A young man of agreeable manners, of distinguished appearance, highly polished, Palacký had no difficulty in gaining access to the best circles of society in the Czech capital. At Baron Astfeld’s home which he visited, he met wealthv bourgeois, bankers, men of leisure; at other houses he came into contact with artists and men of letters. A biographer mentions his friendship with Tomaschek, the composer, the dramatic critic Macháček, and the well-known revivalist, V. A. Svoboda. Through Dobrovský he made the acquaintance of Count Sternberg, a noted scholar, the friend of Goethe. He also met Joseph Jungmann, the “silent genius”, to whose persuasive writings he owed his conversion to the Czech cause.
Impressed by the young scholar’s learning, Count Sternberg commissioned Palacký, at a handsome salary, to examine the family archives and compile the Sternberg genealogy. So pleased was the count with Palacký’s work in this respect that he recommended him to other Prague aristocrats, the Kinsky’s, Černín’s and Martinic’s, who required the services of a reliable genealogist.
At the Sternberg palace scholars used to meet to talk over various problems of the day. Upon one occasion they discussed the matter of publishing a magazine in the Czech and German languages, that should be a repository of everything relating to Bohemia, in the domain of history and literature.
Abbe Dobrovský and Count Sternberg were of the opinion that it was too late to think of the resuscitation of the Czech nation and that all attemps in that direction were futile. Palacký disagreed with his elder associates, reproaching Dobrovský that he, the foremost among Czech scholars, had all his works in languages other than his own (German and Latin). “Were we all to do the same,” argued Palacký, “then indeed our nation would be doomed to perish for lack of intellectual nourishment. As for me, were I but merely of Gypsy origin, and the last of the race, I should still deem it my duty to perpetuate an honorable record of my people in the annals of mankind.”
Here it should be remarked that as late as 1848 the Czech language was a Cinderella in its own home. To hear it spoken in the streets of Prague by people of any social consequence was uncommon. In stores and public places which were not patronized by apprentices, domestics and hucksters, the German language was dominant.
Owing largely to Palacký’s efforts the magazine above referred to became a reality in 1827, the German portion thereof bearing the title “Monatschrift des bohm. Museums, the Czech Časopis společnosti vlasteneckeho Museum v Čechách (Magazine of the Society of the National Museum in Bohemia) Palacký was chosen editor.
His admiration for Gibbon, the author of the “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, was genuine. In Gibbon he recognized a master of historical research, whom he wished to emulate. To his friend Kollar he wrote in 1822: “I shall not rest content until I can work on the history of our country. If I live, I shall surely write up Hussitism.”
Then followed a series of writings chiefly on historical subjects. In 1830 appeared the Wurdigung der alter bohmischen Geschichtschreiber in German. The volume contains the lives of Czech chroniclers to the XVI century, with enumeration of their works and a critical estimate thereof.
While he was finishing the Wurdigung, the Bohemian estates appointed him official historian of the Kingdom of Bohemia, but the government under one pretext or another refused to sanction the appointment. Even an appeal to the sovereign was futile. The real obstacle, as everyone knew, was Palacký’s Protestantism. Owing to Count Sternberg’s insistence and tact, the opposition was at last overcome and Palacký’s appointment confirmed.
The Wurdigung was the introductory to the Dějiny Národu Českého v Čechách a v Moravě, (History of the Czech Nation in Bohemia and Moravia), of which Rieger said that it was a “preface to the history of the Slavs.” On this monumental book, which represents the toil of more than thirty years, Palacký began to labor in 1832. Much deserved praise was showered on the historian; his work, however, evoked adverse comment also. Professor J. L. Knoll, for instance, severely criticized it on the ground that it tended to awaken to life certain Czech pretensions, as he called them, which were inimical to the safety of the monarchy. More than once the author had to contend with Austrian opposition from the censor, who insisted that certain matter, objectionable from the Austrian point of view, be deleted or altered. The
