are, for instance, those of a professor of dogmatics or of an inquisitor. . . .’
The matter was eventually settled amicably, though Palacký was obliged to eliminate considerable passages from his book, as well as to insert considerable interpolations from the pen of the censor, which had to pass as Palacký’s own work. After the year 1848, when the police-censorship of the press was abolished, Palacký was able to publish a new edition of his work, in which he restored most of the passages that had been eliminated and suppressed the additions dictated by the censor.
I should here state that when dealing with the life and works of Palacký I have principally laid stress on the events of his life which I have as far as possible related in his own words and on his historical criticisms. It would be superfluous to give extracts from his large historical work. It is, of course, founded on the ancient records, many of which were then still preserved in manuscript, though they have now been printed. I should therefore run the risk of repeating accounts of events to which I have already referred in my previous lectures.
One of the results of the revolutionary events of 1848 was that the Bohemian national movement, that had previously been almost exclusively literary, now assumed a political character. It was natural that when the Bohemians were called on to elect representatives to the constituent assembly that met at Vienna, their choice largely fell on men of letters. Of historians, Palacký was elected by seven constituencies; and the younger historian Tomek to whom I shall refer later was also one of the representatives of Bohemia. Palacký took little part in the proceedings
H
