THOMAS G: MASARYK AND THE
CROATS*
- -
-
Journal
of Croatian Studies, XXVIII-XXIX, 1987-88 ? Annual Review of the Croatian Academy of
America, Inc. New York, N.Y., Electronic edition by Studia Croatica, by
permission. All rights reserved by the Croatian Academy of America.
- -
-
Toma?
G. Masaryk (1850-1937) was
a very influential theoretician of the history of his country. He was partly
successful in turning the Czechs away from romantic nationalism and in giving
them a new ideology with roots in their own past.
In
books such as The Meaning of Czech History (Česka otazka 1895), Jan Hus (1896), and Karel Havliček (1896), he outlined his philosophy of Czech
history: for him the Hussite era was the pinnacle of the Czech past, and the
Bohemian Brethren were the finest embodiment of the ideal of humanity. He
considered the Czech national revival at the beginning of the nineteenth century
a direct continuation of the Czech Reformation, and the modern Czech democracy
the fulfilment of the Hussite tradition.[1][1]
Masaryk,
who began his career as professor of philosophy at Prague University by
attacking the authenticity of the so-called Old Czech Manuscripts (forged
chiefly by a poet Vaclav Hanka) and was effective (together with others) in
demolishing this myth, in the process of time, when he became a politician and
national leader, created many myths of his own!
To prove this point I will adduce the opinion of some respected Czech
scholars.
Josef
Kaizl (1854-1901), a
former colleague of Masaryk in the Young Czech party, in his book Czech
Thought (Česke my?lenky 1896), challenged
Masaryk's views of Czech history. He argued that the Czech question was a
national, not a religious problem. He emphasized that the "awakeners"
of the early nineteenth century were liberals in the tradition of the French
Enlightenment and not that of the Reformation. Even those who were Protestants (e.g.
Jan Kollar, Franti?ek Palacky and Pavel J. ?afarik) did not draw upon the Czech
protestant tradition; they looked at the revival only in national and social terms.
From professional historians came even more serious
objections to Masaryk's interpretations. One of the better known scholars, on
account of his immense erudition, was Josef Pekař (1870-1937), who in his booklet Masaryk's
Czech Philosophy (Masarykova česka filosofie, 1912; third edition, 1927) argued
that the Czech national awakening was different from the Czech Reformation,
that the ideal of humanity enunciated by Herder and accepted by Franti?ek
Palacky (1779-1876), the
"father" of Czech historiography, had nothing to do with the
Christian beliefs either of the Hussites or the Bohemian Brethren. Pekař
regarded the Hussites as "enthusiasts", who, for the sake of their
debatable opinions, went gladly to their death. He quoted Palacky who had
written that during the Reformation the idea of faith and church was of the
greatest significance, while for his contemporaries the most important concept
was that of Czech nation.[2][2] Pekař pointed out that Masaryk's
beloved Hussites had accepted the feudal order and did not demand the
emancipation of the serfs. Further, he denied that the outcome of the battle of
the White Mountain (1620) should
be explained by the moral decay of the Czech nation. Pekař repudiated
Masaryk's philosophy of history as an artificial fabrication without support in
reality and even in collision with it. Pekař concluded his attack against
Masaryk's philosophy of the Czech nation by saying that he felt obliged to
oppose Masaryk's mystical ideology and national mythology.[3][3]
Ren鍊Wellek (1903- ), one
of the most competent critics of Masaryk's philosophy, who has remained a
devoted admirer of the former Czech president, recognizes, however, that
"Masaryk was not and did not pretend to be a professional historian doing
research in archives ... Masaryk scarcely makes an effort to enter into the
minds of bygone people, to reconstruct their outlook in its historical setting,
for he does not care for the past in itself but mainly for the consciousness
and conscience of his contemporaries and their descendants. The past for
Masaryk must stay alive to shape the future".[4][4]
The persistent theme of Masaryk's exhortations to his countrymen was
that they should not be apathetic, that they should work and prove assiduous
even in petty daily duties. He encouraged them to make their way in the
contemporary world using both their muscles and brain.
In
his book about Karel Havliček, a leading Czech political figure (1821-56), when he discussed the
"essence of political realism", he said that it was not in the middle
of two extremes, namely of radical agitation and conservative inertia; his
realism (pragmatism, concretism) was continually moving forward. "When
politics is founded on precise observation, on experience illuminated by
reason, meaningful prediction becomes possible.[5][5] He cited Havliček who had written:
"In the past, men were read to die for honour and for good of their
people; for the same goals we are ready to work and live".[6][6]
By
his realism Masaryk was able to instil in the mind of his countrymen a sense of
duty and efficiency, which were the basis reasons why, especially during his
presidency (1918-35), the
Czechs became a forward moving nation.
Masaryk was first of all a moralist, preoccupied with the ethical and
moral implications of history and his own teaching.
Already
in his early writings, he had begun to discuss literature. His literary views
he formulated in works such as Modern Man and Religion (Moderni
človek a nabo?enstvi, 1898) and
Russia and Europa (Rusko a Evropa, 1913). In them he sharply criticized romanticism,
subjectivism and titanism; he attacked Goethe's Faust and works of Nietzsche,
de Musset and Zola. Although at first he was fascinated, later he was repelled
by Dostoevsky, whom he considered an extreme romantic and mystic. Masaryk
disliked the French romantics, in whose poetry he was shocked by symptoms of
decadence.
He
always praised the human and protestant spirit of the English letters. He had
no interest for English poetry, and assaulted Lord Byron as an example of
romantic titanism. He rejected novelists such as James Joyce and George Moore,
who seemed to him essentially Catholic and decadent.[7][7] On the contrary, he
appreciated women writers like Charlotte and Emily Bronte, and Elisabeth B.
Browning.
Masaryk
definitely was not an esthete or literary critic. He was interested in letters
only as a mirror of society. His rigid moralism and his lack of interest in
problems of form led him often to erroneous judgments about some of the
greatest writers.
However, the very bluntness with which he expressed
his antiromantic and antidecadent views has greatly influenced many Czech
critics and writers. There were also foreign students who accepted his ideas.
They did not pay due attention to the deficiencies of his
literary insight; they followed him for they respected him as their leader not
only in the domain of politics, but also in those of philosophy, religion,
sociology and even literary criticism.
***
The
demonstration which occurred on October 16th, 1895, when a Hungarian flag was
burnt by University students at Zagreb, is usually considered one of the
turning points in Croatian history. This date marks a boundary line after which
the political and cultural life of the Croatian nation would be gradually reoriented
("a new course"). One can say that at this date the Croats began to
enter the twentieth century.
Khuen-Hedervary,
a Magyar Count, who had already for twelve years (since 1883) ruthlessly
governed Croatia-Slavonia as its Ban (civil governor, viceroy), thought the
time was propitious to invite Franz Joseph, the Austro-Hungarian Emperor, to
Zagreb where he could see for himself subjugated and magyarised Croatia. Khuen
with his advisers believed that the moment was well chosen.
The
strongest party in opposition, the Party of Rights (nationalistic), just then,
a year before its founder Ante Starčević died (1896), had split into
two antagonistic factions. One of them expected the recognition of Croatian
national rights through the Viennese Court on the basis of the trialist
solution, and therefore it was ready to cooperate with Vienna (Josip Frank);
the other faction, having lost every hope that the Croatian question was being
comprehended either by Austrians or Magyars, started slowly to orient itself
toward closer cooperation with the Serbian component, sincerely believing that
in the future all the South Slavs would be united on equal terms (Fran
Folnegović).[8][8]
But
all these and other political parties did not mean very much: they did not
represent more than a tiny fragment of the Croatian population;[9][9] they were made up of people the majority
of whom for different reasons could not, at least for a long time, remain in
the opposition.
No one troubled about the large Croatian peasant
masses (85% of the total population), who lived in most primitive and
precarious economic conditions.[10][10] It was not difficult for all sorts of "agents" to convince
these toiling masses that the best solution for them was to emigrate to the
United States or elsewhere.[11][11] As soon as they departed, the foreign element started to immigrate,
especially into Slavonia, the richest Croatian province, and eventually took
the key positions in agriculture and national economy.
Life
was equally precarious for the steadily growing Croatian intelligentsia. If
they wished to compete for a limited number of governmental positions,
knowledge of the Magyar language was a prerequisite; moreover, they were
supposed to keep far away from any opposition party.
To
darken the picture even more, the fight between the Croatian majority and the
Serbian minority was reaching a climax: the Serbs, for the sake of good
positions and certain religious privileges, were a most reliable tool in the
hands of Khuen-Hedervary. Not a single Serbian deputy was in the ranks of the
opposition.[12][12] The Croats, on the other
hand, under the influence of the nationalistic, pan-Croatian ideas of the
uncompromising Starčević, did not show any willingness to recognize
the Serbian minority as such. When these Orthodox dared to hang up the Serbian
flag, the Croats burned it. Thus, the Illyrian idea (either Yugoslav or
Panslavic) with regard to the Slavic brotherhood seemed a long forgotten
utopia. The governor skilfully played with and exploited this bitter animosity
among these two linguistically related and often intermingled South Slavic
nations.[13][13]
Khuen-Hedervary was sure that the Emperor, who had
always shown a strong liking for him, would be impressed by the results of his
shrewd and unscrupulous policy. How could he think otherwise? Even the most
liberal newspaper, Obzor, the organ around which gathered the dispersed
forces of the Yugoslav idea, greeted Franz Joseph by printing on its first page
this odious title: "Ave Caesar". From where was the reaction against
this brutal and arrogant tyranny to come? From the intellectuals? Many of them
were passing through one of those low tides. On this autumn day for the
Croatian patriots (there were still many of them!) even the sun must have lost
its shining aspect and vital force.
But,
all tyrants never know how far they can go; they never sense the real
undercurrents. Their biggest mistake is their belief that if they succeed in
subduing the parents they automatically have at their disposal the souls of the
children.[14][14]
In
retaliation for their demonstration, the authorities first imprisoned and then
expelled a large number of students from Zagreb University. As they retained
the right to study at some other university, they moved to Prague, Vienna and
Munich.
These
central-European cultural centers played a decisive role in modern Croatian
culture. Since Vienna and Munich were then under the strong influence of French
artistic currents, Croatian students thus came, indirectly, into close contact
with various movements then predominant in Paris. Antun G. Mato? (1873-1914 was the only man of letters
who had direct contact with the French capital because he lived there for five
years (1899-1904). During
the preceding realist period, when Russian literary influence was predominant,
two significant Croatian novelists, August ?enoa and Eugen Kumičić
(who lived in Paris for more than one year 1875-77), did their best to attract the Croatian
intelligentsia toward France.
The
largest group among these expelled students went to Prague, where they fell
under the powerful influence of Thomas G. Masaryk. From him they learned to be
"realists". Masaryk emphasized the study of life and of present-day
conditions; he rejected l'art pour l'art, decadence, mysticism, unhistorical
glorification of the past. On the basis of solid work he planned to lay a real
foundation for national awakening and progress.[15][15]
The
Croatian students, who had come to Prague as confirmed political romanticists
and in a short time became convinced realists started in January of 1897 to publish their own magazine Hrvatska
misao-Croatian Thought (which the following year changed its name into Novo
Doba-New Times.[16][16]
The
real driving force behind this publication was Stjepan Radić (1871-1928), who had lived in Prague before
and spoke Czech fluently. Radić was the most important member of the
Zagreb anti-Magyar demonstration and the main instigator of the influx of so
many students to Prague. Hrvatska misao bore the indelible stamp of
Radić's creative power. Much later Radić wrote: "Here (in Hrvatska
Misao) for the first time I expressed all my political and social
ideas".[17][17] The group around Hrvatska Misao
declared that the dogma of Croatian state rights conflicted with the national rights
of the Croats. The majority of them were obviously fervent disciples of
Masaryk.
Though
the influence of Thomas Masaryk on Croats, as on other South Slavs, between 1895-1918, was a potent stimulus for
their independence and later union, though many politicians and sociologists
returned home from Prague, no significant literary figure, with the exception
of Milan Marjanović (1879-1955)
whose quantity of work grew at the expense of its quality, was produced
by this "realist" school. From Vienna, on the other hand, a more
artistic though less realistic wind blew. The greatest single influence upon
the Croatian "modernists" was exercised by Hermann Bahr (1863-1934), the Austrian critic,
playwright and prose-writer. If not the originator, Bahr was at any rate the
indicator of almost every literary movement between 1890 and 1920.[18][18]
Since I speak about Croatian literature during the
"Moderna" period, I should not forget at least to mention that some
of the best writers (such as Ivo Vojnović, Vladimir Nazor and Milan
Begović) were born in the territory of Dalmatia and received a beneficial
influence from Italian letters. Some Scandinavian (Ibsen, Bjđrnson and
Brandes) and Polish writers were well known and imitated at that time.[19][19]
After the violent anti-Magyar demonstrations, which
took place at Zagreb in 1903, Khuen-Hedervary was replaced as the governor of
Croatia. Two years later (1905) was formed the Croato-Serbian Coalition, whose most
dynamic and daring politician was Frano Supilo (1870-1917), a journalist
first stationed in Dubrovnik and then in Rijeka. The Austro-Hungarian
authorities did everything to discredit the Coalition and eliminate Supilo, who
had established cordial relations with Masaryk.[20][20]
Baron
Aloys Aehrenthal, the Austrian Minister of foreign affairs, thinking that the
time was opportune, announced (in 1901
that Bosnia and Herzegovina, the two provinces which had bee
"occupied" since 1878, were
formally "annexed". Though at first seemed that this act could
provoke an international conflict, all the major powers gradually acquiesced in
the "fait accompli". Only Serbia was ready to resist, but soon
realized that she alone was not equal to Austrian might.
As
he had done previously (1892-93) by
critizing Benjamin Kallay, the governor of Bosnia and Herzegovina, so even now,
in the Viennese parliament, Masaryk attacked the annexation and predicted that
it could mean the beginning of the end of the Austrian monarchy. He said this
with the best intentions, for he still accepted the dictum of Palacky who had
said that "if Austria did not exist, it would been necessary to create
her".
Though
the war was avoided, Austria was widely considered an usurper. In order to
justify his action, Aehrenthal tried to prove that his government had acted in
self-defense, because there was a "conspiracy" of the Serbs in
Croatia whose final goal was it disintegration. He sent his agents to Croatia,
who found many alleged plotters. In March of 1909 a process was instituted against them in Zagreb.
Judges known for their servility were chosen; only hostile witnesses were
allowed to give testimony.
Pupils
of Masaryk, his former students or those who admire him on account of his
teaching and deeds, informed him of the travesty of justice in Zagreb. They
asked him to come, watch the trial and do what he could for the innocent
accused. At first he was reluctant, but when they appealed to his love of truth
and his chivalry, he came. In Zagreb he found R. W. Seton-Watson, the famous
English historian, who was also observing the trial.[21][21] They became friends and some
years later contributed much towards the disintegration of the Empire.
Returning
to Vienna, Masaryk in the parliament accuse Aehrenthal, together with the ban
of Croatia, baron Rauch, for their brutal behaviour in Croatia. He told how the
witnesses were prevented from giving their testimony and how lies were
fabricated.
Thereupon Masaryk was labelled an "agent provocateur" and a
traitor to his government. However, the brave professor was successful for a
retrial was ordered.
While
the process in Zagreb was still going on, a new affair erupted. An article
appeared in Neue Freie Presse (March 24, 1909), written by Professor H.
Friedjung (1851-1920), entitled "Austria, Hungary and Serbia". In it
Serbia was accused of interfering in the internal affairs of Austria. Friedjung
wrote that he had the documents to justify his accusation. The Serbs and Croats
denied having any knowledge of such documents and charged Friedjung for libel
in a Viennese court. The trial opened on December 9th, 1909.
Supilo
went to Prague and informed Masaryk that the documents were forgeries and that
behind them stood Count J. Forgach, the Austrian ambassador in Belgrade.[22][22] Many of the accused were Masaryk's
former students or followers. So he went to Belgrade to investigate the facts.
Among other things, he found that Bo?a Marković, the president of the club
Slovenski Jug, who supposedly was chairing an important revolutionary
meeting, had been in Germany at that time.[23][23] Masaryk returned to Vienna as a witness
for the accused. He proved to the court that the Slovenski Jug was no
secret organization since its basic aim was purely cultural. As regards the
documents he showed on the basis of the linguistic evidence that they were
spurious. Aehrenthal was finally obliged to recognize that the reasons which he
had given for the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina were sheer lies, and
that both trials (in Zagreb and Vienna) lacked any legal foundation.
A.G.
Mato? then wrote that Masaryk by his courageous and methodic intervention had
not only saved many deputies from being treated as national traitors, but had
also revealed to the entire world an unbelievable spectacle: Austria, a
supposedly civilized and lawful state, was persecuting her innocent citizens.[24][24] Milada Paulova believes that Masaryk,
after being deeply involved in the explosive South Slavic problems, and
becoming convinced that the Austrians and Magyars were unwilling to accept the
democratic principles and the reorganization of the state in which the Slavs
would be equal partners gradually espoused revolutionary ideas for the
overthrow of the decrepit government.[25][25]
Hermann
Bahr in Austria, Guglielmo Ferrero in Italy, R. W. Seton-Watson and Henry W.
Steed, the London Times correspondent, these men of integrity and
international reputation, were shocked by the behaviour of the Austrian
officials.
Stjepan Radić (1871-1928), during his student
years in Prague gradually adopted and propagated Masaryk's ideas. He was also
interested in learning the Czech language and the Czech way of thinking. His
daily companion was Franti?ek Hlavaček, who later became a Czech publicist
and politician; Radić taught him Croatian and with him he improved his
Czech. When the students expelled from Zagreb began to publish (in January of
1897) their periodical Hrvatska misao, the spiritus movens behind it was
Radić. Hlavaček was present at their meetings and discussions of
which direction they should take.[26][26] Though they wanted to follow their beloved teacher (Masaryk), the
situation in Croatian lands being different from that in Bohemia and Moravia,
they tried to adapt his general principles to their concrete circumstances.
Therefore I agree with Ivo Banac who says that "the sources of Radić
's inspiration were partly his own practical experience and partly Czech
political theory, which he acquired as a result of intermittent studies in
Prague".[27][27]
Radić
had fallen in love (in 1894) with a Czech teacher Marija Dvořak with whom
he established a regular correspondence. In his letter of January, 1897, in
which he communicated to her his intention of going to Paris, he mentioned that
two days earlier (on Jan. 5), together with other five Croats and
Hlavaček, he had been at Masaryk's place for three hours. Masaryk was
pleased to hear that Radić intended to study in Paris. The host listened
to Radić's views and agreed with most of them.[28][28] In spite of the opposition of Marija's
parents that she should not marry Radić, whom they considered a dreamer
often in conflict with the authorities,[29][29] they were wed (in 1898).
In July of 1899 Radić returned from Paris to
Prague, hoping that the secret police would not find him there. He lived in the
neighbourhood of Masaryk with whom he became friend. They disagreed however in
two important respects: Masaryk was then interested in the Jewish question,[30][30] and Radić suggested to him that he, as a born Slovak, with his
international authority, should rather intervene in favour of his
countrymen. Further, Radić writes that, while he preferred the pro-Russian
orientation of Czech politics, Masaryk was closer to the German.[31][31]
Motivated
by a burning desire to see his native country finally freed, and shocked by the
social injustice under which his dear peasants lived, Stjepan Radić,
together with his brother Antun (1868-1919),
in 1904, initiated a
movement to organize the large Croatian masses. At the beginning the response
was far from encouraging, but thanks to the assiduous work of both brothers and
the somewhat more favourable conditions which prevailed after the first world
war, Radić became the undisputed leader of the Croatian nation as a whole.
One could safely say that only with this movement of Radić did the Croats
become united into a single block and thus were able to withstand external
pressure. Radić was also successful in teaching the peasantry that their
future rested in their own hands, that the state should exist and function
primarily for their benefit because they constituted the vast majority of the
nation.
What
had been Radić's relations with Masaryk at the end of the Austrian empire
and until his assassination in the Belgrade parliament by Puni?a Radić, a
Serbian deputy? It is not easy to answer this question, because there exists
only fragmentary and indirect information. However, it is clear that the former
friends had gone in different directions as regards the centralism of their
respective states; while the Croatian leader was wondering what had happened to
Masaryk's previously proclaimed democratic ideas, the first president of a
newly created state, though in general very reserved, spoke about Radić in
deprecatory terms.
After
it became clear that Austria would not survive, Svetozar Pribićević (1875-1936), a Serb and the leader of the
Croato-Serbian coalition, was arbitrarily placing the destiny of Croatia in the
hands of the Belgrade government, without any respect for her long established autonomy.
Radić became scared witnessing how from one centralism his nation was
being pushed towards another one; he tried to avoid this either by his public
statements or by begging the leaders of the western world to mediate so that
Serbian soldiers would not behave brutally in Croatia. He suggested to the
National Council that a delegate should be sent to Masaryk, who was already
acting as the president of Czechoslovakia, so that he could inform the allied
governments and particularly president Wilson what was going on in the new
kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.[32][32]
Jere Jareb quotes the articles of Ivan Pernar (1948) and Radić's widow (1957)[33][33] in which
they claim that Radić himself went to Prague at the end of November (1918) to describe to the Czech government
the situation in his homeland. It seems (what is hardly believable and is
contrary to Maček's assertion)[34][34] that at this moment Radić was
suggesting to the Czech government that Austria should not be abolished but
modernized so that her Slavic majority would finally enjoy its full national
and personal rights. According to Pernar, Masaryk accused Radić of being
an Austrophile Marija Radić informs that, while Radić was still in
Prague and violent demonstrations had erupted in Zagreb, her husband was
accused to fomenting them.
In his autobiography Radić writes that, toward the end of 1918, he had sent to Masaryk two deputies
of his Peasant party with documents to inform him that after the first of
December, the date when the new kingdom was solemnly proclaimed, inhuman
beatings of peasants had begun in Croatia, especially in the district of
Bjelovar; they were punished because they had declared themselves
"republicans" or had read Dom (the organ of his party).
Masaryk promised to intervene so that the beatings should stop but he added
that otherwise he would not mix in the internal al fairs of Yugoslavia.[35][35] Radić complains that immediately
afterwards the foreign newspapers published an official denial that peasants
had been beaten in Croatia.
During his stay in Geneva
(January-September, 1915), Masaryk was requested by the young Yugoslav students
to write the Preface to their booklet L'Unit頙ougoslave (The
Yugoslav Unity, Paris 1915); he gladly accepted this invitation. In his
Introduction he stressed that all Slavs, citizens of the Austro-Hungarian
empire (Poles, Czechs and South Slavs), did not enjoy equal rights. In their
pangermanic programme (the "Drang nach Osten"), the Austrian authorities
saw in the South Slavs an obstacle to their expansion Therefore the Serbs had
been attacked, but they and the Montenegrins were courageously resisting the
aggressor. Once the war would be over, Masaryk encouraged all Yugoslav students
to return to their country, which was devastated, and to rebuild it by becoming
good administrators, businessmen, industrialists and engineers. He urged them
to make ready for those important assignments.[36][36]
This appeal for "Yugoslav unity" was written in the middle of 1915, in Geneva, where there existed a
Serbian press Bureau and a journal "La Serbie". Masaryk did not enter
into polemics carefully avoided taking a position in controversial issues such
as e.g. a centralist or federal arrangement of the future Yugoslav state.
During the ensuing years, however, most probably for various reasons - his
contact with some Serbian diplomats abroad and also Serbia's initial success in
military operations coupled with his own programme as to how the Czech and
Slovak lands should be arranged - Masaryk was gradually leaning to give Serbia
a preponderant role.
To
corroborate this point one should compare his Preface to the mentioned brochure
with his book The New Europe (1918) and his Memoirs (1925).
The
first was written during his journey between Russian Siberia and the Pacific to
Washington (in October of 1918). It was first published in English and French
(1918) and then in Czech (1920) and German (1922).
I
quote some fragments from the English translation: "The Serbians in Serbia
and Montenegro showed in their fight against the Turks for the defence of
liberty a wonderful perseverance and ability ... Up to now the Jugoslavs more
than any other nation suffered from being separated into many parts.
Ecclesiastically, too, the nation is not united, there are Orthodox parts
(Serbia), Catholic (Croatians and Slovenes, but there are Catholic Serbians in
Ragusa) and Mohammedan (national consciousness - Serbia - is awakening only in
recent days), but consciousness of nationality and a desire for unification
does not suffer thereby".[37][37]
If
one compares the English and French editions with those in Czech and German, he
would notice that in the first two, when the author mentioned "the
Serbians in Serbia and Montenegro", he did not include Dubrovnik as
Serbian while in the two later redactions Dubrovnik is mentioned twice: first
it is identified as "Serbian", together with Serbia and Montenegro,
and at the end, where the author considered it a propos to emphasize that there
were "Catholic Serbians in Ragusa".
Moreover,
it was incorrect to praise only the Serbs for their fight against the Turks.
While they were defeated at Kosovo (1389) and resumed their resistance only at
the beginning of the nineteenth century, on the contrary, the Croats continued
their patriotic and Christian struggle even after their defeat at Krbava
(1492); together with the Magyars and Austrians, they were for long centuries a
bastion of Christianity against the infidels.
If the Croats who read Masaryk's book the New
Europe did not like it for the reasons mentioned, they were even more
astonished by his Memoirs; they were wondering in which direction this
supposedly religious and "democratic" president was moving. I will
quote certain controversial passages from their excellent English translation
by H.W. Steed (The Making of a State - Memoirs and Observations,
1914-1918, New York 1969).
In
its second chapter, entitled "Roma aeterna", when he speaks about his
work in Rome and mentions many South Slav politicians, he was displeased to
notice the dissension between the Croatian and Serbian representatives and
comments: "The Serbian Minister (Ljuba Mihailovitch) strongly favoured
unity in good understanding with the Croats; yet it seemed to me that man:
Croats were over-insistent upon the superiority of their culture and forgot
that what mattered chiefly then and in the whole war was military and political
leadership. As my Southern Slav friend knew, I thought their unity should be
achieved under the political leadership of Serbia, and imagined it as a result
of a consistent any gradual unification of the Southern Slav Lands, each of
which had its own culture and administrative peculiarities".[38][38]
In
the fifth chapter, when he deals with Pan-Slavism and the Russian anarchy of
1917, Masaryk speaks also about Fran Supilo (1870-1917), who in Petrograd had
discovered that the Allies Powers intended soon to sign a treaty with the
Italians, promising them a greater part of Dalmatia if only they switched their
alliance from Germany and Austria. Not only Supilo but also all other Croat
were disgusted both with the Russians who did not care about them since they
were not Orthodox, and with the western democracies which were ready to
sacrifice the vital territory of Croatia for their own military interests.
Masaryk first comments: "Undoubtedly, the Treaty of London was inimical to
the unification of the Southern Slav Lands and corresponded rather to the Great
Serbia programme", and then without any shame recognizes: "Though
Supilo was right, I did not agree with the agitation by which he set Petrograd
not only against himself but against the Croats, while intensifying the
antagonism between them and Serbia".[39][39] It means,
though Supilo was right, he should have accepted quietly without any protests,
in order not to displease the Russians and Serbians, that Dalmatia would be
absorbed by the Italians who were there a tiny minority. Masaryk too was
invoking a double standard when the cause of the Czechs and their allies was in
question, national and human rights were sacred, otherwise he demonstrates at
times an irritation that others should claim the same privileges.
In the middle of his Memoirs, when he discusses at
length the Czech cooperation with the Yugoslavs, Masaryk reveals several of his
basic views and limitations. Thus, discussing events at the beginning
of 1918, he writes:
"Despite the temporary reverses suffered by Serbia in the field, I looked
upon her as the centre of the Southern Slav world and, what counted most, as
its political and military centre. The Croats had assuredly their own special
rights ... This, however, did not preclude the recognition of Serbia as the
political point of crystallization."[40][40]
He
says again that he did not like the terms of the Treaty of London (April 26, 1915) but continues by saying that:
"Italy had her irredentist aspirations, and it was natural that she should
invoke her historical rights (!) and should claim union with the minorities of
Italians beyond her borders.[41][41] His reaction was quite different when Austria invoked
her historical rights on the Czech lands and pointed out that there were many
Germans among the Czech inhabitants. No wonder that "many a Croat and
Slovene looked upon him as excessively pro-Italian and pro-Serb"![42][42]
Throughout
his Memoirs Masaryk showed a great respect for Ante Trumbić (1864-1938), a leading figure in Croatian
political life and the president of the Yugoslav committee. However, though
always moderate and calm, Trumbić did not approve of Masaryk's support for
Pa?ić's centralist views and openly expressed his displeasure. Masaryk
writes: "Even Dr. Trumbitch came under the influence of unjustified
suspicions, and taxed us (the Czechs) with selfishness during the discussions
on the Declaration of Corfu".[43][43]
The rest of Masaryk's Memoirs was written in the same spirit, and
therefore I do not see any purpose in quoting him further.
There is however one question which should be at least
touched upon, namely "the corridor" between Czechoslovakia and
Yugoslavia. It is not clear who had initiated it, what justifications for it
were given, and how it was abandoned. Though Masaryk says that "the idea
of a corridor between Slovakia and Croatia interested the Southern Slavs in
Rome", that he thought it should be discussed but Trumbić "was
reserved and wished it to be left to the Czechs", [44][44] on the contrary, Trumbić in his Diary (which was published
by D. ?epić)[45][45] expressly affirms that Masaryk told him of the plan for the
Czech-Yugoslav corridor and insisted that "Bohemia and Yugoslavia must
most certainly be linked together, territorially".[46][46] F. Lukas, who spoke with Trumbić
about this corridor before he died (in 1938), wrote that Trumbić remained opposed to this Czech initiative even later,
at the Peace conference at Versailles, arguing that it was not just to include
in it 600,000 Germans for
the sake of 70,000 Slavs. He insisted that the idea of the corridor was
contrary to the principle of self-determination in the name of which their
respective states were created. It seem that Trumbić had displeased
Masaryk and Bene?, who thereafter became cold toward him.[47][47] There is no doubt that Masaryk was
deeply involved with it, because on the map of the Central Europe which was
presented to the Allies, and on which the corridor was delineated, there was
also a note in Masaryk's handwriting.[48][48]
The
sculptor Ivan Me?trović (1885-1962)
had been friendly with Masaryk from the years when they both lived in
exile (1914-18). When in 1924 Me?trović was invited to
portray Masaryk he gladly accepted this request. Me?trović had several
long conversations with the Czech president and his daughter Alice. Both of
them disliked Radić and his Czech wife; they were probably influenced by
their previous guest, King Alexander of Yugoslavia and were afraid seeing the
similarity between the Slovak and Croatian demands for decentralized
government. I will summarize Me?trović's recollections.[49][49] Masaryk did
not like Nikola Pa?ić, the Premier of Yugoslavia and criticized his
methods. He accused both him and Radić for the bad situation in the
country. He considered Radić a confused and unrealistic politician, and
his wife an impossible woman.[50][50]
Alice Masaryk said that the most responsible for all those troubles was
Radić. To prove her point she pointed to his "separatism". She
was enchanted with the powerful Serbian army. [51][51]
However, they reproached the Serbian
politicians for imposing the Constitution which was not in agreement with the
Corfu Declaration (July, 1917).[52][52]
Me?trović
replied that he did not know Radić personally and did not appreciate
certain of his maneuvres, nevertheless, one should not forget that the entire
Croatian nation stood with him.[53][53] This was less due to Radić's
demagogy than to the brutal behaviour of the centralized government.
In
the course of later conversations, Masaryk said that, though Radić seemed
confused and excessive in his demands, this did not justify the attitude of
Belgrade toward the Croats. He recognized that the Czechs had hoped that the
Serbs would be "debalkanised", but it seemed that the entire country
would be "balkanised under their influence".[54][54] If the Czechs had obtained a common
border with the Croats, perhaps they could have interfered in this mess. He
insisted that he liked Croats and Serbs equally; perhaps he respected the Serbs
more on account of their army and reputation for bravery. However, he did not
approve the behaviour of the Serbian officials toward the Croats. He did not
blame only the prime minister Pa?ić but also King Alexander, whom he found
uncultured and undemocratic, a typical product of military mentality.
Since
Me?trović had a penetrating eye for the psyche of his interlocutors, I
find interesting certain of his observations on Masaryk himself:
When
Ivan Lorković (1876-1926), a
prominent member of the Croato-Serbian Coalition, came to Rome in 1914 with a memorandum how to break the
Austrian empire and preserve the continuation of Croatian statehood, Masaryk was
sceptical about this plan. He did not believe that England and France would
accept the idea of the total abrogation of the Empire, and therefore he was in
favour of a confederate state. He himself had prepared a note, which he
transmitted to Seton-Watson, in which he suggested that the Slavs, namely
Czechs, Croats and Slovenes, should become equal partners with the Germans and
Magyars.[55][55]
Ten
years had elapsed. Now, in 1924, he
was glad, as the respected president of his land, that events had turned much
better that he had once expected.
While
he was making his bust, both from his conversation and physical features,
Me?trović concluded that he was in the presence of a "gentle fanatic,
but nevertheless a fanatic with a typical Slavic and Slovak stubborness. He had
succeeded in subjugating it, but it was present in his subconsciousness. In
spite of his broad culture, he was as doctrinaire as a fanatic protestant
pastor".[56][56]
His own daughter, Alice, informed Me?trović that her father had
fixed ideas about certain (e.g. Slovak) questions, and that it was better to
avoid discussion of them.[57][57]
Though Masaryk had a typically Slavic heart and soul,
nevertheless, he had become a convinced "realist". This was apparent
even when he spoke about the Russian and Czech writers. Those features which
are usually called Slavic became inaccessible to him, more exactly he was
afraid of them. He looked at them with the same repugnance as did West
Europeans. He avoided everything which seemed to him mystical or metaphysical:
he saw it as sick daydreaming.[58][58]
During
the eight days which he spent with Masaryk, Me?trovič felt that he was in
the presence of an honest individual who was always guided by his own
principles.
Thus,
for example, when king Alexander expressed his wish that Masaryk should visit
him in Belgrade without stopping at Zagreb, Masaryk refused this suggestion. He
replied to the autocrat that he would not go to Yugoslavia if he could not
visit his friends wherever they were. Me?trović comments that Masaryk replied
as a man whose democratic conscience and human feelings were stronger than any
diplomatic considerations.[59][59] He did not believe that a country was
free so long as the human rights and dignity of its citizens were not
protected.
In
those years when Czechoslovakia was undergoing one of the most difficult
periods in her history, namely when Masaryk was dead and his country was
dismembered by Hitler's orders, there appeared in the Croatian press and
periodicals quite opposite appraisals of the late President and his degree of
responsibility for the tragic events:
While
some (like e.g. M. Ćurčin) praised Masaryk as a kind of a superman,
if not a divinity, the nationalists (e.g. F. Lukas) intensified their attacks
against him and his successor, and a moderate group (e.g. Lupis-Vukić),
though pro-Yugoslav and admirers to a degree of Czechoslovakia, reproached
those supposed "democrats" for not being willing or able to solve two
crucial problems: those of the Slovaks and the Sudeten Germans. There was also a
resentment among the Catholics, about a half of the population, that Masaryk as
a president continued his bitter Hussite propaganda, treating them as spiritual
slaves and unpatriotic. He was unable to distinguish between what he was
allowed to remark on as a professor and what, as a president of the entire
nation, he should do and say.
Nova Evropa (Zagreb), the periodical which was edited during the interwar years by
M. Ćurčin (1880-1960), on several occasions printed eulogies of Masaryk
"the leader" (1922,
1934). Now when was dead "the greatest
contemporary European", a man who "cared about his people and
democracy in general", who had been "a defender of truth and
justice", he was proclaimed by Ćurčin as a symbol of unity not
only of the Czechs but also other nations. He was a "real prophet"
and accepted as such. He had been "our common leader and teacher".
Masaryk, like Abraham Lincoln, writes Ćurčin, had strenuously worked
to bring all citizens together.[60][60]
Hrvatska
revija, the organ of the nationalists, had never shown any
enthusiasm for the President living at the Hradčany. After the
assassination of Stjepan Radić and the subsequent proclamation of
dictatorship by king Alexander, when even the mild and humane Vladimir
Maček had been thrown into jail, the Croatian patriots were disturbed at
seeing the continuation of close collaboration between Prague and Belgrade:
However, toward the end of the thirties, when Croatian national unity was
stronger and the centralists, seeing that Yugoslavia could be attacked by the
Nazis and fascists, were ready to make concessions, there was much greater
freedom of expression. In those favourable circumstances, Filip Lukas, the
president of Matica hrvatska, the most important Croatian cultural
organization, intensified his attacks against the late President and E. Bene?,
his successor. He asked his countrymen why so many squares and streets had been
named in Masaryk's honour. He did not see any reason for this excess of
flattery. However, Lukas has certainly exaggerated in saying that Masaryk
"hated" the Croats on account of their catholicism and their
unwillingness to be "unified".[61][61] Lukas obviously did not make the
necessary distinction between personal convictions, which are often tied with
prejudices, and pure hatred. Masaryk was a human being and like the majority of
mortals, he had his foibles and antipathies!
It
seems to me that I. F. Lupis-Vukić was more objective than
Ćurčin and Lukas. In Nova Evropa, a year later than Ćurčin,
he openly analysed the tragic events in Czechoslovakia and at the same time
pointed out both Masaryk's undeniable achievements and failures.
Ivan
F. Lupis-Vukić (1876-1960), a
publicist who had lived for many years in America and later became a deputy in
the Dalmatian Diet, gave three reasons for the collapse of the Czech republic:
First of all, the Czechs should have realized that they were given at
Versailles three million Sudeten Germans, not because they had a right to
incorporate them on the basis of their historical and natural frontier, but
rather to make Germany smaller and less dangerous to France. Once those Germans
had become them citizens, political wisdom required that the Prague government
should guarantee to them such national and financial privileges which would
eliminate later the attractive appeal of the third Reich.
Second,
they should have respected their agreement with the Slovaks representatives,
signed at Pittsburgh (June 30, 1918), and
not behave in such a way that the Slovaks felt that they were not
"liberated" but had simply changed masters: previously they had been
oppressed by the Magyars and now by the "Slavic brothers".
Third, the Czechs lived in an illusion that nothing
could happen to them because they had reliable allies, such as France and
England, not foreseeing that those two western powers would abandon them at the
critical moment (by the Munich agreement, Sept. 30, 1938), when they thought that this
was required by their interests.[62][62]
I
believe that Lupis-Vukić, though a devoted friend of the Czech people and
much grieved by their tragedy, rightly pointed to the basic reasons why
Czechoslovakia, well organized and enjoying international prestige, collapsed
so easily - that there was no trace of rebellion at home nor outrage abroad.
Lupis-Vukić
did not mention the religions tension to which Masaryk himself contributed.
Throughout his Memoirs Masaryk attacked the Catholics and their hierarchy. Thus
when he speaks about France and her writers, he contends that they were
indulging in "morbid and perverse sexualism", because they were under
the influence of Catholicism.[63][63] I will cite some excerpts from a section
entitled "Our relation to Catholicism":
"Our
Reformation fortified our nationality as never before. While Catholicism
predominated, Germanisation went on and the Hussite movement saved us from it
...
In endeavouring to raise the level of morality, the Reformation
strengthened our national character ...
Notwithstanding
the Battle of the White Mountains and its sequel, Catholicism failed to take
deep root among us. It was addicted to violence, its leaders were alien in
blood and in creed - especially the Jesuits, who are alien even today - and,
with few exceptions, its hierarchy was German and Hapsburgian, not Czech ...
The facts that the Reformation affected us profoundly ... and that the
fight for religion and morality formed for four centuries the main substance of
our history, prove that our Reformation arose from and responded to national
character".[64][64]
I
will conclude these remarks about Masaryk and his relations with the Croats by
referring to an article written in this postwar period, by the late professor
Jaroslav ?idak (1903-86), the
best Yugoslav historian of Czech origin. In it he summarized his views about
Masaryk, this renowned professor and skilful politician, who remains even today
dear to the Czechs. However, ?idak writes that Masaryk "exaggerated"
when he accused the Austrian officials of falsifying the documents in the
Friedjung process, that Radić already in 1900 had begun to criticize him for his "realism"
and neglect of the Croatian question, and that he had viewed Serbia as the
"leader and centre" of unified Yugoslavia.[65][65]
In
those separate segments of my presentation, I tried to be true to my sources
and historical changes, which influenced the attitude not only of the masses,
but also of their leaders.
I
hope that Masaryk's portrait comes out as an acceptable human being, more
humanist than Christian and stubborn in his convictions. He should not be
placed on a pedestal of infallibility, but he stands above dirty politics. He
dedicated his great talent and enormous energy to the benefit of his people! If
the Czechs even today (in their own way) resist foreign oppression, to a great
extent they are inspired by the example of this militant professor, who did not
have his head in the clouds, but was mostly grounded in reality.
He
died peacefully, aware that he had acted in accordance with his conscience and
that the interests of his nation were dearer to him than his own.
However,
we wish that the leaders of present and future generations, in contrast to
Masaryk, would continue the struggle for universal democracy, so that all
nations (including Croatia) may one day enjoy freedom.
* This paper was presented at the 20th National Convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies held in
Honolulu, Hawaii November 18-21, 1988.
[1][1] Ren頗ellek, in Columbia Dictionary of Modern European Literature, ed. W. Edgerton, New York 1980, p. 520.
[2][2] J. Pekař, Masarykova česka filosofie,
Prague 1927, p. 31.
[3][3] Idem, p. 44.
[4][4] R. Wellek, Introduction to Masaryk, The Meaning of Czech History, New York