PALACKÝ’S HISTORY OF THE CZECH NATION
field again, and therefore have been forced to use much of the already-finished German text.”5
A note frequently associated with this characterization is that the text of the first part of the Czech edition is largely Erben’s translation, which Palacký enlarged with a preface and several paragraphs concerned with social history. This is contrary to Palacký’s own words: “I deem all of my present historical writings to be preliminary studies for the actual work. I consider the History of the Czech Nation the last and the most important of all of my endeavors.”6 A direct comparison of the two texts also offers no confirmation of the stated allegation. Unfortunately, I was unable to determine the extent of Erben’s collaboration with Palacký on the text of the first part. From accessible materials, I was unable to find any evidence directly confirming or setting any definite bounds to this specific cooperation. We can find numerous references to other cooperation between Palacký and Erben in Erben’s material. Even the most detailed monograph about Erben by A. Grund and a later one by J. Dolanský make no mention of this translation. This leads me to suspect that Erben was merely assisting Palacký, Erben’s translation was probably a reference which Palacký employed in the preparation of the new text. In my opinion, Erben prepared only a draft. His work was not the Czech counterpart of the first part of Palacký’s German text. In addition, the claims of some contemporary scholars that the Czech version of Palacký’s History is fully reworked are not completely correct.7 A comparison of both texts shows that a major part of the Czech edition is, indeed, derived from the German text, but with careful regard to the high scholarly standards Palacký set for the Czech text, “Completely reworked” can therefore be applied only to the Ideological framework of the text and not to the composition or language of the text.
The changes in both editions of Palacký’s History can be divided into three basic categories. The first includes material changes and additions, to which we may add modifications motivated by the historical and philosophical attitude of the author. The second encompasses changes induced by censorship, and the last the author’s own stylistic changes.
Changes affecting the material substance of the work are not common in the Czech edition. In the first part and in the first section of the third part, they are almost non-existent. This is primarily due to the fact that the time span between the publication of the Czech and German editions was not sufficiently great for any great accumulation of new findings. The original text was so well prepared that many corrections in the new text were not required. The tight composition of the work, held together by a
