East European Quarterly/Volume 15/Number 1/Mr. Palacký

by Alena Šubrtová

MR. PALACKÝ

 

Alena Šubrtová
National Museum, Prague

At one time, the greatest desire of the French historian Victor L. Tapié, who from 1930 on worked and studied Czech history in Prague, was to meet the contemporaries of Palacký. “I have always held the opinion,” he writes, “that this type of testimony has its own intrinsic value. It could be assessed incorrectly at a greater value than it actually possesses, but it could also be undervalued unfairly, because everything which helps to delineate a historical personage has its significance . . . . I was fortunate to find persons who in their childhood memories had a very realistic picture of his traits and of the special gestures and manners of others toward him. I was told that in his old age Palacký wore a wig regularly. Usually after a short period of time, Palacký found it uncomfortable and occasionally moved his forehead to shift the wig from the back to the front of his head. The people of the eighties who habitually addressed writers, politicians, and newspapermen by their surnames always respectfully addressed Palacký as ‘Mister Palacký,’ and not merely as ‘Palacký.’ The latter would simply appear out of place in association with this respected man. These details have the flavor of anecdotes. Is this however a reason to forget them?”¹

People have always yearned to “undress great or important persons to their dressing gowns.” The privacy of great personalities, whether loved or disliked, is seldom spared public interest. “You are only a person; show your real self in surroundings where you can and must set aside social conventions, and show whether even in this setting you stand firm behind your convictions!” Sometimes a totally unexpected picture appears: the usually heartless and intransigent become kind and good natured in the milieu of their home, controlled by their wives, children, and relatives. In other cases, the opposite is true. Some people remain unchanged in any social setting. There exist personalities who through the greatness of their contributions became the “property of a nation.” Though their views and work may be explained and interpreted in various ways, public affection and love for them, having the character of “a boy’s respect for his father,” survive for ages. To touch upon the truly great personality of the historian and politician, František Palacký, and to penetrate into his privacy is a difficult and responsible task, especially if we consider the long century that separates us from his death.

Palacký’s granddaughter, Marie Červinková née Riegrova, considered it her responsibility “to preserve everything witnessed by the Palacký family circle, but unfamiliar to any one outside of this narrow company of people.” Her wish was to preserve these details, “for only these can accurately describe the true milieu.”² For a long time she was preparing to write a detailed biography of Palacký. However, an account of Palacký’s most personal life never materialized; her death ended her planned, comprehensive studies and the collection of material.³ Nevertheless, she left several volumes of detailed diary entries (Červinková maintained a detailed diary from the age of twelve). These volumes are a rich source of authentic information about Palacký during the last decade of his life. The preserved family correspondence also provides an account of the environment which surrounded Palacký’s life and the lives of the writers of these letters.⁴

Unfortunately, we cannot question Palacký’s contemporaries, but many of them recorded their impressions of Palacký from their personal meetings with him.⁵ Not even these, however, can prevent what Červinková feared, “namely that important persons in time gradually recede into the gloom of the past and change their form in the optical illusion of thickening fog.”⁶ The correspondence, diaries, and family memoirs are all colored by the social conventions of the writers. For example, children always associated parents and grandparents with supreme authority, and were led to hold their parents’ statements and actions in reverence. Not even the diaries of young girls were completely their own: the entries of Márinka Reigrová clearly indicate that her diary was subject to her mother’s supervision and criticism. Therefore, we may assume that the most confidential information was communicated to her girl friends, for example Márinka Aninka Mikšová, rather than inscribed in the diary. A picture formed by these sources inevitably bears the characteristics and personal impressions of the creators. Nevertheless, we must at least try at its composition.

The facial and other physical characteristics of František Palacký are well known from a collection of portraits. From the sequence of portraits we can observe the changes in Palacký’s features. It was said that all members of the Palacký family, including František, had “fair hair and blue eyes,” a conspicuous nose, and distinctly curved lips. Much has already been written and probably much more will be written about Palacký’s background and the development of his character. It is interesting at what an early age Palacký was able to set for himself, and through errors and mistakes modify the goals he pursued for his entire life. At fifteen, he became “inflamed with sincere patriotic zeal.” At the age of eighteen, he decided to devote his life entirely and exclusively to scholarship, deciding that he lacked talent for poetry and that there was an “enormous shortage of books on Czech literature.”⁷

The difficult periods of Palacký’s employment as a writer and common helper for Palkovič’s Weekly and his diligent studies were never forgotten by him. He “suffered poverty” and was subject to illness and hunger. The money Palacký’s father provided from his modest means was spent for books. The experience of hard beginnings survived even later, when Palacký’s financial conditions were improved as a result of his employment as a tutor in many noble families. During his entire life, Palacký kept to a strict life standard and remained modest in his personal needs.

The qualities of a strict personal discipline and decisiveness in dealing with others are reflected in Palacky’s relationship with his parents and his brothers and sisters. Palacký disappointed his father, who expected his son to become a priest or clerk and to attain a secure position close to home, enabling him to help support the family. But Palacky spoke of his father with respect. He valued this strict, irascible, intelligent man whose desire for books and knowledge could not be extinguished even by the material hardships of his life. Anyone acquainted with her must have loved Palacký’s mother. She was a small, uneducated, ordinary woman, “the genuine picture of innocence and maternal love.”⁸ More than Jura, Anna and the other children, “Franc” was her favorite child. She confided in him all of her expectations and protected him from the harsh criticism of his father, who thought that the boy was ashamed of the family and was becoming progressively more estranged from it, that he “thinks of Mrs. Zerdahely more than of his own parents who brought him up.” The many-sided influence of the gentle, educated, experienced and much older Nina Zerdahely on Palacký is undeniable. He himself gratefully acknowledged that their acquaintance had been the greatest happiness of his youth. Even her friendly admonishments, bestowed on Palacký in an intimate discourse in 1820, were well understood by him. She urged Palacký to “ponder over his personal inwardness, for it could cause suffering for his family,” and warned him that he was “not overcoming his hatred of people whose moral character offends him.” Palacký resolved not to err in these ways in the future. Nevertheless, after the death of his mother in 1822 the family ties became even looser. More complaints arose, this time in respect to his infrequent letters home. It is difficult to imagine the abysmal difference developing between the spiritual life and interests of Palacký and those of his family. His father was staggering under the rugged life of a country teacher and farmer. He taught at a one-grade school, and he traded in wheat, cabbage, wool, honey and any other goods his farm could provide. There were needy brothers, sisters, a step-mother with her two children, and daughters and sons-in-law and their children. During this period, farming provided only a wretched subsistence. Beans and bread were the main family diet, and worry over earnings the core of everyone’s life. The mother who with her energetic but calm character would resolve domestic difficulties was gone. Unchecked, these domestic outbursts grew stronger. Once there was a struggle over the down-filled blankets left by the deceased mother, and later over practically everything. František asked for a share of his own. Others, however, asked František himself for a contribution to the welfare of those being sent by their father “into the world on their own.” A good coat was considered a valuable thing, and when the son set his aside it was mended and used again by the father. Palacký’s financial standing was not sufficiently great to keep the entire family “above water” to his and their satisfaction. One recalls the poet Ebert’s memory of his meeting with Palacký, who was wearing “a long, blue, and shabby coat” in the heat of summer.⁹

When possible, Palacký tried to support his brother Ondřej, who was at the time studying in Bratislava. At one time he had Ondřej live with him for a year in Prague. But even “Andrea” had to follow the distressful path of poverty and renunciation for his studies. “You must take care of yourself, for each one of us is left to care for himself,” wrote Jiří Palacký, Jr., to his brother Ondřej.¹⁰ Left to themselves, they roamed about, and it is remarkable that two of the seven brothers and sisters managed to complete their studies. The “old” family was indisputably a burden for Palacký.

His marriage to the daughter of a prominent Prague lawyer, and his new position of Bohemian Historiographer provided Palacký with social standing and financial security. He no longer had to keep the neat daily records of the Kreuzers and Gulden gained and spent. But the price Palacký had to pay for this was not small.

Even during Palacký’s courting of Terezie Měchurová, she was already seriously ill. Měchura’s family doctor, Theobald Held, asked Palacký to consider carefully whether he “indeed wished to ask for the hand of a girl who would never again be completely healthy.”¹¹ Held saw Palacký’s perseverance in the matter, and it was said that Held’s statement “Terezie, who is suffering from nervousness and a heart deficiency will not live long if she does not have a loving husband of exceptionally gentle character, such as Palacký” had a major influence on Měchura’s final decision.¹² Much has been written about Palacký as husband and father. In no way did he betray the words used by that otherwise merciless critic, Held, to characterize him.

From the beginning, Palacký uncompromisingly “apportioned his love between his family and his native country and nation.”¹³ He expected his family to understand and accept this as inevitable. At this point, it is useful to look at one of Palacký’s letters written in 1851 to his daughter Marie. It is important because it can be considered Palacký’s lifelong credo. Palacký assured Marie, who had shown some concem for her father’s health, that he was saving it with “not a little caution.” “Not only because it was your request and the request of our entire family, but also because of the matter to which I have devoted my life since my youth. If our nation, which has declined so badly over the past several centuries, is to be helped again, some people must devote themselves fully and completely to this task. They must disregard the gratitude or ingratitude of the period, and continue in the task begun. In the end their effort, which may at first appear to have been fruitless, may well prove to be quite profitable . . . . It is my desire, if my health keeps up, to help accomplish this objective. I am especially anxious to help when I see the small number of our people ready, faithfully and dauntlessly, to offer their help.” This statement is a declaration of faith of a mature politician and scholar, and it had its impact on Palacký’s relationship with his family.

Palacký became deeply attached to his daughter Marie. He wished her to become a “good Czech.” Palacký was extremely pleased with news of her improvement in the Czech language or evidence of patriotic sentiments. Both children, Jan and Marie, or “Hansi and Mimi” as they were called at home, had a traditional German upbringing, though Palacký succeeded at least in converting his wife into a good “Bohemian patriot.” The shadow between Palacký and his wife was cast not only by her German education and the different religious confession and surroundings in which she had grown up, but also by the difference in their characters. In her youth, Terezie had been a girl of “lively temperament [and] clear merry spirit,” but in her later life she was melancholy and subject to nervous exhaustion and mental depression. It is difficult to assess to what extent her illness contributed to these traits. Palacký readily accepted reality, namely that he could not “secure for her a more robust and body,” telling his daughter that “it is our responsibility to exert ourselves on her behalf, so that at least her health and strength may improve.” Though she is weak in body, she can show strong spirit whenever it is necessary.”¹⁴

We cannot imagine Palacký’s agitated and exhausting life without the emotional background of his family, Palacký himself stated several times what those nearest to him meant to him: “You know that if I did not have you, my life would lose its greatest comfort on this earth,” he wrote to Marie in January, 1851.¹⁵ Of his first-born son Jan, Palacký had great expectations, including that Jan would take his place after his “health had left him.” The life style of the very gifted boy did not completely fulfill Palacky’s expectations, however, and their relationship was therefore somewhat colder than Palacký’s relationship with his daughter Marie. After the marriage of his daughter Marie to F.L. Rieger in 1853, the fifty-five-year-old Palacký acquired another son. Thereafter, Palacký addressed his former “dear friend” and devoted collaborator as “dear son,” and Rieger, twenty years younger, addressed Palacký as “dear father.” During this period, the tight connection between the fates of the Palacký and Rieger families was established. Let us examine this segment of Palacký’s life.

Rieger, explosive and overflowing with energy, and the strict, moderate Palacký who gave the first impression of being a cold and inaccessible person, were later close, not only in their political but also their private lives. It appears that their different personalities did not clash but mutually compensated each other. Rieger and Palacký knew each other well, and their relationship was from the beginning based on deep mutual respect and understanding. Rieger’s view and evaluation of Palacký in 1849 did not lose its validity even later: “Indeed our Palanda is always worth at least ten others. I like the man more the longer I know him. I say he is like old Mělník wine, at the first taste slightly tart, but clear, healthy and, in short, excellent.“¹⁶ Another direct tie to the family setting in which Palacký lived after the death of his wife were Rieger’s children. In 1854, Palacký became a grandfather to little Marie. Three years later he acquired a grandson, Bohuš, and in 1860, when he lost his wife, the last child, Libuše, was born. Palacký had to reconcile himself to the death of his wife, by whose side he had stood in the difficult months when her life slowly ended. A letter of 13 September 1860, written less than a month after the death of his wife to his daughter Marie, is characteristic of Palacký’s unsentimental and realistic view of life’s tragedies. He implores Marie, who was at the time overwhelmed by her mother’s death, to become well and gain a new grip on her mind. “The loss we have suffered, however painful, must not depress us much more, for it was not only natural but also expected and, I am sorry to say, even desirable. It shortened the suffering that was devouring our hearts. Of course I miss her terribly—but you have many persons for whom you must preserve your life.”¹⁷

The sixty-two-year-old Palacký once again threw himself into academic and political work. Many aspects of the development of his work have already been illuminated. Palacký’s personal strictness, the directness of his designs, and unselfishness guided him throughout his entire life. These traits were accompanied by determination, immense persistence, method, and system, “a planned, economical technique of mental work,”¹⁸ If we examine Palacký’s whole academic and political course, it is clear that his immense efficiency must have been based on a strict work schedule and a good sense of order. The periods of Palacký’s political activity alternated with periods of hard work on his History. During the latter, “he did not go outside, and did not even read the newspapers.” Both areas of his interest were so well integrated, that Palacký must have mastered perfect concentration. When he became absorbed in his work, nothing could disturb him. Palacký was a fright to any archivist. During a week of research at the “unconquerable” archives at Třeboň, he left the place only once-for the sake of the local archivist, he went for a stroll. He worked from morning until evening, taking only short breaks to rest his tired eyes. The same was true at a number of other archives that Palacký visited.¹⁹

Yet Palacký was not a Bücherwurm, as he was called by Karel Egon Ebert at the beginning of his life in Prague. Palacký did not become reserved or come to avoid society. From his youth, Palacký had many friends, whom he often visited. Palacký was always well informed about the opinions of his adversaries and followers. This fact would be quite difficult to explain without his extensive social ties, not only through correspondence but through lively personal intercourse, a thorough reconnaisance of the setting and ideological currents. At the same time, social interaction was a part of his work. Even during the periods of Palacký’s “diminished involvement in everyday concerns and scuffles” in the latter part of his life, the flood of “political guests” (as they were called by his daughter Marie), domestic and foreign, who visited the old man in Prague or Maleč did not cease.²⁰ These were not merely casual, friendly visits or visits of piety to the aging giant. From the diary entries of Márinka one may conclude that the visitors often came for “ideas and instruction,” for throughout the years Palacký’s brain did not lose any of its vigor.

The family lived its busy, rich life in Palacký’s house, No. 719-II Pasířská Street, later Palacký Street. In 1862, Rieger was forced to sell his family mill in Semily and brought his mother, a “miller of Semily,” to Prague. She lived with the Riegers in Prague the remaining seven years of her life. The same year, Rieger bought a farm and a chateau at Maleč, near Chotěboř. At this place the family, including the seriously ill grandmother who had to be transported on a stretcher, spent the summer months. In Prague, Palacký had his study, filled with books and always kept in strict order. Even in Maleč Palacký did not lack privacy. He had “grandfather’s room,” which was always carefully aired and heated before his expected arrival: Palacky did not like the cold, and the chilly walls of the chateau were not conducive to his health.

To the bitter dissatisfaction of Rieger’s wife, the family was often separated. Particularly in winter, the managing of the estate in Maleč was a great burden for Rieger and his spouse, Marie often had to perform all of the managerial duties herself and play the role of a farmer, since her husband devoted most of his time to political activity in Vienna or Prague. The only link between the members of the family were letters. These letters and entries in Márinka’s diary help us to look into the private life of the old man who was adored by everyone.

In his edition of Palacký’s correspondence with his daughter Marie and son-in-law Rieger, Karel Stloukal drew attention to the linguistic significance of the letters, the purity and the conciseness of the Czech language. For decades, Palacký did not change his minute, calligraphic, readable handwriting. The letters are usually concluded with the words, “Your father.” Sometimes Palacký ended his letters merely with “Yours,” adding his initials or only the letter “P.” He was consistent even in little things, in minute details reflecting his accuracy and his sense for methodical order. Poor-quality ink, for example, could deprive him of the “desire to continue writing.”²¹ In the only preserved letter to his granddaughter in Frankfurt, Palacký asks Márinka to write more legibly. The letter was written tactfully, politely, and in the judgment of the addressee, “diplomatically.”²² This detail may seem of little importance, but the whole of Palacký’s correspondence with his family is characterized by unusual tact. He wrote of unpleasant news in a polite form that did not offend anyone. Nevertheless, tact did not prevent him from expressing his opinion to the “right person.” Although Palacký was the most esteemed and the oldest member of the family, he neither imposed his authority on it nor attempted to patronize it. In accordance with this principle, he did not undermine Rieger’s authority in the family when his son-in-law assumed Palacký’s decisive role in the Czech national movement, “A stranger to vanity, he was polite to others and demanded the same of others in return, as a mutual expression of human dignity.”²³ It is difficult to characterize Palacký’s tactful behavior in public as well as private life more succinctly and precisely. Palacký’s foreign friends, Leger and Denis, and members of his family, his son Jan and Rieger’s niece Božena, all confirm that Palacký was a gentle, polite, considerate, noble, and modest man, self-confident but without pomp or conceit. Having “respect for every opinion, he hated only scoundrels who lacked any conviction at all.”²⁴

Palacký looked as though he were impervious to emotion, as if all of his emotions were exhausted by his work and political activity. In fact, Palacký’s appearance was deceptive, and his entourage knew that he was a deeply emotional man, Palacký showed his love through acts and active concern. His early letters to his young daughter Marie are full of fatherly love, almost like letters to a mistress. Later in life he was still sincerely devoted to her, though his behavior was more formal. In his letter to her on her fortieth birthday in 1874, he wrote: “You know that in the whole world nobody is now so close to my heart as you are. Deeds rather than words must convince you of my love. Therefore, I do not say that tomor row I shall be thinking of you. This is obvious. I am with you every day, and not only on your birthday.”²⁵

During the period we have examined, Palacký was in excellent mental health, without any signs of nervous breakdown or serious depression. At the time, “nervousness” was a common and even fashionable sickness, Palacký’s well-balanced temperament did not reveal any unpleasant feelings that he might have had or any of the many difficult problems that he may have been trying to solve. Although he never lost his temper, he was sometimes sad or reserved. His letters reflect the highest degree of considerateness. Undoubtedly, he was strong enough to solve his own problems without bothering other people. He always endeavored to encourage and cheer his friends and relatives. This optimistic approach also emanates from the letters written during the last years of his life, when he was ill and entitled to be sulky and morose. In contrast with many old people afflicted by illnesses and physical weakness, Palacký burdened his family with no complaints or lamentations. Even during the long period when Palacký’s physical strength and energy had to be devoted to the care of his ill and dying wife, he did not reveal his own exhaustion, fatigue, and feelings of mental stress. He described in detail only the sickness of his wife and their return journey to her country, where she met her death.

Palacký accepted suffering quietly and rationally. He disliked any public manifestation of emotion. He was able to perceive the positive meaning of an extremely sad event, avoiding pointless histrionics. Unfortunately, this talent was not inherited by his extremely sensitive and pessimistic daughter. Marie was as active as her father, but she clearly lacked feelings of personal happiness. Her letters of the seventies contain complaints about her health and the miserable economic situation of the Maleč estate. Palacký admonished her about this only once, because of his concern for Rieger, who was at the time politically active in Vienna and had to read the almost desperate letters from his wife: “I often think of you and never without depressing feelings. I am sorry to hear that you always live in anxiety. You are never merry, you never enjoy moments of happiness. Do not dwell on misfortune, especially on economic problems. In spite of all your occasional amd temporary troubles, a thousand wives could be envious of you. Just think of your husband and of the children given to you by God. The estate and farm are not worth your anxiety and despair. Rieger did not show me your news, but he said that the situation is bad and almost approaching a catastrophe. I do not see any reason for being desperate. I am afraid that your dwelling on unpleasant news will only worsen your health. Try to cheer up, so that we may again be content and feel happy. Your home and your family are perfect. The children are behaving well and we do not lack anything except your presence. Can we expect you soon?”²⁶

As the last passage of the letter indicates, at the time when his son-in-law and daughter were in Maleč and the children still went to school, Palacký and the children were often alone in Prague. The household had three maids and, later in the seventies, a housekeeper, Márinka Riegrová. Nevertheless, Palacký felt a responsibility for the family and for the behavior of the children. In his reports, Palacký neither exaggerated the importance of their occasional sickness nor mentioned the slightest complaint about them. Márinka’s notes, however, show that they often quarreled and that she had to be very patient in taming them. Grandfather was at least silent, if he could not praise them. “All of the children are behaving properly and are too diligent. There is no real trouble with them because housekeeper Márinka’s reactions to the sudden explosions of the young men’s and young women’s Rechthaberei are moderate and gentle. She cares too much about us and provides us with everything we need. All of us are healthy, except for Marinka, who suffers from a mild cold.”²⁷

It is not surprising that the correspondence and diaries of the period often mention the health of their authors. Concepts of sickness and health, ways of healing, and the prospects for successful treatment were different from those of today. People were quite defenseless against illness, and good health was the basic question of life. The fear of illness was enormous. It was a time of great physicians who, however, had only limited possibilities of treatment, and of many fashionable charlatans who preyed on their victims.²⁸

During the last year of his life, Palacký suffered from hypertrophy of the thyroid. His diary shows that he suffered from this illness from his youth.²⁹ In June, 1813, Palacký had walked home with his friends to Hodslavice, where he spent his vacation. After drinking water with a strange taste from a well in the Carpathian Mountains, he suddenly felt that his “neck had swelled.” For many years, physicians had treated Palacký and unsuccessfully tried “to free him from this unpleasant burden.” In this way, Palacký himself explained the beginnings of the physical problem which is apparent in almost all of his portraits, Palacký thought necessary to describe his affliction briefly, but he never went into the details. He used to wear a silken scarf wrapped around his neck and displayed under his chin. His later portraits show strikingly protruding eyes and heavy pouches under them, giving him an austere look. The brightness of Palacký’s youthful face preserved in Tkadlík’s portrait is gone. All of Palacký’s contemporaries also remember the surprising, parchment-like pallor of his clean-shaven cheeks framed by grey whiskers.³⁰

Palacký seldom complained about his health, and Márinka’s notes reveal more about it than Palacký’s own testimony. During the last years of his life he suffered heavily from bronchitis, asthma, and occasional dizziness. In the sixties, he also suffered from pain in his eyes, the result of his extensive research work in archives. If Palacký ever mentioned any affliction in his correspondence with his friends, he usually also assured them that he was already recovering and well. The unpleasant news was passed over in one sentence: “I am completely healthy, except for my poor eyes. I was glad to find grandmother at Semily in surprisingly good health.”³¹ Or, “My eyes not only have not improved, but quite the contrary. Otherwise, I am completely healthy.”³² Or, “Sorry to write you so briefly. My eyes are still poor.”³³ In 1870, Palacký claimed to have missed a meeting of the Diet only once, because of a bad cough.³⁴

At a time when Márinka noted in her diary that “poor grandfather suffers so much” from a terrible cough, Palacký himself complained to Marie that “he had never worked so little as now because the cough [made him] peevish.” But this was the end of a letter which was written with the sole purpose of cheering up his daughter in her troubles and laments. On April 4, 1873, he wrote to Marie in Maleč that he was stricken with a strong cold and cough and therefore was staying at home. “Only the day before I went to the Beseda . . . and yesterday attended the meeting of Svatobor.” But he added quickly, “. . .I am relatively well and from the fourteenth have again been working on my History . . . .”³⁵

Palacký was anxious about the health of other people, particularly his daughter. He was not able to conceal his care for her, and as soon as he noticed her illness, “he felt uneasy, walked about, sometimes moved his wig forward and back or tapped his fingers on the desk. Often he stopped his work and came to ask about the health of his daughter.”³⁶ Palacký generally looked after his health himself. From time to time he accepted the recommendations of his family physician, Hamerník, who had gained his confidence with his preference for the “natural way” of healing. The slightest change in temperature and particularly rain afflicted Palacký’s breathing, hence his close attention to the barometer and thermometer. His stay in the country depended completely on the weather. He selected his clothes and chose the time for his walks in accordance with the outside temperature. He watched his health in order to prevent illness from hindering his work, but he was anxious not to bother the family with his afflictions. Palacký’s personal affairs recede even in his letters to his family and are limited only to some insignificant details.

It is obvious that political events were an inseparable part of everyday life in the home of the two leading representatives of the Czech national movement. Political news and commentaries can be found even in documents which are mainly concerned with family affairs. The Palackys and particularly the Riegers watched political developments with unusual interest. Palacký’s daughter Marie became interested in politics as early as 1848–50, and as Rieger’s wife she became a direct and informed witness of his activity. Rieger’s children behaved in the same way. They started reading newspapers the moment they learned to read and at an early age took part in discussions with their parents and guests from political circles. The diary of twelve-year-old Márinka Riegrová shows that her interest in politics sometimes even overcame her concern about her personal problems.

The political struggles in Bohemia necessarily brought “many stormy waves into the back bedrooms of children.”³⁷ Consultations and confidential meetings of the representatives of the Czech national movement often took place at Palacký’s house, and Márinka and her mother served the guests. The girl recorded with pleasure that her parents allowed her to visit the gallery of the Diet so that she could witness the proceedings. It is not easy to characterize Palacký’s opinion of this manner of education. However, his correspondence and Márinka’s memoirs show that he disliked a woman’s concern for politics, espectially if it was expressed in an exaggerated form. He regarded it as dangerous for a woman’s health: “If you cannot read newspapers without excitement, you should not even touch them. They can become a poison. As a matter of fact, all of these political intrigues are not worth your time.” This was Palacký’s answer to Maria’s letter written in fear of political developments and concern for the health of her husband and father, then engaged in political struggles in Vienna,³⁸ “Leave the matter in the hands of men. You know that Rieger and I are only getting fat while spending time in politics. Don’t worry about us.” On the other hand, he regularly informed his family about authentic developments in the capital, in order to compensate for the inaccurate reports in newspapers and to neutralize the panicky and confused rumors. Palacký’s commentaries were sober and descriptive, minimizing the seriousness of the situations in which his son-in-law or he himself were involved.

Palacký’s family correspondence discloses some of the features of his pleasant and distinguished peronality for which his family “adored and revered” this “gentle and tender” man.³⁹ His private life in Prague and Maleč is also mirrored in the diaries of Rieger’s oldest daughter. Various notes show her reverence and admiration for her grandfather and his sincere interest in his grandchildren. The diary of Marie Červinková-Riegrová begins with a colorful description of Maleč during the Prussian invasion of 1866. Palacký is mentioned in connection with the Emperor’s arrival in Prague in October. He impressed her deeply with his formal suit decorated with the orders of St. Vladimir and of Mexico. The members of the club Beseda sang beneath his windows, and he received congratulations on his new decoration, the Austrian Iron Crown (second degree). The house was full of people visiting him.⁴⁰ During the period of the well known Slavic “pilgrimage” to Russia in 1867, the diary describes in detail the return of Rieger and Palacký to Maleč and their recollections of Russia.⁴¹ From that time she mentions learning Russian and reading Russian books which she occasionally received from Palacký. For her thirteenth birthday she received from Palacký the Pilgrimage of the Slavs to Russia.⁴²

The “good, kind grandfather,” as Márinka often called Palacký, was not very interested in holidays, but he insisted on celebrating the birthdays of every member of the family with a little party and some gifts. Christmas, too, was carefully prepared for and celebrated at the Riegers. Márinka’s detailed account of gifts was not extensive, and they were not expensive (except, perhaps, for a sewing-machine given by Palacký to his daughter Marie in 1860). The children usually gave their own creations (pillows, lamp shades, their own drawings and poems).

Palacký loved his grandchildren and probably spent more time with them than he formerly had with his own children. He was probably too serious to try “to accomodate himself to the mentality of children” and to understand their jokes and expressions, but he was tender and solicitous.⁴³ Although his privacy was strictly respected, his room was not closed to the children. Márinka mentioned many times when she was either writing, reading, playing music for grandfather in his room, or listening to his stories from “the old times.” Márinka, the oldest of Rieger’s children and prematurely adult, was an unusually serious girl even before she started her diary. She fulfilled her daily “working schedule” with enormous self-discipline. Absorbed in religious tractates, meditations, and painful self-examination, she nourished herself with “paper and ink.” Palacký watched her mental development and health with uneasiness. Perhaps he remembered his own childhood. As a thirteen-year-old, he had succumbed to a strong, sincere religious fanaticism and yearned to become a missionary. “That time was wasted irretrievably, and there was no one to show me the right way again.”⁴⁴ His daughter had also passed through the same inner development. In 1850, Palacký asked her “for her own benefit, to be less seriously involved with religion, for we are primarily created for this world and only then for the other.”⁴⁵ When Márinka went through a similar period, her mother provided her with religious books, and Palacký tried to balance them with “mundane literature.” Perhaps it was not an accident that during this time he tactfully and diplomatically regulated Márinka’s reading. For example, Palacký led her indirectly to dwell upon the personality of Onegin by buying for her the poetry of Pushkin. At another time, she received the original edition of Lermontov’s Demon, because she was then interested in learning Russian.⁴⁶ For her sixteenth birthday, Márinka received from Palacký Jungmann’s complete works and the Lehrbuch der Religionswissenschaft from her mother. Soon after this, she began reading “grandfather’s History.”

Palacký considered himself “a Christian of reasonable belief.” He abhorred meditation on church dogmas, theological struggles, mysticism, and excessive religious zeal. Once he unwillingly disclosed “that basically he was a Protestant.” Márinka’s mother did not hear it, but Márinka recorded Palacký’s statement with pleasure, as if grandfather had become even dearer to her. This was shortly before the portrait of Jan Hus was removed from Márinka’s desk by her mother. The child mourned her Hus (svého Husíčka); it was a terrible shock for her.⁴⁷

Palacky often went to the theater with his granddaughter, and he was a regular guest at the “Temporary Theater” in Prague. We can only speculate as to whether he really enjoyed the performances or whether his visits were only seen as a “patriotic duty.” The list of plays which Palacký and Márinka saw is extensive. Sometimes they went to the theater every day (e.g., in April, 1873). Márinka hesitated about going only once. It was shortly after the death of her grandmother, and she considered such an entertainment improper. Palacký liked the grandmother at Semily, and his affection was reciprocated. Palacky saw Rieger’s mother often during the period of her sojourn in Prague. Later, Marie Červinková remembered: “Although I was then only a child, I cannot forget Palacký’s visits to the sick grandmother. The two old people, with such different interests and mental horizons, did not have too much to talk about. So they sweetly smiled at each other. Sometimes Palacký took her swollen hands, held them in his own, and said with a rare, touching warmth, ‘Now we belong to each other.’ And grandmother answered with the sweetest smile.⁴⁸ The grandmother died after great suffering, Palacký was undoubtedly very sad, but he nevertheless urged Márinka to go and find some distraction in the theater, “Live and let live” was his motto.

Márinka often mentions playing the piano for her grandfather. Palacký himself had a gift for music. At fourteen he played the piano and in Trenčín the organ, too. In his autobiography he remembered the years when he played Zoubek’s Slovak cantatas in churches and almost acted as a choral director.⁴⁹ Márinka describes several concerts. Besides those given at home in Prague and Maleč, she mentions the concert honoring the seventy-fifth anniversary of Palacky’s birth in June, 1873, and a musical show given in Maleč a year later, Palacký was “very grateful” and satisfied with the performances. Václav Červinka, who performed the concerts and played four-handed piano with Márinka or accompanied her on the piano while she sang, noted that “it was not easy to satisfy Palacký with a choice of composer or by a performance.” Palacký had a liking for Czech national songs, and Beethoven, Haydn, Mozart, Tomášek, Onslow, and Berlioz were among his favorite composers, although he also respected Mendelssohn and some of the compositions of modern composers.⁵⁰

The chateau in Maleč was Palacký’s favorite resort, but he was an irregular guest. Whenever he ran out of literature, he “escaped” to Prague. Therefore, before his arrival, he was always reminded by his daughter to take along all the needed books. In Maleč, Palacký kept to his busy normal working schedule, even though many visitors interfered with his plans. An old priest from Nová Ves and later of Chletě, P. Antonín Bouchal, and P. Rayman of Uhelná Příbram were old family friends and frequent guests. From time to time, Gindely and Kalousek came from Prague, as well as some Prague politicians, to see Palacký in Maleč. Márinka remembered many foreign visitors. After 1867, there were many Russians, such as Durnov, Berg, Count Kutuzov, Levcin, Semenov, Countess Galicinova, Sologubov, and Samarinov, also the Frenchman Taillandier and the English (female) writer MacKenzie and Count Everton of Edinburgh.

The recollections of Václav Červinka, who became Márinka’s husband, complement Márinka’s idyllic memoirs.⁵¹ He mentions that in Maleč Palacký did not make many excursion. He preferred walking in the garden, often sitting on a wooden bench. His tall, robust figure was already slightly bent; deep wrinkles and furrows lined his face. Palacký usually wore a black dress-coat, round black hat, and a black necktie, While walking, he liked to have his hands crossed in back and to hold a little wand with a black handle.⁵² Červinka often saw him sitting on his favorite round bench beneath a linden tree. The spot afforded an excellent view of the fields and protection from the strong winds.

Severe weather encouraged Palacký to work hard and to sit long at his desk. Just before nightfall, he came in to the “red salon” to rest in a wide armchair. He was awaited by his daughter, or she herself came for him to his study. They talked intimately and in low voices, and sometimes their discussions “did not lack a touch of sorrow.” Although “melancholy was not a feature of Palacký’s temperament,” his daughter made Palacký uneasy and depressed with her endless complaints. However, Rieger was also present, and he, the realist and optimist, and his children and guests changed the pessimistic atmosphere of the “salon.”⁵³

At the time, Václav Červinka was courting Rieger’s daughter. In the beginning, the Riegers were hesitant to allow the marriage because of Červinka’s financial situation and social position. Later they changed their mind and granted permission for the engagement on November 17, 1874. On the same day, the couple visited her grandfather. The discussion with Palacký was described by Márinka in her diary: “Grandfather wanted to know what I thought about it. He was satisfied and happy. Then he taked about the matter for a little while, kissed Václav, and was very nice to him.”⁵⁴ Palacký was as fond of Márinka as of his daughter. Červinka never forgot the kind, affectionate, youthful look of the old man who “gazed so lovingly into the face of the young girl.”⁵⁵ At Márinka’s wedding Palacký was unusually merry and friendly. He teased the bride and bridesmaids with funny toasts. When he came to Maleč the following year, nobody foresaw that this would be Palacký’s last visit. Although he was tired and feeble, he worked diligently and restlessly on his History.

In the spring of 1876, Palacký’s room in Maleč was very carefully prepared for his sojourn. During the winter Palacký had been sickly, but he was active and had a strong will to live. From Prague he corresponded with his grandson Bohuš, who was preparing abstracts of documents from 1393–1403 for him in the archives of Strassburg.⁵⁶ In April, 1876, Palacký made his last public speech at a banquet given to celebrate the completion of his History of the Czech Nation. In May, his room in Maleč was cleaned and heated, its windows washed, and the hardwood floor polished. Rieger ordered that fire-wood be prepared and stacked upstairs in the hallway.

During the last evening of his life, Márinka, her husband, and her sister Libuše talked of their grandfather “with an admiration that is reserved only for the greatest men of mankind.”⁵⁷ But the old man never again appeared in Maleč. The news that “the Father of the Nation” had died in Prague on May 26, 1876, at 3:30 PM., was delivered to Maleč in the evening “together with rain, hail, and a thunderstorm.”⁵⁸

“We went to Prague in silence, speaking only to remind ourselves not to weep so much,” remembered Marie Červinková. In Prague, Márinka did not sleep all night, looking toward the lighted windows of the room where Professor Steffal embalmed the body of the deceased man. The family parted with the patriarch on the next day, after which “they took him away from his family and gave him to the nation.”⁵⁹

NOTES

01. See V.L. Tapié, “František Palacký,” Památník Palackého (Ostrava, 1968), pp. 70–71.

02. B. Augustinová, Marie Červinková-Riegrová (Praha, 1897), p. 56.

03. Only the introduction to Palacký’s autobiography of 1885 and some textual matter to accompany the photographs of Palacký and his wife, published in the same year in Světozor, have survived.

04. “Zápisky Marie Červinkové-Riegrové” (hereafter Zápisky M.Č.R.), in the personal archive of M.Č.R. in the Archive of the National Museum in Prague, Box 10-22. (In addition to documents from 1866–90, there are also a few notes from 1865 here.)

05. Among the recollections of the members of Palacký’s family, see F.L. Rieger, “Za jakých poměrů, zejména sociálních, podnikl Palacký úkol svého života,” Památník na oslavu stých narozenin F.P. (Prague, 1898), pp. 45–60; Jan Palacký, “Intimní vzpomínka na F. Palackého”, ibid., pp. 126–29; B. Hančová, “Palacký v domácnosti”, ibid., pp. 130–36; and V. Červinka, “Vzpomínky na Palackého”, ibid., pp. 139–52.

06. B. Augustinová, Marie Červinková-Riegrová, p. 56.

07. M. Červinková-Riegrová, Vlastní životopis Františka Palackého (Prague, 1885), p. 11.

08. V. Nováček, ed., Františka Palackého korrespondence a zápisky (Prague, 1898), I, 61.

09. B. Augustinová, Marie Červinková-Riegrová, p. 55.

10. Nováček, ed., Františka Palackého korrespondence a zápisky, I, 271.

11. M. Červinková-Riegrová, Marie Riegrová rodem Palacká, její život a skutky (Prague, 1892), p. 8.

12. F.L. Rieger, “Za jakých poměrů podnikl Palacký úkol svého života,” p. 59.

13. K. Stloukal, ed., Františka Palackého rodinné listy dceři Marii a zeti F.L. Riegrovi (Prague, 1930) (hereafter Stl.), p. 64.

14. Stl., p. 55.

15. Stl., p. 64.

16. J. Heidler and J. Šusta, Příspěvky k listáři dra F.L. Riegra (Prague, 1924), p. 70.

17. Stl., p. 183.

18. J. Fischer, Myšlenka a dílo Františka Palackého (Prague, 1926), I, 42.

19. Stl., p. 222; F. Mareš, “O pracech Palackého v archivu Třeboňském,” Památník Palackého (Prague, 1898), pp. 114–25.

20. The time-divide at which Palacký becomes less politically active directly but remains “the spirit of the party” is well characterized by J. Havránek, “František Palacký—politik a jeho doba,” Památník Palackého (Ostrava, 1968), pp. 26f.

21. Stl., p. 261.

22. Stl., p. 287.

23. J. Fischer, Myšlenka a dílo Františka Palackého, I, 73.

24. J. Palacký, “Intimní vzpomínky na Františka Palackého,” p. 129.

25. Stl., p. 271.

26. Stl., p. 265.

27. Stl., p. 259.

28. During her last journey home, Terezie Palacká was treated by several doctors. Four months before her death, when she was already showing signs of dropsy and coma, one Dr. Bernard, “a graduate of a better medical school,” assured Palacký that his wife was not suffering from “une maladie materielle” but only from “souffrances nerveuses” which could be cured by a special diet. Stl., p. 147.

29. M. Červinková-Riegrová, Vlastní životopis F.P., p.9.

30. C. Kramoliš, “Palacký, rádce Valachů”, Památník Palackého (Prague, 1926), p. 88; F. Táborský, “Jak jsme vítali Palackého”, ibid., p. 79; J. Kalus, “František Palacký ve Frenštátě,” ibid., p. 86.

31. Stl., p. 197.

32. Stl., p. 204.

33. Stl., p. 214.

34. Stl., p. 250.

35. Stl., p. 272.

36. M. Červinková-Riegrová, Marie Riegrová, rodem Palacká, p. 32.

37. B. Augustinová, Marie Červinková-Riegrová, p. 7.

38. Stl., p. 200.

39. M. Červinková-Riegrová, Marie Riegrová, rodem Palacká, p. 32.

40. Zápisky M.Č.R., 1866 (Oct. 24, 26, Nov. 2, 4, 13).

41. Zápisky M.Č.R., 1867 (Jun. 19).

42. Zápisky M.Č.R., 1867 (Aug. 9).

43. B. Hančová, “Palacký v domácnosti”, p. 133.

44. M. Červinková-Riegrová, Vlastní životopis F.P., p. 8.

45. Stl., p. 19.

46. Zápisky M.Č.R., 1869 (Jan. 3); ibid., 1870 (Aug. 14).

47. Zápisky M.Č.R., 1867 (May 22).

48. M. Červinková-Riegrová, Riegrová matka (Prague, 1921), p. 81.

49. M. Červinková-Riegrová, Vlastní životopis F.P., p. 8.

50. Zápisky M.Č.R., 1873 (June 14): 1874 (June 14); V. Červinka, “Vzpomínky na Palackého”, p. 143.

51. Ibid., pp. 142–43,

52. B. Hančová, “Palacký v domácnosti”, p. 131.

53. B. Hančová “Palacký v domacnosti”, pp. 132, 135.

54. Zápisky M.Č.R., 1874 (Nov. 19).

55. V. Červinka, “Vzpomínky na Palackého”, p. 150.

56. See the personal archive of František Palacký in the Archives of the National Museum, Prague, NO. 108 (Jan. 21, 1876; Feb. 14, 1876).

57. B. Augustinová, Marie Červinková-Riegrová, p. 29.

58. V. Červinka, “Vzpomínky na Palackého”, p. 152.

59. Zápisky M.Č.R., 1876 (June 19–July 14), published under the title, “Poslední chvíle Františka Palackého,” in Památník, pp. 173–76.