Appendix I The Growth of the Czech Sokol Movement,

Appendix I The Growth of the Czech Sokol Movement, 1862–1912 Number of clubs

Membership

Year Bohemia Moravia- Lower Total Bohemia Moravia- Lower Silesia Austria Silesia Austria 1862 1865 1868 1871 1875 1883 1888 1897 1902 1905 1910 1912

7 16 44 96 61 85 142 367 453 493 636 717

1 3 5 17 10 19 28 93 143 169 265 359

– – 1 1 1 1 1 6 9 9 15 15

8 19 50 114 72 105 171 466 605 671 916 1 091

–1 1 556 4 714 9 304 6 205 9 772 17 315 35 717 37 868 39 387 68 032 83 040

– 156 437 1 144 898 1 314 2 302 7 282 10 973 11 524 24 963 33 742

– – 50 68 88 111 200 871 1 397 1 258 2 082 2 401

Total

– 1 712 5 201 2 10 516 7 191 11 197 19 817 43 870 50 238 52 169 95 077 3 119 183

1. In 1862, membership in the Prague Sokol reached 1000. 2. The new category of “contributing member” caused membership to rise. 3. In 1910, women were counted as part of the membership and comprised 14,585 of the total. Sources: Prehled 1865; Sborník 1868; Kareis, comp., Statistický výpis; Ed. Kaizl, Statistický výkaz; Rudolf Bílek et al., comps., Statistika Ceské obce sokolské za rok 1905 (Prague: Ceská obec sokolská, 1906); and Sokol, Vol. 5 (1875), 95; Vol. 9 (1883), 79–82 and 106; Vol. 24 (1898), 223; Vol. 29 (1903), 204 and 210; Vol. 37 (1911), 254; and Vol. 40 (1914), 219.

185

Notes Introduction 1. Derek Sayer, The Coasts of Bohemia: a Czech History (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1998), 105; Hans Kohn, Pan-Slavism: Its History and Ideology (Notre Dame, Ind.: Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1953), 184; R.W. Seton-Watson, A History of the Czechs and Slovaks (London: Hutchinson, 1943), 212; Bruce Garver, The Young Czech Party 1874–1901 and the Emergence of a Multi-Party System (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1978), 31; and Friedrich Prinz, “Die böhmischen Länder von 1848 bis 1918,” Handbuch der Geschichte der böhmischen Länder, ed. Karl Bosl (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1967/68), Vol. 3, 86. 2. Police Report, March 15, 1887, Státní ústrední archiv v Praze [The State Central Archives in Prague; hereafter: SÚA], Presidium místrodrzitelství [Collection of the Governor’s Office; hereafter: PM] (1881–90) 8/5/20/1/1887/No. 1714; and Franz Spina, “Aus dem Bildungs- und Wirtschaftsleben der Tschechen I: Das Sokolwesen,” Deutsche Arbeit, Vol. 13 (1913–14), 349. 3. A Prague Sokol leader wrote the first history of the club in 1887, on the occasion of the organization’s twenty-fifth anniversary. Josef Scheiner, Dejiny Sokolstva v prvém jeho petadvacetiletí (Prague: Grégr, 1887). The literature on the organization in Czech is extensive, most of it from club sources in the 1930s and 1940s. Among the more valuable examples of this genre are Ladislav Jandásek, Prehledné dejiny Sokolstva (Prague: Ceskoslovenská obec sokolská, 1936); Ladislav Jandásek and Jan Pelikán, Strucné dejiny Sokolstva 1862–1912 (Prague: Ceskoslovenská obec sokolská, 1946); and Alois Fikar, Strucné dejiny Sokolstva, 1912–1941 (Prague: Ceskoslovenská obec sokolská, 1948). There has been little written on the Sokol in English and much of what has been written is older, including two rather superficial histories and three informative articles: F.A. Toufar, Sokol, the Czechoslovak National Gymnastic Organisation (London: Allen & Unwin, 1941); Jarka Jelínek and J. Zmrhal, Sokol, Educational and Physical Culture Association (Chicago: American Sokol Union, 1944); Ladislav Jandásek, “The Sokol Movement in Czechoslovakia,” The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 11 (1932), 65–80; Ladislav Jandásek, “The Founder of the Sokols: Miroslav Tyrš,” The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 10 (1931), 572–87; and Fridolin Machácek, “The Sokol Movement: Its Contribution to Gymnastics,” The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 17 (1938–39), 73–90. [subsequently published with slight changes as “Sokolstvo,” Co daly naše zeme Evrope a lidstvu (Prague: Evropský literární klub, 1940), Vol. 2, 101–10.]. The most recent publications on Sokol history are two collective works: Sokol, jeho vznik, vývoj a význam: Sborník prispevku z mezinárodní konference, Praha, zárí 1997, ed. Marek Waic (Prague: Organizacní výbor mezinárodní konference, 1998); and Sokol v ceské spolecnosti 1862–1938, ed. Marek Waic et al. (Prague: Fakulta telesné výchovy a sportu University Karlovy, 1997). A recent work is informative on the early decades of the Sokol, while a book about the organization in Vienna contains background 186

Notes 187

4.

5.

6. 7.

8. 9.

10. 11.

12.

13.

information. Jan Novotný, Sokol v zivote národa (Prague: Melantrich, 1990); and Monika Glettler, Sokol und Arbeiterturnvereine der Wiener Tschechen bis 1914 (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1970). See also Claire E. Nolte, “’Our Task, Direction and Goal’: the Development of the Sokol National Program to World War I,” Vereinswesen und Geschichtspflege in den böhmischen Ländern, ed. Ferdinand Seibt (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1986), 123–38. Miroslav Hroch, Social Preconditions of National Revival in Europe: a Comparative Analysis of the Social Composition of Patriotic Groups among the Smaller European Nations, tr. Ben Fowkes (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985). Miroslav Hroch, “Nationales Bewußtsein zwischen Nationalismustheorie und der Realität der nationalen Bewegungen,” Formen des nationalen Bewußtseins im Lichte zeitgenössischer Nationalismustheorien, ed. Eva Schmitt Hartmann (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1994), 46 and 48. George Mosse, The Nationalization of the Masses (New York: New American Library, 1975), 2. Roman Prahl, “’Dobrou noc, krásné umení v Cechách?’: Ke krizi v ceské malbe pocátku 70. let 19. století,” Umení, Vol. 32 (1984), 522; Dieter Düding, “Friedrich Ludwig Jahn und die Anfänge der deutschen Nationalbewegung,” Geschichte der Leibesübungen, ed. Horst Ueberhorst (Berlin: Bartels & Wernit, 1972–82), Vol. 3/1, 232; and Mosse, Nationalization of the Masses, 5. Anthony D. Smith, Theories of Nationalism (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), 262. A similar point is made in Mosse, Nationalization of the Masses, 19. Vera Olivová, Lidé a hry: historická geneze sportu (Prague: Olympia, 1979), 509. See also Karl W. Deutsch, Nationalism and Social Communication: an Inquiry into the Foundations of Nationality, 2nd edn (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1966); and Thomas Weiser, “K.W. Deutschs Modell der Nationswerdung und sein Beitrag für die historische Nationalismusforschung,” Formen des nationalen Bewußtseins, 127–143. Michael Antonowytsch, Friedrich Ludwig Jahn: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Anfänge des deutschen Nationalismus (Berlin: Ebering, 1933), 80. David Blackbourn and Geoff Eley, The Peculiarities of German History: Bourgeois Society and Politics in Nineteenth-Century Germany (Oxford and New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1984), 195; Deutsch, Nationalism and Social Communication, 101–2; and Hans-Peter Hye, “Vereinswesen und bürgerliche Gesellschaft in Österreich,” Beiträge zur historischen Sozialkunde (1988), 86–96. The Turnverein was founded after the Prussian defeat at the hands of Napoleon, French gymnastics grew up following the catastrophe of the Franco-Prussian War, and the British government moved to institute school physical education after the Boer War. In Italy, on the other hand, gymnastic societies were founded following unification in an effort to strengthen and unify the nation. Studies of the intersection of sports and nationalism are in J.A. Mangan, ed., Tribal Identities: Nationalism, Europe, Sport (London: Frank Cass, 1996). Specific examples are listed in Henning Eichberg, “Der Körper als Idential: Zum historischen Materialismus der nationalen Frage,” Die slawische Sokolbewegung: Beiträge zur Geschichte von Sport und Nationalismus in Osteuropa, ed. Diethelm Blecking (Dortmund: Forschungsstelle Ostmitteleuropa, 1991), 224–7. Their appeal to a broad class base made mass national movements progressive in their initial stages. Józef Chlebowczyk, On Small and Young Nations in

188

14.

15. 16.

17.

Notes Europe: Nation-Forming Processes in Ethnic Borderlands in East Central Europe (Wroclaw: Zaklad NIOWPAN, 1980), 148. The political scientist, John Breuilly, has argued that national ideology has three purposes, to coordinate elites, to mobilize the masses, and to legitimize the national program to outsiders. John Breuilly, Nationalism and the State (New York: St Martin’s Press – now Palgrave Macmillan, 1982), 62–3. See also John Breuilly, “Approaches to Nationalism,” Formen des nationalen Bewußtseins, 15–38. Breuilly, Nationalism and the State, 11. Friedrich Prinz, “Probleme der böhmischen Geschichte zwischen 1848 und 1914,” Bohemia, Vol. 6 (1965), 332. A similar opinion is in Chlebowczyk, On Small and Young Nations in Europe, 22. See also Friedrich Prinz, “Nation und Gesellschaft in den böhmischen Länder im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert,” Geschichte in der Gesellschaft, ed. Friedrich Prinz et al. (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1974), 333–49. The argument that nationalism is a twentieth-century phenomenon created out of the national movements of the previous century is in Miroslav Hroch, “How Much Does Nation Formation Depend on Nationalism?” East European Politics and Societies (Winter 1990), 111.

1 European Gymnastics from Enlightened Rationalism to Romantic Nationalism 1. The role of kalokagathia in Greek athletics is discussed in Olivová, Lidé a hry, 82, 91, and 115–17. On the revival of this concept in the Renaissance, see Franz Begov, “Sportgeschichte der frühen Neuzeit,” Geschichte der Leibesübungen, Vol. 3/1, 152. 2. The games and sports of the medieval burghers are described in Olivová, Lidé a hry, 163–259; and Roland Renson, “Leibesübungen der Bürger und Bauern im Mittelalter,” Geschichte der Leibesübungen, Vol. 3/1, 97–144. 3. Except for England, the tradition of people’s games had disappeared in Europe by 1650, the dividing line between the medieval and modern eras in sports history. 4. Francis Fuller, Medicina gymnastica: a treatise concerning the power of exercise, with respect to the animal oeconomy; and the great necessity of it in the cure of several distempers (London: R. Knaplock, 1705). 5. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Émile or On Education, intro. and tr. Allen Bloom (New York: Basic Books, 1979), 202. Comenius, Montaigne, Descartes, and Locke also advocated physical education for school children. 6. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Government of Poland, tr. by Willmoore Kendall (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1972), 14. 7. J.G. GutsMuths, quoted in Erich Geldbach, “Die Philanthropen als Wegbereiter moderner Leibeskultur,” Geschichte der Leibesübungen, Vol. 3/1, 168. 8. Hajo Bernett, “Johann Christoph Friedrich GutsMuths,” Geschichte der Leibesübungen, Vol. 3/1, 202. 9. Johann Christoph Friedrich GutsMuths, Gymnastik für die Jugend (Schnepfenthal: Buchhandlung der Erziehungsanstalt, 1793).

Notes 189 10. [ J.G. GutsMuths], Gymnastics for Youth or a practical guide to healthful and amusing exercises for the use of schools (Philadelphia: P. Byrne, 1803), 145. See also Edmund Neuendorff, Geschichte der neueren deutschen Leibesübungen vom Beginn des 18. Jahrhunderts bis zur Gegenwart (Dresden: Limpert-Verlag, 1930–36), Vol. 1, 187. 11. See Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi, “Über Körperbildung als Einleitung auf den Versuch einer Elementargymnastik,” Pestalozzi Sämtliche Werke (Zurich: Orell Füssli Verlag, 1963), Vol. 20, 45–69. 12. Suspicions were undoubtedly heightened when the Convention approved the following resolution in August 1793: “During the course of National Education, the children’s time shall be divided between study, manual labor, and gymnastic exercises. If the week belongs to labor, it is good and proper that youth should rediscover corporal exercises during the days of rest.” Quoted in Eugen Weber, “Gymnastics and Sports in Fin-de-Siècle France: Opium of the Classes?” American Historical Review, Vol. 76 (February 1971), 73. 13. Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Reden an die deutschen Nation (Leipzig: Reclam, 1938), 180. 14. Willi Schröder, “Einleitung,” in Friedrich Ludwig Jahn and Ernst Eiselen, Die deutsche Turnkunst (Berlin: Sportverlag, 1960), viii. Lanz bei Lenzen was located in the northwest part of the old Margravate of Brandenburg, in a district called Prignitz, which was bordered by the Duchy of Mecklenburg to the north and the Electorate of Hannover to the west. 15. F.L. Jahn to Feuerstein [1809 or 1810], Die Briefe Friedrich Ludwig Jahns, ed. Wolfgang Meyer (Leipzig: Verlag Paul Eberhardt, 1913), 32. 16. Friedrich Ludwig Jahn, Deutsches Volkstum (Lübeck: Niemann & Comp., 1810). See also Hans Kohn, “Father Jahn’s Patriotism,” The Review of Politics, Vol. 11 (1949), 421. 17. Horst Ueberhorst, Friedrich Ludwig Jahn and His Time, 1778–1852, tr. Timothy Nevill (Munich: Moos, 1978), 39–40. 18. F.L. Jahn to Zernial, Nov. 7, 1815, Briefe Jahns, 64–5. 19. Friedrich Ludwig Jahn, Runenblätter (Frankfurt am Main: [no pub.], 1814). 20. Of an estimated 150 clubs with 12,000 members in 1818, 100 clubs with 6000 members were in Prussia. Düding, “Friedrich Ludwig Jahn,” 241–2. 21. Friedrich Ludwig Jahn and Ernst Eiselen, Die deutsche Turnkunst zur Einrichtung der Turnplätze (Berlin: Der Herausgeber, 1816), 236. 22. From 300 in 1811, membership in the Hasenheide club grew to over 500 in 1812, and to 777 in 1815. Neuendorff, Geschichte der neueren deutschen Leibesübungen, Vol. 2, 307. 23. Jahn and Eiselen, Die deutsche Turnkunst, xlviii. 24. Jahn defended his opinion in Jahn and Eiselen, Die deutsche Turnkunst, lx–lxii. The modern meanings of these two terms are discussed in Henning Eichberg, Der Weg des Sports in die industrielle Zivilisation, 2nd edn. (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 1979), 30. 25. Johann Christoph Friedrich GutsMuths, Turnbuch für die Söhne des Vaterlandes (Frankfurt am Main: Gebrüder Wilmans, 1817); and Johann Christoph Friedrich GutsMuths, Katechismus der Turnkunst, ein Leitfaden für Lehrer und Schüler (Frankfurt am Main: Gebrüder Wilmans, 1818). 26. “ . . . und ein echter Vaterlandsfreund GutsMuths hat uns darüber ein treffliches Lehrbuch geliefert.” Jahn, Deutsches Volkstum, 252.

190

Notes

27. Jahn and Eiselen, Die deutsche Turnkunst, lv; and F.L. Jahn to G.U.A. Vieth, April 11, 1819, Briefe Jahns, 102–3. 28. Jahn, Deutsches Volkstum, 18. Horst Ueberhorst translates Volkstum as “national essence.” See “Jahn’s Concept of ‘National Essence’,” in Ueberhorst, Friedrich Ludwig Jahn, 51–8. 29. Quoted in Neuendorff, Geschichte der neueren deutschen Leibesübungen, Vol. 2, 395. 30. According to statistics from the 1817–18 gymnastic year, 42.6 per cent of members were from the upper class, 39.7 per cent from the middle class, and only 17.7 per cent from the lower class. Of these members, close to 70 per cent were students at either Gymnasien or university, and only a quarter were over age 20. Neuendorff, Geschichte der neueren deutschen Leibesübungen, Vol. 2, 418. See also Thomas Nipperdey, “Verein als soziale Struktur im späten 18. und frühen 19. Jahrhundert,” in Hartmut Boockmann et al., Geschichtswissenschaft und Vereinswesen im 19. Jahrhundert (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck Ruprecht, 1972), 15–16 and 22. 31. Nipperdey, “Verein als soziale Struktur,” 14–15. 32. F.L. Jahn to Otto Heubner, Sept. 16, 1840, Briefe Jahns, 466. The full club slogan was “Frisch, frei, fröhlich, fromm ist des Turners Reichtum!” On the role of nationalist songs at this time, see Dieter Düding, “The NineteenthCentury German Nationalist Movement as a Movement of Societies,” Nation-Building in Central Europe, ed. Hagen Schulze (Leamington Spa/ Hamburg/New York: Berg, 1987), 28–31. 33. Jahn, Deutsches Volkstum, 337. 34. This definition is in Düding, “Friedrich Ludwig Jahn,” 230–2. 35. F.L. Jahn to Frankfurt am Main Turngemeinde, Dec. 31, 1843, Briefe Jahns, 488–9. 36. Adolph Spiess, Die Lehre der Turnkunst (Basel: Schweighauser, 1840–46), 4 vols; and Adolph Spiess, Turnbuch für Schülen (Basel: Schweighauser, 1847–51), 2 vols. 37. Spiess, quoted in Wolfgang Eichel et al., Die Körperkultur in Deutschland von 1789 bis 1917 (Berlin: Sportverlag, 1965), 167. 38. The system is described in Olivová, Lidé a hry, 499; and Ellen Gerber, Inventors and Institutions in Physical Education (Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1971), 159–60. Ling’s son, Hjalmar, adapted his father’s system for use in schools. 39. Quoted in Neuendorff, Geschichte der neueren deutschen Leibesübungen, Vol. 3, 450. Among the controversial directives of the new union was one mandating that all Turner own weapons. Eichel et al., Die Körperkultur in Deutschland, 139. 40. Ibid., 176–8 and 231. 41. Theodor Fischer, quoted in Mosse, Nationalization of the Masses, 67. 42. Neuendorff, Geschichte der neueren deutschen Leibesübungen, Vol. 4, 111. 43. Membership reached 167,932 in 1864, fell to 128,501 in 1869, but climbed back to 170,315 in 1880. Ibid., Vol. 4, 198 and 523. 44. In 1895, the Deutsche Turnerschaft issued a new statement of purpose that declared in part, “Der Zweck der Deutschen Turnerschaft ist die Förderung des deutschen Turnens als eines Mittels zur körperlichen und sittlichen Kräftigung, sowie die Pflege deutschen Volksbewusstseins und vaterländischer Gesinnung. Alle politische Parteistrebungen sind ausgeschlossen.” Quoted in ibid., Vol. 4, 522.

Notes 191

2

Miroslav Tyrš and His World

1. Joseph Zacek, “Nationalism in Czechoslovakia,” Nationalism in Eastern Europe, ed. Peter F. Sugar and Ivo J. Lederer (Seattle: Univ. of Washington Press, 1971), 168. See also Jan Havránek, “The Development of Czech Nationalism,” Austrian History Yearbook, Vol. 3/2 (1967), 223–60. 2. The nationalist interpretation of the period after White Mountain as a “time of darkness” or Temno, when Czech culture was completely suppressed, is rejected in newer scholarship. See Josef Petrán and Lydia Petránová, “The White Mountain as a Symbol in Modern Czech History,” Bohemia in History, ed. Mikuláš Teich (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998), 149–52; Jirí Rak, Bývali Cechové: Ceské historické mýty a stereotypy (Jinocany: H&H, 1994), 129–40; and Joseph Frederick Zacek, “Czech National Consciousness in the Baroque Era,” History of European Ideas, Vol. 16 (1993), 935–41. 3. Nationalist movements elsewhere in Eastern Europe are surveyed in Peter F. Sugar, “External and Domestic Roots of East European Nationalism,” Nationalism in Eastern Europe, 3–54. 4. On the Czech Awakening, see Josef Kocí, Ceské národní obrození (Prague: Svoboda, 1978); and Hugh LeCaine Agnew, Origins of the Czech National Renascence (Pittsburgh: Univ. of Pittsburgh Press, 1993). 5. Joseph Zacek, “The Czech Enlightenment and the Czech National Revival,” Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism, Vol. 10 (1983), 21. 6. Miroslav Hroch, “The Social Composition of the Czech Patriots in Bohemia, 1827–1848,” The Czech Renascence of the Nineteenth Century, ed. Peter Brock and H. Gordon Skilling (Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1970), 33–52. 7. In many areas of Central Europe at this time, nobles were assuming “decorative functions” in museum societies and other similar groups. Ernst Bruckmüller and Hannes Stekl, “Zur Geschichte des Bürgertums in Österreich,” Bürgertum im 19. Jahrhundert: Deutschland im europäischen Vergleich, ed. Jürgen Kocka (Munich: Deutsche Taschenbuch Verlag, 1988), 178. 8. Palacký was appointed official historian of the Bohemian Estates with the task of continuing the ten-volume Chronologische Geschichte Böhmens begun by his predecessor in this post, the Jesuit František Pubicka. Instead, he began a new history, which he wrote in Czech after 1848. His work is examined in Joseph Zacek, Palacký: the Historian as Scholar and Nationalist (The Hague: Mouton, 1970). A recent biography is Jirí Koralka, František Palacký (1798–1876): Zivotopis (Prague: Argo, 1998). 9. Karl Bosl, “Deutsch-romantisch-liberal Geschichtsauffassung und ‘Slavische Legende’,” Bohemia, Vol. 5 (1964), 48–9; Petrán and Petránová, “The White Mountain as a Symbol,” 155; and Eugen Lemberg, “Volksbegriff und Staatsideologie der Tschechen,” Das böhmische Staatsrecht in den deutsch– tschechischen Auseinandersetzungen des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts, ed. E. Birke and K. Oberdorffer (Marburg/Lahn: Elwert, 1960), 48–9. 10. This poem and its imagery are analyzed in Vladimír Macura, Znamení zrodu: Ceské národní obrození jako kulturní typ, 2nd edn. (Jinocany: H & H, 1995), 82–94. 11. Pan-Slavism in a general sense refers to all forms of Slavic consciousness and cooperation, but it also acquired a specific meaning as a movement for Slavic political unity under Russian leadership. Austro-Slavism meant the

192

12.

13. 14.

15.

Notes cooperation of the Slavic nations in the Austrian Empire, and Neo-Slavism was an early twentieth-century movement to promote Slavic cultural cooperation that was spearheaded by a group of Czech politicians. Hugo Hantsch, “Pan-Slavism, Austro-Slavism, Neo-Slavism,” Austrian History Yearbook, Vol. 1 (1965), 23–37; Stanley B. Winters, “Austroslavism, Panslavism and Russophilism in Czech Political Thought, 1870–1900,” Intellectual and Social Developments in the Habsburg Empire from Maria Theresa to World War I, ed. Stanley B. Winters and Joseph Held (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1975), 175–202; Paul Vyšný, Neo-Slavism and the Czechs, 1898–1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1977); S. Harrison Thompson, “A Century of a Phantom: Panslavism and the Western Slavs,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. 11 (1951), 57–77; and Václav Št’astný, “Vliv tzv. slovanské politiky Ruska v ceském prostredí,” Slovanství v národním zivote Cechu a Slováku, ed. V. Št’astný (Prague: Melantrich, 1968), 256–65. See also Rak, Bývali Cechove, 113–26; and Macura, Znamení zrodu, 156–68. In addition to numerous works in Czech, the 1848 Czech Revolution is the subject of a work in English: Stanley Z. Pech, The Czech Revolution of 1848 (Chapel Hill, NC: Univ. of N. Carolina Press, 1969). “Psaní do Frankfurta dne 11. dubna 1848,” in František Palacký, Spisy drobné, ed. Bohuš Rieger (Prague: Bursík & Kohout, n.d. [1898]), Vol. 1, 20. Ruzena Havránková, “Zájem o balkánské Slovany jako slozku ceského slovanství v 19. století,” Slovanské historické studie, Vol. 7 (1968), 197–9; and Irena Gantar Godina, “Slovenes and Czechs: an Enduring Friendship,” Slovene Studies, Vol. 17.1.2. (1995), 95–112. Accounts of Tyrš’s childhood are in Ladislav Jandásek, Zivot Dr. Miroslava Tyrše (Brno: Moravský legionár, 1932), 7–20; and Edvard Grégr’s untitled essay in Miroslav Tyrš: Strucný nástin zivota a pusobení jeho (Prague: Prazská telocvicná jednota “Sokol”, 1884/1919], 3–13. The otherwise thorough biography of Tyrš written by his wife begins with his university years. Renata Tyršová, Miroslav Tyrš: jeho osobnost a dílo, 3 parts in 1 vol. (Prague: Ceský ctenár, 1932–34). One biography focuses on Tyrš’s work outside of the Sokol. Josef Bartoš, Miroslav Tyrš: Studie kritická, Zlatoroh sv. 31 and 32 (Prague: Nákl. Spolku výtvarných umelcu “Manes,” 1916). Of two recent biographies intended for a popular readership, the first was written for young adults. František Kozík, Venec vavrinový (Prague: Ceskoslovenský spisovatel, 1987); and Zora Dvoráková, Miroslav Tyrš: Prohry a vítezství (Prague: Olympia, 1989). Bibliographical overviews of materials written about Tyrš are in Dvoráková, Miroslav Tyrš, 217; and Jezek Premysl, “Prehled prací o Dr. Miroslavu Tyršovi, jeho díle a významu,” Teorie a praxe telesné výchovy a sportu, Vol. 5 (1957), 633–9. The first compilation of Tyrš’s articles and speeches appeared in 1894. Miroslav Tyrš, Úvahy a reci Dr. Miroslava Tyrše, ed. Josef Scheiner, 2 vols (Prague: Telocvicná jednota “Sokol”, 1894). It subsequently appeared in a greatly expanded version: M.T. Úvahy a reci, ed. Josef Scheiner, 6 vols in 3 parts (Prague: Telocvicná jednota “Sokol,” 1912–20). The most complete version of his Sokol articles and speeches, including previously unpublished material, is Miroslav Tyrš, O sokolské idei, 2 vols (Prague: Ceskoslovenská obec sokolská, 1930). The bulk of Tyrš’s correspondence and notes are in Tyršovo muzeum telesné výchovy a sportu v Praze, oddelení archivní dokumentace [Archive of the Tyrš Museum of Physical

Notes 193

16. 17.

18. 19. 20.

21. 22. 23.

24.

25.

Education and Sport in Prague: hereafter: MTVS], Tyrš Papers. Background on this collection is in Antonín Rocek, “Chybející clánek – zapomenuté stránky korespondence dr. Miroslava Tyrše a jeho rodiny,” Casopis národního muzea v Praze, Vol. 154 (1985), 180–2. Stanley B. Winters, “Kramár, Kaizl, and the Hegemony of the Young Czech Party, 1891–1901,” The Czech Renascence of the Nineteenth Century, 283. Old Town Gymnasium had a reputation as a center for Czech learning. Czech became a language of instruction in secondary schools for the first time in 1848, but disappeared again during the reaction of the 1850s. Gary Cohen, “Education and Czech Social Structure in the Late Nineteenth Century,” Bildungsgeschichte, Bevölkerungsgeschichte, Gesellschaftsgeschichte in den böhmischen Länder und in Europa: Festschrift für Jan Havránek zum 60. Geburtstag (Munich: Oldenbourg and Vienna: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik, 1988), 34. William M. Johnston, The Austrian Mind: an Intellectual and Social History, 1848–1938 (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1972), 286. See Venceslav Havlícek, “Vliv Darwinovy nauky na Tyrše,” Tyršuv sborník, Vol. 7 (1923), 47–67. M. Tyrš to Karolina Svetlá, 1872, MTVS, Tyrš Papers, Folder 88. Discussions of Tyrš’s pessimism are in Jarmila Lormanová, “O vlivu H. Taina na Miroslava Tyrše,” Tyršuv sborník, Vol. 16 (1935), 8; Josef Tvrdý, “Jest filosofie Tyršova positivismem?” Tyršuv sborník, Vol. 1 (1920), 8–10; and Bartoš, Miroslav Tyrš, 2. Jaroslav Marek, “Závet’ dr. Miroslava Tyrše z roku 1870,” Teorie a praxe telesné vychovy a sportu, Vol. 14 (1966), 277. The law on clubs and associations was enacted in 1853. Hye, “Vereinswesen,” 87–8. These organizations are discussed in Stanley Buchholz Kimball, “The Matice ceská, 1831–1861: the First Thirty Years of a Literary Foundation,” The Czech Renascence of the Nineteenth Century, 53–73; Josef Hanuš, Národní muzeum a naše obrození (Prague: Národní muzeum, 1921–23); and Stanley Buchholz Kimball, Czech Nationalism: a Study of the National Theater Movement, 1845–1883 (Urbana, Ill.: Univ. of Illinois Press, 1964). Similar to the German “casinos,” the Mešt’anská beseda was a burghers’ association open only to property-owners or those who otherwise qualified as such. The first club of this sort was founded in Prague, and others subsequently appeared elsewhere in the Bohemian Crownlands. In 1846, membership in the Mešt’anská beseda in Prague was 332 and it rose to 619 in 1850, but fell to 374 in 1855. After the constitutional changes of 1860, membership rose steadily, reaching 2058 in 1884. Its bilingualism was due in part to the fact that most upper-class Czech patriots at that time spoke German more fluently than Czech. Karel Adámek, Z naši doby (Velké Mezirící: Šaška, 1886), Vol. 1, 30. See also Gary Cohen, The Politics of Ethnic Survival: Germans in Prague, 1861–1914 (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1981), 39–40. Hlahol [The Resounding Peal] had as its slogan, “Zpevem k srdci! Srdcem k vlasti!” [Through Song to the Heart! Through the Heart to the Homeland!]. Its first 50 years are chronicled in Zdenek Nejedlý, “Dejiny prazského Hlaholu, 1861–1911”, Památník zpeváckého spolku Hlaholu v Praze, vydaný na oslavu 50tileté cinnosti, 1861–1911, ed. Rudolf Lichtner (Prague: Prazský Hlahol,

194

26. 27.

28. 29.

30. 31. 32.

33. 34.

35.

36. 37.

38.

39.

Notes 1911), 1–153. On gymnastic clubs and singing societies in Germany, see Düding, “The Nineteenth-Century German Nationalist Movement,” 36–9. Frank L. Kaplan, The Czech and Slovak Press: the First 100 Years (Lexington, Ky: [n.p.], 1977), 6–11. The Rieger Encyclopedia, or Slovník naucný, encompassed 11 volumes. It is described in Stanley B. Winters, “Jan Otto, T.G. Masaryk, and the Czech National Encyclopedia,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, Vol. 31 (1983), 518–22. Name changes as a form of initiation into Czech society are discussed in Macura, Znamení zrodu, 120–3. The issue of assimilation is discussed in Hans Mommsen, Die Sozialdemokratie, und die Nationalitätenfrage im habsburgischen Vielvölkerstaat (Vienna: Europa-Verlag, 1963), Vol. 1, 32; Prinz, “Probleme der böhmischen Geschichte,” 345; and Vladimír Macura, Ceský sen (Kniznice Dejin a soucasnosti, 1998), 59. The failure of the Prague Germans to broaden their class base is explored in Cohen, Politics of Ethnic Survival. Vladimír Macura, Masarykovy boty a jiné semi(o)fejetony (Prague: Prazská imaginace, 1993), 12. Tyršová, Miroslav Tyrš, Vol. 1, 51. The event is described in Kimball, Czech Nationalism, 72–3; Tyršová, Miroslav Tyrš, Vol. 1, 50–1; and Eva Reitharová, “Malírství,” in Emanuel Poche et al., Praha národního probuzení (Prague: Panorama, 1980), 390–1. Václav Zácek, “Polonofilství a rusofilství – dve alternativy ceského slovanství let šedesátych,” Slovanství v národním zivote Cechu a Slováku, 234. The Czech delegation was the largest group of non-Russian Slavs at the Moscow exhibition. These initiatives are described in Kohn, Pan-Slavism, 141–4; Vyšný, Neo-Slavism, 10–11; and Otto Urban, Ceská spolecnost, 1848–1918 (Prague: Svoboda, 1982), 227–8. The gatherings were originally called meetingy, a term derived from the Irish national struggle praised by Havlícek and the word Miroslav Tyrš used for them in his notebooks from this time. At the suggestion of the young historian, Jaroslav Goll, the name was changed to tábory, after the old Hussite encampments. They are chronicled in Jaroslav Purš, “Tábory v ceských zemích v letech 1868–1871”, Ceskoslovenský casopis historický, Vol. 6 (1958), 234–66, 446–70, and 661–90. See also Urban, Ceská spolecnost, 232–7; and Petr Cornej, Lipanské ozveny (Prague: H&H, 1995), 51–60. František Palacký, “Idea státu Rakouského: Rada 8 clanku v ‘Národu’ od 9. dubna do 16. kvetnu 1865,” Spisy drobné, Vol. 1, 266. The best study of Tyrš’s political career, including some of his speeches, is Venceslav Havlícek, “Tyršova cinnost politická a jeho politické zásady,” Tyršuv sborník, Vol. 10 (1926), 4–111. The gathering was called to commemorate the removal of the foundation stone for the National Theater. According to legend, the founder of the Czech nation, Father Czech, had surveyed central Bohemia from Ríp Hill before instructing the Czech tribes to settle there. Cornej, Lipanské ozveny, 50. On the veneration of places, especially mountains, in Czech national lore, see Macura, Znamení zrodu, 184–5; and Macura, Ceský sen, 14. “Za osvetu: rec dr. Miroslava Tyrše 16. kvetna 1869,” Tyršove památce (Prague: Havlícek, 1920), 49.

Notes 195 40. R.T. [Renata Tyršová], “Tyrš na poli vedeckém,” Tyrš: strucný nástin zivota, 38. One biographer argues that Tyrš’s illness was a result of the chloral hydrate he was taking for insomnia. A relatively new drug at the time, chloral hydrate was given in far higher doses than would be considered safe today. Dvoráková, Miroslav Tyrš, 217–18. 41. Tyrš’s work in the art world is examined in Claire E. Nolte, “Art in the Service of the Nation: Miroslav Tyrš as Art Historian and Critic,” Bohemia, Vol. 34 (1993), 47–62. See also Rudolf Chadraba, “Miroslav Tyrš,” Kapitoly z ceského dejepisu umení, ed. Rudolf Chadraba et al. (Prague: Odeon, 1986), Vol. 1, 160–71; and Vilém Hohler, “Tyrš estetik a teoretik umení,” Soubor prací z vedecké konference ke 150. výrocí narození dr. M. Tyrše, ed. Jaroslav Marek and Vilma Strašicová (Prague: Ústrední výbor Ceskoslovenského svazu telesné výchovy a Olympia, 1982), 58–69. 42. The most complete collection of Tyrš’s writings on art is Miroslav Tyrš, O umení, 6 vols (Prague: Ceskoslovenská obec sokolská, 1932–37). 43. [Emphasis in original] Miroslav Tyrš, Laokoon, dílo doby rímské (Prague: Kober, 1873), vii–viii. The tendency of Czech scholars at this time to couch their discoveries as “Slavic” and to criticize “German learning” is noted in Irena Seidlerová, “Science in a Bilingual Country,” Bohemia in History, 233–4. 44. The Prague Technical College was created in 1869 by the division of the Prague Polytechnical School into German and Czech parts. The first exclusively Czech institution of higher learning, it was a stronghold of Czech liberalism. Cohen, “Education and Czech Social Structure,” 36–7; and Friedrich Prinz, “Das Schulwesen der böhmischen Länder von 1848–1939: Ein Überblick,” Aktuelle Forschungsprobleme um die Erste Tschechoslowakische Republik, ed. Karl Bosl (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1969), 58. 45. The problems surrounding Tyrš’s appointment are described in Jandásek, Zivot Tyrše, 117–28; and Dvoráková, Miroslav Tyrš, 171–8, and 184–98. 46. The demand that Tyrš leave the Sokol originated in Vienna, and his efforts to intervene with the Ministry of Education there so that he could remain in the Sokol were in vain. Georg J. Morava, “Miroslav Tyrš (Friedrich Emanuel Tirsch): Sein Tod in der ötztaler Ache im Lichte bisher unbekannter Quellen,” Bohemia, Vol. 25 (1984), 92–3. 47. M. Tyrš to F. Cízek, 1884, MTVS, Tyrš Papers, Folder 30. 48. The accident thesis is advanced in Tyršová, Miroslav Tyrš, Vol. 3, 115–16; and Josef E. Scheiner, “Dnové poslední,” Tyrš: strucný nástin zivota, 44–61. The conclusion that Tyrš committed suicide is in Jandásek, Zivot Tyrše, 163. 49. Because it was not permitted to transport a corpse in the summer, Tyrš’s body was temporarily buried in the Tyrol. 50. M. Tyrš to T. Cerný, Oct. 11, 1875, MTVS, Cerný Papers, Folder 33.

3

A Club of Brothers: the Birth of the Sokol

1. Teréza Nováková, “Staré úpomínky sokolské,” Vzpomínky na Dr. Mir. Tyrše, comp. L. Jandásek (Prague: Ceskoslovenská obec sokolská, 1934), 114. 2. Neuendorff, Geschichte der neueren deutschen Leibesübungen, Vol. 3, 395. The beginnings of gymnastics in the Bohemian Crownlands are discussed in Erwin Mehl, “Deutsches Turnen, seine Vorläufer und seine Begleiter in den

196

3.

4. 5.

6. 7. 8.

9.

10. 11.

12.

Notes Länder der böhmischen Krone von den Anfängen bis 1918,” Sudetendeutsches Turnertum, ed. Rudolf Jahn et al. (Frankfurt am Main.: Heimreiterverlag, 1958), 26–32; and Fritz Hirth and Anton Kießlich, Geschichte des Turnkreises Deutschösterreich (Teplitz-Schönau: Verlag des deutschen Turnverbandes, 1928), 13–28. Adolf Hájek, who enrolled in Stephani’s institute as a child and later became his assistant, recalled those who attended as “lords, mostly members of the higher nobility.” Adolf Hájek, “Z prvé doby ceských telocvikáru,” Památník sletu slovanského Sokolstva roku 1912 v Praze, ed. A. Ocenášek et al. (Prague: Ceskoslovenská obec sokolská, n.d. [1919]), 103. Information on Prague’s gymnastic institutes is in Frant. Mašek, “Pocátky telocviku v Praze,” Sokol: casopis venovaný zájmum telocvicným [hereafter: Sokol] Vol. 23 (1897), 9–11; Ernst Rychnovsky, Der deutsche Turnverein in Prag, 1862–1912 (Prague: Verlag des deutschen Turnvereins, 1912), 6–8; and Josef Scheiner, “Telocvik na zemských ústavech cvicných,” Památník vydaný na oslavu dvacetiletého trvání telocvicné jednoty Sokola prazského (Prague: Sokol prazský, 1883), 31–4. Neuendorff, Geschichte der neueren deutschen Leibesübungen, Vol. 3, 395; and Pech, Czech Revolution, 311. The club undertook one outing to the countryside and also held a formal ball, that was opposed by its more radical members as an elitist pretension. While Czech sources tend to emphasize the club’s utraquist, or binational, spirit, a German source asserts that the ball had been “einen sehr besuchten Turnerball, der ein vollkommen deutsches Gepräge trug.” Gedenkschrift des deutschen Turnvereines in Prag, 1862–1887 (Prague: Selbstverlag des Vereines, 1887), 3. See also Ferd. Tallowitz, “Akademický telocvicný spolek v Praze roku 1847–1848,” Památník Sokola prazského, 34–6. Josef Müller, “Telocvicný ústav Schmidtuv,” ibid., 41–3. Hynek Palla, “Telocvicný ústav Malýpetruv,” ibid., 37–40. See Blanka Soukupová, “Ceské a nemecké spolky v Praze v 60. az 80. letech 19. století: Souzítí a kulturní výmena,” Prazané–jiní–druzí–cizí (Prague: Ústav pro etnografie a folkloristu CSAV, 1992), 10–18. German accounts do not support the explanation, given in Sokol sources, that the proposal for an utraquist club was foiled by Eduard Seutter Ritter von Lötzen, a wealthy German businessman and Prague manager of the Creditenanstalt, who agreed to become the patron of the new gymnastic club on the condition that it would be a German organization. Josef Müller, “Vzník a zalození Prazské telocvicné jednoty Sokola,” Památník Sokola prazského, 45; Rychnovsky, Turnverein in Prag, 10; and Gedenkschrift des Turnvereines, 4. See also Tomáš Cerný, “Dejiny stanov Sokola prazského,” Památník Sokola prazského, 161. Václav Cervinka, U kolébky Sokola (Prague: Šolc a Šimácek, n.d.[1920]), 11–15. Biographical information is in the introduction to Edvard Grégr, Sokolství Edvarda Grégra: Sokolské recí, výnatky z literárních prvotin a deníku, ed. Karel Domorázek (Prague: Ceskoslovenská obec sokolská, 1927), 13–52. The influence of the Grégr brothers is analyzed in Bratri Grégrové a ceská spolecnost v druhé polovine 19. století, ed. Pavla Vošahlíková and Milan Repa (Prague: Grégr a Historický ústav AVCR, 1997). See also Garver, Young Czech Party, 102–5 and 136–7.

Notes 197 13. Vladimír Zapletal, JUDr. Rudolf Kníze Thurn-Taxis: K 100. výrocí narození “selského knízete” 1833–25.XI.–1933 (Brno: Moravský legionár, 1933). Titled aristocrats like Thurn-Taxis who embraced Czech nationalism were regarded as “renegades” to their class. Rak, Bývali Cechové, 67–81. 14. “Singing” was later dropped from the club’s statement of purpose. “První stanovy Telocvicné jednoty prazské,” Památník Sokola prazského, 166–8; and Tomáš Cerný and Pavel Ruzicka, “Dejiny stanov Sokola prazského,” ibid., 161–5. 15. According to one club source, a “falcon” designated “the youth on the steep slopes of Montenegro, nimbly defending his homeland.” Václav Bartonícek, “Z dejin ‘Sokola’ brnenského,” Sokol, Vol. 28 (1902), 133. Club leaders feared naming the club “Sokol” lest it be rejected by the authorities. Jaroslav Marek, “Tyršovy pocátecní zápasy o úloze Sokola v národním hnutí,” Acta Universitatis Carolinae Gymnica, Vol. 10 (1974), 13. 16. The club’s constitution was approved on January 27, 1862 and the first Assembly was held on February 16, 1862. These events paralleled the creation of the Prague Turnverein, whose first meeting took place January 1862, shortly before the constitution was returned from the Governor’s Office. “Prehled valných hromad Sokola prazského,” Památník Sokola prazského, 188–95. See also Miroslav Tyrš, comp., Statisticko-historický prehled jednot sokolských pro rok 1865 (Prague: B. Stýblo, 1866), 31–8. Minutes of club Assemblies from 1862 to 1907 are in SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Box 1. 17. The list of candidates was supposed to represent “all social classes,” a principle that was abandoned in subsequent elections. The first club Council was comprised of Fügner as starosta and Tyrš as Vice-President, along with Tomáš Cerný, then a law student, representing students; Ferdinand Fingerhut (later: Náprstek), a member of a family of wealthy brewers, representing burghers; Karel Steffek, an owner of the Prague Gas Works and a friend of Fügner, representing factory owners; Rudolf Skuherský, a representative to the Bohemian Diet, representing politicians; and Emanuel Tonner representing journalists. The sources are unclear as to which social classes were represented by the rest of the Council, namely Jan Krišpín, a saddle maker; František Písarovic, a civil engineer; the Grégr brothers; and Thurn-Taxis. Josef Scheiner, “Po prvních stopách Sokolství,” Sokol, Vol. 38 (1912), 61–2; and Ladislav Jandásek, Sokolství Jindricha Fügnera (Brno: Moravský legionár, 1933), 40–3. 18. Karolina Svetlá, “Jindrich Fügner v mé pameti,” Za praporem sokolským, ed. Svatopluk Cech et al. (Prague: Alois Wiesner, 1887), 15–16. 19. Cervinka, U kolébky Sokola, 34. 20. After Fügner’s death, Tyrš wrote an overview of his life for a club lecture that was later published. Miroslav Tyrš, “Jindrich Fügner, nárys zivota, zjevu a povahy,” Sokol, Vol. 9 (1883), 2–3, 6, 10–12, 21–3, and 30–2. Tyrš’s piece covered Fügner’s life up to the time of his involvement in the Sokol, and the remainder was chronicled by Josef Müller and published, together with Tyrš’s article, on the twentieth anniversary of Fügner’s death as Jindrich Fügner, nástin jeho zivota a pusobení (Prague: Sokol prazský, 1885). Tyrš also wrote an entry on him for the Rieger encyclopedia in 1873 and Tonner wrote a biographical sketch for the Prague Sokol’s twentieth anniversary album. “Fügner,” Riegruv slovník naucný, Vol. 10, 206; and Emanuel Tonner,

198

21.

22. 23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.

35.

Notes “Jindrich Fügner,” Památník Sokola prazského, 3–13. In addition, his daughter published her childhood memories of him and two more biographies appeared in the 1930s. Renata Tyršová, Jindrich Fügner: pameti a vzpomínky na mého otce (Prague: Ceský ctenár, 1927); Josef Bartoš, Jindrich Fügner (Brno: Moravský legionár, 1934); and Jandásek, Sokolství Fügnera. See also Jaroslav Marek, “Jindrich Fügner – K stému výrocí smrti prvního starosty Sokola prazského,” Teorie a praxe telesné výchovy, Vol. 13 (1965), 485–8. Their correspondence is published in Othmar Feyl, “Die Entwicklung des Sokolgründers Heinrich Fügner im Lichte seiner Prager Briefe an den Böhmendeutschen Konservativen Joseph Alexander von Helfert in den Jahren 1848 bis 1865,” Deutsch–Slawische Wechselseitigkeit in sieben Jahrhunderten: Gesammelte Aufsätze (Berlin: Akademie, 1956). The company was Nuova Societa Commerciale d’Assecurazioni. Fügner’s outlook contrasted with the narrow perspective of the Czech urban elite which Palacký had bemoaned. Otto Urban, “K nekterým aspektum zivotního stylu ceského mešt’anstva v polovine 19. století,” Mesto v ceské kulture 19. století, ed. Milena Freimanová (Prague: Národní galerie, 1983), 40. On Zdenka Havlícková, see Macura, Ceský sen, 132–5. The attempts of this group to converse in Czech are described in Tyršová, Jindrich Fügner, Vol. 1, 128–9 and 136–7. See also Macura, Znamení zrodu, 122–3. See Claire E. Nolte, “Choosing Czech Identity in Nineteenth-Century Prague: the Case of Jindrich Fügner,” Nationalities Papers, Vol. 24 (1996), 51–62. This criticism was leveled at the Prague contingent attending a Congress of Bohemian Germans in Teplice (Teplitz) in August 1848, because they had boycotted the elections to the Frankfurt Parliament. Havránek, “Development of Czech Nationalism,” 235. Tyršová, Jindrich Fügner, Vol. 1, 19. Fügner paraphrased a comment Count Joseph Matthias Thun made in his 1845 book, Der Slavismus in Böhmen: “Ich werde weder ein Ceche noch ein Deutscher, sondern nur ein Böhme.” Quoted in Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk, Ceská otázka: Snahy a tuzby národního obrození (Prague: Cas, 1895), 89. Hanka’s manuscripts were discredited as forgeries in the 1880s. An analysis of this incident in the context of Czech culture of the time is in Macura, Znamení zrodu, 109–13. Arnold Suppan, “Die Haltung der Tschechen und Deutschen Böhmens zum Krieg in Oberitalien 1859,” Bildungsgeschichte, Bevölkerungsgeschichte, 191–214. Feyl, “Die Entwicklung des Sokolgründers,” 515. Novotný, Sokol v zivote národa, 19. Minister of Interior to Bohemian Governor, March 18, 1862, SÚA, PM (1861–70) 8/5/20/2/1862/No. 1417. Police Report, April 13, 1862, No. 810; and Minister of Interior to Bohemian Governor, June 20, 1862, No. 2829; both in ibid. The club’s first exercise program is described in Jaroslav Marek, “Vývoj a obsah telovýchovné cinnosti Sokola v letech 1862–1871,” Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Gymnica, Vol. 2 (1967), 86–7. The commission took a simpler and less zoological approach than Jahn. Affenwende, describing a sideways vault over the horse, became preskok

Notes 199

36. 37.

38.

39.

40. 41. 42. 43.

44. 45.

46.

ducmo, and Katzensprung, a lengthwise vault across the horse, became výskok schýlmo. The new terminology first appeared, together with the club’s constitution and bylaws, in a July 1862 pamphlet, Pravidla telocvicné jednoty Prazské Sokol [sic] (Prague: Jerábková, 1862). It was subsequently published in Sokol: Úpomínka všem Sokolum a jich prátelum k tretimu verejnému cvicení Sokola prazského, ed. Karel Bohuš Kober (Prague: Kober, 1867), 76–82. See also Josef Müller, “O telocvicném názvosloví sokolském,” Památník Sokola prazského, 143–9. The nationalist drive to develop specialized terminologies in the Czech language is noted in Macura, Znamení zrodu, 52–3. Police Report, July 20, 1862, SÚA, PM (1861–70) 8/5/20/2/1862/No. 1588. A history of the club uniform, including drawings of Mánes’s original proposals, is Ferdinand Tallowitz, “Dejiny kroje sokolského,” Památník Sokola prazského, 180–7. See also Miroslav Tyrš, “K dejinámi kroje sokolského,” Sokol, Vol. 4 (1874), 111–12. The police report on this Assembly noted that Fügner’s “auffallend schlechtes böhmisch mit seltener Duldung angehört worden war, . . . ” Addendum to Police Report, April 11, 1862, SÚA, PM (1861–70) 8/5/20/2/ 1862/No. 861. The understanding of “original Czech” dress among nationalists at this time was unclear and many styles thought to be “Czech” were really Hungarian or Polish adaptations. Tyršová, Jindrich Fügner, Vol. 1, 121. Tyrš himself questioned the “Slavic” nature of camara in an 1873 article and proposed instead: “A thick row of small round metal buttons (which are much more originally Czech than braiding) . . . would best distinguish the shirt from the jacket. . . .” Miroslav Tyrš, “Telocvik v ohledu esthetickém,” Sokol, Vol. 3 (1873), 163. That confusion about “national dress” occurred elsewhere is evident from Hugh Trevor-Roper, “The Invention of Tradition: the Highland Tradition of Scotland,” The Invention of Tradition, ed. Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press/Canto, 1992), 15–41. Draft of Report of Minister of Interior, n.d., SÚA, PM 8/5/20/2/1862/No. 861. Cervinka, U kolébky Sokola, 22–3; and Josef Müller, “Sokol v sále u Apolla,” Památník Sokola prazského, 56. Tyrš, “K dejinámi kroje,” 112. The last attempt to change the Sokol uniform took place in 1870, when Czech sympathy for France in the Franco-Prussian War led some club leaders to propose a uniform modeled on those worn by French soldiers. The Czech artist, Frantíšek Zeníšek, executed drawings of this uniform, but it was never adopted and the Slavic style remained. Renata Tyršová, “Sokolstvo a výtvarní umelci,” Památník sletu 1912, 98. Zeníšek’s designs are reproduced in Tallowitz, “Dejiny kroje,” 186. Membership figures are in “Jednatelské zprávy,” [July 19, 1862], Památník Sokola prazského, 69. In 1866, the club Assembly changed the constitution to establish rules for membership. Prospective members had to live in Prague or environs, be at least 18 years old, and be of good character. Cerný and Ruzicka, “Dejiny stanov,” 164. Jan Masák, “Jan Ev. Purkyne: první uvedomely ceský telocvikár,” Tyršuv sborník, Vol. 9 (1924), 5–32.

200

Notes

47. The German–Czech fencing glossary appears in Sokol: Úpomínka, 83–6. 48. Cervinka, U kolébky Sokola, 92. 49. Opponents called the Party of Progress (strana pokroku) the “Party of Fops” (strana parádníku). The split between these two groups was already evident in the preparatory meetings to found the Sokol. Jandásek, Sokolství Fügnera, 36–8. 50. One source claims that the “S” in Sokol was generally understood to stand for the secret revolutionary slogan. Police investigators also suspected this meaning, but it is denied in Sokol sources. Stodeset let Sokola: 1862–1972, 2 parts in 1 vol. (Prague: Olympia, 1973), Vol. 1, 12; and Jandásek, Sokolství Fügnera, 86. Kohn contends that the four “F’s” of the Turnverein (Frisch, Frei, Fröhlich, Fromm) inspired the four “S’s” of the Sokol. Kohn, Pan-Slavism, 313. 51. The Prague Sokol’s outings between 1862 and 1882 are listed in “Prehled výletu Sokola prazského,” Památník Sokola prazského, 201–6. The outing to Ríp is described in “Národní slavnost o pouti svatojirské na Rípu,” ibid., 223–4. An account by a participant is “Notes of Dr. Vojtech Fric,” MTVS, Fügner Papers, Box 4. On Ríp Hill, see above, Ch. 2, n. 38. 52. Police Report, April 13, 1862, SÚA, PM (1861–70) 8/5/20/2/1862/No. 810. 53. News of the event reached Vienna and caused Fügner’s wife to assure her husband’s brother-in-law Helfert that the incidents of the day had been exaggerated by the “Jewish press,” explaining, “You will laugh at it as we have, for if someone would see these people, he would immediately sniff out a revolution, but it is only Heinrich, who cannot even stand the sight of blood.” Quoted in Marek, “Tyšovy pocátecní zápasy,” 18. See also Jandásek, Sokolství Fügnera, 68–9. 54. Eva Stehlíková, “Obradní a divadelní prvky v sokolském hnutí,” Divadlo v ceské kulture 19. století, ed. Milena Freimanová (Prague: Národní galerie, 1985), 161–2; and Jan Novotný, “Slavnosti Sokola prazského,” Prazské slavnosti a velké výstavy: Sborník príspevku z konferencí Archivu hlavního mesta Prahy 1989 a 1991, ed. Jirí Pešek (Prague: Archiv hlavního mesta Prahy, 1995), 224–5. 55. The Národní listy report of this event is reproduced as “První výlet Sokola prazského,” Památník Sokola prazského, 224–5. Recollections of the event by a participant is in Cervinka, U kolébky Sokola, 44–54. See also Police Report, May 12, 1862, SÚA, PM (1861–70) 8/5/20/2/1862/No. 20. Závist was also the destination of the Prague Turnverein’s first outing, which took place one week later. Unlike the Sokol marchers, the Turner were booed by Czech villagers on their return to Prague. Gedenkschrift des Turnvereines, 6. 56. [Emphasis in original] The proclamation, dated May 14, 1862, is reported in Minutes of the Council, MTVS, Sokol Collection, Box 1. A handwritten copy is in ibid., Box 148. It is partially quoted in Jandásek, Sokolství Fügnera, 70. 57. Nipperdey, “Verein als soziale Struktur,” 21. 58. J. Fügner to J. A. Helfert, April 20, 1862, in Feyl, “Die Entwicklung des Sokolgründers,” 571. A similar spirit animated other nineteenth-century gymnastic efforts, such as the Zionist gymnastic movement, which sought to make “strong, proud, upright Jews from weak, cowardly, humble, oppressed Jews.” Hans-Jürgen König, “Die Anfänge der jüdischen Turn- und Sportbewegung,” Stadion, Vol. 15 (1989), 14. 59. This was especially the case in Prague, where the first public fencing locale, the Royal Bohemian Estates Fencing Hall, was reserved exclusively for the

Notes 201

60.

61. 62.

63.

64.

65.

66. 67.

68.

69.

70.

4

nobility. It was in use from 1659 to 1914. Ladislav Reitmayer, Prehled vývoje telesné výchovy na uzemí CSSR (Prague: Státní pedagogické nakl., 1978), 45. J. Fügner to J. A. Helfert, April 20, 1862, in Feyl, “Die Entwicklung des Sokolgründers,” 571–2. Fügner’s attempts to create “pure” gymnastic songs were not successful. The words to one of them is reproduced in Marek, “Tyršovy pocátecní zápasy,” 21. Tyršová, Jindrich Fügner, Vol. 2, 27–8. Nejedlý, “Dejiny prazského Hlaholu,” 18. See also Jan Havránek, “Predání praporu jako legitimace spolku,” Prazské slavnosti a velké výstavy, 199–201; and Blanka Svobodová, “Slavnost svecení spolkového praporu jako projev národne politické aktivity na prelomu 60. a 70. let 19. století v Praze,” ibid., 203–14. To prevent the flag from being too heavy, its decorations were painted instead of embroidered. It was soon apparent, however, that this made the flag vulnerable to damage during club outings, and it was eventually taken out of use and kept on display at the training hall. Tyršová, “Sokolstvo a umelci,” 97. This history of this flag is in Kvetoslava Štursová, Prapory Sokola prazského (Prague: Vzlet, 1992), 4–9. On the role of women in the Sokol at this time, see Claire E. Nolte, “’Every Czech a Sokol!’: Feminism and Nationalism in the Czech Sokol,” Austrian History Yearbook, Vol. 24 (1993), 83–5. The ceremony is described in “Slavnost svecení praporu Sokola prazského,” Památník Sokola prazského, 62–5. A church service to bless the flag was usually included in ceremonies of this sort, but club progressives, led by Tyrš, argued successfully to exclude it. Marek, “Tyršovy pocátecní zápasy,” 22; and Novotný, Sokol v zivote národa, 15–16. Sokolství Edvarda Grégra, 58–60. See also ibid., 33–5. In the tumultuous German Vormärz, authorities in Saxony had banned drums and bugles on Turnverein outings to limit the club’s appeal. Neuendorff, Geschichte der neueren deutschen Leibesübungen, Vol. 3, 422. Minutes of Council Meeting, July 4, 1862, MTVS, Sokol Collection, Box 1. Thurn-Taxis stopped attending meetings after his group lost its dispute about the club slogan; Karel Steffek dropped out of Czech organizations and became an official of the Prague Turnverein; and Julius Grégr was in jail. Jandásek, Sokolství Fügnera, 61; and Tyršová, Jindrich Fügner, Vol. 2, 57–8. Josef Šesták, “Stará garda Sokola prazského,” Památník Sokola prazského, 233. Materials on the Old Guard, including its bylaws and the minutes of its meetings from 1870 to 1950 are in SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Box 105. Miroslav Tyrš, “Proslov prí výletu Sokola prazského do Kutné Hory,” n.d. [1862], O sokolské idei, Vol. 1, 11.

‘‘Tuzme se!” The Early Years of the Sokol

1. Miroslav Tyrš, “Doslov u verejného cvicení 26/3/1865,” O sokolské idei, Vol. 1, 18–20. 2. When a speaker began to make politically radical remarks during an outing, club leaders summoned the members to depart. The next day a proclamation reinforcing the ban on political speeches appeared in the training hall over

202

3.

4.

5. 6. 7.

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

16. 17.

18.

Notes the signatures of Fügner and Edvard Grégr. Police Report, Aug. 7, 1862, SÚA, PM (1861–70) 8/5/20/2/1862/No. 1696; and Proclamation, Aug. 8, 1862, SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Box 75. Minutes of the Council Meeting, Sept. 26, 1862, SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Box 5. In the more relaxed political atmosphere of 1865, the club participated in celebrating the October Diploma because, as the Secretary’s report declared, “the seed of life for our club came out of it.” Secretary’s Report, March 18, 1866, MTVS, Sokol Collection, Box 14. Letter, signed by Tyrš and supported by E. Grégr and R. Skuherský, Insert in Minutes of Council Meeting, July 4, 1862, SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Box 5; and Fügner, quoted in Jandásek, Sokolství Fügnera, 90. Nejedlý, “Dejiny prazského Hlaholu,” 19. Police Report, Aug. 14, 1862, SÚA, PM (1861–70) 8/5/20/2/1862/No. 1577. Membership figures for October 1862 are in Police Report, Nov. 14, 1863, SÚA, PM (1861–70) 8/5/20/2/1863/No. 2635. The number of teams in training is reported in Marek, “Vývoj a obsah,” 89. Police Report, Oct. 13, 1862, SÚA, PM (1861–70) 8/5/20/2/1862/No. 2214. Miroslav Tyrš, “Bratrí Sokolové! (Provolání k volbám 12/10/1862),” O sokolské idei, Vol. 1, 12–13. Membership figures are estimated in Jandásek, Sokolství Fügnera, 113. The number of teams in training is in Marek, “Vývoj a obsah,” 92. Tyršová, Jindrich Fügner, Vol. 2, 127. Václav Cerný, “Hudební sbor Sokol,” Památník Sokola prazského, 66–7. Material on the music group is in SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Box 43. Miroslav Tyrš, “Adresa Jindricha Fügnerovi (15.–18. cervence 1863),” O sokolské idei, Vol. 2, 83–4. “Jednatelské zprávy” [March 15, 1863], Památník Sokola prazského, 71. The Pole, Jindriška Pustowojtovna, had been an aide to one of the leaders of the uprising, General Langiewicz. She was enthusiastically greeted, even though many in the club did not know who she was. This meeting generated two police reports, and prompted the Governor to warn that similar incidents would lead to her expulsion. Police Reports, May 4, 1863 and May 5, 1863, SÚA, PM (1861–70) 8/5/20/2/1863/No. 1030pp; Bohemian Governor to Police Director, May 12, 1863, Nos. 1278 and 1281, in ibid. See also Jandásek, Sokolství Fügnera, 116–17; and Václav Zácek, “Polské povstání roku 1863 a druhá vlna ceského polonofilství,” in Václav Zácek et al., Ceši a Poláci v minulosti (Prague: Academia, 1967), Vol. 2, 259. Police Report, Dec. 14, 1863, SÚA, PM (1861–70) 8/5/20/2/1863/No. 2932. Police Report, Nov. 14, 1863, SÚA, PM (1861–70) 8/5/20/2/1863/No. 2635. Quotations in the following section are taken from this report. The report appears in Czech translation in Julius Dolanský, “První pocátky Sokola podle zprávy prazského policejního reditelství,” Teorie a praxe telesné výchovy a sportu, Vol. 5 (1957), 513–23. The lyrics to this song were written by Karel Tuma, an editor at Národní listy, and the music was composed by Ludvik Procházka, a founder of Hlahol. The complete lyrics as they appeared in the first Sokol songbook are reproduced in Dolanský, “První pocátky Sokola,” 520. Sections of the deleted verse are in Jandásek, Sokolství Fügnera, 63. The legend of Blaník is analyzed in Macura, Ceský sen, 14–28.

Notes 203 19. [Emphasis in original]. 20. The entire Secretary’s report is in “Jednatelské zprávy,” [Oct. 12, 1862], Památník Sokola prazského, 70. 21. Minister of Interior to Bohemian Governor, March 18, 1862, SÚA, PM (1861–70) 8/5/20/2/1862/No. 1417. 22. These exercises are described in Cervinka, U kolébky Sokola, 97; and Police Report, Aug. 14, 1862, SÚA, PM (1861–70) 8/5/20/2/1862/No. 1577. 23. Police Report, Dec. 21, 1863, SÚA, PM (1860–71) 8/5/20/2/1863/No. 7437/ 1337. 24. Cervinka, U kolébky Sokola, 79. 25. Rumors occasionally surfaced that the club had stored weapons in the countryside, but after none were found, the police dismissed these reports “als blosse Mystifikationen oder wohl gar nur als moderne Anekdoten, die man der unteren Schichten der hiesigen und der Landbevölkerung so gerne aufzutischen pflegt, gegenwärtig vielleicht hauptsächlich deshalb um den Verein ‘Sokol’ auch mit etwas Romantik auszustatten.” Police Report, Nov. 24, 1862, SÚA, PM (1861–70) 8/31/8/1862/No. 1425. 26. J. Fügner to J.A. Helfert, April 20, 1862, in Feyl, “Die Entwicklung des Sokolgründers,” 571. Hussite rituals at this time are explored in Cornej, Lipanské ozveny; Peter Heumos, “Krise und hussitisches Ritual,” Vereinswesen und Geschichtspflege, 109–22; and Jan Novotný, “Ceské delnictvo a národní identita v 19. století,” Husitství–Reformace–Renesance: Sborník k 60. nározeninám Františka Šmahela, ed. Jaroslav Pánek et al. (Prague: Historický ústav, 1994), 989–1000. 27. Quoted in Alfred Hrdlicka, “Zizkuv pomník u Pribyslavi,” Památník Sokola prazského, 131. Documents on this bequest are in SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Box 38. 28. “Jednatelské zprávy,” [Oct. 12, 1862], Památník Sokola prazského, 70. 29. Clubs were founded in Jaromer, Jicín, Kolín, Kutná Hora, Nová Paka, Pribram and Turnov in 1862, and in Králové Dvur, Mladá Boleslav, Mnichovo Hradište, Plzen and Zelezný Brod in 1863. “Prehled veškerých jednot sokolských 1882–1883,” Památník Sokola prazského, 265. The police were not alone in suspecting a connection between Sokol outings and club foundings, as a map drawn up for Prague Sokol leaders comparing the destinations of their outings with the locations of clubs between 1862 and 1865 indicates. MTVS, Tyrš Papers, Folder 233. 30. Minister of Interior to Bohemian Governor, May 22, 1863, SÚA, PM (1861–70) 8/5/20/2/1863/No. 3522; and Police Report, Oct. 29, 1863, No. 2483, in ibid. 31. Nipperdey, “Verein als soziale Struktur,” 13. 32. List of Prague Sokol members, Oct. 1863, SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Box 46. 33. Cervinka, U kolébky Sokola, 30–1. 34. “Prehled funkcionáru Sokola prazského,” Památník Sokola prazského, 196. 35. Cohen, Politics of Ethnic Survival, 53. Occupations of Council members are in Prehled 1865, 14–15. 36. J. Fügner to M. Tyrš, n.d. [1863], MTVS, Tyrš Papers, Folder 35. 37. Cenek Holas, “Vzpomínky,” Vzpomínky na Tyrše, 201. 38. Prehled 1865, 113–14.

204

Notes

39. The club’s rental was to be 30 per cent of its income from dues, with minimum and maximum amounts. Marek, “Vývoj a obsah,” 92. 40. A.V. Prager, “Telocvicna Sokola prazského,” Památník Sokola prazského, 78–83. 41. Letter from J. Fügner, n.d. [1863], MTVS, Fügner Papers, uninventoried. Declaration of Trainers’ Group, Oct. 14, 1863, SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Box 60. 42. Šesták, “Stará garda,” 233. 43. Secretary’s Report, Oct. 16, 1864, SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Box 1; excerpted in “Jednatelské zprávy,” Památník Sokola prazského, 88. Correspondence between the Prague Sokol and German gymnastic clubs, including several invitations, is in SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Box 40. 44. Entry, June 2, 1864, Ctibor Helcelet Diary, transcription in MTVS, Sokol Collection, Box 114. A letter of appreciation for the club’s assistance from the mayor of Prague is in SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Box 42. 45. Diary entry, June 2, 1864, transcription in MTVS, Cerný Papers, Folder 2. 46. Descriptions are in Josef Müller, “Sokol v nové telocvicne v letech 1863–1865,” Památník Sokola prazského, 85–6; and diary entry, July 10, 1864, Ctibor Helcelet diary, transcription in MTVS, Sokol Collection, Box 114. 47. Johnston, The Austrian Mind, 131; and Rak, Bývali Cechové, 23–24. 48. According to Jungmann’s dictionary, the verb “šibriti” meant to copy a sparrow’s twittering. The event is described in “První Šibrinky,” Památník Sokola prazského, 89–93; and Tyršová, Jindrich Fügner, Vol. 2, 127–34. Šibrinky became occasions to mock the dress and habits of Bohemian Germans. Soukupová, “Ceské a nemecké spolky,” 15–18. 49. Miroslav Tyrš, comp., Statisticko-historický prehled jednot sokolských pro rok 1865 (Prague: B. Stýblo, 1866) [hereafter: Prehled 1865], 7. 50. Ibid., 111–12. 51. The 20 clubs were: In Bohemia: Beroun, Prague, Pribram, Mladá Boleslav, Mnichovo Hradište, Mšeno, Turnov, Jicín, Horice, Nová Paka, Králové Dvur, Jaromer, Kutná Hora, Kolín, Podebrady and Plzen; in Moravia: Brno, Kromeríz and Valašské Mezirící; in Slovenia: Ljubljana. Contributing members were permitted in two Bohemian clubs and in Ljubljana, where 100 members fell into this category. Ibid., 114. 52. Besides the clubs in Prague and Kutná Hora, only two clubs, at Jicín and Pribram, had over 100 members. Ten clubs, or half of those surveyed, had under 50 members. 53. Prehled 1865; Miroslav Tyrš, comp., Statistický prehled jednot Sokolských pro rok 1866 (Prague: Stýblo, n.d. [1867]) [hereafter: Prehled 1866]; and Miroslav Tyrš and František Cermák, comps., Sborník sokolský pro rok 1868 (Prague: Prazský Sokol, n.d. [1869]) [hereafter: Sborník 1868]. 54. Known as the “Austrian Manchester” because of its industrial base, Brno had grown from 14,972 inhabitants in 1770 to over 70,000 in 1864. By 1914, 64 per cent of the population was German. Vladimír Zapletal, “Pocátky Sokola brnenského,” Dejiny Sokola Brno (Brno: Brno Sokol, 1948), Vol. 1, 14; and Prinz, “Die böhmischen Länder,” 218. 55. After receiving a medical degree from the University of Vienna, Helcelet taught at the University of Olomouc and played a prominent role in the 1848 Revolution in Moravia. After the University of Olomouc was disbanded, he secured a position at the Technical College in Brno and was elected to both

Notes 205

56. 57. 58.

59.

60. 61. 62.

63.

64.

5

the Moravian Diet and the Imperial Parliament. His opposition to Moravian separatism and his rigid anticlericalism limited his effectiveness as a national leader. See Josef Soušek, Jan Helcelet (Brno: Moravský legionár, 1937). J. Helcelet to I. Hanuš, Jan. 9, 1862, in Jan Helcelet, Korespondence a zápisky Jana Helceleta, ed. Jan Kabelík (Brno: Matice moravská, 1910), 426. Quoted in Zapletal, “Pocátky Sokola brnenského,” 59–60. Bartonícek, “Z dejin ‘Sokola’ brnenského,” Sokol (1902), 157. See also Ctibor Helcelet, “Moravský telocvicný spolek v Brne,” Památník Sokola prazského, 266–7. The trip to Kromeríz was the first time Tyrš had been to Moravia. Ctibor Helcelet wrote in his diary that the Sokol uniforms had caused some confusion in Brno that day, “not knowing who we were, people concluded that we were Mexicans, since at that time they were hiring volunteers to serve in Mexico.” Diary entry, Aug. 19, 1865, quoted in ibid., 32. There were 123 active members, 100 contributing members, and 6 honorary members. Prehled 1865, 105. Ibid., 107. See M. Šesták, “Ceši a Jihoslované v habsburské monarchii v letech 1850–1890,” in Václav Zácek et al., Ceši a Jihoslované v minulosti (Prague: Academia, 1975), 485–6. According to a police report, Fügner had debts of approximately 45,000 guldens, and the club eventually raised 66,000 guldens to buy the hall. The loans to purchase the hall were paid back only slowly. After 15 years, 30,000 guldens were still owed. Police Report, Nov. 22, 1865, SÚA, PM (1861–70) 8/5/20/2/1865/No. 2903; Ferdinand Tallowitz, “Zakoupení telocvicny,” Památník Sokola prazského, 110–13; and Novotný, Sokol v zivote národa, 22–3. Tyrš, “Fügner,” Riegruv slovník naucný, Vol. 10, 206.

“All or Nothing!” The Sokol in War and Political Turmoil

1. M. Tyrš to R. Fügnerová, July 30, 1869, MTVS, Renata Tyršová Papers, Box 33. 2. Josef Müller, “Sokol od úmrtí Fügnera do konce prvního desítiletí, 1865–1872,” Památník Sokola prazského, 101; and C. Helcelet to J. Helcelet, Dec. 27, 1865, transcription in MTVS, Tyrš Papers, Folder 662. See also Police Report, Nov. 22, 1865, SÚA, PM (1861–70) 8/5/20/2/1865/No. 2903. 3. A participant described the 1865 guard duty in his diary, and a later police report noted how club members had patrolled the streets in uniform during the night on that occasion to prevent window smashing by Germans, “jedoch auf Rechnung der Czechen.” See Entry, Oct. 20, 1865, Ctibor Helcelet diary, transcription in MTVS, Sokol Collection, Box 114; and Police Report, April 13, 1866, SÚA, PM (1861–70) 8/5/20/2/1866/No. 881. 4. Bohemian Governor to the District Captains, March 20, 1866, SÚA, PM (1861–70) 8/5/20/2/1866/No. 878. 5. Havlícek, “Tyršova cinnost politická,” 11; and Police Report, Oct. 9, 1865, SÚA, PM (1861–70) 8/5/20/2/1865/No. 794. See also the lecture of a retired professor who had been a student in 1866, “Sokol prazský a prazská polytechnika,” MTVS, Sokol Collection, Box 117.

206

Notes

6. Grégr’s speech is in “Odhalení poprsí Jindricha Fügnera dne 7. kvetna 1866,” Památník Sokola prazského, 113; and in Sokolství Edvarda Grégra, 69–75. See also Miroslav Tyrš, “Vynatek z jednatelské zprávy ve valné hromade dne 21. ríjna 1866,” Sokol: Úpomínka, 27. 7. Excerpts from the Minutes of the Trainers’ Group Meeting, May 15, 1866, quoted in O sokolské idei, Vol. 1, 22–3. 8. “‘Slavný výbore!’ Prípis výboru Sokola prazského ku zrízení dobrovolného sboru válecného r. 1866,” O sokolské idei, Vol. 1, 22–4. 9. “Vynatek z jednatelské zprávy,” 27. See also Minutes of the Executive Council, May 9, 1866, SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Box 5. 10. Minutes of Council Meeting, May 23, 1866, SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Box 5. 11. See Report to the Governor from the City Council of Mladá Boleslav, May 12, 1866, SÚA, PM (1861–70) 13/49/11/1866/No. 985; and Report to the Governor from the District Captain of Pilsen, May 16, 1866, No. 1900, in ibid. 12. “Hlidky a obchuzky nocní po odchodu vojska a policie,” Památník Sokola prazského, 114. 13. “Zachránení paláce Clam-Gallasova Sokolem prazském,” Památník Sokola prazského, 114–15. 14. Josef Müller, “Tyrš v Sokole prazském,” Tyrš: Strucný nástin zivota, 19. 15. Minutes of the Council Meeting, July 9, 1866, SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Box 5. 16. “V dobe obsazení pruského,” Památník Sokola prazského, 115–16. 17. Universal conscription became official in December 1868. The police suspected that Tyrš intended to merge the Sokol with local army units to create a “Svornost Corps,” a reference to the Czech National Guard of 1848. Police Report, Jan. 9, 1867, SÚA, PM (1861–70) 8/5/20/2/1867/No. 3000. 18. Karel Kareis, comp., Srovnávací statistický výpis jednot sokolských . . . dle scítání pocátkem ledna 1871 (Prague: Kareis, 1871), 13. See also Marek, “Vývoj a obsah,” 95. 19. Tyrš, “Návrh . . . v prícine zavedení cvicení vojenských,” Sokol: Úpomínka, 65–6. 20. Venceslav Havlícek, “Tyršovy snahy vojenské,” Tyršuv sborník, Vol. 7 (1923), 11–12. Tyrš’s article on gymnastics in the military appeared in three parts in 1868 in Rieger’s Názorný atlas k slovníku naucnému. 21. The police complained “that totally outside clubs that had been invited to Králové Dvur distinguished themselves by their demonstrative Russophile declaration, namely the booming cry of ‘Hurrah!’.” Police Notice, Oct. 11, 1867, SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Box 43. 22. “Police Notice to Trumpet Ensemble,” Sept. 26, 1868, SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Box 104. A special “Sokol trumpet,” designed with an S-shaped curve in honor of the club, was likewise banned. “Excerpt from the Minutes of the Council Meeting,” Aug. 6, 1869, Ibid., Box 5. 23. Hye, “Vereinswesen,” 88–9. 24. “Prehled príjmu Sokola prazského v prvním dvacetiletí,” Památník Sokola prazského, 210–11; and Sborník 1868, 5 and 21–2. 25. Sokol clubs outside the Czech lands, including those among other Slavic groups, were included in the estimate of 100 clubs. Sborník 1868, 170–1. 26. Out of a total membership of 1712 in 1865, just over 700 were on gymnastic teams; in 1866, from almost 1600 members, about 800 trained; but in 1868,

Notes 207

27.

28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

33. 34. 35.

36. 37. 38.

39. 40.

41. 42.

after the new club law went into effect, from over 5000 members, only 1686 were in training. Prehled 1865, 113–16; Prehled 1866, 40–2; Sborník 1868, 6, 22–3, and 174–80; and Marek, “Vývoj a obsah,” 95. Prehled 1865, passim; and Marek, “Vývoj a obsah,” 99. An 1871 survey showed that 30 per cent of the Sokol clubs had no place to train in the winter. Kareis, comp., Statistický výpis, 11. Marek, “Vývoj a obsah,” 100. J. Ošt’adel to M. Tyrš, Nov. 10, 1868, MTVS, Tyrš Papers, Folder 67. According to an 1883 survey, 31 per cent of members owned uniforms. J.E. Scheiner, “K statistice jednot sokolských,” Sokol, Vol. 9 (1883), 79. In 1868, 19 clubs used training grounds provided by local authorities. Marek, “Vývoj a obsah,” 97 and 100. Problems of this sort are recounted in Josef Materna, “Sokol v Nové Pace,” Památník Sokola prazského, 275–6; Sborník 1868, 96 and 108–9; Zapletal, “Pocátky Sokola brnenského,” 81, n. 56; Bartonícek, “Z dejin,” (1902), 250; and Secretary’s Report, March 29, 1868, MTVS, Sokol Collection, Box 14. “Návrh stanov spolku jednot sokolských,” Sborník 1868, 245–52. Minutes of the Meeting of the Sub-Committee on the Sokol Congress, March 1868, SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Box 21. Police Report, May 28, 1867, SÚA, PM (1861–70) 8/5/20/2/1867/No. 1980; Minister of Defense to Bohemian Governor, Jan. 29, 1868, SÚA, PM (1861–70) 8/5/20/2/1868/No. 627/165; and Minister of Interior to Bohemian Governor, March 30, 1868, No. 1203, in ibid. Police Notice, May 8, 1868, No. 1918, SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Box 21. Police Notice, May 17, 1868, No. 1919, in ibid. See also Police Report, May 26, 1868, SÚA, PM (1861–70) 8/5/20/2/1868/No. 2215. Police Notice, June 14, 1868, No. 1868, SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Box 21. Turnverein clubs in the Habsburg lands had formed an informal union already in 1861, when the first clubs were founded. It was given the name “Turnkreis Deutschösterreich” in 1863, although it was only officially recognized by the government in 1868, the same year that the Deutsche Turnerschaft was created. Although the Turnerschaft acknowledged the Austrian clubs as Turnkreis 15, the Habsburg government would not permit its attachment to the German union until later. Mehl, “Deutsches Turnen,” 35–6; and Hirth and Kießlich, Geschichte des Turnkreises, 45, 60, 84–8. Miroslav Tyrš, “’Bratrí!’ (Rec po zákazu sjezdu 19/6/1868),” O sokolské idei, 59. Tyrš’s cry of “All or Nothing” echoed the chants at the tábory. In 1869, when club leaders tried again to get approval for a Sokol Union, they changed the official language to Czech, but this effort was also rejected on the same grounds as before. Materials on this matter, including the original constitution, are in SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Box 21. See also “Pred zalozením C.O.S.–Snahy Tyršovy o spolek ústrední,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 13 (1909), 174–6. “‘Drazí bratrí!’: Výzvání k prvnímu sjezdu sokolskému 1/4/1868,” O sokolské idei, Vol. 1, 57–8. M. Tyrš to A. Gallát, July 28, 1867, O sokolské idei, Vol. 1, 36. The Sokol club in Switzerland that Tyrš mentioned was a short-lived experiment that had been founded by Slavic university students in Zurich.

208

Notes

43. Scheiner, Dejiny Sokolstva, 42–3; Przemys3aw Matusik, “Der polnische ‘Sokó3’ zur Zeit der Teilungen und in der II. Polnischen Republic,” Die slawische Sokolbewegung, 105–9; and Bernard Woltmann, “Der polnische ‘Sokol’ 1867–1914,” Sokol, jeho vznik, vývoj a význam, 123–4. 44. “Zprávy spolkové”, Sokol, Vol. 1 (1871), 147; and Wolfgang Kessler, “Der Sokol in den jugoslawischen Gebieten (1863–1941),” Die slawische Sokolbewegung, 201. 45. Šesták, “Ceši a Jihoslované,” 485–6; and Havránková, “Zájem,” 204–5. 46. Kareis, comp., Statistický výpis, 5, 7 and 11. 47. The defeat in the Crimean War raised interest in gymnastics as a means of national revival, and a gymnastic club was founded in St Petersburg in 1863 and another in Moscow in 1868. The Russian government sent Pyotr Lesgaft, considered the father of modern physical training in Russia, on a study tour of West European gymnastic institutes, and upon his return in 1874, he introduced the Swedish style of gymnastics into Russian military training. James Riordan, Sport in Soviet Society: Development of Sport and Physical Education in Russia and the USSR (London: Cambridge UP., 1977), 19–20; and Antonín Rocek, “K nekterým otázkám cesko-ruských sportovních a telocvicných styku do r. 1918,” (Unpub. manuscript, MTVS, Apr. 1974–Nov. 1977), 32. 48. Cerný’s uniform created quite a stir in Moscow. Rocek, 35; and Nikolaj Manochyn, “Tyrš a Rusové,” Památník IX. sletu všesokolského porádaného na oslavu stých narozenin Dr. Miroslava Tyrše za úcasti Svazu “Slovanské Sokolstvo”, ed. Rudolf Procházka (Prague: Ceskoslovenská obec sokolská, 1933), 134. 49. The first Sokol club in the United States had been founded in St Louis in 1865, but it soon failed. See Claire E. Nolte, “Our Brothers across the Ocean: the Czech Sokol in America to 1914,” Czechoslovak and Central European Journal, Vol. 11 (Winter 1993), 16–17. 50. Miroslav Tyrš, “Doslov k verejnému cvicení Sokola prazského dne 2. kvetna 1869,” O sokolské idei, Vol. 1, 60–2. The quotes which follow are from this speech. 51. Jan Pelikán, “Historický vývoj Tyršova Sokolství,” Tyršuv sborník, Vol. 1 (1920), 24. 52. Ferdinand Tallowitz, “Pomník Fügneruv na hrbitove Olšanském,” Památník Sokola prazského, 119–21; and Novotný, Sokol v zivote národa, 29. 53. Miroslav Tyrš, “Slavnostní rec dra. Miroslava Tyrše pri odhalení pomníku Fügnerova na hrbitove Olšanském dne 18.7.1869,” O sokolské idei, Vol. 1, 87–8. 54. An 1871 survey revealed that of 113 clubs, 25 did not follow any established training schedule at all. Kareis, comp., Statistický výpis, 30–5. See also Marek, “Vývoj a obsah,” 100–2. 55. Miroslav Tyrš, Základové telocviku (Prague: Kober, 1873). The work first appeared in installments between 1868 and 1872 in Kronice práce, prumyslu a nálezuv. 56. Miroslav Tyrš, “Hod olympický,” Sborník 1868, 191–220. 57. Ibid., 218. 58. Miroslav Tyrš, Základové telocviku, 2nd edn (Prague: Sokol prazský, 1912), 6. 59. Quoted in “Jubilejní slavnost ‘Sokola prazského’,” Sokol, Vol. 8 (1882), 92. 60. Josef Müller, “Tyrš v Sokole prazském,” 21. See also Edvard Grégr, “Miroslav Tyrš,” Památník Sokola prazského, 21. 61. Among the many places where this argument is made, see Bartoš, Miroslav Tyrš, 31; Machácek, “The Sokol,” 73–5; Reitmayer, Prehled telesné výchovy, 66;

Notes 209

62. 63.

64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74.

75.

76.

77.

Scheiner, Dejiny Sokolstva, 54–5; and Josef Scheiner, “Sokolstvo,”, Slovanstvo: Obraz jeho minulosti a prítomnosti, ed. J. Bidlo et al. (Prague: Jan Laichter, 1912), 705. A brief comparison of specific differences between the German and Czech systems is in Josef Müller, “O cvicebné soustave sokolské,” Památník Sokola prazského, 154–6. Machácek, “The Sokol,” 77 and 84. See also Stehlíková, “Obradní a divadelní prvky,” 164. Although Jahn had praised fencing as exercise, he had never included it in his system and it was long condemned in the Turnverein as a decadent French practice. See Jahn and Eiselen, Die deutsche Turnkunst, liii. Turnverein leaders also scorned the javelin and discus training of Sokol clubs as well as their “military” exercises of wrestling, boxing, and precision marching, because “they did not want to train in ‘athletics’ or ‘light gymnastics’ and did not want to transform the training hall into a parade ground.” Karel B. Kober, “O šermu,” Sokol: Úpomínka, 36. Müller, “Sokol u Apolla,” 59. Quoted in Marek, “Vývoj a obsah,” 95. Machácek, “The Sokol,” 76. Tyrš, “Doslov dne 2. kvetna 1869,” 61. Tyrš’s So-Called First Will, MTVS, Tyrš Papers, Folder 140. The will is published in Marek, “Závet’ Tyrše,” 277–80. M. Tyrš to J. Kirschbaum, Sept. 22, 1870, MTVS, Tyrš Papers, Folder 47. Kareis, comp., Statistický výpis, 5. Ibid., 7. Ibid., 16–17; and Prehled 1865, 114–15. Kareis, comp., Statistický výpis, 17. In a letter to Ctibor Helcelet, Tyrš expressed his skepticism that there were enough “capable men” in Moravia to make the movement there successful. M. Tyrš to C. Helcelet, 31 July 1869 in Miroslav Tyrš, Dopisy dr. Miroslava Tyrše Ctiboru Helceletovi (Prague: Ceská obec sokolská, 1940), 25. The event is described in Karel A. Cervenka, “Telocvicná jednota Sokol v Brne,” Památník Sokola prazského, 268; Zapletal, “Pocátky Sokola brnenského,” 52–5; and Bartonícek, “Z dejin,” (1903), 84–5, 107–9, and 154–7. M. Tyrš to C. Helcelet, n.d. [March 1871], Dopisy Helceletovi, 30. One club historian declared, “The impact of the celebration was enormous,” and another compared it to the 1868 ceremony to lay the foundation stone for the National Theater in Prague. Zapletal, “Pocátky Sokola brnenského,” 54; and Jaroslav Kunz, Sokol a Rakousko (Prague: Ceskoslovenská obec sokolská, 1930), 11–12. Around the same time, Austrian authorities were also rejecting constitutions for Turnverein provinces that contained the words “German” or “German national.” Hirth and Kießlich, Geschichte des Turnkreises, 95.

6 “Our Task, Direction, and Goal”: Miroslav Tyrš and the Sokol Program 1. Josef Višek, “Sokol, casopis venovaný zájmum telocvicným,” Památník Sokola prazského, 122–3. Materials related to the club paper are in SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Box 81.

210

Notes

2. A discussion of Zizka, including excerpts from articles, is in Emanuel Chalupný, “Tyršuv pomer k vojsku a sokolský program: ke vzniku casopisu ‘Sokol’ a stati ‘Náš ukol, smer a cíl’,” Tyršuv sborník, Vol. 11 (1928), 13–48. See also František Mašek, “Predchudce casopisu ‘Sokol’,” Sokol, Vol. 25 (1899),18; and Jan Pelikán, Význam dr. Miroslava Tyrše pro národní brannost (Brno: Moravský legionár, 1935), 49–52. 3. Scheiner, Dejiny Sokolstva, 80. 4. M. Tyrš to C. Helcelet, April 28, 1871, Dopisy Helceletovi, 32. 5. Miroslav Tyrš, “Náš úkol, smer a cíl,” Sokol, Vol. 1 (1871), 1–4. The quotes which follow are from this article. Background on this piece is in O sokolské idei, Vol. 1, 135–8; Chalupný, “Tyršuv pomer k vojsku,” 33–42; Karel Domorázek, “Kronikáruv doprovod,” in Miroslav Tyrš, Náš úkol, smer a cíl (Prague: Karel Novák, 1928), 27–46; and Julius Dolanský, “Edicní poznámka,” in Miroslav Tyrš, Náš úkol, smer a cíl (Prague: Olympia, 1971), 32–43. 6. The article was first called the “Sokol gospel” in notes accompanying its publication in Tyrš, Úvahy a reci (1894), 1. 7. Tyrš appears to be drawing from a poem the radical democrat Josef Václav Fric published in his émigré paper Blaník in 1868: “If the people do not know, it is as though no one knows/ whatever is not comprehended, will not be envisaged/only what has come from the people, will be carried out by and for them/surely it is essential, that the people take care of things themselves.” Quoted in Kozík, Venec vavrinový, 208. 8. In the original lecture version of this piece, Tyrš acknowledged his debt to “the immortal Briton.” 9. See Pelikán, “Historický vývoj,” 22–9. 10. Tyrš, “Výnatek z jednatelské zprávy,” Sokol: Úpomínka, 27; and Tyrš, “Adresa Fügnerovi,” O sokolské idei, Vol. 2, 84. 11. Miroslav Tyrš, “‘Velectený pane!’ (Výzva ke vstupu do Sokola 1/1/1864),” O sokolské idei, Vol. 1, 16. 12. An attempt to demonstrate, through textual analysis, that Tyrš’s work represents a major contribution to Czech national thought is Emanuel Chalupný, “Prední tvurcové národního programu: Jungmann, Havlícek, Tyrš, Masaryk,” Tyršuv sborník, Vol. 4 (1921), 3–102. 13. M. Tyrš to F. Eulner, Aug. 30, 1870, MTVS, Tyrš Papers, uninventoried. 14. Miroslav Tyrš, “Pokud telocvik a jednoty telocvicné k brannosti národní prispívají,” Sokol, Vol. 1 (1871), 29–30, 37–9, 45–7, 53–4, 61–3. 15. Ibid., 30. 16. Ibid., 38–9. Tyrš proposed that trained gymnasts serve only one year in the military instead of three. Turnverein clubs in the empire made similar proposals. 17. Gustav Eim, “K osvete sílu!” Za praporem sokolským, 35–6. 18. Quoted in Pelikán, Význam dr. Tyrše, 74. 19. On this debate, see Chalupný, “Tyršuv pomer k vojsku,” 8 and 39–40; Havlícek, “Tyršovy snahy vojenské,” 8 and 14–16; Pelikán, Význam dr. Tyrše, 35–47; Richard Rus, “Národní energie. Úvahy o Tyršove díle,” Tyršuv sborník, Vol. 5 (1923), 51; and F.A. Soukup, Idea národní armády, 4th edn (Prague: Svaz ceskoslovenského dustojnictva, 1937). 20. Albert Prazák, Dr. Miroslav Tyrš: osvobozenský smysl jeho díla (Prague: Neubert & Ceskoslovenská obec sokolská, 1946), 26.

Notes 211 21. Prinz, “Die böhmischen Länder,” 85–6; and Chlebowczyk, On Small and Young Nations in Europe, 146. The most recent essay on this topic is Otto Piffl, “Tyrš a branná výchova,” Soubor prací z vedecké konference, 111–17. 22. Miroslav Tyrš, “O úcelu spolcování a podmínkách zdaru jeho,” Sokol, Vol. 1 (1871), 85–7. 23. Ibid., 86. 24. J. Podpera, “O telocviku v ohledu národohospodárškém,” Sokol, Vol. 2 (1872), 9–11, 17–19; and E. Krupícka, “Pusobení telocviku na telo lidské,” ibid., 105–6, 113–15, 121–4, 129–32, 137–41, 145–8, 153–5. 25. [Emphasis in original] Miroslav Tyrš, “Telocvik v ohledu esthetickém,” Sokol, Vol. 3 (1873), 163. The entire piece is ibid., 2–3, 9–10, 17–19, 25–6, 33–5, 57–8, 65–6, 121–3, 160–5. It is analyzed in Karel Domorázek, “Rozbor,” in Miroslav Tyrš, Telocvik v ohledu esthetickém (Prague: Karel Novák, 1926), 83–101. 26. M. Tyrš to J. Kirschbaum, Sept. 22, 1870, MTVS, Tyrš Papers, Folder 47. 27. Tyrš, “Telocvik v ohledu esthetickém,” 2. 28. Ibid., 26. Because Czech heroes on display in Sokol halls should be connected to the club’s purpose, Tyrš argued that figures like Jan Hus or Václav Hanka, the “discoverer” of the manuscripts of Králové Dvur and Zelená Hora, should be excluded. 29. Ibid., 26. 30. Ibid., 2. 31. [Emphasis on original]. Ibid., 19. Tyrš repeated this warning at the end of the article, “Let ‘Polish and Taste’ be one of our slogans!” [Emphasis in original], Ibid., 164. 32. Venceslav Havlícek, Postavení Sokolstva v národe (Prague: Boleslav Havlícek, 1919), 22. 33. M. Tyrš to V. Cerný, Nov. 14, 1873, MTVS, Tyrš Papers, Folder 29. 34. The Hussite weapons are mentioned in F. Kozíšek, “Z mých vzpomínek,” Vzpomínky na Tyrše, 87 and 92. 35. Tyrš’s classicism is examined in Jan Hiller, “Tyršova studia ke cvicení poradovým,” Tyršuv sborník, Vol. 1 (1920), 14–21; Otakar Zich, “Sokolstvo s hlediska estetického,” Tyršuv sborník, Vol. 2 (1920), 5–27; Jaroslav Ludvíkovský, “Antické myšlenky v Tyršove sokolském a národním programu,” Tyršuv sborník, Vol. 6 (1923), 3–38; Jaroslav Ludvíkovský, “Tyršuv recký sen,” Umení, Vol. 6 (1933), 69–73; and J. Zumr, “Antika a ceské filozofie 19. století,” Antika a ceská kultura (Prague: Academia, 1978), 508–10. 36. Josef Müller, “Sokol v druhém desítiletí,” Památník Sokola prazského, 129; and Novotný, Sokol v zivote národa, 32. 37. Miroslav Tyrš, “V rok nový” Sokol, Vol. 3 (1873), 1. 38. “Zprávy spolkové,” Sokol, Vol. 1 (1871), 188. He also reported how Serbs and Croats of Trieste, when asked about the Sokol, responded, “Aha! That’s those people in Ljubljana, who wear the red shirt!” Ibid., 147. 39. See J.Z. Veselý, “Vzpomínky ceského Sokola,” Sokol, Vol. 2 (1872), 122–4, 130–2, 138–40, 146–8, 154–6, 162–4, 170–2 and 186–7. 40. Manochyn, “Tyrš a Rusové,” 135; Rocek, “K nekterým otázkám,” 39–40; and Ladislav Jandásek, Tyršovo slovanství (Prague: Ceskoslovenská obec sokolská, 1947), 98–9. 41. “Zprávy spolkové,” Sokol, Vol. 1 (1871), 41.

212

Notes

42. Adam Zamoyski, “Tyrš a Polaci,” Památník IX. sletu, 35; and Matusik, “Der polnische Sokó3” 108–10. 43. “Zprávy spolkové,” Sokol, Vol. 3 (1873), 103. Hochmann’s reports are located in the club news section (Zprávy spolkové) of Sokol, Vol. 3 (1873), 77–8, 103, 131–2; Vol. 4 (1874), 38–9, 48, 69, 85; and Vol. 5 (1875), 55. 44. Biographical information is in “František Hochmann,” Sokol, Vol. 19 (1893), 216–18. See also Ruzena Havránková, “Ceská verejnost na pomoc protitureckým povstáním jizních Slovanu v letech 1875–1878,” Slovanské historické studie, Vol. 6 (1966), 29. 45. František Hochmann, “Telocvik v Chorvatsku,” Památník Sokola prazského, 283; and Kessler, “Sokol in den jugoslawischen Gebieten,” 204–5. 46. Masaryk, Ceská otázka, 44. 47. See Prehled 1866, 35; and Sborník 1868, 159. 48. Tyrš, “Náš úkol,” Sokol (1871), 2. 49. Quoted in Sokolství Edvarda Grégra, 79. 50. This trend is examined in Mosse, Nationalization of the Masses, 47–72; Petr Wittlich, “Sochárství,” Praha národního probuzení, 225–6; and Zdenek Hojda and Jirí Pokorný, Pomníky a zapomníky, 2nd edn (Prague and Litomyšl: Paseka, 1997), 16–18. 51. See Tyršová, Miroslav Tyrš, Vol. 2, 72–3; and Hojda and Pokorný, Pomníky a zapomníky, 54–64. 52. Hrdlicka, “Zizkuv pomník,” 132–5. Grégr’s speech is in Sokolství Edvarda Grégra, 80–94. Documents on the project are in SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Box 38. 53. Miroslav Tyrš, “Hesla sokolská,” Sokol, Vol. 4 (1874), 2. 54. Ibid., 34. See also “Hesla Tyršova, jichz mozno pouziti pri výzdobe sálu, telocvicen, . . . ” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 7 (1903), 412. 55. The Prague Sokol fell from 880 members in 1873 to only 605 in 1879. “Statistický prehled koncem cervna 1875,” 94; and Müller, “Sokol v druhém desítiletí,” 125–6. 56. “Statistický prehled koncem cervna 1875,” 92–5. See also Helcelet, “Príspevek k dejinám,” 281–2; and František Kozík, “Do prvého petadvacetiletí 1872–1887,” Dejiny Sokola Brno (Brno: Sokol Brno, 1948), 123. 57. On Cerný, see Jan Neruda, “Trojlist sokolský: Fügner, Tyrš a Cerný,” Sebrané spisy Jana Nerudy, comp. K. Rozek (Prague: Topic, 1915), Vol. 33, 109–11; “Tomáš Cerný,” Památník Sokola prazského, 23–8; and “Dr. Tomáš Cerný,” Sokol, Vol. 35 (1909), 49–55. 58. Some of these appeals are reproduced in O sokolské idei, Vol. 1, 80–7. 59. Miroslav Tyrš, “O prícinách upadání a prostredcích k obzivení jednot sokolských,” Sokol, Vol. 7 (1881), 21–2, 29–30, 41–2, 51–2, 57–8, 65–6, 85–6, 101–2. 60. Tyrš, “O prícinách upadání,” O sokolské idei, Vol. 2, 68. 61. Miroslav Tyrš, Editorial Comment, Sokol, Vol. 2 (1872), 25; and Tyrš, “Pokud telocviku,” 54. 62. M. Tyrš to A. Gallát, July 28, 1867, in O sokolské idei, Vol. 1, 35. 63. “Statistický prehled všech sokolských jednot koncem cervna roku 1883,” Sokol, Vol. 9 (1883), 83. 64. Minutes of Editorial Board Meeting, Dec. 18, 1880; and Outline of Editorial Policy, both in SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Box 81.

Notes 213 65. Miroslav Tyrš, “Rodáci, bratrí!” Sokol, Vol. 7 (1881), 1–2. The quotes which follow are from this article. See also Karel Domorázek, “Výklad,” in Miroslav Tyrš, Uvitání v kruh sokolský (Prague: Karel Novák, 1927), unpaged. 66. Tyrš, “O úcelu spolcování,” 86. 67. According to an 1875 survey, out of 71 Sokol clubs in the Czech lands, 14 practiced fire-fighting, 8 had special fire-fighting divisions, 7 were planning to introduce some form of fire-fighting activity, and 42 clubs had no involvement with it. “Statistický prehled koncem cervna 1875,” 95. 68. The article was unsigned. “V prícine resoluce jaromerské a jicínské,” Sokol, Vol. 7 (1881), 93–5. 69. Miroslav Tyrš, “Rec dra. Mir. Tyrše ve valné hromade Sokola prazského dne 4. dubna 1881,” Sokol, Vol. 7 (1881), 49–50. The Šumava Forest is in southern Bohemia, and the Krkonoš Mountains are on its northern border. 70. M. Tyrš to National Sokol Union, n.d. [Oct. 1880], quoted in Tyršová, Miroslav Tyrš, Vol. 3, 84. See also Nolte, “Our Brothers across the Ocean,” 17–21 and 27–8. 71. “Ctení a drazí bratrí!” (M. Tyrš to Lemberg Sokol, 1882), O sokolské idei, Vol. 1, 101–2. 72. The event is described in František Kozišek and Josef Müller, “Jubilejní slavnost Sokola prazského r. 1882,” Památník Sokola prazského, 138–42; and “Jubilejní slavnost ‘Sokola prazského’,” Sokol, Vol. 8 (1882), 58–62, 75–7, and 89–92. It is analyzed in Gustav Šorm, “Dr. M. Tyrš a I. sokolský slet roku 1882,” Teorie a praxe telesné výchovy a sportu, Vol. 5 (1957), 524–32; Vera Olivová, “Die Gründung der slawischen olympischen Spiele im Jahre 1882 – Hellenistische Ideen im tschechischen ‘Sokol’,” The Olympic Games through the Ages: Greek Antiquity and its Impact on Modern Sport, ed. Roland Renson et al. (Athens: Hellenic Sports Research Institute, 1991), 155–64; Novotný, Sokol v zivote národa, 34–7; and Novotný, “Slavnosti Sokola prazského,” 225–8. Materials about it are in SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Boxes 72 and 113. 73. Eight Croatian Sokol members, led by their nácelník, František Hochmann, participated along with five from the Ljubljana Sokol. Although the National Sokol Union of the United States declined Tyrš’s invitation, members attended individually. The Lemberg Sokol did not send a delegation. 74. Tyrš’s So-Called First Will, MTVS, Tyrš Papers, Folder 140. 75. Miroslav Tyrš, “Po slavnosti,” Sokol, Vol. 8 (1882), 73–4. 76. Rocek, “Chybející clánek,” 187, n. 28. 77. Novotný, Sokol v zivote národa, 33. 78. Tyršová, Miroslav Tyrš, Vol. 3, 98. 79. Quoted in “Jubilejní slavnost,” Sokol, 76. 80. “Bratrí!,” Sokol, Vol. 10 (1884), 59. See also Josef Scheiner, “Za vzpomínek na dra. Miroslava Tyrše,” Vzpomínky na Tyrše, 140–5. 81. [Emphasis in original] Miroslav Tyrš, “O ústroji spolkovém,” Památník Sokola prazského, 157.

7

“Every Czech a Sokol!” The Progressive Era in the Sokol

1. On Czech politics in this period, see H.G. Skilling, “The Politics of the Czech Eighties,” The Czech Renascence, 254–81; and Urban, Ceská spolecnost, 355–62.

214

Notes

2. On the Punctation, see Jan Kren, Konfliktní spolecenství: Ceši a Nemci, 1780–1918 (Prague: Academia, 1990), 234–7; and Urban, Ceská spolecnost, 391–400. 3. Biographical information about Scheiner comes from Sokol sources, and tends to be laudatory. Examples are: Antonín Krejcí, Dr. Josef Scheiner (Brno: Moravský legionár, 1932); Karel Weigner, Josef Scheiner, starosta Ceskoslovenské obce sokolské, starosta Svazu slovanské Sokolstvo (Prague: nákl. vlástním, 1934); Jan Pelikán, “Osobnost bratra dr. Josefa Scheinera,” Sokol, Vol. 58 (1932), 6–9; and F. Kaderábek, “Dr. Josef Scheiner, jeho zivot a dílo,” Zpravodaj prazské telocvicné jednoty “Sokol”, Vol. 9 (1932), 2–9. See also Svému milému starostovi Bratra Dr. Josefa Scheinerovi Sokol Prazský (Zvlaštní príloha casopisu Sokol, Vol. 37, 1911). 4. J. Scheiner, “O verejném vystupování Sokolstva,” Sokol, Vol. 8 (1882), 20, 39, and 74. 5. Josef E. Scheiner, Dejiny Sokolstva v prvém jeho petadvaceti letí (Prague: Grégr: 1887). The first edition of Tyrš’s works appeared in two volumes in 1894, and subsequently grew to several volumes in later editions. See Chapter 2, note 15. A discussion of Scheiner’s writing, including a complete bibliography, is in Karel Vanícek, “Dr. Josef Scheiner jako spisovatel sokolský,” Svému milému starostovi Scheinerovi, unpaged. A list of all of his Sokol articles is in Pelikán, “Osobnost bratra Scheinera,” 10. 6. J. E. Scheiner, “Naše budoucnost: Príspevek ku kapitole o nášem národním vychování,” Sokol, Vol. 12 (1886), 95–6. 7. One province was in Moravia, the rest in Bohemia. Ed. Kaizl, comp., Statistický výkaz ceskoslovanských jednotách sokolských pocátkem roku 1888 (Prague: Prazský Sokol, 1888), 1, 6, and 16. Concern about standardization prompted the publication of various handbooks, calendars, and reports by the mother club in Prague, among them a series of books on the Sokol exercise system, the “Knihovna cvicitelu sokolských,” and a handy pocket calendar, Sokolský sborník: Kalendár na prestupný rok, listing important dates and events, along with articles on Sokol history, membership statistics, club songs, and similar items. 8. Correspondence with clubs in the United States is in SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Boxes 36 and 37. 9. “Bratrí Sokolové” Príloha k casopisu Sokol, Vol. 13 (1887), 103–4. See also František Mašek, “Slety ceského Sokolstva,” Pátý slet všesokolský porádaný v Praze Ceskou obcí sokolskou . . . 1907, ed. Josef Scheiner (Prague: no pub. [Ceská obec sokolská], n.d. [1908]), 11–12; and Josef Novák, “Naše slety,”, Památník sletu 1912, 15. Materials on this event are in SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Boxes 21 and 22; and MTVS, Sokol Collection, Box 77. According to one account, club leaders cancelled the event in part because of growing concerns about the large financial outlay involved. Rocek, “K nekterým otázkám,” 26. 10. Emphasis in original. Bohemian Governor to Minister of Interior (draft), April 6, 1887, SÚA, PM (1881–90) 8/5/20/1/1887/No. 2568. 11. Taaffe to Bohemian Governor, March 31, 1887, SÚA, PM (1881–90) 8/1/16/ 1/1887/No. Ad-1434. See also Police Report, March 22, 1887, SÚA, PM (1881–90) 8/5/20/1/1887/No. 3009; and Taaffe to Bohemian Governor, May 29, 1887, ibid., No. 2152. Jonas’s cooperation with Young Czechs and

Notes 215

12. 13. 14. 15.

16.

17. 18. 19.

20.

21. 22.

23. 24. 25. 26.

27.

with the French was noted in reports in the files of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Minister of Interior to Minister of Foreign Affairs, June 5, 1888, Ad 1861/4JB; and July 23, 1888, 2273/4 JB, transcriptions in MTVS, Sokol Collection, Box 10, No. 204. Police Report, April 12, 1887, SÚA, PM (1881–90) 8/5/20/1/1887/No. 3827. Minister of Interior to Bohemian Governor, May 3, 1887, ibid., No. 1773. See Novák, “Naše slety,” 15; and “Návšteva Sokolstva amerického,” Sokol, Vol. 13 (1887), 111–14, 226–8, 235–7, 247–9, 260–2. The large size of the Prague club made it equal to a province. Ladislav Balabán, “Rozvoj Ceské obec sokolské,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 13 (1909), 179; and Josef Scheiner, “Nekolik slov o vzníku Ceské Obce Sokolské,” 207–9. Correspondence related to the approval process is in SÚA, C.O.S. Collection, Box 1. “Stanovy Ceské Obce Sokolské,” Rádce sokolský (Prague: Ceská obec sokolská, 1897), 195–200. The state of school physical education at this time is described in Stefan Größing, “Von Schulturnen zur Bewegungserziehung – die Entwicklung der schulischen Leibeserziehung in Österreich,” Turnen und Sport in der Geschichte Österreichs, ed. Ernst Bruckmüller and Hannes Strohmeyer (Vienna: ÖBV Pädagogischer Verlag, 1998), 201–4. Police Report, June 23, 1888, SÚA, PM (1881–90) 8/5/20/1/1888/ No. 5963; and Circular, June 25, 1888, ibid., No. 4962 As membership increased, this proportion was enlarged, rising to one delegate for each 5000 members in the 1920s. The first Executive Council of 19 members represented 11 Bohemian provinces consisting of 152 clubs with 17,599 members. “Dnešní stav C.O.S.,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 13 (1909), 194. By 1909, there were seven special committees within the COS, and the Board of Directors met at least twice monthly. Ibid., 195; and Ladislav Balabán, “Význam C.O.S. pro sokolské zrízení,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 13 (1909), 177–9. “Prvý valný sjezd Ceské obce sokolské,” Sokol, Vol. 15 (1889), 82–5. A solid, if laudatory, biography of Podlipný is Vácslav Reznícek, JUDr. Jan Podlipný: Jeho zivot a pusobení (Prague: A. Neubert, 1924). There is also a brief overview of his life in Dr. Jan Podlipný: K desátému výroci jeho smrti vzpomíná Augustin Seifert (Prague: Národní rada ceskoslovenská, 1924). Most of his personal papers are in Archiv hlavního mesta Prahy [Archive of the capital city of Prague, hereafter AHMP], Jan Podlipný Papers. Some Sokol material is in MTVS, Jan Podlipný Papers. On the Academic Reading Association, see Garver, Young Czech Party, 114; and Havránek, “Predání praporu,” 199–201. Reznícek, Podlipný, 53. Ibid., 75. See also “Odhalení desky Tyršovy na Zbraslavi”, Sokol, Vol. 14 (1888), 124–6. On the myth of Blaník, see above, Chapter 4, n. 18. The tension between them is apparent in a letter from Scheiner, in which he threatened to resign from his position on the COS Executive Council. Scheiner to Podlipný, January 18, 1900, AHMP, Podlipný Papers, Box 13. Taaffe to Bohemian Governor, April 29, 1884. SÚA, PM (1881–90) 8/5/20/1/ 1884/No. 1960; and Police Report, August 15, 1884, ibid., No. 7137. See also Police Report, May 19, 1884, ibid., No. 4142. An article in the club paper

216

28.

29.

30. 31.

32.

Notes declaring “The Sokol mission has become the Slavic mission,” reinforced this perception. “Do Krakova!” Sokol, Vol. 10 (1884), 82. “Prehled telocvicných jednot sokolských v Polsce (t.j. Halici a Velikém Knízectví v Prusku),” Sokol, Vol. 15 (1889), 116; and K. Regal, “Slet Sokolstva polského ve Lvove” Sokol, Vol. 18 (1892), 177. On the American branch of the organization, see Donald E. Pienkos, “The Polish Falcons Movement in America, One Hundred and Four Years Young,” Die slawische Sokolbewegung, 145–63. “Výlet ceského Sokolstva k jubilejní slavnosti ‘Sokol’ Lublanského dne 8. a 9. zárí konané,” Sokol, Vol. 14 (1888), 174. The Slovene Sokol movement was in decline from 1880 to 1893. Pavel Pestotník, “Sokolstvo slovinské,” Sokol, Vol. 30 (1904), 185; “Dodatky k návšteve slovanských hostí: Slovinci,” Památník sletu 1912, 396–7; and Kessler, “Sokol in den jugoslawischen Gebieten,” 201–3. See also “Zprávy spolkové,” Sokol, Vol. 15 (1889), 22. Dr. Bucar, “Chorvatské Sokolstvo v Dalmacii,” Sokol, Vol. 31 (1905), 41–2; and Kessler, “Sokol in den jugoslawischen Gebieten,” 204–5 and 207–9. Krejcí, Scheiner, 21. See also “Sblizení Sokolstva s gymnasty Francie,” Sokol, Vol. 14 (1888), 99; and “Výprava Sokolstva do Francie k XV. sjezdu Unie gymnastu francouzkých v Parízi dne 9. a 10. cervna r. 1889,” Sokol, Vol. 15 (1889), 137. Correspondence with French gymnastic clubs is in SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Boxes 22 and 40. Taaffe argued that separate representation for the Bohemian Crownlands would dem Unternehmen ein solches exclusiv czechisch-nationales Gepräge . . . geben, welches die Produktion des Gebiete der S. Wenzels Krone als selbstständiges Ganzes vorführt, hierdurch den unmittelbaren nationalen Contakt mit dem französischen Volke anbahnt und seine Spitze gegen die slavenfeindlichen Deutschen und Magyaren kehrt.

33.

34.

35.

36. 37.

Minister-President Taaffe to Bohemian Governor, April 27, 1888, SÚA, PM (1881–90) 8/5/20/1/1888/No. 481. Transcriptions of government correspondence on the issue of Sokol participation in the World’s Fair from Minister-President Taaffe, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Austro-Hungarian Ambassador in Paris, and the Bohemian Governor are in MTVS, Sokol Collection, Box 10, No. 204. Reznícek, Podlipný, 78; Bohemian Governor to Minister-President Taaffe, May 2, 1888, SÚA, PM (1881–90) 8/5/20/1/1888/draft. See also “Auszug aus den inländischen Vertraunsberichten,” June 5, 1888, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ad 1861/4 JB, transcription in MTVS, Sokol Collection, Box 10, No. 204. Minister of Interior to Bohemian Governor, May 31, 1889, SÚA, PM (1880–90) 8/5/20/1/1889/No. 2463. A Czech translation is in Jaroslav B. Zyka, “Ceská obec sokolská a ‘Unie gymnastu francouzských’: Nekolik vzpomínek na naše styky s gymnasty francouzskými,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 8 (1904), 241–2. Jan Podlipný, “Milý bratre redaktore!” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 12 (1908), 210. See also Reznícek, Podlipný, 79. Podlipný was informed that a “corporative appearance” would not be allowed at a preparatory meeting in October 1888 for the new Sokol union.

Notes 217

38. 39.

40. 41.

42. 43.

44. 45.

46.

47. 48.

49. 50.

Report of Ministry of Interior, October 13, 1888, 3168 JB, transcription in MTVS, Sokol Collection, Box 10, No. 204. Meeting of the Executive Committee, May 16, 1889, SÚA, C.O.S. Collection, Box 4. Accounts of the event are in “Výprava Sokolstva do Francie,” 137–62; Reznícek, Podlipný, 78–81; Zyka, “C. O. S. a Unie gymnastu francouzských,” 236–42; and Karel Heller, “Zájezdy C.O.S. do ciziny a zemí slovanských,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 13 (1909), 198–200. Material about it is in SÚA, C.O.S. Collection, Box 50. A copy of these guidelines is in SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Box 77. The ambassador asserted that “legt man diesen Zusammenflüsse von Gymnastiken aus verschiedenen Herrenländern irgendeinen politischen Hintergrund nicht bei.” Ambassador in Paris to Foreign Ministry, June 12, 1889, No. 38E, transcription in MTVS, Sokol Collection, Box 10, No. 204. Zyka, “C.O.S. a Unie gymnastu francouzských,” 269. František Kolár, “Sokolové – ‘Prukopnící cesko-francouzského prátelství’,” Sokol, jeho vznik, vývoj a význam, 9. Altogether, the COS sent delegations or competitive teams to 12 events in France between 1889 and 1909. Correspondence related to contacts with France are in AHMP, Podlipný Papers, Boxes 5, 13, and 14 (uninventoried). See also Jurij Krízek, “Ceská burzoazní politika a ‘ceská otázka’ v letech 1900–1914,” Ceskoslovenský casopis historický, Vol. 6 (1958), 632. J.E. Scheiner, “Zprávy jinonárodní,” Sokol, Vol. 9 (1883), 83; and Eugen Weber, “Gymnastics and Sports,” 70–98. “Ku stykum cesko-francouzským,” Sokol, Vol. 19 (1893), 51. The politics of the Union of French Gymnasts is examined in Kolár, “Sokolové – Prukopnící prátelství,” 6–7; Pavla Horská, “Praha-Paríz (K zahranicne politické orientaci prazské mestské rady na prelomu 19. a 20. století),” Prazský sborník historický, Vol. 20 (1987), 107–10; and Pavla Horská, Praha-1900-Paríz (Prague: Melantrich, 1991), 8–20. French Consul to French Ambassador in Vienna, February 15, 1901, quoted in Horská, Praha-1900-Paríz, 14. The right in France was collectively referred to as “nationalists,” incorporating boulangists, revanchists, and antiDreyfusards. The French consulate was the first opened by a European power in Prague. The American consulate had been established in the 1870s. French Consul to Minister of Foreign Affairs, July 6, 1912, quoted in ibid., 23. On the exhibition, see František Kolár and Milan Hlavacka, Jubilejní výstava 1891 (Prague: Melantrich, 1991); František Kolár and Milan Hlavacka, “Die Tschechen, Deutschen, und die Jubiläumsausstellung 1891,” Bohemia, Vol. 32, No. 2 (1991), 380–411. The economic aspects are explored in Catherine Albrecht, “Pride in Production: the Jubilee Exhibition of 1891 and Economic Competition between Czechs and Germans in Bohemia,” Austrian History Yearbook, Vol. 24 (1993), 101–18. Jirí Pešek, “Slavnost jako téma dejepisného zkoumání,” Prazské slavnosti a velké výstavy, 26–7. The organization had 24,268 members, of whom 7926 trained. Mašek, “Slety Sokolstva,” 12. The event is described in “Druhý slet všesokolský,” Sokol, Vol. 17 (1891), 169–89; and II. slet všesokolský konaný ve dnech 28–30.

218

51.

52. 53.

54. 55. 56.

57. 58.

59.

60.

61. 62.

63.

64.

Notes cervna roku 1891 v Praze, ed. J.E. Scheiner (Prague: Ceská obec sokolská, n.d. [1892]). Materials on this Slet are in SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Box 113. The total number in the mass calisthenic performance was 2310. Novák, “Naše slety,” 16. See also A. Ocenášek, “Hudba a zpev na sokolských cvicištich,” Sokol, Vol. 27 (1901), 28–32; and Venceslav Havlícek, The Sokol Festival (Prague: Sfinx, 1948), 24. “Druhý slet,” 183. Reiterating the argument they had used in 1889 to prohibit the Sokol trip to Paris, Habsburg authorities forbade the “corporative” appearance of foreign visitors in the Sokol parade or on the exercise field, with the exception of the three American Czechs who attended, who were apparently still regarded as Czech. The foreign gymnasts gave a private performance in the Prague Sokol training hall. Bohemian Governor to Governor of Carniola, June 11, 1891, SÚA, PM (1891–1900) 8/5/20/1/1891/No. 5625. Police Report, June 30, 1891, No. 7785, in ibid. Kolár and Hlavacka, Jubilejní výstava, 18. These trends are explored in Jan Hozák, “Iluze a reality ceské velikosti: Sonda do ceského sebevedomí v dobe jubilejní výstavy 1891,” Proudy ceské umelecké tvorby 19. století: sen a ideál (Prague: Ústav teorie a dejin umení Ceskoslovenské akademie ved, 1990), 125–30; and Bedrich Loewenstein, “Theatralik, Historismus, bürgerliche Repräsentation: Aspekte der tschechischen Kultur im 19. Jahrhundert,” Bohemia, Vol. 29 (1988), 15–33. Police Report, June 29, 1891, SÚA, PM (1891–1900) 8/5/20/1/1891/No. 7751; and Police Report, July 6, 1891, ibid., No. 7801pp. Information on his life is in J.E. Scheiner, “Dr. Jindrich Vanícek,” Sokol, Vol. 38 (1912), 13–16; Jan Pelikán, Náš bratr Jindra (Prague: F. Zd’arský, 1926); and Antonín Krejcí, Dr. Jindra Vanícek (Brno: Moravský legionár, 1934). Accounts of this outing are Výprava Sokolstva ceského do Polsky k oslave 25-letého trvání Sokola Lvovského v dnech 5. a 6. cervna 1892 (Prague: Grégr, 1892); and Regal, “Slet Sokolstva polského,”177–86. The police regarded the entire venture as a political junket, “welcher man der jungcechischen Führung die Aufgabe gestellt wurde, dort gegen die cechfeindliche Haltung des polnischen Reichsrathsklubs zu agitieren und polnische Kreise für die hiesigen nationale Bewegung zu gewinnen.” Police Report, May 6, 1892, SÚA, PM (1891–1900) 8/5/40/12/1892/No. 5082. Regal, “Slet Sokolstva polského,” 177; and Minister of Interior to Foreign Minister, June 9, 1892, No. 1481/4 IB, transcription in MTVS, Sokol Collection, Box 10, No. 204. Výprava Sokolstva ceského do Polsky, 36. Minister of Interior to Bohemian Governor, May 27, 1892, SÚA, PM (1891–1900) 8/5/20/1/1892/No. 1660; and Telegram from Ambassador in Berlin to Minister of Foreign Affairs, June 2, 1892, Pr 17/6, transcription from code in MTVS, Sokol Collection, Box 10, No. 204. A. Hajn and Antonín Cízek were two of the progressive students on this trip. Police Report, June 2, 1892, SÚA, PM (1891–1900) 8/5/20/1/1892/No. 6299. An account of this trip is “Výprava sokolská do Nancy,” Sokol, Vol. 18 (1892), 159–76. Quoted in “Výprava do Nancy,” 164.

Notes 219 65. Quoted in Kohn, Pan-Slavism, 187. 66. Quoted in Horská, “Praha-Paríz,” 108. 67. Police Report, June 15, 1892, SÚA, PM (1891–1900) 8/5/20/1/1892/No. 6858; and Reznícek, Podlipný, 93. On disbanding the COS, see in SÚA, PM (1891–1900) 8/5/20/1: Taaffe to Bohemian Governor, June 16, 1892, Nos 2211 and 2285; and July 31, 1892, No. 2770; and Bohemian Governor to Taaffe, June 20, 1892, No. 6915. 68. Police Report, June 14, 1892, ibid., No. 6855. 69. Circular from Office of Bohemian Governor to Provincial Captains, August 30, 1894, ibid., No. 9385. 70. The COS attended a gymnastic festival in Lyons in 1894. Regarding this trip, see Austro-Hungarian Ambassador in Paris to Foreign Minister, May 12, 1894, No. 1041/JB; and May 22, 2893, No. 1121/JB, transcriptions in MTVS, Sokol Collection, Box 10, No. 204. 71. Karel Vanícek, “Druhý slet všesokolský a význam jeho,” Sokol, Vol. 17 (1891), 159. 72. Jandásek and Pelikán, Strucné dejiny Sokolstva, 28. A biography is Karel Vanícek, sokolský písmák (Prague: Ceskoslovenský obec sokolská, 1931). His writings are collected in Karel Vanícek, Sokolské epištoly, 4th edn (Prague: Springer, 1923). See also Karel Vanícek, Ze vzpomínek sokolského písmáka: výnatky ze zápisku bratra Karla Vanícka, ed. Milada Malá (Prague: Ceskoslovenská obec sokolská, 1927). His papers, including much of his extensive correspondence, are in MTVS, Sokol Collection, Box 144; and MTVS, Karel Vanícek Papers. 73. Karel Vanícek, Sokolstvo, jeho smer a cíl (Prague, Nákl. Zábavního výboru telocvicné jednoty Sokola prazského, 1899), 17. See also Karel Vanícek, “Sokol jaký má býti,” Rádce sokolský, 149–54. 74. Karel Hlavácek, “Dejiny Sokolství,” Sokol, Vol. 23 (1897), 83. 75. Václav Kukan, “Sokolstvo v království Ceském roku 1895,” Sokol, Vol. 22 (1896), 276. 76. Josef E. Scheiner, “K resoluci,” Sokol, Vol. 21 (1895), 340. On Volksturnen, see Neuendorff, Geschichte der Leibesübungen, Vol. 4, 505–9. See also A. Ocenášek, “Rozvoj telocvicné veci pod vedením Ceské Obce Sokolské,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 13 (1909), 183–4. 77. Quoted in “Druhý slet všesokolský,” 188. For the debate about competitions, see “Závody,” Borec: Casopis venovaný zájmum sokolským [hereafter: Borec] (1894), 147–50; “Závody,” Sokol, Vol. 21 (1895), 291–2; and “Zrušení závody,” Borec (1894), 97–8. 78. Kareis, comp., Statistický výpis, 58. An overview of this activity is Jitka Beranová, “Sokolské kulturne osvetová cinnost,” Sokol, jeho vznik, vývoj a význam, 62–5. 79. Kukan, “Sokolstvo roku 1895,” 304–5. 80. Scheiner, Dejiny Sokolstva, 114. 81. As programs of this sort expanded, the COS established that the term “adolescent” (dorost) should designate youth between the ages of 14 and 18, with younger boys designated as “schoolboys” (záci) or “boys” (hoši). 82. Nolte, “Every Czech a Sokol!” 87–9. 83. Kareis, comp., Statistický výpis, 16–17; and Kukan, “Sokolstvo roku 1895,” 275.

220

Notes

84. “Besídka sokolská,” Sokol, Vol. 21 (1895), 40. 85. D.O. Mašin, “Pérem sokolím,” Sokol, Vol. 17 (1891), 239. 86. Edvard Lederer, “Nekolik myšlenek o zevní náprave v Sokolstvu,” Sokol, Vol. 20 (1894), 121–2, 151–3. Responses to this article are ibid., 178–9, 190–1, and 215. 87. Stanislav Broucek, “Národopisná výstava ceskoslovanská a ceská spolecnost,” in Stanislav Broucek et al., Mýtus ceského národa aneb Národopisná výstava ceskoslovanská 1895 (Prague: Littera Bohemica, 1996), 7–30. See also in this volume: Irena Štepánová, “Kalendárium Národopisné výstavy,” 31–81; and Jan Pargac, “Slavnosti, rituály and obceje jako zrcadlo národní kultury,” 82–122. An overview of the exhibition in English is in Sayer, Coasts of Bohemia, 124–7. 88. Accounts of the Slet are III. slet všesokolský porádaný Ceskou obcí sokolskou ve dnech 29. cervna–1. cervence 1895 (Prague: Ceská obec sokolská, n.d. [1896]); and “III. slet všesokolský,” Sokol, Vol. 21 (1895), 220–1, 240–4, 267–72, 283–9, and 299–300. 89. Three Poles attended the Slet unofficially. One source argues that foreign representation was low because of fears that the Ethnographic Exhibition would be closed due to the state of emergency in Prague. Zlata Kozáková, Sokolské slety, 1882–1948 (Prague: Orbis, 1994), 11. 90. One historian claims that Moravian participation in this Slet showed the decline of Moravian separatism. Jirí Pernes, Pod Moravskou orlicí aneb Dejiny Moravanství (Brno: Barrister and Principal, 1996), 126. 91. The Congress is chronicled in “Valný sjezd Ceské obce sokolské,” Sokol, Vol. 21 (1895), 327–8. Materials about it are in SÚA, C.O.S. Collection, Box 1. See also Police Report, Sept. 30, 1895, SÚA, Presidiální registratura policejního reditelství [Office of the Police Director, hereafter: PP] (1893–99) V/39/4/1895/No. 23416. Membership statistics for 1895 are in Kukan, “Sokolstvo roku 1895,” 239–40. 92. “Valný sjezd C.O.S.” (1895), 237. 93. Scheiner, “K resoluci,” 372. 94. There were 10,865 apprentices enrolled in 443 clubs in 1905. “Ruzné,” Sokol, Vol. 34 (1908), 56. The program is discussed in A.V. Prágr, “Výchova dorostu,” Rádce sokolský, 155–9; František Mašek, “O výchove remeslného dorostu v jednotách sokolských,” Sokol, Vol. 23 (1897), 247–9; and A. Šebánek, “O významu sokolského dorostu,” Sokol, Vol. 35 (1909), 228– 30, and 271–4. 95. Rádce sokolský (Prague: Ceská obec sokolská, 1897). 96. A survey of the work of this committee is “Vzdelávací cinnost,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 13 (1909), 190–2. 97. “Valný sjezd C.O.S.” (1895), 328. 98. The constitution of the Federation is in Rádce sokolský, 190–4. Its records, including minutes of its executive council, are in MTVS, Sokol Collection, Box 53. 99. Kozík, “Do prvého petadvatcetíletí,” 157. 100. Bartonícek, “Z dejin,” Sokol, Vol. 28 (1902), 157. 101. Kaizl, comp., Statistický výkaz, 3–6. 102. Václav Bartonícek, “O významu IV. sletu všesokolského pro naší Moravu,” Sokol, Vol. 27 (1901), 19–20.

Notes 221 103. The full title of the new journal was Vestník sokolský: List svazu ceskslovanského Sokolstva. 104. “Nekolik poznámek ku predešlému clánku ‘Uvazujme’,” Borec, Vol. 2 (1895), 89–91. 105. Karel Vanícek, “Za III. sletem všesokolským,” III. slet všesokolský, 106.

8 Gymnastics in a New Key: the Sokol in the Maelstrom of Modern Politics 1. “Politics in a New Key: an Austrian Trio” in Carl E. Schorske, Fin-de-Siècle Vienna: Politics and Culture (New York: Vintage Books, 1981), 116–80. 2. On the “new tone” of political rhetoric of this party, see Theodore Mills Kelly, “Taking it to the Streets: Czech National Socialists in 1908,” Austrian History Yearbook, Vol. 29 (1988), 93–112. I want to thank Mills Kelly for sharing his insights about the National Socialist Party with me. 3. Winters, “Kramár, Kaizl and the Young Czech Party,” 283. 4. Podlipný was chairman of the Národní rada from 1909 to 1914. Materials on his tenure are in AHMP, Podlipný Papers, Box 23. 5. Václav Kukan, Ceskému lidu, pamphlet composed for Sokol Day, July 22, 1900, in SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Box 22. 6. On the club in Duchcov, see Pametní list ku slavnosti odhalení praporu Sokol Rudohorského v Duchcove in SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Box 96. 7. Examples of such appeals are in ibid., Box 95. Seeking to prevent confrontations between Czechs and Germans in border areas, Habsburg authorities banned an outing of Sokol clubs to the Bohemian German city of Prachatice in 1896, prompting two interpellations in the Imperial Parliament, and also limited a Sokol festival in Teplitz. See, in SÚA, PM (1881–90) 8/5/20/1: “Interpellation of Minister-President by G. Eim and Colleagues,” April 21, 1896; Report from Provincial Captain in Prachatice, May 13, 1896, No. 181; Minister-President Badeni to Bohemian Governor, June 2, 1896, No. 3615; February 19, 1897, No. 6142; May 6, 1897, No. 2731; and May 11, 1896, No. 2958. 8. There were 1569 members in these clubs in 1895. Václav Kukan, “Sokolské jednoty v území ponemceném,” Sokol, Vol. 22 (1896), 195. 9. Václav Kukan, Sokolstvo a jeho cinnost menšinová (Prague: Ceskoslovenská obec sokolská, 1923), 15. 10. “Na podporu sokolské a národní veci v krajinách ohrozených,” Sokol, Vol. 23 (1897), 19. 11. Material on these efforts is in SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Box 96. 12. Václav Kukan, “Sokolské jednoty v území ohrozeném r. 1899,” Sokol, Vol. 26 (1900), 208. The history of this committee is chronicled in “Menšinová práce,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 13 (1909), 193–4. 13. [Emphasis added]. “Sokolstvo v roce 1895,” III. slet všesokolský, 7. 14. Among the mostly short news items on language purification in the Sokol press are “Ruzné zprávy,” Sokol, Vol. 17 (1891), 98; “Ruzné,” ibid., Vol. 20 (1894), 52 and 146. See also Karel Vanícek, “Hatmatilka,” ibid., Vol. 29 (1903), 223–5. 15. Many of Kukan’s articles and speeches are in MTVS, Václav Kukan Papers.

222

Notes

16. Václav Kukan, “K ociste v našich radách,” Sokol, Vol. 22 (1896), 37–40, 66– 8, 97–8. The quotes which follow are from this article. 17. Kukan’s article led to polemics with the journal Cas, the organ of Masaryk’s Realist Party. See letter to the editor in ibid., 118. 18. Václav Kukan, “Na pravou cestu,” Sokol, Vol. 23 (1897), 3–7, 29–34. The quotes which follow are from this article. 19. Václav Kukan, “Sokolstvo v zápasu za ocistu národní,” Sokol, Vol. 24 (1898), 57–62. The quotes which follow are from this article. 20. Václav Kukan, Výchova lidu a Sokolstvo (Prague: Grégr, 1898). See also Václav Kukan, “Spolkový zivot a Sokolstvo,” Sokol, Vol. 24 (1898), 5–6. Criticism of Kukan’s position on veterans’ clubs is in “Nechtejí rozumeti,” Borec, Vol. 5 (1898), 18–19. 21. Vanícek eventually resumed his membership in the organization. Information on this problem is in Vanícek, sokolský pismák, 59–60. See also an informational flyer from the Smíchov Sokol, dated 1901, in SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Box 29. 22. Miroslav Tyrš, “Rec o verejném cvicení Sokola prazského dne 2. kvetna 1869,” Úvahy a reci (1919), 29. 23. Vanícek, sokolský pismák, 73. The COS instituted a membership oath only in 1919. 24. “VII. poslání predsednictva Ceské obce sokolské,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 2 (1898), 4–6; and Resolutions of the COS Executive Council, November 14, 1897 and November 13, 1898, quoted in “Pokyny predsednictva COS” ibid., Vol. 6 (1902), 473. 25. “Z cerné knihy sokolské,” Sokol, Vol. 24 (1898), 205–6; and “Ruzné,” Sokol, Vol. 26 (1900), 42. 26. Report from Provincial Captain in Jicín, July 1894, SÚA, PM (1891–1900) 8/ 2/20/1/1894/ No. 98. 27. Václav Kukan, “Clenský rád pro sokolské jednoty,” Borec, Vol. 6 (1900), 178. 28. Letter from V. Ladislav, Vestník sokolský, Vol. 5 (1901), 37. 29. Dr. Kaplan, “Sokolstvo a snahy sociální,” Sokol, Vol. 21 (1895), 23–4. 30. “Besídka,”, ibid., 77–8. The first workers’ gymnastic club was founded in Leipzig as an affiliate of a workers’ society in 1850, and the Arbeiter Turn- und Sportverband was created in 1893 after the antisocialist laws in Germany were lifted. See Hans-Joachim Teichler, “Arbeitersport als soziales und politisches Phänomen in wilhelminischen Klassenstaat,” in Geschichte der Leibesübungen, Vol. 3, No. 1, 443–84; and Horst Ueberhorst, Frisch, frei, stark und treu: die Arbeitersportbewegung in Deutschland 1893–1933 (Düsseldorf: Droste, 1973). 31. J. Kren, “Sociální význam telocviku,” Sokol, Vol. 23 (1897), 59–62. 32. “Sociální demokracie a Sokolstvo,” Borec, Vol. 3 (1896), 105–6. A similar point is in Karel Hlavácek, “Sokolství jako hnutí sociální,” Sokol, Vol. 23 (1897), 225–7. 33. “Bdeme!” Sokol, Vol. 22 (1896), 195. The quotes which follow are from this article. 34. “Sokolstvo a Delnická akademie,” Borec, Vol. 4 (1897), 41–4. The first Arbeiterturnverein in the Bohemian Crownlands was founded by German workers in 1889 in northern Bohemia. Some of these German clubs had spawned Czech affiliates before the DTJ was founded, but they were so little

Notes 223

35. 36.

37.

38.

39.

40. 41. 42.

43. 44. 45. 46.

47.

known that Czech Social Democratic leaders only found out about them when they were gathering statistics on the movement in 1903. “První pocátky Delnických telocvicných jednot ceskoslovanských na Morave,” Telocvicný ruch, Vol. 10 (1914), 145–6; František Mrázek, “Z prvopocátku delnického hnutí telocvicného,” Telocvicný ruch (1931), 51–2; R. Silaba, Tricet let Delnické telovýchovy: K výrocí 25letého trvání Svazu Delnických telocvicných jednot ceskoslovenských (Prague: Svaz D.T.J.C., 1928), 13–14; Jaroslav Marek, “Pocátky delnické telovýchovy v našich zemích,” Teorie a praxe telesné výchovy, Vol. 40 (1982), 451–5; and Nolte, “Politics on the Parallel Bars,” 268–9. Quoted in Silaba, Tricet let Delnické telovýchovy, 3. See Karel Heller, “Sociální demokracie a Sokolstvo,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 16 (1912), 782; Havlícek, Postavení Sokolstva, 35–6; and Karel Vanícek, “Záškodníci,” Sokol, Vol. 36 (1910), 61. Part of a resolution passed at the 1910 COS Congress declared that the Sokol had never engaged in widespread expulsions of socialists. The DTJ Union, on the other hand, officially declared in 1919 that the DTJ had been founded in response to mass expulsions of socialists from Sokol clubs. “V. valný sjezd Ceské obce sokolské,” Sokol, Vol. 36 (1910), 286; and Vilém Mucha, Dejiny delnické telovýchovy v Ceskoslovensku, 2nd edn (Prague: Státní telovýchovné nakladatelství, 1955), 55. In 1904, 23 of the 31 clubs were in Bohemia, 4 in Vienna, and the remaining 4 in Moravia. Total membership was 1823 of which 747 were “active,” i.e. enrolled in the training program. In 1913, out of 16,821 members, 11,367 were active. “Statistický prehled ‘Delnických telocvicných jednot ceskoslovanských’ za rok 1904,” Telocvicný ruch, Vol. 1 (1905), 154–5; and “Prekvapující císlice statistické,” ibid., Vol. 10 (1914), 162. “Miroslav Tyrš: Nástin zivotopisný,” Télocvicný ruch, Vol. 1 (1905), 6–8; and “Sokolové a my,” ibid., 17–20. See also Jaroslav Marek, “Z boju o Tyršuv odkaz,” Teorie a praxe telesné výchovy, Vol. 30 (1982), 130–1. “Sjezd ‘Delnických telocvicných jednot’ 15. a 16. srpna 1903 v Praze,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 7 (1903), 459–62. The DTJ never put on an event comparable to a Slet in the prewar years. “Slovo úvodní,” Telocvicný ruch: Orgán Svazu Delnických telocvicných jednot ceskoslovanských [hereafter: Telocvicný ruch], Vol. 1 (1905), 1. “K valnému sjezdu COS,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 1 (1897), 110–11. “Valný sjezd COS,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 1 (1897), 133–43. The quotes which follow are from this article. See also Police Report, April 19, 1897, PP (1893–1898) V/39/4/1897/No. 6616. “Mimorádný valný sjezd COS,” Borec, Vol. 4 (1897), 33–6. Kukan, Výchova lidu, 19 and 31; and Karel Pippich, “Nekolik slov o tech, co stojí mimo nás,” Sokol, Vol. 15 (1899), 4–5. Karel Vanícek, “Jak zalozíme jednotu Sokolskou?” Rádce sokolský, 40. “Valný sjezd COS,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 2 (1898), 145–56. Excluding representatives elected by the estate owners’ curia, there were 72 Sokol members representing Bohemian constituencies in the Parliament in Vienna, as opposed to 38 who were not Sokol members. “Poslanci-Sokolové,” Sokol, Vol. 16 (1900), 165–6. See also “Zastoupení Sokolstva v ruzných korporacích verejných,” Véstník sokolský, Vol. 4 (1900), 273–4. Milan Fucík, “Sokolstvo a organisace ceského národního delnictva,” Sokol, Vol. 23 (1897), 152.

224

Notes

48. “Pomer Sokolstva k jiným sdruzení,” Borec, Vol. 4 (1897), 73–4; and “Národní delnictvo a Sokolstvo,” ibid., Vol. 5 (1898), 98–100. 49. On this issue, see Hillel J. Kieval, The Making of Czech Jewry: National Conflict and Jewish Society in Bohemia, 1870–1918 (New York: Oxford UP, 1988). 50. On Jews in the Sokol, see Letter from Litomyšl Sokol, n.d. [1870s], in SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Box 32; Prehled jednot sokolských 1865, 103; and Report to Provincial Captain of Saaz, April 20, 1896, SÚA, PM (1891–1900) 8/5/20/1/1896. The Moravian Sokol leader, Ctibor Helcelet, was openly hostile toward Jews. Ctibor Helcelet, “Príspevek k dejinám Sokolstva na Morave,” Památník Sokola prazského, 282; Ctibor Helcelet, “Souboj,” ibid., 239–40; and Ctibor Helcelet to Miroslav Tyrš, Sept. 22, 1864, in MTVS, Tyrš Papers, Folder 39. 51. Kukan, Výchova lidu, 28. Other examples of anti-Semitism in the Sokol press are: Václav Kukan, “Vyhod’te nemecko-zidovský škvar!” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 10 (1906), 794–5; “K látce na stejnokroj sokolský,” Sokol, Vol. 7 (1891), 132; Bartonícek, “Z dejin,” (1902), 133; “Sjezd ‘Delnických telocvicných jednot’,” 459–60; “Bdeme!” 195; and “Ruznost,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 1 (1897), 154. 52. Vanícek, sokolský písmák, 178 and 125. See also Vanícek, Ze vzpomínek písmáka, 57. 53. Nolte, “Politics on the Parallel Bars,” 270–1. 54. Frantíšek Mašek, “Volnost, rovnost, bratrství,” Sokol, Vol. 24 (1898), 25–8, 49–51, and 101–5. 55. Out of 1423 lectures reported in this survey, 602 focused on topics concerning the Sokol, while an additional 306 dealt with the Hussite era. Václav Kukan, “Prednášková cinnost ceského Sokolstva r. 1900,” Sokol, Vol. 28 (1902), 35–8 and 61–4. 56. Václav Kukan, “Nekolik pokynu k naší cinnosti vzdelávací,” Sokol, Vol. 26 (1900), 223. Kukan gave more lectures than anyone else in 1900, while Vanícek estimated that he had presented almost 400 lectures over his many years of service to the club. Kukan, “Prednášková cinnost,” 35; and Vanícek, sokolský písmák, 104. 57. The list appeared in Vestník sokolský, Vol. 1 (1897), 35, 48, 71–2, 95–6, 120, and 204. 58. “Zpráva o 6. schuzi výboru Ceské obce sokolské,” ibid., Vol. 4 (1900), 249. 59. “Literatura,” ibid., Vol. 6 (1902), 48. 60. Kukan, Výchova lidu, 90. 61. Karel Vanícek, Citu více! (Prague: Grégr, 1901). 62. For example, his assertion that the remnants of the fifteenth-century Taborites had fled east and formed the basis of the Cossack forces was attacked by the journal Cas, organ of the Realists. Karel Vanícek, “Príklady výcviku a síly telesné u starých Slovanu vubec, Cechu pak zvlášte,” Sokol, Vol. 17 (1891), 30–2; and “Slavná redakce,” ibid., unpaginated addendum. 63. On the antirational revolt, see Schorske, “Politics in a New Key,” 116–20. 64. Vanícek, Citu více, 6–7. 65. Ibid., 10. 66. Ibid., 26. 67. Vanícek, Ze vzpomínek písmáka, 62. 68. “Alkohol duše,” Sokolské epištoly, 146–9.

Notes 225 69. Although he admitted that Sokol Sibrinky at the time of Tyrš and Fügner had featured dancing, he argued that modern dancing was not the same thing, rather was uncontrolled. His essays on these topics are collected in ibid., and include “Ty sklenicko penivá!,” 135–9; “O lásce koupené,” 143–5; “Bankrot duše,” 150–2. 70. “Sporme!” ibid., 153–158. 71. Several of Smiles’s books appeared in the 1897 list of books recommended for Sokol libraries, and he was also recommended in J. Kren, “Výchova našeho lidu a Sokolstvo,” Sokol, Vol. 26 (1900), 169–73 and 199–201. An interesting essay demonstrating the range of his influence is Earl H. Kinmonth, “Nakamura Keiu and Samuel Smiles: a Victorian Confucian and a Confucian Victorian,” American Historical Review, Vol. 85 (1980), 535–56. 72. See “Ku zlidovení telocvik,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 1 (1897), 121; and Josef Klenka, “O zlidovení telocviku,” ibid., 145–8, 157–60, and 169–72. 73. “Valný sjezd COS,” (1897), 143; and A. Ocenášek, “O závodech,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 2 (1898), 109–13. 74. A permanent order of competitions was established in 1906. “Valný sjezd Ceské obce sokolské,” Sokol, Vol. 24 (1898), 127; and Ocenášek, “Rozvoj telocvicné veci,” 184–6. 75. See Josef Klenka, “Hry,” Rádce sokolský, 160–7; and Klenka, “O zlidovení,” 147–8 and 158. 76. V.E. Mourek, “Anglický sport,” Památník Sokola prazského, 323–5. 77. A. Hradil, “Sport a telocvik sokolský,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 4 (1900), 446. See also Jindra Zabka, “Z ruzných rozhovoru (Sport a telocvik sokolský),” ibid., Vol. 9 (1905), 97–8. 78. “Ruzné,” Sokol, Vol. 27 (1901), 237. 79. A.B. Svojsík, “Nové proudy ve výchove anglické (Boy Scouts),” Sokol, Vol. 38 (1912), 19–21; A.B. Svojsík, “Taborení,” ibid., 75; A.B. Svojsík, “Skautismus u zen,” ibid., 291–2; Oldrich Svoboda, “Scouting [sic] a výchova dorostu v Sokole,” ibid., 132–3; and Emanuel Chalupný, Skauting a sokolstvo (Prague: private pub., 1923). See also Jaroslav Šebek et al., Historie ceského skautingu slovem a obrazem (Mlada Boleslav: Šebek-Pospíšil, 1990). 80. “Ruzné,” Sokol, Vol. 22 (1896), 34. 81. Jirí Kössl, Dejiny ceskoslovenského olympijského hnutí (Prague: Olympia, 1977), 7–38. See also Jirí Kössl, “Sokol, sport a olympismus,” Sokol, jeho vznik, vývoj a význam, 75–84; and Jirí Kössl, “Sokol a olympismus,” Sokol v ceské spolecnosti, 160–74. 82. Quoted in Kössl, Dejiny olympijského hnutí, 22. Correspondence between the COS and the Olympic Committee from this period is in SÚA, COS Collection, Box 11. 83. “Vzdelávací cinnost,” 191–2. 84. Karel Vanícek, “Prezila-li se myšlenka Sokolská?” Sokol, Vol. 26 (1900), 75–8, 97–9. 85. Total membership in 1901 was 48,667. Václav Kukan, “Statistika Svazu ceskoslovanského Sokolstva za r. 1901,” Sokol, Vol. 29 (1903), 14. 86. The Slet events are described in IV. slet všesokolský v Praze 1901 ve dnech 28. 29. 30. cerven a 1. cervence, ed. Rudolf Bílek et al. (Prague: Svaz ceskoslovanského Sokolstva, n.d. [1902]); and Alois Kalík, “Ctvrtý slet všesokolský,”

226

87.

88. 89.

90.

91.

92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97.

98.

99. 100.

101.

Notes Sokol, Vol. 27 (1901), 179–99. Materials on the Slet are in SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Box 113. On this reception, see Horská, Praha-1900-Paríz, 16–20; and Horská, “Praha-Paríz,” 117–19. These welcoming ceremonies were repeated at the two Slets which followed. This is the explanation given in IV slet všesokolský, 48; and Novák, “Naše slety,” 18. Transcriptions of 13 reports compiled by the Foreign Ministry on Slavs attending the Slet from outside the empire are in MTVS, Box 10, Folder 204. See also Minister of Interior to Foreign Minister, February 10, 1901, No. 375/4JB, transcription in ibid; and Report from Governor of Carniola to Bohemian Governor, June 26, 1901, in SÚA, PM (1901–10) 8/5/42/4/ 1901/No. Z2588. Sokol clubs founded by émigrés began appearing in Western Europe in the 1890s. Data on these organizations are in F. Viktorin and J. Paul, comps., Sokolstvo v cizine: Dejiny telocvicných jednot sokolských za hranicemi (Munich: Telocvicná jednota “Slovan,” 1902). See also “Za hranicemi,” Sokol, Vol. 11 (1895), 74–5. Police Report, SÚA, PM (1901–10) 8/5/42/4/1901/No. 11910; Police Report, July 4, 1901, ibid., No. 11943; and Minister of Interior to Foreign Minister, July 15, 1901, No. 1732/4JB, transcription in MTVS, Box 10, Folder 204. There were 4216 enrolled in “women’s sections” of Sokol clubs in 1901. Kukan, “Statistika za r. 1901,” 38. See also Nolte, “Every Czech a Sokol!” 91–2. Ocenášek, “Rozvoj telocvicné veci,” 185. J. Kren, “Jsme!” Sokol, Vol. 27 (1901), 265–7, 297–8. Augustin Ocenášek, “Jak dal?” Sokol, Vol. 28 (1902), 241–7. The quotes which follow are from this article. “Stanovy Ceské obce sokolské,” Sokol, Vol. 28 (1901), 77–9. See also Balabán, “Rozvoj COS,” 180–1. J. Scheiner, “Dejinami Sokolstva,” Pátý slet všesokolský, 7; and Václav Bartonícek, “O významu sokolských výprav z království Ceského na druznou Moravu,” Sokol, Vol. 27 (1900), 78–80. The Sokol province of Hana in Moravia held out, only joining the COS in 1906. “Dnešní stav COS,” 195. See also Václav Bartonícek, “O nekterých prekázkách národního probuzení na Morave na ohledem na jednoty sokolské,” Sokol, Vol. 27 (1900), 145–8; Alter Ego (pseud.), “Jedna obec sokolská,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 7 (1903), 87–9, 113–14, 142–4; Jar. Pluhar, “Co nejuzší sloucení se s Moravou,” Sokol, Vol. 29 (1903), 7–8; and Peregrin Fiša, “Jetnotná Obec sokolská,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 7 (1903), 241–3. Garver, Young Czech Party, 123. Tyrš, “O úcelu spolcování,” 86. Accounts of church services connected with Sokol events are in Prehled 1865, 84; Sborník 1868, 96; and in various pamphlets in SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Boxes 29, 31, and 33. The requiem mass the Prague Sokol arranged for Fügner is discussed in Minutes of the Meeting of the Executive Council, November 2, 1866, ibid., Box 5. Tyrš’s funeral is described in “Pohreb Tyrše,” 131. Hlahol, the Czech nationalist singing society, sang a mass at least once a year at this time. Nejedlý, “Dejiny prazského Hlaholu,” 29.

Notes 227 102. Material on the Hus house is in SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Box 39. On the Hussite enthusiasm of the time, see Cornej, Lipanské ozveny, 76–83; “Lipany,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 6 (1902), 278–80; and Karel Vanícek, “Za Husem,” Sokol, Vol. 29 (1903), 145–6. 103. “O vystupování verejném,” Rádce sokolský, 121. These demands appeared in “Ruzné,”, Sokol, Vol. 20 (1894), 220; Vol. 21 (1895), 251; Vol. 22 (1896), 87–8; and Vol. 27 (1901), 236–7; and “O verejném vystupování,” Borec, Vol. 1 (1894), 75. 104. The name “Orel” was officially adopted for these groups in 1909. The driving force behind popularly based clerical organizations of this type was Bishop Eduard Brynych, publisher of the Catholic newpaper, Obnova, whose slogan was “Against their press, our press; against their book, our book; against their club, our club.” Quoted in Prinz, “Die böhmischen Länder,” 123, n. 46. Information on the movement’s origins is in Josef Reznícek, “Vývoj ceskoslovenského Orla,” Zivot, Vol. 11 (1929), 6–10; Tomáš J. Jiroušek, “K vzniku hnutí Orla ceskoslovenského u nás,” Vlast: casopis pro poucení a zábavu, Vol. 46 (1930), 560–3; and Nolte, “Politics on the Parallel Bars,” 268–70. 105. “Budoucnost Orlu,” Telocvicný ruch, Vol. 10 (1912), 262. 106. Orel had 12,068 members that year. Reznícek, “Vývoj Orla,” 9. 107. Catholic gymnastic associations were founded in Belgium in 1892, in France in 1898, in Slovenia in 1906, and in Croatia in 1912. Weber, “Gymnastics and Sports,” 92–3; Jan Tolleneer, “The Dual Meaning of ‘Fatherland’ and Catholic Gymnasts in Belgium, 1892–1914,” Tribal Identities, 94–107; and “Zprávy spolkové,” Sokol, Vol. 32 (1906), 19; and Vol. 38 (1912), 2. 108. These polemics are evident in “A bude nás jako havranu!” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 12 (1908), 572–4; and “Orlové,” ibid., Vol. 13 (1909), 534–41. Orel propagandists used anti-Semitic slurs against the Sokol, as in this selection from a poem, which appeared in a collection of Orel verse, “Grandpa immigrated from Poland/He wore Jewish sidelocks all around/His father was a Jew/His mother was a German/He is a Czech Sokol!” “Genealogie,” in Orlí Fanfáry by Karel Dostál Lutinov (Prostejov: Archa, 1913), 41. 109. [Emphasis in original]. “Letter of Czech Club to Prague Sokol,” February 20, 1902, SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Box 18. 110. Václav Kukan, “Naše Sokolství v pátém desítiletí,” Sokol, Vol. 30 (1904), 50–1 and 73. 111. “I. schuzi výboru COS,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 8 (1904), 571. Among the many articles about this issue in the Sokol press are: Václav Kukan, “Spolecnost prátel vzdelání lidu,” Sokol, Vol. 27 (1901), 24; “Sokolstvo a vojenští vyslouzilci,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 6 (1902), 458–60 and 488–9; Josef Scheiner, “K zálezitosti br. V. Kukane,” Sokol, Vol. 30 (1904), 266–9; and Josef Scheiner, “Sokolstvo a Ústrední sbor vzdelávací,” Sokol, Vol. 31 (1905), 88–9. 112. Havlícek, Postavení Sokolstva, 48–50; and “Vzdelávací cinnost,” 191–2. 113. See “Debácle!” Borec, Vol. 5 (1898), 105–8; “Ješte naposledy k dru. Podlipnému,” Borec, Vol. 6 (1899), 41–2; “Zápis o VII. schuzi výboru COS,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 2 (1898), 45–8; “Zpráva o 45. schuzi predsednictva COS,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 7 (1903), 512; and Reznícek, Podlipný, 116; 114. Podlipný’s speech at the ceremony, along with a defense of his remarks, is in Vestník sokolský, Vol. 7 (1903), 504–5. See also Cynthia Jean Paces,

228

Notes

“Monumental Crusades: Creating, Manipulating, and Destroying Religious Symbols in the Struggle for a Czech National Identity, 1890–1938” (unpub. PhD dissertation, Columbia University, 1998), 55–69; and Cynthia Paces, “Rotating Spheres, Gendered Commemorative Practice at the 1903 Jan Hus Memorial Festival in Prague,” Nationalities Papers, Vol. 28 (2000), 523–5. 115. “Z Moravsko-Slezké Obce Sokolské: Zápis o rádné schuzi výboru M.-S.O.S. konané dne 6. prosince 1903,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 7 (1903), 686–7; and “Zpráva o IV. schuzi výboru Ceské obce sokolské,” ibid., 675–6. See also Police Report, November 23, 1903, PM (1901–10) 8/5/28/13/1903/No. 19039. Material on this issue is in AHMP, Podlipný Papers, Box 24. 116. “Bratrí Sokolové!” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 9 (1905), 667. 117. Josef Scheiner, “V zápasech lidstva: Úvaha novorocní,” Sokol, Vol. 31 (1905), 1–2 and 25–6. The quotes which follow are from this article.

9

“A Weapon in Every Fist!” The Sokol Girds for War 1. Karel Vanícek, “Na tri fronty,” Sokolské epištoly, 30–3. 2. Krízek, “Ceská burzoazní politika a ceská otázka,” 660; and K. Herman, “Slovanství v ceském zivote v dobe nástupu imperialismu,” Slovanství v národním zivote Cechu a Slováku, 304. 3. The Silver Shield competitions had been established by the English gymnastic enthusiast, Eugene Sully, Secretary of the National Physical Recreation Society, to promote interest in gymnastics. On Sokol outings to the West, see Vanícek, “Starosta ve styku slovanském a mezinárodním,” unpaged; Jandásek and Pelikán, Strucné dejiny Sokolstva, 61–2 and 65; Josef Scheiner, “Výprava do Arrasu,” Sokol, Vol. 30 (1904), 168–80; and Josef Scheiner, “Mezinárodní závody a výstava evropských svazu telocvicných a 27. sjezd belgických gymnastu v Antverpách,” Sokol, Vol. 29 (1903), 251–4. 4. There were 2043 foreign guests at the Slet. It is described in Pátý slet všesokolský porádaný v Praze Ceskou obcí sokolskou ve dnech 28.–30. cervna a 1. cervence 1907, ed. Josef Scheiner (Prague: Ceská obec sokolská, n.d. [1908]); and “Pátý slet všesokolský v Praze 1907,” Sokol, Vol. 33 (1907), 181–7, 215–29; Vol. 34 (1908), 31–43. 5. Scheiner to Pacák, March 21, 1907, attached to Confidential Report from Governor’s Office to Chief of Police, SÚA, PP (1900–7) V/58/18/1907/No. 5122. 6. Police Report, November 30, 1906, SÚA, PM (1901–10) 8/5/42/56/1906/ No. 23339. 7. Minister of the Interior to Bohemian Governor, Highly Confidential, March 24, 1907, SÚA, PM (1901–10) 8/5/42/56/1907/No. 2443. The Minister of the Interior repeated this warning in a communication to the Foreign Minister, Highly Confidential, April 12, 1907, No. 777/4, transcription in MTVS, Sokol Collection, Box 10, Folder 204. Habsburg authorities were not the only ones concerned about the Slet, for the Russian Foreign Minister Izvolsky confided his misgivings about it to the Austro-Hungarian Ambassador in St Petersburg. J.F.N. Bradley, “Czech PanSlavism before the First World War,” The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 40, No. 94 (December 1961), 199–200.

Notes 229 8. This boycott, initiated by the Galician Polish Sokol organization, was only reluctantly followed by their conationals in Pozna2, 16 of whom attended the Slet privately. 9. On instructions from Vienna, the Bohemian Governor warned the police “daß es sehr erwünscht wäre, auch rechtzeitig die mögliche Veranstaltungen von Demonstrationen . . . durch die slowakischen Reichstagsabgeordeneten Hodza und Blaho gegen die ungarischen Regierung zu verhindern, zumal solche demonstrationen im Hinblicke auf die noch schwebenden Ausgleichsverhandlungen doppelt missliebig wären.” Bohemian Governor to Prague Police, June 13, 1907, Confidential, SÚA, PP (1900–7) V/58/18/1907/ No. 11631. See also Minister of the Interior to Foreign Minister, May 1907, No. 1179/4, transcription in MTVS, Sokol Collection, Box 10, Folder 204. 10. A lecture Hlinka gave to a Sokol club is featured in “Za tú našu slovencinu . . . ,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 11 (1907), 777. 11. Kren, “Sociální význam telocviku,” 61; and “Zápis o schuzi výboru Ceské Obce Sokolské,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 11 (1907), 740. See also “Pomery na Slovácku,” Borec, Vol. 4 (1897), 78–9. 12. These incidents included a supposedly unprovoked attack on a military officer by Slavic revelers, a shoving match in which a certain Hlawatsch was said to have uttered the words “böhmische Hünde,” and the competitive singing by Czech and German students of “Hej Slované!” and “Wacht am Rhein,” the last of which provoked separate interpellations in the Imperial Parliament by German and Czech representatives. Police Reports, SÚA, PP (1900–7) V/58/18/1907/No. 179 (June 28, 1907), No. 180 (June 29, 1907), and No. 181 (June 30, 1907); and Police Report, July 12, 1907, SÚA, PM (1901–10) 8/5/42/56/1907/No. 16103. 13. There were 55 Serbs from the Kingdom of Serbia, among them 7 members of the Belgrade city council, 74 Serbs from the Habsburg lands, 5 Montenegrins, 422 Slovenes, including 110 women, 800 Croats of which 500 were Sokols in uniform, 5 Slovaks, 9 Hungarians, and 16 Ruthenes. In addition, a delegation of 117 came from Russia, among them many Czech émigrés, along with 188 Bulgarians, 85 French, 24 Belgians, 7 English, among them Eugene Sully and various journalists, 11 from Luxembourg, 2 from French Algeria, and one each from Scotland, Greece, and Spain. Pátý slet všesokolský, 121–43. 14. These unions and their differences are discussed in Nolte, “Our Brothers across the Ocean,” 20–1. 15. American Slovak Lutherans founded the Gymnastic Union of the Slovak Sokol, which existed alongside an organization called the “Greek and Roman Catholic Sokol.” In Hungary, a few Slovak Sokol clubs existed outside Slovakia, including one in Budapest which counted Hodza and other Slovak leaders as members. Milan Götting, “Slováci americtí,” Sokol, Vol. 35 (1909), 204–5; Michael J. Kopanic, “Slovak Catholic Sokol,” Encyclopedia of Ethnicity and Sports in the United States, ed. George B. Kirsch et al. (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 2000), 422–4; Venceslav Havlícek, Sokolstvo, jeho myšlenka, organisace and vývoj (Prague: Ceskoslovenská obec sokolská, 1948), 22–3; and Ján Grexa and Jaromir Perútka, “Der Sokol in der Slowakei,” Die slawische Sokolbewegung, 95–7. See also Zpráva o patnáctileté cinnosti telocvicné jednoty “Sokol” v Budapešti, 1896–1911 (Prague: Budapest Sokol, 1911).

230 16. 17. 18. 19.

20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

25. 26.

27. 28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

Notes Kozáková, Sokolské slety, 16. Quoted in Machácek, “Sokolstvo,” 326. Pátý slet všesokolský, 159. The marching band of the Prague Sokol had provided the accompaniment for this performance. Ludmila Sochorová, “Výstava jako divadlo – a divadlo na výstave,” Mýtus ceského národa, 153–4. Jan Brabec et al., Dejiny ceského divadla (Prague: Academia, 1977), Vol. 3, 374. Quoted in “Pátý slet všesokolský,” Sokol (1908), 35. See note 13 above. Letter of Karel Kramár to Josef Kaizl, July 28, 1890, quoted in Vyšný, Neo-Slavism, 29. A police report listed the various meetings to be held during the Slet and expressed frustration at the inability to monitor all of them. Police Report, June 20, 1907, SÚA, PM (1901–10) 8/5/42/56/1907/No. 14259. Quoted in “V. Sokolkongress in Prag,” SÚA, PP (1900–7) V/58/18/1907. The quotes which follow are from this long police report on Slet gatherings. Hribar led the Ljubljana Sokol since 1879. His role in the Neo-Slav movement is discussed in Gantar-Godina, “Slovenes and Czechs,” 102–4; and Irena Gantar-Godina, Neoslavizem in Slovenci (Ljubljana, Znanstveni inštitut Filozofske facultete, 1994). The remarks made at the dinner in the Slavic Club are quoted in “Pátý slet všesokolský,” Sokol (1908), 39. Of these 6600, only 1700 were in training, one of whom reputedly was Josip Broz, the future Marshal Tito. Kessler, “Sokol in den jugoslawischen Gebieten,” 203; Pestotník, “Sokolstvo slovinské,” 185–8; and “Dodatky k návšteve: Slovinci,” 393–414. See also V. Št’astný, “Národní a osvobozenecké úsilí Cechu a Jihoslovanu v období predválecného imperialismu: Ve znamení tzv. pokrokového hnutí,” Ceši a Jihoslované v minulosti, 532. These statistics are from 1904, when membership in the movement, including 25 clubs founded by émigrés in America, is estimated at 15,000. Kessler, “Sokol in den jugoslawischen Gebieten,” 206. This event is described in “Slet chorvátského Sokolstva v Záhrebe a výprava Sokolstva ceského na slovanský Jih 1906,” Sokol, Vol. 10 (1906), 265–78; and Bohemian Governor to Foreign Minister, November 13, 1906, No. 3115/ 4, transcription in MTVS, Sokol Collection, Box 10, Folder 204. A government dispatch mentions “blutige Rauferei” when Slav Sokols returning home after the Slet came into contact with Italian and Hungarian locals. Minister of the Interior to Minister of Foreign Affairs, Highly Confidential, April 12, 1907, No. 777/4, transcription in ibid. Tyrš had composed a draft for an all-Slav Sokol union in 1871, the Ljubljana Sokol had entered into discussions with Croat and Czech club leaders about it in 1889, and the Czech poet, Josef Sládek, had proposed it in an 1893 article. “Zprávy slovanské – Ze Slovinska,” Sokol, Vol. 15 (1889), 22; and Josef Sládek, “O vzájemnosti slovanského Sokolstva,” Sokol, Vol. 19 (1893), 1–2. “Stanovy svazu slovanského Sokolstva,” Sokol, Vol. 31 (1905), 147–50; “Svaz Sokolstva slovanského,” ibid., 167; and Josef Scheiner, “K nové mete,” ibid., 145. See also Minutes of the Executive Council, Federation of Czechoslav Sokols, February 1, 1905, in MTVS, Sokol Collection, Box 53.

Notes 231 33. Among others, the Czech painter, Josef Cermák, had cultivated this image of the Montenegrins in his paintings from the 1870s. Nolte, “Art in the Service of the Nation,” 58. 34. The dispatch continued: Nach dem Bankette haben die Sokolisten gegen Mitternacht den Rückmarsch nach Cattara angetreten. Zu dem Entschlüße, entgegen den ursprünglichen Programme, keine weitere Nacht in Cetinje zu verbringen, hat, wie ich einer Äusserung des Praesidenten entnehmen konnte, einesteils die einen längeren Marsch bei Tage erschwerende Hitze, zum größeren Teil jedoch das in den Kaserneräumen vorfindliche massenhafte Ungeziefer, welches die ermüdeten Sokolisten kein Auge schließen ließ, beigetragen.

35. 36.

37. 38. 39. 40.

41. 42.

43.

44.

Austro-Hungarian Ambassador in Cetinje to Foreign Minister, September 10, 1906, No. 2564/4; and September 11, 1906, No. 2339/4; transcriptions in MTVS, Sokol Collection, Box 10, Folder 204. See also Bohemian Governor to Foreign Minister, November 13, 1906, No. 3115/4, transcription in ibid. “Zprávy úrední,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 14 (1910), 566; and “Zápis o schuzi výboru Ceské Obce Sokolské,” ibid., 728–9. “Schuze výboru Svazu slovanského Sokolstva konaná dne 2. února r. 1908 v Vídni,” Sokol, Vol. 34 (1908), 60–3; and Minutes of Executive Council, Federation of Slavic Sokols, February 2, 1908, MTVS, Sokol Collection, Box 53. A copy of the revised constitution, with the changes regarding language, is in MTVS, Sokol Collection, Box 53. Quoted in “Sokolstvo na sjezdu slovanském,” Sokol, Vol. 34 (1908), 173. Quoted in ibid., 197. The five areas were culture, economy, tourism, journalism, and the Sokol. The deliberations of this gathering are discussed in Vyšný, Neo-Slavism, 91–124. See also Jan Hájek, “Novoslovanský sjezd a spolecenské akce v Praze v léte roku 1908,” Prazské slavnosti a velké výstavy, 283–303. Manochyn, “Tyrš a Rusové,” 134. The first Czech gymnast to go to Russia was Julius Grumlík, a Prague Sokol Trainer who answered a request from the Czech director of a Gymnasium in Tiflis in 1889. A philologist by training, he also taught academic courses, as did most of the Czech gymnasts who followed him. Rocek, “K nekterým otázkám,” 42–3; Nikolaj Manochyn, “Ruské Sokolstvo,” Památník sletu 1912, 403; and Vladimír Belfín, “K pusobení sokolských telocvikáru v carském Rusku,” Teorie a praxe telesné výchovy a sportu, Vol. 15 (1967), 600–1. These problems are described in articles written by a Czech gymnast in Russia. F.K. Šnepp, “Ruská spolecnost a telocvik,” Sokol, Vol. 30 (1904), 191–3; and F.K. Šnepp, “K sokolské otázce na Rusi,” ibid., Vol. 31 (1905), 212–13. See also Antonín Rocek, “Sokol a Rusko do bolševické revoluce v roce 1917,” Sokol v ceské spolecnosti, 185–203. F.K. Šnepp, “Náš úkol, smer a cíl,” Sokol, Vol. 32 (1906), 88; Scheiner, “Sokolstvo,” 720; and “Co bylo v roce 1910?” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 14 (1910), 651. Belfín has documented 203 Czech gymnastic teachers in Russia in

232

45.

46.

47.

48. 49.

50.

51. 52.

53. 54. 55. 56.

57. 58. 59. 60.

61. 62.

Notes 1914, but feels there were most likely more. Belfín, “K pusobení sokolských telocvikáru,” 600. Franta Erben, “Všeruská olympiáda a Slet sokolstva jihozápadního kraje v Kijeve,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 17 (1913), 679. In 1910, Erben helped found the Russian Sokol Union, becoming its nácelník. The 20 percent estimate is in Belfín, “K pusobení sokolských telocvikáru,” 602. The Czech claim that Poles willingly joined Czech Sokol clubs to advance socially echoed the German explanation for why Czechs enrolled their children in German schools. J. Kavalír, “Z slazkiej ziemi,” Sokol, Vol. 36 (1910), 229–32; J. Kavalír, “Z slazkiej ziemi,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 14 (1910), 512–14; František Zelený, “Z vévodství slezského,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 15 (1911), 689–91; and Meeting of Board of Directors, Federation of Slavic Sokols, June 9, 1908, in MTVS, Sokol Collection, Box 53. Information on these clubs is in “Zprávy spolkové – Rusini,” Sokol, Vol. 28 (1902), 233; and Jindra Duchonová, “Ukrajinské sokolstvo,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 17 (1913), 264–5. These two events are described in “Sic!” Sokol, Vol. 36 (1910), 165–7; and “Sokil-Sic,” ibid., Vol. 15 (1911), 540–1, 570–2, 598–9. “Dodatky k návšteve slovanských hostí,” Památník sletu 1912, 414. One source claims that there were “more than 600” Sokil and Sic clubs in 1911, with a total membership of over 100,000, while another asserts that there were 866 Sokil clubs in 1912, 279 of which also had “Sic” in their names. “Sokil-Sic,” 541; and Duchonová, “Ukrajinské sokolstvo,” 265. “Svaz Sokolstva slovanského,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 14 (1910), 105–7. Minutes of this meeting and of the meetings of the all-Czech “narrower Board” are in MTVS, Sokol Collection, Box 53. The Galician Sokol organization had 24,688 members in 1910. Scheiner, “Sokolstvo,” 717. Information on this club is in Václav Zácek and Ruzena Havránková, “Srbové a Ceši v dobe rešení ‘východní krize’,” Ceši a Jihoslované v minulosti, 396; Scheiner, “Sokolstvo,” 718; and Kessler, “Sokol in den jugoslawischen Gebieten,” 209–10. On the Czech Trainer, see “Ruzné,” Sokol, Vol. 20 (1894), 23. “Pátý slet všesokolský,” Sokol (1907), 224. See “Slavnost svecení praporu ‘Dušana silného’ a verejné cvicení v Belehrade srbském ve dnech 13. a 14. cervna t.r.,” Sokol, Vol. 23 (1897), 191. Hofman took the Serbian name Miroslav Vojinovi1. Kessler, “Sokol in den jugoslawischen Gebieten,” 210. K. Miffek, “Sokolství v Srbsku,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 17 (1913), 677. See also “Ceští-Sokolové do Srbsku,” Sokol, Vol. 38 (1912), 96; and “Dodatky k návšteve: Srby,” Památník sletu 1912, 398. Vanícek, “Starosta ve styku slovanském a mezinárodním,” unpaged. Kessler, “Sokol in den jugoslawischen Gebieten,” 210. See also Laza Popovi1, “Srbská sokolská zupa Fruškogorská,” Sokol, Vol. 38 (1912), 193–4. Vyšný, Neo-Slavism, 209; and Kohn, Pan-Slavism, 196. The five languages were Czech, Slovene, Serbo-Croatian, Polish, and Bulgarian. “Výbor Svazu slovanského Sokolstva v Sofii,” Sokol, Vol. 36 (1910), 203–6. Quoted in ibid., 206. “Za Svazu Slovanského Sokolstva,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 15 (1911), 528–30.

Notes 233 63. On these early clubs, see Losan Mitev, “Die Entwicklung der Turngesellschaften ‘Sokol’ und ‘Junak’ in Bulgarien bis zum Jahr 1914,” Die slawische Sokolbewegung, 175–7; Vašek Roubal, “Balkánský Sokol,” Památník Sokola prazského, 284–6; and “Telocvicno-strelecké spolky ve Východním Bulharsku,” ibid., 286–7. 64. Scheiner, “Sokolstvo,” 719. One source claims that the Junak Union had 4400 members in 1910, and another source that there were 56 clubs with 9000 members in 1912. “Svaz Sokolstva slovanského,” Vestník sokolský (1910), 106; and Mitev, “Die Entwicklung der Turngesellschaften in Bulgarien,” 178. See also “Dodatky k návšteve: Bulhari,” Památník sletu 1912, 413–14. 65. It was estimated in 1910 that if all the Slavic Sokol Unions were to join the Federation, total membership would be 122,807. “Svaz Sokolstva slovanského,” Vestník sokolský (1910), 107. 66. On the first day of the Congress 744 representatives attended. The resolutions and a summary of the deliberations are in “V. valný sjezd C.O.S.,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 14 (1910), 585–626. 67. On this trip, see Josef Scheiner, Sokolská výprava do Ameriky r. 1909 (Prague: Grégr, 1910); and Nolte, “Our Brothers across the Ocean,” 29–30. 68. “V. valný sjezd C.O.S.,” 599. 69. Ibid., 598. 70. Ibid., 600. 71. Ibid., 602. The reference to “the complete political independence of the Czech nation” was inserted at the insistence of Antonín Kalina, a Sokol activist who was a leader of the State Rights Progressive Party, the only Czech political party which advocated independence for the Czech area. Marek Waic, “Sokolské hnutí od vzniku Ceské obce sokolské do konce první svetové války,” Sokol v ceské spolecnosti, 69. 72. “Zásadní usnesení C.O.S. (Výnatky ze zápisu schuzi),” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 6 (1902), 615. 73. Karel Vanícek, “Záškodníci,” Sokol, Vol. 36 (1910), 62. 74. “V. valný sjezd C.O.S.,” 625. The COS Board had taken a similar stance a few months before the Congress. See “Výpis ze schuze predsednictva ‘Ceské Obce Sokolské’,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 14 (1910), 424. 75. Some of these incidents are recounted in “Ruzné,” Sokol, Vol. 26 (1900), 214; ibid., Vol. 31 (1905), 143; and “Ruznosti,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 7 (1903), 226. The COS was concerned enough to undertake a confidential poll of club leaders in 1907 and 1908 on problems with clericalism. The results are in SÚA, C.O.S. Collection, Box 16. See also “Zprávy úrední: Muze-li býti knez clenem sokolské jednoty – Usnesení predsednictva z 5. brezna 1909,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 13 (1909), 153–4. Reactions to this resolution are in ibid., 286–7; and “Cerni ‘Orli’,” Telocvicny ruch, Vol. 5 (1909), 354–6. 76. Scheiner, who had left the Roman Catholic Church and declared himself without denomination, was a founding member of a cremation society. Although he gave a speech at the 1907 conference of the Free Thought Society in Prague, he declared under interrogation during World War I that he had never been a member of that group. See J.E. Scheiner, “Vlastenectví a Volná Myšlenka,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 11 (1907), 576–8; and Kunz, Sokol a Rakousko, 44. Karel Vanícek, who was prone to quoting scripture, was also a member of the cremation society. After World

234

77. 78. 79. 80. 81.

82. 83. 84. 85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

Notes War I, he left the Roman Catholic Church to join the new Czechoslovak Church, which had been founded on Hussite principles. Vanícek, sokolský písmák, 169 and 175. “V. valný sjezd C.O.S.,” 607. Ibid., 606. Ibid., 604. František Kytler, “Valné sjezdy C.O.S.,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 14 (1910), 644. In 1910, male gymnasts in training were 23 percent of the total male membership, while female gymnasts in training comprised 48 percent of the total female membership. Because of their regular participation in club activities, gymnasts in training were the most influential sector of the membership. “Ze statistiky Ceské Obce Sokolské za rok 1910,” Sokol, Vol. 36 (1910), 254; and Karel Vanícek, “Výstava,” Památník sletu 1912, 75–6. These issues are explored in Nolte, “Every Czech a Sokol!” 87–100. “V. valný sjezd C.O.S.,” 610. Josef Scheiner, “Mé credo sokolské,” Sokol, Vol. 37 (1911), 14. Jan Pelikán, Nábozenství, církev, klerikalismus, Orel a Sokol (Prague: Ceskoslovenská obec sokolská, 1925), 9. See also Karel Vanícek, “Klerikalismus,” Sokolské epištoly, 235–9; and Havlícek, Postavení Sokolstva, 22–5. F. Ebel, “K valnému sjezdu C.O.S.,” Telocvicný ruch, Vol. 6 (1910), 373–80; and Vol. 7 (1911), 37–41. See also F.J. Chaloupecký, “Klerikalism a Sokolstvo,” ibid., Vol. 9 (1913), 129–31. One Sokol writer hoped that this change would lead to a merger of the DTJ and the Sokol, a notion quickly dismissed by DTJ leaders. Jan Hiller, “Sociální demokraté – autonomisté a sokolské jednoty,” Sokol, Vol. 38 (1912), 34–5; and “Sokol – Delnický Sokol – Delnické telocvicné jednoty,” Telocvicný ruch, Vol. 8 (1912), 97–9. Examples are in Télocvicný ruch, Vol. 6 (1910), 180–2; Vol. 7 (1911), 285; Vol. 8 (1912), 183–4; and Vol. 9 (1913), 349–50. See also Police Report, May 25, 1914, SÚA, PM (1911–20) 8/5/43/22/1914/No. 12951. Klofác, quoted in Ladislav Štoll, Politický smysl sokolství (Prague: Karel Borecký, 1932), 52. The breakdown of the political alliance between the Young Czech Party and the National Socialists following revelations that a National Socialist leader named Karel Šviha was a Habsburg agent strained relations with the Sokol as well. In some towns, clubs split into two rival groups, one Young Czech and the other National Socialist. Mucha, Dejiny delnické telovýchovy, 77. “Z kroniky posledních dnu,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 18 (1914), 57–61. Of the Sokol members enrolled in the club’s training program, 55.8 percent listed their occupation as “worker” in a 1910 survey. Vanícek, “Výstava,” 80–1. Of the 1156 clubs in 1912, 1091 were Sokol clubs and 65 were independent women’s sections. Total adult membership that year was 119,183, of which 20,698 were women. In addition, there were 13,554 males and 2735 females between the ages of 14 and 18 enrolled in Sokol programs, along with 18,661 boys and 14,127 girls under age 14. “Statistika Ceské obce sokolské za rok 1912,” Sokol, Vol. 40 (1914), 219. Transcriptions of 15 reports from various embassies on the participation of Slavic groups in the Slet, dated from October 21, 1911 to June 21, 1912, are bound together as No. 25/4 in MTVS, Sokol Collection, Box 10, Folder 204.

Notes 235 93. Quoted in Fikar, Strucné dejiny Sokolstva, 10. 94. The Sokol was attacked for doing this in the DTJ club paper. F. Ebel, “Vládní subvence na sokolský slet,” Telocvicný ruch, Vol. 7 (1911), 353–5. See also Kunz, Sokol a Rakousko, 18–20. 95. Information on the Slet is in Památník sletu slovanského Sokolstva roku 1912 v Praze, ed. A. Ocenášek et al. (Prague: Ceskoslovenská obec sokolská, n.d. [1919]). 96. Some sources claim that Francis Joseph himself wished to attend, but was forestalled by Scheiner who argued that the organization could not guarantee his safety. Krejcí, Scheiner, 22; and Kunz, Sokol a Rakousko, 18–19. 97. The Ruthenes were divided into two groups, those from Sokil-Bat’ko and others from a pro-Russian club that considered itself part of the Russian delegation. 98. Kramár responded, “Yes, with proper weapons they would count in a European war.” Henry Wickham Steed, Though Thirty Years, 1892–1922: a Personal Narrative (Garden City: Doubleday, 1924), Vol. 1, 359. A Russian guest at the Slet, General V.D. Kuzmin-Karavayev, wrote of it afterward, “If all that the Sokols lack are weapons, all that the Czechs lack is national independence.” Quoted in Vyšný, Neo-Slavism, 215, n. 11. Similar assessments in the international press are recounted in Prazák, Dr. Miroslav Tyrš, 38–40; and Památník sletu 1912, 379–92. 99. Written by the playwright and Sokol activist, Karel Domorázek, the Marathon play was performed only one other time in 1927 at a celebration in the French city of Toulouse for the Fédération Régionale des Societés de Tire et de Préparation Militaire. 100. Památník sletu 1912, 156. 101. Augustin Ocenášek, “Poslání sletu,” Památník IX. sletu všesokolského, 9. 102. Minutes of Meeting of Board of Directors of the Federation of Slavic Sokols, December 20, 1911, MTVS, Sokol Collection, Box 53. 103. Poslání z Svazu slovanského Sokolstva,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 16 (1912), 345; “Z Svazu slovanského Sokolstva,” ibid., Vol. 17 (1913), 806–7; and Police Report, August 20, 1914, SÚA, PM (1911–20) 8/5/43/25/1914/No. 19706. 104. Rocek, “K nekterým otázkám,” 31. 105. Ocenášek, “Jak dal,” 247.

10

Conclusion

1. Information on the Slet is in Fikar, Strucné dejiny Sokolstva, 20–1; Kunz, Sokol a Rakousko, 20–3; “Slet brnenský,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 18 (1914), 308. The COS lodged a letter of complaint about the behavior of the Brno Germans during the Slet. COS to Minister of Provincial Affairs, July 3, 1914, SÚA, Prague Sokol Collection, Box 27. See also Zdenek Ríha, “Brnenští Nemci o sokolském slete r. 1914,” Domov za války (svedectví úcastníku), ed. Alois Zipek (Prague: Pokrok, 1929–34), Vol. 1, 257–9. 2. Information on this period, including an account of the interrogation of Scheiner by Habsburg authorities, is in Kunz, Sokol a Rakousko, 24–58. See also Krejcí, Scheiner, 24–7, and Marek Waic, “Sokol za války,” Sokol v ceské

236

3.

4.

5.

6. 7.

8. 9. 10. 11.

12.

13.

14.

Notes spolecnosti, 93–9. Specific incidents are recounted in Josef Pech, “Pametní kniha ‘Sokola’ v Belehrade,” Domov za války, Vol. 3, 342–5; and Vanícek, Ze vzpomínek písmáka, 63–73. Thomas Garrigue Masaryk, The Making of a State: Memories and Observations 1914–1918 (New York: Fertig, 1969), 166. See also Kunz, Sokol a Rakousko, 59–120; František Loubal, “‘Diese Sokolisten’,” Domov za války, Vol. 3, 356–8; and the reminiscences of the war in Památník VII. sletu všesokolského v Praze 1920, ed. Jan Hiller (Prague: Ceskoslovenská obec sokolská, 1923), 34–44. As early as October 1914, Masaryk had discussed using the Sokol as a home guard in case of a Russian occupation of Bohemia in the expectation that they would form the nucleus of a future army. R.W. Seton-Watson, Masaryk in England (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1943), 47. The Sokol’s role in defending Slovakia was recalled by the French general in charge of the forces in the area. Eugen Mittelhausser, “Vzpomínky na sokolskou zemi,” Památník IX. sletu všesokolského, 14–16. See also Vladimír Kopejtko, “K úloze sokolské organizace pri vzniku Ceskoslovenského státu,” Ceskoslovenský casopis historický, Vol. 37 (1989), 388–403. Vanícek’s role in the armed forces is memorialized in Almanach na pamet cinnosti Dr. Jindricha Vanícka ve výchovném odboru Ministerstva Národní obrany (Prague: private pub., 1928). Jandásek, “Sokol Movement,” 79. The album of the 1948 Slet is a document of the times, with congratulatory introductions by Eduard Beneš, Klement Gottwald, and Jan Masaryk. Lví silou (Prague: Druzstvo Máj, 1948). Material on the Sokol in 1968 is in MTVS, Sokol Collection, Box 9. Spina, “Das Sokolwesen,” 351. Cervinka, U kolébky Sokola, 86. Stodeset let Sokola, Vol. 1, 6. A similar opinion is in Rocek, “K nekterým otázkám,” 21. The argument that the Sokol was “above politics” is set forth in Marek Waic, “Záverem,” Sokol v ceské spolecnosti, 204. See also Hannes Strohmeyer, “Sport und Politik: Das Beispiel der Turnbewegungen in Österreich 1918–1938,” Turnen und Sport in der Geschichte Österreichs, 212–44; and Nolte, “Politics on the Parallel Bars,” 260–78. Scheiner, “Sokolstvo,” 711–12. The COS Executive Council recommended in 1913 that “thou” not be used among members “outside of club circumstances.” “Zápis o schuzi výboru COS,” Vestník sokolský, Vol. 17 (1913), 25. Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk, Ceská otázka, 2nd edn (Prague: Pokrok, 1908), 104. An account of the Manifesto of Czech Modernism is in Sayer, Coasts of Bohemia, 154–5. See also Cornej, Lipanské ozveny, 111–13. One scholar argues that this result was inevitable: “Having turned national ties into an absolute value, the Sokol organizations began to stress their supra-class, apolitical character, which inevitably led them into positions of national solidarity. From there, there was only a step to the ideas of national exclusiveness and fanaticism propagated by chauvinistic organizations.” Chlebowczyk, On Small and Young Nations in Europe, 145. See also Wolfgang Kessler, “Józef Chlebowczyk und die Nationsbildung im östlichen Mitteleuropa vom 18. Jahrhundert bis zum Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts,” Formen des nationalen Bewußtseins, 103–12.

Notes 237 15. Prazák, Dr. Miroslav Tyrš, 34. See also Stehlíková, “Obradní a divadelní prvky,” 161–6. On mythologization in Czech culture, see Macura, Znamení zrodu, 79–82; Loewenstein, “Theatralik, Historismus, bürgerliche Repräsentation,” 15–33; and Rak, Bývali Cechové, passim. 16. The idea of “muscular bonding” is described in William H. McNeill, Keeping Together in Time: Dance and Drill in Human History (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP, 1995), 2–10. Gymnastics as disciplinary exercise is discussed in Henning Eichberg, “Body Culture and Democratic Nationalism: ‘Popular Gymnastics’ in Nineteenth-Century Denmark,” Tribal Identities, 109–20. 17. Coubertin, quoted in Hennig Eichberg, Der Weg des Sports in der industrielle Zivilisation, 50; and Jean-Michel Faure, “Forging a French Fighting Spirit: the Nation, Sport, Violence and War,” Tribal Identities, 81. 18. Konrad Henlein, “Jahn und sein Ruf an uns,” (1929), Reden und Aufsätze zur völkischen Turnbewegung, 2nd edn (Karlsbad: K.H. Frank, 1939), 27. 19. Stodeset let Sokola, Vol. 2, 16.

Bibliography

I Archival sources Archiv hlavního mesta Prahy [Archive of the capital city of Prague], AHMP Jan Podlipný Papers Tyršovo muzeum telesné výchovy a sportu v Praze, oddelení archivní dokumentace [Archive of the Tyrš Museum of Physical Education and Sport in Prague], MTSV Sokol Collection Jindrich Fügner Papers Miroslav Tyrš Papers Renata Tyršová Papers Tomáš Cerný Papers Státní ústrední archiv v Praze [State Central Archives in Prague], SÚA C.O.S. Collection Prague Sokol Collection Presidium místrodrzitelství [Collection of the Governor’s Office], PM Presidiální registratura policejního reditelství [Office of the Police Director], PP

II Primary sources Periodical literature Borec: Casopis venovaný zájmum sokolským Sokol: Casopis venovaný zájmum telocvicným Telocvicný ruch: Orgán Svazu Delnických telocvicných jednot ceskoslovanských Vestník sokolský: List svazu ceskslovanského Sokolstva

Sokol handbooks, albums, and surveys II. slet všesokolský konaný ve dnech 28.–30. cervna roku 1891 v Praze, ed. J.E. Scheiner. Prague: Ceská obec sokolská, n.d. [1892]. III. slet všesokolský porádaný Ceskou obcí sokolskou ve dnech 29. cervna–1. cervence 1895. Prague: Ceská obec sokolská, n.d. [1896]. IV. slet všesokolský v Praze 1901 ve dnech 28. 29. 30. cerven a 1. cervence, ed. Rudolf Bílek et al. Prague: Svaz ceskoslovanského Sokolstva, n.d. [1902]. Kaizl, Ed., comp., Statistický výkaz ceskoslovanských jednotách sokolských pocátkem roku 1888. Prague: Prazský Sokol, 1888. Kareis, Karel, comp. Srovnávací statistický výpis jednot sokolských . . . dle scítání pocátkem ledna 1871. Prague: Kareis, 1871. Památník sletu slovanského Sokolstva roku 1912 v Praze. Ed. A. Ocenášek et al. Prague: Ceskoslovenská obec sokolská, n.d. [1919]. Památník VII. sletu všesokolského v Praze 1920. Ed. Jan Hiller. Prague: Ceskoslovenská obec sokolská, 1923. 238

Bibliography

239

Památník vydaný na oslavu dvacetiletého trvání telocvicné jednoty Sokola prazského. Prague: Sokol prazský, 1883. Pátý slet všesokolský porádaný v Praze Ceskou obcí sokolskou . . . 1907. Ed. Josef Scheiner. Prague: no pub. [Ceská obec sokolská], n.d. [1908]. Pravidla telocvicné jednoty Prazské Sokol [sic]. Prague: Jerábková, 1862. Rádce sokolský. Prague: Ceská obec sokolská, 1897. Sborník sokolský pro rok 1868. Comp. Miroslav Tyrš and František Cermák. Prague: Prazský Sokol, n.d. [1869]. Sokol: Úpomínka všem Sokolum a jich prátelum k tretimu verejnému cvicení Sokola prazského. Ed. Karel Bohuš Kober. Prague: Kober, 1867. Sokolstvo v cizine: Dejiny telocvicných jednot sokolských za hranicemi. Comp. F. Viktorin and J. Paul. Munich: Telocvicná jednota “Slovan,” 1902. Statisticko-historický prehled jednot sokolských pro rok 1865. Comp. Miroslav Tyrš. Prague: B. Stýblo, 1866. Statistický prehled jednot sokolských pro rok 1866. Comp. Miroslav Tyrš. Prague: Stýblo, n.d. [1867]. Statistika Ceské Obce Sokolské za rok 1905. Comp. Rudolf Bílek et al. Prague: Ceská obec sokolská, 1906.

Other contemporary sources Adámek, Karel. Z naši doby. 2 vols. Velké Mezirící: Šaška, 1886. Almanach na pamet cinnosti Dr. Jindricha Vanícka ve výchovném odboru Ministerstva Národní obrany. Prague: private pub., 1928. Cervinka,Václav. U kolébky Sokola. Prague: Šolc a Šimácek, n.d. [1920]. Dr. Jan Podlipný: K desátému výroci jeho smrti vzpomíná Augustin Seifert. Prague: Národní rada ceskoslovenská, 1924. Gedenkschrift des deutschen Turnvereines in Prag, 1862–1887. Prague: Selbstverlag des Vereines, 1887. Grégr, Edvard. Sokolství Edvarda Grégra: Sokolské recí, výnatky z literárních prvotin a deníku. Comp. Karel Domorázek. Prague: Ceskoslovenská obec sokolská, 1927. Helcelet, Jan. Korespondence a zápisky Jana Helceleta. Ed. Jan Kabelík. Brno: Matice moravská, 1910. Jahn, Friedrich Ludwig. Die Briefe Friedrich Ludwig Jahns. Ed. Wolfgang Meyer. Leipzig: Verlag Paul Eberhardt, 1913. Jahn, Friedrich Ludwig. Deutsches Volkstum. Lübeck: Niemann & Comp., 1810. Jahn, Friedrich Ludwig, and Ernst Eiselen. Die deutsche Turnkunst zur Einrichtung der Turnplätze. Berlin: Der Herausgeber, 1816. Jindrich Fügner, nástin jeho zivota a pusobení. Prague: Sokol prazský, 1885. Kukan, Václav. Sokolstvo a jeho cinnost menšinová. Prague: Ceskoslovenská obec sokolská, 1923. Kukan, Václav. Výchova lidu a Sokolstvo. Prague: Grégr, 1898. Loubal, František. “‘Diese Sokolisten’.” In Domov za války (svedectví úcastníku), Vol. 3, 356–8. Ed. Alois Zipek. Prague: Pokrok, 1929–34. Miroslav Tyrš: Strucný nástin zivota a pusobení jeho. Prague: Prazská telocvicná jednota “Sokol”, 1884. Palacký, František. Spisy drobné. 3 vols. Ed. Bohuš Rieger. Prague: Bursík & Kohout, n.d. [1898]. Pech, Josef. “Pametní kniha ‘Sokola’ v Belehrade.” In Domov za války, Vol. 3, 342–5. See Loubal, František.

240

Bibliography

Ríha, Zdenek. “Brnenští Nemci o sokolském slete r. 1914.” In Domov za války, Vol. 1, 257–9. See Loubal, František. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Émile or On Education. Intro. and trans. Allen Bloom. New York: Basic Books, 1979. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Government of Poland. Trans. by Willmoore Kendall. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1972. Rychnovsky, Ernst. Der deutsche Turnverein in Prag, 1862–1912. Prague: Verlag des deutschen Turnvereins, 1912. Scheiner, Josef. Dejiny Sokolstva v prvém jeho petadvacetiletí. Prague: Grégr, 1887. Scheiner, Josef. Sokolská výprava do Ameriky r. 1909. Prague: Grégr, 1910. Scheiner, Josef. “Sokolstvo.” In Slovanstvo: Obraz jeho minulosti a prítomnosti, 693–722. Ed. J. Bidlo et al. Prague: Jan Laichter, 1912. Spina, Franz. “Aus dem Bildungs- und Wirtschaftsleben der Tschechen I: Das Sokolwesen,” Deutsche Arbeit, Vol. 13 (1913–14), 348–54. Steed, Henry Wickham. Though Thirty Years, 1892–1922: a Personal Narrative. 2 vols. Garden City: Doubleday, 1924. Svému milému starostovi Bratra Dr. Josefa Scheinerovi Sokol Prazský. Zvlaštní príloha casopisu, Sokol, Vol. 37 (1911). Tyrš, Miroslav. Dopisy dr. Miroslava Tyrše Ctiboru Helceletovi. Prague: Ceská obec sokolská, 1940. Tyrš, Miroslav. “Hod olympický.” In Sborník sokolský pro rok 1868, 191–220. Tyrš, Miroslav. Laokoon, dílo doby rímské. Prague: Kober, 1873. Tyrš, Miroslav. O sokolské idei. 2 vols. Prague: Ceskoslovenská obec sokolská, 1930. Tyrš, Miroslav. O umení. 6 vols. Prague: Ceskoslovenská obec sokolská, 1932–37. Tyrš, Miroslav. Úvahy a reci Dr. Miroslava Tyrše. 2 vols. Comp. Josef Scheiner. Prague: Telocvicná jednota “Sokol”, 1894. Tyrš, Miroslav. Základové telocviku. Prague: Kober, 1873. Tyršová, Renata. Jindrich Fügner: pameti a vzpomínky na mého otce. 2 parts in 1 vol. Prague: Ceský ctenár, 1927. Tyršová, Renata. Miroslav Tyrš: jeho osobnost a dílo. 3 parts in 1 vol. Prague: Ceský ctenár, 1932–34. Tyršove památce. Prague: Havlícek, 1920. Vanícek, Karel. Citu více! Prague: Grégr, 1901. Vanícek, Karel. Sokolské epištoly. 4th edn. Prague: Springer, 1923. Vanícek, Karel. Sokolstvo, jeho smer a cíl. Prague, Nákl. Zábavního výboru telocvicné jednoty Sokola prazského, 1899. Vanícek, Karel. Ze vzpomínek sokolského písmáka: výnatky ze zápisku bratra Karla Vanícka. Ed. Milada Malá. Prague: Ceskoslovenský obec sokolská, 1927. Výprava Sokolstva ceského do Polsky k oslave 25-letého trvání Sokola Lvovského v dnech 5. a 6. cervna 1892. Prague: Grégr, 1892. Vzpomínky na Dr. Mir. Tyrše. Comp. L. Jandásek. Prague: Ceskoslovenská obec sokolská, 1934. Za praporem sokolským. Ed. Svatopluk Cech et al. Prague: Alois Wiesner, 1887.

III Secondary sources Agnew, Hugh LeCaine. Origins of the Czech National Renascence. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1993.

Bibliography

241

Albrecht, Catherine. “Pride in Production: the Jubilee Exhibition of 1891 and Economic Competition between Czechs and Germans in Bohemia,” Austrian History Yearbook, Vol. 24 (1993), 101–18. Antonowytsch, Michael. Friedrich Ludwig Jahn: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Anfänge des deutschen Nationalismus. Berlin: Ebering, 1933. Bartoš, Josef. Jindrich Fügner. Brno: Moravský legionár, 1934. Bartoš, Josef. Miroslav Tyrš: Studie kritická. Zlatoroh vols 31 and 32. Prague: Spolek výtvarných umelcu “Manes,” 1916. Begov, Franz. “Sportgeschichte der frühen Neuzeit.” In Geschichte der Leibesübungen, Vol. 3/1, 145–164. Ed. Horst Ueberhorst. Berlin: Bartels & Wernit, 1980. Belfín, Vladimír. “K pusobení sokolských telocvikáru v carském Rusku,” Teorie a praxe telesné výchovy a sportu, Vol. 15 (1967), 599–607. Beranová, Jitka. “Sokolské kulturne osvetová cinnost.” In Sokol, jeho vznik, vývoj a význam: Sborník prispevku z mezinárodní konference, Praha, zárí 1997, 62–5. Ed. Marek Waic. Prague: Organizacní výbor mezinárodní konference, 1998. Bernett, Hajo. “Johann Christoph Friedrich GutsMuths.” In Geschichte der Leibesübungen, Vol. 3/1, 197–214. See Begov, Franz. Blackbourn, David, and Geoff Eley. The Peculiarities of German History: Bourgeois Society and Politics in Nineteenth-Century Germany. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1984. Bosl, Karl. “Deutsch-romantisch-liberal Geschichtsauffassung und ‘Slavische Legende’,” Bohemia, Vol. 5 (1964), 12–52. Brabec, Jan et al. Dejiny ceského divadla. Prague: Academia, 1977. Bradley, J.F.N. “Czech Pan-Slavism before the First World War,” The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 40, No. 94 (December 1961), 184–205. Bratri Grégrové a ceská spolecnost v druhé polovine 19. století. Eds Pavla Vošahlíková and Milan Repa. Prague: Grégr a Historický ústav AVCR, 1997. Breuilly, John. “Approaches to Nationalism.” In Formen des nationalen Bewußtseins im Lichte zeitgenössischer Nationalismustheorien, 15–38. Ed. Eva Schmitt Hartmann. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1994. Breuilly, John. Nationalism and the State. New York: St. Martin’s Press – now Palgrave Macmillan, 1982. Broucek, Stanislav. “Národopisná výstava ceskoslovanská a ceská spolecnost.” In Stanislav Broucek et al., Mýtus ceského národa aneb Národopisná výstava ceskoslovanská 1895, 7–30. Prague: Littera Bohemica, 1996. Bruckmüller, Ernst, and Hannes Stekl, “Zur Geschichte des Bürgertums in Österreich.” In Bürgertum im 19. Jahrhundert: Deutschland im europäischen Vergleich, 160–92. Ed. Jürgen Kocka. Munich: Deutsche Taschenbuch Verlag, 1988. Chadraba, Rudolf. “Miroslav Tyrš.” In Kapitoly z ceského dejepisu umení, 160–71. Ed. Rudolf Chadraba et al. Prague: Odeon, 1986. Chalupný, Emanuel. “Prední tvurcové národního programu: Jungmann, Havlícek, Tyrš, Masaryk,” Tyršuv sborník, Vol. 4 (1921), 3–102. Chalupný, Emanuel. Skauting a sokolstvo. Prague: private pub., 1923. Chalupný, Emanuel. “Tyršuv pomer k vojsku a sokolský program: ke vzniku casopisu ‘Sokol’ a stati ‘Náš ukol, smer a cíl’,” Tyršuv sborník, Vol. 11 (1928), 13–48. Chlebowczyk, Józef. On Small and Young Nations in Europe: Nation-Forming Processes in Ethnic Borderlands in East Central Europe. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy Imienia Ossoli2skich Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1980.

242

Bibliography

Cohen, Gary. “Education and Czech Social Structure in the Late Nineteenth Century.” In Bildungsgeschichte, Bevölkerungsgeschichte, Gesellschaftsgeschichte in den böhmischen Länder und in Europa: Festschrift für Jan Havránek zum 60. Geburtstag, 32–45. Munich: Oldenbourg and Vienna: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik, 1988. Cohen, Gary. The Politics of Ethnic Survival: Germans in Prague, 1861–1914. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1981. Cornej, Petr. Lipanské ozveny. Prague: H&H, 1995. Deutsch, Karl W. Nationalism and Social Communication: an Inquiry into the Foundations of Nationality. 2nd edn. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1966. Dolanský, Julius. “Edicní poznámka,” 32–43. In Miroslav Tyrš, Náš úkol, smer a cíl. Prague: Olympia, 1971. Dolanský, Julius. “První pocátky Sokola podle zprávy prazského policejního reditelství,” Teorie a praxe telesné výchovy a sportu, Vol. 5 (1957), 513–23. Domorázek, Karel. “Kronikáruv doprovod,” 27–46. In Miroslav Tyrš, Náš úkol, smer a cíl. Prague: Karel Novák, 1928. Domorázek, Karel. “Rozbor,” 83–101. In Miroslav Tyrš, Telocvik v ohledu esthetickém. Prague: Karel Novák, 1926. Domorázek, Karel. “Výklad,” unpaged. In Miroslav Tyrš, Uvitání v kruh sokolský. Prague: Karel Novák, 1927. Düding, Dieter. “Friedrich Ludwig Jahn und die Anfänge der deutschen Nationalbewegung.” In Geschichte der Leibesübungen, Vol. 3/1, 229–56. See Begov, Franz. Düding, Dieter. “The Nineteenth-Century German Nationalist Movement as a Movement of Societies.” In Nation-Building in Central Europe, 19–49. Ed. Hagen Schulze. Leamington Spa/Hamburg/New York: Berg, 1987. Dvoráková, Zora. Miroslav Tyrš: Prohry a vítezství. Prague: Olympia, 1989. Eichberg, Henning. “Body Culture and Democratic Nationalism: ‘Popular Gymnastics’ in Nineteenth-Century Denmark.” In Tribal Identities: Nationalism, Europe, Sport, 109–20. Ed. J.A. Mangan. London: Frank Cass, 1996. Eichberg, Henning. “Der Körper als Idential: Zum historischen Materialismus der nationalen Frage.” In Die slawische Sokolbewegung: Beiträge zur Geschichte von Sport und Nationalismus in Osteuropa, 224–7. Ed. Diethelm Blecking. Dortmund: Forschungsstelle Ostmitteleuropa, 1991. Eichberg, Henning. Der Weg des Sports in die industrielle Zivilisation, 2nd edn. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 1979. Eichel, Wolfgang et al., Die Körperkultur in Deutschland von 1789 bis 1917. Berlin: Sportverlag, 1965. Faure, Jean-Michel. “Forging a French Fighting Spirit: the Nation, Sport, Violence and War.” In Tribal Identities, 75–93. See Eichberg, Henning. Feyl, Othmar. “Die Entwicklung des Sokolgründers Heinrich Fügner im Lichte seiner Prager Briefe an den Böhmendeutschen Konservativen Joseph Alexander von Helfert in den Jahren 1848 bis 1865.” In Deutsch–Slawische Wechselseitigkeit in sieben Jahrhunterten: Gesammelte Aufsätze, 511–78. Berlin: Akademie, 1956. Fikar, Alois. Strucné dejiny Sokolstva, 1912–1941. Prague: Ceskoslovenská obec sokolská, 1948. Gantar Godina, Irena. Neoslavizem in Slovenci. Ljubljana, Znanstveni inštitut Filozofske facultete, 1994. Gantar Godina, Irena. “Slovenes and Czechs: an Enduring Friendship,” Slovene Studies, Vol. 17.1.2. (1995), 95–112.

Bibliography

243

Garver, Bruce. The Young Czech Party 1874–1901 and the Emergence of a Multi-Party System. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978. Geldbach, Erich. “Die Philanthropen als Wegbereiter moderner Leibeskultur.” In Geschichte der Leibesübungen, Vol. 3/1, 165–97. See Begov, Franz. Gerber, Ellen. Inventors and Institutions in Physical Education. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1971. Glettler, Monika. Sokol und Arbeiterturnvereine der Wiener Tschechen bis 1914. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1970. Grexa, Ján, and Jaromir Perútka. “Der Sokol in der Slowakei.” In Die slawische Sokolbewegung, 95–103. See Eichberg, Henning. Größing, Stefan. “Von Schulturnen zur Bewegungserziehung – die Entwicklung der schulischen Leibeserziehung in Österreich.” In Turnen und Sport in der Geschichte Österreichs, 201–11. Ed. Ernst Bruckmüller and Hannes Strohmeyer. Vienna: ÖBV Pädagogischer Verlag, 1998. Hájek, Jan. “Novoslovanský sjezd a spolecenské akce v Praze v léte roku 1908.” In Prazské slavnosti a velké výstavy: Sborník príspevku z konferencí Archivu hlavního mesta Prahy 1989 a 1991, 283–303. Ed. Jirí Pešek. Prague: Archiv hlavního mesta Prahy, 1995. Hantsch, Hugo. “Pan-Slavism, Austro-Slavism, Neo-Slavism,” Austrian History Yearbook, Vol. 1 (1965), 23–37. Havlícek, Venceslav. Postavení Sokolstva v národe. Prague: Boleslav Havlícek, 1919. Havlícek, Venceslav. The Sokol Festival. Prague: Sfinx, 1948. Havlícek, Venceslav. Sokolstvo, jeho myšlenka, organisace and vývoj. Prague: Ceskoslovenská obec sokolská, 1948. Havlícek, Venceslav. “Tyršova cinnost politická a jeho politické zásady,” Tyršuv sborník, Vol. 10 (1926), 4–111. Havlícek, Venceslav. “Tyršovy snahy vojenské,” Tyršuv sborník, Vol. 7 (1923), 3–24. Havlícek, Venceslav. “Vliv Darwinovy nauky na Tyrše,” Tyršuv sborník, Vol. 7 (1923), 47–67. Havránek, Jan. “The Development of Czech Nationalism,” Austrian History Yearbook, Vol. 3/2 (1967), 223–60. Havránek, Jan. “Predání praporu jako legitimace spolku,” Prazské slavnosti a velké výstavy, 199–202. See Hájek, Jan. Havránková, Ruzena. “Ceská verejnost na pomoc protitureckým povstáním jizních Slovanu v letech 1875–1878,” Slovanské historické studie, Vol. 6 (1966), 5–53. Havránková, Ruzena. “Zájem o balkánské Slovany jako slozku ceského slovanství v 19. století,” Slovanské historické studie, Vol. 7 (1968), 195–218. Henlein, Konrad. Reden und Aufsätze zur völkischen Turnbewegung, 2nd edn. Karlsbad: K.H. Frank, 1939. Herman, K. “Slovanství v ceském zivote v dobe nástupu imperialismu.” In Slovanství v národním zivote Cechu a Slováku, 301–27. Ed. V. Št’astný. Prague: Melantrich, 1968. Heumos, Peter. “Krise und hussitisches Ritual.” In Vereinswesen und Geschichtspflege in den böhmischen Ländern, 109–22. Ed. Ferdinand Seibt. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1986. Hiller, Jan. “Tyršova studia ke cvicení poradovým,” Tyršuv sborník, Vol. 1 (1920), 14–21. Hirth, Fritz, and Anton Kießlich. Geschichte des Turnkreises Deutschösterreich. Teplitz-Schönau: Verlag des deutschen Turnverbandes, 1928.

244

Bibliography

Hohler, Vilém. “Tyrš estetik a teoretik umení.” Soubor prací z vedecké konference ke 150. výrocí narození dr. M. Tyrše, 58–69. Ed. Jaroslav Marek and Vilma Strašicová. Prague: Ústrední výbor Ceskoslovenského svazu telesné výchovy a Olympia, 1982. Hojda, Zdenek, and Jirí Pokorný, Pomníky a zapomníky, 2nd edn. Prague and Litomyšl: Paseka, 1997. Horská, Pavla. Praha-1900-Paríz. Slovo k historii, Vol. 36. Prague: Melantrich, 1991. Horská, Pavla. “Praha-Paríz (K zahranicne politické orientaci prazské mestské rady na prelomu 19. a 20. století),” Prazský sborník historický, Vol. 20 (1987), 97–137. Hozák, Jan. “Iluze a reality ceské velikosti: Sonda do ceského sebevedomí v dobe jubilejní výstavy 1891.” Proudy ceské umelecké tvorby 19. století: sen a ideál, 125–30. Prague: Ústav teorie a dejin umení Ceskoslovenské akademie ved, 1990. Hroch, Miroslav. “How Much Does Nation Formation Depend on Nationalism?” East European Politics and Societies, Winter (1990), 101–15. Hroch, Miroslav. “Nationales Bewußtsein zwischen Nationalismustheorie und der Realität der nationalen Bewegungen,” Formen des nationalen Bewußtseins, 39–52. See Breuilly, John. Hroch, Miroslav. “The Social Composition of the Czech Patriots in Bohemia, 1827–1848.” In The Czech Renascence of the Nineteenth Century, 33–52. Ed. Peter Brock and H. Gordon Skilling. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1970. Hroch, Miroslav. Social Preconditions of National Revival in Europe: a Comparative Analysis of the Social Composition of Patriotic Groups among the Smaller European Nations. Tr. Ben Fowkes. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1985. Hye, Hans-Peter. “Vereinswesen und bürgerliche Gesellschaft in Österreich,” Beiträge zur historischen Sozialkunde (1988), 86–96. Jandásek, Ladislav. “The Founder of the Sokols: Miroslav Tyrš,” The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 10 (1931), 572–87. Jandásek, Ladislav. Prehledné dejiny Sokolstva. Prague: Ceskoslovenská obec sokolská, 1936. Jandásek, Ladislav. “The Sokol Movement in Czechoslovakia,” The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 11 (1932), 65–80. Jandásek, Ladislav. Sokolství Jindricha Fügnera. Brno: Moravský legionár, 1933. Jandásek, Ladislav. Tyršovo slovanství. Prague: Ceskoslovenská obec sokolská, 1947. Jandásek, Ladislav. Zivot Dr. Miroslava Tyrše. Brno: Moravský legionár, 1932. Jandásek, Ladislav, and Jan Pelikán. Strucné dejiny Sokolstva 1862–1912. Prague: Ceskoslovenská obec sokolská, 1946. Jelínek, Jarka, and J. Zmrhal. Sokol, Educational and Physical Culture Association. Chicago: American Sokol Union, 1944. Jiroušek, Tomáš J. “K vzniku hnutí Orla ceskoslovenského u nás,” Vlast: casopis pro poucení a zábavu, Vol. 46 (1930), 560–3. Johnston, William M. The Austrian Mind: an Intellectual and Social History, 1848–1938. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972. Kaderábek, F. “Dr. Josef Scheiner, jeho zivot a dílo,” Zpravodaj prazské telocvicné jednoty “Sokol”, Vol. 9 (1932), 2–9. Kaplan, Frank L. The Czech and Slovak Press: the First 100 Years. Lexington, Ky: [n.p.], 1977. Karel Vanícek, sokolský písmák. Prague: Ceskoslovenský obec sokolská, 1931.

Bibliography

245

Kelly, Theodore Mills. “Taking it to the Streets: Czech National Socialists in 1908,” Austrian History Yearbook, Vol. 29 (1988), 93–112. Kessler, Wolfgang. “Józef Chlebowczyk und die Nationsbildung im östlichen Mitteleuropa vom 18. Jahrhundert bis zum Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts.” In Formen des nationalen Bewußtseins, 103–12. See Breuilly, John. Kessler, Wolfgang. “Der Sokol in den jugoslawischen Gebieten (1863–1941).” In Die slawische Sokolbewegung, 198–218. See Eichberg, Henning. Kieval, Hillel J. The Making of Czech Jewry: National Conflict and Jewish Society in Bohemia, 1870–1918. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. Kimball, Stanley Buchholz. Czech Nationalism: a Study of the National Theater Movement, 1845–1883. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1964. Kimball, Stanley Buchholz. “The Matice ceská, 1831–1861: the First Thirty Years of a Literary Foundation.” In The Czech Renascence of the Nineteenth Century, 53–73. See Hroch, Miroslav. Kinmonth, Earl H. “Nakamura Keiu and Samuel Smiles: a Victorian Confucian and a Confucian Victorian,” American Historical Review, Vol. 85 (1980), 535–56. Kocí, Josef. Ceské národní obrození. Prague: Svoboda, 1978. Kohn, Hans. “Father Jahn’s Patriotism,” The Review of Politics, Vol. 11 (1949), 419–32. Kohn, Hans. Pan-Slavism: Its History and Ideology. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1953. Kolár, František. “Sokolové – ‘Prukopnící cesko-francouzského prátelství’.” In Sokol, jeho vznik, vývoj a význam, 5–9. See Beranová, Jitka. Kolár, František, and Milan Hlavacka. Jubilejní výstava 1891. Slovo k historii, Vol. 28. Prague: Melantrich, 1991. Kolár, František, and Milan Hlavacka. “Die Tschechen, Deutschen, und die Jubiläumsausstellung 1891,” Bohemia, Vol. 32, No. 2 (1991), 380–411. König, Hans-Jürgen. “Die Anfänge der jüdischen Turn- und Sportbewegung,” Stadion, Vol. 15 (1989), 9–28. Kopanic, Michael J. “Slovak Catholic Sokol.” In Encyclopedia of Ethnicity and Sports in the United States, 422–4. Ed. George B. Kirsch et al. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 2000. Kopejtko, Vladimír. “K úloze sokolské organizace pri vzniku Ceskoslovenského státu,” Ceskoslovenský casopis historický, Vol. 37 (1989), 388–403. Koralka, Jirí. František Palacký(1798–1876): Zivotopis. Prague: Argo, 1998. Kössl, Jirí. Dejiny ceskoslovenského olympijského hnutí. Prague: Olympia, 1977. Kössl, Jirí. “Sokol a olympismus.” In Sokol v ceské spolecnosti 1862–1938, 160–74. Ed. Marek Waic et al. Prague: Fakulta telesné výchovy a sportu University Karlovy, 1997. Kössl, Jirí. “Sokol, sport a olympismus.” In Sokol, jeho vznik, vývoj a význam, 75–84. See Beranová, Jitka. Kozáková, Zlata. Sokolské slety, 1882–1948. Prague: Orbis, 1994. Kozík, František. “Do prvého petadvacetiletí 1872–1887.” In Dejiny Sokola Brno, 117–207. Brno: Sokol Brno, 1948. Kozík, František. Venec vavrinový. Prague: Ceskoslovenský spisovatel, 1987. Krejcí, Antonín. Dr. Jindra Vanícek. Brno: Moravský legionár, 1934. Krejcí, Antonín. Dr. Josef Scheiner. Brno: Moravský legionár, 1932. Kren, Jan. Konfliktní spolecenství: Ceši a Nemci, 1780–1918. Prague: Academia, 1990.

246

Bibliography

Krízek, Jurij. “Ceská burzoazní politika a ‘ceská otázka’ v letech 1900–1914,” Ceskoslovenský casopis historický, Vol. 6 (1958), 621–61. Kuncek, Julius. “Orelstvo a Sokolstvo,” Zivot, Vol. 5 (1922), 24–6. Kunz, Jaroslav. Sokol a Rakousko. Prague: Ceskoslovenská obec sokolská, 1930. Lemberg, Eugen. “Volksbegriff und Staatsideologie der Tschechen.” In Das böhmische Staatsrecht in den deutsch–tschechischen Auseinandersetzungen des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts, 42–78. Ed. E. Birke and K. Oberdorffer. Marburg/Lahn: Elwert, 1960. Loewenstein, Bedrich. “Theatralik, Historismus, bürgerliche Repräsentation: Aspekte der tschechischen Kultur im 19. Jahrhundert,” Bohemia, Vol. 29 (1988), 15–33. Ludvíkovský, Jaroslav. “Antické myšlenky v Tyršove sokolském a národním programu,” Tyršuv sborník, Vol. 6 (1923), 3–38. Ludvíkovský, Jaroslav. “Tyršuv recký sen,” Umení, Vol. 6 (1933), 69–73. Lví silou. Prague: Druzstvo Máj, 1948. Machácek, Fridolin. “The Sokol Movement: Its Contribution to Gymnastics,” The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 17 (1938–39), 73–90. [Subsequently published, with slight changes, as “Sokolstvo.” In Co daly naše zeme Evrope a lidstvu, Vol. 2, 101–10. Prague: Evropský literární klub, 1940.] Macura, Vladimír. Ceský sen. Kniznice Dejin a soucasnosti, 1998. Macura, Vladimír. Masarykovy boty a jiné semi(o)fejetony. Prague: Prazská imaginace, 1993. Macura, Vladimír. Znamení zrodu: Ceské národní obrození jako kulturní typ, 2nd edn. Jinocany: H&H, 1995. Manochyn, Nikolaj. “Tyrš a Rusové.” In Památník IX. sletu všesokolského porádaného na oslavu stých narozenin Dr. Miroslava Tyrše za úcasti Svazu “Slovanské Sokolstvo”, 133–6. Ed. Rudolf Procházka. Prague: Ceskoslovenská obec sokolská, 1933. Marek, Jaroslav. “Jindrich Fügner – K stému výrocí smrti prvního starosty Sokola prazského,” Teorie a praxe telesné výchovy, Vol. 13 (1965), 485–8. Marek, Jaroslav. “Pocátky delnické telovýchovy v našich zemích,” Teorie a praxe telesné výchovy, Vol. 40 (1982), 451–5. Marek, Jaroslav. “Tyršovy pocátecní zápasy o úloze Sokola v národním hnutí,” Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Gymnica, Vol. 10 (1974), 13–26. Marek, Jaroslav. “Vývoj a obsah telovýchovné cinnosti Sokola v letech 1862–1871,” Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Gymnica, Vol. 2 (1967), 85–115. Marek, Jaroslav. “Z boju o Tyršuv odkaz,” Teorie a praxe telesné výchovy, Vol. 30 (1982), 129–36. Marek, Jaroslav. “Závet’ dr. Miroslava Tyrše z roku 1870,” Teorie a praxe telesné vychovy a sportu, Vol. 14 (1966), 274–80. Masák, Jan. “Jan Ev. Purkyne: první uvedomely ceský telocvikár,” Tyršuv sborník, Vol. 9 (1924), 5–32. Masaryk, Tomáš Garrigue. Ceská otázka: Snahy a tuzby národního obrození. Prague: Cas, 1895. Masaryk, Thomas Garrigue. The Making of a State: Memories and Observations 1914–1918. New York: Fertig, 1969. Matusik, Przemys3aw. “Der polnische ‘Sokó3’ zur Zeit der Teilungen und in der II. Polnischen Republic.” In Die slawische Sokolbewegung, 104–35. See Eichberg, Henning. McNeill, William H. Keeping Together in Time: Dance and Drill in Human History. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP, 1995.

Bibliography

247

Mehl, Erwin. “Deutsches Turnen, seine Vorläufer und seine Begleiter in den Länder der böhmischen Krone von den Anfängen bis 1918,” Sudetendeutsches Turnertum, 9–124. Ed. Rudolf Jahn et al. Frankfurt a M.: Heimreiterverlag, 1958. Mitev, Losan. “Die Entwicklung der Turngesellschaften ‘Sokol’ und ‘Junak’ in Bulgarien bis zum Jahr 1914.” In Die slawische Sokolbewegung, 175–81. See Eichberg, Henning. Mittelhausser, Eugen. “Vzpomínky na sokolskou zemi,” Památník IX. sletu všesokolského, 14–16. See Manochyn, Nikolaj. Mommsen, Hans. Die Sozialdemokratie, und die Nationalitätenfrage im habsburgischen Vielvölkerstaat, Vol. I: Das Ringen um die supranationale Integration der cisleithanischen Arbeiterbewegung (1897–1907). Vienna: Europa-Verlag, 1963. Morava, Georg J. “Miroslav Tyrš (Friedrich Emanuel Tirsch): Sein Tod in der ötztaler Ache im Lichte bisher unbekannter Quellen,” Bohemia, Vol. 25 (1984), 90–103. Mosse, George. The Nationalization of the Masses. New York: New American Library, 1975. Mucha, Vilém. Dejiny delnické telovýchovy v Ceskoslovensku, 2nd edn. Prague: Státní telovýchovné nakladatelství, 1955. Nejedlý, Zdenek. “Dejiny prazského Hlaholu, 1861–1911.” In Památník zpeváckého spolku Hlaholu v Praze, vydaný na oslavu 50tileté cinnosti, 1861–1911, 1–153. Ed. Rudolf Lichtner. Prague: Prazský Hlahol, 1911. Neruda, Jan. “Trojlist sokolský: Fügner, Tyrš a Cerný.” In Sebrané spisy Jana Nerudy, Vol. 33, 109–11. Comp. K. Rozek. Prague: Topic, 1915. Neuendorff, Edmund. Geschichte der neueren deutschen Leibesübungen vom Beginn des 18. Jahrhunderts bis zur Gegenwart. 4 vols. Dresden: Limpert-Verlag, 1930–36. Nipperdey, Thomas. “Verein als soziale Struktur im späten 18. und frühen 19. Jahrhundert.” In Geschichtswissenschaft und Vereinswesen im 19. Jahrhundert, by Hartmut Boockmann et al., 1–44. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck Ruprecht, 1972. Nolte, Claire E. “Art in the Service of the Nation: Miroslav Tyrš as Art Historian and Critic,” Bohemia, Vol. 34 (1993), 47–62. Nolte, Claire E. “Choosing Czech Identity in Nineteenth-Century Prague: the Case of Jindrich Fügner,” Nationalities Papers, Vol. 24 (1996), 51–62. Nolte, Claire E. “’Every Czech a Sokol!’: Feminism and Nationalism in the Czech Sokol,” Austrian History Yearbook, Vol. 24 (1993), 79–100. Nolte, Claire E. “Our Brothers across the Ocean: the Czech Sokol in America to 1914,” Czechoslovak and Central European Journal, Vol. 11 (Winter 1993), 15–37. Nolte, Claire E. “‘Our Task, Direction and Goal’: the Development of the Sokol National Program to World War I.” In Vereinswesen und Geschichtspflege in den böhmischen Ländern, 123–38. See Heumos, Peter. Nolte, Claire E. “Politics on the Parallel Bars: Gymnastic Clubs in the Czech Lands to 1914.” In Ethnic and National Issues in Russian and East European History, 260–78. Ed. John Morison. London/New York: Macmillan/St. Martin’s Press – now Palgrave Macmillan, 2000. Novotný, Jan. “Ceské delnictvo a národní identita v 19. století.” In Husitství– Reformace–Renesance: Sborník k 60. nározeninám Františka Šmahela, 989–1000. Ed. Jaroslav Pánek et al. Prague: Historický ústav, 1994. Novotný, Jan. “Slavnosti Sokola prazského.” In Prazské slavnosti a velké výstavy, 223–8. See Hájek, Jan. Novotný, Jan. Sokol v zivote národa. Slovo k historii, Vol. 25. Prague: Melantrich, 1990.

248

Bibliography

Ocenášek, Augustin. “Poslání sletu.” In Památník IX. sletu všesokolského, 3–5. See Manochyn, Nikolaj. Olivová, Vera. “Die Gründung der slawischen olympischen Spiele im Jahre 1882 – Hellenistische Ideen im tschechischen ‘Sokol’.” In The Olympic Games through the Ages: Greek Antiquity and its Impact on Modern Sport, 155–64. Ed. Roland Renson et al. Athens: Hellenic Sports Research Institute, 1991. Olivová, Vera. Lidé a hry: historická geneze sportu. Prague: Olympia, 1979. Paces, Cynthia Jean. “Monumental Crusades: Creating, Manipulating, and Destroying Religious Symbols in the Struggle for a Czech National Identity, 1890–1938.” Unpub. PhD dissertation, Columbia University, 1998. Paces, Cynthia. “Rotating Spheres, Gendered Commemorative Practice at the 1903 Jan Hus Memorial Festival in Prague,” Nationalities Papers, Vol. 28 (2000), 523–39. Pargac, Jan. “Slavnosti, rituály and obceje jako zrcadlo národní kultury.” In Mýtus ceského národa, 82–122. See Broucek, Stanislav. Pech, Stanley Z. The Czech Revolution of 1848. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1969. Pelikán, Jan. “Historický vývoj Tyršova Sokolství,” Tyršuv sborník, Vol. 1 (1920), 22–9. Pelikán, Jan. Nábozenství, církev, klerikalismus, Orel a Sokol. Prague: Ceskoslovenská obec sokolská, 1925. Pelikán, Jan. Náš bratr Jindra. Prague: F. Zd’arský, 1926. Pelikán, Jan. Význam dr. Miroslava Tyrše pro národní brannost. Brno: Moravský legionár, 1935. Pernes, Jirí. Pod Moravskou orlicí aneb Dejiny Moravanství. Brno: Barrister and Principal, 1996. Pešek, Jirí. “Slavnost jako téma dejepisného zkoumání,” Prazské slavnosti a velké výstavy, 7–28. See Hájek, Jan. Petrán, Josef, and Lydia Petránová, “The White Mountain as a Symbol in Modern Czech History.” Bohemia in History, 143–63. Ed. Mikuláš Teich. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998. Pienkos, Donald E. “The Polish Falcons Movement in America, One Hundred and Four Years Young.” Die slawische Sokolbewegung, 145–63. See Eichberg, Henning. Piffl, Otto. “Tyrš a branná výchova.” Soubor prací z vedecké konference, 111–17. See Hohler, Vilém. Poche, Emanuel. “Architektura.” In Emanuel Poche et al., Praha národního probuzení, 122–204. Prague: Panorama, 1980. Prahl, Roman. “‘Dobrou noc, krásné umení v Cechách?’: Ke krizi v ceské malbe pocátku 70. let 19. století,” Umení, Vol. 32 (1984), 507–27. Prazák, Albert. Dr. Miroslav Tyrš: osvobozenský smysl jeho díla. Prague: Neubert & Ceskoslovenská obec sokolská, 1946. Premysl, Jezek. “Prehled prací o Dr. Miroslavu Tyršovi, jeho díle a významu,” Teorie a praxe telesné výchovy a sportu, Vol. 5 (1957), 633–9. Prinz, Friedrich. “Die böhmischen Länder von 1848 bis 1918.” In Handbuch der Geschichte der böhmischen Länder, Vol. 3, 1–235. Ed. Karl Bosl. Stuttgart, Hiersemann, 1967/68. Prinz, Friedrich. “Nation und Gesellschaft in den böhmischen Länder im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert.” In Geschichte in der Gesellschaft, 333–49. Ed. Friedrich Prinz et al. Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1974.

Bibliography

249

Prinz, Friedrich. “Probleme der böhmischen Geschichte zwischen 1848 und 1914,” Bohemia, Vol. 6 (1965), 332–57. Prinz, Friedrich. “Das Schulwesen der böhmischen Länder von 1848–1939: Ein Überblick.” In Aktuelle Forschungsprobleme um die Erste Tschechoslowakische Republik, 49–66. Ed. Karl Bosl. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1969. Purš, Jaroslav. “Tábory v ceských zemích v letech 1868–1871,” Ceskoslovenský casopis historický, Vol. 6 (1958), 234–66, 446–70, 661–90. Rak, Jirí. Bývali Cechové: Ceské historické mýty a stereotypy. Jinocany: H&H, 1994. Reitharová, Eva. “Malírství.” In Praha národního probuzení, 279–418. See Poche, Emanuel. Reitmayer, Ladislav. Prehled vývoje telesné výchovy na uzemí CSSR. Prague: Státní pedagogické nakl., 1978. Renson, Roland. “Leibesübungen der Bürger und Bauern im Mittelalter.” In Geschichte der Leibesübungen, Vol. 3/1, 97–144. See Begov, Franz. Reznícek, Josef. “Vývoj ceskoslovenského Orla,” Zivot, Vol. 11 (1929), 6–10. Reznícek, Vácslav. JUDr. Jan Podlipný: Jeho zivot a pusobení. Prague: A. Neubert, 1924. Riordan, James. Sport in Soviet Society: Development of Sport and Physical Education in Russia and the USSR. London: Cambridge UP, 1977. Rocek, Antonín. “Chybející clánek – zapomenuté stránky korespondence dr. Miroslava Tyrše a jeho rodiny,” Casopis národního muzea v Praze, Vol. 154 (1985), 180–90. Rocek, Antonín. “K nekterým otázkám cesko-ruských sportovních a telocvicných styku do r. 1918.” Unpub. manuscript, MTVS, Apr. 1974–Nov. 1977. Rocek, Antonín. “Sokol a Rusko do bolševické revoluce v roce 1917.” Sokol v ceské spolecnosti, 185–203. See Kössl, Jirí. Rus, Richard. “Národní energie. Úvahy o Tyršove díle,” Tyršuv sborník, Vol. 5 (1923), 5–106. Sayer, Derek. The Coasts of Bohemia: a Czech History. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1998. Schorske, Carl. “Politics in a New Key: an Austrian Trio.” In Fin-de-Siècle Vienna: Politics and Culture, 116–80. New York: Vintage Books, 1981. Schröder, Willi. “Einleitung.” In Friedrich Ludwig Jahn and Ernst Eiselen, Die deutsche Turnkunst, v–xli. Berlin: Sportverlag, 1960. Šebek, Jaroslav et al., Historie ceského skautingu slovem a obrazem. Mlada Boleslav: Šebek-Pospíšil, 1990. Seidlerová, Irena. “Science in a Bilingual Country.” Bohemia in History, 233–4. See Petrán, Josef. Šesták, M. “Ceši a Jihoslované v habsburské monarchii v letech 1850–1890.” In Václav Zácek et al., Ceši a Jihoslované v minulosti, 403–87. Prague: Academia, 1975. Seton-Watson, R.W. A History of the Czechs and Slovaks. London: Hutchinson, 1943. Seton-Watson, R.W. Masaryk in England. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1943. Silaba, R. Tricet let Delnické telovýchovy: K výrocí 25letého trvání Svazu Delnických telocvicných jednot ceskoslovenských. Prague: Svaz DTJC, 1928. Skilling, H.G. “The Politics of the Czech Eighties.” In The Czech Renascence of the Nineteenth Century, 254–81. See Hroch, Miroslav. Smith, Anthony D. Theories of Nationalism. New York: Harper & Row, 1971.

250

Bibliography

Sochorová, Ludmila. “Výstava jako divadlo – a divadlo na výstave.” In Mýtus ceského národa, 134–60. See Broucek, Stanislav. Šorm, Gustav. “Dr. M. Tyrš a I. sokolský slet roku 1882,” Teorie a praxe telesné výchovy a sportu, Vol. 5 (1957), 524–32. Soukup, F.A. Idea národní armády, 4th edn. Prague: Svaz ceskoslovenského dustojnictva, 1937. Soukupová, Blanka. “Ceské a nemecké spolky v Praze v 60. az 80. letech 19. století: Souzítí a kulturní výmena.” In Prazané–jiní–druzí–cizí, 7–28. Prague: Ústav pro etnografie a folkloristu CSAV, 1992. Soušek, Josef. Jan Helcelet. Brno: Moravský legionár, 1937. Št’astný, Václav. “Národní a osvobozenecké úsilí Cechu a Jihoslovanu v období predválecného imperialismu: Ve znamení tzv. pokrokového hnutí.” In Ceši a Jihoslované v minulosti, 488–543. See Šesták, M. Št’astný, Václav. “Vliv tzv. slovanské politiky Ruska v ceském prostredí.” In Slovanství v národním zivote Cechu a Slováku, 256–65. See Herman, K. Stehlíková, Eva. “Obradní a divadelní prvky v sokolském hnutí.” In Divadlo v ceské kulture 19. století, 161–6. Ed. Milena Freimanová. Prague: Národní galerie, 1985. Štepánová, Irena. “Kalendárium Národopisné výstavy.” In Mýtus ceského národa, 31–81. See Broucek, Stanislav. Stodeset let Sokola: 1862–1972. 2 parts in 1 vol. Prague: Olympia, 1973. Štoll, Ladislav. Politický smysl sokolství. Prague: Karel Borecký, 1932. Strohmeyer, Hannes. “Sport und Politik: Das Beispiel der Turnbewegungen in Österreich 1918–1938.” In Turnen und Sport in der Geschichte Österreichs, 212–44. See Größing, Stefan. Štursová, Kvetoslava. Prapory Sokola prazského. Prague: Vzlet, 1992. Sugar, Peter F. “External and Domestic Roots of East European Nationalism.” In Nationalism in Eastern Europe, 3–54. Ed. Peter F. Sugar and Ivo J. Lederer. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1971. Suppan, Arnold. “Die Haltung der Tschechen und Deutschen Böhmens zum Krieg in Oberitalien 1859.” In Bildungsgeschichte, Bevölkerungsgeschichte, Gesellschaftsgeschichte, 191–214. See Cohen, Gary. Svobodová, Blanka. “Slavnost svecení spolkového praporu jako projev národne politické aktivity na prelomu 60. a 70. let 19. století v Praze.” In Prazské slavnosti a velké výstavy, 203–14. See Hájek, Jan. Teichler, Hans-Joachim. “Arbeitersport als soziales und politisches Phänomen in wilhelminischen Klassenstaat.” In Geschichte der Leibesübungen, Vol. 3/1, 443–84. See Begov, Franz. Thompson, S. Harrison. “A Century of a Phantom: Panslavism and the Western Slavs,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. 11 (1951), 57–77. Tolleneer, Jan. “The Dual Meaning of ‘Fatherland’ and Catholic Gymnasts in Belgium, 1892–1914.” In Tribal Identities, 94–107. See Eichberg, Henning. Toufar, F.A. Sokol, the Czechoslovak National Gymnastic Organisation. London: Allen & Unwin, 1941. Trevor-Roper, Hugh. “The Invention of Tradition: the Highland Tradition of Scotland.” In The Invention of Tradition, 15–41. Ed. Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger. Cambridge: Cambridge UP/ Canto, 1992. Tvrdý, Josef. “Jest filosofie Tyršova positivismem?” Tyršuv sborník, Vol. 1 (1920), 5–13.

Bibliography

251

Ueberhorst, Horst. Friedrich Ludwig Jahn and His Time, 1778–1852. Trans. Timothy Nevill. Munich: Moos, 1978. Ueberhorst, Horst. Frisch, frei, stark und treu: die Arbeitersportbewegung in Deutschland 1893–1933. Düsseldorf: Droste, 1973. Urban, Otto. Ceská spolecnost, 1848–1918. Prague: Svoboda, 1982. Urban, Otto. “K nekterým aspektum zivotního stylu ceského mešt’anstva v polovine 19. století.” In Mesto v ceské kulture 19. století, 34–42. Ed. Milena Freimanová. Prague: Národní galerie, 1983. Vyšný, Paul. Neo-Slavism and the Czechs, 1989–1914. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1977. Waic, Marek. “Sokol za války.” Sokol v ceské spolecnosti, 93–9. See Kössl, Jirí. Waic, Marek. “Sokolské hnutí od vzniku Ceské obce sokolské do konce první svetové války.” In Sokol v ceské spolecnosti, 55–101. See Kössl, Jirí. Waic, Marek. “Záverem.” Sokol v ceské spolecnosti, 204–8. See Kössl, Jirí. Weber, Eugen. “Gymnastics and Sports in Fin-de-Siècle France: Opium of the Classes?” American Historical Review, Vol. 76 (1971), 70–98. Weigner, Karel. Josef Scheiner, starosta Ceskoslovenské obce sokolské, starosta Svazu slovanské Sokolstvo. Prague: nákl. vlástním, 1934. Weiser, Thomas. “K.W. Deutschs Modell der Nationswerdung und sein Beitrag für die historische Nationalismusforschung.” In Formen des nationalen Bewußtseins, 127–43. See Breuilly, John. Winters, Stanley B. “Austroslavism, Panslavism and Russophilism in Czech Political Thought, 1870–1900.” In Intellectual and Social Developments in the Habsburg Empire from Maria Theresa to World War I, 175–202. Ed. Stanley B. Winters and Joseph Held. New York: Columbia UP, 1975. Winters, Stanley B. “Jan Otto, T.G. Masaryk, and the Czech National Encyclopedia,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, Vol. 31 (1983), 516–42. Winters, Stanley B. “Kramár, Kaizl, and the Hegemony of the Young Czech Party, 1891–1901.” In The Czech Renascence of the Nineteenth Century, 282–314. See Hroch, Miroslav. Wittlich, Petr. “Sochárství.” In Praha národního probuzení, 205–78. See Poche, Emanuel. Woltmann, Bernard. “Der polnische ‘Sokol’ 1867–1914.” In Sokol, jeho vznik, vývoj a význam, 123–8. See Beranová, Jitka. Zacek, Joseph. “The Czech Enlightenment and the Czech National Revival,” Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism, Vol. 10 (1983), 17–28. Zacek, Joseph Frederick. “Czech National Consciousness in the Baroque Era,” History of European Ideas, Vol. 16 (1993), 935–41. Zacek, Joseph. “Nationalism in Czechoslovakia.” In Nationalism in Eastern Europe, 166–206. See Sugar, Peter F. Zacek, Joseph. Palacký: the Historian as Scholar and Nationalist. The Hague: Mouton, 1970. Zácek, Václav. “Polonofilství a rusofilství – dve alternativy ceského slovanství let šedesátych.” In Slovanství v národním zivote Cechu a Slováku, 227–47. See Herman, K. Zácek, Václav. “Polské povstání roku 1863 a druhá vlna ceského polonofilství.” In Václav Zácek et al., Ceši a Poláci v minulosti, Vol. 2, 246–64. Prague: Academia, 1967. Zácek, Václav, and Ruzena Havránková. “Srbové a Ceši v dobe rešení ‘východní krize’.” In Ceši a Jihoslované v minulosti, 344–402. See Šesták, M.

252

Bibliography

Zamoyski, Adam. “Tyrš a Polaci.” In Památník IX. sletu všesokolského, 34–6. See Manochyn, Nikolaj. Zapletal, Vladimír. JUDr. Rudolf Kníze Thurn-Taxis: K 100. výrocí narození “selského knízete” 1833–25.XI.–1933. Brno: Moravský legionár, 1933. Zapletal, Vladimír. “Pocátky Sokola brnenského.” In Dejiny Sokola Brno, 1–116. See Kozík, František. Zich, Otakar. “Sokolstvo s hlediska estetického,” Tyršuv sborník, Vol. 2 (1920), 5–27. Zumr, J. “Antika a ceské filozofie 19. století.” In Antika a ceská kultura, 488–517. Prague: Academia, 1978.

Index Academic Reading Association 116, 141 American Czechs 83, 105–6, 114–15, 122, 129, 151, 161, 170, 175 Amerling, Karel Slavoj 40 Anticlericalism 136, 153, 167 Anti-Semitism 120, 136, 146, 227 n. 108 Arbeiterturnverein 142–3, 222 n. 30 Art Alliance (Umelecká beseda) 28, 30–1, 35–6 Association for the Cultivation of the Games of Czech Children 128, 130, 161 Ausgleich (1867) 31–3, 47, 74, 77–9, 81, 83, 161 Austro-Prussian War 31, 74–7, 93, 113 Austro-Slavism 23–4 Bach, Alexander von 27, 29, 41, 46 Baden Powell, Robert 149 Badeni, Count Kazimierz 135–6, 140, 158–9, 163 Barák, Josef 45, 51, 54, 58–60, 116 Bartelmus, Eduard 26, 45 Basedow, Johann Bernhard 7 Belcredi, Count Egbert 88 Belcredi, Count Richard 68 Blaník Mountain 60, 116–17 Bohemian State Rights 21–2, 30, 33, 136, 142–3, 171 Boulanger, Georges Ernest 120 Boy Scouts 149 Breuilly, John 3 Bulgarians, Bulgaria 151, 163, 165, 168–9, 175, 177 Burschenschaften 10–11 Byron, George Gordon (Lord) 147 Carnot, Sadi 119, 125 Cech, Svatopluk 106 Central School Foundation

138

Cerný, Tomáš 31, 59, 68, 72, 83, 102 Christian Socialist Party 136, 146 Cízek, František 123 Clericalism 140, 146, 148, 153–4, 158, 171–3 Clubs, see voluntary associations Comenius, Jan Amos 96, 101 Conan Doyle, Sir Arthur 148 Constantine, Russian Grand Duke 124–5 COS (Ceská obec sokolská) 117, 125–6, 131–4, 138–41, 147–53, 155–6, 160, 164–5, 169, 174, 179, 182 celebrations and festivals of, see Slet congresses of 115, 123, 130–1, 144–5, 149, 170–4, 177 founding of 115–16 and Habsburg authorities 118–20, 124–5, 151, 160–1, 174, 179 outings of 118–20, 123–5, 153, 159 St Wenceslaus Day Resolution (1895) of 130–3, 135, 144, 147, 149, 157, 174 Coubertin, Pierre de 183 Croats, Croatia 82, 100, 106–7, 118, 122, 129, 151, 161, 164–5, 167–9, 175 Czech Awakening 20–4, 100, 122, 181 Czech Ethnographic Exhibition (1895) 129–30, 162 Czech National Council 137 Czechoslav Agrarian Party 136, 153, 159 Czechoslovak Legions 180, 183 Czechoslovak Republic 3, 95, 180, 183 Darwin, Charles, and Darwinism 26, 38, 91–2, 104, 112, 126 Denis, Ernest 159 Déroulède, Paul 120 253

254

Index

Deutsch, Karl 2 Deutsches Bund 10, 14 Dobrovský, Josef 22–4 Dreyfus, Alfred 120 DTJ (Delnická telocvicná jednota) 143–4, 146–7, 150, 154, 171–4, 180 Duchcov 138–9 Dušan Silný (Serbian gymnastic organization) 151, 168, 176 Dvorák, Antonín 121 Eim, Gustav 94 Eiselen, Ernst 12, 15, 25, 40 Émigré Czechs 32, 83, 151, 166 see also American Czechs Erben, František 166 Federation of Czechoslav Sokols 132–3, 165 Federation of Slavic Sokols 165, 167–9, 174, 177, 179 FEG (Fédération Européenne de Gymnastique) 133, 151, 159–60, 162–3, 175 Fichte, Johann Gottlieb 8 Fischer, Petr 75 Francis Joseph (Austrian Emperor) 27, 31–2, 36, 44, 46, 52, 77, 159 Franco-Prussian War 93–4, 98, 120 Franklin, Benjamin 148 Freikorps 10 French, France 2, 6–8, 10, 12, 14, 16–17, 31, 93, 114, 118–25, 129, 150–2, 154, 159–60, 175–6 Friedrich Wilhelm IV (Prussian King) 11 Friesen, Karl Friedrich 9–10, 12, 14 Fucík, Milan 146 Fügner, Jindrich 3, 26, 35, 37, 39, 58–9, 64, 67–8, 72, 75, 84, 93, 96, 102, 106, 121, 151, 153, 176, 183 life of 43–7 Sokol ideology of 48–54, 57, 63, 65, 69, 73, 94, 97, 128 Fügnerová, Katerina 44, 53, 112 Fuller, Francis 6 The Fundamentals of Gymnastics 84–5, 89, 91, 97

Galen 6 Garibaldi, Guiseppe 46, 48–9, 61, 71, 97, 144 Garver, Bruce 1 Gay, Ernest 164 Germans of Habsburg empire 33 in Czech lands 1, 3, 24–6, 29, 32, 41, 43–4, 46–7, 70, 72, 114, 121–2, 127, 135, 137–8, 158–9, 184 Grégr, Edvard 26, 28, 41–3, 48–9, 51, 54–5, 75, 101–2, 107, 114 Grégr, Julius 32, 41–3, 47, 51–2, 54–5, 60, 63, 68, 101 Guth, Jirí 150 GutsMuths, Johann Christoph 7–9, 12–14, 16–17, 150 Gymnastics 16–17, 187 n. 12 Czech, see Sokol movement German 82, 166, see also Turnverein and nationalism 2–3, 5, 9, 19 origins of 5–8 Swedish 15–17, 82, 166 Hanka, Václav 46 Hanuš, Ignác 26, 70 Hardenberg, Prince Karl August von 9–11 Havlícek Borovský, Karel 24, 45 Havlícková, Zdenka 45 Hayes, Carlton J.H. 21 Helcelet, Ctibor 71, 88–9 Helcelet, Jan 70–1, 88, 204 n. 55 Helfert, Joseph Alexander von 44, 52 Henlein, Konrad 184 Herder, Johann Gottfried von 23 Hippocrates 6 Hlahol 28, 43, 46, 51, 53, 57, 68, 73 Hlavácek, Karel 1, 126 Hlinka, Andrej 161 Hochmann, František 99–100 Hofman, František 168, 176 Hohenwart, Count Karl Sigmund 32–4, 88–9, 94–6, 99, 101 Hribar, Ivan 164 Hroch, Miroslav 1 Hus, Jan 153–4, 156, 162 Hussites 21, 23, 31, 33, 63, 83, 96–7, 101–2, 104, 115, 147, 153–4, 162, 183

Index Jahn, Friedrich Ludwig 5, 8–9, 16–20, 40, 48, 85–6, 102, 120, 150, 181 gymnastic work of 11–13 nationalism of 9–11, 13–15, 181 Janácek, Leoš 130 Jews 17, 46, 140–3, 146 see also Anti-Semitism Jonas, Carl 114 Joseph II (Holy Roman Emperor) 21–2 Jubilee Exhibition (1891) 121–2, 124, 129 Junak (Bulgarian gymnastic organization) 151, 169, 177 Jungmann, Josef 101 Juvenal 5 Klofác, Václav 136, 164–5, 174 Kohn, Hans 1 Kolár, Josef Jirí 106 Kollár, Jan 23–4 Koller, General Alexander von 31–2, 34 Kotzebue, August von 11 Kramár, Karel 163, 176 Kukan, Václav 139–43, 145–8, 154–6 Kvapil, Jaroslav 176 League of Enlightenment (Osvetový svaz) 155–6 Leopold II (Holy Roman Emperor) 22, 122 Letná Field 33, 130, 152, 162, 183 Liebscher, Adolf 106 Ling, Per Henryk 16–17 Malýpetr, Jan 28, 41, 47, 49 Mánes, Josef 48, 53 Manifesto of Czech Modernism 182 Manuscripts of Králové Dvur and Zelená Hora 46, 78, 96, 137 Maria Theresa (queen of Bohemia and consort of Holy Roman Emperor) 21 Masaryk, Tomáš Garrigue 95, 100, 137, 179–80, 182 Matice ceská (Czech Foundation) 27, 39

255

May, Karl 148 Mešt’anská beseda (Civic Association) 27, 31, 39, 45, 106–7, 163, 193 n. 24 Mill, John Stuart 147 Montenegro, Montenegrins 49, 151, 164–5, 168, 175 Moravia 27, 32, 56, 69–71, 76, 82, 88–9, 100–2, 105, 107, 113, 117, 129, 132–3, 135–6, 138, 146, 153–4, 158, 172, 179 Moravia–Silesian Sokol Union 133, 153, 156 Moscow, 1867 pilgimage to 31–2, 82, 98, 102 Mosse, George 2 Mudron, Pavel 88 Napoleon III (French Emperor) 31, 93 Národní listy 28, 32, 36, 41–2, 54, 58, 136, 154 National Museum 153 Society 22–3, 27, 39 National Socialists 136, 146, 153, 164, 174, 182 National Theater 36, 106, 121, 129, 151, 161 Committee for 27, 31, 45–6 foundation-stone ceremony (1868) 31, 78, 84 Nationalism Czech 3–4, 20–5, 28–30, 36, 93, 122 see also Czech Awakening and Slavism German 5, 8, 10 theories of 2–4, 15, 21 Neo-Slavism 23, 163–4, 166, 168–9, 177 Nostic-Rieneck, Count Franz 22 Novotný, Josef 45 Ocenášek, Augustin 149, 152–3, 177 Oetz in Tyrol 37, 112 Old Czechs 30–2, 34, 36, 51, 59, 88, 90, 94, 110–11, 114–15, 120–1, 129, 159 Olivová, Vera 2

256

Index

Olympic Games 7, 85, 150, 174, 183 Orel (Catholic gymnastic movement) 154, 172, 227 n. 104 Pacák, Bedrich 160 Palacký, František 22–4, 28, 30–1, 53, 93, 97, 175 Pestalozzi, Johann 8–9 Philanthropinum 7 Philanthropists 7–8, 13 Pippich, Karel 144–5, 165, 171 Plamann, Johann Ernst 9 Podlipný, Jan 116–20, 122, 124–6, 133, 137, 153, 156 Poles, Poland 49, 82, 99–100, 105–6, 111, 114, 117, 122–4, 150–2, 160, 164–5, 167–8, 175, 177 1863 revolt 30, 56, 59–60, 62 Prague gymnastic institutes 25–6, 28, 39–41 Prague Sokol 5, 31, 37, 46, 48, 50–6, 58–9, 63–75, 79–80, 87–8, 90–1, 102–3, 105, 107–8, 112–18, 126, 138–9, 149, 154, 181 celebrations and festivals of 48, 53–4, 59, 68–9, 78, 83–4, 101–2 founding of 41–3 gymnastic training in 47–8, 50, 67, 74–8, 84–5 and Habsburg authorities 47, 49, 51, 54, 56–9, 60–4, 69, 76, 78–81 outings of 51–2, 54, 56, 58–9, 62–3 Tyrš Institute for Boys in 112, 127 see also Sokol movement Prague Teachers’ Academy 40, 63–4 Prague Technical College 37, 64, 75, 125, 194 n. 44 Prague, University of 22, 26, 37, 40, 42, 64, 71, 108, 110, 112, 123 Prinz, Friedrich 1, 4 Progressive Movement 110–11, 122–3, 125, 129, 135, 141, 150, 153–4, 157–8 Purkyne, Jan Evangelista 26, 40–2, 50, 60

Revolution of 1848 181 in Czech lands 20–1, 23–5, 27, 40, 42, 44, 141 in German lands 17–18, 62 Rieger, František Ladislav 28, 30–2, 53, 78, 107, 110–11 Ríp Hill 33, 51 Rittikh, General Alexander F. 151 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques 2, 7–8 Russians, Russia 30–3, 82–3, 98–100, 124, 151, 159–60, 164, 166–7, 169, 175, 177 Revolution of 1905 in 99, 159, 163, 166–7 Russo-Turkish War 33, 106 Ruthenes 167, 169, 175 Šafarík, Pavel Josef 24, 40–1 St Wenceslaus Resolution (1895) see COS Salzmann, Christian Gotthilf 7 Sand, Karl 11 Sansboeuf, Josef 120, 151 Scheiner, Josef 104, 112–13, 116–18, 123, 125, 130, 133, 150, 155–6, 160, 165–8, 170, 174, 179–80 Sokol ideology of 112, 127, 131, 144–5, 156–7, 162–3, 164, 172–3, 182 Schmerling, Anton von 47, 49, 62, 64 Schmidt, Ferdinand 26, 40–1 Schnepfenthal 7, 13 Schönborn, Count 156 Schopenhauer, Arthur 26 Schorske, Carl 135 Schwarzenberg, Prince Charles of 153 Serbs, Serbia 100, 151, 161, 163, 165, 168–9, 171, 175, 177 Seton-Watson, R.W. 1, 159 Shakespeare Festival (1864) 30, 35 Šibrinky 69, 100 Sic (Ruthene gymnastic organization) 167, 175 Silesia 94, 138, 167 Sládek, Josef 121, 130 Slavic Congress (1848) 24, 163 Slavism 151, 163–5, 191 n. 11

Index in Czech nationalism 23–4, 31–3, 42, 100, 158, 163, 182–3 see also Austro-Slavism and Neo-Slavism Slet 90, 95, 110, 113–15, 120, 122, 132, 139, 152, 154, 158, 165, 169, 173, 179–80 First (1882) 105–8, 113, 129, 132, 150, 181 Second (1891) 121–3, 126, 129, 132 Third (1895) 129–30, 133, 139, 151–2, 179 Fourth (1901) 150–3 Fifth (1907) 159–63, 165, 168 Sixth (1912) 120, 174–7 Slovaks 49, 88, 100, 161 Slovenes, Slovenia 71–2, 82, 91, 98, 100, 106–7, 118, 122, 129, 151, 154, 161, 164–5, 167, 169, 175 Smetana, Bedrich 130, 161 Smiles, Samuel 148–9 Social Democrats 136–7, 140–6, 153, 158–9, 163, 171, 173–4 Sokol movement 5, 19–20, 28–9, 31, 33, 35, 37–9, 55, 71, 74, 76, 95, 103, 105, 110–11, 137 adolescents and children in 127–8, 130–1, 161, 179 in America 83, 105–6, 113, 161, 170 in Bulgaria, see Junak celebrations and festivals of 68, 86; see also Slet in Croatia 100, 106, 118, 165, 167, 169 in Czech minority areas 138–9, 170 formation of union 80–1, 87–9, 107–8, 110, 113, 115–16 growth of 63, 69–72, 79, 82, 88, 102, 104, 108, 113, 150, 174, 180, 185 gymnastic training in 79, 84–6, 123, 126–7, 130–1, 149, 151–2, 162 and Habsburg authorities 75, 78–9, 88, 107, 113–14, 117 ideology of 52, 61, 63, 125–8, 130–1, 133–4, 139–49, 152, 154–7, 162–5, 170–4, 182–3

257

and mass nationalism 1–4 in Moravia 56, 69–71, 88–9, 91, 132–3, 165, 179 nongymnastic work of 87, 127, 131–2, 147–8, 150 outings of 117–18 in Poland 82, 99–100, 106, 114, 117, 123–4, 160, 167–9, 175, 177 ritual and symbolic elements in 48–9, 51, 53, 97, 107–8, 121–2, 131, 181 in Russia 83, 98–9, 166–7, 169, 177 in Ruthenia 167, see also Sic in Serbia 168–9, 176, see also Dušan Silný in Slovenia 71–2, 82, 98, 100, 106, 118, 165, 167, 169 social composition of 64–7, 88, 103–4, 109, 128 in Vienna 79, 129 women in 53, 128, 131, 151–2, 161, 173, 179 see also COS, Prague Sokol, and Tyrš, Miroslav Spiess, Adolph 16, 18, 40, 50, 86 Spina, Franz 181 Sports 6–7, 86, 94, 123, 126, 149–50, 152, 166 Steed, Henry Wickham 175 Stegmayer, Gustav 40–1 Stephani, Rudolf von 25, 40 Sternberg, Count Franz 23 Sternberg, Count Kašpar 23 Stýblo, Bedrich 75 Stýblo, Jaroslav 112 Šubert, František Adolf 129 Svetlá, Karolina 43, 53 Switzerland 10, 34, 38, 82, 87, 90–1, 93–4, 107, 119 gymnastics in 15–16 Taaffe, Count Eduard 36, 90, 103, 108, 110–14, 117, 124, 163 Tábory 31–3, 78, 81–2, 84, 88, 101, 194 n. 35 Thurn-Taxis, Prince Rudolf von 42–3, 47, 51, 53–4, 58–9, 60, 68 Tonner, Emanuel 41–2, 54, 71

258

Index

Turnverein 3–5, 8–11, 16–20, 39, 40–1, 47–50, 52–3, 62, 67, 75, 96, 105, 120, 126, 133, 149, 184 in Austrian empire 41, 68, 81–2, 114, 146, 207 n. 38 festivals of 15, 17–19, 86 founding of 9, 12 gymnastic training in 11–13, 15, 18, 82, 86, 209 n. 63 ideology of 14–15, 17–19 ritual and symbolic elements in 10, 14–15 see also Jahn, Friedrich Ludwig Tyrš, Miroslav 3, 20–1, 27–30, 38, 40–3, 45–59, 64–5, 67–9, 71–9, 84, 90–1, 105–8, 110, 112–13, 116, 121–2, 125, 127, 131, 133, 143–4, 150–1, 154, 158, 176–7, 181–3 as art scholar 35–7 early life 25–6 illness and death 34, 36–7, 87, 108, 153 as politician 33–4 slavism of 59, 81–2, 98–100 and Sokol gymnastic system 47–8, 50, 74–8, 84–7, 149 Sokol ideology of 54, 56, 83–7, 91–8, 100, 102–5, 109, 126, 141, 147–9, 153, 181 and Sokol union 80–1, 87–9, 100, 113, 115 Tyršová, Renata (Fügnerová) 34–5, 44, 52–3, 104, 108

Ulmann, Ignác 67 Union of French Gymnasts (L’Union des sociétés de gymnastique de France) 118–20, 122–3 Vanícek, Jindrich 123, 125, 130, 133, 166, 180 Vanícek, Karel 125–6, 131, 133–4, 139, 141, 146–8, 150, 154, 158, 161, 171 Veselý, Jan 98–9 Voluntary associations 3, 52, 64–5 in Czech lands 27–9, 39, 41, 47, 51, 79, 88 Wandervogel 126 White Mountain, Battle of 21, 141 Windischgrätz, Prince Alfred 112 World War I 3, 24, 135, 173, 179–80, 183 World’s Fair in Chicago (1893) 129 in Paris (1889) 118, 122–3, 166 Young Czechs 28, 30–4, 36, 42, 47, 51, 56, 59, 90, 94, 102, 110–16, 120–1, 123, 129, 135–7, 144–5, 153, 159–60, 163, 171, 174, 176, 182 Zeithammer, Antonín Otakar 88 Zimmermann, Robert 26 Zionism 146 Zizka, Jan 52, 63, 77, 96, 101–2