East European Quarterly/Volume 15/Number 1/František Palacký and the National Museum

by Aleš Chalupa

FRANTIŠEK PALACKÝ AND THE NATIONAL MUSEUM

 

Aleš Chalupa
National Museum, Prague

“. . .My mind as well as my whole life grew innately together and became united with the spirit of this institution. With warm interest and sympathy I shared its sufferings and blessings. For many years I dedicated to it my best efforts.”

In these words, František Palacký characterized his relationship with the National Museum (then The Museum of the Bohemian Kingdom) in a public speech at the ceremony on the fiftieth anniversary of its founding in 1868.¹ Palacký personally revealed his deep, lifelong bond with the institution that he helped to build and served to the best of his knowledge and conscience. The nature, the concept and the ideological form of the Museum changed dramatically under his personal influence and intervention. He can be rightfully considered one of its founders.²

Palacký was able to observe the founding of the institution only from afar, as he stated in the above speech: “At the time, I was not present in my country, but I was moved by everything emerging from Czech life. I cannot forget the feelings of delightful enthusiasm I experienced on hearing about the idea to organize the institution.” Palacký’s interest in the Museum was permanent. He followed its program and development closely through information provided by Dobrovský, whom he met during a sojourn in Vienna at the beginning of 1821. Dobrovský’s pledge to Palacký to secure him employment in Prague was undoubtedly connected with the Museum, where Dobrovský enjoyed decisive influence as an honored friend of Kašpar Šternberk.

In the spring of 1823, when Palacký arrived in Prague, the Patriotic Museum was five years old. During the whole of this period, it could not develop its full activity because the Patriotic Museum Society was not recognized by the authorities until 1822. The first general meeting of the Society was summoned during the second half of December, 1822. An executive committee elected at this session replaced the temporary committee which had governed until that time.

From its beginnings, the Museum strove to define the purpose of its existence. As a “christening present” it was given several schemes that suggested the main line of its activity, its organizational structure, and its future development.³ The Museum could learn from its counterparts in other European countries and also in the Habsburg Monarchy. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, national and regional museums were founded in Hungary and in Styria. Shortly before the establishment of the Czech institution, the Museum of Moravia and Silesia was founded in Brno. The first announcement of the founders of the Prague Museum on 15 April 1818 already promised the realization of several projects of significance to the nation. Included were the publication of a history of Czech literature and of documents pertaining to Czech national history, the preparation of a complete survey of all three of the natural sciences, etc. The realization of these scientific tasks would have made the Museum an equal partner of the Royal Bohemian Society of Sciences. The collections of the Museum, divided in the first official announcement into seven sections, were designed to contain mainly historical documents (collections of written documents, pictures of historically important antiquities, armorial bearings, seals, coins, and maps), and also collections in the natural sciences. A broad program for the collection of Bohemica was set for the library, and the last portion of the planned collection was reserved for industrial products and handicrafts.⁴

The announcement of 1818 and the first statutes of 1822 manifested patriotic feelings and declared the entire institution and its collections national property. The statutes required that the members of the executive committee understand Czech and the secretary write and read in Czech.⁵ This was, however, the only paragraph of the statutes dealing with the Czech language and nationality. The statutes and the entire constitution of the institution were written in German. The Museum certainly did not satisfy the expectations of the young generation of Czech intellectuals led by Josef Jungmann. The territorial patriotism of the Museum’s founders, although undoubtedly sincere and unselfish, was cool to all efforts that would revive and benefit the Czech language, literature, and nationality. Moreover, neither the original program of the institution, nor the structure of its collections, announced in the official documents of 1818 and 1822, were realized. The program reserved more than half the cultural wealth of the institution for historical collections. However, instead of becoming the pride of the institution, the historical collections stagnated and languished in the shadow of the rich natural science collections. The employees of the Museum showed a preference for these collections. Their custodians were true professionals, while the administration of the entire historical division was provided by a single librarian, Hanka.

The Museum merely vegetated. Its location in the Šternberk Palace in Prague’s Hradčany district placed it on the periphery of the then existing city and of all cultural and social activity. The original expectations of Czech patriots for the Museum gradually faded. This development was observed with apprehension by the founders of the Museum, especially Kašpar Šternberk. He regarded the stagnation of the institution and the lack of general interest in its future as the ingratitude of a nation which ignored all of the sacrifices which the Museum had required.

It was František Palacký who basically opposed these views. His desire to gain a paid position in the institution had not materialized because Hanka remained in Prague, instead of moving to Olomouc, as had been expected. Closely in touch with the Museum, Palacký recognized the chief hindrances to its future growth and realized why the Museum had remained remote to the nation. Accordingly, he felt competent to oppose the complaints of Šternberk. In a lively discussion prior to Christmas in 1825, he blamed the institution for its aloofness to the nation. Palacký attempted to convince the Šternberks and Dobrovský that the Museum had a duty to inform the public about its activities. This was the only way it could win over the nation. Palacky’s view pointed to the obvious and logical need to publish a journal. Thus, when Palacký won over all of the participants in the discussion to his side, it was he who was entrusted by Šternberk to prepare a suitable proposal.⁶

The days following showed that Palacký’s suggestion had not been a chance idea. Palacký had been thinking about the project for a long time. Consequently, the proposal was prepared in only a few days. Palacký perceived the journal as a representative of the Museum and of the whole nation abroad. For Palacky, the new periodical was to be simultaneously the center of national effort in science and culture and the tool that would arouse the interest of the nation in the Museum and in its scientific disciplines. Palacký’s program analyzed various sections of the proposed journal. The historical portions would publish monographs dealing with the political, legal, administrative, and cultural development of Bohemia, contributions to the history of the other lands of the Bohemian crown, biographical and genealogical analyses, articles devoted to historical topography and to criticism of historical documents, and editions of complete documents or their excerpts. The journal would also publish information about the contemporary situation in Bohemia (news of the status and activities of the Museum, lists of manuscripts and Bohemica, reviews and notes of new publications, reports on industry, commerce and agriculture, obituaries, etc.) The program was limited almost exclusively to history, linguistics, and literature. Palacký, admiting his lack of knowledge, left all of the problems regarding the natural sciences unresolved.

Another part of Palacký’s proposal dealt with more important questions. It suggested the publication of two completely different linguistic versions of the journal, in the two languages commonly used in Bohemia. The German version was conceived as an academic review, published monthly, with its main purpose to inform the world of progress in Bohemian science. The Czech journal, published quarterly, was to be directed toward the education and information of domestic readers. In the Czech version, Palacký sought to maintain a high scholarly level but also recommended the use of a more popular form. His desire was to open it to Czech literature and to theoretical problems of Czech linguistics.⁷ Although the foundation of the Czech journal was undoubtedly at the center of Palacký’s patriotic efforts, he was sincere in recommending the German version, which was designed to become the representative of Czech intellectuals and Czech science and culture abroad. The idea of publishing the journal in the two versions was welcomed by the aristocratic leadership of the Museum. Since the nobility considered German the only language suitable for conversation and science in Bohemia, the publication of a Czech scientific journal only would have seemed inconceivable to them and would have endangered the realization of the whole project from the beginning.

Palacký proved able to sell the idea of the Czech scientific journal to the nobility. The proposal to issue the journal in two versions was accepted by the executive committee on Šternberk’s recommendation on 8 January 1826. The authorization for publication was sought from the Viennese government in the second half of January, and permission was granted on 11 February 1826. And at the beginning of April, Palacký was offered the position of editor of both journals. The executive committee even accepted a new request from Palacký that Czech national interests be emphasized, even in the German version.⁸ The thousand printed Czech and German “Announcements” distributed throughout Bohemia and foreign countries in August reflected this new concept.

The first issues of the Czech and German journals of the Museum were published at the beginning of 1827. Only time would show the importance of this journal for the advancement of Czech history, natural sciences, linguistics, and literature. In his position as editor, Palacký had a chance to meet many Czech and German writers, scholars, and artists working in Bohemia. He became the center of cultural activity in Bohemia. Moreover, he witnessed personal and intellectual conflicts of varying degrees of importance. It was obvious that Palacký’s editing could not suit everybody, and it inevitably produced critics and enemies. Only a few, however, persisted in their hostility.⁹ Most of Palacký’s opponents, including Jungmann, acknowledged and appreciated his efforts and kept his friendship. The problems associated with the editing of the journal were not limited to quarrels with authors. Struggles with the rigid censorship of Metternich’s government were often more embarrassing and detrimental to the journal.¹⁰ In addition, the financial problem resulting from a sharp decrease of subscribers endangered the whole project. The transfer of the copyright to Calve’s publishing house and even a change of the title and contents of the German version, did not help. The decline in circulation was so great that after only four years the German version ceased to exist. The Czech edition of the journal was saved by the Matice česká, which took over its publication in 1831.

The lack of income also affected the situation of the editor. From time to time, Palacky, who received no regular salary and held no steady job, had to ask the executive committee of the Museum for an honorarium. After the liquidation of the German edition, Palacký was granted the sum of 250 florins a year for all of his Museum work. He received this sum until his confirmation in 1840 as the official historiographer of the Bohemian Kingdom with a regular salary. At that time, he renounced the honorarium.

The significance of the journal for the development of Czech science and culture was extraordinary. For the intellectuals of the Czech Revival it provided the first official rostrum from which they could inform the world about the results of their work. The explicitly patriotic character of the Czech and German volumes helped to reconcile the differences in attitudes manifested in the various linguistic, literary, and historical disputes. Palacký’s importance was reflected not only in the program he formulated but also in his editorial activity. Now he could realize his theoretical postulates in practice.¹¹ The journal also aided in the transformation of the Museum by its preference for historical articles over those on the natural science. In this way, the journal attempted to balance the original disproportion between the sumptuous collections on the natural sciences and the poor historical collections.

At the end of the twenties, Palacký was engaged in establishing the “Committee of the Museum for the Scientific Development of the Czech Language and Literature.” Its financial arm became known as the Matice česká. The origin of these groups resulted from Palacký’s encyclopedic projects, which occupied him from 1829 onwards. Although the Committee was originally established as a section of the Museum, it played a significant role of its own in the future of the whole national movement.

Palacký had long understood the national need for a general encyclopedia encompassing the basic scientific facts. Its publication would help to overcome the backwardness of the country and to bring it up to the cultural level of the more developed states. Palacký, an editor and historian, felt that contemporary cultural needs demanded an original Czech work with detailed entries dealing with the Bohemian lands. Therefore, he dismissed the idea of translating a foreign encyclopedia. The originators of this project were Jungmann and his friends, who had attracted Palacký to the plan in 1818. Eleven years later Palacký, with the support of a broad circle of Czech scholars, revived the old notion. Palacký’s proposal stressed the significance of the encyclopedia for the cultural progress of the nation and outlined the features of the project in general terms. The “collective” of several dozen authors was to be concentrated around Palacký, Josef Jungmann, and Jan Svatopluk Presl. Palacký was slated to be editor-in-chief.¹²

During further preparatory stages, Palacký suggested that it was in the Museum’s legal power to provide protection for the whole enterprise. The statutes had required the Museum to cultivate the Czech language and had simultaneously allowed it to nominate committees to undertake scientific projects. The executive committee of the the Museum consented to the project on 11 January 1830. The three editors became the “Committee of the Museum for the Scientific Development of the Czech Language and Literature.”

The developments that followed proved to be interesting. Although the “Committee” was founded with the clearly defined purpose of preparing a Czech encyclopeida, in time Palacký abandoned the idea. Instead, he decided to concentrate on the publication of various books. In his view, this was now the best way to advance the Czech language and culture. The project was financed by gifts collected by the Matice česká.

There is no need to discuss here the importance of the “Committee” and of the Matice in the development of Czech culture and enlightenment. Palacký would have deserved the eternal respect of the entire Czech nation, had the two bodies been the only result of all of his efforts. During the thirties, Palacký, Jungmann, and Presl subsequently alternated as secretaries of the “Committee”. Through the initiative of this group, Pavel Josef Šafařík found a livelihood in Prague and transformed it into a center for Slavic research. The “Committee” presented a memorandum to Šternberk proposing the introduction of the Czech language into the whole educational school system of Bohemia,¹³ It assumed the publication of the Czech journal of the Museum (financed by the Matice). Even though the assets of the Matice grew slowly, they were quite sufficient to assume half of the expenses required to publish Jungmann’s Dictionary and Šafařík’s Slavic Antiquities. These two publications then became basic works of Czech scholarship.

František Palacký played a decisive role in all of these activities. He continued his efforts even after 1841, when a number of new members (Šafařík and Hanka, among others) joined the “Committee”. At the same time, the Matice witnessed a great increase in its assets and in the number of its members. This development enabled it to publish basic works in scientific fields and to republish the books of some earlier Czech authors (Kornél ze Všehrd, Březan, Komenský, etc.). The publications of the Matice were also sent abroad, and frequently the Museum library exchanged them for significant foreign books.

The Czech journal of the Museum and the Matice, in turn, influenced the development of the Museum itself. As editor, Palacký made no secret about the Czech orientation of the journal. This tendency was also manifest in the programs of the “Committee” and of the Matice. It was only logical that many new adherents from various underprivileged groups of the Czech nation would join the Museum. In contrast, the conservative aristocracy grew increasingly apathetic toward Slavic linguistic patriotism and the zeal of Palacky and Jungmann and eventually became estranged from this institution. This development was clearly reflected in the Matice česká, among whose membership the nobility was scarcely represented. The gradual transformation of the Museum into a democratic and national organization was another result of the efforts of Palacký and his friends.

The executive committee of the Museum was its only segment remaining untouched by these changes. From the beginning, it was headed by Kašpar Šternberk. The overall composition of the committee was stable, since its membership was appointed for life. The social and ideological structure of this body was even more constant. The majority of its members were aristocrats, and they had a decisive influence over all activities. The orientation of the whole institution was determined by the personal desires of the president Kašpar Šternberk. His death on 20 December 1838 marked the end of the institution’s first great period. As a show of reverence, the office of the president was not filled until the normal close of his six-year term. A new executive committee was elected at a general meeting on 26 May 1841. Palacký, although himself an active member of the Museum for only one year, became one of the five members of the committee. Nothing had changed on the surface. The nobility still prevailed, and the new president was a nobleman, too. A professor of Prague University and a member of the clergy represented other social groups of the population. The decisive mement came when the assembly unanimously asked Palacký to become the secretary. After a brief hesitation, Palacký accepted the post.

During the period between Šternberk’s death and the election of the new committee, many of the insiders saw a definite loss of momentum. A growth in membership scarcely sufficient to balance deaths and resignations warned of the danger of extinction, General meetings were usually attended by only a few members and were treated with complete apathy on the part of the public.¹⁴ By now, the Museum could barely cover even its most basic expenses. It was also clear that the location of the Museum in Prague’s Hradčany district had been unsuitable for a long time. It had dissuaded people from visiting the collections and exhibitions. The decline of the Museum and the failure of the German journal were in sharp contrast with the public success of the Czech journal and growth of the Matice.¹⁵ The secretary of the Museum, Count Nostic, mentioned the disparity in 1839 in his proposal to preserve the institution by improving its finances and by entrusting it to the direct patronage of the Estates.¹⁶

In Palacký’s opinion, some of the material problems of the Museum, mainly the lack of space, could be solved by a new structure that would provide hospitality for all of the significant cultural organizations which had been founded in Prague during the reign of Francis I (the Patriotic Museum, the Academy of Arts, the Conservatory, the Industrial Unity).¹⁷ Several of Palacký’s memoranda addressed to the Estates stressed the urgency of relocating the Museum to the center of Prague and deal with the expansion of the Museum’s program and perspectives. The idea of building a new cultural center in Prague, (the “Francisceum”) was not realized because the Estates refused to finance the project. The space problems were at least temporarily solved in 1845, when the Estates purchased the Nostic Palace on the central avenue of Prague, “Na Příkopech”, and gave it to the Museum.

Palacký’s efforts proved to be more successful in dealing with the conceptual structure and ideological orientation of the Museum. He analyzed these problems in some of the mentioned proposals and in the memoranda concerning the Francisceum project (e.g., in “A Plea Concerning the Czech Museum” of 8 May 1840, and “A Criticism of the Building Plan of the Museum” of 4 April 1841).¹⁸ The same ideas had already appeared in his memorandum of 28 December 1839 addressed to the highest burgrave, Count Chotek.¹⁹ Palacký wrote his suggestion six months after Count Nostic’s proposal to continue in the basic course of the Museum and to find a remedy in the financial support of the Estates. Palacký was concerned with the internal structure of the institution. His concept developed gradually; its definite form can be found in his two addresses to the members of the executive committee of the Museum of 20 October and 8 December 1841.

In the first report, “The Purposes of the Patriotic Museum in Bohemia”, Palacký took into consideration the fact that the original founders of the Musuem were no longer members of the committee,²⁰ He reviewed the original program of the Museum that had been formulated nineteen years earlier and raised the question whether these ideals had provided the Institution with the perspectives, incentives, and guarantees for a healthy, progressive growth. Further, he stated that the Czech Museum had been founded as one of many others in the Habsburg Monarchy, all presenting many common features. Each of them attempted to collect, systematize, and make accessible local products of human work and nature, artifacts interesting not only to the present but to the future, as well. A museum was expected to depict the past and the present of the country and of the people through collections of characteristic as well as important objects, thus giving a “scientific picture of the country.” The Czech Museum had been given this goal in the general introductory proclamation and in the collecting program of 1818. The Museum had been expected to collect everything useful “in the creation of a scientific picture of the past and present of Bohemia.” It was also held responsible for the arrangement and exhibition of the collections, as well as for safeguarding them and making them accessible for research. In conclusion, Palacký detailed twelve groups of collections that should be assembled by the Prague Museum, among others collections on the natural sciences, history, archives of old papers and manuscripts, a library, etc.

The paper titled “A Plan for the Extension and Reform of the Patriotic Museum” of December continued expounding the ideas of the preceding report.²¹ It analyzed the theoretical premises of the Museum in a detailed and concrete form, projecting them into the present. Palacký praised the European level of the large comprehensive collections on the natural sciences and numismatics. They contrasted, however, with the poor historical and diplomatic collections, which could hardly compete with a number of private collections, Palacký proposed an end to the one-sided preference for the natural sciences practiced during the Šternberk period. He categorically requested this be changed, ultimately making it a conditio sine qua non of his membership in the executive committee. Analyzing the budget, Palacky saw the possibility of financing research on old Czech diplomatics and Czech cultural archaeology, stressing the importance of these projects for future generations. Pointing to the experience of foreign museums and warning of the damaging effects of wars, nature, and vandalism, he asked that steps be taken to protect artistic objects and relics immediately. He proposed the hiring of a custodian for the archaeological collection and the formation of a committee for Czech cultural archaeology. He recommended that the library buy more foreign publications containing documents pertinent to Czech history. The final part of the report took up the location of the institute. He demanded a new building and a budget covering the expenses of all of the new projects.

It has been necessary to discuss these two papers since they dealt with the function of the Museum and its role in national development. Their importance lies, in part, in the fact that they were immediately realized. After hearing and examining Palacký’s second report, the executive committee decided to accept both of them without delay.²² It allocated 240 florins a year for transcribing examples of old Czech diplomatics, approved a new position of custodian for archaeologic collections, endorsed the plan to establish an “Association for Czech Cultural Archaeology”, and agreed to purchase more historical publications.

The Archaeological Association was founded in the spring of 1843, and Palacký, assisted by Neuberg, wrote its statutes. The collection of historical papers and transcripts from various archives began to grow. In 1845, the executive committee of the Museum asked the Gubernium to inform the cities in Bohemia that they could send archival materials they did not need to the Prague Museum.²³ As prescribed in Palacký’s proposals, these collections later became the basis of the independent archives of the Prague Museum which were administered by Karel Jaromír Erben (from 1846 onwards).²⁴

In the position of secretary of the Museum, Palacký exercised decisive influence over the whole institution and for eleven years acted as the real spiritus agens. His election to this significant post was a major step toward the democratic administration of the Museum. The whole nature and purpose of its existence had been changed through the realization of Palacký’s proposals. The isolated scientific institution aloof to national questions had been transformed into an active center of Czech scholarship, culture, and the national movement. Many of Palacký’s general postulates about the importance of museums are still modern and valuable. His view that service to the country is the main purpose of a national museum can hardly be challenged. Its collections, however, must not be built at random. They must follow a precise program and accept artifacts only after an appraisal of their intrinsic value.

The close relationship between Palacký and the Museum was cruelly broken in 1852. During the period of Bach’s absolutism, Palacký belonged to the group of suspected national leaders. It was evident that he was completely unacceptable to the authorities, due to his activities during 1848–49, Unfortunately, nearsighted and timid persons prevailed among the members of the Museum. At the time of the by-election, the fearful executive committee omitted his name. Palacký was not elected for a new term and considered this black ingratitude.²⁵ At the beginning of the fifties, Palacký again proposed the publication of a Czech encyclopedia.²⁶ The executive committee of the Museum definitely rejected this idea, and Palacký had again to swallow the bitter pill of ingratitude. The sharp division between him and the Museum lasted for nine years, and during this period their fates divided.

Palacký returned to the Museum only after the collapse of Bach’s absolutism and the restoration of basic political rights. He found the institution in a position completely different from the one at the time of his first arrival in Prague in 1823. The Museum was secure. The regular annual financial support of the Bohemian Diet and its Executive Committee offered at least minimum necessary protection. During the sixties, the efforts of the executive committee were aimed at the securing of a new building. The old structure in Prague–Příkopy was small and did not meet required safety standards and other requirements of the Museum. Palacký himself mentioned the favorable outlook of the Museum in his remarks on the report of the secretary, submitted to the Assembly of the Society of the Museum on 3 June 1865: “...How favorable are the conditions of the Museum now, in comparison with the period after the death of Count Šternberk, when there was apprehension whether the Museum would survive at all. Even during an ordinary administrative year, the participation and dues of members and friends are so great that at the present all we lack is a new building for the scientific treasures.”²⁷ A note which Palacký pronounced at the committee meeting on 15 March 1873 also testifies to the transformation of the Museum during this period. He suggested that the institution needed a new program. While at the beginning of the forties Palacký had purposefully attempted to shape the Museum as a “scientific picture of the country”, now the frame of Bohemia alone seemed too narrow. Palacký proposed to orient the new program of the Museum toward the whole world.²⁸

The general assembly of the Society of the Museum elected Palacký to the executive committee on 7 March 1861, immediately after the restoration of constitutional rights in Austria. First the Society chose J.J. Clam-Martinic to be president, and Palacký was nominated as one of the candidates for the function of the vice-president. Respect for the significance and authority of the nobility, however, decided in favor of Count Schwarzenberg, who was elected by 73 votes. Palacký received only 54 votes and was finally elected only a member of the Committee. He obtained 116 votes from the 123 members present, more than any other person elected in this capactiy. Palacký did not participate in the election. He attended the meeting of the assembly the following day and was greeted with shouts of “Sláva!”²⁹ His return to the Museum was triumphant satisfaction for all of the injustices he had suffered during the previous period of oppression.

Palacký remained a member of the executive committee of the Museum until his death. He was elected three times more: on 16 April 1864, when the termination of his former term was decided by lot, and then, in accordance with the statutes, for regular six year terms. Palacký was elected unanimously each time. The last election confirming a new six year term took place in his absence on 20 May 1876, a week before his death. During the entire period of these sixteen years, Palacky was among the most conscientious members of the committee. Only sickness or short vacations in Maleč prevented him from attending the meetings. When the committee reached the decision that the dignity of the annual general assemblies of the Society should be advanced by scientific papers delivered in both of the languages used in the country, Palacký was the first to offer his assistance. His determination was met with appreciation and thanks.³⁰ Palacký read his paper, “A Discourse on the Historical Importance of the Land-Registers Damaged by Fire in 1541, and the Need and the Method for their Possible Renovation” on 6 June 1863. It was greeted with loud applause.³¹ In 1864 the committee decided to check the condition of the Museum’s collections, their location, and systematization. V.V. Tomek was authorized to develop the instructions for the inspectors on 13 February 1864. A month later, Palacký and K.J. Erben accepted the exhausting job of inspecting the collection on diplomatics and the archival collections, Palacký holding this function until his death.³²

Palacký publicly manifested his devotion to the museum during the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the institution in 1868. He recommended that the celebration be organized in a dignified manner, as a patriotic and scientific event. It seems that, at least at the beginning, some members entertained different notions about the ceremony.³³ In October, 1867, however, the executive committee asked him to prepare a formal speech, and Palacký agreed to the request. In the formal address, Palacký again analyzed the main features of the historical development of the institution, outlined its perspectives, and confessed his devotion to the Museum for the past half-century.³⁴ Palacký also expressed his intimate relationship with the Museum in a more material way. In 1871, thanks to Palacký, the Museum was able to buy a large collection of fossils that had belonged to Abbot Zeidler. Palacký guaranteed the loan, covering the price of 10,000 florins with his private property and securities.³⁵

During the celebration of Palacký’s birthday, a fund was established yielding an annual interest of 800 florins. With this money at his disposal, Palacký decided to spend 200 florins for the purchase of historical books for the Museum Library and 600 florins for “the critical publication of patriotic chronicles in their original languages and in Czech translation”. The executive committee of the Museum was informed of this decision on 15 April 1869. The general assembly of the Society, as well as the executive committee, expressed their gratitude to the donor.³⁶

Palacký also participated in many other Museum activities. He always ardently supported the idea of building a new structure for the institute. As we have mentioned, Palacký had proposed as early as the forties the building of a Czech cultural and scientific center, a “Francisceum”, which would also provide a home for the Museum. From the beginning of the sixties, the Museum building in Prague-Příkopy was considered only a temporary solution. The structure was not suitable because numerous technical defects endangered the safety of the employees, visitors, and collections, Inspections of the building by an architect of the Executive Committee of the Diet and also—in accord with Palacky’s proposal—by a specialist sent by the executive committee of the Museum were of no avail. In Palacký’s opinion, the only solution was the construction of a new building. He rated this project over the other needs of the Museum and advised the executive committee to ask for no increase in the regular subvention by the Diet because “it is important that the Diet allocate the money for a new building for the Museum, and a demand for a higher subsidy could provide a pretext for postponing its construction and might jeopardize the whole project.”³⁷ He envisioned a new building in Prague-Karlovo náměstí (Charles Square), preferring this location even during the 1870s, when the first news was received of the possibility of obtaining a huge lot above Václavské náměstí (Václav Square) where the Koňská brána (Horse Gate) had stood.³⁸

The center of Palacký’s attention was permanently occupied by the historical and archival collections. It was not only his official assignment to inspect the archives but also his basic professional concern as an histortian. In 1864, Palacký was asked by the committee to assist in the purchasing of documents for the historical collection.³⁹ He fulfilled the obligation conscientiously and contributed his own documents to the collection of papers and autographs. Palacký expressed concern for the development of the library and called attention to its insufficient historical funds. Urging a solution to this problem, he offered his own help and support. On 11 January 1864, at the meeting of the executive committee, “Mr. Palacký drew attention to the fact that the Museum should have a complete collection of historical documents of Czech history. Although the realization of this plan will be gradual, it is necessary to give it our attentive consideration. Palacký offered his assistance in establishing such a collection of Czech historical documents and promised to inform the librarian about possible puschases from catalogs of antiquarian books. His offer was accepted with gratitude by the committee.”⁴⁰ Palacký had the same theme on his mind in 1873, shortly before his death.

In 1864 the executive committee discussed another plan of Palacký, one closely related to the development of the historical collections. In February, Palacký made a proposal to establish an archive of musical compositions and in May supported a similar suggestion by F.L. Rieger. Palacký disclosed that the project had been contemplated as early as 1840.⁴¹ It is interesting that this modern idea was realized only after World War II, when the Museum organized its own Department of Music. Palacký’s attention was also concentrated on the archive’s collection of transcripts. The beginnings of this collection were the result of Palacký’s own scholarly work. With the consent of the Estates, Palacký provided his own transcripts of the archival materials which he accumulated in his function as Bohemian Historiographer.⁴² Palacký was personally aware of the difficulties of research in the archives, and he saw the danger of the possible destruction of the archives of many cities and estates. The transcription of documents relating to Czech history was launched at Palacký’s initiative, orginating in the forties, and the transcripts were placed in the Museum. In 1864 Palacký heartily agreed with the appeal of Professor Tieftrunk that “the committee of the Museum organize the rescue of the provincial archives”.⁴³ During the discussion of Tieftrunk’s letter “Mr. Palacký noticed that official ordinances as well as fervent appeals went unheard. The treasures of the provincial archives can be saved for scholarship only by people sent to collect or transcribe them”. Palacký’s initiative led the Historical Club to submit suggestions concerning the advancement of research on Czech history. They were expounded by Professor Emler to the representatives of the Museum in April, 1875. In accordance with this scheme, the National Museum, the Land Archives of Bohemia, and the Historical Club organized the systematic transcription of historical documents. This impressive project was realized over several decades and resulted in a huge collection of transcripts from domestic and foreign archives. The collections were placed in the Museum and in the Land Archives of Bohemia. Even today they are of great importance to historians.

František Palacký was elected a member of the executive committee of the Museum for another six year term in 1876. At the time he was already ill, and he died shortly after the election. His departure was a painful experience for the Museum, since for more than half a century Palacký had shared all of its sufferings and blessings. Shortly after the funeral, the Museum accepted Palacký’s library and personal archives.

Palacký’s decisive significance with respect to the Museum was generally recognized during the last years of his life and also after his death Palacký was considered one of the founders and organizers of the Museum. The exceptional role that Palacký played in the advancement of this institution is proudly remembered today. The minutes of the general assembly of the Museum, summoned after Palacky’s death, characterize this mutual relationship. The assembly took place on 25 May 1877, and its opening was devoted to the memory of the great deceased member. The proceedings began as follows:

“Eternal glory to our deceased member, František Palacký!”

NOTES

1. Published by B. Rieger, ed., Františka Palackého Spisy drobné, I (Prague, 1898), pp. 299–301.

2. Palacký’s relationship with the National Museum has already been analyzed. See Václav Vojtíšek, “Národní muzeum a František Palacký,” Časopis Národního muzea, Oddíl věd společenských, CXVII-CXIX (1948–50), pp. 95–103; Jaroslav Charvát, “Palacký a Národní muzeum,” in 150 let Národního muzea v Praze, Sborník příspěvků k jeho dějinám a významu (Prague, 1968), pp. 103–108. For the most detailed description of Palacký’s participation in the early development of the Museum (until 1850) see Josef Hanuš, Národní muzeum a naše obrození, II (Prague, 1923).

3. Among others, Klebesberg’s “” (see Hanuš, Národní muzeum a naše obrození, p. 33f), and Berchtold’s “Exempla trahunt” (Hanuš, pp. 89 f.)

4. The manuscript of the proclamation of the Museum is deposited in the Archives of the National Museum (Archiv Národního muzea, hereafter cited as A.N.M.), A-1-2 (“An die vaterländischen Freunde der Wissenschaften”.)

5. “Sämmtliche Mitglieder müssen die böhmische Sprache verstehen, der Sekretär sie fertig lesen und schreiben,” (See Grundgesetze für die Gesellschaft des vaterländischen Museums in Böhmen, Paragraph 13.)

6. For the proceedings of the meeting see Rieger, ed., Františka Palackého Spisy drobné, III, pp. 256–257.

7. Ibid., pp. 257f. (“Návrh na zřízení českých Muzejních časopisů”).

8. Ibid., p. 263f.

9. For detailed description, see Hanuš, Národní muzeum a naše obrození, pp. 325–401.

10. For Palacký’s struggles with the censorship see Karel Köpl, “Palacký und die Censur,” in Památník na oslavu stých narozenin Františka Palackého (Prague, 1898), pp. 646f; and Joseph F. Zacek, “Metternich’s Censors: The Case of Palacký,” in The Czech Renascence of the Nineteenth Century (Toronto, 1970), pp. 95–112.

11. For an analysis of the contents and significance of the Czech journal of the Museum under Palacký’s editorship, see Hanuš.

12. Palacký’s proposals with regard to the Czech encyclopedia have been published in Rieger, ed., Františka Palackého Spisy drobné, III, pp. 326–38.

13. Ibid., pp. 338–49 (“Podání a zprávy o Matici”).

14. In 1838, the general meeting of the Museum was attended by 13 members, in 1839 by 11 members, and in 1840 by 9 members.

15. For a detailed survey of the development of the Matice, see Karel Tieftrunk, Dějiny Matice české (Prague, 1881).

16. The manuscript is deposited in the A.N.M., A-3-11.

17. See Rieger, Františka Palackého Spisy drobné, III p. 287f.

18. Ibid., pp. 294f. and 296f.

19. Ibid., p. 291f. (“Čeho je třeba českému Muzeu”).

20. The manuscript “Über die Zwecke des vaterländischen Museums in Böhmen” is deposited in the A.N.M., A-3-14.

21. The manuscript, “Vorschläge zur Erweiterung und Regelung der Tätigkeit des vaterländischen Museums” is deposited in the A.N.M., A-3-16.

22. The minutes of the executive committee of 8 December 1841, in the Book of Proceedings of the executive committee, A.N.M.

23. A.N.M., M-6-31.

24. The documents on the origin of the Archives and the activity of Erben are deposited in A.N.M., J-6-19. See also the minutes of the executive committee of 23 February 1846.

25.. On the expulsion of Palacký from the Museum, see J. Volf “Vyhazov Palackého z výboru Národního muzea v r. 1852—morální vítězství vlády.” Časopis Národního muzea, CXIII (1919), p. 62f.

26. See J. Špét, “Z osudu české encyclopedie v letech 1850–52,” Časopis Národního muzea—Historica, CXL (1971), p. 32f.

27. See the minutes of the executive committee of 3 June 1865, Paragraph 2, in A.N.M.

28. “Dr. Palacký also noted that in the past the Museum was primarily concerned with Bohemia. There was no other possibility. Remarkable progress has been made. Therefore the museum should now be oriented toward general scientific and humanistic pusposes.” The minutes of the executive committee of 15 March 1873, Paragraph 4, in A.N.M.

29. “Der Herr Geschäftsleiter stellte der Versammlung das neugewählte Ausschussmitglied Herrn Dr. František Palacký vor, welcher von derselben mit einstimmigen Sláva-Rufe begrüsst wurde”, The minutes of the general assembly of 7 March 1861, in A.N.M.

30. During the proceedings of the general assembly, the President expressed gratitude to the “ornaments of our Society Dr. Palacký and Professor Reuss, who have been willing to enhance this meeting by delivering their papers. We are extremely pleased.” The minutes of the general assembly of 6 June 1863, in A.N.M.

31. Ibid.

32. The minutes of the executive committee of 11 March 1864, Paragraph 5, in A.N.M.

33. “. . .Following a long discussion the executive committee agreed with Dr. Palacký that the celebration should not be a loud, expensive, and pompous demonstration, but, in accordance with the purposes of the Museum, a patriotic event.” The minutes of the executive committee of 21 March 1868, Paragraph 5, in A.N.M.

34. See Rieger, ed., Františka Palackého Spisy drobné, I, pp. 299–307.

35. See the minutes of the executive committee of 29 July 1871, Paragraph 1, in A.N.M.

36. Ibid.; also the minutes of the general assembly of 26 May 1869, in A.N.M.

37. The minutes of the executive committee of 29 October 1866, Paragraph 5, in A.N.M.

38. Dr. Palacký suggests “to attempt to obtain a lot in Karlovo náměstí from the City. The purchase of the huge lot behind the Koňská brána will result in an immense and undesirable indebtedness for the Museum.” Ibid., 18 May 1870, Paragraph 2, in A.N.M.

39. Ibid., 13 February 1864, Paragraph 10, in A.N.M.

40. Ibid., Paragraph 6, in A.N.M.

41. The minutes of the general assembly of 22 May 1864, Paragraph 2, in A.N.M.

42. A.N.M., M-6-25 (1845).

43. The minutes of the executive committee of 13 February 1864, Paragraph 10, in A.N.M.