Page:East European Quarterly, vol15, no1.pdf/33

 first, early in 1846, in a series of articles titled “Slav and Czech” (Slovan a Čech). The continued existence of the Austrian Empire, he argued, was indispensable to the protection of Slav rights in central Europe. The Russians, long admired by many Czech intellectuals as potential liberators of central European Slavs, were an expansion-minded people who thought of other Slavs “in no brotherly fashion, but dishonestly and egotistically.” As such, there could never be an all-Slav unity, not even through a common literary language. Western and South Slavs, on the other hand, could and had to cooperate for their mutual benefit. Czechs and Croats especially, but Slovaks and Slovenes too, shared a common past within Austria and, more important, a readily definable community of present interests. Under the circumstances, none posed a danger to any of the others. The sole condition of Slav support of the Habsburgs was the decentralization and federalization of the Monarchy. That accomplished, a rejuvenated Austrian state of equal nationalities would grow in power, making even more secure the future of the Austro-Slav peoples.

Two years later, in his celebrated letter to Frankfurt (April, 1848), Palacký reiterated Austria’s need to exist. A universal Tsarist empire, he said, threatened all of the smaller peoples of central Europe. And only the Habsburg Monarchy could thwart Russian expansionism. Consequently, he could not participate in the work of an assembly which sought Austria’s destruction in order to create a liberal German state. The message was the same as Havlíček’s, but Palacký’s approach differed from that of his younger colleague. The latter had written two years before the fall of Metternich, when censorship precluded overt discussion of politics or engagement in political activities. His remarks had been primarily and necessarily philosophical. And personal. They stemmed from an experience of life in Russia which few Czechs, including Palacký, had had prior to 1848. This gave Havlíček’s analysis, including his condemnation of the Slavophiles and Kollár’s literary Pan-Slavism, a unique ring of authority, but one limited to its pre-revolutionary time.”

Palacký’s letter, on the other hand, was a document of revolutionary urgency. Written after Metternich’s fall and addressing concrete political issues, it was more of a plan of action, despite its apparent preoccupation with “principles.” It also lacked the strident Russophobia of Havlíček’s articles, for Palacký actually wished the Russians well, after warning against Tsarist imperialism. Most important of all, Palacký showed himself a man of vision by placing events in Austria within the necessary and broader context of revolutions that were affecting other parts of Europe.

But if the two men differed on points of Austro-Slavism, they shared a comprehensive liberalism that bolstered their political compatibility. This