# Lectures on The Historians of Bohemia/Lecture 4

IV
IT is not my purpose to refer here in any detail to the enormous changes in Bohemia that were the consequence of the battle of the White Mountain. The ancient constitution of the country was suppressed, and a system of slightly veiled absolutism replaced it. Confiscations of land took place on an enormous scale, and foreign nobles, mainly generals of the imperial army, obtained the estates of the ancient Protestant nobility of Bohemia. The inhabitants of the towns, many of which had been strongholds of the national Church, were driven into exile; and immigrants, generally of German birth, took their place. As regards the peasantry whom the system of serfdom attached to the soil, for the cultivation of which they were required, sinister arguments such as the pillory, the whipping-post, and the gallows, gradually induced them to conform to the Church of Rome. It is, however, to the credit of my countrymen to mention that many long remained true to their ancient faith and secretly held their religious services at night-time in the dense pine-forests of Bohemia, and preserved, as hidden treasures, copies of the Bible of Králice, the Bohemian version of the Scriptures which was the joint work of several divines of the Brotherhood.
The modern historian Dr. Gindely has given a graphic account of the sufferings of the Bohemians at ​this period, which are almost unequalled in history. ‘The Bohemians,’ he writes, ‘had not even the resource of appealing to their sovereign; for no petty Austrian official or Jesuit missionary was more determined than Ferdinand to kill or exile all Bohemians who did not conform to the Church of Rome.’ Thus when remonstrances were made to Ferdinand on behalf of the Protestants of Kutna Hora he angrily declared that the citizens of Kutna Hora were ‘not men but brutes’, because they would not accept the one saving creed. Even during the vicissitudes of the Thirty Years’ War, Ferdinand always considered the conversion of Bohemia to the Roman Church as a matter of the greatest importance. The papal see gave him no more than his due when it declared him to be ‘a second Constantine.’
Little or no Bohemian literature of this period exists. The national language, considered a language of heretics, was persecuted in every way. Jesuits, who were accompanied by soldiers, scoured the country in every direction, and as the Jesuit was generally ignorant of the national language, he destroyed all Bohemian books. It was the intention of the government to induce the Bohemians to forget as far as possible all traditions of their past glory. It is a striking proof of this tendency that even Pope Pius II’s book on the history of Bohemia was prohibited.
The few writers on Bohemian history wrote mainly in German and Latin, though their sympathy was generally with their own people.
​Of these writers, far the most important was the learned Jesuit Balbinus. He was born in 1621 at Králové Hradec, of a family that belonged to the ancient nobility of that district. He was consecrated as a priest in 1650, and was sent as a missionary to his native district, that of Králové Hradec. The brutality and cruelty which these missionaries displayed in the execution of their task of conversion was naturally displeasing to a truly pious man such as was Balbinus. He also appears not to have won the approval of his superiors, for he was recalled, and henceforth employed as a teacher. He made great researches in the archives of various towns and castles, which he visited in his new capacity. The result of these studies was his Epitome Historica Rerum Bohemicarum, in which he has given an extensive account of events connected with Bohemia, laying great stress on the foundation of churches and monasteries, and ecclesiastical matters generally. Of course the writer, a Jesuit, writes of the Hussite wars in the only then permissible manner, and gives the then usual distorted accounts of the careers of Hus, Žižka, and the other great Bohemians. None the less, the book raised the suspicions of Count Martinic, then Governor of Bohemia. It indeed required the mind of an inquisitor to detect here and there a vestige of Bohemian national feeling. Yet the book was for a time suppressed, Balbinus fell into disgrace, and was sent to Klatov almost as an exile.
While at Klatov Balbinus wrote (also in Latin) an Apology for the Slavic and specially the Bohemian Tongue, which he dedicated to his friend Canon Pešina. Knowing the hostility that the Bohemian language ​incurred as being the language of heretics, Balbinus skilfully drew the attention of his readers to the period anterior to Hus, ‘when Bohemia, now so mournful, was in a happy condition.’
In the last years of his life, Balbinus (who died in 1688) began the publication of one of those colossal works in which the Bohemians of that period delighted. The book, entitled A Miscellany of Bohemian History, does full justice to its title. Beside a large amount of historical narrative, the book contains a treatise on the natural history of Bohemia, numerous pedigrees of Bohemian nobles (they fill a whole volume), numerous biographies of Bohemians, and much other matter.
In connexion with Balbinus I should next mention his friend, Canon Tomas Pešina, who has left several historical works, written in Latin, which refer to the history of Bohemia and the sister-land Moravia.
The greater number of the historians of this period wrote in German. It is in this language that Bienenberg’s historical works, and Pubička’s and Pelzl’s histories of Bohemia, were written. Though written in a foreign tongue, these works, that belong to the latter part of the eighteenth century, show traces of a revival of the ancient national feeling among the Bohemians, and, as it were, form a prelude to the revival of the Bohemian nation in the following century.
It is not my purpose to refer here to their national movement, except as far as it concerns the study of history. But as the greatest of the leaders of this movement, Francis Palacký, was a historian, it deserves mention here. This revival, largely based on historical reminiscences, in fact on what the enemies of the country would call sentimental motives, is one of the ​really important events—so different from those that temporarily appear important—which will render the nineteenth century memorable. The reconstruction of a Slavic state in central Europe, a Slavic outpost in the midst of Teutonic lands, will probably have a considerable influence on the future of Europe.
The movement had a very modest origin, and was at first indirectly and unintentionally furthered by one who was a determined enemy of the Bohemian people. I refer to the Emperor Joseph II, who was also king, though uncrowned king, of Bohemia. That monarch was thoroughly imbued with the views held by the enlightened sovereigns of the eighteenth century of whom Frederick the Great is the type. These men were in many ways in advance of their times. Their desire to further public education, to diminish the privileges of the omnipotent nobility and a luxurious and wealthy clergy, to assure at least a limited amount of equality before the law, and to grant some liberty to the press, cannot fail to be admired by all enlightened men. That these men absolutely failed to grasp the value which a people attaches to its nationality and language is also certain. Joseph's contempt for the Bohemian language founded indeed on ignorance was not greater than that which Frederick the Great, whose brilliant works are all written in French, felt for the German language.
It is certain that, by allowing the publication of a newspaper written in the Bohemian language, by permitting the printing of the works of ancient Bohemian authors and the translation of foreign works into the national language, Joseph considerably con​tributed to the result that Bohemian again became a written language.
Francis Palacký, the most important of the Bohemian national leaders and the founder of the modern Bohemian historical school—to whom all who now attempt such studies must look up with reverence—was born on June 14, 1798, at Hodslavice in Moravia. His ancestors had belonged to the community of the Bohemian Brethren, and had indeed only nominally conformed to the Church of Rome, when after the battle of the White Mountain all religious freedom was suppressed in Moravia, as well as in Bohemia. The Emperor Joseph II indeed granted religious freedom to the members of the ‘Helvetic’ and ‘Augsburg’ confessions, as the adherents of Calvin and Luther were described by the ultramontane Austrian officials, but no mention was made of the ancient Bohemian Brotherhood. Palacký’s parents therefore declared themselves members of the Augsburg Church, which they believed to be nearest to their old traditional faith.
It is often noticeable in Palacký’s great historical work that the writer was brought up in the traditions of the Brotherhood, though he but seldom allows his personal sympathies to appear, and though he was also constantly embarrassed by the action of the Austrian government, which hardly permitted the publication of any statement adverse to the Church of Rome. Palacký’s father, a man of learning, gave him his first instruction, and he then continued his education at the Protestant school of Presburg in Hungary. In that town, situated in a Slavic part of Hungary, Palacký’s sympathies with the Slavic cause naturally became more intense. He here also first made the acquain​tance of Šafařik, the celebrated philologist, who was one of the principal promoters of the Bohemian revival. This acquaintance developed into a lifelong friendship. Palacký, however, by no means restricted his studies to Slavic languages. With that facility for acquiring foreign tongues which is said to be innate in the Slav, he also acquired several languages of Western Europe. As Professor Kalousek tells us in his contribution to the Palacký memorial, a volume published in 1898 on the occasion of the centenary of the birth of the great historian, Palacký studied English writers with great attention. Bolingbroke’s Letters on the Study and Use of History, and particularly Blair's lectures on rhetoric and belles-lettres, greatly influenced the youthful Palacký. Recently looking over the pages of the last-named now forgotten book, I was struck by the fact that Palacký’s great historical work so largely conforms to the rules laid down in Blair’s lecture on ‘Historical Writing.’
I must add that the interest which Palacký always manifested in England and English literature has not obtained much recognition for him on the part of English writers. When the Palacký memorial, which I have already mentioned, appeared in 1898, I was requested to contribute a small note on the references to Palacký in the works of English writers. I was surprised to find how scanty they were, and that only the late Bishop Creighton had obviously thoroughly studied Palacký’s historical writings.
The Hungarian government was even at that time hostile to the pursuit of Slavic studies, and Palacký resolved to establish himself at Prague, where he enjoyed the protection of the Abbé Dobrovský, one ​of the older Slavic scholars, and a man who was on good terras with the authorities—an all-important matter in Austria during the Metternich régime. It was here that Palacký formed the plan of his vast historical work. Palacký was introduced by Dobrovský to the not very numerous Bohemian nobles who were interested in the history of their country. Among these were Count Sternberg and his younger brother, Count Francis Sternberg. The latter had a few years previously, in conjunction with Count Klebelsberg and my great-uncle, Count Kolowrat, founded an association that was known as the Society of the Bohemian Museum. This at first modest society endeavoured to collect all objects and documents connected with the history of Bohemia, hoping to revive the national feeling by recalling to the Bohemians their glorious past and their national language that is so closely connected with it. This society and the small collections which it at first possessed were then housed in a small house belonging to Count Sternberg. After having been for some time removed to more extensive premises, the Bohemian Museum and its now vast and valuable collections found a home in the place of St. Venceslas, that is known to all visitors to Prague.
The Patriotic Association at first met with a great deal of opposition. The Austrian government assumed an attitude of veiled hostility, and considerable indifference was shown even by those of Bohemian birth. At a meeting at Count Sternberg’s house, which took place in 1825, both the Count himself and Dobrovský bitterly complained of the want of interest shown as regards the new national institute. Young Palacký, however (I quote from a contemporary account), ​declared that this indifference was the fault of the authorities of the Museum, and that it was their duty to further the Bohemian literature and language. When the elder Count Sternberg replied that it was too late to raise the Bohemian nation from the dead, the young patriot became angry, and abandoning the defensive attitude began to attack his opponents. He warmly reproached Dobrovský for writing in German only, and ended with the fiery words: ‘If we all act thus, then indeed our nation must perish through intellectual famine. As for me, even if I was a gipsy by birth and the last descendant of that race, I should consider it as my duty to strive with all my might that honoured records of my race should be preserved to the history of humanity.’ It is very much to the credit of the older patriots that they agreed with the remarks of Palacký, whose hopes, as need hardly now be mentioned, have since been justified by time. It was resolved that a literary and scientific journal, entitled the Journal of the Bohemian Museum, should be published both in Bohemian and in German. The Bohemian edition has been continued up to the present day, and may still be considered the foremost literary periodical of Bohemia. The German edition, on the other hand, was abandoned after a few years. Palacký became the first editor, and some of his first historical studies appeared in the journal. About the same time he received the appointment of archivist to Count Sternberg, an appointment that not only slightly added to his modest income, but also gave him a recognized social position at Prague—no unimportant matter at a time when Metternich’s omnipresent police viewed all ​literary men, and particularly those who wrote on Slavic subjects, with intense suspicion. Palacký also, through his personal acquaintance with some of the great nobles of Bohemia, obtained permission to study the valuable historical documents contained in their libraries and archives. The study of the treasures contained in some of these archives, particularly in those at Třeboř or Wittengau, convinced Palacký that the history of Bohemia had still to be written. Though he may have had some such intention previously, it was only then that he resolved to write an extensive history of Bohemia. The difficulties that beset his path were very great. I cannot define them better than by quoting Palacký’s own words. He writes: ‘While the system of imperial censure existed, it was quite impossible plainly to state that the action of the government rendered impossible the progress and development of historical study and research. The government authorities, no doubt, well knew that the former attitude of the Austrian government with regard to Bohemia would find no mercy before the judgement-seat of history, even though the sufferers could no longer make their grievances known. What happened in the interior of Bohemia during the Thirty Years’ War is even now one of those secrets of history that make the few who have attempted even slightly to lift the veil, tremble. I was some time ago asked by men of some importance whether it would not be better if the unhappy and melancholy events of the past were consigned to complete oblivion, rather than that an attempt should be made to incite men’s minds by recalling these events, thus disturbing the happy peace ​of the present time. These men knew nothing of the events of the past, but they felt instinctively that an account of the past would excite men’s minds. No wonder therefore that the government did not further historical studies, and indeed endeavoured to hinder them in every way.’
I should here mention that when Palacký afterwards undertook his great historical work, he, contrary to his original plan, only dealt with the history of Bohemia up to the year 1526, which marks the accession of the Habsburg dynasty to the Bohemian throne. Even this did not, as I shall mention presently, prevent the government authorities from molesting him on various occasions.
The opposition of the Austrian government was not the only obstacle that Palacký found in his path. To a man of scant private means as he was, the probably small number of readers, and the uncertainty caused by the caprices of the ‘censors’ as to when the different volumes could appear, rendered the publication of his great work a very difficult thing. Fortunately the Estates of Bohemia came to his aid. Animated by that tacit antagonism between Vienna and Prague that is one of the great features of Austrian history, they resolved in 1829 to confer on Palacký the title of historiographer of Bohemia, and to attach to it a modest salary. This resolution was, however, vetoed by the authorities of Vienna, but they finally consented, though reluctantly, to allow the Estates of Bohemia to bear the costs of the publication of Palacký’s book. It should be mentioned that ten years later (in 1839) the Austrian government permitted the Estates to confer on Palacký the title of historiographer of Bohemia.
​The first volume of Palacký’s history of Bohemia appeared in 1836. It deals with the first settlement of the Slavic race in Bohemia. Recent critics—even among the author’s countrymen—accuse Palacký of having idealized the primitive Čechs. It is indeed true that the optimist views of Rousseau and Herder are somewhat obvious in the book. The dark conception of a universal and eternal struggle for existence had not then replaced, the conception of an Arcadian and innocent primitive mankind. The preface of this volume deserves quotation, for it indicates the spirit in which Palacký undertook his vast historical work. He writes: ‘As regards the principles and intentions which have guided me while working at this history, I have hardly a word to say. I know of no others, except those that proceed naturally from the supreme principle of regard for historical truth and faith. That I write from the standpoint of a Bohemian is a fact for which I could only be blamed, if it rendered me unjust either to the Bohemians or to their opponents. I hope, however, that my sincere craving for truth, my respect for all laws, divine and human, my zeal for order and legality, my sympathy with the weal and woe of all mankind, will preserve me from the sin of partiality. With God’s help, these principles will continue to guide me in my task.’
I should here remark that the first volume of Palacký’s great work first appeared in German, and was subsequently translated into Bohemian. It was only after the revolutionary year 1848, when the dissensions between the Bohemians and the Germans—who had previously treated the Bohemians with somewhat contemptuous indulgence—became more intense, ​that Palacký began to publish his history first in the national language.
From the year 1836 the history of Bohemia became the life-work of Palacký. It was indeed only in 1876, the year of his death, that the last sheets of the revised edition of the work were ready for the press. The book was a political event in Bohemia, and largely contributed to further the political career of its author. The book proceeded slowly, and in the face of constant opposition of the government officials who were known as the ‘censors.’ Palacký has, in one of his German works, written most entertaining pages on his struggles with the censors. These conflicts turned principally on Palacký’s account of the career of Hus. It is hardly necessary to say that the police-officials, who did duty as literary critics, were absolutely incapable of judging the career of Hus. This did not prevent them from interfering with Palacký’s work. When the latter wrote that the courage displayed by Hus during his trial forced even his adversaries to admire him, the censor declared that ‘the Catholic Church does not see in Hus’s attitude undaunted courage, but insolence and obstinacy founded on utter blindness.’ Palacký had also ventured to quote Poggio Bracciolini's well-known account of the death of Jerome of Prague, which from the time of Aeneas Sylvius downward has been frequently reproduced. The censor, none the less, had his doubts concerning the authenticity of the letter, and also stated that, in any case, it described Jerome as a philosopher, a man worthy of admiration, and one whose death should be regretted. This judgement (the censor continued) is out of place, and likely to lead astray those who are little versed in history.
​The incessant molestations of the censors finally induced Palacký to address to the government authorities a manly letter which he has preserved in one of his later works. After excusing himself with regard to the fact that his narrative threw favourable, rather than unfavourable, light on the career of Hus, and referring to the existent historical authorities, he wrote: ‘Another reason for my judging Hus favourably, consists in the undeniable importance and value of the man. According to my innermost conviction and, I may add, according to the opinion of all unprejudiced judges, Hus strove only for the good, though the means by which he furthered his endeavours were not all devoid of sin, and therefore not blameless. It is in this sense that I have written my account, and I do not think that it contains anything that is at all opposed or contrary to a truly Catholic mind. If I have been mistaken as regards certain details, I gladly accept corrections and will include them in my book. I cannot, however, believe that it is an indispensable demand of Catholicism that every deed and thought of Hus should be unconditionally condemned, that his portrait should be painted entirely in black, and that all circumstances that appear favourable to him even if historically uncontested should be suppressed. Such a one-sided and unjust account would, unfortunately, constitute not an historical work but a party-pamphlet. The censor seems to expect something similar from me. Should this apprehension prove justified, I regret being obliged to declare that I shall never accede to such a demand. I should prefer to give up my whole work and abandon the study of history. A historian has high and extensive obligations, which must to him be as sacred as ​are, for instance, those of a professor of dogmatics or of an inquisitor. . . .’
The matter was eventually settled amicably, though Palacký was obliged to eliminate considerable passages from his book, as well as to insert considerable interpolations from the pen of the censor, which had to pass as Palacký’s own work. After the year 1848, when the police-censorship of the press was abolished, Palacký was able to publish a new edition of his work, in which he restored most of the passages that had been eliminated and suppressed the additions dictated by the censor.
I should here state that when dealing with the life and works of Palacký I have principally laid stress on the events of his life which I have as far as possible related in his own words and on his historical criticisms. It would be superfluous to give extracts from his large historical work. It is, of course, founded on the ancient records, many of which were then still preserved in manuscript, though they have now been printed. I should therefore run the risk of repeating accounts of events to which I have already referred in my previous lectures.
One of the results of the revolutionary events of 1848 was that the Bohemian national movement, that had previously been almost exclusively literary, now assumed a political character. It was natural that when the Bohemians were called on to elect representatives to the constituent assembly that met at Vienna, their choice largely fell on men of letters. Of historians, Palacký was elected by seven constituencies; and the younger historian Tomek to whom I shall refer later was also one of the representatives of Bohemia. Palacký took little part in the proceedings ​of the short-lived parliamentary assembly that met at Vienna in the spring of 1848 and was transferred to Kroměřice in the autumn of that year. Palacký was also a member of the ill-omened Slavic congress of Prague, and was asked to take part in the German assembly at Frankfurt. Previously to the meeting of the German parliament, the most prominent German statesmen met in conference. As the treaty of Vienna had though without the consent of the estates included Bohemia in the Germanic confederation, Palacký was invited to take part in this conference. His answer caused great sensation, and became a watchword to the Bohemians. Palacký wrote: ‘I am not a German, but a Bohemian. Whatever talent I possess is at the service of my own country. My nation is certainly a small one, but it has always maintained its historic individuality. The rulers of Bohemia have often been on terms of intimacy with the German princes, but the Bohemian people has never considered itself as German.’
Almost all the ephemeral attempts at establishing constitutional government in continental countries in the year 1848 failed. Austria, at the end of the year 1852, was again an absolutist country. Daring this period of absolutism, which lasted up to the year 1860, Palacký retired into private life, devoting himself entirely to the continuation of his great historical work. Censure was indeed not re-established, but Palacký now encountered a much more serious danger. The whole Austrian empire was then under martial law, and the authorities seriously considered whether the great historian should be tried by a court martial.
​The disasters of the year 1859 proved the impossibility of continuing a system of absolutist government that was in direct contradiction to the ancient historical constitutions of Bohemia and Hungary. The sovereign again granted constitutional institutions, and it was resolved to establish in Vienna a central parliament consisting of two houses. The upper house was to contain a large number of hereditary members, and a certain number of life-members appointed by the sovereign. Among the latter was Palacký. He was now generally recognized as the leader of Bohemia, as Otec Vlasti, ‘father of the country,’ as it became customary to call him. Palacký only spoke twice in the Vienna parliament on both occasions in the year 1861. His words have since become prophetic. Palacký opposed the claims of the Hungarians, who demanded that almost entire independence which they have since obtained. He disapproved of the creation of new small states at a moment when all Europe was in favour of large agglomerations; for Italy was then beginning to become a united country, and to a shrewd statesman as was Palacký the subsequent unity of Germany also already appeared probable. Palacký therefore recommended a federal constitution for the whole empire, which, while largely recognizing the ancient constitutions of Bohemia and Hungary, yet permitted the vast empire of the Habsburgs to maintain a certain amount of coherence. Palacký’s views were distasteful to most of the members of the parliament; and he left the Vienna assembly, never again to take his seat there.
The subsequent evolutions of Austrian politics through which Hungary in 1867 obtained almost complete independence, while Bohemia became a mere ​Austrian province, were treated by Palacký with contempt that was generally silent. His age, and his position as member of the upper house of the Vienna parliament, secured him against all personal molestation.
There was again a change in the political situation, when the Emperor Francis Joseph issued his memorable decree of September 14, 1871. He there declared that ‘in consideration of the former constitutional position of Bohemia, and remembering the power and glory which its crown had conferred upon his ancestors, and the constant fidelity of its population, he gladly recognized the rights of the kingdom of Bohemia, and was willing to confirm his assurance by taking the coronation oath.’ This important declaration for a short time caused the return of Palacký to political life, but his hopes were destined again to be disappointed.
In his last years the old historian, thoroughly disgusted with Austrian politics, frequently declared that ‘Bohemia existed before Austria, and would exist after Austria’ an expression that became almost proverbial. In 1876 the Bohemian edition of Palacký’s great historical work was completed, and this event was the subject of great rejoicing among the Bohemian people. Their joy, however, was turned into grief, for Francis Palacký died on May 26 of the same year. His funeral was the occasion of general national mourning in Bohemia.
I have as yet only referred to Palacký’s history of Bohemia, which is of course his masterpiece, but some of his shorter works have great value. One of the earliest of these is a book written in German, which is entitled Würdigung der alten böhmischen Geschichtschrei​ber (An Appreciation of the Ancient Historians of Bohemia). The book appeared in 1830, and it is difficult at the present day to realize how great its value then was, as it covered then almost unknown ground. The work of Březov, Bartoš, and many other early historians then existed in often inaccessible manuscripts, and were almost unknown. I need not say that I have, in my earlier lectures, largely used the contents of Palacký’s book.
In 1842 Palacký wrote for the journal of the Bohemian Museum an essay entitled The Forerunners of Hussitism in Bohemia. He afterwards forwarded it to the censor’s office, but as the permission to print it in book form was long delayed, he abandoned the idea. A copy of the Bohemian manuscript came into the hands of Dr. Jordan, a scholar of Leipzig; he translated it into German, and with Palacký’s consent published it under his (Dr. Jordan’s) own name. In consequence of the strange vicissitudes of this book, which were the result of the narrow-mindedness of the Austrian authorities, it was long believed to be a German work by Dr. Jordan, and was even quoted as such. It was only in 1869 that a new edition of the work, giving the true name of the author, appeared. The book is very valuable, for, as stated in the preface, it deals mainly with prominent men whose names were little known, even to the learned. Even now, when the great work of Bishop Creighton has somewhat enlightened the English public, the names of Conrad of Waldhausen, Milič of Kremsier, and Matthew of Janod are known but to few.
It was inevitable that a work such as Palacký’s great history, animated by strong enthusiasm for the Bohemian nation and dealing fairly with Hus and the Hussites, should find many opponents. During the period of ​extreme reaction and ultramontanism, which in Austria succeeded to the revolutions of 1848, several writers came forward, who attacked the views of Palacký and his account of the Hussite movement in particular. Baron Helfert, a high official of the Austrian government, wrote a life of Hus in which he attempted to refute Palacký’s narrative. The book, though of course entirely written in accordance with the views of Rome, yet treats its subject with fairness and moderation.
As much cannot be said of the most famous of Palacký’s opponents, Professor Höfler. Under the protection of the Austrian government the book was printed at the imperial printing-press Hofler began to publish a series of volumes containing the works of the historians of the Hussite movement. It is not my purpose to enter here into the controversy which this publication caused, but it can be truthfully stated that in the choice of his materials Hofler was constantly and persistently guided by the endeavour to place the Hussites in the most unfavourable light. The book is to a large extent polemical, and in the third volume a larger space is occupied by Höfler’s own reflections than by the writings of ancient historians. Höfler’s inaccuracy is proverbial in Bohemia. Palacký’s book, which I shall mention presently, gives hundreds of examples; I shall here limit myself to one. Höfler tells us that in 1426 Žižka established Prügelherrschaft (the rule of the stick) in Prague. It would have been difficult for Žižka to establish that or any rule in the year mentioned, as he died in 1424—a fact known to every Bohemian schoolboy.
​This attack on the Hussite movement, and on himself as its historian, justly incensed Palacký. In reply to it Palacký wrote the small but brilliant book, entitled Die Geschichte des Hussitenthumes und Professor Höfler. The controversy is antiquated, but incidentally Palacký here expressed his views of the Hussite period more clearly than anywhere else. After defining the historical method of Höfler and his school, Palacký writes: ‘Other historians, to whom I have the honour to belong, have stated that the Hussite war is the first war in the world’s history that was fought not for material interests but for intellectual ones, that is to say, for ideas. This ideal standpoint was so seriously and sincerely taken up by the Bohemians, that even when they were victors they never thought of substituting for it a more interested one. It is true that during the war they forced foreign communities to pay taxes and an annual tribute to them; but they never thought of subduing them or of extending their dominion over foreign lands—a thing that under the circumstances of the time would not have been difficult. I know that among the modern school of German historians there are persons (Palacký uses the rather contemptuous German word Subjecte) who attribute this attitude mainly to the political incapacity of the ancient Bohemians, and who with brutal derision attempt to deduce from it their racial inferiority. I leave it to a more enlightened posterity to decide which conduct is nearer to barbarism—that of the disinterested victor, or that of the imperious and rapacious conqueror. Two centuries later, the enemies after one victory—that of the White Mountain—certainly acted differently, and endeavoured in every way ​to use their victory for the purpose of material gain. Was their conduct nobler and more Christian?
‘As to the Hussites they never, during their prolonged and heroic struggle, ceased to consider it and to term it a fight for the liberty of God’s word. Was this the consequence of illusion or arrogance? I have already mentioned that the so-called worldruling authority of the mediaeval Church had at that time almost arrived at that stage, that it considered the teaching both of holy writ and of reason as unnecessary and superfluous, in view of the Holy Ghost which controlled the Church. I have also noticed that in spite of the undeniable merit of most of the ecclesiastical regulations, an equally undeniable corruption prevailed among all ranks of the hierarchy. On its path to ecclesiastical omnipotence the hierarchic system of the Middle Ages first encountered resistance on the part of the Hussites, who cried “Stop.” They forced the hierarchy to recognize the existence of something higher without it and above it, and also to learn to respect the right of men to form their own opinions and to give utterance to them. This something higher, which was now generally recognized, was that which the Hussites termed “the word of God,” namely the holy scripture and the apostolic spirit by which it is inspired. I do not wish to infer that the Church was by this recognition diverted from its original path; but the events of the Hussite war certainly somewhat restored it to its consciousness, and it henceforth avoided diverting yet further from holy writ, and continuing further on its downward path. The absolute authority of the Church in spiritual matters indeed ceased, but not the Christian character of its mission.’
​Though much has been written on the Hussite movement, no one not even Palacký himself in any other passage had defined that movement so clearly and so truly as Palacký has here.
Before leaving Palacký’s works, I should mention that he edited several very valuable collections of documents relating to ancient Bohemian history.
The brilliant example of Palacký naturally and fortunately obtained for him numerous and able successors. Though as one who has himself attempted to write on the history of Bohemia, I make this statement with some diffidence, I think that it is in the field of historiography that the Bohemian writers of the period of revival had achieved the greatest success. I shall be able to give but a slight sketch of these writers, and shall mention first those that have already departed, thus diverging slightly from the chronological order; for the Nestor of Bohemian historiography, and one of the greatest of Bohemian historians, Professor Tomek, is fortunately still alive and still actively occupied with his favourite studies.
Dr. Anton Gindely, born in 1829, has left numerous valuable historical works, some of which are written in German, others in Bohemian. He has principally occupied himself with the last years of Bohemian independence. His works on the history of the Letter of Majesty, on Rudolph II and his times, his history of the counter-reformation in Bohemia—which unfortunately remained unfinished—have thrown an immense amount of light on the history of Bohemia during the last years of independence. The immense influence of Christian of Anhalt on the affairs of Bohemia, his endeavours to enlist against the House of Habsburg the ​court of Turin, which would thus have anticipated by two centuries the policy of Cavour— these and many other facts were by Gindely dug out of the archives where they had been so long concealed. Gindely’s masterpiece would no doubt have been his history of the Thirty Years’ War, had he lived to complete the work.
Professor Tieftrunk (born 1829, and who died in 1897) left a considerable number of writings. His only considerable historical work is his Odpor Stavů Českých proti Fernandovi, that is to say, The Opposition of the Bohemian Estate to Ferdinand I. The book is founded on the contemporary account of Sixt of Ottersdorf, which I mentioned in my last lecture, and on research in archives. Tieftrunk also edited and published part of Skála ze Zhoře’s vast historical work.
Among living Bohemian historians, Professor Wenceslas Vladivoj Tomek undoubtedly holds the foremost place. Born in 1818, he has, during his long life, devoted himself entirely to the study of history. In his younger days he was an assistant of Palacký, who was one of the first to appreciate his talent. I will not attempt to enumerate the works of Tomek. His life of Žižka is, perhaps, one of the most interesting of his minor works; and he has also written several smaller books on the history of Bohemia and modern Austria.
His great work, however, is his History of the Town of Prague. Twelve volumes, which bring the history of the city down to the year 1608, have already appeared. Tomek always writes as a strong conservative—I had almost said an apologist of absolute rule. Yet in his account of Hus (who was so closely con​nected with Prague) he has spoken very freely, and his views are perhaps more hostile to the views of Rome than those of Palacký. As I mentioned, Tomek’s history of Prague is still unfinished, but all those who are friends of Bohemia will hope that time will be granted the veteran to finish his gigantic task, which will rank with Gregorovius’s Rome in the Middle Ages as one of the greatest town-histories of modern times.
It would be difficult to give in a limited space of time more than a very brief account of the modern historians of Bohemia. I should not, however, do justice to my subject, if I omitted to mention the work of Professor Josef Kalousek. He has devoted much time to the study of the early Christian records of Bohemia, and particularly to the legend of St. Wenceslas. Of his many historical works the most interesting appears to me to be his České Státní Právo—in a rough translation, The Bohemian Constitution. I think a brief quotation from this valuable book will throw some light on the subject of the ancient constitution of Bohemia—a subject that is almost unknown. Kalousek writes: ‘The ancient constitution of Bohemia and Moravia, like others grounded on feudal principles, had a considerable likeness to modern constitutions; but there was also in many respects a considerable difference. The power of the sovereign in Bohemia and Moravia was limited; in this respect we find a considerable likeness to the so-called modern constitutional system. There is in this also a likeness, that while both the ancient institutions of Bohemia and modern constitutionalism limit the power of the ruler with regard to certain matters, they yet reserve certain rights to the sovereign ​and grant him unlimited power in certain cases. The first difference, however, appears in this, that the matters in which the power of the sovereign was unlimited were not always the same as they are in modern constitutions but sometimes quite different. Thus, for instance, the Bohemian king had a considerable income that was not voted or controlled by the Estates, while the modern constitutional system renders all matters of finance dependent on the consent of the people. On the other hand, the modern constitutional system usually imposes no restrictions as regards the armed forces of the country. The sovereign is lord of war and peace, and can engage the country in war even against its will. The king, according to the Bohemian constitution, had not this full power. But the principal difference between the constitution based on the Estates and modern constitutions is comprised in the answer to the question. Who shared with the sovereign the sovereign rights, or rather, who controlled the royal power? This factor which, beside the sovereign, directly participates in the exercise of sovereign rights, consists in modern times of the representatives of the people generally, chosen either by the whole adult male population or by a comparatively large proportion of the more wealthy and more educated citizens, partly also of those who are selected among the large landowners and higher officials of the country. In the old Bohemian constitution this factor consisted exclusively of privileged classes of people who were known as the “Estates.” Among these representatives that element prevailed which is still dominant in the English House of Lords, the higher nobility which owned vast estates in the land.’
​The existence of the ancient Bohemian constitution, similar in many ways to that of mediaeval England, is a fact so little known that I have thought it interesting to give this quotation from Professor Kalousek’s valuable book.
The next historian whom I shall mention is Professor Jaroslav Goll, born in 1846—one of the most distinguished Bohemian historians and professors of the Bohemian University of Prague. Many of his earlier works deal with the interesting community of the Bohemian Brethren. These writings are mostly Bohemian, but some have appeared in German also under the title of Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der böhmischen Brüder, and they open a new world to the reader. It is only by reading these books that the student can conceive this strange community. Dr. Gindely had, indeed, written of the Bohemian Brethren, but in Professor Goll’s books they live. When preparing, some years ago, my works on the history and literature of Bohemia, I carefully studied Professor Goll’s books, and their fascination has for me always remained. His portraits of Chelčický, the originator of the Brotherhood, and of Brother Gregory its founder—‘the patriarch of the Brotherhood,’ as he was called in his later days—are masterpieces. I will extract from my History of Bohemian Literature Professor Goll’s account of Brother Gregory, which I have there translated; he writes: ‘Gregory had created for himself the ideal conception of a true Christian, an abstemious, kindly, patient, gracious, merciful, pure, humble-minded, peaceful, worthy, zealous, yielding, compliant man, qualified and ready to do all good works. But this ideal was for Gregory not an ​ideal only. He believed that Christians can come near to it, nay, even attain it.’
Of Professor Goll’s other works, I should mention his recent book, Čechy a Prusy ve středověku (Bohemia and Prussia in the Middle Ages). Of this book, which is a model of Bohemian prose, Dr. Flajšhans writes in his History of Bohemian Literature: ‘We read it as if it were a romance, and yet we know that it is scientifically as correct as an astronomic table.’
A very distinguished Bohemian historian of the present day is Dr. Rezek, born in 1853. He has carefully studied the years immediately before and after the election of Ferdinand of Habsburg to the Bohemian throne in 1526. Palacký’s monumental work ends with that year, and Dr. Rezek here writes as a continuator of his book. Dr. Rezek was for some time a member of the Austrian cabinet, but he resigned when the political situation rendered the presence of a Bohemian patriot in the Austrian cabinet impossible. Dr. Rezek intends to devote himself again to historical work, as he has indeed himself told me. A continuous work on the history of Bohemia from 1526 to 1620 is indeed much to be desired, and no one would be more qualified to undertake this task than a learned, conscientious, and talented historian such as is Dr. Rezek.
Limiting myself strictly to writers of history, I cannot here refer to those who have written on the history of Bohemian literature. Prominent among these is Dr. Flajšhans, whose history of the literature of his country is very valuable. Dr. Flajšhans’s studies on Hus entitle him to be considered a historian also. The work, entitled Master John Hus, which he has recently ​begun, promises well, and will probably prove a valuable contribution to the knowledge of the great Bohemian, who has been so little understood and so often misrepresented.
It is, I think, fitting that I should terminate these lectures by again referring to the great name of Palacký, whom I have so often mentioned.
In 1876 (the year of Palacký’s death) a banquet was given to celebrate the termination of his great historical work, to which he had only in that year given the final touch. The veteran then addressed the audience, consisting mainly of men of a younger generation: ‘Being now able,’ he said, ‘to address the flower of the nation, I wish to attract the attention of my friends and all are my friends who work for the welfare of the nation to the one thing that is most necessary, and it is this. We have many patriots, who are proud of their patriotism; but they do nothing for the benefit of the country and of their native land. Our nation is in great danger, surrounded as it is by enemies in every direction; but I do not despair. I hope that it will be able to vanquish them if it has but the will to do so. It is not enough to say “I will.” Every one must co-operate, must work, must make what sacrifices he can for the common welfare, for the preservation of our nationality.
‘Bohemia has a glorious past. The time of Hus was glorious. The Bohemian nation was then intellectually in advance of all other European nations. For this it was indebted not only to Charles IV (who founded the University of Prague), but also to its own will to extend the culture of the country. It is necessary that we also should do so. This is the testament ​that, speaking almost as a dying man, I wish to leave to my nation.’
It is to conform, as far as it is in my limited power, with the injunctions of the great leader of the Bohemian people, that I have ventured to give these lectures at Oxford.
* ↑ In German, Kuttenberg.
* ↑ Gindely, Geschichte der Gegenreformation in Böhmen, p. 235.
* ↑ Ibid., p. 203.
* ↑ In German, Königgrätz.
* ↑ Časopis Českého Musea.
* ↑ Zur böhmischen Geschichtschreibung, p. 2.
* ↑ Kremsier.
* ↑ Höfler, Geschichte der Hussitischen Bewegung in Böhmen, vol, iii, p. 171.