Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Meaning of Czech History: Masaryk versus Pekař

  • Chapter
T. G. MASARYK (1850–1937)

Part of the book series: Studies in Russia and East Europe ((SREE))

Abstract

The dispute over the meaning of Czech history has been going on, in spite of interruptions, for the last hundred years, ever since the controversy over the Manuscript Forgeries. It has not been resolved in favour of any of the opposing camps of interpreters, although it has involved a great number of prominent historians. The long duel between Masaryk and Pekar may be considered its climax.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. See the serial ‘History Falsified’ with a section on Czechoslovakia after 1945, in Index on Censorship, (December 1985), pp. 34–39.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Summed up by G. H. Skilling in ‘Sixty-Eight in Historical Perspective’, International Journal, vol. 33/4 (Autumn 1978), pp. 678–701.

    Google Scholar 

  3. G. H. Skilling, Cross Currents, vol. 3 (1984), pp. 29–47; Svědectví, nos. 58, 59, 60 (1978–9).

    Google Scholar 

  4. G. H. Skilling, Cross Currents, vol. 2 (1983), pp. 87–112; M. Machovec et. al., T. G. Masaryk a naše současnost (Prague, 1980), published as vol. VII of Masarykův Sborník.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Listy, 5, July 1975, pp. 32–43. English in Survey, vol. 21/3 (Summer 1975), pp. 167–190.

    Google Scholar 

  6. For example: M. Šimečka, ‘Náš soudruh Winston Smith’, Index on Censorship; ‘Black Holes’, Kosmas, vols. 3 and 4, (Winter 1984–Summer 1985), pp. 23–8.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kosík, ‘Iluze a realismus’, Listy, 7 Nov. 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Svědectví nos. 75, 76, (1985). The two contrasting views published in no. 76 are by B. Komárková, pp. 793–816, searching for a Christian alternative to the Czech Question, and a nihilistic proposition by V. Bělohradský, pp. 819–26, who denies the ‘Right to History’ for the Czechs as an anachronistic and imperialistic prejudice. A wonderful synopsis on the relationship between Czechs and history are the unpublished ‘Letters to a Ger_man Friend’, by Jan Patočka; translation of selected parts: ‘Co jsou Češi? Maly přehled faktů a pokus o vysvětlení’, 150000 slov, vol. 4/12 (1985), pp. 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  9. An excellent recent study on the Manuscript Forgeries is M. Otáhal, ’Význam bojů o Rukopisy’, Masarykův Sborník, vol. vn (1980); pp. 66–99. In English, ‘The Manuscript Controversy in the Czech National Revival’, Cross Currents, vol. 5 (1986) pp. 247–77.

    Google Scholar 

  10. J. Werstadt, Odkazy dějin a dějepisců (Prague, 1948), pp. 65–91; F. Kutnar, Přehledné dějiny českěho a slovenskěho dějepisectví, 2 vols. (Prague, 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  11. J. Opat, ‘Schauer’s Our Two Questions and Masaryk’, Independent Historiography in Czechoslovakia, Samizdat, vol. 2, (1985). Presented at 16th International Congress of Historians.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Česká ptázka. Snahy a tužby národního obrození (Prague, 1895); Naše nýnčjší krise. Pád strany staročeské a počátkové směrů nových (Prague, 1895); Karel Havlíček. Snahy a tužby politického probuzení (Prague, 1896); Jan Hus. Naše obrození a naNaše reformace (Prague, 1896). Excerpts from Česká otázka and other essays have appeared in translation in: René Wellek (ed.), The Meaning of Czech History by Tomáš G. Masaryk (Chapel Hill, 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Česká otázka, Karel Havlíček, Jan Hus, passim. See also: 0. Urban, ‘Masarykovo pojetí české otázky’ Ćeskoslovenský časopis historickyý henceforth ČsČH, vol. 17 (1969), pp. 527–51; E. Schmidt-Hartmann, Thomas G. Masaryk’s Realism. Origins of a Czech Political Concept (Munich, 1984), pp. 118–25.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Masaryk believed that sociology could capture historical reality in its complexity more adequately than historicism. He was instrumental in arranging the translation of the ‘modern’ historical bestseller of those days, namely T. H. Buckle’s History of Civilization in England, 2 vols., (London, 1857–1861), and wrote an extensive analysis of Buckle, whose determinism must have appealed to him: Theorie dějin dle zásad T. H. Bucklea (Prague, 1884); Základy konkretní logiky (Prague, 1885). See also Kutnar, Přehledné dějiny, vol. II, pp. 35–7.

    Google Scholar 

  15. ‘Palackého idea národa českého’, Naše doba, vol. 5 (1898), pp. 769–95. In a digested and popularised form Masaryk’s philosophy of Czech history has also appeared in English: D. B. Shillinglaw, The Lectures of Professor T. G. Masaryk at the University of Chicago, Summer 1902 (Lewisburg, 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kutnar, Přehledné dějiny, vol. II, pp. 33–5.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Otázka sociální. Zaklady marxismu sociologické a filosofické (Prague, 1898).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Pekař ‘Masarykova česká filosofie’ Český časopis historický’ vol. 18 (1912), 1927 edn, p. 39. Henceforth CCH.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ibid., p. 43; ČČH, 4 (1898); J. Herben, Masaryková sekta a Gollová skola (Prague, 1912), pp. 42–3.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Vančura, ‘0 vlivu Masarykově na dějinně nazírání u nás’, Česká mysl (special issue, 1910); Criticised by K. Krofta in Přehled, nos. 39–42 (1910). Vancura, ‘Ctm se Masaryk zavděčil českému dčjepisu’, in T. G. Masaryk- K šedesátým narozeninám (Prague, 1911), pp. 117–37.

    Google Scholar 

  21. ‘Masarykova česká filosofie’, ČČH, vol. 18, pp. 130–6.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ibid., (1927), p. 39.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Despite his high principles Pekař himself wrote ‘politicised’ history from as early as 1897 when he boldly replied to vicious anti-Czech attacks by the renowned German historian T. Mommsen ( Čechové jako apoštolové barbarství, (Prague, 1898).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Nietzsche, Vom Nutzen und Nachteil der Historie für das Leben (Berlin, 1873–4).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Werstadt, Odkazy dějin, p. 69.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Naše doba, vol. 20 (1912–13), pp. 6–19.

    Google Scholar 

  27. ČČH, Vol. 18 (1912), pp. 504–8.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Well summarised in Schmidt-Hartmann, Thomas G. Masaryk pp. 144–56.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Patočka, ‘Co jsou Češi?’ (1985), p. 28 (see note 8 above).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Vančura, ‘Čim se Masaryk zavděčil českému dějepisu’ in V. K. Škrach (ed.), Masarykův Sborník, vol. 11 (1926–27), pp. 219–24 ..

    Google Scholar 

  31. V. Čern, ‘The Essence of Masaryk’s Personality and What TGM Means to us Today’, in M. Čapek and K. Hrubý (eds), T. G. Masaryk in Perspective. Comments and Criticism (SVU Press, 1981), pp. 99–117.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Z. Nejedlý, Spor o smysl českých dějin. Pokus o filosofii českých dčjin (Prague, 1914). This essay was reprinted in Nejedlý’s collected works, vol. XVI (1953) at the time when he ruled over Czech culture in his dual capacity as Minister of Education and President of the Academy of Sciences. Nejedlý was the author of the voluminous and unfinished biography of T. G. Masaryk, 4 vols. (Prague, 1930–1937). He took the side of Masaryk in the polemic with Pekař, but never succeeded in presenting a coherent philosophy of Czech history, which was his lifelong ambition.

    Google Scholar 

  33. J. Prokeš, Základní problémy českých dějin (Prague, 1925).

    Google Scholar 

  34. E. Rádl, 0 smysl českých dějin (Prague, 1925).

    Google Scholar 

  35. J. Slavík, Pekař contra Masaryk (Prague, 1929).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ibid., p. 21.

    Google Scholar 

  37. ČČH, vol. 24 (1918), p. vii.

    Google Scholar 

  38. See for instance Pekař’s moving speech before the Czech professors of the Prague University in memory of the deceased Emperor Francis Joseph on 4 December 1916 in: W. Lorenz, Monolog über Böhmen (Vienna, 1964), pp. 63–9.

    Google Scholar 

  39. According to Vančura. See note 30.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Herben quoted in Werstadt, Odkazy dějin, pp. 107–9.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Ibid., pp. 102–18: Among the signatories were historians Borovička, Heidler, Krofta, Kybal, Nejedlý, Niederle, Novotný, Sedláček, Šimák, Opočenský, Teige, Urbánek, Vančura and Vojtíšek.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Emphasised by Vančura. See note 30.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Reprinted after the break-up of the Monarchy as Dějiny Československa (Prague, 1921). It remained the standard textbook for grammar schools. Pekař’s public lecture of 1928 appeared in print in the following year under the title: Smysl českých dějin. O nový názor na českých dějiny (Prague, 1929).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Smysl českých dějin pp. 9–18.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Dějiny Československa pp. 10–11. Cf. also Pekař, 0 periodisaci českých dějin (Prague, 1932). Pekař drew his inspiration for periodisation chiefly from Max Dvořák (1874–1921), also Goll’s pupil, who taught at the University of Vienna (Kunstgeschichte als Geistesgeschichte).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Masaryk’s criticism of Pekar was published under the initials Č. P. (read ‘Československý President’), in the spring issue of ýeská mysl. Reprinted in Capek and Hrubý, T. G. Masaryk, pp. 263–75.

    Google Scholar 

  47. See note 38. Also J. Papoušek, ‘T. G. Masaryk a ceskoslovenská dějepisectví’, ČČH, vol. 44 (1938), p. 23; R. Plaschka, Von Palacký bis Pekař (Graz, 1955), p. 82.

    Google Scholar 

  48. ČČH, vol. 25 (1919) p. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  49. See in particular Masaryk’s Nová Evropa (Prague, 1920); Engl. ed. The New Europe (London, 1918).

    Google Scholar 

  50. J. Dubský, ‘Masaryk a Nčmci: Masarykův koncept nčmectví v jeho boji za vytvoření samostatného státu a jeho poměr k Němcům po roce 1918’, Masarykův Sborník, vol. VII (1980), pp. 217–18. For a comprehensive and balanced account of the German Question, see J. W. Brügel, Tschechen und Deutsche 1918–1938 (Munich, 1967); Engl. ed. Czechoslovakia Before Munich (London, 1973).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Lorenz, Monolog, p. 119.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Masaryk, Světová revoluce (Prague, 1925), pp. 524–32; Dubský ‘Masaryk a Němci’, pp. 220–1.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Dubský, ‘Masaryk a Němci’, p. 224. Masaryk underestimated racism as the chief component of Nazism. Hitler was for him a more brutish disciple of 19th - century ideologies of Pan-Germanism. In his eyes Lagarde, Schoenerer and Wagner were the main culprits, not Hitler. (See E. Ludwig, Gespräche mit Masaryk (Amsterdam, 1935), p. 252.)

    Google Scholar 

  54. O. Strasser, Masaryk- Ein Führer zum neuen Europa (Zürich, 1938), p. 28.

    Google Scholar 

  55. J. L. Hromádka, Don Quijote české filosifie: Emanuel Rádl 1873–1942 (New York, 1943), p. 92.

    Google Scholar 

  56. H. Heiber, Walter Frank und sein Reichsinstitut für Geschichte des neuen Deutschlands (Stuttgart, 1966); K. F. Werner, Das NS-Geschichtsbild und die deutsche Geschichtswissenscha[t JStuttgart, 1967).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Pekař, ‘O nový déjepis v Třetí říši’, ČČH, vol. 41 (1935), pp. 555–66.

    Google Scholar 

  58. J. Pfitzner, ‘Die Geschichtsbetr:achtung der Tschechen und Deutschen in den Sudetenländern’, Historische Zeitschrift, vol. 146 (1932), pp. 71–85. Ibid., ‘Neue Wege der tschechischen Geschichtswissenschaft’, Historische Zeitschrift, vol. 153 (1936), pp. 514–37.

    Google Scholar 

  59. J. Pachta, Pekař a pekařovština v českém dějepisectví (Brno, 1950).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Pekař, Postavy a problémy českých dějin. Ed. and Introduction by F. Kutnar. See also P. Pavel, ‘Josef Pekař’, in Dějiny a současnost, nos. 8 and 9 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  61. See note 10. Kutnar’s favourable treatment of Pekař was attackesJ by J. Haubelt, ‘O výkladu dějin českého a slovenského dějepisectví’, Čs ČH, vol. 6 (1979), pp. 907–15.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Milan Hauner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of London, UK

    Harry Hanak (Reader in International Relations School of Slavonic and East European Studies) (Reader in International Relations School of Slavonic and East European Studies)

Copyright information

© 1990 School of Slavonic and East European Studies

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hauner, M. (1990). The Meaning of Czech History: Masaryk versus Pekař. In: Hanak, H. (eds) T. G. MASARYK (1850–1937). Studies in Russia and East Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-20576-9_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation