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 Huizinga’s unpublished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