Bernard Bolzano: A New Evaluation of His Thought and His Circle (Czech Theological Perspectives) 1793653054, 9781793653055

Citation preview

Bernard Bolzano

CZECH THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES

Series Editor Dr. Jan Blahoslav Lášek (Charles University, Prague) Dr. Jacob Marques Rollison (Independent Scholar) ‌‌‌This series aims to constitute a distinguished forum for research issuing from or concerning Czech theology in the broadest sense of this compound term. Examples of research sought and welcomed under this umbrella include: high quality original monographs and edited volumes presenting research conducted by Czech scholars, in Czech universities, or in Czech territory; research conducted by non-Czech scholars or outside of Czech universities and territory which examines contemporary or historical theological trends and events linked to the Czech lands, people, and church (such as the Bohemian Reformation, the legacy of Jan Hus, etc.); and scholarly translations of both contemporary research and works of enduring theological or historical value which aim to fill out the currently sparse anglophone resources on these same topics. While Anglophone discussion is well acquainted with the historical and theological contours of the Reformation in Western Europe (especially France, Switzerland, and Germany), it has yet to fully attend to the importance of Czech theological history and Czech voices in contemporary theology. Wider recognition that this history and these voices are important in their own right (and not merely as precursors to Luther or Calvin) drives the posture of inquiry, listening, and dialogue which this series aims to embody. Titles in the series Bernard Bolzano: A New Evaluation of His Thought and His Circle, by Kamila Veverková, translated by Angelo Shaun Franklin Jan Hus: Faithful Witness to Truth, by Jan Blahoslav Lášek and Angelo Shaun Franklin The Four Articles of Prague within the Public Sphere of Hussite Bohemia: On the 600th Anniversary of Their Declaration (1420–2020), by Kamila Veverková

Bernard Bolzano A New Evaluation of His Thought and His Circle Kamila Veverková ‌‌Translated by Angelo Shaun Franklin

LEXINGTON BOOKS

Lanham • Boulder • New York • London

Published by Lexington Books An imprint of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706 www​.rowman​.com 86-90 Paul Street, London EC2A 4NE Copyright © 2022 by The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review. Cover: František Horčička - Study for a Portrait of Bernard Bolzano (1810-1820). Bernard Bolzano, olejomalba od Františka Hořčičky z let 1824-1825. Originál ztracen po r. 1925. Zde je pouze výřez.Bildnisse Bolzanos von Lubomír Sršeň mit Photographien von Dagmar Landová (Bernard-Bolzano Gesamtausgabe, Reihe 4, Bd.1), Friedrich Frommann Verlag (Günther Holzboog), Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1986, strana 156. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Veverková, Kamila, author. | Franklin, Angelo Shaun, translator.   Title: Bernard Bolzano : a new evaluation of his thought and his circle /     Kamila Veverková ; translated by Angelo Shaun Franklin.   Description: Lanham : Lexington Books, 2022. | Series: Czech theological     perspectives | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary:     "This book introduces the ethical, philosophical, and social legacy of     Bernard Bolzano (1781-1848), emphasizing the theological dimension of     his thought. The author situates Bolzano as a significant and     influential figure in the late Enlightenment in Bohemia, which developed     in the politically unfavorable times of the early nineteenth century"--     Provided by publisher.   Identifiers: LCCN 2022026086 (print) | LCCN 2022026087 (ebook) | ISBN     9781793653055 (cloth) | ISBN 9781793653062 (ebook)   Subjects: LCSH: Bolzano, Bernard, 1781-1848.  Classification: LCC B4805.B654 V4813 2022  (print) | LCC B4805.B654      (ebook) | DDC 199/.437--dc23/eng/20220727  LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022026086 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022026087 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992.

Contents

Foreword vii Preface xvii Chapter 1: The Later Enlightenment in Bohemia and the Bolzano Circle 1 Chapter 2: The Ethical Foundations of Bolzano’s Work



27

Chapter 3: Reflections on the Transformation of the Family after the Advent of the Industrial Society

39

Chapter 4: Bolzano and the Jewish Question

51



Chapter 5: The Theological, Philosophical, and Pedagogical Problematic of Vincenc Zahradník Chapter 6: New Discoveries of Krombholz’s Manuscripts

61

83

Chapter 7: The Importance of New Research on Bolzano and His Circle 97 Notes

115

Bibliography Index

137

145

About the Author & Translator



149

v

Foreword

This new study by Kamila Veverková concerns the ethical and religious views of the notable thinker Bernard Bolzano (1781–1848) and the important influence that he exercised on some of his pupils of both Czech and German nationality. Although Bolzano is already well-known for his voluminous writings and significant contributions in the areas of logic, science, mathematics, philosophy, and religion, it is often hard for someone to know where to start learning about his remarkable life and work.1 Recent translations of his mathematical and ethical works now allow for a proper appreciation of Bolzano outside of the German-speaking world.2 Several original aspects of his thought might be considered particularly intriguing: his ideas concerning the nature and method of mathematics expressed in Paradoxes of the Infinite,3 his social vision explained in On the Best State,4 his moral philosophy and theological writings,5 his theory of knowledge,6 his exhortations to students at the University of Prague, and of course his magnum opus on science titled Wissenschaftslehre.7 This new work will serve as an excellent introduction and further elaboration of previous research on Bolzano and will propose a point of departure and orientation for mapping out the frontiers of Bolzano’s collected works which span more than a 130 volumes.8 During Bolzano’s life, Bohemia was a country of two linguistic cultures: German and Czech. After a long hiatus (1620–1781),9 the Czech language became a literary language once again during a period known as the Czech National Revival.10 However, German was spoken by all who belonged to the intelligentsia, regardless of their nationality. Therefore, Bolzano’s works were written in German and were easily accessible. Bolzano’s father came to Bohemia from Italy at a young age and settled here permanently. His mother Cecilia was from an Austrian family who came to Prague; her father Franz Maurer was a hardware merchant. Bolzano’s parents raised Bernard within their German culture. It was a large family, though only two of the twelve siblings survived to adulthood—Bernard and John. vii

viii

Foreword

The life of Bernard Bolzano was initially not very different from the usual formation of other intellectuals of the time. He studied at the Piarist Gymnasium in Prague, and later studied philosophy, logic, and mathematics at the Faculty of Philosophy. At that time, graduation in philosophy was a prerequisite for engaging in further university studies. During these years, Bolzano became very involved in mathematics and seemed to show signs of being an excellent mathematician. He was a pupil of the outstanding mathematicians Stanislav Vydra (1741–1804) and František Josef Gerstner (1756–1832). Since Bolzano was raised in a devout Catholic family, the Enlightenment upbringing he received also led him to intense contemplation on matters of religion. He concluded that it was necessary to reformulate the relationship between science and faith and to contribute to the Catholic Church’s reflection on some of the main issues related to its situation and existence within modern society. This was ultimately why he began his studies at the Faculty of Theology in 1800. Two decisive moments influenced his decision to pursue his lifelong career as a theologian. First, the successor of the Professor Vydra in 1805 was Josef Ladislav Jandera (1776–1857), who had won the selection process for the chair of mathematics. Jandera’s age was probably the decisive factor, since he was five years older than Bolzano. Jandera was already a member of the Premonstratensian Order (Ordo Praemonstratensis), was ordained a Catholic priest in 1802, and had also already become a doctor of philosophy.11 Jandera later achieved scientific and academic success and even became the rector of Charles-Ferdinand University in 1828. Second, the Enlightenment professor of pastoral theology Jan Marian Mika (1754–1816) had a great theological influence upon Bolzano. Mika emphasized the social function of religion and the church and taught that any doctrine is justifiable if it can be shown that adhering to it provides certain moral benefits.12 Bolzano found that doctrine expressed most clearly in Catholic theology. It was Professor Mika who informed Bolzano that a new chair of religious doctrine was to be established at the University of Prague (as it was at all universities in Austria) and suggested that he should apply for the chair. Ironically, a great paradox unfolded here, since these university departments were established to oppose modern thought and the ideals of the French Revolution which were spreading rapidly throughout Europe at the time. The Catholic countries were supposed to prevent the growing intelligentsia from being infected by the new line of thinking. After some struggle and provisionality, Bolzano was finally appointed to the chair of religious doctrine in 1804/1805, and was finally appointed to that chair for good in 1805. Meanwhile, in the spring of 1805, he received his priestly ordination and a doctorate in philosophy. His primary task was thus to give lectures and to preach sermons for the students on Sundays and feast

Foreword

ix

days in the university Church of Saint Salvator. As far as lectures were concerned, he was expected to follow the curriculum and the prescribed textbook written by the Viennese court preacher Jakob Frint (1766–1834).13 The textbook was slow in being issued, so Bolzano began to lecture using his own texts. Frint was a very conservative Catholic and tried his best to prevent the “enlightened” Bolzano from lecturing on the subject of the Enlightenment, but he was unsuccessful. By that time Bolzano had already gained a widespread sympathy and popularity among the students, and the provincial governor and the archbishop of Prague supported him. However, he had to promise the Archbishop that he would lecture according to the prescribed Frint textbook. He could have easily made such a promise since only the beginning of the textbook had been written at that time. This was later the cause and subject of a formal investigation. However, Bolzano in no way wanted to succumb to the external pressure and become a tool of conservative Catholicism. A subject of serious controversy arose from his university sermons which he named “educational exhortations” or “edifying addresses” (Erbauungsreden), the first volume of which was published as early as 1813.14 Later on, other academic discourses and exhortations were published in the following years, which were reedited many times. The modern edition has been edited by Edgar Morscher and Kurt F. Strasser as part of the Bernard Bolzano Gesamtausgabe (Collected Works) published by the Fromann-Holzboog publishing house.15 As we have already mentioned, all university students had to graduate from the Faculty of Philosophy, since it served as the foundational preparation for further specialized study. Under Bolzano’s desk and pulpit from 1805 to 1819, several hundred students from all over Austria flourished, later achieving distinguished careers as doctors, lawyers, and theologians throughout the Austrian Empire. They were educated by Bolzano in the spirit of the Enlightenment, in the spirit of open and reason-based Catholicism, not in the spirit of conservative Catholicism. A very interesting monograph based on archival research has been dedicated to this influence by the meritorious Czech scholar Marie Pavlíková.16 Bolzano’s educational exhortations dealt with very lively topics such as the relationship between the two nationalities in Bohemia, the vocation and dignity of women, the question of celibacy, the relationship to the Jewish people, and many others. His pupils loved Bolzano for his openness and transparency, and they continued to disseminate his views throughout their lives. It is interesting to note that during the critical years 1805–1819, he did not publish any other theological or philosophical studies other than his mathematical studies and the aforementioned edition of the Erbauungsreden.17 Copies of his lectures were widely circulated, and by means of denunciations reached Bolzano’s arch-enemy Jakob Frint in Vienna. The educational exhortations,

x

Foreword

in addition to the copies of the lectures, became the basis for the scandal that led to Bolzano’s removal from the department in 1819 and his subsequent persecution, which was only put to an end by the Prague archbishop Václav Leopold Chlumčanský of Přestavlky (1749–1830) in 1825. This scandal went down in history under the name of “The Bolzano Trial.”18 Much information on this trial is contained in Bolzano’s own autobiography, in addition to the monographs on Bolzano, but these are highly subjective and should be taken cum grano salis.19 The aforementioned work on Bolzano by Paul Rusnock and Pavel Šebestík also examines Bolzano’s life with great care and attempts to give an honest account of the areas in which Bolzano was involved. These are undoubtedly ethics, political philosophy, the philosophy of religion, Catholic theology, logic, the theory of knowledge, ontology, metaphysics, mathematics, and last but not least, aesthetics. But these clearly stated subject matters are not explored in depth (especially in the field of ethics and practical theology), since it was not the primary aim of these two authors. Veverková’s investigation offers more detail on some of the theological and philosophical views expressed in Bolzano’s academic discourses and exhortations. Bolzano’s main orientation was the well-being of the whole, virtue and bliss, and the answer to the profound questions related to mankind’s future and destiny. Veverková also aims to understand Bolzano’s underlying motivation for writing his political utopia On the Best State, which was published long after Bolzano’s death and still raises many pertinent questions today.20 Among other things, his work on utopia shows that Bolzano was concerned with the rapidly developing industrial society, that he saw the problems which such development entailed, such as the impact it exerted on the family, on the education of children, and on the dislocation of different social classes. Although he himself did not speak publicly about some of these problems, it demonstrated his deep familiarity with the development of society. Some of his pupils built on these ideas and then spoke out about the problems that he dared not talk about for considerable reasons. One key example is Anton Krombholz (1790–1869), an important figure to whom Veverková has already dedicated a special monograph.21 Not only are all relevant facts about Krombholz collected and explained in her unique study, but also a clear assessment and comprehensive analysis of his available writings is presented. In the present study, Krombholz’s work is evaluated in connection to Bolzano, with proper emphasis placed on Bolzano’s established and proven influence on Krombholz. The author also draws attention to some newly discovered manuscripts by Krombholz which open a broad field for further research. This material, however, does not provide any evidence of Krombholz’s departure from Bolzano. Most of Kromholz’s writings are sermons and minor texts

Foreword

xi

on education and issues of charity. Between 1809 and 1812, Krombholz was a direct pupil of Bolzano and fully embraced his views. Interestingly, however, after graduating from the Faculty of Philosophy, Krombholz did not continue his studies at the Faculty of Theology (as might have been expected), but took advantage of another opportunity that was offered to him to receive ordination into the priesthood. He entered the Litoměřice Theological Seminary, graduated without difficulty in 1816, and then accepted his ordination into the priesthood. His teacher at the seminary was another important pupil of Bolzano, Josef M. Fesl (1788–1864).22 In Litoměřice, the overall environment and situation at the seminary was very favorable for the dissemination of Bolzano’s ideas. In 1815 Josef František Hurdálek (1747–1833), a decisive Enlightenment representative of Josephine reformed Catholicism, became the Bishop of Litoměřice and was later ordained in 1816. He wished to create a seminary that corresponded to the spirit of the times and held Bolzano and his pupils in high esteem. Hurdálek installed Fesl as the prefect of studies at the seminary. Since the bishop supported Bolzano’s pupils in every way, he appointed Krombholz as professor of pedagogy in his seminary immediately after his graduation from the seminary and ordination. Other professors there gradually become admirers of Bolzano, or of his pupils Vincenc Zahradník (1790–1836) and Franz Schneider (1794–1858), the latter of whom served as the bishop’s secretary. All of these events occurred at a time when conservative circles in Prague were trying to remove Bernard Bolzano from the chair of religious studies, attempts which were finally crowned with success in 1819. An investigative commission arrived at the Litoměřice Seminary along with his personal enemy Jakob Frint. The seminary professors were interned, Josef M. Fesl was taken to prison in Vienna and never returned to Litoměřice. Bishop Hurdálek was forced to resign and lived in Prague until his death, accompanied by his faithful secretary Franz Schneider. The other professors did not fare too badly: they were released from confinement and, thanks to Bishop Hurdálek and his successor Vincenc Eduard Milde (1777–1853), were able to assert and spread Bolzano’s ideas even during those difficult times. Krombholz became dean in Česká Lípa, where he contributed greatly to the development of secondary and vocational education. He was also interested in the proper education of girls, criticized child labor, and was well aware of the impact of a rapidly developing industrial society on family life and Christianity. Veverková clearly demonstrates Bolzano’s influence upon Krombholz— not only in Krombholz’s practical work, but also in his extensive preaching activities. Another significant aspect of Bolzano’s influence should be noted: Krombholz was not merely an epigone of Bolzano, but developed Bolzano’s ideas even further in his sermons. Of the former professors from Litomerice,

xii

Foreword

Krombholz was the best; in 1849, when the political situation in Austria changed, he was called to a position in the ministerial council in the ministry of religious affairs and education by Lev Thun-Hohenstein (1811–1888), who was himself one of Bolzano’s admirers.23 Krombholz was knighted in 1854 and retired due to health reasons in 1859. He lived the rest of his life in Vienna and was also buried in the Saint Marx Cemetery (Sankt Marxer Friedhof) in 1869. The fate of Josef M. Fesl was, as we have indicated, very complicated. He was imprisoned for many years and then guarded by the secret police until 1848. Nevertheless, Fesl contributed greatly to the dissemination of Bolzano’s work. It was he who secretly organized the publication of Bolzano’s important works in Germany at the Seidel publishing house in Sulzbach, Bavaria. Of course, the works were published anonymously; but everyone knew who their author was. We must mention in particular Bolzano’s Textbook of the Science of Religion.24 The texts circulated in manuscripts, as Bolzano’s works were not allowed to be printed in Austria. Bolzano’s delightful autobiography25 was published by the same publisher, as was his famous Theory of Science.26 Thanks to Fesl’s labors, six more of Bolzano’s writings and polemics were published by Seidel’s publishing house—much to the “delight” of the Austrian authorities—for the books were smuggled in large numbers into Bohemia, where they found a loyal and diligent readership. Until Bolzano’s death in 1848, Fesl was in frequent (and largely illegal) contact with him. Fesl lived the rest of his life in Vienna, where he was also buried. Veverková thus appropriately ranks him among the main disseminators of Bolzano’s work and ideas. Fesl’s legacy is preserved in a number of manuscripts and especially his letters, and while some of these letters have already been published, they are rather selective. And so the personality of Josef M. Fesl still awaits its own biographical treatment. Kamila Veverková rightly emphasizes in her work that in addition to German authors, authors who were Czech and wrote in Czech were Bolzano’s pupils and followers in the practical sphere. Among them is undoubtedly the aforementioned Vincenc Zahradník. Zahradník was also persecuted after the dispersal of the teachers of the Litoměřice Seminary, but he was soon released from custody and Bishop Hurdálek managed to place him in a rectory in his diocese, first in Zubrnice and later in Křešice. Zahradník died at a young age from an epidemic disease, but he still managed to accomplish much for the spread of “practical Bolzanoism.” Since Zahradník wrote in Czech, Veverková analyzes collections of Zahradník’s Czech sermons, which showcase obvious similarities with Bolzano’s thought. In this case, too, it was not an epigonism, but a further development of Bolzano’s ideas and their use from within the context of pastoral ministry. However, it is also worth

Foreword

xiii

mentioning a rather well-known fact which the author presents here in more detail: Zahradník is one of the pioneers of modern Czech Catholic theological nomenclature. He also published some literary monuments of the Bohemian Reformation during difficult times when it was considered at least suspect if not outright heretical from the point of view of the Catholic Church. He was one of the important founders of the Journal of the Catholic Clergy (est. 1828), which was then published under a slightly modified name until it was banned by the communist regime in 1949. Zahradník wrote mostly in Czech, but he also wrote a few minor works (e.g., on pedagogy) in German. Vincenc Zahradník is not an entirely unknown figure in Bohemia. This was mainly due to František Čáda (1865–1918), who at the beginning of the twentieth century published Zahradník’s philosophical writings as well as his literary fables.27 Zahradník’s preaching and theological works, however, have unfortunately almost been forgotten. The contribution of Veverková in seeking to remedy this malady is significant indeed, since she aims to draw attention to his theology and to situate his works in their proper relationship with Bolzano. We must once again specify the fact that Bolzano could neither be mentioned by name nor directly quoted by Zahradník, as his name was on the index of forbidden authors in Austria. Thus, it is an even greater demonstration of his courageous commitment to his teacher when we find traces of Bolzano so prominently in Zahradník’s writings. In this respect and several others, Bolzano exercised a unique influence on the next generation of both German and Czech clergymen to quite a remarkable degree. Veverková explains particular aspects of his influence and the reasons it was so important for the life and further development of the Catholic Church in Bohemia. To date there has been no theoretical evaluation of Bolzano’s academic theological legacy in the context of the nineteenth century and through contemporary eyes. A thorough terminological survey was attempted in the first half of the twentieth century by Eduard Winter (1896–1982), but his impressive scholarly study has yet to find a successor.28 This explains the rationale undergirding the importance of following the broad context of “practical Bolzanoism” and the need for well-developed research in multiple fields. Based on the analyses undertaken and new discoveries by Veverková expressed herein, a future treatment of Bolzano’s theological thought will prove to be of great service. It is worth noting that Bolzano greatly influenced the reform efforts of the Catholic clergy in Bohemia which were attempted in 1848 by František Náhlovský (1807–1853). Although Bolzano was still alive at the time, he was no longer personally involved in these activities, but almost all of the initiators of those efforts (including Náhlovský himself) were associated with him. Since his dismissal from the university chair, Bolzano lived

xiv

Foreword

mostly in seclusion and unable to engage in public activities. He lived either in Prague or among his friends the Hoffmanns in Těchobuz in southern Bohemia.29 Bolzano was already ill at the time and died at the end of that year. Nevertheless, traces of Bolzano’s thinking are clearly evident in the text itself. Náhlovský and his colleagues sought to inspire a contemporary and modern church, to reform the liturgy and prayer, and to present sound, correct, and clear notions of religion that people (especially the intelligentsia) could truly value and appreciate. Like Bolzano, they regarded Catholicism as the most perfect religion, but one that must of course be adapted to the current times. After the revolutionary enthusiasm had passed, Náhlovský was gradually eliminated and his excellent program fell into disarray. It is a great pity that it has not yet been theologically analyzed and interpreted in detail, not only from within the historical context of 1848, but also in the context of the reform efforts of the Catholic Church in the nineteenth century. The opportunity for scholarship is all the greater because Náhlovský’s program was published in a German edition of several hundred copies. The research group at the Hussite Theological Faculty of Charles University (to which the author belongs) has recently reprinted the original of this program and made it accessible for further research.30 In the proper context of reformism and Bolzanoism in the nineteenth century, Pavel Křivský (1912–1989) tried to offer a brief interpretation of the program, but his efforts remained isolated in the European context.31 Czech Catholicism did not approach Bolzano’s legacy impartially: the Czech Enlightenment was considered dogmatically suspect and Bolzano an unconvinced heretic. However, this view has recently changed and scholars such as dogmatist Ctirad V. Pospíšil,32 historian Rudolf Svoboda,33 and others have presented new positive insights on the Czech Catholic Enlightenment and its protagonists. Within the wider European context of the Enlightenment, Bolzano’s influence upon the intellectual environment and history of the Czech nation should not be underestimated in any form or fashion. From the Czech Enlightenment to the contemporary philosophical scene, Bolzano’s footprints are found intricately scattered along the path. As “one of the real pioneers of modern mathematics,”34 Bolzano’s ideas have not only influenced the concept of actual infinity in mathematics,35 but it should also be noted that certain beliefs and values of the Charter 77 movement conformed to Bolzano’s emphasis on “the concern for the primacy of truth.”36 Veverková’s work provides a helpful introduction to various important perspectives of progressive thought expressed by the other personalities within Bolzano’s circle. She asserts that Bolzano is not only key for understanding notable and practical reform efforts in Bohemia, but that members of his circle are also important figures in their own right because they were concerned with “a new understanding of fundamental theological statements” (§1.10).

Foreword

xv

This work contributes to the scholarship on Bernard Bolzano by especially focusing on his theological views, his relationships with other important Czech thinkers within his circle, and his later influence on progressive ecclesiastical developments in Bohemia. Veverková rightly notes that “‘practical Bolzanoism’ is an authentic, vigorous theology of everyday life” with a “profound theoretical rationale” oriented toward the future (§1.4). As well, Bolzano’s emphasis on universal virtue and happiness is much more than a doctrinal subcategory of moral theology. It is an inspiring vision with practical aspects for society and different fields of human endeavor: science, mathematics, philosophy, religion, etc. Nevertheless, many facets of his thought still demand a more concentrated exploration. Veverková’s monograph ends with a realistic call for further research. She is well-aware of the possibility that new manuscripts of the reformists may be discovered. In terms of specific points of interest, diligent research may surely reward us with new insights, but as far as the main direction of these personalities are concerned, any concrete surprises can no longer be expected. The author also stresses the necessity of future publications and further studies based upon the correspondence of the reformists and their successors. There are many areas yet to be explored, since some estates have not even been properly organized or categorized yet. The author also calls for a literary and terminological comparison of Bolzano’s pupils and their successors with Bolzano himself. She rightly sees this as an opportunity to demonstrate Bolzano’s enduring influence on the subsequent generations of German and Czech writers. As a theologian, Veverková proposes a theological comparison concerning the extent to which Bolzano’s exegetical and homiletical work influenced his successors. Subsequent generations have used Bolzano creatively and have been quite selective in their assessment of certain strains of thought. Such an approach toward the Enlightenment persisted in Bohemia for a very long time among both German and Czech writers. Veverková’s book provides a solid inventory of the research to date, which is vital for continuing research since it may well help to navigate the complex ecumenical present. We are confident that it will find a favorable reception among English readers. It is my sincere hope that this English translation will serve to help increase awareness of Bernard Bolzano and especially those members in his circle who made significant contributions in Bohemia but have remained relatively unknown. Bolzano may rightly be considered as a genius in many respects, and whether or not one agrees with all of his individual conclusions, as more volumes of his Gesamtausgabe and more translations of his work are made available, there is no doubt that his unique legacy will not only be promoted around the world but will also be more deeply appreciated in his native homeland. Hopefully, as more aspects of his thought are researched and spread, many will be encouraged by Bolzano’s own personal example and will be

Foreword

xvi

willing to accept his enduring challenge: “You must, my friends, allow your inner striving after wisdom and rational thirst for knowledge to become visible to others so that it may encourage them.”37 Angelo Shaun Franklin Prague, 2021 A NOTE ON THE TRANSLATION In this translation, I have retained the first person point of view in most instances rather than pedantically employing the third person, since Veverková has done a significant amount of research on Bolzano and other members of his circle.38 As well, with the author’s kind permission, I have supplied some additional footnotes either for clarification or explanation of certain terms, people, and places, and have also made reference to other available sources for further research. I would also like to thank both the author and Jan B. Lášek for assisting me with some of the more difficult German terms in order to ensure a proper translation of Bolzano’s German when citations where drawn from the original sources.

Preface

I have been diligently researching the legacy of Bernard Bolzano (1781–1848) and his circle of influence for many years now, and I confess that I still feel a certain deficiency that can be clearly perceived at almost every step along the way. Bernard Bolzano is renowned as a mathematician and logician, and almost all the personalities of his circle—Vincenc Zahradník (1790–1836), Michael Josef Fesl (1788–1864), Anton Krombholz (1790–1869), Florian Werner (1793–1863), and others—are also well-known. However, little if anything at all is known about their insightful theological thought. There is perhaps some relatively scant knowledge of their “progressive views” concerning the church, but the standards used in evaluating these views are rather vague. One widely accepted thesis is that the Czechoslovak Hussite Church originated (among other causes) mainly from within the reform movement of the Catholic clergy. This thesis is usually reinforced by the fact that this or that particular reformer in the nineteenth century spoke against celibacy or supported the introduction of the native Czech language during the celebration of mass. In any case, this thesis relies on the phenomenon generally referred to as “the democratization of the Church.” Therefore, I have decided to look at the entire phenomenon of nineteenth-century reform attempts of the Catholic clergy in an attempt to either confirm or refute what is generally conveyed in the relevant literature. I did not commence my studies with Bolzano but rather with Anton Krombholz, on whom I published my first Czech monograph in 2004 entitled Dílo Antona Krombholze a jeho význam pro reformní teologické myšlení v Čechách (The Work of Anton Krombholz and His Significance for Progressive Theological Thought in Bohemia). A profound analysis of Krombholz’s legacy led me to Bolzano, of course, and then to the other recognized members of his circle. Though I discovered a certain continuity there, it was not directly where it was sought in the past. Rather, the special continuity revealed itself in the intellectual heritage and, above all, in the freedom with which Bolzano and his colleagues approached questions concerning the relationship between xvii

xviii

Preface

church and society. So I decided to collect these studies and publish them as an integrated monograph which would raise a whole host of other intriguing questions. The dean of the faculty and an expert on this topic, Professor Jan Blahoslav Lášek, encouraged me to submit this text as my habilitation thesis. I hesitated at first; but in 2012, when I was able to get my hands on some completely unknown texts of Krombholz, long considered lost since 1848, my hesitation was promptly brushed aside by the eager prospects of engaging in further research. It appeared necessary to explain other pertinent issues related to Bolzano, and especially to investigate questions concerning the burthen of the Bohemian Catholic Enlightenment and its legacy. This was an absolutely crucial period even in church history—a period in which, for the first time in the modern era, there was a valiant effort to interpret the content of Christianity differently than in previous eras. This period was not a predecessor of secularization in our country, but a very fruitful period which on the contrary was continually seeking to prevent secularization. Indeed, this historical period saw many find the courage to seek new ways of interpreting the Christian message when secularization had been steadily knocking at the door. It is this specific depth of courage—so often unfairly condemned—which must be duly appreciated. And here, naturally, there is a parallel with the courage of radical reformers who at the beginning of the twentieth century tried to achieve the same goal while living in different circumstances: to halt rapidly progressing secularization and convey the Christian message by using radically different methods than those available in the classical Christian tradition. They were definitely utilizing the knowledge of other contemporary disciplines and attempting to develop a new theological language and medium of expression in general. This era is also currently misunderstood in the church which emerged from radical modernism—the Czechoslovak Hussite Church—and it is somehow romantically asserted that this modernism has recently been overcome. It has certainly been overcome in concreto, but I find a lengthy series of inspirational moments in the method and approach of late Enlightenment thinkers and later modernists for our present day. It is obviously not possible to traverse historical periods and travel back in time to the pre-Enlightenment period as is suggested by some who believe that this would represent the proper return to church tradition. The very opposite is true, however, since that kind of return would signify the end of Czech Christianity and would make it into exactly what the Marxists wanted it to become: a mere relic of history. This conviction explains my rationale for entering the studio of Bolzano and Zahradník and searching for more archives and manuscripts of Krombholz. These ideas thus represent the primary intellectual impulse explaining why I have gladly accepted these topics as my own and have been researching them for several years.

Preface

xix

I now present the results of my studies, while acknowledging that they should not be considered as final in any regard. Nevertheless, if the conclusions contained herein are found to be supported by the evidence, they will serve as mosaic stones which may one day serve to paint an overall picture bearing the title “A History of Czech and German Theology in Bohemia during the Nineteenth Century.” Some time will be needed, however, before this image will be complete, since the necessary conditions are not yet in place: primarily, that previously unpublished manuscripts of each of these individual thinkers still need to be made available, and that academic monographs need to be written on the main figures based on further research. The inception of this study began in 2013 and its individual sections were created during normal academic operations, which was very time-consuming. Since 2007, I had been serving as Vice-Dean for Science and Research, which involved organizing conferences and especially editing numerous other academic texts. Nevertheless, I kept trying to return to this interesting topic, and now I am delighted to provide the ensuing (if partial) results here. In addition, I will provide translations of some of the newly discovered Krombholz texts for publication. Hopefully, they should provide at least an illustrative account of the valuable reading which surely merits the close attention of dedicated researchers in the future. I would be delighted to oversee the continuation of further research into the intellectual heritage of all the interesting figures from within Bolzano’s circle at the Hussite Theological Faculty. I hope that in the near future other preliminary works on these vastly unexplored topics and themes will arise from research within the Department of Church History and Church Law. Much contemporary emphasis is often placed on combining research with practice or experience. Research on the reform of Catholic clergy during the nineteenth century in Bohemia will surely have a significant impact on the contemporary dialogue concerning the identity of the Czechoslovak Hussite Church. Although this monograph is intended as a theoretical contribution to dialogue, it is my sincere desire not to observe discussions merely from a distance, but personally to participate in this critical dialogue which will certainly have far-reaching impacts in several disciplines.

Chapter 1

The Later Enlightenment in Bohemia and the Bolzano Circle

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEMATICS AND SOURCES On several occasions I have already dealt with an underlying issue which is still pertinent: how the late Enlightenment, which developed so successfully in the nineteenth century in Bohemia (despite all the movements aimed at restoration), influenced the further development of ecclesiastical history in this country; and most importantly, how it has contributed to the formation of the contemporary contours not only of the Roman Catholic Church, but also of the various ecclesiastical reform movements that ended up beyond the periphery of Roman Catholicism: Old Catholicism, the Czechoslovak Church from its origins, and even in the character of the Czech Orthodox Bishop Gorazd (1879–1942). Old Catholicism in our country is still awaiting a comprehensive evaluation, although some original preliminary works dealing with this theme have recently been produced at the Hussite Theological Faculty of Charles University.1 The Orthodox Church is floundering in battles which are currently far from being merely jurisdictional; the struggles are primarily ideological with the resounding question being framed and reverberated as such: to what extent can the present church manage to align itself with the legacy of the Enlightenment represented by Gorazd? My task is not to delve into this question more deeply, though I do want to draw explicit attention to this issue. The Czechoslovak Hussite Church is generally regarded as a community which emerged from radical Czech modernism. Therefore, I have focused my research in this direction from the very beginning since I am not driven by purely academic interests but also practical concerns. This 1

2

Chapter 1

approach should be instrumental in serving the common quest for truth and in promoting ecumenical efforts. I was pleasantly surprised by the great introduction to the Bohemian Catholic Enlightenment which Rudolf Svoboda wrote in the introduction to his monograph on Bishop Arnošt Konstantin Růžička (1761–1845).2 His work exhibited a refreshing and unprecedented approach, offered a new attempt to provide a positive Catholic evaluation of both the Bohemian Enlightenment and the Enlightenment in general, and overcame a seemingly insurmountable barrier. He was well-aware that research on the non-Catholic side had progressed much further.3 Svoboda also listened and rightly responded to the consideration and challenge I had delivered from within this context in sincere hope that an appropriate reflection would arise from the Catholic milieu.4 I believe that the time is right once again for us to seize opportunities for collaboration, to research certain subjects and themes which were either formerly taboo or heroized, and to seek new perspectives. In 2006 I attempted to articulate some theses in this direction in my article prepared for the symposium in České Budějovice concerning the spiritual and intellectual transformations of the second half of the nineteenth century.5 My interest was primarily focused on questions related to Bolzano’s circle, although they were understandably reminiscent of the preceding era which also fell directly under Svoboda’s concerns. The influential work of Bolzano’s students was carried out in our country during a time when the Enlightenment was already in decline in surrounding countries, though it was still reaching its peak in Austria. Although it fell upon fertile ground especially in Bohemia, several decades passed before it could develop more completely. There were several immediate reasons for this. Firstly, the well-developed education in Bohemia was accompanied by an extraordinary interest in the study of history; and from that foundation only a small step towards the enthusiastic reception of the critical historical methods engendered by the Enlightenment was necessary. The native religious tradition also contributed to a considerable extent, though it still needed a certain amount of time to develop as well. In the relevant literature sometimes the term “the Catholic Enlightenment”6 is propagated (characteristically for the Bohemian lands) to describe these spiritual movements, but I believe that this trend is incorrect. Confessionally speaking, the Enlightenment was an indivisible phenomenon. It is possible to compare the Catholic form expressed in the Bohemian lands with similar phenomena exhibited in Protestant countries. It involved constant attempts to explain the reality of faith and to delineate the usefulness of Christianity in a rationalistic manner.

The Later Enlightenment in Bohemia and the Bolzano Circle

3

DIFFERENT CONCEPTS OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT Making a distinction between Central and Western European components of the Enlightenment appears quite useful. While such a distinction concerns a peremptory typology which is not entirely common, this specific typology also appears to be necessary.7 The Enlightenment of Central Europe (also referred to as the German Enlightenment) did not aim for the denial of Christianity and its displacement from the life of society; on the contrary, it aspired to provide a new definition (i.e., a redefinition) of religion (and especially Christianity), to reconcile the state of scientific knowledge at that time with the Christian faith, and to supply evidence and proof of the overall usefulness and wholesome benefits of the Christian religion for society in general. The Western European Enlightenment denied the positive role and mission of the Christian religion and even the role of religion itself, and thus paved a direct path towards the emergence of modern atheism. However, in both movements there existed a mutual perception concerning the unsustainability of previous and present processes of thought, the scientific method, and the character, status, and position of Christianity within society.8 Both movements of legitimate Christian faith have historically benefited from these circumstances. The heirs of the radical Western European Enlightenment helped theology to engage in careful and profound self-reflection in the twentieth century, while the Central European Enlightenment led directly to a new perspective on God and the world. It did not matter at all that the Christian message itself was often flattened, since it was only being interpreted rather than being outright denied. And so long as the interpretation did not stand in the way of the Christian message, it was acceptable. One unmistakable attempt concerning such an interpretation represented the entire task of the university teacher Bernard Bolzano, the majority of his colleagues, and especially his pupils. This is also where the complete “mystery” of their personalities originated. New opinions were intricately connected with new education. This is why all the representatives of the Enlightenment in the Bohemian lands were unanimously in agreement concerning the proper education of a new generation according to their own vision. Even in later periods when the words restoration and reaction were strongly endorsed (especially after 1820), Enlightenment ideals in the fields of education and theology in Vormärz Bohemia could not be so easily destroyed.9

4

Chapter 1

THE ENLIGHTENMENT WITHIN THE WIDER EUROPEAN CONTEXT It is an indisputable fact that the European society which sprang up and developed from the roots of the Judeo-Christian worldview bears its distinctive and specific features, among which we can mention the collective dimension of religious life and the diversity of its interactions with individual Christian confessions. French historian René Rémond noted that “the religion of society is undoubtedly linked to the sincerity and fervency of personal faith.”10 The absence of such a connection would a priori exclude the problematic of the relationship between society and religion itself. The religious map of Europe has undergone many significant changes since the beginning of confessionalism in the sixteenth century connected with the decisive entrance of the German reformer Martin Luther (1483–1546). Similar changes are likewise observable in the relationship of society or the state with the Church and new religious societies (though they did not manifest themselves more prominently until the twentieth century). Opportunities for such relationships were “unlocked” for them as a result of the increasing indifference of the majority of civil society towards traditional Christian confessions and due to mankind’s ineradicable ontological need and desire for spirituality. At the same time, we must not forget that civil society as a whole considered itself independent, and certainly sought to maintain that independence especially in relation to the Church. If we reflect upon the situation in the nineteenth century and beyond, we will come to an interesting discovery. In an age of emerging civil societies, while relations between individual churches and the state were sorely strained, they were also characterized by simple religious transparency: in European cities and villages, parishes and churches remained the centers of social life, and citizens participated in religious life. Even at the turn of the twentieth century, the European public sphere was clearly defined and determined by expressions of the Christian faith within various Christian confessions. This stands in complete contrast to the situation at the end of the twentieth century when relations between churches and the state were for the most part resolved legally by treaties, but religious devotion was obviously declining. Christians’ participation in processions and other forms of religious life could still be observed in some traditional Catholic cities and villages. Nevertheless, the number of those who participated was minimal compared to the masses which were satisfying strictly secular needs—and this is without even mentioning a comparative analysis at the end of the nineteenth century. Therefore, we are compelled to claim that the public arena of contemporary Europe in this era was no longer primarily determined by the expressions of the life of the Christian Church.11 We do not, however,

The Later Enlightenment in Bohemia and the Bolzano Circle

5

receive a distinct and clear-cut answer to the question concerning the exact content of what people believed in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Yet with the passage of time, we can only speculate as to the causes of the ongoing secularization and de-Christianization of European society, which we must probably seek in the evident inability of traditional churches to react and respond properly to the decisive changes which were happening in the second half of the nineteenth century. The churches restricted and enclosed themselves against the approaching new era, instead of opening themselves to it while being fully anchored in the truth of their faith. Many of those who opposed this mainstream remained forgotten, or their activities were prevented in every possible way. In our country, this category was primarily represented by the students of Bernard Bolzano12 (also called “Bolzanoists”).13  Nineteenth-century initiatives to reform the priesthood in the Bohemian lands were mainly understood as a detailed component of the Czech National Revival, and their practical activities in the educational, pedagogical, or patriotic sphere were thus accentuated. All these initiatives, however, were combined with a passionate firsthand effort to transform Christianity, to adapt it to the modern age, and to literally liberate it from feudal relics. BOLZANO AS A LATE ENLIGHTENMENT PHILOSOPHER Over the last thirty years Bernard Bolzano has been discovered not only as a philosopher, logician, and mathematician, but also as an astute theologian.14 In fact, Bolzano is the key to understanding the aforementioned efforts at reform. Though he did not found any theological school of thought, his pedagogical and preaching activities influenced priests of both nationalities in Bohemia and subsequently their pupils, who found their place by applying those principles in all fields of human activity. Bolzano and his disciples had to come to terms with the contemporary conception of theology as an entirely abstract system which did not bear witness to the living relationship of mankind with God. Such a conception relegated Christianity into an isolated realm since there was relatively little interdisciplinary dialogue during this period. The development of theology at the end of the nineteenth century indicated a certain shift with the appearance of the modernist movement.15 Its goal was not only to salvage the declining prestige of Christianity in a society experiencing a rapid liberalization (i.e., to provide an apologetic for an environment no longer inclined toward Christianity), but also to offer a truly vivid reflection of the truth of the Christian faith under completely changed conditions.

6

Chapter 1

This aim represented both an apologetical and missional endeavor.16 “Practical Bolzanoism” is an authentic, vigorous theology of everyday life—a theology whose profound theoretical rationale will take refuge only in the future, and which has been gleaned from the work of great modernist thinkers such as George Tyrell (1861–1909), Herman Schell (1850–1906),17 and Alfred Loisy (1857–1940).18 It is not at all coincidental that the contemporary challenge of modernism was received so apprehensively by the official Catholic Church; it was not prepared for these changes in attitudes, and it took nearly a century before it seriously considered and came to terms with such a transition. However, this lengthy and complex development naturally led to certain nineteenth-century attempts to include theology in the up-to-date compendium of oft-overlooked sciences. No one today can reasonably dispute that Bolzano and his students and priests stood at the forefront of the Church’s struggle (and especially that of Christendom) to adapt to modern culture and the status of scientific knowledge in Bohemia. Although that struggle has theoretically ended in a present victory, the position of churches in society reveals that it was in fact a fatal defeat. One symptom of this defeat is the utter reluctance of many secular sciences to take note of theological developments and to include theology in interdisciplinary dialogue. Another symptom is the unwillingness of Czech society to accept impulses from Christianity (except perhaps for some undefined, vague moral emphasis). There is presently great interest in researching the nineteenth century from a broad perspective, but reflections on theological endeavors have largely remained in the background or been avoided altogether. Emancipation movements and other equally interesting expressions of the life of this period are being analyzed, but few researchers have inquired concerning the extent to which faith and the convictions of man have given rise to mankind’s diverse achievements. Subsequently, our portrayal of the causes of previous historical events is full of half-truths and greatly distorted; the experience necessary for understanding present circumstances and events is thereby lacking. If one of Bolzano’s pupils excelled in a given field of human activity, it should arouse interest and researchers must take notice. However, the question concerning their motivations for engaging in that specific field of activity (e.g., education, agriculture, or literature) is not an emphatically investigated question. Research usually leads to the claim that there was a “Josephine” emphasis on practical life. The Marxists even perceived their assertions as evidence of secularization, the “progressiveness” of church ministers, and the path leading some to finally make an irreparable break with Christianity. The diverse tasks of priests of both Czech and German nationality, which later took shape during the founding of the Czechoslovak (Hussite) Church, should be seen as a dedicated effort to pursue both moral and contemporary

The Later Enlightenment in Bohemia and the Bolzano Circle

7

scientific knowledge in the spirit of Christ. This diverse activity certainly belongs to the history of the disciplines in which these personalities were occupied, but their primary intention remained to serve Christ and his church. There are certainly exceptions to be found (e.g., Augustin Smetana),19 but these only confirm the general validity of this thesis. KROMBHOLZ AS A PROMINENT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BOLZANO CIRCLE In all major works on Bolzano, Anton Krombholz is completely marginalized despite his later undeniable importance in the field of education.20 There are several reasons for his being relegated to the periphery. First, it is due to church historians’ aversion to the church history of Bohemia in the nineteenth century, which meant the continuation of problematic Josephinism for Catholic historiography.21 Of the protestant theologians only Jan Milíč Lochman was seriously concerned with this issue, but he did not find a successor.22 The historiography of the Czechoslovak (Hussite) Church has dealt with this issue, but as of yet no detailed monograph on the subject has appeared.23 Nevertheless, the tendency to link the late nineteenth and early twentieth century reform movement of the Catholic clergy with previous religious developments in the country has always loomed large. Another explanation for why Krombholz is hardly recognized is his attitude toward nationality, even though he was only a moderate at the most. At the time liberalism was emerging, it was no longer possible to cultivate provincial patriotism.24 Krombholz considered himself to be German and acted as a German in 1848. German theologians were aware of Krombholz, of course—but in the diocese of Litoměřice one of the strongest centers of the Old Catholic movement was established after the First Vatican Council (1869–1870), and it was not advisable to return to personalities who might have demonstrated any similarities with the demands this movement had made.25 Even the fact that Krombholz had never commented directly on the issues which led to this movement (i.e., papal infallibility and the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary) could not prevent Krombholz from being disregarded. Although Krombholz did not live to see the Council and did not become involved in the discussion of theological issues of the time due to old age and blindness, anything even remotely resembling the reform approaches had to be forgotten at least for a time after 1870. It is no coincidence that the first biography of his life was published only within the tolerant environment of the first Czechoslovak Republic, and that its author was not a theologian.26 The same is true of the other educators of the Litoměřice Theological Seminary who were suspended in 1820 along with Krombholz: Vincenc

Figure 1.1. František Horčička - Study for a Portrait of Bernard Bolzano (1810–1820). Bernard Bolzano, oil painting by František Hořčička from 1824–1825. The original was lost after 1925. Portrayed here is only a cutout. Source: Bildnisse Bolzanos von Lubomír Sršeň mit Photographien von Dagmar Landová (Bernard-Bolzano Gesamtausgabe, Reihe 4, Bd.1), Friedrich Frommann Verlag (Günther Holzboog), Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1986, page 156.

Figure 1.2. Anton Krombholz (1790–1869), Bohemian Roman Catholic Clergyman, Professor at the Litoměřice Seminary, Dean in Česká Lípa (1821–1848), and Advisor to the Ministry of Education (1848–1869). Source: Kamila Veverková (public domain).

10

Chapter 1

Zahradník, Michael Josef Fesl, František Schneider (1794–1858), and Florian Werner. Although some of them have received scholarly attention focusing on the cultivation of excellence in their respective fields (e.g., literature, linguistics, and peripheral philosophy in the case of Zahradník), either little or no attention has been devoted to their theology or theological rationale for their activities.27 In order to understand Zahradník, one needs to maintain an intriguing view of the Bohemian Reformation and to appreciate the activities in which he was intensively engaged; for example, he founded the Časopis katolického duchovenstva (Journal of the Catholic Clergy), demonstrated remarkable merit, and made an enormous contribution to the creation of certain modern theological terms. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF MICHAEL JOSEF FESL The due credit given to Fesl for publicizing Bolzano’s writings is certainly well-known, and his illegal activity in collaborating with a foreign publisher is highly appreciated. His independent literary activity has been unjustly designated as mere epigonism, but such an evaluation certainly ignores his pedagogical and preaching activity at the time of his stint in seminary, and his considerable journalistic activity at the end of his life. Unfortunately, no catalogue of his literary works is currently available.28 FRANTIŠEK SCHNEIDER AS THE DISSEMINATOR OF BOLZANO’S WORKS František Schneider is often mentioned primarily in connection with Bishop Hurdálek (1747–1833), for whom he served as secretary, and with the family of František Palacký (since he was confessor to Palacký’s wife Terezie née Měchurová), and the Náhlovský Reform Program of 1848. His literary works—mainly sermons and textbooks of religion, published in both German and Czech in his time—remain completely unanalyzed and uncategorized. In many respects this theological literature of a practical nature resembles the work of Krombholz. Unfortunately, there is no catalogue of his literary works either. Unlike Fesl, however, it should not be a problem to make such an inventory, because with a few exceptions (i.e., memoirs and articles in Der Österreichische Schulbote),29 Schneider did not publish outside Bohemia.30 The least known personality is Florian Werner. In a few cases, his estate or parts of it are available, while other sources are missing. However, there are letters from these personalities in his inheritance which can often lead to surprising new discoveries.

The Later Enlightenment in Bohemia and the Bolzano Circle

11

Figure 1.3. Vincenc Zahradník, oil painting by an unknown artist, circa 1830, National Museum in Prague, Historical and Archaeological Department, inventory number 11959. Source: Bildnisse Bolzanos von Lubomír Sršeň mit Photographien von Dagmar Landová (Bernard-Bolzano Gesamtausgabe, Reihe 4, Bd.1), Friedrich Frommann Verlag (Günther Holzboog), Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1986, page 231.

Research does not simply involve the matter of heuristics but primarily concerns the realm of hermeneutics. Undoubtedly, possessing a hermeneutical key can help uncover distinct aspects of spiritual life and diverse

Figure 1.4. Michal Josef Fesl (1788–1863), Czech Catholic priest and professor of Church HIstory and Canon Law in Prague. Josef Michael Fesl, oil painting by Josef Binder from 1845, National Museum in Prague, Historical and Archaeological Department, inventory number 5666. Source: Bildnisse Bolzanos von Lubomír Sršeň mit Photographien von Dagmar Landová (Bernard-Bolzano Gesamtausgabe, Reihe 4, Bd.1), Friedrich Frommann Verlag (Günther Holzboog), Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1986, strana 221.

Figure 1.5. Portrait of Josef František Hurdálek (1747–1833), Roman Catholic Bishop of Litoměřice, Bohemia. Josef František Hurdálek, copperplate engraving by Georg Döbler (before 1817), National Museum in Prague, Historical and Archaeological Department, inventory number 31164. Source: Bildnisse Bolzanos von Lubomír Sršeň mit Photographien von Dagmar Landová (Bernard-Bolzano Gesamtausgabe, Reihe 4, Bd.1), Friedrich Frommann Verlag (Günther Holzboog), Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1986, page 213

14

Chapter 1

aspects of theological life. Such research will remain legitimate only if it is conscientiously based on the foundation of manuscripts and published primary sources. The study of theological thought of the nineteenth century still confirms the thesis that Czech thinking was not nearly as original as it was purported to be by the liberal and later Marxist historiography and that German theological thought developed from a native tradition that was not linguistically divided until the middle of the century. KROMBHOLZ’S EMPHASES As a spiritual shepherd, Anton Krombholz was compelled to reflect in a new way upon questions raised by the approaching liberalism: he was unambiguous in showing respect toward the Czechs’ nationality, and had to come to terms with the negative phenomena and effects of industrialization as a falling away from the Christian faith, and with the consumerism of the emancipated bourgeoisie. The parish in which Krombholz worked from 1821–1848 was definitely not an ideal place for him to develop his abilities. By that time Česká Lípa had become a rapidly developing industrial city. After overcoming an initial lack of confidence, he was strongly supported by the new Litoměřice bishop Vincenc Eduard Milde (1777–1853) and his successor Augustin Bartoloměj Hille (1786–1865) in his wide-ranging activities.31 Rapid industrialization was accompanied by an equally rapid secularization. It was only at this time when Christianity was mercilessly confronted with the practical outcomes of further development and had to be defended. Christianity was mostly unprepared and resorted to condemning all the expressions of modern life. On a church-wide scale (at least concerning the Roman Catholic Church) these tendencies culminated in the well-known Syllabus of 1864 and in the discussions on papal infallibility held after 1848.32 This dogmatic declaration became the sorrowful epilogue of a period which failed to become dialogical at all; objectively, however, it must also be noted that even the great protestant confessions sought to face the symptoms of the new era conservatively.33 These approaches had entirely fatal consequences for Christianity: the modern rejection of Christianity was largely because nineteenth century Christianity made no effort to understand social processes and did not voluntarily bid farewell to Constantinianism quickly enough, which would have meant its liberation. Christian attitudes and positions did not change until the twentieth century under the influence of two great dictatorships, but by this time the secularized society no longer wanted to grant Christianity any real consideration at all. We are not aiming to describe general church history but merely to demonstrate how Krombholz (as a student of Bolzano) reacted to epoch-making

The Later Enlightenment in Bohemia and the Bolzano Circle

15

events and social processes. Krombholz’s primary concern was making sure that Christianity would secure an established and firm place within the new society. Krombholz attempted to prevent secularization with all his power and resources, but without necessarily referring to previous eras. For him, the past was irretrievably a part of even his own history; trying to relive it would be absurd. He bore in mind the progress and development of sciences, the emergence of industry and the accompanying proletariat, national differentiation (the final phase of the struggle for the emancipation from the bourgeoisie), and other historical phenomena. He did not speak directly against the past, but he discerned that the circumstances of his time were different and that Christianity needed a distinctive approach to stand its ground. At the same time, he was also surprisingly aware that a mere rationalistic approach such as the one cultivated by the Catholic Enlightenment would certainly not succeed. He wanted Christianity to maintain its place and hold its sway in both the moral and intellectual spheres (i.e., in thought and life)—not as a mere relic of the past but as a living belief in the active Lord—the God who was still active and able to rescue mankind even at that time by helping human beings to overcome feelings of alienation, insecurity, uselessness, and uprooting. That is why his biblical interpretations were not imbued with enlightened rationalism. He was well-aware that such an approach would not become the path along which Christian proclamation must travel. Yet he could not uncritically repeat various stories from Christian tradition which had lost their credibility. He always tried to aptly capture the most important moments; for example, concerning the mother of the Lord, he did not address extremely controversial views from the Catholic tradition (however widespread they may have been), but he rather emphasized the moment of obedience to the will of God.34 It is customarily repeated that in Krombholz’s sermons (and in those of his similarly-oriented colleagues) the emphasis was on practical matters. Of course, the realities of urban and agricultural life are found in these sermons, but they are by no means instructions for cultivating crafts or agriculture. We find contemporary man at the center of his interest, and insofar as man’s earthly existence is concerned, his purpose is to stand before the face of God (coram Deo). He used Enlightenment expressions of virtue, happiness, and blessedness, which he undoubtedly borrowed from Bolzano. By the time he employed such expressions they may have lost some clarity and precision, but they remained understandable. If we substitute a life of faith and the blessedness of salvation for virtue and happiness, his words were filled with timeless application indeed. All his extant sermons testify that his language was lively; everyone understood him and comprehended exactly what they had to change and how to live in order to achieve salvation. A sympathetic reader would find his sermons to be non-confrontational as they did not oppose the “spirit of the times” (Zeitgeist), which was evaluated

16

Chapter 1

positively in general. Above all, he sought to paint a portrait of what a person should look like to face the circumstances of his or her time. The audience was very fond of him and his sermons were attended by sizable crowds.35 This was no small feat, especially during a time when churches were becoming increasingly empty. Krombholz’s preaching activities were accompanied by charitable and organizational activities in the field of education. The Josephine paradigm surely played an important role in his charitable activities. An almshouse and a children’s shelter could not be established if the conditions were not appropriate. In his sermons, however, Krombholz did not interpret Christian charity from the necessity of universal progress or from the Enlightenment’s ideal of the dignity of the human personality (although this ideal was also present); rather, he emphasized the kind of charity (i.e., love) springing from a faithful following of Christ.36 Still, nothing could stop him from considering the necessity of social service as a definite challenge posed to the Christians of his time, as he thought this activity to be inseparable from true Christian existence. Krombholz’s educational activities form a separate chapter of his activities. In a city with nearly eight thousand inhabitants by the end of his tenure, he accomplished a great deal in this field. The evaluation he received on the German side in the second half of the twentieth century fully corresponds to his importance.37 The efforts by which Krombholz had built or reorganized schools are admirable. This activity cannot be explained merely by Krombholz’s belief in the overall progress of the Enlightenment. Again, he continued the previous celebrated educational tradition, but his motivation was not to achieve a certain standard of scholastic education and literacy. Education was certainly (but not exclusively) viewed as a path toward attaining happiness, progress, and blessedness. Krombholz did not believe that a person could become good or virtuous on his or her own. Certainly, the transformations of society and the progress he had witnessed were the actual results of better education. This idea was also the driving force underlying early liberalism. Liberalism, however, led to secularization and religious emancipation. This is why Krombholz understood the need for education very differently: only an educated man would be able to understand the truths of the Christian religion and hence would be able to resist all the snares or pitfalls brought about through so-called progress. Krombholz by no means renounced progress, but he was intensely concerned about the future of Christianity and the Church. Through education one could discover the path back to God while simultaneously coming to the realization of one’s own spiritual decline, since mankind is undoubtedly God’s creation, and despite his sinfulness the vestiges of divine sonship remain in him.

The Later Enlightenment in Bohemia and the Bolzano Circle

17

It can be assumed that as a teacher and a theologian he nurtured future priests in the Litoměřice Seminary in the same spirit. When he did not manage to succeed and ended his activities there,38 he focused his efforts on primary, secondary, and vocational education in a place whose primary focus was not on pedagogical activity. He tried to understand and analyze what was happening throughout the whole of society. Krombholz was also cognizant that the apparent contradiction between science and faith would reach an even greater magnitude. He was not opposed to scientific knowledge, despite its increasing emancipation from and resistance to Christianity. Krombholz did not want to perceive progress as contrary to the Christian faith and tried to find every possible bridge between the two phenomena. At the same time, however, his attempts at bridge-building led him to realize that certain interpretations of Christianity were inadequate: it was no longer possible to blindly repeat dogmatic statements or interpretations from the ecclesiastical tradition. The proof of this approach was found in the quest for a new path: one expression of this quest was the substantive emphasis on Holy Scripture and the exploration of the existential situation of man. The condition of mankind before the face of God, the true revelation of his place on earth, and his relationship with his fellow man (and thus to the whole of human society) was the main purpose of culture and education, as frequently evidenced in Krombholz’s sermons and in his article on teaching the catechism in elementary schools.39 For Krombholz, believing in God did not mean considering repeated propositions as true, but personally knowing the purpose for which man was created, how he had transgressed from it, and the path which would lead him back. The educational system had taken tremendous steps forward since the mid-eighteenth century, but in terms of better formal education this simultaneously implied moving away from Christianity. While Christianity remained officially intact, the ever-increasing deeper knowledge of scientific reality and the phenomena in question was turning people away from the actual practice of the Christian faith. The connection of the Church with the state also proved fatal. Especially after the French Revolution, the state perceived the Church as a “guarantor” of a return to an old public order which, however, was no longer possible. Proof of this is seen in Austria after 1848 when the benefits of a constitution which guaranteed every citizen personal freedom began to take effect. As a Bolzanian, Krombholz perceived the expressions of formal Christianity around him and did not want to give this disinterested formalism an opportunity to develop any further. He desired for Christianity to be authentic, convincing, and sincere. In his view only this kind of Christian belief would prevent further secularization and guarantee the healthy moral development of individuals and society as a whole and the security of a healthy Christian

18

Chapter 1

family, which should form the basis of a healthy and responsible state. Proper education and training should then serve to achieve this goal. The educational efforts he made aimed to promote overall progress while at the same time strongly preventing secularization. After World War I, Austro-Catholicism and formalism completely dominated religious life, and the development of the secular sciences marginalized Christianity within society. The situation was much more complicated than during Krombholz’s time, in which people were not so reserved or distrustful of Christianity. Of course, Krombholz saw that the state of the Church in the first half of the nineteenth century could not face the challenges of the time. However, he did not create any reform agenda himself. His attempts at reform were centered on his practical preaching and teaching activities. While Bolzano could express his reform views only in writing or at most in university exhortations,40 Krombholz proved by his priesthood that reform attempts could happen quite differently. He even welcomed proposed concrete reforms, as evidenced by his letter to Náhlovský (June 17, 1848).41 He pronounced his belief that Náhlovský and his comrades had embarked on a journey that Krombholz and the clergy entrusted to him should have sought long ago. Krombholz’s viewpoint written in his own hand is a truly rare and valuable document. It expressed in full his absolutely positive relationship to reforms in the Church, showed a level of involvement which was absent at the meeting of Náhlovský, but totally supportive of the latter’s work; he promised to participate in the reform process in the future as Náhlovský suggested it (thus expressing his willingness to summon a consultation, procure records, and send them to Náhlovský).42 Based on this written testimony, it is also possible to discern the kind of relationship Krombholz had with the clergy reform movement and to determine how to properly situate him and his influence in context. He did not organize any movement, yet he considered certain steps necessary for the Church to bid farewell to the Baroque past. These steps included introducing national languages into the liturgical worship services; addressing an unhealthy symbiosis of throne and altar; doing away with the clergy’s distinction from the rest of the population by the clothing they wore; reforming liturgical books, the structure of the church, and reforming both general and theological education, and finally church discipline (i.e., celibacy). He unequivocally welcomed these reforms found in Náhlovský’s program and expressed his desire to support them. We find no direct formulation of these requirements in Krombholz’s work itself; however, he often expressed himself indirectly without criticizing the order of the day, simply pointing out the particular way in which affairs ought to be conducted. His main goal was to prevent Christianity and the Church from being thrust out of public life, but

The Later Enlightenment in Bohemia and the Bolzano Circle

19

he did not want to return to the past; he found it impossible to re-establish the conditions which had existed before the Enlightenment. He embraced progress and was looking optimistically toward the future. This prevented him from seeking any connection with the bourgeoning forces of restoration. After 1848, Krombholz achieved perhaps the highest position from among the former Litoměřice teachers—a status comparable to the present-day position of Deputy Minister. His calling to Vienna was rather paradoxical. In the 1850s, school was supposed to be the buttress of the imperial throne, as expressed in the Concordat concluded between the Austrian monarchy and the Holy See in 1855.43 Krombholz did not want this at all and tried his best to emphasize true Christian values in a journal he founded and edited (Der Österreichische Schulbote). For example, he often printed articles from his like-minded former Litoměřice colleagues Schneider and Fesl. He was also engaged in the organization of primary education, where he oversaw further prerequisites for the implementation of his plans. From an instrumental point of view, he achieved some success and contributed to the later introduction of compulsory education.44 However, school was increasingly becoming the school of a liberalizing state which he could do nothing to prevent. His efforts here failed to take effect. His entire tenure denotes wasted opportunities for Christianity in an officially Christian state. However, the same was also true in other countries, with a confessionally divided Germany as the most visible example. Christianity was also forfeiting its importance there, even though it was officially a Christian state, and I have already mentioned the inadequate approaches of the major Christian confessions toward the contemporary discourse. RESPONSES OF THE LATE ENLIGHTENMENT IN CATHOLIC MODERNISM It is certainly unwise to make hasty assumptions and connections to the efforts of Catholic modernism as displayed in the late nineteenth century. The main aim of modernism in a broad sense was to usher Christianity into line with the ever-widening scientific knowledge that the nineteenth century had introduced. Modernist efforts were particularly evident in our country in the field of art and later in the organized clergy movement. In its theoretical sphere modernism continued in its radical form and outside the Catholic Church. But it cannot be denied that Bolzano and his students (similar to Catholic modernists) provided a credible Christian testimony to make the gospel the standard of ethical decision-making and the order of social life.

20

Chapter 1

At first glance a direct continuity between the two seems present, but closer observation reveals a more complex picture. Several thinkers from within Catholic ranks were devoted to the period prior to and early history of the Czechoslovak Hussite Church, but a more comprehensive study which would constitute more than a mere collection of more-or-less already known facts has not been produced. Rudolf Urban wrote a synthesis “from the outside,”45 but it bears the marks of an historian and Slavist without theological ambitions. I do not intend to return here to the very thorny issue of the historiography of the Czechoslovak Hussite Church. We must come to grips with this question in the same way again in the future for two reasons in particular: first, each generation justifiably interprets with a particular emphasis the events which occurred; second, the task of researching and analyzing the internal processes of the Catholic Church during the nineteenth century has significantly advanced, providing substantially new perspectives within a much wider context. One of the fundamental theses of Zdeněk Kučera with which we must agree without reservation is that the Czechoslovak Church originated out of a long development and is a manifestation of radical Czech modernism.46 It is thus not simply the result of certain literary or national efforts, as all of its opponents have tried to claim from its very beginning. Kučera’s thesis, however, has evoked a series of questions which logically had to be asked sooner or later. The answers to these questions (which are still being researched by several theologians within the Czechoslovak Hussite Church) will constantly yield new answers that will not only help us consider our own identity, but also will provide strong theological arguments for our participation in ecumenical dialogue within the entire ecumenical environment and especially with different movements inside the Czech Catholic Church. QUESTIONS ARISING FROM THE RESEARCH OF MODERNISM The first question which is possible to ask and answer concerns the theological dimensions of Czech Catholic modernism. Regurgitating the thesis that Czech Catholic modernism at the end of the nineteenth century was a spectacular movement but only from an artistic and literary perspective (e.g., Pavel Marek and Martin C. Putna) is clearly inconsistent with reality.47 Of course, historians and literary critics are welcome to address this complex topic, but they must be aware of their own limits in this field of study. What they say must certainly be taken seriously, but what they do not say needs to be evaluated even more seriously as a focal point.

The Later Enlightenment in Bohemia and the Bolzano Circle

21

Another question concerns the existence of an independent or distinctive kind of theological Czech Catholic modernism and the manner, extent, and areas in which it has expressed itself. What methodological and intellectual approaches can be described as modernistic in the Czech environment? Certainly, some of the reform demands that emerged within Czech Catholicism (the requirement of using the national language, celibacy, the democratization of the Church, etc.) throughout the nineteenth century can be considered as external aspects of reform. But are these demands truly modernist? The representative bibliography of nineteenth century Czech theological literature will not prove very helpful in this regard.48 Furthermore, if Karel Farský (1880–1927), Alois Spisar (1874–1955), František Kovář (1888– 1969), and possibly Karel Statečný (1870–1927) are modernists who later resolved to take a radical step—then how and in which manner is the Catholic modernism condemned by the celebrated papal decree and encyclical of 1907 manifested in their particular works?49 Then there is another question which brings us directly to our essential concern: how and where did theologians who would soon form the founding generation of the Czechoslovak Hussite Church become acquainted with modernism? Was it really through German theological works or German-published translations of important European modernists? To what extent were these radical Czech modernists connected with the style of thinking whose prominent representative in Bohemia was Bolzano and his students? After all, Bolzano himself and his circle were not concerned with the practical reform of the Church but with a new understanding of fundamental theological statements (i.e., evidence and testimony) and with an adaptation of the Church to a new age. They were not interested in capitulating to the spirit of the times but intensely concerned with relevant responses to the challenges this new era was creating. Although the struggle was real and present throughout the nineteenth century, language and nationalism played almost no role at all. Initially, very fruitful discussions took place in German, roughly since the middle of the century when national polarization occurred, and then later also in Czech. All research to date appears to have led to establishing and proving that while some Bolzanians influenced Northern Bohemian Old Catholicism, they did not exert a direct influence upon Czech radical modernists.50 Northern Bohemian Old Czech Catholicism aroused opposition rather than sympathy among Czech modernists because of its outspoken nationalistic viewpoint.

22

Chapter 1

AN UNCHARACTERISTIC ALLEGIANCE The lectures of Professor Kučera which I attended at the end of the last century at the Hussite Theological Faculty helped me focus my research in a slightly different direction than would normally be expected from a church historian. I was intrigued by Bolzano’s conception of science and ethics, his attempts to express new theological perspectives, his view of the Jewish question, and the attempts within Bolzano’s circle to establish these late Enlightenment views in a church where the residue of Baroque Catholicism was excessively strong. In other words, I firmly believe that the roots of the specific problems which Czech Christianity experienced in the twentieth century were planted only one hundred years earlier. Christianity had been confronted with rapid secularization and had not always come out of this confrontation honorably. Surprisingly enough, the thoughts of Bolzano and his students proved to be vital indeed. This is not just a matter of Josephine or late Josephine altruism; Bolzano, Krombholz, Schneider, Zahradník, and others understood very well the need for developing a different kind of Christianity and theology in order to confront secularization! In no way should their attempts be interpreted as an interference or destruction of faith; contrarily, they endeavored to preserve faith and to provide a theology capable of dialogue with the demands of that time. Ctirad Pospíšil aptly draws attention to this point concerning Vincenc Zahradník and Jan Valerián Jirsík (1798–1883).51 Unfortunately, previous Catholic research to date has mainly found hidden heresies and negative developments in all of these innovative approaches. Let me make a small comparison: Czech radical modernists had the same significance which Bolzano and his circle had at the time (albeit to a limited degree) after the appearance of anti-modernist decrees. They too were concerned with the renewal of the Church (from a practical point of view) and primarily with the renewal of theology. They were discontent with the fact that the official Catholic theological thinking of that time did not respond to the challenges facing them. Therefore, as soon as possible they formulated their positions and opinions in their own unique method and manner, and it is not surprising that they immediately came into conflict with the official Church. After all, they would have had to arrive at this matter even if there were no reform demands of the Unity of Catholic Clergy concerning the practical life of the Church. However, it is true that in the eyes of the public these practical demands completely overshadowed the real concerns which the radical modernists supported. Broadly speaking, their noble endeavors were in the worst case defined as their express desire to be married. It should also be recalled that although the political situation was as advantageous as ever before the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, the

The Later Enlightenment in Bohemia and the Bolzano Circle

23

religious situation was not so favorable. There was a huge wave of secularization which caused great damage. Many did not understand the particular aims of the reformers and thought that this was not a spectacular attempt to restore but instead to minimize Christianity. Unfortunately, many such purely formal Christians had even joined the new Church. Near the end of the twentieth century, attempts were made to view the history of Czech Christianity rather nationalistically. No one questioned the positive role of the Church and the priesthood during the Czech National Revival, and in fact this is virtually the only aspect that has been emphasized. Eduard Winter (1896–1982), a German theologian and historian from Bohemia, attempted an innovative and non-nationalistic conception of Bolzano and his circle. Winter was a trained theologian and understood how far-reaching the reform which Bolzanians sought actually purported to be. However, due to his position as a laicized Catholic priest and his activities in the structure of the German Democratic Republic Academy of Sciences, he was not a trustworthy guide for Roman Catholic theologians. Only more recent research has shown how innovative the studies and practically all the works of this outstanding expert of nineteenth-century manuscripts of Czech provenance actually were. DIFFICULTIES ASSOCIATED WITH FURTHER RESEARCH If we want to prescribe the parameters and methods of further research concerning this subject, we must reach the conclusion that the task is excessively complex. In addition to a secure knowledge of theology and both languages of that time, it is essential to ascertain the history of Czech theology well (though an impartial history for this period does not exist), and last but not least, to delve into vast archival records. Because there was no mandatory system of printing, many printed books (especially theological books) are often not available. I discovered this unfortunate truth while writing my first Czech monograph on Anton Krombholz, since I could no longer find the books which were available to his first German biographer Alfred Grundl before World War II in our libraries.52 I am referring to Krombholz’s German sermons, since I had to find some of them in Germany (the Archbishop’s Diocesan and Cathedral Library in Cologne) or in Austria (the Austrian National Library in Vienna). I was unable to find one of Krombholz’s printed items titled Drei geistliche Reden zur Emphelung der Armenversorgungsanstalten, gehalten in der Stadt Böhm.-Leipa.53 However, in the case of Krombholz I would like to provide evidence that miracles truly do happen and that certain books really possess their own destinies. Like

24

Chapter 1

Bolzano, Krombholz wrote all of his public speeches and sermons. We know conclusively that all of Krombholz’s speeches from 1821–1848 (with a few exceptions from Česká Lípa) were loaned out and never returned during the time of Krombholz’s absence in 1848. They were not even in his estate, and the only remaining artifact from Krombhoz’s theological speeches was the voluminous collection of Marian and Lenten Sermons, both published in Litoměřice shortly after Krombholz’s death in 1871 and 1872. When my monograph appeared in 2004, I was notified in more detail by friends concerning some unspecified manuscripts in the Library of the National Museum in Prague from the library of Eduard Langer Library in Broumov.54 In this collection there are lenten sermons from those years which were not issued, unpublished Advent sermons, sermons for young students, and several sermons from various years corresponding to the period from Easter to Pentecost (XC 79). They are probably not copies but his autographs—which are still in the process of being verified, since the final manuscript alone contains 228 pages. In this case, it will certainly be interesting to read, rewrite, and publish these texts, but they are unlikely to contain ideas other than those previously known in printed versions of sermons from other years. I give a detailed description of this issue in chapter seven. Based on the work accomplished so far, it is necessary to state that the study of Czech radical modernism must always be forged from the background knowledge and conclusions reached concerning the nineteenth century as a whole. I am well aware that the main aspects are intellectual currents—their interaction, extinction, and transformation. However, the present status of knowledge and methodology requires that comprehensive bibliographies of the relevant personalities be completed and supplemented with an alternative good customs and general tools for those who do not specialize in archive research: reliable inventories of the estates of these personalities. As far as I am aware, not a single inventory of the estate of the founding fathers of the Czechoslovak Hussite Church radical modernists has been professionally processed and issued. AN OPEN PATH The twenty-first century presents a major challenge for the status and position of traditional Christian churches within continental Europe, which are increasingly being confronted with certain manifestations and expressions of a post-secular society and non-Christian religions and spirituality. However, unless they are able to essentially demarcate boundaries in a manner similar in principle to that of the nineteenth century, and if they fail to convince their society of Christ’s gospel as the standard and norm for ordering overall social

The Later Enlightenment in Bohemia and the Bolzano Circle

25

life, both they and even the originally Judeo-Christian European society will find themselves at the mercy of that post-secular society. For it is certain that every religious belief ultimately possesses a collective character, and the liberal notion that faith is merely a private matter is incorrect and misleading.

Chapter 2

The Ethical Foundations of Bolzano’s Work

SOCIAL ETHICS There is no doubt that Bernard Bolzano substantially influenced the philosophical contours of thinking in our country. In addition to being a mathematician, philosopher, and theologian, he can also be described as an ethicist or social ethicist, according to Eduard Winter.1 Two recent publications have addressed some questions concerning Bolzano’s ethics of science in more detail.2 In addition, there are several studies that reflect Bolzano’s views in an ethical context, particularly in relation to his well-known Von den Besten Staate (On the Best State).3 BOLZANO’S ETHICAL PRINCIPLES We will now focus our attention on Bolzano’s ethical principles. Although they are clearly and entirely connected with the Enlightenment, we can declare without exaggeration that they are also associated with the highest principles which we find in the Western Christian tradition. His Autobiography provides sufficient testimony to this assertion.4 Jan Milič Lochman also highlighted this ethical context in his portrayal of Bolzano.5 Bolzano was brought up in the best traditions of the Enlightenment in Prague. Since his youth he had striven to formulate the supreme moral law on various occasions. Bolzano’s concept of truth itself contains ethical roots (i.e., an ethical core). According to Lochman, Bolzano’s highest moral law was the first truth about himself.6 To that end, Bolzano wrote, “I understand the highest moral law as a practical truth from which every other practical truth (concerning every human duty) 27

28

Chapter 2

can be objectively derived as a consequence from its ground.”7 The content of Bolzano’s moral law provides universal support for attaining blessedness (i.e., supreme happiness). Bolzano’s ethical imperative resounds: “Among all possible actions, always choose the one that, all things considered, most promotes the virtue and happiness of the whole.”8 Blessedness which is united with virtue does not mean seeking one’s own privileges. That which one should seek is the happiness of our neighbors and the common good. Bolzano applied his ethical principles in all of his works. Bolzano’s entire personality also evidenced a deep ethical awareness, as evidenced by his attitudes in various conflicts which he had mainly caused himself through his academic sermons. His utopian work On the Best State, which was never published during his lifetime, is offered as an example of his socio-ethical attitudes in particular.9 However, it must be remembered that this utopian treatise is really only a vision and not a reflection of specific historical circumstances or conditions. On the Best State has therefore been the subject of many thought-provoking analyses, but the conclusions reached by individual thinkers are by no means unequivocal. ETHICAL JUDGMENTS IN HIS EXHORTS As mentioned above, the welfare of the whole, supreme happiness, and virtue were the primary ethical aspects accentuated by Bolzano. His conception of virtue as expressed in various writings is succinct: virtue is and should be nothing more than a sustained effort to minimize suffering in the world as much as possible and to maximize well-being or happiness. This overall underlying concept appealed to many of his pupils and prompted them to implement such ethical aims in practical ways. Bolzano’s ethical interpretation is expressed very distinctively in his university address (an exhortation on the next-to-last Sunday after Pentecost) on the theme “Der Mensch ist zur Tugend fähig und berufen” (“Man is Capable of and Called to Virtue”).10 The basis of his discourse was a text chosen from the Book of Wisdom 2:9–24 which depicts the life of the wicked and the error of their ways. Bolzano handled the biblical text completely in the spirit of the Enlightenment and entirely independently. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that he was adhering to the Bible in its ethico-philosophical application. Bolzano identified with the rhetorical words of a Jew who wrote the Book of Wisdom centuries earlier. In similar fashion, he believed that the wicked “do not know the hidden things of God, they do not hope for the reward of holiness, they do not believe in a reward of blameless souls” (Wisdom 2:22). Bolzano defined these words: “For God created human beings to be immortal, he made them as an image of his own nature; death entered into the world

The Ethical Foundations of Bolzano’s Work

29

only through the devil’s envy, as those who belong to him find to their own cost” (Wisdom 2:23–24). Although Bolzano’s exhortation was published in Czech in the nineteenth century, its content fell smoothly into place. The truth is that in comparison to Bolzano’s other texts its content is not so scholarly but spoken in plain language. In the first of two treatises on this text Bolzano emphatically reminded us that a person should rise to a higher calling rather than merely caring for his own well-being: a person should be uplifted in order to care for the common welfare of all. Man is not only called by God to happiness itself, but also to beautiful virtue. There are irrefutable proofs that do not allow us to gloss over this most important of all truths, provided that we only pay attention to it everywhere. Man possesses the freedom and conscience which purifies him to be able to practice virtue and absolutely binds him to it. God has also placed in his heart the inclinations and instinctive desires which draw him toward virtue with gentle bonds. But when he disobeys the solemn dictates of his conscience and the subtle instincts of his heart, he is destroying himself and the entire human race. Yea, even the history of humanity shows us that man is called to virtue, for almost all of his fellow brothers have been devoted to virtue throughout the ages.11

As evidence that man is called by God to virtue, Bolzano asserted that man possesses freedom and conscience. According to him, no one is forced to think by anything—neither by any external or internal circumstances. However, a man cannot often do that which he wills to do; his actions are often done against his will when someone stronger overwhelms him and forces him to do it. According to Bolzano, even such a person still remains free. The inner decisions of his soul cannot be overpowered or shackled in any way. The conscience of a person simultaneously awakens in the moment when he becomes aware of his inner freedom. Conscience informs a person of what he should do and what he should avoid. With the earnestness of a good preacher, Bolzano instructed his audience that the voice of conscience resounds even within their inner being. If this were not the case, then we would only be animals with a human face. From this inner voice, Bolzano deduced: “We too are capable of virtue and called to it by God himself. For what else is virtue other than obedience to the dictates of conscience? Is it not our freedom that allows us to listen to and obey our conscience? When we act in such a manner are we not maturing in virtue? Does our conscience not strictly impose upon us our duty and condemn us whenever we have been disobedient in some action?”12 According to Bolzano, we can say fully and truly that we are called to virtue by God himself since it is God who has given us the gift of conscience.

30

Chapter 2

Bolzano tried to argue rather logically and artificially that even as one cannot deny that people have freedom and conscience, likewise one cannot deny that people are called to virtue by God himself. He intended to communicate that people are not called to virtue solely by the commanding voice of their conscience, since he assumed that people also possess a natural predisposition which God has placed in their hearts. These inclinations toward the good predominate over the tendencies to wickedness. As evidence of this, he stated that if people are not corrupt, any wickedness will expose itself to them as being evil, detestable, and hideous. In a slightly psychological manner of speaking, he further argued that doing good deeds causes a person to become good and leads him or her to a more frequent repetition of other good deeds. On the contrary, he affirmed the reality of the uncomfortable reprimanding voice of conscience and the regret which accompanies every bad deed. Reading these lines, we can see clearly how Bolzano’s ideas were based on the Enlightenment’s conception of man, since he considered man to be essentially good. Although there are also underlying patristic concepts (e.g., from Irenaeus and Augustine), his view of man owes to Enlightenment humanism. He thought the sight of someone suffering evokes compassion and a willingness to help him, and that these resided in human nature. According to him, God wants to guide us by means of our inclinations to that same virtue toward which he leads us through the gift of conscience. Despite his optimism and anthropology from the Enlightenment, Bolzano admitted that humans are certainly not angels. He realized that man paradoxically destroys himself by disposing of virtue against his conscience and against his inclinations toward good. He conceded the notion of what would happen if mankind truly deviated from virtue. He asked: how could the wicked ever endure since they do not recognize any law or acknowledge any rule except their own ability? However, history has proven Bolzano fundamentally wrong on this point: according to him, those who are not virtuous would eventually destroy themselves before they reach their goal. Bolzano imagined that perhaps an individual but not the whole of society could actually live in such a manner. The horrifying history of humanity in the second half of the nineteenth century and in the twentieth century demonstrates that this anomaly is possible in totalitarian societies. Bolzano was convinced that if all virtue disappeared from humanity, then humanity would virtually become extinct. The grave of virtue would also be the mausoleum of mankind. After all, Bolzano’s Enlightenment optimism definitely has its limitations. He was well-aware that the ability of man to accomplish many good feats was coupled with the fact that man is a terrible creature indeed when he desires to enact something evil. People are able to murder each other, destroy entire countries, and wreak havoc and spread misery around them. “Man is too powerful, and therefore he needs virtue in

The Ethical Foundations of Bolzano’s Work

31

order to voluntarily restrain himself if he is not to destroy his own generation by abusing his powers.”13 Such flashes of realism did not prevent Bolzano from adhering to an overarching optimistic viewpoint, and his concept of history offers evidence of such optimism. In the spirit of the contemporary scientific knowledge of the time, he believed that the history of mankind had lasted six thousand years. During these epochs, mankind was largely devoted to virtue. For according to Bolzano, if people only act for their own advantage and not according to their conscience, then the state of humanity would have been deplorable. When he spoke of his own age, he remarked, “Virtue is not a stranger among us; we are familiar with it, we value it, we love it; we also practice it according to our own feeble ability; the vast majority of us truly have a genuine will to obey the dictates of conscience.”14 The academic preacher was aware that people are sometimes blinded and do not understand the voice of their conscience; nevertheless, he was convinced that they regret their mistakes and try to correct them. He did not want to deny entirely that there were people who sacrifice everything in seeking their own advantage. He considered them to be failures and grotesque monsters. At the end of the first part of his discourse, there are again optimistic tones: the generation of his contemporaries was devoted to virtue. General reflections on humanity and history then led the Catholic Enlightenment thinker to consider the fact of the possibility of virtue and the call to pursue it as its most powerful proof. The second part of the exposition of this academic speech examined objections as to whether a person is truly capable of and called to virtue. Without embarking upon a deeper analysis, he summarized his objections to the thesis he had expressed on two points: (1) the denial of the existence of a conscience; (2) the denial of the possibility of being able to listen to that conscience. Bolzano had no doubts concerning the existence of conscience and human freedom, even though the argument he puts forward is not very convincing: there can be no delusion in the immediate senses. Bolzano was firmly persuaded that the truth is not what we deduce by judgments but what we immediately recognize. It is elevated beyond doubt. “That is the case concerning the awareness of our freedom; we experience it in every situation we are in, whether we are finally free or not. We sense it, because if we did not sense it we would not be able to know from any inference. Therefore, it remains that God has given man freedom and conscience, thereby instructing him how to use his freedom. And whoever denies the reality of conscience lowers himself to the level of an animal.”15 In a similar way, he is confronted by those who advocate the view that it is impossible to listen to and obey one’s conscience. Bolzano puts forward the thesis that a man in any situation, condition, or age can follow his conscience. Certain affections which God has instilled in man cannot and should not be removed, but should be guided and directed by reason.

32

Chapter 2

Our nature is wisely furnished by God; the same Spirit who ex nihilo created this world demanding our fixed attention—with so many traces of wisdom and harmony in all of its individual parts—has also created us; and when its order and harmony are evidenced in relation to those celestial bodies moving in an infinitely ethereal universe before our eyes, then behold the wisest order and harmony in connection with the thousands of different instincts and powers in that little world (microcosm) we call man.16

Bolzano was convinced that there is no internal conflict and contradiction between that which God has wisely given to man. If we do not destroy it or turn it against ourselves, conscience will lead us to the goal which God has appointed for us. According to Bolzano, that goal again is to make ourselves and others happy by means of the virtues which we will cultivate. The familiar debate ends with a challenge: So let us make no mistake about the fact that man is therefore capable and called to a noble goal: to virtue and to the likeness of God. I say to the likeness of God, for virtue is precisely that which is heavenly and which makes us like God. For it was not the resemblance of the physical body, no, but only the most innate essence of our immortal soul—free will and reason—which God had in mind when he created us and said, “Let us make man in our image.” Therefore, O man, never forget that you are created in the image of God and be perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect.17

The sermon he delivered to his students in 1819 shortly before he was expelled from the university also proves that the interest of the common welfare as the supreme moral law was of great importance to Bolzano. He considered himself fortunate to have been able to proclaim this truth freely and without hindrance. He believed that if only this truth remained in the minds and hearts of his listeners, then he certainly would not have taught in vain. If this idea were accepted by everyone, then he would have given the right impetus for important and blessed changes in the world. The impressiveness of his words was amplified by the atmosphere in which he found himself. The initial innocent conflict which developed from not following the lectures prescribed in the textbook written by Viennese court theologian Jakob Frint (1766–1834) evolved into a formidable threat.18 It was clear that Bolzano would not be permitted to continue lecturing on religious science. “I will not be here much longer, but the truth of which I have spoken of today will continue to exert its influence and will one day bring about a better epoch on earth in which people will no longer become their own tormentors due to mere foolishness, in which the villain will not escape righteous indignation and deserved punishment, an epoch in which there will be reasonable laws whose purpose will no longer benefit only the individual but the well-being of

The Ethical Foundations of Bolzano’s Work

33

humanity itself. I will no longer be here when this time comes, but blessed is the one who can say that he has contributed at least something to its arrival!”19 Bolzano’s open relationship with different nations is well-known, as is his positive relationship with the two nationalities which lived in Bohemia at the time. For Bolzano, it was the duty of every individual and every community to help others attain a higher degree of perfection. Everyone should nourish the spark of hope in their hearts so that everything would improve. The spark was supposed to transform into a bright blazing flame. He was again positioning himself as the herald of a better future, precisely because he considered himself as one who inspired others with the strength to continue to exist. O how beneficial is this hope, friends, especially in such times as ours which have unquestionably fallen under the authority of evil. For if a man is to live in an age when his eyes collide with nothing but perversions everywhere, with no hope of making any contribution in eliminating them, what kind of attractive and worthwhile life, friends, could a man ever have? I can at least honestly confess to you that if I could not cherish the hope in my heart that with God’s help I would somehow be able to contribute to better times by my own efforts (however insignificant they may be in themselves)—oh, if I could not hope for this prospect, I would be stripped of the last consolation of my life, and life would become a dark dungeon in which I would be trapped—a torment unto myself and a joy unto no one—deprived of the pleasures of the estates of that future world.20

Interestingly, virtue is understood as more than merely having a “clean legal record.” As an example of a dishonorable man, in an exhort of 1813 Bolzano mentions an official who while fulfilling his duties lived an immoral lifestyle. A virtuous man always tries to do whatever he considers to be his moral duty everywhere. A man with a clean legal record practices many wrong deeds and avoids only those actions which are considered dangerous to him. Bolzano pointed to the imperfection of state administration, as it was committing the very evils which it should have been preventing by force. In instances like this, Bolzano’s views begin approaching a distinctly social realm. Bolzano formulated his supreme moral law early in his university career, though its particular forms are found in his various later writings. From the very beginning, however, he was also aware that everyone who wanted to practice virtue and happiness would also be subjected to persecution. For example, in 1810 he criticized hypocrites who wore the mask of “being a friend of good deeds” in order to actually obstruct good actions. According to Bolzano, their mouths were full of sweet words such as truth and love, freedom and equality, and the happiness of nations. “Yet it is not until they have gained confidence and have worked their way up to important offices that they begin to undermine those very good deeds.”21 And one year earlier

34

Chapter 2

in 1809, he spoke of a traitor to humanity whom he considered worse than a debauched profligate and murderer, since according to Bolzano, a traitor of mankind knows fully well that he is trampling on holy and inalienable human rights, and yet he does it anyway. Bolzano’s moral law was also related to the evidence that our life does not belong to us alone. No one can know whether he will be called upon to fulfill an important task in life: Who can know whether or not he himself or any of his actions for which he will have occasions during the remainder of his life will form a mediating link in the chain of causes whose ultimate outcome will become an eventful story with extraordinarily blessed consequences? How precious it must prove to be for us every day and every hour here on earth if we consider the continuity of our present life with that life of the future.22

There are instances when Bolzano may appear slightly fanatic in this matter; for example, he considered death to be a momentous advantage in liberating the country from tyranny or in spreading the knowledge of a recognized truth which oppressors of humanity want to suppress. In this case, he considered death for the common good as an heroic act worthy of immortality. This coincides with Bolzano’s position on the right to armed resistance by which people can be spared suffering.23 All Bolzano’s basic ethical concepts were already formulated in their final version by the time he was forced to leave the university. This is evidenced by Winter’s published manuscript of Bolzano’s ideas from 1821 which were compiled by his admirer Florian Werner.24 There are some nearly radical ideas in the exhortations. For example, Bolzano challenged his pupils to become fearsome leaders of the people since according to him, they were qualified to do so by their education. He felt that those whose mission was to teach and lead the people had failed. People were abandoned and found themselves in a very hapless condition as their misery was increasing daily. His challenge to his listeners was unequivocal: “If only you would, in your noble outrage at being so despised, make a firm resolution to save the honor of your nation! If only you would already decide today to be wiser, and thus more fearsome leaders of the people than those of our present day.”25 Bolzano was not pressing for a revolution; rather, he hoped his listeners would attempt to encourage the nobility (who were given the power to issue and revoke laws) to change any incongruences. He believed that this approach would be effective, so he also encouraged his listeners not to disregard their own person because it was for the welfare of the whole country. “Following the example of Jesus, let us be ready to lose the favor of those who are powerful, to lose honor and

The Ethical Foundations of Bolzano’s Work

35

esteem, offices and dignity, yes, to sacrifice even our own life if by so doing we can free humanity from any destructive evil.”26 In the Enlightenment sense, Bolzano was a supporter of the continual progress of humanity. According to Bolzano, if progress ended it would mean the demise of humanity. Progress existed in three most important forms: wisdom, virtue, and happiness. Because progress concerned the whole of humanity, it did not exclude regressive steps in individual countries and at different times. As for true happiness, Bolzano was convinced that people’s suffering would continue to diminish and the number of those who would live their lives calmly and contentedly would steadily increase. Then, when they grew older, they would die peacefully with the feeling that they had lived fully and experienced the happiness of this country. He also commented on war and social disparities from within the context of the Enlightenment perspective of progress. The exhortation from 1811 and the quotations from it became one of the main causes of Bolzano’s removal from the department and forced departure from the university. He was convinced that people would generally loathe war in the future. He wrote of social equality: There will come a time when all of the thousand differences of ranks and divisions between people which cause so much evil will be appropriately banished, when everyone will treat his neighbor as his brother! There will come a time when constitutions will be established which will not be subjected to such dreadful abuse as the current ones; a time when one will be brought up naturally, when no one will boast that he has deviated from nature, when no one will imagine that he deserves respect and honor since as an individual he has grabbed so many goods for himself which would be enough to satisfy the needs of thousands!27

In several other places in the exhorts, the idea is also expressed that all earthlings possess the same nature and the same rights. He even urges his audience to doubt everything, even the existence of God, but in no way whatsoever the essential equality of all people. Consequently, due to the acknowledged fact of the equality of all people, every person should love everyone else as he loves himself. The exhortations also resound with the viewpoint that the gift of life is only entitled to be enjoyed by those who desire to work. He condemns those who are rich but do not want to relieve the poverty and misery of others. “A person who lets hundreds of people provide a variety of services—services they perform only with the greatest of difficulty, yes, even risking their own lives—and who does not even think twice about how to provide something for society himself, as a ‘reward’ for these ‘services,’ such a person . . . deserves only our contempt and is not worthy of life.”28

36

Chapter 2

The common welfare of all represented an important criterion and led Bolzano to consider the person who merely enjoyed the labor of others but who did nothing himself to contribute to the general benefits of all as a parasite of the state and of the entire human society. In many places, he reproached the political orders because they regarded laziness and idleness as being exempt from punishment. ETHICAL AIMS ACCORDING TO BOLZANO Bolzano’s whole ethical system also leads one to conclude that he should not imagine that everything has been created for his own individual enjoyment. He resolutely pointed out that everyone possessed the same right to enjoy the gifts of the nation. Bolzano did not regard it as an act of injustice when a certain man was forced to abandon his egoism. Anyone who appropriated more earthly possessions than what reasonably belonged to him was detrimental to the common good. He staunchly condemned those people who thought that everything could be bought with money. He expected his audience to spread true public awareness. On the other hand, he knew that there would probably be very little enlightenment. Not only should people not be ashamed of poverty, but countries should pass strict laws to avoid selling those things which are not appropriate are to be sold for money. Not surprisingly, various socialistic movements regarded Bolzano as one of their predecessors. He was of the opinion that “people should constantly keep taking new measures to ensure that all things which are necessary for everyone are available to be bought at the lowest prices, so that in particular the acquisition of knowledge would not require money as much as aptitude, and so that one who is needy would not be restricted access to any important activity merely because he is poor.”29 Bolzano wrote during the time of the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815). Although they are not reflected upon directly in his work, they do reflect the rapid development of industrial society and the end of the feudal order. He criticized the powerful for amassing power and not realizing that others still lacked essential resources such as food, clothing, and accommodation. He also criticized the powerful for allowing their neighbors to starve to death. “Letting people starve to death without help—hundreds and thousands of people—is not a trifle! Without any help, I say, without help at all, they let them perish, because the kind of help they receive here in our country is in name only; for those who sufferer often barely know about what we have actually done for them, though we proclaim it before the world.”30 These words were an obvious form of criticism of the kind of Josephine charity which Bolzano considered insufficient. From an objective point of view, however, it should be recalled that charity during the Enlightenment had made evident progress

The Ethical Foundations of Bolzano’s Work

37

compared to earlier times. Bolzano’s criticism was certainly true, but at that time his demands were unrealistic for several reasons. In his exhortations he had never proposed (nor could he propose) a concrete remedy for society as a whole. Rather, his exhortations were a challenge for the individual listeners who had various occupations to do what they were supposed to do. As mentioned above, Bolzano left a vision of a future society in his unpublished work On the Best State. A prospective analysis from the viewpoint of his Christian ethics is perhaps still necessary. Our primary goal has been to show how Bolzano’s foundational ethical concepts appear in his sermons and how they were influenced by Enlightenment thinking. Bolzano’s Enlightenment was exceptional because, as he assured us many times, he also wanted to be inspired by Scripture and the ethics of Jesus. While Eduard Winter undoubtedly possessed a comprehensive understanding of Bolzano’s personality, in his basic work on Bolzano, he stated that Bolzano and his disciples were believers because they considered belief useful for the well-being of humanity; he attributed no other motive to them. He also criticized them for a lack of understanding of the historical development of the Church as the mystical body of Christ.31 THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTEXT If we read Bolzano’s sermons carefully today and in the context of that time, then we see that despite their Enlightenment rhetoric, they rested upon the foundation of Christianity. The key here is a story which Bolzano wrote in his own biography in which he points out the influence that theology professor Jan Marian Mika (1754–1816) had on him.32 He described in detail how he was not entirely convinced that Christianity is unreservedly the true religion. Mika noted that a certain doctrine was already justified as soon as it could be shown that faith in it provides us with certain advantages or benefits. It has been hardly a few weeks now since I was fully established in the convinction that in Christianity, and especially in the Catholic religion, we have the true divine revelation and the most perfect of all religions. I have felt so vigorously the wholesomeness and beneficial effect of this conviction, how rewarding it would be if all educated people received the same view of the matter, that from now on I have made spreading these views my life’s task. That I would have to apply for admission to the clergy was now completely beyond doubt.33

His consequential deliberation of Mika’s words led him to gradually formulate his ethical views. Bolzano’s ethical impact on the groups of his listeners is undeniable. It is therefore worth returning to his ethical categories,

38

Chapter 2

even today. His other views are often de bene esse and as such are in need of a complex interpretation. However, his ethical views are clearly—even in the context of the time—transparent and understandable; and I think that from a certain perspective they can address present-day issues, or at least inspire contemporary people.

Chapter 3

Reflections on the Transformation of the Family after the Advent‌‌‌ of the Industrial Society

TRANSFORMATION AND THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE CHURCH In many respects, the Church has been criticized for failing to deal with the problems posed by industrial society in a timely manner.1 In any case, the voices of various Christian churches were beginning to be heard in the second half of the nineteenth century. Nevertheless, industrialization had already manifested itself and signified a complete transformation in the sociological structure of society (e.g., views of the role of women and men, of children, of education, and of gender relations). Other ideas addressing the issue of equality for all people in society were also beginning to emerge. For the most part, churches as institutions usually ignored this change for a long time before it became utterly apparent that if Christians wanted to proclaim the gospel in a credible way, they had to proclaim the message within specific historical conditions and to respond positively to the actual social reality. The French Revolution was the breaking point which became a menace for Christianity. Instead of urgently analyzing its causes and realizing the legitimate repercussions for Christians, European monarchies embarked on a campaign against the revolution. These processes traversed various European countries in different ways. However, it is an undeniable fact that the French Revolution marked the inevitable beginning of the end of feudal relations, whose roots had a deep-seated history.

39

40

Chapter 3

NATIONAL IDENTITY It is also appropriate to note that in the Bohemian lands, this period also signified a gradual awareness of national identity2 and set in motion a phenomenon called the National Revival.3 Precisely due to its diversity, portraying the entire scope of this transformation in a uniform way for the whole of Europe presents difficulties.4 If we take the Austrian Empire into consideration, it is possible to observe that some thinkers were fully aware of the transformation taking place around them. It is no coincidence that the Catholic priests of both Czech and German nationality were at the forefront of those speaking on problematic issues. From their direct and indirect pastoral activity, they knew that the Church had to identify, seek to understand, and try to interpret and explain issues in terms of Christian teaching. In the first phase (or until approximately 1850), nationality still did not play a significant role.5 Both Czechs and Germans were of course aware of their nationality, yet the “domain” of nationality did not present any common problems in the sphere of the family and domestic relations.6 BOLZANO’S VIEWS ON THE ORGANIZATION OF SOCIETY Bernard Bolzano serves as a classic example of a critical social philosopher whose distinctive ideas have profound insight.7 Although his socio-ethical views were anchored in religion, he spoke for himself, not necessarily on behalf of the Church, though he did touch upon the proper tasks and role of the Church. If we seek to characterize Bolzano more broadly using modern terms, we could say that his views concerning men, women, children, and education were attempting to overcome the old feudal models. More than likely it was these views about society, expressed primarily in university homilies (i.e., exhortations), which ensured Bolzano’s popularity and such a large circle of students who followed and emulated him from both the Czech and German sides. For Bolzano, although equality existed between men and women, it was not construed as an absolute equality. In one of his exhortations, he rightly stated in biblical terms that neither men nor women could attain fullness alone and labeled this fullness as “virtue and happiness.” Bolzano taught all students at the philosophical faculty, not just theologians at the faculty of arts. Among other things, he wanted to overcome the relics of feudalism in order to allow young men to gain a better idea of the true value and worth of a woman.



Reflections on the Transformation of the Family

41

Bolzano has been regarded (in this case quite erroneously) as among those who opposed celibacy; this is not true. He professed many times that celibacy—which was preserved to enable one to fully serve in the Church—was entirely appropriate. Once someone had taken a vow of celibacy, he should fulfill it. Otherwise, Bolzano appreciated the honor and value of marriage very highly, acknowledging that family life was an indispensable aspect of the life of the human community. “Let us confess to the whole world that we need love—to love and to be loved. Let us not be ashamed of being human.”8 While in many respects we observe some aspects of ascetic puritanism in Bolzano, he clearly perceived the real social and economic causes of decline within society. He also dealt with the problem of prostitution, which he naturally rejected as radically as possible. It is nevertheless interesting that in line with the spirit of morality of that time, he agreed that his students should be careful not to associate with women, since his students could not learn anything from them and would only be led into temptation. UTOPIA IN “ON THE BEST STATE” In addition to the exhortations, Bolzano commented on this issue many times in his utopia. We have to be very careful here, though, since he did not intend this utopia to be a critique of contemporary circumstances, but an image of a perfect society in the future. It is also worth remembering that Bolzano never published his work On the Best State during his lifetime; it was first published in the German original only in 1932.9 Precisely due to the fact that he did not intend to publish the text, its particular wording appears very loose. If we read the book today, it can be seen even at a cursory glance that it was written by a representative of the Enlightenment, one for whom the state guaranteed and realized the welfare of man and society. At the same time, however, it is clear that it was written by a Christian who was concerned with offering a remedy for human and public affairs, even as Jan Amos Komenský (1592–1670) had once sought to do.10 He had clearly seen both hypocritical morality and the hypocritical relationship between the sexes at the time and did not want to acquiesce to either. From a contemporary viewpoint, the particular formulations of this utopia are often exaggerated and quite comical, but the crux of the work was driven by good will and a resolved determination to ensure helpful changes. He wrote: “One of the most essential points in a good state constitution is the expedient management of sexual instincts, and with such measures that ensure this instinct does not make people profligate and miserable, but rather greatly contributes to their true perfection and happiness in life.”11 The method by which he hoped to accomplish this was quite provocative and resolutely contradicted some of the inauspicious moral rules

42

Chapter 3

that characterized a developing industrial society. Bolzano wanted young people in school to receive moral lessons concerning what God had wisely arranged in order to preserve the human race. He was therefore interested in sex education in the modern sense of the word, but emphasized that the moral lessons should be taught only as much as needed. He also declared that books, paintings, pictures, and other objects that fill the imagination with sensual fantasies are not to be tolerated under any pretext. This demand was not a pressing issue at the time, but it became a topic of actual concern many years later when pornography began to be disseminated in liberal society without any recourse to shame at all. Another requirement could be seen as embarrassing from a Christian point of view. However, if we appreciate Bolzano’s other views on celibacy and marriage, we can immediately notice that he is not anti-Christian. “If among the people should be found here and there the prejudice that the state of virginity in and of itself is superior to the marital state (i.e., apart from the special circumstances which sometimes require it), efforts should be made to remove it through education.”12 Sometimes, Bolzano’s overbearing (or perhaps “totalitarian”) sentiments are naturally displayed. He did not agree that young people of both sexes should form their own circles according to the focus of their interests. He was willing to allow them only if such circles or groups were directed by an adult to guide them. Regarding forming a family and marriage, he wrote: It also seems appropriate to me that in the best state the young men shall court the young women, and the women should allow themselves to be courted. In the best state a provisional announcement in legal terms must precede any marriage relationship. The bond of marriage is regarded as being indissoluble in itself and must never be consummated on the assumption that it will later be dissolved; however, annulments shall be permitted in individual cases for important reasons.13

The author of these lines was well aware that one of the greatest problems of his time was poverty, though he did not anticipate certain problems such as unemployment, since he could not yet have known about them. Speaking of marriage in the future, he was convinced that poverty from either side or both sides would not be an obstacle or hindrance to marriage. He claimed somewhat naively that any healthy person who had gained an education or learned some trade would find as much work as necessary to earn a living. The idea (which sounds quite revolutionary) was that the community would contribute in helping to raise the children. There are moments, however, when Bolzano’s visions stand in marked tension with the tradition of the Church. For example, he maintained the opinion that a second marriage of a citizen would not be regarded as dishonorable if the first marriage was undone by a spouse’s death



Reflections on the Transformation of the Family

43

or legally terminated by the court. Here in particular, the possibility of the judicial dissolution of a marriage was in conflict with the Church. Bolzano also touched on legal issues relating to marriage. He assumed that marriage between relatives would be prohibited in the future state. He did not specify the degree of kinship, and the examples he gave are rather absurd (i.e., a father with his daughter, a son with his mother, siblings). Of course, there are other degrees of kinship where the marriage could be accepted, but Bolzano did not provide a more detailed definition or stipulations of these relationships.14 He only said, “However, if these very people live in distant places, perhaps never even knowing their kinship when they began to love each other, then no obstacle to marriage is to be seen from the side of the state.”15 One of Bolzano’s visions is very modern and can be said to have been realized in our civilization only recently. Bolzano was convinced that illegitimate children were not to suffer for the sins of their parents, but should be equal in every way to children born in a proper marriage. Bearing in mind that Bolzano was writing at the very beginning of industrial society, when the struggle for women’s suffrage began much later, then his proposal for organizing a political electoral system for human society is more than interesting: a husband and wife should each have one vote. However, if they vote differently, both votes should be rendered invalid.16 Another peculiar note of interest is that Bolzano did not like the fact that children only received the name of their father. In his opinion, mothers deserve much more credit for the life, health, and upbringing of children. At the same time, however, he knew that it was not possible for children to be given both names, so he hypothetically suggested that sons inherit the names of their fathers and daughters the names of their mothers.17 Although this section (§3.4) presents merely a few snippets from his work On the Best State, hopefully the reader can catch a glimpse of his overall thought and understand more specifically what the author of the famous exhortations actually thought concerning women, family, and marriage. It is certainly not an exaggeration to pronounce Bernard Bolzano as one of the most influential thinkers and educators in the Bohemian lands and within the entire Austrian Empire. Several thousands of students sat under his teacher’s desk and his pulpit (the most important of whom are mentioned by Marie Pavlíková in her work on Bolzano’s tenure at the University of Prague).18 His ideas thus reached the most remote corners of the earth through pupils working in various professions. Bolzano himself had no other options for pastoral activities. However, exactly because of the widespread and extensive activity of his pupils, it is impossible to allege that the Church was slumbering during the time of early industrialization. Another complex question concerns the verdicts of the Church Magisterium, which came much later and could be

44

Chapter 3

counterbalanced. Notwithstanding, it remains an open topic whether or not the verdicts of the Magisterium were delivered too late. KROMBHOLZ’S REFLECTION ON THE FAMILY BASED ON PRACTICAL PASTORAL MINISTRY The practical impact of Bolzano’s ideas has already been expressed in previous studies.19 Krombholz, who actively participated in the attempt to reform the Litoměřice Seminary, was eventually transferred Česká Lípa in 1821 and worked there until his departure to Vienna in 1849. As a parish priest, Krombholz was responsible not only for the pastoral care of the North Bohemian region, but also for the school. This was entirely within the spirit of the ideas of the Enlightenment. In a well-organized school he saw an agent and means of working against poverty. According to Krombholz’s own words, parents were not sending their children to schools, but to factories from a very early age. After Krombholz’s brief stint, the number of pupils at the school increased significantly. Krombholz wanted to adapt the local education system toward industrialization, yet it was not possible to establish a secondary school.20 So he introduced drawing, commercial arithmetic, and composition in the fourth class of the main school. Among his other activities, we could mention some that were met with a great response, not only in the region but also throughout the whole country. For example, he opened a drawing school where apprentices were trained on Sunday afternoons, and he also introduced physical education at the main school.21 In the spirit of Bolzano, Krombholz appraised women and their mission. He knew full well that the industrialization happening right before his eyes was bringing about the breakup of the family. In the extant sermons which I have partially analyzed,22 he points out that good marital life should be preserved and that the relationships of parents with their children were being threatened.23 He spoke often about the family, and according to him the happiness of a family was based upon the honor and well-being of the whole community and state.24 The heart of the family is the woman, because she is the wife, mother, and lady of the house. In a changing society, girls need to be prepared for these roles in order to face the altered social situation. The problem was that the girls only went to school when they could relax from their housework and when there was a vacancy in the schools. The situation was not favorable even in the upper classes, as the daughters of these classes rarely attended private girls’ schools, which were mostly in monasteries. This matter was not centrally resolved in Austria until after 1848. Until then, it was entirely up to the local school management to decide how to address the issue of girls’ education. It was a very consequential issue, because many large families at



Reflections on the Transformation of the Family

45

this early stage of industrialization could not cope with the demands placed on them, precisely because the girls were not prepared enough for practical life. It was therefore as an absolute exception that Krombholz opened a class for girls at the Česká Lípa primary school, where he taught religion and other subjects such as their mother tongue (in this case German), arithmetic, and the basics of technical labor. CHILD LABOR Child labor was also associated with the disintegration of the family due to industrialization. Numerous families were unable to support themselves, so children worked in textile factories in inhumane conditions for twelve or more hours a day. They mostly prepared paints that were harmful to their health and then painted on textiles. Charitably realizing that these people had no future at all since without education they would be unable to achieve anything, Krombholz organized evening classes for them at the dean’s residence, in addition to arranging a town ordinance that they could work shorter shifts and that they should attend special instructional classes in the evenings.25 Details of these activities are described in Grundl’s research,26 and it is important to note that child exploitation was not prohibited by law until 1869. We can understand the way in which Krombholz imagined the meaning of family happiness in industrial society from his sermons. I would like to draw attention here to a previous analysis of a sermon found in a collection of Marian sermons published after Krombholz’s death in 1872.27 The sermon dates back to the 1840s on the feast of the Visitation of the Virgin Mary. The sermon is rather rationalistic, as its subject matter was not the Magnificat but the happy life of the listeners. We might feel that it was not quite sufficient, but given the circumstances it had great significance for the listeners—or in any case, more than if he had just given a rationalistic exegesis of the text. That which Krombholz wanted to promote as family happiness and what he advised his listeners was truly and deeply Christian. The happiness of the home rests first and foremost upon devotion to God and upon true Christianity: Where God dwells, there his blessing also abides—but where God is not known and not worshiped, his blessing also escapes! God does not dwell in stone or wood nor in gold or possessions, but in the hearts of men: should there not be a good heart in which the Most Holy dwells, should not a man who is most intimately united with his Savior fulfill his duties?28

When a devout father and a devout mother take good care of their children in the right way, then all is in order. The godly husband maintains his

46

Chapter 3

faithfulness, the righteous steward pays attention to the honor of his home. Godly children obey the commandment to honor their parents. Krombholz said that the person who fears God avoids sin and does that which he is supposed to do. Somewhat inadequately, Krombholz referred to Mary and claimed that rational people have been God-fearing since ancient times, the same as decent and honest parents trying to raise their children well. Further, whoever sincerely loves God cannot harm his neighbors. These are altogether classic depictions of the way in which Krombholz described the situation of the wicked and touched on the effects associated with industrialization, especially the appearance of incipient atheism. He was well aware of people who thought they could live without God and without religion; he wondered, though, what the quality of such a life would actually be and concluded that the person who had lost God and the Christian faith was not only unhappy but also dangerous to other people, since such a person possesses no inhibitions or moral scruples. At the time Krombholz spoke these words from the pulpit, atheism was still considered to be an immoral conception of reality. Thus, this late Enlightenment thinker did not comprehend that the exclusivity of Christians consisted not in their morals but in their relationship to God and to Christ. KROMBHOLZ AND THE CRISIS OF THE FAMILY Domestic happiness rests upon the family hearth: everyone who belongs to the family should serve each other with honor and joy. These are again roots of the Enlightenment. “If you want to be really happy, take care of your home.”29 The next level is important, because the happiness of the family also rests on the provision of goods and material security. Here he harshly accused and denounced existing conditions. But he also discussed the question of whether some people are not themselves the cause of their own misfortune. He critiqued alcoholism, passion for gambling, and profligacy. According to Krombholz, the ultimate point of emphasis for the happiness of the family was the good Christian upbringing of children. Christian parents: if you want to create happy families, raise good children and maintain solemn Christian discipline. It seems that present-day people make a lot of mistakes here as well and are thus preparing to suffer much for it. A child will become the kind of child he is raised and taught to be—he will know that which he sees and hears, and he will accomplish that which he is guided to.30



Reflections on the Transformation of the Family

47

The preacher encouraged parents to raise their children to become wise people able to properly distinguish between good and evil; that is, good Christians and good useful members of human society. Krombholz never forgot that a person should be educated and edified not only for this world but also for eternity. Religion guides people toward eternity, and it is necessary to be taught to children in order to preserve their virtues, restore their hearts, and lead them into a better world. Again, Krombholz was entirely sensitive to the dangers of the approaching industrialization since he understood what those sources of risk meant for the people; thus, his sermon is written in a completely understandable tone with an impassioned appeal for them not to surrender their classical values. At the same time, however, Krombholz knew that their very existence was being threatened; and although he could not warn them of the specific evils that industrial society would eventually bring along with it, he did speak very urgently concerning all the specific topics which he addressed. Everyone should establish and develop the happiness of the home on godliness, the family hearth, principles, and proper child-rearing. He was undoubtedly right, but the near future would provide proof that without naming concrete dangers and warning against them, the people were not sufficiently protected. The rapid emergence of industrial society did not seem likely to lead to tense nationalism. Unfortunately, the industrialization of certain regions was associated with national struggles (at least in the second half of the nineteenth century); despite that fact, we do not find any reflections upon the situation by Krombholz. VINCENC ZAHRADNÍK: MOTIFS FROM PRACTICAL PASTORAL MINISTRY In order for our essay to offer a more comprehensive understanding (at least from the perspective of nationality), a brief glance at the family and education of the Czech thinker Vincenc Zahradník is required. Vincenc Zahradník also belongs among Bolzano’s pupils and was a colleague of Krombholz. In his time, the mastery of both provincial languages was commonplace, but Zahradník’s significance derives from the fact that he wrote mainly in Czech. He was one of the founders of the important Časopis katolického duchovenstva (Journal of the Catholic Clergy), author of a number of scholarly philosophical writings, and he also published collections of his sermons. Zahradník is in many ways an underappreciated Czech thinker. Most of the entries in Zahradník’s bibliography were written in Czech, although his pastoral activities occurred within the Germanophone environment. It is of great importance to consider how he approached the issue of the family, since his

48

Chapter 3

pastoral experience towards the rapidly spreading atheism in society was no less profound than the experiences of Krombholz. In Zahradník’s sermons we find a series of moral instructions concerning the love of parents for their children, the nature of such love, the value of parents’ love for their children, the duties and responsibilities of parents toward their children, and similar theoretical questions. However, Zahradník did not avoid addressing current problems which were directly connected with the life of society, since after all, his view of them was similar to that of Krombholz. Parents who had many children did not send them to school in due course, because they had to help their family with their means of subsistence. This was not possible, however, since the school was viewed as being virtually irreplaceable. Thus, parents who took their children out of school were acting sinfully31 and the solutions he proposed also resembled those of Krombholz. An inventory of Zahradník’s estate exists,32 and many of his works were published by František Čáda.33  Unfortunately, Čáda avoided Zahradník’s theological works, especially his studies in the Journal of the Catholic Clergy. These definitely need to be studied in more detail, and not only in terms of the Christian family and education.

THE CHURCH’S SUPERFICIAL RECOGNITION OF PROBLEMS WITHOUT SUFFICIENT REFLECTION From our brief preview into the legacy of the thought of Bolzano, Krombholz, and Zahradník, several important facts come to the surface. First of all, important theologians of that time were well aware that society was transforming in Bohemia, that industrialization was accompanied by a change in the existing relationships, that the family was exposed and subjected to societal pressures which it could not defend itself against, and that the entire fabric of society was being threatened. In addition, this new mainstream also entailed a different relationship with endangered Christianity. Further developments confirmed their fears not only in our country, but in all the countries of the monarchy and in all other rapidly industrializing countries such as Germany, France, and Britain. In many ways they acted as true pioneers, although their urgent pleading was not heard by the majority of society at the time. Most of them were not even understood their own bishops, but were regarded as revolutionaries (which in reality they never were). It was the church in the second half and especially at the end of the nineteenth century who had something to do in order to catch up pastorally with that which she had neglected at the beginning. People were by no means initially against Christianity, not even the lower working classes. These thinkers gained favor



Reflections on the Transformation of the Family

49

and popularity precisely because they “called a spade a spade” and simultaneously sought Christian solutions to the rapidly accumulating problems. Their theoretical work (especially in the case of Bolzano and Zahradník) had very little significance at that time, not being discovered until many decades later. The same applies to their sincere efforts to reform theological studies, which they attempted to carry out in the Bishop’s Seminary in Litoměřice. But their authentic pastoral approach to questions of common Christian life opened the hearts of their listeners. Bolzano had never worked in practical clerical administration, but he did address hundreds of students from various disciplines in his lectures. Both Krombholz and Zahradník had the opportunity to “test” their beliefs in practical pastoral ministry in specific parishes of the diocese of Litoměřice, in the environment of rapidly industrializing northern Bohemia, and it was demonstrated there that their convictions were right. By the end of the nineteenth century, the situation was considerably complicated in our domain by the fact that not only was rapid secularization occurring, but a rapid rise in nationalism was also materializing.34 Marxism was rapidly spreading from Western Europe into the German regions of northern Bohemia since no language barrier existed. The Church officially responded to questions related to the practical life of the Christian family in the new industrial conditions, of course, but some of these responses were substantially delayed. Unfortunately, there were also other ecclesiastical divisions which were partly caused by this late reaction in our country, with the old Catholic movement in North Bohemia cited as a transparent example.35 With some satisfaction, however, we can say that there were pastorally competent and discerning individuals who at the very beginning of industrialization tried to prevent the disintegration of the family and the loss of Christian identity. In some respects, their work is still relevant even in the difficult age of postmodernism. The main advice to be followed from their activities is entirely evident: Christians should not lament the direction in which everything else is heading, but they should be openly and faithfully committed to their tradition of addressing all of the fundamental problems of common life and the family in particular.

Chapter 4

Bolzano and the Jewish Question

BOLZANO IN A MULTINATIONAL ENVIRONMENT There is no dispute concerning Bernard Bolzano’s status as a very prominent personality of Vormärz Bohemia. His later reputation since the end of the nineteenth century rendered him one of the central figures of intellectual life, although difficulties remain in determining or establishing his identity in terms of importance: was he primarily a mathematician, a philosopher, or a theologian? We cannot address this all-intriguing question within the context of our present study. At the beginning of his studies on Bolzano, Eduard Winter proceeded to base his outstanding research on the fact that Bolzano was a Catholic priest who wanted to take seriously both faith and theological reflection within the context of his own era—in the context of the Austrian Enlightenment in which Winter designated Bolzano’s belated arrival.1 This represents an assessment with which Bolzano perhaps would agree. In the second half of the twentieth century, methods of research on Bolzano widely progressed, and it can be said that interest in Bolzano has not faded even in the new millennium. In distinction from many of the publishing projects of thinkers who were born and actively worked in our country, the publication of Bolzano’s ouevres at Fromann-Holzboog is successfully moving forward.2 Bolzano’s open relationship with the Czechs is well-known. This was not merely an “earthly patriotism” in the style of the Enlightenment as professed by aristocratic circles. Bolzano sincerely desired for the development of both nationalities and called for their equal relationship. Indeed, Bolzano’s spiritual discourses “On Love for the Homeland” and “On the Condition of the Two Nationalities in Bohemia” were published in a Czech translation as early as the second half of the nineteenth century and became the subject of scholarly interest and research on multiple occasions.3 Bolzano’s pupils (or at 51

52

Chapter 4

least a few of them) held a differentiated position and were more outspoken in terms of nationality (e.g., the German-minded Anton Krombholz).4 WAS BOLZANO AN ANTISEMITE? AN ANSWER ACCORDING TO HIS EXHORTATIONS Bolzano’s relationship with the Jews is not well-known, however, and it is certainly possible to agree with Peter Demetz that this particular theme is not one of the traditional interests of research on Bolzano.5 In fact, a lecture by Demetz on this very subject in 2010 inspired me to investigate the matter further. A slender volume was previously devoted to Bolzano’s struggle against nationalism and racism in the Beiträge zur Bolzano-Forschung series. In addition to Bolzano’s texts, it contains a previously unpublished study from the estate of Eduard Winter entitled “Bernard Bolzano and the National Question” and Bernard Kühn’s discussion on Bolzano’s struggle against nationalism and racism in Bohemia.”6 The editors of the volume E. Morscher and O. Neumaier stated in the preface that “Bolzano occasionally succumbed to anti-Semitic prejudices in the struggle against anti-Semitism,”7 an opinion with which Peter Demetz of course partially polemicizes.8 Everyone who has dealt with this issue so far should once again realize that the “edifying discourses” (Erbauungsreden)9 were not academic discourses, but university homilies which Bolzano delivered on prescribed texts for all of the university students. As a Catholic priest, of course, he did not want to come into conflict with the Church (which he ultimately did not avoid) and tried to defend her position. At the same time, however, he wanted to be open to the problems of his time and to speak into the concrete living situation of his students. Bolzano would certainly have spoken differently if he could have treated these topics in an academic manner and not from the pulpit. This was not possible, since the topics of his lectures in religious sciences were subject to approval. According to the exhorts mentioned above, it was in essence the austere failure to adhere to those themes and the independence which he exhibited from Jakob Frint’s prescribed textbook that cost Bolzano his livelihood.10 Thus, the initially determined purpose of the exhorts should in no way be overlooked or forgotten, and it should be realized that the content was necessarily limited in advance. Even so, it is quite surprising and remarkable that Bolzano remained at the University of Prague as a professor and university preacher for fifteen years.

Bolzano and the Jewish Question

53

BOLZANO’S VIEW OF THE JEWS IN HIS EXHORTATIONS There is a special exhortation devoted to the Jewish issues entitled Von den Grausamkeiten der Christen an den Juden (On the Atrocities of Christians Against the Jews) and presented on the feast of the Presentation of the Lord at the Temple on February 2nd, 1809.11 There are occasional references to the Jewish problem elsewhere in his work, but precisely because they fit into a certain cliché, nothing concrete can be inferred from them, and it would be a mistake if we attempted to do so. However, the February exhortation of 1809 deserves proper attention. Each exhortation was delivered on a specifically prescribed biblical text which corresponded to the feast days or Sundays of the liturgical year. In this case, he read and interpreted the text of the Gospel of Luke (Luke 2:22–35) concerning how Jesus as a first-born son was brought to the temple of Jerusalem to be dedicated to the Lord according to the Jewish law. Jesus and his parents met an old man named Simeon who recognized who Jesus was and foresaw his life and his significance. That text reads: When the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male shall be designated as holy to the Lord”), and they offered a sacrifice according to what is stated in the law of the Lord, “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.” Now there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon; this man was righteous and devout, looking forward to the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit rested on him. It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Messiah. Guided by the Spirit, Simeon came into the temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him what was customary under the law, Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying, “Master, now you are dismissing your servant in peace, according to your word; for my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel.” And the child’s father and mother were amazed at what was being said about him. Then Simeon blessed them and said to his mother Mary, “This child is destined for the falling and the rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be opposed so that the inner thoughts of many will be revealed—and a sword will pierce your own soul too.” (Luke 2:22–35 NRSV)

Publishers point out that Bolzano presented the text as Luke 2:22–36, although in the sermon he did not explain or read verse 36 concerning the prophetess Anna.12

54

Chapter 4

Although it was not always easy to actually preach on the texts prescribed, Bolzano did so according to a usual schematic plan customary in those days: an introduction followed by a treatise, usually consisting of a few short chapters, further divided into individual paragraphs. Of course, the biblical meaning of the text itself was quite often expressed curtly, and the meaning which Bolzano saw between the given texts and his own time was considered to be of far greater importance. From a purely formal point of view, it would also be interesting to analyze these speeches and compare how they correspond with the exegetical practices of the Enlightenment. I believe that in many cases the typical exegesis of the Enlightenment would be confirmed, but certainly not in all cases. An admirable historical analysis of the exhortations was undertaken by their publisher Kurt F. Strasser,13 but a biblical scholar should definitely still go back over them and concentrate on their specific interpretation as a part of the history of biblical interpretation. In the introduction of his exposition, Bolzano summarized the text and attempted to formulate the questions which he subsequently answered. He stated that the old man Simeon had great expectations tied to Jesus. Jesus was to save all nations, which was later confirmed. He presented this statement as a theological reproof: “The small infant which Simeon was holding in his arms grew up into that magnificent man who was the one and only among all mortal men who understood and made the exalted decision—to make an atonement for the salvation and blessedness of the whole human race.”14 Jesus became a man who revealed the light of wisdom through his teachings and whose wholesome and healthy rays spread throughout the world. The preacher stated at the outset that his teachings had also enlightened our country and that if we so choose, we too will be among those to whom his death has brought blessings. It is self-evident that Simeon also saw in Jesus primarily glory for the people of Israel. This may seem ironic in the light of what happened later, but Bolzano was aiming toward very specific questions that clearly indicate what he wanted to share with his listeners: Should we not, therefore, appreciate the people from whom the savior of all mankind came? Should we not greatly respect the nation to which the most perfect of all mortals belonged, the incarnate Son of God? These were very bold questions at the time, as was the statement that in practice the opposite was most often the case. “The dispersed descendants of Israel are not only disrespected among us, but also met with opposition in almost all countries and are unspeakably oppressed and abused.”15 Such behavior was not only perpetrated by the canaille, but also by educated people who, without any deeper thought whatsoever, imagined that all Jews were evil people and deceivers. Bolzano expressed great surprise over how much contempt the individual members of this unfortunate nation had to endure utterly innocently merely due to the fact that they were Jews. Bolzano was well aware that this had been the case

Bolzano and the Jewish Question

55

for centuries and maintained the opinion that the common God of Jews and Christians could not be pleased with it.16 He wanted to lift up his faint voice against such hateful dissension; he wanted to establish a proper view of the Jewish nation and the previous relationships with them up until now, but at the same time he sought to draw consequences or infer the repercussions for the current relationship with the Jews.17 We must realize how important this is: Bolzano was being listened to by those people into whose hands the fate of the Austrian monarchy would fall in a few years—future lawyers, doctors, and members of the high clergy.18 Therefore, he wanted to prepare for the Jews an entirely different destiny than the one which they had experienced so far. The history of the Austrian monarchy and later of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy (from 1867) indicate that Bolzano’s efforts did not come to naught, although the author of these ideas was prematurely silenced and died in 1848. At the end of the introduction of the exhortation he again showed that all of his efforts concerning this question were accomplished as a believing Christian and a priest: “I need Your assistance, O exalted Son of God, in order for me to yield such happy success! For you certainly do not wish for us to despise so deeply the people among whom you were honored to live among as a fellow citizen.”19 The introduction is followed by treatise consisting of two parts. In the first part, the author deals with how in his opinion it is necessary to consider objectively the characteristics of Jews and the widespread behavior of Christians towards them. This was a very sensitive issue at the time, as barely two to three decades had passed since the beginning of “direct government intervention in the affairs of the Jewish community and extensive social, economic, and cultural reforms”20 connected with the accession of Joseph II to the Austrian throne.21 According to Bolzano, the Israeli people have many shortcomings and often great ones at that. He saw these mistakes as a natural consequence of their harsh fate and firmly denied them as being part of their essential nature. He demonstrated the merits and virtues which they possessed and partially still maintain. He deemed the harsh attitude of Christian society toward them—an attitude religiously justified as if it were somehow part of God’s plan—to be entirely inadequate. The Jews’ “love of money” and dishonest business practices were considered a great vice. Bolzano did not want to conceal these reproaches in any way, since he was aware of them and spoke about them without reservation. He did not explain them either racially or religiously, but partially attributed them to ignorance, especially among the lower classes. These ideas contradict a right conception of the essence of virtue, God, the afterlife, and are contrary to the best religious traditions of the Israeli people. He also reiterated that the behavior of the Israeli people and their “errors” (Fehler) were directly linked with what they had experienced for centuries in all countries

56

Chapter 4

since the “unfortunate destruction of their state.”22 It is not so difficult then to understand that such vices had manifested themselves in the character of this nation. The Jews were forced out from all other professions, leaving them with only trade; subsequently, their love of money and subservience to it is not incomprehensible. High fees and taxes were levied on the Israeli people, and they had to use every honest opportunity available in order to procure financial resources. When their very livelihood was at stake, the Jews also were forced to obtain money by methods which were not entirely sincere, because Christians basically exacted it from them. Bolzano questioned: is it so unnatural to think that what these people learned to do during extreme scarcity, they then continued to do when the need vanished? In the Christian society in which Jews lived, it was considered especially pious to hate the descendants of the ancestors who had shouted, “Crucify him!” (Mark 15:13– 14), and to show them contempt and resentment even though they were weak and defenseless. These unfortunate people, even though they were honest and good, experienced only hatred—simply on the account that they were Jews. Bolzano considered it natural that the Jews lost their motivation to strive for honor and a good reputation when everything had been denied to them merely due to their lineage. If persecution was still associated with poverty and deprivation, it was not surprising in many cases to witness a moral decline as well. Bolzano also criticized the way in which Jews were prevented from being educated. They were poor people, with neither the motivation nor the wealth to sustain their teachers. He thus concluded: how could it have ended otherwise than ignorance and its companion—superstition—spreading more and more? Why, then, are we surprised that the Israeli people have so many shortcomings and such imperfections when we cultivate them ourselves? He found it incomprehensible that we were looking for the basis of these errors in the specific and peculiar nature that this people supposedly possessed, when almost everything could be explained by our own behavior towards them. Bolzano continued to oppose anti-Semitism. The claim that some of the unenviable qualities that the Jewish people allegedly exhibit stem from their essential nature is contrary to the truth. According to our preacher, “This is clearly shown to us, my friends, by the fact that Israel’s people still possess so many merits and virtues (some still now and some in former times) which no essentially corrupt nature can produce.”23 After seventeen centuries of persecution, the Jews still manifest their excellent abilities and sometimes shine like a jewel free of dust and dirt. The Jewish people are characterized by self-control, diligence, and single-minded determination even in the present time. The ignorance and superstition that we sometimes encounter with them have nothing to do with their sound judgment. Bolzano returned to a time when the Jews stood at the height of their history and emphasized their independence: there was no trace of the flaws which may perhaps come across

Bolzano and the Jewish Question

57

in them now. On the contrary: here we encounter many of their merits and virtues. In the days of David and Solomon, the people we now underestimate were the object of the attention and veneration of the entire Orient. They were a generous and courageous people who knew nothing of a petty love for money, as they were just learning about business. They were a faithful people to whom one’s word was sacred, and for failing to uphold one’s oath they punished the whole tribe by extermination. They were a valiant people who placed great weight on their honor. Pristine cleanliness could be found everywhere in public buildings and especially in the temple. Compared to other nations, the Israeli people were the most educated at the time, with a clear and explicit conception of the true nature of virtue, of God, and of man after death. Various people came from distant lands to learn the wisdom cultivated in Zion. According to Bolzano, the remnants of this scholarship were evident in old literary documents. On the whole Bolzano then logically concluded against the fanatics of his time that the people who had reached such a high degree of perfection thus demonstrated the best abilities of their inner nature. And while their present-day plight may often seem deplorable, it only aligns with those conditions which they had endured for centuries. Christians often justified their relationship with the Jews on the grounds that it was in accordance with God’s plan. God supposedly said through the prophets that he would punish the people who reject his holy ones. And that is what Christians were doing . . . punishing, and imagining that they were accomplishing God’s will. Bolzano considered this to be nonsense because it meant that Christians would therefore have to pardon those Jews who innocently condemned Jesus to death, since the condemnation was part of God’s plan after all and was also foretold by the prophets. Bolzano rightly commented: Everything that ever happens is encompassed within the providential plan of God, and nothing happens without God’s permission. Nevertheless, whatever evil a person commits against the clear dictates of his conscience will be punished by God. God makes it clearly known to us through the conscience: we should not oppress anyone, let alone a whole people, and by such oppressiveness become the cause of inequity.24

When we act in such a manner, we commit evil and it will be punished by God. Considering oneself to be an instrument in the accomplishment of divine providence is a perverse notion. We should rather respect and appreciate the people from whom Jesus was born according to the flesh. This same Jesus prayed on the cross for those who were persecuting him and did not desire their destruction. And yet for centuries Christians believed that they were somehow worshipping Christ by persecuting the Jews!

58

Chapter 4

In the second and final part of his treatise, Bolzano pondered a very serious question: how to change the current negative relationship (still a Christian reproof) of society towards the Jews? What he had presented in the first part should then lead to actual and concrete steps. He knew very well that it would not be easy at all. As he expressed it at that time, the three driving questions were: what can be done now, what can be done later, and what can be done overall to improve the conditions of the Israeli people or the Israelites? He believed that everyone could immediately contribute to alleviate the situation of Jews by changing their own mindset. He believed that our strength or ability to bring about an overall change that would affect the whole nation was actually weak. Everyone could help an individual and protect individuals from further suffering by improving their situation. He urged the listeners to consider it one of their sacred duties to zealously seize every opportunity which presented itself! The greater the injustice which Christians perpetrated against this people, the greater was Bolzano’s urgent appeal to his listeners. They should examine and even scrutinize any such evil and confront it as much as possible. They should not join those who are standing against the Jews, and they should explain the basis of the prejudices on which they are behaving. Bolzano was mindful that a raising of public awareness was in order, since it became necessary to explain the fact that certain characteristics were not conferred upon someone simply because he was born as a Jew. Who else could do this better than exactly those listeners who would worked in important professions! Jews should also experience a change in behavior towards them. Bolzano was convinced that they would respond positively to this. Everyone was encouraged to talk to everyone else “person to person.” Much good would then emerge when sparks of truth are allowed to spread and radiate. When one of the Israelites found himself in need, he should be helped, even if he was not of the Christian faith. Bolzano’s words seem perfectly normal today, but at that time they carried an emotional charge and could only entail tension within the Catholic environment. Bolzano’s reasoning led him to believe that a great deal of work still remained to be done before we could make amends for the transgressions which had been committed against this people for seventeen centuries.25 Furthermore, he was convinced that the prospects for doing even more to improve the relationship with the Jews were actually attainable: that which could not be done immediately and personally should be done indirectly through others. People need to become more cognizant of their own mistakes in order to improve. This meant that many Christians were unequivocally and sincerely convinced that their current relationship with the Jews was not unjust or sinful. Some imagined that the commandment to love did not equally apply to the same extent for both Christians and Jews. Our preacher

Bolzano and the Jewish Question

59

was also well aware that some considered it a violation of faith and free thought when Jews possessed the same rights before the state as Christians and when both were treated equally. He added that when some powerful people had dared to establish this equality through the law, they experienced great opposition. This is an obvious allusion to the resistance that Joseph II encountered and those who continued his Jewish policies. Bolzano wanted Christians to be prepared and constantly lectured concerning the change in legislation towards Jews. He wanted this to happen even before the full “reintroduction of the repressed rights of Israelites.”26 He was convinced that everyone had the possibility of being publicly educated and genuinely enlightened, some to a lesser and others to a greater extent. He also posed the question of whether or not a better relationship of his listeners towards oppressed Jews would serve as an eloquent example for Christians who witness it. He knew that such an example would be stronger and more effective than any words. In his address, however, it was indispensably important to show theoretically why it was necessary to treat Jews better. Let us thoroughly refute all objections and all opposing prejudices and clearly expose their invalidity, but above all let us clearly highlight the harmful consequences that our harsh dealing with the Israeli people produces, because it is precisely why these people remain so obstinate in their antiquated religion and do not take a subtle step from the childish faith of their forefathers to the more mature and consummate Christian religion.27

PROPER CONCLUSIONS: CONCERNS AND POSSIBILITIES FOR THE JEWS Although here Bolzano expressed himself as indeed belonging to the Age of Enlightenment, he was still shaped by the contours of Christianity. He was convinced that Christianity in its Catholic form represented the most perfect religion which was most able to lead one to virtue and blessedness.28 It is quite obvious that he appreciated the Jews, yet still he considered their “obsolete religion” to be at an imaginary stage of development. He also expressed the belief that the Jews would have converted to Christianity long ago if there had not been extreme ignorance and an excess of superstition. He blamed Christians for the development of this condition and also perceived that the hatred which Jews had against Christians was due to the fact that they had persecuted the Jews for centuries. Finally, he spoke specifically to his listeners and asked (as he was fond of doing) a rhetorical question: What would the listeners be able to do for the well-being of the Israeli people in the future when they reached a certain

60

Chapter 4

position of influence? Not only would they be able to write educational works, but they would also come to possess political influence. Within reason it is necessary to work toward the restoration of the degraded rights of the Israeli people. He emphasized—and in this he again exhibited characteristically Enlightenment thinking—that this must be done with reasonableness. Yet such conditions were not viable due to the moods and prejudices which prevailed at the time. He was aware that changes which happen unexpectedly and violently could bring forth bad consequences. In particular, he called for the establishment of better schools for Jews to increase education and open up further prospects for the nation in fields other than trade. In other words, he called on his students to help increase the social competitiveness of Jews. All of these endeavors would help Christians atone for their great guilt and remove the stain which their unchristian behavior had caused over the course of history. Somewhat more naively, he believed that the Jewish people would then rise from the ashes, see through their own blindness, and gladly accept the religion of Jesus, and “the blessed time to which Jesus was looking forward would finally draw near—where there will be only one shepherd and one flock.”29 The content of this exhortation as a whole is not easy to evaluate, although there is no doubt that the exhortation is positive and “progressive” compared to the rhetoric of the time. However, it was an address which must have had a religious aim: the acceptance of the most progressive religion in Bolzano’s eyes—Catholicism. This aim also explains Peter Demetz’s concern: why Bolzano said nothing about the new vitality of intellectuals in Jewish society, why he did not cite Moses Mendelssohn (1729–1786)30 despite familiarity with his writings, why he did not mention the doctor Jonas Jeitteles (1735–1806), a pioneer in the field of vaccination,31 and other expressions of Prague’s cultural and intellectual life.32 Nevertheless, this exhortation is an important contribution to the history of the struggle against anti-Semitism in our lands.

Chapter 5

The Theological, Philosophical, and Pedagogical Problematic of Vincenc Zahradník

ZAHRADNÍK IN THE CONTEXT OF HIS TIMES I have mentioned the well-known personality Vincenc Zahradník more than once in the preceding chapters. Major biographies have been published by Čáda,1 Skalický,2 Pospíšil,3 and Lášek,4 but these are mostly occasional studies. Zahradník’s non-theological work was published in five volumes by František Čáda.5 However, longer or shorter excerpts from theological or practical-theological works (e.g., sermons) are also available in this anthology. The problem repeatedly arises that there is no comprehensive history of Czech theology in the nineteenth century currently available. It is understandable that since he wrote mostly in Czech, Zahradník also found himself outside the bounds of interest of foreign authors; if foreign authors mentioned him at all, they usually considered him to be a more or less insignificant epigone of Bolzano. According to the German fragments he published or his other short works, perhaps it would be possible to make a hasty judgment. However, there are a number of Czech writings that have yet to be analyzed in more depth. A notable exception is the recent work of Czech systematic theologian C. V. Pospíšil, who particularly devotes his attention to Zahradník as a theologian.6 The fact that Zahradník wrote in Czech bears great significance, since he was not only the creator or co-creator of Czech philosophical terminology, but also of theological terminology. Concerning the details of his life, we can refer to the above-mentioned studies. Within the late Enlightenment struggles and confusion, he sought fulfillment in life by becoming a teacher. He entered the Piarist order and also dutifully prepared 61

62

Chapter 5

himself for this profession. After a few years, he realized he could accomplish much more, so he left the Piarists and entered the Episcopal Seminary in Litoměřice at a young age. He graduated and in 1813 was ordained as a priest by Václav Leopold Chlumčanský (1750–1830), a prominent philosopher of the Enlightenment at the episcopal see of Litoměřice. Zahradník’s connection with this educational institution, the relationships within the Episcopal seminary, and the remarkable work of the two bishops—Chlumčanský and his successor Josef František Hurdálek—are amply described elsewhere.7 Shortly after his ordination, Zahradník worked as a spiritual director, serving as chaplain in Všejany and Křinec. Bishop Hurdálek summoned him to Litoměřice in 1815, where he alternated among the various roles entrusted to him by the bishop. He was an usher and custodian of the Episcopal Library, and in 1819 even the second secretary of the Episcopal Consistory. His career as a teacher culminated in early 1820 when he became a professor of pastoral theology, but he was later forced to leave the seminary based on an investigation and scandal which erupted in the Litoměřice Episcopal Seminary in March 1820. The investigation was conducted in the first place against Bolzano and his influence at the Litoměřice Seminary. Yet, it turned out relatively well for Zahradník, who was held in prison for only one month and was released once it was proven that he had nothing to do with the secret society Christenbund. It is worth remembering that from among the Litoměřice pedagogues, J. M. Fesl was impacted in the worst manner. He was taken to Vienna, imprisoned for a long time, and never returned to Bohemia.8 Even before Bishop Hurdálek was forced to resign from the Episcopal see of Litoměřice, he appointed Zahradník as a priest in Zubrnice in his diocese. He served there for ten years before in 1830 he asked Bishop Milde, the successor of Hurdálek, for a parish in Křešice. He wanted to be closer to the Episcopal Library in Litoměřice, and he was also able to travel better from Prague to Křešice. From 1830 until his death in 1836, he served as parish priest in Křešice,9 where he died of typhus at a young age on August 31, 1836. Zahradník did not have the same good fortune as Krombholz, who was able to continue his career after an extended break. He was also not allowed to teach and was all but prevented from applying for a teaching position in Prague or Litoměřice. However, precisely because he did not hold any public office and had only pastoral duties in his parish, he was able to write so many works. THE WORKS OF ZAHRADNÍK Čáda has compiled an inventory of these works.10 Zahradník composed about fifty works of a diverse character, mostly in the Czech language (with

The Theological, Philosophical, and Pedagogical Problemati

63

seven works written in German). Aside from an extensive introduction to Zahradník’s philosophical writings which Čáda wrote in the first part of his five-volume anthology, there is no monograph on Vincenc Zahradník. A partial inventory of his literary estate was published by Pavel Křivský11 At first glance, however, it is clear that this list would not be enough to write a larger contemporary monograph on Zahradník. Any biographer will therefore have to navigate his way through the correspondence of his colleagues and undertake a monumental heuristic task. Nevertheless, such an endeavor would certainly be worthwhile, because it would permit the illumination of a series of important connections. Such a work would not merely relate to contacts with his colleagues; above all, it would be able to clarify (for example) Zahradník’s contribution to the founding of the Journal of the Catholic Clergy in 1828. This journal was issued until the middle of the twentieth century and was for quite a long time the most significant Czech Catholic specialized periodical. Zahradník also participated in the establishment of the German-language almanac for teachers, parents and educators, which was published in Litoměřice, which will surely also need to be evaluated in the future in the pursuit of understanding the history of pedagogy. Zahradník often defended himself when he was labeled as a follower of Bolzano. It is true that he was not a direct student of Bolzano; that would have been impossible, since he never studied in Prague, though he maintained friendly relations with many Bolzanoists. However, the specific texts written by Zahradník also prove that he highly respected Bolzano. In 1818, Zahradník’s Rozjímání o některých stránkách praktické filosofie (A Contemplation on Some Aspects of Practical Philosophy) was published in the Hlasatel český (The Czech Herald).12 In reality, this essay presents an introduction to ethics. Marie Pavlíková proved that the second part of this work was actually Bolzano’s address from November 25, 1810, which was entitled Der Mensch ist zur Tugend fähig und berufen13 and translated into Czech. Another of Zahradník’s works, Pojednání o nejvyšším principu etiky (A Treatise on the Highest Principle of Ethics), bore the distinctive features of Bolzanoism and was heavily censored. During Zahradník’s lifetime, a relatively extensive ethical treatise entitled Filosofické jednání o vnitřní a zevnitřní povaze ctnosti (A Philosophical Treatise on the Inner and Outer Nature of Virtue) could not be published at all due to its Bolzanoism. The latter was published under the care of Čáda in the second volume of Zahradník’s philosophical writings.14

64

Chapter 5

THE THEOLOGY OF ZAHRADNÍK Not much research has been done concerning Zahradník’s theological production so far. It is therefore a great credit to C. V. Pospíšil that he has concentrated his attention in this direction.15 To some extent, it is also a paradox that Zahradník’s philosophical works are more popular than his theological ones. This is entirely due to Čáda. Pospíšil, who deals with Zahradník’s theology, has thus filled a noticeable gap in the professional theological literature. Surprisingly, none of the theologians in the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth century were really interested in Zahradník. In my opinion, this is because Zahradník was viewed as standing side by side with Bolzano, and Bolzano was viewed as being no less than suspicious. In 1831 Zahradník published A Short Catechism to Confirm Catholics in Their Faith, Especially for Those who Accept or Abandon the Catholic Faith.16 According to Pospíšil, it is an important publication dealing with the relationship with protestant Christians.17 At that time, no similar publication existed within Czech literature. This catechism does not explain the basic truths of the Catholic faith systematically, but shows how the Catholic and Evangelical faiths differ. At the end of this work, Zahradník called Catholics to tolerance, which was certainly unusual. In the same spirit, another of Zahradník’s works is entitled The Reasonable Garden of Good Children, Containing an Explanation of Some of the Articles of the True, Pure, and Perfect Faith of Christ.18 This is a minor work but also expresses sentiments concerning tolerance. Pospíšil recalls the words of Karel Skalický concerning the fact that when Zahradník delved into controversy between denominations, he handled it in a non-aggressive and noble manner.19 Zahradník was a practical parish priest who was concerned with spirituality. His quite extensive Catholic Prayers in the Spirit of Thomas à Kempis’s ‘The Imitation of Christ’ certainly deserves a more detailed analysis.20 In this context, it should be noted that even here Zahradník approximates Bolzano. Thomas à Kempis’s book The Imitation of Christ was one of Bernard Bolzano’s most favorite reading materials. Zahradník also demonstrated his patriotism by dealing with Czech history. There were many such authors on the Catholic side at that time. Zahradník’s writing on Jan Nepomucký did not deviate from the other productions of that period.21 This book does not provide even a glimpse of Zahradník’s understanding of Czech history, though he was also very well informed in this area (see, for example, the appearance of serious ecclesiastical studies from earlier Czech history in the Journal of the Catholic Clergy). Zahradník approached the study of the Bohemian Reformation without any prejudice, providing evidence of an inner spiritual freedom which was unique for his time. Even before František Palacký’s History of the Czech Nation in

The Theological, Philosophical, and Pedagogical Problemati

65

Bohemia and Moravia was published, Zahradník had already dealt with topics related to the Bohemian Reformation. Curiously, these works were published in the Journal of the Catholic Clergy. For example, in 1833 (vol. VI), he published the article “Kosvětlení života Jana Rokycany z rukopisu písaře Bartoše.” And then we also find within the pages of the same journal (1834, vol. VII) his “O společenství Čechů s Lutherem.” In the very next volume (1835, vol. VIII) we find the study “O upálení tří osob původem kališných. Z rukopisu Bartošova.” It is a unique testimony to the fact that he also was engaged with studying old Czech manuscripts and perhaps offers proof that his linguistic skills in Czech were more highly developed than those of his contemporaries. In addition, Palacký’s edition of the Old Czech Annals was published in 1829,22 and there is no doubt that Zahradník must have known and studied its contents. C. V. Pospíšil has conducted thorough searches in the Journal of the Catholic Clergy. He has found a total of seventy-nine items associated with Zahradník’s name,23 though most of them are reviews. However, we can also find separate articles which are sometimes longer. For example, we mention the following: “On Purgatory” (1829), “The Excellence of the Doctrine of Angels” (1829), “On the Miracles of Jesus” (1830), “Mary Magdalene” (1830), “On Ecclesiastical Indulgences” (1831), “On the Great Value of Divine Revelation” (1832), “On the Union of Dogmatics with Ethics” (1832), “Catechesis on the Angel’s Greeting” (1832), “On the Value and Use of the Holy Bible” (1833), “On the Incarnation of God” (1833), “Proof of the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ by His Moral Nature” (1833), and “On Inherited Sin” (1836). Pospíšil draws attention to Zahradník’s views on the relationship between natural and revealed religion and considers them to be greatly original. He concludes that Zahradník perceived natural religion as an intellectual abstraction. Thus, Zahradník was ahead of his time, because in later theology the sharp contrast between natural and revealed religion was abandoned. He also states the opinion of Karel Skalický as evidence that Zahradník sensed with deep theological intuition what would happen in scientific development in the following century.24 Pospíšil is a specialist in the fields of trinitology and pneumatology, and the fact remains that Zahradník did not write any theoretical dogmatic works within these special disciplines. However, his views are presented in a series of collections of sermons, many of them very extensive. Because the seriousness of Trinitarian theology and pneumatology in Zahradník’s texts is of a homiletical nature, we will introduce some of them according to Pospíšil. These texts once again prove their dependence upon Bolzano, but at the same time surprise us with their dynamic approach. For example, in his

66

Chapter 5

collection Homiletical Speeches on Sundays and Feast Days, in a sermon on Pentecost, he said that the person constantly led by the Holy Spirit is much happier on earth than the perpetrator of iniquities.25 Thus, the pursuit of the common good reappears, and the one who is led by the Holy Spirit will follow this fundamental principle, which of course represents Bolzanoism. In a rather large collection of sermons entitled the Liturgical Sermons on Sundays and Feast Days,26 we find interesting views on the Trinity: The fact that God exists can be grasped or understood by the power of common sense (sensus communis). Order is found in the world as it is—everything in heaven and on earth is so advantageously established, constituted, and arranged that we must greatly marvel at it. From this excellent and unchanging order of the world, common sense concludes that only the Lord alone has made the world, and that he alone is its only ruler and governor.27

Pospíšil thereunto notes that Jirsík also proved in his dogmatics the existence of one God based on the order found in the world.28 As for the Trinity, Zahradník was of the opinion that this doctrine was redemptive and defined it as follows: The Father, the gracious and loving Father of all creatures in heaven and on earth, is our God; the almighty Father created, preserves, and governs everything for his pleasure and happiness: let us love our Father . . . the Son is also our God, and Jesus Christ—as the Son of Man and as our friend and brother—lived among us, taught us, showed us the example of peaceful perfection, and offered himself as a sacrificed for us on the cross . . . Finally, the Holy Spirit is our God, who dwells and works in the soul of every human being, and enlightens, strengthens, and inspires us toward a holy and godly life.29

Pospíšil again sees an affinity with Jirsík and concludes that Jirsík was inspired by Zahradník.30 He pauses at Zahradník’s assertion that the Holy Spirit works in every person’s heart and claims that this is related to Zahradník’s theology of revelation. From this one can postulate that even in other religions which are non-Christian, it is possible to see traces of revelation. For other opinions on this interpretation, I refer to Pospíšil. Perhaps it would be appropriate to recall the importance of Zahradník’s emphasis on the fact that the mystery of the immanent Trinity is incomprehensible to man. Zahradník also left aside the psychological analogy that was keenly used at the time. Another of Zahradník’s collections based on his priestly experience is an anthology called Twenty-Seven Sunday Sermons.31 I would like to refer again to Pospíšil’s analysis here and also specifically quote from his sermon on Pentecost:

The Theological, Philosophical, and Pedagogical Problemati

67

The Holy Spirit has benevolently exerted his influence at all times and in every nation on earth and is still actively working. Throughout the ages we find people who have been more reasonable, wiser, and nobler than others. The dregs of society on this earth have known much that is fine, true, and good introduced through human actions. Even among the pagans there have been sages at whose wit, artistic ability, and wisdom we are prone to marvel. And who would dare say that nothing good or nothing beautiful and lofty can be found in these nations and countries where the Christian faith does not yet prevail? . . . To whom then, to whom as the source should we attribute all that is true, good, and noble? To whom else other than God, namely the Holy Spirit . . . Let us also know that we can learn quite a few salutary things, even from people to whom the light of the Christian faith has not shone up until now and still does not shine, because the Holy Spirit has accomplished and does not cease to accomplish his work also in them.32

According to Pospíšil, Zahradník was almost two hundred years ahead of his time in this matter. His statements about the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of every human being and his presence in non-Christian religions are characteristic of the Second Vatican Council.33 Pospíšil reads this text in such a way as to assert that Zahradník respected heterodox dissenters and followers of non-Christian religions. Pospíšil admits the possibility of Josef Dobrovský’s influence upon Vincenc Zahradník on this issue. Because we have preserved only one text from Dobrovský which directly concerns theology, I believe that it is not entirely conclusive; and even if so, then I would see more common foundations from the Enlightenment. Despite emphasizing the general influence of the Holy Spirit, Zahradník did not place Christianity on the same level as the other religious traditions of mankind. This also coincides with contemporary ecumenical theology. It is worth pointing out, however, that Pospíšil stresses that according to Zahradník the Holy Spirit works on both the bodies and souls of present-day Christians. He infers from this that Zahradník adhered to a non-dualistic conception of man. In the same collection, his sermon on the Feast of the Most Holy Trinity is also interesting. For Zahradník, it was possible to recognize a single divine nature as the principle of the world through reason, but he adhered to the viewpoint that human reason would not arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity without revelation. According to Zahradník, the knowledge of the Trinity is the central truth of the Christian faith: “The doctrine of the tri-personal God is so linked and tied together with other doctrines of the Christian religion that those who do not accept this distinctive doctrine with a believing heart cannot be reckoned as a Christian.”34 In this point, Zahradník did not succumb to Enlightenment conceptions, since he did not reduce the mystery of God to mere functional morality. As well, he stated that the mystery of the Christian faith was certainly not against reason.

68

Chapter 5

It should be emphasized that the author of these sermons found himself in a very difficult situation. He had to explain the Trinity in a popular and yet dogmatically correct manner. Apparently, it was practical necessity that led him to explain theological categories as openly as possible, since he knew that much of what he said was contestable. He did not deny the Enlightenment, and well-being and happiness (i.e., categories of Bolzano) were constantly present. He claimed, for example, that all three persons of the Trinity strive for our well-being, and that therefore our pursuit for virtue and happiness are not merely our own, but that the Trinity also contributes to our efforts. Each person of the Trinity is an example of virtue. His views also have a vertical dimension. Just as God the Father cares for us, so we should also care for our neighbors. The Holy Spirit leads everyone to direct his or her own spirit toward gaining further and greater knowledge. I suppose these are the moments when he crosses the horizon of the Enlightenment. It is necessary to agree with Pospíšil who sees the aim of Zahradník’s scientific endeavors as being happiness for himself and for all others, which therefore involves a deeper participation in the life of the Trinity.35 Specifically, Zahradník framed it thus: Even this redounds to our benefit: that one divine person basically rests upon the other from eternity, that they are not divided, but interpenetrate each other, that the greatest unity exists among each member, that the Father begot the Son, and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and that the Father works through the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Son works by the power of the Father through the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit works through the Father and the Son, and their inner operations work are performed [inseparably]. It is a radiant image of serenity, peace, and unity—which here the reason why they reign and rule is so that every beneficial work will flourish, and every essential undertaking will reach its desired end.36

Zahradnik arrived at an application of the social analogy of the Trinity. As a theologian, Pospíšil sees Zahradník’s originality and courage in this, as Zahradník was deeply related to the current theological movement.37 Reading Zahradník’s theological texts leads us to believe that the author was going through difficult struggles concerning the Trinity. He wanted the Trinity to be reflected in ethics and spirituality. When we compare his sermons to other productions of that period, we must claim that he greatly exceeds them. It is a question as to how far or to what extent Zahradnik’s colleagues actually understood him. Although Pospíšil sees Zahradník’s definite influence on J. V. Jirsík, he must admit that not all of Zahradník’s ideas were accepted by Jirsík.38 He expressed himself carefully in the sense that he did not have the courage to project these ideas into his work. It is also possible, but it

The Theological, Philosophical, and Pedagogical Problemati

69

can also be assumed that Jirsík simply did not perceive them. At the same time, Pospíšil calls for a comparative monograph to be produced concerning Zahradník’s and Bolzano’s ideas. The task is not impossible, but does pose some difficulties. In addition to a large number of sermons, Bolzano also left behind textbooks and other minor theological texts which, however, are written in a completely different style. Of these texts, the most widely known is a textbook of religious doctrine. Pospíšil notices well that, unlike Dobrovský,39 both Zahradník and Bolzano truly considered the center of Christianity to be found in the doctrine of the Trinity. He also highlights the opinion of another theologian, the Protestant Jan Milič Lochman, who drew attention to Bolzano’s understanding of the Trinity.40 Thus Bolzano stood unquestionably on an orthodox foundation, even though he attempted original interpretations. Two problems present themselves: one methodological, another practical. In their sermons the authors do not make citations (the methodological problem), and therefore Zahradník would not have cited Bolzano. Lochman saw the similarity between Zahradník and Bolzano in that they were both reluctant to make psychological interpretations. It kept them on the fertile ground of orthodoxy, but they both had to find new processes of interpretation. It is not at all startling that they often failed to do so. Curiously enough, Zahradník was able to say far more in his sermons for ordinary people than was said in Bolzano’s lectures and university exhortations. Bolzano distinguished between natural and supernatural religion and carefully formulated the idea that elements of revelation exist even in non-Christian religions. Zahradník’s elaboration and expansion of these ideas in his sermons relates therefore to his reception of Bolzano. Similarly, Zahradník attempted to prove the divinity of Christ on the basis of Jesus’s moral character through an ascending method. Pospíšil considers this as obviously inspired by Bolzano.41 Bolzano often emphasized the completeness and fullness of Jesus’s humanity and the fact that his unique divine sonship was related to his being a morally perfect man. Christ is the one “who was destined to become the most perfect of the human race and who in reality became that person, and who therefore truly stood in union with God like no other man before or after him.”42 The dogmatic Christology of the time favored a descending model. Bolzano and Zahradník’s ascending Christology is certainly remarkable for its time, and it is no wonder that it soon earned negative attention and brought unjustified accusations of heresy toward both thinkers. Bolzano and his circle are characterized by ideas concerning the perfection of the Church; at that time they must have appeared suspicious from a perspective of orthodoxy43 even if today, official Catholic doctrine sees nothing wrong with them. Bolzano also wrote several times about the cultural

70

Chapter 5

conditionality of the statements of the Bible and the magisterial authority of the church, which was considered a very dangerous heresy at the time as well. However, I cannot share Pospíšil’s opinion that the cause of Bolzano’s problems with state authorities and the Church was due to Bolzano’s views expressed in the work On the Best State.44 No one was aware of the work, since it was first published in the twentieth century. If this conception of Bolzano had been known in his time, he would have been declared a heretic automatically. (His ideas concerning utopia are dealt with elsewhere, so I will focus on his conception of the family.) On the other hand, it is impossible to deny that Bolzano considered the most important goal to be moving towards the common good and well-being of every human being. Of course, he wanted public affairs to be organized in solidarity. These ideas of Bolzano were naturally appealing to Zahradník as well as Anton Krombholz. As long as these thinkers spoke in favor of a more cohesive organization of society (i.e., solidarity-based), they faced great difficulties in their time. Everyone feared the consequences of the French Revolution and the influence of the Napoleonic Wars. Despite Zahradník’s dependence on Bolzano, it must be stated that Zahradník was very original in his own right and proclaimed his ideas in Czech in a popular manner. I would like to draw attention here to two instances which in my opinion require explanation. It is well-known that on the hundredth anniversary of Bolzano’s birth, a translation of his university exhortations was published in Czech.45 This translation was well received at the time, but there is no direct evidence that Bolzano’s ideas directly appealed to Catholic modernists. Was there perhaps a fear that Bolzano was not considered to be completely orthodox? Or did the fact that Bolzano was German play a decisive role in our ethnically divided society? The second instance is the publication of Zahradník’s writings by Čáda at the beginning of the twentieth century.46 Without a doubt, Čáda recognized Zahradník’s greatness; however, he egregiously avoided most of his theological texts. It is not that he concealed them in any way; rather, he simply did not esteem them to be very important. The argument that Čáda feared censorship is hardly satisfactory. Rather, it seemed to him that Zahradník’s sermons were uninteresting and had nothing to say to Čáda’s contemporaries. If we take into account all the reform movements that were alive in the Catholic Church after the issuance of anti-modernist decrees, it is clear that Čáda was mistaken. Otherwise, for the sake of correctness, it is necessary to note that Čáda published a list of all of Zahradník’s printed works in the second volume of his anthology. There we find all of his ecclesiastical writings.47 A proper theological evaluation of Vincenc Zahradník will prove that he was an eminent thinker. Of course, more detailed analyses and more contextual research are necessary. It is still possible to agree with Pospíšil, who

The Theological, Philosophical, and Pedagogical Problemati

71

writes at the end of his study on Zahradník: “The genius of the Křešice priest appears in a slightly clearer light when we realize that in principle, with the exception of Jirsík, all those who entered on the scene of Czech Catholic theology in the following hundred and fifty years were unable to recognize the magnitude of these ideas, let alone find the courage to develop them further for the benefit of the Christian faith in our homeland.”48 THEOLOGICAL ISSUES IN OTHER WRITINGS However, we must also mention that despite all the difficulties, Zahradník was actually the best-known author of that generation, (although not for his theology, which really did not find its direct successors). Zahradník earned his renown as a writer of the Czech National Revival. In 1832, Zahradník’s Bájky was published by Špinka in Prague.49 This book was not very extensive, containing little more than a hundred pages. The collection was then gradually supplemented, because even after Zahradník’s death, a number of fables released from his estate, which were then edited collectively with the original edition at the beginning of the twentieth century. Zahradník also wrote fables and a few aphorisms in German. The representative work of Czech literature summarizing individual authors and trends of the nineteenth century afterwards offered an evaluation of his fables with these words: Zahradník’s fables are not fables for children. They are delicate jewels of rare life wisdom for mature and virtuous spirits. A philosopher who has known the vanity of human deeds and who has seen that folly and narrow-mindedness are the main motives of many actions is settling accounts with life here. Brute hedonists, self-assured simpletons, slow-witted fools, slaves to time and moments are here assailed with the sharp tips of these well-tempered bullets.50

It should be noted that these fables certainly reflected Zahradník’s long-term pastoral experience. As stated above, only a very small torso of Zahradník’s estate has been preserved. That is why Čada’s edition of his philosophical writings is so valuable. Zahradník was a very prolific writer. Even in these philosophical writings he does not renounce being a theologian, and often his philosophical views which are already formulated in more mature treatises provide insight into his theological thinking. All this will have to be analyzed in a future monograph which should be written by a theologian. There are also some mysteries with Zahradník that will remain unresolved forever. From all of Zahradník’s well-known texts and, moreover, from his letters to Karel Alois Vinařický (1803–1869), it is known that he wrote a work entitled Psychology.

72

Chapter 5

Neither the scope nor the content are even remotely known. However, we know that Zahradník was opposed to psychologizing, and especially to psychologizing religion. Only minor psychological fragments are known, which Čáda printed in the aforementioned anthology.51 Based on Čáda’s research, we know that Psychology was consigned for censorship in 1835, that it received an imprimatur, but that its censoring must have been damaging in a very coarse way. Zahradník wanted to rewrite it, but he died in 1836.52 Despite diligent research, Čáda was not able to find this text. The preserved fragments are rather isolated statements concerning the soul and body, reason, thought, the mind, and other phenomena. Since it is really impossible to get a closer look at these fragments, we will leave them aside. However, we do know that Zahradník saw no contradiction between science and faith. Reason obliges us not only to know the world around us, but also God himself. Therefore, it will be interesting to state how Zahradník understood reason in his psychological fragments: Reason is God’s foremost gift. Reason makes everything difficult easy; reason makes possible that which seems impossible to people who do not think. Without the use of reason, without careful and attentive thinking, people would not be led to pursue any task or any employment. Whoever does not have discerning and trained senses; whoever does not naturally learn quickly and truly pass judgement; whoever does not know how to take sound advice promptly, whoever does not know how to take sound advice quickly: even with the best of wills he makes quite a few human mistakes.53

Thus, reason is considered by Zahradník to be a gift of God, but understood as practical reason rather than knowledge in faith or matters relating to religion. Religious knowledge falls into the category of what he calls recondite knowledge, or a feeling of truth. According to him, man is by his nature endowed with the power by which he knows the truth without first examining or seeking it. From this careful and prudent formulation, we feel he was well aware that there is a certain knowledge in faith, but he was reluctant to place it under rational categories. Let us evaluate how he describes the whole matter: A man by his very nature (with its magnificent worth) is endowed with the power to know the truth before he has investigated it and searched for it; he may know the truth before he has reasons for it; he may possess the full and complete certainty that something is the truth even though it might be a delusion, whereas this power does not tell us the conditions why this truth would be false and erroneous. This excellent, golden power of the soul is called recondite knowledge or the sense of truth, and it especially then reveals itself effectively when we want to see what we should do and what other people should do to us.54

The Theological, Philosophical, and Pedagogical Problemati

73

A very impressive work of Vincenc Zahradník even in relation to Christianity and theology is his logic. This manuscript entitled Počátkové umění myslitelství (The Origins of the Art of Thinking) was never published by Zahradník during his lifetime, but found in the first volume of Zahradník’s writings published by Čada.55 He penned only five chapters from the originally planned text on logic, not managing to finish the final chapter. Zahradník’s logic should be assessed by an expert in logic; again we will concern ourselves here with determining what possible relation his Zahradník’s logic had with his understanding of Christianity and theology. Zahradník described this logic as a result of his own reflections on it. He was certainly familiar with the logic of Antonin Marek (1785–1877) and Bolzano’s logical studies. František Čáda states that Zahradník was definitely also influenced by scholastic logic and believes that he knew the works of Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) and Wilhelm Traugott Krug (1770–1842), though he did not use them as direct sources.56 The inference is that much of what he states in his logic is the result of Zahradník’s own thinking and research. As for the wording and phrasing of this logic, it is rather formal. Its great benefit, however, lies in the fact that it is written in Czech. It is remarkable that besides this composition, Zahradník did not devote any other work to logic. However, Čáda found some statements in Zahradník’s various writings that unquestionably relate to logic. These are definitions concerning the value of truth, rational discipline and its obstacles, the relationship of speech and thought, the use of well-defined words, new terms, the credibility of testimonies, and other similar matters. These propositions are also included in Zahradník’s collected philosophical writings. Religion is not directly mentioned in these statements, yet some of them can be properly employed in theology. For example, here is one of his statements about the truth: “The truth is extremely powerful and effective. Whoever has known it properly, thoroughly, and intimately acquires from it a life that is constantly being refreshed, everything difficult and arduous is made light and easy through it, and he would rather give up his health, honor, estates, freedom, and own life rather than renounce it.”57 Another interesting statement is that the known truth settles in the mind in the case when it is is confirmed by other unmistakable naturally recognized truths: “Only the known truth settles in the mind and becomes like the soul’s own flesh and blood; then the truth is known only when we see clearly with our own eyes how other certain and indubitable truths naturally follow and are related and connected with them.”58 Zahradník was a highly educated priest. Čáda tried to find Zahradník’s statements on poetry and literary criticism in his estate or in some of his printed essays. We will not respond to this field of Zahradník’s interest here, since it does not strictly belong to the realm of theology. Nevertheless, one may

74

Chapter 5

also find even in this area certain judgments and opinions that draw near to Zahradník’s personality as a theologian. In the Journal of the Catholic Clergy (vol. 8, 1835), Zahradník commented on singing hymns. He was well aware of the lengthy history of Czech Christian singing, as well as of the existence of an array of Czech hymnals. Of course, he remained silent about their denominational origins, although it is obvious that he was aware of the Bohemian Reformation tradition. Yet, naturally he also called for new songs to be created. Czech hymns in the first half of the nineteenth century presented a real problem, and this is understandable because hymns of non-Catholic origin were not tolerated in the Catholic environment at the time. Baroque creations—which were of high quality—were in short supply. Zahradník’s resounding call for the creation of new hymns and contemporary Christian songs in hymnals was heard only after his death. Zahradník wrote specifically: Our devout Czechs have always loved singing above other nations. For this reason, they have had many different printed as well as written hymnals, and exceptional singers have been found in a good many temples of the Lord. Up until this very day good Czech people love to sing, and graciously enjoy listening to how in many churches all the people sing in one sweet voice to God and his saints. But why does religious singing stop here and there or the same song repeated over and over again? The old hymnals have already partly fallen out of use, but such collections of songs which are appropriate for our times have not yet come to light.59

In the field of literature, Zahradník’s statements concerning criticism are not merely a form of literary criticism, but also involve a direct professional criticism (i.e., criticism which concerns his theological output). His views are useful and instructive in many respects for authors of theological literature today. He was well aware that evaluating books is a very important activity, though he knew that a lot of bad literature was being produced. Criticism is intended to help competent authors to become even better and make improvements in their field. False criticism also existed—a criticism which praised works that do not deserve praise at all. Everything that someone writes has its flaws and shortcomings and cannot please everyone. A good reviewer is not supposed grieve a writer, but neither should he be a traitor to the truth. That these evaluations concern not only belles lettres but also professional literature is clear from a quotation in Zahradník’s letter to Vinařický dated March 26, 1834: “I did not even dare to review Schönbeck’s homilies, for I could not have praised them in good conscience.”60 Zahradník was also involved in pedagogy as part of his pastoral work. Surprisingly, he did not limit his comments on the problems related to school

The Theological, Philosophical, and Pedagogical Problemati

75

education where he had experience in teaching religion; in his sermons, he spoke about education within the family, about parents’ love for their children, about how difficult it is for parents to raise their children, but also about children’s responsibilities toward their parents. In this area, too, Zahradník remained a faithful follower of Bolzano. His remarks are often reminiscent of those made by Krombholz. As practical spiritual shepherds, they both had to face the enormous transformation that the Christian school had undergone until that point, especially relating to problems concerning the family, which was facing the threshold of secularization. Zahradník also commented on some basic theological issues. One of these concerned the freedom of the human will, on which his thought was completely aligned with Catholic teaching on this issue. A person may desire good or evil, as confirmed by both the Bible and by human experience. A person’s rational knowledge leads him toward good or evil. At first glance, human freedom might seem like an imperfection. However, this is not the case. According to Zahradník, a person should use his free will and strive to achieve the ideal of freedom if he is to become free from evil. As well, one of the main duties of a priest is the “preening and education” of the human will. Therefore, a priest should know all of the natural qualities of man, since these qualities actually lead him to strive for virtue. At the same time, however, people often make bad choices and fall into sin. A priest should help encourage a person’s propensity to good, he should teach redemptive truths and rules of wisdom and religion, so that no one would fall into temptation. Zahradník argued here both according to church tradition (Bishop Diadochus) and using quotations from the letter of the Apostle Paul and from the Gospel of John.61 The philosophical and accompanying theological question is: how do we recognize the paths which lead to the knowledge of moral good? Here, too, Zahradník stands firmly upon his Enlightenment basis. According to him, the Christian religion is the greatest good (i.e., grace) that can be shown to people. In the lives of holy people, Christianity shows as in a mirror the inner nature of true virtue. And, of course, Jesus Christ shows the way to true virtue: “Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, taught a lofty morality and an unblemished holy fellowship by word of mouth (viva voce); yet at the same time [his words] did not remain alone, for he has also revealed by his deeds how true virtue shows its true colors and pertinently acts in all circumstances of this life.”62 Of course, the gospel also shows the way to true virtue: “The holy gospel—which reveals and describes to us its entire meaning with the most merciful and guileless simplicity—narrates with the greatest possible credibility how [Christ] acted in all circumstances, and in the same way it will never cease to serve the human race as the school of the most immaculate virtue.”63 People can also be led down the path to virtue by those who compose books on virtuous people and set them forth as examples. Our author

76

Chapter 5

therefore considered it appropriate to encourage moral conduct, and any such encouragement was almost considered sacred to him. However, he realized that there were not many true teachers of virtue, which led him to reach beyond the borders of the Enlightenment and acknowledge the necessity of a special aptitude. The proclamation of morality is congenially connected to Christ. “Only know that the healthy, radiant, vigorous teachers of morals who are nourished by the spirit of Jesus Christ and his church are rare, and that to proclaim some practical truth is not as difficult as to prove it substantially, and especially then to confirm it by inner reasons.”64 According to Zahradník, during the quest for the path of virtue a person is not left all alone, since man possesses reason; and by using reason he can actually work out how to attain those actions which he should pursue. In keeping with church tradition, Zahradník wanted everyone to reach salvation. Above all, a person should be “perfectly happy,” and according to God’s command should make other people perfectly happy as well. The role of Christ is then defined as follows: “Jesus Christ came for the salvation and for the blessedness of the whole human race, and as he himself practiced the most blessed and benevolent virtue, so he also gave the royal commandment: love your neighbor as yourself; even as you yourself are blessed, so you should also desire to show what is pleasing and beneficial to them also; whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them.”65 According to Zahradník, virtue leads to the flourishing of everything that serves people for their own good. He also questioned whether or not a person is ultimately able to pervert66 his knowledge. He answered in the negative, since he believed that God has placed within the center of every person’s soul a special judge—the conscience. He considered the conscience as a practical ingenuity or the art by which we know what is and is not right; it is the “cognitive power of the soul” by which each person judges his own actions. Zahradník further noted that the conscience is the immediate legislator and authority of every human being. The one who acts according to the best of his knowledge and conscience acts legally and nobly, while the one who contradicts the commands of his conscience commits sin. Zahradník again supported his claims from tradition and from Scripture. This solution is very modern: a person decides for himself what is right and what should lead him to salvation, not some authority that would attempt to control him. This modern and dynamic position was ultimately recognized by the Roman Catholic Church at the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965). It is also a benchmark that was decisive hundreds of years ago for Master Jan Hus: For the conscience is already the immediate rule by which man is obliged to govern and conduct his life; for everyone is judged by the scrutinizing examiner of the soul according to what he himself considers to be good irrespective of

The Theological, Philosophical, and Pedagogical Problemati

77

what other people accept as good, and he either performs or relinquishes that good; for every man has his own judgment bar inside himself, and he will give an account of himself before the Lord: therefore, let every man form, sharpen, instruct, and enliven his conscience with the utmost watchfulness and subtle effort possible.67

A good testimony can also provide us with a good way of knowing virtue. Being concerned with objectivity, Zahradník assumed that we are able to compare our knowledge with the judgment of others. A person’s reason or understanding may be overshadowed when he is guided by certain feelings and emotions. Therefore, he should take advantage of someone else’s testimony to help amend his mistaken notions. As mentioned several times above, Zahradník had great difficulties with censorship. His censored works on a larger scale certainly include his Philosophical Treatise on the Inner and Outer Nature of Virtue. The circumstances of the origin of this manuscript and the difficulties related to its censorship are depicted by Čáda, who also first published the manuscript.68 Čáda laboriously described how Zahradník made every effort for this treatise to be published. In fact, Zahradník tried to conceal his Bolzanoist perspective and disseminate the book with the meaning which was demanded by the church. Despite all the efforts of the author of this remarkable work, censorship could not be circumvented. Although a more thorough analysis of this more than hundred-page work is necessary, it would be essential to make a comparison with Bolzano first; however, a detailed comparison with Bolzano’s various definitions of virtue is quite a complicated matter. Zahradník’s philosophical treatises on virtue and blessedness have the same starting points and aims as all of Bolzano’s definitions. For both Zahradník and Bolzano, the aim of cultivating these qualities is the well-being of the whole. According to Zahradník, the completely and wholly virtuous person is “the one who not only increases the common well-being of himself and strangers, but also makes up his mind to increase such flourishing.”69 In short, it can be assumed that it was censorship which exasperated the common well-being. Next, the fact that in addition to the Catholic Enlightenment authors, Zahradník also cited Protestant authors without subjecting them to devastating criticism was obviously disconcerting. A fragment of Zahradník’s scientific work in the form of a manuscript indicates the kinds of treasures of Czech scholarly literature which have been lost. For the sake of completeness, we will at least present the conclusions from this essay. The perfect virtue of the one who acts benevolently for himself and others— and especially intends to act out of reverence and obedience to God—may be called pious virtue. In complete contrast, the one who is fully evil or the

78

Chapter 5

perfect perpetrator of vice it the one who not only attenuates and infringes upon the well-being in the world, but is even determined to diminish and obstruct well-being. Whosoever acts mischievously or harmfully, seeing that he intends to prosper, is only pursuing partial virtue; similarly, the one who wants to be harmed and destroyed, but against his own orientation and intention serves for the advantage and joy of others, is partially committing vice.70

František Čáda also attempted to compile some definitions concerning Zahradník’s view of morality. We will pay special attention here to some interesting Czech philosophical or theological terms utilized by Zahradník, since they will help us to understand his views more deeply. Regarding the relationship between dogmatics and morality, he stated: “Dogmatics determines the spheres which should be taught by lofty moral teachers. Morality is nothing more than turning dogmatics to its own advantage in thinking, customs, and human behavior (i.e., morals).”71 When Zahradník considered how the Holy Spirit assists us, he asserted that the Holy Spirit helps us to become aware of that which is our duty. The Holy Spirit shows us why we should do good and awakens within us the desire to follow and uphold the rules of virtue. According to him, the Holy Spirit does not force our will, but shows it what it should decide. The Holy Spirit draws man toward the good, but does not revoke his free will. “Even with all of the grace by which the Holy Spirit upholds his unawareness and faintheartedness, a man is still able to be foolish and evil if he wants to grieve and resist the Holy Spirit . . . thus the cause and origin of sin always lies in ourselves.”72 Zahradník’s statements concerning creation are very modern and up-to-date. Zahradník posed the rhetorical question concerning what God desires and what God accomplishes. Everything God has created has been created to redound to his joy and pleasure, and if he allows anything wrong to happen to his creatures, it is only in order to turn it into good. Elsewhere he stated that “the law of love shows us that the highest possible well-being is the noble end of all virtue, and that everyone here actually has the duty of promoting happiness in himself and in other people as much as he is able to do so.”73 Thus, the purpose of mankind’s existence is really his joy and the joy of others, and everyone should rejoice in God. Zahradník’s view on plants and animals also belongs to his theology of creation. He believed that if animals sense pain and pleasure, then creatures are related to us and we should treat them as we treat each other. According to the Scriptures, animals were entrusted to us in part for our means of subsistence; however, we should avoid allowing animals to suffer, and we should not afflict or torture them. This could still be explained in a natural way, nevertheless, since according to Zahradník, we also have obligations to herbs, trees, and inanimate nature. He said that air, fire, water, the earth and everything in it should be used in such a way as to bring about

The Theological, Philosophical, and Pedagogical Problemati

79

the greatest possible benefit for us, but at the same time we should be aware that these are also part of God’s creation. Zahradník understood that virtues can be entirely common and specifically Christian. According to him, Christian virtue is practiced by those who follow the teachings of the Christian religion.74 He knew that there were many good and pious people in the world, and he optimistically imagined that there were less bad people than good people. If a person lives morally, then he has good intentions; at the same time, however, a moral life presupposes knowledge of the good, and every action also requires deliberation and prudence. Equally interesting and instructive are the judgments that Zahradník delivers on individual virtues and duties. His statements about friendship and love do not deviate from the boundaries of the Christian tradition. Surely we will agree that true love knows no boundaries, reaches beyond the grave, and pervasively endures throughout eternity.75 He wrote that “true love finds a source of joy in itself, and since that is sufficient, it therefore asks for nothing else. The more a loving heart experiences blessedness itself, the more it can be demonstrated.”76 He also speaks of enmity; every person who is evil is an enemy of humanity. Hate and enmity are always associated with crime: “From enmity proceed rage, discord, quarrels, slander, cruelty, and murder . . . what the hostile heart feels is animosity and bitterness. Whoever is an enemy of many people cannot live in peace and joy.”77 These quotations about love provide evidence that Zahradník was a keen observer of life itself and realized what was ultimately important for mankind. REFLECTIONS ON PRACTICAL SPIRITUALITY Among a plethora of statements, those relating to devotion, faith, religion, and prayer are especially noteworthy. Zahradník believed that faith should be one of the foremost and forward-looking of our virtues. Furthermore, what we believe in our hearts should be demonstrated in our deeds. Our entire life is meant to be as pure as a mirror in which every Christian virtue is reflected. We are to live as true sons of light.78 According to him, faith was a matter of the heart, and truth and wisdom enter only into a pure heart. Surely we will also agree with his judgment that faith is given to people for “living” life, and therefore whoever believes should show it in everything he does. He rightly unites faith and love. Whoever does not have true love also does not possess true faith.79 Some of his pronouncements on faith sound straightforwardly confessional: “Let us not cease to believe that we are full of faith, but let us always be ready to give an account of our faith; let us always be ready and willing to show clearly and succinctly that we do not believe blindly, but that our faith is established upon a solid rock, and that each of us understands

80

Chapter 5

how to answer anyone who has the nerve to disparage this faith in any way whatsoever.”80 Let us not be fooled: the at times Enlightenment-influenced rhetoric does not change the fact that Zahradník unquestionably, sincerely, and genuinely believed in orthodox Christianity. We are frequently surprised by the definitions which emerge from Zahradník’s philosophical horizon; for example, that faith is nothing but a guide toward a virtuous and happy life. If we accept virtue and blessedness as the highest category for Christianity, and if we understand this Christianity in a personalized way, then there is nothing with which one should express objections. Over and over again in Zahradník’s work, the paradoxes entailed by the Christian faith rise to the surface. Sometimes our own heart rebels against faith and is not willing to tolerate it, and we would rather expel it or exempt ourselves of it. Sometimes we would like to strengthen our faith and confirm it by the faith of others: but it is we ourselves who must stand with our faith among unbelievers; we vainly keep on the lookout for the educated, the rich, the powerful, the distinguished people against whose faith we could prop up our own languishing faith. The sons of this world ridicule us as being dim-witted and empty-headed for believing, and that is the reason why I would say that we feel that we have to hide our faith.81

There are other statements which sound pointedly modern. For example, he remarked that “an enlightened and resilient faith is the greatest gift of God.” Yet in speaking about prayer, Zahradník said that prayer transforms a person’s entire way of life; prayer also has a great holistic impact on human beings, including its effects on the body’s health. ZAHRADNÍK AS AN INSPIRATION Zahradník is certainly not mistaken in all these assertions, and his preaching legacy is worth studying. Although a Christian consciousness was rapidly disappearing from the horizon at the time, he wanted nothing more than for Christianity to determine and govern all relationships within the public sphere and in the private existence of man. Thus, Zahradník should be evaluated as being much more than merely a contemporary thinker. Morality and ethical questions did not represent theoretical concerns for him. It is important, of course, that his interpretation of morality did not solely connote a decent existence and the observance of some moral norms. His ethical emphases coincide with the fact that for him morality was the result of salvation which was personally experienced. Zahradník’s Treatise on the Principle of Ethics (1829) was conceived in the same sense as well. This work, which also

The Theological, Philosophical, and Pedagogical Problemati

81

had great difficulty with censorship, culminates in the conclusion where Zahradník proves that the highest law of virtue also confirms God’s revelation. Somewhat artificially and in a fabricated manner, he proves from tradition that the Church considers only that which serves the blessedness of all believers to be “good.” This does not merely concern the evidence itself, but rather the way in which Zahradník approaches scholastic endeavors, and it is convincingly argued. In the work mentioned above, Zahradník also proved that virtue and blessedness are the highest categories in Scripture as well. Judging this work again as a whole, we can immediately see why censorship intervened. He was considered dangerous not only due to his diction borrowed from the Enlightenment, but also because in his foundations he did not privilege the previous social orders which Austria was trying to restore at that time. From what we have tried to present in this chapter, it is clear that Zahradník was a faithful follower of Bernard Bolzano, but not merely an epigone; additionally, the fact that one of his treatises is indeed a loose translation of a text by Bolzano should not change one’s assessment or appreciation of his accomplishments. Zahradník developed Bolzano’s ideas further, and in particular applied them in his articles on theoretical ethics. Another indisputable and meritorious distinction is that he wrote about life’s actual problems mostly in Czech. For this reason, he was also the creator of modern Czech theological terminology. It is also worth mentioning that some modernists who did not know about Zahradník’s legacy at the beginning of the twentieth century were seeking for a new theological language and were not inspired by Zahradník. Their search then came to naught unnecessarily, as they had to return to the classical terminology and rummage along new paths with a different method. However, this was already happening in an entirely different environment: the Catholic Church had changed and was far more incredulous toward new theological prospects. The philosophical horizon had also changed; after the condemnation of modernism, all reform thinkers faced a serious dilemma that had not yet acutely threatened Zahradník and his colleagues. They had to deal with the question of whether they would implement their reforms inside or outside of the Catholic Church. With his great intellectual legacy and his honest efforts to find a truly scientific, open, and Christian method of scientific work, Zahradník belongs as an integral part of the history of Czech theology.

Chapter 6

New Discoveries of Krombholz’s Manuscripts

THE CONDITION OF KROMBHOLZ’S MANUSCRIPTS For some time it seemed to me that in the case of Krombholz it would be impossible to discover anything new. In a best-case scenario I could hope to find the printed item which Alfred Grundl still held in his hands. Despite all my efforts in searching Czech, German, and Austrian libraries, I was unable to find a printed copy of three speeches recommending almshouses presented in Česká Lípa with the attached statutes of the local almshouse.1 They were published by the Medau publishing house, and of course there is still some hope that this printed item will be found somewhere. We can assume what the contents are; in particular the statute of the almshouse in Česká Lípa was interesting. However, the potential discovery of this published item would not represent any radical change for my research. As it happened, what I had not really dared to hope for actually came true. Based on Grundl’s data mentioned in a letter from Krombolz to Anton Jarisch (1818–1890) dated September 5, 1868, during Krombholz’s absence from Česká Lípa, all of his speeches from 1821–1848 had been loaned out somewhere and were never returned.2 I expressed my disappointment that it is difficult to expect their accidental discovery in a museum; but nevertheless these manuscripts did appear. Indeed, they had been undocumented for a long time in the National Museum in Prague and have only recently been discovered, identified, and documented. They were found among the manuscripts which came into possession of the National Museum after World War II from the Eduard Langer Library in Broumov. These manuscripts represent an immense treasure, since they practically comprise the complete collection which was borrowed from Česká Lípa in 1848! Of course, these texts must be 83

84

Chapter 6

published, but this is a sizable task that will take a substantial amount of time. Krombholz’s horrible handwriting, full of abbreviations and corrections, is a difficult challenge to decipher, and his manuscripts will certainly not be easy to edit. Although I consider the editing task to be daunting, it is certainly possible, and I hope to assume responsibility for it while also eagerly approaching the prospects of making new discoveries. At least the manuscripts have been documented in the first phase. Nevertheless, I frankly do not expect anything to appear here that would present Krombholz in a different light than the one in which he is already known. A cursory reading of several pages definitely supports this view. I do expect to find some worthwhile information which would contribute to a greater number of new facts, new views on social relationships, and interesting exegetical views. I want to introduce a wider circle of researchers to what was actually discovered and catalogued (and especially to my research on Krombholz). I believe that after deciphering and rewriting all of the manuscripts, I will be able to prepare a second edition of my previous monograph which would then serve as a complete introduction to Krombholz’s theological legacy. Perhaps some files (especially the smaller ones) will gradually be published one by one. The contents of the manuscript collection are deposited and documented under several signatures, so I will also present the individual files according to these signatures. MANUSCRIPT X C 69 Lenten Sermons of Krombholz from 1835 Bohemia, 1835, paper, 25 x 19 cm, 146 folios (new), handwritten signature (autograph); cardboard folders with individual components inserted into new cardboard folders; marked in ink on cardboard folders (perhaps by the hand of Eduard Langer)–Krombholz. Fastenpredigten 1835, Codex 264, in pencil Ms 436, III 11 L l 123, XC 69, and Ms 436; a steel engraving pasted on the back—Schlechtes Bier. Nach dem Gemälde von Hugo Kauffmann. Marked on the inside of the folders in pencil–LB XXI 366100 Krombholz, on fol 1 marked again in pencil–Ms. 436; on fol 1v a small round stamp of the National Museum in Prague, in pencil a new signature mark X C 69; on fol 134v a small round stamp of the National Museum in Prague and the accession number II–4406/83 marked with a ballpoint pen. The new signature mark X C 69 is pasted to the new folder with ribbons; the seal of the Library of the National Museum is embossed on the inside cover with the additional signature mark X C 69. According to the accession number, it is originally from the Library of Eduard Langer in Broumov.

New Discoveries of Krombholz’s Manuscripts

85

[Anton] Krombholz: Fastenpredigten 1835 Lenten sermons delivered in 1835 in the Church of Saint Mary Magdalene in Česká Lípa, with numerous corrections and marginal notes. Completely preserved sermons on all six Sundays of the Lenten season are in individual folders with the appropriate designation; the fifth and sixth sermons are given under one name. Unpublished and purportedly missing since 1848. MANUSCRIPT X C 70 Lenten Sermons of Krombholz from 1834 Bohemia, 1834, paper, 24.5 x 18.5 cm, 134 fols (new), handwritten signature (autograph); cardboard folders with individual components, inserted into new cardboard folders. Marked in ink on cardboard folders (perhaps by the hand of Eduard Langer)–Krombholz. Fastenpredigten 1834, Codex 286, in pencil Ms 435; a steel engraving pasted on the back–Ländliches Idyll. Gemälde von Hermine Biedermann-Arends; marked on the inside of the folders in pencil– LB XXI 366101 Krombholz; marked again in pencil on fol 1r–Ms. 435; on fol 1v a small round stamp of the National Museum in Prague; the new signature mark X C 70 in pencil; on fol 134v a small round stamp of the National Museum in Prague and the accession number II–4404/83 marked in ink. The new signature mark X C 70 is pasted to the new folders with ribbons; the seal of the Library of the National Museum is embossed on the inside cover with the additional signature mark X C 70. According to the accession number, it is originally from the Eduard Langer library in Broumov. [Anton] Krombholz: Fastenpredigten 1834 Lenten sermons delivered in 1834 in the Church of Saint Mary Magdalene in Česká Lípa with numerous corrections and marginal notes. Completely preserved sermons on all six Sundays of the Lenten season are in individual folders with the appropriate designation, as the seventh is appended to the sermon on Good Friday. Unpublished and purportedly missing since 1848. MANUSCRIPT X C 71 Lenten Sermons of Anton Krombholz from 1824 Bohemia, 1824, paper, 24.5 x 19.5 cm, 101 fol (new), handwritten signature (autograph); cardboard folders with individual components inserted into new

86

Chapter 6

cardboard folders; marked in ink on cardboard folders (perhaps by the hand of Eduard Langer)–5 Fastenpredigten vom Jahre 1824, Codex 332, pencil Ms 341; traces of exlibris stripped from the inside (?); on paper folders LB XXI 366104 Krombholz. On the back side is pasted a printed obituary notice of Anton Krombholz (+ 26. 2. 1869 Vienna). On fol 1r marked again in pencil– Ms. 371; on fol 1v a small round stamp of the National Museum in Prague; the new signature mark X C 71 in pencil; on fol 101v a small round stamp of the National Museum in Prague and the accession number II–4515/83 marked in ink. The new signature mark X C 71 is pasted to the new folders with ribbons, and the seal of the Library of the National Museum is embossed on the inside cover with the additional signature mark X C 71. It is originally from the Eduard Langer Library in Broumov according to the accession number. [Anton] Krombholz: Fastenpredigten Lenten sermons delivered in 1824 in the Church of Saint Mary Magdalene in Česká Lípa with numerous corrections and marginal notes. Completely preserved sermons of the second to the fifth and sixth Sunday of the Lenten season are in individual folders with the appropriate designations. Unpublished and purportedly missing since 1848. MANUSCRIPT X C 72 Lenten Sermons of Anton Krombholz from 1821 Bohemia, 1821, paper, 26 x 21 cm, 33 fol (new), one hand (autograph); bound in new cardboard folders, an embossed seal of the Library of the National Museum in Prague on the inside cover; added to the manuscripts in ink–X C 72; on fol 1r marked in pencil–B 483 195; on fol 1v a round stamp of the National Museum in Prague and in pencil–X C 72; on fol 33v a small round stamp of the National Museum in Prague and the accession number 11–4555/83 marked in ink. According to the accession number originally from the Eduard Langer Library in Broumov. • fol 1r—11r Am fünften Sonntag in der Faste. Erste Predigt, gehalten in Böhm[isch]. Leipa 1821. • fol 13r—25r Erste Fastenrede, die zweyte Predigt im Böhmisch Leippa am [. . . . ] April 1821. • fol 27r—33v Predigt am Karfreytage gehalten in Böhmisch Leippa am 19ten April 1821.

New Discoveries of Krombholz’s Manuscripts

87

Lenten sermons delivered in 1821in the Church of Saint Mary Magdalene in Česká Lípa with occasional marginal notes. Unpublished and purportedly missing since 1848. The cycle is not complete. MANUSCRIPT X C 73 Lenten Sermons of Anton Krombolz from 1846 Bohemia, 1846, paper, 27 x 21.5 cm, 102 folios (new), handwritten signature (autograph). Bound in new cardboard folders, an embossed seal of the Library of the National Museum in Prague on the inside cover; added to the manuscripts in ink–X C 73; on fol 1r marked in pencil–B 483 192; on fol 1v a round stamp of the National Museum in Prague and in pencil–X C 73; on fol 102v a small round stamp of the National Museum in Prague; the accession number 11–4556/83 marked in ink. According to the accession number, originally from the Eduard Langer Library in Broumov. A few folios are missing. • • • • • •

fol 1r—17r Erste Fastenpredigt im Jahre 1846 fol 19r—32r Zweite Fastenpredigt im 1846 fol 35r—49r Dritte Fastenpredigt 1846 fol 51r—65r Vierte Fastenpredigt 1846 fol 67r—84r Fünfte Fastenpredigt 1846. fol 87v—103v Sechste Predigt 1846.

Lenten sermons delivered in 1846 in the Church of Saint Mary Magdalene in Česká Lípa with occasional marginal notes. Unpublished and allegedly missing since 1848. These sermons have not been published and purportedly have been missing since 1848. MANUSCRIPT X C 74 Advent Sermons from 1824 by Anton Krombholz Bohemia, 1824, paper, 20 x 25.5 cm, 36 folios (new), handwritten signature (autograph). Bound in new cardboard folders, an embossed seal of the Library of the National Museum in Prague on the inside cover; added to the manuscripts in ink–X C 74; on fol 1r marked in pencil–B 483194; on fol 1v a round stamp of the National Museum in Prague and marked in pencil–X C 74; on fol 36v a small round stamp of the National Museum in Prague and the accession number 11–4557/83 marked in ink. A narrow strip inserted with

88

Chapter 6

the old signature mark Ms. 710 and III 11 L l 135. According to the accession number originally from the Eduard Langer Library in Broumov. • fol. 1r—18v Am 2ten Sonntage im Advente 1824. Johannes im Gefängnisse • fol. 19r—37v Am dritten Sonntage im Advente 1824. Johannes im Gefängnisse. Fortsetzung. Advent sermons delivered in 1846 in the Church of Saint Mary Magdalene in Česká Lípa, with occasional marginal notes. These sermons have not been published in books and have purportedly been missing since 1848. MANUSCRIPT X C 75 Advent Sermons from 1834/37 by Anton Krombholz Bohemia, 1834 (1837?), paper, 18.5 x 23.5 cm, 22 folios (new, badly bound), handwritten signature (autograph). Bound in new cardboard folders, an embossed seal of the Library of the National Museum in Prague on the inside cover; added to the manuscripts in ink–XC 75; on fol 1v a small round stamp of the National Museum in Prague and marked in pencil–XC 75; on fol 22v a small round stamp of the National Museum in Prague and the accession number II–4558/83 marked in ink. According to the accession number originally from the Eduard Langer Library in Broumov. • fols. 1r—22v Am 3ten Sonntage im Advent 1837. Vorgetragen in Böhmisch-Leipa i. J. 1834. Advent sermons delivered in 1834/37 in the Church of Saint Mary Magdalene in Česká Lípa, with occasional marginal notes. These sermons have not been published in books and have purportedly been missing since 1848. MANUSCRIPT X C 76 Advent Sermons of Anton Krombholz from 1836 Bohemia, 1836, pap., 19.5 x 25.5 cm, 14 fol (new, badly bound), handwritten signature (autograph). Bound in new cardboard folders, an embossed seal of the Library of the National Museum in Prague on the inside cover; added to the manuscripts in ink–XC 76; on fol 1v a small round stamp of the National

New Discoveries of Krombholz’s Manuscripts

89

Museum in Prague and in pencil–XC 76; on fol 14v a small round stamp of the National Museum in Prague and the accession number II-4559/83 in ink. According to the accession number originally from the Eduard Langer Library in Broumov. • fol 1r—14v Am 2ten Sonntag im Advent. Vorgetragen 1836 in Böhmisch-Leipa Advent sermons delivered in 1836 in the Church of Saint Mary Magdalene in Česká Lípa, with occasional marginal notes. These sermons have not been published in books and have purportedly been missing since 1848. MANUSCRIPT X C 77 Lenten Sermons of Anton Krombholz for 1843 Bohemia, 1843, paper, 20 x 26 cm, resp. 19.0 x 23.5 cm, 150 folios (new), unbound, individual components, handwritten signature (autograph). New cardboard folders with ribbons and the label XC 77; an embossed seal of the Library of the National Museum in Prague on the inside cover; XC 77 marked in ink; on fol 1r marked in pencil B 483193; on fol 150v a small round stamp of the National Museum in Prague; and the accession number II-4560/83 marked in ink. According to the accession number originally from the Eduard Langer Library in Broumov. • • • • • • •

fol. 1r—23r Erste Fastenpredigt 1843 fol 25r—46r Zweite Fastenpredigt 1843 fol 47r—66v Dritte Fastenpredigt 1843 fol 67r—86v Vierte Fastenpredigt 1843 fol 87r—107r Fünfte Fastenpredigt 1843 fol 109r—130v Sechste Fastenpredigt 1843 fol 131r—150r Siebente Fastenpredigt 1843

Lenten sermons delivered in 1843 in the Church of Saint Mary Magdalene in Česká Lípa, with occasional marginal notes. These sermons have not been published in books and have purportedly been missing since 1848.

90

Chapter 6

MANUSCRIPT X C 78 Speeches for Youth Studying at the Gymnasium in Česká Lípa Bohemia, 1827–47, paper, 20 x 24 cm, 255 folios, individual sections sometimes on separate folios, handwritten signature (autograph). Cardboard folders with individual components, inserted into new cardboard folders. Marked in ink on cardboard folders (perhaps by the hand of Eduard Langer)— [Krombholz] Reden an d. Studierende Jugend des böh. Leipa Gym. 1827– 1847, Codex 253, in pencil LB XX 341170; a glued label—Codex 253 or Ms 372. Glued on the new folders with ribbons is the new signature mark X C 78; the seal of the Library of the National Museum is embossed on the inside cover with the additional signature mark X C 78 added. According to the accession number, originally from the Eduard Langer Library in Broumov. • fol 1r—12v: Kurze Rede an die studierende Jugend des böhmischleipper Gymnasiums bey der Klasservorlesung der 7ten September 1827. Der studierende Jüngling in den Ferien • fol 14r—20v: Kurze Anrede an die Prämianten. • fol 21r–36v: Kurze Anrede an die studierende Jugend des böhmischleipper Gymnasiums bey der öffentlichen feyerlichen Klassenvorlesung nach geendigten Schuljahr 1828. • fol 37r–48v: Dritte Rede an die studierende Jugend der Böhmisch-Leipper Gymnasiums beym Schlusse des Schuljahres 1829 den 7ten September. Didicisse fideliter artes emollit mores, nec sinit esse feros • fol 49r–60v: Kurze Rede bey der Klassenvorlesung am Ende des Schuljahres 1830 den 6ten Aug. Wünsche und Erwähnungen an die Studirenden (a separate folder inserted with the incipit “Sie haben schön begonnen, schön geredet, ich wünsche Ihnen und ihren guten Eltern vom Herzen Glück”) • fol 61r–73v: Kurze Rede an die studierende Jugend, gehalten bey der Klassenvorlesung am Ende des Schuljahres 1831. Der Menschheit Würde ist in eure Hand gegeben, bewahret sie! Sie sinkt mit euch! mit euch wird sie sich heben! Schiller (a separate folder inserted with the incipit “Bleiben Sie samt schönem Anstalt . . . ”) • fol 75r–83r: Kurze Rede bey der Klassenvorlesung. 1832. • fol 85r–98v: Kurze Rede beym Schlusse der Klassenvorlesung am Böhm. Leipper Gymnasiums, dem 7 August 1833. • fol 99r–115v: Von der Partheyen Gunst und Haß verwirrt, schwankt sein Charakter-Bild in der Geschichte. Schiller im Prol. zu dem Piccol

New Discoveries of Krombholz’s Manuscripts

91

• fol 116r–125v: Kurze Rede bey der Klassenvorlesung im Gymnasium 1835. Jetzo fühlst du noch nichts von dem Elend, Wie grazien lacht das leben dir. Auf, und waffne dich mit Weisheit! denn, jüngling, die Blume verblüht. Klopstock! • fol 126r—137v: Kurze Rede bey der Klassenvorlesung im Jahre 1836. • fol 138r–146r: Kurze Rede bei der Klassenverlesung im Jahre 1837 den 5. August. Aufmunt[er]ung zum zur Dankbar[keit] zu edlem Vorsätz • fol 148v–161v: Kurze Rede bei der Klassenvorlesung in Leippaer Gymnasium den 6. August 1838 Uiber den hohen Werth wahrer Bildung • fol 162r–177v: Kurze Rede bei der Klassenvorlesung am Leippaer Gymnasium am Schlusse des Schuljahres 1839. Reine Sittlichkeit—der Jugend höchster Schmuck. • fol 178r–190v: Kurze Rede bei der öffentlichen Klassenvorlesung 1840. Sittlichkeit ist das wichtigste Foderniß zur wahren Bildung • fol 192r—203v: Kurze Rede bei der Klassenvorlesung am Leipper k.k. Gymnasium, den 7. August 1841. Zeig mir die Laufbahn, wo an dem fernen Ziel die Palme wehet! Klopstock, der Erlöser • fol 204r–212r: Kurze Rede bei der Klassenvorlesung im B. Leippaer Gymnasium, den 5. Aug. 1843. Wahre Bildung kann ohne sittliche Gesinnung nicht bestehen. • fol 214r–225v: Kurze Rede nach der Klassenvorlesung am k. Gymnasium zu Leippa 1844. Ermunterung zur Tugend der Herzreinigung. Sei deiner Neigungen Herr, so wirst du das Unglück beherrschen; der Schöpfer ist Huld und Liebe, nur jene sind deine Tyrannen. Kleist • fol 226r–234r: Kurze Rede gehalten bei der Klassenvorlesung den 6. August 1845. Was Gott mich gelehrt, was mir durchs Leben geholfen, / Häng ich, dankbar und fromm, hier, in dem Heiligtum auf. Todte Gruppen sind wir—wenn wir hassen - / Götter—wenn wir liebend uns umfassen! Schiller • fol 236r–245v: Kurze Rede an die Studierenden bei der Klassenvorlesung den 6. August 1846. Willst du was werden, so setze dir bei Zeiten ein edles Ziel, und strebe der Menschheit nützliche Dienste zu leisten • fol 246r–254r: Kurze Rede bei der Klassenvorlesung im Jahre 1847. Wie wohlthätig es für studierende Jüngling sey, gute Lernsziele sich vor Augen zu stellen. Der Mensch kann, was er soll; und wenn er sagt, ich kann nicht, so will er nicht. Fichte Speeches to students studying at the Gymnasium in Česká Lípa 1827–47. An important document for his pedagogical work as vice-prefect and prefect of the aforementioned institution; with numerous marginal notes. Here,

92

Chapter 6

among other things, a reference to the text of his treatise on the Wallenstein endowment of the Gymnasium in Česká Lípa (fol 98v). MANUSCRIPT X C 79 Sermons for the Season from Easter to Pentecost by Anton Krombholz Bohemia, 1822–1847, paper, 21 x 28 cm, 228 fols (new), individual sections on separate folios, handwritten (autograph). Bound in new cardboard folders; an embossed seal of the Library of the National Museum in Prague on the inside cover; added to the manuscripts in ink–XC 79; on hard cardboard folders–Codex 229, Krombholz Anton Predigten von Ostern bis Pfingsten, the remains of a label with the old signature Ms 368, LK 40 M, and 63096; a piece of paper directly inserted with the old signature Ms. 368 and III 11. Ll 113; on fol 1r the signature mark Ms. 368 is also repeated; on fol 228v a small round stamp of the Library of the National Museum and the accession number II-4573/83 in ink. According to the accession number, it is originally from the Eduard Langer Library in Broumov. • fol 1r—6v Erbauungsrede am 2ten Son[n]tage nach Ostern 1822 • fol 7r—18v Am 2ten Sonntage nach Ostern, beym Anfange des Jubiläums 1826 • fol 19r—36v Am 2ten Sonntage nach Ostern 1828 • fol 37r—52v Am 2ten Sonntage nach Ostern 1829 • fol 53r—66v Am dritten Sonntage nach Ostern 1825 • fol 67r—80v Am 3ten Sonntage nach Ostern 1831. • fol 81r—88v Frühexhorte am 3ten Sonntage nach Ostern. • fol 89r-95v Am fünften Sonntage nach Ostern 1821 • fol 96r—117v Am 5ten Sonntage nach Ostern 1827. • fol 118r—135v Am 5ten Sonntage nach Ostern 1829. • fol 136r—153v Am 5ten Sonntage nach Ostern 1834/45 • fol 153r—156v Am 6. Sonnt [ag]. nach Ostern 1847 • fol 158r—173v Am 6ten Sonntage nach Pfingsten. 1833 Maria Heimsuchung • fol 174r—193v Am Feste Kreuzfindung 1827. • fol 194r—211v Am Feste der Kreuzfindung, 4ter Sonntag nach Ostern 1833, an welchem eine Jubiläumsandacht verkündiget wurde • fol 212r—228v Am Feste Kreuzfindung 1825/1846

New Discoveries of Krombholz’s Manuscripts

93

Sermons for the season after Easter delivered during the years 1822–1847 in the Church of Saint Mary Magdalene in Česká Lípa, with occasional marginal notes. These sermons have not been published in books and have purportedly been missing since 1848. MANUSCRIPT X C 80 Marian Sermons of Anton Krombholz Bohemia, 1821–1835 (individual marginal notes 1845, 1846), paper, 19.5 x 25 cm, 318 folios (new), individual sections on separate folios; handwritten signature (autograph). Stored in a new cardboard cover with ribbons; a label in the upper lefthand corner–X C 80. Remains of the old signature mark Codex 260 (?) on the title page of the old cover, also Krombholz Marienpredigten; on fol 1v another provenance entry–Ms. 369, Cod 268, LB XXI 366 099 Krombholz; a glued strip–Ms. 369, III. 11. Ll 114; on fol 1r small round stamp of the National Museum in Prague and signature mark X C 80; on fol 318r a small round stamp of the National Museum in Prague and the accession number II-4574/83. According to the accession number, originally from the Eduard Langer Library in Broumov. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

fol 2r—20r Predigt am Feste Maria Reinigung 1822 fol 21r—38v Am Feste Mariä Reinigung 1825 fol 39r—50r Am Feste Mariä Reinigung 1831 fol 51r—70v Am Feste Mariä Lichtmeß 1839 fol 71r—88v Am Festage Mariä Empfängniß 1822 fol 89r—106r Am Festtage Mariä Empfängniß 1823 fol 107r—122v Am Festtage der unbefleckten Empfängniß der seligsten Jungfrau Marie 1829 fol 123r—142r Am Festtage der unbefleckten Empfängniß. 1832. fol 143r—156v Am Feste Mariä Empfängniß. 1835. fol 157r—174v Am Festage der unbefleckten Empfägniß der seligsten Jungfrau 1839. fol 175r—190r Am Feste der Himmelfahrt Mariae 1821. fol 191r—210v Am Festage Mariä Himmelfahrt 1822 fol 211r—234v Am Feste Mariä Him[m]elfahrt 1824 fol 235r—256v Am Feste der Him[m]elaufnahme der sel. Jungfrau 1828 fol 257r—276v Am Feste der Himmelaufnahme der seligsten Jungfrau Maria. 1829. fol 277r—296v Am Feste Maria Him[m]elfahrt 1824/45 fol 297r—318v Am Feste Mariä Him[m]elfahrt 1825/46

94

Chapter 6

Marian sermons delivered Church of Saint Mary Magdalene in Česká Lípa, with occasional marginal notes. These sermons have not been published in books and have purportedly been missing since 1848. MANUSCRIPT X C 86 Lenten Sermons of Anton Krombholz from 1826 Bohemia, 1826, pap., 19.5 x 25 cm, 156 fol (new), individual sections on separate folios; handwritten signature (autograph). Stored in a new cardboard sleeve with ribbons, a label in the upper lefthand corner—X C 86; inside the seal of the Library of the National Museum. Manuscripts with the added signature X C 86. Remains of the old signature mark Codex 246 on the title page of the old sleeve, also Krombholz 7 Fastenpredigten; on fol 1v another provenance entry–Ms 370, LB XX 341 171 Krombholz; a cardboard strip Ms. 370, III. 11. Ll 115; on fol 1r in pencil–Ms 370; on fol 1v a small round stamp of the National Museum in Prague and signature mark XC 86; on fol 154v a small round stamp of the National Museum in Prague and the accession number II0–4604. According to the accession number, originally from the Eduard Langer Library in Broumov. • • • • • • •

fol 1r—24v Erste Fastenpredigt im Jahre 1826. fol 25r—48r Zweyte Fastenpredigt im J[ahre]. 1826 fol 49r—72r Dritte Fastenpredigt im Jahre 1826. fol 73r—93v Am vierten Fastensonntage, 4te Fastenpredigt. 1826. fol 95r—114v Fünfte Fastenpredigt im Jahre 1826. fol 115r—135r Am Palmsonntage, 6te Fastenpredigt 1826 fol 137r—156v Am Charfreytage, 7te Fastenpredigt 1826.

A Lenten sermon delivered in the Church of Saint Mary Magdalene Česká Lípa, with occasional notes. These sermons have not been published in books and have allegedly been missing since 1848. OVERVIEW As one can see from this overview, this collection contains roughly 1600 pages of densely handwritten manuscripts, not always on the same kind of paper, but a certainly similar format. The sermons were recently paginated during the preservation and treatment of the manuscripts, which makes orientation much easier. At first glance, it is clear that reading them requires some

New Discoveries of Krombholz’s Manuscripts

95

philological and paleographic preparation and training. I have read some of Krombholz’s letters, have edited and translated one letter into Czech,3 and am convinced that any further research (i.e., compiling, transcribing, editing, etc.) will present a long-term and complicated task. In any case, interesting conclusions could be drawn by making a necessary comparison with Bolzano’s texts to determine whether or not Krombholz used Bolzano’s exhortations which circulated in copies among his supporters. I have complete copies of all the manuscripts on CD-ROM, which will surely facilitate the process. With the help of modern technology, unreadable places may be enlarged and deciphered more effectively. I have not yet decided on a specific methodology, but I suppose that it would probably be optimal to use the same method as the international team who are publishing Bernard Bolzano: Gesamtausgabe (The Collected Works of Bernard Bolzano). Compared to the editing of Bolzano’s texts, there will be no problem of variant readings, since neither transcriptions nor publications of Krombholz’s sermons exist.

Chapter 7

The Importance of New Research on Bolzano and His Circle

NEW INTEREST IN BOLZANO AND THE PUBLICATION OF HIS COLLECTED WORKS Interest in Bernard Bolzano and related research has greatly increased in recent decades, largely because his collected works are finally being published in Stuttgart at a fairly rapid pace.1 A critical edition of the original texts with all the variant readings is a necessary requirement without which it is impossible to engage in proper research. This comprehensive edition also initiated translations of individual Bolzano works into various national languages. However, one problem still remains: Bolzano is highly regarded as a great mathematician or alternatively as a philosopher. Inquiries into the religious aspects of his legacy are mostly conducted within the framework of philosophy with the aim of proving that Bolzano was a progressive figure who—although he professed Christianity—often exceeded it in practical matters. It is no wonder that foreign researchers think this way, but it is surprising that this view has become deeply embedded on domestic soil. After all, it is impossible to expunge Bolzano from among the leading representatives of the Bohemian Enlightenment; likewise, his theological intentions should not be denied.2 THE NECESSITY FOR A NEW EVALUATION OF THE BOHEMIAN ENLIGHTENMENT As demonstrated throughout this work, the perspective on Bolzano and the entire Bohemian Enlightenment associated with a conservative Catholic 97

98

Chapter 7

evaluation of the Enlightenment as such and especially a Czech assessment needs to be reevaluated. Not until recently have fresh and fair-minded perspectives on this important epoch of church history begun to appear. Despite the efforts of various Catholic researchers, the most common views of the Enlightenment in our country remained negative until the end of the twentieth century. I consider the reasonable and well-substantiated viewpoint of Rudolf Svoboda to be groundbreaking in this sense.3 It is only a matter of Catholic scholars being able to come to grips with and reflect upon it within the various theological disciplines. The research school centered around the former Hus Czechoslovak Theological Faculty in Prague (now the Hussite Theological Faculty of Charles University) has attempted from the very outset to point out the connections between the late Catholic Enlightenment in Bohemia and the reform movement of the Catholic clergy throughout the nineteenth century and especially at the beginning of the twentieth century, when these efforts resulted in the establishment of a new church independent of Rome.4 However, the attempt to reject Bolzano’s theological legacy is also understandable to a certain extent. The research to date has shown that many of the alleged commonalities between the late Enlightenment and radical modernists simply do not exist. Some formal agreement, such as the introduction of worship in native languages, the democratization of the church, or voluntary celibacy, still does not signify direct continuity. And these are the very features that formerly frightened Catholic researchers5 but encouraged researchers concentrated around the Czechoslovak Church (i.e., the Czechoslovak Hussite Church).6 Although quite sharply defined, both movements had reached the limits of their possibilities. The development of Catholic thought, especially after the Second Vatican Council, showed that individual disciplines cannot be preserved and that maximum openness is needed in the relation between theology and other sciences. In the case of Bolzano, this implies not trying to interpret him and his intellectual heritage from within the frameworks derived from the Council of Trent, but striving to understand that Bolzano’s attitudes were an expression of his known truth, which in no way purported to deviate from orthodoxy. However, the interpretive possibilities given by Tridentine theology were too narrow. If Bolzano declared multiple times that he remained within the positions of Christian orthodoxy, his declarations should be taken seriously. Likewise, his claims to be a Catholic should also be taken seriously because he considered Catholicism to be the most perfect religion. The problem is that he did not (nor could he) fit into the definitions of orthodoxy at that time, even though his spectacular attempt was truly a modern step. He wanted Christian theology to reflect the contemporary philosophical and practical problems which he encountered daily. Bolzano must have encountered difficulties with

The Importance of New Research on Bolzano and His Circle

99

his own language, which was much different from the theological language of Tridentine theology. For Bolzano, theology was the highest science—a kind of meta-theory intended to express the meaning and purpose of all things, which he noted several times in the first chapters of his Wissenschaftslehre (Theory of Science).7 Bolzano was therefore looking for new phrases and formulations and sought to express Christian truths differently in a manner both appropriate and adequate for his time.8 NEITHER HERETIC NOR REVOLUTIONARY Bolzano never proposed or circulated any revolutionary thesis. He strove for change within the framework of Enlightenment philosophy, and for him this meant truly prospering with the help of the highest moral law.9 Bolzano’s highest moral law was not merely a philosophical category, and the content of this law represented the universal promotion of human bliss. According to Bolzano, what is the aim of Christianity if not for man to live honestly before the face of God, to die happily, then to attain complete union with God? In this perspective, every practical truth and every duty concerning man can be deduced from the highest moral law as the universal support of blessedness. Of course, Bolzano’s own beliefs required him to remember that the church here on earth was an institution; and though he had a cruel confrontation with the church as an institution, he survived with his honor preserved, since he did not end up as an excommunicated priest. Bolzano’s moral imperative returned to the Hebrew thought of community spirit and to the ethics of early Christianity. The essence of Bolzano’s thought is not found in theoretical terms, but in this ethical imperative: “Among all possible actions, always choose the one that, all things considered, most promotes the well-being of the whole, no matter in which of its parts.”10 This is indeed a theology that in the biblical sense seeks universal salvation. The problem was interpretive, because the well-being of the whole was later interpreted by Bolzano in an immanent and materialistic way, which was nevertheless a great misunderstanding. However, his entire framework suggests that Bolzano was primarily concerned with society not just as a community of people who should live contently, but who should live in communion with God. From this highest moral law and highest ethical imperative, it is then possible to deduce all of Bolzano’s practical steps which lead towards making mankind feel free, honest, and truthful before God. Bolzano’s disciples also found his highest moral law and ethical imperative appealing. Most of them were not theorists, since they had been prevented from systematically engaging in scientific and pedagogical activities. There are certainly exceptions such as Zahradník,

100

Chapter 7

but even his purely theoretical activity was a peripheral rather than central concern. He was forced to devote himself to pastoral care and write practical sermons, and it was precisely those ethical categories which created practical Bolzanoism. And practical Bolzanoism in both the Czech and German communities of Bohemia were supposed to lead to the restoration of society and the revival of Christianity. If I may use this term with all modesty, the theological school of the Czechoslovak Church also overlooked this emphasis and sought—and, naturally, also found—certain elements that are common to Bolzano and radical modernists.11 However, these are elements that can be characterized as external. Certainly, the liturgical language, democratic conditions in the church, and even possibly celibacy are important matters of concern; yet they are not the essence of either the efforts of Bolzano or radical modernists. Bolzano’s greatness lies in the fact that he recognized in due course that without external adaptations and changes to the existing ecclesiastical order, it would be impossible to accomplish the restoration of the church of that time. The essence of this renewal consisted in the creative evangelization of each person and the transformation of the whole society. Bolzano and his direct disciples lived during an era which can be described as the period of the revolutionary development of capitalism, and Bolzano realized what these new conditions meant especially for the Christian faith. His entire ministry of preaching constituted a protest against this period, and his students subsequently followed in his footsteps. It is known that there was nothing he could really do about this situation; radical modernists were actively working during a period when the cause of Christianity was almost virtually lost. The industrialization and imperial development of European states reached their peak stage after the First World War, yet radical modernists were trying hard to ensure that those who lived in this sphere would not find themselves beyond the reach of Christ and his Church. There is one comparative difference here: the people in Bolzano’s time still understood classical Christian language and were therefore able to be addressed and reached on those terms, while people in the early twentieth century were filled with deep religious skepticism and distrust. Reaching them became more and more difficult the farther they moved away from Christianity, which is why it can be said that the radical modernists performed significant tasks indeed. The term “radical modernists” designates the founding generation of the Czechoslovak Hussite Church, but it is also true that the problem of secularization was also addressed by the representatives of official Catholicism.12 It has already been noted that the so-called Bolzano Renaissance in the 1880s ended (at least in the Czech environment) without overwhelming results. One may ask whether the Czech modernist and reform movement of the Catholic clergy of that time (before and after 1907) followed

The Importance of New Research on Bolzano and His Circle

101

Bolzano—not explicitly, of course, since that would have been impossible. Not until later did some of the modernists subscribe to this tradition, albeit not in any significant way. With careful consideration and concern, Czech Catholics whose names are otherwise associated with the conservative mainstream have published a Czech translation of Winter’s excellent monograph on Bolzano.13 Literary scholar Arne Novák (1880–1939) and historian Zdeněk Kalista (1900–1982) cannot really be accused of Catholic modernism, yet the Czech edition of Winter’s text in the Akord edition in 1935 caused quite an uproar, and the book was withdrawn from distribution after a short time.14 This happened long before Winter was suspended as a Catholic priest in 1942 for an unlawful marriage. Why? Did Bolzano still seem dangerous to Czech Catholicism in the 1930s? Did Catholics associate it with modernists? The paradox is that Bolzano was never officially denounced during his lifetime (or even after). Some Czech Catholic theologians were not keen on Bolzano, but the reason for why the book met with such a negative response was not given anywhere. Generally, one assumes that Bolzano was either misunderstood (which is more than likely) in the environment of Czech neo-Thomism or indeed acted dangerously as a modernist and reformist. Nor would I underestimate the fact that Bolzano’s previously unknown utopian work On the Best State was published for the first time in the 1930s, which could have caused consternation and dismay, especially due to its affinity to some of the radical models of human society which the Catholic Church so strictly rejected.15 Bolzano’s highest moral law and ethical imperative are thus the key categories that have appealed to subsequent generations. As we saw above, Bolzano expressed these categories mainly in his university exhortations. It was precisely these exhortations which Zahradník later adopted in a modified form from Bolzano: “Man is capable of virtue and called to virtue” shows that Bolzano considered a human as a free being who should listen to and obey his conscience. The conscience instructs us that we are called to virtue by God himself. Virtue and bliss, which is the highest goal, is intellectually recognizable. Here Bolzano resorts to or falls back upon natural knowledge precisely because he believed that in a normal person the inclination for good outweighs the propensity to evil. Bolzano was convinced that by doing good deeds, one was doing what God desired of him. Despite all the philosophical contexts arising from the Enlightenment (see above), Bolzano also knew that people are not only good. A person who does not do what he knows to be good is in effect discarding virtue. If a people does not follow the highest moral law and ethical imperative, it would mean the end of humanity itself. Thus, according to him, people who do not strive for virtue are monsters. I will allow myself an interpretive parallel here again. Catholic modernists were also optimistic, though the terms they use are different; nevertheless,

102

Chapter 7

what connects the enlightened Bolzano and his circle to the modernists is the claim that every person can follow his own conscience. Modernists also believed that humans were called to good and that they were capable of doing good. Their worries lie elsewhere: they knew that the church and its theology had turned away from a vibrant faith. They knew that people had forgotten that they were created in the image of God, and that people do not seek to be perfect. However, in contrast with Bolzano, the modernists realized that the Church also had its own share of responsibility in abandoning the path for which she was created and destined.16 Bolzano would never have ventured to assert that in his day. Reflecting on Bolzano’s open relationship with different nations and nationalities shows that this, too, is an element visible in later reform movements. Bolzano also found himself in agreement with the radical modernists on one point: he was deeply convinced that life itself does not only belong to us, but that we are also called to live for others. This collective thinking is one of the elements which we also find in modernists. Modernists embarked upon their arduous journey full of difficult struggles precisely because man was not only supposed to live for himself but for others, and the whole church community was supposed to live in truth. As an Enlightenment thinker, Bolzano differed in one aspect from later generations of those who struggled for the true form of the Church and man’s place within it. Bolzano was a dedicated adherent and supporter of human progress. In this regard he remained on the ground of the Enlightenment, even with its belief that this progress would end with the decline of the world. Modernists were aware that progress meant secularization and a departure from Christ and his church. Against the Enlightenment view, human suffering would not diminish but rather increase. Bolzano neither wanted nor could concede these apocalyptic images. It is widely known how important a turning point the First World War was for both Protestant and Catholic theology. One could perhaps say that the war marked the total end of the belief in progress; however, it also meant the shaking of all Christian values. Bolzano’s vision that people would generally loathe war and not participate in it were by no means fulfilled. On the contrary, Bolzano’s theories that all people are equal and that they have the same rights have come to fruition. These political principles have been progressively implemented, but without the principles of social equality being implemented alongside these rights. They were long resisted by the church, and only later did it become clear that it would be necessary to discuss these things as well. In general, Bolzano was very progressive and even ahead of his time on social issues. If he was persuaded that everyone possesses the same right to enjoy the gifts of one’s country, then we might say that Western history has taken his side. People who egotistically advocated the viewpoint that they have certain rights due to their own

The Importance of New Research on Bolzano and His Circle

103

privileges and wealth criticized Bolzano, as well as those who believed that everything (and everyone) could be bought for money. The social views of Karel Farský indicate that similar comparisons may be drawn with Bolzano.17 These views were also proclaimed by various socialist movements who tried to interpret them without the help of Christian anthropology and Christian theology in general. Bolzano correctly argued that his views were firmly rooted in both Scripture and the life of the early church. It is simply a tragedy that the Church did not endorse these views on equality in creation. By the time she willingly became more aware of them in the twentieth century, it was too late. At least in the Czech public sphere, the struggle of modernists was strongly connected with social demands. It would be considerably short-sighted to follow the movement that perceives Bolzano as an Enlightenment heretic. Enlightenment concepts are certainly presented in his work, but their author remains safely within the boundaries of Christianity. There is another point that deserves comparison. In the second half of the twentieth century, a major transformation in the structure and organization of society occured, influencing opinions on the family, upbringing, and other related issues. There is no denying the fact that rapidly advancing secularization had the decisive word in this matter. No one in Bolzano’s circle anticipated a secularization of this magnitude and speed. Bolzano was still speaking to an indiscrete Christian society, while modernists and reformers at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries spoke to a society that was largely already secular. They were not only concerned with the salvation of mankind and their living before the face of God, but they were also trying to halt or mitigate secularization. It is regrettable that they failed to meet either of these main challenges. THE NATIONALITY OF REFORMERS AS A RESEARCH PROBLEM Czech radical Catholic modernism substantially differs from Enlightenment thinking in at least one aspect. We have already emphasized several times that Bolzano was very open when it came to different nations and nationalities. Nationalism did not matter for him at all; what really concerned him was Enlightenment equality. Unfortunately, national polarization greatly increased in the second half of the nineteenth century. As he died in 1848, Bolzano could not yet detect this development. However, some in his circle had to deal with nationalism. Although Anton Krombholz was also still an Enlightenment thinker, in the events of 1848 and in the remaining twenty years left until his death, he nevertheless exhibited his Germanness.18 Czech Catholic modernists (and especially those who later aligned with the radical

104

Chapter 7

wing) identified with the struggle of the Czech nation. They were against the Germans, something which their Enlightenment fathers and forefathers could never have approved. The problem of nationality played a very important role in modernism; it was not just a purely national issue for them, since they were treading on thin ice at the same time. Zahradník had already set foot on it, but only very marginally. Modernists had to address the issue of Bohemian ecclesiastical history. This, of course, put them at odds with the Roman Catholic Church, since the peak period of Czech church history is the Bohemian Reformation. Until the declaration of the independent Czechoslovak Church in 1920, Czech modernists were seemingly unable to speak about it; neither could they claim that the lay chalice belonged among their reform demands, since this would immediately brand them as heretics, and no one would pay attention to their theoretical views. At the same time, it should be noted that for some radical reformers, their national engagement impinged in a healthy way. On the other hand, it must be fairly stated that nationalism, while very strong at times, never completely dominated the intellectual sphere of Czech radical reformers. THE QUESTION OF CELIBACY One of the serious demands of the representatives of the Unity of the Czech Catholic Clergy in 1919 was the demand for voluntary celibacy.19 Here, too, we find some parallels with Bolzano’s views. Considering how the issue of celibacy has been addressed in the Eastern Churches, it may seem that the demand for celibacy was entirely natural. However, it was one of the points against which the Unity faced stiff opposition from Rome. Many of those who founded the new church were vilified for doing so because they wanted to get married. If we take a closer look at this problem, we see that they only asked for celibacy to be voluntary. Surprisingly, it never occurred to anyone to demand the same solution as the Eastern Church (that is, whoever was already ordained could not marry, but whoever married could still be ordained as a priest; thus, the bishops would then remain free). Bolzano also did not oppose celibacy; he said on several occasions that celibacy was primarily about being able to serve more responsibly and effectively in the church. But whoever vowed to be celibate should certainly keep his promise. With Bolzano’s high appraisal and great appreciation of the family, it is no wonder that he wondered whether celibacy might one day be remitted, adding that as long as it does exist, it is necessary not to violate it.

The Importance of New Research on Bolzano and His Circle

105

BOLZANO’S UTOPIA BEYOND THE HORIZON OF FUTURE GENERATIONS Bolzano’s On the Best State does not fit into the whole consideration of possible parallels and practicable influences. We must ask ourselves why Bolzano actually wrote this study in the first place. He knew for certain that he neither wanted to nor would be able to publish it. As mentioned above, the study aroused dismay upon its publication in 1932. In any case, the text could not have had any effect upon the Czech Catholic reform movement because it was unknown. It is interesting to investigate whether Bolzano’s view of celibacy here differs from what he expressed in published writings. Bolzano does not mention celibacy in his utopia at all, but he does say that if someone teaches that the state of virginity is superior to marriage, this prejudice should be refuted. It is worth mentioning that some of the other views expressed herein also have a parallel with Karel Farský: for example, the view that illegitimate children should be enjoy the same social privileges as legitimate children on the grounds that illegitimate children are not to blame for the sins of their parents.20 Before moving on, we must pause and examine one more question. In Czech political Catholicism before the Second World War, a movement with anti-Semitic orientations arose. It must be said that even this official Czech Catholicism was not outwardly anti-Semitic, as evidenced by some of its outstanding representatives such as Alfred Fuchs (1892–1941).21 Radical modernists barely commented on the Jewish question. OPENNESS TOWARDS THE JEWS If we compare the diverse conflicting Catholic views on Judaism in the twentieth century, we must appreciate Bolzano’s approach which genuinely and simultaneously drew upon Enlightenment and Christian thinking. Bolzano was taken aback by how often Jews were suffering simply because of their Jewishness and vehemently defended them. It is appropriate to observe that Bolzano had Jews among his followers since he taught philosophy, which was a condition for the study of other disciplines, and which Jews were allowed to study at that time. However, his exhortations in the church were not listened to by these students. When Bolzano harshly criticized some of the shortcomings of the Jews, he viewed them as a consequence of their having lived a difficult life. He firmly denied that these bad qualities somehow comprised the essence of the Jewish people. Bolzano appreciated a number of good qualities that the Jewish nation possessed, and understood the reasons for some of those bad qualities in the fact that Christian society had treated the Jews

106

Chapter 7

harshly. By no means can any appeal to Bolzano be made by anti-Semites. Bolzano, of course, was concerned by what could be done to dispel and eliminate prejudices against the Jews among the majority of society, which required the restoration of all their rights. Nevertheless, Bolzano did not deny being a Catholic priest at the same time. He considered it absolutely ideal for Jews to accept baptism and not just for them to accept the religion that was most advanced in his eyes (Catholicism). It would have been ideal if Bolzano’s properly Enlightenment stance on this issue were elevated as the norm and maintained in future generations, though we are well aware that this was not the actual case. We are confident that further comparative research in this field will certainly bring many new insights. THE NECESSITY OF PURSUING FURTHER COMPARATIVE STUDIES ON ZAHRADNÍK Further research on Vincenc Zahradník will necessarily demand an interdisciplinary analysis of all his writings. Above all, it will be desirable to analyze his vast homiletical legacy. Pospíšil performed a selective investigation of only a few writings and limited himself to the disciplines in which he is an expert: pneumatology and trinitology. Bolzano’s highest moral law and other of Bolzano’s central concepts, for example, could serve well in the search for a healthy criterion of how to proceed. We must not forget that Zahradník’s writings were widely available to Czech reformers at the beginning of the twentieth century; Čáda’s anthology naturally played a major role in making his work accessible, as did Zahradník’s collections of sermons and the Journal of the Catholic Clergy, which were also in general circulation. We must not allow ourselves to mistakenly assume that modernists did not quote Zahradník; if nothing else, they at least used his terminology, and it is surely possible to find some parallels concerning biblical interpretation. To my knowledge, Czech theological literature to date lacks a detailed treatise which would critically and factually evaluate late Enlightenment biblical studies in Bohemia. It also seems as if no one today is paying attention to the biblical interpretations of radical modernists such as Karel Farský and others. The whole issue is slighted with claims that it is a form of rationalism contingent upon and particular to that period. Of course, these interpretations are not applicable in most cases. But has anyone considered whether these were actually modernist theses which were being translated into practice or whether they deal with the influence of the late Enlightenment? Perhaps a comparison could be made according to the individual biblical texts as fixed in the Tridentine Missal. We must remember that the texts which were preached upon were assigned; this task thus seems to call for

The Importance of New Research on Bolzano and His Circle

107

a historically-oriented biblical theologian rather than a church historian. In this context, František Sušil (1804–1868) pursued exegetical work in the mid-nineteenth century, but despite extensive work done in the field of Sušil’s research,22 no one has addressed the exegetical analysis of Sušil’s multi-volume commentary on the New Testament in detail. Sušil is not a late Enlightenment thinker, however, and there appear to be no rationalistic tendencies in his work. Rather, he was more concerned with not being accused of being unorthodox. Farský’s Postils are usually described as a rationalist work or as based on modernist exegesis. However, this will need to be demonstrated or proven through concrete analyses. The central question remains as to what extent the rationalist late Enlightenment or the modern Catholic exegesis exerted an influence at that time. In addition to a secure knowledge of the history of biblical studies, research of this sort requires a solid orientation in practical theology. Superficial judgments that are not supported by textual research are of no value. Some of Zahradník’s challenges fell upon fertile ground during his lifetime. Bohemian Catholic hymnals were created throughout the nineteenth century, and as radical Bohemian modernists wanted the service to be understandable, they definitely strove for the composition of songs in the Czech language. At this point, it is possible to say that they are Zahradník’s direct successors, in the sense of assuming his intentions. On the other hand, it is hardly surprising that Zahradník did not make any attempt to create texts of the Czech or German Mass; it was strictly forbidden, and though this demand was first made by František Náhlovský in 1848, it was completely silenced thereafter.23 On this point, we thus find no parallels between Zahradník and radical Czech modernists. Yet even this finding is important and must be stated: within the Czechoslovak Church itself throughout the 1920s and 1930s we very rarely find references to late Bohemian Enlightenment thinkers, with no mention of Zahradník at all. Only much later did Miloslav Kaňák attempt a more critical approach in searching for parallels to the entire reform movement of the Czech Catholic clergy, though he does not compare certain phenomena such as methods of biblical interpretation.24 He was looking for immediate or direct demands for reform which were not only evident in the case of Zahradník, but also in the case of other clerical personalities from the first half of the nineteenth century which are not directly verifiable. With great admiration for Kaňák and his peers, it cannot be overlooked that he was primarily concerned with proving facts which would be possible to be put into practice; in fact, the new church had to struggle strenuously to justify its own existence, and there seemed to be no time for more detailed analyses and investigations. Some models were unnecessarily created and later proved to be inaccurate in light of deeper and critical research. By way of illustration: the idea gradually developed that there were two traditions within the

108

Chapter 7

Bohemian Catholic theological thought of the nineteenth century. One was described as progressive and included all those who were theologically related to the modernists, while the other was a conservative tradition which supposedly presented itself as in firm allegiance to orthodoxy and Rome. I am convinced that such a truncated division is artificial, the proof of which will be demonstrable by appealing to detailed histories of Bohemian Catholic theology in the nineteenth century—once they appear! National aspects also played a role in determining what was and what was not considered to be progressive. Without wishing to deny the importance of the national accent during this critical time, we must emphasize the burden for understanding the unity of the church. A certain division could be applied after the First Vatican Council, and some theologians could be classified as adherents and others as opponents of neo-Thomism. For others, a careful investigation could reveal some features of emerging Catholic modernism, although this process would assuredly require conscientious archival and hermeneutical research. THE COMPLEX STATE OF AFFAIRS WITHIN EXISTING RESEARCH Reflections upon nineteenth century theology which took place in the twentieth century must also be taken into account. Like any other science, theology—and to an even greater extent, church history—requires a free academic environment to function. Such an environment vanished in Czechoslovakia in 1939; yet the relations between the Catholic Church and the Czechoslovak Church between 1920 and 1939 were more confrontational than ecumenical and dialogical. We cannot say that there has been any profound positive research concerning the reform movements of nineteenth-century Catholic theology. The Czechoslovak Church did not yet have sufficient scholarly authority, and within the Catholic Church references to the Czech personalities of Bolzano’s circle especially were understood very negatively. Moreover, there is the related issue mentioned above: the negative attitude of Czech Catholicism toward the Enlightenment as such. Let us now return to the chronological context. Under the Protectorate, free research was not possible, and in the short period when democracy was perishing after 1945, there was no time for such serious topics to finally become open for exploration. What happened after 1948 was very distressing. Church history, like theology as a whole, was forced into the ghetto. Official ideology began to divide Catholics into progressive and conservative categories; and while perhaps understandable, this was certainly not justifiable. The problem was that this model was also applied to the older history of the Catholic Church, and thus to the nineteenth century. It was almost

The Importance of New Research on Bolzano and His Circle

109

impossible to speak of any form of ecumenical dialogue between theologians of different denominations and a common search for truth. The Catholic Church was virtually silent in this regard. In assessing this period, we can also cautiously say that the Czechoslovak Church—in principle and in practice—would not allow themselves to be used to unambiguously declare the purportedly progressive tendencies that were presented to them as their main tradition. However, it began to publish sources and worked hard to establish true ecumenical dialogue. We regret to say that the perspective occasionally imposed upon the Czechoslovak Church prior to its own history nonetheless appears here. When social conditions allowed, the Czechoslovak Church (renamed the Czechoslovak Hussite Church in 1971) increasingly returned to a thoroughly vigorous study of its Catholic roots. Careful research in this field is mainly represented by Zdeněk Kučera and Jan B. Lášek. While Kučera tried to positively apprehend the Catholic roots as one of the sources of this church’s contemporary systematic theology,25 Lášek as a church historian publishes specific materials about Bolzano, Náhlovský, Zahradník, and the late Catholic Enlightenment in our country in general.26 Without mentioning concrete details, one still must keep in mind that it was especially liberating for theologians of all denominations and church historians when the possibility for real ecumenical dialogue emerged after 1989 and theologians of all disciplines of the theological compendium were treated as equal researchers for the first time. This large-scale advancement is exactly what has enabled the significant development of objective studies. FURTHER RESEARCH ENGAGING THE NEW MANUSCRIPTS OF KROMBHOLZ It was within the framework of these new possibilities that my research on Anton Krombholz was conducted, and as stated above, I considered my research of Krombholz to be a closed chapter. Nevertheless, a magnificent discovery was made during the cataloging of the manuscripts of the National Museum in Prague. Sermons from 1821–1848 were found in manuscripts from the Eduard Langer Library. Although these will not present any ground-breaking changes in Krombholz’s position among the late Enlightenment thinkers in Bohemia and his relationship with Bolzano, this discovery is still very important in itself. What are these 1,600 pages of manuscript able to provide in terms of further research? As noted earlier (§6), a practicable comparison of Bolzano’s texts is feasible and the publication of these texts will also provide material for exegetical study. This task, however, exceeds the competencies of a church historian. In writing these sermons Krombholz used the prescribed texts, as did all of his colleagues engaged

110

Chapter 7

in the office of preaching. For example, it is conceivable to simply compare these texts of Bolzano with Zahradník’s sermons without an exegetical analysis, and I do not exclude the possibility of interesting discoveries being made here as well. For example, if we consider that Zahradník worked with Krombholz in the same diocese in pastoral ministry, and additionally, that they continued to meet with each other even after being removed from their offices in the Litoměřice Seminary, then it is altogether likely that they loaned sermon manuscripts to each other; or more precisely, that Krombholz could have provided exegetical material to Zahradník. The opposite would have been very difficult since it has been almost certainly proven that Krombholz’s knowledge of Czech was insufficient. Another possibility which has not been ruled out is that some of Krombholz’s letters to Zahradník (and vice versa) will turn up somewhere, probably in the estate of a third person. The fact that only a torso remains of Zahradník’s written estate should not discourage prospective researchers from looking for further letters, nor should they be dissuaded by the fact that Krombholz’s written legacy does not exist in its entirety. I assume that the answer to this question may derive from further research, not only in the Prague document collections of the PNP Literary Archive, but also from a pertinent inquiry and appropriate search for the rest of Krombholz’s estate in Vienna. If we compare Krombholz and Zahradník, then the linguistic competence of both results in a general statement that can be applied to subsequent generations of Catholic priests of Czech and German nationality: the Czechs professionally mastered the entire area throughout the nineteenth century. They spoke perfect German and were able not only to study literature from their colleagues, which was of German provenance, but they were also able to routinely read and use German literature of foreign provenance in their pastoral activities. This, of course, widely expanded their horizons. It is no coincidence that modernist ideas came to Bohemia at the end of the nineteenth century through modernist literature in German translations.27 Graduates of the Episcopal seminaries or the Faculty of Theology in Prague knew very little French and English. The German clergy were equally capable of consulting German sources, as evidenced by the relatively rapid development of the Old Catholic movement in northern Bohemia. However, it remained the rule that most German priests in Bohemia did not speak Czech; this meant, for example, that they were not able to read the absolutely prolific Czech theological production of the nineteenth century, and that they could not respond to the views expressed in individual theological disciplines.28 However, it also meant cultural alienation, as they could not read original documents of the Bohemian Christian past in the original unless they were written in German or Latin.

The Importance of New Research on Bolzano and His Circle

111

Although the Catholic Church was externally united in Bohemia, internally it was ethnically divided. There was certainly no mutual communication that would have been desirable for all sides involved; this was by no means only relegated to the realm of theology, but also applied to an entirely other cultural and political sphere. This unfortunate development continued until the bitter end of 1945. It is not at all true that most German Roman Catholic priests enlisted in the service of National Socialism. In-depth studies by Emil Valášek29 and Rudolf Grulich30 provide ample information on this matter. It is true, however, that even priests who could not be politically manipulated at the end of this tragedy were far from understanding the spiritual needs of Czech Catholic Christians. Unfortunate national developments in the second half of the nineteenth century caused the two nationalities to drift rapidly apart from each other.31 This was also reflected in the specific internal development of the church. We know that the Czech priests knew German, but Old Catholicism did not appeal to them very much after the First Vatican Council. They regarded this movement as a national German movement rather than as an effort to reform the universal church, and after all there was a lot of truth in this view. Modernism, which was not nationally bound and arose from within various language environments, eventually penetrated the Czech environment through the German language as a medium. The situation repeated itself after the founding of the Czechoslovak Church in 1920. Even so, during the first four years of their existence the founders of this church were desperately looking for someone to legitimize apostolic succession, though it could have been found naturally in light of previous developments; namely, from German Old Catholics. Later attempts in the early 1930s were again unconvincing. The life and work of Anton Krombholz was no longer known among Czech clergy at the beginning of the twentieth century. None of the protagonists of radical Czech modernism such as Matěj Pavlík (1879–1942), Gustav Adolf Procházka (1872–1942), Karel Farský, Alois Spisar,32 or František Kovář ever mentioned Krombholz. It would be possible to draw a general conclusion that Bolzano was known in these circles, but no longer among his German followers and successors. This recognition also indicates how the church was really divided internally. New findings about Krombholz can only denote that this division of the tradition of the one universal church was an artificial construction, which has already been demonstrated in my analysis of Krombholz’s printed sermons. Krombholz’s newly discovered sermons mostly concern either the seasons of Lent or Advent, the pivotal seasons of the church year. One complete set includes sermons from Easter to Pentecost from different years, sermons for students of the high school in Česká Lípa (also from different years), and finally Marian sermons. Apart from addressing various current events, these

112

Chapter 7

sermons contain a very distinct social orientation which also links Krombholz to radical reformers at the beginning of the twentieth century. At this point we do not want to assess the social situation, which was surely different seventy years later, but we would like to point out that Krombholz conceived of industrial societies and their acts of cruelty in practically the same manner as the Czech radical modernists. I am convinced that additional and more profound points of contact between them can be discovered; but even if this hope ultimately proves false, Krombholz’s social commitment alone already enables us to interconnect the two contexts. Certainly, research can promise nothing in advance, nor is it possible to draw hasty conclusions before relevant textual analyses have been carried out. Notwithstanding, one judgment can already be legitimately stated now: Krombholz undoubtedly belongs to the development and struggle of the Church for its true character in Bohemia, and the exact clarification of his special rank or position will be the subject of further research involving heuristical and hermeneutical work. PROSPECTS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH First, new manuscripts of all the authors with whom we have been engaged here may appear in the future. Their publication will certainly necessitate new analyses as new findings emerge. On the whole, however, when it comes to the orientation of individual personalities, we do not expect any major surprises. The research will be painstaking in terms of time and energy, and may not yield very astounding results; nevertheless, we should not fail to pursue this particular segment of research. Second, correspondence poses another problem. I have stated several times that in many of the late Enlightenment thinkers only the torsos of their estates have been preserved, and even these are partly unpublished. Many of the most valuable treasures are to be found in letters in the estates of third parties, most likely as part of their inheritance. The condition is also lamentable, not for the late Enlightenment thinkers themselves as much as for radical modernists. Provided the archival fonds of the founders of the Czechoslovak Hussite Church in particular are preserved, they are not only practically unpublished but also not professionally compiled. The expectation here is that their letters could contain (in addition to many facts), ideological evaluations and descriptions of their relationships to previous generations. As of yet, no one has mined through any randomly published letters from these points of view. Third, it is essential to constantly engage in a detailed comparison of texts, especially a literary and terminological comparison of Bolzano’s students and successors with the works of their teacher and master. Additional comparisons between the works of the late Enlightenment thinkers and Bohemian and

The Importance of New Research on Bolzano and His Circle

113

German modernists are also necessary, mainly with reference to a terminological and not a literary assessment. Fourth, consideration should also be given to making an exegetical and homiletical comparison. The manner in which books containing sermons were inherited and how they were used years later is obviously important, since perhaps they also exerted influence upon those reading these collections. With a certain cautiousness, in the studies presented here I have concluded that there were no forthright reform demands running like a golden thread throughout the nineteenth century until 1920. Of course, some specific phenomena performed a similar function, but these were not decisive. Thus from my vantage point, the determination of courageous priests to oppose secularization and to seek an up-to-date presentation of Christ’s message through means and in ways which people would understand is entirely crucial. This collective effort resounded among both Bohemian and German late Enlightenment thinkers, as well as among Bohemian modernists. They often tried to be original, but they basically had to follow the developments which had preceded them. More interesting and ever-expanding contexts and conclusions may arise in the future as the necessary further research is performed. At this time which is conducive to pursuing research, my profound hope is that denominational and confessional approaches will disappear and that our common past may be seen from diverse, but not irreconcilable perspectives.

Notes

FOREWORD 1. For the most complete biography of Bolzano in English providing a general overview of his life and multifaceted scholarly activities, see Paul Rusnock and Jan Šebestík, Bernard Bolzano: His Life and Work (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019). 2. Bolzano composed all of his works in German, but recent English translations of some of Bolzano’s works have been published. See Selected Writings on Ethics and Politics, trans. Rolf George and Paul Rusnock (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2007); Theory of Science, vols. 1–4, trans. Rolf George and Paul Rusnock (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014); The Mathematical Works of Bernard Bolzano, trans. and ed. Steve Russ (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006); On the Mathematical Method and Correspondence with Exner, trans. Rolf George and Paul Rusnock (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2004). 3. Bernard Bolzano, Paradoxes of the Infinite, trans. Donald A. Steele (London: Routledge, 2015). This important work has also been translated into Italian and French. See I paradossi dell’infinito, trans. Carla Sborgi (Milano: Feltrinelli, 1965); and Hourya Benis-Sinaceur, Les paradoxes de l’infini (Paris: Éd. du Seuil, 1993). 4. Bernard Bolzano, “On the Best State,” in Selected Writings on Ethics and Politics, trans. Rolf George and Paul Rusnock (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2007), 233–356. The critical edition of Von dem besten Staate is in BBGA, 2, A, 14, pp. 9–146. 5. See BBGA, Band II, A, 1–2: Moralphilosophische und theologische Schriften 1806–1825 I—in Vorbereitung; and Band II, A, 3–4: Moralphilosophische und theologische Schriften 1806–1825 II—in Vorbereitung. 6. See Sandra Lapointe, Bolzano’s Theoretical Philosophy. An Introduction (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011). 7. Bernard Bolzano, Theory of Science, 4 vols., trans. Rolf George and Paul Rusnock (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014).

115

116

Notes

8. Bernard Bolzano, Gesamtausgabe, 132 vols., eds., Eduard Winter, Jan Berg, Friedrich Kambartel, Jaromír Loužil, Edgar Morscher, and Bob van Rootselaar (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1969–). 9. See Mikuláš Teich, “Introduction,” in Bohemia in History, ed. Mikuláš Teich (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 16. 10. For several informative studies on the Czech National Revival, see Robert Auty, “Language and Society in the Czech National Revival,” The Slavonic and East European Review 35, no. 84 (1956): 241–248; Robert B. Pysent, “Resurrections of the Czech National Revival,” Central Europe, vol. 1, no. 1 (2003): 77–95; Peter Brock and H. Gordon Skilling (eds.), The Czech Renascence of the Nineteenth Century (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1970). Hugh LeCaine Agnew, Origins of the Czech National Renascence (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1993); Zdeněk V. David, Realism, Tolerance, and Liberalism in the Czech National Awakening (Washington: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2010); Joseph F. Zacek, “The Czech Enlightenment and the Czech National Revival,” Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism 10, no. 1 (1983): 17–28. See also Paul Rusnock and Jan Šebestík, Bernard Bolzano: His Life and Work, 16–20, 46–48. 11. Wolfgang Grassl, Culture of Place: An Intellectual Profile of the Premonstratensian Order (Nordhausen: Traugott Bautz, 2012). 12. Josef Haubelt, “Bolzanos Lehrer Jan Marian Mika,” in Bernard Bolzano: 1781–1848, ed. Miroslav Jauris (Praha: Univerzita Karlova, 1981), 45–60. 13. Frint came from northern Bohemia, was a representative of conservative Catholicism, and was strongly opposed to the Enlightenment. His Handbuch der Religionswissenschaft fü die Kandidaten det Philosopfie in six volumes was completed in 1824. See Ekkart Sauser, “Jakob Frint,” in Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, Band 22 (Nordhausen: Verlag Traugott Bautz, 2003), 376–378. 14. Bernard Bolzano, Erbauungsreden für Akademiker (Prag: 1813). 15. BBGA, Band II, A, 15—Band II, A, 25. 16. Marie Pavlíková, Bolzanovo působení na pražské univerzitě (Praha: Univerzita Karlova 1985). 17. For the Czech translation see Bernard Bolzano, Řeči vzdělávací k akademické mládeži, 4 vols. (Praha: Urbánek, 1882–1887). 18. See Eduard Winter, Der Bolzanoprozess. Dokumente zur Geschichte der Prager Karl-Universität in Vormärz (Brünn, München, Wien: Rudolf M. Rohrer, 1944). 19. Lebensbeschreibung des Dr. B. Bolzano mit einigen seiner ungedrucken Aufsätze und dem Bildnisse des Verfassers (Sulzbach: Seidel, 1836). It has not yet been published in Bolzano’s Gesamtausgabe, but is planned as Band I, 10. 20. Bernard Bolzano’s Schriften. Band 3: Von dem besten Staate, ed. Arnold Kowalewski (Praha: Královská česká společnost nauk, 1932). This is the first edition though the book was written in 1846. 21. Kamila Veverková, Dílo Antona Krombholze a jeho význam pro reformní teologické myšlení v Čechách (Brno: L. Marek, 2004). 22. There is no independent monograph on Fesl, but there is an extensive excursus in Seidlerová’s work on Bolzano’s political and social ideas. See Irena Seidlerová, Politické a sociální názory Bernarda Bolzana (Praha: ČSAV, 1963). Fesl’s letters to

Notes

117

Bolzano have also recently been published. See Michael Josef Fesl Briefe an Bernard Bolzano 1831–1836, eds., Otto Neumaier and Peter Michael Schenkel (Baden-Baden: Academia Verlag, 2020). 23. Leopold Lev of Thun-Hohenstein was a Czech and Austrian politician who was born in Děčín in northern Bohemia. From 1849 to 1860 he was Minister of Religious Affairs and Education of the Austrian Empire. He studied at the University of Prague after Bolzano’s deposition, but became very fond of his lectures and sermons which circulated in manuscripts. After graduating in philosophy, he continued his studies in law. 24. Bernard Bolzano, Lehrbuch der Religionswissenschaft. Ein Abdruck der Vorlesungshefte eines ehemaligen Religionslehrers an einer katholischen Universität, von einigen seiner Schüler gesammelt und herausgegeben (Sulzbach: Seidel, 1834). For the critical edition, see BBGA, Band I,6,1—Band I,8,4. 25. Lebensbeschreibung des Dr. B. Bolzano mit einigen seiner ungedrucken Aufsätze und dem Bildnisse des Verfassers (Sulzbach: Seidel, 1836). 26. Bernard Bolzano, Wissenschaftslehre. Versuch einer ausführlichen und grösstentheils neuen Darstellung der Logik mit steter Rücksicht auf deren bisherige Bearbreiter (Sulzbach: Seidel, 1837). 27. Franišek Čáda (ed.), Filosofické spisy Vincence Zahradníka, 5 vols. (Praha: Nákladem České akademie císaře Františka Josefa pro vědy, slovesnost a umění, 1907–1918). See also Bágky Vincencia Zahradnjka (W Praze: Knjžecj arcibiskupská knihtiskárna, wedenjm i nákladem Wáclawa Špinky, 1832). 28. Eduard Winter, Religion und Offenbarung in der Religionsphilosophie Bernard Bolzanos, dargestellt mit erstmaliger Heranziehung des handschriftlichen Nachlasses Bolzanos von Eduard Winter (Breslauer Studien zur historischen Theologie, Band 20) (Breslau: Müller und Seiffert, 1932). 29. Paul Rusnock and Jan Šebestík, Bernard Bolzano: His Life and Work, 60–64. 30. The founder of this group was the Czech theologian Zdeněk Kučera (1930– 2019). See Jan B. Lášek, “František Náhlovský und das Reformprogramm vom Jahre 1848 zur Erneuerung der Kirche in Bühmen (Nachdruck des Textes),” in Zdeněk Kučera and Jan B. Lášek (eds.), Modernismus—historie nebo výzva? Studie ke genezi českého katolického modernismu (Brno: L. Marek, 2002), 98–134. 31. Pavel Křivský, “Das Nachleben des Reformkatholischen Programms Franz Náhlovský’s in den späteren Reformbesterebungen der katolischen Geistlichkeit,” in Ost-West Begegnung in Österreich: Festschift für E. Winter zum 80. Geburststag, eds. Gerhard Oberkofler and Eleonore Zlabinger (Wien; Köln; Graz: Böhlau, 1976). 32. C. V. Pospíšil, “Geniální trojiční teologie a pneumatologie Vincence Zahradníka (1790–1836),” Theologická revue 81 (2010): 71–96; idem, “Úvod do trinitologie a pneumatologie Jana Valeriána Jirsíka (1798–1883),” Theologická revue 81 (2010): 97–117. 33. Rudolf Svoboda, Arnošt Konstantin Růžička: Josefinista na českobudějovickém biskupském stolci (České Budějovice: Jih, 2011); Rudolf Svoboda, Jan Valerián Jirsík: In the Service of God, Church and Country (Beiträge zur Kirchen—und Kulturgeschichte, Band 32) (Berlin: Peter Lang, 2019).

118

Notes

34. Joseph V. Talacko, “Bernard Bolzano, Czech Pioneer of Modern Mathematics,” in Czechoslovakia Past and Present, Volume 2: Essays on the Arts and Sciences, ed. Miloslav Rechcígl (Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 2019), 1655. 35. Petr Vopěnka, Podivuhodný květ českého baroka: První přednášky o teorii množin (Praha: Karolinum Press, 2013), 169–176. 36. Jonathan Luxmoore and Jolanta Babiuch, “In Search of Faith, Part 2: Charter 77 and the Return to Spiritual Values in the Czech Republic,” Religion, State and Society vol. 23, no. 3 (1995): 302. 37. Bernard Bolzano, Selected Writings on Ethics and Politics, 60. 38. See: Kamila Veverková, “K problematice studia osvícenství u nás a pramenů, týkajících se některých Bolzanových žáků,” in Duchovní a myšlenkové proměny druhé poloviny 19. století: Sborník příspěvků z vědecké konference konané na Teologické fakultě Jihočeské univerzity 23. února 2006, eds. Rudolf Svoboda, Martin Weis and Peter Zubko (České Budějovice: Jihočeská univerzita, Teologická fakulta, 2006), 27; “Etické otázky v díle Bernarda Bolzana a některých jeho žáků,” Theologická revue 79 (2008): 424–439; “Bernard Bolzano a židovská otázka,” in Šalom: pocta Bedřichu Noskovi k sedmdesátým narozeninám (Chomutov: L. Marek, 2012), 72–84; “Význam nového bádání o Bolzanovi a jeho kruhu,” Theologická revue 86 (2015): 19–35; “T. G. Masaryk a ‘zakladatelské’ rysy české etiky vědy: mezi pozitivismem a náboženstvím. Bernard Bolzano jako důležitý mezník pro pojetí vědy a etiky v 19. století,” in Wendy Drozenová et al., Etika vědy v České republice: od historických kořenů k současné bioetice, ed. (Praha: Filosofia, 2010), 28–34.

CHAPTER 1 1. See Petr Jan Vinš, “Starokatolická obec v Praze a její vztah k vznikající Církvi československé,” Theologická revue 79 (2008): 101–215; Karel Koláček, Vznik a vývoj starokatolického hnutí na území severních Čech do roku 1946 (Brno: L. Marek, 2006). 2. Rudolf Svoboda, Arnošt Konstantin Růžička: josefinista na českobudějovickém biskupském stolci (České Budějovice: Jih, 2011). 3. Ibid., 24. 4. Ibid., 25. 5. Kamila Veverková, “K problematice studia osvícenství u nás a pramenů, týkajících se některých Bolzanových žáků,” in Duchovní a myšlenkové proměny druhé poloviny 19. století: Sborník příspěvků z vědecké konference, konané na Teologické fakultě Jihočeské univerzity 23. února 2006, eds. Rudolf Svoboda, Martin Weis, and Peter Zubko (České Budějovice: Jihočeská univerzita, 2006), 25–47. 6. This term has become a standard phrase and is used by the vast majority of authors, especially after the Czech edition of the pivotal works of Eduard Winter appeared. See Eduard Winter, Tisíc let duchovního zápasu, trans. Oldřich Liška (Praha: Ladislav Kuncíř: 1940); Josefinismus a jeho dějiny: Příspěvky k duchovním dějinám Čech a Moravy 1740–1848, trans. Vladimír Soják (Praha: Jelínek, 1945).

Notes

119

7. For a somewhat broader view dealing with typology, see Fritz Valjavec, Geschichte der abendländischen Aufklärung (Wien: Herold, 1961). 8. See Rudolf Říčan, Od úsvitu reformace k dnešku: kapitol z církevních dějin řada druhá (Praha: YMCA, 1948), 248–263. 9. Vormärz (pre-March) was a period of both political and intellectual unrest which is often designated as the period between the Vienna Congress in 1815 and the March Revolution in 1848. 10. René Rémond, Náboženství a společnost v Evropě, trans. Anna Hánová (Praha: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, 2003), 10. 11. Hartmut Lehmann, Das Christentum im 20. Jahrhundert: Fragen, Probleme, Perspektiven (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012), 12–34. See also Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom. The Coming of Global Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). 12. See Bernard Bolzano 1781–1848: Studien und Quellen, eds., Werner Schuffenhauer, Eduard Winter, and Hildegard Pautsch (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1981). Bernard Bolzano, Lehrbuch der Religionswissenschaft, ein Abdruck der Vorlesungshefte eines ehemaligen Religionslehrers an einer katholischen Universität, von einigen seiner Schüler gesammelt und herausgegeben, (Sulzbach: Seidel, 1834). 13. See Eduard Winter, Bernard Bolzano a jeho kruh, trans. Zdeněk Kalista (Brno: Akord, 1935). 14. Jan Milíč Lochman evidently introduced this trend to Czech literature. See Jan Milíč Lochman, Duchovní odkaz obrození: Dobrovský, Bolzano, Kollár, Palacký: Náboženské profily (Praha: Ústřední církevní nakladatelství, 1964), 91–152. 15. See Claude Tresmontant, La crise moderniste (Paris: Seuil, 1979); Oskar Schroeder, Aufbruch und Missverständnis. Zur Geschichte der reformkatholischen Bewegung (Graz: Verlag Styria, 1969). 16. For the pioneering work in the field of Czech research in this regard, see Miloslav Kaňák, Z dějin světových zápasů na poli náboženském: Katolický modernismus (Praha: Ústřední církevní nakladatelství, 1961). See also Budoucnost modernismu? Ročenka časopisu Getsemany, eds. Ivana Dolejšová and Pavel Hradilek (Praha: Síť, 1999). 17. For Schell’s influence, see Jiří Vogel, Herman Schell, apologeta a dogmatik: dílo katolického modernisty a jeho vliv na církev československou husitskou (Brno: L. Marek, 2001). 18. The thesis concerning the relationship of modernism to previous developments in our country is confirmed by the contributions of a few experts (i.e., Jiří Kořalka, Zdeněk Kučera, and Jan Lášek). See Zdeněk Kučera and Jan Lášek, eds., Modernismus—historie nebo yýzva? Studie ke genezi českého katolického modernismu (Brno: L. Marek, 2002). 19. Augusta Smetana (1814–1851) was a Czech Hegelian philosopher and excommunicated priest. He wrote several important works in German including Die Bedeutung des gegenwärtigen Zeitalters (Prag: Friedrich Ehrlich, 1848) and Die Katastrophe oder Ausgang der Geschichte der Philosophie (Hamburg: Hoffmann & Campe, 1850).

120

Notes

20. For major works concerning Anton Krombholz, see: Eduard Winter, “Anton Krombholz,” in Sudetendeutsche Lebensbilder, vol. 3, ed. Erich Gierach (Reichenberg: Gebrüder Stiepel, 1934), 174–177; A. K. Huber, “Anton Krombholz,” in Lebensbilder zur Geschichte der böhmischen Länder, vol. 4 (München: Oldenbourg, 1981), 119–135. A. K. Huber, “Krombolz Anton,” in Österreichisches Biographisches Lexikon 1815–1950, vol. 4 (Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences, 1969), 288; Theodor Wiedemann, “Anton Krombholz Eine biographische Skizze,” in Österreichische Vierteljahresschrift für Katholische Theologie, vol. 9 (1870), 567–610; vol. 10 (1871), 21–58, 177–220; Franz Heinrich Reusch, “Krombholz Anton,” in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie., vol. 17, eds. Krabbe–Lassota (Leipzig: 1883), 184; Alfred Grundl, Anton Krombholz 1790–1869. Ein deutscher Priester und Schulogranisator aus Böhmen (Sudetendeutsches historisches Archiv, vol. 3) (Prag: Verlag der Deutschen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften und Künste für die Tschechoslowakische Republik, 1937). For a reflection on the literary works and theological thought of Anton Krombholz, see my monograph Dílo Antona Krombholze a jeho význam pro reformní teologické myšlení v Čechách (Brno: L. Marek, 2004). 21. The Reformed Catholic Eduard Winter is an absolute exception, but his professional activity actually defies any classification. Concerning Josephinism see Eduard Winter, Josefinismus a jeho dějiny. See also Hans Hollerweger, Die Reform des Gottesdienstes zur Zeit des Josephinismus in Österreich (Regensburg: Pustet, 1976). See also F. W. Maass, Der Frühjosephinismus (Wien/München: Herold, 1969). 22. Jan Milíč Lochman, Náboženské myšlení českého obrození: Kořeny a počátky (Praha: Komenského evangelická fakulta bohoslovecká, 1952); Duchovní odkaz obrození. However, Lochman does not explicitly mention the name of Krombholz either. 23. The work of Miloslav Kaňák is ideologically significant in this regard. See Miloslav Kaňák, Z dějin reformního úsilí českého duchovenstva (Dějinná zkratka let 1800–1920) (Praha: Blahoslav, 1951). 24. Eduard Winter, Frühliberalismus in der Donaumonarchie. Religiöse, nationale und wissenschaftliche Strömungen von 1790–1868 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1968). 25. Obviously, the fact that Nittel (a main solicitor of Old Catholicism) was a direct Krombholz pupil could also have had a negative effect. Nittel was born in 1826 and attended school in Česká Lípa, where Krombholz had to teach him religion. Unfortunately, Nittel’s estate is lost. See Jan Lášek, “K dějinám starokatolictvi ve Varnsdorfu,” in Almanach ke 130. výročí povýšení Varnsdorfu na město (Varnsdorf: Kruh přátel muzea Varnsdorf, 1998), 17–23. 26. Alfred Grundl, Anton Krombholz 1790–1869. Ein deutscher Priester und Schulogranisator aus Böhmen (Sudetendeutsches historisches Archiv, vol. 3) (Prag: Verlag der Deutschen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften und Künste für die Tschechoslowakische Republik, 1937). 27. Compare the evaluation of Zahradník by Čáda, “O životě a filosofii Zahradníkově,” in Zahradník, Filosofické spisy, vol. 1 (Praha: Nákl. Ceské akademie císaře Františka Josefa pro vědy, slovesnost a umění, 1907). For a concise summary of his theological approach, see Jan B. Lášek, “Český teolog první poloviny XIX.

Notes

121

století Vincenc Zahradník (1790–1836). Ke 150. výročí úmrtí zapomenutého obrozeneckého kněze,” in Theologická revue 57 (1986): 143–148. 28. Irena Seidlerová, Politické a sociální názory Bernarda Bolzana (Praha: Nakl. Československé akademie věd, 1963), 149–176. 29. Anton Krombholz and M. A. Becker, Der österreichische Schulbote. Wochenblatt für die vaterländische Volksschule. Im Verein mit Schulmännern und Schulfreuden herausgegeben (Wein: L. W. Seidel, Jahrgang 1/1851–Jahrgang 11/1861). 30. See Jiří Kořalka, “František Palacký a čeští bolzanisté,” in Modernismus— historie nebo výzva?, 23–47. 31. Veverková, Dílo Antona Krombholze, 37–52. 32. Heinrich Denzinger, Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rébus fidei et morum. Kompendium der Glaubensbekenntnisse und kirchlichen Eehrenentscheidungen Griechisch/Latein-Deutsch. Verbessert, erweitert, ins Deutsche übertragen und unter Mitarbeit von Helmut Hoping herausgegeben von Peter Hünermann, Ausgabe auf CD ROM (Freibung/Basel/Rom/Wien 1997), § 2901–2980. 33. See M. H. Jung, Der Protestantismus in Deutschland von 1870 bis 1945 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2002), 38–101. 34. See Fastenpredigten von Anton Krombholz, weil. Pfarrer und Dechant von Leippa in Böhmen, k. k. Hofrath im Ministerium für Kultus und Unterricht. Herausgegeben und mit einer Lebens-Skizze des Verstorbenen versehen von Dr. Theoldor Wiedemann, Redakteur des österr. Vierteljahresschrift für katholische Theologie und der katholischen Literaturzeitung, Wilhelm Braumüller k. k. Hof. und Universitätsbuchhändler (Wien: 1871) (Österreichische Nationalbibliothek Wien, sign. 122101-B); Marien-Predigten von Anton Krombholz, weil Pfarrer und Dechant in Leippa in Böhmen, k. k. Hofrath im Ministerium für Kultus und Unterricht. Herausgegeben von Dr. Theodor Wiedemann, Redacteur der kath. Literatur-Zeitung und der österreichischen Vierteljahresschrift für kath. Theologie (Wien: 1872) (Dom und Diözesanbibliothek Köln, sign. Cc 2694). 35. Veverková, Dílo Antona Krombholze, 37fn. 36. Marien-Predigten von Anton Krombholz, 248fn. 37. Rudolf Fiedler, “Volks—Und Bürgerschule—Sonderschulen,” in Die deutsche Schule in den Sudetenländern. Form und Inhalt des Bildungswesens, ed. Theo Keil (München: Verlag Robert Lerche, 1967), 44–47, 50, 52, 54. 38. Veverková, Dílo Antona Krombholze, 24–36. 39. Anton Krombholz, “Die biblische Geschichte in der Volksschule,” in Der österreichische Schulbote, Jg. 2 (1852): 225–227. 40. The English term exhortations includes all of the various aspects of meaning for the German Erbauungsreden, although it does not have a direct English equivalent. 41. Veverková, Dílo Antona Krombholze, 50–53. 42. Ibid., 205. For a Czech translation of Krombholz’s letter, see 51–52. 43. This question is discussed in Otakar Kádner, Vývoj a dnešní soustava školství, vol. 1 (Praha: Česká akademie věd a umění, 1929), 97–98. 44. Veverková, Dílo Antona Krombholze, 53–58.

122

Notes

45. Rudolf Urban, Die Tschechoslowakische Hussitische Kirche (Marburg/Lahn: J. G. Herder-Institut, 1973). 46. Zdeněk Kučera, Hoře a milost: ke kořenům církve radikálního modernismu (Brno: L. Marek 2001). This thesis is found in several other books and studies by Kučera. 47. Pavel Marek, Český katolicismus 1890–1914. Kapitoly z dějin českého katolického tábora na přelomu 19. a 20. století (Rosice u Brna: Gloria, 2003); Martin C. Putna, Česká katolická literatura v evropském kontextu 1848–1918 (Praha: Torst, 1998). 48. Antonín Podlaha, Bibliografie české katolické literatury náboženské od roku 1828 až do konce roku 1913, vols. 1–4 (Praha: Dědictví sv. Prokopa, 1912–1923). 49. Pope Pius X issued the decree Lamentabili sane exitu (With Truly Lamentable Results) on July 3, and then the encyclical Pascendi Dominici gregis (On the Doctrine of the Modernists) was later promulgated on September 8. 50. Veverková, Dílo Antona Krombholze, 148, 191. 51. Ctirad Václav Pospíšil, “Geniální trojiční teologie a pneumatologie Vincence Zahradníka (1790–1836) in Theologická revue 81 (2010): 71–96; “Úvod do trinitologie a pneumatologie Jana Valeriána Jirsíka (1798–1883),” in Theologická revue 81 (2010): 97–117. 52. Alfred Grundl, Anton Krombholz 1790–1869. 53. It was published in Litoměřice in 1827. 54. Sign. X C 69–X C80; X C 86.

CHAPTER 2 1. Eduard Winter, Bolzano-Brevier: Sozialethische Betrachtungen aus Vormärz. Aus den Gedruckten Erbauungsreden und Ungedruckten Adversarien Bolzanos (Wien: Friedrich, 1947). For Bolzano’s ethical views see Eduard Winter, Leben und geistige Entwicklung des Sozialethikers und Mathematikers Bernad Bolzano (1781– 1848) (Halle: Max Niemeyer 1949). 2. Kamila Veverková, “Etické otázky vědy v díle Bernarda Bolzana a některých jeho žáků,” in Theologická revue 79 (2008): 424–439; Kamila Veverková, “Bernard Bolzano jako důležitý mezník pro pojetí vědy a etiky v 19. Století,” in Wendy Drozenová et al., Etika vědy v České republice: od historických kořenů k současné bioetice (Praha: Filosofia 2010), 28–34. 3. BBGA, 2A.14, 9–146; Bernard Bolzano, Knížka o nejlepším státě neboli myšlenky přítele lidstva o nejúčelnějším uspořádání lidské společnosti, trans. Vojtěch Bláha (Praha: Mladá fronta, 1981). In the editorial note on page 173, Loužil presents the history of the publication of this work and its Czech translations. A reliable though understandably time-conditioned analysis is available in Seidlerová, Politické a sociální názory Bernarda Bolzana (Praha: ČSAV, 1963). 4. Lebensbeschreibung des Dr. B. Bolzano mit einigen seiner ungedruckten Aufsätze und dem Bildnisse des Verfassers eingeleitet und erläutert von dem Herausgeber

Notes

123

(Sulzbach: Seidel, 1836); BBGA 1.10 (in preparation); see also Bernard Bolzano, Vlastní životopis, trans. Marie Pavlíková (Praha: Odeon 1981). 5. Lochman, Duchovní odkaz obrození, 91–152. 6. Ibid., 114. 7. “Unter dem obersten Sittengesetze vesrstehe ich eine praktische Wahrheit, aus der sich jede andere praktische Wahrheit (also auch jede einzelne Pflicht, die den Menschen betrifft) objectiv, d. h. so, wie die Folge aus ihrem Grunde, ableiten lässt.” Ciation from Bernard Bolzano, Lehrbuch der Religionswissenschaft, vol. 1 (Sulzbach: Seidel, 1834), 228. See also Lochman, Duchovní odkaz obrození, 114. 8.“Wähle unter allen dir möglichen Handlungen immer diejenige, die, alle Folgen erwogen, die Tugend und Glückseligkeit des Ganzen am meisten befördert.” Bolzano, Lehrbuch der Religionswissenschaft, 1:228; Bolzano, O nejlepším státě, 123. 9. Bernard Bolzano, Knížka o nejlepším státě neboli myšlenky přítele lidstva o nejúčelnějším uspořádání lidské společnosti, trans. Vojtěch Bláha (Praha: Mladá fronta, 1981). This work was first published in the German original in 1932. See Bernard Bolzano, Von dem besten Staate (Bernarda Bolzana Schriften, Band 3) (Praha: Královská Česká společnost nauk 1932). The critical edition is BBGA, 2A.14, pp. 9–146. 10. For a Czech translation of these addresses, see: Bernard Bolzano, Dr. Bernarda Bolzana Řeči vzdělávací akademické mládeži, vol. 2., trans. Karel Tippmann (Praha: Nakladatelství Fr. A. Urbánek, 1883), 11–17 (cited further in the text as ŘVAM). The name of the translator Karel Tippmann is mentioned by Jaromír Loužil in an editorial note in the Czech translation of Bolzano’s On the Best State, 173. The critical edition is BBGA 2A.17/1, pp. 34–49. It is interesting to note that this discourse was used to a great extent by Bolzano’s pupil Zahradník in his A Contemplation on Some Aspects of Practical Philosophy (which was published in 1818 in the The Czech Herald vol. 4, part 3, pp. 421–461). See Pavlíková, “Vztah Josefa Jungmanna k Bernardu Bolzanovi a jeho žákům,” in Literární archív VIII/IX (1973–1974): 93ff; see also Jan Lášek, “Český teolog první poloviny XIX. století Vincenc Zahradník (1790–1836). Ke 150. výročí úmrtí zapomenutého obrozeneckého kněze,” Teologická revue 57 (1986): 146. For Zahradník’s Czech text, see Vincenc Zahradník, Filosofické spisy Vincence Zahradníka, vol. 2: Zahradníkova pojednání z etiky, ed. František Čáda (Praha: Nákladem České akademie císaře Františka Josefa pro vědy, slovesnost a umění, 1908), 5–28. Pavlíková proves that it is a slightly modified and translated text of Bolzano. 11. ŘVAM, 2:12–13. In BBGA, IIA/17, p. 37: “d[e]r M[e]nsch er-|heb[en]; nicht z[u]r Glücksel[i]gk[ei]t allein, zur Tugend | ja, z[u]r schön[en] Tug[en]d ist der der M[e]nsch || v. seinem Gott gerufen. Es sind die unum-\stößl[i]chst[en] B[e]w[ei]se vorhand[en], w[e]lche uns diese Wichtig-\ste aus all[en] W[a]hrh[ei]t[en] unmöglich erkenn[en] lassen, | wof[e]rne wir selbe [nu]r [un]sr[e]r Aufmerk-s[a]mk[ei]t würdig[en]. | D[e]r M[e]nsch hat Freyheit u[nd] (G[e]wissen), die ihn vereinigt d[e]r || Tug[en]d fähig machen u. dazu schl[e]cht[e]rdings v[e]rpflichten. | Gott hat auch Neig[un]g[en] u. Triebe in s.[ein] Herz g[e]pflanzt, | die ihn mit sanften Banden z[u]r Tugend hinzieh[en]. | Gehorcht er [ni]cht d[en] ernst[en] B[e]f[e]hl[en] s[eine]s G[e]wiss[en]s, u. | d[en] sanft[en] Trieb[en] s[eine]s H[e]rz[en]s; so reibt er sich selbst, || u. sein ganz[e]s G[e]schl[e]cht auf. Selbst d[ie] G[e]sch[i]chte s[ein]es

124

Notes

\ G[e]schl[e]chtes zeigt endl[i]ch, d[a]ß er z]u]r Tug[en]d beru-|fen sey, w[ei]l ihr die Meist[en] a.[us] s[einen] Mitbr[ü]-d[e]rn in all[en] | Zeitalt[e]rn (wirkl[i]ch) g[e]huld[i]gt hab[en].” 12. ŘVAM II. 13. In BBGA IIA/17, str. 39: . . . “auch wir sind fähig d[e]r T[u]g[en]d, u[nd] v. Gott s[e]lbst \\ dazu beruf[en]! Oder - was ist d[e]nn d[ie] Tug[en]d andres | als der G[e]hors[a]m g[egen] d[ie] Aussprüche des G[e]uwiss[en]s? sind wir | d[urc]h [un]sre Freyh[ei]t [ni]cht in d[en] Stand gesetzt, unsrem G[e]wiss[en] | dies[en] G[e]hors[a]m z[u] b[e]weis[en]? w[enn] wir es also thun, u. [mi]t al-|lem Fl[ei]ße thun, erlang[en] wir da [ni]cht Tug[en]d, hohe || Tug[en]d? Und ist dieß nicht der allerbestimmteste Wille | [un]sr[e]s G[e]wiss[en]s? ford[e]rt es [ni]cht mit d[e]r größt[en] Str[e]nge, | daß wir ihm, u. nur ihm allein allz[et]t auf das ge-|naueste gehorch[en]? flucht u. v[e]rdammt es uns [ni]cht, | so oft wir ihm in irg[en]d ei.[nem] Stücke ungehorsam ge-||wes[en] sind?” 13. ŘVAM 2:15; BBGA IIA/17, str. 43: “Zu mächtig, das ist g[e]wiß, zu | mächtig ist d[e]r M[e]nsch, als d[a]ß er [ni]cht d[e]r Tug[en]d, als | eines (inneren, sich) s[e]lbst-g[e]wählt[en] Zaum[e\s bedürfte, w[enn] er | s.[ein] eigenes G[e]schl[e]cht [ni]cht d[u]rch d[en] Mißbr[au]ch se[m]er Kr[ä]fte || zu Gr[un]de richt[en] soll.|” 14. ŘVAM 2:15; BBGA IIA/17, str. 43: “ .  .  . die Tug[en]d wäre nie v. [un]s. [erem] sterbl.[ichen] G[e]schl[e]chte || geschätzt (u[nd] aus-)geübet word[en]«; die M[ensc]h[en] hätt[en] | sich v. jeher, wo [ni]cht in all[en]—doch sich[e]r in ihr[en] mei-|st[en] H[an]dl[un]g[en] u. freyfen] Will[en]sentschlüss[en] nach ihr[e]m | eign[en] Vorth[ei]le [nu]r, u. [ni]cht nach ihr[e]r Pfl[i]cht u. nach | d[e]m Ausspruche ihr[e]s G[e]wiss[en]s b[e]stimmet . . . ” 15. ŘVAM 2:16; BBGA IIA/17, p. 46–47: “ . . . das ist so wahr, | (d[a]ß) es (auch) üb[e]r all[en] Zw[ei]f[e]l erhab[en] ist. Dieß ist d[e]r Fall mit | d[e]m B[e]-wußts. [ein] [un]s[e]r[e]r Freyh[ei]t; wir fühl[en] es unmitt[e]lb[a]r in jed[e]r | einz[e]ln[en] Lage, darinn wir [un]s b[e] find[en], ob wir z[u]l[e]tzt frey s[in]d | o[der] [nic]ht; wie fühl[en] es, de[nn] wir kö[nnt]en es, w[enn] wir es [nic]ht || fühlt[en], d[urc]h k[ein]e Schlußreihe erkenn[en]. So sich[e]r also, | u. üb[e]r alle Zw[ei]f[e]l erhab[en], als [un]sre Freyh[ei]t ist; so sich[e]r | ist es auch, d[a]ß j[e]ne Stimme in [un]s.[erem] Innern | nicht lügt, w[enn] sie uns zuruft: wie wir, eb[en] dar[um] \frey hand[e]ln kö[nnen], hand[e]ln soll[en]. Es bl[ei]bt also da-||bey, d[a]ß Gott d[e]n M[ensc]h[en] Beydes - Freyh[ei]t u. ein G[e]wiss[en], | das ihm d[ie] Anw[ei]s[un]g (gibt), wie er v. d[ie]s[e]r Freyh[ei]t Ge-|br[au]ch mach[en] soll, (ertheilet) habe; u. w[e]r das Das. [ein] des\ G[e]wiss[en]s läugnet, d[e]r würdiget sich s[e]lbst z.[um] Thiere | herab, u. schändet s.[einen] Schöp-f[e]r.” 16. ŘVAM 2:17; BBGA IIA/17, p. 48: “ . . . [un] sre Natur ist v. Gott weise eingerichtet. D [e] rs [e] lbe Geist | der dies [e] with W [e] ltg [e] bäude, das [un] sr [e] r [a] ufm [e] rks [a] m [en] (B [e] tr [a] (g) || so many Spur [e] r Weish [ei] t. Uib [e] reinstimm [un] g in all / [en] (p. [einen] Th [ei] l [en] / [en]]) | darbeut, aus Nichts hervorgebracht hat | Uns er-schaff: und w [enn] er uns in d [e] m Zusamm [en] hange | v. only [en] groß [en] W [e] ltk [ö] rp [e] rn, die üb [e] r [un] sr [e] m Auge im | unermeßlichen Aeth [e] r b [e] w [e] g [en], Ordnun] g [nd] Uib [e] reinstimm [un] g || b [e] weist: o, so off [en] bart sich die weiseste Ord [nun] gu [nd] [e] r Zusamm [en]

Notes

125

füg [un] gd (tausend [e \ rley) in [e] rschieden [en] Triebe [nd] Kr [ä] fte in jen [e] r klein [en] | W \ e \ lt, die wir d [en] M [ensc] h nenn [en]!” 17.  ŘVAM 2:17; BBGA IIA/17, p. 49: “Nichts also, (meine Freunde), nichts mache uns irre daran: d[a]ß d[e]r | M[e]nsch all[e]rdings fähig u[nd] beruf[en] sey zu dem er\hab[enen] Ziele: d[e]r Tug[en]d u. d[e]r Gott-ähnl[i]chk[ei]t. - D[e]r || Got tähnl[i]chk[ei]t, sag ich, denn eb[en] d[ie] Tug[en]d ist es, d[ie] | himmlische, die uns Gott ähnl[i]ch macht. Denn | [ni]cht d[ie] G[e]stalt des Leibes, nein, [nu]r die eig[en]thüml.[iche] \ Natur [un]sr[e]s unst[e]rbl.[ichen] Geistes, d[e]r freye Wille u[nd] | d[ie] V[e]r[nun]ft sind es g[e] wes[en], d[ie] Gott im S[inn]e hatte, als || er b. [un]sr[e]r Schöpf[un]g sprach: Laßt uns d[en] M[ensc]h[en] schaf-\f[en] nach [un]sr[em] Eb[en]bilde. Darum v[e]rgiß es | nie, o M[ensc]h! d[a]ß du g[e]schaff[en] bist nach G[o]tt[e]s Eb\en]bil-\de! u[nd] w[e]rde vollkomm[en], wie dein himml. [ischer] Vat[e]r\ vollkomm[en] ist\ Am[en].” 18. For example, see Loužil, Bernard Bolzano (Praha: Melantrich 1978), 155. 19. This quote and the following few examples from the exhortations are presented here according to a small selection in Vybrané myšlenky z akademických řečí Bernarda Bolzana (The Selected Ideas from the Academic Speeches of Bernard Bolzano) (further cited as VMBB). Editor Loužil appended them the Czech translation of On the Best State; see Bolzano, O nejlepším státě, 124. 20. Ibid., 125. 21. Ibid., 130. 22. Ibid., 132. 23. Ibid. For an extensive excerpt from Bolzano’s work, see Loužil, Bernard Bolzano, 364–372. 24. This ascertainment is important for comparing each of Bolzano’s individual writings. See “Begriffe B. Bolzanos, Gesammelt 1821 von Florian Werner, eingeleitet und vermehrt von Eduard Winter,” in Bernard Bolzano 1781–1848: Studien und Quellen, eds., Werner Schuffenhauer, Eduard Winter, and Hildegard Pautsch (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1981), 187–277. In our context, this significance relates to his definition of the highest moral law (oberstes Sittengesetz). See Ibid., 253. 25. VMBB, 136. 26. Ibid. 27. Ibid., 138. 28. Ibid., 140. 29. Ibid., 147. 30. Ibid., 148. 31. Eduard Winter, Bernard Bolzano a jeho kruh, trans. Zdeněk Kalista (Brno: Akord 1935), 202. 32. For a surprisingly insightful look at his character, see Josef Haubelt, “Bolzanos Lehrer Jan Marian Mika,” in Bernard Bolzano 1781–1848 (Praha: Univerzita Karlova 1981), 45–60. On the formation of Bolzano’s personality from childhood to the end of his studies and his teachers, see Marie Pavlíková, “Bernard Bolzanos Lehrjahre,” in Bernard Bolzano. Leben und Wirkung, ed., Curt Christian (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1981), 29–61. 33. Bolzano, Vlastní životopis, 39.

126

Notes

CHAPTER 3 1. Eduard Winter, Romantismus, Restauration und Frühliberalismus im österreichischen Vormärz (Wien: Europa Verlag, 1968). Milan Hlavačka et al., České země v 19. století: Proměny společnosti v moderní době, vol. 1 (Praha: Historický ústav, 2016); Pavel Bělina, Milan Hlavačka, and Daniela Tinková, Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české, vol. XI.a, 1792–1860 (Paseka: Praha/Litomyšl, 2013). 2. In connection with the formation of national identity during this period, it is impossible not to mention the important work of František Kutnar. See František Kutnar, Obrozenské vlastenectví a nacionalismus: Příspěvek k národnímu a společenskému obsahu češství doby obrozenské (Praha: Karolinum, 2003). 3. Protestant theologian and philosopher Jan Milíč Lochman provided an excellent analysis of the religious thought of personalities and the period of the Czech National Revival. See Jan Milíč Lochman, Náboženské myšlení českého obrození (Praha: Komenského evangelická fakulta bohoslovecká v Praze: 1952); Duchovní odkaz obrození (Praha: Kalich, 1964). Despite being imbued with Marxism, we also mention Josef Haubelt, České osvícenství (Praha: Svoboda, 1986); Josef Kočí, České národní obrození (Praha: Svoboda, 1978). 4. It is necessary to remember that the Enlightenment, referred to as Central European and German respectively, had a positive effect on the national revival. Its protagonists (e.g., Bernard Bolzano) did not seek to deny the Christian message, but to reconcile the state of scientific knowledge at that time with the Christian faith, and they were convinced of the usefulness of the Christian religion for society as a whole. For an analysis of the problematic of the Enlightenment and its typology, see Valjavec, Geschichte der abendländischen Aufklärung. 5. For the problematic of both nationalities, see Ferdinand Seibt, Německo a Češi: Dějiny jednoho sousedství uprostřed Evropy, trans. Petr Dvořáček (Praha: Academia, 1996), 179ff. 6. See Kristina Kaiserová, Konfesní myšlení českých Němců v 19. a počátkem 20. století (Úvaly u Prahy: Ve stráni, 2003). See also Zdeněk R. Nešpor et al., Náboženství v 19. století: Nejcírkevnější století nebo období zrodu českého ateismu (Praha: Scriptorium, 2010). 7. Bernard Bolzano was one of the most dominant figures of Vormärz Bohemia. The classic biographical work which has in many ways been surpassed is Eduard Winter, Bernard Bolzano und sein Kreis (Leipzig: Hegner, 1933). A recent major English work is Paul Rusnock and Jan Šebestík, Bernard Bolzano: His Life and Work (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019). Bolzano’s oeuvres are being published under the auspices of Frommann-Holzboog. See Bernard Bolzano, Gesamtausgabe, eds., Eduard Winter, Jan Berg, Friedrich Kambartel, Jaromír Loužil, Edgar Morscher, and Bob van Rootselaar (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstat: Fromann-Holzboog Verlag,1969). Bolzano’s biography by Winter is part of the first volume. 8. This loose translation of Bolzano’s challenge is taken from Jaromír Loužil, Bernard Bolzano (Praha: Melantrich: 1978), 76–77. The original German version reads: “Lasset es uns also heute aller Welt gestehen, dass wir bedürfen zu lieben, und uns geliebt zu werden freuen! Lasst uns nicht schämen, Menschen zu sein: sondern nur

Notes

127

unsere Ehre darein setzen, gute Menschen zu sein!” BBGA, 2A.19/2, 466. The citation is from an exhort entitled “Von den wichtigsten Fehlern, die das Familienglück zerstören” from June 21, 1812. 9. Cf. Bernard Bolzano, Knížka o nejlepším státě neboli myšlenky přítele lidstva o nejúčelnějším uspořádání lidské společnosti, trans. Vojtěch Bláha (Praha: Mladá fronta, 1981); see BBGA, 2A.14, pp. 9–144. 10. For example, see Angelus Pacis in Johannis Amos Comenii Opera Omnia, vol. 13 (Praha: Academia, 1974), 175–211. 11. “Einer der wesentlichsten Puncte in einer guten Staatsverfassung ist eine zweckmässige Leitung des Geschlechtstriebes, und solche Einrichtungen, dass dieser Trieb die Menschen nicht lasterhaft und unglücklich mache, sondern zu ihrer wahren Vervollkommnung und zu Erhöhung ihres Lebensglückes recht Vieles beytrage.” BBGA, 2A.14, p. 115; Bolzano, O nejlepším státě, 93. 12. “Sollte sich hie und da das Vorurtheil beym Volke vorfinden, dass der jungfräuliche Stand an und für sich, also abgesehen von den Verhältnissen, die ihn zuweilen erheischen, vollkommener sey, als der eheliche; so sucht man dieses durch Aufklärung wegzuräumen.” BBGA, 2A.14, p. 116; Bolzano, O nejlepším státě, 93. 13. Bolzano, O nejlepším státě, 94. “Auch in dem besten Staate geziemt es, däucht mir nur dem Jünglinge zu suchen, dem Mädchen aber sich aufsuchen zu lassen. Vorläufige Bekanntmachungen in gesetzlichen Terminen muss auch im besten Staate jeder Eheverbindung vorangehen. Das Band der Ehe wird als ein solches betrachtet, das an sich selbst unauflöslich ist, und nie geschlossen werden darf, schon mit dem Vorsatze, es später wieder zu lösen; doch werden Auflösungen in einzelnen Fällen aus wichtigen Gründen gestattet.” BBGA, 2A.14, pp. 116–117. 14. BBGA, 2A.14, 117; Bolzano, O nejlepším státě, 94. 15. “ . . . wenn aber eben diese Personen in entfernten Orten gelebt, ihre Verwandschaft vielleicht nicht einmal gekannt, als sie einander zu lieben angefangen; so sieht man von Seite des Staates kein Hinderniss zur Ehe.” BBGA, 2A.14, 117; Bolzano, O nejlepším státě, 94. 16. BBGA, 2A.14, 117; Bolzano, O nejlepším státě, 95. 17. Ibid. 18. Marie Pavlíková, Bolzanovo působení na pražské univerzitě (Praha: Univerzita Karlova: 1985), 107–119. 19. The monograph of Grundl from the environment of German scholarship relates to the events of Krombholz’s life, but not to his theological thought. See Alfred Grundl, Anton Krombholz 1790–1869. Ein deutscher Priester und Schulogranisator aus Böhmen (Sudetendeutsches historisches Archiv, vol. 3) (Prag: Verlag der Deutschen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften und Künste für die Tschechoslowakische Republik, 1937). 20. The real high school was not opened until 1853. 21. Veverková, Dílo Antona Krombholze, 37–52. 22. Fastenpredigten von Anton Krombholz, weil. Pfarrer und Dechant von Leippa in Böhmen, k. k. Hofrath im Ministerium für Kultus und Unterricht. Herausgegeben und mit einer Lebens-Skizze des Verstorbenen versehen von Dr. Theoldor Wiedemann, Redakteur des österr. Vierteljahresschrift für katholische Theologie und der

128

Notes

katholischen Literaturzeitung, Wilhelm Braumüller k. k. Hof. und Universitätsbuchhändler (Wien: 1871) (Österreichische Nationalbibliothek Wien, sign. 122101-B); Marien-Predigten von Anton Krombholz, weil Pfarrer und Dechant in Leippa in Böhmen, k. k. Hofrath im Ministerium für Kultus und Unterricht. Herausgegeben von Dr. Theodor Wiedemann, Redacteur der kath. Literatur-Zeitung und der österreichischen Vierteljahresschrift für kath. Theologie (Wien: 1872) (Dom und Diözesanbibliothek Köln, sign. Cc 2694). 23. Cf. Veverková, Dílo Antona Krombholze, 42. 24. “Auf das Glück der Familien gründet sich die Ehre und Wohlfahrt einer ganzen Gemeinde—ja, eines ganzen Landes.” Krombholz, Marien-Predigten, 214. 25. Veverková, Dílo Antona Krombholze, 43. 26. Alfred Grundl, “Die Fabrikabendschule der ‘Streicherkinder’ zu Böhmisch-Leipa,” in Heimat und Volk: Forschungsbeitraege zur sudetendeutschen Geschichte: Festschrift für Universitaetsprofessor Wilhelm Wostry zum 60. Geburtstage, ed. Anton Ernstberger (Brünn: Rudolf M. Rohrer, 1937), 567–583. This study was also published separately. 27. Veverková, Dílo Antona Krombholze, 120–128. 28. “Auf wahre Gottesfurcht und echtes Christenthum—Wo Gott wohnt, da kehrt auch sein Segen ein—aber wo Gott nicht gekannt und geehrt wird, da entflieht auch sein Segen! Gott wohnt nicht in Stein oder Holz—auch nicht in Gold und Gut—er wohnt im Herzen der Menschen—und sollte das Herz nicht gut sein, in dem der Heiligste wohnt—sollte der Mensch nicht seine Pflicht erfüllen, der mit seinem Heilande in der innigsten Verbindung steht?” Krombholz, Marien-Predigten, 41. 29. In another place he says: “Auf häuslichen Sinn gründet sich des Hauses Glück.” Krombholz, Marien-Predigten, 46. 30. “Christliche Eltern, wollet ihr eine glückliche Familie bilden, so erzieht gute Kinder, so haltet über eine ernste, christliche Kinderzucht. Die Menschen unserer Zeit scheinen auch hierin sehr zu fehlen, und sich viele Leiden zu bereiten. Wie das Kind erzogen wird, so wird es sein, was es sieht und hört, das wird es wissen, wozu man es anleitet, das wird es thun.” Krombholz, Marien-Predigten, 48. 31.  Vincenc Zahradník, Filosofické spisy, vol. 1, Úvod: Zahradníkova logika a příspěvky k psychologii, poetice a paedagogice, ed. František Čáda (Praha: Nákladem České akademie, 1907), 321. 32. See Pavel Křivský, Vincenc Zahradník 1790–1836: Literární pozůstalost (Praha: Památník národního písemnictví, 1974). 33. See Vincence Zahradník, Filosofické spisy, vols. 1–5, ed. František Čáda, (Praha: Nákladem České akademie, 1907–1918). 34. Lukáš Fasora, Jiří Hanuš, and Jiří Malíř, eds., Sekularizace českých zemí v letech 1848–1914 (Brno: Centrum pro studium demokracie, 2007). See also Lukáš Fasora, Jiří Hanuš, and Jiří Malíř, eds., Sekularizace venkovského prostoru v 19. století (Brno: Matice moravská, 2009). 35. For the history of the Old Catholic movement see Karel Koláček, Vznik a vývoj starokatolického hnutí na území severních Čech do roku 1946 (Brno: L. Marek, 2006); Kaiserová, Konfesní myšlení českých Němců v 19. a počátkem 20. století, 15–69.

Notes

129

CHAPTER 4 1. See Eduard Winter, Bernard Bolzano und sein Kreis (Leipzig: Hegner, 1933). Again, despite the fact that his work has been surpassed in many respects, it cannot be denied precedence in the topical subject and emphasis of Bolzano’s spiritual significance. 2. Bernard Bolzano-Gesamtausgabe, eds. E. Winter, J. Berg, F. Kambartel, J. Loužil, E. Morscher, and B. van Rootselaar (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1969–). 3. Both of the exhortations mentioned are in a magnificently designed Czech collection in four volumes acquired by Marie Červinková-Riegrová; see Dr. Bernarda Bolzana Řeči vzdělávací akademické mládeži, 1:1–10 (“O lásce k vlasti” / “On Love for the Homeland”) and 1:11–32 (“O poměru obou národností v Čechách, tři řeči” / “On the Condition of the Two Nationalities in Bohemia”). 4. As a diligent admirer of Bolzano, Krombholz’s opinion on the question of nationality is significant. 5. Peter Demetz, “Bolzano über Christen und Juden” in Bernard Bolzanos Besssere Welt, Akten der Internationalen Tagung Salzburg, 27. und 28. Mai 2010, ed. Kurt Strasser (Brno: L. Marek, 2011), 39. 6. Eduard Winter, “Bernard Bolzano und die nationale Frage,” in Edgar Morscher and Otto Neumaier, eds., Bolzanos Kampf gegen Nationalismus und Rassismus (Beiträge zur Bolzano-Forschung 4) (Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag, 1996), 81–95; Wolfgang Künne, “Bernard Bolzano über Nationalismus und Rassismus in Böhmen,” in Edgar Morscher and Otto Neumaier, eds., Bolzanos Kampf gegen Nationalismus und Rassismus (Beiträge zur Bolzano-Forschung 4) (Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag, 1996), 97–139. 7. Ibid., 8. 8. Demetz, “Bolzano über Christen und Juden,” 40. 9. Bernard Bolzano: His Life and Work, 34. 10. The conflict between Jakob Frint and Bernard Bolzano is portrayed in every major biography. For example, see Eduard Winter, Bernard Bolzano. Ein Lebensbild, 38–40, 53–58. See also Paul Rusnock and Jan Šebestík, Bernard Bolzano: His Life and Work, 51–61. 11. BBGA 2/A.16/1, pp. 135–144. Morscher and Neumaier also printed this text on pages 51–63 in Bolzanos Kampf gegen Nationalismus und Rassismus under the title Von dem Betragen gegen die jüdische Nation. 12. Morscher and Neumaier, Bolzanos Kampf gegen Nationalismus und Rassismus, 51. In the exhortation “On Love for the Homeland” on the same feast day, Bolzano used verses 36–38. 13. Kurt F. Strasser, Bernard Bolzanos Erbauungsreden, Prag 1805–1820 (Beiträge zur Bolzano-Forschung, 18) (Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag, 2004). 14. “Das schwache Kind, das Simeon damals in seinen Armen hielt, wuchs auf zu jenem großen Manne, der aus allen Sterblichen der Einzige in dieser Art den unendlichen Entschluß gefaßt und ausgeführt-sich als ein Sühnopfer hinzugeben zur Rettung und Beseligung des ganzen menschlichen Geschlechtess.” 2/A.16/1, 135.

130

Notes

15. “Israels zerstreute Nachkommenschaft genießt nicht nur keines Ruhmes unter uns, sondern sie wird vielmehr beinahe in allen Ländern mit Verachtung behandelt und aufs unleidentlichste gedrückt und mißhandelt.” Ibid., 136. 16. “Aber so allgemein auch dieses Verfahren ist, und durch soviele Jahrhunderte es auch schon fortdauert: es ist demohngeachtet nichts weniger, als recht und unserem Gott, der ein Gott Beider, der Christen und der Juden, ist, angenehm und gefällig.” Ibid. 17. “Ich will zuvörderst den richtigen Gesichtspunkt angeben, aus dem wir den Zustand der jüdischen Nation und unser bisher gewöhnliches Betragen gegen sie beurtheilen sollen; dann aber einige Folgerungen hieraus in Hinsicht auf unser eigenes Verhalten herleiten.” Ibid. 18.  See the standard work by Marie Pavlíková, Bolzanovo působení na pražské univerzitě (Praha: Univerzita Karlova: 1985). From the selected list of Bolzano’s students, it is possible to estimate how broad his influence was throughout the monarchy. 19. “Aber um einen so glücklichen Erfolg hervorzubringen: dazu bedarf ich Deines Beistandes, erhabener Gottessohn! der Du gewiß nicht willst, daß wir das Volk so tief verachten sollen, dem Du [als] ein Mitbürger zu leben Dich gewürdiget.” BBGA, 2/A.16/1, 136. 20. Hillel J. Kieval, Formování českého židovstva: Národnostní konflikt a židovská společnost v Čechách 1870–1918, trans. Klára Míčková (Praha/Litomyšl: Paseka, 2011), 13. See also Hillel J. Kieval, Languages of Community: The Jewish Experience in the Czech Lands (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2000), 27. 21. For an extensive evaluation in connection with the reform intentions of Joseph II and the history of the Toleration Patent, see: Ludwig Singer, “Zur Geschichte der Toleranzpatente in den Sudetenländern,” in Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für Geschichte der Juden in der Čechoslovakischen Republik 5 (1933): 231–311. For the spiritual history of the period of Josephinism, see: Fritz Valjavec, Der Josephinismus. Zur geistigen Entwicklung Österreichs im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert (Brünn: Rohrer, 1944). For the history of the Jewish populace during the Enlightenment, see: Ruth Kerstenberg-Gladstein, Neuere Geschichte der Juden in den böhmischen Ländern, vol. 1: Das Zeitalter der Aufklärung 1780–1830 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1969). 22. BBGA 2/A.16/1, 137. 23. “ . . . das zeigt uns deutlich der Umstand, m.[eine] F.[reunde], daß Israels Volk so manche Vorzüge und Tugenden theils jetzt noch hat, theils in älteren Zeiten hatte, die keine wesentlich verdorbene Natur erzeugen kann.” Ibid., 139. 24. “Alles, was immer geschieht, das liegt im Plane der göttlichen Fürsehung; und ohne Zulassung Gottes geschieht nichts von Allem, was geschieht: dennoch ist Alles, was der Mensch gegen den deutlichen Ausspruch seines Gewissens unternimmt, böse gethan, und wird von Gott bestraft. Uns gibt er deutlich durch das Gewissen zu erkennen: wir sollen Niemand, geschweige denn ein ganzes Volk, bedrücken und durch diesen Druck die Ursache von Lastern werden.” Ibid., 140. 25. Ibid., 142: “Wenn einem armen Bedrängten durch uns geholfen werden kann: daß er nicht unseres Glaubens sei—das lasset uns ja nicht abhalten, ihm unsere Unterstützung angedeihen zu lassen! Vielleicht wagt er es nicht, uns darum anzusprechen: wir wollen es ihm also aus freien Stücken antragen, und dabei denken, daß noch viel

Notes

131

übrig sei, um die Schuld abzutragen, die wir durch siebenzehn Jahrhunderte hindurch an diesem Volke häuften!” 26. Ibid., 142–143: “Sie sehen also, m.[eine] F.[reunde], was vor der Hand am meisten nöthig ist: man muß erst dafür sorgen, daß die Gemüther der Christen zu dieser wohlthätigen Umänderung allmälig vorbereitet werden; man muß die besseren Begriffe erst allgemeiner unter dem Volke verbreiten, bevor an jene gänzliche Wiederherstellung der unterdrückten Rechte der Israeliten unter uns auch nur zu denken ist.” 27.“ . . . alle Einwürfe und alle entgegenstehenden Vorurtheile lassen Sie uns gründlich widerlegen und ihre Nichtigkeit klar aufdecken, besonders aber die schädlichen Folgen recht in das Licht setzen, die unsere harte Behandlung des Volkes Israel hervorbringt, indem sie eben die Ursache ist, weßhalb dieß Volk so eigensinnig bei seiner veralteten Religion verbleibt und von dem Kinderglauben seiner Voreltern den leichten Schritt zu der vollendeten Mannesreligion des Christenthumes nicht thut . . .” Ibid., 143. 28. Nevertheless, Bolzano’s personality and his era have been evaluated in very inconsistent and contradictory ways in Catholic ecclesiastical historiography. It is time for a uniform evaluation point of view to be found here as well. A good step towards this is the most recent introductory chapter to Svoboda’s monograph on A. K. Růžička. See Rudolf Svoboda, Arnošt Konstantin Růžička. Josefinista na českobudějovickém biskupském stolci (České Budějovice: Nakladatelství Jih, 2011), 12–61. 29. “ . . . und die selige Zeit wird sich endlich nähern, auf die sich Jesus freute—wo nur Ein Hirt und Eine Heerde sein wird. Amen.” BBGA 2/A.16/1, 144. 30. Moses Mendelssohn is considered the main representative of the Haskala period. See Shmuel Feiner, Haskalah and History: The Emergence of a Modern Jewish Historical Consciousness, trans. Chaya Naor and Sondra Silverston (Oxford and Portland: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2002). 31. See Ruth Kerstenberg-Gladstein, Neuere Geschichte der Juden in den böhmischen Ländern, 1:118–123. 32. Demetz, “Bolzano über Christen und Juden,” 48–49. For a more detailed study of the life and position of the Prague Jewish population in the first half of the nineteenth century, see Věra Leininger, Auszug aus dem Ghetto. Rechtsstellung und Emanzipationsbemühungen der Juden in Prag in der ersten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts (Singapore: Kuda Api Press, 2006).

CHAPTER 5 1. František Čáda, Filosofické spisy Vincence Zahradníka, 1:3–97. It is a very extensive biography based on archival research and which must be used by every current researcher of Zahradník’s life and work. 2. Karel Skalický, “Teologický rozměr díla českého vlastence Vincence Zahradníka (1790–1836),” in Z plnosti Kristovy. Sborník k devadesátinám Oty Mádra, eds. Eduard Krumpholc, Jolana Poláková, and Ctirad Václav Pospíšil (Praha: Karmelitánské nakladatelství, 2007), 245–255.

132

Notes

3. Ctirad Václav Pospíšil, “Geniální trojiční teologie a pneumatologie Vincence Zahradníka (1790–1836) in Theologická revue 81 (2010): 71–96. 4. Jan Lášek, “Český teolog první poloviny XIX století Vincenc Zahradník,” in Theologická revue 57 (1986):143–148. 5. The entire collection was published between 1907–1918. 6. Ctirad Václav Pospíšil, op. cit. 7. Veverková, Dílo Antona Krombholze, 24–36. 8. For biographical information on Fesl, see Siedlerová, Politické a sociální názory Bernarda Bolzana, 149–176. 9. Jan Lášek, op. cit., 145. 10. cf. Filosofické spisy Vincence Zahradníka, 2:403–406. 11. Pavel Křivský, Vincenc Zahradník,1790–1836: Literární pozůstalost (Praha: Literární archív Památníku národního písemnictví, 1974). 12. Reprinted in Filosofické spisy Vincence Zahradníka, 2:5–28. 13. Marie Pavlíková, “Vztah Josefa Jungmanna k Bernardu Bolzanovi a jeho žákům,” in Literární archív VIII/IX (1973–1974): 93ff; Jan Lášek, op. cit., 148. 14. Filosofické spisy Vincence Zahradníka, 2:71–182. 15. C.V. Pospíšil, op.cit. 16. Vincenc Zahradník, Krátký katechismus k utvrzení katolíků u víře jejich, zvláště pro ty jenž katolickou víru přijímají neb opouští (Praha: U Josefy Fetterlové v knížecí arcibiskupské knihtiskárně, 1831). 17. C.V. Pospíšil, “Geniální trojiční teologie a pneumatologie Vincence Zahradníka (1790–1836),” in Theologická revue 81 (2010): 78–79. 18. Vincenc Zahradník, Doštěpná zahrada dítek dobrých, obsahující v sobě vysvětlení některých článků pravé, čisté a dokonalé výry Kristovy (Praha: 1836). 19. Ibid., 79. 20. Vincenc Zahradník, Modlitby katolické v duchu zlaté knihy Tomáše Kempenského o následování Kristovu (Praha: 1835). 21. Vincenc Zahradník, Leben des heiligen Johannes von Nepomuk (Litoměřice: Carl Wilhelm Medau, 1829). 22. František Palacký, Staří letopisové čeští od roku 1378 do 1527: čili pokračování v kronikách Přibíka Pulkavy a Beneše z Hořovic z rukopisů starých vydané (Praha: J. H. Pospíšil, 1829). 23.  Pospíšil, “Geniální trojiční teologie a pneumatologie Vincence Zahradníka (1790–1836),” 79. 24. Ibid., 80. 25. Vincenc Zahradník, Homiletické řeči neděle a svátky celého roku (Hradec Králové: Jan Host, 1832), 349–359. 26. Vincenc Zahradník, Rozvrhové kázání na neděle a svátky celého roku, 2 vols. (M. Neuner, 1836). 27. Ibid., 2:1. 28. Pospíšil, “Geniální trojiční teologie a pneumatologie Vincence Zahradníka (1790–1836),” 83. 29. Zahradník, Rozvrhové kázání na neděle a svátky celého roku, 1:3–4.

Notes

133

30. Pospíšil, “Geniální trojiční teologie a pneumatologie Vincence Zahradníka (1790–1836),” 83–85. 31. Vincenc Zahradník, Sedmmecítma svátečních kázání (Praha: V. Špinka, 1833). 32. Ibid., 145–146. 33. Pospíšil, “Geniální trojiční teologie a pneumatologie Vincence Zahradníka (1790–1836),” 85. 34. Zahradník, Sedmmecítma svátečních kázání, 170. 35. Pospíšil, “Geniální trojiční teologie a pneumatologie Vincence Zahradníka (1790–1836),” 89. 36. Zahradník, Sedmmecítma svátečních kázání, 179. 37. Pospíšil, “Geniální trojiční teologie a pneumatologie Vincence Zahradníka (1790–1836),” 91. 38. Ibid., 91–96. 39. Ibid., 92. Overall, Dobrovský was oriented in another direction and not very interested in theological questions. His Přednášky o praktické stránce v křesťanském náboženství (Lectures Concerning the Practical Aspects in Christian Religion) are the only theological text which can serve to help one recognize Dobrovský as a theologian. 40. See Lochman, Duchovní odkaz obrození, 91. 41. Pospíšil, “Geniální trojiční teologie a pneumatologie Vincence Zahradníka (1790–1836),” 93–94. 42. Bernard Bolzano, Athanasia oder die Gründe für die Unsterblichkeit der Seele (Sulzbach: Seidel, 1841), 317. 43. Bolzano expressed his ideas on this issue in an anonymously published polemic On the Perfectibility of Catholicism. See “Ueber die Perfectibilität des Katholicismus” in BBGA, 1.19/1–2. 44. Pospíšil, “Geniální trojiční teologie a pneumatologie Vincence Zahradníka (1790–1836),” 94. 45. See Bernard Bolzano, Dr. Bernarda Bolzana Řeči vzdělávací akademické mládeži, vols. 1–4, trans. Karel Tippmann (Praha: Nakladatelství Fr. A. Urbánek, 1882–1886). 46. Vincenc Zahradník, Filosofické spisy Vincence Zahradníka, vols. 1–5, ed. František Čáda (Praha: Nákladem České akademie císaře Františka Josefa pro vědy, slovesnost a umění, 1907–1918). 47. Filosofické spisy Vincence Zahradníka, 2:403–406. 48. Pospíšil, “Geniální trojiční teologie a pneumatologie Vincence Zahradníka (1790–1836),” 96. 49. Filosofické spisy Vincence Zahradníka, 2:404. 50. Josef Hanuš, et. al., Literatura česká devatenáctého století. Od josefínského obrození až po českou modernu, vol. 3, part 1: Od K. H. Máchy ke K. Havlíčkovi (Praha: Laichter, 1905), 378. 51. Filosofické spisy Vincence Zahradníka, 1:273–286. 52. Ibid., 271–272. 53. Ibid., 277. 54. Ibid., 278.

134

Notes

55. Ibid., 125–255. 56. Ibid., 128. 57. Ibid., 256. 58. Ibid., 257. 59. Ibid., 293. 60. Ibid., 315. 61. Filosofické spisy Vincence Zahradníka, 2:51. 62. Ibid., 57. 63. Ibid. 64. Ibid., 60. 65. Ibid., 61. 66. Pervert in the sense of distorting or overturning the natural order. 67. Ibid., 64. 68. Ibid., 71–75; see Čáda’s editorial comments. 69. Ibid., 82. 70. Ibid., 182. 71. Ibid., 194. 72. Ibid., 199. 73. Ibid., 205. 74. Ibid., 211. 75. Ibid., 241. 76. Ibid., 240. 77. Ibid., 245. 78. Ibid., 251. 79. Ibid., 253. 80. Ibid. 81. Ibid., 256.

CHAPTER 6 1. Anton Krombholz, Drei geistliche Reden zur Emphelung der Armenversorgungsanstalten, gehalten in der Stadt Böhm.-Leipa. mit beigefügten Statut der dasigen Armenversorgungsanstalt (Leitmeritz: 1827). 2. Veverková, Dílo Antona Krombholze, 45. 3. Krombholz’s letter to Náhlovský from June 17, 1848. See Veverková, Dílo Antona Krombholze, 50–51.

CHAPTER 7 1. Bernard Bolzano-Gesamtausgabe, eds. E. Winter, J. Berg, F. Kambartel, J. Loužil, E. Morscher, and B. van Rootselaar (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1969–). The series is not yet finished, with more than 100 volumes having been

Notes

135

published thus far. All currently published works in the series are available at the Hussite Theological Faculty in Prague. 2. An evaluation of Catholic historians Jaroslav Kadlec, Václav Medek, Radomír Malý, Pavel Mráček, and others is presented most recently by Svoboda, Arnošt Konstantin Růžička, 23–26. 3. Ibid., 12–70. 4. Among the most significant representatives of this school belong Miloslav Kaňák, Zdeněk Kučera, Jan Lášek, Josef Táborský, Jaroslav Hrdlička, and others. 5. This is true at least for the ultraconservative ones. See Pavel Mráček, Příručka církevních dějin (Praha: Krystal, 1995). 6. I am particularly thinking of Kaňák. A catalogue of his work may be found in Václav Kadeřávek, 60. let profesora ThDr. a PhDr. Miloslava Kaňáka. Životopisná črta se soupisem jeho prací. Připraveno péčí jeho žáků a přátel (Praha: 1977). 7. See Bernard Bolzano, Theory of Science, vol. 1, trans. Paul Rusnock and Rolf George (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 53–114 (§17–§33), 115–155 (§34–§45). 8. A philosophical analysis of these attempts was carried out by Hermann Schrödter. See Hermann Schrödter, Philosophie und Religion: Die “Religionswissenschaft” Bernard Bolzanos (Meisenheim am Glan: Anton Hain, 1972). 9. The most clearly arranged account of Bolzano’s key terminology is presented in the appendix to the anthology of sources. See Schuffenhauer et al., Bernard Bolzano 1781–1848. 10. Bernard Bolzano, Selected Writings on Ethics and Politics, trans. Paul Rusnock and Rolf George (Amsterdam: Rodopi BV, 2007), 205. 11. The classic Czech work in this regard is Kaňák, Z dějin reformního úsilí českého duchovenstva. 12. A good overview is provided in Václav Svoboda, “Die innere Entwicklung des tschechischen Katholizismus in den letzten hundert Jahren,” in Bohemia Sacra. Das Christentum in Böhmen 973–1973, ed. Ferdinand Seibt (Düsseldorf: Schwann 1974), 162–174. 13. Eduard Winter, Bernard Bolzano a jeho kruh, trans. Zdeněk Kalista (Brno: Akord, 1935). This book was published in the German original with the approval of the bishop of Meissen. 14. For the circumstances of its publication, see Eduard Winter, Mein Leben im Dienst des Völkerverständnisses. Nach Tegebuchaufzeichnungen, Briefen, Dokumenten und Erinnerungen (Berlin: Akademie Verlag Erschienen, 1981). 15. This work was first issued in German in Prague in 1932. 16. For an understandably emotional political work which offers insight into this way of thinking, see Karel Farský, Stát a církev: Poměr státu českého k církvi římské od prvopočátku až do roku 1924 (Praha: Blahoslav, 1924), 236–238. 17. Farský expressed these views in his journalism but primarily in his sermons. See Karel Farský, Postily: Připraveno prací kolektivu za vedení M. Kaňáka (Praha: Blahoslav, 1952). The Postils are the first and to this day the last volume of Farský’s collected writings. 18. For the final years of his life, see Veverková, Dílo Antona Krombholze, 53–58.

136

Notes

19. Urban, Die Tschechoslowakische Hussitische Kirche, 21. 20. Farský, Postily, passim. 21. See Alfred Fuchs, O židovské otázce [On the Jewish Question] (Praha: Společnost českých akademiků židů, 1919). 22. An important old monograph still remains: Pavel Julius Vychodil, František Sušil: Životopisný nástin (Brno 1898). 23. Jan Lášek, “František Náhlovský und das Reformprogramm vom Jahre 1848 zur Erneuerung der Kirche in Böhmen,” in Modernismus—historie nebo výzva? Studie ke genezi českého katolického modernismu, eds. Zdeněk Kučera and Jan Lášek (Brno: L. Marek, 2002), 98–134. It contains a photomechanical print of the original reform program. 24. See Kaňák, Z dějin reformního úsilí českého duchovenstva. 25. For a list of Kučera’s works until 2005, see Zdeněk Kučera, Teologie v dialogu: Sborník k pětasedmdesátinám profesora Zdeňka Kučery (Beatus vir, qui non abiit in consilio impiorum), eds., Jan Lášek and Daniel Toth (Hradec Králové: Univerzita Hradec Králové, 2005), 249–280. 26. See Jan Blahoslav Lášek, “František Náhlovský und das Reformprogramm vom Jahre 1848 zur Erneuerung der Kirche in Böhmen,” in Modernismus—historie nebo výzva?, 98–104. Jan Blahoslav Lášek, “Český teolog první poloviny XIX století Vincenc Zahradník,” in Theologická revue 57 (1986): 143–148; Jan Blahoslav Lášek, “Bernard Bolzano als Urheber der Reformbestrebungen der katholischen in Bohmen im XIX. Jahrhundert,” in Zdeněk Kučera, Teologie v dialogu: Sborník k pětasedmdesátinám profesora Zdeňka Kučery, eds., Jan Lášek and Daniel Toth (Hradec Králové: Univerzita Hradec Králové, 2005), 31–46. A catalogue of Lášek’s works has not yet been published. 27. For the origin and development of these ideas, see Claus Arnold, Kleine Geschichte des Modernismus (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2007). 28. Antonín Podlaha, Bibliografie české katolické literatury náboženské od roku 1828 až do konce roku 1913, vols. 1–4 (Praha: Dědictví sv. Prokopa, 1912–1923). 29. Emil Valášek, Der Kampf gegen die Priester im Sudetenland 1938–1945: eine Dokumentation (Königstein: Archiv für Kirchengeschichte von Böhmen–Mähren– Schlesien, 2003). 30. Rudolf Grulich, Sudetoněmečtí katolíci jako oběti nacismu (Brno: Marek, 2002). 31. A. K. Huber, “Nation und Kirche 1848–1918,” in Bohemia Sacra, 246–257. See also Wenzel Frind, Das sprachliche und sprachlichnationale Recht in polyglotten Staaten und Ländern mit besonderer Rücksichtnahme auf Oesterreich und Böhmen (Brno: Marek, 2006). 32. Spisar’s works are greatly influenced by ideology, and are entirely aimed at defending the new church. See Alois Spisar, Ideový vývoj církve československé: (Nástin) (Praha: Blahoslav: 1936). None of the German Bolzanoists are mentioned in this work.

Bibliography

UNPUBLISHED SOURCES Anton Krombholz, Manuscripts of the Library of the National Museum in Prague:  Sign. X C 69 Lenten Sermons from 1835 Sign. X C 70 Lenten Sermons from 1834 Sign. X C 71 Lenten Sermons from 1834 Sign. X C 72 Lenten Sermons from 1821 Sign. X C 73 Lenten Sermons from 1826 Sign. X C 74 Advent Sermons from 1824 Sign. X C 75 Advent Sermons from 1834/1837  Sign. X C 76 Advent Sermons from 1836 Sign. X C 77 Lenten Sermons from 1843 Sign. X C 78 Speeches for the Youth at the Gymnasium in Česká Lípa from 1827–1847  Sign. X C 79 Sermons for the Season from Easter to Pentecost from 1822–1847 Sign. X C 80 Marian sermons from 1821–1835 Sign. X C 86 Lenten sermons from 1826

PRIMARY SOURCES Bolzano, Bernard. ———. Athanasia oder die Gründe für die Unsterblichkeit der Seele. Sulzbach: Seidel 1841. ———. Gesamtausgabe (BBGA). Herausgegeben von Eduard Winter, Jan Berg, Friedrich Kambartel, Jaromír Loužil, Edgar Morscher und Bob van Rootselaar, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstat: Fromann Holzboog Verlag, 1969ff. ———. Begriffe B. Bolzanos. Gesammelt 1821 von Florian Werner, eingeleitet und vermehrt von Eduard Winter. In: Bernard Bolzano 1781–1848: Studien und Quellen. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag 1981, str. 185–278. 137

138

Bibliography

———. Das Büchlein vom Besten Staate. In: Berg, J.; Loužil, J. (Hrsg.): Bernard Bolzano Gesamtausgabe. Reihe II. Nachlass. A. Nachgelassene Schriften. Band 14. ———. BBGA, Erbauungsreden des Studienjahres 1811/1812, Reihe II/A, Band 19, Teilband 2, Herausgegeben von Kurt F. Strasser, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstat: Fromann Holzboog Verlag, 2011. ———. BBGA, Sozialphilosophische Schriften. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Friedrich Frommann Verlag (Günther Holzboog) 1975. ———. BBGA - Gesamtausgabe. Reihe II: Nachlaß. A. Nachgelassene Schriften. Band 16,1. Erbauungsreden des Studienjahres 1808/1809. Erster Teil. Herausgegeben von Edgar Morscher und Kurt F. Strasser. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstat: Fromann Holzboog Verlag, 2008. ———. O nejlepším státě, přel. V. Bláha, předl. Jaromír Loužil, Praha: Mladá fronta, 1981. ———. Lehrbuch der Religionswissenschaft, ein Abdruck der Vorlesungshefte eines ehemaligen Religionslehrers an einer katholischen Universität, von einigen seiner Schüler gesammelt und herausgegeben, Band I. Sulzbach: Seidel, 1834. ———. Dr. Bernarda Bolzana Řeči vzdělávací akademické mládeži. Vydáno k památce stoletých jeho narozenin. S podobiznou Prof. Dra. B. Bolzana, díl I–IV, Praha: Urbánek 1882–1886. ———. Ueber die Perfectibilität des Katholicismus—Streitschriften zweier katholischer Theologen: zugleich ein Beitrag zur Aufhellung einiger wichtigen Begriffe aus Bolzano’s Religionswissenschaft / Bernard Bolzano; hrsg. von Zdeněk Kalista, Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1979, 2 sv., součást, Bernard Bolzano-Gesamtausgabe (BBGA). Reihe I. Schriften; Bd. 19. ———. Vlastní životopis. Přel. Marie Pavlíková. Praha: Odeon, 1981. ———. Von dem besten Staate. Praha: Královská Česká společnost nauk, 1932. (Bernarda Bolzana Schriften, Band 3). Krombholz, Anton. ———. Die biblische Geschichte in der Volksschule. Der österreichische Schulbote, Jg. 2/1852, s. 225–227. ———. Drei geistliche Reden zur Emphelung der Armenversorgungsanstalten, gehalten in der Stadt Böhm. Leipa mit beigefügten Statut der dasigen Armenversorgungsanstalt, Leitmeritz 1827. ———. Fastenpredigten von Anton Krombholz, weil. Pfarrer und Dechant von Leippa in Böhmen, k. k. Hofrath im Ministerium für Kultus und Unterricht. Herausgegeben und mit einer Lebens-Skizze des Verstorbenen versehen von Dr. Theoldor Wiedemann, Redakteur des österr. Vierteljahresschrift für katholische Theologie und der katholischen Literaturzeitung, Wilhelm Braumüller k. k. Hof. und Universitätsbuchhändler, Wien, 1871. ———. Marien-Predigten von Anton Krombholz, weil Pfarrer und Dechant in Leippa in Böhmen, k. k. Hofrath im Ministerium für Kultus und Unterricht. Herausgegeben von Dr. Theodor Wiedemann, Redacteur der kath. Literatur-Zeitung und der österreichischen Vierteljahresschrift für kath. Theologie, Wien, 1872. ———. Der österreichische Schulbote. Wochenblatt für die vaterländische Volksschule. Im Verein mit Schulmännern und Schulfreuden herausgegeben

Bibliography

139

von A. Krombholz und M. A. Becker, Verlag von L. W. Seidel Wien, Jahrgang 1/1851–Jahrgang 11/1861. Zahradník, Vincenc. ———. Filosofické spisy Vincence Zahradníka. Sebral a úvodem o životě a filosofii Zahradníkově opatřil František Čáda, díl I-V, Praha: Nákladem České akademie císaře Františka Josefa pro vědy, slovesnost a umění, 1907–1918. ———. Filosofické spisy, Díl I, Úvod, Zahradníkova logika a příspěvky k psychologii, poetice a paedagogice, sebral a úvodem opatřil František Čáda, Nákladem České akademie císaře Františka Josefa pro vědy, slovesnost a umění, Praha, 1907. ———. Filosofické spisy Vincence Zahradníka. Sebral a úvodem o životě a filosofii Zahradníkově opatřil František Čáda. Díl II. Zahradníkova pojednání z etiky. Praha: Nákladem České akademie císaře Františka Josefa pro vědy, slovesnost a umění 1908. ———. Homiletické řeči neděle a svátky celého roku. Hradec Králové 1832. ———. Leben des heiligen Johannes von Nepomuk. Leitmeritz: Medau 1829. ———. Modlitby katolické v duchu zlaté knihy Tomáše Kempenského o následování Kristovu. Praha 1835. ———. Rozjímání o některých stránkách praktické filozofie. Hlasatel český, IV/1818, sešit třetí, str. 421–461. ———. Rozvrhové kázání na neděle a svátky celého roku, svazek 1‑2, Praha 1836. ———. Sedmmecítma svátečních kázání. Praha: Špinka 1833.

GENERAL Arnold, C. Kleine Geschichte des Modernismus, Herder: Freiburg 2007. Bělina, P., Hlavačka, Milan, and Tinková, D. Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české, sv. XIa, 1792–1860. Paseka, Praha-Litomyšl 2013. Čáda, F. O životě a filosofii Zahradníkově. In ZAHRADNÍK, V. Filosofické spisy I. Praha: Nákl. České akademie císaře Františka Josefa pro vědy, slovesnost a umění, 1907. Demetz, P. Bolzano über Christen und Juden. In: Bernard Bolzanos Besssere Welt, Akten der Internationalen Tagung Salzburg, 27. und 28. Mai 2010. Hrsg. Kurt F. Strasser. Brno: L. Marek, 2011 (Deus et Gentes, sv. 21). Denzinger, H. Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum. Kompendium der Glaubensbekenntnisse und kirchlichen Eehrenentscheidungen Griechisch/Latein-Deutsch. Verbessert, erweitert, ins Deutsche übertragen und unter Mitarbeit von Helmut Hoping herausgegeben von Peter Hünermann, Ausgabe auf CD¬ROM, Freiburg/ Basel /Rom/Wien: Herder 1997. Dolejšová and Hradilek. Budoucnost modernismu? Ročenka časopisu Getsemany. Praha: Síť, 1999. Farský K. ———. Postily, připraveno prací kolektivu za ved. M. Kaňáka. Praha: Blahoslav, 1952.

140

Bibliography

———. Stát a církev. Poměr státu českého k církvi římské. Od prvopočátku až do roku 1924. Praha 1924. Fasora, L., Hanuš, J., Malíř, J. ———. Sekularizace českých zemí v letech 1848–1914. Brno: Centrum pro studium demokracie, 2007. ———. Sekularizace venkovského prostoru v 19. Století. Brno: Matice moravská— Historický ústav AV ČR, 2009. Feiner, Shmuel. Haskalah and History: The Emergence of a Modern Jewish Historical Consciousness. Oxford: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2002. Fiedler, R. Volks-und Bürgerschule—Sonderschulen. In: Die deutsche Schule in den Sudetenländern. Im Aufträge der Arbeitsgemeinschaft sudetendeutsche Erzieher herausgegeben von Theo Keil, München, 1967. Frind, W. Das sprachliche und sprachlichnationale Recht in polyglotten Staaten und Ländern mit besonderer Rücksichtnahme auf Oesterreich und Böhmen, Vorwort R. Grulich. Brno: Marek 2006. Grulich, R. Sudetoněmečtí katolíci jako oběti nacismu. 1. vyd. Brno: Marek, 2002. Grundl, A. Anton Krombholz 1790–1869. Ein deutscher Priester und Schulorganisator aus Böhmen. Sudentendeutsches historisches Archiv. Bd. 3. Prag 1937. ———. Die Fabrikabendschule der „Streicherkinder“ zu Böhmisch. Leipa, in: Heimat und Volk, Festchrift für W. Wostry, Brünn 1937, 567–583. Haubelt, J. ———. Bolzanos Lehrer Jan Marian Mika. In: Bernard Bolzano 1781–1848. Vydala Univerzita Karlova k dvoustému výročí narození Bernarda Bolzana. Praha: Univerzita Karlova 1981, 45–60. ———. České osvícenství. Praha: Svoboda, 1986. Hlavačka, M. a kol. České země v 19. století. Proměny společnosti v moderní době, I, Praha: Historický ústav, 2014. Hobza, R., (ed.). 60 let profesora ThDr. A PhDr. Miloslava Kaňáka, životopisná črta se soupisem jeho prací, připraveno péčí jeho žáků a přátel, Praha 1977 (rozmnoženo jako rukopis). Hollerweger, H. Die Reform des Gottesdienstes zur Zeit des Josephinismus in Österreich. Regensburg: Pustet, 1976. Huber, A. K. ———. Anton Krombholz. In Lebensbilder zur Geschichte der böhmischen Länder. Bd. 4. München: Oldenbourg 1981. ———. Krombolz, Anton. In: Österreichisches Biographisches Lexikon 1815–1950. Bd. 4 (Lfg. 18, 1968). ———. Nation und Kirche 1848–1918, in SEIBT F. (Ed.), Bohemia Sacra. Das Christentum in Böhmen 973–1973, Schwann Düsseldorf 1974, 246–257. Jennkins, P. The Next Christendom. The Coming of Global Christianity. Oxford: Oxford Press, 2007. Jung, M. H. Der Protestantismus in Deutschland von 1870 bis 1945. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2002 Kàdner, O. Vývoj a dnešní soustava školství. Díl I. Praha: Česká akademie věd a umění, 1929.

Bibliography

141

Kaiserovà, K., Konfesní myšlení českých Němců v 19. a počátkem 20. století, Úvaly u Prahy: Ve stráni, 2003. Kaňák, M. ———. Z dějin reformního úsilí českého duchovenstva. Dějinná zkratka let 1800– 1920. Praha: Blahoslav, 1951. ———. Z dějin světových zápasů na poli náboženském I—katolický modernismus. Praha: Ústřední církevní nakladatelství, 1961. Kerstenberg-Gladstein, Ruth. Neuere Geschichte der Juden in den böhmischen Ländern. Erster Teil. Das Zeitalter der Aufklärung 1780–1830. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1969. Kieval, Hillel J. Formování českého židovstva. Národnostní konflikt a židovská společnost v Čechách 1870–1918. Praha–Litomyšl: Paseka, 2011. Kieval, Hillel J. Languages of Community: the Jewish experience in the Czech Lands. London/Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2000. Kočí, J., České národní obrození, Praha: Svoboda 1978. Koláček K. Vznik a vývoj starokatolického hnutí na území severních Čech do roku 1946, ed. Deus et Gentes, sv. 3, L. Brno: Marek, 2006. Kořalka, J., František Palacký a čeští bolzanisté. In: KUČERA, Z.; LÁŠEK, Jan B. (ed.) Modernismus-historie nebo výzva? Studie ke genezi českého katolického modernismu. Brno: L. Marek, 2002. Křivský, P. Vincenc Zahradník 1790–1836. Literární pozůstalost, Praha: Památník národního písemnictví, 1974. Kučera, Zdeněk. ———. Hoře a milost: ke kořenům církve radikálního modernismu, Brno: L. Marek 2001. ———, with Lášek, Jan Blahoslav (eds.). Modernismus—historie nebo yýzva? Studie ke genezi českého katolického modernismu. Brno: L. Marek, 2002. Kutnar, Fr. Obrozenské vlastenectví a nacionalismus. Příspěvek k národnímu a společenskému obsahu češství doby obrozenské. Praha: Karolinum, 2003. Lášek, Jan Blahoslav. ———. Bernard Bolzano als Urheber der Reformbestrebungen der katholischen in Bohmen im XIX. Jahrhundert. In Lášek and Toth, Zdeněk Kučera—Teologie v dialogu. Sborník k pětasedmdesátinám profesora Zdeňka Kučery. 1 vyd. Hradec Králové: Univerzita Hradec Králové, 2005. ———. Český teolog první poloviny XIX. století Vincenc Zahradník (1790–1836). K 150. výročí úmrtí zapomenutého obrozeneckého kněze. Teologická revue. 57/1986, 143–148. ———. K dějinám starokatolictvi ve Varnsdorfu. In: Almanach ke 130. výročí povýšení Varnsdorfu na město. Varnsdorf: Kruh přátel muzea Varnsdorf, 1998, 17–23. ———. František Náhlovský und das Reformprogramm vom Jahre 1848 zur Erneuerung der Kirche in Böhmen. In Kučera and Lášek (eds.), Modernismus— historie nebo výzva? Studie ke genezi českého katolického modernismu, Brno: Marek, 2002.

142

Bibliography

———, and Toth, D., (eds.) Zdeněk Kučera. Teologie v dialogu. Beatus vir, qui non abiit in consilio impiorum. Sborník k pětasedmdesátinám profesora Zdeňka Kučery, Hradec Králové, 2005. Lehmann, H. Das Christentum im 20. Jahrhundert: Fragen, Probleme, Perspektiven. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012. Lochman, J. M. ———. Duchovní odkaz obrození. Dobrovský, Bolzano, Kollár, Palacký. Náboženské profily. Praha: Kalich 1964. ———. Náboženské myšlení českého obrození. Kořeny a počátky. Praha: Komenského evangelická fakulta bohoslovecká, 1952. Leininger, V. Auszug aus dem Ghetto. Rechtsstellung und Emanzipationsbemühungen der Juden in Prag in der ersten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts. Singapore: Kuda Api Press, 2006. Literatura česká devatenáctého století. Od josefínského obrození až po českou modernu, díl III/1 Od K. H. Máchy ke K. Havlíčkovi, Praha: Laichter, 1905. Loužil, J. Bernard Bolzano. Praha: Melantrich, 1978. Maass, F. Der Frühjosephinismus. Wien/München: Herold, 1969. Morscher, E. and Neumaier, O. (Hrsg.). Bolzanos Kampf gegen Nationalismus und Rassismus. Beiträge zur Bolzano-Forschung, Band 4. Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag, 1996. Mráček, P. Příručka církevních dějin. Praha: Krystal, 1995. Nešpor, Z. R. a kol. Náboženství v 19. století. Nejcírkevnější století nebo období zrodu českého ateismu. Praha: Scriptorium, 2010. Pavlíková, M. Bernard Bolzanos Lehrjahre. Curt Christian (Hrsgb.), Bernad Bolzano. Leben und Wirkung. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1981, str. 29–61. ———. Bolzanovo působení na pražské univerzitě. Univerzita Karlova, Praha, 1985. ———. Vztah J. Jungmanna k B. Bolzanovi a jeho žákům. Literární archív, VIII/IX, Praha, 1973–74, str. 79–102. Podlaha, A. Bibliografie české katolické literatury náboženské od roku 1828 až do konce roku 1913. Díl I–V, Praha 1912–1923. Pospíšil, C. V. Geniální trojiční teologie a pneumatologie Vincence Zahradníka (1790–1836). Theologická revue UK HTF, roč. 81/2010,str. 71–96. ———. Úvod do trinitologie a pneumatologie Jana Valeriána Jirsíka (1798–1883). Theologická revue UK HTF, roč. 81/2010,str. 97–117. Rémond, R. Náboženství a společnost v Evropě. Praha: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, 2003. Reusch, F. H. Krombholz Anton. In: Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie. Hrsg. von der Historischen Kommission bei der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Band 17. Krabbe/Lassota. Leipzig, 1883, s. 184. Říčan, Rudolf. Od úsvitu reformace k dnešku. Praha s.d. (1948). Seibt, F. Německo a Češi. Dějiny jednoho sousedství uprostřed Evropy. Praha: Academia, 1996. Seidlerová, I. Politické a sociální názory Bernarda Bolzana. Praha: Nakl. Československé akademie věd, 1963.

Bibliography

143

Singer, L. Zur Geschichte der Toleranzpatente in den Sudetenländern. Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für Geschichte der Juden in der Čechoslovakischen Republik. Ročník 5, 1933. Schroeder, O. Aufbruch und Missverständnis. Zur Geschichte der reformkatholischen Bewegung. Graz: Verlag Styria, 1969. Schrödter, H. Philosophie und Religion. Die „Religionswissenschaft“ Bernard Bolzanos. Meisenheim am Glan: Anton Hain 1972. Schuffenhauer, W. (ed.). Bernard Bolzano 1781–1848. Studien und Quellen. Berlin: Akademia 1981. Spisar, A. Ideový vývoj církve československé (Nástin). Praha: Blahoslav 1936. Skalický, K. Teologický rozměr díla českého vlastence Vincence Zahradníka (1790– 1836), KRUMPOLC E.,POLÁKOVÁ J., POSPÍŠIL, Z plnosti Kristovy. Sborník k devadesátinám Oty Mádra, Karmelitánské nakladatelství, Kostelní Vydří 2007. Strasser, Kurt F., Bernard Bolzanos Erbauungsreden. Prag 1805–1820. Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag, 2004 (Beiträge zur Bolzano Forschung, sv. 18). ———. (Hrsg.): Bernard Bolzano. Erbauungsreden des Studienjahres 1809/1810. In: Bernard Bolzano Gesamtausgabe. Reihe II. Nachlass. A. Nachgelassene Schriften. Band 17. Teilband 1. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Friedrich Frommann Verlag (Günther Holzboog) 2009. Svoboda, R. Arnošt Konstantin Růžička. Josefinista na českobudějovickém biskupském stolci. České Budějovice: Nakladatelství Jih, 2011 (Středoevropské dějiny, sv. 4). Svoboda,V. Die innere Entwicklung des tschechischen Katholizismus in den letzten hundert Jahren, in: SEIBT F. (Ed.), Bohemia Sacra. Das Christentum in Böhmen 973–1973, Düsseldorf: Schwann, 1974, 162–174. Tresmontant, Claude. La crise moderniste. Paris: Seuil, 1979. Urban, Rudolf. Die Tschechoslowakische Hussitische Kirche. Marburg/Lahn: Herder Institut, 1973. Valášek, E. Der Kampf gegen die Priester im Sudetenland 1938–1945. Königstein: Archiv für Kirchengeschichte von Böhmen /Mähren/Schlesien, Königstein 2003. Valjavec, F. ———. Geschichte der abendländischen Aufklärung. Wien 1961. ———. Der Josephinismus. Zur geistigen Entwicklung Österreichs im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert. Brünn: Rohrer, 1944. Veverková, Kamila. ———. Etické otázky vědy v díle Bernarda Bolzana a některých jeho žáků. Theologická revue, 79/2008, str. 424–439. ———. Bernard Bolzano jako důležitý mezník pro pojetí vědy a etiky v 19. století. In: Drozenová, W., Etika vědy v České republice: od historických kořenů k současné bioetice. Praha: Filosofia 2010, str. 28–34. ———. Dílo Antona Krombholze a jeho význam pro reformní teologické myšlení v Čechách. Brno: L. Marek, 2004. ———. K problematice studia osvícenství u nás a pramenů, týkajících se některých Bolzanových žáků, in: SVOBODA, R., WEIS, M., ZUBKO P. (ed.), Duchovní a myšlenkové proměny druhé poloviny 19. století, Sborník příspěvků z vědecké

144

Bibliography

konference, konané na Teologické fakultě Jihočeské univerzity 23. února 2006, České Budějovice: Jihočeská univerzita 2006, str. 25–47. Vinš, P. J., Starokatolická obec v Praze a její vztah k vznikající Církvi československé, in: Theologická revue UK HTF, roč.79/2008, str. 101–215. Vychodil, P. J., František Sušil. Životopisný nástin. Brno 1898. Wiedemann, Th., Anton Krombholz. Eine biographische Skizze. In: Österreichische Vierteljahresschrift für Katholische Theologie, 1870, H. 4, str. 71. Winter, Eduard. ———. Anton Krombholz. In: Sudetendeutsche Lebensbilder. Bd. III. Hrsg. GIERACH, E. Reichenberg 1934. ———. Bernard Bolzano. Ein Lebensbild. BB GA (Bernard Bolzano-Gesamtausgabe) Einleitungsband, Erste Teil. Biogpraphie. Fromann Holzboog Verlag, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstat 1969. ———. Bernard Bolzano a jeho kruh. Přeložil a některými poznámkami doplnil Zdeněk Kalista. S předmluvou Arne Nováka. Brno: Akord 1935. ———. Bolzano-Brevier: Sozialethische Betrachtungen aus Vormärz. Aus den gedruckten Erbauungsreden und ungedruckten Adversarien Bolzanos. Wien: Friedrich, 1947. ———. Frühliberalismus in der Donaumonarchie: religiöse, nationale und wissenschaftliche Strömungen von 1790–1868. Berlin: Akad. Verlag, 1968. ———. Leben und geistige Entwicklung des Sozialethikers und Mathematikers Bernad Bolzano (1781–1848). Halle: M. Niemeyer 1949 (Hallsche Monographien, Bd. 100). ———. Mein Leben im Dienst des Völkerverständnisses. Nach Tegebuchaufzeichnungen, Briefen, Dokumenten und Erinnerungen, T. 1, Berlin: Akademia, 1981. ———. Josefinismus a jeho dějiny. Příspěvky k duchovním dějinám Čech a Moravy 1740–1848. Přel. V. Soják, Praha: Nakl. Jelínek, 1945. ———. Romantismus, Restauration und Frühliberalismus im österreichischen Vormärz. Wien: Europa Verlag, 1968. ———. Tisíc let duchovního zápasu, Přel. O. Liška, Praha 1940.

Index

Agnew, Hugh LeCaine, 116 Arnold, Claus, 136 Augustine, St., 30 Auty, Robert, 116

Chlumčanský, Václav Leopold, abp., x, 62 Christian, Curt, 125

Babiuch, Jolanta, 118 Bartoš, (scriber) 65 Becker, M.A., 121 Beneš of Hořovice, 132 Benis-Sinaceur, Hourya, 115 Berg, Jan, 116, 126, 129, 134 Bělina, Pavel, 126 Biedermann-Arends, Hermine, 85 Bindera, Josef, 12 Bláha, Vojtěch, 122, 123, 127 Bolzano, Bernard, vii–xix, 3–8, 14,15, 19, 21, 22, 24, 27–37, 40–44, 47–49, 51–65, 68–74, 81, 95, 97–106, 108–110, 112, 115–119, 121–123, 125–127, 129–131, 133–136 Bolzano, Jan (John), vii Borovský, K.H., 133 Braumüller, Wilhelm, 121, 128 Brock, Peter, 116 Čáda, František, xiii, 48, 61–64, 70–73, 78, 106, 117, 120, 123, 128, 131, 133 Červinková-Riegrová, Marie, 129

David, Zdeněk V., 116 Demetz, Peter, 52, 60, 129, 131 Denzinger, Heinrich, 121 Diadochus, bp., 75 Döbler, Georg, 13 Dobrovský, Josef, 67, 119, 133 Dolejšová (Noble), Ivana, 119 Drozenová, Wendy, 118, 122 Dvořáček, Petr, 126 Ernstberger, Anton, 128 Exner, Franz, 115 Farský, Karel, 21, 103, 105–107, 111, 135, 136 Fasora, Lukáš, 128 Feiner, Shmel, 131 Fesl, Josef M., xi, xii, xvii, 10,12, 19, 62, 116–117, 132 Fiedler, Rudolf, 121 Fichte, J.G., 91 Franklin, Angelo Shaun, xvi Frind, Wenzel, 136 Frint, Jakob, ix, xi, 32, 52, 116, 129 Fuchs, Alfred, 105, 136

145

146

Index

Gerstner, František Josef, viii George, Rolf, 115, 135 Gierach, Erich, 120 Gorazd, (Pavlík Matěj), bp. 1, 111 Grassl, Wolfgang, 116 Grulich, Rudolf, 111, 136 Grundl, Alfred, 23, 45, 83, 120, 122, 127, 128 Hánová, Anna, 119 Hanuš, Jiří, 128 Hanuš, Josef, 133 Haubelt, Josef, 116, 125, 126 Hille, Bartoloměj, bp., 14 Hlavačka, Milan, 126 Hoffmanns, xiv Hollerweger, Hans, 120 Hoping, Helmut, 121 Horčička, František, 8 Hradilek, Pavel, 119 Hrdlička, Jaroslav, 135 Huber, A. K., 120, 136 Hünermann, Peter, 121 Hurdálek, Josef František, xi, xii, 10,13, 62 Hus, Jan, 76 Irenaeus, St., 30 Jandera, Josef Ladislav, VIII Jarisch, Anton, 83 Jauris, Miroslav, 116 Jeitteles, Jonas, 60 Jenkins, Philip, 119 Jirsík, Jan Valerian, bp., 22, 70, 117, 122 Jung, M. H., 121 Jungmann, Josef, 123 Kadeřávek, Václav, 135 Kadlec, Jaroslav, 135 Kádner, Otakar, 121 Kaiserová, Kristina, 126, 128 Kalista, Zdeněk, 101, 119, 125, 135 Kambartel, Friedrich, 116, 126, 129, 134 Kant, Immanuel, 73

Kaňák, Miroslav, 107, 119, 120, 135, 136 Kauffmann, Hugo, 84 Keil, Theo, 121 Kerstenberg-Gladstein, Ruth, 130, 131 Kieval, Hillel J., 130 Klopstock, F.G., 91 Kočí, Josef, 126 Koláček, Karel, 118, 128 Kollár, Jan, 119 Komenský (Comenius), Jan Amos, 41, 127 Kořalka, Jiří, 119, 121 Kovář, František, 21, 111 Kowalewski, Arnold, 116 Krombholz, Anton, x–xii, xvii–xix, 7,9, 10, 14–19, 22–24, 44–49, 52, 70, 74, 83–90, 92–95, 103, 109–112, 116, 120–122, 127–129, 132, 134, 135 Krug, Wilhelm Traugott, 73 Krumpholc, Eduard, 131 Křivský, Pavel, xiv, 63, 117, 128, 132 Kučera, Zdeněk, 20, 22, 103, 117, 119, 122, 135, 136 Kühn, Bernard, 52 Künne, Wolfgang, 129 Kutnar, František, 126 Landová, Dagmar, 8, 11, 12, 13 Langer, Eduard, 24, 83–90, 92–94, 109 Lapointe, Sandra, 115 Lášek, Jan B., xvi, xviii, 61, 109, 117, 119, 120, 123, 132, 135, 136 Lehmann, Hartmut, 119 Leininger, Věra, 131 Liška, Oldřich, 118 Lochman, Jan Milíč, 7, 27, 69, 119, 120, 123, 126, 133 Loisy, Alfred, 6 Loužil, Jaromír, 116, 122, 123,125, 126, 129, 134 Luther, Martin, 4, 65 Luxmoore, Jonathan, 118 Maass, F. W., 120

Index

Mádr, Oto, 131 Mácha, K. H., 133 Malíř, Jiří, 128 Malý, Radomír, 135 Marek, Antonín, 73 Marek, Pavel, 20, 122 Masaryk, T. G., 118 Maurer, Cecilia, vii Maurer, Franz, vii Medek, Václav, 135 Mendelssohn, Moses, 60, 131 Míčková, Klára, 130 Milde, Vincenc Eduard, bp, xi, 14, 62 Mika, Jan Marian, viii, 37, 116, 125 Morscher, Edgar, ix, 52, 116, 126, 129, 134 Mráček, Pavel, 135 Náhlovský, František, xiii, xiv, 10, 18, 107, 109, 117, 134, 136 Naor, Chaya, 131 Nepomucký, Jan, 64 Nešpor, Zdeněk R., 126 Neumaier, Otto, 52, 117, 129 Nittel, Anton, 120 Novák, Arne, 101 Nosek, Bedřich, 118 Oberkofler, Gerhard, 117 Palacká née Měchurová, Teresie, 10 Palacký, František, 10, 64, 65, 119, 121, 132 Pautsch, Hildegard, 119, 125 Pavlíková, Marie, ix, 43, 63, 116, 123, 125, 127, 130, 132 Pius X, pope, 122 Podlaha, Antonín, bp., 122, 136 Poláková, Jolana, 131 Pospíšil, Ctirad V., xiv, 22, 61, 64–70, 106, 117, 122, 131–133 Procházka, Gustav Adolf, 111 Přibík, Pulkava, 132 Putna, Martin C., 20 Pysent, Robert B., 116

147

Rechcígl, Miloslav, 118 Rémond, René, 4, 119 Reusch, Franz Heinrich, 120 Rokycana, Jan, 65 Rootselaar, Bob van, 116, 126, 129, 134 Rusnock, Paul, x, 115, 117, 126, 129, 135 Russ, Steve, 115 Růžička, Arnošt Konstantin, bp., 2, 117, 118, 131, 135 Říčan, Rudolf, 119 Sauser, Ekkart, 116 Sborgi, Carla, 115 Seibt, Ferdinand, 126, 135 Seidlerová, Irena, 116, 121, 122, 132 Schell, Hermann, 6, 119 Schenkel, Peter Michael, 117 Schneider, Franz, xi, 10, 19, 22 Schrödter, Hermann, 135 Schroeder, Oskar, 119 Schuffenhauer, Werner, 119, 125, 135 Silverston, Sondra, 131 Singer, Ludwig, 130 Skalický, Karel, 61, 64, 65, 131 Skilling, Gordon H., 116 Smetana, Augustin, 7, 119 Soják, Vladimír, 118 Spisar, Alois, 21, 111, 136 Sršeň, Lubomír, 8, 11–13 Statečný, Karel, 21 Strasser, Kurt F., ix, 54, 129 Steele, Donald A., 115 Sušil, František, 107, 136 Svoboda, Rudolf, xiv, 2, 98, 117, 118, 131, 135 Svoboda, Václav, 135 Šebestík, Pavel, x, 115, 117, 126, 129 Špinka (publisher) 71 Táborský, Josef, 135 Talacko, Joseph V., 118 Teich, Mikuláš, 116 Thomas a Kempis, 64 Thun-Hohenstein, Leopold Lev, xii, 117

148

Tinková, Daniela, 126 Tippmann, Karel, 123, 133 Toth, Daniel, 136 Tresmontant, Claude, 119 Tyrell, George, 6 Urban, Rudolf, 122, 136 Valášek, Emil, 111, 136 Valjavec, Fritz, 119, 130 Veverková, Kamila, vii, x, xi–xvi, 116, 117, 121, 122, 127, 128, 132, 134, 135 Vinařický, Karel Alois, 71, 74 Vinš, Petr Jan, 118 Vogel, Jiří, 119 Vopěnka, Petr, 118 Vydra, Stanislav, viii

Index

Vychodil, Pavel Julius, 136 Weis, Martin, 118 Werner, Florian, xvii, 10, 34, 125 Wiedemann, Theodor, 120, 121, 127, 128 Winter, Eduard, xiii, 23, 27, 34, 37, 51, 52, 101, 116–120, 122, 125, 126, 129, 134, 135 Wostry, Wilhelm, 128 Zacek, Joseph F., 116 Zahradník, Vincenc, xi–xiii, xvii, xviii, 10, 11, 22, 47–49, 61–81, 101, 104, 106, 107, 109, 110, 117, 120–123, 128, 131–134, 136 Zlabinger, Eleonore, 117 Zubko, Peter, 118

About the Author & Translator

Kamila Veverková works as the dean of the Hussite Theological Faculty of Charles University in Prague. She has written significant monographs on Anton Krombholz and Bernard Bolzano. Angelo Shaun Franklin is an independent researcher who works as a translator and educational consultant in Prague. He is currently translating several theological texts by Jan Hus and other medieval Bohemian works.

149