A History of Bohemian Literature
by hrabe Francis Lützow · English · Gutenberg #46790 · 788,361 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of A History of Bohemian Literature
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: A History of Bohemian Literature
Author: hrabe Francis Lützow
Editor: Edmund Gosse
Release date: September 6, 2014 [eBook #46790]
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/46790
Credits: Produced by Richard Tonsing, R. Cedron and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A HISTORY OF BOHEMIAN LITERATURE ***
Produced by Richard Tonsing, R. Cedron and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
Short Histories of the Literatures of the World: VII.
Edited by Edmund Gosse, LL.D.
Short Histories of the
Literatures of the World
EDITED BY EDMUND GOSSE, LL.D.
Large Crown 8vo, cloth, 6_s._ each Volume
ANCIENT GREEK LITERATURE
By Prof. GILBERT MURRAY, M.A.
FRENCH LITERATURE
By Prof. EDWARD DOWDEN, D.C.L., LL.D
MODERN ENGLISH LITERATURE
By the EDITOR
ITALIAN LITERATURE
By RICHARD GARNETT, C.B., LL.D.
SPANISH LITERATURE
By JAMES FITZMAURICE-KELLY
JAPANESE LITERATURE
By WILLIAM GEORGE ASTON, C.M.G., D.Lit.
BOHEMIAN LITERATURE
By THE COUNT LÜTZOW, D.Litt., D.Ph.
SANSKRIT LITERATURE
By Prof. A. A. MACDONELL, M.A.
HUNGARIAN LITERATURE
By Dr. RIEDL
AMERICAN LITERATURE
By Prof. W. P. TRENT
RUSSIAN LITERATURE
By K. WALISZEWSKI
CHINESE LITERATURE
By Prof. A. GILES
ARABIC LITERATURE
By C. HUART
_In preparation_
HEBREW LITERATURE
By Prof. PHILIPPE BERGER
GERMAN LITERATURE
By CALVIN THOMAS, LL.D.
LATIN LITERATURE
By MARCUS DIMSDALE, M.A.
_Other volumes will follow_
LONDON: WILLIAM HEINEMANN
A History of
BOHEMIAN LITERATURE
BY
THE COUNT LÜTZOW
D.LITT. OXON. AND D.PH. PRAG.
MEMBER OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF SCIENCES IN BOHEMIA
AND OF THE BOHEMIAN ACADEMY
[Illustration]
London
WILLIAM HEINEMANN
MCMVII
_First printed, May 1899._
_New Edition, April 1907._
_This Edition enjoys Copyright in all countries signatory to the
Berne Treaty, and is not to be imported into the United
States of America._
FOREWORD TO NEW IMPRESSION
It has given me great pleasure that a new impression of my _History
of Bohemian Literature_ should have been required. I am, I think,
justified in believing that the British public now takes a certain
though still limited interest in the literature and language of my
country. I am also perhaps not wrong in thinking that the origin
of the struggles in the Austro-Hungarian empire--almost entirely
attributable as it is to racial and linguistic discord--has become
better understood in England. As I show in my book, the revival of
Bohemian literature was largely responsible for the movement in favour
of Bohemian autonomy; and the early leaders of the Bohemian movement
in the nineteenth century were mostly literary men. I am justified,
therefore, in claiming a certain political importance for this book.
The new impression on the whole differs little from the former one, and
in revising the book I noticed with pleasure how few printer's errors
required correction--a somewhat astonishing fact if we consider how
difficult the spelling of Slavic words is. I have added considerably to
the last pages of the book, which deal mainly with writers who are now
alive. This part of the subject had been previously somewhat neglected,
as I originally intended to omit all mention of living authors.
LÜTZOW.
ŽAMPACH,
_October 26, 1906._
PREFACE
With the approval of Mr. Gosse, I have written this short History of
Bohemian Literature according to a plan that differs considerably
from that of certain earlier volumes in this Series. The works of
Modern English, French, Italian, and even of Ancient Greek and Spanish
writers, will be known to many readers of the volumes that deal with
them. Bohemian literature, on the other hand, is absolutely unknown in
Western Europe, and a large amount of space has therefore been devoted
to translated quotations from Bohemian writers. Many of these unknown
works have great interest and value.
Bohemian literature, as we possess it, is to a certain extent
disappointing and unsatisfactory. In consequence of the wholesale
destruction of everything written in Bohemian that continued during
more than a century, countless Bohemian books, many of which are known
to have been valuable, have disappeared.
Many forms of literature are scarcely represented in Bohemian. No
dramatic works worthy of notice exist before the present century.
Poetry also is valuable only in the earliest period and in the present
century.
Bohemian literature is so closely connected with Bohemian history,
that without some knowledge of the latter it is often difficult to
understand the references to historical events which must necessarily
be found in a history of Bohemian literature. Though I have sometimes
explained such references by notes, I could not do this to any great
extent without trespassing on the domain of history. Those who wish to
turn their attention to the dramatic history of Bohemia will find their
best guide up to the year 1526 in Palacký, whose monumental _History
of Bohemia_ was published in German as well as in Bohemian. Though no
continuous narrative on the same plan brings Bohemian history down to
the year 1620, Gindely, Tieftrunk, and Rezek have written extensively,
in German as well as in Bohemian, on the last years of Bohemian
independence. Professor Tomek has in his short _Geschichte Böhmens_
given an outline of the history of the country from the earliest ages
up to the present day. I have in my _Bohemia: an Historical Sketch_,
endeavoured to give a brief account of the history of Bohemia from
an early period to the year 1620, written in accordance with the
requirements of non-Bohemian readers.
Bohemian writers have divided the literature of their country into
three periods. The first extends from the earliest time to the days of
Hus; the second from Hus to the battle of the White Mountain; the third
from that battle to the present day. Chaps. I. and II. of this book
deal with the first; Chaps. III., IV., V., and VI. with the second; and
Chap. VII. with the third period.
Like the history, the literature also of Bohemia is, particularly
in the most interesting periods, a record of incessant religious
struggles. I am thoroughly conscious of the fact that an account of
these struggles is a most difficult task, that the writer
"Incedit per ignes
Suppositos cineri doloso."
I can only express my conscientious belief that I have delineated these
religious controversies in accordance with the writings of the most
accredited authorities.
I have only been able to allude incidentally to some of the materials
that I have used while writing this book. I have, however, principally
relied on a prolonged study of the works of the Bohemian writers with
whom my work deals. It is at least the privilege of a critic of so
little known a literature as that of Bohemia that he is not confronted
by an enormous amount of anciently accumulated criticism. In one or two
cases where I felt uncertain, I have had the privilege of receiving
advice from Professor Josef Kalousek, of the Bohemian University of
Prague, and from Mr. Adolphus Patera, head-librarian of the Bohemian
Museum in that town. I have entirely limited my remarks to the works
of those Bohemian writers who have general interest, or are at least
characteristic of their time. Very many names contained in the
histories of Bohemian literature written in the national language have
therefore been omitted.
LÜTZOW.
ŽAMPACH,
_New Year's Day, 1899._
CONTENTS
CHAP. PAGE
FOREWORD TO NEW IMPRESSION v
PREFACE vii
INTRODUCTION xiii
I. THE EARLIEST BOHEMIAN POETRY 1
II. EARLY PROSE WRITERS--THE PRECURSORS OF HUS 42
III. HUS 86
IV. THE PERIOD OF THE HUSSITE WARS 143
V. HUMANISTS AND THEOLOGIANS 174
VI. BOHEMIAN HISTORIANS OF THE SIXTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 295
VII. THE REVIVAL OF BOHEMIAN LITERATURE 354
BIBLIOGRAPHY 423
INDEX 427
INTRODUCTION
The Slavic language, a branch of the great Aryan family of speech, was
originally one. It gradually divided itself into various dialects, a
certain number of which have become written languages. According to the
generally accepted division, the existent Slavic languages are divided
into three great classes--the North-Eastern, Southern, and Western
groups. The last-named group consists of the Bohemian and Polish
languages and the almost extinct dialect of the Lusatians in Prussia
and Saxony.
The Bohemian language is spoken in a large and continuous part of the
Austro-Hungarian Empire, comprising the greater part of Bohemia and
Moravia, part of Silesia, a small portion of the Archduchy of Austria,
and extensive districts in Northern Hungary. There are considerable
numbers of Bohemians beyond the borders of this continuous territory,
in Lower Austria (particularly in Vienna), in Prussian Silesia (where
their homes adjoin those of the Bohemians in Austrian Silesia), in
Russia (particularly in Volhynia), and in the United States of America.
According to the most authentic statistics, the Bohemian language is
spoken by about 7,930,000 people. Of these, 7,650,000 live in the
Austro-Hungarian Empire, 70,000 in Prussia, 60,000 in Russia, and
150,000 in the United States of America. Minor Bohemian colonies, such
as that in London, do not require special notice: the native language
also often disappears here after one or two generations.
The Slavonic inhabitants of Northern Hungary, identical with the
Bohemians as regards their race, have in the present century developed
a written language somewhat different from that of Bohemia. If we
therefore deduct them from the total, we come to the result that the
Bohemian language is spoken by about 5,750,000 people.
A HISTORY OF
BOHEMIAN LITERATURE
CHAPTER I
THE EARLIEST BOHEMIAN POETRY
If it were possible to compare the greatest literature of the world
with that of a small and little-known country, it might be said that
the "Question of the Manuscripts" is the necessary beginning of every
account of Bohemian literature, just as the "Homeric Question" must
form the commencement of every work on the literature of Greece. The
"Question of the Manuscripts" turns on the genuineness of two documents
which first became known at the beginning of the present century, and
were supposed to be the most ancient writings in the Bohemian language.
These manuscripts have from the first attracted great notice, and
they gave a great impulse to the revival of Bohemian literature in
the present century. The Manuscript of Königinhof is also by no means
devoid of poetical merit, and these documents will therefore always
have to be mentioned, even should it be finally proved that both were
forgeries.
The manuscript that was first discovered is the so-called _Rukopis
Kralodvorsky_ or Manuscript of Königinhof.[1] It was stated that this
document had been found by Venceslas Hanka (afterwards librarian of
the Bohemian Museum) in the tower of the deanery church of Königinhof,
or Králové Dvur, on September 16, 1817. It was further declared that
Hanka's attention had first been attracted to the manuscript by Borč,
chaplain at Königinhof, who was previously aware of its existence. The
discovery at Königinhof immediately created great sensation even in
countries very distant from Bohemia, a circumstance all the more worthy
of note as Bohemia was then even more unknown than it now is. Goethe
was greatly interested in the new discovery, to which he frequently
refers in his writings, and he himself published a translation, or
rather adaptation, of the _Kytice_ (Nosegay), one of the lyrical
poems of the Manuscript of Königinhof. Numerous translations of these
poems into English,[2] German, Polish, Russian, Italian, and other
languages soon appeared, and the interest was of course yet far
greater in Bohemia itself, where they became the recognised models for
the Bohemian writers who were then beginning to revive the national
language.
Though some doubts as to the genuineness of the manuscript were
expressed from the moment of its appearance, yet the majority of
the Bohemian learned men, including such authorities as Palacký
and Šafařik, firmly maintained its ancient origin. Within the last
twenty years a change has taken place. Perhaps the majority of the
Bohemian philologists of the present day believe the manuscript to
be a forgery, that is to say, that it was written at the beginning
of the present century. Its genuineness has been attacked from the
palæographic point of view; it has been attempted to prove anachronisms
in the manuscript; and it has been asserted that it contains verbal
formations unknown to the early Bohemian language. A chemical
examination of the manuscript has, however, proved that it differs
in no way from authentic Bohemian manuscripts of the fourteenth
century, and it can therefore now be affirmed that the Manuscript of
Königinhof cannot be attacked from the point of view of palæography.[3]
The defenders of the manuscript have been less successful in their
endeavours to disprove the statement that it contains anachronisms,
which could not have been committed by a writer of the thirteenth
or fourteenth century. The almost complete darkness which surrounds
the condition of the Slavonic race in very early times renders it
very difficult to form a judgment on many of the disputed points.
The defenders of the manuscript also lay stress on its similarity to
undoubtedly genuine collections of early Bohemian writings, such as
those known as the Manuscript of Königgrätz and that of St. Vitus. It
is true that the contents of these collections differ somewhat from
those of the manuscript, and are mainly of a religious character.
As regards the philological test, it is certain that the manuscript
contains some verbal formations of which no other example can be
found in the scanty remains of early Bohemian writings that have been
preserved. On the other hand, in consequence of the very scantiness
of these remains, a ~Hapax Legomenon~ does not necessarily prove the
falsehood of the document in which we find it. The defenders of the
manuscript have shown great ingenuity in proving that many of the
locutions, unknown to ancient Bohemian, may be traced to the Moravian
dialect, which at all times has differed somewhat from the language
of Bohemia. They therefore maintain that the poems of the manuscript
originated not in Bohemia itself, but in the sister-land, Moravia.
If the falsehood of the manuscript be admitted, the question arises,
Who was the falsifier? who at the beginning of the present century,
when the Bohemian language was at its lowest level, had a sufficient
knowledge of that language to have written these poems? Hanka, of
whom it is natural to think, has left us verses of his own so vastly
inferior to some of the poems contained in the manuscript, that it is
almost impossible to believe him to have been its author.[4]
Whatever may be the final result of the discussion, the Manuscript of
Königinhof will always remain one of the curiosities of literature. The
first part of the manuscript consists of six ballads, if we may thus
describe them, five of which deal with warlike events; the first,[5]
which describes a battle between the Bohemians and the Germans, has a
distinctly heathen character. The sixth ballad contains a description
of a tournament, and is one of those pieces in which the opponents
of the genuineness of the manuscript think that they have discovered
anachronisms. The second part of the manuscript consists of eight
shorter songs. Some of them are by no means devoid of poetic merit, but
they have a somewhat sentimental manner, which makes them appear rather
modern to the reader. The adversaries of the manuscript have not been
slow in noting this circumstance. I shall only translate one of the
short poems of the manuscript, entitled "The Cuckoo":--
"_In the fields there stands an oak-tree,_
_On the oak-tree a cuckoo calls:_
_He ever calls, he laments_
_That spring does not last for ever._
_How could the wheat ripen in the fields_
_If spring lasted for ever?_
_How could the apples ripen in the garden_
_If summer lasted for ever?_
_Would not the ears of corn freeze in the stack_
_If autumn lasted for ever?_
_Would not the maiden be mournful_
_If her solitude lasted for ever?_"
In view of the uncertainty concerning the authenticity of the
Manuscript of Königinhof, it is obviously impossible to assign a date
to it. The writers who believe in its genuine character hold that the
poems were transcribed and collected in their present shape at the
end of the thirteenth or the beginning of the fourteenth century, but
that some of them are of far higher antiquity. The distinctly heathen
character of one of these poems renders this certain, of course, if
only we can dismiss the supposition of a modern falsification.
The second ancient Bohemian manuscript that was supposed to have been
discovered at the beginning of the present century is that of Zelená
Hora or Grüneberg, which is generally mentioned in connection with the
Manuscript of Königinhof, and is printed together with it in most
editions. It has now been proved that the Manuscript of Grüneberg is a
falsification dating from the present century, and its genuineness is
now no longer maintained by any scholars, though a natural patriotic
feeling has rendered it painful to many to admit that this manuscript,
which was attributed to the ninth century, and described as "the most
ancient document in Bohemian, and indeed in all Slavonic literature,"
is nothing but a fraudulent imposture.
It is proverbially easy to be wise _post eventum_, that is, in this
case, after the fact of a forgery is recognised, but it is difficult
to repress very natural surprise that the mysterious manner in which
the Manuscript of Grüneberg first became known did not create greater
suspicion than was actually the case. The manuscript was (in 1818)
sent anonymously by post to Francis Count Kolovrat-Liebsteinsky, then
high burgrave (or governor) of Bohemia. That nobleman had shortly
before published an appeal to the Bohemians in favour of the National
or Bohemian Museum, of which he was one of the founders, and which
had as principal object the preservation of the relics of Bohemian
antiquity. It was not until many years later that John Kovár, steward
on Count Colloredo's estate of Grüneberg, declared that he had found
the manuscript in an outlying room of the castle of Grüneberg; he
further stated that he had believed his master, Count Colloredo, to
have been so thoroughly German in his feelings that he would have
destroyed the manuscript had it been shown to him. It is difficult for
others than Bohemians to realise the absurdity of such a statement. The
strictly absolutist government of Austria during the first half of the
present century inexorably suppressed all public demonstrations of
national feeling; whether German or Slavonic. It was thus impossible
that literary controversies should assume a political aspect at that
period, though this has certainly happened in more recent times. It was
equally absurd to suggest that Count Colloredo, a distinguished general
during the Napoleonic wars, was likely to take any interest whatever
in documents belonging to the early period of the Bohemian language--a
language that then, and even far more recently, was almost unknown to
the upper classes of Bohemian society.
The Manuscript of Grüneberg consists of two small fragments of
parchment, one of which contains a few lines only, entitled "The Decree
of Domestic Law." The second larger fragment is called the "Judgment
of Libussa." It deals with the semi-mythical Bohemian princess who is
the heroine of many ancient tales. It is curious to note that many
very grave disquisitions on the early social condition and judicial
institutions of the Slavonic race have been based on this apocryphal
manuscript.
The "Question of the Manuscripts," at least with regard to that of
Königinhof, is yet undecided. The vast literature on the subject which
has gradually accumulated has incidentally thrown much light on many
social and philological questions concerning ancient Bohemia and its
language. The committee of the Bohemian Museum no doubt indirectly
expressed its opinion when the Manuscript of Grüneberg was removed from
public view, while that of Königinhof continued to be exhibited in the
hall of manuscripts in the museum.
Several other Bohemian manuscripts purporting to be of very ancient
origin also made their appearance at the beginning of the present
century, and modern additions were made to an authentic ancient
manuscript. These falsifications were soon discovered, and in some
cases suspicion undoubtedly points to Hanka.
* * * * *
The earliest Bohemian writings, the authenticity of which is
uncontested, have a distinctly Christian and religious character. One
of the most ancient written documents in the Bohemian language is
the hymn "Gospodi pomiluj ny" (Lord have mercy on us). The earliest
version is written in a language resembling the Old Slavonic, but with
many specially Bohemian locutions. The authorship of the hymn has been
attributed to St. Cyrillus and to St. Methodius, or to their early
disciples, but there is no evidence to prove this conjecture. The date
of the hymn also cannot be fixed, but the chronicler, Comas of Prague,
tells us that it was sung by the people at the installation of Bishop
Dietmar of Prague in 973. The hymn is sung, in a modernised version, in
the Bohemian churches up to the present day.
Another very ancient hymn that has great historical interest is that to
St. Venceslas. The date of this hymn also cannot be ascertained, but
there is evidence that the veneration for the murdered Prince Venceslas
was already very great in the eleventh century, and the hymn is
certainly very ancient. The existent version dates from the thirteenth
century. The composition of the hymn, which is rhymeless, but has
frequent assonances, also vouches for its antiquity. The three original
strophes run thus:--
"Holy Venceslas--Duke of the Bohemian land--Our Prince--Pray for us to
God--And the Holy Ghost--Kyrie Eleison.
"Beautiful is the court of heaven--Happy he who enters there--Into
eternal life--And the clear light--Of the Holy Ghost--Kyrie Eleison.
"Thy help we implore--Have mercy on us--Comfort the mournful--Deliver
us from all evil--Holy Venceslas--Kyrie Eleison."
Many further strophes were added to this hymn when it became famous.
During the Hussite wars it was the favourite war-song of the "lords sub
una" (= Catholics), while the utraquists or Hussites sang the famous
"All ye warriors of God."[6]
Among the very ancient documents written in the Bohemian language are
a considerable number of missals, psalm-books, and translations of
portions of the Holy Scriptures, which, though of great archaeological
and historical interest, hardly require notice in an account of
Bohemian literature.
Undeniable literary value, on the other hand, belongs to some of the
many early Bohemian legends that have been preserved. Some have been
known since the beginning of the revival of Bohemian literature,
while others have been discovered quite recently, sometimes in parish
churches or the libraries of remote monasteries. Such discoveries
indeed continue up to the present day. A considerable number of these
legends (with a few small writings of a more secular character) are
contained in two collections, known respectively as the manuscripts of
Königgrätz and of St. Vitus, the cathedral church of Prague.[7]
Many of these legends are very similar in character, and obviously
adhere closely to Latin models. This, however, does not apply to all.
_The Legend of Judas_ differs greatly from other mediæval legends that
deal with the same subject. It has a distinctly Oriental manner, and a
strange similarity to the Greek tale of _Œdipus_. This is one of the
few early legends the date of which can be approximately fixed. The
author alludes to the murder of the last Premyslide prince (1306) as
to a recent event. After referring to the death of "the hope of the
Scariotic land" the author writes: "Let us on this occasion remember
our country, that which has now happened in Bohemia, where there are
now no kings descended from King Premysl."
One of the saints whose martyrdom the Bohemian writers have specially
celebrated is St. Catherine. A long legend on this subject, which
formed part of the Rosenberg Library,[8] was discovered at Stockholm,
and has since been transported to Brünn. A more concise account of St.
Catherine's martyrdom is preserved in the Church of St. Jacob at Brünn.
Both legends have been published.
According to the longer legend, Catherine, daughter of Kost, King
of Cyprus, declared that she would wed no one but Jesus Christ. She
therefore refuses to marry the son of the heathen Emperor Maxentius.
After fifty of the wisest masters vainly attempted to persuade her to
renounce Christianity, Catherine is cruelly tortured by order of the
Emperor Maxentius, and finally decapitated. The description of her
martyrdom gives a curious insight into mediæval mysticism. By order of
the Emperor, who is enraged at her steadfastness, "the beadles whip
her with threefold whips of horse-hair," which have "leaden knots and
angles;" then her snow-white nude body appears in six colours: her body
appears white, her face green; red the flowing stream of blood; black
the open wounds; blue the stripes caused by the whip; golden the plaits
of her hair. All these colours of course have a mystical significance.
When Catherine is decapitated, milk, as symbol of her purity, flows
from her body.
Less known than the legend of St. Catherine, but certainly equally
valuable, is the Bohemian legend of St. Dorothy. The martyrdom of
that saint has been a favourite subject for the painters and poets of
many countries. In our time Mr. Swinburne has made it the subject of
a beautiful poem. Several Bohemian versions of the legend have been
preserved. The most interesting of them, though probably not one of the
oldest, is the version contained in the manuscript of St. Vitus. It is
written in short and somewhat irregular rhymes. The mediæval mystical
idea of the marriage between Christ and female saints appears here even
more prominently than in the legend of St. Catherine. Dorothy, who
is of royal blood, refuses to marry the cruel heathen King Fabricius
and to renounce the Christian faith. The poem begins with a short
invocation of St. Dorothy:--
"_Dorothy, O maiden fair,_
_The Holy Church celebrates thy festival,_
_For thou wast a maiden choice,_
_One chosen by God._
_Thy virtues, beauty, and purity_
_No one can describe;_
_Adorned by these_
_Thou wast wedded to Christ._
_Rejoicing now with thy husband,_
_Help us in our misery;_
_Lead us to eternal bliss._"
In consequence of her refusal to renounce Christianity, Dorothy is
cruelly scourged by order of King Fabricius. The description of her
sufferings is very similar to that contained in the legend of St.
Catherine, but we miss the curious conceit of the six colours that
suddenly appear on the body of the martyr. Dorothy is finally led out
to execution, and on her way meets "Theophilus, the clerk of the land,"
who mockingly asks her where she is going. Dorothy answers:--
"_To a garden, a delightful one,_
_In which manifold fruits,_
_Apples, flowers, and roses,_
_I shall gather._"
Theophilus replies with a sneer, "Send me some of the fruits which grow
in your lord's garden." After Dorothy's death "a child beautifully
dressed in purple" (that is, an angel) appears to Theophilus, carrying
a basket which contains three apples and three roses. The child says,
"My sister Dorothy sends you this fruit." Then, seeing this, Theophilus
exclaims:--
"_I believe in thee, O Jesus Christ,_
_That thou art the living Son_
_Of the True God,_
_For whose sake the virtuous Dorothy,_
_Guiltless, was executed to-day._
_I the sinner beg, O maiden,_
_Earnestly for thy favour;_
_Deign to intercede for me,_
_That in the realm of thy husband_
_I too may join thee._"
The legend of St. Prokop (which forms part of the Manuscript of
Königgrätz) also deserves special notice. It incidentally throws
considerable light on the condition of Bohemia at the period when
Christianity was introduced. There was then great antagonism between
the partisans of the Greek ritual, which Cyrillus and Methodius had
introduced, and the followers of the Latin Church, who from Germany had
introduced their ritual into Bohemia. The monastery on the Sazava[9],
of which Prokop became abbot, was the centre of those who sympathised
with the Eastern Church. Up to the time when the Slavonic monks were
replaced by priests of the Latin Church (in 1096), the religious
services were held there according to the Eastern ritual, and when
Charles IV. again established a community of Slavonic monks at Prague,
he obtained for it the Pope's permission to use the Slavonic tongue in
all ecclesiastical functions and to employ the Glagolitic alphabet[10].
The legend, written in an awkward and unattractive style, has little
artistic value. The author was, no doubt, a monk, since the monastery
of Sazava and its records were probably his source of information. As
is the case with most early Bohemian legends, it is very difficult to
fix the date of that referring to St. Prokop. The existent manuscript
probably belongs to the early part of the fourteenth century, though
the circumstance that some rhymes have been corrupted and lines omitted
has led Bohemian critics to the supposition that the legend was written
a considerable time before, perhaps not long after the death of St.
Prokop, who lived in the eleventh century. The legend[11], as already
stated, deals principally with the rivalry between the monks of the
Eastern and those of the Roman ritual. Prokop, who had retired to the
then desert region near the river Sazava, is found there by Prince
Ulrick, who builds a monastery for him on the spot where they met.
After Prokop's death, as well as that of Prince Ulrick, "Germans of the
Latin rite" take possession of the monastery on the Sazava. The ghost
of Prokop three times appears to them, and on his third apparition the
Germans return terrified to Prague.
The author begins by thus addressing his readers: "Listen, old people
and children--To what I wish to tell you--Of the patron of the
Slavs--Of the holy Prokop--He who was born in Bohemia--Who propagated
God's law in a saintly fashion--Who faithfully fulfilled the holy
law--Who worked many miracles.... St. Prokop is of the Slav race--Born
not far from Česky Brod.--That village did God well bless--In which
this saint was born."
The legend then proceeds to tell us of Prokop's youth and education,
laying special stress on the fact that at the monastery on the Vyšehrad
he received instruction in the Slavonic language. Prokop obtains great
favour among the monks, who wish to choose him as their provost.
But Prokop flies from all worldly honours and retires to a desert
district, "where is a river, and that river is called Sazava, and it
still flows beneath the monastery." The meeting between the hermit and
Prince Ulrick is thus described: "The Prince, named Ulrick--Called
to the hunters, who were running in every direction--And speaking
to them all said--'In what woods shall we hunt?'--He said, 'We must
begin--Where shall we begin?'--'Let us,' he said--'try the hills
near the Sazava.--Into these woods I desire to go--Let us go there;
that is my counsel.'--All run after him; all obey him--But when they
penetrate into the forest--They all lose the prince.--By God's will
it happened--That not one of them remained with him.--To the prince
a stag appears, beautiful--Large and very fleshy--Prince Ulrick is
not frightened--And having his crossbow in his hand--He wished to
shoot the stag--Which was running not far from him--Not fleeing
hastily before him.--Just as if sense were given it--It placed itself
on that rock--Where St. Prokop was working.--He was then felling an
oak--And the stag sprang up behind him--Turning its antlers towards
him.--Between the antlers it had a cross--Prince Ulrick well noticed
this--Directly he drops his crossbow from his hand--And stops his
horse--Seeing this wondrous animal--And the meek-faced monk--The prince
begins to ask the monk--Having rapidly descended from his horse--'Who
art thou who lives here in this solitude?--How art thou called and what
art thou doing here?'--Holy Prokop directly--Answered him kindly--'I
live in this solitude--As a sinner, and Prokop is my name.'" The prince
then begs Prokop's forgiveness for having attempted the life of an
animal evidently consecrated to Christ. He becomes yet more certain of
the saintliness of the hermit when Prokop miraculously transforms into
exquisite wine the water which the prince is drinking. Ulrick exclaims,
"Such noble wine hast thou in this desert? I have been in many lands,
but never have I drank better wine." He then tells Prokop that he
will build a monastery on the spot where they are standing. Of this
monastery Prokop, in spite of his hesitation, becomes abbot. The legend
then gives an account of several other miracles wrought by him. Then
"in the year 1054 after the birth of Christ, he was, two days before
his death, informed by a divine vision of his approaching end." Before
dying Prokop foretells that troubles after his death will befall the
monks. Under the reign of Ulrick's successor the prophecy is fulfilled.
The Slavonic monks are expelled and Germans take their places. During
the first night which the Germans spend in the monastery Prokop's ghost
appears to them, warning them to leave instantly; he again, equally
without result, repeats his warning on the following day. Then "he
shows himself to them on the third night--And shows them his power.--He
begins to speak:--'Listen, ye Germans--I have fulfilled my duty (by
giving them due warning)--But you heed not my words.--Not for you did I
prepare this site--But I founded it for the sons of my own country--Not
for you, faithless calumniators--You are infamous Hungarians[12], come
from anywhere.--If even the prince has given you this monastery--It
will to-day be taken from you.--You would not listen to good words--I
will now render your dwelling on the Sazava distasteful to you.--Quick,
delay not your journey--Return in haste to Prague.--After he had said
this, holding a large stick in his hand--He unmercifully thrashed the
Germans with it."... The legend ends with the return of the Bohemian
monks to the monastery on the Sazava.
Early Bohemian legends, as already mentioned, are very numerous.
Besides those already referred to, the legends of the "tears of St.
Mary," the "joys of St. Mary," the "tears of Mary Magdalene," the
"legends of St. George and St. Anselm," are among the best. The
last-named legend expresses the characteristic opinion that Judas
Iscariot was probably a German! Two allegorical poems, of a religious
character, entitled _The Contest of the Body and the Soul_ and
_Truth_, are also very ancient.
Though the chronology of early Bohemian literature is hopelessly
unreliable, it can, speaking generally, be stated--leaving the
manuscripts of Grüneberg and Königinhof out of consideration--that the
existent Bohemian writings of a secular character are less ancient than
those dealing with entirely religious subjects. Here, too, the earliest
writings have the character of poetic works; for the first prose
writings belonging to Bohemia were all in Latin.
Among these early works should be mentioned several poems of an epic
character, which are very similar to the chivalrous poetry of other
European countries. The literature of the period of the Crusades
(wars in which the Bohemians took a considerable part) possessed, in
many respects, an international character. Knights of many European
countries met in Palestine. A brisk exchange of ideas between men whose
tendencies and ideals were identical was but natural. The subjects of
the songs and epics of chivalrous poetry are limited in number, and
often belong to several countries when national particularities often
influence the details of the narrative. Such heroes of chivalrous
poetry are Alexander of Macedon, who is conceived as a Christian knight
and a crusader, Tristram and Isolde, and the other heroes and heroines
of the round table; Theodoric or Dietrich of Berne (Verona), and the
other heroes of ancient Gothic tradition.
In consequence of the geographical position of Bohemia, these tales
reached the country later than lands lying farther west, and often from
German sources. Yet the prejudiced attempts of German writers to prove
that the Bohemian remains of chivalrous poetry are adaptations and
translations from the German have in many cases proved unsuccessful.
In consequence of the wholesale destruction of Bohemian literature, we
are here also obliged to found conjectures on a comparatively small
number of fragments.
Of only one of these epic poems has a considerable portion been
preserved. This is the _Alexandreis_, of which several manuscripts of
different dates are in existence. From these fragments the erudition
of Bohemian scholars has, to a great extent, reconstituted the poem:
we now possess more than half the poem, and can, to a certain extent,
conjecture what was contained in the still missing parts. The Bohemian
_Alexandreis_ is undoubtedly an adaptation of the Latin poem of Philip
Gaultier (Walter) de Chatillon, also known from his birthplace, Lille,
as Gualterus de Insulis, who lived in the twelfth century, and died
about the year 1201. Chatillon's _Alexandreis_, based on the work of
Quintus Curtius, enjoyed great popularity during the Middle Ages,
and was generally adopted as the classical account of the career of
the great Macedonian. The author of the Bohemian _Alexandreis_ is
unknown, but it is possible to fix an approximative date for the poem.
It was undoubtedly written during the reign of King Premysl Ottokar
II. (1253-78). Ottokar, who had extended the frontiers of Bohemia
from the Baltic in the north to the Adriatic in the south, was often
compared to Alexander the Great, and that hero's history, therefore,
had great interest for the Bohemian writers of that period. Recent
critics have attempted to fix the date of the _Alexandreis_ yet more
accurately. In the years 1264 and 1267 Ottokar undertook crusades
against the heathen Prussians and Lithuanians, and seems even to have
thought of rendering parts of those districts permanently dependent on
Bohemia, thus securing for the country an outlet towards the Baltic.
It is conjectured that the passage in the account of Alexander's entry
into Babylon, in which the author prays that "God may grant Bohemia a
king who will subdue the Lithuanians, Tartars" (see later), refers to
Ottokar's far-reaching plan.
Generally speaking, the author of the _Alexandreis_ follows strictly
in the footsteps of Chatillon, or rather of Quintus Curtius, to whom
so many of the mediæval tales about Alexander can be traced. Yet the
Bohemian _Alexandreis_ has not only a distinctly Christian, but also
a national (Bohemian) character. The Persians are heathens doomed to
hell. Margraves, burgraves, and counts are found in the contending
armies. The Bohemian nobles Jan, Radvan, Mladota, and Radota form part
of Alexander's court. The account of the festivities on the occasion of
Alexander's entry into Babylon (a portion of which I have translated)
describes them as similar to those which took place at Prague on the
occasion of the coronation of the Bohemian kings. For Chatillon's
hexameters the author has substituted a rhymed metre, consisting of
verses of eight syllables, which generally, though not always, have a
cæsura after the fourth syllable. The rhymes are very rugged and often
irregular.
The author's preface begins with a quaint attempt at disarming his
critics. He tells us that Solomon, the wisest of men, admitted that
there were three things, and even four things that he did not know[13];
"if, then, he who surpassed all others in wisdom was liable to be
mistaken, then I, should any one doubt my word, need not be offended; I
who compared to him am as a weary beast to a lion, a wax taper to the
sun, or a shallow rivulet to the sea."
The account of the deeds of the great Macedonian conqueror strictly
follows the mediæval tradition of Alexander's career. Beginning with
his birth and youth, the author then gives a detailed account of
his education by Aristoteles and the wise counsel given him by that
philosopher. Then follows a full account of Alexander's campaigns and
victories. Very interesting is the author's account of his hero's
arrival at Troy. He here has an extensive digression concerning the
destruction of that city, which is not contained in Chatillon's
work. It is curious to meet with the world-old tale of Paris and
the three goddesses in Bohemian literature. The Christian writer
no doubt considered it more seemly to relate the appearance of the
three goddesses in the form of a dream. He writes: "Now it happened
to him (Alexander) to march--To the spot where are the bastions of
Troy--Now the only traces--Are stones lying on the ground--If it does
not appear idle to you[14]--I will relate to you--Why this destruction
took place--Why all this happened.--Paris was the king's son at
Troy--Brought up at home in honors.--His father and mother--Out of
love for their child--Treated him so kindly--That they allowed him his
will in all things--The prince prepared for the chace--Nothing else
was on his mind.--Then it befell--That when he was riding far away in
the woods--He went astray from the other hunters--And his horse was
very weary--He rode away from the path to a lonely spot--Where a fine
beech-tree stood in a thicket.--Throwing his horse's bridle up to one
of the branches--He fell asleep under the tree--It then befell him in
this hour--That in his dream he saw three goddesses--The one who rules
love--The other who rules over wisdom--And all warlike knowledge--The
third who rules over (= disposes of) riches--And they had a golden
apple--Which each of them desired--For on it was written:--'To her who
is the most beautiful, this shall be given.'--They chose him as judge
between them--Saying: 'We give you this power--That we may dispute no
longer about this--Give this apple to whichever one thou wilt--And over
whatever thing each of us has power--In that will she aid you.'--Then
at that moment the prince--Began to take counsel with himself--Saying:
'What is not due to me--According to my right as a prince?--I have
already too great riches--Also warlike spirit have I sufficient--And
sense as great as others--Why then should I require greater wisdom?--My
fortune also is favorable to me--But I should wish to possess a fair
woman.'--Saying this he awards the apple--To her who rules over love."
The author ends his digression with these reflections: "Oh, erring
heart of man--Oh, restless designs!--For the sake of one fair
woman--For indeed her beauty was great--The whole world was in
arms--For ten years it strove in war--Till in the eleventh year!--How
can we remember all the ills that then befell Troy!"
It is natural that in a work such as the _Alexandreis_ dealing
principally with the events of war, and written for warlike knights,
battle-pieces should be numerous, and indeed constitute the greatest
portion of the work. The following is an extract from one of the best
of these battle-pieces, the description of the battle of Arbela.
Alexander has just killed "Aristomanes, prince of India." "Easy," cry
the Greeks, "easy will be for us glory and praise--Now that our king
has obtained such glory!--The fight was stubborn on both sides--Not
few the mortal wounds--They then dealt each other--When they first
met--Then the battle-axes, lances--Drew blood like water--And the Greek
king rushing at the enemy--Struck at the foolish people.--Meanwhile
sword, lance, and battle-axe--Aimed at him from every direction--Strike
his head;--Yet his mind remains undisturbed.--Thus did he bear himself
in fight--As if he had been forged out of iron--And it was easy for
him to bear all blows--While fortune in everything favoured him.--Thus
did death refrain from him--Though it struck down many of the best
men there.--Faros was the name of one of them--The second was called
Eliphas--And he was Count of Egypt--While the former was Margrave of
Syria--Both were valorous men--A great loss by their deaths--Befell
that heathen king.... But ever, as was said--Nothing availed the
heathens--When they attempted to destroy the Greeks--Everywhere on the
sand, on the grass--A stream flowed, rendering the earth bloody--In
it lay the wretched men--Like a forest or a grove that has been
felled.--On both sides hundreds were killed--The fourfold gates of
hell--Then were opened wide--Such a cry was raised by the devils--As
if they thought that the earth had resolved--To drive them out of
hell--Then the souls flew away quickly--Like herds that scatter.--So
many fell that day--That they would have been sufficient to fill
Pluto's house--For in that battle rarely was any one spared--Until the
Greeks were tired."
Very interesting is the account of the festivities which took place
at Babylon when Alexander entered the town. As I have already
mentioned, many of the ancient Bohemian customs on the occasion of
the coronation of their kings are here accurately reproduced. The
author first describes a tournament; he writes: "Already courageously
and in a manner worthy of praise--Had they fought bravely--Striking
with their heavy lances;--Many a one on both sides, as may be
believed--Had been unhorsed.--This knightly pastime--Lasted for some
time--Till the king himself gave a sign to the people--And thus did
the time pass away.--Then all the more important citizens--Nobles
and men who held State offices--Appeared before their king--Bringing
great presents--Honouring his dignity--Goods of various sorts (they
brought)--Such as to the human eye--Give the enjoyment of pleasure--For
their valuable presents--They received much praise.--In the meantime
they lead in panthers--Lions and many great ostriches--And whatever
other birds they had collected.--The beasts shaking their cages--Began
to bellow (literally neigh), not liking their imprisonment--How could
they (the people) have had anything better?--Anything more pleasant
to see:--Many actors and jugglers--Various boxers--With whom the
streets swarmed--Gave them pleasure--And they also enjoyed music of
various sorts--The rejoicing continued so long--That the whole night
passed;--Then only did the people go home--Never, I ween, was there
so great a rejoicing in the world.--Not even when mighty Rome--Chose
her king--Was there so great joy.--Nor did they (the Romans)--With
such overwhelming honours--Receive their emperor--As were then awarded
to him (Alexander)--And rightly were they given to him,--The honours
which he then received.--For starting with but a small force--And
after enduring many troubles--He had struggled so vigorously for his
cause--That the whole world bowed down before him--May God deign to
listen to his Christian people and ordain this,--That there be such
a king in Bohemia!--I warrant that then in a short time--Lithuania
and the Tartars--Men of whatever name--The Besermans and the
Prussians--Also the unconformed (not yet baptized) Russians--Would
be in such a state of terror--That they would accept baptism--And
renounce their idols--And this could happen--Were but one obstacle
removed--That is, that the Germans, who are strangers here--Wish and
hope--That on the bridge of Prague--[May God avert this]--No Bohemian
be seen any longer[15]--And it may perhaps soon happen--That we shall
see none of them (the Germans) any more--Admire your king, O city of
Babylon--For, know it, he is worthy of wonder--He the conqueror of the
whole world--The terror of all other kings!"
It has already been stated that the author of the _Alexandreis_ is
unknown. There is, however, no doubt that the book is the work of a
Bohemian noble. The whole current of thought, the descriptions of
battles and the pomps of chivalry, the author's pedantic accuracy with
regard to the different grades of the nobility, his dislike of the
German townsmen (up to the time of Hus the Bohemian cities were mainly
inhabited by Germans)--these and other circumstances tend to prove that
this supposition is correct.
Portions of other epic poems belonging to chivalrous literature have
also been preserved; among them are some belonging to the circle of
legends of which Theodoric was the centre; such are _The Garden of
Roses_, _Laurin_, and others. They are evidently adaptations from
the German, and possess little originality and less interest. Other
fragments deal with the tale of the Round Table. Among these _Tristram_
and _Tandarius and Floribella_ may be mentioned. The former poem, as
the late Mr. Wratislaw has remarked, is strikingly similar to parts of
the _Morte d'Arthur_. This specially applies to one of the fragments
which contains a description of the combat between Tristram and the
"noble from Ireland whose name was Morolt." _Tandarius and Floribella_
also differs little from many other poems of chivalry. The heroine is
imprisoned and eventually rescued by Tandarius. Numerous descriptions
of tournaments and single combats fill up the greatest part of the book.
Closely connected with the chivalrous poetry of an epic character are
some early lyric poems that have been preserved. They, however, all
belong to a period considerably later than the _Alexandreis_, and
Bohemian critics have no doubt correctly attributed them to the reign
of King John. Here, too, the songs that have been preserved are not
numerous. A favourite form of these early Bohemian lyrics were the
so-called _Songs at Daybreak_ (in Bohemian _Svitanicka_), which have
a great affinity to the French _aubades_ and to the _albes_ of the
Provençal minstrels. The motive of these songs, several of which have
been preserved, varies but slightly. They tell of the parting of two
lovers, caused by the approach of dawn, and of the fears which they
express with regard to the "false gossips," rivals, or inquisitive
people who may be watching them. A translation of the best of these
songs may be of interest.
"_Dear clear day, how have you surprised me,_
_You that have awakened the false gossip;_
_The day rises there_
_Where two lovers live together._
_Almighty Lord God,_
_Deign Thou to guard these two._
_From the east a breeze arises,_
_Trembling over hill and vale;_
_The moaning of the woods, their noise and crashing ceases;_
_The game flees, the birds scream;_
_Everything tells us, everything shows_
_That the night has vanished._
_Above us the morning star has disappeared,_
_For into the distance it has vanished,_
_Hastily retiring behind the hills._
_It does not stop,_
_It wishes to rise higher._
_It is time for us, my beloved, to take leave._
_The heart of my beloved was aggrieved_
_When, rising, she perceived the daybreak;_
_Then spake my beloved:_
_'Why have we two slept so long?_
_Hasten, my beloved,_
_Lest disgrace may overtake us.'_
_Clear daylight is here, I know;_
_The sky appears light blue,_
_The splendour of the sun is rising,_
_Therefore my heart is in fear._
_Almighty Lord God,_
_Deign Thou to guard us two._
_Oh, my beloved, listen to my advice:_
_When you are with your lover, hope in your heart_
_That thy pleasure and mine may not be changed to grief_
_Because of the malice of the evil gossip,_
_For no one knows what his intentions are;_
_Therefore it befits us to be on our guard._
_The gossip is fair to all in his speech,_
_But his heart is full of evil, false craft._
_I should wish that maidens and matrons_
_Would always hate the gossip._
_And that man shall be my comrade_
_Who will never be at peace with such a one (as the gossip)._
_For in this world there is nothing more difficult_
_Than to beware of gossips;_
_For he is friendly with you to your face,_
_But, like a snake, he bites you from the back;_
_His speech is sweet as honey_
_And his heart is as cruel poison._
_Dear God, do not grant success_
_To him who troubles the comfort of lovers,_
_As his heart is endeavouring (to find)_
_Where the two lovers live together._
_Almighty Lord God,_
_Deign Thou to guard these two._"
It will be noticed that the refrain "Almighty Lord God," &c. (slightly
varying in the middle of the poem), recurs three times. It has been
conjectured that these _Songs at Daybreak_, which were discovered in
the archives of Bohemian castles, were the works of knights or nobles,
men somewhat similar to the "Minnesänger" of Germany. By the song which
I have translated it will be seen that these songs are tainted with the
peculiar views concerning conjugal fidelity which characterise so large
a part of chivalrous literature, where Tristram is so often the hero
and King Mark so often the knave.
A few ancient love-songs which have not the character of the
_Svitanicka_ have also been preserved. Of these, the so-called _Cantio
Zavisonis_, written in Bohemian in spite of its Latin name, deserves
notice. It was formerly falsely attributed to Zavis of Falkenstein, the
lover of Queen Kunegund, and one of the most celebrated Bohemian nobles
of his time. The fact that Falkenstein wrote verses in prison shortly
before his death (as the historians tell us) led to this supposition,
which is contradicted by the manner of the poem. Nothing except the
name "Zavis" is known of the author of this strange love-song, one of
the best of early Bohemian literature. I have translated a few of the
best lines:--
"_Now all joy has left me,_
_Now for me all comfort has ceased,_
_My heart swims in wistful blood,_
_All this because of the beloved one for whom I long._
_By the glance of her eye_
_She has sharply struck my heart._
_I live in flaming yearning,_
_My life sickens with love,_
_All for the sake of her dear beauty._
* * * * *
_My longing cannot decrease;_
_Pity me, oh air! pity me, all creation!_
_Carbuncles, sapphires, and all precious stones,_
_Rays of the sun and everything on the earth,_
_Pity me, lilies! pity me, most precious roses!_
_My beloved wishes to take my little life[16] from me_
_If she will not have compassion on me._"
Neither the mysterious Zavis nor the author of the Song at Daybreak
which I quoted before were devoid of poetical talent. But they, as
well as other writers whom I have not specially noticed, were greatly
deficient in the technique of versification; nor did they adhere
with sufficient care to the Western metres and forms of song which
they endeavoured to adopt. These verses, therefore, lose little by
translation. Bohemian writers have attributed the absence of polish and
finish which we find in these early writings to the fact that, while
in France, Provençe, and Germany the different courts were the centres
of knights' poetry, the Bohemian court at all periods had a distinctly
German character, and favoured poetry in the national language but
little.
The poems of a chivalrous character which I have noticed above have
little distinctly national except occasional invectives against the
Germans. That poetry was indeed, as noticed before, international in
its very essence. With the decline of this manner of poetry (which
in Bohemia took place about the middle of the fourteenth century) a
different style of poetry arose, which dealt mainly with national
subjects from a national point of view. It was attempted to acquaint
the Bohemians with the earliest legends and traditions of their race;
the satirical verses which now become numerous have a distinctly local
flavour and deal principally with the faults and shortcomings of the
Bohemian people.
The most important writer of this period is the author of the so-called
_Dalimil_, a rhymed chronicle of the events of Bohemian history,
which, beginning with the deluge, ends with the close of the reign
of Henry of Carinthia (1310). The book was mostly written during the
reign of John of Luxemburg, Henry's successor. In no prince was the
cosmopolitan element inherent in chivalry so thoroughly developed as
in King John. The conduct of a prince who considered that Paris was
the most chivalrous city in the world, and who (anticipating the
modern American) declared that he did not care to live anywhere except
there, who visited Bohemia but rarely, and then only for the purpose
of levying taxes, and who expressed open contempt for the national
language, was bound to produce a strong national reaction in Bohemia.
The beginning of the great national movement which culminated in the
Hussite wars can undoubtedly be traced as far back as to the reign of
King John.
The author of the so-called _Chronicle of Dalimil_ is unknown; the
researches of recent Bohemian scholars, however, prove that he was a
Bohemian noble, probably belonging to the northern districts of the
country. From the contents of the book, which is plentifully supplied
with dates, it can be gathered that the author began writing in 1308
and finished his work in 1316; of the events from 1279 downward he
writes as an eye-witness.
_Dalimil's Chronicle_ is one of the most important works of Bohemian
literature and the first historical work written in the Bohemian
language. Its popularity, to which the pronounced Bohemian-nationalist
views of the author no doubt largely contributed, was very great. In
proof of this it may be mentioned that, in spite of the wholesale
destruction of Bohemian writings, nine complete manuscript copies of
the Chronicle are in existence; the oldest of them, curiously, is to
be found in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge. The work was
first printed in 1620, during the brief reign of Frederick of the
Palatinate, but this edition was from political motives destroyed after
the occupation of Prague by the Austrian troops in the autumn of the
same year. The book has been several times printed and published in the
present century.
The author has availed himself largely of the _Chronicon_
_Boemorum_[17] of Cosmas, particularly when dealing with the most
ancient records of Bohemia. He indeed in his preface refers to Cosmas
as his principal authority, while stating that he also had access
to the records of various monasteries, which he enumerates. The
intense patriotic feeling that animated the writer shows very clearly
in his preface. He writes: "Many search for historical tales--But
they heed not those of their own country--Acting thus unwisely and
strangely--Treating their own nation unfavourably--For had some one but
sought glory there--Books about his own country he would have found--By
which he could have known what is our race--Learnt from whence we
came.--I have long searched for such books--Ever have I desired--That
some learned man should undertake--To connect (in one work) all the
deeds of the Bohemians;--Up to now have I desired this--Till I truly
ascertained--That no one will undertake (to do) this--Therefore I must
myself undertake (this task)."
Then follows the passage already referred to, in which the author
declares his indebtedness to Cosmas as well as to the chronicles of
Prague, Breznov, Opatovic, and Vyšehrad. The preface ends thus: "Vain
words I will as far as possible avoid--But yet set down my whole
meaning clearly--That every one may thus learn more willingly--And
have more regard for his nation.--Hearing my speech, the wise man will
become yet wiser--The sad man will be freed from sadness.--I have
written this down plainly--And I beg that a better man--May for the
glory of our country--And because of the craft of our enemies--Improve
my words by fair rhymes--And embellish the subject with brilliant
speech--But he should not jeer at me--Saying, he meddles with what he
does not understand--Of one thing I am full certain--That I have my
nation much at heart--That has encouraged me in this work--That has
aroused my energy."
The first part of the book narrates the well-known tales of the
making of Bohemia; the appearance of Čech and his companions in the
land; their settlement near the mountain Rip; the adventures of Krok,
Premysl, and Libussa; and the deeds of the early Premyslide princes.
All these semi-mythical tales are related in very much the same manner
in which Cosmas had told them two centuries before, and Hayek was to
tell them two centuries later.
Among the most interesting episodes in the Chronicle are the
descriptions of the murder of Prince Venceslas by his treacherous
younger brother Boleslav, and of the first meeting of Prince Ulrick
and the peasant-maiden Bozena, whom he afterwards wedded. The peculiar
national prejudice of many Bohemian nobles, founded not on pride
of birth, but on intense racial antipathy, appears very clearly in
_Dalimil's_ account of Prince Ulrick's marriage. When the nobles
reproached him for his unequal alliance, he answers: "We all descend
from one father--And he ranks as a noble--Whose father had much
silver--And as nobility and peasantry are thus intermingled--Bozena
shall be my wife--Rather would I entrust myself to a Bohemian
peasant-girl--Than that I should take a German queen as my wife--Every
heart clings to its nation--Therefore a German woman would less favour
my language;--A German woman will have German servants--German will
she teach my children--Then there will be division of languages--And
thereby certain ruin to the state."
Of interest also is the author's account of the reign of the great King
Ottokar II. He writes as a violent enemy of that king, and attributes
the disastrous close of his reign to the fact that he neglected his
Slavonic countrymen and showed too great favour to the Germans.
The geographical position of Bohemia, which is the outpost of the
Slavonic race that advances farthest westward, has been the cause
why that country has always been the scene of racial feuds. National
animosities were as violent at the beginning of the fourteenth as they
unfortunately are at the end of the nineteenth century. Ottokar's
part in this struggle belongs to the political history of Bohemia;
but it may be incidentally remarked that, as regards the accusation
of having unduly favoured the Germans to the detriment of his own
countrymen, the greatest of Bohemia's kings has found an eloquent
defender in Palacký, the greatest Bohemian historian. The so-called
_Dalimil_ thus describes the close of King Ottokar's reign: "Then the
king began to heed no longer his own (countrymen)--Towns and villages
he began to give to the Germans--The Germans appeared to surround
him--Against the nobles he used violence--His officials he instigated
against the lords of Vitkovic--Against other nobles also he began
to use violence.--Therefore many nobles became angry--They appealed
to Rudolph, king of the empire (_i.e._ of the Germans), against
him--Saying, 'It is better that the land should be a desert--Rather
than that by the king's order the Germans should hold it.'--Rudolph
arrives in Austria--On the advice of the Germans the king goes to meet
him--Then the king makes over all his lands to Rudolph--Rudolph,
keeping the others, makes over Bohemia and Moravia to the king.... Alas
for the noble king--That he did not remain true to his own nation--Thus
would he have obtained great fame--And also great riches--With the help
of which he could have made yet further conquests--And defeated all his
foes.--But the king continued to revile his countrymen--To injure them
whenever he could."
A lengthy account of the grievances of various great Bohemian nobles
against King Ottokar follows. The writer closes the chapter dealing
with that king by these words: "When, therefore, the king had need of
the Bohemians--He did not receive willing aid from them--They left him
when he required them.--When the king saw that he could not rely on
them in the hour of need--As they would not forget their sufferings
and the evil (which they had endured)--The king said: 'When I return
from the wars--I will inflict much evil on the Bohemians--I will thus
stain the Petrin[18] with their blood--That no Bohemian will any longer
be seen on the bridge of Prague.--Truly he could no longer wish to
live.'--When he spake such words publicly.--Few Bohemians did he take
with him--He marched with Germans, made them his own--Zavis[19] and
his brother were with Rudolph--This was very harmful to the Bohemian
king--For he (Zavis) knew the strength of his forces--And had friends
in his army--When at daybreak they were preparing for battle--Zavis
sent a message to the king, saying--That if he were gracious to him--He
would be willing to render him service.--The king would not hear of
the proposal and advanced--Saying, 'Rather than that I did this, I
would let myself be killed.'--Then the king with his Germans rushed
into battle against Rudolph--And alas! he fell there--This misfortune
occurred on the day of St. Rufus, a Friday--(That holy martyr's day is
a great festival)--It was in the year since the birth of the Son of
God--One Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy-eight." Dalimil's chronicle,
as already noted, enjoyed great popularity in Bohemia for many years,
in fact, up to the sixteenth century, when Hajek's chronicle took
its place. In consequence of this popularity the chronicle found
continuators, and several of the manuscripts contain additions that
are obviously by a different writer. Shorter tales relating warlike
events in a manner and metre similar to _Dalimil_ also vouch for
the popularity of the chronicle. Such are the tales of _William of
Zajic_, _Ottokar and Zavis_, and _The Death of King John_, the most
interesting one to English readers.
To the early literature of Bohemia a considerable amount of didactic
and satirical poetry also belongs. The most important of the writers
of such verses is Smil Flaška, lord of Pardubic, the earliest Bohemian
writer whose name and personality are well known. He is the author of
the _Father's Advice to his Son_, of the _New Council_, one of the
many beast-epics of the Middle Ages, and of a collection of proverbs.
Other satirical writings, such as the _Contest of Water and Wine_
and the _Groom and the Scholar_, were formerly, though incorrectly,
attributed to Smil. All these satirical and didactic poems have little
poetical value, but are of great interest for the student of the social
condition of Bohemia in the fourteenth century. They contain, however,
a vast amount of allusions of a local or national character, which
render it very difficult to give an account of them or quote from them
without entering into disquisitions and explanations which would have
little interest for English readers.
Smil Flaška, lord of Pardubic, played an important part in the history
of his times. He was born about the middle of the fourteenth century.
From his father, William, a brother of Ernest of Pardubic, the first
Archbishop of Prague, he inherited very considerable estates in the
districts of Bohemia that are near Pardubic. During the prolonged
struggle between King Venceslas IV. and the Bohemian nobles, Smil was
among those who opposed the king. He was killed (in 1403) in a skirmish
near Kutna Hora (Kuttenberg) while leading the forces of the "League of
the Lords" against the citizens of Kuttenberg, who were on the side of
King Venceslas.
Smil's _Advice of a Father to his Son_ is a work of great interest, as
it clearly shows what were then considered to be the duties of a young
Bohemian noble,--what was required to make him a perfect gentleman,
as a recent Bohemian writer on Smil has expressed it. Smil begins by
telling his readers that an old nobleman, addressing his son, who
has just attained maturity, and to whom he presents sword and lance,
advises him as to his conduct in life. The various counsels are then
enumerated. Piety is first mentioned. The father says: "This is my
first advice, O son--Have God at every hour--In your heart with all
your might--Humbly both by day and night--Remember, too, His dear
Mother--Her sacred sufferings bear in your mind--This you should always
have before your eyes--Remember this, my son."
Smil is by no means devoid of worldly wisdom; witness the following
passage: "Be liberal as far as is seemly--Do not by shabbiness
injure your soul--Neither must you come to ruin by too great
liberality--Dignified measure (moderation) is honourable in all
things.--To your poor friends be amiable--And take special heed
to be generous to them--Visit them in their distress--These are
honourable and knightly debts (duties).--Reward those who serve you
faithfully--Who heartily strive for your glory--Who wish to raise
you higher--Than your own power (alone) could reach;--To these your
hand should not be niggardly.--To be too haughty, O my son--To
impose your will on the people--That I by no means advise.--For he
who is too proud--Haughty more than is well--He cannot be beloved
of the people.--Even if by his bravery in battle he could penetrate
victoriously through all ramparts--Yet by his haughtiness he
vexes--Every one in every way--Too great haughtiness, therefore, does
not become a great lord...."
In the last part of the counsel the father advises his son with regard
to his duties towards ladies, repeatedly inculcating chivalrous
devotion to them. He writes: "Dear son, nearly all have I said--(To
my best knowledge)--That is truly necessary for your fame--But
carefully will I give you--Yet one more token of knightly honour.--You
should honour all good ladies--Defending with true faith their fair
name--Should any one by evil speech against women attempt to curry
favour--You should declare--That evil speech ever remains evil--And
that honest words should contradict it.--According to honour and
wise advice--You should everywhere spread their (_i.e._ the ladies')
glory--You should ever obey their will--Be constantly in their
service--And be grateful for their favours.... Therefore, my son,
reflect on this--Consider the favour of ladies as gold--And indeed as
worth more than precious stones--Compared to this there is--No thing as
precious in the whole world."
Very different from the _Counsel of the Father_ is Smil's other
important work, _The New Council_, written in 1394 or 1395, somewhat
later than the book referred to before. As I have already mentioned,
it is one of those beast-epics in which mediæval writers put their
social and political ideas into the mouths of various animals, while
certain animals generally became the representatives of persons or of
classes of the people. Smil's work, one of the most noteworthy of these
writings, is an elaborate and very striking satire on the condition of
Bohemia at this period. The young lion who, on his accession to the
throne, assembles all animals around him in council, is undoubtedly
King Venceslas IV. of Bohemia; and the eagle, who is the first to
appear before the king, represents Moravia, the land that for many
centuries was suzerain to Bohemia. To most of the other animals
who (forty-four in number)--a quadruped always alternating with a
bird--successively appear before the king, an allegorical significance
can be attributed. The leopard, who follows the eagle, is the
representative of the Bohemian nobility; and, true to his character, he
says to the king: "Allow no foreigners in your council; put not your
trust in the peasant; rather consult your high-born and noble lords on
the welfare of the land." The wolf here, as in many other beast-epics,
represents the monks; the fox, who tells the king that "he has need of
us, the lower ones," is the representative of the citizens, who were
always opposed to the nobility, and therefore favoured the increase of
the royal power. The starling is the representative of the ordinary
court-poets; while the nightingale personifies Smil himself and those
poets who were enthusiastic for the Bohemian nation. The praise of
poetry which Smil puts into the mouth of the nightingale is considered
the finest part of his work; and I shall translate a passage from it.
The last "counsel," that of the swan, is couched in deeply religious
language. Smil has indeed in this passage closely imitated the
celebrated hymn, "Dies Iræ." Of this "counsel," also, it may be well to
translate a small portion.
Smil in his first verses expounds the motive of his tale; he writes:
"King Lion once upon a time--Sent many messengers--To his princes, to
his lords--To all counties, in every direction--He sent for the large
beasts and the small ones--Saying that they should all appear before
him--This also he decided, that the eagle should receive notice--That,
taking all the other birds with him--He should appear before the throne
of the king."
The praise of poetry which Smil puts into the nightingale's mouth
is worth quoting; he writes: "Listen gladly to sweet sounds--As it
is natural to you--And is a wholesome pastime.--Singers, musicians,
on whatever instrument they play--By these shall thy mind be
strengthened.--Great is the pleasure afforded to you--By the sound
of sweet songs--Particularly at springtime--When all plants begin to
revive--When all creatures are merry--When May already with manifold
flowers--Preciously refreshes the whole world.--The air everywhere is
mild--Everywhere sweet sounds are heard--At day, at night-time, and at
dawn--The soft song of birds--(Is heard) in the woods, in the groves,
in the fields.--In such things, O king, seek comfort."
The swan's song, the last "counsel" in the book, is also one of the
most interesting parts of Smil's work. He here strongly exhorts the
young king to lead a virtuous life, and vividly describes the terrors
of the day of judgment; he writes: "On that day of wrath, that day of
darkness--That day of anguish and of rage--Of misery, of evil, and of
pain--That sudden day of wrath and woe--The day of the awful trumpet
and its roar--Fearful will be the fate of a sinner."
The "counsel" of the swan, and with it the whole poem, ends with these
lines: "Therefore let every one seek salvation--For this is not our
lasting dwelling-place--Let us here with our whole might--Strive for
our future happiness--By doing deeds of mercy, remaining constant to
the true faith.--Aid us in this, dear Jesus Christ--May we be saved
from eternal misery--And rather live in happiness eternally with
Thee.--Who faithfully strives for this--Him help, O Lord God--Grant him
your grace and eternal life--Which is always certain for those who are
with Thee. Amen."
Besides the two works mentioned, a collection of proverbs which goes by
Smil's name is undoubtedly a genuine work of the author. This is not
the case with two satirical poems that were up to recently attributed
to Smil. One of these is the _Groom and the Scholar_, a satirical
dialogue, which dates from the reign of King Venceslas IV. The two
characters of the dialogue meet at a tavern, and interchange ideas as
to the happiness of their respective states. The scholar, of course,
is one of the mendicant students so frequent in the Middle Ages, and
the groom taunts him bitterly with his poverty and misery, and his
constant liability to the rod. The student, on the other hand, reminds
the groom of the hard and lowly work he is obliged to do, and the
scanty wages which he receives. The discussion--not unnaturally, the
reader of the dialogue will think--finally degenerates into a free
fight!
The contest of water and wine, also formerly attributed to Smil, is
a curious satirical dialogue between water and wine regarding their
superiority. They are finally reconciled, and it is stated that "Water
is a necessity for the world, but we require wine also." Among many
other satirical poems, the _Satires on Trades_ should be mentioned,
which give a curious insight into low life in early Bohemia. They,
however, teem with local allusions and far-fetched puns, and are more
interesting to Bohemians than to other readers. A satirical poem in
dramatic form is the _Mastičkář_ (= quacksalver). Of didactic poems,
_Cato_, an adaptation from the Latin, may be mentioned. The curious
little work contains a collection of moral precepts which are put into
the mouth of Cato.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Königinhof is a small town in North-Eastern Bohemia.
[2] Some of the poems of the Manuscript of Königinhof were translated
into English many years ago by the late Sir John Bowring, whose
knowledge of the Bohemian language was, however, very slight. The late
Rev. A. H. Wratislaw published in 1852 an English translation of the
Manuscripts of Königinhof and Grüneberg.
[3] My authority for this statement is Mr. Adolphus Patera, chief
librarian of the Bohemian Museum at Prague, and one of the greatest
living authorities on Bohemian palæography.
[4] Though the controversy concerning the MS. of Königinhof or Králové
Dvur still continues, and its genuineness still finds believers, hardly
any Bohemian scholars now believe in the authenticity of the MS. Strong
and increasing evidence tends to the supposition that the poems are a
work of Wenceslas Hanka.
[5] I follow the classification of Dr. Jireček's edition (1879);
recent writers have divided the contents of the manuscript somewhat
differently.
[6] See Chapter IV.
[7] Both manuscripts have recently been edited and published by Mr.
Adolphus Patera.
[8] See Chapter VI.
[9] See my _Bohemia, an Historical Sketch_, p. 39 and p. 93.
[10] The Glagolitic alphabet is similar, though not identical with that
of St. Cyrillus. It was used by those Slavs who were in communion with
the Church of Rome, but enjoyed certain privileges with regard to the
use of the national language in ecclesiastical functions.
[11] It has recently been stated that this legend, as now preserved,
contains modern interpolations. It is impossible at present to give a
certain opinion on this subject.
[12] The monks were Germans, not Hungarians. The latter designation was
then a term of reproach in Bohemia.
[13] See Proverbs, chap. xxx. vers. 18 and 19.
[14] The author is addressing his readers.
[15] This appears to have been a proverbial expression. In _Dalimil's
Chronicle_ (see later) King Ottokar is made to say that soon no
Bohemian will any longer be seen on the bridge of Prague.
[16] _Živútek_, the diminutive of _život_ = life.
[17] See Chapter II.
[18] A hill near Prague (known in German as the Laurenz Berg), where
the executions then took place.
[19] The head of the family (or rather clan) of Vitkovic, whom Ottokar
had exiled.
CHAPTER II
EARLY PROSE WRITERS--THE PRECURSORS OF HUS
In Bohemia, as in most countries, we find the national language
employed in poetry long before an attempt is made to use it in prose.
Latin was the language exclusively used by the writers on history,
legal matters, and theology. The writers indeed were generally
ecclesiastics, to whom the Latin language was necessarily familiar.
Even as late as the second half of the fourteenth century Thomas of
Štitný was blamed for using the Bohemian language in his theological
and philosophical works.
A few very early Latin prayers and lives of saints originated in
Bohemia, but the earliest prose work which possesses general interest
is the Latin _Chronicon Boemorum_ of Cosmas, commonly called Cosmas
Pragensis. Cosmas, "the father of Bohemian history," has always enjoyed
a great and well-deserved reputation, and has often been called "the
Bohemian Herodotus" by his countrymen.
We are better informed as to the life of Cosmas than is the case with
regard to most early Bohemian writers. Writing in 1125, he calls
himself an octogenarian, and it may therefore be considered as certain
that he was born about the year 1045. He was probably of noble
descent, and early in life adopted the ecclesiastical career. He became
canon and afterwards dean of the chapter of Prague, and accompanied
the bishops of Prague--whose position then gave them considerable
political importance in Bohemia--on several missions. The last chapter
of Cosmas' book, dealing with matters of which he had some personal
knowledge, has therefore far greater value than the rest of the work.
The regulations concerning the celibacy of the clergy were not at that
period, nor indeed far later, observed by the Bohemian priests, and his
ecclesiastical dignities did not prevent Cosmas from marrying, at the
age of forty-one, Božetečha, to whom he was sincerely attached, and
to whom he refers in his chronicle as "rerum cunctarum comes indimota
mearum."
It was only after Božetečha's death in 1117 that Cosmas--perhaps to
solace his sorrow by study--began his great historical work. The writer
was then a man of over seventy years, and traces of senile garrulity
can be found in his book. Still Cosmas appears to us as a man of great
learning and perspicacity, sharpened, no, doubt, by some knowledge
of the practical politics of his day. With regard to the critical
faculty, he was undoubtedly superior to the contemporary chroniclers
of other countries. In his writings he almost always distinguishes
between popular traditions, "senum fabulosæ narrationes," for which he
could find no authority, and records which he believed to be founded
on truth. The classical reading of Cosmas was very extensive for his
times. His writings show a thorough knowledge of the works of Sallust,
Ovid, Virgil, Terence, Lucan, and Horace. Of these, the last-named, if
we may judge by Cosmas' frequent quotations, appears to have been a
special favourite. The Latinity of Cosmas, if we may venture to employ
that word when dealing with a writer of the twelfth century, contrasts
favourably with that of most of his contemporaries, and in his works we
sometimes meet with slight but charming reminiscences of the style of
more classic periods.
Cosmas' work consists of three books, which were written at different
periods and at first appeared separately, each book in the earliest
MSS. containing a separate dedication. Cosmas afterwards published
his work as a whole, dedicating it to his friend Severus, provost of
Mélnik. The work is written in the chronological manner universally
adopted at that time. In the earlier part of the first book, which,
beginning with the deluge, deals with the establishment of the Čechs
in Bohemia and the reigns of their early princes, Cosmas wisely
abstains from giving any dates. From the deluge Cosmas proceeds
rapidly to the establishment of Čechus and his companions in Bohemia.
It is interesting from the historical point of view to note that all
recollection of the earlier inhabitants of the country, both of the
Celtic and of the Teutonic race, had already faded out of the memories
of the people. Obviously guided by recollections of his classical
readings, Cosmas describes the time of the first establishment of the
Bohemians in their new homes as if it had been a golden age. "Most
happy," he tells us, "was that age, content with moderate expenditure,
not inflated by restless pride. The gifts of Ceres and Bacchus were
unknown, and indeed did not exist; their evening meal consisted of
acorns and the flesh of wild beasts; uncorrupted water-springs afforded
them wholesome drink. As the splendour of the sun and the moisture of
the water, the fields and pastures, and even marriage was common to
them all.... The use of wool and linen, and indeed of all clothing, was
unknown to them. In winter only they used the skins of wild beasts and
of sheep as clothing. No one could say of anything, 'It is mine,' but,
as is usual in monastic communities, they said with their mouths, their
hearts, and their deeds, 'Everything we own is ours (in common).' Their
stables had no bolts, and they did not close their doors on the poor,
for there were neither robbers nor poor.... No arms were to be seen
except arrows, and these they only used against wild beasts."
In Bohemia, as elsewhere, the "golden age" was of short duration.
Cosmas, continuing his narrative, tells us the tales of Crocus and
Libussa, of Premysl, the ploughman-prince, and of the foundation of
Prague, which we afterwards find in an enlarged form in the works of
the so-called Dalimil and of Hajek. Many of these tales, such as that
of the ploughman-prince, are common property of most Slav countries;
but the strange tale of the "war of the maidens," _divči válka_, which
is said to have occurred after Libussa's death, evidently founded on
the ancient traditions concerning the Amazons, is found in the records
of no other Slav country. Bohemian scholars have recently attempted,
with great ingenuity, to trace the manner in which this Eastern tale
found its way to Bohemia.
From the year 894, the date which Cosmas fixes as that of the
conversion of the Bohemian prince Bořivoj, he adopts the chronological
system. Cosmas, however, very frankly admits that many of his
statements are founded on slight and doubtful authority. For the
second and third books of his work, on the other hand, Cosmas
claims perfect accuracy. As he writes at the end of the first book:
"Henceforth, with the aid of God and of St. Adalbert, we intend to
narrate those events which we have either seen ourselves or truthfully
gathered from those who saw them." This statement is not absolutely
true, for Palacký, who critically examined the writings of the early
Bohemian historians, has discovered numerous errors, particularly in
the chronology of the second book. The third book, which begins with
the year 1092, and was continued by Cosmas up to the year of his death
in 1125, is the most valuable and also the most interesting part of the
work. As already stated, Cosmas often accompanied the bishops of Prague
on their travels through Germany, Lorraine, Italy, and Hungary, and
this part of his work gives many interesting details referring to the
social and political conditions of his times.
The work of Cosmas immediately obtained great and deserved success,
and its popularity continued for a very considerable period. This is
proved by the very numerous MSS. of the _Chronicon Boemorum_ that are
still in existence. It is therefore not surprising that Cosmas found
many imitators and continuators. They belonged, as he had, to the
ecclesiastical calling, and, like him, wrote in Latin. The works of
these writers are of interest only to students of Bohemian history;
it will therefore here be sufficient to mention a few of the most
important chronicles. The earliest of these chroniclers is the writer
known to us as the "Canon of Vyšehrad;"[20] his chronicle continues
the work of Cosmas from the year 1125, and ends with the year 1142.
Another also anonymous chronicler is the "Monk of Sazava." He has
incorporated the whole of Cosmas' chronicle with his work, but has
added many interesting facts, some of which refer to his own monastery.
The monastery on the Savaza had, since the year 1096, been in the
hands of friars who used the Latin ritual, but our author relates the
foundation of his abbey by St. Prokop, and the subsequent disputes
between the German and Bohemian monks (so vividly described in the
_Legend of St. Prokop_[21]) with an impartiality that deserves the
highest praise. From the end of the year 1125, with which Cosmas'
chronicle ends, to the year 1162, the last of which his own work
treats, the monk of Sazava of course writes more independently. His
work is on the whole trustworthy, and he often writes of contemporary
events as an eye-witness. It is, however, to be regretted that the
annals of the last years, when the monk no longer had Cosmas for a
guide, are written in a briefer, more succinct manner than the earlier
parts of the book, for the writer is here dealing with some of the
most obscure years of Bohemian history. Several minor chronicles, also
written in Latin, and probably by ecclesiastics, are also to be counted
among the continuations of Cosmas' work. Such chronicles are that of
Vincent, canon of Prague, dealing with the years 1140 to 1167, and
that of Gerlach or Jarloch, abbot of Muhlhausen. Jarloch's chronicle
begins with the year 1167, and the existent portion ends with the year
1198. It is, however, probable that he continued his work to a far
later date, perhaps nearly up to the time of his death, which only
occurred in 1228. After the year 1198 we have no knowledge of Bohemia
from the writings of native authors during a considerable number of
years. Somewhat later we find the chroniclers Peter of Zittau, abbot
of Königraal, and Francis, provost of Prague; the work of the former
writer deals with the annals of Bohemia from 1253 to 1338, while the
work of Francis, beginning with the year 1333, carries on the history
of Bohemia up to the year 1362.
More interesting than any of these chronicles are the works of several
writers who flourished during the reign of Charles IV. (1346-1378).
Though Charles only acquired the Bohemian language when already grown
up, and always used Latin in his own writings, yet his interest in
the language of his favourite country was very great. It is during
his reign, and probably through his influence, that we find Bohemian
translations of Latin historical works appearing almost simultaneously
with the Latin originals. Charles IV. himself ranks among the Bohemian
historians. His _Commentarius de Vita Caroli Bohemiæ Regis et postea
Imperatoris ab ipso Carolo conscriptus_ is of the greatest interest,
and gives an insight into the true nature of the great sovereign which
we scarcely find elsewhere. The book very clearly shows us Charles's
attachment to his country, his piety, and his strong tendency to
mysticism, the latter a characteristic of the king of which perhaps
only Bohemian historians have taken sufficient account. If it were
not contrary to the plan of this book to give lengthy quotations from
works not written in the Bohemian language, the _Commentarius_ would
certainly deserve a more extensive notice. The book has unfortunately
reached us in a very incomplete state. It appears probable that the
writer intended to conclude his work with his election as King of the
Romans; but the part which is undoubtedly the work of Charles does not
go beyond the year 1340. Additions by a very inferior writer continue
the work up to the year 1346, when the electors at Rhense chose Charles
as King of the Romans. It appears, however, that Charles had collected
notes in view of continuing his historical work, and that he made over
these notes to Canon Benes of Weitmil, who afterwards incorporated them
with his own chronicle. The _Vita Caroli_ was translated into Bohemian
very shortly after its appearance, probably by the so-called "Pulkava."
The personality of "Přibik, son of Dluhý of Radenin, surnamed Pulkava,"
was formerly very obscure, and his chronicle was attributed to a person
of the name of "Pulkava of Tradenin." Recent researches of Bohemian
scholars have afforded us some information as to the career of a man
who enjoyed high favour with Charles IV., and held what may be called
the position of court-historian. Přibik was a layman, rector of the
collegiate school of St. Giles at Prague. He took orders later in life
and became rector of the parish of Chudenic, but probably carried
on the duties of his office by means of a substitute. It was by the
direct order of his sovereign that he composed his Bohemian chronicle,
which, beginning, as was then usual, with the dispersion of the human
race, narrates the history of Bohemia up to the year 1330. The book
first appeared in Latin, but was almost immediately translated into
Bohemian. Charles took great interest in this work and furnished the
writer with numerous documents, so that he can almost be considered as
his collaborator. Recent Bohemian writers have gone further, and have
suggested--though without bringing forward sufficient evidence--that
Charles was himself the author of the Latin chronicle, and that
"Pulkava" only wrote the Bohemian translation, or rather adaptation,
for the contents of the two books are by no means identical. This is
one of the many questions concerning ancient Bohemian literature that
is still obscure. Pulkava's work is written in the same fashion as the
work of Cosmas, whom, indeed, all early Bohemian historians imitated,
whether they expressly called themselves continuators of his work or
not. Published under the auspices of Charles, Pulkava's chronicle
enjoyed great popularity and is preserved in numerous MSS., from one of
which the Bohemian version was printed in 1786. The work has, however,
little historical value, and the style of the Latin version is inferior
to Cosmas.
Of the many other writers of history who flourished during the reign of
Charles, it will be sufficient to mention Benes (Benessius) of Weitmil,
a canon of the chapter of Prague. Charles IV., as already mentioned,
furnished the author with many notes, that were incorporated with his
work. The chronicle of Benes, written in Latin, deals with the history
of Bohemia from the year 1283 to the year 1374, about which time the
author appears to have died. The part of the work which describes
King John's last campaign and his death at Crécy has great interest,
not only for Bohemian readers. Laurence of Březova, who is generally
mentioned in connection with the writers referred to above, belongs
rather to the period of the Hussite wars.
While Bohemian was at this period, at first only in the form of
translations, taking its place beside Latin as a language adapted
to historic writing, it was already extensively used for writings on
matters of law. Such works hardly belong to a history of literature;
yet the _Kniha starého pána z Rožmberka_, the book of the old Lord of
Rosenberg, deserves mention. It contains an enumeration of the laws
and customs of Bohemia as they existed in the author's time. It is the
oldest prose work in the Bohemian language, and dates either from the
beginning of the fourteenth or from the last years of the thirteenth
century. Another early legal work is the _Výklad na pravo zemske_,
exposition of the law of the land, which is attributed to Andrew of
Duba. Several other very early Bohemian writings on legal matters have
been preserved.
One of the earliest and most curious prose works in the Bohemian
language is the singular dialogue known as _Tkadleček the Weaver_. The
book was one of the first that were printed when the revival of the
Bohemian literature in the present century began. It was published by
Wenceslas Hanka[22] in 1824, and was greatly admired. Recently the
value of the book has, I think, been unduly depreciated. It certainly
abounds with affectations and conceits such as were usual in the
literature of most countries at the time--about 1407--when the book
appeared; yet the complaints of the lover sometimes reveal a touch
of real passion, and the style is generally fluent and lively. The
monotony and the repetitions for which the lovers' long speeches are
blamed are no peculiarity of the _Weaver_ but rather are ever inherent
to the speech of the discarded and distressful lover. Far inferior
to the speeches of the lover are the answers of the personified
Misfortune to whom he addresses his complaint.
Of the author of this very interesting work little is known. His
Christian name was Ludvik, and he represents himself as being himself
the discarded lover who addresses his complaint to Misfortune. He
adopted the name of the Weaver, being, as he writes, "a weaver of
learned lines." He was, according to recent research, not a nobleman of
the Bohemian court, as had been formerly supposed, but a literary man
who was in the service of the Dowager-Queen Elizabeth at Königgrätz,
employed as a "writer" in some not clearly defined position. While
it thus appears that the Weaver was a man of comparatively humble
position, a more thorough study of the book has also proved that the
fair Adlička, who had forsaken him to marry another, was not, as
has been written, "one of the beauties of the Bohemian court," but
that she was (as her lover indeed himself tells us) employed at that
court as a "topička" (literally, lighter of fires), a word that we
must reluctantly translate by "housemaid". Ludvik is, therefore, yet
another instance of the facility with which a literary man idealises
his mistress. It has been proved in recent years that the _Weaver_
in many respects resembles a somewhat earlier German book entitled
_Der Ackermann aus Beheim_, which dates from the year 1399. Without
entering into the controversy that has arisen on this subject, it will
be sufficient to state that the _Weaver_ is not an adaptation, far
less a translation of the German work, though there are certainly many
resemblances between the two books. It may be interesting to quote
part of one of the laments which the Weaver addresses to Misfortune.
He thus expresses his grief: "After a loss a man often incurs mockery;
the sorrow of others is to many an object of ridicule, such as thou
hast bestowed on me, O unfortunate Misfortune! Through thee this
has happened to me, the unhappy and thrice unhappy weaver. This all
know and feel, this they fully understand. For already have all said
and loudly affirmed it, that my most delightful, most excellent
serving-maid[23] has been endowed with diverse gifts, happy and most
choice; greater were her gifts than any that Nature has allowed any
one to have; for all these gifts that she had from fortune, she had
them not from fortune only; she obtained them also from the supreme
Creator. Not only was she endowed with goodly customs, but a shapely
form, a beautiful figure, and noble birth also God gave her, who had
chosen her for her virtues and (who gave her also) much that was very
good, sweet, and honourable; hardly ever has God given to one person
so many remarkable, good, and prosperous gifts. And yet you mockingly
tell me that my most excellent serving-maid, my most beloved maiden,
is not different from others. And not only this (do you say), but also
that I could find many other matrons and maids such as she, did I but
cast glances around me.... I wonder at this: what devil has sent you
to me? what devil gave you power over me? what devil or what demon,[2]
or what fiend[24] has roused you and instigated you against me? I
wonder indeed at the meaning of this. I trust in my Creator for this,
that He has not given you this power, and that you have not from Him
this authority, and that this is by no means just. But you tell me
that God has instructed you--chosen you for this! but I know not this;
rather do I know that I have been deprived of all my comfort, of all
my pleasure, of all good merriment; to me is bequeathed poverty and
eternal grief; my name is marked out and written down in the doleful
register of the longing and anxious ones until I die. Now indeed there
is truly discord between me and the beloved and adored one; now indeed
there is a quarrel worse than all other quarrels and discords. This
indeed may be called truly discord and anger, which never again will
change to peace. Oh, that I should ever have known what wrath between
two lovers is. Alas and again alas, and woe to you, wicked, infamous
Misfortune! Oh, wicked Misfortune, now, indeed, through your evil anger
all my happiness, and with it my youth, is at an end. Why then am I
still alive? what can I rejoice over? in what can I find pleasure?
where can I seek refuge in this my great need? What shall I now love,
what can I love now that everything is lost to me. In what shall I now
find pleasure, what shall render me merry and happy, when I no longer
love her through whom everything appeared lovable to me. Little now
will be my joy, for little mercy shall I find.... And for what purpose
have you endeavoured to do this, shameful, wicked, false Misfortune?
Alas, alas! Woe, ever woe to thee. Gone is all my grace, gone are all
my many qualities. O Misfortune, to whom shall I now go for counsel
in this my hateful adversity? to whom shall I complain of my loss in
this my depression and sorrow? I have no one to whom to complain of
my misfortunes, of whatever nature they may be, except you, evil,
disagreeable, and displeasing Misfortune, from whom I expect no relief.
"Alas, alas, and again alas! What yearnings have besieged me, what
woe has bound me, what orphanage (_i.e._ bereavement) has subdued me!
What longings and more than longings have overwhelmed me, and still
overwhelm me from day to day, from hour to hour, so that I know of them
neither beginning, nor middle, nor end. I am like a child that has
been separated from its mother before the time, like a kitten which,
though not yet grown up, is deprived of milk. As the colt of an ass
that has not yet acquired strength is driven and forced to work before
the time, thus I, evil Misfortune, am subject to you and given over
to you before the time and in my youthful years; and still I do not
know in what manner and wherefore and by whose orders. Alas, alas, O
Misfortune! were it but possible that you, instead of Lot's wife, could
be changed into that statue of salt, then at last your end would be
certain. For it is you, O Misfortune, evil and shameful, and yet again
evil Misfortune, who hast made of me more than a widower, more than an
orphan, more than a man in whom all hope is dead. Every widower, when
he is deprived of her who comforts him and loses her--knowing that it
cannot be otherwise, and that his wife cannot return to him--gets over
it, and so to speak forgets her, if not for ever, yet occasionally.
But how should I forget my dearest, my most excellent and most beloved
serving-maid? for she is yet alive, she is yet in good health, she is
full of strength; she is as the pastime for another, not for me. And
yet greater therefore is my bitterness, my sorrow, my anguish."
A short extract from one of Misfortune's replies to the Weaver will
be sufficient. I shall here quote from Mr. Wratislaw's translation:
"How much more fortunate then dost thou desire to be that I may
honour thee more than the Emperor Julius or the King Alexander, or
the excellent, truly excellent Emperor Charles, at this time king of
Bohemia? who, powerful as they were, could not at times escape my power
and my contrariety. Prithee, imagine how many of my misadventures
have happened to those only whom thou knowest, and of whom thou hast
heard in thine own days, whether of higher or lower rank; and neither
thou nor any one else will be able to express in writing or words how
many times this has happened to them.... If thou wilt, as thou canst,
recollect thine own adversities only in thine own mind, how many of
them hast thou also had from me? For it would have been more proper to
cry out against me about them, or to argue with me about that which
once threatened thy life, thy property, thy honour, and all the good
that thou hadst, and it would have been convenient to speak of that
rather than of that damsel of thine. Therefore, Weaver, hold thy peace,
speak no more with me of thy darling."
Other early Bohemian prose-writings are the _Tale of Alexander
the Great_, founded on the writings attributed to Callisthenes, but
probably a translation from the Latin. It has little in common with
the rhymed Bohemian _Alexandreis_. The _Chronicle of Troy_, also one
of the earliest existent works in Bohemian prose, is also probably a
translation from the Latin. The chronicle is remarkable as being the
first Bohemian work that was printed (at Pilsen in 1468). These and
other translations which require no special mention prove that the
development of the Bohemian language was proceeding rapidly at this
period.
I shall now refer to a group of writers and thinkers who are generally
known as the precursors of Hus. This designation is still correct,
though more extensive study of the works of Hus has recently proved
it to be so to a lesser extent than was formerly supposed. It will be
mentioned, when treating of the writings of Hus, that they show very
little trace of the study of the works to which I shall now refer,
while the influence of Wycliffe, from whom Hus quotes extensively, is
constantly perceptible in his works, particularly in those written in
Latin. Some ideas common to Wycliffe and Hus can also be traced far
farther back; still many thoughts which we frequently meet with in the
writings of Hus, his indignation against the immorality and avarice
of the clergy, his endeavours to encourage the study of the Bible and
to extend the use of the national language in the religious services,
are clearly to be found in the writings of his Bohemian precursors.
Štitný, in particular, was also a precursor of Hus in that sense that
he greatly developed and perfectioned the Bohemian language, endowing
it with a phraseology such as was necessary for the proper rendering of
difficult theological and philosophical definitions.
By employing his native language for subjects which had hitherto only
been dealt with in Latin, Štitný set an example that was afterwards
followed by Hus.
The great prosperity which the wise rule of Charles IV. had assured
to his country had produced a great change in the hitherto simple
fashion of living of the Bohemians, and of the citizens of Prague
in particular. A more sumptuous mode of life now prevailed, and the
contemporary writers are eloquent in their references to the luxurious
fashion of dress, the extreme devotion to the pleasures of the table,
and the general immorality of the citizens of Prague. The clergy, with
a few honourable exceptions, gave by no means a good example to the
laymen. Simony, and immorality--according to the Catholic creed a far
greater offence on the part of a priest than of a layman--were almost
general, both among the monks and the members of the secular clergy.
This deplorable condition of his beloved Bohemia did not escape the
notice of Charles IV., whom his countrymen in his lifetime already
described as "Otec Vlastí" (=Pater Patriæ). Hoping to improve the moral
condition of the country by calling in foreign priests, Charles in
1358 invited the Austrian monk Conrad Waldhauser to Bohemia. Conrad, a
native of Upper Austria, had lately attracted great attention by the
eloquent sermons he had preached at Vienna. A German by nationality,
Conrad was ignorant of the Bohemian language, but though he was thus
unable to make himself understood by the mass of the people, the
impression produced by his sermons was none the less very great. The
educated citizens of Prague were then, as now, almost as familiar
with the German as with their own language. Graphic accounts of his
eloquent denunciations of the corruption and luxuriousness of his age
have been preserved; they sometimes read like a modern account of a
revival meeting. The Teyn Church, where Conrad preached, soon became
too limited for his audience; people assembled in squares and public
places to listen to his sermons. The ladies of Prague discarded their
jewellery and sumptuous clothing, while many men publicly confessed
their sins. Though Conrad's preaching was in the strictest conformity
with the teaching of the Church of Rome, he yet incurred the hostility
of the monks, particularly the Dominicans and the Augustines. The
protection of Charles, however, ensured his safety, and Conrad's death,
in 1369, put a stop to the controversy which his sermons had caused.
Waldhauser has left a considerable number of Latin works; of these, the
_Postilla Studentium Sanctæ Universitatis Pragensis super evangelia
dominica_ and the _Apologia_, which contains his defence against the
attacks of the monks, are the most important.
Among those on whom the preaching of Conrad Waldhauser produced a
strong and permanent impression was the Moravian MILIČ of Kremsier,
who, after Conrad's death, became his successor as rector of the
Teyn Church at Prague. We find a considerable amount of information
concerning Milič in his biography, contained in the _Miscellanea_ of
the learned Jesuit Balbinus. This biography, which dates from the
second half of the seventeenth century, written, if not by Balbinus
himself, by a member of his order, is noticeable for its conscientious
impartiality. It is the foundation of all the more recent notices of
Milič. The date of the birth of Milič is unknown; we only learn that
he was of humble origin, and was probably born in the town of Kremsier
in Moravia. He took orders early in life, probably in the year 1350.
From the year 1360 downward he seems to have held an important official
position in the chancery of Charles IV.; somewhat earlier he had
already become archdeacon and canon of the cathedral of St. Vitus at
Prague.
The ever-increasing reaction against the corruption of the times, which
had already found expression in Waldhauser's sermons, caused Milič in
1363 to renounce all these dignities. In spite of the remonstrances
of his Archbishop, Ernest of Pardubic, he decided to devote himself
entirely to the preaching of the word of God. He first preached for a
short time in the small town of Bischof-Teinitz, and then in several
churches at Prague. The sermons of Milič vigorously inveigh against the
immorality and corruption of the times, and do not spare the secular
clergy and the monks. As Milič preached in Bohemian, his teaching
was accessible to the great mass of the people, whom Conrad's German
sermons had not reached.
The constant contemplation of the evils of his time, of poverty and
vice as he saw them in the streets of Prague on the rare occasions
when he left his studies for a few moments, produced a remarkable,
though not at that period exceptional, effect on the imaginative mind
of Milič. It seemed to him that all the preliminary symptoms described
in the Revelation of St. John had already occurred. He therefore came
to the conclusion that Antichrist was about to appear--he is said to
have fixed on the years 1365 to 1367 as the date of his arrival--and
sometimes even that he had already come. In a sermon preached before
Charles IV., Milič openly denounced that sovereign as the "greatest
Antichrist." Though he was imprisoned in consequence of this sermon,
Milič remained but a short time in prison. The magnanimous prince
condoned the offence against his person in consideration of the great
benefits which Milič had conferred on Bohemia, both by his eloquent
preaching and by the example of his own spotless and ascetic life. In
1367 Milič proceeded on a journey to Rome, where Pope Urban V. was then
expected from Avignon; he wished to inform the Pope of his conviction
of the impending end of the world and arrival of Antichrist. Milič
arrived in Rome before the Pope, and, as he himself tells us in his
_Libellus de Antichristo_, he caused a placard to be published on the
doors of St. Peter's Church announcing that he would shortly preach
a sermon declaring that Antichrist had come. Milič was immediately
arrested in consequence of this act, and imprisoned in a monastery
of the Minorite Friars. The errors in doctrine which he was accused
of were probably a mere pretext for proceeding against a man whose
eloquent sermons against the avarice and immorality of the clergy had
rendered him obnoxious to many monks. As the biographer of Milič tells
us, "The friars of the mendicant orders were greatly incensed against
him (Milič) because of his sermons on the admission of simoniacs to
religious orders, and on the possession of worldly goods by clerical
persons, both men and women. He was therefore thrown into heavy bonds,
together with Theodoric the hermit, a priest of saintly memory, who had
accompanied him."
Eventually Milič and his companion were released by order of Pope
Urban, who had meanwhile arrived in Rome. They returned to Prague
towards the end of the year 1368, and were received with great
enthusiasm by the people. The citizens of Prague rejoiced all the more
on the return of their beloved preacher because during his absence
they had often heard the mendicant friars announce from the pulpit,
"Beloved brethren, very soon Milič will be burnt!" After his return to
his native land, Milič, who in 1369 succeeded Waldhauser as rector of
the Teyn Church at Prague, continued to devote his life to preaching
and to good works. He devoted much energy to rescue work, and reclaimed
a very great number of fallen women, for whom, aided by gifts from
pious citizens of Prague, he founded a refuge, to which the name of
Jerusalem was given. The ascetic and saintly life of Milič did not,
however, disarm his constant enemies, the mendicant friars. In 1374
a new accusation against him, consisting of twelve "articles", was
brought forward, and Milič travelled to Avignon to defend himself
before the Papal See. Evidence as to the result of the trial is very
uncertain, but on the whole it appears that the views of Milič were
favourably received at Avignon; but the time was now near when he would
be beyond the reach of all earthly jurisdiction. Milič died at Avignon,
probably in June 1374.
Of the literary works of Milič we unfortunately possess very scanty
remains. It is certain that copies of his Bohemian sermons were
circulated for a considerable time after his death, but all trace of
them has disappeared long since. If we consider the great eloquence
which all contemporary writers attribute to Milič, this cannot be
sufficiently regretted. The Bohemian book entitled _Of the Great
Torments of the Holy Church_, which has often been attributed to Milič,
is really a work of Magister John of Přibram. Of the numerous Latin
writings of Milič, only a few, of which the _Libellus de Antichristo_
and the _Postilla_ are the most important, have been preserved. The
biographer of Milič has stated very frankly the reason why so many
of his works are lost. He writes: "Milič wrote much, and because he,
perhaps too audaciously, attacked the vices of the clergy, and those of
the mendicant friars in particular, the Hussites (as it is the custom
of heretics) praised him as if he had been a friend of their sect, and
used his statements as arguments for their own doctrines. Therefore
Archbishop Zbynek of Hasenburg caused the writings of Milič to be
publicly burnt on a pile, together with those of other heretics."
It is certainly principally through the example of Milič that the
better known THOMAS OF ŠTITNÝ received the first impulse towards
writing his now celebrated works. Štitný, indeed, himself writes: "Had
it not been for the priest Milič, perhaps all these books which I have
written would not have existed."
Thomas of Štitný was born in 1330 or 1331 at Štitný, a small castle or
"tower," to use the Bohemian designation, in Southern Bohemia, which
appears to have been in the possession of his family for some time.
At a very early age, probably shortly after its foundation in 1348,
Štitný visited the University of Prague, where he remained for some
years devoting his time to the study of theology and philosophy. He did
not, however, seek academic honours, and thus incurred the enmity of
the "magisters" of the University, who considered him as an intruder on
their domain. Their indignation was increased by the circumstance that
Štitný wrote in Bohemian at a time when Latin only was considered to be
the fitting language for those who treated the subjects on which Štitný
wrote.
His theological and philosophical studies did not, however, so
completely engross the interest of Štitný that he did not listen
attentively to the sermons of the famous preachers whose eloquence was
then attracting the attention of the citizens and students of Prague.
He indeed tells us, in the preface to his book _Of General Christian
Matters_, that this (his first original) work contained "what he heard
at sermons and from learned men, as well as what he had conceived in
his own mind." In his _Discourses for Sundays and Feast-days_, Štitný
refers more precisely to the sermons which he had heard at Prague.
Alluding to the attacks which had been made against his own works, he
writes: "Thus within my own recollection the devil incited many against
Conrad, that noble preacher of God's truth, because he showed up the
craftiness of a false priesthood, and because he taught God's truth.
Thus also have they acted towards the good Milič, and evil people still
speak evil of him, but (they speak) injustice."
At a time which cannot be exactly ascertained, but which was probably
somewhat later than the generally accepted date, 1360, Štitný left
Prague and returned to his home. After the death of his parents he
administered the little family estate, and continued living there for
some time with his three sisters. He married about this date, but in
1370 was already a widower. He had several children, for whose benefit
he first began writing, though the later editions of his works are
evidently written for a wider circle of readers. Štitný outlived all
his children except his favourite daughter Anne (Anežka), who was his
faithful companion during the last years of his life. In 1381 Štitný
returned to Prague, and now devoted his time entirely to his studies.
After his death, in the year 1401, his daughter Anežka occupied part of
a house next to the Bethlehem Chapel, where Hus was to begin preaching
in the following year. It is known that several pious ladies lived in
community in a house near Hus's chapel, and a letter addressed to them
by him has been preserved. If, as is probable, Anežka of Štitný was
one of these pious ladies, the fact forms an interesting link between
Thomas and his greater successor.
Štitný did not begin writing early in life. His earliest works,
translations from St. Augustine, St. Bonaventura, and other writers,
date from about the year 1370. His first original work, the books _Of
General Christian Matters_, one of the two on which his reputation
as a Bohemian writer mainly depends, appeared in 1376. It is, however,
certain that he had in 1374 already published several smaller tracts or
pamphlets that were incorporated with his larger work. The books _Of_
_General Christian Matters_ are therefore rather a collection of minor
writings, some of which had already appeared, than a work written from
the first on a settled plan and with a continuous range of thought.
It was a peculiarity of Štitný that he constantly re-wrote his books,
changing their contents very considerably. Of his first book we possess
four different MSS., differing considerably. The last, published under
the new name of the _Books of Christian Instruction_, appeared only
in 1400, a year before the author's death. In 1852 Erben edited and
published the books _Of General Christian Matters_, following the
readings of the best MSS. His work includes a biography of Štitný,
which, though recent research has proved that it contains a few minor
errors, is still of the greatest value.
The books _Of General Christian Matters_ possess in Erben's edition two
prefaces: the first is addressed to Štitný's children, the second to
the larger circle of readers for whom the later editions of his works
were intended. In the first preface Štitný gives us a general account
of the contents of his work, informing us that it will consist of six
books.
The first, "Of faith and of hope and of love."
The second, "Of virgins and of widows and of married people."
The third, "Of the master of a family, of the mistress, and of the
household."
The fourth, "How the nine orders of people bear the similitude of the
nine choirs of angels."
The fifth, "How the devil tempts us."
The sixth, "How we purify ourselves from our sins."
In his second preface Štitný defends his resolution to use the Bohemian
language in his writings. "Those who blame Bohemian books," he writes,
"perhaps wishing alone to appear learned, will do well to fear God's
vengeance, and to remember how guilty those are who would stop letters
and needful messages contained therein; thus preventing the Lord God,
the Eternal Bridegroom, from instructing His bride in His will, and
comforting her in her distress." Štitný's views on this subject will
remind English readers of those of his contemporary Wycliffe. The
second preface also contains a passage showing the great importance
which Štitný attached to the reading of the Scriptures; Štitný's
teaching, as indeed that of all the Bohemian reformers, differs greatly
from that of the Church of Rome on this important point. He writes:
"This also mark carefully, beloved brethren, that the Holy Scriptures
are, as it were, letters sent to us from our home; for our home is
heaven, and our friends are the patriarchs and prophets, apostles and
martyrs, and our fellow-citizens are the angels with whom we ought to
be, and our King is Christ."
The first and last books of Štitný's work are of a purely theological
character, differing thus from Books II. and III., which contain much
shrewd advice of a more worldly character, though always founded on a
distinctly theological basis. Štitný had not, when writing this book,
reached the height of scholastic learning which he afterwards attained
in his _Besedni Reči_. The beginning of the first chapter of the books
_Of General Christian Matters_ is a good specimen of Štitný's earlier
manner of writing on theological subjects. He writes: "Scripture tells
us, 'Without faith it is impossible to please God', just as it is
impossible to build a house without a foundation. Therefore, he who
would have a firm house must first put up a firm foundation. And if we
would have fruit, it must first originate from the root. And although
the root in itself is not beautiful, yet all the beauty of stem and
fruit originate from it. Thus, if there were no faith, all things would
be useless for our salvation; without faith, indeed, other good things
could not exist. For faith is the foundation and root of everything
that is good, though its beauty is not in itself so evident, yet could
there be neither hope nor love without faith. And how can I hope for
anything if I do not first believe that it exists. Therefore it is
necessary that whoever wishes to be saved should hold the common faith
of Christianity."
The second book _Of General Christian Matters_, as already mentioned,
differs considerably from the first. Štitný begins by telling us that
"after having finished the first book, which deals with the three
general matters that are necessary to all, of whatever condition they
may be, and without which no one can be saved, I have written for you
this second book. It deals with purity, and how it should be preserved
by those who wish to dwell with God in His kingdom, in whichever of
the three conditions[25] they may belong. For that heavenly city, the
godly, holy, New Jerusalem is thus ruled, and is so very pure that,
since the beginning of ages, nothing impure has entered it, as indeed
the holy St. John had declared in the Book of Secret Revelation."
Štitný's book, _Of Virgins, of Widows, and of Married People_, is
written from a highly moral and wise point of view, but he deals
with his subject in a somewhat outspoken manner, and caution is
often necessary when quoting from it. It is interesting to find in
the writings of a moralist of the fourteenth century views as to the
relative position of the sexes similar to some that have quite recently
given rise to considerable controversy. In the chapter entitled, "What
those who wish to get married should beware of," Štitný writes: "To
those maidens who seek a husband, and to bachelors also, will I give
this advice, that every young man should preserve himself for his bride
free from all impurity as completely as she does so for him; for it is
God's law that no man should outside of the bonds of matrimony commit
any offence with any woman. For as a young man would be displeased
should the maiden whom he wishes to marry quit the state of virginity,
in the same manner he also should preserve his innocence. A man indeed
is stronger than a woman, and as it is shameful for a virgin to leave
her state except through matrimony, thus before God it is no lighter
sin for a man. And thus it is beseeming for both man and woman to
preserve themselves pure till the time of their marriage, and to
prepare themselves for it by penitence, for marriage is a sacrament."
Very quaint is the part of the second book which deals with inequality
between married people. Štitný writes: "It is necessary that those who
wish to marry should all seek their equals, so that inequality may not
cause discord and displeasure. If you are young, beware of old people,
and one of noble birth should seek his equal, for often evil is caused
by that discord (which arises) when those who are very unequal marry.
If an old man marries some one younger, he ever fears that the younger
one may not love him, and being therefore anxious about this, he does
not feel complete love for his partner, for where there is suspicion
there cannot be complete love. Also the humours of the young do not
please the old, nor those of the old the young. Some one indeed said,
and he spoke the truth, 'When I was young the old people did not please
me, and now that I am old, the young people do not please me.' And
even if an old man does not displease a young wife, and even if she is
good, yet will she not be free from the lies of evil people. They will
indeed give her evil advice, saying, with mischievous intent, 'What an
old husband you have!...' And then evil people will in the fields sing
songs about them, the devil instigating them to do so, for he wishes to
corrupt a good woman, to bring before her mind what she had not thought
of, so that she may be seized by longing. And it will be precisely
the same thing with a young man who has an old wife. Jesting with
them, people will say to him, 'There is your beauty! why, it is your
mother!'" In this book Štitný constantly praises the state of celibacy,
strictly in accordance with the doctrine of the Church of Rome.
The third book, which, as already stated, treats "of the master of
a family, the mistress, and the household," contains much wise and
homely advice, and incidentally throws considerable light on the family
life of a Bohemian country gentleman in the fourteenth century. The
position of the head of the family is thus defined: "Every landowner is
the master of his servants, and should restrain them from everything
that is evil: he should first attempt to do this by kindness; if he
cannot at once put a stop to evil habits, he should endeavour to do
so gradually, but in no case allow any new evil habit to spring up.
If kindness does not succeed with them (the servants), then show your
right to rule (over them). Remember always that that priest Eli in the
Old Testament was indeed good himself, but his sons did evil. He, it
is true, said to them, 'You do evil,' but he did not manfully punish
them for their misdeeds. He thus incurred God's wrath, and was given
as an example to all fathers and heads of families who do not heed
what the members of their households do. But a master of a household
must beware of sudden, useless anger. If he cannot entirely get rid of
anger, let him at least be softened, and he should be cruel neither to
his servants nor to his wife, remembering that God is your only Lord
and theirs also. On this, too, should every one reflect, that it is
improbable that any one be without faults; and it often happens that
when you will not pass by a single fault, perhaps not a serious one,
you either spoil (the servant) yet more, or you are obliged later to
overlook more, serious faults in another (servant whom you take in the
place of the former one). Thus the tilter must in tournaments overlook
some faults in his charger, if but he is on the whole serviceable."
Štitný's work, like those of all moralists of all periods, contains
many reflections on the vanity of the female sex. He writes: "St. John
Chrysostom tells us that if a man has a dissipated wife, he should not
forbid her everything at a time, lest she become refractory, but from
those things that are, as it were, most serious, from those let him
first try to dissuade her. If she paints herself, then remark before
her what a shameful thing it is to grease yourself in a nasty manner,
or to cram the hair of others on your head; (also remark to her), often
one thus acquires shame while wishing to receive honours. If wise men
remark these things on her, they will take her for a mad woman, and
other women, who perhaps have some grudge against her, will, even
though they praise her, betray her and make fun of her, and often her
own servants will be obliged to hide themselves from shame of this
(their mistress's appearance). In fact, while wishing to appear young,
she becomes aged in consequence of this painting."
The leading idea of the fourth book _Of General Christian Matters_
is one which we meet with very often in Štitný's works, but which he
has perhaps developed here more clearly than elsewhere. It is the
mystic idea of the analogy which, according to Štitný, exists between
the different conditions of men and the various choirs of angels. He
writes: "It is my duty--as indeed I promised in the preface to these
books--to explain in this my fourth book in what manner the conditions
of men in this world are similar to the various choirs of the angels;
but let no man attack me, as if I had said that such or such people
of this or that condition will be in the same choir, as angels of any
particular class. It will be well for them if they obtain heaven;
but whether a man of this or that condition will be in this choir or
that, that is a matter which I cannot judge. Yet in this world certain
conditions of men are more similar to particular choirs of angels than
others. And indeed it often happens that some common little peasant[26]
or small tradesman has greater love for God than some monk. Yet both
will be with God, but I do not know in which choir each of them will
be." Štitný then proceeds to address admonitions to the divers classes
of men. The first class mentioned are the priests and monks, whom he
compares to the cherubims. The somewhat lengthy discourse about the
monks is very interesting, and I shall quote a portion of it in Mr.
Wratislaw's translation. Štitný writes: "And thus they have fallen away
in love; they have not the peace of God in their minds; they do not
rejoice with God in devotion, but quarrel, hate each other, condemn
each other, priding themselves against each other; for love has sunk
low in them on account of avarice, because they have forsaken God
for money, breaking His holy laws and the oath of their own promise.
And besides this (which is the most dreadful wickedness), they are
irritated, they are annoyed at every good preacher or every good man
who understands their error; they would gladly make him out a heretic
that they may have greater freedom for their cunning."
The fifth and sixth books _Of General Christian Matters_ again
deal, like the first one, with purely theological subjects. It will
be unnecessary to deal with them in detail, as Štitný's later work
gives us a clearer insight into his theological views. It is easily
noticeable that Štitný's studies gradually become more profound, and
there is a marked difference between the simple and homely manner in
which the books _Of General Christian Matters_ are written and the
more learned and more brilliant style of the _Reči Besedni_.
The _Reči Besedni_, which we may translate into English by "Learned
Entertainments," also known as _Rozmluvy nábožné_, "Religious
Conversations," is the second great work of Štitný, and according to
most Bohemian critics his masterpiece. A considerable number of MSS.
containing the "Religious Conversations," both separately and together
with the other works of Štitný, have been preserved, and we have two
versions that differ considerably, the author having rewritten his work
as he did the books _Of General Christian Matters_ also. Extracts
from the book were printed some years ago, but it was only in 1897 that
Professor Hattala published a complete edition of the _Reči Besedni_.
The work is, like all the writings of Štitný, mainly a theological
treatise, but philosophy, then of course the handmaiden of theology,
has a considerable share in this book. The study of Aristotle and of
numerous scholastic writers is very evident, but, speaking generally,
Štitný must be classed among the realists in distinction from the
nominalists. He has, however, incorporated with his book such numerous
quotations, or rather extracts, from other writers, that his system
appears somewhat eclectic.
The general purpose of the book is an attempt to define the
personality of God and His attributes according to the system of
mediæval scholasticism. Faith (Víra) here, as in all Štitný's works,
is assumed as existent, and only incidentally is an attempt made to
reconcile religion with science. The science of course is that of the
fourteenth century, which scarcely knew the words with
"_Greek endings each the little passing bell_
_That signifies some faith's about to die._"
Štitný's book, treating of abstract matters such as had never before
been dealt with in Bohemian, is yet written in a clear, lucid,
and forcible manner, and it is perhaps doubtful whether any other
modern language had at that period arrived at a sufficient degree
of development to produce a similar work on subjects which mediæval
custom reserved to the Latin language. In this respect Štitný was a
true precursor of Hus, and Palacký has rightly said that a nation which
produced and understood such a writer as Štitný could not henceforth
be called rude and uncultivated. The portion of this work which has
principally attracted the attention of Bohemian scholars is that
dealing with Krása (beauty), or rather, as Štitný words it, "the wisdom
of God, as it is shown to us in the beauty and splendour of creation."
It is impossible to quote detached passages from this treatise, as it
may be called, which is contained in chapters ix. to xii. of Štitný's
book, nor are these chapters perhaps specially characteristic of the
general purpose of Štitný's work. Some of the ideas expressed in these
chapters are considerably in advance of the times, and his theories
sometimes recall the views of modern German writers on æsthetics.
The _Reči Besedni_, in Professor Hattala's edition, contains two
prefaces. The first, by an unknown writer, gives a few interesting
details concerning the author of the _Reči Besedni_; it tells us "that
during the reign of Wenceslas of Bohemia, the fourth of that name,
there lived a renowned knight, Thomas of Štitný, a good man of letters,
honourable in his times and irreproachable in his noble life up to his
death. Leading a pious and peaceful life, he composed these books in
the Bohemian language.... Possessing a sharp intellect, he produced
beautiful, enchanting works, in which he used the writings of the Old
and of the New Testament, and of the holy fathers."
The second preface, by Štitný himself, explains his reason for writing
his work in the form of a dialogue between father and son. "Thinking
then and remembering," he tells us, "how pleasant it was to me in my
youth to listen to my father or mother when they talked on Christian
matters, and how it was through them that I acquired some knowledge of
Scripture, I devised these books, (written) as if children questioned
their father and he answered them."
A quotation from the first chapter of the _Religious Conversations_
will be interesting as showing the manner in which Štitný opens up
the discussion of his difficult subject. The chapter entitled, "How
the children now begin to question their father as to what God is
and how He can be known to us," begins with the following question:
"Dear father,[27] we would be glad to ask you, and to understand,
what God is?" The father answers thus: "O children, you have asked
a short, but far-reaching and very sublime question. Our intellect
cannot err in believing that God exists. All creation proclaims that
God is (its) creator; for no thing has made itself. Therefore all
men, heathens, Jews, Christians, heretics, and philosophers, hold
(= consider) something as (being) God. But what God is, that the
mind of men does not fathom! Therefore it can be said that God is
the ineffable Supreme Being, than whom nothing better, nothing more
blissful, nothing more majestic can be imagined, nor indeed anything
as good, as blissful, as majestic. For herein He (God) rises above all
comprehension, above all minds of men and angels; He is always more
excellent than any one can express or imagine. Thus will you ascertain
what God is not, but you cannot attain to the knowledge of what He
is. For whatever may be the highest majesty a man can imagine, yet He
(God) is above this. If a man attains to as high a heart as he can, yet
God will be raised above that. Thus many heathen errors and heresies
arose, because men having in their minds imagined God in this or that
fashion, they then said, 'This is God.' This indeed is true sense, to
know our folly and ignorance, (wherefore) it is impossible for us to
gaze on the brightness of solemn divinity, and, as it were, on the
spiritual splendour of inward light, in which resides God, to whom we
cannot accede. Rather let us in meekness, holding the strong and true
Christian faith, merit that we may once contemplate our God, through
our Lord Christ, when in that eternal kingdom of His our eyes shall
be entirely and truly cleared. Let not sin so entirely blind us that
we--God forbid it!--for some reason or other forget God, not loving
Him in true faith above everything else. For the Scripture sayeth,
'If you do not believe, you will not understand.' Therefore, children,
it beseems you to think and speak of so sublime a subject with awe and
dread and discretion, and to listen with attentive ears and a pious
heart, with love and not from frowardness."
Chapter xxii. of the _Reči Besedni_ strongly brings out the acumen and
lucidity with which Štitný elaborated his often difficult theological
definitions. The comparisons by which he endeavours to render clearer
the dogma of the Trinity are very striking. The chapter begins as usual
with a question: "How then did it happen that only the Son of God
accepted human nature in the unity of His person?" The father answers:
"The Father or the Holy Ghost could have done so, as well as the Son.
But the Lord God wished thus to accomplish this; thus in the council
of all the persons of the glorious Godhead, the Holy Trinity, was it
decreed--That the wisdom of the Son of God should, as was fitting,
overcome the cunning of the devil; that the devil should truly lose his
dominion over men when the Divine Wisdom was led to death in the human
personality of one who was not obliged to die; and that the same person
who in the Holy Trinity is eternally the Son should become the Son of
Man.
"And that you may in a manner understand this also, how the Son of God
Himself in His own personality received the human nature, and not the
Father nor the Holy Ghost--though the whole Trinity is one God, and at
the same time each person is a complete divinity--let us consider the
similar case of the sun. Not that it is the same with it as with the
Creator, but I say there is a resemblance.
"The sun has also its Trinity--that is, the body of the sun, the light
which proceeds from it, and also the heat of the sun; but when the sun
comes to us it gives us its light and its heat. But the light alone
takes (on itself) that colour of the glass or the membrane or the cloud
through which it appears to us; but the sun itself and the heat will
not have this colour.
"Oh, wondrous power! oh, unfathomable wisdom! oh, most delightful
goodness, how charming it is to gaze on you that have deigned to open
our eyes! And does it not beseem us to admire this: how in Christ in
this Unity are gathered together--and how properly and how usefully
for us--three things in their nature most dissimilar, as it appears
to our minds. But what is impossible to God? Oh, there is something
new, greater, and eternal joined together in this Unity. The spirit is
new; that was created when the Son of God accepted to become a man.
The body is greater than it was when long ago it was created for Adam;
for from that body the bodies of all men proceeded, and afterwards the
body of Christ, which He took from the pure virginal blood of her whom
He chose for Himself as a mother. The Word of God, then, the Son of
God the Father, that is eternal. And all this met in the one person of
our Lord Christ. And in this strange act of the entire Holy Trinity
the threefold power of God was shown. Firstly, because out of nothing
He created something. Secondly, because He made something new out of
something greater. Thirdly, because out of something mortal He made
something eternal, or, as I should rather say, because out of something
dead He made something eternal."
Štitný's two works--his books _Of General Christian Matters_ and
his _Religious Conversations_--give us all that is really valuable
in his teaching, and the other works are comparatively of slight
interest. Štitný's literary activity was, however, very great during
his whole life. It has already been mentioned that he re-wrote the
books _Of General Christian Matters_ four times, and the _Religious
Conversations_ twice. A third work of considerable size, not yet
printed, appeared in 1392, entitled _Speeches for Sundays and
Fast-days_; and to his death Štitný continued to publish smaller
writings, partly original, partly translated from other writers. In
the last years of his life the mysticism, almost always latent in the
mind of a Bohemian, obtained preponderating influence on the views of
Štitný. His latest work is a translation of the visions of St. Bridget,
a Swedish saint belonging to the early part of the thirteenth century.
As a recent Bohemian critic has justly remarked, the visions of St.
Bridget exercised on Štitný's mind, in his last years, an influence
similar to that of the "prophetess," Christina Ponatovská, on Komenský.
Waldhauser, Milič, Štitný, and many minor writers on theology, who do
not require special notice, energetically attacked the avarice and
immorality of the clergy, and loudly demanded Church reform. Yet they
were careful to avoid all attacks on the dogmas of the Roman Church,
and, indeed, looked to the Pope, as the head of that Church, as to the
person who would initiate Church reform. Different from these views
were those of MATTHEW OF JANOV, the last of the precursors of Hus whom
I shall mention. Matthew obviously writes under the strong impression
produced by the great schism in the Western Church, which began in
1378, four years after the death of Milič. Štitný, indeed, lived on for
many years later, but age appears to have weakened his energy and his
enthusiasm, and he has indeed, in the last editions of his writings,
considerably attenuated many remarks contained in the earlier ones.
Great, on the other hand, was the influence of the schism on the
writings of Matthew of Janov. The idea of his master, Milič, that the
Pope should himself become the originator of Church reform, appeared
an absurdity at a moment when two rival pontiffs were preparing to
organise, by the sale of indulgences, so-called "crusades" against
their opponents, whom they already attacked with the ecclesiastic arm
of excommunication and the foulest personal abuse. The only remedy
that appeared possible to Matthew of Janov--undoubtedly one of the
profoundest thinkers of his age--was a reform of the Church in which
the individual churchman was to take the initiative, and such a reform,
he thought, could only consist in a return to the ways of the primitive
Church, as described to us in the Scriptures.
Matthew's life was lived and lives for us in his books. Very few
words will suffice to tell all that is known of the circumstances of
his outer life. The year of his birth is uncertain, but we know that
his father was Wenceslas of Janov, a poor Bohemian knight, and that
when very young he proceeded to Prague to pursue his studies at the
university there. He here fell under the spell of the eloquence of
Milič of Kremsier, for whom he expresses unlimited admiration, and whom
in one of his writings he describes as "the son and semblance of our
Lord Jesus Christ, possessing a distinct and visible resemblance to His
apostles." Matthew left Prague some time before the death of Milič, and
pursued his studies at Paris for six years, obtaining there the degree
of "Magister". He thence became known as "Magister Parisiensis," by
which name he is generally described by contemporary writers. After
spending some time at Rome and Nüremberg he returned to Prague, and in
1381 became a canon of the Cathedral of St. Vitus on the Hradčany at
Prague.
In distinction from both Waldhauser and Milič, Matthew obtained no
special reputation as a preacher, but principally devoted his time to
the composition of theological works. Some of these works attracted
the attention of his superiors, and were condemned in 1388 by a Synod
of the Archdiocese of Prague. Matthew was obliged to sign a document,
which has been preserved to us by Palacký, in which he withdrew a
considerable number of opinions contained in his works. In this
recantation Matthew withdraws his former statements concerning images
of Christ and the saints, which, indeed, he promises henceforth to
"adore and venerate." He further affirms "that the saints in heaven,
and their bodies and bones, and also other sanctified things, such
as the garments of Christ, of the blessed Virgin, and of the saints,
ought to be venerated here on earth." In the last paragraph of the
recantation Matthew admits that people, specially laymen, should not
be advised to receive communion daily. It is curious that Matthew's
far-reaching theories concerning the return to primitive Christianity
are not even alluded to in this recantation. As the chronology of the
works of Janov--of which no single complete MS. has been preserved--is
very uncertain, it is impossible to decide whether he had not then
expressed these views, or whether it was thought advisable to leave
them unnoticed.
Matthew's sentence, no doubt in consequence of his recantation, was a
very mild one; he was suspended from exercising his functions as a
priest, except in his own parish church, during half a year. Janov died
in the prime of his life in 1393, and retained his canonry up to that
time.
There is sufficient proof that Matthew of Janov was a very voluminous
writer, but his works have reached us in a very incomplete state,
and they were entirely unknown before the present century. It is not
difficult to account for the almost complete oblivion into which
these important works had fallen. Though the teaching of Matthew was
on many points similar to that of the Hussites, yet no reverence for
his person and his memory was felt by them. They could not refrain
from contrasting his recantation with the very different behaviour
of Hus under similar circumstances. If some of his works have been
preserved through the agency of the party that favoured Church reform,
this was because such writings were attributed to Wycliffe or Hus.
The adherents of the Church of Rome were, of course, anxious that,
after his recantation, the former heretic theories of Matthew should,
as far as possible, be buried in oblivion. They, not without reason,
regarded some of the opinions of Matthew as most dangerous for their
Church. The celebrated Protestant divine Neander, who perhaps has
studied the works of Janov with more care than any one else, declares
that a thorough study of Janov's works proves that, independently
of Wycliffe, there existed in Bohemia at the end of the fourteenth
century a strong reaction against the Roman hierarchy, founded on
principles somewhat similar to those of the later German reformers. In
his _Kirchengeschichte_, also, Neander has expressed the opinion that
the views of Hus not only did not go farther than those of Matthew
of Janov, but that they indeed remained somewhat behind those of the
earlier divine.
It is certain that some of Janov's writings were in Bohemian, as a
decree of the archiepiscopal vicariat (dating from the year 1392) has
been preserved in which Matthew was ordered to submit for inspection
two Bohemian books which he had just written. All trace of both
these books has long been lost. There is, however, no doubt that the
majority of Janov's books were written in Latin. Those that have been
preserved consist of a large number of religious pamphlets, written at
different periods. Towards the end of his life Matthew collected these
writings and published them in a large book entitled _Regulæ Veteris
et Novi Testamenti_. The work is divided into three books consisting
of chapters, some of which retain the designation under which they had
formerly appeared as separate pamphlets. No complete MS. of the _Regulæ
Veteris et Novi Testamenti_ is in existence, but it would be quite
possible to reconstruct the work from the different MSS. and publish
it; there seems, however, to be at present little probability that any
one will undertake this task.
No work of Matthew of Janov has up to now been printed except the
pamphlet _De abominatione in loco sacro_, which forms the last
chapter of the third book of the _Regulæ_. This treatise was formerly
attributed both to Wycliffe and to Hus, and it is printed in the
large edition of the works of the latter writer that was published
at Nüremberg in the sixteenth century. Palacký has conjectured that
several smaller pamphlets included in this large edition of the works
of Hus really belong to Matthew of Janov. It is indeed only recently
that Palacký, Dr. Lechler, and Mr. Wratislaw have attracted attention
to the work of Janov, and have quoted extensively from the MS. copies.
I shall attempt to give some idea of his most characteristic theories
by quoting a few short passages from his works. Matthew's special
love and veneration for the Bible appears very clearly in a passage
contained in the introduction to the _Regulæ_. "I have in these my
writings," he tells us, "principally used the Bible, and but little
the sayings of the learned doctors; both because the Bible occurs to
me promptly and copiously, whatever matter I may be considering or
writing on, also because through it and through its divine truths,
which are clear and manifest in themselves, all opinions are more
solidly confirmed, more stably founded, and meditated on more usefully;
then also because it is the Bible that I have loved since my youth, and
called my friend and bride--truly the mother of beauteous affection and
knowledge and fear and holy hope.... And here I confess that the Bible
has never been severed from me, from youth to age, and even to decline,
neither on the road nor in my house, nor when I was busy, nor when I
enjoyed leisure."
A short quotation referring to the schism, which then attracted the
entire interest of all lands belonging to the Western Church, clearly
shows Matthew's views on this subject. He writes: "This schism has
not arisen because they loved Jesus Christ and His Church, but rather
because they (_i.e._ the priests) loved themselves and this world."
Of the reform of the Church Matthew writes: "It therefore appears to
me that it is necessary, for the purpose of re-establishing peace
and union in the Christian community, to eradicate all weeds, to
condense the Word of God on earth again, and bring back Jesus Christ's
Church to its original, salutary, and condensed condition, retaining
but few regulations, and those only that date from the time of the
Apostles." Later on, writing on the same subject, Matthew says: "All
the (above-mentioned) works of men, ceremonies and traditions shall be
totally destroyed and will cease, while our Lord Jesus shall alone be
exalted, and His Word alone shall remain in all eternity; and the time
is near when these things shall be abolished."
FOOTNOTES:
[20] The Vyšehrad hill, now part of the city of Prague, was the site of
one of the oldest Bohemian monasteries.
[21] See Chapter I.
[22] See Chapter VII.
[23] I have always thus translated the Bohemian word _topička_ referred
to above.
[24] The Bohemian words are _veleš_ and _zmek_ names of heathen
Bohemian divinities, which, after the acceptation of Christianity,
acquired the signification of evil spirits.
[25] _i.e._ virgins, widows, and married people. See p. 66.
[26] _Sedláček_, the diminutive of _sedlák_ = peasant. The diminutive
is used very frequently in Bohemian.
[27] Literally "little father," _tatiku_. The frequent diminutives of
the Bohemian language are very difficult to render in English.
CHAPTER III
HUS
The life and death of Hus and the principal events of his career form
perhaps the one incident in the annals of Bohemia that is familiar
to most English readers. I therefore give but a summary account of
the career of the great Bohemian, for here, as everywhere, the need
of compression confronts me. I feel the more justified in omitting
many interesting incidents, as English literature in the late Mr.
Wratislaw's _John Hus_ possesses a short but trustworthy biography of
Hus founded on lately-discovered documents. The work is superior to
any other on the same subject. Even in Bohemian literature no equally
trustworthy biography of Hus has as yet appeared.[28] The sympathies of
Mr. Wratislaw are indeed very evident, but he has never attempted to
slur over or to attenuate the arguments of the adversaries of Hus.
The study of the life and of the writings of Hus has until recently
been greatly neglected in Bohemia, and even now no complete modern
edition of his works exists. A recent editor of a selection from Hus's
letters scarcely exaggerates when he writes: "Two wrongs have been
committed on Magister John Hus--one was committed when at Constance
long ago his life was violently brought to an end; the other consists
in the neglect with which his works are treated at present by the
national (_i.e._ Bohemian) public."
John of Husinec, or JOHN HUS as he is usually called, was, according
to ancient tradition, born on 6th July 1369; neither day nor year of
his birth are, however, absolutely certain.[29] Many tales told of the
early days of Hus are taken from the records of the Bohemian brethren,
written many years after his death. From the year 1400 onward authentic
accounts of the events of the life of the Bohemian reformer exist, and
from the year 1409 to the time of his death we have a continuous and
detailed record of his life.
At a very early age Hus proceeded to Prague to pursue at the university
there the studies required for the purpose of entering the Church.
With his usual candour and simplicity Hus himself tells us that he
originally decided to adopt the ecclesiastical career rather for the
purpose of gaining a living than through any special vocation. It
is, however, certain that during his years of study he already led a
pious and studious life. He has indeed confessed[30] that before he
was ordained "he had been fond of playing chess, thus wasting time
and causing irritation" (to his partners). Such a confession, written
while he was preparing for his fatal journey to Constance, proves
indeed how little he had to confess, and is a touching instance both
of his extremely sensitive conscience and of the profound humility so
characteristic of Hus.
In September 1393 Hus took the degree of bachelor of arts, in the
following year that of bachelor in divinity, and in 1396 that of master
of arts. His reputation for great learning seems to have spread very
rapidly at the university, for in 1401 we already find him dean of the
Faculty of Arts, and in the following year he became, for the first
time and at an unusually early age, rector of the university of Prague.
He seems soon to have attracted attention by his great learning, and by
the acumen which he displayed in the learned disputations that formed
so large a part of the routine of mediæval universities. His learning
was at that period noticed rather than any special religious fervour.
His lectures, as Dr. Lechler has conjectured, were probably founded on
Wycliffe's philosophical works, which became known to the Bohemians
earlier than the theological works of the English divine.
A change appears to have come over the mind of Hus about the beginning
of the fifteenth century. He has himself told us that after his
ordination as a priest (probably in 1400) he led a yet simpler and more
ascetic life. The principal cause of the enthusiasm, both religious and
national, that henceforth distinguishes Hus was, however, undoubtedly
his appointment in 1402 as rector and preacher at the Bethlehem Chapel
in Prague. The foundation of the Bethlehem Chapel, which took place
in 1391, and was the work of Križ, a tradesman of Prague, and John
of Milheim, one of the courtiers of King Wenceslas, is an important
manifestation of the desire to reform the Roman Church and to enlarge
the sphere of the native language, which was then gaining ground in
Bohemia. In their deed of endowment the founders stated that their
object was the encouragement of the preaching of biblical doctrines in
the Bohemian language. No special provision for the reading of masses
was made, and no doubt many Bohemians, after hearing mass in other
churches where German sermons were still preached, then proceeded to
the Bethlehem Chapel. The stress laid on the preaching of the Gospel,
one of the points to which the partisans of Church reform attached
great importance, proves that the founders, or at least Milheim,
sympathised with this movement. The increased use of the Bohemian
language for preaching and its general development greatly irritated
the Germans in Bohemia, who believed their preponderant position in the
town and University of Prague to be menaced. The Germans in Bohemia
were therefore thoroughgoing partisans of the Church of Rome, rather
from antagonism to their fellow-citizens of Slav nationality than from
any sympathy for the abuses then prevailing in the Roman Church. This
division by nationalities, according to which the Bohemians favoured
Church reform, while the Germans defended the authority of Rome,
continued during the whole period of the Hussite wars, and indeed far
later. It was only with the appearance of Luther that this distinction
entirely ceased.
The sermons of Hus at the Bethlehem Chapel immediately attracted
general attention. His great eloquence is evident in the few sermons of
Hus that have been preserved, as well as in the fragments of them which
he undoubtedly afterwards introduced into his _Postilla_. He seems to
have preached on a wide range of subjects, and by no means to have
eschewed the topics of the day. In one of Hus's earliest sermons[31]
he refers to the invasion of Bohemia by the troops of the Margrave
of Meissen, the ally of Rupert, Elector-Palatine, whom the enemies of
King Wenceslas had elected King of the Romans. It is easy to imagine
the strong impression which Hus's fiery words produced on his Bohemian
audience, which, though thoroughly aware of the many faults of King
Wenceslas, yet supported him against his German rival. "The Bohemians,"
Hus said, "are more wretched than dogs or snakes, for a dog defends the
couch on which he lies, and if another dog tries to drive him away, he
fights with him; and a snake does the same. But us the Germans oppress,
seizing all the offices of state while we are silent. Bohemians in the
kingdom of Bohemia, according to all laws, indeed also according to the
law of God, and according to the natural order of things, should be
foremost in all the offices of the Bohemian kingdom; thus the French
are so in the French kingdom, and the Germans in the German lands.
Therefore should a Bohemian rule his own subordinates, and a German
German (subordinates). But of what use would it be that a Bohemian,
not knowing German, should become a priest or a bishop in Germany?
He certainly would be as useful as a dumb dog who cannot bark is to
a herd! And equally useless to us Bohemians is a German; and knowing
that this is against God's law and the regulations, I declare it to be
illegal!" Though the date of this sermon is certain, and its immediate
motive consisted no doubt in the cruelties that German troops were
then committing in Bohemia, yet it is evident that Hus already had in
view the preponderating influence which the Germans exercised in the
university and city of Prague.
It is noteworthy that Hus was during the early days of his priesthood
on good terms with his ecclesiastical superiors at Prague. This
continued to be the case even after discussions on the teaching of
Wycliffe had in 1403 begun to disturb the peace of the university. At
a meeting of the magisters which took place in May of that year, and
over which Walter Harasser, then rector of the university, presided,
the twenty-four articles from Wycliffe's writings which the London
Synod had already declared either heretical or erroneous, were laid
before the assembly by John Kbel and Wenceslas of Bechin, canons of the
chapter of Prague, the archiepiscopal seat then being vacant. Besides
these twenty-four articles, the representatives of the archbishopric
brought twenty-one other articles to the notice of the magisters, which
a German member of the university, one John Hübner, had selected from
Wycliffe's writings, and submitted to the ecclesiastical authorities.
The articles of Hübner, as Hus truthfully declared, contained various
statements that cannot be found in Wycliffe's works. "After these
articles had been read out, and Magister Walter Harasser, the rector,
had carefully noted down the votes of each and all the magisters
present as representatives of the university of Prague, it was decided
by a majority of the votes of the members of the university that no
one should dogmatise, preach, or assert, publicly or privately, the
articles which had been presented to the lord rector by John, official
of the archbishopric, and Wenceslas, the archdeacon, under penalty
of violating his oath."[32] A renewed discussion on the teaching of
Wycliffe took place somewhat later; this time, however, the matter was
only brought before the Bohemian "nation", one of the four sections
into which the university of Prague was then divided. The condemnation
of the articles taken from Wycliffe's works was renewed with a
restriction--suggested by Hus--which stated that no master or scholar
of the Bohemian "nation" should defend these articles in their false,
erroneous, or heretical sense.
Shortly after the first deliberation on Wycliffe's articles, Zbyněk
Zajic of Hasenburg was elected Archbishop of Prague. A member of one of
the most ancient Bohemian families, Zbyněk had--though long ordained a
priest and for some time provost of the town of Mélnik--devoted himself
mainly to political and military matters, as was then so frequently the
case with ecclesiastics of high descent. Though his ignorance has been
exaggerated, he certainly possessed no profound knowledge of theology.
He brought, however, to his new office a strong feeling of indignation
against the immorality and dishonesty of the clergy of his archdiocese,
and had, at least at first, a firm determination to remedy these evils
by establishing a system of severer discipline among his subordinates.
It is a striking proof of the great respect in which Hus was then held,
both because of his pure and honourable life and because of his great
learning, that the Archbishop's attention was immediately directed
to him. "At the commencement of his rule," the Archbishop, as Hus
afterwards recalled to his memory, "ordered him, whenever he noticed
any irregularity contrary to the rules of the Church, to bring such
irregularity to his (the Archbishop's) knowledge, either in person, or,
in case of absence, by means of a letter."[33] The Archbishop gave a
further proof of his confidence in Hus when he appointed him one of
the preachers before the synod of the diocese. These assemblies were
held by Archbishop Zbyněk more frequently than by his predecessors; he
no doubt thought that they would contribute to the reformation of his
clergy, which he had so much at heart. Of the sermons preached before
the synod by Hus, only few have been preserved, but they are sufficient
to prove how mercilessly he censured the immorality, avarice, and
haughtiness of the Bohemian clergy. These accusations, which were
unfortunately but too well founded, caused many to become enemies of
Hus, those in particular to whom Hus's words were specially applicable.
The amicable relations that at first existed between Hus and his
Archbishop did not continue long. In 1408 the clergy of the city of
Prague and of the archdiocese forwarded to the Archbishop a written
statement complaining of Hus's preaching in the Bethlehem chapel. In
this document--printed by Palacký--it was stated that Hus had, "in
opposition to the decisions of the Holy Church and to the opinions of
the holy fathers, and to the injury, shame, detriment, and scandal
of the whole clergy and the people generally," declared heretics all
those priests who received remuneration for the administration of the
sacraments or for other ecclesiastical functions, whether such payment
took place before or after the ceremony. Hus was further accused of
having spoken strongly against the ecclesiastics who held numerous
benefices. Hus indeed wrote an eloquent defence of his preaching, and
certainly succeeded in proving that Archbishop Ernest of Prague had,
when issuing an enactment against the avarice of the clergy in 1364,
used language almost identical with his own. Hus was none the less
deprived of his office of preacher before the synod.
It is important to note that this denunciation of Hus in no way accused
him of having preached anything contrary to the dogmas of the Roman
Catholic Church; up to the year 1409, indeed, no such charge was ever
brought forward against him. For the present, the priests of the
diocese only stated that Hus had shown extreme and imprudent zeal in
his endeavours to reform the clergy; such endeavours necessarily met
with the approbation of the worthier priests; the others could not, at
any rate, openly oppose them.
Relations with the Archbishop were yet further embittered by a letter
which Hus addressed to him in July 1408 in defence of Nicholas (or
Abraham) Velenovic, a priest who had been accused of preaching
Wycliffe's doctrine with regard to communion. As a Protestant divine,
Dr. Lechler has truly remarked, this letter reaches the extreme limit
of what is permissible to a priest when writing to his ecclesiastical
superiors. At the end of his letter Hus addresses the Archbishop in
these words: "Therefore, most reverend father, open your eyes inwardly
and within, love the good, observe those who are evil, do not let the
ostentatious and avaricious flatter you; rather let the humble and
the friends of poverty find favour with you; oblige the indolent to
work; do not hinder those who work steadfastly at the harvest of the
Lord."[34] It was inevitable that the form, if not the contents, of
this letter should cause offence. It is indeed a characteristic of Hus,
that while always speaking of himself with extreme humility and almost
exaggerating his petty failings, he yet uses authoritative, not to say
provocatory, language when he considers himself as defining "God's law."
The definitive rupture between Hus and the Roman Catholic Church, "the
principal beginning of accusations and grievances against me," as Hus
himself wrote, was brought on by events which had vast importance for
the whole Christian world. The schism in the Western Church still
continued, in spite of many efforts to effect a reconciliation between
the two rival groups of cardinals and their respective leaders. France
therefore decided no longer to recognise as legitimate either of the
two claimants to the papal throne, Benedict XIII. and Gregory XII.,
and to remain neutral up to the time that a general meeting of the
cardinals of both parties should have chosen a new pontiff. Bohemia
was one of the countries that had hitherto recognised the "Roman
Pope," Gregory XII., but King Wenceslas, no doubt honestly wishing to
re-establish the unity of the Church, decided to follow the example of
the King of France. He therefore brought the matter before Archbishop
Zbyněk, and also consulted the university of Prague. The Archbishop
immediately answered that he would never forsake the allegiance of Pope
Gregory. At the university opinions differed. The Bohemian "nation",
of which Hus was now the recognised leader, was strongly in favour
of the king's proposition. The Bavarian and Saxon "nations", as well
as the Polish one--which then consisted principally of Germans from
Silesia--took the opposite view. At a general meeting held under the
presidency of Henry of Baltenhagen, a German who was then rector, it
was decided that the university should continue to recognise Gregory
XII. as the legitimate Pope. Hus energetically defended the proposal
that the university should declare to remain neutral up to the time
that a new and legitimate Pope should have been chosen, and he thus
incurred the particular enmity of the Archbishop. At the end of the
year 1408 a decree was placarded in Bohemian and Latin on the doors of
the churches of Prague, stating that Hus, "as a disobedient son of the
holy mother, the Church," was forbidden to exercise any ecclesiastical
functions. Hus addressed an eloquent letter to the Archbishop defending
his conduct, but it made no impression on the mind of that ecclesiastic.
An important indirect result of the decision of the university was that
a fundamental change in its organisation now took place. After the
vote by which it had been decided to ignore the king's wishes, and to
refuse to accept neutrality in the struggle between the two Popes, both
parties at the university sent deputations to Kutna Hora (Kuttenberg),
where Wenceslas and his court were then residing. The representatives
of the Bohemian party, who were headed by Hus, no doubt hoped for a
favourable reception, as they alone had maintained the views of the
king with regard to the papal schism. They were, however, mistaken. The
king received them very ungraciously, and even accused Hus and other
Bohemian magisters of being the cause that Bohemia had acquired the
evil reputation of being a heretical country. On the other hand, the
king was most gracious to the German magisters, who had probably come
to apologise for their opposition to the royal will, and he assured
them that he would maintain all their privileges.
A complete change in the views of the ever-vacillating king took place
in the following month. At that moment Nicholas of Lobkovic, a man of
learning, and, it is said, a friend of Hus, had obtained considerable
influence over Wenceslas. As "supreme notary", or director of the
Bohemian mines, Lobkovic resided at Kutna Hora, then an important
mining centre, and he was thus thrown into constant contact with
the king at this time. Under his influence, Wenceslas, in January
1409, published the "Decrees of Kutna Hora", which entirely changed
the constitution of the university of Prague. As has already been
mentioned, the university was divided into four nations, three of
which--perhaps contrary to the intentions of Charles IV., the founder
of the university--always voted together, and were jointly known as the
German nation. The Bohemians were thus in their own country permanently
in a minority. A complete change was effected by the decrees of Kutna
Hora. The king stated that, "whereas the German nation, possessing
no rights of citizenship in the kingdom of Bohemia, has hitherto
held three votes" (at the university), "while the Bohemian nation,
the lawful heiress of that kingdom, possessed and enjoyed but one,
we consider it unjust and most improper that foreigners should enjoy
in abundance the profits" (_i.e._ benefices, foundations, &c.) "of
the natives, who consider themselves aggrieved by this deprivation,
and we declare that the Bohemian nation shall, ... according to the
regulations existing in favour of the French at the university of
Paris, and according to similar rules which exist in Lombardy and
Italy, possess in future three votes at all councils, judgments,
examinations, and other acts and dispositions of the university."[35]
Four days later a decree of the king forbade all persons in Bohemia,
both ecclesiastics and laymen, to continue their allegiance to Pope
Gregory.
All resistance to the king's will now ceased at the university. In
the year of the publication of the decrees of Kutna Hora, all German
professors and students, that is to say, all those members of the
university who supported Pope Gregory, and were opposed to Church
reform, left Prague. The university now became a stronghold of that
party which was favourable to Church reform, as well as to the national
aspirations of the Bohemian people. It was but natural that the
reconstituted university should choose John Hus, the leader in the
struggle, as its rector, though he had already held that office a few
years before.
The position of Hus was now more assured and more prominent than at
any previous period. His popularity with the Bohemian people, who
attributed to him the change in the regulations of the university
so favourable to their nationality, was greater than ever, and they
flocked to his sermons in the Bethlehem chapel in even greater
numbers than before. King Wenceslas was grateful to Hus for his aid
in obtaining the neutrality of the university during the schism in
the Church, and his consort, Queen Sophia, made no secret of her
veneration for the great preacher whose sermons at Bethlehem she
often attended. Archbishop Zbyněk, indeed, continued inimical to Hus,
but circumstances rendered it for the moment difficult for him to
harm the preacher at Bethlehem. The Council of Pisa had deposed both
claimants to the papal throne, and had elected a new pontiff, who took
the name of Alexander V., and who was recognised by the greatest part
of Europe. The two previously elected Popes did not renounce their
claims, and still found followers. The Archbishop of Prague, who still
recognised Gregory, was therefore naturally without influence on Pope
Alexander. It was thus for the moment fruitless that the Archbishop
appointed an "inquisitor" who was to inquire into the complaints raised
against Hus and his followers, and specially into the right of Hus
to continue preaching at the Bethlehem chapel. Hus entirely ignored
these proceedings, and some of his followers even brought before Pope
Alexander a complaint against the conduct of the Archbishop, stating
that he had raised false accusations against them. The matter went so
far that Zbyněk was summoned to appear before the new pontiff.
On September 2, 1409, Archbishop Zbyněk--inconsistently, as Hus
maintained--renounced the allegiance of Pope Gregory, and recognised
Alexander as the legitimate pontiff. The reconciliation between the
generally recognised Pope and the Archbishop of Prague had a marked
influence on the destiny of Hus. The united strength of the Roman
Church is now directed against him, and matters proceed much more
rapidly. As early as December 20, 1409, a decree of Pope Alexander
stated that, "through the action of the enemy of the human race,
recently in the city of Prague, the kingdom of Bohemia, the marquisate
of Moravia, and other provinces, the false opinions--savouring of
heresy and division of the Church--once brought forward by the
condemned heresiarch, John Wycliffe, have been fully circulated,
particularly with regard to the sacrament of the altar."[36] The letter
continues to declare that in future no sermons shall be preached except
in "cathedrals, collegiate churches, parish churches, and churches
belonging to monasteries." This was directly aimed at Hus, whose
Bethlehem chapel fell under none of the categories mentioned above.
The letter or decree ended by instructing the Archbishop to appoint
four doctors of theology and two doctors of canon law, under whose
advice he was to proceed against those who spread the heretical tenets
referred to. The Archbishop was to oblige all such persons to recant
their erroneous opinions, and to deliver up for destruction all MSS. of
the works of Wycliffe which they might possess. Should they refuse to
do this the Archbishop was not only to deprive them of all benefices
that might be in their hands, but he was also to invoke the aid of the
"secular arm" against them.
The papal decree, for reasons that are not known, only reached Prague
in March of the following year, and was made public on the 18th of that
month. Hus appealed to Pope Alexander, and again somewhat later to
his successor, John XXIII., but both appeals remained without result.
While awaiting the papal decision, Hus had, in company with some of his
adherents, delivered up about two hundred volumes containing writings
of Wycliffe; they declared that if it were proved that these writings
contained matter contrary to the doctrine of the Church, they were
prepared publicly to recant such errors.
Archbishop Zbyněk had, meanwhile, after consulting the doctors of
theology and canon law, issued a decree forbidding all preaching
except in the places specified by the papal command; at the same time
he ordered that all the copies of Wycliffe's works that had been
made over to the ecclesiastical authorities should be immediately
burnt. It is probable that the decision of the Archbishop, which he
published at a meeting of the synod of the archdiocese on June 16, was
known before that day. On the same day, the 16th of June, the members
of the university already protested against the intended burning of
Wycliffe's works. They maintained that sufficient time had not elapsed
since the writings of Wycliffe had been delivered over, and that it
was impossible that a thorough examination of the theological tenets
contained in them should already have taken place. They also stated
that many of these writings had no connection with questions of dogma,
but dealt with logic, philosophy, natural history, and similar matters.
However, neither Hus's appeal to the Pope nor the declaration of the
university, nor the appeal to King Wenceslas, in which that learned
body begged that the burning of the books be at least deferred, was
of any avail. On July 16 two hundred books containing writings of
Wycliffe, some--as the contemporary chronicler tells us--beautifully
bound, were solemnly burnt in the courtyard of the archiepiscopal
palace, in the presence of the Archbishop, the members of the chapter,
and many other priests. This measure was followed two days later by the
solemn sentence of excommunication pronounced by the Archbishop against
Hus and his adherents.
The burning of Wycliffe's works met with almost general disapproval
in Prague. A chronicler, writing probably shortly after these events,
tells us: "Instantly a great sedition and discord began. Some said that
many other books besides those of Wycliffe had been burnt; therefore
the people began to riot; the courtiers of the king were incensed
against the canons and priests; many opprobrious songs against the
Archbishop were sung in the streets."[37]
The rioting in Prague became so serious, that Wenceslas, who had
been absent, returned hastily to his capital, and while ordering
that the owners of the books of Wycliffe that had been burnt should
be compensated, he forbade, under penalty of death, the singing of
opprobrious songs, which had been one of the causes of the riots.
Hus and his adherents were still confident that the Pope would, in
consequence of their appeal, cancel the decree of the Archbishop. In
the meantime they determined to defend publicly the orthodoxy of some
of Wycliffe's works which the Archbishop had condemned. In the then
usual manner a meeting of the university was convoked, before which
Hus, on July 28, defended the orthodoxy of Wycliffe's treatise, _De_
_increata, benedicta et venerabili Trinitate_. On the following days
some of his adherents, before the same forum, defended other works
of Wycliffe.[38] Hus also continued, in spite of the Archbishop's
prohibition, to preach at the Bethlehem chapel, and his services were
more crowded than ever. When Hus read to his audience a letter he had
received from Richard Wyche,[39] an English adherent of Wycliffe, and
in the name of the Church of Christ in Bohemia saluted the Church of
Christ in England, more than ten thousand people are stated to have
been present at the sermon.
The papal see had meanwhile entirely identified itself with Archbishop
Zbyněk. Without entering into details regarding the character of John
XXIII.--it cannot be condemned more severely than was afterwards done
by the Council of Constance--it is not surprising that the declared
enemy of simony and of the corruption of the clergy found little
sympathy with him. Cardinal Colonna, whom Pope John had authorised to
give judgment on the Bohemian affairs, rejected the appeal of Hus and
his followers to the papal court. That court at the same time expressed
its entire approval of the conduct of the Archbishop, and enjoined
on him to take immediate proceedings against Hus with the aid of the
"secular arm". At the same time sentence of excommunication was passed
on Hus, and the city of Prague was declared to be under interdict.
Though such attempts were obviously hopeless, endeavours were still
made to mitigate the irritation of the papal court against Hus. King
Wenceslas and his consort, as well as several of the most prominent
Bohemian nobles, addressed strong remonstrances to Pope John and the
Roman court, complaining of what they considered his exaggerated
severity against Hus. Queen Sophia's letters were couched in very
energetic language. She wrote: "An order contrary to Scripture,
agitating the people and disturbing the order of our kingdom, has been
published on the suggestion of those who are opposed to the preaching
of the gospel. In consequence of this the preaching of the gospel has,
except in monasteries and parish churches, been prohibited by the
Archbishop of Prague, even in chapels that have been sanctioned by the
apostolic see, under penalty of excommunication. Your Holiness well
knows that the preaching of the Word of God should not be confined
to certain places, but that, on the contrary, it should be allowed
in hamlets, streets, houses--in fact everywhere according to the
requirements of the people." The queen proceeds to request the Pope to
withdraw his prohibition, and ends by stating: "We will not endure that
the preaching of the Word of the Lord in our castles and cities should
suffer such hindrance."[40] This interesting letter was undoubtedly
written specially in the interest of the Bethlehem chapel, at which the
queen was one of the most assiduous worshippers. These letters remained
without result, and negotiations which took place on the initiative
of King Wenceslas were also fruitless, though the Archbishop in the
last months of his life seems to have been himself in favour of a
compromise. A court of arbitration, composed principally of Bohemian
nobles, met by wish of the king, but the desired reconciliation between
Hus and the Archbishop was soon found to be impossible.
Archbishop Zbyněk died in September 1411, and was in the following
month succeeded by Albert of Uničov, a Moravian who had formerly been
court physician to King Wenceslas. Uničov is described to us as a man
of conciliatory character, and this appears all the more probable from
the fact that he was in great favour with King Wenceslas. The king had
always wished that the Bohemians should settle their differences among
themselves, and as far as possible without foreign intervention. This
had indeed been the basis on which the recent negotiations had been
conducted.
But neither the Archbishop nor any one else could at this moment have
arrested the march of events that were rapidly approaching a crisis. A
comparatively unimportant event dispelled the last hopes of those who
still hoped for an agreement.
King Ladislas of Naples still recognised Gregory XII. as Pope, and had
therefore incurred the bitter enmity of Pope John XXIII. The latter
decided on undertaking a crusade against the King of Naples, and
caused a decree to be read in all churches promising all those who
should contribute to the expenses of the intended expedition the same
remission of sins that had been formerly granted to those who fought
against the infidels in Palestine.
In May 1412, Wenceslas Tiem, Dean of Passau, arrived at Prague, and
immediately began to collect money for the intended crusade. This
caused great irritation among the population of Prague, then almost
entirely favourable to Hus and his doctrines. Hus and his followers had
already previously frequently denounced the system of indulgences, and
they now renewed their attacks with increased vigour. A very stormy
meeting of the members of the university took place on June 7, though
the theological faculty had forbidden all bachelors of theology to
attack the papal decree. Hus in an eloquent speech sharply attacked
the practice of granting indulgences in the manner then usual at
Rome. Of the contents of this speech we can form a certain judgment
from a pamphlet on the same subject which Hus published about this
time and which has been preserved. He emphatically maintained that
priests had the right of remitting sins to those only who showed signs
of repentance and penitence, but not merely on receipt of a sum of
money. Hus's teaching was here very similar to that of Wycliffe, and
his opposition to the crusade against the King of Naples recalls that
of Wycliffe against the Flemish crusade of Henry Spencer, Bishop of
Norwich.
Meanwhile the Theological Faculty of Prague again condemned as
heretical the forty-five articles drawn from Wycliffe's works, now
adding six more which were attributed to Hus; it was stated that
they had been extracted from his speech against indulgences (on June
7) and from his pamphlet on the same subject. About the same time a
considerable portion of the clergy of Prague forwarded to Pope John a
written complaint against Hus. The author was a German, one Michael
of Deutschbrod, also known as Michael de Causis, one of the most
steadfast opponents of Hus and of Church reform. In this document Hus
was accused of railing (_oblatrare_) against the clergy and against the
papal indulgences, and also of having "by means of his writings spread
his pestilential opinions through various districts of the kingdom
of Bohemia, Poland, Hungary, and the marquisate of Moravia."[41] The
consequence of these denunciations was a papal decree pronouncing the
"aggravation" of the excommunication of Hus which had already been
proclaimed by Cardinal Colonna in the previous year. Several of the
former adherents of Hus, such as Stanislas of Znaym and Stephen Paleč,
now abandoned his cause, and the latter afterwards became one of his
most dangerous opponents at the Council of Constance.
The greatest part of the population of Prague, however, continued to be
devoted to Hus, and the continued preaching in favour of indulgences
caused disturbances in the city, particularly after three young men who
had interrupted these sermons had been decapitated. Further rioting
seemed certain, and it was probably the fear that his person might
be made a pretext for disorders that induced Hus willingly to accept
King Wenceslas' suggestion that he should leave Prague for a short
time. The king promised, during his absence, to endeavour to reconcile
him with the ecclesiastical authorities. After publishing an "Appeal
from the sentence of the Roman pontiff to the supreme judge Jesus
Christ,"[42] Hus left Prague at the end of the year 1412. He first
retired to Kozi Hrádek, a castle belonging to one of his adherents,
John of Austi, situated near the spot where the town of Tabor was soon
to arise. Afterwards Hus spent some time at the castle of Krakovec,
which belonged to Lord Henry of Lažan, one of the courtiers of King
Wenceslas, and a zealous adherent of Hus. In contradiction to the papal
prohibition, Hus continued to preach, and large crowds assembled to
listen to his sermons, which he often preached in the fields. He also
remained in constant communication with his congregation at Prague,
to whom he paid two short visits during his exile. He addressed to
them several letters, which, next to those written while in prison
at Constance, are the most valuable of all the letters of Hus that
have been preserved. He did not limit his literary activity to these
letters. Some of his most important works indeed now appeared in rapid
succession. His most important Latin work, the treatise _De Ecclesia_,
the principal cause of his condemnation at Constance, was written about
this time. Of his Bohemian works the _Výklad_ (Expositions) had been
finished in November 1412, before he left Prague; but other important
Bohemian works, such as the one entitled _The Daughter_ (_Dcerka_),
_or of the Knowledge of True Salvation_, and the treatise on "the
traffic in holy things" (_Svatokupectoi_) date from this period of
exile.
Wenceslas had meanwhile attempted to redeem his promise to Hus. On
the king's suggestion, a diocesan synod met at Prague in 1413, which
attempted to re-establish unity among the Bohemian clergy. On this
attempt failing, Wenceslas appointed a committee consisting of four
ecclesiastics, who were to hear the views both of Hus's representatives
and of his opponents. This attempt also failed, as was indeed
inevitable, in consequence of the total divergence of the opinions of
the disputants. Two of the opponents of Hus, Paleč and Stanislas of
Znaym, even refused to appear before the committee after its second
meeting, and were therefore banished from Bohemia by the indignant
king, who still entertained the hope of restoring religious unity in
his country.
It was, however, before a far larger forum that the case between the
enemies and the partisans of Church reform was now to be brought. In
consequence of the intolerable condition of the Western Church, which,
since the Council of Pisa, possessed three rival pontiffs, the demand
was raised on all sides that a General Council be summoned for the
purpose of ending the schism. The influence of Sigismund, king of the
Romans and king of Hungary, brother of Wenceslas of Bohemia, finally
induced the reluctant Pope, John XXIII., to consent to the meeting of
the Council; and it was decided that its members should assemble at
Constance on November 1, 1414. The assembly was, as already mentioned,
convoked for the purpose of ending the schism, but the fact that the
discord in the Church of Bohemia had now become widely known in Europe
naturally drew the attention of the Council also to the views of Hus
and his adherents. King Sigismund suggested that Hus should attend the
Council, and there develop his views, and at the same time vindicate
the orthodoxy of the Bohemian nation, on which he as well as his
brother Wenceslas laid great stress. Before Hus set out on his journey,
King Sigismund offered him a letter of safe-conduct, which allowed
him, according to the words of Professor Tomek, "to come unmolested to
Constance, there have free audience, and return unharmed, should he not
submit to the authority of the Council." It is not necessary to discuss
here the various opinions as to the exact meaning of the letter of
safe-conduct; the statement of Dr. Tomek, the greatest living authority
with regard to Hus, may be considered as decisive. That the letter was
not merely a guarantee that Hus should reach Constance in safety, is
proved by the fact that he only received it after he had arrived there;
still less can the remarks of Hus himself, who in his letters before
leaving Bohemia expressed forebodings of coming doom, he used as an
argument to prove that the letter of safe-conduct had little value. Hus
was well aware that no official injunctions could ensure him against
possible violence on the part of such fanatical enemies as Michael de
Causis; nor could the possibility that the thesis "that no faith should
be kept with heretics," might be used against him escape the sagacity
of Hus.
Such apprehensions did not induce Hus to waver even for an instant in
his decision to attend the Council; he felt assured that, whatever
might subsequently be his fate, he would be allowed freely to expound
his views before the assembled Council. After having addressed a
letter of farewell to his pupil Martin, and another--one of the most
precious that has been preserved--to his Bohemian friends, Hus, on
October 11, 1414, started from the castle of Krakovec directly for
Constance. In his company were the Bohemian noblemen Wenceslas of Duba,
John of Chlum, and Henry of Lacenbok, who were instructed to assure
his safety during his journey. Among Hus's companions also was Peter
of Mladenovič, private secretary to Lord John of Chlum, who left a
valuable record of Hus's last journey, his trial and death. Hus and his
companions arrived at Constance on November 3, and he at first occupied
lodgings in the house of a widow named Fida; the house, situated in the
street now known as the Husgasse, near the Schnetzthor, is still shown
to travellers. Hus confined himself to his room to avoid publicity, and
also to prepare the speech he intended to deliver before the Council.
He was not, however, allowed to remain at liberty long. On the 28th of
November he was arrested by order of Pope John XXIII., and at first
confined for a few days under strict guard in the house of a canon
of Constance. Thence he was conducted to a monastery of Dominican
friars situated on an island in the Rhine, and confined in a dark and
gloomy dungeon in immediate vicinity to a sewer. He remained here
from December 6 to March 24, 1415. Endeavours were made to justify
the arrestation of Hus by the totally unfounded assertion that he had
attempted to escape from Constance in disguise. Even the writers most
hostile to Hus now admit that there was no truth in this rumour.
As might have been expected from the nature of his prison, Hus
became seriously ill, and was for some time in danger of his life.
His Bohemian friends had meanwhile protested energetically against
his imprisonment, but their attempts to rescue him from his dungeon
remained without result. It was hoped that Sigismund, who arrived at
Constance on Christmas Day (1414), would interfere in favour of Hus,
but though he at first expressed some indignation, this led to no
consequences. From the beginning of January of the following year,
Sigismund granted the Council full liberty of decision with regard to
Hus's fate. It is, indeed, more than probable that during the last
months of Hus's trial the king was in favour of his execution, hoping
that this event would intimidate the Bohemians.
The Pope had meanwhile appointed a committee, consisting of three
bishops, for the purpose of undertaking a preliminary examination of
the teaching of Hus. The commissioners examined numerous witnesses,
all of whom were ordered to take their oaths in the presence of Hus.
Thus, on one of the days when his illness was at its worst, fifteen
witnesses were consecutively introduced into his prison. Hus demanded
that a legal adviser should be allowed him, but this was refused him
on the plea that it was illegal that any one should afford aid to a
heretic. It may be noted that the condemnation of Hus had been decided
on long before his three days' trial in June 1415, perhaps even, as
some writers have conjectured, as early as in the previous November,
when he was arrested. As soon as Hus had somewhat recovered, the act of
accusation--mainly the work of Paleč and Michael de Causis--was brought
to his knowledge. The accusation, consisting of forty-two articles,
was principally founded on statements contained in the Latin treatise
_De Ecclesia_; the last articles only dealt with statements extracted
from other works of Hus. According to Mladenovič, the authors of
the accusation "had chosen their quotations from the treatise (_De
Ecclesia_), falsely and unfairly abbreviating some in the beginning,
some in the middle, and some at the end, and inventing matter that was
not contained in the book." Hus immediately published his defence,
proving that he had taken many of the passages in his works that were
attacked from the writings of Augustine, Gregory the Great, Bishop
Grossetête of Lincoln, and other writers of unimpeached orthodoxy; he
also complained that the quotations from his book were incorrect.
New material for accusations against Hus had been meanwhile brought
forward. After his departure from Prague, one of his pupils (Magister
Jacobellus of Mies[43]) had defended the necessity of communion in
the two kinds, afterwards the distinctive doctrine of the Hussites.
The followers of Hus at Prague appealed to him, but he confined
himself to declaring in his letters that communion in the two kinds
was permissible. When, however, the Council of Constance had, on
June 15--after the last day of Hus's t
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/46790