Johan Huizinga’s Russia

Johan Huizinga’s Russia Adam bžoch ins i u e o Wo ld Li e a u e, Slo ak Academy o Sciences, b a isla a adam.bzoch@sa ba.sk SYNOPSIS This a icle deals wi h he changing iews o Du ch his o ian Johan Huizinga (1872–1945) on such opics as Russian cul u e, 19 h-cen u y Russia, and he So ie Union. While Huizinga did no coun hem among his co e esea ch in e es s (he ne e published an independen wo k on Russia o he So ie Union), he emained p eoccupied wi h hese opics, pa icula ly du ing he las phase o his li e, in ela ion o his c i icism o he declining o ms o con empo a y cul u e. Li le has been made o he ac ha Huizinga p epa ed acou se on 19 h-cen u y Russia o s uden s o his o y a he uni- e si y o G oningen in 1914 (he augh he cou se in 1935/6 a Leiden). I was also in 1914 ha he be- came in e es ed in he idea o pan-Sla ism in Russia and Cen al Eu ope. Huizinga’s unpublished lec u es on Russia and pan-Sla ism demons a e his excep ional knowledge o his o y, su passing ha o his academic con empo a ies. The lec u es also show Huizinga’s c i ical a i ude owa ds he poli ical li e o 19 h-cen u y Russia as well as he So ie poli ical expe imen . KLÍČOVÁ SLOVA / KEYWORDS Johan Huizinga; Rusko 19.s ole í; pansla ismus; obecná his o ie; kul u ní his o ie / Johan Huiz- inga; Russia in he 19 h cen u y; pan-Sla ism; gene al his o y; cul u al his o y. DOI h ps://doi.o g/10.14712/23366680.2021.2.3 In Nazi occupied Ams e dam, a he beginning o Janua y 1941, Johan Huizinga (1872–1945) ga e alec u e en i led O e o m e ande ing de geschiedenis (‘On he changing o m o his o y’) o he membe s o he Du ch Royal Academy. In he lec- u e, Huizinga, a enowned p o esso o gene al his o y a Leiden Uni e si y, o - mula ed some gene al ideas on he issue o li e a y o ms o w i ing on his o y, a he same ime exp essing his scep ical iew on he possibili y o g asping he his o - ical image o he Uni ed S a es o Ame ica wi hin he na a i e schemes ha s uc- u e ou ideas abou he pas . I was no long be o e he ex o Huizinga’s lec u e a ac ed in e na ional a en ion, hanks o he Ge man ansla ion by he au ho ’s younge Swiss colleague and iend, We ne Kaegi (1901–1979). O he ansla ions OPEN ACCESS 44 SLOVO A SMYSL 37 ollowed du ing Wo ld Wa II and he immedia e pos -wa pe iod.1 Wi h his com- pa ison o his o iog aphy o he li e a y gen es o epic and agedy, he au ho o ‘On he changing o m o his o y’ s ikes one oday as a o e unne o he me ahis- o ical hinking o Hayden Whi e (1973). The lec u e also seems o indica e apossible na a i e scheme o Huizinga’s own g ea his o ic wo ks, pa icula ly Au umn ide o he Middle Ages (1919). Huizinga’s scep icism abou he alleged ‘ o mlessness’ o he mode n his o y o he Uni ed S a es o Ame ica, as Wessel E.K ul no ed in 1990 (K ul 1990, p.207), was in opposi ion o he his o ical pic u e o ha coun y he had gi en in 1918 in his wo k Mensch en menig e in Ame ika. Vie essays o e mode ne be- scha ingsgeschiedenis (‘Man and he masses in Ame ica: ou essays on he his o y o mode n ci ilisa ion’). I is li le discussed ha , in he 1941 lec u e, Huizinga dedica es apa ag aph o Russia, acoun y whose global impo ance was al eady clea ly ecognizable on he ho izon o his o ical e en s, g adually becoming compa able o ha o he Uni ed S a es: Now con as [ he F ench Re olu ion] wi h he Russian Re olu ion o 1917–18. Iha e no doub ha i would be possible o gi e a ascina ing accoun o ha e en based in i s de ails. Bu do you belie e ha anyone could p oduce an his o ical e- cons uc ion o ha e en equalling ha o he F ench Re olu ion, i.e., an image cha ged wi h such epic and d ama ic powe ? E en acommi ed Ma xis would no a emp such a hing. I is concei able ha some hing like an his o ical pic u e migh be p oduced by adding abi o social o na ional ph aseology o he desc ip ion o si ua ions and e en s, so o speak, he eby gi ing hem his o ical colou . I is no pos- sible, howe e , o p oduce a eal epic o d ama in his way. […] Ahis o y ha can no longe be condensed […] in o agedy has los i s shape (Huizinga 1948–1953, VII, p.197–198).2 I we lea e aside he ques ion o wha eal agedy and eal epic mean o Huizinga, o i we do no conside he key issue unde lying i — namely, Huizinga’s unde s and- ing o eal his o y (his o iog aphy)—, he passage quo ed abo e p esen s us wi h wo ques ions, o pe haps wo se s o ques ions: one conce ns Huizinga’s a i ude owa d 1 Besides Kaegi’s Ge man ansla ion (Huizinga 1942, p.107–128), aHunga ian ansla ion was made by Miklós Radnó i (Huizinga 1943a, p.29–58); an abb e ia ed e sion o Huiz- inga’s own English ansla ion (Huizinga 1943b) was also published, as well as he pos - wa I alian ansla ion by G.Chia u ini (Huizinga 1946). See also: Lem 1998, p.349. 2 ‘S el nu daa egeno e de Russische Re olu ie an 1917–18. Ik wij el e nie aan, o he zal mogelijk zijn, ook an die gebeu enis een doo zijn dé ails boeiend elaas e ge en. Maa geloo ge, da iemand in s aa zou zijn, daa an een his o isch beeld op e bouwen, equi - alen aan da de F ansche Re olu ie, d.w.z. een beeld, geladen me epische en d ama ische k ach ? De lee s ellige ma xis zel zou waa schijnlijk zel s de poging o zoo ie s e s- maden. He is denkbaa , da e een schijn an een his o iebeeld zou on s aan doo aan de besch ij ing an oes anden en gebeu enissen wa sociale o na ionale ph aseologie oe e oegen, e om zoo e zeggen wa his o isch ouge op e leggen. Daa mee ech e wo d geen ech e epiek o d ama iek gebo en. […] Een geschiedenis, die zich nie mee laa e - dich en […] o agedie, hee haa o m e lo en.’ OPEN ACCESS ADAM bžOcH 45 Russia ( he So ie Union), and he o he his knowledge o Russian his o y and he el- e an his o iog aphic li e a u e. Russian his o y had ne e been asubjec o Huizinga’s esea ch. Du ing his ca ee as an academic schola , culmina ing in his enu e as p o esso o his o y a uni e - si ies in G oningen (1905–1914) and Leiden (1914–1942), Huizinga is known o ha e ca ied ou esea ch and published wo ks dealing wi h Indian li e a u e and cul u e, local and egional Du ch his o y, gene al Du ch his o y and cul u al his o y, museol- ogy, medie al Wes e n Eu ope, he Renaissance and ea ly mode n imes, he his o y o he USA, heo e ical issues o his o iog aphy, and he heo y o games and hei his o ic o ms, in addi ion— occasionally— o con empo a y Du ch a , and, in he inal phase o his li e, ase ies o c i ical s udies on he s a e o Eu opean ci ilisa ion in he ace o declining Eu opean democ acies and ise o o ali a ianism, pa icu- la ly ascism. He ne e published any hing on Russian his o y. Should we wish o in- es iga e hese ques ions u he , we would ind ou inqui y limi ed by he sca ci y o ma e ials: asmall numbe o no es sca e ed h oughou Huizinga’s published wo ks (Huizinga 1948–1953) and co espondence. I will he e o e be necessa y o examine his unpublished w i ings, kep a he Special Collec ions Depa men o he Uni e - si y Lib a y Leiden and a ailable in digi al o m online since 2020.3 Huizinga p obably i s made his c i ical iew o he Oc obe Re olu ion as awo ld-changing his o ical e en publicly known on 13Decembe 1918 (Huizinga 1989, p.244) in ale e o Jan Romein (1883–1962), who was his s uden , and who la e augh as p o esso o his o y in Ams e dam. In he le e , Huizinga— apoli ical lib- e al and commi ed ad oca e o Wes e n ci ilisa ion— indica es his p e e ence o he ‘Ame ican solu ion’4 is-à- is social and global poli ical issues b ough abou by mode ni y, ‘despi e, o e en because o capi alism’5 (ibid.). He would hold his iew un il he end o his li e. Howe e , as aman open o and in e es ed in new schola ly inqui ies and schools o hough , Huizinga a ended lec u es on Ma xism by Du ch as onome and Ma xis philosophe An on Pannekoek (1873–1960) as ea ly as au- umn o 1917. Ye , Huizinga had li le es eem o communism o he ise o So ie Russia. In 1917, he e en s in Russia ga e Huizinga a ious opics o discuss wi h his adical le is iends, such as he poe Hen ie e Roland Hols (1869–1952) and he husband, he pain e Richa d Roland Hols (1868–1938) (c . Huizinga, L. 1963, p.96), o else wi h his s uden Jan Romein. Nei he Hen ie e Roland Hols ’s admi a ion o Lenin o T o sky, no Romein’s iews on he socialis e olu ion o he Leiden ing Ve eeniging o S udie an he Socialisme (Associa ion o S udy o Socialism) (Tollebeek 1990, p.264) seem o ha e had any impac on Huizinga’s own iews. Wi h his Du ch middleclass backg ound and upb inging in aBap is amily, one mo eo e connec ed wi h he academic milieu in G oningen, Huizinga emained ali elong poli ical libe al. Like o he academic eli es and bou geois o his gene a- ion, he ended owa ds cul u al conse a ism as he g ew olde . The cul u al changes b ough abou by he new egime in Russia only con i med his c i ical a i ude o- 3 The collec ion o Johan Huizinga’s wo ks is ully a ailable online: h ps://huizinga-online. nl/ (las e ie ed: 1.03.2021). 4 ‘Ame ikaansche oplossing’. 5 ‘ondanks en zel s dóo he kapi alisme’. OPEN ACCESS 46 SLOVO A SMYSL 37 wa ds he So ie poli ical expe imen . I can be said ha om ace ain poin onwa d, Huizinga ocused his in e es on such phenomena ha would con i m his opinion ha So ie Russia ep esen ed adeclining ci ilisa ion. In he 1930s, o example, he ega ded he sys ema ic enaming o ci ies as ademons a ion o cul u al in an il- ism, o ‘pue ilism’. The g owing cul o Lenin as leade o he Oc obe Re olu ion s uck him simila ly as an example o alse he oisa ion. In 1943, in iew o he build- up o wa , Huizinga was o ced o acknowledge he u u e global poli ical signi icance o he So ie Union. In his popula , cul u al-c i ical publica ion Geschonden we eld (‘Dis igu ed wo ld’; w i en in 1943, published pos humously in 1945), he speaks un- a ou ably o he So ie Union’s ole as one o ‘ he h ee g ea es powe uni s o all ime’6 (Huizinga 1948–1953, VII, p.598). Acco ding o Huizinga, he name U.S.S.R. is ying o say oo much […]. I is almos an en i e ca echism. […] I emains o be seen whe he he p inciple o councils, which was expec ed o win in anumbe o coun ies, was such an o iginal disco e y, and whe he i eally wo ks in Russia as aco e ac o o s a e and go e nmen . A e all, h oughou his o y, he p inciple o he communi y o municipium has been ound e e ywhe e as amuch mo e ui ul and undamen al s a ing poin o s a e o ma ion han ha o coun- cils o cells (ibid.).7 Al hough Huizinga’s an ipa hy o communism as a o m o iolen social and ech- nological mode nisa ion, and o So ie Russia as aMa xis poli ical dic a o ship was c ucial in de e mining his no ion o unsound and amo phous poli ical and social condi ions, his complain abou he ‘lack o o m’ was no limi ed o he Oc obe Re - olu ion o he s a e in which i was ca ied ou . In his la e ea ise Geschonden we eld, Huizinga aises c i icisms o he ‘lack o o m’ o Russian his o y du ing he second hal o he 19 h cen u y. In acco dance wi h Wes e n Eu opean libe al his o iog a- phy, Huizinga desc ibes Russia as ‘unp edic able’8 (ibid., p.554) wi hin he con ex o in e na ional poli ics a e 1871, ape iod cha ac e ised by i s ‘ ough and b u al na ionalism wi h impe ialis ic endencies’9 (ibid., p.553). I was hen a elie o he Eu opeans, who had been ‘ adi ionally p ejudiced agains he spec e o sa ism’10 (ibid., p.542), when a las , in 1905, ‘dis inc symp oms […] o inne decline’11 (ibid., p.542–543) came o ligh in he absolu is sa is egime. Al hough Huizinga does no commen on he Russian Re olu ion o 1905 o he agile and impe ec pa liamen- 6 ‘de d ie g oo s e mach seenheden an alle ijden’. 7 ‘De naam U.R.S.Swil eel e eel zeggen […]. He is bijna een geheele ca echismus. […] He blij e in he midden o he aden-beginsel, da oms eeks 1919 in alle lei landen meende e gaan zege ie en, p imo zulk een bijzonde e onds is gewees en secundo, o he we keli- jk in Rusland als ke n ac o an s aa en egee ing we k . Men ind doo de gansche ge- schiedenis heen och eigenlijk o e al he beginsel an gemeen e o municipium als een eel uch baa de en wezenlijke ui gangspun an s aa o ming dan da an aden o cellen.’ 8 ‘da onbe ekenba e Rusland’. 9 ‘[…] g o en b u aal na ionalisme me impe ialis ische s ekking’. 10 ‘men was zoo adi ioneel p eoccupee d doo een sch ikbeeld an he sa isme’. 11 ‘ee s e symp omen an Ruslands inwendig e al’. OPEN ACCESS ADAM bžOcH 47 a y democ acy ha ollowed, i is e iden ha he pe cei ed he subsequen e en s o 1917 as a all in o chaos which had al eady come o cha ac e ise Russia in he 19 h cen u y. He conside ed he subjec o Russian his o y, he Russian na ion, as ep e- sen a i e o he ‘Sla ic ype’ and a‘puzzle’. O e all, he claimed, we ha e ‘li le accu- a e in o ma ion on he impo ance o Russia and he es o he Sla ic communi y o oday and o he u u e’12 (ibid., p.588). I is possible ha Huizinga held Russia esponsible o he con inually unsound cha ac e o ci ilisa ion in his pa o he wo ld and o he ‘lack o o m’ o i s his o y. Huizinga’s classi ica ion o ‘cul u al ypes’ seems o echo Oswald Spengle ’s De Un e gang des Abendlandes (The Decline o he Wes , 1918), which he had ead some yea s a e i s publica ion. In pa icula , he seems o ha e been in luenced by Spengle ’s desc ip ion o he ‘Russian soul lacking in will, i s ancien symbol being an in ini e plain’ which ‘s i es o disappea and o esign i sel o se ice in he ho izon al a e nal wo ld’13 (Spengle 2006, p.394). Inciden ally, his image o he ‘Russian soul’ co esponds o he olde o ganic image o Russian cul u e ad anced by Nikolay J.Danile sky, ideologis o pan-Sla ism and o e unne o he ‘Eu o-Asian’ mo emen , whose wo k Russia and Eu ope (1869) was e iden ly known o Huizinga as ea ly as 1914. We may also see he e he in luence o Jacob Bu ckha d ’s Wel geschich liche Be ach ungen (Re lec ions on His o y, 1905), pa icula ly he ou h pa , in which Bu ckha d compellingly a gues ha he main cause o his o ical c ises can be ound in he mig a ion o na ions. This a gumen had an eno mous impac on Huizinga’s in e p e a ion o he o ma ion o ci ilisa- ions well be o e Wo ld Wa I, which he associa es wi h he nega i e e ec s o ech- nological and social mode nisa ion. Bu Huizinga’s way o unde s anding Russian his o y did no consis simply in amassing and con i ming an imode nis endencies and o he o ms o cul u al p ejudice. Indeed his de elopmen , which began wi h an in e es in he language and li e a u e o Russia, ul ima ely led him o an a i ude o poli ical de achmen .14 As ayoung man, Huizinga was a ac ed o he Russian language, and while en olled as aphilology s uden a G oningen, he spen his 1895–1896 win e e m ab oad a Leipzig Uni e si y whe e he ‘smelled he ai o he Eas ’15 (Kaegi 1947, p.10). While con inuing o pu sue his Indo-Eu opeanis in e es s, Huizinga me wi h Augus Leskien (1840–1916), ap o esso o Sla ic s udies, who len him aRussian ex book16 and helped him wi h Russian p onuncia ion, hanks o which ‘Russian […] was added o his o he linguis ic skills’17 (Kaegi 1947, p.11). Huizinga, apolyglo schola , would 12 ‘Slawisch ype’, ‘een aadsel’, ‘wij we en eel e weinig nauwkeu ig, wa Rusland en he o e ige Slawendom nu is en in de oekoms wo den kan’. 13 ‘Die ussische, willenlose Seele, de en U symbol die unendliche Ebene is , such sich in de B üde wel , de ho izon alen, dienend, namenlos, sich e lie end au zugeben.’ 14 Huizinga’s in ellec ual coming o e ms wi h Russia and communism is men ioned also by his biog aphe A. an de Lem, e.g. in ela ion o he Roland Hols couple (Lem 1993, p.183–186); ypological p opinqui y wi h Nikolay A.Be dyaye ’s cul u al c i icism is ound in Huizinga’s wo k by L.Hanssen (Hanssen 1996, p.115–118). 15 ‘[…] wi e e e die Lu des Os ens’. 16 This was mos likely a ex by ei he Pawlowsky (1853) o Ásbó h (1889). 17 ‘[…] das Russische [wa — A.B.] zu seinen üb igen Sp achkenn nissen hinzugekommen’. OPEN ACCESS 48 SLOVO A SMYSL 37 go on o wo k in Russian no only as a eade — ha is, passi ely and wi h he help o adic iona y—, bu as amode a ely p o icien speake o he language, along- side English, F ench, Ge man, Spanish, I alian, Li huanian, A abic, and (la e ) Po - uguese. He also wo ked in such classical languages as La in, G eek, Heb ew, and Sansk i , as well as Old I ish, Old No wegian, and Go hic, he basics o which he had acqui ed a he uni e si y o G oningen. His son Leonha d (1906–1980) would la e ecall his a he ’s discussions a hei Leiden house wi h Polish-B i ish an h opolo- gis B onisław Malino ski (1884–1942), in which he con e sa ion would al e na e be ween I alian and Russian (Huizinga, L. 1963, p.146). Huizinga also le behind se e al pos ca ds om 1914 w i en pa ly in Russian (c . Hin ichs 2005, p.198) and add essed o his iend Nicolaas an Wijk (1880–1941), he i s p o esso o Sla ic s udies in he Ne he lands, who wo ked a Leiden Uni e si y s a ing in 1913. How- e e , Huizinga’s ac i e mul ilingual abili ies we e limi ed o English, F ench, and Ge - man. In his you h, Russian was impo an o him la gely because he longed o ead Russian li e a u e, pa icula ly Tols oy, in he o iginal. Huizinga’s co espondence also e eals ha in la e au umn o 1900, p omp ed by he linguis and Huizinga’s o - me g amma school eache Jan e Winkel (1847–1927), he conside ed compe ing o a eaching pos in Russian language a abusiness academy in Ams e dam. As he hen w o e o Te Winkel, he would ha e been able o each ‘p o isionally he p inciples’ o Russian, and la e ‘a e sys ema ic ongoing s udy, e en mo e’18 (Huizinga 1989, p.39). Howe e , a he beginning o Decembe o he same yea he ga e up his plan and e ained his seconda y-school eaching pos a Haa lem, belie ing ha p epa a- ions o each Russian would ob him o his independence and ee ime. I is e iden howe e , ha Huizinga was able o ead ic ion and Russian li e a u e in he o iginal as ea ly as he u n o he cen u y. I is di icul o de e mine he exac ex en o Huizinga’s knowledge o Russian li e a u e. I is clea , howe e , ha by he ime he comple ed his s udies a G onin- gen he had a ained an unde s anding compa able o o he educa ed Du ch eade s o he ea ly 20 h cen u y, ollowing he ashion ha eme ged in 1887 wi h he i s ansla ions in he Ne he lands o Gogol, Dos oe sky, and Tols oy (by Wo ld Wa I, Tols oy19 had become he mos ansla ed and widely ead Russian au ho 20). A e 1900 he i s Du ch ansla ions o Chekho , Maxim Go ky, Leonid And eye , and Dmi y Me ezhko sky ollowed. Howe e , he Du ch mul ilingual eli e undoub edly 18 ‘[…] oo loopig de beginselen e onde wijzen, en bij eenige doelma ig oo geze e s udie ie s mee ’. 19 Gogol 1887; Dos ojewsky 1887; Tols oï 1887a; Tols oï 1887b. 20 ‘De on wikkelde mens ken Pie e Bezoechow, Lewin en zijn ouw Ki y also hij dageliks me hen e kee de, en men kan aan bijna iede jongmens agen, wie hij lie e o ouw zou hebben, Ki y o Dolly, zonde da hij mee moei e me he an woo d hebben zal, dan als men wee dames ui zijn omge ing had genoemd: men bewonde nie alleen Tols oj’s we k, men ken he ook!’ (‘An educa ed pe son knows Pie e Bezucho , Le in and his wi e Ki y, as i hey we e amilia wi h hem on adaily basis, and almos e e y young pe son can be asked i hey would p e e o ha e Ki y o Dolly o awi e while he would no ha e any di icul y answe ing, as i one had jus named wo ladies o his acquain ance: Tols oy’s wo k is he e bo h admi ed and well known!’) (Wijk 1910, p.521). OPEN ACCESS ADAM bžOcH 49 ead Russian li e a u e in Ge man and F ench ansla ion as well. In 1922 Jan Romein co esponded wi h Huizinga on he Russian sa i is Mikhail J.Sal yko -Shched in (Huizinga 1989, p.416–417), and in 1931 Huizinga p aised Je Suys’s (1897–1956) doc- o al hesis on he Russian philosophe Le Shes o (c . Hanssen 1996, p.287) and his c i icism o a ionalism (Huizinga 1990, p.608–612). Be ween 1915 and 1916, Huizinga edi ed a icles on Russian li e a u e by Nicolaas an Wijk o he enowned li e a y jou nal De Gids ( an Wijk had been amo e o less egula con ibu o since 1904). Almos ce ainly, Huizinga would ha e also been acquain ed wi h he popula In- leiding o de Russische li e a uu geschiedenis (‘In oduc ion o he his o y o Russian li e a u e’) by ansla o and publicis Zadok S ok is (1878–1947), awo k i s pub- lished in 1909 by Maas en Van Such elen as pa o i s ‘Biblio heek an Russische li e a uu ’ se ies, which p esen ed classic Russian au ho s o he 19 h and 20 h cen u- ies. La e , du ing he in e wa pe iod, Huizinga ollowed he e iews by his dis an cousin Menno e B aak (1902–1940), apionee o li e a y Mode nism and expe in Russian and So ie a an -ga de ilm. Howe e , Huizinga was no in e es ed in So ie cinema og aphy, disdaining ilm as an in e io a . In he summe o 1914, as p o esso o his o y a G oningen Uni e si y whe e he had been eaching since 1905, Huizinga began p epa ing a wo- e m cou se on 19 h- cen u y Russia ha would be pa o his weekly wo-hou lec u es on gene al his- o y ( hese p epa a ions equi ed his p o iciency in he Russian language). I is no acciden ha he idea came o him in 1914, ayea Huizinga would la e desc ibe as his ‘annus ho ibilis’, no only because his wi e Ma y Vincen ia-Scho e (1877–1914) died in July o ha yea , bu because i was when signs o adical change i s became appa en o him, as he ends ha had de ined he 19 h cen u y came o an end. The lec u es we e o ocus on he pe iod 1800–1914, s a ing wi h he decision by Tsa Paul Io Russia o join he in e na ional coali ion agains F ance and ending wi h he assassina ion in Sa aje o o F anz Fe dinand d’Es e, hei o he Aus ian h one, on 28June 1914. In he end, he wo- e m cou se ha Huizinga p epa ed o e he es o he summe was ne e deli e ed a G oningen, as he was unexpec edly in i ed o ake up he pos o p o esso o gene al his o y a Leiden Uni e si y. I was no un il much la e , in 1935, ha Huizinga ‘dus ed o ’ he cou se he had p epa ed some 21 yea s ea lie and deli e ed i o his s uden s a Leiden. The cou se, howe e , p oduced aby-p oduc : alec u e on pan-Sla ism which Huizinga ga e o he His o ische Genoo - schap (‘His o ic socie y’) a G oningen on 28Oc obe 1914, o which some b ie no es made by he au ho ha e been p ese ed.21 When econs uc ing Huizinga’s opinions on 19 h-cen u y Russia a he ime o he ou b eak o Wo ld Wa I, i would be agood idea o ake aclose look a his one- ime lec u e,22 o which li le ca ied o e in o he cou ses he la e ga e his s uden s. The 21 When econs uc ing he no es o his lec u e, as well as o he se ies on he 19 h-cen u- y Russian his o y, Iu ilised he w i en sou ces ound in Huizinga’s a chi es kep in he Leiden Uni e si y Lib a y and gene ously p o ided by D . An on an de Lem, he us- ee o Huizinga’s a chi es, in 2018. The a chi es ha e been accessible in digi al o m on- line since 2020 (c . no e 3). 22 Huizinga’s no es o his lec u e on pan-Sla ism a e kep in Johan Huizinga’s digi al a - chi es unde he e e ence numbe s HUI 48:1 [13]a o HUI 48:1 [13] . OPEN ACCESS 50 SLOVO A SMYSL 37 no es on pan-Sla ism ha ha e been p ese ed es i y o adeepe e o o unde - s and he his o y o Eas e n Eu opean ideas o he 19 h cen u y, which is o he wise no e iden in Huizinga’s published wo ks. The en elope in which Huizinga kep his no es o he lec u e is labelled ‘Eigenlijk Pansl. en Čechendom’ (‘Ac ual pan-Sla ism and Czechdom’), and i s con en s show aspeci ic me hod o p epa a ion. I comp ises 38 pape s ips, each one consis ing in one o 21 lines, wi h abb e ia ed bibliog aphic e e ences,23 key wo ds, and some mo e elabo a e ph asing. The o de o he lec u e is impossible o econs uc since he no es a e no numbe ed,24 bu we know i was in ended o be aso o cu so y ou line o he pan-Sla ic mo emen in Cen al-Eas - e n Eu ope, wi h as ong emphasis on Aus ia. Today, he no es e eal he au ho ’s knowledge o issues ela ing o he Czech and Slo ak na ional e i al ha he would ne e e u n o in la e wo k. They also deepen he con ex o Huizinga’s e lec ions on 19 h-cen u y Russia. Huizinga’s lec u e on pan-Sla ism was p obably based on ab ie desc ip ion o he linguis ic and cul u al si ua ion in Galicia and Uk aine s a ing a he end o he 18 h cen u y (Jagič 1908, p.18), and an ou line o he easons why Uk ainians and Poles had li le in e es in joining he pan-Sla ic mo emen du ing he 19 h cen u y. While Uk aine expe ienced i s ‘S u m und D ang pe iod’25 a e he bi h o he Uk ainian language, ‘Poland ook amo e di ec s andpoin abou i s au onomous pas . I had mo e conside able adi ions han Czechia’ and was he e o e ‘less open o he idea o pan-Sla ism’.26 The no es hen go on o p o ide examples o his o ical and e y- mological cons uc ions: ‘Samo— S a opluk— Bře isla — O oka — Ma bod’ and ‘Bře isla — P essbu g— B ezalauspu c— B a isla a’. In e e ence o Ján Kollá ’s ideas, we ind he no e ‘is no all his jus delibe a e camou lage?— he le he con- sequences o o he s’,27 ollowed by he o malised analogy: ‘Kollá : He de = Š ú : Hegel’. F om o he no es i can be assumed ha Huizinga spoke on Jan Kollá , Ľudo í Š ú , Russian Sla ophiles, Russia’s ci ilising mission (acco ding o N.J.Danile sky), pan-Sla ic ideas conce ning he p e-eminence o Russian li e a u e, A.S.Pushkin as aRussian Goe he (acco ding o Wesselo sky 1908, p.59), olk poe s, he in luence o Roman icism ‘on he en i e Sla ic na u e and cul u e’28, and Kollá ’s linguis ic ollies.29 He includes ano e on he linguis ic si ua ion in Bulga ia and he Balkans s a ing in he 10 h cen u y, and men ions such li e a y igu es as Jose Dob o ský, 23 The esou ces on Huizinga’s lec u e ha can be eliably econs uc ed a e mainly he ol- lowing: Jagič 1908, Dzieduszycki 1884, Danile skij 1871, and in gene al he olumes o Zei sch i ü Os eu opäische Geschich e. 24 Howe e , we a e able o de e mine in wha o de Huizinga made he no es, as he shee wi h he no es we e cu in o s ips only a e he no es we e w i en. The no es a e kep in Huizinga’s a chi es in he o iginal o de which we ha e ollowed. 25 ‘S u m & D angpe iode’. He e Huizinga quo es Jagič 1908, p.18. 26 ‘Polen s ond eel di ec e bij zijn au onoom e leden, had eel wezenlijke adi ies dan Boh. […]— andaa P. minde oegankelijk oo pansla isme’. 27 ‘is he alles nie opze elijke beman eling?— hij lie de ge olg ekkingen aan ande en o e ’. 28 ‘de in l. . d. oman iek op he heele Slaw. wezen en cul uu ’. 29 ‘linguis . zo heden: Kollá ’. OPEN ACCESS ADAM bžOcH 51 Václa Hanka, and Jose Jungmann. Ano e on F an išek Palacký and Ka el Ha líček cha ac e ises hem as ‘no p o-Russian’.30 He also quo es Palacký (second-hand and edi ed): ‘Had he Aus ian impe ial s a e no exis ed, we would ha e had o in en i o he sake o Eu ope and mankind’.31 He exp esses iews on Czech as he language o peasan s, Ha líček’s ela ion o Ge manness and Russian sa ism, and he ac ha Ha líček ‘does no wan o know any hing abou Kollá ’s d eams’,32 as well as wo s a emen s a ibu ed o Ha líček, one o which is likely quo ed om Ha líček’s a - icle Slo an aČech (1846, aken second hand): ‘Russians, Poles, Czechs, and Illy ians do no make up one na ion […] o be good Sla s, we ha e o seek he goodness o ou own na ion i s ’.33 Huizinga also ou lines Leo Thun’s a i ude owa ds Czechdom and he Czech-Slo ak con lic (‘bu Slo aks do no wan o know any hing abou he Czech language’),34 and men ions li u gical languages in he Sla ic wo ld as well as he ole o he Old Sla ic language. This is ollowed by ano e conce ning he impac o Roman icism on cul i a ing e nacula languages, and he ex en o which Slo- aks a e able o na u ally use he Czech language as ali e a y language (wi h e e - ence o V.Jagič). O he no es co e a ange o opics: Kollá ’s wo k Slá y dce a (The Daugh e o Slá a) and his concep ion o li e a y ecip oci y; Václa Hanka, F an išek Palacký, Kollá , and Pa el Joze Ša ařík (again); he e en s o 1848 in P ague; he sec- ond Sla ic cong ess in Moscow in 1867; he Russian p o ec o a e and i s Polish boy- co (acco ding o O.Hö zsch); Russian in ol emen in he pan-Sla ic mo emen be- ween 1880–1890, i s a enua ion a e he Russian-Japanese wa (1904–1905), and he o igin o neo-pan-Sla ism; he si ua ion o Slo enia and Se bia s a ing in he 18 h cen u y, he pan-Se bism o Vuk Ka adžič, and he Se bian and C oa ian languages; Illy ianism and Vienna’s a i ude owa d i . A he end o Huizinga’s no es we ind he commen : ‘in Volhynia, 1823, he Associa ion “Uni ed Sla s”. S a u es in Polish. Fi s demons a ion o pan-Sla ic sen imen : much mo e he uni ica ion o all Sla s while p ese ing independence wi hin he epublican union’35— he highligh s he u opian p ojec o Sla ic ede a ion ‘Obščes o sojedinnennych sla jan’ (‘Socie y o uni ed Sla s’) ounded in No go od— Volhynia in 1823 by he b o he s And ej and Pe e Bo iso , which undeniably poin s o Huizinga’s in e es in an ins i u ional basis o he idea o pan-Sla ism. In his cou se on 19 h-cen u y Russia, Huizinga used hese ee no es only ma gin- ally. In he inal and clea ly legible manusc ip o he wo- e m lec u es o 82 pages da ing om he summe o 191436 he e is no e e ence o he sou ces he used o his 30 ‘nie uss. gezind’. 31 ‘Als Oos en . keize s aa nie bes ond, moes men hem in he belang . Eu . & de men- schheid ui inden’. 32 ‘wil nie s we en an Kollá ’s d oomen’. 33 ‘Russen, Polen, Čechen, Illy . o men nie éen olk… om goede Slawen e zijn, moe en wij in de ee s e plaa s he welzijn onze eigen na ie zoeken’. 34 ‘maa eeds willen Slowaaken an Čechisch nie we en’. 35 ‘1823. In Volynie ,Ve eenigde Slawen‘. s a u en in he poolsch. ee s e ui ing an pansla is- isch ge oel: e een. . alle Sl. me behoud . zel s and. in epubl. bond’. 36 In Johan Huizinga’s digi al a chi es documen s NL-0200050000_HUI_HUI-002-0-01- 000_001 o NL-0200050000_HUI_HUI-002-0-01-000_087. OPEN ACCESS