Page:East European Quarterly, vol15, no1.pdf/41

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

PALACKÝ AND HAVLÍČEK

39

NOTES

1. Josef Václav Frič, Paměti (3 vols.; Prague, 1957–63), I, pp. 305–06. The memoirs were published originally in 1891.

2. Jakub Malý, Naše znovuzrození: přehled národního života českého za posledního půlstoletí (3 parts in one volume; Prague, 1880), I, pp. 69, 74, 76.

3. Tomáš G. Masaryk, Karel Havlíček: snahy a tužby politického probuzení (Prague, 1904), pp. 268–90. Cf. Masaryk, Česká otázka: snahy a tužby národního obrození (Prague, 1908). For criticisms of Masaryk’s interpretation see Arnošt Denis, Čechy po Bílé hoře (6 vols.; Prague, 1911), IV, pp. 301–02; and Zdeněk V. Tobolka’s review in Naše doba, XI (1904), pp. 787–89. Also enlightening is the Masaryk-Tobolka polemic, “Havlíček skutečný a fiktivní,” Naše doba, XII (1905), pp. 78–80, 237–40.

4. Karel Tůma, Karel Havlíček: nejslavnější publicista českého národa (Kutná Hora, 1885). The study was intended to help the Young Czechs expand their political arsenal by showing the compatibility of the party’s program and tactics with those of the popularly revered Havlíček. The result was an exaggeration of Havlíček’s radicalism through a reduction of his philosophy to political liberalism, anti-Germanism, and anti-clericalism.

5. The “conversions” occured in 1813 and 1839, respectively. See Joseph F. Zacek, Palacký: The Historian as Scholar and Nationalist (The Hague, 1970), p. 16; and Havlíček to M. Příborský, January 16, 1839, in Ladislav Quis, ed., Korespondence Karla Havlíčka (Prague, 1903), p. 725. Hereafter, KH Korespondence.

6. Antonín Okáč, Český sněm a vláda před březnem 1848 (Prague, 1947), pp. 78–81.

7. The best of the detailed studies of Havlíček’s early life is still Václav Zelený, “Ze života Karla Havlíčka,” Osvěta, II (1872), pp. 320–36, 477–94, 642–62, and III (1873), pp. 14–30.

8. Zdeněk V. Tobolka, Literatura česká devatenáctého století (3 vols, in 4 parts; Prague, 1902–07), III/1, p. 583.

9. There have been several studies of this important controversy, which led to the abandonment of Czech as a literary language by young Slovak Protestant intellectuals. Among the more balanced accounts are V.A. Frantsev, Cheshsko-slovenskii razkol i ego otgoloski v literature sorokovych godov (Warsaw, 1915); Milan Hodža, Čezkoslovenský rozkol: príspevky k dejinám slovenčiny (Turciansky Sv. Martin, 1920); and Jan Novotný, O bratrškě druzbe Čechu a Slováků za národního obrození (Prague, 1959).

10. Pražské noviny (hereafter, PN), February 15–March 12, 1846; reprinted in Zdeněk V. Tobolka, ed., Karla Havlíčka Borovského politické spisy (3 vols. in 5 parts; Prague, 1900–03), I, pp. 32–101. Hereafter, KHPS.

11. Ibid., p. 64.

12. Ibid., p. 69.

13. Bohuš Rieger, ed., Františka Palackého spisy drobné (3 vols.; Prague, 1898–1902), I, p. 19. Hereafter, FPSD.

14. The best treatment of Czech-Russian relations in the first half of the nineteenth century is Josef Jirásek, Rusko a my: studie vztahů československých-ruských od počátku 19. století do r. 1867 (Prague, 1929). For information on the