EAST EUROPEN QUARTERLY
(Václav) was detained by the censorship. The dispute stemmed from the fact that in this legend Drahomíra was not characterized as a pagan, with a part in the planning of St. Václav’s murder, as some Latin legends suggested, but rather as a person in no way connected with this murder. Moreover, according to the legend, she saved her own life by escaping from the murderers of St. Václav. Palacký’s well known defense15 and the subsequent mutual agreement, allowing several minor modifications in the text in accord with the censor’s wishes, helped this article toward its publication in the Journal of the Czech Museum in 1837.16 The passage in both versions of the History is based on and quotes this old Slavic legend. The only difference between the two appears in the description of events immediately following St. Václav’s murder. In the German version, the weeping Drahomíra throws herself on the dead body after it is carried away from the scene of the murder by the priest Chrastěj. In the Czech version, the events take place in reverse order.
In the first volume, the censorship insisted only upon a small number of stylistic rearangements and on a few more significant changes which modified the meaning of the text in accord with the official interpretation. For example, in the phrase “Dass vom Volke anvertraute Land” the expression “von den Böhmen” was substituted for “vom Volke.” In the case of “Missbräuche in der Kirche” the more exact expression “Missbräuche in der böhmischen Kirche” was recommended. This considerate attitude of the censorship is also confirmed by Palacký’s note in his book Zur böhmischen Geschichtschreibung, where he writes: “. . . In den folgenden [i.e. the first] Abschnitten meiner Geschichte verfuhr die Wiener Censur in der Regel ziemlich glimpflich mit mir.”17
The passages which contained only minor censorship changes were never reconverted into their original form. Palacký included the changes in the Czech version of the first and second editions of his History. Therefore, it is impossible for us to determine their extent or form.
The second part of Palacký’s History was subject to censorship in 1838–41. As before, in part one the censorship satisfied itself with several minute changes and several notices, requesting Palacký to change his formulations. These changes were incorporated by the author into the Czech edition as well.
A completely different situation materialized when Palacký’s narrative reached Jan Hus and the Hussite period. This change for the worse did not take place merely because Count Chotek was succeeded in office by Count Robert von Salm-Reifferscheid, who continued to support the History. The greater wariness and suspicion of the Viennese censorship stemmed
