The Czechoslovak Review/Volume 3/Francis Palacký
Francis Palacký
By THOMAS ČAPEK
A short distance from the town of Nový Jičín, in Moravia, nestles the village of Hodslavice.When the emperor Joseph II, issued the Patent of Tolerance, permitting free religious worship to non-Catholics, the citizens of Hodslavice organized an evangelical congregation. Among them lived a wide awake, serious minded young man, who married early in life, as the teacher of their children. The teacher’s pay being insufficient to maintain him and his wife he did odd jobs as tailor, village clerk and farmer.
On June 14, 1798, a boy was born to the Palacký couple to whom was given the name Francis. In those days, instruction in higher schools in Bohemia and Moravia was in German. Francis was sent to a German primary school to prepare himself for entry to a secondary school; the latter school, however, he never attended. Solicitous about the boy’s faith, the father took him across the border to a Protestant lyceum in Slovakia (Hungary). There the boy spent three years, after which period he matriculated in a Latin school in Bratislava (Pressburg). Here Latin and Czech were the languages of instruction. At the age of twenty, his schooling was finished, although his education had just begun. It is interesting to know how Palacký, educated as he had been in German and Latin schools, awakened to the realization that he was a Czech and not a German. In 1813 he visited in Slovakia the home of a schoolmate. It so happened that his friend had in his library a number of Czech books, among them, Komenský’s “Labyrinth of the World and the Paradise of the Heart” and a magazine containing Jungmann’s article “A Discourse upon the Czech Language.” Jungmann’s patriotic essay decided young Palacký’s nationalism. Other Czech books which came into his hands strengthened within him a love of the despised mother tongue; he resolved then and there, to join the ever growing legion of patriots who consecrated their lives to the regeneration of their nation. Resigning his position as tutor in an aristocratic family in Hungary, he repaired in 1823 to Prague, the mecca and center of the movement for national revival.
A young man of agreeable manners, of distinguished appearance, highly polished, Palacký had no difficulty in gaining access to the best circles of society in the Czech capital. At Baron Astfeld’s home which he visited, he met wealthv bourgeois, bankers, men of leisure; at other houses he came into contact with artists and men of letters. A biographer mentions his friendship with Tomaschek, the composer, the dramatic critic Macháček, and the well-known revivalist, V. A. Svoboda. Through Dobrovský he made the acquaintance of Count Sternberg, a noted scholar, the friend of Goethe. He also met Joseph Jungmann, the “silent genius”, to whose persuasive writings he owed his conversion to the Czech cause.
Impressed by the young scholar’s learning, Count Sternberg commissioned Palacký, at a handsome salary, to examine the family archives and compile the Sternberg genealogy. So pleased was the count with Palacký’s work in this respect that he recommended him to other Prague aristocrats, the Kinsky’s, Černín’s and Martinic’s, who required the services of a reliable genealogist.
At the Sternberg palace scholars used to meet to talk over various problems of the day. Upon one occasion they discussed the matter of publishing a magazine in the Czech and German languages, that should be a repository of everything relating to Bohemia, in the domain of history and literature.
Abbe Dobrovský and Count Sternberg were of the opinion that it was too late to think of the resuscitation of the Czech nation and that all attemps in that direction were futile. Palacký disagreed with his elder associates, reproaching Dobrovský that he, the foremost among Czech scholars, had all his works in languages other than his own (German and Latin). “Were we all to do the same,” argued Palacký, “then indeed our nation would be doomed to perish for lack of intellectual nourishment. As for me, were I but merely of Gypsy origin, and the last of the race, I should still deem it my duty to perpetuate an honorable record of my people in the annals of mankind.”
Here it should be remarked that as late as 1848 the Czech language was a Cinderella in its own home. To hear it spoken in the streets of Prague by people of any social consequence was uncommon. In stores and public places which were not patronized by apprentices, domestics and hucksters, the German language was dominant.
Owing largely to Palacký’s efforts the magazine above referred to became a reality in 1827, the German portion thereof bearing the title “Monatschrift des bohm. Museums, the Czech Časopis společnosti vlasteneckeho Museum v Čechách (Magazine of the Society of the National Museum in Bohemia) Palacký was chosen editor.
His admiration for Gibbon, the author of the “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, was genuine. In Gibbon he recognized a master of historical research, whom he wished to emulate. To his friend Kollar he wrote in 1822: “I shall not rest content until I can work on the history of our country. If I live, I shall surely write up Hussitism.”
Then followed a series of writings chiefly on historical subjects. In 1830 appeared the Wurdigung der alter bohmischen Geschichtschreiber in German. The volume contains the lives of Czech chroniclers to the XVI century, with enumeration of their works and a critical estimate thereof.
While he was finishing the Wurdigung, the Bohemian estates appointed him official historian of the Kingdom of Bohemia, but the government under one pretext or another refused to sanction the appointment. Even an appeal to the sovereign was futile. The real obstacle, as everyone knew, was Palacký’s Protestantism. Owing to Count Sternberg’s insistence and tact, the opposition was at last overcome and Palacký’s appointment confirmed.
The Wurdigung was the introductory to the Dějiny Národu Českého v Čechách a v Moravě, (History of the Czech Nation in Bohemia and Moravia), of which Rieger said that it was a “preface to the history of the Slavs.” On this monumental book, which represents the toil of more than thirty years, Palacký began to labor in 1832. Much deserved praise was showered on the historian; his work, however, evoked adverse comment also. Professor J. L. Knoll, for instance, severely criticized it on the ground that it tended to awaken to life certain Czech pretensions, as he called them, which were inimical to the safety of the monarchy. More than once the author had to contend with Austrian opposition from the censor, who insisted that certain matter, objectionable from the Austrian point of view, be deleted or altered. The first part of the Czech version of the Dějiny Národu Českého v Čechách a v Moravě, appeared in March, 1848. It was chiefly a translation of the German text. Later, Palacký reversed this method of work; he wrote the history in the vernacular, the German version being a translation. This method he pursued to the end nothwithstanding the objection of certain critics who demanded that the author write his work in German and translate it into Czech. In the years 1848–50 which were years of comparative constitutional freedom he devoted himself with redoubled energy to the history of the Hussites, wishing to complete the chapters dealing therewith, before the censorship was reintroduced. The history, which reaches only to 1526, the year the Hapsburgs ascended the Bohemian throne, was completed in 1876.
As long as the Czech language continues to be spoken this historical work will be read and treasured. It is not only a mirror of Bohemia’s past; it is a monument to the man who wrote it and of the times in which it was written.
Palacký’s early political program might be described as Austrophil. He believed that the safety of Bohemia, like that of the other Hapsburg states, anchored most securely in a strong Austria. Dread of absorption by Prussia no less than fear of submersion in the Russian sea worried him and induced him to elaborate, in 1855, his oft quoted work, the Oesterreich’s Staatsidee, (Idea of the Austrian State). In it he planned the unification of the small nations, “none of which were strong enough to resist the encroachment of powerful neighbors.” To his conationals who ranked next to the Germans in number and culture, he assigned, in his mind’s eye, a leading role in the government of this state. “But”, says the historian, “Austria must cease to be the centre of absolutism, the home of reaction, the eldorado of bureaucracy.” The author of the Idea of the Ausstrian State had persuaded himself to believe that the monarchy would at last realize its historic mission of being the sheltering guardian of small nations, irrespective of creed or race.
As Palacký’s political vision expanded with maturer years and as acts of aggression against the Slavs multiplied, his enthusiasm for Austria gave way to a feeling of scepticism. He realized, among other things, that his theories had been faulty in that they failed to take into account the strong historical individuality of the Czech nation. Again, he erred in assuming that the government would abandon its anti-Slavic policy. Toward the close of his life he frankly, almost penitently, admitted his mistake. His original political program, he characterized as “a grave and fatal error, the greatest blunder of political judgment which I have ever knowingly committed.” The Czech nation, Palacký subsequently maintained, survived not because of help from Austria, but because of its own will and determination to live. He deplored his delusion that he had phantasied about Austria. He emphasized that he had lost faith in the preservation of the empire in which the absolutism of the monarch, as it existed prior to 1848, had given place to the absolutism of a favored race. One day, though it may be too late, he said, the dynasty and the monarchy will realize how really indispensable to the safety of the state the Czechs were.
The consummation of dualism (1868) which implied, primarily, a lasting political and economic bondage of the Czechs, disillusioned him completely. “I, too, am now beginning to lose hope that it will be possible to preserve the Austrian Empire,” he stated. Still later he expressed himself that “the Czechs having placed their trust in Vienna, had deceived themselves grievously.” And shortly before his retirement from public life, he addressed to Vienna those memorable words, which sent a thrill of pride through every Czech heart: “We were before Austria and we shall exist after her.”
Such, then, was the mental evolution of the man who defined his early political program by saying that, “If Austria ceased to exist, we should have to create an Austria.”
The Frankfort Parliament of 1848, pursuing the dream of a Greater Germany, invited Austria to elect deputies. The Austrian Germans, always eager for a closer union with Germany, accepted this invitation; the Czechs, chief among them the publicist Charles Havlíček, opposed the plan, insisting that Bohemia’s claim to a separate existence was as good as that of Germany. “The aim which you propose to yourselves”, wrote Palacký to the Frankfort Parliament speaking for the Czech nation, “is a substitution of the federation of peoples for the old federation of princes, to unite the German nation in a real union, to strengthen the sentiment of German nationality, to secure the greatness of Germans without and within. I honor your resolve and the motives by which you are inspired, but I regret that I cannot share them. I am not a German, or at least I do not feel as if I were one. . . I am a Czech, of Slavic origin and all that I am and all that I have I place at the service of my country. It is true that my nation is small, but from the outset it has possessed an historical individuality. Its princes have acted in concert with German princes, but the people have never considered themselves German.”
Notwithstanding Palacký’s rebuff, the Frankfort Parliament was so eager to secure its purpose, that messengers were dispatched to Prague to confer with the Czech National Committee. The Czechs contended that the Frankfort Parliament was endeavoring to force upon them a condition which they had rejected. The Germans on their side advanced certain well known arguments of expediency in favor of a closer union between Bohemia and Germany.
The Vienna Government took a most singular stand on the issue. Not to hurt the feelings of a strong Austrian party which favored sending deputies to Frankfort, the Ministry of Interior announced that citizens might either vote for representatives or abstain from voting, as they chose.
The Czech National Committee finding that the government was either unable or unwilling to protect the nation, resolved on measures of self-protection. It issued an appeal to the Austrian Slavs to meet at the end of May (1848) in Prague, to protest against the designs of the Frankfort Parliament. This led to the much talked of Slavic Congress in Prague. Foremost among the men who were responsible for the convocation of the Congress was Palacký, who, when the Congress assembled, was elected its presiding officer.
In accordance with the resolution of the Congress Palacký was charged with the composing of a manifest to the nations of Europe and a petition to the emperor. In the first document Palacký advocated the principle of equality of nations, then little heeded in Europe. He condemned the policy which treated states and peoples as the chattels of the rulers.
The manifest concluded with an invitation to a General Congress of European nations, in which questions of international nature were to be discussed and settled. The second document, the petition to the emperor, was not completed, owing to revolutionary disturbances breaking out in Prague. From the rough draft Palacký prepared one could, however, guess as to its contents. It urged the reconstruction of Austria on lines of federalism as opposed to centralism; that is, giving home rule to every race inhabiting the empire.
The war of 1866 between Prussia and Austria introduced a new order of things in the empire. In 1867 Austria concluded a settlement with Hungary, whereby full autonomy had been granted to the latter country. By virtue of the settlement the empire was divided into two halves, Austrian and Hungarian. Bohemia, which in 1526 helped to lay the foundation to the Hapsburg monarchy, was wholly ignored. Despite vigorous protest in Parliament, Bohemia was included in the Austrian half. In this political tragedy Palacký and Riger alike played a conspicuous role. Chiefly upon the counsel of Palacký, the Czech and Moravian deputies left the Parliament in a body as a protest against the dual system of government and for twelve years did not reenter it.
Following the introduction of dualism a feeling of gloom settled over the nation. The Czechs felt that they had been shamefully betrayed; that the loyalty they had shown to the crown in the late disastrous war wih Prussia was unappreciated.
At this time an event occurred which helped to raise the dejected spirits of the people. The Russians held that year (1867) an Ethnographic Exhibition in Moscow to which, among other Slavs, they invited the Czechs. A large deputation led by Palacký, Dr. Rieger and Dr. Brauner went to Moscow. This pilgrimage was represented by their enemies as an act of treason. Under the circumstances the journey was not without deep political significance. The enthusiastic reception which had been accorded in Moscow, Petrograd and elsewhere to the Czech delegation steadied the nation’s confidence in itself, giving it assurance that it was not without powerful friends, even though these friends were beyond the border of their own state.
A few words concerning Palacký’s personality and domestic life. In appearance he was above the medium in height. The expression of his face was habitually grave almost stern. Literary friends complained that in his leanings and tastes he was decidedly an aristocrat. Certain it is that during the greater part of his life his associates had been men of the highest Czech nobility. In dress he affected a black frock-coat; all contemporaries noted the deep parchment-like pallor of his face which was smooth shaven, except for short side-whiskers. In his old age he wore a wig. Himself punctual in all things he insisted on punctuality in others. Another characteristic was his very small, legible and always neat, handwriting.
In the fall of 1825 he began to woo ardently Theresa, the younger daughter of John Měchura, a well-to-do law practitioner. After two years of courtship, he married her and established a permanent residence in Prague. This union with a rich girl put him above material cares, enabling him to devote himself wholly to the prosecution of his literary plans. Certain of his friends and intimates—from the literary set—envied him this excellent match. “Palacký made his fortune not as a Czech and a Slav but as a good German,” wrote bitingly Joseph Jungmann. Yet the circumstance—remarks the biographer—that a rich man whose family was intermarried with the nobility gave his daughter in marriage to a poor author, a Protestant in religion, was the best proof of the high personal qualities and social distinction of Palacký.
Two children were born of the union with Theresa Měchura; a son John (1830), who became professor in the University of Prague, and a daughter, Marie (1833), who, in 1853, was given in marriage to Dr. Francis L. Rieger, nicknamed “son-in-law of the nation.”
After the death of his wife in 1860, Palacký’s household, until then more German than Czech, was wholly Bohemianized. He lived in his town house in Prague, which his wife inherited from her father and which later became Rieger’s house. After his wife’s death, Palacký resided alternately in Prague and Rieger’s country estate at Maleč.
In 1868 his seventieth birthday was celebrated in a manner leaving no doubt as to the nation’s gratitude and affection for him. On the occasion of the completion of his history in April, 1876, friends arranged a farewell dinner in Prague in his honor. That was his last appearance in public; in less than a month after this memorable event he died. On the day of the funeral, May 31, 1876, the whole nation went into mourning. No king had ever been buried with greater pomp; no commoner more genuinely lamented by the people.
Palacký’s literary output is immense. The principal of all his writings is, of course, his great history, Dějiny Národu Českého v Čechách a v Moravě.. He wrote in Czech, German and Latin. The list of his published works, according to Professor Kalousek, who is an authority on the subject, is:
In Czech:
Vol. III, part 1. From 1403—1420. 1870. 428pp. Vol. III, part 2. From 1420—1431. 1871. 385pp. Vol. III, part 3. From 1431—1439. 1872. 312pp. Vol. IV, part 1. From 1439—1457. 1857. 476pp. Vol. IV, part 2. From 1457—1471. 1860. 614pp. Vol. V. part 1. From 1471—1500. 1865. 424pp. Vol. V. part 2. From 1500—1526. 1867. 521pp.
The Beginnings of Czech Poetry. 1818. 128pp. This is a joint effort of Palacký and P. J. Šafařík and was published anonymously.
Old Czech Chronicles from 1378 to 1527, being a continuation of the chronicles of Přibík of Pulkava and of Beneš of Hořovic, from ancient manuscripts. 1829. 524pp.
Contemporary Register of the highest state and court dignitaries and officials in the Bohemian Kingdom from the earliest times to the present day. Published by the Matice Česká. 1832.
Description of the Bohemian Kingdom, being a detailed enumeration of all the heretofore existing counties, lordly estates, manors, cities, towns and villages, former castles and strongholds, also the several isolated places, abandoned settlements, in the Czech land, with the census of their populations taken in the year MDCCCCXLIII. 1848. 608pp. In German and Czech.
Czech Archives, or old Czech and Moravian literary antiquities, compiled and edited from foreign and domestic Archives. 1840—1862. 3,033pp.
Radhošť. A collection of minor writings from the Czech language and literature, ethics, history and politics. 1871—1873. 3 vols. 1,302pp.
The Idea of the Austrian State. 1865. 86pp. The German version published the same year bears the title, Oesterreich’s Staatsidee.
The Waldenses and their association with and relationship to the former sects in Bohemia. 1868. 32pp. Reprint from the Magazine of Bohemian Museum. Also published in German, Ueber die Beziehungen and das Verhältniss der Waldenser zu den ehemaligen Secten in Böhmen.
A few words concerning Religion and Faith. 1873. 32pp.
Concerning the Dissension in the Czech Nation. 1875. 16pp.
Historical Map of Bohemia. 1847.
Autobiography of Francis Palacký. From notes by his granddaughter Marie Červinka, née Rieger. 1885.
In German:
Wuerdigung der alien böhmischen Geschichtschreiber. 1830. 308pp.
Joseph Dobrovský’s Leben und gelehrtes Wirken. 1833.
Literarische Reise nach Italien im Jahre 1837 zur Aufsuchung von Quellen der böhmischen und mährischen Geschichte. 1838. 122pp.
Die ältesten Denkmäler der böhmischen Sprache. 1840. 233pp. Joint work of Francis Palacký and Paul Joseph Šafařík.
Das vaterländische Museum in Böhmen im Jahre 1842. 74pp.
Der Mongollen Einfall im Jahre 1241. 1842.
Ueber Formelbuecher zunächst in Bezug auf böehmische Geschichte. Nebst Beilagen. Ein Quellenbeitrag zur Geschichte Böhmens und der Nachbarländer im XIII, XIV und XV Jahrhundert. 1842. 216pp.
Die Grafen Kaspar und Franz Sternberg und ihr Wirken fuer Wissenschaft und Kunst in Böhmen. 1843.
Geschichte von Böhmen. Grösstentheils nach Urkunden und Handschriften. 5 vols., issued between 1836 and 1867.
Die Vorläufer des Hussitenthums in Böhmen. 1846. 87pp.
Zeugenverhör ueber den Tod König Ladislaw’s von Ungarn und Böhmen im Jahre 1457. 1856. 71pp.
Bericht an die akademische Commission zur Herausgabe der Acta Conciliorum, ueber die in der Pariser Bibliothek vornhandenen Handschriften zur Geschichte des Basler Concils. 1853. 33pp.
Urkundliche Beilrage zur Geschichte Böhmens und seiner Nachbarlander im Zeitalter Georgs von Podiebrad. 1860. 665pp.
Urkundliche Beiträge zur Geschichte des Hussitenkrieges. I. vol. 1873. 655pp. vol. 1873. 547pp.
Leben des Grafen Kaspar Sternberg von ihm selbst beschrieben. Edited by Palacký. 1868. 242pp.
Die Geschichte des Hussitenthums und Prof. Constantin Höfler. 1868. 168pp.
Zur böhmischen Geschichtschreibung. Actenmässige Aufschluesse und Worte der Abwehr. 1871. 216pp.
Palacký's Politisches Vermächtniss. 1872. 38pp.
Gedenkblätter. Auswahl von Denkschriften, Aufsätzen und Briefen aus den letzten 50 Jahren. Als Beitrag zur Zeitgeschichte. 1874. 313pp.
In Latin:
Documenta Mag. Joannis Hus vitam, doctrinam, causam in Constantiensi concilio actum et controversias de religione in Bohemia annis 1403—1418, etc. 1869. 768pp.
He contributed to the Monumenta Conciliorum Generalium Seculi, published in Vienna, in 1857, his findings on the Council at Basle. See, Bericht.
In addition he published numerous articles on various subjects in the Magazine of the Society of the National Museum in Bohemia and in its German twin publication, Monatschrift.
In the first named publication he wrote: The takinf of Poděbrad 1824.—Domestic strife and warring in Bohemia after the taking of Prague 1827.—Contribution to the Glossary of the Czech Language. 1827.—Old Czech Universal Almanach. 1829.—The Boii, the oldest known race Bohemia. 1833.—The Wars of Charlemagne with the Slavs, notably with the Czechs. 1834.—Lord Záviš of Rosenberg. 1834.—Manual of Old Czech Laws and Judicial Procedure. 1835.—Critical estimate and interpretation of the Character of the Collegiate Church at Litoměřice. 1836.—Foreign sources of the Czech history, especially in the XV. century. 1863.
To the Monatschrift he contributed among others: From 1827–1829 Geschichte des Grossen Zwischenreiches in Böhmen 1439–1453.—Ueber die Abkunft der Slaven nach Lorenz Surowiecki. 1829.—Skizze einer allgemeinen Kulturgeschichte Böhmens. 1831.—Ueber den Chronisten Fredegar und seine Nachrichten von Samo. 1830.
In the preparation of this article the author has availed himself of the following sources:
Dějiny Národa Českého v Čechách a na Moravě. Bursík and Kohout edition of 1904. Prague.
Nástin životopisu Františka Palackého.—(Sketch of the Life of Francis Palacký) by Prof. Dr. Josef Kalousek, prefaced in the first volume of Bursík and Kohout’s edition.
Biography of Palacký in the Ottův Slovnik Naučný (Czech Encyclopedia).
Naše znovuzrození (Our Rebirth), by Jacob Malý, Prague, 1880.
Velký Čech. Život, působení a význam F. Palackého, otce národa. (A Great Czech. Life, deeds and significance of F. Palacký, Father of the Nation).
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1950, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 73 years or less. This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse