* This article is a chapter from a book on Panslavism to be published in 1952.

¹ The Catholic Slovaks used the Western Slovak dialect as a literary language. This movement was started by the Catholic priest Bernolak, Anton (1762–1813)Google Scholar who published in Pressburg in 1787 Dissartatio philologico-critica de litteris Slavorum cum adnexa lingue Slavonicae per regnum Hungariae usitatae compendiosa simul et facilis orthographia. He founded in Tarnava a Slovak Learned Society (Ucene Slowenske Towarisstwo). His most gifted disciple was the priest and poet Holly, Jan (1785–1849).Google Scholar He wrote in 1826 an ode to Bernolak and celebrated in three poems Slovakia's greatness of one thousand years ago, “Swatopluk” (1833)Google Scholar, “Cirillo-Metodiada” (1836)Google Scholar and “Slawom” (1939).Google Scholar He collaborated in the four issues of the literary almanac Zora (Dawn) which die Catholic Slovaks published in Pest 1835–1840 and in which Kollar also wrote.

Slovak Protestant cultural life centered in Pressburg where Palkovic published since 1812 a weekly paper Cisarske Kralovske Narodni Noviny (Imperial Royal National Newspaper), replaced later by Tatranka, and in Banska Bystrica. There Karel Kuzmany published the periodical Hronka (1836–1838)Google Scholar where Kollar, 's “Wechselseitigkeit”Google Scholar was first published.

² “Pameti” (Recollections) in Kollar, , Sebrane Spisy (Collected Writings, Prague, 1863), IV, p. 203.Google Scholar

³ See The Idea of Nationalism, p. 557 f.Google Scholar On the hundredth anniversary of Dobrowsky's death, the first congress of Slav philologists was called to Prague and the Slav Seminar of the Charles University in Prague published a symposium on Dobrowsky's influence on Slav languages and literature, Josef Dobrovsky 1753–1829, ed. by Horak, Jiri, Murko, Matyas and Weingart, Milos (Prague, 1929).Google ScholarLudvikovsky, Jaroslav, Dobrovskeho klasicka humanitaGoogle Scholar (Dobrowsky's Classical Humanism), Publications of the Philosophical Faculty of the Komensky University in Bratislava, XII (Bratislava, 1933), points out that the classical humanism and Ciceronian liberalism of Dobrowsky lived on in the Czech national movement though die romantic-Herderian current proved stronger. The author believes that in the romantically influenced work of Palacky and Masaryk, Dobrowsky's Greco-Latin ideal of inner liberty and faith in the spirit and in European culture survives. “Faced by Leninism, Hitlerism and the plebeian mass movements, the more verbal differences (between Dobrowsky's classicism and the romantic humanitarianism) recede and only the voice of Europe is heard which calls to the defense of the classical as well as of Christian humanity. There is hardly another figure of our past which obliges us more to participate in this struggle than Josef Dobrowsky, whose enlightened humanism has so much contributed to die indissoluble union of the Czech national thought with the European classical tradition” (p. 146).

⁴ The first edition, published in Budapest in 1824 in the Royal University Press, consisted of 151 sonnets, divided into three parts, named after the three main Slav rivers in Central Europe, the Saale, the Elbe, and the Danube. The second much enlarged edition consisted of 615 sonnets, and had two parts added, one called Lethe and representing a Slav heaven where the good Slavs and their friends were placed, and the other called Acheron, the Slav hell, where Slav traitors and enemies were condemned to horrible suffering. A great number of explanatory notes enlarged the volume. Further editions with additions appeared in 1835 and 1852. The best modern edition is by Jakubec, Jan (Prague: J. Otto, 1903).Google Scholar See on Kollar, Ginsburg, Roderick A., Jan Kollar, a Poet of Pan-Slavism (Chicago: Czech Literary Press, 1942)Google Scholar; Leger, Louis, “Jean Kollar et la Poesie Panslaviste au XIX^e siecle” in his Russes et Slaves. Etudes politiques et litteraires I (Paris: Hachette, 1890), pp. 277–346Google Scholar; Prazak, Albert, “The Slovak Sources of Kollar's Pan-Slavism,” The Slavonic Review, VI, 18 (03, 1928), 579–92Google Scholar; Murko, M., “Hundert Jahre der ‘Slavischen Wechselseitigkeit’ J. Kollars,” Slavische Rundschau IX, 1 (Prague, 1937), pp. 13–23Google Scholar; Jan Kollar 1793–1852, Sbornik stati o zivote, pusobeni a literarni cinnosti pevce Slavy Dcery na oslavu jeho stoletych narozenin (A collection of articles on the life, the influence and the literary activity of the author of “The Daughter of Slava” on the occasion of the centenary of his birth), ed. by Frantisek Pastrnak, published by the Czech Academic Society in Vienna and the Slovak Academic Society Tatran in Vienna, 1893; Weingart, Milos, “Le passe et le present de la solidarite Slave,” Le Monde Slave, N.S., III, 2 (02, 1926), 187–210.Google Scholar

⁵ Safarik wrote to his Russian friend M. P. Pogodin who had invited him to Moscow to occupy there the chair of Slav studies, from Prague on February 21, 1836: “Ich bin in einem Alter und im Erlernen der Sprachen so schwerfällig, dass ich nicht hoffen kann, in Russland als Lehrer und Schriftsteller in russischer Sprache je auftreten zu können, und als ein Fremder, Deutscher, mag und will ich dort nie, nie auftreten. Endlich, was das Wichtigste ist, ich bin an Prag, Böhmen und den österreichischen Kaiserstaat durch so viele Bande des Dankes und der Liebe gebunden, dass ich dieselben freiwillig und so lange ich hier meinen Landsleuten nützen kann, nie verlassen werde.” (I am of an age and of an inability to learn foreign languages easily, that I cannot hope to teach and write ever in Russia in Russian. And I do not wish ever to appear there as a foreigner or German. Finally, what is most important, I am bound to Prague, Bohemia, and the Austrian monarchy by so many ties of gratitude and love that I shall never leave them voluntarily and as long as I can be of any use here to my fellow-citizens.) “Pis'ma k M. P. Pogodinu iz slavyanskikh zemel' 1835–61” (Letters to M. P. Pogodin from the Slav countries), part II, Letters by Safarik, ed. by Popov, Nil. Chteniya (Papers read in the Imperial Society for the History and Antiquity of Russia at the Moscow University), 1879, 10 Dec., no. IV, p. 152.Google Scholar

Some of the other Panslavs of the same generation did not show the political restraint of the leading figures, for instance, Hanka, Vaclav (1791–1861)Google Scholar, who “found” in 1817Google Scholar the famous Kõniginhofer manuscript and also forged the other manuscript “Libusa's Judgment” found in 1818.Google Scholar These two manuscripts played a great role in arousing Czech national pride. The forgeries were, against much nationalist resistance, definitely proved in the 1880's by three great Czech scholars, the philologist Jan Gebauer, the historian Jaroslav Goll, and Masaryk, T. G.. Denis, Ernest, in his excellent La Boheme depuis la Montagne-Blanche, 2 vols. (Paris, 1902–1903)Google Scholar, states what can be applied generally in the age of nationalism: “Generally it is infinitely better to have no history than to keep up in the people the inclination to falsehood. It is wrong piety to wish to cover up the errors of our forefathers; the only means of honoring the memory of our fathers consists of abandoning their mistakes.” Quoted from the authorized and much enlarged Czech translation by Vancura, Jindrich, 4th ed. (Prague: Sole & Simacek, 1931), Part II, book I, p. 114.Google Scholar

⁶ The book was first published in Czech in 1836 in a Slovak periodical Hronka, Podtatranska zabavnice, part I, no. 2, pp. 39–53Google Scholar, but the German edition is much expanded (132 pp.) and was written as an original. The first edition (Pest, 1837) was followed by a second revised edition in Leipzig in 1844. Safarik wrote to Pogodin, M. P. on 06 18, 1837Google Scholar, pleading for an immediate translation of Kollar's new book: “Sorgen Sie doch dafur, dass es (das Werklein) unverzüglich ins Russische übersetzt und gedruckt wird. Da die Piece deutsch und sehr klein ist, so wird die Sache, hoffe ich, gar keine Schwierigkeiten haben.” (Please see to it that the little book be immediately translated into Russian and printed. As it is written in German and is very short, the matter, I hope, will present no difficulty.) Chteniya, loc. cit., p. 202.Google Scholar

⁷ Ernest Denis, loc. cit., p. 130.Google Scholar

⁸ In Shevchenko, Taras, The Poet of Ukraine. Selected Poems tr. by Manning, Clarence A. (Jersey City: Ukrainian National Association, 1945), p. 146Google Scholar f. Dr. Manning sees in this dedication with its mention of a free sea in which all the Slavic rivers will gather, a direct answer by the Ukrainian poet to Pushkin's poem demanding that all the Slav rivers flow into the Russian sea.

⁹ See Tourtzer, H., Louis Stur et l'idée de l'independence Slovaque, 1815–1856 (Thèse, Paris, 1913; Cahors & Alencon: A. Couerlant, 1913)Google Scholar. On Slovakia see Slovenska vlastiveda, 5 vols., ed. by the Slovak Academy of Sciences and Art (Bratislava, 1943–1948)Google Scholar, especially vol. IV by Frant. Bokes on History and vol. V, 1 by Andrej Mraz on the History of Literature; Denis, Ernest, Les Slovaques (Paris: Delagrave, 1917)Google Scholar; Hanak, J., “Slovaks and Czechs in the Early XIX Century,” The Slavonic Review X 30 (04, 1932), 588–601.Google Scholar

¹⁰ The popular song began:

Nitra mila, Nitra, ty vysoka Nitra!

Kde ze su tie easy, v ktorych si ty kvitla?…

Stur himself wrote poems glorifying Nitra; see Ambrus, Josef, “Poezia L'udovita Stura,” Sbornik. Matice Slowenskej, XV (1937), p. 420.Google Scholar

¹¹ Besides his Naracja slovensko alebo potreba pisanja v tomto nareci (Pressburg: K. F. Wigant, 1846)Google Scholar which is mentioned in the text, Stur published in the same year a grammar of the Slovak language. His newspaper had an important literary supplement, “Orol Tatranski” (The Eagle from the Tatra). Hurban published an almanach Nitra in the new language and later edited the first scholarly review in Slovak, , Slovenskje pohlady na vedi, umenja a literaturuGoogle Scholar (Slovak Views on Science, Art and Literature). The Czech writers and scholars, among them also Kollar, Safarik, Palkovic, published in 1846 a strongly worded “Voices about the Need of the Unity of a Literary Language for the Bohemians, the Moravians and the Slovaks.” Stur answered it in Orol Tatranski, Vol. II (1846), pp. 274–76, 282–84Google Scholar. Kollar published in the Narodni Noviny on 05 2, 1848Google Scholar an article “Slavocech,” in which he pointed out that the Bohemians (Czechs) were the trunk, the Moravians, the Silesians, the Lusatian Wends and the Slovaks were the boughs of the tree of Slav solidarity. They should be Moravians, Silesians, Wends and Slovaks at home but as a nation they must all be one: Slavoczechs.

¹² The translation of Vladimir Lamanskij was published in the Chteniya, op. cit., 1867, 01–03, vol. I, pp. vi–191Google Scholar, under the title “Slavyanstvo i mir budushchavo. Poslanie slavyanam s beregov Dunaya” (Slavdom and the World of the Future. A Message to the Slavs from the Shores of the Danube).

¹³ At the beginning of the nineteenth century it was generally believed that the Slavs formed one nation with one) language. Thus Cannabich, , op. cit. (Intr., note 4)Google Scholar, maintained that Russia's “Hauptsprachen sind die Slavische Sprache (vorzüglich die Hauptdialekte derselben, die Russische und Polnische Sprache), die Finnische, Tartarische…” (p. 625), or in speaking of Austria, “Ausserdem werden in dieser Monarchie folgende Sprachen geredet: die Slavische in fünf verschiedenen Dialekten, dem Windischen, Böhmischen, Polnischen, Russischen und Serbischen (letzterer in Slavonien, Kroatien, etc.), die Ungarische, die Wallachische (ein Gemisch vom Römischen und Dacischen Dialekte) und die Italienische” (p. 235). But by 1850 it had been generally accepted that the Slav languages were independent languages like the Romance languages and that the Slavs were divided into a number of different nations.

¹⁴ Palacky began to write his History in German, but from March, 1848 on (a characteristic date) it appeared in Czech and the title was changed from “History of Bohemia” to “History of the Czech Nation” (Dejiny narodu ceskeho). Both editions comprise five volumes; the last volume of the Czech edition appeared in 1876, shortly before the author's death. Masaryk, T. G. wrote in The Making of a State (New York: Frederick A. Stokes, 1927)Google Scholar: “My guide and master was Palacky, the father of the fatherland, who gave us the philosophical history of our nation, understood its place in the world and defined our national objective” (p. 472). On Palacky see the article by Pekar, Josef in Ottur Slovnik NaucnyGoogle Scholar, reprinted in Svetora knihovna, nos. 1025–6; Masaryk, T. G., Palackeho idea naroda ceskeho (Prague: Cin, 1926)Google Scholar—this pamphlet “Palacky's Idea of the Czech Nation” appeared first in 1898—; Fischer, Josef, Myslenka a dilo Frantiska Palackeho (The Thought and Work of F. Palacky), 2 vols. (Prague: Cin, 1926–1927).Google Scholar

¹⁵ T. G. Masaryk wrote that “the conviction that the Czech people cannot become politically independent is one of the fundamental political conceptions of Palacky.” (“Palacky's Idea of the Czech Nation,” loc. cit., p. 42 f.)Google Scholar. Palacky knew well that the Czechs did not lose their national existence by the union with Austria in 1526. On the contrary, this union put an end to the possible conflict of the different neighboring peoples. But even the Battle of the White Mountain in 1620 cannot be regarded as a defeat and extinction of Czech nationalism. In that battle the Catholic Habsburgs defeated a Protestant Bohemian king who was a German. It is an open question whether the Czechs, if they had remained Protestants, would not have come very strongly under German influence and would not have been incorporated into German life, whereas in the Habsburg state they escaped the fate of Germanization more easily.

¹⁶ See Politicke Vyroky a lasady Frantiska Ladislavd Riegra, ed. by Langner, Jan J. (Prague, 1913), p. 16. (Political Declarations and Principles of F. L. Rieger.)Google Scholar

¹⁷ Already in Moscow Havlicek wrote a poem in December 23, 1843 against Kollar's Panslavism (“Tys bratr nas” in Basnicke spisy Karla Havlicka (“The Poetical Works of of K. H.”), ed. by Quis, Ladislav [Prague, 1897], p. 10)Google Scholar. See on Masaryk, Havicek G. G., Havlicek, Karel, 3rd ed. (Prague: Jan Laichter, 1920)Google Scholar, a detailed study regarding H. as a forerunner of Masaryk's “realistic” policy. Among the famous satirical poems by H. is Krest sr. Vladimira (The baptism of St. Vladimir), a sharp attack on the Russian Church, on Russian autocracy and on Cesaropapism. He began to write it while he was in Russia and completed it during his last years.

¹⁸ While an editor of the official newspaper before March, 1848, Havlicek often referred to the Irish national movement, especially to Daniel O'Connell's agitation for the repeal or annulment of the Articles of Union (1800) between Great Britain and Ireland. The word repeal became under his influence a widely accepted slogan among the Czechs of that time. Ironically enough, this veiled agitation was used after 1918 by the Slovaks against the Czechs.

In his religious program, Havlicek demanded the “nationalization” of the Church, the use of Czech instead of Latin in its services, and the end of celibacy for the priests. His Narodni Noviny was stopped by the government on January 18, 1850. Havlicek founded a new paper Slovan in Kutna Hora which appeared twice a week but ceased on September 14, 1851. At the end of the same year he was arrested and exiled to Brixen in Tyrol. “Brixen was not a concentration camp like those in which today political adversaries are thrown by the dictatorships. It was neither Oranienburg nor Bereza Kartuska nor the shore of the White Sea. The political prisoner lived there in a house where he rented an apartment. He received several hundred florins yearly and had the opportunity to circulate freely in the nearby environment. From the point of view of today's fate of political prisoners, the government of Bach (the Austrian absolutist and reactionary government of von Bach, Alexander Freiherr, 1851–1859)Google Scholar was a very enlightened and civilized government.” Chab, Vaclav, Karel Havlicek Borovsky (Prague; Volna Mystenka, 1936), p. 79Google Scholar. In his exile Havlicek returned to literature and the period was on the whole fertile for his productivity. In April, 1855 he was allowed to return to Bohemia where meanwhile his wife had died of tuberculosis, an illness to which he himself succumbed in July, 1856.

¹⁹ Modern Czech historiography has upheld the Western orientation and the sober sense of responsibility of Palacky and Havlicek. The founder of the school of modern Czech historiography Goll, Jaroslav (1846–1929)Google Scholar maintained that the Czechs, except for the very early period when they underwent Byzantine influences, were since the Gothic period historically and culturally connected only with the West. His leading disciple, Pekar, Joseph (1870–1937)Google Scholar, declared in his address as rector of the Charles University in 1931 that “the whole Czech history is in its essence a product of Western European influences and interrelationships.” (Zur Periodisierung der tschechoslovakischen Geschichte, Prager Rundschau, I, 6 (1931), 491–495Google Scholar. After 1918 Pekar had the courage to protest against the agrarian reform which the Czechoslovak Republic carried through primarily as an expropriation of German landowners to profit the Czech peasants. “Ich bin ein gläubiger und wahrhaftiger Nationalist, aber ich gehöre gleichzeitig zu jenen, die überzeugt sind, dass Gewalt und Unrecht die ungeeignetsten Waffen im nationalen Ringen sind, namentlich heute, nach dem grossen Kriege, in dem wir Selbständigkeit in einer Lösung erlangt haben, in der sich unser altes nationales Programm Palackys und Riegers mit dem Befreiungsprogramm der grossen westlichen Demokratien in Übereinstimmung befunden hat.” (I am a faithful and true nationalist but I belong at the same time to those who are convinced that force and injustice are the most inept weapons in the national struggle, especially today, after the great war, in which we have achieved independence in a way in which our old national program of Palacky and Rieger was in agreement with the liberation program of the great Western democracies). See Thomson, S. Harrison, “T. G. Masaryk and Czech Historiography,” Journal of Central European Affairs, X, i (04, 1950), 37–52.Google Scholar