Social and family relationships in the Slovak patriotic milieu in the second half of the 19th century have not yet been studied methodically through an approach combining the kinship dimension and “generation dynamics”.

The notion of “kinship fronts”, as used by Giovanni Levi, is fruitful in both its dimensions: the first links families in the sense of non-co-resident groups with kinship ties, relations by marriage or the emerging fictional kinship relations. The second dimension, which is vertical, is comprised of “clienteles, protections and loyalty networks” which explain the behaviours and strategies of families or individuals from a historical perspective, keeping in mind that each family nucleus acts in a composite social network. The notion helps document the hypothesis of deep continuity in the Slovak patriotic milieu and its local and regional dimensions. It also enables the observation of the diversification and transformation of patriotic activities, all from the cultural and literary sphere to the sphere of politics in the wider sense, including the economy and education.

The “generation” question is observed by keeping in mind the limits of an overly strict approach as highlighted by Jean-Pierre Azéma, Jean-Pierre Azéma, “La clef générationnelle,” [The generational key] Vingtième Siècle, 22 (1989): 3–10. and we refer rather to what can be called an “ideological system” defined as “what belongs to all and is the dominating question of the moment, the question that emerges during the ‘period of receptiveness’ and formation.” It must be underlined that “philosophical answers and political stances can be diverging or contradictory, but they nevertheless form a system.” Michel Winock, L’Effet de génération. Une brève histoire des intellectuels français [The generational effect. A brief history of French intellectuals] (Paris: Thierry Marchaisse, 2011), 11. The cohort as such is insufficient; many singularities have to be taken into account, such as references to different founding events and social profiles. It has to be approached cautiously, but it does offer keys to analyse the divisions and dynamics of this milieu. Jean-François Sirinelli, “Génération et histoire politique,” [Generations and political history] Vingtième Siècle, 22 (1989): 71.

Having set aside the kinship dimension in its quantitative aspects, we will here insist mainly on two aspects: the first one is the evolution of networks from the geographical point of view, and the second one is the turn of generations, i.e. the pillars and tools of the new approach that can be observed from the mid-1890s until the middle of the following decade.

At the turn of the century, the geographical balance in the Slovak politics slightly changed. The emergence of new cities and regions started to act as a counterweight to Martin’s influence. This was especially the case in Western Slovakia and the cities of Skalica, Myjava, Senica and Pressburg, and of Liptovský Mikuláš and Ružomberok in the Liptov. Some more isolated cities also (re-)emerged, such as Trnava, Nové Mesto nad Váhom and Tisovec, where the leading figures or families organized the “Slovak national life”.

The pillar of this renewal was the education, which applied to various fields where issues regarding peasants and the youth were important.

Health was one of the main concerns: “the fight against alcoholism goes hand in hand with the emancipating economic fight”, underlined Blaho in the already mentioned booklet “The Awakening of the West”. SNA, of. Blaho, c. 76, No. 2059, 15. The 1901 establishment of an “abstinent circle” in Blaho’s city of Skalica was a small local event, even if the “circle” was able to rely on as few as 80 members during its first year of activity. Nevertheless, the network slowly grew. The year 1904 saw the first peak of education activities in the West, including conferences about alcoholism and dairy farming, and more than 20 conferences on other local or global economic questions and various topics of popular education, as well as the amateur theatre, which was an important and already developed part of the inclusive work on a local basis. This dynamic spread to agricultural cooperatives, from the Skalica cooperative to smaller structures in the surrounding areas. At the same time, small municipal libraries were opened, sometimes in private houses, and sometimes with the help of the Slovak catholic clergy that played an important role in the West. The third important step, as far as the West was concerned, was the opening of the House of the Peasant on the main Skalica square in 1905. The House, which was initiated by Blaho, soon transformed Skalica into the capital city of the Slovak peasantry. SNA, of. Blaho, c. 47, No. 1559-1590. Skalica became the place of the “Peasants’ congress”, an event that, each year from 1906 onwards, lasted for three or four days and was filled with conferences on health, technical progress, and political and economic education. An important part of it was devoted to joint activities (and notably cautiously prepared lunches and walks). As time went by, the core of participants to this congress expanded, gradually including new activists attracted by what was becoming a proper challenge for the “old centre”, i.e. Martin.

In the mid-1900s, Western Slovakia’s dynamic also relied on Pressburg’s renewed place in the overall patriotic landscape. The quite diverse city had a centre that blended the old families from the patriotic milieu and outsiders coming mostly from the surrounding Western counties. The old Štefanovič, Dérer, and another lawyer, Štefan Fajnor, About the Fajnors and their importance in the second half of the 19th century, see for instance Štefan Janšák, Život Štefana Fajnora [The Life of Štefan Fajnor] (Bratislava: Biblioteka, 1933). went on to help in building and strengthening this network. Their sons and daughters, and some of their close friends (Anton Štefánek and Milan Ivanka for instance) carried on their work, alongside the leading Catholic priests such as Ferdinand Juriga About Juriga and his implication in Slovak politics at that time, see mostly Miroslav Pekník, ed., Ferdinand Juriga. Ľudový smer slovenskej politiky [Ferdinand Juriga. The populist direction of Slovak politics] (Bratislava: Veda, 2009). and a handful of young social democrats. They were all born in the period between 1876 and 1884. Famously, Jozef Dérer’s son, Ivan, who was introduced into politics through the Catholic circles which, as he explained in his unpublished memoirs, “had somehow built a close contact with the mass of people like nobody had before” LA SNK, 85 C 33. , benefited from the aura of his father, his closeness to the Štefanovič family (he was about to marry one of Štefanovič’s daughters) and a good relationships with the Fajnors. At that time, Štefanovič was at the top of his reputation, and had gone to Martin to head the Tatra banka, which was facing huge financial difficulties. As such, this unusual choice brought by an “outsider” to the Martin milieu was one of the clues to a new balance in the movement.

The diversification of the Slovak press was another clue. It came from the Catholic initiatives but also from some of the prominent business families of the Liptov County (mainly the Stodolas and the Makovickýs), who financed the main projects. The classical scheme was the following: the contestations or new options were financed and supported by the elders and organized by the youth. Such press was far from being professional and many projects failed due to persistent dilettantism and regional or personal rivalries combined with weak readership. The financial weakness and dependency on a number of influential families who also had to keep a balanced position between the “old” and the “new” was a constant problem. Despite these weaknesses, the failed experience in the press business helped strengthen certain networks of the young generation who challenged the still-leading centre of Martin.

For their part, both Blaho and Hodža gradually forged new tools to be utilised in the lower- and middle-class Slovak peasantry. Milan Hodža was one of the youngest active leaders in the very early 20th century. He was born in 1878 in Sučany, just a few kilometres from Martin, and belonged to the famous Hodža family; his great-uncle was one of the three Captains of the 1848 Slovak uprising and a long-time friend of Ľudovít Štúr. Milan was also the son of Sučany’s pastor, and, as such, an important figure in Turiec’s religious and cultural life. He studied in Kolozsvár and Budapest and soon started to pay great attention to the “national question”. About that period, see the apologetic chapter written by Ivan Thurzo. – Ivan Thurzo and Alena Bartlová, Slovenský Perikles [The Slovak Pericles] (Bratislava: VSSS, 2008). His first public activities were in journalism as he contributed to the Slovenské listy and Hlas. In 1900, he became editor-in-chief of Slovenský denník and relatively soon started to focus more on the politics rather than journalism. Despite the deeply ambiguous positions, he mostly considered the old strategy of the Slovak National Party (SNS) a failure that left the Slovak people unable to face the Magyarization process. Influenced by the Czech “small work”, he openly considered that the SNS did not pay enough attention to social and economic quest, therefore causing severe stagnation. In his opinion, the “peasant question” was the one that had to be urgently resolved and, like Blaho, he paid huge attention to the situation of peasants. However, unlike Blaho, Hodža strove to remain in touch with the SNS and Martin in order to be elected into the party’s councils and to share the burden within them. SNA, f. SNS, Kniha zápisníc. Moreover, in 1903, he created the Slovenský týždenník weekly, which became an influential paper spreading agrarianism, taking advantage of the passing of the Hlas the following year. Active and skilful, Hodža was elected to the Parliament in Budapest in 1906. Building on this success, he strengthened his position in the party and pushed for the introduction of an “agrarian” chapter in its programme. Ľubomír Lipták, dir., Politické strany na Slovensku (1860–1989) [The political Parties in Slovakia (1860–1989)] (Bratislava: Archa, 1992), 43.

The building of agrarianism in Slovakia was a showcase of its internal tensions and divisions. Vladimír Zuberec, “Formovanie slovenského národného hnutia v rokoch 1900–1918,” [The formation of the Slovak national movement, 1900–1918] Historický časopis, 20 (1972): 205–46. The “agrarian” movement of Skalica, and as such Blaho, were sharply criticized by the SNS, which considered Blaho to excessively challenge its authority due to the movement’s own actions. Hodža took advantage of these tensions, notably in a meeting of the SNS Council in 1908, where he sought the introduction of his own projects. SNA, f. SNS, Kniha zápisníc, 83, 84. Hodža’s ambitions suited the need of the SNS to weaken Blaho’s positions and indirectly the positions held by some of those who helped him build the alternatives outside of Martin’s moral imperium. The SNS favoured Hodža’s strategy, SNA, f. SNS, Kniha zápisníc, 74. and he was soon able to organize a Congress of the Slovak peasants in Budapest in 1908. Milan Podrimavský, “Organizácia Slovenskej národnej strany v rokoch 1900–1914,” [The organization of the SNS in the years 1900-1914] Historický časopis, 25 (1977): 193, 194. Although the Czech model remained an inspiration, efforts were divided along a line that separated groups according to geographical (West vs Martin) and generational lineages. It is also worth noting that the geographical factor could be compared with the type of family connections that were at stake. The competition in projects for an economic organization of the Slovak peasantry became less aggressive at the eve of the 1910s. The founding of the Central Cooperative [Ústredné družstvo, ÚD] in 1912 ended this second phase of agrarianism. Samuel Cambel, Štátnik a národnohospodár Milan Hodža Hodža, Milan (1878-1944) 1878–1944 [Statesman and economist Milan Hodža. 1878–1944] (Bratislava: Veda, 2001). At that moment, the old Blaho–Hodža tensions eased because of the emergence of new divisions mostly involving young Catholic priests. The ÚD had gathered first-rank activists of agrarianism for a decade – Blaho Blaho, Pavel (1867–1927) , Hodža – Hodža, Milan (1878-1944) , as well as Kornel Stodola from the business group of Liptov, Skalica’s priest Stodola, Kornel (1866-1946) Ľudovít Okánik Okánik, Ľudovít (1869-1934) (also Blaho’s brother-in-law) Blaho, Pavel (1867-1927) , Milan Ivanka Ivanka, Milan (1876-1950) , one of the few Slovaks who managed to be elected to the Budapest Parliament Budapest , M. Ivanka (1876–1950) Ivanka, Milan (1876-1950) was born in 1876 in T. S. Martin in a small noble family of the Turiec. After finishing school in Martin, he studied law in Budapest and returned to Martin to work in Pavol Mudroň and Matúš Dula’s office. In 1904, he moved to Trnava to open his own practice and married the grand-daughter of Michal Miloslav Hodža. He belonged to the so-called “realist” fraction of the Slovak intelligentsia promoting the “small work”. He played an active part in creating the Hospodárska banka [Economic bank], and helped in some Slovak candidates’ campaigns in Western Slovakia. He was therefore elected to the Parliament in Budapest to represent Pezinok (in the suburb of Pressburg) in 1907 (election cancelled the following year as Ivanka was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment for anti-Hungarian activities). as well as Anton Štefánek Štefánek, Anton (1877-1964) , who had long been following the first circle. Anton Štefánek (1877–1964) was the son of a shoemaker from Záhorie in Western Slovakia. As a young boy, he lived in Vienna where he frequented the “Tatran” and the “Národ” circles. He maintained strong connections with the liberals of the Hlas and created the Slovenský obzor in Budapest in 1907 along with M. Hodža and J. Ruman. In the following years he became editor of the Ľudové noviny (1908-1910) in Skalica where he worked with Pavol Blaho, whom he met during the “Tatran” period in Vienna. He finally started to work as editor of Hodža’s Slovenský denník. The creation of the ÚD was an important step that strengthened the existing networks and stimulated the independent economic coordination of the Slovak rural milieu.

This new organization was comprised of two clearly identifiable generations: the first openly challenged the SNS strategy, the impasse of which it saw as it grew up. It was made up of men born between 1865 and 1875. Some of them did not live in Martin or even Turiec and they shared their first political experiences in the large cities of Cisleithania, Prague and especially Vienna. The second generation included men born in the 1880s, who were often high up in the patriotic movement and based in its most important centres. They had benefited from the transformation of the industrial and business environment enabled by the economic rise of the Kingdom of Hungary during the “liberal” period. Those young men combined the high-level education, dynamic family networks and experience acquired abroad, where their “elders” surrounded them. The same type of social composition can be found in other fields that developed at the same time, such as the banking system. About the banking system, see mostly Štefan Horváth and Ján Valach, eds., Peňažníctvo na Slovensku do roku 1918 [Finances in Slovakia until 1918] (Bratislava: VTEL, 1975). Recently Roman Holec, Tatra banka v zrkadle dejín [The Tatra bank in the mirror of history] (Bratislava: AEP, 2007). This structure was based on the dynamics of the Liptov, where the Stodolas and mainly the Makovickýs were found at the very centre of a dense family network built over two generations. Z. Ďuriška, Medzi mlynmi. For another type of family network, see also Zdenko Ďuriška, Pálkovci. Príbeh rodu garbiarských podnikateľov z Liptova [The Pálkos. History of a Liptov tanneries family] (Martin: SGHS, 2013).

Another type of initiative favoured the strengthening of the above links among activists, i.e. the care for renewing relations with the Czech Lands. We will mention only two of the main topics. The more “ritual” one is the Luhačovice meetings that, under the aegis of the Czech association Českoslovanská jednota [Czechoslav Unity] About the creation of the Jednota and its role in this initiative, see Michal Stehlík, Češi a Slováci 1882–1914. Nezřetelnost společné cesty [Czechs and Slovaks 1882–1914. The indistinct nature of common paths] (Prague: Togga, 2009). , gathered Slovaks and Czechs each year in a small thermal city of Southern Moravia, where Blaho worked for years during each summer. It was based on old relations created earlier in the Czech Lands. Julius Markovič, for instance, who headed the Popular bank [Ľudová banka] in Nové Mesto nad Váhom, played a crucial role in attracting the Czech counterparts and businessmen. LA SNK, 42 I 327, p. 2. Beyond their crucial role in the renewal of Czech-Slovak relations, SNA, of. Houdek, c. 5, II/3, No. 160, Taborský to Houdek, Prague, 10 April 1908. the Luhačovice meetings favoured the development of exchanges – mostly from Slovakia to the Czech Lands. Rudolf Pilat and Josef Rotnágl to Fedor Houdek, Prague, 12 July 1912 (SNA, of. Houdek, c. 5, II/3, No. 160). The Jednota regularly acted as a go-between (see for instance letter of Rotnágl to Houdek, Prague, 2 May 1913. – Ibid.). The more long-term-oriented new dimension of it was constant help in sending young Slovak students who were poor or not allowed to study in the Kingdom of Hungary to the Czech Lands. Blaho was one of the most active go-betweens of those exchanges that also broadly involved “Western” activists like Dérer, Ivanka and Bella. With M. M. Bella for instance, see, SNA, of. Blaho, c. 4, No. 78, 15 October 1913. With Dérer, see ibid., c. 5, No. 134, letters from September to December 1910. The relative success of these initiatives can also be observed through the proposals of the Czechs to receive the young Slovaks. SNA, of. Blaho, c. 33, No. 1434. See also Rotnágl to Šrobár, Prague, 11 November 1912 (SNA, of. Šrobár, c. 5, No. 337). Despite all the efforts they deployed over those years, the Slovak activists faced low financial capacities of the Jednota and of their own resources. Rotnágl and Ivan Klima to Houdek, Prague, 2 December 1911 (SNA, of. Houdek, c. 5, II/3, No. 160) and Rotnágl to Houdek, Prague, 17 September 1911. – Ibid.. To a certain extent, the positive atmosphere surrounding this help for young students ended in 1912–1913.

All these evolutions had an impact on the national movement activities around 1910, as it diversified, with clearer diverging options appearing and the new divisions becoming more politically orientated and less dependent on regional differences, yet it still built on a generational and confessional factor – the latter being more important that the former. As an illustration of this deep political fracture, see the correspondence between Ivan Dérer and Pavol Blaho in 1911 (SNA, of. Blaho, c. 4, No. 734) and between Šrobár and Štefanek the following year (SNA, of Šrobár, c. 5, No. 295). Like the Hlas at the end of the 19th century, this new step was mainly the result of the obvious lasting deficiencies in the extension of political and social education and the will showed by a handful of young men to overcome them.

At the end of the decade, learning from Hlas’s experience and failures, a fledgling Committee of the Slovak youth decided to publish a review called Prúdy, where young patriots from prominent families played the leading role. Marián Hronský, “K politickému profilu generácie okolo časopisu Prúdy (Prúdistov) (1910–1914),” [About the political profile of the generation around the review Prúdy (1909–1914)] Historický časopis, 23 (1975): 509–31. Two of them, whose paths were archetypal of the generation who took up the hlasist torch, illustrated a deep link between the new and the old generation; they also grew up in a perfectly patriotic milieu and their fathers experienced both changes and limitations in the Slovak politics. Many of them were Lutherans who matured at a time when efforts to financially strengthen the business and voluntary milieu were somehow more efficient. The first of them was Ivan Markovič, born in 1888. He was the son of Julius, a man who financed the SNS and activities connected to it and who was convicted in the notorious “Nitra trial” of 1902. Julius Markovič, Nitrianský politický trestný proces: politická úvaha [The Nitra political trial: political reflexion] (Turč. Sv. Martin, 1903). The second, Juraj Slávik Slávik, Juraj (1890–1969) , was also a young man born in 1890. He was the son of Ján Slávik, Ján (1855–1934) , Zvolen’s pastor, who was discreetly critical of Martin and expressed his satisfaction at how the hlasists “set the nation in motion”, despite some reserves he had regarding the harsh anticlericalism evident in some of its main representatives. LA SNK, 5 A 15, letter, 6 May 1910 to Jur Janoška. As a clear evidence of the evolution that occurred in the 1900s, the Czechs were active participants in the Prúdy. Namely Bohdan Pavlů Pavlů, Bohdan (1883-1938) , Czech hlasist who studied law in Prague, Vienna and Budapest, became a journalist and worked for the Slovenský týždenník [The Slovak weekly] between 1905 and 1910, for Čas [Time] between 1907 and 1910, and then for the Czech Národní listy [National Letters]. The other important Czech was František Votruba Votruba, František (1880-1953) . Born near Tábor in southern Bohemia, he worked in Slovakia in the 1900s where he made contact with young Slovak writers. From 1911 onwards, he was responsible for Tábor the section “Slovenské věci” [Slovak affairs] of the Čas (about Votruba, see Votrubov sborník [Votruba’s collection Votruba, František (1880-1953) ] (Bratislava, 1954), 107–61).

Most of its editorial board agreed with the old hlasist message and the two generations melded and reinforced the dynamics. In his correspondence, Ivan Markovič summed up two important elements of the situation: firstly, the heritage of the Hlas and Šrobár; and secondly, the remaining problem of a narrow social and cultural base: “We observed that links inside the youth are weak, that we do not really know each other and that few people know us, and when we want to talk together, we have no place to do it.” LA SNK, A 970, Markovič to Neckar, 24 September 1909. His description of Prúdy’s aims recalls those of the Hlas: “It will have two functions: publicizing the spiritual fruits of the youth’s work and informing the youth on events, trends and opinions in the Slovak life […] in economics, in politics and also in literature, arts and science.” Ibid. He explained that the review should “reflect the spiritual life of the Slovak youth”, Ibid., 14 October 1909. prepare ”fighting issues” Ibid., 15 January 1910. and also welcome elder fighters, as long as they challenge the conservative policy of Martin. In that respect, Markovič vehemently defends Šrobár Šrobár, Vavro (1867–1950) ’s contribution to the review in interesting terms that show the respect he earned in the young generation: “Šrobár Šrobár, Vavro (1867–1950) ’s article testifies that Prúdy would like to make space for any opinion, and even for the opinions of the elders [at that time Šrobár Šrobár, Vavro (1867–1950) was 43 years old], as long as they relate to the youth, its work and its role. […] Šrobár Šrobár, Vavro (1867–1950) is an unquestionable spiritual tree of the Slovak awakening. For this reason, his opinions have to be taken into account.” Ibid., 17 March 1910.

This question of the youth, which was of central significance at that time, brought all efforts together. Although this initiative was more elite-focused, it carefully resounded in all types of social politics and education activities during the following years. It was consciously devoted to underlining the impact of those actions and the manner in which its influence was spreading. Štefánek summed up the difference by using the classical Martin orientation: “Here, it was not only about diverging opinions or differences in work methods in general. It was not only what we call the fight of the youth against the eldest… but a fundamental transformation in political and working methods…” LA SNK, 42 X 22. In order to help this transformation, shares in Prúdy were offered from April 1910 in order to create a consortium to provide aid for the review and establish the “Prúdy’s Library” collection of popular and scientific booklets. LA SNK, A 970, Markovič and Pavlů Pavlů, Bohdan (1883-1938) to Neckar, 4 April 1910.

This was also when the first project for a Slovak “daily” newspaper actually succeeded. Interestingly, the initiative was a genuine blend of different generations that have previously been discussed. Hodža’s first attempts failed due to inexperience, weak resources and narrow audience. After his election in 1906, the need for a daily paper that would spread political information emerged. The human and financial context in many ways facilitated the project. Amongst others, Hodža, Bella Bella, Matej Metod (1869–1947) , Ivan Daxner, Šrobár Šrobár, Vavro (1867–1950) , Ľudovít Medvecký, and Fedor Houdek took part in the final meeting of 21 November 1909 in Vrútky. The editorial board was to be headed by Hodža and Štefánek. SNA, of. Houdek, c. 32, No. 215/3. The strength of Liptov capital in the project is attested to by the fact that Šrobár Šrobár, Vavro (1867–1950) , Peter Makovický, and Houdek led the consortium, all of them drawing on their Liptov business networks. These publishing initiatives lasted long enough to structure the political debate until the breakout of war. Besides the already mentioned activists, various circles with the same background were strengthened by these initiatives, as were their experience, networks and ability to shake up the old SNS. However, the latter remained dominant and almost unchallenged as the structure that was to unite “the different orientations of the nation”.

Apart from a few exceptions, all of the main figures had fathers or forefathers who were members of the main cultural associations, very frequently board members, and a huge majority of them were subscribers to the main Slovak press editions, shareholders or guarantors in their publishing houses, shareholders in Slovak banks or holders of reciprocal stakes in their businesses. Many of their fathers were famous in the milieu because of their involvement as lawyers, bank founders, businessmen or Lutheran clergymen. See Ľudovít Šenšel, Pätdesiat rokov Tranoscia. 1898–1948 [50 years of Tranoscius] (Liptovský Mikuláš, 1948), 14. Some of them personally benefitted from marrying into important families, like Jozef Gregor-Tajovský for instance. Belonging to the prominent and aspiring young Prudists, he was a talented writer who married Anna Lilgová (known as Gregorová in Slovak literary history), the daughter of an influential family belonging to Martin’s Slovak bourgeoisie, See Hana Gregorová, Spomienky [Memories] (Bratislava Bratislava : Tatran, 1979). To go deeper on this aspect, see another illustration in: Ján Hrušovský, Starý Martin v živote a ľudoch [Old Martin in its life and people] (Martin, 1947) [New edition: Obrázky starého Martina [Images of the old Martin], (Martin: Matica slovenská, 2010)]. and played a decisive role in the evolution of the new party programme in 1913.

In conclusion, there are three points that should be highlighted. Firstly, the transformation of the action and ideological references in the active fraction of the patriotic movement included a shift in its geographical centres and external influences – mostly from the Czech Lands. It is worth noting that, save for a few exceptions, none of them originated from Martin. This is a first clue to the decreasing influence of the city and its institutions in favour of the neighbouring cities in the Liptov area and Western Slovakia. Secondly, challenging the classical politics of Martin did not necessarily mean breaking with its heritage. Most of the young activists simply could not conceive acting without at least a tacit agreement from the “capital city”, i.e. Martin; in the first part of the 1910s, they even accumulated enough influence and support to join its structures and eventually play a decisive part in drawing up its renewed programme in 1913. This inclusion in party politics is partly due to the idea in which unity had to prevail in an otherwise unfavourable cultural and political atmosphere. In many cases, newcomers used the same tools as their elders in the mid-1890s. Finally, the relationships they developed with their Czech counterparts – as they obviously benefited from their stays in Prague – created some common solidarities that allowed easier cooperation during the First World War and enabled them to play a leading role in the internal shift towards the Czechoslovak project in 1918. This shift was accelerated by the war, the growing contestation of the Party’s passive position, and political opportunity. Moreover, those involved in the Hlas and their “heirs” at the Prúdy took a firm lead in the Slovak politics at the end of 1918, as five out of 15 members of the first provisional Slovak government of December 1918 belonged to the Hlas first editorial board, while a handful of others were involved in the Prúdy and various circles active in the “small social work”, including the cooperatives or support to Slovak youth. Most of these men, who steeped in the history and contradictions of patriotic action, would become the backbone of (Czecho-)Slovak politics throughout the interwar period. The depth of their connections as well as their shared “Hungarian period” history, solidarities and hatred are one of the many keys that can help observe the first Czechoslovak Republic and the Slovak role therein.