
There can be no doubt that Bernolak’s work was a great step forward for the Slovaks. In the larger picture, it was actually a stepping-stone to another place in time, and an advancement for the language. Please indulge me as I attempt to orient you in the surrounding scene. I realize that we have been over this ground in prior posts, but for the sake of your memory, and for the sake of our subject – literature – I will draw a picture in a paragraph.
Here we are at the turn of the 19th century, and art begins to take a life unto itself, even moreso for the Slovaks. The Enlightenment ideals, along with the Reformation a couple centuries earlier, brings about a headier mix of styles and content. From the end of the 18th to the mid-19th century, the changes are exponential. Behind us lies two massive revolutions (France and United States), and in this time the Industrial Revolution has begun (c. 1760); just these events on their own are enough to exert change. Also, Napoleon has begun to upset everything on the continent… power, trade, social class standing, and the burgeoning middle class. Art is no longer associated with the affluent or powerful church/royalty/noble circles. The rapid growth of urbanization, capital-driven labor economy, and communication leads to access for the “common people” in the post-Napoleonic early 19th century. For artists, this is a period when they can create as they please; meaning they are no longer at the beck and call of a wealthy-quasi-aristocrat to paint/write/sculpt on command… they are the sole agents of their expression. The artist as a singular creator is still a few decades away, but in a sense, art is liberated from the church, and upper classes. We have seen some of the Slovak writers ask their brethren to become aware of who they are as a people, in a sense promoting a sense of patriotism, or nationality. This may have been inferred in the past, but in the coming years, as we will see, many writers will hitch their ideas to vehicles of furthering their national cause… some with the cause of all the Slavs (Pan-Slavism).

From Holly and Fandly, we will turn to the “nation-builders”: Safarik, Kollar, Stur, and both Chalupka brothers, Jan and Samo. As we know Fandly passes in 1811, and his work for the “Slovak Learned Brotherhood” lives on as a legacy; this is not to say that Holly wasn’t expired too – he lives until 1849 and sees the fruits of his earlier labors come to bear. The strength in Slovak literature comes with the pitch toward Romanticism and away from Neo-Classical. This particular age will also witness linguists, philologists, writers, painters, and historians take on Pan Slavism as a guiding principle.
I think it is important to start with Pavel Jozef Safarik (sha-far-ick). Born in 1761 to a Protestant preacher, he was well traveled and well studied; Safarik is considered by many to be the first “Slavist” to study as a scientist. A “Slavist” is someone who specializes in the study of Slavic languages, culture, history, literature, and culture. After Safarik, this becomes a Social Science, Social Studies subject, or just a part of Humanities (Humanistic Studies). Safarik was a voracious reader, and learned Latin, German, Magyar, and of course Slovak. Latin was the language of science and the learned. At a lyceum, he met students from Poland, Serbia, and the Ukraine. This is in 1810-1814, and for two years he studied in Germany (Univ. of Jena). While in the lyceum he wrote a volume of poetry entitled “The Muse of Tatras”. Yet in Germany a few years later he would turn from poetry to scientist, and here at Jena he would become friends with one of the seminal Slovak writers Jan Chalupka; another friend introduced Safarik to Goethe. Alas, Safarik would travel back to Slovakia, out of money, and landed a job as a tutor in Bratislava. It was here that he met Jan Kollar. In 1819, Safarik left his homeland for good, and traveled to Novi Sad (in modern Serbia), where he would teach until 1833. Safarik was active in the ill-fated Prague Slavic Congress of 1848, he was persecuted by the Austrians, and died in Prague in 1861. He was given a full pension by Franz Jozef just before he died, as Safarik was curator/custodian of the university library in Prague. Safarik was, and this should be known, a Protestant who believed that Slovakia’s future should be linked to the Czechs. Later leaders of the Slovaks, especially Stur, doesn’t hold this same feeling. Safarik’s legacy is vast, timeless, and far-reaching. His work runs from the poetry of Neo-Classical, to Romantic prose, and then to the focus on the plight of all Slavs in Realism.

I want to devote a few words to the Chalupka brothers. Jan and Samo Chalupka stand out for me because they used their pens to draw the Slovaks (young and old) to action. Jan is one of the last (aside from Jozef Bajza) of the giants of Slovak literature to be born in the 18th century. Known mainly as a dramatist, and this is quite telling of what is taking place in this period (1820’s/1830’s), as Chalupka wrote many theatrical satires of patriotism (criticizing the lack of it), the narrow options available to everyday Slovaks, Magyarization, and conservatism. After 1848, Chalupka wrote exclusively in Slovak, he also translated his earlier work (Czech and Hungarian), and I don’t know of anything more evident of the turning of the tide in the “Upper Kingdom”. His work also bears the hallmarks of the subtle change from Romanticism to Realism.

Samo Chalupka, younger brother to Jan, shared a Protestant background with his brother, but was a poet instead of a dramatist. Samo was a bit more active in the political circles than Jan. He was co-creator of the “Memorandum of the Slovak Nation”, a co-founder of Matica Slovenska, and like his brother wrote mostly in the Central Slovak dialect. He espoused the ideals of the Slovaks as a legitimate nation. Samo exhibited the same tendencies in his writing as Jan, and perhaps because of his political activism, he moved from Romantic to Realism. I think some twenty years younger, Samo also was on the forefront of the going trends of the literary art of the day.

As with Safarik, I want to devote some time to L’udovit Stur (sh-tur). We have many writers and artists that capture the sense of being and future for the Slovaks, but Stur might be THE man for change in the “Upper Kingdom”. Stur was a revolutionary in more ways than one. Stur’s father was a school teacher, and from early on and he learned Latin at 12/14 years old. As a young student, history, German, Greek, and Hungarian followed as subjects to master. From the age of 14 until he was 21, Stur studied here in Bratislava, at a Lutheran lyceum (college prep), and here he joins a Czech-Slovak Society, and becomes interested in all Slavs nations.
To label Stur a revolutionary may be correct, but I believe he was more a visionary. Born into an Evangelical Lutheran family in 1815, Stur was a great admirer of Jan Kollar, and Pavel Safarik, who preceded him in the cause of the Slovaks. With his membership in the Czech-Slovak Society, he became fervent in his study of all Slav cultures; here in lyceum he begins to pen his writings (poems) in 1831, and encourages Jozef M. Hurban to get involved in the Slovak National movement. Keep in mind that he is only 16 years old at this time… in my mind he’s a phenom. Hurban, for his part, goes on to be one of the co-founders of the Slovak National Council, Matica Slovenska, and is deeply involved in the Slovak National Awakening. Time limits highlighting Hurban, as it does so many of the other participants in this historical point of our history… he is worth a look – even if you just Wiki him.
Stur is a “giant” in my mind, because he took a firm “no” from the Czechs to create a unified Czech-Slovak language, and decided at a meeting at Devin Castle no-less, to create a standard Slovak language, along with his friends in the movement. This was due to the Czech used by Protestants in Slovakia not being understood by ordinary Slovaks. Stur’s story after this moment in time, bears some investigation by my readers. Although Stur is not alone in this, he is the driver of the national cause of the Slovaks, the awakening, and further work on behalf of fighting the increasing Magyarization at the time. Again, it is imperative that we remember the processes of transformation underway in continental Europe at this time. There is a change from the state/manor society to civil society; traditional ways of life are becoming “modernized”, and nations are forming. In the big scheme of things, Stur was the right man, at the right time for the Slovaks. For my readers in the U.S., Stur was a sort of George Washington or Thomas Jefferson – only more literate and more educated.
Stur, along with Hurban and Hodza, formed the Sloval National Council in 1848, and declared it to be the single voice for the Slovaks refusing the Hungarian will. It was also at this time that Stur, was negotiating with Vienna on the “Demands of the Slovak Nation”. Alas, all of the change that Stur and his compatriots worked for was washed away in the revolutions/uprisings in the Austrian-Hungaro lands. Stur’s writing was prolific, history, philosophy, poetry, and much more. His work was peppered with an instructional on Slovak language, songs about the past legends, and before his death in 1856 he published a poetry collection. It should be pointed out that even though he founded the Slovak language, Stur was a Russophile. He proposed that Russian should be the language of all Slavic tribes. This is probably an act of an amatuer historian to mention that Stur was an anti-Semite. It is difficult for me to separate the “change over time” aspect of historical study, but I find this notion regarding Stur very repulsive. I realize that the Jews have been demonized from time immemorial, but I truly believe that order to free the Slovaks, you have to free everyone in the territory. Stur opposed the emancipation of the Jews in general, and stated that the “Jews could not belong to the Slovak Nation”.
Stur, Kollar, Hurban, and so many others, are responsible for a movement that came to a stunning halt with the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 (Auslgeich). Our focus here is the literature of the period, and so running out of time, I want to highlight further the writers that advanced the cause of the Slovaks. Jozef Bajza (1755-1836), Martin Kukucin (1860-1928), Jan Kral (1822-1876), and my very favorite P.O. Hviezdoslav (1849-1921). Hviezdoslav does what Stur did and much more – he used self-coined idioms that were not translatable.
In sum, Slovak literature, mirrored the ideals of Romanticism in the beginning of the 19th century, and included elements of the Neo-Classical that preceded it. These ideas of art in real life metamorphosed into Realism. This writing (Realism) whether in the form of poetry, drama, or prose, is imbued the struggle of everyday life in the “Upper Kingdom”, the lack of interest from the Magyar elite, and the will of the Slovaks to overcome their position in the denial of their culture. I am haunted by a made by a Hungarian Diet member of the time: “I know of no Slovak Nation”. This is a paraphrase of course, but it sets the tone for the Slovaks to come.
In our last post, upcoming, I will finish with visual art of this period (1850-1880/90), and that will be it for “Slovakia’s Journey Through Art”. I would like to thank any and all who have stopped by to read this blog, and I ask for forgiveness for making this particular read so lengthy. Our history is long and complicated, and trying to keep some of the topics under 7 minutes is a great challenge. Thank you… again. Until week meet again, please take care of yourselves, and take care of each other.















