A History of Bohemian Literature

by hrabe Francis Lützow

In 1861, when a new attempt to establish constitutional government in Austria was made, Palacký was made a life-member of the Upper Chamber of the Parliament of Vienna. He only spoke there twice, in August and September of the year that he had been named. The question of an agreement with Hungary was then under discussion. Hungary claimed almost complete independence, and Palacký rightly maintained that the establishing new small states was contrary to the tendency to union that then prevailed in Europe. Palacký advised the Hungarians, as well as the Bohemians, to make considerable concessions to the Central Government of Vienna. He seems already to have foreseen, what actually occurred six years later, that Hungary would be granted almost complete independence, and Bohemia considered a mere Austrian province.

Though Palacký, always favourable to the preservation of the Austrian empire, was prepared to concede to the Central Government in Vienna far more extensive powers than the Hungarians were, he yet claimed for Bohemia and the Parliament of Prague a very extensive autonomy, on lines similar, though not identical, with those of the ancient Bohemian constitution, which perished on the day of the battle of the White Mountain. When Palacký found that the Parliament of Vienna was discussing matters that he considered beyond its competency, and encroaching on the rights of the Bohemian representative body, he left Vienna on September 30, 1861, and never again took his seat in the Austrian Upper House. Of the Bohemian Parliament Palacký was a member from the time that it first met in 1861. He attended its meetings whenever the National or Bohemian party took part in its deliberations, which they, from political reasons, often refused to do. From 1861 to his death in 1876, Palacký was the recognised leader of the National party in Bohemia. A detailed account of his life during that time would be a record of the political struggles of Bohemia during those years, and would be out of place here. The admiration and veneration of the Bohemians for the "Otec Vlastí" (Father of the Country), as he was called, increased with his increasing years. On April 23, 1876, the completion of Palacký's great historical work was celebrated by a banquet at Prague, at which the historian was present. He seems to have felt the presentiment of approaching death, and indeed described the speech which he delivered as his testament. The speech is so characteristic of Palacký that I shall quote a few words from it. "Our nation," he said, "is in great danger, surrounded, as it is, by enemies in every direction; but I do not despair; I hope that it will be able to vanquish them, if it has but the will to do so. It is not enough to say 'I will'; every one must co-operate, must work, must make what sacrifices he can for the common welfare, particularly for the preservation of our nationality. The Bohemian nation has a brilliant past record. The time of Hus was a glorious time. The Bohemian people then surpassed in intellectual culture all other nations of Europe.... It is now necessary that we should educate ourselves and work in accordance with the demands of culture and intellect. This is the only testament that, speaking almost as a dying man, I wish to leave to my people." Palacký's presentiment proved but too true. He died, after a very short illness, on May 26, 1876. His funeral was the occasion of general national mourning in Bohemia.

Though, as already mentioned, the study of history from his early youth appealed particularly to Palacký, it was by a work of a very different character that he first became known to the small group of men who in the earlier half of the present century were interested in Bohemian literature. While still studying at Pressburg, Palacký published a translation of some of the poems of Ossian, which was enthusiastically welcomed by his friends.

It was at Prague only that he decided on writing his History of Bohemia, which made him the foremost man of his nation, and which he has himself described as "especially the work of my whole life." Palacký's preliminary labours in the archives of his own country and then in those of Germany and Italy have already been noticed. Of the immense difficulties which Palacký's historical work encountered he has himself given an interesting account. All printed writings were then in Austria and Bohemia under the control of the "censure-office," to which I have already referred. The Government, there is no doubt, was in principle opposed to the publication of a history of Bohemia founded on the best available documents, that is to say, of a work really deserving the name of a history. They were too ignorant to know to how great an extent such a work would contradict the short accounts of the past of Bohemia—written with a strongly Romanist and anti-Bohemian tendency, and founded on Hajek's chronicle—that were then in general use; but they somehow felt that this would be the case. "The Austrian Government was convinced," Palacký writes, "that its past conduct as regards Bohemia would not obtain praise from the tribunal of history. What occurred during the Thirty Years' War and since that period in the interior of Bohemia is still one of history's secrets; it makes the few who have attempted slightly to lift the veil under which these events are hidden shudder."

In 1836 the first volume of Palacký's History of Bohemia appeared. It was published in German, as were all the volumes that were issued up to the year 1848. Henceforth the book appeared simultaneously in German and Bohemian. When Palacký, towards the end of his life, re-wrote his great work, the earlier parts also appeared in Bohemian. The first volume, dealing with a period when the history of Bohemia is more than half mythical, was treated very leniently by the censors, who considered the fables of Prěmysl and Libussa very harmless. In the Austria of the earlier part of this century the words "Securus licet Ænaeam Rutulumque ferocem committas ..." were as true as in the Rome of the emperors.

Difficulties, however, began when Palacký had reached the period of Hus. The masterly account of the life and death of the great Bohemian, no doubt the most brilliant part of Palacký's work, greatly displeased the censors to whom it was submitted. The ecclesiastical censor suggested a very plain course, namely, that Palacký's work should be entirely suppressed. Prince Metternich, who was consulted, proposed that Palacký should omit all "objectionable reasoning," but should be allowed to state facts.

The correspondence between Palacký and the censors—published by the former after the suppression of that detestable institution—is irresistibly comic. The censors had not only, as is generally supposed, the power of striking out passages in an author's work that displeased them, they were also entitled to insert passages in a book that were often in direct contradiction with the writer's views. Palacký's description of the corruption of the Roman clergy in the fifteenth century was suppressed, and he was ordered to attribute the rise of the Hussite movement to the "stubbornness, inflexible obstinacy, and dogmaticalness" of Hus. Palacký patiently consented, but he ventured to remonstrate when objections were raised against his account of the courageous demeanour of Hus when before the Council. He was instructed to state that Hus had "appeared irresolute" when brought before his judges. Palacký remarked that this statement would be in contradiction with the passage quoted above which he had been ordered to insert The ignorance of the censor is proved by the fact that when Palacký quoted Poggio Bracciolini's account of the death of Jerome of Prague, he was unaware of the existence of the well-known Italian humanist, and requested to be informed who he was. He also expressed doubts as to the authenticity of the letter to Lionardo Aretino in which that account is contained, though it had then already been frequently printed, and is quoted by numerous Protestant and Catholic writers, including Pope Pius II, Palacký lived to see the abolition of censure, and to republish in their original form the volumes of his History that he had been obliged to submit to it.

Political events and the ever-increasing mass of materials, which of course proportionately increased Palacký's labours, delayed the progress of the History, and it was only in 1867 that the second part of the fifth volume, which reaches to the accession of the House of Habsburg to the Bohemian throne in 1526, was published. Bohemian historians generally end their work with the battle of the White Mountain in 1620, and this was no doubt Palacký's intention. His remark, quoted above, proves that he never intended to write the history of Bohemia during and after the Thirty Years' War. In 1861 he had, however, already formed the decision to end his narrative with the year 1526, and he informed the Estates of Bohemia—who contributed to the expenses of the publication—of that intention.

During the last nine years of his life Palacký employed whatever spare time his political engagements left him in re-writing parts of his History in accordance with fresh materials, in completing the Bohemian version of parts that had at first appeared in German only, and in eliminating the passages that the censors had obliged him to insert. This new revised edition was, as already mentioned, completed only in the year of the author's death.

Palacký's History of Bohemia is now recognised as one of the great historical works of the nineteenth century. Though less known in England than on the Continent, it has there also obtained the praises of historians, such as Bishop Creighton and the late Mr. Wratislaw. It is not easy to define the circumstances that rendered the publication of Palacký's monumental work a political event in Bohemia, contributing greatly to the revival of national feeling. The record of a glorious past came as a revelation to the Bohemians, whom the German inhabitants of Austria were, in consequence of their long supremacy, in the habit of treating with contempt. It fortified the patriots in their belief that their nation and its language would not perish. It is this conviction which alone explains the intense veneration for Palacký which all Bohemians felt, many of whom had neither the money to buy nor the time to read his great historical work. The recently published centenary memorial of Palacký contains many striking instances of the devotion with which Bohemians of all classes regarded the historian of their country. I may be permitted to quote one anecdote from the Memorial. A young tailor's apprentice from Moravia, named Breynek, during a visit to Prague, met Palacký in the street. Innumerable photographs of the great historian had rendered Breynek familiar with his features. He walked up to him, stating that he was a Moravian and a countryman. Palacký conversed affably with him for several minutes and then gave him his hand. This meeting became the principal event of Breynek's life. Every date was designated as having happened "before I met Palacký" or "after I met Palacký." He only regretted that he had been too shy "to kiss the hand that had written the history of his country." Palacký's History, as already noted, was published simultaneously in German and in Bohemian; the earliest volumes indeed at first appeared in the former language only. The book is therefore not so inaccessible as the works of the earlier Bohemian historians, from which I have given copious quotations. An English translation of Palacký's history of Bohemia is, however, still a desideratum.