The cover image was created by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.

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, 6s. 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

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

[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 Ἁπαξ Λεγομενον 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 trial and a few days before his death—entirely forbidden communion in the two kinds to laymen, Hus went somewhat farther. He declared the prohibition of communion in the two kinds to be in direct contradiction to the Gospel,[44] and advised those among his friends who were uncertain with regard to the new teaching of Jacobellus, no longer to oppose it, as unity among the Bohemians was necessary in view of the dangers that, as Hus foresaw, would shortly menace the country.

The Council of Constance had in March 1415 deposed Pope John XXIII., and the authority of the commissioners whom he had appointed to judge Hus ceased, while the decree of imprisonment issued by the Pope also became invalid. Sigismund, to whom the guardians of Hus applied for orders, contented himself with handing the prisoner over to the custody of the Bishop of Constance, by whose order he was now imprisoned in the castle of Gottlieben, not far from Constance. He remained there from March 24 to June 5, and was held in yet severer custody than in the Dominican convent. His feet were fettered with chains, and at night his hands were also fastened to the wall by a chain. All intercourse with his friends was forbidden, and we have therefore no letters from Hus written at Gottlieben, while he had been allowed to write when in confinement in the Dominican monastery.

Having passed judgment on the Pope, the Council now devoted its attention to questions of dogma. On May 5 the forty-five articles of Wycliffe, that have been so often mentioned, were again condemned at a plenary meeting of the Council. This may be said to have decided the fate of Hus, for the identity of many opinions advanced in his treatise De Ecclesia with Wycliffe's views was known to all. No agreement whatever was, indeed, possible between Hus and the members of the Council; for while Hus maintained that he had been summoned to the Council for the purpose of freely expounding his views, the Council now held even more decidedly than at first that their mission as far as Hus was concerned was limited to hearing his recantation of all the opinions that had rightly or wrongly been attributed to him, and then deciding what punishment he should receive.

It is probably mainly due to the energetic remonstrances of the Bohemian nobles who were present at the Council that Hus was at least allowed to appear before that assembly. His prison was again changed, and he was now conducted to a Franciscan monastery at Constance, where he spent the last weeks of his life. On June 5 he appeared for the first time before the Council. "When Hus attempted to speak he was interrupted, and when he was silent the cry arose, 'He has admitted his guilt.'"[45] As Hus afterwards wrote: "They almost all screamed at me, as did the Jews against Christ.... Many exclaimed, 'He must be burnt;' among them I heard the voice of Michael de Causis."