Slavism and Sciences and Humanities in the 19th and 20th Centuries
Résumé
Slovanství a věda v 19. a 20. století. Marek Ďurčanský (ed.), Práce z Archivu Akademie věd, řada A, svazek 8. Praha, Archiv AV ČR 2005, 220 s. ISBN 80-86404-14-5
Feliks Koneczny and Świat Słowiański
Piotr Biliński
Feliks Koneczny (1862–1949) is an unusually colourful figure in the pantheon of Polish historians. His enormous scholarly work comprises 26 volumes and over 300 articles, brochures and special prints. Although he was exceeded in terms of quantity by such famous Polish historians as Joachim Lelevel, Władysław Konopczyński and Franciszek Bujak, no other Polish historian could boast such a broad range of research interests, including anthropology, sociology, philosophy, theology, ethnology, politology, psychology, economics, history and law.
Koneczny co-founded Klub Słowiański, which was active from 1901 in Krakow and from 1905 to 1914 he edited the Klub press organ, the monthly Świat Słowiański. Klub Słowiański represented an offshoot of Slavophilism with a strong anti-German bias. It represented a rather marginal political direction as most Galician politicians were geared more towards cooperating with the central powers than with Tsarist Russia. A turning point in the existence of Świat Słowiański came with the creation on 6th December 1912 of Towarzystwo Słowiańskie in Krakow. The initiators behind Towarzystwo were long-time collaborators with Klub Słowiański: the creator of the history of Polish education Antoni Karbowiak and ethnographer Roman Zawiliński. Świat Słowiański became the press organ of the new association, whose programme particularly differed from that of the old Klub in its efforts to increase the number of members and the much more general nature of its activities. Koneczny's prolific activities as a Świat editor were halted by the outbreak of the First World War.
Translated by Melvyn Clarke
The Sceptical Slavism of a Belligerent Biologist
Martin Franc
Professor of botany at the Czech University in Prague and Director of its Botanical Gardens, Josef Velenovský was one of the most prominent Czech scientists at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. His contributions to Czech mycology, knowledge of Cretaceous flora and the mapping of the vegetation of Bulgaria are of exceptional importance. During the latter part of his life in particular, Velenovský became very much involved in philosophical, historical and to some extent even political issues and he published some highly controversial works on various subjects in these fields. This study primarily focuses on his stance towards the Slavic idea with an analysis of his book output, e. g. Přírodní filosofie, Obrázky and [Natural Philosophy, Images and Literary Studies] and archive material from the ASCR Archive. Although the ageing scientist became involved in the Antisemitic Slavonic Party and the Pan-Slavic Union, his opinions on the role of Slavism differed considerably from the ideas of ultra-rightist nationalist Slavophiles. Velenovský shared their strong anti-semitism and guardedness towards “unnational” Christianity, but his assessment of the role of the Slavs was dominated by something of an anti-civilizational scepticism, ultimately anticipating the destruction of all European races including the Slavs and their supersession by more vigorous, less degenerate races, particularly from Asia, and so he saw no essential difference between the Germans and Slavs and their ultimate fate. As time went by, the number of original ideas in Velenovský's works dwindled and there was an increasing occurrence of expressions deriving from the fascistic circles of the likes of Karel Kasanda and the painter Karel Rélinek, in which the retired professor now moved. Complimentary references to Adolf Hitler evidently also derived from these same circles, and made up an integral, albeit paradoxical, element in the ideology of Czech ultra-rightist groups. The study also briefly deals with Velenovský's probable reasons for getting involved in such fascistic circles. It sees him as a type of personality that did not manage to fully integrate into the milieu of the newly created Czechoslovak Republic and psychologically could not tolerate his decline in popularity in society and in professional circles.
Translated by Melvyn Clarke
Władysław Mieczysław Kozłowski and Czech philosophy
Marek Ďurčanský
On the basis of available literature and sources from Czech archives, this paper aims to elucidate the relationship of the Polish philosopher W. M. Kozłowski (1859-1935) towards Czech philosophy and its representatives. It may thus to some extent complement the works of Czesław Glombik, which constitute a key achievement in the context of Czech-Polish contacts within this field and in which Kozłowski as a person emerges in a broader setting. His life, described in brief in the first part of the paper, had in the words of Josef Tvrdý, “its own special dramatic dynamic”. Kozłowski was one of the members of the young Polish intelligentsia from the part of Poland occupied by Russia in the latter half of the 19th century, whose character was formed by the atmosphere of positivism and the experience of exile to Siberia, where his interest in natural science was first aroused. His study of botany at Dorpat University was later complemented by his study of philosophy at Jagellon University in Krakow. The focus of his interest moved gradually from botany to the methodology behind natural sciences, philosophy, psychology and occasionally, history. After working at Brussels University he became one of the mainstays of the “Flying University” in Warsaw, which substituted for Polish higher education in the Russian-occupied area before independence. His extensive adult education activity was all part of his “philosophy of action”. After the war he became Professor of the Methodology and Theory of Science at Poznan University.
The second part of the paper focuses on those Czech connections of Kozłowski's which have been ascertained. Even in the prewar period he took part in a number of philosophical congresses, where he made the acquaintance of such Czech colleagues as František Čáda, František Drtina and František Krejčí. He was one of the foremost proponents of the idea of arranging a congress of Slavic philosophers and he himself proposed that it should take place in Prague and that its working language should be Polish. He was also in contact with Czech Slavophiles in other fields (e.g. A. Černý and J. Horák). The plan in 1914 to invite Kozłowski to lecture at Charles University was not successfully realized until the 1923/24 academic year and again in 1929. At that time he became a foreign member of the Czech Academy of Sciences and Arts and of the Institute of Slavonic Studies in Prague. At the end of the 1920s and the beginning of the 1930s, Kozłowski actually moved to Prague for a time and worked at the Slavonic Library.
The final part of the paper focuses on works in which Kozłowski played a role as mediator between Polish and Czech philosophy. He published a number of articles, particularly in Česká mysl from 1900. He also authored the first Polish review at that time of intellectual trends in Czech philosophy in the first decades of the 20th century; he had already written a similar summary study of Polish philosophy for Czech readers. Not least, we should also mention his interest in the work of T. G. Masaryk, with whom he felt an intellectual affinity and whose World Revolution he translated into Polish.
Translated by Melvyn Clarke
The Shevchenko Scientific Society in Lvov and its Czech Members
Pavel Kodera
The Shevchenko Scientific Society in Lvov (in Ukrainian “Naukove tovarystvo im. Ševčenka” – NTŠ) was formed in 1893 as a result of the reorganization of the similarly named older literary association (“Tovarystvo im. Ševčenka” established in 1873). The objective of the newly created organization was primarily to foster the development of science and scholarship in the Ukrainian language, as well as Ukrainian art, and to collect and preserve heritage items and scientific objects from Ukraine. Hence this was the first scientific and scholarly society of Ukrainian nationality fulfilling the role of a modern Academy of Sciences.The NTŠ was divided into three sections according to research orientation: the Philology Section, the History and Philosophy Section and the Mathematics, Natural Science and Medical Section, and the Society's main periodical was “Zapysky NTŠ”. The membership base was made up of regular (dijsni) and ordinary (zvyčajni) members and from the beginning of the 20th century, foreign scientists and scholars (čužinci) began to appear among the regular members.
The first Czechs were elected to the NTŠ in 1914. First, philologist and folklorist Jiří Polívka was confirmed in the Philology Section and then the famous doctor, pharmacologist and balneologist Karel Chodounský in the Mathematics, Natural Science and Medical Section. NTŠ activity was then interrupted by the Great War and the next Czech names began to appear in the membership lists in the 1920s. In October 1923, Czechoslovak President Tomáš G. Masaryk was elected to the Philology Section along with cultural historian and ethnographer Čeněk Zíbrt. NTŠ Board of Directors member K. Studynsky then evidently requested a Ukrainian emigrant living in Prague, linguist S. Smal-Stotsky, to put forward the names of other Czech scientists and scholars who might be suitable candidates for NTŠ membership from the viewpoint of Ukrainians living in Czechoslovakia. Smal-Stotsky recommended another five individuals for election and at the next meetings of the individual sections these were indeed elected. They were philologist František Pastrnek, literary historian Jan Máchal, Eastern European historian Jaroslav Bidlo, literary historian and folklorist Jiří Horák and musical historian Zdeněk Nejedlý.
The letter of proposal also mentioned the archeologist, anthropologist and ethnographer Lubor Niederle as a prominent Slavic studies scholar but because of his alleged “negative attitude” towards Ukrainian national affairs, he was not recommended for election by Smal-Stotsky. Nonetheless Niederle did see himself elected as a regular NTŠ member two years later (1925) when some Ukrainian emigrants started to pin some hope on him as regards their own employment at the newly created Institute of Slavic Studies.
In 1924, the world famous anthropologist Jindřich Matiegka, who one year later became acting President of the Czech Academy of Sciences and Arts, and philologist Josef Zubatý were elected members of the Society, as was legal historian Karel Kadlec in 1926. Two natural scientists were elected together to the NTŠ in 1928 – geologist Cyril Purkyně and geographer Václav Švambera. Geography was also the specialist field of Jiří Král, who was among the regular members registered a year later. In 1933, the list of Czechs elected to the NTŠ was concluded by two exponents of the liberal arts, the new CASA President, composer Josef Bohuslav Foester and orientalist Jan Rypka.
In addition to these eighteen Czech names, a large number of other individuals who were not of Czech nationality but who lived for a long period in Czechoslovakia during the first four decades of the 20th century became NTŠ members. These particularly included Ukrainian emigrants, as well as other scientists and scholars who were not of Czech nationality (e.g. the Slovenian Slavic scholar M. Murko).
Translated by Melvyn Clarke
Scholarship versus politics. The unsuccessful attempts of Adolf Černý to achieve Lusation sovereignty
Jan Chodějovský
It rarely happens that a scholar has the opportunity to defend and promote his ideas in the political arena, but Adolf Černý, the pioneer of Czech-Lusatian relations and the first lector in Sorbian at the Charles University Philosophical Faculty in Prague almost succeeded in this. From as early as 1884, this native of Hradec Králové disseminated information on the Sorbs, established mutual contacts and supported the Lusatian Sorb revival movement. But this was all that the Austrian and Saxon governments would allow with regard to Czech-Lusatian collaboration. The defeat of Germany and the creation of an independent Czechoslovakia encouraged Černý to hope that his dreams of securing the national existence of the Lusatian Sorbs and of extending collaboration into the cultural and political spheres would be realized. The Lusatian leaders themselves began to consider the possibility of gaining independence at that time and they received promises of support from the Czech side in this regard.
This study attempts to chronicle the pro-Lusatian activities of Adolf Černý from the end of the First World War to the framing of the memorandum of European Slavists in 1922. The first part focuses on the activities of Adolf Černý during the Paris Peace negotiations, where he went as an advisor to the Czechoslovak delegation on 6th January, 1919, together with Lusatian Sorb representatives J. Bryl and A. Bart, with the feeling that a unique opportunity had presented itself for him to defend the Lusatian cause at an international forum. He brought with him a plan he had drawn up for an autonomous Lusatia. However, this was not presented because it turned out that in his capacity as an advisor he was only to draw up expert reports and background material for the Czech diplomats. So in collaboration with Bart, Černý at least drew up memoranda and proclamations describing the history and current affairs of Lusatia, addressed to the representatives of the Allied powers, the League of Nations and the editorial offices of French daily newspapers. But all their efforts were in vain and they left the peace negotiations disappointed at the lack of interest on the part of Czech and world diplomacy.
The second part of the study focuses primarily on the framing of the memorandum by European Slavists and the subsequent signature campaign in an attempt to understand the attitude of the memorandum signatories towards the Slav question, as well as the ideas and concepts behind Černý's formulation of the memorandum. The motivation behind the organization of this extensive campaign was Černý's lack of success at the peace negotiations and the situation in Germany. The German government may well have formally committed itself to respecting national minorities on its territory, whose protection statutorily came under the authority of the League of Nations, but in this regard it only recognized the Danes and Poles. Černý thus decided to at least secure minority rights for the Lusatian Sorbs. Hence the idea was born of a “scholars' memorandum” based on the support of a broad group of specialists from all over Europe and justified by an attempt to preserve the remnants of an ancient culture and language. Ernest Denis assumed patronage of the overall project but he died on 5th January 1921 before it could all be put in place. Černý then spent a long time looking for somebody to front the memorandum, eventually succeeding with his friend, Polish linguist Jan Baudouin de Courtenay.
The signature campaign officially ran from 1st November 1920 to 3rd May 1922 and 97 scholars from 11 countries duly signed Černý's memorandum. He was considerably assisted in obtaining signatures by the contacts he had made during the Paris peace talks and during the time his journal Slovanský přehled was published. However, in numerous cases, Černý met with disinterest or a lack of understanding from those he addressed. On the other hand, he himself excluded several names of foreign signatories who did not match his criteria, i. e. they were not active at that time as university professors. The situation was different, however, in the case of Czechoslovak scholars, for whom Černý did not insist on the condition of a professorship. After all, he himself only worked at the university as a lector. Surprisingly, we have less information on how the signature campaign went among scholars in Czechoslovakia than we do for foreign representatives. In many cases there is no accompanying correspondence and it is not known when and how the signatures of the majority of the 25 Czech and Slovak signatories in the memorandum were obtained.
Likewise, nothing is known about the dispatch of the memorandum to Geneva or the nature of the response from the League of Nations. Only three Czech and three Lusatian newspapers and magazines carried reports on the memorandum. It had no response among the Lusatians themselves, in view of its negative results, and the issue of the memorandum was not dealt with by any organization involved in Lusatian political or cultural life. The signatories themselves remain silent about it in their memoirs and it does not appear in their mutual correspondence. This indicates that for most of them it was a marginal matter which they did not associate with their professional or public work. Although many were advocates of Slav solidarity, they most probably quickly became aware of the lack of a solution to this issue, which was well beyond their powers and for which suitable political-diplomatic conditions did not exist. The Lusatian question thus remained a matter to which only a small group of enthusiasts stayed dedicated, e. g. Adolf Černý, Josef Páta and later Vladimír Zmeškal.
Translated by Melvyn Clarke
Ruch Słowiański on Ukrainian national aspirations in Poland and Czechoslovakia 1928–1939
Sebastian Grudzień
One of the most notable manifestations of Polish Slavophilism during the interwar period was the monthly Ruch Słowiański, whose management included prominent figures from the worlds of scholarship and journalism. In their efforts to bring Slavs closer together, the editors were aware that there were some very real barriers between the peoples involved. They had to view Polish-Ukrainian relations as one of the most complex issues facing the Second Polish Republic and growing increasingly pertinent particularly in Lvov, where the editorial offices were based. The differences separating the two sides had not at first been an obstacle to collaboration with the journal on the part of leading Ukrainian intellectuals, but the seemingly promising contacts were soon broken off when the editors came out in favour of the term “Rusyns” (Ruthenes) to designate members of the Ukrainian nation. The standpoint of the editors reflected a belief which held sway in Polish society, scholarship, journalism and political life, particularly among anti-Ukrainian National Democracy Party members, and it was on the initiative of the editors that the contentious term was officially sanctioned by the government. This state of affairs was not altered after 1926 by Józef Piłsudski's ruling camp, which included not only Ukrainophiles, but also groups such as Zespół Stu, who were ill-disposed towards the Ukrainians. These included former National Democracy Party members associated with the Słowo Polskie daily and to a large extent with the avowedly apolitical Ruch Słowiański. This tension was reduced as usage of the term “Ukrainians” spread throughout the Polish press, changes took place in the editorship of the Lvov monthly and state administration ultimately decided to accord equal status to both names. The elimination of this bone of contention led to a return by Ukrainian authors to the journal in its second series, even to its most prominent pages. However, they did not succeed in harmonizing the various opinions regarding the Sub-Carpathian Ukraine nationality question, which escalated even as the dispute over terminology died down. However, the decisive support of Russophiles and emphasis by the editors on the difference of the Carpathian Ruthenians did not provoke protests from the Ukrainians. On this point the editors fully accepted the policy of Second Polish Republic governments. Relations with the ruling camp and the financial support received from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not mean that the journal lost its independence. It was also supported by funding associated with the centre-right opposition, while the left wing was still welcome on its pages. The sharp conflicts did not prevent regular printing of articles presenting Ukrainian cultural and academic life. The negative stance of the editors did not relate to the nation but to the separatists. But then even they gained respect, as the last article before war broke out was markedly conciliatory.
Translated by Melvyn Clarke
Trip by Czech foresters to the forests of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1927
Gustav Novotný
The Forestry Section of the Brno University of Agriculture with its University Forest Estate was visited on 22nd and 23rd May 1925 by three professors from the Forestry Department of Belgrade University with their womenfolk and students. In return, the Belgrade professors invited Brno forestry specialists on a trip to the forests of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. This was organized and led from 29th May to 16th June 1927 by Dr. Josef Opletal, first full professor of forest industry and logging, director of the institute of the same name at the Brno University of Agriculture Forestry Section and an extraordinary personality not only with regard to that college. Opletal writes about this trip in the third volume of his memoirs and he took several photographs during the trip. In addition to Opletal's third and fourth year forest engineering students, this study trip, which the paper analyses in detail, was also attended by four professors, one associate professor and four assistants. These forestry specialists travelled from Brno to Bratislava, then by ship through Komárno, Esztergom, Szob, Visegrad and Budapest to Vukovar, where they stepped onto the soil of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.
The demanding 19-day travelling schedule was highly diverse. The Brno foresters travelled not only by ship, but also by carriage, car, bus and normal-gauge and narrow-gauge, state and private forest railway. They learnt about phenomena and things which they could not have come across in the Czech lands. They passed through several interesting stands and small sections of enormous native forest complexes comprising Slavonic oak in the former military border zone or in selected areas of contiguous coniferous native forests in Han Pijesak. These valuable, ancient stands with their unimaginable supplies of timber have, however, progressively and rapidly dwindled. They have been cleared by large corporations and their valuable resources have been utilized. The Brno academicians visited and inspected huge complex facilities for felling, transporting and processing timber, which had already been in existence during the Austro-Hungarian empire. During their long, exacting and well-prepared trips into the forests of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia they also managed to devote attention to the local ports, timber trade, timber warehouses, saw mills, pulp mills, forest nurseries, examples of forestation attempts in the Kras region, numerous historical heritage sites and the beauties of nature of the country they were visiting. They also paid visits to forestry departments at universities in Belgrade and Zagreb. The journey under review was described both by the Brno participants and their Yugoslav counterparts as highly successful.
Translated by Melvyn Clarke
Attitudes of the GDR to the Sorbian minority
Václav Hankovec
Since the ages the Sorbs of Lusatia are established Slavonic minority, who on the German territory always had to fight for their rights. After the persecution of the Third Empire and a period of national suspense and since the World War Two ended the GDR (German Democratic Republic) chose to use the Sorbs of Lusatia as a symbol of their positive national policy. The GDR did not recognise that the word „support“ does not mean only encouragement in the field of education but to support the identity of the Sorbs of Lusatia is connected very closely with the religious component. It was first of all the Catholic church which has contributed to the maintenance of their language and even to the specific Sorbian national sensation. The most important Sorbian national institution is „Domowina“. Initially Domowina did not differentiate between the both confessions but it has concentrated on the questions of national identity. After the establishment of the GDR it had started to adjust itself to the socialist doctrine.
We cannot stay by the statement that only the national orientated institution had failed. Even some priests could not stand up the pressure of the „Socialist unified German Party“(SED) and their security folders. In the author’s opinion it is very difficult to dispraise without any difference, if we do not know closely the occasions and conditions in the time of World War Two.
Amidst the most important Sorbs of Lusatia, who had affected the national life of Sorbs of Lusatia we have to mention the first post-war president of the Domowina Pawoł Nedo and spiritual personalities like Józef Nowak and Michał Nauke, who had fought for the moral and national values.
Political and economic inversion in October 1989 represents a decisive turning point in their social and even political – ethnic cultural being. It seems that the Sorbs of Lusatia in the time of the inversion „entered the political happening first when they saw, that no threat is coming from the old regime“. Insecurity is possible to document in every day life and behaviour of Sorbs of Lusatia. But it is very important to notify that they could not through ages act like a declared national minority. Sorbs of Lusatia could influence their fortunes only alternatively and just internal the history of the German state.
When GDR wanted to incorporate Catholic Sorbs of Lusatia into the socialist nationality, she had to accept the Catholic Sorbs of Lusatia and accede to some compromises. To get away from the long-lasting tension the GDR had to make certain appeasements to the Sorbian Catholic church and accede to certain „rules of the game“. With this the ideological borders were to be made and also principles of mutually behaviour.
It does not mean that the Sorbs of Lusatia did not welcome the political inversion in 1989 at all but a lot of them were alive of the certain danger, which the new freedom had brought with it. In the opinion of the probably most competent expert of the present situation Martin Walde for the Catholic Sorbs of Lusatia it was not always easy to find the right part and orientation in social life. Identification with the Wendish went down very strongly. This manifestation is evident especially at the young generation.
After all we have to recognize that the Lusatia today does not decline at all. There are new museums and expositions to see and the Sorbs of Lusatia are still holding up together closely because of their strong religion. But it is a question, howsoever it is possible to interrupt through the ages lasting assimilation.
A Supplement to Publications of Letters by Jan Baudouin de Courtenay to Adolf Černý
Marek Ďurčanský – Tomasz Skrzyński
Fortunes have greatly varied for the correspondence over many years between the Polish linguist Jan Niecisław Baudouin de Courtenay (1845-1929) and the Czech Slavophile Adolf Černý – an important resource on the history of Czech-Polish cultural contacts at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. While the letters from Černý to Baudouin are irretrievably lost, with only some exceptions Baudouin's letters are now kept in Černý's extensive personal papers housed in the Archive of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic in Prague. Researchers have been using the majority of them for more than three decades, thanks to a publication by the Polonist Teodor Bešta brought out in 1972. Zofia Tarajło expressed criticism over this and compared the actual state of the personal fonds in 1989 with the publication. She also brought out additions which at that time probably did not appear in the fonds. As became evident when Černý's personal papers were recently organized, a number of Baudouin's letters had not been sorted out from the mass of other material during the early 1970s and so had not found their way into Bešta's publication. Moreover, another 10 letters now housed in the Sorbian Cultural Archive at the Sorbian Institute in Bautzen (where they were taken by the Gestapo during the war after searches at Černý's residence, due to the Lusatian Sorbian issues in their contents) were recently published by Tomasz Jaworský and Měrćin Völkel.
This publication of supplements to the correspondence between Baudouin and Černý provides access to 41 previously unpublished letters and correspondence cards written by Baudouin together with glosses in the margins of the letters of his wife Romualda. It also includes a well-arranged catalogue of 321 previously known and published letters from Baudouin to Černý. The newly available items come to about 13% of this total and they add in particular to the 1900-1904 period, i.e. the period just after Baudouin moved from Krakow to St. Petersburg.
Translated by Melvyn Clarke