Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:32:03.198Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prague-Vienna, Prague-Berlin: The Hidden Geography of Czech Modernism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Katherine David-Fox
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In response to his banishment to barbaric Tomis, on the Black Sea, in 8 C.E., Ovid composed the Tristia, entreaties to Emperor Augustus to permit his return to civilized Rome. Feeling equally alienated from fin-de-siècle Vienna, the Czech expatriate poet, Josef Svatopluk Machar, produced the slim collection Tristium Vindobona. One poem, “První dojmy” (First impressions), finds Machar's narrator and alter ego tormented by visions of an otherworldly and unattainable Prague. “Na Kahlenbergu” (On Kahlenberg) takes the narrator to the eponymous hill outside Vienna, where he invokes his distressed land to the north. The legacy of Habsburg dominion over the Czechs appears to him as a “wide and bloody path“ spanning historical battlegrounds from Diirnkrut, near Vienna, to the White Mountain, west of Prague. Czech critics in 1893 hailed Tristium as both a literary and a political event, its stature enhanced by its publication under the “shadow of bayonets,” that is, during an official state of emergency in Prague. The young critic Emanuel z Čenkova raised only an amicable objection in his review in Literární listy: Machar's narrator could easily come home—eluding reverie and history—since “express trains cross like lightning” between Vienna and Prague.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 59 , Issue 4 , Winter 2000 , pp. 735 - 760
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Research for this article was supported by the East European Studies program of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. A preliminary version was delivered at the Wilson Center, and a variation on it was presented at the annual meeting of the American Historical Association in Chicago, January 2000. I wish to acknowledge the helpful comments and advice of Steven Beller, Lubo š Merhaut, Scott Spector, Ale š Zach, and the late Vladim ír Macura.

1. Vindobona was the Celtic name for Vienna, used also by the Machar, Romans. J. S., “První dojmy” and “Na Kahlenbergu,” in Machar, J. S., Tristium Vindobona I-XX: 1889- 1892, 6th ed. (Prague, 1923), 11–13, 25-30Google Scholar. At Dümkrut, or, as it is known to the Czechs, Marchfeld (Moravská pole), Rudolph of Habsburg defeated the Czech king, Přemysl Otakar II, in 1278. The White Mountain (Bílá hora) was the site of the Bohemian Protestants' and Utraquists’ disastrous defeat in 1620.

2. Following the so-called Omladina demonstrations by Czech youth in 1893, a twoyear “state of emergency” was imposed on Prague. Mass arrests were made, civil rights were suspended, and numerous publications were closed or placed under restrictive censorship. See the review of Tristium Vindobona by z Čenkova, Emanuel ryt. in Literární listy 14, no. 23 (1892-1893): 393 Google Scholar; and Krejčí's, František Václav appears in Rozhledy 3 (1893-1894): 29–32 Google Scholar.

3. Even Bohemian state right (Geské státní právo) has been treated almost exclusively as a political problem. Spatial themes are examined explicitly in a few works: Hodrová, Daniela, Místa s tajemstvim (kapitoly z literární topologie) (Prague, 1994)Google Scholar; Macura, Vladimír, Znameni zrodu: České národní obrození jako kulturní typ, 2d exp. ed. (Jinočany, 1995)Google Scholar; Sayer, Derek, The Coasts of Bohemia: A Czech History (Princeton, 1998)Google Scholar; Spector, Scott, Prague Territories: National Conflict and Cultural Innovation in Franz Kafka's Fin de Siècle (Berkeley, 2000)Google Scholar; Wingfield, Nancy Meriwether, “Conflicting Constructions of Memory: Attacks on Statues of Joseph II in the Bohemian Lands after the Great War,” Austrian History Yearbook 28 (1997): 147-71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4. The older cultural geography centered on the physical traits of landscapes, while the “new cultural geography” draws on social geography and cultural studies, defining landscape as a social construction. Jackson, Peter, Maps of Meaning: An Introduction to Cultural Geography (London, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Here, I have drawn particularly on two studies: Shields, Rob, Places on the Margin: Alternative Geographies of Moderníty (London, 1991)Google Scholar; and Paasi, Anssi, Territories, Boundaries and Consciousness: The Changing Geographies of the Finnish-Russian Border (Chichester, Eng., 1996)Google Scholar. Also useful was James Duncan, “Sites of Representation: Place, Time and the Discourse of the Other,” in James Duncan and David Ley, eds., Place/ Culture/Representation (London, 1993), 39-56.

5. See Shields, , Places on the Margin, 3 Google Scholar.

6. On the Paris ties, see Wittlich, Petr, Prague: Fin de Siècle (Paris, 1992), 14–15 and 157-67Google Scholar. Even today, the work of Robert B. Pynsent is exceptional in connecting the Czech modernists with their central European context. See, for example, Pynsent, “Conclusory Essay: Decadence, Decay and Innovation,” in Pynsent, Robert B., ed., Decadence and Innovation: Austro- Hungarian Life and Art at the Turn of the Century (London, 1989)Google Scholar.

7. Macura, , Znamení zrodu, 185-86Google Scholar.

8. I employ Paasi's definition of territoriality as “an attempt by an individual or group to affect, influence, or control people, phenomena and relationships by delimiting a geographical area and asserting control over it.” Paasi, , Territories, 68 Google Scholar; on cultural territoriality, see 90-91. The city's German-speaking population fell from more than one-third in 1857 to only 7 percent in 1910. On the emergence of conscious national communities, see Cohen, Gary B., The Politics of Ethnic Survival: Germans in Prague, 1861-1914 (Princeton, 1981), introduction and chaps. 1-2Google Scholar.

9. I take the concept of “social spatialization” from Rob Shields, who defines it as “the ongoing social construction of the spatial at the level of the social imaginary (collective mythologies, presuppositions) as well as interventions in the landscape (for example, the built environment).” Shields, , Places on the Margin, 31 Google Scholar.

10. Quotation from Scott Spector, comment on Katherine David-Fox, “Apostles of Barbarism?” (paper, American Historical Association, Chicago, January 2000). On Bo hemian state right, as it played out in politics, see Garver, Bruce M., The Young Czech Party 1874-1901 and the Emergence of a Multi-Party System (New Haven, 1978), 49–59 Google Scholar. The Old Czech Party in 1890 negotiated an agreement with the regime that would have effectively partitioned Bohemia proper into Czech and German administrative districts. A backlash against it led to the Old Czechs’ fall and the victory of the Young Czech Party.

11. The phrase is from Paasi, , Territories, 55 Google Scholar.

12. On the invention of Czech tradition, see Sayer, , Coasts of Bohemia, chap. 4 Google Scholar.

13. (Inž.) Reiter, Josef, “Dějepisný nástin pokusův upraviti a splavniti hlavný řeky v zemích koruny České,” in Almanack bývalých žáků České realky pražské (Prague, 1893), 113-14, 116Google Scholar.

14. For example, Rašín, Alois, České státní právo (Prague, 1891), 16–17 Google Scholar.

15. Reiter, , “Dějepisný nástin,” 114-15, 122Google Scholar.

16. In the Marxist scheme, the Czechs were long considered a reactionary, nonhistorical nation destined to wither away. The polemics between the nationalist “Ruch“ faction in literature and the “Lumír” group, whose work was inspired by contemporary French and Italian poetry, are described in every survey of Czech literature. See Hrabák, Josef, Jeřábek, Dušan, and Tichá, Zdenka, Průvodce po dějinách české literatury, 2d ed. (Prague, 1978), 264-70Google Scholar. Macura, , Znamení zrodu, 79 Google Scholar. F. X. Šalda, review of Antonín Klášterský, Drobty života, in Literární listy 14, no. 2 (1892-1893): 34.

17. David-Fox, Katherine, “The 1890s Generation: Modernísm and National Identity in Czech Culture, 1890-1900” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1996)Google Scholar. On the students in particular, see also Freeze, Karen Johnson, ‘The Young Progressives: The Czech Student Movement, 1887-1897” (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1974)Google Scholar.

18. Many scholars use similar models, particularly to elucidate economic patterns, but the formulations developed by Hohenburg and Lees encompass multiple facets of life and allow for the simultaneous existence of and tension between the Central Place and Network functions of the city in the cultural sphere. Hohenburg, Paul M. and Lees, Lynn Hollen, The Making of Urban Europe, 1000-1994, 2d ed. (Cambridge, Mass., 1995), 4–7, 281-82Google Scholar. Similar constructs are applied to urban cultural dynamics over longer spans of time in Robert Redfield and Milton B. Singer, ‘The Cultural Role of Cities,” Economic Development and Cultural Change 3, no. 1 (October 1954): 53-73. On maternal representations of Prague, see Macura, , Znamení zrodu, 181 Google Scholar.

19. [Karel Stanislav Sokol?], “Z naší doby,” Nové proudy 1, no. 2 (1893): 52-54.

20. Borová, Vladimíra, “Obraz Němců v česká historicke beletrii 1890-1900,” in Obraz druhého v historické perspektivé, Acta Universitatis Carolinae—Philosophica el Historica, no. 1 (1995), Studia Historica 41, pp. 11–39 Google Scholar.

21. Macura, , Znamení zrodu, 36 Google Scholar.

22. Masaryk's article in Athenaeum, cited in Herben, Jan, Desel let prod proudu (1886-1896) (Prague, 1898), 26 Google Scholar. A cartoon in Humoristické listy in 1894 depicted a “Czech“ book cabinet, which opened to reveal an array of German works; this is reprinted in Jiří Pokorný, Český svét, vol. 1, 1889-1918 (Prague, 1997), 28. For an example of the territorial argument, see Hajn, Antonín, “O nás pro nás,” in Rozhledy 1 (1892): esp. 1-6, 343-47, 375-84Google Scholar.

23. Krejčí, F. V., “K poměrům naší literatuiy a kritiky,” Rozhledy 3 (1893-1894): 556-57Google Scholar. Vorel, Jan, “Panslavism v literární produkci,” Literární listy 14, no. 17-18 (1892-1893): 285 Google Scholar.

24. literární archív Památníku národního písemnictví (LA PNP), Machar papers, Krejčí to Machar, 28 August 1894. “Tk.,” “Glosy k novým směrům literárním: Slovo úvodní,“ Časopis pokrokového studentstva 1, no. 3 (April 1893): 45.

25. “Velký výlet ‘Slavie’ do jičína a skal prachovských,” Časopis pokrokového studentstva 1, no. 5 (June 1893): 83-84. The town ofjicin was not considered one of the threatened.

26. For example, Krejčí, F. V., “Nové umění,” Rozhledy 5 (1895-1896): 6 Google Scholar.

27. Vrchlický, Jaroslav, “K našim posledním bojům literárním,” Lumír 23, no. 5 (19 November 1894): 58–60 Google Scholar.

28. Glettler, Monika, Die Wiener Tschechen urn 1900: Strukturanalyse einer Minderheit in derGrossstadt (Munich, 1972), 28–29, 227-40Google Scholar. Christa Rothmeier, “Die entzauberte Idylle: Das Wienbild in der tschechischen Literatur seit Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts bis in die Gegenwart,” in Marinelli-König, Gertraud and Pavlova, Nina, eds., Wien als Magnet? Schriftstelleraus Ost-, Ostmittel- und Südosteuropa über die Stadt (Vienna, 1996), 256 Google Scholar.

29. Kann, Robert A., Kaiser Franz Joseph und derAusbruch des Weltkrieges: Eine Betrachtung iiber den Quellenwert der Aufzeichnungen vonDr. Heinrich Kanner (Vienna, 1971), 4–5 Google Scholar.

30. Daviau, Donald G., Hermann Bahr (Boston, 1985), chap. 3 Google Scholar. Also see Farkas, Reinhard, Hermann Bahr: Dynamik und Dilemma der Moderne (Vienna, 1989)Google Scholar. Most writings on Bahr have nothing to say about his interest in the nationalities.

31. Machar evidently spent considerable time with the editors, although Bahr mentions him only once in his diaries from the 1890s, in the entry from 13January 1896. Bahr, Hermann, Tagebücher, Skizzenbücher, Notizhefte, vol. 2, 1890-1900, ed. Csáky, Moritz et al. (Vienna, 1996), 212 Google Scholar.

32. The most detailed account of his Vienna years can be found in Machar, J. S., Třicet roků (Prague, 1919)Google Scholar.

33. Z Čenkova, , review of Tristium Vindobona, Literární lisly 14, no. 23 (1892-1893): 393-94Google Scholar. Machar, , Třicet roků, 41 Google Scholar. Machar's friends in Prague felt the same, he told Masaryk. LA PNP, Machar to Masaryk, 9 February 1894.

34. Machar, , “Na Kahlenbergu,” 26–27 Google Scholar.

35. Zeyer, Julius, Jan Maria Plojhar (Prague, 1918)Google Scholar, discussed in Hodrová, , Místa s tajemstvím, 97 Google Scholar. Glettler, , Wiener Tschechen, 230 Google Scholar. Hayes, Kathleen, “Images of the Prostitute in Czech Fin-de-Siècle Literature,” Slavonic and East European Review 75, no. 2 (April 1997): 235-37Google Scholar.

36. František Václav Krejčí, Konec století, 1867-1899: Vybor z pamětí, ed. Bohumil Svozil (Prague,'1989). Krejčí's letters to Machar, in the Machar papers at LA PNP remain a valuable source on both writers.

37. From J. S. Machar, “V té době pohnuté,” in Třeti kniha lyriky (1892), reprinted in Fedor Soldan, J. S. Machar (Prague, 1974), 203-4. Machar, J. S., “Vítězslav Hálek,” Naše doba 2, no. 1 (20 October 1894): 3–15 Google Scholar. Zdeněk Pešat, J. S. Machar: Básník (Prague, 1959), 80-84.

38. For Karásek's view, see “K naší literární revoluci,” Moderní revue 1 (1894-1895): 49-60.

39. Machar wrote a column for Masaryk's journal, Naše doba, between 1893 and 1895, discussed in Peter Drews, “Masaryk and Machar's Literary Criticism in Naše doba,” in Pynsent, Robert B., ed., Masaryk, T. G. (1850-1937), vol. 2, Thinker and Critic (New York, 1989), 170 Google Scholar.

40. LA PNP, Machar to Masaryk, 20 September 1894. LA PNP, Pelcl to Machar, 7July 1895 and 3 October 1895.

41. LA PNP, Machar to Masaryk, 24 June 1894, 29 October 1894, and 17 December 1894. LA PNP, Krejčí to Machar, 28 August 1894, 17 September 1894, and other correspondence 1894-1895.

42. LA PNP, Machar to Masaryk, 17 October 1894.

43. Krejčí's article on the new trends in Czech literature, which appeared in Die Zeit in the fall of 1894, is reprinted in Czech in the Progressive journal Radikální listy 1, no. 17 (1894): 4. Masaryk's lengthy article on the Progressive movement, reprinted in Czech in Naše nynější krise (Prague, 1895), originally appeared in Die Zeit 1, nos. 7, 8, and 9 (between 17 November and 1 December 1894).

44. Schorske, Carl E., Fin-de-Siècle Vienna: Politics and Culture (New York, 1980)Google Scholar. One of the many works influenced by Schorske is Péter Hanák, The Garden and the Workshop: Essays on the Cultural History of Vienna and Budapest (Princeton, 1998). For a stimulating critique of Schorske, see Spector, Scott, “Beyond the Aesthetic Garden: Politics and Culture on the Margins of Fin-de-Siècle Vienna,” Journal of the History of Ideas 59 (1998): 691–710 Google Scholar.

45. Sprengel, Peter and Streim, Gregor, Berliner und Wiener Moderne: Vermittlungen und Abgrenzungen in Literatur, Theater, Publizistik (Vienna, 1998)Google Scholar, on Bahr's role, 45-106. Some of Bahr's significant essays are collected in Bahr, Hermann, Zur Uberwindung des Naluralismus: Theoretische Schriften 1887-1904, ed. Wunberg, Gotthart (Stuttgart, 1968)Google Scholar, see “Das Junge Oesterreich,” 141-58, and “Loris,” 158-63.

46. See Steven Beller's insightful commentary on an earlier version of this paper, 'The Hidden Geography of Czech Modernísm” (Meeting Report no. 153 in East European Studies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, May-June 1998). Beller's own work argues that Jews dominated the liberal bourgeoisie in Vienna and that this group, rather than escaping from the political, maintained its ethical values and commitments. Beller, Steven, Vienna and the Jews, 1867-1938: A Cultural History (Cambridge, Eng., 1989)Google Scholar.

47. Bahr, Hermann, Die Überwindung desNaturalismus (Dresden, 1891)Google Scholar, contains an essay of the same name, 152-58. “Rothe Bäume,“Die Zeit 2, no. 14 (5 January 1895): 12.

48. LA PNP, Machar to Masaryk, 12 August 1894 and 29 October 1894.

49. LA PNP, Machar to Masaryk, 17 October 1894.

50. Farkas, , Bahr, 91–103 Google Scholar. Daviau, , Bahr, 46–47 Google Scholar. On the division between the self and the external, see also Bahr's essay, “Die Moderne” in Zur Übenuindung des Naturalismus, 35-38.

51. Machar quotes “Die Moderne,” in “Drobty z literární revoluce,” Rozhledy 4 (1894- 1895): 142; Krejčí, F. V., “Nové proudy a dekadence,” Rozhledy 4 (1894-1895): 15 Google Scholar.

52. Die Zeit 2, no. 16 (19January 1895): 46.

53. Ibid. For the original, see Hajn, Antonín, “Sympatie Evropy,” Rozhledy 4 (1894-1895): 129-38Google Scholar.

54. LA PNP, Machar to Masaryk, 17 October 1894.

55. LA PNP, Machar papers, Antonín Čížek to Machar, 8 February 1895. Evidently, Čížek did not produce detailed information for him. The Czech Progressives had established ties with Progressive Slavic students, including the future Croat leader, Stjepan Radić.

56. Krejčí, F. V., “J. S. Machar,“Die Zeit 4, no. 48 (31 August 1895): 138 Google Scholar.

57. LA PNP, Machar papers, Josef Pelcl to Machar, 3 October 1895.

58. LA PNP, Machar papers, Vaclav Choc to Machar, 16 December 1895.

59. LA PNP, Machar papers,Jan Herben to Machar, 6January 1895. Herben was a follower of Masaryk.

60. “Česká Moderna,” Rozhledy 5, no. 1 (1895-1896): 1-4.

61. Zdeněk Pešat, J. S. Machar: Básník (Prague, 1959), 88 Google Scholar; and Pešat, , “Česká Moderna,“ in Moderna ve slovanských literaturách (Prague, 1988), 6–14 Google Scholar. Lukeš, Jan, “F. X. Šalda a Manifest česká Moderna,” Literárníarchiv 29 (1997): 28 Google Scholar. Only Pynsent briefly draws parallels between Bahr's “Die Moderne” and the manifesto, but he contends that the manifesto largely followed Masaryk's thought. Pynsent, “Conclusory Essay,” 156.

62. “r.” [F. V. Krejčí], “Ein Manifest der tschechischen Moderne,” We Zeit 5, no. 58 (9 November 1895): 89-90.

63. On Machar and Przesmycki, see Koc, Barbara, Miriam: Opowieść biograficzna (Warsaw, 1980), 86, 89Google Scholar. On Singer and the Austrians, see LA PNP, Machar to Masaryk, 4 December 1895 and 27January 1896. LA PNP, Josef Pelcl to Machar, 3 October 1895 and n.d. (early 1896).

64. Artur (sic) Schnitzler, Umírání, trans. Josef Fr. Javůrek, with original lithographs by Emil Orlík (Prague, 1898). See Šalda's review of this and the Czech version of Anatol, orig. in Literární listy 19 (1898): 284-85, reprinted in Šalda, , Kritické projevy, vol. 4, 1898-1900 (Prague, 1951), 84–87 Google Scholar. Schnitzler's plays were performed as well. Bahr's, Hermann contribution in “Dohodnutí Čechů s Němci,” Rozhledy 5 (1895-1896): 411 Google Scholar.

65. Bahr's next book, consisting of essays originally published in Die Zeit, was entitled Renaissance: Neue Studien zurKritik der Moderne (Berlin, 1897). By 1899 he had turned to a program of the “discovery of the provinces.” See Daviau, , Bahr, 49–51 Google Scholar.

66. The turmoil following the manifesto has been discussed in the literature. Many of the original polemics are printed or summarized in Šalda, F. X., Kritické projevy, vol. 3, 1896-1897 (Prague, 1950), 156-70 and 527-33Google Scholar.

67. Kramář had known Bahr at the university in Berlin, but it was initially at Machar's instigation that he wrote for the journal. See Bahr, Hermann, Selbstbildis (Berlin, 1923), 176 Google Scholar, and LA PNP, Machar to Masaryk, 10 September 1895. On Bahr in the later period, see Černý, František, “Hermann Bahr und Prag,” in Hermann-Bahr-Symposion: “DerHerraus Linz” im Rahmen des Internationalen Brucknerfestes Linz 1984, ed. Dietrich, Margret (Linz, 1987), 145-68Google Scholar.

68. Krejčí, F. V., “Die czechische Decadence,” Die Zeit 6, no. 66 (4 January 1896): 10–11 Google Scholar.

69. Anna Czarnocka, “Nietzsche, Przybyszewski and the Berlin Boheme from the Circle of the Kneipe ‘ZumschwarzenFerkel,'” and Taborski, Roman, “Stanislaw Przybyszewski— Forgotten and … Recollected Inspirer of European Modernísm,” in Paszkiewicz, Piotr, ed., Totenmesse: Modernísm in the Culture of Northern and Central Europe (Warsaw, 1996), 41–50 and 11-16Google Scholar; Klim, Georg, Stanislaw Przybyszewski: Leben, Werk und Weltanschauung im Rahmen der deutschen Literaturderjahrhundertwende (Paderborn, 1992)Google Scholar.

70. The original letters of Przybyszewski to Procházka (in German) are available in LA PNP, Arnošt Procáazka papers.

71. Moderní revue 2 (1895): 3. Nietzsche, Friedrich, “K přírodopisu moralky,” Moderní revue 1 (1894-1895): 1–8 Google Scholar.

72. As Beller pointed out; see Beller, commentary, “Hidden Geography,” 4 Google Scholar.

73. Conrad Alberti coined the term Noramania cited in Roper, Katherine, German Encounters with Moderníty: Novels of Imperial Berlin (Atlantic Heights, N.J., 1991), 164 Google Scholar. Quotation from James McFarlane, “Berlin and the Rise of Modernísm 1886-1896,” in Bradbury, Malcolm and McFarlane, James Walter, eds., Modernísm, 1890-1930 (New York, 1976), 110 Google Scholar. Sprengel, and Streim, , Berliner und Wiener Moderne, 16 Google Scholar.

74. Rolf Kauffeldt and Gertrude Cepl-Kaufmann, Berlin-Friedrichshagen: Literaturhauptstadtumdiefahrhundertxoende— DerFriedrichshagenerDichterkreis ([Munich?], 1994), on the Hansson circle, 255-327. McFarlane, , “Berlin,” 116 Google Scholar.

75. A fundamental, though often inaccurate, source is Stanistaw Przybyszewski, Erinnerungen an das literarische Berlin (Munich, 1965). Klim, , Przybyszewski, chaps. 1 and 2Google Scholar.

76. Boniecki, Edward, “Stanislaw Przybyszewski's Berlin Essays on Artists and Art,” in Paszkiewicz, , ed., Tolenmesse, 51–64 Google Scholar. Kauffeldt, and Cepl-Kaufmann, , Berlin-Friedrichshagen, 272-78Google Scholar. Furness, Raymond, “Black Piglet and Megalomania: Some Berlin Precursors of Expressionism,“ in Glass, Derek, Rosier, Dietmar, and White, John J., eds., Berlin: Literary Images of a City/Eine Groβistadt im Spiegel der Literatur (Berlin, 1989), 70–82 Google Scholar

77. “Berlín,” in Ottův slovník naučny (1888-1909; reprint, Prague, 1996), 3:824-26; the article was written sometime after 1890. Sayer, The Coasts of Bohemia, draws attention to the richness of this encyclopedia.

78. “X,” “Realismus a kritika,” Literární listy 14, no. 6 (1892-1893): 97-100.

79. Moderní revue 1 (1894-1895): 22.

80. For Karásek's retrospective comments, see Lvovic, Jiří Karásek ze, Vzpomínky, ed. Dupačová, Gabriela and Zach, Aleš (Prague, 1994), 152-54Google Scholar. There are 62 pieces of correspondence covering the years 1895-1918 from Przybyszewski to Arnošt Procházka in LA PNP, beginning 5 October 1895. To Alfred Mombert, Przybyszewski called Moderní revue “the best European journal.” Stanislaw Przybyszewski, Listy, vol. 1, 1879-1906, ed. Stanistaw Helsztyński (Warsaw, 1937), 139.

81. This relationship has been overlooked by most scholars, but it is treated in a few sources. Magniiszewski, Jozef, Stosunki lilerackie polsko-czeskia w końcu XIX i na poczatku XX wieku (Wroclaw, 1951)Google Scholar, argues for Przybyszewski's overwhelming influence on Czech modernism. Hloušková, Jasná has written two brief articles, “Przybyszewski a Moderní revue,“ Slavia 50 (1971): 170-74Google Scholar, and “České, polské a německé materiály na strankach Moderná revue konce minulého století,” Slavia 65 (1996): 177-84. Most recently, Hlouškové edited and translated Stanistaw Przybyszewski: Pamětí, Korespondence (Prague, 1997), a volume in Czech with selections from his memoirs and correspondence. Also see Luboš Merhaut, “Arnošt Procházka: Theoretician of Autonomous Art and of ‘Moderní revue,'” in Paszkiewicz, , Totenmesse, 141-52Google Scholar.

82. Chaloupka, B., “Budoucí umění ,” Moderní revue 1 (1894-1895): 126 Google Scholar.

83. Stanistaw Przybyszewski, “K psychologii individua: Chopin a Nietzsche,” Moderní revue 3 (1895-1896), serialized in every issue. For lists of the major essays that appeared in the journal and the books published by Moderní revue, see Urban, Otto M. and Merhaut, Lubos, eds., Moderní revue, 1894-1925 (Prague, 1995), 366-77Google Scholar.

84. See the letters regarding Richard Dehmel, who wanted an honorarium after all. LA PNP, Dehmel to Procházka, 3 June 1896; Przybyszewski to Procházka, 27 May 1896 and n.d. (110 37/524).

85. Hugo Kosterka, an editor of Moderní revue, had a lifelong interest in Scandinavian literature. Kadečková, Helena, “Skandinavský fin de siecle z českého pohledu,” in Urban, and Merhaut, , Moderní revue, 112-29Google Scholar.

86. Magnuszewski chronicles the publication of Przybyszewski's own work in Moderní revue as well as his exchanges with Procházka and other Czechs; Magnuszewski, , Stosunki, 105-52Google Scholar. Przybyszewski sent Dauthendey's poems to Procházka in 1896; they were published the following year, along with a portrait of Dauthendey by Hlaváček, Karel. Moderní revue 5 (1896-1897): 66, 68Google Scholar.

87. Przybyszewski was chronically short of money, and several times in his letters thanked Procházka for honoraria and loans; in an undated letter (110 37/547) he promised repayment of 80-100 gulden on 1 January and “the rest” on 1 March. Also see the letter from Dagny Przybyszewska to Procházka, 19 June 1896.

88. LA PNP, Przybyszewski to Procházka, n.d. (110 37/528, [1896]).

89. LA PNP, Przybyszewski to Procházka, 6 May 1896. Przybyszewski as a student had briefly worked for Gazela Robotnica, but his socialist activities led to his arrest and expulsion from the university. Klim, , Przybyszewski, 48–51 Google Scholar.

90. Merhaut, , “Arnošt Procházka,” 145-46Google Scholar.

91. LA PNP, Przybyszewski to Procházka, 5 October 1895, n.d. (110 37/516), and 10 April 1896; Hloušková, , “Przybyszewski a Moderní revue,” 171 Google Scholar.

92. LA PNP, Przybyszewski to Procházka, 7 November 1897. Klim, , Przybyszewski, 215-17Google Scholar.

93. LA PNP, Przybyszewski to Procházka, 6 May 1896 and 20 October 1896.

94. LA PNP, Przybyszewski to Procházka, n.d. (110 37/528 [1896]). Przybyszewski, Stanislaw, “Pro domo mea,” Moderní revue 3 (1895-1896): 93 Google Scholar. Magnuszewski believes that his enthusiasm for Machar and indeed for Prague was based on his reading of Krejčí's articles in Die Zeit. Magnuszewski, , Stosunki, 114 Google Scholar.

95. LA PNP, Przybyszewski to Procházka, 6 May 1896.

96. Przybyszewski, , Erinnerungen, 275 Google Scholar. He had written much the same thing to writer Jan Kasprowicz in 1898. Przybyszewski, , Listy, 1:210-11Google Scholar.

97. Magnuszewski, , Stosunki, 129-40Google Scholar.

98. Šalda, F. X., “Osamělá duse od Gerharta Hauptmanna,” in Kritické projevy, vol. 2, 1894-1895 (Prague, 1950), 194-205Google Scholar. F. V. Krejcf analyzed Garborg's novel at length in Moderní revue 1 (1894-1895): 73-76, 101-5. The Progressive series Vzdělavatí bibliotěka later published it in translation.

99. Kadečkové, “Skandinavsky fin de siècle,” 113. See Karasek's speech delivered upon the opening of the experimental theater, Literární listy 17, no. 10 (1896): 162-67. Šalda, “Osamělé duše,” 204-5. Šalda, , “Moderní drama německé,” in Kritické projevy, vol. 3, 1896-1897, 312-56Google Scholar.

100. Moderní revue A (1896): 1 and 5 (1896-1897): 77-79. Volné směry 1 (1896-1897): 99-100. Prahl, Roman, “Moderní revue et/versus Volné sméry,” in Urban, and Merhaut, , Moderní revue, 93–94 Google Scholar.

101. Costenoble became an emblem of artistic incompetence for Volné sméry; see 2 (February 1898): 191. “Kronika,” Volné sméry 2 (December 1897): 81.

102. Wittlich, Petr, ‘The Self: Destruction or Synthesis, Two Problems of Czech Art at the Turn of the Century,” in Pynsent, , ed., Decadence and Innovation, 85 Google Scholar. Wittlich, , Prague, 166-67Google Scholar.

103. Hendzel, Wladyslaw and Obraczka, Piotr, Z problemćw czasopismiennictwa mlodej Polski (Opole, 1988), 7 Google Scholar.

104. Akademie 2, no. 4 (January 1898): 149-50.

105. Rothmeier, , “Entzauberte Idylle,” 256 Google Scholar. The artist Zdenka Braunerová (1858— 1934), who befriended several of the younger writers by the end of the decade, was exceptional in her frequent travel to Paris.