ĽUdovít ŠTúr

Slovak utopianism (and specific social and political philosophy) of the 19th century are unique topics for philosophical research that can be useful especially in an international context. The aim of the research is, using the comparative method, to create a basic overview of utopian concepts of the 19th century in Slovakia in order to highlight their implementation  today.  The study  consists  of  the  following  topics:  1) the  influence  of  German philosophy of history (Hegel, Herder, Schelling) on social and political conceptions of the nation and the synthesis of German philosophical influence in the Slovak  philosophical  context  (Kollár,  Šafárik, Štúr)  and  2) socio-philosophical  concepts  related to the role of Slovaks in the international context (Feješ, Daxner). The Slovak  national  utopia,  in  the  form  of  enforcing  the  cultural  and  social  rights  of  Slovaks  in  their own sovereign state, was partially fulfilled until the 20th century (by the establishment of Czechoslovakia and later by the establishment of the independent Slovak Republic). The Constitution of the Slovak Republic is the proof that originally social utopian visions, that seemed naive and impossible to achieve in the 19th century, became a reality of political practice in the 20th century.

The article focuses on marginal work of one of the most important representatives of the Slovak National Revival. Ľudovít Štúr during his studies in Halle visited Lusatia and issued a travel book Journey to Lusatia (Taken in the Spring 1839). The text follows on the one hand, typical features of the revivalist manuscript (especially contemporary cliché), on the other hand, we illustrate the lack of a typical romantic stylization. The travelogue by Ľudovít Štúr is a type of utopian architectural concepts of monolithic and compact Slavs, who played an important role in the birth of the nation in the first half of the 19th century. Ľudovít Štúr offers a different kind of a patriotic travelogue than the one advocated in the literature, eg. by Ján Kollár. Postoj zformulovaný v literárněhistorické literatuře na margo básnické a odborné tvorby Ľudovíta Š t ú r a je prakticky dodnes platný a opakovaně je přebírán do dalších odborných publikací. Nejméně pozornosti je v ní věnováno Štúrově básnické tvorbě, naopak akcentována je jeho práce pro národ, odborné či publicistické aktivity. Štúrova básnická tvorba a literární texty na pomezí žánrů, jako je např. cestopis, jsou v dlouho-dobé perspektivě minimálně reflektovány. Známý je také postoj Alexandra M a t u š k y, který ve své eseji z roku 1965, tedy v eseji napsané k 150. výročí Štúrova narození, sice nesmlouvavě, ale s jistou laskavostí, napsal: "Nebol básnik veľkého formátu, realizoval sa ako organizátor. Nebol básnik, slovenský život k nemu nehovoril ako k básnikovi; a jednako nikto nedovidel pred ním do života u nás v takej šírke a hĺbke ako on […]" (Matuška 1990, 100). Matuškův názor tak posiluje tradici vysoce hodnocené odborné práce na úkor literární. Opakovaně se v souvislosti s výročními okamžiky vysouvá do popředí zřejmá tendence zpracovat i méně známé oblasti Štúrova působení. V tomto ohledu mají specifické postavení cestopisy, které se rozprostírají mezi doku-mentárností cesty za poznáním malého slovanského národa a básnickou imaginací. I pro Štúrovy cestopisy však platí, co napsal Alexander Matuška o jeho poezii. Básnické imaginace je v nich málo, figurativní jazyk vesměs ustupuje pragmatickým cílům. Rozhodně neplatí absolutně, že by obrozenské cestopisy (z třicátých a čtyřicátých let 19. století) zůstávaly zcela bez povšimnutí odborné veřejnosti. Zejména rozsáhlejší cestopisy, které vyšly knižně k sobě vážou odbornou pozornost opakovaně. 1) Štúrův cestopis je zpravidla zmiňován v literárněhistorických příručkách v souvislosti s jeho studijní cestou do Halle. Pochopitelnou výjimkou jsou monografie, které se primárně zaměřují na vývoj cestopisu. 2) Pokud je už Štúrův cestopis literární historií reflektován, 1/ Např. cestopis Jozefa Miloslava H u r b a n a Cesta Slováka ku bratrům slavenským na Moravě a v Čechách (1839). Hurban se vydal na cestu jen krátce po Štúrově cestě do Lužic. Hurbanova cesta je datována červencem 1839, kdy se vydává na cestu z Bratislavy do Vídně. 2/ Ve slovenském kontextu je to rozsáhlá monografie Z. K l á t i k a Vývin slovenského cestopisu (Klátik 1968), v českém prostředí nedávno publikovaná monografie o obrozenském cestopisu

The book Utopians, Visionaries of the World of the Future (The History of Utopias and Utopianism) consists  of  three  parts:  in  the  first  one  the  reader  reads  about  the  definitions  of  utopia  and utopianism and its division. The following, the most extensive chapter analyzes the history of utopianism, compares  the  various  concepts  and ideas. In the introduction,  the  reader has the opportunity  to  gain  knowledge  of  the  prehistory  of  utopianism  and  the  oldest  evidence  of utopian egalitarianism in human history. This is followed by the ancient and Christian tradition of  utopianism,  which  leads  the  emergence  ofutopia  as  a  literary  genre  in  modern  times. Following  are  descriptions  of  the  most  important  modern  utopias  and  their  authors  (More, Campanella, Bacon),but also less known utopias at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries. This is  followed  by  the  period of  the  Enlightenment  Utopia  and  the  natural  law  theory  of  Mably, Rousseau, Morelly and Babuef. This chapter ends with Babeuf’s influence in the revolutionary theories of the 19th century. The largest part of Utopian history is devoted to the three greats of Utopian socialism: Saint-Simon, Fourier and Owenand also authors such as Etienne Cabet and Robert de  Lamennais. Marginally,  the  book  also  deals  with German  utopia  and  utopian elements  in  the  works  of  Kant,  Hegel,  Bolzano,  Weitling,  with  a  continuation of  Marxism.  A novelty in the present research is utopianism in the Slovak context, which focuses primarily on Messianism as a specific form of philosophy of history and practical social activities of national revivalists and social revolts. The epilogue to history is followed by the last, third chapter, which deals with utopia and utopianism in the context of philosophical reasoning for the problems of the21st century.

In the early nineteenth century, several Slavic intellectuals believed in a single Slavic nation speaking a single language, though positing various taxonomies of the nation’s component “tribes” and the language’s component “dialects.” Nevertheless, recent scholars, both historians and linguists, prove so extraordinarily unwilling to acknowledge the existence of Panslavism that several falsify the historical record so as to make historical figures conform to modern national and linguistic thinking. This paper discusses Jan Kollár, Ljudevit Gaj, and Ľudovít Štúr as three sample Panslavs, documents the misrepresentation of their ideas in recent historiography, and explores why so many scholars seek to erase Panslavism from the historical record

DUPKALA, R., PERNÝ, L. Štúrovci a Hegel. K problematike slovenského hegelianizmu  a anti-hegelianizmu. Prešov: Prešovská univerzita v Prešove. 3. vyd. 2021, 160 s., ISBN 978-80-555-2717-8

The leitmotiv of the publication is a reflection of Hegel’s philosophy in works of Slovak literary romanticism representatives, Štúr’s generation. The authors assume that there are two ways in which Hegel’s  philosophy is reflected in Štúr’s generation, which correspond to two relatively compact ideological and philosophical platforms: 1. the generational diversity of Slovak Hegelianism (Ľ. Štúr, J. M. Hurban, A. Sládkovič) and 2. the generational diversity of Slovak Anti-Hegelianism (M. M. Hodža, S. B. Hroboň, P. K. Hostinský).
The authors emphasize that the main sources of reflection in the Štúr’s generational diversity of Slovak Hegelianism are especially Hegeľs works “Phänomenologie des Geistes”, “Vorlesungen zur Geschichte der Philosophie”, “Wissenschaft der Logik” and “Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechtes”. Štúr’s generational diversity of Anti-Hegelianism was inspired especially by anti-Hegel works of late Schelling (“Philosophische Untersuchungen über das Wesen menschlichen Freiheit”, “Zur Geschichte der neueren Philosophie”, “Philosophie der Mythologie”, “Philosophie der Offenbarung”).
The work consists of three ambivalent chapters: The first one includes three subchapters: 1. Hegelianism of Ľ. Štúr, 2. The reception of Hegeľs philosophy in thoughts of J. M. Hurban, 3. Hegelian motives in work of A. Sládkovič. The second chapter contains an analysis and interpretation of 1. Anti-Hegelianism of M. M. Hodža, 2. messianist-theist negation of Hegel’s philosophy in work of S. B. Hroboň, 3. “Philosophy of seeing” ("Filozofia videňja") by P. K. Hostinský. The third chapter focuses on the  reception of the young Hegel anti-theism in the work of Janko Kráľ and the socio-philosophical dimension of Slovak romantic utopianism. In some cases, Štúr’s generation varieties of Hegelianism and Anti-Hegelianism are compared to analogous concepts in Czech, Polish, Ukrainian and Russian 19th century philosophy. The authors reject the one-way negative perception of the philosophical thinking of Štúr’s generation (A. Pražák, M. Hodža, etc.). They emphasize that Štúr’s generation reflection of Hegel and Schelling was original in its own way and its “creativity” lies in the application level. The aim of this work is to contribute to the research of dominant traditions in Slovak philosophical thinking. At the same time, it tries to analyse and interpret Slovak literary romanticism, which is also atypical for specific ways of Štúr’s generation reflection on contemporary European philosophy. Philosophical thinking of Štúr’s generation is presented in this work as a component of the spiritual culture of the Slovak nation, formed in the contexts of European spiritual and cultural development.

Kultúrno-spoločenský, literárny a filozofický prínos Jána Francisciho (K dvestoročnici kapitána slovenských dobrovoľníkov, zberateľa povestí, poeta a redaktora)

Matica slovenská si v roku 2022 pripomína v rámci ROKU ODKAZU ŠTÚROVCOV 200. výročie osobností národného obrodenia, osobnosti, ktoré významným spôsobom zasiahli do slovenských dejín. Prvého júna sa pred dvomi storočiami narodil prvý kapitán slovenských dobrovoľníkov, ale aj významný národný buditeľ, revolucionár, kultúrno-osvetový pracovník, žurnalista, redaktor, prozaik, prekladateľ, popredná osobnosť slovenského národného hnutia v druhej polovici 19. storočia, spolupracovník Ľudovíta Štúra a Štefana Marka Daxnera, a hlavne prvý kapitán slovenských dobrovoľníkov Ján Samuel Francisci-Rimavský (* 1822 – † 1905), ktorého obraz si snáď každý vzdelaný človek vyjaví aj vďaka výtvarníkovi Petrovi Michalovi Bohúňovi (taktiež má toho roku 200. výročie).

Čiastočne si už Matica slovenská (resp. Slovenský literárny ústav Matice slovenskej), pripomenula Francisciho kultúrno-literárny, filozoficko-politický a historický odkaz na vedeckom podujatí Janko Kráľ a štúrovci v Novohrade a Honte, ktoré bolo zorganizované pod vedením docenta Júliusa Lomenčíka (SLÚ MS) v meste Lučenec. Matica slovenská si Francisciho 200. výročie pripomína toho roku aj v jeho rodnom meste Hnúšťa osadením pamätnej tabule, výstavou a vedeckou konferenciou (viac informácií na konci článku).

Nasledujúci príspevok bude venovaný analýze jeho tvorby, ale aj ideového odkazu.

In the early nineteenth century, several Slavic intellectuals believed in a single Slavic nation speaking a single language, though positing various taxonomies of the nation's component “tribes” and the language's component “dialects.” Nevertheless, recent scholars, both historians and linguists, prove so extraordinarily unwilling to acknowledge the existence of Panslavism that several falsify the historical record so as to make historical figures conform to modern national and linguistic thinking. This paper discusses Jan Kollár, Ljudevit Gaj, and L'udovít Štúr as three sample Panslavs, documents the misrepresentation of their ideas in recent historiography, and explores why so many scholars seek to erase Panslavism from the historical record.

Theater criticism analyzes theatrical project of two interesting themes (in the Slovak National Theater): Dostoevsky (The Brothers Karamazov) and the work of Karol Horak, about the story of the group around Slovak national hero, Ludovit Stur. They were presented as part of the theater online project as reaction to COVID-19 quarantine.

Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky: The Karamazov brothers are philosophical literary classics of the 19th century. The Karamazov brothers analyze the most difficult theological and philosophical questions about faith, God, justice, the consequences of will, and the nature of human nature. The four-hour mental drainage of Dostoevsky in the work by The Slovak National Theatre, Roman Polák and Daniel Majling, gave this work a new dimension. Dostoevsky is definitely not for a stupid audience.

Ivan Karamazov (Tomáš Maštalír) is a character that symbolizes the Hobbesian principle of "Homo homini lupus". Smerďakov (Kostelný) accepts and adapts this principe, he considers the hypothetical consequence of non-existence of God as a justification for any immorality, and tries to throw his attitudes on the ideological influence of moral relativity by Ivan Karamazov. Ivan's rationalism mixed with relativism and nihilism, tries to overcome individual responsibility and ends in madness. Smerďakov (Kostelní) make suicide for his adoption of the Hobbesian principle. Dmitry Karamazov (Ondrík) is a spontaneous character, preferring passion. To love Grushenka (femme fatalle) is the only instinctive mission of his existence. All these characters represent philosophical hopelessness.   The only silent Alyosha Karamazov still believes. He is characterized by fear of cynicism and immorality, and is a typical figure of Slavic mystical messianism. According to philosopher Martin Homza, the figures of the Karamazov brothers represent the Slavic philosophy. This idea is represented in Slovakia by philosophers such as Hostinský, Hroboň and others. They tried to find a third solution to philosophical disputes.
Synthesis, not negation, not another dualistic model, but triadistic. God took himself the form of man, and this is the true value of materia. By the philosophers Červenák and Homza, this is philosophical triad  - materia, energy and spirit. And it is this philosophical problem that this theater represents. Despite the length and complexity of the work, it is designed to be attractive and unique. It was one of the best theatrical experiences I have ever seen in Slovakia.

The director Roman Polák, dramaturg Karol Horák and the story of the national awareness of Slovaks, but also of the biographies of Slovak national heroes and their life partners… The theater project is based on facts from the national history and life of the members of  Štúr's group. The works are mainly devoted to disputes over the fate of the Slovak nation in 1848. What is unique is the conversation between Štúr (Robert Roth), for whom national liberation is a priority, and Lajos Kossuth (Ján Koleník), who fights for the liberalization of Hungarian society and the transformation into a modern capitalist state headed by Hungarian hegemony. Freedom of speech, legal equality, equal justice, accessible education ... that is what Štúr and Kossuth more or less agree on. The dispute begins when Štúr enforces the right to use Slovak in the territory of Slovakia land. Kossuth promotes Hungarian language as the official language. For Kossut is Herder's vision of the united Slavs German nonsense. While Štúr naively uses the vision of Austro-Slavism, the Hungarians (also naively) fighting for their autonomy. There were too many national and social fronts in 1848… A slight weakness of the work is a chaotic representation of the revolutionary events. The story also shows the characters of life partners of Slovak national revolutionaries (Adela Ostrolúcka, Mária Pospíšilová, Anička Jurkovičová a Kornélie Kellnerová Hodžová).

Burning courage, persecution, belief in the ideals of the Slovak national revolution, it was Hurban. Jozef Miloslav Hurban performed by Tomáš Maštalír was the best acted character. The theatrical production also shows Hurban's move from hegelianism to mesianism.On the contrary, the weakest figure is Michal Miloslav Hodža by Ľuboš Kostelný, who did not look at all trustworthy. Ľudovít Štúr, portrayed by Robert Roth, did not appear as credible as Dušan Jamrich in the legendary serial about Štúr's group (Šturovci) or Štefan Kvietik (movie "Niet inej cesty"). This character is not particularly suitable for this actor. Nevertheless, it is admirable that Robert Roth did a great job especially in scenes that discussed difficult philosophical themes.

The contacts Andrija Torkvat Brlić had established with the Slovaks during his theological studies at the Pázmáneum and while he was engaged in the Prague Slavic Congress were also maintained during the revolutionary events from 1848 into 1849. This article presents three letters sent to Brlić during the second half of 1848 in which different aspects of his collaboration with the Slovaks are determined: the distribution of announcements for the Grammar of the Slovak Language edited by Martin Hattala; helping volunteers to reach the Slovak insurgents; active participation in the Slovak Uprising and so on. In discussing the letters, the author refers to published literature and sources as well as to Brlić’s manuscript Dnevnik; particular attention is drawn to the letter in which Ľudovít Štúr expressed his dissatisfaction with Brlić’s reports on events in Slovakia.