A Life Dedicated to the Republic: Vavro Srobár's Slovak Czechoslovakism

By Josette Baer

Josette Baer retraces the eventful life of Slovak politician Vavro ?robár, the principal figure in the implementation of Czechoslovak democracy in Slovakia. From his student days and fight for Slovak civil rights in Upper Hungary to his active resistance to German fascism, ?robár shaped Czechoslovakia's turbulent history in the first half of the twentieth century. Baer's comprehensive biography makes archived materials available to English-speaking audiences for the first time and offers unique insight into Czechoslovakia's underresearched political history.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Ibidem Press
• Release date: Apr 15, 2014
• ISBN: 9783838263465

Book preview

9783838263465

 ibidem Press, Stuttgart

This book is dedicated to M. and P., for their wisdom, humour and curiosity. It is also dedicated to the memory of Milan Zemko, a dear colleague, a passionate historian and a decent person.

Table of Contents

Foreword

Acknowledgements

Abbreviations

X. Introduction

X. 1. Why write about Šrobár? Note that all translations into English are mine, unless indicated otherwise.

X. 2. Analytical framework and conceptual matrix

X. 3. Method, definitions, hypothesis

X. 3. 1. Method: contextual biography

X. 3. 2. Definitions

X. 3. 2. 1. Antisemitism

X. 3. 2. 2. Nation-building

X. 3. 2. 3. State-building

X. 3. 2. 4. Transition to democracy, consolidation of democracy

X. 3. 3. Hypothesis

I. The idea of Czecho-Slovak solidarity and the Czechoslovak state (1898–1918)

I. 1. A prelude? The year 1907 in the Czech lands and Upper Hungary

I. 1. 1. 1907 in the Czech lands

I. 1. 2. 1907 in Upper Hungary

I. 2. Slovak Czechoslovakism in Detvan and the journals Hlas and Prúdy

I. 2. 1. The Slovak student circle Detvan

I. 2. 2. The journal Hlas (1898–1904)

I. 2. 3. The journal Prúdy (1909–1914; 1922–1938)

II. The making of Czechoslovakia in Slovakia (1918–1938)

II. 1. The ministries (1918–1922)

II. 1. 1. Minister Plenipotentiary for Slovakia (1918–1920)

II. 1. 1. 1. The Žilina government

II. 1. 1. 2. The move to Pressburg

II. 1. 1. 3. Béla Kun and the war dictatorship

II. 1. 2. The Ministry of Information and Public Health (1920–1922)

II. 1. 2. 1. De-alcoholizing Slovakia and the fight against trachoma

II. 1. 2. 2. Employment matters and a letter against discrimination

II. 1. 3. The Ministry of Education and Culture (1921–1922)

II. 1. 3. 1. The small law on schooling

II. 1. 4. Member of Parliament

II. 1. 4. 1. In defence of the state – the lecture tour in the USA (1923)

II. 1. 4. 2. Family matters

II. 2. The autonomist movement and Andrej Hlinka

II. 2. 1. The affair of the Ružomberok bear

II. 2. 2. Lux in Tenebris – a literary attack on Slovak clericalism

II. 3. The Agrarians and relations with Milan Hodža

II. 3. 1. Budapest 1918 – the principal reason for a power struggle in 1928?

II. 3. 2. The affair of the forged paintings

II. 4. Šrobár's commitment to the Hippocratic Oath

III. The Slovak State and the post-war years (1939–1950)

III. 1. Autonomy and the Slovak State (1938–1939)

III. 1. 1. The pogrom in Piešťany (1939)

III. 1. 2. Šrobár's memoirs of the Slovak State

III. 2. Toward the reconstitution of Czechoslovakia (1944–1946)

III. 2. 1. The Slovak National Uprising (1944)

III. 2. 2. The Košice Agreement (1945)

III. 2. 3. The three Prague Agreements (1945–1946)

III. 3. Šrobár's last years in Czechoslovak politics (1945–1950)

III. 3. 1. The Democratic Party (1944) and the Party of Freedom (1946)

III. 3. 2. The Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Unification of Laws

Conclusion

Vavro Šrobár – data

Appendix

Vavro Šrobár – life in brief

Oral history interview with Mr. Karol Šrobár, academic painter, 18 July 2012, Vlkolinec, Slovakia, 11.30 – 13.00. The interview was conducted in Slovak.

Bibliography

Foreword

A politician from a small nation in a time of upheaval

At the turn of the 19th to the 20th century, the Slovaks were one of many peoples of the Habsburg Empire – or Austria-Hungary. Yet, in the Eastern part of the Empire, Magyar politicians and the elite of Magyar society considered the Slovaks just one of many ethnic minorities in Hungary that had to be assimilated as soon as possible and turned into proper Magyars. Some patriots and educated citizens stood out against this political agenda, trying to protect the Slovaks' ethnic and national identity. In those times, Slovak society was weak, which was the reason the intellectual elite sought the support of the neighbouring Slavic nations, in particular that of the Czechs who were closest to them linguistically. Owing to the disproportionally advantageous conditions that ruled in the Austrian part of the Habsburg Empire, the Czechs were much more developed in political, economic and cultural terms than the Slovaks, their neighbours to the East, living in the region of Upper Hungary. Leading Czech politicians did not at first engage in this Czecho-Slovak cooperation because they had an agenda of their own within the framework of the monarchy. But among the educated Czech citizens and politicians there were persons who recognized the significance of such cooperation for a common future. A key figure in making it a reality was the philosopher and politician T. G. Masaryk, the future president of the common state of the Czechs and Slovaks.

On the Slovak side, the physician, publicist and politician Dr. Vavro Šrobár (1867–1950) was one of the principal individuals who adhered to Czecho-Slovak cooperation and put it into practice. As a graduate of the Medical Faculty of the Czech section of the Charles-Ferdinand University of Prague, Šrobár considered himself Masaryk's spiritual disciple. Already in his youth, he had committed himself to the cultural and medical education of his nation and was active in politics to promote the Slovaks' development while always having in mind the need for close cooperation with his Czech associates. At the end of WWI, his public and political activities reached a first highpoint; he was one of the five signatories of the Czechoslovak Declaration of Independence. In late 1918 and early 1919, he rendered outstanding services to the common state by attaching Slovakia to the Czech lands and defending her against the attack of the Magyar Bolshevik army. In 1922, he was the Minister of Education and submitted to parliament a law concerning the modernization of the Czechoslovak school system. In the following years, he served as parliamentarian and senator and was, for a short period of time, Professor of Social Medicine at the Comenius University in Bratislava.

The second significant phase of V. Šrobár's public and political activities consists of his participation in the antifascist resistance during WWII, essentially the Slovak National Uprising and the first two post-war years, when he acted as a member of government in reconstituted Czechoslovakia. In WWII and the post-war years, Šrobár was already an old man, and a younger generation of Czech and Slovak politicians dominated the public and political life of the Republic, which found itself in the sphere of influence of the powerful Soviet Union. Eventually, the political fate of this convinced democrat ended with the Communist overthrow in February 1948 – which is a bitter paradox! He volunteered to serve the Communist government as a figurehead, bereft of any political power.

In her book, the historian Josette Baer focuses on the analysis of Šrobár's political ideas and activities in Slovak domestic affairs, dominated by the prevailing zeitgeist that also reflects the intellectual currents of the time. However, in the first half of the 20th century, these ideas were changing and, in the years between the wars, in a way that was not always conducive to democracy and civil rights. J. Baer therefore also investigates the social environment and the political conditions V. Šrobár and those intellectually close to him had to face; sometimes, these conditions were like a wind blowing right into their faces, sometimes they were just a brief gust. They were apparent not only in Slovak political developments, but all over Central Europe at the end of the 1930s, during the war and lastly in the long post-war decade that was dominated by the Communist regime and the political block ruled by the Soviet Union.

When commenting on a historical study, one can always have a polemical discussion and eventually disagree with the author on some particular issues. But thanks to the author's fundamental knowledge of the historical material, J. Baer's book is not only a contribution to the research on Slovak political thought of the first half of the 20th century, but also on wider political developments, which in those years reached beyond the borders of Slovakia, since they were dependent on the development of the entire region of Central and Eastern Europe.

Milan Zemko

Department of History at the Slovak

Academy of Sciences, September 2013

Bratislava, Slovakia

Acknowledgements

How was Czechoslovak rule implemented in Slovakia in 1918 and by whom?

This study presents the political thought and activities of Vavro Šrobár (1867–1950), who has, quite undeservedly, been forgotten by European history. It is the first biography of Šrobár; no such biography exists, neither in Slovak nor in Czech. Šrobár was the decision-maker in two important phases of Czechoslovak and Slovak history: first, the implementation of Czechoslovak democracy in Slovakia, beginning in 1918; and, second, the participation in the Slovak National Uprising (SNP) in August 1944, followed by the post-war reconstruction of Czechoslovakia.

The change from Austro-Hungarian rule to a sovereign and democratic system affected not only administrative and political institutions, it also put into practice the new ideas of political rights and participation. The exile council, led by the Czech philosopher and politician Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk (1850–1937), the Czech lawyer Edvard Beneš (1884–1948) and the Slovak astronomer, pilot and General of the French Army Milan Rastislav Štefáník (1880–1919), had in four tireless years of lobbying achieved the international recognition of Czechoslovakia. The Republic declared its sovereignty on 28 October 1918.

From 1918 to 1920, Šrobár was the Czechoslovak Minister Plenipotentiary for Slovakia. In the First Republic (1918–1938), he was a member of parliament for the Czechoslovak Agrarians and led various ministries. The retired physician participated in the organization of the uprising. With WWII and the Slovak state (1939–1945) drawing to an end, he founded two new political parties. After the Communist coup d'état in February 1948, he held two ministries in the government of Klement Gottwald (1896–1953).

This biography introduces the reader to the political atmosphere in Slovakia of the first half of the 20th century (1918–1950), rendered vibrant through the voice of Šrobár, whose memoirs, newspaper articles, reports to the Prague government and correspondence are an interesting source of information. The chapters appear in chronological order, according to Šrobár's political positions. The names of locations, towns and cities appear according to their historical names in the subject period.

My thanks. The foundation of the Privatdozenten at Zurich University UZH granted a generous stipend, which enabled me to finish this study. I am greatly indebted to my colleagues and friends in Europe and the USA for their interest in my research and willingness to discuss specific issues with me. My thanks, in alphabetical order, go to Eva Broklová, Valerián Bystrický, Gabriela Dudeková, Frédéric Guelton, Matej Hanula, Thomas Hardmeier, Marián Hertel, Roman Holec, Vlasta Jaksicsová, Michal Kšiňan, Daniela Kodajová, Dušan Kováč, Thomas Lorman, Slavomír Michálek, Miroslav Michela, Daniel E. Miller, Jaroslava Roguľová, Jan Rychlík, Dušan Šegeš and Nikola Todorović.

The staff of the University Library, the library of the Slovak Academy of Sciences and the Slovak National Archive in Bratislava were very helpful. My special thanks go to Ľudmila Šimková and the ladies at the Slovak National Library in Martin for their outstanding services. Václava Kalvašova and Zdenka Garnotová at the Archive of the Czech Parliament in Prague went to great lengths to assist my research. I thank Jan Bílek and Helena Kokešová at the Masaryk Institute and Archive in Prague and Zdenka Kokošková and her colleagues at the National Archive of the Czech Republic in Prague. Jakub Doležal, the director of the Archive of the President's Office in Prague and Tatiana Babušíková, the director of the Archives of the Museum of the SNP in Banská Bystrica provided me with archive material in a swift and uncomplicated fashion.

The ladies at the housing office of the Slovak Academy of Sciences in Bratislava have made my several research stays such a joyful and uncomplicated matter: Maria and Lenka Vallová, Božena and Ľubica Konečná – thank you. Valerie Lange, my editor at ibidem publishers in Stuttgart, is an exceptionally patient, effective and supportive editor. Peter Thomas Hill proofread the manuscript; his professional pedantry and unremitting efforts to teach me English that is up to his high standards are unprecedented.

Lastly, my reverence to Milan Zemko, my supervisor: his suggestions were invaluable. I met him first in the summer of 2012, when he agreed to supervise my study on Vavro Šrobár. We corresponded via email. I sent him chapter after chapter and he sent me his comments. He guided me through the difficulties of Slovak, Czech and Central European history with a gentle hand. He was always precise and rational and I, a careful student of Slovak and Czechoslovak history, very much appreciated his comments. With some of them, I disagreed, others I acknowledged. I did not know Milan Zemko well, but I respected him as a historian, a dear colleague and a decent person. The last time I met Milan Zemko was on 4 July at his office. We talked about my Šrobár monograph, how I could improve the text, what I should add and highlight, and so on. Sadly, Milan Zemko died suddenly before this book went into print. In the summer, he rushed to finish the foreword to this study, which has immensely benefitted from his expertise. I shall never forget his kindness, decency and academic acumen.

The errors and shortcomings in this volume are my own.

Josette Baer

Zurich, Switzerland, and Bratislava, Slovakia, September 2013

X.               Introduction

X. 1.               Why write about Šrobár?[1]

The Czech journalist Ferdinand Peroutka (1895–1978), a prominent associate of President Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk (1850–1937), described the political situation in the Czech lands during WWI from memory, delivering a critical assessment of Senator Jan Herben's memoirs. Herben, wrote Peroutka, deliberately suppressed important information about the political atmosphere in those years:

"… he deleted from his memoirs the very parts that would arouse the most lively interest and call for a minor Trojan war in our politics: … the parts about the relations of some of our politicians to the revolutionary activities during the war, about how long some parts of our nation considered Masaryk a dangerous nut [nebezpečného blázna] … about their low opinion of him as the nation's leader in exile [v odboj]."[2]

While the Czech political elite in 1927 enjoyed the liberty to openly criticize the government and often slander the president-liberator (prezident-osvoboditel) in an unfair fashion, politics in Slovakia were quite different. Vavro Šrobár (1867–1950), a member of the maffie[3], delegate in the Czechoslovak parliament for the Agrarians and the founder of the group of Slovak MPs in the provisional parliament, elected MP for the Agrarians in the first parliamentary elections in 1920, minister and, since 1925, senator for the Agrarians, was sixty years old and had turbulent years behind him; even more distressing years would await him after the Munich agreement of 1938.

Who was Šrobár as a politician? What merits did he bring to Slovak and Czechoslovak politics? Why should one be interested in his political thought in the light of the fact that the former Agrarian agreed to become a minister in the Communist government of Klement Gottwald (1896–1953)? What can one learn about Slovak and Czechoslovak history from Šrobár?

The goal of this study is not to contribute to nationalism studies[4] with a theoretical discussion about aspects of Czechoslovak or Slovak national identity, but to present the first intellectual and political portrait of Šrobár in English. Theoretical considerations whether or not the Slovaks were a nation at the turn of the 20th century, are not only anachronistic, but raise suspicions of a biased attitude toward Slovak historiography. Czech and Slovak historians have been establishing their own and common histories without ideological constraints since 1989. A few international and Czech and Slovak studies in alphabetical order: Ash,[5] Bosl,[6] Brock,[7] Bystrický,[8] Collegium Carolinum,[9] Dudeková,[10] van Dujin,[11] Harris,[12] Henderson,[13] Hoensch,[14] Hronský and Pekník,[15] Kaplan,[16] Kamenec,[17] Skalnik Leff,[18] Krajčovičová,[19] Lipták,[20] Michálek,[21] Pauer,[22] Pick and Handl,[23] Pynsent,[24] Rychlík,[25] Skilling,[26] Škvarna,[27] Teich et al.,[28] Vykoukal,[29] and Zemko[30]. In 1995, historians of the Czech and Slovak Academies of Science formed the Czecho-Slovak commission of historians, which publishes The Czecho-Slovak Historical Annual (Česko-slovenská historická ročenka).[31] A good source of information is also Forum historiae, the website of the historians of the Slovak Academy of Sciences.[32]

Czechoslovakism began as an idea of cultural closeness and solidarity and turned into a political programme; its main principles consisted, first, in the political union of the Czechs and Slovaks in an independent state, whose political system, second, had to be a democracy that respected the rights of the minorities. This projected state was directed against the rule of the aristocracy and clergy of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but, more importantly, it targeted the core principle of Austro-Hungarian power: the Ausgleich (compromise) of 1867 that had established the constitutionally granted autonomy of Hungary and, with that, the Magyar supremacy in the multiethnic Hungarian kingdom. Before I elaborate on the analytical framework, method and definitions, let me present an overview of the scientific publications about Šrobár.

Apart from biographical sketches,[33] there are only two anthologies about Šrobár's life and the various political functions he held: Leikert's volume focusses on a cultural studies perspective,[34] scrutinizing Šrobár's literary achievements and his cultural activities for the enlightenment of the Slovaks, while Pekník and his authors investigate Šrobár's merits as a politician, author and patriot.[35] Unfortunately, these studies are available only to the Slovak-reading public.

By contrast, newer studies deal with politicians, who were fellow politicians of Šrobár's in the First Republic: Milan Hodža (1878–1944) was Czechoslovak prime minister from 1935 to 1938 and vice-chairman of the Czechoslovak state council, a kind of exile parliament, from 1940 to 1941. Owing to differences with the faction supportive of President Edward Beneš (1884–1948) he left for the USA, where he died in Florida. Ferdinand Juriga (1874–1950), a Catholic priest, was an MP in the Czechoslovak parliament, before the HSĽS leadership under Andrej Hlinka (1864–1938) abrogated his membership due to political differences. Milan Rastislav Štefánik (1880–1919), an astronomer and pilot had, jointly with Masaryk and Beneš, organized the lobbying for Czechoslovak independence in exile; thanks to him, the French government became aware of Masaryk's plans for a new state called Czechoslovakia. Štefánik died when his aircraft crashed not far from Bratislava in May 1919. All three politicians have been subject to recent scholarly analysis.[36]

In 1918, Šrobár was appointed minister plenipotentiary for Slovak Affairs in the Czechoslovak government. Among his political responsibilities were the implementation of democracy, namely institution-building, including the creation of a national health service. Until 1925 he held several ministries, then became a senator in the parliament, before he left politics after the elections in 1935. In 1937, the tenured professor of social medicine also retired from academe.[37] During WWII, Šrobár organized a resistance group, composed of centre-right minded citizens who participated in the Slovak National Uprising (SNP) in 1944 against Nazi Germany and the collaborating regime led by the Catholic priest Jozef Tiso (1887–1947).[38] In 1947, he was awarded the Médaille de la Résistance Française. He supported the Communist government of Gottwald that assumed power in February 1948.

A critical biography of Šrobár in English that focusses on his political thought should be a welcome contribution to the history of political thought of Slovakia. A comprehensive analysis addressing the principal issue, why Šrobár's political beliefs changed – from Catholic ethics to Czechoslovakism and thence towards Atheism and Materialism – is still lacking.[39] In the spirit of Masaryk's small works (drobná práce), Šrobár had written an Illustrated Guide to Public Health[40] while in prison; his pragmatism was rooted in the scientific positivism of Auguste Comte (1798–1857). What political allegiance or idea led him to support the Košice agreement (Košický vládni program) of April 1945, which, already infringing on the democratic right to found political parties, banished the Agrarians and the HSĽS (Hlinka's Slovak People's Party) from the post-war political landscape? What were the reasons for this theoretical U-turn? After the war, Šrobár had praised Stalin's humanity and kindness in ignorance of the generalissimo's true aspirations – like many others did. Yet, how to make sense of the fact that the person who had steered Slovakia into Czechoslovak democracy went on to support the Communist government as minister for the unification of laws? The aim of this study is to present an analysis of Šrobár's political thought in order to explain his political decisions, which seem contradictory, on a first and superficial glance.

X. 2.               Analytical framework and conceptual matrix

A biography of a Central European politican, who held several executive functions in the first half of the 20th century, should include various aspects: institution-building; negotiation and decision-making in parliament and government positions; relations to domestic politicians, parties and interest groups; foreign policy strategy, military policy and alliances; analysis of the international situation; personal allegiances, political friends and adversaries; relations to Czech and Slovak exile communities; relations to ethnic and political minorities; strategies on economic policy, education policy and social policy, to name but the most common ones.

I do not claim to present a biography that covers all these aspects; my aim is to focus on Šrobár's ideas about domestic politics and how they, as his primary motivation, affected his political decision-making. This study should therefore be understood as a first and therefore necessarily incomplete biography. Before I pass to the analytical framework, conceptual matrix and the method applied in this study, let me present the contents.

Chapter I introduces the reader to the political situation in the decades prior to the foundation of the Czechoslovak Republic in 1918; it presents the political environment the Czechs in the Austria-controlled Czech lands and the Slovaks in Upper Hungary were subject to, describing Šrobár's involvement with the Slovak student association Detvan in Prague, and the journals Hlas (the Voice) and Prúdy (Currents), edited and published in Upper Hungary.[41] After he graduated in medicine from Prague Charles University in 1898, Šrobár was a practising physician in Ružomberok and concentrated his journalistic and political activities on propagating Masaryk's Czechoslovakism and Realism. Chapter II presents his activities in the various ministries he held, focussing on his tour of the USA in 1923, his fight against the autonomy movement led by Andrej Hlinka and his conflict with Milan Hodža in the late 1920s. A brief subchapter informs the reader about Šrobár's suggestions how public health care in Slovakia should be improved. Chapter III illustrates his thought and activities in the Slovak state from 1939 to 1945; his unpublished war diary illustrates not only his rejection of the HSĽS regime, but offers a unique insight into the planning of the SNP in 1944. His involvement in two political parties that were supposed to represent the centre-right position in the National Front and the two ministries he led represent his last years in politics, ending in 1950.

Analytical framework

My analysis of Šrobár's political ideas and decisions unfolds in selected areas of domestic politics. My research interest does not include a focus on Czechoslovakia's foreign policy, Slovak-Hungarian relations, or relations to exile communities. Assuming that political thought, or a political idea per se, affects immediate political decision-making, is, I contest, overly idealistic. In the first half of the 20th century, several factors determined Czechoslovakia's domestic affairs. The establishment of the sovereign nation state required international alliances and a zeitgeist friendly to democracy. In situations, where Šrobár's activities on behalf of domestic affairs overlap with other areas of policy-making, I shall provide the reader with necessary information, illustrating the political conditions and options.

My analysis includes Šrobár's decisions and thoughts and the activities he undertook as minister and delegate. I selected those that were of crucial importance for two distinct phases of Slovak political development. First, the implementation of Czechoslovak rule in Slovakia, with special consideration for the cultural and socio-economic particularities of Slovakia. This first phase could also be called the Slovak part in Czechoslovak state-building. Second, the consolidation of Czechoslovak democracy, with special consideration for the party landscape as a sign of political pluralism. One could refer to this second phase as the Slovak element in the consolidation of Czechoslovak governmental rule.

Considering these two phases of development, I selected the following executive positions Šrobár held from 1918 to 1922: membership in the Club of the Slovak MPs, ministry plenipotentiary for Slovakia, ministry of information and public health and the ministry of education and enlightenment. I shall not deal with his activities as a senator, which requires a study of considerable length of its own. With regard to the years 1945 to 1950, I selected the ministry of finance and the ministry of unification of laws. Before the elections of 1946, Šrobár co-founded the Democratic Party (Strana Demokratická) and, in 1947, the Party of Freedom (Strana Slobody).

Conceptual matrix

The following questions shall guide the reader through the analysis; they represent a conceptual matrix that is divided into two parts, the first one focussing on Šrobár's political thought and, the second, on his political goals. Naturally, the two paradigms overlap, as it is not always possible to clearly distinguish between thought and agency. The conceptual matrix serves as a guideline, including the following key concepts and questions.

1. Political thought

Key concepts: national identity, Czechoslovakism, Realism, language, Liberalism, Socialism, Constitutionalism. What political arguments did Šrobár use to legitimate his political goals? Which thinkers or philosophers inspired his thought? If he referred to Western thinkers, how did he apply their ideas to the Slovak situation? Did he develop his own ideas about politics or just apply Masaryk's political principles? What were the constitutive elements of his patriotism: Czechoslovak or Slovak identity? How did he conceive of national identity? Were Liberalism and Socialism political options for Slovakia? What theoretical foundations and normative values of a political party would he support?

2. Political goals

Key concepts: nation-building, state-building, rule of law state, minority rights, education policy, public policy, economic policy, Slovak autonomy, Agrarian party, Party of Freedom, Democratic Party. What political goals, long-term and short-term, did he pursue? How did he cope with the autonomy movement? How did he justify his war dictatorship? What was his role in the Slovak national uprising? What were the reasons for joining three political parties at various times? What was his motive for signing the Košice agreement? Why did he serve in the Communist government?

X. 3.               Method, definitions, hypothesis

X. 3. 1.               Method: contextual biography

My study has an interdisciplinary focus: it presents an analysis of political ideas against the background of established historical facts. My aim is to contribute to fundamental research on the intellectual history of Central Europe, in particular the history of political ideas in Central Europe.

The combination of political theory analysis with contextual biography,[42] a particular approach to biographical and historical writing, is especially suited for this study. The contextual biography method offers a deeper insight into the historical context, presupposing that a person's activities, thoughts and personal impressions cannot be separated from the historical circumstances he or she was subject to. Ian Kershaw on the method and its relevance:

"So I came to Hitler as a sceptical biographer … From the beginning of my work on Nazi Germany, Max Weber's concept of 'charismatic leadership' has been my indispensable guide. … Any attempt to incorporate such themes [technology, demography, prosperity, democratization, ecology, political violence; add. JB] in a history of twentieth-century Europe would not by-pass the role of key individuals who helped to shape the epoch. … They are neither their prime cause nor their inevitable consequence. New biographical approaches which recognize this are desirable, even necessary. Their value will be, however, in using biography as a prism on wider issues of historical understanding and not in a narrow focus on private life and personality."[43]

Political theory analysis, which one could call a methodological dimension of intellectual history analysis, proves particularly suitable in combination with the contextual biography method: the analysis of Šrobár's thought will reveal his usage and understanding of key concepts such as nation, democracy and rule of law state. My interdisciplinary approach offers the reader a deeper insight into Šrobár's intellectual position with regard to Slovakia's political environment than a classical historical analysis of his political functions. His personal perspective opens up a prism onto the intellectual atmosphere in the first half of the 20th century, allowing a more authentic perception of that atmosphere.

X. 3. 2.               Definitions

For the purpose of explaining the historical context as precisely as possible and to avoid misunderstandings, definitions of key concepts used in this study are necessary.

X. 3. 2. 1.               Antisemitism

A few remarks on antisemitism in Slovakia are required to make a sound judgement about Šrobár's attitude to the country's Jewish citizens. He was of Roman Catholic faith and, as I showed in my previous study,[44] a self-declared antisemite in his youth, until he became an adherent of Masaryk's state-building theory that projected religious tolerance and civic equality. It is far from my intention to down-play or excuse antisemitism; as a scholar dedicated to research in intellectual history, I want to understand the antisemitic attitudes and arguments, which originated in the historical context.

Antisemitism in the first decade of the 20th century was as virulent in Central as in Western Europe. In the 19th and 20th centuries, Austrians, Czechs, Germans, Magyars and Slovaks, indeed, the entire Christian world adhered to the 'usual' antisemitism promoted by the Christian churches of all confessions. One could say that, back then, contemptuous and despicable remarks about the economically successful Jews were socially acceptable. Even after WWII, the liberal USA had quotas that restricted the access of Jewish citizens to the universities, and the wish to research the Holocaust was not warmly supported; I remind the reader of Raoul Hilberg's memoirs.[45]

Emperor Joseph II's (1741–1790) rule of law state ended de iure institutional discrimination against the Jews in the 18th century, but, de facto, most people still considered them as second-class citizens. The Hilsner affair in the Czech lands in 1897 is a vivid example of antisemitism in the Austrian part of the empire. Jewish citizens had to speak German and Hungarian to protect their sources of income. As an entrepreneurial minority, they were shopkeepers, worked in trade and owned inns and pubs because they were not allowed to own land; business demanded that they comply with the administration, which implied the maintenance of smooth relations with the authorities.

Compliance was not identical with assimilation, neither in the Magyar nor the Czech or Slovak sense. To speak of Jewish assimilation in the Hungarian kingdom would create confusion, since the concept of assimilation did not mean the same to the Christians as it did to the Jews. The Jewish term assimilation signified a current of thought that projected political equality with the gentiles. Therefore, some Jewish groups in the empire became nationalized in the sense that