OM d Preface else that deals with this topic in the English language, and this book may help introduce it to the nonspecialist reader. Though not a Czech myself (by anything other than interest and inclination), I hope also that I can contribute in some small way to the ongoing discussions among the Czechs over this important phase in their history. An outsider can perhaps bring a different perspective simply because he is an outsider. If I have accomplished that, I shall be content. Many people deserve recognition for their assistance in bringing this project to fruition. My parents, Jeanne LeCaine Agnew and Theodore Agnew, gave me a good example of the academic life. Two outstanding teachers shaped my interest in Eastern Europe: Lucien Karchmar of Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, and Wayne S. Vucinich of Stanford Uni- versity. That the latter's warm sense of slovanskd vzdjemnost led him to take on a student interested in Czech history is something I shall always appreciate. The original dissertation took shape during an academic year in Prague made possible by a fellowship from the Inter- national Research and Exchanges Board in 1978-1979. Sup- port from Stanford University, including a Harris Fellowship and a dissertation writing grant from the Weter Fund, helped see the project through. Revision and expansion of the dis- sertation was made easier by a summer research fellowship at the Indiana University Russian and East European Studies Institute in 1985, and participation in the University of Illinois Summer Research Laboratory in 1989 helped fill in a few de- tails. Return visits to Prague in the summers of 1990 and 1991 were supported by research funds granted to the George Washington University by the American Council of Learned Societies. Many other people in Singapore, Czechoslovakia, and the United States also contributed to the successful conclusion of this project. I am grateful to the History Department at the National University of Singapore, especially the late Professor Wong Lin Ken, his successor, Associate Professor Ernest C. T. Chew, and a congenial group of colleagues, especially Andrew Major, Frank Cibulka, and Malcolm Murfett. viii 88 The Origins of the Czech National Renascence brovsk. Thim had originally expressed himself willing and even eager to submit his work to Dobrovsk's criticism, and he had received some assistance from Dobrovsk in his lexical work. 27 When he found Dobrovsk5's comments stronger than he preferred, a sort of contest ensued to determine which dictionary, Thim's or Tomsa's, would become the accepted standard and enshrine this status by reaching a second edition before its rival. While Dobrovsk tended to support Tomsa, Zlobick was a champion of Thim. By 1794, Thim and his publisher were planning a second edition, and Zlobick wrote to Dobrovsk urging him to con- tribute to the project. He was especially excited about the possibility of including not only older forms no longer in daily use, but also dialect words from Moravian and Slovak, and he argued that Adelung had done the same with the German dialects.128 Dobrovsk, in reply, questioned Thim's suitability for the task, saying that he had plans himself to publish the necessary corrections to Tomsa's dictionary and had counted on Zlobick9's helping him. On the question of dialectisms, he added, "From the Moravian and the Slovak I believe that only so much as may serve to explain a Czech word should be ad- mitted."'129 Dobrovsk was interested in Slavic dialects, but they did not belong in a Czech dictionary. Zlobick ques- tioned this, asking why, since Adelung had included all the German dialects in his work, the Czechs could not do the same. He also expressed his own criticisms of Tomsa's dictio- nary and announced his decision to support Thim's.130 In re- sponse, Dobrovsk asserted that Adelung had not in fact included all dialect words. "He often used dialect words for explanation-and this is the only use that I do not want to exclude in Czech. I would, rather, use Russian, Polish and Illyrian to help. The first aim should nevertheless be purior bohemismus. "131 Dobrovsk4's more exclusive attitude to dialect words in Czech also carried over into his views on contemporary at- tempts to raise certain Slavic "dialects" to the level of literary languages. Thus he commented in his correspondence with "Our Natural Language' Zlobick and Ribay on the efforts made by Antonin Bernolik and others on behalf of Slovak. In one letter to Ribay (who as a Protestant would perhaps also have been unsympathetic to Bernolik's ideas), he wrote: It is quite annoying that the Slovaks do not want to stand by us. I have a few songs and prayers in the dialect of Teschen [Tein]. They are neither Czech nor Polish-but gibberish (Kauderwelsch). One should not immediately consider the village dialects to be Doric, Attic or Ionic. The Germans were cleverer in this than we disunited Slavs.'32 Dobrovsk9's insistence on the need for keeping the dic- tionary purely Czech, and his rejection of dialects, strained his friendship with Zlobick , but it survived the test. The lat- ter never gave up his own point of view, however, and he continued to urge on Dobrovsk a more open and tolerant attitude to enriching the Czech lexicon.33 Yet if the friendship between Zlobick and Dobrovsk survived their disagreements over the dictionary and the problem of the Czech lexicon, the same could not be said of Dobrovsk's relationship with K. H. Thim. Their disagree- ments flared into an open polemic when a second edition of Thim's dictionary was announced in 1798. Dobrovsk at- tacked Thim's neologisms, and Thim retorted that he did not understand on what authority Dobrovsk had set himself up as "dictator of Czech grammar."''34 Thim accused him of speaking Czech "anxiously, yes, even incorrectly," adding in a footnote that, although Dobrovsk had not yet published anything in Czech, the few translations he made at the time of Leopold's coronation showed "how much he is a German- Bohemian, and still a novice in Czech."'135 Allowing of course for rhetorical overstatement, there was a grain of truth in Th~m's remarks. Dobrovsk's knowledge of Czech was more theoretical than practical: it was precisely this thorough grounding in Czech linguistic theory that gave Dobrovsk his concern that any developments taking place in Czech should not run counter to the grammatical rules it had developed 89 90 The Origins of the Czech National Renascence over the centuries-what he called the "spirit" of the lan- guage. Thim, on the other hand, was more closely concerned with the language in its everyday aspects and was moreover not untouched by the patriotic-puristic zeal of some of his forerunners, as shown especially in his later dictionaries.'36 The time-consuming polemics and other problems in- volved in working on his own dictionary, which dragged on for years, did not discourage Dobrovsk from carrying on his task.'37 Nor did they keep him from offering advice, criticism, or encouragement to anyone else working on the problem. He wrote to Jungmann in 1813 emphasizing yet again the im- portance of a knowledge of the language of the countryside to complement the written heritage and the limitations of dia- lects as aids in explaining word meanings. Again in 1815, he commented on a section of Jungmann's dictionary manu- script, criticizing the number of foreign words in it.138 Better than most, Dobrovsk could advise Jungmann on the prob- lems and frustrations of working on a dictionary, warnings seconded by his longstanding collaborator, Puchmajer: Your intention of publishing a Czech dictionary, however praiseworthy it may be, is nevertheless fraught with in- numerable difficulties; and if you do not have the patience of Job, when you already complain at the beginning that you are getting stuck in the mud, it will be the worse for you the farther you go, until you end up in the middle of the pool.139 Yet these very frustrations, especially the arguments about the nature of the Czech vocabulary and the heritage of the classical period, were important in preparing Czech for its nineteenth-century development. The renewal and revitalization of the Czech language that took place beginning in the last quarter of the eighteenth cen- tury was one of the most important developments in the Czech national renascence.140 It was a precondition for much "Our Natural Language" of the rest of the national revival, especially for the creation of an independent national culture, including literature in Czech at all levels. It also took place at a time when the con- cept of the nation was changing and the old tradition of ter- ritorial loyalty was giving way to ideas of linguistic nationhood. The Czech language was the one characteristic that divided Czechs from German-Bohemians or foreigners in general; as Nejedl pointed out, it was what made them what they were. Thus the linguistic revival was a necessary starting point for the nineteenth-century national movement. It also gave Czech nationalism one of its most noticeable characteristics, one shared with other nations in East Central Europe. This is its philological bent, dubbed in a recent study its "linguo- centrism." Linguistic nationalism became central to the Czech national movement, part of its ideology, expressed in its na- tionalist slogans.'41 The process of renewal had two aspects, the defensive justification of renewal efforts and the scholarly work for this renewal by the Czech philologists. The defenders of the lan- guage wrote in order to overcome any feeling of inferiority engendered by the loss of Czech political importance and the decline of Czech culture since the Battle of the White Moun- tain. Defenses of the language written in German were not only directed at the Czechs themselves, but also intended for foreign consumption, to draw attention to the existence of an ancient and highly developed language worthy of further study. Those written in Czech were at one and the same time physical proof that Czech could be used as a literary language and encouragement for other Czech writers to persevere in their efforts. The resolution of the arguments about the authority of classical sixteenth-century Czech eventually favored, on the strength of Dobrovsk9's own personal importance, a strong influence of conservative ideas on modern literary Czech. While this division of Czech into literary and colloquial forms may in some ways be a disadvantage, most European lan- guages today distinguish between written and spoken style. 91 92 The Origins of the Czech National Renascence The great service of the conservative philologists was that they kept Czech in touch with its past heritage and avoided a break in the organic linguistic development. The discussions of lexical enrichment, which became at times so bitter, also influenced the later development of Czech. Even before Jungmann's generation, some philolo- gists clearly recognized that without enriching the lexicon Czech would never be able to fulfill its tasks as a literary and scholarly language. Jungmann's great codification of Czech included many newly formed words, but the complex of dis- cussion, argument, and disagreement over neologisms had served to clarify the issue. Linguists of later generations had the advantage of Dobrovsk's clear formulation of the rules of word formation in Czech, as well as, frequently, personal experience of his strict and severe criticism of any attempt at neologizing. Thus when a new word was necessary, it was usu- ally formed not in violation of the spirit of the language but in harmony with it. The polemics of the first generation of awakeners had served as a crucible for the development of Czech into a modern, truly national language. 3 Reclaiming the Czechs' Literary Birthright History and language met and flowed together in literary history. What was for the historian an important document was for the philologist frequently a monument of Czech lit- erature as well, and thus a priceless source for the study of the development of the language. And for the patriotic intel- lectuals whose defenses of the language asserted the right of Czech to equal consideration with other European languages, these monuments of the past were concrete proof that at one time, at least, the Czech language had fulfilled all the func- tions of a fully developed literary language. Thus, as was hap- pening with Czech history and the Czech language, the cultivation of Czech literature (and eventually the creation of new works) came to be one of the hallmarks of a true patriot. This impulse found expression in two directions: on the one hand it drew scholars' attention to the history of Czech lit- erature, and on the other, it drove some of them to attempt to produce modem literary works in Czech. The first trend, the subject of this chapter, was important in developing Czech literature because it resulted in the reclamation of a part of the Czechs' literary birthright that had been denied them by the events of the seventeenth century. Scholars studying the history of letters in Bohemia did not at first set out to write a history of Czech literature, and they wrote their works in the languages of scholarship, Latin and 93 94 Origins of the Czech National Renascence German. But gradually, their partial and unsystematic efforts encouraged and were replaced by more coherent and clearly focused studies that eventually concerned themselves with Czech literature in Czech. In addition to producing special- ized and general studies of Czech literary history, these schol- ars and their noble patrons embarked on collecting and publishing surviving monuments of the past. Thus they pre- served, explained, and transmitted this precious heritage for their contemporaries who were seeking to revitalize Czech literature itself. Varieties of Literary History in Bohemia Earlier generations had not, of course, ignored Czech liter- ature. For intellectuals who had applied the critical method to their history, it was natural to do the same for the study of literature. For the first three-quarters of the eighteenth cen- tury, practically the only works published in Bohemia that dealt with Czech literary history were those of Antonin KoniB (1691-1760), a Czech Jesuit and editor of Clavis haeresim claudens et aperiens (published in two editions, 1729 and 1749), and Index Bohemicorum librorum prohibitorum (1770). These books listed all the Czech works published in the six- teenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries that had been condemned by the church.' For critical historians, this ap- proach left something to desired, and many of those who were active in the fields of history and linguistics set themselves the task of providing a more scientific approach to literature. The Gelehrtengeschichte One of the earliest and most common type of study was the biographical-bibliographical dictionary, in which scholars were perhaps influenced by the example of German Enlight- enment literary history, in which the Gelehrtengeschichte was a common phenomenon.2 There was also a well-known native precedent for this approach to history and literature, namely Balbin's Bohemia docta. This work, consisting largely of bio- graphical sketches of Czech men of letters, was extremely in- Reclaiming the Czechs' Literary Birthright fluential. (Its reputation among historians was alluded to in chapter 2.) The first such study was Voigt's Effigies virorum eruditorum atque artificum Bohemiae et Moraviae, which ap- peared in two volumes in 1773 and 1775, and in a German version with the collaboration of Pelcl and Born, entitled Ab- bildungen Bihmischer und Miihrischer Gelehrten und Kiinst- ler (4 vols., 1773-1782).3 Voigt accompanied the first volume of his Effigies- Abbildungen with a long foreword on the origins and devel- opment of the arts and sciences in Bohemia in which he pre- sented an overview of Czech literary history and explained his purpose in writing the work. This purpose was plainly patri- otic and defensive. Voigt organized his discussion according to topics, beginning with theology and proceeding through law, medicine, philosophy, mathematics, poetry, rhetoric, his- tory, and languages to fine arts, architecture, painting, sculp- ture, and music. In each field of activity, he wrote, Bohemia had produced works comparable to those of any other nation. Voigt's defensive patriotism was particularly clear in the sec- tion on the language, where he insisted that two hundred years earlier the Czechs had brought their language to such a pitch that "all our scholars, and foreign ones as well, will admit that the Czech language in comparison with other Eu- ropean languages is not inferior to any, whether in richness, refinement, and expressiveness of vocabulary or in appro- priate expressions and figures of speech; but rather surpasses many of them." He went on to decry what he called the mod- ern prejudice and debased taste that convinced many of his compatriots to reject Czech, "to prefer foreign things to the native, a foreign language to their own. How much do I wish ... that we might follow the examples of the Poles and Rus- sians in developing the language!"4 Similar themes dominated the closing pages of the intro- duction to the second volume, which dealt with learning among members of the Bohemian and Moravian nobility.5 Here Voigt answered some of the criticisms that Wieland's Der deutsche Merkur had expressed in a review of the first 95 96 Origins of the Czech National Renascence volume. The reviewer felt that Voigt had been betrayed by his excessive love for his fatherland into exaggerating the achievements of his fellow countrymen. "I will never deny this love for my fatherland," replied Voigt; "but will rather be very proud of it." He insisted that it was historical fact that the Czechs were the first among the Central European na- tions to cultivate learning. He conceded that he had "in common with many of our greatest and most distinguished patriots the fact that I lament the present-day neglect our Czech mother tongue"; but he denied that he had ever at- tacked the efforts of those who worked for the further re- finement of German-after all, he, too, wrote in German. The Deutscher Merkur may claim that the Czechs could have no place on Parnassus unless they first hired a German teacher for tuition in the language; but this was ridiculous. Would the author then deny the English, French, Italians, and other nations a seat among the Muses? "It seems to me," concluded Voigt, "that each nation has its own place on Parnassus; and Apollo and the Muses understand every language." Voigt's concept of Czech literary history as expressed in these two introductions was quite broad; but his organization of the material by subject, and the necessarily rather super- ficial treatment of the scholars whose biographies were in- cluded, prevented him from creating a truly synthetic study of literary history. Although Voigt's biographies did represent an advance over the works of his predecessors, they tended to be mechanical and stereotyped. First they presented the external facts of the life of their subjects, as far as they could be ascertained, and then a bibliography of their works. In the bibliographies (in an improvement over the practice of Balbin and others) the titles were given exactly and in the original language.6 Voigt's approach, influenced by Gelasius Dobner, was also more critical than his predecessors'. In writing of Hijek z Liboean, Voigt took Dobner's position on the veracity of his famous chronicle, and when he granted Bohuslav Balbin the Reclaiming the Czechs' Literary Birthright title of the "Czech Pliny" he noted that, like the Roman one, Balbin "allowed himself to be led by an all-too-great gullibility to include matters that, when one tests them according to natural law or the rules of healthy criticism, do not even have the appearance of probability."' Unlike Balbin or Koniai, Voigt did not make religious orthodoxy the most important condition for accepting a writer into Czech literary history. As a Catholic, and in holy orders, he rejected the teachings of the Hussites or other Protestants; but, as he wrote in his biography of Hus: "What right have we to expel from the number of our native scholars a man who truly possessed understanding and learning, only because he misused his ca- pabilities and learning, mixed truth with falsehood, and finally fell completely into error?-an error that he shares with many scholars of every century."8 Voigt also included several Jewish men of letters among his biographies, noting that "tolerance must be observed in the Republic of Learning even more than in any other public institution."9 Shortly after Voigt's Effigies-Abbildungen began to ap- pear, two separate editions of his great model, Balbin's Bo- hemia docta, began publication. Thus nearly a century after it was first written, this influential work finally saw the light of day. This is testimony not only to the opinion of contem- poraries about the usefulness of the biographical and biblio- graphical approach to literary history, but also to the respect they had for Balbin as one of their great intellectual ancestors. Both editions, one undertaken by the monk P. Candidus a Sancta Theresia and the other by Karl Raphael Ungar, were carried out in the spirit of critical history. The editors accom- panied Balbin's text with extensive footnotes and critical com- mentary. Ungar published the first part of Balbin's work in 1776; but Candidus did not include this section, beginning his edition with Balbin's section on Czech writers in 1777 and following it in the same year with his section on libraries and archives. Ungar's versions of these two sections were pub- lished in 1778 and 1780, respectively. Their application of the critical Maurist methods was clearly an emulation of Dob- 97 Preface Among Czech and Slovak scholars I have benefited greatly from the conversation and advice of Jan Havrinek, Miroslav Hroch, and Jii Kofalka. Less formal consultations with Roman Krasnick , Petr Cornej, and Vladimir Macura have also proved enlightening. A special place in our entire family's relationship with Czechoslovakia is held by our friends Veroslav Hiba and Dana Hibovi, Jifn Berger and Irena Bergerovi, and Roman Krasnick and Irena Krasnicki. It is a pleasure to be able now to thank them by name for kindnesses dating back to 1978. In the United States, my friends and colleagues in the History Department and Elliott School of International Af- fairs at the George Washington University have been very supportive, especially Sharon Wolchik and Muriel Atkin. Stanley Winters, past president of the Czechoslovak History Conference, saw to it that I never lost touch with my fellow Czech and Slovak specialists during my time in Singapore. Joseph F. Zacek and Josef Anderle both read and commented on the manuscript, and if I have not always taken their advice in every case, I certainly appreciated receiving it. In Prague I am indebted to the staff of the former Staitni a univerzitni knihovna (the Clementinum), especially the Manuscripts and Old Prints reading room; the Historick4 ka- binet, Katedra obecnvch dejin a praveku, Filosoficka* fakulta Univerzity Karlova; and the Strahovski knihovna. Their col- leagues at the Literirni archiv Pamitniku narodniho pisem- nictvi, the Archiv Narodniho muzea, and the Statni istiedni archiv also deserve my gratitude. To their number should be added their counterparts in the Osterreichische National- bibliothek, Vienna; the British Library and the School of Sla- vonic and East European Studies, London; and of course the libraries of the National University of Singapore, Indiana Uni- versity, and the University of Illinois. Thanks also to my ed- itor, Jane Flanders, and others on the University of Pittsburgh Press staff who worked on this project. Finally, I would like to thank my wife, Nancy Mac- Lachlan, and our children, Robert, Colin, and Fiona, for shar- ing my time and attention with this book for so long. ix 98 Origins of the Czech National Renascence ner's great work, Wenceslai Hagek a Libovan ... Annales Bohemorum, and at the same time they made more widely available an important source for Czech literary history, in- creasing its value to other scholars through their notes and commentary.1' The publication of Balbin's Bohemia docta was enlivened by a scholarly polemic in which Josef Dobrovsk made his first full-fledged appearance on the Prague literary scene. The Prager Intelligenzblatt published a laudatory review of Un- gar's edition in 1778, and Dobrovsk objected to certain slighting comments about Candidus. He sent an anonymous letter to the editors and to Ungar listing some of the mistakes he had found in Ungar's edition. He later identified himself to Ungar as the author of the letter and published his own criticisms in a volume entitled Corrigenda in Bohemia docta juxta editionem P. Raph. Ungar (1779). Particularly incensed by these comments, Ungar replied in a vitriolic letter to Do- brovsk, and later in the form of a similar critique of one of Dobrovski's publications, the literary periodical Bihmische Litteratur auf das Jahr 1779 (to be discussed later)." Do- brovsk was to regret this quarrel, and relations between the two eventually improved to the point that Ungar and Do- brovsk9 even collaborated on later projects.'2 The historian and philologist, Frantisek Martin Pelcl, whom we have seen as a collaborator with Born and Voigt in the Effigies-Abbildungen, also published a similar work of his own in 1786, entitled BAhmische, Mdhrische, und Schlesische Gelehrte und Schriftsteller aus dem Orden derJesuiten. Pelcl set out to write a study of the literary activities of the order, since it had enjoyed a practical monopoly on cultural activities in Bohemia for some time after the White Mountain. In fact, Pelcl called for studies of the activities of other orders, too. Methodologically, his work on the Jesuits did not represent any real advance over Voigt's Effigies-Abbildungen. Pelcl or- ganized his biographies chronologically, according to birth- date, but since he included any member of the Jesuits, no matter what his origin, he included much material with little Reclaiming the Czechs' Literary Birthright connection to the history of Czech literature. The biographies were similar to those in the Effigies; however, Pelcl's ap- proach also reflected his belief in the critical method, in that he did not merely rely for his data on previous authorities, but himself searched the libraries at the Clementinum and at Strahov, where he found much new information that enabled him to correct errors in previous works.13 Another scholar who wrote Gelehrtengeschichte was Bo- humir Jan Dlabac (1758-1830), who gathered material on musicians in Bohemia that later formed the basis of an article in Riegger's Materialen zur alten und neuen Statistik von B6hmen (vol. 7, 1788, and vol. 12, 1794), entitled "Versuch eines Verzeichnisses der vorziiglichern Tonkiinstler in oder aus B6hmen."'14 These biographies formed a sort of prepa- ratory exercise for Dlaba6's great Allgemeines historisches Kiinstlerlexikonfiir Boihmen und zum Theil auchfiir Mdhren und Schlesien (3 vols., 1815-1818). In these volumes, Dlabav widened his field of study to include artists and musicians as well as purely literary figures, and they represented the fruits of nearly thirty years of work assembling data and editing the biographies.'5 In the foreword to this encyclopedia, Dlabac harked back specifically to Balbin's example in his Bohemia docta, saying that he wanted to do for Czech fine artists what Balbin had done for Czech writers. Although his biographies could be faulted for the familiar failings they share with Voigt's and Pelcl's, Dlaba6 broke new ground by going be- yond the written word. Thus he approached a broader under- standing of the Czech cultural heritage and presented a model of a functioning "high" culture to the ambitious patri- ots who were setting out to attempt to create (or re-create) one in Czech. The Specialized Study In addition to biographical dictionaries, late eighteenth- century scholars also produced a great number of specialized studies in various forms, among the earliest of which was Voigt's Acta litteraria Bohemiae et Moraviae (2 vols., 1774- 99 100 Origins of the Czech National Renascence 1783). Voigt disclaimed any intention of setting this work up as an equal of any of his predecessors' famous efforts; he only wanted to repudiate the unjust reproach of some foreigners that the Czechs were barbaric and ignorant, while at the same time spreading the knowledge of literary matters in his fa- therland among his fellow countrymen.16 To this end, Voigt directed his attention not only to the monuments of Czech literature, but also to the contemporary literary production of Bohemia. Acta litteraria also included reviews and descrip- tions of earlier works (whether in Czech, German, or Latin, as long as they had some connection with Bohemia and Mo- ravia), often reprinting long excerpts. Voigt also published ad- ditional biographies as a supplement to his Effigies, but the main contribution of the Acta litteraria remained its publicity for contemporary literature among the intellectuals."7 Following Voigt's example, Dobrovsk tried his hand at the form of the literary periodical, though he chose to publish in German.'8 His efforts along these lines were the journals Bdhmische Litteratur auf das Jahr 1779 (1779), continued as Bhmische und Mihrische Litteratur auf das Jahr 1780 (1780-1784), and finally as Litterarisches Magazin von BOh- men und Mahren (3 vols., 1785-1787), which covered the state of literature in Bohemia and Moravia from 1781 to 1783. As Voigt had begun, so Dobrovsk4 aimed to go on, devoting attention to contemporary literature so as to present a picture of the state of literature in Bohemia "the way it is."'" To the supposed objection that this task was already fulfilled by such periodicals as Das Gelehrte Osterreich, published in Vienna, Dobrovsk retorted that "one looks for Czechs [B6hmen] in 'Learned Austria' as little as one would look for Englishmen in 'Learned Hannover.' "20 The commitment to focus on con- temporary literature in Bohemia was not intended to be a limitation, however, and Dobrovsk9's journals ranged widely over all periods of Czech literary history, frequently discuss- ing questions outside the bounds of a strictly interpreted lit- erary history altogether. A look at the topics covered in his periodicals shows some- Reclaiming the Czechs' Literary Birthright thing of the breadth and depth of Dobrovsk 's concept of literary history and of his personal literary interests. The uni- versities in Prague and Brno gave him a topic for the opening section of his Bihmische Litteratur, and he printed the official programs of lectures, lists of the professors and their works, and eventually even brief histories of both institutions. He continued to follow the fortunes of the universities in his Lit- terarisches Magazin up until 1783, when the university in Brno was moved back to Olomouc as a lyceum. Although the universities occupied (in theory) the highest position in the world of learning in Bohemia, Dobrovski was perfectly willing to exercise his talent for irony or sarcasm when it came to what he felt were the medieval attitudes sur- viving in them.21 Nor did he have any time for vain pedantry or stupidity. In one comment he poured scorn on an unnamed professor who "praised the accuracy of translations to his pu- pils, in order to demonstrate that Hebrew and Greek could be dispensed with, or more probably to excuse thus his own ignorance of them."22 This critical and sarcastic approach did not necessarily win him friends; and the particular com- ment about this professor was to add to his troubles with these journals. Besides giving information about the universities, Do- brovsk4 discussed the libraries of Bohemia and Moravia, thus deviating somewhat further from the intention of studying only contemporary topics, since he wanted to provide bib- liographical information about their holdings of rare and valuable Czech manuscripts and books. He began with the Clementinum and the Metropolitan libraries in Prague, then described the university library in Brno (formed from the for- mer Jesuit library in Olomouc, to which had been added hold- ings from other Jesuit libraries throughout the province), and concluded with notes on other libraries belonging to religious institutions in Bohemia. In a separate section Dobrovskl brought to his readers' notice particularly rare Czech printed books, mostly from the fifteenth century, in an attempt to correct the mistakes of ear- 101 102 Origins of the Czech National Renascence lier works on Czech literature that neglected Czech printing in that period. For Dobrovski, the history of book printing was so closely bound up with literary history in general that this bibliophile approach was for him an important and fruit- ful part of Czech literary history.23 Indeed, this bibliographical aspect of Dobrovsk's work was an important contribution to the study of the Czech literary heritage, and not without its connection to the present. While the supposed reputation of Czech as a language of culture was low, identifying and publicizing surviving examples of early Czech books and manuscripts supported a different interpretation and was an essential prelude to attempts to depict the history of Czech culture in a more synthetic way. Dobrovsk did also fulfill his promise to devote attention to contemporary literature in his journals. Each number was to list all the books published in Bohemia and Moravia in that year, and they also included books published abroad that were either printed in Czech or dealt with topics concerning Bo- hemia and Moravia. Most of these books were published in German, with Latin second and Czech a distant third. Almost all the Czech books Dobrovsk4 listed were popular religious instruction manuals, in the first issues only Catholic, and then, as the Patent of Toleration (1781) and the new censorship regulations took effect, prevailingly Protestant in orientation. Frequently, these books included reprintings of Protestant works of the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries, so they could also have been of some interest from a literary-historical point of view. Generally, Dobrovs4 kept his own opinions to himself, listing merely author, title, publisher, and sometimes a brief summary of the content. When he did discuss a Czech book at greater length, Dobrovsk usually focused on the language. As we have seen, he made use of his periodicals to attack the purist approach and unscientific neologisms of Pohl and Si- mek, and also to criticize Zlobick's translations. In addition to criticism, however, Dobrovsky sometimes handed out praise. One modern writer whose work Dobrovsk esteemed Reclaiming the Czechs' Literary Birthright was Vaiclav Matej Kramerius, who had "the special merit that he keeps very closely to the Czech literary language as it ap- pears in the best writers of the sixteenth century, the golden age of our mother tongue."24 Although he did approve of Kramerius (notably because he kept to the classical standard of Czech humanism), Do- brovsk's general opinion of the condition of literature in Bo- hemia was not high. "When one compares more recent book production, I mean that of the eighteenth century, with that of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries," he wrote, "it be- comes obvious that the art of printing in Moravia as well as Bohemia has not risen at all, but rather noticeably fallen."5 Thus through his literary-historical periodicals, as well as his more strictly philological works, Dobrovsk strove to maintain the authority of the sixteenth century in Czech literature. In this way, he presented his readers with a potent myth of a high culture now in decline, which acted as a powerful mo- tivating force to patriotic efforts of the intelligentsia such as the defenses of the language or the efforts to create modern Czech works of the same level as the classics. Dobrovsk's other journals were occupied with more oc- casional subjects, as material came his way. These included numismatics, art history (in a contribution by the Prague pro- fessor Franz Lothar Ehemant), additions to Gelehrtenge- schichte, new discoveries, and even a section of books for sale or wanted by buyers. In the later version, the Litterarisches Magazin, Dobrovskl introduced material on historiography, archaeology, Czech grammar, and Slavic ethnography. He also began a "library" of Czech manuscripts to supplement his information about printed books. Eventually he hoped to publish a complete catalogue of all Czech manuscripts written before the introduction of printing, as well as later ones if they were exceptionally important. This scheme produced only limited fruit, however, in the form of a catalogue of Czech manuscript Bibles published in the Litterarisches Magazin in 1786.26 As the publishing history of these journals (outlined 103 104 Origins of the Czech National Renascence earlier) suggests, Dobrovsk1's efforts to establish literary- historical periodicals did not proceed entirely smoothly. He was first plagued by a bitter polemic with Ungar, sparked off by Dobrovsk 's criticisms of the edition of Bohemia docta and then by problems with the censor. In fact, he noted that a similar fate had overtaken all the previous attempts to create a stable literary periodical, so that such forerunners as Neue Litteratur, Prager gelehrte Nachrichten, and Voigt's Acta lit- teraria, as well as his own efforts, had all died after one or at most two years: Sometimes it was the poor worth of one or another work itself, sometimes the complacency or lack of talent of the author; sometimes the injured vanity of a professor, a scholar, or even only a printer, who wanted to revenge him- self and took refuge in chicanery, sometimes the anxiety of an all-too-strict censor, who had so many reservations about leaving this or that passage in that he must have made the writer tired and despondent of necessity; some- times also difficulties on the side of the publisher that could not be cleared away immediately; there were many similar causes that hindered and stifled the success of the above undertakings.27 In Dobrovsk 's own case, the difficulties were partly of his own making. When Bihmische Litteratur auf das Jahr 1779 appeared, Ungar seized the chance to get some of his own back for Dobrovski's Corrigenda in Bohemia docta. He published an anonymous pamphlet entitled Revision der bih- mischen Litteratur ... in Briefen, which he followed in 1780 with a second installment, and finally with Beschluss der Re- vision der bhmischen Litteratur in the same year. These works were written in the form of letters to the editor of Do- brovsk9's periodical (that is, Dobrovsk himself), and they at- tacked him for setting himself up as the dictator of Czech literature. The tone of the pamphlets, frequently parodying the style of Dobrovskf's own works, was savagely ironic and immoderate, sometimes descending to the level of personal insinuations and insults. Dobrovsk replied to Ungar's attacks Reclaiming the Czechs' Literary Birthright in his brief Antwort auf die Revision der b6hmischen Lit- teratur (1780), this time in a calm, restrained, and polite style. The effect of this moderate response, as well as the success with which Dobrovsk countered the material criticisms in Ungar's pamphlet, created such a positive impression that Dobrovsk could practically ignore the second and third parts of the Revision. He dismissed them briefly in his Bhmische und Mdhrische Litteratur as not worthy of a response, con- cluding: "I congratulate my reviewer from the heart on his glorious victory."28 After this the conflict between the two seems to have burned itself out, and Ungar helped Dobrovs4k in his project to catalogue Czech manuscripts. The gradual reconciliation with Ungar did not mean the end of Dobrovs4k's troubles, however. Several other scholars felt themselves affected by the comments in Dobrovsk's periodicals, including Dobner, Voigt, and several higher university officials. When he published the second part of Bihmische Litteratur for 1779, Dobrovsk noted that many people had taken his work "in such aversion that they at- tempted to defame it and probably even suppress it, in a way not becoming to a true scholar."29 Although the appearance of the second part proved that these attempt were in vain, further difficulties from a new quarter were to plague Do- brovsk's publication. A certain Ferdinand Voldhch, the professor whose ig- norance of Greek and Hebrew had drawn Dobrovsk's scorn, complained to the archiepiscopal consistory that he had been wrongfully insulted. Dobrovsk was called before the consis- tory to explain himself in 1780, but no resolution was taken. Some time later, a court decree pointed out that such a case, which involved the honor of the official censor, was not a mat- ter for the consistory, and Dobrovsk wrote, "Now, I believe, Professor Voldhich will finally pipe down. If he had held his peace, no one would have known that he was the one who said it."30 Whether or not Voldhich gave up at this time we do not know, but the affair was not yet over. According to Pelcl's 105 106 Origins of the Czech National Renascence manuscript chronicle of the 1780s, on 7 February 1781 Do- brovski was called before the censorship and study commis- sion and ordered to make a public apology to Voldfich for his comments. Dobrovsk refused, on the technical grounds that the commission was not empowered to dictate punishments and because he could produce witnesses to his version of the offending statements. Nevertheless, on 30 July 1781 a court decree was issued according to which Dobrovsk had to re- tract his comments in the next installment of B*hmische Lit- teratur because "he could not prove it." Thus, Pelcl noted, the chairman of the censorship commission in Prague, Count Veznik, must have sent a false account to Vienna, since Do- brovsk9 had brought forward four reliable witnesses. "I doubt whether Dobrovsk9 will retract," he concluded, "since he would have to declare his witnesses to be false, which he cannot do. Unhappy land, when the highest offices (prae- sidia) are entrusted to such people: vengeful, unjust, vain pedants! "31 Dobrovsk did not, in fact, retract, and thus the publi- cation of the third installment of Bhmische und Mihrische Litteratur for 1780 was forbidden by the censor, and it did not appear until after Joseph II's revision of the censorship regulations. At one time, Dobrovsk was ready to give up the project of the journals altogether, but the representations of his friends encouraged him to take it up again, with the result not only of the completion of the 1780 volume of Bohmische und MAhrische Litteratur, but its continuation as Litterar- isches Magazin for three more years. The third volume of the Magazin was the last, partly because Dobrovsk left Prague to take up the duties of vice-rector of the General Seminary at Olomouc, and partly because the journals were losing money.32 The demise of his literary-historical periodicals did not, however, mean an end to Dobrovsk's interest in Czech lit- erature. Several of the individual studies he published in the Abhandlungen of the Society of Sciences were basically ad- ditions to or corrections of material first included in his pe- Reclaiming the Czechs' Literary Birthright riodicals. Besides this, the Abhandlungen published a first version of his monumental Geschichte der b6hmischen Sprache und Litteratur (discussed more fully later) in 1791, as well as his "Litterarische Nachrichten von einer ... Reise nach Schweden und Russland" in 1795. Dobrovsk's two Slavistic collections, Slavin (1806) and Slovanka (1814-1815), also contain some material on Czech literature (see chapter 6). Another scholar who was interested in Czech literary his- tory was Franti'ek Faustyn Prochizka (1749-1809). He began to collect material for a library of Bohemian and Moravian literature in 1771, but for several reasons, notably his involve- ment with the Czech translation of the Bible together with Vaiclav Fortunat Durych, the project was never realized. He used some of this material, however, when he published Mis- cellaneen der BAhmischen und Mihrischen Litteratur, in- tended as a contribution to filling in the gaps in already published collections on Czech literary history. Prochzka's Miscellaneen strongly reflected his interest in the works of the sixteenth-century humanists, with whom he shared some of the same concerns and goals. Thus most of the space in the three parts of the Miscellaneen, which appeared in 1784 and 1785, was devoted to literary topics from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The nature of these offerings was highly varied, including biographies of literary figures, reports of monuments of literature, published or manuscript, and other material on important intellectual movements and general cultural conditions. Prochizka's biographies were more well rounded than those in the Effigies-Abbildungen, following the entire development of an author, including influences from family and school, and generally presenting a fuller and more lifelike picture. The literary production of the eighteenth century also re- ceived some attention in the Miscellaneen, especially in the long article in part two entitled "Critische Nachrichten von den bisherigen Producten der Pressfreiheit in Bbhmen." This article also reflected Prochzka's adherence to Enlighten- ment ideals, though with more restraint than the most en- 107 108 Origins of the Czech National Renascence thusiastic Josephinists. Especially in a section dealing with Joseph's reforms of the monasteries, Prochizka carefully expressed his reservations and criticisms: "I am no great sup- porter of the monastic institutions, although I myself com- mitted the youthful folly of becoming a monk. But I am no friend either of those who take pleasure in hurting humanity, even if it might be hidden in a Capuchin's cowl."33 Most of the literary production immediately following the relaxation of censorship, Prochizka felt, was decidedly poor, a fact that could be partially explained by the sudden wid- ening of the field of possibilities open to a would-be author. He considered with satisfaction, however, that this early pe- riod of abuse of the freedom of the press was drawing to a close. Too much of what had been published was written in a tendentious or prejudiced manner, but "we want sources, critical judgments, and impartiality."34 Yet whatever reservations Prochizka may have had about the effects of freedom of the press in Bohemia in general, in one area at least he welcomed it without question. This was in his work on a new Czech translation of the Bible. Already in 1778 Prochazka and his colleague and collaborator, Du- rych, had published a newly translated Czech New Testa- ment, followed by the complete Bible in 1780. Now, however, Prochazka wanted to take advantage of the relaxed censorship restrictions to revise the New Testament portion of their work. If this revised version were to be well received, he wrote, it would be thanks to the fact that his intellect had been freed from its restrictions, "although there are still people ... who quite dictatorially want to force our reason back into its former dark cell."35 His involvement with the Czech Bible, however, seriously hampered the publication of the second and third parts of the Miscellaneen, as he confessed in their forewords, and eventually Prochizka was forced to give it up altogether. Thus his work did not establish itself as a peri- odical journal either, and remained a collection of individual studies and materials. Reclaiming the Czechs' Literary Birthright 109 Besides his edition of Bohemia docta, Ungar published several individual studies on literary-historical themes, often in the Abhandlungen. His planned life's work, however, re- mained only a torso. He intended to produce a systematic bibliography of all books published in the Czech language from the beginning of printing to his own day, under the title Allgemeine b6hmische Bibliothek. Unfortunately, Ungar was able to publish only the first installment of this bibliography, which covered Czech translations of all or part of the Bible. He accompanied this with a general foreword in which he justified his undertaking and quite bluntly lamented the pre- vious policies of the Counter-Reformation church and state toward Czech culture. "The cause of the extraordinary scar- city of Czech books," he stated, "is the literary tyranny with which the pious literary shock troops (Biicherstiirmer) burned them or otherwise destroyed them, or at least rendered them practically unusable by stroking through entire passages with Chinese ink." The infamous Index had even included per- fectly innocent books by Catholic authors, proscribed only be- cause they were published in Czech.36 Ungar expressed warm support for the reform policies of Joseph II, and as librarian at the Clementinum benefited from the transfer of books from some of the monastic libraries to the central institution. Dlabav, another librarian, also produced several shorter studies on aspects of Czech cultural and literary history. In 1792 he published his Miszellen ftir B6hmen in three parts, the first two of which also appeared under the title Berichti- gung einiger historischen Daten fir B6hmen. In the three short studies that made up the Miszellen, Dlabav pointed out the value of inscriptions on bells to a history of the written language, investigated whether Albrecht Diirer had ever painted anything for the Czech king Vaiclav IV, and added to the genre of Gelehrtengeschichte with a biography of Mat- thaus Meissner, including a bibliography of his works based on manuscript materials Dlabac had discovered in the Strahov library. An article in the Abhandlungen on the arts in Bohe- 110 Origins of the Czech National Renascence mia and an essay on the history of Czech newspapers rounded out his published offerings and underlined his abiding inter- est in Czech culture in the wider sense.37 Synthetic Studies of Czech Literary History The individual studies discussed above, while they made important contributions to the understanding of Czech lit- erary history, were by their nature isolated and could not give a general picture of the development of Czech literary cul- ture. Even the collections of biographies did not provide a systematic review of the development of Czech literature, though Voigt's introduction to the Effigies-Abbildungen was intended to survey the flowering and fate of the arts and sci- ences in Bohemia. Voigt, like Balbin before him, organized his discussion according to topics, so that within each topic he was able to provide a general summary of developments; but this meant that a complete, coherent picture was lacking. It was Prochazka who first produced a more successful attempt at a synthetic treatment of Czech literary history in his De saecularibus liberalium artium in Bohemia et Moravia fatis commentarius (1784). One of its most important inno- vations was in its strict chronological organization, which Pro- chizka felt would allow his readers to grasp the entire development of Czech literature over time, understanding the causes of the current state of affairs through what had gone before.- After an opening section on the ancient Slavs, which was characterized by a more restrained and less ide- alized picture than that presented by Voigt or Pelcl in their historical works, Prochizka discussed the development of Czech literature century by century. His conception of what should be included was broad, and he prefaced each chapter with an introductory study of general cultural trends in the century under discussion, including the influence of outside events on literature. Thus Prochizka firmly placed literary af- fairs into the context of general historical developments.39 This broad approach, coupled with the fact that Pro- chizka included all works that appeared in Bohemia or Reclaiming the Czechs' Literary Birthright were written by Bohemian authors, whatever their language, forced him to keep to the general and even superficial in his discussions. In his basic attitudes to the various centuries of Czech literary history, Prochizka reflected his own reserva- tions about the Czech Reformation and his preference for the humanists of the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. In writing of this period, Prochizka emphasized that at that time Bohemia did not have to take second place to any country in Europe with regard to its poets and learned men." Although his love for the humanists, especially their elegant Latin po- etry, led him to devote much space to aspects of literature that may not have had a great influence on the Czech lan- guage or the development of a specifically Czech literature, when it came to other centuries, especially his own eigh- teenth, Prochzka's account was more detailed and important that those of his predecessors or even some of his successors. Its various drawbacks, and above all the language in which he wrote it, limited the appeal of Prochizka's Commentarius to the highest levels of educated society; and in many ways it was obsolete even as it was being published. By comparison, the other great synthetic treatment of the history of Czech literature, Josef Dobrovsk 's Geschichte der Bihmischen Sprache und Litteratur, represented in almost every respect a significant advance.41 The first version of this work appeared in the Abhandlungen in 1791 under the title "Geschichte der Bbhmischen Sprache." Even this title alone highlighted one of the most important new developments in Dobrovsk's con- ception of his subject, namely that he saw his work as a history of the Czech language. The article was published in an ex- panded form in 1792 as Geschichte der Bohmischen Sprache und Litteratur. In 1818 it appeared yet again in a completely revised and expanded edition entitled Geschichte der B*h- mischen Sprache und dltern Litteratur, which in spite of its increased length only brought the history of Czech literature down to 1526. Dobrovskl's Geschichte was originally intended to be part of his Czech grammar, which he had been preparing for some 111 112 Origins of the Czech National Renascence time. When it became evident, however, that the grammar would not be published in the near future, Dobrovski con- sidered using his historical material as a foreword to Tomsa's trilingual Czech-German-Latin dictionary of 1791.42 The idea of publishing it in the Abhandlungen seems to have come from Pelcl, who wrote to Dobrovsk on 1 April 1790: "I have read your history of the Czech language with much enjoy- ment. It is set up in such a way that, with the exception of the last paragraph, it could be included in our Acta [the Abhand- lungen] as it stands." Six weeks later, he confirmed to Do- brovsk that the article was already in the press.43 For reasons of space Dobrovsk was forced to condense his material for the Abhandlungen, mainly by leaving out many of the textual examples that reappeared in the book-length edition of 1792. In organizing the material for his Geschichte, Dobrovsk seems to have followed the model of the German philologist Adelung, who had included a concise history of the German language in his grammar. Like Adelung, Dobrovsk began his discussion with the prehistory of the nation, placed the de- velopment of the different Slavic dialects into the earliest pe- riod, as Adelung had done with the German dialects, and followed Adelung's concepts of important influences on the language, such as the acceptance of Christianity, develop- ment of urban centers and trading, the importance of the Hussites and the Reformation, and others.44 After six sections dealing with the ancient Slavs, their lan- guage, dialects, alphabets, and the history of the Slavic liturgy and its fate in Bohemia, Dobrovsk then discussed the history of Czech itself, which he divided into six periods. The first period began with the arrival of the Czechs in Bohemia and lasted until the acceptance of Christianity; the second was from the spread of Christianity to the reign of Jan of Lux- emburg; the third from thence to Jan Hus or the death of King Vaiclav IV; the fourth, "which can be called the ruling Czech period," from Hus to the spread of printing in Bohemia or to the time of Ferdinand I; the fifth, "the beautiful or golden age," from 1520 to the Battle of the White Mountain Reclaiming the Czechs' Literary Birthright (1620); and the sixth and last, "in which the Czech language goes into a decline," from the expulsion of the Protestants to Dobrovski's own day.45 Thus unlike Prochazka's rather me- chanical chronological division of his material century by century, Dobrovski's periodization is based on internal de- velopments in Czech cultural history. He usually began each section with a passage characterizing the general cultural de- velopments of the period, although he devoted less attention to these themes than Prochizka did in the Commentarius. Then he discussed the linguistic developments of the time, with examples from the most important literary monuments of each period. This was another very significant contribution. Much of the material Dobrovsky discussed was presented for the first time in print, with the greatest number of citations falling in the fourth, or "ruling Czech" period, especially in the field of religious writings.46 Some modern Czech scholars have interpreted Dobrov- ski's Geschichte der Bihmische Sprache und Litteratur as a conscious act of national patriotism, intended as support for the developing Czech national consciousness by presenting the past glories of the Czech language. Others argue that this is a misinterpretation of the Geschichte and Dobrovsk's own position in the obrozen.47 Certainly Dobrovsk did not write for the broader, Czech-speaking masses, who would not have been able to read his history since it was in German. More than that, it was a scholarly work throughout, free from ten- dentious expressions of patriotism. For example, Dobrovsk rejected the idea that the Slavic liturgy and alphabet could ever have been widespread in Bohemia, since the country owed its conversion to German priests of the Latin rite.48 When discussing the influence of Germans and other for- eigners under the last of the Premyslids and the Luxemburg- ers, Dobrovsk remained the recorder of facts and did not often express any judgments. In fact, he wrote that the ex- ample of the Germans' higher culture was important in spur- ring the Czechs on to emulation.49 He did not praise the chronicle of the so-called Dalimil, which contained many 113 114 Origins of the Czech National Renascence anti-German passages, writing merely that "it exudes entirely the spirit of the Czechs of that time," and later saying that Dalimil "is not ashamed of many a gross falsehood."" Since his interest was primarily linguistic and historical rather than religious, Dobrovsk did not exclude Hus and his followers from their rightful place in the history of Czech literature; but the religious fanaticism of the period was dis- tasteful to him. Of the Taborite song "Kdoi jste BoZi bojov- nici" (All ye warriors of God), he wrote: "It is fully imbued with their enthusiastic, warlike, i.e., cruel spirit: bite, zabite, iddndho nezivte" (Strike them, slay them, leave none alive).51 By the same token, however, Dobrovsk the literary historian sharply criticized the book burning carried on by the Jesuits and others after the White Mountain, emphasizing the disas- trous consequences for Czech culture of the expulsion of the non-Catholics and the general devastation of the Thirty Years' War. "What would Balbin, whose Dissertatio apolo- getica ... showed him to be a true Czech patriot who valued his mother tongue, have said of the mischief his brother Jesuits carried out with Czech books soon after his death?" asked Dobrovsk.52 In the section dealing with the eighteenth century, which he had defined as a period of decline, Dobrovsk pointed out the consequences for Czech of the school reforms that fa- vored German and placed the student who knew only Czech at a distinct disadvantage. Even though Dobrovs4k did not agree with this policy,53 he nevertheless limited himself to pointing out that with time the numbers of educated bilingual or Czech-speaking candidates for official positions in Czech areas would constantly decline. He was quite pessimistic about the future of Czech, even after chronicling the publi- cations of some of the patriotic enthusiasts: "Whether now through all these new encouragements, efforts, institutions, and expressions of sympathy by a number of patriotically minded Czechs, the Czech language can raise itself to a no- ticeably higher level of perfection than the one it had in its golden age under Maximilian and Rudolph II, I will leave to Reclaiming the Czechs' Literary Birthright the future to decide, since it depends on so many circum- stances over which we have no control."" A somewhat more defiant and optimistic note was struck in the 1792 version of the Geschichte by a final epigraph in the form of a poem by Franti-ek Knobloch, "Vstraha na hince jazyka 6eskeho." In this word of warning to the slanderers of the language, the poet lamented the condition of Czech, shut out of all learning in favor of German, insisting: Teuton! Dear is your tongue to me, but never more so than my own Czech; in its homeland, come what may, it should still have its rightful place.55 A concluding verse stressed again the familiar assertion that Czech was as capable of use for all literary genres as any other language. Perhaps Dobrovsky included this poem as a sort of final motto, to give a more clearly patriotic tone to a work that was essentially scholarly. Certainly the attitudes expressed in Knobloch's poem were in keeping with the general revival of interest in Czech at the time, which also led to the establish- ment of a chair of Czech at the Prague university in 1793. Yet such a tone was generally foreign to Dobrovsk's concept of scientific scholarly work, which should be concerned only with the facts. "My main aim," he wrote on another occasion, "is to speak the truth fearlessly, the simple, naked, unadorned truth."56 To say that Dobrovsk did not intend his Geschichte der Bihmischen Sprache und Litteratur to be a patriotic tract appealing to a wide audience is not, however, to detract from its importance to the obrozeni or to deny Dobrovsk's own patriotism. An excellent characterization of both comes from Benjamin Jedli'ka: This purely scholarly character of Dobrovski's Geschichte ... does not place Dobrovskl in any sort of isolated po- sition in the national revival.... The revival period had a relative sufficiency of Thims, Melezineks, Veks, Kra- meriuses, and even Voigts, but only one Dobrovsk . Do- 115 116 Origins of the Czech National Renascence brovsk ... could not waste himself on minor awakening works, especially when others, lesser perhaps in talent and importance, carried out this task well and actively; in the same way he could not take into his works expressions of patriotic propaganda, if he wanted to maintain and pre- serve their scientific line pure and undisturbed. In this rec- ognition of where his proper place in the revival efforts lay, and in the energy with which he drew the consequences from it, lies the most admirable trait of Dobrovsk 's work. Dobrovsk's importance to the awakening is in his service to pure science, which revived the present and gave a foun- dation and model to the distant future.... Dobrovsky served his fatherland through science.57 The Preservation of Czech's Literary Monuments The scholarly studies of Czech literary history just discussed were still written in Latin or German, and thus remained without any greater influence among the broad, Czech- speaking masses, however much they may have encouraged the educated Czech patriots."5 More important was another aspect of the interest in the Czech literary past, namely col- lecting, editing, and reprinting the monuments of classical Czech literature. In a way, this was part of the generally in- creased interest in the publication of original sources that stemmed from the newer historical methods, and it offered bibliophiles a logical next step from their passion for collect- ing old manuscripts and books. These collectors aided scholars working on Czech literary history by organizing, concentrat- ing, and even rescuing from oblivion many important works. Among the leading collectors of the early revival period were Dobrovsk's friends Zlobick4, Ribay, J. P. Cerroni, and above all Johann Franz Ritter von Neuberg.59 Neuberg was not only a leading collector, but also the center of a circle of scholars and patriots who shared his in- terest in Czech literature, and he thus provided a place where mutual encouragement and the exchange of ideas could oc- cur. Pelcl, Dobrovsk , Prochizka, Tomsa, and Kramerius fre- quently took part in these informal gatherings, and it was Reclaiming the Czechs' Literary Birthright surely no accident that these men were later so active in working for the revival of Czech literature. Neuberg avidly collected old coins, paintings, engravings, and especially manuscripts and books; and, in an effort to ensure that both of his sons could inherit copies of his treasures, he tirelessly copied manuscripts and had old books reprinted on his own private press. His special interest was Czech grammar, and he had several early grammars reprinted at his expense for distribution among his friends. Among these were the anony- mous Prima principia linguae bohemicae, published in Prague before 1679, Jakub Tincin's Principia linguae Venedicae (1679), and Veleslavin's 1614 edition of Pauli Czernoviceni Vocabularium Rythnwmo bohemicum. Neuberg was preparing an edition of Masnicia's Zprdvy pisma slovenskeho (1609), but this was unfinished at the time of his death in 1784." He was deeply mourned by those scholars whose interests he had sup- ported. Dobrovsk noted in an obituary in Litterarisches Magazin that the passing of Neuberg meant a great loss to Czech literature and other such subjects, and to Dobrovsk personally, who had spent "many fruitful and pleasant hours at his bedside" and been "heartened and encouraged" by his support.61 "I miss him greatly," wrote Dobrovski to his friend Ribay in 1785; "I do not now know any other nobleman so favorably inclined to the Czech language."'62 Perhaps it was in Neuberg's salon that Pelcl arrived at the idea of publishing a series of older Czech works in order to preserve the high standards of written Czech and protect it from the neologisms of Pohl and his ilk. In 1777 he published the Pfihody Vdclava Vratislava z Mitrovic, an account, dating from 1599, of a Czech nobleman's experiences in the Otto- man Empire's capital and its dungeons. Pelcl accompanied the Pihody with a defensive foreword in which he praised earlier Czech writers and attacked the Jesuits for their de- structive zeal-such that "it is a wonder that here and there a Czech book still turns up!"63 Writing and publishing in Czech had not altogether died out, he noted ironically, since the surrounding territories where Protestant literature in 117 Origins of the Czech National Renascence 118 Origins of the Czech National Renascence Czech was produced brought out more Czech books in a year than were published within Bohemia over many years. Pelcl's enthusiasm for the classical literature of the Czech human- ists, and perhaps his aversion to the prevailing Counter- Reformation culture, led him here to a rhetorical exaggera- tion sometimes echoed by others. The Protestant "literature" to which he refers was almost exclusively religious pamphlets and tracts produced in Protestant Germany and smuggled into Bohemia until Joseph II's Toleration Patent (1781) made it again legal for Protestant devotional material to enter the kingdom. As literature, however, these works were hardly dif- ferent from the Catholic devotional books that continued to be printed in Bohemia. In any case, much of what was now being produced, whether Protestant or Catholic, was marked by degenerate language, so it seemed to Pelcl that "it would be better to publish the works of our ancestors, rather than to print new ones (for we truly do not know how to write like they did) ... in the hope that thus our language will regain its glory." Another step to regained glory for Czech would be for the highest levels of society to use it among themselves, so Pelcl also directed his foreword to encouraging the Bohemian nobility to take up Czech. He referred to the patronage given the language by such exalted figures as Charles IV, Jiff z Po- debrad's son Hynek, Lev z Rozmitalu, or Bohuslav Hasi- tejnsk z Lobkovic, and claimed that in his own day there was "a great number of Czech lords and nobles who are lovers and protectors of their language." This last assertion may well have reflected wishful thinking; at any rate, the Ph'hody Vd- clava Vratislava z Mitrovic remained Pelcl's only foray into the field of reprinting old Czech masterpieces. Nearly ten years after Pelcl's isolated effort, Prochizka announced an ambitious program of publications from among the monuments of Czech literature that took up where Pelcl had left off. The broadsheet announcing the series gave the reasons behind it: Reclaiming the Czechs' Literary Birthright The great lack of Czech books among the people; the love of reading which is practically general among them, and inherited as it were from our ancestors of bygone days, who were almost all of them men of learning; sympathy with the excellent Czech authors who, robbed by lack of readers from a return on their strenuous labors and the enjoyment of fame, flounder in the dust of libraries and bookshops; these and other reasons led me to collect the best Czech books of our learned ancestors, whether published or in manuscript, and thus repair the damage caused in part by the ravages of time, in part by the ignorant zeal of the for- mer missionaries in Bohemia and Moravia.64 These works were to appear in four simultaneously appearing series, the first devoted to Czech chronicles and histories, from Dalimil to Beckovskl; the second to histories and other works about foreign countries; the third to philosophy and other secular arts; and the fourth to religion, except for those works that harmed Christian love and brotherhood more than they helped it, and except for the Czech Bible, since it had already appeared separately. During 1786 and 1787 some thirteen titles appeared. In- cluded in the first series were the Kronika Boleslavskd (Dali- mil's chronicle) and the Czech chronicle of Pribik Pulkava z Tradenina. The second series included excerpts from a sixteenth-century version of the Nestorian chronicles and an account of a journey to Palestine. The third series was largely made up of works by Erasmus of Rotterdam, in Czech trans- lations by the humanists Prochizka so admired, and the fourth included similar translations of some of the works of Saint Augustine.5 Two main trends emerged from Prochizka's selections for his library of Czech literature. The first, and the clearest trend in the first two series, was the patriotic tendency; while the dominating theme of the third and fourth series was the need for enlightened religious tolerance. The very choice of Dalimil's chronicle, important as it was from a historical and 119 120 Origins of the Czech National Renascence linguistic standpoint, carried with it patriotic overtones. "It cannot be concealed from the judicious reader, who carefully examines the whole work, what the intention of its writer was ... namely that he was not concerned nearly so much with writing about Czech history correctly, in detail, and in an or- derly manner, as he was with using such a narrative to write a sort of praise and defense of the Czech name and language," Prochazka admitted.66 Dalimil not only used every available opportunity to praise Czech and attack the Germans who were entering Bohemia at that time, but also consciously created such opportunities. That was once understandable, Prochazka wrote, but he would not recommend following Dalimil's example in his own day. Nevertheless, "there is no reason why we should not be allowed to publish and read such an upstanding man and worthy Czech." Prochazka had another end in mind as well when he pub- lished the Kronika Boleslavskd. "I know in advance that I am serving investigators of our mother tongue much more than lovers of Czech history in publishing this Czech chronicle," he wrote. As a historical source, the chronicle was plagued by errors and falsehoods, but if these objections were applied to every early chronicle, none would be acceptable. Prochazka valued Dalimil's chronicle as a source for the history of Czech and attempted in his edition to keep to the original text as closely as possible. In fact, he compared the version edited and printed by Pavel Jesin (1620) with four unpublished manuscripts. Too many of his readers, however, found the Old Czech difficult to understand, and in response to their demands, Proch izka modernized the Czech in his version be- ginning with the fifteenth chapter.67 Gaining from this expe- rience the knowledge that "the ancient language of our ancestors already sounds unpleasant in the ears of today's Czechs," Prochizka also modernized the language in his other old Czech chronicle, that of Pfibik Pulkava.6 In the second of Prochazka's series, the V0tah z kroniky Moskevske" is of interest, especially for the extensive quotation from its original foreword written by Daniel Adam z Vele- Reclaiming the Czechs' Literary Birthright slavina in 1590. In his foreword Veleslavin stressed the ethnic relationship linking Russians with other Slavs like Czechs, Poles, Croats, Serbs, Slovaks, and others, adding that it would be "useful for the Czechs to realize just how widespread their nation is."'69 Practically the same themes were emphasized by patriots of Prochizka's own day who wrote of the interrela- tionship of the Slavic peoples (see chapter 6). In the third series, Prochizka gave rein to his preference for the Czech humanists and their contemporaries, concen- trating especially on Erasmus. Since the Czech translations of Erasmus had been burned by the missionaries along with other "heretical" works, Prochizka felt impelled to defend him against attack. In an afterword to his edition of Kniha Erasma Roteroddmskdho jakby se k smrti hotoviti mil, Pro- chizka admitted that there might be passages in his works which could be given incorrect interpretations, but the same could be said for works by the church fathers as well. "This much more will I say," he continued, "that Erasmus, as is well known, lived and died in the true Christian faith just as well as the most enthusiastic missionary, and possibly even better. "70 Prochizka's defense of Erasmus and his harsh words about the activities of the missionaries prompted an attack on him from a former Jesuit who wrote to his publisher to com- plain. He responded to this letter and other criticisms in the foreword to a second book by Erasmus, the Runfi knifka o ryti~ kresfanskem, which appeared in 1787. He pointed out that Erasmus had never been judged a heretic by the church and criticized his opponents for the ease with which they ban- died the word "heretic" about as an accusation. To him this seemed a pity, since the Catholics claimed to be the truest Christians. If the Protestants were in error according to the Catholics, so to the Protestants the Catholics were mistaken. Prochizka pleaded for toleration, that there "may be among us all the peace of Christ."71 To the objection that the mis- sionaries had never harmed him personally, Prochizka was stern: "How did the missionaries harm me?" he repeated. 121 122 Origins of the Czech National Renascence "They harmed me in nothing, but the fatherland; or rather they also harmed me, because they harmed the fatherland."72 In his fourth series, Prochizka continued to make a gentle mockery of the attitude of the Counter-Reformation to Czech books. One work in this series was a collection of sayings of the classical philosophers, and Prochizka had taken the lib- erty of providing a gloss on those passages that contradicted the teachings of the church in order to prevent these pagan philosophers from being placed on the Index, should it ever be revived. "Even without that, if they could rise from their graves, they would be unable to find any other reason for [their being banned] than that in the natural order of things they were unable to enjoy the privilege of learning secular philosophy in Jesuit schools, and they would be unable to con- tain their laughter."73 In spite of its sweeping scope, high scholarly standard, and excellent organization, which included a series of distri- bution centers in bookstores not only in Prague, but also Brno, Opava, Bratislava, Lw6w, and Vienna, Prochizka's se- ries of old Czech masterpieces ceased publication in 1787 for lack of subscribers, remaining only a fragment of the original concept.74 Prochizka's increasingly important official duties may have contributed to this, for in addition to his work on the Czech Bible he was, from 1786, censor and the director of the three Prague gymnasia. Eventually he succeeded Un- gar as university librarian, but although his surviving papers suggest that he kept up his interest in Czech literature, he published nothing more of note.75 Other patriots were ready, however, to attempt to carry on in Prochazka's footsteps. One of them, Franti'ek Jan Tomsa, collaborated with Prochizka in preparing an edition of the autobiography of Charles IV that was published in 1791. In his foreword, Tomsa thanked Prochizka for his lin- guistic assistance and also held up Charles IV as an example to today's Czechs, who should "remain Czechs and not de- grade their nation, but always improve it."76 Tomsa also brought out a didactic work by the humanist Simon Lomnick Reclaiming the Czechs' Literary Birthright 123 z Budce, Tobolka zlata, which warned against the sin of cov- etousness. Publishing older Czech works, he asserted in the foreword, would remind the Czechs of their inheritance, es- pecially the language, for which their ancestors "shed their blood; and which they had perfected two hundred years ago to such an extent that the Germans had nothing to compare with it."77 If the Czechs had such good examples before them, the corruption of the language taking place today, "when many write, without having learned to speak," would be prevented.78 Tomsa also promised to continue with the preservation of monuments of Czech literature. At one stage he contem- plated beginning a periodical, as he explained to Dobrovsk in 1793. "I am intending to publish a Czech quarterly (al- though people will be pleased to call me an idiot in reviews)," he wrote, "for the last rubric I have chosen old Czech manu- scripts that have never yet been published, especially poems; may I also count on some pieces from the manuscript that you obtained from Canon Klier?"79 This proposal for a Czech quarterly never materialized, although Dobrovslk did lend Tomsa the manuscript he requested.80 Tomsa's interest in early monuments of written Czech did continue, however, as the Cechische Chrestomathie seit dem dreizehnten Jahrhun- derts bisjetzt that he included in his 1805 linguistic work Ober die Veranderungen der Cechischen Sprache suggests. The fact that this Chrestomathie appeared in a technical work written in German already placed it more in the line of Do- brovsk's Geschichte rather than Prochizka's series of old Czech works. Tomsa's main interest here was linguistic, and the examples in his work served primarily to illustrate the his- tory of Czech and Czech orthography rather than to provide literature for the Czech reading public. Another patriot who devoted at least some of his energies to restoring old monuments of Czech literature was the pop- ular awakener and journalist, Viclav Matej Kramerius (1753- 1809). Kramerius had gained his knowledge of the book trade and early Czech literature in Neuberg's service, where from 124 Origins of the Czech National Renascence shortly after the time he left university (1778) until Neuberg's death he worked as librarian and director of his employer's printing establishment.8' This experience stood him in good stead, both in his career as a journalist and as a publisher of books in Czech, mostly aimed at the common people.82 Kra- merius's publishing activities gathered momentum with the establishment in 1790 of the Ceski expedice, devoted solely to publishing Czech books in an effort to give Czech readers higher quality reading material than what was generally avail- able at that time. It was quite natural, then, that Kramerius would turn to the earlier periods of Czech literature for some of the titles that he published. The first old Czech book Kramerius brought out was the Letopisove Trojdnti, a work that had been very popular with earlier generations. Kramerius's edition of 1790 was the fourth printed version of this tale of the Trojan War, a fact Kramerius cited to support his boast that while the Germans only cultivated their language in the eighteenth century, "the dear language of our fathers had already reached such per- fection three hundred years ago that it could not only com- pare with Greek and Latin in every respect, but surpassed every other language in its vigor, fullness, and the richness of its vocabulary.'" He urged his readers to support Czech, by supporting those who wrote and (especially) published Czech books. Most of the reading material produced by the (esk expedice was designed to amuse, or to instruct while amus- ing.s4 In keeping with this aim, the second earlier Czech work Kramerius published was a Czech translation of Aesop's fa- bles, Ezopovy bdsne. This was one of the earliest printed books in Czech, dating from 1480, and Kramerius had com- piled his version after comparing all the previous editions, especially the fifth (Olomouc, ca. 1600), which he had bor- rowed from Dobrovsk%. The Czech style in both these pub- lications had been modernized by the editor, for the same reasons that Prochazka had eventually recognized. Similarly, he had "here and there slightly amended" the text of Simon Reclaiming the Czechs' Literary Birthright Lomnick z Budce's Kratke nauceni mlad6mu hospoddni, a didactic work in verse. In the foreword, Kramerius not only pointed out that it might give an example to those attempting to write Czech poetry in his own day, but also gave what amounted to a programmatic statement on the value of mon- uments of Czech literature to the movement for the revival of the language. Other nations, he wrote, scorned everything written much more than fifty years ago unless they were in- terested in the oldest examples of their languages. With us Czechs it is the other way around. All old Czech books are highly prized, yes, the older they are the more we value them, and many lovers of literature would pay their weight in gold, if they could discover where they are. This shows clearly to us Czechs how our dear ancestors, diligently cultivating their language, had already brought it to great perfection when other nations had not even called the development of their tongues to mind. For this reason, then, it seemed to several lovers and defenders of our mother tongue that it would be a very useful thing if they republished above all old works, written in excellent and vigorous Czech; so that contemporary lovers and diligent cultivators of the language of their fathers could have them as a model and example, and learn from them the best form of their language85 He gave especial credit to Prochizka for his efforts to this end, and also mentioned Tomsa and his own attempts in the Ceski expedice. Clearly emerging from this passage is the view that the old monuments of Czech literature provided an indis- pensable tool for modern writers of Czech, allowing them to measure their efforts against the yardstick of the past and giv- ing them a model to follow in their own works. Until his death in 1809, Kramerius continued to do his best to follow his own exhortations.86 The researches into literary history carried on by these patriotic scholars helped create a firm foundation for serious 125 126 Origins of the Czech National Renascence study and appreciation of the heritage of Czech literature, often even rescuing from oblivion monuments of the past. In their approach, these scholars eventually went beyond the rather sterile collection of bibliographical data, finally reach- ing a coherent interpretation of the development of Czech literature that is relevant even today. Their classicist approach led them to include almost all forms of writing in their field of interest, and although it colored their view of medieval and popular folk literature," they were able to dispose of some of the obstacles in the way of a fuller, more objective treatment of Czech literature. While unable to accept the religious fer- vor of the Hussite period, they insisted on the place of non- Catholic writers and recognized the importance of Hussitism to the history of Czech literature. As Dobrovskl observed to Zlobick when talking about the translation of the Bible into Czech, "without the Hussites we would not have had such early Bibles either, no edition of 1475, etcetera. Yet these Hussites were not such evil people as the Jesuits imagined. We no longer care anything about their heresy."8 A second service to Czech literature was the general rejection, shown clearly in the comments of Prochizka, Dobrovsk, Ungar and others, of the destruction of Czech books during the seven- teenth and eighteenth centuries, and their recognition of the harm this had done to Czech culture and the language. Fi- nally, in their preference for the works of the Czech human- ists, they strengthened the authority of the sixteenth century as the golden age of Czech literature, which should establish a norm for modern authors. Publishing works of early Czech literature helped to make important sources for the study of the language more easily available to linguists and literary historians, but it did more than this. It also provided Czech authors who were starting out to create modem Czech literature with a model from which to learn good Czech usage, and helped fill the pressing need for Czech reading material of a high standard. Such ac- tivity was also seen as part of the patriotic effort to prevent the further decline of Czech culture in the countryside by Reclaiming the Czechs' Literary Birthright awakening a demand for Czech books among the people (dis- cussed further in chapter 5). This might halt the creeping Germanization promoted by the school reforms. "One reads from childhood on in German, and believes that the workaday Czech is not as good as the elegant German," wrote Dobrov- sk. "If special arrangements are not made, or some good ge- nius does not arise to help matters along, I have serious doubts, since already in the normal school one is only con- cerned about German..... However, the desire for reading seems to be awakened and maintained by the publication of good books."89 Most of all, the research into Czech literary history and the publication of its monuments provided tangible evidence to the entire world that Czech had once been an important literary language, the tool of men as learned as any the other nations around could boast. The activities of these scholars, then, supported the frequently repeated assertions about Czech found in the defenses of the language. Nor should the contribution these works of literary history and the restoration of Czech literary monuments made to the development of modern Czech literature and literary Czech be ignored, es- pecially in their strengthening of the authority of the golden age of Czech-traces of which literary Czech still bears today. 127 4 Toward a National Cultural Life If the budding patriots who asserted so boldly and so fre- quently that Czech was not the debased peasants' jargon that its detractors claimed it to be were not to be merely whistling in the dark, some tangible proof of their assertions was needed. History could show that in the past a Czech culture and independent state organization had flourished in Bohe- mia; the golden age of the sixteenth century might bear com- parison with the literary and linguistic accomplishments of other nations at that time-but what about now? Unless Czech culture could be seen to be growing and developing, some of the ringing phrases about the high standard of the Czech language might sound rather hollow, and the patriots would be left with not much more than a nostalgic appreci- ation for the good old days similar to some of Dobrovs4k's more pessimistic pronouncements on the future of Czech lan- guage and literature. Such considerations prompted some of the patriots whose activities we have been following to go be- yond historical and linguistic studies to promote contempo- rary cultural activity in Czech. This was essential if they were to prove that, in Voigt's words, their nation did have its own place on Parnassus. Fortunately for them, the reform program of Joseph II, particularly his loosening of censorship regulations and sup- port for a freer press, helped to create better conditions for 128 Toward a National Cultural Life such an enterprise than had existed in Bohemia for some time. In several areas, notably the theater, the publication of newspapers and periodicals, and finer works of literature, es- pecially poetry, the final quarter of the eighteenth century marks a watershed. Although they were plagued by all the starts and stops common to every difficult beginning, these patriots laid the foundations for later Czech cultural devel- opments. Their efforts also had a cumulative effect, encour- aging others to emulate them while providing the tangible evidence needed to support their claims for their nation and its language. Enter the Czech Theater The laying of the foundation stone in 1781 of the new theater established by Count Franz Anton Nostitz-Rieneck, a leading Bohemian nobleman, symbolized the beginning of a new epoch in the history of theatrical life in Bohemia. It was also to sym- bolize a new beginning for the life of the specifically Czech the- ater. Nostitz's enterprise was part of a tendency that had spread to the Habsburg monarchy from Germany in preceding de- cades, as the enlightened concept of regular recited drama in the national language struggled to replace on the one hand the aristocratic theater with its non-national character, where French dramas alternated with Italian opera, and on the other the debased, improvised burlesque comedies that dominated the alternative forms of urban theater at the time.' It was not the first attempt to establish a higher level of dramatic pro- duction in Prague; but the earlier efforts of J. J. Bruniin, di- rector of the theater in the former commercial building known as Kotce from 1769 until 1778, to introduce serious German dramas and comedies met with little success.2 The outlook for the new theater, backed as it was by one of the most powerful members of the Bohemian aristocracy, was more hopeful. Its full name, the Count Nostitz National Theater, clearly announced its adherence to the ideas of Gottsched and Lessing, the prophets of enlightened German drama, and mirrors similar attitudes toward the theater in 129 130 Origins of the Czech National Renascence Vienna and elsewhere. The "national" element in Nostitz's theater was not clearly defined, since there was a distinctly Bohemian patriotic element in his motivation. Yet he clearly envisaged German as the language of the dramas to be per- formed and saw Bohemia as belonging to a German-speaking cultural sphere, as his public proclamation of 1782 makes clear. In it, he enthusiastically praised the Viennese National Theater, which was being emulated in all the German hered- itary lands, and asked: "Shall we Bohemians alone form an exception, and feel less German blood in our veins? To avoid this reproach, I myself will strive above all so that we may have a national theater in our mother tongue [German]."3 While he preferred German dramas, Nostitz did not rule out any other approved type of play, or any specific language- and this was to provide an opening for Czech performances at his theater, even though Nostitz was himself almost cer- tainly thinking of Italian opera rather than Czech plays. Even prior to the appearance of Czech on the stage at the Nostitz Theater there had been isolated performances of Czech plays in Prague. One was produced by Bruniin in 1771 under the title of Knife Honzik.4 It was a translation of a pop- ular German comedy called Herzog Michal, and although it was published anonymously, the translator was known to be one Jan Zeberer, chancellor of the Nove Mesto (New Town) of Prague. It attracted favorable attention, including a review in the enlightened journal Prager gelehrte Nachrichten, prob- ably from the pen of F. M. Pelcl.5 The reviewer defended the Czech language and praised Zeberer for his part in attempts to arrest its decline, including some words of approval for the translator's neologisms. He then went on to suggest that Ze- berer's next effort be a work by such an author as Gellert or Gessner, instead of a burlesque. This would be good publicity for German culture among the Czechs, and "perhaps many would even forget their Hussite books, which they usually read from boredom, and because they are written in their mother tongue."6 It was certainly a novel approach to Ger- manization to encourage the production of works in Czech, Toward a National Cultural Life and one wonders whether the reviewer's tongue was not in his cheek. In any case, no further works by Zeberer were pub- lished or performed. There were a handful of other Czech performances dur- ing the 1760s and 1770s, including one in the Moravian cap- ital of Brno, but these were generally isolated occurrences.7 Not until a new generation of patriotic actors, producers, translators, and authors came upon the scene, enthusiastically espousing Joseph II's ideas for a reform of the theater, did sustained and more successful efforts to introduce Czech on the Prague stage begin. One of the prime movers in this gen- eration was the young Vaiclav Thim, rightly considered the founder of Czech theater in the period of the revival. Born and educated in Prague, Thim developed an inter- est in Czech literature and the ideas of the Enlightenment while rejecting the prevailing Counter-Reformation culture when he was still a student." In 1785 he published the first modern Czech anthology of poetry, the Bdsn v rec'i vdzane, and in the foreword to the first volume, dated 10 August 1784, he also announced his intention of working for the develop- ment of Czech drama. He was interested, he said, in the his- tory of the Czech theater, and if his poems were well received he planned to continue his efforts to translate and publish a series of plays and operas. "And when several volumes of these plays have appeared," he confidently predicted, "there will not be any great difficulty with their public perfor- mance."9 Bringing Czech drama onto the stage in Prague was not, however, to be quite as easy as Thim thought. Anyone interested in seeing Czech plays on the stage could either try to convince one of the existing Prague theater impresarios that it would be to his advantage to produce them, or apply for permission from the authorities to set up a company of one's own. Franti'ek Jifik, a burger of Prague, tried the latter when he requested permission to establish a theater company for Czech and German plays. His petition, coincidentally dated also 10 August 1784, stated clearly his patriotic motive: "His Majesty the Emperor himself shows his 131 132 Origins of the Czech National Renascence support for the Czech language by the professorship that he established in Vienna, and the petitioner believes that the performance of regular Czech plays is the best means of sup- porting this our mother tongue, which already in the time of Charles IV had received citizenship in the Republic of Learn- ing, and of improving it and implanting love for it."'o The strong patriotic tone of this petition, as well as its excellent official form, suggest that Vaiclav Thim could have had a hand in its drafting (Thim was then employed in the Prague police administration). The patriotic tone may also, however, have influenced the authorities to reject it. Yet Jiffk's failure to set up an independent Czech theater did not mean the imme- diate end of hope for Czech drama, since the manager of the Nostitz theater, Pasquale Bondini, established a company of actors at precisely this time-a company that included several actors of Czech origin. Its director was a native of Prague, Frantivek Jindrich Bulla, and he soon proved himself open to the idea of Czech performances." The first Czech performance in the Nostitz Theater took place on 20 January 1785, with the play Odbjhlec z ldsky synovske, a translation of the German comedy Der Deserteur aus Kindesliebe by Gottlieb Stephanie. It was enthusiastically received, Pelcl noting in his chronicle of the 1780s that "the attendance was such that the theater could not hold all the spectators."12 On 25 January it was repeated, and at that per- formance a poem in honor of the occasion, "Svitek cesk6ho jazyka," was distributed among the audience. The poets, Vi- clav Thim, his brother Karel Hynek Thim, and Vaiclav Stach, well expressed the feelings of the Czech patriots on this aus- picious occasion: Rejoice, oh Prague! at the celebration Which love has consecrated. Rejoice! For on this day It has wakened Your own true son, to enter for the first time Into the Temple of the Arts.3 Toward a National Cultural Life Odbjhlec z ldsky synovske appeared in print shortly there- after, anonymously. The foreword was signed simply B * *, but in a review published in Das Pragerblttchen, the trans- lator was identified as the director's brother, Karel Bulla.14 This identification is also supported by the "Svitek cesk6ho jazyka" in a passage describing how "Bulla, enflamed by Czech ardor / Burst with his brother's help / Through the fastened door / Scattering a thousand lowered barriers."'5 The foreword to Odbjhlec stressed the advantages to the Czech language of an established Czech theater, since the "special comeliness and beauty which the language gains through the writing of dramas ... can be comprehended not just by an enlightened, but even by a half-opened mind."16 Thus the Czech theater was seen as contributing in an im- portant way to the development of the language, a belief that long characterized the patriots' attitudes. Three other plays made their appearance during this short first "season" for Czech drama at the Nostitz Theater. Next to be performed was a translation of the two-act comedy by Weidmann, Der Bettelstudent. This was given the rather baroque Czech title of Neslychand ndhoda straVlivho hro- mobiti aneb 2ebravy student by its translator, a doctor named Mertlik. Though not the translator, Vaiclav Thim may have revised and corrected the text." He was definitely responsible for the third Czech play of 1785, Stjpdn Fedynger, aneb Sedlskd vojna, again based on a play by Weidmann. Yet a fourth Czech work, the one-act comic interlude Vdxny syn, was also a translation by Vaiclav Th im. Its only performance, on 24 July 1785, marked the end of Czech productions for that year.18 The three longer plays, Odbjhlec, Zebravy student, and Stipdn Fedynger, all appeared in print in 1785. Interestingly, they are all filled with the spirit of Josephinism and the En- lightenment, and all revolve around the life of the peasantry. Odbghlec concerns a young soldier who deserts his regiment when he learns that his father is being evicted from his home because of unpaid debts and the unfairness of the adminis- 133 134 Origins of the Czech National Renascence trator of the estate to which he is subject. The young man presents his father's case to the emperor in person, who of course resolves the matter in favor of the old peasant. Pas- sages in Zebravy student attack the abuses of the landowners and depict the harmful effects of religious superstition and ignorance in the countryside. The material of Stipdn Fedyn- ger is more volatile, since it is based on an actual revolt by Austrian peasants in 1626. Such a subject must have re- minded people in Prague of the peasants' revolt that took place in Bohemia in 1775, a mere decade before the publi- cation of the play. Yet even in Stipdn Fedynger the attacks on the landlords are couched in terms of loyalty to the em- peror, and at the end of the play, when the peasants have been defeated, he voluntarily meets their basic demands. The topicality of these plays, their enlightened outlook, and the fact that the translators strove to cast them into a contemporary, popular form of Czech, contributed to their success. The future of Czech drama in the Nostitz Theater seemed to be bright. Certain elements in Prague society, however, seem to have objected to hearing Czech on the stage of their "national" theater (one wonders whether the objec- tion might have been based on social snobbery as much as on national antagonism) and so effectively pressured the impre- sario, Bondini, that he gave his Czech actors their three months' notice on 1 December 1785.19 But before the end of Czech performances in the Nostitz Theater for the time being, there was one last production, Vaiclav Thim's Bretislav a Jitka, aneb Unos z kldgtera. With BPetislav a Jitka, Czech dramaturgy in the obrozeni reached a new stage in its development, for Thim's play was the first original Czech play performed. The subject is taken from early Czech history, and although the text has not been preserved, we know from contemporary newspaper accounts that it was performed on 10 and 26 January 1786, and that it was very popular. Kramerius, writing in the Sch6nfeldske c. k. prazske poftovske noviny, noted, Toward a National Cultural Life This play finds all the more appreciation among the people, since it deals with an especially heroic act of our early prince, Bietislav. .... The joy of our Czech nation at hear- ing on the public stage in their mother tongue so much that serves for the enlightening of their minds cannot be described; and it is true that whatever play has been pro- duced in Czech, it has always found a remarkable number of enthusiasts. This is surely a great support for the asser- tion that there are still very many people who are not al- lowing that former respect for our language to die out.20 Antonin J. Zima, a Prague printer and rhymster, com- posed a special ode in honor of the event, in which he was particularly enthusiastic about the actress who portrayed Jitka and the author, Vaiclav Thim: For you are the one who, through his works Conducts the Czech language out of the darkness Who brings forth from it fruit As from a well-tended orchard. May you never scorn this language, Be always its faithful defender, So that one day the Czechs may call you The father of their fatherland.21 In the meantime, the Czech actors who had been dis- missed by the Nostitz Theater had decided to petition the authorities on their own for permission to form a new com- pany to perform plays in Czech. After their first two attempts failed, they finally decided to stake everything on one more throw of the dice and present their petition in person in Vi- enna. Once there, they were able to secure the support of Zlobick , and eventually they were granted permission to perform Czech dramas and German operettas and ballets, though the government drew the line at granting them a spe- cial privilegium.22 On 12 June 1786 they announced to the citizens of Prague the inauguration of Czech performances in a temporary wooden structure on the Horse Market (today's Vaiclavske nimsti). This structure, dubbed by the Czech 135 136 Origins of the Czech National Renascence public the "Bouda," was to be the main Czech theater in Prague until 1789. The news that the actors' group had finally been success- ful was greeted with pleasure in patriotic circles in Prague. Kramerius wrote with admiration about the actors' efforts in the cause of drama, which would support the language, help- ing it to develop and regain its former glory and "provide many talented Czechs the opportunity either to write original plays, or to translate them from other languages."23 He called on every "sincere patriot," as well as the "higher circles," to support this venture. The Bouda opened its doors for the first time on 8 July 1786, with a performance of Ldska a vduinost k vlasti, a trans- lation by Maximilian Stvin of a play by August Wilhelm Iff- land. As with the premiere of Czech plays at the Nostitz Theater, opening night at the Bouda was treated as an event by the Prague populace. A typical account of the scene comes from Kramerius's Sch6nfeldsk noviny: We would never have said that patriotic love for our Czech nation could have revived all at once like this. For the pre- miere of the Czech theater . .. such a large crowd gath- ered, that this room, usually spacious enough, could in no way contain it all. Guests from all walks of life, even the highest, were found here; and, gripped by a kind of patri- otic eagerness, they waited to hear in their mother tongue ... Ldska a vd6nost k vlasti.24 The industrious Zima composed another ode to honor this occasion, "Znameni vlastensk6 vdecnosti," in which he extravagantly praised Joseph II for his support of Czech and hardly mentioned the performance at all.25 The fortunes of the Czech theater seemed for the moment to be on the rise, at least while this beginning enthusiasm lasted, and already by 29 July 1786 the company was considering "a larger and more comfortable site" for its performances.26 The popularity of the Bouda reached new heights when Toward a National Cultural Life Emperor Joseph II attended a performance on 19 September 1786. The play chosen for His Majesty was Vaiclav Thim's translation of Schikaneder's comic operetta Die Lyranten, in the Czech version called Loutnici, aneb Veseld bida. This was one of Thm's earliest works, dating from 1784, and had al- ready been given one amateur performance in 1785.27 Ap- parently the emperor enjoyed himself, for he stayed in his place through the entire performance and gave the theater a gift of twenty-five ducats as a token of his regard. Loutnici was quickly to become one of the most popular plays in the Czech repertory, and by the end of 1787 it had been per- formed no fewer than forty-five times.28 Joseph II's presence at this performance was not unnaturally hailed as evidence of his support for the Czech language and his approval of these patriotic actors' efforts to create a Czech theater. Shortly after the emperor's visit, another significant play had its first performance at the Bouda. This was Matej Stuna's original two-act drama, Sedlske bufistvi v Cechdch, which dealt with the 1775 uprising among the peasants of northern Bohemia. At its first performance on 23 September 1786, the crowd was so large it could not get into the theater, so the play was repeated the following day and was still being per- formed in 1787.29 As far as can be gathered, this play, like the other two Czech plays with similar content, treated the peas- ants' grievances with some sympathy, but without condoning rebellion or voicing criticism of the emperor himself. Two translations for the stage by Vaiclav Tham's brother, Karel Hynek, were also published in this memorable year of 1786, and it seems reasonable to suppose that they were per- formed. Thim chose to translate two rather more demanding dramatic works, Shakespeare's Macbeth and Schiller's Die Riduber, rather than the popular but lightweight comedies more frequently performed at the Bouda. This was a con- scious statement on Thim's part, reflecting his twin aims of showing that Czech was capable of rendering the greatest works of past and contemporary dramatists and of improving 137 Introduction The Czech national renascence of the nineteenth century is one of those historical themes to which Czechs return again and again in their search for meaning in their past. In the aftermath of the revolution of 1989, as so many times before, the problems of national identity and the historical heritage were again being actively debated. Some observers have pointed out, however, the danger of refighting old battles over the meaning of Czech history with the findings and attitudes of an earlier generation.' This danger threatens if one simply expunges the historical work of the communist period from the argument and returns to the precommunist period. In the joyous moment of liberation from an enforced "Marxist" or- thodoxy, one loses sight of the extent to which the official ideology of the former regime simply took over attitudes and ideas developed during the last half of the nineteenth century (though instead of black and white, it saw the Czech past in the colors black and red). Its basic view of Czech history is vividly summarized by Petr Cornej: All of us surely know from our schoolrooms, history text- books, and artistic images that picture of the Czech past whose apogee is formed by Hussitism and the period of the national renascence. Between them lies an epoch of de- cline, indeed of outright "darkness," gradually dispersed by 3 138 Origins of the Czech National Renascence the cultural and moral standards of the audience. The fore- word to Macbeth provides his arguments for the beneficial effects of the theater: That the advantages of reading dramas are many-sided is something that no one can deny. For not only is it intel- lectual recreation pure and simple, but it also enlightens the reason, cultivates and improves the heart and mor- als.... [Dramas] endeavor always to promote virtue, and to bring vice into ridicule and degradation, painting both of them with their consequences and in all their forms in living colors, presenting them before our very eyes. When such plays are performed in theaters by actors, then all the more ... do they reach and penetrate our hearts, awak- ening all the emotions in them with positive effects.30 Unfortunately, such plays also made great demands on their audiences, greater perhaps than they were yet prepared for. They also made great demands on their translators, and Thim's translations show the common failings of written Czech in his day, Germanisms or unsuccessfully coined neologisms. Nevertheless, Thim's efforts were at least an at- tempt to bring drama of a truly world standard to the Czech stage. In general the audience at the Bouda had to content themselves-and they were perfectly contented-with dra- mas of a much lower standard. When the first Czech plays began to be produced, there existed hardly any store of Czech works to draw upon, and the producers at the Bouda had to rely on the efforts of such young enthusiasts as Vaiclav Thim and his friends, who literally created a Czech repertory for the first time. This group of young contemporaries (mostly born around 1765),31 followed German models almost exclu- sively and concentrated for the most part on translations or adaptations from these models. The Viennese stage set the standard for them, to such an extent that one critic (possibly Bohumir Jan Dlabac) sourly remarked that "the Viennese comic authors will get swollen heads if all their works are Toward a National Cultural Life translated, one after the other."32 Among the plays performed in Prague in 1785, Zebravy student, Odbjhlec, and Vdjenyj syn had all appeared on the stages of Vienna in 1781. Thanks to the efforts of these young enthusiasts, the num- ber of Czech plays gradually grew. By the end of 1787, when Vaiclav Thim sent a list of the Czech plays, printed and in manuscript, that had been performed at the Bouda to Zlo- bick, it included sixty-five titles. There were twenty-two by Thim himself, four original, five adaptations of foreign models, and thirteen translations.33 Josef Dobrovsky, writing in the 1792 version of his Geschichte der Bohmischen Sprache und Litteratur, remarked that since 1786 more than 300 plays had been "well and poorly translated, also some newly writ- ten," but lamented that only a very few had been published.34 The number of Czech plays continued to grow apace, until in 1805 K. H. Thim estimated that at least 1,000 plays had been written since 1786.35 Yet even at this stage, Dobrovsk's complaint that few of the plays were published remained all too true. Of the Czech repertory of the period, only twenty-one plays appeared in print, including seven by Prokop 'edivy,, three each by the brothers Thaim, and two by A. J. Zima. Their other works, and those of the rest of the approximately thirty-five authors or translators of Czech dramas, are known only from contem- porary references or the handful of surviving copies in manu- script.36 Viclav Thim's ambition to publish a library of all the Czech plays produced in his day was never realized. He ex- pressed one reason in his letter to Zlobick in 1787, when he admitted, "Although the publication of all these Czech manu- scripts would be desirable, and would find many supporters, it would still be irresponsible to rob the producers of their capital, for this capital consists of manuscripts. In time, when the works have been performed often enough, it could happen."37 Even if his publishing ambitions could not be achieved, Vaiclav Thim and his brother Karel Hynek were recognized by contemporaries as occupying a special place among the 139 140 Origins of the Czech National Renascence patriotic supporters of the Czech theater. Typical of these feelings is this excerpt from a lengthy New Year's ode by the Prague poetaster, Vaclav Melezinek: Rejoice, my fellow patriots, Sing again new songs of praise, For who does not know that the Czech language Had once been totally rejected. But now, thanks to the work of many, Especially to the brothers Thim It achieves renewed promotion And resurrection as from the dead.38 The Thms' contribution, the poet continued, was espe- cially their work in writing and translating for the Czech the- ater. Pelcl referred again to their services, and thus the Czech language, in a speech delivered in 1793 at his installation as the first professor of Czech at the Prague university. "The two brothers Thim," he said, "proved that it is also possible to move the hearts of the listeners and to bring tears to the watchers' eyes with [Czech]."39 The Thim brothers were al- most always mentioned in the same breath, but Vaiclav was by far the more prolific writer for the theater. Karel's position was rather that of ideologue for the group, as his translations of Shakespeare and Schiller, especially their introductions, suggest. Vaiclav's fate was more closely bound up with that of the Czech theater. For the moment, that fate seemed fairly secure. The em- peror had publicly shown his support during his visit to the Bouda, and the company of actors was quick to take advantage of the moment to request confirmation of their permission to stage plays. The Schinfeldske noviny gladly reported that they were successful, obtaining the long desired privilegium on 1 March 1787, which confirmed that "they might, as before, produce plays in our capital, Prague, for as long as they like without let or hindrance."40 There is very little detailed information about the 1787 season at the Bouda, but we do know that two more works in Toward a National Cultural Life the genre of patriotic-historical plays, both by Josef Jakub Tandler, were produced. Tandler translated K. G. Steins- berg's drama based on the legend of Libuse, taken from the earliest myths about the foundation of the Czech kingdom, and this Libuge, prvni kn~ina a rekyn v Cechdch was per- formed in the spring with great popular success. An anony- mous correspondent to the Schenfeldske noviny wrote that "everyone, great or small, wants to show that he has a thor- ough knowledge of Czech, as though for a competition," add- ing, "even if this play were performed several times, it would find just as large a number of admirers each time."'41 The suc- cess of Tandler's other play, an original work entitled Jan Ziika z Trocnova, was even more sensational. This may have been due to its theme, dealing with the career of the great Hussite leader and military hero; in any case, it was repeated several times after a successful premiere on 24 August 1787, each time to a full house.42 The other two plays of 1787 about which we know any- thing were not of such dramatic, historical interest. One was another translation from Wiedmann by Vincenc Haffner, returning to the theme of country life and the value of the peasant to society, called Vddnd dcera. In this translation, Haffner attempted to use a form of Czech close to the popular idiom but free from its worst features, while also eschewing the neologisms so frequent in other forms of written Czech. This he did with some success, according to Kramerius, who wrote: "This translation is not crammed full of newly hatched words, but is pure, understandable, and simply corresponds to our contemporary Czech way of speech."43 Toward the end of the year, the Bouda was visited by another royal personage, the Archduke Franz, later Emperor Franz I of Austria. For his enjoyment, the actors performed a one-act farce with songs adapted by VQaclav Thim, Zdmek podvadf mistra, aneb Ptddek neni v kleci. This second royal visit was interpreted, as was that of Joseph II earlier, as a sign of special favor and success for the Bouda.44 This seeming success, however, did not prevent a growing 141 142 Origins of the Czech National Renascence financial crisis in the spring of 1788. The precise reasons are unclear, but several factors contributed to the situation. The principals in the company had established the Bouda on bor- rowed money, and the demands of running the theater swal- lowed up most of the box-office proceeds, so that the Bouda never emerged from the cloud of debt that overshadowed its beginnings. Even though it was popular, so much so that the company could consider extending it, its audience was com- posed largely of the lower strata of Prague society, and there- fore admission could not be very costly. In addition, Austria went to war with the Ottoman Empire in February 1788, and the strains of the wartime economy, as well as the demands of war upon the population, combined to make the climate very poor indeed for the theater. Finally, in the spring of 1789, the original founders of the Bouda were forced to give up the enterprise. This left the acting company to its own devices, and at first one of its mem- bers, Josef Seidl, took over the direction of the Bouda.45 Kra- merius reported his promise to go on producing "the most popular comedies, the greater part of them in Czech, ... so that among our Czechs the love for their native language can grow all the more"-a promise suggesting that economic need was already pushing "serious" drama, such as that ad- vocated by K. H. Thim, off the stage.46 Seidl's effort proved to be only a temporary respite at best, and the company of patriotic actors at the Bouda fell apart definitively after the last performance on 21 June 1789. The wooden structure on the Horse Market was dismantled in October of that year.47 With the demise of the Bouda, an important chapter in the history of Czech drama in the earliest stages of the obrozeni came to an end, but this did not immediately mean an end to the efforts to establish Czech drama in Prague. Even while the Bouda was still at the height of its success, a rival theater had been established at which Czech plays were also produced. This theater was located in the pleasure gar- dens, the Rosenthal or Rozentil, owned by the Prague pub- lisher, J. F. von Schbnfeld. They were laid out in the shape Toward a National Cultural Life of the Kingdom of Bohemia, with trees for the cities, paths for roads and highways, and ornamental canals for rivers. In a former inn on the grounds, Schinfeld set up a pavilion that included a ballroom, restaurant, coffee house, and theater.48 Kramerius first mentioned the Theater in the Rosenthal on 16 September 1786, and two years later he wrote: For the encouragement of our Czechs who place some im- portance on their mother tongue, we would like to point out that, besides the theater on the Horse Market, where already for nearly two years Czech plays have often been performed, a company of true patriots under the direction of Mr. Jifik, citizen of Prague, has formed, and will also perform plays in our mother tongue in the theater in the so-called Rozentil. .... This company of patriotic actors de- serves the support and assistance of each sincere compa- triot, the more so as in this way our precious language may develop and spread considerably.49 A few weeks later he noted again with pride, "Here in Prague Czech plays are now being performed in two locations for the improvement and spread of our heroic Czech lan- guage."50 When the Bouda definitively closed in June 1789, one of its actors, Matej Majober, transferred the remnants of his company to the Theater in the Rosenthal, where Czech plays continued to be produced until 4 October 1789. There- after the Theater in the Rosenthal disappears from the sources.51 A more permanent location for the survivors from the Czech theater company was found in the former Franciscan monastery (today still standing opposite Prasni Brana and Obecni Dim) known as the Hibernian monastery after its Irish founders. After the dissolution of the monasteries under Joseph II, the buildings were used for secular purposes, and the former library was rented by the Czech actors for their theater. The first production in the new theater, now known as the Patriotic Theater (Vlastenske Divadlo) in the Hibernian Buildings, took place on 12 December 1789, with a curtain- 143 144 Origins of the Czech National Renascence raiser by Vaiclav Th im entitled St'astnj den "in which the au- thor himself appeared for the first time in the role of the guardian spirit of Prague."52 This is the first record of Vaiclav Thim, who had already distinguished himself as an author and translator for the stage, actually stepping on the boards as a professional actor, and it marks his full commitment to the theater as a profession. The Patriotic Theater continued in its new location, with varying fortunes, for roughly the next ten years. During the first few years it enjoyed a certain measure of success, assisted by yet another royal visit, this time by the newly crowned Leo- pold II. On 16 September 1791, the Patriotic Theater pre- sented Zebravy student as part of the coronation festivities, and the entire royal family was present. "Their Imperial and Royal Highnesses listened throughout the entire play," wrote Kramerius in his Vlastenske noviny, "and showed ... that they also have a special regard for our mother tongue."53 In an attempt to exploit this success, the director of the Patriotic Theater, one Viclav Mihule, negotiated an arrangement with the impresario at the Nostitz Theater to take over responsi- bility for the German dramas there, leaving the Italian operas to the latter. Now the direction of both the Nostitz and the Patriotic theaters was united in one person, and Mihule took advantage of this opportunity to bring Czech productions back onto the larger stage. This return of Czech to the most prestigious Prague theater did not last, however, because Mi- hule proved unable to repeat his successful coronation per- formance for Leopold's son and successor, Franz. The new Czech king left his place in the middle of a German produc- tion produced in his honor, and Mihule's contract with the Nostitz Theater was not renewed. Once more Czech left the stage of the Nostitz Theater, and Mihule left Prague in May 1793.- After 1793, the Czech theater never really recovered either the popular and financial success, or the patriotic and artistic importance, that it had enjoyed at the Bouda. The in- Toward a National Cultural Life creasingly nervous government of Franz II (Franz I of Austria after 1806), involved in the long, drawn-out wars with France, and suspicious of any liberal activity at home, was very dif- ferent from the regime of the enlightened despot Joseph II. Censorship was tightened once more, and generally cultural conditions worsened. At the same time, the war produced hardship for the people at large, and especially for the likeliest audiences for Czech productions, the lower urban strata and visitors from the countryside. The result was a continual struggle with the Patriotic Theater's old nemesis, financial difficulties. In an effort to better the financial situation, one of Mi- hule's successors, Antonin Grams, decided to compete with the Nostitz Theater directly by producing German drama in- stead of restricting himself to ballets and operettas in Ger- man. This provoked his opposite number at the Nostitz Theater, an Italian named Guardasoni, to stage some Czech translations of Italian opera buffa. Two popular comic operas by Paisiello, La serva padrona and Giacomo e Ninetta were among these translations.55 Josef Dobrovsk wrote to his friend Zlobick that he had heard Devka pani (La serva padrona) on 6 April 1795, and that he and several friends "were especially attentive to the prosody.... Everything sounded well and went well with the music, when [three- syllable] words were pronounced according to my rules."'56 Dobrovsk was obviously more interested in gaining confir- mation of the correctness of his views on Czech prosody, first published in that year, than he was in returning Czech to the Nostitz Theater. This reappearance of Czech was an isolated phenomenon, but even if Guardasoni did not continue to compete with the Patriotic Theater, the fact remains that neither Grams nor any of his successors was able to keep it afloat. Finally, at the be- ginning of 1799, an order of sequestration was issued against the theater, meaning that there was official supervision of the box office, with all proceeds going to creditors. By 20 January 145 146 Origins of the Czech National Renascence 1799, the acting company had once more dissolved, and sev- eral of the actors, including Vaiclav Thim, left Prague to at- tempt to earn a living as itinerant players.57 The exact date of the end of the Patriotic Theater in the Hibernian Buildings is unknown; there was still a perfor- mance there as late as 19 December 1802, but by the end of the year the building had been sold out from under the the- ater by the heirs of the former owner.58 The Patriotic Theater found a final home in the Mali Strana quarter of Prague, in the former Dominican monastery, where it remained until its demise in 1811-at which time it was performing only in Ger- man.59 But there was still one more brief flare-up of Czech activity in the former Nostitz Theater, purchased in 1798 by the Bohemian Estates and renamed the Royal Estates The- ater. When the Estates also purchased the privilegium of the Patriotic Theater in 1803, they once more united the direc- tion of both theaters, and Guardasoni again brought Czech plays onto the larger stage from 1804 until his death in 1806.60 Attempts made by Guardasoni's successor to gain permission for continued afternoon performances in Czech failed, how- ever, and by 1809 this first period of Czech theatrical activity had definitely come to an end. Czech theater in the post-Bouda era underwent several significant changes. For one thing, the Patriotic Theater no longer produced Czech plays during the week, and Czech performances were from then on limited to Sundays and hol- iday matinees, when most of the Czech-speaking populace would be free to attend.61 The repertory, too, showed some interesting developments during the two decades following the closing of the Bouda. Comedies, especially comic oper- ettas or plays with songs, had always been popular with the Czech audience, and they continued to be the most successful type of production. The other sorts of plays frequently per- formed at the Bouda, with patriotic-historical subjects or top- ical themes taken from the countryside, were replaced by musical comedies modeled after the Viennese Singspiel, with fairytale plots full of supernatural events and unlikely coin- Toward a National Cultural Life cidences.62 Czech audiences were able to hear one of the greatest works rooted in this tradition, Mozart's The Magic Flute, in a translation by Vaclav Thim that was first staged sometime in 1794. Thereafter it remained extremely popu- lar.63 Prokop Sediv created a popular, localized subgenre of the comedy with songs in his Prague farces taken from lower- class daily life, such as Masnd krdmy, aneb Sazeni do loterie or Prai tf slddci." Patriotic-historical plays were still being written or adapted in this later period, but they show some differences in emphasis. The subjects were carefully chosen from moments in the Czech past that demonstrated loyalty to the imperial house, and it was this Austrian loyalty, rather than a purely Czech patriotism, that predominates. Subjects like Zi ka and Libuse were replaced with plays about the ele- vation of Bohemia to a kingdom, or the resistance of Prague citizens and students to the besieging Swedes during the last stages of the Thirty Years' War.65 Naturally the influence of the political ups and downs of the wars with France, as well as the more restrictive cultural atmosphere, could be seen in this change. The first period of Czech drama in the revival from 1786 to 1809 displays certain general characteristics that were to remain a part of its traditions in later periods as well.66 One of these was its orientation, by force of circumstance, toward the people. Since the audience for Czech plays was drawn from lower-level urban dwellers and country folk, Czech drama had to remain in close touch with the tastes and ways of life of the common people. Another trait of Czech theater was its connection with the developing national consciousness and patriotic activity. However much some supporters of Czech theater were merely interested in tapping the market for Czech performances among the lower classes, there was always a group of patriots who viewed the theater as a tool for awakening patriotism and love of the Czech language among the people-in short, as a medium for patriotic pro- paganda. These patriots also thought that Czech drama had a part to play in raising the cultural level of the masses and 147 4 Origins of the Czech National Renascence the glimmers of the Enlightenment and the first awaken- ers. We all learned about the treacherous, morally corrupt, and, in the final analysis, alien nobility, treading down the morally pure country people, who toiled in the sweat of their brows and suffered cruelly for each rebellion, and nevertheless preserved in their breasts the flames of de- fiance. We have all heard and read about the brave and persecuted members of the Unity of Brethren and the in- famous Catholic church, throttling every sign of progress.2 Such views were propagated by all the means available to the state, including a series of screen epics directed by Otakar Vivra.3 But instead of being the result of "Marxist" science, these attitudes have roots deeper in the past. The prevailing nationalist interpretation of Czech history, including the national renascence, emerged out of the ro- mantic historiography of the first half of the nineteenth cen- tury and was widely popularized by the use made of it, especially by the Young Czechs, in arguing for greater polit- ical independence for Bohemia. Franti-ek Palack gave this historiographical tradition an important element when he ele- vated the Hussite period to the status of key epoch in Czech history. A Protestant himself, Palackr did not deny the Cath- olic church an important role in shaping Czech culture; but his ideas were further developed and used in the political struggle by historians and popularizers close to the Young Czechs. Their liberal anticlericalism made them see the Cath- olic church as a pillar of the Austrian establishment, and they used Palackj's history to support an interpretation of the Czech past aimed at undermining the Catholic influence and emphasizing the link between the Hussite past, the traditions of the Unity of Czech Brethren, and the national renascence of the nineteenth century. Though at odds with the Young Czechs over many issues, Tomi G. Masaryk shared their hos- tility to the Catholic church, and in his many works on the meaning of Czech history helped further establish this ori- entation to the past in the popular mind.4 The newly inde- 148 Origins of the Czech National Renascence thereby helping the nation, as exemplified by K. H. Thim's comments in his foreword to Makbeth and echoed by Kra- merius when he wrote that a twofold benefit could be ex- pected from Czech plays, "both the refinement of our beloved language, and the enlightenment of the people, which every community these days must regard as very important."'' Vi- clav Thim echoed these thoughts in his fable, "Knize a di- vadlo," which he published during his tenure as editor of Sch6nfeldske noviny. He closed with these words: "Woe to those enemies of the theater, who can never discover its uses! ... Who is so blind that he cannot recognize the beneficial results that a good theater can have, by reaching princes, no- bles, priests, burghers and commoners?"68 One of the most programmatic statements of this point of view came from Prokop SedivY in a free adaptation of Schiller's Mannheim lecture, "Was kann eine gute stehende Schaubiihne eigentlich wirken?" In his Krdtk- pojedndni o u4itky, kterj~ ustavicn stojfci, a dobfe spoddane divadlo zpUsobiti miz~e, Sedivy emphasized the enlightening aspects of the theater. He called it a school in which the people learned good morals and renounced superstition and dark- ness, but he did not ignore the national aspect either. "If we ever see the day when we have a permanent Czech theater, then we will be truly one nation. What else bound the Greeks so firmly together? What else drew the crowds so strongly into the theaters, but that the plays had their patriotic content?"69 This appreciation of the uses of the theater, and the call for the establishment of a permanent, Czech theater, were to be the driving forces behind the Czech theater movement in the nineteenth century.70 Czech Newspapers and the Periodical Press The reign of Joseph II saw the opening of a new stage in the development of Czech journalism, just as it did in the devel- opment of Czech theater.7' This was not so much a beginning as it was a revitalizing, for the roots of Czech journalism stretch back at least to the beginning of the sixteenth century, Toward a National Cultural Life when "the Czechs began to instruct their countrymen about various world events through news sheets written in their mother tongue."'" The first Czech newspaper in the modern sense, however, was established in 1719 by the Prague pub- lisher Rosenmiiller, who also published the official German Prager Postzeitung. Rosenmiiller's Praiski po§tovski noviny appeared regularly (except during the French occupation of Prague from 1742 to 1744) until 1772, when Sophie Klauser, the widow and heir of the younger Rosenmiiller, petitioned the Gubernium for permission to cease publication. She could not find enough subscribers to make the undertaking profitable, with only two in Prague and another two in Vienna. Accordingly, and acting on the recommendation of the Gu- bernium, Maria Theresa granted Sophie Klauser permission to cease publication of the Czech newspaper with the issue of 4 February 1772. One year later, an attempt was made to revive the Pogtov- ske' noviny when a priest named J. A. Schneider wrote to the Highest Burggrave, then Prince Karl Egon Fiirstenberg, urging him to get the paper started again. The censorship commission approached Sophie Klauser to ascertain her con- ditions, and she agreed to begin again if fifty subscribers could be found-and to lower the price, in the bargain. Only nine prospective subscribers came forward, however, so the Po- ftovske noviny remained dormant for the next ten years.73 In 1782, the heirs of Rosenmiiller's widow decided that the time was ripe to try again. The first issue of the revived Prazske poftovske noviny appeared on 5 January 1782, under the editorship of Frantisek Kozury (or Kosorius), who had also been the final editor of the paper in 1772. In an intro- ductory verse, Kozury hailed the reappearance of a Czech newspaper, promising to endeavor to ensure "that our St. Vai- clav's language, which was nearing its fall / Once more begin to flourish and renew itself/ And that our patriots can read the news in it."74 Kozury also promised to hold fast to the Czech of the golden age and eschew Germanized expressions. In spite of this promise, however, Kozury's writing was 149 150 Origins of the Czech National Renascence not of a very high level, nor was the newspaper successful under his stewardship, and no issues after 1784 are known to exist. In 1786, the right to publish both the German and Czech newspapers was purchased by the publishing magnate Johann Ferdinand von Sch6nfeld, and he hired Vaiclav Matej Kramerius to edit the Czech version. Thus Kramerius em- barked upon a career that was to contribute much to Czech journalism and to the activities of the patriotic intellectuals in the early stage of the obrozeni. Kramerius's contacts with like-minded members of the intelligentsia date back to his days at the Prague university after 1773 and his time in the employment of J. F. von Neu- berg. He was able to develop an interest in the Czech lan- guage as well as a good grounding in its greatest period, the humanist sixteenth century, and he put it to good use in his journalistic and publishing career. Although he had no pre- vious experience, Kramerius soon proved himself a success. The Schenfeldske cisarske krdlovske prazske noviny, as the paper was now called, reached new heights under his direc- tion, both in popularity and in linguistic level. He used the newspaper not only to report on foreign political develop- ments, but also to raise the cultural and physical standards of the people. He introduced a new section devoted to home economics and, starting in 1787, added another dealing with new crafts and manufacturing techniques. He called on the Czechs to "place more importance on the development of manufacturing . .. for it is impossible to expect that true Czechs could help themselves in any other way" than the eco- nomic development of their country.75 Connected with this aim was his effort to use the pages of the Schenfeldske' noviny to combat superstition and igno- rance in the countryside. He addressed himself especially to the village clergy (whether Protestant or Catholic) and school- teachers, since they, as influential figures, were best able to encourage the people to read Czech books and newspapers. This effort to develop a Czech readership in order to spread knowledge and combat harmful superstition would also have Toward a National Cultural Life the effect, as an anonymous correspondent wrote to the Schbnfeldske noviny, of improving the condition and prestige of the language: "The greater the number of lovers of books written in our dear language, the more the true patriots will strive to provide them with such books, and thus all the hin- drances in the way of the improvement of our Czech name, however great they may seem, can be gradually set aside."'76 Dobrovsk concurred in the belief that Czech newspapers and good books in Czech would help stimulate a desire for reading among the people." Another way in which the Czech newspapers could work toward the development of the nation was through publiciz- ing all forms of Czech cultural activity, calling on others to follow their example. The newspapers' interest in the Czech theater, for instance, was illustrated in the preceding section. In fact, the urge to support and encourage patriotic efforts quickly outweighed the tendency to consider any Czech cul- tural effort critically, at least for the most part. The maxim cesky je hezky (Czech is beautiful) dominated theatrical re- porting, at least, until well into the nineteenth century. Where his beloved Czech language was concerned, however, Kra- merius was ready to be more critical. "Pay more attention to the particular characteristics of Czech rather than German," he warned one hapless translator, "for a work in which we follow the original too slavishly does not achieve its aim."78 Under Kramerius the Sch6nfeldske noviny flourished, gaining subscribers not only in Bohemia and Moravia, but also in other parts of the Habsburg monarchy, especially among the Slovaks of upper Hungary.79 Yet continuing disagree- ments with Schonfeld eventually led Kramerius to leave and set up his own newspaper, in competition with his former em- ployer. He announced the new undertaking in a special broadsheet addressed to the "Czech, Moravian and Slavic na- tion," in which he outlined the format of his paper and re- ferred to the popularity of the Schonfeldske noviny during his term at its head. It had spread itself beyond belief, not only in Bohemia, Moravia, and Hungary, but also in Poland and 151 152 Origins of the Czech National Renascence along the Turkish frontier-"wherever our Slavic mother tongue gloriously flourishes. Just see what the hands of one single, private individual can accomplish!"8o Schbnfeld tried without success to prevent Kramerius from gaining permission to set up his own newspaper and, failing that, resolved to continue publishing with a different editor. Expectations of Kramerius's newspaper were high among the patriotic intellectuals who knew him: I believe that Kramerius's will be better [wrote Pelcl to Dobrovskl].... Kramerius also plans to publish literary news that concerns the Czechs, and his written style is also better. He had 900 subscribers at Sch6nfeld's and now hopes to gain a good proportion of them for himself. Rec- ommend the poor devil, he could no longer stand it with that crude and unpleasant Schanfeld.81 In fact, Kramerius was able to take more than half of the sub- scribers of the Schinfeldske noviny with him right from his first issue, and by 1793 total subscribers again approached 1,000.82 The first issue of Krameriusovy c. k. prazske postovsk noviny appeared on 4 July 1789, with an editor's introduction comparing current newspapers with the chronicles of an ear- lier day. Since so few histories and chronicles were then pub- lished in Czech, he felt the need for a Czech newspaper was even more pressing. Again, he linked its fortunes with the language itself. "Read [the newspaper] diligently, my fellow patriots," he urged, "and be kind to your native language; and I will do all I can to give you satisfaction and enjoyment." Under his own administration, Kramerius continued the course he had laid down while still with the Sch6nfeldski no- viny, supporting Czech cultural activity wherever possible and also publishing popular-didactic material. To a greater extent than before, he made use of a network of private cor- respondents, especially during 1790 and 1791, when the Hun- garian Diet was meeting and presenting its national demands to the new monarch, Leopold II. A "good friend from Hun- Toward a National Cultural Life gary," probably one of Kramerius's Slovak correspondents, sent him accounts of the popularity of the national language and costume in Hungary, with details of the demands of the Diet. To make sure the message hit home, Kramerius accom- panied these accounts with explicit calls on the members of the Bohemian Estates to follow the example of their Hun- garian counterparts and add their support to the national de- sires of the Czech patriots.83 In general, Kramerius paid more attention to national themes during the early 1790s than to the enlightening ten- dency visible in the Sch6nfeldski noviny. Even the new name of his paper, the Vlastenske noviny (Patriotic News), which Kramerius adopted after Sch*nfeld successfully complained that he had no right to use the adjective po§tovsk-, reflected this change." Kramerius devoted his attention to current events that gave him the opportunity to write about the Czech nation and its past glories, such as the coronation festivities for Leopold II and his successor Franz II, or the installation of Pelcl at the Prague university. Even the government's ef- forts to stir up popular support for the wars with France al- lowed him to stress the military prowess and bravery of the Czechs and also (not coincidentally) their loyalty to the Habs- burgs. National cultural efforts, especially new books, were reported on in special sections.85 Kramerius did carry on with some popular-didactic work, however, especially in a series of supplements to his Vlasten- ske noviny that were later published as separate books. This aspect of Kramerius's work regained the ascendancy in the opening years of the nineteenth century, as open displays of national feeling were discouraged. Certainly the government viewed Kramerius's newspaper with some suspicion because of its orientation toward the common people. As events in France awakened fears of revolution in the Habsburg domin- ions, in 1789 the united Bohemian-Austrian Chancellery re- quested detailed information from the Prague Gubernium about the spread of news from France and its influence on the people's mood. The censor's copies of the Czech news- 153 154 Origins of the Czech National Renascence papers were sent to Vienna, and each district captain (Kreis- hauptmann, krajskyj hejtman) in Bohemia was required to submit a report on the state of opinion among the common people in his district.86 In these reports, the Czech news- papers were blamed for spreading unrest among the people, since they were read among the lowest levels of the popula- tion, which were too unsophisticated to interpret the news from France correctly.87 Similar reports again reached the Gubernium in 1793, with the result that the censor, at that time F. M. Pelcl, was ordered to control more closely the articles on events in France and elsewhere and to forbid any- thing that might even unintentionally contribute to a revo- lutionary mood among the people.m Government suspicion of Kramerius's Czech newspaper was genuinely unnecessary, for Kramerius was no Jacobin. Though he believed in the ideas of the Enlightenment, the excesses of the French Revolution were abhorrent to him, and he always wrote against them in his Vlastenske noviny. In 1793, he even published two separate pamphlets based on the reports in his newspaper about the execution of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. That same year, Kramerius devoted space to a lengthy article entitled "The Genuine Reasons Why the French are Rebelling." The underlying cause, according to Kramerius, was the uncontrolled growth of the population, which brought with it hunger and poverty. The king was kept in darkness by his flatterers until it was too late, although he tried to do what he could. Then the leaders of the people looked at their neighbors' lands and decided to take them over. To gain the support of the citizens of these countries, they proclaimed that they were bringing them freedom, while all along they intended to exploit them for their own purposes. Thus they involved all of Europe in war. The end result, Kra- merius predicted, would be unrest and lawlessness at home in France, the death of thousands of Frenchmen in war, and general famine and disease. Then perhaps the French would be ready to accept "a proper government and the Christian Toward a National Cultural Life religion again, and afterwards perhaps they will again be as well-off as any other nation."89 It would be difficult even for the most suspicious govern- ment to find anything subversive in this account of the rev- olution. And however simplistic and even self-serving it might be, Kramerius's prediction of the future was also not far from the mark in some ways. Certainly those pressures he foresaw for the French also affected his own country, and the fortunes of his newspaper, badly. The pressures of censorship and eco- nomic difficulty increased, and at the same time news of the war tended to crowd other subjects out of the Vlastenske no- viny. In spite of the worsening economic situation, Kramerius was able to keep his paper above the waters without a break until his death; but after 1803 each issue was only four pages of small quarto, usually given over completely to news from the various battlefields. Kramerius's health began to fail and he became bedridden in 1807. He dictated the final issues from his bed, where he died on 22 March 1808.90 The Vlastenske noviny continued for a time without its founder, edited at first by Kramerius's friend Tomsa, from 26 March 1808 to 14 January 1809. Then Jan Nejedl edited a single issue, and from 28 January 1809 the task was finally entrusted to Jan Rulik.91 Unfortunately none of the three had Kramerius's talent as a journalist and were unable to revive the newspaper. The patriots felt Kramerius's loss deeply. Ri- bay lamented to Dobrovsk shortly after news of Kramerius's death, asking: "Is there then no one in Bohemia so well ed- ucated that he could be Kramerius's successor?"92 Josef Jung- mann's view was even pithier: "The Austrian newspapers have nothing on Slavic subjects. ... It is a shame about Kramerius! Tomsa wrote the newspaper badly, and Rulik does not do it any better."93 The story of Sch6nfeld's Czech newspaper after the de- parture of Kramerius is also one of decline. Vaiclav Tham suc- ceeded Kramerius as editor, and he followed the newspaper's tradition of a popular-didactic interest coupled with a concern 155 156 Origins of the Czech National Renascence for national issues. Thim also followed his own bent by in- cluding a special section for theater news. If anything, Thim was an even more enthusiastic supporter of Joseph II than Kramerius had been and, following the death of the emperor in February 1790, filled the pages of the Sch6nfeldske noviny with articles and verses devoted to him.94 The choice of Thim did not, however, prove to be a happy one. For one thing, his involvement with the theater did not leave him with much time for the newspaper, to its detriment. Pelcl remarked to Dobrovsky that it seemed the Schdnfeldske noviny was writ- ten "by the two Thims, and sometimes someone from the printing shop, whoever has the time."95 This division of in- terest, coupled with Thim's increasingly serious drinking problem, led him to neglect his tasks, to the point where he simply pirated an entire issue of Kramerius's newspaper to meet his deadline. After this episode, he was replaced as of 24 April 1790 by another patriot from theatrical circles, Josef Jakub Tandler (1765-1826). Tandler represented a further decline in quality when compared with Kramerius or Thim at his best. Schonfeld at- tempted to offset this by issuing a new supplement called Novd venkovske" hospoddrske noviny, which was nothing more than a translation of its German counterpart in the Schanfeld stable, the Neue Landwirtschaftszeitung. Eventually he closed down the Czech newspaper and attempted to establish the economic supplement independently, but it folded after a few numbers in 1792. Schbnfeld revived his Czech newspaper in 1796, and after 1800 it was renamed the C. k. privilegirovand prazske poftovske noviny. It had a whole series of editors, but none succeeded in raising it to the level it had enjoyed under Kramerius. A Czech newspaper established in Vienna in 1813, the C. k. povolend videi-ske noviny, showed some promise of ad- vancing beyond the point reached by Kramerius. It was edited by Jan Nepomuk Norbert Hromidko (1783-1850), Zlobick1's successor as professor of Czech at the university in Vienna. One of its most important advances was its literary supple- Toward a National Cultural Life ment, Prvotiny pknych umni, in which some of the earliest works of the younger generation of patriots, including Jung- mann, Marek, and Vaiclav Hanka, first appeared in print.97 From the outset, however, Hromidko was plagued by finan- cial difficulties, the linguistic level of his work was uneven, and he had unrealistic ambitions, undertaking more than he could possibly fulfill.98 The economic troubles of wartime re- stricted Hromidko's prospects, as Dobrovsk noted: "[Hro- m~dko] also wants to write a newspaper for the peasants. The taxes can only be squeezed out of them by force, and they should also lay out money for a newspaper? How foolish!"" The Videnske noviny finally folded in 1817. In other kinds of periodical publications during this pe- riod, there were only a few more or less isolated attempts, most of which failed to establish themselves. The rapid de- velopment of a Czech periodical press began in the second decade of the nineteenth century, but its roots can be found earlier in such popular-didactic monthlies as Ujitel lidu and Tomsa's Mesicni spis k pouceni a obveseleni obecneho lidu. These journals, which appeared briefly in the 1780s, followed naturally from Bohemia's educational reforms, as efforts were made to reach not only children of primary school age, but also working adults. Since so many Bohemians were Czech speakers, enlightening and entertaining material had to be written for them in Czech if they were to be a part of this development. Much of the material in such journals was sim- ply translated from German publications with similar inten- tions, and none lasted for more than a few years. Other such undertakings included Oeskyj poutnik, published by Johann Georg Meinert, which was a translation of his Der bihmische Wandersmann. The Czech version was the work of Jan Nejedl5', but Ceskj poutnik died in its first year of publication, 1801. A similar fate overtook Cesky lidomil, aneb nejnovejis prazsk- vlastenskyj 6asopis, a translation by Jan Hybl of the journal Der Volksfreund, published by Franz Anton Pabst. It appeared in 1810, but lasted only fourteen issues.' The first really successful Czech literary periodical was 157 Introduction pendent Czechoslovak state after 1918 took over much of this interpretation into its official ideology.5 While these attitudes became widely accepted through popular belles-lettres and patriotic art, professional historians were developing different approaches. The historical seminar established at the Czech University by Jaroslav Goll (1846- 1929) became the training ground for a new, positivistic at- titude to the Czech past. Goll was suspicious of Palack5's broad, general approach and the involvement of romantic his- toriography in political affairs. He emphasized history for its own sake and concentrated on the critical scholarly mono- graph rather than the broad, sweeping general histories of the earlier generation. But it was from among Goll's students that the leading figures in the continuing debate over the meaning of Czech history would emerge.6 In reaction to the influence of Masaryk's ideas on the meaning of Czech history, but especially during the years im- mediately before and during the First World War, two main tendencies began to emerge in Goll's school. In them ques- tions of historical interpretation were also influenced by dif- fering political beliefs. One tendency, represented by Viclav Novotny (1869-1932), was more sympathetic to Masaryk's point of view and supported his struggle for independence during the war. The other, led by the man who was probably Goll's most outstanding pupil, Josef Pekar (1870-1937), re- mained hostile to the Masaryk conception and supported au- tonomy within Austria-Hungary until the final days of the war. It is with the name of Josef Pekar that the most powerful crit- icism of the prevailing orientation toward the meaning of Czech history is connected. Already before the war, he had published important polemical works attacking Masaryk's views. In his own major monographs, he contributed vitally to a reevaluation of the period of "darkness" (doba temna) of the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, and to a crit- ical assessment of the life of the Hussite war leader Jan 2izka.7 Another Goll pupil, Kamil Krofta (1876-1945), though he had participated in the polemic with Masaryk before World 158 Origins of the Czech National Renascence Jan Nejedl,'s Hlasatel cesky, which began to appear quarterly in 1806. Gathered around Hlasatel desky" was a group of con- tributors that included not only representatives of the older generation of awakeners such as Tomsa, Kramerius, and Dla- bac, but also some of the younger patriots, including Jung- mann, Josef Liboslav Ziegler, Vaiclav Alois Svoboda, and Antonin Marek. Nejedl) published both poetry and prose on various subjects, much of it intended to educate and enlighten his readers. He also promised to include material on the nat- ural sciences and on advances in art and learning, excerpts from Greek and Latin classics in Czech translation, as well as translations from other modern languages, along with ex- cerpts from rare or unpublished old Czech works. Finally, Nejedl) promised to include reports about new Czech books appearing in Bohemia, Moravia, or Hungary-"in a word, this Hlasatel will include everything that cultivates reason, en- nobles the heart, serves our common good, and spreads and improves the Czech language and literature."'1 Nejedl's final goal suggests that the Hlasatel cesky was self-consciously intended to further the aims of the Czech pa- triots. The language was one focus, and through the example of the poetry and prose within its covers, Hlasatel cesky" could prove that the phrases of the defenders of Czech, asserted now for some thirty years, were true. Nejedl also managed to strike a more self-confident, almost pugnacious tone, as in his introduction to the first number: Go forth, my dear herald! from Prague to your country- men, Czechs, Moravians, and all the Slavs far and wide, linked by language! Boldly enter the glittering and won- derful houses of the greatest lords and the huts of the com- mon people; proclaim to them their sacred duty to the fatherland.... Arise! Hurry to them with flying steps, do not waver in your noble endeavor. True and faithful patri- ots will receive you with joy and pleasure; and if you come across any foreigner, or any renegade Slav dressed up in foreign clothing, who might disparage you and deride you because you are a Slav, or laugh scornfully at your native Toward a National Cultural Life costume, then resist them, rebuke them, for you are sprung from a famous, valiant nation that is the most widespread in the world, and you must not allow any impolite or slan- derous aspersions to be cast on your brothers.102 In the Hlasatel 6eskyj, Nejedly and Jungmann clearly for- mulated a linguistic concept of what the nation was; here also they propounded the idea of the country, the vlast, not seen as a political territory, but personified as a mother and iden- tified with the language and customs of the nation. And, ac- cording to Nejedly, he who harms his vlast, "that is, his customs and mother tongue," is no better than a criminal and traitor.o03 Hlasatel 6eskyj appeared from 1806 to 1808, but the fourth and last volume did not appear until 1818, after much delay and difficulty. 04 Czech patriots greeted Hlasatel ceskj's re- turn with rejoicing, but a younger generation was now in the forefront of the patriotic activities, and Czech literature no longer automatically followed where Jan Nejedl led.'05 Be- fore its demise, however, Hiasatel cesky' played an important part, together with Kramerius's newspapers, in the course of the Czech revival. The fact that there was a Czech newspaper, or a fairly serious Czech literary journal, at all was seen by the patriots as a positive achievement. Moreover, the content of these two publications was important. In addition to bringing a knowledge of world events to the Czech reader, the Vlas- tenske noviny gave Kramerius a forum for strengthening Czech national consciousness, and especially a love for the language, among his readers. Although aimed at a different audience, Nejedl 's Hlasatel was concerned with many of the same issues, and in addition it served as living proof that Czech was capable of filling the roles of a modern literary language, not only in poetry, but also serious prose. It was a heritage that would be built upon in the following decades. The Revival of Czech Poetry As vernacular languages claimed the roles previously filled by Latin or other languages of "high" culture, defenders of 159 160 Origins of the Czech National Renascence Czech as the mother tongue found it very important that po- etry be produced in the vernacular. This development af- fected most European languages at some stage in their history, including German, where the example of French and the supranational baroque culture acted as spurs.'6 The Ger- man example in turn provided an impetus to similar efforts in Bohemia, first in the German cultural sphere, and then in Czech. Karl Heinrich Seibt (1735-1806), the first lay profes- sor at the Prague university, appointed in 1763, held an im- portant position in this development in Bohemia. A pupil of Gottsched and Gellert, Seibt began to lecture in German in place of Latin and worked to develop enthusiasm for German literature among his students.07 The sensation caused by Seibt's teaching affected students from German or Czech- speaking backgrounds equally: the simple idea that any ver- nacular was a legitimate vehicle for literary expression was heady stuff. The result, as one student of Seibt's later noted, was an explosion of interest in German literature, amid efforts to improve the standard of German in daily use. "To speak good German is to speak like Seibt," he wrote; and similar evaluations of Seibt's impact came from others, such as F. M. Pelcl.10s Seibt's colleagues, August Gottlieb Meissner (1753-1807), professor of aesthetics from 1785, and the first Protestant at the university for nearly a century and a half, and Ignac Cor- nova, whose work as professor of history has already been dis- cussed, also cultivated German literature, especially poetry. Meissner published his own and his students' efforts in a se- ries of almanacs, Die Erstlinge unserer einsamen Stunden (1791-1792), while Cornova also produced some German po- etry and plays.'" Apart from a few isolated forerunners, the first real effort to apply these new ideas to Czech poetry was Viclav Thm's Bdsne v reci vdzand, which appeared in two volumes in 1785. Thim's almanacs stood at the threshold of modern Czech poetry, but as transitional works they also dis- played characteristics typical of the past. Thim's motivation Toward a National Cultural Life was largely defensive and historical, as he explained in the foreword to the first volume. What were his reasons for pub- lishing it? In the first place, so that I may make known the surviving fragments of our Czech poets; secondly so that I may prove that songs and verses may be written in our mother tongue on any topic, just as in other languages; and finally that I may make known to my readers the many people who are working both for the spread of our Czech language and for the cultivation of more elegant poetry in it.110 The scheme of the Bdsne reflected Thim's desire to show not only that Czech could compare with other modem Eu- ropean languages, but also that the level of the sixteenth cen- tury could be achieved in his own day. He divided each volume into three sections, the first containing examples of Czech poetry from the past, the second, translations from other languages, and the third, original works by contempo- rary Czech authors. Thus, the fact that only one-third of the poems in Thim's almanacs was original and the remainder either reprinted or translations does not reflect merely the poor state of contemporary Czech literature, but also the his- torical and defensive point of view of Thim's circle. German poetry in particular was the yardstick by which Thim mea- sured the Czech works, and this demand that Czech prove its ability to compete with modern German literature led in the first instance to its using the same means of expression as Ger- man poets."' It is not surprising, therefore, that the general literary genre represented in the poetry of Tham's almanacs should be the anacreontic, since this style also dominated German poetry to a great extent. Following the examples of the Ger- man anacreontic poets, Johann Wilhelm Ludwig Gleim, Christian Felix Weisse, Gottfried August Biirger, and Ewald Christian Kleim, the Czech poets in Tham's almanacs occu- pied themselves with stylized expressions of conventional 161 162 Origins of the Czech National Renascence emotions limited almost exclusively to the topics of wine, women, and song.112 The first volume Thim published con- tained fifteen translations of works by Gleim and six by Weisse, while the second added translations of poems by Biirger, Kleist, and Hagedorn. There were also translations directly from Anacreon and Catullus, while the original Czech contributions, by Dlabac, Stach, Thim, Franti'ek Knobloch, Jan Hynek Kavka, Kramerius, and Stvin were simply imita- tions of this sort of work. A similar pattern is clear in a separate collection of Czech poems published three years later by Kramerius. His Novi 6efti zpevovd pro krdsnd pohlavi enske, which appeared in 1788, contained translations from Biirger and other German anacreontic poets.'3 These verses were conventional and de- rivative, and the young poets of Thim's circle were not really blessed with any genuine poetic talent, yet their works were nevertheless important. For the first time in a long while, Czech writers were searching for a language of poetic ex- pression in their mother tongue. More important at this mo- ment, perhaps, was the propaganda effect of the almanacs. They were valued by contemporary patriots as an expression of a desire to defend the status of Czech and encourage its development, and they attracted a list of subscribers including such names as Dobrovsk9, Durych, Ungar, Dlabac, Pelcl, Prochizka, Zlobicky and Kramerius, as well as the theatrical figures Majober, Stuna, Zima, and Bulla.114 Thim's other commitments and problems (already mentioned) interfered with his intention of continuing with his collections of poetry, and further developments had to wait for a decade."1 A new stage in the development of Czech poetry was reached in 1795, when Antonin Jaroslav Puchmajer published the first of several volumes of poetry, Sebrdni bdsne a zpev. The contributors to Puchmajer's almanacs, which appeared in five volumes between 1795 and 1814, were mainly younger patriots who had attended Prague university at about the same time. There they had been introduced to the world of German classicism by Seibt, Meissner, and Cornova.116 Their Toward a National Cultural Life interests were not limited to German literature, however: Puchmajer translated or adapted poems by Rousseau, Gre- net, and Florian; Kheraskov, Karpiiski, Kniaznin, and Kra- sicki; as well as Biirger and Schiller. While they remained deeply indebted to German anacreontic and idyllic poetry, as were the poets of Thim's circle, the poets of the Puchmajer school showed greater independence in following these mod- els and introduced other influences from German and wider European literatures. These included Biirger's popular ballad form, Klopstock's religious epic, and the elegiac romanticism of such English poets as Thomas Gray.117 Puchmajer's translations from Polish and Russian point out another novel element in his almanacs, namely the way they directed the attention of Czech literature to Slavic models. This trend would be continued by Jungmann and other nineteenth-century figures. In contrast to the poetry in Thaim's almanacs, the works in Puchmajer's treated openly patriotic themes more frequently. Many of the poets in the circle around Puchmajer addressed works to leading patriotic figures or to heroes of the Czech past. The graduates of the university in Prague remembered some of their teachers most warmly; and accordingly there were odes to Antonin Strnad and Stanislav Vydra, professors of astronomy and mathemat- ics, respectively, in the almanacs. Both men were praised for their example, which influenced their students to believe that "to be a Czech is glorious.""8 Jan Nejedl called Vydra the "Czech father" of thousands of his students, whom he had taught, echoing Balbin: Slavnji coz muize byti, Neili vest svym priedkim vzdit, Je i vlast, i jazyk ctiti, O jich zvelebeni dbit? What can be more glorious, Than to revere one's ancestors, To honor them, and the fatherland, and the language, To strive for their improvement?19 163 164 Origins of the Czech National Renascence Vojtech Nejedly struck a sadder note with two odes on the death of F. M. Pelcl and F. F. Prochizka, but although they were gone, at least the younger generation of patriots could pay them their respects in this way.'20 Puchmajer turned to Jan Zizka, and in a surprisingly sympathetic tone praised him as a Czech hero (although he deplored the waste of Czech lives in the Hussite wars).121 But perhaps most typ- ical of the directly patriotic poems in the almanacs was Jan Nejedl's ode, "Na Cechy," which appeared in the third vol- ume in 1798. Here the tone of darkness and pessimism, which he struck in the opening stanza, gave way to one of light and optimism, forecasting a brighter future for the nation and its language: Coz mi noc naveky, nav6ky b ti? Nikdy-li nepoine v Cechich se dniti? Dlouho-li cesk lev jeste chces spit? Slunce ji' vzeslo, coz nemies vstit? PlesejmeZ -echov6! plesejmez brathi! Sv6tla we jazyk ni cesk~ zas spatti; Pisne ie cesk6 zas budou nim znit, V slive ie Cechov6 budou se stkvit. Must the night everlasting, everlasting be? Will it never begin to lighten over Bohemia? Do you still wish, Czech lion, longer to sleep? The sun has arisen, what, can you not wake? Let us rejoice, ye Czechs, rejoice my brothers! That our Czech language can again see the light; That we can once more hear Czech songs in the air, That the Czechs will now flourish in glory.122 One final, and most significant, difference between Thim's almanacs and the Puchmajer school, however, lies in their differing metrical foundation. It was the declaration of alle- giance to the principles of the "accent" theory of Czech pros- ody by the Puchmajer school, instead of the older tradition of quantitative verse (based on the length of syllables regard- Toward a National Cultural Life less of natural accent), that created the base for the devel- opment of modem Czech poetry. Though he was not a poet himself, let alone a poet writing in Czech, it was Josef Dobrovskl who established the prin- ciples of the new Czech prosody in his foreword to Pelcl's Grundstze der Bohmischen Grammatik. The problem of Czech prosody had interested him for many years,'"3 and some of his earlier thoughts had appeared in the Litterar- isches Magazin in 1786. Here he questioned whether Czech could make use of the hexameter form, since when following the rules of Vaiclav Rosa (1621-1681), whose work on Czech grammar set out the rules for imitating classical verse forms, the normal Czech pronunciation had to be ignored. "Is it the fault of the language," he asked, "that we have no good Czech poems? Nudozerin said in 1603 'carmina bohemica nulla ad- huc gratiam habent,' and in 1782 one can add: since then they have not become any better."'124 The fruit of his years of thought on the subject was Dobrovsk 's deceptively simple principle that Czech poetry should be governed metrically by accent rather than syllable length, with accented syllables considered metrically long and unaccented ones, short. Linked with this rule was the insistence that in Czech the accent must always be on the first syllable of the word. Although he had begun his poetical works in the older, quantitative style, Puchmajer eagerly accepted Dobrovsk5's ideas, revised his earlier efforts, and dedicated his first Se- brdni bdsne a zp-v to Dobrovsk9, "the originator of the new Czech prosody." He claimed that Dobrovsk's rules were "the only correct ones," according to which Czech poets could write "much better than ever any Czech poet did before," and he and his friends adhered strictly to the accent rule in the first two almanacs.'25 Gradually, however, the members of the Puchmajer school realized that theory did not always satisfy every demand of poetic practice. Dobrovsk's study of the particular characteristics of Czech had led him regretfully to conclude that "the perfect harmony of the Greek and Latin hexameter is unattainable for us."126 This conclusion was un- 165 166 Origins of the Czech National Renascence acceptable to young poets, fired with a desire to prove Czech capable of any poetic form used in other literatures, especially the classical Latin and Greek. Thus they set out to attempt some form of synthesis of the old rules with the principles of accent. Sebastiain Hnevkovsk4 (1770-1847) was one of the poets of the Puchmajer school who devoted some time to this problem. He explained some of his ideas in a letter to Jan Nejedl, insisting, "I do not want to write any apology for Dobrovsk's system, but ... seek a system that would also compare with the general rules." Puchmajer was no help in this matter, since "he wants to have Dobrovsk 's rules in rhymes and Rosa's in hexameters. ... But in my opinion only one single prosody can be correct, and it must serve both for rhyme and rhythm."'27 However much they may have desired a single, unifying theory, the young poets of the Puchmajer school had to rec- oncile any theoretical system with the demands of practice. Here, the acid test would be in attempts to translate the clas- sical works of world literature. In his first almanac, Puchmajer published some early attempts at Czech hexameters in a translation from Virgil, and Homer's Iliad challenged several poets, including Puchmajer himself, Jan Nejedl, and the Slo- vak Jiff (Juraj) Palkovic, who had connections with the Puch- majer school. Nejedl published his Homerova Iliada first, in 1802. He had attempted, he wrote, "to translate everything as it sounds in the Greek, in the truest, most exact, most understandable and most melodious way, into Czech."'128 No less stern a critic than Dobrovsk called Nejedl5's hexameters among the best he knew, with only Puchmajer's in the fourth almanac surpassing them. Nevertheless, he continued, "it is obvious that the Czech translator must struggle with very many practically insurmountable problems if he wants to reach, to some extent, Homeric hexameters in his language. The blame lies with the language itself."129 The hexameters by Puchmajer came from his translation of Montesquieu's Le Temple de Gnide, excerpts of which had appeared in the fourth almanac as "Svatyne Venusina v Toward a National Cultural Life Knide." Puchmajer had been working on this translation since 1798, and it eventually appeared separately in 1804 under the title Chrdm Gnidskj.130 In the fourth volume of his Bdsne, Puchmajer included an article in which he laid out the system he had used in his translation of Montesquieu. His motive for attempting what Dobrovsk4 had said was impossible emerged clearly when he asked: "If poets can use practically all the verse forms of Latin in German, how much more could they be used in Czech, in this our own language, which has stood firm for three hundred years, and need not give way to any other modem language, even Italian ... in variety and eu- phony?"'3' Even Dobrovsk admitted that Puchmajer had done well, but he continued to insist that Czech hexameters were hedged about with all sorts of difficulties. "No Czech poet has written better hexameters than these," he wrote in his review of Chrdm Gnidsky, "but they are by far not as flow- ing as the Latin ones, nor do they have even the variety of the German ones, and they cannot have it."'32 This was a verdict the younger poets simply were not prepared to accept. The Puchmajer school continued to strive for metrical va- riety, frequently harking back to earlier metrical styles de- pending on the verse form they were using; but in general its poets remained true to Dobrovsk's principle of accent.'33 Others, however, rejected Dobrovsk 's reforms altogether. In 1805, Vaiclav Stach (with the collaboration of K. H. Thim), published a volume of poems in defense of the old tradition. Stach, who had earlier contributed to Vaiclav Thim's almanacs and translated Klopstock's Messiah, launched into a fierce at- tack on Dobrovs4k and the new prosody, accusing them both of being unpatriotic, since they rejected the older Czech her- itage and mindlessly imitated foreign models.1m Stach's work was without any great influence, but the prosodic controversy was by no means finished. It broke out anew in the first third of the nineteenth century, and was still a subject for discus- sion in the twentieth.'35 There was more to the poets gathered around Puchmajer than the new prosody, however. As we have seen, they were 167 6 Origins of the Czech National Renascence War I, eventually moved closer to the views of Masaryk and Novotny. His works concerned in particular the history of the Hussite period and the era before the defeat of the Bohemian Estates' rebellion at the Battle of the White Mountain in 1620, an era which he viewed much more positively than did Pekar.8 Thus by the mid-twentieth century two distinct traditions in viewing the Czech past, including the national renascence, had emerged and established themselves. Each agreed that the beginnings of the national renascence could be placed in the later part of the eighteenth century, but they differed on what factors were important in understanding it. On the one hand, the traditional nationalist view lauded the value of the Hussite period and Protestantism in Bohemia, and asserted a link between them and the national renascence. This ap- proach emphasized the importance of the religious policies of Joseph II, especially his Patent of Toleration (1781) and other reforms undermining the position of the Catholic church. The other view, represented by Pekaf and his follow- ers, along with certain other scholars not quite in either camp, insisted instead on the continuity of Czech culture after the White Mountain, the role of Catholicism in the Czech na- tional identity, and the connections between the national re- nascence and the traditions of the Czech Catholic baroque. This tradition tended to emphasize the reaction of elements in Bohemian society to Josephinism, especially its centralism and Germanization, and saw the role of Bohemia's traditional nobility in a more positive light.9 After the Communist takeover in 1948, Marxist histori- ography dominated official historical writing in Czechoslo- vakia, and official interpretations of the renascence. At its worst, Marxist writing was a crude caricature of the traditional nationalist interpretation, seen through the blood-red glasses of the class war. At its best (and, especially for earlier periods, much valuable work was still done) it added other concerns to the search for the meaning of Czech history. The economic determinist bent in Marxism increased the importance of eco- 168 Origins of the Czech National Renascence also (Stach's accusations notwithstanding) active patriots who intended by their works not only to show that Czech did in- deed deserve a place on Parnassus, but also to awaken love for the language and pride in its achievements among their readers. Puchmajer's patriotic foreword to the second alma- nac (1797), which he likened to "a voice crying in the wil- derness," lamented the decline of Czech in the past and heaped scorn upon those whose uncritical admiration for for- eign things led them to neglect their own mother tongue. In a reference to the wars with France, he expressed the hope that the sacrifices of the Czechs would be rewarded by the government with more support for the language: We, we Czechs, unrenegate descendants of our glorious ancestors, who during those dangerous and horrible days when our savage, furious foes threatened us with shame and destruction, enthusiastically proved our love for our dear fatherland . .. have we Czechs, then, not deserved that for our remarkable love and loyalty to our country and the king, our ruler, so clearly and obviously demonstrated, our Czech language should be powerfully supported and defended?'6 The Czech poets felt that part of their duty to their fa- therland was to encourage others to work in similar ways for the development of literature and the spread of the Czech language. Puchmajer apologized to Jungmann for not choos- ing more of the latter's works for his fifth almanac (1814), but "it was necessary to have a care for others, and give them, especially the younger poets, a greater taste for writing."'13 It was important to find a natural poetic language for Czech, one that would truly be capable of the tasks that patriotic zeal set it. Vojtech Nejedl, in a programmatic verse from the third almanac (1798), argued that Czech poetry had to be sincere, understandable, and thus had to avoid a rigid reliance on the language of the past. He also called on the patriotic poets to write verses that were Czech in spirit as well as language. This would mean leaving the sterile imitations of classical models Toward a National Cultural Life behind: "Cechu! chces-li zpivat hezky, / Mysli, mluv a nos se cesky."'38 Other poets echoed this call to try to contribute something to Czech literature. Jan NejedlT reminded the readers of his translation of Gessner's religious epic, Smrt Abelova (1800), that the improvement of the nation could only come through reading and writing serious works in Czech, closing with a short verse: Kdol jest Cechem, prosim za to, Piedkii slovutn ych hlas slys: Cesk jazyk cti co zlato Cesky mluv a vesky pis. Whoever is a true Czech, him I beg, Harken to the voice of your renowned ancestors Value the Czech language higher than gold Speak Czech, and write Czech.139 In the first decades of the nineteenth century, this patri- otic duty led to an obligation on the part of each patriot to write some Czech verse, talent or no talent. But the more chaff there was, the greater the chance of finding some grain among it. Three broad areas of cultural activity all reflect the same concerns. First, the mere fact of activity in the Czech lan- guage in these areas was seen as a patriotic deed by con- temporaries. There were still pessimistic voices, such as Dobrovsk's, when he wrote of the Czech theater that he "doubted very much whether the Czech language will gain anything on the whole through [the new plays], however sin- cere the joy with which the Czech rhymster, Vaiclav Melezi- nek, and other enthusiastic patriots write about them in each New Year's Wish."'40 Yet comments like these tended to serve as a gauntlet thrown down to those patriots influenced by the developments in history and language to which even Do- brovsky had contributed so much. The Czech language had been provided with a clear system of grammar, freed from 169 170 Origins of the Czech National Renascence the wilder aberrations of such as Pohl and Simek; and through the researches of Durych, Prochazka, Voigt, and others, the literary heritage and some of its monuments had been reclaimed. Now the patriotic intellectuals were prepared to attempt a task that had seemed impossible to an earlier generation: to create a modern literary and cultural life in Czech. Concern for the Czech language, and through it the entire Czech na- tion and the vlast, was the overriding motive for their activ- ities. It was the basis of attempts to create a Czech theater, it was expressed in the pages of the Vlastenske noviny, and it breathed through the almanacs of Th im and Puchmajer. This, they felt, was their duty to their people and their land: Who nursed us with her sweet milk, and raised us with anxious care? Who provided us with everything needed for life from our childhood, and generously gave us all good things from her bosom; who has defended us at every op- portunity? You, beloved Czech homeland, our mother!!!- And should you then receive nothing in return?141 The answer of a true patriot lay in his work for the de- velopment of the Czech nation, its language, and its literature. 5 Ndrod a Lid- Nation and People One result of the developments outlined in previous chap- ters was that gradually, the primary meaning assigned to the concept of nation changed in an interesting way. During most of the eighteenth century it was basically political, denoting the group that enjoyed political rights, however circum- scribed: namely, the nobility. This meaning originally chimed well with the scholarly, historical, almost backward-looking concerns of the patriotic intelligentsia; yet the historical, phil- ological, and literary researches of these scholars helped stim- ulate and complemented other activities, leading to attempts to claim equal status for Czech with German, and to create a modern cultural life in Czech. Most Czech patriots at this time would have welcomed the participation of the nobility in their activities; indeed, they did welcome it where it ex- isted.' But as the Czech language came increasingly to dom- inate the intelligentsia's interests, to the point where use of Czech became the touchstone of belonging to the nation, the nobility began to fade out of their concerns. The nobles, in whose eyes Czech was a low-status language that they knew badly or not at all, were simply not going to begin suddenly to use it in their daily life. This would make them unlikely consumers for a Czech culture, and perforce directed the at- tention of the patriots to the existing group of Czech speakers, the common people. Some of the intellectuals, characterized 171 172 Origins of the Czech National Renascence as "popular awakeners" (lidovibuditeld), already expressed an interest in the common people, and through them the ideas and attitudes of the obrozeni were transmitted to wider levels of society. Various motives lay behind this interest. The Enlighten- ment had encouraged the attitude that all the subjects of the monarch were citizens, each with his own contribution to make to the good of the whole. Coupled with physiocratic ideas about the wealth of a country consisting in a healthy and prosperous population, this made the common people and their physical, educational and cultural standards the objects of a concern that was frequently officially encouraged. But the concerns of the patriotic intellectuals who addressed the common people went beyond the aims of an enlightening of- ficialdom. While on the one hand these popular awakeners worked to spread useful knowledge among the people and to raise their standards of hygiene and living, on the other hand they also worked to spread the patriotic attitudes they were developing among the broader masses.2 The aims of the patriots tended to reinforce each other. They were increasingly making the Czech language the main element in their idea of the Czech nation, but in general the old political nation declined to use Czech to any great extent (see chapter 2). Like it or not, the common people made up the largest group of Czech speakers. Yet the patriots wanted to claim equal status with other languages for Czech, which meant that they had to translate their historical image of a high Czech culture into a contemporary reality. If the upper classes in the cities would not become consumers of Czech culture, then the patriots would have to turn to the masses. Thus the efforts to improve the level of knowledge and cul- ture in the countryside would also help to increase the num- ber of consumers of Czech culture. In the end, the nation would come to mean the people who used Czech, whatever their social class, and Czech culture would increasingly be- come their culture. Ndrod a Lid-Nation and People Enlightening the Common People The original aims of the enlightened absolutist regime had been much more circumscribed. At a time when it was dif- ficult to get permission from the government to publish text- books or other works in Czech, Maria Theresa's regime supported the translation of the Bible into Czech and the pub- lication of catechisms and other devotional manuals. The new Czech Bible was the work of F. F. Prochizka and Viclav For- tunat Durych (1735-1802), both Paulist monks and members of the patriotic intelligentsia. Though the basis for this trans- lation was the Jesuit Bible of 1771, Durych and Prochizka had critically compared that version with the Latin Vulgate, Hebrew and Greek texts, and even the Bible of the Czech Brethren of the sixteenth century, the Kralice Bible.3 The translators made an effort to present the truths of the faith in such a way that they did not support the crudest of popular superstitions and practices of folk piety, but Prochizka at least remained unsatisfied. Under the changed censorship condi- tions following the accession of Joseph II to sole rule in 1780, he worked on a revision of the New Testament section of the Bible of 1778-1780. Once more Prochzka applied the method of critical history, and he purposely used such lan- guage that the new version (published in 1786) could be used by both Catholics and Protestants in Bohemia. He stressed the importance of the secularization and loosening of the cen- sorship to his endeavor.4 The Czech Bible was quickly sold out, and Prochizka was called upon to direct yet another edition, based on the Latin text approved by the Council of Trent, but as "reviewed, revised, [and] annotated" by himself.5 There was a need for more than Bibles, however, espe- cially as Joseph II's reforms in church practices and its rela- tions with the state began to take effect.6 Prayer books, catechisms and devotional manuals in the vernacular that con- formed to the new ideals of reformed Catholicism, as es- 173 174 Origins of the Czech National Renascence poused by the Febronians or Muratori, were also necessary. Tomsa and Kramerius were among those who helped fill this need. It is indicative of the state's support for religious ma- terial in Czech that the second work Tomsa translated after joining the press of the Prague Normal School in 1777 was a catechism.' Under Joseph II, Tomsa continued this activity, publishing translations of two German prayer books by K. H. Seibt, Kniha katolickd, obsahujci v sobe naucent a modlitby (1780), and Vyu6ujici a modlici kniha pro mlddezv (1784). Seibt, who lectured in such subjects as aesthetics, ethics, and practical philosophy at the university, composed his prayer books fully in the sense of Josephine reformed Catholicism.8 Kramerius also contributed a translation of a religious man- ual, Kfest'anskd katolickd uzitecnd domovni postilla (1785), based on a work by the Viennese Josephinist, J. V. Eybel. It was very popular and, in spite of its title, was also used by the newly tolerated Protestants in Bohemia.9 Stach was another who joined Kramerius and Tomsa, though his translations were either Protestant or neutral in orientation.1' Other works by the popular awakeners were directed at the people through the intermediary of their pastors. Since the village priests occupied an important place in the life of their communities, if they could be won over to the new ideas, they could use their influence among the masses." Jilji Chlidek (1743-1806), professor of pastoral theology at the university, published a very influential textbook, Poditkove' opatrnost pastyske (1780-1781), for his students. Its mes- sage was so in harmony with Joseph II's program that it was officially adopted for use both in Prague and Brno. Chlidek stirred up a whiff of controversy by championing the use of the Czech language not only for preaching, but also for the general administrative duties of the parish priest. In his ded- ication to the third volume, Chlidek praised the abbot of the Praemonstratensian monastery at Strahov, who was a sup- porter of Czech and a collector of manuscripts and books. His example should shame and inspire those Czechs "who, as soon as they reach a position of greater dignity, immediately Ndrod a Lid-Nation and People want neither to read Czech nor to have Czech books in their libraries, and thus contribute to the fact that this, our Slavic language, has few admirers."12 This was as nothing compared to the reaction provoked by Stach's handbook for the parish priest, Pfiru6ka u6itele lidu (2 vols., 1787). This handbook contained exegeses of biblical texts in a Josephinist sense, moral anecdotes, excerpts from modern philosophers, and pedagogical hints, all intended to be of use to the priests in their tasks.'3 But Stach was a radical and seemed to take de- light in provoking the conservative clergy, whom he attacked in the foreword to the second volume. A hint of his radical language and hatred of intolerance comes through in the fol- lowing passage: If only that Spanish voice, so far removed from the mean- ing of Christ, had never been heard among us, [that voice] with which certain people denounce everything that does not correspond to their power, avarice, and ignorance as heretical, and with which they long for the Spanish In- quisition ... in that Church clique in which priestly des- potism lords it inhumanely over the wiser clergy and is capable of reversing everything that is good, nay, even of inciting the commoners.... Such a priest belongs to that corrupt and depraved generation, for whom neither the law of God, nor the law of the land is holy, but only the law of their greed and stupidity. But why present these diverse opinions? So that the people's teacher can know them, and ponder them, in- quiring into what the human reason is doing. A priest should know everything. To the pure, nothing is impure.14 Stach also translated a pastoral theology text by Franz Gift- schiitz, in which he further demonstrated his radical Jose- phinist stance. It replaced Chlidek's Pocdtkove as the text- book at the General Seminary at Olomouc in 1789.15 Stach's was not the only voice raised in support of more religious toleration. The Patent of Toleration of 1781, which had recognized the Lutheran and Calvinist confessions, was welcomed by many intellectuals, but there were still people 175 176 Origins of the Czech National Renascence at all levels to whom the idea was anathema. When Johann Leopold von Hay, bishop of Hradec Krilov6 and a leading Josephinist churchman, published a pastoral letter to the clergy of his diocese explaining the new regulations and de- manding obedience, Kramerius quickly translated it into Czech. Cirkuldrni spis pdna z Hdje, biskupa krdlovdhra- deck6ho, na duchovenstvo osadyjeho strany toleranci (1782) proved to be very popular and quickly sold out. Another work by Kramerius, his Patentni rucni knifka pro mt'ana i sedldka (1781), publicized the patents of the first two years of Joseph II's reign in Czech translations. It was reprinted in 1787, at which time Kramerius noted that it was extremely useful and important for the people because "in this book [they] will find all the patents and decrees [explained] in their mother-tongue ... with such clarity that everyone can understand them right away."'6 Placing the texts directly into the hands of the people was a means of preventing obstruction at the periphery from frustrating the intentions of the center."7 An even more remarkable piece of propaganda for Jose- phinism was Kramerius's Kniha Josefova, which appeared in 1784. Kniha Josefova and its German model were attempts to present the Josephine reform program to the people in a style familiar to them. The language was patterned after the Bible, in the hope of reaching the masses directly, over the heads of the usual intermediaries, the parish priests and land- lords' officials. Joseph was presented as the archetypal Old Testament king, a new Solomon, sent by God to bring "en- lightenment" to his people. Much of the text was given over to explaining Joseph's religious reforms, and "prophesying" about the future policies toward the church.'8 By May 1784 the book had gone through four editions, and Kramerius noted later (with some pride) that "it burn[ed] no less than salt in the eyes" of its opponents, who banned its circulation since it brought the simple Catholics out of the darkness of ignorance in which many priests would prefer they remain.19 Kramerius also put toleration into practice personally, helping to teach Czech to the newly arrived Protestant pastors Ndrod a Lid-Nation and People (who were mostly Calvinist or Lutheran pastors from Hun- gary) in Prague, and he later kept the idea alive in his Novy kalenddf toleranci, which he published yearly from 1787 to 1798. He listed Catholic and Protestant feast days side by side, gave summaries of decrees affecting religion, and also provided much other useful and entertaining material for his readers.20 Stach also supported the newly arrived Protestants. When a certain Viaclav Rokos published a work purporting to prove that Lutheran and Calvinist ministers could not claim to be priests "secundum ordinem Melchizedec," Stach pub- lished a pseudonymous work refuting Rokos's claims.2' A more reserved attitude to the Josephine church reforms characterized the position of Jan Rulik, another of the popular awakeners. He claimed to wish along with the emperor (citing the court decree of 17 April 1783) that "all his subjects would hold to the only saving Catholic faith from their own convic- tion"; but his comments in his Kalendda historicky about Jo- seph's reforms such as the dissolution of the monasteries and the forbidding of certain forms of popular piety suggest a more critical attitude to reform Catholicism.22 In his own re- ligious publications, Rulik remained true to the traditional piety of the Catholic baroque, albeit in its patriotic form as Balbin expressed it. He was just as well aware as the others, however, of the need for religious material written in good Czech for circulation among the people.23 It is worth noting that in their activities as direct publicists for Joseph II, the popular awakeners limited themselves al- most exclusively to his religious policies. Kramerius's Kniha Josefova did, it is true, mention the Leibeigenschaft Patent of 1781, which abolished hereditary subjection, as well as the school reforms and the loosening of censorship; but the main emphasis and the language of the book were religious. Yet the religious issue was not the only concern of the popular awak- eners. They also contributed to the education of adults in Czech, an activity that followed naturally from many of Jo- seph's reforms. Some improvement in the cultural and eco- nomic level of the masses was necessary, and in Bohemia 177 Introduction nomic development as a topic for study (already begun by some historians before the war), and the focus in the history of the renascence shifted to the industrial revolution and the rise of capitalism in the Czech lands. For this approach, it was above all the economic and social policies of Joseph II which occupied the foreground in evaluating the beginnings of the renascence, especially the Leibeigenschaft Patent of 1781 and the attempted urbarial reform of his later years.'0 More than forty years ago, on the eve of the Communist takeover of his homeland, the literary historian Albert Prazik called for historians of the renascence to seek a synthetic ap- proach, which would avoid the extremes of either of the two dominant lines of interpretation developed in the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth centuries." Instead, a new dom- inant interpretation was enthroned, at least officially, and the argument could still be made that a new synthetic interpre- tation is necessary. Praiak's own great work on the rena- scence, Ceske obrozeni (1947) is now quite dated, and since it was largely written under the shadow of the Nazis it has a strongly patriotic-defensive tone.'2 In addition, its focus is al- most exclusively on literary history. The standard synthesis published during the Communist period, Josef Koci's Ceske ndrodnfobrozenf (most recent edition, 1978), though it makes an admirable attempt to place the Czech developments into the wider context of European political, social and economic history, is marred by its overly schematic Marxist framework, and those elements of the Marxist version of the nationalist view that do not take account of the arguments of Peka's school. Both Prai~k and Koci deal with the national rena- scence up to the middle of the nineteenth century, which takes them beyond the phase of its origins and into the active patriotic struggle. A valuable study with more limited aims is Bedrich Sla- vik's Od Dobnera k Dobrovskemu (1975), which focuses on the Enlightenment in Bohemia, looking largely at literary and intellectual history. Although forced to pay lip service to the Marxist categories, it brings an interesting argument to the 178 Origins of the Czech National Renascence much of this work had to be done in Czech. Thus the state found itself in the curious position of Germanizing with one hand while encouraging Czech education with the other. For the state encouraged and even sponsored such ef- forts. The Highest Burggrave, Prince Karl Egon Fiirstenberg, published a popular educational periodical, Der Volkslehrer, from 1786 to 1788. He asked Tomsa to translate it into Czech as U6itel lidu, one of the earliest such periodicals to appear in Czech.25 Tomsa must have found the work challenging, for he left Uitel lidu after one year to establish his own monthly, Misicni spis k poucen a obveseleni obecneho lidu (1787). In this work Tomsa aimed especially at spreading basic knowl- edge of the physical and natural sciences, so that rational, sci- entific explanations for natural phenomena could replace harmful superstitions. Each issue also contained an illustra- tion, fables, and moralistic tales. Misitn spis was hailed by like-minded patriots, such as Kramerius, who publicized it in his newspaper: Mr. Tomsa's friends may clearly see from the contents that their wishes, when they wrote that Mr. Tomsa in his future issues of MIsic"ni spis should explain especially physical matters, of which up to now the common people have had no understanding, are being completely and fully satis- fied. ... Oh! what an early enlightening of the mind can we expect among our Czech people, when they are made acquainted with such knowledge, which had previously never occurred to them!26 Kramerius also had kind words for Tomsa's use of Czech, saying that he explained the most difficult topics in such clear language that "even the simplest person can understand them."27 The pressures of other work, however, forced Tomsa to stop producing MisicniJ- spis with the December 1787 issue; but he said, "[I promise] to go on enlightening my fellow countrymen, if I am only given a bit of free time for it."28 True to this promise, Tomsa continued to publish enlight- ened didactic material, though never again in the periodical Ndrod a Lid-Nation and People form. Besides his translations of textbooks for the Normal School, he produced Czech versions of several popular Ger- man works dealing with various aspects of life, such as health, proper diet, animal and general husbandry, and especially the proper rearing and behavior of children, usually in the form of fables or short tales. Tomsa also continued in his belief that the Czech readers could benefit from learning about the phys- ical and natural sciences. He left behind him in manuscript a translation of Funk's Naturgeschichte fiir Kinder, parts of which appeared posthumously in Jan Nejedl5's Hlasatel cesky.29 A later attempt at a didactic Czech-language periodical, this time in the spirit of Bohemian territorial patriotism, was Cesky poutnik, a translation by Jan Nejedl of J. G. Meinert's Der b6hmische Wandersmann. This journal, published in 1801, contained information on current affairs, moral teach- ings, and also information about "those days made especially important by the heroic deeds of our ancestors."30 Cesky poutnik displayed less of that concern for the Czech language and nation characteristic of the patriotic intelligentsia, though some passages remarked on the condition of the language. Like Tomsa's Misicni spis, the Ceskyj poutnik did not wander for long through Bohemia. It ceased publication in Czech at the end of the first volume, because there were only fifty sub- scribers for the Czech version, and the German version died in 1802.31 Kramerius was also an active, and more successful, pub- lisher in the field of popular didactic literature. Typical of his work is Vecerni shromdnciini dobrovick obce (1801), which described a series of evening discussions between a group of villagers and their schoolmaster. The lessons stressed the need for hard work, sobriety, and loyalty, while decrying drunkenness and ignorance. They also expressed patriotic sentiments, however. In one such passage the schoolmaster exclaimed: "Oh, if only you all would feel the same joy I do, when I hear or read something about our dear Czech father- land!" After detailing what the ancient Czechs did for the lan- 179 180 Origins of the Czech National Renascence guage, he wondered "if it is still possible that the present-day Czechs-or at least their descendants-will one day awaken from their deep dream, and, remembering who they are, value their country and mother-tongue above all else, like all the other nations?"32 Kramerius published other works with similar themes, sometimes as a supplement to his newspaper prior to inde- pendent book publication. One of the best known of these works was his P~itel lidu, a popular "encyclopedia" that ap- peared during 1806 and 1807. He still held true to the popular and didactic goals he had set at the beginning of his career, writing in Pi tel lidu, "My main intention is, insofar as it is within the power of my intellect, to enlighten and amuse the common people."' As before, however, he did not miss the opportunity to encourage patriotic feelings among his read- ers. Pfitel lidu included a poem by a Slovak, J. Tkadlic, in praise of the "Slavic" language, and, in a more scholarly vein, translations from German articles comparing the Slavs with the Germans and pointing out that the Slavs taken to- gether outweighed the German element in the Habsburg monarchy.4 Kramerius did not address himself only to adult readers. Like Tomsa, he also published didactic works for children. One of these, his Zrcadlo slechetnosti pro mlddez ceskou, he had originally written for his four sons.35 His most successful venture in this field was a free translation of a work by the German pedagogue, Joachim Heinrich Campe. Mladif Ro- binzon, which was loosely based on the famous story by Dan- iel Defoe, was finally published after a long delay in 1808. The literary device of the adventures of the castaway sailor provided many opportunities to drive home useful lessons to the young people who were the target of the book. Campe was also translated into Czech by Jan Rulik, who published one of his works on the rearing of children in 1792.36 He followed this translation in 1794 with another work on the same theme, Kastonova uzitecnd nau'eni o dobrem Ndrod a Lid-Nation and People zvedeni mlddeze, which had a sequel the following year. One theme Rulik included in his works was that of loyalty to the authorities in both Church and state: "Be obedient to au- thority (vrchnost), and perform and render unto it what be- longs to it. For there is no power, but from God."37 Similar works were translated into Czech by authors such as Antonin Borovy, whose Zrcadlo posetilosti was published by Kra- merius in 1792, and Vaviinec Amort.38 These works were addressed mainly to problems of per- sonal or family health and moral well-being, or were simply harmless entertainment. The popular awakeners also worked to raise the standard of living and level of economic modern- ization in the countryside. Already under Maria Theresa, the Habsburg government had concerned itself with the problem of improving the peasants' condition, and it supported the establishment of the Society for Agriculture and the Free Arts in Bohemia, transformed in 1778 into the Imperial and Royal Patriotic-Economic Society (K. und k. Patriotisch- Okonomische Gesellschaft, C. k. vlastenecko-hospodiski spolecnost).39 The society was organized in order to spread new agricultural methods, to make Bohemian farming more efficient, and to popularize new crops or improved varieties of traditional ones. Many books and pamhlets were published with these aims in mind, but nearly always in German.40 Since the majority of the peasantry on the fertile Bohemian plain spoke only Czech, it was necessary to publicize these same discoveries and techniques in Czech-a task the popular awakeners took to with alacrity. As editor of the Scheinfeldske' noviny from 1786 to 1789, Kramerius devoted a special sec- tion of the paper to encouraging the use of new crops or meth- ods; and later in his own Krameriusovy c. k. vlastenske noviny he continued with this practice. In addition, an important sec- tion of his Novy kalenddr- toleranci was devoted to such topics. Tomsa, Amort, and Rulik also contributed to this effort by translations of works in German.41 They concentrated on areas that could be improved relatively easily, with advice on 181 182 Origins of the Czech National Renascence raising livestock, especially sheep; on how to grow fodder even on poor fields unsuitable for other crops; and on the techniques of veterinary medicine. One other concern that can be seen in the popular awak- eners' work is to change the popular idea of the status of the peasantry. They praised the peasants as a necessary part of society, arguing that they should not be objects of scorn. Kra- merius publicized such ideas in his Noviny, stressing that "the deeds of the peasants' estate are dignified and, like those of any other, important."42 Rulik also maintained that "nobility and honor can dwell even in the village," and in 1798 wrote a discussion of the peasant's estate, Krdtkyj spisek o stavu sedlskm, aneb vordaskem.43 Here he idealized the status of the country dweller, and his value to society: I do not know why so many people are so retarded in understanding, that they consider the peasants' or plough- mans' estate, which puts bread practically into the mouths of all the other estates, to be coarse and worthy of scorn. Of course only senseless people think this way.... This estate is the oldest in the world, the oldest form of work, practically as old as the human race. You therefore, oh farmers, when you cultivate your fields, remember this also, that you are called to work and produce bread not only for yourselves, but for the common good.44 Certainly such sentiments could be interpreted as a cyn- ical effort to keep the peasants happy in their miserable lot. Yet it could also be argued that the popular awakeners be- lieved in the value of the peasant, not only to the state, but also to the nation. After all, he had kept the Czech language alive through the centuries.45 In his Krdtk" spisek, Rulik did emphasize the agricultural society of the early Slavs, and he linked the peasantry with the legendary Czech past through the popular figure of Priemysl, founder of the first native Czech dynasty.46 Ndrod a Lid-Nation and People The Cultivation of National Consciousness The popular awakeners' activities in didactic publishing suggest that the popular press could be useful in reaching the countryside. But publicity for government policies and in the interests of the state was not the only kind of informa- tion the popular awakeners spread. They were also active in disseminating news of current events, local or international, through newspapers, almanacs, and calendars. Kramerius's Novy kalenddri toleranci, priced so low that it was well cir- culated, was only one example of such works. Perhaps the crowning achievement of his life, however, was his twenty- two years as a newspaper editor, first for the Prague publisher J. F. von Schbnfeld, and on his own account from 1789 until his death in 1808. After this, his friends Tomsa and Rulik at- tempted to continue his newspaper, but without noticeable success. Kramerius has an important place in the develop- ment of journalism in Czech (as described in chapter 4). In one sense, Kramerius saw his newspapers as "nothing other than chronicles and tales of years, which are written for posterity to eternal memory."'47 Yet they were also useful to the present generation, to awaken patriotism and national consciousness among their readers. These aims were most ev- ident during the earlier years of his career, before the wors- ening economic situation and the wars with France had taken their toll, but even in later issues Kramerius did not ignore them. This application of journalism to agitation for the na- tional cause was one of the activities that won him a place among the awakeners. Kramerius exploited every possible opportunity in Prague to deliver his national message, paying particular attention to literary efforts of other patriots (as well as his own), plays, new books, and also political events that evoked the honor and glory of the Czech kingdom. In the 1780s especially, Kra- merius followed in detail the fortunes of the Czech theater, which he saw as possibly turning the people away from friv- 183 184 Origins of the Czech National Renascence olous and superstitious fairy tales to more useful reading.48 He announced forthcoming performances and reviewed plays. The establishment of companies of actors to perform Czech plays was welcome, "all the more," he said, "since in this way our dear language can improve and extend itself a great deal."49 When the Czech acting company included German plays in its repertory as well as Czech, out of fear that they would not be able to attract an audience for Czech plays alone, Kramerius published some critical comments. Taking his remarks from an anonymous pamphlet in German that he translated into his newspaper, Kramerius wrote: The members of this patriotic theater company called themselves a patriotic society, and actually, if they would stick to the native plays, they would deserve all encour- agement. But they should leave out the German plays which they mix in .... One can tell that they are more com- petent in their native tongue, and that every action suits them better in it.50 Of course, there was a shortage of Czech plays to perform, and Kramerius himself tried his hand at translating for the theater in 1788 with a comedy, Albert a Lotte. Though it was performed, it enjoyed little success.51 The Vlastenske noviny also mentioned two plays by Jan Rulik in 1795, Pani podle mody and Strasidlo s bubnem.52 Notices of Czech plays grad- ually decreased in number, partly because of the increase in war news, and partly because of the decline in the fortunes of the Czech theater itself. Literary comments did not, how- ever, disappear entirely from Kramerius's newspaper. When new Czech books were published, the Vlastenske noviny pub- licized them, and Kramerius frequently gave space to an en- tire section for news of books for sale or wanted. Current political events, too, gave Kramerius the chance to emphasize patriotic themes. When Joseph II died, the po- litical situation was grave, with Hungary on the verge of revolt and the Estates in the Bohemian and Austrian lands sim- mering. The new monarch, Leopold II, called the Estates Ndrod a Lid-Nation and People together to hear their grievances, and Kramerius reported these developments. Especially through his correspondents in Hungary, he kept his readers informed of the demands of the Hungarian Diet, the most outspoken of the Estates, and called upon their Bohemian counterparts to request similar concessions for themselves. What the patriots wanted for Bo- hemia might even be presented as moderate in comparison with Hungarian demands. When the Hungarians added to their other demands that at his coronation Leopold should be dressed in Hungarian national costume, Kramerius reported it, and then commented: As far as we Czechs, ever loyal to the House of Austria, are concerned, we would have no other or more humble re- quest for His Royal Highness ... than that he reintroduce into all our schools and government offices our mother tongue, for thus alone will our glorious nation again re- cover, and never demur at giving its life for our monarch. Oh that this wish of thousands upon thousands of true pa- triots would be graciously fulfilled!53 He printed glowing accounts, sent to him by his Budapest correspondent, of the popularity of Magyar among all walks of life there, followed by the question, "What are the Bohe- mian Estates intending to do at present in the cause of the Czech language?"54 This sort of reporting served as a clarion call to action. "What are we," demanded Kramerius. "Are we not Czechs? What is our kingdom? Is it not Czech? And is it then fitting that we should unlearn our language?"55 The Czech language received particular attention. In 1791 Kramerius wrote with joy that all paths were opening up for the language again, because the emperor had granted permission for a chair of Czech at the university in Prague.56 It was not until 1793, as we have seen, that Pelcl was finally appointed first holder of this chair. Kramerius reported the installation ceremony at length, welcoming this long-awaited sign that "the Czechs can be of good hope that their language, which in this century practically sank into oblivion, is slowly 185 186 Origins of the Czech National Renascence beginning to reach a higher level, and greater perfection and glory."57 The coronations of Leopold and Franz provided Kra- merius with further opportunities to recall the bygone glories of the Czech kingdom. Leopold's coronation involved the re- turn of the Crown of Saint Vaiclav from the Viennese exile where Joseph II had taken it, and Kramerius presented this as a sign that perhaps the golden age was returning.58 The speech Josef Dobrovsk read in the presence of the emperor also appeared in Kramerius's newspaper, in a translation by K. H. Thim (see chapter 2).59 The coronation of Franz II also received extensive coverage in the Vlastenske noviny, espe- cially the "country celebration" put on by the Estates in the emperor's honor. At this festival, representatives of each dis- trict of the kingdom appeared in their native costumes, and the fact that royalty was graciously pleased was hailed as a great honor for the Czech nation.60 The example Kramerius set in using political and other current events as opportunities to deliver a national message inspired Jan Rulik, too. In his Kalendd? historicky he gave some attention to cultural events, for example noting that in 1786, "to the great delight of the Czech nation," Czech news- papers began to appear again, and Czech was heard on the stage.6' He wrote enthusiastically of the return of the Bohe- mian crown and the coronation of Leopold II: This is a memorable century, especially for the Czech na- tion and kingdom, in which our renowned Czech kingdom and nation enjoyed great fame, when they not only re- ceived back their priceless Crown of St. Vaiclav from for- eign lands, but also crowned their King. ... It is fitting that we Czechs, together with our descendants, hold it in glo- rious memory forever.62 Other patriots and their activities also provided an op- portunity for national publicity. The appearance of a new book, the appointment of a patriot to an official position, the granting of a government honor, all this created a chance to Ndrod a Lid-Nation and People praise the living patriot and stress the glorious past. A sort of cult of the sincere patriot and the glorious ancestors grew up, and the litany of honored names was recounted at each ap- propriate moment. Tomsa, the brothers Thim, Rulik, Pelcl, Prochazka, Dobrovsk , and others were celebrated in the pages of Kramerius's Vlastenske noviny, while Rulik dedi- cated volumes of his Kalendd historicky to Antonin Strnad, Pelcl, Kramerius, and Jan Nejedl. Rulik also wrote occa- sional poems in honor of Pelcl and Nejedl5.63 It was these men, and others like them, "who day by day [took] more pains and effort, that their language through their untiring work could achieve again the perfection that flourished during its golden age two hundred years ago."6 Rulik devoted several independent works to the celebra- tion of past and present patriots. His Velmi uzitecnd historie o slovutndm ndrodu 6eskem, published in 1793, was a popu- larized summary of the development and character of the Czech nation from the earliest Slavic tribes to the present. Rulik stressed the fact that the Czechs were Slavic and ac- cused the Germans of folly when, because of this, they "turned their sharpened pens against us, ascribing to us ex- cesses, unkindliness, insatiable robber's greed."65 The Czechs had never been like that; on the contrary, they were honor- able, loyal, and brave in battle. They were also talented in the arts, and intelligent-though this was often wasted, Rulik said, because Czech was not cultivated in the schools any longer. The Czechs' beautiful and richly endowed homeland had given birth to many learned and holy men who should act as examples to the present generation: "Therefore, my Czechs, true patriots," concluded Rulik, "let us also act the same; let us care about that name, Czech, the nation, and the language," so that "our descendants will also bless us for this zeal ... as we now bless our dear ancestors of glorious memory.""66 The continuity between ancestors and posterity was es- pecially important for Rulik. To preserve the memory of his contemporaries fittingly, he dedicated a literary laurel wreath 187 Origins of the Czech National Renascence Hugh LeCaine Agnew "There is no book like this, even in the Czech language. "--Josef Anderle, University of North Carolina WITH THE FALL OF SOCIALISM IN EUROPE, the former East bloc nations are experiencing a rebirth of nationalism as they make the difficult transition to a market-based economy and redis- cover their roots. The dissolution of Czechoslo- vakia, in particular, points to the power of ethnic identity and ancestral loyalties over political abstractions. Using an impressive array of contemporary published and documentary sources, and inte- grating a large body of secondary material in several languages, Hugh Agnew develops the argument that Czechoslovakia's celebrated national revival of the mid-nineteenth century has its intellectual origins in the Enlightenment. He describes how intellectuals in eighteenth- century Bohemia and Moravia-the "patriotic intelligentsia"-used their discovery of the pre- seventeenth-century history and literature to revive the antiquated Czech vernacular and to cultivate a popular ethnic consciousness. An outpouring of newspapers, periodicals, didactic and entertaining literature, poetry, and drama Continued on back flap 8 Origins of the Czech National Renascence interpretation of the origins of the renascence and the role of the Enlightenment and Josephinism in it. Slavik distinguishes between a Viennese form of Enlightenment and Josephinism, and two local Bohemian variants, a territorial one (zemske os- vicenstvi, zemske Josefinismus), and a Czech one. While this approach allows one to recognize the differences among members of the intellectual and official strata at the time, it seems to me to be an unnecessarily complicated scheme, on the one hand, and to restrict the human capacity to be self- contradictory on the other. A later, more overtly "Marxist" work on the Czech Enlightenment is Josef Haubelt's Ceske osvicenstvf (1986). Haubelt argues, quite correctly, that previous historians have overconcentrated on the humanist disciplines and literature in particular, and that the Enlight- enment had a great and important impact on natural and exact sciences as well. The value of this corrective, however, is reduced by the rigidly schematic approach that insists on a dialectical opposition of Enlightenment to the previous ba- roque culture and its values, and sees the Enlightenment, predictably, as the ideology of the "bourgeoisie." Haubelt sav- ages earlier interpretations which he sees as overvaluing the baroque, without acknowledging the other tradition in which his work fits (short of a citation to a late article by Zdenek Nejedly). After a ten-year delay, the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences finally published in 1990 a collective volume, Po- adtky ceskdho ndrodniho obrozeni, 1770-1791 under the gen- eral editorship of Josef Petrii. This work ranges widely over its limited chronological span, including encyclopedic chap- ters looking at economic and social conditions, the reform program of enlightened absolutism, popular culture, the so- cial activity and "ideology" of the common people, and only one chapter devoted to the language, culture, science, and the Enlightenment. In many ways this work, too, looks rather like a fly in amber-a delicately preserved example of the best of something that is gone. The Marxist schematic framework, reflected in its insistence that the most important aspects of the period lie in the struggle for citizenship and freedoms by 188 Origins of the Czech National Renascence to them in his Vinec pocty k poctivosti ucenych, vybornch a statecnych Cecht (1795). This work was basically a cata- logue of the patriotic efforts of his colleagues, praising them by name, and including as a sort of proof of their success a list of all Czech books published between 1782 and 1795. In a later work he extended this bibliography down to 1805.67 Two other works of Rulik's took a more historical point of view. Ujend Cechia was basically a translation and para- phrase of M. A. Voigt's introductions to the volumes of his Effigies virorum eruditorum atque artificum Bohemiae et Mo- raviae, originally published in 1773-1774. Rulik's choice of title harked back consciously to Balbin's Bohemia docta and had a similar defensive and patriotic aim, if a more limited conception. After presenting the examples of a gloriously learned past that Voigt's work gave him, Rulik called on his readers to take to heart the fact that they came from a nation that was once the most renowned in Europe, both for its scholarship and its valor. He urged them to follow in the foot- steps of their ancestors, of whom they should certainly not be ashamed. "Would that our descendants also will not be ashamed of us, when, remembering us, they say: we are their ancestors, and Czechs!"68 The second work was also a histor- ically conceived collection of biographical sketches, Galerie, aneb vyobrazenost nejslovutnejsich a nejvyznamnjsgich osob zeme ceske, based on a German work by Josef Schiffner, be- ginning with the fabulous traditions of Krok and Libu-e and continuing down to the eighteenth century. The example of the ancient Czechs was of use to the gov- ernment during the Napoleonic wars, when appeals were made to the martial traditions of the past in order to stir up the fighting spirit of the people, especially in 1796, 1800, and 1809, when local militia units were organized to protect Bo- hemia from invasion.69 Kramerius and Rulik devoted space in their works to the proclamations of the Archduke Karl as commander-in-chief, and other official proclamations. They also reported a great patriotic response from the people.70 The awakeners contributed occasional verses or songs Ndrod a Lid-Nation and People harking back to the military traditions of the Czechs, and even sometimes mentioning the exploits of the Hussites, as in these stanzas from a song by Pelcl: Let us also remember our ancestors, Let us stand in battle as they did, Victory will surely be ours. Thus have the Czechs always fought They swept the enemy from the field And preserved the fatherland for us. We must not pass over the Tdborites Nor may we forget What heroes they were. Blind Jan Zizka led them They always overthrew the foe, They were all Czechs!7' Frantisek Vavik, Stach, and others produced many sim- ilar patriotic poems." Prose works also attempted to spread the government's view of events during the war years, such as Dlabac's Rozmlouvdni o nynejsi vojn mezifardrem a sed- ldkem deskjm (1809), in which a priest and a Czech peasant discuss the course of the war. Dlabac also appealed to tra- dition with a summary of the examples of martial valor from the Czech past, also published in 1809.73 In 1814, he returned to his role as purveyor of the official viewpoint on the military conflict with a series of letters on current events, Listy 6eskym krajanum v nynjsich pihoddch psani. Rulik also contributed to the efforts to stir up support for the war effort, with a play published in 1808, Vlastensky mlad! rekruta. The action was set in the time of the eleventh- century Czech prince, Oldfich, when the Czechs were fight- ing the Poles; but the relevance of the message to the Napoleonic wars was obvious. The hero, a young boy origi- nally refused by the recruiting sergeant because of his age, eventually prevails upon the prince himself to accept him as a drummer boy. The Czech characters, not surprisingly, were depicted as loyal and ready to sacrifice their lives for their 189 190 Origins of the Czech National Renascence ruler. "Let others set a value on their blood if they wish, sell it for what they wish," exclaimed one recruit as he refused the bonus for signing on, "I come out of the simple love that I bear for my lord."74 The appeals to the glories of the Czech past were, from the government's point of view, intended only to serve its needs for manpower and to help the population bear with the inevitable sacrifices of wartime. Such propaganda, however, could have results beyond the intentions of the government that encouraged or sponsored it. Certainly the free rein given to the patriotic intellectuals to evoke images from the past, even from the Hussite past, also allowed them to introduce elements of the patriotic themes with which they were con- cerned. Although the popular awakeners were in the main just as loyal as any other subjects, they were also not unaware of the fact that in this case their interests coincided with the government's. The Popular Awakeners and the Czech Language The unifying thread through practically all of the popular awakeners' work is concern for the Czech language. They ag- itated for its spread, attempted to improve its condition, and used it in their own works. The awakeners also worked to create a desire for Czech reading material in the countryside and to make available worthwhile books to read. Beyond the fact that they used Czech themselves in the works they aimed at the common people, the popular awakeners joined others in defending the language, stressing its historical excellence, and publishing again some of the monuments of its golden age. While the attitudes of the intellectuals to the language, their efforts to assert its social and cultural value, and their struggle to develop and stabilize its grammatical and lexical base are discussed in chapter 2, it would be worthwhile to consider for a moment how the popular awakeners used the language in their work to reach the common people. Rulik and Tomsa contributed directly to the "defenses of Ndrod a Lid-Nation and People the language," and Kramerius frequently included defensive passages in his newspapers and other works. In 1792, Rulik published his Sldva a vyjbornost jazyka ceskdho, which, though it did not present any new arguments, was filled with a burning sense of love for the language. Rulik likened it to "a gift from God and the priceless inheritance of each and every nation."5 It was one of the five main branches of the Slavic language, and thus widespread, it had a rich vocabulary, and borrowed words from foreign languages only because it was copying the German example. Rulik described the de- cline of Czech following the Battle of the White Mountain in 1620, and although he did not condone the rebellion, he also condemned the burning of Czech books. Every nation should strive to cultivate its mother tongue, Rulik insisted, and held up the example of Hungary, where even the highest magnates in the land supported Magyar.76 Tomsa's Von den Vorziigen der 6echischen Sprache was, as we have seen, rather more like the earliest defenses, a throwback to an already outdated ap- proach. He repeated the arguments about Czech's long his- tory as a language of high culture, its simplicity, pithiness of expression, and rich vocabulary. "And should it then not be worthwhile," he demanded, "to maintain and improve a ... language such as Czech-the native tongue (Landessprache) of a not insignificant kingdom?""7 It may well be that Tomsa's work was not addressed, really, to the common people; but rather to the officials in the school system and elsewhere in the administration, both in Bohemia and Vienna, who were loath to give official support to Czech publishing. Kramerius's passages about the language, by contrast, were definitely intended to stir up interest in the hearts of the common people. The themes Kramerius stressed included the assertion that it was by language alone that one people was differentiated from another, and that the mother tongue was like a rare jewel that even barbaric and ignorant nations knew how to value. "Russians speak Russian, the French, French, Italians, Italian, and thus in the whole world each 191 192 Origins of the Czech National Renascence nation has its own language; why then should the Czechs alone have to betray and disown their mother tongue?" he asked.78 The fact that Czech was related to the other Slavic lan- guages was often given as a reason for its importance. Like others among the patriotic intelligentsia, the popular awak- eners frequently identified Czech as a dialect of a single Slavic language and the Czechs as only a branch of the Slavic nation. Rulik emphasized the Slavic ancestors of the Czechs in his Velmi uzitecnd historie and in Sldva a vybornost jazyka ceskdho, and Kramerius dedicated his newspaper to the "Czech, Moravian, and glorious, widespread Slavic nation.""79 He begged his fellow countrymen to get rid of their obsolete antipathy for their language, promising that they would then realize "that Russians, Poles, Pomeranians, Silesians, Mora- vians, Slovaks, Dalmatians, Bosnians, Moldavians, Serbs, Wends, Croats, and many other famous nations spread to all corners of the world are [their] brothers, and use the glorious Slavic language, with only slight differences."80 Whenever the opportunity arose, the popular awakeners urged their readers to learn and use Czech. In 1792, for ex- ample, Vaviinec Amort announced that he would offer free Czech lessons to anyone who was interested. Kramerius pub- licized the offer in his Vlastenske noviny, pointing out that "since now the Czech language is beginning to flourish in our kingdom, everyone will gradually but unavoidably need to know it."8' Unfortunately, the response to this call for stu- dents was not terribly enthusiastic; but this did not diminish the frequency of appeals to the Czechs to raise their opinion of their language and begin to use it once more.82 Other pa- triots published works aimed at helping the Czechs to do pre- cisely that. Chlidek, whose views on the importance of Czech to the clergy in Bohemia have been mentioned, published a short handbook on how to speak and write Czech in 1795. He intended it especially for those who, "although they speak Czech from childhood, still make countless errors and are Ndrod a Lid-Nation and People ignorant of the rules of grammar."83 As correct models to emulate, Chlidek recommended especially the works of Pro- chazka, Tomsa, and Kramerius. Tomsa published a similar work directed at the lower grades of the public schools and those who would work in them.84 However much the popular awakeners insisted that Czechs need not be ashamed of their language, however much they stressed its relationship with the other Slavic tongues, how- ever enthusiastically they urged their countrymen to use it, they were all well aware of the sorry state of Czech in their own day, and the serious decline it had suffered since its golden age in the sixteenth century. They knew all too well that many of its most precious monuments "were in part dam- aged and destroyed by coarse ignorance, in part given up to the flames by senseless zeal."'5 One way to improve the qual- ity of the language and to make good at least part of the losses it had suffered was to put back into the hands of the Czech reader decent books written in Czech. It was natural, then, that the popular awakeners would be involved in the attempts (discussed in chapter 3) to reclaim the existing monuments of earlier Czech literature. Tomsa published the autobiography of Charles IV and a moralistic tract by Simon Lomnick z Bud'e in 1791. Kramerius pub- lished another work by Lomnicky in 1794, with the additional aim of helping budding Czech poets, since Krdtke' naucenf mlad6mu hospoddi was written in verse.86 Other Czech works from the humanist period that Kramerius published included the chronicles of the Trojan War (1790), Aesop's fables (1791), and the travels of the mythical Sir John Mande- ville (1795). He continued this activity into the new century, adding Josephus's history of the Jewish wars in 1806, re- issuing Vaiclav Vratislav z Mitrovic's adventures (already pub- lished by Pelcl in 1777) in 1807, and publishing Xenophon's biography of Cyrus the Elder in 1809.87 Although it was a modern Czech version of a Latin original, Jif z Drachova's Cesta z Moskvy do Ciny, which Rulik translated and pub- 193 194 Origins of the Czech National Renascence lished in 1800, fits in well with the subjects of these other republications, and it also fed the popular interest in Russia during the wars with France.88 The popular awakeners published and edited these books to spread good written Czech and to promote Czech literature among the people. They proved, as Kramerius proudly noted, that the Czech language had reached such a peak of devel- opment two centuries earlier, that it equaled Latin or Greek.89 Through reading these books, the patriots hoped, their au- dience would be reminded of who they were and from whom they were descended, and that they would also remember their language and not harm it further." For, as Rulik vividly expressed it, experience shows that there is no other way to the hope of preserving the purity of a language, and also that it cannot be better spread than by reading excellent books. Other- wise it would become plucked and bare, like Aesop's mag- pie, from which all the other birds (Oh! would that our native ones did not act that way!) pulled the feathers.91 Although they held the Czech of the golden age in ven- eration, the popular awakeners were more aware than their contemporaries that the language could not be forced into a sixteenth-century mold of perfection. Their activities as trans- lators and popularizers brought home to them the difficulties of finding suitable Czech words for all topics, in spite of their repeated assertions that Czech was lexically rich.92 If the lan- guage was to be a meaningful tool in spreading knowledge and national consciousness, it would have to remain in contact with the people who spoke it daily. Tomsa, who was also an active philologist and lexicographer, emphasized in his profes- sional works the need to stay close to Czech as it was spoken (see chapter 2). Especially in technical fields, the translator or lexicographer should learn from the person who does the work, and if he is too proud to learn Czech from a laborer, peasant, or servant, he should give up writing rather than be- come a corrupter of the language.93 Tomsa did not, however, Ndrod a Lid-Nation and People recommend the uncritical acceptance of everything in the spoken language. "A true Czech must not be ashamed to learn from all Czechs in order to comprehend the complete lin- guistic usage," he wrote; "but he must test what he hears, in order to be able to teach correct Czech."94 In the interests of making their works understandable to the average Czech, the popular awakeners did not hesitate to modify even the language of the golden age. Kramerius, for example, edited the Czech in his Aesop's fables so that it con- formed with contemporary spoken usage, which had been done (he argued) in each of its six previous editions.95 Rulik's major concern in his translation of Cesta z Moskvy do Oiny was to ensure that everyone who read it would understand everything in "their natural language," and Tomsa and Pro- chizka modernized the Czech in their version of the auto- biography of Charles IV.96 More traditionally minded patriots criticized this attitude to the language, and Tomsa especially was the target for their attacks; but the popular awakeners persevered in their efforts.97 The popular awakeners did not limit their efforts on be- half of Czech literature to the publication of monuments of the past. In any case, the supply of available works was lim- ited, and the taste of the Czech reader was often not ready to appreciate them. Probably the most common type of Czech reading material available to the common people was reli- gious in content, consisting of pamphlets, saints' lives and "keys to heaven" (nebeklice, collections of devotional prayers, songs, and meditations). Aside from these religious works, the most popular form of reading among the people was the so- called knightly romance (rytirsky- roman), usually badly mod- eled after German tales, or fairy stories filled with witches, magic, enchanted princesses, and the like.98 Both the content and the language of these stories were not at a very high level. In an effort to wean the Czech reader away from such tales, the popular awakeners worked to replace them with reading material along similar lines, but written in good Czech and with a slightly more useful content. 195 196 Origins of the Czech National Renascence During the last quarter of the eighteenth century, more and more Czech books were published in Bohemia. In ad- dition to the press of the Normal School, the Prague publish- ers von Sch6nfeld, Diesbach, Herrl, and others all carried Czech books on their lists at one time or another. But for most of these publishers Czech books were a sideline at best, since they also published in German or other languages. Not until Kramerius organized his Czech Expedition (Ceskd expedice) in 1790 did a publishing house devoted exclusively to Czech literature came into existence.99 At first, Kramerius was forced to publish works that were basically the same as those he hoped to replace, but gradually he was able to attempt to en- sure that "the country people would get rid of many of that sort of tale, which indeed for its contemptibility deserves to be expunged completely from our Czech nation."'1 The books that the Czech Expedition published were usually trav- elogues or historical tales set in faraway places-a trend also visible in the publications of monuments from the past. They were frequently in the dialogue form and acquainted their readers with foreign countries and customs. But they were more than lessons in elementary geography, since they cov- ered economics, culture, and religion also. Kramerius contin- ued to praise reason and tolerance, as for example in his Historicke vypsdni, kterak ... Amerika od Kolumbusa vynd- lezend byla (1803). The Spaniards' greed for gold and their behavior toward the natives were both criticized by Kra- merius, who reminded his readers that "many Christians are much worse than people who know nothing about our holy religion."0o The Czech Expedition also published works by other writers, among them Prokop Sedivy, whose tale Cesk- amazonky, published in 1792, had a laudatory foreword by Kramerius. He stressed that it was an original Czech story (taken from Hajek's chronicle), and boasted that for a change it was being translated from Czech into German.102 Rulik also tried his hand at providing entertaining, but enlightening ma- terial for the Czech readership.03 As literature, the works published by the Czech Expedi- Ndrod a Lid-Nation and People tion were not particularly valuable. Yet they did begin the process of raising the taste of the common people, however little, and they did spread a much higher standard of Czech into the countryside. Through works such as Kramerius's trav- elogues and didactic encyclopedias like P itel lidu, the general level of knowledge among the common people began to rise. The Czech Expedition, as an organization dedicated solely to publishing in Czech for Czechs, also played an important role as a center of patriotic activity. The depiction in Alois Jirasek's novel about the obrozeni, F. L. Vk (1887-1905), is probably not entirely a nationalistic exaggeration. Only Jan Rulik ever addressed himself specifically to de- fining what enlightenment meant, and he attempted it only in 1804, long after the heyday of enlightened absolutism was over. In a didactic work in the form of a priest's conversations with his village parishioners, he defined enlightenment as nothing more than making known something that had pre- viously been unknown. From this it followed that there could be good and bad enlightenment; it was good when the new knowledge helped the community, and bad when it harmed it. According to Rulik, the man who truly had the good of the people at heart "gives the rules, according to which [they] should maintain their health, . .. he teaches how children should be reared, and . . . he sincerely places in the hands of the husbandman what he should do to improve his hus- bandry." 04 Though Rulik was probably the most conservative of the patriots who were concerned with the common people, his account hits the main points of all their activities. The work of the popular awakeners went farther than this, however. Tomsa, Kramerius, and others tried to spread an enlightened religious outlook freed from the superstition and intolerance of the preceding centuries. Thus they began at least to prepare the common people for the changes that were to take place in succeeding years. In this, they were motivated by a desire to serve, not so much the state, as the vlast and 197 Introduction the lower classes and the development of the economic con- ditions leading to the growth of capitalist relations, betrays the fact that most of its contributions were still prepared "za totie" (under totalitarianism), as the Czechs say today. Since the collapse of Communism, Czech scholarly life has been freed from restrictions imposed by the state in the name of a political ideology. With the continued interest in the meaning of the Czech past, including the renascence, the possibility now exists for the development of a new approach such as the one Praiak called for so long ago. Standing in the way, however, are other problems of a different nature. There are so many other pressing needs, from writing new textbooks for all levels of public schools, to working out how the uni- versities will function now that their academic autonomy has been returned to them, that it seems unlikely that major new syntheses will be forthcoming for some time. Until that be- comes possible, I hope that this book can fill the gap to some extent. It may also help to provide to an English-speaking au- dience an introduction to a fascinating and important part of Czech history that also has a wider significance as a part of the general development of nationalism in Europe in the nineteenth century. Let us turn, then, to the national renascence: what is it, and where did it come from? The nineteenth-century patri- ots, when they described their national movement, turned in- itially to metaphors of rebirth, awakening, or resurrection (znovuzrozeni, probuzeni, vzkfni'ent). The prevailing inter- pretation, as we have seen, saw the Czech nation as a com- munity with a long and glorious past that had somehow fallen asleep or even died during the period of "darkness" that had descended upon it after the defeat of the Bohemian Estates' revolt in 1620. Now it had, perhaps miraculously, awakened, come to life, and begun to demand its rightful place among other European nations. Toward the threshold of the twen- tieth century, the less emotionally charged term "renascence" (obrozeni) began to replace the earlier, less accurate terms and is now in general use. Nevertheless, the patriots of the 9 198 Origins of the Czech National Renascence nation. They believed that "the first and foremost duty of wise and truth-loving men in this century is to enlighten the human understanding more and more each day; and the nation that gains the light of reason from their praiseworthy, resolute ef- forts cannot but be considered happy and truly blessed."105 To raise the level of understanding and living standards in the countryside was thus a part of their concept of their patriotic duty. By helping enlighten the Czech people, the popular awakeners sought to enable their nation proudly to take its rightful place among the other enlightened nations of Europe.06 As we have seen, the popular awakeners also worked to spread patriotism and Czech national consciousness among the people. They repeatedly held up the example of the early Czechs for their learning, bravery, and love of their language. It was the duty of every true Czech to strive to be a worthy descendant of such ancestors, and the publicity they gave to contemporary patriots was designed to inspire others to copy them. Above all, the popular awakeners worked for the Czech language, encouraged its use in all areas of life, and stressed again and again that a true patriot should love it and try to improve and spread it. As Kramerius warned, "If we someday allow our language to be wiped out through our negligence, it will not be otherwise, than that we will cease to be that which we are, the Czech nation, and with time change into a completely different and foreign nation."107 Finally, the popular awakeners contributed in an impor- tant way to solving the problem posed by the shift in meaning of the concept of nation. Their work in raising the standard of Czech reading material in the countryside, of propagan- dizing for Czech culture in a fuller sense, and of proving in practice that Czech could be used for a variety of functions, began the process of changing the patriots' attitudes to the nobles and the common people. At this time, the process was far from over, and many Czech patriots were still appalled at the relative unconcern of the nobility for the national cause. The Slovak patriot Bohuslav Tablic wrote to Jan Nejedl Ndrod a Lid-Nation and People about the support given by the Hungarian nobles, not only to Magyar, but also, in notable cases, to the Slovak tongue. "Only the Czech magnates and gentry do not want to write in Czech. How deeply your nation has fallen. Is it not possible to awaken it from this slumber?"'08 Josef Rautenkranc echoed this la- ment that the scholars and nobility did not use Czech, though he predicted that it would still be possible to win over "at least the young nobles-and then, it's won!"109 Others, however, were more willing to place their reli- ance on the simple country folk, giving up any hopes of converting the nobility to the national cause. Sebastian Hn-v- kovsk rejected the idea of dedicating his epic poem, Devin, to anyone (such dedications were the common practice), writ- ing, "I do not request anything from all these noble scoun- drels."10 Rulik warned those who dismissed Czech because it was used only among the common people that "what is among the people should not instantly be considered vulgar; certainly there is no language that would not be in use in the countryside or villages.""' Josef Jungmann also maintained that "every language in its home is a country language." The peasant is the most important citizen of the land and has the right to demand to be spoken to in his own tongue."2 Vojtch Nejedl eventually gave credit to the common people in the countryside for maintaining the existence of the Czech nation. Putting the words into the mouth of Pelcl, he wrote: "We would already have been buried, had the country dwellers not continued to regard [Zizka's] virtues; it is they who maintain us, and purify our blood." 13 These ideas reflect the begin- nings of a new way of looking at the common people, as the core of the nation, the class that kept alive the language and the national existence through dark days in the past and would be its security for the future. The common people were not pariahs, but patriots."4 The popular awakeners played an im- portant role in the realization of that fact. 199 6 "The Glorious, Widespread Slavic Nation" The Czechs were a Slavic people: of that fact the patriotic intellectuals had no doubt, and frequently expressed their consciousness of this Slavic heritage in their works. The precise meaning of this Slavic consciousness to Czech nation- alism, however, has long been the subject of discussion, schol- arly and otherwise.' A tradition of belonging to a larger Slavic whole had existed in various forms in Czech history, stretch- ing back through the "baroque Slavism" of such as Bohuslav Balbin and Tomis Pe'ina z Cechorodu, to the Hussite period and even farther. Conditions in the later eighteenth century, however, increasingly favored more contacts among the Slavs, including the Czechs, and this made possible the develop- ment of attitudes that differed from the traditional feelings of Slavic reciprocity. Although many of these contacts touched only the educated elite and therefore had a limited, scholarly character, there were also moments when even the wider masses were exposed to other Slavs and thus given the op- portunity to confront the question of their relationship with them. This was especially true during the wars with France at the close of the century.2 The attitudes to the Slavs of the intelligentsia (and, to a more limited extent, the broader masses), were thus shaped by the same developments that affected their attitudes to their own nation, its past, its language, and its future possi- 200 "The Glorious, Widespread Slavic Nation" bilities. This naturally poses the question of the link between this Slavism and the Czech national consciousness that the patriotic intellectuals were articulating.3 I will explore this link by examining the contacts between the Czechs and the other Slavs, to discover to what extent coherent attitudes to the Slavs were expressed and the part they played in this phase of the renascence. Intellectual Contacts between Bohemia and the Slavic World Before the revolutions in transportation and communication of the industrial era, direct links between the Czech lands and the lands of the other Slavs, especially Russia, were limited.4 Thus it was largely the scholarly and cultural intelligentsia who could acquire knowledge of and form opinions about the rest of Europe, including the Slavic world. The development of learning in the eighteenth century provided the back- ground for the growth of these contacts, as the world of schol- arship became an increasingly international one. The cosmopolitanism of the Enlightenment encouraged the ex- change of ideas among the members of the "republic of learning." The establishment of academies of science, which elected honorary and corresponding members from abroad, provided a forum for the creative clash of ideas and their ex- change with sister institutions elsewhere.5 Bohemia was a part of this European development; and by the latter part of the eighteenth century it had produced several scholars of inter- national repute and given birth to a learned society of its own, the Royal Bohemian Society of Sciences.6 One Bohemian scholar with a truly European reputation was the historian Gelasius Dobner, and his greatest work also involved him in links of a kind with the Slavic world. This was his famous edition of Hjek z Libocan's chronicle, which earned him the title "father of Czech critical historiography" and provoked heated polemical discussions when it was pub- lished in 1761 (see chapter 1).7 The charge was that Dobner had "thrown out on genuine critical grounds, as a simple fable 201 202 Origins of the Czech National Renascence arising no earlier than the thirteenth century, the national fa- thers (Stammvditer) of the Czech and Polish nations, Cech and Lech, who had previously been believed in as an article of faith."8 This brought down on Dobner's head the opprob- rium of his fellow countrymen who "believed that the honor and history of Bohemia had been damaged in the extreme," and also ranged on the side of his opponents a learned society in Leipzig, the Societas Jablonoviana, and its founder, the Polish prince J. A. Jablonowski. Jablonowski's partisanship of Lech and his brother stemmed from family pride as well as conservative "patriotism," since according to Dobner the prince claimed descent in the direct line from Lech himself.9 The Societas Jablonoviana became a sort of sponsor and center of attacks on Dobner, and efforts to prove the existence of the national fathers filled the pages of its journal, the Acta Societatis Jablonovianae. Jablonowski corresponded with Dobner's Czech opponents, especially Pubicka and Duchovsk, and he published some of their ar- ticles attacking Dobner in the Acta. The literary fruits of the collaboration between the Prague "'echists" and Jablonow- ski's society did not amount to more than a few articles, but their contacts were close enough to lead one scholar to speak of a "Prague branch" of the Societas Jablonoviana.1o In ad- dition to bringing about contacts between Bohemian scholars and Poles, the quarrel over C'ech and Lech expanded to in- clude, at least tangentially, the Russians. The antagonists searched for evidence to support them and refute the oppo- sition, and both sides turned to Russian sources, such as Nes- tor's chronicle or the works of Lomonosov or Schl6zer, to buttress their arguments." Such contacts as were created by the controversy tended to die down as time and the spread of critical historical method gave Dobner the better of the argument, though an attack on his views appeared as late as 1784.12 Beyond the fact that the principals were mostly Bohemians and Poles, and words like patriotism and unpatriotic were bandied about in some of the polemics, there was little in the way of Slavic "The Glorious, Widespread Slavic Nation" 203 consciousness expressed during this quarrel. The center of gravity of the conflict lay in the political organization of the earliest Slavs, and the clash was largely between two differing concepts of how nations originate: an older, traditional, even feudal one, and a more modem, enlightened one.'3 The tra- ditional view was well suited to the patriotism of the privi- leged levels of Bohemian society, who were affected by the centralizing reforms of the Habsburg state and whose argu- ments against its attacks on their position were usually couched in political, legal and historical terms. Even the rather far-fetched genealogical fancies of such as Prince Jab- lonowski (which had their counterparts among the Bohemian nobility) served to establish the antiquity and validity of their claims. Yet, as the idea of the nation broadened, these foun- dations were no longer an adequate basis for resisting the de- mands of the modern state. Dobner's picture of the origins of the Czech nation was already better suited to the newer cultural and linguistic definition of the nation in whose name centralization should be resisted. In any case, the contacts with the Slavic worlds created by the dispute over Cech and Lech were, for the time being, limited. Better-organized and longer-lasting relations with the for- eign scholarly world, including the Slavic, were made possible by the Royal Bohemian Society of Sciences. This was espe- cially true of contacts between Bohemia and the St. Peters- burg Academy of Sciences in Russia. Direct contacts between the two institutions were at first largely concentrated in the natural sciences. Ignac von Born, who had been instrumental in founding the Bohemian society, corresponded with P. S. Pallas in St. Petersburg on geological and mineralogical top- ics, while other members of the society, such as the astron- omer Franz Johann Gerstner, or the brothers Johann and Joseph Mayer, followed with interest the activities of their colleagues in Russia. Articles and notices in the journal of the society, Abhandlungen einer Privatgesellschaft in Bhmen, and the exchange of this and other publications with St. Pe- tersburg, testified to the scope and nature of the contacts thus 204 Origins of the Czech National Renascence engendered. To crown them, the St. Petersburg Academy elected Born an honorary member at its fiftieth anniversary session in 1776-the only scholar from the Habsburg mon- archy to be so honored.14 It seems difficult to relate these contacts between Russia and Bohemian natural scientists, many of whom were not of Slavic origin, directly to the development of national con- sciousness and the Czech national renascence. Certainly there was no expression of Slavic solidarity or Russophilism in them. Admittedly scientific subject matter did not lend it- self to such expressions; but it is not necessary to posit the existence of such attitudes in order to account for interest in Russia. For one thing, Russian science enjoyed an interna- tional reputation, making it a natural object of interest for any scientist. There was also a general European curiosity about emergent Russia in the age of "enlightened absolutism," as epitomized by Voltaire's correspondence with Catherine II. In addition, many Russian scientists were Germans, either from the Baltic provinces or the states of the empire. In any case, the Bohemian Society of Sciences, like its sister insti- tutions, maintained links with the entire world of European scholarship-and when it elected its first foreign members they all came from the Habsburg lands or the Holy Roman Empire.15 The Bohemian Society of Sciences did, however, send two of its leading members to Russia during 1792 and 1793. They were Josef Dobrovski and Count Joachim von Stern- berg, the former being sent on a mission to collect literary evidence for the history of Czech, and the latter exploring the state of the natural sciences in Russia. The society had been blessed with a gift of 6,000 guilders by the newly crowned king of Bohemia, Leopold II, and it was decided to use the money to finance journeys by Dobrovsk to Sweden and Rus- sia in search of examples of Czech literature that might have been scattered through the region after the Swedes plun- dered Prague during the Thirty Years' War.16 Dobrovsky had considered a similar journey some years before,x" but had "The Glorious, Widespread Slavic Nation" 205 never progressed beyond the planning stage because of the financial and other logistical problems. Thanks to the Society of Sciences, Dobrovsk now had financial support, and had also gained a congenial traveling companion. Both men pub- lished works based on their experiences and observations on this journey, works that provided a rather critical insight into Catherine's Russia.'8 Though Dobrovsk4 was quick to broaden the terms of his mandate to include Slavic literature in general, as well as monuments of Czech in particular,19 his Litterarische Nach- richten that he published upon his return (in the Abhand- lungen in 1795 and separately in 1796) kept quite closely to his literary subject. Dobrovsk4's correspondence with friends written on his journey contains a few more revealing remarks about the Slavs outside Bohemia as he saw them. A fairly un- flattering description comes from a letter to Jiff Ribay: Our dear Slavic brethren are, by the hair color, still the same as Procopius described them. But their morals are no longer so simple and unspoiled. I was very displeased with their talent for stealing, and could have called them with Saint Boniface foedissimum genus hominum. The Poles are, however, somewhat better behaved than the Russians, but still slavicae fidei, as the German annalists say. Your Slovaks are already very cultivated people, when compared with these.20 These comments were probably not intended to apply to the men of learning whom Dobrovsk met in Russia, a group that included such figures as P. S. Pallas, Count Musin- Pushkin, and others; but his general opinion of cultural life in Russia and the state of Russian literature did not seem very high. As late as 1813 he remarked of the Russians, "These people are usually lacking in the humanities, and it is difficult to speak with them about fundamental principles."''21 Never- theless, Dobrovsk found the impressions of his experience, and especially the books he brought back with him, very valu- able. "I do not like to give away anything of the Slavicis I 206 Origins of the Czech National Renascence have brought," he wrote to Kopitar, "for they remind me of Russia."22 In later years, as the diary of Count Eugen Czer- nin bears witness, Dobrovski greatly enjoyed recalling his journey.23 Exchanges between learned societies and fleeting per- sonal contacts were not as important in the scholarly traffic between the Czech lands and the rest of the Slavic world as the flourishing literary correspondence carried on by many people who never met face to face. In this way information was gathered and views exchanged even after political devel- opments made travel difficult and dangerous. Much of the network of mutual encouragement thus created centered on Dobrovsk9, who came to be called the "patriarch" of Slavic studies, and his own extensive personal correspondence is a good example of the phenomenon. In matters Slavic, Dobrovsk found valuable assistance from his correspondents in Vienna, chiefly Durych and Zlo- bick?, to whom the younger Slovene scholar, Jernej Kopitar was later added. Each of these men not only exchanged ideas and information with him themselves, but also acted as in- termediaries for other Slavic scholars. When Dobrovsk vis- ited Vienna briefly in 1796, Durych and Zlobick4 introduced him to several other academics, including a young Polish in- tellectual, Samuel Bogumil Linde, with whom Dobrovsk continued to correspond in later years." Durych was also ac- quainted with a Croat, Adam Alois Baricevi6, who assisted him in his magnum opus, the Bibliotheca slavica (1795).25 Bari'evi6 also corresponded with Dobrovs4k's friend Dlab i, who acted as a go-between for Baricevi6 and the German slav- ist from Lusatia, Karl Gottlob von Anton.26 Durych had a lively interest in Russian literature in his field, though he lacked Dobrovsk's good fortune in being able to travel to Russia. Nevertheless, his Bibliotheca slavica gives eloquent proof of the extent of his acquaintance with early Slavic lit- erary monuments of Russian provenance.27 Dobrovsk himself had a fairly extensive acquaintance, both personal and through Kopitar, with South Slav scholars. "The Glorious, Widespread Slavic Nation" 207 While he was in Vienna in 1796, he met both Marijan Lano- sovi6, the grammarian from Slavonia, and Joachim Stulli, a lexicographer from Dubrovnik.28 He was also acquainted with a leading representative of the Croat intelligentsia, the bishop of Zagreb, Maksimilijan Vrhovac, from whom he requested contributions on the Croats for a journal of Slavic studies he was contemplating.29 Vrhovac continued to express interest in Dobrovsk's Slavic researches, even to the point of offering to help finance a journey to the Slavic monastery on Mount Athos, which was to have similar aims to Dobrovsk's Russian travels."3 Other Croat scholars with whom Dobrovs4k was in contact included the bishop of Djakovo, Antun Mandi6, and Josip Volti6-Voltiggi, whose trilingual Latin-German-Croat dictionary was published in 1803. Dobrovskl was also familiar with the work of the Piarist from Dubrovnik, Franjo Marija Appendini, and criticized his views on the relative age of Slavic settlement in Illyria.31 Among Slovenes, Dobrovsk4 corresponded with Baron Zois, the patriotic nobleman and Maecenas, the grammarian, Valentin Vodnik, and a less well-known Slavist, Franz Me- telko. He was also well acquainted with the Slovene church historian, from 1782 professor of church history at Prague, Kaspar Royko. Royko's major work, a history of the Council of Constance that was very sympathetic to Jan Hus, was fa- vorably reviewed by Dobrovsk.32 His most durable contacts with a Slovene, however, were probably with Baron Zois's young prot g6, Jernej Kopitar. Kopitar, who eventually be- came librarian at the Hofbibliothek in Vienna, corresponded with Dobrovsk over a twenty-year period, and his own works, especially the Grammatik der slavischen Sprache in Krain, Karnten und Steyermark (1809), clearly showed his mentor's influence.-3 Dobrovsk's contacts with Serbs were rather fewer. He was acquainted with Dimitrije Davidovi6, who published a Serbian newspaper in Vienna, and his colleague, Dimitrije Frusi6, and he corresponded with the physicist, Atanasij Stojkovi6, from 1803 to 1812.-' Stojkovi6 was employed at the 10 Origins of the Czech National Renascence first two generations are still usually called "awakeners" (bu- diteld).13 Even these revised expressions still imply the exis- tence of certain major characteristics of the renascence. In the first place, they imply continuity, since that which under- goes a revival or renascence must have existed before. Sec- ond, they imply change or transformation, since waking is a changed state in comparison with sleeping. Finally, these terms raise the question of agency, for if the nation was roused by "awakeners," then human will must have played a role. Embedded in the very terminology used to describe the na- tional renascence, then, are several questions, including these three: What existed before the emergence of the modern na- tion? What happened to bring about this emergence? What was the part played by individual human choice? The first of these questions raises the problem of whether nations and nationalism should be seen as distinctly modem features of human society, or whether they also existed in the past.'4 Certainly one can find evidence of attitudes among at least some levels of society, even a long way back in the past, that resemble those of modem nationalism. A good example of this from the Czech past would be the Kronika Boleslavskd, once attributed to a certain Dalimil. In it the chronicler not only expresses a clear idea of the separate status of the King- dom of Bohemia, but also of the Slavic community of the Czechs. It also includes strong expressions of anti-German sentiment.15 Yet even if we accept that "the ability to dis- tinguish between one's own national community and other national communities was unimpaired, unambiguous, supra- social, and-one might add-remarkably accurate long be- fore modern nationalism," this does not mean that modem nationalism is the same thing as this earlier awareness of na- tional community.'6 If we term this awareness of community national consciousness and keep it separate from modern na- tionalism, then we can argue that while national conscious- ness can exist, and has done so quite happily in the past, without modem nationalism, modem nationalism cannot ex- 208 Origins of the Czech National Renascence university in Kharkov as a professor of physics, and at his in- stigation, Dobrovsk4 was elected an honorary member of the university. Dobrovsk9's own account of this honor, conveyed to Kopitar, suggests that he saw it as a chance to encourage scholarly contacts, but did not find this view shared on the other side: Stojkovi6 is writing Russian textbooks of physics et alia in Kharkov. They made me an honorary member of the uni- versity, and ordered Bohemian garnets from me for the Kharkov beauties. Rather than burdening me with such commissions, they should have sent me some Russian books.35 Dobrovsk followed the works of the great Serb gram- marian and lexicographer, Vuk Stefanovi6 Karadii6, with in- terest, subscribing in advance to six copies of his second collection of Serbian folk songs. But he did not approve of Vuk's efforts to create a literary language out of the dialect spoken by the common people. In keeping with his views on the Czech language (see chapter 2), Dobrovsk argued that Vuk's proceedings would create a break between the litera- ture of the past and modern works. Although Dobrovsk4's authority helped preserve the norm-giving status of the lan- guage of the sixteenth century for Czech, in the case of Serbian, Vuk's arguments won the day. Their disagreement did not prevent friendly relations between the two, however, and Vuk left behind an engaging word-portrait of Dobrovsk some ten years before the latter's death: I first saw this patriarch of Slavonic literature at Davidovi6's last Saturday ... great as was my joy at seeing Dobrovsk, it was even greater to find in him not some paunchy, dumpy, stooping monk, but a tall, thin old man who really steps out like a young fellow of a third of his years.36 Dobrovsk gained some knowledge of the state of learn- ing in the Polish lands when his return journey from Russia in 1793 led him through Warsaw, Krak6w, and other towns.37 "The Glorious, Widespread Slavic Nation" 209 Aside from this first-hand experience, however, his direct contacts with Poles were relatively few. Some letters from younger scholars in Dobrovsk~'s archives seem to be only for- mal rituals of homage to the "patriarch" of Slavic studies, such as those from Jan Pawel Woronicz or Julian Ursyn Niemce- wicz. More concrete and fruitful contacts took place in his correspondence with Linde and the librarian at Krak6w, Jerzy Samuel Bandtke. Dobrovsk4 met Linde in Vienna in 1796, as we have seen, but their surviving correspondence dates from 1808. At that time, Linde, a protege of the Polish patriot, Count J. M. Os- soliiski, was already beginning work on his six-volume Polish dictionary (1807-1814).38 Since Dobrovsk9 was working on his own dictionary of Czech, Linde's undertaking interested him greatly, and much of their correspondence was given over to Dobrovsk's comments and criticisms of Linde's work. Dobrovsk had some reservations about the result, but both men continued to hold each other in high regard. Linde was elected a member of the Bohemian Society of Sciences upon Dobrovsk's nomination, and he returned the favor in 1804, securing Dobrovskl's admission to the Society of Friends of Science (Towarzystwa Przyjaciol Nauk) in Warsaw.39 Bandtke initiated correspondence with Dobrovsk in 1810, and the two men exchanged views on a wide range of subjects, from Slavic history through folklore to mythology. Bandtke contributed to Dobrovsk's periodical Slovanka (1814- 1815), and Dobrovsk's influence can be seen in Bandtke's Polnische Grammatik (1808) and his articles "Tber den rein- sten der slawischen Dialekte" (1815) and "Uwagi nad jizyk- iem czeskim, polskim i terazniejszym rosyjskim" (1815). Bandtke, like Linde, sealed his scholarly friendship with Dob- rovsk by sponsoring his election to honorary membership in the Krak6w learned society in 1816.40 Dobrovskl did not limit his contacts and interests only to the major Slavic nations. As a theological student in Prague, he met and befriended some Lusatian students at the Lusa- tian seminar, and he stayed in contact with some of them to 210 Origins of the Czech National Renascence the end of his life.41 Dobrovsk's correspondence with the German Lusatian scholar K. G. von Anton, and with the trans- lator of the Bible, I. F. Fryco, survives today.42 Throughout his life he was interested in Sorbian, and although he once characterized it as "an awkward and disfigured language, which a Czech or Moravian would be ashamed of," he never- theless continued work on a grammar of it during his last years.43 There was, then, a significant degree of contact between the Czech scholars interested in Slavic topics and others with similar interests, including other Slavs. Through personal contacts, links between learned societies, and correspon- dence, they exchanged information, compared notes, and criticized each other's works. In the process, they stimulated the growth and development of Slavic studies as a discipline, first as an incidental theme in works devoted to other topics, and eventually as a subject in itself. Since many of the scholars involved in these developments were themselves Slavs, their works and their correspondence make it possible to glean some ideas about their attitudes toward the Slavs and the na- ture of their own Slavic consciousness. Slavic Studies and the Works of Czech Scholars Their interest in Czech history, language, and literature would have made it difficult for the patriotic intellectuals to ignore entirely the early history of the Slavs and their culture. In fact, most of them clearly stressed both the greatness of the Slavs and the part played by the Czechs in the general Slavic cultural heritage. These writers had a strong conscious- ness of the Slavic origin of the Czechs, and in their minds anything that reflected poorly on the Slavs also reflected poorly on the Czechs. This feeling accounted for the some- times defensive tone of some of their statements. Among Bohemian historians in the late eighteenth cen- tury, F. M. Pelcl had a special place because of the great pop- ularity of his general history of Bohemia, which saw three editions during his lifetime and a posthumous one in 1817. "The Glorious, Widespread Slavic Nation" 211 In the section about the Slavs at the beginning of his Kurz- gefasste Geschichte der Bihmen, Pelcl wrote enthusiastically: "There is no nation on the entire earth that has spread itself, its language, its power, and colonies so astonishingly widely, as the Slavic." Wherever one looked, from the Adriatic to the Kamchatka peninsula, one met Slavic peoples everywhere. "The Russians, a branch of this great nation, send their fleet into the Archipelago on the one side and the Sea of Japan on the other."44 These thoughts, which became one of the leit- motivs of Czech statements on the Slavs, were repeated in Pelcl's Czech version of this work, which he thoroughly re- vised and expanded, Novd kronyka ceskd (1791). The picture Pelcl drew of the cultural life of the early Slavs showed them to be at least as cultivated as other pagan nations, and he ar- gued that their religious beliefs were even more rational (there speaks the voice of the Enlightenment!) than the pan- theons of the Greeks and Romans, since the Slavs based theirs on observations of nature.45 Pelcl's colleague, M. A. Voigt, also presented a positive, not to say idealized, picture of the early Slavs. In his Uber den Geist der Bohmischen Gesetze (1788), he admitted that there was very little known about the early laws and social organi- zation of the Slavs. But this was because they had no written language before the adoption of Christianity, and it did not mean that they had no organized social life. The very fact that they were able to conquer and spread through such a large part of Europe argued the opposite.46 Voigt described the early Slavs as pugnacious and warlike, but also hospitable and upright. In addition to hunting for food, they practiced the more peaceful arts of farming and animal husbandry. His at- titude toward the Slavs was strongly defensive, directed mainly at the Germans, who "den[ied] the ancient Slavic peoples all cultivation, order, and political organization, and present[ed] them as the most unintelligent and uncivilized barbarians. This is the result of the historically well-known national hatred of the Germans for the Czechs."47 Voigt's ar- guments were propagated in Czech by the popular awakener, 212 Origins of the Czech National Renascence Jan Rulik, in Velmi uzitend historie o slovutnem ndrodu des- kim (1793). If Rulik was not original in his ideas, he did pro- vide a link between scholars who wrote mostly in German or Latin and the people who read only Czech. He, too, attacked the German view of the Slavs as barbarians and the Czechs as no better than thieves and brigands. Regrettably, this view had been absorbed even by such Czech chroniclers as Hjek and Dubravsk.48 Bohemian writers on the history of Czech and Slavic lit- erature also discussed the early Slavs and their importance, defending them against outside criticism. Prochizka's De sae- cularibus liberalium artium included information on the cus- toms and beliefs of the ancient Slavs and the first Czechs. This work was also one of Rulik's sources, and he lamented that it had not been written in Czech.49 Even more influential, though also written in Latin, was Durych's Bibliotheca sla- vica, the first volume of which appeared in 1795. Durych's interest in early Slavic literature had grown out of his research into the first translations of the Bible by the Slavs, published in 1777 as De Slavo-bohemica sacri codicis versione disser- tatio. In addition to providing a history of translations of the Bible, Durych's Dissertatio also contributed to the material on the Czech language that was to aid in efforts to improve the condition of contemporary Czech.50 The scope of his Bib- liotheca slavica was much wider. The work was planned to fill seven volumes, which were to cover the earliest Slavs, the development of Slavic written languages, and other topics. Before the project could be realized, however, Durych died. Only the first volume was published, and the manuscript of the second was apparently lost at the publisher's in Budapest. Yet even the first volume contained an impressive amount of material. It dealt with the origins of the different Slavic tribes and their languages, especially the literary languages; it dis- cussed the morals of the early Slavs, the beginnings of learn- ing in their territories, and the relationship of Czech to the Slavic literary language during different periods.51 Durych's "The Glorious, Widespread Slavic Nation" picture of the early Slavs was, in keeping with the views of his colleagues, quite positive. The Slavs made their appearance in Josef Dobrovsk's history of the Czech language in each of its versions, begin- ning with the first, in the Abhandlungen of the Bohemian So- ciety of Sciences for 1791. "Since the sixth century," wrote Dobrovsk, "the Slavs have played an important role on the great stage of the world." He, too, rejected the picture of the Slavs as a barbaric people without political organization, writ- ing that "for ages the Serbs, Croats, Poles, Czechs and Rus- sians have appeared in history as great and powerful nations (Volksstdmme) who founded their own states and to whom the other, weaker nations attached themselves."52 The early history of the Czech nation, and the study of the Czech language, reminded these Bohemian scholars of their ties with the other Slavs. Yet their interest and concern were still limited in certain ways. For many of the historians, the Slavs in general, and Russia in particular, represented possible sources of information that could be used to answer questions about the Czech past. The quarrel over tech and Lech was a quarrel over the origin of the Czech nation, and the Russian historians to whom the Bohemian researchers turned were brought into the argument only for the light they could shed on its earliest history.53 Bohemian historians tended to focus on the independence and state-forming abil- ities of the earliest Slavs, including the Czechs, the relation- ship between the medieval Bohemian kingdom and the Holy Roman Empire, and, by implication at least, the rights of Bo- hemia in its contemporary relationship with Vienna.- The in- terest in the Slavs expressed by these scholars was still a long way removed from any sort of pan-Slav tendency. Similar lim- itations apply to the attitudes of the students of Czech literary history. The other Slavs could provide much useful infor- mation on the history of the Czech language and the devel- opment of its literature, and much of the interest in them was motivated by this consideration. Even Dobrovsk's celebrated 213 214 Origins of the Czech National Renascence trip to Russia, already mentioned, was undertaken not to pro- vide the Society of Sciences with information on a contem- porary Slavic empire, but to search for ancient Czech literary monuments. This is not to deny the clear perception of a Slavic ethnic relationship and a concern for the reputation of the Slavs that was expressed in these scholars' works of history and literary history. Such notes were also frequently sounded in their cor- respondence, stimulating further work, until eventually the study of the Slavs began to be seen as a subject in its own right, and not just as the first chapter of the study of the Czechs. A sense that the world of learning had not given the Slavs their due showed through in Dobrovsk's complaint to Ribay that in biblical criticism far more attention was being paid to inferior Persian, Armenian, or other versions of the Bible, while Slavic translations were being ignored: "It is, however, a not inconsiderable honor for us Slavs, that we can contribute something important to the criticism of the New Testament."55 Again, when he complimented Fryco on his Sorbian translation of the Old Testament, Dobrovsk re- minded him, "Belonging to one nation, the Slavic, we stand always within the bond of linguistic relationship,"56 and he reiterated to Kopitar the idea that "we Slavs must stick to- gether."57 "If Czech and Lech were brothers," he assured Bandtke when the latter first wrote to him, "so we are at least cousins. ... That we Slavs should concern ourselves so little with our reputation! Foreigners seldom do us justice as it is."58 Similar attitudes were echoed by other scholars, but it was one thing to agree that "Slavs should stick together" and an- other to be able to do anything concrete. Keeping informed on the progress of scholarship in the Slavic world was a prob- lem, and the correspondence carried on by these men con- tains frequent references to difficulties. "If only there were a closer bond among us Slavs," wrote Dobrovsk.. "But the Slavic world is too large, literary traffic too small, etc."59 Later he complained in a similar way to Kopitar, writing, "Unfor- tunately, we here know practically nothing of what is going "The Glorious, Widespread Slavic Nation" 215 on with you, and the Poles ... also know nothing of our ef- forts."" Mutual ignorance could lead one Slavic nation to be- little the achievements of others in comparison with its own, a circumstance Dobrovsk deplored. "We must not ignore each other," he insisted.61 At various times, Dobrovsk and his correspondents dis- cussed plans to improve cooperation and communication among the Slavs. One such scheme was for a multilingual dic- tionary of the Slavic languages, a Slavic polyglot, on which scholars from the different lands would cooperate. Zlobick4 suggested the germ of such an idea as early as 1781, advo- cating work on a general Slavic grammar, classification of the Slavic dialects, and a history of the Slavic languages.62 Later Dobrovsk~ discussed a somewhat similar plan with Ribay: "What do you say to my intention of creating a proposal for a Slavic polyglot? When I have organized my scattered ideas on the subject, I am thinking of presenting it to the Empress of Russia, or the Holy Roman Emperor, who rules over prac- tically all the Slavic nations. . . . It would be a pity if all this should remain only a dream!"63 Ribay was in favor of the scheme, especially since the Russians were already working on something similar. He felt, however, that it would be better to submit the project to the Russian empress rather than the Austrian ruler, because such things were better supported in Russia.64 Nothing definite came of the idea at this time, however, and the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences published its own comparative dictio- nary, Glossarium linguarum totius orbis (1787-1789), by it- self. The plan did not die out altogether, especially since the Glossarium did not earn an entirely favorable opinion from other Slavic scholars.65 Much later, Dobrovskl and Kopitar agreed that some form of general Slavic reference work based on the materials collected by Durych for his Bibliotheca sla- vica would be worthwhile. There would still be a number of serious problems to overcome, however, and Dobrovski re- marked pessimistically, "Who shall help us now? In my case a sickly old age draws near. Others do not have enough lei- 216 Origins of the Czech National Renascence sure. The zeal and enthusiasm of one and another decline, etc."" In this case, too, his pessimism was justified. There were other schemes to rectify the situation of Slavic scholars, and one of the more promising of these was enthu- siastically broached to Dobrovsk4 by Kopitar in 1810: It would be very desirable if the scattered Slavists, often working in contrarium sensum, had a general conduc- tor.... And the continuation of Slavin [Dobrovslk's lit- erary periodical, see below] would be the best means to that end. Thus a Slavic academy ... would gradually form. .... The Prague, Warsaw, Petersburg, and the future Illyrian Academies would become so many offshoots of this Slavic Academy!67 Dobrovsk's response was rather cautious: he reminded Kopitar of the fate of Pelcl's Hromada, which, according to Dobrovsk, came to nothing because of the opposition of Riegger, who feared that the authorities in Vienna would be suspicious of the idea. "Perhaps, however, other Slavs are less suspect than the zealous Czechs, whose language has long been regarded in Austria as the rebel (revolutionary, in the new style) language," he concluded.68 In any case, he pre- dicted, quarrels over alphabet and orthography would ensure that such an academy would fall apart due to internal dissen- sion. In a letter to Bandtke about the idea, Dobrovsk re- gretfully concluded that without greater religious and political unity among the Slavs, such a central Slavic academy could never come about.69 One political problem he foresaw was the task of persuading the existing academies, especially the Rus- sian one, to take a subordinate place to Vienna. "An Imperial Russian Academy should degrade itself into an affiliated branch?" he sarcastically demanded.70 Basically, Dobrovsk considered the idea of a central Slavic academy in Vienna as much a pious hope as he did Puchmajer's plans to revive Pelcl's Hromada.71 Since different orthographies helped keep the Slavs apart, the development of a common orthography for the Slavic lan- "The Glorious, Widespread Slavic Nation" guages was another idea the patriotic scholars canvassed in their correspondence. The complexities of differing versions of the Cyrillic alphabet, Latin letters, or the German, "Schwa- bach" type, made the idea of a single, universally accepted system attractive. "If only all the Slavs had our own, truly good orthography!" wrote Dobrovs4 to Ribay. "But they write as they please, especially the Dalmatians."72 He thought it was a shame that peoples so closely related linguistically should thus artificially divide themselves,73 but, as he reminded Ko- pitar, the greatest obstacle was the impossibility of reaching a compromise acceptable to all parties. Although he and Ko- pitar exchanged possible alphabets throughout their corre- spondence, Dobrovsk remained somewhat skeptical of the younger man's enthusiasm. "Kopitar ... is a young hothead who sees the salvation of the Slavic world in the Latin alpha- bet," he wrote to Bandtke, who himself had doubts about the possibility of a common orthography.74 One member of the intelligentsia who suggested a series of practical reforms, only to have them rejected by Dobrovsk and his friends, was F. J. Tomsa, the linguist and popular awakener. His proposals were set out in his Grissere cech- ische Orthographie (1812), and one of his arguments, re- flected in the full title of the work, was that the new orthography could be used for all the Slavic languages.'' Even this failed to win Tomsa any appreciable following at the time, although ironically enough his changes have all been accepted by modern Czech. More far-fetched than Tomsa's proposals was the sugges- tion, put forward in Puchmajer's Pravopis rusko-cesky- (1805), that Czech should be written with the Russian alphabet. This idea did not meet with approval among Slavic scholars, either. Dobrovsk~ expressed his opposition to it in forceful language: "If the Czechs should ever become Russian subjects, one could well consider how one might read the text of an ukaz in Czech and Russian at the same time. At present we want to go on writing Czech, as long as one is able to read it." Bandtke agreed that it was a pity to see a Czech give up his 217 Introduction ist without national consciousness. Thus the spectacle of "na- tion building" in the modem world includes efforts to create and inculcate national consciousness." The attitudes of national consciousness can be, however, both ancient and deeply rooted. Civilizational patterns such as those characteristic of nomad or sedentary ways of life, uni- versal religions granting fundamental legitimacy to the basic attitudes of societies, the impact of religious organizations and political structures on the basic driving myths that give soci- eties meaning and cohesion, the patterns of influence from town to countryside and back; all these elements help create a framework within which narrower factors of culture, lan- guage, history and religious experience can contribute to the national identity.18 The interplay of these narrow factors has attracted the attention of several Czech scholars. Frantisek Graus devoted several works to analyzing the problems of premodern national consciousness in Eastern and Central Europe in which he points to the crucial importance of the ninth and tenth centuries, when the state forms that even- tually became national states first emerged, and the four- teenth and fifteenth centuries, by which time attitudes were expressed that can undoubtedly be characterized as national. In his view, premodern national consciousness in this region is characterized by a general sense of linguistic community, which eventually becomes identified as a Schicksalgemein- schaft. A dynastic tradition about the origins and importance of the ruling dynasty and "tribe" emerges, followed by the territorialization of originally personal relationships between ruler and subjects, culminating in the abstraction of the ter- ritory to symbols (regnum, corona). Religious practices such as the veneration of patron saints can build up an identifica- tion between patron and land, or even people, that could sink roots deep into society. An example of this would be the Czech veneration of Saint Vdclav (the "good King Wenceslas" of the Christmas carol), which was well established at least by the twelfth century.19 Finally, groups emerge who see them- 11 218 Origins of the Czech National Renascence own heritage for that of Moscow.76 Not everyone objected to the idea, however. The proposal that the Slavs should all adopt the Russian alphabet came up later in a conversation between Dobrovskl and the president of the Russian Acad- emy, Aleksandr Shishkov. Dobrovs4's account of their meet- ing, as he described it to Kopitar, left little doubt about where his own views lay: Shishkov expressed himself on the question thus: Why do you need to break your heads over it? Just take our alpha- bet. To the exception that even some Russians wanted to write with Latin letters, the answer was: Such people should have their heads cut off.... This results in the de- nationalizing of a people. You may negotiate with such decapitators; I will let it be, [at the risk of being] de- nounced as such a great heretic.77 Another more promising idea for encouraging contacts among Slavic scholars, which contributed much to the emer- gence of Slavic studies as an independent subject, was the suggestion of creating a periodical devoted to Slavic topics. One enthusiastic advocate of this plan was Anton, who in the latter half of the 1780s urged Dobrovskl to add his support, even suggesting that Dobrovskl was best fitted to be the ed- itor of such a journal. At this time, Dobrovskl's own views were less sanguine. He pointed out that his location (at the time he was vice-rector of the General Seminary near Olo- mouc in Moravia) and lack of spare time posed certain prob- lems. Vienna would be the only useful place from which to publish such a periodical.78 A decade later, however, Do- brovsk had returned to Prague, and his opinions had changed. He expressed himself quite positively to Anton on the subject, and early in 1797 he told Zlobick that he had in fact decided to publish a Slavic journal himself.79 He began to collect material and appealed to his friends for contributions, but not until 1806 could he publish the first of his Slavic collections. Slawin. Bothschaft aus B6hmen an alle Slawischen Vdlker, oder Beitrdge zur Kenntniss der Sla- "The Glorious, Widespread Slavic Nation" 219 wischen Literatur nach allen Mundarten presented a com- posite picture of the contemporary state of Slavic studies and included material on the characteristics of the ancient Slavs, the Glagolitic alphabet, biographies of Slavic literary figures, reports on the habits, dress, and appearance of various Slavic nations, including the Illyrians, Slovenes, Cossacks, and Rus- sians, and a selection of Russian folk proverbs. Dobrovsk presented the Slavs as a peace-loving people, in particular by including the famous section from J. G. Herder's Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit about the Slavs (with minor omissions due to the censor).80 He made the same point in his introduction, though less directly, while at the same time contriving to stress once more the geographic range and linguistic ties of the Slavs. He quoted the angels' "Gloria" in Luke 2:14, from the earliest Slavic translation of the Bible, and then continued: Go forth from Bohemia to your Slavic brethren, dear Slavin; bring them these joyous tidings.... How could many a Slavic people living among Germans in the year 1805 expect that it could still understand completely and easily a verse from the Gospel translated about the year 865? That you should find Slavic-speaking people any- where who cannot understand a single word of it, is hardly to be believed.81 The censor had approved Dobrovsk 's request to be al- lowed to publish Slavin as a periodical, but this first volume was all that ever appeared (it was reissued in 1808 with a slightly altered title page). Dobrovsk5 made a second attempt, however, to establish a journal of Slavic studies with his Slo- vanka. Zur Kentniss der alten und neuen slawischen Litera- tur, der Sprachkunde nach allen Mundarten, der Geschichte und Alterthiimer, which appeared in two volumes in 1814 and 1815. Slovanka could well be seen as a delayed continuation of Slavin-certainly they both had a similarly wide scope. Slo- vanka contained material on the Slavic languages, the history of the Slavic Bible, ethnographic material on the Bulgarians, 220 Origins of the Czech National Renascence Poles, Slovenes, and Ruthenians, and reviews of contempo- rary works on Slavic topics. In one section of Slovanka, Dobrovsk9 showed again how defensive these scholars could become when the Slavs were denigrated. He reprinted a rather negatively colored article by a German author about the Slavs in the sub-Carpathian regions of the Kingdom of Hungary, "Russniaken in der Mar- marosch," interpellating defensive footnotes whenever the author made a particularly offensive statement (reproduced in the excerpts below in parentheses). The article began by describing the personal appearance of these Ruthenes: "Their facial features are completely Slavic in both sexes, and yet one can sometimes find among the younger women a few with pleasant, regular features. (What then are completely Slavic features but the opposite of pleasant and regular? Rohrer de- scribes Slavic faces completely differently)." Next the author commented on their general character, noting, [It] corresponds fully with that of all Slavs (the author does not appear, however, to be acquainted with the general character of all the Slavs), it is only more strongly expressed by their greater crudeness and negligence than is the case with their other brothers in Europe.... In marriage they are frequently untrue to each other, and know no bounds therein, which may be the reason that venereal disease is always so rife among them. (Bonifacius, however, praises the unclean Wends of his time for their marital fidelity). This running criticism of the lack of knowledge displayed by the author is a good example of Dobrovsk's almost personal involvement with his subject.82 The tone and language of Slavin and Slovanka was schol- arly, and therefore their impact outside of exclusively aca- demic circles was limited; but within them, they further solidified Dobrovsk 's reputation as the patriarch of Slavic studies and encouraged younger scholars to enter the field.83 With these two publications of Dobrovsk 's, the study of the Slavs among the Czechs went beyond the limits of repeated "The Glorious, Widespread Slavic Nation" assertions of the Slavic relationship in language and culture, defenses of the ancient Slavs against their critics, and ex- pressions of admiration for the geographic spread of the Slavic nation. It also went beyond its role as a support for the worth of Czech history, language, and culture, and became, even while it influenced later aspects of the renascence in the works of men like Kollir and Safafi"k, a subject of study in its own right. An interesting feature of the attitudes toward the Slavs expressed by the patriotic intellectuals in their works and their correspondence is that they almost entirely avoided com- menting on current political affairs affecting the Slavs. Even such major issues as the partitions of Poland or Russia's for- tunes in the Napoleonic wars received scant attention, and there is almost nothing on the future of Slavdom in the Sla- vophile tone found in some of the private correspondence of the younger Czech patriots such as Josef Jungmann and his friend, Antonin Marek (to be discussed later). The rare mo- ments in which Dobrovsk wrote in broad and prophetic terms were usually connected with his periodic attacks of se- vere depression and mental instability and did not find a re- sponse among his correspondents. Usually when they alluded to political events it was only briefly or when they had a direct bearing on topics of more interest to them. For example, Ri- bay wrote to Dobrovski in 1790 about the national aspirations of the "Illyrians" at the coming Hungarian Diet, reporting plans to demand recognition as a separate community with all the freedoms and privileges of citizenship, and the right to set up their own university and national library. They were going to invite scholars from Russia to aid them, and "that would be a rich source of Slavicorum!" Dobrovsk's response was that he had always valued the Illyrian nation, especially now, when it was giving thought to its culture.84 These events, then, interested Dobrovsk and Ribay because of the oppor- tunity they offered of opening up new sources of information for Slavic studies. With Kopitar, too, Dobrovsk touched on the position of 221 222 Origins of the Czech National Renascence the Slavs in Hungary vis-a-vis the Magyars. "It is impossible to discuss anything sensible with the Magyars, when it inter- feres with their patriotism," he wrote in 1810. "Still they will never bring matters as far as some enthusiasts would like to, since many still champion Latin."85 He returned to the topic later, alluding to the action of the Bohemian Estates in 1615, when they had made Czech the official language of their kingdom: The Hungarian parliamentary resolution of 1805 regarding the state language in Hungary will not, to be sure, be torn up as quickly as the ordinance of our own Estates was. But neither will it have eternal validity. The Slovaks are op- posing it bravely enough, and if they ever did have to ex- change their language for another, there would at least be a better choice.86 The fate of Poland at the end of the Napoleonic wars also caught Dobrovsk>'s attention. In a letter to his friend Bandtke, Dobrovsk wrote this advice: "You Poles are indeed very warm patriots; I could only wish you still more endurance and discretion. It would be a pity if the Russians should swal- low up not only Polish territory, but also the Polish language. A single stream is not always as beneficial as variety."87 This sort of comment was rather unusual. Much more typical of Dobrovsk was the way in which he made the tran- sition from New Year's greetings for 1810 to Kopitar, with a mention of wartime sufferings, to the statement that "oth- erwise, that which depends upon political relations should not concern us at all. Ergo ad slavica. ... ."88 Even in 1812, the year of Napoleon's disastrous Russian campaign, Dobrovsk was only slightly more expansive: "The Russians may gain glory for themselves with deeds of war, in which even the Germans must wish them luck; we want to busy ourselves in Grammaticis. "89 Although comments of a broader nature on the fate of the Slavs and their role in history were rare in Dobrovsk's letters, and his correspondents seem to have taken their tone from "The Glorious, Widespread Slavic Nation" 223 him, at times he departed from his usual pattern. Certain comments in a visionary and prophetic tone about the future of his beloved Slavs can be found in his correspondence, such as the following passage from his letter to Fryco. After la- menting the orthographic disunity of the Slavs, Dobrovsk continued: "If the Slavs were united in one state [ortho- graphic union] could happen more easily. In this we should allow Providence to decide over the fate of nations. Perhaps it lies in its plans to unite one day again, after endless devia- tions and disarray, the peoples of the same origin."" At times Dobrovsk4 seemed to believe that the Slavs had a special part to play in the future development of the world, as when he remarked to Zlobickl, "It seems as if the Slavs, the Russians with the Poles and the Czechs, are yet destined before others to accomplish great things. But I may not be, and do not want to be, a prophet.""9 In spite of this disclaimer, however, Dobrovsk returned to his prophetic mood several times. In one of the most striking and frequently quoted of these statements, he compared the Slavs to the Germans and French, commenting on the future of the Poles in particular: The new enlightenment of the world must arise from the Slavs, even if the Germans may have been the first heralds of the better methods. Slavic um is still, if it is purely con- ceived, the most unspoiled of this most extremely far- strayed humanity. German Verstand is not to be despised, but not to be considered the equal of our um. French esprit is too volatile, and can hardly be pinned down.... The Poles remain dear to me, and I will not desist from working for their national freedom with all my strength, as though it were my own fatherland. The time is not at all far off, when that which all true and brave Poles want and hope for shall be realized (not through insurrection, but by more radical means).92 Some questions remain about how these passages should be interpreted. Dobrovsk's friends usually passed them over in silence, or reacted with polite disinterest. "I would have preferred . . . to read something about Slavic literature," 224 Origins of the Czech National Renascence wrote Ribay in response to one such letter, "rather than about the enlightenment of the Slavic nation and about chiliasm. I must confess to you that I do not know how to go on in these matters."93 From the age of thirty-four, Dobrovsk was sub- ject to intermittent attacks of mental instability of a manic- depressive variety, and most of his mystical and prophetic flights of fancy seem to be connected with these attacks.94 Certainly their tone is far removed from Dobrovsk4's usually calm, critical (even hypercritical) outlook and scholarly de- tachment. But even if Dobrovsky would not have expressed himself in precisely this manner but for his illness, the deep and abiding interest in the Slavs, and the belief in their future, which he showed in these passages was genuine and shared by the other scholars with whom he associated. It was a belief and interest, not in politics, but in linguistic and cultural developments. The Slavs and the Czech Linguistic Revival Language gave the clearest evidence that the Czechs and the other Slavs were related, as the linguists and grammarians who worked to preserve and defend the Czech language were well aware. Here, too, the other Slavs tended to be viewed primarily as sources to serve Czech concerns. Czech lexicog- raphers, for example, were particularly aware of the value of the other Slavic languages as a source of lexical enrichment for Czech-a value increased by the often heedless and pur- istic neologisms of such as V clav Pohl.5 Dobrovsk, citing the example of the German philologist, Adelung, was willing to use Russian, Polish, or Serbo-Croatian words to help ex- plain the etymology of the Czech words in his dictionary, but he was generally against direct borrowing. Where there was no suitable Czech word, Dobrosk favored forming a new word on the principle of analogy." He maintained this atti- tude throughout his career, as he showed in 1813 when writ- ing to Josef Jungmann about a proposal for a Czech dictionary by the Slovak Juraj Palkovi6: "The Glorious, Widespread Slavic Nation" 225 The reason I wish that the work already begun would be finished by a Czech is this, that the words which still live in the mouths of our Czechs (and do not appear at all in writing) can be known only to Czechs. I do not mean to belittle the Slovak by this; much more, I would take not only Slovak but also Russian roots, if they only explained a nomen proprium.97 Dobrovsk's friend and colleague F. J. Tomsa also be- lieved that "a Czech can learn not a little from the other Slavs," a precept he had the opportunity to put into practice in 1799 when Russian troops marched through Prague.98 Dobrovsk's resistance to excessive borrowing from other languages was not shared by all his colleagues. His longtime correspondent in Vienna, Zlobick , knew at first hand the problems of adapting Czech to technical topics, since he had been responsible for translating the Austrian legal codes into Czech. He approved of efforts at lexical enrichment, arguing that "one must persevere in them, if he wants to set our word- rich language into motion. The Germans do it, why should we not?" Zlobick preferred calques, or loan translations, as means to the enrichment of Czech, but others widened the field to include the direct transfer of words from other lan- guages. K. H. Thim, who fell out with Dobrovs4k from the time of his critical review of Thim's Czech dictionary (1788), was another champion of lexical enrichment. He went beyond calques in his attempts, including direct loans from Polish and Russian, such as bohoslovi (theology, taken from the Rus- sian).'00 Even such a close collaborator and protege of Do- brovsk's as Puchmajer argued, "Since I am convinced that we Czechs . . . lack many appropriate words in the afore- mentioned subjects, we could do nothing better than to plun- der the dialects of the other Slavs and make their words our own. This would be a thousand times more reasonable than forging new monstrosities after the German."101 This more tolerant attitude was also shared by Jungmann and others, who realized that without lexical expansion Czech could never take the place of a truly national language in all 226 Origins of the Czech National Renascence areas of life. The other Slavic languages offered a pool of root words and raw materials for calquing, as well as a source for direct loans, which could make a practical contribution to the development of Czech. It was in efforts to create contemporary literature in Czech that this practical contribution was most evident. If Czech were to make good its claim to be a language of high culture, then the literary genres cultivated in other European languages would also have to be produced in Czech. This attitude made translations particularly important, and the Czech intellectuals who worked to create Czech literature, especially poetry, began to turn to Slavic literatures for mod- els and for practical assistance. 02 An early sign of this trend was Puchmajer's attempt in about 1795 to translate an ode by the Russian poet Kheraskov.103 When Dobrovsk informed his friend Durych of this effort, Durych responded, asking for biographical information so that he could include Puchmajer and his collaborator, Antonin Pisel5, in his Bibliotheca slavica, and asking Dobrovskl to "greet these Slavophiles most cour- teously in [his] name."104 Kheraskov's ode "On the Greatness of God" appeared in Puchmajer's first almanac, Sebrdnbdsn- a zpevu (1795). This was the only poem in the collection based on a Slavic model; otherwise the first volume was quite similar to Thim's Bdsne v reci vdzan" (2 vols., 1785). With his second almanac, however, Puchmajer began to follow Slavic models more frequently, and this time he turned to Polish poets. He was acquainted with Polish poetry collec- tions in the almanac form, and had at least two of them, J6zef Ondrzej Zaluski's Bibliotheca poetarum polonorum (1752) and Zebranie rytm6w wierszopis6w yjqcych (1752-1756), in his personal library.'05 Perhaps it was from these examples that Puchmajer concluded that one of the best ways to write good Czech poetry would be to follow the example of the more highly developed Polish poetry. Certainly by the middle of 1797 he was actively expressing this view to his friends. In July of that year he wrote to his friend Sebastian Hnevkovsk about Jan Nejedl 's work on a translation of Homer. He had "The Glorious, Widespread Slavic Nation" 227 borrowed the Greek and French versions, but Puchmajer wrote that he would be glad if Nejedlr would use Dmochow- ski's Polish version, because "it would not be so much work for him ... [and] he could see how one should translate into Czech according to Polish."106 Puchmajer's second almanac (1797) already showed signs of this attitude. It contained paraphrases and translations of poems by F. D. Kniainin and F. Karpiriski, fables by Kniainin, and others based on French, German, or Latin models. This pattern was reproduced in the three succeeding almanacs, published under the title Novd bdsne in 1798, 1802, and 1814. In addition to works by Karpiiski and Kniainin, these volumes included paraphrases of fables by Ignacy Kra- sicki, and an excerpt from Montesquieu's "Le temple de Gnide," based on a translation by J6zef Szymanowski.r07 Puchmajer's Chram Gnidsky was his most ambitious proj- ect. Besides the excerpt mentioned above, which appeared in 1802, it was published in book form in 1804. In his foreword to the book version, Puchmajer discussed the translations into Italian and German, but placed the Polish translation above all the others. "The most excellent translator of this poem is, without a doubt, J6zef Szymanowski, a Pole, of whom Fran- ciszek Kniainin says with right, 'It is one of the most beautiful of Szymanowski's poems, and he thus brings honor to Polish literature."' This translation, Puchmajer acknowledged, was the model for his own version.08 Later on in the foreword, Puchmajer gave what amounted to a programmatic statement of his views on translation: This nation [the Poles], linguistically related to us, can become our inexhaustible source of the most pleasant poems. ... Two advantages to us will follow from this: first, while translating something from a foreign language into Czech, we will save ourselves half of our work if we have the Polish translation in our hands as well; and second, we will learn better the Slavic ways of expressing ourselves, and thus it will not be necessary to fear that everything will be marred by that awkward, germanized Czech. 12 Origins of the Czech National Renascence selves as speaking for wider elements in their societies, and eventually are accepted as such (originally clerics, later urban elements).2o The effect of the Hussite revolution on the specific case of Bohemia, according to Graus, was to create a special sit- uation with a wider social base, the complete separation of national consciousness from the person of the monarch, and the exceptionally clear conviction of a special mission granted to the linguistic community.2 Other scholars interested in the Hussite period have also pointed to its importance for pre- modem Czech national consciousness. Since most Germans in Bohemia (except the Waldensian heretics) did not join the Hussite movement, the original sense of being chosen to rec- ognize and spread God's word fused with the old Czech anti- German aversion. Most of the anti-Hussite crusades came from German-speaking Europe, and this fact only added to the strength of the national element, giving to Hussite na- tional consciousness its precociously modem appearance.22 During the roughly two centuries between the martyr- dom of Hus and the defeat of the Bohemian Estates' revolt in 1620, the religious divisions in Bohemia-Catholic, Utra- quist, Unity of Czech Brethren, and increasingly Lutheran and Calvinist groups all competed with each other-led to the development of competing versions of Czech identity. After the Thirty Years' War, only the Catholic version could be officially reflected in Bohemia, but it produced its own distinct forms of Czech consciousness (as reflected in such Catholic baroque authors as Bohuslav Balbin, discussed in chapter 1).23 When modern nationalism emerged in the lands of the Czech crown, these earlier traditions were there, avail- able for use, as it were, in the new conditions.24 But how does one get from ethnic communities with their distinct forms of self-awareness to nations and modem na- tionalism? What were the forces that led to the emergence of Czech nationalism and its counterparts elsewhere in Europe? The emergence of modern nationalism is closely bound up with the modem transformation of European society, a trans- 228 Origins of the Czech National Renascence Finally, Puchmajer felt that his method of translation, by bringing the Poles and Czechs closer together, might help contribute to the realization of "the pleasant dream" of unit- ing the Slavs, or at least those Slavs living under Austrian rule and using the Latin alphabet. Josef Jungmann put similar ideas into practice in his translations of Chateaubriand's Atala and Milton's Paradise Lost. In these translations, Jungmann did not hesitate to make use of words "better known to the other Slavs than to Czechs," even though he had to include explanatory notes in his text.' 1 He did the same thing in his Jana Miltona Ztracenj rdj, published in 1811. Again he defended his use of words unknown in Czech, advising his readers that, since they were Slavs, it would be best for them to get used to Slavic words, so that the Czechs could gradually enter into a general Slavic literary language. In his work on Ztracenj rdj, Jungmann made use of the Polish translation published by Jacek Przy- bylski in 1791, although the references to this translation by name were dropped from subsequent editions of Jungmann's poem.1 Jungmann also made some translations of Russian works, including some of Novikov's short prose which ap- peared in Jan Nejedl 's Hlasatel desky, and a version of the "Lay of the Host of Igor," which was not published until mod- em times.'l Jungmann continued to champion emulating Russian and Polish literature, telling his pupils in Litomice in 1810 that without a knowledge of Russian and Polish they could not even become good Czechs.12 But Puchmajer, toward the end of his life, felt that the younger generation of poets was car- rying things too far. He expressed this feeling to Dobrovsk , and even more strongly to Jan Nejedl', when he wrote, "Rus- sian only spoils the young Czechs, because they cram it into Czech without need or understanding. I do not want to have anything to do with that. ... I have also occupied myself with Russian, and especially with Polish; but I hope that I have nevertheless avoided contamination and remained pure, and true to my Czech.""3 "The Glorious, Widespread Slavic Nation" Puchmajer did not reject his earlier views entirely; but he called for more restraint in following foreign models. To both the linguists and those who were attempting to create Czech literature, the Slavic languages and their liter- atures were important. Puchmajer and his circle found in Slavic literature the models for their own translations and a storehouse of words and poetic phrases to help them create a modern literature in Czech. Once again, the primary inter- est driving these patriotic intellectuals to the other Slavs was an interest in Czech and its development, not a concern for the other Slavic languages and literatures in their own right. This interpretation is reinforced by the recognition that Puch- majer and his friends used their Polish and Russian models in a limited way, as means rather than ends. They were to be the roads on which Czech literature reached classical and West European literatures. Montesquieu, Milton, and Ho- mer were filtered through their Polish translations, but a direct Polish influence on Czech literature in style and sub- stance had not yet taken place. Toward the end of our period, some harbingers of a more direct influence of Slavic literature on Czech, and an interest in the other Slavs in their own right, did appear, such as Jungmann's translation of the "Lay of the Host of Igor," or Viclav Hanka's translation in 1817 of Vuk Stefanovid Karadzid's collection of Serbian folk songs, Pro- stondrodni srbskd muza do Cech pievedend."4 This trend was to be fully realized only by later generations. Only when these patriotic intellectuals turned from study- ing Czech, or attempting to write in it, to creating works whose primary purpose was to defend it and encourage its use, did the Slavic world became more than a storehouse for historical, literary, philological, or linguistic material. In these "defenses of the language" (to which could be added defen- sive passages in works whose primary focus was elsewhere), several other attitudes toward the Slavs emerged.115 For one thing, the ethnic and linguistic relationship between the Czechs and the other Slavs moved into the foreground. Hanke von Hankenstein, in his Empfehlung der Bhmischen 229 230 Origins of the Czech National Renascence Sprache und Litteratur, wrote that one good reason for an acquaintance with Czech literature was that it led naturally to Polish and Russian, and thus to a knowledge of general Slavic literary history.116 Czech and the other Slavic languages were among the most widespread in the world, an assertion that turned up in Thim's Obrana and in the speech Josef Dobrovsk gave in the presence of Leopold II in 1791.17 Jan Rulik made the same point in his Sldva a vybornost jazyka ceskdho, cataloguing the countries in which the "Slavic lan- guage" was spoken."18 Not only did these authors stress the fact that the Slavic languages were widespread; they also claimed that a knowl- edge of Czech would make a person able to understand the languages of the other Slavs. In fact, they frequently wrote of a single Slavic language, of which Czech was only a major "dialect." The first two holders of the chair of Czech language and literature at the university in Prague, Pelcl and Jan Nejedl , both considered Czech a useful tool for learning other Slavic languages and being understood by other Slavs.119 When Puchmajer dedicated his Pravopis rusko-cesky to the bishop of Budejovice, Arnost RfiZivka, he wrote that the latter had proved (by speaking with his hosts on a journey to Russia in "Slavic") that "a Czech can traverse, with Czech, that pre- cious treasure of which malevolent people do not scruple to deprive him, a greater and wider portion of the world, and can reach agreement with more nations, than any other nation under heaven can with its language."120 One of the most en- thusiastic patrons of this idea was Vaiclav Matej Kramerius, who dedicated his Vlastenske' noviny to the "glorious, wide- spread Slavic nation."12 He assured his countrymen that if they could overcome their prejudice against their mother tongue, they would realize that "Russians, Poles, Pomerani- ans, Silesians, Moravians, Slovaks, Dalmatians, Bosnians, Moldavians, Serbs, Wends, Croats and many other famous nations spread to all corners of the world are [their] brothers, and use the same glorious Slavic language, with only slight differences.'"122 "The Glorious, Widespread Slavic Nation" 231 Overshadowing this stress on the wide spread of the Slavic language was a sense of admiration and even pride in the vast extent of territory ruled by fellow Slavs, the Russians. The scope of Russia's dominions was cited by Pelcl in his Kurz- gefasste Geschichte, and it was a point Dobrovsk made to the Emperor Leopold II also. After proving that the Slavs con- stituted a majority of the Austrian monarchy's inhabitants, Dobrovski went on: "Now they rule, in and through the Russian Slavic tribe, from the Black Sea to the Arctic, make treaties on the borders of the Chinese Empire, send ukazes in their language far and wide for more than two hundred miles, and make discoveries in the ocean between Asia and America."123 In the context of a defense of the Czech language, em- phasizing the size and power of Russia made good psycho- logical sense. Here was a Slavic nation, related to the Czechs, that was not only independent (which the Czechs no longer were), but a great power (which the Czechs had never been). Yet even the "moral support" the patriotic intelligentsia could draw from contemplating Russia's greatness did not neces- sarily amount to the elaboration of a Russian orientation among its members. An alternative did exist: the House of Habsburg already ruled over thousands of Slavic subjects, and prospects of Austrian expansion into the Balkans meant the possible addition of thousands more. The Czechs might, then, look to a Slavic-dominated Austria as a "moral support" in their exposed position, as well as to Russia.124 In any case, it was rare for this enthusiasm for the "Slavic language" to reflect an organized interest in the languages of the other Slavs in themselves. The defenders of Czech were above all else concerned with their own language, with ar- resting its decline and raising it once more to the level of a truly national language. Thus when they wrote of the glorious history and geographic scope of the Slavic language, they were supporting their arguments for Czech, rather than seek- ing to submerge it in a broader stream.125 By pointing to the greatness of the Slavs, these awakeners could argue that 232 Origins of the Czech National Renascence Czech was more than an obsolete dialect spoken only by the peasants and lower urban classes, but part of the family of Slavic languages-one of which, Russian, was the state lan- guage of a vast empire. Slavism in the Popular Milieu They may have argued that Czech was more than a peasants' jargon, but the patriotic scholars never denied that it was at least a language that still lived on in the mouths of the country folk and the lower levels of urban society. And if the obvious relationship between Czech and other Slavic languages spoke of the ethnic ties among the Slavs to the intellectuals, a natural question would be what effect this had on the wider masses. What did they know of the Slavic world, from where did they receive their knowledge, and what sort of attitudes to the Slavs did they express? This issue involves, of course, the problem of whether the attitudes of the nationally conscious intelligentsia were able to penetrate into the popular masses, and it is further complicated by the fragmentary nature of available sources. It is still possible, however, to reach some provisional conclusions about popular attitudes in this pe- riod. 26 Some acquaintance with the attitudes of the intelligentsia was possible through the efforts of certain popular awakeners to address the masses directly. Just as they worked to raise the general level of knowledge, standard of living, and na- tional consciousness in the countryside, the popular awaken- ers could, through their works, spread the attitudes toward the Slavs they held themselves.127 The themes of the wide distribution of the Slavic peoples, of the ethnic ties between the Czechs and the other Slavs, and of the greatness of the Slavic nation, especially the Russians, were all expressed in their writings for the common people, as was the moral drawn from them: that the Czechs could be proud of being Slavs. Some of the works of old Czech literature that the patri- otic intelligentsia republished were also sources of informa- tion about the other Slavs, such as the Vtahy z kroniky "The Glorious, Widespread Slavic Nation" moskevsk', which Prochizka reissued in 1786. This was a sixteenth-century translation of the Russian historical chron- icles, with Sigismund von Herberstein's account of his jour- ney to Moscow as ambassador from the Holy Roman Empire added as an appendix. Basic information about the history and condition of Russia, even though now outdated, was thus in- cluded in the work. In his foreword, Prochzka pointed out that many developments had taken place since the original works were written, so that customs and manners were much improved, especially under Peter the Great and Cathe- rine 11.128 But the main purpose of his republication, implied in Prochizka's quotation from the original foreword to the 1590 edition (written by Daniel Adam z Veleslavina) was to encourage the Czechs to value their language: "Since the Muscovites and Russians come from the same nation as we Czechs, and use the same language, which we and other Slavic nations, such as Poles, Croats, Slovaks, Serbs, etc. use ... it is worthwhile for our Czechs to know and to realize how widespread their nation is."129 At a time when the wars with Napoleon were exciting fur- ther interest in Russia, both Jan Rulik and Kramerius pub- lished works that helped meet this interest. Rulik's Cesta z Moskvy do Ciny was a seventeenth-century travel account by Jifi z Drachova, which he translated and published in 1800. Kramerius's contribution was an article in his Vlastenskd no- viny giving a brief description of the Russian Empire. In it he placed special emphasis on the size and strength of Russia, noting that it was thirty-three times as big as the German Em- pire, had a population of at least 36 million, an army of 600,000 men, and a fleet that rivaled Great Britain's.130 Other writers also echoed this awareness of the ties among the Slavs, and especially of the greatness and strength of Russia. Take for example a New Year's poem published in Kramerius's newspaper in 1792 (signed J. N k): To you, also, Poles and Moravians, You Slavs living here and there, 233 234 Origins of the Czech National Renascence I wish in all sincerity, A happy New Year without deceit. To you, however, dear brother Russians, Or, let me say, victorious heroes, I wish success, endurance in bravery, Also everything good in plenty, As a gift of the New Year. I know, and believe with certainty, That you will demonstrate for all time The courage of the Slavic nation.'33 Popular awakeners also followed Russian cultural devel- opments. Kramerius reported on a proposal for a Russian circumnavigation of the globe, in which a member of the Bo- hemian Society of Sciences, Josef Mayer, was to take part.132 He also wrote of a plan by the Russian scholar Lebedev to translate the classics of Russian, French, and German liter- ature into the "Indian" language, adding that "the Russians are thus the first ... to earn that great honor, that they are beginning to enlighten even the Indian nations."'33 In the same number, Kramerius pointed with approval to a com- petition sponsored by the Russian Academy for the best play in Russian on a theme from Russian history. Money for the prize had been donated by an anonymous patriot, prompting Kramerius to exclaim, "That is remarkable love of country, nation, and language!"134 The Russians were not the only Slavs whose activities were reported on by the popular awakeners, nor was every- thing they did automatically approved. Rulik sympathized with the Poles in their struggles with the Russians, although he remained reticent about the Austrian role in the Polish partitions.'1 Writing of the final partition of Poland, Rulik described it as a "horrible event, [which] decided the fate of the Polish nation, so that this kingdom, formerly so glorious, came to partition and dismemberment."136 Kramerius, too, appeared to have some sympathy for the Poles. In a report from Paris in 1804, he described the celebration of Kosciusz- "The Glorious, Widespread Slavic Nation" ko's birthday, referring to the Polish hero as the man "who ten years ago attempted to liberate his homeland."'"37 When the Serbian revolt against the Ottoman Turks be- gan in 1804, Kramerius carried some reports of the fighting in his Vlastenske noviny. The information he printed was usu- ally gleaned from reports in other newspapers, and, following his usual practice, he refrained from any extended editorial commentary on the events; but by carrying such news at all, Kramerius provided a source of information about the South Slavs. He published details of the success of the rebels, ex- pressed admiration for the speed with which a Serbian army of 18,000 men was formed, and praised their effective orga- nization under their leader, "Jiff Cerny" (Karadjordje).138 Kra- merius did not report the Serbs' struggle in a way that expressed too much support-at the height of the decades of war with revolutionary and Napoleonic France, their activities threatened the principle of legitimacy. He used the word bu- ice (rebels) to describe the Serbs, but he did attempt to jus- tify them when he emphasized that their struggle was against the abuses of the Janissaries, and not with the Turkish central government.'39 Serbian cultural developments also received some cov- erage in Kramerius's newspaper. When the internal admin- istration of Serbia was reorganized after the first revolt, he noted, "that Slavic land will receive a new constitution."'40 He praised the work of Dositej Obradovi6 in educating Serbian youth in Belgrade, and found it noteworthy that when the new, autonomous administration began functioning, all laws and ordinances would be published in "the Illyrian, or Slavic language. "141 His interest in this last point reflects the overriding con- cern in Kramerius's work, and the context in which he most frequently wrote about the Slavic world: language. His appeal to his readers to recognize their brotherhood, shared with all the Slavs, was quoted above, and he utilized each opportunity that came his way to continue to stress this relationship. A typical example is his announcement of the publication of a 235 236 Origins of the Czech National Renascence grammar of the Slovene language, which deserved advertise- ment because it showed that "not only we Slavic Czechs, but also others of our linguistic brethren ... are working for the improvement and spread of the language of the glorious Slavic nation."142 In an article devoted to developments in Turkey, Kramerius claimed that the "Illyrian" language, even though it was a Slavic tongue, was spoken by almost all Turks, and even used at court, from which we Czechs may flatteringly see, that our Slavic language-for our Czech is a Slavic language-is spread far and wide, and not limited to some minuscule part of the world like, for example, the German Empire. Nota for those who are so gullible that they believe that a Czech, having traversed his kingdom and Moravia, already cannot even continue any further with his mother tongue.'43 Given that this was Kramerius's attitude toward his lan- guage, it is not surprising that he gave great publicity to de- fenses of the language, such as Rulik's Sldva a vybornost jazyka 6eskdho. He recommended this work to "the entire Slavic nation, whether in Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia, Hun- gary, Poland, Russia, or also Dalmatia, Bosnia, Serbia and in other Slavic lands," assuring them that from it they would at least learn what they ought to think about their native language.144 When Kramerius wrote about practical proposals, how- ever, he lowered his horizons somewhat. He was convinced of the useful part that newspapers could play in revitalizing and spreading the language, holding up the example of the Germans, who published some sixty newspapers that circu- lated throughout the entire German Empire. He thus wel- comed the advent of a Slavic newspaper in Banski Bystrica, remarking that it was time the Slavic nation looked to the spread of its language. As centers in which newspapers should be published, Kramerius suggested (in addition to Prague) five cities: Vienna, Bratislava (Pressburg), Lw6w, Brno, and Opava.45 The fact that all these cities were within the Habs- "The Glorious, Widespread Slavic Nation" burg monarchy, and that the language used for their news- papers, with the exception of Lw6w, would have been Czech (for Czech still dominated as the literary language among the Slovaks), points up once more that Kramerius and the other patriots were primarily interested in their own language, Czech. When they placed such emphasis on the "glorious, widespread Slavic language," it was mainly as a way of sup- porting their demands and hopes for Czech. A perusal of Kramerius's newspapers or Rulik's Kalenddrv historicky gives some idea of the sort of information about the other Slavs that was available to the common people. Through literate individuals in the countryside, priests, school- teachers, or self-taught farmers, some of this information could spread farther into the masses than subscription figures or publication runs might suggest.46 It is difficult to ascertain how clear a picture the common people had of Russia or the world outside their locality in general; but at least one doc- ument suggests that they were not only aware of the inter- national situation, but also able to judge the policies of all three major East Central European empires quite critically. This is the celebrated "Selsk 'Ot6e na'," a parody of the Lord's Prayer, dating from the late eighteenth century: Our Father, who art in Vienna, Petersburg and Berlin, Hallowed be Thy name in Thy territories. Thy kingdom come not into Poland. Thy will be done, in Austria and Muscovy As it is in Brandenburg. Our daily bread Thou takest away, Thou dismissest our freedom, While we must give food to those who trespass against us. Lead us not into greater poverty, But deliver us from our feudal dues. Amen.47 The Napoleonic Wars, the Slavs, and the Czechs The thirty years of conflict that engulfed Europe after the French Revolution have long been credited with an important role in the development of the Czech renascence.148 They not 237 Introduction formation so profound that the temptation to call it a revo- lution is well-nigh irresistible. This Western revolution was a threefold one, involving economic and social life, military and administrative organization, and religious and cultural think- ing, and it shaped modern, industrial society in Europe and the world over.25 The growth of capitalism increased eco- nomic links among the states of Europe, with the rise of a core of strong states controlling weaker, peripheral areas and maritime mercantile empires; but it also intensified contacts within individual states between urban and economic elites, linking them in a common economic fate and wearing down regional differences. In the process the wealth at the disposal of the state increased, and methods of military and adminis- trative control changed in keeping with this development. The rise of professional military forces, coupled with tech- nological developments in the art of warfare, increased the power of the state, and the development of professional ad- ministrative bureaucracies staffed by a trained intelligentsia created a new kind of "rational state" that was superior to previous types of state formation.26 This bureaucratic, "ratio- nal" state proceeded to play a central part in a cultural and educational revolution, aimed at ending the authority of the church and ancient traditions and substituting itself and the community of citizens and equals that it created for the earlier forms of religious or traditional community. In the process, it promoted cultural standardization by spreading secular ed- ucation and adopting uniform administrative languages, al- lowing the "imagining" of a limited, sovereign community to which all educated citizens belonged.27 Each of the three aspects of this Western revolution in- volved a strengthened and centralized state. As these trans- formations affected existing communities, then, it was not surprising that resistance to state power, and then achieving and using it, became the major goals of the social movements called forth by the changed conditions, and nationalism a ma- jor means to those goals. This apparent link between the rise of the modernizing, centralizing state and modern national- 13 238 Origins of the Czech National Renascence only affected the political, social and economic order, but also enabled people in the Czech lands and elsewhere to gain first- hand experience of the greatest Slavic power, by bringing Russia to the center of the European stage. In 1798-1800, 1805-1806, and 1813-1815, Russian armies were on Czech soil, and Russia's role in the eventual defeat of Napoleon was great. The influence of these events on Czech attitudes to- ward the Slavs has often been stressed, especially by the post- 1948 Czech historians.149 But the society on which these events worked was by no means uniform, and the responses called forth were not the same at all social levels. Reactions to the role of the Slavs in the Napoleonic wars could be divided into three groups. Among the intellectuals, one group, which may be called "loyal," viewed Russia chiefly as the main ally in the struggle with Napoleon; and their awareness of the Slavic link they shared with this ally, and their enthusiasm for its successes, never crossed the bound- aries of loyalty to the Austrian state. Beside this group, however, was another, younger group of intellectuals who ex- pressed admiration for Russia to the point of genuine Rus- sophilism-including the hope that Russia would help the Czechs achieve a better situation for themselves. The third group of attitudes would be that of the common people, mainly the peasants in the countryside. Their reaction to the Russians was primarily influenced by the effect the Russian presence had on their daily lives. Thus the well-known report that the president of the Czech Gubernium, Count Kolovrat- Liebsteinsk , sent to Vienna in February 1813, reporting that the whole nation was rejoicing over the news of Napoleon's defeat in Russia, rather oversimplified the matter, since it left out of consideration the motives for this rejoicing.150 The "loyal" attitude to the Slavs was expressed in the newspaper reports of the progress of the fighting, in occa- sional verses or government-sponsored propaganda, espe- cially when the Austrian authorities were trying to generate enthusiasm for local militias in 1799-1800 and 1808-1809.151 Efforts to stir up support for these home guards usually "The Glorious, Widespread Slavic Nation" 239 harked back to the glorious past of the Slavic Czechs and sometimes widened their appeals to include other Slavic peo- ples; but they almost always clearly showed their authors' out- look by limiting their appeals to the Austrian Slavs. Thus Vaiclav Stach in his poem "Hlas k Cechim" mentioned only Moravians and Silesians in addition to the Czechs-in other words, peoples who had belonged to the medieval Czech kingdom.'52 Similarly, another song in honor of the Czech mi- litia, published as an appendix to Rulik's Vlastensky mladj rekruta, clearly limited its appeal to the Habsburg Slavs: Rejoice ye nations All the dear Slavs! It is happiness to be under the scepter Of our most glorious ruler: Ours, and the fatherland's, is the wish God save the emperor.153 Franti'ek Vavik's battle march for the militia in 1809 saluted the Hungarians, Poles, Moravians, Silesians, Croa- tians, Slovaks, and Czechs-an impressive list of nations, but once more only those represented within the Habsburg monarchy.154 When Russia entered the war on the side of Austria, how- ever, and especially when Suvorov's troops crossed Bohemia and Moravia on their way to the front, interest in the Russians was expressed more frequently. One of these expressions was a spate of kramanske pisne, cheaply printed ballads set to old Czech popular tunes and peddled in the market towns throughout the countryside. One particular example full of praise for the "heroic Russians" went quickly through three printings.55 Yet, though the song does make many compli- mentary remarks about the Russians, the main message of the later stanzas is that the country people should deliver any nec- essary supplies, even if requisitioned, without resistance. Since this was exactly what the responsible government offi- cials would have desired, these multiple printings seem un- 240 Origins of the Czech National Renascence convincing proof of the song's popularity.156 In fact, another kramaskd pisei, on the march of the Russians through Mo- ravia to Bohemia, expressed some of the people's complaints about the contributions of food or draft animals the Russians required.' 5 Among the "loyal" intelligentsia, the more commonly ex- pressed attitudes ranged from curiosity to enthusiasm. Rulik called Suvorov "this heroic Slavic general" and printed a brief account of his life and military exploits.158 Kramerius also in- cluded reports about the Russians in his Vlastenske noviny, and both he and Rulik devoted special attention to the arrival of the Russian troops in Prague during 1799. "Almost all the inhabitants of Prague turned out to look at these heroic Slavs, who use with us Czechs practically one language," Kramerius reported. Of the Russian soldiers he said that "true Slavic bravery shone forth from the eyes of all this people."'59 The enthusiasm of the Praguers for the Russians was demon- strated again in 1813 at the performance of J. N. Stepinek's play celebrating the victory of the allies in the Battle of the Nations at Leipzig. The Russian army was sympathetically presented, and when the Cossacks came on stage under their leader, Pavel Kuchov (played by Stepinek himself), the the- ater shook to the loud "hurrah" from the audience.60 This enthusiastic reception of the Russians was firmly connected with the fortunes of war. From being merely Austrian allies, the Russians had progressed to being instrumental in a de- cisive victory, which clearly brought the end of the war in sight. This in itself was a great cause for rejoicing, so that the response of the Prague crowds to Stepinek's play was more than an index of the people's opinion of Russia.161 One thing that the Czechs did recognize in the Russians was their linguistic relationship. "It was a great pleasure for us," wrote Rulik, "and they also had great joy from the fact that we could speak the Slavic language with them, and they with us."162 Even Josef Dobrovsk, who ordinarily remained aloof from political events, took advantage of the public in- terest in the Russian language to publish an anonymous book- "The Glorious, Widespread Slavic Nation" 241 let entitled Neues Hiilfsmittel die Russische Sprache leichter zu verstehen in 1799. As its full title makes clear, this small work was intended not only for the Czech-speaking, but also for the German-speaking inhabitants of Bohemia, and even for the Russians who wanted to communicate with the Czechs.63 Enthusiasm for Russian was so high that this work was quickly plagiarized and published in a pirated edition as Der russische Dollmetscher. When the Russian armies re- turned in 1813, Dobrovsk 's friend Tomsa published a small Russian dictionary that was basically an expanded version of the vocabulary lists in Dobrovsk's Neues Hiilfsmittel.16 The sense of kinship which the similarities between the languages fostered spread also into the country through Kramerius's newspaper and songs such as the previously mentioned de- scription of the march of the Russians through Moravia- which, after naming the different nationalities in the Russian army, including Russians, Poles, Circassians, Cossacks, Kal- muks and Tatars-continued: And they all had one language, They all understood one another, And many of us as well. And we, when we gave our attention, Recognized in them our own nation, These ancient Slavs.165 Fundamentally, these "loyal" attitudes toward Russia and the Slavs during the wars were similar to those expressed in the defenses of the language. Their message was that the Czechs should be proud of the ethnic heritage they shared with the Russians and should take courage from the fact that this related Slavic state was a great empire. Russian greatness should stir the Czechs to an awareness of their own language and the proud traditions, especially the martial traditions, of their own past. Such attitudes were fairly frequently ex- pressed in the public forum through newspapers, books such as Dobrovskr's, or other means. Among some of the younger intellectuals, however (most openly in the circle of friends 242 Origins of the Czech National Renascence around Josef Jungmann), attitudes toward the Russians went far beyond admiration for the success of an ally. Their opin- ions were expressed in private correspondence, with the most Russophile passages frequently written in Cyrillic (perhaps on the assumption that the censor would be unlikely to decipher them). Jungmann and his friends had a firm belief that the future would bring better conditions for the Czechs, and they hoped that this better future could be brought about with Russian help. In a letter to his friend Antonin Marek, Jungmann wrote of his belief and expectation that, even if they were not there to see it in person, all would be well with their fatherland in the future. "Our affair is drawing to its end," he said, writing in Cyrillic, "Poland is almost entirely conquered by the War- savians; the Russians are helping them; the Hungarians do little; the Austrians are in the hands of Napoleon... Bohemia and Moravia must suffer. But the phoenix will arise from the ashes!"'1 3 When the opportunity to meet with Russians face- to-face came to Jungmann in Litomiice in 1813, he grasped it eagerly, as he told Marek: The Russians march through here frequently, today we ex- pect 120,000, whose passage will cost the city 9,000 guild- ers. I diligently govoriu with them, and find that there are among them very good-hearted people, and that what is said about their thieving and stealing here, especially by the Germans, must be blamed not on them, but on their poorly organized commissariat.... It will not hurt the Czechs to become a little acquainted with the Russians; at least they will realize that there are more Slavs in the world.167 At times Jungmann seemed to doubt whether his gen- eration would live to see a better future for Bohemia, but he was certain that it was from Russia that the salvation of future generations of Czechs would come.168 After Napoleon's Rus- sian disaster in 1812, and with the march of the Russian ar- "The Glorious, Widespread Slavic Nation" 243 mies westward, it began to seem as though this salvation might come sooner than expected. Jungmann's correspon- dent Marek wrote during the first half of 1813, "Our Slavs are now so close ... [that] it appears as though our sighs have reached to Heaven, and that things will now develop at least somewhat according to our wishes."169 Just what these wishes were was never openly expressed, but attitudes such as these clearly went beyond the loyal enthusiasm for the Russians typ- ical of other sections of the intelligentsia. The attitudes of Jungmann's circle regarding other events, particularly the fate of Poland, also showed an interesting con- trast to those of the "loyal" patriots. The latter group did not consider that perhaps the Poles preferred the French to the Russians, but only saw that the Russians were Napoleon's en- emies. Jan Nejedl5 wrote, during the stnruggle between the French and Poles on one side and the Russians on the other, that "our valiant Slavs the Russians" had thrown the French out of Warsaw and had issued a proclamation to the Poles saying that if they caused trouble, not a child would be left living, nor one stone standing on another. "God grant," con- tinued Nejedl9, "that our courageous Slavs overthrow this bane of the entire world, Napoleon."170 Jungmann's attitude to the Poles was quite different. "I am glad," he wrote, "that a part of the Slavs is again freed from the German yoke-in Poland-and expect that even more will be."'171 When the Grand Duchy of Warsaw marched into Russia with the French in 1811, Jungmann's view was that at least Slavs would be victorious on one side or the other. "Either the Polish mon- archy will flourish in its entirety under King Josef Napoleon [sic] ... or, what would be perhaps even better, the Russians will overrun half of Europe, and merge and unite the greater part of the Slavs."'72 On the other hand, this attitude of Jung- mann's, coupled with a basically pro-Russian outlook, enabled him to dismiss the catastrophe of the Poles after Napoleon's downfall with a verbal shrug: "I am sorry for the Poles, that they have bought their subjection so dearly! But what of it? 244 Origins of the Czech National Renascence At least it will be a step to the further unification of the Slavs!" "73 This statement contrasts strongly with Dobrovsk 's expressions of sympathy to his Polish friend, Bandtke, and his recognition, already noted, that "it would be a pity if the Rus- sians should swallow up not only Polish territory, but also the Polish language." The "loyal" and "Russophile" attitudes were basically ex- pressed among members of the intelligentsia, or in the literate urban setting in general. The majority of the population, the peasants, also had an opportunity to experience the Russians at first hand during the years of war. Though evidence is frag- mentary, it appears that the critical attitude to the conse- quences of great-power politics found in the "Selsk 'Otce ni" was also expressed by the people during the wars. War meant economic hardship for the peasant, the more so as the Russian army was plagued by the commissariat troubles Jung- mann mentioned.174 Jan Rulik recorded the economic diffi- culties caused by the armies in his Kalenddr historicky, and the evidence of the family chronicles kept by literate farmers suggests that his perception was an accurate reflection of feel- ing in the countryside.75 This resentment was not directed particularly at the Russians, of course: any army, whether their "own" Austrian, allied Russian or Prussian, or enemy French, caused the peasant hardship. Martin Novik of Dri- nov complained, "Here, whether it was wood for fuel or build- ing, whether it was straw or rye in the barn, whatever it was, as long as it only had a name, everything they took off to the encampment."'76 The length of the war made the difficulties harder to bear, as Petr Martinovsk of Slavetin lamented. In 1812, his area suffered from several thousand Russian troops who bivouacked there for two days, and consumed or de- stroyed everything in the fields.'77 Vclav Tachezi of Budyne had the experience of having some 800 allied troops quar- tered in his area and wrote, "This was always the way of it; we were always having to give them oats, hay and bread.""78 Nor was it only economic hardships that the armies inflicted. "The Glorious, Widespread Slavic Nation" 245 Martin Novik blamed the sick Russian and Prussian troops for the outbreaks of disease that began in the winter of 1813 and killed many people.179 Conspicuous by its absence from the comments about the Russians in these chronicles is an interest in the Slavic broth- erhood between Czechs and Russians. While there is some evidence of sympathy among the peasants for deserting sol- diers,180 this was more likely to be based on social, rather than ethnic, foundations. General attitudes toward Russia and its role in the wars were more usually cast in religious terms. Napoleon, frequently portrayed as the Antichrist, was pun- ished by God using the instrument of Russia. The chroniclers dwelt on the fate of those who opposed God's will, not on the might and Slavic character of his chosen instrument.'81 The presence of Russian armies in Bohemia, then, could hardly be said to have caused a surge of Russophilism among the people. They were not fascinated by the Slavic link between Czechs and Russians, as the intelligentsia frequently were, and in the area of most concern to them, their economic sit- uation, the Russians made things worse. This was most pun- gently captured by the well-to-do farmer, Franti'ek Vavik, in a New Year's carol for 1800: Tech Rusi na'ich hosti Jiz mime vsichni dosti. Jestli tu dlouho budou, Ucini zemi chudou. Jiv prv6 malo mdla, Neb vvecka zhubenela Skrz tak dlouh 6as vojny. Already we've all had enough Of these Russians, our guests. If they remain here long, They'll impoverish the land. It had little enough before, For everything has grown thin Through such a long time of war.'82 246 Origins of the Czech National Renascence Sympathy for the individual Russian soldier was the result of fellow feeling for a peasant forced into an army, not of Slavic brotherhood. Czech Slavophilism on a mass level simply did not yet exist. Czech Slavism, then, presented a complex and varied pic- ture during this period. Certain features do stand out, how- ever, and they serve to illuminate its nature and function in the renascence at this time. One factor limiting the influence that Slavism could exert was the extent of knowledge about the Slavs in Bohemian society. Organized and well-founded knowledge about the other Slavs was almost entirely limited to the intelligentsia, embracing their more official contacts with the Slavic world of learning through the Royal Bohemian Society of Sciences and the less formal literary correspon- dence among scholars. The former contacts were not neces- sarily motivated by a consciousness of a Slavic ethnic tie, but were part of a general pattern of international scholarly traffic. The latter type of contact did testify to a shared interest in Slavic studies among its participants, but its influence was also limited by its scholarly character. These Slavic scholars eschewed politics for the most part, concentrating on linguistic and cultural developments and the problems of communication on these issues. In their own dis- ciplines, in history, linguistics, and studies of the literature of the Czech or Slavic past, the intellectuals viewed the Slavic world in general and Russia in particular as a storehouse of source material, as well as a part of the wider subject. Their interest in the Slavs was centered on the ancient past, on their earliest social organizations, on the development of their lit- erature. This focus gave them a certain freedom, based on scarcity of sources, to picture the early Slavs as they wanted; but it also restricted the applicability of their interests to the present. The development of literature was practically the only subject these scholars pursued right up to their own day; "The Glorious, Widespread Slavic Nation" 247 certainly a wider interest in the modem history and political development of the Slavic nations was not yet there. Among the general literate public, knowledge of Slavic matters was more restricted. Some of the ideas of the scholars working in Slavic fields were accepted and transmitted to wider circles by men such as Rulik, who popularized the find- ings of Voigt and Prochizka. Kramerius's Vlastenski noviny was another source of information, but items about the Slavs generally appeared only sporadically, even there. Kramerius in his newspaper, Rulik and others in their works, did spread the concept of the linguistic tie between Czechs and other Slavs and of the size and far-flung settlement of the Slavic peoples. But this was only a vague idea, inherited from pre- vious centuries and not really reflecting an organized interest in the Slavs or the Slavic languages. Veleslavin's words, writ- ten in 1590 as a foreword to Vjtahy z kroniky moskevske, could have been taken, without deletion or addition, from the pages of the Vlastensk" noviny two centuries later. Slavism at this time played only a supporting role to Czech national consciousness. It grew out of the developing Czech national feeling and served its purposes, rather than vice versa. The defensive stress on the Slavic note and Russia's greatness supported the specifically Czech concern with the mother tongue and its fate. Other Slavs could serve as inspi- rational examples, and both linguistic and literary works could gain practical assistance from the Slavic languages. Russia's greatness in particular lent status to the Czech language and the Czech nation as fellow Slavs, but beyond that it had very little to do with them. The importance of the Slavic world for this phase of the Czech national renascence, then, was as an instrument and as a symbol to be manipulated in a purely Czech context for ends defined by the Bohemian intellectuals themselves. Even the appearance of the Russians on the Czech stage during the Napoleonic wars did not have an immediate, far- reaching impact on Czech national consciousness. It did pro- 14 Origins of the Czech National Renascence ism, including the Czech variety, gives the latter a distinct political coloration that helps differentiate it from earlier forms of national self-awareness.28 The consciousness of na- tional community developed in earlier times is now elabo- rated in a national ideology that plays an important part in the threefold task of nationalist politics: coordinating various elites in resisting the demands of the centralizing state and struggling for control over it, mobilizing support from wider levels of society, and gaining legitimacy for nationalist claims, or, where successful, the new nation-states.29 This is not to limit modem nationalism solely to the status of a political movement, narrowly defined, but to suggest that in modem, industrial, mass-based societies the political consequences of the "all-inclusive penetration of national consciousness into every going pursuit" are inescapable.30 The Czech scholar Miroslav Hroch has described three stages in the development of modem nationalist movements among Europe's "small nations" such as that of the Czechs. In the first stage, a small group of intellectuals begins to study the language and history of the national community; in the second, a wider group of active patriots, having elaborated a national ideology, undertakes active agitation in the name of the nation; and in the final, mass-based stage the movement reaches its peak.31 This study focuses on the earliest phase of the Czech national renascence, before the emergence of a fully fledged nationalist movement.32 The state within which this Czech renascence developed was the multiethnic Habs- burg monarchy, where from the mid-eighteenth century a feu- dal conglomeration of territories was undergoing a cultural shift from the universal Catholicism of the Counter-Reformation to the no less cosmopolitan outlook of the Enlightenment. At the same time, Maria Theresa and Joseph II, under the im- pact of that same Enlightenment and developments in state- craft elsewhere in Europe, attempted to do away with the mediated authority of the feudal order and reorganize their possessions on rational, enlightened principles.33 Coinciding roughly with the period of Maria Theresa's 248 Origins of the Czech National Renascence vide occasions for enthusiastic salutation of this brave Slavic land in the spirit of "loyal" patriotism, but this attitude toward the Russians was still basically the same as that of Veleslavin or Balbin. Among the common people, too, the Russian pres- ence did not immediately arouse fervent pan-Slav or Russo- phile sentiments. Only among a small group of younger patriots did admiration for Russia go beyond the inheritance of the past and the needs of Czech national consciousness. Perhaps in the retrospective view of later nineteenth-century patriots the role of Russia in the Napoleonic wars loomed larger than it did at the time, but it was not until the national renascence had entered its second phase, dominated by the generation of Josef Jungmann, that these possibilities were fully realized. Conclusion As the new century neared the end of its first decade, the feeling grew among patriots that a generation was coming to a close. Most of the prominent scholars whose activities we have followed were gone from the scene: Pelcl, Prochizka, Tomsa, Kramerius, Durych, Voigt and others were dead. Their loss was keenly felt. To those who survived them, it seemed that "the handful of sincere patriots is disappearing slowly, one by one, and when the Germans have devoured everything, there will not even be anyone left to say a prayer over their ashes."I Yet this changing of the guard forced younger patriots to realize that they stood on a threshold and that what happened next depended on them. This awareness could strengthen the self-confidence of the new generation, as well as provoking a mood of elegaic appreciation of its pre- decessor. Josef Jungmann wrote to his friend Marek in 1809: Those sorrowful thoughts which grieve you are also dog- ging my steps. Durych, Pelcl, Prochizka have passed on; only Dobrovsk [is] still among us.... It is already de- volving upon us to care for the fatherland. When the old husbandman dies, the young one must see to the house- hold; if he does not have the experience-what of it! He will gain it! It is up to us always to work in every way we can so that (if possible) we will preserve the fatherland for our descendants in better condition than it was when be- 249 250 Origins of the Czech National Renascence queathed to us by our predecessors. If the fatherland dies, let it be after we are gone; while we are here, so long as we struggle and are equal to our task, it will not die.2 In their efforts to "preserve the fatherland" for their descen- dants, the patriots of the new generation would build on the inheritance they had received from this period of transition between the Enlightenment and romanticism. What was the nature of this intellectual inheritance? From around the mid-eighteenth century to the end of the Napoleonic wars, the national renascence and the developing Czech national consciousness gradually involved more and more aspects of Bohemia's cultural life. Out of the complex of attitudes developed and articulated during this first phase of the renascence, the next generation would develop a Czech national ideology, as a genuine nationalist movement emerged. The process took shape toward the middle of the eighteenth century with the spread of modern critical methods in sci- ence. These ideas, reinforced by the general outlook of the European Enlightenment, most affected the development of Czech national consciousness through their impact on his- torical work, but they were also applied to the physical and natural sciences. In the study of history, the effect of the new trends was to free Czech history from dependence on estab- lished authority. This new critical freedom allowed Czech historians to go beyond the interpretations of the Counter- Reformation in Bohemia, with its negation of the Czech cul- tural achievements between 1415 and 1618 and its suspicion of the Czech language. The traditional approach to the Hus- site period and its aftermath was challenged, but so too were other, older traditions about the founding of the Czech nation and state. To be sure, the historical writing of the Enlightenment had certain weaknesses. Its emphasis on reason made it dif- ficult to understand certain periods of history, such as the Middle Ages, or the more recent baroque period. Its critical method could sometimes degenerate into hypercriticism, and Conclusion none of the historians active during this period succeeded in producing the major synthesis of Czech history that Dobner's patron had called for. Even Pelcl's Kurzgefasste Geschichte fell short of that ideal, and only later in the nineteenth century could Franti-ek Palack4 produce such a work for Czech his- tory up to 1526. Nevertheless, championing the critical, Maurist historical methods and subjecting historical evidence to the test of reason was an advance in historical method and helped prepare the way for later developments. At the same time, the new ideas carried with them a new, enlightened concept of patriotism, which expressed itself in the desire to remove from the record all the irrational, fabulous accretions of earlier ages. Thus cleansed, Czech history could (so these patriots hoped) stand with the history of other enlightened nations as an equal. As we have seen, even this enlightened criticism was not unmixed with defensive patriotism, aimed at protecting the nation's heroes from the attacks of foreigners. The consciousness of a shared historical heritage which was expressed in the works of Bohemian historians during this period could still be all-embracing. Czech and German both could accept Charles IV or even 2izka as national heroes, fully within the ideals of Bohemian Landespatriotismus. Yet the development of Czech national consciousness did not stop there. Philology, so useful to scholars as a methodological training and auxiliary tool for history, as well as a subject of study in itself, led them to study the Czech language. Here their efforts were strongly influenced by their enlightened classicist outlook, which viewed the usage of the sixteenth- century golden age of Czech as a model. The suspicion of the Counter-Reformation was supplanted by the view that the Czech of the humanists should be the norm for their eighteenth-century followers. Only a few grammarians ar- gued the case for considering contemporary oral practice; and the authority of Dobrovsk , who took a generally conservative view, was so great that even Jungmann's generation accepted much of his outlook. Down to the present, literary Czech bears traces of Dobrovsk 's ideas. Again, the interests of these 251 252 Origins of the Czech National Renascence patriotic scholars were rather one-sided. They did not appre- ciate the use of the language developed in some of the great preaching and hymn writing of the baroque, just as medieval literature was unattractive to them. They liked the humanists as much because they approved of some of the ideas in their works as because of the supposed classical standard of their language. These attitudes colored their lack of sympathy for the spoken usage. Philological interest in the Czech language also led to more publicist works in defense of Czech. Kinsk's Erinnerung paved the way for an entire series of defenses of the language, stressing its heritage, suppleness, lexical rich- ness, and euphony. In time, these works came to be written in Czech, a first step toward the urge to develop Czech again as a language of high culture. The two concerns of Czech linguistic scholars, the defen- sive and the philological, found reinforcement from research into Czech literary history. Through the studies of scholars like Voigt, Prochazka, and Dobrovs4, the rich literary heri- tage of Czech was brought to light. They and others provided concrete evidence to support the assertions of Czech's qual- ities made in the defenses of the language. Literary history also reinforced the classicist, conservative bent of the philol- ogists. Literary historians added weight to the view that the Czech of the humanists should be the model for all attempts at modern Czech writing. The publication of surviving works from the golden age, an area in which Prochizka's contri- butions were exceptionally great, further strengthened this trend. That these monuments were more than merely inter- esting documents for literary-historical study can be seen in Kramerius's introduction to his edition of Lomnick's Kratke naucent mladimu hospoddfi and elsewhere. Yet even this interest in the history of Czech language and culture did not in itself represent a parting of the ways of territorial patriotism and Czech national consciousness. Kin- sk's support of Czech was coupled with admiration for the flourishing culture of Germany, and he was not alone. The heritage of the Czech language and its literature could still be Conclusion accepted as part of the common heritage of both Czech- and German-speaking Bohemians. The patronage extended to the native vernacular by the Bohemian aristocracy shows this to be so; the language was also, of course, useful to the nobles as a symbol of the political distinctness of the Kingdom of Bohemia. Nevertheless, the works of literary historians and the republication of great examples of Czech literature helped forge a potent myth of a flourishing Czech golden age that was absorbed into the historical consciousness of Czech patriots. The linguists' interest in the language and literary histo- rians' study of its monuments created a regard among patri- otic intellectuals for the Czech language. But not until some of them attempted to recreate a complete cultural life in Czech did the language and its fate became central to their concerns. This "linguocentrism," as one study dubs it, quite typical of nationalist movements, remained characteristic of Czech renascence culture well into the nineteenth century.3 As language became central to the patriots' concerns, the pro- cess of ethnic separation began. It was one thing to appreciate the glories of sixteenth-century Czech literature, and quite another to use Czech to create a modern high culture. Such efforts were at first either directed consciously to the lower urban classes, as the only audience for works in Czech, or to the peasants. They thus frequently had enlightening, didactic aims in addition to patriotic ones. The role of the theater as a moral educator of the common people was fully accepted by the Czech dramatists, and Kramerius's Czech newspaper and publishing house also had both patriotic and enlightening concerns. Even the early attempts at belles lettres, such as Tham's poetic almanacs, were in large part inspired by the same motives as the defenses of the language. In the works of the Puchmajer school and the literary journals of the first decade of the nineteenth century, especially Jan Nejedly's Hlasatel cesky", the ideas of vlast and mother tongue were fur- ther developed until in Nejedly's and Jungmann's writing we find a formulation of the ethnolinguistic concept of nation- 253 254 Origins of the Czech National Renascence hood. From these circles the call began to go up for Czech to be used in all branches of writing, not merely for works aimed at the common people. When scholars write and publish their learned works in their mother tongue, even foreign nations, mindful of the learning of all peoples, will be eager to learn our language. When our Czech books are announced in the catalogues of foreign booksellers, reviewed in foreign journals, trans- lated into French, Italian, English and German, then, then our Czech nation (obec) will shine more brightly-more brightly than under Charles, VBaclav, Matthias or Rudolph!4 With the call for Czech to take over all areas of cultural life, the bounds of territorial patriotism were finally passed. From the time of the next generation down through the nine- teenth century, the mark of the patriot was to be one's attitude toward, and use of, the Czech language. These patriots no longer limited themselves to studying the past glories of Czech or writing defensive poems in it. They demanded the reintroduction of Czech into the schools, the administration, and-in short-into every sphere of the daily life of the ed- ucated urban classes as well as the country dweller.5 The language was perforce a concern of those patriots who worked especially for the common people. Under the influence of Enlightenment ideas on the role of all inhabitants and their value to the state, the popular awakeners worked to fight religious prejudice, intolerance, and ignorance among the common people, while at the same time spreading knowl- edge designed to raise their economic and cultural standards. Since the great mass of the people spoke only Czech, they had to carry on this work in Czech, to develop it, and to try to raise the standards of Czech in the countryside. The work of these patriots contributed to the reevaluation of the peas- ant, not only to the state, but also the nation. Thus it prepared the way for the nationalist identification of all the national virtues with the simple, "unspoiled" peasantry.6 As it became clear that the vast majority of the highest levels of the "po- Conclusion litical nation" in Bohemia, the nobility, would never adopt the linguocentrism of the Czech patriots, such identification of the nation with the common people was strengthened still further. This may help account for some of the features of nineteenth-century Czech nationalism which distinguish it from the "gentry" nationalism of its neighbors, Hungary and Poland. With the change in national consciousness from a political- territorial to an ethnolinguistic base, the role of Slavism be- came more important. During this opening phase of the re- nascence, Slavism had mainly served the needs of the Czech patriots, providing lexical material, scholarly contacts, and the moral support needed to raise the prestige of the nation. But when the chances of fully winning the nobility over to the national cause faded with the elaboration of an ethnolinguistic concept of nationhood, the Slavic world seemed to offer a new ally. Although the possibility of creating a single, acceptable Slavic literary language (as the Germans had done earlier for themselves) was not very great, the idea of "Slavic reciprocity" as developed in Jan Kollir's work provided a possible substi- tute. Here, as in other areas we have discussed, the patriots of the second and third phases of the renascence built with the materials inherited from the generation active between the Enlightenment and romanticism. As the Czech national movement developed, certain threads from this inheritance would be absorbed, others discarded, many colored with fresh meanings, and gradually woven into the complex fabric of Czech nationalism. 255 Abbreviations Used in Notes Notes Bibliography Index Introduction and Joseph II's reforms were the beginnings of a remarkable Czech cultural and linguistic revival in Bohemia, initially the work of a small group of intellectuals-members of that intelligentsia whose emergence plays an important, if not indispensable, role in the development of modem national- ism."' Like their counterparts elsewhere in Europe, these Bohemian intellectuals were largely of non-noble background, educated according to Western standards, and earned a living in one way or another through their intellectual labor. Al- though certain representatives of the nobility acted as patrons to these scholars and shared some of their intellectual inter- ests, the direct involvement of members of the nobility in their activities was small.35 The very cosmopolitanism of En- lightenment culture forced the Bohemian intelligentsia to confront the issue of their self-image, their differences and similarities with other peoples in Europe. In the process, they articulated a complex of attitudes and ideas about the Czech language, culture, and nation that would provide important material for later nationalist ideologies and suggests the im- portance of culture in the formation and expression of na- tional consciousness.36 The exact relationship between the cultural develop- ments of eighteenth-century Bohemia (especially the En- lightenment), the reform program of enlightened absolutism, and the emerging national renascence is complicated and many-sided. While it is no longer acceptable to dismiss the baroque and rococo periods in Bohemia as a time of "dark- ness" (temno), the Enlightenment did open up new possibil- ities for the intelligentsia with its emphasis on the ability of human reason, critically applied, to reach truths about the past and present. In Bohemia especially, the emphasis on the freedom of individual conscience and inquiry struck deep resonances.37 Simultaneously these attitudes, coupled with reforms undertaken by "enlightened absolutist" monarchs (inspired in part by the same culture), suggested a "private" conception of society in which other forms of cohesion and relationship 15 Abbreviations Used in Notes In the notes and bibliography, Czech sources are cited in modem spellings. However, German sources are cited as they were spelled at the time of publication: for example, th for modem German t; these are often Austrian usages. Abhandlungen, 1. Folge: Abhandlungen der B6hmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Prag, 4 vols., Prague, 1785-1788. Abhandlungen, 2. Folge: Neuere Abhandlungen der k6iniglichen Bih- mischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, 3 vols., 1791-1795. Abhandlungen, 3. Folge: Abhandlungen der kniglichen B4hmischen Ge- sellschaft der Wissenschaften auf das Jahr ... , 8 vols., Prague, 1804- 1824. Abhandlungen einer Privatgesellschaft: Abhandlungen einger Privatgesell- schaft in Bihmen zur Aufnahme der Mathematik, der vaterldndische Geschichte und der Naturgeschichte, 6 vols., Prague, 1775-1784. AUC: Acta Universitatis Carolinae CAVU: eski akademie cisare Franti'ka Josefa pro v6dy, slovesnost a umeni CCH: Ceskyj Easopis historickc CNM: Casopis nadrodniho musea, including earlier titles: 1855-1922, Ca- sopis Musea krdlovstvi Cesk6ho; 1831-1854, Casopis ceskdho museum [musea]; 1827-1830, Casopis spole6nosti vlasteneckdho Museum v Ciechdch CsCH: Ceskoslovensk" casopis historicky CSAV: Ceskoslovenski akademie v6d DA: Der Briefwechsel zwischen Josef Dobrovsky und Karl Gottlob von An- 259 Abbreviations ton. Ed. Miroslav Krbec and Vera Michdlkova. Ver6ffentlichungen des Instituts fiir Slawistik, no. 21. Berlin, 1959. DB: Korrespondence Josefa Dobrovskeho. II. Vzdjemn dopisy Josefa Do- brovskdho a Jiiho Samuele Bandtkeho z let 1810-1827. Ed. Adolf Patera. Sbirka prameniv ku pozn~ni litera'miho iivota v Cechich, na Morave a ve Slezsku, Skupina 2, cislo 8. Prague, 1906. DD: Korrespondence Josefa Dobrovsk6ho. I. Vzdjemne dopisy Josefa Do- brovsk6ho a Fortunata Duricha z let 1778-1899. Ed. Adolf Patera. Sbirka pramenfiv ku poznini literimiho iivota v Cechch, na Morave a ve Slezsku, Skupina 2, 6islo 2. Prague, 1895. DK: Der Briefwechsel zwischen Dobrowsky und Kopitar, 1808-1828. Ed. V. Jagi'. Berlin, 1885. DR: Korrespondence Josefa Dobrovskeho. IV. Vzdjemnd listy Josefa Do- brovsk6ho a JiKiYho Ribaye z let 1783-1810. Ed. Adolf Patera. Sbirka pramenv ku poznini liternmiho iivota v echich, na Morave a ve Slezsku, Skupina 2, Cislo 18. Prague, 1913. DZ: Korrespondence Josefa Dobrovskeho. III. Vzdjemnd listy Josefa Do- brovsk6ho a Josefa Valentina Zlobickdho z let 1781-1807. Ed. Adolf Patera. Sbirka pramenfiv ku poznini literrnmiho Zivota v Cechich, na Morave a ve Slezsku, Skupina 2, cislo 9. Prague, 1908. EEQ: East European Quarterly LA PNP: Liternmi archiv Pamitniku nairodniho pisemnictvi, Prague. Neue Briefe: Neue Briefe von Dobrowsky, Kopitar und andere Siid- und Westslawen. Ed. V. Jagiv. Berlin, 1897. SEER: Slavonic and East European Review Spisy a projevy: Spisy a projevy Josefa Dobrovsk6ho, vychizejici p6-i Ko- mise pro vydivini Spisui Josefa Dobrovsk6ho phi Krilovsk6 eske spole-nosti nauk. Since 1953 published by the Cveskoslovensk aka- demie ved. 260 Notes Unless otherwise indicated, all translations are by the author. Introduction 1. See Petr (ornej, "Minulost plna schemat," in Tvar. Literdrni ty- denik, nos. 16-17, 21 and 28 June 1990. Cornej was reacting to a polemic between Eva Kantiirkovi and Miroslav Truc in Svobodnj zitrek. 2. Ibid., no. 16, 21 June 1990. 3. Especially in the trilogy "Jan Hus," "Jan Zizka," and "Proti viem." See Jiff Rak, "'Boj o dusi naroda' ve filmu 50. let," Dejiny a soucasnost 13, no. 2 (1991): 34-40. 4. Especially through a series of works published in the 1890s, in- cluding Ceskd otdzka (Prague, 1895); Nafe nynjs'i krise (Prague, 1895); Jan Hus, nas'e obrozeni a nase reformace (Prague, 1896); Karel Havliek. Snahy a tuz,by politickdho probuzeni (Prague, 1896); Otdzka socidlni (Prague, 1898); and Palackdho idea ceskdho ndroda (Prague, 1898). Sig- nificant parts of Ceskd otdzka and other essays were published in English as Tomas Garrigue Masaryk, The Meaning of Czech History, ed. and intro. Rene Wellek, trans. Paul Kussi (Chapel Hill, 1974). 5. Cornej, "Minulost plni sch6mat," pt. 1. See also Albert Prai~k, "Nazory na ceske obrozeni," Ceske obrozeni, pp. 64-66; and Rossos, "Czech Historiography, Part 2," pp. 360-72. 6. On Goll, see the evaluation by his pupil Josef Susta, "Jaroslav Goll," Cesky* Easopis historicky 35 (1929): 475-88, and Rossos, "Czech Histori- ography, Part 2," pp. 369-70. 7. Cornej, "Minulost plni sch6mat," pt. 2; Rossos, "Czech Histori- ography, Part 2," pp. 375-76. Especially in his critical biography of Jan Zizka, Peka stirred up significant public controversy and polemics both 261 Notes to Pages 8-10 scholarly and popular. Jii' Rak has suggested that if the war and Communist period had not interrupted the natural development of Czech historiog- raphy, the traditional nationalist interpretations would have been settled with much sooner (Rak, "'Boj o dusi naroda," pp. 35-36). A selection of Pekar's works on the meaning of Czech history has been published as Josef Peka~, O smyslu ceskjch dijin (Prague, 1990). 8. Krofta's Zi;ka a husitskd revoluce (Prague, 1936) was an attempt to respond to Pekar's criticisms in his Zifka a jeho doba, 4 vols. (Prague, 1927-1933). Krofta also produced a (posthumous) synthetic historical sur- vey, Dejiny ceskoslovenske (Prague, 1947). The term Bohemian Estates re- fers to the traditional feudal legislature of the Kingdom of Bohemia. Its name was taken from the fact that it supposedly represented the three "es- tates" of the kingdom: the clergy, the nobility, and the burghers. In practice it was controlled by the nobility. 9. Prazik, "Nazory na cesk6 obrozeni," p. 108. See also Joseph F. Za- cek, "Nationalism in Czechoslovakia," in Nationalism in Eastern Europe, ed. Sugar and Lederer, pp. 175-77. 10. A typical survey of this sort is Arnoit Klima, Na prahu novd spo- lecnosti (1781-1848) (Prague, 1979). See also Zacek, "Nationalism in Czechoslovakia," p. 176. For a "Marxist" discussion of previous historiog- raphy on the renascence, see Josef Koci, Ceske ndrodni obrozeni (Prague, 1978), pp. 145-56. 11. Albert Prazik, "Naizory na cesk6 obrozeni," pp. 109-10. 12. Prai~k's other great work on the history of Czech national identity, Ndrod se brdnil, is even more strongly marked by this tone. 13. For a discussion of the different terminology used to describe the renascence, see Praiak, "Niazory na ceske obrozeni," pp. 63-65. I translate the Czech word obrozeni by the term "renascence" instead of "revival" (which is not uncommon, especially in American works on Czech history), because I think it more accurately reflects the etymological meaning of the Czech. The use of the form "renascence" will, I hope, serve to distinguish it from the general European Renaissance. 14. See Anthony D. Smith, The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford, 1987), pp. 7-13. An argument for the first position is Leonard Doob, Pa- triotism and Nationalism: Their Psychological Foundations (New Haven, 1964); a classic among many examples of the other approach is Elie Ke- dourie, Nationalism, rev. ed. (London, 1985). 15. The most recent edition of the Kronika Boleslavskd is Jiii Daii- helka, Karel Hidek, Bohuslav Havrinek and Nadeida Kvitkovi, eds., Staroceskd kronika tak feceneho Dalimila, 2 vols. (Prague, 1988). For ex- amples of the attitudes of the chronicler, see p. 105, where the establish- ment of the Czechs in Bohemia is called "the beginnings of the Czech language" (emphasis added), or p. 129, which contains Libu-e's famous 262 Notes to Pages 10-13 prophecy promising weal to the kingdom if it will preserve its language. Other examples abound. 16. Banac, The National Question in Yugoslavia, p. 21. 17. Singapore's efforts to create a "national ideology" represent a good example of "nation-building." See the Economist 310, no. 7586 (21 January 1989): 38. 18. See John A. Armstrong, Nations before Nationalism (Chapel Hill, 1982), most succinctly pp. 283-99. 19. "Ty jsi dedic Ceske zeme-, rozpomefi se na sv6 pl6me, nedej za- hynouti nim ni budoucim" (Thou art the heir of the Czech land, call to remembrance thy kindred, do not allow us or future generations to die out), runs the ancient Czech hymn to Saint Viclav. See also Novak, Czech Lit- erature, pp. 26-27. 20. Franti'ek Graus, Die Nationenbildung der Westslawen im Mit- telalter (Sigmaringen, 1980), pp. 51-64, 87-113, devotes special attention to Bohemia; see pp. 139-43. See also his "Die Bildung eines Nationalbe- wusstseins im mittelalterlichen Bbhmen (die vorhussitische Zeit)," Histo- rica 12 (1966): 73-84. On earlier forms of ethnic Czech self-awareness, see Frantisek Smahel, "The Idea of the Czech Nation in Hussite Bohemia," Historica 16 (1969): 143-247; ibid. 17 (1970): 93-197; and Jaroslav Meznik, "Dejiny nirodu cesk6ho v Morave (Narys vyvoje nairodniho vedomi na Mo- rave do poloviny 19. stoleti)," Ceskyj Easopis historickyj 88 (1990): 34-62. 21. Graus, Die Nationenbildung, pp. 146-47. 22. See Petr Comej, Tajemstvfieskyjch kronik (Prague, 1986), p. 304. 23. Kutnar, PPehledne dJjiny cesk9ho a slovensk6ho djepisectvi, pp. 64-73. Important studies of this baroque culture include Vilem Bitnar, Postavy a problemy ceskdho baroku literdrniho (Prague, 1939); the volume Pragensia Svatojanskd: Sbornfk stati o kulture deskdho baroka (Prague, 1929), ed. Vilem Bitnar and Karel Prochizka; and Zdenek Kalista, Ceske' baroko: studie, texty, poznamky (Prague, 1941). Kalista was silenced by the Communists and spent more than a decade in prison. He published another work on the baroque culture of Bohemia abroad, Tvdf baroka: pozndmky, kterd zabloudily na okraj ivota, skicd? problemd a odpov6di (Munich, 1982). 24. For a survey of Czech and Slovak nationalism, see Zacek, "Na- tionalism in Czechoslovakia," pp. 167-206, and "Czech and Slovak Na- tionalism," Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism, 17 (1990): 327-31. 25. See Smith, Ethnic Origins, pp. 130-34, on which much of this discussion rests. The "triple revolution" and its impact on nationalism is discussed in different ways in Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London, 1983), and Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism (Ithaca and London, 1983). An older, slightly different interpretation, stressing the development of ideas, 263 Notes to Pages 13-15 is Kohn, The Idea of Nationalism, which deals with the Czech renascence on pp. 551-60. 26. Cornelia Navari, "The Origins of the Nation-State," in The Nation State: The Formation of Modern Politics, ed. Leonard Tivey (New York, 1981), pp. 13-36. See also Charles Tilly, ed., The Formation of National States in Western Europe (Princeton, 1975). 27. See Anderson, Imagined Communities, esp. chap. 4. For a slightly different explanation of this cultural revolution, linking it to the demands of modem industrialized society, see Gellner, Nations and Nationalism, esp. pp. 19-38. 28. John Breuilly, Nationalism and the State (Manchester, 1982) stresses the political nature of modem nationalism. See esp. pp. 1-35, 352-84. 29. Ibid., pp. 334-50. 30. Banac, The National Question, p. 27. 31. Hroch, Die Vorkiimpfer der nationalen Bewegung bei den kleinen Volker Europas, pp. 24-26, recently translated as Social Preconditions of National Revival in Europe (Cambridge, 1985). 32. Miroslav Hroch once characterized the "awakeners" of this phase as "patriots without a nation." See "Vlastenci bez narody," in Nafe ivd a mrtvd minulost. Osm esejf o ceskyjch djindch (Prague, 1968). 33. See T.C.W. Blanning, Joseph II and Enlightened Despotism (Lon- don, 1970). Other works linking the national revivals with "enlightened des- potism" include Eduard Winter, Barock, Absolutismus und Aufklirung in der Donaumonarchie (Vienna, 1971); and J6zef Chlebowczyk, Procesy na- rodotwdrcze we wschodniej europie srodkowej w dobie kapitalizmu (od schylku XVIII do poczjtk6w XX w.) (Warsaw and Cracow, 1975), esp. pp. 77-112. An abridged version of the latter work is in On Small and Young Nations in Europe (Wroclaw, 1980). 34. For a debate on the place of the intelligentsia in nationalism, see Anthony D. Smith, Theories of Nationalism (London, 1971), esp. chaps. 6, 10; Breuilly, Nationalism and the State, pp. 327-33; Kedourie, National- ism; and Anderson, Imagined Communities. 35. Hugh Seton-Watson, "Nationalismus und Nationalbewusstsein," Osterreichische Osthefte 8 (1966): 3-4. Conflicting views of the place of the nobility in the national renascence can be found in Josef Pekar's review of Josef Hanus, Ndrodni museum a nase obrozeni, vol. I (Prague, 1921), in CCH 28 (1922): 469-77; Jan Muk, Po stopdch ndrodniho vidomf eske slechty pobilohorske (Prague, 1931); and Kapras, "Nairodni vedomi 6esk6 slechty." 36. Rogger, National Consciousness in Eighteenth Century Russia, p. 3, defines national consciousness primarily in cultural terms. See also Aleksandr Sergeevich Myl'nikov, "Kul'tura i natsional'noe samosoznanie 264 Notes to Pages 15-20 narodov tsentral'noi i iugovostochnoi evropy v epokhu natsional'nogo vozrozhdeniia," Sovetskoe slavianovedenie 4 (1974), pp. 73-84. 37. See Joseph Frederick Zacek, "The Czech Enlightenment and the Czech National Revival," Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism 10 (1983): 17-28; and Mikuldi Teich, "Bohemia: From Darkness into Light," in The Enlightenment in National Context, ed. Roy Porter and Mikuldi Teich (Cambridge, 1981), pp. 141-63. See also Myl'nikov, Vznik ndrodnv osvicenske ideologie v ceskych zemich 18. stoleti. Prameny ndrodniho ob- rozeni and Epocha prosveshcheniia v cheshskikh zemliakh; and Haubelt, Oeske' osvicenstvi. 38. Agnew, "Josephinism and the Patriotic Intelligentsia in Bohemia." See also Pavel Belina, "Teoretick6 koieny a stitni praxe osvicensk6ho ab- solutismu v habsburske monarchii," isCH 29 (1981): 879-905. 39. Joseph Anton Ritter von Riegger, Skizze einer statistischen Landes- kunde Beihmens (Leipzig and Prague, 1795), pp. 98-99. 40. The Hungarian reaction to Josephinism is described in Bela K. Kirdly, Hungary in the Late Eighteenth Century: The Decline of Enlight- ened Despotism (New York, 1969). See also Kerner, Bohemia in the Eigh- teenth Century. 41. Zacek, "Nationalism in Czechoslovakia," p. 177. 42. Breuilly, Nationalism and the State, p. 113. 43. The Bohemian Germans had few alternatives to becoming Ger- man nationalists. Surveys of Czech nationalism in English are scarce. See Zacek, "Nationalism in Czechoslovakia"; Jan Havrinek, "The Development of Czech Nationalism," Austrian History Yearbook 3, pt. 2 (1967): 223-60; Bruce Garver, The Young Czech Party, 1874-1901, and the Emergence of a Multi-Party System (New Haven, 1978); Frantisek Cervinka, Cesky nacionalismus v XIX. stoleti (Prague, 1965); and Koci, Ceske' ndrodni obrozeni. 44. See Stanley Z. Pech, The Czech Revolution of 1848 (Chapel Hill, 1969). Chapter 1. The Presence of the Past 1. When exactly he earned this epithet I have been unable to ascer- tain, but it was common among his contemporaries and immediate suc- cessors. See Palack, Dejiny ndrodu cesk9ho v Cechdch a na Morave, p. 13. 2. See Rossos, "Czech Historiography, Part 1," Canadian Slavonic Pa- pers, pp. 245-60, and "Czech Historiography, Part 2," pp. 359-85. 3. Kerner, Bohemia in the Eighteenth Century, pp. 3-25. 4. Pralik, Ceske' obrozeni, p. 120. See also Franti'ek Kutnar, PPeh- lednd dijiny ceskdho a slovensk6ho d~jepisectvi: Od povdtk ndrodni kul- tury az po vyzneni obrodn6ho iukolu d6jepisectvi v druhe polovine 19. stolet (Prague, 1973), pp. 64-68. 265 Notes to Pages 21-24 5. See Kutnar, Prehlednd dejiny ... djepisectvi, pp. 70-73. 6. That the place of Balbin and the Czech baroque in the history of Czech culture is still a lively topic is testified to by the fate of Kucera and Rak, Bohuslav Balbin a jeho misto v ceske kulture: a very small print run rapidly sold out, but the book was not reprinted following unfavorable re- views in the official journals, and the authors lost their jobs. An example of Czechoslovak "Marxist" historiography on the Balbin tradition is Haubelt, "Po6itky historiografick6 price Gelasia Dobnera." Haubelt was one of the leaders in the attack on Rak and Kucera. 7. Kutnar, Prehlednd dcjiny ... d6jepisectvf, pp. 72-73. 8. The publisher was Franti'ek Martin Pelcl, who gave it this Latin title. The edition was proscribed after original approval was withdrawn by the censor, and all unsold copies were confiscated. See Proke, "Osudy prvniho vydcni Balbinovy 'Obrany jazyka veskeho,' pp. 245-59; and chap. 2. 9. Schamschula, Die Anfdnge, pp. 23-24; Kutnar, Prehledne d6jiny ... ddjepisectvf, pp. 74-75. 10. On Bollandist traditions, see Thompson, A History of Historical Writing 2:8-13. 11. See Fueter, Geschichte der neueren Historiographie; and Kutnar, Pehledn" dejiny ... djepisectvi, pp. 45-51. 12. Thompson, Historical Writing, pp. 18-19; Kutnar, Pehlednd de - jiny ... dqjepisectvi, pp. 93-101. 13. Fueter, Historiographie, pp. 308-09. 14. Thompson, Historical Writing, p. 47; Kutnar, Prehlednd dejiny ... dejepisectvf, pp. 93-101. 15. See Hanus et al., Literatura ceskd devatendct6ho stoleti, 1:66-93. 16. Hanu', Ndrodni museum a nase obrozent 1:57-58. See also Schamschula, Die Anfdnge, p. 319; on Ziegelbauer's career, see ibid., pp. 44-57. 17. Hanu', Ndrodni museum, 1:57-58. 18. Kinsk, in other respects a rather typical representative of the Landespatriotischer Bohemian nobility, seems to have had a reasonably good knowledge of Czech, which he sometimes used in letters to friends. See Pekar, "Nase -lechta a jazyk -esky v 18. stoleti." 19. Hanus, Ndrodni museum, 1:60. See also Simedek, "Pocatky os- vicensk6ho d6jepisectvi v veskfch zemich a studium dejin slovanskfch na- rodii," pp. 307-08. 20. Ibid., p. 61; Myl'nikov, Vznik ndrodne osvicenske ideologie, p. 102. In September 1745 Ziegelbauer wrote to his friend Oliver Legipont that the MS had already cost him some 1,200 guilders. 21. Hanu', Ndrodni museum, 1:40; Slavik, Od Dobnera k Dobrov- skemu, pp. 17-29. See also Nemec, "The First Austrian Learned Society." 266 Notes to Pages 24-29 22. Myl'nikov, Vznik ndrodne osvicenske ideologie, p. 143. See also Myl'nikov, "Vozniknoveniie ranneprosvetitel'skikh ob"edinenii v chesh- skikh zemliakh," in Razvitie kapitalizma i natsional'nye dvizheniia v sla- vianskikh stranakh (Moscow, 1970), p. 39. 23. Hanu', Ndrodnf museum, 1:40; Myl'nikov, Vznik ndrodnv osvi- censke ideologie, p. 144. Schamschula discusses the careers of most of the members of the Societas Incognitorum at some length in Die Anfidnge, pp. 44-78. 24. Hanu', Ndrodni museum, 1:40-44. 25. Summarized in Myl'nikov, Vznik ndrodne osvfcensk ideologie, p. 145. 26. Hanu', Ndrodnf museum, 1:47. 27. Ibid., p. 49; Myl'nikov, Vznik ndrodn- osvfcenske ideologie, pp. 145-46. Cf. Nemec, "The First Austrian Learned Society," p. 152, where he states that the journal published only two volumes, 1747 and 1748. 28. Prazik, Ceski obrozeni, pp. 34-35. 29. Ibid., p. 34; Schamschula, Die Anfiinge, pp. 72-78; Kutnar, Preh- ledne' djiny ... dijepisectvi, pp. 83-84. 30. Lemberg, Grundlagen der nationalen Erwachens in BMhmen, p. 34; Proke', Pocdtky Cesk spolecnosti nauk do konce XVIII. stoleti, pp. 147-48. Myl'nikov discounts the importance of this link with the no- bility, but not always consistently. Compare his "Ideino-politicheskie pred- posylki prosveshcheniia v cheshskikh zemliakh i ego rannii period," in Istoria, kul'tura, folklor i etnografiia slavianskikh narodov (Moscow, 1968), p. 87, with Vznik ndrodn- osvfcenske' ideologie, p. 101. 31. Josef Hanu', "Boh. Balbina Bohemia docta," CCH 12 (1906): 425. 32. See Hanus, "Poc6itky kritickeho dejezpytu v Cechich," pp. 202- 91. See also Slavik, Od Dobnera k Dobrovskemu, pp. 73-75. 33. See Haubelt, "Poiatky historiografick6 price Gelasia Dobnera," pp. 714-15. 34. Gelasius Dobner, MS autobiography, LA PNP, Prague, sign. 1/4/ 1, published by Hanus in CCH 23 (1917): 129-38. 35. Ibid. 36. The critical edition is Vaiclav Haijek z Libocan, Kronika ceskd, ed. Viclav Flaj'hans, 4 vols. (Prague, 1918-1933), which includes an intro- ductory study by the editor. See also Rossos, "Czech Historiography, Part I," pp. 251-52; and Kutnar, PPehlednd djiny ... dijepisectvi, p. 55. 37. Kutnar, Prehlednd d jiny ... d6jepisectvf, pp. 55-57. See also No- vik, Czech Literature, p. 68; and Jan Jakubec, Djiny literatury ceski, 2d ed. (Prague, 1929), 1:655-66. 38. See Banac, The National Question in Yugoslavia , p. 73. 39. See Krofta, "F. Pubicka, predchidce Palackeho v zemskem de- 267 16 Origins of the Czech National Renascence to authority would have to be sought than traditional, feudal ones. Enlightened absolutism, especially in the form of Jo- sephinism, evoked both support and resistance from the in- telligentsia in this period.38 Support, because many of the goals of the reforms chimed well with those of the intelligen- tsia, notably the loosening of censorship, proclamation of religious toleration, and the educational reforms. Many in- tellectuals also supported some of the economic goals of enlightened absolutism, including even the Leibeigenschaft Patent of 1781. Resistance, because enlightened absolutism challenged the privileges of the established institutions of the church and nobility, to which many of the intellectuals were connected in one way or another. Also, the drive to adopt a single language of state (German) for the new, "rational," centralized monarchy ran counter to the linguistic diversity of Bohemia and other parts of the Habsburg realm. Resistance to the centralizing, reforming state, when it first began, was not national in the modern sense. While con- temporaries did recognize in Bohemia the existence of two peoples, "both ... Bohemians by birth and country, but otherwise in many respects very different," and even con- ceded that "one must distinguish the actual Bohemians, the Czechs, as the main nation (Hauptnation) from the German- Bohemians,"39 they were still far from a modem, ethnolin- guistic concept of nation, either Czech or German. The leaders of the resistance to the centralizing reforms of "enlightened absolutism" were the nobility, and they based their resistance on historical and territorial rights. The pri- mary example of this early resistance is, of course, the Hun- garian nobility's near revolt during Joseph's reign, which had its paler echo among the nobility of Bohemia.40 Reflected in both movements was a concept of nation limited to the groups with political rights-primarily the nobility-and a patriotism based on an historical and territorial attachment to the Crown of Saint Stephen or Saint Vaiclav. In Bohemia, where follow- ing the Thirty Year's War the old Bohemian nobility had been almost entirely destroyed by confiscation and emigration, the Notes to Pages 29-31 jepisectvi t(esk6m." In fact, Dobner's explanation for the derivation of the name Czech has not been given the seal of historical acceptance either. The point here, however, is that he had destroyed the traditional legend as con- tained in Hajek's chronicle beyond scholarly repair (and, incidentally, com- pletely revised his own attitudes to Hijek of a decade earlier). See Haubelt, "Pocitky historiografick6 price Gelasia Dobnera," pp. 707-13. 40. Dobner, Epistola apologetica adversus Luciferem urentem et non lucentem (1767), cited by Hanui in "Poiatky kritickeho dejezpytu," p. 451. Dobner discusses his opponents' attacks in his autobiography; see also Ku- delka, Spor Gelasia Dobnera o Hdjkovu kroniky. The international and pan- Slavic repercussions of the C(ech-Lech controversy are treated in chap. 6. 41. Palack , Dijiny ndrodu cesk6ho, p. 13. Palack , himself a Prot- estant, may have been less sympathetic toward Hajek's reputation than other historians. 42. Myl'nikov, Epokha prosveshcheniia v cheshskikh zemliakh, pp. 67-97. See also Hanus et al., Literatura ceskd devatendctho stolet, pp. 93-99; and Vl'ek, Dejiny ceske' literatury, 2:153-57. 43. See Born's comment in the foreword to Abhandlungen einer Pri- vatgesellschaft 3 (1777): n.p. See also Haubelt, "Ignac Born," and Studie o Ignaci Bornovi; and Slavik, Od Dobnera k Dobrovskemu, pp. 48-60. 44. Myl'nikov, "Vozniknovenie ranneprosvetitel'skikh ob"edinenii v cheshskikh zemliakh," pp. 48-52. On the place of the Prague literary pe- riodicals in the national revival, see Arnost Kraus, Prask casopisy 1770- 1774 a ceske probuzeni (Prague, 1909); and Jan Strako, Pocdtky obro- zenskdho historizmu v praz-sky'ch 6asopisech a Mikuldi Adaukt Voigt. Phf- spevek k historii protiosvicenske reakce v ndrodnim obrozenf (Prague, 1929). 45. Zacek, "The Virtuosi of Bohemia," pp. 152-53; and Teich, "The Royal Bohemian Society of Sciences and the First Phase of Organized Sci- entific Advance in Bohemia," p. 161. 46. See Hemmerle, "Der Josephinismus und die Griindungsmit- glieder der Gelehrten Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften in Prag." 47. Originally entitled Abhandlungen einer Privatgesellschaft in B6h- men zur Aufnahme der Mathematik, der vaterliindischen Geschichte und der Naturgeschichte, 6 vols. (1775-1784), the journal's name was changed to Abhandlungen der bdhmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Prag, 4 vols. (1785-1788). Then came three volumes of Neuere Abhandlungen der kdniglichen Bdhmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften (1790-1798), and finally it appeared as Abhandlungen der k. b. Gesellschaft der Wissen- schaften vom Jahre ..., 8 vols. (1804-1824). 48. Dobner, "Kritische Untersuchung, wann das Land Miihren ein Markgrafthum geworden ... sey," p. 183; Dobner, "Historischer Beweis, dass Wladislaw der Zweyte ... gekront worden," p. 2. 268 Notes to Pages 31-35 269 49. Dobner, "Wann das Land MAihren," p. 229. 50. For example, see Dobner, "Historisch-kritische Beobachtungen iiber den Ursprung," pp. 252-53, or his "Historischer Beweis, dass Wladi- slaw der Zweyte ... gekront worden," pp. 1-2, where he takes on his old opponent Franti'ek Pubi'ka. 51. Dobner, "Abhandlung iiber das Alter der B6hmischen Bibel- iibersetzung," p. 284. 52. Dobrovsk to J. V. Zlobicky, 15 April 1796; DZ, p. 107. 53. Dobner, Vindiciae Sigillo Confessionis diui Joannis Nepomuceni Protomartyris Poenitentiae assertae. 54. Dobrovsk, Litterarisches Magazin von Bdhmen und Mdhren, 3:121. Dobrovskl reviewed an entire series of works on the subject, pp. 101-26. 55. Voigt, "Untersuchung fiber die Einfuhrung, den Gebrauch, und die Abinderung der Buchstaben und des Schreibens in Bbhmen"; "Von dem Alterthume und Gebrauche des Kirchengesanges in B6hmen"; "Ver- such einer Geschichte der Universitit Prag"; and "Nachricht von merk- wiirdigen b8hmischen Macenaten." 56. Pelcl, "Biographie des Adauct Voigt," p. 17. 57. Voigt, "Nachricht von ... Macenaten," p. 337. 58. Voigt, Ober den Geist der Bihmischen Gesetze, pp. 9-10. 59. Ibid., p. 200. 60. See CSAV, Dejiny ceske literatury. II. Literatura ndrodnfho ob- rozent (Prague, 1960), p. 36. 61. Ungar, "Versuch einer Geschichte der Bibliotheken in B6h- men," and "Neue Beitrige zur alten Geschichte der Buchdruckerkunst in B6hmen." 62. Ungar, "Zi'ka's militirische Briefe und Verordnungen." 63. Hanus, Frantigek Martin Pelcl, pp. 3-5. 64. Pelcl, "Wann ist Kaiser Karl IV. Markgraf in Miihren geworden." 65. Pelcl, "Das Edikt des Kaisers, Karl des Vierten." 66. Schamschula, Die Anfinge, p. 110. See also Hanus et al., Ceskd literatura devatendcteho stoleti, pp. 157-278. 67. Dobrovsk, "Wie man die alten Urkunden," p. 200. Dobner had already begun an attempt at such a collection with his Monumenta historica Boemia nusquam antehac edita, and Dobrovsk and Pelcl collaborated on another series, Scriptores rerum bohemicarum, 2 vols. This collection in- cluded some of the important early chronicles, notably that of Cosmas of Prague, but it was not continued beyond the second volume until Frantilek Palack published a third in 1829. 68. It was published in 1929 by V. Flajihans, Jos. Dobrovsk6ho kri- tickd rozprava o legend Prokopske (Prague, 1929). 69. Dobrovsk, "Kritische Versuche, die iltere b6hmische Geschichte," p. 3. Notes to Pages 36-43 70. Dobrovsk4, "Geschichte der Bihmischen Pikarden und Adami- ten," p. 308. 71. Dobrovsky, "Beytriige zur Geschichte des Kelchs in Bihmen." 72. Dobrovsky, Litterarisches Magazin von Bihmen und Mdhren 1:77. 73. See Peter F. Sugar, "External and Domestic Roots of Eastern Eu- ropean Nationalism," in Nationalism in Eastern Europe, ed. Sugar and Led- erer, pp. 25-26; and Anderson, Lineages of the Absolutist State, pp. 204- 06. An interesting comparative perspective is provided in Banac and Bush- kovitch, eds., The Nobility in Russia and Eastern Europe (New Haven: Yale Concilium on International Studies). 74. Dobner, "Kritische Abhandlung von den Grenzen Altmihrens." 75. Dobner, "Kritische Untersuchung... das Christenthum in B6h- men," and "Ober die Einfiihrung des Christenthums in Bhmen." 76. Pelcl, "Abhandlung fiber den Samo, K6nig der Slawen," and "Tber das Vaterland des Jacobus de Misa, genannt Jacobellus." 77. For an account of Cornova's career, see Kutnar, "Zivot a dilo Ig- nace Cornovy." 78. Cornova, "Uber das Verhaltniss zwischen K6nig Premisl Ottokar II und den Pibsten." 79. Cornova, "Hat Schirach K6nig Georgen von B6hmen." 80. Cornova, "Uber Karl des IV. Betragen gegen das Bayerische Haus," p. 84. 81. Dobrovski's review of Royko in Litterarisches Magazin von B6h- men und Mdhren 3 (1787): 140. Royko was reported to the Religion Com- mision in Vienna over certain passages in his work, but his contacts at court seem to have stood him in good stead. See Pelcl to Dobrovsk, 9 April 1788, LA PNP, Prague, Dobrovsk collection, sign. 1/5/6; and Schamschula, "Der slowenische Kirchenhistoriker Kaspar Royko (Rojko) und die tschechische nationale Erneuerung," pp. 105-06, 108. 82. Pelcl, Lebensgeschichte des Romischen und B6hmischen KOnig Wenceslaus, 2:635-37. 83. Pelcl, Kaiser Karl der Vierte, Kinig in Bhmen, 2:972. 84. Voigt, foreword to Beschreibung der bisher bekannten Boh- mischen Miinzen nach chronologischer Ordnung, vol. 2. 85. Ibid., p. 135. 86. Krofta, "F. Pubivka, predchildce Palack6ho," p. 12. 87. See Dobrovsk's review of vol. 2, pt. 4, Litterarisches Magazin von Bohmen und Mdhren 1 (1786): 471. 88. Ibid., pp. 47, 65-66. 89. Pelcl, foreword to Kurzgefasste Geschichte der Bohmen. 90. Pelcl, ibid., pp. 619-21. 91. Ibid., pp. 18ff. 270 Notes to Pages 43-47 271 92. See Frederick G. Heymann, "The Hussite Movement in the His- toriography of the Czech Awakening," in The Czech Renascence of the Nineteenth Century, ed. Peter Brock and H. Gordon Skilling (Toronto, 1970), pp. 228-29. 93. Pelcl, foreword to Kurzgefasste Geschichte der Bohmen. 94. Hanu', Frantigek Martin Pelcl, pp. 54-64; Heymann, "The Hus- site Movement," pp. 228-29. 95. Pelcl, foreword to Novd kronyka ceskd, vol. 1. It is doubtful whether the countess was particularly fluent in Czech. 96. Kerner, Bohemia in the Eighteenth Century, pp. 360-63. Drabek discusses the general ideological position of the Estates in 1791 in "Die Desiderien der b6hmischen Stinde von 1791," pp. 132-42. See also CSAV, Dojiny ceske literatury, pp. 36-37. 97. Pelcl's plans for Zizka's biography are mentioned in Ungar, "ZiZ- ka's militirische Briefe," pp. 371-72. 98. Praiak, Ceske obrozen, p. 36. 99. Pa"izek was closely involved with the Prague Normal School, set up to serve as the model and training ground for the Bohemian school system. See Berls, "The Elementary School Reforms of Maria Theresa and Joseph II in Bohemia," pp. 177-79. Paiizek's history was criticized by the Gubernium because of its intolerantly Catholic outlook, and eventually not adopted. 100. It is not necessary, however, to see Dobner as expressing a "bour- geois" Czech historical ideology, as does Haubelt in "0 Gelasiovi Dobne- rovi," pp. 165, 172. 101. Vaiclav Stach [Vaiclav Petryn, pseud.], Historie velikdho snemu kostnickdho. 102. The Czech "popular awakeners" are discussed at greater length in chap. 5. See also Agnew, "Enlightenment and National Consciousness: Three Czech 'Popular Awakeners,' " pp. 201-26. 103. See chap. 3. 104. Rulik, Velmi uzitec'na historie o slovutndm ndrodu Ceskem, p. 11. 105. Rulik, Gallerie, aneb vyobrazenost nejslovutn§i'ch a nejznameni- t jifch osob zem Ceskd, 1:3-8. The first two volumes covered the famous personalities from ancient and medieval history, the third the Hussite pe- riod, and the fourth and fifth the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries. In Prague I was able to locate only vols. 1 and 2, but Jungmann, in Historie literatury Ceske, describes the contents of the other volumes. 106. Rulik, Pamdtky starozitn6ho a velesldvngho kldstera Sedleckdho bliz Hory Kutne v krdlovstvi Ceskem, p. 15. 107. Rulik, foreword to Kalendd?a historicky. 108. On Vavik, see Kutnar, Frantisek Jan Vavdk; and Ludek Smid, Lidovi kronikdi stredniho Polabi. Vavik's voluminous Pamti were pub- lished by J. Skopec, 3 vols. in 8 parts (Prague, 1907-1924). Notes to Pages 47-53 109. Rulik to Vavik, 28 December 1799, LA PNP, Prague, Vavik col- lection, sign. 1/13/39. 110. From a review by Dobrovskl, reprinted in Literdrn a prozodickd bohemika, Spisy a projevy (Prague, 1974), 6:127. 111. A Czech work on historical consciousness in nineteenth-century European national movements, including the Czech, is 0loha historickho povidomi v evropsk'm ndrodnim hnuti v 19. stoleti, ed. Miroslav Hroch, AUC, Philosophica et Historica 5, 1976, Studia Historica 15 (Prague, 1976). See esp. pp. 7-14. 112. The relationship of Palack to Dobner is treated, not always con- vincingly, by Haubelt in "Franti-ek Palack a Gelasius Dobner." 113. Schamschula, Die Anfdnge, pp. 97-114. 114. Dobrovsk, "Kritische Versuche," p. 2. 115. Jan Jakubec, writing in Hanus et al., Literatura ceskd devatendc- tdho stoleti, emphasises that the historical writing of this period had a dis- tinctly anti-Josephine stance, however much the historians might otherwise have admired Joseph II. See pp. 62-66. Chapter 2. "Our Natural Language" 1. Pelcl, "Wann ist Karl IV. Markgraf in Miihren geworden." 2. See for example Lemberg, "Der deutsche Anteil am Erwachen des tschechischen Volkes," pp. 311-12. See also Hanus et al., Literatura ceskd devatendctho stoleti, pp. 295-361. 3. F. M. Pelcl, "Geschichte der Deutschen und ihrer Sprache in B6h- men," Abhandlungen 2 (1791): 301. 4. See Dobrovsk's comments years later to Jernej Kopitar and Jerzy Samuel Bandtke, in DK, p. 107 (letter of 6 March 1810), and DB, p. 48 (undated [1812?]). I believe that parts of Pelcl's "Geschichte," especially where he discusses the sixteenth- and eighteenth-century reprintings of Dalimil's chronicle, with its pronounced anti-German bias, reveal a certain ironic tone behind the apparent despair. 5. Kohn's discussion of the development of German nationalism in The Idea of Nationalism, pp. 329-451, has much on this question (see esp. pp. 334-48); and for a lapidary summary of these developments, Gordon A. Craig, The Germans, (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, 1984), pp. 312-13. 6. Schamschula, Die Anfdnge, pp. 123-24, 221-30; Svobodovi, Do- brovsky a nemeckdfilologie. 7. See Prazik, Ndrod se branil; and Krejvi, "Obrana vesk6ho jazyka ze stanoviska literimiho druhu." Cf. Rogger, National Consciousness in Eighteenth-Century Russia, esp. chap. 4. 8. Kinsky, Erinnerung iiber einen wichtingen Gegenstand, p. 57. 9. Ibid. 272 Notes to Pages 53-60 10. Kinsk 's arguments summarized in the following discussion may be found in ibid., pp. 57-59. 11. Ibid., pp. 112-13. 12. For example, Arno't Kraus: "This Austrian General is a Slav, a Czech, and a German at the same time!" (cited in Schamschula, Die An- finge, p. 119). See also Hanu in Ndrodni museum 1:103. 13. Pekar, "Na e "lechta a jazyk cesk," pp. 80-82. 14. See CSAV, Djiny ceske literatury, pp. 37-39. 15. Krejwi, "Obrany jazyka Ceskeho," pp. 84-86. 16. Johanides, Frantis'ek Martin Pelcl, pp. 107-46. 17. See Dobrovsk , Geschichte der b6hmischen Sprache und Lit- teratur, p. 196. 18. Hanke von Hankenstein, Empfehlung der b6hmischen Sprache und Litteratur, pp. 4-6. 19. Ibid., pp. 12, 16-17. 20. Ibid., pp. 43-44. 21. Krej-i, "Obrany wesk"ho jazyka," p. 86. 22. K. H. Thim, Obranajazyka 6eskdho proti zlobivym jeho utrhdc- Um, p. 19. 23. Ibid., p. 21. 24. Ibid., pp. 24-26. 25. See Thim's closing appeal to the emperor, ibid., pp. 43-44. 26. Josef Dobrovsk , review in Litterarisches Magazin von B6hmen und Miihren 3 (1787): 143-44. The implication is that the answer would be no. 27. Not only had Joseph refused to be crowned king of Bohemia (or king of Hungary), he had retained the crown of Saint Vaiclav in Vienna for safekeeping-an action viewed as a deliberate slight by patriotic Bohemi- ans. The return of the crown for Leopold's coronation ceremony was hailed as a great omen. See, for example, Rulik, Kalendda' historicky, 1:120, 137; entries for January and 9 August 1791. 28. Dobrovsky-, Ober die Ergebenheit und Anhdnglichkeit der Sla- wischen V61lker an das Erzhaus Osterreich, p. 5. For his earlier intention, see Dobrovsk to Ribay, 28 August 1791, DR, p. 196. 29. Dobrovsk to an unnamed friend in 1795: "My insignificant little work, which I read in the presence of Emperor Leopold, was changed in several places by Count Rottenhan, then Highest Burggrave. They were greatly concerned not to leave anything which would be too free (noble)." Cited in Francev, introduction to RAe Josefa Dobrovskdho, proslovend ... v Ciesk- u6end spolevnosti, p. 20. 30. Dobrovsk- to Ribay, 9 October 1791, DR, p. 204. The Czech ver- sion was translated by K. H. Thim and printed by V. M. Kramerius in Krameriusovy c. k. vlastenske noviny, 7 January 1792. 273 Notes to Pages 60-65 31. Rulik, Sldva a v-bornostjazyka 6eskdho, pp. 6-7, 12-13, 17, 23. 32. Ibid., pp. 32-33, 36. 33. Ibid., p. 45. 34. Johanides, Pelcl, pp. 210-28. At one time there was talk of more than one chair, with Pelcl to be professor of Czech history and Dobrovsk professor of literature and the Czech language. See the letter of Count Friedrich Nostitz to Dobrovsk , 12 June 1792, LA PNP, Prague, Dobrovsk collection, sign. 1/5/6. 35. Pelcl, Akademische Antrittsrede iiber den Nutzen und Wichtigkeit der B6hmischen Sprache, p. 5. 36. I have not been able to corroborate Pelcl's story about Joseph II's slip of the tongue. Josef Petrifi, Nevolnickd povstdni 1775, AUC, Philo- sophica et Historica, Monographia XLII-1972 (Prague, 1973), does not mention it, nor does the edition of documents, Miroslav Toegel, Josef Pe- trifi, and Jindich Obrilik, eds., Prameny k nevolnickimu povstdni v Ce- chdch a na Morave' v roce 1775 (Prague, 1975). 37. Ibid., pp. 9-13, 15-16. 38. Ibid., p. 20. The reference is undoubtedly to Pelcl's own "Ge- schichte der Deutschen und ihre Sprache in B6hmen." 39. Nejedl , Akademische Antrittsrede gehalten den 16. November 1801, p. 20. These emphases were to become typical of the second rena- scence generation, while they also harked back to some of the familiar topoi of baroque authors. See Macura, Znameni zrodu, esp. pp. 155-61. 40. Ibid., p. 21. Notice that Nejedl, too, assumes that Czechs would automatically learn German and that the Germans would have to be con- vinced to learn Czech! 41. Ibid., p. 23, emphasis in original. 42. K. H. Thim, Ober den Karakter der Slawen, dann iiber den Ur- sprung, die Schicksale, Vollkommenheiten, die Niitzlichkeit und Wichtigkeit der bdhmischen Sprache (Prague, 1803), p. 3. 43. Jan Nejedl0, "O lisce k vlasti," in Hlasatel cesky 1, no. 1 (1806): 3-5. 44. Ibid., p. 15. 45. Ibid., p. 16, emphasis in original. 46. Daniel Adam z Veleslavina (1546-1599) was active as a publisher and translator, making a successful enterprise out of the printing house he inherited from his father-in-law, Jifn Melantrich. Some Czech literary his- torians challenge the uncritical idealization of Veleslavin as a "classical" figure and the humanist period as a golden age. Thus Arne Novik: "It is only in the deceptive perspective of a subsequent decadence that this pe- riod, one without independent ideas and without any appreciation of lit- erary art, can be considered an era of literary flowering. It was called a golden age, but it was only fool's gold that glittered so vaingloriously in letters" (Czech Literature, p. 71). 274 Notes to Pages 65-75 47. Jungmann, "O jazyku cesk6m. Rozmlouvini prvni." 48. Jungmann, "O jazyku -eskdm. Rozmlouvini druhe," pp. 322-36. 49. Ibid., p. 344. 50. See chap. 1, n. 93. 51. Havrinek, "V5voj spisovneho jazyka cesk6ho," 2:80. See also Va- clav Flajihans, Ndisjazyk matersky (Prague, 1924). 52. Hanzal, "Jazykovi otazka ve vyvoji obrozenskeho Skolstvi." See also Hanui et al., Literatura 6eskd devatendctho stoleti, pp. 295-315; and Peter Burian, "Joseph II. und die nationale Frage: Die Sprachenpolitik," Zeitschriftfiir Ostforschung 31 (1982): 191-99. 53. On the state of Czech instruction, see Jelinek, Ndstin djin vy'i- Govdni eskemujazyku v letech 1774-1918, pp. 13-93, esp. pp. 91-93. See also Berls, "The Elementary School Reforms of Maria Theresa and Joseph II in Bohemia," pp. 263-91. 54. Eymer, ed., Pddagogische Schriften des Grafen Franz Joseph Kin- sky, p. 19. 55. Schamschula, Die Anfdnge, pp. 146-57. The first two Czech teachers at Wiener Neustadt were Wenzel [Vaclav] Neumann from Plzefi and Anton Globas, or Klobas. 56. Ibid., p. 160. On Pohl's life and career, see A. Lisicky, "Jan Viclav Pohl v zipase o cesk6 slovo." 57. The seventeenth-century grammarian Vaclav Rosa was an impor- tant influence on Pohl, combined with similar purist trends in contempo- rary German. See Thomas, "The Role of Calques"; and Schamschula, Die Anfdnge, p. 162. 58. Schamschula, Die Anfinge, p. 162. 59. CSAV, Diny ceske' literatury, pp. 42-44. 60. Litterarisches Magazin von Beihmen und Mdhren 3 (1787): 138. 61. Ibid., p. 139. 62. Bihmische Litteratur auf das Jahr 1779 1 (1779): 165. Dobrovsk contintued to criticize Pohl and Simek in his Bihmische und Mihrische Litteratur auf das Jahr 1780 3 (1784). 63. Schamschula, "Der tschechische Anteil an den 'Osterreichischer Biedermannschronik,"'" p. 275. 64. Zlobicky to Dobrovsky, 4 June 1781, DZ, p. 3. 65. Schamschula, Die Anfidnge, p. 153. 66. The grammar, including a slightly revised version of Dobrovskf's article, was published in a second edition in 1798. 67. Pelcl, foreword to Grundsatze der b6hmischen Grammatik (Prague, 1793). See also Jaromir Belic, "Franti'ek Martin Pelcl a cesk jazyk," Sla- vica Pragensia 21 (1978): 115-32. 68. In a review in Riegger's Lieferungen fiir B6hmen von B6hmen (1794), as cited in Schamschula, "Dobrovsk's und Pelzel's Beitrage zu den 275 Notes to Pages 75-79 'Lieferungen fiir B6hmen von B6hmen,' " Aus der Geisteswelt der Slawen. Dankesgabe an Erwin Koschmieder (Munich, 1967), p. 157. 69. Havrinek, "Vy~oj," p. 83. 70. Cited in Schamschula, "Dobrovsk 's und Pelzel's Beitrige," p. 157. 71. Cited in ibid., pp. 159-60. 72. Dobrovsky to Kopitar, 6 March 1810, DK, p. 107; Dobrovsk4 to Bandtke, n.d. (1812?), DB, p. 48. 73. Havrinek, "Vvoj," p. 83. 74. See for example Dobrovsk 's comment in Litterarisches Magazin von Bjhmen und Mdhren 3 (1787): 139. 75. See the review in Krameriusovy vlastenske noviny, 1 October 1791. 76. See for example Tomsa, Ober die Bedeutung, Abwandlung und Gebrauch der cechischen Zeitwurter (Prague, 1804), pp. 127, 130. 77. Ibid., p. 103n. 78. Tomsa, Von den Vorziigen der cechischen Sprache, pp. 40-42. 79. Cited in Zeil, "Die Bedeutung des tschechischen Josefiners Fran- ti'ek Jan Tomsa (1751-1814) fiir die Entwicklung seiner Muttersprache," p. 603. 80. See Tomsa, Ober die Aussprache der 6echischen Buchstaben, Syl- ben und Wirter nebst Leseiibungen, p. 15n. 81. Tomsa, Ober die Bedeutung, p. 7; foreword to Ober die cechische Rechtschreibung mit einem Anhange, welcher dreizehn cechischen Ge- dichte enthilt; and Grdssere 6echische Orthographie, p. 3. 82. Tomsa, Misini spis k poudeni a obveselenf obecndho lidu 9 (Sep- tember 1787). 83. Tomsa, Grissere c'echische Orthographie, p. 3. This modification meant significant changes also in the technology of printing Czech books, especially casting new type faces. See Rudolf K. Nesvera, "Zasluha Fran- ti'ka Jana Tomsy o wesk knihtisk," pp. 72-82. 84. Tomsa, Grassere 6echische Orthographie, pp. 3-9. 85. Ibid., p. 19. Tomsa was also the first to replace the German terms Bihmen, bihmisch with Cechen, cechisch. 86. Zlobicky to Dobrovsky, 28 October 1790, DZ, p. 75. 87. Tomsa, Ober die Vernderungen, p. 42; and Gr5ssere cechische Orthographie, pp. 8-9. 88. Cited in Schamschula, "Dobrovsky's und Pelzel's Beitrige," p. 157. 89. This comment appeared in a review of Tomsa's Modlitby pro kfest'any katolicke" (Prague, 1801), reprinted in Dobrovsky, Literdrnia pro- zodickd bohemika, p. 123. It seems to contradict Zeil's assertion, "Dobrov- sky begriisste Tomsas initiative sehr; er schrieb seinen Freunden dariiber 276 Notes to Pages 80-83 277 und f6rderte sie auf, diesem Beispiel zu folgen" (Dobrovs4k welcomed Tomsa's initiative warmly; he wrote his friends about it and urged them to follow his example), in "Die Bedeutung des Franti'ek Jan Tomsa," p. 606. 90. Puchmajer to Dobrovsk9, 12 March 1813, LA PNP, Prague, Do- brovsk collection, sign. 1/5/6. 91. Tomsa, Ober die Verdnderungen, p. 44n: "Doch wer keine andre Energie in der 'echische Sprache findt, als das i des Infinitivs, der mag es immer behalten" (But he who finds no other energy in the Czech language than the i of the infinitive may continue to retain it). 92. Thim's Kurzgefasste bhmische Sprachlehre went through five editions between 1785 and 1804, and he also published a Czech-German dictionary (2 eds., 1798 and 1805), and several other technical dictionaries. 93. Pelcl, foreword to Grundsdtze. 94. Nejedly, Kritische Revision der Thamischen Grammatik, p. 13. This pamphlet and Thim's response are in LA PNP, Prague, K. H. Thim collection, sign. 1/12/29. 95. Dobrovsk, Ausfiihrliches Lehrgebdude der Bihmischen Sprache, p. xv. 96. See Pelcl's note to Thim, 1798, in LA PNP, K. H. Thim collec- tion, sign. 1/12/29. 97. K. H. Thim, Erkidrung iiber die jiingst erschienene falsche Re- vision meiner Grammatik. 98. Thim's quarrel with Nejedl flared up again in 1804 over his teaching activities at the Staromestsk6 and Malostranske gymnasia. See Hanzal, "Jazykovi otazka," pp. 325-27. 99. For example, see Tomsa's letter of thanks to Dobrovsk for such a loan, 6 March 1793, LA PNP, Prague, Dobrovsk collection, sign. 1/5/7. Tomsa called Dobrovsk "the greatest Czech philologist" in Von den Vor- ziigen, p. 38. See also Walter Schamschula, "Sprachreform und Sprach- pflege bei den Tschechen im Zeitalter des Josephinismus," Zeitschriftfiir Ostforschung 31 (1982): 200-07. 100. Schamschula, Die Anfdnge, pp. 215-28; Svobodovi, Dobrovsky a nemeckdfilologie. 101. Compare the treatments in the 1809 and 1819 editions of Do- brovsk's Lehrgebiude, published in parallel form in Spisy a projevy vol. 9, esp. pp. 58, 31. 102. Schamschula, Die Anfdnge, p. 229. 103. Havrinek, "Vyvoj," p. 84. For an overview of Dobrovsk's teach- ing on declension and conjugation, see his pamphlet Bihmische Biegungen, "P. uciteli J. N[ejedle]mu a jeho u6encim obetovano od J. D[obrovske]ho" (Prague, n.d.). 104. Hanu' et al., Literatura 6eskd devatendct6ho stoleti, pp. 217-32. 105. A. Lisick, "Z dejin zipasu o cesk6 slovo," Osvta 49 (1919): 475-78. Introduction descendants of the rewarded imperial servants who replaced it paraded a distinct Bohemian Landespatriotismus in the face of the centralizing ambitions of Vienna.41 That it was less genuine than the Hungarian version also made this noble "na- tionalism" less effective, but the privileged groups' example was eventually to prove contagious. It required, nevertheless, a shift in its basic supports, a shift away from defense of his- toric privilege and toward a resistance to the demands of the modernizing state based on something else. The historical tra- dition of the Bohemian nobility was common to both old Czech and old German noble families; but it was not easily translated into something shared by wider social groups whose support was eventually to be mobilized for the national movement.42 As a concept of nation defined culturally and linguistically replaced the older, political concept, Landes- patriotismus ceased to be sufficient as a foundation for "na- tional" resistance to Vienna. It was replaced by Czech nationalism.43 During the cultural and linguistic revival mentioned above, many of the attitudes of Czech national consciousness, taken up by later nationalists, were elaborated. For clarity's sake, we will follow this process of elaborating a modern Czech national consciousness thematically, rather than purely chronologically. It is important to remember that these de- velopments often took place simultaneously, and that individ- ual patriots were active in more than one area of cultural work at the same time. The combination of their historical re- search, literary scholarship, and linguistic reform during this opening phase of the national renascence, as well as their halt- ing efforts to create contemporary culture in Czech, provided the raw materials for redefining the Czech community in terms of modem nationalism. These raw materials would be built with during the second phase of the renascence, until with the 1848 revolutions Czech nationalism first produced an outright political program.44 What follows is the story of the development of these attitudes during the generation be- tween the Enlightenment and romanticism. 17 Notes to Pages 83-87 106. His grammar, Grammatica lingua bohemicae, oder die Bh- mische Sprach-Kunst (Vienna, 1756), was accompanied by a patriotic- defensive foreword. 107. See Thomas, "The Role of Calques," p. 485; and Lisick, "Jan Vaclav Pohl," p. 160. 108. Tomsa, BAhmische Sprachlehre, p. 425. 109. Dobrovsk , "Uber den Ursprung und die Bildung der slawischen und insbesondere der b6hmischen Sprache," foreword to Tomsa, Voll- stdndiges Wdrterbuch der bihmisch- deutsch- und lateinischen Sprache (Prague, 1791), p. 32. 110. Dobrovsk, Bihmische Litteratur, p. 165. 111. See Thomas, "The Role of Calques," pp. 486-87, for a list of neologisms that have survived into the present, or at least lasted throughout the revival period. 112. Dobrovsk , Die Bildsamkeit der Slawischen Sprache, p. 9. 113. Dostil, "Price Josefa Dobrovsk6ho o tvoieni slov," pp. 130-35; Schamschula, Die Anfdnge, p. 226. 114. Tomsa, Bihmische Sprachlehre, p. 440. 115. Pelcl, Akademische Antrittsrede, p. 8. Much earlier he had ex- pressed approval of such neologisms as veseld -inohra for Lustspiel, zdtah for Aufzug, ndstup for Auftritt, and divadelna for Schauplatz. See the Prager gelehrte Nachrichten, 3 March 1772, a review of the play Kni'ze Honzik. 116. Puchmajer to Dobrovsk, 23 March 1801, LA PNP, Prague, Dobrovsky collection, sign. 1/5/6. 117. Dobrovsky, Bhmische Litteratur (1779), p. 329. Zlobick also echoed this view; see Schamschula, Die Anfiinge, p. 155. 118. Tomsa, Ober die Veriinderungen, p. 28. 119. Dobrovsk , Ankiindigung eines deutsch-beihmischen Lexicons (Prague, 1798), n.p. It can be found with the rest of the polemical pam- phlets about Thim in the LA PNP, Prague, K. H. Thim collection, sign. 1/12/29. Ironically, Thim was led astray by the Viennese dialect Kren, which was a German borrowing from the Czech! 120. Dobrovsk, B&hmische und Mhrische Litteratur auf das Jahr 1780 1 (1780): 100. 121. Schamschula, Die Anfiinge, pp. 148-49. 122. Dobrovsky, Litterarisches Magazin von Bihmen und Mdhren 1 (1786): 111. 123. Zlobick to Ungar, 24 October 1786, printed as an appendix to DZ, p. 172. 124. Zlobick) to Dobrovsk, 14 February 1795, DZ, p. 89. 125. Dobrovsk to Ribay, 16 January 1785, DR, p. 3. 126. Dobrovsk, foreword to Tomsa, Wirterbuch, pp. 3-10. 278 Notes to Pages 88-95 127. For this original attitude, see Thim to Dobrovsky, 21 February 1788, LA PNP, Dobrovsk collection, sign. 1/5/7. 128. Zlobick to Dobrovsk, 26 November 1794, DZ, pp. 82-83. 129. Dobrovsk to Zlobick, 11 December 1794, ibid., p. 84. 130. Zlobick to Dobrovsk, 14 February 1795, ibid., pp. 88-90. 131. Dobrovsk to Zlobicki, 3 March 1795, ibid., p. 95. 132. Dobrovsk to Ribay, 10 August 1794, DR, pp. 243-44. See also his remarks in the Lehrgebdude, p. xi. Bernolik, especially in his Dissertatio de orthographia slavica, attempted to create a separate Slovak literary lan- guage distinct from the old Czech used by the Slovak Protestants-which, since he and his circle were staunch Catholics, was not a purely academic question. See Brock, The Slovak National Awakening. 133. See, for example, Zlobick to Dobrovsk, 13 August 1797, DZ, p. 114. 134. K. H. Thim, in a brief pamphlet titled Antikritik, oder Recht- fertigung, dated 9 April 1798, LA PNP, Prague, K. H. Thim collection, sign. 1/12/29. 135. K. H. Thim, Dritte und Letzte Antikritik, dated 21 June 1798. 136. Lisick, "Jan Vaiclav Pohl," p. 290. 137. See especially his correspondence with Puchmajer, who became his closest collaborator, LA PNP, Prague, Dobrovsk collection, sign. 1/5/ 7. It has been published by Kivsky, "Korespondence Antonina Jaroslava Puchmajera s Josefem Dobrovsk5." 138. Dobrovsky to Jungmann, 26 January 1813, 2 April 1815, LA PNP, Prague, Jungmann collection, sign. 1/14/1. 139. Puchmajer to Jungmann, 18 June 1814, LA PNP, Prague, Jung- mann collection, sign. 1/14/2. 140. See A. G. Shirokova and G. P. Neshchimenko, "Vozrozhdenie cheshskogo literaturnogo iazika kak neobkhodimyi komponent formirova- niia cheshskoi natsii"; and Schamschula, Die Anfdnge, pp. 246-49. 141. Macura, Znameni zrodu, pp. 47-68. See also Sussex, "Lingua Nostra: The Nineteenth Century Slavonic Language Revivals." Chapter 3. Reclaiming the Czechs' Literary Birthright 1. Jedlicka, Dobrovsk6ho "Geschichte," pp. 23-24. 2. Schamschula, Die Anfdnge, pp. 260-61. 3. The first two volumes of the German version were merely trans- lations of Voigt's Effigies, but the third and fourth volumes were more in- dependent additions to and revisions of Voigt's material, mostly by Pelcl. 4. Voigt, "Von der Aufnahme ... der Wissenschaften und Kunste in Bhmen." 5. Voigt, "Vorrede von dem Gelehrten Adel in Bohmen und Mihren." The following passages are found on pp. xxiv-xxvi. 279 Notes to Pages 96-103 6. Jedlicka, Dobrovskdho "Geschichte," p. 171. 7. Abbildungen 1:52. 8. Ibid., 1:61. 9. Ibid., 1:118. 10. In places, the critical apparatus outstripped the text, especially in Ungar's second and third parts. He even took over Candidus's commentary for these parts, adding it to his own footnotes. See Ungar, Bohuslai Balbini ... Bohemia docta. 11. Dobrovsk's correspondence with Ungar on these matters was published by Fischer, "Z korrespondence Dobrovskeho." 12. See Dobrovsk 's letter to Jernej Kopitar [January 1809], in which he warns Kopitar to avoid polemics with Valentin Vodnik, based on his own experience (DK, 20-28). 13. Pelcl, Bihmische, Mihrische und Schlesische Gelehrte pp. ii-vi. 14. Dlabac was not listed as author of the article, but the frequent internal allusions to him-"der geschickte und mit der Musik wohl be- kannte Praemonstratener in Strahof Dlabacz" (Dlabac, the clever and mu- sically well-informed Praemonstratensian in Strahov) or "Dlabacz fiihrt in seiner schriftl. Materialien ... " (Dlabac states in his written material ...) and so on-suggest that it was his work on which it was based. See Ma- terialen zur alten und neuen Statistik von Bdhmen (1788), 7:136; and (1794), 12:243, 257, 270, 286. 15. Dlabac, foreword to Allgemeines historisches Kiinstlerlexikon fur Behmen, 1:x-xi. 16. Voigt, Acta litteraria Bohemiae et Moraviae, 1 :xii. 17. Jedli'ka, Dobrovskdho "Geschichte," pp. 25n, 172. 18. (SAV, Dejiny 6eske literatury, pp. 40-41. 19. Dobrovsk, Bhmische Litteratur auf das Jahr 1779, p. 5. 20. Ibid., p. 9. 21. Hanui, "Dobrovskeho casopisy," p. 380. 22. Dobrovs4k, foreword to Bhmische und Mihrische Litteratur auf das Jahr 1780. 23. He commented in BAhmische Litteratur (1779), p. 139, that lit- erary history was so closely bound up with the introduction and spread of printing that the knowledge of one was necessary for the study of the other: "Die meisten Fehler, die man in beiden Ausgaben Bohemiae doctae des Balbins haufig antrifft, sind aus Mangel der Biicherkunde ... entstanden," (most of the mistakes that one encounters so frequently in both editions of Balbin's Bohemia docta arise out of lack of knowledge of books). 24. A review of Kramerius's Cirkuldrn spis pdna z Haye, in Lit- terarisches Magazin 2 (1786): 143. 25. Bohmische und Mihrische Litteratur, 1790, p. 36. 26. He gained the help of his former polemical opponent, Ungar, on 280 Notes to Pages 104-113 this project. See Litterarisches Magazin 2 (1786): 30-50; and Hanus, "Do- brovsk6ho easopisy," pp. 388-89. 27. Dobrovsk, foreword to Litterarisches Magazin 1 (1786). 28. Bihmische und Mihrische Litteratur, 1780, p. 56. 29. Bihmische Litteratur, 1779, p. 85. 30. In a letter to an unknown addressee dated 8 September 1780, cited in Hanui, "Dobrovskeho casopisy," pp. 490-91. 31. Pelcl, Pamiti, pp. 38-39, 43; entries for 7 February and 30 July 1781. 32. Hanu', "Dobrovskeho 6asopisy," pp. 492-93. 33. Prochizka, Miscellaneen, pt. 2, p. 248. 34. Ibid., p. 240. 35. Ibid. p. 253. 36. Ungar, Allgemeine b6hmische Bibliothek, pp. 6-8. 37. See Dlabac, Berichtigung einiger historischen Daten fur Bihmen, Miszellen fur BAhmen, "Von den Schicksalen der Kunste in B6hmen," and Nachricht von den ... Zeitungen. 38. Prochizka, foreword to De saecularibus liberalium artium in Bo- hemia et Moravia. 39. For a further discussion of Prochizka's literary history method, see Hanus, Frantisek Faustyn Prochdzka, pp. 89-92. 40. Prochazka, Commentarius, pp. 333-34. 41. CSAV, Dijiny ceske' literatury, pp. 41-42. 42. Hanus, "Josefa Dobrovsk6ho Geschichte der B6hmischen Sprache," p. 499. 43. Pelcl to Dobrovsk , 1 April and 15 May 1790; LA PNP, Prague, Dobrovsk collection, sign. 1/5/7. 44. See Schamschula, Die Anfiinge, pp. 258-59; and Hanu', "Do- brovsk6ho Geschichte," p. 498n. Adelung wrote a history of the Czech language for the foreword to K. H. Thim's Deutsch-bhmisches National- lexikon, but this work was a derivative compilation (Adelung did not himself know Czech) and appears not to have influenced Dobrovsk greatly. 45. The three versions of Dobrovsk's Geschichte were published in a single volume (ed. Benjamin Jedlicka) entitled Dejiny 6eske reci a litera- tury, Spisy a projevy, vol. 7 (Prague, 1936). The citations in the following discussion are from the 1792 version in Jedlicka's edition, with original pag- ination in parentheses. The periodization is found at p. 86 (52). 46. See the comparative tables compiled by Jedlicka in Dobrovskdho "Geschichte," pp. 32-71, esp. "Nova Dobrovsk6ho 'Geschichte,' " pp. 70-71. 47. Compare, for example, Hanus, "Dobrovsk6ho Geschichte," pp. 570-74, with Jedlicka, Dobrovskdho "Geschichte," pp. 142-49. 48. Dobrovsk, Dejiny, pp. 79-80 (38-39). 49. Ibid., p. 95 (69-71). 281 Notes to Pages 114-122 50. Ibid., pp. 107 (94-95), 110 (101). 51. Ibid., p. 128 (134). 52. Ibid., p. 161 (196). 53. See Dobrovsk, iber die Ergebenheit und Anhiinglichkeit der Slavischen Vilker, p. 8. 54. Dobrovsk , Dejiny, p. 171 (216-17). 55. Ibid., pp. 172-73 (218-19). 56. Dobrovsk , Bihmische und Miihrische Litteratur auf das Jahr 1780, p. 5. 57. Jedlicka, Dobrovskdho "Geschichte," p. 148n. 58. The popular awakener Jan Rulik did attempt to transmit to the Czech-speaking public some of the work of Prochazka, Voigt and others in Velmi uzite'nd historie o slovutndm ndrodu deskim and U6end Cechia. His works are discussed more fully in chap. 5. Dlabac began, but never com- pleted, a Czech translation of Dobrovsk's Geschichte; the manuscript was published as an appendix to Dobrovs4k, Dejiny, pp. 435-50. 59. Schamschula, Die Anfdnge, pp. 253-54. Dobrovsk's correspon- dence with Cerroni, published as Dopisy Josefa Dobrovskdho s Janem Pe- trem Cerronim, consists largely of bibliographical information. 60. Hanu', Ndrodni museum, 1:155-56. 61. Litterarisches Magazin 3 (1787): 179. 62. Dobrovsk to Ribay, 23 March 1785, DR, p. 12. 63. Pelcl, foreword to Pfhhody Vdclava Vratislava ... z Mitrovic . Fur- ther citations are from this source. 64. The text of this announcement, entitled simply Zprdva, was pub- lished by Vodicka in "Neznim6 svedectvi o vydavatelsk6 -innosti Fr. F. Prochazky." The cited passage is on p. 691. 65. Hanus, Frantisek Faustyn Prochdzka, lists all the titles on pp. 107-08. 66. Prochazka, foreword to Kronika Boleslavskd. Further citations are from this source. 67. Vodicka, "Neznime svedectvi," p. 690. 68. Prochizka, foreword to Kronika deskd, od Pibika Pulkavy z Tradenina. 69. Proch.zka, foreword to Vyjtahy z kroniky Moskevsk. 70. Prochizka, Kniha Erasma Roteroddmskdho ... jakby se k smrti hotoviti mil, p. 198. 71. Prochizka, Erasma Roteroddmskfho runi knifka o rytif'i kest'an- skim, pp. ix-x. 72. Ibid. 73. Prochzka, foreword to Phikladne' ei. 74. Vodiaka, "Neznim6 sv'dectvi," p. 694. See also Hanui et al., Literatura ceskd devatendctho stoleti, pp. 383-407. 282 Notes to Pages 122-130 75. Hanui, Prochdzka, pp. 122-23. 76. Tomsa, foreword to Zivot Karla IV. 77. Tomsa, foreword to Simon Lomnicky z Bud6e, Tobolka zlata. 78. Ibid. 79. Tomsa to Dobrovsk5, 6 March 1793, LA PNP, Prague, Dobrovsk collection, sign. 1/5/7. The manuscript referred to is the fourteenth-century Rukopis Hradecky, containing a series of religious and moralistic poems. See Dobrovsk , Dejiny, p. 105 (91). 80. See Dobrovsk to Ribay, 28 June 1793, DR, p. 233: Dobrovski lists the people Ribay should visit in Prague, including "Herrn Tomsa, bey welchem Sie mein alter Mst. auf Pergamen in B6hmischen Reimen sehen werden." 81. Novotnv, Matj* Vdclav Kramerius, p. 20; Rybi'ka, Pfedni k~i'sitele' ndrodu ceskdho, 1:20. 82. For more on these aspects of Kramerius's career, see chaps. 4 and 5. 83. Kramerius, foreword to Letopisove Tr6jantf This argument says more for Kramerius's feelings about Czech than for his knowledge of Ger- man literature. 84. See Hanus, Literatura ceskd devatendcteho stolet, pp. 388-99. 85. Kramerius, foreword to Simona Lomnickdho z Bud&e, Kratke nau- cenf mlad6mu hospodd fi. 86. His later editions of early Czech works include a Czech version of the travels of Sir John Mandeville (1795); Krdtkd historie o vdlce fidovske (1806), a humanist translation of Josephus; another editon of Pfihody Vd- clava Vratislava z Mitrovic (1807); and a posthumous version of Xeno- phon's biography of Cyrus the Elder (1809). 87. Schamschula, Die Anfiinge, pp. 256-57. 88. Dobrovsk( to Zlobicki, 15 April 1796; DZ, p. 107. For the last two sentences, Dobrovsk changed from German to Czech, which, according to him, denoted a "special sincerity." See his letter to Zlobick of 8 April 1785, DZ, p. 100. 89. Dobrovsky to Ribay, 16 February 1791, DR, pp. 185-86. Chapter 4. Toward a National Cultural Life 1. Kacer, Vdclav Thdm, pp. 16-17. 2. Vondriek, Djiny cveske'ho divadla. Doba obrozenskd, 1771-1824, pp. 33-34. On Czech drama in this period, see Jan Michal in Hanu' et al., Literatura ceskd devatendctho stoleti, pp. 429-85; and CSAV, Diny cesk6ho divadla. II. Ndrodn obrozeni' 3. Cited in CSAV, Djiny 6esk9ho divadla. II. Ndrodnfobrozen, p. 59. 4. Ibid., p. 21. 5. See Hanus, Pelcl, p. 18. 283 Notes to Pages 130-139 6. Prager gelehrte Nachrichten, 3 March 1772. 7. Ka'er, Vdclav Thdm, p. 22. 8. Bat'ha, "Vaclav Thim," pp. 128-29. From the period of Thim's studies, his MS copies of two letters of Jan 2izka and some poems of the sixteenth-century humanist, Bohuslav Hasistejnsk ,, have survived. 9. V. Thim, foreword to Bdsne' v reci vdzane', prvni sebrdni, pp. 7, 11-12. 10. Jifik's petition is printed in Bat'ha, "Dva dokumenty k historii po- v6tkf iesk6ho divadla v Praze," p. 751. 11. Vondricek, Djiny ceskdho divadla, pp. 68-69. 12. Pelcl, Pamiti, p. 62. 13. Stach, V. Thim, and K. H. Thim, "Svitek -eskeho jazyka." 14. See Ka'er, Vdclav Thdm, p. 29. 15. Stach, V. Thim, and H. K. Thim, "Svitek ceskeho jazyka." 16. Foreword to Bulla, Odbjhlec z ldsky synovske, p. iv. 17. Ka'er, Vdclav Thdm, p. 34. 18. Vondri6ek, Djjiny, p. 71. 19. Ibid., p. 95. See also Koci, Ceske' ndrodni obrozeni, pp. 168-69. 20. Kramerius, in Sch6nfeldske c. k. prazske poftovske noviny, 14 Jan- uary 1786. 21. Zima, "Na den provozovani esk6 pivodni hry Brietislava a Jitky." 22. Vondriek, Dejiny, pp. 105-07. Zlobick remained interested in the development of the Czech theater, as his surviving correspondence with Vaiclav Thim shows. It is in LA PNP, Prague, Zlobick collection, sign. I/ 32/74. 23. Kramerius, in Schnfeldske noviny, 14 June 1786. 24. Ibid., 15 July 1786. 25. Zima, "Znameni vlastenske vdeinosti." 26. Zima, in Sch6nfeldske' noviny, 29 July 1786. 27. Bat'ha, "Nejstarsi obrozenecl divadelni preklad," p. 54. 28. V. Thim to Zlobic4k, 20 December 1787, LA PNP, Prague, Zlo- bick collection, sign. 1/32/74. 29. Vondraiek, Djjiny, p. 128. 30. K. H. Thim, Makbeth, pp. iii-iv. 31. Kacer, Vdclav Thdm, p. 49. 32. From a review in Das Pragerblattchen signed "B-h-m," cited in Vondriek, Dejiny, p. 121. 33. Thim to Zlobick, 20 December 1787. 34. Dobrovskl, Geschichte der Bchmischen Sprache und Litteratur, p. 215. 35. Vondri-ek, Djiny, p. 122. 36. Ibid., pp. 121-22. 37. Thm to Zlobick, 20 December 1787. 284 Notes to Pages 140-148 38. Viclav Melezinek, "Dar noveho 16ta 1787." 39. Pelcl, Akademische Antrittsrede, p. 22. 40. Sch6nfeldsk noviny, 10 March 1787. 41. Ibid., 2 June 1787. 42. Ibid., 1 September 1787. 43. Ibid., 10 March 1787. 44. Vondrai"ek, Dejiny, pp. 147-48. 45. Ibid., p. 160. 46. Kramerius, in Schdnfeldske noviny, 11 April 1789. 47. Vondriek, Dijiny, pp. 162-65. 48. Ibid., pp. 140-41. 49. Kramerius, in Schdnfeldske noviny, 12 April 1788. 50. Ibid., 3 May 1788. 51. See Vondri6ek, Djiny, pp. 163-65. 52. Ibid., pp. 177-78. 53. Krameriusovy c. k. vlastenske noviny, 24 September 1791. 54. Kacer, Vdclav Thdm, pp. 69-72. 55. Ibid., pp. 82-83. 56. Dobrovsk to Zlobick4, 8 April 1795, DZ, p. 101. 57. Ka'er, Vdclav Thdm, p. 88. 58. A theater poster from the Patriotic Theater announcing a perfor- mance of this date is reproduced in Novotny', Matej Vdclav Kramerius, be- tween pp. 80-81. Cf. Vondri6ek, Dijiny, p. 271. 59. Vondriek, Dejiny, p. 339. 60. Ibid., p. 292. 61. See Dobrovsk, Geschichte der Bhmische Sprache und Littera- tur, p. 215. 62. Kacer, Vdclav Thdm, pp. 78-79. 63. The autograph MS of Tham's translation, Kouzedlnd pift'ala, is in LA PNP, Prague, V. Thim collection, sign. 1/12/30. It is dated 7 June 1794, but the exact date of its performance is unknown. 64. The former was published in 1796, and the latter, though not printed until 1819, was definitely performed much earlier. 65. VAclav Thim produced Povys-eni esk6ho knfi etstvi na krdlovstvi, Fridrich Rakousky neb Virnost 6eskdho ndrodu, and Svedskd vojna v Ce- chdch neb udatnost prazskych m gt'anu a studenti7. See Kacer, Vdclav Thdm, p. 69. 66. CSAV, D9jiny 6eske literatury, pp. 92-94. 67. Kramerius, in Schinfeldske noviny, 29 July 1786. 68. V. Thim, in Sch6nfeldske' noviny, 2 January 1790. 69. Sedivy, Krdtke- pojedndni, p. 20. Schiller's original lecture was given in 1784 and published in 1787. See CSAV, Dejiny ceskdho divadla, vol. 2, Ndrodni obrozeni, p. 65. 285 Notes to Pages 148-154 70. See Kimball, Czech Nationalism. 71. CSAV, Dijiny ceske' literatury, pp. 49-51. 72. Dlabav, Nachricht von den ... Zeitungen, p. 3. Modern studies of Czech journalism include Volf, Dijiny novin v Cechdch; and Vladimir Klimes, Pocdtky cesk9ho a slovensk6ho novindrstvi Przedak, in Geschichte des deutschen Zeitschriftenwesens in B6hmen, covers German-language journalism in Bohemia. 73. Klime, Pocdtky, pp. 58-59. 74. "Pi~edchi~zne ridky 6eskfch novin," in Prazske poftovske noviny, 5 January 1782, cited in Volf, Dijiny novin v Cechdch, p. 131. 75. Kramerius, Schi5nfeldske noviny, 3 March 1787. 76. Ibid., 21 July 1787. The efforts of Kramerius and others to en- lighten the common people are treated at greater length in chap. 5. 77. Dobrovsk to Ribay, 16 February 1791, DR, 186: "Indessen scheint doch die Leselust erwecket und erhalten zu werden bey Heraus- gabe mancher guten Schriften.... Ein gutes Vehiculum dazu sind die B6hm. Zeitungen" (However, a taste for reading seems to be awakened and sustained by the publication of good works. ... The Czech newspapers are a good vehicle for this). 78. Krameriusovy vlastensk noviny, 28 April 1792. 79. Dlabac, Nachricht von den Zeitungen, p. 27. 80. Kramerius, Obzvldtni zprava, 6 June 1789. 81. Pelcl to Dobrovsk, 24 June 1789, LA PNP, Prague, Dobrovsk collection, sign. 1/5/7. 82. According to the official reports of stamp tax paid by both Kra- merius and Sch6nfeld between 1 July and 24 August 1789, printed in Volf, "Vysetov~ni vlivu noviniskch zpriv," p. 568. Cf. Roubik, "Ohlas fran- couzsk6 revoluce na Cesk6m venkove," p. 181n., where according to a re- port by the post office, Kramerius posted 641 copies of his paper to addresses within Bohemia, 19 to Vienna, 55 to Hungary, and 187 to Moravia. 83. Vlastenske noviny, 7 May 1791. 84. Sch6nfeld had complained to the authorities that he had an ex- clusive right to the adjective poftovske, so Kramerius was forced to change the name of his paper to Vlastenske noviny effective from the issue for 29 January 1791. See Klime', Po6dtky, p. 72. 85. Usually these supplements were simply called "Zaivesek" (Sup- plement) or sometimes "Literilni zpriva" (Literary report). The national aspect of Kramerius's newspapers as it affected the common people is dis- cussed further in chap. 5. 86. Volf, "Vysetfovini vlivu," p. 568. 87. See, for example, ibid., p. 579n, the report of the Tabor district captain Streeruwitz. 286 Notes to Pages 154-160 88. Roubik, "Ohlas francouzsk6 revoluce," p. 177. 89. Krameriusovy vlastenske" noviny, 2 March 1793. The two pam- phlets on the death of the king and queen of France were Pefalostne zprdvy o neft'astndm Ludvikovi XVI, krdlifrancouzskem, a ojeho katov"ma rukama odpravent and Ndlehitg vypsan ukrutnd smrti, kterou Marie An- tonia, krdlovnafrancouzska, od ne1lechetnd bufkEski~ roty odsouzend byvi ... na gilotine' postoupiti musila, both published in Prague in 1793. 90. Osvald, Vychovatel lidu M. V. Kramerius, p. 37. 91. See the MS notes in Dlaba's hand in the bound copies of the Vlastenske noviny for 1808 and 1809, Strahovska knihovna, Prague, sign. AA XIII 34-35. 92. Ribay to Dobrovsk , 28 March 1808, DR, p. 282. 93. Jungmann to Antonin Marek, 29 March 1809, "Listy Josefa Jung- manna k Antoninu Markovi," p. 504. 94. See the Schdnfeldske noviny, 20 and 27 March, and 3 April 1790. 95. Pelcl to Dobrovsk , 24 June 1789, LA PNP, Prague, Dobrovsk collection, sign. 1/5/7. 96. Klime, Pocdtky, p. 91. 97. Ibid., 92. Jan Jakubec gives a more detailed discussion in Hanui et al., Literatura ceskd devatendctho stoleti, pp. 591-609. 98. See Hromidko's letter to an unknown addressee, 19 March 1813, recounting some of his difficulties, and the overambitious announcement of his newspaper dated 10 December 1816, both in LA PNP, Prague, Hro- midko collection. 99. Dobrovsk to Kopitar, 19 February 1813, DK, p. 327. 100. See Klime', Po'dtky, pp. 108, 117; and Lemberg, Grundlagen der nationalen Erwachens in BAhmen, pp. 108-10. 101. Jan Nejedl , "Zpriva o tomto spisu Ctvrtletnim," Hlasatel ceskyj 1 (1806): 482-83, emphasis in original. 102. Jan Nejedly, "Promluveni k Hlasateli," HIasatel cesky 1 (1806): 3-4. 103. Jan Nejedl, "O hisce k vlasti," Hlasatel cesky 1 (1806): 16, em- phasis in original. See also chap. 2. 104. See Jan Nejedl 's letter to his brother Vojtech, 7 December 1809, LA PNP, Prague, Vojtech Nejedl' collection, sign. 1/3/60: "A nyni papir a tisk tak pienairamne jest drahy, ze ani doposavad Hlasatele nemohu dati tisknout, ac porid pro ni zbirim" (And now paper and printing are so incredibly expensive, that up to now I haven't even been able to have Hlasa- tel printed, though I'm still collecting for it). 105. Puchmajer to Jan Nejedly, 13 August 1818, LA PNP, Prague, Jan Nejedl, collection, sign. 1/3/59. 106. Lemberg, Wege und Wandlungen des Nationalbewusstseins, pp. 142-44. 287 Pitt Series in Russian and East European Studies 288 Notes to Pages 160-165 107. See Slavik, Od Dobnera k Dobrovskemu, pp. 43-47. 108. Lemberg, "Der deutsche Anteil am Erwachen des tschechischen Volkes," pp. 311-12; Pelcl, "Geschichte der Deutschen und ihrer Sprache in Bhmen," pp. 300-01. 109. Schamschula, Die Anfdnge, p. 274; Kutnar, " Zivot a dilo Ignace Cornovy," pp. 334-39. 110. V. Thim, foreword to Bdsn- v -eci vdzan. Prvni sebrdni, p. 8. 111. See Schamschula, Die Anfdnge, pp. 270-71; V16ek, in Hanus et al., Literatura ceskd devatendct6ho stoletf, pp. 519-41; and CSAV, Dejiny ceske literatury, vol. 2, Literatura ndrodniho obrozent, pp. 51-53. 112. CSAV, Dejiny ceske- literatury, 2:68. 113. J. St'astny, in "Krameriovi 'Novi 6esti zpevove,"' pp. 23-30, compares Kramerius's poems with their German models. 114. The list of subscribers was published at the end of the second volume. 115. Krameriusovy vlastenski noviny, 30 June 1792, refers to Thim's intentions and the difficulties in the way. 116. The semester reports for Vojtech Nejedl, for instance, show that in 1790 and 1791 he heard Seibt's lectures in logic, metaphysics, and mor- als; Cornova's in history; and Meissner's in classics and aesthetics (LA PNP, Prague, Vojtech Nejedl collection, sign. 1/3/60). 117. Sebastian Hnevkovsk 's comic-heroic epic Dvfn (1805) and other balladlike works in the almanacs owed much to Biirger's influence; while V. Nejedlr's Posledni soud (1804) was influenced by Klopstock, as were the works of Vaiclav Stach. See HYsek, "Biirgerovy ohlasy v ceske literature," pp. 106-21. 118. From A. Pavlovsk 's ode to Antonin Stmad, in Nove bdsne vy- dand od Antonina Puchmajera (1798), p. 146. 119. Jan Nejedl, "Oda na dustojneho Pina, Pana Stanislava Vydru. Roku 1798," Nove bdsn (1802): 57, 59. 120. The ode to Pelcl appeared in Nove bdsne, svazek 6tvrty (1802), and the one to Prochizka in vol. 5 (1814). 121. Puchmajer, "Oda na Jana Zizku z Trocnova," in Nov basne, sva- zek tvrty- (1802), p. 63. 122. Jan Nejedl, "Na Cechy," in Novd bdsn, vydane od Antonina Puchmajera (1798), 136-40. 123. See Dobrovsk, "Prosodie," in Pelcl, Grundsdtze der Bih- mischen Grammatik, p. 234, where he said had had been trying to "uncover the secret of Czech prosody" since 1788. 124. Dobrovsk, Litterarisches Magazin von Bchmen und Mahren 2 (1786): 131-34, 137. 125. Puchmajer, Sebrdni basn a zp'v l:ii. 126. Dobrovsk, "Prosodie," p. 236. Notes to Pages 166-173 127. Sebastian Hnevkovskl to Jan Nejedl, n.d. [1802?], LA PNP, Prague, J. Nejedl5 collection, sign. 1/3/59. 128. Nejedli, Homerova Iliada, p. iv. 129. Dobrovsk, review of ibid., originally published in the Annalen der Literatur und Kunst (1803), rpt. in Literdrni a prozodickd bohemika, pp. 115-21. 130. Szyjkowski, Polskd "uast v 6eskem ndrodnim obrozeni, 1:94-95. 131. Puchmajer, "Phidivek k prozodii -esk6," Nove bdsne (1802), 4:1-2. 132. Dobrovskl, review of Chrdm Gnidsky, in Annalen der Literatur und Kunst (1805), rpt. in Literdrni a prozodickd bohemika, p. 132. 133. See Hordlek, "K poetice A. Puchmajera," pp. 160-69. 134. CSAV, Djjiny ceske' literatury, p. 74. K. H. Thm had already conducted a polemic with Dobrovsk over his dictionary. See chap. 2. 135. Mukaovsk, "Dobrovsk6ho 'Cesk6 prosodie,' " pp. 1-29. 136. Puchmajer, "Hlas volajici na pougti," Sebrdnibdsne a zpev , 2:6. 137. Puchmajer to Jungmann, 18 June 1814, LA PNP, Prague, Jung- mann collection, sign. 1/14/2. 138. "Czech! if you wish to sing beautifully, / Think, and speak, and bear yourself like a Czech." V. Nejedll, "Psani na Jaroslava Puchmira," Nove bdsne, vydane od Antonina Puchmajera (1798), pp. 53-59. 139. J. Nejedli, Smrt Abelova, p. 5. See also Jakubec, in Hanuv et al., Literatura ceskd devatendctho stoletf, pp. 555-64. 140. Dobrovsk, Geschichte der BAhmischen Sprache und Litteratur, p. 215. 141. J. Nejedl5, foreword to Homerova Iliada, pp. iii-iv. Chapter 5. Nairod a Lid-Nation and People 1. Hanus, Ndrodnf museum a nage obrozeni, 2 vols., details the con- tribution of the Czech nobility to the foundation of the Bohemian National Museum, for example. 2. See J. Novotny, "Pfispevek k otizce ilohy nekter~ch lidov ych bud- iteli," pp. 600-32; and Vkek, Djiny 6eske literatury, 2:147-52. 3. See Slavik, Od Dobnera k Dobrovskemu, p. 219. The New Testa- ment appeared in 1778 and the entire Bible in 1780. 4. See Prochazka, foreword to Pismo svatg novho zakona. 5. Prochizka, Biblf ceskd. 6. Joseph's government urged the religious authorities to ensure that the people could have the sacraments, especially the Eucharist and bap- tism, in their mother tongue, to strengthen their effect and the teaching to be derived from them. See instruction to the Prague Gubernium dated 21 February 1786, in the Archiv Nairodniho muzea, Prague, Fond Stare sbirky, ser. D, carton 23, 1786-1790. 289 290 Notes to Pages 174-177 7. Tomsa, "Kurze Lebensbeschreibung des Franz Tomsa," LA PNP, Prague, Dobrovskr collection, sign. 1/5/7; see also Pelcl, Pamiti, p. 27. 8. The publication of these works was part of Seibt's defense against attempts by opponents in Prague and Vienna to have him removed from the university for unorthodox religious teachings. See Slavik, Od Dobnera k Dobrovskemu, p. 46. 9. Novotny, Kramerius, pp. 38-39. On Eybel's career, see Bernard, Jesuits and Jacobins, pp. 58-59, 67-68, 72-73. 10. Stach, Rozmlouvdni mezi otcem a dititem, from the German of the Lutheran J. F. Seiler; Kniha mravu kest'ansk~ch pro mWt'ana a sed- ldka, from the German of Jakob Federsen. 11. Josephine church authorities attached much importance to pas- toral ministry and education in the local language; this is revealed by the record of an episcopal visitation by Bishop J. L. von Hay to the parishes of the Chrudim Kreis in 1782. Bishop Hay recommends the exchange of one village priest with another who had a "well-grounded understanding of the Czech language, [whereas] the former does not have the gift of commu- nicating with his parish children." Archiv Niarodniho muzea v Praze, Fond Stare sbirky, ser. D, carton 22, 1782-1785. 12. Chlidek, dedication to Pocdatkove' opatrnosti pastyske, vol. 3. 13. Stach, Pfiru6ka u6itele lidu, 1:4. 14. Foreword to ibid., vol. 2. 15. Stach, Pocdtkove k verejnemu v c. k. zemich predepsandmu vyk- laddni pasty'ske theologie. 16. Kramerius, in Sch6nfeldske noviny, 11 August 1787. 17. Bishop Hay's letter provoked complaints from elements in the clergy, but he was fully supported by Joseph's government. See the copies of the original letter in Latin, and petitions complaining about it, in the Archiv Nairodniho muzea, Prague, Fond Stare sbirky, ser. D, carton 22, 1782-1785. 18. Kramerius, Kniha Josefova, was based on a German model, Das Buch Joseph (Prague, 1783), published by F. A. Zieger. See Hanu' et al., Literatura ceskd devatendctho stoleti, p. 389. The unabridged text of Kra- merius's version was printed as an appendix to Novotny, Kramerius, pp. 265-301. 19. Kramerius, foreword to KPest'anskd katolickd uzite6nd domovni postilla (Prague, 1785). 20. On his activities with the Protestant pastors, see Dobrovsk's letter to Ribay, 11 May 1786, DR, p. 42. 21. Rokos, Ddkaz, e kazatele Augspurskdho a Helvetskdho vyzndni nejsou; Stach, Psani kolniho mistra Petra Zdchodsk9ho z Slevizu k obrane evangelicky'ch uciteld. 22. See Rulik, Kalenddr historicky', 1:41. Notes to Pages 177-181 23. See Rulik's comments in his announcement of Krdtke katecheticke" kdzdni na nedile pres cely rok, in Krameriusovy vlastenske noviny, 13 Oc- tober 1799. 24. See Hanui et al., Literatura ceskd devatendctho stoleti, pp. 295-315. 25. See Laiske, Casopisectvi v Cechdch, 1650-1847 (Prague, 1959), pp. 126, 133. 26. Kramerius, in Schdnfeldske noviny, 24 February 1787. 27. Ibid., 7 April 1787. 28. Tomsa, Misicni spis. 29. Tomsa's didactic works included Pomoc v potPeb" (1791), Neft'astn" pf hody k straze nezkusend mlddefe (1794), Katechismus o zdravf pro chrdmy a ikoly (1794), and Kni;ka mravnd, s 60 historiemi a poviddxkami pro ditky (1810). Excerpts from his translations of Funk ap- peared in Hlasatel 6esky 4 (1818). 30. Meinert, Cesky' poutnik, pp. 3-4. 31. Ibid., p. 422; Lemberg, Grundlagen der nationalen Erwachens in Bdhmnen, pp. 108-10. 32. Kramerius, Vecerni shromdidnf dobrovicke obce, pp. 143-44. 33. Kramerius, Pfftel lidu, 1:4. 34. Ibid., 1:5-6, 54-55. 35. Kramerius, Zrcadlo glechetnosti pro mlddez ceskou, pp. 3-4. 36. Rulik, Cvi6enf dftekjednohoka ho stavu. 37. Rulik, Kastonova uitecnd naucent o dobrem zvedent mldde;e, p. 76. 38. Amort published Pravidla zdvofilosti, opatrnosti a zachovdnf zdravf, while Borovy translated, and Kramerius published, Zrcadlo pose- tilosti and Zrcadlo pf klad k nau-enf a obveselent 39. The archives of the society are housed in Staitni 6stfedni archiv, Prague, Fond Vlastenecko-hopodiaiski spolecnost. From the minutes of meetings held during the first decades of the society's existence it is clear that its activities were limited in large part to landowners and government officials and that its direct contacts with the Czech-speaking people were limited. Not until the 1830s was a periodical in Czech established to support the goals of the society. See, for example, SOA, Prague, VHS, Protokolle, vol. 10, pp. 98-99 (22 August 1832), when the issue was discussed at length. 40. Hanu, Ndrodni museum, 1:307; Teich, "The Royal Bohemian So- ciety of Sciences and the First Phase of Scientific Advance in Bohemia," p. 161. 41. These included Tomsa's Tejne" rady Subarta dobfe minnde voldni na v ecky sedldky (1785), Lacin" prostvedek, jak i ze 'patnjch a sucho- pdrn!ych poli iivd a dobytku pnijemnd pice v hojnosti dostat se mufe (1787), and Zpisob, jakby se vyplemenil vgechen hmyz bez jedu (1810); Amort's 291 Notes to Pages 182-188 Uvedenitjak snadnym a sprostym sp'sobem se hedbavnt dilo konati md (1783); and Rulik's Krdtce obsahnutd pravidla k sprdv- hospodd4i (1801) and Lacine, a vpravd hojidc dobytka lekdstvfi (1810). 42. Kramerius, referring to Chvalore- p i pohiby jist6ho sedldka in Schdnfeldske noviny, 25 August 1787. 43. Rulik to Vavik, n.d. [1798?], LA PNP, Prague, Vavik collection, sign. 1/13/39. 44. Rulik, Krdtky" spisek o stavu sedlskem, pp. 7-8. 45. Cf. Novotny, "Prispevek"; and Albert PraCik, Ceske obrozeni, pp. 20-22. 46. Rulik, Krdtky' spi'sek, p. 9. 47. Krameriusovy poftovske noviny, 1 July 1789. 48. Kramerius, in Sch6nfeldske noviny, 28 April 1787. 49. Ibid., 12 April 1788. 50. Ibid., 5 May 1787. 51. Ibid., 3 May 1788. 52. Krameriusovy vlastenske noviny, 18 April 1795. Strasidlo s bub- nem was an adaptation of the popular Singspiel by Karl Ditters von Dit- tersdorf, Das Gespenst mit der Trommel. See Vondri6ek, Dejiny, p. 607. 53. Krameriusovy potovske' noviny, 10 April 1790. 54. Krameriusovy vlastenske' noviny, 7 May 1791. 55. Krameriusovy postovsk* noviny, 17 March 1790. 56. Krameriusovy vlastenske noviny, 3 December 1791. 57. Ibid., 26 January 1793. 58. Ibid., 10 September 1791. 59. Ibid., 7 January 1792. 60. Ibid., 18 August 1792. 61. Rulik, Kalenddr historicky, 1:41. 62. Ibid., 130. 63. Rulik, "Vlastensk6 plesini a diki inni nad slavnem uvedeni cis. kril. profesora jazyka -esk6ho na ucitelskou stolice v slavne praiske uni- versi" (1793), and "Na den uvedeni kril. Profesora Cesk6 literatury p. Jana Nejedleho na u6itelskou stolici v slavne u6ene praisk6 universi 16ta 1801" (1801). 64. Krameriusovy vlastenske noviny, 4 April 1795. 65. Rulik, Velmi uzitecnd historie o slovutndm ndrodu ceskem, p. 6. 66. Ibid., pp. 79. 67. Rulik, Vinec pocty, passim, and Vesnick6hofardre rozmlouvdnfse svymi osadniky, pp. 40-47. 68. Rulik, Uend Cechia, 2:18. 69. See Kollman, "Obrana C'ech v letech 1796 a 1800"; and Ernst- berger, Biihmensfreiwilliger Kriegseinsatz gegen Napoleon 1809. 70. See, for example, Rulik, Kalenddr historicky 4:105, or Kra- meriusovy vlastenske' noviny, 1 November 1800. 292 Notes to Pages 188-195 71. Pelcl, "Pisefi pro cesk vojensky v bor," printed as an appendix to Tomsa, ed. Naucenf, jak se ma dob-e 6esky psat. 72. See LA PNP, Prague, Vavik collection, sign. 1/13/39 to 1/13/42; and the Stach collection in the same archive, sign. 1/12/24, which includes, among other works, his MS Vlastensk pisne, dated from 1801 and dedi- cated to the Bohemian Estates. 73. Dlabac, Udatnost slavn6ho 6esk6ho ndrodu. 74. Rulik, Vlastensky mlady rekruta, p. 3. 75. Rulik, Sldva a vjbornostjazyka 6esk6ho, p. 35. On defenses of the language, see Albert PraiSk, Ndrod se brdnil, and other sources cited in chap. 2. 76. Ibid., arguments summarized from pp. 7, 12, 32-33. 77. Tomsa, Von den Vorziigen der cechischen Sprache, p. 38. 78. Kramerius, Zrcadlo glechetnosti, pp. 33, 78. 79. Kramerius, in a broadsheet announcing the establishment of his newspaper, Obzvldtni zprdva ve§keremu ndrodu ceskimu, moravskemu a slovanskemu, 6 June 1789. 80. Krameriusovy poftovske noviny, 2 January 1790. 81. Krameriusovy vlastensk noviny, 18 February 1792. 82. Ibid., 12 May 1792. 83. Chlidek, Naucenf, kterakby se mlo dob?e mluviti 6esky, a psdti, p. 4. 84. Tomsa, Nauceni, jak se md dobPe cesky psdt. 85. Kramerius, Vecernf shromdd"ni, p. 153. 86. Kramerius, foreword to Simona Lomnickeho z Bud&e, Krdtk nau- cenf mlademu hospoddifi. 87. These works were Letopisove' trojan§ti, Ezopovy bdsne, Jana Man- divilly ... Cesta po svet, Krdtkd historie o vdlce fidovske, P ihody Vdclava Vratislava ... z Mitrovic, and Xenofonta ... Zivot a skutkovd Cyra starifho. 88. Rulik, foreword to Cesta z Moskvy do Cfiny. 89. Kramerius, foreword to Letopisov trojanti. 90. Tomsa, foreword to Tobolka zlatd. 91. Rulik, foreword to Cesta z Moskvy do Ciny. 92. See Thomas, "The Role of Calques," pp. 481-504. 93. Tomsa, Bihmische Sprachlehre, p. 440. 94. Tomsa, Ober die Bedeutung, Abwandlung, und Gebrauch der cechischen Zeitwirter, p. 103n. 95. Kramerius, foreword to Ezopovy bdsne. 96. Rulik, foreword to Cesta z Moskvy do C"iny; and Tomsa, foreword to Zivot Karla IV. 97. See Schamschula, Die Anfdnge, p. 240. 98. See CSAV, Dj"iny desk literatury, II. Literatura ndrodnfho obrozent, pp. 88-90; and Tepl, "Z lidov vetby konce XVIII. a prvni polo- vice XIX. stol.," pp. 232-46. 293 Notes to Pages 196-200 99. Th6n, "Vydavwni esk ch knih v dobe Krameriusove," pp. 132-37. 100. Krameriusovy vlastenske noviny, 31 December 1791, announc- ing the publication of Maran a Onyra. Americkyj p ibh. 101. Kramerius, Historicke vypsdni, kterak . . . Amerika ... vyndle- zend byla, p. 40. 102. Krameriusovy vlastenske noviny, 13 October 1792. 103. Esp. in his Vesely Kubiek and its sequel, Bofenka, veseldho Ku- biEka manzelka. 104. Rulik, Vesnickdhofardr-e rozmlouvdn, pp. 13-14. 105. Kramerius, foreword to KPest'anskd katolickd uzitecnd domovni postilla. 106. See Schamschula, Die Anfdnge, pp. 114-16, where he discusses the historians. I believe his point could be made more generally about all the patriots. 107. Kramerius, foreword to Vederni shromd;ri~n, p. 4, emphasis in original. 108. Bohuslav Tablic to Jan Nejedl)i, n.d. [1801?], LA PNP, Prague, J. Nejedlr collection, sign. 1/3/59. 109. J. R. [Josef Rautenkranc], letter to Hlasatel desky 1 (1806): 316-17. 110. Hnevkovsk to J. Nejedl, 7 November 1804, in Jaroslav St'astny", ed., "Korrespondence Seb. Hnevkovskdho, II." 111. Rulik, Kalendd? historicky,, vol. 2. 112. Jungmann, "O jazyku ceskem. Rozmlouvini druh6," Hlasatel cesky 1 (1806): 344. 113. Vojte-ch Nejedl , "Rozmlouvini mezi mrtv mi. I. Lizka a Pelcl," Hlasatel 6esky 4 (1818): 302. 114. An interesting discussion of parallel trends among German pa- triots is Gagliardo, From Pariah to Patriot. Chapter 6. "The Glorious, Widespread Slavic Nation" 1. A well-balanaced study of Slavism and its impact on the Czech re- nascence is Slovanstvi v ndrodnim fivot- Cechd a Slovdku', ed. St'astny et al., which complements Frank Wollman, Slovanstvi v jazykov" literdrnim obrozeni u Slovand (Brno, 1958). Other works concentrate on Czech re- lations with individual Slavic nations: the landmark study of Czech-Russian relations is Florovskii, Chekhi i vostochnye slaviane; see also (SAV, DZjiny cesko-ruskych vztahd, 1770-1917. The CSAV was also responsible for the two-volume Oefi a Poldci v minulosti, and Oefi a Jihoslovand v minulosti, ed. 2i ek et al. See also Szyjkowski, Polskd icast v 6eskem ndrodnim obrozenti 2. See Kohn, The Idea of Nationalism, pp. 557-58. 294 Notes to Pages 201-205 3. See Jan Jakubec, in Hanu et al., Literatura ceskd devatendctho stoleti, pp. 117-57. Hans Kohn touches on this problem in Pan-Slavism: Its History and Ideology, 2d rev. ed. (New York, 1960), esp. pp. 3-26. Kohn focuses on the later period, however. 4. See, for example, Florovskii, Cesko-rusk obchodni styky v minu- losti (X.-XVIII. stoleti) (Prague, 1954); Vivra, "Podstata a problemy cesko- ruskch kulturnich vztahu"; and Vivra, "Bihmen und Russland im 18. Jahr- hundert," pp. 510-16. 5. Vivra, "Podstata a problemy esko-rusk~ch kulturnich vztahi," pp. 259-61. 6. See chap. 1; and Zacek, "The Virtuosi of Bohemia," pp. 147-59; for a history of the society, see Josef Kalousek, Dje krdl. ceske' spolecnosti nauk, 2 vols. (Prague, 1884-85). 7. The earliest review, basically positive, appeared in the Neue Zeit- ungen von Gelehrten Sachen auf das Jahr 1762 (Leipzig), but it was quickly followed by attacks on Dobner, first in a history of the liturgy in Bohemia by Karel Kii (1764), and then in Vaclav Duchovsk's Lucifer lucens non urens, and a work by an Augustinian monk, P. Athanasius, Dissertatio historico-chronologico-critica, both published in 1765. 8. Dobner, MS autobiography, LA PNP, Prague, sign. 1/4/1, n.p. 9. Ibid. 10. With some exaggeration. See Myl'nikov, Vznik ndrodne osvicensk ideologie, pp. 160-64. 11. Vivra, "Tschechisch-russisches Zusammentreffen auf dem Gebiet der Aufldirungsgeschichtsschreibung," pp. 173-75. 12. Kudelka, Spor Gelasia Dobnera o Hdjkovu kroniku, p. 32. 13. Ibid., pp. 50-55, 65-66; Hanui, "Pocitky kritick6ho dejezpytu v Cechich," p. 450. 14. Vivra, Osvicenskd era v esko-ruskych videckych stycich, pp. 10- 15; Dejiny 6esko-rusk"ch vztahu', p. 21. 15. Kalousek, Dije krdl. ceske spolecnosti nauk, pp. 42-43. 16. Dobrovsky, Litterarische Nachrichten von einer ... Reise, pp. 1- 5; Kubka, Dobrovsky a Rusko, p. 58. 17. See Dobrovsk to Zlobick, 25 January 1788: "Ich entschlosse mich sogar auf 3 oder mehr Jahre nach Russland zu reisen" (I made up my mind to go to Russia for 3 or even more years), DZ, p. 17. 18. Sternberg, Reise von Moskau iiber Sofia nach Kinigsberg (1793) and Bemerkungen iiber Russland auf einer Reise gemacht im Jahre 1792 u. 93 (1794), esp. the final sections. Cf. the rather more rare comments scat- tered through Dobrovsk's Litterarische Nachrichten; and Zeil, "Das Russ- landbild der b6hmischen Aufklidrung im letzten Drittel des 18. Jh.," pp. 109-15. 19. Dobrovsk's letter to K. G. von Anton, 6 May 1792: "In Russland mache ich mir die slaw. Litteratur zum Zweck." DA, p. 46. 295 Notes to Pages 205-210 20. Dobrovsk to Ribay, 8 February 1793, DR, p. 223. 21. Dobrovsk to Kopitar, 22 June 1818, DK, p. 353. See also Kubka, Dobrovsky a Rusko, pp. 61-64. 22. Dobrovski to Kopitar, 30 January 1811, DK, p. 188. 23. See esp. the entry for 30 July 1810. Portions of the diary were published by Ondiej Franta, "Po stopich Dobrovskeho v deniku hrabate Eugena Cernina z Chudenic," in Bratislava 3 (1929): 868-91. 24. Szyjkowski, Polskd u6ast v ceskem ndrodnim obrozeni, 1:17; CSAV, Cesi a Poldci v minulosti, 2:102. DobrovskV's letters to Linde were published as an appendix to DK, and Linde's to Dobrovsk in V. A. Francev, Pol'skoe slavianovedenie kontsa XVIII i pervoi chetverti XIX st. (Prague, 1906). 25. See Pribi6, Adam Aloisius Baricevic, p. 111. 26. Bechyfiovi, "Adam Alois Bari'evi6 a Vaclav Fortunat Durych," pp. 131-32. 27. Bechyfiovi, "Ruski literatura v dile V. F. Durych," pp. 258-68, and "Vaiclav Fortunat Durych a jeho Bibliotheca slavica," pp. 145-84. 28. Dukat, "Dobrovsk i Hrvati," p. 44. 29. Dobrovsk to Zlobick, 15 February 1798, and Zlobick4's reply, 30 November 1798, DZ, pp. 122, 148. Dobrovsk5,'s Slavic journals, Slavin and Slovanka, are discussed below. 30. Zi ek et al., eds., Cesi a Jihoslovand, p. 241. 31. Dukat, "Dobrovsk a Hrvati," pp. 51-53. 32. In Dobrovsk's Litterarisches Magazin von B5hmen und Mdhren 3 (1787): 140. 33. 2akek et al., eds., Cesi a Jihoslovan, p. 244. 34. (SAV, Dejiny cesko-ruskych vztahd, p. 58. 35. Dobrovsk to Kopitar, 3 May 1812, DK, p. 262. 36. Vuk to Frusi6, 1819; cited in Duncan Wilson, The Life and Times of Vuk Stefanovid Karadii, 1787-1864. Literacy, Literature, and National Independence in Serbia (Oxford, 1970), p. 151n. 37. See Dobrovs4k to Ribay, 8 February 1793, DR, p. 224. 38. Szyjkowski, Polskd u-ast, 1:17. 39. Ibid.; CSAV, Cesi a Poldci, 2:106. 40. CSAV, Cesi a Poldci, 2:106-08. 41. Pata, "Dobrovsk a Luzice," p. 260. 42. See DA; and, for the correspondence with Fryco, Neue Briefe von Dobrowsky, Kopitar und andere Siid- und Westslawen, ed. V. Jagic (Berlin, 1897). 43. Dobrovsk to Zlobick, 15 February 1798, DZ, p. 122. He de- stroyed the MS of his grammar of Sorbian during one of his attacks of mental illness in 1828. See Myslive'ek, "Duievni choroba Josefa Dobrov- sk6ho," p. 829. 296 Notes to Pages 211-219 44. Pelcl, Kurzgefasste Geschichte der Bahmen, 1:18. 45. Pelcl, Novd kronyka ceskd, 1:47-56. 46. Voigt, Ober den Geist der Bihmischen Gesetze, p. 10. 47. Ibid., p. 9. 48. Rulik, Velmi uzitec-nd historie, pp. 6-7. 49. Ibid., p. 11. 50. Slavik, Od Dobnera k Dobrovskemu, pp. 231-33. 51. Durych, Bibliotheca Slavica, esp. pp. xxxxv-xxxxviii, a summary of the projected contents of all seven volumes. 52. Dobrovsk, "Geschichte der b6hmischen Sprache," pp. 311-15. 53. Vivra, "Tschechisch-russisches Zusammentreffen," pp. 187-88. 54. See chap. 1. 55. Dobrovsk to Ribay, 22 May 1787, DR, p. 77. 56. Dobrovsk to Fryco, 14 August 1797, Neue Briefe, p. 624. 57. Dobrovsk4 to Kopitar, 13 March 1809, DK, pp. 43, 45. 58. Dobrovsk to Bandtke, 5 June 1810, DB, pp. 7-8. 59. Dobrovsky to Bandtke, 27-31 January 1811, DB, p. 24. 60. Dobrovsk to Kopitar, 22 July 1811, DK p. 212. 61. Szyjkowski, Polskd aiast, 1:27-28. 62. Zlobick to Dobrovsk, 4 June 1781, DZ, pp. 3-4. 63. Dobrovsk to Ribay, 2 March 1789, DR, p. 119. 64. Ribay to Dobrovsk, 16 May 1788, DR, p. 97. 65. See, for example, Dobrovs4~'s comments to Zlobickl, 11 January 1789, DZ, p. 36; and to Anton, 15 April 1796, DA, pp. 50-51; and Ribay to Dobrovsk, 19 January 1791, DR, p. 154. 66. Dobrovsk to Kopitar, 6 March 1810, DK, p. 126. 67. Kopitar to Dobrovsk', 1-5 February 1810, DK, p. 91. 68. Dobrovsk to Kopitar, 6 March 1810, ibid. 69. Dobrovsk to Bandtke, 5 June 1810, DB, p. 7. 70. Dobrovsk to Kopitar, 7 August 1810, DK, p. 157. 71. Dobrovsky to Kopitar, 30 January 1811, DK, p. 188. 72. Dobrovsk to Ribay, 6 December 1789, DR, p. 150. 73. Dobrovsk to Fryco, 14 August 1797, Neue Briefe, p. 624. 74. Dobrovsk to Bandtke, 5 June 1810, and Bandtke's reply, 15 June 1810, DB, pp. 7, 13. 75. See chap. 2. 76. Dobrovsk to Bandtke, 17-31 January 1811, and Bandtke's reply, 2-15 July 1811, DB pp. 22-23, 29. 77. Dobrovsk to Kopitar, 17 October 1813, DK, pp. 360-61. 78. Dobrovsk to Ribay, 27 September 1789, DR, p. 142. 79. Dobrovsk to Anton, 15 April 1796, DA, pp. 50-51; Dobrovs4k to Zlobick, 2 February 1797, DZ, p. 108. 80. Dobrovsk, Slavin, pp. 9-13. The censor required Dobrovsk to 297 1 The Presence of the Past Historians like to believe that their craft is not only re- warding, but also important. In this they are no doubt like any other professionals, but it is not owing to such considerations alone that this discussion of the origins of the Czech national renascence begins by considering the changes taking place in the craft of history in eighteenth-century Bohemia. These changes, in particular the rise of the critical method in history, were closely related to other developments that together helped lay the ideological foundation for the national move- ment of the nineteenth century. The year 1761 provides a convenient watershed, for it was then that a Piarist monk and scholar named Gelasius Dobner (1719-1790) published the first volume of his life's work, a critical commentary to a Latin translation of Vaclav Hijek z Libocan's Kronyka deskd. Hdjek had been a favorite source for historians since the sixteenth century, and Dobner's crit- ical comments on his veracity, especially his questioning of the story of the founding of the Czech kingdom, made him something of a celebrity among German and Bohemian his- torians. In fact he was lionized by some, largely as a result of this project, as the "father of Czech critical historiography."'' What was it about this work that earned its author such a resounding title? And why was it, and the critical method it helped spread, so important to the development of Czech na- 19 Notes to Pages 219-225 drop the phrases "gegen ihre christlichen Herren und Riiuber" (against your Christian lords and robbers), and "von eueren Sklavenketten befreyt" (freed from your slave's fetters), without showing in any way that anything had been deleted. See the letter to Dobrovskl from the K. auch K. und k. Biicherrevisionsamt, dated 15 May 1806, LA PNP, Prague, Dobrovsk col- lection, sign. 1/5/8. 81. Dobrovsk, Slavin, pp. 1-2. 82. Dobrovsk, Slovanka, 1:104-06. The original article had appeared in the Vaterlndischen Blatter of July, 1812. 83. See, for example, Kopitar to Dobrovsk', 30 March 1808, DK, pp. 1-5. 84. Ribay to Dobrovsk, 4 July 1790, and Dobrovsk's reply, 30 Au- gust 1790, DR, pp. 169, 171. 85. Dobrovsk to Kopitar, 1 January 1810, DK, p. 76. 86. Dobovsk to Kopitar, 22 July 1811, DK, p. 212. The "better choice" would apparently be literary Czech. 87. Dobrovsk to Bandtke, 11 September 1815, DB, p. 91. 88. Dobrovsk to Kopitar, 1 January 1810, DK, p. 73. 89. Dobrovsk to Kopitar, 25 December 1813, DK, pp. 309-10. 90. Dobrovsk to Fryco, 14 August 1797, Neue Briefe, p. 625. 91. Dobrovsk to Zlobick, 15 February 1798, DZ, p. 122. 92. Dobrovsky to Kopitar, 7 May 1815, DK, p. 404. 93. Ribay to Dobrovsk , 21 January 1796, DR, pp. 262-63. 94. Myslive'ek, "Dusevni choroba Josefa Dobrovskeho," p. 830. 95. See chap. 2. 96. Dobrovsk to Zlobick, 3 March 1795, DZ, p. 95; Thomas, "The Role of Calques," pp. 491-98. 97. Dobrovsk to Jungmann, 26 January 1813, LA PNP, Prague, Jung- mann collection, sign 1/14/1. 98. See Tomsa, Ober die Bedeutung, Abwandlung, und Gebrauch der cechischen Zeitwdrter, p. 7, and Ober die Aussprache der cechischen Buchstabe, Sylben, und Wdrter nebst Leseubungen, p. 15n: "Die alten Cechen sagten stoi und die Russen sagen es noch, wovon sich jeder auf- merksame Ceche, als die Russen im Jahre 1799 und 1800 durch Prag marschirten, uberzeugen k6nnte, da sie das teutsche Kommandowort halt durch stoi und Marsch! durch stupai ausdriikten" (The old Czechs said stoi and the Russian still do, which any attentive Czech could have ascertained when the Russians marched through Prague in 1799 and 1800, for they expressed the German word of command "halt" by stoi and "march" by stupai). 99. Zlobick9 to Dobrovsk, 13 August 1797, DZ, p. 114. 100. Thomas, "The Role of Calques," p. 500. 101. Puchmajer to Dobrovsk, 23 March 1801, LA PNP, Prague, Dobrovsky collection, sign. 1/5/6. 298 Notes to Pages 226-232 299 102. Macura, Znameni zrodu, pp. 69-89, discusses the "pieklado- vost" of renascence culture, which suggests that this was a long-lived atti- tude, since Macura's focus is on the 1830s and 1840s. 103. "There are two theological alumni in Prague, who love things Slavic, especially Russian; they are now translating one of Kheraskov's odes in Opyt trudov most elegantly into Czech" (Dobrovsk? to Durych, 14 Jan- uary 1795, DD, 327). 104. Durych to Dobrovsk , 24 January 1795, DD, p. 331. 105. Szyjkowski, Polskd aast, p. 63. 106. Puchmajer to Hnevkovsk5, 1 July 1797, cited in ibid., p. 80. 107. See the bibliography of Puchmajer's Polish sources in ibid., p. 489. 108. Puchmajer, foreword to Chram Gnidsky. Bdsei. Further cita- tions are to this source. 109. Szyjkowski, Polskd ziast, p. 187. Jungmann's Atala, aneb Ldska dvou divochil v poufti was published in 1805. See also Hanui et al., Literatura 6eskd devatendct6ho stoleti, pp. 633-655. 110. Ibid., pp. 187-93. 111. See, for example, Jungmann, "Piibeh satirick (z Rusk6ho)," Hlasatel cesky 2 (1807): 144-52. See also C(SAV, Djiny cesko-ruskych vztahu*, p. 57. 112. CSAV, Dqiny esko-ruskych vztahi, p. 60. 113. Puchmajer to J. Nejedl , 10 May 1820, LA PNP, Prague, Jan Nejedl collection, sign. 1/3/59; see also Puchmajer to Dobrovsk, 7 June 1820, LA PNP, Prague, Dobrovski collection, sign. 1/5/6. 114. Z~iaek et al., eds., Cei a Jihoslovand, p. 233. 115. See chap. 2. 116. Hanke, Empfehlung, p. 42. 117. K. H. Thaim, Obranajazyka 6eskdho; Dobrovsk, OUber die Er- gebenheit, p. 5. 118. Rulik, Sldva a v#bornostjazyka ceskdho, p. 7. 119. See Pelcl, Akademische Antrittsrede, p. 4; and J. Nejedl , Aka- demische Antrittsrede, p. 22. 120. Puchmajer, foreword to Pravopis rusko-6esky". 121. Kramerius, Obzvldstni zprdva, 6 June 1789, n.p. 122. Krameriusovy poftovske" noviny, 2 January 1790. 123. Dobrovsk, Ober die Ergebenheit, p. 5. 124. This was Dobrovsk's main burden in ibid., pp. 7-8. See also Simecek, "Studium ceskch dejin, slavistika a austroslavismus," pp. 115-42. 125. See Milan Kud6lka, "Pocdtky obrozensk6ho slovanstvi v cesk4ch zemich," in Slovanstvi v ndrodnim zivote Cechd a Slovdkd, p. 98. 126. Antonin Robek devoted many works to this problem, which, in 300 Notes to Pages 232-238 spite of their tendentious conclusions, bring much interesting material to the discussion: Lidov- zdroje ndrodniho obrozeni, "Naizory vesnick6 spo- lecnosti na Gloha Ruski phi por~ice Napoleona v roce 1812," "K otizkim lidovych zdroj nirodniho obrozeni," and Mestske lidovd zdroje nirodniho obrozeni. Robek sought to prove that intellectuals had little to do with the renascence (which had much more to do with 1968 and aftermath than with the late eighteenth century). 127. See chap. 5. 128. Prochizka, foreword to Votahy z kroniky moskevske. 129. Ibid. 130. Kramerius, "Kritk6 popsani ruskeho cisarstvi," Krameriusovy vlastenske noviny, 15 March 1800. 131. J. N--k, "Dar nov6ho roku veikeremu slavnemu slovansk6mu narodu," Krameriusovy vlastenski noviny, 7 January 1792. 132. Sch6nfeldske noviny, 22 September 1787. 133. Krameriusovy vlastenske' noviny, 1 September 1804. 134. Ibid. 135. Rulik, Kalenddr historicky, 2:101. Rulik refers to the Poles as "that famous nation" and says that it was a pity that Catherine proceeded with the second partition. 136. Rulik, Kalendd- historicky, 1:227. 137. Krameriusovy vlastenske" noviny, 1 December 1804. 138. Ibid., 21 April 1804. 139. Ibid., 31 August 1805. 140. Ibid., 19 December 1807. 141. Ibid., 30 January 1808. 142. Ibid., 8 February 1791. The author was Georg Selenko. 143. Ibid., 24 December 1791. The belittling in passing of the Ger- man Empire highlights the sort of psychological support the Czech patriots could get in their exposed position from contemplating the size of the "Slavic nation." 144. Ibid., 5 May 1792. 145. Ibid., 21 January 1792. 146. See Volf, "Vysetrovini vlivu," pp. 565-83. 147. Original in Hudebni archiv mestskeho musea v Hradci Kralove, cited in Svankmajer, "Poitky eskho rusofilstvi," p. 191. 148. The theme is surveyed in Zacek, "The French Revolution, Na- poleon and the Czechs." See also Novik, "Vilky osvobozovaci a nase ob- rozeni"; Kutnar, "Veliki revoluce francouzski v nasi soudobe critice" and "Reakce stitu v echich na Velkou revoluci francouzskou." For a "Marxist" approach, still emphasizing the important role of the revolution, see Mej- dfi6ki, Listy ze stromu svobody. 149. A typical example is Koci, Ceske ndrodni obrozeni, pp. 230-31, 250-51. See also Amort, Ruskd vojska u nds. Notes to Pages 238-244 301 150. Svankmajer, "Po6Atky cesk6ho rusofilstvi," p. 184. 151. See Kollmann, "Obrana Cech v letech 1796 a 1800"; and Ernst- berger, Bihmensfreiwilliger Kriegseinsatz gegen Napoleon, 1809. 152. See Stach's MS "Vlastenske pisne od Vaiclava Stacha," dedicated to the Bohemian Estates and dated 1801, LA PNP, Prague, Stach collec- tion, sign. 1/12/24. 153. Jan Kruchina z vvanberga, "Cesk6 zemsk6 obrany piseiS," in Ru- lik, Vlastensky mlady rekruta, p. 20. 154. Vavik, "Mars dobrych ~iechi k boji," LA PNP, Prague, Vavik collection, sign. 1/13/21. 155. Koci, Ceske ndrodni obrozeni, p. 231. 156. The complete text appears as an appendix to Amort, Ruskd vojska u nds, pp. 313-16. 157. Ibid., pp. 321-29. 158. Rulik, Kalenddr historicky, 1:130, 156-61. 159. Krameriusovy vlastenske noviny, 13 and 20 July 1799. 160. Vondriek, Dejiny ceskeho divadla, pp. 371-72. 161. One could just as well call the English crowds who came out in droves to gawk at the tsar and other notables in post-victory London Russophiles. 162. Rulik, Kalenddav historick, 3:201. 163. [Dobrovskl], Neues Hiilfsmittel die Russische Sprache leichter zu verstehen. 164. [Tomsa], Verzeichniss der russischen Worter und Redensarten. See Dobrovskl's own account in his autobiography, published in Bratislava 3 (1929): 365-66. Also Vivra, "K poiatkim rusko-desk6ho slovnikaistvi." 165. Amort, Ruskd vojska u nds, p. 324. 166. Jungmann to Marek, 20 June 1809, CNM 55 (1881): 504. 167. Jungmann to Marek, 24 September 1813, CNM 56 (1882): 37-38. 168. Jungmann to Marek, undated [1810?], CNM 55 (1881): 514. 169. Marek to Jungmann, 2 April 1813, in "Ze vzijemne korespond- ence Josefa Jungamma a Antonina Marka," ed. Havel, p. 23. 170. J. Nejedly to Hnevkovsk, 27 November 1806, cited in Dejiny cesko-ruskych vztahd, p. 54. 171. Jungmann to Marek, 5 December 1809, CNM 55 (1881): 505. 172. Jungmann to Marek, 10 August 1811, CNM 55 (1881): 521. 173. Jungmann to Marek, 2 January 1813, CNM 56 (1882): 30. 174. Florovskii, Chekhi i vostochnye slaviane, 2:466. 175. Rulik, Kalenddr historicky", 4:41: "Piezimujici v Cechich Rusove mnoh6mu hospodii dosti tek ch a nesnesitedlnych dni zpisobili," (The Russians wintering over in Bohemia caused many a head of household quite difficult and unbearable days). Notes to Pages 244-254 176. Some family chronicles are quoted extensively in Robek, Lidoved zdroje ndrodniho obrozeni, with this passage cited on p. 106. 177. Ibid., p. 107. 178. Ibid. 179. Ibid., pp. 108-09. 180. The Russian representative in Prague, Baron Biihler, com- plained that deserters were hiding in Czech villages "with the knowledge and consent of the peasants." Cited in Djiny 6esko-ruskych vztahu, p. 71. 181. Robek, "Nazory vesnicke spole6nosti," pp. 32-34. 182. LA PNP, Vavik collection, sign. 1/13/40. There are at least three different copies of this verse among Vavik's papers. Conclusion 1. Puchmajer to Dobrovsk , 13 April 1806, LA PNP, Prague, Do- brovsk collection, sign. 1/5/6. 2. Jungmann to Marek, 30 December 1809, CNM 55 (1881): 506. 3. See Macura, Znameni zrodu, pp. 47-68. 4. Letter from J. R. [Josef Rautenkranc?] to Jan Nejedlr, published in Hlasatel cesky 1 (1806): 317. 5. The excitement with which they welcomed the new regulations of 1816, making certain concessions to Czech in school and administration, can be seen in Puchmajer's ode "Na jazyk vesk ," the uncensored MS of which is in LA PNP, Prague, Puchmajer collection, sign. 1/4/13; cf. Puch- majer's letter to Jungmann, 25 February 1816, LA PNP, Jungmann collec- tion, sign. 1/14/2. 6. Kutnar, "Povaha obrozeneckeho vlastenectvi," p. 13. 302 Bibliography Primary Sources Archival Material Archiv Narodniho muzea, Prague, Fond Stare Sbirky, documents of varied provenance gathered by the archivists of the National Museum and organized chronologically from the fifteenth to the nineteenth cen- turies. Itada D covers 1781-1800. Litermrni archiv, Pamatnik narodniho pisemnictvi, Prague. Correspondence and other personal papers of Czech literary figures, and related ma- terial. Collections consulted for this study include: Dobner, Gelasius, (1719-1790), sign. 1/4/1. Dobrovsk, Josef (1753-1829), sign. 1/5/2/-1/5/9 Jungmann, Josef (1773-1847), sign. 1/14/1-1/14/2. Kopitar, Bartolomej [Jernej] (1780-1844), sign. I/K/30. Kramerius, Vaiclav Matej (1753-1808), sign. I/11/1. Nejedl, Vojtech (1772-1844), sign. 1/3/60. Nejedl, Jan (1776-1834), sign. 1/3/59. Puchmajer, Antonin Jaroslav (1769-1820), sign. 1/4/13. Ryba, Jakub Jan (1765-1815), sign. 1/4/17. Sedl~icek, Vojtech Jan (1785-1836), sign. IIA/35. Stach, Vaclav (1755-1831), sign. 1/12/24-1/12/25. Thim, Karel Hynek (1763-1816), sign. 1/12/29. Thim, Vaiclav (1765-1816), sign. 1/12/30. Vav~k, Franti'ek (1741-1816), sign. 1/12/39-1/12/42. Ziegler, Josef Liboslav (1782-1846), sign. I/4/81-I/4/82. Zlobicky, Josef Valentin (1743-1810), sign. 1/32/47. Staitni istiedni archiv, Prague, Fond Vlastenecko-hospodarski spole6nost. Includes indexes and protocols of meetings of the society from the 1770s to the dissolution of the society in 1872. 303 304 Bibliography Edited Sources and Correspondence Dobner, Gelasius. "Autobiographie." Ed. Josef Hanu. Ceskyj vasopis his- toricky 23 (1917): 129-38. Dobrovsky, Josef. Dejiny 6eske fe6i a literatury. Ed. Benjamin Jedli'ka. Spisy a projevy Josefa Dobrovsk6ho, 8. Prague, 1926. . Literdrni a prozodickd bohemika. Ed. Miroslav Hehnan. Spisy a projevy Josefa Dobrovsk6ho, 6. Prague, 1958. . 0 zavedeni a rozsifeni knihtisku v Cechdch. Ed. Mirjam Dafikovai. Spisy a projevy Josefa Dobrovskeho, 19. Prague, 1974. Emler, Josef, ed. "Listy Josefa Jungmanna k Antoninu Markovi." Casopis Musea Krdlovstvi eskdho 55 (1881): 491-530; ibid., 56 (1882): 26- 44, 161-84, 445-76. Fischer, Josef L., ed., with notes by F. Bartos. "Z korrespondence Dob- rovsk6ho." Casopis ndrodniho musea 103 (1929): 145-63. Flajwhans, Vaiclav. Jos. Dobrovskdho kritickd rozprava o legend& Prokopske. Prague, 1929. Francev, V. A. Rec Josefa Dobrovskdho proslovend dne 25. zd" v Ceske" udene spolednosti. Prague, 1921. Havel, Rudolf, ed. "Ze vzijemne korespondence Josefa Jungmanna a An- tonina Marka." Literdrni archiv 8-9 (1974): 5-51. Jagi-, V., ed. Der Briefwechsel zwischen Dobrowsky und Kopitar, (1808- 1828). Berlin, 1885. Jagi', V., ed. Neue Briefe von Dobrowsky, Kopitar und andere Siid- und Westslaven. Berlin, 1897. Kiivsk5, Pavel, ed. "Korespondence Antonin Jaroslava Puchmajera s Jo- sefem Dobrovskr." Literdrn archiv 8-9 (1973-74): 199-256. Krbec, Miroslav, and Vera Michilkovi, eds. Der Briefwechsel zwischen Jo- sef Dobrovky und Karl Gottlob von Anton. Ver8ffentlichungen des Instituts fiir Slawistik, 21. Berlin, 1959. Patera, Adolf, ed. Korrespondence Josefa Dobrovsk6ho. Vol 1: Vzdjemn dopisy Josefa Dobrovskdho a Fortunata Duricha z let 1778-1800. Sbirka pramenv ku poznini literirniho iivota v Cechich, na Morave, a ve Slezsku, Skupina 2, cislo 2. Prague, 1895. . Vol. 2: Vzdjemn" dopisy Josefa Dobrovskdho a JiiYho Samuele Bandtkeho z let 1810-1827, cislo 8. Prague, 1906. . Vol. 3: Vzdjemnd listy Josefa Dobrovskdho a Josefa Valentina Zlo- bickdho z let 1781-1807, 'islo 9. Prague, 1908. Vol. 4: Vzdjemnd listy Josefa Dobrovskdho a Ji 'ho Ribaye z let 1783-1810, cislo 18. Prague, 1913. Pelcl, Frantisek. Pamnti. Trans. Jan Pain; foreword by Jii C'erny. Prague, 1956. Riegger, Josef Anton Ritter von, ed. "Ein Paar merkwiirdige Briefe, des um die B6hmische Geschichte so verdienten Piaristen, Adauct Voigt." Bibliography Archiv der Geschichte und Statistik, insbesondere von Bihmen. Vol. 1. Dresden, 1792. Schamschula, Walter. "Drei unveriffentliche Briefe von Michael Denis an Josef Dobrovskr." Zeitschrift ftir Slavische Philologie 33 (1967): 321-31. St'astny, Jaroslav, ed. "Korrespondence Seb. Hnevkovskeho, II." Vjrocn zprdva cis. krdl. vyfifho gymnasia ceskdho na Novdm m stj v Praze v Truhld'ske ulici za gkolni rok 1909-1910. Prague, 1910. Contemporary Published Sources Abhandlungen der b6hmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Prag. 4 vols. Prague, 1785-88. Abhandlungen der k6niglichen b6hmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaf- ten vom Jahre ... 8 vols. Prague, 1804-24. Abhandlungen einer Privatgesellschaft in BAhmen zur Aufnahme der Math- ematik, der vaterldndischen Geschichte und der Naturgeschichte. 6 vols. Prague, 1775-84. Amort, Vaviinec. Pravidla zdvonilosti, opatrnosti a zachovdn zdravi Prague, 1794. . Uvedenijak snadnym a sprostym spusobem se hedvabnidilo konati md. Prague, 1783. Borovy, Antonin. Zrcadlo pikladil k naucen a obveseleni Prague, 1794. Zrcadlo posetilosti, aneb nov a stare, pikne i daremnd, pravdiv i nepravdive povifiddky neb historie jichz" to jest asi 6tyfi sta. Prague, 1792. Bulla, Karel. Odbjhlec z ldsky synovske. Veselohra v trech jedndnich, v nemine sepsand od Stephanie mladsiho. Prague, 1785. ChlIdek, Jilji Bartolemej. Nauceni, kterakby se mlo dobfe mluviti 6esky, a psdti. Sepsane nejvice pro ty, kte i slysi pastordlni teologii vjazyku ceskem, anebjif skutene" tjmfjazykem Pfad past jisky konajf Prague, 1795. . Po6dtkove' opatrnosti pastyksk, neb krdtkd naucent, jak by se pas- ty5jovd duchovni v povoldni svem chovati mnli. 3 vols. Prague, 1781. Cornova, Ignac. "Hat Schirach Konig Georgen von Bbhmen ... Religion iiberhaupt, mit grund abgesprochen?" Neuere Abhandlungen der kaniglichen bihmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 3 (1798): 161-72. S"(ber das Verhaltniss zwischen K8nig Premisl Ottokar II. und den Pibsten seiner Zeit." Neuere Abhandlungen der kiniglichen bah- mischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 1 (1790): 75-96. . "ber Karl des IV. Betragen gegen das Bayerische Haus," Neuere Abhandlungen der k6niglichen b6hmischen Gesellschaft der Wissen- schaften 2 (1795): 82-111. 305 Bibliography Der Volkslehrer. Prague, 1786-88. Dlabav, Bohumir Jan. Allgemeines historisches Kiinstlerlexikonfiir Bihmen und zum Theil auch fiir Mdhren und Schlesien. 3 vols. Prague, 1815. . Berichtigung einiger historischen Daten fiir Bihmen. Girlitz, 1792. . Listy ceskyjm krajanm v nynefich piYhodich psani. Prague, 1814. . Miszellenfiir Bdhmen. Gbrlitz, 1792. • Nachricht von den in Bihmischer Sprache verfassten und heraus- gegebenen Zeitungen. Prague, 1803. SRozmlouvdnf o nyne*j i vojnd mezi fardfem a sedldkem ceskjm. Prague, 1809. . Udatnost slavndho ceske'ho ndrodu podle vlastenske" historie ... predstavend. Prague, 1809. "Von den Schicksalen der Kfinste in Bohmen." Neuere Abhand- lungen der kaniglichen Bdhmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 3 (1798): 107-39. Dobner, Gelasius. "Abhandlung fiber das Alter der Bohmischen Bibelfiber- setzung." Abhandlungen der bihmischen Gesellschaft der Wissen- schaften zu Prag 4 (1788): 283-99. . "Historischer Beweis, dass Wladislaw der Zweyte Herzog in Bih- men zu Anfang des 1158sten Jahr zu Regensburg gekront worden, und dass der goldene Reif (Circulus) so ihme und seiner Thronfolgem Kai- ser Friederich der Erste ertheilet hat, eine wahre k6nigliche Krone gewesen sey." Abhandlungen einer Privatgesellschaft in Bohmen 5 (1782): 1-54. "Historisch-kritische Beobachtungen iiber den Ursprung, Aban- derung und Verdoppelung des bhmischen Wappenschildes." Abhand- lungen einer Privatgesellschaft in BAhmen 4 (1779): 185-253. "Kritische Abhandlung von den Grenzen Altmiihrens, oder des grossen mihrischen Reichs im neunten Jahrhundert." Abhandlungen einer Privatgesellschaft in Bohmen 6 (1784): 1-45. "Kritische Untersuchung, wann das Land Mihren ein Mark- grafthum geworden, und wer dessen erster Markgraf gewesen sey." Abhandlungen einer Privatgesellschaft in B6hmen 2 (1776): 183-229. . "Kritische Untersuchung: Ob das Christenthum in B6hmen ... nach den Grundslitzen, Lehre und Gebrauchen der r6mische-latein- ische oder der griechischen Kirche eingeffihret worden?" Abhandlun- gen der bihmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Prag 1 (1785): 140-77. . Monumenta historica Boemia nusquam antehac edita. 6 vols. Prague, 1764-85. . "Ober die Einfiihrung des Christenthums in Bbhmen." Abhand- lungen der bihmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Prag 1 (1785): 101-39. 306 Bibliography 307 . Vindiciae Sigillo Confessionis diui Joannis Nepomuceni Protomar- tyris Poenitentiae assertae. Prague and Vienna, 1784. . Wenceslai Hagek a Liboczan Annales Bohemorum e Bohemica edi- tione latine redditi et notis illustrati a P. Victorine a S. Cruce nunc plurimis animadversionibus historico-chronologico-criticis nec non diplomatibus, literis publicis, re genealogica, numaria, variique generis antiquis aeri incisis monumenti aucti a P. Gelasio a S. Catherina. 6 vols. Prague, 1761-86. Dobrovsk, Josef. Ankiindigung eines deutsch-b6hmischen Lexicons. Prague, 1798. . Ausfiihrliches Lehrgebiude der Bihmischen Sprache, zur griind- lichen Erlernung derselben fiir Deutsche, zur vollkommenern Kennt- niss fiir Bihmen. Prague, 1809. . "Beytrige zur Geschichte des Kelchs in B6hmen." Abhandlungen der kniglichen b6hmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 5 (1818- 19): 1-27. . Die Bildsamkeit der Slawischen Sprache an der Bildung der Sub- stantive und Adjective in der BAhmischen Sprache dargestellt. Prague, 1799. . Bihmische Biegungen. Prague, n.d. . Bihmische Litteratur auf das Jahr 1779. Prague, 1779. . Bahmische und Miihrische Litteratur auf das Jahr 1780-81. Prague, 1780-84. . "Geschichte der Bihmischen Pikarden und Adamiten." Abhand- lungen der b5hmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenshaften zu Prag 4 (1788): 300-43. . Geschichte der B5hmischen Sprache und Litteratur. Prague, 1792. . "Kritische Versuche, die diltere b6hmische Geschichte von spAtern Erdichtungen zu reinigen. I. Boi'woy's Taufe." Abhandlungen der k~niglichen Bdhmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 1 (1803), 1- 111. "Kritische Versuche ... II. Ludmila und Drahomir." Ibid., 2 (1807): 1-87. . "Kritische Versuche ... III. Wenzel und Boleslaw." Ibid., 6 (1818- 19): 1-119. Litterarisches Magazin von Bihmen und Mdhren. 3 vols. Prague, 1786-87. Litterarische Nachrichten von einer auf Veranlassung der behm. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften im Jahre 1792 unternommen Reise nach Schweden und Russland. Nebst einer Vergleichung der Rus- sischen und B5hmischen Sprache. Prague, 1796. . Neues Hiilfsmittel die Russische Sprache leichter zu verstehen, vor- ziglich fiir Blhmen, zum Theile auchfiir Deutsche. Selbstfiir Russen, die sich den Bihmen verstiindlicher machen wollen. Prague, 1799. 20 Origins of the Czech National Renascence tional consciousness? To understand the impact of Dobner's commentary of Hijek, it helps to go back more than a century, to survey the condition of historical writing in Bohemia after the Thirty Years' War.2 The Establishment of Critical History in Bohemia With the defeat of the rebellious Bohemian Estates at the Battle of the White Mountain in 1620 and the establishment of a new internal regime institutionalized in the Verneuerte Landesordnung of 1627, the cultural development of Bohe- mia was diverted into channels it might not otherwise have entered. The victorious Counter-Reformation harbored sus- picions about the Czech language and culture, since they had produced Jan Hus and were connected with the Protestant Reformation." Under these conditions, the traditions of Czech humanist historiography could only be carried on in exile by such scholars as Jan Amos Komensk (Comenius) (1592-1670), last bishop of the Czech Brethren, or the Neo-Utraquist Pavel Strdnsky (1589-1657). Robbed of the polemical opponents with whom they had coexisted during the sixteenth century, Catholic writers were free to interpret their past according to their own lights, but even they had to cope with the taint of heresy that clung to Bohemian history. This could only grad- ually be removed, as Bohemia was brought back ever more firmly into the Catholic fold.4 During the century and a half following the White Moun- tain, the cultural and educational life of Bohemia was largely dominated by the Jesuit order, which returned in 1624 to lead the reconversion of the kingdom of heretics. Historical writ- ing in the first decades consisted mainly of collections of saints' lives, the only framework in which anything good about the Bohemian past could be said. This extremely negative ap- proach did not last, however, and toward the end of the cen- tury a school of historical writing began to develop within the Jesuit order itself (as it absorbed the best minds it found among its pupils) which attempted to be both loyally Catholic and positive in its attitude to at least some aspects of Czech Bibliography . Slawin. Bothschaft aus Bihmen an alle Slawischen V61ker, oder Beitrdge zur Kenntniss der Slawischen Literatur nach allen Mundarten. Prague, 1806. . Slovanka. Zur Kenntniss der alten und neuen slawischen Literatur, der Sprachkunde nach allen Mundarten, der Geschichte und Alter- thiimer. 2 vols. Prague, 1814-15. . "Tber den Ursprung und die Bildung der slawischen und insbe- sondere der b6hmischen Sprache." Vollstdndiges Worterbuch der b6hmisch- deutsch- und lateinischen Sprache. By Frantisek Jan Tomsa. Prague, 1791. . Ober die Ergebenheit und Anhdnglichkeit der Slawischen V61ker an das Erzhaus Osterreich. Prague, 1791. . "Wie man die alten Urkunden, in Riicksicht auf verschiedene Zweige der vaterlindische Geschichte, benutzen soll. Ein Versuch fiber die Brewniower Stiftungsbrief Boleslaws des Zweyten." Abhand- lungen der bihmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Prag 1 (1785): 178-200. Dobrovsk, Josef, and Franti'ek Martin Pelcl. Scriptores rerum bohemi- carum. 2 vols. Prague, 1783-84. Durych, Viclav Fortunit. Bibliotheca Slavica antiquissimae dialecti com- munis et ecclesiasticae universae Slavorum gentis. Vienna, 1795. Hanke von Hankenstein, Johann Alois. Empfehlung der b6hmischen Sprache und Litteratur. Vienna, 1783. Jungmann, Josef. "0 jazyku cesk6m. Rozmlouvani druhe." Hlasatel ceskyj 1, no. 3 (1806): 321-53. "O jazyku c-esk6m. Rozmlouvini prvni." Hlasatel ceskj 1, no. 1 (1806): 43-49. Kinsky, Franz Joseph Graf von. Erinnerung iiber einen wichtigen Gegen- stand, von einem Biihmen ... in Des Grafen Kinskyjs, gesamelte Schriften. vol. 3. Vienna, 1786. Kramerius, Vaiclav Matej. Cirkuldrni spis pdna z Hdje, biskupa krdlovd- hradeckdho, na duchovenstvo osady jeho strany toleranci. Prague, 1782. Ezopovy bdsne spolu sjeho Iivotem. Prague, 1791. . Historicke vypsdni, kterak tvrtj dil svita, Amerika, od Kolumbusa vyndlezend byla. Prague, 1803. . Jana Mandivilly, znamenitdho a vzne-enho rytife Cesta po svete'. Prague, 1795. Kniha Josefova. Prague, 1784. . Krdtkd historie o vdlce -idovske'. Prague, 1806. . Letopisove' trojanti, to jest vypsdni desitilet 'vdlky fekd s Krdlem Priamem, td£; oblezeni a zrddndho dobyti, a vyvracent presldvngho v svitw nwvsta trojanskdho pro Krdlovnou Helenu. Prague, 1790. 308 Bibliography 309 . Obzvldtnf zprava ve§keremu ndrodu ceskemu, moravskemu a slo- vanskdmu. Prague, 1789. . Patentni rucni knika pro muit'ana i sedldka. Prague, 1781. SPi~hody Vdclava Vratislava svobodndho pdna z Mitrovic. Prague, 1807. . PiYtel lidu. 2 vols. Prague, 1806-07. . Simona Lomnickho z Bud6e, Krdtke nauceni mlad6mu hospoddii, kterakby netoliko sdm sebe, manielku svou, i celadku, i sve vsecko hospoddristvi uzitene zpravovati, a Z'ivnost svou vesti: ale take jakby byti, v moudrosti ajinych ctnostech prospivati, a ceho se kdy varovati mdl. Prague, 1794. . Vecerni shromdncicnf dobrovick obce. Prague, 1801. . Xenofonta, mudrce athenskdho, zivot a skutkove' Cyra stariho. Prague, 1809. . Zrcadlo slechetnosti pro mlddezv veskou. Prague, 1805. Meinert, Georg. Oesk6 poutnik. Trans. Jan Nejedl. Prague, 1801. Melezinek, Viclav. "Dar nov6ho l6ta 1787, vvem pinim jazyka -esk6ho horlitelfim, pinim Thimim, pinim vlastenskeho divadla milostive obdaeny'm hercuim a -lechetny-m pinim a pannim, spolu pinim hu- debnikfim." Prague, 1787. Nejedl, Jan. Akademische Antrittsrede gehalten den 16. November 1801. Prague, 1801. . Hlasatel cesky'. 4 vols. Prague, 1806-08, 1818. . Homerova Iliada. Prague, 1802. . Kritische Revision der Thamischen Grammatik. Prague, 1798. S"O lisce k vlasti." Hlasatel cesky 1, no. 1 (1806): 3-5. Smrt Abelova. Prague, 1800. Neuere Abhandlungen der kiniglichen Bihmischen Gesellschaft der Wis- senschaften. 3 vols. Prague, 1790-98. Palack-, Frantivek. Djiny ndrodu deskdho v Cechdch a na Morave'. Prague, 1848, rpt. 1908. Pelcl, Frantisek Martin. "Abhandlung fiber den Samo, K6nig der Slawen." Abhandlungen einer Privatgesellschaft 4 (1779): 18-70. . Akademische Antrittsrede iiber den Nutzen und Wichtigkeit der Bdhmischen Sprache. Prague, 1793. . Apologie des Kaisers Karl der Vierten der allgemeinen deutschen Bibliothek entgegengestellt. Prague, 1782. . "Biographie des Adauct Voigt, a S. Germano." Abhandlungen der bdhmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Prag 3 (1787): 15-20. . Bhmische, Mihrische und Schlesische Gelehrte und Schriftstel- lern aus dem Orden der Jesuiten von Anfang der Gesellschaft bis auf gegenwartige Zeit. Prague, 1786. "Das Edikt des Kaisers, Karl des Vierten, wider die Ketzer, vom 310 Bibliography 18. Sept. des 1376ten Jahrs, wird in Zweifel gezogen." Abhandlungen einer Privatgesellschaft in Bdhmen 5 (1782): 55-65. . Grundsiitze der b6hmischen Grammatik. Prague, 1793. . Kaiser Karl der Vierte, Kinig in Bhmen. 2 vols. Prague, 1781. . Kurzgefasste Geschichte der Bhmen. 1st ed. Prague, 1774. . Lebensgeschichte des Rimischen und B6hmischen Knig Wences- laus. 2 vols. Prague, 1790. . Novd kronyka ceskd. 3 vols. Prague, 1791-96. "Piseii pro cesk4 vojensk vybor." In Nauceni, jak se ma dobre cesky psdt, ed. Franti'ek Jan Tomsa. Prague, 1800. . Pithody Vdclava Vratislava svobodndho Pdna z Mitrovic, kterd on v tureckem hlavnim m4stj Konstantinopoli vidil, v zdjeti svem skusil, a po st'astnem do vlasti svd navrdcent sdm L,ta Pdnv 1599 sepsal. Prague, 1777. . "Ober das Vaterland des Jacobus de Misa, genannt Jacobellus." Abhandlungen einer Privatgesellschaft in Bdhmen 6 (1784): 299-312. "Wann ist Kaiser Karl IV. Markgraf in Mihren geworden." Ab- handlungen einer Privatgesellschaft in BMhmen 4 (1779): 71-82. Pelcl, Franti'ek Martin, and Mikulfi Adaukt Voigt. Abbildungen B6h- mischer und Mdhrischer Gelehrten und Kiinstler. 4 vols. Prague, 1773-82. Prager gelehrte Nachrichten. Prague, 1771-72. Prochizka, Frantisek Faustyn. Bibli ceskd, to jest cele' Svat Pismo stardho a nov6ho zdkona, podle stareho obecndho Latinskdho od svate Rimske katolicke cirkve schvalen6ho vjkladu, opit s obzvldtnf pilnosti piehlednutg, ponapraven, vysvitlend a znovu vydan. Prague, 1804. . De saecularibus liberalium artium in Bohemia et Moravia fatis commentarius. Prague, 1784. Erasma Roteroddmskdho runit kniEka o rytifi kfest'anskem, nyni podruhe vydand, a na mnoha mistech opravend. Prague, 1787. . Kniha Erasma Roteroddmskdho, v ktere jednomu kaEd6mu krest'anskemu iloviku nauceni i napomenuti se ddvd, jakby se k smrti hotoviti mNl. Prague, 1786. Kronika Boleslavskd, o posloupnosti knizat a krdli ceskjch, a slav- nych ndrodu ceskdho vinech, od zdlozeni t9ho, ndrodu az do Jana Lu- cemburskdho, vypravujic Prague, 1786. Kronika ceskd, od P ibika Pulkavy z Tradenina na poruceni Karla IV. latine sepsand, potom pak v i jeftinu uvedend, a nyni v td; feci ceske z staroiitn6ho spisu poprve vydand. Prague, 1786. . Miscellaneen der B&hmischen und Mdhrischen Litteratur, seltener Werke, und verschiedenen Handschriften. 3 pts. Prague, 1784-85. . Pismo svatd novjho zdkona, podle ceskdho prelozenf odjeho knizecd milosti arcibiskupa prazskdho lita Pdne 1778 na svjtlo dandho, v nove Bibliography 311 vydand, a vgak s reckym textem, s starym latinskym vykladem, td po- dobn" s vy'chodnimi preloienfmi &c. naskrze srovnand, na mnoha mis- tech opravene, i obsirnym literniho smyslu vyikladem vysvtlene. Prague, 1786. SP kladnd Peci a uzitecnd nauveni vybrand z knih hlubok 'ch mu- drcdv, ukazujici pravidlo vezdejgfiho iZivota, jakby se kaWid roz§afne drfeti na svjtj mdl. Prague, 1786. . Vqtahy z kroniky Moskevski nkdy latine od Alexandra Gvagnina sepsand, potom v cesky-jazyk prelozend od Matause Hosia z Vysokdho M~ta. Pidand jest Zygmunda z Herbersteina dvoji cesta do Moskvy. Prague, 1786. Puchmajer, Antonin Jaroslav. Chrdm Gnidsky. Bdseri. Prague, 1804. . Sebrdn bdsne a zpevu. Prague, 1795. . Sebrdni bdsne a zpevu. Svazek druhyj. Prague, 1797. . Nove' basn- vydand od Antonina Puchmajera. Prague, 1798. SNove bdsn". Svazek etvrty. Prague, 1802. . Noved bdsnv. Svazek pdty. Prague, 1815. . Pravopis rusko-6esky. Prague, 1805. Riegger, Josef Anton Ritter von. Archiv der Geschichte und Statistik, insbesondere von Bdhmen. 3 vols. Dresden, 1792-95. . Materialen zur alten und neuen Statistik von Bahmen. 12 vols. Prague and Leipzig, 1787-94. . Skizze einer statistischen Landeskunde Bihmens. Leipzig and Prague, 1795. Rokos, Vaiclav. Dkaz, ze kazatele Augspurskdho a Helvetskdho vyzndni nej- sou knezi, ani iddni sluiebnci cirkevni. Prague, 1785. Rulik, Jan Josef Nepomuk. Bozenka, veselgho Kubika manelka. Prague, 1802. Cesta z Moskvy do Ciny, kterouv s ruskym vyslancem Isbrandem, skrze krajiny Ostiku, Siberii, Taursko,a MogoskauTartarii gt'astn vy- konal JiA' z Drachova, Cech a rytiif vzneveny Lta Pdn" 1693. Prague, 1800. Cvi- ent ditekjednohoka;ddho stavu. Prague, 1792. Gallerie, aneb vyobrazenost nejslovutn~jsich a nejznamenitjifch osob zemCi Cesk", spolu s vypsdnim diileitych, zvldtnich pam tnich vici,jen~ se v Cechdch za vasd starobylych, tak y pozdneji ch, zbjhly. 5 vols. Prague, 1803-10. Kalenddrv historicky, obsahujicI kratk a summovni poznamena'ni vgechnech prome'n, pibjhu, vdlek, nejvysich natYzen, a t. d. jak v slavndm ndrodu a krdlovstvi Ceskem tak i na dile v jin'ch narodech a zemich, zbjhlych. 6 vols. Prague, 1797-1810. . Kastonova ubitend naucenf o dobrem zvedeni mlddefe. Prague, 1794. 312 Bibliography * Krdtce obsahnutd pravidla k sprdvv hospoddrv. Prague, 1801. . Krdtkg spisek o stavu sedlskem, aneb vord6skem. Prague, 1798. . Lacind, a vpravud hofici dobytka lekd'fstvi. Prague, 1810. . Pamdtky staroitn6ho a velesldvndho kldtjra Sedleckdho bliz Hory Kutnd v krdlovstvi Cesk m, od leta 1142 az" do roku 1807. Kutni Hora, 1807. . Sldva a vybornostjazyka ceskdho. Prague, 1792. . Ujend Cechia. 3 vols. Prague, 1807-08. . Velmi uivite6nd historie o slovutnem ndrodu Ceskm. Prague, 1793. • Vjnec pocty k poctivosti uceny"ch, vybornych a statecngch Cechd. Prague, 1795. . Veselj Kubiek, aneb v hordch Ka-parskjch zaklen' duddk. Prague, 1799. . Vesnickdho fardr"e rozmlouvdnf se svymi osadniky. Prague, 1805. . Vlastensky mladj rekruta. Prague 1808. Schinfeldske cfsarske krdlovsk" prazsk postovsk" noviny. Prague, 1786- 92, 1796-99. Sediv, Prokop. Krdtke pojedndnf o u£itky, kter~i ustavicne' stojici, a dobre sporddand divadlo zp'sobiti mize. Prague, 1793. Seibt, Karl Heinrich. Kniha katolickd, obsahujic ci sobe nauceni a modlitby. Trans. Franti'ek Jan Tomsa. Prague, 1780. VyuVujid a modlici kniha pro mldde. Trans. Frantivek Jan Tomsa. Prague, 1784. Stach, Viclav [Vaclav Petryn, pseud.]. Historie velikdho snemu kostnickdho. 2 vols. Prague, 1785-86. . Kniha mrav* krest'anskych pro mfnt'ana a sedldka. Prague, 1786. SPirujka u6itele lidu. 2 vols. Prague and Olomouc, 1787. . Povdatkove k verejnemu v c. k. zemich predepsanemu vykladdnipas- tynske theologie. 2 vols. Prague, 1787. Psani kolniho mistra Petra Zdchodskdho z Slevizu k obranv evan- gelickych uciteli a svobodneho ucent evangelick"ho proti neddvod- ndmu dikazu, zie u6itelovd evangeliti nejsou knezi. Prague, 1786. Rozmlouvdni mezi otcem a difttem o vecech ndbozenstvi se tjkaji- cich. Prague, 1785. Stach, Vaclav, Vaiclav Thim, and Karel Hynek Thm. "Svitek esk6ho ja- zyka, na den druheho provozovini Stefanoveho Odbehlce v praisk6m vlastenskem divadle od Bondynsk6 spolecnosti nemecklch herci, den 25 ledna 1785." Prague, 1785. Thim, Karel Hynek. Deutsch-bhmisches Nationallexikon. Prague, 1788. . Dritte und Letzte Antikritik und Abfertigung des Joseph Do- browskys mit allen seinen Zehenden etc. zur Beurtheilung unparthey- ischen Lesern vorgelegt. Prague, 1798. Erkliirung iiber die jiingst erschienene falsche Revision meiner Grammatik. Prague, 1798. Bibliography 313 . Makbeth, truchlohra v 5jedndnich od Shakespeara. Prague, 1786. . Obranajazyka ceskdho proti zlobivjmjeho utrhd~lm, te"z mnohjm vlastencu'm v cvienf se v nem liknavyjm a nedbalym. Prague, 1783. . Ober den Karakter der Slawen, dann fiber den Ursprung, die Schicksale, Vollkommenheiten, die Niitzlichkeit und Wichtigkeit der b6hmischen Sprache. Prague, 1803. Thim, Viclav. Bdsn v revi vdzan. 2 vols. Prague, 1785. Tomsa, Franti'ek Jan. Bihmische Sprachlehre. Prague 1782. . Grissere cechische Orthographie, gemeiniglich bhmische Ortho- graphie genannt; mit zwei Anhdngen, der erste enthilt zehn alte cechische Fabeln, der zweite aber eine Probe, wie nach der hier vor- geschlagene und grdsstentheils eingefiihrten dechischen Orthographie alle slawische Dialekte geschrieben werden kennte. Prague, 1812. . Lacin j prostredek, jak i ze patnjch a suchopdrnych polfi ivd a dobytku pnifemnd pice v hojnosti dostat se muze. Prague, 1787. . Malj nemeckyj a ceskyj slovnik. Prague, 1789. Misfcni spis k poucenf a obveseleni obecndho lidu. Prague, 1787. . Naudeni, jak se ma dobre cesky psdt. Prague, 1800. . Simon Lomnicky z Bud6e, Tobolka zlatd, aneb lakomd zadost penez nenasycend, a proti hnvchu lakomstvfi, kterd nynf v svfte velmi panuje a mnohd lidi oslepuje, vjstraha prostd a virnd. Prague, 1791. . Tejne rady Subarta dobre minend voldnina vsecky sedldky. Prague, 1785. SOber die Aussprache der cechischen Buchstaben, Sylben und W&irter nebst Leseiibungen. Prague, 1801. . ber die Bedeutung, Abwandlung und Gebrauch der cechischen Zeitwdrter. Prague, 1804. . ber die cechische Rechtschreibung mit einem Anhange, welcher dreizehn cechischen Gedichte enthdlt. Prague, 1802. Ober die Verdnderungen der cechischen Sprache, nebst einer cechischen Chrestomathie seit dem dreizehnten Jahrhunderts bisjetzt. Prague, 1805. Verzeichniss der russischen Wirter und Redensarten, die im ge- meinen Leben am hiufigsten vorkommen als Hiilfsmittel, um sich Rus- sen leichter verstdndlich zu machen. Prague, 1813. . Vollstdndiges Worterbuch der bihmisch- deutsch- und lateinischen Sprache. Prague, 1791. . Von den Vorziigen der cechischen Sprache, oder iiber die Billigkeit und den Nutzen, die cechische Sprache zu erhalten, empor zu bringen, und iiber die Mittel dazu. Prague, 1812. Z ivot Karla IV. Prague, 1791. . Zp*sob,jakby se vyplemenil vsechen hmyz bezjedu. Prague, 1810. Ungar, Karel Raphael. Allgemeine b6hmische Bibliothek. Prague, 1786. Bibliography . Bohuslai Balbini ... Bohemia docta, opus posthumum editum, notisque illustratum ad Raphaele Ungar. 3 vols. Prague, 1776, 1778, 1780. . "Neue Beitrage zur alten Geschichte der Buchdruckerkunst in B6hmen." Neuere Abhandlungen der kinigliche B6hmischen Gesell- schaft der Wissenschaften 2 (1795): 195-229. . "Versuch einer Geschichte der Bibliotheken in Bbhmen." Abhand- lungen der b6hmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Prag 1 (1785): 234-71. . "2izka's militarische Briefe und Verordnungen." Neuere Abhand- lungen der kOnigliche Bihmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 1 (1790): 371-72. Voigt, Mikulki Adaukt. Acta litteraria Bohemiae et Moraviae. 2 vols. Prague, 1774-83. . Beschreibung der bisher bekannten B6hmischen Miinzen nach chronologischer Ordnung, nebst einem kurzen Begriff des Lebens der Miinzfiirsten, und anderer, auf welche sie geprdgt worden; mit ein- gestreueten historischen Nachrichten von dem Bergbaue in Bihmen. 4 vols. Prague, 1771-81. . Effigies virorum eruditorum atque artificum Bohemiae et Mora- viae. 2 vols. Prague, 1773-75. . "Nachricht von merkwiirdigen b6hmischen Macenaten, und einige ihnen sowohl von einheimischen als auswartigen Schriftstellern de- dicirten Biicher." Abhandlungen einer Privatgesellschaft in B6hmen. 6 (1784): 325-63. . Ober den Geist der Bihmischen Gesetze in den verschiedenen Zeit- altern. Dresden, 1788. "Untersuchung fiber die Einfuhrung, den Gebrauch, und die Abinderung der Buchstaben und des Schreibens in B6hmen." Ab- handlungen einer Privatgesellschaft in B6hmen 1 (1775): 164-99. . "Versuch einer Geschichte der Universitit Prag." Abhandlungen einer Privatgesellschaft in Bohmen 2 (1776): 287-391. . "Von dem Alterthume und Gebrauche des Kirchengesanges in B6hmen." Abhandlung einter Privatgesellschaft in B5hmen 1 (1775): 200-01. . "Von der Aufnahme, dem Fortgange und den Schicksalen der Wis- senschaften und Kiinste in Bbhmen." Abbildungen B6hmischer und Mihrischer Gelehrten und Kiinstler. Vol. 1. Prague, 1773. S"Vorrede von dem Gelehrten Adel in Bbhmen und Mihren." Ibid. Vol. 2. Prague, 1775. Zima, Antonin Josef. "Na den provozovani 6esk6 pivodni hry Bietislava a Jitky pro vecnou pamatky jazyka 6eskeho." Prague, 1786. 314 Bibliography S"Znameni vlastensk6 vdecnosti na den prvniho provedeni esk6 hry na praisk6m novome-stsk6m divadle dne 8 cervence 1786." Prague, 1786. Secondary Sources Books and Monographs Amort, Cestimir. Ruskd vojska u nds v letech 1798-1800. Pispivek k d'- jindm cesko-rusk9ho a slovensko-ruskdho prdtelstvi Prague, 1954. Anderson, Perry. Lineages of the Absolutist State. London, 1979. Banac, Ivo. The National Question in Yugoslavia: Origins, History, Politics. Ithaca and London, 1984. Banac, Ivo; and Bushkovitch, Paul, eds. The Nobility in Russia and Eastern Europe. New Haven, 1983. Berls, Janet Wolf. The Elementary School Reforms of Maria Theresa and Joseph II in Bohemia. Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1975. Bernard, Paul P. Jesuits and Jacobins: Enlightenment and Enlightened Des- potism in Austria. Urbana, Ill., 1971. Bosl, Karl, ed. Handbuch der Geschichte der b5hmischen Lander. Vol. 2. Stuttgart, 1974. Brandl, Vincenc. Zivot Josefa Dobrovskdho. Bmo, 1883. Brock, Peter. The Slovak National Awakening. Toronto, 1976. Brock, Peter, and H. Gordon Skilling, eds. The Czech Renascence of the Nineteenth Century. Essays presented to Otakar Odlozilik in Honour of his Seventieth Birthday. Toronto, 1970. (Ceskoslovenski akademie ved [cSAV]. Djjiny cesk6ho divadla. II. Ndrodni obrozeni. Prague, 1969. . Dejiny ceske literatury. II. Literatura ndrodniho obrozeni. Prague, 1960. SDijiny 6esko-ruskjch vztahu, 1770-1917. Dijiny ceskoslovensko- sovetsk'ch vztahii nove a nejnov"ji doby, vol. 1. Prague, 1967. . Cegi a Poldci v minulosti. 2 vols. ^stav dejin evropskch socialis- tick ch zemi. Prague, 1967. Dlouh5r, Jindich, ed. Vdclav Fortundt Durych. Prague, 1952. Ernstberger, Anton. Bihmens freiwilliger Kriegseinsatz gegen Napoleon 1809. Ver6ffentlichungen des Collegiums Carolinum, 14. Munich, 1963. Eymer, Wenzel, ed. Piidagogische Schriften des Grafen Franz Joseph Kin- sky. Vienna, 1892. Florovskii, A. V. Chekhi i vostochnye slaviane: ocherki po istorii cheshsko- russkikh otnoshenii (X-XVIII vv.). Vol. 2. Prague, 1947. Fueter, Eduard. Geschichte der neueren Historiographie. Handbuch der mittelalterlichen und neueren Geschichte, ed. Georg von Below and Friedrich Meinecke. Munich and Berlin, 1911. 315 316 Bibliography Gagliardo, John G. From Pariah to Patriot: The Changing Image of the German Peasant, 1770-1840. Lexington, Ky.: 1969. Hanui, Josef. Frantisek Faustyn Prochdzka, cesky buditel a literdrai his- torik. Rozpravy (cesk akademie cisaie Frantiska Josefa pro vedy, slo- vesnost, a umeni, trida III, Cislo 39. Prague, 1915. . Frantiek Martin Pelcl, veskj historik a buditel. Rozpravy (esk6 akademie ... , islo 38. Prague, 1914. . Mikuld Adaukt Voigt, cesky buditel a historik. Rozpravy Cesk akademie ..., islo 32. Prague, 1910. Ndrodni museum a nage obrozent 2 vols. Prague, 1921-23. Hanu', Josef, Jan Jakubec, Jan Michal, and Jaroslav VI-ek. Literatura ceska devatendctho stoleti Dil prvnt' Od Dobrovskdho k Jungmannov kole bdsnickd. 2d ed. Prague, 1911. Haubelt, Josef. Studie o Ignaci Bornovi. AUC, Philosophica et historica, Monographia XXXIX-1971. Prague, 1973. Cesk osvicenstvi Prague, 1986. Havrinek, Bohuslav, and Julius Dolansk , eds. Josef Dobrovsky, 1753- 1953. Sbornik studit k dvoustemu vyro" narozeni. Prague, 1973. Horik, J., M. Murko, and M. Weingart, eds. Josef Dobrovskyj, 1753-1829. Sbornik statf k st6mu vyro"I smrti Josefa Dobrovskdho. Prague, 1929. Hrabik, Josef, Duvan Jefibek, and Zdefika Ticha. PrIvodce po djindch ceske' literatury. Prague, 1976. Hroch, Miroslav. Die Vorkiimpfer der nationalen Bewegung bei den kleinen Volkern Europas. Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Philosophica et His- torica, Monographia 24-1968. Prague, 1968. Hroch, Miroslav, ed. Oloha historickdho povidomi v evropskem ndrodnim hnuti v 19. stoleti. Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Philosophica et His- torica 5, 1976, Studia Historica 15. Prague, 1976. Jakubec, Jan. Dejiny literatury ceske-. 2d ed. 2 vols. Prague, 1929. Jedli'ka, Benjamin. Dobrovskdho "Geschichte" ve vyvoi Eeske literd rni his- torie. Archiv pro baddni o .ivote a dile Josefa Dobrovskeho, vol. 1. Prague, 1934. Jelinek, Jaroslav. Ndstin dijin vyriovdni ceskemu jazyku v letech 1774- 1918. Prague, 1972. Johanides, Josef. Frantigek Martin Pelcl. Prague, 1981. Jungmann, Josef. Historie literatury Cesk". 2d ed. Prague, 1849. Kacer, Miroslav. Vdclav Thdm: Studie divadelne' historickd. Prague, 1965. Kalousek, Josef. Dje krdl. cesk spole6nosti nauk spolu s historicky"m pfehledem publikac jejich z obor 'filosofie, historie, a jazykovody. 2 vols. Prague, 1884-85. Kerner, Robert Joseph. Bohemia in the Eighteenth Century. A Study in Political, Economic, and Social History with Special Reference to the Reign of Leopold II, 1790-1792. New York, 1932. Bibliography 317 Kimball, Stanley Buchholz. Czech Nationalism. A Study of the National Theater Movement, 1845-83. Illinois Studies in the Social Sciences 54. Urbana, 1964. Klime', Vladimir. Pocdtky ceskdho a slovenskho novindfstvi. Prague, 1955. Koci, Josef. Ceske ndrodni obrozeni. Prague, 1978. Kohn, Hans. The Idea of Nationalism. New York, 1944. Kraus, Amoit. Praiske casopisy 1770-1774 a ceske" probuzeni. Rozpravy (esk akademie cisaie Frantiska Josefa pro ve-dy, slovesnost, a ume-ni, Tiida III, cislo 31. Prague, 1909. Krbec, Miloslav, and Miroslav Laiske.Josef Dobrovsky. I. Bibliographie der Verdffentlichungen von Josef Dobrovsky. Facultas philosophica et Paedagagica Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis, Series Slavica 1. Prague, 1970. Kubka, Frantisek. Dobrovsky a Rusko. Pocdtky vztahc esko-rusk"ch a nd- zory Josefa Dobrovskdho na Rusko. Prague, 1926. Kucera, Jan, and Jifi Rak. Bohuslav Balbin a jeho misto v ceske kulture. Prague, 1983. Kudelka, Milan. Spor Gelasia Dobnera o Hdjkovu kroniky. Rozpravy CSAV, Rada spolecenskfch ve'd, Ro'nik 74, se'it 11. Prague, 1964. Kutnar, Franti'ek. Frantisek Jan Vavdk. Prague, 1941. . Obrozenecky nacionalismus. Prague, 1940. . Pfehlednd d6jiny ceskho a slovenskdho djepisectvi: Od poditku" ndrodni kultury az po vyzndni obrodndho ikolu ddjepisectvi v druhe polovind 19. stoleti. Prague, 1973. Socidlnd my§lenkovd tvdinost obrozenskdho lidu: Troji pohled na cesky obrozensky lid jako pn'spevek k jeho duchovnim d6jindm. Prague, 1948. Laiske, Miroslav. Casopisectvi v Cechdch, 1650-1847. Prague, 1959. Lemberg, Eugen. Grundlagen der nationalen Erwachens in Behmen. Geistesgeschichtliche Studie, am Lebensgang Josef Georg Meinerts (1773-1844) unternommen. Reichenberg, 1932. Nationalismus. 2 vols. Hamburg, 1964. Wege und Wandlungen des Nationalbewusstseins. Studien zur Geschichte der Volkwerdung in den Niederlanden und in Bohmen. Miinster i. W., 1934. Macura, Vladimir. Znameni zrodu: Ceske' obrozeni jako kulturni typ. Prague, 1983. Machovec, Milan. Josef Dobrovsky. Prague, 1964. Mejdika, Kveta. Listy ze stromu svobody. Prague, 1989. Muk, Jan. Po stopdch ndrodniho vidomf eske' glechty pob6lohorske. Prague, 1931. Myl'nikov, Aleksandr Sergeevich. Epokha prosveshcheniia v cheshskikh zemliakh. Moscow, 1978. The Presence of the Past history. The Czech Jesuit Bohuslav Balbin (1621-1688) gave his name to this stream of Czech historiography,5 in which the regional tradition of Catholicism was combined with the pa- triotic tradition kept alive for a time by exiled Czech Brethren and Protestants.6 The subjects of Balbin's earlier works were the lives of the Bohemian and Moravian saints and the ven- eration of the Virgin Mary at places of pilgrimage in the Czech lands. His apologetic theme was evident, as he attempted to prove that Bohemia had been the land of many true Catholics, as well as giving birth to Hus. Such themes appeared even more clearly in his later works, such as the Vita venerabilis Arnesti, primi archiepiscopi Pragensis (1644). He was also an indefatigable collector, gathering material for a massive Miscellanea historica regni Bohemiae, of which the first part appeared in 1679. In this work collecting documentary sources, Balbin reflected newer methods further developed by suc- ceeding generations. It also reflected his attempt to preserve and defend his fatherland, the Kingdom of Bohemia.7 Some- times, in fact, Balbin's patriotism went further than his su- periors would allow. One of the most influential and clearly patriotic of his writings, an elegy on the former greatness and present decline of the Czech language after the White Moun- tain, usually known as Dissertatio apologetica pro lingua sla- vonica, praecipue bohemica, was published only in 1775.8 The influence of this "Balbin school" reached down to the revival period in the works of such historians as Tomai Pesina z Iechorodu (1629-1680), Jiff Stredovsk (1670-1713), Franti- sek Beckovsk (1658-1725) and eventually Johann Adalbert Berghauer (1684-1760), in whose lifetime the new trends of critical historiography connected with the Enlightenment be- gan to assert themselves.9 In their works these men followed the example set by the Jesuit Bollandist fathers, who began publishing their massive edition of the lives of the saints, Acta sanctorum, in France in 1643. These Czech and Slovak schol- ars' studies of the lives of the saints and the history of the church and religious orders in their homelands were quite in the spirit of the Bollandists.1o During the eighteenth century, 21 Bibliography . Vznik ndrodn" osvicensk ideologie v ceskjch zemich 18. stoleti. Prameny ndrodnfho obrozeni. Prague, 1974. Novik, Arne. Czech Literature. Trans. Peter Kussi; ed. with a supplement by William E. Harkins. Ann Arbor, 1976. Novotny, Jan. Matjj Vdclav Kramerius. Prague, 1973. Osvald, Vaiclav. Vychovatel lidu Matej Vdclav Kramerius. Prague, 1943. Prazik, Albert. Ceske obrozeni. Prague, 1948. . Ndrod se brdnil. Obranyjazyka 6eskho od nejstarifch dob po p~'- tomnost. Prague, 1945. Pribi6, Nikola. Studien zum literarischen Spdtbarock in Binnenkroatien. Adam Aloisius Baricevic'. Munich, 1961. Prokes, Jaroslav. Po6dtky Ceskei spolecnosti nauk do konce XVIII. stoleti Prague, 1938. Przedak, A. G. Geschichte des deutschen Zeitschriftenwesens in Bohmen. Heidelberg, 1904. Renner, Hans. Studien zum tschechischen Friihnationalismus. Motiva- tionen, Anfdnge und Initiatoren der tschechischen Wiedererweckung. Inaugural diss., Faculty of Philosophy, Friedrich-Alexander Univer- sity, Erlangen-Niimberg, 1974. Robek, Antonin. Lidovd zdroje ndrodniho obrozeni. Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Philosophica et Historica, Monographia 48-1973. Prague, 1973. . Mistske lidovd zdroje ndrodniho obrozeni. Acta Universitatis Caro- linae, Philosophica et Historica, Monographia 69. Prague, 1977. Rogger, Hans. National Consciousness in Eighteenth-Century Russia. Cambridge, Mass., 1960. Roubik, Frantisek. Pocdtky policejniho reditelstvi v Praze. Sbornik archivu Ministerstva vnitra Republiky ceskoslovensk. Vol. 1. Prague, 1926. Rybicka, Antonin. Predni ki sitelg ndrodu ceskdho. Vol. I. Prague, 1883. Schamschula, Walter. Die Anfdnge der tschechischen Erneuerung und das deutsche Geistesleben, 1740-1800. Munich, 1974. Shafer, Boyd C. Faces of Nationalism: New Realities and Old Myths. New York, 1972. Slavik, Bedich. Od Dobnera k Dobrovskdmu. Prague, 1975. Smid, Ludek. Lidovi kronikdii stredniho Polabi. I. Franjk Jan Vavdk-typ selskedho autodidakta a regiondlniho kronikdfe. Price oblastniho mu- zea v Podebradech, IAada B, cislo 1. Pod6brady, 1967. St'astny, Vladislav, ed. Slovanstvi v ndrodnim -ivotj Cechd a Slovdkd. Prague, 1968. Strako-, Jan. Povdtky obrozenskdho historizmu v prazskych casopisech a Mikuldis Adaukt Voigt. Phspvek k historii protiosvicenski reakce v ndrodnim obrozeni. Prague, 1929. Svobodovi, Zdefika. Dobrovskyj a nmeckdfilologie. Prague, 1955. 318 Bibliography 319 Szyjkowski, Marjan. Polskd uvast v ceskem ndrodnim obrozeni, I. Price Slo- vansk6ho istavu v Praze, Svazek III. Prague, 1931. Thompson, James Westfall. A History of Historical Writing. Vol. 2. New York, 1942. Vivra, Jaroslav. Osvicenskd dra v 6esko-ruskych videckych stycich. Igndc Born, Ceskd spoleenost nauk a Petrohradskd akademie vid v letech 1774-1791. Studie Ceskoslovensk6 akademie ved, 10. Prague, 1975. Vl-ek, Jaroslav. Dejiny ceske literatury. 3d ed. Vol. 2. Prague, 1940. Volf, Josef. Dejiny novin v Cechdch do r. 1848. Prague, 1930. Vondrivek, Jan. Dijiny cesk6ho divadla. Doba obrozenskd, 1771-1824. Prague, 1956. acek, Vaiclav, ed. Cesi a Jihoslovand v minulosti. Od nejstarch dob do roku 1918. Prague, 1975. Articles and Chapters Agnew, Hugh LeCaine. "Enlightenment and National Consciousness: Three Czech 'Popular Awakeners.' " In Nation and Ideology: Essays in Honor of Wayne S. Vucinich, ed. Ivo Banac, John G. Ackerman, and Roman Szporluk. Boulder, 1981. "Josephinism and the Patriotic Intelligentsia in Bohemia." Har- vard Ukrainian Studies 10 (1986): 577-97. Bat'ha, Frantisek. "Dva dokumenty k historii pocitki ceskeho divadla v Praze." Divadlo 9 (1958): 750-57. "Nejstarsi obrozeneck divadelni preklad." Sbornik ndrodniho mu- zea v Praze, R ada C, Literdrni historie 8 (1965): 54-55. "Viclav Thim, zakladatel 6esk6ho divadla v dobe obrozeni." Slo- vesnd vda 5 (1952): 127-57. Bechyiiovi, Venceslava. "Adam Alois Baricevi a Vaiclav Fortunt Durych." Slavia 37 (1968): 129-36. "Ruski literatura v dile V. F. Durycha a jeji vyznam pro Durychovo slovanstvi." Slavia 24 (1955): 248-68. . "Vaclav Fortunat Durych a jeho Bibliotheca slavica." In Studie z dejfin svetovej slavistiky do polovice 19. storocia, ed. Jozef Hrozien'ik. Bratislava, 1978. Daiikovi, Mirjam. "Dobrovskeho price k dejinim ceskeho knihtisku." In- troduction to Josef Dobrovsky, 0 zavedeni a roz;fieni knihtisku v Ce- chdch. Spisy a projevy Josefa Dobrovsk6ho, 19. Prague, 1954. Dostil, A. "Price Josefa Dobrovsk6ho o tvoeni slov." In Josef Dobrovsky, 1753-1953. Prague, 1953. Drabek, Anna M. "Die Desiderien der b6hmischen Stande von 1791. 10berlegungen zu ihrem ideelen Gehalt." Die bihmischen Lander zwischen Ost und West. Festschrift fiir Karl Bosl zum 75. Geburtstag. Munich, 1983. 320 Bibliography Dukat, Vladoje. "Dobrovsk i Hrvati." In Josef Dobrovskyj, 1753-1829. Sbornik statf k st6mu vro(i smrti Josefa Dobrovsk6ho, ed. J. Horik, M. Murko, and M. Weingart. Prague, 1929. Franta, Ondiej. "Po stopich Dobrovsk6ho v deniku hrabete Eugena Cer- nina z Chudenic." Bratislava 3 (1929): 868-91. Graus, Frantisek. "Die Bildung eines Nationalbewusstseins im mittelalter- lichen Bbhmen (die vorhussitische Zeit)." Historica 12 (1966): 5-49. Hanus, Josef. "Dobrovskeho casopisy: B6hmische Litteratur auf das Jahr 1779; B6hmische und Mahrische Litteratur auf das Jahr 1780; Lit- terarisches Magazin von Bbhmen und Miihren." Bratislava 3 (1929): 373-493. . "Josefa Dobrovsk6ho Geschichte der B6hmischen Sprache (1791), Geschichte der B6hmischen Sprache und Litteratur (1792), Ge- schichte der Bbhmischen Sprache und iiltern Litteratur (1818)." Bra- tislava 3 (1929): 494-574. S"Po&itky kritickdho dejezpytu v (echMch." esko &asopis histo- ricky 15 (1909): 277-302, 435-463. Hanzal, Josef. "Jazykova otazka ve vYvoji obrozenskeho ikolstvi." Cesko- slovenskyj casopis historickyj 16 (1968): 317-25. Haubelt, Josef. "Frantisek Joseph Kinsk ." Vistnik Ceskoslovensk aka- demie vid 78 (1969): 560-77. "Franti"ek Palack4 a Gelasius Dobner." Ceskoslovensky' 6asopis historickyj 24 (1976): 885-916. "Ignac Born." Vistnik Ceskoslovenske akademie vid 78 (1969): 98-111. "O Gelasiovi Dobnerovi." PPednd§ky v XXIII. bjhu Letni 'koly slovanskych studif, 1974. Prague, 1976. "Pocitky historiografick6 price Gelasia Dobnera. (Pispevek k de- jinim cs. historiografie)." Ceskoslovensky 6asopis historicky 22 (1974): 717-22. Havrinek, Bohuslav. "Vvoj spisovneho jazyka eskeho." Ceskoslovenskd vlastivida, 2d ser. Prague, 1936. Hemmerle, Joseph. "Der Josephinismus und die Griindungsmitglieder der Gelehrten Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften in Prag." Zeitschrift fir Ostforschung 31 (1982): 208-22. Heymann, Frederick G. "The Hussite Movement in the Historiography of the Czech Awakening." In The Czech Renascence of the Nineteenth Century, ed. Peter Brock and H. Gordon Skilling. Toronto, 1970. Horrlek, K. "K poetice A. Puchmajera ajeho -kola." Slovesnd vjda 2 (1948- 49), 160-69. Hysek, Miloslav. "Biirgerovy ohlasy v 'esk6 literature." Listyfilologicke 25 (1908), 106-21. Jedlicka, Alois. "Dneini stav a ikoly studia spisovn estiny v narodnim Bibliography 321 obrozeni." Slavica Pragensia 14 (1972): 7-22. Acta Universitatis Caro- linae, Philologica 2-4, 1972. "Josef Dobrovsky a jeho vyznam v procesu cesk6ho (a slovansk6ho) jazykov6ho obrozeni." Slavia 47 (1979): 151-58. Kapras, Jan. "Nairodni vedomi 6esk6 lechty." Ndrodnostni obzor 1 (1931): 9-12. Kleinschnitzovi, Flora. "Josefa Dobrovsk6ho rec 'Ober die Ergebenheit und Anhainglichkeit der slav. V61lker an das Erzhaus Osterreich."' Listy filologick 45 (1918): 96-104. Kollman, J. "Obrana Cech v letech 1796 a 1800." Sbornik archivnich praci 5, no. 1 (1955): 77-158; ibid., no. 2: 26-204. Krbec, Miloslav. "Soupis korespondence Josefa Dobrovskeho." Sbornik Ndrodnfho musea v Praze, ser. C, 4 (1959): 45-96. Krejvi, Karel. "Obrana ceskeho jazyka ze stanoviska literirniho druhu." Slavica Pragensia 12 (1970): 81-87. Krofta, Kamil. "F. Pubi'ka, priedch*dce Palack6ho v zemsk6m dejepisectvi (esk6m." Casopis Spoleenosti prdtel staroitnosti 51-53 (1943-45): 1-24. Kucera, Jan. "Pfispevek k probl6mim lidoveho niboenstvi v 17. a 18. stoleti." Sbornik historicky 23 (1976): 5-34. Kutnar, Franti-ek. "Mikulas Adaukt Voigt, profil historika a vlastence." Vjstnfk 'eskoslovenske akademie vid 79 (1970): 75-84. "Nirodne obrozenecka spolecnost a jeji skladba." Dejiny a sou- casnost 6, no. 2 (1964): 22-25. . "Povaha obrozeneck6ho vlastenectvi." Djiny a soucasnost 6, no. 9 (1964): 12-16. "Reakce stitu v Cechich na Velkou revoluci francouzskou." Ceskyj casopis historicky 43 (1937): 323-42, 520-42. "Velk~ revoluce francouzsk v nasi soudob6 critice." Cesky!j asopis historickyj 40 (1934): 33-79. . "ivot a dilo Ignace Cornovy." Oeskyj 6asopis historickyj 36 (1930): 327-50, 491-519. Lemberg, Eugen. "Der deutsche Anteil am Erwachen des tschechischen Volkes." In Die Deutschen in BAhmen und Mdhren: Ein historisches Riickblick, ed. Helmut Preidel. GrAifeling bei Miinchen, 1950. Lisick , Alois. "Z dejin zipasu o cesk6 slovo." Osvita 49 (1919): 475-78. . "Jan Vaclav Pohl v zaipase o cesk6 slovo." Osvita 50 (1920): 39- 46, 160-69, 214-22, 285-93, 345-52, 415-23, 459-67. Mukaiovsk , Jan. "Dobrovsk6ho 'Ceske prosodie' a prozodick6 boje ji pod- niceni." Ceskd literatura 2 (1954): 1-29. Myl'nikov, Aleksandr Sergeevich. "Ideino-politicheskie predposylki pros- veshcheniia v cheshskikh zemliakh i ego rannii period." In Istoria, kul'tura, folklor i etnografiia slavianskikh narodov. Moscow, 1968. 322 Bibliography . "Vozniknoveniie ranneprosvetitel'skikh ob"edinenii v cheshskikh zemliakh." Razvitie kapitalizma i natsional'nye dvizheniia v slavian- skikh stranakh. Moscow, 1970. Myslivecek, Zden6k. "Dusevni choroba Josefa Dobrovsk6ho." Bratislava 3 (1929): 825-34. Nemec, Jaroslav. "The First Austrian Learned Society." Kosmas: Journal of Czechoslovak and Central European Studies 3, no. 1 (Summer 1984): 149-55. Nesvera, Rudolf K. "Zasluha Frantiska Jana Tomsy o -esk knihtisk." Sbor- nik Ndrodniho technickdho musea 1 (1955): 72-82. Novdk, Arne. "Klopstockfiv vliv na poesii veskeho obrozeni." Listy filolo- gicke 30 (1903): 205-13; ibid., 31 (1904): 31-42. S"Ohlasy Klopstocka v literii ainnosti Viclava Stacha." Listyfilo- logickd 30 (1903): 31-42. Nov~k, Jan Bedich. "Vdky osvobozovaci a nase obrozeni." Casopis Musea Krdlovstvi ceskdho 88 (1914): 19-29, 113-25, 256-83. "Frantisek Faust Prochazka. (Hrstka zjist6ni a poznimek)." Slovesnd vida 3 (1949-50): 193-200. Novik, Mirko. "K problematice nacionalismu a narodniho v6domi." Ces- koslovenskty casopis historickyj 18 (1970): 609-20. Novotny', Jan. "Phispevek k otizce tilohy nekterlch lidovych buditeli v po- citcich -esk6ho narodniho obrozeni." Ceskoslovenskyj 6asopis histo- ricky 2 (1954): 600-32. Pita, Josef. "Josef Dobrovsk a Luzice." In Josef Dobrovsky, 1753-1829. Sbornik stati k st9mu vYjro6i smrti Josefa Dobrovskdho, ed. J. Hordk, M. Murko, and M. Weingart. Prague, 1929. Pekar, Josef. "Nase vlechta a jazyk -esk v 18. stoleti." Ceskyj casopis his- toricky' 20 (1914): 80-82. Proke, Jaroslav. "Osudy prvniho vydani Balbinovy 'Obrany jazyka des- keho.' " asopis Matice moravske 35 (1925): 245-59. Robek, Antonin. "K otzk'im lidovych zdroji narodniho obrozeni." Studia Ethnographica Vol. 2. Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Philosophica et Historica, 5. Prague, 1974. "Nazory vesnick6 spolecinosti na 'iloha Ruska phi poraice Napo- leona v roce 1812." Ceskoslovenskd-sovitske vztahy 2 (1973): 27-43. Rossos, Andrew. "Czech Historiography, Part 1." Canadian Slavonic Pa- pers 24, no. 3 (1982): 245-60. . "Czech Historiography, Part 2." Ibid., 24, no. 4 (1982): 359-85. Roubik, Frantisek. "Ohlas francouzsk6 revoluce na ceskem venkov6 roku 1793-94 v sv6tle iednich zpriv." Casopis pro djiny venkova 10 (1923): 177-81. Schamschula, Walter. "Der slowenische Kirchenhistoriker Kaspar Royko (Rojko) und die tschechische nationale Erneuerung." In Geschichte, Bibliography 323 Kultur und Geisteswelt der Slowenen: Studia Slovenica Monacensia, in honorem Antonii Slodnjak septuagenarii. Munich, 1969. . "Der tschechische Anteil an den 'Osterreichischer Biedermanns- chronik' (1784)." Die Welt der Slawen 16 (1971): 262-82. . "Dobrovsky's und Pelzel's Beitrage zu den 'Lieferungen fiir Bih- men von B6hmen.' " In Aus der Geisteswelt der Slawen. Dankesgabe an Erwin Koschmieder. Munich, 1967. . "Sprachreform und Sprachpflege bei den Tschechen im Zeitalter des Josephinismus." Zeitschriftfiir Ostforschung 31 (1982): 200-07. Shirokova, A. G., and G. P. Neshchimenko. "Vozrozhdenie cheshskogo literaturnogo iazika kak neobkhodimyi komponent formirovaniia chesh- skoi natsii." In Slavianskie kul'tury v epokhuformirovaniia i razvitiia slavianskikh natsii XVIII-XIX vv. Moscow, 1978. Simecek, Zdenek. "Poastky osvicenskeho dejepisectvi v veskch zemich a studium dejin slovanskfch nirodfi." Slovansky prehled 56 (1975): 303-29. S"Studium 5eskfch dvjin, slavistika a austroslavismus. (K vyvoji statni ideologie v C'echich v 18. a na poiatku 19. stoleti)." Slovansky prehled 63 (1977): 115-42. St'astn5y, J. "Krameriovi 'Novi eiti zpe"vov6 pro krisne pohlavi zenske.'" Listyfilologicke 27 (1900): 23-30. Stepinek, Vladimir. "Dobrovsk a Gottsched. K vyznamu jazykove teorie Dobrovskeho." Slavica Pragensia 14 (1972): 23-34. Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Philologica 2-4, 1972. Sugar, Peter F. "External and Domestic Roots of Eastern European Na- tionalism." In Nationalism in Eastern Europe, ed. P. F. Sugar and Ivo J. Lederer. Seattle and London, 1969. Sussex, Roland. "Lingua Nostra: The Nineteenth Century Slavonic Lan- guage Revivals." In Culture and Nationalism in Nineteenth-Century Eastern Europe, ed. Roland Sussex and J. C. Eade. Columbus, Ohio, 1985. Svankmajer, Milan. "Poiatky ceskeho rusofilstvi. K problematice jejich stu- die." Slovanske" historicke studie 7 (1968): 181-93. Teich, Mikuldi. "The Royal Bohemian Society of Sciences and the First Phase of Organized Scientific Advance in Bohemia." Historica 2 (1960): 161-81. Tepl , Frantisek. "Z lidove 6etby konce XVIII. a prvni polovice XIX. stol." Casopis pro djiny venkova 17 (1930): 232-46. Thomas, George. "The Role of Calques in the Early Czech Language Re- vival." Slavonic and East European Review 56 (1978): 481-504. Thon, Jan. "Vydavini eskfch knih v dobe Krameriusove." Slovesnd vida 4 (1951-52): 132-37. Urfus, Valentin, "Osvicenstvi a ekonomicka ideologie v Cecha'ch." Prdvne- historicke studie 14 (1969): 201-20. Bibliography Vivra, Jaroslav. "Bbhmen und Russland in 18. Jahrhundert: Zur Bedeutung der wirtschaftlichen, politischen, und kulturellen Kontakte." Cana- dian-American Slavic Studies 13 (1979): 510-44. . "K pocitkim rusko--esk6ho slovnikivstvi." In Rusko-ceske studie. Sbornik Vysokd skoly pedagogicke v Praze, Jazyka a Literatura, vol. 2. Prague, 1960. . "Podstata a problemy cesko-ruskich kulturnich vztah za pozdniho feudalismu." Slovanskj prehled 59 (1973): 255-75. "Tschechisch-russisches Zusammentreffen auf dem Gebiet der Aufldiirungsgeschichtsschreibung." Historica 19 (1980): 171-94. Vodivka, Felix. "Neznaim svedectvi o vydavatelsk6 cinnosti Fr. F. Pro- chizky." Slavica Pragensia 4 (1962). Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Philologica 3. Prague, 1962. Volf, Josef. "Na obranu dobre povesti praiske university." Casopis Ndrod- niho musea 107 (1933): 75-85. "Vygetrovini vlivu noviniskfch zpriv o francouzske revoluce na selsk stav v Cechich roku 1789." Osvta 43 (1913): 565-83. Zacek, Joseph F. "The French Revolution, Napoleon and the Czechs." Pro- ceedings of the Consortium on Revolutionary Europe (1980): 254-63. . "Nationalism in Czechoslovakia." In Nationalism in Eastern Eu- rope, ed. Sugar and Lederer (Seattle: 1969). . "The Virtuosi of Bohemia: The Royal Bohemian Society of Sci- ences." East European Quarterly 2 (1968): 147-59. Zeil, Liane. "Die Bedeutung des tschechischen Josefiners Franti'ek Jan Tomsa (1751-1814) fiir die Entwicklung seiner Muttersprache." Zeit- schriftfiir Slawistik 14 (1969): 597-608. Zeil, Wilhelm. "Das Russlandbild der b6hmischen Aufldrung im letzten Drittel des 18. Jh."Jahrbuchfiir Geschichte der sozialistischen Liinder Europas 20 (1976): 97-115. 324 Index Abbildungen Bdhmischer und Mah- rischer Gelehrten und Kunstler, 95, 279n3. See also Effigies virorum eru- ditorum atque artificum Bohemiae et Moraviae Abhandlungen (Royal Bohemian Soci- ety of Sciences), 46, 109, 112, 213; exchanged with St. Petersburg Acad- emy of Sciences, 203-04; as forum for spread of Maurist methods, 31; and history, 32-35, 38-39 Abhandlungen der k6niglichen Bih- mischen Gesellschaft der Wissen- schaften. See Abhandlungen Abhandlungen einer Privatgesellschaft in B&hmen zur Aufnahme der Mathematik, der vaterliindische Geschichte und der Naturgeschichte. See Abhandlungen Acta litteraria Bohemiae et Moraviae (Voigt), 99-100, 104 Adelung, Johann Christoph, 82, 85, 88, 112 Akademische Antrittsrede iiber den Nutzen und Wichtigkeit der B6h- mischen Sprache (Pelcl), 61 Albert a Lotte (Kramerius), 184 Allgemeines historisches Kunstlerlexi- con ffir Bhmen und zum Theil auch fir Mdhren und Schlesien (Dlabac, 99) Allgemeine Schulordnung of 1775, 71 Amort, Vaviinec, 181, 192, 291n41 Anton, Karl Gottlob von, 206, 210, 218 Awakeners, and Czech national rena- scence, 4, 10, 172 Awakeners, popular, 45, 254; and atti- tudes towards Slavs, 232-34; con- cept of enlightenment of, 197-99; concept of nation of, 198-99; and contemporary Czech literature, 195- 97; and Czech language, 190-98; and economic education, 181-82; and education of common people, 177-82; publicity for patriotic activ- ity of, 186-88, 198; and religious ed- ucation, 173-77, 197-98; and republication of monuments of Czech literature, 193-95 Balbin, Bohuslav, 60, 96-97, 110, 114, 163, 188, 200, 248; attitudes of awakeners to, 55, 97; and Czech his- tory, 21; and Czech national con- sciousness, 12, 266n6; and defenses of the language, 21, 55; and docu- ments, 21; influence on Dlabac, 99 Works by: Bohemia docta, 55, 97, 188, 266n8; Dissertatio apologe- tica pro lingua slavonica, praecipue bohemica, 21, 55, 60, 114, 266n8; 325 326 In Balbin, Bohuslav (continued) Miscellanea historica regni Bohe- miae, 21; Vita venerabilis Arnesti, primi archiepiscopi Pragensis, 21 Balbin school: influence of, 21, 40-41, 46-48, 50; and patriotism, 37, 44; and Societas Incognitorum, 25 Bandtke, Jerzy Samuel, 209, 217-18 Baroque, and Czech national con- sciousness, 6, 8, 12, 177, 266n6 Bdsne v 'eai vdzane (V. Thim), 160- 62 Battle of the White Mountain, 50, 91, 112-14, 191 Beckovsky, Frantivek, 21, 191 Benedictine order, 22, 31, 49 Berghauer, Johann Adalbert, 21, 25 Bernoldk, Antonin, 88-89, 279n32 Beschreibung der bisher bekannten Bdhmischen Miinzen nach chronolo- gischer Ordnung (Voigt), 40 Bible, Czech, 107-08, 173. See also Kralice Bible; Unity of Czech Brethren Bibliotheca slavica (Durych), 206, 215 Bohemia docta (Balbin), 18, 55, 97, 188, 266n8. See also Balbin, Bohu- slav; Candidus a Sancta Theresa; Gelehrtengeschichte; Ungar, Karel Raphael Bohemian Brethren. See Unity of Czech Brethren Bohemian Estates, 222, 262n8; and Battle of White Mountain, 9, 12, 20, 60; coronation of Franz II, 186; and Czech language, 44, 153, 185; and Hajek's Kronyka ceskd, 28; purchase Nostitz Theater, 146; and resistance to Joseph II, 36, 44, 49-50; support Pubicka as official historiographer, 41; as symbol of Czech statehood, 37. See also Nobility, Bohemian Bihmische Litteratur auf das Jahr 1779 (Dobrovsk9), 98, 100, 106 Bihmische, Mihrische, und Schlesische Gelehrte und Schriftsteller aus dem Orden derJesuiten (Pelcl), 98 tdex Bihmische Sprachlehre (Tomsa), 73, 77 Bhmische und Mahrische Litteratur auf das Jahr 1780 (Dobrovsk), 100, 105-06 Bondini, Pasquale, 132, 134 Born, Ignatz von, 30, 95, 98, 203-04 Bouda (Czech theater): and actors' pri- vilegium, 140; attendance by Joseph II at, 137; closing of, 142; establish- ment of, 135-36; financial difficul- ties of, 142; number of Czech plays produced in, 139; types of drama produced in, 137. See also Nostitz Theater; Patriotic Theater; Thim, Karel Hynek; Thim, Vdclav; The- ater, Czech Bretislav a Jitka (V. Tham), 134-35 Briefe zur Bef6rderung der Humanitit (Herder), 63-64 Brunian, J. J., 129, 130 Bulla, Franti'ek Jindfich, 132, 162 Bulla, Karel, 133 Biirger, Gottfried August, 161-63 Calques, 83, 85, 225. See also Dictio- naries; Neologisms Campe, Johann Heinrich, 180-81 Candidus a Sancta Theresa, 97 Capitalism, and Czech national rena- scence, 7, 9, 13 (iech, legend of, 28, 202. See also Dobner, Gelasius &eski expedice. See Czech Expedition (esk ndrodni obrozeni (Ko'i), 7 (eske obrozeni (Praik), 7 eske' osvicenstvi (Haubelt), 8 (esky lidomil (trans. Hybl), 157 (esky poutnik (Meinert, trans. Jan Nejedl), 179 Charles IV (king of Bohemia and Holy Roman emperor), 34, 39-40, 44, 56, 118, 132, 193, 195, 231, 254; auto- biography of, 122; as national hero, 37-38, 40 Chlidek, Jilji, 174-75, 192-93 Chram Gnidsky' (Puchmajer), 166-67, 227 Index Iornej, Petr, 3, 261nl Cornova, Ignac, 38-39, 160, 162 Corrigenda in bohemia doctajuxta edi- tionem P. Raph. Ungar (Dobrovsk5), 98 Counter-Reformation, 14, 43, 48, 50, 131, 250-51; and Czech language, 20, 252; patriots' attitudes to, 58, 109, 114, 117-19, 126, 193; and Saint John of Nepomuk, 32. See also Roman Catholic church Count Nostitz National Theater. See Nostitz Theater "Critische Nachrichten von den bisher- igen Producten der Pressfreiheit in B6hmen" (Prochizka), 107-08 Croats, 207 Crown of Saint Viclav, 16, 186, 273n27 Culture, and national consciousness, 15, 264n36 Culture, Czech: historical image of, 99, 172, 253; and renascence, 169-70; significance of revival of, 253-54 Czech Expedition, 124-25, 196-97. See also Kramerius, Vdclav Matej Czech language: chair at Prague uni- versity in, 71-72, 74, 115, 153, 185, 274n34; chair at Vienna university in, 72, 132; classicist approach to, 70, 91-92, 251-52; and common people, 67, 70, 190, 253-54; and critical history, 51; in Czech newspa- pers, 149-50; defenses of, 53-70, 91, 190-91, 252; and educational re- forms, 70-71, 177-180, 275n52; and eighteenth-century Czech publica- tions, 196; and the German example, 160; and Hlasatel 6esk~j, 65-67, 158-59; in institutions of higher ed- ucation, 71-72; and Kramerius, 124-25, 141-43, 150-51, 184-85, 190-95; and literary history, 93; neologisms in, 82-90, 225; signifi- cance to renascence of, 251-52; and Slavs, 60, 192, 224-26, 230; and so- cial status and roles, 51-52, 56-57, 61-62, 64, 68-69, 75-76, 102, 128, 160, 171, 254 327 Dalimil, 10, 119-20; and Kronika Boleslavskd, 10, 262n15 Defenses of the language: literary genre, 52-53; role in linguistic re- newal, 69-70. See also Czech lan- guage; Dissertatio apologetica (Balbin) De re diplomatica (Mabillon), 22 De saecularibus liberalium artium in Bohemia et Moravia fatis commen- tarius (Prochizka), 110, 113 Deutsch-bihmisches Nationallexikon (K. Thim), 87 Dictionaries: and language revival, 76, 83-84, 87-90, 111, 206, 209, 215- 16, 224-25. See also Czech lan- guage; Neologisms Die Bildsamkeit der Slawischen Sprache (Dobrovsk), 84 Die Riiduber (Schiller, trans. K. H. Tham), 137 Dissertatio apologetica pro lingua sla- vonica, praecipue bohemica (Balbin): and defenses of the language, 21, 55, 60, 114, 266n8. See also Balbin, Bo- huslav; Balbin school; Defenses of the language Dlabac, Bohumir Jan, 158, 162, 189, 206; Allgemeines historisches Kunstlerlexicon fiir B6hmen und zum Theil auch fir Mahren und Schlesien, 99; Gelehrtengeschichte, 99; influence of Balbin on, 99; and interest in broader cultural history, 99, 280n14; literary-historical studies by, 109-10; as theater critic, 137 Dobner, Gelasius, 31, 36-37, 41, 44- 45, 97-98, 105, 251; and Balbin tra- dition, 27; and contacts with other Slavs, 201; contributions to Abhand- lungen by, 31; disagreements with Dobrovsk, of, 32, 105; and Hajek's Kronyka ceskd, 19, 27, 97-98, 201- 03; and importance of source docu- ments, 31, 269n67; influence on Voigt of, 95; and legend of Cech, Lech, and Rus', 28, 29, 201-03, 267n39; limits to critical approach 22 Origins of the Czech National Renascence however, the Bollandist tradition in Bohemia began to be sup- planted by the Maurist school, which had more advanced methodological principles. Even at the height of the Counter-Reformation, Bohemia had not been entirely cut off from the historiography of the German Reformation or humanism," but it was especially through the spread of Maurist historical methods by way of German and, above all, Austrian historians that historiogra- phy in Bohemia absorbed the new, critical approach. The Benedictine monks of the Congregation de Saint-Maur, who developed this approach in France during the seventeenth century, differed from their predecessors mainly in their dil- igent cultivation of the auxiliary sciences, especially diplo- matics. Their methods were ably set out by the leading Maurist scholar, Mabillon, in his De re diplomatica (1681).12 The Maurists stressed the importance of proper sources and the need for a critical approach to them, which accounts for their efforts to make complete collections of sources for the periods of history in which they were interested. In their in- sistence on a careful, exact reading of the document, they also broke with the aesthetic conventions of the humanist histo- rians, who had not hesitated to improve the texts of their sources to suit their own taste.'3 The ideas of the Maurists quickly spread among their fel- low Benedictines in other countries. In the Austrian lands, their leading representative was the Benedictine historian Bernard Pez (1683-1735), who had traveled widely in Austria, Bavaria, Belgium, and France, where he met Mabillon him- self. His less well-known brother, Hieronymous Pez (1685- 1762), also applied the new methods to his work, especially in his three-volume collection of documents, Scriptores re- rum Austriacarum veteres ac genuini (1721-1745).14 Both brothers influenced another Benedictine historian who con- cerned himself with the history of the Bohemian lands, Mag- noald Ziegelbauer (1689-1750).15 Ziegelbauer was a Swabian by birth, but spent much of his active life in Vienna, Prague, and Olomouc, where by his 328 In Dobner, Gelasius (continued) of, 31-32; patriotism of, 29; Wences- lai Hagek a Liboczan Annales Bohe- morum, 19, 27, 97-98, 201-03, 267n39. See also Hajek z Libo6an, VAclav; History, Czech Dobrovsk9, Josef, 36, 44, 49, 52, 63, 74, 76, 81, 83-84, 88, 91, 102, 123- 24, 128, 155, 162, 169, 187, 217-18, 226, 249, 251; classicist approach of, 81-82, 208; contributions to Abhand- lungen of, 35-36; as critic of Ger- manization, 59-60, 114, 127; and Czech language renewal, 81-86, 89- 90, 92, 102-03, 114, 286n77; and Czech literary history, 100-07, 111- 16, 280n23, 282n58; and Czech prosody, 145, 165-67; dictionaries by, 87-88, 90, 209, 215; and estab- lishment of Slavic studies, 220-21; German influences on, 82; Hussit- ism, 35, 39, 126, 283n88; influence on modern literary Czech, 82, 251- 52; mental illness of, 221, 224; and neologisms, 83-87; opposition to Bernolik's reforms of Slovak, 88-89, 279n132; and other Slavs, 205-10, 216, 221-24, 229, 244; patriotism of, 115-16, 220; and picture of early Slavs, 213; and polemics with col- leagues, 31-32, 73, 79-81, 83-90, 98, 104-05, 276n89; relations with Tomsa of, 77, 79, 87, 123, 276n89, 283nn79-80; and Russia, 204-06, 231, 240-41; and the "spirit" of the language, 85-86, 90, 92; as vice- rector of General Seminary, 106, 218 Works by: Bhmische Littera- tur auf das Jahr 1779, 98, 100, 106; BAhmische und Mihrische Litteratur auf das Jahr 1780, 100, 105-06; Corrigenda in bohemia doctajuxta editionem P. Raph. Ungar, 98; Die Bildsamkeit der Slawischen Sprache, 84; Geschichte der Bdhmischen Sprache und Litteratur, 63, 107, 111, 113-16; Litterarische Nach- dex richten von einer reise ... nach Russland, 205; Litterarisches Maga- zin von BAhmen und Miihren, 32, 86, 100, 106; Slavin, 218-19; Slo- vanka, 80, 219-20; "ber die Erge- benheit und Anhiinglichkeit der Slawischen Volker an das Erzhaus Osterreich," 59-60, 63, 186, 229, 273n29; "Ober die Ursprung und die Bildung der slawischen und ins- besondere der b6hmischen Sprache," 84 Durych, Viclav Fortunat, 162, 170, 215, 226, 249; as collaborator on Czech Bible, 107-08, 173; and early Slavs in Bibliotheca slavica, 212-13; and links between Dobrovsk and other Slavs, 206 Education, popular, 180. See also Awakeners, popular; Fiirstenburg, Prince Karl Egon von; Tomsa, Fran- ti,ek Jan Effigies virorum eruditorum atque arti- ficum Bohemiae at Moraviae (Voigt), 46, 188. See also Abbildungen B6h- mischer und Mahrischer Gelehrten und Kunstler; Born, Ignatz von; Pelcl, Franti'ek Martin; Voigt, Mikuld Adaukt Empfehlung der b6hmischen Sprache und Litteratur (Hanke von Hanken- stein), 56-57 Enlightened absolutism, 15-16 Enlightenment, 4, 8, 14, 35, 50, 68, 201; and attitudes to citizen and state, 45; and attitudes to common people, 172; and critical history, 21, 29-30; and Czech theater, 133; and patriotism, 26 Epitome historica ... Monasterii Brev- noviensis (Ziegelbauer), 23 Erasmus, Desiderius, 119, 121. See also Humanism, Czech; Prochizka, Franti'ek Faust"n; Toleration, religious Erinnerung iiber einen wichtigen Ge- genstand, von einem Bohmen (Kin- Index sk5'), 62-63, 72. See also Defenses of the language; Kinsk, Count Franz Joseph Ferdinand I (king of Bohemia and Holy Roman emperor), 42, 112 Ferdinand II (king of Bohemia and Holy Roman emperor), 42 F. L. Vk (Jirisek), 197 Franz II (king of Bohemia and Holy Roman emperor, after 1804 Franz I of Austria), 153; attendance at Nostitz Theater, 144; centralization under, 68; coronation of, 186; visit to Bouda, 141; and war with France, 145 Fulda, Friedrich Karl, 82 Fiirstenberg, Prince Karl Egon von (Highest Burggrave), 149, 178. See also Awakeners, popular; Tomsa, Franti'ek Jan Gallerie, aneb vyobrazenost nejslovut- ngjich a nejznamenitifch osob zem esk' (Rulik), 46, 271n105 Gelehrtengeschichte, 94-99. See also Literary history, Czech Gellert, Christian Fiirchtegott, 130, 160 Germanization, 56, 59-62, 71, 114, 127 German language, 51, 52, 54 Gerstner, Franz Johann, 203 Geschichte der bihmischen Sprache und Litteratur (Dobrovsk?): 107, 113-16, 139. See also Literary his- tory, Czech "Geschichte der Deutschen und ihrer Sprache in Bohmen" (Pelcl), 51, 272n4 Geschichte der grossen allgemeinen Kirchenversammlung zu Kostnitz (Royko), 39, 270n31 Gessner, Salomon, 130, 169 Giftschitz, Franz, 175 Goll, Jaroslav, 5-6 G6ttingen school, 49 329 Gottsched, Johann Christoph, 129-30, 160 Grams, Antonin, 145 Graus, Franti'ek, 11-12 Grundsatze der bihmischen Gramma- tik (Pelcl), 74 Guardasoni, 145-46 Haffner, Vincenc, 141 Hajek z Libo6an, Vaclav, 34, 46-47, 49, 96, 201; as historian, 27-28; and Kronyka ceskd, 19. See also Dobner, Gelasius Handbuch fir einen Lehrer der b6h- mischen Literatur (Zlobickf), 74 Handbuch zum Gebrauche der Jugend bei Erlernung der deutschen, franz6- sischen, und bihmischen Sprache (Pelcl), 74 Hanka, Vdclav, 157 Hanke von Hankenstein, Johann Alois, 56-57, 229-30. See also Defenses of the Language Hasiitejnsk9 z Lobkovic, Bohuslav, 18 Haubelt, Josef, 8 Hay, Johann Leopold von (bishop of Hradec Kralove), 176, 290nn11-17. See also Kramerius, Vaclav Matej; Toleration, religious Herder, Johann Gottfried von, 63-64, 219, 297n80 Historia rei litterariae Ordinis S. Bene- dicti (Ziegelbauer), 23 History, critical, and Bible translation, 173 History, Czech, 3-4, 6, 9; critical method in, 19, 20-31, 48-50, 250- 51; and Czech language, 44-48, 51; and literature, 93; patriotism in, 33, 36-40; and propaganda during Na- poleonic Wars, 188-90; and Slavs, 213; specialized studies in eigh- teenth century of, 31-40; survival of Balbin tradition in, 41-44, 46-48; synthetic surveys in eighteenth cen- tury of, 40-44 Hlasatel ceskj (Nejedli), 179, 253; contributors to, 158; patriotic aims 330 Index Hlasatel Gesky (continued) of, 158-59; significance for rena- scence of, 159; and status and roles of Czech, 64-67, 158-59. See also Jungmann, Josef; Nejedlj, Jan Hnevkovsk9, ebastiain, 166, 199 Hol9, Prokop (Hussite leader), 43 Hroch, Miroslav, 14 Hromidko, Jan Nepomuk Norbert, 156 Humanism, Czech: as "golden age" of Czech language, 57-58, 65, 70, 75- 76, 80-84, 103, 114-15, 118, 126, 193, 252-53, 274n46; and Pro- chizka, 107, 111, 121. See also Eras- mus, Desiderius; Prochazka, Franti'ek Faust n; Veleslavina, Daniel Adam z Hungarian Diet, 152, 185, 221 Hungarians, 60-61, 67, 152, 185, 191 Hus, Jan, 36, 39, 43, 97, 112; and Counter-Reformation, 20; included in Thim's Obranajazyka 6eskdho, 58; included in Voigt's Effigies, 97 Hussitism, 4, 6, 36-37, 42-44, 141, 200; attitudes of patriots to, 35, 37, 60, 112-13, 250; and critical history, 37; and Czech literary history, 126; and Czech national consciousness, 6, 12; and "meaning" of Czech history, 3; and propaganda during Napo- leonic Wars, 189-90 Hybl, Jan, 157 Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit (Herder), 63 Imperial and Royal Patriotic-Economic Society, 181-82, 291n39 Industrial revolution, and Czech na- tional renascence, 7 Intelligentsia, and modern nationalism, 15, 264n34 Intelligentsia, Bohemian, 15; back- ground of, 15; and education, 15; and Josephinism, 16, 34, 59, 61, 109, 272n115; and Napoleonic Wars, 238, 240-42 Jabionowski, Prince J. A., 202-03 Jan of Luxemburg (king of Bohemia and Holy Roman emperor), 112 Jan Zidka z Trocnova (Tandler), 141 Jedli'ka, Benjamin, 115-16 Jerome of Prague (Hussite leader), 36 Jesin, Pavel, 120 Jesuits, 34, 55, 114, 117, 122, 126, 173; and Czech historical writing, 20-21; as opposition to Societas Incognito- rum, 25; Pelcl on, 98; and plans for Benedictine school in Prague, 23 Jirasek, Alois, 197 Jiffk, Franti'ek, 131-32, 143 John of Nepomuk, Saint, 32 Joseph II (Holy Roman emperor), 6, 71, 131, 136, 141, 145, 156, 174, 177, 186, 215; and Bouda, 137; cen- sorship by, 55, 106, 173; church pol- icies of, 58, 108, 143; cultural impact of reforms of, 118, 128-29, 131; and educational reforms, 45, 157; intelli- gentsia's attitudes to, 34, 59, 61, 109, 272n115; in Marxist interpretation of Czech national renascence, 7; and modernization of Habsburg monar- chy, 14, 50, 68. See also Enlighten- ment; Josephinism Josephinism, 6, 8, 56, 62, 108, 133 Journalism, Czech, 148-59. See also Kramerius, Viclav Matej; Schinfeld, Johann Franz Ritter von; Tham, Vdclav Jungmann, Josef, 69, 90, 157-59, 168, 224-25, 248-51; attitude to com- mon people of, 67, 199; concept of Czech nation of, 65-70, 253-54; and Czech language, 65-67; dictio- nary compiled by, 87, 90; and neolo- gisms, 92; on Polish question, 243; and Russophilism, 242-43; and Slavs, 221, 228; Slovnik cesko- nimecky', 87 Kalenddif historicky (Rulik), 186-87 Karl (of Habsburg), Archduke, 188 Karpiiski, Franciszek, 163 Kivka, Jan Hynek, 162 Index Kinsk5, Count Franz Joseph, 53-55, 62-63, 72; Erinnerung iiber einen wichtigen Gegenstand, von einem Bdhmen, 53 Kinsk, Count Phillip Joseph, 23, 266n18 Klauser, Sophie (widow of Rosen- miller, Jr.), 149 Klopstock, Friedrich Gottlieb, 163, 167 Kniha Josefova (Kramerius), 17 Knife Honzik (trans. Zeberer), 130-31 Knobloch, Franti-ek, 115, 162 Ko'i, Josef, 7 Kollar, Jan, 221, 255 Kolovrat-Liebsteinskl, Count, 238 Komensk , Jan Amos, 20 Koniai, Antonin, 94, 97 Kopitar, Jernej, 206-08, 215, 216-18, 221 Kozury, Franti'ek, 149 Kralice Bible, 75, 173 Kramerius, Viclav Matej, 45, 103, 134, 144, 148, 158, 162, 187-88, 191-94, 197, 233, 247, 249, 253; as newspa- per editor, 150-55; and Czech lan- guage, 77, 151, 185-86, 230, 236- 37; and Czech theater, 136, 141, 183-84; and economic education, 181-82; and Joseph II, 176; and Neuberg, 116, 123-24; and newspa- pers as patriotic publicity, 183-87; and the peasantry, 182; and Poland, 235-36; and praise for Russia during Napoleonic Wars, 240; and Protes- tants, 176-77; publications in Czech by, 162, 180, 179-80, 196-97; and republication of old Czech works, 123-25, 193-95 Works by: Albert a Lotte, 184; Kniha Josefova, 17; Krameriusovy c. k. praske' potovske' noviny, 152-53; Krameriusovy vlastenske' noviny, 144, 153-55, 181, 186-87, 230, 233, 247; Novy' kalenddr tolerancd, 177; Patenti ru6ni knilka pro me tana i sedldka, 176; Pritel lidu, 180; Ve- cern( shromdntidni dobrovick ' obce, 331 179-80. See also Awakeners, popular Krameriusovy c. k. prazske poftovske noviny (Kramerius), 152-53 Krameriusovy vlastenske noviny (Kra- merius), 144, 153-55, 181, 186-87, 230, 233, 247 Kratky spisek o stavu sedlskem, aneb vordcskem (Rulik), 182 Kratky' tjtah vseobecnd historie pfiro- zenjch veci ( imek), 73 Krofta, Kamil, 5-6 Kronika Boleslavskd (Dalimil), 119-20 Kronyka ceskd (Haijek z Libo6an), 19, 28. See also Dobner, Gelasius; Haijek z Libocan, Vaiclav Kurzgefasste Geschichte der B5hmen (Pelcl), 41-43, 46 Landespatriotismus, 17. See also Bohe- mian Estates; Nobility, Bohemian; Patriotism Language, and fatherland, 67; and na- tion, 67; and national consciousness, 11; and patriotism, 67 Ldska a vd6nost k vlasti (Iffland, trans. tvan), 136 Leibeigenschaft Patent (1781), 7, 16, 177 Le temple de Gnide (Montesquieu, trans. Puchmajer), 166-67 Leopold II (king of Bohemia and Holy Roman emperor), 44, 63, 89, 152- 53, 185-86, 204; attends Patriotic Theater, 144; centralization under, 68; coronation in Bohemia of, 59, 61 Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim, 129-30 Libus'e (Steinsberg), 141 Linde, Samuel'Bogumii, 206, 209 Literary history, Czech: classicist ap- proach to, 126; and critical method, 94; and defenses of the language, 93; in Dobrovsk's periodicals, 100; eighteenth-century approaches to, 93-94; German influence on, 94; impact on Czech-speaking masses of, 116; and renewal of Czech language, 127; and Slavs, 212-14 332 In Literature, Czech: attempts to revive, 93, 128; and history, 93; and repub- lication of old works, 116-17, 125- 27, 193-95, 252; and Slavs, 226-32 Literature, Slavic, 229 Litterarische Nachrichten von einer reise... nach Russland (Dobrovsk), 205 Lomnick9 z Budce, Simon, 122-25, 193 Louis XVI (king of France), 154 Lupi z Hlava6ova, Prokop, 27 Lusatian Slavs, 209-10 Mabillon, 22 Macbeth (Shakespeare, trans. K. Th-m), 137 Magic Flute (Mozart), performed in Czech, 147 Majober, Mat6j, 143, 162 Malj nanecky a esky slovnik (Tomsa), 87 Marek, Antonin, 157-58, 221, 243, 249 Maria Theresa (queen of Bohemia and consort of the Holy Roman em- peror), 14, 45, 68, 71-72, 149, 173, 181 Marie Antoinette (queen of France), 154 Marxist historiography, 6-8 Masaryk, Toma' Garrigue, 4 Matthias I (king of Bohemia and Holy Roman emperor), 42, 254 Maurists, 22, 25, 97-98, 251 Maximilian II (king of Bohemia and Holy Roman emperor), 114 Mayer, Johann, 203 Mayer, Joseph, 203 Meinert, Johann Georg, 157, 179 Meissner, August Gottlieb, 160, 162 Melezinek, Vaclav, 140 M&sin spis k pouxeni a obveselenti obecndho lidu (monthly paper), 78, 157, 178. See also Periodicals, Czech Methodius, Saint, 37 Mihule, Vdclav, 144 Misa, Jacobellus de (Jakoubek ze Stiibra), 38 dex Miscellanea historica regni Bohemiae (Balbin), 21 Miscellaneen der B6hmischen und Mihrischen Litteratur (Prochazka), 107 Modernization, of state, and national- ism, 13-14 Monathliche Ausziige alt- und neuer Gelehrten Sache, 24-26 Montesquieu, Charles Louis de Secon- dat, 166-67 Napoleon I, 222 Napoleonic Wars, 237-46 Nation, concept of: changes in, 67, 91, 171-72, 203; ethnolinguistic, 16-17, 52, 55, 64-65, 69, 159, 171, 253-54; modern and premodern, 10; politi- cal, 16-17, 36-37, 42, 49, 52, 58, 68, 171 National consciousness, Czech: and critical history, 48; and cultural re- vival of late eighteenth century, 17; and Hussitism, 12; and popular awakeners, 183-90; and Russia, 204, 247-48; and Slavs, 200, 247-48; summarized, 250-55; theater as means of developing, 147-48 Nationalism, 10, 12-14, 17; Czech, 10, 17; in Czech nationalist ideology, 91; and national consciousness, 10-11, 232, 263n17. See also National con- sciousness, Czech Nejedl, Jan, 62, 81, 159, 163-64, 179, 187, 243, 253; concept of nation of, 63, 91; as critic of Thim, 80; on Czech and other Slavic languages, 230; and Czech-German antagonism, 63; and Czech journalism, 157-59; and Czech prosody, 166; as editor of Vlastenske' noviny, 155; and Hlasatel cesky, 64-67, 158-59; and meaning of vlast, 64, 69; at Prague university, 62; translations by, 157, 166, 169, 179 Nejedl5, Vojtech, 164, 168-69, 199 Nejedl5, Zdenek, 8 Index Neologisms, 72-73, 82-90, 92, 137- 38, 224, 278n119. See also Czech language; Dobrovsk , Josef; Jung- mann, Josef; Pohl, Jan Viclav; Thim, Karel Hynek Neuberg, Johann Franz Ritter von, 116-17, 123-24, 150 Neuverbesserte Bdhmische Grammatik (Pohl), 73 Newspapers, Czech, 110, 151, 154. See also Journalism, Czech; Kramerius, Vdclav Matej; Periodicals, Czech Nobility, Bohemian: and Battle of the White Mountain, 4, 6, 54, 264n35; and changes in idea of nation, 254- 55; and Czech language, 57, 68, 253; and intelligentsia, 15, 26, 36, 94, 116, 129, 267n30; patriotism of, 16; patriots' attitudes to, 171, 198-99; and Pelcl, 43-44; resistance to en- lightened absolutism by, 16; Voigt on cultural contributions of, 95-96, 279n5. See also Bohemian Estates Nobility, Hungarian, 199 Nostitz, Friedrich, 42 Nostitz-Rieneck, Count Franz Anton, 74, 129-30 Nostitz Theater, 129, 132-35, 144-46. See also Theater, Czech Novd kronyka 6eskd (Pelcl), 43-45 Novotn, Vdclav, 5 Novj kalendd - toleranci (Kramerius), 181. See also Kramerius, Viclav Mate'j; Toleration, religious Obranajazyka eskdho (K. H. Thim), 57-60, 63, 230. See also Defenses of the language; Thim, Karel Hynek Odbghlec z ldsky synovske', 132-33. See also Theater, Czech; Nostitz Theater Od Dobnera k Dobrovskemu (Slavik), 7 Olomouc Societas Incognitorum Lit- teratorum, 24-26, 73 (sterreichische Biedermannschronik: and Zlobick, 73 Pabst, Franz Anton, 157 333 Palack , Franti'ek, 4, 29, 41, 48, 251, 265n1 Palkovi', Juraj (Jifi), 166, 224-25 Paviizek, Ales, 45, 271n99 Patenti runfi kniAka pro meifana i sed- ldka (Kramerius), 176 Patent of Toleration (1781), 6, 102, 118, 175-77. See also Hay, Johann Leopold von; Joseph II; Kramerius, Viclav Matej; Prochizka, Franti'ek Faust"n; Toleration, religious Patriotic Theater (Vlastensk6 Divadlo), 143-46. See also Theater, Czech Patriotism, Czech: changes in meaning of, 67; and critical history, 36-37, 44, 49; and Czech literature, 93; and Czech theater, 147; linguistic aspects of, 67; in quarrel over cIech and Lech, 202-03; territorial, 67, 251- 53. See also Landespatriotismus Peasants, 4, 133, 137, 141. See also People, common; Awakeners, popular Peasants' revolt of 1775, 134, 137 Pekar, Josef, 5-7, 262n7 Pelcl, Frantivek Martin, 46, 71, 74, 78, 81, 95, 99, 110, 112, 153, 160, 162, 165, 187, 189, 199, 249, 251; atti- tudes toward Russia of, 231; and (2ech-Lech polemic, 34, 42; as pro- fessor at Prague university, 61; and Charles IV, 39-40; classicist ap- proach to language of, 74-76, 79- 80, 156; as critical historian, 44; and Czech and other Slavic languages, 230; and Czech language revival, 51, 62, 74-76; and Czech theater, 130, 140; and early Slavs, 38, 210-11; and Germanization, 61-62; and Hussitism, 38-39, 43; and literary history, 98-99; manuscript chronicle of, 105-06, 132; and the nobility, 34, 42, 118; and patriotism and lan- guage in Kurzgefasste Geschichte, 42; and patriotism in Abhandlungen, 37; plans Czech Hromada to develop dictionary, 76, 216; and source 334 Index Pelcl, Franti'ek Martin (continued) documents, 34-35, 51. See also Czech language; History, Czech Works by: Akademische Antrittsrede iiber den Nutzen und Wichtigkeit der Bhmischen Sprache, 61; Biihmische, MAhrische, und Schlesische Gelehrte und Schriftsteller aus dem Orden der Je- suiten, 98; "Geschichte der Deutschen und ihrer Sprache in Bohmen," 51, 272n4; Grundsdtze der b6hmischen Grammatik, 74; Handbuch zum Gebrauche derJu- gend bei Erlernung der deutschen, franz6sischen, und b6hmischen Sprache, 74; Kurzgefasste Geschichte der B6hmen, 41-43, 46; Novd kro- nyka 6eskd, 43-45; Pthody Vdclava Vratislava z Mitrovic, 117-18 People, common: attitude of patriots to, 171-72, 182, 198-99; and Czech culture, 172; and Czech language, 178, 190, 194-95, 254; education of, 172-82, 289n6; reading tastes of, 195; and Slavs, 232-38, 244-46, 299n126. See also Awakeners, popu- lar; Peasants Periodicals, Czech, 157-59. See also Journalism, Czech Pe'ina z C(echorodu, Tomai, 21, 200 Petrii, Josef, 8 Petrasch, Freiherr Joseph von, 24 ' Pez, Bernard, 22 Pez, Hieronymous, 22 Pi,el , Antonin, 226 Piter, Josef Bonaventura, 26-27 Podebrad, Hynek z, 118 Pod6brad, Jiff z (king of Bohemia), 38, 43, 118 Poetry, Czech, 159-69, 226-28. See also Puchmajer, Antonin Jaroslav; Thim, Vdclav Pohl, Jan Vdclav, 72-73, 80, 82-84, 87, 117, 170. See also Neologisms; Purism Poles, 208-09, 222 Prager gelehrte Nachrichten, 104 Prague university, 33, 44, 101, 115 Pravopis rusko-cesky (Puchmajer), 230 Prai k, Albert, 7, 9, 44 Praisk poftovske' noviny, 149. See also Journalism, Czech; Kozury, Franti- sek; Kramerius, Vaclav Matej Piemysl Otakar II (king of Bohemia), 38 Pf'hody Vdclava Vratislava z Mitrovic (Pelcl), 117-18 Printing, Czech, 101-02 Pi'tel lidu (Kramerius), 180 Private Society in Bohemia for the De- velopment of Mathematics, Patriotic History and Natural History. See Royal Bohemian Society of Sciences Prochizka, Franti'ek Faust"n, 125-26, 162, 170, 187, 193, 195, 233, 247, 249, 252; and censorship reforms, 107-08; and Czech Bible, 107-08, 173; on Czech-German antagonism, 120; and Czech language, 120; and Czech literary history, 107-08, 110; and early Slavs, 212; and religious toleration, 119, 121-22; and republi- cation of old Czech works, 118-22. See also Erasmus, Desiderius; Liter- ary history, Czech; Toleration, religious Works by: "Critische Nach- richten von den bisherigen Produc- ten der Pressfreiheit in B6hmen," 107-08; De saecularibus liberalium artium in Bohemia et Moravia fatis commentarius, 110, 113; Miscella- neen der B6hmischen und Miih- rischen Litteratur, 107 Prosody, Czech, 164-67. See also Puchmajer, Antonin Jaroslav; Puch- majer school Protestantism, 6, 12, 110-12, 174 Prvotiny pknych urnin (literary sup- plement to Videiske' noviny), 157 Pubi'ka, Franti'ek, 29, 41, 202 Puchmajer, Antonin Jaroslav: assists Dobrovsk with dictionary, 85, 90, 279n137; as critic of Tomsa's ortho- graphic reforms, 79-80; and new Index school in Czech poetry, 162-69; ode to 2ilka by, 164; and Slavic lan- guages, 85, 217-18, 225-30. See also Poetry, Czech; Puchmajer school Works by: Chram Gnidsky, 166-67, 227; Pravopis rusko-cesky', 230; Sebrdni bdsnJ a zp'vd, 162, 166, 226 Puchmajer school, 253; and "accent" theory of Czech prosody, 164-67; and Czech language, 168-69; and introduction of Slavic models, 163, 226-28; patriotic themes in, 163- 64, 167-69; place in Czech poetry of, 162-69 Pulkava z Tradenina, Phibik, 119-20 Purism, linguistic, 72, 80, 82-83, 87, 90. See also Neologisms; Pohl, Jan Viclav; Thim, Karel Hynek Rak, Jiff, 262n7 Ribay, Jifi (Juraj), 89, 116, 155, 215, 217, 221, 224 Riegger, Hofrat Joseph Anton von, 76 Roman Catholic church: and Czech national renascence, 4, 6; and Czech culture, 4; and the Enlightenment, 173; and Joseph II's reforms, 6, 174. See also Counter-Reformation; Tol- eration, religious Rosa, Vdclav, 165-66, 275n57 Royal Bohemian Society of Sciences, 33, 35-36, 209, 214, 234; and criti- cal history, 29; development of, 30- 31; and Dobrovsk 's and Sternberg's journey to Russia, 204-06; and Leo- pold II's coronation, 59; and the no- bility, 26; role of in contacts with Slavs, 201, 203-06. See also Abhand- lungen Royko, Kaspar, 39, 207, 270n31. See also Hussitism Rovmitilu, Lev z, 118 Rudolph II (king of Bohemia and Holy Roman emperor), 42, 75, 80, 114, 254 335 Rulik, Jan Nepomuk Josef: 183, 187- 88, 190, 233, 236, 247; and Balbin school, 46-47, 60; and critical his- tory, 47; and Czech-German antago- nism, 187, 212; on Czech history in Czech, 45-48; and defenses of the language, 60, 191, 230; as editor of Vlastenske noviny, 155; and Ger- manization, 60; images of other Slavs by, 230, 235, 239-40; and Jo- seph II's reforms, 177; on link be- tween intelligentsia and common people, 46, 212; as popular awakener, 180-82, 186-88, 197, 199, 244, 301n175; translations of, 181, 184. See also Awakeners, popu- lar; Defenses of the Language Russia: and common people during Napoleonic Wars, 244-46; Czech at- titudes to, 202, 204, 231-32, 240- 41; impact of Napoleonic Wars on Czech attitudes, 78, 233-34, 237, 239-40, 244-46 afaffk, Pavel Josef, 221 Schiffner, Joseph, 46 Schiller, Friedrich, 137, 148 Schbnfeld, Johann Ferdinand von, 142-43, 183 Schiinfeldske c. k. praiske poftovske' noviny, 134-35, 140-41, 148, 150- 56, 181 Schiinfeldske' noviny, 155-56 Scriptores rerum Austriacarum veteres ac genuini (H. Pez), 22 Scriptorum rerum Bohemicarum Bib- liotheca (Ziegelbauer), 23, 25 Sebrdni bdsnJ a zp~vd (Puchmajer), 162, 166, 226 edivy, Prokop, 139, 147-48, 196 Sedisk' buihcstvi v ( echdch (Stuna), 137, 162 Seibt, Karl Heinrich, 160, 162, 174 Seidl, Josef, 142 Serbs, 207-08 imek, Maximilian, 72-74, 80, 82, 170 Sldva a vybornostjazyka 6esk6ho (Rulik), 191 336 Index Slavik, Bediich, 7-8 Slavin (Dobrovsk9), 107 Slavs: appeals to martial traditions by, 238-39; and Czech defenses of the language, 229-32; and Czech lan- guage, 224, 233; Czech picture of early history of, 28, 36, 42, 46, 69, 110, 112, 182, 192, 203; and Czechs, 121, 158-59, 192, 200-01, 214-15, 221-22; Czech scholarly contacts with, 201-10, 216, 218-20; impact of Napoleonic Wars on Czech atti- tudes to, 237-46; orthography of, 216-17; and revival of Czech litera- ture, 226-29; significance to rena- scence of, 234, 246-48, 255, 294nl; in works by Czech scholars, 210-24 Slovaks, 88-89, 222 Slovanka (Dobrovsk9), 107, 209, 220 Slovenes, 207 Slovnik 6esko-nmecky' (Jungmann), 87 Societas Jablonoviana (Leipzig), 202- 03 Society of Friends of Science, Warsaw, 209 Society of Jesus. See Jesuits Sorbian language, 210 Stach, Vdclav, 162, 168, 174, 189; ap- peals of to martial tradition of Slavs, 239; and Czech prosody, 167; ode, "Svatek ceskeho jazyka" (Stach, K. Thim, V. Thim), 132; as radical Jo- sephinist, 175; and religious tolera- tion, 175, 177; translations by, 45, 167, 175 Steinsberg, K. G., 141 tep6tnek, J. N., 240 Sternberg, Count Joachim von, 204-06 St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, 203, 215 Strahov library, 109, 174 Stransk , Pavel, 20 Stiredovsk , Ji'i, 21 Strnad, Antonin, 163, 187 Stuna, Matej: Sedlske bui6stvi v e- chdch, 137, 162 tvan, Maximilian, 136, 162 "Svatek 6esk6ho jazyka," (Stach, K. Thim, V. Thim), 132 Svoboda, Vdclav Alois, 158 Tablic, Bohuslav, 198 Tandler, Josef Jakub, 141, 156 Thim, Karel Hynek: 63-64, 87-88, 167, 187; and Czech language re- newal, 80-81, 85; and Czech the- ater, 132, 137, 139-40, 148; and defenses of the language, 57-60, 63; and Dobrovsk9, 80-81, 87-90; links with Balbin of, 57; and literary pic- ture of Slavs, 230; and other Slavic languages, 225. See also Defenses of the language; Dictionaries; Theater, Czech Works by: Deutsch-bihmisches Nationallexikon, 87; Obranajazyka ceskdho, 57-60, 230; Ober den Karakter der Slawen, 63 Thim, Vdclav, 131, 162, 167, 226, 284n8; and Czech poetry, 131-32, 160-62; and Czech theater, 131-35, 137-40, 144, 146-48; as editor of Schinfeldske' noviny, 155-56; and Joseph II's visit to Bouda, 137; on role of theater, 148; as translator of Mozart's Magic Flute, 147 Theater, Czech: and Czech language, 133; development of, 129-48; Ger- man influences on, 137-38; patriotic-historical themes of, 147, 285n65; problems during 1790s of, 144-45; during renascence, 147-48; as support for education, 130-31, 148 Theater in the Rozentdl, 142-43 Thirty Years' War, 16-17, 20, 114, 147, 204 Toleration, religious, 197-98; and Bishop Hay, 176; and Kramerius, 176-77, 196; and Prochazka, 119, 121; and Stach, 175, 177. See also Patent of Toleration; Hay, Johann Leopold von; Kramerius, Viclav Ma- tevj; Prochizka, Franti9ek Faustn Index Tomsa, Frantisek Jan: 45, 81, 84, 87- 88, 125, 155, 158, 183, 187, 190, 193, 195, 197, 225, 249; and com- mon spoken usage, 76-78; and Czech dictionary, 83, 85, 87-88, 111; and Czech language revival, 73, 76-80; and relation between Czechs and Russians, 78, 241, 298n98; and Czech literature, 122-23, 226; and Neuberg, 116; and orthographic re- forms, 78-79, 217, 276n83, 277n91; popular educational works by, 174, 178-79, 181, 291n41 Works by: Bdhmische Sprach- lehre, 73, 77; Mal! n&mecky' a c'eskyj slovnik, 87; MJsini spis k pou6eni a obveseleni obecngho lidu, 78, 157, 178; Ober die c'echische Recht- schreibung, 77; Ober die Verinde- rungen der 6echischen Sprache, 77- 79; UNitel lidu, 178; Uvedeni k ceske dobropisemnosti, 78; Vollstandiges Wirterbuch der b6hmisch- deutsch- und lateinischen Sprache, 87; Von den Vorziigen der 6echischen Sprache, 77, 191; Zivot Karla IV., 78 Uber den Geist der Bohmischen Gesetze in den verschiedenen Zeital- tern (Voigt), 33 Ober den Karakter der Slawen (K. Tham), 63 "Ober die Ergebenheit und Anhinglich- keit der Slawischen V6lker an das Erzhaus Osterreich" (Dobrovs4k), 59-60, 63, 186, 229, 273n29 "Ober die Ursprung und die Bildung der slawischen und insbesondere der b6hmischen Sprache" (Dobrovsk), 84 Uber die techische Rechtschreibung (Tomsa), 77 Uber die Veranderungen der cech- ischen Sprache (Tomsa), 77-79 Ueena eechia (Rulik), 188 Ueitel lidu (Tomsa), 178 Ungar, Karel Raphael, 86, 122, 126, 162; and Balbin's Bohemia docta, 337 97, 109; as critic of Counter- Reformation cultural policies, 109; contributions to Abhandlungen by, 34; and Dobrovsk , 98, 104-05; literary-historical studies by, 109. See also Balbin, Bohuslav; Bohemia docta Works by: Allgemeine boh- mische Bibliothek, 63, 109; Revision der b6hmischen Litteratur ... in Briefen, 104 Unity of Czech Brethren, 4, 12, 20, 75, 82, 173 Utraquism, and Czech national con- sciousness, 12 Uvedeni k 6eske dobropisemnosti (Tomsa), 78 Viclav IV (king of Bohemia), 39, 109, 112, 254 Viclav, Saint, 11, 43, 149, 263n19. See also Crown of Saint Vaiclav Vavik, Franti'ek, 47, 189, 239, 245- 46. See also Rulik, Jan Vivra, Otakar, 4 Veerni shromdiWdni dobrovicke obce (Kramerius), 179-80 Velmi uZitejnd historie o slovutndm nd- rodu 6eskem (Rulik), 46; Veleslavina, Daniel Adam z: symbol of Czech's "golden age," 27, 47, 65, 274n46; and Slavs, 120-21, 233, 248. See also Humanism, Czech Vinec pocty k poctivosti ucenych, vybornych a statecnch Oechd (Rulik), 188 Verneuerte Landesordnung (1627), 20 Versuch einer Geschichte Bihmens fiir den Biirger (Pahizek), 45, 271n99 V6inik, Count, 106 Videriske noviny (newspaper), 156 Vita venerabilis Arnesti, primi archie- piscopi Pragensis (Balbin), 21 Vlast, 64-69, 159, 170, 197. See also Hlasatel 6esky'; Nejedl9, Jan Vlastensk' mlady rekruta (Rulik), 189 Vlastenske' noviny, 144, 153-54, 181, 186-87, 230, 233, 247. See also The Presence of the Past scholarly endeavors he made a significant contribution to the development of his adopted homeland. He was encouraged by the example of Bernard Pez to attempt a literary history of the Benedictines, Historia rei litterariae Ordinis S. Bene- dicti, but the manuscript did not see print until 1754, and then it had to be published outside of Austria.16 From Vienna, Zie- gelbauer was called to Prague by the abbot of the Benedictine monastery of Bievnov to begin a history of that foundation. The fruit of his sojourn there of several months was his Epi- tome historica ... Monasterii Brevnoviensis, which appeared in Cologne in 1740. This history of Brievnov was highly prized by later historians in Bohemia, above all for its sections of documents." Another important consequence of Ziegelbauer's stay in Prague was his acquaintance with Count Phillip Joseph Kinslk (1700-1749), a leading Czech nobleman of wide ed- ucation and interests.'8 Among these interests was a plan to establish an academy for the children of nobles in Prague, which would be placed under the direction of the Benedic- tines. Ziegelbauer was approached about becoming one of the instructors at the academy, but the plan came to naught, due to the outbreak of war with Prussia in 1744 and the strenuous objections of the Jesuit order to losing its monopoly over higher education in the kingdom.19 The other great undertaking that Kinskl urged upon Zie- gelbauer, the preparation of a collection of documents of Czech history on the model of Hieronymus Pez's collection of Austrian sources, met with a similar fate. Ziegelbauer be- gan work on this collection in 1745, and by virtue of diligence and considerable expense, the manuscript of his Scriptorum rerum Bohemicarum Bibliotheca was ready to be submitted to the censor for approval sometime late in the year. Ap- proval, however, was not forthcoming, and the manuscript languished in Vienna while Ziegelbauer was unable to secure its return.20 In the meantime, though, another representative of the educated aristocracy had invited him to Olomouc in Moravia, where a society of scholars interested in propagating the new approaches to learning had been organized. 23 338 Index Vlastensk noviny (continued) Journalism, Czech; Kramerius, Vi- clav Matej; Periodicals, Czech Voigt, Mikulai. Adaukt, 49, 98-99, 104-05, 128, 170, 188, 247, 249; and Bohemian Estates, 33-34; on Charles IV, 40; contributions to Ab- handlungen by, 32-34; on Czech- German antagonism, 33, 211; on Czech language, 95-96; on Hussit- ism, 97; literary history by, 33, 95- 97, 99-100; patriotism of, 33, 40, 49, 95-96; picture of early Slavs by, 33, 211; as source for Rulik's Velmi u£i- tend historie, 46 Works by: Acta litteraria Bohe- miae at Moraviae, 99-100, 104; Be- schreibung der bisher bekannten B6hmischen Miinzen nach chronolo- gischer Ordnung, 40; Effigies viro- rum eruditorum atque artificum Bohemiae at Moravia, 95, 110; Ober den Geist der B5hmischen Gesetze in den verschiedenen Zeitaltern, 33 Vokoun, Antonin, 27 Voldich, Ferdinand, 105-06 Vollstdndiges Wirterbuch der b6hmisch- deutsch- und lateinischen Sprache (Tomsa), 87 Von den Vorziigen der cechischen Sprache (Tomsa), 77, 191 Vydra, Stanislav, 163 Vypsanti ivotd svatjch patrond ceskych (Rulik), 46 Wenceslai Hagek a Liboczan Annales Bohemorum (Dobner), 19, 27, 97- 98, 201-03, 267n39. See also Dob- ner, Gelasius; Hijek z Libocan, Viclav Wiener Neustadt military academy, 71. See also Kinsk , Count Franz Joseph Young Czechs, 4 Zeberer, Jan, 130-31 Zebravy student (V. Thim), 144 Ziegelbauer, Magnoald, 22-23, 25 Ziegler, Josef Liboslav, 158 Zima, Antonin J., 135-36, 139, 162 Zivot Karla IV. (Tomsa), 78 Zika, Jan, 43, 64, 147, 164, 189, 199, 251; Pekar's view of, 5, 261n7; as subject of play by Tandler, 1787, 141; Ungar on, 34. See also Hussitism Zlobickf: 89, 102, 126, 156, 162, 218, 223; and Czech language revival, 72-74, 79, 86, 88, 225; and Czech theater, 135, 139, 284n22; and Dobrovsky, 73, 87-88, 206; German influences on, 74; on monuments of literature, 116; as professor at Vienna university, 72. See also Czech language; Dictionaries; Neologisms Pitt Series in Russian and East European Studies Jonathan Harris, Editor The Bolshevik Party in Conflict: The Left Communist Opposition of 1918 Ronald I. Kowalski Building Socialism in Bolshevik Russia: Ideology and Industrial Organization, 1917-1921 Thomas F. Remington The Disabled in the Soviet Union: Past and Present, Theory and Practice William O. McCagg and Lewis Siegelbaum, Editors The Distorted World of Soviet Type Economies Jan Winiecki Jan Waclaw Machajski: A Radical Critic of the Russian Intelligentsia and Socialism Marshall S. Shatz Midpassage: Alexander Herzen and European Revolution, 1847-1852 Judith E. Zimmerman The Moscovia of Antonio Possevino, S.J. Hugh F. Graham, Translator Origins of the Czech National Renascence Hugh LeCaine Agnew Perceptions and Behavior in Soviet Foreign Policy Richard K. Herrmann The Soviet Union and the Threat from the East, 1933-41: Moscow, Tokyo and the Prelude to the Pacific War Jonathan Haslam The Russian Empire and Grand Duchy of Muscovy: A Seventeenth-Century French Account Jacques Margeret (Chester S. L. Dunning, trans.) That Alluring Land: Slovak Stories by Timrava Norma L. Rudinsky, Translator Troubled Waters: The Origins of the 1881 Anti-Jewish Pogroms in Russia I. Michael Aronson The Truth of Authority: Ideology and Communication in the Soviet Union Thomas F. Remington Varieties of Marxist Humanism: Philosophical Revision in Postwar Eastern Europe James H. Satterwhite Continued from front flap in Czech attested to the rise in national con- sciousness during this early period. Equally significant were intellectual contacts with the wider Slavic world whereby these pioneers sought to redefine their ethnic and cultural heritage. Agnew deftly negotiates a longstanding controversy in Czech historiography over the relative power of the Catholic and Hussite (and Protestant) influences in defining the nation's character and future development- a debate that is itself part of the national mythology. Origins of the Czech National Renascence will contribute to a renewed interpretation of a crucial period in Czech history, as the historical profession undergoes a massive reorientation in Czechoslovakia and elsewhere. Marxist inter- preters of the nation's past have been purged, other historians have spent their best years in disgrace, and newer practitioners are only now entering the field. They will profit from Agnew's extensive research in English, German, Czech, and other languages and his study's valuable bibliographical references. HUGH LECAINE AGNEW is Associate Professor of History and International Affairs at George Washington University. Jacket design by Molly Bigelow ALSO OF INTEREST Troubled Waters The Origins of the 1881 Anti-Jewish Pogroms in Russia I. Michael Aronson "Lucid, challenging, and significant."-Choice "Aronson's work is to date the most sophisticated refutation of the thesis of a government conspiracy behind the pogroms."--Slavic Review Jan Waclaw Machajski A Radical Critic of the Russian Intelligentsia and Socialism Marshall S. Shatz "This is the first book-length monograph on Jan Waclaw Machajski, ... an original ideologist of the workers' movement who has been par- tially and undeservedly forgotten. .... There is no doubt that such a work has long been needed."-American Historical Review Midpassage Alexander Herzen and European Revolution, 1847-1852 Judith E. Zimmerman "A valuable addition to the body of work on Herzen."-Slavonic and East European Review University of Pittsburgh Press Pittsburgh, Pa. 15260 ISBN 0-8229-3742-5 24 Origins of the Czech National Renascence This nobleman was the Freiherr Joseph von Petrasch (1714-1772), the son of an Austrian general of Croatian back- ground. He was well and widely educated, had traveled in the Low Countries, England, France, Switzerland, and Italy, served as an adjutant in Prince Eugene's armies, and even- tually married and settled down in Olomouc, where he ded- icated himself to the support of learning. Here he became one of the prime movers in the establishment of a learned society modelled after those of Western Europe, which took the name Societas Incognitorum Litteratorum.21 The Olomouc Societas Incognitorum represented the first organized attempt to cultivate scholarly study in the crit- ical spirit of the Enlightenment, not only in the Czech lands, but in the Habsburg territories as a whole.22 Petrasch was able to use his contacts at court to such good effect that the so- ciety's existence was given official recognition and confirma- tion on 16 March 1747. Its membership included some of the most illustrious names in the Austrian monarchy and abroad, such as van Swieten, Muratori, Gottsched and Jordan; but the most active members were those who lived and worked in the Czech lands, notably Ziegelbauer, his fellow Benedictine Oliver Legipont, and Count Franz Giannini.23 The society used its periodical publication, Monathliche Ausziige alt- und neuer Gelehrten Sache, to spread information about the latest discoveries of modern science through excerpts and extensive reviews. Subjects covered in the Monathliche Ausziige were not confined to any one branch of learning, but the contrib- utors to the journal especially welcomed advances in the nat- ural sciences and history.24 It was in its reviews and comments on historical works that the Monathliche Ausziige made its major contribution to the spread of the critical method. For example, a review of a book by the G6ttingen professor Simonetti on the character of a historian served as a platform from which to preach such professional virtues as: a thorough knowledge of the sources and subject of enquiry; a mastery of the auxiliary disciplines of paleography, chronology, numismatics, and heraldry; and The Presence of the Past an ability to make use of the findings of philology and lin- guistics for historical research. A true historian should also approach his sources critically, separating truth from false- hood-a task for which he would need to cultivate a wise and rational skepticism.25 In addition to spreading such ideas about a historian's qualities, the Monathliche Ausziige informed its readers about the latest publications in history, especially collections of primary sources. On these it placed great importance. The example of Schwandtner's Scriptores rerum Hungaricum elicited the hope that a similar work could be published for the Czech lands; and indeed the Societas Incognitorum at- tempted to use its contacts to get approval for the publication of Ziegelbauer's Scriptorum rerum Bohemicarum Biblio- theca, but to no avail.26 This failure was part of an ongoing struggle between the Societas Incognitorum and elements in the church hierarchy in Olomouc who opposed it, notably the Jesuits. Because of this opposition, the third volume of the Monathliche Ausziige (1750) had to be published in Frankfurt and Leipzig-that is, not only outside Moravia, but beyond the Habsburg dominions altogether. In the same year, Zie- gelbauer, the leading historian of the Societas Incognitorum, died (rumor whispered of an unnatural demise), and when its founder and patron, Petrasch, left Olomouc in 1751 the so- ciety ceased to function.27 Although its active life was short, the Olomouc Societas Incognitorum was an important focal point for introducing and propagating the critical methods of the Enlightenment in many fields of learning. In history in particular, the Societas Incognitorum served as a bridge and meeting place for the native Balbin tradition and the Maurist approach, a role sym- bolized by the presence among the society's members of conservative representatives of the native school like J. A. Berghauer and supporters of the new trends like Ziegel- bauer.28 The wide scope of the society's membership also united the leading scholars of the Habsburg monarchy with the foremost representatives of learning in other lands, and 25 26 Origins of the Czech National Renascence its inclusion of both Catholic and Protestant gave a working example of scholarly toleration in practice, even though the views expressed in the Monathliche Ausziige remained firmly Catholic. By including such Protestant scholars as Mat6j B61, a Slovak, the Societas Incognitorum also linked up with the unbroken tradition of Protestant historiography that had been kept alive in Slovakia.29 Finally, the Societas Incognitorum represented a trend that would continue well into the nineteenth century, the coming together of the historical and political interests of members of the Bohemian aristocracy with the scholarly con- cerns of the non-noble intelligentsia. Bohemian nobles had frequently patronized or protected individual scholars before this. The organization of the Societas Incognitorum was a nat- ural continuation of this private support into a more public sphere, and it pointed the way to such future joint efforts as the Royal Bohemian Society of Sciences and even the Bo- hemian National Museum. Historical research could, after all, provide the Czech nobility with proof of the ancient rights and privileges of the kingdom of Bohemia, and thus strengthen their position vis-a-vis a centralizing court in Vienna. At the same time, patronage of newer trends in learning was in keep- ing with the cultural and ethical ideals of the Enlightenment and its concept of patriotism, which had gained a firm foot- hold in the upper levels of Bohemian society by this time." The demise of the Societas Incognitorum did not mean an end to the spread of critical methods in history in the Czech lands. The society's interests and ideals continued to influence Bohemian historians, such as Josef Bonaventura Piter (1708-1764), prior of the monastery of Rijhrad. A Benedictine like Ziegelbauer, Piter attempted to use the same critical approach to remove the fables of ages past from the chronicles of Czech history. His views were moderately en- lightened, recognizing the importance of sources and the regrettable effects of the Counter-Reformation policies in destroying or suppressing them. Characteristically, Piter was one of the first to succeed (in 1762) in obtaining a copy of The Presence of the Past Balbin's banned work on Czech history, a collection of short biographies of famous learned Bohemians entitled Bohemia docta.31 Piter's work was, however, still heavily influenced by the authority of tradition, and his greatest importance prob- ably lies in the influence he had on another Bohemian his- torian, Gelasius Dobner.32 Piter and other scholars in Prague helped stimulate Dobner's interest in history during the 1750s. At first, he ap- proached the study of history quite within the Balbin tradi- tion, collecting material for a universal Czech historical, geographical, and biographical dictionary on the model of Bo- hemia docta. He based his research for this work largely on Balbin and other traditional sources, including Hjek's chron- icle, but he also consulted the works of such non-Catholic chroniclers as Daniel Adam z Veleslavina and Prokop Lupi6 z Hlaviova.3 When Dobner showed the material he had gathered to Antonin Vokoun (Wokaun), suffragan bishop and general vicar in Prague, the latter "convinced Dobner that he should preferably spend his energies on a truly critical history of Bohemia, which, deformed by the most ridiculous fables, adventures, and numerous chronological and historical er- rors, to the shame of the nation, had not up to now been prop- erly treated by anyone."34 Before he was able to begin a systematic treatment of Czech history, however, he became involved in the Piarists' plan to publish a Latin translation of Hijek's Kronyka 6eskd. When he read the translation, Dob- ner found "that P. Victorin [the translator] had followed Hi- jek step by step, retaining all his fables and mistakes, and in fact defending most of them in the face of all healthy criti- cism."'a He decided to accompany the publication with his own editorial comments, a critical apparatus that quickly grew larger than the text itself and was to involve Dobner's time and energies for over twenty years. It would have been difficult to find a more prominent work on which to exercise the new critical historical methods than Hijek's chronicle. A convert to Catholicism from a Utra- quist family, Vaiclav Hijek z Libocan (died 1553) undertook 27 28 Origins of the Czech National Renascence his great historical work with the support of the Catholic lords in the Bohemian Estates and the king. His Kronyka ceskd was published in 1541 after having been approved by a special commission, so it may be considered to represent official Catholic views." Hijek collected a voluminous amount of ma- terial, but (as was common enough during the humanist six- teenth century) he did not apply critical methodology to evaluating it. On the one hand, he sought to please his noble patrons by presenting their ancestors in the best possible light, and on the other he strove for a work that would be a success as literature, not scrupling to place literary consid- erations above those of historical accuracy. Its appealing style made the Kronyka 6eskd accessible and popular; but above all the fact that it was both a major work of Czech history, and written from the Catholic viewpoint, ensured that it was practically the only historical reading widely available after the White Mountain. Hijek's Kronyka ceskd remains a great work of Czech literature, but Dobner's critical commentary called into question its validity as history.37 Dobner attacked Hajek's authority directly, beginning with the first volume of his edition, which (as we have seen) appeared in 1761. He insisted on exposing the lack of histor- ical grounds for some of the most cherished fables about the early years of Czech history, including the one that involved him in the most repercussions, the story of the "national fa- thers" of the Slavs, Cech, Lech, and Rus'. These three broth- ers were supposed to have left their homeland (according to tradition, Croatia)38 and wandered northwards with their tri- bal followers. Each eventually became the "primal father" (Urvater, praotec) of one of the Slavic nations. C'ech led his band into present-day Bohemia, where he established a king- dom and people both of which supposedly derived their name from him (Cechy, 'esi). Lech established the Polish state and nation, while Rus' fathered the Russians. The traditional leg- end had presented these patriarchs as medieval princes com- plete with bands of feudal retainers, but Dobner denied that there was any historical evidence for the existence of the The Presence of the Past three, that the picture of the social organization of the early Slavs was incorrect, and that the origin of the Czechs was quite otherwise. In doing so, he unleashed storms of protest, not least from historians closer to the Bohemian aristocracy, many of whom counted tech's retainers among their ances- tors. Not surprisingly, the Bohemian Estates preferred to make Dobner's more conservative opponent, Franti'ek Pu- bieka, their official historiographer.39 Dobner was drawn into bitter polemical discussions at home and abroad, with his op- ponents accusing him of lack of patriotism for daring to ques- tion the existence of Praotec Cech. He answered them with a clear formulation of a different concept of patriotism, linked to the Enlightenment idea of love of truth for its own sake: "It is the foremost duty of the historian that out of love for his fatherland and for knowledge he should wipe away every- thing that was invented by later ages, and thus rescue his na- tion from the ridicule of foreigners."40 Thus the emergence of critical history in Bohemia could be dated from the publication of the six volumes of Dob- ner's Wenceslai Hagek a Liboczan Annales Bohemorum (1761-1782). This is not to say that Dobner's views were immediately accepted (indeed, Hdjek remained popular reading outside the rarefied atmosphere of scholarship well into the nineteenth century), nor did Dobner proceed be- yond the task of critical destruction to the new, synthetic treatment of Czech history in the light of modem methods, which his patron had requested. Nevertheless his succes- sors were now able to study Czech history unbound by the fetters of tradition. Dobner's edition marked the "end of Hajeking" (konec Hdjkovdni) in Czech history, as Palack later phrased it.41 If Dobner's edition of Haijek spelled the end of the un- critical approach to history in the Czech lands, it was the Royal Bohemian Society of Sciences that provided an insti- tutional framework for the organized cultivation of critical historical writing. Here again the development of history as a discipline in Bohemia is closely connected to the Enlight- 29 30 Origins of the Czech National Renascence enment. With its confident assertion of the ability of human reason to reach the truth, the Enlightenment called for the freeing of that reason to pursue its inquiries without regard to religious orthodoxy or political expediency. Associations, like the Royal Society in Britain, the Academy in France, and their like-minded counterparts elsewhere, provided support for the freedom of inquiry and a forum in which to conduct it.42 The lasting Bohemian version of the enlightened learned society was to be the Royal Bohemian Society of Sciences (Kinigliche b6hmische Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, Krd- lovski -eski spole6nost nauk). Like the Olomouc Societas Incognitorum, its forerunner, the Bohemian Society of Sciences owed its formation largely to the activities of a patriotic member of the nobility. Ignatz von Born had first come to Prague in 1760 and quickly adopted Bohemia as his homeland.43 Here he had taken an active part in the unofficial groups of scholars who gathered around certain literary periodicals and noble salons in Prague. These unofficial groups gave rise to the more organized (but still private) Society in Bohemia for the Development of Mathematics, Patriotic History and Natural History (Privat- gesellschaft in Bihmen zur Aufnahme der Mathematik, vater- lIdndischen Geschichte, und der Naturgeschichte), sometime around 1774.44 The Private Society established a journal, the Abhand- lungen einer Privategesellschaft in BAhmen (the first volume appeared in 1775), and it continued to grow and solidify its position. In 1784 it was granted public status by Joseph II, and by 1790 began using the attribute Royal.45 Again, like the Societas Incognitorum, the Bohemian Society of Sciences did not limit its interest to history. It was concerned also with the physical sciences, mathematics, and other fields of inquiry; but the philological and historical interests of some of its lead- ing members meant that until well into the nineteenth cen- tury most of the critical history written in Bohemia appeared in the pages of its Abhandlungen. Thus by the beginning of the final quarter of the eigh- The Presence of the Past teenth century, the conditions for organized, critical research into Bohemia's past were much better than they had been some 150 years before. The approach to history developed by the Maurists in France had been spread to Bohemia through the Benedictines and others, and in the work of Gelasius Dob- ner had become established as the most fruitful method of conducting historical research. In the process it had pro- gressed far beyond the confines of the Maurists' original interest in church history and the lives of the saints to encom- pass secular subjects as well. The Abhandlungen of the Royal Bohemian Society of Sciences gave enlightened and patriotic scholars a forum for publishing their work, mutually encour- aging and criticizing each other, and supporting and spread- ing the Maurist methods.46 Bohemian Historical Writing in the Late Eighteenth Century This support for the critical method emerges clearly from the historical articles published in the society's journal."7 Dobner, who was so closely involved in the propagation of critical methods, was a frequent contributor among the more senior Bohemian historians. In the articles he published in the Ab- handlungen, Dobner expressed again and again his desire to uncover the truth, "which should be the soul of all history," and without which "history ceases to be history and becomes a flight of fancy (Hirngespinst)."48 He also stressed the need for collections of source documents, and linked the task of producing them to his enlightened idea of patriotism, hoping that someone would produce the needed compilations "out of love for his fatherland."49 His work reflected Dobner's own familiarity with auxiliary sciences such as numismatics and also gave him an opportunity to continue his polemics with opponents of his views.50 For all his critical approach to sources, at times Dobner showed a weakness in approaching the historical past. This is probably most clear in his argument with a younger colleague, Josef Dobrovsk , about the relative age of the Czech trans- 31 32 Origins of the Czech National Renascence lation of the Bible. Dobner maintained that the Czechs must have begun it no later than the beginning of the thirteenth century: In any case it would be strange and infamous for the earlier times, especially for the bishops and the entire clergy ... if they were so dilatory that from the end of the ninth to the beginning of the thirteenth century, that is for more than four hundred years, they did not translate the Word of God into our mother tongue. ... Who can easily believe that this work, so necessary and beneficial, could have been left to such a late date?51 This, as Dobrovsk pointed out to a friend, was to expect the men of the Middle Ages to share the attitudes of the En- lightenment.52 Dobner and Dobrovsk also disagreed on such issues as the historical existence of Saint John of Nepomuk. When Dobner published a fervent defense of this Catholic martyr for the confessional seal,53 Dobrovsk included it in a review article in his Litterarisches Magazin von Bohmen und Mdhren, vol. 3 (1787). Dobrovsk 's view was that there was no historical evidence for the existence of this saint so dear to the Counter-Reformation, and that the historical John of Pomuk may have died a martyr for the immunity of the church from secular power, but not for the secrecy of the confessional. In Dobner's work "the otherwise customary thoroughness of the author [was] completely absent."54 Yet in spite of its limitations, Dobner's example inspired a genera- tion of scholars, and his participation could not but add to the prestige of the Abhandlungen and the Society of Sciences. Another frequent contributor to the Abhandlungen dur- ing its earlier years was Mikuli Adaukt Voigt (1733-1787). Voigt's interests ranged more widely than Dobner's, but his mastery of the critical method was not as great. To the Ab- handlungen he contributed an essay on the introduction of writing and the alphabet to Bohemia, one on the use of vocal music in the church (which included the text and music of the famous Czech medieval hymn, "Hospodine, pomiluj ny"), The Presence of the Past a sketch of the history of Prague university, an essay on the calendar of the early Slavs, and a study of Bohemian patrons of the arts and learning.55 Voigt concentrated his main efforts on literary history, through which he attempted to prove, as Pelcl noted, "that Czech soil had supported and produced learned fruit even in earlier centuries."56 His major works in this field were published elsewhere, but even in his articles in the Abhandlungen, a certain patriotic attitude stands out. Where his less critical predecessors had claimed the achieve- ments of foreigners for the Czechs, if they only published in Bohemia, Voigt confidently proclaimed: "We Czechs do not find it necessary to appropriate famous men who belong to other countries."''57 Voigt expressed his patriotic attitudes even more clearly in a work he submitted in a competition sponsored by the Bohemian Society of Sciences. Though Voigt's Uber den Geist der Bdhmischen Gesetze in den verschiedenen Zeitaltern was not exactly what the Society was looking for, it did publish it in 1788, as a sort of memorial to its newly deceased member. In it, Voigt defended the early Slavs, including the Czechs, from the prejudiced pictures painted of them by other, es- pecially German, historians. It is an unforgivable injustice of certain German writers of the Middle Ages and later eras, that they deny the ancient Slavic peoples all cultivation, order, and political organi- zation, and present them as the most unintelligent and un- civilized barbarians. This is a result of the historically well- known national hatred of the Germans for the Czechs.58 Voigt's picture of the early Slavs was no doubt rather ide- alized; and the same might be said of his description of the constitutional system of the Kingdom of Bohemia as it de- veloped before 1627. His final work was, in fact, a sort of panegyric of the Bohemian Stiindestaat, emphasizing the im- portance of the Bohemian Estates to the political life of the kingdom: "One can see that the Estates at that time [1526] had a great say in legislation. The kings could command noth- 33 34 Origins of the Czech National Renascence ing; levy no new taxes; make no important changes in the state system, without the consent of the three estates."''59 The im- plied contrast with the situation of Bohemia under Joseph II would have been clear to Voigt's readers." The librarian of the Clementinum in Prague, Karel Ra- phael Ungar (1743-1807), also betrayed an interest in liter- ature and the history of education in his contributions to the Abhandlungen. He dealt with his own profession in an essay on the history of libraries in Bohemia and added another on the early history of book printing among the Czechs.61 In an article on Jan Zizka's military organization, Ungar expressed a surprisingly positive attitude to the Hussite leader, espe- cially for an ex-Jesuit. In the introduction to the main body of this essay, which was a reprinting of two letters by Zizka on the problem of military organization, Ungar did not even mention the religious issue and wrote of Zizka instead as a national hero and a military genius.62 Another contributor to the Abhandlungen who was a sup- porter of Dobner in the Cech-Lech polemics, and a propo- nent of the critical method, was Franti'ek Martin Pelcl (1734- 1801). Pelcl, a layman among so many Piarists and ex-Jesuits, was tutor from 1761 to the young counts Joachim and Johann Sternberg, and after 1769 he held a similar post in the Nostitz household.6 He showed a real appreciation of the necessity of proper documentation and frequently followed his articles with the texts of the documents on which they were based. "Documents," he maintained, "must be the soul of history, the supports of truth, the surest refuge of the critic and the most trustworthy witness of chronology."'A Of course, even documents needed to be interpreted, and errors could creep in through copying and recopying. A case in point was pro- vided by Pelcl's article about a decree of Emperor Charles IV against heretics in Bohemia. Pelcl pointed out the many his- torical inaccuracies in the text of the document, still widely accepted by his own contemporaries as genuine, and dem- onstrated how it had been taken from Hjek's chronicle, translated into German, and included in several histories and The Presence of the Past collections of sources until it had been reprinted eight times without ever having its accuracy tested.65 Of all the historians who contributed to the Abhand- lungen, the most consistently and strictly critical was Josef Dobrovski (1753-1829). He united the ideals of the Enlight- enment and the critical method of the Maurists with a rig- orous philological training, thus bringing to history the critical tools developed by the Gottingen theologian Michaelis for biblical criticism.66 It is typical that one of the earlier contri- butions Dobrovsk made to the Abhandlungen should be con- cerned with the use of documentary sources for national history. In this article, Dobrovsk reiterated the frequently expressed wish of the critical historians for a collection of sources for Czech history: "What a service it could render to the enlightening of our fatherland's history!"''67 Dobrovski later worked on a whole series of articles for the journal of the Society of Sciences discussing the problems involved in separating fact from fiction in the old legends that were frequently the only sources for early Bohemian history. In the three articles that actually appeared in his time, Dob- rovsk5 dealt with the legends of Boivoj's baptism, Ludmila and Drahomir, and Vaclav and Boleslav. A fourth article, on the legend of Prokop, remained in manuscript.68 Dobrovsk defined the methodological principle of all his work as "to accept nothing without adequate witnesses, and always to go back to the earliest source."69 Since he did not always have the necessary tools to establish the validity of certain docu- ments, not all of Dobrovsk's conclusions have withstood the test of time; but his championship of critical methods in gen- eral was far more important than the validity of any particular result. Other articles which Dobrovsky wrote for the Abhand- lungen reflected his general interest in the earliest history of the Slavs, and the question of the Czech Bible. He also de- voted two articles to aspects of the history of the Hussite pe- riod in Bohemia. In a work on the Czech Adamites and Picards, Dobrovsk demolished some of the worst distortions 35 36 Origins of the Czech National Renascence of a previously accepted authority, Eneas Sylvio Piccolomini, and wrote quite sympathetically about Hus and Jerome of Prague, "the two Czech martyrs."70 The other work, which appeared in a later number, dealt with the use of the chalice in Bohemia.71 Dobrovsky approached the Hussite period not only with a critical regard for the truth, but also with the En- lightenment's dislike for religious intolerance and supersti- tion. As he wrote elsewhere, "one must be ashamed of earlier times, when such mischief was carried on in the name of religion."72 The fact that the new ideal of a historian included a skep- tical approach to tradition and the application of rational crit- icism to the documents did not mean that the new history was fundamentally unpatriotic, as some traditionalists charged. We have seen how Dobner and Dobrovsky, to name but two, linked the critical treatment of their country's history with patriotic love of the fatherland. The subjects the historians in the Society of Sciences chose to treat in their articles con- cerned areas of Bohemia history such as the early history of the Slavs, the foundation of the Czech state, and aspects of its cultural development and its constitutional relationship to the German Reich. The fact that these themes, which stressed the uniqueness and historical tradition of the Czech kingdom, could serve the interests of the Bohemian nobility in their competition with the aims of a centralizing court in Vienna was not coincidental. Many of the members of the Society of Sciences were leading representatives of the nobility, and the scholars making up the patriotic intelligentsia depended to a great extent on noble patronage, as did the earlier members of the Societas Incognitorum. This bread-and-butter explanation of the historian's atti- tudes, however, is not by itself entirely convincing. The in- tellectuals were probably also influenced in their attitudes to their past, and the themes they chose to study, by the tradi- tional, corporate view of the Estates as the nation. This view was reinforced by the way in which the development of ab- solutism in East Central Europe had tended to erode the The Presence of the Past power and independence of the towns, rather than the aris- tocracy. Thus the Estates, dominated by the nobility, pro- vided the only entrenched, institutional expression of the separate statehood and national existence of Bohemia.73 In such a case, the historical themes to which scholars would be drawn would also not be unaffected. In addition, these his- torians, for all their commitment to the critical method, the search for truth, and skepticism, were not always successful in maintaining detachment, and they sometimes expressed openly patriotic attitudes just as representatives of the less critical Balbin school had. In fact, in some areas of Czech history it was precisely the development of critical histori- ography that opened the way for more positive assessments, notably for the Hussite period. The honor and reputation of some of the national heroes, especially Charles IV, were also staunchly defended by these historians. Even Dobner, the "father" of the critical method in Bo- hemia, was not immune from patriotic attitudes. He took is- sue with a contemporary historian in Hungary who claimed that the borders of the Great Moravian Empire had not in- cluded the territory of present-day Moravia-a view Dobner felt to be an insult to the memory of Saint Methodius and the Moravian rulers Mojmir and Rastislav.74 On the problem of the introduction of Christianity into Moravia, Dobner op- posed Dobrovsk and Ungar on one side, arguing that Saint Methodius had actually traveled to Moravia himself and that his Slavic liturgy had been in fairly wide use there. On the other side, he denied an assertion by an anonymous author that it was Christianity according to the Greek rites that had been introduced into the Czech lands and that the Hussite movement had its roots in the survival of this tradition. Dob- ner maintained that the liturgy had been in the Slavic lan- guage, but in conformity with the teachings of Rome, and that the pope had not forbidden the Slavic rite as such, but its use contrary to the beliefs of the Latin church.75 Pelcl also struck a patriotic attitude with his article on Samo, ruler of one of the earliest Slavic political entities in 37 Origins of the Czech National Renascence Hugh LeCaine Agnew University of Pittsburgh Press Pittsburgh and London 38 Origins of the Czech National Renascence Central Europe. Pelcl attempted to prove that Sarno was a Slav, not a Frank, and a warrior, not a merchant. He also in- sisted that the boundaries of Samo's state included present- day Bohemia. Pelcl wanted to show that the Slavs had been capable of organizing their early political entities by them- selves, without help from the Germanic Franks, and he was also trying to establish continuity between this early Slavic polity and the kingdom of Bohemia. Elsewhere, Pelcl main- tained the Czech origin of the Hussite martyr Jacobellus de Misa (Jakoubek ze Stfibra), because even though he was a heretic, it was a matter of national honor to refute the claim that he came from Meissen in Saxony.76 One historian whose contributions to the Abhandlungen were exclusively devoted to the careers of national heroes was the Prague professor Ignac Cornova (1740-1822).77 Even a much larger nation than Bohemia, he claimed, would have difficulty in producing three such rulers as Premysl Otakar II, Charles IV, and Jii- z Podebrad. Cornova devoted an article to each. Piemysl Otakar II sealed his own fate when he ceased to play the role of willing tool of the pope in the empire; but before his down- fall he had brought Bohemia great territorial expansion and a reputation for military prowess.78 King Jifi was admirable because, although he was often forced to wage war, he at- tempted to create a league of rulers that would avoid conflicts; nor was he, as his enemies claimed, an atheist." Cornova's highest praise was reserved for Charles IV, however. In fact, his words gave a clear picture of the status this greatest of Bohemia's medieval rulers enjoyed in the eyes of the patriotic scholars: Prejudice in favor of his own nation frequently stands in the way of the impartiality of the historian. Yet when a Czech (Bbhme) finds, the more attentively he searches the historical documents of his fatherland, not only so many more proofs of Charles's talents as a ruler ... but also of that high-mindedness, which certain writers wish to strip from him by force-then it is not just praiseworthy zeal for the national honor, not simply gratitude for the memory of The Presence of the Past the Father of the Fatherland; then it is a holy duty to the truth to expose what is weak and based on unreliable sources in the accusations against Charles.? One cannot help feeling that for Cornova, the critical method served patriotic ends to such an extent that true crit- ical principles stood in danger of becoming obscured. The central importance of the period of Charles IV and Jan Hus to the patriotic historians of this era is also reflected in the works of some historians who did not publish in the Abhandlungen. Of these, the most influential was probably Kaspar Royko, whose Geschichte der grossen allgemeinen Kirchenversammlung zu Kostnitz appeared in four volumes between 1781 and 1785. Though Royko was a Slovene by birth, and the first two volumes of his history appeared in Graz, he came to Prague to take up the chair of church history at the university, and the last two volumes of his work were published there. In some sense this made him a part of the Prague intellectual environment, and he had close ties of friendship and association with some of the leading patriotic historians. Also, his history, though concerned with the entire story of the Council of Constance, would of necessity have to deal with the problem of Jan Hus and the start of the Hussite movement. Thus his conclusions, which were remarkably sympathetic to Hus, had an immediate impact on the Bohe- mian environment. Royko's history stirred up resistance among the more conservative Catholics, but Dobrovsk praised it for rescuing the reputation of Hus, his fellow countryman.81 Pelcl also returned to the Hussite period and its im- mediate antecedents in his biographies of Charles IV and Vaiclav IV. In the latter work, Pelcl wrote what amounted to a defense of Hus against the charges for which he was burned at Constance, and he effectively described the outraged re- action of the Czech nobles and king upon hearing the news of the martyr's death.82 He depicted Charles IV's reign in col- ors that glowed no less brightly than Cornova's. The Czechs under Charles "were the most learned nation, and the great- 39 40 Origins of the Czech National Renascence est statesmen; they possessed the greatest wealth and the highest regard in the eyes of other nations-in a word, the Czechs were at that time the ruling nation in Europe, and it was considered a special privilege to be a native Czech." Voigt also depicted Charles IV as a great ruler and model for patriots of all times in one of his important works, the four- volume Beschreibung der bisher bekannten Bohmischen Miinzen nach chronologischer Ordnung (1771-1781). Voigt saw this collection as a vital contribution to critical historical research, but at the same time it was "love of [his] fatherland, and the desire to bring light into its history, and the longing to render a useful service to the state and [his] fellow coun- trymen," that motivated him.s4 Voigt's patriotism found clear expression when he described the role of Charles IV: In short, Charles was a true father, or to put it more ac- curately, a true mother of his fatherland; which he dearly loved, greatly enlarged, and, as far as he was able, made truly happy. The memory of this great Prince will remain unforgettable and blessed to all Czech patriots into the far- thest future.85 Praise of the reign of Charles IV, and a defense against the Emperor Maximilian's charge that he had been a "step- father" to the Reich, clearly constituted a common conclusion of these Bohemian scholars-a conclusion based on patriotic feeling as well as historical evidence. If the supporters of critical history were not always able to maintain that "wise and reasonable skepticism" so desira- ble to a historian, neither were they able to sweep all their rivals and forerunners from the field immediately. Older ten- dencies such as the Balbin tradition continued to exert an in- fluence on some writers, nor was every historical work of the same type as the specialized articles published in the Abhand- lungen. There were attempts at more synthetic surveys of Czech history, not always from a consistently critical stand- point, and also works of a more popular nature, directed at a wider literate public, both German and Czech. The Presence of the Past One general survey of Czech history influenced in part by the older, Balbin tradition was the Chronologische Ge- schichte Bihmens unter den Slawen by Frantisek Pubicka (1722-1807). This mammoth work, which grew to stretch over ten volumes (issued between 1770 and 1801), earned for its author the title of official historiographer to the Bohemian Estates, a position later held by Palack .86 Yet he was by no means a consistent supporter of the critical approach pio- neered by Dobner, as his participation in the polemics with the latter on the side of the "echists" shows. In the Chrono- logische Geschichte, Pubicka continued to attack Dobner and his views wherever the opportunity presented itself, which made a bad impression on some of his contemporaries.87 Sup- porters of critical history such as Dobrovsky criticized Pu- bicka for his failure to use his sources properly, especially in the matter of citation. Yet even as stern a critic as Dobrovskl had some positive things to say about the Chronologische Ge- schichte, such as that in its treatment of the conflicts between the medieval papacy and the emperors, Pubi6ka's work rep- resented an improvement over what had been written only a short time earlier.8s Even so, contemporaries felt that such a work did not an- swer the need of the time for a concise history of Bohemia. Pelcl was one of the first to attempt to fill this need with his Kurzgefasste Geschichte der Bihmen, which appeared in 1774 and was received with such enthusiasm that it went through new editions in 1779, 1782, and posthumously in 1817. This publishing history testifies to the effectiveness with which the Kurzgefasste Geschichte met the desires of the reading public. Even its format made it more accessible than earlier works, with its octavo size and German language, and its author attempted to be pragmatic and not devote space to controversial polemics. Pelcl's approach to the subject was also more suited than Pubicka's to a concise, general history. As he wrote in his fore- word, "I have followed more the affairs of the nation than the biographies of its rulers. In periods when the Czechs played 41 42 Origins of the Czech National Renascence an important role, for example during the Hussite Wars, or the reigns of Rudolph II, Matthias, Ferdinand I and II, I have been more detailed."89 This promise was not entirely borne out by the text, however. Pelcl still divided his work into pe- riods based on the reigns of the Bohemia rulers; and when the "nation" did play an important role, Pelcl wrote of the nation in the political sense, of the "first subjects," the Bo- hemian nobility. This may well reflect the close relationship Pelcl had, as tutor to the families of Sternberg and Nostitz- Rieneck, with some of the leading Bohemian aristocrats. The Kurzgefasste Geschichte was based on the course of study Pelcl prepared for his noble pupils, and he dedicated it to one of them, the young Count Friedrich Nostitz. Pelcl's history thus reflected to a large extent the attitude of the educated, enlightened nobles; but he also wrote his work with the con- scious aim of encouraging the Czech patriotism of his highly placed pupils and readers. This can be seen especially clearly in the passages close to the end of the book dealing with the language. After pointing out the consequences for Czech of the school reforms of Maria Theresa, Pelcl commented that only a section of the burghers, the peasants, and the urban poor (Pdbel) still spoke Czech. Only at the coronation of the Czech king, at the opening of the sessions of the Estates, and a few other public oc- casions are certain sentences still spoken in Czech by the Highest Burggrave and the officials of the kingdom. This in itself... ought to direct the attention of our nobles more to their native language (Landessprache) and induce them to bring it back to life among themselves. At least thus they could effectively resist those who reproach us with the fact that we no longer form a separate nation." In the polemics over C'ech and Lech, Pelcl had ranged himself on Dobner's side, but in the Kurzgefasste Geschichte he showed himself to be less critical than the ideal. Especially in his description of the early Slavs he continued to rely on the chronicles Dobner had called into question, and his pic- The Presence of the Past ture of the early history of the Czechs was idealized.91 In other respects, however, Pelcl's enlightened attitudes helped him to present a more balanced account than earlier historians. This can be seen most clearly in the sections dealing with the Hussite period and the Counter-Reformation in Bohemia.92 As he wrote in the foreword, perhaps enthusiasm for my fatherland has frequently led me to an excessive admiration for the deeds of our ances- tors; but may a Czech not be proud of the heroism of his Zizka or Prokop? To be sure, they were Hussites, but they still believed in Christ, and venerated his Holy Mother and Saint Vaiclav. Zizka even ordered that mass be read daily in his encampments, and so in this way they are better than those pagan heroes whose deeds are praised to the skies without regard for their heathenness.93 In the body of the text, Pelcl's attitudes to Hus and the other figures of the Czech Reformation seem to swing be- tween two poles: on the one hand, he admired them for their positive human characteristics, and on the other, he found the cruelties and religious fanaticism of the period offensive. He wrote of Hus with surprising sympathy, praised Zizka and Prokop as national heroes and military geniuses, and took the part of King Jifi z Pod6brad in his conflicts with the popes and the Catholic party in Bohemia. Nevertheless, he deplored the widespread destruction caused by the unrest of the time, since it could not but harm the nation.94 Although the Kurzgefasste Geschichte went through four editions, Pelcl was unable to take the time to revise his text thoroughly, so that the 1817 version is basically that of 1782 with certain additions. He carried out serious revision only in the Czech language Novd kronyka deskd, of which three vol- umes appeared between 1791 and 1796. Novd kronyka ceskd was eagerly awaited by the active Czech patriots, and adver- tised widely among the common people, but the audience Pelcl seems to address remains the same-the nobility. This continuing connection with the nobility is reflected in the 43 44 Origins of the Czech National Renascence dedication to Countess Marie von Rottenhan, wife of the then Highest Burggrave, in which Pelcl flattered her for her love of her mother tongue, Czech.95 It should be noted in this re- gard that Novd kronyka ceskd appeared at a time when the Bohemian Estates, presenting their complaints to the new ruler, Leopold II, had called for the support of Czech through the establishment of a chair of Czech language and literature at the university in Prague (see chapter 2).96 The three volumes of Novd kronyka ceskd that were pub- lished brought Czech history down to the end of the reign of Charles IV, and a fourth volume, covering the Hussite period, remained in manuscript. In the main, Pelcl did not alter his approach or conclusions, although he did include some new materials on Zizka, perhaps from the biography of the Czech hero that he was planning to write." As a critical historian, Pelcl did not reach the level of either Dobner or Dobrovsk, his elder and younger contemporaries. Those tendencies characterized by Albert Praiak as "the desire to be more an awakener than a historian" represented a departure from the critical ideal. Pelcl was, however, able to provide the synthetic treatment of his country's history that Dobner never accom- plished and Dobrovsk4 never attempted, and he avoided the latter's hypercriticism. His openly patriotic approach in his pragmatic histories was already qualitatively different from the patriotism of the Balbin school, and his very deviations from strict criticism made him more popular with the next generation. His historical works served as an important source for future Czech writers of historical fiction.98 Czech History in Czech The influence of most of these efforts to write critical but patriotic history in Bohemia and the effects of all the scholarly polemics over method and results were limited to a certain level of Bohemian society because of their language. Only those who knew German or Latin could actively follow the course of the historiographical quarrels or read the latest find- ings of scholars. Yet during this period the beginnings of The Presence of the Past change in the historians' attitude toward their audience can be discerned. Strengthened by some of the Enlightenment attitudes toward the place of the citizen in the state, and es- pecially reinforced by the educational reforms begun by Maria Theresa and carried on more forcefully under Jo- seph II, some historians, at least, began to see their audience in the lower social classes rather than the aristocracy or cler- ical intelligentsia. One symptomatic indication of this is the publication of Ales Paizek's Versuch einer Geschichte B6h- mensfiir den Burger in 1783, a history addressed specifically to a non-noble readership and intended for use in the re- formed school system.99 Similarly, Dobner's rejection of the idea that the ancient Czechs had a feudal, aristocratic social organization may have widened the audience for history at least slightly, by making it the inheritance of all Czechs and not just those who had a family genealogy going back to C"ech or one of his followers.'00 And if historical writing were to reorient itself more toward the lower classes, that meant to- ward an audience, a significant portion of which spoke and read in Czech. Pelcl's Novd kronyka ceska was the most important at- tempt to write a history of Bohemia in the native language that would take into account the new developments in his- torical writing; yet its aristocratic viewpoint may have limited its popularity among the common people. Other historical publications in Czech, such as the translations of Royko's his- tory of the Council of Constance, the work of the Czech rad- ical Josephinist, Vaiclav Stach (1755-1831),101 were occasional in nature and did not represent a concerted effort to write Czech history in Czech. There were, nevertheless, some writ- ers who attempted to provide historical works aimed specif- ically at the common people and therefore written in the native language. Among the most prolific of these was Jan Nepomuk Josef Rulik (1744-1812). Rulik was an active translator and writer, connected with the "popular awakeners" Kramerius and Tomsa,102 who was characterized more by patriotic enthusiasm than by originality 45 46 Origins of the Czech National Renascence and literary talent. One of his earliest historical publications was his Velmi uiitecnd historie o slovutndm ndrodu Ceskem, which appeared in 1793. Though its title seems to promise a history of the Czech nation, actually Rulik's work was essen- tially a Czech version of M. A. Voigt's forewords to his Effigies virorum eruditorum atque artificum Bohemiae et Moraviae, a collection of biographies of Bohemian writers and artists (see chapter 3). In the forewords, now rendered into Czech by Rulik, Voigt surveyed aspects of Bohemia's cultural past, especially literary history.103 Through Rulik's Velmi uzitend historie these patriotically defensive forewords were now available to a Czech audience, but the work was not profes- sional history in the sense of the articles published in the Ab- handlungen or Pelcl's Kurzgefasste Geschichte der Bohmen. Rulik did, however, help bridge the gap between the patriotic intellectuals who wrote in German and Latin and the Czech public, and his criticisms of his more scholarly colleagues for not publishing their works in Czech were echoed by other popular awakeners and even patriots of the next generation.104 Rulik's other historical works are interesting not for their con- nection with the new, critical methods, but with the Cathol- icism and patriotic pathos of the Balbin tradition. These traits were clearly expressed in Rulik's Vypsdni zivoti svatjch patroni ceskjch, published in two volumes in 1801. Just as in some of the works of his predecessors in the Balbin school, the emphasis in Rulik's collection was on the loyalty of the Czechs to Catholicism, and he expressed his historical patriotism in terms of the saints' lives. This was not an original work, but a translation and reworking of a German volume by one Joseph Schiffner, also the author of another interesting work that Rulik translated and published between 1803 and 1810 under the title Gallerie, aneb vyobrazenost nejslovutnglich a nejznamenitjsgich osob zeme Ceske. The material in the book was "selected from the most excellent and trustworthy Czech chroniclers" and presented an ideal- ized picture of the early Slavs and their legendary leaders, largely based on the discredited Hijek.05 The Presence of the Past Most of Rulik's other historical works were also within this Catholic tradition. In places, he paid at least lip service to the new principles of critical history, referring to an account in Hajek's chronicle as "pure fable and hearsay," for example.1o6 Yet the general tone of his work as well as his subject matter was largely foreign to the concerns of enlightened historiog- raphy, and his criticism was not systematically applied. Lack of criticism was a complaint leveled at his most am- bitious work, the Kalendd- historicky, which he published from 1797 to 1810. Rulik harked back consciously to the ex- ample of the Renaissance humanist Daniel Adam z Velesla- vina in this attempt to provide his readers with a modern chronicle and at the same time a history of Bohemia from the beginning of the seventeenth century to the present.'07 In his labors on the Kalenddr" historickyj, and perhaps even in the formulation of the idea, he was influenced by Franti-ek Jan Vavik (1741-1816). Vavk was a successful farmer of peasant origin who held a position of some authority in the local ad- ministration of his village, Mil'ice near Podebrady (he was a vesnicky rychtdr- or Dorfrichter, something like a justice of the peace). In addition to this responsibility, Vavik kept a chronicle of events in his locality and region, read Kramerius's Czech newspapers, and corresponded with some of the lead- ing patriots of his day.s08 Rulik enjoyed friendly relations with Vavik and did not hesitate to request his help in the Kalendd-' historicky. 109 Both men shared a similar patriotism and historical background, based in each case on Catholicism and the Czech chroniclers, especially HAjek. Obviously, such attitudes would not have much in common with those of the critical historians like Dobrovsk or Pelcl. Rulik's Kalendd- historickyj was wel- comed by most patriots as a praiseworthy effort, yet they had reservations about its value both because of its obsolete form and its methods. This reviewer must admit [wrote Dobrovsk ] that this is one of the author's most successful works. But why has he 47 Pitt Series in Russian and East European Studies no. 18. Published by the University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pa., 15260 Copyright © 1993, University of Pittsburgh Press All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America Printed on acid-free paper Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Agnew, Hugh LeCaine. Origins of the Czech national renascence / Hugh LeCaine Agnew. p. cm. - (Pitt series in Russian and East European studies; no. 18) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8229-3742-5 (alk. paper) 1. Czech Republic (Czechoslovakia)-Intellectual life--18th century. 2. Czech Republic (Czechoslovakia)-Intellectual life-19th century. 3. Nationalism-Czechoslovakia-Czech Republic. I. Title. II. Series: Series in Russian and East European studies ; no. 18. DB2168.A34 1993 943.7-dc20 92-36909 CIP A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Eurospan, London 48 Origins of the Czech National Renascence not made the effort to give it the highest possible level of perfection? Why has he not given the Czechs through his activities a work that could properly stand beside those of his forerunners, and compete with the best works from abroad? ... Veleslavin selected with intelligence and ex- actitude, but his disciple seems to have been somewhat more remiss.10 Men like Rulik and Vavik simply were not equipped for the task of uniting modem historical methods with the use of the Czech language. This achievement was left to future gen- erations of historians. The history these intellectuals were cultivating was not yet national history in the modern sense-that is, the history of an ethnic nation. Yet the development of critical historical method in late eighteenth-century Bohemia was of crucial importance to the later elaboration of Czech nationalist atti- tudes. Common traditions about the past make up an impor- tant part of any nation's self-consciousness, so that most modern nations have demonstrated a link between the de- velopment of nationalism and the study of history, especially as historical conclusions are disseminated among wider levels of the population through mass schooling, the growth of lit- eracy, historical fiction, and popular publicization of contem- porary historical research."' This was especially so in the Bohemian context, where the continuous cultural development of the country had been diverted, and historical consciousness harnessed to the ends of the Counter-Reformation. In Bo- hemia the development of critical historical methods pre- pared the ground for the influence of attitudes toward the nation's history on the Czech national movement. The com- manding position enjoyed during the nineteenth century by Frantisek Palack 's conception of the meaning of Czech his- tory, as worked out in his monumental Dejiny ndroda 6esk9ho, would be difficult to imagine without the work of his late eighteenth-century predecessors. Their lively interest in the The Presence of the Past history of their nation (even when this idea of nation was still understood in a primarily territorial, not ethnic, sense) and their desire to remove the legends of more credulous ages led to a new, critical appreciation of the Czech past, while at the same time stimulating interest in literary history, philology, and literary criticism.11"2 The critical, rationalistic approach that they applied was transmitted to Czech historians in part through the works of German and Austrian historians who themselves learned the principles from the French. In this process, the role played by the Benedictines in Austria and Bohemia in spreading the methods developed by their fellows in the Congregation de Saint-Maur was especially valuable. Once the new methods had gained adherents among historians in Bohemia, they con- tinued to be developed, reinforced by the example of histo- rians abroad, notably the G6ttingen school.113 These historians set themselves the task of bringing the history of Bohemia out of the age of reliance on tradition not only because they wanted to clear away the fables of the past and reach the truth. They also wanted to purify their country's history, so that Bohemia, its history, and its historians could all take their place beside other enlightened nations without feeling inferior. Voigt's comments in his forewords to the vol- umes of Beschreibung der Bohmischen Miinzen, or Dobner's definition of the task of the historian, make this point clear. The latter quarter of the eighteenth century saw the critical method so firmly established in Bohemia that in 1804 Do- brovsk could dismiss his predecessor's magnum opus, the critical edition of Hijek's chronicle, with a brief remark: "It was not even worth a commentary.""114 Eloquent testimony to the distance Czech historiography had traveled in only one generation! By applying their critical methods to the earlier periods of Czech and Slavic history, these historians demonstrated the historical distinctness, state-forming abilities, and cultural ac- complishments of the early Czechs. Such historical images could work against the attempts of the centralizing Habsburg 49 50 Origins of the Czech National Renascence state under Joseph II to break down the cultural and political distinctiveness of the various parts of the Habsburg domin- ions.15 In their treatment of some subjects distorted by the Counter-Reformation, their skeptical approach paved the way for a reevaluation of aspects of the Czech past that had been denigrated or denied after the Battle of the White Mountain. In this their patriotism was qualitatively different from that of the Balbin school: they combined it with the ideals of the Enlightenment, while Balbin's patriotism was ex- pressed in the context of the Catholic church of the Counter- Reformation. The older tradition continued to survive among certain sections of the public, but the coming generation would nevertheless bring the heritage of the eighteenth- century historians to its historical writing in Czech and to its Czech patriotism. Thus by cultivating the history and strength- ening an awareness of the past of their land, these critical historical scholars laid an important foundation stone for the future. As yet their work was still the cultural property of all Bohemians, whether Czech or German; but already they had begun creating a self-consciousness that, when infused with newer ideas about language, would lead to the eventual sep- aration of the two nations. 2 "Our Natural Language" The rise of critical method in history stimulated and rein- forced a growing concern for the condition of the Czech language. This concern was linked with historical inquiry through philology, one of the most important of the auxiliary sciences for the critical method. If, as Pelcl wrote, docu- ments were "the soul of history,"' then the language in which they were written, its history, grammar, and present condi- tion, were necessarily subjects of interest. The contrast be- tween the Czech of their documents and the Czech of their own day, both in its social status and functional roles, was all too clear to the patriotic intellectuals. By the later eighteenth century, faced with a newly flourishing German language and culture in Bohemia, Czech seemed to be on its way to obliv- ion.2 This possibility was poignantly captured by Pelcl, who wrote in his "Geschichte der Deutschen und ihrer Sprache in B6hmen": Thus the second generation will already be German, and in fifty years more German than Czech will be spoken in Kouffm and the other cities of Bohemia; yes, it will be dif- ficult even to flush out a Czech.... One can easily con- clude how far the German language must come in a hundred years, and how much Czech in contrast must lose, until it finally dies out altogether.3 51 52 The Origins of the Czech National Renascence These words might suggest that Pelcl and others had al- ready given Czech up for lost; but a more accurate way of seeing them would be as an attempt to shock complacent or unaware contemporaries into doing something about its decline.4 In this attempt, Pelcl joined a number of other writers of his time who produced a stream of works defending Czech from its detractors and asserting its right to recognition as a fully developed language with a rich historical tradition. At the same time, scholars (including Pelcl) also published spe- cialized philological works intended to stabilize the gram- matical and lexical foundations of the language. German provided one of the most important stimuli to the defense and development of the language, while at the same time serving as a model to imitate. Many of the arguments in these Czech defenses resemble those used by German patriots in their support of German vis-A-vis French-yet the Czech authors were resisting German.5 The visible influence of German on Czech in syntax and especially vocabulary provoked purist zeal among some Czech grammarians-yet it was German philology that was so important in helping Czech scholars such as Dobrovsk establish an appropriate grammatical and lexical base for Czech.6 At a time when Czech had been practically driven from use in the public sphere and was viewed in most cultured circles as a debased peasants' jargon, the defenders of the language presented arguments for its support and cultivation. In time their ideas contributed to a changing concept of nation, moving from one based on the historical state and al- legiance to the monarch to one based on an organic com- munity of people using the same language, a community embracing all levels of society. Meanwhile the grammarians provided the practical foundation for the renewal of the Czech language that the defenders were advocating, and that was a prerequisite for the gradual extension of Czech into all spheres of cultural activity. "Our Natural Language' In Defense of the Mother Tongue The "defense of the language" as a literary genre was nothing new in Czech history, or, indeed, in the history of other na- tions.7 In the later eighteenth century, however, it did expe- rience a flourishing development, usually considered to have begun in 1773 with the publication in Prague of an anony- mous work entitled Erinnerung iiber einen wichtigen Gegen- stand, von einem Behmen. The author, Count Franz Joseph Kinsky, was concerned with pedagogical method and not di- rectly with the position of Czech; but in one passage he dis- cussed how his pupils (assumed to be children of the nobility) should study languages. It was KinskY's contention that a pupil could not learn Latin properly "as long as he is not perfectly fluent in his mother tongue."8 He then continued: To the phrase "his mother tongue" I would add: namely, Czech. I confess that, as a good descendant of the Slavs, I have inherited the prejudice that if the mother tongue of a Frenchman is French, and of a German, German, then the mother tongue of a Czech (Bbhmen) must also be Czech.9 Kinsk3's arguments for learning Czech followed two main lines: Czech was useful and it was beautiful.10 A landowner who knew Czech would be able to speak directly with the peasants under his jurisdiction, thereby winning their trust. In a similar way, a military officer would almost be forced to learn Czech in order to communicate with his Slavic troops. Since both of these functions were likely occupations for young sons of noblemen, these utilitarian arguments were cal- culated to appeal to Kinsk4's audience. Czech also had other, more prestigious qualities, how- ever. Kinsk compared it to Latin and Greek, since it distin- guished between long and short syllables, and he claimed that a knowledge of Czech would therefore make learning these two classical languages easier. What was more, it sounded 53 54 The Origins of the Czech National Renascence pleasant. "Let those of refined taste laugh if they will," Kinsk wrote, "I still say that Czech is a harmonious language." To support this assertion, he claimed that during the Seven Years' War French soldiers in Bohemia found Czech far less offensive to their refined ears than German. This alleged har- mony of Czech also accounted for the renown of Kinsk's fel- low countrymen as professional musicians. All this support for Czech did not mean, however, that Kinsky would not have his pupils study German. In fact, he called for them to learn both languages from childhood, and in later passages he defended German against the polite prej- udice in favor of French, praising such German authors as Gellert, Klopstock, Lessing, Wieland, among others, and re- ferring to German as his "own language."" This apparent inconsistency (which drove later nationalist historians to ex- asperation)12 suggests the limits to Kinsk's linguistic patrio- tism. On closer consideration, however, it does not really seem so inconsistent. The Kinsky family was one of the few old Czech families that remained among the Bohemian no- bility after the wholesale changes in its makeup following the defeat of the Estates in 1620. The family was conscious of its Czech origin and antiquity, especially among so many "new- comers," so the idea that he was "a good descendant of the Slavs" would have been part of Kinsk's family pride. Like most members of the upper classes at the time, how- ever, Kinsky would have had some education in Latin (and possibly Greek) and, among the modem languages, German and French. Czech would have been picked up for the util- itarian purposes mentioned in the Erinnerung rather than for- mally studied, though members of the Kinsky family are known to have used it in correspondence into the eighteenth century.'3 Yet at the time Kinsk wrote, it was German, not Czech, that was undergoing an exciting cultural revival, while the Czech language and Czech literature were still neglected. The latent territorial basis of Kinsk's support for Czech (a native of Bohemia [Bhmen] should speak Czech [bihmisch] just as a native of France should speak French) fitted a time "Our Natural Language" when the concepts of nation and patriotism had not yet be- come exclusively ethnolinguistic. Even though later patriots would take their attitudes toward the Czech language in that direction, thus moving away from Kinsky's position, the fact that he was a member of the higher nobility and still spoke up in favor of Czech meant that Kinsk3's Erinnerung became a landmark work, and his contemporaries headed their lists of defenders of the language with his name.'4 Further impetus to the renewed concern for Czech came from the publication in 1775 of Bohuslav Balbin's Dissertatio apologetica pro lingua slavonica, praecipue bohemica. This work was to prove very influential, with its effective coupling of humanistic rhetorical technique with the burning pathos and exaggerated imagery of baroque preaching style.'5 The love for his language and nation and the sorrow over their decline that suffused Balbin's manuscript were deemed sus- pect by his superiors in the Jesuit order, so it was never pub- lished during the author's lifetime. The edition of 1775, though limited in its appeal to readers able to understand Latin, was still considered dangerous; and although initial ap- proval was given by the censor, it was later withdrawn and all the unsold copies were confiscated. Pelcl, who acted as editor and who gave the manuscript the Latin title by which it is usually known, was himself accused of being the author.16 This attempt to continue to suppress Balbin's Dissertatio was not fully successful, however, and together with his work on the literary figures of Bohemian history, Bohemia docta (published in part beginning in 1776; see chapter 3), it helped establish Balbin in the esteem of the eighteenth- century patriots who saw themselves as in some measure his SUCCeSSOrS. '7 Echoes of both Balbin and Kinskl sound in later defenses of Czech. The utilitarian arguments adduced by Kinsk4 were frequently repeated, as were judgments of taste, refinement, euphony, and historical value. After the relaxation of censor- ship under Joseph II, publishing restrictions were loosened enough that several works whose sole aim was the defense 55 56 The Origins of the Czech National Renascence of the language appeared, even though written in the ver- nacular. In 1783, Johann Alois Hanke von Hankenstein, a Moravian in government service in Vienna, published his Empfehlung der b6hmischen Sprache und Litteratur, which he dedicated to his "fatherland"-the Margraviate of Mora- via. In spite of this echo of territorially based patriotism, Hanke's concern was the Czech language. He began by re- viewing the support once given Czech by the foremost nobles in the land, including such monarchs as Charles IV. In recent years, the status of Czech, once spoken by kings and great aristocrats, had fallen to such an extent that proposals were being made to "root it out and introduce in its stead a general state language-namely, German."18s It was to counter this threat that Hanke, otherwise an adherent of Josephinism, took up his cudgels. Yet if Czech were threatened from without, there was also a threat from within. Too many Bohemians admired foreign languages so much that they hardly ever spoke Czech, and when they did, they spoke it badly. With a nice satirical touch, Hanke depicted the style of Czech used at various levels of society- the nobleman interlarding it with French, the cleric with Latin, and the government official with both Latin and German. The solution might be to impose, in the best mercantilist manner, a protective tariff on the import of foreign words!19 Hanke's arguments in support of Czech against these threats echoed Kinsk5's in many respects. Czech's usefulness to anyone in a position of authority over Slavic subjects, its richness, expressiveness, and euphony, and its great historical tradition, going back to the ancient Slavic liturgical language, all made their appearance. In the spirit of Josephinism, with its belief that the duty of all citizens (including the emperor) was to serve the common good, Hanke railed against what he called fashionable ignorance, that desired to know only French, German, or the oriental languages: So that we have in place of Czechs or Moravians nothing but Greeks, Englishmen, or Frenchmen-enlightened "Our Natural Language" men! earnest patriots!-who are not even capable of trans- lating a decent English or French book into their mother tongue for the good of their homeland.20 Karel Hynek Thim's Obranajazyka cesk6ho proti zlobi- vymjeho utrhd6am, published in Prague in the same year as Hanke's Empfehlung, also linked up with the ideas of its pre- decessors. It shared with Balbin both the patriotic pathos and baroque flourishes, as well as the concern for the condition of the nation and language, that made the Dissertatio so pow- erful.2' Thim also denied that Czech was debased, stressing its euphony, brevity of expression, and natural way of forming words. He produced the familiar utilitarian arguments for learning Czech, while adding that a knowledge of Czech gave the key to communication with other Slavs. In several other respects, too, Thim's Obrana broke new ground. For one thing, it was written in Czech, not German or Latin. It thus provided tangible proof, to the best of Thim's abilities, of his claims for the language. Other arguments were colored by an emotional note not so clear in Kinsk3's or Hanke's defenses. Czech was, for Thim, the "natural language" of the Bohe- mians that in the past had been supported by people of all degrees, as the heritage of Czech literature showed. This was the example of the past: that "love for their natural language so strongly filled the hearts of our ancestors that, whenever the need arose to defend it, quickly seizing their weapons, they met their enemies in the field for its glory, with courage and heroism."22 In his own day, however, Thm saw the language fallen and degraded. In one moving passage he invoked the names of Jan Hus, Bohuslav Hasivtejnsk , Karel Zerotin, Veleslavin, Balbin, and others, imagining how they would lament to see the present condition of Czech. How had this come about? Thim pointed directly at the nobility. Through their indo- lence and carelessness they had extinguished the love for the fatherland that should be blazing in their hearts, and thus smothered it in the hearts of their compatriots. By their ex- 57 Contents Preface vii Introduction 3 1 The Presence of the Past 19 2 "Our Natural Language" 51 3 Reclaiming the Czechs' Literary Birthright 93 4 Toward a National Cultural Life 128 5 Narod a Lid-Nation and People 171 6 "The Glorious, Widespread Slavic Nation" 200 Conclusion 249 Abbreviations 259 Notes 261 Bibliography 303 Index 325 58 The Origins of the Czech National Renascence ample, which should have encouraged Czechs to work for the good of the country and the glory of the language, the gentry led them instead to an appreciation of comfort and an indif- ference to the decay of the language, and dissuaded them from undertaking tasks useful to the fatherland.23 Thim ad- mitted that there were some honorable exceptions, but in this passage he criticized the nobility's contribution to the decline of the language for the first time. The strength of the concept of the nobility as the political nation, the natio in the technical sense, showed through here as Thim expressed the exasper- ation of many of the patriotic intelligentsia that the Bohemian nobility did not take a more important part in the support and revival of Czech culture. It would be some time before the intellectuals were willing to give up on the nobility: for the moment they concentrated on bringing them to their senses through such appeals as Thim's. Th im was also among the first to condemn explicitly the policies of the Counter-Reformation in Bohemia, at least as far as they affected the Czech language. In his list of great Czech men of letters, Thim had already included the hereti- cal Jan Hus himself; and he also attacked the activities of the missionaries charged with returning the countryside to its Catholic allegiance, especially for their destruction of Czech books. One could learn good Czech style from them even if they contained religious errors, he argued, and the mission- aries would have been more effective polemicists if they had made themselves familiar with the arguments of their oppo- nents. Thanks to these missionaries, more good Czech books were printed in the surrounding Protestant areas of Germany than in the Czech lands themselves.24 This sort of attack on the church's cultural policies during the Counter-Reformation was easier now than it would have been a decade earlier, be- cause of Joseph II's own desire to curb the power of the church and strengthen the state's control over it. To the pa- triotic intelligentsia, a return to the great works of Czech hu- manism was important both from the point of view of the professional philologists and those among the intelligentsia "Our Natural Language' who wanted to prove that Czech could fill all the functional roles of a literary language. Thus Joseph II's prestige, at least in the earlier part of his reign, stood high with those who felt, as Thim did, that perhaps they could look to the emperor for support in their efforts on behalf of Czech.25 Contemporaries recognized the new note that Tham in- troduced into defenses of the language. Dobrovsk4 wrote that Obranajazyka deskdho was more than a mere defense, it was a clarion call for active measures to improve and cultivate Czech. "Whether we will ever achieve the standard of our forerunners," he cautioned, "or even can achieve it as it is here presented, is a question that can be answered without difficulty."26 In spite of this implied skepticism about the fu- ture of the Czech language, Dobrovsk proved to be one of the major figures in its grammatical stabilization and revival. And even he was not immune to the wave of enthusiasm for the language connected with the end of Joseph's reign and the coronation of his successor, Leopold II, as king of Bo- hemia in Prague.27 Dobrovsky was chosen to give an address to the emperor at a special session of the Royal Bohemian Society of Sciences in 1791, and, discarding his original in- tention of keeping to the more technical philological ques- tions and of closing with an appeal for Leopold's support for a comprehensive Slavic dictionary, he spoke instead about the importance of Austria's Slavic inhabitants to the monarchy. In this speech, "ber die Ergebenheit und Anhanglich- keit der Slawischen V61lker an das Erzhaus Osterreich," Do- brovsky emphasized the numerical predominance of Slavs over all other nationalities in Austria, their greatness as a peo- ple (citing the extent of the Russian Empire as evidence of their ability to conquer and administer vast territories), and their contribution to Austria's military power. He had in- tended to close with a request that Leopold would consent "to protect the Czech nation in this priceless inheritance from their forefathers, in their mother tongue, from all violent measures and hidden coercion."28 Any use of force to achieve a single state language would be harmful to the true interests 59 60 The Origins of the Czech National Renascence of the state. These last thoughts, however, were excised from the speech as read to the monarch, by express order of the Highest Burggrave, Count Rottenhan-a high-handed pro- ceeding that Dobrovsk continued to resent years later.29 Nevertheless, the speech "greatly pleased our Czech Slavic patriots," as Dobrovsk commented, and the uncut version was quickly printed in both German and Czech.30 Another defense of Czech connected to the enthusiasm generated by Leopold's coronation was Jan Rulik's Sldva a vjbornostjazyka -eskdho, published in 1792. Just as most of Rulik's historical works were derivative, so his defense of the language borrowed arguments from all his predecessors; but he did gather and effectively restate them in Czech. He stressed the relationship between Czech and the other Slavic languages (or dialects, as he called them), he asserted that Czech had no need to borrow words from other languages (citing Balbin's Dissertatio for support), and he brought out the now traditional utilitarian arguments for a knowledge of Czech among landowners, military officers, and bureau- crats.31 Throughout, he modeled his language on the Balbin tradition of baroque rhetoric and patriotic pathos, and in his concern for Czech's purity from foreign borrowings he also echoed the concerns of his baroque forerunners. With Joseph II dead and gone, and Leopold and his suc- cessor Franz slowing down or reversing some of his policies, Rulik did not express the same sort of attitudes as Hanke or Thim to some of the defenders' themes. He was adamant in his lack of sympathy for the Czech Hussites or the Bohemian Estates in 1618, though he did condemn the burning of Czech books during the seventeenth century. He also condemned the school policies of the 1770s, and by implication the 1780s, for forcing Czechs to go to German schools to learn German. Rulik insisted that "the mother tongue is the priceless inher- itance of each and every nation, passed down from fathers to sons.""32 The Hungarians set a great example, according to Ru- lik, for not only the common folk, but also the highest nobles in Hungary supported the Magyar language. In addition to "Our Natural Language" this indirect appeal for the upper classes to support Czech, Rulik called on his colleagues to look at the language with other than an antiquarian interest: it was not enough just to read and appreciate old Czech books; patriots should actively support Czech writing and publishing. "The glory, learning, and improvement of Czech does not only consist in using Czech at home, in meetings, in the market, or society," he reminded his readers. "It is rather through learned and ele- vated works and through reading books that are now being published once more in pure, unadulterated Czech, that Czech learning improves and perfects itself."33 With this last admonition, Rulik in fact claimed for Czech all the functional roles of a developed, literary language. One step on the way to making that goal possible, a move that was widely canvassed at the time of Leopold's coronation, was the establishment of a chair of Czech language and literature at the university in Prague. F. M. Pelcl was eventually chosen to fill this chair in 1793,34 and as was the custom, he delivered an inaugural address in which he, too, defended the study of Czech. This Akademische Antrittsrede iiber den Nutzen und Wichtigkeit der Bhmischen Sprache strongly reflected the utilitarian arguments that had been important in winning gov- ernment approval for establishing the chair. It also reflected the extent to which Pelcl had changed his attitude to Joseph II and at least some of his policies. To prove how important it was to know Czech, even for the ruler, Pelcl claimed that Jo- seph had been unintentionally responsible for the great Bo- hemian peasant uprising of 1775. When a delegation of peasants presented the co-regent with their complaints, he intended to tell them to take the matter up with their lords- but instead of saying "Jdete k pinim" (go to your lords), he replied, "Jdete na piny" (attack your lords).35 The Joseph II presented in this far-fetched story is a long way removed from the enlightened "father of his people" from whom the patri- otic intellectuals expected so much for the Czech language and culture.36 Pelcl also criticized the school policies connected with the 61 62 The Origins of the Czech National Renascence last reign, making the novel observation that forcing Czech- speaking students to learn German was only giving them an unfair advantage over monolingual German students, since the bilingual student could take a government post in either German or Slavic-speaking areas of the kingdom. Thus Pelcl became one of the first to draw attention to an area of conflict that would dominate so much of the nationalist struggle of the nineteenth century: competition for places in the state bureaucracy and quarrels over the language it used. In the military and seigneurial jurisdictions, too, Pelcl saw Czech as necessary (quoting directly from Kinsk4i's Erinnerung); and like Kinski, Pelcl also stressed the musicality of Czech. Here, however, he cited his own experience, having heard with his own ears how much better suited Czech was to the stage than German, especially in opera.37 With this final comment Pelcl epitomized the claims of Czech to equal consideration with German for high cultural expression, which suggests that con- ditions had begun to change from the time when the death of Czech had seemed imminent. In fact, an underlying theme of Pelcl's speech was a more confident view of the continued existence of the Czechs, for "those who predicted under Jo- seph II that the Czech language would be buried within fifty years were atrociously out in their reckoning."3 If Pelcl's inaugural address reflected at least some of the changes that had taken place in the position of Czech since the 1770s-changes to which he had himself contributed- this was equally true of the lecture that his student and suc- cessor, Jan Nejedl , gave in 1801. Rather than merely re- hearsing the familiar utilitarian arguments going back to Kinsky and appealing to the rationalistic, practical attitudes of Josephinism that had affected Pelcl's generation deeply, Nejedly concentrated on the aesthetic qualities of Czech that made it worthy of renewal and support. He stressed its rich- ness, energy and clarity; its similarity to Greek, that highly respected classical language; its syntactical flexibility (in con- trast to German); and finally its musicality and euphony.39 These qualities all involved aesthetic taste and could not be "Our Natural Language" empirically proven, only stated. They resembled more nearly the emotional note introduced into Thim's Obrana than the reasoned arguments of other defenders of the language. Nejedl , even more clearly than Pelcl, identified the language issue as a source of tension within the Kingdom of Bohemia and argued that teaching Czech to all Bohemians would be a way to defuse this tension, for "then the hate, the contempt, and bitterness between Czech and German ... would end; a bond of fraternal friendship would encircle them, the more the German communicated with the Czech, orally or in writ- ing, in the Czech language."40 Nejedl5 also began to make explicit some changes in the attitude of the patriotic intellectuals to the concept of nation and its relation to the language. It was the language and cus- toms of a nation that differentiated it from every other nation, and if it changed these two essential characteristics, it ceased to be what it was and became something else. A Czech could best serve the state by being a Czech, not by becoming a Ger- man. Pride itself demanded that the Czechs support their mother tongue, for otherwise, he asked, "Would we not ex- pose ourselves to contempt and ridicule because we despise the language of that nation of which we are a part?"41 This identification of language with nation was also ex- pressed in K. H. Thaim's Ober den Karakter der Slawen, which was the text of an address he gave when he took up the position of Czech instructor at the Star6 Mesto (Old Town) academic gymnasium. In a pastiche taken from his predeces- sors' works, Thim recapitulated the developments of the years since the 1770s, quoting (frequently without references) from his own Obranajazyka deskdho, Josef Dobrovsk4's Ge- schichte der Bhmischen Sprache, Karel Raphael Ungar's Bihmische Bibliothek, Nejedl's inaugural lecture, Kinski's Erinnerung, and Dobrovsk's speech for Leopold II. Thim also quoted J. G. Herder's famous passage about the Slavs from his Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Mensch- heit, as well as this extract from his Briefe zur Befirderung der Humanitdt: 63 64 The Origins of the Czech National Renascence And does any people (Volk), even an uncultivated one, have anything more dear than the language of its fathers? Its entire intellectual wealth of tradition, history, religion, and principles of life lives in it, its entire heart and soul. To degrade or take away the language of such a people means to take away its sole undying possession, which passes on from parents to children. ... In truth, just as God tolerates all the languages of the world, so a ruler should not only tolerate, but also honor, the different languages of his people.42 These ideas of Herder's fell upon fertile soil in Bo- hemia, as in the rest of Central Europe. His elaboration of a linguistic concept of nationhood fitted in with the ideas and attitudes the patriotic intellectuals such as Thim had been developing. But they did not owe the concept to him; rather, he gave them important support and reinforcement of their views. These views were expressed most clearly in 1806 in a se- ries of articles published in Hlasatel cesky, a periodical edited by Jan Nejedl. Hlasatel 6eskyj set itself the task of proving by example that Czech could be used for the highest cultural functions and gathered around it many of the younger patriots who participated in the second generation of the renascence. Nejedl led off the first volume with an article entitled "O lisce k vlasti," in which he discussed the concept of love of one's country. He went beyond the idea of vlast as the region in which one is born and lives and expanded it into a broader concept linked with the language, which one was obliged to love as he loved his own mother. In fact, Nejedlr personified vlast as a mother "who has lovingly and carefully raised us, and up to this moment continues to preserve us."43 The con- cept of homeland, he wrote, was as old as human society, im- portant to the Greeks and Romans (who knew no more terrible crime than treason to the fatherland) and common to every nation on earth. Nejedl) linked this concept indisso- lubly with language. He asked whether Jan 2izka could have inspired his soldiers to such acts of bravery if he had not ad- "Our Natural Language" dressed them in Czech. Language was the element distin- guishing one nation from another, what determined national identity: Every nation is separated from every other nation by its mother tongue and customs, and only according to these two traits is it possible to differentiate it from all other na- tions; thus if it changes these two basic characteristics it ceases to be the nation that it was, and, transformed into another nation, it joins onto whichever nation it was whose language and customs it has accepted.4 But since Nejedly identified vlast with the language and customs of the nation, anyone who harmed "his vlast, that is, his customs and mother tongue," was no better than a traitor.45 The meanings of nation, language, and vlast were further developed in the same volume of Hlasatel cesky by Josef Jung- mann in two "conversations about the Czech language." In the first one, Jungmann lamented the condition of contem- porary Czech. Daniel Adam z Veleslavina, who represented for this generation of Czechs the golden age of the humanist sixteenth century, meets with the shade of an eighteenth- century compatriot in the Elysian Fields.46 In the course of their conversation, Veleslavin learns, to his shock and hor- ror, the extent to which the language has decayed. The eighteenth-century Czech refers to German as "his lan- guage," since to anyone who understands honor or owns a decent coat, "to speak Czech is shameful." The passing shade of a German Bohemian acts as an impartial observer, noting that the Czechs had not followed the German example in de- veloping their language, but reassuring Veleslavin: "that na- tion is still living, whose language has not completely died."47 In his second conversation, Jungmann turned from the state of the Czech language in his own day to prospects for its future development. Slavomil and Protiva (whose names could be loosely rendered as "Pro-Slav" and "Anti-Slav") are discussing the patriotic efforts of the Czech intellectuals to revive their nation and its language. Protiva enters as a de- 65 66 The Origins of the Czech National Renascence fender of the cosmopolitan point of view, claiming that a true cosmopolitan could not love any single part of the world bet- ter than another. Slavomil counters that one who loves man- kind has a special place in his heart for his own family; and similarly a cosmopolitan has a special regard for his own homeland. Slavomil laments the decline of Czech, and when Protiva argues that the issue is love of the fatherland and not love of language, the other replies that the two are insep- arably linked. If the numbers of French in Vienna grew, there would eventually be French and German Austrians, just as there are Czech and German Bohemians, and there would be a French-Austrian homeland where they lived and spoke French. "So there are as many nations as there are languages, and as many fatherlands as nations?" Protiva asks. Slavomil responds: We are not quibbling over labels, but arguing about es- sences; and I believe that if the Czech nation became Ger- manized, or died out in any other way, ... then the name (echy [the Czech term for Bohemia] would properly be- long to this land as little as does the name Bohemia, since there have been no more Boii here for ages. ... For if it is impossible to conceive of a homeland without a nation and a nation without its own language, then I maintain once again that no one who does not love the language of his nation can pride himself on true love for his country.48 Here Protiva changes tack, and asks if it would not be better for the Czechs to learn German, since it is an advanced, cultivated language, and a knowledge of it would open up so much in the sciences and the arts. Would it not be better to continue advancing learning in German, rather than go back now and attempt to write learned works in Czech? Slavomil's response assumes that the nation includes all Czech speakers, the bulk of whom will go on speaking Czech, and that if they are to benefit from the progress of learning, that learning will have to be made available to them in Czech. But since Czech is a debased peasants' jargon, Protiva objects, how can this "Our Natural Language" revival take place? Has not Germanization progressed so far that it cannot be turned back? Slavomil points to the example of the Hungarians and reminds his opponent that the entire history of the Czechs has been one of struggle with foreigners. Even if Czech survives only among the lower classes, the na- tion will not die out: The people are Czech; let the nobles speak French or Chaldean (the more rational of them will love the language of their people), what of it? The people will accept them for what they proclaim themselves to be-foreigners-and will love them the less, the less they are loved.49 Jungmann closed his conversation with an appeal to the self-interest of the government in supporting better oppor- tunities for Czech in the schools and official life, a call for the organization of a Slavic learned society, and an appeal for more understanding and support for Czech from the Germans. Jungmann and Nejedl expressed some significant shifts in the understanding of the words vlast, nation, and patrio- tism, and their relationship to the language. Nation in the eighteenth century was primarily understood in a political sense, that is, the natio consisted of those with political rights, usually only the nobility. Their patriotism consisted of loyalty to their sovereign, the king, and to the territorial entity of which they were citizens. The other elements in society owed loyalty to those with jurisdiction over them (for the peasants this meant their landlords) and ultimately to the monarch. Patriotism in such a context could have quite slippery mean- ings: loyalty to the king, to the entire realm the king ruled over, to the historical entity to which the nobility traditionally belonged, to one's region, district, or home village. Language did not have a primary function in defining nation, patriotism, or fatherland. Historical developments had left Bohemia with a heritage of Czech, preserved in the formulae used in the opening and closing of the Bohemian Diet, and in the ver- nacular dialects used by the country folk of certain regions; 67 68 The Origins of the Czech National Renascence but one could be a Bohemian, even a patriotic Bohemian, without speaking Czech. The defenders of the language seem to have started out with an almost antiquarian desire to preserve this historical heritage from total annihilation. The great monuments of Czech literature from the golden age of Czech humanism could be valued as part of the Bohemian cultural heritage, but it was pathetically clear when one compared eighteenth- century Czech with these monuments that a drastic decline had set in. This painful comparison provided part of the stim- ulus for the defensive efforts of the intellectuals. Additional impetus was given to them by the fact that the desire (typical of the Enlightenment) to work for the good of the state, to improve the lot of the citizens, and ensure that each of them made his contribution to the whole, meant that for practical reasons of communication with the people, Czech had to be used once more. Yet as long as nation remained a primarily political concept, Czech would not be a national language un- less the foremost members of society, those with political rights, used it-hence the concern of the defenders of the language for the social status of Czech and their efforts to encourage especially the nobility to use it. And, indeed, under the pressure of the centralizing tendencies of Vienna (which did not significantly change from the time of Maria Theresa through Joseph and Leopold to Franz), the nobility did be- come interested in Czech, at least as a symbol of the tradi- tional, historic individuality of the Kingdom of Bohemia.50 But the likelihood of the nobility's readopting Czech as their pri- mary language was never very great, and the patriotic intel- ligentsia had to learn to do without the nobles. In their gradual realization that the Czech language could revive, and the Czech nation survive, even if the nobility never really adopted it, these intellectuals were aided by the implicit extension of the idea of nation in the Enlightenment demand that citizens serve the good of the state. Although political rights were still limited, the idea that everyone contributed to the good of the whole gave even the lowest levels of society "Our Natural Language" a part in its life. As the idea of vlast was extended and per- sonified, the object of the citizen's duty shifted from the state as a political-historical-territorial concept to the nation as an ethnic-historical-linguistic concept. The impact of revolution- ary France's example affected the Czechs as it had the Ger- mans, as a new kind of nation replaced the old political natio. When patriots like Jan Nejedl' personified vlast as a mother, the mother tongue assumed primary importance in defining one's relationship to the vlast. If its essence was nothing other than the mother tongue and the nation's customs, as Nejedl' asserted, then patriotism meant a love of them and efforts to serve their good. If these were the hallmarks of a true patriot, then the idea of nation itself needed rethinking, since the old natio so clearly did not, in general, meet the criteria of pa- triotism. By the time Jungmann expressed it in his conver- sations, the nation was coming to mean those people who spoke the mother tongue, of whatever social class or whatever their political rights. The nation would not die as long as someone continued to speak Czech, even if the nobility did not. The heritage of the great Czechs of the past was for all Czech speakers, who were the "descendants" of these patri- ots, whatever their family tree from generation to generation. But if the Czech nation were to take its rightful place among the nations of the world, then, given the new attitudes toward the key concepts, patriotism demanded that the Czech lan- guage take over all the functions of a modern, national lan- guage. Thus Jungmann demanded that Czechs write in Czech for Czechs, whatever their subject. Gradually, then, the aim of the defenders of the language had broadened from a primarily preservative one to the much more ambitious one of making Czech the language of an en- tire national culture. In this task, the patriotic intellectuals came face to face with the realities of the last century and a half of Czech history. In order to realize their new goal, they had to stabilize and redevelop the language itself, eventually creating entirely new vocabularies to deal with subjects un- known to the Czech authors of the golden age. The Czech 69 70 The Origins of the Czech National Renascence defenders of the language had asserted its right to existence, insisting that it was the equal of German or any other lan- guage and just as worthy of cultivation; and they had gradually developed and expressed the idea of an emotional, spiritual relationship between a nation and its language. They thus provided the ideological justification for the renewal of the language and also encouraged those already working toward that end. Whither Czech? If the Czech language were to have any chance of achieving the status of a literary language capable of all forms of cultural expression, then its greatest need in the latter part of the eigh- teenth century was for a generally accepted codification of its grammar and stabilization of its lexical base. During its period of decline in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, the writers who used Czech (translators of official procla- mations and legal texts, or authors of popular religious man- uals) were too frequently ignorant of the rules of Czech usage as they had developed up to the end of the sixteenth century, when the Czech humanist writers had created a golden age for the language. The official Czech used in government publications or in religious works tended to be conservative grammatically, but was frequently marred by borrowings from German or arbitrarily formed neologisms for those expressions for which the author or translator did not know a Czech equivalent. The Czech in the popular-didactic material and the fledgling works of higher literature, on the other hand, was strongly influenced by popular spoken and dialect forms.5' This situation suggested two possible paths for Czech's future development: either it could cleave to the stan- dards of the humanist era at the risk of being archaic, or it could follow the current spoken usage at the risk of losing contact with its past heritage. One important means of bring- ing some order into this chaos would naturally be the estab- lishing of some sort of institutional cultivation of the language. The school system in Bohemia at this time had been sta- "Our Natural Language" bilized by the great educational reforms of Maria Theresa, which had been further built upon under Joseph II. The All- gemeine Schulordnung, which went into effect in 1775, had established three levels of state schools and made them uni- form for the whole monarchy. To further the aim of uniform- ity, and for purely practical reasons, the system encouraged the spread of German as a subject and language of instruction (which Pelcl's gloomy pronouncement, cited at the outset of this chapter, reflects). But this did not mean that Czech had entirely vanished from the schools, nor indeed that this was the aim of the authorities.52 It did tend to be limited to the lowest level, the Trivialschule, however, and even there teachers were encouraged to introduce German as soon as possible. The teaching of the Czech language was basically limited to imparting mere literacy; instructional materials were scarce and frequently of poor quality. The need for cul- tivation of Czech at a higher, more scientifically exacting level was evident.53 Thus the call for introducing Czech as a subject of in- struction in higher educational institutions not only reflected a desire for prestige or recognition of Czech's utilitarian value; it also reflected this need for an authoritative codifi- cation of Czech's grammatical and lexical bases. This helps explain the great importance the Czech patriots placed on establishing a chair of Czech language and literature at the Prague university. Another factor adding to the value of the Prague chair of Czech was that it would show that Prague was the equal of Vienna in this respect, for the institutional cul- tivation of Czech in the eighteenth century did not begin in Bohemia or Moravia at all, but in Lower Austria. The earliest foundation that gave instruction in Czech was the military academy for the sons of noblemen set up in Wiener Neustadt in 1752. Czech was one of the languages taught there from its beginnings, for the very practical reason that the pupils at the academy were destined for careers in the imperial and royal army, and would thus find the knowledge of a Slavic language useful. If this reasoning has a familiar ring to it, it 71 72 The Origins of the Czech National Renascence could be because one of the directors of the Wiener Neustadt military academy was none other than Count Franz Joseph Kinsk, author of the Erinnerung iiber einen wichtigen Gegenstand. At Wiener Neustadt, Kinsk4 put some of his pedagogical ideas into practice, notably by introducing the so- called colloquia in every class on Sundays. At these gather- ings, all the cadets from Bohemia would be required to converse in Czech, those from Hungary in Magyar, and sim- ilarly with those from other provinces of the Habsburg mon- archy.54 Other institutions that included Czech among their sub- jects of instruction were later established in or around Vienna, including the school for military engineers (established in 1754) and the Theresianische Ritterakademie (1784). The first tertiary-level chair of Czech was set up at the university in Vienna in 1775. Little is known about the earliest Czech instructors at the Wiener Neustadt academy beyond their names, but their later successors, Josef Valentin Zlobick (1743-1810) and Maximilian Simek (1748-1798), were active participants in the struggle for the codification of Czech. When the university chair of Czech was set up in Vienna, Zlobick became its first incumbent and was replaced at Wie- ner Neustadt by Simek. A third Czech instructor who also took an active part in the linguistic revival was the teacher at the Theresianische Ritterakademie, Jan Vaclav Pohl (1720- 1790).5 Pohl, the eldest of the three, had entered imperial service to be the Czech tutor to the heir to the throne, Archduke Joseph (later Joseph II), so he wielded great influence in lan- guage matters, especially under Maria Theresa.56 Pohl's out- look was heavily influenced by the puristic tendencies of the baroque, which rejected all borrowed foreign words in Czech. This attitude led him to create neologisms with a verve and abandon equaled only by his lack of a thorough understanding of the rules of word formation in Czech, so that today he is most infamous as representing the apogee of purism in mod- em Czech.57 This reputation has tended to obscure the re- "Our Natural Language" mainder of Pohl's grammatical teaching, which did not in the main deviate very much from traditional Czech grammars. Pohl retained the conservative ending -ti in the infinitive (uciti, mluviti, etc.), and the formjest in the third person sin- gular of the verb to be. Where he did depart from the classical orthography, Pohl has usually received the endorsement of modem Czech, such as in his use of r for the older form rz, or his replacing of the diphthong ua with v (today, u), al- though some of these changes were not accepted until fifty years after his death.58 At the time he wrote, Pohl's sugges- tions met with hostility and rejection from other philologists. Josef Dobrovsk4 and a circle of his friends and colleagues were the leaders of the resistance to Pohl.59 In his negative review of the sixth edition of Pohl's grammar, Neuverbesserte B-hmische Grammatik (1783), Dobrovskl wrote that anyone coming to Bohemia from Vienna "must discover to his an- noyance that no one in Bohemia knows or understands the terms that he has so laboriously learned from Pohl's gram- mar."" He recommended instead Tomsa's Bihmische Sprach- lehre (1782), which had made the works of Pohl "completely dispensable."6' Pohl found a supporter, however, in the per- son of Simek-who also received short shrift from Dobrov- ski's circle. Dobrovsk attacked the orthography used in Simek's Krdtk vytah vgeobecnd historie pfirozenjch vici, published in 1778, pointing out that those authors outside of Bohemia who adopted the new, "hateful" orthography, rec- ommended by Pohl and used by Simek, would have to resign themselves to the fact that their works would not be read in Bohemia.62 The third of these leading Viennese Czech philologists, Zlobick, was much closer in his views to Dobrovsk, with whom he carried on a long and usually friendly correspon- dence. In fact, before Dobrovsk 's rise to prominence on the linguistic scene, Zlobickr had hopes of becoming the estab- lished authority on his native tongue. The (sterreichischer Biedermannschronik said of him in 1784 (in an article he probably wrote himself) that he was generally known as the 73 74 The Origins of the Czech National Renascence "Czech patriarch." Zlobick4 was stimulated by the German scholars Schlbzer, Gatterer, and Meusel to plan a general Slavic grammar, a classification of all the Slavic dialects (as most contemporaries referred to the different Slavic lan- guages), and a history of the language. This scheme counted on the collaboration of scholars in Russia, the Austrian mon- archy, and Germany.64 Unfortunately this ambitious project was never realized, and the only work by Zlobick4 on these themes that saw the light was the Handbuchfiir einen Lehrer der beihmischen Literatur. Even this was not published by Zlobick himself--Simek pirated it after the two men had a falling out and published it under his own name in 1785.6 From this handbook and his comments in correspondence with Dobrovs4k, however, it can be gathered that Zlobick generally stood close to the conservative Prague philologists, represented by Pelcl and Dobrovsk; but he did show himself more open to neologism as a means of enriching the lexicon, as his championship of Thim's dictionary suggests. (This will be discussed later.) In this opinion he was probably influ- enced by his own experience as an official translator. Pelcl, whose influence as a historian has already been dis- cussed, was also one of the earliest representatives of the Prague philological school to publish a work on the Czech language. His 1775 Handbuch zum Gebrauche derJugend bei Erlernung der deutschen, franz6sischen, und b6hmischen Sprache was based on the language courses he had developed as tutor to the sons of Count Nostitz. For the next several years, however, Pelcl seems to have allowed his historical and literary-historical interests to predominate, and it was not un- til his appointment as first holder of the chair of Czech at the Prague university that he published a comprehensive gram- mar. This had been one of the conditions for the successful applicant for the post, and accordingly Pelcl published his Grundsdtze der b6hmischen Grammatik in 1795, accompa- nied by an article on Czech prosody from Josef Dobrovsk.66 In his foreword, Pelcl clearly expressed his classical con- cept of Czech. He wrote of the concern for their language "Our Natural Language" shown by the Czechs, as evidenced by the many grammars they had published in the past. Their efforts were crowned with success, and "in the second half of the sixteenth century [Czech] was just as regular, just as defined and solid, as Greek or Latin. It reached the highest peak of its culture during the reign of Rudolph II, who held court in Prague. .... The Czech works published then are classics to us and are regarded as models of the language.67 It was an easy task for grammarians of that time (and since) to abstract rules of grammar from these examples, and Pelcl claimed that he had done the same. His reverence for the golden age of Czech led Pelcl to adopt a very conservative approach to any modifications of the lin- guistic heritage. At times, he even wrote of Czech as though it were a dead language: "There is nothing more to be im- proved upon in the Czech language; we must only strive to maintain it in the same condition it was in during its golden age. It is now in the same situation as Latin or Greek."68 Pelcl's classicist attitude naturally meant that his gram- mar, too, was conservative in outlook. It maintained the norms of the sixteenth century in conjugation (for example the form jest in the third person singular of the verb to be) and in declension (for example insisting on the ending -y as the only acceptable form of masculine and neuter nouns in the instrumental plural). Pelcl also kept his orthography very close to that of the Bohemian Brethren as codified in the Kra- lice Bible, recommending the use of both 1 and l and retaining the -ti infinitive ending. He also used other forms, however, which by the eighteenth century had become colloquial only, such as vo- at the beginning of words where the modern writ- ten form is o (vokno, vord), or allowing the spelling -ej- for -j- in the interior of words (vejstraha, vejnos).69 A corollary of Pelcl's conservative, classicist approach was that it made good Czech the exclusive preserve of those with a high enough level of education to appreciate it and looked down on the language of the common people. In a review of a popular-didactic work, Pelcl wrote that "it is simply for the country folk ... and therefore the translator chose the lowest 75 76 The Origins of the Czech National Renascence language of the mob (Pibelsprache), to make it easily under- standable. But those Czechs who are accustomed to the lan- guage of the Bible do not like such a style of writing."'70 Such an attitude is understandable when the social status of Czech is brought into consideration. By the eighteenth century, Czech was generally considered a vernacular dialect of the lower orders, which might have made those concerned for its revival oversensitive to any suggestion that the spoken dialect should, in fact, be made acceptable for literary usage. Pelcl's abortive plan for a Czech society, or Hromada, was also an expression of his classicist attitude. The purpose of this society, Pelcl wrote in 1794, was to have been the pro- duction of a comprehensive dictionary of the Czech of the golden age. Each member, among whom were the leading representatives of the patriotic intelligentsia, was to select a work from the golden age and collect all the words and ex- pressions in it that could not be found in existing dictionaries. The individual contributions would then be pooled, and a new, comprehensive dictionary of classical Czech would be created. One basic rule of the Hromada was that its members could converse among themselves only in Czech. "Nothing ever came of the idea, however," Pelcl later admitted, "due to conditions at that time.""71 Several years later, Dobrovsk wrote that the blame for the demise of Pelcl's scheme rested with Hofrat J. A. von Riegger, whom he described as an "anti- Slav (Slawenfeinde)" for convincing Pelcl that "the Court in Vienna would object to it."72 Unlike Pelcl, another Czech grammarian, Franti'ek Jan Tomsa (1751-1814), showed a much more open attitude to- ward the developments in Czech since the sixteenth century. He believed that the spoken language could be an especially important source for Czech philologists, reflecting a greater influence on him from the grammars of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, especially that of Pavel DoleBl (1746). For example, Tomsa accepted both -y and -ami as endings in the masculine instrumental plural (s duby, s holuby, but also s dubami, s holubami), he gave the endings - and -eji without "Our Natural Language" distinction in the third-person plural of verbs in -i (such as uct and lezf) and he recommended both -t and -ti as spellings for the infinitive ending.73 In most other important respects, however, Tomsa's earliest grammar, the Sprachlehre of 1782, which Dobrovski praised so highly, harmonized with the lat- ter's teachings.74 The energetic newspaper editor, V. M. Kra- merius, who also supported the standard of the golden age for Czech, recommended Tomsa's grammar as the best available and a standard that should be followed by anyone setting out to write Czech, since Tomsa had "collected only those rules which have a solid basis in the works of our classical Czechs."75 In his later grammatical works, Tomsa developed his ideas on the importance of the spoken usage for Czech grammar, the possibilities of using other Slavic languages as sources and mod- els, and the need for an orthographic reform of Czech that was more radical than most contemporaries could accept. Tomsa, an avid observer of the living language, frequently accompanied the examples he used in his works with a note of the place, date, and situation in which he heard them.76 He defended this prac- tice strongly, writing in one passage: "I hope no one will abuse me for supposedly learning Czech only from old wives. A true Czech must not be ashamed to learn from all Czechs, in order to comprehend the entire linguistic usage; but he must test what he hears, in order to be able to teach genuine Czech.""77 He followed his own precept carefully, corresponding with his fa- ther, "a Czech peasant," on questions of usage or vocabulary that had to do with cultivation and animal husbandry, and in- cluding some of the data thus collected in his O(ber die Verdn- derungen der echischen Sprache (1805). In his defense of the language, Von den Vorziigen der cechischen Sprache, Tomsa also defended his approach to the common spoken language. After quoting Friedrich Gedike to the effect that "the language of a people can rightly be seen as a mirror of its national char- acter," Tomsa continued: The language of a nation always grows, even if the nation teaches itself, by itself, through natural philosophy without 77 Preface This book began life, as so many first books do, as my doctoral dissertation at Stanford University. Unlike some of those dissertations, however, it has been a long time in the transformation from thesis to book. When I began looking into the origins of the Czech nationalist movement of the nineteenth century, contemporary Czechoslovakia was stul- tifying under "normalization" and Gustav Hus~k was presi- dent and first secretary of the Communist party. If someone had offered to wager that Czechoslovakia would be trans- formed into a multiparty democracy and Vdiclav Havel would be occupying the presidential office in the Hrad before my thesis appeared in book form, I would have thought it absurd. What a useful reminder that to most contemporaries the sta- tus quo seems permanent simply because it exists! From this perspective, the struggles of the Chartists and other dissidents under Communism reflect the same willingness to swim against the stream as those of the early Czech "awakeners." Perhaps that is one reason why at times of crisis, Czechs (and Slovaks, but this book is concerned only with the Czechs) keep returning to their history and the traditions of their na- tion, reexamining the past to understand its "meaning." In this "dialogue with the past" (as E. H. Carr once de- fined history), I hope this book can take a part. It is based on both the secondary literature on this theme and the original primary sources left behind by its subjects. There is very little vii 78 The Origins of the Czech National Renascence the help of scholars. One should himself, therefore, study not only from good written works, but also from the com- mon speech, if he wants to preserve a more exact knowl- edge of the living language. Not everything in the common speech is coarse; there is much in it that is fine.78 Tomsa also stressed in his works the importance of a knowledge of the other Slavic languages to anyone working on Czech grammar. Already in the outline of a course of Czech that he wrote at the end of 1791 as part of his appli- cation for the post at the Prague university (which went to Pelcl), Tomsa included instruction in "the other main dialects of the Slavic nation," especially Russian and Polish.79 When the Russian armies marched through Prague in 1799 and 1800, Tomsa listened to their speech and later used some of his notes in his books.80 He considered Czech a "key to the other Slavic languages, although the Czech can also learn quite a lot from the other Slavs," and he hoped that his suggestions for orthographic reform would help bring all the Slavic languages closer together.81 It was in these proposed orthographic reforms that Tomsa departed most drastically from the heritage of the sixteenth century. Accordingly, it was this aspect of his grammatical teachings that excited the most opposition from the more clas- sicist philologists. In his earliest work on Czech orthography, Uveden k ceske dobropisemnosti, published in 1782, Tomsa did not yet suggest any deviations from the accepted orthog- raphy based on that of the golden age. A few years later, how- ever, in his popular-didactic monthly paper, Misicni spis k poucent a obveseleni obecndho lidu (1787), he was already in- troducing some changes in practice, notably the use ofj in place of g (jd instead of gd for I, jest in place of gest for is).82 He continued to introduce changes in his later works, earning Pelcl's condemnation of his reprint of the 2ivot Karla IV, which appeared in 1791. Tomsa eventually presented a the- oretical defense of his new orthography in several of his later linguistic works, especially in Uber die 6echische Recht- schreibung (1802), Uber die Veranderungen der cechischen "Our Natural Language" Sprache (1805), and Grissere cechische Orthographie (1812). The changes Tomsa introduced were basically the introduc- tion of Latin letters in place of the "Schwabach" or "Gothic" type then in use (which Tomsa castigated as "that monks' script")1 and the adoption of consistent diacritical marks in order to represent all the sounds of Czech with a single letter each. He replaced the former ss with , cz with -, rz with i, andj with i, while usingj to replace g. In short, the orthog- raphy that Tomsa advocated corresponds in almost every way with modem Czech usage. Other reforms he taught included the rejection of the spelling vo- at the beginnings of words, an end to the capitalization of all nouns (an unnecessary im- itation of the German), and the dropping of the -i from the infinitive ending.8 He even presumed to criticize Veleslavin, blaming the symbolic representative of golden age Czech for introducing the letter g forj.85 Tomsa's orthographic changes met with criticism from al- most every quarter. As early as 1790, Zlobick? objected to the orthography used in Mesicni spis and urged Dobrovsk to use his influence to get Tomsa to return to the old forms." Pelcl objected especially to the spelling of the infinitive without the i. Tomsa had argued that in the common speech it was hardly ever pronounced, appearing only as a softened final t in spo- ken Czech, while the Poles, Russians, and Lusatian Slavs even left it out of their written languages." Pelcl's response to this reasoning reflects his classicist position: "One writes the in- finitive amare, docere because that is how Cicero wrote it; therefore also milovati, u6iti because that is how Veleslavin wrote.""8 Dobrovsk also attacked the "singular orthography, contrary to the general national usage of the Czechs," which Tomsa was dictatorially trying to force on the nation.89 Some- how this question of how to spell the infinitive came to sym- bolize far more than its actual importance, and it was the focal point of the attacks on Tomsa, many of them ad hominem. Thus Puchmajer wrote to Dobrovsky in 1813: Tomsa is to be pitied, or rather not to be pitied, since he could live respectably if he would only arrange it so. It is 79 80 The Origins of the Czech National Renascence a shame about him; he is after all the best of Czechs; and if only he would decide to allow the -ti its rightful honor I would take up a collection for this physical and mental cripple.9. With time Dobrovsk arrived at a more tolerant view, which he expressed in his Slavistic collection Slovanka (1815), suggesting that each person look to his own sense of taste, and then write -ti or not, with sensible moderation. This was a solution Tomsa also suggested.9' Another recipient of the ire of the classicist philologists was K. H. Thim, whose Obranajazyka ceskeho figured in the previous section. In addition to being one of Czech's most fervent defenders, Thim was a prolific author of textbooks and dictionaries for it.92 The more conservative grammarians in Prague, led by Pelcl and his pupil and successor, Jan Nejedl, objected to what they called Thaim's arbitrary ap- proach to the rules of Czech grammar. Pelcl accused Thim of trying to force a set of rules onto an already flourishing language, but his alternative was to take them from the best works of the golden age.93 Because this was not Thim's method he became, at least in their eyes, tainted with the puristic tendencies of Pohl and the seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century grammarians. Since the classicist philol- ogists had spent much time and energy criticizing Pohl and Simek, the appearance of Thim's grammatical and lexical works provoked some of them to exasperation, such as Jan Nejedl , who wrote: The Czech language had scarcely begun to recover, to come nearer to the standard of the period of Emperor Ru- dolph II ... and then a bungler appeared with a gram- matical monstrosity, who wanted to introduce all this barbarity again. Is this what it means to be inspired by true love for the fatherland?94 Dobrovsk also warned prospective students of Czech, es- pecially Germans, against Tham's promise that by his meth- "Our Natural Language" ods they could learn Czech "thoroughly, easily, and quickly" as the title of the later editions of Thm's grammar had it. "How can something that is by its nature difficult be made easier?" asked Dobrovsk . "All-too-easy methods are usually shallow, and certainly do not lead to a profound and complete knowledge of a language as surely as the natural method."95 Pelcl and Nejedl also took Th im to task for introducing forms from the spoken language, such as krasnej instead of krasny, or the ending -emi for the instrumental plural of mas- culine and neuter nouns.96 Thim's spirited self-defense sug- gested ironically that the conservatives were out of touch with reality. As far as the inclusion of spoken forms in his grammar was concerned, Thim argued that he wanted "to make the student, who lives among people and not books, aware of [spoken forms] as well, which [are] in practically universal use, and not merely among the mob, but even the educated, refined classes.""'9 The frowns of such as Pelcl and Nejedl did not prevent Thim's grammar from going through five edi- tions in his lifetime; but the prestige of the conservative school, especially its leader, Dobrovskr, was so high that in future years Thim's works were relegated to a subordinate position in the revival of Czech, just as he himself had to be content with a post in a gymnasium while his rivals occupied the university chair of Czech.98 In the arguments over the direction Czech should take, toward the spoken language or back to the classical sixteenth century, Josef Dobrovsk occupied an important position. He was generally less conservative than Pelcl and was able to re- main on friendly terms with the more radical philologists such as Tomsa, who frequently borrowed grammatical and other materials from Dobrovs%.99 At the same time, his close friendship with Pelcl, and his approval of the greater part of the latter's position, are testified to by the inclusion of Do- brovsk's article on Czech prosody in both editions of Pelcl's grammar. Dobrovs4k surpassed both Pelcl and Tomsa in the clarity of his systematization and in his wide-ranging and detailed 81 82 The Origins of the Czech National Renascence knowledge of Czech philology. Dobrovsk's acquaintance with and understanding of the works of the great German philologists was also better than his colleagues'. Adelung and Friedrich Karl Fulda were especially important for Dobrov- sk5's Czech grammar. Fulda's theory of lexical roots, which also influenced Adelung, was the foundation of Dobrovsk's teaching on lexicography.100 Adelung's concept of analogy also played an important role in the development of Dobrovsk's ideas on orthography, especially the question of whether to use i or y after certain consonants such as z, s, or c.101 Do- brovsk9 emphasized analogy to such an extent that the few minor changes that he made in the orthography of the Bohemian Brethren came to be known as the analogical orthography.02 The foundation of Dobrovsk's grammar was still the lan- guage of the classical period. In his orthography he showed himself to be less conservative than Pelcl, using only one form of 1, for instance, or limiting the form vo- to dialectisms only. In conjugation and declension, on the other hand, he was more conservative than Tomsa. He held fast to the -ti in the infinitive, differentiated between third person plural verb endings in -i or -eji, and recognized only the ending -y or -i in the instrumental plural of masculine and neuter nouns.'03 In general, Dobrovsk's deviations from the classical Czech of the sixteenth century were outweighed by his basic adher- ence to its norms. Such was his personal prestige and the in- fluence of his works that even though succeeding generations have modified his teachings in certain areas, modern-day lit- erary Czech still bears the imprint of his ideas.'04 The Problem of Neologisms in Czech One of the questions that was closely tied up with the other problems occupying the Czech philologists was word forma- tion. We have seen how many scholars, such as Pohl and Si- mek, advocated purifying the Czech vocabulary of all foreign borrowings; and even the classicist philologists realized that some development of the Czech lexicon would be necessary "Our Natural Language" to deal with topics unknown to the sixteenth century. The issue of foreign influence on the Czech language was not something new-efforts to replace foreign borrowings with Czech equivalents can be traced back as far as the reign of Charles IV or the time of Hus.105 There was another peak in puristic tendencies during the baroque period, when some patriotic authors became ashamed of the number of Latin and German words they found in Czech and attempted to coin new Czech words to replace them. Men such as Pohl and Simek were the spiritual heirs of this baroque purism. Pohl's credentials as a sincere patriot could not be chal- lenged,106 but he was not, perhaps, best suited to undertake a reform of the Czech vocabulary. He lacked the knowledge of the language of the golden age that was so important to Dobrovsk and his group, and he also lacked their grasp of the structure of the language and the rules of word formation. Beginning with the third (1773) edition of his grammar, Pohl included a dictionary, listing in part those words in general use, and in part neologisms of the baroque purists or his own creation. Pohl's neologisms were mainly calques of German or Latin models, though he also included Moravianisms and words from the Viennese dialect of Czech. These neologisms were generally formed without any regard for the character- istics of the language, or even for comprehensibility. 107 Those Czech philologists who knew and appreciated the great works of Czech humanist literature were quick to see the danger to Czech from such efforts to "purify" it. Tomsa warned that "even if the common folk do not accept such marvelous words and expressions very easily, ... still those who do not know any better words will adopt them," with evil consequences for the language.'08 Dobrovsk also attacked neologisms formed contrary to the "spirit of the language." He continued: "The saddest thing is that such bunglers present themselves as authorities in grammar, such as the recently deceased Wenzel Pohl ... who wanted to teach us Czechs an entirely new Czech language, invented by himself."' Dobrovsk similarly criticized neologisms by Si- 83 84 The Origins of the Czech National Renascence mek, which, he said, were formed "partly without need, partly contrary to the rules of grammar," and in any case, "no one can understand them.""11 In spite of this theoretical resistance to the neologisms of Pohl's school, however, many of the words coined by the purists have survived to enter into present-day literary Czech."' Yet even if they could not successfully resist all of the puristic neologisms, the need to counter what they saw as a harmful development led the conservative philologists to clar- ify their own views on word formation in Czech. Dobrovsk and his friends were aware that Czech could not continue to exist exclusively on the word stock of the sixteenth century. They insisted, however, that "whoever wants to form new words, where it is necessary, must first make himself well ac- quainted with the rules of derivation."112 Dobrovsk9's criti- cisms of Simek's neologisms as quoted above summarized three of the guiding principles of the conservatives: newly formed words must be necessary, they must follow the rules of grammar, and they must be comprehensible. Dobrovsk4's theoretical works on word formation, especially his introduc- tion to Tomsa's 1791 dictionary, "Ober die Ursprung und die Bildung der slawischen und insbesondere der bohmischen Sprache," with his Die Bildsamkeit der Slawischen Sprache (1799), gave future philologists a firm basis for their work in this field. His more precise definitions of the concepts of root words, prefixes, suffixes, and endings were a necessary first step to the formation of new words that would not be contrary to the "spirit" of the language."3 The philologists grouped around Dobrovsk warned against too great haste in deciding that a new Czech word was needed for a given concept. First, they believed, a linguist should search through books dealing with the subject, check old dic- tionaries, and finally ask the people who were actively en- gaged with the topic in question.114 Pelcl, who toward the beginning of his career had shown himself relatively open to neologisms, became later more strict, and held that even if a word had once come from another language, the principle of "Our Natural Language" usage could give it Czech citizenship. "A word that is thus accepted and understood by the entire Czech nation is Czech," he insisted."5 If the need for a new Czech word could finally be established beyond doubt, the conservatives felt that there were better ways of filling this need than by calquing a new word on a German model. One way was to seek out an older word no longer in use and revive it, or, following the example of Adelung, to take over a word from another Slavic "dialect." Puchmajer urged Dobrovsk to follow this method in his dictionary, since it would be "a thousand times more reasonable than forging new monstrosities after the German.""6 Dobrovsk questioned the suitability of the grammarian for the task of coining new words, suggesting instead that this be left to the "aesthetic" writer, since the grammarian tended to produce too literal a translation of the foreign model."7 This was especially dangerous when the model language differed in essence from Czech, in which case a too-literal translation violated the spirit of Czech. Dobrovsk 's circle recognized the essential difference between Czech and Ger- man, the most popular model language-a language through which, as Tomsa warned, "many an enthusiastic Czech has been led astray."118 Maladroit neologisms from the German, such as Th m's rendering of horseradish (German, Meerret- tich) as monskd fetkev, received the full force of Dobrovsk's talent for sarcasm: The reader must think, according to the Czech meaning, of some wondrously rare, exotic plant, and would hardly anticipate that the Czech kren, k?en, or formerly chren, as it still is among the other Slavs, should be understood here."9 Dobrovsk insisted that each language had something that was unique to it, and thus Czech could not always express ideas the same way as German. Even Latin could not render German compounds with one word, and frequently had to resort to a phrase or other circumlocution. If Czech philol- 85 86 The Origins of the Czech National Renascence ogists ignored this fact as they worked, then "we will no longer write Czech, but German with Czech words."120 In practice, however, it was frequently very difficult to find or create appropriate Czech words for German or other expressions. This problem was particularly vital for transla- tors, and it is noteworthy that active translators, especially Zlobick, were more willing to accept neologisms. As the leading authority on Czech in Vienna, Zlobick was entrusted with the official duties of translator and, from 1781, censor of Czech books. He was particularly active as a translator of legal codes and other government texts, and published eight such works between 1781 and 1804. In his translations, Zlobick7 was plagued by the lack of a developed legal terminology in Czech, and had perforce to try to create one, using German as a model.121 Since he had to grapple with these problems at first hand, Zlobick9 was impatient with some of the criticisms that Do- brovski leveled at him in Litterarisches Magazin von B6hmen und Mdhren in 1786. Dobrovsk had written that no Czech reader could understand the translation of the legal code un- less he also knew Latin or German and kept both versions in front of him as he read. Dobrovsky blamed both the reader and the translator: the one for not knowing the literary lan- guage, and the other for coining new words against the natural trends of Czech.122 Zlobick argued that it was not for Do- brovsk5, who did not write in Czech himself and thus did not know the problem of translation from his own experience, to judge. In a rather bitter comment to Ungar (who had had his own quarrels with Dobrovsk), Zlobick4 wrote: Dobrovsk should only publish something in Czech him- self; then we will also poke holes in him, and I will prove in my contributions, just as dictatorially and as unfeelingly as he .. . that he is also human like I am, and has seriously erred in the rules of Czech grammar and his critical notes and interpretations.123 Even ten years later Zlobiclk continued to defend his work against Dobrovsk's criticisms, arguing that they were "Our Natural Language" unfounded since he lacked experience in translation, espe- cially of legal texts, "where one is constrained to translate everything as accurately and slavishly as possible." 124Their differing experience with the problems of translation also led Dobrovsk and Zlobick to disagree on the question of the Czech dictionary. The development and publication of a good, norm-giving Czech dictionary was seen as the most ef- fective way to defend the language against further puristic inroads, and Tomsa, Tham and Dobrovsk each brought out dictionaries between 1780 and 1815. While none of them to- tally satisfied the needs of the developing Czech language, and they were all superseded by the great Slovnik cesko- nemecky (1835-1839) of Josef Jungmann, they did help to further develop the Czech vocabulary and provided Jung- mann with valuable sources for his own work. During the early 1780s, Dobrovsk encouraged Tomsa to publish a concise Czech-German dictionary in order to chal- lenge Pohl. The first fruit of this encouragement was Tomsa's Maly nemecky a cesky slovnik, which appeared in 1789.125 In the meantime, K. H. Thim had published his Deutsch- b6hmisches Nationallexikon in 1788; but Tomsa continued to enlarge his collections and added Latin explanations, pub- lishing this Vollstdndiges Wdrterbuch der b6hmisch- deutsch- und lateinischen Sprache in 1791. It was accompanied by a foreword by Dobrovsky in which he praised Tomsa's dictio- nary as the best one currently available and a sure means not only to the "correct judgment of the richness of the lan- guage," but also to a better knowledge and understanding of it. Dobrovsk denied a place in a good dictionary not only to foreign words (he mentioned specificallyflinta, nudle, litera, and brevid?) but also to "the newly formed words, which a few incompetent grammarians have forged in their work- shops, but which have never been granted citizenship by the Czech nation."126 Dobrovsk's praise of Tomsa's dictionary, and his criti- cisms of Thbm's-for precisely this fault of too many neo- logisms-led to a personal breach between Thim and Do- 87