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 elec-
tronic 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 61
Chapter 6: New Discoveries of Krombholz’s Manuscripts 83
Chapter 7: The Importance of New Research on Bolzano and His
Circle 97

Notes 115
Bibliography 137
Index 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, math-
ematics, 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 stud-
ies 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 sug-
gested 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 pre-
vent the growing intelligentsia from being infected by the new line of think-
ing. 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 con-
cerned, 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 mod-
ern 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 stu-
dents 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 relation-
ship 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 inter-
esting 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 exhorta-
tions. 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 edu-
cation of children, and on the dislocation of different social classes. Although
he himself did not speak publicly about some of these problems, it demon-
strated 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 col-
lected and explained in her unique study, but also a clear assessment and com-
prehensive 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 discov-
ered manuscripts by Krombholz which open a broad field for further research.
This material, however, does not provide any evidence of Krombholz’s depar-
ture 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 ordina-
tion 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 environ-
ment 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 con-
servative circles in Prague were trying to remove Bernard Bolzano from the
chair of religious studies, attempts which were finally crowned with suc-
cess 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 second-
ary 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 impor-
tant 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 autobiogra-
phy25 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 polem-
ics 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 espe-
cially 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 rec-
tory 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 nei-
ther 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 impor-
tant 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 associ-
ated 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 eccle-
siastical 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 practi-
cal aspects for society and different fields of human endeavor: science, math-
ematics, 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 termino-
logical comparison of Bolzano’s pupils and their successors with Bolzano him-
self. 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 confi-
dent 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 home-
land. Hopefully, as more aspects of his thought are researched and spread,
many will be encouraged by Bolzano’s own personal example and will be
xvi Foreword

willing to accept his enduring challenge: “You must, my friends, allow your
inner striving after wisdom and rational thirst for knowledge to become vis-
ible 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 avail-
able 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 cita-
tions 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” con-
cerning 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 celebra-
tion 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 leg-
acy 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 engag-
ing 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 pre-
decessor 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 interpret-
ing 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 contempo-
rary 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 modern-
ism 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 intel-
lectual 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 conclu-
sions 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 dur-
ing 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 individ-
ual 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 aca-
demic 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 res-
toration), 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 periph-
ery 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 comprehen-
sive 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 insurmount-
able 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 opportuni-
ties 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 legiti-
mate 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 col-
leagues, 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 devel-
oped 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 soci-
ety 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 con-
fessionalism 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 nine-
teenth 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 happen-
ing 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 activi-
ties 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 apply-
ing 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 iso-
lated 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 experi-
encing a rapid liberalization (i.e., to provide an apologetic for an environment
no longer inclined toward Christianity), but also to offer a truly vivid reflec-
tion 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 cen-
tury 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 compen-
dium 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 knowl-
edge 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 unde-
fined, 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 move-
ments 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., educa-
tion, 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 lead-
ing 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 marginal-

ized 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 nine-
teenth 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 reli-
gious developments in the country has always loomed large.
Another explanation for why Krombholz is hardly recognized is his atti-
tude 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 theolo-
gian.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, lin-
guistics, 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 cer-
tain 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 fam-
ily 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 herme-
neutical 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, inven-
tory 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 industrializa-
tion 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 conse-
quences 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 posi-
tions 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 dem-
onstrate 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 emer-
gence 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 suc-
ceed. 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 uproot-
ing. 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 activi-
ties. 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 reorga-
nized 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 attain-
ing 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 man-
age 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 eman-
cipation 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 explo-
ration 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 proposi-
tions 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 simulta-
neously 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 oppor-
tunity 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 domi-
nated 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 distrust-
ful 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 con-
crete 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 meet-
ing 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 neces-
sary for the Church to bid farewell to the Baroque past. These steps included
introducing national languages into the liturgical worship services; address-
ing 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; reform-
ing 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 him-
self 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 posi-
tion 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 coun-
tries, 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 theoreti-
cal 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 research-
ing 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, how-
ever, 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 ecu-
menical 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 theo-
logical 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 distinc-

tive kind of theological Czech Catholic modernism and the manner, extent,
and areas in which it has expressed itself. What methodological and intel-
lectual approaches can be described as modernistic in the Czech environ-
ment? 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 mod-
ernist? The representative bibliography of nineteenth century Czech theologi-
cal 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 fun-
damental theological statements (i.e., evidence and testimony) and with an
adaptation of the Church to a new age. They were not interested in capitulat-
ing 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 con-
cerned 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 advan-
tageous 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 seculariza-
tion 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 empha-
sized. 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 exces-
sively complex. In addition to a secure knowledge of theology and both
languages of that time, it is essential to ascertain the history of Czech the-
ology 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 noti-
fied 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 interest-
ing 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 posi-
tion 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 philo-

sophical contours of thinking in our country. In addition to being a mathema-
tician, 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 vari-
ous conflicts which he had mainly caused himself through his academic ser-
mons. 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 particu-
lar.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 vir-
tue 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 uni-
versity 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 applica-
tion. 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 impor-
tant 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 incli-
nations 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 can-
not 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 predisposi-
tion 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 man-
ner 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 devi-
ated 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 advan-
tage 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 exposi-
tion 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 famil-
iar 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 impres-
siveness 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 position-
ing 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 attrac-
tive 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 mat-
ter; for example, he considered death to be a momentous advantage in liberat-
ing the country from tyranny or in spreading the knowledge of a recognized
truth which oppressors of humanity want to suppress. In this case, he consid-
ered 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 press-
ing 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 prog-
ress 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 divi-
sions 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 natu-
rally, 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 what-
soever the essential equality of all people. Consequently, due to the acknowl-
edged 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 cer-
tain 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 pov-
erty, but countries should pass strict laws to avoid selling those things which
are not appropriate are to be sold for money. Not surprisingly, various social-
istic 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 peo-
ple—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 con-
crete 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 dis-
ciples 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 convinc-
tion 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 for-

mulate his ethical views. Bolzano’s ethical impact on the groups of his lis-
teners 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 sec-
ond 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 equal-
ity 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 signi-
fied 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 inter-
pret 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 celi-
bacy—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 natu-
rally 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 any-
thing 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 par-
ticular 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 hap-
piness 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 imme-
diately 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 educa-
tion.”12 Sometimes, Bolzano’s overbearing (or perhaps “totalitarian”) senti-
ments 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 some-
what 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 relation-
ships.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 real-
ized 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 orga-
nizing a political electoral system for human society is more than interesting:
a husband and wife should each have one vote. However, if they vote differ-
ently, 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 sec-
tion (§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 under-
stand 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 teach-
er’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 work-
ing 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 activi-
ties, 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 threat-
ened.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 any-
thing, 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 impor-
tant 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 atten-
tion 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 chil-
dren 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, espe-
cially 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 indus-
trialization 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 asso-
ciated 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 educa-
tion 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 schol-
arly 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 pas-
toral 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 inven-
tory 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 pio-
neers, 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 simultane-
ously 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 disci-
plines 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 com-
plicated 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 divi-
sions 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 indus-
trialization 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 con-
text 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 mov-
ing 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 mat-
ter 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 con-
tent 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 chap-
ters, further divided into individual paragraphs. Of course, the biblical mean-
ing 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 coun-
try 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 primar-
ily 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 mor-
tals 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 unspeak-
ably 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 con-
sider 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 pos-
sessed 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 consid-
ered 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 contra-
dict 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 reiter-
ated 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 depri-
vation, 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 oth-
erwise 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 inde-
pendence: 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 every-
where 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 pun-
ished 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 oppressive-
ness 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 appreci-
ate 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 situa-
tion 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 individu-
als 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 listen-
ers. 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 impor-
tant 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 radi-
ate. 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 concern-
ing 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 con-
sequences 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 “obso-
lete 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 characteristi-
cally 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 for-
ward 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 evalu-
ate, although there is no doubt that the exhortation is positive and “progres-
sive” 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 reli-
gion 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 stud-
ies. 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 anthol-
ogy. The problem repeatedly arises that there is no comprehensive history
of Czech theology in the nineteenth century currently available. It is under-
standable 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 judg-
ment. 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 semi-
nary, 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 chap-
lain 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, impris-
oned 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 pub-
lic 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 there-
fore 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 exam-
ple) 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 main-
tained 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 pro-
duction so far. It is therefore a great credit to C. V. Pospíšil that he has con-
centrated 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 theol-
ogy, 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 prac-
tical 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 ecclesiasti-
cal 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 top-
ics related to the Bohemian Reformation. Curiously, these works were pub-
lished 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 men-
tion 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 abstrac-
tion. 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 fol-
low 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 exis-
tence 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 every-
thing 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 revela-
tion. 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 accom-
plish 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 theol-
ogy, 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 dog-
matically 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 verti-
cal 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 writ-
ten 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 prob-
lem), 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 consid-
ers 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 perfec-
tion of the Church; at that time they must have appeared suspicious from a
perspective of orthodoxy43 even if today, official Catholic doctrine sees noth-
ing 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 impos-
sible 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 egre-
giously 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 cor-
rectness, 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 con-
textual 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 the-
ology 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 gradu-
ally 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 after-
wards 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 hedo-
nists, 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 psy-
chologizing 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; rea-
son 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 dis-
cerning 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 reli-
gion. 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 examin-
ing 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 erro-
neous. 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 our-
selves 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 state-
ments 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 state-
ments 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 listen-
ing 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 improve-
ments 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 chil-
dren, 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 com-
pletely 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 encour-
age 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 vir-
tue: “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 com-
pose 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 salva-
tion. 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 practi-
cal 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 mod-
ern 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 vir-
tue. 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 feel-
ings 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 mean-
ing 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 com-
parison with Bolzano first; however, a detailed comparison with Bolzano’s
various definitions of virtue is quite a complicated matter. Zahradník’s philo-
sophical 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 sub-
jecting 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 deter-
mines 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 hap-
piness 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 deliv-
ers 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 noth-
ing 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 our-
selves 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 revela-
tion. Somewhat artificially and in a fabricated manner, he proves from tradi-
tion 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 censor-
ship 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 imple-
ment 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 neverthe-
less 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 manu-
scripts 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 pos-
sible, and I hope to assume responsibility for it while also eagerly approach-
ing 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 acces-
sion 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 signa-
ture 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 rib-
bons, 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 pre-
served sermons of the second to the fifth and sixth Sunday of the Lenten sea-
son 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 signa-
ture (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, origi-
nally 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 signa-
ture (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 num-
ber 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 some-
times on separate folios, handwritten signature (autograph). Cardboard fold-
ers 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 pre-
fect 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 fold-
ers; 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; handwrit-
ten 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 acces-
sion 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 orien-
tation 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 com-
plete 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 spe-
cific 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 pub-
lished 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 mat-
ters. 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 per-
spectives 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 under-
standable to a certain extent. The research to date has shown that many of the
alleged commonalities between the late Enlightenment and radical modern-
ists 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 fea-
tures that formerly frightened Catholic researchers5 but encouraged research-
ers 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 for-
mulations 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 com-
munities 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 modern-
ists. 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 min-
istry 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 work-
ing 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 differ-
ence 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 move-
ment 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 unlaw-
ful 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 consterna-
tion 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 cat-
egories 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 philosophi-
cal 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 move-
ments. 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 suffer-
ing would not diminish but rather increase. Bolzano neither wanted nor could
concede these apocalyptic images. It is widely known how important a turn-
ing 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 prog-
ress; 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 pro-
gressive 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 egotisti-
cally 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 per-
ceives 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 modern-
ists 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 nation-
alities. 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 eccle-
siastical 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 twen-

tieth 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 shortcom-
ings of the Jews, he viewed them as a consequence of their having lived a dif-
ficult life. He firmly denied that these bad qualities somehow comprised the
essence of the Jewish people. Bolzano appreciated a number of good quali-
ties 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 interdis-

ciplinary 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 mak-
ing 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 actu-
ally 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 bibli-
cal 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 ten-
dencies 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 dem-
onstrated 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 judg-
ments 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 surpris-
ing 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 illustra-
tion: 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 twen-
tieth century must also be taken into account. Like any other science, theol-
ogy—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 ecumeni-
cal 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 per-
sonalities 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 distress-
ing. 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 justifi-
able. 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 prac-
tice—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 possibil-
ity 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 mag-
nificent 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 pres-
ent 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 com-

pare 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 litera-
ture 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 devel-
opment 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 devel-
opment 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 con-
clusion 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 sur-
prises. 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 modern-
ists. 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 let-
ters 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 compari-
sons 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 termino-

logical 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 cru-
cial. 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 con-
clusions 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 Poli-
tics, 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 the-
ologische 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 Rus-
nock (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 Cen-
tury (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 Awak-
ening (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 Premonstra-
tensian 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 Reli-
gionswissenschaft fü die Kandidaten det Philosopfie in six volumes was completed in
1824. See Ekkart Sauser, “Jakob Frint,” in Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchen-
lexikon, 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 Auf-
sätze 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 teo-
logické 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 Vor-
lesungshefte 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 Aufsä-
tze 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 Zahrad-
níka (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 Kul-
turgeschichte, 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, týka-
jících 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 Schuffen-
hauer, Eduard Winter, and Hildegard Pautsch (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1981). Ber-
nard 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 Milo-
slav 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., Modernis-
mus—historie nebo yýzva? Studie ke genezi českého katolického modernismu (Brno:
L. Marek, 2002).
19. Augusta Smetana (1814–1851) was a Czech Hegelian philosopher and excom-
municated 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 (Reichen-
berg: Gebrüder Stiepel, 1934), 174–177; A. K. Huber, “Anton Krombholz,” in Leb-
ensbilder zur Geschichte der böhmischen Länder, vol. 4 (München: Oldenbourg,
1981), 119–135. A. K. Huber, “Krombolz Anton,” in Österreichisches Biogra-
phisches Lexikon 1815–1950, vol. 4 (Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences, 1969),
288; Theodor Wiedemann, “Anton Krombholz Eine biographische Skizze,” in Öster-
reichische 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 Schulogran-
isator 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 profes-
sional activity actually defies any classification. Concerning Josephinism see Eduard
Winter, Josefinismus a jeho dějiny. See also Hans Hollerweger, Die Reform des Got-
tesdienstes 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. Unfor-
tunately, Nittel’s estate is lost. See Jan Lášek, “K dějinám starokatolictvi ve Varns-
dorfu,” 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 Tschecho-
slowakische 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 obroze-

neckého 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. Wochen-
blatt für die vaterländische Volksschule. Im Verein mit Schulmännern und Schul-
freuden 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 declaratio-
num de rébus fidei et morum. Kompendium der Glaubensbekenntnisse und kirchli-
chen 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. Heraus-
gegeben 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 Universitätsbu-
chhändler (Wien: 1871) (Österreichische Nationalbibliothek Wien, sign. 122101-B);
Marien-Predigten von Anton Krombholz, weil Pfarrer und Dechant in Leippa in Böh-
men, 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 öster-
reichische 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 katolick-
ého 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 trinitolo-
gie 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 Droze-
nová 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 pres-
ents 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 Aufsä-
tze 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 (Sulz-
bach: 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 Ber-
nard 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 Zah-
radníka, vol. 2: Zahradníkova pojednání z etiky, ed. František Čáda (Praha: Nákla-
dem 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 eing-
erichtet. 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 Ber-
narda 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 Bol-
zano, 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 Öster-
reichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1981), 29–61.
33. Bolzano, Vlastní životopis, 39.
126 Notes

CHAPTER 3

1. Eduard Winter, Romantismus, Restauration und Frühliberalismus im öster-

reichischen 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 excel-
lent 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: Scrip-
torium, 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, Ber-
nard 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 cita-
tion 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 jung-
fräuliche 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 Verwand-
schaft 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 Schulogranisa-
tor 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 Wiede-
mann, Redakteur des österr. Vierteljahresschrift für katholische Theologie und der
128 Notes

katholischen Literaturzeitung, Wilhelm Braumüller k. k. Hof. und Universitätsbuch-

händler (Wien: 1871) (Österreichische Nationalbibliothek Wien, sign. 122101-B);
Marien-Predigten von Anton Krombholz, weil Pfarrer und Dechant in Leippa in Böh-
men, 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. Geburt-
stage, 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 Hei-
ligste 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 can-
not 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 col-
lection 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 unendli-
chen 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 stu-
dents, 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 Kersten-
berg-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 erken-
nen: 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 Unter-
stützung 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 Wieder-
herstellung 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 schädli-
chen 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 Jew-
ish 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 böh-
mischen 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. Jahrhun-
derts (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. Edu-
ard 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 Kempen-
ského 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 Katholicis-
mus” 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 Armenversorgung-

sanstalten, 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 Kon-
stantin 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 “Religionswissen-
schaft” 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, Doku-
menten 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 (Hra-
dec 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 öster-
reichischen 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 psycholo-
gii, 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 filoso-
fii 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 mod-
ernismu. 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 biskup-
ském 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 wissen-
schaftliche 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 Chlumčanský, Václav Leopold,

Arnold, Claus, 136 abp., x, 62
Augustine, St., 30 Christian, Curt, 125
Auty, Robert, 116
David, Zdeněk V., 116
Babiuch, Jolanta, 118 Demetz, Peter, 52, 60, 129, 131
Bartoš, (scriber) 65 Denzinger, Heinrich, 121
Becker, M.A., 121 Diadochus, bp., 75
Beneš of Hořovice, 132 Döbler, Georg, 13
Benis-Sinaceur, Hourya, 115 Dobrovský, Josef, 67, 119, 133
Berg, Jan, 116, 126, 129, 134 Dolejšová (Noble), Ivana, 119
Bělina, Pavel, 126 Drozenová, Wendy, 118, 122
Biedermann-Arends, Hermine, 85 Dvořáček, Petr, 126
Bindera, Josef, 12
Bláha, Vojtěch, 122, 123, 127 Ernstberger, Anton, 128
Bolzano, Bernard, vii–xix, 3–8, 14,15, Exner, Franz, 115
19, 21, 22, 24, 27–37, 40–44, 47–49,
51–65, 68–74, 81, 95, 97–106, Farský, Karel, 21, 103, 105–107,
108–110, 112, 115–119, 121–123, 111, 135, 136
125–127, 129–131, 133–136 Fasora, Lukáš, 128
Bolzano, Jan (John), vii Feiner, Shmel, 131
Borovský, K.H., 133 Fesl, Josef M., xi, xii, xvii, 10,12, 19,
Braumüller, Wilhelm, 121, 128 62, 116–117, 132
Brock, Peter, 116 Fiedler, Rudolf, 121
Čáda, František, xiii, 48, 61–64, 70–73, Fichte, J.G., 91
78, 106, 117, 120, 123, 128, 131, 133 Franklin, Angelo Shaun, xvi
Červinková-Riegrová, Marie, 129 Frind, Wenzel, 136
Frint, Jakob, ix, xi, 32, 52, 116, 129
Fuchs, Alfred, 105, 136

145
146 Index

Gerstner, František Josef, viii Kaňák, Miroslav, 107, 119,

George, Rolf, 115, 135 120, 135, 136
Gierach, Erich, 120 Kauffmann, Hugo, 84
Gorazd, (Pavlík Matěj), bp. 1, 111 Keil, Theo, 121
Grassl, Wolfgang, 116 Kerstenberg-Gladstein, Ruth, 130, 131
Grulich, Rudolf, 111, 136 Kieval, Hillel J., 130
Grundl, Alfred, 23, 45, 83, 120, Klopstock, F.G., 91
122, 127, 128 Kočí, Josef, 126
Koláček, Karel, 118, 128
Hánová, Anna, 119 Kollár, Jan, 119
Hanuš, Jiří, 128 Komenský (Comenius), Jan
Hanuš, Josef, 133 Amos, 41, 127
Haubelt, Josef, 116, 125, 126 Kořalka, Jiří, 119, 121
Hille, Bartoloměj, bp., 14 Kovář, František, 21, 111
Hlavačka, Milan, 126 Kowalewski, Arnold, 116
Hoffmanns, xiv Krombholz, Anton, x–xii, xvii–xix, 7,9,
Hollerweger, Hans, 120 10, 14–19, 22–24, 44–49, 52, 70, 74,
Hoping, Helmut, 121 83–90, 92–95, 103, 109–112, 116,
Horčička, František, 8 120–122, 127–129, 132, 134, 135
Hradilek, Pavel, 119 Krug, Wilhelm Traugott, 73
Hrdlička, Jaroslav, 135 Krumpholc, Eduard, 131
Huber, A. K., 120, 136 Křivský, Pavel, xiv, 63, 117, 128, 132
Hünermann, Peter, 121 Kučera, Zdeněk, 20, 22, 103, 117, 119,
Hurdálek, Josef František, xi, 122, 135, 136
xii, 10,13, 62 Kühn, Bernard, 52
Hus, Jan, 76 Künne, Wolfgang, 129
Kutnar, František, 126
Irenaeus, St., 30
Landová, Dagmar, 8, 11, 12, 13
Jandera, Josef Ladislav, VIII Langer, Eduard, 24, 83–90, 92–94, 109
Jarisch, Anton, 83 Lapointe, Sandra, 115
Jauris, Miroslav, 116 Lášek, Jan B., xvi, xviii, 61, 109, 117,
Jeitteles, Jonas, 60 119, 120, 123, 132, 135, 136
Jenkins, Philip, 119 Lehmann, Hartmut, 119
Jirsík, Jan Valerian, bp., 22, 70, 117, 122 Leininger, Věra, 131
Jung, M. H., 121 Liška, Oldřich, 118
Jungmann, Josef, 123 Lochman, Jan Milíč, 7, 27, 69, 119, 120,
123, 126, 133
Kadeřávek, Václav, 135 Loisy, Alfred, 6
Kadlec, Jaroslav, 135 Loužil, Jaromír, 116, 122, 123,125,
Kádner, Otakar, 121 126, 129, 134
Kaiserová, Kristina, 126, 128 Luther, Martin, 4, 65
Kalista, Zdeněk, 101, 119, 125, 135 Luxmoore, Jonathan, 118
Kambartel, Friedrich, 116, 126, 129, 134
Kant, Immanuel, 73 Maass, F. W., 120
 Index 147

Mádr, Oto, 131 Rechcígl, Miloslav, 118

Mácha, K. H., 133 Rémond, René, 4, 119
Malíř, Jiří, 128 Reusch, Franz Heinrich, 120
Malý, Radomír, 135 Rokycana, Jan, 65
Marek, Antonín, 73 Rootselaar, Bob van, 116, 126, 129, 134
Marek, Pavel, 20, 122 Rusnock, Paul, x, 115, 117,
Masaryk, T. G., 118 126, 129, 135
Maurer, Cecilia, vii Russ, Steve, 115
Maurer, Franz, vii Růžička, Arnošt Konstantin, bp., 2, 117,
Medek, Václav, 135 118, 131, 135
Mendelssohn, Moses, 60, 131 Říčan, Rudolf, 119
Míčková, Klára, 130
Milde, Vincenc Eduard, bp, xi, 14, 62 Sauser, Ekkart, 116
Mika, Jan Marian, viii, 37, 116, 125 Sborgi, Carla, 115
Morscher, Edgar, ix, 52, 116, Seibt, Ferdinand, 126, 135
126, 129, 134 Seidlerová, Irena, 116, 121, 122, 132
Mráček, Pavel, 135 Schell, Hermann, 6, 119
Schenkel, Peter Michael, 117
Náhlovský, František, xiii, xiv, 10, 18, Schneider, Franz, xi, 10, 19, 22
107, 109, 117, 134, 136 Schrödter, Hermann, 135
Naor, Chaya, 131 Schroeder, Oskar, 119
Nepomucký, Jan, 64 Schuffenhauer, Werner, 119, 125, 135
Nešpor, Zdeněk R., 126 Silverston, Sondra, 131
Neumaier, Otto, 52, 117, 129 Singer, Ludwig, 130
Nittel, Anton, 120 Skalický, Karel, 61, 64, 65, 131
Novák, Arne, 101 Skilling, Gordon H., 116
Nosek, Bedřich, 118 Smetana, Augustin, 7, 119
Soják, Vladimír, 118
Oberkofler, Gerhard, 117 Spisar, Alois, 21, 111, 136
Sršeň, Lubomír, 8, 11–13
Palacká née Měchurová, Teresie, 10 Statečný, Karel, 21
Palacký, František, 10, 64, 65, Strasser, Kurt F., ix, 54, 129
119, 121, 132 Steele, Donald A., 115
Pautsch, Hildegard, 119, 125 Sušil, František, 107, 136
Pavlíková, Marie, ix, 43, 63, 116, 123, Svoboda, Rudolf, xiv, 2, 98, 117,
125, 127, 130, 132 118, 131, 135
Pius X, pope, 122 Svoboda, Václav, 135
Podlaha, Antonín, bp., 122, 136 Šebestík, Pavel, x, 115, 117, 126, 129
Poláková, Jolana, 131 Špinka (publisher) 71
Pospíšil, Ctirad V., xiv, 22, 61, 64–70,
106, 117, 122, 131–133 Táborský, Josef, 135
Procházka, Gustav Adolf, 111 Talacko, Joseph V., 118
Přibík, Pulkava, 132 Teich, Mikuláš, 116
Putna, Martin C., 20 Thomas a Kempis, 64
Pysent, Robert B., 116 Thun-Hohenstein, Leopold Lev, xii, 117
148 Index

Tinková, Daniela, 126 Vychodil, Pavel Julius, 136

Tippmann, Karel, 123, 133
Toth, Daniel, 136 Weis, Martin, 118
Tresmontant, Claude, 119 Werner, Florian, xvii, 10, 34, 125
Tyrell, George, 6 Wiedemann, Theodor, 120,
121, 127, 128
Urban, Rudolf, 122, 136 Winter, Eduard, xiii, 23, 27, 34, 37, 51,
52, 101, 116–120, 122, 125, 126,
Valášek, Emil, 111, 136 129, 134, 135
Valjavec, Fritz, 119, 130 Wostry, Wilhelm, 128
Veverková, Kamila, vii, x, xi–xvi,
116, 117, 121, 122, 127, 128, Zacek, Joseph F., 116
132, 134, 135 Zahradník, Vincenc, xi–xiii, xvii, xviii,
Vinařický, Karel Alois, 71, 74 10, 11, 22, 47–49, 61–81, 101, 104,
Vinš, Petr Jan, 118 106, 107, 109, 110, 117, 120–123,
Vogel, Jiří, 119 128, 131–134, 136
Vopěnka, Petr, 118 Zlabinger, Eleonore, 117
Vydra, Stanislav, viii 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 trans-

lator and educational consultant in Prague. He is currently translating several
theological texts by Jan Hus and other medieval Bohemian works.

149