reflections on the Czech slavistics 
after the First World War: Matija 
Murko and jan Máchal
alenka jensterle doležal
Charles university, Faculty of arts, nám. jana palacha 2, 116 38 prague 1, Czech republic
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0777-5701
alenka.dolezalova@ff.cuni.cz
This	article	compares	the	positivist	thought	of	two	Czech	professors	of	Slavic	
literature	in	the	1920s:	the	Slovenian	Matija	Murko	(1861–1952)	and	the	
Czech	Jan	Hanuš	Máchal	(1855–1939).	Comparative	literary	history,	which	
in	the	Central	European	area	focused	on	minor	South	Slavic	literatures,	was	in	
its	infancy	at	this	time,	and	comparative	literary	historians	primarily	focused	
on	surveying	specific	literary	periods.	The	focus	of	this	contribution	is	Murko’s	
reflections	on	South	Slavic	literature	in	the	period	of	the	Reformation	and	Counter-
Reformation	in	the	book	die Bedeutung der reformation und Gegenreformation für 
das geistige leben der südslaven	(1927).	I	compare	his	view	and	methods	with	a	
short	chapter	on	the	same	period	in	the	monumental	monograph	by	Jan	Máchal,	
slovanské literatury	(1922).	In	the	study,	I	emphasize	their	comparative	methods,	
interpreting	influences,	and	marking	literary	currents	in	this	period.	Reflections	
on	the	literary	movements	in	two	national	histories	were	linked	to	the	development	
of	language,	and	the	scholars	tried	to	present	social	and	historical	development	
of	that	time	and	place	generally.	I	focus	on	their	approaches	to	national	and	
supranational	literary	history	and	on	their	interpretation	of	personalities	and	
literary	works	in	the	literary	movement.
Keywords: comparative literature / Slovenian literary historians / Murko, Matija / Czech 
Slavic studies / Máchal, Jan Hanuš / South Slavic literatures / Reformation / Counter-
Reformation
163
primerjalna književnost (ljubljana) 48.2 (2025)
In the nineteenth century, Czech Slavic studies made incredible prog-
ress, beginning with Kollár’s scholarly work emphasizing Slavic reci-
procity.1 Until the collapse of the Habsburg Empire, Czech culture and 
science were part of Habsburg culture and the Habsburg myth echoed 
in the scientific endeavors of the First Republic (the newly established 
1 The article was written as part of the Cooperatio Program provided by Charles 
University, titled “Literatura/Medievistika” (“Literature/Medieval studies”).
pkn, letnik 48, št. 2, ljubljana, avgust 2025
164
Czecho-Slovak Republic). The idea of Slavic unity was reinforced in 
scholarship as well as elsewhere in society, and Prague for years also 
represented the cradle of Slavic reciprocity for other nations. In Central 
European space, scientific attempts were mixed with political ideas and 
ideological notions, such as the myth of a great Slavic unity. From the 
very beginning, the development of Czech Slavic studies and Czech 
comparative studies was linked to attempts to see individual Slavic lit-
eratures in the Slavic world as a single unit, which required particular 
methods and approaches. Research in that period also supported the 
pursuit for national identity, which had become so decisive for all the 
“Habsburgian” small nations, especially at the end of the Habsburg 
monarchy. The quest for Czech national identity at the beginning of 
the twentieth century was acutely present in the bilingual space of 
Czech culture, where there was a strong German community work-
ing alongside the Czech one. The development of the Czech national 
idea—which also reflected the subversive character and demands of 
small nations in the already partly uncontrollable, increasingly di-
verse Austro-Hungarian monarchy, with its many nations—was also 
strengthened by the idea of a supranational, Slavic cohesion.
In this paper, I will compare the positivist thought and scholarly 
work of two literary historians, professors of Slavic literatures at Charles 
University in Prague during the 1920s in the newly founded Czecho-
Slovak Republic: the Slovenian Matija Murko (1861–1952) and the 
Czech Jan Hanuš Máchal (1855–1939). I will concentrate on Murko’s 
1927 German monograph on South Slavic literature in the period of the 
Reformation and Counter-Reformation, Die Bedeutung der Reformation 
und Gegenreformation für das geistige Leben der Südslaven (The Significance 
of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation for the Spiritual Life of the 
South Slavs). I will then compare Murko’s views and methods with a 
short chapter on the same period for Slovenians and Croats in the monu-
mental 1922 book by Jan Máchal, Slovanské literatury (Slavic Literatures; 
196–207). I will examine their analyses of national and supranational lit-
erary history, reflecting personalities and literary works. I will also look at 
their comparative methods, interpreting influences in the literary works 
and movements, and marking literary currents. The primary focus will 
be on Murko’s work, with Máchal’s work used as a contrasting example.
During his Prague period Matija Murko turned his attention to the 
South Slavic epic, through which he became internationally renowned, 
but as I will highlight, he also enriched German, Czech, and South 
Slavic studies by continuing his work in comparative literary and cul-
tural history.
alenka jensterle doležal:     Reflections on the Czech Slavistics After the First World War
165
Context
Pascale Casanova points out that literary space is relatively dependent 
on political structures (Casanova 81), and—as previously noted—this 
was also true for the Central European space at the turn of the twenti-
eth century. The study of minor Slavic literature in the Czech Republic 
was also politically colored: Prague, after all, was a city where Kollár’s 
idea of Slavic reciprocity had been spread for decades, and literary his-
torians were heavily influenced by the Romantic notions of the Slavs 
and the ideas initiated by Herder, who emphasized the essential link 
between nation and language. National identity was still connected to 
the national epic in the Romantic sense, which was also at the forefront 
of literary-historical interest. In this period, Czech comparative liter-
ary history (some of them focused on minor Slavic—that is, South 
Slavic!—literatures) was in its infancy, and literary historians focused 
primarily on the survey of literary periods. The research of literary his-
tory was related to the development of language, but above all to social 
and historical development.2
In the first half of the twentieth century, Slavic studies were well 
supported in Prague.3 Drago Bajt noted that at the turn of the cen-
tury, the Prague Comparativist School,4 represented by J. Polivka, J. 
Máchal, V. Tille, and M. Murko, made a leap from philological criti-
cism to positivist thematology and produced catalogues of materials, 
motifs, and genres, especially in folk and medieval literature; theoreti-
cally, it drew on Pypin, Veselovsky, Paris, Bedier, and Baldensperger 
(Bajt 41). During this period of Czech culture, enthusiastic Slavists 
with their enormous knowledge tried to become experts in the history 
2 In the old monarchy, the first seminar on Slavic philology was established in 
Prague in 1880 (led by Jan Gebauer)—six years earlier than its counterpart in Vienna 
(founded in 1886 under Vatroslav Jagić). Czech Slavic philology also developed at the 
German University of Prague, which operated alongside the Czech Faculty of Arts, 
where Slavic philology began to be cultivated as early as 1896 (Murko, “Ausbau”). At 
the turn of the twentieth century, Czech Slavic studies had already seen the emergence 
of independent national disciplines, especially Bohemian studies. These began to take 
shape at the University of Prague in the 1880s and were divided into literary studies 
and linguistics. However, such a profiled view of the specialization of disciplines and 
the division along national lines had not yet been applied to the sciences of South 
Slavic languages and literatures.
3 On the development of Czech and Slovak literary comparative studies in general, 
see Zelenka, “Češka in slovaška literarna komparativistika.”
4 Here Bajt adopts Frank Wollman’s definition from 1947 (see Wollman, “Naše 
pojetí”).
pkn, letnik 48, št. 2, ljubljana, avgust 2025
166
of all Slavic literature and they published monumental works in this 
field, for example, Lubor Niederle: Slovanské starožitnosti (Slavic 
Antiquities, 1900), Jan Máchal: Slovanské literatury (Slavic Literatures, 3 
volumes, 1922–1929). Very characteristic are Frank Wollman’s studies 
on South Slavic drama—three volumes on Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian,5 
and Bulgarian drama (1924–1926) and Dramatika slovanského jihu 
(Drama of the Slavic South, 1930)—and Slovesnost Slovanů (Literature 
of the Slavs, 1928).6
According to Miloš Zelenka, labelling these Czech scholars as part 
of the positivist school is not entirely accurate. While they had a pro-
found philological and cultural-historical orientation and a strong sense 
of systematization and critical classification of facts, they also produced 
numerous syntheses based on both extensive material research and 
detailed analytical interpretations. However, the thoughtful emphasis 
on a predominantly genetic understanding of the literary process and 
the static construction of its developmental schemes led to insufficient 
consideration of the methodological issues of the discipline—a certain 
reduction of the aesthetic specificity of the literary text, which, on the 
contrary, was at the forefront of the interest of literary structuralism 
(Zelenka, “Češka in slovaška literarna komparativistika” 2).
The Case of Jan Hanuš Máchal
Jan Hanuš Máchal was a Czech literary historian, ethnographer, eth-
nologist, folklorist, and prominent representative of Czech Slavic stud-
ies at the beginning of the twentieth century. From his initial research 
on Slavic mythology and the folk epic, he approached Czech literature 
from a comparative point of view, focusing mainly on the develop-
ment of prose and drama in the nineteenth century. In the 1920s, he 
completed his work with a synthetic history of Slavic literature. In one 
of the chapters from the first book of his Slovanské literatury, published 
in 1922, he also dealt with the Reformation and Counter-Reformation 
among the South Slavs, Slovenians and Croats (Máchal 196–207).
In his comprehensive monograph, which his contemporaries called 
a “synchronic panorama” of Slavic literatures, Máchal treats individual 
5 For a long time, his monograph on Slovenian drama was also the only one in this 
field.
6 In the nineteenth century, Czech scholars treated South Slavic literatures as a 
unified whole—for example, Pavel Josef Šafařík in his Geschichte der südslawischen 
Literatur (History of South Slavic Literature, 1864–1865).
alenka jensterle doležal:     Reflections on the Czech Slavistics After the First World War
167
national literatures with remarkable expertise, starting from the idea of 
a coherent Slavic unity. As a literary positivist, his primary interest is 
expected to lie in the study of influences. However, in the section on the 
“South Slavic Reformation and Counter-Reformation,” he redirects his 
attention to the diachrony of individual national literature, aiming to 
comprehend the literary histories of these two nations during the period 
under study. He concentrates on the emergence of key individuals and 
their significance within the literary and cultural movements, focus-
ing on individual figures and their major works. In his examination of 
Protestantism, he begins with the history of Slovenian Protestant culture 
and continues with the Croatian Reformation. In doing so, he works 
systematically and with a positivist overview, first identifying the social 
and cultural situation that made the Reformation possible. He sketches 
only a glimpse of the contradictory period of the Slovenian Counter-
Reformation. Similarly, he analyses the Reformation and Counter-
Reformation among the Croats. He highlights the main literary works 
of the Counter-Reformation period, which the Jesuits are said to have 
spearheaded. In his overview, he draws on the available literature but 
mentions the sources only at the end. As a classic, informative overview of 
a positivist, it leaves no room for an in-depth study of the phenomenon.
Murko’s monograph
In his Prague period, Murko continued research and themes already 
started in his earlier scholarly periods, when he had established his 
achievements in the academic community in Europe, and when he was 
active at several key universities in Central Europe, including those 
in Vienna, Graz, Leipzig, and finally Prague.7 His professional service 
included reorganizing the university curriculum for Slavic studies, edit-
ing the academic journal Slavia, presiding over the First International 
Congress of Slavic Philologists (1929), acting as the president of the 
Institute of Slavic Studies (from 1931), and promoting the field as a 
member of various academies and academic institutions around the 
world.8 Research-wise, he published a book about the Reformation and 
7 Interest in him grew among Czechs and Slovenians at the turn of the twenty-
first century, as reflected in the main collective monographs about him (see Zelenka, 
Murková epocha; Pospíšil and Zelenka; Jesenšek; Jesenšek and Stanonik). Studies in 
German-speaking regions also show a rise in interest (see Endler; Seehase).
8 Today, he is known in classical studies, comparative literature, folklore studies, 
literary studies, anthropology, theology, musicology, and even philosophy and archae-
ology (see Zabel, “What”).
pkn, letnik 48, št. 2, ljubljana, avgust 2025
168
Counter-Reformation in South Slavic lands and continued working on 
South Slavic oral poetry.
The Prague period was his most productive period, during which he 
established himself as a scholar in the field of Slavic studies (see Jensterle 
Doležal, Avtor 75–95, “Arheologija” and “Znanstveno delo”). He wrote 
mainly in German, the lingua franca of the Central European schol-
ars of the former Habsburg area. What is striking in Murko’s scientific 
work is “the tolerance of ideas, the interdisciplinarity of research, the 
openness, and the interdisciplinary excesses” (Pospíšil and Zelenka 5).
His greatest enthusiasm, erudition, and originality in the Prague 
period are evident in his research on Serbian and Croatian epics. In 
dealing with these subjects, he developed new theoretical postulates in 
ethnology and folklore studies. In his research methodology, he saw 
folklore studies as an interdisciplinary field, connecting history, ethnol-
ogy, and philology. He is still regarded as a pioneer in the study of oral 
literature. His work on the theory of oral poetry inspired the American 
scholars Milman Parry (1902–1935) and Albert Bates Lord (1912–
1991) (see Zabel, “Matija Murko”). This theory remains valid today in 
the study of ancient and medieval epics, especially in Homeric studies.9
In contrast, we now turn to another area of his work from the Prague 
period: the literary history of the South Slavs. This area has been some-
what overlooked in both Slovenian and the broader Central European 
literary history of the twentieth century, when considering this scholar 
(Jensterle Doležal, “Znanstveno delo” 84–88).10
Murko’s engagement with South Slavic literature had a long tradi-
tion—that of a professor who started and worked in Austrian culture 
and the Habsburg area. While still a professor in Graz, he began to 
work on older South Slavic literatures. In 1908, he published a book 
in Leipzig titled History of the Older South Slavic Literatures (History of 
the Older South Slavic Literatures), in which he wrote about the work 
of Cyril and Methodius, covering the period from the Proto-Slavic 
period to the extension of Turkish rule in the Balkans. The book was the 
result of his lectures in Graz. In it, he emphasizes the close connection 
between South Slavic literary and cultural history, linguistics, and folk 
9 During his Prague era, he continued his work on South Slavic oral poetry, under-
taking five additional research trips. His research culminated in the lengthy two-vol-
ume publication Tragom srpsko-hrvatske narodne epike: putovanja u godinama 1930–
1932 (In the Footsteps of the Serbo-Croatian Folk Epic: Travels in the Years 1930–1932, 
1951), which is still considered one of the most detailed studies of South Slavic oral 
poetry (see Zabel, “What”).
10 The Czechs published his selected works in 1937 and 1947, the Slovenians later 
in 1962. On his place in Slovenian literary history, see Slodnjak; Dolinar.
alenka jensterle doležal:     Reflections on the Czech Slavistics After the First World War
169
literature. He explores South Slavic literature in their interrelationships, 
emphasizing Russian and Western influences. According to Dietmar 
Endler, Murko draws on a wealth of experience from the methodology 
of positivist authors, Russian Slavic studies, and European comparative 
studies in this synthetic study. In the book, he also notes the inter-
weaving of cultural models and, according to Josef Páta, emphasizes 
the visible dependence of the Yugoslav cultural world on the Byzantine 
one. He further characterizes the situation in more recent South Slavic 
literature in the study “Die südslawischen Literaturen” (“South Slavic 
Literatures”) published the same year.
In 1927, in the preface to his book Die Bedeutung der Reformation 
und Gegenreformation für das geistige Leben der Südslaven, he wrote that 
in Graz he had begun to realize that the period of the South Slavic 
Reformation and Counter-Reformation had been underappreciated 
in both the German and Austrian scientific world and the Austrian 
Habsburg area.11 His responsible attitude towards the research prob-
lem of South Slavic Protestantism and the Counter-Reformation is also 
expressed by the fact that during his work at the University of Leipzig 
in 1919, he visited all the towns in southern Germany where Slovenian 
and Croatian Protestants were active. He used material on this in his 
book (Murko, Paměti 160).
He published a study on the subject in Leipzig (Über die Bedeutung 
der Reformation und Gegenreformation für das geistige Leben der 
Südslaven, 1921) and in Slavia (“Die Bedeutung der Reformation und 
Gegenreformation für das geistige Leben der Südslaven,” 1925–1926). He 
also dealt with the topic of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation in 
his inaugural professorial lecture at Charles University, “O předchůdcích 
ilyrismu: sjednocení Jihoslovanů” (“On the Predecessors of Illyrism: The 
Unification of the South Slavs,” 1920).12 Later, he expanded his findings 
in the monograph (see Murko, Bedeutung).13
In the monograph, Murko describes literary development as a pro-
cess, and he is interested in the movement and interplay of literary 
phenomena. His basis is historical thinking, within which he perceives 
11 “… zu wenig berücksichtig und noch weniger richtig gewürdigt werden” (Murko, 
Bedeutung iii).
12 The lecture was first published in the monthly Nové Atheneum in Prague in 1920 
(see Murko, “O předchůdcích” and “O predhodnikih ilirizma”). As Murko points out 
in his memoirs, he also gave a lecture on the subject in Bratislava (Murko, Paměti 193). 
The manuscript is located in the Literary Archive of the Museum of Czech Literature 
in Prague.
13 Only a part of Die Bedeutung was translated into Slovenian. The translation by 
Vilko Novak was published in Murko’s Izbrano delo (Selected Works) in 1962 (37–47).
pkn, letnik 48, št. 2, ljubljana, avgust 2025
170
literature in a broader cultural-historical context, always in flux, at the 
crossroads of mutual influences, in the refraction of different cultural 
models (Jensterle Doležal, “Znanstveno delo” 86). Jiří Horák empha-
sized that this is not a history of individual literatures but rather a “syn-
thetic comparative study” (Horák 7). In this monograph, he explored 
literatures in their interconnections and in an interdisciplinary and cul-
tural-scientific perspective. Here we can paraphrase Pascale Casanova 
that this represented Murko’s attempt to present the only true history 
of literature in a given space and time, a history of common revolts, 
upheavals, manifestos, discoveries of new forms and languages, and 
subversions of the literary order that gradually shaped South Slavic lit-
erature and the literary universe (Casanova 175).
In the book, as in his opening lecture, Murko also discusses the 
significance and role of various Church orders, especially the Jesuits 
and Franciscans, in the spread of South Slavic cultures. He emphasizes 
the importance of the Bosnian Franciscan Order in achieving “Serbo-
Croatian linguistic unity” (Murko, Bedeutung 35–45).14
In 1947, the Slavist Frank Wollman described Murko’s emphasis 
on the importance of ecclesiastical lineages for the literary and cultural 
history of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation in this region as 
the greatest achievement of his monograph:
The mutual relationship of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation in the 
literary field of the Slavic Balkans had been explained by many before Murko, 
especially by Pavle Popović and Drag. Prochaska, who have shown the extraor-
dinary importance of the Tridentine Counter-Reformation literary program. 
In contrast to the others, Murko has shown, in a broad and in-depth cultural-
historical picture, how the Catholic traditions of the Church shaped certain 
segments of society, even under Turkish domination, and how these led to a 
single literary language: Serbo-Croatian. (Wollman, “Murkova vědecká osob-
nost” 11)15
Murko emphasizes in his study that the Balkan area was characterized 
by turbulent historical events that impacted the entirety of European 
14 In the linguistics of Serbs and Croats nowadays the belief in a common language 
no longer exists. This persuasion was even strengthened after the Balkan wars in the 
1990s.
15 In the original: “Vzájemný poměr reformace a protireformace na literárním poli 
slovanského Balkánu osvětlovali už mnozí před Murkem, tak zájmena Pavle Popović 
a Drag. Prochaska ukázali už iniciativní význam tridentského literárního programu 
protireformačního. Murko však v širokém a do hloubky zasahujícím kulturně his-
torickém obraze ukázal, jak církevní tradice katolické působily v určité společenství, 
a to i v záboru tureckém, a jak vedly k jednotné spisovné řečí srbocharvátské” (11).
alenka jensterle doležal:     Reflections on the Czech Slavistics After the First World War
171
history. In his analysis, he depicts not just two national histories, but 
the Balkan of that time generally as a territory of different nations and 
religions, characterized by the richness and intertwining varied lan-
guages (Slovenian, Croatian, “Serbo-Croatian,” Latin, German, etc.) 
and different alphabets (Cyrillic, Latin, Glagolitic, etc.). It is in this 
space that Murko reveals the complexity and often contradictions of 
the Reformation and Counter-Reformations in the Balkans precisely in 
the interweaving of various phenomena and the convergence of various 
influences from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries. The coex-
istence of different cultural identities and languages reveals the var-
ied political and religious events in the Balkans, and the description 
of Slovenian and Croatian Reformation and Counter-Reformation 
evolves into a depiction of cultural events across the entire Balkans. In 
doing so, he pays special attention to the key personalities who mainly 
influenced “the spiritual life” of the area, highlighting the meaning of 
translations and the existence of the publishing houses.
For him, the Balkans a priori means a common spiritual space. He 
describes national events that are becoming transnational, where ideas 
and texts travelled across imaginary and real borders. Thus, in the mono-
graph, Murko deals not only with Slovenian and Croatian cultural his-
tory, but more broadly with the history of the entire region—also with 
the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, and Albania.
In presenting his insights, Murko reveals an impressive knowledge 
of South Slavic cultures—a knowledge of history, cultural history, and 
comparative literary history. In his analyses, he uses all available schol-
arly sources of the time. He does not blindly adopt them, he does not 
just quote them, but he is also in dialogue with the ideas and findings. 
In his thinking, he polemicizes against literary historians from Slovenia, 
Croatia, the Czech Republic, and, above all, from the German-speaking 
world, with wit and erudition.16
When citing sources in detail, Murko is positivistically precise. As 
a former Habsburg scholar, he cites not only written sources, but also 
presents archival discoveries from Central Europe libraries in detail. 
All this is, in his case, accompanied by a special kind of collecting pas-
sion and memoir precision and consistency in labelling and structur-
ing phenomena.
The book is a cultural-historical fresco, in which Murko is particularly 
concerned with the question of the founding of the “Serbo-Croatian” 
16 In Chapter 4, he was assisted with the Slovenian material by France Kidrič and 
Fran Ramovš (Murko, Bedeutung iv).
pkn, letnik 48, št. 2, ljubljana, avgust 2025
172
language. He explains in particular detail the significance of the devel-
opment of the Slovenian and “Serbo-Croatian” languages, which also 
stems from the fact that in the Prague period, Murko was primarily 
obliged to lecture on the history of languages, more than on the his-
tory of literature (Murko, Paměti 166). It was, according to Murko, 
precisely the developments during the Counter-Reformation and the 
formation of “Baroque Slavism” that led to the formation of the com-
mon “Serbo-Croatian” language. In this movement, he particularly 
highlights the figure of Juraj Križanić, who emerged from the Croatian 
Counter-Reformation of the seventeenth century.
In this book, he is also aware that the South Slavic space has been 
a crossroads and a meeting point of different influences. He pays par-
ticular attention to the German influence; for him, the Reformation 
also represents the culmination of German influence on the Slovenians 
(Murko, Bedeutung 127). In this book, as in his previous works, he 
strives to be a comparative literary historian, focusing on the question 
of the influence of Oriental, Western European, and Central European 
tendencies in the South Slavic literatures of the period. In particular, he 
points out the positive characteristics of the Counter-Reformation for 
the South Slavs, which was to be divisive only for the Slovenians, while 
for the others the movement was creative. The events and the situation 
in the Balkans led to the deprivation of the sharpness of the Counter-
Reformation efforts among the South Slavs and to a greater assertion of 
their positive creations (119). In particular, the unified Serbo-Croatian 
language was created, as “the Counter-Reformation created the basis 
for the linguistic unification of Croats and Serbs in the 19th century” 
(24–59). It is in these ideas that Frank Wollman outlines the main 
advantage of the new findings: in his work, Murko reevaluates the neg-
ative perception of the Catholic Counter-Reformation and Baroque lit-
erature in the literary history of the South Slavs (Wollman, “Murkova 
vědecká osobnost” 11–12).
From today’s point of view, the monograph can also be observed 
critically. Vincenc Rajšp, for example, accused Murko’s views on 
the South Slavic Reformation and Counter-Reformation of a lack of 
connection with the German cultural milieu, a lack of reference to 
Luther’s Protestant developments in Germany. He finds this particu-
larly unacceptable, since at the time Murko was lecturing in Leipzig. 
It was also the jubilee year of 1917, the year of the 400th anniversary 
of the German Reformation, the year of the charging of Luther’s 95 
theses. Many monuments were unveiled, foundations for new churches 
were laid, many of Luther’s writings were published, etc. (Rajšp 148). 
alenka jensterle doležal:     Reflections on the Czech Slavistics After the First World War
173
Murko does not even mention this in his memoirs. According to Rajšp, 
Murko also overlooked the importance of the Habsburg monarchy for 
the movement. The Slovenian and Croatian Reformation was part of 
the monarchical culture, and the Counter-Reformation triumphed in 
part due to the Habsburg rulers (147).
Since the publication of the monograph nearly 100 years ago, the 
discipline has continued to evolve, and some of the findings in Murko’s 
study of both literatures have changed and been updated. For example, 
Alojz Jembrih points out that the Croat Antun Vramec did not belong 
to the Protestant circle, as Murko claimed (Jembrih 171).
In this book, Murko clearly defended the neo-Illyrian belief, which 
was strengthened during his Prague period (see Murko, “Myšlenka”).17 
He even used the myth of South Slavic reunification to defend the 
phenomena of his time. In his view, the Counter-Reformers were 
also the pioneers of the South Slavic political entity in the twentieth 
century. Frank Wollman had already warned in 1947 that Murko’s 
efforts to trace the roots of Illyrianism had led him to overemphasize 
the importance of Trubar’s South Slavic Bible Institute. Murko attri-
butes the development of the so-called South Slavic program solely 
to the Counter-Reformation (Wollman, “Murkova vědecká osobnost” 
11). The reception of Murko’s book was prominent in the German and 
Czech spheres, but it also resonated in the South Slavic sphere.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we can first point out that the essential difference in 
the purpose and scope of the two reviews of scholarly works by the 
Slovenian Matija Murko and the Czech Jan Hanuš Máchal, which is 
also reflected in the choice of language and the “first” readership, is 
a reflection of the major historical changes in the Central European 
area. Although both scholars were active in the Czech Republic, Máchal 
primarily wrote in Czech for a Czech readership and, to some extent, 
for a broader Slavic audience. In contrast, Murko, as a former Austro-
Hungarian scholar, wrote in German for German and Austrian scholars 
17 During his Prague period, Murko, based on Kollár’s Slavism, formulated the 
myth of South Slavic unity, or the neo-Illyrian idea; for him, the Illyrian movement 
represented the highest form of integration of Serbs and Croats in terms of value, since 
it achieved the goal of all efforts to unify the “South Slavic tribes.” South Slavic unity 
was for him the unity of Slovenians, Serbs, Croats, and Bulgarians (Jensterle Doležal, 
“Znanstveno delo” 88).
pkn, letnik 48, št. 2, ljubljana, avgust 2025
174
and Slavists, while also addressing Czech, Slovenian, and other former 
German-oriented scholars from the Central European area. In his re-
search on the literary-historical period, he developed his own method-
ology and view of literary-historical phenomena during a time when 
research on minor Slavic literatures was in its infancy.
The comparison between the two works can only be made condi-
tionally: in Máchal’s case, we are dealing with a brief, isolated excerpt 
from an extensive survey; in Murko’s case, we have an in-depth mono-
graph on the period. If we briefly characterize the two surveys, a meta-
phorical definition is unavoidable: Máchal’s survey is a typical, focused, 
erudite overview of a segment of national history, covering all the main 
points of individual Slavic literary histories, Murko’s monographic 
study, on the other hand, is more dynamic and complex, reflecting 
true imagination. He, too, is aware that literature emerges from a spe-
cific time and place and is interested not so much in biographies or 
literary achievements as in the complex picture of events and, above all, 
in influences. He provides a synchronic and diachronic view of liter-
ary historical developments at a certain time. Unlike Máchal, he also 
emphasizes dialogue with other comparative historians, considering the 
achievements of Slovenian, Croatian, German, and even Czech schol-
ars, and he polemicizes with them. The monograph itself also reflects 
Murko’s efforts to open up German Slavic studies to other Slavic stud-
ies, to link them as a common cultural place.
We can conclude by admiring the work of two Slavists who, with 
their idealism and ideology of Slavic reciprocity, published monumen-
tal scholarly monographs in the context of the inspiring and prosper-
ous postwar Czecho-Slovak Republic, thus pushing the boundaries of 
scholarship in the study of Slavic literature.
Both Murko and Máchal reflect on the categories of the nation and 
the supranationalism in the literary sphere. Both started from the idea 
of Slavic reciprocity and the belief in Slavic and South Slavic coherence 
and thus in the existence of supranational units, which was also a politi-
cal idea at the time. In comparison to Máchal, Murko’s view was even 
more political, as he advocated neo-Illiryanism, an ahistorical roman-
tic view of South Slavic reciprocity, which prevailed especially among 
Serbian and Croatian intellectuals from this South Slavic area after the 
establishment of the Kingdom of Serbs, Slovenians, and Croats. Today, 
some of their ideas, particularly the question of Slavic and South Slavic 
interconnectedness, seem like an artificial construct and an ideological 
product of a time that has lost its historical meaning. However, it was in 
the shadow of these ideas that both scholars wrote their great scientific 
alenka jensterle doležal:     Reflections on the Czech Slavistics After the First World War
175
works, and it was these ideas that motivated their research. Both were 
highly influential in the comparative literary history of Central Europe 
in the 20th century, and their work has been carried forward by later 
generations of Czech, German, and South Slavic literary historians.
In summary—and unfortunately—Murko and Máchal are fre-
quently cited in Slavic sources but rarely read, a common character-
istic of so-called “semiperipheral” scholars and their work (see Zabel, 
“What”). Nevertheless, the story of these two comparative literary his-
torians reveals the enthusiasm and idealism of two scholars who, in the 
postwar period, researched minor Slavic literatures, starting from the 
myth of Slavic cohesion and, in Murko’s case, from the myth of South 
Slavic unity. Both explored the role of small Slavic literatures and lit-
erary culture during the great changes following the pan-European 
phenomenon of the Reformation. Today’s relevance of their approach 
(especially Murko’s) can be seen not only in the exploration of Central 
European literatures but also in the beginnings of interculturalism and 
the theory of cultural memory. In both cases, their research remains a 
starting point for all researchers in this field and they encourage further 
reflection and study.
WORKS CITED
Bajt, Drago. “Primerjalna književnost v vzhodnoevropskih socialističnih deželah.” 
Primerjalna književnost, vol. 12, no. 2, 1989, pp. 41–51.
Casanova, Pascale. The World Republic of Letters. Translated by M. B. DeBevoise, 
Harvard University Press, 2004.
Dolinar, Darko. “Med slovansko filologijo in nacionalno literarno zgodovino: Matija 
Murko in slovenska literarna veda.” Slavia, vol. 72, no. 1, 2003, pp. 13–26.
Endler, Dietmar. “Matija Murko und die südslawischen Literaturen.” Wissenschaftliche 
Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universität Leipzig: Gesellschaftswissenschaftliche Reihe, 
vol. 36, no. 1, 1987, pp. 29–34.
Horák, Jiří. “Úvodem.” Rozpravy z oboru slovanské filologie, Matija Murko, edited by 
Jiří Horák, Slovanský ústav / Orbis, 1937, pp. v–xiv.
Jembrih, Alojz. “Uz neke tvrdnje u Murkovoj knjizi (1927) po početcima tiskanih kaj-
kavskih knjiga u 16. stoljeću.” Matija Murko: slovanski filolog v najširšem pomenu 
besede, edited by Marko Jesenšek and Marija Stanonik, Slovenska akademija zna-
nosti in umetnosti, 2020, pp. 168–197.
Jensterle Doležal, Alenka. “Arheologija konteksta: Murkovo nastopno predavanje 
na Karlovi univerzi v Pragi (1920).” Sto let slovenistiky na Univerzitě Karlově v 
Praze: pedagogové a vědci ve stínu dějin, edited by Alenka Jensterle Doležal et al., 
Filozofická fakulta Univerzity Karlovy, 2014, pp. 56–68.
Jensterle Doležal, Alenka. Avtor, tekst, kontekst, komunikacija: poglavja iz slovenske 
moderne. Mednarodna založba Oddelka za slovanske jezike in književnosti FF 
UM, 2014.
pkn, letnik 48, št. 2, ljubljana, avgust 2025
176
Jensterle Doležal, Alenka. “Znanstveno delo profesorja Matija Murka v praškem obdo-
bju.” Matija Murko: slovanski filolog v najširšem pomenu besede, edited by Marko 
Jesenšek and Marija Stanonik, Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, 2020, 
pp. 81–100.
Jesenšek, Marko, editor. Slovenski slavistični kongres, Nova Gorica 2001: Evropsko 
leto jezikov / Sodobna slovenska književnost / Matija Murko. Slavistično društvo 
Slovenije, 2002.
Jesenšek, Marko, and Marija Stanonik, editors. Matija Murko: slovanski filolog v najšir-
šem pomenu besede. Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, 2020.
Máchal, Jan. Slovanské literatury. Zv. 1, Matice česká, 1922.
Murko, Matija. “Der Ausbau der slavistischen Studien in der Tschechoslovakei.” 
Prager Rundschau, vol. 1, no. 4, 1931, pp. 332–348.
Murko, Matija. “Die Bedeutung der Reformation und Gegenreformation für das 
geistige Leben der Südslaven.” Slavia, vol. 4, no. 1, 1925–1926, pp. 499–522, 
684–719; vol. 5, no. 1, 1926–1927, pp. 65–99, 277–302, 500–534, 718–744.
Murko, Matija. Die Bedeutung der Reformation und Gegenreformation für das geistige 
Leben der Südslaven. Carl Winter’s Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1927.
Murko, Matija. Geschichte der älteren südslavischen Literaturen. C. F. Amelang, 1908.
Murko, Matija. Izbrano delo. Edited by Anton Slodnjak, Slovenska matica, 1962.
Murko, Matija. “Myšlenka jihoslovanského sjednocení v minulosti.” Slovanský pře-
hled, vol. 19, 1927, pp. 1–12.
Murko, Matija. “O předchůdcích ilyrismu: sjednocení Jihoslovanů.” Nové Atheneum, 
vol. 2, no. 3, 1920–1921, pp. 97–109.
Murko, Matija. “O predhodnikih ilirizma.” Translated by Božidar Borko. Izbrano delo, 
Matija Murko, edited by Anton Slodnjak, Slovenska matica, 1962, pp. 63–75.
Murko, Matija. Paměti. Fr. Borový, 1949.
Murko, Matija. “Die südslawischen Literaturen.” Die osteuropäischen Literaturen und 
die slawischen Sprachen, Adalbert Bezzenberger et al., B. G. Teubner, 1908, pp. 
194–245. Die Kultur der Gegenwart 1/9.
Murko, Matija. Über die Bedeutung der Reformation und Gegenreformation für das geist-
liche Leben der Südslaven. Sächsischen Akademie zu Leipzig, 1921.
Páta, Josef. Prof. Dr. Matyáš Murko: k sedmdesátinám slovinského slavisty, spolutvůrce 
české slavistiky po světové válce. Adolf Černý, 1931.
Pospíšil, Ivo, and Miloš Zelenka, editors. Matija Murko v myšlenkovém kontextu evrop-
ské slavistiky. Masarykova univerzita, 2005.
Rajšp, Vincenc. “Matija Murko o reformaciji in protireformaciji pri južnih Slovanih.” 
Matija Murko: slovanski filolog v najširšem pomenu besede, edited by Marko Jesenšek 
and Marija Stanonik, Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, 2020, pp. 145–
152.
Seehase, Ilse. “K znanstvenozgodovinskemu mestu Matija Murka.” Slavistična revija, 
vol. 35, no. 3, 1987, 291–297.
Slodnjak, Anton. “Uvod.” Izbrano delo, Matija Murko, edited by Anton Slodnjak, 
Slovenska matica, 1962, pp. 5–12.
Wollman, Frank. “Murkova vědecká osobnost.” Slavia, vol. 18, no. 1–2, 1947–1948, 
pp. 1–22.
Wollman, Frank. “Naše pojetí slovanské filologie a její dnešní úkoly.” Slavia, vol. 18, 
no. 3, 1947–1948, pp. 249–264.
Zabel, Blaž. “Matija Murko, predhodnik Milmana Parryja?” Matija Murko: slovanski 
filolog v najširšem pomenu besede, edited by Marko Jesenšek and Marija Stanonik, 
Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, 2020, pp. 113–130.
alenka jensterle doležal:     Reflections on the Czech Slavistics After the First World War
177
Zabel, Blaž. “What Is Semiperipheral Scholarship? A Case Study of Matija Murko 
(1861–1952) and His Reception in Oral Theory and Literary Studies.” History of 
Humanities, vol. 10, no. 1, 2025, pp. 189–208.
Zelenka, Miloš. “Češka in slovaška literarna komparativistika: stanje in dosežki (od 
Welleka in Wollmana k Ďurišinu).” Primerjalna književnost, vol. 28, no. 2, 2005, 
pp. 1–15.
Zelenka, Miloš, editor. Murkova epocha slovanské filologie, special issue of Slavia, vol. 
72, no. 1, 2003.
razmišljanja o češki slavistiki po prvi svetovni 
vojni: Matija Murko in jan Máchal
Ključne besede: primerjalna književnost / slovenski literarni zgodovinarji / Murko, 
Matija / češka slavistika / Máchal, Jan Hanuš / južnoslovanske književnosti / 
reformacija / protireformacija
Razprava primerja pozitivistično misel dveh čeških profesorjev slovanskih knji-
ževnosti v dvajsetih letih 20. stoletja: Slovenca Matije Murka (1861–1952) in 
Čeha Jana Hanuša Máchala (1855–1939). Primerjalna literarna zgodovina, 
ki se je v tedanjem srednjeevropskem prostoru ukvarjala z manjšimi južnoslo-
vanskimi književnostmi, je bila v tem času še v povojih, primerjalni literarni 
zgodovinarji pa so se osredinjali predvsem na preglede posameznih literarnih 
obdobij. V fokusu tega prispevka so Murkova razmišljanja o južnoslovanski 
književnosti v obdobju reformacije in protireformacije v knjigi Die Bedeu-
tung der Reformation und Gegenreformation für das geistige Leben der Südslaven 
(Pomen reformacije in protireformacije za duhovno življenje južnih Slovanov, 
1927). Njegov pogled in metode primerjam s kratkim poglavjem o istem 
obdobju v monumentalni monografiji Jana Máchala Slovanské literatury (Slo-
vanske književnosti, 1922). V študiji poudarjam njune primerjalne metode, 
interpretacijo vplivov in označevanje literarnih tokov v obravnavanem obdo-
bju. Znanstvenika povezujeta analize literarnih gibanj v dveh nacionalnih zgo-
dovinah z razvojem jezika, oba pa predstavita tudi družbeni in zgodovinski 
razvoj časa in prostora na splošno. Osredotočam se tudi na njuno razumevanje 
nacionalne in nadnacionalne literarne zgodovine ter na njuno interpretacijo 
osebnosti in literarnih del v literarnem gibanju.
1.01 izvirni znanstveni članek / original scientific article
udk 821.163.4.09
doi: https://doi.org/10.3986/pkn.v48.i2.09