Page:East European Quarterly, vol15, no1.pdf/44

 II/1, pp. 15–17, 89, and II/2, pp. 748–49, 789ff. One of the best commentaries on the subject is in Chalupný, Prostředí, osobnost a dílo, pp. 382–95.

See Havlíček’s remarks to Palacký in the preface to Duch Národních novin, a collection of editorials which Havlíček dedicated to his friend in May, 1851. Also Palacký’s letter to Havlíček, May 2, 1851, KH Korespondence, p. 631.

Palacky in 1872 denied that he had had any personal antipathy toward Windischgrätz. He laid the blame for the bombardment of Prague more on the general’s subordinate officers. FPSD, I, p. 346.

NN, December 14, 1848, KHPS, II/1, p. 238.

Toužimský, Na úsvitě nové doby, p. 331. Cf. KHPS, II/2, pp. 1012–13.

March 16, 1853, KH Korespondence, p. 682.

Havlíček was eventually acquitted of charges that he had slandered the government. The trial transcript is in KHPS, II/2, pp. 416–55.

NN, December 23, 1849, ibid., II/2, pp. 854–66.

Palacký’s letter has apparently been lost. See Havlíček’s reply of July 21, 1851, KH Korespondence, pp. 638–39.

Ibid., p. 644.

Havlíček to Adolf Pinkas, February 28, 1852, ibid., p. 564. Also Havlíček to Palacký, August 25, 1852, ibid., p. 654. This contrasts with earlier plans to buy a farm and eventually retire to the countryside around his native Německý Brod. II T4-2, LAPNP.

Palacký to Havlíček, January 28, 1852, KH Korespondence, p. 648. The following August, Havliček rejected the idea on grounds that he had neither the peace of mind nor the necessary information for such a novel. Ibid., p. 650.