fbpx
Wikipedia

Manuscripts of Dvůr Králové and Zelená Hora

March 05, 2023

The Dvůr Králové and Zelená Hora manuscripts (Czech: Rukopis královédvorský, RK, and Rukopis zelenohorský, RZ[a], German: Königinhofer Handschrift and Grünberger Handschrift) are literary hoaxes purporting to be epic Slavic manuscripts written in Old Czech. They first appeared in the early 19th century.

Pages 4 and 5 of the Zelená Hora Manuscript

There were early suspicions about their authenticity, but they were not decisively established to be forgeries until 1886 in a series of articles in Tomáš Masaryk's Athenaeum [cz] magazine.

The two manuscripts

Dvůr Králové Manuscript

Václav Hanka claimed that he discovered the Dvůr Králové Manuscript[1] (also called the "Queen's Court Manuscript" in older literature[2][3]) in 1817 in the Church of Saint John the Baptist at Dvůr Králové nad Labem in Bohemia. The original Old Czech text was published by Hanka in 1818, and a German version appeared the next year.[b][2]

Zelená Hora Manuscript

The second manuscript, which came to be known as the Zelená Hora Manuscript[1] (also called the "Green Mountain Manuscript" in older literature[2]) named after Zelená Hora Castle, where it was purportedly discovered in 1817.

It had been mailed anonymously in 1818[c] to Franz, Count Kolowrat-Liebsteinsky at the Bohemian Museum. The Count was Lord High Castellan of Prague and backer of the newly founded museum.[4][5][6]

It was later revealed that the sender was Josef Kovář who served as administrator of the manorial income to Hieronymus Karl Graf von Colloredo-Mansfeld,[6] the owner of Zelená Hora Castle.[7] Kovář allegedly discovered the manuscript at his master's castle in Nepomuk in 1817.[8]

It was not until 1858 that Kovář's role in publicizing this manuscript was publicly revealed by Václav Vladivoj Tomek [cz]. Although Kovář had died in 1834[clarification needed], Tomek, through interviewing Father Václav Krolmus [cz], was able to confirm that Kovář was the one who had originally sent the manuscript.[9] Following Tomek's revelation, the work, which had sometimes been referred to as the Libušin soud Manuscript, after the poem it contained, came to be consistently called Zelená Hora Manuscript.[10]

Contents

The Dvůr Králové Manuscript contained 14 poems, out of which 6 were epics, 2 were lyric epics, and 6 were love songs.[11] Záboj and Slavoj, two invented warrior-poets, feature in the epics.

The Zelená Hora Manuscript contained two poems, the "Sněmy" ("The Assemblies") and "Libušin soud" ("Lubuše's Verdict").[2]

A multilingual edition of the Dvůr Králové Manuscript (with other poems) appeared in 1843; this edition included John Bowring's English translation.[12][d]

Later, "Lubuša's Verdict" and some of the poetry from the Dvůr Králové Manuscript were translated into English by Albert Henry Wratislaw and published in 1852.[e][14][3]

Response

When the first manuscript appeared, it was touted as a major discovery. But when the second manuscript appeared, it was pronounced a forgery by Josef Dobrovský. Jernej Kopitar seconded this opinion, accusing Hanka of being the author of the hoax.[2][11][15] Many of the important Czech writers at the time, however, supported the manuscripts' authenticity including dictionary compiler and author of a Czech literary history Josef Jungmann, writer František Čelakovský, historian František Palacký, and poet-folklorist Karel Jaromír Erben.[11][2]

In England, John Bowring, who was a translator of Slavonic poetry, had dealings with authorities on both sides of the debate. When he first sought suitable Czech material, he approached Kopitar, who recommended Dobrovský as someone who could provide an appropriate list of texts. Later, Čelakovský learned of this enterprise, and not only furnished his own list, but became Bowring's close collaborator, sending him material with his own German paraphrases for Bowring to work on.[16] Bowring, partly to make amends for the delayed publication of the Czech poetry anthology, wrote a piece in the Foreign Quarterly Review in 1828, which presented the debate about these manuscripts evenly for both sides.[f][17]

Wratislaw noted in his 1852 translation that he was well aware of the controversy when he published his translation, but determined that the skeptics had not made their case.[18]

Alois Vojtěch Šembera wrote a book in 1879 which contended that the "Libušin soud" poem (the second manuscript) was a forgery and named Josef Linda [cz] as its creator.[6]

The authenticity of both manuscripts was not rejected conclusively until the 1880s when several independently-written articles appeared that assaulted their veracity.[19] One author who doubted the authenticity of the manuscripts, Tomáš Masaryk,[19] used his journal Athenaeum to publish a body of literature to support that view.[11][20][15] The linguist Jan Gebauer wrote an article debunking the manuscripts in the February 1886 issue of Athenaeum,[21][5] and Masaryk in a later issue wrote that the poems could be proven as "reworked from Modern Czech to Old Czech", presenting metrical and grammatical evidence to support his claim.[22][23]

In the interim, the manuscripts were generally regarded romantically as evidence of early Czech literary achievement, demonstrating that such epic and lyric poetry predated even the Nibelungenlied. They were also interpreted as evidence that early Czech society had embraced democratic principles. Pan-Slavic nationalists saw in the manuscripts a symbol of national conscience. Therefore, when Palacký wrote his Czech history based partly on these manuscripts, he depicted a romanticized Slavic struggle against the German non-democratic social order.[1] Palacký's historical accounts of Bohemia based on the manuscripts also bolstered the Czechs' exclusive claims on Bohemia.[citation needed]

The debate over the authenticity and authorship of these manuscripts has occupied Czech politics for more than a century, and voices claiming the poems to be genuine were not silenced even into World War II.[15]

Václav Hanka, the discoverer of the first manuscript, and his friend and roommate Josef Linda are generally regarded to have been the forgers of the poetry, but they never confessed to writing them, and there has not been any irrefutable proof that they were the authors.[11]

See also

Explanatory notes

  1. ^ Sometimes referred to collectively as RKZ
  2. ^ The publication of the German version was aided by Václav Alois Svoboda
  3. ^ Morfill in Westminster Review says it was sent in 1817. At any rate, it reached its destination in November 1818.
  4. ^ Bowring says in his foreword that he included "Lubuše's Verdict", p. 281, but this text seems to be missing.
  5. ^ There were two editions. The Prague edition of 1852 contained many typographical errors, compared with the 1852 Cambridge and London edition.[13]
  6. ^ But it angered Kopitar that Hanka and Čelakovský (in Kopitar's estimation) were treated as on par with Dobrovský, the doyen on these matters.

References

  1. ^ a b c Agnew, Hugh (2013), The Czechs and the Lands of the Bohemian Crown, Hoover Press (Stanford U.), p. 113, ISBN 9780817944933
  2. ^ a b c d e f Coleman, Arthur Prudden (1941), "John Bowring and the Poetry of the Slavs", Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 84 (3): 450–451 JSTOR http://www.jstor.org/stable/984959
  3. ^ a b Morfill, William Richard (1890), An Essay on the Importance of the Study of the Slavonic Languages, Frowde, pp. 10–11
  4. ^ Tomek (1859), pp. 14, 18–19.
  5. ^ a b Neubauer, John (2006), Lindberg-Wada, Gunilla (ed.), "Rhetorical Uses of Folk Poetry in Nineteenth-Century East-Central Europe", Studying Transcultural Literary History, Walter de Gruyter, p. 91, ISBN 9783110189551
  6. ^ a b c Morfill (1879), p. 414.
  7. ^ Tomek (1859), p. 19.
  8. ^ Tomek (1859), pp. 4, 18–19.
  9. ^ Ivanov, Miroslav (2000), Tajemství Rukopisů královédvorského a zelenohorského (in Czech), Třebíč: Blok, p. 341
  10. ^ Ivanov, Miroslav (1969), Tajemství RKZ [Rukopisy Kralovédvorský a Zelenohorský] (in Czech), Prague: Mladá fronta, p. 223, ..na zámku Zelená Hora u Nepomuku, a proto se od Tomkovy doby Libušinu soudu říkalo Rukopis zelenohorský (… at the Zelená Hora castle near Nepomuk, and since Tomek's time, the "Lubuša's Verdict" [manuscript] has been called the Green Mountain Manuscript)
  11. ^ a b c d e Hartwig (1999), p. 66.
  12. ^ Hanka (ed.) & Bowring (tr.) (1843), pp. 274–316.
  13. ^ Notes and Queries (1870), Series IV, 5, p. 556, "Bohemian Ballad-Literature" replied to by Wlatislaw on p. 605, "Queen's Court Manuscript"
  14. ^ Wratislaw (tr.) (1852a) (Prague) and Wratislaw (tr.) (1852b) (Cambridge) editions.
  15. ^ a b c Mark Jones, Mark Jones (1990), Fake?: The Art of Deception, University of California Press, pp. 68–69, ISBN 9780520070875
  16. ^ Coleman (1941), pp. 447–450.
  17. ^ Coleman (1941), pp. 449–450.
  18. ^ Wratislaw (tr.) (1852b), p. xiv.
  19. ^ a b Hartwig (1999), p. 66–67, citing Zacek (1984), p. 39, note 1
  20. ^ Orzoff, Andrea (2009), Battle for the Castle: The Myth of Czechoslovakia in Europe, 1914–1948, Oxford University Press, p. 28, citing Zeman, Zbyněk (1976), The Masaryks, pp. 47–48
  21. ^ Gebauer, Jan (1886), "Potřeba dalších zkoušek Rukopisu Královédvorského a Zelenohorského" [The Need for Further Tests on the Dvůr Králové and Zelená Hora Manuscripts], Athenaeum (in Czech), III (5): 152–164
  22. ^ Masaryk, Tomáš (1886), "Příspěvky k estetickému rozboru RKho a RZho" [Contributions to aesthetic analysis of RK and RZ], Athenaeum, III (7): 298 (275–298)
  23. ^ Jakobson, Roman (1988), Novák, Josef (ed.), "Problems of Language in Masaryk's Writings", On Masaryk: Texts in English and German, Rodopi, p. 71, ISBN 9062039790; citing Masaryk (1886), Athenaeum III, p. 298
 
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Rukopis královédvorský a zelenohorský.

Sources

Primary

  • Hanka, Václav, ed. (1843), John Bowring, "Manuscript of the Queen's Court. A collection of old Bohemian lyrico-epic Songs, with other Ancient Bohemian Poems", Rukopis Kralodvorský: a jiné výtečnějšie národnie Spevopravné básné. Slovně i věrně vpróvodniem starém jazyku, o pripojeniem polského, Južno- Ruského, Illyrského, Kramkého, Horrolužického, Německého i Anglického Prěloženie, V Praze (Prague): Nákl. vydavetelovým, pp. 274–316
  • Wratislaw, Albert Henry (tr.) (1852a), Manuscript of the Queen's Court: A Collection of Old Bohemian Lyrico-epic, Prague: Václav Hanka
  • Wratislaw, Albert Henry (tr.) (1852b), The Queen's Court Manuscript, with Other Ancient Bohemian Poems, Cambridge: John Deighton, hdl:2027/nyp.33433058710595

Secondary

  • Hartwig, Kurt (1999), "The Incidental History of Folklore in Bohemia", The Folklore Historian, Indiana State University/Hoosier Folklore Society, vol. 16, pp. 61–74
  • Morfill, W. R. (1879), "The Bohemians and Slovaks", The Westminster Review, 56 (new ser.): 415–164
  • Tomek, Václav Vladivoj (1859), Die Grünberger Handschrift. Zeugnisse über die Auffindung des "Libušin soud" (in German), Malý, Jakub Budislav (tr.)

External links

  • Česká společnost rukopisná (Czech Manuscript Society) (2001). . Archived from the original on 6 March 2016.

March 05, 2023
manuscripts, dvůr, králové, zelená, hora, dvůr, králové, zelená, hora, manuscripts, czech, rukopis, královédvorský, rukopis, zelenohorský, german, königinhofer, handschrift, grünberger, handschrift, literary, hoaxes, purporting, epic, slavic, manuscripts, writ. The Dvur Kralove and Zelena Hora manuscripts Czech Rukopis kralovedvorsky RK and Rukopis zelenohorsky RZ a German Koniginhofer Handschrift and Grunberger Handschrift are literary hoaxes purporting to be epic Slavic manuscripts written in Old Czech They first appeared in the early 19th century Pages 4 and 5 of the Zelena Hora Manuscript There were early suspicions about their authenticity but they were not decisively established to be forgeries until 1886 in a series of articles in Tomas Masaryk s Athenaeum cz magazine Contents 1 The two manuscripts 1 1 Dvur Kralove Manuscript 1 2 Zelena Hora Manuscript 2 Contents 3 Response 4 See also 5 Explanatory notes 6 References 7 Sources 7 1 Primary 7 2 Secondary 8 External linksThe two manuscripts EditDvur Kralove Manuscript Edit Vaclav Hanka claimed that he discovered the Dvur Kralove Manuscript 1 also called the Queen s Court Manuscript in older literature 2 3 in 1817 in the Church of Saint John the Baptist at Dvur Kralove nad Labem in Bohemia The original Old Czech text was published by Hanka in 1818 and a German version appeared the next year b 2 Zelena Hora Manuscript Edit The second manuscript which came to be known as the Zelena Hora Manuscript 1 also called the Green Mountain Manuscript in older literature 2 named after Zelena Hora Castle where it was purportedly discovered in 1817 It had been mailed anonymously in 1818 c to Franz Count Kolowrat Liebsteinsky at the Bohemian Museum The Count was Lord High Castellan of Prague and backer of the newly founded museum 4 5 6 It was later revealed that the sender was Josef Kovar who served as administrator of the manorial income to Hieronymus Karl Graf von Colloredo Mansfeld 6 the owner of Zelena Hora Castle 7 Kovar allegedly discovered the manuscript at his master s castle in Nepomuk in 1817 8 It was not until 1858 that Kovar s role in publicizing this manuscript was publicly revealed by Vaclav Vladivoj Tomek cz Although Kovar had died in 1834 clarification needed Tomek through interviewing Father Vaclav Krolmus cz was able to confirm that Kovar was the one who had originally sent the manuscript 9 Following Tomek s revelation the work which had sometimes been referred to as the Libusin soud Manuscript after the poem it contained came to be consistently called Zelena Hora Manuscript 10 Contents EditThe Dvur Kralove Manuscript contained 14 poems out of which 6 were epics 2 were lyric epics and 6 were love songs 11 Zaboj and Slavoj two invented warrior poets feature in the epics The Zelena Hora Manuscript contained two poems the Snemy The Assemblies and Libusin soud Lubuse s Verdict 2 A multilingual edition of the Dvur Kralove Manuscript with other poems appeared in 1843 this edition included John Bowring s English translation 12 d Later Lubusa s Verdict and some of the poetry from the Dvur Kralove Manuscript were translated into English by Albert Henry Wratislaw and published in 1852 e 14 3 Response EditWhen the first manuscript appeared it was touted as a major discovery But when the second manuscript appeared it was pronounced a forgery by Josef Dobrovsky Jernej Kopitar seconded this opinion accusing Hanka of being the author of the hoax 2 11 15 Many of the important Czech writers at the time however supported the manuscripts authenticity including dictionary compiler and author of a Czech literary history Josef Jungmann writer Frantisek Celakovsky historian Frantisek Palacky and poet folklorist Karel Jaromir Erben 11 2 In England John Bowring who was a translator of Slavonic poetry had dealings with authorities on both sides of the debate When he first sought suitable Czech material he approached Kopitar who recommended Dobrovsky as someone who could provide an appropriate list of texts Later Celakovsky learned of this enterprise and not only furnished his own list but became Bowring s close collaborator sending him material with his own German paraphrases for Bowring to work on 16 Bowring partly to make amends for the delayed publication of the Czech poetry anthology wrote a piece in the Foreign Quarterly Review in 1828 which presented the debate about these manuscripts evenly for both sides f 17 Wratislaw noted in his 1852 translation that he was well aware of the controversy when he published his translation but determined that the skeptics had not made their case 18 Alois Vojtech Sembera wrote a book in 1879 which contended that the Libusin soud poem the second manuscript was a forgery and named Josef Linda cz as its creator 6 The authenticity of both manuscripts was not rejected conclusively until the 1880s when several independently written articles appeared that assaulted their veracity 19 One author who doubted the authenticity of the manuscripts Tomas Masaryk 19 used his journal Athenaeum to publish a body of literature to support that view 11 20 15 The linguist Jan Gebauer wrote an article debunking the manuscripts in the February 1886 issue of Athenaeum 21 5 and Masaryk in a later issue wrote that the poems could be proven as reworked from Modern Czech to Old Czech presenting metrical and grammatical evidence to support his claim 22 23 In the interim the manuscripts were generally regarded romantically as evidence of early Czech literary achievement demonstrating that such epic and lyric poetry predated even the Nibelungenlied They were also interpreted as evidence that early Czech society had embraced democratic principles Pan Slavic nationalists saw in the manuscripts a symbol of national conscience Therefore when Palacky wrote his Czech history based partly on these manuscripts he depicted a romanticized Slavic struggle against the German non democratic social order 1 Palacky s historical accounts of Bohemia based on the manuscripts also bolstered the Czechs exclusive claims on Bohemia citation needed The debate over the authenticity and authorship of these manuscripts has occupied Czech politics for more than a century and voices claiming the poems to be genuine were not silenced even into World War II 15 Vaclav Hanka the discoverer of the first manuscript and his friend and roommate Josef Linda are generally regarded to have been the forgers of the poetry but they never confessed to writing them and there has not been any irrefutable proof that they were the authors 11 See also EditChrudos Ossian Vestiarium ScoticumExplanatory notes Edit Sometimes referred to collectively as RKZ The publication of the German version was aided by Vaclav Alois Svoboda Morfill in Westminster Review says it was sent in 1817 At any rate it reached its destination in November 1818 Bowring says in his foreword that he included Lubuse s Verdict p 281 but this text seems to be missing There were two editions The Prague edition of 1852 contained many typographical errors compared with the 1852 Cambridge and London edition 13 But it angered Kopitar that Hanka and Celakovsky in Kopitar s estimation were treated as on par with Dobrovsky the doyen on these matters References Edit a b c Agnew Hugh 2013 The Czechs and the Lands of the Bohemian Crown Hoover Press Stanford U p 113 ISBN 9780817944933 a b c d e f Coleman Arthur Prudden 1941 John Bowring and the Poetry of the Slavs Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 84 3 450 451 JSTOR http www jstor org stable 984959 a b Morfill William Richard 1890 An Essay on the Importance of the Study of the Slavonic Languages Frowde pp 10 11 Tomek 1859 pp 14 18 19 a b Neubauer John 2006 Lindberg Wada Gunilla ed Rhetorical Uses of Folk Poetry in Nineteenth Century East Central Europe Studying Transcultural Literary History Walter de Gruyter p 91 ISBN 9783110189551 a b c Morfill 1879 p 414 Tomek 1859 p 19 Tomek 1859 pp 4 18 19 Ivanov Miroslav 2000 Tajemstvi Rukopisu kralovedvorskeho a zelenohorskeho in Czech Trebic Blok p 341 Ivanov Miroslav 1969 Tajemstvi RKZ Rukopisy Kralovedvorsky a Zelenohorsky in Czech Prague Mlada fronta p 223 na zamku Zelena Hora u Nepomuku a proto se od Tomkovy doby Libusinu soudu rikalo Rukopis zelenohorsky at the Zelena Hora castle near Nepomuk and since Tomek s time the Lubusa s Verdict manuscript has been called the Green Mountain Manuscript a b c d e Hartwig 1999 p 66 Hanka ed amp Bowring tr 1843 pp 274 316 Notes and Queries 1870 Series IV 5 p 556 Bohemian Ballad Literature replied to by Wlatislaw on p 605 Queen s Court Manuscript Wratislaw tr 1852a Prague and Wratislaw tr 1852b Cambridge editions a b c Mark Jones Mark Jones 1990 Fake The Art of Deception University of California Press pp 68 69 ISBN 9780520070875 Coleman 1941 pp 447 450 Coleman 1941 pp 449 450 Wratislaw tr 1852b p xiv a b Hartwig 1999 p 66 67 citing Zacek 1984 p 39 note 1 Orzoff Andrea 2009 Battle for the Castle The Myth of Czechoslovakia in Europe 1914 1948 Oxford University Press p 28 citing Zeman Zbynek 1976 The Masaryks pp 47 48 Gebauer Jan 1886 Potreba dalsich zkousek Rukopisu Kralovedvorskeho a Zelenohorskeho The Need for Further Tests on the Dvur Kralove and Zelena Hora Manuscripts Athenaeum in Czech III 5 152 164 Masaryk Tomas 1886 Prispevky k estetickemu rozboru RKho a RZho Contributions to aesthetic analysis of RK and RZ Athenaeum III 7 298 275 298 Jakobson Roman 1988 Novak Josef ed Problems of Language in Masaryk s Writings On Masaryk Texts in English and German Rodopi p 71 ISBN 9062039790 citing Masaryk 1886 Athenaeum III p 298 Wikimedia Commons has media related to Rukopis kralovedvorsky a zelenohorsky Sources EditPrimary Edit Hanka Vaclav ed 1843 John Bowring Manuscript of the Queen s Court A collection of old Bohemian lyrico epic Songs with other Ancient Bohemian Poems Rukopis Kralodvorsky a jine vytecnejsie narodnie Spevopravne basne Slovne i verne vprovodniem starem jazyku o pripojeniem polskeho Juzno Ruskeho Illyrskeho Kramkeho Horroluzickeho Nemeckeho i Anglickeho Prelozenie V Praze Prague Nakl vydavetelovym pp 274 316 Wratislaw Albert Henry tr 1852a Manuscript of the Queen s Court A Collection of Old Bohemian Lyrico epic Prague Vaclav Hanka Wratislaw Albert Henry tr 1852b The Queen s Court Manuscript with Other Ancient Bohemian Poems Cambridge John Deighton hdl 2027 nyp 33433058710595Secondary Edit Hartwig Kurt 1999 The Incidental History of Folklore in Bohemia The Folklore Historian Indiana State University Hoosier Folklore Society vol 16 pp 61 74 Morfill W R 1879 The Bohemians and Slovaks The Westminster Review 56 new ser 415 164 Tomek Vaclav Vladivoj 1859 Die Grunberger Handschrift Zeugnisse uber die Auffindung des Libusin soud in German Maly Jakub Budislav tr External links EditCeska spolecnost rukopisna Czech Manuscript Society 2001 The Manuscript of Dvur Kralove and The Manuscript of Zelena Hora Archived from the original on 6 March 2016 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Manuscripts of Dvur Kralove and Zelena Hora amp oldid 1142873922, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.