fact that the unequal distribution of political power and military force had remained intact, they advocated a softer policy of taking ethnic identity, indigenous traditions and geographic factors into account in order win greater support from the indigenous population.5 This seemed even more necessary in the face of ongoing revolts against French colonial rule after World War I, in which more than 100,000 Vietnamese had served without gaining more participation at home.

These new politics of “association” were increasingly intertwined with urban design in Hanoi. An influential colonial actor eager to translate the political strategy into local architecture was Ernest Hébrard (1875–1933), who arrived in Hanoi in 1921 to head the new Town Planning and Architecture Service.6 Hébrard had worked in Thessalonica and Athens, where he had realized plans to protect the historic districts and developed futurist “world city” projects. Although a well-trained Beaux-Arts architect by education, Hébrard took a keen interest in developing new forms of regional architecture that the colonial government was in turn eager to use for political purposes. During his years in Hanoi, Hébrard implemented civic buildings combining indigenous traditions with modern techniques of construction and material that were at the same time adapted to the climatic conditions of Hanoi. The “Indochinese style” became particularly evident in his Colonial Ministry of Finance built in 1927, which today serves at the home of the Foreign Ministry of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Comparable to colonial approaches in Cambodia, Tunisia or Morocco, this regional architecture, often an eclectic mix of diverse cultures within and beyond the colonial borders, remained a product of the French. Only French architectural theorists seemed to Hébrard capable of discerning and building upon the true character of Vietnamese culture and, correspondingly, only French architects were commissioned to implement their vision of the Vietnamese vernacular in the center of Hanoi.

 

 

 

Fig. 1. Ministry of Finance (1927), designed by Ernest Hébrard7

 

Integrating indigenous traditions in this colonial architecture went hand in hand with segregating the urban population according to race. Hébrard, as most city planners of his time, advocated racial segregation as a necessary constituent of colonial urbanism. The reasons for such segregation, which almost all colonial city planners endorsed, were related to hygiene, security, surveillance and racism.8 In an article “L’urbanism en Indochine,” published in 1928, Hébrard argued in favor of an ethnic topography of the city while realizing that mutual interest often eroded this colonial zeal:

 

La ville est divisé en: quartier de commerce genre européen et indigène; quartier d’habitations, européen et indigène; quartier des garages, quartier des chantiers, ateliers, petites industries et usines. Il est souvent de quartiers européens et de quartier indigènes, et certains pourraient croire à une spécialisation absolue et penser que des zones devraient être rigoureusement traces pour éviter tout contact pouvant devenir dangereux. En Indochine, les groupements sont distincts, mais si très rarement les Européens habitant les centres indigènes, par contre des Indigènes aisés vivent souvent dans les centres européens.9

 

Constantly comparing the French methods of controlling colonial societies with those of the British and the Dutch, Hébrard advocated the expansion of land-use zoning in order to enforce strict racial and environmental controls, which, however, were never officially implemented in Hanoi.

In 1926, Hébrard founded a new Architectural Section at the École Beaux Arts d’Indochine at which he hoped to further develop a modern regional architecture as a stabilizing factor underpinning the French régime. The more practical purpose of the colonial administration behind Hébrard was to recruit the much-needed draftsmen, subordinates and technical assistants for the French governmental architectural service. The five-year curriculum of the Architectural Section combined study of Vietnamese traditions with that of Western architectural theories and practices. It became supplemented through surveying and sketching civic buildings of the French, both those in the Beaux-Arts tradition and those in the new “Indochinese style,” such as Hébrard’s Ministry of Finance as well as Vietnamese temples, pagodas and ordinary houses.

Unintended by Hébrard—and even less by the colonial government—the new school spread ideas rather contrary to its original task. The concepts of European and American avant-garde architects increasingly swept into classrooms and lectures and created new models that extended far beyond the Beaux-Arts tradition, Art Deco or French ideas of an “Indochinese style.” The key reason for this unintended outcome was that the interwar-war period, during which around 50 Vietnamese students graduated from the new school, was one of the most stimulating moments in the history of twentieth-century architecture and urban-planning theory. In Dessau, Walter Gropius and Mies van der Rohe developed ideas of Gesamtkunstwerk (“total work of arts”) unifying art, crafts and technology at the German Bauhaus. In the United States, Frank Lloyd Wright created buildings emphasizing simplicity and an organic adaption of the environment in contrast to the ornate architecture prevailing in Europe.10 Most influential for the Vietnamese students at Hanoi’s Section was probably Le Corbusier’s activity as a theorist and architect in Paris. Le Corbusier proclaimed a new aesthetic devoid of any traditional references, oriented toward function and driven by technological development. Although Le Corbusier’s manifesto Vers une architecture, published in 1923, was not part of the curricula, the likelihood that the young French teachers whom Hébrard hired from France circulated and discussed this manifesto with their Vietnamese students is very high.11 Moreover, the publications of the Congrès International d’Architecture (CIAM) radiated worldwide and found repercussions in the colonies.12 In 1932, a year before one of the school’s graduates, Ngyuen Cao Luyen, left for Paris to work as an intern with Le Corbusier, the Museum of Modern Art in New York held an exhibition of “modern architecture.” The show was accompanied by a book entitled The International Style with which Nguyen and his fellow students, as later articles regarding him verify, were fully familiar.

 

Fig. 2. Lecturers and students, among them Nguyen Cao Luyen, from the École des Beaux Arts, Hanoi, in the 1930s13

 

These global trends of how to express modernity in urban architecture increasingly became a topic in the classrooms of Hanoi’s Architectural Section. Here they overlapped and mixed with Vietnamese interpretations of modernity fostered by the activities of teachers like Victor Tardieu. Tardieu was a progressive architect from Paris who had been a key promoter of an Architectural Section at the École Beaux Arts d’Indochine since the early 1920s. When the school finally opened, he taught students who studied there to strive in their work for the same standard as in the metropole (“égaler la qualité métropolitaine”), thereby undermining Hébrard’s demarcation of cultural difference between center and periphery as well as the administration’s interest in maintaining a social hierarchy within Indochina’s colonial society.14

Taken together, the French colonial government founded the Architectural Section at Hanoi’s École Beaux Arts with the primary purpose of creating and promoting a new modern “Indochinese Style” that would serve as a tool of imperial rule and produce subordinates and technical assistants for governmental service. Deviating from these expectations, the school turned into an institution at which both French and Vietnamese discussed radical concepts of modern architecture and their capability to reengineer human societies. This was to have unintended consequences for Hanoi’s colonial society and urban built environment in the 1930s.

Nguyen Cao Luyen between Hanoi and Paris in the 1920s–1940s

Nguyen Cao Luyen, one of the 50 Vietnamese graduates of the Architectural Section at the École Beaux Arts d’Indochine, participated actively in all these discussions.15 Coming from an educated middle-class background, Luyen had early on engaged himself in informal Vietnamese associations that promoted ideas of affordable housing production and fostered an endogenous architectural work beyond mere transfer. Immediately following his graduation in 1933, the 26-year-old Luyen departed for Paris to work as an intern with August Perret and Le Corbusier. This stay in the imperial capital had a formative influence on his biography, both as an architect and as a political activist.

In Paris, Luyen was able to approach two leading representatives of modern architecture, one conservative and one radically progressive. Luyen spent the majority of his internship working at the office of August Perret (1874–1954). In the 1930s, Perret was one of the most acclaimed and booked architects of both the French bourgeoisie and the government and was responsible for the design of many civic buildings. Perret argued that contemporary architecture must represent metaphysical principles of construction, thereby legitimizing a return to classical forms while using modern materials, above all reinforced concrete.16 The success of Perret’s neoclassical architecture certainly had an influence on Luyen as some of his later Art Deco designs suggest. Luyen’s own work in Hanoi, however, points rather to the lasting influence of Le Corbusier (1878–1965) who, in stark contrast to Perret, used sociological arguments as the emergence of a new mass culture and urbanization to legitimize his architecture and its potential to standardize. The English, French and German sources used for this article do not indicate how long Nguyen Cao Luyen worked as an intern at Le Corbusier’s atelier, but new research on the latter’s co-workers sheds light on Le Corbusier’s recruitment pattern.17 In the early 1930s, despite his increasing global reputation, Le Corbusier was constantly in depth, had no state commissions at all, quarreled constantly with his clients and paid almost no salary to his interns and fellow architects. Nonetheless his pioneering role in the new “international” architecture attracted a wealth of young, ambitious architects from Europe, Latin America, Japan and India, mostly of middle-class background, who were eager to work in his atelier at the Rue de Sèvres even without salary. Ngyuen Cao Luyen’s background from a Vietnamese middle-class family certainly contributed to making an unpaid internship with Le Corbusier possible.

The key aspects of Le Corbusier’s programmatic architecture, which engaged Luyen and many other young architects at the time, were emphasis on the geometric line as a regulating principle, a complete independence from historical context, the necessary combination of technology and architecture, the primacy of function and the use of new material such as steel, glass or concrete, among others.18 The “International Style,” a synthesis of design concepts from many primarily French, German and American architects, shared many of these claims and became a global export good that was particularly visible through the joint work of these architects within the International Congress of Architecture (CIAM). It was further promoted by Le Corbusier’s extensive publications of his own oeuvre, which he marketed on a worldwide scale. The time Nguygen Cao Luyen spent at Le Corbusier’s office on Rue de Sèvres, which was full of young architects from all over the world, had similar repercussions. The few texts we have from Luyen after he left Paris in 1933 indicate his preference to contribute actively to the “International Style” that he had studied in Hanoi on a theoretical basis and with which he became acquainted on a practical basis in Paris. In an article for the journal La Patrie annamite in 1937, co-authored with others, Luyen reflected on their formative experiences and the future tasks of the Architectural Section at the École Beaux Arts d’Indochine, arguing that “certain étudiant architectes affirment que le point de vue primordial de l’École est des former des artistes indochinois. Mais les étudiants ont plus d’ambition, ont-ils ajouté, c’est de posséder l’esprit d’artiste . . . c’est de pouvoir se comparer aux artistes étrangers.”19

The French capital in these very years was a laboratory for modern architecture that provided Nguyen Cao Luyen with a wealth of professional stimulation regarding how to translate “international modernism” into his own work as an architect working in Hanoi. At the same time, the imperial metropolis attracted migrants and exiles from various colonies of the French empire and beyond, many of whom became politicized during their stay in the imperial center.20 It is this second, social and political dimension of Paris as a “hotbed of anti-imperialism” that helps to further explain the later activity of Ngyuen Cao Luyen in Hanoi both as an architect and as a political activist.

When Luyen arrived in Paris in early 1933, he came to a metropole that was bursting with “men without a country.”21 The huge number of colonial subjects recruited by the French army to fight in World War I was a key reason for their unintended presence in Europe following the war. Moreover, labor demands in the metropole attracted growing numbers of North Africans and West Africans over the subsequent years. The permissive political climate of Paris differed starkly from the colonial situation back home with its strict censorship, violent restriction of public opposition and discriminatory practices in places such as Algeria, West Africa and Indochina. This added to the attraction of the metropole particularly for educated and politicized colonial subjects who were often deported to the center by the colonial governments.22

The anti-colonialist outlook, which in many cases had already been a reason for the frequently forced departure of the migrants from the colonies, intensified through mutual exchange and communication. A letter written by a Vietnamese student in 1927 documents the importance of mutual contacts and learning for the formation of an anti-imperial perspective among Vietnamese: “Since my departure from home, I have come to think much about the situation of my country. [. . .] There is now in France a small number of Vietnamese who constitute a part of the country and who, benefiting from the situation here, have undertaken its defense. I believe it is my duty to take part in that defense.”23

The idea that learning from the West in political, cultural and economic terms and applying these ideas and concepts to the modernization and political independence of their own nations was a recurrent theme in all anti-colonial discourses worldwide. However, the close mutual contacts within the narrow space of the Quartier Latin, where most of the Vietnamese students lived, intensified these perspectives because each migrant was now able to compare his individual experience of colonialism with that of other colonized men. This experience, which Nguyen Cao Luyen also had in Paris, contributed to understanding his situation less as a singular “colonial” fate than as a part of an “imperial” system. Some of the Parisian migrants, such as Ho Chi Minh in the 1920s, drew the conclusion that inter-ethnic solidarity—such as that experienced at the local level in Paris—needed to be translated into a global solidarity of anti-imperialists. Others, such as Nguyen Cao Luyen ten years later, felt encouraged to apply “modernism” as a tool of national emancipation to their professional work at home. The idea of modern architecture being instrumental for social progress was an overarching theme for all protagonists of the International Style and the Bauhaus movement alike. Upon his return to Hanoi, Luyen translated the social agenda of European architects into a national cause seemingly more applicable to the colonial context. Two years after returning to Hanoi from Paris, he co-founded the association Ánh Sáng (“Lumière”) with the aim of coordinating practical measures of intellectuals in Hanoi’s social sector. The society soon embraced a broad spectrum of engineers, journalists, writers, artists, architects and doctors, which numbered around 3,000 members by 1940, who used their respective professional expertise as a means of national emancipation from French rule.24

The Parisian experience, altogether, marked a central moment in Nguyen Cao Luyen’s imperial biography. In professional terms, he acquainted himself with the architectural movement of “International Modernism,” learned how to implement it into reality and started to reinterpret its agenda for the built environment at home. In political terms, the exposure to a city brimming with immigrants from other colonies stimulated new ways of seeing the imperial order and its possible demise. Colonial Hanoi in the 1930s and 1940s became the theater for putting these global inspirations into local practice.

International Architecture in Hanoi’s Indigenous Quarter

Immediately following his return from Paris, Nguyen Cao Luyen, together with a partner, Hoàng Nhu Tiêp, founded Hanoi’s first architectural office that was run completely by Vietnamese. The chances of implementing modern concepts of urban architecture in Hanoi’s center seemed to be dim. The French colonial government invested heavily in public infrastructure and civic buildings, but did not commission indigenous architects with public works. However, the consequences of colonial urbanism, including racial segregation, created an unexpected niche in the residential market that indigenous architects like Luyen used to their own benefit. The development of the “New Indigenous Quarter” in southern Hanoi shows how concepts of international architecture permeated a zone assigned only to the indigenous population.

Since 1900, Hanoi’s French administration had set aside a large area in the southern part of the city to serve as a Vietnamese residential district. Since the inception of the project in 1902, the area was called the “New Indigenous Quarter.”25 Land acquisition implemented in order to privatize and subdivide the land met with ongoing resistance among the poor and migrant population that lived on the periphery of the colonial capital. Therefore, in 1928, only one-third of the entire area accommodated solid houses, while two-thirds of the area served as the site of so-called Paillotes and huts made of light material. The municipal council stopped tolerating this situation the same year, evacuating the poor and offering land to the growing number of wealthier and educated Vietnamese who were interested in leaving the overcrowded merchant city in the center. In accordance with the colonial hierarchy, actual ownership of the new plots would remain with the French, while the Vietnamese could gain access to them only under a lease agreement with the municipality. By the 1930s, the French administration realized that it had to abandon the idea of controlling and delimiting actual ownership in the private real-estate market after realizing that only full private ownership would have the desired effect of populating the Indigenous Quarter with middle-class Vietnamese families. To qualify for purchase, potential future owners had to satisfy considerable financial conditions and needed to be reliable taxpayers and legitimately married. The above conditions restricted the plots of land to members of the emerging Vietnamese middle-class who in turn preferred to commission Vietnamese architects, in particular the graduates of the Hanoi Architectural Section. For a variety of reasons, the consequences of racial segregation as a constituent of colonial rule helped international architecture become a dominant feature of Hanoi’s Indigenous Quarter.

First, the new owners—educated Vietnamese, young traders or second-tier civil servants who often maintained a staunchly national perspective—wanted to have their status and outlook adequately reflected in a modern, contemporary architecture. They clearly associated the “Indochinese Style” that characterized many civic buildings in the center with colonial architecture. Moreover, the outdated eclecticism of this architecture failed to symbolize the social progress they were making, while its association with the French empire was in no way attractive for this bourgeoning, nationally orientated group. Therefore, the “Indochinese Style” was largely rejected by the very Vietnamese whom it was designed to represent.26 Nguyen Cao Luyen characterized the remoteness that he, his fellow-architects and clients alike felt toward any construction of an imagined Vietnamese vernacular: “Il faut assouplir son esprit et allier son art au gout du public. [. . .] Il faut être très libéral, il faut être élastique en art. [. . .] Il faut dégager le caractère primordial de chaque style. L’architecture, ce n’est pas de la théologie.”27

Second, members of the new Vietnamese middle-class who could afford their own house in the Indigenous Quarter instead preferred a style devoid of any imperial association that was shared by urban élites worldwide. This was a key reason for which they embraced contemporary architectural trends such as Art Deco or the brand new International Style, neither of which carried any imperial connotations or conveyed an overly French character. Particularly the International Style that renowned offices such as that of Luyen and Tiép offered their clients was associated with global modernism. To participate in this global movement was also a sign of social progress as a prerequisite of national autonomy. Internationalism as a means of nationalism was a strategy that Nguyen Cao Luyen observed as a growing pattern: “La plupart de nos élèves, une fois sortis de l’École, croient faire oeuvre d’indépendance […] les architectes, bien entendu, avec le moindre effort, construisent des édifices semblables à ceux que l’on construit en Amérique ou en Scandinavie.”28

Third, being relegated to the margins of the colonial capital unexpectedly resulted in a flourishing new market for Vietnamese architects, developers and builders who became largely independent from the city’s colonial administration. The prolific output of Nguyen Cao Luyen’s office shows how indigenous architects used this very situation to their own benefit. Between 1934 and approximately 1945, Luyen, Tiép, Dúc built around 200 villas primarily in the Indigenous Quarter as well as several churches and temples and a variety of shops. They also collaborated closely with the French administration on a number of social housing projects. Their office offered a broad spectrum of styles corresponding to the tastes of their customers, specializing in Art Deco and the International Style. This exemplary villa (see fig. 3), built for a Vietnamese doctor in the late 1930s, used the Art Deco style with barely any reference to indigenous traditions.

Fig. 3. Villa designed by the office of Luyen, Tiép and Dúc, late 1930s29

Fig. 4. “Compartiment,” Luyen Tiép, Dúc, late 1930s, Hanoi30

 

Luyen worked above all on his own interpretation of the International Style, particularly through the “Compartiment,” a new type of townhouse that he built for customers. The key vocabulary of international modernism with its focus on the regulating power of geometric lines, cubic forms and a flat roof, constituting a break with the historical context, is clearly recognizable in this example (see fig. 4), built in Hanoi in the 1930s. Fine horizontal lines as a décor underlined the importance of geometry, inside corridors provided for the functional segregation of rooms and small pillars created shady outdoor places adapting to the local climate while at the same time using one of Le Corbusier’s favorite elements.

Nguyen Cao Luyen developed a reputation through his buildings that soon transcended the racial segregation that existed in architecture and urban planning. In 1940, the French general governor commissioned him to design the new interior architecture of the governors’ palace. In 1945, Luyen joined Ho Chi Minh’s first communist cabinet as a vice minister in the newly created ministry of architecture.

Conclusion

Colonial Hanoi thus became a location at which both French and Vietnamese protagonists used architecture and urban planning as a strategy to enforce their political, economic and cultural agendas. The colonial administration promoted an “Indochinese Style” that attempted to translate indigenous traditions into the colonial architecture as part of the new French politics of “association.” The Architectural Section that the French founded in 1926 at the École Beaux Arts d’Indochine should implement this goal by training indigenous clerks and assistants. Unintentionally, the school turned into an institution at which students discussed global concepts of contemporary architecture that peaked worldwide in the late 1920s and 1930s. Nguyen Cao Luyen, one of the school’s graduates, personally experienced these concepts while working as an intern with Le Corbusier in Paris. The French capital at the same time functioned as a “hotbed of anti-imperialism” fostered through mutual contacts and networks of students, workers and migrants from various French colonies. Colonial Hanoi became the theater for putting these ideas into practice when the colonial policy of racial segregation set aside a vast area in southern Hanoi to meet the residential needs of the Vietnamese middle-class. Instead of adopting the “Indochinese Style,” which Vietnamese owners, developers and architects alike associated with colonial rule, they favored the International Style associated with global modernism and shared by urban élites worldwide. In turn, the “New indigenous Quarter” at the margins of the colonial capital developed into a laboratory of international architecture that the Vietnamese middle-class also saw as a means of national emancipation from the colonial régime.

 

Bibliography

Bain, Alison. Urbanization in a Global Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.

Ballantyne, Tony. “The Changing Shape of the Modern British Empire and its Historiography.” The Historical Journal 53, no. 2 (2010): 429–52.

Benton, Timothy. Le Corbusiers Pariser Villen aus den Jahren 1920–1930. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1984.

Collins, Peter. Concrete: The Visions of a New Architecture: A Study of August Perret and His Precursors. London: Faber & Faber, 1959.

Cooper, Fred. Colonialism in Question: Theory, Knowledge, History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007.

Cooper, Nicola. “Urban Planning and Architecture in Colonial Indochina.” French Cultural Studies 11, no. 1 (2000): 75–99.

Freigang, Christian. Auguste Perret: Die Architekturdebatte und die “Konservative Revolution” in Frankreich 1900–1930. Munich: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 2003.

Goebel, Michael. “‘The Capital of Men without a Country’: Migrants and Anticolonialism in Interwar Paris.” American Historical Review 121, no. 5 (2016): 1444–67.

Goebel, Michael. Anti-Imperial Metropolis: Interwar Paris and the Seeds of Third World Nationalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

Hébrard, Ernest. “L’Urbanisme en Indochine.” In L’Urbanisme aux colonies et dans les pays tropicaux, vol. 1, edited by Jean Royer, 278–98. La Charité-sur-Loire: Delayance, 1932.

Herbelin, Caroline. “Des HBM au Viet Nam: La question du logement social en situation colonial.” Mousson 13–14 (2009): 123–46.

Herbelin, Caroline. Architectures du Vietnam colonial: Repenser le métissage. Paris: CTHS-INHA, 2016.

Hirschhausen, Ulrike von. “A New Imperial History? Programm, Potenzial, Perspektiven.” Geschichte und Gesellschaft 41, no. 4 (2015): 718–57.

Howe, Stephen. “Introduction: New Imperial Histories.” In The New Imperial Histories Reader, edited by Stephen Howe, 1–20. London: Routledge, 2010.

Jeanneret, Charles-Édouard. Vers une architecture. Paris: Crès, 1923.

Kym, Nguyen Van. “The French Model.” In Hanoi: City of the Rising Dragon, edited by Georges Boudarel and Nguyen Van Ky, 47–73. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002.

Labbé, Daniel, Caroline Herberlin, and Quang-Vinh Dao. “Domesticating the Suburbs: Architectural Production and Exchanges in Hanoi during the Late French Colonial Era.” In Harbin to Hanoi. The Colonial Built Environment in Asia 1840–1940, edited by Laura Victoire and Victor Zatsepine, 251–71. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2013.

Logan, William S. Hanoi: Biography of a City. Sydney: UNSW Press, 2000.

Mazur, Linda. “Nguyen Cao Luyen (1907–1987).” Tap Chí Kîen Trúc [Architecture Magazine of Vietnam Association of Architects] 6 (2015) c.

Mumford, Eric. The CIAM Discourse on Urbanism, 1928–1960. London: MIT Press, 2002.

Muscheler, Ursula. Gruppenbild mit Meister – Le Corbusier und seine Mitarbeiter. Berlin: Berenberg, 2014.

Nightingale, Carl H. Segregation: A Global History of Divided Cities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012.

Passanti, Francesco. “The Vernacular, Modernism, and Le Corbusier.“ In Vernacular Modernism: Heimat, Globalization, and the Built Environment, edited by Maiken Umbach and Bernd Hüppauf, 141–56. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2005.

Riehl, M. Vers une architecture: Das moderne Bauprogramm des Le Corbusier. Munich: Scaneg, 1992.

Sassen, Saskia. The Global City: New York–London–Tokyo. Princeton University Press, 1991.

Vann, Michael G. “Building Colonial Whiteness on the Red River: Race, Power and Urbanism in Paul Doumers’s Hanoi, 1897–1902.” Historical Reflections/Réflexions Historiques 33, no. 2 (2007): 277–304.

Wright, Frank Lloyd. Europe and Beyond. Edited by Anthony Alofsin. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.

Wright, Frank Lloyd. Schriften und Bauten. Berlin: Mann, 1997.

Wright, Gwendolyn. “Indochina: The Folly of Grandeur.” In The Politics of Design in French Colonial Urbanism, 161–233. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991.

The Formation of Global Tourism from an East-Central European Perspective

Sarah Lemmen
Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

This article traces the formation of tourism to non-European regions from the late nineteenth century to the end of the interwar period with a focus on its East-Central European and specifically its Czech perspective. Tourism to Africa and Asia—considered here to be the culmination of “global tourism” in the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century—has been generally regarded as part and parcel of the imperial endeavor: empire shaped both the infrastructure and the practice of overseas tourism. By focusing on Czechs as “non-imperial” tourists to non-European regions, this article traces their travel experience as defined by different coordinates: no imperial identity would determine their behavior abroad, and no reasoning of economic nationalism would favor the visit to certain world regions over others.

Following an overview of the globalization of tourism and its interconnectedness with the imperial project, this article focuses on the specifics of Czech tourism to non-European regions. Some specifics have very practical implications, such as the language skills that generally catered rather to a Central European than a global environment, or the average travel budget that was lower than that of travelers from Germany, Great Britain or the United States. Others suggest a Czech identity that was drafted in contrast to the imperial “other” and outside the colonial dichotomy of “rulers” and “ruled.” While Czech travelers profited from a strongly imperial tourist infrastructure, they often professed a general skepticism toward imperial rule.

Keywords: travel; tourism; globalization; East-Central Europe; Czechoslovakia; empire; Africa; Asia

The “Golden Age of Travel” in East-Central Europe

In 1932, Vladimír Hýl, a young teacher and cultural critic from the Czechoslovak city of Ostrava, displayed an unwavering belief in modernization when he formulated a history of advancing means of transportation that would enhance tourism around the globe:

In modern times, the world is shrinking and [thus] enables everyone to get to know her. Distances are soon to be meaningless. While sailing ships still required up to three months to reach America, [and] the first steamship needed fourteen days, [today] the fastest steamship manages the distance in five days and the airplane in eighty hours!1

From today’s perspective, even the stated flight time seems incredibly high and thus lets us continue this narrative of increasing speed and global density up to the present. Yet, this quote highlights the rapid change of overseas travels starting with the first passenger ocean liner launched in 1838, continuing with the faster and more regular ocean liners from the 1870s onward, and passing on to the first transatlantic passenger flight from southern Germany to New Jersey in 1928—only a short couple of years before Vladimír Hýl described the shrinking of the world in such enthusiastic terms.2

The rapid development of the means of transportation, both in travel time and mode as well as in the regions covered, led to a globalization of tourism that by the late nineteenth century had reached all continents and was soon to be criticized for producing a global “mass tourism” to destinations such as Cairo or Aswan.3 Although in his statement Vladimír Hýl was overly optimistic in his assessment that just about “everyone” could go and see the world, he did catch the zeitgeist of the interwar period as a time when even long-distance travels were slowly opening for a growing middle class. Trips to see the pyramids of Egypt, the exotic bazaars of Tunis and Algiers, the famous Buddha of Kamakura or the Taj Mahal in Agra had come into reach for growing social strata not only in London and Paris, but also in Vienna, Budapest and Prague.

This article traces the formation of tourism to non-European regions from the late nineteenth century to the end of the interwar period with a focus on its East-Central European and specifically its Czech perspectives. There are good reasons for the concentration on this region. The globalization of tourism, as the inherent claim suggests, affected virtually all world regions. But it did not affect all of them in the same way. And while around 1900 it was more likely for a European to embark on a leisure trip to India than for an Indian to explore Europe, it was also more likely for a member of British society to travel overseas than it was for a citizen of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy or, during the interwar period, of one of its successor states. Local customs, economic capital and political power played a role in choosing travel destinations, in finding travel accommodations and not least in interpreting and understanding travel experiences. This article will focus on the local appropriation of global processes—or “glocalization”4—when examining Czech tourism to non-European regions in this “golden age of travel” from the late nineteenth century and throughout the interwar period.5 By doing so, it will challenge some general assumptions on the relation between tourism and imperialism.

Tourism to Africa and Asia—as will be considered here the culmination of “global tourism” for the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth century—has been generally regarded as part and parcel of the imperial endeavor. Research on the entanglement of tourism and empire has strongly argued the case that overseas tourism evolved in the wake of imperial outreach, while at the same time reinforcing imperial power.6 The building of infrastructure—railroads, shipping lines—in regions of imperial influence helped create efficient and safe tourism in locations that had been difficult to reach, while tourist infrastructure and its main protagonists —Thomas Cook & Son and others—became central financial and political players overseas, reinforcing imperial interests.7

At the same time, the entanglement of tourism and empire was also reflected in the practice of tourism. Focusing on tourists mainly from Great Britain—not only as the country with the largest overseas empire at the time, but also as the “inventor of tourism”—and from other empires, numerous studies show that these “imperial tourists” were coined by the imperial experience while at the same time they were given a vital role in (direct and indirect) empire building.8 For one, “empire tourism”—e.g. visiting destinations inside the empire—was the common way of traveling, both because imperial tourists may have had stronger ties to these places, but also because imperial tourism was strongly promoted for both economic reasons and in support of imperial identity. Touring the Empire therefore was denoted for British travelers as “buy British, see British, travel British, parade British,” and was part of enforcing imperial power and maintaining the existing world order.9 Travel destinations, choices of travel mode, and behavior on location were affected by an imperial identity and controlled by an imperial network. Looking at it from a reverse angle, travel experience was also tainted by the imperial: while imperial tourism offered a glimpse of the exotic, it was also embedded in a familiar context, as British currency and foods, customs and social routines were “available to British tourists across the Empire, especially in port cities and colonial capitals.”10

To be sure, “imperial tourism” was not the only option for British travelers, although certainly the most frequent one.11 Research has suggested, however, that imperial identity was generally not shed outside the empires, and that the choices and actions of the travelers were indeed imperially informed: independent of their travel destination or motive, it has been suggested, British travelers shared a British imperial mindset, which with “its triumphant rhetoric, [. . .] and colonialist vision [. . .] contributed to ways of seeing the world.”12 Imperial identity, then, coined travel experience and world views both inside and outside the empire.

This concept of “empire tourism” and imperial identity, as historian Gordon Pirie points out, was surely not a purely British phenomenon, but (however in lesser scope and degree) also valid in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain.13 In contrast, Czech tourists—as well as those from Hungary, Poland and Austria among others—could not rely on imperial networks and infrastructure overseas or seek the familiar in the exotic.14 This is not to say that Czech—and other non-imperial—travelers were neutral bystanders: they took advantage of the imperial infrastructure and thus, inadvertently, also took part in the European imperial project. They, as much as any other tourist, were part of this form of “un-invited visiting,” of “creating inequality between ‘hosts’ and ‘guests.’”15 For the local populations, therefore, there might not have been a great difference between a Czech and a British traveler, as European travelers generally and inadvertently supported the existing imperial order.16

At the same time, however, the experience of non-imperial tourists was embedded in and defined by different coordinates: no imperial identity would coin their behavior abroad and no reasoning of economic nationalism would favor the visit of certain world regions over others. This would influence both decisions on where and how to travel and the experiences made on location. As the literary scholar Wendy Bracewell has argued, in contrast to British and French imperialist travel writing, “accounts of travel from Europe’s eastern peripheries suggest different relations of knowledge, representation and power, rather less monolithic or polarized.”17 Eastern European travelers, as Bracewell further argues, did not travel in a contextual void, but neither did they adopt all perceptions of the places they visited from Western discourse, as they “may find themselves working with a pre-existing vocabulary of images and stereotypes, but they are far from voiceless.”18 Although certainly not immune to notions of European superiority, East European tourism to non-European destinations certainly did not encounter a familiar environment: The “non-imperial tourist” was dealing with a different set of issues than imperial tourists, some of which were highly practical.

By telling a story of the emergence, development and experience of Czech tourism mainly to African and Asian destinations from the late nineteenth century to the end of the interwar period, I am asking how a world that had been built around imperial interests was appropriated by tourists without any stakes in the empire at hand. While looking specifically at Czech tourists, the underlying question is if (and how) a non-imperial tourism was different from an imperial tourism. In that sense, the arguments and the underlying concept may be valid for other “non-imperial tourists” from Poland, Hungary or interwar Austria.

This article is based to a large part on Czech travelogues published from 1890 to 1938 as well as on articles that were published in contemporary journals and magazines as part of a public discourse on tourism and its importance for the Bohemian lands as part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, as well as later for Czechoslovakia. Without access to quantifiable data on Czech tourism abroad, the steady increase in the publication of travelogues as well as the heightened public debates on tourism and the growing number of commercialized package tours to popular tourist destinations give not only an estimate of trends—of tourist destinations, of travel incentives, etc.—but also an evaluation of how tourism was experienced.

The Globalization of Tourism

Travel connections between continents have always existed, in the form of trade relations, expeditions or diplomatic missions. The specific form of long-distance tourism spanning several continents, however, in its understanding as a leisure activity and relying on the predictability of financial and temporal investment as well as a certain comfort, evolved from the European core of tourism during the nineteenth century.19

The eventual globalization of tourism—its outreach beyond the European continent—was strongly connected to the imperial project.20 Tourism—in contrast to the more adventurous and individualistic (as well as more expensive) earlier forms of long-distance travel—relied on favorable political stability and heavy infrastructure: tourism expanded in the wake of what came to be called “railway imperialism.”21 The speed with which the growing railway network soon connected all continents is remarkable, and it changed international and intercontinental relations as well as the means and speed of transportation and forms of control. In terms of tourism, railways not only considerably enhanced the number of travelers, but they also redefined travel destinations, as travelers would follow the train tracks and therefore were less inclined to venture “off the beaten track.”22 In short, railways enabled tourism to non-European regions on a large scale, while at the same time streamlining tourism to certain destinations and certain forms of travel.

Tourism as an Imperial Project

Only some regions outside of Europe or North America had been established as regularly frequented tourist destinations by the middle of the nineteenth century. One of the earliest and most important certainly was Egypt. The vital train connection between the Egyptian port of Alexandria and further inland to Cairo opened for instance already in 1854, reducing the travel time between these two cities from four days to a mere four hours, thereby connecting the Egyptian metropole to a global transport network and enhancing its history as one of the most popular tourist destinations outside Europe.23 This early date also serves as a reminder that British imperialist outreach did not necessarily predate the financial involvement in infrastructure and the advent of tourism, but rode along with its expansion. Muhammad Ali Pasha, governor of Egypt, was quite a driving force himself in the modernization of Cairo and the accommodation of European tourists.24

Other regions central to European interests and eventually to European tourism obtained railroads during the second half of the nineteenth century, intensifying in the last three decades. The railroad system in Africa was concentrated at first mainly in the north, expanding rapidly from Egypt to Algeria and Tunisia. By the turn of the century, the African continent had 20,000 kilometers of railroads, connecting vast regions by regular schedule.25 A similar timeframe can be established for India, which in 1860 only had 1,350 kilometers of railway tracks, while in 1900, this number had increased 25-fold, with the central train connection between Bombay and Calcutta opening in 1870.26 In South America, similar to Australia, railroads were first introduced in the 1850s, although railway construction accelerated only in the 1880s.27 Only few world regions, such as the vast Chinese empire, remained with virtually no railroad network until the turn of the century, a fact that both hints at the limited influence of European imperial powers in China and accounts for the relatively small number of European tourists during the nineteenth century.28

While the advancement of tourism largely followed European imperial outreach, it went eventually from imperial byproduct to establishing its own driving force. Two of the most famous passenger train services exemplify this trend of an increase in catering to a luxurious form of tourism and to well-paying customers: the famous Orient Express connected Paris—and Vienna—with Constantinople beginning in 1883. The Trans-Siberian Railway, built in the years 1891–1914, finally connected Moscow and eventually all of Europe overland with Vladivostok at the Pacific Ocean.29

The railroad network was complemented by the simultaneous establishment of regular travel routes by seaway. The opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 facilitated the direct connection by sea from Europe to Asia. Direct and regular ferry connections on steamships were introduced from Trieste to Port Said in 1869, Bombay in 1870, Singapore in 1880, Hong Kong in 1880, Shanghai in 1881 and Yokohama in 1892, enhancing the global transportation network considerably.

By geographical convenience, it was quite common to hail from East Central Europe. Not only did the trains to Constantinople or to Russia and then on to East Asia stop in Vienna, in Budapest or in Warsaw; but after the opening of the Suez Canal, the Austro-Hungarian port city of Trieste had become a central hub for transportation to the Southern Hemisphere. In its wake, Austrian Lloyd became the leading shipping company on this route for passenger travel.30

In the span of a couple of decades, European tourism to places such as Cairo, Algiers and Bombay had become both considerably faster and safer, more projectable in terms of time and finances, and last but not least, significantly more comfortable if not outright luxurious. By the late nineteenth century, the “golden age of travel” had been heralded for the European tourist.31

An Empire Equipped for Tourists

This apparent accessibility of the world was celebrated and promoted by the tourist industry. In 1890 a brochure by the travel agency Thomas Cook & Son dubbed Cairo “no more than a winter suburb of London.”32 Less possessive, but implying a similar direction, the Czech travel journal Do světa commented retrospectively in 1932 on the immense pace with which tourism had taken over the world and Czech society in particular:

 

While less than a quarter century ago, a trip to Venice was considered a large expedition that only those could accomplish who were not only blessed with wealth but also with great courage, today even the members of less affluent social strata are returning from Aswan in Upper Egypt or from [the Algerian] Biskra as if from a short excursion.33

This perception, of course, was not only due to the easy accessibility of foreign shores and to the calculability both of time and financial means, but to the emergence of a wide range of tourist infrastructure of European provenance and—again—in close relation to the imperial project. In colonial and tourist centers, an array of luxury hotels was built, such as the well-known Shepheard’s Hotel in Cairo or the Mena-House right at the foot of the Egyptian pyramids.34 Restaurants and cafés with European fare provided for the culinary well-being of the travelers.35 The first office of the British travel agency Thomas Cook & Son in Cairo (opened in 1872) signaled another feat in the history of global tourism, offering package deals to its clients with measured exotic exposure and a heightened degree of security.36 Soon even trips around the world could be booked as a package tour.37 By the turn of the century, as the historian Robert F. Hunter argues, “there were two empires on the Nile—Britain’s military occupation, and Cook’s Egyptian travel,”38 and both profited from one another: tourism had conquered the world.

Another layer of tourist infrastructure soon followed suit: the exploration of long-distance and global tourism to Africa and Asia was soon taken up by prominent travel guides such as the German Baedeker Guides or the British “red books” by John Murray when they took non-European travel destinations into their repertory, with John Murray offering a first decisive list of “must-sees” of Egypt already in 1847, of Syria and Palestine in 1858 and of India in 1859. Karl Baedeker concentrated on non-European regions somewhat later, focusing on Syria and Palestine in 1875 and on Egypt in 1877, but omitted India altogether until as late as 1914—a hint at the different status of India in the British and the German context as well as the role imperial interests played in the choice of travel destinations.39 Another popular series of travel handbooks, the German Meyers Reisebücher, adhered in 1907 to the globalization of tourism with the publication of a “travel-around-the-world guide.”40 Czech tourists, however, had to make due with foreign-language guides for quite a long time: the first Czech-language travel guide to the Near East and North Africa was published only in 1936.41

The impact of this rapid globalization of tourism was immense—on the regions affected by it, on the travelers and on the local population, as well as on the power dynamics between them. A tourist in a fancy hotel or a European café in Algeria or Morocco during the interwar period could only marvel at the fact that less than a lifetime before, until the 1880s, certain North African regions could only be visited “disguised as a Muslim or a Jew,” as a tourist duly noted in 1928.42 In fact, some of the famous expeditions to explore and conquer the “Dark Continent” had taken place only a couple of years before the advent of the tourist: the 1880s still saw the second Africa expedition by Moravian explorer Emil Holub or the Emin Pasha Expedition by Henry Morton Stanley. Shortly thereafter, the adventurous and troublesome expeditions were exchanged for hotels and railroads, the constant uncertainty of exploration replaced by an exact itinerary and precise timetable. The era of the explorer was mostly over—now focusing mainly on the polar regions—and the tourist came to stay.

The Specificity of Czech Tourism

It is self-evident—if under-researched—that long-distance tourism to destinations in Africa or Asia even in its early phase was not limited to British, French or other “imperial tourists,” but was also enjoyed by a growing number of citizens of the Habsburg Empire and its successor states.

Czech tourists were part of global tourism from the very beginning—quite literally, as various travelers confirmed who took trips along railroad lines that had been built only shortly before.43 This experience, however, was limited in access to certain social classes. While extensive data on the quantity and social class of travelers from the Czech lands is not available, a look at the authors of travelogues suggests that until World War I, long-distance travelers from the Bohemian lands generally had an upper middle-class background. The well-known educator and writer Josef Kořenský, also acclaimed to be the first Czech to travel around the world (in 1893–1894), or the lawyer and journalist Jan Josef Svátek are representative travelers of this time both in social and professional background.44 Researchers and pilgrims were among the travelers, but—specific to the Czech case—there were neither members of the nobility nor public servants. The interwar years offered a democratization in tourism. The opening of travel destinations for ever more tourists, the lowering of the prices through competition and the increased catering not only to the higher society, but also to an ever more mobile middle and even lower middle-class enabled larger segments of society to travel abroad and even beyond the borders of Europe.

The expansion of tourism also led to an infrastructure around travel needs in the Bohemian lands and especially in interwar Czechoslovakia. Travel agencies opened in urban centers, such as the travel agency Čedok (founded in 1920), offering package tours abroad,45 while the Brno-based travel agency Do světa advertised three organized trips to Northern Africa and the Near East in 1927 alone.46 Other institutions followed suit to meet the growing demand.47 At the same time, journals and magazines sprang up that catered to the growing interest in travel to foreign countries.48 The tourist infrastructure met growing demand: the travel magazine Do světa discussed in its first edition in 1926 the “significance of [Czech] travel abroad“ and stated confidently: “Our travel activities are increasing.”49

Thus, Czech tourism developed in line with a general European trend to “get to know [the world],” as Vladimír Hýl is quoted at the beginning of this article. For a number of reasons, however, traveling turned out to be different for, say, a Czech teacher than for a British colonial officer, and these differences, I argue, were reflected both in the travel experience abroad and in the discourse surrounding long-distance tourism. The choice of travel destinations and travel mode, the language skills and financial abilities coined the travel experiences. A different mode of traveling than that of “imperial travelers” was noted by the tourists themselves and interpreted from a Czech perspective.

Travel Destinations and Financial Means

British tourists, as has been stated, were encouraged to travel the British Empire. Similarly, for French citizens, “[c]olonial tourism was represented as a duty.”50 While this was not an exclusive model of traveling, it certainly was a recurrent one.51 For Czech tourists, however, there was no “self-evident” travel destination in non-European regions. If we take the corpus of published travelogues as an indicator of popular travel destinations, we can determine, out of a sample of almost 100 Czech travelogues on non-European regions published between 1890 and 1938, the preferred destinations for global tourism.

In many ways, Czech tourists followed the travel routes set by imperial infrastructure, and not least by the recommendations of the widely consulted travel guides by Baedeker or Murray. However, they did not follow any imperial pattern. Egypt was and remained the most often and most regularly visited country throughout the entire “golden age of travel,” relying on the extended tourist infrastructure and fairly easy accessibility as much as on the fame of its ancient tourist sites. A trip to Egypt—which included a longer stay in Cairo and a ride to the pyramids, and often entailed an excursion down the Nile to the sites of Upper Egypt—was sometimes combined with a trip to either Algeria and Tunisia, or to Palestine. In the interwar period, various Asian countries such as Japan, India, China and Ceylon had become popular travel destinations at least for more affluent tourists.

Czech tourists, therefore, traveled to the same destinations as “imperial tourists,” if without the focus on one empire or another. However, they generally had distinct access to them. On average, Czech tourists had markedly less financial means than their British or German counterparts, a fact that clearly influenced their travel experience. The—admittedly fragmentary—data suggests that especially in the interwar period, Czech tourists were strongly recruited from professions such as teachers, university professors, journalists, as well as university students or artists. Not only did these professions come with a rather moderate income—although, almost equally important to long-distance traveling, with above-average vacation time—but, in international comparison, Czech spending capacity was limited. Although the national income of Czechoslovakia was higher than that of neighboring Eastern European countries or of Italy, it was somewhat below that of Austria and Germany and clearly below that of Western European countries or the USA.52 A comparison of incomes of some of the relevant professions in Prague, Berlin and New York for the second half of the 1920s show a distinct difference: while teachers in Prague earned about 1,500 Kčs, those in Berlin earned about twice as much and in New York triple that amount. This ratio applies to the income of university professors as well.53 These numbers suggest that in internationally frequented tourist centers that catered to the needs and means of the “imperial tourists,” the average spending power of Czech travelers was considerably lower than that of tourists from Western Europe or the United States.

Accordingly, a trip to Cairo, and even more so to India or Japan, was still an expensive undertaking for the average Czech tourist. The Brno-based travel agency of Jaroslav Karásek advertised a four-week roundtrip tour to Alexandria, Cairo, Aswan, Luxor and Jerusalem for 17,900 Kčs,54 while a four-week trip to Tunisia and Algeria was offered for 6,750 Kčs.55 Even the less expensive tour was four and a half times the amount of the monthly salary of a teacher in Prague. Especially during the interwar period, Czech tourists often opted for a more cost-effective solution by choosing to travel second class. This travel mode was a common topic in the travelogues. The luxurious grand hotels were generally traded for small boarding houses, the comfort of a first-class passage was rejected for the somewhat simpler second-class transit. The distinction of travelers according to social class and financial means was discussed by Czech tourists, who realized that the luxurious hotels were “adapted to the needs of the upper ten thousand,”56 and catered, as was made explicit, to the budgets of tourists from Great Britain or the United States.57 The Czechs, however, were “the only tourists traveling second class,” as the pioneer in Czechoslovak-Moroccan relations, Jan Kořínek, claimed in 1928.58 The travelogues offer a view of a European two-class society following an East-West divide, with the imperial tourists living the high life in the colonial metropolises, while Czech tourists shared the simple boarding houses with other Central and East European travelers, or as one of the travelers noted in 1935, with “Russians, Jews, [and] Poles.”59

Language Skills and Language Problems

Central to travel preparations was the gathering of information. While travelers from imperial nations could generally rely on published information in their mother tongue and thereby partake in a national discourse on those travel destinations, Czech travelers—and with them many others from “small nations”—had to make due mainly with literature in a foreign language, a situation that changed only slowly in the interwar period.

The main Czech encyclopedia of the time, Ottův slovník naučný (1888–1909), comparable in scope, depth and relevance to the Encyclopædia Britannica,60 gives ample evidence of the language distribution of the available literature at the time. The dictionary entries for “Africa,” “Asia,” and “America,” published in the first two volumes in the years 1888–89, refer to only seven literature references in Czech out of 116 mentioned altogether, adding up to six percent of the cited literature.61 The supplement edition of the encyclopedia from the interwar period consulted literature in Czech to a greater extent. The same dictionary entries now referred in 12 percent of all citations to Czech language publications. The majority of references, however, was still made to literature in German, followed by English and French.62 All in all, the increase of Czech-language literature was embedded in a general increase of specialist publications. While the article on “Asia” in the first edition of 1889 still noted that there were “only very little publications on all of A[sia],” the second edition, published roughly 40 years later, came to the conclusion that “[t]he literature on A[sia] has been increasing lately to such an extent that one can only mention the most important works that either reflect on the entire continent or on large regions.”63

The limited amount of literature on non-European regions available in Czech had practical as well as discursive implications. For one, it was not until the interwar years that a national discourse on those regions could flourish with a regular exchange between experts on these subjects. The travelogues under scrutiny here exemplify this change in their mentioning of preparatory literature. In the late nineteenth century and throughout the first two decades of the twentieth century, literary references were mostly made to publications in German or English. Josef Kořenský, for example, referred mainly to travelogues and academic treatises in English and German in preparation for his trip around the world in 1893/94, referring only to the Czech writings of the Indologist Otakar Feistmantel.64 In 1901, the explorer Enrique Stanko Vráz again mentioned for his preparations of a trip to Siam works by European, American and even Siamese authors, but not a single book in Czech was part of his preparatory reading.65

It was only in the interwar period that the corpus of literature in Czech on non-European regions—both academic studies and travel descriptions—had reached a critical mass that could serve as a starting point for discussion and cross-references, and the amount of coverage varied strongly from region to region. The sculptor František Foit, who in 1932 traveled by car from Cairo to Cape Town together with the botanist Jiří Baum, stated that he had read “everything” that was related to Africa, and listed books by the Moravian explorer Emil Holub along with publications by the US-American film maker Martin Johnson and the French writer André Gide about his travels to the Congo and Chad.66

Only in 1934 could the physician Jaroslav Přikryl in his travelogue about Ceylon and South India refer—in addition to novels by Jules Verne, Rudyard Kipling and others—to literature mainly by his fellow countrymen and regional specialists Jiří Daneš (geographer), Karel Domin (botanist), Otakar Nejedlý and Jaroslav Hněvkovský (painters who lived in India for several years and wrote extensively about the country and their experiences there), Otakar Pertold (Indologist), and the explorer and widely published traveler Enrique Stanko Vráz.67

The limited amount of literature in Czech also had very practical implications, as the knowledge of foreign languages determined the accessibility of knowledge about those regions. The Czech school system, however, was focused entirely on Central European needs and traditions: in the Bohemian lands, language education concentrated mainly on German as well as on French in higher education. This focus continued throughout the interwar period. Proficiency in English, on the other hand, was limited to a small minority. In fact, English was not a mandatory school subject throughout the interwar period. The consequences of this educational decision in a global perspective were implied by Bohumil Pospíšil, a frequent traveler to Asia, when he warned in 1935 about the lack of interest in the English language at home and an ignorance toward its growing importance in a globalized world: “English was, is and will be the Alpha and Omega of all success east of Suez and west of Gibraltar. No declaration in French by our academics—[only] half savants in all practical matters—will be able to replace that.”68

Czech Choices in the Face of an Imperial World

In describing and debating their role as tourists in international contexts, Czech travelers reflected on their cultural and national identity and argued for an understanding quite different from that of an “imperial traveler.” It was in this discourse—led both in travelogues and in contributions to journals and magazines—that the Czech identity was drafted in contrast to the imperial (rather than the non-European) “Other,” both in social and in political terms.

A first vector in the discussion of national identity related to considerations on social status. Paired with a moral claim, the prototypical Czech tourist tended to stress his middle-class identity in open contrast to wealth and lavishness, but also to the political power of the imperial traveler. This was strongly linked to the more modest mode of traveling chosen by most middle-class tourists. The decision to stay in unassuming boarding houses rather than in grand hotels, to travel second class rather than first, as discussed above, may have been a financial necessity, but in the travelogues, it was presented as a moral choice. This is most evident in those passages in which Czech tourists write specifically about their choice of the small, yet comfortable boarding house over the luxurious hotels,69 or when a tourist opted for the cheaper mode of transportation, as did the engineer Josef Zdeněk Raušar on his way from Djelfa in Algeria to an oasis lying to the south in 1930. Choosing between two buses with different equipment, he stated that for Czech tourists, “the smaller one, the normal [bus] will do.”70 Other travelers stressed that they chose consciously and “with pride” second- or even third-class tickets for both train and boat passages.71 The specificity and singularity of this way of traveling was emphasized when as early as 1892 another traveler described how he tried to obtain a second-class ticket for the boat passage from Asyut in Middle Egypt up the Nile River—in vain, as it turned out: the captain persuaded him to go first class instead, as “for a European,” anything but traveling first class was inappropriate.72 Other travelers—if only a few—forewent European amenities altogether, as the writer Bohumil Pospíšil, who during his trip to China in 1935 stayed at local hostels, and explicitly called out this breach of expected behavior for European travelers when he stated that he “reduced the reputation of the white race” by living “like a native.”73 The refusal to accept certain norms as laid down for the imperial traveler, and therefore ignoring the maintenance of power as expected of metropolitan tourists, was frequently emphasized by various Czech tourists.74

This general insistence on traveling second class allowed a second interpretation that usually connected this form of traveling with a widespread topos in Czech national self-perception during the interwar period, namely its democratic identity, strongly linked with the topos of a “small nation.”75 In the travelogues, the Czech “democratic principle” (demokratičnost)76 was argued as a world view that held all people as equal. More than once did this idea come up in a debate over a ride in a rickshaw; arguing that a “democratic” Czech should not be pulled by another human being, as Karel Cvrk noted in 1923 on his trip through Ceylon: “A Czech, who is used to equality-liberty-fraternity, is usurped by a strange feeling when here in Colombo he is supposed to be pulled by a man.”77 In the same year, but this time in Japan, the journalist František Václav Krejčí commented similarly about a rickshaw runner that “it is contrary to our Czech democratic principle to see a man doing the work of a horse for us.”78 In these quotes, an understanding of democracy and equality that encompassed all men across the globe was highlighted as an inherent feature of Czech nationality.

Finally, colonial life—the social etiquette of the European upper classes in imperial centers—was distinctly criticized. Czech tourists noted not only the strict dress codes for Europeans that seemed inadequate for the local climate, but also the restrictive social rules that prohibited even superficial contact between men and women in public, or the tediousness of colonial life.79 The sculptor František Foit noted in 1930 with some annoyance on his trip from Cairo to Cape town via the British-dominated city of Omdurman in Sudan that “nothing is allowed, everything is guarded and there is a fake morale everywhere.”80

This general skepticism toward local practices of European behavior in China, in Egypt, or in Algeria—though not necessarily shared by all travelers—was quite a common feature in Czech travelogues and is traceable beginning in the late nineteenth century until the end of the interwar period. This did not, however, imply a fundamental criticism toward imperial outreach or colonialism as such. Rather, the legitimacy of European involvement abroad was only rarely discussed and even less criticized; the political status quo was rarely questioned. This might be somewhat surprising as, since the late nineteenth century, the Czech national movement had been strongly based on an anti-Habsburg sentiment that declared the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy to be a “prison of nations” and therefore phrased itself often as oppressed. Only to a limited extent would this interpretation influence the perspective of European imperial involvement abroad.

Generally, most tourists acknowledged the benefits of modernization for the purpose of travel in vast regions of Africa and Asia, and connected these to the influence of the European imperial powers: railroads, tourist infrastructure and technology were clearly marked as a European influence on otherwise “medieval”81 or backward regions of “silence, sadness and hunger.”82

In the end, it was an in-between position that was taken by most travelers, who neither went “native” nor identified wholly with the imperial powers. As the zoologist Jiří Baum confessed in 1933:

 

The Czech nation can probably only sympathize with the natives, who were deprived of independence and the right to self-determination by the colonial governments, but on the other hand it is hard to dismiss that it is more comfortable to travel in all those world regions where the higher positions are held by Europeans.83

Conclusion

The “golden age of travel” saw the expansion of European tourism to most continents. The spread of the railroad network and tourist infrastructure in many ways streamlined travel as it created transportation hubs and tourist centers in certain parts of the world while others were—for the time being—left aside. Imperial endeavor was the motor of this homogenizing development, and in many cases it coined destinations, transport and lodging as well as food, rule and etiquette. Tourist infrastructure in colonial or imperial settings largely catered to “imperial travelers,” offering the familiar in the exotic while avoiding the “uncomfortable immersion in non-European cultures.”84

Non-imperial travelers, however, could not access all the infrastructure and especially the identity politics connected to “imperial tourism.” As generalized as some of the arguments had to be—not all British travelers were supporting imperial interests, not all Czech tourists were opposed to a higher level of comfort—the argument could be made that a different relationship to imperial power influenced the practices and experience of traveling in an imperial context, and therefore offered a different appropriation of these global processes. Economic means, language skills and access to knowledge influenced the choice of travel destinations as well as the travel mode: Czech tourists often shunned the luxury hotels and the elegant social events and rather opted for the less costly pension or boarding house and chose a second-class ticket instead of first class for their voyage. However, these choices were not based purely on economic considerations. Rather, the travelogues suggest a cultural argument, as they were debating the suitability of behavior abroad in the light of national identity. The self-understanding as a democratic and largely middle-class nation seemed for instance to demand the choice of simple, second-class travel. This also entailed a certain skepticism toward imperial rule, although its benefits for tourism were readily acknowledged, as modernization in the form of railroad tracks and imperialism were viewed as intrinsically linked. This discrepancy was not resolved during the travels. Instead, Czech tourists generally opted to stay outside colonial society and rather associated with fellow compatriots or Central European emigrants who frequented the same hostels or restaurants.

In hindsight, the interwar period turned out to be the most suitable for getting to know the world, as Vladimír Hýl suggested in the quote appearing at the beginning of this article. By the time the “golden age of travel” came to an end just before World War II, the coordinates of travel had shifted, changing from leisure to flight. Some of the most popular tourist destinations on the African, Asian and American continents now became safe havens for those lucky enough to escape Central Europe. The postwar era saw new milestones in the history of public transportation, but it did not, however, see an upsurge in intercontinental tourism. By the time Mr. Hýl had turned 50 years of age in 1948, flying had become a frequent mode of traveling across the Atlantic, with its duration reduced to a mere 15 hours. At the same time, however, he might have had a hard time getting a travel permit: in the face of increasing political tensions, travel across the descending “Iron Curtain” became highly curtailed and strongly controlled. Freedom of movement was regained only in 1989, though is now again restricted mainly by economic means.

 

Bibliography

Primary sources

Archiv hlavního města Prahy [Prague City Archives], Fonds Klub Přátel Orientu [Club of the Friends of the Orient] 1930–1939.

 

 

[-le.] Ottův slovník naučný nové doby: Dodatky k velikému Ottovu slovníku naučnému [Otto’s Encyclopedia of the new era: Supplement to the great Otto’s Encyclopedia], vol. 1. “Asie [Asia].” Prague: J. Otto, 1930.

[-le.] Ottův slovník naučný nové doby: Dodatky k velikému Ottovu slovníku naučnému [Otto’s Encyclopedia of the new era: Supplement to the great Otto’s Encyclopedia], vol. 1. “Amerika [America].” Prague: J. Otto, 1930.

N.a. Ottův slovník naučný nové doby: Dodatky k velikému Ottovu slovníku naučnému [Otto’s Encyclopedia of the new era: Supplement to the great Otto’s Encyclopedia], vol. 1. “Afrika [Africa].” Prague: J. Otto, 1930.

N.a. Ottův slovník naučný [Otto’s Encyclopedia], vol. 2. “Amerika (dějiny) [America (history)]. Prague: J. Otto, 1888.

N.a. “Význam cestování v cizině [The relevance of traveling abroad].” Do světa 1, no. 1 (1926): 1.

[p.] Ottův slovník naučný [Otto’s Encyclopedia], vol. 2. “Asie (dějiny objevení) [Asia (history of its discovery)].” Prague: J. Otto, 1889.

[šv.] Ottův slovník naučný [Otto’s Encyclopedia], vol. 1. “Afrika (výzkumy) [Africa (explorations)].” Prague: J. Otto, 1888.

N.a. “Naše výpravy: Čtvrtá výprava do Egypta a Palestyny [Our expeditions: Fourth expedition to Egypt and Palestine].” Do světa 1, no. 4 (1927): 25–26.

N.a. “Výlet na Saharu [Excursion to the Sahara].” Do světa 1, no. 4 (1927): 26–28.

Businský, Eugen, and Antonín Štrunc. Balkán, Palestina, Egypt: Budapest, Bělehrad, Sofie, Cařihrad, Baalbek, Bejrut, Damašek, Tiberias, Hajfa, Nazaret, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Jaffa, Mrtvé moře, Betlém, Káhyra, Luxor, Karnak, Assuan, Alexandria, Athény, Soluň, Skoplje [Balkan, Palestina, Egypt: Budapest, Belgrade, Sofia, Constantinople, Baalbek, Beirut, Damascus, Tiberias, Haifa, Nazareth, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Jaffa, Dead sea, Bethlehem, Cairo, Luxor, Karnak, Aswan, Alexandria, Athens, Thessaloniki, Skopje]. Plzeň: Eugen Businský, 1936.

Cvrk, Karel. Cestování po světě. Vzpomínky z potulek po blízkých i dalekých krajích: Po souši i po moři [Traveling around the world. Recollections of roamings through regions near and far: Through the desert and across the sea]. Prague: Kober, 1923.

Domin, Karel. Dvacet tisíc mil po souši a po moři. Kniha I, Cesty po Západní Indií. Díl 1 [20.000 miles across the desert and the sea. Book I. Travels across the West Indies, part 1]. Prague: J. Otto, 1928.

Doubek, Jaroslav. Dvě cesty Spexoru do Afriky a Asie [Two trips by the Spexor-expedition to Africa and Asia]. Plzeň: V. J. Krýsa, 1933.

Fait, Emanuel. “Na vlnách nilských [On the waves of the Nile].” Lumir (1893): 9–11 and 17–18.

Foit, František V. Autem napříč Afrikou: Deník jedinečné cesty z Prahy do Kapského města, díl 1 [By car across Africa: Diary of the unique trip from Prague to Cape Town, Part 1]. Prague: self-published, 1932.

Guth, Jiří. Na pokraji Sahary: Vzpominky a dojmy z cest po Alžírsku [At the edge of the Sahara: Reminiscences and impressions of a trip through Algeria]. Prague: Jos. R. Vilímek, 1892.

Hýl, Vladimír. Ze tří dílů světa: Cestopisné dojmy a povídky [From three continents: Travel impressions and stories]. Ostrava: self-published, 1932.

Jiřík, Viktor. K pyramidám: Zápisky z cest [To the pyramids: Notes from the trip]. Prague: Švejda, 1913.

Klement, František. Z Jaffy do Jerusalema [From Jaffa to Jerusalem]. Prague: Přítel domoviny, 1894.

Kořenský, Josef. Cesta kolem světa 1893–1894 [Trip around the world 1893–1894]. Prague: J. Otto, 1896–1897.

Kořínek, Jan. Maroko: Cestopis a úvahy o kulturních, politických, hospodářských a mezinárodně obchodních poměrech dnešního šerifského císářství [Morocco: Travelogue and reflections on cultural, political, economic and international trade conditions of the Moroccan empire]. Prague: Karel Voleský, 1928.

Matiegková, Ludmila. V objetí sfingy [In the embrace of the sphinx]. Prague: Dr. Ot. Štorch-Marien, 1927.

Mayer, Hanuš. Egypt: Obrázky z cest [Egypt: Images from the trip]. Prague: Beaufort, 1908.

Němeček, Zdeněk. Dopisy ze Senegambie [Letters from Senegambia]. Prague: Fr. Borový, 1938.

Nordan, Emil. “V zemi pyramid [In the land of the pyramids].” Světozor 25 (1906): 585–588.

Novák, Václav A. Indické povidky [Indian tales]. Prague: Nakladatelství knih cestovatele A. V. Nováka, 1930.

Pospíšil, Bohumil. Čínou za revolučního varu: Dojmy z cest po jižní a střední Číně [Through China during revolutionary heat: Impressions from a trip through southern and central China]. Prague: Československá grafická Unie, 1935.

Přikryl, Jaroslav. Putování po Cejlonu a v nejjižnější Indii [Traveling through Ceylon and the southernmost part of India]. Prague: J. Přikryl, 1934.

Raušar, Josef Zdeněk. K palmovému háji: Z cesty do severní Afriky [To the palm tree grove: From a trip to Northern Africa]. Pardubice: self-published, 1930.

Svátek, Josef Jan. V zemi Sv. Kříže [In the land of the Holy Cross]. Prague: Josef Jan Svátek, 1911.

Václav, František. Krejčí, Jaro v Japonsku [Spring in Japan]. Prague: Jan Štenc, 1923.

Vráz, Enrique Stanko. Cesty světem. Svazek druhý: V Siamu, zemi bilého slona: Cestopisné črty [Trips around the world. Volume two: In Siam, land of the white elephant: Travel sketches]. Prague: Bursík a Kohout, 1901.

Wislicenus, Georg, and Max E. Floeßel, eds. Weltreise: Weltreiseführer (Meyers Reisebücher) [Trip around the world: A guide for trips around the world]. Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institut, 1907.

 

Secondary sources

Abu-Lughod, Janet. “The Origins of Modern Cairo.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 7, no. 4 (1965): 429–57.

Anderson, Martin. “The Development of British Tourism in Egypt, 1815 to 1850.” Journal of Tourism History 4, no. 3 (2012): 259–79.

Baranowski, Shelley, Christopher Endy, Waleed Hazbun, Stephanie Malia Hon, Gordon Pirie, Trevor Simmons, and Eric G.E. Zuelow. “Tourism and Empire.” Journal of Tourism History 7, no. 1–2 (2015): 100–30.

Berghoff, Hartmut, Christopher Harvie, Barbara Korte, and Ralf Schneider, eds. The Making of Modern Tourism: The Cultural History of the British Experience, 1600–2000. Houndmills: Palgrave, 2002.

Borovička, Michael. Cestovatelství [Travel]. Prague and Litomyšl, Paseka, 2010.

Bracewell, Wendy, and Alex Drace-Francis, eds. Under Eastern Eyes: A Comparative Introduction to East European Travel Writing on Europe, 1550–2000 (East Looks West 2). Budapest: Central European University Press, 2008.

Bracewell, Wendy. “East Looks West: East European Travel Writing on Europe, 1600–2000.” In Călători români în Occident: Secolele 17–20 [Romanian travels in the West: 17th–20th centuries], edited by Nicolae Bocşan and Ioan Bolovan, 11–23. Cluj-Napoca: Centrul de Studii Transilvane, 2004.

Brailey, Nigel. “The Railway-Oceanic Era, the India-China and India-Singapore Railway Schemes, and Siam.” In Railways and International Politics: Paths of Empire, 1848–1945, edited by T.G. Otte and Keith Neilson, 94–111. London–New York: Routledge, 2006.

Buzard, James. The Beaten Track: European Tourism, Literature and the Ways to Culture, 1800–1918. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Canton, James. From Cairo to Baghdad: British Travellers in Arabia. London–New York: I. B. Tauris, 2011.

Clifford, Nicholas. “A Truthful Impression of the Country:” British and American Travel Writing in China, 1880–1949. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001.

Davis, Kenneth E. Wilburn, and Ronald E. Robinson, eds. Railway Imperialism. New York: Greenwood Press, 1991.

Dupée, Jeffrey. British Travel Writers in China: Writing Home to a British Public, 1890–1914. Lewiston, NY: E. Mellen Press, 2004.

Furlough, Ellen. “Une leçon des choses: Tourism, Empire, and the Nation in Interwar France.” French Historical Studies 25, no. 3 (2002): 441–73.

Goodwin, Gráinne, and Gordon Johnston. “Guidebook Publishing in the Nineteenth Century: John Murray’s Handbooks for Travellers.” Studies in Travel Writing 17, no. 1 (2013): 43–61.

Gregory, Alexis. The Golden Age of Travel, 1880–1930. London: Cassell, 1998.

Haid, Oliver. “‘Eternally Will Austria Stand’: Imperial Tourism in Austria between Timeless Predisposition and Political Statement.” In Royal Tourism: Excursions around Monarchy, edited by Philip Long and Nicola J. Palmer, 107–27. Clevedon: Channel View Publications, 2008.

Hauenstein, Werner. Wegweiser durch Meyers Reisebücher: 1862–1936, Bibliographie. Stadtoldendorf: U. Hinrichsen, 1993.

Hinrichsen, Alex W. Baedekers Reisehandbücher 1832–1990, Bibliographie 1832–1944, Verzeichnis 1948–1990. Verlagsgeschichte. Bevern: Hinrichsen, 1991.

Hunter, Robert F. “Tourism and Empire: The Thomas Cook & Son Enterprise on the Nile, 1868–1914.” Middle Eastern Studies 40, no. 5 (2004): 28–54.

Jančík, Drahomír. “Vnitřní obchod [Domestic trade].” In Mýtus a realita hospodářské vyspělosti Československa mezi světovými válkami [Myth and reality of the economic level of advancement of Czechoslovakia between the World Wars], edited by Eduard Kubů and Jaroslav Pátek, 187–200. Prague: Karolinum, 2000.

Judson, Pieter. “‘Every German Visitor Has a Völkisch Obligation He Must Fulfill’: Nationalist Tourism in the Austrian Empire, 1880–1918.” In Histories of Leisure, edited by Rudy Koshar, 147–68. Oxford: Berg, 2002.

Keller, Tait. Apostles of the Alps: Mountaineering and Nation Building in Germany and Austria, 1860–1939. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2016.

Kunský, Josef. Čeští cestovatelé: Díl druhý [Czech travelers: Part two]. Prague: Orbis, 1961.

Lacina, Vlastislav. Zlatá léta československého hospodařství 1918–1929 [The golden years of the Czechoslovak economy 1918–1929]. Prague: Historický ústav AV ČR, 2000.

Lemmen, Sarah. Tschechen auf Reisen: Repräsentationen der außereuropäischen Welt und nationale Identität in Ostmitteleuropa 1890–1938. Cologne–Vienna: Böhlau, 2018.

Lowe, Lisa. Critical Terrains: French and British Orientalisms. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991.

Macková, Adéla Jůnová. “Turistické kluby [Tourist clubs].” In “Krásný, báječní, nešťastný Egypt!” Čeští cestovatelé konce 19. a první poloviny 20. století [“Beautiful, marvelous, unlucky Egypt!” Czech travelers from the end of the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century], edited by Adéla Jůnová Macková, et al., 361–85. Prague: Libri, 2009.

Martin, Gregory. “German and French Perceptions of the French North and West African Contingents, 1910–1918.” Militärgeschichtliche Mitteilungen 56 (1997): 31–68.

Mücke, Pavel. Šťastnou cestu . . . ?! Proměny politik cestování a cestovního ruchu v Československu za časů studené války (1945–1989) [Have a nice trip . . . ?! Changes in the policie of travel and of tourism in Czechoslovakia during the Cold War (1945–1989)]. Pelhřimov: Nová tiskárna Pelhřimov, 2017.

Nash, Geoffrey P. From Empire to Orient: Travellers to the Middle East, 1830–1926. London–New York: I. B. Tauris, 2005.

Otte, T.G. “‘The Baghdad Railway of the Far East’: The Tientsin-Yangtze Railway and Anglo-German Relations, 1898–1911.” In Railways and International Politics, edited by Thomas G. Otte and Keith Neilson, 112–36. London: Routledge, 2006.

Perkins, Kenneth J. “So Near and Yet So Far: British Tourism in Algiers, 1860-1914.” In The British Abroad since the Eighteenth Century, vol. 1, Travellers and Tourists, edited by Martin Farr and Xavier Guégan, 217–35. Houndmills–Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.

Peter Bugge, “Czech Democracy 1918–1938: Paragon or Parody?” Bohemia 47 (2006–2007): 3–28.

Robertson, Roland. “Glokalisierung – Homogenität und Heterogenität in Raum und Zeit.” In Perspektiven der Weltgesellschaft, edited by Ulrich Beck, 192–220. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1998.

Rossberg, Ralf Roman. Geschichte der Eisenbahn. Künzelsau: Sigloch Ed., 1984.

Rychlík, Jan. Cestování do ciziny v habsburské monarchii a v Československu: Pasová, vízová a vystěhovalecké politika 1848–1989 [Traveling abroad in the Habsburg monarchy and in Czechoslovakia: Passport, visa and emigration policies 1848-1989]. Prague: Ústav pro soudobé dějiny AV ČR, 2007.

Said, Edward W. Culture and Imperialism. London: Vintage Books, 1994.

Sayer, Derek. The Coasts of Bohemia: A Czech History. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998.

Skwiot, Christine M. “Itineraries of Empire: The Uses of U.S. Tourism in Cuba and Hawai’i, 1898–1959”. Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University, 2002.

Slapnicka, Helmut. “Die böhmischen Länder und die Slowakei 1919–1945.” In Handbuch der Geschichte der böhmischen Länder, Bd. 4: Der Tschechoslowakische Staat im Zeitalter der modernen Massendemokratie und Diktatur, edited by Karl Bosl, 2–150. Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1970.

Spence, Jonathan. In Search of Modern China. New York: W W Norton & Company, 1990.

Štemberk, Jan. Fenomén cestovního ruchu: Možnosti a limity cestovního ruchu v meziválečném Československu [The phenomenon of tourism: Possibilities and limits of tourism in interwar Czechoslovakia]. Prague: Nová tiskárna, 2009.

Stolberg, Eva-Maria. “Auf zum Pazifik: Die Bedeutung der Transsibirischen Eisenbahn für die Vernetzung des eurasischen Raumes 1891–1914.” In Die Internationalität der Eisenbahn: 1850–1970, edited by Monika Burri, Kilian T. Elsasser, and David Gugerli, 293–308. Interferenzen: Studien zur Kulturgeschichte der Technik 7. Zürich: Chronos-Verlag, 2003.

Tchoukarine, Igor. “‘The Sea Connects; It Does Not Divide:’ Czech Tourism on the Interwar Adriatic.” Journal of Tourism History 6, no. 2–3 (2014): 139–57.

Urbansky, Sören. Kolonialer Wettstreit: Russland, China, Japan und die Ostchinesische Eisenbahn. Frankfurt: Campus-Verlag, 2008.

Walton, John K. “British Tourism Between Industrialization and Globalization: An Overview.” In The Making of Modern Tourism: The Cultural History of the British Experience, 1600–2000, edited by Hartmut Berghoff, Christopher Harvie, Barbara Korte and Ralf Schneider, 109–32. Houndsmill: Palgrave, 2002.

Winkler, Dieter, and Georg Pawlik, Der Österreichische Lloyd 1836 bis heute. Graz: Weishaupt, 1989.

Withey, Lynne. Grand Tours and Cook’s Tours: A History of Leisure Travel, 1750–1915. New York: W. Morrow, 1997.

Youngs, Tim. Travellers in Africa: British Travelogues, 1850–1900. Studies in Imperialism. Manchester–New York: Manchester University Press, 1994.

Cores and Peripheries Reconsidered:
Economic Development, Trade and Cultural Images
in the Eighteenth-Century Habsburg Monarchy

Klemens Kaps
University of Linz
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

This article explores the relationship between economic development and the trans-regional division of labor in the eighteenth-century Habsburg Monarchy. Using world-systemic models and postcolonial approaches, I offer a critical revision of traditional narratives on the economic history of the Habsburg dominions as a point of departure for a reconsideration of regional disparities in the Habsburg dominions. I examine the relationship between the geopolitical power position of the Monarchy and the socioeconomic transformations towards proto-industries and commercial agriculture in the course of the eighteenth century, with a focus on trade as a major factor which affected the way in which domestic market formation and economic interregional entanglement influenced the emergence of a split between cores and peripheries in the Habsburg dominions. In the last part of the article, I examine the discourses and cultural images which shaped the political-institutional framework regulating these exchange relations. I observe that orientalist metaphors about the Eastern peripheries were a symptom of the way in which some policy instruments were designed in favor of the core areas over the peripheral regions.

Keywords: economic history, Habsburg Monarchy, trade, cameralism, cultural images

Introduction: Theoretical Considerations

The term internal periphery is usually associated with concepts such as uneven regional development, spatial disparities, social inequalities, and development policies. In contrast with neoclassical approaches to regional disparities, the internal peripheries approach assumes a causal link between economic conditions in developed core areas and underdeveloped peripheral regions. The emergence of a trans-regional division of labor according to which peripheries provide the raw materials which are turned into consumable finished commodities in the core areas leads to increasing levels of income, wealth, and productivity, rendering peripheries dependent on the cores. Starting from this basic assumption of world-system analysis and by adopting its key notions and concepts (such as ceaseless capital accumulation, unequal division of labor, and the commodification of social spheres), the internal peripheries’ approach has been characterized by a greater flexibility to include political, social, and cultural factors.1

Classical world-system analysis conceives the political predominantly in relation to the structural rhythms of the whole system, and it seems that the economic sphere in particular dominates political decisions. The internal peripheries approach, for its part, as it was developed by the followers of Hans-Heinrich Nolte,2 takes into account the political sphere as an autonomous though not completely independent variable. While the systemic character of economic development within the center-periphery framework is maintained, the state is an actor which can pursue modernization policies and learn from the core regions. Thus, transfers of ideas, knowledge, and technology from core areas to peripheral zones can, to a certain extent, balance out the unequal flows of capital, commodities, and labor that generally characterize this relationship. Competence accumulation (one of the four elements of Nolte’s world-system, alongside hierarchy, expansion, and competition) is a key variable for the change in the developmental conditions of interconnected political spheres.3

Alongside the political, the cultural sphere is also defined in an innovative way by the internal peripheries approach. A particularly interesting phenomenon is that of stereotypes and images of the other, understood as a condensed form of identity perception between different regions, states, and world regions. While one can read and interpret these cultural artefacts from a spatial perspective and decode the different hierarchies between cores and peripheries inherent in them, there is also potential for a social reading of such constellations. Referring to postcolonial categories of dominants and subalterns, Dipesh Chakrabarty stresses the relevance that these images have for the researcher interested in social differences between various societies.4

Edward Said’s orientalist paradigm is a prime example of how the spatial and the social approach can go hand in hand in an attempt to decode a “Western style of domination restructuring and having authority over the Orient” from the late eighteenth century to the early twenty-first.5 Said clearly underlined that stereotypes and pejorative images of the other acted not only as representations of core-periphery dichotomies, but could shape this chasm between different world regions and states. It is important to point out that orientalist or differently coined pejorative descriptions and ascriptions can also be found within empires and states or between different regions, as Larry Wolff’s classic work Inventing Eastern Europe has amply demonstrated, where the categories of East and West are used to put forth a discourse about the alleged backwardness of Eastern Europe.6 Based on these considerations, this article explores the connections between economic regional disparities and the trans-regional division of labor, with a focus mainly on trade relations and their political regulations, which were influenced by cultural images and stereotypes in eighteenth-century Habsburg Central Europe.

The Position of the Habsburg Monarchy in the World-System in the Eighteenth Century: A Critical Revision

The economy of the Habsburg Monarchy in the early eighteenth century was defined by Immanuel Wallerstein as a rising semi-periphery, albeit his definition rested on geopolitical rather than economic factors. At the end of the War of the Spanish Succession, the Vienna-based Habsburg Emperor Charles VI acquired all the Spanish European dominions except for the Iberian Peninsula, including the Austrian Netherlands, Naples, Sardinia (which in 1720 was replaced by Sicily), and the Duchy of Milan in Northern Italy (which was attached to the Duchy of Mantua, acquired in 1707, and together formed Austrian Lombardy). This notable territorial expansion in northwestern and southern Europe, i.e. in both the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, was endorsed by the Treaty of Rastatt in 1714 and was understood as compensation for the withdrawal of the Habsburg claims to the Spanish throne. The geopolitical gains made by the Habsburg Monarchy are even more remarkable if set against the context of their successful wars against the Ottoman Empire, waged in coalition with other European states between 1682 and 1699 and again between 1716 and 1718. The peace treaties of Karlowitz/Sremski Karlovci (1699) and Passarowitz/Požarevac (1718) brought yet more territories to the Habsburgs, with the incorporation of central Hungary, Transylvania, the Banat of Temesvar/Timişoara, Little Wallachia, and Northern Serbia as far as Belgrade.7

While Wallerstein’s narrative avoids considering the economic development of the Habsburg regions, he interprets its geopolitical expansion as precarious and short-lived. Lost wars with Spain and France and then with the Ottoman Empire and Prussia between 1733 and 1763 brought about major territorial losses and hampered the rise of the Habsburg Monarchy to the status of a great world power. Using classical arguments, Wallerstein sees the loss to Prussia of most of Silesia, the wealthiest province in the Habsburg Monarchy (first in 1742 and then confirmed by peace treaties in 1748 and 1763), as the reason why the Habsburg Monarchy lost the struggle for hegemony between the two semi-peripheral states and remained a second-rate regional power until its disintegration at the end of World War I.8

One could raise several questions concerning this narrative. While it is an undeniable fact that, in terms of territorial growth, the Habsburg Monarchy had peaked in 1718, the shrinking size of the Habsburg dominions was neither linear nor irreversible, as the acquisitions of Galicia (1772), Bukovina (1775), and Venice (including Dalmatia, 1797/1815) eloquently show. Even the loss of Silesia was not the end of Habsburg power aspirations in Central Europe. Silesia had a diversified proto-industrial economy, especially engaged in the production of iron and linen, and it was perfectly connected with world markets as remote as the British and Spanish Atlantic dominions, where slaves were dressed in Silesian linen cloths.9 The political impact of the cession of Silesia to Prussia was immediate, as the substantial (and growing) Silesian tax revenues were now redirected to Berlin.10 But apart from this kind of fiscal shift, the economic consequences of the loss of Silesia were quite limited. Trade relations, including the transit trade that created access to world markets through Hamburg, and the interregional division of labor continued largely unabated throughout the second half of the eighteenth century. 11

Furthermore, the loss of Silesia posed no obstacle to the economic development or administrative and economic reform of the Habsburg dominions. On the contrary, this event triggered political and economic reforms in the Habsburg Monarchy, which was gradually turned into an integrated internal market, for which the custom reform of 1775 was an important step. This reform abolished all internal custom tariffs between Austrian and Bohemia, with the exception only of those areas heavily involved in international transit trade, such as Tyrol and the Austrian Littoral around Trieste.12 In conclusion, Wallerstein’s interpretation of the Habsburg Monarchy as a declining or, at best, stagnating semi-periphery after 1748 has to be challenged on various grounds, both geopolitical and economic. The analysis must take a closer look at economic development in the Habsburg dominions, paying particular attention to how the status of the Habsburg Monarchy as a rising semi-periphery coexisted with persisting and reinforced regional differences within its dominions.

The Emergence of an Internal Economic Core: The Expansion of Proto-industry in the West

The status of the Habsburg Monarchy as a rising semi-periphery can be even more clearly detected in economic than in geopolitical terms. Over the course of the eighteenth century, the quantitative growth and qualitative expansion13 of proto-industrial enterprises turned Bohemia and substantial regions of Austria into producers of semi-finished and manufactured commodities. This created the foundation for the mechanized industrialization of these regions in the nineteenth century, the first wave of which set in after 1825.14 Proto-industry, often labeled “industrialization before industrialization,”15 is defined as the production of manufactured goods for trans-regional markets in a production process that is characterized by a comparatively high degree of division of labor. Conversely, these industries did not use steam-powered machinery, and they relied heavily on the part-time, in particular seasonal labor of the rural population.16

The two models which largely shaped proto-industrial economies were manufactories and domestic industries, organized either as putting-out systems (Verlag) or as small commodity production (Kaufsystem), juxtaposing a central production site including clear organizational hierarchies and differentiated salaries with decentralized workshops, chiefly located in peasant households. Both forms could operate separately but often were combined for the organization of the production process of one commodity. Raw materials provided by middlemen to peasant-workers were turned into semi-finished products in household-based workshops before they were further transformed into consumable commodities in manufactories. This pattern meant that a substantial part of the production process shifted from urban centers to rural areas due to the abundant rural workforce, lower wages, and the lack of guild regulations.17 However, it has been argued that a general uniform pattern of proto-industrialization cannot be detected, and that differences existed in the roles of markets and corporate institutions such as guilds and manors (Grundherrschaft).18

To be sure, the establishment of proto-industries in the Habsburg dominions did not begin in the eighteenth century, but far earlier. Clear examples of this include the production of linen textiles in Vorarlberg, Bohemia, and Upper Austria, iron production in Bohemia, Carinthia, Upper Styria, and Southern Upper Austria (including the production of pig iron in the region between Vordernberg and Innerberg in Northern Styria and the production of scythes, knives, and sickles in Upper Austria), glass manufacturing in Bohemia, and the weaving of woolen cloth in Bohemia and Silesia.19 The second half of the seventeenth century bore witness to the foundation of new enterprises, such as the silk spinning mill at Count Sinzendorf’s Walpersdorf manor (1666), the highly successful and long-lived wool manufactory in Linz (1672), the tobacco manufacture in Enns (1676), and the mirror manufactory in Neuhaus (1701). Some of these factories, however, did not survive long.20

In the eighteenth century, proto-industry expanded dynamically and structurally, leading to the growth of production but also to a diversification of industrial activities in the Habsburg dominions. As early as the 1720s, an economic boom led to the foundation of a range of new textile manufactories in Lower Austria. The Second Oriental Company, using its monopolistic privileges, established cotton manufactories in Gross-Siegharts in 1720 and in Schwechat, near Vienna, in 1724.21 In Bohemia, the foundation of new enterprises had started even earlier, for instance with the establishment of a wool manufactory at the manor of Ossek in 1697, the foundation of a cloth manufactory in Plánice in 1710, and the starting of a linen weaving firm by the English merchant Robert Allason in Rumburk in 1713. The Rumburk plant was also equipped with bleaching facilities, and by 1724 it had produced 157,124 pieces of linen measuring 84–110 ells each.22 In 1715, Johann Joseph Count Waldstein founded a wool mill on his estate of Dux-Oberleutensdorf/Duchcov-Horní Litvínov.23 The establishment of new textile enterprises resulted in a rise in the the overall production. Output of woolen cloth manufactured in Bohemia grew from 6,715 to 39,000 pieces (valued at 700,000 florins) between 1717 and 1731, more than a five-fold increase.24 At the same time, this period of growth also involved the qualitative upgrade of the Bohemian economy. Regional raw materials were being turned into consumable commodities in-house, as prescribed by the prevailing mercantilist doctrines, which tried to avoid the outflow of money towards foreign producers.25

Textile production, which would become the leading industrial sector in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, grew in terms of gross production and variety. Linen and woolen cloth manufacturing, which had a long tradition in the Habsburg dominions, were joined by new activities such as cotton processing in the first half of the eighteenth century and, later, by silk production. Other traditional industries grew as well. In 1730, the Habsburg Alpine provinces produced as much iron as Great Britain.26 The proto-industrial growth of Bohemia, Upper and Lower Austria, and Styria relied chiefly on the mobilization of aristocratic capital, while capital imports by foreign merchants and investments by the state, including the imperial family, played an additional role.27

While wars such as the War of the Polish Succession (1733–36), the Austro-Ottoman War (1736–39), and the War of the Austrian Succession (1740–48) not only led to geopolitical setbacks for the Monarchy, but also affected its economic development in a negative way, these were only brief interruptions in an overall tendency towards growth initiated in the 1720s and early 1730s. This is clearly underlined by the foundation of new firms after these wars came to an end. For example, the wool mill in Kladubry in Bohemia was set up in 1749 with the financial support of Emperor Francis Stephen and Queen Maria Theresia. In 1755, a linen manufactory was set up in Potštejn in Bohemia, again with the support of the imperial-royal couple.28 In the 1750s and 1760s, new manufactories for woolen cloth, linen, and silk were founded in Carinthia. While the woolen factory in Linz had to be financially supported by the state in 1754, the growth in textile production was further boosted when the state started cancelling the concession of industrial privileges between 1761 and 1764.29

Early statistics on industrial activity can be used to estimate the industrial development of the Habsburg dominions in the late eighteenth century. Cotton production, which was liberalized in 1763, grew with the foundation of a number of factories in Lower Austria. While the production value of cotton had amounted to 1.2 million florins for the entire Monarchy in 1766, by 1781 this value had soared to 3.5 million florins in Lower Austria alone.30 While the cotton manufactory in Schwechat had processed 30 tons of cotton in 1730 and 50 tons in the 1750s, in 1781 the cotton manufactories in Lower Austria processed an aggregate total of 420 tons of cotton. Employment rose five-fold between the middle of the century, when the Schwechat manufactory employed 20,000 spinners and weavers in a putting-out system, and 1781, when the workforce employed in cotton production amounted to 100,000 workers in all of Lower Austria. While cotton import restrictions imposed in 1784 hindered the growth of the sector, expansion surged again after 1797, and production remained high until the deep recession in the Habsburg economy after the end of the Napoleonic Wars and the lifting of the continental blockade.31

Growth can be detected in other industrial sectors. Wool production in Bohemian rose dramatically in the second half of the eighteenth century, as the increasing employment figures demonstrate. Between 1731 and 1775, the number of workers employed in Bohemia’s wool industry doubled, while between 1775 and 1788 this labor force increased by a further 80 percent. After that date, employment numbers shrank slightly due to technological improvements that reduced the number of workers needed per loom. In Bohemia and Moravia, the workforce employed by the wool sector more than doubled between 1775 and 1788 (increasing from 80,000 to 152,000, spinners excluded), while the overall demographic growth amounted to barely 20 percent. This expansion of the workforce went hand in hand with the rising number of manufactories that organized putting-out systems. In the Brno district, for instance, in 1775 there was one cloth factory, while in 1789 the number had risen to four, all which were located in the Moravian capital city of Brno itself. The growth in output was significant. In 1797, the overall production of woolen goods in Bohemia amounted to 5.5 million florins, which represented 20 percent of manufacture production value in the province. These figures represent a nearly eight-fold increase in current terms compared to 1731 figures and roughly four-fold in real terms.32 The production of woolen goods, mainly cloth, also grew in other provinces, such as Carinthia and Upper Austria, where only one manufactory (in Linz) was allowed to operate. In terms of workforce, this factory peaked in 1790 with 2,289 factory employees and 47,947 putting-out workers.33

Linen production also underwent considerable growth in the second half of the eighteenth century in traditional regions such as Bohemia, the Mühlviertel (in the north of Upper Austria), the Waldviertel (in the north of Lower Austria), and Vorarlberg, all of which benefitted from the disappearance of Silesian competition after 1742. Only with the growing production in cotton textiles and shrinking production costs per fabricated unit caused by mechanization in the early nineteenth century did the expansion of linen production come under pressure.34 Overall textile production in Bohemia grew by an annual average of 3.7 percent in the late eighteenth century.35 Glass production expanded as well, and as many as 52 glassworks existed in Bohemia in 1752.36 Iron production also grew in the second half of the eighteenth century. Towards the end of the century, production was expanding at an average growth rate of 2 percent per year, and growth accelerated further between 1796 and 1803, when the rate hiked to 4.5 percent, not far from that of Great Britain (6.9 percent annual growth between 1796 and 1806).37 Despite this, the Habsburg iron industry lost its leading position on European markets. While in 1767 Styria turned out as much pig iron as the whole of England, by 1780 all the Habsburg Alpine provinces, where 80 percent of all iron production under the Habsburgs was located, were only producing as much as one-third of the British iron output. First and foremost, however, this reflects the dramatic growth of the British economy due to rapid industrialization since the 1760s.38

In sum, over the course of the eighteenth century, most of the western provinces of the Habsburg Monarchy bore witness to steady and dynamic growth in the proto-industrial sector, which crystallized in both the increasing output of existing industries and the emergence of new industrial sectors. Although the leading export products, namely glass, linen, and iron, had lost ground on the Western European markets by the end of the Napoleonic Wars,39 the Habsburg economy was able to increase the share of manufactured goods among its exports between 1800 and 1807 (from 44 percent to 61 percent), which indicates the international competitiveness of Habsburg proto-industry.40

The examples of enterprises and scattered quantitative evidence thus demonstrates that proto-industry gained a stronghold in the western regions of the Habsburg Monarchy over the course of the eighteenth century. However, this does not mean that there were no hierarchies or disparities between the Austrian and Bohemian lands. By 1790, of 280 manufactories in the western Hereditary Lands, half were located in Lower Austria alone and a further 30 percent were found in Bohemia. This clearly indicates that growth and economic transformation also led to spatial stratification within the core areas of the Monarchy.41 To be sure, the hierarchies between western core areas were smoother than those separating cores and peripheries, as we shall see below. Also, agricultural activities were far from absent in the regions undergoing proto-industrialization: The workforce employed in agriculture amounted to 78 percent in Bohemia in 1756 and 75 percent in the Austrian provinces in 1790.42

Apart from the availability of capital, the factors that determined the success of the process of proto-industrialization and the emergence of core areas was the presence of ecological resources, such as wood and water, and a plentiful rural workforce. While skilled workers were often recruited abroad from the Austrian Netherlands, France, and England, strategies to lower wages included employing women and children and a bound work force of beggars, orphans, and prisoners, who were sent by the government to work in sweathouses beginning in the late seventeenth century.43 Economic policies were also of crucial importance. The legal division between local crafts (Polizeigewerbe) and the production of manufactured goods for the trans-regional trade (Kommerzialgewerbe), defined in 1754, created ways around guild restrictions and thus facilitated the establishment of manufactories in urban areas.44 After the international economic crisis of the early 1770s, the abolition of internal custom duties in 1775 lowered transaction costs in the western provinces, triggering a new boom the effects of which were finally consolidated with the protectionist trade policy implemented in 1784 and 1788. This led to a sweeping expansion of proto-industrial production during the 1780s and 1790s.45 Finally, the limitation of serfdom in 1781/82 enhanced the mobility of the rural workforce, which had a particularly deep impact in Bohemia, where demesne lordship (Gutswirtschaft) was especially significant.46

The Emergence of a Core-periphery Dynamic between the West and the East in the Habsburg Monarchy: Trans-regional Division of Labor Embodied by Trade Relations

In contrast with the western core regions, the eastern territories of the Monarchy did not participate to an equal degree in the process of dynamic proto-industrialization over the course of the eighteenth century. This is clearly visible in the dominant position of agricultural activities in these territories. On average, in Hungary, Transylvania, the Banat, Galicia, and Bukovina, around 90 percent of the population worked in agriculture as late as 1790.47 In the aforementioned statistics no manufactories feature in Hungary or Galicia in 1790. However, administrative sources reveal the existence of some factories in both territorial complexes. 34 such factories, dedicated to the production of textiles, glass, and porcelain, existed in Galicia in 1773 and 11 in 1808.48 In addition to this, an extensive linen-processing sector, based mostly on the putting-out system, existed in the barren Carpathian Mountains in the south of Galicia. Although the goods produced were rather crude in quality, in the region around Andrychów in the western district, this rural population also produced linen commodities for foreign markets in Western Europe and the American colonies overseas, while a small fraction of their output also was sold on markets in Bohemia and Austria in the 1780s.49 The data suggest that the number of manufactories in these regions contracted between the 1770s and the early nineteenth century, which is confirmed by other sources documenting the increasing competitive pressure posed by Bohemian and Austrian proto-industrial goods on the Galician market. The tendency, therefore, is the exact opposite of the one that unfolded in the core regions of the Monarchy.50

Similarly, Hungary was not limited exclusively to agricultural activities, as the mining plants (especially copper), iron, and linen production in Upper Hungary underline. And proto-industrial activities stretched far beyond what today is Slovakia, so that in three phases (between the 1710s and the 1730s, during the 1760s, and again between 1784 and 1789), manufactories were founded in a vast range of branches (including textile production, chemical and paper fabrication, and ironworks) in the Hungarian territories. However, the number of these companies was smaller, the quality of their products lower, and their production means less advanced than in the Bohemian and Austrian core areas.51 Thus, by 1770, in Hungary (not including Transylvania) there were 19 manufactories compared with 58 in the Bohemian and Austrian provinces.52 Most of these plants, which had been chiefly founded between 1765 and 1770, were gone by 1784 because of the arrival of Bohemian and Austrian proto-industrial goods. At a later stage, new textile manufactories were founded in Hungary, but the quality of their products never reached the standards of those being produced in the western core areas.53 In any case, proto-industrial production in Hungary covered a rather tiny fraction of the regional demand, as the rising export figures of the western regions to Hungary and Transylvania demonstrate. Thus, in 1784 86.9 percent of Austro-Bohemian exports to the Hungarian territories consisted of manufactures, while this value amounted to 89.1 percent in the case of Galicia. Among the most relevant commodities sold in Hungary and Transylvania, woolen products ranked first (2.2 million florins), followed in importance by linen (1.3 million), silk (1.2 million), and processed mining products (618,702 florins). Conversely, imports to Austria and Bohemia essentially consisted of foodstuffs and raw materials (61.6 percent in the case of Hungary and 92.3 percent in the case of Galicia).54 This clearly underlines the status of Hungary and Galicia as internal peripheries within Habsburg Central Europe, as they provided consumer markets for finished commodities and raw materials and foodstuffs necessary to the core areas, which these areas needed for the creation of these products, both in terms of direct means of production and as nourishment for workers.

This position of Hungary and Galicia as export markets for the Bohemian and Austrian proto-industries was not a new phenomenon emerging in the 1770s and 1780s. According to commercial statistics for 1735, Bohemia exported woolen cloth for a value of 1 million florins, which constituted one sixth of the total exports, to a range of countries and regions, which included Poland, Hungary, and Transylvania.55 With the increasing woolen production and the diversification of proto-industrial activities in the Austrian and Bohemian provinces, these export figures rose significantly. According to the Hungarian trade statistic, 56.6 percent of overall imports in 1748 were composed of semi-finished and finished commodities, a value that grew slightly to 61.5 percent by 1782.56 These structural changes were intrinsically linked to a massive quantitative expansion of commodity exchange. While the exports of the western Hereditary Lands grew modestly between 1733–39/41 and 1743/52 from 2.1 million florins by annual average to 2.5 million florins, afterwards they increased rapidly to 6.6 million florins between 1767 and 1780.57

This growth tendency continued in the following decades, so that exports of the western regions to the Hungarian territories reached an annual average of 9.8 million florins between 1783 and 1785 according to the statistics of the Austro-Bohemian customs union (and a much lower 7.2 million florins according to the Hungarian statistics in 1783/84).58 By the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1814, this value had more than doubled. While the increase over this rather long period was clearly more modest than it had been in the previous decades, downward effects of the wars have to be taken into account. A dynamic growth of the western regions’ exports to the Hungarian territories, nevertheless, set in precisely in the immediate post-Napoleonic years, reaching 25.1 million florins in 1815 and 34.7 million florins in 1816, but this value could not be exceeded in the following years, as 31.3 million florins was the top export value in 1822.59

Apart from Hungary, the exports from the western regions also expanded to the Galician market, the annexation of which in the first partition of Poland-Lithuania in 1772 led to a politically-induced competitive edge for the Habsburg proto-industry on a formerly external market. This institutionally supported advantage translated into an overwhelmingly rapid expansion of exports, as the fivefold increase of the western regions’ exports to Galicia in only four years (between 1779 and 1783) from 343,043 to 1,706,197.21 florins demonstrates.60

In any case, foreign export markets were still more relevant to the western Habsburg proto-industry, claims and narratives on Habsburg protectionism notwithstanding. While in 1783, 17.2 million florins of foreign exports clearly exceeded the 11 million florins of commodities sold on domestic markets, in 1818, 31.3 million florins of foreign exports took the lead over 28.1 million florins of domestic exports, and in 1822 the corresponding figures were 42.2 million against 31.4 million florins, pointing to a growing ratio in favor of foreign export markets after the end of the Napoleonic Wars. Domestic markets were only more important temporarily in 1816 and 1817 (with margins of 5.5. and 4.8 million florins respectively).61 However, domestic markets are statistically underestimated, as all market transaction within the western regions forming part of the customs union were not registered anymore due to the prevailing custom regimes.

Nevertheless, these figures underline a steady growth in foreign exports at the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This growth was strong in the 1780s, when the exports of commodities produced in the Hereditary lands to international markets rose from 17.2 million to 19.1 million florins between 1783 and 1787 (thus by a rate of 2.6 percent as an annual average). This expansion was exceeded between 1816 and 1822 (with a 6.3 percent annual average growth rate), despite the postwar depression and the often-noted effects of increasing competition from British manufacture imports on the European continent.62 Only during the war and the continental blockade did foreign exports grow far less dynamical (by 1.5 percent as an annual average between 1787 and 1814), although there were strong oscillations during the long war, with some years already exceeding the value of 1814.63

Apart from distortions these data may hide because of the irregular adaption of prices,64 the export figures suggest that the western regions of the Habsburg Monarchy enlarged the exports of their commodities at quite a substantial rate, which only for the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century meant an overall increase of exports both on domestic and international markets by a factor of 2.6 (from 28.3 million florins in 1783 to 73.6 million florins in 1822).65 This enlargement of sales was thus an important factor explaining the industrial transformation of the western regions of the Habsburg Monarchy, even if not all of them participated equally in this developmental process.

Still, while this expansion of Bohemian and Austrian proto-industrial exports to the eastern peripheries was an undeniably important element of these regions’ growth and their economic transformation, this does not necessarily mean that the imbalance of trade structures led automatically to a quantitative imbalance in trade. Quite the opposite took place, at least concerning the Hungarian territories. While the surplus for the Hungarian lands in trade with the custom unions between the Bohemian and Austrian lands had amounted to 1.6 million florins in 1743 and 1752, it rose dynamically to 2.9 million florins between 1767 and 178066 before reaching spectacular values of 7.2 and 6.7 million florins in 1783 and 1784 respectively.67 Only after the turn of the century did this tendency reverse, so that after the Hungarian trade balance surplus with the western provinces (which by then included Galicia) hit a record value of 13.6 million florins in 1814, the deficit for the western regions shrank rapidly (to 5.8 million florins in 1815) before turning into substantial surplus values between 1816 and 1818 (13.1 million florins in sum). But already in 1822, the trade balance tilted again in favor of the Hungarian part.68 The trade balance between the Hereditary Lands and Galicia, in turn, showed a clear albeit not spectacular advantage for the western regions (here including Tyrol and the Littoral) of 169,806 florins in 1779, which rose dynamically to 797,729.63 florins four years later.69

Thus, the direct and imminently measurable advantage that the western core areas of the Habsburg Monarchy reaped from the structurally unequal trade with the Eastern peripheries differed according to time and space and was quite relative regarding the Hungarian territories in the eighteenth century. However, although the Hungarian territories seemed to earn a lot more money from their commodity exchange with the western provinces, this may simply have been a form of necessary compensation for Hungary’s heavily negative balance of payment.70 In addition, negative trade accounts meant neither that Hungarian consumer markets were not beneficial for the western proto-industry nor that this relationship did not hamper Hungary’s chances for proto-industrial development in the period.

Microeconomic data reveals the significance of domestic consumer markets for the expanding proto-industrial enterprises in the Bohemian and Austrian lands. In 1773, the manager of the estate of Buchlau/Buchlov in Moravia, Prosper Count Berchtold, directed a petition to the Court Chamber in Vienna requiring an import ban or at least a high import duty for Prussian glass to newly acquired Galicia. Berchtold sought to recover an export market for the glass manufactory on his estate which he had lost in part to a newly established glass mill in Prussian Silesia.71 A similar petition sent the Bohemian nobleman Prince Auersperg through the Galician governor to Maria Theresia in February 1774. Auersperg was lobbying to lower the Galician import duty for the fustian produced on his estate of Tuppadl/Tupadly in Bohemia. Auersperg argued that this measure was compensation for the high transport costs he had to incur when exporting his textile products to the Galician markets, on which, he quickly added, the success of his entire fustian manufactory depended.72

These examples testify to the significance of the eastern peripheries’ consumer markets for the business success of the Bohemian and Austrian proto-industry precisely in its phase of expansion in the second half of the eighteenth century. And these cases also indicate clearly the role of political measures supporting this division of labor. Here again, the 1770s did not represent a new turning point. The Viennese Court had used one of his few central policy instruments, that is custom policy, to support the emergence of regionally differing and specialized economies. In 1754, the Hungarian import tariff for finished commodities from Bohemia and Austria was reduced from 30 percent to 3 percent, while duties had to be paid on Hungarian products, both industrial and agrarian, of up to 30 percent when these products were exported to the west.73 This tariff remained in force even after internal custom duties were abolished between the Bohemian and Austrian provinces in 1775, largely due to the persistent refusal of the Hungarian nobility to accept the modes of property taxation implemented in 1749 in the Bohemian and Austrian provinces.74 But still within this fiscal logic, the Court institutions pursued a very clear economic policy favoring western proto-industry to the detriment of the Hungarian periphery.

In addition to providing consumer markets, the peripheries also offered important raw materials for proto-industry, such as wool, hemp, flax, gall oak, and potash, as well as foodstuffs, mainly grain and meat. In order to guarantee provisions for the western producers and work force with these commodities, the Court institutions imposed sound high tariffs and even bans on the export of these goods abroad. This led to the increased sale of these commodities on the Habsburg domestic markets in the west, and it may also have lowered prices and led to a loss of income and profits from export abroad. This was even more severe, as the domestic market in the western provinces could not absorb the whole export production of the Hungarian territories, for example in the case of grain.75 Although not quantifiable, this loss severely damaged the development of the economy of the Hungarian territories, even in a purely peripheral framework.

While this commercial pattern between the Austro-Bohemian lands and Hungary and Galicia could be interpreted as reflecting regional specialization, in fact, it was an expression of the imbalances and spatial inequalities produced by this specific form of interregional division of labor. The impact of the unequal trade relations can be illustrated by the regional differences in income level. In 1785, a rough estimate shows that average per capita income in Austria (28 florins) and Bohemia (24 florins) was well above that in Galicia (11 florins), while the difference with Hungary (20 florins) was less strong.76 This reflects widening interregional disparities after 1750.77

It is important to underline that the dichotomy between cores and peripheries does not solely depend on the importance of agricultural and proto-industrial activities, as this would be a problematic oversimplification of production processes and relations. In fact, as Maxine Berg has pointed out, no successful proto-industrialization process could take place in the absence of a highly productive and commercialized agricultural sector.78 It is thus rather the inefficient agricultural sector of the eastern Habsburg internal peripheries (which relied on extensively managed large estates, harsh conditions of serfdom, and a traditional three-field cultivation system) that hampered its progress. In contrast, the agricultural modernization of the western regions was well underway by the end of the eighteenth century.79

Cameralism and the Creation of the Other: Images, Stereotypes, and the Civilization Discourse

The perception of these internal disparities and dependencies followed various currents of economic doctrines of the Enlightenment, among which cameralism was the most important.80 Originating in the second half of the seventeenth century in the states of the Holy Roman Empire and often described as the Central European version of mercantilism, cameralism was initially mainly concerned with fiscal arguments concerning how to increase the prince’s revenue. However, cameralist thinkers gradually developed a sophisticated theoretical system on economic development between the late seventeenth century and late eighteenth century. In their thinking, the more intense effort of the work- force occupied as central a role as trade, both domestic and international. While cameralists advocated a protectionist trade policy to spur the proto-industrial development of the domestic economy, they were strong supporters of internal market integration through the abolition of monopolies and internal custom duties and the construction of roads and canals. This stance was linked to a particular concern with space in the writings of later cameralists such as Johann Heinrich Gottlob von Justi or Josef von Sonnenfels, who claimed that market integration should lead to diminishing regional disparities as production factors could move freely over the state territory. Nevertheless, this should not be confounded with a free market space, as cameralists defined economic relations always within state territories and, subsequently, ascribed a major role to the state in shaping processes of economic development.81

In the Habsburg Monarchy cameralist thinking was present from the late seventeenth century, embodied mainly in the idea of “universal commerce” (Universalkommerz), understood as domestic market integration, represented by thinkers such as Wilhelm Schröder, Johann Joachim Becher, and his brother-in-law Philipp Wilhelm von Hörnigk, who at the same time was also the secretary of another influential cameralist, Cristobal Rojas y Spínola.82 In the course of the eighteenth century, Justi and Sonnenfels delivered a remodeled influence on the economic policies of the court and its institutions.83

Based on these arguments, I will examine here the degree to which cameralist thinkers shaped the institutional prerequisites of the internal division of labor differentiating between cores and peripheries. In particular, I consider whether this regionalization and spacialization of economic processes were linked to cultural images and stereotypes in the sense of Said’s and Chakabarty’s orientalist and postcolonial theories.

In order to trace back these images and discourses, I examine descriptive statistics, so characteristic of political discourse (Polizeiwissenschaft) in German-speaking states, and official documents. Austria over all, if she only will, a key cameralist treatise written by the above-mentioned Philipp Wilhelm von Hörnigk in 1684, presented a picture of the relative economic subordination of the Habsburg Monarchy to the core areas of Western Europe, such as the Netherlands and France. Although in von Hörnigk’s famous work no internal disequilibrium is detected in the Habsburg economy, it nonetheless contains the first hints at the regional imbalances. Thus, von Hörnigk points to the production of woolen and linen textiles in Silesia and Upper and Inner Austria, praising the “diligence” of Silesian weavers, while Hungary is labeled a “true bread, lard, and meat pit.”84

These early differences between a proto-industrial West and an agrarian East became progressively more acute and were more directly linked with economic factors over the course of the eighteenth century. In 1770/71, the Council of War ordered a series of reports in order to assess the military capacity of the Monarchy’s population. The political comments in the reports concerning Bohemia and Austria pointed out differences in the degree of development and occasionally linked these differences to the ethnic identities of Slavs (Czechs, Slovenes) and Germans. While work ethos, social discipline concerning housekeeping and alcohol consumption, and health conditions were scrutinized, in the western regions of the Habsburg Monarchy these differences were not mapped according to orientalist models.85 In other words, these differences in the degree of development did not lead to the construction of stereotypes, which suggests that the imbalances between internal cores and peripheries within the western half of the Monarchy were not as severe as between the West and the East.

The disparities between western cores and eastern peripheries were, in turn, visible in the discourse. Between the 1780s and early 1820s, several statistical works were published that constructed a pejorative image of eastern territories such as Hungary, Transylvania, the Banat, Croatia, and Galicia. In particular, the native populations (Magyars, Slovaks, Romanians, Serbs, Croats, Poles, Ruthenians, and Jews) were accused of laziness, drunkenness, leading a dirty lifestyle, bad housekeeping, irresponsible use of money, and, as follows, indebtedness.86 In contrast, German settlers were praised for their well-built houses and their diligence. These descriptions were brimming with openly pejorative adjectives. Serbian peasants settling in the military frontier in Croatia were compared to “wild animals” by the statistician Andreas Demián in 1804.87 Serbs, Croats, and Vlachs (Romanians) were labeled “natural men” (by Demian and Martin Schwartner), who needed “civilizing” before they could partake of economic progress.88 Also, Galicia was targeted by the civilizing discourse after its annexation in 1772. In the 1780s and up to the end of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, Poles, Jews and Ruthenians were repeatedly labeled backward, “dirty,” and “lazy.” Their low cultural status required that they be civilized before they could become part of enlightened mankind and participate in the Monarchy’s wealth-generating projects. The invention of a new province, as pointed out by Larry Wolff,89 went hand in hand with the portrayal of a backward space which “had not yet become as advanced as its neighbours”90 and which, it follows, had to be “lifted up” and “civilized” by the Habsburg authorities.91 At the peak of this discourse, Galicia was compared to “El Dorado,” Peru, India, and Siberia, i.e. it was symbolically identified with non-European colonies.92

Cultural Images and the Interregional Division of Labor

As these examples clearly illustrate, the core-periphery-dichotomy in Habsburg Central Europe was translated into a definition of the peripheral “other” in pejorative cultural terms. This “other” was dirty, did not work assiduously, was prone to drinking too much, spent too much, and in general had only a low cultural status. This orientalizing discourse explained regional development differences according to a culturalist agenda: it is the culture inherent to peripheral societies which makes them poorer than core regions. Consequently, the dominant narrative claimed that these obstacles had to be removed before any successful catch-up with core regions could occur.

However, a critical analysis of these discourses and their relation to expressions of economic interests and self-representation of the core areas exposes them as a mercantilist agenda expressed in orientalist terms. One prime example is trade. A government report dated March 1, 1762 stated, “The true commercial relationship between Hungary and the German Hereditary lands seems to respond to the principle ceteribus paribus; Hungarians, as favored subjects, should not become too rich in terms of money, but should remain prosperous in terms of natural products, so that these can be the food of Austria, which, desirably, should increase its population, industry, and manufactories.”93 Only a few years later, the Commercial Council claimed that proto-industrial production in Hungary was to be limited to the absolute bare minimum in order to maintain the “natural trade so profitable for the state.” Hungary should be confined to the proto-industrial activities that posed no competition to the western core areas, but should, above all, deliver the materials necessary for proto-industrial production in Austria and Bohemia.94

This is a restatement of the mercantilist principle according to which money should not cross the borders of the state, so it can add to the wealth of the prince and his subjects. Interestingly, however, in this, case the principle is applied to territories that were part of the Habsburg state, although they had been left out of the administrative and fiscal reforms implemented after the end of the War of the Austrian Succession in 1748. While this was one of the reasons why Hungary had been excluded from the abolition of custom tariffs between Austria and Bohemia in 1775, custom policy had farther-reaching goals, such as maintaining the structural differences between a proto-industrial west and an agrarian east, which contradicted cameralist concepts, which in theory envisaged equilibrated regional development.95 A practical institutional consequence of this discourse was the already mentioned unequal custom duties that were levied on western against Hungarian products after 1754.

This stance of leading court institutions was eventually also shared by the monarch. Queen Maria Theresia, who in 1765 had stressed the “usefulness” of the foundation of manufactories in Hungary and had even issued a decree that liberated state subsidies and permitted privileges to be granted to newly founded manufactories in Hungary,96 changed her position dramatically in 1767, after failing to persuade the Hungarian nobility to accept property taxation in exchange for easing custom duties. In 1771, she stated that as long as the Hungarian nobility did not accept taxation, no support or official recognition was to be granted to manufactories in Hungary that potentially would threaten the sales of Bohemian and Austrian proto-industrial plants. Here, the unequal custom duties were reaffirmed.97

Although during Joseph II’s reign between 1780 and 1790, the Viennese Court declared its willingness to support the development of proto-industry in Hungary, the measures imposed earlier where not derogated. The abolition of the Hungarian import custom duties on western industrial products between 1786 and 1793 strengthened the position of the core areas’ proto-industrial enterprises on the Hungarian markets even further. The court, however, now supported the immigration of skilled workers to Hungary, granted subsidies to selected manufactories, and eliminated the internal customs barrier between Hungary and Transylvania in 1784. This policy, however, was abandoned after Joseph’s death. At the same time, the protectionist foreign custom regime introduced in 1784 and reinforced four years later also strengthened the position of Bohemian and Austrian proto-industrial enterprise in Hungary against foreign competitors. Despite the (in any case limited) measures for fostering proto-industrial activity in Hungary, as late as the early nineteenth century, Hungary was still an agriculturally-dominated economy, which confirms its status as an internal periphery.98

Galicia, which was incorporated into the Bohemian and Austrian customs regime in 1785, was given a similar role in the internal division of labor.99 Even before the First Partition of Poland-Lithuania, the local Commercial Council in Austrian Silesia defined the neighboring territory as “a second America” and hoped to “attract Cracow, L’viv and Kamieniec-Podolski’s trade to Austria.”100 Colonial imaginary, therefore, provided a readymade pretext for an argument in support of the application of mercantilist policies in a territory over which political control should be established. After imperial troops had occupied the new province in summer 1772, the merchant guild of Inner Austria addressed the Court Chamber to express its interest in “being among the first to draw benefits from this new successful acquisition” and expand trade with the northeastern province, as the provincial governor reported to the Court Chamber in Vienna.101 In fact, single entrepreneurs and proto-industrial activities were granted custom privileges in the first years after the annexation of Galicia, while the import of foreign competitors was forbidden, as mentioned above.102

However, while the Court Chamber was eager to promote the export of Bohemian and Austrian manufactures to Galicia, it handled Galicia’s custom policy carefully. Already in 1774, export tariffs were lowered to only 5/12 percent, and in 1776 import duties for Galician commodities to the western regions were cut from 20 to 4 percent.103 After attempts to persuade Prussia to sign a trade agreement that would have guaranteed Galicia’s exports on the Vistula River to Gdańsk failed, the new province was incorporated into the Austro-Bohemian customs union in 1785.104 While no institutional barriers prevented Galicia from integrating economically with the western regions from that moment, Galicia’s trade structure was further peripheralized.105

This was clearly in line with the perception of the bureaucracy, which by and large considered Galicia “destined to agriculture by nature,” as the provincial councilor Ernest Traugott Kortum stated in 1786.106 In addition, custom policy was only one instrument with which to regulate regional economic development and supra-regional competition. As in the case of Hungary, in Galicia crafts and industrial policy was another one. Thus, while granting loans, subsidies, and privileges to single proto-industrial businessmen in Galicia between the 1770s and the early 1790s, the bureaucracy up to the monarchs carefully ensured that these new plants not create additional competition for the Austrian and Bohemian firms on the Galician market so that support was only granted after assuring that these initiatives put forward were complementary to, and did not pose a competitive risk to, existing manufactories in the Bohemian and Austrian core regions.107 In some cases, the impact of pejorative cultural images on the arguments backing the rejection of funding applications is visible, for example when Emperor Joseph II turned down a funding petition for support for a silk manufactory with this claim that “Galicia is not a country where silk manufactories can be a successful business.”108 In the 1790s, the state withdrew its support entirely owing to financial shortages.109

In sum, while both custom and industrial policies were not at all designed to harm the eastern peripheries, they persistently were characterized by a prevalence of the interests of the Austrian and Bohemian core regions and their proto-industry, both in terms of maintaining consumer markets in the periphery as well as by obtaining resources, in particular raw materials, for their production. The state policy was thereby influenced by a pejorative perception of the peripheries’ economy and society, which started as a description of poverty and underdevelopment but all too easily ended up in a justification of the imbalances and an explanation and at the same time dismissal of them as the result of cultural or ethnic factors. From this, it was only one step to the instrumentalization and operationalization of this discourse in order to reinforce the institutional arrangement that supported the core regions’ economic dominance over the eastern peripheries.

Conclusions

Habsburg Central Europe was characterized by profound dichotomies between core and peripheral areas after the middle of the eighteenth century. While proto-industrial regions in the west managed to expand their economic profile in terms of both quantitative growth and qualitative development, extensive agrarian production in eastern peripheries did not undergo a comparable transformation. While the East-West-dichotomy is an oversimplification obscuring the presence of peripheral spaces in the west, such as raw material extraction and low-productive agriculture, and core areas in the east, such as craft production sites, it is, to some extent, justified by the fact that peripheral spaces in the west could expect to fare a good deal better than core areas in the east as far as future development was concerned. The East–West split is attested to not only by the productive profiles of each region, but also by their mutual exchange relations. Western regions largely exported manufactured products to the Hungarian and Galician territories in the east, while mainly importing foodstuffs and raw materials. Even if this exchange relation did not bring the western core regions imminently measurable gains in terms of commercial balance surplus, the core regions benefitted by these enlarged consumer markets and the relatively cheap acquisition of raw materials and foodstuffs. This relationship was heavily supported by the court institutions and their customs, trade, and industrial policies. Cultural perception is the other face of this coin and does nothing but confirm the analysis. First, the perception of spatial differences intensified over the course of the eighteenth century, as economic factors were translated into a culturalist narrative defining the eastern peripheries’ status. These stereotypes covered a wide range of clichés: a low work ethos, high alcohol consumption, a tendency to spend more than means would warrant, widespread social poverty, all condensed into narratives surrounding the idea of the “natural man” and the “wild animal.” Subsequently, a civilizing mission was advocated, a mission the alleged goal of which was to create the conditions necessary for these regions and their populations to participate effectively in economic progress. This discourse clearly demonstrates an orientalist logic, as spatial disparities are blamed on the attitude of the peripheral population, rather than on structural economic factors, including power relations. The official and statistical discourse of the government, for its part, assumed and displayed these power relations in policies concerning trade and proto-industry, where the interests of core areas prevailed over those of peripheries. The pejorative cultural images of the eastern peripheries not only expressed the hegemony of the core areas, but effectively contributed to maintaining the peripheral status of some regions within the Habsburg economy in the late eighteenth century.

Bibliography

Primary sources

Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv (HHStA)

Kabinettsarchiv (KA): Nachlass Zinzendorf, Handschriften, vols. 118, 119.

Österreichisches Staatsarchiv (ÖStA)

Finanz- und Hofkammerarchiv (FHKA), Neue Hofkammer (NHK):

Kommerz OÖ und NÖ Akten Nr. 144; Kommerz U Akten Nr. 1556, 1558; Kommerzakten Nr. 1723–1726.

 

Bredetzky, Samuel. Reisebemerkungen über Ungern und Galizien. Vienna: Doll, 1809.

Bredetzky, Samuel. Historisch-statistischer Beytrag zum deutschen Kolonialwesen in Europa, nebst einer kurzen Beschreibung der deutschen Ansiedlungen in Galizien in alphabetischer Ordnung. Brünn: Joseph Georg Tratzler, 1812.

Hacquet, Belsasar. Hacquets neueste physikalisch-politische Reisen in den Jahren 1788, 89 und 90, Zweyter Theil. Nürnberg: Raspesche Buchhandlung, 1791.

Hacquet, Belsasar. Hacquets neueste physikalisch-politische Reisen in den Jahren 1791, 92 und 93, Dritter Theil. Nürnberg: Raspesche Buchhandlung, 1794.

Hörnigk, Philipp Wilhelm von. Österreich über alles, wenn es nur will. Edited by Gustav Otruba. Vienna: Bergland, 1964.

Kortum, Ernest Traugott. Magna Charta von Galicien, oder Untersuchung der Beschwerden des Galicischen Adels Pohlnischer Nation über die österreichische Regierung. Jassy: n.p., 1790.

Traunpaur, Heinrich Alphons. Dreyssig Briefe über Galizien oder Beobachtungen eines unpartheyischen Mannes, der sich mehr als nur ein paar Monate in diesem Königreiche umgesehen hat. Vienna–Leipzig: G. F. Wucherer–E. Beer, 1787.

Versuch einer Darstellung der Oesterreichischen Monarchie in Statistischen Tafeln 1828. [Vienna, 1829]

 

Secondary sources

Bacon, Ewa Katherine. Austrian Economic Policy in Galicia, 1772–1790. PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1975.

Beer, Adolf. “Die Zollpolitik und die Schaffung eines einheitlichen Zollgebietes unter Maria Theresia.” Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 14 (1893): 277–326.

Beer, Adolf. “Studien zur Geschichte der österreichischen Volkswirtschaft unter Maria Theresia. I: Die österreichische Industriepolitik.” Archiv für Österreichische Geschichte 81 (1895): 1–133.

Beer, Adolf. “Die österreichische Handelspolitik unter Maria Theresia und Joseph II.” Archiv für Österreichische Geschichte 86 (1899): 1–204.

Benedikt, Heinrich. “Der Josephinismus vor Joseph II.” In Österreich und Europa: Festgabe für Hugo Hantsch zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by Paul W. Schroeder, 183–201. Graz–Vienna–Cologne: Institut für österreichische Geschichtsforschung–Wiener Katholische Akademie, 1965.

Bernard, Paul P. “Poverty and Poor Relief in the Eighteenth Century.” In State and Society in Early Modern Austria, edited by Charles Ingrao, 238–51. West Lafayette: Purdue University Press, 1994.

Berg, Maxine. The Age of Manufactures: Industry, Innovation and Work in Britain 1700–1820. Oxford: Blackwell, 1985.

Boldorf, Marcel. “Weltwirtschaftliche Verflechtung und lokale Existenzsicherung: Die schlesischen Kaufmannsgilden im internationalen Leinenhandel des 18. Jahrhunderts.” In Praktiken des Handels: Geschäfte und soziale Beziehungen europäischer Kaufleute im Mittelalter und früher Neuzeit, edited by Mark Häberlein and Christof Jeggle, 127–44. Konstanz: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft, 2010.

Bruckmüller, Ernst. Sozialgeschichte Österreichs. Vienna–Munich: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik–Oldenbourg, 2001.

Brusatti, Alois. Österreichische Wirtschaftspolitik vom Josephinismus bis zum Ständestaat. Vienna: Jupiter-Verlag, 1965.

Cerman, Markus, and Ogilvie, Sheilagh C. “Einleitung: Theorien der Proto-Industrialisierung.” In Protoindustrialisierung in Europa, edited by idem, 9–21. Historische Sozialkunde 5. Vienna: Verlag für Gesellschaftskritik, 1994.

Cerman, Markus. “Proto-industrielle Entwicklung in Österreich.” In Protoindustrialisierung in Europa, edited Markus Cerman and Sheilagh C. Ogilvie, 161–75. Historische Sozialkunde 5. Vienna: Verlag für Gesellschaftskritik, 1994.

Chakrabarty, Dipesh. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005.

Dickson, P.G.M. Finance and Government under Maria Theresia 1740–1780. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.

DuPlessis, Robert S. Transitions to Capitalism in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Freudenberger, Herman. “The Woolen-Goods Industry of the Habsburg Monarchy in the Eighteenth Century.” Journal of Economic History 20, no. 3 (1960): 383–406.

Freudenberger, Herman. The Industrialization of a Central European City: Brno and the Fine Woollen Industry in the 18th century. Edington–Wilshire: Pasold Research Fund, 1977.

Freudenberger, Herman. Lost Momentum: Austrian Economic Development 1750s–1830s. Studien zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte und Wirtschaftspolitik 8. Vienna–Cologne–Weimar: Böhlau, 2003.

Garner, Guillaume. “Caméralisme et territoire: Ètat, espace et économie dans le discours économique allemand au XVIIIe siècle.” Revue du Nord 85, no. 4 (2003): 729–45.

Gasser, Peter. “Karl VI., Triest und die Venezianer.” In „wir aber aus unsern vorhero sehr erschöpfften camergeföllen nicht hernemben khönnen…“ Beiträge zur österreichischen Wirtschafts- und Finanzgeschichte vom 17. bis zum 20. Jahrhundert. Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung, Sonderband 3, 17–109. Vienna: Berger–Horn, 1997.

Good, David F. Der wirtschaftliche Aufstieg des Habsburgerreichs 1750–1918. Vienna–Cologne–Graz: Böhlau, 1986.

Grossmann, Henryk. “Die amtliche Statistik des galizischen Außenhandels 1772–1792.” In Statistische Monatsschrift 39 (1913): 222–33.

Grossmann, Henryk. Österreichs Handelspolitik mit Bezug auf Galizien in der Reformperiode 1772–1790. Studien zur Sozial-, Wirtschafts- und Verwaltungsgeschichte 10. Vienna: Konegen, 1914.

Hassinger, Herbert. “Der Außenhandel der Habsburgermonarchie in der zweiten Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts.” In Die wirtschaftliche Situation in Deutschland und Österreich an der Wende vom 18. zum 19. Jahrhundert, edited by Friedrich Lütge, 61–98. Stuttgart: Fischer, 1964.

Häusler, Wolfgang. Von der Massenarmut zur Arbeiterbewegung: Demokratie und soziale Frage in der Wiener Revolution von 1848. Vienna: Jugend und Volk, 1979.

Heckenast, Gusztáv. “Der Zustand und die Entwicklung der Industrie in Ungarn zur Zeit Maria Theresias: Eine Skizze.” Jahrbuch für Österreichische Kulturgeschichte 10 (1984): 235–56.

Hochedlinger, Michael, and Anton Tantner, eds. ”Der größte Teil der Untertanen lebt elend und mühselig:” Die Berichte des Hofkriegsrates zur sozialen und wirtschaftlichen Lage der Habsburgermonarchie 1770–1771. Innsbruck–Vienna: Studien-Verlag, 2005.

Hopkins, Terence K., and Immanuel Wallerstein. “Grundzüge der Entwicklung des modernen Weltsystems: Entwurf für ein Forschungsvorhaben.” In Kapitalistische Weltökonomie: Kontroversen über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, edited by Dieter Senghaas, 151–200. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1979.

Ingrao, Charles. The Habsburg Monarchy 1618–1815. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Kaps, Klemens. “Gescheitertes Aufholen in Zentraleuropa: Der Abstieg der Habsburgermonarchie zu einem semiperipheren Wirtschaftsraum im Spiegel ihrer Außenhandelsstruktur 1791–1880.” Zeitschrift für Weltgeschichte 9, no. 1 (2008): 103–22.

Kaps, Klemens. “Trade Statistics in the Habsburg Monarchy, 18th century–1918.” Revue de l’OFCE 26, no. 4 (2015): 253–64.

Kaps, Klemens. Ungleiche Entwicklung in Zentraleuropa: Galizien zwischen überregionaler Arbeitsteilung und imperialer Politik (1772–1914). Sozial- und Wirtschaftshistorische Studien 37. Vienna: Böhlau, 2015.

Kaps, Klemens. “Kulturelle Vorstellungswelten der Politischen Ökonomie: Bilder des habsburgischen Ostens im kameralistischen Diskurs zwischen den Wendejahren 1683 und 1815.” In Konstruierte (Fremd-?)Bilder: Das östliche Europa im Diskurs des 18. Jahrhunderts, edited by Christoph Augustynowicz and Agnieszka Pufelska, 177–99. Berlin–Boston: De Gruyter, 2017.

Klíma, Arnošt. “English Merchant Capital in Bohemia in the 18th Century.” Economic History Review, 2nd series 12 (1959–60): 34–48.

Klíma, Arnošt. “Glassmaking Industry and Trade in Bohemia in the 17th and 18th Centuries.” Journal of European Economic History 13, no. 3 (1984): 499–520.

Klíma, Arnošt. “Über die größten Manufakturen des 18. Jahrhunderts in Böhmen.” In Mitteilungen des österreichischen Staatsarchivs 12 (1959): 143–61.

Klíma, Arnošt. “Probleme der Proto-Industrie in Böhmen zur Zeit Maria Theresias.” In idem, Economy, Industry and Society in Bohemia in the 17th–19th centuries. Prague: Charles University, 1991, 99–16.

Klingenstein, Grete. “Between Mercantilism and Physiocracy: Stages, Modes and Functions of Economic Theory in the Habsburg Monarchy 1748–63.” In State and Society in Early Modern Austria, edited by Charles Ingrao, 181–214. West Lafayette: Purdue University Press, 1994.

Komlos, John. “Austria and European Economic Development: What Has Been Learned?” In State and Society in Early Modern Austria, edited by Charles Ingrao, 215–25. West Lafayette: Purdue University Press, 1994.

Komlosy, Andrea. Grenze und ungleiche regionale Entwicklung: Binnenmarkt und Migration in der Habsburgermonarchie. Vienna: Promedia, 2003.

Komlosy, Andrea. “Austria and Czechoslovakia: The Habsburg Monarchy and the Successor States.” In The Ashgate Companion to the History of Textile Workers, 1650–2000, edited by Lex Herma van Voss, Els Kuperus-Hiemstra, and Elise Meerkerk van Nederveen, 43–73. Farnham–Burlington: Ashgate, 2010.

Liebel-Weckowitz, Helen. “Modernisierungsmotive in der Freihandelspolitik Maria Theresias.” In Maria Theresia und ihre Zeit: Eine Darstellung der Epoche 1740–1780 aus Anlaß der 200. Wiederkehr des Todestages der Kaiserin, edited by Walter Koschatzky, 153–58. Vienna–Salzburg: Residenz-Verlag, 1979.

Matis, Herbert. “Betriebsorganisation, Arbeitsmarkt und Arbeitsverfassung.” In Von der Glückseligkeit des Staates: Staat, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in Österreich im Zeitalter des Aufgeklärten Absolutismus, edited by idem, 411–49. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1981.

Myška, Milan. “Proto-Industrialisierung in Böhmen, Mähren und Schlesien.” In Protoindustrialisierung in Europa, edited by Markus Cerman and Sheilagh C. Ogilvie, 177–91. Historische Sozialkunde 5. Vienna: Verlag für Gesellschaftskritik, 1994.

Nolte, Hans-Heinrich, ed. Internal Peripheries in European History. Zur Kritik der Geschichtsschreibung 6. Göttingen–Zürich: Muster-Schmidt, 1991.

Nolte, Hans-Heinrich, ed. Europäische innere Peripherien im 20. Jahrhundert. Edited by Michael Salewski and Jürgen Elvert. Historische Mitteilungen im Auftrag der Ranke-Gesellschaft, Beiheft 23. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1997.

Nolte, Hans-Heinrich, ed. Innere Peripherien in Ost und West. Compiled by Klaas Bähre. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2001.

Nolte, Hans-Heinrich. “Innere Peripherien: Das Konzept in der Forschung.” In Innere Peripherien in Ost und West, edited by idem and Klaas Bähre, 7–31. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2001.

Osterloh, Karl-Heinz. Joseph von Sonnenfels und die österreichische Reformbewegung im Zeitalter des aufgeklärten Absolutismus: Eine Studie zum Zusammenhang von Kameralwissenschaft und Verwaltungspraxis. Lübeck–Hamburg: Matthiesen, 1970.

Otruba, Gustav. Der Außenhandel Österreichs unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Niederösterreichs nach der älteren amtlichen Handelsstatistik. Der niederösterreichische Arbeiter 1. Vienna: Kammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte in Niederösterreich, 1950.

Otruba, Gustav. “Staatshaushalt und Staatsschuld unter Maria Theresia und Joseph II.” In Österreich im Europa der Aufklärung: Kontinuität und Zäsur in Europa zur Zeit Maria Theresias und Josephs II., vol. 1, edited by Grete Klingenstein and Richard Plaschka, 197–249. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akadedmie der Wissenschaften, 1985.

Otruba, Gustav. “Schlesien im System des österreichischen Merkantilismus: Die Auswirkungen des Verlusts Schlesiens auf die österreichische Wirtschaft.” In Kontinuität und Wandel: Schlesien zwischen Österreich und Preußen, edited by Peter Baumgart and Ulrich Schmilewski, 81–118. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1990.

Said, Edward W. Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient. London: Penguin, 2003.

Sandgruber, Roman. Die Anfänge der Konsumgesellschaft: Konsumgüterverbrauch, Lebensstandard und Alltagskultur in Österreich im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert. Vienna: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik, 1982.

Sandgruber, Roman. Ökonomie und Politik: Österreichische Wirtschaftsgeschichte vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart. Vienna: Ueberreuter, 1994.

Sandl, Marcus. Ökonomie des Raumes: Der kameralwissenschaftliche Entwurf der Staatswirtschaft im 18. Jahrhundert. Cologne–Weimar: Böhlau, 1999.

Špiesz, Anton. “Die Wirtschaftspolitik des Wiener Hofes gegenüber Ungarn im 18. Jahrhundert und im Vormärz.” In Ungarn-Jahrbuch 1 (1969): 60–73.

Tremel, Ferdinand. Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte Österreichs. Vienna: Deuticke, 1969.

Vári, András. “The Functions of Ethnic Stereotypes in Austria and Hungary in the Early Nineteenth Century.” In Creating the Other: Ethnic Conflict and Nationalism in Habsburg Central Europe, edited by Nancy Wingfield, 39–55. New York: Berghahn, 2003.

Wallerstein, Immanuel. The Modern World-System II: Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy, 1600–1750. New York: Academic Press, 1980.

Wellmann, Imre. “Maria Theresias Handelspolitik mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Agrarproduktion.” In Jahrbuch für Österreichische Kulturgeschichte 10 (1984): 257–318.

Wolff, Larry. Inventing Eastern Europe: The Map of Civilization on the Mind of the Enlightenment. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995.

Wolff, Larry. “Inventing Galicia: Messianic Josephinism and the Recasting of Partitioned Poland.” Slavic Review 63, no. 4 (2004): 818–40.

Hungarian Historical Review Volume 9 Issue 3 (2020): 385-389 DOI: 10.38145/2020.3.385

Andrea Pető, Alexandra M. Szabó, and András Szécsényi

There was a significant debate in the Hungarian journal of social sciences and culture Kommentár in 2008 initiated by Gábor Gyáni as to whether Hungarian Holocaust research had or had not been successfully integrated into international discourse after 1989.1 One element missing from the debate was that after 1989, main concepts and the language of the discipline derived from the Western side of the (fallen) Iron Curtain. The histories of the Holocaust survivors had been only descriptive in nature, while the experiences of Jewish communities, the members of which had lived under communism was of predominant focus. There was no theoretical inquiry in Holocaust scholarship as long as the objective fact-finding was taking place, expanding on questions as to when, where, and what had happened to which actors. Historical inquiry, however, needs to extend further to explain the uncovered events and experiences.

For instance, a significant element missing from the scholarship in its entirety is gender analysis, and this observation brings to the fore the lack of discussion on methodology and the consequent absence of acknowledging developments. Hungarian scholarship of Holocaust historical inquiry with a central aim evolving around gender analytical perspectives is still nonexistent, yet there are some contributions about women and the Holocaust in the English language, for instance by Andrea Pető.2 This special edition of the Hungarian Historical Review lines up studies which draw on new modes of analyses and frameworks with the aim of achieving knowledge production on a whole new level about the Holocaust in Hungary.

The lack of innovative theoretical frameworks and other new approaches in understandings of the history of the Shoah in the Hungarian context explains the current poor state of institutionalized Hungarian Holocaust research. The consequences are not only prevalent in academia, but also in the public sphere (which influences science policy) and in shifts in public memory of the Holocaust in Hungary.

However, the current struggles for memory are far from a memory policy based on democratic consensus and development. Since illiberal states do not have an ideology but only a memory policy, the weak domestic institutionalization of Hungarian Holocaust research with low international recognition has contributed to the successful reinterpretation of the Holocaust remembrance paradigm by illiberal actors. Scholarly attempts against this were and are still being made, such as the relevant scholarly volume published on the occasion of what is referred to as the 70th anniversary of the Holocaust in Hungary, which was published in Hungarian and English by CEU Press3 (a year of anniversary that is misleading as it suggests that the Holocaust in Hungary began with the German occupation in 1944 instead of with the labor service system and with the earlier deportations of Hungarian Jews, such as the deportation of Jews to Kamianets-Podilskyi in 1941, where an estimated 23,000 Jewish deportees were massacred in two days). At the same time, historical research workshops operating in Hungary mostly outside the system that ensures scientific standards and outside the international scientific frameworks are growing, and they are pursuing ad hoc research in parallel with the existing research infrastructure in support of the present government’s politics of memory.

Demonstrating the lack of new research directions in Hungary that are prevalent in international Holocaust scholarship, Andrea Pető called for the organization of a conference entitled The Hungarian Holocaust: Victimhood and Memory, together with Gábor Gyáni, Edit Jeges, and András Szécsényi and in cooperation with Central European University and the Humanities Research Center of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in Budapest on December 18, 2017. A selected number of presentations were considered for publication in Századok, the most prestigious Hungarian historical journal, for its special section dealing with the Hungarian Holocaust. The selection of conference speakers and publications mirrored the work of mostly young researchers who, despite the dwindling research infrastructure, had carried out methodologically innovative work based on archival research. The introduction to this section in Századok was censored for discussing “illiberal memory politics,” although the authors took a clear stand against this suppressive act.4 The presentation of this special issue, which took place on September 25, 2019, was met with unprecedented interest at Central European University, indicating that the Holocaust continues to be a subject of major scholarly and public interest.

Despite the controversial nature of memory politics and the lack of proper infrastructure, a new generation of researchers worked on this special issue to present new approaches and findings, thus taking an important step towards international exchange by elevating Hungarian Holocaust research onto the international stage and bringing innovative research methods from the international pool into Hungarian scholarship.

The articles in the present volume contribute to historical understandings which primarily work from the perspectives of the victims of the Holocaust. Based on the division of historical inquiry by Raul Hilberg, the Hungarian historiography of the Holocaust focuses on one of categories suggested by Hilberg: perpetrators, victims, or bystanders. This mainstream allocation, however, has been widely criticized in recent decades by many researchers worldwide, and they have offered new approaches which shift the focus to the behaviors, interactions, and dynamics among societies and communities involved in the Shoah, together with closer study of the psychological and sociological perceptions of these groups. This paradigm shift has emerged only recently in Hungarian scholarship, another significant reason as to why Hungarian historiography has only rarely constituted a serious part of the international discourse.

In recent decades, there have mostly been descriptive, fact-finding monographs published that are based on archival sources and avoid the use of private or narrative sources.5 A group of Hungarian Holocaust researchers who mainly belong to the new generation would like to break from this approach and widen the perspective of inquiry. The papers in this issue seek answers to questions concerning how Jews, who were deprived of their basic rights, forced to serve in labor service, and then, in 1944, compelled to live in ghettos and yellow star houses or deported to concentration camps, lived and survived under these extreme conditions. The histories presented here also consider how the survivors remembered their pasts in the immediate postwar setting with a specific focus on the modes in which these experiences were later recounted.

The approaches and viewpoints presented by our authors are of a wider scale. Some papers belong to the field of microhistory, while others closely examine and reflect on specific oral historical sources and narratives. The interpretations largely rest on contemporary and postwar narrative sources (memoirs, diaries, and other notes), in addition to the archival documents, which touch primarily on questions pertinent to individual life stories.

István Pál Ádám examines the case of the butchers of Budapest and considers how the governmental and municipal administration of the late Horthy-era impacted the leftists and the Jewish butchers from the issuance of the 1939 anti-Jewish law. Ádám examines the ways in which the butchers of the capital were forced to change their strategy in the postwar democratic society of Hungary. Tamás Csapody examines diaries, some of them incomplete, written by six inmates of the camps in and around Bor. They were Hungarian citizens of Jewish and other free church denominations who had been deported from Hungary in 1943 and 1944 and taken to the lager-system of Bor (Serbia), later to be brought back to Hungary in the second half of 1944 and then (some of them) taken to German concentration camps. He provides insightful content analysis and examines diaries written by six inmates, one of which is being presented for the first time in this volume. Heléna Huhák analyzes the spatial experiences of some of the inmates who were deported from Hungary to Bergen-Belsen in 1944–1945. She draws on diaries, memoirs, and correspondence in order to explore perceptions of space formed in the memories of camp inmates. Edit Jeges examines survivor accounts by Polish and Hungarian Jewish women and reflects on the nature of her primary sources. She also considers the further potentials of digital storytelling as a source and the importance of survivor memory at a time when fewer and fewer survivors remain among us. Borbála Klacsmann summarizes the roles and the activities of the Government Commission for Abandoned Property regarding the restitution of Hungarian Jews in the first three years of the postwar period, providing specific examples from Pest County through personal accounts and correspondence. Alexandra M. Szabó examines Jewish women’s experiences of miscarriages before, during, and after the Shoah through a specific case study in order to draw attention to the significance of such corporeal events from a social historical point of view. Her study considers the implications of the silence concerning women’s experiences in Holocaust research to show that gender analysis substantially adds to further knowledge production. In his case study, which partly overlaps with Huhák’s paper, András Szécsényi also concentrates on one space, a German DP camp. Szécsényi tries to reconstruct the spatial experiences of György Bognár, a former inmate of Bergen-Belsen who was taken to the Hillersleben DP camp after liberation. The paper explores space perceptions based on Bognár’s diary and the maps he drew, which Szécsényi compares with his own in-person experiences of the sites (or what remains of them). Ferenc Laczó’s paper presents German historiography from recent decades on the Hungarian Holocaust by exploring the relevant findings and conclusions of the most important German histories. Through his findings, he seeks answers to questions concerning why there has been so little institutionalized cooperation between the German and Hungarian research communities.

We would like to dedicate our work to the memory of Randolph L. Braham (1922–2018), who, as the pioneer in Hungarian Holocaust research, was a true inspiration and supportive friend of the scholars whose works are part of the present volume.

Petr Popelka

Business Strategies and Adaptation Mechanisms in Family Businesses during the Era of the Industrial Revolution The Example of the Klein Family from Moravia

 

Family businesses are a central topic in the history of business, especially in the early phases of the industrialization process. This case study attempts to identify the business strategies and the adaptation mechanisms used by a family business during the era of the Industrial Revolution. The main aim of the study is to explore which adaptation mechanisms and strategies were used during the Industrial Revolution by large family firms in the Lands of the Bohemian Crown. The study focuses on a model example, the Klein family, which ranked among the foremost entrepreneurial families in the Bohemian Crown Lands. The Kleins initially rose to prominence through their road construction business. They later built private and state railways and also diversified into heavy industry. I delineate the main stages in the development of the family firm, discuss a number of key microeconomic factors which influenced the Kleins’ business activities, and describe the factors which ultimately led to the downfall of this once-successful firm.

Keywords: business history, family firm, Industrial Revolution, capitalism, Lands of the Bohemian Crown, business strategies, adaptation mechanisms, Gebrüder Klein, Klein von Wiesenberg

The Problem of Continuity and Adaptation

In his influential study of the family, businesses and capitalism, Jürgen Kocka states that the spirit and practice of capitalism are based on non-capitalist structures and processes which have a long-term influence over capitalism. He identifies the family as one of the key elements which contributed to the formation of capitalism. Kocka writes that family structures, processes and resources encouraged the emergence of industrial capitalism and helped resolve certain problems faced by capitalist industrialization. In his view, this role was particularly evident in the early phase of industrialization.1

Many years have elapsed since the publication of Kocka’s above-cited article, and many studies have explored the relationships between business and the family. Although scholars may differ in some of their conclusions regarding this relationship, there nevertheless exists a general consensus that the family played an exceptional role in business throughout the nineteenth century.2 In the European historiography on business history, over the course of the past decade there was a marked increase in the interest in the history of family businesses; many studies of family businesses focus on the nineteenth century, the era which witnessed the formation of modern family business practices. Many phenomena have been analyzed with regard to nineteenth-century family businesses; among the most important are issues of succession within family firms, business strategies applied by family businesses, and the construction of social networks.3

The central topic of this study (and indeed this entire issue of the journal) concerns enterprises in adaptation. This topic is intricately intertwined with the question of continuity in business, a question that has not yet been fully addressed by Czech historiography with regard to nineteenth-century businesses. Existing studies suggest that the development of the entrepreneurial classes in the Bohemian Crown Lands was in fact characterized not by continuity, but rather by discontinuity. This finding has been demonstrated by historical research mainly in terms of the transition between business practices in the proto-industrial era and the industrial era. Businesses which emerged under the protectionist conditions that prevailed during the period of enlightened absolutism and the Napoleonic Wars generally found it difficult to adapt to the conditions of economic liberalism that characterized the early phase of industrialization. There were, moreover, certain specific features which affected developments in individual sectors. In some sectors, the technological changes brought by the Industrial Revolution necessitated such hugely increased volumes of investment that it was practically impossible to manage a smooth transition from traditional manufacturing methods to modern mechanized production; many established businesses failed to deal with this challenge. The thesis of the discontinuity between proto-industrial and industrial business practices has been confirmed by Czech historiographical research focusing on the mining and metallurgical industries, and to some extent also by research into textile production.4 Family firms involved in glassmaking or textile production based on the factor system achieved a higher level of continuity between the proto-industrial and industrial eras; in both these sectors there were some family businesses which spanned several generations. However, even in these industries not all entrepreneurs proved able to adapt to the new circumstances.5

The issue of continuity in the entrepreneurial classes of the Bohemian Crown Lands during the era of industrialization has been addressed in Czech historiography by a small number of studies that focus on specific groups of entrepreneurs who were active in particular sectors (M. Myška on metallurgy, J. Matějček on mining, J. Janák and B. Smutný on textile production, J. Janák and F. Dudek on sugar refining). These studies all reveal the dynamic changes experienced by the entrepreneurial classes during the course of the Industrial Revolution.6

Research on family businesses may well offer insights into the issue of business continuity during the era of industrialization; this remained the most widespread form of enterprise throughout the nineteenth century. Modern research has shown that, by their very nature, family businesses display a strong tendency towards continuity; this is reflected in the existence of family firms spanning three (or more) generations during the era of industrialization. Among the more recent studies describing this phenomenon is an article by Michael Schäfer that explores the situation in Saxony.7 However, Czech historiography unfortunately still lacks an equivalent study drawing on broad-based collective biographical research and focusing specifically on family businesses, in spite of the fact that a number of new business encyclopedias offer an excellent information resource.8 Case studies nevertheless confirm that family firms represented a significant source of business continuity during the era of industrialization in the Bohemian Crown Lands. On the other hand, these studies also suggest that only a few of these family firms managed to maintain their continuity for more than three generations. In most cases, the firms suffered either as a result of a failure to handle generational transitions successfully or as a consequence of external circumstances; this was particularly typical in the turbulent first half of the twentieth century.9

This article examines the business strategies and adaptation mechanisms adopted by family firms in the Lands of the Bohemian Crown during the era of the Industrial Revolution.10 I focus on a model example, the Klein family, which ranked among the foremost entrepreneurial dynasties in the Habsburg Monarchy.11 In his Sozialgeschichte Österreichs, Ernst Bruckmüller describes the Kleins as an Austrian example of the possibility of a quasi-American form of social advancement.12 This description alludes to the fact that the Kleins represented one of the few examples of self-made men in Central Europe during the Industrial Revolution. Within the span of a single generation they managed to work their way up from relatively humble origins to the pinnacle of the entrepreneurial elite.13 The present study examines the development of the Kleins’ family business with a particular focus on how they responded to the challenges posed by the changing business environment.

The Early Years of the Klein Family Business

Although the early history of many companies is frequently associated with some form of “founding fathers myth,” depicting the first generation of the company’s owners in a heroic light and serving a purpose of legitimization, the beginnings of the Klein family firm were not auspicious.14 The father of the founding generation, Johann Friedrich Klein (1756–1835), attempted to implement numerous business plans, but mostly without success. In addition to his main business as a cloth trader, he also attempted to acquire an inn, which was a traditional source of income. The family’s bleak prospects after the state bankruptcy in 1811 led Johann Friedrich’s sons to leave home at an early age.15 The first to leave, in 1812, was the eldest son Josef Engelbert (1792–1830), followed soon afterwards by the second eldest son Engelbert (1797–1830). Both worked as laborers on water management projects at the Moravian estate of Eisgrub (today Lednice, Czech Republic), where they gained their first experiences in the construction trade. In 1816, along with their younger brother Franz (1800–1855), they capitalized on their skills, winning their first contract to rebuild a short stretch of road. The contract was relatively minor, but it nevertheless gave the brothers their first experience in road construction. This was soon followed up by a number of other small-scale contracts for road rebuilding, river regulation, minor building work in towns, and similar jobs.16

In 1826, Josef Engelbert Klein won the largest contract of his life, and this launched the Kleins’ long involvement in building the main road network throughout Moravia and Silesia. The family’s first major transport infrastructure project was the construction of a state road in the western part of Austrian Silesia, a contract which generated tens of thousands of gulden in profits. The project was huge in its scale, so it required not only experience in road construction, but also organizational acumen and a good deal of physical strength. Josef Engelbert therefore decided, as he had in the course of previous projects, to involve his younger brothers, including the adolescent Libor Klein (1803–1848). The brothers invested the profits back into their business, but the project brought them much more than just capital; above all, they acquired essential know-how regarding the organization of labor on large-scale road construction projects. They assembled a team of skilled workers and laborers, and they acquired the necessary tools, horses and carts. They also learned how to negotiate with the state authorities, and they gradually built up a network of influential social contacts.17 This gave them a comparative advantage over competing bidders for similar public contracts. Helped by their policy of offering generous discounts and their growing reputation as reliable operators, the Kleins managed to participate in the majority of important road construction products in Moravia and Silesia during the 1830s and 1840s.18

The Kleins’ experience in road construction in the first half of the nineteenth century was an important factor that helped them win contracts in an area that proved to be much more lucrative, namely railway construction. The family firm was involved in a number of projects connected with the first steam railway built in the Habsburg Monarchy, the Emperor Ferdinand Northern Railway (Kaiser Ferdinands-Nordbahn). The projects involved earthworks and the construction of both brick and timber structures. The Kleins had many years’ experience in this kind of job thanks to their road construction contracts. However, nobody in Austria had any experience in rail-laying, so this work was initially carried out by experts from abroad. From 1837 to 1856, the Kleins built around 340 km of railways for the Kaiser Ferdinands-Nordbahn, plus a number of station buildings and guard-houses.19

When the Austrian state decided to invest its own funds in the construction of a network of major rail routes, it was able to choose from a number of established contractors. In addition to the Klein brothers, other key firms operating in this sector included companies owned by the Bohemian entrepreneur Adalbert Lanna, the Italian businessman Felice Tallachini, and the Moravian Fleischmann brothers.20 However, this small circle of firms gradually lost its monopoly in the 1840s. The railway construction sector became highly competitive, and some of the later state contracts were divided up among several companies. Despite the fierce competition that developed in the sector, the Kleins managed to retain a highly influential position in the following decades – helped not only by their know-how, but also by their skill at forming consortiums with other major building contractors, especially Adalbert Lanna, Johann Schebek, and Karl Schwarz. The smaller contractors found it very difficult to compete with these strong, established firms, and the Klein brothers continued to be involved in numerous major railway projects throughout the Habsburg Monarchy from the late 1830s to the mid-1870s. In this period, the Kleins participated in the construction of over 3,500 km of railways throughout the Habsburg Monarchy.21

The Kleins’ early entrepreneurial activities bear most of the hallmarks of the business strategies that were widespread during the early phase of industrialization. During this era, businesses’ strategies were rooted in close cooperation among family members, who provided a mutual support network and thus helped mitigate the initial risks associated with business ventures. The family also played a key role in the transfer of business know-how; the knowledge and skills that were put to use in many sectors were acquired empirically. Another important role of the family was in financing; the individual members of the family offered mutual financial support, and capital was generally loaned within the family or borrowed from individual creditors. Bank loans were taken out only if very large investments were necessary.22 Close cooperation among the brothers enabled the Kleins to win building contracts and successfully implement large projects which would have been beyond the capabilities of individuals acting alone.

The Investment Strategies of the First Generation of Kleins

During the early phases of industrialization, certain sectors were characterized by a marked lack of equality in business opportunities. This was not only an issue of starting capital; in the period leading up to 1848, business in the Austrian Empire was still heavily influenced by the existence of feudal structures. Well into the first half of the nineteenth century, ownership of a large aristocratic estate represented an important competitive advantage in many sectors of business. Among the most significant advantages were priority access to raw material resources (e.g. iron ore and coal); a monopoly on the ownership of forests, which were the primary source of fuel; the right to use water resources; and the ownership of large tracts of land. Ownership of raw materials meant that estate owners were not dependent on the fluctuating prices of these commodities. Estate owners could also exercise their rights vis-à-vis their subjects; in the first half of the nineteenth century, subjects were still required to perform compulsory labor duties (Fronarbeit) or carry out forced labor for inadequate wages.23 Estate owners also had easier access to credit, as the estate could be pledged as collateral on loans.

At the end of the eighteenth century and during the first half of the nineteenth, many capital-rich merchants, financiers and other businessmen in the Bohemian Crown Lands invested part of their profits in the purchase of estates.24 In the case of entrepreneurs during the early phases of industrialization, this did not necessarily represent a form of feudalization.25 For some entrepreneurs the acquisition of estates not only represented a safe way of investing their capital for the benefit of future generations; it was also a means of supporting their business activities. This motivation is clearly evident in several case studies of entrepreneurs in the first half of the nineteenth century,26 and the Kleins were no exception. Thanks to their successful road construction and (especially) railway construction business, the family was able to accumulate a huge quantity of capital in a relatively short period of time; by the 1840s, the Kleins had amassed many hundreds of thousands of gulden. This not only enabled the family members to embrace a new lifestyle, it also opened the door to new business plans.27

The Kleins’ investment strategy in the 1840s and 1850s was unusual when compared with the strategies adopted by other entrepreneurs, not only in its extent, but also in the family’s attempts to diversify into numerous different areas of activity. By hiring capable managers, the Kleins were able to expand their activities into sectors in which bourgeois families had not traditionally played a major role, yet which were of crucial importance in the burgeoning Industrial Revolution.

Inspired by their success in the highly lucrative railway construction sector, the Kleins decided to become involved in one of the most complex and capital-intensive industries of all: metallurgy. The decision to invest in metallurgical production forced entrepreneurs to implement adaptive changes in both the organization and financing of their businesses. The Kleins’ railway projects had put them in contact with some of the leading industrial managers of the era, employed in the services of both the state and private companies. These included the renowned expert on mining and metallurgy Franz Laurenz Riepl.28 In the 1830s, Riepl was appointed manager of the ironworks owned by the Austrian Chancellor Anton Friedrich Mittrowsky at the estate in Wiesenberg (today Loučná nad Desnou, Czech Republic). In 1844, with Riepl’s encouragement, the Kleins purchased the Wiesenberg estate (where they had been born as subjects) and, with the assistance of Riepl as the works manager, began to modernize the local ironworks in order to produce rails and other material for railway construction. By the middle of the century, the Kleins had modernized the local engineering works so effectively that they were capable of producing all types of machines with the exception of locomotives. The family hired a number of leading experts, and the ironworks and engineering works on the Wiesenberg estate ranked among the most important factories of their kind in the Bohemian Crown Lands for two decades.29

The Kleins’ involvement in metallurgical production in the 1840s and 1850s was exceptionally successful. In addition to building up a production base on their own estate, they also established new ironworks in Stefanau (today Štěpánov, near Olomouc, Czech Republic), in the close vicinity of the Kaiser Ferdinands-Nordbahn. The family made a huge investment in the Kladnoer Eisengewerkschaft at Kladno near Prague; together with Adalbert Lanna they established a modern ironworks which ultimately grew to become one of the largest such facilities in the Bohemian Crown Lands.30 In the mid-1840s, inspired by their close collaborator Franz Riepl, they expanded their activities into Hungary’s Temes County (today Timiş County, Romania), co-founding the Zsidowaer Eisenwerk Gewerkschaft (later the Nadrager Eisen-Industrie Gesellschaft). They satisfied momentary demand for metallurgical products by leasing and operating ironworks, particularly near Würbenthal in the western part of Austrian Silesia (today Železná, near Vrbno pod Pradědem, Czech Republic).31 The Kleins’ ironworks remained highly profitable for the family up until the economic crisis of the 1870s, ranking alongside their construction business as their primary source of income.

The Kleins’ activities in the iron industry led them to invest in another important sector, namely coal mining. Their attempts to acquire mines in the Ostrava-Karviná coalfield in order to supply coal for their Moravian ironworks ultimately proved unsuccessful, weakening the family’s position in the Moravian iron industry.32 This failure was caused not by inept strategy, but rather by the serious financial problems which the family faced as a result of the bankruptcy of the Viennese merchant Demetrius Zinner in 1855, to whom they had lent a large quantity of their liquid funds.33 The Kleins enjoyed greater success in the Kladno coalfield, where, in a joint venture with other bourgeois businessmen, they established the largest metallurgical conglomerate in Bohemia, including ironworks, coal mines and iron ore mines. The family also maintained a long-term presence in several mining companies operating in the Rossitz-Oslawan (today Rosice-Oslavany, Czech Republic) coalfield and the South Moravian lignite field; most of the coal was supplied to the family’s own businesses. From the 1840s onwards, the Kleins also began to establish new business ventures in other economic sectors, establishing modern mills, sugar refineries and textile factories on their own estate.

Another important facet of the family’s business activities was the purchase of various types of real estate, a practice they adopted even in the early years. The strategy of investing part of their available funds in real estate may have been related to their mental patterns of behavior, which were shaped by their experience of the state bankruptcy of 1811. The real estate thus acquired functioned not only as a store of value and a means of displaying the family’s wealth; it was also frequently used as collateral for loans taken out to finance the family’s new business ventures or to fund the family business directly. One important group of properties owned by the family consisted of the apartment blocks and building plots purchased in Vienna in the early 1870s, when the Gebrüder Klein empire was at its peak.34

Organizational Changes in the Family Business as an Adaptation Strategy

Organizational changes were essential for the successful development of family business. These changes can be traced on two levels: firstly in terms of the changing legal forms of the business and secondly in terms of the professionalization of management, as companies began to appoint managers from outside the family.

The Kleins’ business activities expanded rapidly during the 1840s, to the point where it was no longer possible for senior management positions in the family’s companies to be occupied solely by family members. This soon led to the type of transformation that has been described by Alfred D. Chandler: personal enterprise, in which the owner holds the leading position in the company, gave way to entrepreneurial enterprise, in which the owner takes the strategic decisions but delegates control over the company’s day-to-day operations to hired managers.35

This shift occurred most rapidly in the sectors in which the family members lacked the necessary experience and which required specialized knowledge in order to succeed. In such cases the Kleins recruited some of the most capable managers available. In addition to Franz Laurenz Riepl, these managers also included Alois Scholz and later Friedrich Klein in the iron industry and Anton Péch in the mining industry.36 Even in their construction business, which formed the basis of the family empire, the Kleins found it necessary to hire capable managers with technical qualifications. The shift from road construction to railway construction required the assembly of a stable team of technical and administrative employees, especially engineers and construction assistants. The Kleins recruited mainly talented graduates of technical colleges who already had some experience working in the construction industry, offering them considerable freedom in decision-making and ensuring their loyalty by paying better salaries than they would have earned in public-sector jobs. Many of these recruits became capable businessmen in their own right, who continued to collaborate with the Kleins even after they had left the company and set up their own firms. They included Johann Schebek (1815–1889), Karl Schwarz (1817–1898), the Theuer brothers, Osvald Životský (1832–1920) and Jan Muzika (1832–1882).37 Given the diversity of the Kleins’ business activities, they implemented the same policy of appointing experienced managers in most of their other companies, including the family estate and other large estates acquired at a later date.

Although the transition to professional management took place during the 1840s and 1850s, family members remained personally involved in supervising the business until the 1870s. This was the case both with the longest-lived member of the founding generation, Albert Klein (1807–1877), and with his nephew, Franz II Klein (1825–1882). The last construction project to be directly managed by a member of the family was the Buštěhrad railway near Kladno (1854–1855). Later, Albert and Franz II devoted their attentions solely to the high-level management of the family business, particularly issues of business strategy and financing. From the mid-1850s, construction contracts were generally undertaken in collaboration with other companies, with Gebrüder Klein responsible for the financial side of the project and providing the technical and administrative staff.

It is remarkable how long the Klein family business continued to exist in the form of a consortium (a loose association of individual family members rather than a distinct legal entity in its own right). The rules governing the family business were formally established in a family contract concluded in 1847; this contract codified the existing system of mutual relationships among the brothers involved in the business. This came at a time when the founding generation had already managed to diversify the family’s range of business interests significantly. The contract stipulated that the oldest adult male member of the family was to be the head of the family business and act as its authorized legal representative.38 He was to exercise overall control not only of the family’s jointly purchased estates, but also all their jointly conducted business activities, including the family ironworks. He was authorized to use jointly held funds in order to raise yields on the family estate and increase production at the ironworks. However, the head of the family business could be voted out of this post, and the position was not hereditary. If the head of the business died or was voted out, the new head was to become the next oldest adult male family member, i.e. the next eldest brother. The 1847 family contract effectively codified the practices that already existed within the family business, and it did not change the manner in which the business was conducted; this remained, as before, based on voluntary cooperation within a family consortium.

It was not until 1853 that the family firm was formally established. This can undoubtedly be viewed as an adaptation strategy, as the family was forced to take this step by external circumstances. A contract established the company “Gebrüder Klein,” whose field of activity was defined as all types of construction work. Throughout its existence, the company had the form of a general partnership, with the family members holding the position of partners.39 In the contract, the brothers undertook to run the business as a single entity, sharing both costs and profits; profits were to be distributed proportionately on the basis of the sums invested by each partner. The partners were liable to the full extent of their assets. However, the partners were not permitted to transfer to the company any liabilities in connection with their own private business activities. The head of the company was to be the eldest of the brothers. On the basis of this contract, the company was registered in Brünn (Brno), Vienna and Prague. Until 1878, the registered head office was in Brünn; in 1878 it was then relocated to Vienna.

Although Gebrüder Klein was a mere general partnership and never became a joint-stock company, until the second half of the 1870s it ranked among the largest and most capital-rich construction companies in the Habsburg Monarchy. It functioned as an umbrella organization for all the family’s business activities, not only its construction business, but also its activities in other sectors (the timber trade, coal mining, and the Viennese apartment blocks). This broad range of activities was reflected in the company’s financial profile. When established, it already had assets running into millions of gulden, and by 1870 its total assets exceeded 10 million. Gebrüder Klein’s strong capital base proved particularly essential to the development of the company’s core business, railway construction.40

However, not all of the family’s business activities were conducted via Gebrüder Klein. Leaving aside the numerous private business ventures of individual family members, unrelated to the family business as a whole, another important arm of the family business also remained separate from the company from the very outset: the ironworks in Zöptau (today Sobotín, Czech Republic) and Stefanau (today Štěpánov, Czech Republic). When these ironworks were at their peak (i.e. up until the early 1870s), they were the second highest producer of iron in Moravia (after the Vítkovice Ironworks) and the third largest producer of rails in the entire Habsburg Monarchy.41 In 1865, the ironworks (along with the family’s North Moravian iron ore mines) were reorganized in order to cope with rising production; they were removed from the control of the family estate to become the Zöptauer und Stefanauer Bergbau- und Eisenhütten Gewerkschaft. The family members remained the exclusive owners of stakes in the business, though they had no direct involvement in the day-to-day management; the ironworks, engineering works and iron ore mines were all entrusted to professional managers.

This organizational change in the family business laid the foundations for its further development. However, the firm soon had to contend with two major issues: a deep economic crisis and a generational transition.

The Loss of the Ability to Adapt: the Crisis of the 1870s and Its Impact

The second half of the 1860s can be characterized as the peak of the Industrial Revolution in the Bohemian Crown Lands; this was a period of rapid economic growth. The economic boom enjoyed by the Habsburg Monarchy in 1867–1873 (the so called Gründerzeit) was a hugely important time in the state’s development. It was accompanied by political consolidation, an increase in economic productivity, a banking boom, the formation of many joint-stock companies, and the rapid development of transport and communications infrastructure. The sectors of heavy industry that were involved in railway construction (namely mining, metallurgy, and mechanical engineering) enjoyed particular prosperity. Railway construction was the primary motor of the economy during this period.42

However, 1873 brought a turning point, which ultimately had an impact on all areas of the economy, but especially those areas that had prospered most during the preceding boom years. The railway fever which gripped the Habsburg Monarchy in the late 1860s and early 1870s came to a sudden halt in 1873. Although the railway companies soon felt the negative effects of the recession, existing railway construction projects continued under their own momentum until the 1870s. However, 1877 marked the end of this period; the railway construction projects that had already been underway when the recession began were now completed and entrepreneurs showed no interest in new projects of this type, which made significant demands on capital yet represented a high-risk proposition in the new economic climate.43 Construction companies, which had profited tremendously from the railway boom of the late 1860s and early 1870s, now faced an entirely different situation. In a very short time they were forced to adapt rapidly and deal with a slump in demand for transport-related projects, which had previously represented a major source of income. Most large construction firms experienced severe problems; in addition to Gebrüder Klein, other companies in the Bohemian Crown Lands which battled with an uncertain future included Adalbert Lanna, Karl Schwarz and Johann Schebek.

Throughout the boom years, Gebrüder Klein had benefited from its activities in key industrial sectors, but the company now faced a difficult situation. Until the mid-1870s the firm was still able to profit from its ongoing railway construction contracts. The last railway project in which the company is known to have been involved was the Salzkammergutbahn (1875–1877). The problem was that once the worst of the crisis was over, at the turn of the 1880s, Gebrüder Klein proved incapable of adapting to the new circumstances and reestablishing its former primacy as a railway builder. The company played no part at all in the construction of the new local railways. This inability to adapt appears to have been due to the generational transition within the company, which ushered in an entirely new situation at the turn of the 1880s.

During the economic crisis of the 1870s, large construction companies attempted to seek out new, alternative avenues for their business. The most promising areas included water management projects, infrastructure projects involving the modernization of urban areas, and trade. Adalbert Lanna’s company sought to compensate for the slump through its involvement in the river regulation projects on the Vltava and Labe (Elbe),44 while in 1878 Gebrüder Klein actually managed to win one of the largest contracts in the firm’s history, playing the leading role in a canal construction and land reclamation project in the northern Italian province of Ferrara. On completion of the work, Gebrüder Klein established an Italian subsidiary, L’Azienda Gallare, which operated the drainage system until the turn of the twentieth century. The second main area in which both the Kleins and Lanna invested during the recession was the timber trade. In the early 1870s, in connection with the building of the Erste Siebenbürger Eisenbahn, the Kleins became aware of huge areas of forested land in Arad County (formerly Hungary, now Romania). In 1873, Albert and Franz Klein (together with the Viennese entrepreneur Johann Sepper and Baron Peter Atzél de Borosjenő) established a timber company, and in 1879 they purchased several estates around the town of Borosjenő (today Ineu, Romania), where they remained involved in the logging trade until the mid-1880s.45

However, the Kleins’ business activities in the late 1870s and 1880s represented the swansong of this once-successful company. The family proved unable to replace the lost income from railway construction and the firm’s profits gradually dwindled. The company began to owe large sums to banks, and, unlike in previous years, it also issued numerous promissory notes to other businesses. Nevertheless, Gebrüder Klein’s decline was a gradual process. In the early 1880s, the company still owned assets totaling around 7 million gulden, primarily real estate (coal mines, large estates, Vienna properties), securities (mainly shares in rail companies), and money owed by various debtors.46

In addition to the recession, another major problem with which the company had to contend was the generational transition, the Achilles’ heel of family businesses.47 This transition came at the most inconvenient time. In 1877, Albert Klein died. The last living member of the founding generation, he had built up a network of excellent social connections and he possessed an undoubted business acumen. This loss was followed four years later by the death of Albert’s nephew and long-term collaborator Franz II Klein. Their sons had all the necessary qualities to take over the family business successfully: a university education, strong financial capital, and social prestige.48 However, they proved incapable of implementing the necessary innovations in the business and the company failed to adapt to the changing circumstances.49 This inability to adapt exacerbated two latent problems that were also present in many other family businesses besides Gebrüder Klein: the lack of new capital, and unresolved legal and property relations among the heirs.50

During the 1880s, the remaining family members withdrew from playing an active role in the business; this was reflected in the gradual decline of the various components of the firm’s assets. The Kleins even reduced their role in activities which were clearly prospering ventures. In 1887, for example, the family withdrew from the Viennese construction firm “Gebrüder Klein, A. Schmoll und E. Gaertner,” which had been established in 1869 as a joint venture combining the know-how of the Viennese structural engineers Adolph Schmoll and Ernst Gaertner with the capital provided by the Kleins. The company specialized in road and railway bridges, river and canal embankments, and quays and docks. The Kleins sold their stake in the firm at a time when it was still working on contracts to build railway bridges for the Hungarian Northern Railway.51

The inability of Gebrüder Klein to respond quickly to changing circumstances was also reflected in the company’s organizational structure. Especially in capital-intensive sectors, the recession led to a significant degree of economic concentration, which also brought changes in the legal forms preferred by businesses. Former family firms, which had often operated as general partnerships, began to restructure themselves into capital-based companies, usually joint-stock companies or limited partnerships, and later also limited liability companies. In some cases these companies continued to operate in the same way as the previous family firm, merely with a change of legal status. Nevertheless, Jürgen Kocka views this change of legal form as a significant step towards the loosening of the ties between business and the family.52 Gebrüder Klein remained a general partnership until the firm’s eventual liquidation, and the company’s iron production business changed its legal form only belatedly, at the turn of the twentieth century.

The Kleins’ traditional domain—iron production—was particularly severely affected by the economic crisis. The recession of the 1870s dealt the final blow to small or obsolescent ironworks which had failed to keep step with the ongoing development of modern production technologies. By the early 1870s, the Kleins’ stake in the highly viable Kladno ironworks (cofounded by the Kleins in the 1850s) had been bought out by the Credit Anstalt für Handel und Gewerbe. Not even the skilled manager Friedrich Klein was able to modernize the ironworks operated by the Zöptauer und Stefanauer Bergbau- und Eisenhütten Gewerkschaft. The rapid obsolescence of these ironworks, and their increasing failure to keep step with the competition, was exacerbated from the late 1870s by a combination of factors, chief among them the family members’ unwillingness to invest in modern technologies and a shortage of operating capital. In the 1880s, Friedrich Klein built coking ovens at both ironworks, despite the opposition of family members, who feared that the new coal-fired ovens would cause a slump in demand for the timber from their estates. However, this partial modernization merely postponed the rapid decline in the ironworks’ fortunes. The works were located at a considerable distance from coal deposits, and they suffered from high transport costs and poor-quality iron ore. This made the operation uncompetitive, though the company’s inevitable failure was staved off for several years by the introduction of a new product range. In 1901, the ironworks business was transformed into a joint-stock company (the Zöptauer und Stefanauer Bergbau- und Hütten- Aktiengesellschaft) with a basic capital of 3 million Krone (krona), but not even this step could save it. In 1910, pig iron production in Zöptau ceased, followed in 1913 by iron production at the Stefanau works. Both sites subsequently focused solely on processing iron produced elsewhere.53

By the turn of the twentieth century the Kleins’ once-famous firm was reduced to a mere shadow of its former self. It ceased to exist entirely at the end of 1908, when it was officially dissolved. In the run-up to World War I, the Kleins’ business activities focused solely on their hereditary estates and their holdings of shares in several joint-stock companies. By this point, the Kleins were no longer members of the Austro-Hungarian business elite.54

Conclusion

In the period following the Napoleonic Wars, the Bohemian Crown Lands witnessed the emergence of its first generation of modern entrepreneurs, who made a major contribution to the industrialization of the region. Some of these entrepreneurs came from prominent dynasties of merchants and bankers (e.g. the Rothschilds, Gutmanns, Herrings, Zdekauers and Lämmels), but others worked their way up from modest beginnings as small business owners (e.g. the Liebig, Lanna and Starck families). This case study, based on an analysis of the Klein family business, has demonstrated the exceptionally important role played by families in entrepreneurial activities during the era of the Industrial Revolution. These structures helped mitigate the initial risks associated with business ventures, and families also played a key role in the transfer of business know-how. In the road construction industry, in which the Kleins’ family firm first rose to prominence, close cooperation among family members enabled the family to win building contracts and successfully implement large projects which would have been beyond the capabilities of individuals acting alone.

Several business strategies were used by Gebrüder Klein during the course of its existence. The core business strategy during the Industrial Revolution involved the creation of social networks, which brought major benefits both socially and economically. These networks were not generally built up in a calculated way; far more frequently they simply emerged naturally in response to the company’s ongoing trajectory of development. One specific business strategy used by some entrepreneurs during the era of the “old regime” was the purchase of large estates. In the Kleins’ case, the family’s investment in such an estate was connected with their plans to become involved in the iron industry. However, even after the abolition of the patrimonial system, entrepreneurs continued to consider the purchase of large estates a good form of investment that represented a safe and tangible store of value and a symbol of social prestige.

Before the collapse of the “old regime” in Austria, the Kleins managed to implement effective business strategies, enabling them to respond to the changing economic circumstances in this late feudal state. Above all this involved a considerable degree of diversification in the family’s business activities. Even under the founding generation, the family portfolio included investments in all of the important sectors of the burgeoning Industrial Revolution. This business strategy was implemented with demonstrable success by a number of other leading bourgeois entrepreneurs in the Bohemian Crown Lands. The Kleins were also quick to invest in securities, initially in government bonds and later in company shares. Their share portfolio was highly diversified, including railway companies, textile factories, sugar refineries and insurers.55

A major adaptation strategy involved organizational changes. These changes can be traced on two levels: firstly in terms of the changing legal forms of the businesses and secondly in terms of the professionalization of management, as companies began to appoint managers from outside the family. The transition to professional management took place relatively quickly in the Kleins’ various family businesses during the 1840s and 1850s, though it was not until 1853 that the family firm itself (originally run as a loose consortium) was restructured as a general partnership, with the partners directly involved in company management. However, this change in legal form was somewhat inflexible, and it did not fully reflect the transition to a system of professional management. The family’s ironworks business first existed as a family firm; it was not restructured as a joint-stock company until the turn of the twentieth century, though this was not enough to save it.

The close connection between business and the family is demonstrated by the fate of the Kleins’ company during the crisis years of the 1870s. The construction company Gebrüder Klein was severely impacted by the recession, like other large family firms in the Industrial Revolution era, and although it began to implement a viable adaptation strategy, this process was interrupted by the death of key family members who had played a central role in guiding the company’s development during its rise to prosperity. Their heirs were unwilling to continue in business, and this led to a gradual decline in the firm’s activities, accompanied by a lack of interest in new developments and trends.

Archival Sources

Opava Provincial Archives (=OPA)

Olomouc branch, fonds “Rodinný archiv Kleinů” [Klein family archives], cart. 1, inv. no. 35.

Bibliography

Bergeron, Louis. “Familienstruktur und Industrieunternehmen in Frankreich (18. bis 20. Jahrhundert).” In Familie zwischen Tradition und Moderne, edited by Neithard Bulst, Joseph Goy, and Jochen Hoock, 225–37. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981.

Berghoff, Hartmut. Moderne Unternehmensgeschichte. Eine themen- und theorieorientierte Einführung. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh Verlag, 2004.

Bílková, Pavla. “Podnikání bratří Kleinů v Železné u Vrbna pod Pradědem (1852–1875). Neznámá kapitola z dějin severomoravské podnikatelské rodiny” [The Business Activities of the Klein Brothers in Železná near Vrbno pod Pradědem (1852–1875). An Unknown Chapter from the History of a North Moravian Entrepreneurial Dynasty]. Severní Morava 40 (1980): 10–16.

Boch, Rudolf. “Unternehmensnachfolge in Deutschland. Ein historischer Rückblick.” Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte 44 (1999): 164–71.

Bruckmüller, Ernst. Sozialgeschichte Österreichs. Vienna–Munich: Herold Verlag, 2001.

Chandler, Alfred Dupont. Strategy and Structure. Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1970.

Colli, Andrea. The History of Family Business 1850–2000. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Czedik, Alois. Der Weg von und zu den Österreichischen Staatsbahnen, vol. 1. Vienna–Teschen–Leipzig: Hofbuchdruckerei Karl Prochaska, 1913.

Dohnal, Miloň. “Tradice železářství na Sobotínsku a podnikatelská účast hraběte Antonína Friedricha Mitrowského a prof. F. X. Riepla na vzniku a výstavbě Sobotínských železáren” [The Tradition of Iron Production in the Sobotín Area and the Role of Count Anton Friedrich Mittrowsky and Prof. F. X. Riepl in the Establishment and Construction of the Sobotín Ironworks]. Sborník prací Filozofické fakulty Ostravské univerzity 208 (2003): 59–67.

Dudek, František. Vývoj cukrovarnického průmyslu v českých zemích do roku 1872 [The Development of the Sugar Industry in the Bohemian Crown Lands up to 1872]. Prague: Academia, 1979.

Eigner, Peter. Die Konzentration der Entscheidungsmacht. Die personellen Verflechtungen zwischen den Wiener Grossbanken und Industrieaktiengesellschaften 1895–1940. PhD diss. Univ. Wien, 1997.

Geschichte der Eisenbahnen der österreichisch-ungarischen Monarchie. Vienna–Teschen–Leipzig: Hofbuchdruckerei Karl Prochaska, 1898.

Jakubec, Ivan, and Zdeněk Jindra, eds. Dějiny hospodářství českých zemí od počátků industrializace do konce habsburské monarchie [Economic History of the Bohemian Crown Lands from the Beginnings of Industrialization to the End of the Habsburg Monarchy]. Prague: Karolinum, 2006.

Jakubec, Ivan. “Tři generace podnikatelské rodiny Lannů: Adalbert Lanna senior, Adalbert Lanna junior, Adalbert Franz Lanna” [Three Generations of the Lanna Family of Entrepreneurs: Adalbert Lanna Sr., Adalbert Lanna Jr., Adalbert Franz Lanna]. In Historie a cestovní ruch. Perspektivní a podnětné spojení [History and Tourism. A Stimulating Connection with Future Perspectives], edited by Jan Štemberk and Miroslava Manová, 35–47. Prague: Vysoká škola obchodní, 2009.

James, Harold. Family Capitalism. Wendels, Haniels, Falcks and the Continental European Model. Cambridge–London: Belknap Press, 2006.

Janák, Jan. “Počátky podnikatelské aktivity české buržoasie na Moravě (na příkladu cukrovarnictví)” [The Early Business Activities of the Czech Bourgeoisie in Moravia (The Example of the Sugar Industry)]. Časopis Matice moravské 97 (1978): 291–332.

Janák, Jan. Hospodářský rozmach Moravy 1750–1918 [Moravia’s Economic Boom 1750–1918]. Brno: Matice moravská, 1999.

Jančík, Drahomír, and Barbora Štolleová, eds. Pivo, zbraně i tvarůžky. Podnikatelé meziválečného Československa ve víru konjunktur a krizí [Beer, Weapons and Cheese. Entrepreneurs in Inter-war Czechoslovakia amid Boom and Crisis]. Prague: Maxdorf, 2014.

Kaelble, Hartmut. Soziale Mobilität und Chancengleichheit im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983.

Kaelble, Hartmut, and Hasso Spode. “Sozialstruktur und Lebensweisen deutscher Unternehmer 1907–1927.” Scripta Mercaturae 24 (1990): 132–78.

Klíma, Arnošt. “The Beginning of the Machine Building Industry in the Czech Lands in the First Half of the nineteenth Century.” The Journal of European Economic History 4 (1975): 49–78.

Klíma, Arnošt. “Industrial Growth and Entrepreneurship in the Early Stage of Industrialization in the Czech Lands.” The Journal of European Economic History 6 (1977): 549–74.

Kocka, Jürgen. Unternehmer in der deutschen Industrialisierung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975.

Kocka, Jürgen. “Familie, Unternehmer und Kapitalismus. An Beispielen aus der früher deutschen Industrialisierung.” Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte 24 (1979): 99–135.

Krejčiřík, Mojmír. Kleinové. Historie moravské podnikatelské rodiny [The Kleins. History of a Moravian Entrepreneurial Family]. Brno: Archiv města Brna, 2009.

Kruliš, Ivo. Sto let kladenských železáren [One Hundred Years of the Kladno Ironworks]. Prague: Práce, 1959.

Matějček, Jiří. “Majitelé a podnikatelé v uhelném hornictví na území dnešního Československa v 19. století” [Owners and Entrepreneurs in the Coal Mining Industry on the Territory of Today’s Czechoslovakia during the Nineteenth Century]. In K hospodářským a sociálním dějinám 19. a 20. století [On Economic and Social History in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries], vol. 1, edited by Jana Machačová and Jiří Matějček, 5–145. Opava: Slezský ústav ČSAV, 1991.

Matějček, Jiří. “Poznámky k vývoji sociální skupiny průmyslových podnikatelů a vlastníků v českých zemích v 19. století” [Notes on the Development of the Social Group of Industrial Entrepreneurs and Owners in the Bohemian Crown Lands in the Nineteenth Century]. Studie k sociálním dějinám 19. století 5 (1995): 83–168.

Matějček, Jiří. “Majetky, důchody a investiční možnosti v českých zemích v 19. století” [Property, Income and Investment Opportunities in the Bohemian Crown Lands during the Nineteenth Century]. Studie k sociálním dějinám 19. století 6 (1996): 101–240.

Matis, Herbert. Österreichs Wirtschaft 1848–1913. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1972.

Mechtler, Paul. “Bauunternehmer und Arbeiter in der ersten Staatsbahnperiode Österreichs (1842–1858).” Österreich in Geschichte und Literatur 12 (1968): 317–30.

Myška, Milan. Die mährisch-schlesische Eisenindustrie in der industriellen Revolution. Prague: SPN, 1970.

Myška, Milan. “Das Unternehmertum im Eisenhüttenwesen in den böhmischen Ländern während der industriellen Revolution.” Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte 28 (1983): 98–119.

Myška, Milan. “Šance a bariéry měšťanského podnikání v báňském a hutním průmyslu za průmyslové revoluce (na příkladu olomouckého podnikatele Josefa Zwierziny)” [Opportunities and Barriers to Bourgeois Entrepreneurs in the Mining and Metallurgical Industries during the Industrial Revolution (The Example of the Olomouc Entrepreneur Josef Zwierzina)]. Vlastivědný věstník moravský 36 (1984): 261–76.

Myška, Milan. “Vliv výstavby železniční sítě na rozvoj hutnictví železa v habsburské monarchii a v českých zemích (1830–1914)” [The Influence of the Construction of the Railway Network on the Development of the Iron Industry in the Habsburg Monarchy and the Bohemian Crown Lands (1830–1914)]. Rozpravy Národního technického muzea 118 (1989): 104–86.

Myška, Milan. “Ostravská epizoda v počátcích podnikatelské činnosti bratří Kleinů” [The Ostrava Episode in the Early Business Activities of the Klein Brothers]. Slezský sborník 90 (1992): 189–201.

Myška, Milan. Proto-industriální železářství v českých zemích. Robota a jiné nucené práce v železářských manufakturách [The Proto-industrial Iron Industry in the Bohemian Crown Lands. Fronarbeit and Other Forced Labour in Iron Industry Workshops]. Ostrava: Ostravská univerzita, 1992.

Myška, Milan. “Slezská podnikatelská rodina Grohmannů. Pokus o kolektivní biogram dvou generací podnikatelské rodiny” [The Grohmanns, a Silesian Family of Entrepreneurs. Attempt at a Collective Biography of two Generations of an Entrepreneurial Family]. Slezský sborník 92 (1994): 176–94.

Myška, Milan. “The Industrial Revolution: Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia.” In Industrial Revolution in National Context, edited by Mikuláš Teich and R. M. Porter, 247–67. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Myška, Milan. “Hermann Dietrich Lindheim. Kladský podnikatel a počátky moderní industrializace v habsburské monarchii” [Hermann Dietrich Lindheim. An Entrepreneur from Glatz and the Beginnings of Modern Industrialization in the Habsburg Monarchy]. In idem. Rytíři průmyslové revoluce. Šest studií k dějinám podnikatelů v českých zemích [Knights of the Industrial Revolution. Six Studies on the History of Entrepreneurs in the Bohemian Crown Lands], 172–210. Ostrava: Ostravská univerzita, 1997.

Myška, Milan. Rytíři průmyslové revoluce. Šest studií k dějinám podnikatelů v českých zemích [Knights of the Industrial Revolution. Six Studies on the History of Entrepreneurs in the Bohemian Crown Lands]. Ostrava: Ostravská univerzita, 1997.

Myška, Milan. “Eisenbahnen – Eisenhüttenindustrie – Wirtschaftswachstum: Der Einfluss des Ausbaus des Eisenbahnnetzes auf die Entwicklung des Eisen­hüttenwesens in der Habsburgermonarchie 1830–1914.” Prager wirtschafts- und sozialhistorische Mitteilungen 7 (2004/2005): 9–47.

Myška, Milan, et al. Encyklopedie podnikatelů Čech, Moravy a Slezska [Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurs in Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia]. Ostrava: Ostravská univerzita, 2008.

Myška, Milan. “Tlach und Keil. Kapitola z historie slezské rodinné firmy éry industrializace (1809–1918)” [Tlach und Keil. A Chapter from the History of a Silesian Family Firm during the Era of Industrialization (1809–1918)]. Hospodářské dějiny/Economic history 26, no.1 (2011): 68–90.

Niel, Alfred. “Die österreichischen Eisenbahnen von der zweiten Staatsbahnperiode bis zum Ersten Weltkrieg.” In Verkehrswege und Eisenbahnen, edited by Karl Gutkas and Ernst Bruckmüller, 87–99. Vienna: Institut für Österreichkunde, 1989.

Paulsen, Andreas. “Das ‘Gesetz der dritten Generation.’” Der praktische Betriebswirt. Die aktive betriebswirtschaftliche Zeitschrift. May 21, 1941. 271–80.

Pierenkemper, Toni. Unternehmensgeschichte. Eine Einführung in ihre Methoden und Ergebnisse. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2000.

Pierenkemper, Toni. “Entstehung und Wandel der deutschen Unternehmerschaft im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert.” Prager wirtschafts- und sozialhistorische Mitteilungen 8 (2007/2008): 79–94.

Pokluda, Zdeněk. “Pronikání buržoasie do sféry deskového velkostatkářského vlastnictví na Moravě v polovině 19. století” [The Penetration of the Bourgeoisie into the Ownership of Large Estates in Moravia during the Mid-nineteenth Century]. Vlastivědný věstník moravský 33 (1981): 165–78.

Popelka, Petr. “Podnikání a životní styl špičkových měšťanských podnikatelů éry průmyslové revoluce ve světle pozůstalostních spisů. Příklad moravské velkopodnikatelské rody Kleinů” [The Business Activities and Lifestyle of Leading Bourgeois Entrepreneurs during the Industrial Revolution Era in the Light of Probate Documentation. The Example of the Klein Family of Entrepreneurs from Moravia]. Časopis Matice moravské 129 (2010): 45–77.

Popelka, Petr. “Sociální začleňování špičkových měšťanských podnikatelů éry průmyslové revoluce na příkladu moravské podnikatelské rodiny Kleinů” [The social Integration of Leading Bourgeois Entrepreneurs in the Industrial Revolution Era: the Example of the Klein Family from Moravia]. Slezský sborník 108 (2010): 204–33.

Popelka, Petr. “Firma ‘Gebrüder Klein’ jako příklad rodinného velkopodnikání éry průmyslové revoluce” [The Gebrüder Klein Company as an Example of a Large-scale Family Business in the Industrial Revolution Era]. Hospodářské dějiny/Economic History 26, no. 1 (2011): 37–64.

Popelka, Petr. Zrod moderního podnikatelstva. Bratři Kleinové a podnikatelé v českých zemích a Rakouském císařství v éře kapitalistické industrializace [The Birth of the Modern Entrepreneurial Class. The Klein Brothers and Entrepreneurs in the Bohemian Crown Lands and the Austrian Empire during the Era of Capitalist Industrialization]. Ostrava: Ostravská univerzita, 2011.

Popelka, Petr. Zrod moderní dopravy. Modernizace dopravní infrastruktury v Rakouském Slezsku do vypuknutí první světové války [The Birth of Modern Transport. The Modernization of Transport Infrastructure in Austrian Silesia up to the Outbreak of World War I]. Ostrava: Ostravská univerzita, 2013.

Priemel, Kim Christian. “Heldenepos und bürgerliches Trauerspiel. Unternehmens­geschichte im generationellen Paradigma.” In Generation als Erzählung. Neue Perspektiven auf ein kulturelles Deutungsmuster, edited by Björn Bohnenkamp, Till Manning, and Eva Maria Silies, 107–28. Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2009.

Procházka, František. “Vznik a zánik železáren v Sobotíně” [The Beginning and End of the Ironworks in Sobotín]. Sborník krajského vlastivědného muzea Olomouc 4 (1956–1958): 2191–212.

Reisinger, Nikolaus. “Franz Riepl und die Anfänge des österreichischen Eisenbahn­wesens.” In Forschungen zur Geschichte des Alpen-Adria-Raumes, edited by Herwig Ebner, 307–32. Graz: Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, 1997.

Reisinger, Nikolaus. Franz Riepl und seine Bedeutung für die Entwicklung des österreichischen Eisenbahnwesen. PhD diss., Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, 1999.

Sachse, Wieland. “Familienunternehmen in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft bis zur Mitte des 20. Jahrhunderts. Ein historischer Überblick.” Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte 36 (1991): 9–25.

Schäfer, Michael. Familienunternehmen und Unternehmerfamilien. Zur Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte der sächsichen Unternehmer 1850–1940. Munich: C.H. Beck Verlag, 2007.

Smutný, Bohumír. “Formování podnikatelské buržoasie ve lnářském průmyslu v Podkrkonoší” [The Formation of the Entrepreneurial Bourgeoisie in the Linen Industry of the Krkonoše Foothills Region]. Lnářský průmysl 4 (1981): 95–116.

Smutný, Bohumír. “Pokus o typologii lnářských podnikatelů na Trutnovsku (na příkladu podnikatelských rodin Klugů a Etrichů)” [Attempt at a Typology of Linen Industry Entrepreneurs in the Trutnov Region (the Examples of the Klug and Etrich Families)]. In Podnikatelstvo jako předmět historického výzkumu [The Entrepreneurial Class as a Subject of Historical Research], edited by Milan Myška, 135–43. Ostrava: Ostravská univerzita, 1994.

Smutný, Bohumír. Potštejnská manufaktura na česko-kladském pomezí. Studie o východočeském plátenictví v letech 1754–1761 [The Potštejn Manufacture in the Bohemian-Silesian Border Region. A Study of East Bohemian Cloth Manufacturing in 1754–1761]. Hradec Králové: Vysoká škola pedagogická, 2002.

Smutný, Bohumír. “Hrabata pláteníky a pláteníci barony. Společenské a sociální skupiny v čele českého a moravského plátenictví ve 2. polovině 18. století” [Social Elite of the Bohemian and Moravian Linen Industry in the Second Half of the Eighteenth Century]. In Šlechtic podnikatelem – podnikatel šlechticem. Šlechta a podnikání v českých zemích v 18.–19. století [Noblemen as Entrepreneurs – Entrepreneurs as Noblemen. The Nobility and Entrepreneurship in the Bohemian Crown Lands during the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries], edited by Jiří Brňovják and Aleš Zářický, 49–61. Ostrava: Ostravská univerzita, 2008.

Smutný, Bohumír. Brněnští podnikatelé a jejich podniky (1764–1948) [Brno Entrepreneurs and their Companies]. Brno: Statutární město Brno, 2012.

Spurný, František. “Příspěvek k dějinám sobotínských železáren v 50. – 70. letech 19. století. Biografie Aloise Scholze” [On the History of the Sobotín Ironworks in the 1850s–1870s]. Rozpravy Národního technického muzea 77 (1980): 81–90.

Spurný, František. “Friedrich Klein a poslední pokusy o záchranu severomoravského železářství” [Friedrich Klein and the Last Attempts at Rescuing a North Moravian Ironworks]. Rozpravy Národního technického muzea 82 (1981): 131–35.

Štaif, Jiří, ed. Moderní podnikatelské elity. Metody a perspektivy bádání [Modern Entrepreneurial Elites. Methods and Perspectives of Research]. Prague: Dokořán, 2007.

Štěpán, Václav. “Důlní podnikání bratří Kleinů v Ostravě a montanista Anton Péch (1822–1895)” [The Klein Brothers’ Coal Mining Business in Ostrava and the Mining expert Anton Péch]. Ostrava. Příspěvky k dějinám a současnosti Ostravy a Ostravska 18 (1997): 293–307.

von Saldern, Adelheid. Netzwerkökonomie im frühen 19. Jahrhundert. Das Beispiel der Schoeller-Häuser. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2009.

Wehler, Hans Ulrich. Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte III. Von der “Deutschen Doppelrevolution” bis zum Beginn des Ersten Weltkrieges 1849–1914. Munich: C.H. Beck, 1995.

Zářický, Aleš. “Moravskoostravští měšťanští podnikatelé na cestě od rodinných firem k nadnárodním společnostem. K problematice změn forem podnikání na konci 19. a na počátku 20. století” [Bourgeois Entrepreneurs in Moravian Ostrava on the Path from Family Firms to Multinational Companies. On Issues of Changes in Forms of Business in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century]. In Královská a poddanská města od své geneze k protoindustrializaci a industrializaci [Royal and Subject Towns from Their Genesis to Proto-industrialization and Industrialization], edited by Jiří Jurok, 221–49. Ostrava–Nový Jičín–Příbor: Ostravská univerzita, 2002.

Zeumer, Sandra. Die Nachfolge in Familienunternehmen. Drei Fallbeispiele aus dem Bergischen Land im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2012.

 

Translated by Christopher Hopkinson