The Czechoslovak Review/Volume 3/Bohemians or What

by Josef Štýbr

Bohemians or What

By DR. JOSEPH ŠTÝBR.

The question whether our designation as “Bohemians” should be retained in modern English or whether it should be discarded and exchanged for something else, and for what, has been lately stirred up from various quarters, and its discussion in the columns of this Review appears as a timely topic. The discussion has been opened in the January issue by Mr. Nigrin who as a linguist by profession can justly claim to be heard in this matter. The next question is, how do others feel about the subject and what do they think of his proposal to discard the old established name “Bohemian” and to adopt the name “Čech” from the Bohemian language in its stead with such spelling of the word as to be both intelligible and pronounceable to the American or English public without special explanation and assistance. Mr. Nigrin proposes the spelling “Chehs” as seemingly the nearest sounding expression of the enigma. Let us now approach the subject with out prejudice and consider it from two different points of view.

No doubt, anyone of us must always resent the idea that the name “Bohemian” should designate us as the Gypsies who had been taken for the Bohemians at one time by a fatal mistake of the French who did not bother themselves at that time about the truth of the matter or about their own ignorance. However, the name “Bohemian” is older than this mistake, and I believe that any attempt at correcting this mistake by killing the name by prohibition is bound to end in hopeless failure. It appears hard to say in this instance with Shakespear’s Montague, “What is a name? It is not thy hand nor thy foot—give thyself another name!” That name is once here, attached to our existence both by history and by old custom and usage, and all efforts to supplant it with another name will lead not to the acceptance of the new nomenclature instead of the old one, but, on the contrary, to the producion of one or more synomyms that may survive beside the original name as equivalents, or so to say, parasites. Innumerable instances may be cited to prove it. Thus, e. g., we used to call in Bohemian the well known mineral Talcum “talek”. When the Bohemian mineralogy was put on scientific basis and new nomenclature was looked for, this mineral was named “mastek”, a name which designates in Bohemian the physical qualities of the mineral as closely as the other name does in Latin. And the result?—that today both names are being used promiscuously; instead of one name we have two synonyms expressing the same conception. So, too, if we shall succeed in establishing the name “Čech” as customary in English, we shall only create a synonym for the name “Bohemian” without doing away with the latter. And justly so. The historic nomenclature of our national entity as the ultimate successors of the Boii in our native land has always been and will remain Latin “Boemi”, “Bohemi” or “Bojemi”, and the Latin races have quite naturally accepted it like all the others of their Latin derivatives. To eradicate it would mean to abolish the natural process of etymology in the languages that sprang from the Latin. The name is simply here to stay, notwithstanding all vain efforts to change it. The difficulties in the attempt at eradication grow and multiply on every step in trying to go further with it. It is true that J. V. Sládek in his translation of our national anthem retained very successfully the name “Čechia”, but there is little doubt that it sounds so well more to our ears than to those of the Americans. If the French became more or less accustomed to call us “Tcheques”, we still must admit with them that their old name of the country “Bohème” sounds better than “Tchèque pay” or anything else, designed to supplant it. Therefore, it looks to me that we should not forget to direct our effort toward correcting the fallacy as to the correct meaning of the name “Bohemians”, designating our nation, while trying to establish the name “Čechs” in the English vocabulary. And while explaining the spelling, the pronunciation and the meaning of the name “Čechs” on all sides and at all occasions, let us insist further on the meaning of who are the real, historically, geographically and ethnologically defined Bohemians, and we can rest assured that due respect to our old and honest name in the English nomenclature will not be withheld.

However, I do not wish to be understood as advocating to hold the Bohemian name “Čechs” anyway in the background. That name is the best for us and dear to us amongst ourselves, and if used in our English writings, it will by itself permeate into the English vocabulary as easily as anything else and with more merit and less humor than for instance, our innocent old word “pantáta”. Only let us unite on the mode of its spelling and teach others its right pronunciation which, unfortunately, forms the greatest obstacle to its introduction. In analysing the difficulties of properly establishing the name in English, we soon come to the conclusion that it is unavoidable to create something new in the English speech, since none of the various modes of spelling is by itself capable of being pronounced correctly. The sound is simply not in the English mouth, and, therefore, cannot come out of it, except it is first properly placed there. The word “Czech” is a miscreant to the English eye and tongue. It appears to have been put down in a hurry by someone whose mind was used to move in the sphere of the German. I hardly can believe that the Polish language had much to do with it and also feel like correcting Mr. Nigrin’s impression that “it never occurs in the Čech language.” On the contrary, up to the time of John Hus we find it spelled that way only. It was he who took the z from behind the c and placed on top of it in the form of the hook in the same manner as he did with all the other diacritic marks, when simplifying the art of writing the Bohemian language and rendering its spelling into the phonetic type. But ask an American or an Englisman to pronounce it, and he will invariably say, “zek”.—On the other hand, Mr. Nigrin’s proposition to spell the name “Chehs” is only another miscreant. To make sure, I put in to a practical test and asked a few people knowing only English to pronounce it for me and found invariably that, after some hesitation, they would pronounce it “Čes” to use the Bohemian phonetic manner. For the h in English, and especially the final h, is used to extend the length of the preceding vowel, mostly in foreign languages, e. g., Noah, Nineveh. And in pressing the test further and asking the party subjected to the test to pro nounce “Chehia”, I found invariably an expression reminding one at once of the fragrancy of the Bohemian bucolica. So, then, to my taste, I would rather remain a Bohemian from Bohemia than become a Če and come from Čehie. As to the idea of using the letter h instead of ch and asking an English speaking person to not keep it silent and then expecting him to utter the Bohemian ch, that looks to me preposterous. If Mr. Nigrin would consult his knowledge and memory, or maybe better still, some cyclopaedia, he would find no difficulty in encountering the letters ch used in the Bohemian sense and the letter c marked with a secondary accent, or ch, to make the right pronunciation sure. Otherwise, kh is commonly used in English to designate the sound of the Bohemian ch, as e. g., in Kharkoff, Khartoum, etc. To arrive at the right pronunciation by such method would require the spelling of the name as “Chekhs”.

The result of my observation and study in the matter is about this: Let us not object to the name Bohemia and Bohemians, but should any occasion arise of encountering a person so ignorant as to be in doubt as to the meaning of the expression, let us gracefully elucidate his dark mind. On the other hand, in order to introduce the words “Čech”, “ˇČechia”, into the English language ,we cannot improve on the spelling of the words from the Bohemian way. Then, instead of teaching the Americans how to pronounce correctly various distorted forms of spelling of the name, let us teach them how to pronounce our č and ch, and I feel convinced that we shall encounter less difficulty than in doing the same thing any other way. There is no ň originally in the English alphabet, and yet we find the Spanish word “caňon” printed correctly in English dictionaries and pronounced correctly by the people. I remember the time when our Antonín Dvořák was director of the American Conservatory of Music and when his name was being pronounced by Americans right and left absolutely correctly. The British Encyclopaedia gladly undertook the trouble of using all diacritical marks in Bohemian names and words in Lutzow’s articles, and, therefore, there is no valid reason why the names “Čechs” and “Čechcia” should not retain their original Bohemian form, if we teach the Americans their correct pronunciation. The Slováks are in this respect at a decided advantage, since their name, all but the length of the vowel á needs no special interpretation.

As to the hypenated Čecho-Slovák combination, there may be some scruples as to the invention, philologically. But in political combinations such matters represent only a debate about a goat’s hair.

EDITOR’S NOTE.

Mr. Nigrin’s article on the spelling of the word Czechoslovak called forth considerable comment, all of which it has been impossible to publish. The discussion must now be closed. It is, however, plain that you may spell the word Czech or Czechoslovak in any way you please, and it will still be difficult for the Americans to pronounce and even to remember.

One point which has not been sufficiently brought out in the discussion is the distinction between the designation of the race and of the country. The term Czechoslovak properly designates a people composed of two branches, the Czechs and the Slovaks. During the war the Czechoslovaks conducted a revolution against the Hapsburgs, organized their own Czechoslovak Army and followed the leadership of the Czechoslovak National Council. Their efforts resulted in the creation of a new state, the people of which are overwhelmingly of the Czechoslovak race, but which includes minorities of other races. It appears certain at this time that the Uhro-Rusins will form an autonomous part of the republic, and there will be a great many Germans and Magyars as well. It is desirable to have two terms for two distinct concepts—race and political citizenship. And the two terms are at hand: Czechoslovak to represent the race and Bohemia to represent the citizenship. It would be simply absurd to speak of a Rusin Czechoslovak or a German Czechoslovak, when referring to a Rusin from Marmoros-Sziget or a German from Northern Bohemia. But it will be perfectly proper to speak of a Rusin Bohemian or a German Bohemian, as one speaks of German Swiss or Walloon Belgian. Thus we would have Bohemia, not Czechoslovak Republic, the United States Government would send a minister to Bohemia and the Legation in Washington would be known as the Bohemian Legation.

If the proper distinction between Czechoslovak and Bohemian were merely a question of exactness and logic, it would not be worth while to press it; time would take care of it. But here in America for instance it has considerable practical significance. People simply will not accept the odd looking word Czechoslovak as permanent. When Col. V. S. Hurban testified before the Senate Committee investigating the Russian situation, he was asked by Senator Nelson the name of his country. According to newspaper accounts, Col. Hurban stated that the name had not been definitely decided upon, but that the country would be composed of four parts which he proceeded to name—Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia and Slovakia.

“But what do you call your country in your own language?” demanded Senator Nelson; “You call it Bohemia, do you not?” another interpolated.

“We do not like that name; you think it is Gypsy”, said Col. Hurban.

“But what”, returned Senator Nelson, “do you call it in your own language? We call it Bohemia, and the Germans have another name, and you have still another name, haven’t you?”

Col. Hurban gave the Czech name for Bohemia (which by the way the newspaper reporter did not trust himself to set down.)

This illustrates the drawbacks connected with the use of the term Czechoslovak. Of a similar nature is the problem what term to use on goods manufactured in the new republic. The law of this country provides that merchandise must be marked so as to show the country of origin. Shall we try to make popular the phrase “Made in Czechoslovakia” or would it not be easier to get American people accustomed to the slogan “Made in Bohemia?”

The editor believes that the word Czechoslovak should be used of race only and the word Bohemia should be applied to the country and the political status of its citizens.