he may have anticipated. His historical and political writings appear largely to have been written with one thought in mind. Politics cannot be sensibly or successfully conducted without some sense of history and one’s place in the world or without some purpose larger than personal or national achievement. Masaryk expressed much the same opinion in contending that the realist in politics is often that person who acts in so far as possible in accordance with certain ideals and principles.24
In part, Palacký appears to have emphasized the need for certain national and liberal ideals precisely because the Czechs as a small nation surrounded by large predatory neighbors had often to compromise and to struggle against heavy odds. Unless some ideals, some sense of purpose, and some sense of historical continuity were maintained, the inevitable politics of compromise might lead to a loss of will and purpose and possibly to spiritual, if not to physical annihilation. Not only have high aspirations and a strong sense of national identiy given courage to Czechs in trying times, but they have also served as the measure against which day-to-day personal and political conduct has to be judged, however ineffective or short of desirable that conduct may be.
NOTES
1. The standard biography of Palacký is Vácslav Řezníček, František Palacký: jeho život, působení a význam, 3rd ed. (Prague, 1912). On Palacký’s youth and early intellectual development, see Karel Kálal, Palackého mladá léta (1798–1827) (Prague, 1925), and J. Hanuš, “Z mladších let Fr. Palackého,” Česká revue, I (1897–98), pp. 1025–37 and 1326–1345.
2. On Palacký’s intellectual achievements, relationship to the scholarship and thought of his times, and enduring intellectual influence, see Josef Fischer, Myšlenka a dílo Františka Palackého, 2 Vols, (Prague, 1926–27). An excellent critical study of Palacký’s historical writing and idea of history is Joseph Zacek, Palacký: The Historian as Scholar and Nationalist (The Hague, 1970). On Palacky in the context of the development of Czech writing of political history, see also Jaroslav Werstadt, “Politické dějepisectvi a jeho čeští představitele,” Československý časopis historický, XXVI (1920), pp. 1–93.
3. On Palacký’s contributions to Czech politics up to 1876, see Adolf Srb, “Politická činnost Františka Palackého,” in Josef Kalousek, Bohuš Rieger, et al., Památník na oslavu stých narozenin Františka Palackého (Prague, 1898), pp. 545–601. A good survey of Palacký’s understanding of “society, nation, and the state” that underlay his state-rights program is František Kutnar, “Palackého pojetí společnosti, národa a státu,” in František Kutnar, ed., Tři studle o Frantiskw Palackem (Olomouc, 1949), pp. 7–42. A comprehensive collection of Czech political statements and programs during the period 1848–1860, in which those composed by Palacký and Rieger figure heavily, is Jan M. Černý, ed., Boj za právo: sborník aktů politických u věcech státu a národa českého od roku 1848 (Prague, 1893). On the establishment of