Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:55:41.053Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Smoler's Idea of Nationality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Peter Brock
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

“Many Germans make a mistake … in assuming that the idea of nationality is the same with the Slavs as with the Germans, and this false view is responsible for many disagreements, which are very much in the way of a genuine understanding between Germans and Slavs.”

“Our famous patriot and first leader of the new-born nation”—in these words an eminent Lusatian Serb scholar once described the awakener of his people, Jan Ernst (Arnost) Smoler (1816-84).

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , March 1969 , pp. 25 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1969

Access options

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

References

1. Schmaler, J. E. [Smoler], Die Schmahschrift des Schmiedemeisters Stosch gegen die sprach-wissenschaftlichen Wenden, beleuchtet vom Standpunkte der Wissenschaft und Wahrheit (Bautzen [Budyšin], 1868), p. 25 Google Scholar.

2. Muka, Ernst,“K stolětnym narodninam Jana Ernsta Smolerja,” Casopis Maćicy Serbskeje (Budyšin), 69, no. 1/2 (1916): 3 Google Scholar. Cf. the verdict of a well-informed German writer, a contemporary of Smoler's but on the whole hostile to the Lusatian Serb movement of awakening:“Schmaler ist die Seele der ganzen literarischen Bewegung der Wenden geblieben, und wir glauben kaum, dass er so leicht wieder ersetzt werden kann.“ Andree, Richard, Wendische Wanderstudien: Zur Kunde der Lausitz und der Sorbenwenden (Stuttgart, 1874), p. 23 Google Scholar. See also pp. 22, 39. No authoritative study on Smoler exists. A popular biography by Jan Cyž is in course of publication: Jan Arnošt Smoler: Wobrys jeho žiwjenja a skutkowanja (Budyšin). So far only volume I (to 1848) has appeared (1966). There is also an unpublished doctoral dissertation on Smoler in Upper Lusatian by Lucija Hajnec (University of Prague, 1952). A very important source for Smoler's life and ideas is Josef Pata's edition of his correspondence with Czech friends: Z čěskeho listowanja Jana Arnošta Smolerja: Přinošk k stawiznam čěsko-serbskich poćahoiv (Budyšin, 1919). I cite it below as Smoler-Patá. Much of the literature on Smoler is listed by Páta (pp. 7-9) and in the bibliographies in Hajnec and Cyž. Most of Smoler's private papers were destroyed during the last war, but the Institut für sorbische Volksforschung (Institut za serbski ludospyt) in Bautzen possesses fragments of his correspondence either in the original or on microfilm. See Mětšk, Frido, Bestandverzeichnis des sorbischen Kulturarchivs in Bautzen, vol. 1 (Bautzen, 1963)Google Scholar, passim; Petre, Jan in IV Mezhdunarodnyi s“ezd slavistov: Materialy-diskussii (Moscow, 1962), 1: 273 Google Scholar. The author wishes to thank the Canada Council for awarding him a research grant for the summer of 1967 to help in the preparation of this article. The author's usage“Lusatian Serb” will seem strange to some readers. The common form is“Sorb,” based on the German Sorben, from Latin Sorabici. However, the people call themselves“Serbs,” and it seems best to employ the indigenous usage. The term“Sorb” deserves to follow“Wend” into oblivion in English scholarship.“Lusatian” alone is ambiguous, since the majority of Lusatians have for several centuries been Germans.—EDITOR

3. See especially Páta, Zawod do studija serbskeho pismozvstzva (Budyšin, 1929); Gofbek, Józef, Literatura serbo-luzycka (Katowice, 1938)Google Scholar; Jenč, Rudolf, Stazvizny serbskeho pismozvstwa (Budyšin), vol. 1 (1954), vol. 2 (1960)Google Scholar; Frinta, Antonin, Lužičti Srbové a jejich pisemnictvi (Prague, 1955)Google Scholar; Rauch, Walter J., Presse und Volkstum der Lausitzer Sorben (Wurzburg, 1959)Google Scholar; Petr, Jan, Úvod do polityckých a kultumich dějin lužickych Srbu (Prague, 1963)Google Scholar. All these works devote considerable space to the nineteenth-century national awakening. Two recent school textbooks may also be mentioned: Serbscina: 10. Studijny list (Maty Wjelkow, n.d.) ( Cyš, Jan:“Pismowstwo serbskeho narodneho wozrodźenja [Smolerjowa doba]“); Wučbnica sa stazvizny serbskeje literatury, vol. 1 (Berlin, 1958)Google Scholar, pt. 2. In addition, a multivolume political and social history of the Lusatian Serbs is in preparation by the Institut fur sorbische Volksforschung.

4. The activities of Jan Pětr Jordan (1818-91) deserve special mention in this connection. Jordan was Smoler's contemporary, and in the late 1830s and during the 1840s often paralleled him in undertakings to develop national consciousness among their people (e.g., in language reform and journalism). See Sleca, Herman, Dr. Jan Pětr Jordan: Jeho žiwjenje a skutkowanje (Budyšin, 1926 Google Scholar), for Jordan's activities before 1848, and Miloš Schmidt, , Dr. Jan Pětr Jordan: Jeho zizvjenje a skutkozvanje wot Iěta 1848 (Budyšin, 1962)Google Scholar for the period after 1848. See also my article“J- P. Jordan's Role in the National Awakening of the Lusatian Serbs,” Canadian Slavonic Papers, 10, no. 3 (1968): 312-40.

5. Frido Mětšk,“Přehlad stawiznow: Stawizny nowowěka hač do skoncenja 1. swětoweje wojny,” Nowa šula (Budysin), 1954, p. 340. See also Tschernik, E., Die Entwicklung der sorbischen Bevblkerung von 1832 bis 1945: Eine demographische Untersuchung (Berlin, 1954 Google Scholar), passim.

6. Among the more important studies of Lusatian Serb activity in 1848-49 the following may be mentioned: Černý, Adolf, Lužická otáska (Plzeň, 1918), pp. 12–37 Google Scholar; a series of articles by R. Jenč in Nozva doba (Budyšin), March-May 1948; Pawol Wičaz,“Serbske towarstwowe hibanje za čas byrgarskich rewolucijow 1. 1848/49,” Rozhlad (Budysin), vol. 13, no. 1 (1963), pp. 1-11; no. 2, pp. 33-41; no. 3, pp. 65-75; Hartstock, Erhard in Lětopis: Jahresschrift des Instituts für sorbische Volksjorschung (Bautzen)Google Scholar, series B:“Zur Bauernbewegung im sorbischen Gebiet der sächsischen Oberlausitz 1848- 1849,” no. 12 (1965), pp. 117-43;“Die sorbische kleinbürgerliche Intelligenz in der Revolution von 1848/49,” no. 13/1 (1966), pp. 1-20.

7. [Marko Smoler],“Někotre dopomnjeńki ze žiwjenja wótca Smolerja,” in Wόtčinc Jan Arnošt Smoler k jeho posmjertninam 13.6.1934: Dopomnjenki-Wopovinjenki (Budysin, 1934), p. 11; Wicaz, Ota, Handrij Zejler a jeho doba (Budyšin, 1955), pp. 166–74Google Scholar.

8. As Smoler wrote of himself in his autobiography (p. 139):“Der wendische Mikrokosmus würde seinem Herzen jedoch immer der theuerste Schatz bleiben.” The German version of the autobiography was published shortly after Smoler's death as an appendix to Immisch, H. [Imiš], Deutsche Antwort eines sächsischen Wenden: Der PanslaivismuSj unter den sächsischen Wenden viit russischem Gelde betrieben und stt den Wenden in Preussen hinübergetragen (Leipzig, 1884 Google Scholar). It is not known for certain if Imiš translated from an Upper Lusatian original or if Smoler wrote this version in German. Another version of the autobiography, written in Upper Lusatian in 1881, is also extant. It was printed by Adolf Černy in the 1917 issue of Časopis Maćicy Serbskeje, vol. 70, under the title:“Autobiografija J. E. Smolerja.“

9. Jut'ničžka: Nozviny za Serbow (Budyšin), no. 17 (Apr. 23, 1842), p. 68.

10. Sreznevsky to Hanka, dated Dresden, Nov. 1, 1840, in Sreznevsky, O. I., ed.,“Puteviia pis'ma i zametki Sreznevskago o Serbo-Luzhichanakh 1840 g.,” Zhivaia starina (St. Petersburg), 1 (1890-91): 87 Google Scholar. There is a translation, not entirely accurate, of I. I. Sreznevsky's letters by Isolde Scharf in P. Nedo, ed.,“Briefe von I. I. Sreznevskij aus der Lausitz,” Lětopis: Jahresschrift des Instituts für sorbische Volksforschung, series C, no. 5 (1961/62). In a letter dated Oct. 6, 1841, to another Czech writer, František Doucha, Smoler himself describes his technique of song collecting as follows:“I have traveled all around the Lusatias and written down [the songs] from the mouths of the people” (Smoler-Pata, p. 39).

11. His great folk song collection appeared in two volumes: Volkslieder der Wenden in der Ober- und Nie der-Lausitz (Grimma, 1841-43). The materials are given both in Serb vernacular and in German translation. The actual preparation of the volumes as well as the lengthy introductions and notes were entirely the work of Smoler himself, although the name of Leopold Haupt appears as coeditor. Haupt was responsible for little more than the German translation—or rather for polishing Smoler's own translation.

12. Musiat, Sigismund (“J. E. Schmaler als Volkskundler,” Lětopis, series C, no. 9 [1966], p. 5)Google Scholar puts the matter well when he says that, like the German and Slavic folklorists of his day,“auch Schmaler [Smoler] stellte seine Volksliedsammlung in den Dienst der sorbischen Wiedergeburt.” At the time, however, Smoler seems to have put stress not so much on the impetus the songs gave to the development of Serb national culture as on the effect their publication had in bringing the attention of the Slavic world to the fate of the Lusatian Serbs. In his autobiography (Časopis Maćicy Scrbskeje, 70 [1917]: 9) he wrote:“The greatest gain from the publication of these songs came from the fact that not only Czech and Polish but also Russian and South Slav scholars have discovered that the Lusatian Serbs still exist.“

13. Page 21 of the photographic reprint of Smoler's Volkslieder der Sorben [sic] in der Ober- und Nicder-Lausitz (Berlin, 1953).

14. Smoler to Doucha, Oct. 20, 1844, in Smoler-Páta, p. 88. In his nationalist enthusiasm Smoler went so far as to claim that, in contradistinction to Germanized Slavs, any Germans who became Slavs were usually noted for their“noble deeds.“

15. Ibid., p. 83.

16. “Autobiografija J. E. Smolerja,” p. 19.

17. I have devoted a separate study to Smoler's relations with the Czech and Slovak awakeners.

18. Schmaler [Smoler], Die Schmähschrift des Schmiedemeisters Stosch gegen die sprach-tuissenschaftlichen Wenden, pp. 25, 26.

19. Ibid., p. 26.“Vorkampfer des Moskauer Byzantismus” and“Vertreter einer panslawistischen Agitation“: these were among the opprobrious terms leveled at Smoler by some sections of the German press. Smoler denied vigorously—and perhaps a little too ingenuously—that the Moscow meetings were a political demonstration, as the German, Austrian, Polish, and Magyar press had asserted. See Immisch, , Panslawistnus (Smoler's autobiography), pp. 151, 153, 154 Google Scholar; also Roppel, Leon,“Arnošt Smoler a Florian Ceynowa na Stowjanskim zjězdže w Ruskej 1. 1867,” Rozhlad, 18, no. 7 (1968): 251–59.Google Scholar

20. Lužičan: Časopis sa zabawu a powučenje (Budyšin), 1870, no. 11, p. 176.

21. “Autobiografija J. E. Smolerja,” p. 16. Smoler indignantly repudiated any imputation of being anti-German.“Von einem Racehass sei aber bei ihnen [i.e., Smoler and his associates] keine Spur vorhanden,” he wrote in his autobiography (in Immisch, , Panslawismus, p. 143 Google Scholar). Smoler also prided himself that in 1848 and 1849 his influence in the Serb press and on his community had helped to rally the Lusatian Serbs behind the Saxon monarch—a loyalty that was in fact afterwards rewarded by some minor concessions in regard to the use of Upper Lusatian in the schools and courts. (See“Autobiografija J. E. Smolerja,” pp. 13-15, for the correspondence in 1848 between Smoler and the German radical leader Robert Blum concerning legal protection of the cultural rights of the Lusatian Serbs.) Smoler consistently held that good relations between Germans and Slavs could only benefit the Lusatian Serbs. See Lužičan, 1872, no. 1, p. 16.

22. Smoler's reaction to the Russian revolutionary, Mikhail Bakunin, who visited him in Bautzen in 1849, was entirely negative. Bakunin sought to persuade Smoler to raise a revolt among the Lusatian Serb peasantry, who would begin by attacking the manor houses of the ethnically alien landowning class. Smoler argued that in Saxony peasant and landowner, whatever the disparity in their respective economic positions, were now, in fact, political equals. See“Autobiografija J. E. Smolerja,” pp. 17, 18, and German version in Immisch, , Panslawismus, pp. 143–45Google Scholar. Smoler's political views were those of a liberal constitutional monarchist.

23. Lužičan, 1871, no. 4, p. 4. Cf. ibid., 1872, no. 3, p. 48. In 1871, on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of Pogodin's scholarly career, Smoler wrote to him:“God grant that you still have many days for Holy Russia and for all the Slavs beyond the frontiers.” Quoted in Fadner, Frank, Seventy Years of Pan-Slavism in Russia: Karasin to Danilevskii, 1800-1870 (Washington, D.C., 1962), p. 25 Google Scholar. Smoler indeed believed that Russian scholars could be immensely helpful to their less well situated fellow academicians in other Slavic lands.

24. Lužxčan, 1871, no. 11, p. 176. See also ibid., 1872, no. 2, p. 32.

25. Smoler to Jezbera, Nov. 25, 1858, in Smoler-Páta, p. 149.

26. In a letter of Feb. 24, 1879, written to the great Lusatian poet, Jakub Bart (Cišinski), then a young theological student in Prague, Smoler said:“It is a misfortune to be regretted that Slavs have no [common] language, but only dialects.” Printed in Miklawš Krječmaŕ, ed.,“Z korespondence Smoleŕe, J. E.,” Ceškolužický Věstnik (Prague), 6, no. 4 (1925): 26 Google Scholar. In an earlier article in his Luzican (1871, no. 10, p. 160), Smoler explained the need for a common literary Slavic with a uniform alphabet. Just as Germans, French, or Italians, each by the creation of their own common and uniform Schriftsprache out of diverse dialects that still continued to be spoken in the home and on the street, had given an immense impetus to their national cultures, so Slavs could achieve the same result by adopting one common written language. Smoler went on to urge the adoption of Russian as the most convenient tongue for this purpose,“since the Russian people is the largest; … and Russia is the only independent Slav country.“ Thereafter, educated Slavs of different tongues would not need to use French or German as their best means of communicating with each other: they would all speak and read Russian. Such arguments were obviously borrowed from the writings of contemporary Russian Pan-Slavs.

27. See Petrovich, Michael Boro, The Emergence of Russian Panslavism, 1856-1870 (New York, 1956), chap. 6, Google Scholar“Linguistic Panslavism in Russia,” for the background to* Hilferding's proposals. Among west Slavs who were won over to the idea of Great Russian as a lingua slavica and of Cyrillic as the alphabet for all Slav vernaculars, perhaps the most prominent was Smoler's friend, the Slovak L'udovit Štur, who died in 1856.

28. Smoler to jezbera, Oct. 11, 1858, Smoler-Páta, p. 147. Páta (p. 162) has noted the large number of“Czechisms” in Smoler's Lusatian-language letters to his Slavic friends. To some extent such forms reflect the unconscious influence on Smoler of the Czech language. But they also betray the same desire he manifested in his adoption of the Cyrillic alphabet in writing Lusatian for external consumption: to make his letters more readily comprehensible to his friends abroad.

29. Their correspondence is printed in Smoler-Páta, pp. 147-52, 156-61.

30. See Páta, ,“Lužickosrbská účast na slovanské pouti do Moskvy r. 1867,” Časopis narodniho musea (Prague), 111 Google Scholar, pt. 3 (duchovědný): 199-211.

31. Pa wot Nowotny,“Die Bedeutung der slawischen Wechselseitigkeit für die Entwicklung der sorbischen Literatur und Wissenschaft, besonders in der 2 Halfte des 19 Jahrhunderts,” Zeitschrift für Slawistik (Berlin), 3, no. 2 (1963): 219.Google Scholar

32. Immisch, , Panslawismus, pp. 15, 16 Google Scholar.

33. For example, in 1879 at the annual meeting of the Maćica Serbska:“W politicy smy my N£mcy (In der Politik sind wir Deutsch).” Quoted by Immisch, , Panslawismus, p. 64 Google Scholar.

34. Krječmaŕ, M., ed.,“Listy J. E. Smolerja z Pólskeje a Ruskeje,” Lětopis Instituta sa serbski ludospyt (Budyšin), series A, no. 1 (1952), p. 153 Google Scholar. See also Immisch, , Panslawismus, pp. 61, 62, 64 Google Scholar: Pata,“Lužickosrbska účast na slovanske pouti do Moskvy r. 1867,” p. 205; Heine, L. [Hajnec, ],“Jan Arnost Smoler—Verfechter der Idee von der slavischen Wechselseitigkeit in der Lausitz,” Zeitschrijt für Slawistik, 3, no. 2-4 (1958): 538–41.Google Scholar

35. Smoler to Doucha, Oct. 20, 1844, in Smoler-Páta, pp. 81, 82. See pages 73 and 94 for evidence of the importance Smoler assigned to education in the Lusatian Serb language and in a national spirit.

36. Nowotny, Pawol, ed.,“Listy, pisane serbskemu gymnazialnemu towarstwu w Budyšinje z let 1839-1850,” Leětopis Instituta za serbski ludospyt, series A, no. 13 (1966), p. 192 Google Scholar. For this“Societas slavica Budissinensis” founded in 1839, see also Jenč, K. A.,“Serbske gymnasijalne towaŕstwo w Budyšinje wot 1839-1864,” Časopis Towafstwa Maćicy Serbskeje, 18, no. 1 (1865)Google Scholar: esp. 254-59. Smoler has left his own account of the aims and activities of his Breslau society in“Wratslawske Serbske Towaŕstwo,” Jufničžka, 1842, no. 16, pp. 63-65; no. 17, pp. 67, 68. For the obstacles Smoler encountered earlier, in 1831, in setting up a Serb literary society at his Bautzen high school, see“Autobiografija J. E. Smolerja,” pp. 4-6, and the German version in Immisch, , Panslawismus, pp. 137, 138 Google Scholar. Even Pastor Handrij Lubjenski, a respected figure among the Lusatian Serb cultural leaders, told the boy that all he was likely to achieve by his efforts would be“the enmity of the Germans and the ingratitude of the Serbs.” Pessimism of this kind is indeed often typical of the earliest generation among national awakeners: one need only recall the similar views mutatis mutandis of the Czech, Josef Dobrovsky.

37. As Sreznevsky wrote,“Smoler exercises a great influence on all these societies“ (printed in Zhivaia starina, 1: 90). Toward the end of his life Smoler was largely instrumental in setting up a“society to aid Serb students.” One of its main objects was to train Serb-speaking Protestant clergy for Prussian Lusatia, where they had been sadly lacking. See Smoler, Marko,“Dopomnjenki ze žiwjenja J. E. Smolerja,” Časopis Maćicy Serbskeje, 84, no. 1 (1931): 59, 60 Google Scholar; Parczewski, A. J., Jan Ernest Smoler (Warsaw, 1883), p. 65 Google Scholar; J. N., , Prenje 20 lět Towaŕstwa Pomocy za studowacych Serbow (Budyšin, [1900])Google Scholar.

38. Smoler first publicly urged the need for spelling reform in 1838. In the previous year J. P. Jordan, working quite independently and apparently unaware of Smoler's proposals, had devised a very similar system of orthography. The orthography of modern Lusatian, both in its Upper and Lower variants, draws on both Smoler and Jordan. However, it did not gain universal acceptance until after World War II.

39. Smoler, J. E.,“Předspomnjenje,” Časopis Tow. Maćicy Serbskeje, 1, no. 1 (1848): 4 Google Scholar.

40. Jut'ničžka, 1842, no. 17, p. 68. See also Smoler-Páta, p. 84.

41. Nowotny,“Listy, pisane serbskemu gymnazialnemu towarstwu w Budyšinje,“ pp. 198, 199.

42. Schmaler [Smoler], Die Schmähschrift des Schmiedemeisters Stosch gegen die sprach-wissenschaftlichen Wenden, p. 6. This pamphlet of 1868 represents Smoler's reply to the attacks of the Serb-speaking blacksmith, Johann Stosch, from the village of Drehsa, who—on the instigation of the extreme conservative group among the Protestant Lusatian clergy—had called on the Saxon administration to take official action against the introduction of the linguistic innovations of Smoler and his fellow workers into the churches and schools. Writing shortly after Smoler's visit to Moscow to attend the ethnographical exhibition there, Stosch played up the danger of Pan-Slavism in his pleas to the government. In contrast to the Neuwenden (as Smoler's party were called by its opponents), Stosch claimed—almost certainly correctly in regard to the Protestant community— that“ein grosser Theil der wendische Geistlichkeit und die Majoritat des Volkes ist auf meiner Seite.” See Andree, , Wendische Wanderstudien, pp. 50–55 Google Scholar.

43. Smoler to Doucha, July 4, 1844, in Smoler-Páta, p. 70. Pata remarked (p. 162) that“possibly not a single letter [of Smoler's] is written in exactly the same orthography.“ The correspondence printed in this volume stretches from the late 1830s to the early 1880s.

44. Smoler to Purkyně, Oct. 27, 1842, J. Páta,“Jan Ev. Purkyně a lužicti Srbové,“ in Páta, F. et al., eds., Jan Ev. Purkyně, 1787-1937: Sbomik stati (Prague, 1937), p. 276 Google Scholar.

45. Stone, G. C.,“The Germanisms in Smoler's Dictionary (N jemsko-Serbski Slozvnik, 1843),” Slavonic and East European Review, 44, no. 103 (July 1966): 302–5Google Scholar, points out that Smoler, for all his linguistic“purism,” was not completely consistent in applying his own philological principles. German loan words continued to find an approved place in his dictionary. A late nineteenth-century German critic of contemporary Lusatian Serb nationalism, Richard Andree, commented in his Wendische Wander stiidien, p. 34, that Smoler, in his Serbske Nowiny (as he later rechristened his Tydźeńske Nowiny),“urn … der Landvolke verstandlich zu bleiben, muss … die deutsche Bezeichnung der neuwendischen in Klammern beisetzen, da letztere sonst nicht verstanden werden wiirde. Trotzdem wimmelt dieses Blatt von Germanismen, namentlich sind die Ankiindigen darin in einer Sprache verfasst, die bereits als vollstandiges Gemisch von wendisch und deutsch angesehen werden muss, sowohl was den Satzbau als den Wortvorrath betrifft.” On the other hand, Smoler claimed that every farmer's wife could read his paper without the least difficulty; in his view, both its contents and its vocabulary were entirely intelligible to the simple folk speaking Upper Lusatian. See his Die Schmähschrift des Schmiedemeisters Stosch gegen die sprach-wissetischaftlichen Wenden, p. 6.

46. Andree, , Wendische Wanderstudien, p. 33 Google Scholar. See also Rauch, , Presse und Volkstum der Lausitzer Sorben, pp. 65–70, 183Google Scholar.

47. Smoler to Doucha, Aug. 13, 1843, in Smoler-Pata, p. 60. In 1881, toward the end of his life, Smoler founded a special paper, Serbski Hospodar, to cater to the professional interests of the farming population.

48. Tydženske Nowiny (Budyšin), Jan. 5, 1849, p. 1.

49. See“Autobiografija J. E. Smolerja,” p. 19, for Smoler's part in such undertakings and his assessment of their importance for the national awakening.

50. See Jakub Šewčik,“Pfehled stawiznow Macicy Serbskeje,” in Zapiski Macicy Serbskeje w Budyšinje (1847-1897), ed. Ernst Muka (Budysin, 1897), pp. 16-23. The journal appeared in editions of between 250 and 450 copies. Among the subjects discussed were linguistics, history, belles-lettres and literary history, ethnography and prehistory, musicology, and botany.

51. Smoler,“Předspomnjenje,” p. 4.

52. Sewčik,“Přehled stawiznow M. S.,” p. 18. For the friendly relations existing between Bart's student group and the much older Smoler, see Krječmaŕ, M.,“Lipa Serbska,” Letopis Instituta sa serbski ludospyt, series A, no. 1 (1952), pp. 5, 21–28, 33, 37-43Google Scholar. See also Krječmaf, , ed.,“Z korespondence J. E. Smolefe,” Českoluzicky Věstnik, vol. 6, no. 1 (1925), pp. 8–11; no. 4, pp. 25-28Google Scholar.

53. One of Smoler's chief concerns in connection with the Macica was to raise mone> to build a permanent home for it, where offices, library, and meeting rooms could be suitably located. The Serbski Dom was completed in 1904.“Only with the aid of the Macica home will Serb national life be able to develop properly,” wrote Smoler not long before his death. See letter dated May 15, 1881, in Krječmaf,“Listy J. E. Smolerja z Polskeje a Ruskeje,” p. 154. In 1875 Smoler set up his own Serb printing shop. For the importance of this venture to the development of the national culture, see“Autobiografija J. E. Smolerja,” pp. 22, 23.

54. In addition to its Lower Lusatian section, the Mačica Serbska also established sections (wotrjady) for language (1854), antiquities (1856), natural history (1857), belles-lettres (1858), pedagogy (1868), ethnography (1895), music (1897), and law and economics (1919). For Smoler's role in setting up the Lower Lusatian branch of the Macica, see Páta, ,“Wo započatkach delnjohižiskeje Maćicy,” Časopis Macicy Serbskeje, 84, no. 1 (1931): 44–49 Google Scholar. This article is reprinted in a slightly revised Czech version in Pata's Lužicke statj, (Prague, 1937), pp. 49-58.

55. Smoler to Hanka, Oct. 6, 1841, in Smoler-Páta, p. 47.

56. Letter dated Dec. 14, 1840, in Nowotny,“Listy, pisane serbskemu gymnazialnemu towarstwu w Budyšinje,” p. 211.

57. Jufničžka, 1842, no. 16, p. 42.

58. Smoler to Bart, Sept. 17, 1878, in Krječmaf,“Z korespondence J. E. Smolere,“ pp. 8, 9.

59. A generous tribute to Smoler's“anerkennenswerthe Opferfreudigkeit” is paid by an opponent of Lusatian Serb nationalism. See Andree, , Wendische Wanderstudien, pp. 22, 39 Google Scholar.

60. Smoler to Muka, July 14, 1881, in Krječmaŕ,“Listy J. E. Smolerja z Polskeje a Ruskeje,” p. 167.

61. When in 1838 Smoler established in Breslau a student“Society for Lusatian Language and History,” he included a German Lusatian section alongside the Lusatian Serb section. His object seems to have been rather to attract support for his society among Lusatian Germans than to show any theoretical sympathy for a bilingual concept of Lusatian nationality.

62. However, in 1918 and again in 1945 political demands of a territorial nature were put forward by Lusatian Serb leaders. This subject lies outside the scope of the present article.