East European Quarterly, Vol. XV, No. 1
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THE GERMAN AND CZECH VERSIONS
OF PALACKÝ’S HISTORY OF THE CZECH NATION
Olga Svejkovská
Chicago, Illinois
Before dealing with the primary subject of this essay, the comparison and interpretation of the Czech and German versions of Palacký’s History of the Czech Nation, we must recapitulate the chronological succession of events leading to their beginnings. Palacký approached this enormous work in late 1823. The contract with his publisher, the Bohemian Estates, obligated Palacký to write the History in German. The first part of Palacký’s German version was published in 1836. It unfolded events from the earliest historical period until 1197 A.D. The first section of the second part (1197–1306) appeared in 1839, followed in 1842 by the second section (up to 1378). The first section of the third part, finished in 1845, described the history of Bohemia prior to the appearance of Jan Hus, the proceedings of the Council of Constance, and the public reaction to Hus’s condemnation (1378–1419).
However, Palacký’s greatest life-task was to provide the Czech nation with its history written in Czech. We can clearly perceive this desire from his diary, autobiography, correspondence, and his prefaces to the first and third parts of the Czech edition of the History. Therefore, simultaneously with the German version, Palacký prepared a Czech counterpart. Its first part, dealing with developments in Bohemia prior to 1125 A.D., appeared in bookstores in 1848.
The events of 1848 meant a reversal in Palacký’s original plans. The unceasing heckling by the German press led him away forever from any collaboration with German historians. Moreover, it aroused in Palacký an aversion toward continuing to write Czech history in German. “Since that time [since 1848] it became a morally impossible affair,” declared Palacký in the preface to the third part of the Czech version.1 Palacký notified the Bohemian Estates of his resolution to continue the writing of the History in Czech. Although this decision generated strong opposition from
