Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-04T18:41:30.116Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prague PEN and Central European Cultural Nationalism, 1924–1935

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Andrea Orzoff
Andrea Orzoff*
Affiliation:
New Mexico State University, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In “Our Guests and Ourselves,” an article written in 1924 for the Prague daily newspaper Lidové noviny, Czech playwright and novelist Karel clarified for his readers the failings in Czech habits of sociability, and the unfortunate consequences of those habits for the new Czechoslovak nation. Each nationality in Prague, and each political grouping within the nationalities, tended to socialize in different clubs and cafes. The Czechs preferred to socialize only with each other, complained , and foreigners visiting Prague tended to socialize with Germans. When Czechs set themselves the task of entertaining visiting foreigners, they did so in a manner overly officious and overtly “national”: that is, Czechs dragged foreigners around from function to banquet, forcing them to listen endlessly to official pronouncements of the glories of the long-overlooked Czech nation. As yet, wrote, Prague lacked a single genuinely neutral club or grouping open to all, and comfortable for all, particularly foreigners, whom the Czechs needed badly to impress. In contrast, told his readers, he himself had just visited the kind of club the Czechs should create: the “Penklub”, in London. In the International Pen Club's London chapter, writers of different nationalities were able to enjoy one another's company, and perhaps develop a greater understanding for other countries' perspectives. The club's existence demonstrated that even England, one of the historical great powers of Europe, put great weight on creating international ties. reminded his readers that “we here have more, and more urgent, reasons for needing such [clubs].” Those “more urgent” reasons for changing Czech habits were first and foremost political reasons, in an age when sociability was politicized—and, as 's comments make clear, nationalized.

Type
Articles
Information
Nationalities Papers , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , June 2001 , pp. 243 - 265
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 Association for the Study of Nationalities 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Karel , “Naši hosté a my,” Lidové noviny, 7 October 1924, cited in Od človĕka k človĕku I (Prague: C̆eskoslovenský spisovatel, 1988), pp. 393–395.Google Scholar

2. Joseph Rothschild, East-Central Europe between the Two World Wars (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1974), pp. 73ff. Rothschild thinks Beneš's successes in Versailles and Geneva created an “exaggerated” sense of dependence on the West on the part of Czechoslovakia's leadership.Google Scholar

3. For assesments of the Czechoslovak and Hungarian interwar propaganda efforts, see Rudolf Urban, Tájné fondy třetí sekce: z archivo ministerstva zahrani čí republiky československé (Prague: Orbis, 1943), and Aniko Kovacs-Bertrand, Der ungarische Revisionismus nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg: Der publizistische Kampf gegen den Friedensvertrag von Trianon (1918–1931) (Munich: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1997). Urban's text is a Nazi propaganda piece, but his findings are substantiated by the collections in the Archiv ministerstva zahraničních vĕci, třetí sekce (Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Third Section, hereafter AMZV), Prague.Google Scholar

4. By 1928, PEN was affiliated with the League of Nations Sub-Committee on Arts and Letters. See Harry Ransom Center (hereafter HRC), Austin, TX, PEN Archives, collection PEN Misc, author John Galsworthy 1867–1933, dated 23 July 1928, Memorandum to League of Nations Sub-Committee on Arts and Letters.Google Scholar

5. See Marjorie Watts, Mrs. Sappho: The Life of C. A. Dawson Scott, Mother of International PEN (London: Duckworth, 1987), p. 97. PEN was initially aimed just at British authors, but soon developed into a larger enterprise.Google Scholar

6. National Literary Memorial Archive (Archiv pámatník národního písemnictví, hereafter APNP), Staré Hrady, Czech Republic, PEN-Club collections, Jiřina Tůmová, “Vzník klubu PEN v Praze: Co vím o založení klubu já (The Beginning of the PEN Club in Prague: What I Know about Its Founding), p. 1.Google Scholar

7. Ibid., p. 1.Google Scholar

8. Vočadlo, from 1921 to 1928 a professor at the Institute for Slavic Studies at the University of London, had become a member of PEN International's steering committee as early as 1922. Vočadlo's account of Prague PEN's formation in his Anglické listy Karla C̆apka (Prague: Academia, 1975), pp. 34ff, differs somewhat from Jiřina Tůmová, “Vzník klubu PEN v Praze.”Google Scholar

9. Vočadlo, Anglické listy, p. 83.Google Scholar

10. James Bone arranged with that the Manchester Guardian should be the first British paper to serialize his novels and travelogues, among them Letters From England, Travels to Spain and The Gardener's Year.Google Scholar

11. Cited in Vočadlo, Anglické listy, p. 52. Printed in full in 's Korespondence II (Prague: C̆ský spisovatel, 1993), pp. 176–178, letter 925, 9 June 1924.Google Scholar

12. APNP, Tůmová, “Vzník klubu PEN v Praze,” p. 1.Google Scholar

13. For a discussion of 's relationship with Masaryk, as well as the involvement of Czech intellectuals in interwar Czechoslovak political life, see Andrea Orzoff, “Battle for the Castle: The Friday Men and the Czechoslovak Republic, 1918–1938.” Ph.D. dissertation (Stanford: Stanford University, 2000).Google Scholar

14. APNP, “Zápisy psane do knihy otnačené na deskách: Protokoly schůzí PEN Klubu od 15.II. 1925 do 7.III. 1933,” no author (probably written by Jiřina Tůmová), undated.Google Scholar

15. AMZV, třetí sekce, krabice 870, “spolky–PEN” collection, sl. 7, 4 March 1925, author PEN (signed by Khol and ), addressee Zamini (Foreign Ministry), sekce zpravodajská.Google Scholar

16. HRC, MS PEN Recip, ALS (autographed letter signed), Otakar Vočadlo to Marjorie Scott, d. 31.XII. 1924. Rilke, who was not Jewish and who once described Prague as a “miserable city of subordinate existences,” would no doubt have objected to this characterization.Google Scholar

17. APNP, “Protokoly schůzí PEN Klubu,” meeting 28.II.1925, “Účast Nĕmců,” p. 6. NB: the pages of this document are not numbered consecutively throughout. I list both page number and meeting date.Google Scholar

18. APNP, “Protokoly schůzí PEN Klubu,” meeting 28.II.1925, “Účast Nĕmců,” p. 6.Google Scholar

19. Both Pick and Fuchs were associated with the Prager Kreis, a loose affiliation of Prague German literati, most often linked to Max Brod and Franz Kafka. See Scott Spector, Prague Territories: National Conflict and Cultural Innovation in Franz Kafka's Fin de Siècle (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), passim.Google Scholar

20. Ibid., meeting 4.IV.1925 “Nĕmci,” p. 14.Google Scholar

21. Ibid., reported by in meeting 18.V.1926, p. 4.Google Scholar

22. HRC, MS PEN Letters, author PEN, 2 TLS to Capek [sic], Karel, 19 November and 16 December 1926.Google Scholar

23. HRC, MS PEN Recip, author Capek, Karel, TLS to PEN, 26 November 1926. The original letter is in English.Google Scholar

24. Documents from the PEN international congresses of 1926 and 1927 indicate that London was generally concerned at this time with establishing regional centers for different European linguistic groups, such as Flemish speakers in Belgium and Yiddish speakers in Warsaw and New York. Prague most likely fell naturally into this category. See for example HRC, MS PEN Misc, author International PEN Congress, 4th, Berlin, 1926, dated 17–18 May 1926. “Rough notes from Congress,” Tms, 3 pp.Google Scholar

25. APNP, “Protokoly schůzí PEN Klubu,” Second General Assembly meeting, 23 May 1926, p. 18.Google Scholar

26. Eisner, a prolific translator, also wrote Chram i tvrz (Cathedral and Fortress), still considered one of the most insightful analyses of the Czech language. Urzidil, a Czech-German-Jewish writer who evidently never took Czechoslovak citizenship, is an interesting case of ethnonational flexibility. Various membership lists in the APNP PEN collection represent him differently. On a list filed with 1925–1926 papers, Urzidil is listed as “Jan” Urzidil, going by a Czech name rather than the German “Johannes,” though working at the “Deutsche Gesandschaft.” In later lists (1931, 1934–1935) he is Johannes, or not listed at all; his correspondence with Tůmová was written in Czech. Urzidil fled Czechoslovakia in 1939 with his wife, the daughter of a Prague rabbi, and lived in England and New York, working as a manual laborer, bookbinder, journalist, and translator. Urzidil briefly reported for the German-language programs on Voice of America, but was dismissed during the McCarthy era for his leftist views. He returned to Europe, and died in Rome in 1970.Google Scholar

27. APNP, PEN, undated list, no author.Google Scholar

28. Prague repeated this point many times during the period of Prague–Budapest contention. For a decisively pro-Prague analysis of the entire issue, see Edmond Konråd, “Politická historie Penklubu,” Přítomnost 1937, pp. 392–395.Google Scholar

29. See Rothschild, “Hungary,” East Central Europe, p. 164.Google Scholar

30. AMZV, třetí sekce, krabice 295, sl. 7, signatura 12, PEN Klub: letter 19 August 1929, author Fr. Kubka, addressee Pan ředitel J. Hajek, Zamini.Google Scholar

31. APNP, typed carbon copy of letter by Radó Antal to Prague PEN, dated Budapest, 18 May 1930; enclosed in letter from Prague PEN to Minister J. Slavík, 23 May 1930. Budapest–Prague correspondence was conducted in French or German.Google Scholar

32. APNP, copy of letter from Prague PEN to Minister J. Slávik, 23 May 1930.Google Scholar

33. APNP, letter from Jenö Mohacsi to Jiřina Tůmová, 14 December 1930.Google Scholar

34. APNP, letter from Prague PEN to Edvard Beneš, “Slovutný pane ministře!” 18 May 1931.Google Scholar

35. APNP, letter from Václav Tille to Jiřina Tůmová, 22 February 1932.Google Scholar

36. AMZV, třetí sekce, krabice 70, fond spolky-PEN, dated 7 April 1932, report from Budapest legation to J. Hajek, head of Third Section. Press reports attached.Google Scholar

37. APNP, fond PEN-klubu. There are many examples of these reports. See for example Denní přehled zahraničního tisku, Ročník XII, C̆islo 116, v Praze, 21 May 1932.Google Scholar

38. AMZV, třetí sekce, krabice 295, c.j. 45.189/32/III/2, dated 9–19 April 1932. Confidential internal correspondence (“důvĕrný referátník”).Google Scholar

39. APNP, carbon copy of letter from Jiřina Tůmová to Edmond Konrad, “Mily Edmondku,” 6 May 1932.Google Scholar

40. APNP, copies of Edmond Konrad (article signed “kd.”), “Spisovatelé v Budapesti,” Národní osvobození, 31 May 1932, p. 5; and František Langer (signed F. L.), Lidové noviny, 28 May 1932.Google Scholar

41. APNP, Adolf Hoffmeister, “X. kongres PEN klubů v Budapešti,” Literární noviny, undated.Google Scholar

42. Ibid.Google Scholar

43. APNP, letter from Radó Antal to Prague PEN, 20 July 1932.Google Scholar

44. APNP. These reports are from undated copies of the Foreign Ministry's Denní přehled zahraničního tisku (contents discuss press reports from September 1932), which were sent as enclosures in a letter to Edmond Konrad from Leo Singer, Budapest correspondent for the Prager Tagblatt, postmarked 12 October 1932, letter undated.Google Scholar

45. APNP, clipping of “Výsledek intervence českých spisovatelů ve prospĕch mad'arské literatury,” Národní listy, 15 September 1932.Google Scholar

46. APNP, clipping of “Při otázce přístupu mad'arské literatury na Slovensko,” Lidové noviny, 4 November 1932.Google Scholar

47. APNP, letter from Radó Antal to Karel , 5 December 1932.Google Scholar

48. APNP, letter from Vilem PospíŠil to Karel , 24 November 1932.Google Scholar

49. APNP, copy of letter from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to Prague PEN, 23 January 1933. “čj 8264/33-III-2. Vĕc: Devisy pro nákup cizí literatury.”Google Scholar

50. On this topic, see APNP, copy of undated document “La censure en Slovaquie,” written on Prague PEN stationery; APNP, clipping of “Protest slovenských umĕlců a spisovatelů proti tiskování Slováků v Mad'arsku,” Národní listy; also see Place (undated, but the byline indicates the article was based on a report from 10 March, meaning the article ran on 11 or 12 March 1933); and APNP, letter from Slovenská odbočka Narodnej Rady C̆eskoslovenskej, Bratislava, to Prague PEN, 6 March 1933.Google Scholar

51. APNP, letter from Hermon Ould to Jiřina Tůmová, 9 April 1935 (my translation from the French).Google Scholar

52. AMZV, třetí sekce, box 295, folder 7, signatura 12, PEN Klub: Letter from Tůmová to Dr. Vl. Kučera, Šef kabinetní kanceláře ministra zahraničí E. Beneše, 2 May 1935.Google Scholar

53. APNP, carbon copy of letter from Jiřina Tůmová to Hermon Ould, 4 May 1935.Google Scholar

54. APNP, “The Question of the Entry of Hungarian Publications into Czechoslovakia,” no author indicated but sent with letter from J. V. Hyka to Jiřina Tůmová, 2 April 1935, č 44038/35/III/2.Google Scholar

55. Edmond Konrád's history of Prague PEN mentions this group and in fact notes that Masaryk was its founder. “Politická historie Penklubu,” Přítomnost 1937, pp. 392–395.Google Scholar

56. APNP, “The Question of the Entry of Hungarian Publications into Czechoslovakia,” p. 10.Google Scholar

57. APNP, undated, untitled document. (First line: “C'est avec un attachement presque personnel que je me sense lié a la question de la circulation libre en Slovaquie de la littérature hongroise …”), pp. 2–4.Google Scholar

58. APNP, report to Zamini by Prague PEN, 26 June 1935.Google Scholar

59. Much has been written on the relationship between London and Prague during the interwar period. See Igor Lukes, Czechoslovakia between Stalin and Hitler, as well as Zeman and Klímek, The Life of Edvard Beneš, passim. Also see: Gabor Batonyi, Britain and Central Europe, 1918–1933 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999); Johann Bruegel, Czechoslovakia before Munich: The German Minority Problem and British Appeasement Policy (London: Cambridge University Press, 1973); Reiner Franke, London und Prag. Materialen zum Problem eines multinationalen Nationalstaates 1919–1938 (Munich: Lerche, 1991); Eva Schmidt-Hartmann and Stanley B. Winters, eds, Grossbritannien, die Vereinigten Staaten und die böhmische Länder (Munich: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1991); and Bela Vago, In the Shadow of the Swastika: The Rise of Fascism and Anti-Semitism in the Danube Basin, 1936–1939 (Farnborough, UK: Saxon House for the Institute of Jewish Affairs, 1975). On British PEN's observations about the Foreign Office's opinions of the Czechs, see Storm Jameson, Journey from the North: Autobiography of Storm Jameson (London: Collins and Harville Press, 1969). Also see APNP, letters from Hermon Ould to Jiřina Tůmová, 6 June 1930, 14 June and 4 July 1935, 30 October 1936.Google Scholar

60. HRC, PEN Misc., International PEN Congress, 4th, Berlin, 1926, 17–18 May 1926, rough notes from Congress, Tms, 3 pp.Google Scholar

61. Jameson, Journey from the North: Autobiography of Storm Jameson, Vol. 2, p. 18.Google Scholar

62. Karel , “Pozdravy,” Lidové noviny, 25 December 1938; reprinted in Na břehu dnů (Prague: C̆eskoslovenský spisovatel, 1966), pp. 420–424. My translation. wrote the last few phrases in the original languages.Google Scholar