Recalling Masaryk's The Czech Question: Humanity and Politics on the Threshold of the Twenty-First Century (Value Inquiry Book / Central European Value Studies, 381) 9004534903, 9789004534902

Citation preview

Recalling Masaryk’s The Czech Question

Value Inquiry Book Series Founding Editor Robert Ginsberg Managing Editor J.D. Mininger

Volume 381

Central European Value Studies Edited by Vasil Gluchman (University of Prešov, Slovakia) Affiliate Editors Jaap van Brakel (University of Louvain) Eckhard Herych (University of Mainz) Assistant Editors Arnold Burms (Belgium) –​Herman Parret (Belgium) –​B.A.C. Saunders (Belgium) –​Frans De Wachter (Belgium) –​Anindita Balslev (Denmark) –​ Lars-​ Henrik Schmidt (Denmark) –​Dieter Birnbacher (Germany) –​Stephan Grätzel (Germany) –​Thomas Seebohm (Germany) –​Olaf Wiegand (Germany) –​Alex Burri (Switzerland) –​Henri Lauener (Switzerland) The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/​vibs and brill.com/​cevs

Recalling Masaryk’s The Czech Question Humanity and Politics on the Threshold of the Twenty-​First Century

Edited by

Jan Svoboda and Aleš Prázný

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Publication of this book was generously endorsed by the Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic, Institute of Philosophy of the Czech Academy of Sciences, University of Pardubice, and the Sekyra Foundation. Cover illustration: Photograph of T. G. Masaryk (1927). Masaryk Institute and Archives of the Czech Academy of Sciences. Fund T. G. Masaryk, Sign. OdbM2-​14. The Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data is available online at https://​cata​log.loc.gov lc record available at https://​lccn.loc.gov/2023901165​

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/​brill-​typeface. issn 0929-​8 436 isbn 978-​9 0-​0 4-​5 3490-​2 (hardback) isbn 978-​9 0-​0 4-​5 3491-​9 (e-​book) Copyright 2023 by Jan Svoboda and Aleš Prázný. Published by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau, V&R unipress and Wageningen Academic. Koninklijke Brill nv reserves the right to protect this publication against unauthorized use. Requests for re-​use and/​or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill nv via brill.com or copyright.com. This book is printed on acid-​free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents  Notes on Contributors ix  Introduction 1 Jan Svoboda and Aleš Prázný

part 1 The Historical Context of Masaryk’s Czech Question 1  Understanding the Debate around the ‘Czech Question’ in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century 7 Miroslav Hroch 2  Modern Czech State-​Formation 28 Robert Kvaček 3  The Czech Question in Its Time 36 Miloš Havelka

part 2 Ethics as the Heart of Philosophy 4  Modernism and Transcendence from the Perspective of Masaryk’s Realism 57 Jan Svoboda 5  Masaryk’s Ethics 82 Wendy Drozenová 6  T. G. Masaryk’s Thoughts on Ján Kollár’s Idea of Humanity 99 Vasil Gluchman

vi Contents

part 3 The Pro-​Masaryk View of the Czech Question 7 The Legacy of Masaryk’s Idea of Enlightened Humanism 123 Vlastimil Zátka 8 The Czech Question and the Principle of Federalism 140 Milan Znoj 9 Masaryk’s Czech Question and the Idea of the Czech State 153 Miloslav Bednář 10 The Czech Question as the Task of a Humanist Education 168 Aleš Prázný

part 4 The Anti-​Masaryk View of the Czech Question 11 Masaryk’s Philosophy of Czech History from the Perspective of Popper’s Critique of Historicism 189 Otakar A. Funda 12 Criticism of the Czech Question 209 Martin Šimsa 13 The Anti-​political Nation in Bohemia and Moravia 233 Václav Bělohradský

part 5 The Word of a Politician in Exile 14 Humanism as the Motivation of Politics or Masaryk’s Czech Question Today 245 Karel Hrubý

Contents

part 6 The Word of a Pastor 15  T. G. Masaryk and Our Times 265 Jakub S. Trojan  Epilogue: the Return of the Czech Question 275 Luděk Sekyra  Index 279

vii

Notes on Contributors Miloslav Bednář is a senior research at the Institute of Philosophy of the Czech Academy of Sciences. He teaches as a professor at Charles University, the University of Jan Evangelista Purkyně in Ústí nad Labem, and other universities. He specialises in Czech and international philosophy, phenomenology, and the philosophy of history and politics. He contributes to public debates in the Czech media and is the author of numerous articles on Czech philosophy. His publications include: Smysl české existence: česká státní idea a Masarykova česká otázka (The Meaning of Czech Existence: The Idea of the Czech State and Masaryk’s Czech Question, Prague 2018); Pohyb a řád: Pokus o fenomenologickou ontologii (Motion and Order: An Attempt at Phenomenological Ontology, Prague 2018); České myšlení (Czech Thought, Prague 1996); and he is the editor and co-​ author of Idea dějin a Palacký jako myslitel (The Idea of History and Palacký as a Thinker, Prague 2019). Václav Bělohradský is a professor of political sociology at the University of Trieste. He taught at the Institute of Philosophy in Genoa, where he was appointed professor of sociology in 1973. He worked for many years with Czech exile magazines and publishers and domestic Czech dissent. He first published his work in Italy, then in Czech with exile publishers, and has been publishing writings in the Czech Republic since 1991. He also publishes work in the UK, the USA, and Canada. He is a regular contributor to Právo Salón, the literary supplement of Právo newspaper. His extensive body of published work includes: Přirozený svět jako politický problém (The Natural World as a Political Problem, Prague 1991); Společnost nevolnosti (The Society of Malaise, 3rd edition, Prague 2014); Mezisvěty a mezi světy (Interworlds and Between Worlds, 2nd enlarged edition, Prague 2013). Wendy Drozenová is a senior researcher at the Institute of Philosophy of the Czech Academy of Sciences. To 2019 she was also an assistant professor in the Philosophy Department of Charles University’s Hussite Theological Faculty. She specialises in the study of ethical questions in various contexts, including bioethics and civilisational problems. She is the author of numerous articles and the book Země je plna tvých tvorů: tři studie o vztahu křesťanství k přírodě (The Earth is Full of Thy Creatures: Three Studies on the Relationship of Christianity

x

Notes on Contributors

to Nature, Prague 2005); she is the editor and co-​author of the monograph Etika vědy v České republice: od historických kořenů s současné bioetice (Ethics of Science in the Czech Republic: From the Historical Roots to Contemporary Bioethics, Prague 2010) and Filosofie Hanse Jonase (The Philosophy of Hans Jonas, Prague 2019). Otakar A. Funda is a philosopher, religious studies scholar, university teacher, and former Evangelical minister. He has worked at the Hussite Theological Faculty of Charles University, was a professor at Charles University’s Faculty of Education, and lectures at the Faculty of Arts of the University of West Bohemia in Pilsen. His focal interests are Christianity in religious studies, the philosophy of religion, the history of ancient philosophy, the history of modern philosophy. His philosophical interests are neo-​positivism, critical rationalism, critical realism, and processual ontology. He is the author of numerous books and articles published in Czech and international journals. His publications include: Thomas Garrigue Masaryk –​sein philosophisches, religiöses und politisches Denken (Bern–​Frankfurt–​Las Vegas 1978); Znavená Evropa umírá (A Weary Europe Is Dying, Prague 2000); Ježíš a mýtus o Kristu (Jesus and the Myth of Christ, Prague 2007); Když se rákos chvěje nad hladinou (When a Reed Trembles above the Surface, Prague 2009); Racionalita versus transcendence –​spor Hanse Alberta s moderními teology (Rationality versus Transcendence –​Hans Albert’s Dispute with Modern Theologians, Prague 2013); K filosofii náboženství (On the Philosophy of Religion, Prague 2017). Vasil Gluchman is a professor of Philosophy and Ethics at the Institute of Ethics and Bioethics, Faculty of Arts, University of Prešov (Slovakia), and holds the unesco Chair in Bioethics at the University of Prešov (Slovakia). His main field of professional interest is the history of ethics in Slovakia and in Central Europe, consequentialist ethics, bioethics, and applied ethics including professional ­ethics. He has edited the Ethics of Social Consequences: Philosophical, Applied and Professional Challenges (Newcastle 2018), Morality: Reasoning on Different Approaches (Amsterdam–​New York 2013), Bioethics in Central Europe (Prešov 2009), and he is currently the editor of Ethics & Bioethics (in Central Europe), indexed by Scopus, and a member of the editorial board of the journal Health Care, Medicine and Philosophy published by Springer, as well as being editor of the Central European Value Studies series published by Brill. He has published the following books: Profesijná etika ako etika práce a etika vzťahov (Professional Ethics as Work Ethics and the Ethics of Relations, Prešov 2014); Idea humanity

Notes on Contributors

xi

v dejinách etiky na Slovensku (The Idea of Humanity in the History of Ethics in Slovakia, Prešov 2013) or Slovak Lutheran Social Ethics, Lewiston1997. He is also the editor of Morality of the Past from the Present Perspective (Cambridge 2007), three volumes of Etika (Ethics, 2010), and many other textbooks and articles. Miloš Havelka is a professor at the Faculty of the Humanities of Charles University and a guest lecturer at tu Chemnitz (at the Institute of European Studies). He has translated the writings of Max Weber and Ralf Dahrendorf and compiled an anthology of extracts from Ernst Cassirer’s Philosophy of Symbolic Forms and Karl Jaspers’s Chiffren der Transzendenz. His publications include: Spor o smysl českých dějin 1895–​1938 (The Dispute over the Meaning of Czech History 1895–​ 1938, Prague 1995) and Spor o smysl českých dějin 1938–​1989 (The Dispute over the Meaning of Czech History 1938–​1989, Prague 2006), a monograph titled Dějiny a smysl: obsahy, akcenty a posuny ‘české otázky’ 1895–​1989 (History and Meaning: The Content, Emphases, and Shifts in the Czech Question 1895–​1989, Prague 2002), and the books Ideje –​dějiny –​společnost: studie k historické sociologii vědění (Ideas –​History –​Society: A Study on the Historical Sociology of Knowledge, Brno 2010), and Víra, kultura a společnost: náboženské kultury v českých zemích v 19. a 20. století (Faith, Culture, and Society: Religious Cultures in the Czech Lands in the 19th and 20th Centuries, Červený Kostelec 2012). He is the co-​editor of a collective monograph titled Bürgerliche Gesellschaft und Menschenrechte im östlichen Mitteleuropa (Munich 2015). Miroslav Hroch is a professor of general history. Up to 2000 he taught at the Faculty of Arts, Charles University, where in 1994 he established the Department of General and Comparative History. From 2011 he taught at the Faculty of Humanities, Charles University. As well as numerous articles, his publications in recent decades include: In the National Interest (Prague 2000); Ethnonationalismus –​eine ostmitteleuropäische Erfindun? (Leipzig 2004); European Nations. Explaining Their Formation (London 2015); Comparative Studies in Modern European History: Nation, Nationalism, Social Change (London 2007); Hledání souvislostí (The Search for Connections, Prague 2017); Studying Nationalism Under Changing Conditions and Regimes. An Intellectual Autobiography (Antwerp 2018). Karel Hrubý (1923–​2021) was an exiled Czech politician and publicist, the last chairman of the Czechoslovak Social Democratic Party in exile. He studied philosophy and

xii 

Notes on Contributors

Czech at the Faculty of Philosophy of the Charles University in Prague. In 1955–​ 1960, he was a political prisoner. In 1968, he went into exile with his family to Basel, Switzerland. He was a representative and board member of the Council of Free Czechoslovakia and chairman of the Swiss section of the Czechoslovak Society of Arts and Sciences (svu). In 1983–​1991, he was the editor-​in-​chief of the svu quarterly Proměny (Transformations), which focused on cultural and political issues and the philosophy of Masaryk, Rádl, and Patočka. Its aim was also to familiarise foreign readers with the works of Czech and Slovak dissent. In Switzerland, he organised the European Conference of the svu, at which Czech and Slovak scientists and artists from all over the world reflected on current subjects. Robert Kvaček is emeritus professor of history at the Faculty of Arts, Charles University. He specialises in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. His primary interests include the history of diplomacy between the world wars and during the Second World War, and cultural history at the end of the nineteenth and in the early twentieth century. He is the author of numerous articles and publications dealing with Czech history. His publications have several times earned him the Egon Erwin Kisch Prize for non-​fiction. His publications include: Diplomaté a ti druzí. K dějinám diplomacie za 2. světové války (Diplomats and the Others: On the History of Diplomacy during the Second World War, Prague 1988); První světová válka a česká otázka (The First World War and the Czech Question, Prague 2003); Poslední den. Mnichov –​Praha, konec září 1938 (The Last Day. Munich –​Prague, the End of September 1938, Prague 2011). Aleš Prázný studied theology, philosophy, and religious studies at the Hussite Theological Faculty, Charles University, and at the Education Faculty, Charles University in Prague. He is an associate professor in the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies at the Faculty of Arts and Philosophy of the University of Pardubice. He focuses on the philosophy of education, political philosophy, and ethics, and he has written numerous articles and studies dealing with these subjects. His publications include Výchova jako přehodnocování hodnot (Education as a Reappraisal of Values, Pardubice 2007); Odpovědnost (Responsibility, co-​authored with R. Palouš, Prague 2012); O smyslu politiky. Politické myšlení Hannah Arendtové (The Meaning of Politics. The Political Philosophy of Hannah Arendt, Pardubice 2014), Moderní univerzita. Ideál a realita (The Modern University. Ideal and Reality, co-​authored with J. Chotaš, T. Hejduk et al., Prague 2015). He is the co-​editor and co-​author of the book

Notes on Contributors

xiii

Česká otázka a dnešní doba (The Czech Question and the Contemporary Age, Prague 2017). Jan Svoboda is a senior researcher at the Institute of Philosophy of the Czech Academy of Sciences. He studied philosophy and German studies (contemporary German literature) at Humboldt University in Berlin. His main interests are in philosophical and social-​scientific thought in the Czech Lands in the period between 1800 and 1948. In addition to Masaryk’s positive philosophy, Czech positivism, and structuralism (J. L. Fischer), he focuses on the philosophical applications of modern scientific theories and aspects of social, cultural, and political issues in a global context. He has published numerous studies and articles on these subjects. He is co-​editor and co-​author of the book Interkulturní vojna a mír (Intercultural War and Peace, Prague 2012) and co-​editor and co-​author of the book Česká otázka a dnešní doba (The Czech Question and the Contemporary Age, Prague 2017). His other publications include: the monograph Masarykův realismus a filosofie pozitivismu (Masaryk’s Realism and the Philosophy of Positivism, Prague 2017) and the study “Whitehead’s Interpretation of Plato’s ‘Receptacle’ and the Parallels with the Concept of ‘Eternal Objects’” (Nóema 2020/​11, 35–​53, https://​rivi​ste.unimi.it/​index.php/​noema/​arti​cle/​view/​14036). Martin Šimsa is a philosopher and a university teacher at Department of Philosophy and Humanities, Faculty of Arts, ujep in Ústí nad Labem and a researcher at the Jan Patočka Archive, Centre for Theoretical Studies, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic. His research interests are in critical and normative hermeneutics (Habermas, Apel, Ricœur), political philosophy, especially deliberative democracy (Cohen, Habermas, Ferrara, Talisse), Czech philosophy (Masaryk, Rádl, Komárková, Patočka, Hejdánek, Kohák). He has been involved in the gacr project: ‘Humanism of Czech philosophy as an open question: Masaryk, Patočka, their successors and critics’. Publications: Filosof a reforma světa. Pokus o interpretaci reformní filosofie Emanuela Rádla (The Philosopher and the Reform of the World. An attempt at interpretation of reform philosophy of Emanuel Rádl, Prague 1997); Sekularizace a náboženství v demokratickém diskurzu (Secularisation and Religion in Democratic Discourse) in M. Hanyš & J.P. Arnason, eds., Mezi náboženstvím a politikou (Between Religion and Politics, Prague 2016); Několik poznámek o lhaní a pravdě v demokracii (Some remarks about lying and truth in democracy) in M. Šimsa, ed., Relativismus a (post) pravda v demokracii. Se třemi studiemi Ladislava Hejdánka (Relativism

xiv 

Notes on Contributors

and (Post)Truth in Democracy. With three Studies of Ladislav Hejdánek, Prague 2018). Jakub S. Trojan is a theologian, and former dean and emeritus professor of the Protestant Theological Faculty, Charles University. He is the author of several books and numerous articles in philosophical and theological journals. His work focuses primarily on questions relating to anthropology and social ethics and the issue of power and civic responsibility. He is an honorary member of the Scientific Council of Charles University, a member of the board of the Academic ymca, and a member of the editorial board of the Prague-​based publisher oikoymenh. His publications include: Idea lidských práv v české duchovní tradici (The Idea of Human Rights in the Czech Spiritual Tradition, Prague 2002); Ježíšův příběh –​výzva pro nás (Jesus’s Story –​An Invitation for Us, Prague 2005); Kontrasty a alternativy (Contrasts and Alternatives, Prague 2007); Moc víry a víra v moc (The Power of Faith and Faith in Power, Prague 1993). Vlastimil Zátka is an emeritus senior researcher at the Institute of Philosophy of the Czech Academy of Sciences. He lectures at the Hussite Theological Faculty of Charles University and externally in the Department of Philosophy at the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Pardubice. He specialises in the history of modern philosophy of the 18th and 19th centuries (Kant, Schelling Hegel), the philosophy of art, and selected topics in 20th-​century philosophy (phenomenology, hermeneutics, modern theories of science). He has published numerous studies and articles on these subjects. His publications include: Kantova teorie estetiky. Studie k dějinám filosofie 18. století (Kant’s Theory of Aesthetics. A Study in the History of Philosophy in the 18th Century, Prague 1994 and 1995). Milan Znoj is an associate professor in political philosophy at the Faculty of Arts, Charles University, where he teaches the history of political philosophy and the theory of democracy. He focuses on current discussions around liberalism that in contemporary political philosophy are primarily conducted from communitarian and republican positions. He also specialises in the history of ideas and is interested in the Czech tradition of liberal thought, which he seeks to interpret in its relationship to contemporary democracy and society. He is the author or co-​author of the following books: Mladý Hegel na prahu moderny (The Young Hegel on the Threshold of Modernism, Prague 1990); Český liberalismus. Texty a osobnosti (Czech Liberalism: Writings and Figures, Prague 1995); Trust and

newgenprepdf

Notes on Contributors

xv

Transitions. Social Capital in a Changing World (Cambridge 2008); Machiavelli mezi republikanismem a demokracií (Machiavelli between Republicanism and Democracy, Prague 2011); Demokracie v postliberální konstelaci (Democracy in a Post-​Liberal Constellation, Prague 2014).

Introduction Jan Svoboda and Aleš Prázný Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk is considered the most important figure in modern Czech history. Drawing on the ideas of his ideological predecessors and humanists –​such as the religious reformer Jan Hus, the founder of modern educational theory Jan Amos Comenius, and the founder of modern Czech history and prominent Czech politician František Palacký –​he sought a viable path by which the Czech nation might be integrated into the family of advanced world nations in line with international intellectual trends. He made it his life’s work to prepare the Czech nation for its specific role in international cultural and political events. Masaryk’s pre-​war campaign to bring about the democratisation of the Austro-​Hungarian monarchical system –​in The Czech Question (subtitled The Efforts and Aspirations of the National Revival; 1895) he provisionally used the term ‘political realism’ to refer to these attempts at modernisation and further gradual federalisation –​ultimately foundered with the outbreak of the First World War. He responded by adopting a more radical approach, culminating in the establishment of a modern democratic state in Central Europe –​the Czechoslovak Republic. As a representative of the Czech diplomatic resistance in exile and a confirmed opponent of the war that the Austro-​Hungarian Empire had instigated in response to the assassination in Sarajevo, he wasted no time in organising a foreign legion to fight for an independent Czechoslovak state, and in 1918 he became the new country’s first president. A philosopher by profession, who worked for almost thirty years as a professor at Prague University, Masaryk was the first in world history to fulfil the Platonic ideal of the philosopher who founded a state. According to Masaryk, for the Czech nation to enter the arena of contemporary world events, it required an answer to the key question, ‘What is ‘Czech’ humanity?’ Masaryk arrived at his own very distinctive idea of the nature of the Czech nation by referring back to his ideological predecessors from the time of the Czech Reformation, first and foremost the Czech religious reformer Jan Hus. Masaryk regarded Hussitism and the period of the Czech Reformation as a time when Czechs literally emerged from their own shadow and for almost two centuries became the driving force of world history. Despite all the usual power and material interests involved in the process, Masaryk believed that the period was an exceptional one, when more than a century before Luther’s Reformation a truth asserted by the authority of ‘conscience’ won out over the dogmatism and obscurantism of the Church authorities. In Masaryk’s view

© Jan Svoboda and Aleš Prázný, 2023 | DOI:10.1163/9789004534919_002

2

Svoboda and Prázný

this was a time when the Czech nation was able to breathe freely and take responsibility for the course of events –​thus attaining political and religious emancipation. Masaryk considered this idea of emancipation to be timeless despite its historical setting, but the extent to which it can be authentically applied to our own time has long been a matter of contention. What is certain is that in the time of the Czech Reformation it was not that the Czechs came to form a nation in the modern sense of the word, but rather that the attempt to create a specific environment of religious pluralism was a portent of the culturally and politically democratic society that would emerge in the future. Masaryk was well aware of this distinction, and understood humanity as a path, in the sense of a ‘teleocline’ or goal-​oriented process –​and thus not as a foregone conclusion. He envisaged humanity as a systematic and continuous project or mission that could only be fulfilled as an ideal if the necessary effort were invested in identifying and resolving the specific contemporary form that it should take. For Masaryk, the essential functional tension between the ideal and the experience of the individual manifestations of the ideal was what made humanity the highest moral ideal of humankind. It is an ideal founded on what human beings truly and adequately respond to in relation to each other, despite their differences. Masaryk’s humanist ideal is not just another form of dogmatism. It is the precondition for the spiritual and moral orientation of every individual –​the precondition for conscious and responsible activism on the individual’s part. It is only this atemporal perspective that enables us to proceed with Masaryk beyond a merely historicising and potentially chauvinistic approach to the national question itself. Nevertheless, from the beginning of his intellectual career, Masaryk was well aware that his historical optimism coincided with the crisis of modern man. And if the Czech question is essentially a humanist question, a fundamental, existential question about man and about what man truly is, then the backdrop of the catastrophic events of the 20th century does not diminish the significance of the Czech question but on the contrary amplifies it and invests it with new relevance. In The Czech Question Masaryk expressed his political programme in philosophical terms. He showed that democratic politics are necessarily humanistic politics, i.e. politics that rest on the conscious accountability of individuals to society as a whole, and he showed that this ethos must be based on science and a critical perspective. The Czech question is therefore, in Masaryk’s view, an expression of the humanist and thus generally human ideal in concrete form in the Czech historical and political context. In this respect, the humanist universalism that Masaryk promoted is manifest as the concrete and constant

Introduction

3

confrontation of the current state of affairs with the ideas by which we measure ourselves. The fulfilment of this ideal does not simply mean respect for our historically most noticeably intellectual tradition as an ideological heritage that, as a generally valid historical legacy, must be systematically carried on and cultivated. The rational and critical outlook that it requires also ultimately has pressing existential implications for theoretical knowledge: it asks a question about the nature and meaning of Czech philosophy itself. The individual sections of the book Recalling Masaryk’s The Czech Question –​ Humanity and Politics on the Threshold of the Twenty-​First Century, titled ‘The Historical Contexts of Masaryk’s Czech Question’, ‘Ethics as the Heart of Philosophy’, ‘The Pro-​Masaryk View of the Czech Question’, ‘The Anti-​ Masaryk View of the Czech Question’, and the concluding ‘Word of a Politician in Exile’ and ‘Word of a Pastor’ revisit most of the contexts and problems connected with Masaryk’s exposition of the Czech Question described above and explore them in their current and in many ways new frames of references. Regardless of whether we, today, confront Masaryk’s question with extended relativism, literalism, excessive subjectivism, or superficial pragmatism, Masaryk always shows us that we must renounce the position of moral indifferentism, which he formulated numerous times as a humanist political programme for Europe: Jesus, not Ceasar.

pa rt 1 The Historical Context of Masaryk’s Czech Question

∵

­c hapter 1

Understanding the Debate around the ‘Czech Question’ in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century Miroslav Hroch Abstract By the late nineteenth century, the Czech nation had become a large social community. A vast majority of the Czech-​speaking population in the Czech Lands identified with it, though it does not mean that they all shared or supported nationalist views. Thanks to the efforts of educated patriots, the Czech-​speaking population also had a viable culture on the national level as an abstract community of shared values. This community had developed to such an extent that the ethno-​nationalist program, which focused primarily on efforts to put the Czech language on an equal footing with German, had largely lost its raison d’être. Negotiations about Czech historical rights and political autonomy became anachronistic for the same reason. The politics of the Young Czech Party thus reached a crisis point at the very point when it became clearly dominant in the national movement. Its program dissipated into multiple currents, thereby becoming in a sense vacuous, nationally bounded, and narrowly oriented on minor, quotidian disputes. This of course also heralded the end of ascendancy of the Young Czechs.

If we want to understand and analyse the discussion that excited some influential Czech intellectuals around the meaning of Czech national existence, we must first do away with at least two stereotypes. One is a terminological stereotype, where the undifferentiating label of ‘nationalism’ is sweepingly applied to everything that has to do with the nation as a subject. The second stereotype involves the myth that every nation’s history is unique and incomparable with that of any other. The situation of the Czech nation at any given time must be set within the wider context of not just central Europe but Europe as a whole. The nineteenth century is today described with an air of self-​evidence as the age in which, in tandem with the process of modernisation, almost all of Europe’s contemporary nations were formed. This outcome was not at all self-​evident at the time, however, and at the start of the century there were

© Miroslav Hroch, 2023 | DOI:10.1163/9789004534919_003

8 Hroch only a handful of (nearly) mono-​ethnic states that were recognised as ‘historical’ and thus also ‘viable’. No one questioned the right of these states to be called a ‘nation’ or what we would today refer to as a ‘state-​nation’: France, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, and a few others. Next to them, there were also empires –​Russian, Austrian, Ottoman, Danish, and British –​that were made up of multiple ethnic groups or multiple nationalities. The territory of each of these empires was inhabited by many different ethnic groups, and sooner or later there emerged from their ranks national movements that sought to attain all the attributes of a modern civic nation: a distinctive culture, social emancipation, a complete social structure, and a certain degree of autonomy. While the cultural activities fostered by these movements were tolerated, their efforts to achieve political and social emancipation ran up against resistance from the multi-​ethnic empires’ ruling authorities and bureaucracies. The movements were only rarely able to win over politicians and public opinion in the established state-​nations. They argued that it would be dangerous to create new political formations lacking real economic and political viability. Nevertheless, when these national movements achieved success, whether it was Greece, Serbia, or Belgium, the larger powers made adroit use of these new nation-​ states for their own strategic interests. The national movements of small ethnic groups, despite the disfavour in which they were held by leading political figures of the day, were in most cases able to evolve into mass movements, managed to exact recognition of their distinctiveness, and, in many cases went on to achieve, albeit often much later, the creation of their nation-​state. The only national movements that were respected from the outset were the movements for political unification, which was the objective of the leaders of three very large national communities already in possession of their own ruling class and educated elites as well as a well-​developed national culture: the Italians, the Germans, and the Poles.1 There were thus three paths by which modern nations were formed: first, by means of a civic transformation, which was the path taken by the old state-​ nations in western and northern Europe (through reform or revolution); second, by means of a unification process; and third, as the outcome of a ­successful national movement. The Czech nation followed the third of these three paths, the one most common in Europe, and the path that most of the states of Europe today took to attain independence. Like all the other national movements, the Czech national movement went through a successful phase of agitation (Phase 1 John Breuilly describes this path to nationhood as a unique type of ‘unification nationalism’. See John Breuilly, Nationalism and the State (2nd edn, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993), chap. 2.3.

Understanding the Debate around the ‘Czech Question’

9

B), which followed from a phase centred on a scholarly interest in and cultivation of the language, cultural distinctiveness, and the historical ethnic community (Phase A). A successful Phase B opened the door to the mass phase (Phase C), at which point the national movement was no longer just formulating but also actively pursuing its political programme.2 Movements did not always culminate in the establishment of a nation state, but it can be said that the nation-​formation process reached successful completion primarily in cases where the national community was able to develop a complete social structure that contained both an urban middle class, academic elites, and a peasant class. Once a national movement reached this stage of evolution, it became a socio-​cultural formation to which the term ‘small nation’ applied fittingly. Here the term ‘small’ is not quantitative in meaning, as in a ‘small number’ or size; it is rather a typological distinction that derives from the nature of the nation-​ formation process. The process of small-​nation formation did not unfold in synchronicity. The Czech movement, along with the Norwegian, Greek, and Hungarian movements, entered their Phase B earlier than others, at around the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Like these other movements, the Czech movement was able to refer back in history to an earlier state that had at some point lost its independence. Unlike them, it was also able to draw on a literary tradition in the national language that had grown weaker but had never been lost entirely, and that extended as far back as the late Middle Ages. On the minus side, it had no aristocracy or gentry to lean on, like Hungary, nor any high-​ranking officials and entrepreneurial class, like Greece and Norway. It was thus one of the national movements that rose up ‘from below’, not just in a political sense but also from the perspective of its social structure: when it embarked on the struggle to form itself into a modern nation it still lacked officials, a merchant class engaged in production and trade, a nobility, and for the most part also university-​educated academics and academic elites. Around a generation later the Finnish, Croatian, Slovenian, Slovak, and Irish national movements entered the agitation phase (Phase B), while the Estonian, Latvian, Bulgarian, Albanian, Lithuanian, and (western) Ukrainian national movements as well as the Catalan and Basque movements began their Phase B around a couple of decades later, in the second half of the nineteenth century. 2 For more about Phases A, B, and C see Miroslav Hroch, Social Preconditions of National Revival in Europe. A Comparative Analysis of the Social Composition of Patriotic Groups among the Smaller European Nations (2nd edn, New York: Columbia University Press, 2000), 22ff. See also Miroslav Hroch & Karolina Graham, European Nations. Explaining Their Formation (London–​New York: Verso, 2015), 109ff.

10 Hroch Members of small nations shared a number of attitudes and (auto)stereotypes in common that typologically distinguished them from a state-​nation. Their national movements unfolded as a struggle against and sometimes even in open conflict with the multi-​ethnic states –​the empires on whose territories the ethnic communities lived. Mainly after having adopted a political programme, the movements’ leaders, in an effort to assert the legitimacy of their right to national self-​determination, engaged in actions or made declarations by which they violated the legal system of the empire they lived in. This is what generated their relaxed, critical, or even sceptical relationship to the rule of law, that is, to the state authorities and its institutions, an attitude that established itself permanently in the mindset of members of small nations. Unlike in state-​nations, in small nations identifying with the nation was not the same thing as identifying with the state. As noted above, most small nations formed ‘from below’, not just in the sense of their political power(lessness) but also and foremost in a social sense. The national movements arose ‘from below’, out of the ranks of the lower and lower-​middle classes in small towns and rural areas. Subsequently. the movements’ first generation of politicians also had close ties to the popular class –​ and when they did not, they at least pretended to it. This became the source of the stereotypes that gave birth to the political myth of the folk nature of the Czech nation. At first, the movement’s educated leaders were few in number and knew each other personally, as a consequence very close personal and often also institutional ties existed between the spheres of culture and politics. The notion of the Czech people as common folk, the myth of their rustic origins, and their spontaneous egalitarianism were all characteristics that were not in fact either unique or extraordinary in European context. Nor was there anything exceptional about the Czech democratism that was so proudly emphasised, and understood, probably not altogether justifiably, as the natural result of the ‘folkish’ character of the Czech people. Because the national struggle had to assert itself against the culturally, politically, and economically more powerful members of the ruling state-​nation, the act of adopting a national identity also came to be associated with a sense of danger. This feeling persisted even after it had become clear that the national struggle was a success. It sometimes generated a sense of inferiority, and at other times it led to a preoccupation with trying to ‘catch up’ and reach the same level as advanced nations. That was the objective behind the postulate of ‘national unity’, which was not to be breached by directing criticism into the ranks of one’s own nation. The situation gave rise to a constant sense that the nation’s existence was not a given, and the associated idea that the right to an autonomous national existence must be proved. A somewhat automatically

Understanding the Debate around the ‘Czech Question’

11

applied stereotype was that the right to such autonomy was premised on members of a small nation demonstrating the cultural and other contributions their nation had made to benefit humanity. While all these characteristics can be observed in Czech society during the mass phase of the national movement in the late nineteenth century, they cannot be considered uniquely Czech. They were more visibly prominent in the Czech case because the Czech national movement entered its mass phase before the movements of other small nations. If we are looking for characteristics that were specifically Czech, then the main one was the major role of historicism in Czech national discourse. The rich and at times even glorious history of the medieval Bohemian Kingdom was used to construct the nation’s past. An even more important component in this history was the mid-​fifteenth-​century Hussite Revolution, the isolated ‘reformation a century before the Reformation’, itself giving rise to another historical specific in the form of the religious community known as the Unity of the Czech Brethren (Jednota českých bratří). In the environment of tolerant co-​existence of religious faiths that emerged later on, in the sixteenth century, a rich corpus of literary work written in the Czech language emerged. The Hussite movement was regarded as the high point in Czech history by the leading nineteenth-​century Czech historian, František Palacký, and, following him, by Czech politicians in Phase C. Czech historicism also cohered around the defeat suffered in 1620 by the uprising of Bohemian and Moravian nobles and towns against Habsburg rule. This defeat had led to the forced re-​catholicisation of the predominantly Protestant population of the Bohemian Kingdom, and their Germanisation as well, and to the decline of the towns and a severe curtailment of state sovereignty under Habsburg rule in the period after the Thirty Years’ War. The tradition of a print culture in Czech was disrupted, but not interrupted, although in the baroque period it became dominated by religious anti-​Reformation writings. These reversals gave rise to a myth that the Czech nation had descended into intellectual and cultural decline, a myth the leaders of the national movement expressed in the slogan ‘we suffered for three hundred years’ (by which they meant under Habsburg rule). To complete the picture of what was distinct about Czech national identity, it is necessary to mention one fact that distinguished the Czech situation from that of most other small nations in Europe. The territory that made up the Lands of the Bohemian Crown, the borders of which had remained unchanged since the early Middle Ages, was home not just to the majority Czech-​speaking population but also to a minority that spoke German dialects, and during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the language boundaries between these two ethnic groups had shifted significantly in favour of ethnic Germans.

12 Hroch By the 1860s the Czech national movement had reached a stage where it could mobilise the masses, while from the later the eighteenth century it had been developing its own independent national culture. The social structure of nationally active members of Czech society expanded on one side to comprise a middle class and intellectuals and on the other side to take in the working class. As a result, the Czech national movement was able to achieve a number of cultural and political successes. For example, the Czech university was founded in 1882, the Czech National Theatre opened around the same time, and the Academy of Sciences was established in 1890. Czech politicians enjoyed the support of the urban middle class and a key segment of the population in rural areas. They held a majority in the Provincial Diet and were able to win some degree of equality with German for the Czech language –​at least for use in local administration. By the end of the century, hundreds of Czech periodicals with their own steady readerships were being published. Although by this time Czech society had a complete social structure, in the 1880s the Czech entrepreneurial middle class in Bohemia and even more so in Moravia was still weaker than the German middle class. The Czech educated elites were smaller and less wealthy than their German counterparts. Czech politicians were aware of this weakness, but they disagreed on the strategy to be adopted to address it. The conservative wing (the ‘Old Czechs’) tried in vain to improve the movement’s social base by winning more substantial support from aristocratic landowners and was also willing to accept language compromises in favour of German in the Czech Lands. Their moderation and conservatism were rejected by the liberal ‘Young Czechs’, who preferred radical nationalist rhetoric, and as a result came to overwhelmingly dominate political life by the start of the 1890s. This triumph, however, was temporary and misleading.3 It had become apparent around that time that a programme of national unity represented by just one party was no longer adequate in view of the social differentiation and the polarisation of interests in Czech society. Patriotic intellectuals observed with growing displeasure that the views expressed by members of their nation in everyday life did not match the ideal image of the nation formed during the National Revival. A new force then entered Czech public life –​a confident generation of young scholars, most of them graduates of the Czech university, who regarded 3 On this, see Bruce N. Garver, The Young Czech Party 1874–​1901 and the Emergence of a Multi-​Party System (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978) and Jiří Kořalka, ‘The Czechs, 1840–​1900’, in Andreas Kappeler, ed., The Formation of National Elites: Comparative Studies on Governments and Non-​Dominant Ethnic Groups in Europe, vol. vi (New York: New York University Press, 1992), 77ff.

Understanding the Debate around the ‘Czech Question’

13

their Czech identity and the existence of the Czech nation as something to be taken for granted. For this very reason, they felt free to criticise the shortcomings of everyday life in Czech society, and they derided the provincialism and nationalism of an official politics grounded in historical arguments about the ‘state right’ of the lands of the Bohemian Crown. One of these young scholars was the influential professor of philosophy and sociology at the Prague university, Tomáš G. Masaryk, who criticised the ideological vacuity of nationalist Young-​Czech politics and had left the Young-​Czech Party. It was from this milieu that in the late 1880s voices emerged such as that of Masaryk’s student Hubert Gordon Schauer, who in ‘Naše dvě otázky’ (Our Two Questions)4 asked sceptically whether there was any meaning to Czech national existence if it was to be based on nothing more than historical reminiscences and cultivation of the language.5 While these questions prompted discussion, and were especially irritating to the political establishment, most members of the young generation of intellectuals did not see criticism of the shortcomings they identified in Czech national society as grounds for scepticism about the very meaning of the nation’s existence. They wanted to add weight to Czech national existence by measuring the quality of Czech culture and science against the best European standards. They were more orientated towards European and especially French culture and also towards modern intellectual trends. In their opinion, the Czech nation could only prove that its claim to independence was justified if it could achieve cultural and scholarly progress comparable to that of the advanced states of Europe. Such views were expressed by an influential section of this generation in 1895 in the Manifesto české Moderny (Czech Modernist Manifesto). Around the same time, Masaryk delivered a fundamental revision of the traditionalist view of Czech national identity, and, despite being a generation older, concurred with the younger cohort’s views on the nation and its culture. In 1895–​6 Masaryk published four quite short books dealing with the state of the Czech nation. The first and most influential of these books was titled Česká otázka (The Czech Question). In it he offered an up-​to-​date analysis of the Czech National Revival and tried to determine the meaning of Czech history. In the second book he defined the nature of ‘our current crisis’, and 4 Hubert G. Schauer, ‘Naše dvě otázky’ [Our two questions], Čas 1/​1 (1886), 1–​4. 5 Miloslav Skřivánek, ed., Hubert Gordon Schauer. Osobnost, dílo, doba [Hubert Gordon Schauer. personality, work, times] (Litomyšl: Státní okresní archiv Svitavy, 1994). See also Stanley B. Winters, ed., T. G. Masaryk (1850–​1937), vol. i: Thinker and Politician, Studies in Russia and East Europe (London: Macmillan, 1990).

14 Hroch published biographies of the religious reformer Jan Hus and the founder of Czech political journalism Karel Havlíček, as models to whom not just Czech politicians but the entire nation could look for moral inspiration.6 Many members of the young generation in the 1890s decided to enter politics, and they considerably increased the degree of differentiation in the Czech political spectrum. A few of them joined the relatively new Czech social democratic party, and others tried to link the national programme to Catholicism, with clericalism playing an intermittent role. Another group formed the patriotic agrarian party, which was secular and managed to successfully combine the defence of farmers’ interests with national(ist) rhetoric. A minority of the young generation with more nationalistic views considered the politics of the Young Czechs to be too moderate and asserted more aggressive anti-​Habsburg views, which included the dream of independence for the Czech state. Others, in turn, criticised the internationalism of social democracy and founded the national socialist party, which eventually provided a harbour for anarchists as well. In a climate of clashing opinions and intellectual shifts and turbulence, understandably accompanied by a sense of crisis and worries about the collapse of the social fabric and national values, Masaryk’s position was consistent and considered. His ideas and the response to them are the focus of most of the papers in this collection. I will therefore highlight some aspects of his thought that can help to flesh out the picture of the Czech national struggle in European context. Masaryk shared the critical young generation’s opinion that it was not enough to just identify with and be proud of one’s nation. In his view, pride in one’s nation –​and in the very existence of an independent nation –​could only have meaning if it were based on some objective moral and humanist qualities. The nation should have a moral mission and through its cultural and other activities should contribute to and enrich humanity. He addressed 6 Thomas G. Masaryk, The Meaning of Czech History, ed. Rene Wellek, tr. Peter Kussi (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1974). Includes selections from Masaryk’s writings: Česká otázka (1895, The Czech question), Naše nynější krise (1895, Our current crisis), Jan Hus (1896), Karel Havlíček (1896), Palackého idea národa českého (1912, Palacký’s idea of the Czech nation). Perhaps the most extensive collection of writings on the work of T. G. Masaryk is found in the three-​volume anniversary collection by Stanley B. Winters, Robert B. Pynsent & Harry Hanak, eds., T. G. Masaryk (1850–​1937), vol. i: Thinker and Politician, vol. ii: Thinker and Critic, vol. iii: Statesman and Cultural Force (London: Macmillan, 1989–​1990). See also Eva Schmidt-​ Hartmann, Thomas G. Masaryk’s Realism. Origins of a Czech Political Concept (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1984), 118–​125.

Understanding the Debate around the ‘Czech Question’

15

this subject in connection with the concept and phenomenon of the ‘small nation’.7 Masaryk did not use the term ‘small nation’ to make the kind of typological distinction identified above, but rather to denote actual smallness in terms of size and economic weakness. Unlike the National Revivalists, he, like Palacký decades earlier, did not see smallness as a problem or handicap, but rather as a challenge, and as something to work on. Belonging to a small nation was a quality that he believed bred an activist motivation, the drive to rise to a level on a par with that of established nations, or at least to get as close to that as possible. He considered the quality of national existence to be crucially determined by culture and humanist education, service to humanity, and selfless work in the name of achieving progress and advancing democracy. This was not, however, a purpose in itself, but was meant to serve as the starting point of efforts to cultivate learning and education in the ranks of one’s own nation. He looked to history for the most important argument in support of a national humanistic education and for the substance of this education. He wanted to forge a connection with the moral legacy of the ideals espoused by the Unity of the Brethren, which he considered the most valuable but not the only legacy of the Czech Reformation. To Masaryk the latter meant the Hussite movement, the movement that a century before Martin Luther had challenged the authoritarianism and monopolistic position of the Catholic Church and that had also laid the foundations of Czech national culture. The Unity of the Brethren rejected the violence of the Hussite Revolution and remained committed to a quietist stance in its opposition to the temptations of power politics. By the opening of the sixteenth century it was already a well-​organised religious community that emphasised the moral authenticity and responsibility of the individual and positioned Christian humility and humanistic education against secular rule and the desire for power. After the onset of forced re-​catholicisation, its members were driven out of the land, and in exile they were gradually transformed into the religious community that became known in Europe and America as the Moravian Church. In the Czech Lands they survived in very small groups and only covertly until religious toleration was established in the late eighteenth century.8 7 Tomáš G. Masaryk, ‘Problém malého národa’ [The problem of a small nation] (a 1905 lecture), in Tomáš G. Masaryk, Ideály humanitní. Problém malého národa –​Demokratism v politice [Humanist ideals. The problem of a small nation –​Democratism in politics] (Prague: Melantrich, 1990). See also George J. Kovtun, ‘T. G. Masaryk: Problem of a Small Nation’, in Harold G. Skilling, ed., Czechoslovakia 1918–​88 (Macmillan: London, 1991), 25ff. 8 From the literature in English on the Czech Reformation see František Kavka, ‘Bohemia’, in Robert Scribner, Roy Porter & Mikuláš Teich, eds., The Reformation in National Context

16 Hroch Masaryk’s opinion was that the moral legacy of the Czech Brethren –​its transnational and generally human ‘eternal value’ –​should become one of the foundation stones of national existence. The most important phenomenon in his view then was humanism as a universally human or at least universally European commitment. He believed that every nation had its own specific conception of humanism. In France it was a political concept, in Germany it was social, while Czech humanism was largely orientated around religion and the nation.9 In his view then, whether or not a nation obtained independence in the form of a state was not crucial to its nation and quality; humanist learning and moral principles lay above any struggle for political power. Although he was later to be the founder of the independent Czechoslovak state, in the 1890s Masaryk did not regard his political activity as the start of a fight for independence. He was working to attain the greatest possible degree of autonomy for the Czech Lands within the Monarchy and believed that it was in the Czech national interest to support the prosperity of the Monarchy as a whole. In this light it should be noted that while Masaryk’s argumentation drew on the nation’s past, what he was saying was the very opposite of traditional historicism. In Česká otázka (The Czech Question) Masaryk recounts and offers a new commentary on the story of the Czech national ‘revival’ in the nineteenth century. His focus on the past was not about dusting off a ‘historical right’ or seeking satisfaction in the knowledge that the nation had met certain criteria that we ourselves set for it. Critical overview of the National Revival’s cultural and political efforts was organically accompanied by commentary on contemporary issues. These comments formed the outline of the political programme that Masaryk called realism. It distanced itself both from liberalism and conservatism and from ‘radicalism’ and was instead directed at humanistic goals, which included support for the spread of education, even among the poor classes of the population, addressing social issues, elevating the prestige of the small everyday labours performed in the material and intellectual (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 131–​154. On the Unity of Czech Brethren see Craig D. Atwood, The Theology of the Czech Brethren from Hus to Comenius (Philadelphia, PA: Pennsylvania University Press, 2009); Mathew Spinka, ‘Peter Chelčický, the Spiritual Father of the Unitas Fratrum’, Church History 12 (1943), 271–​291. 9 ‘The humane idea is pan-​human and each people seeks to apply it in its own way. The English expression of it is mainly ethical; the French, political (by the proclamation of the Rights of Man); the German, social, or Socialist; and our own, national and religious. Today it is universal, and the time is coming when all civilised peoples will recognise it as the foundation of the State and of international relationships’. Thomas G. Masaryk, The Making of a State. Memories and Observations 1914–​1918, tr. Henry Wickham Steed (London: Allen & Unwin, 1927), 424.

Understanding the Debate around the ‘Czech Question’

17

fields, and overcoming a one-​sided anti-​German bias. Masaryk wanted to draw the ideological and moral substance of this programme from history, and to do so by emphasising the legacy of the Reformation and the National Revival. Reflecting on contemporary trends in politics, Masaryk noted a risk associated with the formation of new political parties and expansion of citizens’ political rights (including the right to vote). He was concerned that these changes might reduce democracy just to electoral mechanisms and to counting the electorate’s votes. In his view, however, democracy did not reside in election statistics but in the principles of tolerance, in the free exchange of opinions, and in discussions in which we each listen to the other’s arguments and devote thought to them. Viewed from the perspective of genre –​the category of literature to which it belongs, Masaryk’s Česká otázka (‘The Czech Question’) is a distinct variety of what today we would probably call ‘contemporary history’. It also shows signs of some of the basic difficulties with which that field must contend, especially the impossibility of ‘cutting itself off’ from political engagement and maintaining a perspective of objective distance from the present. Yet here Masaryk is making a virtue of necessity –​he is engaging with the present programmatically, drawing on historical arguments to reinforce humanist values and thereby enhance the present. Not only Česká otázka, but the three other books by Masaryk referred to above stimulated more debate than the author himself had expected. The response was to some degree conditioned by the preceding discussion of Schauer’s ‘two questions’ but was also a consequence of Masaryk’s involvement in debunking the claims to authenticity of a pair of manuscripts of mediaeval poetry written in the Czech language, which were actually created just before 1820, but until the 1880s were genuinely believed to have originated in the Middle Ages. There were reactions from politicians, historians, philosophers, cultural figures, and artists, and the response was not limited to his contemporaries, who were often very critical.10 Nor did the discussion end when the Habsburg Monarchy did. Referencing Masaryk and to some extent Schauer as well, the debate about the meaning of Czech history, about the meaning of Czech national existence, Czech character, and the Czech historical mission, was re-​opened again and again in the course of the twentieth century. The published collected essays on

10

See also Milan Hauner, ‘The Meaning of Czech History: Masaryk versus Pekař’, in Harry Hanak, ed., T. G. Masaryk (1850–​1937), vol. iii: Statesman and Cultural Force (London: Macmillan, 1990), 24ff.

18 Hroch the subject comprise two large volumes.11 No other European nation had such an extensive discussion on the meaning of its own existence as the Czechs. Are we to infer from it that Czech intellectuals, not just in the distant past but continuously up to the present day, have constantly questioned whether there was any sense in the existence of their nation? Certainly not. What is the explanation for this remarkable intellectual anomaly? We could point to the deep divisions that existed in the Czech intellectual community between the radical socialists and the (later) communists on one side and the conservatives on the other, or between the Catholics and the Czech Brethren. This polarisation of views was not, however, unique within Europe. Moreover, if we look at the debates in that period from the vantage point of time, the differences in views in the secular range of arguments do not seem especially great. Why, for example, should Masaryk’s idea that national existence derives its meaning from humanism be incompatible with the idea that the nation’s meaning comes from striving for social justice? Or with the idea that freedom and democracy represent the fulfilment of the national ideal? In the religious sphere of this discussion opinions were more various and less compatible. The participants in these debates were motivated by differences in political views and to some extent also by personal prejudices specific to their lifetimes, but while conditions naturally shifted over the course of time, the insistence with which some intellectuals posed the question of the meaning of national existence continued through the twentieth century. It is thus necessary to consider another possible explanation for the debate over this question. Might there have been doubts about existing as a fully-​ fledged nation? A kind of collective sense of inferiority? There is no ruling this out, but, as noted above, it was one of the typological characteristics of ‘small nations’ as a historical formation not to regard national existence as a given and obvious outcome, and so we might expect symptoms of the same ‘complex’ among other nations as well. Uncertainty about achieving all the attributes of a fully formed nation was indeed rather common among European small nations, but never attained the level of intensity and partisanship that could be observed in the Czech case. We clearly need to identify what was specific to the Czech situation in the European context of ‘small-​nation’ formation. In thinking about the meaning of national existence or national history, the complete rejection of national identity –​the view that the Czech ethnic community should not become a

11

Miloš Havelka, ed., Spor o smysl českých dějin [Dispute over the meaning of Czech history], vol. i: 1895–​1938, vol. ii: 1938–​1989 (Prague: Torst, 1995–​2006).

Understanding the Debate around the ‘Czech Question’

19

modern nation at all –​almost never appears, but in every such discussion there remained beneath the surface of rational reflection the question of possibilities other than ‘rebirth’. What alternative was available to an ethnic ­community other than to embrace its national identity? In the Czech case the alternative was to adopt German identity. Although in retrospect it seems that in view of the large number of ethnic Czechs, their mass Germanisation would not have been feasible in the nineteenth century, things may have looked different to educated Czechs at the time, who had to be bilingual in order to earn a living. Czech culture, moreover, shaped itself in opposition to advanced German culture and in opposition to the German-​speaking world that surrounded the Czech ethnic community and washed in on it from every side. This is where the Czech situation differed fundamentally from that of most other European national movements, which assumed their shape in the face of a culture that they regarded as less advanced. For example, among the majority of Balkan Christians there was never any question of their assuming Ottoman identity, as that would largely have required them to convert to Islam. Linguistic assimilation was impossible given the very nature of the official Ottoman language and given the small size of the Turkish-​speaking community in the Balkans. Similarly, the Finnish, Lithuanian, Latvian, and Estonian ethnic groups could not be Russified because, although these groups were comparatively small, they regarded themselves as more educated than ethnic Russians. Germanisation of the Baltic region in the premodern era was blocked by the language policy of German landlords, who wanted to retain the language barrier as a class division. With the exception of the Celtic nations of Great Britain, no European national movement in the nineteenth century confronted a force as dominant in terms of culture and power as the Czech (and Slovene) movement faced in Germanisation in Cisleithania and the Slovak movement in Magyarisation in the Hungarian lands. Another specific characteristic of small nations was that they took shape ‘from below’, and their intellectuals and politicians emerged from the popular classes. Their first connection to ordinary citizens was through strong family ties, and almost no social or communication barriers existed. This made it easy to politicise and nationalise issues of culture and science. When the elites in state nations discussed scientific/​theoretical issues, and questions of recent national history like those addressed by Masaryk addressed in Česká otázka were examples of such issues, the debate usually remained on the academic level and outside the general public’s field of interest. By contrast, in small nations the debate usually spread into the public arena and evolved into ‘nation-​wide’ discussions of cultural and philosophical problems, provided that they could be made relevant to the nation and its interests.

20 Hroch A certain role was played by another factor, which was the tension that existed between the ambitious goals of the Czechs’ leaders and the possibilities for their attainment. After the national movement had achieved a mass response and after national life had recorded significant cultural and economic successes, Czech intellectuals (and politicians to a lesser extent) imagined that Czechs had both the moral obligation and the ability to construct a culture and society as valuable and advanced as those of the established nations to the west of them. On the other hand, their everyday experience convinced them that their compatriots were not at the level that would be necessary if they were to fulfil the intellectuals’ utopian visions. This became a source of much frustration and scepticism about the qualities and even the viability of the Czech nation. Of course, Masaryk responded to observations about the nation’s ‘inadequacy’ or ‘smallness’ with a programme for its internal intellectual revival. What kind of community did he have in mind when he spoke about the Czech nation? This brings us to an area that had up to then remained unaddressed in discussions about the meaning of national existence. I will attempt to create a framework that may make it easier to understand not just Masaryk’s thought but the entire discussion that ensued around the meaning of Czech national history and national existence. Let us look at the problem from a different angle, that of what I call a nation’s ‘duality’: to put it briefly, this means the duality of the nation as a really existing social fact (a community) on the one hand, and the nation as a construct on the other. If we engage in a degree of abstraction, we find that most theorists –​and perhaps, unconsciously, all of us –​use the term ‘nation’ in two contexts or, more precisely, on two levels:12 –​ First, it is used in a concrete sense to refer to a large community of people –​ a social macro-​group –​who see themselves as members of the same nation. This is a community that was able to emerge as a result of being offered a new type of identity, alongside the rise of modernisation and civil society. It is made up of citizens with a diverse scale of professions and divided by interest disputes, but firmly united by a stronger communication within the group than outside it. –​ Second, nations are also quite justifiably discussed in an abstract sense, as an abstract community of shared cultural values, a cultural construct that, putting it simply, formed out of the specifically European tradition of

12

On this approach in greater detail, see Miroslav Hroch, ‘The Nation as a Cradle of Nationalism and Patriotism’, Nations and Nationalism 26/​1 (January 2020), 5–​21.

Understanding the Debate around the ‘Czech Question’

21

humanism, the Enlightenment, and romanticism. This abstract community is of course linked to the nation as a macro-​group by the fact of its even having come to exist and by the fact that it survives, albeit in variously modified forms, in the minds of those who have asserted and accepted the national identity.13 In which sense was the nation thought of by the participants in the discussion around the meaning of Czech national existence? For the most part they did not deal with this question because they viewed national existence without differentiating between these meanings, which is to say, more precisely, that they thought of it on both levels at the same time. In the afterword Masaryk wrote to Česká otázka we nevertheless find a thought that suggests he was aware of these two meanings or levels of national existence. He is talking about the parallel between the church and the nation, he and argues that just as the visible church lives within the ‘church invisible’, we, too, as a nation (and thus as a social group) will find our existence secured if our elites are sufficiently educated. The parallel can be deduced from the spirit of the book as a whole in that the educated elites are meant to be the guarantors of national culture on the abstract level of values. This is evidently the sense in which H. G. Schauer understood the nation when pronouncing in his ‘questions’ that the value of a nation is determined by its ‘cultural achievements’. Distinguishing between the two levels or meanings of national existence is an innovative approach that helps us to explain and better understand many controversially interpreted opinions and views relating to the problem of the nation. Let us consider at least one modern-​day example. When the Czech philosopher Jan Patočka provocatively described the Czechs as a nation of serfs, he had real, concrete people and their attitudes in mind, and was thus thinking about the nation in the sense of a social community.14 It may not even have been his intention, in referring to it this way, to disparage the Czech nation as a community of shared values, to whose cultivation he had substantially contributed to himself. He was commenting on the views of particular citizens from the ranks of the Czech population, whom he faulted for having acquired neither the heroic nature of the Polish or Hungarian nobility nor the outlaw courage of the Balkan peasantry. When Masaryk was looking through history and his present day for the values that would constitute the Czech nation’s contribution to general progress 13 14

Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London–​New York: Verso, 2006). Eva Hahnová, Češi o Češích: Dnešní spory o dějiny [Czechs about Czechs: Current disputes about history] (Prague: Academia, 2018).

22 Hroch and humanity, he was, without saying so explicitly, working with a vision of the nation as an abstract cultural community. Its values were the source from which he then derived the moral norms that were to serve as the benchmark against which the actions of the nation’s members were to be measured. This meant that when he overestimated the real historical role of the Hussite tradition and the legacy of the Czech Brethren in Czech history, this was of no great consequence, because he was considering the nation in the sense of an abstract community. It was not a falsification of history, because his intention was not to describe historical reality but to create an outline of moral norms based on examples derived from history. He was seeking to integrate the tradition of the Brethren into a set of values on which to base the existence and the moral rebirth of the nation as an abstract community. His critics, however, were thinking about the nation as a concrete community, and the national history of this concrete community was for them a subject of scholarly inquiry, not a source of moral values. Some of them, in the spirit of positivist neutrality, were loath to derive values of any kind from a society in the historical past, while others, again in accordance with historical scholarship, showed that the nature of the Czech nation had been shaped far more by the experience of the baroque age than by the Reformation. All of them, however, were thinking about the nation in the sense of a concrete community. That Masaryk never explicitly addressed this subject of the link between the nation as a cultural construct and as a social reality was a source of misunderstandings that have generated more heat than light in the discussion, and a confused tension between politics and ethics, and between the philosophy of history and empirical historiography. Moreover, the perspectives applied to the present were not always aligned. For example, several years after Česká otázka was published, the prominent conservative politician and professor of economics Albín Bráf offered a critical and ‘heretical’ analysis of the Czech nation. In his view, the Czech bourgeoisie lacked the requisite entrepreneurial drive, which is why it lagged behind the German bourgeoisie, and Czech society did not have the education necessary to rouse a spirit of enterprise. He was thus talking about the nation in the sense of a social group. He and Masaryk did not have a clash of views; it was more that they were on separate tracks altogether. Bráf even differed from Masaryk in his understanding of the term ‘education’, which, presaging the future, he interpreted as the action of mastering practical skills.15

15 On Albín Bráf, see Antonie Doležalová, A History of Czech Economic Thought (London: Routledge, 2018), 66–​73.

Understanding the Debate around the ‘Czech Question’

23

By contrast, some participants in the discussion projected values onto the nation in its sense as an abstract community of shared values that were different from Masaryk’s but more closely matched their own view of the world. The Czech discussion around the meaning of national existence therefore unfolded, without the participants even realising it, on two levels, which is why it was hard to find any unity of opinion. Later, it assumed a sharpness and political fury in times and places where real life and the actions of the nation’s members, or more accurately a certain portion of them, diverged from the authors’ particular ideas about the values on which the nation’s existence as a cultural construct should be based. This was especially the case during the Nazi occupation and, later, in the period after 1948. In order to understand Masaryk’s ideas and the debate that he sparked, one other aspect of his thought that has been overlooked in analyses of the theoretical discussions surrounding national existence and nationalism should be noted. The discussions around the meaning of national history and national existence did not deal primarily in ‘objective’ description but were based on engaged, activist analysis that was a part of the political struggle. When Masaryk was talking about the nation on the level of a social community, he did not at that time (or later) limit himself to addressing the commonly asked and essentially descriptive question ‘who are we?’, but always linked this to the activist question ‘who ought we to be if our being a nation is to be worthwhile?’ He thereby introduced a value perspective into consideration of the nation and spontaneously moved beyond the level of reality and to the level of a cultural construct, a value abstraction. It is the spontaneity of this shift that may have irritated many of his critics. Many of the sharp edges of the criticism could perhaps have been blunted if he had been able to explain, from the perspective of a cultural construct, that what he was interested in was ‘what do we have in common?’, or, more precisely, ‘what is it that unites us?’ These are questions that may legitimately be answered not just with reference to values that can be empirically demonstrated to have existed, but also with reference to phenomena that can qualify as values simply because people see them as such.

Conclusion

By the late nineteenth century, the Czech nation had acquired the shape of a large community with which the vast majority of the Czech-​speaking population in the Czech lands identified, although this does not mean that all of them shared or supported nationalist views. Thanks to the efforts of educated patriots, it had a viable culture on the level of the nation as an abstract

24 Hroch community of shared values. This community was advanced enough for the ethno-​nationalist programme that had been one-​sidedly focused on the anti-​ German struggle to win the Czech language a position of equality with German to be largely losing its utility. Negotiations about historical rights and political autonomy were becoming an anachronism for the same reason. The politics of the Young Czech Party thus reached a crisis point at the very moment when it gained an absolute predominance in the national movement. Its programme split into multiple streams and thereby somehow ‘emptied itself’ of content and became nationally bounded and narrowly orientated around minor everyday disputes. This, of course, also heralded the end of the ascendancy of the Young Czechs. The newly created ‘empty space’ opened up in two directions. On the level of the nation as a social group, social and class conflicts moved into the foreground, paving the way for the emergence of political programmes shaped by specific group interests. As a result, competing political subjects –​parties –​were born. On the level of the nation as cultural construct intellectuals responded to this crisis in politics by searching for new ideas and cultural codes. T. G. Masaryk was one of the most original and influential of these intellectuals. He believed that the development of literature, the cultivation of the language, and an uncritical admiration for national history were no longer sufficient for the edification of the nation as a community of shared values, and in this he shared the view of many members of the emerging young generation. His driving motivation was the need to find a solution to the feelings of crisis experienced by a small nation. The solution was that a small nation would have to prove its worth, its contribution to the general progress of humanity. This also meant overcoming provincialism and the associated sense of inferiority. For Masaryk it was vital that the Czech nation embrace the ideas of humanity in general and the moral legacy of the Czech past in particular, and in his view this moral legacy resided in the tradition of the Czech Brethren. Hence it was a misunderstanding when critics of this idea observed, in line with historical scholarship, that the Czech Brethren and the Reformation tradition were just minor, not prominent, components of the Czech historical past and present. Masaryk wanted to enrich the nation, in the sense of an abstract community of shared values, with an ideal from which it could formulate the content of its work to educate and improve the real members of the nation –​that is, the nation in the sense of a social group. Expanding humanist education was a necessary part of this programme. The ensuing decades showed, however, that this idealistic programme was not (or was only to some extent) feasible. More realistic was the materialist programme of economist Albín Bráf, who considered the nation primarily, although not exclusively, in the sense of a

Understanding the Debate around the ‘Czech Question’

25

social community when he ascribed primacy to the need for this community to achieve a complete social structure, one part of which would be a successful entrepreneurial class. The broad discussion that arose in reaction to Masaryk’s ideas was stoked repeatedly by misconceptions around the tension that existed between the moral programme set out for the nation as a cultural construct and the specific interests that underpinned the actions of members of the nation as a social group. Out of this grew the conflict between the idea of what the ‘nation’ ought to be like and what society was like in reality. When, for example, the leading Czech historian Josef Pekař, disagreeing with Masaryk, objected that the Czech nation simply exists, and that that in itself is where the nation’s meaning lies, he was confusing the nation’s social reality with the moral postulate to build the nation into what it should be as an abstract cultural construct. On more than one occasion this confusion has manifested itself, and does so even today, in the nihilistic view some condescending intellectuals took of the Czech nation, which seems to imply that national existence is only acceptable to them if members of the nation, in the sense of a social group, act according to the ethical criteria that they themselves impose on the nation a priori. Failings on the part of individuals and groups have been unthinkingly transposed onto the general level and deemed the failings of the nation as a whole in its sense as a community of shared values. This conflict between an ideal and reality is nothing new. Even in Masaryk’s time, people, the members of the nation, acted in ways that were at odds with the ethical standards and moralising views of intellectuals. Yet for most of them, and for Masaryk, too, this was not reason enough to abandon the idea of the nation as a community of shared values or to become sceptical about the nation’s right to existence. On the contrary, they derived from this negative knowledge an obligation for themselves and a sense of commitment to work for the advancement of the nation. Masaryk’s Česká otázka and his later political and educational activities are a prime example of this kind of attitude.

Bibliography

Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London–​New York: Verso, 2006). Atwood, Craig D., The Theology of the Czech Brethren from Hus to Comenius (University Park: Pennsylvania University Press, 2009). Breuilly, John, Nationalism and the State (2nd edn., Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993).

26 Hroch Doležalová, Antonie, A History of Czech Economic Thought (London: Routledge, 2018). Garver, Bruce N., The Young Czech Party 1874–​1901 and the Emergence of a Multi-​Party System (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978). Hahnová, Eva, Češi o Češích: Dnešní spory o dějiny [Czechs about Czechs: Current disputes about history] (Prague: Academia, 2018). Hauner, Milan, ‘The Meaning of Czech History: Masaryk versus Pekař’, in Harry Hanak, ed., T. G. Masaryk (1850–​1937), vol. iii: Statesman and Cultural Force (London: Macmillan, 1990), 24–​42. Havelka, Miloš, ed., Spor o smysl českých dějin [Dispute over the meaning of Czech history], vol. i: 1895–​1938, vol. ii: 1938–​1989 (Prague: Torst, 1995–​2006). Hroch, Miroslav & Karolina Graham, European Nations. Explaining Their Formation (London–​New York: Verso, 2015). Hroch, Miroslav, ‘The Nation as a Cradle of Nationalism and Patriotism’, Nations and Nationalism 26/​1 (January 2020), 5–​21. Hroch, Miroslav, Social Preconditions of National Revival in Europe. A Comparative Analysis of the Social Composition of Patriotic Groups among the Smaller European Nations (2nd edn., New York: Columbia University Press, 2000). Kavka, František, ‘Bohemia’, in Robert Scribner, Roy Porter & Mikuláš Teich, eds., The Reformation in National Context (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 131–​154. Kořalka, Jiří, ‘The Czechs, 1840–​1900’, in Andreas Kappeler, ed., The Formation of National Elites: Comparative Studies on Governments and Non-​Dominant Ethnic Groups in Europe, vol. vi (New York: New York University Press and Dartmouth, 1992), 77–​103. Kovtun, George J., ‘T. G. Masaryk: Problem of a Small Nation’, in Harold G. Skilling, ed., Czechoslovakia 1918–​88 (Macmillan: London, 1991), 25–​40. Masaryk, Tomáš G., Ideály humanitní. Problém malého národa –​Demokratism v politice [Humanist ideals. The problem of a small nation –​Democratism in politics] (Prague: Melantrich, 1990). Masaryk, Thomas G., The Making of a State. Memories and Observations 1914–​1918, tr. Henry Wickham Steed (London: Allen & Unwin, 1927). Masaryk, Thomas G., The Meaning of Czech History, ed. Rene Wellek, tr. Peter Kussi (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1974). Schauer, Hubert G., ‘Naše dvě otázky’ [Our two questions], Čas 1/​1 (1886), 1–​4. Schmidt-​Hartmann, Eva, Thomas G. Masaryk’s Realism. Origins of a Czech Political Concept (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1984). Skřivánek, Miloslav, ed., Hubert Gordon Schauer. Osobnost, dílo, doba [Hubert Gordon Schauer. Personality, work, times] (Litomyšl: Státní okresní archiv Svitavy, 1994). Spinka, Matthew, ‘Peter Chelčický, the Spiritual Father of the Unitas Fratrum’, Church History 12/​4 (1943), 271–​291.

Understanding the Debate around the ‘Czech Question’

27

Winters, Stanley B., ed., T. G. Masaryk (1850–​1937), vol. i: Thinker and Politician, Studies in Russia and East Europe (London: Macmillan, 1990). Winters, Stanley B., Robert B. Pynsent & Harry Hanak, eds., T. G. Masaryk (1850–​1937), Vol. i: Thinker and Politician, Vol. ii: Thinker and Critic, Vol. iii: Statesman and Cultural Force (London: Macmillan, 1989–​1990).

­c hapter 2

Modern Czech State-​Formation Robert Kvaček Abstract Kvaček addresses the issue of modern Czech statehood as a living historical theme in relation to Europe. He points to the necessity of a stronger awareness of a national identity within a unified Europe.

The formation of the modern Czech state remains an intensely discussed historical subject. It has been given its current relevance not so much by historical scholarship as by politics and more recent writings on Czech history, and the question of the Czech Republic’s relationship to Europe has generated another wave of interest in it. Among contributors to this discussion since the mid-​ 1990s several relatively radical authors have offered a simplistic vision and assessment of this relationship based on the claim that Europe will come to form a unit in which nation states and other artificial and temporary historical constructs will rapidly dissolve –​nation states being just an obstacle on the route to European identity. In their view, to think in any other way about the present and the development of the future is to be nationalistic, old-​ fashioned, and backward. However, in this case as in so many, reality will not yield to wishes and strong opinions. It is through its nation states that Europe will unite. What is more, for the time being they are the structures through which international security and cooperation is pursued. It is impossible to contribute specifically to development generally without a more solid awareness of one’s national and state identity. A society that is internally volatile, unsteady, and self-​denigrating –​such as the kind portrayed by the radical authors referred to above –​stultifies its creative abilities and commitments. The subject has also been kept alive by the current interrogation of ‘Czechness’ or the Czech identity as asserted in the second half of the nineteenth century. At that point an alternative vision was that Czech identity should dissolve within the strong German community, which would incorporate ‘Czechness’ into its own culture (and naturally into its politics as well). Now, it is as though Schauer’s ‘two questions’ have resurfaced, with, curiously,

© Robert Kvaček, 2023 | DOI:10.1163/9789004534919_004

Modern Czech State-Formation

29

no account taken of the harsh answers that history has delivered since they were posed. By the late nineteenth century, Czech national society had become a developed community, internally stratified and dynamic. For its time it was a moderately advanced industrial society –​the outcome of a social, economic, and intellectual shift away from the rural society that had otherwise inscribed itself in the (social) structure of several generations. Considering where it had started out at the end of the eighteenth century, this shift in society seemed like a ‘small miracle’ to the architects of this development and their successors. On Austria’s doorstep, however, a ‘big miracle’ was taking place, as imperial Germany united its fragmented territories and became a great power in Europe within just several decades. The development of Czech society was made possible by the liberal environment that existed in Austria after the middle of the nineteenth century, allowing the factors and actors that were supporting, promoting, and shaping Czech national society to thrive. In terms of political ideology, this society was defined by the ‘state-​right’ programme, based on a historic claim to statehood. This right could be invoked by appealing to Czech history, which had known a Czech state since the ninth century; among the small nations in Europe this was unique. The focus on the historical state right was also the result of political developments after the Monarchy chose a route out of its constitutional impasse in 1867. That route was the formation of the dualistic order of Austria-​ Hungary (German–​Magyar). Czechness was by no means incompatible with an attachment to the Austrian state, but that attachment was undermined by the fact that Czech politicians were not invited to take part in the decision-​ making process when the constitutional foundations were being set out. Those in power had various reasons for this decision, among them the conditions of Czech politics and society, or rather what they believed those conditions to be –​an assessment that was informed by a mixture of underestimation and fears. In the 1860s Czech dislike of the constitutional arrangement (between Austria and Hungary) and the shock of the dualist solution produced a reaction which would be preserved in historical memory. This then interacted with new experiences and feelings of disappointment and contributed to the constitutional rejection of Austria-​Hungary during the First World War. The main issue, however, was that politically Czech society was not very successful and this was at odds –​certainly in the mind and feelings of society –​with its level of maturity. The Czech state-​right programme was no closer to fulfilment decades after it was originally drawn up. One reason for this was that it contained a

30 Kvaček vision of federalisation, and in Austria (and even Austria-​Hungary) this would have been extremely difficult if not impossible to achieve. While the Czech state-​right programme came to be formulated in national terms, it was not intended and did not aim to be solely about national domestic politics. Through this programme and active ‘everyday’ politics, what was envisaged was that Czech society would evolve to the status of a ‘state nation’, respected in the state politics of the Habsburg Monarchy and playing a significant role on that wider stage. But the obstacle to the creation of a multinational ‘political nation’ coterminous with the empire was multinationalism itself, and politically the privileged position of German identity or Germanness in the Austrian state. That privilege reflected the relatively advanced and powerful status of the ethnically German elements. They were determined not to give up their advantages and were also affected by the success of the new German Reich, which bolstered their self-​confidence, was a source of ideologies that appealed to many, and itself sought to ensure that the influence of ethnic Germans within Austria was not weakened. Czech society was exposed and also subjected to a specific type of struggle with Germanness that had the effect of wedging Czech politics into narrow confines and concealing it behind an outlook, interest, and sphere of action centred on the Austrian Empire as a whole. This struggle played out directly inside the Czech Lands, in Bohemia especially, and it involved a clash over the unity and integrity of the country. The concerns of the Austrian government in its approach to this struggle did not, in fact, have the effect of shifting Czech politics in the direction of ‘state-​formation’ and independent statehood. ‘State-​formation’ assumed and could only have assumed two forms and functions: it meant having a share in governmental power and co-​responsibility for the functioning of the state, and it also entailed the notion of a fundamental reconstruction of that state. But the latter, as noted above, was very problematic. The independence of a Czech state outside Austria was not seen as a guarantee of the nation’s development a necessity for its ‘salvation’. This was considered an option only by the relatively small party of radical Czech nationalists. Systematic ‘small work’ within the national society and across the Austrian polity was felt to be of more use and greater benefit than any precipitate gestures and radical actions. Trust grew in the development of Austrian parliamentarianism, which was viewed as promising democratic advances in social and political life. By contrast, the fact that in Austria modernisation made almost no headway in the highest levels of administration was a source of consternation and criticism. For decades Czech society had been preoccupied with its own ‘smallness’. What could a small nation achieve, or be permitted to achieve? Towards the

Modern Czech State-Formation

31

end of the nineteenth century the focus of Czech literature began to change, and its response was ‘enough of that kind of talk!’ Originally, when modern Czech politics began to take shape in the 1840s, the issue was ‘creating’ a modern nation founded on indisputable historical arguments and on developing the sense of Czechness that was alive in the lower social strata. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, by contrast, the ‘Czech question’ revolved around the creative aspect of the nation, its contribution to progress in general and particularly in Europe. The nation was engaging in ‘a daily referendum’, not over its existence, but over what it was like. This is exactly how T. G. Masaryk conceptualised it in his theoretical writings from the 1890s, particularly in Česká otázka (The Czech Question) especially, but not only there. In his view the small size and difficult geographical position of the nation represented a challenge to do more than others who were larger in size and more advantageously situated. Patriotism was deemed to reside in positive action, while raging and raving were empty patriotic gestures, mere bombast –​which was something that Karel Havlíček had already been fighting against. Masaryk offered a reminder that a nation cannot and must not be allowed to oppose criticism of itself and its greatest figures. Czech state-​right politics palpably and systematically obstructed negotiations between ethnic Czechs and Germans in the Czech Lands. Nothing seemed able to shift these negotiations towards a positive solution, or any particular solution. They were not centred just on a dispute between ethnic Czechs and Germans, but also revolved around a geopolitical problem posed by attempts to determine the notional final borders of a unified Germany, towards which nationalistic Sudeten-​German politicians were ever more obviously gravitating. The failure of the ‘reconciliationists’ complicated the whole Czech state-​right concept in the present but also for the future, since there were no signs suggesting any change. This inflamed nationalism on both sides, and on the Czech side it was behind the eventual turn towards a vision of an independent Czech state outside the Austrian Empire. Various solutions were sketched out, but none of them were ever more than paper projects. They had no influence on the surface of political life, but expressed existing political tensions, moods, and tendencies that could have real political impact only in a changed situation. This situation arrived with the First World War. The war brought an end to the Czech state-​right programme: given pre-​war experience, there could be no reasonable expectation that an Austrian-​Hungarian victory in the war would lead to the fulfilment of this programme, Several years into the war, by which time Austria was in difficulty, attempts surfaced to revive the programme, to adapt it, but they no longer met with any real sympathy either in Vienna or

32 Kvaček Czech society. Austrianism –​the element of allegiance to Austria, which was much more a matter of reason and circumstance than of the heart, which belonged to the nation –​had lost its justification as a consequence of the war itself that Austria-​Hungary had helped unleash, and doubts about the empire’s role as protector of small nations. The Czechoslovak state programme, i.e. the programme aimed at establishing a Czechoslovak state, was a solution that appeared to secure the nation’s existence in independence of the powers that by then were regarded as opponents of the free development of small nations in central Europe. An especially important part of the programme was its emphasis on democracy and the fundamental role it had to play in the state’s formation and in international relations. The Austria of the Habsburgs was considered to have shown itself definitively incapable of further democratisation because of ‘its’ world war. The state-​right programme grounded in Czecho-​Slovakness that emerged and was conceived and planned during the war years represented a transformation and a new incarnation of the Czech state programme. This was to have serious consequences for the formation and development of Czechoslovakia. The programme was something new in Czech politics and for Czech society, but there was a sense in which Czechs interpreted and accepted it as an idea that was not entirely new. Its acceptance was of course largely aided by the war, since without the war and its consequences, not just in Austria-​Hungary, the notion of a Czechoslovak state would not have taken hold. It was ‘fabricated’, but it was not merely a fabrication. The many theoretical assumptions on which it was premised were derived from an analysis of developments in the world and in the Habsburg Empire. And the viability of this creation, of the Czechoslovak state itself, also rested on these assumptions. Czech society was now mature enough for the new state programme to have state-​forming potential. Since the 1890s that society had seen its confidence grow, and it valued the level of maturity it had attained, which remained undiminished even by criticism from various sides. An unwillingness to be satisfied with the way things were was an inherent part of modernisation, and one of the impetuses behind it. Metaphorically speaking, we could say that ‘the road to Czechoslovakia’ began to be laid in the 1890s, even though its destination was not something anyone was considering at the time. The generation of Czechs who lived to see the creation of Czechoslovakia never expected to see an independent state, but the war shook up many assumptions and propelled events in unforeseen directions. It created the international conditions –​at first amorphous and uncertain, but then taking definite shape, which allowed the idea of the Czech(oslovak) state to become a reality.

Modern Czech State-Formation

33

Masaryk’s work for the resistance anticipated and sought (with very limited powers) to help create those conditions. The international context of the nation’s position had been a consideration in modern Czech thinking since the 1840s. It was understood that the ‘Czech question’ was dependent on the Austrian question and the question of central Europe. An Austria federalised with the participation of the Czechs and with respect for their historical and national place in it would have offered an answer to all three questions but was to prove unrealistic. Yet just as the Czech state-​right programme was not simply a solution for the Czechs, the idea of a Czechoslovak state was also a part of something bigger, part of a vision for a ‘new Europe’ in which other nation states would also find a place. Central and Eastern European space in particular was to be adapted and opened up to accommodate them. The Czech resistance justified its separation from Austria (‘treason’) primarily on the grounds that the Habsburg Empire bore the blame for a world war, which was moreover a ‘German’ war (German in the sense of the goals that were attributed to it, not unjustly, by the resistance), and that the war (and its ideology) also manifested itself in Austria’s internal policy. The outbreak of the war represented a failure on the part of the majority of politicians and political parties in Austria, and it laid bare the real mechanism of power in the state and the nature of political life. In the situation in which Austria found itself, then, war was the meaning and motivator of its politics. Or at least this is how it was understood on the Czech side by Masaryk and by those politically close to him at the time and later. Masaryk thought about the ‘new Europe’ when he thought about Czechoslovakia. There was no other option if Czechoslovakia was to turn from an idea into a reality. The road to statehood was full of preconditions that had to be met. Some of these preconditions extended beyond the threshold of war and peace and came to form the –​steady or shaky –​foundations of (the state of) Czechoslovakia. A major precondition was the victory of the Entente Powers in the war, and their support for the formation of the new nation states. This support was a matter of power politics and primarily the interests of France, which would thereby gain ‘allied’ states in the new central Europe through which it could counterbalance the position of Germany. All the same, Masaryk also found a political-​ideological bond with the West, which was the system of democracy. During the war the conception of a future Czechoslovak state underwent changes, and not insignificant ones either, before a democratic republic was the system settled on. It had been Masaryk’s aim from the start, but this could not be stated outright, for it was necessary to take into account the French-​British-​Russian composition of the Entente Powers and the remaining Russophiles (Tsarophiles) in Czech politics, who enjoyed a

34 Kvaček renewed prominence at the start of the war. The idea of forming a democratic republic was helped along by the Russian revolution and above all by the entry of the United States into the war. With its political-​ideological attachment to the West, the idea of a Czechoslovak state was able to overcome the enduring Austrianism of Czech politics, which had been founded in part on the need for protection against pan-​Germanism and pan-​Russianism. A central Europe of nation states was not the only possible post-​war order for the region, which was also ‘wooed’ by the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, conceived as the start of a world revolution. In post-​war Germany and in the German-​Austrian state that was having trouble emerging from the former empire, there was some support for the idea of uniting to form a single ‘greater’ German state. Contrary to what some of our recent popular historical writers have claimed, however, the formation of some kind of central European federation here in German-​Austrian territory was never a real possibility. A Czecho-​Slovak identity with state-​forming potential did not just arise because the war undermined the Czech state-​formation programme, although it would not have been formulated or become a reality had that not happened. Rather, it was also founded on arguments about a historical right, and Czech society understood such arguments well. That society was able to explain Czechoslovakia to itself and accept it as its state, as a state ‘re-​restored’, the continuation of and successor to the historical Czech state. Czechoslovakia as such was a brand-​new state, with no history or traditions. But it could not be brought to life like that, it could not be created on that basis. At best it could be reshaped with an eye to existing traditions. Czech society especially would not have understood the notion of the state as something entirely new. History was too much of a presence in Czech society for it to be willing to renounce its pride in its historical state and its ability to ‘restore’ it in the present. Once it was clear that the state of Czechoslovakia was genuinely to be established, Czech politics made the creation of that state its work. In part this was made easier (if from an external perspective also more complicated) by the German representatives in the Czech lands, who rejected the Czechoslovak state and had no intention of participating in its formation. Czech politicians looked upon their Slovak partner as a ‘younger brother’ who had not yet matured and still had much to ‘learn’, but Czech politics and Czech society had to learn, too, and the Czechs specifically had to learn the art of ‘building a state’. Czech politicians had been given little opportunity to do this within Austria and had been granted only ‘scraps’ of this kind of knowledge to master. Czech politicians had at most acted in the position of the opposition, while they were able to test their positive creative skills more on the level of provincial self-​government. It was this that served as their school of politics –​if we

Modern Czech State-Formation

35

understand politics to mean responsibility for public affairs and the administration of these affairs. The provincial government had only a limited competence. It generated many small and petty problems, and was overly dependent on smaller-​scale relationships, with no need to take larger political circumstances into account. It was simply a junior school of politics. This did not mean that it could not produce excellent students, but such students tended to be the exception. It was in some ways an advantage that with Czechoslovakia a new state was being created. Yet that also made the process more laborious. Czech politics imprinted on the concept of the new state its own knowledge, experiences, ideas, and goals. The realisation of the state naturally also depended on the broader context and the shape that the ‘new Europe’ would take. The new state differed in many concrete ways from Masaryk’s vision, but not in any fundamental way –​democracy was being given its chance. And this despite the fact that the peace was dictated by the victors, as has always been the case in history. Even Germany was given a chance at democracy, and that is what Masaryk imagined, wished for, and was counting on, too. But this needed more support from the West, especially from France, and more understanding of the difficult situation in the region after the war. The support was not forthcoming, because France, exhausted and nervous, had its own difficulties and could not see past the pile of problems in front of it to find the horizon. After 1918 Czech politics became what it had longed to be: a politics geared to state-​formation. Czech politics created Czechoslovakia in its own image. It imprinted it with Czech national history, which then coloured the history, traditions, and historical ties of Czechoslovakia. It gave its symbols, including its anthem, to Czechoslovakia. Czech society embraced Czechoslovakia as its own and approved its republicanism and its democratic system. The Czech nation seemed even to lose the ethnicity they had had up to that time, and the Czechs became Czechoslovakians. In Czechoslovakia, Czech society in the 1920s established and reinforced its self-​confidence. It was not to last long. At the close of the 1930s an external attack on Czech national identity began. This attack continued in various mutations for half a century. It left its marks internally. And it is not over.

­c hapter 3

The Czech Question in Its Time Miloš Havelka Abstract Havelka presents interpretations of the most prominent ideas of Czech politics and political culture in late nineteenth century as presented in three important critical texts from political leaders of that time: T.G. Masaryk’s The Czech Question (accompanied by two shorter texts, Our Present Crisis and Jan Hus), Josef Kaizl’s Czech Thoughts, and Albín Bráf’s Letters of a Political Heretic. These texts also represent alternative approaches to interpreting the relationship between historiography and politics. From the perspective of historical influence, Masaryk’s book had the greatest impact with its formulation of a unifying reformational idea of humanism based on the ‘meaning of Czech history’. The work of Young Czech politician Josef Kaizl arose in direct response to Masaryk’s texts and it clearly anticipated many arguments later voiced by critics of Masaryk’s understanding of Czech history. The gist of Kaizl’s argument consisted in a defence of political liberalism and a related analysis of Masaryk’s alleged underestimation of the constitutional dimension, including lack of understanding of the role of national economy. Also opposing liberalist principles was the ‘Old Czech’ Albín Bráf, for whom the notion of statehood was something more than the sum of its parts. With an emphasis on tradition and the principles of organically arising forms of social and political life, the historization of socio-​political problems and a genetic-​individual interpretation of individual institutions, norms, and values, Bráf can be interpreted as one of the last authentic Czech political conservatives. These three perspectives have then at various times and in various ways made their way in various forms into the national historiography and the first two continue to do so today.

We must love truth, we must bravely be whole people, in short –​we must find our soul and believe in that soul, and everything will fall into place … We need ideas, vibrant and great ideas, and we shall not be small. We must have world ideas, ideas that are not so much for ourselves but for all. Whosoever wishes to remain and endure must think, feel, and work for all, and not just for themselves. tgm

∵

© Miloš Havelka, 2023 | DOI:10.1163/9789004534919_005

The Czech Question in Its Time

37

The final two decades of the twentieth century were in many ways a turning point in modern Czech history. They can be looked on as a time in which two important and inherently interconnected social processes were reaching completion. One of these processes was general in nature, affecting human civilisation as a whole, and the other was more specific and involved the first phase of Western modernisation and its sub-​processes of industrialisation, urbanisation, secularisation, democratisation, nationalisation, the advance of science, liberalisation, etc., their inspirations and pressures, which gradually transformed the traditional structure of social and cultural life. On the international level this was accompanied or constrained by the increasingly distinct imperialistic outlook adopted by some states and transnational blocks that disparaged the existence of small nations and their aspirations and real needs. All this coincided with the culmination of the political and economic rise of the Czech nation, a process that was initiated in the first phase of the National Revival by scholars and intellectuals such as Josef Dobrovský, Gelasius Dobner, Mikuláš Adaukt Voigt, and František Martin Pelcl and as it unfolded throughout the nineteenth century was represented by Ján Kollár, Josef Jungmann, František Palacký, and Karel Havlíček Borovský, who by the end of the century had become more or less canonical figures. The process of emancipation overall and especially politically was slowed by Bach’s absolutism after the 1948 revolution and in many respects also by the decision of the Czech parliamentary deputies not to participate in the negotiations of the Imperial Diet in 1867–​1879 in protest against the formation of the dualist Austria-​Hungary. However, the situation began to change significantly from the start of the 1880s. What at the opening of the nineteenth century was a culturally and developmentally dependent nation with a relatively weak class of elites had by the end of the century begun to assert itself as a confident national society with an as yet incomplete social structure (although as Josef Kaizl, a member of the Imperial Council, stated in 1893, it was nevertheless ‘the most advanced of the non-​Germanic tribes of this state’),1 a society characterised by a certain plebeianism and egalitarianism, but with an advanced culture, especially

1 Cf. Milan Znoj, Jan Havránek, & Martin Sekera, Český liberalismus. Texty a osobnosti [Czech liberalism. Texts and personalities] (Prague: Torst, 1995), 263.

38 Havelka in the area of music, and with an active public and later also political life.2 The most prominent symbols of the century-​long and in many respects historically unique rise of the Czech nation were the foundation of the National Museum, the work aimed at completing the construction of St Vitus Cathedral, the slightly later building of the National Theatre, which reopened in 1882 after a fire, and the division of Charles-​Ferdinand University into a Czech and a German university. The intensifying conflict between the national (linguistic) and social (civic and political) interests of the Czech and German communities in the Czech Lands and more broadly within the empire led to each side developing mutually very antagonistic nationalistic positions informed by bitter feelings of injustice. The division also gave rise to a political asymmetry, wherein the economically most productive stratum of the population (the bourgeoisie) and region (the Czech Lands) had a weaker influence on state politics than the less productive aristocracy and the Austrian lands or even the German minority in the Czech lands. This generated a tension between the Czechs’ efforts to demonstrate the historical legitimacy of their national demands, and thus to establish the preconditions for existence as a national society, and the lack of political interest in ‘the Czech cause’ shown by the other nations in the multinational empire. From the middle of the century, a new situation emerged as Czechs steadily, but at first inconspicuously, accumulated capital, while their business activity grew, medium-​and large-​scale industry developed, and transport infrastructure spread. The Czech population grew in size and saw the rise of a middle class. Economic liberalism was held back by nationalistic watchwords and dictums and protectionist measures, especially in agriculture. These developments characterised the third, ‘political-​activation’ phase of the National Revival,3 when modern Czech politics de facto emerged, and there was a 2 Jan Křen, Historické proměny Češství [Historical transformations of Czechness] (samizdat 1987/​88, Prague: Karolinum, 1993), 83. 3 We can refer here to Miroslav Hroch’s theory as spelled out in Miroslav Hroch, Evropská národní hnutí v 19. století [European national movements in the nineteenth century] (Prague: Svoboda, 1986). He defines the three phases in the emancipation of small nations, comparable across Europe, which are the phase of ‘scholarly interest’ (or ‘enlightenment’), when cultural, historical, and linguistic materials are collected and critically studied with the support of newly emerging scientific organisations and their periodicals (e.g. Česká učená společnost/​The Czech Learned Society), but as yet without a notable interest in existing as a nation (Czech examples of figures in this phase include J. Dobrovský and historians part of the ‘Piarist Enlightenment’ such as G. Dobner, M. A. Voigt etc.), followed by the ‘popularising’ phase in which a shared body of knowledge is systematically communicated and popularised among the wider social strata (J. Jungmann, F. Palacký, J. K. Tyl, P. J. Šafařík, Matice česká

The Czech Question in Its Time

39

shift in the more long-​term goals (see, e.g., the plan for the federalisation of Austria that F. Palacký and F. L. Riegr submitted to the Imperial Diet, which was a plan for Austro-​Slavism, and later also the claims to a historical state right, demands for language equality, etc.), which were intended to better meet the new needs of the emerging national society and provide justification for a new relationship between self-​confirming national interests and the Austro-​ Hungarian state. This was accompanied by debates about the condition and aims of national culture and the level of Czech literature (e.g. Schauer’s ‘two questions’, the discussion around Hálek,4 the Czech Modernist Manifesto), which, as they moved in the direction of new values, loosened up what had been fixed convictions about the need for art to work primarily in the service of the nation. Older stereotypes of the possibilities and goals of Czech politics and the forms that it could take faded (e.g. the rejection of Punktace or the ‘Points Agreement’, the formation of the ‘realist wing’ of the Young Czech Party, the establishment of new political parties and groups in the 1890s) and new values came to the fore. The role played earlier by the nobility, high-​ranking clergy, and urban dignitaries in political life, represented by the Old Czech Party, was gradually being taken over by the middle class (T. G. Masaryk spoke in this connection about the rise of ‘country lawyers’ within the Young Czech Party and their often shallow and narrowly nationalistic view of issues) and the university-​educated intelligentsia, who had acquired their education and broadened their horizons not just in Vienna but at the universities in Strasbourg, London, Berlin, Nuremburg, and elsewhere, and who tried, more or less successfully, to pass on their experiences on home soil. All this was ultimately manifest in the victory

etc.), and finally the phase of ‘political motivation’, starting roughly with the revolution in 1848 (e.g. F. Palacký, K. Havlíček, F. L. Rieger) and culminating in the last two decades of the nineteenth century with such figures as F. L. Rieger, the Grégr brothers, A. Bráf, T. G. Masaryk, J. Kaizl, K. Kramář, G. Eim, Josef Hlávka, accompanied by others from the ranks of political parties that were forming at the time (A. Hajn, V. Klofáč, A. Šťastný) and striving to assert the political interests of various social strata and professions in a culturally and socially stabilised national society. Hroch devoted the least analytical attention to this last phase, and we may ask to what extent the forms and means of Czech emancipation were comparable to those elsewhere in Europe, especially with respect to the stimulating competition between two ‘national societies’, the Czech and the German one. 4 In the late 1880s a new generation emerged with the appearance of the ‘Realists’, associated with the figure of T. G. Masaryk and the ‘new modernism’ of J. S. Machar, F. X. Šalda, and other writers who were critical of their literary predecessors. Significant in this light is Machar’s paper on the twentieth anniversary of Hálek’s death, which sparked a stormy debate on such figures as Karolína Světlá and Jaroslav Vrchlický.

40 Havelka of the Young Czech Party in the elections to the (Bohemian) Provincial Diet (1889) and the Imperial Diet (1891). The Czech national identity that evolved in the more than a century-​long process of national development had linguistic, cultural, and historical foundations, but in many respects it was still provincial. Its central perspectives were tradition and historicism,5 a romantic emphasis on the ‘great’ past of the nation, the origin of institutions and how they proved themselves over time, and on continuity and historical legitimacy. These views for a long time underpinned notions about political legitimacy, which were most often summed up in the idea of restoring the Czechs’ historical state right. This established notion of identity was challenged by the course and outcome of the ‘manuscript battle’, which revolved around the question 5 The romantically tinged revivalist ‘historicism’, which today is usually regarded as a phenomenon that attended the formation of new institutions and the assertion of the old ‘Czech-​language rights’, in many respects ran counter to the motivations of the first revivalists inspired by the Enlightenment. Revivalist historicism was romantic in nature and with ideological ambitions, it tied its interpretation of the present generally to an understanding of its origins and past development, which it perceived as a current part of the present of the life of a community, and which represented a clear counterweight to the Enlightenment declarations about the universality of reason and political centralism that lie above all the various forms of the individual development of affairs. The advocates of revivalist ‘historicism’ were one-​sidedly convinced about the productivity of traditions and the legitimising significance of historical institutions. ‘Historicism’ exercised an influence not just among readers of educational literature, but also through works of popular literature. The big and often mythologised subjects in national history (St Wenceslas, Břetislav i –​the Bohemian Achilles, Soběslav, Oldřich and Božena etc.) were in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries highly popular also in the theatre. The interest of professionals (e.g. J. Kollár, P. J. Šafařík) and amateurs in ‘Slavic antiquity’, historically relevant artefacts, structures, institutions, laws and rules, literature/​oral tradition, customs, traditions, etc., served to superficially consolidate national self-​awareness for a long time, up until the middle of the 1880s, i.e. around the period of the debate around the authenticity of the ‘manuscripts’. This ideological ‘historicism’ then evolved more distinctively into Jungmann’s romanticised concept of the nation and culture, replacing simple ‘patriotic interest’ with the more active ‘revivalism’. This concept possessed, however, certain conservative features, politically conservative at that, which expressed themselves more clearly however in the Biedermeier period. It was long associated with a kind of ‘fabricated fleshing out of the cultural past’ (it is not to recall here the significance and influence of ‘manuscripts’ and archaeological attempts made by Václav Krolmus, a priest in Malá Strana, to find the grave of Czech, the nation’s founding father), and with ‘… the application of a creative, not a receptively selective, approach to tradition’. Cf. Vladimír Macura, Ve znamení zrodu. České národní obrození jako kulturní typ [In the sign of birth. Czech national revival as a cultural type] (Jinočany: H +​H, 1995), 80. ‘Historicism’ became a fundamental problem for Masaryk, who countered it with ‘psychological method’ and his philosophical-​sociological and moral analyses of the problems of society and politics.

The Czech Question in Its Time

41

of the authenticity of the allegedly mediaeval (but actually fake) Rukopis Královédvorský and Rukopis Zelenohorský (Queen’s Court manuscript and Green Mountain manuscript) in the second half of the 1880s. On the one hand this dispute showed that the sceptics (e.g. J. Gebauer, J. Goll, O. Hostinský, T. G. Masaryk) were trying to institute a more scientific way of viewing the national past, and there was a need for a new foundation for the nation’s reflections on itself. On the other hand, it attests to the inertia of the Czech national community’s mythologised values and the essentially populist attitude and self-​centred nationalism of those who defended the authenticity of the manuscripts. Against this backdrop the 1890s seems to have been a time full of diverging interests, competing outlooks and needs, intellectual tensions, and personal conflicts, ranging from efforts on the part of conservatives to maintain the status quo and pragmatic politics based on the possible not the ideal, to nationalistic liberalism, pro-​modernising realism, state-​right radicalism, and a sense of dissatisfaction evident in a segment of the emerging generation.6 State-​right considerations increasingly gave way to nationality-​based perspectives, which in the last decade before the war began to be accompanied by or overlap with demands centred on social reform (social democratic, national-​social, and Christian-​social reforms, along with the gradual rise of agrarianism, although the latter only became fully developed in the form of the Agrarian Party during the First Republic). All this stimulated the perceived need for a new approach to the situation as a whole, to Czech identity and the Czechs’ grasp of themselves, and to the requirements of Czech national existence, the focus of Czech politics, the role of culture, and more. The ‘Czech question’ became the new heading under which the contemporary political situation and national needs began to be discussed anew. Since then, the ‘Czech question’ has been one of the most frequently used expressions even as Czech political culture changed over time, but it is also an ambiguous term. Of course, the history of the problems involved in the ‘Czech question’ went much further back than the currency of the expression.

6 Only the ideology of the Czechoslovak Social Democratic Party, founded in 1878, remained outside this constellation of political forces up until the end of the First World War. With its emphasis on social equality and justice, it operated in the wider working class against the one-​sidedly nationalistic ideas about emancipation and the struggle to assert a ‘historical right’ that dominated the politics of the middle-​class (bourgeois) parties. In the eyes of their representatives, it relativised the one-​sided view taken of the nation and weakened the unity of the political efforts of the nation as a whole. With its focus on society and social problems, it represented a different version of modernisation.

42 Havelka The consensus is that it was coined by Josef Herold, a member of the Young Czech Party, who in a session of Parliament in Vienna in the spring of 1894 reacted to the escalating political tension in the Czech Lands (the Omladina or ‘Youth’ movement, the declaration of martial law in Prague and the surrounding region) by asking the new minister-​president Alfred Windischgrätz how the government was planning to resolve the ‘Czech question’. Windischgrätz responded on 27 February 1893 that, from his standpoint as the head of the coalition government, he had to reject the ‘Czech question’ as an expression. This caused a great furore, and subsequent attempts to clarify the situation for example by the claim that ‘… the government does not accept the Czech question as substantiating a state right, but acknowledges [that] it is justified in a cultural and linguistic sense, could do nothing about the sharp attacks … in the debates that followed’.7 A political locution meant to express general dissatisfaction on the Czech side with the way the situation of state rights, politics, and nations had been addressed up to that time in Cisleithania and in the empire as a whole began to be taken up as a general summation of the nation’s political situation, interests, demands and needs, and then to give ever more structure and direction to the various political positions and differently oriented actions and values gathered around it. If we set on one side the specific aims and arguments attached to the ‘defence’ of the language and the nation in the baroque period and early in the National Revival8 and view the ‘Czech question’ from the perspective of the history of ideas, we find it appears in various forms and contexts. It figures in a summation of what caused the initial phase of the Thirty Years’ War,9 for example, but also surfaces in reflections on ‘the mission of our Czech homeland … [and] the inhabitants of Slavic and Germanic origin … from the p ­ erspective of general development’,10 while elsewhere it takes the form of a question about a ‘small nation’ (T. G. Masaryk and in many aspects of 7

Otto Urban, Česká společnost 1848–​1918 [Czech society, 1848–​1918] (Prague: Svoboda, 1982), 437. 8 For example, Jiří Konstanc, Lima linguae bohemicae, tj. brus jazyka českého (Prague: Tiskárna jezuitská, 1667); Bohuslav Balbín, Disertatio apologetica pro lingua slavonica, praecipue bohemica (1672, published Prague: Felicianus Mangold & Filium, 1775); Václav Jan Rosa, Čechořečnost seu Gramatica linguae bohemicae (Prague: Typis Joannis Arnolti â Dobroslawina, 1672). 9 Karel Stloukal, ‘Česká otázka v době předbělohorské’ [The Czech question before the Battle at the White Mountain], in Jaroslav Prokeš, ed., Doba bělohorská a Albrecht z Valdštejna. Sborník osmi statí [The period of the Battle at the White Mountain and Albrecht of Waldstein] (Prague: Státní tiskárna, 1934), 5–​29. 10 Augustin Smetana, Die Bestimmung unseres Vaterlandes Böhmen vom allgemeinen Standpunkt aufgefasst (Prague: Friedrich Ehrlich, 1848), 5.

The Czech Question in Its Time

43

his thought Ján Kollár before him),11 and sometimes it represents a question about Czech mentality, the nation’s psychology, or its national character (Karel Havlíček Borovský, František Xaver Šalda, Josef Ludvík Fischer, Ferdinand Peroutka, Jiří Holý, Jan Patočka and, for instance, Ladislav Klíma).12 The Czech question has also been a more or less distinct presence in various thoughts on the relationship of Czechs to their neighbouring nations and states (see, for example, Václav Vladivoj Tomek’s attempts to connect the philosophy of Czech and Austrian history, what we would today call a ‘shared history’ perspective, or Emanuel Rádl’s ideas about the war between the Czechs and the Germans,13 or Kosík’s and Kundera’s writings on central Europe),14 and formed the backdrop to reflections on the roots of Czech political and cultural orientations (in reference to which we could also cite some passages from Václav Černý’s Vývoj a zločiny panslavismu /​The Evolution and Crimes of Pan-​Slavism).15 Other examples that warrant mention include Jindřich Kohn’s remarkable work, Otázka židovská ve světle české otázky (The Jewish Question in the Light of the Czech Question),16 and especially Jan Patočka’s penetrating and self-​ critical reflections on the national record in Česká vzdělanost v Evropě (Czech Culture in Europe)17 published at the start of the Nazi occupation. We should not, of course, forget the philosophical and methodological discussions of the possibility (or declared impossibility) of a historiography grounded in meta-​ historical, in this case axiological assumptions (the dispute between Pekař and Slavík in the late 1930s),18 and mention should also be made of F. V. Krejčí and 11

Tomáš G. Masaryk, Problém malého národa [The problem of a small nation] (Prague: Čin, 1947). 12 The most influential of these was probably the collection of essays by Ferdinand Peroutka, Jací jsme [The way we are] (Prague: Aventinum, 1924), and more recently the study by Ladislav Holý, Malý český člověk a skvělý český národ [The little Czech person and wonderful Czech nation] (Prague: Slon, 2001) and the writings of Jan Patočka, Co jsou Češi [What the Czechs are ] (Prague: Panorama, 1992). 13 Emanuel Rádl, Válka Čechů s Němci [The war between Czechs and Germans] (Prague: Čin, 1928). 14 Karel Kosík, Století Markéty Samsové [One century of Grete Samsa] (Prague: Český spisovatel, 1993); Milan Kundera, ‘Radikalismus a exhibicionismus’ [Radicalism and exhibitionism], Host do domu 15/​15 (1969). 15 Václav Černý, Vývoj a zločiny panslavismu [The development and crimes of Panslavism] (Prague: Institut pro středoevropskou kulturu a politiku, 1995). 16 In Jindřich Kohn, Asimilace a věky [Assimilation and the ages] (Prague: Kapper, 1936), Part i, vol. ii, 14–​20. 17 Jan Patočka, Česká vzdělanost v Evropě [Czech scholarship in Europe] (Prague: Václav Petr, 1939). 18 In Miloš Havelka, ed., Spor o smysl českých dějin [Dispute over the meaning of Czech history] (Prague: Torst, 1995–​2006), vol. i: 1848–​1938, 599–​739.

44 Havelka his ‘Czech and European Moral Question’ (in Češství a Evropanství /​Czechness and Europeanness),19 or Jaroslav Durych’s essay ‘Češství v Evropě’ (The Czech Element in Europe)20 from the late 1930s. Slightly younger is František Götz’s cultural-​critical Osudná česká otázka (The Fateful Czech Question),21 which can be compared to the political-​critical pamphlet written in the 1990s by Jaroslav Boček,22 and finally, Josef Hanuš’s Národní museum a naše obrození (The National Museum and Our Renascence),23 a work with a slightly different angle written in the early years of the First Republic. The ‘Czech question’ was invoked to cover every attempt to formulate the most general (what today we might call ‘systemic’) features of the increasingly relevant but already very longstanding problem of the legitimacy of the Czech state as an independent entity, the preconditions for the Czech nation’s political and cultural emancipation, the objectives of Czech politics, national interests, and the possibilities for fulfilling them, and even to Schauer’s articulation of the sense that the existence of the Czech nation and its cultural development could not be taken for granted.24 19

František V. Krejčí, Češství a evropanství. Úvahy o naší kulturní orientaci [The Czechs and Europeanism. Thoughts on our cultural orientation] (Prague: Orbis, 1931). 20 Jaroslav Durych, ‘Češství v Evropě’ [Czechness in Europe], in František X. Šalda & Josef Durych, eds., Úkoly češství [The tasks of Czechness] (Prague: Akord, 1937), 16–​25. 21 František Götz, Osudná česká otázka [The fateful Czech question] (Prague: Václav Petr, 1934). 22 Jaroslav Boček, Hry s českou otázkou [Playing with the Czech question] (Prague: Melantrich, 1997). 23 Josef Hanuš, Národní museum a naše obrození i–​i i [The National Museum and our national revival, i–​i i] (Prague: Národní museum, 1921). 24 In Schauer’s famous paper ‘Our Two Questions’, published in the first issue of the realist journal Čas (1886), he asked two questions: What is the mission of our nation? and What is our national existence? Schauer offered a sceptical, extremely emotional, and even now disturbing answer to these questions. The results of the National Revival, its situation and perspectives, which Schauer’s contemporaries regarded as obvious, are questioned here from cultural and civilisational perspectives: ‘… is our existence as a nation genuinely worth such exertions, is its cultural value so great? … is our national stock such’ as to persuade a national revivalist and agitator that ‘… in retaining their own language, are the people retaining their own intellectual world, that the loss of the language would be a genuine ethical loss, that they are thus preserving a ‘typus’ that will occupy a firm, legitimate, and autonomous place in the pantheon of humankind? If the answer to this question is affirmative, we are guaranteed: our intelligentsia will have a domestic, adequate source of inspiration, and the people, the nation, will obtain the path fully suited to it, and at the same time corresponding entirely to an ideal order of the world. Then various external endeavours will be in vain, or at least very difficult, and Europe, learning to value our existence, will not so easily allow its destruction’. However, the barrage of contemporary criticism directed at Schauer (and Masaryk, who was initially considered to be the author of the paper) missed the point that Schauer’s scepticism was primarily directed

The Czech Question in Its Time

45

This framing itself suggests that there were several levels to every new articulation of the ‘Czech question’, which must be clearly distinguished from each other. First, there is the noetic meta-​level, which refers to conceptual characteristics of the Czech question that change historically and differ at different stages in Czech society’s development and are essentially constructs, often having emerged out of a combination of objective observations about the state of Czech politics and national society and illusions about their prospects. Individual articulations of the Czech question could be culturally reproduced over time and thus generate the impression of being permanent and fundamental. But the Czech question as a construct did not exist autonomously, outside its context, and it was always the specifically situated fruit of a particular period’s political culture, and a mobilising perspective through which any problems that were coming to a head could be identified and resolved and set within a wider context. We need to be aware of the historical singularity of individual historical conceptualisations of the ‘Czech question’, which, for example, was articulated in different ways around the same time by J. Herold and T. G. Masaryk. How it was formulated always depended both on the internal dynamics of the national society, contemporary politics, history, and the determination of the nation’s leaders, and on the (external) geopolitical environment and relations with neighbouring nations and states. The specific conditions around the formulations were in turn affected by the particular phase of the nation’s emergence in which they appeared, the strength of national self-​confidence, and the degree to which the nation’s symbols were infused with national content. Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk entered Czech cultural and political life in 1882, when he acquired the position of professor extraordinarius at the Faculty of Arts of the newly established Czech university. He integrated his academic and subsequently his public work into a widely and internationally informed professional and cultural worldview, which differed strikingly from the traditionalist, nationalistic, provincial, and –​as became immediately apparent in his first scholarly and political discussions –​often smug attitudes of many of his colleagues, both at the university and in the public sphere. To understand Masaryk’s views, it is important to recall three aspects of his thinking that are not always well understood and are often misinterpreted but can be found in the background of most of his social and political activities: (1) against the empty and merely agitational forms of the national’s linguistic identity that survived in the national revival, and that his questions were the questions of a society that by then was already largely constituted, modern, acquiring clear civic structure, and above all politically and nationally self-​confident.

46 Havelka science and the principles of science and their role in the public space, (2) the significance of religion and morality in life, and (3) Masaryk’s own particular way of thinking. Masaryk’s professional evolution began with a philosophical-​sociological study of suicide and the crisis of modern man in general25 as symptomatic of major changes in civilisation in his time. In this initial work we can see certain key ideas on (national) society, human co-​existence, and a particular moral code (and what constitutes violations of it), to which Masaryk would continue to return in his inquiries, even if often only implicitly. In his conversations with Karel Čapek, Masaryk is recorded as saying: ‘By basing my concept of nationality and statehood on morality, I clashed not only with political parties but with a narrower circle of notables who placed nationalism above everything and regarded it as the vis motrix, the moving force behind all private and public life’.26 In this perspective Masaryk’s (philosophical) sociology was certainly of much greater importance for his whole body of work than it might seem at first sight. National society27 as an object of inquiry did not in Masaryk’s view refer to an autonomous sphere of ‘issues’ and ‘pressures’ that act upon the individual 25

26 27

The crisis of modern man ‘is manifested however with much greater intensity in the irritability caused by the era, in mental anxiety, nervousness, psychosis, pessimism, suicide. This is a deep crisis, one that engulfs the entire mind–​a genuine break with the old world. Religion is nihilism –​that is the bloody disjunction of our time’ (Tomáš G. Masaryk, V boji o náboženství [While fighting about religion], 1st edn. Prague: Leichter, 1904, 2nd edn., Prague: Čin, 1947, 41–​42). It was out of this crisis then that were born the new, negative phenomena of modern civilisation, suicide, prostitution, and alcoholism. It is not without interest that while the first edition of Sebevražda saw this phenomenon as a function of the changes that had been ushered in by enormous civilisational development, in the Czech edition (2nd edition) Masaryk allowed a narrowing of this perspective and replaced the word ‘civilisation’ with ‘edification/​education’ in the book’s title, which essentially means ‘enlightenment’ (and the production of ‘non-​religious’ world views that it subsequently led to). Masaryk’s book Der Selbstmord als sociale Massenerscheinung der modernen Civilisation (1881) was the first more comprehensive work that he wrote during his studies in Vienna and Leipzig; it was based on his habilitation thesis. The Czech version was published later, in 1904, under the title Sebevražda hromadným jevem společenským moderní osvěty [Suicide as a mass phenomenon of modern awareness]; see Thomas G. Masaryk, Suicide and the Meaning of Civilization, tr. William B. Weist & Robert G. Batson, intr., Anthony Giddens (Chicago–​London: University of Chicago Press, 1970). Karek Čapek, ‘Hovory s T. G. Masarykem’ [Discussions with T.G. Masaryk], in J. Opelík, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. xxxvii, (Prague: Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2012), 58 [120]. Masaryk’s conception of society was largely tied up with the concept of the nation, which on top of the sociological dimension of the rules of co-​existence, reciprocity, behaviour, and action, added the dimension(s) of language, history, and culture, as well as politics

The Czech Question in Its Time

47

(as it was portrayed somewhat later, for example, by Émile Durkheim). Instead he saw it as an entity that formed psychologically, was shaped by its course of development, and had moral foundations; it was, Masaryk claimed,28 an ‘actually existing collective’ (a ‘concrete collective’), which, simply through the synergic outcome of its parts (its components), point to the existence of ideas that are valid on a level above the individual and exist eternally and ante rem as premises, essentially timelessly available as possibilities between which human beings may choose as subjects. These ideas operate in various places, in various forms, and in various ways. For example, Masaryk wrote that the humanist ideal is not specifically Czech, but that it is29 ‘pan-​human and each people seeks to apply it in its own way. The English expression of it is mainly ethical; the French, political (by the proclamation of the Rights of Man); the German, social, or Socialist; and our own, national and religious’. As an ‘actual collective’ the nation as conceived by Masaryk is composed of individual humans and their actions. They then come together in groups (and larger formations) through the ‘concrete’ active organisation (order) of life and historically established relationships. An unusual feature of Masaryk’s concept of this organising of life was the role played in it, actually or ideally, by individual consciousness, education, and morality, and the significance ascribed to religion and to figures who for others represent individual consciousness, an impartial and objective perspective, and a critical spirit. This could also be interpreted as a means of neutralising the ‘tyranny of the majority’ (or what we might today call ‘populism’), which Masaryk knew to be a danger. In the conclusion to his book Sebevražda (Suicide), he also wrote about ‘half-​education’ and ‘intellectual and moral incompleteness’30 as problems associated with the process of enlightenment or ‘human education’, when people believe they know more than they actually do, and when ‘opinions’ prevail over arguments. Masaryk’s often noted hyper-​critical spirit was not just adherence to the principles of scientific method recognised at that time; it was also a moral stance, adopted when he was confronted with superficiality and preconceptions, stereotypes and half-​baked thinking.

as a function of the social and cultural cohesion of a particular nation that is bound to it origin, development, interests, and historical experiences. 28 Tomáš G. Masaryk, ‘Univerzitní přednášky I. Praktická filozofie’ [University lectures I. Practical philosophy], in Jiří Gabriel et al., eds., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. iv (Prague: Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2012), 137. 29 Thomas G. Masaryk, The Making of a State. Memories and Observations 1914–​1918, tr. Henry Wickham Steed, (London: Allen & Unwin, 1927), 424. 30 Masaryk, Suicide and the Meaning of Civilization, 164.

48 Havelka This was reflected in the emphasis that Masaryk placed on personal character, the human spirit, the ‘human mind’ (psyché), and ‘scientific psychology’, which allowed him to explore social phenomena in terms of their intellectual (‘psychological’) motives, relating to ideas. This perspective informed his interpretations and analyses of reality. It was also structurally consistent with the noetic ‘psychologism’ that was popular at the time31 and considered social and historical phenomena to be the specific outcome of the ‘psychological’ (mental) actions of individuals (will, decision-​making, motivations, and orientations manifested in behaviour and action). It is through these actions, Masaryk claimed, that we establish our attachment to our family, community, nation, and state, and to the social order in general (public opinion, rites and morals, politics and society, etc.). This helps to explain Masaryk’s strong relationship to literature, which he drew on as a source of information that could be interrogated to provide insight into national cultures and their institutions, and a nation’s psychology as the foundation of politics and ultimately its overall vision of the world. This kind of philosophical social thinking also underpinned Masaryk’s conception of history, which served as an important backdrop to his presentation of the ‘Czech question’ in Česká otázka.32 His view of history became the subject of a number of polemical misunderstandings in the course of the debates around the view of Czech history and politics that Masaryk presented in his tetralogy of works from 1895–​1897 (Česká otázka, Naše nynější krize, Jan Hus, and Karel Havlíček), and which Zdeněk Nejedlý summed up under the title 31

32

Masaryk’s ‘Platonism’ fundamentally rejected the basic proposition of ‘psychologism’ that ideas, general concepts, and principles are essentially ‘habits’, the psychologically generated and psychological ingrained outcome of the countless repetitions of similar experiences. Psychologism was sharply opposed to contemporary ‘historicism’ and its belief that things can only be understood by means of their origin and formation, which resulted in a focus on the historical singularity and cultural uniqueness of everything going on and the consequent abandonment of the notion that phenomena may be general and comparable. Masaryk’s relationship to the ‘realm of ideas’ can be likened to Karl Popper’s conception of ‘three worlds’, which are separate and distinct from each other, and which we are not only unable to perceive directly, but also lie outside our concrete knowledge, though it is made possible. In the book’s ‘Foreword’ Masaryk notes that what he is aiming at is ‘… a sociological analysis of the mysteries that foist themselves upon anyone who seeks to grasp the meaning of Czech history, whoever wants to know how we as a particular nation culturally exist, what is it we want, what are we hoping for’. Tomáš G. Masaryk, ‘Česká otázka. Snahy a tužby národního obrození’ [The Czech question. The aims and desires of the national revival], in Tomáš G. Masaryk, Česká otázka, Naše nynější krize, Jan Hus [The Czech Question. Our current crisis. Jan Hus], in Jiří Brabec, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. vi (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr, 2000), 11–​169, here 11.

The Czech Question in Its Time

49

Spor o smysl českých dějin (The Dispute over the Meaning of Czech History, 1913). These debates continued between the two wars, and we still encounter echoes of them today. History, in the sense of historical development, was for Masaryk essentially what Auguste Comte referred to as ‘social dynamics’, that is, the tendency towards change, the forms and course of change, the pressures that drive it, and the possibilities of legitimising it. As Comte saw it, ‘social dynamics’ were a space of development, a space of ‘progress’ and changing relations between individuals, which are always oriented towards something, aimed in some direction, and internally related. Masaryk incorporated this idea into his own ‘sociological’ concept of history,33 in which the social and psychological workings of history present themselves as a question about the overall ‘meaning’ of history and so as hold out the possibility of an active learning of its lessons. Comte posited ‘social statics’ as the counterpart to ‘dynamics’, the former representing the given order of things, lawfulness, and the organisation of life, underpinned by the ‘social consensus’, which is the binding agreement that exists between all citizens and is grounded in institutions. Unlike Comte, however, Masaryk saw the role of social statics, i.e. the system and order, as always more important than that of dynamics, and above all deeper. He did not regard the ‘static’ element as merely complementary to development and reinforced by consensus; for him it both represented the basis for possible interpretations of the present and its historical preconditions, and came to constitute ‘… a general theory about the natural (spontaneous) order of human societies; instructing us on all the conditions of existence common to all human societies, on the laws underpinning harmony between them’.34 As such, he found it to be the only possible starting point for any sociological inquiry including his own social and political analyses. With respect to the broader foundations of his thought, Masaryk articulated this succinctly in his conversations with Karel Čapek: ‘I am a Platonist in so far as I seek ideas in the cosmos, and in what is transitory I seek what is enduring, and eternal. I cannot be interested solely in movement, but in what is moving, what is changing. In natural development

33

34

In his criticism of Masaryk’s concept Josef Pekař was incorrect when he looked to the German romantic philosophy of history put forth by G. W. F. Hegel and F. W. J. Schelling as its source. Like his teacher Jaroslav Goll, Pekař shared the contemporary distrust of sociology as a peculiar scientific field, despite his knowledge of the Lamprechtian stream in German historiography and the latter’s ‘collectivistic historiography’. Tomáš G. Masaryk, ‘Rukověť sociologie. Podstata a metoda sociologie’ [Handbook of sociology. The foundations and methods of sociology], Naše doba viii/​2 (1901), part ii, 98–​ 105, here 103.

50 Havelka I seek purpose and order, sense in historical progress; I enquire for what purpose it all happened, and where it is leading. Against Darwinism, against one-​ sided evolutionism, and historicism, I accentuate the static side: that which is permanent and eternal. Not simply the πάντα ῥεῖ of Heraclitus, not simply continual change, but the substance of the things that change; in addition to dynamics, and with it statics, the great architecture of all being’.35 Masaryk believed that at the heart of social statics and its internal force lay a religious faith (which he distinguished from the institution of the church), serving as a medium of values and rules in life and giving order to life, rectified by critical thinking. He regarded the disintegration of values and rules as a threat to civilisation. The role of religion and faith in Masaryk’s work has been repeatedly highlighted by scholars (e.g. by Konstantin Miklík, Jan Blahoslav Kozák, Antonín Spisar, Josef Lukl Hromádka, Otakar Odložilík, Jaroslav Šimsa atd.), who have noted the constitutive presence of these viewpoints in his thought and in his life, especially in his reflections on ethics, order, and social life (‘…every religious question is also a moral question, and every moral question a religious one …’), in his interpretations of the signs of the ‘crisis of modern man’, and in his ideas about the ‘religious meaning’ of Czech history and the political objectives of Czech national society. Nowadays this aspect of his thought tends not to be foregrounded, in part because of his later focus on the ideas of humanism and democracy. His profound and repeatedly emphasised themes of true faith, universally shared principles of life, and spirituality as a fundamental need were defining for Masaryk, and key to his sociology. They served as the starting points for his criticism of the church and its institutions, its lack of authenticity, the formalism of its religious rituals, and ‘the differences between piety and morality’. They were ultimately the reason for his personal, although not altogether thorough, conversion to the evangelical church. All this, along with his emphasis on the Reformation tradition, made him a target of criticism from the Catholic Church. It was certainly no accident that around the turn of the century he was considering establishing his own church, and that later one of the founders of formal psychology Christian von Ehrenfels, appealed to him to do so.36 35 36

Karel Čapek, Masaryk on Thought and Life. Conversations with Karel Čapek, tr. Marie & Robert Weatherall (London: Allen & Unwin, 1938), 72. On this cf. Miroslav Pauza, ‘Der Aufruf von Christian von Ehrenfels an T. G. Masaryk zur Gründung des sogennanten “Realen Katholizismus”’, in Josef Zumr & Thomas Binder, eds., T. G. Masaryk und die Brentano Schule. Beiträge zur gleichnamigen Symposium vom 15. –​17. October 1991 (Prague–​Graz: Filozofický ústav av čr and Forschungstelle und Dokumentationszentrum für österreichische Philosophie, 1992), 160–​168.

The Czech Question in Its Time

51

Finally, to understand Masaryk’s thought and work, they must also be considered in the light of his diligent, uncompromising, and absolute moral viewpoints, and –​as he liked to say –​his ‘Protestant mentality’ with its orientation to sub specie aeternitatis (despite his own religious roots in South Moravian Catholicism), which gradually transformed him from an academic into an important actor in Czech public life, who sought to activate, redefine, and expand the nation’s established and passively shared political and social views. Despite criticism and resistance, he managed to attract the support, even if often only for a time or in agreeable disagreement, of many prominent figures of his era, for instance during the manuscript battle and the formation of the ‘realist’ section of the Young Czech Party, and large numbers of students and members of the young generation, and ultimately, in the time of the ‘foreign campaign’ during the First World War, the majority of the nation. After Masaryk produced his tetralogy Česká otázka, Naše nynější krize, Jan Hus, and Karel Havlíček, the ‘Czech question’ shifted and came to be centred on more general and theoretical issues, such as the continuity of national history and its moral obligations, the evolution and forms of Czech politics, the issue of the unifying points, the practice of ‘non-​political politics’, criticism of liberalism, and, most notably, the ‘meaning of Czech history’ in the context of world history and its debt to transhistorical moral principles. This then formed the intellectual backdrop of evolving philosophical and methodological discussions about the possibilities of a meta-​historical and, in this case, axiological grounding of historiography. What should not be overlooked in relation to the ‘Czech question’, however, and especially in connection with Masaryk’s articulation of that question in its relationship to the ‘meaning of Czech history’ –​which Masaryk regarded genetically and structurally as a precondition and component of all forms of this question and answers to it –​, is that this was a special and in many respects unique way of dealing with history as a subject and reflections on history. Masaryk must therefore be regarded more as a ‘historian of ideas’ and of the reification of ideas than as a historian of political causality or a ‘romantic philosopher of history’, which is how he was criticised by his opponents (e.g. Josef Pekař, Max Dvořák, and to some degree also Josef Kaizl). His was a purposive way of thinking about Czech history, about the attitudes of its leading figures, about the transformations of politics and the possibilities these changes offered. Masaryk’s search for an answer to the ‘Czech question’ in his work of the same title was the result of his deep reflections on the history of the Czech nation, the views of its leading figures, the evolution of Czech politics, and the search for a unifying perspective and the most basic preconditions of Czech politics.

52 Havelka It was ‘purposive’ in the sense that a characteristic feature of this thought was an interest in the Czech situation in the present day, which should be interpreted from a perspective that could encompass most of the Czech past –​ which should also then be a source of direction for the Czech future. Here the past and reflections on the past to some degree assumed the function of a theory of society or of political theory, serving just as the basis for illuminating national identity and for establishing political claims, but also as a legitimising basis for political action, and, finally, a theory of a particular type of socialisation of individuals. Above all, understanding the unifying meaning of Czech history was supposed to help unite Czech political and cultural interests and encourage cooperation between political parties. Masaryk’s perception of the Czech question thus merged with an active and ‘purposive’ understanding of a unifying meaning lying within the twists and turns of Czech history and the debt of Czech history to transhistorical moral principles. The discovered, or rather construed, ‘religious’ (and later ‘humanist’) content of this history was thus an attempt to resolve the Czech question, and not, as is often believed, an alternative to this question. The ensuing critical discussions of Masaryk’s methodology and his interpretations of historical figures and events in many respects represented a misunderstanding of the original intentions behind Masaryk’s approach. His critics failed to understand the openness with which it was possible to relate to the meaning of history and its role in defining and uniting the activities of Czech politics, and, in fact, the entire public space of the nation. Their discussions usually focused on the scholarly work of historiography and the question of its axiological grounding (on this see, for example, the dispute between Josef Pekař and Jan Slavík at the end of the 1930s).

Bibliography

Balbín, Bohuslav, Disertatio apologetica pro lingua slavonica, praecipue bohemica (1672, published Prague: Felicianus Mangold & Filium, 1775). Boček, Jaroslav, Hry s českou otázkou [Playing games with the Czech question] (Prague: Melantrich, 1997). Čapek, Karel, ‘Hovory s T. G. Masarykem’ [Discussions with T.G. Masaryk], in Jiří Opelík, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. xxxvii (Prague: Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2013). Čapek, Karel, Masaryk on Thought and Life. Conversations with Karel Čapek, tr. Marie & Robert Weatherall (London: Allen & Unwin, 1938).

The Czech Question in Its Time

53

Černý, Václav, Vývoj a zločiny panslavismu [The development and crimes of Panslavism] (Prague: Institut pro středoevropskou kulturu a politiku, 1995). Durych, Jaroslav, ‘Češství v Evropě’ [Czechness in Europe], in František X. Šalda & Josef Durych, eds., Úkoly češství [The tasks of Czechness] (Prague: Akord, 1937), 16–​25. Götz, František, Osudná česká otázka [The fateful Czech question] (Prague: Václav Petr, 1934). Hanuš, Josef, Národní museum a naše obrození, i–​i i [The National Museum and our national revival, i–​i i] (Prague: Národní museum, 1921). Havelka, Miloš, ed., Spor o smysl českých dějin [Dispute over the meaning of Czech history], vol. i: 1895–​1938, vol. ii: 1938–​1989 (Prague: Torst, 1995–​2006). Holý, Ladislav, Malý český člověk a skvělý český národ [The little Czech person and a wonderful Czech nation] (Prague: Slon, 2001). Hroch, Miroslav, Evropská národní hnutí v 19. století [European national movements in the nineteenth century] (Prague: Svoboda, 1986). Kohn, Jindřich, Asimilace a věky [Assimilation and the ages] (Prague: Kapper, 1936). Konstanc, Jiří, Lima linguae bohemicae, tj. brus jazyka českého (Prague: Tiskárna jezuitská, 1667). Kosík, Karel, Století Markéty Samsové [One century of Grete Samsa] (Prague: Český spisovatel, 1993). Krejčí, František V., Češství a evropanství. Úvahy o naší kulturní orientaci [The Czechs and Europeanism. Thoughts on our cultural orientation] (Prague: Orbis, 1931). Křen, Jan, Historické proměny Češství [Historical transformations of Czechness] (samizdat 1987/​88, Prague: Karolinum, 1993). Kundera, Milan, ‘Radikalismus a exhibicionismus’ [Radicalism and exhibitionism], Host do domu 15/​15 (1969), 24–​29. Macura, Vladimír, Ve znamení zrodu. České národní obrození jako kulturní typ [In the sign of birth. Czech national revival as a cultural type] (Jinočany: H +​H, 1995). Masaryk, Tomáš G., ‘Česká otázka. Snahy a tužby národního obrození’ [The Czech question. The aims and desires of the national revival], in Tomáš G. Masaryk, Česká otázka, Naše nynější krize, Jan Hus [The Czech Question. Our current crisis. Jan Hus], in Jiří Brabec, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. vi (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr, 2000), 11–​169. Masaryk, Tomáš G., ‘Rukověť sociologie. Podstata a metoda sociologie’ [Handbook of sociology. The foundations and methods of sociology], Naše doba viii/​2 (1901), 1–​12, 98–​105, 173–​181, 735–​741, 822–​828, 904–​910. Masaryk, Tomáš G., ‘Univerzitní přednášky I. Praktická filozofie’ [University lectures I. Practical philosophy], in Jiří Gabriel et al., eds., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk] vol. iv (Prague: Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2012). Masaryk, Tomáš G., Problém malého národa [The problem of a small nation] (Prague: Čin, 1947).

54 Havelka Masaryk, Thomas G., Suicide and the Meaning of Civilization, tr. William B. Weist & Robert G. Batson, intr. Anthony Giddens (Chicago–​London: University of Chicago Press, 1970). Masaryk, Thomas G., The Making of a State. Memories and Observations 1914–​1918, tr. Henry Wickham Steed (London: Allen & Unwin, 1927). Masaryk, Tomáš G., V boji o náboženství [While fighting about religion] (1st edn., Prague: Leichter, 1904, 2nd edn., Prague: Čin, 1947). Patočka, Jan, Česká vzdělanost v Evropě [Czech scholarship in Europe] (Prague: Václav Petr, 1939). Patočka, Jan, Co jsou Češi [What the Czechs are] (Prague: Panorama, 1992). Pauza, Miroslav, ‘Der Aufruf von Christian von Ehrenfels an T. G. Masaryk zur Gründung des sogennanten “Realen Katholizismus”’, in Josef Zumr & Thomas Binder, eds., T. G. Masaryk und die Brentano Schule. Beiträge zur gleichnamigen Symposium vom 15. –​17. October 1991 (Prague–​Graz: Filozofický ústav av čr & Forschungstelle und Dokumentationszentrum für österreichische Philosophie, 1992), 160–​168. Peroutka, Ferdinand, Jací jsme [The way we are] (Prague: Aventinum, 1924). Rádl, Emanuel, Válka Čechů s Němci [The war between the Czechs and the Germans] (Prague: Čin, 1928). Rosa, Václav J., Čechořečnost seu Gramatica linguae bohemicae (Prague: Typis Joannis Arnolti â Dobroslawina, 1672). Schauer, Hubert G., ‘Naše dvě otázky’ [Our two questions], Čas 1/​1 (1886), 1–​4. Smetana, Augustin, Die Bestimmung unseres Vaterlandes Böhmen vom allgemeinen Standpunkt aufgefasst (Prague: Friedrich Ehrlich, 1848). Stloukal, Karel, ‘Česká otázka v době předbělohorské’ [The Czech question before the Battle at the White Mountain], in Jaroslav Prokeš, ed., Doba bělohorská a Albrecht z Valdštejna [The period of the Battle at the White Mountain and Albrecht of Waldstein] (Prague: Státní tiskárna, 1934), 7–​28. Urban, Otto, Česká společnost 1848–​1918 [Czech society] (Prague: Svoboda, 1982). Znoj, Milan, Jan Havránek & Martin Sekera, Český liberalismus. Texty a osobnosti [Czech liberalism. Texts and personalities] (Prague: Torst, 1995).

pa rt 2 Ethics as the Heart of Philosophy

∵

­c hapter 4

Modernism and Transcendence from the Perspective of Masaryk’s Realism Jan Svoboda Abstract According to Svoboda, Masaryk’s realism is a modernist concept which assumes a rationally-​grounded conviction that the modern, educated and critically reflective, person finds themselves in deep existential crisis. The reason for this crisis is the loss of belief in transcendence –​in that which goes beyond the individual and provides a guarantee of the universal meaning of life. Masaryk’s realist project thus intentionally hinges on two levels of transcendence, the level that dynamically creates the ‘real’ consciousness of our existence, and the level of our reflective relationship to the objective world, which is the domain of the exact sciences. Masaryk understands both of these levels in a metaphysical sense. On the one hand, he understands metaphysics as the ultimate framework of all sciences, on the other hand, metaphysics plays an important role in his concept of psychology. This is not narrowly conceived as a special discipline, but rather justifiably acknowledges its metaphysical dimension precisely in connection with his conception of ethics and, as a necessarily epistemological consequence, also of religion. Masaryk’s realist conception of ‘scientific’ metaphysics thus presents itself as an admirable attempt to bridge the two separately perceived areas to which a person fundamentally relates in reality as a conscious subject: the ‘fallibility’ of science and the ‘certainty’ of faith. Of equal significance, it reflects Masaryk’s lifelong effort to achieve the closest possible connection between theory and practice, which in the mid-​1890s he characterised as ‘political’ realism, and which on the eve of World War i resulted in his activist-​oriented anthropology.

Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk is regarded as the most important figure in modern Czech history.1 As a thinker and politician, he played an instrumental role 1 This text is based on a study of the same title, ‘Moderna a transcendence ve světle Masarykova realismu’ [Modernism and transcendence in the light of Masaryk’s realism], published in Czech in Filosofický časopis 66/​5 (2018), 679–​697. This thematic issue was devoted to the centenary of the founding of the Czechoslovak Republic.

© Jan Svoboda, 2023 | DOI:10.1163/9789004534919_006

58 Svoboda in bringing about the birth of independent Czechoslovakia, the democratic principles of which were intended to shape the state’s further development and future existence. While the final form of his historical vision of effective democracy was forged in confrontation with the rigid centralist politics of monarchical rule in Vienna that with tragic consequences led ultimately to the outbreak of the First World War, this vision was something on which he had already reflected in great detail, not only while he was a professor of philosophy at the Czech branch of Charles-​Ferdinand University in Prague and an active intellectual, but also as an imperial politician with firm and consistent ideas. He came to the conclusion that a belief in effective democracy and its moral ideals meant belief in a new historical beginning in which modern humans would naturally fulfil their most personal self-​realisation, their organic self-​actualisation. In a sociological and political sense, this positive belief was supposed to act as a barrier to any totalitarian tendencies, whether that meant the ideological relics of the feudal and theocratic orders discredited in the First World War, or the forces and movements that would emerge later, with a power that could not have been anticipated in Masaryk’s time and an impact so tragic as to fundamentally undermine the viability of this belief in democracy. Masaryk worked intensively and systematically throughout the war towards ultimately bringing his vision to life. As a modern strategic thinker, he carefully thought through and anticipated the consequences of the war, and as a prominent figure in the Czech foreign resistance he personally witnessed some of the changes it brought. The outcome of his remarkable and at the time risky and doubtful struggle was the creation of a new Czechoslovak state. Although belief in this new, democratic, ‘multi-​ethnic’ state depended on its existence as a democracy, and thus in historical perspective was to prove rather short-​lived, it was nevertheless a bold conviction and significant for central and eastern Europe in the turbulent aftermath of the First World War. This was because it rested on the thoroughly modernist idea or faith in the notion that world history was moving in a promising direction –​a sense that history has meaning. Masaryk’s conviction that this was so did not, however, spring from some kind of utopian faith in a new beginning, with unimagined and unforeseeable consequences, and rejection of the natural habitual tendencies of human beings to draw on the positive aspects of their history hitherto. Instead, it stemmed from a consistent theoretical-​epistemic outlook that in Masaryk’s intellectual approach manifested itself as a strictly rational attempt to attach a fundamental noetic principle to practical action –​whether on the initial purely moral level or on the level of the political practises that arose from it. The most pregnant expression of Masaryk’s modernism was his conception of ‘realism’. To counter an excessive amount of historicism and an

Modernism and Transcendence and Masaryk’s Realism

59

overestimation of the meaning of history, he redirects our attention to individuals and individual ‘things themselves’, and thus to the essential need for objectivity and for the positivist sobriety of rationally grounded arguments. Masaryk’s philosophical questioning was premised on and culminated in an approach in which the heart of any problem was strictly determined by the imperative of ‘modo’ or a focus on ‘the here and now’. Drawing on the sociological analyses to which he had devoted himself while still a student in Vienna and Leipzig, Masaryk came to believe that modern humans were in a deep existential crisis. A characteristic sign of this crisis was the high rate of suicide.2 Modern, critically thinking people no longer believed in the revealed religion that had been constructed by theology and asserted in church dogma. They were losing faith in the idea that there is something that transcends the finiteness of human existence, an idea that was otherwise an assurance of the universal meaning of life. Owing to this ‘self-​alienation’, Masaryk believed, modern individuals were sliding into a state of pathological subjectivism, which on the one hand would leave them internally disoriented and morally unmoored and on the other could lead to titanism, which would manifest itself in society as evil, aggression, and war. Masaryk was convinced that the regeneration of moral principles as necessary correctives on our action could bring about the rebirth not only of the individual but also, in the spirit of the ideal of humanity and participation in its thorough application, of society as a whole. In Masaryk’s view, the ideal of humanity would best be able to evolve and develop within a frame of values that could only be revealed to modern man by the ‘Chancen und Grenzen’ of eternity’s horizons (a religious dimension). The opening up of this horizon of eternity would restore the relationship of people to transcendence, but this relationship would then be founded on and grounded in reason. Masaryk said that we need to overcome the old religion with a new religion, one that is ‘more perfect’, ‘superior’, and ‘more noble’ –​a religion that cannot be re-​established on old orthodox foundations and that can no longer ignore

2 Masaryk’s book Der Selbstmord als sociale Massenerscheinung der modernen Civilisation (1881) was the first more substantial work he wrote during his time studying in Vienna and Leipzig; it was based on his habilitation thesis. The Czech version was not published until 1904, under the title Sebevražda hromadným jevem společenským moderní osvěty (Suicide as a Mass Social Phenomenon of Modern Culture); see Thomas G. Masaryk, Suicide and the Meaning of Civilization, tr. William B. Weist & Robert G. Batson, intr. Anthony Giddens (Chicago–​London: University of Chicago Press, 1970).

60 Svoboda the results of modern science and critical historical methods of studying religion.3 Therefore, this new religion had to be centred not on dogma but ethics. Although Masaryk was inclined to support the idea advanced by the National Revival that the humanist foundation of these moral principles had been laid by the religious reformation and the early modern democratic tradition to which it gave rise, like Hume he also believed that despite their religious and philosophical scepticism modern humans were bound to other people around them through natural ties of sympathy, which is the precondition for all human interaction and the formation of altruistic moral values. It was not lost on Masaryk that the call for understanding and mutual cooperation so intrinsic to this emancipatory strand of thought entailed the pursuit of the Enlightenment idea of tolerance, which at its heart was nothing other than a modern expression of the universal Christian value embodied in the dictum to love thy neighbour. As someone who leaned towards positivism in his thought, Masaryk was well aware that there is always a priori a moral obligation behind the advance of any moral principles and objectives. However, in order for an obligation to be natural and for it to be rationally acceptable to modern, critically thinking humans, it must be validated by the ordinary practical experience that we acquire from just living an active life. As a trained sociologist, then, Masaryk knew that a moral obligation can only become a coherent experience if it is set against the backdrop of a life lived actively in society, in the process of which individuals grow accustomed to respecting common interests and working together for common purposes. And it is through these natural socially orientated actions that individuals are then ‘in reality’ able to develop feelings of solidarity and unity –​and when the actions are performed consistently they may, at the highest level, even assume a religious form.4 In opposition to the tradition of formalism in ethics, Masaryk 3 Tomáš G. Masaryk, V boji o náboženství [While fighting about religion] (2nd edn., Prague: Čin, 1947), 25ff. Masaryk concisely summed up the significance of his efforts to establish a new religion of humanity as follows: ‘Eternal life does not rest on the crown or on gold. The world will not vanish, God will not die, superman will not be born –​much more is going on; Man is awakening. Behold this is man –​conscious man!’ Ibid., 41. 4 Masaryk believed that humans are by nature practical creatures, more so than theoretical in their outlook, and therefore, he claimed, we need first to class and organise life’s purposes and rank them on a scale. The highest objectives in life are addressed by ethics, which, in conformity with J. S. Mill’s theory, Masaryk preferred to call teleology. Tomáš G. Masaryk, Základové konkretné logiky [Foundations of a concrete logic], in Jiří Olšovský & Jindřich Srovnal, eds., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. ii (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr & Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2001), 133–​136; Thomas G. Masaryk, Versuch einer concreten Logik (Classification und Organisation der Wissenschaften) (Vienna: Carl Konegen, 1887), 232. Let us remember that in his ethics J. S. Mill (following from those who preceded him) embraced

Modernism and Transcendence and Masaryk’s Realism

61

held that ethical principles should only be established ‘factually’, that is to say, in ‘concrete’ terms, and thus always in the most direct possible relation to actual reality.5 Masaryk came to conceptualise his position on religion through the idea of ‘synergism’, in strict opposition to the passivity of mysticism and rigid church dogma. In synergism, which emerges out of direct purposive reflection on our ‘lived world’ (the purposeful fulfilment of our most innate needs and possibilities), subject and object come together, and this is what gives it its creative dynamics, its creative energy. For Masaryk, in the scholarly or scientific sphere this type of connection was achieved by uniting psychology and sociology. What this then reveals is that there is an essential relationship between the ‘experiencing subject’ and what in experienced reality directly belongs to the subject, what forms a direct part of the individual’s experience of reality, and what the subject principally and reflectively seizes on as an active social subject, regardless of whether any ideal individual objects in our objective order of things are involved: from simple sensory qualities and their logic at one end through to concrete socio-​historical facts and the formation of new and more effective institutions at the other. In the sense of this basic relational connection, Masaryk then generally conceptualised this ‘synergism’ as represented by the human actions that serve to connect a moment in the present to eternity. In accordance with the global order of things and in the spirit of his own rationalistic theism, Masaryk wanted to move beyond the sphere of human passivity and find a transpersonal meaning to human labour on a level above the individual. Masaryk viewed life as embodied in an infinite variety of forms, which are what determine life in concreto, which is to say that it is through them that life is manifested.6 He regarded these infinite forms of life as constituting the doctrine of the ‘transformations of emotions’. He believed that it is against a backdrop of intensive social activity that the composition of these emotional transformations can be so internal and perfect and like emotional unity can acquire a purely subjective (experienced) nature, as with this unity emerges ‘the idea of moral obligation’, on which this experienced total unity is essentially founded. Cf. Harald Höffding & Josef Král, Přehledné dějiny filosofie [A brief history of philosophy] (Prague: Česká grafická unie, 1946), 237–​238. 5 Masaryk’s inclination towards positive objectivity is also the reason why Masaryk considers Kant’s categorical imperative to be ‘incorrect’. Thomas G. Masaryk, The Making of a State. Memories and Observations 1914–​1918, tr. Henry Wickham Steed (London: Allen & Unwin, 1927), 410. 6 Karel Čapek, ‘Masaryk on Thought and Life. Conversations with Karel Čapek’, tr. Marie & Robert Weatherall (London: Allen & Unwin, 1938), 59–​72. We should add that the realist conception of the world, whose sphere of application is the natural dynamics of reality, and thus the ‘lived world’ –​i.e. the world of life as we directly perceive it –​is not a world without a subject. It always presupposes in advance the existence of a concrete, active individual, who

62 Svoboda a process, one in which humans, in their typical actions, for instance via science, naturally participate. Humans, in their uniquely evolving position, are thus a permanent partner to God in this creative process. In the general context of these ideas it then becomes clearer why Christian Ehrenfels, a professor at the German University in Prague at the time and one of the founders of Gestalt psychology, called on T. G. Masaryk in 1929 to found ‘a new religion of the future’, an idea with origins that can be identified in the Reformation and which –​primarily in reference to the figure of Jan Hus –​Ehrenfels conceived of as ‘real Catholicism’.7 Masaryk, however, declined this invitation and aptly observed that he had never ‘formulated any factual creed’, and if it were possible to speak of any ‘founder’ tendencies on his part at all it would have to be understood to mean ‘a founder of politics’.8

…

fundamentally experiences an immense variety of objective facts and who is in a functioning relationship with his or her surroundings, with what he or she comes into contact and interacts with. This means that, on the one hand, the individual identifies to a greater or lesser degree with his or her surroundings and, on the other hand, at the same time, becomes, in a given situation, a general quality via which he or she is identified as a concrete subject and is comprehensible to the world. Every relationship between subject and object is therefore an expression of the general stance an individual adopts or occupies within a given ‘concrete’ situation, and therefore, as a fundamental consequence of this, this relationship is, as a whole, always a kind of indivisible ‘final’ unity. Inherent to this essential experience of the unity of subject and object is therefore a certain finality (goal-​orientation), which in every such intentionally directed relationship is essentially present as an integral quality. In contrast to the original presupposition about the shapeless chaos of the objective world in theoretical physics, my view is that as reality is always inherently progressing towards its own unfulfilled purpose and can therefore, in this fundamental sense, be considered, as it were, to be ‘imbued with spirit’, then the objective world (in reality) already appears to us a priori as naturally generically ordered, whether this concerns, for example, a reflection of how we perceive commonplace physical objects or substances, entities, artefacts, or social phenomena postulated by science. Therefore, this realistic-​philosophical stance already in advance means not only that there is a given, inherent structure to phenomena but also that they are always understood in this way by the experiencing subject. (Here we intentionally leave aside pathological phenomena and behavioural disorders, even though we do not deny that there are also subjective reasons for pathological behaviour). 7 Christian von Ehrenfels, ‘Offener Brief an den Präsidenten der Tschechoslovakischen Republik T. G. Masaryk!’, in Christian von Ehrenfels, Metaphysik, Philosophische Schriften, vol. iv, intr. R.M. Chisholm (Munich: Philosophia Verlag, 1990), 290–​293. Josef Král writes: ‘In Religion der Zukunft 1929 he makes a religion out of this metaphysics (the eternally creative action =​god) and calls on Masaryk, as a qualified figure, to found a real Catholicism instead of the historical variety’. Cf. Josef Král, Československá filosofie. Nástin vývoje podle disciplín [Czechoslovak philosophy. An outline of development according to particular areas] (Prague: Melantrich, 1937), 250. Also Will M. Johnston, The Austrian Mind. An Intellectual and Social History 1848–​1938 (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984), 265ff. 8 Thomas G. Masaryk, ‘Antwort des Herrn Präsidenten T. G. Masaryk auf den von Chr. Ehrenfels im Dezember 1929 an ihn gerichteten “Offenen Brief”’, in Ehrenfels, Metaphysik, 294–​295.

Modernism and Transcendence and Masaryk’s Realism

63

Masaryk was a typical modernist thinker, and he was keenly aware that the modern era was in crisis. He believed that the main cause of this crisis was the loss of religious faith. With his particular ‘meta-​narrative’ approach and, above all, a well-​considered selection of philosophical topics, he wanted to provide religious faith with new ideas that modern humans could embrace as their basic ‘creed’, in the sense that it would represent the substance of their deepest convictions, something they would strongly believe in, and yet it would not be lacking in elements of scientific criticism and rational grounding either. In the intellectual environment of the second half of the nineteenth century that Masaryk inhabited and was significantly influenced by, this meant strictly adhering to ‘the rules for formulating hypotheses, a theory of probability that respects experiential data in order to create the most balanced assumptions about causes and natural laws’.9 Masaryk thus seriously and honestly understood the reasons for Hume’s scepticism, but he tried to overcome that scepticism. He did not deny that ultimately human ­knowledge  could never be considered anything more than ‘probably’ valid or true. Nevertheless, in applying the theory of probability Masaryk was equally well aware (along lines strikingly reminiscent of the efforts of his Viennese teacher Franz Brentano)10 that Hume, except for purely analytical relations, had disrupted the foundations of universal validity, which is to say that he had undermined the acceptance of the universal truth of causal law itself. Masaryk therefore sought an alternative way in which to restore the a priori assertion of the theory of probability so that it was again consistent with empirical reality.11 This effort became the basis for Masaryk’s proposed project of inductive logic, conceived in the spirit of Leibniz’s ars inveniendi (‘the art of invention’).12

9

Franz Brentano, Die vier Phasen der Philosophie und ihr augenblicklicher Stand. Nebst Abhandlungen über Plotinus, Thomas von Aquin, Kant, Schopenhauer und Auguste Comte, ed. Oskar Kraus (Leipzig: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1926), viii. 10 Franz Brentano, Versuch über die Erkenntnis, ed. Alfred Kastil (Leipzig: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1925), 120–​157 and 160–​183. 11 Tomáš G. Masaryk, Počet pravděpodobnosti a Humova skepse. Za historický úvod k theorii indukce [Calculating probabilities and Humean skepsis. A historical introduction to the theory of deduction] (Prague: J. Otto, 1883); in German, Dav. Hume’s Skepsis und die Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Logik und Philosophie (Vienna: C. Konegen, 1884); Tomáš G. Masaryk, Přednášky a studie z let 1882–​1884 [Lectures and studies, 1882–​1884], in Stanislav Polák & Jiří Brabec, eds., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. xvii (Prague: Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 1998). 12 Masaryk, Přednášky a studie, 58.

64 Svoboda Like J. G. Sulzer, Masaryk came to believe that we are conscious of a constant impetus that exists within ourselves to engage in spiritual activity. The active engagement in spiritual activity –​which this enduring life force awakens in us through an ever-​present ‘creative’ tension within us that cannot be resisted or stopped –​is understood by Masaryk as ‘postřehování’,13 which is to say, as the mental reflection of a given concept in the very moment of its apprehension, i.e. as an eidetic act.14 It is only when orientated in this basic direction that our knowledge can rise to the infinitesimal consecution of evidence and certainty.15 Masaryk also understood Pascal’s internal dividedness, which meant that although he was a scientist he did not call for evidence of God’s existence, but rather for an existential ‘leap of faith’. Masaryk saw this leap of faith as the innermost expression of the longing of modern humans for their emotions to be translated into a form of divine transcendence;16 we can read this message between the lines of the lectures he gave on Pascal that were later published as a book with the same title.17 Although inspiration from Pascal’s existential themes does not wholly explain Masaryk’s rational argumentation for the legitimacy of theism as a hypothesis that is rational and can be rationally defended, Masaryk knew that next to the sphere of honest critical science lies the sphere of the specific anchoring that each individual has in life, which is ultimately the sphere in which an individual finds their religious moorings. It is therefore necessary for modern humans to undergo their own religious experience unencumbered by any declared or dogmatic restrictions. Despite the scepticism of the modern era, in the sense of a scrutinising or critical tendency, individuals must restore their relationship to transcendence and become aware of their finitude. It is only through this constant existential tension that individuals internally experience –​in relation to their own finitude and imperfection –​a tension that is grounded in the effective logic of experiencing our subtlest psychological processes, that life is qualitatively transformed and, in the aspect of timelessness it acquires, opens the door to ‘religion’ sub specie aeternitatis in the modern sense of the word. Religion is thus always entirely a matter of

13 Masaryk, Přednášky a studie, 42. 14 Masaryk, Přednášky a studie, 30. 15 Masaryk, Přednášky a studie, 43. 16 Nevertheless, Lezsek Kołakowski regards the kind of narrowly constructed alternatives of ‘God or nothingness’ as ‘radikale Erpressung’. Leszek Kołakowski, Der Mensch ohne Alternativen (Munich: Piper, 1960), 80. 17 Tomáš G. Masaryk, Blaise Pascal, jeho dílo a filosofie [Blaise Pascal, his work and philosophy] in Masaryk, Přednášky a studie, 65–​95.

Modernism and Transcendence and Masaryk’s Realism

65

feeling, the positive aspect of which resides in the degree of truthfulness or ‘authenticity’ with which individuals (personally) anchor themselves in life in relation to transcendence –​and it is only possible to qualitatively form this innermost, subjective relationship through ethical praxis: religion must be lived. Although when pursued on the highest level the human longing for transcendence will lead to some believable form of modern religion, Masaryk saw the significance of this ‘transcendence’ in a wider context. In addition to ethics, which is the necessary rational underpinning of every religion in practice, the religious experience must also encompass the fact that humans, as the subject of an experience, are directly, inseparably, and existentially bound to the objectively perceived world –​the reality that is the methodological domain of the existing sciences and their organic systematisation. It is necessary, therefore, to see behind all of Masaryk’s intellectual efforts a distinct attempt to discover a possible creative balance between the world of positivist science, the strictly rationally scientific, and positive faith. And this is also why Masaryk would not renounce metaphysics. As a general philosophical perspective on the world, metaphysics had two important functions for Masaryk. On the one hand, it was supposed to serve as the functional framework for all the sciences –​including those that had yet to develop organically into specific disciplines or combine to form border disciplines, and on the other hand it was a significant component of Masaryk’s conception of psychology. Psychology, as Masaryk conceived it, was not a narrowly specialised discipline, but one that justifiably acknowledged its metaphysical dimension and did so in reference to a concept of ethics and, as a necessary gnoseological consequence, also to religion.18 Not only is ethics thereby inserted into the frame of psychological subject matter, but at the same time we can clearly see an unmistakeable feature of Masaryk’s Vienna teacher Franz Brentano’s conception of ethics –​the subjectively engaged side of it that favours assigning a moral dimension to human decisions and actions. Brentano’s conviction of the enormous significance of science for philosophy, which was part of his distinctive view of the history of philosophy as essentially a history of scientific efforts against the backdrop of four periodically recurring stages of historical development, and the title of Brentano’s habilitation thesis in 1866, ‘Vera philosophiae methodus nulla alia nisi scientiae naturalis est’ (The

18

Tomáš G. Masaryk, ‘Univerzitní přednášky I. Praktická filozofie’ [University lectures I. Practical philosophy], in Jiří Gabriel et al., eds., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. iv (Prague: Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2012), 312ff.

66 Svoboda True Philosophical Method Is the Method of the Natural Sciences),19 indicate that Masaryk’s notion of metaphysics, which unites in itself Brentano’s almost positivistic commitment to science and his rationally theistic discourse, can be regarded as an impressive attempt to bridge what are regarded as two very separate spheres to which an individual in reality fundamentally relates as a conscious subject: the spheres of science and faith.

…

Three years after Masaryk began teaching at Prague University, he fleshed out the details of his ‘scientific metaphysics’ in a book titled Základové konkretné logiky (The Foundations of Concrete Logic),20 which, as well as serving as an introduction to the study of philosophy, outlines his conception of the structure of the sciences and his approach to their classification. Masaryk did not understand metaphysics in the sense proposed by Josef Durdík, as a ‘závěda’, which is to say a kind of science above and beyond the other sciences, one that encompasses them and consists of a systematically developed set of concepts, the creation of which is methodologically predetermined by (and culminates in) the generalisation of research results from individual branches of the sciences.21 Commenting on the differences between the methodological approach used in the abstract sciences and that of the concrete sciences, he highlighted the subjective nature of the abstract sciences and spoke of the need to engage in the work of abstract thought when dealing with the theoretical sciences. Masaryk was interested in more than just ‘solidifying’ concepts within the frame of a potentially infinite quantitative regression of the work of abstract thought. Masaryk was always more concerned with the quality of life in

19 ‘Vera philosophiae methodus nulla alia nisi scientiae naturalis est’. Brentano, Die vier Phasen der Philosophie, viii. 20 Masaryk, Základové konkretné logiky. It should be noted that Masaryk presented readers with this outline of his concept of philosophy three years after he began teaching at the newly founded Czech University, in 1885, and two years after that he published a slightly expanded version of this work in German with the telling title Versuch einer concreten Logik, which was translated by literary critic and essayist Hubert Gordon Schauer (we learn this from an editor’s note added by Jindřích Srovnal). The German version was not translated into Czech until the turn of the millennium, and this was done by Berka and Srovnal. Cf. Tomáš G. Masaryk, Pokus o konkrétní logiku [Attempt at a concrete logic] in Jindřich Srovnal, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. iii (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr and Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2001), 227ff. 21 Cf. Jiří Cetl, Český pozitivismus (Brno: Univerzita J. E. Purkyně v Brně, 1981), 47–​48.

Modernism and Transcendence and Masaryk’s Realism

67

concrete terms, which is the domain of direct human experience. He believed in applying a purely practical approach to reality, which is essentially premised on adopting an ‘emotional’ (or emotionally volitional) relationship to individual ‘realities’ or, as he would sometimes say (with a Leibnizian overtone), to the ‘personalities’ of things (from the perspective of the subject). In this connection these may be any concrete ‘things’ of a material or mental nature –​an ideal mathematical figure, a force of physics, an atom, a chemical element, a biological individual, a human being, nature in its totality, god, the universe. It was in the context of how the practical sciences relate to concrete individuals and individual objects that Masaryk talked about the lesser and greater purposes of things and thus about applying a teleological approach to ‘things themselves’. By deliberately opening up this field of action in which we then reflectively begin to grasp individuals and individual objects on the basis of these lesser and greater purposes, Masaryk was nudging us (although in Concrete Logic still just to a moderate degree)22 into a sphere in which individuals and individual objects are ‘consciously’ assigned a (teleological) meaning and therefore ‘for the subject’ exist in purely utilitarian terms. By the start of the new century Masaryk was overtly pursuing this purpose-​oriented existential approach when he deemed ethics the quintessence of philosophy.23 While in Concrete Logic Masaryk –​with some modifications and amendments –​adhered to Comte’s classification of the sciences, he rejected Comte’s ‘phenomenalism’. He disagreed with the view that the same ‘objective’ relationship exists between all disciplines on the classification scale as ordered according to Comte’s encyclopaedic law.24 Masaryk did not consider the 22 In Concrete Logic, ethics is not presented in connection to philosophy and in the classification of the sciences it figures among the practical sciences but adjacent to the ‘sciences of the mind’ (psychology and sociology). A dramatic turnabout then occurs in Otázka sociální (1898), where for Masaryk philosophy becomes an inquiry into the meaning of life –​and about life wisdom in its wholeness. Josef L. Fischer, ‘Masarykovo pojetí vědy a filosofie’ [Masaryk’s conception of science and philosophy], in Tomáš Stejskal, ed., T.G. Masaryk. Výbor z díla [T.G. Masaryk. Selection from his works], vol. iii (Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci, 2013), 261. Cf. Robert Flint, Philosophy as scientia scientiarum and a History of Classifications of the Sciences (Edinburgh–​London: Willliam Blackwood and Sons, 1904), 272–​283. Cf. also Henry E. Bliss, The Organisation of Knowledge and the System of the Sciences, intr. John Dewey (New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1929), 356–​357. 23 Cf. Tomáš G. Masaryk, ‘Rukověť sociologie. Podstata a metoda sociologie’ sociologie’ [Handbook of sociology. The foundations and methods of sociology], Naše doba 8/​ 1 (1900), 12. Cf. also Tomáš G. Masaryk, ‘Ke klasifikaci věd (Ethika –​filosofie –​theologie)’ [On the classification of sciences [ethics –​philosophy –​theology], Česká mysl 3/​6 (1902), 2. 24 Alongside the seven classes of fundamental sciences, Masaryk sets outside this basic scale linguistics, aesthetics, and logic as the science of professional scientific work. Later after

68 Svoboda phenomena dealt with by the natural sciences and the phenomena dealt with by psychology be qualitatively alike. He made a distinction between ‘physical’ phenomena on the one hand and ‘mental’ phenomena on the other, a distinction that Comte did not acknowledge because for him psychology was a sub-​discipline of biology (or physiology). Masaryk, by contrast, followed Mill’s example, and on his general spectrum or system of the sciences placed sociology (a discipline he essentially reduces to the study of social dynamics, i.e. the philosophy of history) just after psychology and as a part (i.e. a sub-​discipline) of the latter, and in turn deemed psychology, as an autonomous science of the mind, one of the ‘fundamental’ sciences. In Masaryk’s view, Comte’s way of getting around Descartes’ anthropocentric cogito ergo sum could not be accepted. Masaryk considered consciousness a phenomenon ‘sui generis’, observing that ‘of ourselves we are certain’. Therefore, in a purely theoretical perspective, psychology –​and psychology alone –​is, in Masaryk’s view, the path to ‘absolute knowledge’.25 In Masaryk’s system of the sciences, all the sciences (theoretical and practical) are subsumed within philosophy, or, more precisely, within (‘scientific’) metaphysics –​the scientia generalis. So what role did Masaryk’s prioritisation of psychology play within his general concept of metaphysics? If, as Masaryk contended, metaphysics exists both ‘within’ every science –​metaphysics is a part of every science, the sciences all have a metaphysical dimension –​and ‘among’ the sciences –​metaphysics is also one science among others26 –​then this means that the sciences in general, and psychology in particular, must constantly also address the metaphysical dimension of their existence and must understand themselves in a metaphysical light. Metaphysics, as the frame that exists around every science, serves as a kind of figurative or ‘functional’

25 26

aesthetics he added scientific theology or, as he further explained, the science of religion. He thus created two scales. Cf. Masaryk, Pokus o konkrétní logiku, 101–​115; Masaryk, Versuch einer concreten Logik, 116–​138. Tomáš G. Masaryk, Rusko a Evropa i [Russia and Europe i], in Jiří Franěk et al., eds., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Mararyk], vol. xi (Prague: Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 1995), 155. Here I refer deliberately to the Czech version of Masaryk’s book. The English translation of this passage departs in meaning from the Czech version in that it does not take into account philosophy’s purpose in relation to the sciences –​it is ‘v nich’: ‘In ultimate analysis, modern philosophy has ceased to be the queen of the sciences. It does not occupy a higher plane than the special sciences but ranks beside them. It is scientia generalis’. Thomas G. Masaryk, The Spirit of Russia. Studies in History, Literature and Philosophy, vol. i, tr. from German by Paul Eden & Paul Cedar, ed. Jan Slavik (London: Allen & Unwin, 1961), 213.

Modernism and Transcendence and Masaryk’s Realism

69

receptacle or storage box,27 as the depository of what knowledge we have in a particular science. As that particular science advances, its metaphysical frame, as the storage box of our knowledge, also necessarily changes, and it does so both quantitatively and qualitatively. This qualitative transformation is of primary relevance for the position of priority Masaryk assigned to psychology within his system.28 The dynamically changing metaphysical frame constitutes the foundation from which we generally and necessarily derive our (pre)understanding, which is to say our subjective knowledge or what we have subjectively acquired knowledge of, regardless of whether we are talking about knowledge as it relates to the theoretical or the practical sciences. Hence this metaphysical frame, which is the agent that ensures that the entire system of the sciences functions, is in the psychological sense centred on the ‘real’ (concrete) subject –​the self –​and on the critical and responsible realisation of the self in the process of relating to the objective order of reality and continuous ‘interaction’ with reality. Masaryk thus put the requisite emphasis on the acquisition of (specialised) knowledge on the part of the individual and education (an individual should be trying to become knowledgeable, and should be what he called a ‘dilettante’, in multiple scientific fields),29 but beyond that he also placed significant stress on the moral consciousness of the individual, on the individual’s ethical life –​and in the light of his many years of experience this had become something of paramount importance for him personally by the start of the twentieth century. It was as though he was trying, with his characteristic prescience, to effectively and responsibly anticipate the events that in less than two decades would shake the civilised world –​and he sought to do this through faith in humanity and so also through what fundamentally binds this faith together and maintains it, namely, loving thy neighbour.

…

27 28

29

Cf. Jan Svoboda, ‘Whitehead’s Interpretation of Plato’s “Receptacle” and the Parallels with the Concept of “Eternal Objects”’, Nóema 11 (2020), 35–​53 (https://​rivi​ste.unimi.it/​index .php/​noema/​arti​cle/​view/​14036, accessed on 20 September 2021). In his early writings Masaryk was already of the opinion that, as well as knowledge (reason), ethics (emotion) was also undergoing its own positive development against the backdrop of human history. Tomáš G. Masaryk, Juvenilie. Studie a stati 1876–​1881 [Juvenilia and texts, 1876–​1881], in Stanislav Polák, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. xvi (Prague: Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 1993), 22–​23. Cf. Masaryk, Pokus o konkrétní logiku, 194–​195; Masaryk, Versuch einer concreten Logik, 265–​266.

70 Svoboda Masaryk, like Palacký, realised that modern human beings were inextricably caught up in a process of global civilisational development, which today we call globalisation.30 There was a risk that they would end up as mere puppets of the changes set in motion by modernisation and often unpredictable civilisational upheavals. He believed that in order to prevent this, modern men and women would have to find the mental and social support they need within a community with which they were intimately familiar and of which they recognised themselves as being an inseparable part, regardless of what level of responsibility they possessed in relation to that society, i.e. what social function or position they occupied–​and this is all the more true if the individual is part of a small nation.31 But there is more to this than just a shared language, a blind faith in tradition, or the fleeting excitement that collectively engulfs people during important moments in history, when time pulls back the curtain and everything seems to regain its lost meaning. Masaryk wanted to ‘catch sight of’ and pinpoint the idea that forms the qualitative substance of Czech history’s continuity and when articulated as a programme of national emancipation possesses the necessary potential to permanently invest all of that history’s positive contexts with meaning. Drawing on international intellectual movements and his domestic intellectual forerunners, Masaryk found this idea in the concept of humanity.32 30

31 32

Thomas G. Masaryk, The Meaning of Czech History, ed. Rene Wellek, tr. Peter Kussi (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1974), 117–​118. Tomáš G. Masaryk, ‘Česká otázka. Snahy a tužby národního obrození’ [The Czech question. The aims and desires of the national revival], in Tomáš G. Masaryk, Česká otázka, Naše nynější krize, Jan Hus [The Czech Question. Our current crisis. Jan Hus], in Jiří Brabec, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. vi (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr, 2000), 111. Thomas G. Masaryk, ‘The Problem of Small Nations in the European Crisis’, inaugural lecture at the University of London, King’s College by Professor Thomas G. Masaryk, The Council for the Study of International Relations, London 1916. Masaryk did not derive Czech humanism from revolutionary humanism, because he did not see its foundation as lying in the French Revolution but rather in the Czech Reformation tradition, which emerged out of the Hussite movement. As regards the continuity of the European Reformation, we can mention not just Luther’s admiration for Jan Hus and his influence on the Czech Brethren, for in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the idea of Czech humanism arrived back in the Czech Lands through German Enlightenment thinkers and responses to them. These thinkers did not just know and value the teachings of Jan Amos Comenius (Leibniz, Herder, Goethe, and in the sense of Schola ludus even Friedrich Schiller in his Über die ästhetische Erziehung des Menschen, 1795), but also saw the positive role of Slavism in the democratising process in Europe (Herder). A no less important intermediary in this was J. F. Fries, a prominent philosopher in his day, and the teacher of the leading Czech Enlightenment thinkers Ján Kollár and Pavel Josef Šafařík when they were studying in Jena (they grew up surrounded by the vigorous Slovak reformation tradition), and indirectly also František Palacký, who

Modernism and Transcendence and Masaryk’s Realism

71

As Masaryk saw it, humanity as a timeless ideal would act to cement society, and at more than just the level of internal socio-​political cohesion. Masaryk regarded this moral idea towards which modern world history seemed undeniably to be progressing33 as a historically established currency that would in principle ensure that all the nation’s objectives of political emancipation would remain permanently intelligible to other nationality-​based cultures and existing political units. In the Česká otázka (‘The Czech Question’, 1895) Masaryk described ‘political’ realism as the principle that would ensure the functionality of this fundamental idea of humanity, which was something that had to be tirelessly fought for.34 He clarified his position by asserting that political realism was meant to serve as a ‘direction and method’,35 a particular philosophical-​sociological approach to reality, which could be used to effectively steer and fulfil the national idea and thereby continuously refresh its ‘meaning’ in relation to the needs and potential of society’s development.36 At a time when national studied his writings in Pressburg (now Bratislava); Fries was on his mother’s side a direct descendent of the Czech Brethren and he embraced his background. That democracy’s humanist roots should be sought in the Hussite movement was an idea that had also been highlighted by the theorists and ideologists of the French Revolution Louis Blanc and Pierre Leroux, the populariser of Leroux George Sand, and historian Jules Michelet. Josef Zumr, ‘Národní obrození jako zdroj Masarykovy filosofie dějin’ [National revival as a source of Masaryk’s philosophy of history], in Helena Pavlincová & Jan Zouhar, eds., T. G. Masaryk a česká státnost. Sborník příspěvků z mezinárodní vědecké konference pořádané Masarykovou univerzitou ve dnech 4.–​5. září 2007 v Brně [T.G. Masaryk and Czech statehood. Collected papers from international scientific conference organised by the Masaryk University, 4–​5 September 2007 in Brno] (Prague: Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2008), 22; also Josef Zumr, ‘Novohumanistická složka Palackého filosofie’ [Neo-​humanist elements in Palacký’s philosohy], in František Šmahel & Eva Doležalová, eds., František Palacký, 1798/​ 1988, dějiny a dnešek [František Palacký, 1798/​1988, history and today] (Prague: Historický ústav av čr, 1999), 76–​79. Cf. also, Zdeněk V. David, ‘Národní obrození jako převtělení Zlatého věku’ [National revival as a reincarnation of the Golden Age], Český časopis historický 99/​3 (2001), 486–​516. 33 Writings by important opponents of Masaryk’s conception of the meaning of Czech history (most notably Josef Pekař and Josef Kaizl) can be found in a broad and unique publication put together by Miloš Havelka, Spor o smysl českých dějin [Dispute over the meaning of Czech history], vol. i: 1895–​1938 (Prague: Torst, 1995). 34 Masaryk, Česká otázka, 116ff. Also Masaryk, The Meaning of Czech History, 140–​142. 35 In The Czech Question Masaryk highlighted the philosophical basis of his realism, which he had already explained in his earlier writings: ‘As for myself, in Concrete Logic, and prior to that in my study on Henry Thomas Buckle, I tried to scientifically explain this view and to draw the main scientific and social consequences from it’. Ibid., 116. 36 Cf. Tomáš G. Masaryk, ‘Naše nynější krize. Pád strany staročeské a počátkové směrů nových’ [Our current crisis. The fall of the Old Czech Party and beginnings of new directions], in Masaryk, Česká otázka, 180.

72 Svoboda emancipation had already made considerable progress and an urgent need had arisen to democratise society,37 Masaryk made social statics his priority,38 which is to say that he was primarily concerned with actively establishing a social consensus, rather than preoccupied with a one-​sided consideration of the past. Responsible individuals who had developed a moral consciousness by practising the idea of humanity had an essential role to play in this democratising process of ‘societal’ self-​awareness. Their role was essentially the same as that played by people in the late Middle Ages, when they began to sense a conflict between the authority of the church as an institution and the authority of the individual’s conscience, and there were calls to reform society through the restoration of religious moral principles. This is exactly what was attempted in the early fifteenth century –​more than a century before the Lutheran Reformation –​by Jan Hus and the Hussite movement and the turbulent Czech reformation (which lasted almost two centuries).39 Masaryk did not believe that development and progress occur automatically. He was most interested in overcoming the crisis of modern humanity by practical analysis of contemporary society. He equally emphasised the need to strengthen the functional capacity of society’s entire structural fabric, while realising that this could not be effectively achieved without the participation of informed and morally aware individuals acting ‘in conformity with the time’. Masaryk was trying with his realist approach to give society a new direction, to invest it with a modern historical meaning. He wanted society to be a kind of active social space with the potential to create new and generally acceptable values. According to Masaryk, free and equal participation in public ‘affairs’ for all therefore represented the realisation of the universal humanist ideal or in Christian terms the realisation of the command to love thy neighbour (which, when viewed in the context of relations between these ideas, generally ranks higher than particularistic nationalist interests). Clearly, ‘morally conscious’ 37 38

Otto Urban, ‘Die Tschechische Frage um 1900’, Österreichische Osthefte 32/​3 (1900), 433ff. Thomas G. Masaryk, Masaryk on Marx. Abridged ed. of T. G. Masaryk, The Social Question: Philosophical and Sociological Foundations of Marxism, ed. and trans. Erazim V. Kohák (Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press, 1972), 84–​86. Tomáš G. Masaryk, Otázka sociální, i. [The social question], in Jindřich Srovnal, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. ix (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr & Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2000), 79–​80. 39 Masaryk, The Meaning of Czech History, 3–​ 14. Cf. also Joseph Grimm Feinberg, ‘Emancipation Between the Nation and Humanity: T. G. Masaryk and the Legacy of Czech-​Austrian Philosophy’, an interview with Jan Svoboda, Contradictions. A Journal for Critical Thought 3/​2 (2019), 141–​168 (https://​kramer​ius.lib.cas.cz/​per​iodi​cal/​uuid:dbe7f​ a7f-​e521-​4d6a-​8bfb-​b9f5c​6e84​ce2, accessed on 20 September 2021).

Modernism and Transcendence and Masaryk’s Realism

73

activism was a principle that underlay all of Masaryk’s attempts to further political reform. The idea was that realism would activate society in several respects. First, realism would work to bring about a ‘literary revolution’ pursued in the spirit of the nation’s intellectual forebears: Havlíček and Dobrovský. By revolution in this context Masaryk meant subjecting the national programme to a ‘thorough revision’ premised on deepening and advancing literary, scientific, and philosophical education, which had to that time drawn primarily from German intellectual sources (and this was especially true of philosophy). Inspired by Russian realism, Masaryk believed that this revision involved undertaking a critical review or reassessment of the ideas of the revivalists in the past and their pan-​Slavic focus. They would thus be examined in the light of his realist-​ critical concept of a literary revolution, or, as he said, be the subject of ‘a Slavic self-​indictment’ that would scrutinise past ideas for flaws and shortcomings and protest against myths and fabrications about the present and the past. Masaryk thereby gave new emancipatory substance to the National-​Revivalist idea of Slavic reciprocity.40 He put the original emphasis on ‘pan-​Slavism’ in fundamental contrast to the ‘temporal aspirations’ of realism and situated this largely nationalistically oriented revivalist idea (which was essentially supposed to serve as a bulwark against ‘pan-​Germanism’) within the wider international context of modern emancipatory projects. Realism required the complete political transformation of the present and its overall modernisation and humanisation. Mere politicking and proclamatory sloganeering devoid of any concrete political substance were not enough. What Masaryk wanted was to have a long-​term political programme in place that would not continue to ignore the methods of the emerging natural sciences and would look ‘especially’ to the social sciences. Good-​quality education accessible to ‘every stratum of the nation’ was therefore of paramount importance, and it was in the sense of this political challenge that realism became an explicit ‘protest against the monopoly on education’. Masaryk wanted to ‘nationalise’ all education, to ‘socialise’ it, by which he meant to

40

Tomáš G. Masaryk, ‘Česká otázka. Snahy a tužby národního obrození’ [The Czech question. The aims and aspirations of the national revival], in Masaryk, Česká otázka, 117. In connection with the rise of the ‘young generation of critics’ in Russia, Masaryk spoke of the ‘obličitelný’ (обличительный) or incriminatory nature of contemporary criticism. In the words of František Faifr, he was alluding to ‘how society deludes itself about many things, how it misleads and deceives itself, how it delights in formalities only superficially preserved, and how it embellishes its appearance’. František Fajfr, ‘Sociologický objektivism’ [Sociological objectivism], Sociologický časopis 28/​3 (1992), 432.

74 Svoboda nationally integrate every stratum of society through a national system of education. With this kind of positively oriented activism, realism also took a critical stance against the tendency in contemporary journalism to engage in mindless patriotic grandstanding and undignified populist chauvinism. In conformity with modern scientific standards, Masaryk wanted the contemporary press to recast itself as positive media, which in the new spirit of reform would participate in a ‘real’, that is, a reshaping of the present conceived in concrete terms and with concrete objectives.41 Masaryk understood the socialisation of Czech politics as a continuous emancipatory process that involved social reforms, cultural work, and the radical transformation of politics. Politics were supposed to be an expression of the innermost meaning of the life of society and therefore had to be conceived less abstractly than before: ‘This means working on behalf of those whom we have up to now excluded from our cultural work’.42 In this sense, politics was supposed to constantly strive to strengthen the rights of groups hitherto overlooked –​to ‘be on their side’ and work ‘on their behalf’. For Czechs, as the heirs to the ideals of the Czech Brethren, ‘resolving the social question’ was in Masaryk’s view ‘a major and the most exacting task’. To counter tendencies towards passivity in society, and every act of aggression and violence, Masaryk placed an emphasis on ‘small work’ and social ‘self-​(initiated) action’. Nevertheless, by the middle of the 1890s, as a consistent realist Masaryk did not hide the fact that there could come a time when ‘we’, the nation, would have to ‘defend ourselves with steel’ and not with ‘labour and reason’ alone.43 The democratising thrust of Masaryk’s political realism, which sought to bring about the enduring humanisation of Czech society and recast the dysfunctional ancien régime of federalised Austria as a modern civil society, was also supposed to inform tactics in the sphere of the nation’s ‘external’ policy towards the rest of the multinational Austro-​Hungarian state. Masaryk believed that the Czechs had to try to reach an agreement with their German compatriots and achieve greater national autonomy for the Czech people (he spoke of ‘autonomy in the sense of self-​government’44). According to Masaryk, this would strengthen the functioning of the Czech political administration. But more than that, it would generate an active civic self-​awareness in the frame of wider (pluralistic) political cooperation and thereby create the 41 42 43 44

Masaryk, ‘Česká otázka. Snahy a tužby národního obrození’, 117–​118. Masaryk, ‘Česká otázka. Snahy a tužby národního obrození’, 118. All quotes in this paragraph Masaryk, ‘Česká otázka. Snahy a tužby národního obrození’, 118–​119. Masaryk, ‘Česká otázka. Snahy a tužby národního obrození’, 118.

Modernism and Transcendence and Masaryk’s Realism

75

necessary space in which to effectively unite Czech and German compatriots in the joint effort of working towards the humanist ideal, building a stable democracy, and thereby asserting national autonomy. One effect would be that the understanding of Czech history and its meaning would also gradually be reshaped. Masaryk was trying to check the opinion widespread among Czech national revivalists that Czech history was driven by an antagonism towards the Germans, and in doing so he was at the same time facilitating general and positive ‘humanist’ activism in the sense of enabling a transition from a cultural conception of the nation to a modern democratic type of society. This goal of modernisation, which reflected the latest trend at the time but could be achieved gradually, created a new position for realism in the political field: to be a party in the space between conservatism and radicalism.45 When Masaryk’s Russland und Europa (1913) was published by Diederichs press in Jena46 just before the start of the First World War, his realist viewpoint had acquired significantly more concrete contours. In trying to f­ormulate a theory of revolution that was wholeheartedly opposed to the dysfunctional theocratic-​aristocratic social orders and was a radical expression of the need for a new democratic social system, Masaryk shed his objectivist view of religion and against theism asserted scientific and philosophical anthropism or

45

46

‘Conservatism looks to the past, it is premised on historicism and an excessive historicism in particular; radicalism does not look to the past, it modifies the present with a logic, a logic that is very often false –​realism does not give in to the past but subjects it to a recognition of things, to the present, hence the position realism occupies between conservatism and radicalism’. Ibid., 118. We should note that Masaryk began to be active in politics in the late 1880s and early 1890s as part of the realist movement (Masaryk, Kaizl, Kramář, Rezek), which was grouped around the periodical (and later weekly) magazine Čas (Time) edited by Jan Herben. After unsuccessful talks over his joining the Old Czech Party (Staročeská strana) (there was a difference of opinion over the ‘Punktace’, a series of points agreed with Vienna dividing administration, services, etc., in Bohemia along German and Czech ethnic lines) he drew closer to the Young Czechs and in 1890 joined their party. As a representative of this party he (and Josef Kaizl) won a mandate in the Imperial and a year later the Provincial Diet. In 1893, however, owing to escalating disputes he gave up both mandates and (following K. H. Borovský’s example) began turning to ‘non-​political politics’. Masaryk described his preparatory stage in the quartet of books: Česká otázka (1895), Naše nynější krize (1895), Jan Hus (1896), and Karel Havlíček (1896). He re-​entered active politics after the realists established themselves as an independent political party in 1900 called the Czech (Realists) People’s Party (Česká strana (realistická) lidová; in 1906 it changed its name to the Czech Progressive Party /​ Česká strana pokroková). In 1907 Masaryk again obtained a parliamentary mandate –​and remained in the Imperial Diet as the party’s only delegate until the First World War. First published in Czech (in two volumes) by Laichter publishers in 1919. Cf. Masaryk, Rusko a Evropa i, 359 (note on the publication).

76 Svoboda anthropologism.47 Anthropologism underlines the moral quality, spiritual awareness, and preparedness of the individual, and the ‘conviction’ of the responsible individual who is the true and ultimate object of scientific research and the measure of all things in science. Furthermore, as Masaryk’s consistent outlook shows, this is the ‘conviction’ of someone who is engaged in a constant active dialogue with Providence –​to which he constantly existentially relates, and which is the essential (historical) premise and guarantee of a positive future. The scientific stage of development, the positive validity of which (despite a certain retrogression) could no longer be reasonably denied, was then incorporated into Masaryk’s philosophical concept of humanity as a self-​ evident and historically given condition. And while the objectivity that comes with this stage was deemed essential for understanding historical development, for Masaryk it ceased to be the sole idea underpinning history. Masaryk irreversibly assigned responsibility for the meaning of history to morally conscious and responsible individuals, who possess not just ‘knowledge’ but also the fundamental integrity of their own ‘conscience’.

…

How does Masaryk’s modernism, which is dialogic in nature because it claims that we exist in a constant relationship to transcendence, look today in the light of his conception of realism? Speaking with the kind of circumspection required when reflecting critically on the present day and necessitated by changing historical circumstances, we can certainly say that it remains relevant in several respects. First, there is Masaryk’s still compelling modernist call for a form of social activism that rests on an enduring ‘consensus’ among democratically aware citizen-​individuals who are professionally and, above all, morally mature. Education and a critical scientific outlook, as Masaryk understood it, were always an inherent (interactive) part of ethical-​religious transcendence, and as an enduring form of social synergism had inevitably to be reflected in all the ‘small work’ of political activity. Masaryk believed that politics without ethics necessarily descends into a mere power-​seeking mechanism that favours the arbitrary and particular power interests of individuals or power groups over the needs of society as a whole. As a consequence society becomes atomised, and the shared sense of human solidarity is lost. A necessary result of this social dysfunction, where individuals cease to realise the meaningfulness of their role in society and in relation to the social system as 47 Masaryk, Rusko a Evropa i, 152ff; Masaryk, The Spirit of Russia, vol i, 209ff.

Modernism and Transcendence and Masaryk’s Realism

77

a whole, is a general intellectual passivity that ‘negates’ the desirable will and motivation of individuals to act. Although the positive maxims yielded by Masaryk’s realist viewpoint leave absolutely no room for passivity or negative tendencies in human action, and from the perspective of our everyday (‘small’) work may be considered ‘unrealistic’, it is impossible not to notice how closely tied Masaryk’s thinking was to the sources of the Classical tradition and the role played by Platonic idealism in his intellectual life. Masaryk implies that all the meaning (and value) of transcendence is rooted in the existential sphere, which is the rational domain of how we experience things and of our highest personal motivations, and he leaves it up to us to decide which philosophical approach is best suited to this ‘atemporal’ reality. Viewed against the backdrop of his intellectual development and extensive practical experience as he gradually arrived at his mature conception of philosophy and his anthropology, it becomes clear that Masaryk was not engaged only in an effort to connect abstract thought with the world of concrete science. As a typical ‘philosopher of crisis’, his chief interest was to unite two distinct areas of reflection on our reality, the sphere of the ‘fallibility’ of science and the ‘certainty’ of faith –​he was interested in their (relational) synergy. Masaryk’s contemporary conception of psychology and Pascalian reflections on this subject point fundamentally in this direction, and also suggest a potential direction for further scientific research. In the post-​modern present we can use Habermas’s concept of translation as a kind of guideline for determining ‘what is missing here’.48 While it is important to be aware of the methodological limitations of this concept, it is still a meaningful and artfully developed way of trying to ‘translate’ the semantic content of faith into a language intelligible to modern secularised individuals. It is precisely through this rational concept of Habermas’s, which seeks to extract that which is ‘trans-​subjectively’ positive from the content of faith, that we are able to clearly see how the absence of the inner, subjectively experienced relationship to transcendence itself sets the limits of its (re-​constitutive) possibilities. All the same, let us acknowledge that despite the limits of Habermas’s ­theory it is one of the modern intellectual challenges involving critical attempts to effectively establish the continuity of the intelligibility of experienced reality by fundamentally linking it to the sphere of faith. This can help us not just only to understand –​even if only for short periods –​the continuity in the meaning of Czech history, but also, against the backdrop of the positive

48

Jürgen Habermas, Philosophische Texte: Studienausgabe in fünf Bänden, vol. v: Kritik der Vernunft (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2009).

78 Svoboda ideas that have been extracted, to assign meaning to our present: to ‘imbue the present with spirit’. Today, when the notion of the Czech nation as an ‘abstract community of shared cultural values’ only ostensibly adds a qualitative dimension and character49 to the idea of the Czech nation as a ‘large social group’, and thus the consistency between the two has been lost, and when the sense that what is specific to the Czech (philosophy of) history –​that Czech humanity qualitatively evolved out of Hussitism and the Czech Reformation –​has been irretrievably subsumed within a globalised and undifferentiated present, it is right to pose the philosophical question: Is a concern with the absence of continuity in the meaning of Czech history today really just an anachronism? And if it is not, does the revitalisation of Masaryk’s concept of socially oriented realism or ‘concretism’, which, citing his intellectual forebears, he himself defined as a specific goal that transcends the generations, have the necessary potential to appeal to modern, critically thinking individuals in the present day? Or, like some idea plucked from the archives, should it now be relegated to the margins of scholarly interest?

Bibliography

Bliss, Henry E., The Organisation of Knowledge and the System of the Sciences, intr. John Dewey (New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1929). Brentano, Franz, Die vier Phasen der Philosophie und ihr augenblicklicher Stand. Nebst Abhandlungen über Plotinus, Thomas von Aquin, Kant, Schopenhauer und Auguste Comte, ed. Oskar Kraus (Leipzig: Felix Meiner, 1926). Brentano, Franz, Versuch über die Erkenntnis, ed. Alfred Kastil (Leipzig: Felix Meiner, 1925). Čapek, Karel, ‘Masaryk on Thought and Life. Conversations with Karel Čapek’, tr. Marie & Robert Weatherall (London: Allen & Unwin, 1938). Cetl, Jiří, Český pozitivismus (Brno: Univerzita J. E. Purkyně v Brně, 1981). David, Zdeněk V., ‘Národní obrození jako převtělení Zlatého věku’ [National revival as a reincarnation of the Golden Age], Český časopis historický 99/​3 (2001), 486–​516. Ehrenfels, Christian von, ‘Offener Brief an den Präsidenten der Tschechoslowakischen Republik T. G. Masaryk!’, in Christian von Ehrenfels, Metaphysik, Philosophische

49

Miroslav Hroch, Hledání souvislostí. Eseje z komparativních dějin Evropy [Looking for connections. Essays in comparative history of Europe] (Prague: Sociologické nakladatelství slon, 2018), 285ff.

Modernism and Transcendence and Masaryk’s Realism

79

Schriften, vol. iv, intr. Roderik M. Chisholm (Munich: Philosophia Verlag, 1990), 289–​293. Fajfr, František, ‘Sociologický objektivism’ [Sociological objectivism], Sociologický časopis 28/​3 (1992), 430–​432. Feinberg, Joseph G., ‘Emancipation Between the Nation and Humanity: T. G. Masaryk and the Legacy of Czech-​Austrian Philosophy’, an interview with Jan Svoboda, Contradictions. A Journal for Critical Thought 3/​2 (2019), 141–​168 (https://​kramer​ius .lib.cas.cz/​per​iodi​cal/​uuid:dbe7f​a7f-​e521-​4d6a-​8bfb-​b9f5c​6e84​ce2, accessed on 20 September 2021). Fischer, Josef L., ‘Masarykovo pojetí vědy a filosofie’ [Masaryk’s conception of science and philosophy], in Tomáš Stejskal, ed., Výbor z díla, vol. iii (Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci, 2013). Flint, Robert, Philosophy as scientia scientiarum and a History of Classifications of the Sciences (Edinburgh–​London: Willliam Blackwood and Sons, 1904). Habermas, Jürgen, Philosophische Texte: Studienausgabe in fünf Bänden, vol. v: Kritik der Vernunft (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2009). Havelka, Miloš, ed., Spor o smysl českých dějin [Dispute over the meaning of Czech history], vol. i: 1895–​1938, vol. ii: 1938–​1989 (Prague: Torst, 1995–​2006). Höffding, Harald & Josef Král, Přehledné dějiny filosofie [A brief history of philosophy] (Prague: Česká grafická unie, 1946). Hroch, Miroslav, Hledání souvislostí. Eseje z komparativních dějin Evropy [Looking for connections. Essays in comparative history of Europe] (Prague: Sociologické nakladatelství slon, 2018). Johnston, Will M., The Austrian Mind. An Intellectual and Social History 1848–​1938 (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984). Kołakowski, Leszek, Der Mensch ohne Alternativen (Munich: Piper, 1960). Král, Josef, Československá filosofie. Nástin vývoje podle disciplín [Czechoslovak philosophy. An outline of development according to particular areas] (Prague: Melantrich, 1937). Masaryk, Tomáš G., ‘Antwort des Herrn Präsidenten T. G. Masaryk auf den von Chr. Ehrenfels im Dezember 1929 an ihn gerichteten “Offenen Brief”’ in Christian von Ehrenfels, Metaphysik, Philosophische Schriften, vol. iv, intr. Roderick M. Chisholm (Munich: Philosophia Verlag, 1990), 294–​295. Masaryk, Tomáš G., ‘Česká otázka. Snahy a tužby národního obrození’ [The Czech question. The aims and aspirations of the national revival], in Tomáš G. Masaryk, Česká otázka, Naše nynější krize, Jan Hus [The Czech Question. Our current crisis. Jan Hus], in Jiří Brabec, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. vi (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr, 2000), 11–​169. Masaryk, Tomáš G., ‘Česká otázka. Snahy a tužby národního obrození’ [The Czech question. The aims and aspirations of the national revival], in Jiří Brabec., ed., Spisy

80 Svoboda T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. vi (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr, 2000). Masaryk, Tomáš G., ‘Ke klasifikaci věd (Ethika –​filosofie –​theologie)’ [On the classification of sciences [ethics –​philosophy –​theology], Česká mysl 3/​6 (1902). Masaryk, Tomáš G., ‘Naše nynější krize. Pád strany staročeské a počátkové směrů nových’ [Our current crisis. The fall of the Old Czech Party and beginnings of new directions], in Tomáš G. Masaryk, Česká otázka, Naše nynější krize, Jan Hus [The Czech Question. Our current crisis. Jan Hus], in Jiří Brabec, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. vi (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr, 2000). Masaryk, Tomáš G., ‘Rukověť sociologie. Podstata a metoda sociologie’ sociologie’ [Handbook of sociology. The foundations and methods of sociology], Naše doba 8/​ 1 (1900), 1–​12, 98–​105, 173–​181, 735–​741, 822–​828, 904–​910. Masaryk, Tomáš G., ‘Univerzitní přednášky I. Praktická filozofie’ [University lectures I. Practical philosophy], in Jiří Gabriel et al., eds., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. iv (Prague: Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2012). Masaryk, Tomáš G., Dav. Hume’s Skepsis und die Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Logik und Philosophie (Vienna: Carl Konegen, 1884). Masaryk, Tomáš G., Juvenilie. Studie a stati 1876–​1881 [Juvenilia and texts, 1876–​1881], in Stanislav Polák, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. xvi (Prague: Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 1993), 22–​23. Masaryk, Thomas G., Masaryk on Marx, abridged ed. of T. G. Masaryk, The Social Question: Philosophical and Sociological Foundations of Marxism, ed. and trans. Erazim V. Kohák (Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press, 1972). Masaryk, Tomáš G., Otázka sociální, i. [The social question], in Jindřich Srovnal, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. ix (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr & Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2000). Masaryk, Tomáš G., Počet pravděpodobnosti a Humova skepse. Za historický úvod k theorii indukce [Calculating probabilities and Humean skepsis. A historical introduction to the theory of deduction] (Prague: J. Otto, 1883). Masaryk, Tomáš G., Pokus o konkrétní logiku [Attempt at a concrete logic] in Jindřich Srovnal, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. iii (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr and Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2001). Masaryk, Tomáš G., Přednášky a studie z let 1882–​1884 [Lectures and studies, 1882–​1884], in Stanislav Polák & Jiří Brabec, eds., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. xvii (Prague: Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 1998). Masaryk, Tomáš G., Rusko a Evropa i [Russia and Europe i], in Jiří Franěk et al., eds., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Mararyk], vol. xi (Prague: Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 1995).

Modernism and Transcendence and Masaryk’s Realism

81

Masaryk, Thomas G., Suicide and the Meaning of Civilization, tr. William B. Weist & Robert G. Batson, intr., Anthony Giddens (Chicago–​London: University of Chicago Press, 1970). Masaryk, Thomas G., The Making of a State. Memories and Observations 1914–​1918, tr. Henry Wickham Steed (London: Allen & Unwin, 1927). Masaryk, Thomas G., The Meaning of Czech History, ed. Rene Wellek, tr. Peter Kussi (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1974). Masaryk, Thomas G., The Spirit of Russia. Studies in History, Literature and Philosophy, vol. i, tr. from German Paul Eden & Paul Cedar, ed. Jan Slavik (London: Allen & Unwin, 1961). Masaryk, Tomáš G., V boji o náboženství [While fighting about religion] (1st edn., Prague: Leichter, 1904, 2nd edn., Prague: Čin, 1947). Masaryk, Thomas G., Versuch einer concreten Logik (Classification und Organisation der Wissenschaften.) (Vienna: Carl Konegen, 1887). Masaryk, Tomáš G., Základové konkretné logiky [Foundations of a concrete logic] in Jiří Olšovský & Jindřich Srovnal, eds. Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. ii (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr & Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2001). Svoboda, Jan, ‘Moderna a transcendence ve světle Masarykova realismu’ [Modernism and transcendence in the light of Masaryk’s realism], Filosofický časopis 66/​5 (2018), 679–​697. Svoboda, Jan, ‘Whitehead’s Interpretation of Plato’s “Receptacle” and the Parallels with the Concept of “Eternal Objects”’, Nóema 11 (2020), 35–​53, https://​rivi​ste.unimi.it /​index.php/​noema/​arti​cle/​view/​14036, accessed on 20 September 2021. Urban, Otto, ‘Die Tschechische Frage um 1900’, Österreichische Osthefte 32/​3 (1900), 427–​438. Zumr, Josef, ‘Národní obrození jako zdroj Masarykovy filosofie dějin’ [National revival as a source of Masaryk’s philosophy of history], in Helena Pavlincová & Jan Zouhar, eds., T. G. Masaryk a česká státnost. Sborník příspěvků z mezinárodní vědecké konference pořádané Masarykovou univerzitou ve dnech 4.–​5. září 2007 v Brně [T.G. Masaryk and Czech statehood. Collected papers from international scientific conference organised by the Masaryk University, 4–​5 September 2007 in Brno] (Prague: Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2008). Zumr, Josef, ‘Novohumanistická složka Palackého filosofie’ [Neo-​humanist elements in Palacký’s philosophy], in František Šmahel & Eva Doležalová, eds., František Palacký, 1798/​1988, dějiny a dnešek [František Palacký, 1798/​1988, history and today] (Prague: Historický ústav av čr, 1999).

­c hapter 5

Masaryk’s Ethics Wendy Drozenová Abstract The values of Masaryk’s ethics are connected with humanist ideals that apply to all of humanity and are therefore valid even when we depart from his idea of the ‘meaning of Czech history’. They are the ideals of actively promoting democracy and improving the organisation of society for the benefit of all its classes, while at the individual level presupposing an effort to improve oneself. The emphasis on equality of all people, and especially of women, makes his ethics relevant even in the twenty-​first century. Philosophically, it is grounded in the ethics of emotion, especially David Hume, but it is also based on the religious imperative to love one’s neighbour. As evidenced by his statements in university lectures and the final summaries given in interviews with Karel Čapek, Masaryk’s ethics presupposes that people are responsible for their own actions. In addition to the role of the individual, Masaryk is also aware of the importance of community, which for him means mainly family and nation. Masaryk considered emphasis on the national question to be a necessity of the times. He assumed equality of nations and foresaw the future creation of a unifying organisation, such as the United Nations.

1

Ethics as the Heart of Masaryk’s Philosophy

A chapter on Masaryk’s ethics is included here in the context of a discussion of the Czech question because for Masaryk, the Czech question was essentially a question of ethics. This needs to be explained. Masaryk never wrote a study that was solely concerned with ethics,1 but ethical themes form the backdrop to his thought and political career and were inseparably linked to his religious 1 Attempts to fill this gap were made by Masaryk’s supporters in various summaries of Masaryk’s writings and speeches that deal with ethical issues –​for example, a book by Zděnek Franta containing a collection of statements by T. G. Masaryk; Mravní názory: Vybral Zdeněk Franta [Moral views. Selected by Zdeněk Franta] (Prague: Státní nakladatelství, 1925). There also exist records of Masaryk’s university lectures on ethics, which we will deal with in the second part of this chapter.

© Wendy Drozenová, 2023 | DOI:10.1163/9789004534919_007

Masaryk’s Ethics

83

motivations. Masaryk’s primary aim was the moral and cultural improvement of the Czech nation. Naturally, this also depended on political and economic conditions, but those he saw not as objectives in themselves but rather as preconditions and means of moral progress. A major feature of Masaryk’s thought, and one that has become no less relevant over time, is its primary consideration of the ethical context and its relationship to the sphere of politics. Masaryk’s struggle for democracy was his defining objective in the political sphere. As regards his personal reason for supporting democracy, Masaryk’s answer was ‘faith in man, in his spirit and immortal soul; that is, true, metaphysical equality. Ethically democracy is based on the political realisation of love of one’s neighbour’.2 Even in this brief statement we can see a fusion of ethical and religious motives. The motive is the commandment of love, which lies at the very heart of ethics and is realised in everyday life in the material and historical world, while it relates at the same time to the spiritual and eternal. Today questions naturally arise as to whether and in what sense Masaryk’s ethics are still persuasive, and the extent to which they were just a product of their time, born in response to contemporary philosophical, political, and other influences that are now no longer relevant. It is obvious that the ‘Czech question’ itself looks different in today’s discourse than it did a century ago. In fact, Masaryk’s promotion of ‘the meaning of Czech history’, his philosophical construction of the history of the Czech nation, was already challenged by historians in his day.3 Some objections –​especially the argument that the history of the Czech nation has been fundamentally shaped and determined by the history of other European countries –​have only become stronger in today’s age of globalisation. The postmodern world is also less inclined to accept the construction of ‘grand narratives’ in the philosophy of history. I intend to show that Masaryk’s ethics still have significance and value for our time provided that we look away from his interpretation of ‘the meaning of Czech history’ and focus our attention solely on the ethical dimensions of his relationship to the Czech nation and his conception of ethics in general.

2 Karel Čapek, Masaryk on Thought and Life. Conversations with Karel Čapek, tr. Marie & Robert Weatherall (London: Allen & Unwin, 1944), 190. 3 Cf., e.g., Josef Pekař, ‘Smysl českých dějin’ [The meaning of Czech history], in Josef Pekař, O smyslu českých dějin [On the meaning of Czech history] (Prague: Rozmluvy, 1990). In the preceding chapter Jan Svoboda refers to a hefty publication compiled by Miloš Havelka, Spor o smysl českých dějin [Dispute over the meaning of Czech history], vol. i: 1895–​1938, vol. ii: 1938–​1989 (Prague: Torst, 1995–​2006), which contains texts by prominent opponents of Masaryk’s conception of the meaning of Czech history (most notably Josef Pekař and Josef Kaizl); cf. part ii, chap. 1, note 30.

84 Drozenová We are able to do this because Masaryk’s ethics are not as dependent on his philosophy of history as might be supposed in view of his ‘archaeological’ excavation of the key values of humanity, democracy, and so forth, from different episodes in Czech history starting with the Hussite movement, and his presentation of these episodes as connected in a continuous line. The impression is thereby given that the key values have been revealed as national heritage over the centuries and have been rendered specific and integral to the nation by the historical process.4 It is true that in response to the specifically ‘Czech question’ about the meaning of his nation’s history, Masaryk arrived at a philosophy of Czech history in which the meaning is derived from a certain religious tradition and the fulfilment of a moral ideal.5 On the other hand, this moral ideal is at the same time a ‘humanist ideal’6 that applies to all humankind. It is not partial but is conceived as universal: the same moral rules and ideals apply to all of humankind and to every human being. They do not vary by nation, social group, or sex. In its relation to ethics, therefore, Masaryk´s philosophy of history differs fundamentally from the philosophy of history in Marxism, where there is an emphasis on the class character of morality and the provisional, preliminary, and ‘pre-​moral’ condition of humans in a class society. The ‘humanist’, pan-​human character of Masaryk’s ethics means that these ethics are not particular to the Czechs, and precisely because they apply universally, we can legitimately ask how well they function outside the discourse of Masaryk’s philosophy of Czech history. Masaryk’s philosophy has its vital core and basic starting point in ethics, the ‘practical philosophy’ that finds expression not simply in theory but also in practical actions. In his ethical theory, Masaryk proceeds from the individual, and the strong and cultivated character of a person who makes his or her decisions sub specie aeternitatis. The nation is a kind of cultural unit. As moral agents, its members should work towards its betterment in every way, while it is in turn the source of the conditions for the biological and cultural life of individuals, who derive their values from the community. Applying this perspective to the formation of the moral character that is built into a nation’s traditions, we can understand the nation as a reservoir of possibilities from which individuals can more

4 Other chapters in this book are devoted to Masaryk’s philosophy of Czech history. 5 See Thomas G. Masaryk, The Ideals of Humanity, tr. William P. Warren (London: Allen & Unwin, 1938). 6 Cf. the text of the same title (Masaryk, The Ideals of Humanity). Among the more or less justified criticisms is one that takes aim at Masaryk’s concept of humanity, a concept that is left largely vague. For criticism of Masaryk’s concept of humanity, see also the following chapter of this book, ‘Masaryk’s Reflection of Kollár’s Idea of Humanity’.

Masaryk’s Ethics

85

or less choose freely (according to their circumstances in life), and it is their duty not just to their nation but to themselves –​and before all to the eternity –​ to choose responsibly. When interpreting Masaryk’s philosophical principles and ethics his critics have often highlighted internal inconsistencies in his thought, and his views have also been subject to significantly different interpretations, which have themselves changed over the years.7 Masaryk’s conception of ethics cannot be understood in isolation from his life. He combined in himself the roles of philosopher, university teacher, politician, and eventually statesman and founder of the Czechoslovak state, and he was someone who endeavoured to live by the ethical principles that he preached. He also tried to incorporate into his ethical theory every relevant branch of human activity.8 Masaryk did not construct a complete and consistent system of philosophy9 but searched instead for the grounds on which an ethics supportive of his approach to life could be based. For him this meant developing a worldview consistent with the kind of rational knowledge represented by science in line with the positivist conception of philosophy, and at the same time compatible with the ethical foundation that for Masaryk (in line with Hume) resided in feelings. Finally it

7 As Lubomír Nový has noted, ‘Masaryk is one of those philosophers who strive in their practically oriented, Socratic personalities to synthesise their thoughts on ethics and religion with democratic political philosophy. Understandably, this enterprise was not –​over the course of such a dramatic century –​without its internal contradictions’. Lubomír Nový, Filosof T. G. Masaryk. Problémové skici [Philosopher T.G. Masaryk, Problematic sketches] (Brno: Doplněk, 1994), 88. 8 Cf. Masaryk’s foreword to his course of university lectures, ‘Praktická filosofie na základě sociologie –​etika’, in Tomáš G. Masaryk, ‘Univerzitní přednášky I. Praktická filozofie’ [University lectures i. Practical philosophy], in Jiří Gabriel et al., eds., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. iv (Prague: Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2012), 11–​12. See also Tomáš G, Masaryk, Základové konkretné logiky [Foundations of a concrete logic] in Jiří Olšovský & Jindřich Srovnal, eds. Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. ii (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr & Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2001); Thomas G. Masaryk, Versuch einer concreten Logik: Classification und Organisation der Wissenschaften (Vienna: Carl Konegen, 1887). 9 On this Masaryk himself said: ‘I never had the need to present a system. It was always s circumstances that attracted me to thinking as to fighting … But I have a system –​pro foro interno: the individual, character, the human is a system. [Já jsem neměl nikdy potřebu podávat systém. Byl jsem vylákán k myšlení jako k bojování vždycky naléhajícími okolnostmi … Ale systém mám –​pro foro interno: osobnost, charakter, člověk je systém.]’ Emil Ludwig, Duch a čin: Rozmluvy s Masarykem [Spirit and deed: Discussions with T.G. Masaryk] (Prague: Čin, 1946), 77.

86 Drozenová had to be in conformity with religion (as Masaryk understood it). Brentano, his teacher in Vienna, was another influence on his ethics.10 In ‘An Attempt at a Czech National Philosophy and Its Failure’,11 Jan Patočka12 criticised Masaryk for founding his ethics and philosophy of history on the tradition of Hume and Comte, and believed it was under the sway of the positivism of his time. He interpreted Masaryk’s motto, ‘scientific rigour, concreteness, realism’, as identification with a positivist, naturalistic approach.13 Of particular importance with respect to ethics is Patočka’s criticism that Masaryk, although a moral philosopher who understands humans as moral beings capable of responsibility –​and therefore moral freedom –​relied on an ‘“objectivistic”, basically modern, naturalistically oriented philosophy of history, appealing to the objective law of development as something “objective”, thing-​like. That has not only nothing in common with responsibility and freedom, but even sharply conflicts with it’.14 As we shall see below, Masaryk genuinely accepted the premise of both freedom and determinism at the same time, believing in progress and in providence. We need to ask whether he managed to resolve the contradiction. First, to interpret Masaryk’s faith in progress in a Comtean sense –​progress as a necessary process determined by certain laws of nature –​is to ignore Masaryk’s understanding of humans as free beings. The interpretation of Masaryk as a positivist who was following in Comte’s footsteps is not acceptable, for as Erazim Kohák shows, while Masaryk had studied Comte carefully, 10 11

12 13 14

See, for example, the preceding chapter; for more on this see, for example, Jan Svoboda, Masarykův realismus a filosofie pozitivismu [Masaryk’s realism and the philosophy of positivism] (Prague: Filosofia, 2017). Cf. Jan Patočka, ‘Pokus o českou národní filosofii a jeho nezdar’ [An attempt at a Czech national philosophy and its failure], in Karel Palek & Ivan Chvatík, eds., Sebrané spisy Jana Patočky [Collected works of Jan Patočka], vol. xii: Češi i [Czechs i] (Prague: oikoymenh–​ Filosofia, 2006), 341–​365. For the English trans., cf. Jan Patočka, ‘An Attempt at a Czech National Philosophy and Its Failure’, tr. M. Suino, in Milíč Čapek & Karel Hrubý, eds., T. G. Masaryk in Perspective. Comments and Criticism (Ann Arbor: svu Press, 1981), 1–​22. The author thanks Ms Ladislava Švandová, at the Jan Patočka Archive of the Institute of Philosophy as cr, Prague, for finding and providing the English translations of the works by Jan Patočka used in this chapter. Patočka, ‘Pokus o českou národní filosofii a jeho nezdar’, 357, in English Patočka, ‘An Attempt at a Czech National Philosophy and Its Failure’, 14. ‘…vedle bytostného moralismu, pojetí světa z hlediska bytostí mravně svobodných’, Masaryk relied on ‘objektivistickou, v podstatě moderně naturalisticky orientovanou comtovskou filosofii dějin, dovolává se tedy objektivního zákona vývoje, něčeho “věčného”, co nemá s odpovědností a svobodou nejen nic společného, nýbrž dokonce je s ní v ostrém rozporu’. Jan Patočka, ‘Pokus o českou národní filosofii …’, 352–​353; in English Patočka, ‘An Attempt at a Czech National Philosophy …’, 11.

Masaryk’s Ethics

87

embraced his lexicon, and employed the language of positivism, he wrote ‘about history in an altogether different and humanist spirit’.15 Nor is Masaryk’s historical optimism evidence of any specific reliance on Comte –​the view that ‘progress in the sense of an unspecified kind of constant improvement of the conditions of human existence and coexistence is something altogether indisputable’ was shared by many of his contemporaries, because Masaryk lived in a time when historical optimism was at its peak.16 In the next section we will look at this question as it emerges in the context of Masaryk’s conception of metaphysics as interpreted in the light of his University lectures.17 2

Masaryk’s University Lectures

Although Masaryk never published any systematic treatise focused on ethics, the content of Masaryk’s lectures on ethics has been preserved in the form of notes taken by Masaryk’s students and later published. These records were not authorised by Masaryk, but there is no doubt that they contain Masaryk’s words. In the texts of the lectures ‘Masaryk’s approach to philosophy, ethics, and sociology is clearly reflected’.18 Lectures on ethics were offered as a part of ‘practical philosophy’ at all Austrian universities; at the Czech university J. Durdík, a follower of Herbart, lectured on ethics, and later so did T. G. Masaryk as the increasing number of students meant that more lectures had to be offered. The texts of Masaryk’s University Lectures are from two university lecture series, ‘Practical Philosophy through Sociology’ (Praktická filosofie na základě sociologie), (1884–​1985) and ‘Ethics’ (Etika) (1898–​1899).19 A contradiction between the moral appeal for self-​cultivation and the acceptance of determinism –​which stems from Masaryk’s understanding of science along the same lines as contemporary positivism, is certainly evident 15

‘… o dějinách ve zcela jiném, humanistickém duchu’. Erazim Kohák, ‘Zdar a nezdar “národní” filosofie: Patočka, Masaryk’ [Success and failure of ‘national’ philosophy: Patočka, Masaryk], Britské listy (https://​leg​acy.bli​sty.cz/​art/​33268.html, accessed 12 March 2007). 16 ‘… pokrok ve smyslu blíže neurčeného stálého zlepšování podmínek lidského žití a soužití je něčím zcela nezpochybnitelným’, Kohák, ‘Zdar a nezdar…’. 17 Masaryk, Univerzitní přednášky i. Praktická filosofie. 18 ‘… [se obráží zřetelně Masarykův přístup k filosofii, etice i sociologii]’. Jaroslav Opat, Filosof a politik T. G. Masaryk 1882–​1893 [Philosopher and politician T.G. Masaryk] (Prague: Melantrich, 1990), 75. 19 Masaryk, Univerzitní přednášky i. Praktická filosofie.

88 Drozenová in Masaryk’s university lectures on ethics. Masaryk expressly accepts determinism is these lectures,20 distinguishing it from fatalism but without clearly specifying what these terms mean.21 This lack of specification also applies to his concept of will. Masaryk deals with it in several passages on the ‘general theory of will’, where he expresses disagreement with certain positions (e.g. hedonism, egoism), but articulates his own view only in very general terms, in the sense of the human desire for happiness.22 Masaryk’s solution to the question of free will and of determinism remains largely unclear or even inconsistent and it seems he did not see this inconsistency as a serious problem. In his view, ‘there are basically two kinds of question of free will: the metaphysical and the psychological’,23 and here we are interested first and foremost in the psychological aspect. Human will is conditioned by the intellect, and the intellect ‘determines will’ but does not ‘create it’ –​emotions play a substantial motivational role.24 Thus the inconsistency can be resolved with respect to psychology while Masaryk does not address it in relation to metaphysics and religion, where it remains unclear. We will therefore come back to this subject in the third section of this chapter, where we will consider Masaryk’s more precise formulations in the context of his work Otázka sociální (The Social Question). With regard to the sphere of the metaphysical, Masaryk ruminated on whether it might be possible to position ethics outside the sphere of both metaphysics and religion, as Kant (or so Masaryk assumed), Hume, or Herbart did.25 According to Masaryk, ethics derive from our view of the world. Because will and feelings are determined by intellect, our convictions, and our beliefs (even in the non-​religious sense) have practical consequences. When considering which theories to embrace, we must take into account their practical and hence also their ethical (and moral) consequences.26 If Masaryk regards

20 Masaryk, Univerzitní přednášky i. Praktická filosofie, 311. 21 The entire section on this subject on pp. 296–​323 is rather vaguely expressed, without a clear definition of the terms being used, which to some degree can be attributed to the fact that the University Lectures (Univerzitní přednášky) are only an unauthorised record of Masaryk’s lectures written up by his students. 22 Masaryk, Univerzitní přednášky i. Praktická filosofie, 312. 23 ‘… otázka po svobodě vůle je hlavně dvojího rázu: metafyzického a psychologického [přičemž “předně a hlavně”] nás zajímá psychologický ráz’ (Masaryk, Univerzitní přednášky i. Praktická filosofie, 305). 24 Masaryk, Univerzitní přednášky i. Praktická filosofie, 305. 25 Masaryk, Univerzitní přednášky i. Praktická filosofie, 313. 26 Masaryk, Univerzitní přednášky i. Praktická filosofie, 313.

Masaryk’s Ethics

89

ethical consequences as a criterion for adopting (a certain) metaphysics, ethics then becomes the foundation and the core of his philosophy. To construct the kind of metaphysical foundation that ethics require, the individual needs to have a conviction that is grounded in more than just theoretical (even if scientific) knowledge. A cohesive and total worldview is something more than just an eclectic collection of various acquired opinions. ‘Faith is more than conviction: but whoever lacks faith, let him at least have conviction … And life, real work, springs only from conviction, and especially from faith’.27 Masaryk nevertheless took knowledge of reality –​which for him was represented by science (as he understood it) –​as the basic starting point: human beings should not accept anything that runs counter to reason. To overcome scepticism, however, we can accept beliefs –​by taking them not as knowledge (with certainty), but as hypotheses.28 One such ‘hypothesis’ was, in Masaryk’s view, belief in the immortality of the soul. It was especially important for Masaryk because he considered it the deepest reason for democracy,29 although he acknowledged that it was impossible to find any clinching evidence for or against it: ‘Anybody who has not understood that the ultimate worldview is faith and not knowledge, has not understood life’.30 Here faith gets its justification from feelings, which are clearly given –​and for these feelings a corresponding hypothesis is sought. We could say that Masaryk takes as a starting point a kind of intuition that is not in conflict with scientific knowledge (and for this reason he can call it a ‘hypothesis’) but is not all-​explanatory either. Masaryk states clearly that, ‘I see that the life of humanity consists of a battle against evil, but why God allows it, if he is weak, I don’t know; I feel it,

27 28

29 30

‘Víra je víc než přesvědčení: ale kdo nemá víru, ať má přesvědčení … A život, práce skutečná, jen z přesvědčení a zejména z víry prýští’ (Masaryk, Univerzitní přednášky i. Praktická filosofie, 316). In this context Masaryk stressed that we must not force our beliefs on others: ”We therefore work towards the positive recognition of different beliefs … I am not speaking just about overcoming the absence of faith but also scepticism. I observe this: The absence of faith is a different kind of faith, and what is involved there is to positive overcome a positive belief; but scepticism is the negation of all belief.” [‘My proto pracujeme k tomu pozitivnímu uznání různých přesvědčení … Nemluvím jen o překonání nevěry, nýbrž skepse. Poznamenávám to: Nevěra je jiná víra, kde běží o pozitivní překonání pozitivního přesvědčení; ale skepse, to je negace všeho přesvědčení’.] (Masaryk, Univerzitní přednášky i. Praktická filosofie, 317). See the first page of this chapter: the reason for democracy is for Masaryk ‘faith in man, in his spirit and immortal soul’ (Čapek, Masaryk on Thought and Life, 190). ‘Kdo nepochopil, že poslední názor na svět je víra, a ne vědění, ten nepochopil život’ (Masaryk: Univerzitní přednášky i. Praktická filosofie, 320).

90 Drozenová I don’t know it’.31 Masaryk believed in synergism, i.e. that humans should assist God by the work that they do, but they must begin first of all by improving themselves.32 Social change needed to take place on the basis of an adequate understanding of human nature: in Masaryk’s view conservatives failed to see the rational side of humans, while the champions of progress placed a one-​ sided emphasis on reason at the expense of feelings and will.33 This principle –​begin with oneself, with the individual –​is very important for his social ethics as well, but it is important to add that in Masaryk’s perspective, all ethics were in some sense ‘social’. This is because he considered that the essence of ethics was to ‘love thy neighbour’, which is to say that ethics was about interhuman relations, while love of God belonged to the realm of religion. Masaryk rigorously maintained this distinction, for example, in his more popular work Ideály humanitní (The Ideals of Humanity): ‘Morality arises from the relationship of man to man … Religion is born of the rapport of man with the universe, particularly with God. Religion encompasses a larger sphere than morals; the latter are contained within religion. Religion ought to be the basis of morality’.34 Masaryk’s ethics can thus be said to have their roots in religion. In his university lectures he expressed the basic rule of ethics with words from the Gospel: ‘love thy neighbour as thyself’.35 Deciding how to show that love properly and addressing the question of how individuals can be (psychologically) motivated to be disposed to act in conformity with this rule, are matters of both reason and feeling. Masaryk does not set the two in opposition to each other, and his view of life sub specie aeternitatis expects them to be in harmony with each other. Masaryk’s course ‘Practical Philosophy through Sociology’ (Praktická filosofie na základě sociologie) was based expressly on the positivistic premise that moral principles derive from the findings of science and especially sociology. The course was designed in three thematic sections. The first section reflects the place of human beings as a part of nature, i.e. that they are shaped and affected by the Earth, climate, water, land, fauna, flora, food, and so forth. This works in both directions, however, as human beings also alter nature, and some human interventions in nature cause lasting damage (e.g. the destruction of forests). The effects of nature also leave their mark on specific forms of human culture 31

‘Já vidím, že život lidstva spočívá v boji proti zlu, ale proč to Bůh dopouští, je-​li slabý, já nevím; já to cítím, já to nevím’. (Masaryk, Univerzitní přednášky i. Praktická filosofie, 321). 32 Masaryk, Univerzitní přednášky i. Praktická filosofie, 323. 33 Cf. Opat, Filosof a politik T. G. Masaryk, 77–​78. 34 Masaryk, The Ideals of Humanity, 87. 35 Masaryk, Univerzitní přednášky i. Praktická filosofie, 253.

Masaryk’s Ethics

91

(the development of science, religion, morality, economies, political orders, etc.). Here Masaryk draws on the observations of classical and more recent thinkers (Plato, Aristotle, Hippocrates, but also Mill, Montesquieu, Bodin and others).36 All the same, for Masaryk humans are beings who also transcend nature. They are the primary agents of change. Concurring with Aristotle, he regards humans as social animals. The individual can only be separated from society in an abstract sense, for humans can only live in society; community is natural for us. His subsequent reflections deal with the family and various aspects of relationships, including the positions of men and women in the family and in society. Even at this relatively early stage in his career (1884–​1885), Masaryk was already a supporter of complete equality for women. In questions relating to the family he draws on sociology, statistical studies of various aspects of demographic trends in divorce, extramarital births, and so forth. He condemned abortion and the intentional prevention of conception. Using contemporary sources Masaryk examined historical forms of marriage and the family. He ranked monogamy as the highest form, distinguishing it from monogyny, which is most like it but differs in that it still in various ways involves the subordination of women to men and their dependence on men. With respect to family, Masaryk formulated some principles that later formed part of his criticism of Marxism: for example, he rejected the notion that the first society could be described as communist. In this section devoted to family, Masaryk also focused on the important issue of child-​raising. The third section deals with society as a whole. The crisis of society could only be overcome through moral renewal, and this requires primarily moral education. Humans are not perfect beings, nor are they primarily rational. Feelings of egoism and altruism need to be addressed and ideally a balance should be established between them, by means of Christ’s commandment: Love thy neighbour as thyself! Because humans are not primarily rational beings, their enlightenment should focus on their emotional as well as their rational side. Sympathy –​which embodies love for one’s neighbour and friendship among people and suppresses natural human egoism –​is the foundation of social solidarity. Masaryk embraced the British ethics of feelings (sentiments) –​ specifically the ethics of Adam Smith and especially David Hume –​and saw feelings as the psychological motivators for action. Masaryk regarded moral feelings and individual conscience as empirical facts, a given reality, on which

36 Masaryk, Univerzitní přednášky i. Praktická filosofie, Section i, ‘O podmínkách přírodních’ [On natural conditions].

92 Drozenová our explanations of ethics may then be built. He stated these ideas even more clearly in his Ideals of Humanity: ‘Positivism makes the great mistake that, absorbed in history, in facts and documents, it forgets conscience, as if that were no fact, no document’.37 Alluding to Hume, Masaryk wrote: ‘… ethics are not based on reason, but on emotion, innate sympathy, humanity, love’.38 On the other hand, Masaryk did not ascribe less value to reason, arguing that feelings should not be in conflict with it.39 3

Masaryk’s Ideals of Humanity

From the perspective of the twenty-​first century it is tempting to compare Masaryk’s ethics with the ethics of care that exist today. They share certain assumptions and parallels: Most notably, they seek the correction of society by means of emancipatory tendencies that are intended to achieve the expansion of democracy to every facet of the life of society, facilitate the personal development of every member of human society, and work towards attaining equality for every member of society, without upsetting the relations between those members in the process. Like the feminist ethics of care, Masaryk also devoted substantial attention to women’s equality in society and enabling them to participate in every part of it to the benefit of all society.40 In both cases ethics are 37 Masaryk, The Ideals of Humanity, 78. 38 Masaryk, The Ideals of Humanity, 88. 39 Masaryk, The Ideals of Humanity, 88–​89. 40 Masaryk gave a number of lectures on the subject of the ‘woman question’ at various institutions, such as the Americký klub dam (American Women’s Club), which his wife, Charlotte, supported. Moderní názor na ženu (A Modern Opinion on Women) was intended for the Dívčí akademie (Academy for Girls) in Brno; Ženská otázka (The Woman’s Question) is the title of the last lecture in his series of ‘American lectures’ given in the United States in 1907, in which he again defended the all-​round equality of women and advocated for wider opportunities for women in the life of society and professionally, which in his view would benefit both society and families. See Tomáš G. Masaryk, ‘Ženská otázka’ [Women’s question], in Zdeněk Franta, ed., T. G. Masaryk: Mravní názory [T.G. Masaryk: Moral views] (Prague: Státní nakladatelství 1925), 105–​114. Masaryk championed the equality of women in all his writings and in his political work, cf. ‘The wife is fully equal to the husband’. (Masaryk, The Ideals of Humanity, 90). And he voiced the same opinion in his presidential role; see, e.g., his reflections on this published in Karel Čapek, Hovory s T. G. Masarykem (Prague: Fr. Borový and Čin, 1947), 85. For these reasons Masaryk today tends to be cited in relation to gender issues; see, e.g., Irina Poročkina, T. G. Masaryk v kontextu genderového myšlení [T.G. Masaryk in the context of gender thinking], (www.ucl.cas .cz/​edi​cee/​ima​ges/​data/​sborn​iky/​kong​res/​%C4%8Cesk%C3%A1%20lit​erat​ura%20 v%20per​spek​tiv%C3%A1ch%20gend​eru/​011_​irin​a_​po​rokc​ina.pdf, accessed March 2020).

Masaryk’s Ethics

93

based on moral feelings, on caring relations or ‘loving thy neighbour’ (although this is an expression that some supporters of the ethics of care –​such as V. Held41 –​prefer not to use because of its association with Christian tradition). Furthermore, both the ethics of care and Masaryk’s ethics share a philosophical foundation that refers back to Hume42 and to some degree to the ethics of virtue, either directly or via an emphasis on the individual’s character and its cultivation in a desirable way so that the individual is always prepared to grasp every unique situation, find the right solution and act accordingly. Both emphasise acknowledging that humans are (biologically, psychologically, economically, culturally, etc.) anchored in a given community, which for Masaryk primarily meant the nation, and certain elements of situational ethics –​i.e. an emphasis on ethics for life –​rather than any pre-​established system of rules. This component of situational ethics requires sensitivity or an emotional disposition on the part of the individual, and is not something that can be translated into rules. Masaryk’s ethics differed from the ethics of care, however, in the emphasis he placed on the singularity of the human individual, who makes decisions sub specie aeternitatis, while the ethics of care tends to reduce the individual to his or her relationships, in which that singularity to some extent dissolves. Nonetheless, in both case a key objective is extension into the sphere of politics (with reform of social relations), and in neither case do precision in concepts and philosophical exactness play a major role. Masaryk’s ethics are based on the strict imperative to search for truth and justice, not simply in theory, but also as applied in practice, as manifested in the uncompromising positions that he adopted in the case of the Manuscripts43 and the ‘Hilsner affair’.44 Both cases generated animosity towards him in Czech 41 42 43 44

Cf. Virginia Held, The Ethics of Care: Personal, Political, and Global (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006). Cf. Held, The Ethics of Care and Masaryk, The Ideals of Humanity. Masaryk campaigned to refute the authenticity of the Zelená Hora and Dvůr Králové Manuscripts that had been wrongfully presented as original historical texts that were supposed to attest to the ancient roots of Czech culture but were in fact fake. ‘Hilsner affair’: In 1899 a young woman was murdered, and her body was found in Březina Forest not far from Polná. A twenty-​two-​year-​old Jew named Leopold Hilsner, an unemployed apprentice, was accused of the crime and the trial was accompanied by the biggest wave of antisemitism witnessed in the Czech Lands in the nineteenth century. Although Hilsner was ultimately proved to be not guilty, he was never granted a judicial rehabilitation and there are a number of question marks surrounding the events and the entire trial; the real murderer was never discovered. See Jiří Kovtun, Tajuplná vražda: Případ Leopolda Hilsnera [Mysterious murder: The case of Leopold Hilsner] (Prague: Sefer, 1999). Masaryk was fighting against antisemitism. See Stanislav Polák, ‘Hilsnerův process a jeho důsledky pro T. G. Masaryka’ [The Hilsner trial and its consequences for T.G. Masaryk],

94 Drozenová society and created serious difficulties for him, but ultimately earned him a good moral reputation.45 In focusing specifically on the Czech nation, it was not Masaryk’s intention to ascribe more or less value to different nations or races; on the contrary, he believed that every nation should see itself as a ‘chosen nation’ and strive for its own moral renewal and improvement. Masaryk recognised that the democratic ideal is social and economic as well as political in nature.46 He showed a consistent interest in the universal improvement of every class of the population, which was an imperative born from national awareness, but also a moral imperative that was consistent with his humanist ideals. From the second half of the nineteenth century, Marxism spread widely and found a ready audience particularly among the working classes. Masaryk therefore devoted a lengthy study titled Otázka sociální (The Social Question)47 to the study of Marx’s ideas. In this book he followed his ethical principles, asserting that effective assistance should be provided to society’s needy, while rules of justice and democracy must be upheld, but his critique of Marxism is directed mainly at the philosophical-​theoretical foundations of Marxism. Confronted with Marxism and its ‘laws of social development’, Masaryk returned to the question of determinism and made it clear that his conception of ethics was premised on what we could call free will (i.e. the moral self-​determination of the individual). He explicitly challenged the Marxist notion of historical determinism, which struck him as fatalistic.48 Masaryk’s

45 46

47

48

in Miloš Pojar, ed., Hilsnerova aféra a česká společnost 1899–​1999 [The Hilsner affair and Czech society 1899–​1999] (Prague: Židovské muzeum v Praze, 1999), 42–​46. See Polák, ‘Hilsnerův process’.. ‘The democratic ideal is not only political, it is social and economic. Communism I reject. Without individualism, without gifted and inventive individuals, without capable leaders, without geniuses society cannot be reasonably and justly organized’ (Čapek, Masaryk on Thought and Life, 192). The German edition was published in 1899 with extensive revisions and expanded for German readers; the next critical edition in Czech was a kind of synthesis of the previous two and was published as two volumes in 1936 (the book edition was preceded by their publication as a series starting in 1933) and formed the basis for all the ones that followed: another three Czech editions were published after the war in 1946, 1947, and 1948, and the sixth Czech edition was published in 2000. See Jindřich Srovnal, ‘Ediční poznámka’ [Editorial note], in Tomáš G. Masaryk, Otázka sociální. Základy marxismu filosofické a sociologické. ii [The social question. Foundations of Marxism philosophical and sociological], in Jindřich Srovnal, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. ix (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr, Ústav T. G. Masaryka 2000), 239–​250. Thomas G. Masaryk, Masaryk on Marx, abridged ed. of T. G. Masaryk, The Social Question: Philosophical and Sociological Foundations of Marxism, ed. and trans. Erazim V. Kohák (Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press, 1972), 216–​218; Tomáš G. Masaryk,

Masaryk’s Ethics

95

idea of progress is strongly underpinned by the hope that arises from a faith in Providence, not a belief in immanent necessity determined by the nature of the historical process; his historical optimism was tied to the idea of synergism, according to which humans freely contribute to God’s work through their actions.49 Masaryk’s conception of the historical process as progress towards the realisation of humanity did not involve the idea of necessity and inevitability that is characteristic of the materialist notion of social development. Such a notion would moreover be irreconcilable with his ethics, which requires individuals to be responsible for building their own character. Masaryk offered a more detailed account of individual freedom as the moral self-​determination of every human being when he considered the question of whether statistics that render mass social phenomena predictable also represent forces that determine individual actions. Here Masaryk is defending freedom of choice on the part of the individual.50 Masaryk’s notion of determinism is thus conceived as something of an antithesis to randomness, but not to free will. For Masaryk, the social question was a part of the Czech question and within his body of work his book on it logically and historically forms an intermediary link between The Czech Question and Russia and Europe.51 Masaryk tried to devise a concept of democratic socialism that would be founded on humanism and would reflect the nation’s character. The political scientist Jacques Rupnik has characterised this approach as something between Fabian socialism in Great Britain and Eduard Bernstein’s programme of social reform.52 For the Czech social democratic movement the establishment of an independent Czechoslovakia meant the end of Austro-​Marxism and the culmination of the tilt towards the idea of the nation state: ‘Masaryk replaced Marx as the spiritual father of social democracy’,53 while the Marxist and internationalist wing broke away to become the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, which did not share the ideals of the state Masaryk sought to build. Masaryk’s programme, which embraced the ideals of humanity, the expansion of voting rights, and support

Otázka sociální, i. [The social question], in Jindřich Srovnal, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. ix (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr & Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2000). 207–​209. 49 Masaryk, Masaryk on Marx, 218; Masaryk, Otázka sociální i, 208–​209. 50 Masaryk, Masaryk on Marx, 217; Masaryk, Otázka sociální i, 207. 51 Srovnal, ‘Ediční poznámka’, 240. 52 Cf. Jacques Rupnik, Dějiny Komunistické strany Československa. Od počátků k převzetí moci [The history of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. From the beginnings to the takeover of power] (Prague: Academia, 2002), 33. 53 Rupnik, Dějiny Komunistické strany …, 34.

96 Drozenová for the democratic system through social reforms, met with broad support in Czechoslovak society. In Masaryk’s view a sober and critical perspective on human nature was particularly necessary in ethics and politics, which can only effectively influence people if they are based on realist assumptions. Masaryk considered every specific issue in the light of ethics and religion. His conception of love for one’s nation is not therefore in conflict with love for all humankind; humankind is ultimately comprised of multiple nations that are equal to one other. Masaryk concluded his personal testimony in Conversations with the thought that, ‘Not as individuals, not as nations are we here merely to fulfil our egoistic aims. A nation that wished to live only for itself would be just as miserable as a man who wanted to live only for himself. Without faith in ideas and in ideals the life of men and of nations is only stagnation’.54 Masaryk’s humanist ideal retained its connection to the idea of the nation’s moral refinement: ‘The idea of humanity in our own days appears as the idea of nationality. We are beginning to realize to-​day that the idea of humanity is not opposed to that of nationality –​but that nationality, like the individual man, both ought to be and can be human, humanitarian’.55 By his thorough scrutiny of specific issues from an ethical and religious perspective, Masaryk embraces a conception of humanity in which love for one’s nation does not conflict with love for all humanity. He considered that the nations of the world were all equal to one other and should work to establish a united organisation.56

Bibliography

Čapek, Karel, Hovory s T. G. Masarykem (Prague: Fr. Borový and Čin, 1947). Čapek, Karel, Masaryk on Thought and Life. Conversations with Karel Čapek, tr. Marie & Robert Weatherall (London: Allen & Unwin, 1944). Franta, Zdeněk, Mravní názory: Vybral Zdeněk Franta [Moral views. Selected by Zdeněk Franta] (Prague: Státní nakladatelství, 1925).

54 Čapek, Masaryk on Thought and Life, 213. 55 Masaryk, The Ideals of Humanity, 17. 56 ‘The idea of humanity implies that all nations have an equal right to strive for their individual rights as a unit of humanity. From this there comes the notion of a world organization embracing all mankind. Practical necessity leads us step by step to this organization’ (Masaryk, The Ideals of Humanity, 18).

Masaryk’s Ethics

97

Havelka, Miloš, ed., Spor o smysl českých dějin [Dispute over the meaning of Czech history], vol. i: 1895–​1938, vol. ii: 1938–​1989 (Prague: Torst, 1995–​2006). Held, Virginia, The Ethics of Care: Personal, Political, and Global (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006). Kohák, Erazim, ‘Zdar a nezdar “národní” filosofie: Patočka, Masaryk’ [Success and failure of ‘national’ philosophy: Patočka, Masaryk], Britské listy (https://​leg​acy.bli​sty .cz/​art/​33268.html, accessed 12 March 2007). Kovtun, Jiří, Tajuplná vražda: Případ Leopolda Hilsnera [Mysterious murder: The case of Leopold Hilsner] (Prague: Sefer, 1999). Ludwig, Emil, Duch a čin: Rozmluvy s Masarykem [Spirit and deed: Discussions with T.G. Masaryk] (Prague: Čin, 1946). Masaryk, Tomáš G., ‘Univerzitní přednášky I. Praktická filozofie’ [University lectures I. Practical philosophy], in Jiří Gabriel et al., eds., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. iv (Prague: Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2012). Masaryk, Tomáš G., ‘Ženská otázka’ [Women’s question], in Zdeněk Franta, ed., T. G. Masaryk: Mravní názory [T.G. Masaryk: Moral views] (Prague: Státní nakladatelství 1925), 105–​114. Masaryk, Thomas G., Masaryk on Marx, abridged ed. of T. G. Masaryk, The Social Question: Philosophical and Sociological Foundations of Marxism, ed. and trans. Erazim V. Kohák (Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press, 1972). Masaryk, Tomáš G., Otázka sociální, i. [The social question], in Jindřich Srovnal, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. ix (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr & Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2000). Masaryk, Thomas G., The Ideals of Humanity, tr. William P. Warren (London: Allen & Unwin, 1938). Masaryk, Tomáš G., Versuch einer concreten Logik: Classification und Organisation der Wissenschaften (Vienna: Carl Konegen, 1887). Masaryk, Tomáš G., Základové konkretné logiky [Foundations of a concrete logic], in Jiří Olšovský & Jindřich Srovnal, eds. Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. ii (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr & Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2001). Nový, Lubomír, Filosof T. G. Masaryk. Problémové skici [Philosopher T.G. Masaryk, Problematic sketches] (Brno: Doplněk, 1994). Opat, Jaroslav, Filosof a politik T. G. Masaryk 1882–​1893 [Philosopher and politician T.G. Masaryk] (Prague: Melantrich, 1990). Patočka, Jan, ‘An Attempt at a Czech National Philosophy and Its Failure’, tr. M. Suino, in Milíč Čapek & Karel Hrubý, eds., T. G. Masaryk in Perspective. Comments and Criticism (Ann Arbor: svu Press, 1981), 1–​22. Patočka, Jan, ‘Pokus o českou národní filosofii a jeho nezdar’ [Attempt at a Czech national philosophy and its failure], in Karel Palek & Ivan Chvatík, eds., Sebrané

98 Drozenová spisy Jana Patočky [Collected works of Jan Patočka], vol. xii: Češi i [Czechs i] (Prague: oikoymenh –​Filosofia, 2006), 341–​365. Pekař, Josef, ‘Smysl českých dějin’ [The meaning of Czech history], in Josef Pekař, O smyslu českých dějin [On the meaning of Czech history] (Prague: Rozmluvy, 1990), 383–​406. Polák, Stanislav, ‘Hilsnerův process a jeho důsledky pro T. G. Masaryka’ [The Hilsner trial and its consequences for T.G. Masaryk], in Miloš Pojar, ed., Hilsnerova aféra a česká společnost 1899–​1999 [The Hilsner affair and Czech society 1899–​1999] (Prague: Židovské muzeum v Praze, 1999). Poročkina, Irina, T. G. Masaryk v kontextu genderového myšlení [T.G. Masaryk in the context of gender thinking] (www.ucl.cas.cz/​edi​cee/​ima​ges/​data/​sborn​iky/​kong​ res/​%C4%8Cesk%C3%A1%20lit​erat​ura%20v%20per​spek​tiv%C3%A1ch%20gend​ eru/​011_​irin​a_​po​rokc​ina.pdf accessed March 2020). Rupnik, Jacques, Dějiny Komunistické strany Československa. Od počátků k převzetí moci [The history of Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. From the beginnings to the takeover of power] (Prague: Academia, 2002). Srovnal, Jindřich, ‘Ediční poznámka’ [Editorial note], in Tomáš G. Masaryk, Otázka sociální. Základy marxismu filosofické a sociologické. ii [The social question. Foundations of Marxism philosophical and sociological], in Jindřich Srovnal, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. ix (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr, Ústav T. G. Masaryka 2000), 239–​250. Svoboda, Jan, Masarykův realismus a filosofie pozitivismu [MasarykMasarykův realismus a (Prague: Filosofia, 2017).

­c hapter 6

T. G. Masaryk’s Thoughts on Ján Kollár’s Idea of Humanity Vasil Gluchman Abstract The author investigates Masaryk’s critical evaluation of Kollár’s views, especially in connection with his Reciprocity Between the Various Tribes and Dialects of the Slavic Nation (1836–​1837), in which Kollár developed the ideas of humanism in a context of reflections upon Slavic cultural and literary reciprocity. In many cases, Gluchman agrees with Masaryk, although on the other hand he states that much of what Masaryk viewed as Kollár’s shortcomings presented in the abovementioned book are at least partially answered in Kollár’s two-​volume sermons.

1

Introduction

Ján Kollár (1793–​1852) is probably one of the best-​known figures exemplifying the shared cultural and intellectual history of Czechs and Slovaks in the nineteenth century. He had a formative influence on the culture, literature, and history of both nations, and it even extended beyond the nineteenth century, as his impact can to varying degrees be felt to the present day. Both Czechs and Slovaks consider him a part of their history and their cultural and intellectual heritage. Jaroslav Opat has described how Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk became acquainted with the ideas of Ján Kollár while he was living in Vienna through his friendship with the Šembera family. The latter had enjoyed close ties to Kollár, as he had spent the last three years of his life in Vienna, first as an advisor to the Austrian government and later as a professor at the University of Vienna.1 Masaryk referred to Ján Kollár frequently in his writings, alongside Pavel Jozef Šafárik and František Palacký, usually mentioning him as one of the successors to the progressive Reformation tradition in Czech intellectual 1 Jaroslav Opat, Filozof a politik T. G. Masaryk 1882–​1893 (Prague: Melantrich, 1990), 208.

© Vasil Gluchman, 2023 | DOI:10.1163/9789004534919_008

100 Gluchman thought that had its source in Jan Hus, the Unity of Czech Brethren, and Jan Amos Komenský (Comenius). It is well known, for example, that Masaryk introduced his comparatively short work, Ideály humanitné (Humanist Ideals, 1901), with a quote from Kollár’s Slávy dcéra (The Daughter of Sláva): ‘When you say Slav, may it ever mean man’.2 It was in Česká otážka (1895), however, that Masaryk devoted the most attention to Kollár, largely in connection with the celebrations in 1893 of the centenary of Ján Kollár’s birth in his home village of Mošovce, but also in relation to other jubilee events organised in honour of Ján Kollár in which Masaryk was actively involved. With respect to the attention Masaryk devoted to Kollár in Česká otázka, it should be noted that when he was writing this book he drew extensively on a study about Kollár that he had published in three parts a year earlier in the journal Naše doba (Our Times) under the title ‘Slovanská vzájemnost Jána Kollára’ (Ján Kollár’s Slavic Reciprocity).3 In the first part of this study, Masaryk describes Ján Kollár’s ideas, in the second he subjects them to a critical analysis, and in the third he outlines the significance and implications of Kollár’s ideas for contemporary Czech political and intellectual thought. Masaryk incorporated around two-​thirds of the original text of this study into Česká otážka, while the first third, describing Kollár’s ideas, and part of the section criticising those ideas, were omitted from the book. The original study devoted to Ján Kollár makes up more than one-​half of the content of Česká otázka. From the historical interpretations of Masaryk’s relationship to Kollár that I have been able to study, I can say that while Masaryk devoted considerable attention to the life and work of Ján Kollár, it is more or less impossible to find any serious analysis of what Masaryk really thought about Kollár. There are a few exceptions such as Albert Pražák, who discussed this subject in the book T. G. Masaryk a Slovensko (T. G. Masaryk and Slovakia).4 Robert B. Pynsent asserts that Czechs have a general fascination with ‘leader-​cults’, and that Masaryk was the object of such a cult during his lifetime.5 Pražák’s book is itself evidence of this, since it contains not a single comment criticising Masaryk’s views. It is

2 Thomas G. Masaryk, The Ideals of Humanity, tr. William P. Warren (London: Allen & Unwin, 1938), 13. 3 Tomáš G. Masaryk, ‘Slovanská vzájemnost Jana Kollára’ [Ján Kollár’s Slavic mutuality], Naše doba 1/​7, 481–​500; 1/​8, 588–​598; 1/​9, 655–​671; 1/​10, 721–​760; 1/​11, 822–​844; 1/​12, 891–​920 (all 1894). 4 Albert Pražák, T. G. Masaryk a Slovensko [T.G. Masaryk and Slovakia] (Prague: Corona, 1937), 14–​36. 5 Robert B. Pynsent, Questions of Identity: Czech and Slovak Ideas of Nationality and Personality (Budapest: Central European University Press, 1994), 5, 193–​194.

T. G. Masaryk’s Thoughts on Ján Kollár’s Idea of Humanity

101

therefore hard to agree with H. Gordon Skilling’s opinion that Pražák’s book is an example of ‘a full scholarly analysis of Masaryk and Kollar’.6 A similar observation can be made about the work of many other Czechs who wrote about Masaryk between 1918 and around the year 1948 or even in the early 1950s (e.g. Vasil K. Škrach, Jan Herben, Josef Král, Jan B. Kozák, and others) and about the work of many Slovak writers who embraced Masaryk’s legacy and the idea of Czechoslovakism (e.g. Anton Štefánek, Samuel Štefan Osuský, Svätopluk Štúr, and many others). The strongest criticism of Masaryk’s interpretation of Kollár’s ideas came from Jozef Škultéty in a review of Jakubec’s book Ján Kollár that was published in the journal Slovenské pohľady (Slovak Views). Škultéty argued that the emphasis on humanity that underpinned Masaryk’s interpretation of Kollár was detrimental to the national movement, which was itself an expression of Tolstoyan resistance to evil, in that it diluted nationalism and would instil in the nation a kind of softness or apathy that would ultimately lead to a weakening of national sentiment.7 Škultéty similarly criticised Masaryk for his dismissiveness of the Cyrillo-​Methodian church in the time of Great Moravia. He felt that Masaryk was wickedly trashing and spitting on everything that was great about Slavdom.8 Albert Pražák addressed Škultéty’s criticism of Masaryk by linking it to what he considered the conservatism and obsolescence of the ideas espoused by figures in the Slovak political scene in the city of Martin (at that time Turčiansky Svätý Martin) in the circles around Svetozár Hurban-​Vajanský and Národné novíny.9 Jozef Škultéty was a close colleague of Vajanský and it was therefore natural to find him exploiting the opportunity to speak critically of Masaryk and his view of the Slovak political scene, including his opinions on Kollár. In the 1950s literary historian Andrej Mráz commented on Masaryk’s interpretation of Kollár. Under the constraints of the ruling ideology at the time, Mráz argued that by citing Kollár in his writings Masaryk was able to bolster and add weight to his own programme on the basis of Kollár’s authority. Mráz claimed that Masaryk’s interpretation of Kollár was one-​sided because he primarily highlighted the religious aspects of Kollár’s ideas, and he criticised Masaryk for trying to reconcile Kollár’s idea of humanity and Slavic reciprocity

6 Harold G. Skilling, T. G. Masaryk: Against the Current, 1882–​1914 (Basingstoke–​London: MacMillan, 1994), 200. 7 Jozef Škultéty, ‘Ján Kollár’, Slovenské pohľady 24/​5 (1904), 348. 8 Jozef Škultéty, ‘Maďari a Austria’ [The Hungarians and Austria], Slovenské pohľady 24/​1 (1904), 4. 9 Pražák, Masaryk a Slovensko, 88.

102 Gluchman with the interests of the ruling class.10 In conformity with the dominant ideology at the time, Mráz sought to demonstrate the progressive nature of Kollár’s ideas outside the frame of religion and as contrary to the interests of the ruling class.11 Among international works it is important to mention is Antonie van den Beld’s book on Masaryk’s conception of humanity, which also touches on Masaryk’s view of Kollár. But it remains largely descriptive on the subject. Van den Beld notes only that Masaryk was critical of Kollár’s overly rationalist, literary, and cultural interpretation of humanity and felt that it was lacking in moral, religious, and political substance. He also points out that while Masaryk agreed with Kollár’s approach in founding the rights of nations on the concept of humanity, he disagreed with the latter’s assignment to Slavs of the main role in realising the principle of humanity in the future history of humankind and was critical of his pan-​Slavic outlook and emphasis on nationality. In Masaryk’s view, Kollár’s stress on this was so strong that humanity was ultimately lacking from his interpretation.12 In the English-​language literature there is a study by Zdeněk V. David that represents another exception to the general lack of critical examination of Masaryk’s views on Kollár. David highlights some of Masaryk’s errors about Kollár. He points out that Kollár cannot be seen as an important representative of the Czech National Revival because his leanings towards Herder and German Romanticism were more characteristic of the Slovak National Revival, his Lutheran religious background was not typical in the Czech intellectual environment, and he did not take part in the Czech National Revival. On this basis, David argued, Masaryk was wrong to present Cholera as a representative of Czech intellectual culture.13 Robert B. Pynsent can to some extent be included in this critical circle as well. His monograph examining the evolution of Czech and Slovak identity in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries also deals briefly with Masaryk’s view of Kollár and argues that despite Masaryk’s ‘avowed anti-​mysticism’, his conception of Czech history was in fact mystical. According to Pynsent, Masaryk accepted Kollár’s notion of Slavic reciprocity

10

Andrej Mráz, Ján Kollár: Literárna štúdia [Ján Kollár: A literary study] (Bratislava: Slovenský spisovateľ, 1952), 14. 11 Mráz, Ján Kollár, 38, 77, 114–​115, 119. 12 Antonie van den Beld, Humanity: The Political and Social Philosophy of Thomas G. Masaryk (The Hague: Mounton, 1975), 40–​41. 13 Zdeněk V. David, Johann Gottfried Herder and the Czech National Awakening: A Reassessment (Pittsburgh, PA: Carl Beck Papers in Russian & East European Studies 1807, University of Pittsburgh, 2007), 5.

T. G. Masaryk’s Thoughts on Ján Kollár’s Idea of Humanity

103

as a weapon or a tool, a means with which to solve the problem of national identity and secure the independence of small Slavic nations. Pynsent criticises Masaryk for overlooking Kollár’s ‘venom’ and ‘parochial prejudices’ but recognises that Masaryk knew that Kollár’s racist nationalism was inconsistent with the humanist ideal put forth in Slávy dcéra.14 2

Masaryk on Ján Kollár in the Czech Question15

In the introduction to the first edition of the Česká otázka (‘The Czech Question’), Masaryk wrote that the book sought to identify the meaning of Czech history, describe the sources of cultural sustenance of the Czech nation, and show what Czechs want and what their aspirations are. He asserted that, for him, the Czech question was a question of human fate (the fate of humanity), and a question of conscience. He aligned himself with Kollár’s belief that the history of a nation is not a matter of chance but reflects the plan set out for it by providence, and that it is the task of Czech historians and philosophers to identify, understand, and define the Czech nation’s place in this plan, and then proceed with this understanding in whatever they do, including their political work.16 We should remember that the search for the meaning of Czech history was a long-​term serious issue in intellectual, philosophical, and political-​ science reflections and discussions in the Czech Lands, whereas in Slovakia it was not much discussed. An interesting contribution to the discussion was penned by Svätopluk Štúr, a student of Masaryk’s from Slovakia.17 No serious continuation of the discussion followed from that, however, because after 1948 a Marxist-​Leninist interpretation of history prevailed and allowed no room for open debate on the meaning of national history. With respect to the notion of predestination behind a nation’s role in history, in both Kollár and Masaryk’s approach we can discern traces of Hegel’s idea on the meaningfulness of the historical process, wherein history is seen as moving towards a culmination point through the realisation of Providence’s plan in the world,18 which for Hegel was represented by the Reformation and 14 Pynsent, Questions of Identity, 182. 15 Given that my essay is part of a collective monograph that is exclusively concerned with Masaryk’s Czech Question, I limit myself here to the views Masaryk expressed in that book only. 16 Tomáš G. Masaryk, Česká otázka [The Czech question] (Prague: Svoboda, 1990), 9. 17 Svätopluk Štúr, Smysel slovenského obrodenia [Tje meaning of Slovak national revival] (Liptovský Svätý Mikuláš: Tranoscius, 1948). 18 Georg W. F. Hegel, The Philosophy of History (Kitchener: Batoche Books, 2001), 26–​29, 34.

104 Gluchman the Prussian state.19 How far it is possible to agree with ideas about the meaningfulness of history is a truly important question, because once we concede the validity of such an idea, we must then explicitly or implicitly also accept the view that there is some driver of history, some source from which history derives its meaning. Ultimately that must either be absolute spirit or God; this is what Hegel believed, and, in different ways, so, too, did Kollár and Masaryk. To believe that, however, we would have to reject evolution as a manifestation of chance in social and historical processes. I support the idea of the evolution of social and historical processes over predestination or teleology and might well be tempted to note, in its support, that Kollár’s and before him Herder’s notion of the Slavs as predestined for a leading role in future historical processes20 was never borne out in reality. Social and historical processes have been found more to resemble what we might call trial and error. Examples of this in the twentieth century are fascism and communism, both of which initially presented themselves as inviting, but ultimately proved to be dangerous paths or dead ends in the history of humankind. In my opinion, morality emerged intuitively out of the natural-​biological process of human evolution, born from the instinctive need to protect and support life and the reproduction of life within the family and the tribe.21 I believe this is also largely true on the macro level, which is to say, on the levels of the community, nation, country, race, and humankind. The more the population in a territory grows, the greater the need to find ways to facilitate co-​existence within it and thus to protect and support life, including preserving opportunities for reproduction. This does not mean, however, that there are not also processes of an opposite nature or that operate in reverse, but antitheses and the existence of evil also aid the further development of individuals, communities, nations, countries, and humankind. Without these negative impetuses, the historical, social, political, moral, and intellectual development of humanity would stagnate or even halt altogether. This was already very well recognised in his day by the Slovak Enlightenment-​era writer Augustín Doležal22 and 19 Hegel, Philosophy of History, 457. 20 Johann G. Herder, Outlines of a Philosophy of the History of Man, tr. T. Churchill (New York: Bergman Publishers, 1966). 21 Vasil Gluchman, ‘Humanity: Biological and Moral Issues’, in Vasil Gluchman, ed., Morality: Reasoning on Different Approaches (Amsterdam–​New York: Rodopi, 2013), 111–​130. 22 Augustin Doležal, Pamětná celému světu Tragoedia, anebožto Veršovné Vypsánj žalostného Prvních Rodičů Pádu … [The tragedy remembered by the entire world or Description of the lamentable fall of the first parents in verse] (Uherská Skalice: Jozef Antonin Škarnicl, 1791).

T. G. Masaryk’s Thoughts on Ján Kollár’s Idea of Humanity

105

before him by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz.23 If we were to reflect on the nature of the historical processes of humankind, I believe that, alongside the natural and biological drive to protect and support life, we would also find there is a tendency to grow, develop, and cultivate human life on all its levels, starting with the life of the individual through to that of the community, the nation, and the country, and right up to humankind as a whole. Ultimately we would be able to observe that humanity, or more specifically humaneness, both in its natural-​biological and in its ethical-​moral form, is a thread that runs through all of human history. This does not mean, however, that history is predetermined or teleological in nature. Masaryk was of the view that humanist and Enlightenment philosophy aligned naturally with Czech aspirations for development, progress, and education. As Masaryk saw it, this was German philosophy repaying its debt to the Czechs, as many Czech Protestant intellectuals had left the Czech Lands in 1620 following defeat at the Battle of White Mountain and then went on to contribute to the development of German culture and education. Representatives of the Czech National Revival felt a need to be able to recognise and determine the place of the Czech nation in the evolution of humankind, and they needed a philosophical foundation on which to pursue this project. The best such foundation was the one provided by Kollár, who had adopted Herder’s philosophy of history.24 Masaryk noted in this context that there were a great many members of the clergy among the first representatives of the National Revival and among the first to take an interest in philosophy, which was almost exclusively cultivated by priests as part of the intelligentsia. The pulpit was the only school of the mother tongue.25 In this context, where religion and priests played such an important role in the Czech National Revival, Masaryk believed that it was important to acknowledge Kollár’s idea of humanism, his idea of humanity and universal humaneness. Kollár’s national ideals came to be ­represented by humanity on the ethical side, and on the side of reason by education and culture. National and linguistic rights were then sought and substantiated on the grounds of humanity and enlightenment. Masaryk reached the same conclusion as Kollár when he argued that no natural right exists for one nation to rule over another, and no reason for one nation to impede another on the path to humanist ideals.26 23

Gottfried W. Leibniz, Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man and the Origin of Evil (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1996). 24 Masaryk, Česká otázka, 15, 45; George J. Kovtun, ed., The Spirit of Thomas G. Masaryk (1850–​ 1937): An Anthology (Basingstoke–​London: MacMillan, 1990), 64, 69. 25 Masaryk, Česká otázka, 18; Kovtun, The Spirit of Thomas G. Masaryk, 66. 26 Masaryk, Česká otázka, 19.

106 Gluchman When we consider the Czech and Slovak National Revival movements, it is, in my view, important to recall Masaryk’s observation that the development of Czech culture and education, including the development of philosophy, was initiated and led primarily by priests, who made up a substantial proportion of the Czech intelligentsia. The situation was very similar or almost identical on the territory of what is now Slovakia and in Slovak culture, education, and philosophy, which were nearly non-​existent outside the sphere of religion and the clergy until almost the end of the nineteenth century. The secular Slovak intelligentsia was very small, and those who were not priests had at least been students of theology –​such as Pavel Jozef Šafárik or Ľudovít Štúr. Ondrej Mészáros’s comment that Slovak philosophy was behind in its development, and that unlike Hungarian philosophy, it evolved both on the basis of and in the frame of religion but without any of the institutional support enjoyed by Hungarian philosophy,27 acquires a new dimension in the light of Masaryk’s comment on the state of Czech culture, education, and philosophy in the nineteenth century. It shines a light on the fact that the Slavic nations in the Habsburg Monarchy did not enjoy the same conditions for their cultural, individual, educational, and philosophical development as the ruling nations in the Monarchy, although the situation of the Czechs in the Austrian part of the Monarchy was somewhat better than that of the Slovaks in the Hungarian region. According to Masaryk, Kollár explained the international meaning of the Slavic National Revival on the basis of the German philosophy of history. Herder’s philosophy served Kollár as the philosophical foundation that he needed for his concept of Slavic reciprocity.28 In the light of Herder’s philosophy it became possible to regard the development of the Czech and Slovak National Revival movements, especially in the first half of the nineteenth century, as a natural process that was progressing towards use of the concept of humanity, which was adopted from an outside environment, to formulate demands about the rights of individuals and nations to development and growth, to the cultivation of their language, and to education viewed as the means for realising the ideals of humanity in the life of the individual and the nation. The advantage was that this idea came from an external source, 27

Ondrej Mészáros, Dejiny maďarskej filozofie [The history of Hungarian philosophy] (Bratislava: Veda, 2013), 10–​11; Ondrej Mészáros, Súčasnosť nesúčasného. Preniky slovenskej a maďarskej filozofie v 19. storočí [The presence of the absent. Intersections between Slovak and Hungarian philosophy in the nineteenth century] (Bratislava: Veda, 2018), 6–​7, 23, 37, 101, 134–​135. 28 Masaryk, Česká otázka, 52.

T. G. Masaryk’s Thoughts on Ján Kollár’s Idea of Humanity

107

the German milieu, and those who espoused the idea were thus theoretically spared the accusation of formulating objectives deliberately opposed to the interests of the Austrian state. There was no avoiding such accusations, however, because the very call for equal rights for the Slavic nations was incompatible with the dominant political ideas and interests of Habsburg and Hungarian political leaders at that time.29 Masaryk claimed that the emergence of Czech and Slovak national consciousness was almost entirely consistent with the general laws of social evolution. There was a direct path leading from humanity to Slavic identity and from there to Czechness.30 In Masaryk’s view, humanity manifests itself in every nation in connection with the different, distinct attributes of the nation and its language. He believed that Kollár taught us to look at humankind as an organised whole whose historical development occurs in the service of the larger objectives of Providence. Individual nations, not individuals, are the vehicles of Providence’s historical and global plans. In the course of history, humanity manifests itself in different nations, and humankind is led for a time by different nations.31 Masaryk also remarked that Kollár was correct in his observation that the Slovak people had a pleasant nature, and Kollár’s characterisation of the Slavs is essentially a living reflection of the Slovaks. Among the traits Kollár had earlier attributed to the Slovaks, Masaryk noted how he highlighted their piety, dedicated hard work, innocent cheerfulness, love for their language, and their peacefully tolerant nature. Masaryk felt that these were all characteristics of contemporary Slovaks as well.32 His list of Slavic or Slovak attributes is genuinely interesting although very romantically idealised. So too was Kollár’s preoccupation with the hunt for signs or evidence of the ancient existence of the Slavs, as is clear from his travelogues, which even his contemporaries questioned.33 I believe that Kollár subordinated his scientific method to suit

29

István Fried, ‘Ján Kollár v maďarskom prostredí’ [Ján Kollár in the Hungarian environment], in Tatiana Ivantyšynová, ed., Ján Kollár a slovanská vzájomnosť: Genéza nacionalizmu v strednej Európe [Ján Kollár and Slavic mutuality: The genesis of nationalism in Central Europe] (Bratislava: Stimulus, 2006), 172. 30 Masaryk, Česká otázka, 80. 31 Masaryk, Česká otázka, 94–​95. 32 Masaryk, Česká otázka, 55. 33 Ján Kollár, Cestopis obsahující cestu do horní Itálie a odtud přes Tyrolsko a Bavorsko se zvláštním ohledem na slavjanské živly, Spisy [A travelogue containing a journey to Upper Italy and from thence through the Tyrol and Bavaria with special attention to Slavic elements. Collected works], vol. iii (Prague: I. L. Kober, 1862); Ján Kollár, Cestopis druhý a Paměti z mladších let života, Spisy [The second travelogue and Memoirs from younger years. Collected works.], vol. iv, (Prague: I. L. Kober, 1863).

108 Gluchman his objectives, so that over time his method began to seem challengeable and unreliable. This was largely understandable, however, in the context of the national struggles taking place at the time in the Hungarian lands. By contrast, we have the example of Masaryk in the dispute over the manuscripts, in which he clearly came out against the mythologising of Czech history, but in doing so alienated a large part of the contemporary Czech intelligentsia.34 Some justification for Kollár’s approach as opposed to Masaryk’s may be found in the fact that the position of Slovaks in the Hungarian lands at that time was worse than the position of Czechs in Austria in the second half and especially the later part of the nineteenth century. For example, in the early 1880s a Czech University was founded in Prague, while around approximately the same time Slovaks were losing their secondary schools and lost even the cultural and scientific institution Matica slovenská. Masaryk argued that it was Kollár’s idea, not Herder’s, that only the Slavs could bring about the humanisation of humankind. Masaryk criticised him in this respect and said that, for a philosopher, Kollár expressed a disproportionate level of hatred towards the enemies of the Slavs, especially in his epic poem Slávy dcéra (The Daughter of Sláva),35 where he condemned all the Slavs’ enemies to a Slavic hell. Masaryk praised Kollár, however, for recognising where Germans had benefited the Slavs –​Herder being one example. Nonetheless he pointed out that Kollár failed to successfully unite the ideas of nationality and humanity in his conception36 and claimed that in Slávy dcéra he swung back and forth between the two. This kind of inconsistency was also evident in the revolutionary years of 1848–​1849 when, on the one hand, Kollár cautioned his compatriots against violence but, on the other, failed to condemn the violent actions of the Hungarians, and shortly after 1848 he began working for Vienna. Even in Kollár’s story Masaryk observed that we were still too small for a time of big history.37 34

Karel Kučera, ‘Masaryk and Pekař: Their Conflict over the Meaning of Czech History and its Metamorphoses’, in Stanley B. Winders, ed., T. G. Masaryk (1850–​1937), vol. i: Thinker and Politician (Basingstoke–​ London: MacMillan, 1990), 93, 95. Stanley B. Winters, ‘T. G. Masaryk and Karel Kramář: Long Years of Friendship and Rivalry’, in Winters, T. G. Masaryk, vol. 1, 155–​156, 158, 161. Robert B. Pynsent, ‘Introduction’, in Robert B. Pynsent, ed., T. G. Masaryk (1850–​1937), vol. ii: Thinker and Critic (Basingstoke–​London: MacMillan, 1989), 5. Milan Hauner, ‘The Meaning of Czech History: Masaryk versus Pekař’, in Harry Hanak, ed., T. G. Masaryk (1850–​1937), vol. iii: Statesman and Cultural Force (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990), 24, 26, 29, 32, 35. Skilling, Masaryk, 2–​6. 35 Ján Kollár, ‘Slávy dcéra’ [Sláva’s daughter], in Ján Kollár, Spisy [Collected works], vol. i (Prague: I. L. Kober, 1862), 287–​363. 36 Masaryk, Česká otázka, 70–​71. 37 Masaryk, Česká otáza, 77–​78.

T. G. Masaryk’s Thoughts on Ján Kollár’s Idea of Humanity

109

We could say, then, that what Masaryk valued the most in Kollár was his idea of humanity fused with national development, but that he could not wholly accept Kollár’s concept of Slavic reciprocity and the future historic destiny of the Slavs. This reflected the fact that Masaryk had devoted considerable attention to exploring the different contexts and realities of the Slav peoples, and on his trips to Russia he had had the opportunity to get to know the conditions in imperial Russia at the time. This led him to conclude that the idea of Slavic unification was not the right idea.38 Kollár’s idea of humanity, as Masaryk interpreted it, was tied to the search for the identity of the Czech nation and the meaning of Czech history. Masaryk clearly linked Czech history to the humanist tradition embodied by the Czech Reformation, which began with Jan Hus, Petr Chelčický, and Jan Amos Komenský. In his view, a return to the tradition of Cyril and Methodius was no solution for the Czechs because Cyril and Methodius were originally Orthodox and from Byzantium, but later recognised by the Catholic Church, while Hus and Chelčický were against both the Orthodox Church and Catholicism.39 Masaryk claimed in this regard that religion and the church were of secondary significance for Kollár because the philosophical idea of humanity formed the basis from which Kollár formulated his views on nationality.40 I believe that he may have reached this conclusion from reading Kollár’s writings on Slavic Reciprocity, his poetry, and especially Slávy dcéra. As regards the place of religion and religiosity in Kollár’s views, I believe that the matter is more complicated than it might initially seem. Some scholars believe that Kollár set more store by the nation or nationality than by religion (Tomáš G. Masaryk, Svätopluk Štúr,41 Robert B. Pynsent,42 Viktor Timura,43 Elena Várossová),44 while others are of the opinion that he put religion before

38

Thomas G. Masaryk, The Spirit of Russia: Studies in History, Literature and Philosophy, vol. i., tr. from German by Paul Eden & Paul Cedar (London: Allen & Unwin, 1919). 39 Masaryk, Česká otázka, 158–​159. 40 Masaryk, Česká otázka, 164. 41 Štúr, Smysel slovenského obrodenia, 87, 154. 42 Robert B. Pynsent, ‘Slávy Herder’ [The Herder of Sláva], in Tatiana Ivantyšynová, ed., Ján Kollár a slovanská vzájomnosť: Genéza nacionalizmu v strednej Európe [Ján Kollár and Slavic mutuality: The genesis of nationalism in Central Europe] (Bratislava: Stimulus, 2006), 16. 43 Viktor Timura, ‘Kollárova filozofia slovanskej vzájomnosti’ [Kollár’s philosophy of Slavic mutuality], in Cyril Kraus, ed., Ján Kollár (1793–​1993) (Bratislava: Veda, 1993), 68. 44 Elena Várossová, ‘Ján Kollár’, in Ján Bodnár, ed., Dejiny filozofie na Slovensku i. [The history of philosophy in Slovakia, i] (Veda, Bratislava 1987), 308.

110 Gluchman the nation (Július Filo Sr,45 Vasil Gluchman,46 Elena Várossová),47 and there are also some who believe that Kollár placed religion and the nation on the same level (Václav Černý,48 Dušan Ondrejovič,49 Tibor Pichler,50 Miloš Tomčík,51 Hana Šmahelová52). When we consider the most extensive body of work that Kollár produced in his life, his sermons, the nature of his religious belief suggests that Kollár regarded the nation and nationality as secondary to religion and religiosity. The nation and nationality are both of this world and are not in themselves a means to attaining eternal life; but religion and religiosity offer a path to eternal salvation and, in Kollár’s view, an assurance of morality in worldly life.53 I therefore do not believe it is valid to claim that Kollár placed the nation before religion. At best we could interpret the two as equal, which is how Kollár put it in one of his sermons, where he metaphorically referred to religion and nationality as sisters in order to highlight the effect of his secular efforts to improve the position of Slovaks and the Slovak nation in the Habsburg Monarchy and especially in relation to Hungary.54 Even though Kollár emphasised the role of 45

Július Filo, Idea slovanstva v kázňach Jána Kollára [The idea of Slavicness in the sermons of Ján Kollár] (Banská Bystrica: g.a.g., 1993). 46 Vasil Gluchman, Idey humanizmu v dejinách etiky na Slovensku [The ideas of humanism in the history of ethics in Slovakia] (Prešov: Filozofická fakulta Prešovskej univerzity, 2013), 89. 47 Elena Várossová, Slovenské obrodenecké myslenie: Jeho zdroje a základné idey [Slovak thoughts linked to the national revival: Their sources and basic principles] (Bratislava: sav, 1963), 62–​63, 67. 48 Václav Černý, Vývoj a zločiny panslavismu [The development and crimes of Panslavism] (Prague: kvh, 2011), 23. 49 Dušan Ondrejovič, ‘Ján Kollár kňaz a kazateľ’ [Ján Kollár, a priest and a preacher], in Cyril Kraus, ed., Ján Kollár (1793–​1993) (Bratislava: Veda, 1993), 226–​227. 50 Tibor Pichler, ‘Problém etnickej divergencie vládcov a ovládaných u Jána Kollára’, in Tatiana Ivantyšynová, ed., Ján Kollár a slovanská vzájomnosť: Genéza nacionalizmu v strednej Európe [Ján Kollár and Slavic mutuality: The genesis of nationalism in Central Europe] (Bratislava: Stimulus, 2006), 40. 51 Miloš Tomčík, ‘Tematické a slohové aspekty Kollárových Kázní a řeči’ [Thematic and compositional aspects of Kollár’s Sermons and speeches], in Cyril Kraus, ed., Ján Kollár (1793–​1993) (Bratislava: Veda, 1993), 252. 52 Hana Šmahelová, ‘Kollárova vize slovanské vzájemnosti’ [Kollár’s vision of Slavic mutuality], Česká literatura 50/​2 (2002), 146. 53 Ján Kollár, Nedělnj, swátečné i přjležitostné Kázne a Řeči [Sunday, holiday, and occasional speeches and sermons], vol. i (Pest: Trattner a Karoli, 1931), 182–​83, 154–​159, 191, 271, 285, etc.; (hereinafter Kázne i); Ján Kollár, Nedělnj, swátečné i přjležitostné Kázne a Řeči k napomoženj pobožné národnosti [Sunday, holiday, and occasional speeches and sermons], vol. ii (Buda: Jan Gyurian and Martin Bagó, 1844), 26, 441, 447, etc. (hereinafter Kázne ii). 54 Kollár, Kázne ii, 18.

T. G. Masaryk’s Thoughts on Ján Kollár’s Idea of Humanity

111

enlightened activities and education in national development, it would ultimately have been altogether illogical and inconsistent with the convictions of a Christian of deep faith and a Lutheran pastor for him to place the nation before or, even less likely, above religion. That would have meant that he was questioning his own religious faith and making it into a mere tool or component of his cultural and literary endeavours. And this is further confirmed by his own words in the Foreword to Cestopis do hornej Itálie … (A Journey to Upper Italy), where in a conversation with Count Karoly Zay he remarked that his field and strengths were religion, the nation, language, and literature.55 Masaryk devoted considerable attention to the figure of Jan Hus in connection with the role of religion in Czech history and referred to him in many places in Česká otázka (‘The Czech Question’).56 According to Masaryk, Hus and his predecessors were seeking moral and religious redress, and were not concerned with issues of learning. The Czech nation as a whole was striving for moral regeneration and for freedom of moral and religious conscience, but the Hussite movement did not understand that life itself is paramount. This insight would require new teachings, which would have to be in the service of life and, consequently, also primarily concerned with life.57 In my view, Masaryk can be criticised for reducing Czech history including religious history to what fitted his conception of humanist ideals, and overlooking much else that was just as important.58 He extracted the aspects of Czech history that supported his attempt to demonstrate the Czech nation’s struggle for humanity, freedom, and moral regeneration. This involved taking processes that were multidimensional, isolating them as distinct, separate phenomena, and then using them to build up his conception of the meaning of Czech history as founded on the humanist ideals of the Czech Reformation. If this seems to distort age past, it is important to appreciate the emphasis that Masaryk placed on life and the immediate needs of life, and his constant reminders that we keep these concerns in mind. I believe that in this Masaryk drew inspiration from Kollár, who particularly in his sermons highlighted the need to lead an active and productive life and condemned passivity and a reliance on the expectation of external assistance.59

55 Kollár, Cestopis, viii. 56 Tomáš G. Masaryk, Jan Hus: Naše obrození a naše reformace [Jan Hus: Our national revival and our reformation] (Prague: J. Kanzelsberger, 1991). 57 Masaryk, Česká otázka, 173. 58 Pynsent, Questions of Identity, 181. 59 Kollár, Kázne i, 258, 271, 289, 291, etc.

112 Gluchman Of course, Kollár also formulated Romantic, abstract ideals that he himself was not entirely convinced were attainable; he consequently took refuge in the utopian realm of Slavic Reciprocity and the cultural and literary unity of the Slavs.60 There was some justification for this as a concept of national defence in the face of surging Pan-​Germanism and Magyarisation, but it was not a very productive way to find a solution to the position of the Slavic nations within the Habsburg Monarchy at the time. The life and problems of the Slovaks and the Slavs in the Habsburg Empire were the starting points of his thought but  the solutions he offered fell short, or, more precisely, were unrealistic, because they did not take into account the real conditions and the real possibilities. That is why in Reciprocity between the Various Tribes and Dialects of the Slavic Nation (Rozprava o literárnej vzájomnosti, 1837) he did not go any further than to describe the cultural and literary reciprocity of the Slavs,61 which, although it sparked fears of Pan-​Slavism among the Germans and Hungarians, led nowhere in terms of real political steps to improve the position of the Slavs within the Monarchy. In his sermons, however, he clearly did formulate and articulate political demands to address the primary needs of Slovaks, arising from their position within Hungary, and the needs of other Slavs within the Habsburg Monarchy.62 On religion, in Česká otázka (‘The Czech Question’) Masaryk firmly rebuked Czechs for their penchant for martyrdom and for therefore tending to play up small injuries and demand attention be paid to them.63 He thought it inconceivable that Czechs should have to beg for what was theirs. He rejected Machiavellianism in politics and was convinced that a small and weak nation could achieve its objectives without engaging in intrigue. Anyone ready and willing to work had no need for intrigue. Life was a struggle, and for the small and weak it was an especially difficult struggle, but it had always been the weak who had striven and worked for justice, and although hard, the battle could still be won. According to Masaryk, Kollár himself was an example of how hard it could be. He saw him as inconsistent and vacillating between humanity and violence.64 He nonetheless noted that Kollár’s notion of humanity was the

60

Ján Kollár, Reciprocity between the Various Tribes and Dialects of the Slavic Nation, tr. and ed. Alexander Maxwell (Bloomington, IN: Slavica, 2008). 61 Kollár, Reciprocity, 93, 113, etc. 62 Kollár, Kázne i, 157, 200, 305, 313–​315. Kollár, Kázne ii, 236–​239, 370–​371, 417, etc. 63 Robert B. Pynsent noted ironically that ‘perhaps Masaryk’s only contribution to assessing Czechness was his observation that Czechs had a predisposition to martyrdom and to the veneration of martyrs’, Pynsent, Questions of Identity, 190. 64 Masaryk, Česká otázka, 175–​176.

T. G. Masaryk’s Thoughts on Ján Kollár’s Idea of Humanity

113

foundation and the goal of the project of Slav reciprocity, which gave it the potential to culminate in the ideals of humanity. For Masaryk, humanity (pure humaneness) involved the ideal of universal brotherhood, the truly Czech ideal of the Unity of the Brethren. Thus progress could be made from Kollár’s one-​sided understanding of the idea of humanity in the sense of nationality to an understanding of humanity in terms of its social significance.65 Masaryk wanted to rouse the Czech nation to action, and so to get away from provincialism, the cult of martyrdom, and the culture of complaint about adversity and political conditions. He saw the solution is work, everyday efforts, the actions of every part of a nation directed to ennobling the nation and improving its situation. For Masaryk, work was humanity, because it meant the growth, development, and cultivation of everything and everyone. We find a similar theme in Kollár’s sermons, which are full of calls to action, to everyday effort, and, in a sense to what Masaryk would call ‘small work’. Masaryk may well have found his inspiration for this idea in Kollár.66 Clearly Kollár’s thinking was one of the models or sources of inspiration for Masaryk’s concept of humanity, but Masaryk went well beyond Kollár’s understanding of humanity as universal humaneness, as love for the nation and for humankind. Kollár’s vision had a strong element of sentimentality to it, and this is especially true of Reciprocity … and of his poetry as well. By contrast, Masaryk’s conception of humanity was more orientated towards action, commitment, and involvement, and more panoptic in its forms and methods and even in its objectives. While in Kollár’s Reciprocity … humanity is almost an abstraction and the primary appeal is to the intelligentsia as the elite who transmit ideas about love for one’s nation and humanity, Masaryk’s conception of humanity is more concrete. It is meant to encompass all individuals, every part of the nation, and even every area of human activity; it can be understood as a comprehensive conception of humanity. This view accords with Antonie van Beld’s opinion that it is possible to find in Masaryk’s work multiple ways of understanding humanity: humanity as morality, humanity as freedom, humanity as nationality, humanity as sociability, humanity as democracy.67 It should be remembered in connection with Masaryk’s reflections on Kollár that Masaryk spoke clearly about the need for Czech-​Slovak cooperation. He wrote: ‘It is certainly remarkable that a Slovak was the first to sing the song of the Slavic idea and it is worth considering whether the Slovak question is not of primary importance for us. It is time not just to sing in Slovak but also –​and 65 Masaryk, Česká otázka, 179. 66 Kollár, Kázne i, 258, 262–​264, 503, etc. Kollár, Kázne ii, 29, 390, 459, 462, etc. 67 Beld, Humanity, 4–​5.

114 Gluchman this is something now forgotten –​to feel –​and even to think –​in a Slovak way. Yes, to think –​this is what Kollár in his blessed work is inviting us, Slovaks and Czechs, to do’.68 It is interesting that in Česká otážka Masaryk treats Kollár mainly as Czech, but he occasionally remarks that Kollár was Slovak by birth. If he had been wholly basing his thought on Kollár’s idea of Slavic reciprocity and the Czechoslovak tribe as one branch of the Slavs, he would have had to consistently use the term Czechoslovak or refer to the Czechoslovak tribe. Most of the time Masaryk is thinking and writing about the Czechs, but he also on occasion refers to Czechoslovak reciprocity, or, in an opposite spirit, he invokes Havlíček’s declarations that he was a Czech but never a Slav.69 These comments in Česká otážka and in the book that followed, Naše nynější kríze, do not present a clear definition of his opinion on the Slovaks. My sense is that he viewed them as a distinct nation, but one very close to the Czechs, and I believe that the fate of the Slovaks in the Hungarian lands weighed on his heart. In a way he viewed Kollár as a Slovak who felt himself to be Czech or Czechoslovak and Slavic. I think that Masaryk worked with Kollár’s ideas about humanity primarily because they fitted his concept of humanity as the meaning of Czech history, extending from the time of the Czech Reformation and the Unity of the Brethren up to that of Jungmann, Dobrovský, Palacký, and Havlíček. Masaryk treated Šafárik as Czech for the same reason. Kollár and Šafárik both wrote in Czech, though Kollár in a more Slovak variety of the Czech language, and this, too, may have been a reason why Masaryk adopted them as Czechs. Kollár and Šafárik came out against the plan to codify the Slovak language initiated by Štúr’s generation and they continued to believe in the need for linguistic and literary reciprocity with the Czechs.70 This resulted in a rift within the Slovak national movement, where Kollár in particular,71 attracted initially tactful but then harsh criticism for his resistance to the codification of Slovak.72 68 Masaryk, Česká otázka, 55. 69 Masaryk, Česká otázka, 75–​76. 70 Ján Kollár, Hlasowé o potřebě jednoty spisowného jazyka pro Čechy, Morawany a Slowáky [Voices about the need of a unified literary language for the Czechs, Moravians, and Slovaks] (Prague: Kronberger a Řiwnáč, 1846). 71 Ľudovít Štúr, ‘Jánovi Kollárovi’ [To Ján Kollár], in Jozef Ambruš, ed., Ľ. Štúr: Dielo i, [Ľudovít Štúr: Collected works, i] (Bratislava: Tatran, 1986), 323–​324. 72 Jozef M. Hurban, ‘Slovensko a jeho život literárny’ [Slovakia and its literary life], in Viera Bosáková, ed., Jozef M. Hurban, Dielo ii [Jozef M. Hurban, Collected works ii] (Bratislava: Tatran, 1983), 164–​180; Jozef M. Hurban, ‘Hlasové o potřebě jednotného spisovného jazyka pro Čechy, Moravany a Slováky’ [Voices about the need of a unified literary language for the Czechs, Moravians, and Slovaks], in Viera Bosáková, ed., Jozef M. Hurban, Dielo ii [Josef M. Hurban. Collected works ii] (Bratislava: Tatran, 1983),

T. G. Masaryk’s Thoughts on Ján Kollár’s Idea of Humanity

3

115

Conclusion

In my view T. G. Masaryk was heavily inspired by Ján Kollár and not just in the formulation of his nationally oriented political programme grounded in humanist ideals. Masaryk adopted Kollár’s idea about the realisation of humanity through the triad of the human individual, the nation, and humankind. On the other hand, while for Kollár ‘nation’ referred to the Slavic peoples, Masaryk rejected the idea of a unity of Slavs because politically he viewed it as an unproductive nationalist programme, or even a step backwards, and like Karel Havlíček he identified with the Czech nation, not with a nation of Slavs. His triad was thus the human individual, the Czech nation, and humankind. Hence Masaryk significantly modified the content of Kollár’s model of the triad, replacing the abstract Slavic nation with the concrete Czech nation, which possessed a real language, culture, territory, history, and so forth. It was thus possible for Masaryk’s humanist ideal to serve as a meaningful pillar of the national-​political programme for Czech independence, in contrast with Kollár’s utopian vision of the unification of different Slavic tribes, whether through Slavic cultural reciprocity or even just through literary reciprocity between the Slavic intelligentsias.73 Nonetheless, for Masaryk as for Kollár, religion had an important role to play in the national effort, because he considered it a mainstay of morality and thus a guarantee of the fulfilment of humanist ideals by individuals and the Czech nation. Masaryk clearly shed a light on the ambivalent nature of Kollár’s opinions. On the one hand, Kollár played an extremely important role on the literary scene, most notably with his Slávy dcéra. He also made the significant contribution of formulating the idea of Slavic literary and cultural reciprocity, which he based on Herder’s philosophy of history, and developing a concept of humanity. On the other hand, Kollár subordinated his methods and concepts to his specific purpose by emphasising the leading role that the Slavs were supposed to take in the future of humankind, and their supposedly ubiquitous role in history, which he purported to identify in various locations around

73

325–​405; Ľudovít Štúr, ‘Hlas proti Hlasom’ [A voice against voices], in Jozef Ambruš, ed., Ľudovít Štúr, Dielo i [Ľudovít Štúr, Collected works i] (Bratislava: Tatran, 1986), 327–​342. Alexander Maxwell wrote: ‘Kollár’s vision of the Slavic nation and its historic mission is thus a dreary combination of Herderian eschatology, Christian idealism, and national literary egocentrism. He believed that Slavic literature, when it reached its full flowering, would combine the wisdom of the ancient and modern world, thus bringing perfection, wisdom, and enlightenment to humanity’. Alexander Maxwell, ‘Ján Kollár’s Literary Nationalism’, in Alexander Maxwell, ed. and tr., Ján Kollár, Reciprocity between the Various Tribes and Dialects of the Slavic Nation (Bloomington, IN: Slavica, 2008), 12.

116 Gluchman Europe.74 Curiously, in his attempt to unite the Slavs, he did not see or may have deliberately ignored the processes making for self-​determination that were underway in different Slavic nations, including the Slovak nation. Kollár’s ideas about a united Slavic nation were not wholly understood by the Slavic peoples themselves, their political representatives, or the intelligentsia with the exception of Slavophiles. Ultimately Kollár emerges as a contradictory man and thinker and a ‘loner’ whose work primarily appealed to the emotions of young Slavs, which was why they noticed it and devoted so much attention to it. Unfortunately, the ambivalence of his work meant that its considerable potential to inspire effective and beneficial change in the position of Slavs and especially Slovaks within the Habsburg Monarchy and the Hungarian Lands in particular remained underused. He accomplished a great deal, but his significance remained more on a Platonic level, as in the Reciprocity between the Various Tribes and Dialects of the Slavic Nation (Rozprava o literárnej vzájomnosti, 1837)75 he deliberately distanced himself –​however understandably –​from the political side of the developments connected with nationalist struggles in central Europe and the Habsburg Monarchy. Alexander Maxwell said of him that ‘[T]‌he tragedy of Kollár’s life and work, therefore, is not merely that his dream of glorious Slavic unity was never fulfilled, but that the policies he proposed inadvertently contributed to the splintering of the Slavic world’.76 His sermons were full of political statements and support for the idea that all nations and their members had a natural right to equality, and for demands for language rights and the right to an education in one’s mother tongue.77 On the whole, however, his sermons did not have much of an impact outside his Slovak Lutheran congregation in Pest, and only some of them –​mainly those that dealt with Slavic reciprocity –​resonated with the general public. In Česká otázka (‘The Czech Question’) Masaryk drew primarily on Kollár’s theoretical writings and poetry in his analysis and assessment of him and did not refer to his largest body of work, namely his sermons, which is where Kollár formulated the basic contours of the ideas that he later articulated primarily in his philosophical writings. What Masaryk rightly criticised in Kollár’s philosophical thinking and even his poetic work we find articulated much more clearly in Kollár’s sermons. I believe that Masaryk found a great deal that engaged and inspired him precisely in Kollár’s sermons, and this is especially 74 Kollár, Cestopis. Kollár, Cestopis druhý. 75 Kollár, Reciprocity. 76 Maxwell, ‘Ján Kollár’s Literary Nationalism’, 67. 77 Kollár, Kázne i, 157, 200, etc.

T. G. Masaryk’s Thoughts on Ján Kollár’s Idea of Humanity

117

apparent in the part of Masaryk’s Slavic Reciprocity that was not included in Česká otázka.

Bibliography

Beld, Anton van den, Humanity: The Political and Social Philosophy of Thomas G. Masaryk (The Hague: Mounton, 1975), 40–​41. Černý, Václav, Vývoj a zločiny panslavismu [The development and crimes of Panslavism] (Prague: kvh, 2011). David, Zdeněk V., Johann Gottfried Herder and the Czech National Awakening: A Reassessment (Pittsburgh, PA: Carl Beck Papers in Russian & East European Studies 1807, University of Pittsburgh, 2007). Doležal, Augustin, Pamětná celému světu Tragoedia, anebožto Veršovné Vypsánj žalostného Prvních Rodičů Pádu … [The tragedy remembered by the entire world or Description of the lamentable fall of the first parents in verse] (Uherská Skalice: Jozef Antonin Škarnicl, 1791). Filo, Július, Idea slovanstva v kázňach Jána Kollára [The idea of Slavicness in the sermons of Ján Kollár] (Banská Bystrica: G.A.G., 1993). Fried, István, ‘Ján Kollár v maďarskom prostredí’ [Ján Kollár in the Hungarian environment], in Tatiana Ivantyšynová, ed., Ján Kollár a slovanská vzájomnosť: Genéza nacionalizmu v strednej Európe [Ján Kollár and Slavic mutuality: The genesis of nationalism in Central Europe] (Bratislava: Stimulus, 2006). Gluchman, Vasil, ‘Humanity: Biological and Moral Issues’, in Vasil Gluchman, ed., Morality: Reasoning on Different Approaches (Amsterdam–​New York: Rodopi, 2013). Gluchman, Vasil, Idey humanizmu v dejinách etiky na Slovensku [The ideas of humanism in the history of ethics in Slovakia] (Prešov: Filozofická fakulta Prešovskej univerzity, 2013). Hauner, Milan, ‘The Meaning of Czech History: Masaryk versus Pekař’, in Harry Hanak, ed., T. G. Masaryk (1850–​1937), vol. iii: Statesman and Cultural Force (London: Macmillan, 1990), 24–​42. Hegel, Georg W. F., The Philosophy of History (Kitchener: Batoche Books, 2001). Herder, Johann G., Outlines of a Philosophy of the History of Man, tr. T. Churchill (New York: Bergman Publishers, 1966). Hurban, Jozef M., ‘Hlasové o potřebě jednotného spisovného jazyka pro Čechy, Moravany a Slováky’ [Voices about the need of a unified literary language for the Czechs, Moravians, and Slovaks], in Viera Bosáková, ed., Jozef M. Hurban, Dielo ii [Josef M. Hurban. Collected works ii] (Bratislava: Tatran, 1983).

118 Gluchman Hurban, Jozef M., ‘Slovensko a jeho život literárny’ [Slovakia and its literary life], in Viera Bosáková, ed., Jozef M. Hurban, Dielo ii [Jozef M. Hurban, Collected works ii] (Bratislava: Tatran, 1983). Kollár, Ján, ‘Slávy dcéra’ [Sláva’s daughter], in Ján Kollár, Spisy [Collected works], vol. i (Prague: I. L. Kober, 1862), 287–​363. Kollár, Ján, Cestopis druhý a Paměti z mladších let života, Spisy [The second travelogue and Memoirs from younger years. Collected works.], vol. iv (Prague: I. L. Kober, 1863). Kollár, Ján, Cestopis obsahující cestu do horní Itálie a odtud přes Tyrolsko a Bavorsko se zvláštním ohledem na slavjanské živly, Spisy [A travelogue containing a journey to Upper Italy and from thence through the Tyrol and Bavaria with special attention to Slavic elements. Collected works], vol. iii (Prague: I. L. Kober, 1862). Kollár, Ján, Hlasowé o potřebě jednoty spisowného jazyka pro Čechy, Morawany a Slowáky [Voices about the need of a unified literary language for the Czechs, Moravians, and Slovaks] (Prague: Kronberger a Řiwnáč, 1846). Kollár, Ján, Nedělnj, swátečné i přjležitostné Kázne a Řeči [Sunday, holiday, and occasional speeches and sermons], vol. I (Pest: Trattner a Karoli, 1931). Kollár, Ján, Nedělnj, swátečné i přjležitostné Kázne a Řeči k napomoženj pobožné národnosti [Sunday, holiday, and occasional speeches and sermons], vol. ii (Buda: Jan Gyurian and Martin Bagó, 1844). Kollár, Ján, Reciprocity between the Various Tribes and Dialects of the Slavic Nation, tr. and ed. Alexander Maxwell (Bloomington, IN: Slavica, 2008). Kovtun, George J., ed., The Spirit of Thomas G. Masaryk (1850–​1937): An Anthology (Basingstoke–​London: MacMillan, 1990). Kučera, Karel, ‘Masaryk and Pekař: Their Conflict over the Meaning of Czech History and its Metamorphoses’, in Stanley B. Winders, ed., T. G. Masaryk (1850–​1937), vol. i: Thinker and Politician (Basingstoke–​London: MacMillan, 1990). Leibniz, Gottfried W., Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man and the Origin of Evil (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1996). Masaryk, Tomáš G., ‘Slovanská vzájemnost Jana Kollára’ [Ján Kollár’s Slavic mutuality], Naše doba 1/​7, 481–​500; 1/​8, 588–​598; 1/​9, 655–​671; 1/​10, 721–​760; 1/​11, 822–​844; 1/​12, 891–​920 (all 1894). Masaryk, Tomáš G., Česká otázka [The Czech question] (Prague: Svoboda, 1990). Masaryk, Tomáš G., Jan Hus: Naše obrození a naše reformace [Jan Hus: Our national revival and our reformation] (Prague: J. Kanzelsberger, 1991). Masaryk, Thomas G., The Ideals of Humanity, tr. William P. Warren (London: Allen & Unwin, 1938). Masaryk, Thomas G., The Spirit of Russia. Studies in History, Literature and Philosophy, vol. i, tr. from German Paul Eden & Paul Cedar, ed. Jan Slavik (London: Allen & Unwin, 1961).

T. G. Masaryk’s Thoughts on Ján Kollár’s Idea of Humanity

119

Maxwell, Alexander, ‘Ján Kollár’s Literary Nationalism’, in Alexander Maxwell, ed. and tr., Ján Kollár, Reciprocity between the Various Tribes and Dialects of the Slavic Nation (Bloomington, IN: Slavica, 2008). Mészáros, Ondrej, Dejiny maďarskej filozofie [The history of Hungarian philosophy] (Bratislava: Veda, 2013). Mészáros, Ondrej, Súčasnosť nesúčasného. Preniky slovenskej a maďarskej filozofie v 19. storočí [The presence of the absent. Intersections between Slovak and Hungarian philosophy in the nineteenth century] (Bratislava: Veda, 2018). Mráz, Andrej, Ján Kollár: Literárna štúdia [Ján Kollár: A literary study] (Bratislava: Slovenský spisovateľ, 1952). Ondrejovič, Dušan, ‘Ján Kollár kňaz a kazateľ’ [Ján Kollár, a priest and a preacher], in Cyril Kraus, ed., Ján Kollár (1793–​1993) (Bratislava: Veda, 1993). Opat, Jaroslav, Filosof a politik T. G. Masaryk 1882–​1893 (Prague: Melantrich, 1990). Pichler, Tibor, ‘Problém etnickej divergencie vládcov a ovládaných u Jána Kollára’, in Tatiana Ivantyšynová, ed., Ján Kollár a slovanská vzájomnosť: Genéza nacionalizmu v strednej Európe [Ján Kollár and Slavic mutuality: The genesis of nationalism in Central Europe] (Bratislava: Stimulus, 2006). Pražák, Albert, T. G. Masaryk a Slovensko [T.G. Masaryk and Slovakia] (Prague: Corona, 1937), 14–​36. Pynsent, Robert B., ‘Introduction’, in Robert B. Pynsent, ed., T. G. Masaryk (1850–​1937), vol. ii: Thinker and Critic (Basingstoke–​London: MacMillan, 1989). Pynsent, Robert B., ‘Slávy Herder’ [The Herder of Sláva], in Tatiana Ivantyšynová, ed., Ján Kollár a slovanská vzájomnosť: Genéza nacionalizmu v strednej Európe [Ján Kollár and Slavic mutuality: The genesis of nationalism in Central Europe] (Bratislava: Stimulus, 2006). Pynsent, Robert B., Questions of Identity: Czech and Slovak Ideas of Nationality and Personality (Budapest: Central European University Press, 1994). Skilling, Harold G., T. G. Masaryk: Against the Current, 1882–​1914 (Basingstoke–​London: MacMillan, 1994). Škultéty, Jozef, ‘Ján Kollár’, Slovenské pohľady 24/​5 (1904). Škultéty, Jozef, ‘Maďari a Austria’ [The Hungarians and Austria], Slovenské pohľady 24/​ 1 (1904). Šmahelová, Hana, ‘Kollárova vize slovanské vzájemnosti’ [Kollár’s vision of Slavic mutuality], Česká literatura 50/​2 (2002), 125–​148. Štúr, Ľudovít, ‘Hlas proti Hlasom’ [A voice against voices], in Jozef Ambruš, ed., Ľudovít Štúr, Dielo i [Ľudovít Štúr, Collected works i] (Bratislava: Tatran, 1986). Štúr, Ľudovít, ‘Jánovi Kollárovi’ [To Ján Kollár], in Jozef Ambruš, ed., Ľ. Štúr: Dielo i [Ľudovít Štúr: Collected works, i] (Bratislava: Tatran, 1986). Štúr, Svätopluk, Smysel slovenského obrodenia [The meaning of Slovak national revival] (Liptovský Svätý Mikuláš: Tranoscius, 1948).

120 Gluchman Timura, Viktor, ‘Kollárova filozofia slovanskej vzájomnosti’, in Cyril Kraus, ed., Ján Kollár (1793–​1993) (Bratislava: Veda, 1993). Tomčík, Miloš, ‘Tematické a slohové aspekty Kollárových Kázní a řeči’ [Thematic and compositional aspects of Kollár’s Sermons and speeches], in Cyril Kraus, ed., Ján Kollár (1793–​1993) (Bratislava: Veda, 1993). Várossová, Elena, ‘Ján Kollár’, in Ján Bodnár, ed., Dejiny filozofie na Slovensku i. [The history of philosophy in Slovakia, i] (Veda, Bratislava 1987). Várossová, Elena, Slovenské obrodenecké myslenie: Jeho zdroje a základné idey [Slovak thoughts linked to the national revival: Their sources and basic principles] (Bratislava: sav, 1963). Winters, Stanley B., ‘T. G. Masaryk and Karel Kramář: Long Years of Friendship and Rivalry’, in Stanley B. Winters, T. G. Masaryk (1850–​1937), vol. i: Thinker and Politician (Basingstoke–​London: MacMillan, 1990).

pa rt 3 The Pro-​Masaryk View of the Czech Question

∵

­c hapter 7

The Legacy of Masaryk’s Idea of Enlightened Humanism Vlastimil Zátka Abstract The essay examines Masaryk’s notion of enlightened humanism and freedom in his Czech Question and Humanistic Ideals, major contributions to Czech philosophical discourse of the nineteenth century. The work shows that the aim of Masaryk’s concept was first of all to complete the ‘unfinished programme’ of cultural and political revival of the Czech nation and secondly, to resolve the political crisis of that time using the ‘idea of humanism’, which Masaryk viewed as the highest metaphysical and teleological principle legitimising the meaning of Czech and world history, which Masaryk, like Kant, placed above politics, culture, science, and law. The work points out that Masaryk’s concept also pursued another goal: to present a critical analysis of the greatest problems of the historical, political, and cultural development of the Czech society in the nineteenth century and to outline a programme of its reform based on the philosophy of history. Another part of the study emphasises that Masaryk highlighted the timeless importance of humanistic ideas, pointed to their ethical foundation, and described them as ahistorical quantities with universal validity. In conclusion, the author emphasises that Masaryk’s notion of the ‘idea of humanism’ as the philosophical foundation of Czech national revival and modern Czech and world history remains valuable and inspiring to this day. As a critically thinking author, Masaryk tried to find the political, social, and cultural foundations of the development of modern Czech society in both the conditional spheres of the secular and historical, as well as the unconditional realms of the ideal and metaphysical.

The first objective of Masaryk’s remarkable work Česká otázka (The Czech Question),1 an important contribution to Czech philosophical discourse in the 1 Tomáš G. Masaryk, Česká otázka, Naše nynější krize, Jan Hus [The Czech question. Our current crisis. Jan Hus], in Jiří Brabec, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. vi (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr, 2000). See also Thomas G. Masaryk, The Meaning of Czech History, ed. Rene Wellek, tr. Peter Kussi (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina,

© Vlastimil Zátka, 2023 | DOI:10.1163/9789004534919_009

124 Zátka nineteenth century, was to present the historical ‘efforts and aspirations’ of the Czech National Revival and through a critical reconstruction of its key propositions bring ‘the unfinished project’ for the Czech nation’s cultural and political renascence to its completion. Its second objective was to address what Masaryk regarded as a contemporary crisis, for which he believed the solution could be found in a critical re-​examination of the validity of the most important principle in Czech and world history and therefore in the ‘Czech question’ as well: the ‘humanist idea’ as the philosophical foundation of history. Masaryk interpreted this idea in metaphysical and religious-​theological terms, and like Kant, for example, in his philosophy he assigned it a position of primacy over politics, culture, science, and law. In his view, Czech and world history derived their meaning and their metaphysical or theological justification from the idea of humanity. This idea was of key significance to Masaryk, and he applied it to the wider context of Czech history, concluding that without it the Czech National Revival would remain ‘unfinished and incomplete’.2 Masaryk also pursued a third objective in this text: to deliver a critical analysis of the biggest problems in the historical, political, and cultural development of Czech society in the nineteenth century and outline a programme of societal reform that would be grounded in philosophy and underpinned by a philosophy of history. If we were wondering why, philosophy and the philosophy of history were chosen as the foundation of this reform, it is because Masaryk believed that this is what his predecessors had been striving for as well: A philosophy of history provided Josef Dobrovský, Ján Kollár, Pavel Josef Šafařík, František Palacký, and Karel Havlíček with a ‘lens’ through which to properly assess the development of Czech society, while at the same time it united them with the ‘best efforts’ of other nations striving to attain the same goal. As a result, the philosophy of history was accorded a key position in Masaryk’s thinking, and it also performed another task: it showed that the ‘humanist idea’ offered a way of reaching into the deepest foundations of Czech history and explaining its meaning sub specie aeternitatis. These were the main reasons why Masaryk concluded that philosophy could be used to cultivate Czech political and social life and to help determine its future development. He was convinced that small nations were not ‘a work 1974). Masaryk’s Česká otázka. Snahy a tužby národního obrození contains Chapter 1 ‘The First Stirrings of National Revival’; Chapter 2 ‘Czechs and Slavs: The Time of Kollár and Jungmann’; Chapter 3 ‘Completion of the Czech National Renascence’; Chapter v ‘The Social Question’. 2 Tomáš G. Masaryk, Naše nynější krize. Pád strany staročeské a počátkové směrů nových [Our current crisis. The fall of the Old Czech Party and the beginnings of new directions], in Masaryk, Česká otázka, 184.

The Legacy of Masaryk’s Idea of Enlightened Humanism

125

of chance’,3 and that they therefore needed to have a philosophical programme with the capacity to advance education, culture, and politics. In his view, a small nation could only become independent through its own cultural and political policies and projects. Here Masaryk was clearly thinking in a normative way and placing normative demands on the Czech National Revival. One reason for this was that in Masaryk’s conceptualisation of the Czech question the Czech nation was never understood in purely ethnic terms and so as a community formed only on a linguistic or tribal basis; instead, he conceived of the Czech nation as a collective invested with the noblest metaphysical aims and mission. Masaryk wrote Česká otázka in the late nineteenth century, a time that coincided with the rise of a positivist or sociological approach to the study of history. This approach sought to investigate history as a set of scientifically verifiable facts and was critically directed not only against the Hegelian-​inspired speculative theories on the wane at that time, but also against the romantic mythologising of history and search for hidden symbolic meanings in the past, which would purportedly represent a higher and more important form of truth than what critical scientific research could provide. Masaryk nevertheless judged that philosophy should have the decisive role in assessing the process of the Czech National Revival’s formation because only philosophy had the ability to capture its overall meaning and significance. On the other hand, Masaryk also radically distanced himself from other philosophical models employed in the study of history, most notably the idealistic, materialistic, and naturalistic models (e.g. those put forward by Hegel, Marx, and Nietzsche, etc.), and concluded that history ought to be studied ‘realistically’.4 Masaryk was a ‘realist’, and his guideline in the search for the meaning of Czech and world history was eighteenth-​century Enlightenment philosophy, especially the German, French, and British varieties. In Česká otázka (‘The Czech Question’) Masaryk critically explored key events in Czech and world history. Following on from F. Palacký’s theory of Czech history,5 he examined the Czech nation’s historical mission within the wider context of world history6 and concluded that modern Czech history 3 Masaryk, Česká otázka, 11. 4 Masaryk, Naše nynější krize in Masaryk, Česká otázka, 179. 5 Masaryk, Česká otázka, 71–​76. He also fell under the sway of some of Palacký’s mythologising interpretations of certain stages of Czech history. See Jiří Štaif, František Palacký (Život, mýtus, dílo) [František Palacký (Life, myth, work)] (Prague: Vyšehrad, 2009), 10–​11. 6 On some of the contentious aspects of Palacký’s theory that stemmed from his uncritical acceptance of Herder’s naturalism, see Jan Patočka, ‘Dilema v našem národním programu. Jungmann a Bolzano’ [A Dilemma in our national programme. Jungmann and Bolzano], in

126 Zátka had its roots in the Czech Reformation and the European Enlightenment, the supreme manifestations of European humanism that were testimony to the timeless validity of their philosophical foundation –​‘the idea of humanity’. Masaryk’s exploration of the ‘Czech question’ is thus largely centred on analyses of the ideas of the Enlightenment and Czech history’s wider ideational context and allegedly inevitable evolution in the direction of humanist ideals. Masaryk assigned a decisive role in this teleological conception of history to moral values, and he evaluated the philosophical significance of political and cultural events in Czech history in the light –​or through the aforementioned ‘lens’ –​of these values. This was one of the key heuristic instruments that he employed in his study of history, and it formed the methodological basis of his analyses of the ‘Czech question’. Masaryk worked from the perspective of a philosopher, and thus his conception of the ‘Czech question’ was primarily philosophical in meaning and purpose. In it he offered a philosophical vision and construct rather than a mere summary of historical facts, which in the late nineteenth century would have meant a set of ‘value-​free, objective’ facts. Masaryk, however, always looked for the ‘value’ behind an observed fact and tied his inquiries to the question of what any fact’s deeper humanist meaning and function was. He took a critical view of positivism and claimed that it forgot about individual human beings and the individual ‘conscience’.7 Its ‘reliance on’ objective facts involved neglect of the fact that ‘I’ am a part of history as well. Masaryk believed it was always necessary to look for the human being behind any objective methods used to examine historical or sociological data, because history was not just filled with anonymous occurrences. Things do not ‘just happen’ –​‘I’ make them happen. Masaryk evidently interpreted this issue in an existentialist light and always looked for the bigger human meaning and purpose behind every objective fact.

Jan Patočka, O smysl dneška [For the meaning of the present day] (Prague: Mladá fronta, 1969), 111. Most recently published in Jan Patočka, Češi i [Czechs i], in Karel Palek & Ivan Chvatík, eds., Sebrané spisy Jana Patočky [Collected writings of Jan Patočka], vol. xii (Prague: ­o ikoymenh, 2006), 293–​305. According to Patočka, owing to this and given his ‘basic acceptance of Herder’s theory of national character as something determined in the prehistoric past’ and his ‘acceptance of this element of predetermination in the history and distribution of the historical roles assigned to different national characters’, Palacký fell back into Herder’s ahistorical naturalism or positivism, despite his ‘attempt to draw on post-​Kantian German philosophy’. Patočka, Češi i, 293–​305. 7 Thomas G. Masaryk, ‘The Ideals of Humanity’, in Thomas G. Masaryk, The Ideals of Humanity and How to Work (Lectures Delivered in 1898 at the University of Prague), tr. W. Preston Warren, Marie J. Kohn-​Holeček & Harriette E. Kennedy (London: Allen & Unwin, 1938), 78–​79.

The Legacy of Masaryk’s Idea of Enlightened Humanism

127

Viewed from today’s ‘postmodern’ perspective, the underlying motivation and aim of Masaryk’s text is remarkably current. Masaryk believed that ‘no other Slavic nation manifested such deep political, social, and cultural change as we …’8 This proposition did not just apply to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but remained relevant in the twentieth and twenty-​first as well, and in this light we can point to the dramatic transformations of political and ideological systems, the forced indoctrination of foreign cultural, political, and ideological models, the devaluation of moral and legal values and norms, and the dogmatism, relativism, and indolence, etc., that Czech society experienced in the course of the twentieth century. There is therefore a continued relevance in Masaryk’s insistence on the Czech nation’s need for greater moral self-​ awareness, and his call to search for the deeper moral principles of the nation’s existence and to show that the Czech nation is more than just an ethnic group that produces and consumes material goods, that it is an emancipated community of a higher order with its own cultural, social, and political programme. His message therefore remains apposite in the twenty-​first century, at a time of crisis in moral values and the relativising of ‘virtue ethics’.9 We can see in all this that Masaryk’s text constituted an appeal, and it remains so today. Its message holds significance for the present, especially given the current promotion of transnational projects for liberalised ‘Euro-​citizens’ and globalised ‘citizens of the world’.

…

As noted above, Masaryk sought the roots of the ‘Czech question’ in history and its deeper philosophical foundations in Czech and European history specifically. There were two processes that he saw as fundamental to the development of what was at the heart of this question –​the Czech National Revival: in the area of religion it was the Reformation –​in his view ‘religious freedom’ had led to national and linguistic freedom; and in the areas of culture, nationality, and politics it was the Enlightenment. The ‘Czech question’ formed along both these dimensions and acquired its meaning in the wider context of these two processes. Nonetheless, Masaryk also pointed out that the Czech National Revival had not initially been concerned with questions of nationality and language but with humanism and humanity, and this was 8 Masaryk, The Meaning of Czech History, 23. 9 On the ‘moral crisis of the present day’ that is allegedly the result of the ‘failure of the Enlightenment project’, see Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, (2nd edn., Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984), 62–​67.

128 Zátka most evident in the work of J. Kollár, whose ‘idea of Slavic unity’ was built on German Enlightenment philosophy. Masaryk therefore focused his exploration of the ‘Czech question’ on analyses of German –​and other European branches of –​Enlightenment philosophy. He looked to their historical legacy and judged that Enlightenment humanist philosophy, along with ethics and propaedeutics, had a crucial role to play in the process of National Revival, and so these disciplines had a particularly important function and mission. If they were to fulfil their purpose, however, a coherent and solid philosophical basis first had to be found10 on which to base this project, and that base was German philosophy. In this respect Masaryk noted the ‘strange fate’ of the entire revivalist project, as German philosophy was being used as a device in an ‘anti-​German struggle’. Yet he saw this as a matter of the greater ‘historical legacy of the German Enlightenment’ and German philosophy paradoxically repaying ‘its debt to the Czech nation’ and helping the Czech revivalists ‘bridge the centuries of intellectual death’. According to Masaryk, J. G. Herder played a key role in the process with his concept of the emancipation of European nations and, in this specific context, of the Slavs in particular. Among Czech revivalists, J. Kollár was especially influenced by this idea. For him humanist culture and education became the ‘national ideal’. On these grounds Masaryk declared that the National Revival was primarily in pursuit of humanist objectives, and he concluded that, just as Herder was behind the birth of the German National Revival, he was also behind the Slavic National Revival and its Czech version in the late eighteenth century. Masaryk claimed that Herder, as Kollár’s German teacher, was an enthusiastic admirer of the Slavs and assigned them a significant place and mission in his Ideas on the Philosophy of the History of Mankind. But Herder, had also taken another important step. From the ‘humanist ideal’ he had derived the ‘legitimacy of the national ideal’ and declared the state an artificial formation, as ‘nature’ organises humans into ‘nations’. Visible in this was the influence of J.-​J. Rousseau and his theory of ‘nature’ and ‘natural’ human relationships, which had a fundamental impact on eighteenth-​century philosophy.11 Kollár, 10

11

‘Otherwise, life would become but a series of isolated episodes, and no thoughtful, authentic person could tolerate such an existence. A philosophical perspective can take many forms, but every thinking individual must have an ultimate philosophic base’. Masaryk, The Meaning of Czech History, 17. (‘Nemá-​li život lidí myslících být řetězem jednotlivých epizod […] musí být všecka práce myšlenková i praktická založena na jistém a pevném základě filozofickém’. Masaryk, Česká otázka, 14–​15). On this influence see Ernst Cassirer, The Question of Jean Jacques Rousseau, ed. and tr. Peter Gay (New Haven, CT–​London: Yale University Press, 1989), 37–​40.

The Legacy of Masaryk’s Idea of Enlightened Humanism

129

like Herder and Rousseau, therefore regarded the ‘organic nation’, not the ‘mechanical state’, as humanism’s nourishing ground.12 In this light Masaryk more closely examined the basic philosophical propositions of J. G. Herder, J.-​J. Rousseau, and I. Kant and concluded that the common denominator of their different theories was the ‘humanist idea’. While Herder conceived this idea to be a part of humankind’s historical development, Rousseau considered it to be the unvarying ahistorical substance of human ‘human nature’ and ‘natural’ human relations. Kant, by contrast, used it as the underlying assumption of his deontological ethics and the outcome of independent self-​determination through the ‘pure moral will’ of the autonomous subject. Masaryk considered Herder the originator of the idea for a Slavic revival and ascribed primary importance to his thought. Herder did not, however, base his notion of Slavism on real geopolitical considerations about power relations and the situation between existing states, but rather on the allegedly deeper kindred relationship between the Slav cultures, languages, and nations, and their ‘natural’ distinctiveness from other nations, especially the Germans. Herder’s concept was more of a philosophical vision, based on ethnography, ethnicity, languages, and nationalities, than a description of the real stratification of power and politics in the eighteenth-​century world. It was an attempt to grasp the diversity of Europe’s nations after the collapse of mediaeval Christian universalism and to demonstrate, with the aid of new discoveries in the fields of cultural and philosophical anthropology, social psychology, and ‘characterology’, the deeper kindred ties existing between European nations. Nonetheless, Herder took another important step: he divided humanity up into individual nations and labelled them separate ‘branches’ of the all-​embracing collective of humanity.13 Masaryk valued Herder’s idea of ‘the people’ as the supreme ‘collective agent’,14 an idea that, according to Charles Taylor, ‘formed the backdrop to Herder’s conception of the nation’ and its philosophical foundation. Herder equated ‘the people’, through whom language and culture is passed

12 Masaryk, The Meaning of Czech History, 29–​30. 13 On the outcome of Herder’s naturalistic concept of the ‘nation’ and its impact on the formation of Czech linguistic nationalism in the nineteenth century, cf. Patočka, ‘Dilema v našem národním programu …’, 91–​94. German: ‘Das Dilemma in unserem nationalen Programm’, tr. F. Boldt, Postilla Bohemica 1/​1 (1972), 19–​29. A new translation: ‘Das Dilemma in unserem Nationalprogramm –​Jungmann und Bolzano’, tr. Pavel Ambros, in Klaus Nellen, Petr Pithart & Miloš Pojar, eds., Schriften zur tschechiscehn Kultur und Geschichte 2(Stuttgart: Klett-​Cotta, 1992),23–​236. 14 Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), 579–​580.

130 Zátka on over time, with the ‘nation’, and declared this new formation the supreme bearer of humanism, culture, and education. J-​J. Rousseau, by contrast, equated humanity with freedom. Freedom occupied a key place in his political, moral, and social philosophy and a position of primacy as the highest value in human life. Rousseau identified freedom with the greatest ‘good’, and in his opinion to be free meant to be ‘good’ and humane, while vice versa to be humane meant to be ‘good’ and free. This, according to L. Strauss,15 is the meaning behind Rousseau’s famous proposition that humans are ‘by nature’ (fysis), and thus ‘physically’ (fýsei), good, free, and humane. Rousseau formulated a new idea of humans as beings whose humanity is not determined by thought and reason, but rather by freedom. Like Herder, Rousseau also contended that the ‘nation’ precedes ‘the state’ and ‘civil society’ because its foundations are deeper and ‘more natural’, and concluded that the nation, as a natural society, exists ‘prior’ to the state and paves the way for national identity.16 ‘The nation is closer to the original state of nature than is civil society, and therefore it is in important respects superior to civil society’.17 The national society and its cohesiveness forms a tighter and more solid unit than the pragmatic construct that modern society represents, and therefore comes before the artificially fabricated ‘social contract’. With its traditions and customs, the nation is the nourishing ground of humanity and freedom and precedes them much in the way that ‘emotion’ comes before ‘reason’. A nation’s cultural past, therefore, is of greater value than the abstract cosmopolitanism of modern society’s political and socio-​legal relations; it is the clay from which the humanity of modern humans is formed. Immanuel Kant, a thinker inspired by Rousseau’s ethics and humanism,18 but towards whom Masaryk maintained a more reserved position,19 understood humanity and humanism as the command to fulfil the infinite idea of humanity by means of a moral self-​determination in accordance with the regulative postulates of moral duty. Kant sought humanity on a deeper level than Rousseau and judged that only those individuals who followed the unconditional commands of practical reason could become free and humane beings. He argues that it is through moral actions that free individuals proceed in the direction of life’s ultimate goal, which resides in the infinite idea of God and 15 16

Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1965), 278. ‘Rousseau proclaims and the French parliament declares that the state is the nation’. Masaryk, Česká otázka, 23. 17 Strauss, Natural Right and History, 302. 18 Ernst Cassirer, Kants Leben und Lehre (Berlin: Bruno Cassirer, 1918), 4. 19 Because of his rejection of Kantian ‘constructivism’.

The Legacy of Masaryk’s Idea of Enlightened Humanism

131

the immortal soul. In Kant, like Rousseau, Herder, and Masaryk, humanity and humanism are therefore the highest metaphysical purposes of human life, enabling the individual to preserve his or her identity, integrity, and freedom. In the case of each of these thinkers, Masaryk underscored the ethical foundations of their ideas. He highlighted the timeless significance of the idea of humanity and saw it as an ahistorical element of universal validity. It is obvious that Masaryk understood humanity and humanism in the same sense as Enlightenment ‘realism’: as a timeless component of the human condition that acts as a regulative guideline in human life and becomes the unconditional metaphysical factor from which general human, civic, and political rights are derived and to which they are subordinate. Masaryk described and explained the emergence of the humanist idea and the substance of the ideal of humanity, two key concepts of the ‘Czech question’, in more detail in another work that he published in 1901 –​Ideály humanitní (The Ideals of Humanity).20 In his opinion, human beings in the modern era, unlike in mediaeval times, had the charming idea of ‘humanity’ available to them, which had assumed the place of the mediaeval theological conception of man as a ‘Christian’. This concept had come to acquire universal significance and became the key idea of European modernism. In a brief but brilliant account Masaryk described the process by which its general morphology and typology was formed. According to Masaryk, this new moral and social ideal had existed since the time of the Renaissance and the Reformation alongside the ‘Christian ideal’ but had quickly become anti-​Christian and superseded Christianity. It reached its culmination in the new idea of the modern individual, the metaphysical ‘essence’ of whose profane ‘existence’ was the ‘humanist idea’.21 Masaryk argued that this idea had been forged gradually. During the Reformation, Enlightenment reason ‘was partially liberated’, a non-​ascetic form of morality established itself, and the ideas of ‘thrift and diligence’ evolved. In this period, the Renaissance and humanism acquired a secular character and space opened up for the adoption of the ideals of life born in classical society, most notably ‘Roman political virtues’ and ‘an aesthetic perception of the world and life’. This process peaked in the eighteenth century, when the highest modern unit of power –​the state –​grew more liberal and became ‘more democratic and plebeian’. Human and individual rights were declared, this occurring first in the French and American revolutions. Human rights 20 Masaryk, The Ideals of Humanity, 13–​19. 21 And thus not Descartes’ abstract subject (‘cogito’), which constitutes its substantial identity and unity in acts of self-​reflection.

132 Zátka eventually gave birth to ‘national, linguistic, social, and economic rights’, from which it then became possible to establish ‘women’s and children’s rights’, and these became the foundation for the later creation of family law. On the basis of this brief but apposite overview of its evolution, Masaryk claimed that the ‘ideal of humanity’ had found its culmination point in early modern society, where it had become the ‘natural and new’ ideal, in contrast to the ‘old and obsolete’ ideals from the historical past. He concluded that in his century the striving to achieve this ideal would be reflected primarily in various attempts to create a new ‘religious humanism and humanity’, and that most modern philosophy, literature, and politics was essentially endeavouring to work out an ideal of pure humanity. Remarkably, Masaryk still held these ideas later on, in the twentieth century, and they continued to form the philosophical frame of his conception of the ‘Czech question’. This was radically different from other conceptions of history developed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, such as Hegelianism, Marxism, the Nietzschean vision of recursive history, historical positivism, relativism, etc., but he continued to defend it until the end of his life. According to Masaryk, the ideal varied between ‘periods and peoples’. The English cultivated it from various angles –​‘philosophically, ethically, socially, and religiously’.22 The French, by contrast, emphasised its ‘philosophical and literary dimension’. What was apparent here was Masaryk’s ideological and later also political orientation towards the West, and the Anglosphere and its value scale in particular, as a counterweight to the central European and especially the German cultural and political sphere. Masaryk concluded his typology of the ideals of humanity and humanist ideals by declaring that, among the Slavic peoples, the Russians understood humanism and humanity in religious and social terms, the Poles in a national and political sense, and ‘we’ Czechs in terms of cultural Enlightenment. When he applied these conclusions to the wider context of nineteenth-​century Czech history, he claimed that in the Czech Lands exponents of the ideas of humanity could be found in the figures of Kollár, Šafařík, Palacký, Havlíček, and Augustin Smetana. He also added that while Kollár understood the ideal of humanity largely in an Enlightenment sense, A. Smetana advocated for a ‘humanist(ic) religion’ which he inscribed with a social dimension. Masaryk claimed that on the basis of these observations Czech humanism and humanity could be declared the natural extension of ‘our’ Czech Brethren tradition.

22 Masaryk, The Ideals of Humanity, 15–​16.

The Legacy of Masaryk’s Idea of Enlightened Humanism

133

The fact that the Czech revivalists placed so much emphasis on Enlightenment humanism was in his view a result of the Josephine reforms –​ ‘the outgrowth of an anti-​reformation state’ –​and therefore the watchwords of the new nation awakening from centuries of ‘intellectual and moral darkness’ became ‘enlightenment, learning, education’. As a result, the idea of humanity became conjoined with the national idea. He argued that there was no potential incompatibility between the two –​the idea of humanity is universal in nature while the national idea is particular and relates to a land or place –​ because, in his view, both ideas must be essentially humanistic and human-​ centred. Masaryk was convinced that that humanity and humanism was not an abstraction existing beyond the level of ‘real people’ in some fictitious realm of hypostasised concepts, because, as Herder had already asserted, humanity and humanism is a natural part of all peoples and all humankind. Masaryk concluded his reflections on the subject with the observation that ‘today’, at the end of the nineteenth century, the idea of humanity was understood in a national, popular, and social sense. From the discussion up to this point it will be apparent that the key philosophical concepts behind Masaryk’s understanding of the ‘Czech question’ –​the idea of humanity, the ideal of humanity, and the idea of a universal humankind –​had their meaning chiefly grounded in the Enlightenment, and –​ despite their syncretic nature and often the lack of clarity and consistency of meaning attached to their usage –​they were employed more within the intentions of the critical Enlightenment and thus a ‘Kantian’ sense as regulatory and normative notions with a propaedeutic mission than in the classical sense of Platonic metaphysical realism as timeless entities that exist ‘somewhere’ within the sphere of ‘true’ being. Masaryk did not, however, deny the ‘existence’ of these entities as crucial moral guidelines in human life, which is why he never rejected the metaphysical foundations of Platonism –​the ontological difference between ‘what is’ and ‘what ought to be’ –​and never reduced this area of metaphysical Platonism to just one layer of meaning, as Max Stirner and Friedrich Nietzsche did in their concepts of naturalism in the nineteenth century. Masaryk at the same time built his conception of the Czech question on another theory, widely accepted in the nineteenth century, about the ontological difference between ‘facts’ and ‘values’.23 From this perspective he held that 23

He tried, however, to minimise the potential tension between them in his philosophy of ‘concretism’, syncretically uniting reason and emotion, facts and values, ideas and actual practice. On the aporias of this key schema of modern philosophy, cf. MacIntyre, After Virtue, 51–​61, 79–​87.

134 Zátka the progress of Czech history and the National Revival could not be interpreted as resulting from the autonomous evolution of the abstract idea of humanity, and thus in a Hegelian sense, but rather that both processes were the outcome of active efforts on the part of the Czech nation as a specific historical, cultural, and ethnic community in pursuit of a particular programme –​to hold its own within the contest of world nations, to defend its existence as a nation, and to assert itself as an autonomous political and cultural community based on not just secular (ethnic, linguistic, and historical) bases but also metaphysical foundations. This community was seen to be for the most part actively engaged in efforts to fulfil its programme and was not just a passive witness to the realisation of fideistically conceived ideas. Masaryk’s philosophy of history, his political and social philosophy, and his concept of ethics were a type of metaphysics, but more in an Enlightenment, normative, and regulatory sense rather than as a Platonic (or Hegelian) type of metaphysics working with the idea of predetermined ends and outcomes. It was an open form of metaphysics based on the Enlightenment belief in progress, education, and learning. It was a metaphysics that celebrated the human individual and the ability of human beings to actively shape the world and themselves, and not a metaphysics premised on the expected arrival of some anonymous and eternally existing ‘Ideas’.24 In Masaryk’s view, history was an open process, a process of everyday work, moving towards an open future. Neither its course nor its outcome could be determined in advance, and therefore history could not be merely the reproduction of patterns from the past, but nor could it be an unregulated process of revolutionary chaos and anarchy. Masaryk believed that the nineteenth-​century human being was history’s master, not a passive cog in its wheel. People were active players in history and not subordinate to its dictates. History was the handiwork of humans, a human creation, and not the product of some anonymous absolute conceived of as a process whereby abstract reason fulfils itself through history. The idea of humanity was in his conception, therefore, closely bound up with human rights, which eventually gave rise to rights ‘of nationality and of speech, to rights which are social and economic’.25 The truth of this theory fully presented itself in the nineteenth century, which became the century of ‘humanity’ and ‘humanism’. And it was in this period that this ideal became the national and 24

On the difference between ‘closed’ classical metaphysics and early modern Enlightenment (‘operationalised’) metaphysics, cf. Gerhard Buck, ‘Selbsterhaltung und Historizität’, in Hans Ebeling, ed., Subjektivität und Selbsterhaltung. Beiträge zur Diagnose der Moderne (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1976), 224–​234. 25 Masaryk, The Ideals of Humanity, 14–​15.

The Legacy of Masaryk’s Idea of Enlightened Humanism

135

the Czech ideal. The Czech revivalists consequently placed an emphasis on promoting the ideas of Enlightenment humanism. Masaryk never strayed from the principles of critical realism in his exploration of the ‘Czech question’.26 Although the text had the aspect of a project and was theoretical and ideological in nature, Masaryk always insisted on approaching the past from a critical perspective. In his words, there was much in ‘our Slavism’ that was ‘untrue, superficial, and unhealthily fantastical’.27 As we know, Masaryk was in this respect particularly critical of Romantic historiography based on mythological ideas and legends and of Václav Hanka, the author behind the Rukopis zelenohorský, who in his Slavic scholarship ‘was feeding off the scraps from Dobrovský’s bountiful table’.28 Masaryk was also well aware that the driving force behind the ‘Czech question’ and the Czech National Revival in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century was the fact that there was an inconsistency between the reality of Czech society and the newly formed ideal of cultural and linguistic independence, and thus a tension between reality and a dream, between fiction and reality,29 and that in the nineteenth century Romanticism was better suited to be the robe of this project than Enlightenment criticism.30

26

This, however, was not entirely free from certain mythological connotations (Šteif, František Palacký, 10–​11) and ahistorical extrapolations (Jan Patočka, ‘Česká filosofie a její soudobá fáze’ [Czech Philosophy and its contemporary phase], in Patočka, O smysl dneška, 121). 27 Masaryk, Česká otázka. Snahy a tužby národního obrození, 42. And in it humanism acquired its nationality-​based feature and ‘humanism under the weight of nationality becomes Slavic messianism’. Patočka, Dilema v našem národním programu …, 101. 28 Masaryk, Česká otázka. Snahy a tužby národního obrození, 46. 29 On this imaginary ‘aesthetic’ concept of Czech culture as the opposite of the unromantic reality of ‘everyday life’ in the nineteenth century, see Vladimír Macura, Znamení zrodu. České národní obrození jako kulturní typ [The sign of birth: The Czech national revival as a cultural type] (Prague: H +​H, 1995), 104–​105. However, Romanticism played a significant role in this period: it facilitated the metaphysical ‘sacralisation’ of the nation. ‘The community defined in ethnic terms’ became ‘a value in its own right … closely related to the meaning of the world, history, and human existence’. Miloš Řezník, Formování moderního národa. Evropské ‘dlouhé’ 19. století [The formation of the modern nation. The European ‘long’ 19th century] (Prague: Triton, 2003), 75. 30 On an analogical discussion between the Enlightenment and Romanticism in contemporary philosophical discourse between a hermeneutic conception of history and historicity in the work of H.-​G. Gadamer on the one hand and Habermas’s project of realising the Enlightenment notion of ‘communicative reason’ in history on the other, see Jean Grondin, Einführung in die philosophische Hermeneutik (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1991), 175–​178.

136 Zátka It became apparent in this situation that Czech culture in the emerging nineteenth century was not so much a reflection of reality as it was a vision of what was hoped for.31 ‘This imaginary world, overriding the real one, was constructed in the language of literature’, and this became the source of ‘the linguistic and literary nature of Czech nationalism’. Therefore, ‘there were two constantly intersecting directions in the development of literature: on the one hand the aspiration to approach the standards of literary work in the world, to catch up where we have fallen behind, and on the other the effort to deliver, firstly in poetry, something of our own, nationally distinct’. The first period was initiated by Josef Jungmann and his school, and it was chiefly represented by Antonín Marek and Milota Zdirad Polák and found its culmination in the initial phase in the work of Ján Kollár. ‘The second direction was sparked by Pavel Josef Šafařík and František Palacký’ and represented ‘first by František Ladislav Čelakovský and, following him, by Karel Hynek Mácha, Karel Jaromír Erben, Karel Havlíček, Božena Němcová’.32 Masaryk believed that this model of Czech history needed to be subjected to critical scrutiny, and it was necessary to show its limitations and how contingent it was on its time. Only then would it be possible to overcome its dangerous attractions and prevent it from being uncritically applied in Czech culture, science, and politics.33 Only then would its pseudo-​function as a fictitious substitute for a critical scholarly inquiry be exposed.

…

There is some truth in the claim that the ideas of Enlightenment humanism and Masaryk’s humanist ideals expired in the trenches of the First World War,34 in the fateful and organised ‘machinery of mass death’ that resulted from the deadly union of modern science, technology, and nationalist ideology in the course of the ‘total mobilisation’ of the modern twentieth-​century world (Ernst 31

Robert Sak, Josef Jungmann. (Život obrozence) [Josef Jungmann (Life of a revivalist)] (Prague: Vyšehrad, 2007), 57–​58. 32 Sak, Josef Jungmann, 57–​58. 33 On the other hand, it is also true that, as noted above, Masaryk himself did not steer entirely clear of such tendencies and succumbed to the influence of Palacký’s mythologising conception of Czech history. See Šteif, František Palacký, 13–​15. 34 This revealed the aporias connected with modern conceptions of the human individual based on the contradictions between an all-​embracing emancipatory conception of the individual in a universal sense as a human being and the designated particular role of an individual as an actual member of a specific nation, i.e. the tension between man (or Christian) and citizen, patriot and soldier, humankind, and the nation.

The Legacy of Masaryk’s Idea of Enlightened Humanism

137

Jünger), a phenomenon that completely altered the way in which the world was structured, functioned, and organised. On the other hand, the question remains as to whether the meaning of the idea and the ideal of humanity was entirely depleted and whether these concepts wholly lost their significance and validity. Although the metaphysical foundations of these concepts have been called into question35 and their significance, allegedly clear since the time of the Renaissance and humanism, has weakened and been challenged,36 there is no overlooking the fact that the terms continue to be used and they are still associated with a great deal of hope and expectation. This is true even beyond the sphere of abstract philosophical theories, as they continue to figure prominently in current political, social, legal, and economic discussions, where they serve an important ‘strategic’ function. They are key concepts in the ‘pan-​humanism’ of the post-​modern era, an age and a time in which everything is done in aid of the development of humankind and its needs, and in which Francis Bacon’s metaphysical-​theological message about establishing ‘the kingdom of heaven on earth’37 and Ludwig Feuerbach’s humanistic vision of the deification of the human as the ‘God-​Man’ have been fulfilled.38 Masaryk’s understanding of the idea of humanity as representing the philosophical foundation of the Czech National Revival and modern Czech history, as he outlined it in Česká otázka (‘The Czech Question’), remains valuable and thought-​provoking to this day. It is a work in which its critically thinking author attempted to discover the political, social, and cultural foundations of the development of modern Czech society not only in a secular and historically contingent area of its being, but also in an ideal and metaphysical sphere, not contingent on history. Masaryk explained the development of Czech history in philosophical and metaphysical terms and presented an idea for a deeper renascence of Czech society and the nation. Masaryk posited ‘the idea

35 36 37 38

See, for example, the discussion between Jean Baufret and Martin Heidegger in Martin Heidegger, Über den Humanismus (Frankfurt/​Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1975), 10–​19; Gunter Figal, Heidegger zur Einfuhrüng (Hamburg: Junius, 1992), 165–​171. See, for example, the dispute between Ernst Tugendhat and Alasdair MacIntyre, in Ernst Tugendhat, Vorlesungen über Ethik (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1993), 117–​225. Robert Spaemann, ‘Bürgerliche Ethik und nichtteleologische Ontologie’, in Hans Ebeling, ed., Subjektivität und Selbsterhaltung. Beiträge zur Diagnose der Moderne (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1976), 79–​80. Ludwig Feuerbach, ‘Zásady filosofie budoucnosti’ [Principles of a philosophy of the future] in Ludwig Feuerbach, Zásady filosofie budoucnosti a jiné filosofické práce [Principles of a philosophy of future and other philosophical works] (Prague: nakl. Československé akademie věd, 1959), 89, 138–​139. Karl Löwith, Von Hegel bis Nietzsche (Zürich–​New York: Europa Verlag ag, 1941), 425–​429, 457–​466.

138 Zátka of humanity’ as the guarantor of the positive development of history, the highest raison d´être of history’s meaningful humanist(ic) outcome. It is an idea that still inspires.

Bibliography

Buck, Gerhard, ‘Selbsterhaltung und Historizität’, in Hans Ebeling, ed., Subjektivität und Selbsterhaltung. Beiträge zur Diagnose der Moderne (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1976), 208–​281. Cassirer, Ernst, Kants Leben und Lehre (Berlin: Bruno Cassirer, 1918). Cassirer, Ernst, The Question of Jean Jacques Rousseau, ed. and tr. P. Gay (New Haven, CT–​London: Yale University Press, 1989). Feuerbach, Ludwig, ‘Zásady filosofie budoucnosti’ [Principles of a philosophy of the future] in Ludwig Feuerbach, Zásady filosofie budoucnosti a jiné filosofické práce [Principles of a philosophy of the future and other philosophical works] (Prague: nakl. Československé akademie věd, 1959). Figal, Gunter, Heidegger zur Einfuhrüng (Hamburg: Junius, 1992). Grondin, Jean, Einführung in die philosophische Hermeneutik (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1991). Heidegger, Martin, Über den Humanismus (Frankfurt/​Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1975). Löwith, Karl, Von Hegel bis Nietzsche (Zürich–​New York: Europa Verlag ag, 1941). MacIntyre, Alasdair, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (2nd edn., Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984). Macura, Vladimír, Znamení zrodu. České národní obrození jako kulturní typ [The sign of birth. The Czech national revival as a cultural type] (Prague: H +​H, 1995). Masaryk, Thomas G., ‘The Ideals of Humanity’, in Thomas G. Masaryk, The Ideals of Humanity and How to Work (Lectures Delivered in 1898 at the University of Prague), tr. W. Preston Warren, Marie J. Kohn-​Holeček & Harriette E. Kennedy (London: Allen & Unwin, 1938). Masaryk, Tomáš G., Česká otázka, Naše nynější krize, Jan Hus [The Czech question. Our current crisis. Jan Hus], in Jiří Brabec, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. vi (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr and Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2000). Masaryk, Thomas G., The Meaning of Czech History, ed. and intr. Rene Wellek, tr. Peter Kussi (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina, 1974). Patočka, Jan, ‘Das Dilemma in unserem nationalen Programm’, tr. F. Boldt, Postilla Bohemica 1/​1 (1972), 19–​29.

The Legacy of Masaryk’s Idea of Enlightened Humanism

139

Patočka, Jan, ‘Česká filosofie a její soudobá fáze’ [Czech philosophy and its contemporary phase], in Jan Patočka, O smysl dneška [For the meaning of the present day] (Prague: Mladá fronta, 1969). Patočka, Jan, ‘Das Dilemma in unserem Nationalprogramm –​Jungmann und Bolzano’, tr. Pavel Ambros, in Klaus Nellen, Petr Pithart & Miloš Pojar, eds., Schriften zur tschechischen Kultur und Geschichte (Stuttgart: Klett-​Cotta, 1992). Patočka, Jan, ‘Dilema v našem národním programu. Jungmann a Bolzano’ [A dilemma in our national programme. Jungmann and Bolzano], in Jan Patočika, O smysl dneška [For the meaning of the present day] (Prague: Mladá fronta, 1969). Patočka, Jan, Češi i [Czechs i], in Karel Palek & Ivan Chvatík, eds., Sebrané spisy Jana Patočky [Collected writings of Jan Patočka], vol. xii (Prague: oikoymenh, 2006). Patočka, Jan, Češi ii [Czechs ii], in Karel Palek & Ivan Chvatík, eds., Sebrané spisy Jana Patočky [Collected Writings of Jan Patočka], vol. xiii (Prague: oikoymenh, 2006). Řezník, Miloš, Formování moderního národa. Evropské ‘dlouhé’ 19. století [The formation of the modern nation. The European ‘long’ nineteenth century] (Prague: Triton, 2003). Sak, Robert, Josef Jungmann. (Život obrozence) [Josef Jungmann. Life of a revivalist] (Prague: Vyšehrad 2007). Spaemann, Robert, ‘Bürgerliche Ethik und nichtteleologische Ontologie’, in Hans Ebeling, ed., Subjektivität und Selbsterhaltung. Beiträge zur Diagnose der Moderne (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1976), 58–​71. Štaif, Jiří, František Palacký (Život, mýtus, dílo) [František Palacký. Life, myth, work] (Prague: Vyšehrad, 2009). Strauss, Leo, Natural Right and History (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1965). Taylor, Charles, A Secular Age (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007). Tugendhat, Ernst, Vorlesungen über Ethik (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1993).

­c hapter 8

The Czech Question and the Principle of Federalism Milan Znoj Abstract This article examines Masaryk’s concept of Austrian federalism. In this regard, Masaryk explicitly follows the political program of Palacký, but the article shows how Masaryk reinterprets it and gives it new content. These conceptual changes are seen in relation to Masaryk’s moral philosophy. When Masaryk speaks of the political principle of federalism within a federation, he also formulates its moral conditions. This means that an equal standing with the second nation in a federation is understood as an internal condition for the development of Czech national identity, and Masaryk claims that only such a morally developed nation can be free even if it is small and surrounded by larger, more powerful nations. In conclusion, the author argues that Masaryk’s concept of federalism within a federation formulated from the position of a small nation remains a prerequisite for Czech national freedom, even under the different geopolitical conditions of the present.

When Masaryk and the Realists joined the Young Czech Party in 1890,1 the period in which Czech politics had been dominated by the National Party, a national-​liberalist party that had existed since the revolution in 1848, was coming to close. A key decade was about to begin that would lay the foundations of the Czech party system which would endure until the Republic of Czechoslovakia was established after the First World War. In 1890, the ‘Old Czechs’, as the National Party was referred to, were seen as utter failures in the

1 The Realists were originally a group of university professors, who decided to enter politics after they were victorious in the dispute over the authenticity of the (fake) legendary historical manuscripts, which had sparked an animated public debate and had even impacted politics. For more on this see Martin Kučera, ‘Skica vývoje českého politického realismu’ [Sketch of the development of Czech political realism], in Vratislav Dobek et al., eds., Na pozvání Masarykova ústavu, ii [At the invitation of the Masaryk Institute] (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr, 2005), 21–​30.

© Milan Znoj, 2023 | DOI:10.1163/9789004534919_010

The Czech Question and the Principle of Federalism

141

eyes of the Czech public for having compromised with the Austrian government on the issue of the Czech Austrian Ausgleich. The Young Czechs, who had been a part of the National Party but had broken with the ‘Old Czechs’ some time before, were by contrast making great strides in Czech politics. The Young Czechs became the party of the emerging generation of politicians, who had a more progressive national and radical programme to offer. They sought a wider base of support in the population and wanted to fight actively on behalf of Czech national interests within the parliamentary institutions of the Austro-​Hungarian Monarchy. Before joining the Young Czech Party, the Realists had drawn up and published the political programme for the new People’s Party (Lidová strana). They made it their own political calling card. Among the best-​known members of the group were T. G. Masaryk, who wrote a section on the cultural education of the nation, Josef Kaizl, who wrote on economic affairs, and Karel Kramář, who worked through the political issue of the federalisation of Austria, which had been a traditional demand of Czech politicians since 1848. In an article discussing this programme, its authors stressed that they were not interested in establishing a third party in addition to the Old Czechs and the Young Czechs, but instead had the more general aim of seeking to regenerate Czech politics from the ground up.2 When they spoke of the failure of Czech politics up to that time, they employed the language of moralists, but their underlying meaning was political. This is immediately apparent in the programme’s opening passages, where they clearly state that they want to give a new meaning to the national-​liberal demand for federalisation geared more towards popular interests, by which they meant the modernisation and democratisation of the state.3 One could say that they intended to adhere to the tradition of national liberalism and its demand to federalise the monarchy, but they were at the same time calling for it to be modernised and made democratic. They concluded that this would necessitate a change in Czech politics that would clearly entail a re-​interpretation of these old political concepts. The introductory section of the programme states this explicitly: ‘We have Havlíček’s democratism and 2 ‘Our goal was not and is not a third party, which would splinter and weaken us, we want to expel what is unclear, two-​faced, and hackneyed from our politics, which serve to weaken us far more’. Tomáš G. Masaryk, ‘Glosy k Lidovému programu’ [Glosses on the People’s Party Programme], Čas 4/​45 (1890), 721. 3 ‘We shall bring the state-​right efforts into alignment with the contemporary needs of the state and set them on a modern foundation. We shall expand narrow democratism to include a people’s perspective, which is consistent with all social development and is the only way to bring about the entire, organic development the whole nation’. (Masaryk, ‘Glosy k národnímu programu’), 689.

142 Znoj Palacký’s state right, yet we can everywhere sense the absence of a programme that would encapsulate the efforts of the Czech people while equally giving them some direction’.4 The next decade in Czech politics was a turning point in that the old-​fashioned national liberalism petered out. Those who wanted to take over the Czech national cause (the younger generation of politicians) had to come to terms with the challenges that accompanied the political rise of the disenfranchised working classes. Popular democracy was emerging in Austria-​ Hungary as well and new politicians were demanding the floor. In Czech politics this mainly meant politicians from the social democratic and the agrarian party, which were gradually gaining ground. The Realists, as a group of intellectuals who joined the Young Czech Party, stood apart in that from the outset they were striving to change the established meanings of the main ideas driving the struggle for Czech national emancipation. T. G. Masaryk did not remain in the Young Czech Party for very long. His ideas about changing Czech politics were more radical than the ideas of the other members of this party. In 1893, after conflicts within the party, he resigned both his seats, in the Imperial Diet and in the Bohemian Diet, and left the Young Czech Party. He exchanged a direct political role for an indirect one. He consistently stressed the place of the public in politics, the part to be played by civic education, and the importance of culture. It was to these areas that he now turned his attention and he wanted to make them the means by which he would then influence Czech politics. To Josef Kaizl, a friend of his in the group of Realists who had remained in the Young Czech Party and would become one of its political leaders, he wrote that he was preparing ‘three publications into which I will put everything I have learned’.5 When he published Česká 4 Masaryk, ‘Glosy k národnímu programu’. 5 See Jan Bílek et al., eds, Korespondence T. G. Masaryk –​Josef Kaizl [Correspondence T.G. Masaryk –​Josef Kaizl] (Prague: Masarykův ústav and Archiv av čr, 2011), 270. It is not entirely clear which writings he had in mind. When he published The Czech Question in l895, he wrote to Kaizl and said: ‘I have two or three such books completed in mind and largely also one paper’. Ibid., p. 281. He followed up on the issues dealt with in The Czech Question in Naše nynější krize (Our Present Crisis, 1895) and then in Jan Hus (1896) and Karel Havlíček (1896). These four books can thus be understood in connection with each other. But the issues raised in The Czech Question go further and certainly touch on social issues and the problem of modern secularism. In 1896 Masaryk published two other important works, Otázka sociální (The Social Question) and Moderní člověk a náboženství (Modern Man and Religion). It is therefore no accident that the discussion that The Czech Question sparked came to include these broader issues. Masaryk’s later publisher, V. K. Škrach, believed that alongside The Czech Question, which will be discussed below, these three works he referred to originally included Moderní člověk a náboženství and Otázka sociální. See Bílek, Korespondence, 273, note 13.

The Czech Question and the Principle of Federalism

143

otázka (The Czech Question) in 1895 and its follow-​up Naše nynější krize (Our Present Crisis), which directly criticises the Young Czech Party, a controversy broke out that can best be described as a dispute over liberalism in Czech society.6 The discussions that Masaryk’s Česká otázka prompted were occurring in a time that was a turning point in Czech politics and they became the vehicle through which key concepts of the Czech democratic tradition that continue to influence Czech political thought to the present day originally took shape. The subject with which this chapter is concerned is the political idea of the federalisation of the Austrian Monarchy. We will trace how Masaryk adopted this idea from Palacký and reinterpreted it in reference to his specific, as he called it, ‘humanist’ concept of national emancipation, which inscribed a new social and democratic meaning into the national question. 1

Palacký as a Safe Guideline cum grano salis

The key political demand of Czech politics associated with the struggle for national emancipation after 1848 was the federalisation of the Austrian Monarchy. It is well-​known that it was František Palacký who came up with this idea at the Kroměříž Assembly in 1848. Initially it was based purely on a call for equality among nations, which Palacký linked back to the legacy of the French Revolution. He thus became a leading proponent of liberal constitutionalism in Czech politics. The revolution in 1848 gave rise to a new generation of Czech politicians who emerged from the ranks of educated burghers and were committed to the pursuit of these national-​liberal demands. At the Kroměříž Assembly a young František Rieger, who would later be the leader of the Old Czechs for many years, even proposed incorporating a general declaration of civil rights into the constitution and mentioned in first place the principle of popular sovereignty. This is the sense in which František Palacký argued his first thoughts on the federalisation of the Austrian Monarchy. Later, however, after the revolution had been suppressed, he began to seek political support for the Czech claim of state right, which was founded on the historical existence of the Czech Kingdom. The demand for the federalisation of the Austrian Monarchy was adapted to this perspective of a Czech state right. The call for the equality of nations evolved into a demand for the independent development of national education, language, and culture. The demand

6 Milan Znoj, ‘Český spor o liberalismus: Masaryk a Kaizl’ [The Czech dispute over liberalism: Masaryk and Kaizl], Filosofický časopis 66/​5 (2018), 725–​749.

144 Znoj for political independence therefore now became bound to the past historical existence of an independent Czech Kingdom. When parliamentarianism re-​emerged in Austria in the 1860s, Palacký re-​formulated the Czech political programme in his treatise Idea státu Rakouského (The Idea of the Austrian State, 1865). In Česká otázka (‘The Czech Question’) Masaryk expressed his support for Palacký’s idea for the federalisation of Austria. He wrote: ‘Notwithstanding the various constitutional changes, I consider Palacký’s Idea of the Austrian State a safe guideline for the relation of the Czech Lands to the Austrian federation’.7 Masaryk also agreed that Palacký’s federalisation represented a path to attaining political independence and was envisioned as the political co-​existence of two nations, and he summed up Palacký’s political concept in the idea of a federation within a federation. In this connection he also cited Palacký’s geopolitical argument that the goal was to secure freedom for the Czechs, who were caught in a position between Germany and Russia: ‘Although Palacký saw an Austrian federation primarily as a counterweight to pan-​Germanism, there also existed at the time a threat of a universal Russian monarchy or pan-​Russism. Throughout his History of the Czech Nation and in all his political endeavours Palacký was seeking to substantiate and demonstrate the rightfulness of political independence for the Czech nation and kingdom. This is the culmination of Palacký’s political idea, the idea for a political union between one part of the German nation and one Slavic nation; a Czech federation within an Austrian federation’.8 Masaryk summarised Palacký’s idea for the federalisation of Austria as the demand for a Czech federation within the Austrian federation or, in short, the idea of a federation within a federation. The underlying premise was that the Czech question could only be resolved politically within the wider frame of a multi-​national federation. Masaryk accepted this political idea of Palacký’s, but he also expressed a number of reservations about it, and ultimately he fundamentally reformulated Palacký’s idea of federalisation.

7 Tomáš G. Masaryk, Česká otázka, Naše nynější krize, Jan Hus [The Czech Question. Our current crisis. Jan Hus], in Jiří Brabec, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. vi (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr and Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2000), 118. 8 Masaryk, Česká otázka, 75.

The Czech Question and the Principle of Federalism

2

145

Federation as an Internal Precondition for National Self-​Rule (the Dichotomy of the Internal and External)

What we can note first of all is that Masaryk considered Palacký’s idea for the federalisation of Austria to be a safe guideline in regard to external politics only, which is to say, in relation to the Austrian monarchy, and he was even able to reduce Palacký’s idea of the natural right of nations to a political claim that was instead based on the Czech historical state right. In place of Palacký’s idea of the natural right of nations, he put forward his own humanist programme, as he sums up in the following sentence: ‘Palacký’s programme, the state-​right programme, is natural and necessary in external politics. To reflect the humanist programme and historically given facts this programme means striving in accord with our German compatriots for independence within the Austrian empire’.9 This qualification of Palacký’s idea is worth noting. Clearly Palacký was not just thinking about the external relationship of the Czechs to Austria but was reflecting on the domestic co-​existence of the Czechs and Germans as well. He was not just arguing about an external relationship to state formations, i.e. in geopolitical terms, but was also highlighting the importance of a nation’s internal cultural development. According to Palacký, this need had its origins in moral law, and ought to be expressed in political laws. Masaryk had this in mind when he cited Palacký: ‘Thus, while we have the obligation to cultivate our language … we also have the right to do so, and no one should oppose this or place obstacles in our path. The preservation and cultivation of nationality is a commandment and a moral law that no positive law has the ability to negate’.10 How then should the relationship between cultural and political emancipation be understood in Palacký’s terms, and what was the change that Masaryk brought forward? Masaryk elsewhere mentions a view widely held at the time that political independence premised on the claim of state right essentially required and depended on the cultural development of the nation, and he recalls Palacký in this connection: ‘Naturally, political parties must declare state right, meaning political independence, to be their ultimate goal. What matters, nevertheless, is that those who declare this are aware of the means by which this goal can be achieved, and that in declaring this goal they do not stop at declarations, but that we all work tirelessly in our professions towards the education of ourselves and others, as Palacký urged that we do’.11 9 Masaryk, Česká otázka, 118. 10 František Palacký, Idea státu rakouského [The idea of the Austrian state] (Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci, 2002), 31, 172. 11 Masaryk, Česká otázka, 134.

146 Znoj Here, however, we are primarily interested in Masaryk and his opinions on this. On closer inspection, it is clear that Masaryk’s notion of the relationship between the cultural and the political emancipation of the Czech nation in Austria is more multi-​layered, and it is not just the relationship between cultural resources and political goals that we need to consider. Masaryk was undoubtedly opposed to the idea of basing a political demand solely on a historical state right and the demand for the nation’s cultural development on some natural moral law that would be confined merely to developing the national language and literature without any political dimension. Instead, Masaryk saw these two demands as interconnected. In his view, a nation’s cultural development is the means by which it can obtain political freedom, and the demand for political freedom represents the precondition for proper cultural development. The concept of a federation within a federation is where these two paths to emancipation become conjoined. External political demands and internal cultural demands are mutually contingent. Masaryk accepted Palacký’s geopolitical argument relating to external politics, but, as we shall see below, he had reservations about Palacký’s opinion on the internal, domestic political co-​existence of Czechs and Germans. He nevertheless believed that the demand for autonomous cultural development would be insufficient for dealing with internal political issues. The political demand for a federation declared in external politics had, in Masaryk’s view, also to be applied internally, so that it would internally shape people’s opinions about how to live with the Germans in the Czech federation. The creation of a Czech federation within the Austrian federation was a political demand that was also meant to become an internal part of the Czech nation’s cultural development, and one that could only be achieved in cooperation with other nations living in the Czech lands. Moreover, Masaryk considered cultural development in a larger sense, asserting its linkage to economic development and advances in science and state administration, and believed that in all these areas it was possible for cooperation to develop between Czechs and Germans. By blunting the sharp edges of competition between nations, the foundations would be laid for a multinational federal arrangement. ‘Modern communication, the modern advances being made in every field by large and moderately sized nations, the relative liberty guaranteed by constitutionalism, the initiation of general competition that is not so much industrial but generally cultural, advances in education and in intellectual organisation on the whole, the fortification, expansion, and improvement of state administration, all these are factors that are so powerful and, indeed, new that in order to address them we

The Czech Question and the Principle of Federalism

147

cannot just cling to the statements in our national programme that are a half century and in some points a century old’.12 3

Federation as a Democratic Demand Made by a Small Nation (the Dichotomy of Small and Large)

The demand for the federalisation of Austria was also meant to offer a solution to the problem of how the small Czech nation would be able to become free when it was surrounded by nations much larger and more powerful than itself. This dichotomy between the smallness of the Czech nation and the largeness of its neighbours, which could pose a threat to its freedom, was something that Czech politics had to contend with in the past and must still address to this day. It was Palacký who was the first to identify this dichotomy as a geopolitical obstacle that the Czech Lands, situated between Germany and Russia, had to face, and who felt the solution was to call for a multinational federation in central Europe. Masaryk drew on these ideas, but in doing so he vastly reinterpreted the whole dichotomy of small and large in the sense that he identified sources of ‘largeness’ in the smallness of the Czech nation and viewed a multinational federation as a political structure with the ability to protect the ‘largeness’ that resides within the smallness of the Czech nation. One of Masaryk’s reservations about Palacký’s vision of a Czech federation within the Austrian federation will sound genuinely surprising. He objected that the Czechs were not and never had been ‘that small’. He wrote: ‘It is a fateful deception to believe that all our history is nothing but a ceaseless struggle against the Germans and against German domination –​we never were and are not that small. … It is in this that Realism, on a matter of utmost importance, differs from Palacký and from Havlíček, and of course from the ordinary way of doing politics today. It is a demand for a politics that is in its totality active and positive; let us venture to finally be bigger –​we are not as small as our nationalist whiners would have us and others believe’.13 What did he mean by this? We know that Masaryk considered the interpretation of Czech national development as a ‘constant struggle’ against the Germans and domination by them, to be itself an expression of smallness or even nationalist ‘whining’. Masaryk rejected this view, which was common and widespread and allegedly

12 Masaryk, Česká otázka, ‘Afterword’, 163. 13 Masaryk, Česká otázka, 119.

148 Znoj embraced even by Palacký and Havlíček. He countered it with his own opinion, which he described as ‘realism’, in which he called for the Czechs to ‘be bigger’ in their national development, and thus not least in their ‘struggle against the Germans’, which in this case meant not just being active and applying a political approach to dealing with Germans and German domination, but also interpreting national development in a different way than before and aligning it with the idea of a federation within a federation. We should note first of all that Masaryk’s realism called for a different approach to politics than that of Palacký, Havlíček, and mainly all the ‘nationalist whiners’. We already know that, according to Masaryk, unless the nation embraced the demand for a federation within a federation, which is to say, unless it internalised and culturally embedded this demand, it would be impossible for the small Czech nation to secure political freedom for itself within a larger federal political arrangement. It would not be enough for there to be just external grounds for the nation’s relationship to the Austrian federation, as Palacký envisioned it. National identity needed to be invested with a wider political dimension, and only then would it be possible to progress to a political activism that would accept a federation as part of its own national development. Masaryk wrote that the Czech nation was not so small as to require a federation within a federation for external reasons only and merely because of its geopolitical position between Germany and Russia, nor so small as to reduce the call for a federation within a federation to a state-​right demand, nor so small as to make do with nationalism in defence of its state right. The Czech nation’s small size could be a source of smallness if it led to nationalism, but it could be a source of strength if the nation understood the existence of a multinational political federation as an internal and external precondition of its development. How could a small nation become a large one politically? First of all, with the demand it was making for more democracy at that time it could do so by expanding to embrace social strata that had hitherto been excluded and including them in the nation’s development. It has already been pointed out that Masaryk was not as concerned about the development of the national language and culture as he was about advancing the economy, science, and state administration. Masaryk broadened the idea of the nation to encompass the wider social strata, most notably the working class, and demanded the democratisation and socialisation of Czech politics. He wrote: ‘Hence a political programme that is realist as well: first and foremost substantial social reforms, work on the cultural front, domestic politics. The socialisation of Czech politics represents the consistent extension of the ideas of the National

The Czech Question and the Principle of Federalism

149

Revival: humanity today must be understood in less abstract and vague terms, humanity today means working for those whom to now we have excluded from cultural work; to grant them only some rights is too little –​we must think and work with them and for them. … the social question is very much also a Czech question’.14 Second, when politics is socialised, new sources of strength in society appear. Masaryk formulated a criticism of the state in this respect that was almost socialistic, regarding how far above society the state hovers as an alien force, which was exactly true of the Austrian Monarchy. Masaryk associated this notion of the state with the old aristocratism, but he also saw evidence of it in the contemporary system of liberal constitutionalism that, in central Europe especially, had long forgotten its revolutionary beginnings and faded into a series of compromises with conservative and nationalistic political forces.15 Masaryk believed that when detached from society the state was weak, and that society was full of groups and forces that if activated and allowed to freely involve themselves in the activities of the state would give rise to real and practical cooperation between all, which even in the case of a small society, like Czech society, would be a great source of effectiveness and unimagined strength. It was for this reason that Masaryk claimed, much to the surprise of Josef Kaizl, that for liberal constitutionalists the state had become a fetish and was considered almighty, and that in his view the very opposite was true.16 These thoughts of Masaryk’s can be deemed part of his socialistic criticism of liberalism, but we must remember that Masaryk never called for the abolition of the state. On the contrary, he understood the socialisation and democratisation of politics in the light of his idea of a federation within a federation, as he saw these processes as part of the larger process of the political emancipation of nations, which in the frame of a multinational federation would work together to each other’s advantage.

14 Masaryk, Česká otázka, 117–​118. 15 Liberal constitutionalism was waning in the late nineteenth century and was being criticised from all sides. See entry on Liberalism by Rudolf Vierhaus in Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe, vol. iii (Stuttgart: Klett-​Cotta, 1982), 741–​785. 16 See Masaryk, ‘Naše nynější krize’ [Our current crisis], in Masaryk, Česká otázka, 195. On Kaizl’s rebuttal see Josef Kaizl, České myšlénky [Czech thoughts] (Prague: E. Beaufort, 1896), 113ff.

150 Znoj 4

The Principle of a Federation within a Federation in New Geopolitical Constellations

Masaryk formulated his programme for national and political emancipation in the 1890s. Having by then left the Young Czech Party, he was not a part of any established party, but he never withdrew from political activity, and he continued to try to promote his political ideas among the public. With the remaining supporters of the People’s Party (Lidová strana) that he and the group of Realists had at one time proposed, he co-​founded a new political party (the Czech progressive party). In 1900 he was elected, with the support of the social democratic party, to the Austrian Parliament, where he worked up until the outbreak of the First World War. Throughout this time he stuck to his programme calling for the federalisation of the Austrian Monarchy, despite becoming increasingly sceptical about the prospect of its success. After the First World War, however, the programme for the federalisation of Austria went right out the window, Austria-​Hungary collapsed, and Czechoslovakia emerged as an independent state. The main task now was how to defend and justify the state’s actual national and political freedom. Unsurprisingly, Masaryk recalled his idea of a federation within a federation, but this time he used it in a different geopolitical context. He undertook a further reinterpretation of Palacký’s concept of a federation, as it appears in the Česká otázka and in writings from that time, stripped the concept of its narrow state-​right, national(ist), and geopolitical arguments and instead adopted a fundamentally federative perspective on Czech political independence. What was new was the whole European perspective that opened up to the Czech nation and its emancipation. It was for this reason that he also stressed the importance of the creation of the European League of Nations, which he analogically regarded as a condition of the new republic’s national independence and freedom. He saw the League of Nations as a European democratic federation. This conceptual change in Masaryk’s idea of a federation can be described in three steps. First, Masaryk considered himself to be still in accordance with Palacký’s idea of a federation as a precondition for Czech national emancipation: ‘Before the war, doubt was long and often felt whether our nation or any small nation could be independent –​the doubt which inspired Palacký’s well-​known saying that Austria was necessary as a federation of races. Great as is my deference to Palacký, and carefully though I have ever borne in mind the difficulties and the special problems of little peoples, I believed nevertheless our own independence to be possible. This belief engendered my whole policy and tactics. It moved me during the war to begin the struggle against

The Czech Question and the Principle of Federalism

151

Austria-​Hungary. I held our independence feasible on condition that we should always be ready and be morally fit –​as Havlíček demanded –​to defend our freedom, that we should possess enough political understanding to follow an honest and reasonable policy at home and abroad, and that we should win sympathies in a democratically strengthened Europe. If the democratic principle prevails all round, one nation cannot suppress another. The history of Europe since the eighteenth century proves that, given democratic freedom, little peoples can gain independence’.17 Second, the democratic federalisation of Europe now became the new external condition for the small Czech nation’s independence: ‘All difficulties notwithstanding, it is possible to detect to beginnings of a free federalisation of Europe in place of the absolutist mastery of Great Powers, over the Continent. In a new Europe of this kind the independence of even the smallest national individuality can be safeguarded; and the League of Nations suggests an instructive analogy to what a united Europe may become’.18 Third, this European federation could only become a reality in the form of democracy on the national and transnational level. ‘As a result, the democratic principle spread from the field of domestic politics into that of international relations. The war overthrew the three centres of theocratic absolutism (the Russian, the Prussian, and the Austrian); new Republic and new democracies arose and, with them, the fundamental principles of a new international policy. The League of Nations grew politically stronger and was adopted as a programme by all modern and truly democratic politicians and statesmen. The “United States of Europe” ceased to be a Utopia’.19

…

As we now know, Masaryk’s hopes for a federative Europe soon perished and the Second World War left democratic Europe in ruins. Unfortunately, it was also confirmed that the small free Czechoslovak Republic could not survive without a multinational federative structure. Nevertheless, these tragic historical events do not undermine the validity of the idea of a federation within a federation among political solutions to the Czech question; on the contrary, they confirm it. We saw that Masaryk applied the original political formula of a federation within a new and different geopolitical context. It would be hard 17

Thomas G. Masaryk, The Making of a State. Memories and Observations 1914–​1918, tr. Henry Wickham Steed (London: Allen & Unwin, 1927), 371–​372. 18 Masaryk, The Making of a State, 371. 19 Masaryk, The Making of a State, 326.

152 Znoj to deny that it was thanks to this that he was able to formulate a number of new, very compelling arguments justifying the formation of an independent state. What is important is that he saw the establishment of the Czechoslovak Republic and the League of Nations as parallel advances in democracy on the national and transnational level. As he did initially, he later once again rejected the notion of a national democracy having a merely external relationship to a multinational federation. In this light, he declared all nationalist whining and references to constant struggles against the Germans or Russians, etcetera, to be empty. To this he objected claiming: We are not and never have been that small! On the contrary, he believed that a multinational Europe federation would make the Czech nation stronger. For Masaryk, the demand to democratise and federalise Europe was not pragmatic, utilitarian, or in some other way calculated. A democratic federation was in his eyes a political condition for national freedom, democracy, and social justice. It is part of his political legacy today.

Bibliography

Bílek, Jan, et al., eds., Korespondence T. G. Masaryk –​Josef Kaizl [Correspondence T.G. Masaryk –​Josef Kaizl] (Prague: Masarykův ústav and Archiv av čr, 2011). Kaizl, Josef, České myšlénky [Czech thoughts] (Prague: E. Beaufort, 1896). Kučera, Martin, ‘Skica vývoje českého politického realismu’ [Sketch of the development of Czech political realism], in Vratislav Doubek et al., eds., Na pozvání Masarykova ústavu, ii [At the invitation of the Masaryk Institute] (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr, 2005), 21–​30. Masaryk, Tomáš G., ‘Glosy k Lidovému programu’ [Glosses on the People’s Party programme], Čas 4/​45 (8 September 1890), 721. Masaryk, Tomáš G., Česká otázka, Naše nynější krize, Jan Hus [The Czech Question. Our current crisis. Jan Hus], in Jiří Brabec, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. vi (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr and Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2000). Masaryk, Thomas G., The Making of a State. Memories and Observations 1914–​1918, tr. Henry Wickham Steed (London: Allen & Unwin, 1927). Palacký, František, Idea státu rakouského [The idea of the Austrian state] (Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci, 2002). Vierhaus, Rudolf, entry on ‘liberalism’ in Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe, vol. iii (Stuttgart: Klett-​Cotta, 1982), 741–​785. Znoj, Milan, ‘Český spor o liberalismus: Masaryk a Kaizl’ [The Czech dispute over liberalism: Masaryk and Kaizl] Filosofický časopis 66, 5 (2018), 725–​749.

­c hapter 9

Masaryk’s Czech Question and the Idea of the Czech State Miloslav Bednář Abstract Bednář reminds us that Masaryk’s concept is supported by a fundamental continuity of thought that begins with the idea of a Czech nation from the end of the tenth century, leading through the activities of Charles iv, state reformation of the Hussites, the thoughts of Comenius and their reception by German Enlightenment, up to the mainstream of Czech national revival and the philosophical and political considerations of Masaryk and Patočka.

In Česká otázka (‘The Czech Question’) Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk formulated a radical and enduringly provocative response to the ‘Czech question’, which he framed as an inquiry into the meaning of Czech history. He argued that it was essentially a philosophical and religious question and so one that was concerned with the very meaning of human existence. For nineteenth-​century Czech history, this meant that, in the history of ideas, the philosophical-​ historical foundations of the Czech National Revival were in Masaryk’s view essentially an indirect but demonstrable continuation of the central ideas that drove the Czech Reformation and were behind the Hussite movement and the Church of the Czech Brethren. The Czech National Revival was therefore also a continuation of the most significant and influential era in Czech history on a European and international level, to which it was connected through its embrace of the key idea of humanity as its central philosophical principle. The strong spiritual foundations on which the ideas of the Czech Reformation rested, however, were of much earlier Czech origin than Masaryk believed. In fact, these ideas arose out of the philosophical basis on which the idea of a Czech state had been formulated in Kristiánova legenda (Legenda Christiani/​ The Legend of Christian) in the late tenth century and out of the subsequent development of that idea around Christian reform. From there it forged its own unique path forward and into the era of the Hussite reformation.

© Miloslav Bednář, 2023 | DOI:10.1163/9789004534919_011

154 Bednář The opening of Kristiánova legenda contains a prominent reminder of how the Slavic language was successfully defended as a liturgical language before the highest office of the Church in Rome.1 The purpose of this reminder was to emphasise that the Christian path to eternal life could only be rendered universally intelligible through the full recognition of the individuality –​the moral individuality of the soul –​of human individuals, who think and learn in their own language as the medium in which they are best able to acquire knowledge and understand things. This also means, however, that the recipients of the Christian message, of what it means to live a meaningful life from the perspective of eternity, are only able to receive and understand, to live, this message within the frame of their own individual nation –​or the state or state-​ political formation within which the nation exists –​and so the individuality of the nation, or of its state, must therefore also be recognised as the foundation of this process. This very elemental part of the text, which figures so prominently in the opening of Kristiánova legenda, became the seed and typological basis out of which emerged the idea of the Czech state. What this idea is saying is: United by a single liturgical language, the individual nation and state becomes, in relation to eternity, a sacred and spiritually oriented entity, and it becomes so in the philosophical and political sense of equality, which is to say that it has equal rights to other individual nation-​state entities that are also founded on this relationship to eternity. The founding idea of the Czech state that Kristiánova legenda distinctly articulates is therefore grounded in what can be more accurately summed up as a type of reformist Christian Platonism, which is based on the idea that the overriding authority in life is the individual’s Christian conscience, a spiritually and thus politically oriented conscience grounded in culture that consistently guides an individual’s actions. The meaning of Czech statehood has since then resided in a notion of each moral individuality’s irreplaceability in relation to the eternal world and therefore the sanctity of each moral individuality. This principle legitimises both individuals and their nations and states, their individual freedom, and the power derived therefrom. It became an explicitly legitimising principle of the existence of Czech statehood and therefore the actual meaning of Czech statehood. In the fourteenth century, during the reign of Czech King and Holy Roman Emperor Charles iv, the idea of the Czech state developed to an extraordinary

1 Jaroslav Ludvíkovský, ed., Legenda Christiani –​Vita et passio sancti Wenceslai et sancte Ludmile ave eius (Prague: Vyšehrad, 1978), 1, 20–​45.

Masaryk’s Czech Question and the Idea of the Czech State

155

degree, and the Czech state became a place of Europe-​wide significance and consequence. At that time, the principles behind the idea of the Czech state came to be fused with the meaning of the existence of Christendom, which is to say, with a Europeanism that was grounded in and culturally advanced on the basis of Christian philosophical foundations. A prime illustration of this is Charles iv’s strikingly thoroughgoing revival and organic reinforcement of the Cyril and Methodius theme as a key and leading element of the idea of the Czech state. In a clear continuation of the efforts inspired by the idea of the Czech state that had been pursued earlier by Czech King Vratislav ii in 1080, Charles personally submitted a petition to Pope Clement vi in 1346, in which he requested papal permission to introduce the use of Slavic as a liturgical language in the Czech Kingdom.2 However, as historian Zdeněk Kalista has persuasively demonstrated, this attempt –​one of many made by Czech sovereigns that were ultimately only partly successful –​to revive the traditional spiritual or religious-​liturgical heart of the idea of the Czech state was in Charles’s case an expression of his pan-​European political conception of the Czech state as occupying a central position within Europe.3 Charles’s Cyril and Methodius theme appears even to have been what shaped ‘the underlying foundations of the political and cultural work he did and that led to his name being inscribed in Czech and European history’.4 The philosophy of Charles iv’s politics is characterised by its manifestly individualising spiritual-​political and, by the same token, entirely cultural nature. It evidently prefigured later attempts to counter an authoritative interpretation of the Gospel with the personal piety of individuals and a personal understanding of the Gospel. This is how in the fourteenth-​century Czech Kingdom, before the rise of Jan Hus and his supporters, the unique essence of what later underpinned Hus’s instigation of the Czech Reformation originally took shape. And the Czech Reformation, in turn, later became the philosophical foundation on which Masaryk built his radical interpretation of the Czech question.5 The Hussite movement, the very first Reformation movement in history, assigned primacy to the authority of the religious and moral conscience and

2 See Zdeněk Kalista, ‘Cyrilometodějský motiv u Karla iv’ [The theme of Cyril and Methodius in relation to Charles iv] in Zdeněk Kalista, Karel iv. a Itálie [Charles iv and Italy] (Prague: Vyšehrad. 2004), 280–​305, 287–​288. 3 Kalista, Karel iv., 302–​304. 4 Kalista, Karel iv., 281. 5 See Thomas G. Masaryk, The Making of a State: Memories and Observations, 1914–​1918 (London: Allen & Unwin, 1927), 437ff.

156 Bednář reason of the individual over the authority of an institution. This basic principle of the Hussite Reformation and revolution was accepted by a distinct majority in every stratum of Czech society. The idea of the Czech state thus came to be embodied by the Czech Reformation, and thereby acquired unprecedented significance as a pioneering driver of history and became equated with the ideal of a religious life, which was then reflected in political action. And this is how it was seen by the vast majority of the inhabitants of the Czech Kingdom and in every stratum of Czech society at the time. The official politics of the Czech nation and its state embraced the guiding spiritual focus and thrust of the Hussite era with explicit emphasis, but without losing its sense of reality. The Czech Kingdom thus became the first state in Western civilisation to make the chief aim of its politics the assertion and application of a programme grounded in Christian reform. A natural consequence of the Hussite Reformation revolution, which the Czech Kingdom as a whole embraced as its programme, was that Czech political life became profoundly democratised. The phenomenon that Masaryk later expressed as ‘the meaning of Czech history’, and that in reality is clearly the reformationary culmination of the past development of the idea of the Czech state, was recast by the Hussite Reformation and revolution as the meaning of the history of Europe. The spiritual-​political surge of Hussitism that swept through every stratum of Czech society, which was something only made possible by the nature of the idea of the Czech state and its historical development up to that time, became in the form of the Czech Reformation a ground-​breaking historical formula for the Western European Reformation that emerged a century later, starting with Luther. This later Reformation, with an energising spiritual message that was first formulated by the Czech Hussite movement, laid the decisive ideological groundwork for the eventual onset of the Enlightenment. Masaryk’s initial theory about the paramount historical significance of the Czech Reformation as expressly seizing upon and defining the phenomenon of the meaning of Czech history thus proved itself justified and valid in the context of both the progress of history and the evolution of the idea of the Czech state, the outcome of which was the first Reformation movement in European history. What we have just described can also be applied –​especially if we are talking about expressing the philosophical meaning of Czech politics –​to the final and crowning spiritual achievement of the Czech Reformation, which is represented by the thought and lifelong public work of Jan Amos Komenský (John Amos Comenius). What initially motivated Comenius, especially in terms of the guiding principles and context behind his work, is strikingly similar to what led Plato to develop a notion of philosophy as an educational purpose, the paideia, which in turn is understood as the underlying and unifying

Masaryk’s Czech Question and the Idea of the Czech State

157

meaning of the existence of a just state. This paideia does not exist just to cultivate the utilitarian and instrumental abilities and qualities of individuals, as the pseudo-​philosophy of the sophists claimed. Rather, it is itself the basic meaning of the movement of human life, as Jan Patočka interpreted it, which is to say the meaning of human existence. Comenius observed, like Masaryk later in his own inquiry, that spiritual decline was the result of ‘a semi education posing as an education, boastful ineptitude passing itself off as honest hard work, the impression of virtue posturing as virtue itself, and hypocrisy performing behind a mask of piety. The world was dominated by superficial knowledge, everything passing itself off as something that in reality it is not, the world had become a mask’.6 Comenius reached the genuinely Platonic conclusion that the only promising solution to this kind of far-​reaching spiritual and moral decline, which poses a serious threat to the meaning of human existence, would be the thorough and fundamental transformation of all human education. This would then logically lead to the radical transformation of politics towards a more just political order. Comenius’ rounded off his radically democratising Hussitist conception of Christianity with a remarkable, universal, philosophical-​pedagogical interpretation of a key principle of Hussitism, namely, the demand for the free and public spread of the word of God. The philosophical essence of this was the no less radical democratisation of the Platonist ideal of philosophy as the spiritual-​moral education of the individual and citizen. With Comenius, what follows from this is the imperative to educate everyone in everything, and to do so from the perspective of the overall meaning of all being (omnés –​ omnia –​ omnino). Hence the meaning of this concept of education is articulated in his Pampaedie as being: ‘… to enlighten all people with genuine wisdom; give them order again with a just political system; unite them with God in a true religion so that no one shall fail to grasp the meaning of their purpose in the world’.7 Like Masaryk much later, in drawing on the tradition of the Czech Reformation, Comenius formulated a response to the principal question with which man, society, nations, and states are ever and with recurring urgency confronted, and that is the question of the overall definitive meaning of human existence. Comenius’ radical spiritual-​reformist philosophy, which was the culmination of the efforts of the Czech Reformation distinctly heralded the later 6 Jan Amos Komenský (Comenius), Pampaedia, iv/​1–​2. Latin with German tr. by Dmitrij Tschižewskij, Heinrich Geissler & Klaus Schaller. Publication of the Comenius-​Institut, series Editionen und Monographien, 5 (2nd edn., Heidelberg: Quelle und Meyer, 1965). 7 Comenius, Pampaedia, i/​9.

158 Bednář evolution of Leibniz’s strand of philosophical Enlightenment individualism and, equally, Herder’s revolutionary Enlightenment-​Romantic conception of the philosophy of history –​two related streams of philosophical thought that determined the direction of the Czech National Revival. The basic philosophical connection that was thus formed between the Czech Reformation and the ideas underlying the Czech National Revival later became the basis for T. G. Masaryk’s remarkable and radical conception of the meaning of Czech history, which he set out in Česká otázka. Masaryk based his conception of the meaning of Czech history largely on František Palacký’s philosophical viewpoints and his philosophy of Czech history. František Palacký considered Czech history and thus also the philosophical meaning of Czech statehood as an eminent example of the influence of global historical trends and the clashes between them. He believed human nature to be grounded in a tension between two worlds, between the longing for the infinite and the limitations imposed by matter, which essentially involves a contest between unrestricted reason and authority. Palacký does not believe that one principle should triumph over the other, but rather that the two should penetrate each other to the greatest possible extent.8 According to Palacký, the tension between authority and unrestricted reason is the actual driver of historical movement, although not necessarily in the direction of constant progress. The principle of authority operates externally, while unrestricted reason is the principle of internal human self-​determination, represented by the exercise of reason, essentially in inseparable union with the conscience.9 The essential interconnectedness of the two basic polar principles of the human spirit and history that Palacký posits clearly has its origins in Aristotle and Herder.10 In his interpretation, however, he is basically articulating and defining the specifically Czech concept of humanity as the meaning of history, which is a specifically refined expression of the European philosophical tradition organically fused with Christian tradition.

8 9 10

See František Palacký, ‘Geschichte des Hussitenthums und Prof. Constantin Höfler’, in František Palacký, Kritische Studien (Prague: Friedrich Tempsky, 1868), 65. Palacký, ‘Geschichte des Hussitenthums …’, 59–​60. Palacký, ‘Geschichte des Hussitenthums’. See also Aristotle, Politics 1255a28–​30. ‘Vor dem Allsehenden, der diese Kräfte in ihn legte, ist freilich sowohl seine Vernunft als Freiheit begrenzt und sie ist glücklich begrenzt’. in Johann G. Herder, J. G. Herders Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit mit Kants Rezensionen der ‘Ideen’ und seiner Abhandlung: Idee ze einer algemeinen Geschichte in weltbürgerlichen Absicht, ed. Eugen Kühnemann (Berlin: Deustche Bibliothek, 1914), 40.

Masaryk’s Czech Question and the Idea of the Czech State

159

It is here that we can see the idea that served as the source of Palacký’s philosophically grounded view of Hussitism as one of key significance in Czech and European world history. Palacký observed that the Hussite wars were the first international war in history ‘that was not waged out of material interests but over purely spiritual goods, which is to say, over ideas. The Czechs were so seriously and sincerely concerned with the ideas at the centre of this struggle and clung to this concern to such a degree that they as the winners never for a moment considered trading it for the material side of things. The Hussites never ceased to regard and refer to their long and heroic struggle as the struggle to liberate the word of God’.11 Palacký considered the Hussite wars to have been a pivotal conflict in world history. Prior to the Hussite period the Roman Catholic Church had become extremely corrupt. Christian Biblical teachings, and the exploration of human reason had become secondary or even unnecessary pursuits for the church as it tried to establish itself as an absolutist political power. It was challenged in this by the effective and energetic resistance and overtly antagonistic action of the Czech Hussite movement and its spiritual and ethical imperatives. This momentous clash with the Czech Hussite Reformation, the first European Reformation movement one hundred years before Luther, ultimately forced the Catholic Church to once again recognise the principle of transcendental power and thus to respect the free individualism of self-​determination, that is to recognise the legitimacy of the plurality of opinion.12 The Czech Reformation revolution led to the end of the era in which the church enjoyed unconditional authority and opened a path for the Reformation to continue in other countries and for the rise of religious tolerance in the form of an ethical respect for individual and morally truthful religious conviction. Based on the current state of factual knowledge and research on the spiritual and political foundations of Czech statehood, it can be said that the European significance of the Hussite wave of the revolutionary Reformation was that the 11

12

‘Andere Historiker, zu welchen auch ich mir die Ehre gebe mich zu zählen, haben den Hussitenkrieg für den ersten grossen Völkerkrieg in der Weltgeschichte erklärt, der nicht für materielle Interessen, sondern für blosse Güter des Geistes, also für Ideen, geführt worden. Und so ernst und aufrichtig wurde diese ideelle Seite bei ihm von den Böhmenn gemeint und festgehalten, dass es den Siegern nicht einen Augenblick einfiel, sie gegen eine materielle zu vertauschen. […] Die hussiten selbst hörten niemals auf, ihren langen heldenmüthigen Kampf als einen Kampf für die Befreiung des Wortes Gottes anzusehen und zu bezeichnen’. in František Palacký, ‘Geschichte des Hussitenthums und Prof. Constantin Höfler’, in František Palacký, Kritische Studien (Prague: Friedrich Tempsky, 1858), 158. Cf. Palacký, Kritische Studien, 159.

160 Bednář Czech state idea became more powerfully, deeply, and specifically universalist in orientation.13 The more universalist direction in which the Czech state idea was transformed by the Hussite movement involved a radically reformist distillation of the idea to the point where it assumed the form of a kind of pure Christian faith that was based on the irreplaceable authority or primacy of the moral and religious conscience of the individual –​and on the resolute assertion and defence of the Czech state idea against the quasi-​authority of deficient secular-​materialistic institutions. František Palacký restored the philosophical substance of the Czech state idea along these same lines by emphasising the primarily European historical significance of Hussitism. He determined and noted that an important consequence of the Czech Hussite Reformation and the ensuing Hussite wars for Europe as a whole was a self-​disciplining of the Catholic Church, which moved more towards heeding the original principles of Christianity. At the same time, however, the radical impact of Hussitism on world history rendered the hegemony of the Catholic Church’s unconditional spiritual authority a thing of the past, making way for a plurality of Christian churches based on an elementary respect for the personal truthfulness of one another’s faith.14 Thus refined during the Hussite era, the idea of the Czech state then gave rise to an elementary and embryonic version of the humanist idea, an idea that would much later come to prevail on the European continent, albeit in the very problematic form of a superficial and undemocratic interpretation of liberalism. Palacký determined that ‘as a result of the great revolution that spread from France in 1848, the majority of European countries, Austria and the Czech Lands included, became gripped by a new charitable spirit, a spirit of humane broadmindedness, which although originally deeply rooted in Christianity –​ and not without some input from philosophy –​had had to wage a hard battle over the centuries in order to get rid of the layers of wrapping beneath which it had been smothered by mediaeval barbarism in league with imperiousness and parsimony. However, because questions of nationality were not analysed within France, political and civic freedom were the only ideas that won support and were taken up in public opinion (and more widely even beyond France); while the idea of national freedom did not win the same degree of support that it did in those states where different national tribes lived together side by side. 13

14

See Amedeo Molnár, ed., Husitské manifesty [Hussite manifestos] (Prague: Odeon, 1980), 61, 121, 123, 126–​127, 156, 171–​172; Petr Čornej, ‘Ať žije Jiřík, Český král!’ [Long live Georgie, King of Bohemia!], Dějiny a současnost 20/​2 (1998), 32–​36; Miloslav Bednář, České myšlení [Czech thought] (Prague: Filosofia, 1996), 9–​19. See Palacký, Geschichte des Hussitenthums, 159.

Masaryk’s Czech Question and the Idea of the Czech State

161

The mediaeval prejudices and disputes that welled up around national differences and the long custom of one group seeking to dominate others would not allow themselves to be dispelled by the humanist Enlightenment that was spreading out of France. On the contrary, a flagrant self-​centredness inflamed by the exasperation of losses in political and civic life meant that the stance towards the emerging national movement was even more resolutely hostile’.15 Palacký’s modern democratic revival of the idea of the Czech state as occupying a central place in the meaning of European history grew out of a carefully elaborated philosophical foundation, formed by Palacký’s concept of ‘God-​affinity’. Palacký established his concept of God-​affinity on a foundation of Platonist-​Kantian thought and defined it as being at one with God and in the image of God, by which participation in the divine nature is revealed. For Palacký our God-​affinity means that ‘we long first and foremost for a sovereign freedom as well as for unconditional being, for a freedom not so much in the negative sense or in the sense of independence and autonomy, but rather a freedom of full-​blown autonomous authority over the self, which is to say, a freedom that is enjoyed through the fullness of one’s existence. The kind of freedom that intrinsically and fundamentally touches on all our actions in their entirety, that is the essence of all the ultimate purposes of our spiritual life’.16 With his notion of a never perfectly attainable God-​affinity as the philosophical meaning of humankind and history, a meaning that in the dramatic course of Czech history is manifestly presented as the effort to fulfil the European purpose of Czech statehood, Palacký offered a far-​reaching alternative to the undemocratic, centralising, and superficially liberalist ideas that continue to be reintroduced into circulation. In the spirit of his interpretation of the Czech question and from his presidential position as leader of the democratic Czechoslovak state that he founded, Tomáš G. Masaryk reflected philosophically and in an innovatively refined manner on the democratic nature of the idea of the Czech state, and developed a religious or metaphysical conception of democracy as the reciprocal spiritual-​moral recognition of equal morally based individual consciences in relation to eternity as the essential purpose of political democracy. The key political-​philosophical concept representing the very opposite of the Czech state idea and the political programme to which it gives rise as 15 16

See František Palacký, Poslední slova. Doslovy k Radhostu a k pamětným listům [Last words: Postscripts to Radhost and commemorative charters] (Prague: J. Otto, 1919), 108–​109. František Palacký, Spisy drobné iii [Minor writings iii], ed. Leander Čech (Prague: Bursík & Kohout, 1903), 129–​130.

162 Bednář identified first by František Palacký and Karel Havlíček and later, following in their tradition, by Tomáš G. Masaryk, was the French, Belgian, and German strand of centralist liberalism. The latter essentially just modernised, in a rationalistically bureaucratic direction, the previously existing absolutist form of rule to arrive at a type of undemocratic Enlightenment dirigisme.17 This brand of continental liberalism was the political system that became the heir and successor to the primary, and essentially superficial, rationalistic stream of the French Enlightenment that was inspired by early modern mathematical natural science and Cartesianism. Masaryk, like his eminent predecessors, correctly regarded this philosophically and politically decadent influence on the Czech revivalist scene as a crucial systemic danger, completely counter to the meaning of Czech history and the main threat to its spiritual and moral foundations.18 It was on this polemically very contested philosophical foundation that Masaryk undertook to give the traditional meaning of Czech history the modern orientation it needed and, accordingly, from the time of the outbreak of the First World War to pursue the restoration of Czech statehood in the form of the Czechoslovak Republic. This is the philosophically specific spirit in which Masaryk understood the meaning of the foundation of the Czechoslovak Republic, which was the first state formation to emerge in the place of the undemocratic Austro-​Hungarian state. It was also the first and essential step towards the post-​war democratic reconstruction and reorganisation of central eastern Europe and of Europe as a whole. It was on the basis of this interpretation of the meaning of Czech history that Czechoslovak democratic independence and democratic autonomy were understood primarily as a European duty.19 Under the Communist totalitarian dictatorship, the philosophical anchoring given to the principles and actions of Charter 77 by one of its first three 17

18 19

See František Palacký, Úvahy a projevy [Thoughts and speeches] (Prague: Melantrich, 1977), 40, 354, 357; cf. Palacký, Poslední slova …, 108–​109, 111–​112, 114–​115, 119, 123–​124; see Tomáš G. Masaryk, Jan Hus (Prague: Bursík & Kohout, 1923), 12–​15. More recently, Tomáš G. Masaryk, ‘Česká otázka. Naše nynější krize. Jan Hus’ [The Czech question. Our present crisis. Jan Hus], in Jiří Brabec, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected writings of T.G. Masayk], vol.vi (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr, Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2000), 315–​317. Masaryk, ‘Česká otázka’, 315–​317. Masaryk, ‘Česká otázka’, 315–​317. Also Tomáš G. Masaryk, Nová Evropa –​Stanovisko slovanské [The new Europe –​The Slav standpoint] (Prague: Gustav Dubský, 1920), 178; see also the English edition with an Introduction by Otakar Odlozilik, Thomas G. Masaryk, The New Europe (The Slav Standpoint), eds. W. Preston Warren & William B. Weist (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1972), 81.

Masaryk’s Czech Question and the Idea of the Czech State

163

spokesmen, the philosopher Jan Patočka, represented an important contribution to the restoration and the philosophically deeper articulation of the idea of the Czech state and Masaryk’s philosophical interpretation of the Czech question. Before this fundamental achievement, and in direct connection with it, Patočka engaged in seminal reflections on the philosophical-​political meaning of Masaryk’s restoration of independent Czech statehood. Patočka philosophically interpreted and analysed both Masaryk’s act of founding the state and the emergence of Charter 77 much later as two distinct examples of the history-​making realisation of the third and supreme type of basic movement of human life, which he referred to as the ‘movement of truth’ or ‘breakthrough’. According to Patočka, Masaryk’s act of founding the Czechoslovak state made plain the fundamental difference between the non-​historical degradation of life to a form where it is merely about survival, and a life of the non-​self-​ evident truth of insight into the being of beings, the freedom of openness to this being, and a corresponding freedom of action.20 Jan Patočka emphasised that in concrete political terms this meant that ‘Masaryk did not establish the state as a way of providing the weak with security. Nor did he establish it as an act of [social] levelling, as he knew very well that the state and society are two distinct and deeply separate matters. For the ‘man and thinker of action’, there could have been no doubt that the political problem, the question of action and of securing the widest possible terrain of action, one where there is a mutual recognition of equally active and acting individuals, took precedence over the economic and social issues that depend on this action’.21 The explicitly philosophical foundation that Patočka gave to Charter 77 significantly refined and distilled the philosophical substance of the idea of the Czech state, in the sense that he saw its meaning and foundation as residing in universally valid natural law. This is also how we should understand Patočka’s precise observation that ‘without a moral foundation, without convictions that are more than just expressions of opportunism, circumstance, and expected advantages, even the most technologically well-​equipped societies cannot function. However, morality is not here to help society function, it is here because humans are human. And it is not humans who wilfully define

20

21

See Jan Patočka, Kacířské eseje o filosofii dějin [Heretical essays in the philosophy of history] (Prague: Academia, 1990), 63; for the English edition translated by Erazim Kohák and with preface to the French edition by Paul Ricœur, see Jan Patočka, Heretical Essays in the Philosophy of History, ed. J. Dodd (Chicago–​La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1996), 49–​50. Jan Patočka, ‘České myšlení v meziválečném období’ [Czech thought in the interwar period], in Karel Palek & Ivan Chvatík, eds., Sebrané spisy Jana Patočky [Collected works of Jan Patočka], Vol. xii: Češi ii (Prague: oikoymenh, 2006), 344.

164 Bednář what morality is according to their own needs, wishes, and inclinations, but rather morality that defines humans themselves. … It is only by conformity with this that there exists a real guarantee that people will not act solely in pursuit of some advantage or out of fear, but will do so freely, spontaneously, and responsibly’.22 The conditions for the fully-​fledged and comprehensive restoration, reformulation, and real political application of the meaning of the tradition of the idea of the Czech state and Masaryk’s related interpretation of the Czech question did not emerge until after 1989 and the totalitarian Soviet Union’s defeat in the Cold War that it had been waging with free and democratic nations and states. The ensuing renewal of Czechoslovak state independence in the form of the revival of a democratic state was, in terms of domestic factors, the result of the ascendancy of a publicly expressed political will to reintroduce a democratic political system in a natural reaction to the long period of Communist totalitarian dictatorship. Four important factors have to date significantly complicated any attempt in the Czech Republic to restore full continuity with the Czech and then Czechoslovak tradition of the state idea and Masaryk’s related conception of the Czech question. One factor is the strong influence that the past totalitarian workings of communist-​Marxist ideology continue to have and that is manifested in various ways, both in public opinion and in certain viewpoints that can be observed in the humanities, the social sciences, journalism, and politics. It is not the persistence of traditional Marxist ideological paradigms but rather the inadvertent link to them that is formed when these paradigms are rejected automatically even when no genuinely tenable alternatives to them are known. An illustration of this, for instance, is the view that the state idea is an obsolete mythological obstacle on the path to brighter post-​modern tomorrows. This utopian anti-​utopia also draws from multiple Neo-​Marxist ideological streams that are a strong presence in the Western academic world and, having spread from there, in journalism and politics as well. Here I have in mind the ideologies of post-​modernism, multiculturalism, and radical democracy, which began to gain in popularity in the Czech Republic mainly in the 1990s,

22

Jan Patočka, ‘O povinnosti bránit se proti bezpráví’ [The duty to defend oneself against lawlessness], in Vilém Prečan, ed., Charta 77 (1977–​1989): Od morální k demokratické revoluci [Charta 77 (1977–​1989): [From a moral to a democratic revolution], with afterword by Václav Havel (Bratislava: Čs. středisko nezávislé literatury, Scheinfeld-​Schwarzenberg & archa, 1990), 32.

Masaryk’s Czech Question and the Idea of the Czech State

165

along with many other associated and still influential Neo-​Marxist ideological currents. Alongside the influence of Marxism and the Neo-​Marxist ideologies, which have effectively impeded any attempt to regain organic continuity with the idea of the Czech state, the period since 1989 has seen the rise of a no less influential ideological trend of uncritically accepting or just reformulating traditional Pan-​Germanic rejections of the idea of the Czech state or other such repudiations that have their roots in traditional German nationalism. The ideologically power-​oriented Czech clerical Catholicism with its rejection of the philosophy of Czech history asserted by Masaryk and Palacký is of a somewhat of a case in point. Counter to the ideological streams cited above that are impeding the revival of the idea of the Czech state, there is a still somewhat vague, general, but nonetheless decisive awareness among the Czech public and in the Czech political scene of how meaningful the tradition of Czech and Czechoslovak statehood is for the current direction of the Czech Republic and its politics. There is a need to cultivate, anchor, and amplify the ideas behind this trend in public opinion, particularly in light of the Czech Republic’s relatively recent integration into the clearly undemocratic European Union. This is especially so given the EU’s traditional adherence to the French-​Belgian-​German concept of continental liberalism, which the architects of the modern version of the idea of the Czech state, František Palacký, Karel Havlíček, and Tomáš G. Masaryk, argued emphatically against. It is this concept that has been the guiding superstate ideology of the European Community since the 1950s and of the European Union since 1993, and that thus forms the unchanging theoretical foundation of the EU’s political orientation. A vitally important task for the present day is therefore to fully restore the idea of the Czech state to a pivotal place in the life of the Czech Republic, while also consistently asserting the principles of a current and refined version of this idea externally. There is a genuinely philosophical reason for the essentially conflicted nature of Masaryk’s answer to the Czech question, and that reason is the permanent risk associated with the freedom and responsibility of choosing between living a life guided by one’s individual moral conscience and living a life in pursuit of utilitarian and opportunistic self-​seeking directed by circumstances. This basic dilemma of the conscience is a permanent source of fundamental and enduring existential conflict, both on a personal level, and on the public, professional, expressly political, and generally cultural or civilisational levels as well. It is this that has been the primary and crucial source of the consistently conflicted response that Masaryk’s Česká otázka (‘The Czech

166 Bednář Question’) has been met with in Czech society since it was published 126 years ago and up to the present day. There is a notable absence in our country and in Europe and the world today of any credible philosophically grounded concept that following from Masaryk’s interpretation of the Czech question could inspire the actions of citizens and states. There is consequently a prevailing sense of helplessness surrounding the question of how to confront the proliferation of pressing challenges in our time, because these challenges naturally lead to essential reflections on the overall meaning of human existence. The philosophical nature of these questions thus points to and creates space in which to appropriately apply, in a revived Masarykian spirit, the answers that are discovered in response to the Czech question as signifying a question ‘about the fate of humanity’, which is above all ‘a question of conscience’. Considering the critical situation that the Czech Republic and Europe are in, however, this primarily means that we cannot be ourselves if we are not true to our fundamental heritage. If in this light we, the Czech nation and state, do not take a critical and humble look at what is great and pure at the heart of our existence, and if we do not allow this insight to guide our decisions and actions, then we have no chance of survival.

Bibliography

Bednář, Miloslav, České myšlení [Czech thought] (Prague: Filosofia, 1996). Čornej, Petr, ‘Ať žije Jiřík, Český král!’ [Long live Georgie, King of Bohemia!], Dějiny a současnost 20/​2 (1998), 32–​36. Herder, Johann G., J. G. Herders Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit mit Kants Rezensionen der ‘Ideen’ und seiner Abhandlung: Idee ze einer algemeinen Geschichte in weltbürgerlichen Absicht, ed. Eugen Kühnemann (Berlin: Deutsche Bibliothek, 1914). Kalista, Zdeněk, ‘Cyrilometodějský motiv u Karla iv’ [The theme of Cyril and Methodius in relation to Charles iv] in Zdeněk Kalista, Karel iv. a Itálie [Charles iv and Italy] (Prague: Vyšehrad. 2004), 280–​305. Komenský, Jan Amos, (Comenius), Pampaedia, iv/​1–​2. Latin with German tr. Dmitrij Tschižewskij, Heinrich Geissler & Klaus Schaller. Publication of the Comenius-​ Institut, series Editionen und Monographien, 5 (2nd edn., Heidelberg: Quelle und Meyer, 1965). Kühnemann, Eugen, ed., J. G. Herders Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit mit Kants Rezensionen der ‘Ideen’ und seiner Abhandlung: Idee ze einer algemeinen Geschichte in weltbürgerlichen Absicht … (Berlin: Deustche Bibliothek, 1914).

Masaryk’s Czech Question and the Idea of the Czech State

167

Ludvíkovský, Jaroslav, ed., Legenda Christiani –​Vita et passio sancti Wenceslai et sancte Ludmile ave eius (Prague: Vyšehrad, 1978). Masaryk, Tomáš G., Česká otázka. Naše nynější krize. Jan Hus [The Czech question. Our present crisis. Jan Hus] in Jiří Brabec, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected writings of T. G. Masaryk] (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr and Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2000). Masaryk, Tomáš G., Jan Hus (Prague: Bursík & Kohout, 1923). Masaryk, Thomas G., The Making of a State. Memories and Observations 1914–​1918, tr. Henry Wickham Steed (London: Allen & Unwin, 1927). Masaryk, Thomas G., The New Europe (The Slav Standpoint), eds. W. Preston Warren & William B. Weist (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1972). Masaryk, Tomáš G., Nová Evropa –​Stanovisko slovanské [The new Europe –​The Slav standpoint] (Prague: Gustav Dubský, 1920). Molnár, Amedeo, ed., Husitské manifesty [Hussite manifestos] (Prague: Odeon, 1980). Palacký, František, ‘Geschichte des Hussitenthums und Prof. Constantin Höfler’, in František Palacký, Kritische Studien (Prague: Friedrich Tempsky, 1868). Palacký, František, Geschichte des Hussitenthums (Prague: Friedrich Tempsky, 1858). Palacký, František, Poslední slova. Doslovy k Radhostu a k pamětným listům [Last words: Postscripts to Radhost and commemorative charters] (Prague: J. Otto, 1919). Palacký, František, Spisy drobné iii [Minor writings iii], ed. Leander Čech (Prague: Bursík & Kohout, 1903). Palacký, František, Úvahy a projevy [Thoughts and speeches] (Prague: Melantrich, 1977). Patočka, Jan, ‘České myšlení v meziválečném období’ [Czech thought in the interwar period], in Karel Palek & Ivan Chvatík, eds., Sebrané spisy Jana Patočky [Collected works of Jan Patočka], vol. xii: Češi ii (Prague: oikoymenh, 2006). Patočka, Jan, ‘Masaryk’s and Husserl’s Conception of the Spiritual Crisis of European Humanity’, in Jan Patočka: Philosophy and Selected Writings, ed. Erazim Kohák (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1989), 145–​155. Patočka, Jan, ‘O povinnosti bránit se proti bezpráví’ [The duty to defend oneself against lawlessness], in Vilém Prečan, ed., Charta 77 (1977–​1989): Od morální k demokratické revoluci [Charta 77 (1977–​1989): [From a moral to a democratic revolution] (Bratislava: Čs. středisko nezávislé literatury, Scheinfeld-​Schwarzenberg & Archa, 1990). Patočka, Jan, Heretical Essays in the Philosophy of History, tr. Erazim Kohák, ed. James Dodd, pref. Paul Ricœur (Chicago–​La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1996). Patočka, Jan, Kacířské eseje o filosofii dějin [Heretical essays on the philosophy of history] (Prague: Academia, 1990).

­c hapter 10

The Czech Question as the Task of a Humanist Education Aleš Prázný Abstract Masaryk’s concept of democracy is based on the legacy of the humanist ideals of Western civilisation. According to Masaryk, these ideals are rooted in ancient philosophy, Christianity, and the Enlightenment. As a representative of enlightened reason, Masaryk emphasises the role of education in the development of humanity: the Czech question is, in his view, a question of application of scientific knowledge. Masaryk views this task with optimism and derives the ideals of humanism from the Czech tradition of Reformation. This pitted him against those intellectuals who interpreted Czech humanism in relation to Catholicism and Western influences. In the spirit of Auguste Comte, Masaryk later became convinced that the key task of his times was to politically overcome the shift from theocracy to democracy. That point, in his view, came with the First World War, which Masaryk called the ‘world revolution’. Its outcome was supposed to be an era of humanism and science-​based democracy. Prázný shows that to Masaryk, democracy is a task that has not yet been fully realised, which is why schooling and education remain a task of a prime political importance.

Savages and barbarians fight from aboriginal savagery, or driven by want or hunger; but, in the world war, disciples of Rousseau and Kant, Goethe and Herder, of Byron and de Musset stood in the trenches. And when, in the spirit of Hegel, Werner Sombart praises German militarism and boasts of the Fausts and Zarathustras in the trenches, he fails to understand how severely he is, in reality, condemning German and European civilization.1

∵ 1 Thomas G. Masaryk, The Making of a State. Memories and Observations 1914–​1918, tr. Henry Wickham Steed (London: Allen & Unwin, 1927), 317.

© Aleš Prázný, 2023 | DOI:10.1163/9789004534919_012

The Czech Question as the Task of a Humanist Education

169

The modern ideal of humanist education arose in Germany during the eighteenth century. It was elaborated especially by J. G. Herder (1744–​1803), for whom education was not merely a means but an end in itself. Herder was an educator in every respect; he sought to educate himself and others. He was no revolutionary, though, and put his faith entirely in the effects of education, of popular instruction. Herder’s work is pervaded by a positive and harmonious attitude to life. Without such an attitude, it would have been hard for Enlightenment ideas to take root in Europe. Jan Patočka noted that with this attempt to achieve harmony, ‘the age was turning away from the dark shadows, insecure life and moral uncertainty into which humanity had cast itself with the loss of Christian certainties’.2 This humanist educational ideal spread from Germany to the Czech Lands. The intellectual foundation of education understood in this way was the idea of humanity. Its three main variants –​scientific (Dobrovský), national (Kollár, Šafařík, Palacký), and socio-​political (Masaryk) –​inspired the Czech nineteenth century.3 With respect to confidence in the importance of educational activities and enlightenment, Tomáš G. Masaryk was an apostle of Herder’s optimistic efforts to foster harmony. Masaryk’s concept of politics is entirely based on the ideal of humanity.4 Democracy is a manifestation of humanity not only in its political structure but also in people’s public and private relationships. At the social level, humanity presents itself as a social question. Masaryk’s conception of humanist democracy is one of the finest aspects of his work. In 1894, in the prologue to the first edition of The Czech Question, he claimed that the crisis around Czech national

2 Jan Patočka, ‘Dvojí rozum a příroda v německém osvícenství’ [Two senses of reason and nature in German Enlightenment], in Daniel Vojtěch & Ivan Chvatík, Sebrané spisy Jana Patočky [Collected works of Jan Patočka], vol. iv: Umění a čas [Art and time], part i (Prague: oikoymenh, 2004), 96. 3 Jan Patočka, ‘Myšlenka vzdělanosti a její dnešní aktuálnost’ [The idea of education and its current relevance], in Daniel Vojěch & Ivan Chvatík, Sebrané spisy Jana Patočky [Collected works of Jan Patočka], vol. iv: Umění a čas [Art and time], part i (Prague: oikoymenh, 2004), 14. 4 Masaryk explains his concept of humanity mainly in Chapter x (Democracy and Humanity) of The Marking of the State, where he shows that humanity lies in moral education, which is based on the Czech Reformation. As early as 1895, Josef Kaizl criticised Masaryk for the ambiguity of his notion of humanity; see Josef Kaizl, České myšlénky [Czech thoughts] (Prague: E. Beaufort, 1896).

170 Prázný aspirations was a ‘question regarding the fate of humanity’ and a question of conscience. Masaryk held that history is not a matter of chance but rather a manifestation of Providence, and that democracy is the synergy between Providence5 and humans. The task of thinkers and of every nation is to reveal the plan of Providence. The role of science, especially history and sociology, but also philosophy conceived as learning for life, is to assist in this task. It is a matter of recognising one’s place in the plan, and then of using it to guide one’s actions and works. With this ideal of humanity, Masaryk saw himself as carrying forward a moral task formulated by the Czech Brethren and the National Revival. In this he followed the Czech historian František Palacký (1798–​1876), who saw in Czech history a moral ideal that he developed into a democratic programme.6 Masaryk revised and accepted Palacký’s notion of Czech history, which emphasised democracy and freedom of conscience. Palacký recognised the Czech ideal as the idea of humanity, and he considered religion to be the basis of all cultural aspirations. Similarly, he regarded humanity to be a kind of godliness, an idea both he and Ján Kollár adopted from the German thinkers.7 For Palacký, godliness was the foundation and aim of all human endeavours: the ‘participation in the nature of God and the image of God in man’.8 This was the inspiration behind Masaryk’s political programme and the basis for his understanding of the meaning of Czech history. One of the most significant of Masaryk’s pre-​war disputes concerned precisely his interpretation of the meaning of Czech history. This was the dispute

5 Although Masaryk assumed that Providence took care of the world and of us, he rejected the fatalism of inaction. He advocated an optimism ensuing from a synergy between a person and God. This synergism lies in working most diligently for an idea. ‘Only thus are we entitled to expect the so-​called “lucky accident” that springs from the inner logic of life and history, and to trust in God’s help’. (Masaryk, The Making of a State, 289). 6 In his 1865 political statement on the Austrian state, František Palacký called for a reorganisation of Austria by federalising the nations of the Austrian Empire; see František Palacký, Idea státu rakouského [The idea of an Austrian state] (1st newspaper edn. 1865, 2nd edn., Prague: Ottovo nakladatelství, 1907). 7 Tomáš G. Masaryk, ‘Česká otázka. Snahy a tužby národního obrození’ [The Czech question. The aims and desires of the national revival], in Tomáš G. Masaryk, Česká otázka, Naše nynější krize, Jan Hus [The Czech Question. Our current crisis. Jan Hus], in Jiří Brabec, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. vi (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr, 2000), 142. 8 Tomáš G. Masaryk, Palackého idea národa českého [Palacký’s idea of the Czech nation] (Prague: Čin, 1947), 12.

The Czech Question as the Task of a Humanist Education

171

with historian Josef Pekař (1870–​1937), the most faithful pupil of Goll’s positivist school. The many years of tension between the two developed into an open cultural-​political battle. Pekař rejected the intellectual and ethical foundations of Masaryk’s philosophy, calling his philosophy of Czech history a mythical and mystical ideology.9 He criticised Masaryk for insufficient study of the past and claimed that Masaryk wanted to direct the present and future: ‘[H]‌e wants to legitimate, support, and justify his own certainly noble educational goal with the supposed consent of past generations’.10 Unlike Masaryk, Pekař did not see Czech history as the result of essentially autonomous Czech development, but emphasised that it had been shaped by the model and spirit of Western Europe. Masaryk’s political programme was a particular elaboration of a philosophy of history defined primarily by František Palacký and influenced by Auguste Comte (1798–​1857). Comte’s positivism attempted to reorganise science and society in line with an optimistic conception of historical progress. While positivism was based on premises that in Austria were successfully developed by Herbartianism, Palacký conceived a Czech philosophy of history with reference to the ideals of the Unity of Brethren. Patočka11 points out that Masaryk’s philosophy is a synthesis of a deistically modified, Comtean objectivist positivism and an essential moralism.12 According to Masaryk, the Czech Reformation was characterised precisely by moralism, and his concept of the meaning of Czech history traces a direct line from the beginning of the reformation movement associated with Jan Hus through the Brethren up to the National Revival. This distinctive concept was at odds with the positivist interpretation of history, which in a strictly Cartesian spirit separated the subject and object of 9

10 11

12

For more on the dispute between Masaryk and Pekař, see Jaroslav Opat, ‘Potíže s T.G. Masarykem’ [The problems with T.G. Masaryk], Filosofický časopis 48 (2000). Regarding the dispute over the meaning of Czech history see also Josef Zumr, ‘Prof. Pekař opravdu o historickém vývoji nemá potuchy’ [Professor Pekař really has no idea about historical development], in Eva Broklová, ed., Sto let Masarykovy České otázky (1895–​1995) [One hundred years of Masaryk’s Czech Question (1895–​1995)] (Prague: Ústav T.G. Masaryka), 59ff. Josef Pekař, O smyslu českých dějin [On the meaning of Czech history] (Prague: Leda, 2013), 336. On the relationship between Patočka and Masaryk see Josef Zumr, ‘Patočka a Masaryk’ [Patočka and Masaryk], Filosofický časopis 39/​3 (1991), 448–​455, or also Ladislav Hejdánek, ‘Patočkovo kritické vidění Masaryka’ [Patočka’s critical view of Masaryk], Reflexe 5–​6 (1992), 5–​6, 14–​15. Jan Patočka, ‘Dvě studie o Masarykovi. Pokus o českou národní filosofii a jeho nezdar’ [Two studies of Masaryk. An attempt at a Czech national philosophy and its failure], in Karel Pálek & Ivan Chvatík, eds., Sebrané spisy Jana Patočky [Collected works of Jan Patočka], vol. xii: Češi i [Czechs i] (Prague: oikoymenh–​Filosofia, 2006), 356.

172 Prázný history. Masaryk situated himself in the line of reformation. The central theme here is truth: the search for truth and its critical verification. This is so important for Masaryk that it becomes a fundamental question of life and death.13 On the basis of Comte’s positivist philosophy, Masaryk became convinced that the central question of the history of thought was a clash between primitive myths and science. History is characterised by progressive humanisation and the waning influence of myths. In the same spirit, he understood the development of democracy as the struggle of science and humanity against myths and theocracy. Masaryk was inspired not only by Comte but also by David Hume (1711–​1776) and John Stuart Mill (1806–​1873), thus strengthening the influence of Anglo-​Saxon thought in Central Europe.14 Although he believed in Providence and professed Platonism because of its doctrine of the immortality of the human soul, he was in many respects empirically sober. This clearly reflected his admiration for British philosophy, which did not allow logic to be confused with ontology, as was often the case in Continental philosophy. Masaryk’s thinking was closer to the Anglo-​Saxon world than it was to the Continent.15 Božena Komárková has noted that Masaryk’s notion of democracy included a general civic responsibility grounded in more than the merely utilitarian and

13

14

15

Václav Tille, a literary historian and professor of comparative literary history at Charles University who studied with Masaryk in 1885–​1889, described his teacher as follows: ‘There was no other professor who could get his students to work as honestly and patiently as Masaryk. He simply assumed, as a matter of course, that anyone who accepted his leadership would exhaustively study everything necessary. To him, untalented students were simply not students, and whoever did not love science as a life and death matter quickly departed from his sight of their own accord. But those who persevered with him could not find a more perfect mentor, helper, and friend’. Jaroslav Opat, Filozof a politik. T. G. Masaryk (1882–​1893) [Philosopher and Politician, T.G. Masaryk (1882–​1893)] (Prague: Melantrich, 1990), 131. The question is to what extent Masaryk was influenced in his Anglo-​Saxon orientation by Franz Brentano (1838–​1917), with whom he studied in Vienna and who was well-​ versed in Anglo-​Saxon philosophy. Josef Zumr comments on Brentano’s influence on Masaryk: ‘Various opinions have been expressed about Brentano’s influence on Masaryk, which to a greater or lesser extent admit Brentano’s certain role in shaping Masaryk’s worldview. All the researchers examining this problem have come across the strange fact that Masaryk hardly ever refers to Brentano and does not even quote him’. Josef Zumr, ‘Masarykovy filozofické zdroje’ [Masaryk’s philosophical sources], Slovo a smysl. Časopis pro mezioborová bohemistická studia 08/​26/​2014 (quoted from http://​slov​oasm​ysl.ff.cuni .cz/​node/​143; accessed on 5 November 2021.) In addition to the above, Brentano was an admirer of J. S. Mill and corresponded with him. Božena Komárková, Původ a význam lidských práv [The origin and significance of human rights] (Zurich: Cramerius, 1986), 45.

The Czech Question as the Task of a Humanist Education

173

impossible to institutionalise. This was the precisely the kind of democracy promoted by Mill,16 whose interest in ethics and the social question was shared by Masaryk. By humanity, Masaryk meant an attitude of mutual respect and goodwill. Democracy without humanity runs the risk of devolving into a Hobbesian fray of everyone for himself and a ‘tyranny of the most rapacious’.17 Humanity naturally leads to the concept of human rights, which can only be guaranteed by democracy; conversely, democracy can only be guaranteed by human rights. Such a democracy cannot, however, be conceived as a mere technology of government; Masaryk is mainly concerned with internal democracy, and the external dimension is not the main issue for him (although he does not dismiss it). His focus is on preserving and bearing witness to the principles of European civilisation, to its spiritual and moral essence.18 He wrote: ‘Institutions by themselves are not enough. Democracy needs personalities’.19 Komárková therefore concludes: If democracy is not to degenerate … , its moral foundation must be continually renewed in the conscience of the greatest possible number of citizens. For democracy to thrive, Masaryk demanded a constant revolution of hearts and minds. […] Human rights themselves are an institution of democracy and are guaranteed by their institutional enshrinement, yet they do not stem from an institution but rather from what Masaryk called the sub specie aeternitatis. This is the level from which democracy arose, and the first American declaration of rights is proof of it.20 In this quotation, Komárková indirectly suggests that while Masaryk may have fought against an external theocracy to ensure the victory of democracy, he founded modern democracy as an invisible theocracy: ‘Only a democracy that despite all concessions to personal interests ultimately understands itself as a theocracy conceived in this way, i.e. as a service to truth that cannot be 16 Komárková, Původ a význam lidských práv, 141. 17 Erazim Kohák, ‘T. G. Masaryk a naše národní totožnost’ [Masaryk and our national identity], Filosofický časopis 48/​2 (2000), 182. 18 Miloslav Bednář, ‘První světová válka jako výraz duchovní a mravní krize moderního lidství’ [The First World War as an expression of the spiritual and moral crisis of modern humanity], in Jaroslav Opat, ed., První světová válka, moderní demokracie a T. G. Masaryk [The First World War, modern democracy, and T.G. Masaryk] (Prague: Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 1995), 166. 19 Masaryk, The Making of a State, 392. 20 Komárková, Původ a význam lidských práv, 142.

174 Prázný institutionalised, can remain true to itself, resist mob passions, and respect human rights as an inherent institution of political and civic life’.21 The political expression of humanity is reformist democracy. Masaryk always promoted democracy in this sense, even though in his works published during the Austro-​Hungarian era, the term ‘democracy’ appears less often than in his post-​war writings.22 During the First World War, the idea of democracy became for Masaryk an agenda for world revolution,23 a struggle to create new democratic individuals. Only democracy could effectively promote the ideal of humanity, with its emphasis on conscience.24 Specifically, this meant: The ideal of humanity requires that we systematically fight against all the evil inhumanity of society, be it our own or foreign, everywhere, always, and in all of its educational, ecclesiastical, political, and national bodies –​ all. Humanity is not sentimentality, it is work, and then more work.25 Humanity, or the ‘ideal of pure humanity’, stems from the tradition of Western education that emerged in distinct form in the nineteenth century in the fields of religion, literature, and philosophy. While politics and philosophy deal with the general problems of people and society, Masaryk’s writings reaffirm the words of the national revivalists regarding the importance of education and enlightenment, which would bring the nation out of spiritual darkness and small-​mindedness in the moral sense. Ferdinand Peroutka called him the last national revivalist, a character-​forming revivalist:26 ‘Culture, education is 21 Ibid. 22 In Karel Havlíček (1896) Masaryk acknowledges Havlíček’s critical democracy, which requires comprehensive education of the masses. He quotes Havlíček here: ‘Democracy means equality, equality of the entire nation, but today we observe many kinds of democrats, which is why we must show the kind that we are. There is a kind of Democrat who, in order to achieve equality, strives to get rid of everything that is higher, more educated, who tears everything down from the top; we do not belong and do not want to belong to this kind of democracy, which can be called the democracy of vulgarity. On the contrary, we want to achieve an equality where the lower can rise to a higher level, so that the uneducated can be educated and thus made equal with the educated’. Tomáš G. Masaryk, Karel Havlíček (Prague: Jan Laichter, 1920), 355. For more on Masaryk’s notion of democracy, see also Harold G. Skilling, ‘Champion of Democracy’, in idem., T. G. Masaryk (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1994), 19–​37. 23 Milan Machovec, Tomáš G. Masaryk (Prague: Československý spisovatel, 1968), 171. 24 Tomáš G. Masaryk, Problém malého národa [The problem of a small nation] (Prague: Čin, 1937), 15. 25 Masaryk, The Czech Question, 148. 26 Milan Znoj, ‘Masarykova kritika liberalismu a moderní doby’ [Masaryk’s criticism of liberalism and the modern age], Filosofický časopis 51/​1 (2003), 102.

The Czech Question as the Task of a Humanist Education

175

a powerful political force, is more permanent than the state, army, and economic power’.27 In his view, the worst proof of small-​mindedness is the loss of a sense of European culture and education. Masaryk considers the idea of humanity to be a national programme that will help the nation grow to freedom through education. The essence and aim of democracy is freedom in civic equality. Freedom is the opposite of slavery and a condition for openness, open criticism, and truthfulness: ‘Where there is freedom, people are honest, sincere and without falsehood’.28 Conversely, ‘the only weapon of a serf is treason’.29 Democracy is a reformist task that is never fully completed.30 Therefore, for Masaryk the growth of humanity goes hand in hand with the rise of democracy. And the opposite is also true: if humanity declines, democracy withers. Despite all the safeguards provided by constitutions and laws, the only true guarantee of democracy is the citizens’ level of education, imbued with moral maturity. Like Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–​1859), Masaryk also believed that the world was moving towards a democracy based on puritanism,31 and that democracy would eventually triumph over aristocracy and other undemocratic forms. Both Palacký and Masaryk gave a small nation a great idea when they emphasised that the meaning of Czech history reflected the development of the world towards freedom and democracy. Salvation could not be expected from mere national sovereignty but solely from morality and education. With this idea, the Czech nation gained self-​esteem and a sense of moral prowess.32 Masaryk soon realised that European and global politics must take precedence over local politicking. After all, it is from humanity that reciprocity and internationalism spring. In this spirit he formulated his conception of a new Europe, aimed at uniting nations in federation. Masaryk greatly admired the federalist principle embodied in the US and Swiss models. He saw in it a means

27 28

Karel Čapek, ‘Masaryk on Thought and Life. Conversations with Karel Čapek’, 175. Tomáš G. Masaryk, Cesta demokracie i [The road to democracy i], in Vojtěch Fejlek & Richard Vašek, Sebrané spisy T.G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. xxxiii (Prague: Masarykův ústav, 2003), 110. 29 Thomas G. Masaryk, The New Europe (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1972), 81. 30 Masaryk, The Making of a State, 391. 31 Jan Patočka, ‘Pokus o českou národní filosofii a jeho nezdar’ [Attempt at a Czech national philosophy and its failure], in Karel Palek & Ivan Chvatík, eds., Sebrané spisy Jana Patočky [Collected works of Jan Patočka], vol. xii: Češi i [Czechs i] (Prague: oikoymenh–​ Filosofia, 2006), 355. 32 Jiří Kovtun, Slovo má poslanec Masaryk [Deputy Masaryk has the floor] (Prague: Československý spisovatel, 1991), 28.

176 Prázný of obtaining the freedom of individual European nations and of confirming their sovereignty. 1

Education as a Political Matter

The nineteenth century has been called the ‘age of pedagogy’. People believed in the historical mission of education and the idea that progress was fostered by schooling and enlightenment. Reflecting the influence of the Enlightenment and faith in the progress of history, pedagogical issues became a focus of government policy. In this context, Masaryk was a historical optimist, and his emphasis on democracy as the realisation of the ideals of humanity was fundamentally bound up with the right of citizens to education. Like Empress Maria Theresa, Masaryk believed that schools were a political matter, and indeed the first and foremost instance of politics. The concept of education as an overriding interest of politics corresponded at the time to a general conviction drawn from both Herbartianism and Hegelianism. Masaryk worked with a concept of education that was peculiar to the German philosophical tradition, but he elaborated it in the context of Czech history and turned it into a political programme. Education was supposed to move from its own sphere not only towards politics but also towards transcendence. Because democracy presupposes educated citizens and the state’s interest in the educational formation of citizens, schooling cannot and must not be value-​ neutral. Masaryk speaks of political education, which represents the ‘pillar of democracy’. Masaryk’s view was that a politician is born from a scientist, teacher,33 or philosopher who interprets the meaning of Czech history as humanity leading to democracy. As Patočka remarks, Masaryk’s idea of the continuity of the Reformation and the Czech National Revival must be ‘interpreted not as a doctrine considering realities pro praeterito, but rather as a plan pro futuro’.34 Only the maintenance of this moral foundation could ensure that a Czech democratic state would come into existence as the culmination of the National Revival. 33

34

Masaryk’s teaching career is examined in detail by Jaroslav Opat in his book on Masaryk as a philosopher and politician. He writes: ‘Before Masaryk became the leader of the Czech and Slovak resistance during the war and then the first Czechoslovak president, he had already had a 35-​year career as a university professor’. Opat, Filozof a politik. T. G. Masaryk (1882–​1893), 129. Patočka, Dvě studie o Masarykovi …’., 355.

The Czech Question as the Task of a Humanist Education

177

Masaryk understood democracy in a broader philosophical, religious, and cultural context. For him, politics is a way to rectify human affairs, as Comenius understood rectification, and it is one of the areas in which a struggle is underway to create a new human being, one who acts and thinks democratically. As Masaryk saw it, this homo novus was to be formed against the background of the meaning of Czech history, which was also the struggle for the ideal of humanity. An optimistic view of upbringing and education was a prerequisite for such a vision. In this sense, Masaryk is the heir to Classical-​Christian-​ Enlightenment thought. At the time he could not have guessed that evil would take institutional form in Germany, in the form of Nazism, and eventually bring about the destruction of Czechoslovakia. It may well seem that in the spirit of the Enlightenment, Masaryk overestimated the role of education as a guarantee of democracy. Yet, he was aware of the potential danger arising from one-​sided rational education and warned against it in the treatise Suicide and the Meaning of Civilisation (1881). He repeatedly emphasised the need to cultivate feelings and conscience. Masaryk pursued his political vision in a broader cultural context. He belonged to the generation imbued, according to Karel Kramář, with ‘the democratic faith that no one would destroy the nation unless the nation destroyed itself through lack of culture, laziness, and apathy’.35 For Masaryk, the world of the school and university was an important tool in the fight against individual and national small-​mindedness. He saw universities in general as a realisation of the ideal of humanity, and thus as centres of the work of enlightenment and the consummation of Enlightenment ideals.36 At the same time, in his minor work Jak pracovat? (How to Work?) he criticises some of the abuses at universities and calls for the regeneration of higher education.37 The role of the university as a centre of enlightenment must be constantly reaffirmed through research and teaching that never rests on laurels of self-​satisfaction. It is precisely from this distinctive and independent university environment that the attack against small-​mindedness is to be led, through the advance of education and science. In Masaryk’s eyes, the Faculty of Philosophy was exceptionally important for the education of the people,38 and he welcomed the founding of the Czech University in Prague (1882) as 35 Kovtun, Slovo má poslanec Masaryk, 17. 36 Masaryk, The Czech Question, 114. 37 Tomáš G. Masaryk, How to work?, 158. 38 Tomáš G. Masaryk, Politika vědou a uměním (1911–​1914) [Politics as a science and art (1911–​1914)], in Jana Malínská, ed., Sebrané spisy T.G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. xxiix (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr and Ústav T.G. Masaryka, 2011), 335.

178 Prázný a way of lessening the influence of nationalist journalism on students and others.39 In his view, the nationalist agenda should be based on science (both natural and spiritual), as envisaged by Palacký. Respect for science should also be reflected in politics: ‘Even our politics, like everywhere else, must be founded on deeper and more universal cultural work, it must be the practical application of political and general education. And we still have not achieved this’.40 Only a politics that respects science, education, and ethics can become a global force capable of correcting the moral small-​mindedness of citizens. After he was elected to the Imperial Council for the Young Czechs (1891–​ 1893), Masaryk attempted to establish a second Czech university, not only to enable professors to conduct scientific work and scholarship but above all because ‘if we wish to have one perfect university, we must have a second’. At the same time, he immersed himself in the study of the Czech Revival and reflection on the development of the nation and its goals. Masaryk took the issue of schools and education seriously: he was aware of the university’s extraordinary position for the development of political culture and the building of democracy. His second parliamentary term (1907–​1914) was also marked by a concern for the freedom of science and universities, as well as for the struggle against injustice. Masaryk saw scientific knowledge as a means to rehabilitate a sense of the present and to promote realism as a new critical and academic movement. Realism was supposed to counter the historicism that he repeatedly condemned –​almost in the spirit of Nietzsche’s On the Use and Abuse of History for Life. Realism took issue with those who uncritically praised ancient times, losing any sense of the concrete present. Realism was intended as the basis for a literary revolution that would guide the entire nationalist agenda through an emphasis on literary, scientific, and philosophical education.41 Realism also involved a commitment to the natural and social sciences. In politics, realism was supposed to have social consequences. Masaryk’s concept of education is not defined in terms of specialisation: it is inseparably linked to humanity (social issues), ethics, science, and democracy. These are all areas in which education evolves, proves itself, and expands, but these areas are also themselves supported and cultivated by education. 39

Tomáš G. Masaryk, ‘Naše nynější krize’ [Our current crisis], in idem., Česká otázka, Naše nynější krize, Jan Hus [The Czech question. Our current crisis. Jan Hus], in Jiří Brabec, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. vi (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr and Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2000), 215. 40 Masaryk, The Czech Question, 127. 41 Masaryk, The Czech Question, 117.

The Czech Question as the Task of a Humanist Education

179

Masaryk sees education as half-​baked whenever it is alienated from these areas. He understands education as self-​education, the lifelong work on oneself in service to the whole. This work depends on discipline and requires mastery of a work method. Masaryk prescribes the work of self-​denial as medicine for modern person, a necessity that must be undergone on the road to true democracy and freedom. This work involves learning to suppress our egos, inclinations, and vanity. It guides us towards order, rules, laws, and morality in general, which only then affirm human freedom as responsibility. Even the love of one’s neighbour is work, in Masaryk’s view, in that it represents a certain kind of discipline. Humanity (humane behaviour) is the product of education, as well as its embodiment. Humanity is the ground of the right to education, and if education is to make any sense, it must be humanist. As a consequence, for Masaryk the purpose of nationalist aspirations and the Czech question is also the purpose and task of Czech education in general. As he sees it, humanist education is the essential feature of Czech identity. His conception of national history involves the claim that the question of humanity was present in Czech history from the end of the fourteenth century up to the eighteenth century.42 Science, in the broad sense of how a person acquires learning, was the way to seek truth about oneself and the world: ‘Even in politics the method of truth is the most practical’.43 A human being should make every effort to subject his or her life to truth, to apply the law of love. Masaryk regarded love not as sentimentality but rather as work on the self and on others, and as a moral struggle in which one progressively masters the distinction between faith and unbelief: ‘You do not understand Czech history if you do not personally understand that it is a moral and religious struggle and if you are not directly engaging your intellect and conscience in the fight of faith against unbelief, truth against lies, and humanity against selfishness and violence’.44 Masaryk’s primary political teacher was Plato,45 who like Comenius and Rousseau saw the roots of the school as ‘political instances’.46 In his apology for Plato, entitled Platón jako vlastenec (Plato as a Patriot, 1876), Masaryk argues

42 Masaryk, The Making of a State, 428. 43 Masaryk, The Making of a State, 393. 44 Josef L. Hromádka, Masaryk (Prague: ymca, 1930), 227. 45 Masaryk, The Making of a State, 291: ‘Plato was my first and chief political teacher’. 46 Tomáš G. Masaryk, O škole a vzdělání [On Schools and Education], with intr. by J. Cach (Prague: spn, 1990), 20.

180 Prázný that ‘the state must take the greatest care in the upbringing of its citizens’.47 This conviction stayed with him throughout his life. In The Making of a State (1927), he wrote: ‘Democracy relies upon science and upon all-​round education, for it is itself a constant striving for political education and for the education of the people’.48 In the 1913 article ‘The Difficulties of Democracy’, Masaryk wrote that the essence of democracy is atheocracy (anti-​theocracy), which he calls ‘anthropocracy’. Since the Enlightenment, democracy had relied on science and criticism, not theology. Democracy should thus be cultivated with the help of science, which holds a central position in education as the respect for facts verified by proper method and argumentation: Democracy, it has been said, is discussion; men are governed by arguments, not by an arbitrary will and violence; democracy today is not possible without science; democracy is the organisation of progress in all branches of human activity.49 New generations must be educated and brought up for democracy; institutions do not by themselves create democratic constitutions. […] Universal suffrage does not in itself guarantee democratic thinking; a true democrat will feel and act democratically everywhere, not only in parliament but in the community, in the party, among friends, in the family […] Today, the modern democrat must train and educate himself; […] Hence the battle for the school. Instilling democracy in others and oneself is difficult, democracy has its own considerable obstacles to overcome, it is not easy to tackle the democratic task.50 For Masaryk, education is connected with science in the broad sense. In this regard, he carries forward the notion of education developed particularly by the German Enlightenment, and by the Humboldtian idea of the university prevalent in Austria-​Hungary in his time, which was based on the unity of science and teaching. 47

Tomáš G. Masaryk, ‘Plató jako vlastenec’ [Plato as a Patriot], in idem., Juvenilie. Studie a stati 1876–​1881 [Juvenilia and texts, 1876–​1881], in Stanislav Polák, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. xvi (Prague: Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 1993), 37. 48 Masaryk, The Making of a State, 392. 49 Masaryk, The New Europe (The Slav Standpoint), 177. 50 Tomáš G. Masaryk, ‘Nesnáze democracie’ [Difficulties of democracy], in idem., Politika vědou a uměním (1911–​1914) [Politics as a science and art (1911–​1914)], in Jana Malínská, ed., Sebrané spisy T.G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. xxiix (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr and Ústav T.G. Masaryka, 2011), 319.

The Czech Question as the Task of a Humanist Education

181

Masaryk attaches great importance to the natural and spiritual sciences: philosophy was supposed to deepen general education. General education was counterposed to specialisation and intended to immunise it against the dilettantism that always threatens specialisation when it turns away from humanity. As the core of Masaryk’s democracy, humanity requires general education. In Masaryk’s thinking about the state, education and science become the prerequisites for democracy. Moreover, Masaryk democratised the programme of science, and thus of philosophy:51 ‘Criticism, therefore, is a determinant, not of knowledge alone, but also of democratic equality and liberty’.52 Without criticism, without the public, there is no democracy. Thus, it is entirely fitting that the age of democracy has become known as the age of discussion. 2

The Reciprocity of Transcendence and the Everyday as the Cornerstone of Humanity

Masaryk’s concept of humanity (and democracy) is based on a transcendent reality. His thought and action derive from an ethical foundation in which he himself was strengthened by his faith in the immortality of the soul and a personal God.53 Yet for Masaryk religion was more about his faith in the former than belief in the latter in the common sense. The fact that religion elevates a person (often even through humiliation) helps us to overcome fear. In Suicide and the Meaning of Civilization, Masaryk quotes De Tocqueville’s statement that ‘despotism may always govern without religion, but freedom cannot’.54 Masaryk’s well-​known motto, sub specie aeternitatis, which refers to the New Testament theme of life before the face of God, provided him with a way of anchoring daily life in transcendence and also of characterising the enduring position of the individual vis-​à-​vis the state and nation as instruments of this metaphysical vision. All of this explains Masaryk’s critique of liberalism, especially its emphasis on economics. He is not merely moralising, for moralising is something that he successfully avoided. As he conceived it, humanity includes both the

51

Jan B. Kozák, Masaryk jako ethik a náboženský myslitel [Masaryk as an ethicist and religious thinker] (Prague: Slovanský ústav, 1931), 37. 52 Masaryk, The Spirit of Russia ii (London: George Allen, 1961), 512. 53 Masaryk said to František Žilka: ‘Apparently it would be much more convenient for him to compare God to a friend, helper or collaborator than to a Father’. Cited according to Hromádka, Masaryk, 133. 54 Masaryk, Suicide and the Meaning of Civilization, 209.

182 Prázný mundane and the transcendent. Mere immersion in everyday life without transcendence, i.e., devoid of any relationship to ideas, is precisely what leads people into crisis: ‘Without convictions and ideas, you will not be valiant. Even a weaker person, given an idea and a certain goal, can be strong and valiant when faced with danger’.55 According to Masaryk, modern people find themselves in a moral crisis. He believed that morality is the ability of the will to choose the good. Morality is founded on emotion, but the path to morality must be illuminated by reason. This is not the Kantian notion of the categorical imperative, which Masaryk believes misses the mark.56 Masaryk’s ideal of a moral life is Jesus, whose ethics were based on love for his fellow human beings, expressed in a willingness to serve others. Masaryk himself was exemplary in encouraging service to others and to the nation, which became such a feature of Czechoslovak society during the 1920s. Masaryk presents a solution to the social crisis in Suicide and the Meaning of Civilization, which his literary secretary, Vasil K. Škrach, described as the key to understanding his work.57 Here, the question of religion emerges as fundamental in the context of education, a theme that would accompany Masaryk throughout his life. He argues that suicide in the modern age arises from lack of religion and inadequate education. Only a revival of piety and the transformation of education can eliminate suicide, and this necessarily involves turning away from excessive subjectivism: We must step outside ourselves. We must stop grubbing in our innards and cease to use our understanding as the executioner of our hearts. We must find interests in the external world and in society. We must learn to give of ourselves: we lack true and genuine love. Certainly we believe that we are able to love, that we are capable of the most delicate feelings, but that is not true. Morbid sentimentality is not identical with true, genuine, warm, vital, and original feeling.58

55 Masaryk, Cesta demokracie, 93. 56 Jan Svoboda, ‘Masaryk a Kant. Vliv Brentanovy kritiky, souvislost s Masarykovou reakcí na mysticismus v ruském myšlení’ [Masaryk and Kant. The influence of Brentano’s critique, connection with Masaryk’s reaction to mysticism in Russian thought], Filosofický časopis 57/​4 (2009), 523–​554. 57 Jindřich Srovnal, editorial note, in Jiří Srovnal, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. i (Prague: Ústav T. G. Masaryka, Prague 1998), 200. 58 Masaryk, Suicide and the Meaning of Civilization, 223.

The Czech Question as the Task of a Humanist Education

183

The crisis manifests as moral weakness and can be countered by people developing their ability to work on their thoughts and emotions. Jesus is a teacher not only of the mind but also of the emotions. Masaryk considers education focused on mere reason to be the wrong path. The human being needs to be understood through a creative and critical synthesis, for we are dealing with ‘a whole person, as a being that thinks, feels, and acts’.59 The way out of the crisis is in line with Masaryk’s notion of democracy. The motto with which he ends both The New Europe and The Making of a State –​‘Jesus, not Caesar!’ –​is essentially an expression of the meaning of both Czech history and democracy.60 In 1933, in the introduction to his collected post-​war speeches, Masaryk wrote: ‘The president, like every citizen, is bound by the democratic words of Jesus: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all’.61 The source of moral strength is religion, which Masaryk seeks to save from mere formalism and superstition by highlighting its ethical dimension. He wants to cleanse it of ‘priestly scribblings’ and speaks of a humanity grounded in religion. He sees humanity itself as a newer iteration of the commandment to love thy neighbour.62 Masaryk repeatedly reminds us that the teacher of humanity is Jesus, whom he does not understand in supernatural terms. Masaryk emphasises the ethical dimension of Jesus over the mystical and supernatural. Although Masaryk seems to have viewed God as more of a philosophical concept, he believed in a personal God and in God’s plans for the world. However, he rejected revealed religion as myth. For him, religion was a human activity. In this sense, Masaryk was a man of the Enlightenment, who put too much faith in humankind and in human willingness to open up to a life of truth. In this respect he differed fundamentally from the Christian reformers. Masaryk believed that politics should be built on a foundation of scientific sociology, tasked with identifying the plan of Providence in history. For Providence to govern history requires that a person accept the position of servant in relation to the absolute. Thus, Masaryk’s conception of politics and humanity paradoxically introduces service to the absolute into the life of the

59 Masaryk, Moderní člověk a náboženství [Modern man and religion], in Jan Zouhar, Helena Pavlincová & Jiří Gabriel, Spisy T.G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. viii (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr & Ústav T. G. Masaryka, Prague 2000), 118. 60 Masaryk, The Making of a State, 404, 441. 61 Masaryk, Cesta demokracie, vii. 62 ‘The ethical basis of all politics is humanity, and humanity is an international program. It is a new word for the old love of our fellow-​men’ (Masaryk, The Making of a State, 407).

184 Prázný individual as the basis of his ethics. For Masaryk, the eternal cannot be indifferent. Today, the Masarykian tradition is in decline. But what does this mean for humanism and education? Have humanism and education become nothing more than the outmoded ideologies of the past?

Bibliography

Bednář, Miloslav, ‘První světová válka jako výraz duchovní a mravní krize moderního lidství’ [The First World War as an expression of the spiritual and moral crisis of modern humanity], in Jaroslav Opat, ed., První světová válka, moderní demokracie a T. G. Masaryk [The First World War, modern democracy, and T.G. Masaryk] (Prague: Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 1995). Čapek, Karel, ‘Masaryk on Thought and Life. Conversations with Karel Čapek’, tr. Marie & Robert Weatherall (London: Allen & Unwin, 1938), 175. Hejdánek, Ladislav, ‘Patočkovo kritické vidění Masaryka’ [Patočka’s critical view of Masaryk], Reflexe 5–​6 (1992), 4–​15. Hromádka, Josef L., Masaryk (Prague: ymca, 1930). Kaizl, Josef, České myšlénky [Czech thoughts] (Prague: E. Beaufort, 1896). Kohák, Erazim, ‘T. G. Masaryk a naše národní totožnost’ [Masaryk and our national identity], Filosofický časopis 48/​2 (2000). Komárková, Božena, Původ a význam lidských práv [The origin and significance of human rights] (Zurich: Cramerius, 1986). Kovtun, Jiří, Slovo má poslanec Masaryk [Deputy Masaryk has the floor] (Prague: Československý spisovatel, 1991). Kozák, Jan B., Masaryk jako ethik a náboženský myslitel [Masaryk as an ethicist and religious thinker] (Prague: Slovanský ústav, 1931). Machovec, Milan, Tomáš G. Masaryk (Prague: Československý spisovatel, 1968). Masaryk, Tomáš G., ‘Naše nynější krize’ [Our current crisis], in Tomáš G. Masaryk, Česká otázka, Naše nynější krize, Jan Hus [The Czech question. Our current crisis. Jan Hus], in Jiří Brabec, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. vi (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr and Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2000). Masaryk, Tomáš G., ‘Česká otázka. Snahy a tužby národního obrození’ [The Czech question. The aims and desires of the national revival], in Tomáš G. Masaryk, Česká otázka, Naše nynější krize, Jan Hus [The Czech Question. Our current crisis. Jan Hus], in Jiří Brabec, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. vi (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr, 2000), 11–​169. Masaryk, Tomáš G., ‘Nesnáze demokracie’ [Difficulties of democracy], in Tomáš G. Masaryk, Politika vědou a uměním (1911–​1914) [Politics as a science and art (1911–​1914)],

The Czech Question as the Task of a Humanist Education

185

in Malínská, Jana, ed., Sebrané spisy T.G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. xxiix (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr and Ústav T.G. Masaryka, 2011). Masaryk, Tomáš G., ‘Plató jako vlastenec’ [Plato as a patriot], in Tomáš G. Masaryk, Juvenilie. Studie a stati 1876–​1881 [Juvenilia and texts, 1876–​1881], in Stanislav Polák, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. xvi (Prague: Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 1993). Masaryk, Tomáš G., Cesta demokracie i [The road to democracy], in Vojtěch Fejlek & Richard Vašek, Sebrané spisy T.G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. xxxiii (Prague: Masarykův ústav, 2003). Masaryk, Tomáš G., Ideály humanitní. Problém malého národa –​Demokratism v politice [Humanist ideals. The problem of a small nation –​Democratism in politics] (Prague: Melantrich, 1990). Masaryk, Thomas G., The Ideals of Humanity and How to Work, tr. W. Preston Warren Marie & J. Kohn-​Holoček, London George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1938. Masaryk, Tomáš G., Karel Havlíček (Prague: Jan Laichter, 1920). Masaryk, Tomáš G., Moderní člověk a náboženství [Modern man and religion], in Jan Zouhar, Helena Pavlincová & Jiří Gabriel, Spisy T.G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. viii (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr, & Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2000). Masaryk, Tomáš G., O škole a vzdělání [On Schools and Education], with intr. by J. Cach (Prague: spn, 1990). Masaryk, Tomáš G., Palackého idea národa českého [Palacký’s idea of the Czech nation] (Prague: Čin, 1947). Masaryk, Tomáš G., Politika vědou a uměním (1911–​1914) [Politics as a science and art (1911–​1914)], in Jana Malínská, ed., Sebrané spisy T.G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. xxiix (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr and Ústav T.G. Masaryka, 2011). Masaryk, Tomáš G., Problém malého národa [The problem of a small nation] (Prague: Čin, 1937). Masaryk, Thomas G., Suicide and the Meaning of Civilization, tr. William B. Weist & Robert G. Batson, intr. Anthony Giddens (Chicago–​London: University of Chicago Press, 1970). Masaryk, Thomas G., The Making of a State. Memories and Observations 1914–​1918, tr. Henry Wickham Steed (London: Allen & Unwin, 1927). Masaryk, Thomas G., The New Europe (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1972). Masaryk, Thomas G., The Spirit of Russia ii (London: George. Allen, 1961). Opat, Jaroslav, Filozof a politik. T. G. Masaryk (1882–​1893) [Philosopher and Politician, T.G. Masaryk (1882–​1893)] (Prague: Melantrich, 1990). Opat, Jaroslav, ‘Potíže s T.G. Masarykem’ [The problems with T.G. Masaryk], Filosofický časopis 48 (2000), 185–​210.

186 Prázný Palacký, František, Idea státu rakouského [The idea of an Austrian state] (1st newspaper edition 1865, 2nd edn., Prague: Ottovo nakladatelství, 1907). Patočka, Jan, ‘Dvě studie o Masarykovi. Pokus o českou národní filosofii a jeho nezdar’ [Two studies of Masaryk. An attempt at a Czech national philosophy and its failure], in Karel Pálek & Ivan Chvatík, eds., Sebrané spisy Jana Patočky [Collected works of Jan Patočka], vol. xii: Češi i [Czechs i] (Prague: oikoymenh–​Filosofia, 2006). Patočka, Jan, ‘Dvojí rozum a příroda v německém osvícenství’ [Two senses of reason and nature in German Enlightenment], in Daniel Vojěch and Ivan Chvatík, Sebrané spisy Jana Patočky [Collected works of Jan Patočka], vol. iv: Umění a čas [Art and time], part i (Prague: oikoymenh, 2004). Patočka, Jan, ‘Myšlenka vzdělanosti a její dnešní aktuálnost’ [The idea of education and its current relevance], in Daniel Vojěch and Ivan Chvatík, Sebrané spisy Jana Patočky [Collected works of Jan Patočka], vol. iv: Umění a čas [Art and time], part i (Prague: oikoymenh, 2004). Patočka, Jan, ‘Pokus o českou národní filosofii a jeho nezdar’ [Attempt at a Czech national philosophy and its failure], in Karel Palek & Ivan Chvatík, eds., Sebrané spisy Jana Patočky [Collected works of Jan Patočka], vol. xii: Češi i [Czechs i] (Prague: oikoymenh–​Filosofia, 2006), 341–​365. Pekař, Josef, O smyslu českých dějin [On the meaning of Czech history] (Prague: Leda, 2013). Skilling, Harold G., ‘Champion of Democracy’, in Harold G. Skilling, T. G. Masaryk (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1994), 19–​37. Srovnal, Jiří, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. i (Prague: Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 1998). Svoboda, Jan, ‘Masaryk a Kant. Vliv Brentanovy kritiky, souvislost s Masarykovou reakcí na mysticismus v ruském myšlení’ [Masaryk and Kant. The influence of Brentano’s critique, connection with Masaryk’s reaction to mysticism in Russian thought], Filosofický časopis 57/​4 (2009), 523–​554. Znoj, Milan, ‘Masarykova kritika liberalismu a moderní doby’ [Masaryk’s criticism of liberalism and the Modern Age], Filosofický časopis 51/​1 (2003). Zumr, Josef, ‘Masarykovy filozofické zdroje’ [Masaryk’s philosophical sources], Slovo a smysl. Časopis pro mezioborová bohemistická studia 08/​26/​2014, http://​slov​oasm​ysl .ff.cuni.cz/​node/​143 (accessed on 5 November 2021). Zumr, Josef, ‘Patočka a Masaryk’ [Patočka and Masaryk], Filosofický časopis 39/​3 (1991), 448–​455. Zumr, Josef, ‘Prof. Pekař opravdu o historickém vývoji nemá potuchy’ [Professor Pekař really has no idea about historical development], in Eva Broklová, ed., Sto let Masarykovy České otázky (1895–​1995) [One hundred years of Masaryk’s Czech Question (1895–​1995)] (Prague: Ústav T.G. Masaryka), 59–​65.

pa rt 4 The Anti-​Masaryk View of the Czech Question

∵

­c hapter 11

Masaryk’s Philosophy of Czech History from the Perspective of Popper’s Critique of Historicism Otakar A. Funda Abstract Funda considers Masaryk’s philosophy of the meaning of Czech history from the position of Popper’s later critique of all historicism and messianism, be it the Abrahamic messianism of God’s chosen people, the culmination of history in Christian eschatology, or the secularised fiction of history’s happy ending touted mainly by totalitarian regimes. Although Funda himself admits that one may speak of a certain intended direction of short historical periods, he understands history and human life as a movement, a process of events: they are a complexity of complementary components in correlation, continuity, and context.

The ideas of Masaryk were a theme of my youth, the topic of the dissertation I wrote in German in Basel in 1966–​1970, which was later published as a book by Petr Lang Publishers in 1978.1 I have not relinquished my respect for Masaryk now late in life, but I do have questions about his thought and political practices that I did not ask before.2 One such question is about Masaryk’s philosophy of the meaning of Czech history.

1 Otakar A. Funda, Thomas Garrigue Masaryk, sein philosophisches, religiöses und politisches Denken (Bern–​Frankfurt–​Las Vegas: Petr Lang, 1978). 2 Otakar A. Funda, ‘Otevřené problémy Masarykova myšlení a politické praxe’ [Open problems in Masaryk’s thought and political practice] in Vratislav Doubek & Dagmar Hájková, eds., Život plný neklidu. Sborník k devadesátinám historika Jaroslava Opata [Life full of restlessness. An anthology for the 90th birth of historian Jaroslav Opat] (Prague: Masarykův ústav and Archiv av čr, 2014), 22–​29.

© Otakar A. Funda, 2023 | DOI:10.1163/9789004534919_013

190 Funda 1

The Intentional Continuity in Masaryk’s Meaning of Czech History

In the dissertation I wrote in Basel in 1970, I argued –​and I have repeated this since 19903 –​that although there is no continuity in the content or substance of the individual stages of Czech history, Masaryk’s proposition that ‘the Czech question is a religious question’ (religious in a moral sense) should be understood as a kind of intentional continuity within Czech history. Critics of Masaryk’s notion of the meaning of Czech history are certainly correct in the view that there is no continuity between different periods of Czech history in terms of their content or what they were about.4 Hus was concerned with one thing, the Hussites with something else. What history was about during the Estates uprising in 1618, the Enlightenment, the National Revival, or the political struggles of the nineteenth century, was in each case different. Historian Josef Pekař was certainly correct when he said that a Hussite woman would have been after both Palacký and Masaryk with a pitchfork for their liberal views, which were incompatible with the Christian faith and at odds with the traditional beliefs of Christians in the Middle Ages.5 Josef Kaizl,6 a liberal economist, Ferdinand Peroutka7 (1895–​1978), a writer and journalist, and, more recently, in our time, Petr Čornej,8 a historian, all correctly noted that early

3 Cf. Otakar A. Funda, ‘Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk’, Filosofický časopis 47/​1 (1999), 69–​81. See also idem., ‘Masarykovo náboženské myšlení’ [Masaryk’s religious thought], Filosofický časopis 38/​4 (1990), 441–​449; and idem., ‘Náboženství –​téma, které Masaryk odkázal české filosofii’ [Religion –​a theme that Masaryk bequeathed to Czech philosophy], Filosofický časopis 48/​2 (2000), 211–​225. 4 The main opponents of Masaryk’s conception of the meaning of Czech history were historian Josef Pekař (1870–​1837) and the liberal economist Josef Kaizl (1854–​1901). In Miloš Havelka, Spor o smysl českých dějin [The Dispute on the Meaning of Czech History], vol. i: 1895–​1938 (Prague: Torst, 1995). 5 Josef Pekař, O smyslu českých dějin [On the meaning of Czech history] (Praha: Rozmluvy, 1990). Also Milan Hauner, ‘The Meaning of Czech History: Masaryk versus Pekař’, in Harry Hanak, ed., T. G. Masaryk (1850–​1937), vol. iii: Statesman and Cultural Force (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1990), 24ff. 6 Josef Kaizl, ‘České myšlenky’ [Czech thoughts], in Havelka, Spor o smysl českých dějin i, 47–​ 97. Cited and commented on also by František Koukolík, Češi: proč jsme, kdo jsme –​a jak dál [Czechs: Why we are, who we are –​and what to do next] (Prague: Galén, 2015), 331–​347. 7 Ferdinand Peroutka, Jací jsme [What kind of people we are] (Prague: Středočeské nakladatelství a knihkupectví, 1991), 71–​76. 8 See also Petr Čornej, ‘Tábor je náš program (Masarykova návštěva v Táboře 25. března 1920)’ [Tábor is our programme (Masaryk’s visit to Tábor on 25 March 1920)], Státní okresní archív v Táboře, vol. xv (Tábor, 2011), 31–​46. In connection with this text by Petr Čornej I would like to note that Čornej responds to a key statement in Masaryk’s speech in Tábor titled ‘Tábor is our programme’ by citing Josef Pekař, who said ‘Tábor cannot be our programme’.

Masaryk’s Philosophy of Czech History and Popper

191

modern Czech history was characterised by a struggle for something other than the concerns of Hussite theology and the Unity of the Czech Brethren in its early stages, as those early modern struggles were based on modern liberal-​ democratic ideas, which were completely incompatible with the religious beliefs and chiliasm of the Hussite theologists and with a world that embraced the morality espoused by the Czech Brethren. However, if, like Masaryk, we do not interpret religion in a narrow and specific sense as referring to some kind of religious conviction and supernatural ideas and beliefs, and if we understand it instead in the general sense as a devotion to something that a person holds sacred, what we can see in different stages of Czech history is the existence of a sacred devotion to something that in light of the authenticity of its moral claim seemed to be the truth of that time, although the specific content or substance of that truth differed in each period. In the fifteenth century Jan Hus and subsequently the Hussite theologians turned to the Catholic Church, the ruling universal church in Europe, and enjoined it to take seriously its vow of poverty, its criticism of wealth, and its service to others, since it claimed to be following Christ. In the modern era, it was with the same moral pathos that Masaryk championed the idea of humanity and democracy. The humanist Marxists in the 1960s in Czechoslovakia likewise called on the representatives of the communist regime to get serious about the idea of socialism, a fundamental part of which was humanity with a human face. Therefore, although Masaryk’s philosophy of Czech history cannot be defended as an assertion of continuity in the content or substance of that history, it can in the sense of a claim of continuity of intention. The substance of Jan Hus’s efforts differed from that of the radicalism of the Hussite theologians. The uprising of the Czech Estates in 1618–​1620 against the onset of Habsburg and Jesuit re-​catholicisation was centred on an issue different from the one that fired the resistance of the Hussite armies to the onslaught of the Crusaders. The Estates uprising was driven by the early modern idea of a state founded on the Czech Estates, an idea that was nourished by the ideals of Renaissance humanism, which the mediaeval Hussites knew nothing about. It is difficult to speak of direct religious continuity between 1420 and 1620, but if we consider the matter from the point of view of intention, a certain continuity can indeed be discerned. There were all sorts of diverse ideas and disparate viewpoints behind the Hussite wars; Czech Utraquism was the one that emerged victorious as the principle on which to base a state; when Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand I was elected King of Bohemia in 1526 he pledged to respect it, and it was fully recognised in the Letter of Majesty issued by Rudolf ii in 1609; the defence of the religious freedoms that the Utraquists had

192 Funda obtained in the Letter of Majesty is what eventually led to the Estates uprising in 1618. Considering the chain of events, therefore, we might say that despite all the differences, the uprising was a defence of a conception of Christianity that originally began with Jan Hus and the Hussite theologians’ dispute with the Church of Rome. The Hussite struggle and the Estates uprising, while different, were connected by the same ‘intention’, namely, the pursuit of freedom. In one case it was about the freedom to preach the Word of God as a tool with which to reform the degenerate Church of Rome, and in the other case it was again about religious freedom, but in the sense of ensuring the respect for the Compacts of Basel and the Czech Utraquist Church (of Bohemia) that Ferdinand I had promised the Bohemian Diet he would show when he was elected. In this sense it can be said that between 1420 and 1620 Czech history was driven by a religious question and the players in this history were aware of this connection. On the other hand, the same cannot be said of periods in Czech history before or after that time. This, I believe, is where Masaryk erred when he said that the Czech question was a religious question. It was not a religious idea that underpinned the goals of the Czech Enlightenment and then the National Revival and the Czech political struggle in the nineteenth century. Instead it was the Enlightenment ideas of liberty, reason, and natural law, followed by the Romantic cult of the nation, and then the modern liberal idea of freedom and human dignity, which included the right to a national language and national political self-​determination. All the same, it cannot be ignored that many religiously motivated figures were involved in the efforts of the Czech National Revival, whether it was patriotic Catholic priests, or, from the evangelical side, figures such as Ján Kollár (1793–​ 1852), Pavel Josef Šafařík (1795–​1861), and František Palacký (1798–​1876), who were all aware of the famous era of Czech history between 1420 and 1620. Palacký’s plan for asserting the Czech state’s historical right to self-​ determination within the frame of the Habsburg Monarchy evolved into Masaryk’s modified plan for an independent state of Czechoslovakia. The members of the National Revival movement and later on Czech politicians drawing on the ideas of liberal freedoms drew attention –​on more than one occasion and irrespective of their own religious affiliation –​to great figures and events in Czech history –​most notably Hus, the Bible of Kralice (Bible kralická), which was the Unity of the Brethren’s translation of the Bible produced under the protection of some leading Czech aristocrats with this religious affiliation, and, unanimously, Jan Amos Komenský (Comenius). Moreover, they shone a light on these figures not just for their contributions to the Czech language but also to highlight the religious struggles in which they were engaged, which were as much moral and political struggles.

Masaryk’s Philosophy of Czech History and Popper

193

I shall therefore reiterate the argument I made in my Basel thesis:9 Although we cannot unreservedly accept Masaryk’s proposition that there is continuity in the substance of the meaning of Czech history and that the ‘Czech question is a religious question’, his proposition can and should be reinterpreted as correct in the sense that an intentional continuity can be found in Czech history and it is represented by the continuous moral pursuit of truth, law, and justice, despite the fact that the content or substance of the truth that was being pursued differed in different periods. We must also, moreover, recognise that for Masaryk the religious question was not a question of religious doctrine and dogma but rather, as he often said himself, a question of morality. When Masaryk said that the Czech question was a religious question, he was not talking about a continuity of religious doctrine but about the continuity of a moral claim. Hence I would maintain that, despite the legitimacy of the criticisms directed at Masaryk’s Česká otázka (‘The Czech Question’),10 it is necessary to underscore the continuity of the moral intention observed in considerably or even completely different struggles that have occurred in Czech history. What we cannot accept, however, is that element of messianism that Masaryk associated with the history of the Czech nation. Switzerland, Germany, and Holland all had their own great periods of religious reformation as well, and yet it cannot be said that religion is the constitutive idea and meaning of the history of these nations, even though the Reformation significantly shaped their history and the history of Europe. The history of every nation consists of multiple traditions and even of traditions that are rather disparate and conflicting. All a nation can do is to try to integrate these traditions into a certain pluralist co-​existence. Czech history is not just about Hussitism and the Unity of Brethren, it is also about the tradition of St Wenceslas, the tradition of Czech statehood in the time of the last Přemyslids, the great feat of state-​building accomplished by Czech King and Holy Roman Emperor Charles iv, and, following episodes of division during the Hussite wars, the state-​building efforts of George of Poděbrady, on which the Utraquist factions of the Bohemian Estates who formed the majority in the land built. What is more, when pursuing the very problematic inquiry into what allegedly constitutes the unifying meaning of Czech history, we must, like it or not, also include phenomena that the once Protestant majority of the Czech nation in the sixteenth century viewed with hostility. By this I mean the 9 10

See Funda, Thomas Garrigue Masaryk …, 193–​200. Tomáš G. Masaryk, Česká otázka, Naše nynější krize, Jan Hus [The Czech question. Our current crisis. Jan Hus], in Jiří Brabec, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. vi (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr and Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2000).

194 Funda anti-​Reformation, which turned the minority Catholic segment of the Czech nation into the majority again. The baroque tradition is also a part of Czech national identity, as is the Enlightenment tradition, free of any religious considerations (although there was also a non-​atheist variant of the Enlightenment). But the Enlightenment was sustained by ideas other than religious ones, and the national awakening in the nineteenth century and the largely atheistic humanist liberalism of the second half of the nineteenth and the start of the twentieth century turned away from the issue of religion altogether. It is therefore impossible to speak of any unifying idea behind the Czech question or of any continuity to the meaning of Czech history. Moreover, even though Masaryk spoke of a ‘Czechoslovak’ nation –​based on the Swiss and American concepts of the nation as a community united by a common programme and not by blood or language –​and created the Czechoslovak Republic, it is not possible to make Czech history the sole idea underpinning a state that was not solely comprised of the Czech nation. When Masaryk says that the Czech question is a religious question, this does not just mean that he sees the religious struggle of the Czech Reformation as a continuous line that weaves its way like a red thread through Czech history; it is rather that he believes the question of meaning to have a religious anchoring. When talking about the question of meaning, Masaryk is not talking about significance, about some action that matters to us in the here and now, but instead he ties it to a kind of imperative of meaningfulness, something of larger significance or consequence, and he finds this imperative fulfilled by rational theism. Masaryk wrote that, ‘Without faith in Providence, without faith in the order of the universe, I could not live, let along work on behalf of society’.11 Masaryk drew the theological argument that the idea of life and a world in which there is a God is more rational that an idea of life and a world with no God from his Viennese teacher, the philosopher Franz Brentano, a priest excommunicated from the church who spoke in the Aristotelian discourse of aitia and telos. Everything has its cause and its purpose. A cause implies a purpose, and the purpose is implicated in the cause. Thomas Aquinas had already recognised the usefulness of Aristotle’s schema for Christian theology and ‘baptised’ Aristotle. Masaryk diagnosed the crisis of the modern era in his text on suicide within this frame of reference defined by Brentano. When there is no longer any meaning, when there is no longer any belief in God as a guarantee of the ultimate meaning, this, according to Masaryk, leads to nihilism and suicide. Masaryk 11

Emil Ludwig, Duch a čin [Spirit and deed] (Prague: Čin, 1935), 228.

Masaryk’s Philosophy of Czech History and Popper

195

argues in favour of a belief in God in the same way that in more recent times the prominent Catholic theologian Hans Küng, who lost his papal imprimatur, has argued. Masaryk considered the question of meaning and the promise of ultimate meaning being found in God to be constitutive for human life. Küng’s argument is that it is reasonable to hypothesise the existence of God because then the reality of the world and of human life is not without a reason and it unfolds towards a final purpose and ultimate meaning. The idea that humans do not pass on into nothingness but into meaning, to God, into the final reality, seems to Küng to be the most reasonable of all reasonable things.12 This game that there is some ultimate meaning without which it is supposedly impossible to live or to work is often deployed by priests and pastors as an argument in favour of religion. Personally, I call this type of argumentation religious reductionism. It is a reduction that immunises itself and suspends any other possible alternatives. Yet there are other alternatives in life to the stark choice of God or nothingness, or ‘God’ or ‘the rope’s end’,13 as Masaryk summed up the problem. 2

Patočka’s Criticism of Masaryk’s Philosophy of the Meaning of Czech History

Before I proceed to look at Popper’s rejection of the idea that history has meaning and that there is some ultimate meaning that can be assigned to any historical outcome, and before I make the anachronistic attempt to examine Masaryk’s concept of the meaning of Czech history in the light of Popper’s criticism, seventy years later, of all historicism, messianism, and every notion of history having meaning, I will dwell briefly on Patočka’s perspective on the philosophy of history and his criticism of Masaryk’s philosophy of Czech history. Patočka put forward one of the most penetrating critiques of Masaryk’s philosophy and Česká otázka (‘The Czech Question’) and showed a deep understanding of Masaryk’s purpose. We could devote a whole separate chapter to Patočka’s treatment of the subject, and it would by no means be short. This is something that could be dealt with in another thorough study. Jan Patočka addressed the question of the philosophy of history as a young man in two texts that he wrote on the philosophy of history (1934,14 12 13 14

Hans Küng, Christ sein (Munich–​Zurich: Piper, 1974), 61–​63. Hans Küng, On Being a Christian, tr. Edward Quinn (New York: Doubleday & Co., 1974). Thomas G. Masaryk, Modern Man and Religion, tr. Ann Bibza & Václav Beneš, rev. tr. Harriette E. Kennedy (London: Allen & Unwin, 1938), 49. Jan Patočka, ‘Několik poznámek k podnětům dějin a dějepisu’ [A few remarks on inspirations from history and historiography] in Ivan Chvatík & Pavel Kouba, eds., Sebrané

196 Funda 1935),15 only to return to the problem forty years later in Kacířských esejích o filosofii dějin (Heretical Essays in the Philosophy of History, from 1975).16 He critiqued Masaryk’s philosophy of Czech history in a text titled ‘An Attempt at a Czech National Philosophy and Its Failure’, which he wrote at the start of the 1970s. This text was published alongside ‘Dvěma studiemi o Masarykovi’ (Two Studies on Masaryk) from 1976 in a volume in 1991 titled Tři studie o Masarykovi (Three Studies on Masaryk).17 What many interpreters of Masaryk consider a certain virtue of his philosophy, most recently among them Emanuel Rádl,18 but Milan Machovec as well,19 is his attempt at a dialectic polarity or even a synthesis of the themes of three originally very different and in fact contradictory principles: Platonism, rational theism, and positivism-​criticism. Patočka criticises Masaryk’s philosophy for this synthetic ‘half-​heartedness’ –​paradoxically the same Masaryk who had criticised the Czechs for ‘half-​heartedness’ –​and deems it ‘disintegrated’, ‘ambiguous’, and ‘irresolute’, because for Patočka the gap between the

15

16 17

18

19

spisy Jana Patočky [Collected writings of Jan Patočka], vol. i: Péče o duši [Care of the soul] (Prague: oikoymenh, 1996), 35–​45. Jan Patočka, ‘Několik poznámek k pojmu “světových dějin”’ [A few remarks on the concept of “world history”], in Ivan Chvatík & Pavel Kouba, eds., Sebrané spisy Jana Patočky [Collected writings of Jan Patočka], vol. i: Péče o duši [Care of the soul] (Prague: ­o ikoymenh, 1996), 46–​57. In German: Jan Patočka, ‘Zum Begriff der Weltgeschichte’, tr. J. Stárková, in idem., Ketzerische Essais zur Philosophie der Geschichte und ergenzende Schriften, eds. Klaus Nellen & Jiří Němec (Stuttgart: Klett-​Cotta, 1988), 331–​345. Jan Patočka, Heretical Essays in the Philosophy of History, tr. Erazim Kohák, ed. James Dodd, preface Paul Ricœur (Chicago–​La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1996). Jan Patočka, Tři studie o Masarykovi [Three studies on Masaryk], eds. Ivan Chvatík & Pavel Kouba (Prague: Mladá fronta –​Váhy, 1991); reprinted in Jan Patočka, Jan, Češi i [Czechs i], in Karel Palek & Ivan Chvatík, eds., Sebrané spisy Jana Patočky [Collected writings of Jan Patočka], vol. xii (Prague: oikoymenh, 2006). In English: Jan Patočka, ‘Spiritual Crisis of European Humanity in Husserl and Masaryk’, tr. Erazim Kohák, in On Masaryk, ed. Josef Novák (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1988), 97–​109; 2nd edition published under the title ‘Masaryk’s and Husserl’s Conception of the Spiritual Crisis of European Humanity’, in Jan Patočka: Philosophy and Selected Writings, ed. Erazim Kohák (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1989), 145–​155. Jan Patočka, ‘An Attempt at a Czech National Philosophy and Its Failure’, in T. G. Masaryk in Perspective. Comments and Criticism, eds. M. Čapek and K. Hrubý, tr. M. Suino (New York: svu Press, 1981), 1–​22. See Emanuel Rádl on T.G. Masaryk in Od Platona k dnešku. Vývoj filosofie v jejích velkých představitelích [From Plato to the Present. The development of philosophy in its great practitioners], original American title The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant, tr. V. J. Hauner and H. Sýkora, Czech edn revised by Emanuel Rádl (Prague: Sfinx Bohumila Jandy, 1937). Milan Machovec, Tomáš G. Masaryk (Prague: Melantrich, 1968), esp. 46–​57.

Masaryk’s Philosophy of Czech History and Popper

197

philosophy of being on one side and Comte’s positivism and Mill’s ethical empiricism on the other was unbridgeable.20 Yet Patočka also uniquely captured the essence of Masaryk’s attempt at a philosophy of Czech history when he noted its connection not just to the Czech Reformation but also to Protestantism in general. He said: ‘In the English-​ speaking world and specially in its American component, this Puritanism appears as a special moral supporting force of democracy (Tocqueville). Where disciplines men internally, political freedom is possible since people will not misuse it for Puritanism mutual violence. They will use it to defend the freedom of every individual’.21 Seven pages further on from this quote, Patočka continues: ‘Without America, without the comprehension proposed by Tocqueville that American freedom and democracy is intrinsically connected with that moral religion –​religion without an official state church –​it would not have been possible to grasp the importance for us of our so-​called Reformation tradition and our possible relationship to it. Masaryk’s Czech philosophy, his thoughts on the continuity of the national rebirth with our Reformation must be explained not as a mere thesis about the past, but as a plan for the future, as a doctrine of the basis of democracy, should ever a truly democratic Czech state arise. The Puritan basis of American democracy teach how and on what conditions democracy in the Czech nation is feasible and natural. … American democracy was for him a social-​spiritual experience …. American democracy helped to explain the Czech national rebirth as a process of liberating society which was by its reflection already on the road to freedom –​the humanitarian ideal as an ideal of the Czech Brethren means that the national rebirth was going on in the name of democracy as a world view. But this view is also the one that in modern times replaces the old theocracy in all areas of life’.22 If we go beyond the frequent misunderstanding of Masaryk’s statement that the question of Czech history is a religious question and that the meaning of history lies in the transmission, spread, and development of this religious question, and look also at Masaryk’s observation that the highest idea behind every nation is an idea that is universal and common to all human beings and all nations, and that is the idea of humanity and democracy, we see before us the link that connects Masaryk and Patočka and bridges more than one of the gaps between them. For Patočka, historical thinking arises from being awakened out of ordinary living, from being jolted by something in our everyday life, as a result of which 20 21 22

Patočka, ‘An Attempt at a Czech National Philosophy and Its Failure’, 5–​9. Patočka, ‘An Attempt at a Czech National Philosophy and Its Failure’, 8. Patočka, ‘An Attempt at a Czech National Philosophy and Its Failure’, 13.

198 Funda we then open ourselves up in a new and different way to ‘meaning’ in our world and in our life. Our new openness to meaning fundamentally qualifies our ability to question or inquire into meaning, and when we do inquire, we are confronted with the very limits of human freedom, faced with the existential question that, according to Patočka, binds us to being. And this is where Masaryk’s idea of humanity and democracy as the highest goal of human history in its universality intersects with Patočka’s inquiry into the meaning of history. Although we must note that with Patočka it is never a matter of finding a final answer to this question, and instead about a permanent preoccupation with the question of meaning and being on the part of those ‘who are capable of understanding what life and death are about’.23 For Patočka meaning is not given, and unlike Masaryk he does not need the promise of some ultimate meaning. For him meaning is not an answer but a question, a path. Because people go through history asking about its meaning, the world, how people lead their lives, acquires a dimension of humanity. ‘Actually we are dealing only with the uncovering of meaning that can never be explained as a thing … , but which is present only in the seeking of being. … Thus the shaking of naive meaning is the genesis of a perspective on an absolute meaning … , on condition that humans are prepared to give up the hope of a directly given meaning and to accept meaning as a way’.24 Patočka and Masaryk are connected by the belief that the inquiry into meaning, into being, or what Masaryk would call the inquiry into humanity and democracy, is an endeavour that originated in European culture. (Masaryk would emphasise that it was in western not central European culture.) Patočka’s inquiry into meaning or being and Masaryk’s idea of humanity and democracy as the highest universally valid idea are for both of them a unique and specific feature of Europeanism, or as Masaryk would say of Westernism’. Therefore, the implication of Masaryk’s and Patočka’s beliefs is that Western European culture has attained –​in comparison with other cultures (and although it is not stated explicitly, reading between the lines this means lower cultures) –​ the universal horizon of humanity. This is only a step away from the idea of exporting this universal, pan-​human culture to the entire world. Masaryk’s and Patočka’s conception of the meaning of human history is wholly Eurocentric. Although Patočka concedes some relevance to Masaryk’s concept of the meaning of Czech history, he does not budge from his criticisms of the 23

Ivan Dubský, ‘Několik slov úvodem k Patočkovým Kacířským esejům’ [A few words of introduction to Patočka’s Heretical Essays], in Jan Patočka, Kacířské eseje o filosofii dějin [Heretical essays on the history of philosophy] (Prague: Academia, 1990), 14, 17. 24 Patočka, Heretical Essays …, 77.

Masaryk’s Philosophy of Czech History and Popper

199

ambivalence, equivocality, and irresolution of Masaryk’s philosophy. In the conclusion to his paper on Masaryk’s unsuccessful attempt at a Czech national philosophy he criticises Masaryk’s misunderstanding and under-​appreciation of German philosophy. Patočka was irritated by Masaryk’s statement that German philosophy gave birth to German wars. With this comment Masaryk was mainly talking about Hegel and Nietzsche and in all likelihood he would also have said it about Heidegger, in whom he showed no interest in in his old age. The very philosophers whom Patočka held in the highest estimation were those that Masaryk rejected and accused of subjectivism and titanism and of forming the ideological underpinnings of the origins of the German war –​and today we could say German ‘wars’. Patočka rejected Masaryk’s well-​ known statement from Světová revoluce: ‘The German “Nation of Thinkers and Philosophers” had the greatest number of suicides, developed the completest militarism and caused the world war’.25 When Masaryk wrote this sentence, he had no idea that there would come a second, much more terrible war provoked by the Germans or that there would be the Holocaust. When Patočka formulated his objection to Masaryk’s opinion, he already knew about the Second World War. This makes his criticism of Masaryk’s view of German philosophy all the more problematic. 3

Popper’s Criticism of Historicism and Messianism

I believe that today there is something else that raises a serious question mark over Masaryk’s Česká otázka. This is Popper’s criticism of historicism and messianism, i.e. ideas that see history as a kind of continuous upward –​with some fluctuations –​line that leads to a point of fulfilment, which is then the meaning of history, and envision history, despite what Masaryk called various ‘retrogressions’, as informed by a kind of positive, upward tendency. In the very first chapter of the first volume of The Open Society26 and in The Poverty of Historicism27 Popper rejects all types of vision about history’s meaning or fulfilment, about some final happy ending, and about the culmination of history. He dismisses the notion of a chosen nation and all forms of Jewish messianism. As a Jew he has a much freer hand to make this criticism. He rejects historical messianism in the sense of the theological interpretation of history espoused 25 26 27

Thomas G. Masaryk, The Making of a State. Memories and Observations 1914–​1918, tr. Henry Wickham Steed (London: Allen & Unwin, 1927), 318. Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies (London–​New York: Routledge, 2002). Karl Popper, The Poverty of Historicism (New York–​Evanston, IL: Harper & Row, 1964).

200 Funda by the old Israeli prophets, the messianism of the Jewish apocalypse, and then the Christian eschatology of the new age –​as well as other convulsions of Christian chiliasm in European history –​but he also rejects the secularised forms of these expectations, such as Hegel’s and Marx’s philosophical concept, and even –​as Popper demonstrated in the first volume of The Open Society –​ going right back antiquity, in Plato’s fiction of the perfect totalitarian state.28 ‘It is widely believed’, writes Popper, ‘that … a philosophical attitude towards politics, and deeper understanding of social life in general, must be upon a contemplation and interpretation of human history’.29 From the perspective of historicism, it is possible to trace the inherent laws of history. Individuals are insignificant, attention is centred on the inherent laws of general human development. Social scientists need to identify the laws of historical development and construct human history on their basis. To discover the laws of history’s workings would make it possible to predict the fate of humankind.30 According to religious historicism, it is the will of God that determines historical development, for naturalistic historicism it is natural law, for spiritual historicism it is the laws of spiritual development, and for economic historicism it is the laws and relations of production. Historicism claims that if we discover these laws we can predict the future of humankind. Historicism offers the certainty that there is some ultimate meaning to human history and to some historical outcome. When Karl R. Popper and, even more emphatically, Hans Albert31 say that history has no meaning, what they are talking about is meaning in the sense of the fulfilment of history, in the sense of some historical destiny, where this meaning overrides everything else. They are not saying that, despite all our ambivalence, our particular actions or decisions in the here and now have no meaning. They are countering messianic visions about the meaning and culmination of history with the sober and rational proposition that life is about constantly solving problems. Popper condemned all historicism and messianism and constructs about the meaning and culmination of history in the following well-​known statement: ‘Even with the best intention of making heaven on earth it only

28 Popper, The Open Society, 79–​161. 29 Popper, The Open Society, 21. 30 See Popper, The Open Society, Chapter 24 (496–​532): Oracular Philosophy and the Revolt against Reason; and Popper, The Poverty of Historicism, 102–​108. 31 See my study on Hans Albert: Otakar A. Funda, Racionalita versus transcendence. Spor Hanse Alberta s moderními teology [Rationality versus transcendence. Hans Albert’s dispute with modern theologians] (Prague: Filosofia, 2013).

Masaryk’s Philosophy of Czech History and Popper

201

succeeds in making it a hell’.32 This most strikingly applies to all radical totalitarian regimes. When they discover that the realisation of their illusory vision is not working out, they begin to look for someone to blame. At one time it is the Jews who are the alleged culprits, so off to Auschwitz with them; at another time it is an ideological saboteur or a small farmer or shopkeeper, so off to the gulag or to Leopoldov with them.33 All messianic hopes of a happy ending to history, say critical rationalists, have ultimately ended tragically. It is enough in the case of Czech history just to cite the stories of the horrors sown by Hussite chiliastic radicals, or, elsewhere, to recall the tragic rampages carried out by the radicals of the French Revolution. When radicalism has not taken into consideration the possibility of other, gradual, more considered solutions, it has usually ended in tragedy. The spasms of the illusory visions of martyrs and the grand visions of revolutionaries that followed from them gave way to revenge and terror when it turned out that they did not usher in a better world, because they were always illusions. Blood has been shed both by fanatical fools who believed in a society of a higher race and by those who dreamed of a just society. In the case of the communist illusion, the vision of the first generation empowered the ideologists and political actors in the generation that followed, who then turned the radicalism and struggles of the first ­generation into their self-​serving trade, inverting the ideals of the first-​generation enthusiasts, who undeniably had an element of humanism about them. From the perspective of Popper’s critique of historicism, the social sciences can be seen as a doomed attempt to discover the law of society’s development with a view to predicting its future. Against historicism Popper argues that historical hypotheses are usually singular, not universal, claims about one or more events. Advocates of historicism have attempted to make certain prognoses about the direction of history based on a study of the past and an analysis of the present historical situation. All such attempts have usually ended in fiasco or proved to be mistaken.34 ‘The most careful observation of one developing caterpillar will not help us to predict its transformation into a butterfly’.35 Historicism’s basic proposition of historical necessity is a myth that is pretending to be science.

32 Popper, The Open Society, 182, 510. 33 Leopoldov was a prison in former Czechoslovakia in which the communist regime imprisoned and got rid of political prisoners. 34 See Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable (New York: Random House, 2007). 35 Popper, The Poverty of Historicism, 109.

202 Funda Why do certain social formations or civilisations disappear? When does this happen? Unlike Popper I believe that these questions make history to some degree a legitimate subject for sociology and economics as well as for theoretical research and philosophy. This does not mean a philosophy of history as an inquiry into the meaning of history, but a philosophy of history as an analysis of the causes behind the demise of historical formations. An analysis of these disappearances does not then mean we are qualified to engineer history, but just helps us, given our essential fallibility, to practise politics with foresight.36 To say that the question of the ultimate meaning is entirely pointless and can lead to terrible outcomes when applied in practice, may, however, lead into a different quagmire, In its debased form, it may imply that anything goes –​the plurality of boundless relativism, let people think what they want, say what they want, and do what they want. Tolerance as indifference and freedom as caprice. This is often associated with mindless indulgence in pleasures.37 Unlike the postmodern indifference to the pluralist coexistence of meanings, critical rationalism, conscious of the conditional and hypothetical nature of human knowledge and its temporary validity and essential fallibility, does not abandon the question of the search for the truth,38 although it realises that we will never get a definitive hold on it. For critical rationalists there is a positivist-​realist accent to the statement that the question of ultimate ­meaning is a pointless one: although there is no guarantee that there is any ultimate meaning, this is no reason to give up the search and engage in boundless relativism, or turn to the superficial and vacuous indulgence in pleasures and enjoyments.39 What has significance, and what we sometimes use the 36 Popper, The Poverty of Historicism, 64–​70. 37 There is also one relevant form of postmodernism, which is the recognition that all grand narratives have ultimately failed, wound up in the trap of ideology and military conflict, and that the question of ‘truth’, especially in the areas of religion, the humanities, and the social sciences, cannot be unequivocally defined because it is contaminated by the position we set out from, our pre-​understanding and point of view. More plausible therefore is the pluralist coexistence of alternative perspectives and approaches, which means a coexistence that positively liberates us and in no way need necessarily mean indifference. The upshot of this when applied to the question of meaning is that it is impossible to speak of any larger shared meaning, and there is only a pluralism of coexisting different meanings. 38 Karl Popper, All Life Is Problem Solving, tr. Patrick Camiller (London–​New York: Routledge, 1999), 55. 39 In my book Znavená Evropa umírá [A weary Europe is dying] (Prague: Karolinum, 2000 and 2002), I distinguish on pp. 113–​115 between relatedness and boundless relativism. That everything is a process, exists in relation to everything else, and is in this sense relative, is not grounds for boundless relativism.

Masaryk’s Philosophy of Czech History and Popper

203

word meaning to refer to, is not something abstract and remote, but rather something that is here in our midst and with us in our everyday life. Instead of talking about meaning we speak of significance. What has significance here and now. We constitute this significance, or meaning if you will, through our actions. And critical rationalists plead for rational action. Critical rationalists consider inquiry into the ultimately meaning of history pointless. But despite the ambivalence of life and history, there is a point to trying unremittingly to solve problems and find answers to these questions.40 It is essential not to give up this struggle, even if there is no ultimate solution. Why? In the interest of life, in the quality of life, and in the preservation of life as representing the highest value of life. Like Sisyphus, we must not give up, even though we will never be able to relieve ourselves of the human burden at the top of the mountain, and even though no point of completion where things are made whole will ever be reached –​be it God’s kingdom or the golden age of paradise or a just society. I would venture to say, however, that Popper’s rejection of questions about the meaning of history is not –​unlike Hans Albert –​sufficiently consequential. In the final chapter of the second volume of the Open Society Popper indeed states that ‘history has no meaning’,41 but he concludes with the proposition that ‘although history has no meaning, we can give it a meaning’.42 Popper supports the assertion that history has no meaning with the claim that there is no history, as everything that we call history consists of various interpretations of events viewed from a particular perspective –​mainly from the perspective of the triumph of power and success. He acknowledges that the historicism of triumph is coupled with the opposite perspective, the history of the meek who suffer in hope of a better world –​where ‘the last shall be first and the first last’: ‘Climb in time upon the bandwagon of the meek …, this is the surest way to come out on top!’43 However, given that in the conclusion to the last chapter in the second volume of the Open Society Popper claims that establishing an open society is the meaning that we should give history, he was not consistent in his rejection of the question of meaning. To quote him: ‘It is we who introduce purpose and meaning into nature and history … We can make it our fight for the open society … against its enemies’.44 The ‘fight for an open society’ is a phrase that is overly reminiscent of the messianic terminology about the 40 Popper, All Life Is Problem Solving, 99–​104. 41 Cf. Popper, The Open Society, 546. 42 Popper, The Open Society, 555. 43 Popper, The Open Society, 550–​551. 44 Popper, The Open Society, 555.

204 Funda struggle for better tomorrows. What then is the difference between Masaryk’s vision of ascribing history with meaning by realising the ideas of humanity and democracy on the one hand and Popper’s call for the fight for an open society to be the meaning given to history? I believe that Popper’s rejection of the question of meaning is inconsistent. In a section of the German edition of All Life Is Problem Solving titled ‘The Hopes of Young People’ and glorifying the Western model of democracy and market liberalism as the highest goal ever achieved, Popper writes: ‘Our Western democracies, first and foremost the United States, represent an exemplary success. … The result is that more happy people are living freer, more beautiful, better, and longer lives than ever before. … This is, however, almost never heard. Instead, every day there are only lamentations and complaints that we have allegedly been condemned to live in such a terrible world. I regard the spread of such lies as the greatest crime of our time’.45 4

Allow Me to Say Something on My Own Behalf

Critical rationalism is not just about rejecting the idea of historicism that history’s path follows the iron law of necessity, or rejecting the idea that history moves towards some final goal, culmination, fulfilment. By my understanding of critical rationalism, the question of the meaning of history must be rejected in its entirety. It is not just that history has not meaning, but that it cannot even be assigned some permanent meaning by us –​certainly not any long-​ term, future meaning! We can assign meaning to certain decisions, choices, or actions, or to a particular event at a particular moment in our lives. But that’s it! The idea that the meaning we give to a certain act in a certain moment or the significance that we attach to a certain act in a certain moment has any permanent validity and forms part of the continuity of the meaning that we have assigned to history is, in my view, preposterous and an idea still in the grip of historicism. However much there is a meaning and there is a significance to striving in a particular time or moment to build a society based on humanity

45 Karl Popper, Alles Leben ist Problemlösen. Über Erkenntnis, Geschichte und Politik (Munich–​Zurich: Piper, 1995), 237–​238. (‘Unsere wesentlichen Demokratien, allen voran die Vereinigten Staaten –​die älteste der westlichen Demokratien –​, sind ein beispielloser Erfolg. […] Das Resultat ist: Mehr glückliche Menschen leben ein freieres, schöneres, besseres und längeres Leben als je vorher. […] Ich höre es fast nie. Statt dessen hört man täglich Gejammer und Geraunce über die angeblich so schlechte Welt … Ich halte die Verbreitung dieser L`ogen für das grösste Verbrechen unserer Zeit’).

Masaryk’s Philosophy of Czech History and Popper

205

and democracy and to create an open society, history itself teaches us –​not by its laws but by its unpredictable randomness –​how short-​lived everything that we try to redeem by assigning it meaning is, and how it then dissolves into shallow and superficial meaninglessness and oblivion. The meaning that we assigned to a certain situation at a certain time is usually confined to its moment. I refer to the work of Hans Albert, Popper’s colleague, ten years younger, who turned 100 this year, and whose critical rationalism is –​as he demonstrates himself –​more consistent than Popper’s on some points.46 This also applies to the consequential rejection of the inquiry into meaning. The fact that the search for meaning is pointless does not mean that we must give up on the struggle to achieve a good quality of life. My personal statement on this matter is as follows: if the meaningless question about meaning has any meaning to it at all, then it is only in the sense that it shows us that history and human life are a complexity of complementary components in correlations of continuity and context.47 If we see history as a complexity of complementary components in correlations, continuity, and context, then history cannot be interpreted on the basis of one principle or be considered to have but one meaning. History does not have any cantus firmus, it is entirely ambivalent. Our perception of history, our awareness, understanding, and interpretation of history, and even our actions within history are completely fragmentary and fundamentally fallible. The question of the meaning of history is pointless if we interpret meaning to signify a progression towards some goal or point of culmination, or even towards bringing something towards completion or fulfilment, or if we think of meaning as something permanently, eternally valid. If, however, we take the word meaning to refer to what has significance in the here and now, it is more appropriate to speak of significance.48 46

Hans Albert, Traktat über die rationale Praxis (Tübingen: Mohr-​Siebeck, 1978); also idem., Kritische Vernunft und rationale Praxis (Tübingen: Mohr-​Siebeck, 2011). 47 Funda, Znavená Evropa umírá, 111–​112; also idem., Když se rákos chvěje nad hladinou [When the reed trembles above water] (Prague: Karolinum, 2009), 111–​113. 48 Jan Patočka (Heretical Essays in the Philosophy of History, 53) refers to Frege’s distinction between the terms meaning and significance. For Frege, ‘significance indicates an objective relation, meaning the conception of the object.’ In my opinion, the concept of significance has an advantage over meaning in that it is not association with that obsession with the need for there to be some ultimate meaning –​that is, with an inquiry that is pointless for the reason that it ends either in infinite regression or tautology –​the chicken and the egg –​or that the asking of the question is brought to an artificial end, where an answer is inserted in the question’s asking that puts an end to it being asked further, an answer beyond which –​to quote Anselm –​‘nothing more can be asked’. Here I refer to the

206 Funda Ambivalence is our human lot. Our lot is to endure our humanity, our fragmentariness, and the fact that our questions will remain unanswered, and it is our lot not to give up trying to solve problems in the here and now. Some people cannot endure the human lot and flee to nihilistic resignation, while others cling to shallow, consumerist superficiality, and yet others escape into the fiction of history’s ultimate fulfilment –​be it in a religious, idealistic, or totalitarian sense. Yet there is –​and that is my contribution to the philosophical debate about meaning –​another path, one that I have already hinted at above. Even though there is no ultimate meaning to human life and no meaning to history, and most certainly no ultimate meaning to history, that does not mean we should cease to engage in making dispassionately objective, rationally responsible efforts in the here and now towards filling the present with that which has positive significance in the here and now. And this should be enough for us. Perhaps some part of what is of significance for us will yet echo in the lives of those who come after us. What we cannot do, however, is take the potential impacts of our contemporary struggles on the future and construct from them any kind of continuity in a larger meaning of history or idea about their ultimate meaning and fulfilment.

Bibliography

Albert, Hans, Kritische Vernunft und rationale Praxis (Tübingen: Mohr-​Siebeck, 2011). Albert, Hans, Traktat über die kritische Vernunft (Tübingen: Mohr-​Siebeck, 1991). Albert, Hans, Traktat über die rationale Praxis (Tübingen: Mohr-​Siebeck, 1978). Čornej, Petr, ‘Tábor je náš program (Masarykova návštěva v Táboře 25. března 1920)’ [Tábor is our programme (Masaryk’s visit to Tábor on 25 March 1920)] Státní okresní archív v Táboře (vol. xv) (Tábor, 2011), 31–​46. Dubský, Ivan, ‘Několik slov úvodem k Patočkovým Kacířským esejům’ [A few words of introduction to Patočka’s Heretical Essays], in Jan Patočka, Kacířské eseje o filosofii dějin [Heretical essays on the history of philosophy] (Prague: Academia, 1990). Durant, Will, Od Platona k dnešku. Vývoj filosofie v jejích velkých představitelích [From Plato to the present. The development of philosophy in its great practitioners], original American title: The Story of Philosophy, tr. V. J. Hauner and H. Sýkora, Czech edn. revised by Emanuel Rádl (Prague: Sfinx Bohumila Jandy, 1937). Funda, Otakar A., ‘Masarykovo náboženské myšlení’ [Masaryk’s religious thought], Filosofický časopis 38/​4 (1990), 441–​449. Münchhausen trilemma, which Hans Albert wrote about in his ‘tractate on the critical reason’, calling it a ‘Münchhausentrilema’. Albert, Traktat über die kritische Vernunft, 13.

Masaryk’s Philosophy of Czech History and Popper

207

Funda, Otakar A., ‘Náboženství –​téma, které Masaryk odkázal české filosofii’ [Religion –​ a theme that Masaryk bequeathed to Czech philosophy], Filosofický časopis 48/​2 (2000), 211–​225. Funda, Otakar A., ‘Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk’, Filosofický časopis 47/​1 (1999), 69–​81. Funda, Otakar A., Když se rákos chvěje nad hladinou [When the reed trembles above water] (Prague: Karolinum, 2009). Funda, Otakar A., Racionalita versus transcendence. Spor Hanse Alberta s moderními teology [Rationality versus transcendence. Hans Albert’s dispute with modern theologians] (Prague: Filosofia, 2013). Funda, Otakar A., Thomas Garrigue Masaryk, sein philosophisches, religiöses und politisches Denken (Bern–​Frankfurt/​Main–​Las Vegas: Petr Lang, 1978). Funda, Otakar A., Znavená Evropa umírá [A weary Europe is dying] (Prague: Karolinum, 2000 and 2002). Funda, Otakar A.,‘Otevřené problémy Masarykova myšlení a politické praxe’ [Open problems in Masaryk’s thought and political practice] in Vratislav Doubek & Dagmar Hájková, eds., Život plný neklidu. Sborník k devadesátinám historika Jaroslava Opata [Life full of restlessness. An anthology for the 90th birth of historian Jaroslav Opat] (Prague: Masarykův ústav and Archiv av čr, 2014), 22–​29. Hauner, Milan, ‘The Meaning of Czech History: Masaryk versus Pekař’, in Harry Hanak, ed., T. G. Masaryk (1850–​1937), vol. iii: Statesman and Cultural Force (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1990), 24–​42. Havelka, Miloš, ed., Spor o smysl českých dějin [The dispute on the meaning of Czech history], vol. i: 1895–​1938 (Prague: Torst, 1995). Kaizl, Josef, ‘České myšlenky’ [Czech thoughts], in Miloš Havelka, ed., Spor o smysl českých dějin [The dispute on the meaning of Czech history], vol. i: 1895–​1938 (Prague: Torst, 1995), 47–​97. Koukolík, František, Češi: proč jsme, kdo jsme –​a jak dál [Czechs: Why we are, who we are –​and what to do next] (Prague: Galén, 2015). Küng, Hans, Christ sein (Munich–​Zurich: Piper, 1974). Küng, Hans, On Being a Christian, tr. Edward Quinn (New York: Doubleday & Co., 1974). Ludwig, Emil, Duch a čin [Spirit and deed] (Prague: Čin, 1935). Machovec, Milan, Tomáš G. Masaryk (Prague: Melantrich, 1968). Masaryk, Thomas G, The Making of a State. Memories and Observations 1914–​1918, tr. Henry Wickham Steed (London: Allen & Unwin, 1927). Masaryk, Tomáš G., Česká otázka. Naše nynější krize. Jan Hus [The Czech question. Our present crisis. Jan Hus] in Jiří Brabec, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Writings of T. G. Masaryk], vol. vi (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr and Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2000). Masaryk, Thomas G., Modern Man and Religion, tr. Ann Bibza & Václav Beneš, rev. tr. Harriette E. Kennedy (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1938).

208 Funda Patočka, Jan, ‘An Attempt at a Czech National Philosophy and Its Failure’, in Milíč Čapek & Karel Hrubý, eds., T. G. Masaryk in Perspective. Comments and Criticism, tr. Mark Suino (New York: svu Press, 1981), 1–​22. Patočka, Jan, ‘Masaryk’s and Husserl’s Conception of the Spiritual Crisis of European Humanity’, in Erazim Kohák, ed., Jan Patočka: Philosophy and Selected Writings (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1989), 145–​155. Patočka, Jan, ‘Několik poznámek k pojmu “světových dějin”’ [A few remarks on the concept of ‘world history’], in Ivan Chvatík & Pavel Kouba, eds. Sebrané spisy Jana Patočky [Collected writings of Jan Patočka], vol. i: Péče o duši [Care of the soul] (Prague: oikoymenh, 1996), 46–​57. Patočka, Jan, ‘Zum Begriff der Weltgeschichte’, tr. J. Stárková, in Jan Patočka, Ketzerische Essais zur Philosophie der Geschichte und ergenzende Schriften, eds. Klaus Nellen & Jiří Němec (Stuttgart: Klett-​Cotta, 1988), 331–​345. Patočka, Jan, ‘Několik poznámek k podnětům dějin a dějepisu’ [A few remarks on inspirations from history and historiography] in Ivan Chvatík & Pavel Kouba, eds., Sebrané spisy Jana Patočky [Collected writings of Jan Patočka], vol. i: Péče o duši [Care of the soul] (Prague: oikoymenh, 1996), 35–​45. Patočka, Jan, ‘Spiritual Crisis of European Humanity in Husserl and Masaryk’, tr. Erazim Kohák, in Josef Novák, ed., On Masaryk (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1988), 97–​109. Patočka, Jan, Heretical Essays in the Philosophy of History, tr. Erazim Kohák, ed. James Dodd, preface Paul Ricœur (Chicago–​La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1996). Patočka, Jan, Tři studie o Masarykovi [Three studies on Masaryk], eds. Ivan Chvatík and Pavel Kouba (Prague: Mladá fronta–​Váhy, 1991); reprinted in Karel Palek & Ivan Chvatík, eds., Sebrané spisy Jana Patočky [Collected writings of Jan Patočka], vol. xii: Češi i [Czechs i] (Prague: oikoymenh, 2006). Pekař, Josef, O smyslu českých dějin [On the meaning of Czech history] (Prague: Rozmluvy, 1990). Peroutka, Ferdinand, Jací jsme [What kind of people we are] (Prague: Středočeské nakladatelství a knihkupectví, 1991). Popper, Karl, All Life Is Problem Solving, tr. Patrick Camiller (London–​New York: Routledge, 1999). Popper, Karl, Alles Leben ist Problemlösen. Über Erkenntnis, Geschichte und Politik (Munich–​Zurich: Piper, 1995). Popper, Karl, The Open Society and Its Enemies (London–​New York: Routledge, 2002). Popper, Karl, The Poverty of Historicism (New York–​Evanston, IL: Harper & Row, 1964). Taleb, Nassim N., The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable (New York: Random House, 2007).

­c hapter 12

Criticism of the Czech Question Martin Šimsa Abstract This paper explores criticism associated with The Czech Question in various aspects and levels. It employs the method applied of hermeneutic criticism derived from the critical hermeneutics of Habermas and Ricœur and critical thinking of Masaryk. The paper analyses significant criticism which accompanied critical readings of Masaryk´s Czech Question. This includes liberal criticism represented by Kaizl, Peroutka, Löwenstein, and Havelka, the national conservative critique of the Czech historian Pekař, religious and Christian critiques, especially of Hromádka and Rádl, Marxist critiques of Czech Marxists, communists, and Bolsheviks, and the political praise and philosophical criticism of Jan Patočka. The paper not only offers criticism but also discusses and tries to find out which of Masaryk’s concepts are alive in the face of criticism stemming from modern Czech history and the current political situation.

1

Introduction

This paper employs the method of hermeneutic criticism, an understanding-​ based and critical reading of T. G. Masaryk’s Česká otázka (‘The Czech Question’) that refers to the text of this work, to interpretations by its readers and critics, and to the religious, national, humanist, and social theses contained in his book. This critical reading examines the specific ‘reception ­history’ (Wirkungsgeschichte) of both Česká otázka (‘The Czech Question’) and Masaryk’s philosophical, humanist, national, and political programme. Hermeneutic criticism here is inspired by the critical hermeneutics of Jürgen Habermas and Paul Ricœur, but also by criticism as it was practised by Masaryk himself. Habermas explained critical hermeneutics in Zur Logik der Sozialwissenschaften, describing it as a form of criticism and a mode of assessment grounded in the kind of ‘understanding reading’ that Hans-​Georg Gadamer taught us to engage in. This cannot, however, be a reading that remains value-​neutral and impartial, that is merely a conservative reception and preservation of meaning, and an affirmation of the prejudices, authority, and tradition from which one cannot break free. For Habermas, critical hermeneutics

© Martin Šimsa, 2023 | DOI:10.1163/9789004534919_014

210 Šimsa was both a Kantian re-​examination and criticism of concepts and their ethical, social, and political premises and consequences, and a Marx-​inspired critique of ideologies, among which he included science and technology, and the kind of reading of a tradition in which we stand with one foot in that tradition and with the other foot outside and from there move beyond the tradition. This is something we observe not only in philosophical, social, and political critiques but also in societal changes and revolutions.1 In his ‘hermeneutics of suspicion’, Ricœu recommended reaching directly for the biggest critics, the strongest dissenters, because it is from them that we will learn the most about any given topic. For Ricœur, these critics, namely Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud, were the masters of suspicion because the readings they offered were both destructive and new and productive.2 T. G. Masaryk also wrote about criticism and critical thinking, which he believed to be the basic principle of philosophy, science, and democracy. Criticism is a principle that can be traced throughout the history of philosophy, starting with Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, and it is observed throughout Czech philosophy as well, right up to and including T. G. Masaryk and Jan Patočka. This principle of criticism will guide us here in our critical reading of Masaryk’s Česká otázka (‘The Czech Question’).3

1 Habermas explained his critical hermeneutics in ‘Zur Logik der Sozialwissenschaften’ and ‘Der Universalitätsanspruch der Hermeneutik’, both in Jürgen Habermas, Zur Logik der Sozialwissenschaften (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1967, 1970, 1985) as well as idem., On the Logic of the Social Sciences, tr. Shierry W. Nicholsen & Jerry A. Stark, (Cambridge, MA: mit Press, 1988). Habermas also discussed it in: Erkenntnis und Interese (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1968, 2016), in English published as idem., Knowledge and Human Interests. tr. Jeremy J. Shapiro (Boston, MA: Beacon, 1970), in idem., Technik und Wissenschaft als Ideologie (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1968, 1989), in English published as idem., Toward a Rational Society, tr. Jeremy J. Shapiro (Boston, MA: Beacon 1970) and especially in Apel et al., eds., Hermeneutik und Ideologiekritik (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1971). Paul Ricœur, ‘Hermeneutics and the Critique of Ideology’ in Paul Ricœur, Hermeneutics and Human Sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981, 2016), 23–​60. 2 Ricœur discussed his critical hermeneutics in: Paul Ricœur, Freud and Philosophy. An Essay on Interpretation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1977); idem., Hermeneutics and Human Sciences (New York: Columbia University Press, 1981), and idem., Lectures on Ideology and Utopia (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986). 3 A more detailed examination of critical hermeneutics can be found in Martin Šimsa, ‘The Question of Understanding and Its Criteria in Conservative and Critical Hermeneutics’, in Petr Pokorný & Jan Roskovec, eds., Philosophical Hermeneutics and Biblical Exegesis (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 59–​ 67; Martin Šimsa, ‘Hermeneutical Critique in Deliberative Democracy’, in Archeology, History, Philosophy. Conference Proceedings, Volume i, sgem 2017 (Vienna, 2017), 269–​276; Martin Šimsa, ‘A Hermeneutical Critique of Czech Democracy’, conference proceedings –​Book 1 (Helsinki, 2018), 415–​423.

Criticism of the Czech Question

211

This paper does not seek to examine all the criticisms of Masaryk’s work, only the most notable and most typical ones, those that were directed at the main principles and problems of Česká otázka (‘The Czech Question’), and those that tell us something new and inspiring about it. When we talk about the Czech question, we are referring not just to the book of this name, but also to several other works by Masaryk –​Naše nynější krize, Jan Hus, and Karel Havlíček. These works also have a direct connection to the Czech question as such and to the book Česká otázka (‘The Czech Question’) in particular because they build upon and set out in more detail what Masaryk first outlined in Česká otázka (‘The Czech Question’). Some critics reacted more angrily and heatedly to these later works by Masaryk, especially Jan Hus, because in them, Masaryk was more emphatically and explicitly critical of liberalism than he was in Česká otázka (‘The Czech Question’). Before we discuss Masaryk’s liberal critics, we shall first look at some other critics of Česká otázka (‘The Czech Question’). Masaryk was criticised by prominent Czech liberals for placing too little value on liberalism and too much on religion –​specifically Christianity. But there were others who criticised him for having religious (Christian) views that were too liberal. That was the view of some Catholics, including some of Masaryk’s students and supporters, such as Emanuel Rádl4 and Josef Lukl Hromádka.5 He was also the target of Marxist criticism, but this was more just criticism by communists and Bolsheviks than a genuinely Marxist criticism. The most serious criticism came from right-​wing conservatives, who accused Masaryk of insufficient patriotism and unfounded idealism and, conversely, of a kind of political nationalism, especially later in his life, when he was president. The latter criticism was voiced mainly by Rádl, and much later by Patočka and Hejdánek. In the Czechoslovak Republic, nationalism was mainly associated with two types of divisions in the country: the Czech–​Slovak problem and the Czech–​German problem. Both these issues intensified during the war, in connection with the creation of Slovakia as a client state of Nazi Germany, and after the war, with the transfer (expulsion) of Germans from Czechoslovakia, and then again in 1992, when Czechoslovakia split into the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic. A continued reflection of these divisions can be seen in displays of nationalistic populism. 4 Rádl wrote favourably of Masaryk in the vast majority of his writings. His most critical text is in Válka Čechů s Němci [The war between Czechs and Germans] (1928, 1993), and we find a mildly critical text in Dějiny filosofie ii [The history of philosophy] (Praha: Jan Laichter 1933, 1999). 5 Josef L. Hromádka offers an exhaustive critique of Masaryk’s concept of religion and Christianity in the monograph Masaryk (Prague: ymca, 1930).

212 Šimsa 2

Liberal Criticism

Masaryk’s first major critic was Josef Kaizl, a liberal economist and politician, a colleague of Masaryk’s, and a representative of the Young Czech Party, who held a seat in the Vienna Parliament from 1891 to 1893. In 1895 he wrote a book called České myšlénky,6 in which he responded to Masaryk’s criticism of liberalism. We can draw a line between Kaizl’s liberal criticism and the liberal criticism that was articulated by Ferdinand Peroutka and later by Bedřich Löwenstein7 and Miloš Havelka.8 Other liberal critics of Masaryk included Emanuel Rádl and Josef Pekař. Rádl surprisingly showed that Pekař’s criticism bears more liberal features than conservative ones.9 Rádl himself could be called a religious liberal, because he spoke about ‘spiritual liberalism’, which is characterised by freedom under the law.10 Masaryk’s most provocative proposition, in Kaizl’s view, was the claim that the Czech question is a religious issue. This struck Kaizl, a modern-​minded liberal, as wholly anachronistic. Peroutka tied in with this critique and in a sense carried it even further when –​almost thirty years later in what was by then the First Republic –​he asked whether Czechs were perhaps less the descendants of the mediaeval Hussites and more the ‘loyal subjects of the Emperor Franz’.11 The Czechs and Slovaks who had fought in the Czechoslovak Legions 6

7

8

9 10 11

Josef Kaizl, ‘České myšlenky’ [Czech thoughts] (Prague, Edvard Beaufort, 1895), reprinted in Miloš Havelka, ed., Spor o smysl českých dějin [The dispute on the meaning of Czech history], vol. i: 1895–​1938 (Prague: Torst, 1995), 47–​97. Havelka also discusses this in the papers ‘Česká otázka’, ‘České myšlenky’, ‘Listy politického kacíře’, in Jan Svoboda and Aleš Prázný, eds., Česká otázka a dnešní doba [The Czech question and the present day] (Prague: Filosofia, 2017), 155–​170. Löwenstein offers a liberal critique that is partly sympathetic and partly ironic in his idiosyncratic reading of České otázky forty-​five years later in Bedřich Löwenstein, ‘Manifest nepolitické politiky’ [Manifesto of non-​political politics] in Bedřich Löwenstein, My a ti druzí [We and the others] (Brno: Doplněk, 1996), 230–​244. Havelka does not criticise Masaryk directly, but rather emphasises Masaryk’s criticism of others. Like Peroutka, he concludes that the debate among historians before the war ended in Pekař’s favour, but the war and establishment of a new democratic republic gave rise to a new situation that challenged conclusions previously made and cast a new light on the entire debate. ‘Prof. Pekař’s statement that he does not in a religious sense feel it but for political reasons embraces Catholicism captures at once both liberalism and Catholicism today’. Emanuel Rádl, Náboženství a politika [Religion and politics] (Prague: J. Vetešník, 1921), 42. Emanuel Rádl, O německé revoluci [On the German revolution] (Prague: Jan Laichter, 1933). ‘The fact so emphasised by ceremonial speakers that we are the children of Žižka is something utterly meaningless compared to the serious and sensational fact that we are the children of orderly citizens from the time of Franz Josef. That we were able in the fifteenth century to resist almost all of Europe is no guarantee that today we will always be able to

Criticism of the Czech Question

213

on the battlefields in Siberia and in Italy and France were of course much more like the descendants of the Hussites than they were ‘loyal subjects of Emperor Franz’, but Peroutka was correct in a ‘quantitatively democratic’ sense, in that there was a greater number of loyal subjects of Emperor Franz among the Czechs than there were legionnaires. It is no surprise that liberals criticised Masaryk when he himself was criticising liberalism. Masaryk, however, was not wholehearted in his criticism of liberalism, and when it came to the defence and creative cultivation of individual freedom and personal responsibility, he had typically liberal views and opinions. He always emphasised personal responsibility and warned against relying on the majority or even the masses. We can see a certain explanation for Masaryk’s criticism of liberalism in that he mainly criticised economic liberalism, which is to say the laissez-​faire and ‘invisible hand of the market’ variety of liberalism. It is from this that in a certain sense we get modus vivendi liberalism, which rejects the liberalism of rational consensus, the branch of liberalism to which we would most likely assign Masaryk today if we were to view his political philosophy through the lens of modern-​day democratic discourse. Masaryk was much more a democrat or a democratic republican than he was a liberal. His republicanism, however, was not the republicanism of Niccolò Machiavelli or G. W. F. Hegel. It was that of Alexis de Tocqueville and Hannah Arendt, and we could find several parallels between it and Habermas’s critical deliberative democracy as well.12 Nevertheless, Masaryk’s vehement rejection of liberalism does not mean that he cannot be considered a liberal, albeit one of the Tocquevillian and to some extent Millian variety. This is similar to what we see for instance when, although Masaryk rejects pragmatism in Karel Čapek’s Hovory s T. G. Masarykem,13 we can still trace elements of pragmatism in both his political philosophy and his political work.

12 13

put together a government. Jan Hus is a pale shadow of the underworld, but Dr Kramář, who recounts how he has suffered and been pushed aside je the living present’. Ferdinand Peroutka, Jací jsme. Demokratický manifest [What kind of people we are. A democratic manifesto] (Prague: Středočeské nakladatelství a knihkupectví, 1991), 8. Martin Šimsa, ‘Masarykův a Habermasův pojem demokracie’ [Masaryk’s and Habermas’s concept of democracy], in Martin Hrubec, ed., Demokracie, veřejnost a občanská společnost [Democracy, the public, and a civic society] (Prague: Filosofia, 2004), 135–​146. Karel Čapek, Hovory s T. G. Masarykem [Talks with T.G. Masaryk] (Prague: Aventinum –​ Čin, 1928, 1938; Československý spisovatel, 1990); Karel Čapek, Talks with T. G. Masaryk. tr. Dora Round, ed. Michael H. Heim (Prague: Catbird Press, 1995).

214 Šimsa 3

National-​Conservative Criticism

Josef Pekař was an outstanding Czech historian and a prominent representative of Goll’s school of history. Masaryk had worked closely with historian Jaroslav Goll in criticising the uncritically ‘patriotic’ rendering of the allegedly ancient Rukopis Královédvorský and Rukopis Zelenohorský (named according to the sites where they were allegedly ‘discovered’). Pekař’s critique of Masaryk’s Czech philosophy was originally aimed at defending Goll’s school of history, which had been attacked by students and supporters of Masaryk (Vladislav Vančura, Jan Herben) for the conservative lens it applied to Czech history and for the allegedly scientific and positivistically neutral approach it adopted with respect to social and political reality. Gradually, however, his criticism became increasingly more polemical, especially in ‘Masarykova česká filosofie’,14 and Pekař took aim at three areas in which he thought he saw a weakness on Masaryk’s part: methodology, historical substance, and socio-​political focus (Pekař was a religious and political conservative, Masaryk was a reformist Christian and a socialist). This focus was only implicitly present in his work, but his supporters among historians and in society understood it well enough. Methodologically, Pekař argued from the position of empirical positivism, according to which it is first necessary to collect, collate, and process the facts (hew the stones) and only then can we build our philosophical and sociological theories (erect the temples and palaces of philosophical and sociological theories). His primary complaint against Masaryk was that he was not a professional historian, and therefore, in Pekař view, he was unable to correctly understand and interpret Hus, the Hussite movement, the Reformation, or the National Revival. The archaic nature of this argument was demonstrated persuasively by Rádl and Jan Slavík, and Patočka later remarked that all Pekař had going for him in relation to the past was that he was a professional historian, while in relation to the future he had nothing.15 In his later writings, Pekař shifted from his empirical positivism to a romantic hermeneutic perspective when, in his second criticism of Masaryk’s concept of the meaning of Czech history, made 14 15

Josef Pekař, ‘Masarykova česká filosofie’ [Masaryk’s Czech philosophy], in Havelka, ed., Spor o smysl českých dějin i, 265–​302. ‘However, Pekař forgets that this philosophy of Czech history is above all Masaryk’s personal ideal, which is created not for praeterito, but for the future. And he himself has nothing pro futuro. All he has for the future is that he is a professor and that he wants to research’. (Transl. M.Š) Jan Patočka, ‘Vzpomínka a zamyšlení o Rádlovi a Masarykovi’ [Recollection and reflection on Rádl and Masaryk], in Karel Palek & Ivan Chvatík, eds., Sebrané spisy Jana Patočky [Collected Writings of Jan Patočka], vol. xii: Češi ii [The Czechs ii] (Prague: oikoymenh–​Filosofia, 2006), 327.

Criticism of the Czech Question

215

very general comparisons between people in the fifteenth century, and their notions of God and buildings (mediaeval castles and Renaissance palaces, Gothic and Renaissance God), and people in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (and their ideas), and people in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.16 In his view, every era must be centred upon itself and is an entity unto itself, and we can only understand it on its own terms. Superior insight and understanding are given only to professional historians, not to philosophers or sociologists. In terms of the substance of history, Pekař argued that the central principle of Czech history is the nation, the idea of the nation, and a concern for its existence and preservation. He understood the nation primarily in the sense of its physical existence, which is why Jan Slavík criticised him for his naturalism and Božena Komárková for naturalistic nationalism. Pekař accused Masaryk of being a bad patriot, for placing religion, in the form of reformist Christianity, and humanity, especially the humanity of the Czech Brethren, above the nation. While his conception of the nation might seem to follow from the liberal-​national interpretation of František Palacký, who believed that nations are the entities that shape history, Palacký’s romantic notion of nations then underwent a liberal-​humanist revision, as demonstrated by the letter he sent to the parliament in Frankfurt in 184, in which he wrote that he places human and scientific concerns over national ones.17 In a lecture Pekař gave to mark Masaryk’s 85th birthday, he nevertheless gave him a favourable nod when he highlighted all that Masaryk had done on behalf of the nation and the state. He did not fail, however, to point out that his contributions were in the service of the ‘nation’ (in Pekař’s sense) and not in the service of ‘religion’ (in Masaryk’s sense). Socially and politically Pekař was a conservative, and, in contrast to Masaryk’s social and, in a sense, liberal democratic outlook, he emphasises both the Roman-​Catholic and aristocratic and monarchical traditions. It is a question to what extent he still believed in the greater Austrian state during the First World War, as Slavík, one of his students, showed in his critical studies in publication of Pekař’s ‘proposal to send a Czech legation to Emperor Karl i on 18 May 1917’.18 But it clearly did not bother him to change the title of his Dějiny 16 17 18

Josef Pekař, ‘Smysl českých dějin (O nový názor na české dějiny)’ [The meaning of Czech history (On the new view of Czech history)], in Havelka, ed., Spor o smysl českých dějin i, 499–​560. František Palacký, Idea státu rakouského [The idea of the Austrian state] (Prague: J. Otto, 1907). In the annex to the article cited here, Slavík pointed out that during the war, Pekař was loyal to the Habsburg Monarchy and not to Masaryk’s foreign resistance striving for

216 Šimsa naší říše [History of Our Empire, 1914] to Československé dějiny [Czechoslovak History, 1921], and he admitted as much himself. This was noted also by Slavík and much later by Erazim Kohák as well.19 In the time of the First Republic, Pekař’s criticism put him in the same ranks as conservative Catholics, though by conviction he was more of a liberal than one of them, which both Rádl and Konstantin Miklík20 demonstrated in their analyses and criticism, and Pekař claimed himself.21 He became the spokesperson for professional historians, conservative Catholics, a segment of the nobility and some Sudeten Germans. For this reason, he was even considered a possible candidate to run against Edvard Beneš in the presidential election.22 4

Religious and Christian Criticism

Catholic and Protestant criticism of Masaryk’s stance with respect to religion was at the time relatively strong. One of the first critics to emerge in the Protestant camp was Jan Karafiát,23 the author of the children’s book Broučci [Beetles] and an orthodox Calvinist theologist, who was unwilling to accept Masaryk’s ‘liberal’ interpretations of Jesus Christ, guilt, sin, and the church. He was not alone. Others like him included František Žilka, a translator of the New Testament, who claimed that Masaryk had done absolutely nothing for Protestants, and J. L. Hromádka, who –​in probably the best monograph to examine Masaryk from theologically Lutheran and Barthian perspectives –​ declared Masaryk the greatest Czech philosopher of religion. At the same time,

19 20 21 22

23

an independent republic. Annex to the article by Jan Slavík, ‘Dějiny a přítomnost (Víra v Rakousko a věda historická)’ [History and the present (Faith in Austria and historical science)], in Havelka, ed., Spor o smysl českých dějin i, 655–​672. Erazim Kohák, Domov a dálava [Homeland and faraway] (Prague: Filosofia, 2010). Konstantin Miklík, ‘Masaryk a Pekař o smyslu českých dějin’ [Masaryk and Pekař on the meaning of Czech history] in Havelka, ed. Spor o smysl českých dějin i, 673–​728. Josef Pekař, Na cestě k samostatnosti [On the road to independence] (Prague: Panorama, 1993). ‘Pekař excelled in detailed historical research, but, because he was clueless about state politics, ended up making vague compromises with Fascist-​leaning Catholic groups and with the nationalism of the Germans, who were inclined to embrace him for his criticism of the “Castle” [i.e., the President]’. (Transl. M.Š.) Jan Patočka, ‘Co jsou Češi?’ [What are the Czechs?] in Patočka, Češi ii, 320. This criticism was recently discussed by Kateřina Šolcová in ‘Karafiátova odpověď na “Českou otázku”’ [Karafiát’s Answer to “The Czech Question”], in Jan Svoboda & Aleš Prázný, eds, Česká otázka a dnešní doba [The Czech question and the present day] (Prague: Filosofia, 2017), 537–​551.

Criticism of the Czech Question

217

though, he also thoroughly criticised his thoughts on faith, guilt, sin, and the church, and his excursions into Evangelical and Protestant theological thought. Hromádka acknowledged Masaryk’s critique of naturalism as a form of Biblical criticism and appreciated Masaryk’s personal faith, his sense of responsibility to his own programme, and his emphasis on personal responsibility, but he felt that Masaryk had taken his anti-​clericalism in a pointless direction and his ideas about theology, the church, guilt, sin, faith, and revelation were a dead end. He doubted that religion was Masaryk’s primary interest and believed he saw it merely as a sociological and political issue, not a matter of private and personal significance. He also believed that Masaryk remained spiritually dependent on the Catholicism of his youth and that he did not make a clear and precise distinction between Classical philosophical belief, Plato’s concept of immortality, Biblical faith, and the faith of Protestant Christianity and its notion of eternity.24 Masaryk was a Catholic until he was twenty years old. Faith and religion were very important to him. As a result, he found himself in more trouble during clashes with the majority Roman Catholic Church. His most serious conflict with the Catholic Church likely occurred in connection with the Hilsner affair and the ensuing disputes in court, when 308 catechists (lecturers in religion) sued him. He won this case. There is a widespread misconception that religion was at the heart of the dispute between Masaryk and Pekař,25 who was a conservative historian and moved closer to the Catholic Church during the years of the First Republic. But that was merely a social and political alliance of convenience on both sides rather than a religious one. It was the main reason why Rádl criticised Pekař for his ‘liberal’ politics. In Náboženství a politika Rádl also criticised Czech Protestantism for its nationalism, and he was opposed to the creation of the new Czechoslovak Hussite Church because he believed that partisanship centred wholly on the nation made patriotism incompatible with the Christian religion.26 Komárková derived her ideas about human rights and a (lay) secular state much more thoroughly from Calvinist theology than Masaryk did. Her inspiration, however, was not derived from Genevan Calvinism, but from the

24 25 26

Josef L. Hromádka, Masaryk (Prague: ymca, 1930), 130; chapter Křesťan [The Christian], 129–​182. ‘Dokument Charty 77 no. 11/​84. Právo na dějiny’ [Charter 77 Document no. 11/​84. The Right to History], Havelka, ed., Spor o smysl českých dějin ii, 362–​371 and the discussion on the pages that follow. Emanuel Rádl, Náboženství a politika [Religion and politics] (Prague: J. Vetešník, 1921), 42, 85–​6.

218 Šimsa Dutch-​Scottish-​American puritan tradition. By contrast, she regarded Rousseau and the French Revolution as a threat to and as undermining European democracy, because of the potential for an abuse of Rousseau’s concept of general will, and because of the violence and terror into which the French Revolution had been plunged because the political community was considered the sole source of human rights. Intellectually, her notion of human rights was based on the ideas of Milton, Locke, Kant, J. S. Mill, and Masaryk. She considered Masaryk to be the only strong central European thinker who had clearly tabled the question of human rights in connection with the question of democracy and had explored it in practical terms.27 She pointed out that, paradoxically, Masaryk’s concept of democracy was largely theocratic, and in this she was taking aim at Masaryk’s notion of Providence and his assessment of matters from the sub specie aeternitatis perspective, which seemed to conflict with Masaryk’s criticism of theocracy. Despite her emphasis on the theological and transcendental origins of human rights, Komárková was a firm advocate of the secular state and a strict separation between matters of faith and political matters.28 5

Marxist Criticism

Marxists directed criticism at Masaryk and Česká otázka (‘The Czech Question’) repeatedly, even though Masaryk had studied the social question extensively and believed it to be an indicator of the crisis of modern humanity. He devoted attention to this issue not just in his two-​volume Social Question but before that in the Conclusion to Česká otázka (‘The Czech Question’). He was one of the first central European intellectuals to introduce Marx and Marxism into the public discourse after discussing them in the Social Question, which received some attention at home but even more in Austria, Germany, and other European countries.29 Masaryk liked that Marx, Engels, and other 27 28

29

Božena Komárková, Původ a význam lidských práv [The origin and significance of human rights] (Prague: spn, 1990). Božena Komárková, Sekularizovaný svět a evangelium [The secularised world and the gospels] (Brno: Doplněk, 1992). Komárková joined in the discussion of the meaning of Czech history with her study titled ‘“Česká otázka” v průběhu století’ [The “Czech Question” in the course of a century], in Havelka, ed., Spor o smysl českých dějin ii, 482–​508. Tomáš G. Masaryk, Otázka sociální. Základy marxismu filosofické a sociologické. i–​i i [The social question. The philosophical and sociological principles of Marxism, i–​ ii] (Prague: Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2000). Masaryk’s article ‘Vědecká a filosofická krize současného marxismu’ [The scientific and philosophical crisis of contemporary Marxism] in Naše doba V (1897–​1898), 289–​304, sparked a response even before he published the book. In particular, it led to responses by František Modráček, ‘Masaryk a Marx’,

Criticism of the Czech Question

219

socialists were making the social question an issue that had to be addressed and he noted the significance of human labour for culture and society as well as the economy, but rejected Marxist materialism, the romantic preoccupation with revolution and all things revolutionary, Hegelian dialectics, violence, and the lack of respect for parliamentary democracy. Marxism therefore struck him more as a kind of aristocratic sport and form of entertainment than a real love for democracy and labour. The reaction of domestic Marxists to the discussion of Česká otázka (‘The Czech Question’) was somewhat delayed in coming. One of the first to respond, and initially offer a positivist response, was the historian Zdeněk Nejedlý, who before the war (in 1913) dialectically deemed both sides of the dispute to be correct: both Masaryk, as a philosopher, for offering a new philosophical perspective, and Pekař, as a factually better equipped positivist historian. A strongly dismissive response to Masaryk’s book Russia and Europe even before the First World War came from one of the leaders of the Russian Revolution who was later pushed out and then killed, Leon Trotsky,30 who was able to read it even though Tsarist censorship had not allowed the book to be published in Russia. Masaryk was harsher in his criticism of the Russian Bolsheviks than in that of Marx, and as a consequence his first political opponents turned out to be the Bolsheviks in the ranks of the (Czechoslovak) legionnaires, the best-​known example of such a critic being Alois Muna. While Nejedlý was bolshevised during the 1930s, he became a communist during the Second World War while in Moscow; he therefore criticised Masaryk as a bourgeois politician but did not condemn him as a class enemy. He portrayed the Hussites as ancestors of the Czech communists, thereby using them to establish the legitimacy of the Communists, and the Communists to establish the legitimacy of the Hussites.

Akademia 3 (November 1898) and Josef Krapka, ‘Krise v marxismu’ [Crisis in Marxism], Dělnické listy (vídeňské) 44 (1898). The discussion between Masaryk and Modráček continued with Masaryk’s response in Ke krisi v marxismu, with further exchanges of opinion on both sides. The German edition, Die philosophischen und sociologischen Grudlagen des Marxismus. Studien zur socialen Fragen (Prague–​Vienna: Carl Konegen, 1899) received a favourable response from Eduard Bernstein, who welcomed the emphasis he placed on ethics and the ‘evidence that Marxism needs revising’, while conversely Marxist Antonio Labriola expressed criticism and disagreement with the work in his article ‘A proposito della crisi de marxismo’, Rivista italiana di sociologia 3/​3 (1899). Reviews were also published in the German, Austrian, French, Belgian, Danish, Polish, and Russian press, pp. 239–​245. 30 Leo Trotzki, ‘Professor Masaryk über Russland’, Der Kampf, sozialdemokratische Monatschrift 7/​11–​12 (1914).

220 Šimsa In 1952 Jan Pachta published materials documenting Masaryk’s alleged policies ‘against the people’, and ‘Masarykism’ was ruthlessly criticised in an article titled ‘O sociálních kořenech a filosofické podstatě masarykismu’ (On the Social Roots and Philosophical Nature of Masarykism, 1954) by Karel Kosík, who rebuked even Nejedlý and Machovec for their ‘inadequate critiques of Masaryk’, and who later became a critical reformist Marxist. However, I would describe both these critics, i.e. Pachta and Kosik, as Stalinist rather than philosophical-​Marxist critics. Over the course of the 1960s, Czech Marxists, of whom Kosík and Machovec were examples, stepped back their criticism of Masaryk and eventually abandoned it altogether. Then they repented and in some cases even converted to Masarykian positions. From the end of the 1960s, we could use the terms Masaryk-​oriented reformists and eventually democratic Marxists to describe figures such as Machovec,31 Kosík,32 and Jaroslav Šabata, who even wrote an excellent foreword to Masaryk’s Nová Evropa,33 which was reprinted in an anthology titled I Marx, I Havel.34 6

Criticism of Nationalism

Before the war, Masaryk criticised two spectacular and widely publicised displays of nationalism in the Czech population: the nationalism surrounding the Manuscripts, which had been presented as authentic, and that which surrounded the case of Leopold Hilsner, a young Jewish man sentenced to death on whose behalf Masaryk spoke out and challenged the popular canard of blood libel of which Hilsner had been accused. His criticism, however, was not based on national and nationalistic arguments but on democratic and humanist ones, because Masaryk claimed that during the war republican and democratic states had fought against theocracies, by which he mainly meant 31 32

33 34

Milan Machovec, Tomáš G. Masaryk (Prague: Melantrich, 1968). In a polemical study on the division of the republic, Třetí Mnichov? [A Third Munich?], Kosík critically points to the absence of the type of politicians like Palacký and Masaryk, who were capable of being political actors and at the same time justifying their behaviour in philosophical terms, and he self-​critically acknowledged: ‘I used to “sternly” criticise Masaryk: he was right, not I. But his work lives on in the discussions and debates that it evokes in every generation’. Karel Kosík, Století Markéty Samsové [The century of Grete Samsa] (Prague: Český spisovatel, 1993), 162. Jaroslav Šabata, ‘Masarykova Nová Evropa’ [Masaryk’s ‘new Europe’], in Tomáš G. Masaryk, Nová Evropa [New Europe], ed. Vojtěch Kessler (Brno: Doplněk, 1994), 15–​50. Jaroslav Šabata, I Marx i Havel [Both Marx and Havel] (Prague and Brno: Masarykova demokratická akademie and Doplněk, 2013).

Criticism of the Czech Question

221

Austria-​Hungary, German Prussia, and Turkey. He regarded Great Britain as more of a liberal democracy than a monarchy, but in religious and political terms the country closest to his heart was the democratic republic of the United States. Russia had initially also been on the side of the Allies, but after the Bolshevik Revolution Masaryk quickly realised that Russia was in turmoil and politically useless. He did, nevertheless, try to negotiate with and include Russia, especially since there were between 60,000 and 90,000 Czechoslovak soldiers in that country, who were members of the legions that were operating under French command. Masaryk managed to negotiate a legal status for the legions in Russia during the only opportunity he had to do so, which was in 1917, between the February (bourgeois-​democratic) and October (Bolshevik) revolutions, and this is something that would have most likely been impossible under either the Tsar or the Bolsheviks. Although Masaryk did not portray himself as a nationalist in Česká otázka (‘The Czech Question’), in his conception of Czechness as something of global significance –​although this global aspect was something Masaryk understood not as a given fact but as a mission, a programme, and a normative idea or ideal that he presented to the Czech people –​it is possible to find traces here of the myth of a ‘chosen people’. This is something Roman Szporluk, following from Anthony Smith35 (Chosen People), identified in Masaryk’s work, calling it ‘religion as nationalism’ or ‘nationalism with a human face’, thus drawing an analogy between Masaryk’s humanist nationalism and humanist democracy and ‘socialism with a human face’ in 1968. In a sense, he viewed it as a delayed victory for Masaryk –​and he could not yet have known at that time that there would be a democratic revolution in 1989.36 Here we are interested in criticism of Masaryk’s nationalism or his theory of the nation state, which he presented later, during the war years, in New Europe and World Revolution, two books in which he took stock of and set out a programme for post-​war Europe. In these books his theory was expressed in his demand for a ‘nationality-​based reconstruction of Europe’ (the writing was completed in January 1918), which would lead to the formation of three new Slavic states in central Europe: Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. The most controversial part of the discussion around nationalism 35

Szporluk refers to writings by Anthony Smith on nationalism that date from 1971 and 1979, but Smith only set out his theory more comprehensively later on, in Anthony D. Smith, Chosen Peoples: Sacred Sources of National Identity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004). 36 Roman Szporluk, The Political Thought of Thomas Masaryk (New York: Columbia University Press, 1981).

222 Šimsa was the idea of the right of nations to self-​determination, a view advocated by American President Woodrow Wilson. Masaryk succeeded in his efforts to create a new state primarily because he was able to persuade Wilson that Czechoslovakia was precisely the kind of case to which the right of nations to self-​determination applied. A crucial military, diplomatic, and political role was played by the Czechoslovak legions in Russia, France, and Italy, which by that time were fighting on the side of the Entente. Karl Popper considered this exercise of the ‘right to self-​determination’ to be the weakest part of Masaryk’s otherwise admired democratic philosophy and republic.37 Masaryk’s critics pointed out that Masaryk was originally an advocate of natural law,38 but when trying to establish the new Czechoslovak Republic, he cited a historical right to argue the case of the Czech Lands, and referred to the natural rights as set out in the Washington Declaration to make the case for the union with Slovakia. Without concealing the weak points in Masaryk’s legal argumentation, these issues have for now been resolved in Masaryk’s favour by Czech-​born legal philosopher Radan Hain.39 A foremost critic of Masaryk’s nationalism was Rádl, who looked at the pre-​war Masaryk and compared him to Masaryk after the war, especially on the German question and on issues relating to the nation and nationalism in a democratic state. Rádl showed how Masaryk’s positions on nationalism, democracy, and Germans had transformed in the pre-​war, wartime, and post-​war eras. He illustrated these shifts in viewpoint on the basis of his three models of democracy: the organic model (in which society and the state are conceived as a single physically integrated entity), the majority model (with one citizen =​one voice, the decisive principle is the majority), and the contractual model (each citizen is a participant in a contract with the state and not only has state-​given rights but also has duties, and much like a mediaeval

37

38 39

‘Masaryk’s Czechoslovakia was probably one of the best and most democratic states that ever existed; but in spite of all that, it was built on the principle of the national state, on a principle which in this world is inapplicable’. Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, vol. ii: Hegel, Marx and the Aftermath (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1971), 276. ‘Fichte’s and Hegel’s ideas led to the principle of the national state and of national self-​determination, a reactionary principle in which, however, a fighter for the open society such as Masaryk sincerely believed, and which the democrat Wilson adopted’., ibid., p. 284. note 2. Tomáš G. Masaryk, Právo přirozené a historické [Law natural and historical] (Prague: Čas, 1900). Radan Hain, Teorie státu a státní právo v myšlení T. G. Masaryka [The theory of the state and constitutional law in the thought of T.G. Masaryk] (Prague: Karolinum, 2006) (Original Staatstheorie und Staatsrecht in T. G. Masaryks Ideenwelt, Zürich, 1999).

Criticism of the Czech Question

223

knight or an English gentleman has a responsibility towards the state). In Rádl’s interpretation, Masaryk’s view of the state and the nation figured somewhere between the contractual (in Rádl’s theory the Anglo-​Saxon or liberalist) model and the majority (French) model, but in relation to the Germans some of his comments aligned him with the organic model (Rádl calls it German, or central European). However, he also showed that Masaryk’s views were more tolerant and more humanitarian than public opinion. It is also possible to find comments that Masaryk made in the early years of the Czechoslovak republic that correspond to Rádl’s contractual model, but they are rare. Rádl’s criticism of Masaryk’s attitude towards the Germans and the Hungarians primarily related to the fact that he did not talk about (ethnic) Germans and Hungarians (in Czechoslovakia) as equal members of the Czechoslovak state and the Czechoslovak democracy, but instead spoke of them from the position of absolute power saying ‘we will concede this or that to them’, and that although Masaryk wanted them to cooperate with Czechoslovaks, he did not expect, save for a few exceptions, that they would participate equally in building a shared democratic state.40 Rádl remained isolated and misunderstood in his views, except among his colleagues and friends at the Academic ymca in Prague.41 Rádl’s criticism on this matter was interpreted as ‘pro-​German’, and those who challenged him on this criticism included enlightened liberals such as Ferdinand Peroutka and Karel Čapek. Rádl was later repeatedly defended on this matter as a philosopher who tried to solve our most topical problem by Jan Patočka. Rádl was also, however, one of the few people in Czechoslovakia to voice open and daring criticism of Hitler and extremist German nationalism, which

40 41

Emanuel Rádl, Válka Čechů s Němci [The war of Czechs and Germans] (Prague: Čin, 1928). The Academic ymca was a Christian ecumenical association founded by Jan Lukl Hromádka and Emanuel Rádl in 1926 for high school and university students and intelligentsia in connection with the international Christian association ymca. In 1927, the Academic ymca began publishing the open, socially critical, and philosophical-​ theological journal Křesťanská revue [Christian Revue]. The Academic ymca organised conferences and public debates on current social issues, to which Christians of all denominations, Jews, non-​believers, and communists were invited. Public debates were also held with representatives of the Sudeten Germans, and Konrád Henlein took part in one or even several debates. For example, according to the National Liberation Report, 350 people attended a discussion evening called ‘What Do Germans Expect from the Czechs’ on 27 April 1936. It was chaired by Jan Lukl Hromádka, and participants included W. Jaksch, J. Macek, dr. O. Peters, J. Rokyta, dr. Bachor along with a member of Henlein’s Sudeten German party Kund. See Milena Šimsová, Svět Jaroslava Šimsy [The world of Jaroslav Šimsa] (Benešov: eman, 2013), 317.

224 Šimsa he did in his book O německé revoluci (On the German Revolution) in 1933,42 after reading Mein Kampf and after Hitler took power.43 This book represented a unique and underappreciated analysis and criticism of German nationalism and included relatively accurate predictions of events to come. (Rádl predicted that Ukraine, Croatia, and Slovakia would become allies of Hitler’s Germany based on the prevalently tribal nationalism in those countries’ populations.) His analysis of German Nazism was also an analysis of the weakness of ‘anarchic (natural) liberalism’ in Europe at that time, although he did offer a defence of spiritual liberalism, which is liberalism built on freedom in conjunction with responsibility and the law. Rádl believed that a vital necessity for democracy was that there had also to be a democratic people, a condition which he characterised as follows: ‘A truly democratic people is governed by the rule of truth; neither “the people” nor “the majority” have the final word in a democracy, they are only the practical tool that gives way to the truth. Truth, justice, the welfare of the people in this world, this is the objective of politics; the voice of the people is only the means to this’.44 Patočka shared Rádl’s criticism and pointed to an analogy between it and Bolzano’s ‘land patriotism’. Ladislav Hejdánek did too and can be regarded as Rádl’s most faithful student for his non-​objective concept of truth and faith.45 In his afterword to Válka Čechů s Němci (The War of the Czechs with the Germans), however, Hejdánek faults Rádl’s criticism as too radical on the issue of the nation. In Hejdánek’s view, nations are not natural, but even if they are artificial creations and often rest on mistaken ideas or ideologies, they are nonetheless real. As such, we must reckon with them not as something that is a given, but as something that needs to be reshaped and recast on the basis of an idea, especially on just democratic and European ideas, just as Masaryk and Rádl had attempted to do.46 42

Emanuel Rádl, O německé revoluci [On the German revolution] (Prague: Čin, 1933); 2nd ed. Emanuel Rádl, O německé revoluci. K politické ideologii sudetských Němců [On the German revolution. The political ideology of the Sudeten Germans] (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr, 2003). 43 It is worth mentioning that Masaryk published a long and well-​argued critical review of Hitler’s Mein Kampf in German in the Prager Presse (30 April 1933) which was titled ‘Hitlerovo krédo’ [Hitler’s Credo], publishing under the pseudonym V. S. He draws particular attention to Hitler’s antisemitism and that Hitler was a dangerous man. 44 Rádl, O německé revoluci, 56. 45 Hejdánek invented a new philosophical discipline called meontology (non-​ontology), which enquires into the for non-​objective and non-​objectifiable sides of the truth, faith, events, subject, and so on. 46 Ladislav Hejdánek, Doslov [Afterword] to Národ: idea či ideologie? [The Nation: Idea of ideology?], in Rádl, Válka Čechů s Němci, 286.

Criticism of the Czech Question

7

225

Criticism of Critics and the Experience of History

Let us try to take stock of what remained vital, current, and inspirational from the Czech question after it had been addressed by criticism from a number of well-​known and renowned critics, and after it had been subjected to the scrutiny of historical and political experience in the light of the social and political events that occurred in the years that followed the publication of Česká otázka (‘The Czech Question’). The biggest critic of Masaryk’s Czech philosophy after Pekař was Jan Patočka. He divided his criticism of Masaryk into two steps. In the first step, he praised Masaryk for having created the Czechoslovak state and, in an opinion that surprised Hejdánek, he considered that Masaryk’s greatest philosophical achievement.47 We could call Patočka’s praise Platonic, because he proudly stated that Masaryk was the only philosopher who was able to establish a state by means of political action. In the second step, however, he severely criticised all of Masaryk’s ‘national philosophy’ as unsuccessful, as a ‘failure’. Patočka acknowledged that Masaryk founded the state as an intellectual, but Patočka was evidently unhappy with the philosophy that Masaryk used to substantiate his intellectual deed. Patočka understood Masaryk’s philosophy as an attempt to insert the Czech nation into the mainstream of history, and he saw Masaryk’s failure primarily as the failure of the republic he had created, which succumbed first to Hitler’s Germany and then to the Stalinist Soviet Union. Patočka indirectly held Masaryk responsible for this, even though two years earlier he had stated it more gently in the sense that Masaryk said to the people of Czechoslovakia: ‘I created a precarious state, an extremely precarious state, which cannot endure in quiescence and repose, as it possesses mainly problems and little power. And although I have created this state for you, you shall make it yourselves’.48 Patočka’s later criticism was Nietzschean, as he saw Masaryk’s philosophical failure as coming from the fact 47

48

‘Until relatively recently, one Czech thinker said about Masaryk that his greatest philosophical act was the establishment of an independent Czechoslovak state. This special statement forces us to consider whether such a political success can still be considered philosophical and under what condition. It would be quite understandable if such an act were considered to be the greatest political act of a certain philosopher, and the greatness of that thinker would be evaluated on the basis of truly philosophical and not political parameters. To evaluate such a political act as its greatest philosophical act means one of two things: either a mental confusion or a low evaluation of the philosophical qualities of that thinker, and the promotion of a political act as a mere substitute for a real act of philosophical action’. (Translated by M.Š.). Ladislav Hejdánek, ‘Filosof a politická odpovědnost’ [The philosopher and political responsibility], Česká mysl 1/​x li (1991), 10. Patočka, ‘Vzpomínka a zamyšlení o Rádlovi a Masarykovi’, 326.

226 Šimsa that Masaryk took insufficient measure of the risk that existed at that time. ‘It is enough for us to confront the conclusions of The Making of a State with the present state of the world in order to see that two hopes based on this philosophy of the First World War have not been fulfilled. These hopes were: 1) that with the First World War the crisis culminated and was overcome, 2) that by virtue of the philosophy of this conflict as a struggle between theocracy and democracy the Czech nation was by its own thought placed in the very centre of history. Rather than Masaryk, it is his older contemporary, Nietzsche, that appears as the thinker of our times –​precisely as a thinker and not an ideologist of a violent democratic order’.49 What remains to be seen is whether Nietzsche’s philosophy was more an expression of a crisis than an attempt to overcome one, whether and in what way Nietzsche was able to contribute to the further existence of the democratic republic, and whether Masaryk’s theory of the progress of democracy in Europe and in the world proved itself more in the long run than Patočka’s sceptical reflections on the twentieth century as a time of war, as he saw it in the normalisation years of 1974–​1975 (Kacířské eseje) and of 1976 (Criticism of Masaryk in An Attempt). Patočka himself contributed to the democratisation and unification of Europe in the same spirit as Masaryk by taking an energetic stand in defence of human rights in his role as spokesperson for Charter 77 and with his intellectually robust justification.50 I believe Česká otázka (‘The Czech Question’) was indeed a work in its own right, but we can also read it as preparation for the establishment of the state that came later. In the discussion that surrounded this work, arguments for and against the creation of an independent state were polished and refined, and in the course of this discussion –​the second stage of which unfolded after the state was founded –​it was not just the meaning of Czech history that was examined, but also questions about the where, how, and why of the direction that we were and that we ought to be going in. In his two-​volume work, Havelka most likely succeeded in demonstrating that probably no other

49 50

Jan Patočka, ‘An Attempt at a Czech National Philosophy and Its Failure’, tr. by Mark Suino, in Milíč Čapek & Karel Hrubý, eds., T. G. Masaryk in Perspective. Comments and Criticism, tr. Mark Suino (New York: svú Press, 1981), 20–​21. Jan Patočka, ‘Čím je a čím není Charta 77, Proč nemá Charta 77 být zveřejňována, Co můžeme očekávat od Charty 77’ [What Charter 77 is and what it is not. Why Charter 77 should not be published, What we can expect from Charter 77], in Karel Palek & Ivan Chvatík, eds., Sebrané spisy Jana Patočky [Collected Writings of Jan Patočka], vol. xii: Češi ii [The Czechs ii] (Prague: oikoymenh, Filosofia, 2006), 428–​430, 431–​433, 440–​444.

Criticism of the Czech Question

227

similarly significant interdisciplinary discussion has taken place in Czech society51 that posed such fundamental questions about the meaning and the mission of the existence of the Czech nation and state, but that at the same time revealed some of the shortcomings to the alternatives to Masaryk’s state-​ building project. In Česká otázka (‘The Czech Question’) Masaryk attempted to outline the two kinds of relationship to a nation that can exist: positive, humanist, and democratic and, conversely, negative, chauvinistic, and nationalistic. Pekař, Rádl, and Patočka rightly criticised Masaryk’s concept of democracy in Česká otázka (‘The Czech Question’) and his later humanist democracy, and demonstrated the weaknesses of both these concepts, these weaknesses that made themselves clearly apparent in the historical and political experiences of the twentieth century on a Czech, European, and international scale, but they did not yield any alternative concept of the Czech question, and instead suggested only ways of amending the existing one. This also applied to other interpreters and critics, who each inserted their own small stone in the mosaic or tried to shake up and reconfigure the mosaic. But outside these minor adjustments, we did not see any fundamentally new concepts or programmes, aside from several passing national-​populist ideas. One weakness of Masaryk’s criticism of liberalism is his liberal concept of human rights and freedoms, which even Masaryk himself never clarified. It is a concept based on respect and regard for others and for the law, something Masaryk espoused himself. But he did not distinguish his concept clearly enough from anarchical liberalism, which established itself in the economic sphere. Emanuel Rádl corrected him on his. Above we identified national-​ conservative criticism with Josef Pekař, but there were also new Catholic voices, such as František Schwarzenberg and Karel Skalický, who appreciated Masaryk’s relationship to Jesus and that he had founded a democratic republic on humanist and Christian values.52 Masaryk’s strongest and also most controversial theory was that the Czech question was a religious question, but Masaryk did not explain how he could reconcile this conception of the Czech nation with the secular democracy that he was advocating. Masaryk was

51 52

Philosophers, historians, sociologists, lawyers, economists, theologists, political scientists, ecologists, and other representatives of the humanities and the social sciences took part in the discussion. František Schwarzenberg, ‘O smysl našich dějin’ [On the meaning of our history], and Karel Skalický, ‘Prolegomena k budoucí filosofii českých dějin’ [Prolegomena to a future philosophy of Czech history], both in Havelka, ed., Spor o smysl českých dějin ii, 174–​180 and 288–​315.

228 Šimsa criticised by the Marxists, but it turned out that these critically and professionally honest intellectuals ultimately had more in common with him than with their Bolshevik predecessors, who had no love for Masaryk mainly because he did not consider Bolshevism to be a form of Marxism but saw it rather as Tsarism in reverse. They failed to erase Masaryk from the memory of the Czech and Slovak people and from the memory of the republic, which is now, luckily, more democratic than Communist or Bolshevik. Critics of Masaryk’s nationalism rightly drew attention to the gaps and problems in the work that Masaryk had created, which is to say, in the new democratic republic. But they were unable to mend and improve what he had crafted to an extent that allowed it to survive for more than a year in the form in which Masaryk had founded it. Nevertheless, a part of what Masaryk created survives today in the Czech Republic and in Slovakia. The whole of his work survives in his books and can be reconstructed and criticised by anyone. Through a discussion of his ideas it can be invested with new life and serve as a stimulating source of inspiration, which will call both for new criticisms and for vibrant and strong alternatives.

Bibliography

Apel, Karl-​ Otto, Claus von Bormann et al., Hermeneutik und Ideologiekritik (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1971). Čapek, Karel, Hovory s T. G. Masarykem [Talks with T.G. Masaryk] (Prague: Aventinum –​ Čin, 1928, 1938; Československý spisovatel, 1990). Čapek, Karel, Talks with T. G. Masaryk. tr. Dora Round, ed. Michael H. Heim (Prague: Catbird Press, 1995). ‘Dokument Charty 77 no. 11/​84. Právo na dějiny’ [Charter 77 Document no. 11/​84. The right to history], in Miloš Havelka, ed. Spor o smysl českých dějin [The dispute on the meaning of Czech history] vol. ii: 1938–​1989 (Prague: Torst, 2006), 362–​371. Habermas, Jürgen, Erkenntnis und Interese (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1968, 2016). Habermas, Jürgen, Knowledge and Human Interests, tr. Jeremy J. Shapiro (Boston, MA: Beacon, 1970). Habermas, Jürgen, On the Logic of the Social Sciences, tr. Shierry W. Nicholsen & Jerry A. Stark (Cambridge, MA: mit Press, 1988). Habermas, Jürgen, Technik und Wissenschaft als Ideologie (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1968, 1989). Habermas, Jürgen, Toward a Rational Society, tr. Jeremy J. Shapiro (Boston, MA: Beacon, 1970). Habermas, Jürgen, Zur Logik der Sozialwissenschaften (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1967, 1970, 1985).

Criticism of the Czech Question

229

Hain, Radan, Staatstheorie und Staatsrecht in T. G. Masaryks Ideenwelt (Zürich: Schulthess Polygraphischer Verlag, 1999). Hain, Radan, Teorie státu a státní právo v myšlení T. G. Masaryka [The theory of the state and constitutional law in the thought of T.G. Masaryk] (Prague: Karolinum, 2006). Havelka, Miloš, ed., Spor o smysl českých dějin [The dispute on the meaning of Czech history], vol. i: 1895–​1938 (Prague: Torst, 1995). Havelka, Miloš, ed., Spor o smysl českých dějin [The dispute on the meaning of Czech history], vol. ii: 1938–​1989 (Prague: Torst, 2006). Hejdánek, Ladislav, ‘Filosof a politická odpovědnost’ [The philosopher and political responsibility], Česká mysl 1/​x li (1991). Hejdánek, Ladislav, Doslov [Afterword] to Národ: idea či ideologie? [The nation: Idea or ideology?], in Emanuel Rádl, Válka Čechů s Němci [The war between the Czechs and the Germans] (Prague: Melantrich, 1993). Hromádka, Josef L., Masaryk (Prague: ymca, 1930). Kaizl, Josef, ‘České myšlenky’ [Czech thoughts], in Miloš Havelka, ed., Spor o smysl českých dějin [The dispute on the meaning of Czech history], vol. i: 1895–​1938 (Prague: Torst, 1995), 47–​97. Kohák, Erazim, Domov a dálava [Homeland and faraway] (Prague: Filosofia, 2010). Komárková, Božena, ‘“Česká otázka” v průběhu století’ [The “Czech question” in the course of a century], in Miloš Havelka, ed., Spor o smysl českých dějin [The dispute on the meaning of Czech history], vol. ii: 1938–​1989 (Prague: Torst, 2006), 482–​508. Komárková, Božena, Původ a význam lidských práv [The origin and significance of human rights] (Prague: spn, 1990). Komárková, Božena, Sekularizovaný svět a evangelium [The secularised world and the gospels] (Brno: Doplněk, 1992). Kosík, Karel, Století Markéty Samsové [The century of Grete Samsa] (Prague: Český spisovatel, 1993). Kosík, Karel, Třetí Mnichov? Masarykova idea československé státnosti ve světle kritiky dějin, [Masaryk’s Idea of Czechoslovak statehood in the light of the critique of history] in Karel Kosík, Století Markéty Samsové [The century of Grete Samsa] (Prague: Český spisovatel, 1993). Krapka, Josef, ‘Krise v marxismu’ [Crisis in Marxism], Dělnické listy (vídeňské) 44 (1898). Labriola, Antonio, ‘A proposito della crisi de marxismo’, Rivista italiana di sociologia 3/​ 3 (1899), 189. Löwenstein, Bedřich, ‘Manifest nepolitické politiky’ [Manifesto of non-​political politics] in Bedřich Löwenstein, My a ti druzí [We and the others] (Brno: Doplněk, 1996), 230–​244. Machovec, Milan, Tomáš G. Masaryk (Prague: Melantrich, 1968). Masaryk, Tomáš G., ‘Hitlerovo krédo’ [Hitler’s Credo], Prager Presse (30 April 1933), vol. 119, 3–​4. Under Pseudonym V.S.

230 Šimsa Masaryk, Tomáš G., ‘Vědecká a filosofická krize současného marxismu’ [The scientific and philosophical crisis of contemporary Marxism], Naše doba v (1897–​1898), 289–​304. Masaryk, Thomas G., Die philosophischen und sociologischen Grudlagen des Marxismus. Studien zur socialen Fragen (Prague–​Vienna: Carl Konegen, 1899). Masaryk, Tomáš G., Otázka sociální. Základy marxismu filosofické a sociologcké. i–​i i [The social question. The philosophical and sociological principles of Marxism] (Prague: Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2000). Masaryk, Tomáš G., Právo přirozené a historické [Law natural and historical] (Prague: Čas, 1900). Miklík, Konstantin, ‘Masaryk a Pekař o smyslu českých dějin’ [Masaryk and Pekař on the meaning of Czech history] in Miloš Havelka, ed., Spor o smysl českých dějin [The dispute on the meaning of Czech history], vol. i: 1848–​1938 (Prague: Torst, 2006), 673–​728. Modráček, František, ‘Masaryk a Marx’, Akademia 3 (November 1898). Palacký, František, Idea státu rakouského [The idea of the Austrian state] (Prague: J. Otto, 1907). Patočka, Jan, ‘Čím je a čím není Charta 77’, ‘Proč nemá Charta 77 být zveřejňována’, ‘Co můžeme očekávat od Charty 77’ [What Charter 77 is and what it is not. Why Charter 77 should not be published. What we can expect from Charter 77], in Karel Palek & Ivan Chvatík, eds., Sebrané spisy Jana Patočky [Collected writings of Jan Patočka], vol. xii: Češi ii [The Czechs ii] (Prague oikoymenh–​Filosofia, 2006), 428–​430, 431–​433, 440–​444. Patočka, Jan, ‘Vzpomínka a zamyšlení o Rádlovi a Masarykovi’ [Recollection and reflection on Rádl and Masaryk], in Karel Palek & Ivan Chvatík, eds., Sebrané spisy Jana Patočky [Collected Writings of Jan Patočka], vol. xii: Češi ii [The Czechs ii] (Prague: oikoymenh–​Filosofia, 2006). Patočka, Jan, ‘An Attempt at a Czech National Philosophy and Its Failure’, in Milíč Čapek & Karel Hrubý, eds., T. G. Masaryk in Perspective. Comments and Criticism, tr. Mark Suino (New York: svu Press, 1981), 1–​22. Pekař, Josef, ‘Masarykova česká filosofie’ [Masaryk’s Czech philosophy], in Miloš Havelka, ed., Spor o smysl českých dějin [The dispute on the meaning of Czech history], vol. i: 1848–​1938 (Prague: Torst, 1995), 265–​302. Pekař, Josef, ‘Smysl českých dějin (O nový názor na české dějiny)’ [The meaning of Czech history (On the new view of Czech history)], in Miloš Havelka, ed., Spor o smysl českých dějin [The dispute on the meaning of Czech history], vol. i: 1848–​1938 (Prague: Torst, 1995), 499–​560. Pekař, Josef, Na cestě k samostatnosti [On the road to independence] (Prague: Panorama, 1993).

Criticism of the Czech Question

231

Peroutka, Ferdinand, Jací jsme. Demokratický manifest [What kind of people we are. A  democratic manifesto] (Prague: Středočeské nakladatelství a knihkupectví, 1991). Popper, Karl, The Open Society and Its Enemies, vol. ii: Hegel, Marx and the Aftermath (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1971). Rádl, Emanuel, Dějiny filosofie ii [The history of philosophy ii] (Prague: Fobia, 1999). Rádl, Emanuel, Náboženství a politika [Religion and politics] (Prague: J. Vetešník, 1921). Rádl, Emanuel, O německé revoluci [On the German revolution] (Prague: Jan Laichter, 1933). 2nd edn, Emanuel Rádl, O německé revoluci. K politické ideologii sudetských Němců [On the German revolution. The political ideology of the Sudeten Germans] (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr, 2003). Rádl, Emanuel, Válka Čechů s Němci [The war between Czechs and Germans] (Prague: Melantrich, 1928, 1993). Ricœur, Paul, ‘Hermeneutics and the Critique of Ideology’ in Paul Ricœur, Hermeneutics and Human Sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981, 2016), 23–​60. Ricœur, Paul, Freud and Philosophy. An Essay on Interpretation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1977). Ricœur, Paul, Hermeneutics and Human Sciences (New York: Columbia University Press, 1981). Ricœur, Paul, Lectures on Ideology and Utopia (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986). Šabata, Jaroslav, ‘Masarykova Nová Evropa’ [Masaryk’s new Europe], in Tomáš G. Masaryk, Nová Evropa [The new Europe], ed. Vojtěch Kessler (Brno: Doplněk, 1994), 15–​50. Šabata, Jaroslav, I Marx i Havel [Both Marx and Havel] (Prague–​Brno: Masarykova demokratická akademie and Doplněk, 2013). Schwarzenberg, František, ‘O smysl našich dějin’ [On the meaning of our history], in Miloš Havelka, ed., Spor o smysl českých dějin [The dispute on the meaning of Czech history], vol. ii: 1938–​1989 (Prague: Torst, 2006), 174–​180. Šimsa, Martin, ‘A Hermeneutical Critique of Czech Democracy’, conference proceedings –​Book 1, (Helsinki 2018), 415–​423. Šimsa, Martin, ‘Hermeneutical Critique in Deliberative Democracy’, in Archeology, History, Philosophy. Conference Proceedings, Volume i, sgem 2017 (Vienna, 2017), 269–​276. Šimsa, Martin, ‘Masarykův a Habermasův pojem demokracie’ [Masaryk’s and Habermas’s concept of democracy], in Marek Hrubec, ed., Demokracie, veřejnost a občanská společnost [Democracy, the public, and the civic society] (Prague: Filosofia, 2004), 135–​146.

232 Šimsa Šimsa, Martin, ‘The Question of Understanding and Its Criteria in Conservative and Critical Hermeneutics’, in Petr Pokorný & Jan Roskovec, eds., Philosophical Hermeneutics and Biblical Exegesis (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 59–​67. Šimsová, Milena, Svět Jaroslava Šimsy [The world of Jaroslav Šimsa] (Benešov: eman, 2013). Skalický, Karel, ‘Prolegomena k budoucí filosofii českých dějin’ [Prolegomena to a future philosophy of Czech history] in Miloš Havelka, ed., Spor o smysl českých dějin [The dispute on the meaning of Czech history], vol. ii: 1938–​1989 (Prague: Torst, 2006), 288–​315. Slavík, Jan, ‘Dějiny a přítomnost (Víra v Rakousko a věda historická)’ [History and the present (Faith in Austria and historical science)], in Miloš Havelka, ed., Spor o smysl českých dějin [The dispute on the meaning of Czech history], vol. i: 1848–​1938 (Prague: Torst, 1995), 655–​672. Smith, Anthony D., Chosen Peoples: Sacred Sources of National Identity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004). Šolcová, Kateřina, ‘Karafiátova odpověď na “Českou otázku”’ [Karafiát’s answer to ‘The Czech Question’], in Jan Svoboda & Aleš Prázný, eds, Česká otázka a dnešní doba [The Czech question and the present day] (Prague: Filosofia, 2017), 537–​551. Svoboda, Jan & Aleš Prázný, eds, Česká otázka a dnešní doba [The Czech question and the present day] (Prague: Filosofia, 2017). Szporluk, Roman, The Political Thought of Thomas Masaryk (New York: Columbia University Press, 1981). Trotzki (Trotsky), Leo, ‘Professor Masaryk über Russland’, Der Kampf, sozialdemokratische Monatschrift 7/​11–​12 (1914), 519–​527.

­c hapter 13

The Anti-​political Nation in Bohemia and Moravia Václav Bělohradský Abstract In his article, Václav Bělohradský shows that Masaryk’s anti-​political concept of humanism as ‘the essence of the nation’, which we must accept, herald, and guard as the meaning of national life, is a mystifying culmination of the past and one of the keys to the political catastrophes of modern Czech statehood. It also highlights the consequences of the hegemony of anti-​political national essentialism.

Contemporary political philosophy has been greatly influenced by Alain Badiou’s concept of ‘truth event’ as presented for instance in his book Saint Paul: La fondation de l’universel (1997).1 In the twentieth century, all concepts were breaking free from mimesis, and this also applied to the concept of truth. Truth must be conceived not as a ‘reflection’, but rather as an event that cannot be integrated into society as it is without a revolutionary change. A truth event overturns the ‘institutionalised universe’ of tradition, undermines the order founded on reproducing the same, and refers to the irrepressible unpredictability of events. Badiou gives examples: Saint Paul and the discovery of universalism, Galileo and the discovery of mathematical physics, love and the discovery of the other. A truth event constitutes anti-​political politics, whereas the set of changes a society must undergo for new truths to be transformed into rules and institution is political politics. First there is an anti-​political truth event and then there come new political institutions and new rules for decision making. The road from anti-​political truth to political institutions presupposes the transformation of an exceptional day into an ordinary day, of a genius discovery to a rule accessible to all, of normative prophecy to legality administered by a bureaucracy. The ‘truth event’ pole is anti-​political in the sense that the cause of one part of society demands engagement of the ‘entire person’, where a ‘battle for truth breaks out, pitting brother against brother’. Political politics is then the art 1 Alain Badiou, Saint Paul. La fondation de l’universalisme (Paris: puf, 1997).

© Václav Bělohradský, 2023 | DOI:10.1163/9789004534919_015

234 Bělohradský of turning these hostile factions of society into different aspects of the same instance –​for example, democracy turns business owners and employees into two parties seeking voter support for their respective legitimate interests. Ultimately, all great political philosophers in the Western tradition describe the political history of nations as an oscillation between the antipolitical pole of ‘passion and truth’ and institutionalisation, legalisation of the daily operations of power. For instance, Max Weber speaks about an oscillation between the pole of charismatic engagement and the pole of the everyday and bureaucratisation. Alain Badiou, as noted above, views political change as the consequence of a society being invaded by ‘truth as event’ which the society cannot integrate without transforming itself and subsequent transfiguration of that event into political institutions and impersonal rules of behaviour. Jan Patočka develops a notion of a dialectic tension between the tenets of civilisation (sets of claims which are valid independently of asymmetries of power and resistance to change that is inherent to traditions) and ‘the past’, from which we are freeing ourselves by understanding the tenets of civilisation.2 Henri Bergson in his analyses of the sources of morality and religion speaks about a tension between ‘ethical prophesy’ and ‘moral code’.3 Not every truth event can be melted down into political politics and political institutions, some truth events are too radical, they presuppose the re-​ education of humanity or complete equality of people, delegitimise every political institution and moral authority, and therefore lead to cold or even hot civil war.

…

Masaryk’s ‘invention of the nation’ in The Czech Question is a good example of what Badiou means with his notion of truth event. The revival of a nation requires justification, a fable of meaning, and the form this fable took was anti-​ political national essentialism. This is what I call Masaryk’s conviction that the ‘humanist ideal’ is the essence of the Czech nation and national revival is a process of ‘self-​discovery’ and of coming to understand the obligations that flow from this ‘essence’: ‘Palacký’s national act was that he fully communicated the meaning of our history –​presenting the efforts of our Czech Brethren as our 2 Cf. Jan Patočka, ‘Nadcivilizace a její vnitřní konflikt’ [Transcivilisation and its internal conflict], in Ivan Chvatík & Pavel Kouba, eds., Sebrané spisy Jana Patočky [Collected works of Jan Patočka], vol. i: Péče o duši [Care for the soul] (Prague: oikoymenh–​Filosofia, 1996), 243–​302. 3 Henri Bergson, Les deux sources de la morale et de la religion (Paris: Félix Alcan,1932).

The Anti-political Nation in Bohemia and Moravia

235

ideal […] as our national program’.4 The history of Czechoslovakia as a ‘state that failed’ belongs in political textbooks under the heading of Why States Fail. Masaryk’s conception of the nation’s political emancipation as formulated in The Czech Question is one of the reasons why this is so: his anti-​political notion of humanity as the ‘essence of the nation’ and meaning of national life, one which all Czechs must herald and guard, is a mystifying embellishment of the past. With allusion to Milan Kundera, we could say that this notion of the meaning of national history in Czech political culture did not undergo the ‘anti-​lyrical conversion’ to which we are always forced by the ‘discovery of political prose under the anti-​political gilding of lofty verse’. The invention of the nation thus remained nothing more than anti-​political identity kitsch whose hegemony has fundamentally weakened Czech political culture. Palacký’s most important legacy is the ‘idea of the Austrian state’, which is what he called the program of federalising the nations along the Danube into a single constitutional liberal state. In Czech political philosophy, however, a similar theory of federalism as a political program was missing, which is one of the reasons Czechoslovakia failed.

…

Before attempting to show the impact of the hegemony of moral kitsch on our political culture, let me make a brief historical note: In 1915, in a letter addressed to Paul Amann,5 Prague native and Austrian geographer, Thomas Mann declares that the mission of Germany is to prevent the grinding down of ‘that which transcends man’ into blather for the masses. He adds: ‘Wagner said, for example, that politics is disgusting, and he considered Nietzsche to be the last non-​political German. What does a sense of country and freedom have in common with […] politics?’ Liberal democracy, according to Mann, inscribes a Christian ‘truth event’ into politics, thus turning it into blather of the ‘literati of civilisation’, the aim of which is to ‘spiritually homogenise humanity’. Faith in the anti-​political mission of culture was dominant also among the cultural elites of Central Europe. Here, as Karl Kraus wrote, culture was to ‘fight against the pernicious alliance between the press, the stupidity of the masses, and parliamentary politics’. He, too, looked down on democracy as evidenced 4 Tomáš G. Masaryk, Česká otázka. Naše nynější krize. Jan Hus [The Czech question, Our present crisis, Jan Hus] in Jiří Brabec, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Writings of T. G. Masaryk], vol. vi (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr and Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2000), 71. 5 Thomas Mann, Briefe an Paul Amann (1915–​1952), ed. Herbert Wegener (Lübeck: Schmidt-​ Römhild 1959), 50.

236 Bělohradský by his aphorisms, such as Parliamentarianism is veiled political prostitution or Politics is dramatic effect … the rhythm is everything while meaning is nothing. The anti-​political vocabulary of Central European intellectuals taught people to perceive parliament as a ‘societal disease’ and political parties as ‘parasites’ on the body of the nation, living in symbiosis with Jewish financial oligarchs and big capital. Although Masaryk subjected this anti-​political notion of culture to a fundamental civilisational critique in The Making of a State, calling it an expression of ‘pathological subjectivism’ and ‘metaphysical titanism’, among Central European intellectuals this view prevailed. The Austro-​Hungarian empire disintegrated into ‘unnatural’ states, whose political culture was hopelessly infected with identity panic to which ‘anti-​ political essentialism’ was an unproductive response, as shown by the bloody implosion of Yugoslavia, double disintegration of Czechoslovakia, and Central European fascist reaction to the current refugee crisis. No genuine idea of the state has been found sufficiently strong enough to turn the traumatised citizens of the new ethnically heterogeneous states into political nations of Central Europe. In Austria, there were three sources of resistance to democratic political politics: First was the exceptional political and economic position of the aristocracy in Austria-​Hungary, which looked down at democracy but defended the rule of law and management of the state by the enlightened oligarchy against the ‘politicking of bourgeois foxes’. Second was the religious cult of homo juridicus, a kind of ‘legality unto itself’ that drew its legitimacy from the consensus of the masses mediated through a democratically elected parliament, as well as the loyalty and independence of Austria’s honourable and bearded cadre of officials. And thirdly, the Central European cultural elite sympathised with the ‘aristocratic’ disdain of mass culture and bourgeois ‘profiteering on exchanges’. The poet Hofmannsthal, for example, greeted the First World War as a healthy event that would finally restore value to words like heroism and homeland and liberate the nation from the ‘daily deceptions’ upon which bourgeois democracy is based.

…

After the Second World War, the Munich catastrophe was interpreted as a consequence of the ‘politicking’ of the First Republic. The National Front, which led the country up to February, was the poisoned fruit of mass resistance to democratic political politics. And during the years of normalisation, dissent formed as a ‘parallel polis’ of people ‘living in truth’, whose cause against

The Anti-political Nation in Bohemia and Moravia

237

political politics is transcendent. The pathos of anti-​political identity in various forms remains a fundamental feature of Czech political culture to this day. Zdeněk Nejedlý (1878–​1962) inscribed communism into the national revival as its natural ‘culmination’, thus presenting the Communists as the ‘heirs of the best traditions of the Czech people’ –​the Hussites, Czech Brethren, and national revivalists. He turned the pious rural kitsch of Božena Němcová (1820–​1862) into a ‘celebration of the wisdom of the Czech people’, the conception of Czech history put forth by the conservative nationalist fictionaliser František Palacký (1798–​1876) into ‘great realism’, and the most recent form of communism into the ‘meaning of our history’. As late as 1950, at a centennial celebration of TGM’s birth, he even tried to portray the Communists as the culmination of Masaryk’s legacy as well. The public arena of every society is full of stories. The plots and characters of these stories constitute an ideological battleground because whoever gains power over the storytellers can insert themselves in the narrative as the standard bearer of ‘universal values’ and thus attain hegemony in that society. Nonetheless, the tension between the claim to universal validity and particular interests never ends. Every universalist political movement considers the program of the alternative movement to be an expression of the interests of a particular power or class, it seeks to displace the hegemon from the story of universality and insert its own goals. But every hegemony must transform into political politics, otherwise universalising rhetoric degenerates into moralising identity kitsch and nationalist fairy tales.

…

The key to the political history of modern Czech statehood is the irreconcilable conflict between the anti-​political understanding of the meaning of Czech history and the political consequences of the ethnic dualism of the Kingdom of Bohemia and later ethnic tribalism of Czechoslovakia. This has led to a permanent crisis of political politics and an irreparable delegitimisation of parliamentary democracy. The re-​legitimisation of political politics in Czechoslovakia failed after 1918, failed after 1945, and failed again after 1989. Generally, we can define identity kitsch as an attempt to unify society by referring to some ‘national essence’ in the face of relentlessly advancing functional differentiation of society and growing divergence between its specialised sectors, each of which understands only its own code. The transaction costs for coming to some agreement representing the whole increase sharply, while it becomes increasingly difficult to find some unifying story of truth. Various utopias arise. Masaryk, for example, was strongly influenced by Comte’s Catechism

238 Bělohradský of Positivism, the faith in rearranging society on scientific foundations, while post-​war Czech intellectuals believed that Marx had discovered the ‘essence of history’. After 1989, the source of anti-​political kitsch was the myth of civil society whose power was being ‘suffocated’ by political parties. In his book The Sign of Birth,6 Vladimír Macura considers the ‘exceptional position of a patriotic society’ in the nation to be one of the essential features of Czech society: it is a tragedy of Czech political culture that every elite here feels like they ‘represent the true national essence’. The active ingredient in identity kitsch is the project of anti-​political engagement, in comparison to which parliamentary politics looks like mere ‘politicking’. Václav Havel heralded a protracted period of malaise in Czech society with his speech at the Rudolfinum in 1997,7 in which he said that ‘humility before the order of nature, solidarity, consideration of those who come after us […] all this […] was relegated to the superstructure […] only to later find […] that the foundation has been undermined […] because it did not develop […] in the strict climate of God’s commandments […] the citizen was thrown into hopeless solitude […] and ultimately the only thing left between the citizen and the state is the party writ with a capital P’. Such anti-​political interpretation of transformation in the Czech Republic delegitimises political politics as such; the sentence about the citizen being thrown into hopeless solitude stands in glaring contrast to the rapid development of civic activities in the nineties.

…

I propose that the first consequence of the hegemony of anti-​political kitsch in Czech political culture should be formulated as follows: Political politics is the institutionalised search for a compromise between the interests, perspectives, and values of different parties in a situation where the plurality of interests, perspectives, and values is itself a great value; in Czech political culture, political policy is characterised by a permanent deficit of legitimacy. Masaryk pits ‘internal politics’ against ‘external politics’. Internal politics cares for the ‘moral and enlightened advancement of society’, while external politics is ‘intrigue’ and ‘lackey cunning’, poisoning ‘all of our communal life,

6 Vladimír Macura, Znamení zrodu. České národní obrození jako kulturní typ [The sign of birth. Czech national revival as a cultural type] (Prague: H & H 1995), 118–​129, also 264. 7 https://​web.arch​ive.org/​web/​201​7121​3055​020/​http://​www.vacl​avha​vel.cz/​showtr​ans.php? cat=​proj​evy&val=​144_​proj​evy.html&typ=​H TML.

The Anti-political Nation in Bohemia and Moravia

239

whoever cannot be a lion becomes a fox and gets ahead through cunning: politics is ideal for such numerous people’.8 Masaryk’s notion of ‘external politics’ is a forerunner of political politics, mostly considered by the cultural elite of the land to be ‘intrigue’. Political (external) politics thus develops in a vacuum of legitimacy. Separated by a gulf from ‘internal politics’, from Badiou’s truth event, it does not become the institutional framework for collective behaviour –​it merely remains anti-​political kitsch which, however, has gained hegemony in our political culture. We can define political politics as a process in which people learn to legitimately make decisions in ‘political time’, in which pursuit of the aims of one necessarily suppresses the aims of others without there being any right to label the suppression of such aims evil or a lie. Unlike a mere ethnic majority, a political nation is built on the primacy of political politics, which the anti-​political, essentialist definition of the nation hopelessly delegitimises as immoral ‘politicking’. The deficit of legitimacy of political politics in Czech political culture has several causes, the most important of which I will address. First there is the penchant for ideology, which Petr Charvát, still active archaeologist and historian of older Czech history, claims has been a factor in Czech history as far back as the ninth century. By this he means the unwillingness to accept a plurality of views and interests as the normal state of society instead of just the ‘immorality and stupidity’ of one part of the nation –​let us look back on the reaction to results of the first direct presidential elections in the Czech Republic. An historical explanation of fear of plurality is ethnic dualism, which has been present in the Czech lands since Wenceslas I but only in the nineteenth century did it become a problem that could not be resolved through political politics. Secondly, there is what Jan Tesař9 called in his analysis of the Munich complex the ‘theatrically organised’ collective experience of our famous defeats of 1620, 1938, 1948 and 1968, which confirms the belief of citizens that they have merely been the innocent victims of an unjust history and that our political failures are the result of cowardly betrayals of friends and the conspiracy of great powers. The third reason is the long-​term absence of any federalist tradition in Czech political culture.

…

8 Masaryk, The Czech Question. Our Current Crisis. Jan Hus, 152. 9 Jan Tesař, Mnichovský komplex. Jeho příčiny a důsledky [The Munich complex, its causes and consequences] (Prague: Prostor 2014).

240 Bělohradský The second consequence of the hegemony of anti-​political identity kitsch in our political culture can be summed up as follows: instead of forming political opposition, we form an opposition to politics. Anti-​political rhetoric does not mobilise citizens politically, that is, is does not inspire them to seek consensus with respect to legislative projects. Instead, it mobilises them against politics as a corrupting dimension of life dominated solely by ‘struggle for power and benefits’. Our media are thus permanently full of protests against being ‘governed by indecent people’, but this criticism lack concreteness and is rather a ‘spectacle’ and a media event than a political critique of the government. For this reason, it is also not politically productive, quickly evaporates from the media space, and contributes only to the growth of a general ‘mistrust of institutions’. The sooner both rational criticism of the government and all malaise are transformed into programs of political opposition, the better democracy works. Affirmation of anti-​political identity kitsch in Czech political culture has hopelessly weakened the art of opposition and monstrously fortified the ‘art of dissent’ in the sense of ‘rejecting political politics’. The Czech public space in general has thus become a toxic environment for democracy. Václav Klaus once said that if someone wants to change something in politics, they should start a party. This challenge embodies an important aspect of democratic culture: it is necessary to respect legitimate inputs in the system in order to realise the corresponding outputs. In Czech political culture, political parties are hopelessly delegitimised and not considered legitimate inputs into the political system.

…

Let us formulate the third and final consequences as follows: in Czech political culture, anti-​political identity kitsch compensates for the failure of the Czech nation in relation to politics as a tragic dimension of modernity. What I have in mind here are not the political failures like those in 1946 (when Communists gained in elections a large relative majority, 31%) and 1948 (when Communists organise a putsch which without significant opposition abolishes democratic institutions), the normalisation (a widespread resignation of the majority society upon the ideals of the Prague spring of 1968 to an extent that went significantly over and above the situational imperatives of a military occupation) or the peaceful but still to some degree illegitimate disintegration of Czechoslovakia in 1992; or like the entire second half of the 1990s, when instead of building a democratic state a privileged nomenclature began to expand in

The Anti-political Nation in Bohemia and Moravia

241

our country whose illegitimate power was only opposed anti-​politically, not politically. What I mean by this formulation is the historical failure of the Czech nation in relation to politics as such, to the modern state and its institutions. Modernity may be characterised as a growth of plurality, which is the result of relentless differentiation of society into ‘specialised sectors’, each of which is set apart by the desire to grow at the expense of other sectors of society –​we can call this ‘anomie’. Politics is a tragic dimension of modernity because it must establish and defend the precarious balance between a plurality of interests and civic solidarity, which is no longer based on any shared ‘national essence’, but on the awareness of the mutual dependence of all the increasingly specialised parts of society. Political politics transforms this awareness of interdependence into ‘institutions and agreements’. ‘What is the essence of the nation’ is a poorly posed question. Even after one hundred and twenty years we can find nothing but a poor answer.

Bibliography

Badiou, Alain, Saint Paul. La fondation de l’universalisme (Paris: puf, 1997). Bergson, Henri, Les deux sources de la morale et de la religion (Paris: Félix Alcan, 1932). Havel, Václav, Speech to both Houses of the Parliament of the CR, 9th December 1997 https://​web.arch​ive.org/​web/​201​7121​3055​020/​http://​www.vacl​avha​vel.cz/​showtr​ ans.php?cat=​proj​evy&val=​144_​proj​evy.html&typ=​H TML. Macura, Vladimír, Znamení zrodu. České národní obrození jako kulturní typ [The sign of birth. Czech national revival as a cultural type] (Prague: H +​H, 1995). Mann, Thomas, Briefe an Paul Amann (1915–​1952). ed. Herbert Wegener (Lübeck: Schmidt-​Römhild, 1959). Masaryk, Tomáš G., Česká otázka, Naše nynější krize, Jan Hus [The Czech question. Our current crisis. Jan Hus], in Jiří Brabec, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. vi (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr and Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2000). Patočka, Jan, ‘Nadcivilizace a její vnitřní konflikt’ [Transcivilization and its internal conflict], in Ivan Chvatík & Pavel Kouba, eds., Sebrané spisy Jana Patočky [Collected works of Jan Patočka], vol. i: Péče o duši [Care for the soul] (Prague: oikoymenh–​ Filosofia, 1996), 243–​302. Tesař, Jan, Mnichovský komplex. Jeho příčiny a důsledky [The Munich complex, its causes, and consequences] (Prague: Prostor, 2014).

pa rt 5 The Word of a Politician in Exile

∵

­c hapter 14

Humanism as the Motivation of Politics or Masaryk’s Czech Question Today Karel Hrubý Abstract Karel Hrubý identifies what motivated Masaryk to seek a political agenda. This agenda was an answer to The Czech Question. While the meaning of human existence given in The Czech Question is a timeless indicator of our journey through history, the political agenda is based on a specific state of the nation and corresponds to its needs, opportunities, desires, and limits at a given time. It establishes the basic tasks of society and its politics in order to enable a dignified material, mental, and cultural life in truth and moral purity. The Czech Question attempts to find a new idea to motivate political changes through a moral revival of the Czech Lands. The aim is to attain European maturity in all areas of life. The main thesis of Masaryk’s Czech Question is humanism, which became a forceful argument for Masaryk’s state building program particularly after the First World War. An essential prerequisite for “external” politics was Masaryk’s internal revival, which he wanted to use to the join the ranks of advanced modern nations. Internal revival here means working on oneself, in both politics and daily life.

In his introduction to the first edition of The Czech Question, Masaryk emphasises that he does not view the Czech question in a political sense, that is, in the sense of political practice, but rather as a sociological analysis of ‘what we, as a particular nation, culturally experience, what we hope for’. He rejects the idea that the development of the nation is a political and historical coincidence. On the contrary, he believes that ‘the history of nations is not accidental, but reflects a certain plan of Providence’, adding that ‘it is thus the task of historians and philosophers, the task of every nation to pursue this plan for the world, to recognise and determine their place in it, and to proceed according to this knowledge with the fullest and clearest consciousness in all their work, including political work’.1 The emphasis on political work is not accidental. The 1 Tomáš G. Masaryk, Česká otázka. Snahy a tužby národního obrození, Naše nynější krize, Pád strany staročeské a počátkové směrů nových [The Czech question. Efforts and desires of the

© Karel Hrubý, 2023 | DOI:10.1163/9789004534919_016

246 Hrubý meaning of the ‘Czech question’ does not in itself provide instructions for how to act politically, but it does motivate a search for a political agenda to achieve political goals. Meaning is a timeless indicator of the journey through history. A political programme, on the other hand, is based on the particular state of a nation at a certain time, and as such should reflect its opportunities, needs, and desires as well as its current shortcomings and limitations. It defines the basic tasks that ought to be carried out by the society and its politics in order to enable the nation to live a full and dignified material, spiritual, and cultural life under the given conditions, in accordance with its mission –​in truth and moral purity. The Czech Question thus has a motivational dimension and should serve as the foundation to motivate concrete political agendas.2 It should be noted, moreover, that Masaryk tends to conceive of the nation in a cultural (ideological) and moral sense3 rather than in the sense of a political association of various ethnic groups united in a single state and body politic. This has been noted, for instance, by Bernard Bolzano or later by the natural scientist and philosopher Emanuel Rádl, and is a common concept in Switzerland, the USA and elsewhere. Although in The Czech Question and Our Present Crisis Masaryk emphasises the priority of ‘internal politics’,4 that is, work on the cognitive and moral upbringing of the nation,5 in his later work he did not shy away from ‘external’ politics, meaning political practice aimed at building an independent state in collaboration with global political factors operating during the

national revival, Our present crisis, The fall of the Old Bohemian Party and initial directions of new parties], 1st edition 1895. Preface to the first edition, 3 (Here cited according to the 6th edition published by Čin in 1948). Cf. Tomáš G. Masaryk, Česká otázka. Naše nynější krize. Jan Hus [The Czech Question. Our Present Crisis. Jan Hus] in Jiří Brabec, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. vi (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr and Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2000), 11. 2 ‘There can be no national politics without national thinking’ Tomáš G. Masaryk, Karel Havlíček, Snahy a tužby politického probuzení (1896) [Karel Havlíček. Endeavours and desires of political awakening], in Jana Svobodová, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [The Writings of T. G. Masaryk], vol. vii (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr and Ústav T.G. Masaryka, 2000), 327. 3 Masaryk in the preface to the 1936 edition of the Czech Question: ‘It is not about language or nationality, but about the soul’. To Masaryk, the nation is not an end in itself but is rather conceived as that part of humanity in which every nation carries out its human mission in its own way. Cf. Masaryk, Česká otázka. Naše nynější krize, vii. 4 Masaryk, Česká otázka. Naše nynější krize, 193ff. 5 ‘Independence will not sustain or save a nation, a nation must maintain independence –​ morality and education will save us; even political independence is only a means of attaining genuine national life … In our country, even political parties must, in addition to their narrower political program, stand on a solid foundation of a broad cultural agenda’. Ibid., p. 134.

Humanism as the Motivation of Politics

247

First World War and its aftermath, as evidenced by Masaryk’s memoirs and reflections in Světová revoluce [The Making of a State].6 1

The Crisis of Politics

T. G. Masaryk wrote The Czech Question at a time when Czech politics –​unlike the successfully developing society of the Czech Lands –​was in crisis that stemmed from the helplessness and powerlessness with respect to the government in Vienna. Patriotic tirades could not hide the failures of recent decades. Following the defeat suffered by Austria against Prussia in the Battle of Sadov (1866), the Habsburg Empire was rebuilt. A two-​state solution, ‘Austria-​ Hungary’, was established sharing a common monarch, Franz Joseph I. Although the new constitution had somewhat loosened the absolutist constraints and the state became a parliamentary monarchy, Czech national politics emerged from this change weakened. Dualism demoted the Czech Lands to a subordinate status, which caused dissatisfaction. Czech politicians chose a policy of passive resistance against dualism and their representatives did not participate in parliamentary deliberations. This ineffective policy of the Old Bohemian Party (Staročeši), which under the leadership of historian František Palacký had hitherto dominated Czech politics, was meeting with growing mistrust. A more democratically and liberally oriented Young Bohemian Party (Mladočeši) was founded in 1874. It managed to return Czech representatives to the Reichstag but even then it achieved only minor successes (the ‘crumb’ policy). Soon after, in 1878, a Social Democratic Party was established in the Czech Lands which focused on defending the social and political demands of the workers. Criticism of current politics became increasingly vocal, especially among the younger sections of the population and among democratically-​ minded intelligentsia. This resulted in the defeat of the Old Bohemian Party in the 1891 elections. During the 1890s, a number of new interest groups formed who called for a new understanding of politics and paved the way to political pluralism.7 Calls for a universal and equal suffrage became a mass movement and the atmosphere was charged with dissatisfaction. 6

7

T.G. Masaryk, Světová revoluce. Za války a ve válce. 1914–​1918 [World revolution. During the war and at war, 1914–​1918] 1st edn 1925. Used here is the later Čin edition, Prague 1938. In English, Thomas G. Masaryk, The Making of a State. Memories and Observations 1914–​1918, tr. Henry Wickham Steed (London: Allen & Unwin 1927). In Bohemia, a Christian-​Social Party formed in 1894 and in 1897, three more parties were formed, namely the National Catholic Party in the Czech Kingdom, the Czech National Social Party, and the Czech Radically Progressive Party. In 1899, these parties were joined

248 Hrubý 2

Society on the Rise

Czech society, on the other hand, developed rather dynamically during the last two decades of the nineteenth century. In culture, one witnessed a notable increase in literary, musical, and theatrical activities, artistic associations were established, new magazines founded, the National Theatre welcomed its first visitors, and Prague University was split into German and Czech faculties, giving the younger scientific generation an opportunity to excel (the aestheticist Otakar Hostinský, historian Jaroslav Goll, T. G. Masaryk, and others). Even the economic development during this time was remarkable. With growing commerce also came new banks and savings institutions: Zemská banka was founded in 1891 and quickly surpassed the older Živnostenská banka in importance. Road and electrification networks quickly became denser and industrial companies reached European dimensions. The Czech Lands were at that time among the most industrially developed parts of the Habsburg Monarchy. The General Land Centennial Exhibition in 1891 became a showcase of these achievements. These developments led to marked changes in the population structure. Not only did the industrial proletariat grow, strengthened by an influx of rural population into the fast-​growing cities, but there was also an increase in the middle class of small tradesmen along with the managers and technicians of industrial companies. The number of vocational and preparatory schools increased, and academics began to make inroads in all areas of life. This group in particular became a source of resistance against the rigid policies of Vienna and the old Czech political parties. Czech academics demanded a new, open, and critical approach to public affairs. In the 1890s the Omladina journal appears (resulting in Czech radicals soon being brought to justice by the Austrian judiciary), and in the mid-​1890s the Manifesto of Czech Modernism is published, expressing dissatisfaction with the current situation and a desire to set forth in new directions.8 This is the context in which The Czech Question should be placed. In keeping with the search for new approaches, the aim of that book (along with Masaryk’s other writings on the Czech question which quickly followed)9

8 9

by the Czech State Party and Czech People’s (Realist) Party as well as the Czech Agrarian Party, which went on to play an important role in the years and decades that followed. The manifesto was published in 1895 and signed by F. V. Krejčí, F. X. Šalda, J. Třebický, O. Březina, J. S. Machar, V. Mrštík, A. Sova, K. Šlejhar, V. Choc, K. Körner, J. Pelcl, and Fr. Soukup. Tomáš G. Masaryk, Naše nynější krise. Pád strany staročeské a počátkové směrů nových (1895) [Our present crisis. The fall of the Old Bohemian Party and initial directions of new parties]; Jan Hus. Naše obrození a naše reformace (1896) (Our revival and our reformation)

Humanism as the Motivation of Politics

249

was to find a new idea that would motivate political change and morally and intellectually revive society, so that the Czech Lands and Czech nation could reach the level of European maturity in all aspects of life. 3

Humanism as a Cornerstone

The main thesis of Masaryk’s Czech Question is expressed through the concept of humanism. In the fifth chapter of the book, it is formulated as: The humanist ideal, proclaimed by Dobrovský and Kollár, our dream of revival has deep national and historical meaning for us Czechs –​by endorsing humanism, fully and truly conceived, we will follow up on the finest moments of our past, bridge the spiritual and moral slumber of several centuries, and with humanism, we will march at the helm of human progress. To us, humanism means the national task elaborated and bequeathed unto us by the Brethren: the humanistic ideal concentrates all meaning of our national life. […] The humanist ideal requires that we systematically fight against all evil inhumanity of society, be it our own or foreign, everywhere, always, and in all of its educational, ecclesiastical, political, and national bodies –​entirely. Humanism is not sentimentality, it is work, and then more work.10 At first glance, the apodictic nature of this creed is surprising. Masaryk has no doubt that a certain plan of Providence precedes human consciousness without its existence being scientifically deduced or proven.11 He himself says that he believes. And we are to discover this plan he believes in, understand it, and act accordingly. A few decades earlier, Marx had likewise posited the existence of inevitable historical development and historians merely had to grasp its outlines and function.12 Just as Marx’s historical materialism was faith, supported by the observation of certain actual or at least and Karel Havlíček. Snahy a tužby politického probuzení (1896) (Jan Havlíček. Endeavours and desires of political awakening). 10 Masaryk, Česká otázka. Naše nynější krize, 148. 11 The concept of history posited by Hegel and some other German thinkers had a similar metaphysical character. This was nothing unusual in the 18th and 19th centuries. 12 The Marxist historian František Graus, editor-​in-​chief of the Czechoslovak Historical Magazine, reminded young historians in the 1950s of a similar principle: ‘Historians should examine how socially objective laws, existing independently of human consciousness, have manifested themselves in particular historical situations’. The plan of Providence also exists before human consciousness and therefore independently of it.

250 Hrubý apparent regularities of the process of development, Masaryk’s belief in the plan of Providence is likewise irrational in its nature. Faith can be neither proven nor scientifically refuted. It is an internal conviction reinforced by the observation of certain regularities in development, which, however, are far from scientific definitions or laws. Masaryk was often criticised for the dependence of his thought on belief in Providence, where one’s role in the world appears to be determined in advance. Of course, one should note that Masaryk’s ‘determinism’ is not blindly one-​ way, a person is not just a passive tool of external forces. The relationship between consciousness and the world is one of a mutual interaction in which the creativity of individuals is spontaneous. Through free will and by establishing objectives, a person can overcome the power of ‘objective circumstances’.13 In this way, one works with Providence (Masaryk speaks of synergism).14 4

Critical Acceptance

Immediately after the publication of The Czech Question, Masaryk’s contemporary, Josef Kaizl (1854–​1901), an economist and politician, objected in his Czech Thoughts15 that it would be incorrect to derive a modern humanist ideal from the religious roots of the Brethren. Unlike Masaryk, he claimed that our revival was driven by the spirit of liberalism and not by the humanist idea of Christian brotherhood. He therefore thought it illusory to base the morality of modern democracy on the morality of the Reformation and disregard the religiously indifferent roots of political liberalism that prevailed in our lands.

13

14

15

Marx and Engels’s confusion of determinism with factualism. ‘Relations’ and naturalistic objectivism in general. p. 307 “I agree with Marx and Engels with respect to determinism, but […] The aggregates of social phenomena apparently affect our imagination […]”. Thomas G. Masaryk, Masaryk on Marx. Abridged ed. of T. G. Masaryk, The Social Question: Philosophical and Sociological Foundation on Marxism, ed. and tr. Erazim Kohák (Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press, 1972), 216–​217. Masaryk considers the historical experience of humanity to be a ‘revelation’ of a given meaning that is condensed in values. After all, there is a difference between what one considers good and what one rejects as bad. If the value of humanity, however, is to be the ultimate meaning of human history, it depends on the act of human freedom, on advancing knowledge, and on the activity of people and their commitment to what history has shown them to be good. The purpose of human lives is therefore to work towards the establishment (victory or at least superiority) of the good. Josef Kaizl, České myšlénky [Czech thoughts] (Prague: Edvard Beaufort 1895).

Humanism as the Motivation of Politics

251

Later, historian Josef Pekař raised another serious objection. He noted that there is no historical continuity of ideas between the Reformation, the National Revival, and the present. Rather, the meaning of history is to preserve the existence of the nation and its Czechness. Alongside these objections, a militant discussion arose in the following years about the meaning of Czech history, which was carefully captured in full breadth in a consistent and critical way by Miloš Havelka in his two-​volume Dispute over the Meaning of Czech History.16 The plan of Providence and its given sense of history was also questioned by philosophers and sociologists. I consider the reflections of Jan Patočka in his Heretical Essays17 to be particularly characteristic in this regard, along with ideas expressed by the young post-​February 1948 exile Jiří Nehněvajsa in a dissertation he submitted in 1950 at the University of Zurich (he later went on to become a sociology professor at the University of Pittsburgh, USA).18 Nehněvajsa points in particular to Masaryk’s volunteerism, which allowed him to believe that the future would follow his optimistic prognoses and that through education, Czech society could be imbued with the appropriate ethnic and religious spirit to carry out its historical mission, which is to contribute to the global victory of humanism. Although methodologically Masaryk is based in realism, his historical conclusions are –​according to Nehněvajsa –​often just sociological speculations.19 Although Masaryk rejected Marx’s economic determinism and prognosis that humanity was nearing its historical objective, namely a classless society, he himself relied on a kind of end stage of societal development, which was to be democracy and humanism,20 whose religious roots were, for Masaryk, indisputable. He believed that the arc of history gradually bent towards truth, justice, and the fight against Evil. This turned out to be an illusion, albeit well-​intended. The mere fact of two world wars fought during the first fifty years of the twentieth century and barbarism of all kinds taking place in the current ‘state of peace’ (written in 1950) is, according to Nehněvajsa, testimony enough that humanity is still far removed from the 16

Miloš Havelka (ed.), Spor o smysl českých dějin [Dispute over the meaning of Czech history], vol. i: 1895–​1938, vol. ii: 1938–​1989 (Torst, Prague, 1995–​2006). 17 Patočka’s Kacířské eseje o filozofii dějin [Heretical essays in the philosophy of history] date from 1975, they were published in 1980 in exile by Arkýř publishing house in Munich. The essays were not published again until 1990. Jan Patočka, Heretical Essays in the Philosophy of History, tr. Erazim Kohák, ed. James Dodd, preface Paul Ricœur (Chicago–​La Salle, IL: Open Court 1996). 18 Nehněvajsa Jiří, T. G. Masaryk. Soziologische Skizze der modernen tschechischen Gesellschaft (St. Gallen: Teildruck, 1953). 19 Nehněvajsa, T.G. Masaryk, 19. 20 Nehněvajsa, T.G. Masaryk, 30.

252 Hrubý ideal of humanism. Indeed, this barbarism is not just the work of a few mad souls, but of entire groups of people trying to make the lives of their fellows a hell on earth. He accuses Masaryk of excessive optimism arising from a view of society in which he can see only himself, his pure and human self. This illusion holds until a catastrophe strikes. Then it necessarily collapses. Despite this harsh criticism, for Nehněvajsa T. G. Masaryk remains an example of honest, thoughtful, and morally steadfast person who must be critically embraced. In April 1969, in the waning days of the Prague Spring, philosopher Jan Patočka once again turned his attention to the history of the Czech question in a lecture called the Philosophy of Czech History.21 He arrived at a rather sceptical conclusion: The term ‘philosophy of Czech history’ had a special meaning in our society. It arose from a discontinuity between the older social order in our country and modern Czech society, which is structured entirely differently and faces entirely new problems. To bridge this discontinuity was an important political task and agenda for the Czech-​speaking society that arose from the split in the unified traditional society after the Josephine Reforms and the French Revolution, in conjunction with the factual demise of the Czech state and the Habsburg attempt to level historical bodies in the Habsburg Empire. Today, the philosophy of Czech history is not only outdated in terms of its means but also by the fact that the ideological need that inspired it no longer exists.22 Patočka does not understand the meaning of history as a fait accompli, absolutely applicable throughout all of history, but rather ties each ‘look back into history’ to the period and state of human knowledge that ‘can be revealed as existing at a certain time’. This historical excursion is a complicated way of Patočka asserting that the meaning of history is in a state of permanent 21

22

Philosophy of Czech History –​Patočka’s lecture given as part of ‘The Czech Question’ cycle presented at the Socialist Academy Club in Prague on 23 April 1969; Jan Patočka, Sociologický časopis 5/​5 (1969), 457–​463. Reprinted in exile by journal Proměny 14/​2 (1977), 85–​94; passage cited here on 92–​93. Patočka does, however, admit a certain continuity of moral preoccupation. He is also certain that the Czech (and partly also Slovak) nation exists on the social basis of elementary democratism, that it exists as a nation that is alienated by societies with a strongly hierarchical structure, be it large-​scale conservatism or revolutionary turmoil. According to Patočka, the ‘religious’ character of Czech spiritual life during the National Revival was a relic of Josephinism in the work of Palacký and partly also Masaryk, while the greatest Josephinist, Bernard Bolzano, was forgotten. Jan Patočka, ‘Philosophy of Czech History’, 93.

Humanism as the Motivation of Politics

253

uncertainty. The past is given and gives our present certain meaning, while the future is uncertain. The present is understood as a moment of crisis, in which a person determines the manner of his or her being: true or false, one’s own or alienated, autonomous or heteronomous. Amidst this struggle, philosophy urges a conversion, a metanoesis from which a spiritual, genuine person is to be reborn.23

… Despite all these serious reservations, the humanist ideal in our society did have a strong influence on the development towards democracy. The trend, of course, has been pan-​European. This has been more pronounced in Czech politics and culture since the 1990s in an environment of growing plurality of opinions and interest groups and directions, a growing competition between political parties and cultural currents. Humanism became a strong argument for Masaryk’s state-​building political program, especially during the First World War, when he convinced the Allies of the promising perspective of our history and thus also the legitimacy of our claim to independence. The idea of humanism in Masaryk’s social construct was soon to become the main focus of practical politics in the pursuit of an independent state and creation of a democratic society in the face of new challenges that arose at the end of the war with the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, of which Masaryk was highly critical. 5

The Revival of Society and National Independence

Masaryk is sometimes criticised for espousing a ‘non-​political politics’, which lessened the credibility of, weakened, and cast doubt on the role of his own ‘external’ politics, i.e. the practical solutions of municipal, state, and social problems. But this overlooks the fact that Masaryk’s ‘internal’ political agenda was not apolitical, it did not only serve the purpose of moral and spiritual mobilisation: in its later form, it functioned as a practical guide to socially and politically achieving national independence. The chief prerequisite for successful practical politics is clear awareness and a sensitive conscience. This requires a realisation of the meaning of the journey of the nation and state

23

Filip Karfík, ‘Jan Patočka a problém filosofie dějin’ [Jan Patočka and the problem of a philosophy of history], Reflexe 50 (2016), 145–​172.

254 Hrubý and awareness that the main political principles which need to be followed are truthfulness and full responsibility. That is the kind of politics T. G. Masaryk was trying to establish at that time. And The Czech Question was a good step in that direction. For Masaryk, an internal revival was an essential prerequisite of a successful ‘external’ politics, whose goal was to join the group of advanced modern nations based on humanism, moral purity, and successful performance. This demand for authenticity, truth, and truthfulness –​and not just blind imitation but a genuine pursuit of truth –​linked Masaryk’s programme with the demands voiced by the intellectuals. Just as the Czech Modernists demanded of artists: ‘Be yourself, be you!’,24 so The Czech Question demanded of the nation to be itself, a unique nation devoted to the knowledge of truth, fulfilling its conviction by constant efforts to implement its humanitarian mission. Not empty slogans or fiery, stirring appeals, but genuine work with a meaningful perspective.25 ‘Internal’ politics did not deny the function of ‘external’ politics but set itself a serious goal, internal revival, and the necessary effort to politically achieve greater independence –​at that time, naturally, still within the Habsburg framework of states in which one still had to operate in the 1890s. Masaryk’s study and analysis of problems led to a program of humanist democracy, which was simultaneously a programme of practical political activity. Masaryk viewed politics as an instrument –​the goal was moral.26 ‘Every socio-​ political and ethical program is a plan for the future, a prescription for making history’.27 The fact that by history, he meant not only political development but social life in all its fullness, is evident from his sociological approach and especially his humanism. He could be accused of neglecting economic issues in his agenda and giving an excessively one-​sided assessment of liberalism, as Josef Kaizl noted, but he cannot be criticised for establishing a non-​political politics that did not care about practical life. On the contrary, like few others he was able to put his finger on the pulse of what concerned the national society, what was important for its development. Not only with regard to historical meaning,

24

Manifest české moderny [Czech Modernist Manifesto], written in 1895, published in the 1st issue of Rozhledy [Outlooks] magazine in 1896. 25 Masaryk in the preface to the 1936 edition of The Czech Question wrote: ‘Let us not call today for Czechness, Slavism, or patriotism, but for truth, truth to which we shall bear witness’’. See Masaryk, Česká otázka (6th edn,. 1948), vol. vii. 26 Karel Čapek, ‘Hovory s T. G. Masarykem’ [Discussions with T.G. Masaryk], in Jiří Opelík, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. xxxvii (Prague: Ústav T. G. Masaryka and Archív av čr, 2013). 27 Masaryk, Masaryk on Marx, 205.

Humanism as the Motivation of Politics

255

but also social issues and international context.28 A political program must also respect the internal relationship between the past, present, and future. That is why he sought in history the continuous value around which the nation has developed. The fact that he ‘found’ it in the idea of humanism was of course the result not only of studying national history but of his belief in the goodness of Providence, and the determination that the thinking and values of European or Euro-​Atlantic civilisation are moving in this direction. In humanism, the relationship of person to person is anchored in mutual respect, in the idea of love and solidarity, which with the enlightenment and romanticism of the 19th century was highlighted by Herder’s notion of the nation and Kant’s imperative, according to which man must never become merely a means to the benefit of others. 6

Humanism in Masaryk’s Political Platform

At various times, depending on the situation of the nation and according to the constellation of power in Europe, Masaryk’s opinion on the manner of political work changed and evolved. During the war, the national culture program of the 1890s turned into a political state program aimed at achieving state independence. Throughout Masaryk’s political meditations runs a civilisational philosophical view of the leading role of humanity in the history of the nation and humanity, and thus also in politics.29 1) In the 1890s and before the First World War, Masaryk pushed for truthfulness of views and firm morality of the nation, for real cultural, economic, and administrative autonomy within the framework of the entire Austrian federation. The political challenge was therefore to create conditions suitable for educating people and increasing their awareness; hand in hand with this went efforts to improve the working and social conditions to create more just relations in society, increase the standard of living, and foster economic development. To this end, it became necessary to

28 29

Let us just mention three works: Česká otázka (The Czech question, 1895), Otázka sociální (The social question, Czech: 1898; German: 1898), Rusko a Evropa (Russia and Europe, German: 1913; Czech: 1919). Each focused on problems that we needed to address. See Karel Hrubý, ‘Filozofické kořeny Masarykovy politické koncepce’ [Philosophical roots of Masaryk’s political concept], Proměny 17/​4 (1980), 4–​14. Originally a lecture given at the 2nd European conference of the Swiss Society for Science and Art (svu) in Interlaken on the topic of Masaryk’s Humanist Legacy in May of 1980. The full text of the lecture was printed in exile in the svu quarterly Proměny.

256 Hrubý

2)

3)

gain greater control of the management of the country and state. This was the point of his public political engagement and subsequent efforts in the Viennese Parliament before the First World War. However, this political program, particularly as formulated in The Czech Question, was radically fundamental and found support only in progressively oriented circles, especially among the intelligentsia, and did not appeal to the general populace. The war placed national politics into a new light. Masaryk left for Switzerland in 1915 to start an entirely new phase of the political struggle: Austria was gradually getting into a tight spot, calls of dissatisfaction with the current state arrangement were growing throughout the Czech Lands (1917 Manifesto of Czech Writers),30 and the prospect of possibly establishing an independent state of Czechs together with Slovaks appeared to be a promising alternative post-​war arrangement. Masaryk appealed to the political and military bodies of the Allies and tried to convince them that we were an advanced nation with a great cultural and political history, deprived of favourable conditions to develop under Austrian rule. He strove for the establishment and recognition of an independent Czechoslovak state. (The most comprehensive elaboration of this program is given in 1917 in The New Europe.)31 A powerful argument backing the claim for independence was the establishment of Czech legions that fought for the Allies.32 Masaryk’s efforts abroad to promote his political agenda were fruitful: in October 1918, the Czechoslovak Republic was founded. This new country was to carry out the national and cultural program of the 1890s. It cannot be overlooked that underlying all Masaryk’s political activity was his conviction that the meaning of life not only of the nation but of all humanity (as perceived through a European prism) is humanism, as he later expressed in The Making of a State (1924).33 Masaryk is convinced of the ultimate victory of altruism over the egoism of

30 The Manifesto of Czech Writers, signed in May 1917 by over two hundred writers, laid out clear demands of the Czech nation for self-​determination. 31 Thomas G. Masaryk, The New Europe (The Slav Standpoint), ed. W. Preston Warren & William B. Weist, intr. Otakar Odlozilik (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1972). 32 The Allies particularly appreciated the blockade of the Siberian railway by the Czechoslovak units at the end of the war (after the Russian Bolsheviks concluded an agreement with Germany in Brest, Lithuania), which prevented German prisoners from re-​joining the German army. 33 Thomas G. Masaryk, The Making of a State. Memories and Observations 1914–​1918, tr. Henry Wickham Steed (London: Allen & Unwin, 1927).

Humanism as the Motivation of Politics

257

individuals, groups, and society as a whole. According to him, the development of the European spirit and European civilisation is aimed at ­fulfilling the ideal of humanism, the political expression of which is democracy among advanced and responsible citizens gradually emerging from the grip of theocratic forces.34 It is in the spirit of the plan of Providence that a person, as a rational, moral, and free being, can recognise and contribute to this plan (synergies).35 Politics–​whether internal or external –​is ultimately a practical philosophy subordinate to moral norms.36 The struggle of good against evil, in all of its political, cultural, social, legal, and economic dimensions, is thus the meaning of human development and the pursuit of an independent state. It may rightly be said that the First Republic, for such a long time headed by Masaryk, was, with all its weaknesses, problems, and shortcomings, a serious attempt to not only achieve a freer life, but also a comprehensively higher level of culture and morality in society. 7

Evil against Humanity

Soon after his death, Masaryk’s historical optimism was confronted with the negative forces of history, the gravity of which was not sufficiently taken into account in his metaphysical view. The rise of Nazism dealt a severe blow to his 34

35

36

See the conclusion of The Making of a State: ‘There was no freedom of conscience in Austria, in our Democratic Republic, freedom of conscience and tolerance must not merely be codified but realised in every domain of public life. Palacký’s philosophical interpretation of our history esteems the Bohemian Brotherhood as its consummation. The Father of our Nation and our historical past alike enjoin upon us pure Christianity, the teaching of Jesus and His law of life. Democracy is the political form of the humane ideal’. (Masaryk, The Making of a State). A stable root of humanism is morality as a specific attribute given to man in the plan of Providence. Of course, it is manifested in various ways at different times. Masaryk notes, for example, that today humanism has taken a social form, ‘which means that justice must be served to those are not receiving it according to our current order’. Masaryk, Česká otázka …, 198. According to his own admissions in Hovory s K. Čapkem [Conversations with K. Čapek] Masaryk ascribed to Platonism in the sense of seeking an idea in the cosmos, of examining transience in search of what is lasting and eternal. For him, the idea of humanism is the foundation of life sub specie aeternitatis. Karel Čapek, Hovory s T. G. Masarykem, 80ff. Also Thomas G. Masaryk, The Ideals of Humanity, in Thomas G. Masaryk, The Ideals of Humanity and How to Work (Lectures Delivered in 1898 at the University of Prague), tr. W. Preston Warren, Marie J. Kohn-​Holeček & Harriette E. Kennedy (London: Allen & Unwin, 1938), 62–​72.

258 Hrubý faith. After the Munich Agreement, there came the era of fascist dictatorship, war, and concentration camps, when individuals and entire ethnic, racial, or political groups were liquidated and enslaved. This all became a frightening illustration of evil, of inhumanity, disrespect for one’s fellows, a source of contempt for all the attributes of moral good. The evil brought about by Hitler’s fascism transcended all previous standards and reduced all the defences of the individual and society to a minimum. Humanism lost its appeal in the face of harsh, dehumanised power; it remained the ideal of the few who saw in it a necessary condition of their own human dignity and who could therefore not give it up, even when faced with unimaginably cruel punishment or even death. Standing against humanism was the gigantic machinery of violence, mind-​numbing propaganda, and especially the perversion of reason in the service of a morally bankrupt regime. How many scientists, intellectuals, and artists (and not just Germans) joined Nazism and served Hitler. The inhuman machinery of war had hardly been dismantled before there came another era of human suffering: persecution, exclusion and humiliation of individuals and entire social strata (ethnic groups and classes, especially after 1948). It was no longer just about suppressing evil in individuals and in the daily life of society, as Masaryk wanted to see humanism applied, but about Evil acting as an institution of totalitarian power, using violence and ideological propaganda to subordinate the thinking and values of the population to serve the interests of power and dogma of ideology. When this era of ‘madness’ passed with the Velvet Revolution, an optimistic outlook was revived in the age of Václav Havel, but belief in its historical validity was already shaken. Yet even after the shock of Nazism and Stalinist communism, the philosophical roots of Masaryk’s conviction that humanity and society have a moral mission remains an appealing constant. It has the potential to motivate and unite the nation in the endeavour to achieve a more meaningful understanding of life with politics stronger than mere knowledge that does not take into account the meaning and place of humanity and the nation in the world. In this sense, Masaryk’s thought and political legacy remains vital for addressing today’s problems. 8

In Conclusion

At the foundation of Masaryk’s Czech Question was faith in the power of humanism, the roots of which could be found in the history of the Czech nation in the religiosity of the Brethren. Nowadays, humanism remains the driving motive

Humanism as the Motivation of Politics

259

for a considerable portion of Czech society and all of Euro-​Atlantic civilisation, although one cannot overlook the increasingly apparent symptoms of looming threats from populism, excessive nationalism, and authoritarian tendencies in control of society. Its religious dimension however, as formulated by Masaryk, is no longer generally accepted. Generations influenced by the modern world, affected by positivism and the philosophy of historical materialism, the experience of two occupations, the trauma of Nazi inhumanity, the application of collective guilt, violence by a Communist dictatorship especially under Stalinism, as well as the moral and social destruction of the 1970s and 80s, have been exposed to a strong onslaught of atheistic argumentation and propaganda –​especially at a time when the churches were limited in their activities to cultivate the spirit. Their religious consciousness is therefore weak –​if it persists at all. Can a religiously conceived idea of humanism therefore still be the guiding principle binding the whole of Czech society? This is not just a specifically Czech question –​it is a question for all of the Euro-​Atlantic civilisation to which our history is connected. The religiosity of European humanism has clearly weakened. The self-​confidence of individuals in control of science and technology in ever-​increasing swathes of nature and their own life has grown immensely. The technical and scientific understanding of the world which brought drastic improvements in the life of society is far better at explaining operational problems (biological, material, mental, as well as socio-​cultural etc.), but lacks any convincing awareness of the value and place of humans in the world. It is dominated by economic considerations, the allure of consumerism, and the excitement of ‘events’ and happenings, while the weight of culture and morality has notably declined. Egocentrism not only distances us from eternity and the meaning of transcendence, but also from other people and from history. The transcendent meaning of the present is lost. All this raises the question: what is a modern idea of humanism to be founded upon, how can we ‘open up’ to what transcends us as individuals and as a society without the religious justification given by Masaryk? Today, it is not so much a question of finding or confirming any continuity in the history of the nation, but rather a question of moral integrity given the conditions of today’s world. At the forefront is not a search for the ultimate meaning of the nation’s existence, regardless of whether derived from religious faith or knowledge and experience, but rather an understanding that our task is to endow life –​or nation or another grouping –​with this meaning through our daily endeavours guided by responsibility to our conscience, to the values that have been distilled from the historical experience of mankind. The goal of this search is a humanist concept that could be shared by all, a humanism in which all of its currents, dominated by the same or similar values –​the humanism of

260 Hrubý Masaryk, Herder, Kant, and Bentham, or the humanist currents of Christian and other major religions or of atheistic humanism –​come together in a basic consensus regarding the nature of Good and Evil. A humanism that provides universal rules for the coexistence of all, even in the presence of those negative tendencies encoded in the human condition which prove to be a real threat to society when acquiring the nature of institutions endowed with totalitarian power. This is a conception of humanity with metaphysical roots that not only includes an optimistic expectation of the victory of Good, but also acknowledges the root of Evil; the instinctive relics of distrust, hostility, violence, greed, and vengeance that accompany humanity even on today’s road of developed civilisation. We must constantly engage and fight against these forces. Humanism cannot view Evil as something external: it must be seen as an integral component and element of our human condition, a relic of former, uncivilised ancestors that remain in each of us, against which Masaryk mobilised his ‘internal politics’. Just as we must fight against the invasion of superficiality, populism, particularism, racism, xenophobia, and the like, which often appear with advanced technology, today perhaps more than ever we need a genuine, indiscriminate humanism to counteract inhumanity, a programme of responsibility versus. indifference, truthfulness versus insincerity, decency versus ruffianism. But above all, it is necessary to respect general human nature and the fundamental rights of every human being as the fruits of humanity’s long struggle against what is perceived as disruptive, unjust, and inhuman. A person must not be viewed by others as merely be an instrument.37 Humanism is a set of values and rules that enable coexistence in a collective, in a more harmonious, considerate, and just society guided by respect for human dignity. Humanism therefore also implies a struggle to uphold these values and rules against inhumanity. By no means is there yet a consensus in today’s society to regard humanism as the definitive foundation of our political agenda and daily lives, to see it as an expression and way of ‘opening up’ to what truly gives direction and authenticity to our lives. Here, too, Masaryk’s exhortation remains relevant: Do not fold your hands in your lap. Stamp out Evil in the world, in society, in institutions, in each of us. As Masaryk showed convincingly, humanism can only be achieved through further hard work … work on oneself and political work.

37

Karel, Hrubý, Naše dnešní otázky [Our questions of today], in Eva Broklová, ed., Sto let Masarykovy České otázky (1895–​1995) [One hundred years of Masaryk’s Czech question] (Prague: Ústav T. G. Masaryka 1997), 28.

Humanism as the Motivation of Politics



261

Bibliography

Čapek, Karel, ‘Hovory s T. G. Masarykem’ [Discussions with T.G. Masaryk], in Jiří Opelík, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. xxxvii (Prague: Ústav T. G. Masaryka and Archív av čr, 2013). Havelka, Miloš, ed., Spor o smysl českých dějin [The dispute on the meaning of Czech], vol. i: 1895–​1938 (Prague: Torst, 1995, 2006). Hrubý, Karel, ‘Naše dnešní otázky’ [Our questions of today], in Eva Broklová, ed., Sto let Masarykovy České otázky (1895–​1995) [One hundred years of Masaryk’s Czech question (1895–​1995)] (Prague: Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 1997). Hrubý, Karel, ‘Filozofické kořeny Masarykovy politické koncepce’ [Philosophical roots of Masaryk’s political concept], Proměny 17/​4 (1980), 4–​14. Kaizl, Josef, České myšlénky [Czech thoughts] (Prague: Edvard Beaufort, 1895). Karfík, Filip, ‘Jan Patočka a problém filosofie dějin’ [Jan Patočka and the problem of a philosophy of history], Reflexe 50 (2016), 145–​172. Manifest české moderny [Czech Modernist Manifesto], František Xaver Šalda, František Václav Krejčí, Rozhledy 1 (1896). Masaryk, Thomas G., The Ideals of Humanity, in: The Ideals of Humanity and How to Work (Lectures Delivered in 1898 at the University of Prague) tr. W. Preston Warren, Marie J. Kohn-​Holeček & Harriette E. Kennedy (London: Allen & Unwin, 1938), 62–​72. Masaryk, Tomáš G., Česká otázka, Naše nynější krize, Jan Hus [The Czech question. Our current crisis. Jan Hus], in Jiří Brabec, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. vi (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr and Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2000). Masaryk, Tomáš G., Česká otázka. Snahy a tužby národního obrození, Naše nynější krize, Pád strany staročeské a počátkové směrů nových [The Czech question. Efforts and desires of the national revival. Our present crisis, The fall of the Old Bohemian Party and initial directions of new parties] (1st edn. 1895, 6th edn. Prague: Čin, 1948). Masaryk, Tomáš G., Karel Havlíček, Snahy a tužby politického probuzení (1896) [Karel Havlíček. Endeavours and desires of political awakening], in Jana Svobodová, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [The Writings of T. G. Masaryk], vol. vii (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr and Ústav T.G. Masaryka, 2000). Masaryk, Thomas G., Masaryk on Marx. Abridged ed. of T.G. Masaryk, The Social Question: Philosophical and Sociological Foundation on Marxism, ed. and tr. Erazim V. Kohák, (Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press, 1972). Masaryk, Tomáš G., Světová revoluce. Za války a ve válce. 1914–​1918 [The World Revolution before and during the War]. 1st edn. 1925. Published in English as The Making of a State. Memories and Observations 1914–​1918, tr. Henry Wickham Steed (London: Allen & Unwin, 1927).

262 Hrubý Masaryk, Thomas G., The Making of a State. Memories and Observations 1914–​1918, tr. Henry Wickham Steed (London: Allen & Unwin, 1927). Masaryk, Thomas G., The New Europe (The Slav Standpoint), ed. W. Preston Warren and William B. Weist, intr. Otakar Odlozilik (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1972). Nehněvajsa, Jiří, T. G. Masaryk. Soziologische Skizze der modernen tschechischen Gesellschaft (St Gallen: Teildruck, 1953). Patočka, Jan, ‘Lecture on Philosophy of History as part of The Czech Question Cycle’, Sociologický časopis 5/​5 (1969), 457–​463. Reprinted in exile in Proměny 14/​2 (1977), 85–​94. Patočka, Jan, Heretical Essays in the Philosophy of History, tr. Erazim Kohák, ed. James Dodd, preface Paul Ricœur (Chicago–​La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1996).

pa rt 6 The Word of a Pastor

∵

­c hapter 15

T. G. Masaryk and Our Times Jakub S. Trojan Abstract In this article, Trojan deals with the challenge of positively integrating individuals in society. According to Trojan, the unity of life in Masaryk is a response to the rising specialisation of education aimed at preparing people for being able to be able to pursue various human activities. Trojan, together with Masaryk, contrasts life sub specie aeternitatis with the volatile and scattered mindset and lifestyle of contemporary people. Today, as in the past, one can only truly live when one has a rich inner life guided by a spiritual and moral compass.

I would like to consider two things in this article. First, I will examine the aspects of Masaryk’s work that are helpful for our individual personal lives. Then I would like to point out the ways in which his work is an encouraging message for what we could call our civic existence, i.e. public administration and politics. 1

TGM and My Present Day

It must be said at the outset that for Masaryk, there is no sharp line between what concerns an individual and what concerns the entire community, the public. This distinction is made only for the sake of greater clarity. Masaryk takes a holistic view of human life. This is clear to anyone who has read even just a little bit of his work. In the well-​known Conversations with TGM, Karel Čapek seems somewhat astonished after hearing that the problem most intrinsic to our thought and endeavours is the human soul and God: ‘You talk like a pure spiritualist; and yet all your life you have been taking on other tasks, actual, practical, real ones –​it is not for nothing that they called you a realist’. Masaryk answers: ‘Of course, sir; but even in the actual and material, a spiritual and eternal process is taking place’.1 1 Karel Čapek, Masaryk on Thought and Life. Conversations with Karel Čapek. tr. Marie & Robert Weatherall (London: Allen & Unwin, 1944), 71.

© Jakub S. Trojan, 2023 | DOI:10.1163/9789004534919_017

266 Trojan Masaryk stresses the unity of life. He used to say that there must be a clear connection between the innermost faith, piety, and religion, and our externally focused tasks at work, in the family, in communities, or in the church. He could not stand half-​heartedness, divided attention, absent-​mindedness, or fragmented action and thought, and he criticised the incessant complaints, rigidity, and incompleteness of our personal lives. Masaryk quotes the French historian Ernest Denis, who criticises the cult of martyrdom evident in Czech history and the tendency to complaining and passivity. After all, already Karel Havlíček had recognised our fluctuations between blind heroic violence and often timorous acquiescence. This is one of the tasks for today which T.G. Masaryk urged us to pursue. In addition to systematic education in families and public institutions (schools!), this should also be the provenance of churches. The aim is to help cultivate solid personalities. When freedom was lacking, we gathered behind the walls of our parishes and congregations where there was preaching and singing, but we neglected the cultivation of personalities imbued with hope and an obliging willingness to cooperate and conscientiously perform tasks. This must be addressed today. Churches must become a place for the systematic pursuit of spiritual gifts and human skills. Congregations should serve as ‘workshops of humanity’ (officina humanitatis, as Comenius would say). They should discover the gifts in others and give them a chance to flourish in the community, create an atmosphere conducive to growth and mutual communication. After spending decades in a congregation, priests lament that hundreds of sermons, personal conversations, and hours of children’s Bible study have not borne such fruit among the youth. We need to get at the heart of how to make sure that our congregations and churches cultivate people with strong and stable personalities who naturally apply their inner life, their spiritual and moral compass to public tasks at hand. Above all, this means working together and on oneself: it is a deep internal struggle with oneself within oneself. It is about genuine love for oneself. But is there ever any such thing as genuine self-​love? Masaryk does not doubt it for a second: we are always with ourselves. We must never make excuses for being unable to work on ourselves. No one can stop us from doing that. Critical thinking, lifelong education, cultural interests, and communication with others enrich one’s character. Only a person who is rich on the inside can benefit others. Learn how to be alone. Learn to be yourself. This is also reminiscent of Bonhoeffer when he says that anyone who cannot be alone or is afraid to hold an opinion which no one else holds may even become dangerous to others. A lovely illustration of just how far we may be taken by our internal emptiness, by dependence on superficial, worldly enticements both personal and

T. G. Masaryk and Our Times

267

political is given in the excerpt of a poem published by Masaryk in The Czech Question: The internal world dons bright clothesand fools with siren’s beguiling song. Many a man has gone after it—​ but none came back home. Those who got out, caught in the whirls and heavy-​sleep-​filled gyres—​ their inner void, all of its own, whirls on and never tires.2 Translated by joseph grim feinberg

Here we should note Masaryk’s devotion to the truth, which is the source of a person’s core identity. This is related to his apt motto: Do not be afraid and do not steal. He demonstrated this many times during his lifetime. One could briefly mention the fight over the authenticity of the Manuscripts3 and later, during the Hilsner affair.4 Masaryk was not afraid to stand his ground; Do not 2 Verse by Jan Neruda, Vnitřní život [Internal life], in idem., Knihy veršů [Books of verses] (Prague: Grégr & Dattel, Praha 1873), 191–​194. Tomáš G. Masaryk, Česká otázka, Naše nynější krize, Jan Hus [The Czech question. Our current crisis. Jan Hus], in Jiří Brabec, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. vi (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr and Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2000), 285. 3 The fight or dispute over the manuscripts refers to a controversy regarding the authenticity of the Manuscript of Dvůr Králové and the Manuscript of Zelená Hora, which were found in early 19th century. The debate was about whether these were artifacts of the beginnings of Czech literature or modern forgeries. The manuscripts caused an enormous sensation in society and became a source of national pride and artistic inspiration. Along with several other scientists generally of the positivist ilk (linguists, historians, aesthetics scholars etc.), Masaryk concluded that they were forgeries. This critical and science-​based view was published in 1886 in the Athenaeum science journal. An enormous wave of resistance rose up against Masaryk for his position and the dispute had a considerable negative effect on Masaryk’s professional career and ability to directly affect Czech intellectual life at that time. Czech literary historian Josef Hanuš (1862–​1941) notes the similarity between this affair and Macpherson’s Ossian from the 1760s. See Josef Hanuš, ‘Český Macpherson. Příspěvěk k rozboru literární činnosti Josefa Lindy a k provenienci RK a RZ’ [Czech Macpherson. A contribution to the analysis of the literary activity of Josef Linda and to the provenance of the Dvůr Králové and Zelená Hora manuscripts] Listy filologické 27/​2 (1900), 109–​134. 4 The Hilsner Affair refers to the trial of the Jewish man Leopold Hilsner, who in 1899 was accused of murdering Anežka Hrůzová, a 19-​year-​old Christian woman. Masaryk intervened significantly in the subsequent society-​wide discussion of this affair, rejected the unsubstantiated assumption that it was a ritual murder, and spoke out against this superstition in a

268 Trojan steal? Neither a lot nor a little when it comes to material things. But the same applies in a more subtle sense: do not live off the thoughts of others, do not live morally or spiritually on someone else’s account. This eternal stealing, bending, and stooping to rake in the possessions of others is a manifestation of a lack of self-​confidence, loss of identity, a plebeian spirit that clings to the ground until the bitter end, as we hear in one of Karel Kryl’s songs.5 In this sense, Masaryk speaks of a wholeness of character as opposed to fragmented thought and action. Contemporary people are full of such fragmented thought. Instead of a wholeness of thought and action, instead of moral and spiritual integrity, we are controlled by fragmented impressions and shallow concepts. Gossip and video clips. The fractured nature of life, as communicated to us by the media, is depressing. We are drawn into an accelerated kaleidoscope of fleeting experiences and perceptions. We increasingly find ourselves more in the realm of virtual reality than in the real world still known to Wolker’s generation (… a bit of hard living).6 A feast for the eyes in our world –​it empties and stains the soul. We are like Comenius’s pilgrim in the Labyrinth:7 just flitting about in a degraded world. But we will not attain the liberating purification that the pilgrim experiences in the Lusthauz of the heart. However, as we know, it is only from this depth of security that Christ’s witness emerges to struggle across the breadth of life. Masaryk beckons us to this depth of security. He speaks of a life sub specie eternitatis and has the same thing in mind as Comenius. He is convinced that only with this spiritual anchor can we overcome the challenges that arise in our personal and civic lives. Without it we are in danger of a vegetative life, living day to day, absent-​ mindedly, with shallow thoughts, fear and uncertainty, a life devoid of meaning with a disintegrated value system. Masaryk formulates this centrum securitatis in his own way: he is concerned with the relationship of the soul to God, with a religion in which faith, love and hope are organically connected. ‘I should denote my relation to God by highly critical and public manner. Masaryk’s involvement in this affair resulted in sharp anti-​ Semitic attacks by the press and from the ranks of students. The Hilsner Affair is considered the most prominent manifestation of anti-​Semitism in the Czech Lands in the nineteenth century, comparable in nature with the Dreyfus Affair in late-​nineteenth century France. 5 Karel Kryl (1944–​1994), poet and perhaps the most famous singer of Czechoslovak anti-​ Communist protest songs. 6 Jiří Wolker, ‘Umírající’ [Dying] (original version), in idem., Do boje lásko leť [Fly into battle my love], eds. Jaromír Dvořák and Marie Kubíčková (Prague: Odeon 1975), 149. 7 Jan Amos Komenský (Comenius), Labyrint světa a ráj srdce [Labyrinth of the world and paradise of the heart] (Pirna?: 1631).

T. G. Masaryk and Our Times

269

the Latin reverentia –​reverence full of trust and hopefulness’.8 For him, the teacher of faith and guiding light in our personal and public lives is Jesus. Note the famous final words of Světová revoluce [The Making of a State]: Jesus –​ not Caesar.9 This is typically interpreted as Masaryk’s decision to pursue non-​ violent, spiritual means of opposing absolute power. But in this part of my interpretation concerning the personal life of the individual, one may point out yet another meaning: the decision to embrace a true concept of freedom. Jesus bears witness to freedom that leads into service. He understands freedom as a mission that treats and heals, speaks as if it had power, and welcomes into the community the weak, downtrodden, and sinful. True freedom leads Jesus to the last and the lost. The point is to save everyone so they can lead a true life. Compared to this, the freedom of Caesar is arbitrary, a capricious and irresponsible whim. Here, freedom acts only as a means of attaining one’s own selfish goals. The former leads to the growth and all-​round prosperity of a community, the latter ravages it from within, ending in collapse. This freedom under the principle of service, the freedom of Jesus, still exists here today. That is one of the tasks of our churches, to help realise this freedom under the law, a responsible yet creative freedom that benefits the entire community. 2

TGM and the Problems of Our Society

Masaryk has plenty to teach us about public or political matters as well. Above all, he warns us not to be enthralled by the idea that politics is the most important thing in our lives. Given what we have said so far about Masaryk’s concept of personal life, we are not surprised when he says: ‘Political life does not have nearly the importance for the nation that is frequently ascribed to it. […] Political life is only a modest part of the intellectual life of man and nation’.10 Elsewhere in The Czech Question he writes: ‘I consider politics to be very important, but it is not first and foremost for the nation: our first and foremost 8 9

10

Karel Čapek, Hovory s T. G. Masarykem [Conversations with T.G. Masaryk] (Prague: Československý spisovatel, 1990), 150. This concluding sentence of Masaryk’s book Světová revoluce [The world revolution] can only be found in the original Czech version. The English translation ignored this sentence. Cf. Thomas G. Masaryk, The Making of a State: memories and observations, 1914–​1918, tr. and ed. Henry Wickham Steed (London: Allen and Unwin, 1927), 441. Tomáš G. Masaryk., Česká otázka. 92. Also Tomáš G. Masaryk, The Meaning of Czech History. ed. Rene Wellek, tr. Peter Kussi. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1974), 94.

270 Trojan care must be for internal politics, for moral and enlightening progress in society’.11 Masaryk learned this from Comenius, who said something similar three times in his Panorthosia [Universal Reform].12 State and political life as part of spiritual life? It may seem odd to us because we have a very narrow understanding of spiritual life. (And likewise, we have a narrow understanding of political life as being merely the area of party affairs.) We mistakenly associate spirituality with what takes place in the church; we think of hymns, prayers, reading of the Scripture, sermons, sacraments in the church. But according to Masaryk, the spiritual element permeates everything. It is the driving force of his personal and public life. Spiritual grounding provides a certain motivation and emphasis that must be pursued in both of these areas. The national community grows stronger through moral work and enlightenment. Here, Masaryk means professional politics and politicians, events in public life as we see them on television today: what takes place in the parliament, what the government debates, how the courts work. But Masaryk knows quite well that what is hidden from the eyes of viewers is often more important: self-​ betterment, the spiritual struggles we go through, the learning and education we strive to attain. What we talk about in our families, how we raise our children, and what we give them beyond material needs is important. What kind of communal life exists in our congregations and parishes? What kind of questions do we ask our conscience, what do we think about when we are alone or conversing with loved ones? What place does literature have in our education? All of these activities create the preconditions for what visible politics looks like and whether it will be more profound and thoughtful, thus helping the entire community to attain a higher overall level. This means hard work, faith in the future and the right self-​confidence: ‘Let us dare to finally be greater –​we are not as small as we […] are sometimes told by the whiners’.13 These are also words for us: Christians should never be the apostles of malaise. They know that all of creation is groaning, they are realists, perhaps an order of magnitude greater than T. G. Masaryk was, because they remember their own mistakes and falls, catastrophes, shortcomings and sins –​they hear the crying and weeping of creation (Rom 8:22), they are sensitive to the pain of their age, they are also witnesses to the profound absurdity of life and the immensely difficult, often unresolvable problems, but they go through this world with the certainty 11 Masaryk, Česká otázka, 160. 12 John Amos Comenius, Všenáprava (Panorthosie). Všeobecné porady o nápravě věcí lidských (část šestá) [Universal reform. General advice for the reform of human endeavours (part six)], reprinted (Prague: Orbis, 1950). 13 Masaryk, Česká otázka, 119.

T. G. Masaryk and Our Times

271

that with hope we are saved (Rom 8:18–​25).14 By referring to internal politics or, as Masaryk himself sometimes says, non-​political politics –​a term that still has a place in today’s discussions about civil society –​he warns us against worshipping the state. We must not view the state like some kind of demigod, or a ‘being’ that in its wisdom and omnipotence can control the entire life of society. In my opinion, this is particularly important for the older generation today. In recent decades, they lived in a patriarchal state. The state acted as a patron, for most people it was a guarantee of social security. It remains so to a much greater extent today in Russia, but even in our country, many look back fondly at this benevolent distributor of public goods. Citizens should not rely on such power ‘from above’. ‘The state will not save us, it is we who must maintain it’.15 Above all, citizens should rely on themselves, work on themselves, and have morally integrated character. Only in this way will they show greater resilience when they find themselves in difficult personal or social situations. But those who professionally manage public life should have similar virtues. It depends on how ‘the electorate is politically and generally aware and educated. […] If we want to have competent assemblies and deputies, we must ensure thorough political education […]. Parliamentarianism without the political education of deputies, and therefore of the electorate, is disguised absolutism’.16 In today’s discussions of civil society, it is important for an educated, responsible civic class to meet with educated representatives of political life so that uninterrupted communication and a cultivated exchange of opinions can take place. Professional politicians on the local, regional, and national level complain about the lack of interest of citizens. But when citizens of their own volition show interest in some initiative that runs outside official political channels, politicians immediately frown at them, raising a warning finger. And it also cannot be said that our politicians tolerate media criticism. On the other hand, citizens rail against politicians, and many no longer expect anything from them and are retreating into privacy. This is a serious malady gripping Czech society. We learn from Masaryk how to confront this. Masaryk himself learned from his predecessors. For example, Karel Havlíček Borovský aptly said: ‘Only a (morally) preserved and educated nation can have freedom and the good government associated with it … an uneducated nation, even if bled dry by endless revolutions, will not attain freedom and rights, but will always soon be deceived again and pushed back to suffer the whim of government’17 14 References from the King James Bible. 15 Masaryk, The Czech Question, 183. 16 Masaryk, The Czech Question, 196. 17 Karel Havlíček Borovský, Slovan i (1851), 145ff in the article on Revolution. Ibid., 254.

272 Trojan This not only applies to Austria in the time of Havlíček but also to today. That is, an emphasis on responsible citizenship, on an educated, communicating citizenship and educated and communicating politicians. What applies to aware citizens exercising their political responsibility also applies to political parties. In The Czech Question, Masaryk refers to Havlíček: ‘That is why the integrity of every political party is best judged by how sincerely it cares about actually educating people: a virtuous political party is convinced that it will become stronger as the nation becomes more educated, because every educated person will exercise their judgment to distinguish truth from lies, right from injustice, and will certainly join such party and not allow themselves to be deceived by other false practices’.18 One of the criteria with which we can measure political parties today is how much importance they place on education, schooling, culture, spiritual enlightenment, and strengthening of moral and legal consciousness in society, and how many resources they allocate to these areas from the state budget. The quote from Havlíček also reinforces our critical attitude towards pandering populism and political demagoguery. Agreement on the basic questions of public life can only be achieved through cooperation, responsiveness, open relationships, and tolerance. Masaryk thought long and hard about the mission of Czech society. He formulated The Czech Question. He was convinced that we must adopt ideals to overcome the provincialism that bogged down Czech society especially in the late nineteenth century. He coined the motto that the Czech question was at the same time an international question. He was led to believe this by the conviction that it was necessary to grasp the ideal of humanism, the ideal of true humanity, in a special way, in the light of the spiritual and moral traditions left for us by our predecessors. He placed great emphasis on historical memory. A nation without memory is easily manipulated. He was convinced that it was the special character of the Czech reformation that makes our contribution to the treasure trove of European history interesting. Today, we cannot count on surpassing other nations with technical skills –​although the example of Finland shows that a small nation need not necessarily play the role of outsider in this regard. If we make the most out of our past mistakes and successes, if we can employ that imagination which so many times has proven itself in art, science, and culture, and if we work hard, we need not fear for our role in the orchestra of nations. That role may not be first violin, but it also will not be the solitary beat of a drum. If we open up to a world that is globalising –​even 18

Cited from Havlíček’s article in the National News of 28 December 1849. Ibid., 255.

T. G. Masaryk and Our Times

273

Palacký talks of a coming age of global centralisation that will necessarily force us to associate with other states and nations, if we cultivate our distinctive voice to overcome fear of foreign influences, we can succeed. In this regard, Masaryk refers to another of Palacký’s ideas, that whenever we had victories in the past, it was due more to a superiority of spirit than physical power ‘[…] while every defeat has shown a lack of spiritual activity, moral bravery, and courage’.19 He also takes from Palacký the conviction that it is necessary to surpass other larger nations spiritually, morally and through education. In this global competition we can only succeed through the ‘tireless work of enlightenment’, as they described it. Today, for individual Christians and the ecclesiastic community in our country this means helping this process of spiritual growth to improve education and raise the moral standards of our society. In addition to social outreach, which the church carries out to good effect, it is also necessary to think about political, cultural, and socio-​economic outreach. At times, Masaryk lamented that Christians –​and we Protestants in particular –​are not seen. He was right. Today we are in a similar situation. We are struggling with our smallness. But a pious person is strong, says T. G. Masaryk in Hovory [Conversations].20 This is not the voice of arrogant pride. It is a recognition that we grow and become stronger with the tasks we take on. Masaryk is concerned with the unity of life. Even back then, he faced what we are witnessing in our era in a far more acute form: increasingly specialised education to prepare us for various types of human activity. He is convinced that faith (religion) is the unifying focal point of an outlook on life that confronts the generally looming fragmentation of our lives. In this, he follows up on Comenius, who was also a thinker generally at odds with the volatile distractions of the human mind and ethos. In his efforts to achieve this type of human existence, T. G. Masaryk envisions an ideal where the individual is truly integrated into society. Another expression for this type of human existence is Masaryk’s life sub specie aeternitatis. In light of this ideal, one can understand Masaryk’s resistance to placing too much emphasis on the state as the key institution determining civic and personal life. At the core of Masaryk’s vision are educated individuals making responsible decisions for a wide range of the most personal and public tasks. From here, from this universally focused 19 20

Annual Report of Fr. Palacký in Svatobor, in Josef Smolík & Jan Štěpán, eds., TGM ve třech stoletích [TGM in three centuries] (Brno: L. Marek 2001), 374–​377. Karel Čapek, Hovory s T. G. Masarykem [Discussions with T, G. Masaryk] in Jiří Opelík, ed., Spisy T.G. Masaryka [Collected Writings of T.G. Masaryk], vol. xxvii (Prague: Ústav T. G. Masaryka, Masarykův ústav and Archív av čr, 2013), 126.

274 Trojan perspective on the task of humanity, he also understands the basic problem of Czech society, which he formulates in The Czech Question. The goal is that responsible and educated, personally integrated citizens be able to enter into a mutual conversation about the tasks they are to take on as members of the community to which they belong.

Bibliography

Comenius, John Amos (Komenský, Jan Amos), Labyrint světa a ráj srdce [Labyrinth of the world and paradise of the heart] (Pirna?: 1631). Comenius, John Amos (Komenský, Jan Amos), Všenáprava (Panorthosie). Všeobecné porady o nápravě věcí lidských (část šestá) [Universal reform. General advice for the reform of human endeavours, Part vi] (Prague: Orbis, 1950). Čapek, Karel, Masaryk on Thought and Life. Conversations with Karel Čapek, tr. Marie & Robert Weatherall (London: Allen & Unwin, 1944). Čapek, Karel, Hovory s T. G. Masarykem [Conversations with T.G. Masaryk] (Prague: Československý spisovatel, 1990). Hanuš, Josef, ‘Český Macpherson. Příspěvěk k rozboru literární činnosti Josefa Lindy a k provenienci RK a RZ’ [Czech Macpherson. A contribution to the analysis of the literary activity of Josef Linda and to the provenance of the Dvůr Králové and Zelená Hora manuscripts] Listy filologické 27/​2 (1900), 109–​134. Havlíček Borovský, Karel, ‘Revolution’, Slovan i (1851). Masaryk, Tomáš G., Česká otázka, Naše nynější krize, Jan Hus [The Czech question. Our current crisis. Jan Hus], in Jiří Brabec, ed., Spisy T. G. Masaryka [Collected works of T.G. Masaryk], vol. vi (Prague: Masarykův ústav av čr and Ústav T. G. Masaryka, 2000). Masaryk, Thomas G., The Making of a State. Memories and Observations 1914–​1918, tr. Henry Wickham Steed (London: Allen & Unwin, 1927). Neruda, Jan, ‘Vnitřní život’ [Internal Life], in Jan Neruda, Knihy veršů [Books of verses] (Prague: Grégr & Dattel, 1873), 191–​194. Smolík, Josef and Jan Štěpán, eds., TGM ve třech stoletích [TGM in three centuries] (Brno: L. Marek 2001). Wolker, Jiří, ‘Umírající’ [Dying] (original version), in Jiří Wolker, Do boje lásko leť [Fly into battle my Love], Jaromír Dvořák and Marie Kubíčková, eds. (Prague: Odeon, 1975), 149.

Epilogue: the Return of the Czech Question Luděk Sekyra* Abstract The essay characterizes the Czech question as an eternal topic for the Czech intellectual tradition. The discourse on the Czech question was established by an 1895 book of the same name by Tomáš Masaryk, a philosopher and politician and the first president of Czechoslovakia. According to Patočka, Masaryk attempted to create a synthesis between Bolzano’s concept of state patriotism founded primarily on the moral value of a nation and Josef Jungmann’s national and linguistic patriotism inspired by Herder and his ideas about the linguistic identity of nations. Masaryk returns to giants of the Czech National Revival like František Palacký, who placed at the core of Czech history the divine element, which for him is humanity. The essay also discusses the disputes over the meaning of Czech history between Masaryk and Josef Pekař.

Discussion of the ‘Czech question’, initially raised in 1895 in an eponymous book by the philosopher, politician, and first Czechoslovak president Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk (1850–​1937), was shaped by thinking on national identity and its historical roots, and to varying degrees it continues to be conditioned by these questions to this day. In its historical, philosophical, and political nuances, the Czech question has as many layers to it as did Masaryk’s unique ability to introduce grand themes that encouraged a small nation to engage in a search for the meaning of its existence and to fight for its existence as an independent state. Masaryk’s conception of national history in The Czech Question was inspired by František Palacký (1798–​1876), a historian and leader of the Czech national movement. According to Jan Patočka, Masaryk attempted a synthesis between the concept of land patriotism, based primarily on the moral value of a nation, as envisioned by the Prague philosopher and world-​renowned mathematician Bernard Bolzano (1781–​1848), and the concept of national and linguistic patriotism put forth by the linguist Josef Jungmann (1773–​1847), which drew inspiration from Johann Gottried Herder and emphasised the individual character of a nation and its linguistic and cultural nature. Herder had a fundamental influence on Czech intellectuals with his claim that the historical mission of * Chairman of the Sekyra Foundation.

© Luděk Sekyra, 2023 | DOI:10.1163/9789004534919_018

276 Sekyra Slavs was humanity, or rather humaneness. Although I feel that the latent conflict between these two concepts outlasted the nineteenth century, Jungmann’s conception, founded on a linguistic identity at a time of rising nationalism in Europe, gradually became dominant. Palacký identified the pinnacle of Czech history with Hussitism. He believed that ‘godliness’ –​which he understood to mean the humanity, foundation, and purpose of all human endeavour –​is at the core of Czech history. Masaryk, too, considered ‘godliness’ to be the basis of Czech national history. In his view, the humanitarian ideal is a concrete principle, ‘effective humanity’ –​not ­sentimentality, but work and once again work. The conception of the Czech question by Masaryk and Palacký as a religious question, concerning the continuity of the humanistic roots of the Czech Brethren, was the idealistic impulse behind the efforts at national emancipation. The Czech question thus played a thoroughly positive role in the awakening of civil society. In The Czech Question, Masaryk among other things criticises political parties (the Old Czechs and Young Czechs alike) for their passivity and disorganisation, as well as a lack of culture, education, and competency. Consequently he helped to found the Realist Party, agitating, encouraging, writing, and opining. His critiques of politicians were relevant at the time, and they remain relevant to present-​day political culture. In comparison to today’s superficial political squabbles, the depth of argumentation in the polemics of the professor-​cum-​ politicians of that time, such as Masaryk, Bráf and Kaizl, is astounding. Democracy without humanism, without a moral underpinning in cultivated civil society, turns into a war of all against all, a ‘tyranny of the most aggressive’. Masaryk’s devotion to the humanistic ideal, to the religious rather than national character of Czech history, as well as his rejection of randomness and emphasis on foresight in history are legendary. In his politics, however, he championed a realism that, unlike the programs of the traditional parties, reflected the past while looking toward the future, a realism grounded in practical reforms, in education and enlightenment. Masaryk was conscious of the ‘culturally enlightened’ and apolitical nature of the humanitarian ideal, of the process of national revival as a whole, and he sought to give it direction. In his afterword to The Czech Question, he described politics as ‘very important for the nation, but neither principal nor primary’. He considered moral and educational progress, a cultural program, in other words the cultivation of civil society, to be more essential. For this is what gives rise to a civic-​minded public, which is not only the source of authentic values and attitudes, but also creates room for the disagreement without which an emancipated and democratic public space is unimaginable.

Epilogue: the Return of the Czech Question

277

Masaryk’s goal was to rouse the masses from their lethargy, to rid them of the fear of their own insignificance, which ‘sits like a hungry worm at the very core of the Czech soul’. To help the nation understand its mission so that it might become a ‘moral personality’, for, in the words of his pupil Hubert Gorden Schauer, ‘Without an ideal, without an awareness of moral calling, there can be no nation’. Masaryk’s realistic ideal did rest on illusion or self-​deception; it was the same realism expressed years later by Václav Havel in reaction to the claim by writer Milan Kundera that the Prague Spring had placed Czechs and Slovaks ‘at the centre of world history’. Havel, the playwright and dissident who went on to become president, emphasised the need for ‘real criticism’, which frees us of our own illusions and enables us to have a clear-​eyed view of both reality and our role in it. In this age of media soundbites and populistic groundswells, many political leaders are drunk on the illusion of their own momentary importance, yet this only obscures their inability to sacrifice short-​ term goals for the sake of the long term and the clearly ephemeral nature of their political message. This is why Masaryk’s call to realism is as urgent now as it was at the time of its inception. The Czech Question also provoked a longstanding debate on the meaning of Czech history, eliciting a reaction from the most important historians of the day, led by Jaroslav Goll (1846–​1929). A chief representative of the Goll school was Josef Pekař (1870–​1937), who rejected the Romantic idea of the continuity of Czech history, pointing to indisputable signs of the contrary and to the difference between the humanism of the Czech Reformation and the enlightenment humanism of Herder. In place of Masaryk’s religious conception and the ideal of humanism, Pekař posited the ideal of the nation and historical nationalism. While acknowledging the meaningful contribution of Hussitism to ‘the building of European enlightenment’, he disagreed with Palacký, calling Hussitism part of ‘an intellectual and moral endeavour imported from abroad’, and arguing that ‘the autonomy of Czech development is limited’ by European intellectual development, which he said was ‘the most important factor in our history and the main creator of our fate’. Jan Patočka (1907–​1977), the most prominent Czech philosopher of the twentieth century, later noted that ‘the West has a tendency to see only derivatives and imitations when it looks at us’ and that it ‘tends to view us as either friendly or cumbersome, depending on the circumstances’, a society ‘lacking in deep originality and rather more receptive in nature’. As a result, in order to make a creative contribution to the development of the West, we must be ‘more Western than the West itself’ and cultivate a plurality of ‘Western forms’ in the form of ‘fruitful eclecticism’. An eclecticism, I would add, that is not mere imitation, and possesses the charm of originality, enriching both us and the West alike.

278 Sekyra Masaryk was aware of this context, and realised the need for a Homo europaeus, or ‘European man’, since for him the ‘Czech question’ was ‘either a world question or no question at all’. For him, to be open to the cultural impulses of the West and to Europeanism represented moral universalism, the highest horizon of humanity. He was convinced the time had come for nations to be friends and be ‘in touch with’ one another. Xenophobes, ‘isolationists of every ilk’, he wrote, ‘belong . . . in the realm of fable’. In his welcoming approach to Russian immigrants, he demonstrated an attitude sorely needed in our own age of migration and multiculturalism. Karl Popper and Jan Patočka both arrived at the view that history has no collective meaning. The search for the meaning of history is to an extent specifically Czech, yet the question of the individual meaning of life remains fundamental. Popper attempts to locate it in the context of ‘open society’, which is open to all who wish to contribute; similarly, Patočka, in his second study of Masaryk, came to the conclusion that the meaning of life lies in openness, in ‘not claiming meaning for oneself’, but rather living ‘so as to enable a meaningful world to arise’. Not living like an animal, for the moment, but opening oneself to the whole of the world –​that is also one way to interpret Masaryk’s sub specie aeternitatis. From the perspective of the eternal is not a passive surrender to fate, but an overarching ethical principle that opens us to solidarity, to other people as well as to God. It is this principle of openness, of reciprocity, of respect for the humanity and dignity of others, and the authentic attempt to align politics with morality that constitutes the lasting contribution of Masaryk’s ideas and his book The Czech Question. The value of this collection is not that it gives clear answers, but that it forces us to reflect on the nature of history, the role of personality in history, and on our own task in life. I am pleased that our foundation, which supports philosophy worldwide, was able to contribute to the publication of this book and in so doing to bring such an important part of Czech intellectual tradition to an international audience.

Index Albert, Hans x, 200, 203, 205, 206 Amann, Paul 235, 241 Arendt, Hannah xii, 213 Aristotle 91, 158, 194, 210 Bach, Alexander von 37 Bacon, Francis 137 Badiou, Alain 233, 234, 239, 241 Balbín, Bohuslav 42, 52 Barth, Karl 216 Baufret, Jean 137 Bednář, Miloslav 160, 166, 184 Beld, Antonie van den 102, 113, 117 Bělohradský, Václav  Beneš, Edvard 216 Bentham, Jeremy 260 Bergson, Henri 234, 241 Berka, Karel 66 Bernstein, Eduard 95, 219 Blanc, Louis 71 Boček, Jaroslav 44, 52 Bodin, Jean 91 Bolzano, Bernard 125, 129, 139, 224, 246, 252, 275 Bráf, Albín 22, 24, 36, 39, 276 Brentano, Franz 50, 54, 63, 65, 66, 78, 86, 172, 182, 186 Breuilly, John 8, 25 Březina, Otokar 248 Buckle, Henry Thomas 71 Byron, George Gordon 168 Cassirer, Ernst xi, 128, 130, 138 Charles iv 153, 154, 155, 166 Charvát, Petr 239 Chelčický, Petr 16, 26, 109 Comenius, Jan Amos /​Komenský, Jan Amos  1, 16, 25, 70, 100, 109, 153, 156, 157, 166, 177, 179, 192, 266, 268, 270, 273, 274 Comte, August 49, 63, 67, 68, 78, 86, 87, 168, 171, 172, 197, 237 Čapek, Karel 46, 49, 50, 52, 61, 78, 82, 83, 90, 94, 96, 175, 184, 196, 213, 223, 228, 254, 257, 261, 265, 269, 273, 274 Čelakovský, František Ladislav 136

Černý, Václav 43, 53, 110, 117 Čornej, Petr 160, 166, 190, 206 Dahrendorf, Ralf xi David, Zdeněk V. 71, 78, 102, 117 Descartes, René 68, 131 Dobner, Gelasius 37, 38 Dobrovský, Josef 37, 38, 73, 114, 124, 135, 169, 249 Doležal, Augustín 104, 117 Drozenová, Wendy  Durdík, Josef 66, 87 Durkheim, Émile 47 Durych, Jaroslav 44, 53 Dvořák, Max 51 Ehrenfels, Christian von 50, 54, 62, 78, 79 Eim, Gustav 39 Engels, Friedrich 218, 250 Erben, Karel Jaromír 136 Faifr, František 73 Feinberg, Joseph Grim 72, 79 Ferdinand I of Habsburg 191, 192 Feuerbach, Ludwig 137, 138 Fischer, Josef Ludvík xiii, 43, 67, 79 Franta, Zdeněk 82, 92, 96, 97 Franz Joseph I 247 Frege, Gottlob 205 Freud, Sigmund 210, 231 Fries, Jakob Friedrich 70, 71 Funda, Otakar A. 189, 190, 193, 200, 205, 206 Gadamer, Hans-​Georg 135, 209 Galilei, Galileo 233 Garrigue Masaryk, Charlotte 92 Gebauer, Jan 41 George of Poděbrady 193 Gluchman, Vasil 104, 110, 117 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang 70, 168 Goll, Jaroslav 41, 49, 171, 214, 248, 277 Götz, František 44, 53 Graus, František 249 Grégr, Eduard 39

280 Index Grégr, Julius 39 Grondin, Jean 135, 138 Habermas, Jürgen xiii, 77, 79, 135, 209, 210, 213, 228, 231 Hain, Radan 222, 229 Hajn, Antonín 39 Hálek, Vítězslav  Hanka, Václav 135 Hanuš, Josef 44, 53, 267, 274 Havel, Václav 220, 231, 238, 241, 258, 277 Havelka, Miloš 18, 26, 212, 226, 251 Havlíček Borovský, Karel 37, 43, 75, 271, 274 Hegel, Georg Willhelm Friedrich xiv, 49, 103, 104, 117, 125, 132, 134, 137, 138, 168, 176, 199, 200, 213, 219, 222, 231, 249 Hejdánek, Ladislav xiii, 171, 184, 211, 224, 225, 229 Held, Virginia 93, 97 Heidegger, Martin 137, 138, 199 Henlein, Konrad 223 Heraclitus 50 Herbart, Johann Friedrich 87, 88, 171 Herben, Jan 75, 101, 214 Herder, Johann Gottfried 70, 102, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 115, 117, 119, 125, 126, 128–​131, 133, 158, 166, 168, 169 255, 260, 275, 277 Herold, Josef 42, 45 Hilsner, Leopold 93, 94, 97, 98, 217, 220, 267, 268 Hippocrates 91 Hlávka, Josef 39 Hobbes, Thomas 173 Höffding, Harald 61, 79 Hofmannsthal, Hugo von 236 Holý, Jiří 43 Holý, Ladislav 43, 53 Hostinský, Otakar 41, 248 Hroch, Miroslav 9, 20, 26, 27, 38, 39, 53, 78, 79 Hromádka, Josef Lukl 50, 179, 181, 184, 209, 211, 216, 217, 223, 229 Hrubý, Karel 255, 260, 261 Humboldt, Wilhelm von 180 Hume, David 60, 63, 80, 82, 85, 86, 88, 91, 92, 93, 172 Hurban, Jozef M. 101, 114, 117, 118 Hurban-​Vajanský, Svetozár 101 Hus, Jan 184, 190–​193, 207

Jaksch, Wenzel 223 Jaspers, Karl xi Jünger, Ernst 137 Jungmann, Josef 37, 38, 40, 114, 124, 125, 129, 136, 139, 275, 276 Kaizl, Josef 36, 37, 39, 51, 71, 75, 83, 141–​143, 149, 152, 169, 184, 190, 207, 209, 212, 229, 250, 254, 261, 276 Kalista, Zdeněk 155, 166 Kant, Immanuel xiv, 61, 63, 78, 88, 123, 124, 126, 129–​131, 133, 138, 158, 161, 166, 168, 182, 186, 210, 218, 255, 260 Karafiát, Jan 216, 232 Karl i 215 Kisch, Egon Erwin xii Klaus, Václav 240 Klíma, Ladislav 43 Klofáč, Václav 39 Kohák, Erazim xiii, 86, 87, 97, 173, 184, 216, 229 Kohn, Jindřich 43, 53 Kołakowski, Leszek 64, 79 Kollár, Ján 37, 40, 43, 70, 84, 99–​120, 124, 128, 132, 136, 169, 170, 192, 249 Komárková, Božena xiii, 172, 173, 184, 215, 217, 218, 229 Konstanc, Jiří 42, 53 Kosík, Karel 43, 53, 220, 229 Koukolík, František 190, 207 Kovtun, Jiří 15, 26, 93, 97, 105, 118, 175, 177, 184 Kozák, Jan Blahoslav 50, 101, 181, 184 Král, Josef 61, 62, 79, 101 Kramář, Karel 39, 75, 108, 120, 141, 177, 213 Kraus, Karl 235 Krejčí, František Václav 43, 44, 53, 248 Krolmus, Václav 40 Kryl, Karel 268 Kundera, Milan 43, 53, 235, 277 Küng, Hans 195, 207, 209 Labriola, Antonio 219, 229 Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm 63, 67, 70, 105, 118, 158 Leroux, Pierre 71 Linda, Josef 267, 274 Locke, John 218 Löwenstein, Bedřich 209, 210, 212, 229

Index Luther, Martin 1, 15, 70, 72, 102, 111, 116, 156, 159, 216 Macek, Josef 223 Mácha, Karel Hynek 136, 248 Machar, Josef Svatopluk 39, 248 Machiavelli, Niccolò xv, 112, 213 Machovec, Milan 174, 184, 196, 207, 220, 229 MacIntyre, Alasdair 127, 133, 137, 138 Macura, Vladimír 40, 53, 135, 138, 238, 241 Mann, Thomas 235, 241 Marek, Antonín 136 Maria Theresa of Habsburg 176 Marx, Karl 72, 80, 94, 95, 97, 125, 200, 210, 218, 219, 220, 222, 230, 231, 238, 249, 250, 251, 254, 261 Maxwell, Alexander 112, 115, 116, 118, 119 Mészáros, Ondrej 106, 119 Michelet, Jules 71 Miklík, Konstantin 50, 216, 230 Mill, John Stuart 60, 68, 91, 172, 173, 197, 218 Milton, John 218 Modráček, František 218, 219, 230 Montesquieu, Charles Louis 91 Mráz, Andrej 101, 102, 119 Mrštík, Vilém 248 Muna, Alois 219 Musset, Alfred de 168 Nehněvajsa, Jiří 251, 252, 262 Nejedlý, Zdeněk 48, 219, 220, 237 Němcová, Božena 136, 237 Neruda, Jan 267, 274 Nietzsche, Friedrich 125, 132, 133, 137, 138, 178, 199, 210, 225, 226, 235 Nový, Lubomír 85, 97   Odložilík, Otakar 50, 162, 256, 262 Ondrejovič, Dušan 110, 119 Opat, Jaroslav 87, 90, 97, 99, 119, 171, 172, 176, 185, 190, 207 Osuský, Samuel Štefan 101 Palacký, František ix, 1, 11, 14, 15, 37, 38, 39, 70, 71, 81, 99, 114, 124, 125, 126, 132, 135, 136, 139, 140, 142–​148, 150–​152, 158–​162, 165, 167, 169–​171, 175, 178, 185, 186, 190,

281 192, 215, 220, 230, 234, 235, 237, 247, 252, 257, 273, 275, 276 Pachta, Jan 220 Pascal, Blaise 64, 77 Patočka, Jan xii, xiii, 21, 43, 54, 86, 87, 97, 98, 125, 126, 129, 135, 138, 139, 153, 157, 163, 164, 167, 169, 171, 175, 176, 184, 186, 195–​199, 205, 206, 208, 209, 210, 211, 214, 216, 223–​227, 230, 234, 241, 251, 252, 253, 261, 262, 275, 277, 278 Paul the Apostle 233, 241 Pekař, Josef 17, 25, 26, 43, 49, 51, 52, 71, 83, 98, 108, 117, 118, 171, 186, 190, 207, 208, 209, 212, 214–​217, 219, 225, 227, 230, 251, 276, 277 Pelcl, František Martin 37 Peroutka, Ferdinand 43, 54, 174, 190, 208, 209, 212, 213, 223, 231 Pichler, Tibor 110, 119 Plato xiii, 1, 48, 49, 69, 77, 81, 91, 116, 133, 134, 154, 156, 157, 161, 172, 179, 180, 185, 196, 200, 206, 210, 217, 225, 257 Polák, Milota Zdirad 136 Popper, Karl Raimund 48, 189, 195, 199–​205, 208, 222, 231, 278 Pražák, Albert 100, 101, 119 Pynsent, Robert B. 14, 27, 101, 102, 103, 108, 109, 112, 119 Rádl, Emanuel xii, xiii, 43, 54, 196, 206, 209, 211, 212, 214, 216, 217, 222, 223, 224, 225, 227, 229, 230, 231, 246 Rezek, Antonín 75 Ricoeur, Paul xiii, 163, 167, 196, 208, 209, 210, 231, 251, 262 Rieger, František Ladislav 39, 143 Rokyta, Jan 223 Rosa, Václav Jan 42 Rousseau, Jean-​Jacques 128–​131, 138, 168, 179, 218 Rudolph ii of Habsburg 191 Rupnik, Jacques 95, 98 Sand, George 71 Schauer, Hubert Gordon 13, 17, 21, 26, 28, 39, 44, 54, 66, 277 Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von xiv, 49 Schiller, Friedrich 70

282 Index Schwarzenberg, František 227, 231 Skalický, Karel 227, 232 Skilling, Hubert Gordon 15, 26, 101, 108, 119, 174, 186 Slavík, Jan 43, 52, 68, 81, 118 Smetana, Augustin 42, 54, 132 Smith, Adam 91 Smith, Anthony 221, 232 Socrates 210 Sombart, Werner 168 Sova, Antonín 248 Spisar, Antonín 50 Srovnal, Jindřich 66, 94, 95, 98, 182, 186 Stirner, Max 133 Stloukal, Karel 42, 54 Strauss, Leo 130, 139 Sulzer, Johann Georg 64 Světlá, Karolína 39 Svoboda, Jan 69, 72, 79, 81, 83, 86, 98, 182, 186 Szporluk, Roman 221, 232 Šabata, Jaroslav 220, 231 Šafařík, Pavel Josef /​Šafárik, Pavel Jozef 38, 40, 70, 99, 106, 114, 124, 132, 136, 169, 192 Šalda, František Xaver 39, 43, 248 Šembera, Alois Vojtěch 99 Šimsa, Jaroslav 50, 223, 232 Šimsa, Martin 210, 213, 231 Škrach, Vasil K. 101, 142, 182 Škultéty, Jozef 101, 119 Šlejhar, Josef Karel 248 Šmahelová, Hana 110, 119 Šolcová, Kateřina 216, 232 Šťastný, Alfons Ferdinand 39

Štefánek, Anton 101 Štúr, Ľudovít 106, 114, 115, 119 Štúr, Svätopluk 101, 103, 109, 119 Taylor, Charles 129, 139 Tesař, Jan 239, 241 Thomas Aquinas 194 Tille, Václav 172 Timura, Viktor 109, 120 Tocqueville, Alexis de 175, 181, 197, 213 Tomčík, Miloš 110, 120 Tomek, Václav Vladivoj 43 Trotsky, Leon 219, 232 Tugendhat, Ernst 137, 139 Tyl, Josef Kajetán 38 Vančura, Vladislav 214 Várossová, Elena 109, 110, 120 Voigt, Mikuláš Adaukt 37 Vrchlický, Jaroslav 39 Weber, Max xi, 234 Wenceslas i 40, 193, 239 Wilson, Woodrow 222 Windischgrätz, Alfred 42 Winters, Stanley B. 108, 120 Wolker, Jiří 268, 274 Zay, Karoly 111 Znoj, Milan 143, 152, 174, 186 Zumr, Josef 71, 81, 171, 172, 186 Žilka, František 181, 216 Žižka of Trocnov, Jan 212