In a letter to František Palacký dated June 27, 1825, the Prague-born composer Josef Dessauer informed his “dear friend” (“theurer Freund”) about musical happenings in his current residence Vienna, adding that:
Your news has given me joy, especially that you are establishing yourself more and more in Prague. May your life with the aristocrats never distract you from the beautiful goal to which you once aspired!
Here, Dessauer (1798–1876) refers to Palacký’s middle-class background and his endeavor to foster an inclusive Czech cultural life nourished by the intellectually engaged middle class rather than exclusively by members of the nobility. Palacký (1798–1876) was the son of a school teacher in Northern Moravia and lived in Prague from 1823 onward. He is well known by Czech and international historians for his historical and political writings and negotiations in the public and semi-public domain. On account of his achievements towards the establishment of a distinct Czech national culture, he is often referred to as the “Father of the [Czech] Nation.”
The autobiographical documents surrounding him testify to a strong musical interest, although he is less known for this strand of cultural engagement within today’s scholarly discourse. His expertise on cultural, political, and historical matters concerning the Czech lands made him a sought-after figure among his contemporaries. In 1823, he became Count Sternberg’s archivist, and he also taught Czech to some Bohemian members of the nobility.  In a letter dated November 13, 1836, the Bohemian composer, poet, and salonnière Countess Elise von Schlik, too, requested advice from Palacký, though on a purely historical matter. She asked him whether the fragments of some tableware she had found at a younger age were of any value with regard to Bohemian culture and craft. By way of conclusion, she expressed how much she would like to meet him personally, a desire which he reciprocated in his response  . 
While there is ample literature available on Palacký as a historian, politician, and writer, little has been published on his musical affinity. Jiří Kořalka comments on Palacký’s musical interests in his biography, and Marie Tarantová explores Palacký’s musicality through his indirect encounters with Beethoven.
Regarding Elise von Schlik, Milena Lenderová’s and Jana Sekyrová’s work must be highlighted; both consider Schlik through the prism of  Alltagsgeschichte, gender studies, and socio-political contexts surrounding noble women. More recently, Schlik’s musical activities too have been subject to musicological enquiry.  Both Palacký and Schlik had a strong impact on Prague’s private music-cultural scene. This chapter of Bohemia’s musical history has not been examined systematically to date, partly perhaps because there are uncertainties surrounding the definition of the term “salon.” Arguing for a narrower definition, the  Slovník české hudební kultury presents the concern that the term “salon” has been used too broadly with regard to Czech musical culture. Although many social gatherings at the turn of the nineteenth century were rooted in aristocratic and wealthy middle-class salons, most of these gatherings preferred domestic music-making to salon-type gatherings. Moreover, according to the entry, the Czech middle classes mostly preferred forms of public musical activities which were closely connected with the development of the national communal life. I, on the other hand, view the “salon” in its broadest possible sense, as “an iterative process around culture and sociability, undergoing continual reshaping through the emergence of new practices born of new structures, media and technologies.”  This definition responds to the highly heterogeneous nature of nineteenth-century European salon culture and allows for a more flexible consideration of private and semi-private sociability within its own local and regional socio-cultural contexts. 
Another reason why there exists relatively little research on musical salon culture in Prague, Bohemia, and the Czech lands more generally has to do with methodological challenges naturally associated with salon research.
These challenges often result from a lack of primary sources surrounding private social gatherings and, when available, providing concrete information regarding the musical element within these circles—we often do not know what music was performed, when, how often, and by whom. Yet this phenomenon is worth exploring, as it served as a starting point for many canonical (and non-canonical) compositions, networks, and public institutions. 
The purpose of this article is to explore what kind of broad picture of musical life emerges when we link Palacký and Schlik together and in what way their circles mixed and merged on music-cultural grounds, whether or not they actually ever met. Despite differences in class, gender, education, upbringing, and—to some extent—language backgrounds, both Palacký and Schlik were important cultural figures in Prague during the first half of the nineteenth century, and both displayed a certain kind of openness towards contemporaries who originated in different (higher or lower) social strata and/or different cultural centers, pursued different fields of cultural activity, displayed different levels of music-cultural engagement, and were anchored in different communities. The concern voiced in Dessauer’s letter shows that during the first decades of the century these two groups of the population—the educated middle class and the nobility—were seemingly considered separate from each other, perhaps even contradictory to each other. The consideration of them both together in one study may shed light on cross-societal connections in the private and semi-private cultural sphere. Furthermore, the exploration of Palacký’s and Schlik’s musical encounters with each other and the circles surrounding them brings to light new facets of Prague’s cultural life: for instance, cultural agency incorporated by such women as Schlik or Palacký’s wife, Teresie Měchura, and later their daughter, Marie Riegrová; the compositional activities of amateur composers (both Schlik and Palacký); blurred boundaries between the German- and Czech-language musical communities, which reflect the complex web of identities typically found in early nineteenth-century Bohemia; and links between music, poetry, and politics (for instance, through repertoire performed in Schlik’s salon or through Palacký’s examination of Serbian songs in search of a Slavonic culture). Through this avenue, this investigation demonstrates that Prague had a vibrant private and semi-private music-cultural life throughout the first half of the nineteenth century, although observers sometimes perceived it as quite unmusical and unsocial—for instance Carl Maria von Weber, as he wrote in a letter to Gottfried Weber in 1814, to which I will return later.
These more subtle layers of musical sociability have been underestimated with regard to their immediate music-cultural functions and their music-historical significance. They inspired a large number of original compositions and thus far unexplored (private and semi-private) performances, while also paving the way for professional contacts which eventually led to institutionalized forms of music-cultural practice. 
In order to explore these contacts and networks through the lens of Palacký’s and Schlik’s music-cultural circles, I will first offer some background information regarding private and semi-private social musical gatherings in Prague (section I), followed by a more detailed exploration of Schlik’s and Palacký’s musical ties and their socio-cultural significance (section II). I explore the latter through three avenues: friends and acquaintances; interest in nourishing private and semi-private musical culture; and musical endeavors beyond the private and semi-private domain. In so doing, I posit that a re-evalution of analytical binaries often found in musicological writing can lead to a more differentiated understanding of musical history both in the Czech lands and further afield.
Section I: Historical B ackground
The long nineteenth century can be considered a time of crisis for Habsburg absolutism and thus, due to the increase of social, political, and economic power acquired by the middle classes, also for the aristocrats’ self-perception as cultural agents.
Luboš Velek and Tanja Tönsmeyer explain that the history of the aristocracy, and later the nobility, in Bohemia was by no means as unambiguous as it may have been in other parts of the Habsburg Empire, for instance in Vienna. On the one hand, members of the nobility and the middle classes could have mutual interests, while on the other, there were many conflicts even within the individual social ranks, depending on definitions, personal interests, and circumstances.  These tendencies are confirmed by the personal accounts of Karl August Varnhagen von Ense, an outsider who met the Prussian king and many members of the Bohemian nobility during a stay in the spa town of Teplice in August 1822. His conversations with local and visiting Bohemians reveal that the emperor in Vienna had voiced his discomfort towards Bohemian members of the nobility socializing with the Prussian king, possibly for fear of a loss of power and out of a sense of competition.  During the same stay, Varnhagen also spoke with Countess Schlik, who usually spent the summers in her family residence in Teplice, and who explained that the Bohemian nobility would soon need to stay at home and save, while their tenants got richer and richer.  
Instead of suggesting a dialectical differentiation between
conservative and modern, aristocratic/noble and bourgeois/middle-class, Jiří Kořalka identifies five tendencies of modern nationalism in Bohemia. This approach might be more suitable for the complex socio-political context in that region: Österreichertum (focus on Austria), Großdeutschtum (focus on all German-speaking lands), Slawismus (focus on Slavonic lands), Bohemismus (focus on Bohemia), Tschechentum (focus on the Czech-speaking population). These different strands of identity also surface in Schlik’s and Palacký’s circles. 
Despite the different circumstances faced by the Prague nobility in comparison to that based in Vienna, the general notion that the Congress of Vienna had a significant impact on their social and cultural lives is confirmed by the account of Carl Maria von Weber, who resided in Prague as director of the Estates Theater from 1813 to 1816. In May 1814, he wrote to Gottfried Weber, to whom he refers as “Dearest brother” (“Liebster theurer Bruder”), although they were not related:
There is no social life [in Prague]. No big house, no educated house which would lead or generate opinions. All social ranks, the nobility, the merchants, the bourgeoisie [
Bürger] are divided and do not form an entity. One could say that each family lives in isolation and only vegetates within its own closest circles. A great influx of foreigners, who could possibly connect the locals, as for instance in Vienna, is missing here, because Prague’s geographical location does not make it a passage point, and the city itself is not attractive enough for strangers to come and visit. 
Despite the grim impression he shared with Gottfried Weber, Carl Maria von Weber was in fact, as revealed in his correspondence with his friend Johann Gänsbacher and his diary, quite busy socializing with various families in Prague originating in both the nobility (among them also Countess Schlik) and the middle classes (for instance, the homes of Ignaz Kleinwächter, Johann Carl Liebich, Friedrich Dionys Weber, and Friedrich Wilhelm Pixis).
By comparison, František Palacký’s and Rudolf Procházka’s notes, dating a decade or two later, are full of allusions to private gatherings during which music was played or sung. All three
—Weber, Palacký, and Procházka —had very different perspectives, socio-cultural backgrounds, expectations, and purposes regarding their stays in Prague and their writings; all of them must be read with their own self-positioning in mind. Yet their accounts offer valuable insights into the cultural developments in Prague throughout the first half of the nineteenth century. For instance, on December 31, 1826, Palacký wrote that he “went … to the concert at Měchura’s house, where more than 70 people socialized; Count Lažanský and his family, Štěpankovský, Escherich, Jeník, Dobrovský, Held, Schuster, Svoboda.”  Rudolf Procházka offers some details on Prague’s private music scene during the 1830s and ’40s; here, too, members of the nobility are mentioned alongside those of the educated middle class, although the latter outweigh the former: 
The Prague of the Vormärz did not feature what can be called a rich public musical life. However, many homes witnessed real domestic music-making, that is
chamber music; and the Quartettspiel which, up until the beginning of [the twentieth] century, took place every other Sunday in the home of Joseph von Portheim bears witness to the noble musical practices which had primarily been maintained by the local noble families. For instance, public music events took place at the Waldstein Palace on the Prague Lesser Town [Malá strana] even around mid-century. High-caliber local and foreign composers used to visit … [Portheim’s] home: … Ferdinand Laub, Joachim, Ondřiček, Bennewitz, … David Popper, … W. H. Veit, Ambros, … Stumpf. During his early years, Antonín Dvořák participated at Portheim’s Hausquartett as a viola player. 
Procházka’s book was published on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the Prague
Kammermusikverein (Chamber Music Association), founded by Joseph Porges von Portheim (1817–1904) in 1876; thus, Procházka’s above-cited list did not refer solely to the Vormärz. Dvořák, for instance, was not born until 1841, and Joachim did not visit Prague (at least not officially) until the 1860s. Others who feature in Procházka’s list, however, were indeed active musical protagonists in Prague during the first half of the nineteenth century and also featured in Schlik’s and Palacký’s circles. These were less formal than those of Portheim, but they enabled important professional links and developments which, as in Portheim’s case, later became crucial parts of Czech musical culture.  Section II: Elise von Schlik’s and František Palacký’s Musical Engagement and Their Socio-Cultural Significance
A member of the nobility, Countess Elise von Schlik (1792–1855) is primarily known by salon researchers for her indefatigable support of the arts and of individual musicians and composers. Following the convention modeled by her mother and usually associated with the eighteenth-century French salonnière, she gathered in her home members of different social classes.
Palacký  , too, moved in both societal strata—the nobility and the intellectually engaged middle class. It is thus not quite so surprising that Countess Schlik sought Palacký’s expertise on a matter dear to her heart, that is, the tableware she found as a young girl. Furthermore, Schlik’s and Palacký’s affinities for music and their simultaneous cultural engagement in Prague might suggest that their paths crossed directly in Schlik’s private gatherings or indirectly through mutual acquaintances. This idea is supported by Jitka Ludvová’s entry on Schlik in the Österreichisches Biographisches Lexikon, in which she states that Schlik “had contacts to leading personalities of Bohemian culture, including Dobrovský, Hanka, and F. Palacký,” although Milena Lenderová asserts that the contacts with Palacký remain speculative in nature.  Yet their musical connections (and disconnections) shed light on cultural phenomena which fed into broader socio-cultural developments in Prague during the first half of the nineteenth century. 
Countess Elise von Schlik was a composer, pianist, singer, poet, and supporter of the arts. She hosted regular social gatherings in her home in Prague and at her residence in Kopidlno.
The personal musical autograph album belonging to Schlik reveals that guests to Schlik’s home included Prague locals and international visitors, members of the nobility, and professional and amateur artists.  Autograph albums were common during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; they were used by their owners to commemorate friends and acquaintances who visited their homes. Sometimes they were also brought on trips and signed by hosts visited by the book’s owners during their travels.  Although it can be assumed that they were intended not solely for intimate exchange and private memory but also for posterity, they offer valuable insights into their owners’ personal networks, priorities, and values.  Through an entry dated 1826 we learn, for instance, that an amateur performance of Václav Jan Tomášek’s “Parade of the Troubadours” apparently took place at Schlik’s, featuring Elise von Schlik herself, lieutenants Hess and Lego, Prince Rudolf Kinský, Count and Countess Thun, Count Sternberg, Count Nostitz, Countess Clam, Countess Buquoy, and Countess Schönborn.  Remaining with the album tradition, though slightly different in nature and purpose, a bound collection of 17 manuscript scores kept at the archive of the Prague Conservatory reveals that Schlik herself wrote one of the lieder included in her opus 14, “Ihr Name” (Her name), into the album of Therese von Thurn-Taxis.  
František Palacký, too, owned a personal autograph album, though perhaps it was not as focused on music as that of Schlik. Palacký mentioned this album as well as a second one kept by his future wife Teresie Měchura several times in his diary. However, thus far I have not been able to locate either of the albums.
 Contrary to Schlik, Palacký kept his diary meticulously, especially during the years before his marriage in 1827. Furthermore, his correspondence is telling with regard to his broad network. A comparison of these sources shows that Schlik and Palacký shared common friends or at least mutual contacts, including Václav Jan Tomášek, Joseph Dobrovský, Friedrich Wilhelm Pixis, Jan Bedřich Kittl, Prince Rudolf Kinský, Count František and Countess Theresia of Thun, Count Sternberg, and the Buquoys. A further common acquaintance was the painter Josef Vojtěch Hellich.  Palacký met him during his travels to Italy; he had received a stipend for a stay in Italy with the help of Elise von Schlik’s mother Philippina.  According to his diary, Palacký knew of the Schlik family as early as 1825, as he visited some of Elise’s relatives when he traveled to Teplice, where the Schliks maintained another residence, and where Palacký met with the musician, composer, and Teplice mayor Josef Wolfram. However, there is no mention of Elise von Schlik within this context in Palacký’s diary, and Schlik also does not feature in the correspondence between Palacký and Theresie Měchura, dated 1826 to 1860.  Yet their mutual friends suggest that they shared a strong interest in cultivating musical practice either through administrative or through creative avenues. 
Schlik’s salon was a meeting point for intellectually engaged and artistically interested people with a special focus on music. Her music collection is rich and diverse, including mainly vocal music in German, French, Italian, and Czech as well as shorter piano pieces and piano reductions of large-scale works. While it is not known which concrete pieces Schlik performed in her salon, it is safe to say that her collection of scores represents her taste and to some extent also her salon’s capacities.
In a similar way, her personal musical autograph album includes mainly piano compositions and vocal pieces in German, French, Italian, and Czech. Most of these pieces reflect a Romantic sentiment, dealing with such themes as love and nature, although there is also one political song supporting the Bourbon monarchy, “La cocarde blanche” (The white cockade).  This entry is anonymous and undated, so it is not certain whether it was added to the album under Schlik’s mother Philippina’s leadership of the salon from 1814 to 1827 or afterwards.  In terms of chronology and thematic topicality, it likely originated at a time before 1828, although the Napoleonic Wars impacted the Schliks’ family and social life across the generations: both Elise’s brother Franz Heinrich and her uncle (and at the same time brother-in-law) Jan Nepomuk Nostitz fought on the battlefield, and Elise and her mother were involved in charity initiatives for wounded soldiers.  
Despite Schlik’s noble roots and traditional upbringing—her diary, for instance, was written to a great extent in French—her salon was explicitly supportive of and interested in the Czech language. The inclusion of the duet “Holky! Hoši!” (Boys! Girls!) by Heinrich Hoschek in Schlik’s personal autograph album bears witness to this (see figure 1). Milena Lenderová even proposes that Elise von Schlik spoke “(at least a bit) of Czech,” a notion which she bases on Schlik’s popularity among the Czech-speaking residents around her and a Czech poem dedicated to her by an anonymous author.
 Figure 1: Schlik Album, first page: Hoschek, “Holky! Hosi!” [duet], US-NYj, 0A.15sc (Juilliard Manuscript Collection), 109; by courtesy of the Lila Acheson Wallace Library of The Juilliard School Heinrich
Palacký, too, was not only a keen visitor of Prague’s salons during the 1820s but, together with his wife, also had his own, as he assumed responsibility for his father-in-law Jan Měchura’s salon after his marriage.
As the location of the personal albums is currently unknown, information on the concrete salon activities cultivated by Palacký and his wife is scarce, and there is little concrete information on the musical repertoire performed at Palacký’s.  According to Lubomír Sršeň, it was Teresie rather than František who took the initiative in organizing social gatherings in their home.  In terms of Palacký’s musical interests, further hints may be found in his correspondence, diary, the salon itself, two paintings, and his musical library. The two paintings show Palacký’s wife Theresie with her children at a harp and the composer Leopold Měchura, Palacký’s brother-in-law and close friend from his early days in Prague.  On many occasions, Palacký took note of Theresie Měchura’s harp playing as well as their joint music-making, often also in the company of Theresie’s sister Antonie and brother Leopold.  Music thus played an important role for Palacký in introducing himself to the cultural scene of Prague and in getting to know his future wife, and Sršeň’s assessment seems realistic on account of Teresie’s musical upbringing. 
Later on, the Palackýs offered a friendly atmosphere and home to the next generations of emerging cultural protagonists. His diaries document “get-togethers at my place” (“společnost u mě”) on countless occasions, listing various visitors.
The pianist, singer, and composer Josefina Brdlíková (1843–1910), for instance, mentions in her unpublished notebooks that as a young girl she often visited Palacký’s then already-married daughter Marie Riegrová in Prague, where she also spent “many evening moments during dinner with the father Palacký.”  The Palackýs had cultivated the spirit of musical sociability in their daughter as well: when she got married to František Ladislav Rieger (1818–1903) in 1853, the Riegers assumed leadership over the private gatherings, although, as Brdlíková’s statement suggests, František Palacký was still present at least sometimes.  
Additionally, Palacký’s estate reveals that he was interested in Slavonic (folk) songs and that he supported Slavonic composers. Although this interest might not come as a surprise on account of Palacký’s general interest in Czech history, it is not immediately obvious that he, as a historian-politician, should have included among his manuscripts a two-page sketch outlining melodies and textual incipits of different Slavonic folk songs.
As early as 1816, Palacký wrote to Pavel Josef Šafařík that he was “eagerly collecting national songs” and that he also asked others to write them down for him.  This suggests that Palacký fostered private networks through his endeavors surrounding national song even before Jan Ritter von Rittersberg published his collection of folk songs,  České národní písně / Böhmische Volkslieder, in 1825. Palacký’s private musical library held at Maleč includes pieces by the Slovenian composer Davorin Jenko (1835–1914) with hand-written dedications to Palacký as well as to his son-in-law František Ladislav Rieger. Much like Schlik’s musical library, Palacký’s music collection includes Mozart, Beethoven, and Haydn as well as Romantic composers, for instance Berlioz and Tomášek.  With the latter he developed what one would perhaps call a fatherly friendship; Marie Tarantová explained that Palacký “found his second home” in Tomášek’s house after his arrival in Prague.  
Palacký also wrote poetry and composed music, although not as prolifically as Elise von Schlik. In his diary he mentions his own compositions a few times, notably his “new galopp written today” (“nový gallopp dnes sepsaný”), and a piece without title, simply referred to as “my song” ( “má píseň”).
Palacký shared his compositions only within his closest circles, and it seems that none of them were published; he also wrote poetry.  Schlik, on the other hand, published several opus numbers comprising German lieder to words by herself or other Romantic poets, which she dedicated to important musical protagonists both from the Czech lands and abroad. However, composition also played a key role within her close family. Schlik’s brother Franz Heinrich described in a letter a moving, intimate performance of one of Schlik’s songs by his daughter Rosa (1830–54) shortly before she passed away due to an illness.  
Sometimes, however, Schlik’s and Palacký’s music-cultural engagement in and around Prague transcended the private and semi-private domain. Both supported local Bohemian composers through their subscription to the
Prager musikalisches Album, a collection of music intended for performance in salonesque settings, edited by Ludwig von Rittersberg and published in 1838. The album includes pieces by composer acquaintances of both Schlik and Palacký (for instance, Václav Jan Tomášek, Josef Dessauer, Václav Jindřich Veit), and Palacký also knew the editor, whose father was a close friend of Palacký’s. Among the 62 subscribers to the  Prager musikalisches Album are both Schlik and Palacký, as well as mutual friends, thus pointing to another overlap of interests and circles. 
Moreover, both were involved in several associations and organizations. Schlik was a member of the Prague Frauen-Comité (Women’s Committee) and the Verein zur Beförderung der Tonkunst in Böhmen (Association for the Support of Music in Bohemia).
Both organizations gathered people who were also friendly with Palacký. Palacký himself was an active member in many initiatives, most notably perhaps the Böhmische Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften (Bohemian Society of Sciences) and the Gesellschaft des vaterländischen Museums in Böhmen (Society of the National Museum of Bohemia).  Again, some of the people involved in both societies are not unfamiliar to the Schlik circle.  Palacký also laid the foundation for a Czech national theater, although it was his son-in-law, František Ladislav Rieger, who allegedly completed these plans, though in a slightly varied format.   Conclusion
Numerous parallels and intersections between the cultural activities and circles of Countess Elise von Schlik and František Palacký emerged in this article. The anecdotal correspondence between Schlik and Palacký in 1836 reveals that by then they had not met yet, and that they both hoped to meet the other in person. Yet no such encounter was documented by either of them in their writings. There are, however, some concrete personal links between the two circles, most notably through Václav Jan Tomášek, Josef Vojtěch Hellich, Count Sternberg, Prince Rudolf Kinský, Count František and Countess Theresia von Thun, and the Buquoys. It is plausible that there were more such personal connections, as private musical culture was ephemeral and fast-paced and not all personal encounters were taken record of by the individual participants. The composers and subscribers represented in Ludwig von Rittersberg’s
Prager Musikalisches Album suggest further links between Schlik and Palacký.
Despite its limitations in offering concrete information regarding the Palackýs’ own salon and the repertoire performed therein—perhaps the missing autograph albums might provide further insights—this article suggests that Prague’s society was perhaps not as strictly defined by unsurmountable binaries as was seemingly assumed by Dessauer when he reminded Palacký not to lose sight of his goals while befriending members of the nobility. It also proposes that the grim impressions of Prague’s lack of social life Weber shared with Gottfried Weber were either subject to a rapid development towards more flourishing sociability after the Congress of Vienna or perhaps a little one-sided, seeing as Weber had just arrived in Prague, or both. The blurring of boundaries demonstrated in my exploration of Schlik’s and Palacký’s circles outside the realms of their personal encounter—for instance, between female and male cultural agency; amateur and professional musicianship; and self-positioning within such different cultural domains as history, theater, literature, and music—suggests that there existed subtle but effective forms of salon culture in Prague throughout the first half of the nineteenth century. Due to its smaller size and relatively large geographical distance from the emperor, Prague was much more provincial than Vienna, and its cultural context made it a unique place of exchange. Perhaps it was also due to these circumstances—besides Bohemia’s political particularities—that in Prague the nobility’s cultural influence evolved in different ways than in Vienna, and that figures like Palacký could find ways of engaging with both social strata. This cultural engagement and the initiatives resulting from it helped to shape musical networks during a time when Prague lacked a fully institutionalized public musical scene. If Schlik and Palacký were not personal friends, perhaps not even acquaintances, it was Prague’s musical culture which connected them—and which they connected—“in spirit,” so to speak, through common friends and mutual endeavors (both privately and publicly). Schlik and the Palackýs helped to nourish cultural activity in Prague in their own (and sometimes shared) ways through published compositions and/or writings, subscriptions, and social gatherings and by advocating for institutionalized access to culture, an endeavor which also paved the way for further such initiatives—though then geared towards a more distinct Czech rather than Bohemian flavoring. Undoubtedly, further such impulses originated in other culturally engaged families and/or circles, as well as in other artistic areas. These may be explored in further studies considering private and semi-private spaces as meeting points challenging, if not dissolving, stringent binary systems.
Františka Palackého korrespondence a zápisky , ed. Vojtěch J. Nováček (Prague: Česká akademie císaře Františka Josefa pro vědy, 1898–1911), 2:222. “Deine Novitäten haben mich erfreut, und vorzüglich die, dass sich deine Existenz in Prag immer mehr befestigt. Möge dir nur nie das Leben mit den Aristokraten das schöne Ziel, nach dem du früher gestrebt hast, aus den Augen rücken!” The use of terms like “aristocracy” and “bourgeoisie” can be problematic within the context of the nineteenth century; where possible, I use alternative terms like “intellectually engaged middle class,” “educated middle class,” or “nobility.” However, in this case I kept the term “aristocracy,” as Dessauer speaks of “Aristokraten,” not, for instance, of the “Adel.” It is possible that Dessauer intended to be sarcastic, as he certainly knew that at that time already the members of the nobility were financially less superior than they had been in previous decades. ↑ On Palacký’s standing as the “Father of the Nation,” see, for instance, Jiři Kořalka,
František Palacký (1798– 1876): Der Historiker der Tschechen im österreichischen Vielvölkerstaat (Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences, 2007), 475–77; and, more generally, Derek Sayer, The Coasts of Bohemia: A Czech History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2020), 76. ↑ For instance, Princess Marie Gabrielle Auersberg, née von Lobkowitz, and Count Carl Bernhard Chotek,
Františka Palackého korrespondence a zápisky , 1:104 and 180. ↑ Elise von Schlik to František Palacký, November 13, 1836, Literární archiv Památníku národníhopí semnictví, fond Palacký, signature 15/A/18
. Palacký’s response to Schlik is dated November 28, 1836, and is also archived at the Literární archiv Památníku národního písemnictví, fond Palacký, signature 15/A/19 . Czech translations of this short correspondence can be found in Jana Sekyrová, “Eliška Šliková: Život neprovdané hraběnky v první polovině 19. Století” (diploma thesis, Jihočeská univerzita, České Budějovice, 2006). ↑ Kořalka,
František Palacký (1798–1876), 53 and 61; Marie Tarantová, “Young Palacký and Music,” Nationalities Papers 12, no. 1 (1984): 3–14. ↑ Sekyrová,
Eliška Šliková; Milena Lenderová, “Matka, dcera, vnučka (Filippina, Elisa, Tekla) —dny všední i sváteční tří dam schlikovského rodu,” Z českého ráje a Podkrkonoší : vlasti vědný sborník 15 (2002): 43–68; Milena Lenderová, “Eliška hraběnka Schliková, (panu profesoru Robertu Kvačkovi k 70. narozeninám),” Listy starohradské kroniky 25, no. 1 (2002): 7–12; Milena Lenderová, “Portrét hraběnky Elišky Šlikové,” Z českého ráje a Podkrkonoší : vlasti vědný sborník (2010): 33–42. ↑ Henrike Rost, “Reminiscences of Past Sounds. The Musical Autograph Album (1813–1852) of Countess Elise von Schlik,” paper presented at the international conference
Women in Nineteenth-Century Czech Musical Culture, Prague, October 23–24, 2020; her paper is currently in preparation with the same title for Anja Bunzel and Chris Bowen, eds., Women in Nineteenth-Century Czech Musical Culture (New York: Routledge, forthcoming); Anja Bunzel, “Countess Elise von Schlik (Eliška Šliková): Salonnière, Patroness, Composer,” in Women Composers in New Perspectives, 1 800– 1950: Genres, Contexts and Repertoire, ed. Mariateresa Storino and Susan Wollenberg (Turnhout: Brepols, 2023), 99–119. ↑
Slovník České hudební kultury, ed. Jiří Fukač and Jiří Vysloužil (Prague: Editio Supraphon, 1997), 807; see also Jan Novotný, “K počátkům novodobých měšťanských salonů v Praze,” in Salony v české kultuře 19. století : sborník příspěvků z 18. ročníku sympozia k problematice 19. Století , ed. Helena Lorenzová and Taťána Petrasová (Prague: KLP, 1999), 139–46. ↑ See Anja Bunzel and Natasha Loges, “Introduction,” in
Musical Salon Culture in the Long Nineteenth Century, ed. Anja Bunzel and Natasha Loges (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2019), 2. On the concept of musical sociability within the context of semi-private and private culture, see Rebecca Cypess, Women and Musical Salons in the Enlightenment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022), especially chapter 2, “Sensuality, Sociability, and Sympathy: Musical Salon Practices as Enactments of Enlightenment,” 62–102. ↑ Marie Tarantová has also traced some salonlike activities in Prague during the first half of the nineteenth century: Marie Tarantová, “Altprager musikalische Salons im Vormärz,”
Sborník prací filosofické fakulty Brněnské Univerzity 8 (1973): 145–59. ↑ Carl Maria von Weber to Gottfried Weber, May 1814,
(accessed October 4, 2022), see note Carl-Maria-von-Weber- Gesamtausgabe . Digital edition 17. ↑ On “reaguard actions” of the aristocracy in response to the emerging middle classes after the French Revolution, see the call for papers for and the individual papers presented at the conference
“Rückzugsgefechte? Handlungsspielräume, Kunstmentoring und Selbstentwürfe des europäischen Hochadels um 1800” / “Rearguard actions? Scope, art mentoring, and self-conception of European high nobility around 1800,” University for Music and Performing Arts Vienna, March 1–2, 2019 (accessed June 14, 2022). On the self-perception of the aristocracy in the Habsburg Empire—here Vienna—with regard to cultural engagement and the loss of confidence after the Congress of Vienna, see Elisabeth Fiorioli, “Die Salonkultur der Wiener Aristokratie in der ersten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts am Beispiel der Fürstin Marie Anna Schwarzenberg” (diploma thesis, Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, 1991), chapter 1: “Infragestellung des aristokratischen Selbstbewusstseins.” ↑ Luboš Velek and Tanja Tönsmeyer, “Einleitung: Adel und Politik in der Habsburgermonarchie und den Nachbarländern zwischen Absolutismus und Demokratie,” in
Adel und Politik in der Habsburgermonarchie und den Nachbarländern zwischen Absolutismus und Demokratie , ed. Luboš Velek and Tanja Tönsmeyer (Munich: Martin Meidenbauer, 2011), 7. See also Ralph Melville, Adel und Revolution in Böhmen : Strukturwandel von Herrschaft und Gesellschaft in Österreich um die Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1998). ↑ See Karl August Varnhagen von Ense,
Blätter aus der preu ß ischen Geschichte (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1868), 2:173. ↑ See Varnhagen von Ense,
Blätter aus der preu ß ischen Geschichte, 2:190. ↑ Jiří Kořalka,
Tschechen im Habsburgerreich und in Europa 1815–1914: Sozialgeschichtliche Zusammenhänge der neuzeitlichen Nationsbildung und der Nationalitätenfrage in den böhmischen Ländern (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1991), especially 23–75. ↑ Carl Maria von Weber to Gottfried Weber, May 1814,
Carl-Maria-von-Weber- Gesamtausgabe . “daß es | hier keine Geselligkeit giebt. kein großes Haus, kein gelehrtes Haus pp aus dem gewiße Ansichten hervorgiengen oder die Stimmen der Tonangeber geleitet würden. alle Stände, der Adel, der Kaufmann, der Bürger, sind streng von einander abgesondert, ohne deßhalb unter sich einen Körper zu bilden. Man kann behaupten daß jede Familie abgetheilt für sich lebt, und nur im Kreise ihrer nächsten Berührungen vegetirt. Eine Maße von Fremden, die das alles binden und löthen könnte, wie zum Beyspiel in Wien pp fehlt hier auch gänzlich, denn die Lage Prags macht es weder zu einem Paßage Punkt, noch hat die Stadt selbst Reiz genug Fremde zu lokken.” It is obvious that Weber’s perspective was also impacted by his own self-positioning, as he had just arrived in Prague. Weber’s impression was also shared publicly in an article, in which Weber is praised for having revived the whole city with “new spirits” (“ein neuer Geist belebte das Ganze”). “Ueber Prag,” Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung 17, no. 37 (September 13, 1815): 620. ↑ For numerous references to Weber’s social contacts in Prague, see
. Pixis as well as Kleinwächter’s son, Louis, also gathered at Schlik’s salon. See Henrike Rost, “Reminiscences of Past Sounds: The Musical Autograph Album (1813–1852) of Countess Elise von Schlik,” in Carl-Maria-von-Weber- Gesamtausgabe . Digital edition Women in Nineteenth-Century Czech Musical Culture, ed. Anja Bunzel and Christopher Campo-Bowen (New York: Routledge, forthcoming). ↑ On aspects of autobiographical writing and musical historiography, see Melanie Unseld,
Biographie und Musikgeschichte : Wandlungen biographischer Konzepte in Musikkultur und Musikhistoriographie (Cologne: Böhlau, 2014). ↑
Františka Palackého korrespondence a zápisky, 1:180: “… do koncertu k Měchurovým, kdež společnost více než sedmdesáti osob; hrabě Lažanský a rodina jeho, Štěpanovský, Escherich, Jeník, Dobrovský, Held, Schuster, Svoboda.” ↑ Rudolph F. Procházka,
Der Kammermusikverein in Prag (Prague: Haase, 1926), 25. “Das Prag der vormärzlichen Tage entfaltete nicht gerade ein reiches, äußeres Musikleben. Aber daheim trieben gar viele noch echte Haus-, das ist Kammermusik; und das Quartettspiel , das im Hause Joseph von Portheims, bis in den Anfang dieses Jahrhunderts hinein, jeden zweiten Sonntag wahrhaft feiertäglich erklingt, ist ein überlebender Zeuge jeder edlen Musikausübung vornehmer Bürgerhäuser, die ehedem eine Zierde vor allem der heimischen Adelsfamilien gewesen war. Fanden doch beispielsweise noch um die Mitte des vergangenen Jahrhunderts im Saale des Waldsteinpalais auf der Prager Kleinseite auch öffentliche Musikaufführungen statt. … In- und ausländische Tonkünstler von Rang und Namen verkehrten und verkehren regelmäßig in seinem gastlichen Hause: die Geiger Ferdinand Laub, Joachim, Ondřiček, Bennewitz, der Violoncellvirtuose David Popper, der deutschböhmische Komponist und Kreisgerichtspräsident W. H. Veit, Ambros u.a., auch der an der Prager Universität lehrende bekannte Philosoph und Verfasser der ‘Tonpsychologie’, Stumpf. Antonín Dvořák wirkt in seinen jungen Jahren als Violaspieler in Portheims Hausquartett mit … .” ↑ On Porges von Portheim and the foundation of the Kammermusikverein, see Procházka,
Der Kammermusikverein in Prag; on Porges von Portheim and musical sociability within the Prague Jewish community more generally, see Martina Niedhammer, Nur eine “Geld-Emancipation” ? Loyalitäten und Lebenswelten des Prager jüdischen Großbürgertums 1800–1867 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), especially 187–254. On Joachim in Prague, see Anja Bunzel, “‘It was very original and funny there, and they had excellent food and drink’: Joseph Joachim in Prague,” in Joseph Joachim: Identitäten / Identities, ed. Katharina Uhde and Michael Uhde (Hanover: Olms, forthcoming). Although this article is not concerned with that latter time, it must be noted here that Procházka’s list offers insights into the significance of private music-making in the second half of the century, as Bedřich Smetana, for instance, also benefitted to a great extent from this practice especially during the earlier stages of his career around mid-century; see, for instance, Marta Ottlová and Milan Pospíšil, “Hudební salon a salonní hudba,” in Salony v české kultuře 19. století : sborník příspěvků z 18. ročníku sympozia k problematice 19. Století , ed. Helena Lorenzová and Taťána Petrasová (Prague: KLP, 1999), 47–55. ↑ On typical salonnières and socio-cultural developments within salon culture during the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries, see Andreas Ballstaedt, “Salonmusik,” in
Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. Ludwig Finscher, Sachteil 8 (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1998), 854–67; Brunhilde Weninger, “Der Salon: Ein Modell kultureller Begegnungsräume weiblicher Prägung,” in Brennpunkte kultureller Begegnungen auf dem Weg zu einem modernen Europa, ed. Cornelia Klettka and Ralf Pröve (Göttingen: V&R Unipress, 2022), 203–12. ↑
Jitka Ludvová, “Schlik zu Bassano und Weißkirchen (Šliková), Maria Elisabeth (Eliška),” in (accessed February 8, 2022), “S. unterhielt auch Kontakte zu führenden Persönlichkeiten der böhm. Kultur, wie Dobrovský, Hanka und F. Palacký.” Österreichisches Biographisches Lexikon (Vienna: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1992), 10:206 ↑ Lenderová, “Matka, dcera, vnučka (Filippina, Elisa, Tekla),” 62.
Ludvová, “Schlik”; Sekyrová, Eliška Šliková; for further details on Schlik’s family background, see Lenderová, “Eliška hraběnka Schliková”; Lenderová, “Portrét hraběnky Elišky Šlikové.” ↑ Rost, “Reminiscences of Past Sounds”; Schlik’s personal musical autograph album is held at the Juilliard Manuscript Collection, call no.: 0 Al15sc, and is fully
digitized (accessed February 2, 2022). ↑ For further details on this cultural practice, see Henrike Rost,
Musik-Stammbücher : Erinnerung , Unterhaltung und Kommunikation im Europa des 19. Jahrhunderts (Cologne: Böhlau, 2020); and Henrike Rost, “Sophie Klingemanns Stammbuch: Innenräume – Erinnerungsräume. (Wieder-)Begegnungen mit Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy, Joseph Joachim und Ignaz Moscheles,” in Klingende Innenräume . Gender Perspektiven auf eine soziale und ästhetische Praxis im Privaten , ed. Henrike Rost and Sabine Meine (Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 2020), 151–66. ↑ There also exist notebooks written by Schlik (Státní oblastní archiv v Zámrsku [State Regional Archive in Zámrsk], family estate Schlik, shelfmark: V58); however, they often take the shape of sketchbooks and were not kept as diaries over a long stretch of time. During her travels, Schlik sometimes kept a diary as well as a travel album (Státní oblastní archiv v Zámrsku, family estate Schlik, shelfmark: V52). Milena Lenderová has analyzed aspects of Schlik’s journaling in Milena Lenderová,
A ptáš se, knížko má … (Prague: Triton, 2008). There are also bits of correspondence spread across various archives; however, these sources are not as telling nor as systematic as the personal musical autograph album. ↑ Ibid.;
Schlik-Album, archived at Juilliard Manuscript Collection, 119. ↑ See Elise von Schlik,
Manuscript book including 17 pieces. Unpublished manuscript, Prague Conservatory, shelfmark: 3091a. ↑ For mentions of Palacký’s album in his diary, see
Františka Palackého korrespondence a zápisky, 1:120 and 131; for mentions of Teresie Měchura’s album, see Františka Palackého korrespondence a zápisky, 1:133, 171, 173. Besides general literature, I have consulted archivists at various branches of the Czech National Museum and regional archives, the Monument of National Literature (Památník národního písemnictví), and Václav Macháček-Rieger in Maleč. I would be grateful for further advice as to where to possibly find these albums. ↑ In Schlik’s album, Countess Marie Gabrielle von Buquoy features as a performer; Palacký mentions meetings with Count Georg von Buquoy several times in his diary (pages 107, 165, 181). There are also intersections between Schlik, Palacký, and the name Clam, but it is likely that Schlik mingled with Josefina Clam-Gallas, while Palacký’s contact was Count Clam-Martinic
. ↑ On Schlik and Hellich, see Lenderová, “Matka, dcera, vnučka,” 59. On Palacký and Hellich, see, for instance,
Františka Palackého korrespondence a zápisky, 1:196 and 216. ↑ Lenderová, “Matka, dcera, vnučka,” 60.
Františka Palackého korrespondence a zápisky, 1:110; Jiří Kořalka, ed., Briefe an Therese: Korrespondenz von František Palacký mit seiner Braut und späteren Frau aus den Jahren 1826–1860 (Dresden: Thelem, 2003). ↑ Anja Bunzel, “Popular Song in the (Semi-)Private Domain? Considering the Nineteenth-Century Salon within the Context of Popular Culture,” in
Popular Songs in the Nineteenth Century, ed. Derek Scott (Turnhout: Brepols, 2022), 113–32. ↑
Schlik-Album, archived at Juilliard Manuscript Collection, 52–53. ↑ Rost, “Reminiscences of Past Sounds.”
↑ Lenderová, “Matka, dcera, vnučka,” 54–55.
↑ Ibid., 63: “uměla (alespoň trochu) česky.” Interest in (Czech) folk songs by the Bohemian nobility was not something unique to Schlik, as Susan Kagan has shown with regard to some Czech
Singspiele included in Archduke Rudolph’s music collection and his own variations on the Czech folk song “To jsou koně” (These are horses), or “Já mám koně” (I have horses), respectively. See Susan Kagan, Archduke Rudolph, Beethoven’s Patron, Pupil, and Friend: His Life and Music (New York: Pendragon, 1988), 164. ↑ Lubomír Sršeň, “Pražský salon u Palackých a Riegerových,” in
Salony v české kultuře 19. století, 93–107. ↑ His memoirs, edited and published in 1885 by his granddaughter Marie Červinková-Riegrová, are focused on his historical, political, and cultural achievements, probably also with an eye to posterity. Marie Červinková-Riegrová, ed.,
Vlastní životopis Františka Palackého (Prague: V komisi tiskárny Františka Simáčka, 1885). Palacký’s other granddaughter, Libuše Bráfová, mentions his musical interests in “Rieger, Smetana, Dvořák,” Osvěta : Listy pro rozhled v umění , vědě a politice 40 (1910), nos. 1–7; no. 1, 23–34; no. 2, 109–19; no. 3, 198–208; no. 4, 295–302; no. 5, 369–75; no. 6, 473–81; no. 7, 528–34. I am grateful to David Beveridge for drawing my attention to Bráfová’s publication. ↑ Sršeň, “Pražský salon,” 97.
↑ The original paintings are located in Palacký’s summer residence in Maleč, which is owned and partially run as a public museum and cultural venue by Václav Macháček-Rieger.
↑ See, for instance,
Františka Palackého korrespondence a zápisky, 1:107, 123, 131, 145, 169 . Antonie died at an early age in 1836. ↑ Palacký’s later diaries and pocket calendars are archived at the Literární archiv Památník unárodního písemnictví, fond Palacký
, Kapesní kalendáře s poznámkami na jednotlivé dny: 1842, 1843, 1848, 1852–53, 1859–60, 1861, 1860–70, 1871, 1872, 1874, shelfmark: 15/A/23; and Každodeníčky, under the same shelfmark. ↑ Josefina Brdlíková, undated entry, c. 1878 (the note precedes a note about Jan Brdlík having passed away on November 27, 1878). Literární archiv Památníku národního písemnictví, fond Brdlíková, inventory number 893: “mnohou večerní chvíli též s otcem Palackým při večeři ztrávila.”
↑ František Ladislav Rieger, like Palacký, was involved substantially in Prague’s cultural scene: he had a strong impact on the establishment of the Provisional Theater, and the salon led by him then continued to foster rich cultural exchange; see Sršeň, “Pražský salon.”
↑ These two pages are titled “Písně národní” by the Památník národního písemnictví, fond Palacký, shelfmark: 15/A/25. Some of the folk songs collected by Palacký can be traced through the
Katalog lidové písně: Projekt digitalizace sbírek lidové hudby (accessed June 16, 2022). ↑
Františka Palackého korrespondence a zápisky, 2:9: “Zpěwy národnj pilně zbjrám, negen sám sobě předrjkati dáwage, ale y giným, aby mi je psali, poraučege.” The letter is dated August 1816, and Palacký penned it while at home in Hodslavice; the date and place correspond to the information provided in the autobiography printed at the beginning of the first volume of the same edition, where Palacký recalls that he collected folk songs while at home during the holidays . He left again for his studies in Pressburg at the end of August ( Františka Palackého korrespondence a zápisky, 1:10). Šafařík printed an excerpt from the letter in the supplement to Videňské noviny: Prvotiny pěkných umění in January 1817. In a similar way to Carl Maria von Weber’s correspondence being published in an article in the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, the boundaries between the “private” and the “public” are merged here. ↑ I am grateful to Václav Machácek-Rieger for granting me access to the family archive in Maleč.
A musico-literary performance exploring Palacký’s private networks through the lens of music was hosted by the Institute of Art History, Czech Academy of Sciences, in July 2022 (accessed April 3, 2023). The programme booklet including translations of all songs is available here (accessed April 3, 2023). ↑ Tarantová, “Young Palacký and Music,” 9.
↑ For Palacký’s mentions of his own compositions, see
Františka Palackého korrespondence a zápisky, 1:103 and 123. ↑ Marie Tarantová tried to identify two compositions by him, but her article is primarily based on speculation: Marie Tarantová, “Neznámé písně Františka Palackého,”
Svobodné noviny (May 29, 1947), no page numbers. For poetry, see Jan Jakubec, ed., Básně Františka Palackého (Prague: Bursík & Kohou, 1898). ↑ Letter from Franz Heinrich von Schlik to Elise von Schlik, March 4, 1854, Wienbibliothek, shelfmark: H.I.N.-110706. In the letter, Franz Heinrich explains to his sister that “[her] recently composed song was the
last one, which [Rosa] performed brilliantly, and which she sang even in the delirium of the disease with a bright and clear voice.” (“Dein lezt componirtes Lied war das lezte, was sie herlich vortrug; und auch im Delir der Krankheit noch sang mit heller klahrer Stimme.”) Underlining in original. Schlik herself was childless; thus, her brother and niece should be counted among her closer family. ↑ See several mentions of Rittersberg in Palacký’s diary, for instance
Františka Palackého korrespondence a zápisky, 1:87, 105, 144. For correspondence between Ludwig von Rittersberg and Palacký, see Památník národního písemnictví, fond Palacký. ↑ The subscription list is printed at the back of the album. Ludwig von Rittersberg, ed.,
Prager musikalisches Album (Prague: Hoffmann, 1838). For further information on the album and its reception context, see Anja Bunzel, “The Prager musikalisches Album (1838) and the Nineteenth-Century Salon as Cultural Practice,” Dílo a proměna myšlení v české kultuře 19. století, ed. Taťána Petrasová and Pavla Machaliková (Prague: Academia, 2023), 153–67. ↑ Subscriptions by the Women’s Committee including a list bearing Schlik’s name were published on the last two pages of
Bohemia: Ein Unterhaltungsblatt 21, no. 59 (April 13, 1848), no page number. On Schlik’s involvement in the Verein zur Beförderung der Tonkunst in Böhmen, see, for instance, Handbuch des Königreiches Böhmen für das Jahr 1844 (Prague: Haase, 1844), 437–39; and Handbuch des Königreiches Böhmen für das Jahr 1845 (Prague: Haase, 1845), 467. Jan Branberger’s accounts of the Prague Conservatory suggest that Schlik became a contributing member of the Verein in 1841: Jan Branberger, Konzervatoř hudby v Praze : Pamětní spis k stoletetému jubilee založení ústavu (Prague: knihtiskarna Politiky/Conservatory, 1911), 46. ↑ See numerous mentions in
Františka Palackého korrespondence a zápisky, also Abhandlungen der königlichen böhmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften (Prague: Walthersche Hofbuchhandlung, 1841); and Kořalka, František Palacký (1798–1876), 169–71. ↑ See
Handbuch des Königreiches Böhmen für das Jahr 1844 (Prague: Haase, 1844), 441–43. ↑ On Palacký’s impact on the foundation of a national theater, see Kořalka,
František Palacký (1798–1876), 340–42. Nevertheless, Palacký was among the signatories of a circular including a request to support a concert in aid of the foundation of a national theater, which was addressed to professor Janatka as a representative of the members of the orchestra and choir of the Estates Theater, and which was dated April 25, 1851. See František Palacký et al., “Rundschreiben,” April 25, 1851, Wienbibliothek, H.I.N.-226872; the letter is digitized and fully accessible online (accessed October 4, 2022). ↑
Cover Picture: Family salon of František Palacký’s granddaughter Libuše Bráfová (1860–1930, née Riegrová); the premises are the same as the Palacký’s salon, a copy of the painting showing Palacký’s wife Teresie with the two children and the harp can be seen to the right of the doorway. By courtesy of the
Národní muzeum – Historické muzeum, Archiv Národního muzea, FCN_14978. The original painting can be found in Palacký’s study room at Zámek Maleč.