14. Among Palacký’s strongest statements on the need for a single party and for dampening conflicts between Czech factions is that published by Pokrok on May 11, 1875, “O roztržce v národu českém,” in Spisy drobné, 1, pp. 413–426.
15. The importance of Palacký’s achievement in this regard is not to be underestimated. See, for example, Antonín Okáč, Rakouský problém a list Vaterland. 1860–1871, 2 Vols, (Brno, 1970), I, pp. 6–12, 26–30, 70–73; II, pp. 180–186, 193, 198, 297–304.
16. See, for example, statements in the various party dailies or weeklies on the occasion of the 1898 Palacký centenary. On the Young Czech view see Česká revue, I (1897–98), pp. 1263–64, as well as Národní listy, June 14, 1898. Specifically on the Young Czech and Agrarian indebtedness to Palacký, see Garver, Young Czech Party, Chapters 3 and 9 respectively.
17. See Rámcový program české strany lidové (realistické) (Prague, 1900), pp. 71, 85, 95, and Program české strany pokrokové, schválen třetím valným sjezdem strany konaným v Praze 6. a 7. ledna 1912 (Prague, 1912), pp. 3–4, 17–18, 21–23.
18. On the policy of “passive resistance” and on this and other issues dividing Old from Young Czechs, see Garver, Young Czech Party, Chapter 3.
19. On Masaryk’s relationship to Palacký, see especially T.G. Masaryk, Česká otázka: snahy a tužby národního obrození (Prague, 1895), pp. 87–161, and Palackého idea, passim.
20. Jaroslav Werstadt, Od “České otázky” k “Nové Evropě”: linie politického vývoje Masarykova (Prague, 1920).
21. Palacký’s view of the relationship between Czechs and Germans is discussed by František Dvorský, “František Palacký a nás nepřítel,” in Kalousek & Rieger, et al., Památník, pp. 443–472. See also František Palacký, “O sporu Čechů a Němců (Výňatek ze spisu o českém dějepisectví 1871).” Drobné spisy, I, pp. 322–331. For his evaluation of the relationship in light of German unification after victory in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870–71 and the Emperor’s dismissal of the Hohenwart ministry in October, 1871, see František Palacký, “Doslov z r. 1874 (Gedenkblätter),” Drobné spisy, I, pp. 392–411.
22. Among the better Marxist studies of Palacký are Milan Machovec, František Palacký a česká filosofie (Prague, 1961), for intellectual development, and Milena Jetmarová, František Palacký (Prague, 1961), for a general assessment of Palacký’s political and intellectual achievements. The latter work also contains extensive selections from Palacký’s historical and political writing edited by M. Jetmarová.
23. A thorough study of this analogy remains to be written. The situations noted are most analogous to the extent that Czechs in both cases worked within a system and in accordance with a ruling ideology deemed inimical in many respects to individual and national interests and in any case upheld primarily by force.
24. Masaryk best expressed this view in a letter of January 9, 1899, to Karel Kramář, in Archiv TGM, Archiv ústavu dějin KSČ, část 26, roku 1899: “You are fighting for Austria! I am not. Palacký said that we were here before Austria and that we shall be here after Austria has gone, but whereas for Palacký that was only a phrase, I want that to become a fact.” Masaryk always considered his politics to be those of a “realist” in this sense, from his having termed “realism” the politics of himself, Kaizl, and Kramář in the early 1890’s and in accepting the popular designation of “realists” for his People’s Party, established in 1900, and its successor, the Progressive Party.
