Czechoslovak librarianship, 1939–1959: selected issues of historical development
Keywords: libraries, history of libraries and librarianship, cultural politics, censorship, confiscations of books, seized books depositories, readers services, reading groups, socialist librarianship
PhDr. Petra Večeřová, Ph.D. / Ústav pro českou literaturu Akademie věd České republiky, v. v. i. Na Florenci 1420, Praha 1 (Institute of Czech Literature of the Czech Academie of Sciences)
The first library law - the Act on Public Municipal Libraries2, of 1919, which imposed the obligation to establish public libraries in all political communities as well as separate minority libraries3 or individual minority departments in regions with national minorities4, played an essential role in the development of Czechoslovak librarianship. While prior to the adoption of the law, there had been 1,133 associational libraries with 383,851 volumes in Czechoslovakia, the number of municipal libraries increased to 3,332 in 1920, and their number continued to increase up to 11,262 in 1926. The network of public municipal libraries stabilised in Czechoslovakia already in the early 1920s; in Slovakia, the trend was slightly delayed for the act came to force only in 1925, and the system became fully functional 1930s. The territory of Czechoslovakia was covered with a network of 14,755 municipal libraries in 1926, and 16,647 in 1937.5
However, not only the number of libraries and included volumes shows the actual state of libraries. Even the best library is meaningless unless the readers visit and use it. A number of various factors influenced different reader’s requirements and the capabilities of local libraries, and they differ regionally as well as within the different types of libraries. One of the most extensive municipal libraries in our country was the Library of the City of Prague, with a total of 61,681 registered volumes in 1937 (including the German minority library). The Library was widely used – it issued a remarkable number of 50,000 library tickets, of which 5,000 for readers under 16 years of age.6 An analysis of 2,091,860 book loans then revealed the predominant interest in belles-lettres7, and mainly in new releases printed in 1934-37.8 In addition to the municipal libraries, a whole range of other types of libraries - scientific, school, associational, etc., but also private book libraries9, provided their services in Czechoslovakia. The scope of the book collection of public municipal libraries confirms that they represented an important market, especially for contemporary Czech book production. Annually, they bought about 500,000 book copies.10
Czech, as well as German libraries, were successfully developing in Czechoslovakia. In 1924, the population of German nationality had ten large public libraries11, 15 medium sized and 266 small libraries.12 As an example of a successful German public library can be named Bücherei der Deutschen in der Tschechoslowakischen Republik in Liberec that was inaugurated on June 30th, 1924. It closely cooperated with Deutsche Bücherei in Leipzig, which was the central methodological library for German libraries. In the 1930s, the Liberec Library was a part of the project focused on the creation of a central catalogue of all German scientific libraries in Czechoslovakia. Every month, it published printed news about the library events in the Mitteilungen der Bücherei der Deutschen, and since 1928 the Anzeiger für die deutschen Bibliotheken in der Tschechoslowakei journal, which published excerpts from the library catalogues in Liberec and was designated to other German libraries in Czechoslovakia for their better orientation when applying for inter-library loan services.13
The Second Republic and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia
As can be seen from the statistics mentioned above and examples, the extensive network of public municipal libraries enabled that, prior to 1938, the library services were provided to readers across nationalities and regions of the Republic. With deteriorating political situation, the various decrees and regulations that delimited the activities of libraries gradually came into force. Before signing the Munich Agreement, the Ministry of Education and National Enlightenment issued a decree warning the district libraries in the border regions not to loan the mobile collections and to take measures to secure property for which they were responsible. In November, the Ministry then asked the staff of these libraries to report the course of the implementation of this measure. Employees of each library were required to state: a) whether the funds were left on site (in which building, room they were kept, and who owns the key); b) whether and where the books were eventually evacuated; c) how they secured the cash of the library (the amount of cash and who took it into custody). The practice in individual libraries was different and based on the current situation. For example, part of the Prachatice library fund was locked in a municipal school in two closets in the cloakroom. The remaining part of the fund was sent away by the responsible librarian as mobile collections already on September 6th. On the other hand, libraries in Český Těšín and Jablunkov did not send the requested information, because “the way of occupation prevented them from sending the necessary reports in time”.14
After the Munich Agreement was signed, the German libraries were transferred under the German administration and incorporated into the system of German public libraries and immediately underwent a revision whereby publications written by authors of Jewish nationality or emigrants as well as books emphasising Czechoslovak statehood were removed. Instead, the book fund was continuously supplemented with German nationalist titles or Nazi propaganda.15 The Czech libraries that remained in the occupied territory no longer fell under the Czech authorities and were left to their fate. They were most often looted, stolen, destroyed, and, in some places (the Těšín region), the books were even burnt.16 At the same time, some librarians from the occupied territory lost their jobs. The Central Committee of Czechoslovak Librarians in Prague responded to this situation and on November 18th, 1938, wrote an official letter to the Ministry of Education and National Enlightenment pointing out the hardship of some librarians from the occupied territory. The Ministry responded to this call already on November 22nd, 1938, and stated that it had taken action on this issue. The result was that at the beginning of February 1939, the librarians from the occupied territory were otherwise employed.17 Czech public libraries, or Czech minority departments of German libraries, in the Czech municipalities of the Sudetenland and other county districts, remained, however, largely closed.18
Statistics on the loss of library funds caused by the cession of the Sudeten are different.19 Explanation of the differences is not always easy. They can be caused by incompleteness of the preserved information, cumulative addition of total or partial losses but also by counting of one or more types of libraries (municipal, scientific, museum, etc.); the list of options can be much longer. It is generally considered that Czechoslovakia lost due to the cession of the border area about 34.4% of public libraries and 19% of professional/technical and scientific libraries.20
In 1941, the Protectorate registered 7,582 municipal libraries. Even their activities were not without problems. There were reductions in the loaning of parts of the book fund, which, on the other hand, stipulated lending of books from private libraries21 that were, however, dependent on the possibilities of the book market and its control.22
Libraries of all kinds and types were also affected by orders to remove the so-called “harmful and unwanted writing”, and, thus, contribute to the spread of the “Reich propaganda” and fulfil the re-educational tasks.23 Responsibility for the review of the book collections of public libraries was initially given to the Ministry of Education and later to the Ministry of Public Education. These inspections found and removed from the libraries outside the Sudetenland 606,375 volumes of books, and in the border area about 3,000,000 volumes, which constituted about 40% of the library funds in former Czechoslovakia.24 It should be probably stressed that the Nazis did not engage in the Protectorate such drastic devastation of cultural values as in some other occupied countries, where books were pillaged, burnt or used as filling of muddy streets.25 The reason for such ‘mild approach’ was not the sympathy of the occupying authorities with the Czech literature and culture, which was supposed to be suppressed in the long-term, but the causes were purely political. Bohemia and Moravia were occupied before the war, and so the situation in the Protectorate was closest to the situation in occupied western and northern Europe, where the existence of cultural life was still tolerated, yet controlled. However, German measures in the cultural sphere need to be seen especially in the context of the overall German plans in the Protectorate. From the point of view of the Nazi regime, the key task was to ensure the unimpeded use of the production capacities for the German war economy and cultural policy became one of the means to achieve this goal. Caring for the Czech language and culture was tolerated unless it involved the demands for state independence. People should continue to have access to the production of national classical writers.26 More radical plans for the ethnic transformation of the Bohemia and Moravia have, therefore, receded in the background due to political calculations.27 We can say that libraries were regarded as one of the instruments of re-education of the Czech population28, and municipal libraries were given enough space for their activities to the extent that it did not contradict the interests of the Reich.
The public municipal libraries first tried to expand their funds by taking over collections of the abolished associations and societies. After the ban on book-loaning from student and teacher libraries in 1941, the municipal libraries became one of the few functioning facilities.
Scientific libraries, along with scientific institutions, were under the direct control of the newly appointed German commissioners and their funds remained inaccessible to the public. In the Protectorate, German-speaking public municipal libraries were directly managed by the German administration and were excluded from the Protectorate Ministry of Education and subordinated to the department of Unterricht und Kultus at the Reich Protector’s Office. However, their attendance ratio was lower in comparison with the Czech public municipal libraries.29 In addition to various censorship regulations, the Czech reader’s approach to books was also limited by various administrative measures that reduced the operation of some public libraries.30 Another way of controlling or disabling the access to book collections was to close entire libraries and merge them, for example, with the National and University Libraries in Prague.31 In such a situation, it was regarded a great success when a mobile library found its way to the readers, especially on the outskirts of the city. On April 7th, 1939, the Prague City Insurance Company donated a Praga-bus worth CZK 150,000 to the Prague City Library. Since then, the bibliobus had 14 stations on the outskirts of the city. However, this service cannot be operated for a long time. Already in May 1940, the bibliobus was confiscated for the needs of the German army and began to serve on the front as a mobile hospital. Services of mobile libraries were renewed only in 1949.32
National and University Library in 1939-1948
After the closure of Czech universities in November 1939, the National and University Library was also temporarily closed and occupied by members of the SS. Even though its activities were paralysed, the book collections were no, fortunately, destroyed or subjected to any greater losses. The reopening took place on December 11th, 1939, but only for German students and professors. Czechs were only allowed to enter “to return loaned books” or if they had special permission from the Reich Commissar.33 Great care was paid to promoting the Library towards the public. The daily press published various news and library articles. The cinemas featured a promotional movie illustrating the life of the Library, which was made by the movie company Aktualita; and the Prague Radio broadcasted three radio speeches delivered by Jaroslav Drtina focusing on the Library.34
Behind the door of the Library, various parts of its collections were transported, whether in the effort to “clean” the book fund from objectionable literature or as a consequence of taking over other library collections. After the occupation and creation of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, books of the abolished state institutions and other deponates began to be brought to the headquarters of the Library in Klementinum.35 The collections were predominantly supplemented with German literature while the literature of the nations that were at war with Germany was given on the index that had a general validity.36 In 1940, a department with books under the lock was established in the National and University Library, where all the documents identified as harmful and undesirable were stored. The selection was based on the lists issued by the Press Department of the Bureau of the Council of Ministers. However, since these lists were repeatedly proven to be incomplete, the selection of politically defective literature was much broader and affected a wider range of works. Thus, all works written by Marxists, Freemasonic authors as well as political works of Jewish authors and works of emigrant literature, books of political jokes, pamphlets and propaganda books and journals (the so-called pro-nationalistic) were excluded from the storerooms of the University Library and its Conservation department. Also, on the basis of the letter from the Reich Protector issued on August 21st, 1940, all English and French fiction literature, except the Classics, was moved here. Moreover, before the books were handed over to the readers, an additional control was done to identify potentially harmful books that were previously omitted.37 Other moves can be related to the protection of the funds from possible destruction as a result of the war effort. At the end of 1943, the majority of the rare historical book collection was evacuated out of Prague to Karlstejn Castle,38 the former Cistercian monastery in Zlatá Koruna39 and the chateaus in Horažďovice40 and Pohled u Havlíčkova Brodu.41 Altogether, over half a million volumes were transferred to the countryside.42 In the autumn of 1944, hundreds of thousands of documents were moved inside Klementinum. From the storerooms located on the top floors, the documents were moved to the ground floor and the Mirror Chapel.43
After the liberation, one of the first major tasks was to sort, order, revise, and move back to the storerooms all the documents kept in corridors and reading rooms on the ground floor. Documents stored outside Prague were also gradually transported back.44
In addition to the movements of its own and entrusted library collections, the National and University Library had another big task. She was entitled to secure the confiscated German libraries.45 Until this operation was properly organised, i.e. in the first post-war days, and the danger that the secured books would not be damaged, stolen or otherwise destroyed was warded off, employees of the National and University Library had to interfere directly in the field, both in Prague and in the countryside, in close cooperation with the local national committees. The situation became stable when the Ministry of Education and Enlightenment and the National Country Committee issued the joint directive.46 The books were gradually transported to the Klementinum building, where the sorting of the retrieved book material, according to languages and branches, was started in November and December 1945. At the same time, at least a preliminary bibliographic description was prepared.47
In addition to a large number of documents, the National and University Library had to deal with another phenomenon, with dragged libraries stored by the Germans during the war at the chateaus48 in northeastern Bohemia. Two or three employees of the Library were working from the end of summer 1945 in each of the premises. In preparation for the repatriation of the dragged libraries, they initially focused on sorting the stored collections and their separating from the book funds confiscated from collaborators, which were also moved there.49
The Department of Annexation and the Duplicate Fund was newly established to ensure successful collection operation.50 The complicated situation and the number of books, which the staff of the National and University Library had to organise, can be corroborated with the numbers stated below. Only in 1946, approximately 600,000 books51 were deposited in the Křižovnická gallery, cellars, or directly in the relevant departments based on the contemporary estimates. To temporarily store the collected documents, it was still necessary to move the permanent funds inside the building. Altogether, approximately 250,000 volumes of books were secondarily moved due to the lack of available space.52 Of the collection, 250,000 volumes were incorporated in the National and University Library, 100,000 volumes were selected for exchanges, and approximately 250,000 books were allocated for the National Reconstruction Fund, of which 153,617 volumes were already prepared.53 In 1947, another 60,000 volumes were transferred.54 Altogether, the National Reconstruction Fund contained 332,391 volumes.55 In 1948, 450,000 volumes stored in off-Prague locations were catalogued.56 To sum it up, the whole operation took place from 1945 until the mid-1950, and it continued to a certain degree in the following year.57 Gradually, since the end of the war, about 1,150,000 volumes of books were administered.58 There were 390 part-time workers, of whom 56 belonged to the Library staff. About 42,010 kg of wastepaper was taken to the stamp mill, and hundreds of thousands of documents were placed on shelves of Czechoslovak libraries.59
And to enumerate the tasks completely, it is necessary to mention the National and University Library’s mandate by the Ministry of Education, Science and the Arts to distribute books and magazines received as donations from abroad.60 The distribution was carried out according to the guidelines of the broad distribution committee, and the books were allocated to universities, technical and study libraries, different libraries of museums, faculties and seminars, scientific institutes, etc., taking into consideration their needs and specialisations.61
Librarianship following the February 1948
The Congress of Czech and Slovak library workers in Brno held on May 13th -14th, 1948 represented the general library response to the February events. The speeches emphasised the political importance of librarianship and the need for systematic work with readers who should be educated in the spirit of Communist ideas. Another important issue was the call for libraries to be cleansed, both from the so-called literary trash and titles that were labelled as politically defective. A draft of the new Library Act was also introduced. Although the Congress supported the read draft, the Act was not approved. In the end, a new Library Act passed only in 1959.62
The National and University Library also had to respond to the new political circumstances. According to Kamil Groh, its revolutionary attitude did not appear so much in organisational changes, but in a new concept of tasks. The Library had to be established as an important agent of political and professional education of readers; it should become an important and, in its field, leading assistant in the development of socialist science and culture. Despite all the effort, the Two-year plan (1947-1948), which the Library set out, was too demanding and was not completely fulfilled. Some tasks were abandoned due to new conditions, the Library initiated some of the activities, but they were only completed in the following years (for example, the establishment of a systematic catalogue, reorganisation of the reference library, an extension of the bibliographic activities, etc.).63
The preparation and implementation of the first five-year plan were in line with its main objectives in the Library as it mainly focused on increasing labour productivity and economy.64 From the point of view of ideology, book fund was mainly replenished with regard to socialist literature, and a considerable amount of effort was made to provide technical accessibility to the library collections, and especially this kind of literature, for the broadest possible public. Another aspect of the plan was to introduce Slovak literature to the wider public. During the five-year plan, the following objectives were fulfilled: the interlibrary loan service was considerably extended, the Czechoslovak International Exchange Service and the scientific-method cabinet were established, etc. The appeal for the introduction of new forms of work, especially focusing on increasing the labour productivity, planning, normalisation, socialist commitments, aegises,65 brigades etc., can also be seen as a kind of witness of those days.66
In 1952, a general ideological conference of scientists was held, which set out the main tasks of librarianship and the form of ideological struggle for the dissemination of “the most advanced” scientific and political knowledge, Marxism-Leninism, etc.67 However, efforts to politicise the libraries by the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia date back to the autumn of 1946, when the Central Committee of the Czechoslovak Communist Party adopted a resolution on the creation of the so-called Gottwald’ libraries, which represented a kind of internal party library network. They were presented as a “new type of libraries” together with the ROH (Revolutionary Trade Union) company libraries. This step further exacerbated the already strained relations with the Union of Czech Librarians, because it did not respect the apoliticity of libraries and meant a further departure from the First-Republic library traditions. On the contrary, the Communists advocated the establishment of Gottwald’s libraries as a step towards the so-called democratisation of culture. Librarian Jaroslav Frey even presented this type of library as a “new way to readers” who for some reason do not want or cannot attend public libraries. In particular, Gottwald’s libraries allowed the members of the Communist Party to educate themselves and assist them in political training. Apart from special sets of belles-lettres, their funds were regularly supplemented with the basic Marxist-Leninist literature works written in popular forms. Also, they can be used free of charge, which should increase their attractiveness mainly among non-communists. In May 1949, at the Ninth Congress of the Communist Party, the Minister of Information Václav Kopecký announced that there were more than ten thousand of these libraries. Nevertheless, in the spring of 1953, it was decided to transfer them to the ROH company libraries, town and village folk libraries, as they were found inadequately used and their quality had “ever-descending tendencies”.68
As has been pointed out above, in the 1950s, one of the main topics was the importance of the book in society, and primarily the education of the so-called new reader. These were mass events, educational methods, and educational procedures that should be utilised by the folk libraries to educate the Czech readers, promote new socialist literature and further disseminate communist ideals. The librarians should not just loan books, but by means of recommendations, applying free book choices and other methods more actively interact with the reader, influence the structure of loaned titles, and try to control the reading process. Great emphasis was placed on conscious reading planning, which would exclude the moment of random choice and bring readers to a pre-approved book.69 Librarians taught readers how to proceed from the narrative, emotional and story-based structures to the ideological core of the work. The result of controlled reading was the unification of audience that would not only read the same texts, but also handle them in the same way, and mainly understand them and by reading them acquire the same meanings.70 The so-called Tuchlovice movement, which shows how radically the understanding of the meaning of the librarian’s work had shifted, is to be considered the extreme limit. The movement aimed to acquire new readers and further influence and control their reading. The staff of the library established a co-operation with a local organisation of the Union of Czech Youth, whose members began to visit flats and houses of the local population and persuaded them to get registered in the local folk library, and then regularly brought new books to them. This activity received massive media promotion. The Ministry of Information and Education even appreciated the success of the so-called library agitation groups (or the library strike groups) as these groups were called, and issued a directive promoting their further development. According to official statistics, approximately 15% of local folk libraries were involved in this movement, and the number of registered readers increased by 150-200%. Over time, however, similar coercive and propagandist actions had ceased.71
The hierarchy of reading was fundamental, and the first place was kept for political and propagandist literature, then followed professional literature while fiction was in the third place. All these efforts aimed at the creation of a kind of uniform, homogeneous reader, who has no class, social, interest, and even gender conflicts.72 It was also propagandistically emphasised that Czechoslovakia was the only state in the world that has its Month of the Book - March (first introduced in 1955).73 Library agitation groups and reading societies should promote new books, libraries should better cooperate with the book market, and librarians’ involvement in the sale of books was also planned (the so-called “Náchod initiative”).74 Besides librarians (or booksellers but they were often represented just as vendors), literary confidants also played an important role. They prepared small exhibitions in companies or canteens, taped posters, or organised events - for example, “For each paycheck or backup - one book”.75
There was also the children’s reader. Although the issue of children’s departments and reading rooms started to be discussed in the 1930s, children’s departments were still considered to be one of the most pressing tasks of public libraries in 1940.76 Since the late 1930s and early 1940s, however, tradition of reading clubs, which were associated with children’ magazines, also played an important role in the field of children’s readership. Among the most important were the so-called Foglar’s readers’ clubs associated mainly with the Mladý hlasatel (Young announcer) magazine and from spring 1946, with the Vpřed (Forward) magazine. Jaroslav Foglar initiated establishing of these clubs and subsequently directed and controlled their activities. These clubs were different from their former “readers’ clubs”, where children and young people were motivated to buy particular magazine and read conventional works of belles-lettres. The club may have been established by at least four members. After receiving the application, they received a club number, confirmation certificate and membership cards for club stamps (printed on the pages of the magazine). The clubs chose their names and leaders. The club symbolism also included flags, stamps, club shouts, chronicles, promises, and laws. A separate page of the Vpřed magazine edited by Foglar was devoted to activities of various clubs, instructions for their activities, etc. Clubs that were not tied to any children’s organisation (such as the Union of Czech Youth, Junák) had to submit reports about their activities on monthly basis.77 Also other magazines for children and teenagers tried to set up similar readers’ clubs based on this pattern, but they were not so popular.78 After February 1948, this area underwent several turbulences, which ended in the early 1950s, when the clubs were definitely abolished and their existence was not mentioned on the pages of the magazines.79
In the summer of 1949, the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the Czechoslovak Union of Youth prepared a massive operation called the Fučík’s badge80, which was officially aimed at leading the young generation to read valuable political literature and belles-lettres, increasing its education and awakening the ambition to become “conscious builders of the socialism”. The Communist regime, through this operation, took another important step towards the creation of a “socialist culture” by presenting to the readers, on the one hand, literature that was politicised and depicted the advantages of the communist system while, on the other hand, Czech classical literature, which was deemed harmless from the ideological point of view. At the same time, it provided an interpretative key to this reading. The contestants had to read a total of 11 books81 and watch five movies (including three Soviet ones). The candidate who had proven in front of an examination board that he/she was well acquainted with the required literature obtained the Badge. Following the announcement of the Fučík’s badge in the autumn of 1949, readers’ clubs started to appear associated with the Union of Youth. Their members read the prescribed literature, discussed the authors and the time when the books had been written. Candidates were motivated to prepare and keep a readers’ diary. Sets of books used for the Fučík’s badge were massively published, which made demands on the consumption of paper that was not available.82 To obtain it, paper collections were organised, including even “old and unnecessary books”, which was repeatedly supported by the Central Folk Library of the City of Prague in October 1950.83 Despite some partial adjustments, its basic sense persisted until the end of the communist regime. Each year, the mandatory and recommended titles slightly changed or were supplemented.84
Book collections
Although the book collection operations are not the main topic of this contribution, at least some of them need to be mentioned. To ensure them was quite a challenging task that the libraries had to manage both in organisational and practical terms. The subject was not small collections but castle and monastery libraries. The National Cultural Commission for the Administration of Cultural Property was established in 1946, which took over castle furnishings, including libraries. When this commission ceased its function in 1952, the libraries were administered directly by the Ministry of Education and Culture until the establishment of the Institute of State Monument Care in 1953. By the Ministry’s decree of June 4th, 1954, the Library of the National Museum was entrusted with the professional administration, and a department of castle libraries was newly established there. Its founder, PhDr. Bohumír Lifka defined the principles for its activities. In a stressful situation when the castles started to acquire other than cultural use and hundreds of thousands of books had to be transported from their places of origin to alternative depositories, he managed to preserve the castle funds as separate units. The situation was furthermore complicated by the fact that the Ministry of Education and Culture issued on May 13th, 1959 a delimitation instruction, which handed over the management of the so-called interior libraries to organisations managing the individual properties while the so-called collection libraries were kept under the administration of the Library of the National Museum. Book funds from the collection libraries were mostly kept in depositories in the premises of the first category of monuments. The third type of castle libraries represented the so-called entrusted libraries. These funds were entrusted to state institutions, such as archives, the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences etc. Despite the delimitation, the Library of the National Museum administered approximately 340 castle libraries with a total of more than 1,600,000 volumes.85
The second area where the National and University Library, together with the State Study Libraries in the regions, played an active role was the collection of monastery libraries86, the so-called “K” and “VK” Operations.87 Within the framework of the “K” Operation, the monasteries were abolished, and monks and nuns were transferred to a centralised or internment centre.88 The Operation “K” was followed by Operation “VK”, which was the clearance of monasteries. While the organisation of the “K” Operation itself was long and very detailed, an organisation of the handling of tangible property and the cultural goods found in the seized monasteries was not taken into consideration. It was only after the occupation that working groups were formed, which were responsible for the securing of individual types of cultural goods and monuments. The Ministry of Information and Education was responsible for the church libraries. It was stated that there is no reason why the State Office for Church Affairs89 and the Ministry of the Interior Affairs should oppose this decision “because these libraries have a low value for real study purposes despite the immense collector’s price of the old prints.”90
The Ministry of Education, Science and Arts decided on June 20th, 1950 to entrust the National and UniversityLibrary in Prague with the professional management of monastery libraries and the representation of the interests of the state libraries in dealing with the State Office for Church Affairs. The sorting and collection of the library funds were divided among individual libraries91, based on regional affiliation. In the spring of 1950, 140 monastery libraries in Bohemia and Moravia included 1,820,000 volumes of books: of which one million books finally took over the state study libraries, and about 260,000 volumes were kept in archives, museums, folk libraries, and other organisations. About 540,000 books were left in historical interiors, although the agreement of the representatives of the State Office for Church Affairs and the Church Fund from April 21st, 1950 stipulated that only three interior libraries (in Strahov, Teplá, Rajhrad) should be kept in situ, and the others would be removed. Due to the efforts of librarians, altogether 18 monastery libraries were left in their original interiors.92 While the post-war book collections were meaningfully organised, the division of competencies between the State Office for Church Affairs (approval, organisation, negotiation with representatives, etc.) and the National and University Library (professional management93) led to confusion and, in some cases, to individual misconducts from the State Office for Church Affairs or representatives or Church Secretaries.94
Summary
The Czechoslovak librarianship underwent in the years 1939-1959 through a series of significant changes and transformations. The main milestones include the occupation of the Sudetenland, moves and transfers of a large number of books in connection with the take over of the German institutional and private libraries in 1945, the destruction of monastery and associational libraries, several mass selection and removal of books from public libraries, and the related total transformation of the library funds, etc. In the 1940s and 1950s, the library underwent the transformation from a symbolic centre preserving the value of a variety of meanings and passing it over to readers to the institution that is seriously involved in the promotion of a particular political and cultural programme.95 Even though similar transformations are known from history (earlier or later), but their scope and impact were, at that time, truly exceptional.
The submitted text is a slightly modified version of the contribution presented at the ‘Books Recovered’ seminar on March 31st, 2016.
2 Československo, Zákon o veřejných knihovnách obecních ze dne 22. července 1919, č. 430 Sb. Praha: [s. n.], 1919 / Czechoslovakia, Act on Municipal Public Libraries of July 22nd, 1919, No. 430 Coll. Prague: [s. n.], 1919.
3 In 1935, there were 9,315 Czech, 3,570 German, 2,958 Slovak, 732 Hungarian, 434 Ruthenian, 75 Polish, 4 Romanian, and 1 Jewish municipal libraries in Czechoslovakia. In: Šimeček, Zdeněk and Trávníček, Jiří: Knihy kupovati, p. 271.
4 Československo, Nařízení vlády republiky Československé ze dne 5. listopadu 1919 / Czechoslovakia, Order of the Government of the Czechoslovak Republic of November 5th, 1919, implementing the Act on Municipal Public Libraries of July 22nd, 1919, No. 430 Coll. Praha: [s. n.], 1919.
Article 4: A political community, where a national minority has at least 400 people or where there is a minority public school, is obliged to set up a special public library of the minority’s national language.
Article 5: The municipality is obliged to provide a minority library with a separate room if there is a minority school in the municipality. Where there is no minority school, but at least 400 members of the national minority live there, a department providing an adequate reading in the language of the national minority shall be established in the common public library and administered by members of that nationality. However, public libraries or departments of individual national groups shall provide services in the same political community to every member of the community without distinction of nationality.
Article 7: A minority district education authority may lend portable libraries to the municipalities indicated in Article 6.
5 Repčák, Jozef: Z cesty po českých knižnicích, pp. 125–128
6 Frey, Jaroslav: Jak čte Praha, pp. 70–71.
7 The prose constituted 84% of the loans, educational literature 14%, and poetry and drama 2%. The original Czech and Slovak literature accounted for 41% of the loans; translations from foreign languages into Czech or Slovak formed 53%, and books in other foreign languages 6%. From the foreign language literature, the most demanded books were written in French (51%) and English (27%). In: Šimeček, Zdeněk a Trávníček, Jiří: Knihy kupovati, s. 274.
8 Šimeček, Zdeněk – Trávníček, Jiří: Knihy kupovati, pp. 273–274
9 Cejpek, Jiří: Československé knihovnictví, pp. 56-62.
10 Šimeček, Zdeněk a Trávníček, Jiří: Knihy kupovati, p. 274.
11 Mainly the libraries in Ústí nad Labem, Teplice-Šanov, Liberec, Cheb, Litoměřice, Podmokle, Svitavy, Jihlava, Brno and Opava. In: Brožovská Onderková, Jana: Veřejné knihovny, p. 27.
12 Brožovská Onderková, Jana: Veřejné knihovny, p. 27.
13 Kříček, Václav: Německé a české knihovny v Liberci, pp. 25–30.
14 Voborníková, Michaela: Knihovny a knihovnictví v českých zemích v letech 1938–1945. Ikaros [online]. 2016, volume 20, No. 1 [cit. 2016-04-20]. ISSN 1212-5075. Available on: http://ikaros.cz/node/17667.
15 Šimeček, Zdeněk a Trávníček, Jiří: Knihy kupovati, p. 306.
16 Poláček, Václav: Cenzura, řízení knižního trhu, p. 70
17 Voborníková, Michaela: Knihovny a knihovnictví v českých zemích v letech 1938–1945. Ikaros [online]. 2016, volume 20, No. 1 [cit. 2016-04-20]. ISSN 1212-5075. Available on: http://ikaros.cz/node/17667.
18 Šimeček, Zdeněk a Trávníček, Jiří: Knihy kupovati, p. 307.
19 For example, according to Bohumír Lifka’s research, Czechoslovakia lost 2,098 Czech public libraries with approximately 784,609 volumes. According to Jaroslav Kladiva, 4,540 public libraries with 2,731,441 books were destroyed in the border areas. The Knihkupec a nakladatel magazine of March 31st, 1939, reported a loss of 1,378 Czech public libraries with 844,313 volumes. – Lifka, Bohumír: Knihovny v okupaci, p. 124; Kladiva, Jaroslav: Kultura a politika, p. 14; Jaký byl stav obecních knihoven, p. 125–126.
20 Cejpek, Jiří: Dějiny knihoven, p. 212.
21 Šimeček, Zdeněk and Trávníček, Jiří: Knihy kupovati, pp. 304–305.
22 While from the autumn of 1939 until the end of 1940, the readers had at their disposal the editions of classic national authors, books on the history of the Czech literature and culture, as well as books of contemporary authors influenced by the historical historicism, the idea of unity of the nation and the faith in its future, the cult of the homeland and its geographical symbols, the winter 1940/41 represented areal milestone due to the changing censorship standards. National political issues, as well as the themes of death, betrayal, hope, etc., were not allowed by the censorship. The hardest period of censorship lasted from June 1942 to March 1944. In the last year of the occupation, i.e. from spring 1944 to spring 1945, the publishing conditions were loosened. The statistics clearly show that in 1941, the censorship did not allow 19% of the titles, almost half (40-50%) of the production was forbidden to be published in 1942 and 1943, not to mention texts affected by partial interventions. In: Wögerbauer, Michal (a kol.). V obecném zájmu, Vol. II, pp. 953–956.
23 Doležal, Jiří: Česká kultura za protektorátu, p. 118.
24 Doležal, Jiří: Česká kultura za protektorátu, p. 119.
25 Doležal, Jiří: Česká kultura za protektorátu, p. 121.
26 Artists and the audience often used Czech classic authors to express their disagreement with the occupation symbolically. Nevertheless, the regime did not decide to prohibit classics; instead, they tried to more widely promote the works of Czech authors (such as B. Smetana and A. Dvořák), and present them in the media. They wanted to change their perception so that the Czechs began to perceive their culture in relation to the superior German culture, and not as a symbol of defiance against the German authority. In: Wögerbauer, Michal (a kol.). V obecném zájmu, Vol. II, p. 923.
27 Wögerbauer, Michal (a kol.). V obecném zájmu, Vol. II, pp. 920–921.
28 Doležal, Jiří: Česká kultura za protektorátu, p. 121; For more details, see the chapters German Cultural Policy in the Protectorate; Lists of prohibited authors, books and periodicals; Book Market Planning and the Nazi Concept of Czech Literature. In: Wögerbauer, Michal (a kol.). V obecném zájmu, Vol. II, pp. 920–924; 941–948; 948–953.
29 Šimeček, Zdeněk and Trávníček, Jiří: Knihy kupovati, pp. 305–306.
30 For example, 11 out of 24 branches of the public library were closed in Brno and, since October 1940, the local reading rooms were also unavailable. In: Doležal, Jiří: Česká kultura za protektorátu, p. 119.
31 FALTYSOVÁ, Vlasta (ed). Rukověť tištěných knihovních fondů NK ČR, pp. 13–14.
32 Hanzlíková, Lenka. Když knihy jezdí za čtenáři. Ikaros [online]. 2008, volume 12, No, 11 [cit. 2016-08-13]. ISSN 1212-5075. Available at: http://ikaros.cz/node/12959. Cf. also Pojízdná knihovna – Historie. Městská knihovna v Praze [online], [cit. 2016-08-13]. Available at: http://www.mlp.cz/cz/kontakty/pobočky/pojízdná-knihovna/historie/.
33 FALTYSOVÁ, Vlasta (ed). Rukověť tištěných knihovních fondů NK ČR, pp. 14–15.
34 Archiv UK, Výroční zpráva Národní a universitní knihovny za rok 1939, p. 59.
35 FALTYSOVÁ, Vlasta (ed). These included, for example, the library of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of National Defense and the National Assembly, TG Masaryk’s library, two monastery libraries (the Emmaus Monastery and the Library of the Order of Merciful Brothers) and many more. In 1942, Klementinum obtained the Lobkowicz Library from Roudnice. In: Rukověť tištěných knihovních fondů NK FALTYSOVÁ, Vlasta (ed). ČR, p. 15.
36 Rukověť tištěných knihovních fondů NK ČR, pp. 14–15. For the issue of lists of prohibited authors, books and periodicals, see Wögerbauer, Michal (a kol.). V obecném zájmu, Vol. II, pp. 941–948.
37 Archiv UK, Výroční zpráva Národní a universitní knihovny za rok 1940, pp. 29–30.
38 It was 10,284 volumes of manuscripts, incunabula, documents, etc. from the property of the National and University Library. In: Archiv UK, Výroční zpráva Národní a universitní knihovny z roku 1945, p. 20.
39 In the last years of the war, about 40 wagons were removed with a total of 399,716 volumes of books. They included 46,830 volumes from the library of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 34,860 volumes from the preservation department of the National and University Library, 30,567 volumes from the library of the Czech Academy of Sciences and Arts, 77,771 volumes from the Lobkowicz Library in Roudnice, 88,110 volumes from the Parliament’s library, 10,878 volumes from the Jewish library, 46,900 volumes from the library of the Royal Czech Society of Sciences, 63,810 volumes from the library of the Emmaus Monastery and 14 parcels and one box from the former Rede- u. Lesehalle. In: Archiv UK, Výroční zpráva Národní a universitní knihovny z roku 1945, p. 19.
40 22,620 volumes were evacuated to Horažďovice, namely from the department 10 (old rhetoric), 17 (technology), 56 (schematisms), 68 (library of Vratislav Černý), 71 (F. Šalda’s library). In: Archiv UK, Výroční zpráva Národní a universitní knihovny z roku 1945, p. 20.
41 Approximately nine wagons with a total of 82,201 volumes were evacuated to Pohled. The books included the Lobkowicz Library from Prague and departments 26-36 (Theology) of the National and University Library. In: Archiv UK, Výroční zpráva Národní a universitní knihovny z roku 1945, p. 20.
42 FALTYSOVÁ, Vlasta (ed). Rukověť tištěných knihovních fondů NK ČR, p. 15.
43 It comprises 350,000 volumes from departments 1-18 from the National and University Library; 250 000 volumes from the department 54 (Bibliotheca bohemica); 50,000 volumes from various departments (relocated in the storerooms); 250,000 volumes from the Slavonic Library; 140,000 volumes from Library of T. G. Masaryk. In: Archiv UK, Výroční zpráva Národní a universitní knihovny z roku 1945, p. 20.
44 These were the books from Pohled u Havlíčkova Brodu and Karlstejn. As far as books from Zlatá Koruna are concerned, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs removed 46,830 volumes belonging to it. The other evacuated books had to be left in place for lack of means of transport. From Horažďovice, the evacuated books were taken back to Prague at the beginning of 1946. In: Archiv UK, Výroční zpráva Národní a universitní knihovny z roku 1945, pp. 20–21.
45 From May to December 1945, only in Prague books from 520 sites were taken back and these were transported on 445 cars or carts. Books from 178 places in the countryside were transferred to the National and University Library. Nevertheless, it became gradually evident that there was such a quantity of confiscated material outside Prague that there was neither storage nor transport capacity available in the National and University Library. Therefore, the local National Committees were asked to send only lists of confiscated books to the National and University Library, and keep the books as much as possible in secure places or to send them to the National and University Library by post or by train. Altogether, 1,540 cases were handled. In: Archiv UK, Výroční zpráva Národní a universitní knihovny z roku 1945, p. 22.
46 Archiv UK, Výroční zpráva Národní a universitní knihovny z roku 1945, p. 22.
47 Idem, pp. 14, 23.
48 These included, in particular, Nový Bernštejn, Nový Falkenburg and Mimoň. In: Archiv UK, Výroční zpráva Národní a universitní knihovny z roku 1945, p. 23.
49 Archiv UK, Výroční zpráva Národní a universitní knihovny z roku 1945, p. 23.
50 FALTYSOVÁ, Vlasta (ed). Rukověť tištěných knihovních fondů NK ČR, p. 15.
51 Books were collected from 235 Prague apartments and 119 rural sites, altogether 354 addresses. 276 journeys were carried out by personal cars, others through the charter companies. A total of CZK 49,504.30 was paid to the external companies, CZK 167,423.60 for the operation and servicing of the service cars (CZK 107,933.50 for fuel, average monthly consumption of 750 litres and 20 litres of oil). Nothing paid to the library staff who unloaded the nine wagons and were involved in the sorting and processing the books because the Library did not have the money to pay for extra hours or additional or hard work. In: Archiv UK, Národní a Universitní knihovna v Praze. Výroční zpráva za rok 1946, pp. 20, 76, 79.
52 Archiv UK, Národní a Universitní knihovna v Praze. Výroční zpráva za rok 1946, p. 79.
53 Idem, p. 80.
54 Books were collected from 14 Prague apartments and 32 rural sites, a total of 46 addresses. In: Archiv UK, Národní a Universitní knihovna v Praze. Výroční zpráva za rok 1947, p. 77.
55 Národní a Universitní knihovna v Praze. Výroční zpráva za rok 1947, p. 78.
56 These were books from Beroun, Hořovice, Rokycany, Plzeň, Mladá Boleslav, Šluknov, Dubá, Mělník, Brandýs, Jablonné, part Varnsdorf, Česká Lípa, Stříbro, Vejprty, Slaný, Tachov, Liberec, Jablonec nad Nisou. In: Archiv UK, Národní a Universitní knihovna v Praze. Výroční zpráva za rok 1948, p. 59.
57 FALTYSOVÁ, Vlasta (ed). Rukověť tištěných knihovních fondů NK ČR, p. 15.
58 Some later works report even 12 million volumes. Groh, Kamil: Universitní knihovna v lidové demokratické ČSR, p. 14.
59 Národní a Universitní knihovna v Praze. Výroční zpráva za rok 1948, pp. 59–60.
60 Altogether, 125 boxes of books, nine boxes of separates, five boxes of textbooks were donated by various US institutes and departments, in particular, the ALA Library Association, the American Masaryk Institute, and American Aid to Czechoslovakia. The boxes were opened, divided according to disciplines and distributed. In: Archiv UK, Národní a Universitní knihovna v Praze. Výroční zpráva za rok 1948, p. 61.
61 Archiv UK, Národní a Universitní knihovna v Praze. Výroční zpráva za rok 1948, p. 61.
62 Groh, Kamil: Universitní knihovna v lidové demokratické ČSR, p. 11.
63 Groh, Kamil: Universitní knihovna v lidové demokratické ČSR, p. 11.
64 Československo, Zákon o prvním pětiletém hospodářském plánu rozvoje Československé republiky ze dne 27. října 1948, č. 241/1948 Sb. Praha: Ministerstvo informací a osvěty, 1949. 30 pp. / Czechoslovakia, Act on the First Five-Year Economic Development Plan of the Czechoslovak Republic of October 27th, 1948, No. 241 / 1948 Coll. Prague: Ministry of Information and Education, 1949. 30 pp.
65 In 1950, the Library concluded agricultural patronage over the State Farm Stekník, where its employees, together with other staff of the Klementinum Library, worked 7-14,000 hours per year. Cultural activities complemented this patronage. Another work patronage was concluded regarding the company library of Stalin’s factory in Záluží u Mostu, and in 1951, with the ÚRO library, and in 1952, study patronage was concluded with the Klement Gottwald’s Automobile Works in Prague. The Library helped this factory with its literature, bibliographies, researches, photocopies, as well as reading work directly on the place. In: Groh, Kamil: Universitní knihovna v lidové demokratické ČSR, p. 13.
66 Groh, Kamil: Universitní knihovna v lidové demokratické ČSR, pp. 12–13.
67 Groh, Kamil: Universitní knihovna v lidové demokratické ČSR, p. 14.
68 Knapík, Jiří (a kol.): Průvodce kulturním děním, entry Gottwald’s libraries, pp. 340–341.
69 Knapík, Jiří (a kol.): Průvodce kulturním děním, entry Work with the reader, pp. 701–702. For particular operations and methods of work, see chapter Modeling the Czech Readers in: Šámal, Petr. Soustružníci lidských duší, pp. 94–134.
70 Šámal, Petr. Soustružníci lidských duší, pp. 109–110.
71 Knapík, Jiří (a kol.): Průvodce kulturním děním, entry Tuchlovice movement, p. 959.
72 Šimeček, Zdeněk and Trávníček, Jiří: Knihy kupovati, pp. 332–333.
73 Šimeček, Zdeněk and Trávníček, Jiří: Knihy kupovati, pp. 336–337.
74 Šimeček, Zdeněk and Trávníček, Jiří: Knihy kupovati, pp. 342–343.
75 Šimeček, Zdeněk and Trávníček, Jiří: Knihy kupovati, p. 337.
76 Voborníková, Michaela: Knihovny a knihovnictví v českých zemích v letech 1938-1945. Ikaros [online]. 2016, volume 20, No. 1 [cit. 2016-04-20]. ISSN 1212-5075. Available at: http://ikaros.cz/node/17667.
77 Knapík, Jiří (a kol.): Průvodce kulturním děním, entry Foglar’s reading clubs, p. 325–326.
78 Svatovojtěšské družinky časopisu Anděl strážný, Družiny Radostného mládí, Kluby čtenářů Klasu, Čtenářské družiny orlíků časopisu Orlík / St-Adalbert-Groups of the Anděl strážný magazine, Joyful Youth Clubs, Reader’s clubs of the Klas magazine, Reader’s clubs of the Orlík magazine, etc. In: Knapík, Jiří (a kol.): Průvodce kulturním děním, entry Foglar’s reading clubs, pp. 325–326.
79 Knapík, Jiří (a kol.): Průvodce kulturním děním, entry Foglar’s reading clubs, pp. 325–326.
80 In detail, this operation is dealt with by Michal Bauer in publication Ideologie a paměť, pp. 186–214.
81 These comprise two scientific books related to the occupation or vocational training; three political books; novel by Alois Jirásek Against All; two out of the five prescribed prose books; two poetry collections and one Soviet novel. In: Knapík, Jiří (a kol.): Průvodce kulturním děním, entry Fučík’s badge, pp. 333–334.
82 Knapík, Jiří (a kol.): Průvodce kulturním děním, entry Fučík’s badge, s. 333–334.
83 Knapík, Jiří (a kol.): Průvodce kulturním děním, entry the Call of the Central People’s Library of the City of Prague, p. 1045.
84 Knapík, Jiří (a kol.): Průvodce kulturním děním, entry Fučík’s badge, pp. 333–334.
85 Turková, Helga: Zámecké knihovny v Česku po restitucích, pp. 26-27. The problem of confiscation of castle buildings (including furnishings as well as libraries) was dealt with in detail by Kristina Uhlíková in her publication on National Cultural Commission 1947–1951.
86 The issue of the collection of monastery libraries was dealt with in detail by František Horák (Klášterní knihovny v českých zemích, 1956) and Vladislav Dokoupil (Dějiny moravských klášterních knihoven ve správě Universitní knihovny v Brně. 1972). For the latest summary, see, for example, Jaroslav Vobr (Klášterní knihovny ve státní správě 1950-1990).
87 The reorganisation of the male religious orders was carried out in two stages and was designated with a cover title of “K” Operation. The first stage took place on the night of April 13th-14th, 1950. The second stage was carried out as a voluntary agreement with the representatives of the orders on April 26th and 27th and on May 3rd and 4th of the same year. In total, “K” Operation affected 25 religious orders, 144 religious houses, 1,240 monks and nuns in Czechoslovakia (1,164 of which were placed in centralised monasteries, and 76 individuals were interned). In: Archiv bezpečnostních služeb, H-718, Vol. 2, p. 19.
88 Bohosudov, Osek u Duchcova, Broumov, Králíky and Hejnice were chosen as centralised buildings in Bohemia while the monastery of Želiv was used as internment monastery.
89 The State Office for Church Affairs (1949-1956, abbreviated to the SÚC) was established by Act No. 217/49 Coll. Its tasks included the granting of state approval for the execution of a spiritual vocation, designing or approving of candidates for essential church positions and approval of budgets of churches and religious societies. It also managed and controlled the different faculties of theology and the newly established Central church publishing house - as the foremost publisher and censor of the religious literature, thus completing the supervision of the religious life in our country. Although the SÚC held the same position as a ministry, it did not form any ecclesiastical policy as this was determined primarily by the Communist Party. In: Piškula, Jiří: Státní úřad pro věci církevní 1949–1956, pp. 67–69.
90 Národní archiv, fond SÚC, sig. 56, Zpráva o svozu klášterních knihoven a archivů v Čechách a na Moravě / Report on the Collection of Monastery Libraries and Archives in Bohemia and Moravia.
91 In addition to organising the operation, the National and University Library was entrusted with the monasteries in Prague and the Prague and Ústi regions. The State and University Library in Brno managed the monasteries in Brno and the regions of Brno and Jihlava; University Library in Olomouc administered the monasteries in Olomouc and the regions of Olomouc and Gottwaldov; State study Library of Zdeněk Nejedlý in České Budějovice controlled the monasteries in Budějovice region; State study Library in Pilsen managed the monasteries in the regions of Pilsen, and Karlovy Vary; State study Library in Hradec Králové administered the monasteries in the regions of Hradec Králové and Pardubice; State Library in Liberec focused on monasteries in the Liberec region; Silesian Study Library in Opava controlled the monasteries from the region of Ostrava. In: Národní archiv, fond SÚC, sig. 56, Zpráva o svozu klášterních knihoven a archivů v Čechách a na Moravě.
92 Initially, librarians expected that 19 libraries would remain in their original interiors, but in the meantime, two libraries were already removed, and one was added on the list later. In: Národní archiv, fond SÚC, sig. 56, Zpráva o svozu klášterních knihoven a archivů v Čechách a na Moravě.
93 The National and University Library was, among other things, responsible for supplying about 20 people as members of expert committees. These committees focused on classification of the books 2-3 days prior to the removal of the library, in the following order: manuscripts, incunabula, prints prior to 1526, bohemica prior to 1880 (all book from 16th to 18th centuries were taken over; materials dated to the 19th century - only rare prints), rare foreign prints, scientific literature and maps; graphics only if it was not of local origin and eventually music sheets. The order of visits of the expert committees in the monasteries was determined by the State Office for Church Affairs, according to the urgency. In addition to classifying the library, the expert committee was also entrusted to provide inventory lists of manuscripts, incunabula and post- incunabula; and other books should be marked by number only. Expert committees were followed by the so-called technical committees, which, according to the prepared protocols, had to dispose of small and worthless libraries directly on site. The executive committees were then tasked with distributing the books worthy of preservation to the university and other libraries. Besides, in some regions, regional committees also intervened in the selection of the literature. Národní archiv, fond SÚC, sig. 56, Zápis z porady komise odborníků konané 25. 5. 1950.
94 As was later defined, there was almost no cooperation between the different departments of the State Office for Church Affairs regarding the transport and entry to the premises. Representatives and Church Secretaries were often ignorant of the cultural value of the property for which they were responsible. Many new holders of monastic premises were so eager to get the objects cleared that the items were often removed before the arrival of expert committees. Thus, the majority of the removed items were not even recorded in the handover protocols. Lists were often prepared retrospectively, several months after the removal. For some premises (such as the Monastery in Teplá), there is no inventory at all. In: Archiv NK, Hlavní nedostatky likvidace klášterních knihoven.
95 Šámal, Petr: Soustružníci lidských duší, p. 136.
References
Archiv bezpečnostních složek, Historický fond, sig. H-718, sv. 2, s. 19.
Archiv NK, fond Národní a universitní knihovna Praha (1916)1918–[1960], Hlavní nedostatky likvidace klášterních knihoven.
Archiv NK, fond výroční zprávy 1870–, Národní a Universitní knihovna v Praze. Výroční zpráva za rok 1946.
Archiv NK, fond výroční zprávy 1870–, Národní a Universitní knihovna v Praze. Výroční zpráva za rok 1947.
Archiv NK, fond výroční zprávy 1870–, Národní a Universitní knihovna v Praze. Výroční zpráva za rok 1948.
Archiv NK, fond výroční zprávy 1870–, Výroční zpráva Národní a universitní knihovny za rok 1939.
Archiv NK, fond výroční zprávy 1870–, Výroční zpráva Národní a universitní knihovny za rok 1940.
Archiv NK, fond výroční zprávy 1870–, Výroční zpráva Národní a universitní knihovny z roku 1945.
Národní archiv, fond SÚC, sig. 56, Zápis z porady komise odborníků konané 25. 5. 1950.
Národní archiv, fond SÚC, sig. 56, Zpráva o svozu klášterních knihoven a archivů v Čechách a na Moravě.
BAUER, Michal: Ideologie a paměť: literatura a instituce na přelomu 40. a 50. let 20. století. Jinočany: H&H, 2003. 359 s.
BROŽOVSKÁ ONDERKOVÁ, Jana. Veřejné knihovny, knihy a čtenáři meziválečného Československa. In: FOBEROVÁ, Libuše a Jan LIDMILA (ed.): Konference Kniha ve 21. století 2014, Brno: Moravská zemská knihovna, 2014. s. 23-28.
CEJPEK, Jiří. Československé knihovnictví: poslání a organizace. Praha: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství, 1965. 171 s.
CEJPEK, Jiří (a kol.). Dějiny knihoven a knihovnictví. 2. dopl. vyd. Praha: Karolinum, 2002. 247 s.
ČESKOSLOVENSKO. Nařízení vlády republiky Československé ze dne 5. listopadu 1919, jímž se provádí zákon o veřejných knihovnách obecních ze dne 22. července 1919, č. 430 Sb. z. a n. Praha: [s. n.], 1919.
ČESKOSLOVENSKO. Zákon o prvním pětiletém hospodářském plánu rozvoje Československé republiky ze dne 27. října 1948, č. 241/1948Sb. Praha: Ministerstvo informací a osvěty, 1949. 30 s.
ČESKOSLOVENSKO. Zákon o veřejných knihovnách obecních ze dne 22. července 1919, č. 430 Sb. z. a n. Praha: [s. n.], 1919.
DOKOUPIL, Vladislav. Dějiny moravských klášterních knihoven ve správě Universitní knihovny v Brně. Brno: Musejní spolek, 1972. 379 s.
DOLEŽAL, Jiří. Česká kultura za protektorátu: školství, písemnictví, kinematografie. Praha: Národní filmový archiv, 1996. 284 s.
FALTYSOVÁ, Vlasta (ed.). Rukověť tištěných knihovních fondů Národní knihovny České republiky: od prvotisků do konce 19. století. Praha: Národní knihovna České republiky, 2006. 342 s.
FREY, Jaroslav. Jak čte Praha. In: Knihy a čtenáři. 1937/1938, 1(9-10), 70-71.
GROH, Kamil. Universitní knihovna v lidové demokratické ČSR. In: Ročenka Universitní Knihovny v Praze. Praha: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství, 1956, s. 7-27.
HANZLÍKOVÁ, Lenka. Když knihy jezdí za čtenáři. Ikaros [online]. 2008, 12(11) [cit. 2016-08-13]. ISSN 1212-5075. Dostupné z: http://ikaros.cz/node/12959
HORÁK, František: Klášterní knihovny v českých zemích. In: Knihovna: vědeckotechnický sborník. Sv. 6, 1966, s. 219-270.
Jaký byl stav obecních knihoven v Československé republice? Knihkupec a nakladatel. 1939, 1(13), 125-126.
KLADIVA, Jaroslav. Kultura a politika (1945-1948). Praha: Svoboda, 1968, s. 375.
KNAPÍK, Jiří (a kol.). Průvodce kulturním děním a životním stylem v českých zemích 1948-1967. Praha: Academia, 2011. 2 sv.
KŘÍČEK, Václav. Německé a české knihovny v Liberci do roku 1945. In: Světlík: svět libereckých knihove., 2014, 61(12),16-30, ISSN 1214-2751
LIFKA, Bohumír. Knihovny v okupaci. In: Marginalie: věstník Spolku českých bibliofilů. 1938, roč. XII, č. říjen-listopad, s. 117-124.
PIŠKULA, Jiří. Státní úřad pro věci církevní 1949-1956: Ministerstvo pro kontrolu náboženského života v Československu. In: Církevní dějiny: osobnosti, události, struktury, mentality. 2009, 2(4), 67-69. ISSN1803-0068.
Pojízdná knihovna – Historie. Městská knihovna v Praze [online], [cit. 2016-08-13]. Available at: http://www.mlp.cz/cz/kontakty/pobočky/pojízdná-knihovna/historie/
POLÁČEK, Václav. Cenzura, řízení knižního trhu, zabavování a ničení knih 1938–1945. In: ZACH, Aleš a Václav POLÁČEK (ed.): Kniha a národ 1939-1945: rekonstrukce nevydaného pamětního sborníku Svazu českých knihkupců a nakladatelů z roku 1947. Praha: Paseka, 2004. s. 67-145.
REPČÁK, Jozef: „Z cesty po českých knižnicích“. In: Knihy a čtenáři. 1937/1938, 1(17), 125-128.
ŠÁMAL, Petr. Soustružníci lidských duš : lidové knihovny a jejich cenzura na počátku padesátých let 20. století : (s edicí seznamů zakázaných knih). Praha: Academia, 2009. 613 s.
ŠIMEČEK, Zdeněk a Jiří TRÁVNÍČEK. Knihy kupovati … : Dějiny knižního trhu v českých zemích. Praha: Academia, 2014. 499 s.
TURKOVÁ, Helga. Zámecké knihovny v Česku po restitucích. In: Biblio. 2013, (1)4, s. 26-27. ISSN 2336-1921.
UHLÍKOVÁ, Kristina. Národní kulturní komise 1947-1951. Praha: Artefactum, 2004. 254 s.
VEČEŘOVÁ, Petra. Československé knihovnictví v letech 1939-1959. In: Knihy znovu nalezené [odborný mezinárodní seminář], 31. 3. 2016. Prah: Národní knihovna ČR, 2016
VOBORNÍKOVÁ, Michaela. Knihovny a knihovnictví v českých zemích v letech 1938-1945. Ikaros[online]. 2016, roč. 20, č. 1 [cit. 2016-04-20]. ISSN 1212-5075. Available at: http://ikaros.cz/node/17667
VOBR, Jaroslav. Klášterní knihovny ve státní správě 1950-1990. In: Duha. 1991, 5(1), 2-9. ISSN 0862-1985.
WÖGERBAUER, Michal (a kol.). V obecném zájmu: cenzura a sociální regulace literatury v moderní české kultuře 1749-2014. Svazek II / 1938-2014. Praha: Academia, 2015 s. 873-1661.
