East European Quarterly/Volume 15/Number 1/The Relationship Between the German and Czech Versions of Palacký's History of the Czech Nation

by Olga Svejkovská

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THE GERMAN AND CZECH VERSIONS
OF PALACKÝ’S HISTORY OF THE CZECH NATION

 

Olga Svejkovská
Chicago, Illinois

Before dealing with the primary subject of this essay, the comparison and interpretation of the Czech and German versions of Palacký’s History of the Czech Nation, we must recapitulate the chronological succession of events leading to their beginnings. Palacký approached this enormous work in late 1823. The contract with his publisher, the Bohemian Estates, obligated Palacký to write the History in German. The first part of Palacký’s German version was published in 1836. It unfolded events from the earliest historical period until 1197 A.D. The first section of the second part (1197–1306) appeared in 1839, followed in 1842 by the second section (up to 1378). The first section of the third part, finished in 1845, described the history of Bohemia prior to the appearance of Jan Hus, the proceedings of the Council of Constance, and the public reaction to Hus’s condemnation (1378–1419).

However, Palacký’s greatest life-task was to provide the Czech nation with its history written in Czech. We can clearly perceive this desire from his diary, autobiography, correspondence, and his prefaces to the first and third parts of the Czech edition of the History. Therefore, simultaneously with the German version, Palacký prepared a Czech counterpart. Its first part, dealing with developments in Bohemia prior to 1125 A.D., appeared in bookstores in 1848.

The events of 1848 meant a reversal in Palacký’s original plans. The unceasing heckling by the German press led him away forever from any collaboration with German historians. Moreover, it aroused in Palacký an aversion toward continuing to write Czech history in German. “Since that time [since 1848] it became a morally impossible affair,” declared Palacký in the preface to the third part of the Czech version.¹ Palacký notified the Bohemian Estates of his resolution to continue the writing of the History in Czech. Although this decision generated strong opposition from the Executive Committee, Palacký stood firm. Inevitably he lost his publisher (the Bohemian Estates) and had to settle for the private publishing house of J.G. Calve, and in 1856 for the services of Bedřich Tempský.² From this time on, the original version of the History was written in Czech, and the German version became a mere translation.

Palacký’s continuation of the Czech edition did not begin with 1125. Being acutely aware of the possibility that the revolutionary gains of 1848, primarily the abolition of censorship, could be short-lived in view of the oncoming reaction, he first tackled the Hussite period. His desire was to present this period in a more liberal form than had been possible earlier, due to heavier censorship. Therefore, in 1850, Palacký published the first section of the third part (1403–1424), in 1851 section two of part three (1424–1439), and finally in 1854 the rewritten second section of part one (1125–1253).

Later, Palacký pursued the study of the Poděbrad and Jagellonian periods (1439–1526), completing the second section of part five in 1867. Palacký’s controversial concepts concerning the Hussite period irritated many German historians, especially a professor of history named Konstantin Höfler. Höfler’s work on the Hussite period is well known, and so is Palacký’s response.³ For Palacký, these polemics became an incentive to reexamine some of the problems involved and to explain them in a new ideological framework. Moreover, he found new historical documents. As a result, in 1870–72, Palacký decided to rework the third part of his History. After its completion, he returned to the period (1253–1403) originally left out and written in German only. Shortly before his death, Palacký’s life work culminated in the publication of both sections of the second part in Czech.

The differences between the two editions, the long period of publication, and the changes in the political situation which necessarily influenced Palacký’s work, lead us to consider the mutual relationship between the two texts. This subject first caught my attention when I was preparing the text for its latest publication.⁴ The works of past researchers who touched on the subject of the relationshp between the two texts are similar in form and documentation. All of them derive their conclusions from Palacký’s own words in the preface to the first part of the Czech History, where he attempts to clarify the relationship between the Czech and German versions: “The inundation of varied and demanding work has been and still is so great that it is impossible for me to withstand it . . . . Even though I have wished to reorganize my narrative in the Czech edition in every respect, I have been unable in the available time to research the entire field again, and therefore have been forced to use much of the already-finished German text.”⁵

A note frequently associated with this characterization is that the text of the first part of the Czech edition is largely Erben’s translation, which Palacký enlarged with a preface and several paragraphs concerned with social history. This is contrary to Palacký’s own words: “I deem all of my present historical writings to be preliminary studies for the actual work. I consider the History of the Czech Nation the last and the most important of all of my endeavors.”⁶ A direct comparison of the two texts also offers no confirmation of the stated allegation. Unfortunately, I was unable to determine the extent of Erben’s collaboration with Palacký on the text of the first part. From accessible materials, I was unable to find any evidence directly confirming or setting any definite bounds to this specific cooperation. We can find numerous references to other cooperation between Palacký and Erben in Erben’s material. Even the most detailed monograph about Erben by A. Grund and a later one by J. Dolanský make no mention of this translation. This leads me to suspect that Erben was merely assisting Palacký, Erben’s translation was probably a reference which Palacký employed in the preparation of the new text. In my opinion, Erben prepared only a draft. His work was not the Czech counterpart of the first part of Palacký’s German text. In addition, the claims of some contemporary scholars that the Czech version of Palacký’s History is fully reworked are not completely correct.⁷ A comparison of both texts shows that a major part of the Czech edition is, indeed, derived from the German text, but with careful regard to the high scholarly standards Palacký set for the Czech text, “Completely reworked” can therefore be applied only to the Ideological framework of the text and not to the composition or language of the text.

The changes in both editions of Palacký’s History can be divided into three basic categories. The first includes material changes and additions, to which we may add modifications motivated by the historical and philosophical attitude of the author. The second encompasses changes induced by censorship, and the last the author’s own stylistic changes.

Changes affecting the material substance of the work are not common in the Czech edition. In the first part and in the first section of the third part, they are almost non-existent. This is primarily due to the fact that the time span between the publication of the Czech and German editions was not sufficiently great for any great accumulation of new findings. The original text was so well prepared that many corrections in the new text were not required. The tight composition of the work, held together by a detailed chronological progression, did not allow for the discovery of “white spots.” For this reason, the changes are limited to minute corrections of dates or errors present in the references, discovered in the course of further research. Palacký also added material and quotations from new and old Czech documents, material not included in the German text.

In the Czech version of the second part of his History, Palacký found himself in a somewhat different situation. He had finished the German original more than thirty years ago! But even this part is not different basically from its German counterpart. We find more factual additions and restyled passages, as a result of the discovery of new materials during the long time period. The longest of the reworked passages is the sixth chapter of the fourth book of the German edition, dealing with the anarchic period when the Czech lands lacked a king.

The greatest number of corrections affecting the structure of the Czech edition consists of historico-philosophical changes. These are mainly shorter or longer theoretical, historical, or philosophical considerations which Palacký incorporated in various parts of the text. The new additions form displacements in the text, caused by Palacký’s change in interpretation of the historical material, In these added contemplations, Palacký expressed and greatly exapnded his concept of history, his evaluation of individual historical events, and his personal attitude toward individual historical personages. In the German version, these historical and philosophical contemplations are latent, if they are present at all. If present, they are inserted in concise form into the surrounding text.

I believe that the principal reason why Palacký withheld these insertions until the Czech text is not only because of the impossibility of their publication in the pre-March (1848) period (even though this certainly was a very substantial reason) but because of the entire purpose of the Czech version. The latter was meant for a wide stratum of Czech readers. Palacký had no desire to present his History merely as a historical reference book dealing with past events in Czech history, but as a work which would provoke the reader’s own thoughts on the subject and encourage the formation of his own judgments and views. The reader was to be presented with a philosophy “showing him examples of how one should conduct himself in every type of situation, public and private.”

We can clearly see these changes as early as the end of the first section of book one, where Palacký deletes the long original quotation from the geo-historical study by Prof. Franz Max Zeppe, dealing with the geological history of Bohemia, and replaces it with a copious reflection on his basic concepts of Czech history. Here, one finds sentences that became an inseparable constituent of every work about František Palacký or his History: “The German world built its sceptre on the ruins of world-ruling Rome . . . . As the German was aggressively attaching himself to the heritage of old Rome, the temperate Slav was silently following him and sat next to him. Therefore the contents and the basic trait of the history of Bohemia and Moravia is the incessant intercourse and the ceaseless conflicts between Slavic principles on the one hand and the German and Roman ones on the other hand.”⁸

This basic idea of the purpose of Czech history reappears in the rewritten sixth section of the second book, titled “A Picture of Common Czech life under Heathenism.” In this section, Palacký inserted all of his ideas on the basic differences between the Czech and German nations. These are based on great discrepancies in national character and primary culture. Palacký also inserted his romantic notions about the way of life, religion, and character of the ancient Slavs. Beginning on page 198 (page 166 in the German text), we can observe the two texts merging to some extent, even though later the Czech narrative is clearly much richer in detail and in many places strongly anti-German.⁹

Also part two, which describes the reign of Přemysl Otakar II, acquired numerous new passages. In these added segments, Palacký gives an extensive characterization of Přemysl’s personality and evaluates his attempt at colonization. In addition, Palacký ponders the subject of Otakar’s relationship with the Czech nobility. On the basis of new sources, he also explains the correct choice of Rudolf Habsburg as the German king and the reasons for Přemysl’s collapse. The national coloration of these passages is underlined by a detailed interpretation of a document sent by Přemysl to the Polish nobility, asking for help and calling for Slavic unity against the “influx of Germanism.”¹⁰

In addition to these greater compositional changes, the text is also enriched by a number of smaller additions: new sentences, aphorisms, and minute characterizations which not only betray the author’s attitude toward the historical matter, but also play an educational and informative function.”¹¹

The change in the title of the work is an example of the historico-philosophical type of change. While the German version gives an account of the history of Bohemia—Geschichte von Böhmen—the Czech version is dedicated to the history of the Czech nation. Therefore, in the former case the country (Böhmen), and in the latter the nation of Czechs (Čechen) is the subject of the scholarly work. In the first two books of part one of the German edition, we can detect the precise differentiation between Böhmen and Čechen. Palacký used the term Böhmen primarily in the designation of the country and Čechen to indicate members of the Slavic race of Czechs. This is apparent in the titles of the chapters (“Böhmen unter den Čechen” [notice the Czech orthography], “Böhmen unter den Čechen, vor Verbreitung des Christentums”) or in the text: “Daher ist auch der Zeitpunkt der Einwanderung der Čechen in Böhmen . . . nicht festgestellt” (66/1). On page 72 of the German edition, where Palacký gives the account of the advent of Forefather Čech and expounds the transfer of his name to the entire Slavic tribe, he also begins to use the expression Böhmen as a synonym for Čech. The reasons for defining these two terms and their later integration are contained in Palacký’s understanding of this concept.

The title of the Czech version was extended to include a new and important phrase: “The History of the Czech nation in Bohemia and in Moravia”. This emphasis on the integrality of Moravia with Bohemia expressed even in the title of the book can surely be understood if we remind ourselves of the pre-1848 controversies between the two regions and Palacký’s intervention in the matter.¹² This unity is confirmed by new stylistic arrangements in the text:

“Daher ist die Verbindung zwischen Böhmen und Mähren, welche seit zwei Jahrtausenden sich in allen Perioden der Geschichte geltend gemacht hat, . . . als zufällig . . . anzusehen.”	“Spojení tedy Čech a Moravy v jeden celek, majíc ve přírodě samé podstatný svůj základ, nemůže za pouhou náhodu považováno býti.”
(7/I)	(7/I)
“Beide Länder wurden von jeher von demselben Volke bewohnt, und standen von jeher, mit nur seltenen und kurzen Ausnahmen, unter desselben obersten Regierung.”	“A skutedně v obou krajinách of věku, pokudkoli historie stává, vždy a pokaždé jeden a týž národ přebýval, jedna a táž nejvyšší vláda panovala.”
(7/I)	(7/I)
	At the end of this paragraph he adds the sentence: “Protož historie národu českého má-li důkladna býti, obou krajin, Čech a Moravy, stejně šetřiti musí, jelikož dějinám obou, jakožto částkám jednoho celku, jedněm bez druhých dorozuměti se nelze.”
	(7/I)

If we turn our attention to the textual problems of the third part of the History, we cannot attempt to solve them without giving due attention to the interference of censorship, to which this volume, above all others, was subject. This constitutes another category of textual changes, modifications due to censorship. Since Karel Köpl treats this problem in depth in his “Palacký und die Censur,”¹³ we shall not deal with any details but only with the material directly relevant to our article.

Almost half of Palacký’s literary endeavors were subject to the pre-March (1848) censorship. This means that the already-mentioned three parts of the German edition were also censored. The attitude of the Austrian censorship toward Palacký and his literary work was not as unfriendly as the one invoked toward other representatives of Czech cultural life. Palacký’s status in the domestic scholarly world, which from the beginning insured sincerity and respect, and also the patronage of the Czech nobility, assured a more considerate posture on the part of the censorship. Palacký was supported primarily by the highest burgrave, Count Chotek. Count Chotek, who practically treated the censorship of the work as his own affair, enclosed his personal letters to the president of police, Count Sedlnitzky, with each consignment of Palacký’s manuscript sent to Vienna for censoring purposes. Thanks to this support from the Czech provincial administration, the censoring of the first part of the German version took place without many conflicts or long delay. (Each part of the manuscript was returned separately from Vienna after about a month.)¹⁴

The only controversy referred to a single problematic spot in the first chapter of the third book, “The Murder of St. Wenceslas,” and concerned the personage of Drahomíra. The conflict between Palacký and the censorship in Vienna started as early as 1834. At the time, Palacký’s article dealing with the newly-discovered old Slavic legend about St. Wenceslas (Václav) was detained by the censorship. The dispute stemmed from the fact that in this legend Drahomíra was not characterized as a pagan, with a part in the planning of St. Václav’s murder, as some Latin legends suggested, but rather as a person in no way connected with this murder. Moreover, according to the legend, she saved her own life by escaping from the murderers of St. Václav. Palacký’s well known defense¹⁵ and the subsequent mutual agreement, allowing several minor modifications in the text in accord with the censor’s wishes, helped this article toward its publication in the Journal of the Czech Museum in 1837.¹⁶ The passage in both versions of the History is based on and quotes this old Slavic legend. The only difference between the two appears in the description of events immediately following St. Václav’s murder. In the German version, the weeping Drahomíra throws herself on the dead body after it is carried away from the scene of the murder by the priest Chrastěj. In the Czech version, the events take place in reverse order.

In the first volume, the censorship insisted only upon a small number of stylistic rearangements and on a few more significant changes which modified the meaning of the text in accord with the official interpretation. For example, in the phrase “Dass vom Volke anvertraute Land” the expression “von den Böhmen” was substituted for “vom Volke.” In the case of “Missbräuche in der Kirche” the more exact expression “Missbräuche in der böhmischen Kirche” was recommended. This considerate attitude of the censorship is also confirmed by Palacký’s note in his book Zur böhmischen Geschichtschreibung, where he writes: “. . . In den folgenden [i.e. the first] Abschnitten meiner Geschichte verfuhr die Wiener Censur in der Regel ziemlich glimpflich mit mir.”¹⁷

The passages which contained only minor censorship changes were never reconverted into their original form. Palacký included the changes in the Czech version of the first and second editions of his History. Therefore, it is impossible for us to determine their extent or form.

The second part of Palacký’s History was subject to censorship in 1838–41. As before, in part one the censorship satisfied itself with several minute changes and several notices, requesting Palacký to change his formulations. These changes were incorporated by the author into the Czech edition as well.

A completely different situation materialized when Palacký’s narrative reached Jan Hus and the Hussite period. This change for the worse did not take place merely because Count Chotek was succeeded in office by Count Robert von Salm-Reifferscheid, who continued to support the History. The greater wariness and suspicion of the Viennese censorship stemmed rather from two facts: 1) The personality of Hus and the entire Hussite period were deemed especially problematic if not directly dangerous to the Austrian Empire and its religion. Moreover, during this period the censorship was shifting its attention toward any ideas and literary works dealing with this period.¹⁸ 2) An account of this period was given by a Protestant historian, therefore a person whose ideas and views would inevitably be antagonistic to the officially admissible state doctrines.

The first portion of the third part of the German edition of the History, containing the first two chapters of the sixth book, was returned to Prague without comment. The second portion, however, became an object of countless contentions and bargains. It dealt with the history of the period which saw the beginning of the formation of ideas which later kindled the Hussite conflagration. As a result, the history of these periods suggested to the Austrian censorship much hostility toward the church as well as toward the political power of the Austrian state. An expert theologian was asked to assist a historian in censoring this portion of the manuscript. (The theologian, Palacký mentions, was a professor of theology and a canon at St. Stephen’s in Vienna, Scheiner.¹⁹) This censor rejected the entire first portion of the third chapter, “K. Wenzels dritte Regierungsperiode, Beginn kirchlicher Bewegungen in Böhmen.” Two basic thoughts of this section, i.e. Palacký’s understanding of the controversy between Catholicism and Protestantism in the sense of historical progress in the development of the European spirit and education, and his claim that the system of faith was not accurately stabilized until the Council of Trent, were in the view of the censorship erroneous and unacceptable to the Catholic church. Palacký was compelled to cross out this entire passage in his text. However, Palacký reintroduced this section into the Czech edition of the History.²⁰

The third and fourth books of the first part presented Palacký and the censorship with the greatest difficulties. Included in these parts were descriptions of the Council of Constance, Hus’s trial and condemnation, and the first repercussions of his death in Bohemia. The censor took a defiant position against the historical concepts of this section, declaring the material anti-Catholic and dangerous. It was said that Palacký willfully glorified Hus and chose only those sources supporting this glorification, but did not notice material which showed Hus’s inflexibility and obstinacy. Moreover, from his Protestant point of reference, Palacký purposely used expressions which show an obliquely slanderous attitude toward the Catholic church or demean its authority. Furthermore, in connection with Hus and his company, Palacký chose formulations which provoke the reader’s sympathy for Hus and create a sense of injustice in the reader.

At first the attitude of the censor was so negative that he refused to give permission to publish as long as Palacký did not change his point of view concerning the historical period in question, and until the text was modified to agree with the official viewpoint of the church on this period. The analysis of the censor, which was attached to the censored text, was crammed with sharp invective toward Palacký and his views. Palacký’s response to this criticism of the Viennese censorship is well known.²¹ Even though the characterization of Hus on page 215 of the German edition had to be supplemented by the terms Rücksichtlosigkeit, Hartnäckigkeit, and unbiegsamer Eigensinn (Palacký did not add the fourth expression, Rechthaberei), the resolution of this argument was on the whole a victory for Palacký. Nevertheless, the text was subject to numerous changes, primarily in places where the author’s positive regard for Hus had to be toned down. The evidence of this are the numerous changes in stylistic formulations and the omission of entire passages in the text and notes. These were restored by Palacký in the Czech version of his History.²²

Finally we approach the last aspect of the two versions, the aspect of their language.

It is unnecessary for us to read much of Palacký’s text to see that it was written by an excellent stylist, a master of Czech style. This reality will amaze us even more if we consider in depth the period during which Palacký wrote his work. During this period, the Czech language was slowly and with difficulty awakening from its long and deep sleep. Its orthographic and linguistic norms were therefore still very unsteady. The phonological and morphological forms were permeated with many dialectical elements, and the spoken language contained numerous Germanisms. The lexical wealth was small and quite inadequate for conveying complex ideas.

On the one hand, during this period the great Slavist, Josef Dobrovský, wrote only in German and doubted the ability of the Czech language ever to attain the level of other world languages in the scientific field. Even experts on the Czech language, such as Jungmann and Šafařík, struggled from time to time with Czech linguistic norms, and Svat. Presl had to supplement his Krok with a dictionary, to make his Czech understandable to his readers. On the other hand, there stands, alone, František Palacký, with his genuine and understandable language which enables him to express his complex philosophical thoughts clearly and plainly, with stylistic ease and fluency. He is able to form new words which do not interfere with the old word tradition, to develop a form which is acceptable to both the scholarly and the common reader.

As a result of this analysis, two questions arise: Where did Palacký attain such a superior knowledge of Czech? What was the base on which the great and still-admired edifice of his language was built?

The foundations of Palacky’s Czech were laid in the Palacký household. Palacký’s father, an Evangelical teacher, presented his five-year-old son with a book—the Bible. In his biography, Palacký reveals that the reading of the Bible always fascinated him, even though in early childhood he was unable to understand its contents and form entirely. But not only the family surroundings and Palacký’s scholarly father gave him the opportunity to discover the basis of the Czech language and its humanistic norms. The adjacent environment had an important influence, too. The Moravian countryside, whose language was the least affected by forced Germanization but whose strong tradition of linguistic creativity, songs, and customs survived, had an extraordinary effect on the gifted child.

Palacký left home to study in Slovakia. During the revivalist period, the tradition of the old Czech language of the unity of Czech Brethren lived on much more intensely in Slovakia than in Bohemia.²³ Palacký’s personal contact and cooperation with several language lovers and linguists (Bakoš, Palkovič) led him to the reading of old Czech books. From this extensive reading, Palacký acquired the knowledge of the Czech language before White Mountain. He hungrily attacked the study of foreign languages and esthetic, philosophical, and other linguistic studies. He improved his Czech by translating the works of Roman and German classical authors and by his own literary experiments. After his arrival in Prague, Palacký found a new source for enrichment of his vocabulary and style in his continuous contact with old Czech documents and publications.

These diverse springs fed and unceasingly broadened Palacky’s extensive knowledge of the Czech language and his own style. In the end, they converged to form the splendid mother tongue in which the History is written, and which simultaneously marks not only the culmination but also the end of the evolution of humanistic Czech.²⁴

Palacký’s struggle to achieve an expertise in the Czech language did not originate only in his desire to master the language. He had another purpose. The new ideas about self-determination, which came to Bratislava from German universities, had a visible effect on Palacký, who realized that the period had arrived when merely reading and speaking in Czech would not suffice. Palacký was aware of the need to transform the Czech language into a tool which would make the formation of a Czech “higher culture” possible. At the same time, it would help the Czech nation regain, after two hundred years, new courage and self-confidence. These lost national characteristics would be regained only with the help of a better and complete knowledge of the native tongue. With the improved knowledge of the native tongue, the Czech nation would be able to acquaint itself with its past and learn about the periods when it was one of the most progressive of peoples, generously giving to others from its culture.

The particular union of these two requirements was responsible for the style of the Czech version and constituted the major difference between the style of the Czech and German versions.

The work Geschichte von Böhmen has the character of a strictly historical work, intended for scholars and the narrow circle of educated German readers. The main prupose of this work was to preserve a vast amount of historiographical knowledge for future generations. For the History of the Czech Nation in Bohemia and Moravia, the author intended a much more important task: the very way in which it was written was to open the door for it to the household and spirit of the common Czech reader, to spark in him a desire to learn about the past of his country and to give him the opportunity to improve in his mother tongue. Therefore, the strict historical style of the German version gave way to the lively literary style of the Czech version, which could be understood and enjoyed by all levels of readers but, at the same time, did not violate any of the requirements of academic language.

This aim of the author is confirmed by a comparison of the language of the two texts. Our intention was to obtain a definite answer to the question as to whether or not the Czech version is a mere translation of the German text. We can answer that only a small part of the Czech version is a mere translation of its German counterpart. The larger portion of the Czech work is a stricter or a more liberal interpretation of the German product. The styles of both the Czech and German versions are the same. Even in German, Palacký betrays his classic education in long Latin periods, and his Czech shows specific signs of Veleslavín’s humanistic Czech (i.e., proportionately constructed, complicated periods; abundant transitional forms; the verb commonly at the end of a sentence; accusative forms with an infinitive, or nominative forms with an infinitive; etc.). However, the functional aims associated with these forms draw the dividing line between the two versions and account for the major changes in style. The following examples show the style and language tools used by Palacký to free the Czech translation of the formal and strict historical style of the German text and, at the same time, to supplant it with a new, lively narrative.

In the first place, the text is helped by various metaphors, comparisons, characterizations, and evaluative attributes:

“. . .endlich durch Emporung, Krieg und Anarchie Böhmen in jede Art öffentlichen Unheils gestürzt wurde . . . .” 461/IIII	“. . .konečně odbojem, válkami a bezvládím vlast naše octla se ve propasti bídy bezedné....692/I
“Von Prag war seit einem halben Jahrhundert der vornehmste bildende Einfluss nach allen Seiten . . . ausgegangen.” 237/III	“Již půlstoletí prýštil se z Prahy hlavní pramen vzdělanosti a umění na vše strany” 85/III
“Auch die älteste Geschichte Polens ist bis zur Hälfte des X. Jahrhunderts in ein fast undurchdringliches Dunkel gehüllt, das durch fabelhafte Sagen nur noch verwirrt, nicht aufgeklärt wird.” 222/IIII	“Také nejstarší dějiny Polska obestřeny jsou naskrze tmou nepaměti, ze kteréžto jen některé báječné povídky vynikají jako bludičky neposkytující světla.”250/I
“Das Konstanzer Koncilium bildet den höchsten Glanzpunkt seines vielbewegten langen Lebens.” 310/III	“Sbor pak konstantský stkví se co pravý vrch slávy a oučinnosti v dějinách jeho dlouhého i všelikými pohromami zmítaného živobytí.”152/III

At times, Palacký employs the form of folk tales:

““Das Horn des Hirten, der in der Morgendämmerung seine Herde von der Altstadt über die Moldaubrücke trieb, war das verabredete Zeichen.” 259/IIII

“Mělať onoho času Praha ještě obecného pastuchu svého, jenž dobytek každodenně na pastvu vyháněl; jeho zatroubení mělo býti znamením ku povstání všech přátel dávních knížat českých.”285/I

or he chooses expressions from a popular vocabulary:

“Als er aber seine Sätze zu verteidigen anfing, rief man ihm gleich von allen Seiten stürmisch zu, dass er seine Sophisterei fahren lassen und einfach nur mit Ja oder Nein antworten sollte.”	“Když ale počal hájiti průpovědi své, okřikován je ze všech stran, aby nechal mudrkování a zprosta buď potakal nebo zapíral.”
348/III	185/III
“[Marbod] fühlte den Ehrgeiz und die Kraft, ein grosses Reich für sich zu gründen.”348/III30/I	“. . .touha vydobýti sobě moc a říši velikou nedala mu stání.”53/I

Palacký avoids the use of foreign words. They are replaced by either Czech expressions or paraphrases:

“. . .es war auch die Zeit, wo die rein monarchische Staatsform sich über die alte, eigentümlich slavische, Beimischung oligarchischer und republikanischer Elemente erhob.”348/III116/I	“. . .byl věk zmáhající se jedinovlády, a tudíž i přechodu z vetché slovanské rozdrobenosti a nepodlehlosti k ústrojnému státnímu celku.”135/I
“Die Kirche sollte nach der Ansicht der Väter in organischer Weise aus und durch sich selbst reformieren.”390/III	“Dle zdání shromážděných otců měla oprava církve býti samorostlým plodem jejím.”151/III
der Charakter des Volkes	tělesná a mravní povaha národa
die Künste der Civilisation	umy věků osvícených
Schätzen an Mineralien	vzácné poklady kopanin, etc.

For the instruction of the common reader, Palacký makes historical and geographical data more accurate, and for geographical names employs Czech equivalents:

“die Völker nordischer/skythischer oder uralischer/Abkunft.”248/III18/I	“národové velkého plemene severského, příbuzni dávných Skythů, Hunů i podnešních Basků a Finů.”40/I
“Der damalige Bojenfürst Kritasir herrschte auch über die stammverwandten Taurisken in der Steiermark.” 248/III27/I	“Panovaltě tehdy u nich Kritasir, jehož vláda vztahovala se i k národům vlaským za Dunajem až po horní Drávu a po jezero Blatenské osedlým.”49/I

The following two examples, which conclude our selection, characterize the difference between the two styles and, at the same time, show us the extent of the author’s attempt, in the Czech version, at a broader, livelier, and more comprehensible form:

“Aber Boleslav III., auch Rothaar genannt, war nur ein gemeiner Wüstling; schwach, misstrauisch, geizig, grausam und rachsüchtig, wie er war, entbehrte er alle Tugenden, die einen Fürsten geachtet und geliebt, ein Volk glücklich, einen Staat blühend machen können.”248/III248/I

“Bohužel ale Boleslav III., příjmím Ryšavý, nebyl než obecný pustý ničema: k nemužnosti nedůvěru poje a přece svému lakomství, ukrutenství a mstivosti volnou pouštěje uzdu, jevil v sobě právě opak všech těch ctností, kterýmiž panovník sobě čest a lásku, národu svému prospěch obecný a vládě i státu moc a důklad získává.”275/I

“Das erste Volk, das die Geschichte in diesen Gegenden mit Bestimmtheit nennt, waren die Bojen, ein berühmter Zweig des einst mächtigen und weit verbreiteten celtischen oder gallischen Völkerstammes. Von ihnen erbte das Land denjenigen Namen, den es von Alters her bei allen Westeuropäern führt: Boiohemum, Boihemum, Böheim, Böhmen.” 248/III19/I

“První jistý paprsek světla historického ve starožitnosti, padající na zemi Českou, sahá jen až do počátku čtvrtého století před narozením Krista Pána. Praví se že tehdáž Bojové, národ gallický, celtický neboli vlaský, z nynější Francie přes Rejn a přes lesy Hercynské mocí zbrojnou až do vlastí těchto pronikše, tu se usadili; po nichž potom i země tato Bojův zemí/Boiohemum, Böheim, Bohemia/nazvána jest a u západních Evropanů i podnes tak sluje.”42/I

Summing up our conclusions: the Czech edition was neither a new work nor a mere translation of its German model. In our opinion, the truth stands somewhere between these two opposite poles. The Czech version is a new edition resulting from many exterior as well as interior factors which gave it philosophical, ideological, and artistic shape. Its text is a new version which fully reflects the author’s goal, displaying his extensive historical knowledge, the depth of his philosophical thought, and his masterly artistic style, all of which reached their peak during this period.

Palacký’s History of the Czech Nation in Bohemia and in Moravia is a work which conquered space and time. Moreover, it completely fulfilled the desires of its creator, to give his beloved nation a work he considered to be the principal and last aim of all his endeavors.

NOTES

1. See František Palacký, Dějiny národu českého (Prague, 1850), Vol. III, p. vi.

2. See Palacký’s correspondence with the Executive Committee from the 1850’s in his Zur böhmischen Geschichtschreibung (Prague, 1871), pp. 121–30, 134–37.

3. Franz Palacký, Die Geschichte des Hussitentums und Prof. C. Höfler: Kritische Studien (Prague, 1868).

4. František Palacký, Dějiny národu českého, ed. Olga Svejkovská, Intr. by J. Charvát (6 vols. Prague, 1968–73).

5. Palacký, Dějiny, Vol. 1 (Prague, 1848), p. x.

6. Ibid., pp. v–vi.

7. See, e.g., the postscript of J. Charvát to the edition of F. Palacký, Stručný přehled dějin českých doby starší (Prague, 1976), pp. 123–124.

8. The comparison is of pp. 10–17 of the German edition with pp. 9–15 of the Czech edition.

9. E.g., on p. 202 of the Czech edition a statement that the Slavs had learned to give harsh treatment to prisoners from the Germans has been added. A quotation from Guizot’s History of French Civilization (p. 180/I) confirms the harshness and cruelty of the German order and therefore supports this statement.

10. See Josef Kalousek’s review of the second volume of Palacký’s History in Časopis Českého musea, XLVIII (1874), pp. 125–34.

11. Several examples (italics mine):

“Des harten Joches müde und unwillig, mögen die Böhmen lange vergebliche Anstrengungen gemacht haben, dasselbe abzuwerfen und die Dranger aus dem Lande zu vertreiben.”76/I	“Že Čechové, nemohouce déle snášeti jha tak ukrutného, nejednou nadarmo se pokoušeli vypuditi Avary ze vlasti své, o tom pochybovat nelze; nevždy zajisté větší počet, ani hrdinnost, ani vlastenecká mysl proti větší zkušenosti váleční odolávají.”96/I
“Endlich gelang das Werk, vorzuglich durch den Feldherrn Samo, einen Mann von höchster Tatkraft, dessen Herkunst und Ausgang jedoch gleich ungewiss sind.”76/I	“Konečně ale podařil se skutek ten, když Samo, jeden z největších vůdců a bojovníků onoho věku, Čechům vojen zběhlostí ku pomocí přispěl. Bylt to muž ovšem výtečného ducha i jaré síly; ale neví se s jistotou ani odjud přišel, ani jaký posléze konec vzal.”96/I
“so zeugt doch schon der in den ältesten böhmischen Sagen vertönende Nachhall des verhossten Volksnamens der Thüringer von der einst häufigen und keineswegs freundlichen Berührung belder Völker.”73/I	{{lang|cs|“. . .; však povážíme-li nejstarší národní pověsti české, jenž ke jménu Durinka tak rády přivěšují zradu, záští a vraždu, nemůžeme v nich nepoznati ohlas dávných půtek, jejichž to paměť arci dávno zahynula.”93/I

12. See, e.g., the article “O českém jazyku spisovném,” Časopis českého musea, III (1832), pp. 352–73; Radhost, I (1871), pp. 42–63; and “Manifest českého národního výboru o žádoucím spojení zemí Moravské a Slezské s korunou českou, dne 6. máje 1848,” Radhost, III (1873), pp. 18–25.

13. In Památník na oslavu stých narozenin F. Palackého (Prague, 1898), pp. 646–88. For supplements, see Josef Volf, “Palackého Dějiny a censura,” Časopis Českehó musea, LXXXVII (1913), pp. 157–158.

14. See the survey published by Köpl, ibid.

15. See Gedenkblätter (Prague, 1874), pp. 103–09; F. Palacký, Spisy drobné, III (Prague, 1902), pp. 512–13; and Kōpl, pp. 647–52.

16. The article was published in its original uncensored form in Radhost, II, pp. 133–134.

17. Zur böhm, Geschichtsschr., p. 94.

18. K.J. Erben complains to this effect in his letter to Stanko Vraz, a Slovene poet: “Presently, the censorship looks very bad; at first they were looking for Pan-Slavism or rather, Russism. They have screamed so loudly that finally not even they believed the loudness of their voices, and they thought of a new apparition, for us a more dangerous one. You see, some time ago our domestic clergy, especially those near the staff of power, put their heads together and came out with the idea that Czech literature would only revive and extend Hussitism. Complaints arose that some of our works (Trnka’s General History was named) are insufficiently Catholic. This, in turn, caused problems for the censorship. So now if an article or a book even touches on the subject of religion the censorship sends it to Vienna, rather than become vulnerable to another attack.” K.J. Erben, Slovanská korrespondence (Prague, 1971), p. 432.

19. Zur böhm. Geschichtsschr., p. 95.

20. See pp. 156–157 of the German edition and pp. 5–7 of the Czech edition.

21. F. Palacký, Zur bohm. Geshichtsschr., pp. 99–107; and Köpl, pp. 677–83.

22. The passages of the third volume of the manuscript marked in red and published by Köpl can be cupplemented by others that appeared during the comparison of the two texts:

1

“Die Anderen behaupteten dagegen: dass wahre Vermächtniss Christi an seine Kirche seien die . . . Schriften des Neuen Testaments.”156

 

“Jiní namítali proti tomu, že marné jest chlubiti se dědictvím Ducha svatého, kdežto skutkové svědčí snad naopak: prave a jediné dědictví církve Kristovy že jsou knihy Písma sv. vůbec a Nového zákona zvláště.”4

2

“[Gegensätze des Katolicismus und Protestantismus] . . . welche seit Jahrhunderten sich geltend machen und auch heute noch nicht ausgeglichen sind.”156

 

“. . .ježto již po drahné časy spolu zápasíce, i dnes jeste ujednotiti se nedají.5

3

“Seit Jahrhunderten sieht sich die Christenheit in Parteien gespalten und zu gegenseitigen Kampf gerüstet, dessen Ende menschlicher Weise nicht abzusehen ist.”156–157

 

“Spor a boj ten zachvátil již od několika století netoliko všecky národy, ale i všecky osoby ve křestanstvu více nebo méňe patrně do víru svého, aniž ještě předvídati lze, kam se vrhne a jakové bude jeho konečné rozhodnutí.”5

4

“Dies seltene Werk [De regulis veteris et novi testamenti] hat zu seiner Zeit den ausserordentlichen Einfluss ausgeübt, obgleich es, nach vollendeter Spaltung der christlichen Parteien, als unbefriedigend erschien...”175–6

 

“Toto vzácné dílo náleží ke spisům nejvýtečnějším, ježto z péra českého po vše století kdy vyplynuli; byla také doba, kde mělo po sobě účinek nadmíru znamenitý, ačkoli později, jakmile tot iž křestanstvo se skutečně rozdvojilo, spis ten již za nevhodný považován . . .”25

5

“Es ist bekannt, wie er [Bonifaz IX] oft gerugte Missbrauche–in deren Schilderung wir hier nicht ein gehen können–abzustellen unterliess.” (The continuationof the text where Palacký provides concrete examples of bribes in the Catholic church /see pp. 47–51 of the Czech edition/ was crossed out by the censorship.)199

 

“Jest jíž obecně známo, kterak za něho [Boniface IX] a skrze něho neřádové casto hanění, jmenovitě prodejnost církevních úřadů a důstojenství . . . dosahla svého vrchu.”48

6

“. . .die an der Universität in Mehrzal vorhanden Deutschen hatten sich frühzeitig gewöhnt, ihre böhmischen Kollegen zu verdächtigen.”228

 

“. . .Němci na universitě počtem předčící vzali sobě záhy za obyčej dotýkati se bolestně kolegů svých českých, spílajíce jim podežrelých a kacířů.”78

7

“Sein Opposition gegen die Deutschen. . .”298

 

“Vlastenecký odpor jeho [Husův] proti Nemcům...”141

8

“[Hus] habe gewünscht,. . . ihnen noch einmal vor seinem Scheiden zu predigen, um sie mit den einzelnen Klagen und Zeugnissen . . . vorlaüfig bekannt zu machen.”315

 

“Bylť sobě [prý] žádal a umínil, kázati jim ještě před svou jízdou do Kontancie,. . . maje zejména jim oznámiti křivé žaloby a svědectví. . .”156

9

“Doch hoffe er, es werde ihnen nicht gelingen, ihn auf einen Abweg zu führen.”315

 

“Však že doufá k svému Spasiteli, že skrze své zaslíbení a jejich věrnou modlitbu dá mu moudrost a statěcnost Ducha svatého, aby nemohli uchýliti jeho na křivou cestu.”

10

In the notes on p. 360, Palacký’s citation of Hus’s letter to all Czechs of June 24 was crossed out. (It was returned in the Czech edition on p. 195.)

11

“. . .da wiederholte er [Hus] nochmals seine alte Behauptung, dass er nur in dem Falle widerrufen werde, wenn . . .”362

 

“[Hus] opětoval ještě jednou s pohnutím a slzami, že jen tenkráte odvolá, dyž . . .” (The paragraph is supplemented by sentences originally deleted by the censorship, from “Not even Hus could have acted differently . . .” to “He chose the death of his body”. Also returned was Note No. 302, here Palacký cites the evaluation of these events by the French historian Emile de Donnechose.)197

12

On p. 367, the last sentence of the next to last paragraph was crossed out. The following is the wording of the sentence in the Czech edition: “Neohroženosti mysli ve všech těchto scénách dokázané obdivovali se i nejkrutější nepřátelé jeho.”

 

23. See B. Havránek, Československd vlastivěda (Prague, 1968–71), II/3, p. 96.

24. Ibid.