EAST EUROPEN QUARTERLY
the Executive Committee, Palacký stood firm. Inevitably he lost his publisher (the Bohemian Estates) and had to settle for the private publishing house of J.G. Calve, and in 1856 for the services of Bedřich Tempský.2 From this time on, the original version of the History was written in Czech, and the German version became a mere translation.
Palacký’s continuation of the Czech edition did not begin with 1125. Being acutely aware of the possibility that the revolutionary gains of 1848, primarily the abolition of censorship, could be short-lived in view of the oncoming reaction, he first tackled the Hussite period. His desire was to present this period in a more liberal form than had been possible earlier, due to heavier censorship. Therefore, in 1850, Palacký published the first section of the third part (1403–1424), in 1851 section two of part three (1424–1439), and finally in 1854 the rewritten second section of part one (1125–1253).
Later, Palacký pursued the study of the Poděbrad and Jagellonian periods (1439–1526), completing the second section of part five in 1867. Palacký’s controversial concepts concerning the Hussite period irritated many German historians, especially a professor of history named Konstantin Höfler. Höfler’s work on the Hussite period is well known, and so is Palacký’s response.3 For Palacký, these polemics became an incentive to reexamine some of the problems involved and to explain them in a new ideological framework. Moreover, he found new historical documents. As a result, in 1870–72, Palacký decided to rework the third part of his History. After its completion, he returned to the period (1253–1403) originally left out and written in German only. Shortly before his death, Palacký’s life work culminated in the publication of both sections of the second part in Czech.
The differences between the two editions, the long period of publication, and the changes in the political situation which necessarily influenced Palacký’s work, lead us to consider the mutual relationship between the two texts. This subject first caught my attention when I was preparing the text for its latest publication.4 The works of past researchers who touched on the subject of the relationshp between the two texts are similar in form and documentation. All of them derive their conclusions from Palacký’s own words in the preface to the first part of the Czech History, where he attempts to clarify the relationship between the Czech and German versions: “The inundation of varied and demanding work has been and still is so great that it is impossible for me to withstand it . . . . Even though I have wished to reorganize my narrative in the Czech edition in every respect, I have been unable in the available time to research the entire
